/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13271509]

Which sacred text is the most logical, anons?

[Anonymous No.13271513]

>>13271509

[Anonymous No.13271521]

>>13271509
there are only 6 relevent world religions

Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Sikhism
Hinduism

whatever the most logical is it isn't abhramaic but shinto doesn't even have a sacred text and isn't even a real religion that people believe in, just a larp

[Anonymous No.13271524]

Upanishads > Granth Sahib > Quran > Bible > Pali Canon > Talmud

[Anonymous No.13271565]

>>13271524
>quran

Yikes.

[Anonymous No.13271603]

>>13271565
kek
the christcuck fears Islam

[Anonymous No.13271604]

[Anonymous No.13271775]

>>13271524
Put the quran out, and I might just agree with you.

[Anonymous No.13271791]

>>13271775
what's wrong with the Quran?

[Anonymous No.13271830]

>>13271509
The Holy Quran.

[Anonymous No.13271859]

>>13271509
Guru Granth Sahib Ji of course.

[Anonymous No.13271894]

>>13271791

Though, I can appreciate the efforts done by Mohammed to unite the Arabic tribes using the Quran, but, for me, the teachings of the text fail in the spiritual aspect. One who is not a Muslim is looked upon as if he's the enemy. Plus, there's this notion of Quran being the absolute truth. One who argues against this notion is branded a "Kafir". Too much rigidity. All of this can be said for all of the Abrahamic religions.

[Anonymous No.13271914]

>>13271509
Religion is for when logic ends,you will understand some day

[Anonymous No.13271923]

>>13271509
Silly. If they used logic, they could be argued against by anyone.
Philosophers are the ones who make logical arguments about ethics

[Anonymous No.13271948]

>>13271894
>One who is not a Muslim is looked upon as if he's the enemy.
t. has not read the Quran
In the Quran it says that Jews and Christians are to be respected if they are righteous. There's no rigidity there. They just disagree with the jews saying that Christ is not the Son of God, and they disagree with Christians saying that Christ is God.

[Anonymous No.13271954]

[Anonymous No.13271955]

>>13271948
>One who is not a Muslim is the enemy
>B...B...But righteous Jews and Christians are cool tho

Break the wheel, anon

[Anonymous No.13271960]

>>13271923

The pre Buddhism Upanishads are pretty philosophical in nature.

[Anonymous No.13271968]

>>13271914
>>13271923
of all arguments (if what you said can even be called that) against religions, the most retarded and vague is that it is illogical. Just shows that all your knowledge about religion comes from facebook posts

[Anonymous No.13271972]

>>13271955
what the fuck are you talking about?
I personally think that everyone who is not part of my ingroup is an enemy, but the Quran clearly says that righteous people are righteous in the eyes of Allah, so don't be a faggot towards them.

[Anonymous No.13271985]

>>13271972
Exactly. How is it "no rigidity there" when you claim to have The Absolute Truth and every other religion or world view is wrong unless it's slightly less wrong by virtue of worshiping a slightly less bloodthirsty desert god?

[Anonymous No.13271986]

>>13271968
I never said religion was illogical, I am aware of the catholic theological tradition. I said that the sacred text was not concerned with logic. It's mainly rethoric and poetic in nature. Furthermore even theologians like Duns Scotus said theology is persuasive in nature and not demostrative, as philosophy is.

>>13271960
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.13271993]

>>13271923
>He thinks you can use logic to prove logic
>He thinks philosophy is in any way immune from axiomatic thinking and presuppositions

Even the most logical arguments about ethics can still be argued against, in fact, its usually the most "logical" that seem the most hollow. See: most of modern meta-ethics. The best we've done is virtue ethics and that works so well precisely because it side-steps most of the larger issues that get us into linguistic and logical trouble. Of all the philosophical fields you could have appealed to for logical input, ethics was the wrong one.

>>13271914
If you mean this as a good thing, you get it. If you mean this as a bad thing, you will never get it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and tell you that you're a cool dude.

[Anonymous No.13272006]

>>13271985
Look it's simple:
You either are a monotheist, or are not. That's what's so beautiful about Islam. There's no three dudes in the sky, and a woman. There's just one God, and he is a warrior, not some faggot who loves you and wants the best for you, so he's going to bless you with your child dying of cancer, so that you can become more holy. No, Allah is a warrior God, with no qualms or pretense. He does whatever the fuck He wants, and you either submit, or you don't and you burn forever. I like that.

[Anonymous No.13272009]

>>13271524
I agree with you except the Quran mate, that piece of shit is just bonkers and allah gives the shittest revelations to muhammed piss be upon him kek

[Anonymous No.13272019]

>>13271993
>Of all the philosophical fields you could have appealed to for logical input, ethics was the wrong one.

Why do you even bring this up? I think my post implied the fact that no ethical system can be grounded on logic and be irrefutable when I said " If they used logic, they could be argued against by anyone."

[Anonymous No.13272020]

>>13271948
The first thing Muhammed did when he came into Mecca was to kill and exile the jews, judgement day for muslims is when there will be a war where muslims will kill all of the jews and christians, where is the respect?

[Anonymous No.13272022]

>>13272019
I misinterpreted your post then, apologies.

[Anonymous No.13272028]

>>13272006
> thinks god is some power hungry cuck
you must have a very very sad life anon

[Anonymous No.13272029]

>>13272006
Why are we here? Just to suffer? Literally playthings of an angry god. Meanwhile the rational religions are promoting intellectual thought and philosophical questions about the world.

[Anonymous No.13272030]

>>13272020
I mean, you don't really deserve much respect, but if you're righteous, Allah will protect you.

[Anonymous No.13272037]

>>13272006

Explains the problem with the Quran.

[Anonymous No.13272040]

>>13272028
>God is a well-meaning leftist dad
I'd rather kill myself than worship that. It's why atheism is rising in le West.

>>13272029
>Why are we here? Just to suffer? Literally playthings of an angry god.
It doesn't take much reflection to understand that this is the truth.

[Anonymous No.13272049]

>>13272029
>Literally playthings of an angry god
Yes

[Anonymous No.13272062]

>>13272049
>your paint color will never look this bright
>you will never paint this good anyways
Why live

[Anonymous No.13272068]

>>13271775
I should have clarified that I meant the Sufi interpretation of the Quran (which in all fairness they claim is its true meaning) whereby it becomes a sort of middle point between the Bible and the Upanishads

[Anonymous No.13272083]

>>13271894
>One who is not a Muslim is looked upon as if he's the enemy. Plus, there's this notion of Quran being the absolute truth.
This mentality is necessary for any imprint of thought into the external world.

[Anonymous No.13272096]

>>13272068
>Sufi interpretation of the Quran
>A hadith which states that the Quran has an inner meaning, and that this inner meaning conceals a yet deeper inner meaning, and so on (up to seven successive levels of deeper meaning), has sometimes been used in support of this view.
based

[Anonymous No.13272216]

>>13271509

[Anonymous No.13272240]

The Upanishads

[Anonymous No.13272592]

>>13272216
based /g/entooman

[Anonymous No.13272668]

Lotus Sutra and the Kojiki

[Anonymous No.13272680]

>>13271509
>Gospel according to Sergey

[قاسم !!Q8buEI7kZvM No.13272685]

>>13272068
Sufis do not have an alternative interpretation, but an additional one. They consider this one worthless if you do not abide by and accept the mainstream one as well.

[قاسم !!Q8buEI7kZvM No.13272697]

>>13272020
>The first thing Muhammed did when he came into Mecca was to kill and exile the jews

The tribes who had fought against him in violation of treaties, he did not exile or kill anyone just for being Jewish. Also regarding Makkah, you're wrong: Jews and Christians were allowed to pass through but not allowed by the polytheists to live there anymore

[Anonymous No.13272703]

>>13272240
sure its the most philosophical, but the upanishads is the least 'logical' (ie too abstract and convoluted)

[Anonymous No.13272707]

>>13271521
>Isn't abrahamic
Why is that?

[Anonymous No.13272714]

>>13271521
>Sikhism

[Anonymous No.13273323]

>>13271509
Tao Te Ching.

[Anonymous No.13273336]

No love for the avestas?

[Anonymous No.13273792]

How come these texts never mention the Bhagavad Gita? Krishna literally lays down the axioms in chapter one, and then uses the rest of the space to derive theorems to get Arjuna the cuck off his ass.

[Anonymous No.13273796]

>>13273323
/thread

[Anonymous No.13273880]

The QJV

[Anonymous No.13274155]

>>13272062
Stop using acrylic

[Anonymous No.13275902]

>>13274155
use what instead

[Anonymous No.13277081]

>>13271859
Shut up pajeet

[Anonymous No.13277085]

>>13271509
Bible

[Anonymous No.13277127]

There’s nothing logical about the Abrahamic religions so there’s three off the list already.

[Anonymous No.13277137]

>>13273323
This is a beautiful book but if you think it is reducible in any way to logic, you've totally missed the point. It is deeply illogical, its pure paradox, the text is completely secondary to the wordless understanding that its supposed to produce in the reader.

[Anonymous No.13277145]

Das Kapital, Vol. I - III

[Anonymous No.13277147]

>>13271603
the muslim doctrine is all fine and well but in the 9th century the intelligent muslims lost control. still they laid the groundwork for the renaissance.

[Anonymous No.13277156]

>>13277147
>regurgitating Orientalist memes and he can't even get the century right

[Anonymous No.13277172]

>>13271565
this man knows

[Anonymous No.13277298]

>>13271524
Pali Canon > Upanishads > *

[Anonymous No.13277360]

>>13277298
lmao, no, it's little more than a restatement of Upanishadic teachings but with a much less coherent cosmology/metaphysics behind it

[Anonymous No.13277361]

>>13271954
Based

[Anonymous No.13277364]

the gnostic gospels

[Anonymous No.13277382]

>>13277360
The early Upanishads are vague texts about worship. The middle Upanishads which are the same time as Buddha are more philosophical, probably due to the popularity/rise of Jainism and post-Buddha Upanishads are even more philosophically refined. By Buddha's time, teachings of Buddhism was fleshed out from the start. Upanishads meanwhile changed from a religion of animal sacrificing to one that adopts non-violence from religions like Jainism/Buddhism as a core central concept.

[Anonymous No.13277475]

>>13277382
>The early Upanishads are vague texts about worship.
Completely wrong, it's clear that you haven't read them or at most skimmed over some of them without understanding them. The earliest Upanishads (i.e. Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya) like the other Upanishads center themselves around knowledge of Brahman and enlightenment/moksha which doesn't involve worship; these subjects form the content of all the major Upanishads; only the style of exposition changes. The pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka condemns both worship and rituals and presents monasticism and intellectual contemplation/meditation as superior to them.
>Upanishads meanwhile changed from a religion of animal sacrificing to one that adopts non-violence from religions like Jainism/Buddhism as a core central concept.
This is wrong on both counts, as mentioned the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka presents rituals as useless to a knower of Brahman and non-violence is already implied in it by its promotion and recommendation of monasticism (violence clearly being completely incompatible with this) and in the portion where Prajapati gives his sons the three instructions to control themselves, to give freely and to be compassionate.

[Anonymous No.13277482]

>>13277475
>Brihadaranyaka
>preBuddhist
Only by few years/decades. Before Buddha was the Jainism, which is where the challenge would be presented from.

[Anonymous No.13277483]

>>13271509
Tao te king. It's like an algebra that talks of human kind, via a praying wise man...

[aNONYMOUS No.13277485]

none of them, they're all fake

[Anonymous No.13277489]

>>13277483
It's like the hope and the origine of the thought...

[Anonymous No.13277506]

>>13277482
>Only by few years/decades.
Wrong, the Brihadarayanyaka is widely estimated by scholars to be from the 800-600 BC range, with some even positing a date as far back as 900 BC. The scholars are virtually unanimous that it's pre-Buddhist with most of their estimates placing it between 300-200 years before the beginning of Buddhism. There is evidence that Jainism predates Buddhism as well but no evidence that Jainism goes as far back as the Brihadaranyaka, leaving it open to the same possibility that it was influenced by the Upanishads predating it as well.

[Anonymous No.13277516]

>>13277506
not him but are upanishads its own text? someone told me they are 'embedded in the vedas' others tell me they are separate from the 4 vedas.

[Anonymous No.13277529]

>>13277516
I think they are a compilation of commentaries /extractions from the 4 Vedas. There are a lot, but the Principle ones are treated as a standalone text (I think)

[Anonymous No.13277540]

>>13277516
They are both right. The Upanishads represent the last layer of commentary and addendum to the Vedas, and were originally interspersed all throughout the Vedas, i.e. they didn't always come at the end of each one but sometimes were inserted after certain portions of one Veda ended before the next portion began. Eventually the Upanishads came to be regarded as a distinct body of texts in their own right, When Brahmins would pass down the orally-transmitted Vedas they would include both the Vedas and the Upanishads embedded in them but Hindu thinkers eventually came to refer to the Upanishads in their writings as a separate body of texts and when the Vedas and Upanishads started to be physically written down the Upanishads would sometimes be written down as individual texts. Many of the Upanishads contain references to the portion of the Veda that they come right after.

[Anonymous No.13277566]

>>13277506
>scholars are virtually unanimous
If by unanimous that they cant assign a date because its all oral tradition with changes happening over time.

[Anonymous No.13277573]

>>13277566
But there is enough evidence via linguistics, changes in language, cross-referencing in other texts etc that they still are virtually unanimous that they are pre-Buddhist and likely so by several hundred years at that. Please don't pretend like you are an expert in Sanskrit and the history of ancient India and know better than they do.

[Anonymous No.13277612]

>>13277573
>But there is enough evidence via linguistics, changes in language, cross-referencing in other texts etc that they still are virtually unanimous that they are pre-Buddhist and likely so by several hundred years at that. Please don't pretend like you are an expert in Sanskrit and the history of ancient India and know better than they do.
says the guy who denies the illegitimacy of the purusha sukta

[Anonymous No.13277632]

>>13277612
One god, several religion ? Is it like the Babel tower ? Not to be uniforme ... Not to be cloned people

[Anonymous No.13277675]

>>13277612
In what way is the Purusha Sukta illegitimate? Just because it may have been composed as a later edition to the Vedas doesn't render it illegitimate. Primary Upanishads continued to be composed and accepted as Sruti long after the Purusha Sukta was composed. It's not like there is an artificial cutoff point whereby anything after a certain point becomes illegitimate.

[Anonymous No.13277696]

>>13271509
whats are the ones in the center, bottom center, and bottom left?

[Anonymous No.13277713]

>>13271894
this.
most legit religions teach something along the lines of "we are all God's children, so be kind to one another."
Islam says "we are all God's children, so kill anyone that disagrees with you".
Every other major religious figure, from Lao Tzu, Buddhists, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Zoroaster, etc. were pacifistic personally (even if their followers weren't). Mohamed is the only one that actually went around raping and killing like a common thug.

He really shouldn't be on that list.

[Anonymous No.13277735]

>>13272006
islam is a religion and code-of-conduct written by bandits, for bandits.
Bandits admire a religion that lets you murder, rape and steal, which is why it spread so rapidly in Middle East and Africa (where bandit cultures were the norm) but couldn't make headway in Europe, where bandit culture wasn't the norm.
it's why Islam is the fastest growing religion within prisons. Because criminals LOVE a religion that makes criminal behavior a virtue.

[Anonymous No.13277863]

>>13277735
The fear, to be protected from god. Say "god sees you" and see what happen... "God loves you/god sees you" ... Respect ...

[Anonymous No.13277880]

>>13277863
what's wrong with the Bible that you needed to add to the Word of God?

[Anonymous No.13279052]

Did you know Gaudapada's karika bhashya of the mandukya upanishad is canon among buddhists and hindus?

[Anonymous No.13279059]

>>13279052
I'm aware that his bhashya is accepted as Sruti by multiple schools of Vedanta, do you have a source for the buddhists accepting it as canon?

[Anonymous No.13279129]

>>13279059
Yes
https://youtu.be/hqWXsj2xZg4

[Anonymous No.13279265]

>>13271509
Quran

[Anonymous No.13279312]

>>13279129
When in the video does he say that? I'm only asking because as far as I'm aware, there was very little response by Buddhist writers and thinkers to the emergence of Advaita. When they did tend to note its emergence they disagreed with it but got a lot of details wrong and never seemed to have fully understood its teachings. It would surprise me that any Buddhists accepted a Vedantic text as canon.

[Anonymous No.13279446]

>>13272006
You are precisely the reason why I am apprehensive of Muslims, and wish that Islam could be steadily eradicated as a culture, eventually disappearing forever. You don't have a speck of spirituality within you, which concerns loving others and leading an upright life, and many other such virtues - you are a sociopath, possibly a psychopath too, an ideology-fanatic, and someone that the rest of us need to worry for. You read a set of unimpressive scriptures written 1400 years ago, which tell you there's a masculine, throne-sitting Deity who created everything, who communicates to human beings through paper and ink (the most efficient and extraordinary of mediums, surely, which only an omniscient being would ever use) and that Arabic is his favorite language, all of his customs and expectations seemingly pertain to the Arab culture of the time (even though he should belong to no culture, and be outside of time), and you believe all of this and more. Why? Because you lack critical thinking, and overflow with bloodthirst. And so the ideology ensnares you, like it has so many in the past, and as always the burden is wore by us, the non-Muslims who need to somehow ensure your psychopathy does not spill over into our societies, and ideally move you away from the religion as much as possible.

I know the conceptions of the Upanishads or in Buddhism might be a bit difficult to grasp, but please put your efforts towards understanding concepts like non-duality instead of those which presently appeal to you. It will be much better for you and the rest of us, in the long run - trust me on that.

[Anonymous No.13279465]

>>13279446
>, which tell you there's a masculine, throne-sitting Deity who created everything,

In comparison with His existence eternity began but the day before yesterday; it came at dawn,
but yet came late. How can His working be bounded by eternity? Eternity without beginning is a
houseborn slave of his; and think not nor imagine that eternity without end (is more), for eternity
without end is like to eternity without beginning. How shall He have a place, in size greater or smaller?
for place itself has no place. How shall there be a place for the Creator of place, a heaven for the Maker of heaven himself?
Place cannot attain to Him, nor time; narration can give no information of Him, nor observation. Not through
columns is His state durable; His nature's being has its place in no habitation.

O thou, who art in bondage to form and delineation, bound by 'He sat upon the throne'; form
exists not apart from contingencies, and accords not with the majesty of the Eternal. Inasmuch as
He was sculptor, He was not image; 'He sat' was, not throne, nor earth. Continue calling 'He sat'
from thy inmost soul, but think not His essence is bound by dimensions; for 'He sat' is a verse of
the Qur'ân, and to say 'He has no place' is an article of faith. The throne is like a ring outside a
door; it knows not the attributes of Godhead. The word 'speech' is written in the Book; but shape
and voice and form are far from Him; 'God descends' is written in tradition, but believe not thou
that He comes and goes; the throne is mentioned in order to exalt it, the reference to the Ka`ba is
to glorify it. To say 'He has no place' is the gist of religion; shake thy head, for it is a fitting
opportunity for praise. They pursue Husain with enmity because 'Alî spoke the word 'He has no
place.'

[Anonymous No.13279475]

>>13275902
Oil paints

[Anonymous No.13279492]

>>13279465
what does the Quran have that the Bible lacks?

[Anonymous No.13279499]

>>13277696
Buddhism, baha'i, sikhism

[Anonymous No.13279526]

>>13279492
Enough "Mahāvākya"-like passages for Sufis to convincingly erect a system of non-dualism based on it, for one; which has never really been allowed to take place in Christianity outside of the most fringe groups. I'm not muslim though and was just observing the back and forth in this thread.

[Anonymous No.13279622]

The screenplay of The Big Lebowski

[Anonymous No.13279746]

>>13279499
what are some examples of buddhism within the Quran?
(and if buddhism and islam are the same or similar, then why do muslims kill even buddhists?)

Islam believes your fate is determined by Allah, and can't be changed.
Buddhism believes you can change your karmic fate through good behavior.
(i bring this up to illustrate that they're not exactly the same, so can you give examples of how they're at least similar in certain instances?)

[Anonymous No.13279749]

>>13279499
oops, totally messed, sorry.
thought >>13279499 was in response to >>13279492

disregard >>13279746

[Anonymous No.13279770]

>>13279622
My brother got his dudeist diploma? Though he's never used his authority to marry people

[Anonymous No.13279776]

>>13271509
>no Greeks
>no mention in 100 posts

[Anonymous No.13279794]

>>13271524
>Upanishads
Quick rundown? Any time this is asked posters seem to get the runaround, so I remain doubtful.

[Anonymous No.13279796]

>>13279776
I wouldn't say metaphysics was a religious text though i'd definetly include it in the thread. Even aureluis' meditations, the other day i just opened it on a random page and there was a passage that more or less described prana

[Anonymous No.13279855]

>>13279794
"The Upanishads ... are among the noblest and most inspired books in the world; in them, the whole of the Indian wisdom is already contained; later teachers could but expand and comment on them, but in no way departed from this original treasure of wisdom." ... "The Upanishads teach the wisdom of Atma, the Supreme Self of all beings; the same divine Life which Philo of Alexandria later called the Logos, the Divine Mind, the collective spiritual consciousness of our universe. They tell us that, while each of us may seem to be a wanderer and exile, lonely, desolate in our world of shadow and of sorrow, we are in reality neither alone nor desolate, but undivided, unseparated rays of the Universal Self, the Logos. What is needed to secure our immortality—an immortality which is still conditional, until this victory is won—is the realization of our oneness with the Supreme Self. The Upanishads show how, step by step, we may mount the golden stairs; they tell us what we must leave behind; what we must gain, as we tread the small, old path; what we must achieve; with the promise that we shall in the fullness of time be initiated into the fullness of that eternal, universal Supreme Self of all beings. "The whole aim of their teachings is this: to point the path by which the personal self may win immortality and divinity, by becoming united with the Higher Self, which always possessed immortality and divinity." - Charles Johnston

[Anonymous No.13279870]

>>13279796
I mean Greek religion.

[Anonymous No.13279883]

>>13279870
Orthodoxy?

[Anonymous No.13280639]

>>13279883
No, Ancient Greek Religion based on the myths.

[Anonymous No.13280668]

The Quran.

[Anonymous No.13281611]

>>13271509
>Which sacred text is the most logical, anons?

The Associated Press Stylebook, duh.

[Anonymous No.13281623]

[Anonymous No.13282261]

>>13279776
If we go into the Greeks then we're forced to spill over into Egypt and even Mesopotamia and then it's all just a fucking mess of history

[Anonymous No.13283609]

>>13280668
Inshallah.

[Anonymous No.13283627]

>>13271509

Sikhs.