could be??

Ive allways been a strict beliver of karma. with out any basic knowlage of its orgin just seen it happen in my life. second ive always been agnostic with my belives towards christinatiy because i cant make since of it nor feel it.karma gives me a feeling and makes since. Ive also allways liked reading about the gods since i was real young and had some kinda mind frame towards beliving there was a creator and destorer such as shiva..Im not saying im hindu or anything but these are things that are possible a path to ovation and a better life if i find higher learning.correct?

 

The path to God is a road where you will have to change your shoes many times during the journey. Each belief is like a pair of sandals.

Each wears out during the walk. It contributed, but can go no further. No matter.

When you come face to face with God, you'll be barefoot anyway.


x

 

Contributed how? As in it doesn't matter what God you follow, when you die it's all the same? Or as in belief helps aid a walk along a path but doesn't mean anything?

I believe in karma, I don't think you can go through life doing what you will with nothing coming back at you.

I love reading about different religions and the different forms it takes.

 

What xexon said (and very very beautifully put, I might add), is that with each set of beliefs you will grow spiritually up to a certain point. From this new state of spiritual development, your understanding fo the uiverse and yourself is modified - a new set of beliefs evolves. However, in making the ultimate leap to realizing the divine essence in all things (that includes you, my dear moonbeam) all beliefs are dropped, all ideas and concepts are dropped, in fact, the mind itself is dropped. Only in that silence of what the Zen masters called No Mind can the higher reality be experienced.

 

I agree that is one way. I think that can be reached on many levels though, I mean there are many ways and many paths and the same thing doesn't work for everyone does it? So that must mean there are different ways to a sense of enlightenment, higher reality, whatever else.

I think you can be of a certain religion and also adopt priniciples of others - I agree with the idea of meditation, yoga, zen etc and use those in with the rest of what I believe.

I do tend go slightly of topic! Just pull me back if you need to!

 

That's exactly what xexon said. All these different paths are like different sets of shoes that take you to the temple of the higher reality. But before you enter the temple you must take off your shoes - go beyond the teachings to the source from which they sprang, the silent well of joy from which are drawn the waters of spiritual teachings.

 

thanks for all of your replys.....ive lost the shoes for religion for some time.but have been strict on karma for about the past 6 years of my life. and when i posted this i googled karma based religions and i got jainisim, hinduism, and buddahism. my belifes comply more closely towards hinduism. so because of this ive been leaving the computer alone and doing some personal research at the libary. i know am studing the first two vedas.but i am looking to find as much out before im ready to really adapt my self to this religion.and even doing some time in india near the indus to actually see how a culture that is baised on such a religion acts.

 

You don't have to "convert" to be a hindu, there is no official conversion ceremony or anything like that. There are no strict authority like the imams or pope for you to convert.

You can read vedas, but I doubt a person who is new to this religion would understand Hinduism by reading translations of vedas.

First read Bhagavad Gita - any version you like, then see what this religion is all about.

 

I'd agree with this - the Gita is probably the single most important text which contains all the essence of Hindu philosophy. It has quite a lot to say about karma, and many other topics.

 

I started meditation and religious study when I was fifteen. My life has been very difficult, though only mentally. I have tried to study and encompass all forms of wisdom. It has taken alot of time to digest and the most important thing is that my meditation has deepened in 25 years. I can only imagine what shallowness of truth I would now hold if I only had begun to meditate yesterday.

To develop actual and knowledgeable wisdom one needs to study for many years. And yes, there is something that comes from it. Wisdom. While that cannot be turned to make money (though it seems so many teachers do so) still it can heal oneself and others, it can turn bad into good, it can save many from a shallow life of self destruction. One wise person can create so much benefit that it is astronomical. That is its own reward.

 

I agree with Bill and Jedi - the veda translations leave a lot to be desired and to study them without a true teacher will only confuse and mislead. The gita is the ideal text for an introduction and for the highest and most practical in Hinduism also.
Try http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in

 

Bhagavad Gita, is a compiliation which is in attempt to be a "hindu bible". but i thought no single text is more respected then another.

 

The philosphical side of things is much more worked out in the Upanishads, which came later then the original Veda. As both Bhaskar and Jedi agree, the Veda is a very inpenetrable text. The Upanishads are generally easier to read and to comprehend.
The Gita may be a compilation - but so is virtually all Vedic literature. It does contain the philosophy of the Upanishads in a condensed form. It would be wrong to imagine that because the Gita is popular it is populist - in no sense it is it simplified version of the teachings that is expounded by Sri Krishna.

Personally, I think it would be very difficult to come to any kind of understanding of Hindu philosophy from a study of the Veda only.
However, if that's what you are bent on, then I'd recommend Sri Aurobindo's 'Secret of the Veda' as a way of getting some understanding of the meaning of the symbolism used by the Rishsis.

 

A small correction bill - The Upanishads are a part of the vedas. They are the final sections in which the philosophical teachings are found.

As for the Gita, it takes the upanishadic truths and brings it to practical life. In the upanishads, the students are great spiritual seekers who have already cut down their desires greatly and have concentration of mind and deep sense of purpose. To them the teaching is given in the highest terms, in the settings of the Himalayan ashrams.

In the Gita, the student is an ordinary joe like you and I - good at what he does, but not really a spiritual seeker. Plenty of desires and other obstacles in the mind. So it brings the Upanishad truths to practice in even as disgusting an arena as war. So the Gita is the guide to living th upanishadic life in every situation no matter how unspiritual it may be.

 

I don't know how I acidentally edited my reply into joshua's post. Apologies.

The Shruti (revealed knowledge) is another name for the entire vedas. I've never heard of the term "forest book" though it may exist. I do know that the upanishads give very little information about the teachers and students. Only the exhanges between them are recorded. Some of these took place in mountains, some in forests, some in other sheltered places. The teachers were rishis (some of whom were brahmins). Rishis are great sages who have attained enlightenment and to whom the teachings of the upanishads were revealed in meditation.
I don't know what you mean by acerties... did you mean ascetics?

 

I am aware of that - however, the Upanishads( or Forest Treatises) are generally thought to be of later date than the original Vedas. The actual content is quite different.

 

I've never heard the term upanishads being translated as forest treatise. None of my teachers ever said anything about them being of a later period. Sri Aurobindo of course, has his unique way of looking at things.

The reason the content of the upanishads is different from other sections of the vedas is because of the structure of the vedas, which are divided into:

1. Mantra - These are chants desiged to create sacred healing vibrations to purify the listeners and the surroundings.

2. Brahmana - These are the descriptions of ritual.

3. Aranyaka (which could be called the forest books) - The rationale behind the ritual.

4. Upanishad - the transcendental philosophy.

The other three sections involve interaction with the world and purificatory ceremony that is meant to prepare the seeker for the final teaching of the upanishads.

 

Without getting into too much detail, Sri Aurobindo thought that the Rig Veda at least comes from a much earlier period. There is little in the way of abstract symbolism or conceptualization in it, unlike the Upanishads.

Also the language of the Rig Veda is, Sr A said, dated from a much earlier stage in the development of Sanskrit.

But in this, if in nothing else, he was in agreement with secular scholars who also place the Upanishads at a later date. It is probable that they were appended to the Veda at some later time.

Forest Treatise or Forest Book - the two are synonomous, so at least one other person has heard this term used. It is thought that ancient sages retired to live in the wild forests, and there they developed the philosophy of the Upanishads.

But really, what does it matter? The thing is that as you and I seem to agree, the presentation in the Gita is much more accessible and easily understood. It is one of the world's geatest spiritual books and has appealed to many people way beyond the limits of any one religion.

 

Yes, of course. It doesn't matter if the upanishads were written in 1962. The important thign is that they show a path to the higher and we shoud follow that.

 

Tell me how you can follow the Upanishads?

Aranyakas mean to 'retreat.' How to do retreat on the Vedas. The term aranyaka also occurs in the two halves of Sama Veda - grama and aranyaka. There are hymns for retreat and for ending retreat.