/lit/ - Literature

where the fuck does science align with hinduism

>>11321361
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-similar-beliefs-between-Hinduism-and-science

>>11321371
Buddha was also a Hindu idk if that matters but just wanted to throw that fact out there

>>11321468
Revealed scripture states Buddha is one of Vishnu's avataras. The ninth.

Does it mean the amount of souls (or whatever you call it) has always been the same?

>>11321371
>Rama was able to bring to life a stone lady called Ahilya. If you see closely, isnt is something like bringing a fossil fuel to life.
This is so stupid

>>11322194
Maybe new souls are generated. But do they start off as ants or something or go directly to (average) human babies? And what if there's nuclear war and like 20% of the living things on the planet die - which ones are not getting resurrected?

>>11322194
Its infinite. Youre thinking of the mahat-tattva(the total amount of matter). Yes, each universe has its total matter set, which cant be in or decreased. Hell, Aristotle had already figured that out before those fags Lomonosov and Lavoisier

>>11322199
I did say “besides the god stuff”. There are other comments down there that make more sense though.

How does one prove reincarnation?

>>11322279
The soul is immortal. But as long as he remains in this material world he or she will have to dress matter

>>11322194
there are not multiple souls. there is only one soul that takes on multiple forms. this “soul” is referred to as God in many religions. it is omnipresent, omniscient, and all powerful. the idea that you are an individual soul is an illusion. the doctrine I’m referring to is not pantheism, but rather panentheism. I don’t know how this one Godhead is able to be you and me and everyone else simultaneously, but that’s by design. it’s a paradox, a strange loop that created itself.

>>11322362
>>11322314
If this is true, it’s very odd.
I have too many questions.

>>11322362
If I understand the advaita vedanta view correctly it's basically panentheistic. The universe is God (Brahman) in some sense but is not identical with God. That conjures an image of the universe being a subset of God, but I don't know if that's how they think of it.

>>11322362
so Spinoza was right?

>>11322532

The standard Advaita view is that everything is one undivided unity which is Brahman. Brahman can be conceptually separated as consisting of the manifest (which includes empty space) and the unmanifest. Advaita teaches that the unmanifest is actually more real than the manifest, for among other reasons that it contains infinite possibilities including all those included in the manifest. The manifest is sort of viewed as a secondary and lesser aspect of the Brahman with the unmanifest being greater and more real. The manifest is viewed as being illusionary in the sense that it appears to be concrete reality and the sum of existence when its rather the opposite. All this is meant to be understood with the addendum however that Brahman is fundamentally one and indivisible, with the manifest/unmanifest comprising parts or aspects of it, but not to the extent that Brahman is divided or other than One.

As the Rig-Veda says:

>All this is He-what has been and what shall be. He is the Lord of immortality. Though He has become all this, in reality He is not all this. For truly, He is beyond the world. The whole series of universes-past, present, and future-express His glory and power; but He transcends His own glory. All beings of the universe form, as it were, only a portion of His being; the greater part is invisible and unchangeable. He who is beyond all predicates appears as the relative universe; He appears as all sentient and insentient beings.

>>11322549

If you agree with that general premise than you could say he was certainly onto something although he didn't develop the idea anyway near as far as Vedanta does, he really doesn't delve into the applications and implications to the same extent as Vedanta and his ideas are much more simplified and reductionist, also notably his work was lacking the notion that one could achieve limitless bliss and liberation through proper assimilation and realization of the truth like Vedanta teaches etc.

That's why you often see people posting that Spinoza is really simplified Vedanta or that he is inferior to Vedanta. Spinoza's entire philosophical body of work is just really a portion of Advaita that limits itself to one basic (albiet important) part of the doctrine.

Still though Vedanta is a tradition with thousands of years behind and untold thousands of people have composed hundreds of Vedanta texts so it's not surprising that Spinoza would seem limited by comparison, if anything it's praiseworthy and impressive that he was at least able to figure out a basic element of the doctrine on his own (assuming he didn't plagiarize from Hindu texts brought back by Dutch traders from India, I myself don't know or care but some people think he may have and the Dutch were in India then).

>>11322173
>Revealed scripture states Buddha is one of Vishnu's avataras. The ninth.
That was just hindu priests trying to make the Buddha part of their religion.

reincarnation is woo used to reinforce the caste system

>>11322910
>reincarnation is woo used to reinforce the caste system

>>11322935
that pic is perfect illustration of believing in bhavacakra

>>11322958
Or conversely it represents someone bound up in the cycle of samsara by their ignorance

>>11322908
You can hardly blame them when so much of Buddhism is clearly drawn from the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.

>>11322994
>represents someone bound up in the cycle of samsara by their ignorance
>reincarnation means "cycle of ignorance" when I want it to and literal reincarnation when I want to

>>11323008
>reincarnation means "cycle of ignorance" when I want it to and literal reincarnation when I want to

No need to sperg out over semantics. The two notions you listed aren't even mutually exclusionary. In both Buddhism and Hinduism it's taught that it's ignorance of the supreme truth and the craving/attachment that stems from this that causes rebirth/reincarnation.

>>11323062
"patterns of self-destructive behavior come from repetition of ignorance" and "if you insult a brahmin you will be reincarnated as a worm" are completely differently concepts and the latter has played much more of a sociological role in history than the first ever did

>>11323074
>"patterns of self-destructive behavior come from repetition of ignorance" and "if you insult a brahmin you will be reincarnated as a worm"

What is the point you are even trying to make? The first example is something that is an important part of both Buddhist and Hindu doctrine, the second is a degradation of Hindu doctrine just as Buddhist doctrine has been degraded by people praying to Buddha to help them obtain objects and wealth like an Abrahamic god.

The reason for the caste system goes much deeper than reincarnation and so if you are trying to imply the caste system all stems from taboo-like proscriptions like the second example you gave than you have a very poor understanding of Hinduism.

>>11323137
>the second is a degradation of Hindu doctrine

no this is how most Hindus have been taught reincarnation from childhood historically

>proscriptions like the second example you gave than you have a very poor understanding of Hinduism.

you're ignoring historical Hinduism in liu of some books you bought on Amazon

>>11321356
>Is there anything that debunks reincarnation?

Basic logic

>>11321361
Never, Hinduism is like a horoscope where it just blurted out a ton of disparate and often contradictory shit then in retrospect it points back ignoring all it got wrong and says "See we knew all along!"

>>11323181
Enlighten me

>>11323146
lmao are you some sort of butt-blasted Buddhist?

>no this is how most Hindus have been taught reincarnation from childhood historically

Wrong, the fundamental tenets of Hinduism are laid out in the Vedas and Upanishads and are further elaborated and confirmed in the Vedanta which influences virtually all Hindu thought and texts, it's clearly established that reincarnation is the result of attraction, aversion, craving, attachment etc and the karmic effects these produce; and that the answer to this predicament is to transcend these by realizing the supreme truth. Almost all educated Hindus throughout history who took the time to study under qualified teachers understood the truth of this, almost all Brahmins who received a traditional instruction in Hindu doctrine were taught and themselves taught this in turn. The extent to which any Hindu misunderstands this reflects them incorrectly understanding the doctrine rather than reflecting the doctrine itself.

Hindu orthodoxy is more organized and consistent than Buddhism, the single criterion throughout history for Hinduism is whether something is in accordance with the Vedas and what the Vedas have taught about reincarnation has always consistently been taught by the Brahmins. One could easily argue that Buddhism has become way more degenerated throughout its history than Hinduism.

>you're ignoring historical Hinduism in liu of some books you bought on Amazon

It sounds like you have a less than surface-level understanding of Hindu culture, history and doctrine. The origins of the caste system are complex. On one level it has to do with the fundamental organization of society itself into the natural roles, niches and hierarchies that naturally arise in all societies. It also has to do with the organized groups of priests that were required to memorize and recite the Vedas for many hundreds of years, passing them down to the next generation. Caste is meant to be determined by someone's innate qualities, by which gunas predominate in them. Birth is often but not always a useful proxy for determining this. Caste is also seen as the natural application of Dharma to society. It is in accordance with Dharma that a people are protected by a just ruler who ensures their well-being, that a nation or kingdom is protected from invaders and turmoil by warriors, that commoners grow enough food to provide sustenance for everyone and that the priests oversee, aid and instruct the entire society in religious teachings, guiding them out of suffering to liberation. Caste is a complex subject which has to do with everything I just mentioned but you want to reduce it to simplistic explanations because you are a brainlet.

>>11321356
At which evolutionary state do we get a soul? does bacteria have a soul? do computers have soul? will they?

And on the track, at which point in the uterus do we get our soul? does sperm have soul?

>>11323310
>the Vedas and Upanishads
bet you bought those on Amazon

>>11323341
>when you get completely BTFO and have no response other than to say 'haha you probably bought those books online and therefor the point you are making is illegitimate'

Whether I read them on a kindle, ordered them from amazon, read original Sankrit editions housed in Indian universities or learned them through oral transmission as a Brahman it wouldn't make a difference; everything I said is basic background information on Hinduism that anyone educated about it could tell you. Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and are just making snide comments in an attempt to recover from being BTFO I'd advise you to stop posting and quit while you are ahead.

>>11321371
this is the most unscientific thing I have ever read

>>11323742
You can find bullshit like that on the web for virtually any religion, although one thing that I am aware of is that the ancient Hindu texts describe basically both the multiverse theory and describe how the universe undergoes cyclic creation and destruction.

Science is ultimately a spook though.

>>11321356
The fact that mass extinctions of animals must be seen as "enlightenment periods" because all of those deaths with few births means that millions of souls have ascended to nirvana.

>>11323790
>describe how the universe undergoes cyclic creation and destruction.
There still isn't any meaningful evidence for that

>>11322362
Does this mean a set of all sets includes itself?

>>11321371
>quora

>>11322532
what you've described is the dvaita view. advaita view is that everything is one, including your vision of god, the universe and the self.

>>11321356
Why the fuck don’t we know what happens when you die? Why is there no proof of anything? We have no choice but to be agnostic which is the equivalent of just saying “idk lmao”

Fuck this shit god dammit

>>11323900

This is wrong on multiple levels, first off Hinduism doesn't teach that beings have to be reincarnated into animals on this planet but rather mention non-corporal states of existence like the realm of the gods and also sometimes mention beings passing into the state of being plants and even objects like rocks. Secondly, you are thinking within the dualistic Cartesian notions of western thought where you assume that there is an independent soul which has it's reality separate from the universe or god. The Hindu texts teach that everything in existence is god, which is never destroyed; what seems like death to us is just waves on the surface of the ocean while the ocean remains eternally the same, without changing or losing water. Portions of the ocean become lost in ignorance and perceive themselves as different, becoming bound up in manifested existence but nothing changes the fact that they are all part of the one undivided whole, never dying nor ceasing to exist.

Even in Buddhism they don't teach that everyone has to be reborn on this planet and in Buddha's discourse he mentions the realm of the ghosts etc and he never denies the existence of gods.

>>11323965
There are some physicists who consider it as being a plausible one in the sense of there being a series of big bangs and big crunches and so on. I don't really care and only mentioned it as an aside, I don't hold up science as the golden mean to measure things to. Scientism is one of the main problems with modernity and western society.

Sigh, you can't debunk a claim that is unfalsifiable. Russell's teapot and all that.

There is nothing that disproves anything by /lit/ standards. I can invent a million goalpost moving arguments to defend any retarded notion you assign me. Threads like this are pointless.

>>11324378
Are we literally just in some random planet where we don’t know why or what will happen?

>>11324379
Yes. Does that scare you?

>>11321356
>Science aligns with Hinduism a lot
I don't disagree, but a lot of this is a meme spread by Pajeets who are the equivalent of the Scientific Creationism crowd. There's a guy I know who believes smartphones were created in the Vedic era, and that quantum physics is an Indian invention. And yet he spends his life chewing paan with some laborers. For some reason Westerners fall for this bullshit even though they see through it when American fundamentalists do it

>>11324378
Do vaccines cause autism?

>>11324381
Yes, how are you not screaming and freaking out right now

>>11324423
Lack of control over everything doesn't scare me because I take it for granted. Of course I avoid dark alleys at night but that doesn't translate into me searching for artificial answers to natural problems. I don't discount the idea that in 10000 years we might be so advanced that everything IS predictable but current religious or philosophical explanations of the world just scream "monkeys trying to make sense of things" to me. This might sound like a fedora opinion but there you go

>>11324017
if it didn't then it's not.

>>11322362
>there is only one soul that takes on multiple forms
the forms are not multiple
imagine a hand buried in sand so that only the five fingers appear above the ground. To the naive each finger looks like a separate entity, when in fact they are one.

>>11324470
Imagine seeing a vast plain and a forest grove in the middle of it. To the naive it looks like a singular thing, when in fact it's a multitude

>>11321356
Probably the fact that you posted this on /lit/ and not /sci/.

>>11322362
so there is no self?

>>11321356
>read wholeness and the implicate order once

>>11321356
The question is not whether reincarnation is true or not; the question is rather if the universe is fundamentally material or mental. If the universe is material, then obviously reincarnation becomes problematic, since it would require a biologically deceased thing to somehow transpose its material consciounsess into a new body. If the universe is mental, then there's virtually no reason to believe that consciousness would cease upon death of a physical body contained within mentality.

So far, I have found very little evidence to suggest the universe is primarily material.

>>11321356

>does science debunk philosophical/religious beliefs?

Leave.

>>11325110
Novalis was a scientist though

>>11325104
How about a naturalistic description of the world is both exhaustive and simpler than non-naturalistic descriptions?

>>11325118
You're going to have to elaborate

This thread should have been started in /sci/. I wonder why OP didn't go there.
I WONDER.

>>11321356
Buddhism.
Living Arahat said so in response to a guy that had insight into impossibility of rebirth:
https://youtu.be/pYZ7kiIbLWs?t=3508
and he is not sole master saying similar thibgs

>>11321468
cringe

>>11322910
this
>>11322935
brainlet

This thread was moved to >>>/his/4849708