(urth) Questions . . .

[brunians at brunians.org]

> Brunians said:
>> Speak for yourself.

>> Anyone who wants to understand scripture reads it in the original.

> Well, assuming that you're not really reading it *as* scripture. If it's
> the Word of God then anything essential to know that's in it can be
> "understood" in any language. If you're reading it as just a piece of
> literature or historical document then you're definitely correct. Though
> of course one has to beware of thinking one understands dead languages too
> well.

I dunno about that. Quran is in Arabic. Translations of Quran are not
Quran. Not only are the Vedas in Sanskrit, they are not written, not the
real ones. The real ones are held in the memory of the people who know
them, a specialized class of Brahmins, some of whom are brought up with
Sanskrit as their mother tongue. The process of learning Sanskrit is
itself interesting.

Any of these veda knowers could write you out the words of the vedas, but
those aren't the real vedas. The real vedas are the living books held in
the minds of the people who know them.

The Indians, especially, are adept at having something be revealed truth
and also an historical document and also several other things.

Christians, and especially Protestant Christians, tend to assume that the
way theology works for them is the way it works for everyone. This is not
the case. Judaism is the closest to Christianity, and there are vast
differences in the way revealed truth is treated between the two. A minor
example: to die as a Jew, you must recite the Sh'ma as close to death as
you can manage it. It is an assertion or a declaration: 'Hear Oh Israel,
____ our God, ____ is One." You don't have to believe it: you can believe
what you like. Belief is not all that important in Judaism. You follow the
rules, you can simultaneously be a good Jew and believe that God is
hostile, or nonexistant.



.