/lit/ - Literature

Seems like they both made you retarded.

>>13306602
God loves you :)

>>13306598
nothing in the bhagavad gita that isnt found in the christian tradition, even if its not emphasized as much.

It is really an absolute masterpiece and it's a shame how many people will throw it aside because it doesn't appear at first glance to fit with their culture

>>13306628
I have a translation given to me by a (white) hare krishna. Is it any good?

Based. Bless this thread.

>>13307249
Some of them have an insane amount of commentary and it becomes unreadable because of that. Otherwise just read it.

>>13306609
except for reincarnation

>>13307297
I'll ignore the commentary then, otherwise I was thinking of getting the Oxford edition.

>>13307305
Very arguable.
Remember reincarnation was believed and accepted widespread in the time of Jesus and was accepted in Christianity until the 6th century.
Jesus certainly didn’t say you only have one chance and even seems so imply a man has been born blind because of a sin of a past life.

And no a mistranslated and highly ambiguous verse about each man being born once does not disregard it

>>13307941
Any books you can recommend on belief in reincarnation duty the early years of the church?

>>13307978
*During , sorry I'm phoneposting atm

>>13307978
Dead Sea scrolls

The Christians on this board made me an atheist

>>13307998
>I don't see a good reason to believe in a God
>human rights are still somehow magically true

>>13307998
Read Kierkegaard

>>13307998
>atheists live boring, bland routines they settle for after thinking very little about the questions of existence and call it "life"
>Christians use the anxiety of Unknowing and our limited exposure to it to create a beautiful religion of both wisdom and submission to higher, unfathomable Order. As they call upon this God, He manifests the Divine through presentations of strength and grace similar to an aerobatic feat
Sounds about right

>>13306603
God loved you so much he made you mentally challenged.

>>13308059
:)

>>13308003
Obviously they aren't

>>13308003
???? Atheism implies nothing more than lack of belief in god. Humanism generally implies atheism but not the other way around.

>>13308082
Could you consider Jainism atheist by that logic?
As they believe in no god but simply a vast spiritual evolution of all souls to no specific ending

>>13308082
>???? Atheism implies nothing more than lack of belief in god
that would be relevant if atheists only tried to sell you atheism, which is never ever the case

>>13308069
>let's just ignore human rights and see how humanity prospers without them

>>13307998
>atheists just hit bedrock with 'dunno'
yeah

cool bro

The reincarnation being widespread until the 6th century makes complete sense considering they had to account for those incapable of accepting god because of deformation at birth. ‘Religion’ gave us prospectus or something for us to seek out of life instead of simple materialism or tyrannies. I see our biggest problem rooted in our violent English language. These words limit our thinking, among other things like technology. It’s also easier to be a slave if you’ve been convinced your entire life that next time’s the charm in the luck of the draw at birth.

>>13308280
humanity was doing fine until they were invented in 1948

>>13308053
>jumping through hoops of circular reasoning
>beautiful 10/10

>>13308341
>humanity was doing fine before 1948

>>13307941
>Remember reincarnation was believed and accepted widespread in the time of Jesus and was accepted in Christianity until the 6th century.
"No!"
In the gospels, Jesus teaches bodily resurrection and final judgement. Those don't make sense with reincarnation.

Matthew 10:28
>And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

>>13306609
>christian
>tradition
Just kill yourself, alright? God will forgive you

>>13307249
>hare krishna
No

>>13308280
Maybe we should remember nature and other species instead of being selfish all the time. Humanity survived just fine before these "human rights". Maybe it's time we stop being needy and get by without destroying everything else in the name of our own comforts. Human rights are not about survival. They are a manifestation of human arrogance and hubris. And the same people who preach human rights also preach climate change and other eco talking points. How ironic. We ought to abolish human rights for something more valuable. Really: how precious can human rights even be when everyone has them. I say they've lost all value. Rights should be earned, and when there are 7 billion people on this planet, the earning process should be all the more difficult for it. The exact opposite of what we have that is.

>>13307998
>god may exist in our gaps of knowledge

No Christians, or even Catholics, make this argument. Quite the contrary, God is NOT in the Empirical gaps, nothing is, Empiricism itself being an anti-Epistemology, i.e. itself a gap even in its purported "knowledge".

>>13307305
>>13307941
>>13308535
something something vulgar reincarnation has no purpose other than empty formalism, christian reincarnation in being "born of the spirit" is the coincidence between one's past life and current life whereby he immanently realizes how and why he returned and can stop returning something something read hegel

I don't know why people still larp about this because Spinoza demonstrated that if the universe is made by an all powerful God, his nature is necessarily very different than anything the various institutions came up with or otherwise he couldn't be considered to be God logically speaking.

>>13309698
Read the final segment of the BG anon

>>13309760
>Don't renounce good charitable acts
>Renouncing things to avoid stress is worldly and bad
>Renounce fortune
>Knowledge and creation is monisitic
>Be a good boy and you won't be reincarnated to various worlds
>Surrender to the monistic creator
>Mentions of fundamental modes of material life


There are other modes unmentioned that can constitute existences that also necessarily must exist, and this includes modes of total nothingness, and modes completely alien to all imagination. So its a good whack at it but ultimately lacking the totality needed to truly say the BG is describing the omniversal god which includes those existences of complete terror and evil that must also necessarily be engineered by God to ensure supremacy, metaphysically.

>>13309968
It’s been a while since I read it but what about the whole: “behold I am death destroyer of worlds” transformation segment?

>>13309985
Those passages are mostly in reference to punishing bad behavior. It covers a good range but existence contains every arrangement of reality imaginable by a human (which is quite a lot) and every existence imaginable by God, which we have barely broached. Within those permutations we could be in the set of "good" ones where appealing to the creator through good works will lend some freedom or reward or at least reincarnation, or the "bad" ones where there creator is indifferent and we are mechanistic machines, or a terrible one where all of us are going to a terror hell dimension no matter what we do.

Anyways there is no particular method to determine which permutation we ended up in, and that only includes the categories we can imagine not to mention the ones we can't yet fathom or will never fathom. Because all of these arrangements of reality necessarily exist we are always in a state of suspense of which one we are placed in.

>>13310017
Could an omnipresent being not choose to limit the permutations to 1?

>>13310026
*omnipotent

>>13310026
No.

Imagine you are a omnipresent God and limit the universe to play out in one way. You have all knowledge and know about Spinoza's metaphysics.

You postulate to yourself the following.

"How do I know I am not simply a subset of an Omniversal god, with the knowledge of the answer to this question removed from my mind?"

Now God, could dismiss this and accept that his knowledge is complete, but the only way to solve the dilemma is to create every existence and non-existence in every mode and permutation. Once that is done, this God is truly the metaphysical container of all and there is nothing that can claim supremacy over it.

>>13310039
sounds like Hegel

>>13310039
You’re still trying to place a rather human quality onto god.
Why would it need to think that question? Why would an omnipotent being care about whether it is the omnipotent being. Is it prideful enough to need to prove to itself there is nothing above it?
But let’s say you’re correct, have we not had universal declarations about the way humanity should behave? Too many experiences shaped by paranormal encounters, NDEs and mystical vision that provide similar and concise information for how humanity should act, to some extent. It seems to me you’re worrying until the cows come home about which permutation we may be in instead of living to the methods apparently passed to us by those of divinity.
Now one can claim all this could be wrong and we still have no chance of knowing our permutation for exact, and this is true, but you also trust you’re not living in a permutation that feeds you this exact theory when in reality it is the farthest things from the truth, it’s turtles all the way down and I don’t see your point.

>>13308381
Find me reasoning that isn't circular. Any grounding, any beginning or end to logic/reasoning, is either tautological or arbitrary. I'm not denying that Christianity asks for a concession, but no more or less than anything else.

>>13309348
You speak sense anon, keep it up.

>>13310106
Those paranormal visions with moral content are warped by social biases and the auspices of time erasing competing ideas. Optimism is the prevailing notion so of course optimistic visions of the creator will become popular and survive the mill wheel of time. But there is no inherent reason to take it as fact.

If its not turtles all the way down we very much live in a tautology of fatalistic nature. No matter the kindness or generosity of a God who makes one universe, it comes with the grim implication of complete fatedness. In the situation of the Omniversal God, sure we are in a sense fated, in fact the very nature of taking action through time means we are inherently fated. But in the Omniverse all possibility is necessarily valid, and thus our exact fate will always be indeterminable no matter what we do or try. And so while not freed from determinism we still have an inexhaustible range of choice that are all equally valid.

But even so preferring to exist in this range of existences is just that a preference. And claiming that we have one God who is good is well more of a claim to God being human-esque than one that is all both bad, good, evil and indifferent and anything else. The way I phrased the explanation was simply to make it as understandable as possible, there is no reason to even call this entity God this contain of all things who supersedes all "gods" of our imagination.

“I believe that a triangle, if it could speak, would say that God is eminently triangular, and a circle that the divine nature is eminently circular; and thus would every one ascribe his own attributes to God.”

>>13306609
Other way around. The only original part of christianity is the bizarre obsession with a failed and dead jewish revolutionary.

>>13310227
The Dao that can be reasoned is not the eternal Dao.

None the less we work with what we are given. Do you believe divine truth can be glimpsed by humanity? The deep meditation and insight that leads to many to similar conclusions seems to imply to this universe, not necessarily a fact, but the best lead we have. I feel your ideas are used by many to rationalize a philosophy of nihilism and pointlessness, or even worse by some neo-gnostic convinced this permutation is the worst one because he can’t get a girlfriend. Ideas like this seem to broad for real consideration, things that our current state of being is not meant to grapple with. Why not focus on the here and now of how to live instead?

>>13310303
Whoops I don’t think that’s a DDC quote but you get what I’m saying.
I’m drinking at a party right now

>>13310303
It is true that any real approximation of the divine lies solidly in the category of knowledge whose only attribute we know of as "we can't imagine a attribute of it."

But by virtue of existence we know at least some measure of attributes of creation, and through reason can at least surmise that there is only a monisitic all reality and attributes of it, and we see no principle outside of human bias to assume the monistic reality would bother restricting itself.

How to live among humans is an entirely different question and has nothing to do with the creator, entirely up to simple utilitarian preferences and their practical implementation, there is no divine moral or law because any demigod that provides one is still just a subset of the all. In traditional theism, moral nihilism remains true, going to heaven is merely a preference, and eternal life is still malignantly useless and meaningless.

Instead I find the seemingly most supernatural thing we have access to is thought which is so inexhaustibly unrestricted we can only describe it with infinity, and as for what I am to do in this mortal life is simply explore this amazing infinitude to my pleasure as it will never be exhausted. Now people can entertain themselves with any number of illusions or games, or social distractions but I at least prefer the endless mazes of thought.

>>13309348
>>13309348
>No Christians, or even Catholics, make this argument.
Christians like to use God as an explanation for the big bang, as well as abiogenesis.

>>13308291
What *can* be known?

>>13310351
Isn't there something of you that's behind the thoughts?

>>13311995
There is the clockwork me who takes feedback from the world and orients on a goal in the short and long term moment to moment. And I am confident no mechanism will ever determine the exact method and style of our thoughts. Insofar as this can be called a self, fair enough you can call it a self or an actor.

The self is made and measured by language and goals and prerogatives to its own preference. I would say the thing that makes our choices is the subconscious and we can dimly guide it via thoughts in language, with rules, goals, and other mechanisms but we do not make truly conscious choice as we imagine it.

>>13311988
not that anon but do you know you're experiencing perception? not a trick question...sensations, fallible as they may be in a certain light, and variable in their interpretation, seem to have an existence for beings

>>13308596
>human rights are a jew blackop to make everyone into communism
Have sex.
Unironically.

>>13312968
Not at all what I was saying but I'm glad you didn't need to take time away from your no doubt meaningful to life and read my post to feel the need to reply with a shitpost.

>>13312968
Not at all what I was saying but I'm glad you didn't need to take time away from your no doubt meaningful life and read my post to feel the need to reply with a shitpost.

>>13309698
In what way is the Bhagavad-Gita larping? I don't see the connection to Spinoza

>>13307316
The edition translated by Eknath Easwaran is the best I have read.

A horse from Turin in XIX century made me evaluate my beliefs.

>>13307998
That comic is terrible. Good gymnastics means good arguments and so atheist had lazy arguments

>>13308596
Yeah let's leave other species in charge and watch them just walk around and breed until their food niche is exhausted. A really Galaxy brain use of consciousness

>>13315277
Yeah another "species" of higher humans dumbfuck. Rabble like you belong doing some menial labor.

>>13308381
All reasoning is either circular or axiomatic. No avoiding it.

>>13309968
The Upanishads, from which the ideas of the Bhagavad-Gita comes, goes far beyond Spinoza's understanding of God, his understanding doesn't really apply to them and trying to understand them through the framework of his ideas is mostly fruitless.