/lit/ - Literature

>>15443634
>refutations
>posts random bible quotes

>>15443702
>What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For its maker trusts in his own creation when he makes speechless idols!
(Habakkuk 2:18)

>Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
(Acts 17:29)

>Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
(Acts 17:16)

>Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the LORD your God.
(Leviticus 19:4)

>The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.
(Jeremiah 7:18)

>Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship!
(Isaiah 46:6)

>Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.
(Exodus 23:13)

>You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given you, and made for yourself images of men, and with them played the whore.
(Ezekiel 16:17)

>‘Cursed be the man who makes a carved or cast metal image, an abomination to the LORD, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen.’
(Deuteronomy 27:15)

>Behold, the cry of the daughter of my people from the length and breadth of the land: “Is the Lord not in Zion? Is her King not in her?” “Why have they provoked me to anger with their carved images and with their foreign idols?”
(Jeremiah 8:19)

>But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.
(Revelation 2:14)

>I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.
(Isaiah 42:8)

>He will not look to the altars, the work of his hands, and he will not look on what his own fingers have made, either the Asherim or the altars of incense.
(Isaiah 17:8)

>And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish.
(Deuteronomy 8:19)

>>15443634
how is Advaita idolatry if figures and idols aren't real according to non dualist vedanta?

>>15443967
Because they practice meditation in order to deliver themselves from this world.

>But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god.”
(Isaiah 44:17)

>>15443634
What do idols have to do with any of this?

How is worshipping a Canaanite storm deity not idolatry?

>>15444573
Baal Haddad and YHWH aren't the same entity, in fact they're enemies.

>>15444585
They're not the same, but they clearly are highly similar to one another and shared attributes syncretistically since they were worshipped so close to each other. And they serve pretty much the same function, have similar personalities, offer similar things to their worshippers, etc.

>>15444597
> have similar personalities, offer similar things to their worshippers
Read Hittite Mythology, Baal is the complete opposite of YHWH, all the child sacrifice attributed to him is false.

>>15444606
Baal is so similar to YHWH that many of the Psalms are basically just hymns to Baal with 'YHWH' written in instead.

Their similarity is even emphasized by the bible by the contest on Mt. Carmel – while the point of the story is that 'my storm god can beat up your storm god,' because YHWH succeeds in lighting a fire while Baal doesn't, the entire premise of the contest is that the two gods are meant to do the same sorts of things by their worshippers.

>>15443634
>Refutations on non-dualism
this is lame, we should post based refutations of dualism and based refutations of multiplicity instead

Mandana refutes difference by means of dialectical arguments. We do not perceive any ‘difference*. Three alternatives are possible regarding perception:
(1) perception may manifest a positive object;
(2) it may distinguish an object from other objects; and
(3) it may manifest a positive object and may also distinguish it from other objects.

In the third alternative again there are three possibilities: (a) manifestation of a positive object and its distinction from other objects may be simultaneous; (b) first there may be positive manifestation and then negative distinction; and (c) first there may be negative distinction and then positive manifestation. Now, in the first alternative where only a positive object is manifested, no ‘difference' is perceived. The second alternative is untenable because, pure negation is an impossibility. Perception always manifests some positive object; it does not negate anything.

Hence perception cannot reveal mere difference. Possibilities (a) and (c) of the third alternative are untenable, for positive manifestation and negative distinction can be neither simultaneous
nor can there be first negative distinction without positive manifestation. Negation is necessarily rooted in affirmation. Difference or distinction is a relation between two positive objects which it
presupposes. Even the negation of a non-entity like the sky-flower is only a denial of the false relation between two positive entities, the sky and the flower. Possibility (b) of the third alternative is also untenable, for perception is one unique process and there cannot be two or more moments in it.

>>15444639

Further, Mandana points out that unity and difference cannot be combined like light and darkness. And, to say, like the Buddhist, that difference alone is real and unity an appearance, is highly absurd, for if difference be the very nature of things, then there would be no difference among them at all. Again, difference being ‘formless’, the objects themselves would* be ‘formless'. Again, difference being of the nature of negation, objects themselves would be of the nature of negation. Again, difference being dual or plural, no object would be the same single object for the same thing cannot be both one and many. Hence, it has to be admitted that unity alone is real and difference is only an appearance. Difference in qualities does not imply difference in reality. Just as the same fire has diverse activities of burning, cooking and illuminating, similarly it is the extraordinary potency of the one supreme Brahman that enables it to appear as this diverse phenomenal world.

Vimuktatma in his Ista-siddhi, Shriharsa in his Khandana-khandakhadya, Chitsukha in his Tattva-pradipika, Madhusudana in his Advaita-siddhi and Nrsimhashrama in his Bheda-dhikkdra have entered into a trenchent dialectical refutation of difference and have established advaita. The essence of their arguments is as follows: Brahman is non-dual transcendental unity which is beyond all thought-categories. The manifold world is an appearance of Brahman and there can be no relation between them, neither that of unity nor that of difference nor that of both. The world therefore is false and with it all its ‘difference’ is also false. Neither perception nor inference nor any other means of cognition can prove ‘difference’ nor contradict non-duality of Brahman because Brahman or the pure Self is the foundation of all means of cognition and all proof, disproof, doubt and denial. Difference is due to avidya (igorance) and its empirical validity is not questioned; only its ultimate reality is denied. To contradict advaita, therefore, is impossible.

>>15444639
>we should post based refutations of dualism
Post one of non-dualism from poo sources. I've heard they are an argumentative bunch and philosophize with each other extensively.

>>15444639
>this is lame, we should post based refutations of dualism and based refutations of multiplicity instead
>Mandana refutes difference by means of dialectical arguments. We do not perceive any ‘difference*. Three alternatives are possible regarding perception:
>(1) perception may manifest a positive object;
>(2) it may distinguish an object from other objects; and
>(3) it may manifest a positive object and may also distinguish it from other objects.
>In the third alternative again there are three possibilities: (a) manifestation of a positive object and its distinction from other objects may be simultaneous; (b) first there may be positive manifestation and then negative distinction; and (c) first there may be negative distinction and then positive manifestation. Now, in the first alternative where only a positive object is manifested, no ‘difference' is perceived. The second alternative is untenable because, pure negation is an impossibility. Perception always manifests some positive object; it does not negate anything.
>Hence perception cannot reveal mere difference. Possibilities (a) and (c) of the third alternative are untenable, for positive manifestation and negative distinction can be neither simultaneous
>nor can there be first negative distinction without positive manifestation. Negation is necessarily rooted in affirmation. Difference or distinction is a relation between two positive objects which it
>presupposes. Even the negation of a non-entity like the sky-flower is only a denial of the false relation between two positive entities, the sky and the flower. Possibility (b) of the third alternative is also untenable, for perception is one unique process and there cannot be two or more moments in it.

This is the fourth time you've made this garbage thread in the past four days, all so you can make the exact same posts. Why? It's neither funny, nor fun to talk about.

>>15444645
>Further, Mandana points out that unity and difference cannot be combined like light and darkness. And, to say, like the Buddhist, that difference alone is real and unity an appearance, is highly absurd, for if difference be the very nature of things, then there would be no difference among them at all. Again, difference being ‘formless’, the objects themselves would* be ‘formless'. Again, difference being of the nature of negation, objects themselves would be of the nature of negation. Again, difference being dual or plural, no object would be the same single object for the same thing cannot be both one and many. Hence, it has to be admitted that unity alone is real and difference is only an appearance. Difference in qualities does not imply difference in reality. Just as the same fire has diverse activities of burning, cooking and illuminating, similarly it is the extraordinary potency of the one supreme Brahman that enables it to appear as this diverse phenomenal world.
>Vimuktatma in his Ista-siddhi, Shriharsa in his Khandana-khandakhadya, Chitsukha in his Tattva-pradipika, Madhusudana in his Advaita-siddhi and Nrsimhashrama in his Bheda-dhikkdra have entered into a trenchent dialectical refutation of difference and have established advaita. The essence of their arguments is as follows: Brahman is non-dual transcendental unity which is beyond all thought-categories. The manifold world is an appearance of Brahman and there can be no relation between them, neither that of unity nor that of difference nor that of both. The world therefore is false and with it all its ‘difference’ is also false. Neither perception nor inference nor any other means of cognition can prove ‘difference’ nor contradict non-duality of Brahman because Brahman or the pure Self is the foundation of all means of cognition and all proof, disproof, doubt and denial. Difference is due to avidya (igorance) and its empirical validity is not questioned; only its ultimate reality is denied. To contradict advaita, therefore, is impossible.

>>15444698
>>15444705
Based indian wisdom...

>>15444698
>>15444705
holy...based...
I want this....

>>15443862
>Habakkuck

>>15444698
the divine stream non-dually unites him to the cow, destroying the apparent multiplicity... so based...

>>15443862
These quotes mean nothing if you’re not a believer. You’re not convincing anybody.

>>15444705
>for the same thing cannot be both one and many
Oh no no no

>refute non-dualism
Can't refute the truth, christian anon. Stick to your religion and be a good man, and it will get you closer to actual spiritual practices in future lives.

>>15444704
>Why?
Schizophrenia is my guess.

>>15446191
>future lives

To them who profess piety yet shamelessly, or rather impiously, introduce into the Orthodox and Catholic Church the ungodly doctrines of the Greeks concerning the souls of men, heaven and earth, and the rest of creation,

Anathema (3)

To them who prefer the foolish so-called wisdom of the secular philosophers and follow its proponents, and who accept the metempsychosis of human souls or that, like the brute animals, the soul is utterly destroyed and departs into nothingness, and who thus deny the resurrection, judgment, and the final recompense for the deeds committed during life,

Anathema (3)

To them who dogmatize that matter and the Ideas are without beginning or are co-eternal with God, the Creator of all, and that heaven and earth and the other created things are everlasting, unoriginate and immutable, thus legislating contrary to Him Who said: 'Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will not pass away'; to them who thus speak vain and earthly things drawing down the Divine curse upon their own heads,

Anathema (3)

To them who maintain that although the wise men of the Greeks and the foremost of the heresiarchs were put under anathema by the Seven Holy and Catholic Councils and by all the fathers that shone forth in Orthodoxy as ones alien to the Catholic Church because of the adulterations and loathsome superabundance of error in their teachings, yet they are exceedingly more excellent, both here and in the future judgment, than those pious and orthodox men who, by human passion or by ignorance, have committed some offense,

Anathema (3)

To them who do not accept with a pure and simple faith and with all their soul and heart the extraordinary miracles of our Saviour and God and of the holy Theotokos who without stain gave birth to Him, and of the other saints, but who attempt by sophistic demonstration and words to traduce them as being impossible, or to misinterpret them according to their own way of thinking, and to present them according to their own opinion,

Anathema (3)

>>15446369

To them who undertake Greek studies not only for purposes of education but also follow after their vain opinions, and are so thoroughly convinced of their truth and validity that they shamelessly introduce them and teach them to others, sometimes secretly and sometimes openly,

Anathema (3)

To them who of themselves refashion creation by means of mythical fabrications and accept the Platonic ideas as veritable, saying that matter, being self-subsistent, is given form by these ideas, and who thereby clearly calumniate the free will of the Creator Who brought all things into being out of non-being and Who, as Maker, established the beginning and end of all things by His authority and sovereignty,

Anathema (3)

To them who say that in the last and general resurrection men will be raised up and judged in other bodies and not in those wherewith they passed this present life, inasmuch as these were corrupted and destroyed, and who babble empty and vain things against Christ our God Himself, and His disciples, our teachers, who taught that in the very same body in which men lived, in the same shall they also be judged; furthermore the great Apostle Paul in his discourse concerning the resurrection distinctly and with examples restates the same truth more extensively and refutes as mindless those who think differently; therefore, to them who contravene such dogmas and doctrines,

Anathema (3)

To them who accept and transmit the vain Greek teachings that there is a pre-existence of souls and teach that all things were not produced and did not come into existence out of non-being, that there is an end to the torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of the Heavens is entirely perishable and fleeting, whereas the Kingdom is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Scripture, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting to them who by such teachings both destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others,

Anathema (3)

To those pagan and heterodox doctrines and teachings introduced in contempt of the Christian and Orthodox faith or in opposition to the Catholic and blameless faith of the Orthodox, by John Italus and by his disciples who shared in his ruin,

Anathema (1)

>thing bad because book say it bad
Truly undefeatable.

>>15446369
>>15446373
>some greedy priests 1500 years ago said it's bad so it must be true.
Why do we keep replying to this troll's thread everyday?