Kaaba Is Not A Hindu Temple

Kaaba Is Not A Hindu Temple

Friday 13 September 2013

786 is not ॐ and ॐ is not Vedic !!!!!



According to many Vedic dharma followers, The number "786" means "Om"




Fig 1



Fig 2

            All Arabic copies of the Koran have the mysterious figure 786 imprinted on them . No Arabic scholar has been able to determine the choice of this particular number as divine. It is an established fact that Muhammad was illiterate therefore it is obvious that he would not be able to differentiate numbers from letters. This "magical" number is none other than the Vedic holy letter "OM" written in Sanskrit (Refer to figure 2). Anyone who knows Sanskrit can try reading the symbol for "OM" backwards in the Arabic way and magically the numbers 786 will appear! Muslims in their ignorance simply do not realise that this special number is nothing more than the holiest of Vedic symbols misread.

 Response:

Point No 1. No Arabic copy of Quran has the English/ Urdu Number 786/ LAY imprinted on them. If you don't believe me look for yourself . I have never come up across any copy of Qur'an having the Number 786/ LAY on it!

Point No 2:  Islamic Scholars say that, 786 is numerological value to "Bismillah Ar Rahman Nir/ir Rahim" which has surfaced recent era and it is an innovation ( Bidah ) in Islam and it is forbidden or more specifically "Haram" since Quran opposes Astrology,fortune telling, Numerology and such business and queries. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Every innovation is misguidance and going astray, and all what drives man astray leads to Hell-Fire."

Point No 3:  The Prophet Muhammed who was a successful Merchant in his early life , has to know the Arabic Alphabets to work in trade, since all the numbers that he had to use were Alphabets. 

"786" is the total value of the letters of "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim". In Arabic there are two methods of arranging letters. One method is the most common method known as the alphabetical method. Here we begin with Alif, ba, ta, tha etc. The other method is known as the Abjad method or ordinal method. In this method each letter has an arithmetic value assigned to it from one to one thousand. The letters are arranged in the following order: Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalaman, Sa'fas, Qarshat, Sakhaz, Zazagh. This arrangement was done, most probably in the 3rd century of Hijrah during the 'Abbasid period, following other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean etc. 

If you take the numeric values of all the letters of the Basmalah, according to the Abjad order, the total will be 786. In the Indian subcontinent the Abjad numerals became quite popular. Some people, mostly in India and Pakistan, use 786 as a substitute for Bismillah. They write this number to avoid writing the name of Allah or the Qur'anic ayah on ordinary papers. This tradition is not from the time of the Prophet -peace be upon him- or his Sahabah. It developed much later, perhaps during the later 'Abbasid period. We do not know of any reputable Imams or Jurists who used this number instead of the Bismillah. 
Here is a table explaining the above answer 

Table 5. The 19 Arabic letters of the Basmalah and their corresponding gematrical values. They all add to 786.
Letter No.
Arabic
English
Gematrical Value
1
Baa'
B
2
2
Siin
S
60
3
Miim
M
40
4
'Alif
A
1
5
Laam
L
30
6
Laam
L
30
7
Haa'
H
6
8
'Alif
A
1
9
Laam
L
30
10
Raa'
R
200
11
H!aa'
H
8
12
Miim
M
40
13
Nuun
N
50
14
'Alif
A
1
15
Laam
L
30
16
Raa'
R
200
17
H!aa'
H
8
18
Yaa'
Y
10
19
Miim
M
40
Total


786











Alef
ا 1
Ya'
10 ي
TTa'
9 ط
Ha'
8 ح
Zay
7 ز
Waw
6 و
Ha'
5 ه
Dal
4 د
Jim
3 ج
Ba'
2 ب
Qaf
100 ق
Saad
90 ص
Fa'
80 ف
'Ayn
70 ع
Seen
60 س
Noon
50 ن
Mim
40 م
Laam
30 ل
Kaf
20 ك
Ghayn
1000 غ
Za
900 ظ
Dad
800 ض
Dhal
700 ذ
Kha'
600 خ
Tha'
500 ث
Ta'
400 ت
Shin
300 ش
Ra'
200 ر


 But 786 has no bases in Islam. Due to our ignorance we have used these numbers believing them to be sacred . Muslims have used "786" on anything that they believed to be spiritual. Similarly, some Muslims replace Allah's name by the number '66' and the Prophet's name by '92'. 

Regarding the Question is This "magical" number 786 is none other than the Vedic holy letter "OM" written in Sanskrit? 




This is a false comparison because Numerology is neither a language nor does it help in preserving or spreading the teachings of the Qur'aan. The sole purpose of Numerology is to make charms and amulets, which are used as a part of the religion to avert misfortune and evil eye.

AUM or OM according to Hinduism ????

OM !! What does it mean?  Where does it come from?

 Om in various scripts


The symbol AUM in the Devanagari as per the Vedic scripts . 


The symbol om in the Devanagari (Hindi, Nepali), Gujarati and Marathi scripts.

 The syllable Om is composed of the three sounds a-u-m (in Sanskrit, the vowels a and u combine to become o) and the symbol's threefold nature is central to its meaning.

The sacred syllable Om which form a central core of modern Hinduism turns out to be more enigmatic as one studies its origin.  In spite of all the claims of its prehistoric origin and vedic origin, om cannot be found in any document or archeological object which antedate the Christian Era.

 Om is not mentioned in the ancient Rig-Veda.   The only possible indirect reference is  in hymns 1.164.39  which speaks of the syllable (akshara) that exists in the divine and is in no way definitive or even indicative.

“What,” asks the composer of this hymn, “can one who does not know this do with the chant?” He adds, “Only those who know it sit together here.” That is, only initiates gather to delight in the mystery of the sacred syllable and the company of the deities.

Since the syllable and the mantra are so important, the fact that Vedic religion did not mention about it anywhere is significant.   The earliest direct reference to Om is found in  the opening hymn of the Shukla-Yajur-Veda (1.1), the “white” recension of the Vedic hymnody dealing strictly with the performance of the sacrifices (yajus). But historians consider this as a later addition.. 

For the Taittirîya-Samhitâ (5.2.8), which is appended to the Yajur-Veda, still cryptically speaks of the “divine sign” (deva-lakshana) that is written threefold (try-alikhita).  . The threefold constituents of om – A U M -  are referred to, in the Prashna-Upanishad (V.5). and the symbolic elaboration of this is found in the Mândûkya-Upanishad.

Even the early Upanishads written in Sanskrit, refer to it only indirectly as the udgîtha (“up sound”) and the pranava (“pronouncing”).  In the Yoga-Sûtra (1.27),it is called the Word (vâcaka) of the Lord (îshvara). Patanjali further states (in 1.28) that in order to realize the mystery of the Lord, the om sound should be recited and contemplated. In the earliest Upanishads,  (Brihad-Âranyaka, Chândogya, and Taittirîya)aum is mentioned many times  both as aum and om-kâra

The Meaning of Om. 

 A century ago, the German scholar Max Müller, ( M. Müller, Three Lectures on the Vedânta Philosophy, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894) who introduced the Indian Scriptures to the west, had the idea that om might be a contraction of the word avam, “a prehistoric pronominal stem, pointing to distant objects, while ayam pointed to nearer objects.,,,, Avam may have become the affirmative particle om, just as the French oui arose from hoc illud.” This follows the common everyday use of a syllable produced by the “up sound” or exhalation producing  om to mean  “Yes, I agree” with the same meaning as “Amen” .  

Chândogya Upanishad clearly spells out the equation between the words udgîtha and pranava.   The first record of this usage is in the Brihad-Âranyaka-Upanishad (3.9.1) itself, where om is employed seven times in this manner. Indeed, the Chândogya-Upanishad (1.1.8) clearly states: “That syllable is a syllable of assent, for whenever we assent to anything we say aum [= om].”  “If, then, om meant originally that and yes, we can understand that, like Amen, it may have assumed a more general meaning, something like tat sat, and that it may have been used as representing all that human language can express.” (Max Muller)

 Swami Sankarananda, (Swami Sankarananda, The Rigvedic Culture of the Pre-Historic Indus, Calcutta: Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, 1942),  proposes that om is derived from the Vedic word soma. Through the influence of the Persians, who did not pronounce the letter s, the word soma was changed to homa and subsequently was shortened to om.  This is only a conjecture to find a meaning in connection with Vedic religion. Earlier Sankara also hung on to this relation.. Swami considers sacred syllable om as a symbol of  Sun since  Aitareya-Brâhmana (5.32)says: “That which glows is om.”  Evidently it is a weak argument.

 However the historic development of the meaning goes far beyond the Vedic gods and common Amen to identify Om with  the shabda-brahman.   In this the unknowable indescribable God expresses himself in creation through the Word.  The cosmos was created by the Word. “And God said,….. and it was so” Chândogya-Upanishad (2.23.3), calls this creation as extension of God, since there is nothing except God, even the creation is his expression and the immanence of God.  The Chândogya-Upanishad (1.9.4) also quotes Atidhanvan Shaunaka,  as saying, “So long as your descendants will know this udgîtha, their life in this world will be the highest and best.”  .

 Mândûkya-Upanishad   explained the three constituent parts (mâtrâ) of the syllable—namely A U M—as  past, present, and future; as the states of  waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. The  fourth part the silence that follows as the inexpressible Brahman.   

 Atharva-Shikhâ-Upanishad expounds the syllables and associate them for easy memorization and interpretation.  These are only to be considered as mnemographic techniques for teaching to those who sit beside. (Upanishad)

AUM or OM Borrowed from Christianity ????

Thus apparently the symbol and mantra Om emerged in Indian scene soon after the mission of St.Thomas the Apostle and seen only after that time.  Surprisingly all early churches in the Malankara had used this as the Christian symbol and appear at the entrance of the seven original churches. Even when these churches were remodeled and reconstructed the aum was retained.   It was clearly part of the Malankara Christian tradition from the first century.  They however associate it with the Christian Trinity and to Christ – the word who became flesh  which we will discuss later.  An objective conclusion would be that Aum was indeed the original Christian concept as introduced by Thomas.

 The Word became Flesh

 The Christian interpretation of Aum had always been based on John 1:1
”In the beginning was the Aum.  This Aum was with God.  This Aum was indeed God.”

 It also introduces the fullness or the substance of God as represented by the silence that follows or the totality of the syllable.  Word was the first expression of God through which the whole cosmos – living and the nonliving – visible and the invisible – were created.  If one looks even deeper, the whole of Kabballa and the threefold tree reaching into the unknown darkness encased in the ineffable name of YHVH can be seen.  It goes far deeper than the simple logos of the Greek.  While the Hindu trinity with its intricate mythologies is based on the dialectics of good and evil and their interaction, ( A feature borrowed from the Gnosticism after the coming of Mani) Christian trinity is based on Love. This was the basic conflict on which Manichaens were declared heretics by the early churches everywhere in the world.  Surprisingly  this is reflected in the Saivism  in its pure form and is maintained by the pure saivites of the south which is finding a resurgence.  With it the demise of the myths where the gods fight with each other will have to be discarded along with all the heresies that came into the church later through the influence of Manichaenism.  

Conclusion: 

1. 786 is not  

2.  is not Vedic 

3. was borrowed from christianity is an equavalent for Holy Word or God!

Imran Khan,


Peace!

11 comments:

  1. its good that you mention the holy number is not significant with aum...but your theories on om are not valid...please read this..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om...and next time dont misguide the people....and what is not mentioned here is aum is mentioned in the starting chapters of vishnu puran and also has a mention in the bhagwat gita....which predates christianity or even islam by atleast 5000 yrs....my message is every religion is unique...dont spread hatred just because you have learned to use the internet recently...and just for your information the word 'ilahi' has sanskrit origins...

    ReplyDelete
  2. OM is God and God is in Every Religion so OM is in every Religion !!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. OM is God .. God Is in Every Religion So OM is in Every Religion

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jus one question. Sanatan dharma, wat people call Hinduism now a days has been d oldest religion or faith of the world wch exists today. Christianity came around 2000 years ago. nd Hinduism around 7000. How can Vedas borrow something from biboe. ??? Isnt ur article totally idiotic??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samrat Singh is right.OM is mentioned in Vishnu Puran and Bhagbat Gita which is oldest book in Hindu Mythology. Hindu religion is 7000 years old whereas Christianity is only 2000 years old. How can Vedas written 7000 earlier borrow something from bible written 5000 years later? In my views we Hindoo, Muslim, Sikhha and Isaai are brothers of one Father God. We have different characters. No matter but we are brothers. Why we fight you are Mechanical Engineer, I am Electrical Engineer, He is politician. So what ? So why don’t we think that 786 is OM. GOD is OM which is Brahma, Visnu, Mahesh . G=Generator=Brahma, O=Operator=Vishnu and D=Destructor=Mahesh. So we all are from same family but of different thinking. So we should not hate each other. Thank you.

      Delete
  5. The Bhagavad Gi:tā (8.13) states that:

    Uttering the monosyllable Aum, the eternal word of Brahman, one who departs leaving the body (at death), he attains the Supreme Goal (i.e., he reaches God).
    In Bhagavad Gi:tā (9.17): Lord Krishna says to Arjuna – "I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable oṃ. I am also the Ṛig, the Sāma and the Yajur Vedas."

    The Bhagvad Gi:tā (17.23) has:

    om tatsatiti nirdesho brahmanstrividhah samratah
    "OM, tat and sat has been declared as the triple appellation of Brahman, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss."

    ReplyDelete
  6. OM is not Vedic? You must be joking or deliberately spreading lies: Following is the rebuttal of your statement:
    PART 1

    Significantly, the syllable om is not mentioned in the ancient Rig-Veda, which has recently been dated back to the third millennium B.C.E. and earlier still. However, a veiled reference to it may be present in one of the hymns (1.164.39), which speaks of the syllable (akshara) that exists in the supreme space in which all the deities reside. “What,” asks the composer of this hymn, “can one who does not know this do with the chant?” He adds, “Only those who know it sit together here.” That is, only initiates gather to delight in the mystery of the sacred syllable and the company of the deities.

    The word akshara means literally “immutable” or “imperishable.” This designation is most appropriate, since grammatically syllables are stable parts that make up words. In the case of the mantric om, this monosyllable came to represent the ultimate One, which is eternally unchanging (akshara, acala). The term akshara is used as a synonym for om in many scriptures, including the Bhagavad-Gîtâ (10.25), which has Krishna say, “Of utterances I am the single syllable.”

    In light of the early prominence given to om as the primordial seed sound, there is no good reason for assuming that the sagely composers of the Vedic hymns were ignorant of the sacred syllable om. Indeed, they were great masters of mantra-yoga, and the Vedic hymnodies are the astounding creation of their mantric competence. Possibly om was considered so sacred that it could not be mentioned outside the actual context of the Vedic sacrifices. In that case, it would have been passed on from teacher to student by word of mouth in strictest confidence. There would therefore have been no need to mention om in the sacred hymns. All initiates would have known it and also understood its sublime meaning. In any case, for countless generations, any recitation of the Vedic hymns has begun with the syllable om. The Atharva-Veda (10.8.10) seems to hint at this with the following riddle:

    What is joined to the front and to the back and is joined all around and everywhere, and by which the sacrifice proceeds? That praise (ric) I ask of you.

    The syllable om is often appended to longer mantric utterances, both introducing and concluding them, and this practice is very old indeed.

    As time went by, the ban on uttering the sacred syllable or even writing it down outside the sacrificial rituals was relaxed. Thus the sacred syllable is first mentioned by name in the opening hymn of the Shukla-Yajur-Veda (1.1), the “white” recension of the Vedic hymnody dealing strictly with the performance of the sacrifices (yajus). This could be a later addition, however. For the Taittirîya-Samhitâ (5.2.8), which is appended to the Yajur-Veda, still cryptically speaks of the “divine sign” (deva-lakshana) that is written threefold (try-alikhita). Some scholars have seen this as a reference to the three constituent parts of the syllable om, as written in Sanskrit: a + u + m. The three constituents of om are referred to, for instance, in the Prashna-Upanishad (5.5). The symbolic elaboration of this is found in the Mândûkya-Upanishad, as we will see later.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 2:
    ======
    That the sacred syllable was written down early on is clear from the fact that it had to be traced in sand or water during certain of the ancient rituals. This is also a significant piece of evidence in favor of writing at least in the late Vedic era, which is generally denied by historians. However, today we appreciate that ancient Indian history needs to be completely rewritten. The long-held belief that the Vedic people invaded India between 1200 and 1500 B.C. has been shown to be unfounded. In fact, all the evidence points to the identity between the Vedic people and the builders of the great cities along the banks of the Indus river. Since inscribed artifacts have been found in the Indus cities, the question of whether or not the Vedic people knew writing can be conclusively answered in the affirmative.

    It is true, though, that the Vedic hymnodies were in all probability never written down until comparatively recently. Yet, the brahmins had devised an ingenious system of memorization to guarantee that the Vedas were preserved with utmost fidelity. It appears that they have been successful in this, thanks to the prodigious memories of the Vedic specialists. Other cultures, which held their sacred tradition in a similar high regard, sought to preserve it by memorization rather than writing it down on impermanent materials that, moreover, might fall into the wrong hands. However, nowhere has the art of memorization reached the sophistication that it did in India.

    Over many generations, om was not uttered outside the sacred context of ritual worship. It was a secret sound communicated by word of mouth from teacher to disciple, that is, originally from father to son. Even the early Upanishads (which have recently been dated back to the second millennium B.C.) often still refer to it only indirectly as the udgîtha (“up sound”) and the pranava (“pronouncing”). The former word hints at the nasalized way in which om is sounded out, with the sound vibrating at the psychoenergetic center located between and behind the eyebrows (i.e., the âjnâ-cakra). The term pranava is derived from the prefix pra (etymologically related to the Latin “pro”) and the stem nava (derived from the verbal root nu meaning “to call out” and “to exult”). It is used, for instance, in the Yoga-Sûtra (1.27), where it is called the symbol (vâcaka) of the Lord (îshvara). Patanjali further states (in 1.28) that in order to realize the mystery of the Lord, the om sound should be recited and contemplated.

    Another, later term for om is târa, which is derived from the verbal root trî, meaning “to cross, traverse.” This is a reference to the liberating function of the om sound, which safely transports the yogin across the ocean of existence (bhava-sâra) to the “other shore.” Through recitation, which is mindful repetition of the om sound, the yogin can transcend the mind itself and thus is freed from the illusion of being an insular being separate from everything else. The om sound is truly liberating because it expands the reciter beyond the physical boundary of the skin and beyond the metaphorical boundary of preconceptions, thus restoring the recognition of the universal Self as his or her true identity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 3
    =====
    In the earliest Upanishads, such as the Brihad-Âranyaka,Chândogya, and Taittirîya, the sacred syllable om is mentioned many times by name, both as om (or aum) and om-kâra (“om making,” meaning the “letter om”). However, udgîtha is more common. It is the Chândogya that first clearly spells out the equation between the words udgîtha and pranava (a term not found in the Brihad-Âranyaka). Perhaps these two terms came in vogue because for unknown reasons om had, by that time, spread beyond the sacred domain and begun to be used in the sense of “Yes, I agree.” The first record of this usage is in the Brihad-Âranyaka-Upanishad (3.9.1) itself, where om is employed seven times in this manner. Indeed, the Chândogya-Upanishad (1.1.8) clearly states: “That syllable is a syllable of assent, for whenever we assent to anything we say aum [= om].” Max Müller commented on this as follows:

    If, then, om meant originally that and yes, we can understand that, like Amen, it may have assumed a more general meaning, something like tat sat, and that it may have been used as representing all that human language can express.

    The Chândogya-Upanishad (1.1.9) also has this relevant passage:

    By this the threefold knowledge proceeds. To honor this syllable, aum is recited, aum is exclaimed, aum is chanted, with its greatness and essence.

    Interestingly, in his commentary on this Upanishad, Shankara takes this passage to refer to the soma sacrifice, which again affirms the connection between om and soma mentioned above. He states that the soma ritual is performed to celebrate, or honor, the sacred syllable, which is the symbol of the Divine. This sacrifice, he further explains, maintains the Sun from which proceeds all life and nourishment by means of warmth and rain.

    The Chândogya-Upanishad (1.9.4) also quotes Atidhanvan Shaunaka, the teacher of Udara Shândilya, as saying, “So long as your descendants will know this udgîtha, their life in this world will be the highest and best.” This expresses the idea that the sacred syllable is a blessing for those who utter it. For this reason it is worthy of being held in the highest esteem, as this and other scriptures emphasize.

    According to the concluding verses of the Brihat-Samnyâsa-Upanishad—a text of the medieval period—12,000 recitations of om remove all sins, while 12,000 recitations daily for a period of one year bring realization of the Absolute (brahman). What greater blessing can there be than this?

    Notes

    1. M. Müller, Three Lectures on the Vedânta Philosophy (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894), p. 116.
    2. Ibid.
    3. See Swami Sankarananda, The Rigvedic Culture of the Pre-Historic Indus (Calcutta: Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, 1942), p. 75.
    4. See V.-L. Mitra, The Yoga-Vasishtha-Maharamayana (Calcutta: Bonnerjee and Co., 1891), vol. 1., p. 39. Apparently, Mitra got this idea from Ram Mohan Roy, the founder of Brahma Samaj.
    5. Ibid., p. 46. In linking om with Amen, Mitra took his cue from the great Sanskrit scholar Rajendra Lala Mitra.
    6. See, e.g., G. Feuerstein, S. Kak, and D. Frawley, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India (Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 1996).
    7. M. Müller, op. cit., p. 116.

    ReplyDelete
  9. look at the so many past time in the world or india first hindu religious the other but born first hindu

    ReplyDelete