raw_thought
Well-Known Member
???
One is inherently good ( Brahman/Atman). Evil arises because of the illusion that we are separate.
You are confusing pantheism with the idea that every perspective is free from illusion.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
One is inherently good ( Brahman/Atman). Evil arises because of the illusion that we are separate.
You are confusing pantheism with the idea that every perspective is free from illusion.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram jainaryan ji
another for you ...
''Fix your mind upon Me , be devoted to Me , sacrifice to Me , bow down unto Me , surely you shall then come to me , truely , I promice you , you are very dear to Me ''
a very interesting version of the Gita which I have recently found ....
another for you ...
''Fix your mind upon Me , be devoted to Me , sacrifice to Me , bow down unto Me , surely you shall then come to me , truely , I promice you , you are very dear to Me ''
a very interesting version of the Gita which I have recently found ....
Which one, or, whose version is that? I'm considering Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's version.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram R_T
please please this is some what of a crashingly sweeping statement ???
the message is Surrender , ....surrender of the ego , of the false conception of self ,
in truth a vaisnava does not Surrender for any notion of reward he Surrenders out of love .
please please this is some what of a crashingly sweeping statement ???
the message is Surrender , ....surrender of the ego , of the false conception of self ,
in truth a vaisnava does not Surrender for any notion of reward he Surrenders out of love .
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Lol no, your reasoning ultimately refutes the concept of 'evil'. I assume you haven't realized that yet.:biglaugh:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
And what the BG says varies depending on the interpretational approach. One interpretational approach does not override or supersede another, as per Hindu Law itself, since Hindu Dharma has historically barred the monopolizing of various textual interpretations.
Last edited:
ratikala
Istha gosthi
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is some sort of nonsense, sorry.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
It amazes me the amount of gut level hatred one receives for merely saying that Brahman is Atman is part of Hinduism.
Atman & Brahman
Atman & Brahman
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
It surely is a part of Hinduism, but that's not the contention - at least not from me. I'm contending the unnecessary pedestaling of various interpretational approaches.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
I am still confused by your confusion. Luckily, most people can understand basic thoughts.
You offer no evidence or even arguments. Please actually debate me. Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia show a lack of debate skills and a lack of knowledge. It is pointless to debate a troll.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
That is the only "interpretation" I am talking about. If you agree that "Brahman is Atman" is part of Hinduism, then it is not just an interpretation, it is part of Hindu doctrine.
The debate is about if "Brahman is Atman" is part of Hinduism. Obviously it is.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
It is a part of Vedantic philosophy; Vedanta is not doctrinal. The only thing that is rudimentarily doctrinal in all of Hinduism is the belief held by every Astika: the Veda-s are of divine origin(s) and/or non-authored by humankind.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Your confusion still confuses me. I explained that evil is a product of illusion. Yes, deep within an evil person is God. His evil is due to the fact that he does not respect himself because he is suffering from the illusion of separation.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
IMHO Shankara (Indian philosopher) -- Encyclopedia Britannica was spot on about what the BG teaches.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram R_T
it is not hatred it is simply a wish to have the complex beleifs of Hinduism portrayed in light which does them justice , ...this link you quote is some what of an over simplification .
it is not hatred it is simply a wish to have the complex beleifs of Hinduism portrayed in light which does them justice , ...this link you quote is some what of an over simplification .
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Shankara was a very complex Advaitic philosopher of the Advaita-Vedanta sub-group of the Vedanta line of thought. If you are truly interested, I'd recommend reading Shankara's Bhashya-s (aka: commentaries) on the Gita and various Mukhya Upanishads (Main Upanishads of Shruti). Keep in mind that Advaita-Vedanta is not the creme de la creme of Vedanta, and there have been other Bhashya-s by other guru-s that have argued or commented using authentic scriptural reasoning to support their conclusions. The point is not that one is better than the other; the highlight is the pluralism of thought.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Are you disagreeing with the encyclopedia Brittanica? Are you saying that what they wrote," He wrote commentaries on the Brahma-sutra, the principal Upanishads, and the Bhagavadgita, affirming his belief in one eternal unchanging reality (brahman) and the illusion of plurality and differentiation." they were inaccurate?. Yes, there is a plurality of views but that does not mean that every view has the same truth value.
Last edited:
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Are you implying that Shankara's understanding is simplistic and does not do Hinduism justice?
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
No ... nor am I saying that every view has the same truth value. Heck, go through many of my posts from my time here on RF. I'm one of the only few that will outrightly say that not all belief systems are the same - nor do they hold the same value in their absolutes. I'm simply saying that if you find Adi Shankara's take on the Gita to be very interesting and most reasonable, I'd advise you to read his Bhashya-s - you will find them, as the primary sources they are, to be very intriguing.
Last edited: