My current version of Hinduism

[Jainarayan]

All religious people of all varieties believe that their information came from God. ... Some think he wrote one book. Others figure he wrote several, many under a pseudonym. Guy had a multifaceted voice in writing.

That's what people don't understand. Why God should present Him/Herself in only one way to all of humanity, and possibly other people "out there" in the cosmos, does not make sense. If a person wants to believe they need salvation from sin through a human sacrifice, have at it. But I don't need that kind of salvation, because I didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Jainarayan]

I believe God as a source is as close to a guarantee that anyone gets.

OK, you believe that. I don't. You can't expect billion other Hindus or 1 billion Muslims to believe it, and to believe we're running afoul of God, and that your interpretation is the only correct one. Because .. there's ... just ... no... proof.

 

[Jainarayan]

I believe now we are getting to the nub of the problem. With contending translations one might be correct and the other incorrect. It happens sometimes that a preconceived view will alter a translation.

It has nothing to do with the translations.

Sanskrit is highly inflected and allows for completely free word order, even more so than Latin:
sarva-bhūteṣhu yenaikaṁ bhāvam avyayam īkṣhate
avibhaktaṁ vibhakteṣhu taj jñānaṁ viddhi sāttvikam

sarva-bhūteṣhu—within all living beings; yena—by which; ekam—one; bhāvam—nature; avyayam—imperishable; īkṣhate—one sees; avibhaktam—undivided; vibhakteṣhu—in diversity; tat—that; jñānam—knowledge; viddhi—understand; sāttvikam—in the mode of goodness

"Understand that knowledge to be in the mode of goodness by which a person sees one undivided imperishable reality within all diverse living beings."

There is nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita where Sri Krishna says one cannot incarnate as an animal, because it's not true. Rather, he says the reverse:

Soul, rebirth, humans and animals
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 14.15: The Three Modes Of Material Nature, Text 15.

BG 14.14-15: Those who die with predominance of sattva reach the pure abodes (which are free from rajas and tamas) of the learned. Those who die with prevalence of the mode of passion are born among people driven by work, while those dying in the mode of ignorance take birth in the animal kingdom. Chapter 14, Verse 14-15 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

 

[Rubellite Fae]

Regardless, everything with attributes (guṇas) is illusory. All is Brahman. Focusing on which illusory form is what version of which other illusory form is rajas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not always. I never had a guru or teacher and understood nonduality before I even knew it was advaita or Hinduism.

I've been quite successful in choosing my own curriculum, so to speak. Well at least in choosing that which hasn't already fallen into my lap.

Yeah, non-duality should come to people naturally - if they know about Big-Bang and if their minds were not already filled with theist views.
Well, that is why my title "Be your own guru".

My Guru was rather adamant that one thinks for himself, as are many.

Hindu gurus and Buddha were always like that.
I do not remember exactly which Upanishad, but there is one in which the Guru says to his pupil, "Son, I have taught you what I knew. Now go in the world and learn more."

In old Sanskrit gu means "darkness" and ru means "dispeller", "dispelling agency". Therefore the entity , the guiding faculty that dispells all darkness, all spiritual darkness, is the guru, ..

It does not mean that as far as word 'root/dhatu' goes. 'Gu' root does indicates heavy. The rest is made up by gurus to give importance to themselves.
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Sarva-bhūteṣhu yenaikaṁ bhāvam avyayam īkṣhate;
avibhaktaṁ vibhakteṣhu tat jñānaṁ viddhi sāttvikam."

sarva-bhūteṣhu—within all living beings; yena—by which; ekam—one; bhāvam—nature; avyayam—imperishable; īkṣhate—one sees; avibhaktam—undivided; vibhakteṣhu—in diversity; tat—that; jñānam—knowledge; viddhi—understand; sāttvikam—in the mode of goodness

"Understand that knowledge to be in the mode of goodness by which a person sees one undivided imperishable reality within all diverse living beings."

A very common mistake by translators. 'Sarva bhuteshu' means 'all things that have come into existence'. It does not differentiate between living and non-living. Don't restrict it to living beings (which includes animals and vegetation also, not just humans).

I believe my source is God. He tells me things He figures I need to know.

You are abdicating your right to know. Your God does not want you to know about Big Bang, Evolution and radio-carbon dating; and that the universe/world is older than 6,000 years. He wants to keep you in dark. He wants you to believe in Adam, eve and the serpent. He does not want you to know that you have cousins in chimps and apes. Tell him that the world has changed and new knowledge is available.

 

[Jainarayan]

A very common mistake by translators. 'Sarva bhuteshu' means 'all things that have come into existence'. It does not differentiate between living and non-living. Don't restrict it to living beings (which includes animals and vegetation also, not just humans).

I wonder if it's a mistake and not deliberate. The idea of plants and insects having a soul doesn't sit well with people in the west, for whom a lot of these translations are for. There's a humancentric element.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe now we are getting to the nub of the problem. With contending translations one might be correct and the other incorrect. It happens sometimes that a preconceived view will alter a translation.

Relying on translations to be "correct" is IMO quite inadvisable.

At the end of the day, words are just tools, and they have no meaning at all beyond that which is lent to them by rational beings.

For good or ill, it is our responsibility to use them and interpret them in meaningful ways and to be on guard to our own potential misunderstandings.

Ruling on or even fixing outright our own scriptures' meaning, application and scope is - or at least should be - an everyday occurrence, quite unremarkable even. Like it or not, we are and have always been responsible for its use, after all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder if it's a mistake and not deliberate. The idea of plants and insects having a soul doesn't sit well with people in the west, for whom a lot of these translations are for. There's a humancentric element.

That is the reason Prabhupada and other Swamis translate it like this. Including rocks and sand in 'Sarva bhuteshu' would shock Abrahamic people.
Hindus with some knowledge of Sanskrit generally spot it quite quickly and do not let it pass. I mention it because you have some knowledge of Sanskrit.