Some Scriptural Gems :D

[Don Penguinoini]

I came across some lovely quotes, sadly, no verse number.

In the beginning there was neither existence nor non-existance.
There was no atmosphere, no sky and no realm beyond the sky
What power was there? Where was that power?
Who was that power? Was it finite or infinite?

There was neither death nor immortality.
There was nothing to distinguish night from day.
There was no wind or breath, god alone breathed by his own energy.

In the beginning darkness was swathed in darkness, god was clothed in emptiness

Then fire arose within god; and in the fire arose love.
This was the seed of the soul.
Sages have found this seed within their hearts;
They have discovered that it is the bond between existence and non-existence.

Who really knows what happened? Who can describe it?
How were things produced? Where was creation born?
When the universe was created, the one became many.
Who knows how this occurred?
Did creation happen at God’s command, or did it happen without his command.
He looks down upon the creation from the highest heaven.
Only he knows the answer – or perhaps he does not know.

I am speech –and I am queen of the world.
I am the point at which all riches meet.
I am the point at which all skills come together
I am the one who gives meaning to what is seen.
I am the one who lives in every breath.
I am the one who gives understanding to what is heard.
Though they do not realize it, people eat, see, breathe and hear through me.

Those who are famous for their wisdom are wise through me;
I taught them what they know – and they heeded me.
I am the one who conveys joy from one person to another.
Those whom I love I make them clever and sharp.
I incite people to compete for knowledge
I have pervaded the earth and the sky.

As all the spokes are held together in the hub of a wheel, just so in this Soul all things, all gods, all worlds, all breathing things, all selves are held together.

He, knowing all, becomes the All.

When are cut all the knots of the heart here on earth, then a mortal becomes immortal!

This is all i could find for now. Once i get more, i will post more

Thank you for reading

 

[zenzero]

Friend Don Pen,
Kindly share the source of this verse/s.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

The first one is the Nasadiya Sukta from the Rig Veda. I don't recognise the others, they are beautiful though.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Suraj,
Thanks a lot for your response.
Probably you had posted friend Don's first part in an earlier post and so seemed familar.
On reading it again get this feel that

I came across some lovely quotes, sadly, no verse number.

In the beginning there was neither existence nor non-existance.
There was no atmosphere, no sky and no realm beyond the sky
What power was there? Where was that power?
Who was that power? Was it finite or infinite?

There was neither death nor immortality.
There was nothing to distinguish night from day.
There was no wind or breath, god alone breathed by his own energy.

In the beginning darkness was swathed in darkness, god was clothed in emptiness

if we remove the word god from the last line is where Gautama could have had the clue to his *NOTHINGNESS* as even in those lines God seems to have been a *THOUGHT* which again is a barrier.
Your comments?
Love & rgds

 

[Don Penguinoini]

No verse numbers Zen. I re-looked for those websites that i got the quotes from, can't find them. Sorry

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know about Nasadiya Sukta as this is my favourite, RigVeda 10.129. One might check at Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation. for correct translation. It says 'the first thing', it does not say God. It specifically says that 'Gods are later than this world's creation' (That is why I love the verse, being an atheist hindu). It concludes by saying 'or perhaps he knows not'. See the courage of the poet some 3,000 years ago, and the acceptance of a good debating point by hindus.

Zenzero, buddhists were guided by the first line which says 'In the beginning there was neither existence nor non-existance.' I think jainism picked its 'syadawada' (perhaps yes, perhaps no) also from here.

The second quote is from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10. Here is Max Muller's translation (you can read it at The Upanishads, Part II (SBE15): Brihadâranyaka Upanishad: I, 4):

10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Aupmanyav,
Yes, it does appear that Buddhism & Jainism separted from that point which Sanatan Dharma did not go deeper into it.
Hopwever , would appreciated if friend Suraj too responds to this as we can see that Sanatn Dharma encompasses Buddhism/Jaimnism because they branched out from this point but what Suraj is attached to is the word *HINDUISM* which we all know is very much misunderstood whereas by talking about Sanatan Dharma been the *ETERNAL LAW* gives room to encompass believers/followers of all faiths/religion and surely would be beneficial for humankind rather talk about something which is not only misunderstood but have inbuilt biases built in the human genes by now. Time to wake up.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

I only use the word Hinduism because of communication reasons. We all know what Hinduism is, but not every one knows Sanatana Dharma is.

 

[Surya Deva]

Santana Dharma does not encompass Buddhism and Jainism, because they reject the Vedas and reject Atman. They are by definition nastik, the sanskrit word for atheist religions.

The Jains for example do not recognise an all pervading supreme being, they recognise only the existence of souls. The Buddhists do not recognise a supreme being, they recognise only nothingnness and void.

The Hindu, Dharmin, will refute these religions. It will say to the Jains that it is impossible to have a multiplicity of souls, without there being a unifying supreme being which is transcedent to them. It will say to the Buddhists, that what they know is only the reality of primordial material nature, which is the unmanifest form of Prakriti, they don't know the Purush that underlies that.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Suraj,
Thank you for your response.
However your statement opens a pandoras box when you state that Sanatn Dharma does not encompass buddhism or Jainism as it is universally known that they are branches that came out of Sanatan Dharma.
Could you clarify this?
You wish to use the word Hinduism for communication sake and also agree that it is perceived wrongly by every one including your ex-girlfriend. It is for the same reason profess the use of the word Sanatan Dharma as it has not been in use and is unknown specially when you state it means the ETERNAL LAW. You get enough breathing space to inform/teach/guide your listeners about what this eternal law is all about.
Finally, it is your choice; however it will not make any difference to Existence what ever we may choose to do as it is Existence itself which gets done through us what needs to be done at the moment.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

Thanks Zen,

It is true that Buddhism and Jainism branched out of Hinduism, but they rejected the Vedas and thus became separate religions thereoff. They are formed mostly of Hindu philosophy, but the rejection of major Hindu tenets such as Atman and Brahman which are central to Hinduism, alienated them from Santana Dharma. They are still Dharmic religions, just not Santana dharma.

I told my ex-girlfriend the real name of Hinduism Santana Dharma, but a mere change of name does nothing, she still knows it refers to the object in her mind called Hinduism on which all kinds of prejudices are attached. It makes no difference what name we call it by people will still recognise it as Hinduism. The solution is not to change its name, but to correct misconceptions about it in peoples mind. This requires proactivity by Hindus.

I am going to create a web-site soon and do my bit to correct all misconceptions about Hinduism. I also encourage you to get involved in your local Hindu societies at school or university and start contacting publications whenever they misrepresent your religion. This is not in the interest of chuavanism, but in the interests of mutual co-existence of Hindus and others, which can only be faciliated by accurate representation of Hinduism. There are far too many people who associate everything evil and backwards with Hinduism, and then make life difficult for us Hindus, who have to answer to their ignorance.

 

[Hema]

I also recognized Nasadiya Sukta...and true, God was not referred to as "God."

Those are beautiful verses Don, thanks for sharing.

 

[zenzero]

Friends Suraj,
Thank you for your response.
Though like all other ignorant people still carry the idea that Buddhism & Jainism are part of Sanatan Dharma and they find acceptance even in all religious activities. However would leave it at that besides would like to state that personally the attraction of Zen has been great because ZEN has addressed the basic fundamental problem in the best manner.
As you too in you reply have spoken about the *MIND* which are misconceived about something [for you it is hinduism].
What needs to be understood is the very nature of the mind itself is that. So it is the *MIND* itself which is the barrier between the INDIVIDUAL & the WHOLE. It is the MIND that one has to STILLED then TRUTH is as clear as the reflection of the moon on a STILL pond / lake. By nature the MIND itself always perceives things with a color.
However, am not against anyone doing their karma like you about hinduism as it is pre-destined due to past karma. Only way out, is MEDITATION as only when the MIND becomes STILL through MEDITATIOn then it is realised that we are all parts of the whole whatever *people's minds* may perceive has to do with their own karmas as finally it is about truth which could be through the right understanding which comes only when one reaches that time space through evolution or revolution where all paths are perceived as assisting in merging with the whole.
Once again, repeat that changing the MINDS of others is no one's karma it HAS to be INDIVIDUAL's own karma which will happen on its own effort and not by those of others. The MIND perceives it that one is changing others but in reality it does not happen, history is itself a witness to that.
Best wishes.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

Once again, repeat that changing the MINDS of others is no one's karma it HAS to be INDIVIDUAL's own karma which will happen on its own effort and not by those of others. The MIND perceives it that one is changing others but in reality it does not happen, history is itself a witness to that.

I do not agree. People can change other people minds, and it's happening all the time. In education, in media, in society.

I can sense in your post an asceticism. A philosophy I have pondered over in the past, but I do not agree with now. I do not think we incarnate here to live individual lives and engage in individual pursuits. I think we incarnate here for others, to help others, to improve society and serve society. If that was not the case then why would we incarnate in a world of people, why not on a deserted island?

We have a dharma in live(this is a core message of Santana Dharma) and there are certain debts we need to fulfill.

The debt to our parents
The debt our planet
The debt to our society
The debt to our teachers

I am going to discuss the latter. We have learned from Hinduism, but this knowledge is not free, this knowledge comes with a debt, and that debt is to teach that knowledge to others. If knowledge is not taught, that knowledge is lost or corrupted. Therefore it is our duty to keep that torch of knowledge alive and pass it on from one person to the other. This is not just my karma, it is yours too and everybody else that has taken knowledge.

An ascetic philosophy to me sounds like somebody has turned not wanting to work or do their duties into a philosophy as justification.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Suraj,
You have missed the point.
As much a disciple looks for a guru, a guru too looks for a disciple.
At the same time, a true disciple need not waste time to go around seeking a guru as he will appear when the time is ripe.
what is that time which is *RIPE*.
When the disciple is ready internally, when the disciple has prepared the ground to receive the message of the guru then automatically the guru reaches him in person or in spirit.
Similarly it is the individual which has to prepare the ground to become that receiver. How much you shout on the top of your voice atop the tallest mountain; all will fall to deaf ears. One can only communicate where the receiver is ON for the communication to be complete.
Agreeing/disagreeing is again of the MIND. One has to reach NO-MIND by meditation to understand / to merge with the whole whom you may call brahman.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

I don't think your post has responded to the point I rose Zen. My point was that one has to do act and do their duties. That is greater than just meditating all your life.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Suraj,
Action without desire .
If meditation too is with any desire it still will not be effective.
If one is acting with a desire to eradicate ignorance, that too is a desire.
Love & rgds

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes, this is what I am saying too. Acting without desire, doing ones duty.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If that was not the case then why would we incarnate in a world of people, why not on a deserted island?

Human incarnations cannot come in a deserted island, you need to populate it first.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Suraj,
Who decides what one's duty is?
Besides, whatever is happening be it the misunderstanding of Sanatan Dhrama are all a play/illusion, nothing to be hurt about.
Love & rgds