Bhagavad Gita

[Anonymous No.19329915]

What is the cosmology of the Hindus shown in the Bhagavad Gita? It seems that BRAHM is the one and all, but I wouldn't call it monism.There is a lot about virtue and vice, and how one must overcome their hellish passions in order to reach divine heavenliness. What does this mean for the good and the evil if we are built with these internal passions that we choose to act upon? If someone is reborn with their corresponding Karma, does that mean something similar along the lines of what Socrates detailed in the Republic, i.e., reincarnation and virtue?

>Krishna.
Kama it is!
Passion it is! born of the Darknesses,
Which pusheth him. Mighty of appetite,
Sinful, and strong is this!--man's enemy!
As smoke blots the white fire, as clinging rust
Mars the bright mirror, as the womb surrounds
The babe unborn, so is the world of things
Foiled, soiled, enclosed in this desire of flesh.
The wise fall, caught in it; the unresting foe
It is of wisdom, wearing countless forms,
Fair but deceitful, subtle as a flame.
Sense, mind, and reason--these, O Kunti's Son!
Are booty for it; in its play with these
It maddens man, beguiling, blinding him.
Therefore, thou noblest child of Bharata!
Govern thy heart! Constrain th' entangled sense!
Resist the false, soft sinfulness which saps
Knowledge and judgment! Yea, the world is strong,
But what discerns it stronger, and the mind
Strongest; and high o'er all the ruling Soul.
Wherefore, perceiving Him who reigns supreme,
Put forth full force of Soul in thy own soul!
Fight! vanquish foes and doubts, dear Hero! slay
What haunts thee in fond shapes, and would betray!

[Anonymous No.19330070]

>>19329915
First reply. I just broke this thread's hymen. Anyone else who posts after me is getting my sloppy seconds, my leftovers. Just remember that the first reply is the most special reply of the thread, it’s what gives the thread its pace, and you'll never experience this thread the way I did. This thread will never feel the way it felt about me, about you. It's over, you might as well just go post on Reddit and talk about how much of a "man" you are for replying on a thread that I pump and dumped.

Have fun with my scraps, /lit/cucks.

[Anonymous No.19330074]

I think it's based on Advaita Vedanta. It's somewhat different from the philosophy of Socrates. It believes in Duality while religions like Buddhism don't. It says that everything around us is "Maya", something that is keeping us away from the ultimate reality. We reincarnate again and again unless we realise the "Brahman", the Brahman can be realised while praying to the supereme and giving up on earthly pleasures.

[Anonymous No.19330090]

>>19330074
I meant non-duality*

It goes very deep than what I tried to explain above. It's not even the tip of the ice burg. Basically this is what Manduklia Upnishad explains.

[Anonymous No.19330112]

>>19330074
>>19330090
Interesting. Thanks for the context.

[Anonymous No.19330130]

>>19329915
definitely not monistic, it is devotional as all orthodox hindu religions. advaita is not orthodox

[Anonymous No.19330392]

>>19329915
>but I wouldn't call it monism
Classical non-dualism (Advaita) isn’t monism or dualism but is its own unique category, qualified non-dualism (Vishishtadvaita) and certain kinds of Shaivism are more like monism.
>There is a lot about virtue and vice, and how one must overcome their hellish passions in order to reach divine heavenliness. What does this mean for the good and the evil if we are built with these internal passions that we choose to act upon?
The Gita teaches that it is prakriti (insentient nature comprised of gunas) that acts and not our Self, discriminating wisdom in part consists in knowing that one’s Self or Atman is a non-doer and that something other than oneself is what acts, and in remaining unattached to actions and their fruits. People who are unfit for Jnana-Yoga are supposed to instead perform Karma-Yoga, remaining unattached in the midst of actions, with their mind dedicating actions and their fruits to God. That people confuse theirselves with Prakriti is a basic condition of being a transmigrating being in samsara.

"The actions (karmāṇi) are performed (kriyamāṇāni) completely (sarvaśas) by the qualities (guṇaiḥ) of Prakṛti (prakṛteḥ). One who is deluded and bewildered (vimūḍha-ātmā) by (his) ego (ahaṅkāra) thinks (manyate): 'I (aham) (am) the doer (kartā... iti)'"
Gita 3.27


>If someone is reborn with their corresponding Karma, does that mean something similar along the lines of what Socrates detailed in the Republic, i.e., reincarnation and virtue?
Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.19330425]

>>19330130
>it is devotional as all orthodox hindu religions.
Hmmmm… why then do the primary Upanishads almost never talk about bhakti? Why do the Sanskrit words for devotion (bhakti) and grace (kripa) not appear once in the entire text of the Brahma Sutras? Why does the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 say that men who worship Gods as other than themselves are comparable to dumb animals?
>advaita is not orthodox
kek

[Anonymous No.19330792]

>>19330425
>Hmmmm… why then do the primary Upanishads almost never talk about bhakti?
Not to mention that bhakti has very little to do with the devotional Bhakti movementl.

[Anonymous No.19331955]

>>19330392
>isn’t monism or dualism but is its own unique category, qualified non-dualism
non-dualism is just a retarded form of dualism, since the fundational apsects of dualism are still there, the only difference is that dualist philosophies are sincere
dualism:higher reality/lower reality
non-dualism:(higher reality/lower reality)/ultimate reality: you see: the dualistic remains intact, they just added more unnecessary steps

[Anonymous No.19331975]

>>19329915
What English translation does /lit/ recommend? I'm trying to avoid being brainwashed by Orientalists or ISKCONs

[Anonymous No.19332895]

>>19331955
> non-dualism is just a retarded form of dualism
> non-dualism:(higher reality/lower reality)/ultimate reality: you see: the dualistic remains intact,
What a clueless thing to say, the lower isn’t “lower reality”, but is instead falsity (mithya). It’s like someone saying “truth isn’t falsehood” and you’re saying “oh, so you’re saying falsehood is a truth then?”, it’s just missing the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.19333370]

>>19330130
This.

[Anonymous No.19333523]

>>19331975
I read Mascaro and thought it was kino

[Anonymous No.19333593]

I feel for anyone who isn't Indian and attempts to read this text.

Among Indians, I feel for those who read this as a substitute for the Upanishads.

Among those intimate with the Upanishads, I feel for those who pick this up despite their intimacy with the Shruti.

In this particular thread, only ignorance runs rife.

I don't believe there is anyone apart from me on this board who is capable of expounding the ideas of the Gita; but I hope I am wrong.

[Anonymous No.19333831]

>>19333593
well maybe offer some advice then?