My Dear bro The One,

This is indeed a strange view concering Vedas, though I have very little knowledge about them. So then what is the source or basis of hinduism? Gita or what? I thought the great philosophical description of oneness of God is found only in the Vedas, but surprisingly you don't attribute this to vedas. Just see what a Hindu website tells us about Vedas http://www.katha.org/Academics/Advaita-PT-I.html - http://www.katha.org/Academics/Advaita-PT-I.html

How about the concept of numerous dieties/demigods in hinduism? What's their origin and how does it fit into over all philosophy of One God?

Secondly, what do you mean by realization of One God and not followed? But then you talked about reaching God and not heaven, does it mean that one becomes God or what? Kindly be specific, if you can? 

Dear Unity 1,

I have (briefly) reviewed the section of Dr. Zakir Naik's website that deals with FAQ's from Hindu's regarding Islam. I have no objections (from what I read) to his answers, however, I certainly do not agree that he is " the most knowledgable Muslim Scholar of our time". His website is not bad, however, I have seen much better (and more informative) ones.

Frankly, I (myself) and not very interested in responding to Hindu's. I know little about Hinduism, however, the little I know is sufficient for me to recognize that it has little value for me.

I am only responding because I am concerned that people will confuse your point, and think that you mean that the value of Hinduism and Islam is somehow comparible. This is certainly not the case. In fact, Dr. Naik does a good job of clarifying this point (in the section referenced). The fact of "la illaha illala" (there is not God but God) is well known by all people from the time of birth. Even Christians claim monotheism and in the same breath say "God is Three" (Triune ).

It is the second part of the shahada (Mohammad an RasulAllah) that Hindu's (and non-Muslims) will not accept to to their pride and arrogance. They may read the Quran and try to point to the universal truths contained in it, however, when it comes to the ayat the forbid alcohol, gambling, fornication, or enjoin prayer, fasting and modesty they will gladly accept the title of non-Muslim. As a result, Allah (s.w.a) does not guide them or purify them and their hearts remain closed to the light of Islam. That is their own choice, leave them to it.

shakur wrote: hindues worship many things which is a great sin in islam. i think their are no things islam and hiduism have in common. from my knowledge.

My dear brother Shakur,

One can increase their knowledge about others through reading about them and knowing about them with fruitful discussions. Hence one may avoid giving their judgemental remarks untill or unless they can justify their claims through logical arguments from their knowledge about others. It is the purpose of this knowledge enhancement that we all are getting togather in this forum. Without doing this, how can we increase our knowledge?

The One wrote: Salam to Ahmad bhai! I have replied all other posts of yours. Sorry for not replying to this post. I am kinda busy with this hectic work hours. Thats all. Basis of Hinduism? If you are asking about the philosophy which we follow, then its completely Vedas. But philosophy is totally different from practices. When I said Vedas should not be considered as Hindu texts, I was saying that what is attributed now as "idol worship" should not be attributed to Vedas. Got the point?

So you mean there is drastic difference in theory and practice among hindus. Hmm......That is understandable.

Vedic religion is different from the Hindu religion.

Now, this statement is again confusing. Though the terminology may be different depending upon who named it, but its the belief or doctrine that defines the religion. Now, if you mean Vedic religion comes from Vedas, then from which doctrine comes the Hinduism?

People think that Vedic religion is a part of Hindu religion, but its vice versa.

So, do you mean there may be other religions, other than Hindu religion, that are part of Vedic religion? Though its interesting to know it, but can you provide some examples of them?

I say this because "Hindu" is not at all a local word. It was incorporated in the lingo after the conquest of Muslims. You call us Hindus, but we call ourselves Dharmins. You call Hinduism, we call Sanatana Dharma.

 Hey, my brother, you have yet introduced another term for the religion which is totally unfamiliar, at least to me. I think, though others named you "Hindu" but then should have called yourself "Vedic", but I see another term coming up. What do you mean? Can you differentiate them (Hinduism, or Dharmins) based on their doctrines?

I even said that they are without begining and without end. This says it all. Vedic religion is not a historical religion. It always existed. There is no word exclusively to mean "religion" in any of the Indian languages and perhaps the East Asian languages.

This is no explanation for your statement of "without begining and without end". Kindly provide some details on it. Secondly why are you discussing Vedic religion (in general) whereas the topic of this thread is similarities between Islam and Hinduism specifically (if there are grave differences between the two) and not the Vedic.

The website you gave is about Advaita Philosophy, one of the philosophy of Vedas. I am the follower of Advaita and my post does not contradict with Advaita.

So you mean, you are not hindu but a follower of Vedic religion whatever you call it if not 'Religion'. Hmm!! But then you called yourself Dharmins or from "Sanatana Dharma". This is more confusing than ever since in the beginning of your postings elsewhere on this forum, you indicated you are hindu and thence onward we came to this thread to discuss about Hinduism.

You asked me, "How about the concept of numerous dieties/demigods in hinduism?" Dieties and demigods are attributes of the One. God is One, but Its attributes are many.

 Are you are saying this with regard to Vedic religion (and assuming it to be same as hinduism)? Am I right? Secondly, What are these attributes of One God in "hinduism" or Vedic religion. Only from my own limited knowledge, therefore may be wrong, many animals are worshipped in Hinduism and not just their symbols. So how can they become the attributes of one God? e.g. what does a monkey signify in terms of attributes of the one God? or for that matter the cow or a snake or the 3 headed beast and many more........to just name the few?

You also asked, "....what do you mean by realization of One God and not followed?" Can you tell me what is meant by followed? Do you mean to say that "just believe blindly that God exists and It is One"? Concept of God is the most hard to understand. You cannot make others to understand that there is God etc. One has to realise by themselves mostly through introspection. God is the nearest to us. Don't you think God will answer us when we ask questions? He is the all Seer and Hearer.

This is just a partial answer to my question, though its interesting and thus beautiful. The other half of the question is, how do you follow this belief or concept? That is outward reflection of this introspection. Why the demi-gods or devatas? Why not directly to this One God through one's own introspection? 

Space and time are both part of creation. So when we talk about eternal life after death, we should not consider both time and space.

Why? Do you mean eternity implies cessation of creation? That is not logical. Isn't it?

The Creation has to return to the Source(God). When we return to God, what is the need of heaven etc.? Aparichithudu.

 There are lot of missing links from your earlier statements to reach to this one. Nevertheless, when you say that "creation has to return to God", I would argue that this creation was never away from God.

My Dear Bro The One,

I think I have already preferred discussing theory of religion over practices. Also, I can discuss the philosophy only if it is also considered part of the theory for preaching but not if it is derived out of the theory by some later day saints etc. However, due to my limited knowledge, sometime, I may refer to some practices but you can correct me if they are not supported by the authentic theory.

The confusion started when the differences between Vedas and Hinduism is made without elaborating on these differences and that too without even pointing out your preferences as there could be many other deviations in the religious beliefs to which one may not particularly associate with. Hopefully this shall now provide you enough to respond to my comments.  

Bro The One,

I think you can begin with answering my questions, if you can. Or you can let me know some basics of your beliefs such as Oneness of God viz a viz the status of dieties or demi-gods in your faith. Also educate me as to what is the difference between Upanishad and the vedas that you highlighted elsewhere but the Adviata website subclassify Upanishads as Vedic literature related to Philosophy. Similarly, I saw you refering Gita in your quotes. What is the status of this book according to your faith? Is this not a part of larger epic called Mahabharta or what? Since there are so many things to know, don't get overwhelmed with them and start from anywhere you like and we shall continue on this road as long as you wish. May the One God be with us. Amen. 

My Dear Bro The One,

Thanks for your response. I see you rejecting the worship of dieties /demigods; this is indeed a surprise but definitely a pleasent one. Lets talk a little more on this.

 What do you consider Sri Krishna to be/ as some people think he was a reincarnation of Rama? Do you attach any divinity to both these personalities?

The tittle of the website says "ADVAITA VEDANTA ", so what else could it be? On the more you had previously testified it to be in agreement of your beliefs and hence no contradiction between the contents of the websites and yours. Here it is what you mentioned "The website you gave is about Advaita Philosophy, one of the philosophy of Vedas. I am the follower of Advaita and my post does not contradict with Advaita.  "

Anyhow, I see you calling Vedas to be everything, but then you don't seem to consider them equivalent to your "Quran". This is not clear. Simply because one book is easy to understand than the other, how can it be superior over the others? What about their comparison with regard to their (i.e. Vedas and the Gita) source of origin and authenticity? Also, we consider Quran to be the verbatim word of God, and probably you also know this, then how do you equate Gita as your equivalence of "quran" if you don't consider Sri Krishna to be devine god? But, if Gita is considered as your 'quran', then what is status of these Vedas (I mean, are they less important than Gita or what)?

Now when you say Uphanishads are commenteries of Vedas, then do Upanishad come in the category of smriti like you said the Manu smriti? By the way, you didn't clear as what criteria is followed to classify Shruti from Smriti? I mean, what do you mean by authenticity of these scriptures especially once you do consider Gita to be smriti but verified authentic (verified against what?) and Mahabharta (a smriti) as simply an epic?

My Dear Bro The One,

I really didn't expect this kind of response for my honest and mostly simple questions from you. Feeling negativity is your problem not in my questions.

On the issue of your statement that Gita was said by Sri Krishna , I repeat my question again. Has Sri kirshna a divine (such as angel or diety or demi-god etc) status in your belief? Similarly, what about Rama?

On the issue of website and Advita philsophy, without playing with the words, simply let me know whether that philosoply discussed on the website, deals with the same beliefs as yours or not?

On the status of Gita, you said Gita is similar to you as for me is Quran. My obvious question was how is it? Since Gita is smriti and Vedas are Shruti, why Vedas are not equivalent to Quran but the Gita?

Now coming to logical way of understanding shruti vs smriti, and please don't try to connect this discussion with my questions asked above, simply because the above questions have been asked as per your statements. However, whatever now I am going to say is what I think is logical.

As per your definiton, logically speaking, the thing that is remembered (smriti) and written down has more reliablity of being authentic than the thing which was, though heard (shruti), but not written down and transmitted verbally from generation to generation. I know you would be mad at me, but this is exactly what you imply by your definition and subsequent explanation.

Now coming to the authenticity of these scriptures, I meant their authorship and their way of preservation before they were written down. Can you provide me the name/s of the author/s of the Vedas? That is, who got this message from God? Can you provide me the names of the people attributed to which veda etc? 

Coming to your statement "But Vedas,being infinite, need an infinite alphabet." sounds little over exaggeration. Frankly speaking, I have never heard such an argument before. Firstly, it is not rational to say an infinite Vedas', simply because our earth or space on earth is finite. However, If you are using some metaphor then your second part of statement is meaningless.  Secondly, even though the text may be infinite, why would it nead an infinite alphabets? People don't need another extra set of alphabets even if the text is extremely large. The same alphabets are reused in a new combinational format and that is it. Kindly expound on your statement a little more if you can? Giving example of infinite number of sounds equal to infinite number of words in vedas seems overstatement. Kindly rethink, are the vedas are really infinite or it is a boasting of some wishful thinker?

Now coming to the issue of invention of sanskrit language just to write down the Vedas. First, can you support your statement from any reference? and, who invented it?

Secondly, I again see a boasting in your statement when you say "Sanskrit is so perfect that it is as intact as it was when it was invented, no change in any respect". Here is the evidence you yourself has provided that at least some part of this language is no more in use simply because you said "Now the Vedas we have are only words the sounds of which have been mostly lost.". That means there are some written vedas in sanskrit whose meaning are lost and no body know as what do they mean. This is simply because the present day sanskrit is drastically different than the time when it was used for writting down the vedas. Those words are now obsolete in their usage and hence lost their meanings.

Now coming to the philosophical part of vedas. Again your explanation is everything except from a logical perspective. No deciphering is needed once the language in which the text is written is commonly known. Either sanskrit is an obsolete language, hence need deciphering, or the original vedas are lost and only the human philosophical explanation is available. In any case, how come these human interpretations become equal to vedas, one can reasonably doubt on the claims of making them Shruti. So, if I am not wrong, over here do you intend to say that the Upanishads are made shruti texts because they were place with the vedas? Hmm!!

Then in the end you alluded that "Mahabharata is history turned into mythology, so considered Smriti(a rememberance). ". In the same way, can we say that Gita must not be fully shruti but some smriti as well?

Salam Ahmad!

First thank you for making me realize. " Feeling negativity is your problem " You are right. I generally take things positively. There is no concept of fate in my religion. Sorry and thank you.

And one sincere advice. Seeking of knowledge cannot be based on prejudices. For example, if I would have considered the verses in Quran which say "kill the infidel", I would never have read Quran.  And I find Christians and Muslims have prejudices about other religions. Even Christians and Muslims have prejudices regarding each others religions though both of them are Abrahamic religions. Most of the prejudices does not exist, they have been created just to suffice oneself about their faith. And mostly Muslims and Westeners have a very low respect towards the East and the Eastern faiths and philosophies. Most of them feel astonished when they find something greater in the East.

One personal question. Why do you want to know about Vedic religion anyway considering that Muslims consider their religion to be God sent and as you said Muslims to be "enlightened human beings". You can definitely cannot know about our religion with such a point of view.  For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

Some people believe that Krishna is an incarnation of God and some other believe that he is just a man. I believe that he is a man like any other but who has great understanding. Some see Rama to be a divine figure, but I find him as a man. And Rama has nothing to do with Vedic religion.

I am really quite busy with my work, so I am unable to read what is written in the webpage about Advaita.

Gita is considered a religious book just like you consider Quran. Yeah, the difference may be that Quran is considered with highest esteem. But one cannot equate Vedas and Quran. Quran is based on belief. Vedas are which always exist.

" the thing that is remembered (smriti) and written down has more reliablity of being authentic than the thing which was, though heard (shruti), but not written down and transmitted verbally from generation to generation. "  The answer is in the question itself. In order to remember, it has to be heard first. Buddy, Vedas are not mere books, they are everything. Sorry that I cannot explain about Vedas clearly. But remember, Vedas are not religious texts. They are everything.

I finding it very hard to explain about Vedas. "Ved" means sound. I find it hard to explain to the "religionists". I did not find any word in the entire Quran which means infinite. May be they did not have the concept of infinity(though "Al Wasi" loosely means "The Infinite"). Authorship of Vedas? Are you kidding? How can anyone attach a name to the Vedas. They are not copyrighted material.  Such questions arise because you consider them to be mere books written by some anonymous writer.

" it is not rational to say an infinite Vedas', simply because our earth or space on earth is finite " I apologize you again and again for not being able to explain about Vedas clearly. Vedas are not mere books. And Vedas are not complete yet. And they can never be completed for they are everything. What we have is only a minute part. It is not at all logical or rational to limit the glory of God. And I use no metaphor. Vedas are not allegorical.

 Secondly, even though the text may be infinite, why would it nead an infinite alphabets? People don't need another extra set of alphabets even if the text is extremely large. The same alphabets are reused in a new combinational format and that is it. Kindly expound on your statement a little more if you can? Giving example of infinite number of sounds equal to infinite number of words in vedas seems overstatement. Kindly rethink, are the vedas are really infinite or it is a boasting of some wishful thinker? Language? Text? I am a beginner in Arabic, so don't want to discuss about it. But I can read and write Urdu which comes from the Arabic. And I wonder I cannot write "Jesus" in Urdu as it is pronounced, even if I "reuse in a new combinational format".  Take your own name which has root in Arabic. I can pronounce it correctly, but I am afraid your english friend may not.

I think I am clear.

 Now coming to the issue of invention of sanskrit language just to write down the Vedas. First, can you support your statement from any reference? and, who invented it?

I don't know the names who invented Sanskrit as it is so old and even if the names were written down, they would have been lost. But I have references about the work done on Sanskrit. Sanskrit means refined. There were many languages in vogue before Sanskrit.

You said, ". Here is the evidence you yourself has provided that at least some part of this language is no more in use simply because you said "Now the Vedas we have are only words the sounds of which have been mostly lost." "

Ah! Please dont take any allusions. I was refering to the Vedas and not the language. I said the sounds with which Vedas have to be pronounced has been lost and not the Sanskrit. Just like you said,"combinational format".  "Sound" does not mean "meaning" as you pointed out. Even I can translate the Vedas, but cannot pronounce the way they have to be pronounced. Just like your name cannot be pronounced correctly when it is written in English. Now please don't drag me into another discussion about the Vedic language which is different from Sanskrit. A written language which is perfect has to be invented to write the Vedas, so Sanskrit was invented. Please don't consider Sanskrit to be Arabic. Initially Arabic did not have vowel symbols. And Muhammad's Arabic is completely different from the Arabic used now.

I can give you an example from the Vedas and it will explain why one needs deciphering(if you want I will write the entire verse in roman script). The verse when one reads it, thinks that it is written in the praise of Almighty God, but it is actually the value of Mathematical pie till 34 decimals and this verse also includes a key with which one can expand pie to any number of decimal places. I think you will find it astonishing. But I think you know that the decimal system was invented in India. And our decimal system is much simpler than what we follow now. If you have time, just type "Vedic Mathematics" in any search engine and you will find some basics about our mathematics. Similarly Vedas also contain a lot of other subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Metallurgy, Medicine etc.

I think the above will explain about the deciphering of the Vedas.

Now coming to the philosophical part of vedas. Again your explanation is everything except from a logical perspective. No deciphering is needed once the language in which the text is written is commonly known. Either sanskrit is an obsolete language, hence need deciphering, or the original vedas are lost and only the human philosophical explanation is available. In any case, how come these human interpretations become equal to vedas, one can reasonably doubt on the claims of making them Shruti. So, if I am not wrong, over here do you intend to say that the Upanishads are made shruti texts because they were place with the vedas? Hmm!!

The answer is what you said to me in the initial part of your post.  Feeling this way is your problem and not present in the Vedas. And you are asking me with a prejudiced view. Now I doubt what you imply by logical. I want to know what you mean by rational.

 ...can we say that Gita must not be fully shruti but some smriti as well?

I always insisted that Gita is a Smriti which is in accordance with Shruti.

Aparichithudu.

In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate all praise is due to the Lord of the universe his dominion unmatched by anything man can fanthom.

For my Hindu and Muslim brothers and sisters I wanted to add that the main point here obviously is to show the similarities between Islam and Hinduism. Although I agree the main understanding of Hinduism is that Brahman is One and that all others are aspects (perhaps attributes) of the One God Brahman. However in this respect Islam disagrees with such ideology on the basis of the division of attributes.

God's attributes are indivisible and are not independent of each other as Hindusim implies e.g Shiva "God of Destruvtion" each individual god (or attribute) is attributed an attribute. The philosophy of Islam implies that each attribute of Allah ( God) is not only indivisible but one and the same of each other because they exist within the essence of God. The essence of God makes each attribute one and the same. But if we approach the Hindu philosophy the attributes which are represented in various deities exist independently and since they exist independently, consequently, based on their own attributes they are divisible which also implies division within the One we call God which according to Islam contradicts monotheism.

This is a brief understanding of the Kalam Philosophy

The One wrote: Salam Ahmad! First thank you for making me realize. " Feeling negativity is your problem " You are right. I generally take things positively. There is no concept of fate in my religion. Sorry and thank you.

Well my dear bro The One, I am sorry if I have used harsh words to pay back yours. Secondly, it is the concept of God in Islam being "All knowing" from where the concept of fate comes in. I don't know what position you have from the concept of Brahman in your faith?

And one sincere advice. Seeking of knowledge cannot be based on prejudices.

This is very true, I agree with you. However, critical questioning on the basis of rational logic do sometimes make other feel like yours. I don't blame you for this, but rest assure I never intended for it.

For example, if I would have considered the verses in Quran which say "kill the infidel", I would never have read Quran.

Hmm!! but let me guide you to your post as more appropriate would have been "..........kill the infidel........". Isn't it? Prejudice or no prejudice, I don't know much about that, however, one can't avoid logic and reasoning to conclude anything.

And I find Christians and Muslims have prejudices about other religions. Even Christians and Muslims have prejudices regarding each others religions though both of them are Abrahamic religions. Most of the prejudices does not exist, they have been created just to suffice oneself about their faith. And mostly Muslims and Westeners have a very low respect towards the East and the Eastern faiths and philosophies. Most of them feel astonished when they find something greater in the East.

I guess, I don't want to comment to get myself of the topic.

One personal question. Why do you want to know about Vedic religion anyway considering that Muslims consider their religion to be God sent and as you said Muslims to be "enlightened human beings". You can definitely cannot know about our religion with such a point of view.  For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.

I think, I never alluded to such a view in any of my previous discussions with you. Kindly provide reference where I ever said such a thing. Regarding your quetion of knowing about Vedic religion, don't you think people should know the actual teachings of this religion as opposed to what they observe it through practices of zellionth of its adharants. Its only then, I think, when one learn to respect for others through knowledge.

Some people believe that Krishna is an incarnation of God and some other believe that he is just a man. I believe that he is a man like any other but who has great understanding. Some see Rama to be a divine figure, but I find him as a man. And Rama has nothing to do with Vedic religion.

Ok, that is a direct reply and I am really thankfull to you. But, yes but, another question then props up with regard to equating Gita with Quran. If Krishna is not, as you believe, a God but a man of great understanding, then how the Gita ( wise sayings of a knowledgeable human being) become equal to Quran (a verbatim word of infinite God)? On the more, you said Gita contain some vedic concepts in agreement with vedas and therefore acquire Shruti status, but why would anybody not read Vedas themselves and get rid of human sayings ( how much wizardary they may be) at once. Simpilicity in composition is, I think, too simplistic an answer for this question. Isn't it?

I am really quite busy with my work, so I am unable to read what is written in the webpage about Advaita.

Oh, I see. Never mind, I shall see if I can share some of their writtings with you if I find any difference between the two.

Gita is considered a religious book just like you consider Quran. Yeah, the difference may be that Quran is considered with highest esteem. But one cannot equate Vedas and Quran. Quran is based on belief. Vedas are which always exist.

I am not comparing Quran with Gita or vedas, but Gita with vedas. Kindly see if you have any thing on that account as I asked these questions just above this statement as well. However, with regard to your comment "Quran is based on belief. Vedas are which always exist" suffice is to know that Quran is based on sound belief (author, messenger through whom revealed and time/date of revelation etc) where Vedas are, probably, based on anonymous belief. Anonymous begining with anonymous authorship doesn't imply "always" except through some sort of belief. Isn't it?

" the thing that is remembered (smriti) and written down has more reliablity of being authentic than the thing which was, though heard (shruti), but not written down and transmitted verbally from generation to generation. "  The answer is in the question itself. In order to remember, it has to be heard first.

Then, in that case smiriti have double attribute than shruti. Isn't it.

Buddy, Vedas are not mere books, they are everything. Sorry that I cannot explain about Vedas clearly. But remember, Vedas are not religious texts. They are everything.

But anonymous origin is not a very scholarly attribute. It could be through your faith, that vedas are everything, but what about those who don't have such a faith. What would you tell them what is vedas? 

I finding it very hard to explain about Vedas. "Ved" means sound. I find it hard to explain to the "religionists". I did not find any word in the entire Quran which means infinite. May be they did not have the concept of infinity(though "Al Wasi" loosely means "The Infinite"). Authorship of Vedas? Are you kidding? How can anyone attach a name to the Vedas. They are not copyrighted material.  Such questions arise because you consider them to be mere books written by some anonymous writer.

My dear bro The One, first of all, my quetions concerning Vedas are only for the reason that they are, as you have said, are considered shruti. No one wants to know about smriti without knowing the shruti first. Isn't it logical. On the more, most of the people have adopted smriti text without even knowing anything about shrutis and hence we see so much polytheistic ideas in Hinduism. Let me tell you, that you are probably the only one who has rightly pointed out these fallacies. I am greatly indebted to you for this.

Now coming to Islam and concept of infinity, suffice is to say that all the attributes of Allah have infinite character in each of them. The very prefix "Al" is a superlative adjective. Hence whenever you see this prefix, it means ultimate position of that attribute. All the attributes of Allah has this prefix and hence infinity in all these characteristic dimensions. For example, Al-Raziq means infinite provider of sustenance. Similarly, Al-Raheem, means infinite mercifull etc etc.

Now coming to your comments upon vedas' authorship and analogy with copy righted text etc, it is knowledgeful to know that authorship is for authenticity of the material and not for copy rights. In all our scholarly research work, everything we quote from some where, we must need to provide the reference to source of our information. Authorship, thus becomes a very vital and important part of this referencing system. Without this reference, no info, no research work is considered reliable and hence categorized as faith based, if nothing else.

" it is not rational to say an infinite Vedas', simply because our earth or space on earth is finite " I apologize you again and again for not being able to explain about Vedas clearly. Vedas are not mere books. And Vedas are not complete yet. And they can never be completed for they are everything. What we have is only a minute part. It is not at all logical or rational to limit the glory of God. And I use no metaphor. Vedas are not allegorical.

Without arguing to explain your earlier statement rationally, I see you yet throwing more and more philosophical terms. Now I see you saying that vedas are not complete without arguing as what did you mean by infinite vedas, if not allegorically. Then when you say "what we have a minute part", does it imply rest is lost or does it imply that yet more has to come? I do see a similar fact mentioned on the Website that most of the vedas have been lost in the course of history but probably, you may like to comment on this lost aspect of vedas as well. Secondly why do you think that glory of God will be restricted if its authorship is authenticated?

Secondly, even though the text may be infinite, why would it nead an infinite alphabets? People don't need another extra set of alphabets even if the text is extremely large. The same alphabets are reused in a new combinational format and that is it. Kindly expound on your statement a little more if you can? Giving example of infinite number of sounds equal to infinite number of words in vedas seems overstatement. Kindly rethink, are the vedas are really infinite or it is a boasting of some wishful thinker? Language? Text? I am a beginner in Arabic, so don't want to discuss about it. But I can read and write Urdu which comes from the Arabic. And I wonder I cannot write "Jesus" in Urdu as it is pronounced, even if I "reuse in a new combinational format".  Take your own name which has root in Arabic. I can pronounce it correctly, but I am afraid your english friend may not. I think I am clear.

Yeap, I think your quite clear in it. However, as always, now come few more questions through this line of explanation.

Do you think that even though a special language was invented (by anonymous inventor) specifically for these vedas, and yet it failed to encompass it? Either the author of vedas is not very mindful of his audeince or the inventor of the sanskrit has not done very remarkable invention? Isn't it logical to construe out of your explanation? or a more simplified explanation could be that the language Sanskrit has changed from the day of its inception to the present day and hence some of its words or alphabets (whatever) are no more recognizable. Anyway I leave it to you to explain what it could be.

You said, ". Here is the evidence you yourself has provided that at least some part of this language is no more in use simply because you said "Now the Vedas we have are only words the sounds of which have been mostly lost." " Ah! Please dont take any allusions. I was refering to the Vedas and not the language. I said the sounds with which Vedas have to be pronounced has been lost and not the Sanskrit. Just like you said,"combinational format".  "Sound" does not mean "meaning" as you pointed out. Even I can translate the Vedas, but cannot pronounce the way they have to be pronounced. Just like your name cannot be pronounced correctly when it is written in English. Now please don't drag me into another discussion about the Vedic language which is different from Sanskrit. A written language which is perfect has to be invented to write the Vedas, so Sanskrit was invented. Please don't consider Sanskrit to be Arabic. Initially Arabic did not have vowel symbols. And Muhammad's Arabic is completely different from the Arabic used now.

Not comparing it with arabic and hence avoid going off the topic even though your comments on it are misleading, I am afraid your explanation of not able to pronounce the vedas correctly in sanskrit is little incomprehensible. You are right when you give example of my name can't be pronounced by English people, but this is not a good example in the case of sanskrit vs Vedas. Simply because sanskrit was, as you say, specifically invented for vedas hence both the sound and the word are perfectly matched up which, ofcourse, is not the case in your example of my name. There is no difficulty for people from arab country to pronounce my name. Isn't it. Your statement could be true, as I understand it, if and only if, either the vedas are still being written without the updating of sanskrit or sanskrit has lost some of its letters or sounds due to historical errosion of languages. I think its the second reason which is more probable and reasonable to assume than the first one, untill or unless you allude to the first reason; but then you have to provide evidence to support your point of view beyond your faithfull understanding. 

I can give you an example from the Vedas and it will explain why one needs deciphering(if you want I will write the entire verse in roman script). The verse when one reads it, thinks that it is written in the praise of Almighty God, but it is actually the value of Mathematical pie till 34 decimals and this verse also includes a key with which one can expand pie to any number of decimal places. I think you will find it astonishing. But I think you know that the decimal system was invented in India. And our decimal system is much simpler than what we follow now. If you have time, just type "Vedic Mathematics" in any search engine and you will find some basics about our mathematics. Similarly Vedas also contain a lot of other subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Metallurgy, Medicine etc. I think the above will explain about the deciphering of the Vedas.

This is interesting indeed and nothing less than astonishing. You are correct that I never heard of this kind of mathematics. I shall definitely like to read more about this mathematics. Thanks for your info. However, when you say ".....but it is actually ...", does it imply more of human (must be very highly developed ancient mathematician) work than any divine origin? People try to find such links with Quran as well as Bible (may be you find it on this forum as well), but I consider such work to be more of a coincidental than consequential. What do you say about it?

Now coming to the philosophical part of vedas. Again your explanation is everything except from a logical perspective. No deciphering is needed once the language in which the text is written is commonly known. Either sanskrit is an obsolete language, hence need deciphering, or the original vedas are lost and only the human philosophical explanation is available. In any case, how come these human interpretations become equal to vedas, one can reasonably doubt on the claims of making them Shruti. So, if I am not wrong, over here do you intend to say that the Upanishads are made shruti texts because they were place with the vedas? Hmm!! The answer is what you said to me in the initial part of your post.  Feeling this way is your problem and not present in the Vedas. And you are asking me with a prejudiced view. Now I doubt what you imply by logical. I want to know what you mean by rational.

My brother don't get suspecious about me. I think my last "Hmm!!" may have wrongly been interpreted here. It just signify my wonder over your explanation of making Upanishads as same as Vedas. Nothing else. I hope this may clearify your doubts about my intentions. 

...can we say that Gita must not be fully shruti but some smriti as well? I always insisted that Gita is a Smriti which is in accordance with Shruti.

Ok, that is understandable. So do you intend to say that other smriti text, such as Manu smiriti  is not in accordance with Shruti? Also, being in accordance to shruti is one thing and being Shruti itself is totally a different thing. Therefore, I repeat my question as why Gita is preferred over other shruti text when it comes to comparing it with Quran?

Religion is one thing. And what practices take root (or, rot) over say 4,330 years is another. Oneness of God is the essence of Hinduism. All else is the rot of the lost centuries.

We just need to look at Islam and the cultural, regional, local and all other practices we have riddled it with just across a 1,400 or so years! Let's be honest, how many of us worship just but One God? What about all those Pirs? And, don't we treat the U S as anything less than our gaad?

Religion is one thing. And what practices take root (or, rot) over say 4,330 years is another. Oneness of God is the essence of Hinduism. All else is the rot of the lost centuries.

"

My dear bro Whisper, how do we know this untill or unless we educate and learn this fact from others. Don't you agree with me on this?

Do you think that even though a special language was invented (by anonymous inventor) specifically for these vedas, and yet it failed to encompass it? Either the author of vedas is not very mindful of his audeince or the inventor of the sanskrit has not done very remarkable invention? Isn't it logical to construe out of your explanation? or a more simplified explanation could be that the language Sanskrit has changed from the day of its inception to the present day and hence some of its words or alphabets (whatever) are no more recognizable. Anyway I leave it to you to explain what it could be.

Please read the entire post and then ask such questions. I have pleaded you not to drag me into another discussion about the Vedic language which is different from Sanskrit. If you really want to know, please go to some Hindu forum.

Can I know who invented or first spoke Arabic?

You are right when you give example of my name can't be pronounced by English people, but this is not a good example in the case of sanskrit vs Vedas. Simply because sanskrit was, as you say, specifically invented for vedas hence both the sound and the word are perfectly matched up which, ofcourse, is not the case in your example of my name.

You are right on the bull's eye.  Vedic language is different from Sanskrit because Vedic language has infinite alphabet. We know how to pronounce Sanskrit, but do not know the Vedic pronounciation. Now we only know the meanings, but pronounce them in Sanskrit.

Your skepticism regarding Sanskrit is illogical. Sanskrit is perfect whether you believe it or not.

Your statement could be true, as I understand it, if and only if, either the vedas are still being written without the updating of sanskrit or sanskrit has lost some of its letters or sounds due to historical errosion of languages.

I don't know anyone still writing Vedas. If you think Sanskrit is lost, its your belief. I have nothing to do with your belief.

... but then you have to provide evidence to support your point of view beyond your faithfull understanding.

To know the evidence, you have to first know Sanskrit, isn't it?

...but I consider such work to be more of a coincidental than consequential.

I said, "Most of them feel astonished when they find something greater in the East." If you find it astonishing, learn Sanskrit and then read the Vedas. You will find the authenticity yourself.

The One wrote: Ahmad, ...how do we know this untill or unless we educate and learn this fact from others. No amount of discussion will lead to true knowledge.  Can I know why you are so skeptical about the concept of Oneness of God in Hinduism? Aparichithudu.

Dear The One, the skeptism leads to misguidance to which I would always avoid. I would rather say that I am "unaware" of this concept in Hinduism through my previous interactions with this religion, however, through your discussions, hopefull to know about it with logic and wisdom. 

My bro The One,

First of all, for hate has nothing to do with Mushriks, at all. It is just a term for all those who don't believe in the oneness of Allah. That is it. No derogatary used in this term. Personally, I consider them mostly ignorant of message of Allah and hence have sympathy for them than ridiculing. This is the main reason for our discussion to know more about Hinduism, beyond my sterotype knowledge, and let them know about Islam, as much as I can, only if they want to.

Now coming to your our long passages, though your replies are aptly posted, but somehow they don't provide any depth. They seems to be more of digital 0 or 1 kind of replies. For a simple info I have to repeat that question 3 or 4 times and only then some meaniful info is obtained. Just as an example of Vedas, initially there was hardly a cursory mention of vedic language in your post and only after 3 to 4 posts, repeating the same questions, one way or the other, you tell me that the original language of Vedas is not Sanskirt (even though you alluded that it was specifically invented for them) but the Vedic language. Why so much hesitation my bro, that sometime, I feel kind of frustrated? Anyhow, so much so far and so good. Let us continue but this time with smaller area of discussion to remain focus.

Coming to one of your important question regarding author's name for a book vs the contents of the book. There are different situations in which one is relatively more important over the other. For example, if a book contains physical sciences, then the author's name is relatively less important, if not known, than the contents, but nevertheless, this anonymouse status of the book would ever remain with the contents where ever the contents are referred. However, once it comes to faith related subject of the contents, the authorship of the book is extremely important; otherwise on whom someone can put faith onto? Since I believed in Prophet Mohammad, hence believed in the Quran. Without having faith in Mohammad, faith in Quran can never be established. Isn't it logical?

Same way authorship of Vedas is extremely important. Who were those Rishis who recieved the guidance from our The only Lord, Allah? Is it not possible that people, after the death of that particular Rishi to whom guidance in the form of a particular Veda was recieved, might have changed it? This also leads to other important questions of preservation of vedas in their original contents? What was this system prior to writing them down from Oral narrations? Does anyone authentically know such a system ever existed? So, in a nut shell, all this info is highly essential for anyone (more for hindus themselves that for any outsider) to put his faith on it. As you had referred to me to Vedic Mathematics, on my search, I found out that not all vedic literature is divine, but from the ancient great mathematicans and scientists of the land of Bharat. Though, I must acknowledge the great work done by these great minds of their time, but this has little to do with divine knowledge. It is thence, that I understood as what did you mean by "vedas are everything" and "vedas are infinite" etc etc. Why didn't you tell me this on the first place? Why did you make it appear like a mission impossible by referring me to learn Sansikret to even open the book? I don't know?  However, I do know that this is an information age, the old age books of wisdom are no more properitary collection of a select few especially once a birds eyeveiw can be obtained through the translations. Ofcourse for the mastery of the subject, one has to learn the original language but not for general understanding of it.

One more question and that is On the issue of Krishana, if you don't consider him God, then what do you say about Gita? Do you really think its not a myth (atleast the way it was narrated) but a fact?

The One wrote: This is an Islamic forum and if you want to know about Hinduism you have to go to a Hindu forum. This is logical.  You cannot blame me of not answering you.  I have done what I can do.  I have to be in the limits in this forum.

Probably you are right, not from the limitations of the forum, but from the limitations of your own time and effort. Nevertheless, I still appreciate whatever I am getting here.

"...otherwise on whom someone can put faith onto?" My religion is not based on dogmas.  Nor it is based on books.  It is based on pure reason. God is One for everyone.  If I want anything I will approach God directly.  No need of any medium between me and God.  My religion teaches faith in faith itself."

But then, what is the source of your religion? Don't use allegory to avoid this direct question. Without the philosophy of Vedas to say oneness of God, from where else you come to know about this reality? So, for this faith one has to have a reliable source to put his belief untill or unless one is claiming himself to have direct communication from God. I hope you are not claiming yourself to be one of them.

"Since I believed in Prophet Mohammad, hence believed in the Quran. Without having faith in Mohammad, faith in Quran can never be established. Isn't it logical?" I want to know somethings here.  What if Mohammad were forgotten just like we don't have the names of 124000 other prophets?  Then what will be the situation of faith in Quran?  And what if we do really have previous lives, i.e., rebirth of the soul, and it were proved? Then does the faith cease?

I really couldn't get your point. What do you mean by forgotten Mohammad? Forgotten by whom? On the more, who told you there are previous lives? Is this not a anonymous belief?

"...might have changed it?" When their is no need of a book or anything else, I don't even bother if everything of it is changed or even lost.

How can you say such a thing, especially all your beliefs are from Vedas? It is definitely a surprising answer for me.

"So, in a nut shell, all this info is highly essential for anyone (more for hindus themselves that for any outsider) to put his faith on it." Most of the Hindus don't know Sanskrit and they don't even know what is written in the Vedas.  So conclude whatever you want to conclude.

I don't know if this shows any relevence to your point that books are useless in hinduism, but it does show, ignorance of vedic teachings is the root problem in hinduism as only then it leads to what they believe in several deities. Isn't it?

Gita is exclusive of Krishna being man or God.  Gita is not at all allegorical and it does not contain any dogmas.  So Krishna becomes less important than Gita.

At this time I have no knowledge of Gita to validate your comments. Hence leave this topic here for some other time.

"Do you really think its not a myth (atleast the way it was narrated) but a fact?" Even if the historicity of the whole thing is proved to be absolutely false today, it will not in the least be any loss to us.  I am more bothered about the ideals.  Have a look at the Gita and you will know what I mean. Aparichithudu.

By "ideals", I think, you are trying to kill two birds with one stone. Though, you may escape anonymity as far as these ideals are of physical significance but what about those which are pure spiritually based? For example, the concept of multiple rebirths etc etc.

The One wrote: .........This is because, what I call religion is philosophy which is totally rational.  For us religion is not a blind belief in a book or books or even in someone's divinity or prophethood.

Ok now I see as what you are trying to imply by this rationality in religion and hence you don't need the book/s. Continuing in this direction, my dear brother, rationality is not a unique attribute for a truth. That is to say, though it is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition. As one can say with certain confidence that though, almost all religions claim to based on some rationality one way or the other, but the most important thing to know is who is behind that rationality? A human mind or a divine origin? Therefore, it is in this regard that I always asked for the source of your so called "rational philosophy". I hope you may now get the idea as why this source is so important; simply because human philosophy, how rational it may be, is still a human creation and therefore always remain within the bounds of physical perception. On the other hand, those religions are at more stronger footing who claim to have a divine knowledge (which ofcouse have to be based upon rational philosophy) with them because the divinity is not bounded by physical limitations. 

I am totally confused when you say "pure spiritually based" because what would be religion without spirituality.  I was just replying with my own point of view and you are unable to understand. For example, "What if Mohammad were forgotten just like we don't have the names of 124000 other prophets?  Then what will be the situation of faith in Quran?"  This is a simple straight forward question.  But you are unable to understand it.  So I thought I was not using the correct logic or language while talking to you.

So my bro The One, if Mohammad were forgotten by the people, then the message of Allah would not have spread and people would still be living in darkness. Though, the truth would still be there, but the guidance to recognise it would not have been available.

So I am a lot confused kiddo. If we take one point at a time, it will be profitable and we can understand about both of our religions easily.  I think thats why this topic was started by someone. Aparichithudu.

Ahmad,

This is a very interesting, though, frequently frustrating and confusing discussion. One of the simplest books I have found on Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) is Am I a Hindu? I highly recommend it, it answers lots of questions you have asked.

There are many schools of thought in Hinduism. Many of the holy books (for the want of a better term), were written or communicated over a period of several centuries. Rishis used a oral tradition, perhaps because written books were hard to come by. So as a consequence, and in order to make it easier to remember the teachings, they compressed many writings into shlokas (short sentences in Sanskrit). As I said earlier, it was not done by one individual, and hence there is a lot of uncertainty about who said what when. In fact as a result of compression, a lot of the original meaning behind the shlokas has been lost or re-interpreted.

As an aside, even though Quran claims to be entirely the work of Muhammad (though he himself didn't write it), there is a strong evidence that he borrowed liberally from the old and new testaments. And there is no certainty as to who wrote the old testaments, if I am not mistaken.

Hinduism places a lot importance on self realization. What this means is that, though you need a guru to learn things, you will reach nirvana only by introspection and meditation. As a result of this freedom, there have been many many philosophers who have created different paths towards salvation. In fact there is even a tradition of athiesm within Hinduism. Krishna (apparently speaking in God's voice) says in Gita very clearly, there are many different ways to reach me (i.e., salvation) and all are equally good. Therefore there is no claim of superiority over other faiths.

In some ways, as regards to faith, Hinduism and Islam are poles apart. But there are traditions within Hinduism (called the Bhakti movement) which is very similar to Islam in that it places a great deal of importance on faith. Basically it says you reach salvation by devotion to God and you do that by performing rituals and signing praises of God.

I also suggest writings by J Krishnamurthy and Osho Rajaneesh. They were great original thinkers and have delved very deep into Hindu philosophy.

In my humble opinion, all religions teach a few basic truths: be truthful, love thy neighbour, help those in trouble, do good. If we agree on this much and practice good things, there will be much less strife.

Regards,

Human

"First know about "rationalism" brother and then you can know what it means when anyone says "Man is a rational being".  Rationalism according to Philosophy means "the theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge."
"

I thought I would avoid going into the basics with a philsopher friend like you...Any how, ok, for the purpose of remaining focus to the point, even with your own bookish definition of "rationality" how do you explain your own comment when you say "��, but we say that everything is God..�? Your answer to this question of mine "This is a simple statement.  There is no need of any proof........" is everything except rationality. Is this the way you have been learning through your experiences rationally? Similarly how do you rationally explain the telepathic use of relating the story of Gita from one human to another? 

Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem,

Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim,

the One wrote: Similarly how do you rationally explain the telepathic use of relating the story of Gita from one human to another? Just like you can explain how Mohammad heard from Gabriel.

Mind if I asked a few questions in the middle of your interesting discourse with Ahmad and others?

Gibriel is not a human being. He is the cheif Angel. In your comparison of their coversation with that of Krishna and Parth .... do you regard Krishna as a human being? Was he not an Avtaar? or are you saying that Avtaars are considered as human?

the One wrote: So Hinduism is a religion that is only for the inhabitants of the region of India(Hindustan), it is not a universal religion like Islam." Yes, you are right.  Its a Geographic Identity.  With that identity even Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc., are also Hindus.  Its just a name to call the inhabitants of India, which is turned into a name of a religion.

A Hindu is not entirely same as a Hindustani. A Hundustani can be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh, a christian or a Parsi, but a Hindu is only a Hindu, not a muslim or christian or follower of any other religion. We cannot mix the two.

Peace,

Nausheen

-------------
<font color=purple>Wanu nazzilu minal Qurani ma huwa

Shafaa un wa rahmatun lil mo'mineena

wa la yaziduzzalimeena illa khasara.[/COLOR]

O my dear brother The One, Repeating the same answers to avoid it would not solve the issue. Why don't you simply reply the direct question where the question is the rationality behind the concept that you say ��, but we say that everything is God..�? " and not the proof of it. I hope you are not mixing the two. However, if you still don't provide any rational in this concept of yours other than avoiding it, I would only conclude that its purely your own faith, based upon your own experiences and then finding a so called rationality to it to satisfy your self. Isn't it? With this line of reasoning, I hope we can proceed further.

Secondly, as sister has already picked up a vital difference between the two analogies, I would rather ask you a different question when you say "But telepathy is a real thing which everyone can do and most of us do unconsciously, but we are not aware.". Can you provide the scientific Journal in which this "real" thing is published? Is it peered reviewed or just based upon some people's experiences?

Now coming to your objection of not responding to your questions, I would say that almost all of them are discussed in this forum at various appropriate threads. So there is really no need to duplicate the info everywhere. Just for example, the questions you asked about authenticity of Quran is still under discussion at http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1677&PN=1&TPN=6 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1677& ;PN=1&TPN=6

Hope you shall find your concerns being raised in that discussion and then the appropriate replies as well.