/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17338305]

is pic related the most based religious text?

[Anonymous No.17338311]

>>17338305
Explain its metaphysics

[Anonymous No.17338321]

>>17338305
>>17338311
I'm tired of shilling and zero discussion of it itself

[Anonymous No.17338329]

>>17338321
this, guenonfag posts a gita thread every fucking day for weeks and no discussion actually occurs. typical of that faggot

[Anonymous No.17338339]

>>17338305
What does hindu mathematics offer us and how similar is it to plato's/aristotle's/kant's?

[Anonymous No.17338373]

>>17338311
Best of luck

[Anonymous No.17338405]

>>17338373
So it's a monist religion? How does it break down between those layers exactly? Is there some formula we can find to dictate exactly what layer of creation we are?

[Anonymous No.17338446]

yes

[Anonymous No.17338491]

>>17338311
The popular sects of Hinduism largely each interpret the Bhagavad-Gita in accordance with their respective theology and metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17338504]

Does anyone get the feeling that indians are kind of retarded? Even when they are smart and do typical smart people tasks well, there's something missing, like it still seems as if they're a big child who just happens to have focused on this thing enough to do it well. Like they are lacking some kind of final ultimate level of self awareness and alertness that Europeans have.

I don't think it's true or anything, and I know a lot of indians simply don't have the same educational opportunities. I'm only wondering if other people have this sixth sense that they're kind of slow, even when they are doing normal things reasonably well. I also get it with some westernized arabs. Even when they are talking about smart topics, they seem like they have one track or one note minds.

[Anonymous No.17338508]

>>17338491
Is there a general overview of them? Who is their Plato? Would Buddhism have developed off the rejection of that Plato sect (similar to plato/stoic relationship)?

[Anonymous No.17338516]

>>17338504
I think that's a lot of ppl man but if you mean a lack of a soul that's just due to any human not being forced to be independent. They're still supported by a lot of things (maybe) you take for granted.

[Anonymous No.17338524]

>>17338311
>Arjuna: oh no Krishna I have to kill my cousins and I don’t want to but I also have to fulfill my duty as a warrior what should I do
>Krishna: lmao my nigga I’m basically playing infinity-dimensional chess with all of you being individual instances of my all pervading Self. I’m just dreaming you motherfuckers up in my divine consciousness and everything and everyone around you will be sublimated back into it upon death. Just focus on me during yoga and shit bro

[Anonymous No.17338613]

>>17338504
>they seem like they have one track or one note minds.
maybe they just don’t have built in ADD from constant media bombardment

[Anonymous No.17338667]

>>17338524
Enlightenment from a greentext

[Anonymous No.17338756]

>>17338305
I find the Upanishads to be more sublime, but the Gita in its brevity and lucidity really is indispensable

>>17338508
>Is there a general overview of them?
The different schools differ mainly in how they classify the relationship between the ultimate Godhead or Supreme Lord, and the individual soul or one’s inner sentience. Here are some articles summarizing some of the main schools.

https://iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/
https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/
https://iep.utm.edu/madhva/
https://iep.utm.edu/kashmiri/

>Who is their Plato?
So there are various Vedic sages credited with certain of the Upanishads, but they not identifiable historical figures, in terms of Hindus that people can reliably place at a certain date with their own body of writing that was clearly authored by them, in my opinion Shankara would be the Plato of Hinduism and Ramanuja the Aristotle of Hinduism. Shankara’s complete works are between two to four times the length of Plato’s complete works, depending on whether or not you only count the works that academics consider genuine
>Would Buddhism have developed off the rejection of that Plato sect (similar to plato/stoic relationship)?
In a way yes, so Buddha never really engages in depth with the Upanishads in any substantive way in the Pali Canon, he doesn’t really talk about their ideas much but just attacks basic precepts of Hinduism such as having an eternal soul, or having to do with viewing God as the source of existence, however inasmuch as the Vedanta schools are a systematic exegesis of the Upanishads, especially in comparison to the Hindu schools that preceded them, whatever the esoteric metaphysical content of the Upanishads was when Buddha was alive, it would have likely corresponded largely or totally to the doctrines of one or some of the Vedanta schools, or whichever one of their founders that one might identify with Plato. But some people believe that Buddha didn’t really reject the teachings of the Upanishads/Hinduism, but this is a minority position not held by most Buddhists or academics.

[Anonymous No.17338777]

Stop shilling for Prabhupada’s shit translations. It’s honestly sad how much he distorts and bends the language to push his retarded Gaudiya Vaishnavism. You’re not even reading the Bhagavad Gita at that point, it’s the Prabhupada Gita.

Read Gavin Flood’s

[Anonymous No.17338833]

>>17338756
I'll get to it whenever I finish my current project but you gave me good points to start from.

[Anonymous No.17338865]

>>17338524
Based summary, can confirm

[Anonymous No.17338869]

>>17338524
kek

[Anonymous No.17338898]

>>17338756
Very based. Idk which branch you are but you should shill them in ethical threads etc

[Anonymous No.17338901]

>>17338756
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17338909]

>>17338901
You literally saved that response for Shannara, which school would you shill?

[Anonymous No.17338952]

Where should I start with this? Beginning to end?

[Anonymous No.17339151]

>>17338777
Any pdf link?

[Anonymous No.17339237]

>>17338305
>even their Gods have gross neck rolls
>fucking poos

[Anonymous No.17339260]

>>17338305
No, but its up there.

Most based religious text is pic rel
also high on the list:
Psalms
I Ching
Guru Granth Sahib

[Anonymous No.17339278]

>>17338504
Yea lmao. It’s completely racist but there’s something ‘not there’ when you speak to them. I don’t feel this with any other races I speak to

[Anonymous No.17339283]

>>17338952
end to beginning

[Anonymous No.17339290]

>>17338613
Indians have smartphones bro.

[Anonymous No.17339321]

>>17338952
Easwaran’s Gita translation is good for people who have no experience reading Hindu philosophy, although he does simplify the text somewhat. Higher up in complexity would be one translated by another academic like Flood or Radhakrishnan which have a more literal translation and then another step up above academic renderings of the text would be a translation of one of the several dozen or so medieval and early-modern commentaries written on the Gita by various Hindu philosophers, theologians, poet-saints etc The last category of the medieval commentaries far exceeds the first two in both philosophical interest as well as aesthetic/poetic value, although those can be several hundred pages and understanding them well presupposes already having an understanding of the meaning of common Sanskrit philosophical concepts and vocabulary. You can get this by reading a book or two on Hindu philosophy before reading them. If you would like to try reading some of them to see what they are like or to see how far you can get, these are some of the great commentaries below:

>Shankara's Gita commentary (8th century)
https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya
>Abhinavagupta's Gita commentary (10th century)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/5ydfuxohdtms7um/Bhagavad_Gita_Abhinavagupta_Bhashya_%2528B_Marjanovic%2529.pdf/file
>Ramanuja's Gita commentary (11th century)
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/ramanuja_gita_bhashya.pdf
>Jnanadeva's Gita commentary (13th century)
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri-Jnandevas-Bhvartha-Dipika-Jnaneswari_smaller.pdf

And there is also the Anu Gita which is another dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna which is a postscript of sorts to the Bhagavad-Gita and which occurs after it in the Mahabharata.

[Anonymous No.17339399]

>>17338305
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17339623]

>>17338777
>go with the academic translation rather than a translation by someone who actually believes in what he translates and changed his life according to it
You should literally never do this.

[Anonymous No.17339676]

>>17338777
>Read Gavin Flood’s
no

[Anonymous No.17339721]

>>17339623
>>17339676
t. enjoys reading false translations

[Anonymous No.17339748]

>>17339721
>false translations
reading any translation is false compared to the original text

[Anonymous No.17339768]

>>17339748
There are quality differences among translations, regardless

[Anonymous No.17339858]

>>17339151
Found an epub:
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=5775AB6A66BF6790930FD0D475F058F4

[Anonymous No.17340195]

>>17339858
Thanks fren. HH.

[Anonymous No.17341675]

>>17338305
Actually it's the Dhammapada

[Anonymous No.17341950]

>>17338524
Based and Godhead-pilled

[Anonymous No.17342181]

>>17338504
It's called singular awareness. Deep Work is a book you should read. Or Flow. Retarded white bois swallowed the ADHD pill and live their lives believing that being a scatterbrained milksop is "normal". Snort more copium, kid.

[Anonymous No.17342274]

>>17338524
Quality post

[Anonymous No.17342286]

Is the cosmos a dream of the Godhead according to the Gita?

[Anonymous No.17343147]

>>17342286
Yes, but only we think its completely real, not the Godhead, He is not deluded by his own power. It is comparable to a octopus who puts on a puppet show while knowing that its a puppet show the whole time, but the puppets think they are individual conscious beings

[Anonymous No.17343164]

>>17343147
What happens when 'we' realise this, does our consciousness disappear by uniting with the Godhead?

[Anonymous No.17343304]

>>17343164
The different schools of Hinduism give different answers to that question. I mostly study and have the most affinity for Advaita Vedanta, which says that our consciousness is already this Godhead, and that the perception of otherwise results from a false identification where you attribute the nature of your own sentience (consciousness) to the things which you observe like thoughts, the body, emotions, sensory perceptions. Once one learns to identify one's underlying awareness and isolate it from its contents, one finds out that it's non-individual, unchanging, unconditioned and pure.

And so once you realize the truth of the unity of sentience and the Godhead, you simply have to stop falling for the error of misidentification, and that's it, because the Godhead is self-revealing or self-luminous (sentience is not predicated on the objects of awareness), and it automatically replaces the former illusion of misidentification as the underlying basis left shining in its wake. For Advaita, the same non-dual, non-individual (or rather, supra-individual) Godhead is the same formless sentience inside everyone, it appears divided and sectioned off from our perspective, but in itself it is partless and undivided, just as the same one moon can be reflected simultaneously in countless puddles. So when you realize this your consciousness does not disappear but simply continues on in its own eternally free and immortal nature without any further suffering or ignorance, but simply without any further false misidentification or other misconception superimposed upon it anymore.

[Anonymous No.17344203]

>>17338524
basado