From what I understand, in my humble opinion, I would think that it is important to know the understanding surrounding the revelation of the Vedas and it is different from the Abrahamic traditions. It is common to speak of "holy books" and them being of revealed nature. Hinduism and the 3 Abrahamic religions are the major religions of the world. In these religions there is a belief in a Supreme Deity and their primary texts are based on the concept of revelations.
In Hinduism the persons who reveal the verses of the Vedas are known in Sanskrit as Rishis. Whereas it is said that Prophets or Messengers acquire revelations from the respective Deities of the Abrahamic religions.
Before I go on to mark the distinction. I would like Muslims, Christians and Jews to go ahead and correct me regarding Islamic, Christian and Jewish beliefs with regards to their Prophets and the revelations, if you find that I have not accurately described such beliefs in your tradition.
Like Islam, Hindus believe in selected individuals that reveal the verses of their most authoritative scripture but unlike Muslims, Hindus do not have every spiritual knowledge due to their Prophets through their words contained in the form of the single primary holy book but instead there are many types of spiritual persons such as Rishis(themselves of different spiritual ranks), Munis and Yogis. And what I mean here is that, the spiritual persons that are often mentioned in Islam are Prophets. And that is not the case in Hinduism with regards to our Rishis. Not everything spiritually significant entirely is tied to the Rishis nor does something spiritual hold special merit through its attribution to the Rishis. Or rather unlike Prophets in Islam who are held in commonplace. And also spiritual knowledge are found in a vast array within the main Hindu compendium of sacred literature rather than being in the revelations of Vedas alone.
In Islam, the Quran is the word of Allah and the Hadith the collection of the sayings of Muhammad. Its a two-fold set of primary texts. Muhammad, as a Prophet in Islam, is more personal and well known to Muslims through the two texts. That isn't the case in Hinduism with our Rishis. There is a mystery that surrounds them in the sense that they dont connect entirely with the rest of the mortals in relatable day-to-day sense. They make their presence mostly spiritually and the narration about them isnt extensive, whatever we know of them is whatever that is relevant. Their place in our religion is their elevated position as men at highest state of spirituality.
The emphasis in Abrahamic religions is that of God Himself talking and through the Prophets. That is not the case in Hinduism. In Hinduism the reverence towards the Rishi is not that somehow he happened to be "chosen" but rather that he elevated himself through the direction of his focus spiritually and attaining his status as one who is able to receive the truth.
The "word of God" is said to be the Torah, or Bible or Quran. That is not the case with Hinduism. Vedas are not said to be "the [personal]word of God". The Gita, where God in his incarnation directly speaks Himself in is literally in Sanskrit "the word of God".
In the Torah, Bible and Quran, God speaks to the Prophets and this is the revelation. The Vedas are what the Rishis "heard". In Abrahamic scriptures the format goes "God said this", "God said that", "the Prophet said this", "the Prophet said that", "and then God went", "and then God did this or that". Narration is generally limited to the Puranas.
In Abrahamic religions the basis of the revelation of the scripture is the personal communication of God to people through the Prophets. Its more like God intending to speak what He felt like for that given context and time. But the general mode of transmition in abrahamic religions goes like this. God > angels > prophets.
There are absolutely no middle men in Hinduism. The Rishis "heard" the truth of the Vedas. The Rishis were able to attain the truth via their high spiritual states of consciousness. They are the very breathe of Brahman or God.
And unlike Abrahamic religions where we are aware of the scribes, Vedas were transmitted orally and its transcription into literal form was very much later in history and we do not know its process and who we can attribute them to. And theologically, various texts are what they are for various reasons. In Abrahamic religions, there are the revealed scriptures which Islam views in succession(Torah, Bible then Quran) and to be given in complete with their own titles(Torah, Bible given as Pslams and Gospels). In Hinduism, its an unbroken fulfillment of various Rishis rising in the ranks of the Brahmins revealing verses as individuals which ultimately culminated into the Vedas. In Islam, the prophets are sent by Allah for a given age upon which the succeeding prophets revelations overwrite his predecessors(Quran takes over the previous). Whereas in Hinduism, the Vedas are considered eternal and have no authorship.
In Hinduism the persons who reveal the verses of the Vedas are known in Sanskrit as Rishis. Whereas it is said that Prophets or Messengers acquire revelations from the respective Deities of the Abrahamic religions.
Before I go on to mark the distinction. I would like Muslims, Christians and Jews to go ahead and correct me regarding Islamic, Christian and Jewish beliefs with regards to their Prophets and the revelations, if you find that I have not accurately described such beliefs in your tradition.
Like Islam, Hindus believe in selected individuals that reveal the verses of their most authoritative scripture but unlike Muslims, Hindus do not have every spiritual knowledge due to their Prophets through their words contained in the form of the single primary holy book but instead there are many types of spiritual persons such as Rishis(themselves of different spiritual ranks), Munis and Yogis. And what I mean here is that, the spiritual persons that are often mentioned in Islam are Prophets. And that is not the case in Hinduism with regards to our Rishis. Not everything spiritually significant entirely is tied to the Rishis nor does something spiritual hold special merit through its attribution to the Rishis. Or rather unlike Prophets in Islam who are held in commonplace. And also spiritual knowledge are found in a vast array within the main Hindu compendium of sacred literature rather than being in the revelations of Vedas alone.
In Islam, the Quran is the word of Allah and the Hadith the collection of the sayings of Muhammad. Its a two-fold set of primary texts. Muhammad, as a Prophet in Islam, is more personal and well known to Muslims through the two texts. That isn't the case in Hinduism with our Rishis. There is a mystery that surrounds them in the sense that they dont connect entirely with the rest of the mortals in relatable day-to-day sense. They make their presence mostly spiritually and the narration about them isnt extensive, whatever we know of them is whatever that is relevant. Their place in our religion is their elevated position as men at highest state of spirituality.
The emphasis in Abrahamic religions is that of God Himself talking and through the Prophets. That is not the case in Hinduism. In Hinduism the reverence towards the Rishi is not that somehow he happened to be "chosen" but rather that he elevated himself through the direction of his focus spiritually and attaining his status as one who is able to receive the truth.
The "word of God" is said to be the Torah, or Bible or Quran. That is not the case with Hinduism. Vedas are not said to be "the [personal]word of God". The Gita, where God in his incarnation directly speaks Himself in is literally in Sanskrit "the word of God".
In the Torah, Bible and Quran, God speaks to the Prophets and this is the revelation. The Vedas are what the Rishis "heard". In Abrahamic scriptures the format goes "God said this", "God said that", "the Prophet said this", "the Prophet said that", "and then God went", "and then God did this or that". Narration is generally limited to the Puranas.
In Abrahamic religions the basis of the revelation of the scripture is the personal communication of God to people through the Prophets. Its more like God intending to speak what He felt like for that given context and time. But the general mode of transmition in abrahamic religions goes like this. God > angels > prophets.
There are absolutely no middle men in Hinduism. The Rishis "heard" the truth of the Vedas. The Rishis were able to attain the truth via their high spiritual states of consciousness. They are the very breathe of Brahman or God.
And unlike Abrahamic religions where we are aware of the scribes, Vedas were transmitted orally and its transcription into literal form was very much later in history and we do not know its process and who we can attribute them to. And theologically, various texts are what they are for various reasons. In Abrahamic religions, there are the revealed scriptures which Islam views in succession(Torah, Bible then Quran) and to be given in complete with their own titles(Torah, Bible given as Pslams and Gospels). In Hinduism, its an unbroken fulfillment of various Rishis rising in the ranks of the Brahmins revealing verses as individuals which ultimately culminated into the Vedas. In Islam, the prophets are sent by Allah for a given age upon which the succeeding prophets revelations overwrite his predecessors(Quran takes over the previous). Whereas in Hinduism, the Vedas are considered eternal and have no authorship.
