Aristotle meets Hinduism

[Dutch Uncle]

There is something intuitively and superficially appealing about Brahman, at least to me.

All religions, IMO, are simply means to an end. They are means of achieving "oneness" with the Universe. Harmony with it. Even though adherents to dogmatic religions are dropping, people continue to look for spiritual fulfillment.

Jesus speaks of becoming one with God but Islam does not. AFAIK, neither does Judaism. That said, most Evangelicals are more theist than pantheist or panentheist.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Well done

The fact that the Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit languages all belong to the same linguistic group indicates that the people of northern India and the Mediterranean had a common origin. Supposedly on the southern Russian steppe in the late neolithic.

And that might manifest itself as faint commonalities between Platonic philosophy and Vedic knowledge, echoing across distance and time.

We, the People have come a long way in the past 250ish years. The ancients in the Old World had a few thousand years to mill around all the places they could walk. Meanwhile, Native Americans became isolated for 11,000(?) years?

 

[goat]

I am agnostic about Brahman, and as far as experts are concerned, I am never going to have the time or inclination to study the Vedas and the rest of the Hindu canon.

To the extent I am going to be aware of it, the best I can do is listen to a variety of experts with different insights, and try to extract the essential essence of Hinduism as a consequence.

I gave you the Hindu canon on the instant torture of a corrupt soul. A soul can't be tortured into becoming a better person. We see the start of a global unity opposed to governments that intentionally keeps us divided and conquered. Knowledge is powerless without the courage of direct action. There's very little room for Gandhi at this time in history. Too many angry souls demanding results. Chaos will rule for at least the next 40 years.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

On a lighter note, I watched several DVDs today, four hours of "The Secrets of the Cross" and two hours of "History's Turning Points" with an episode about the Great Wall of China, called there "The Wall of Tears" because of the number of bodies in it.

The series is from 1997 and it used the English name of China's First Emperor as "Chin" but now known as Qin Shi Huangdi.

https://www.realmofhistory.com/2016...ou-should-know-about-the-great-wall-of-china/
4) The world’s longest graveyard?

A wall system that runs from near the Bo Hai Sea (northeast of Beijing) into the very borders of the unrelenting Gobi Desert, must account for its incredibly lengthy credentials. According to the figure announced by China’s State Administration of Cultural Relics in 2012, the wall runs across a whopping 13,170.69 miles (21,196.18 kilometers), by also including the aforementioned Ming dynasty built sections and the other crisscrossing structures. This astronomical number is actually more than twice the number flaunted by previous assessments.

Now once again reverting to estimation, it is said that around 300,000 people took part in the construction process, with most of their numbers presumably being allocated during the initial phases of the construction (in late 3rd century BC). In fact, during the Qin period, the administration officially gave harsh sentences to convicts that entailed rigorously working and toiling on the wall. These ‘forced’ laborers had their heads shaved and faces blackened, while being shackled in chains to prevent any thoughts of escaping. Suffice it to say, many of the workers died while trying to accomplice such a herculean task – and their bodies were interred to ‘cement’ the wall sections. This in turn alludes to the sober scenario on how the Great Wall of China might be the world’s longest graveyard, thus also leading to its moniker – the Wall of Tears.

 

[Cypress]

On a lighter note, I watched several DVDs today, four hours of "The Secrets of the Cross" and two hours of "History's Turning Points" with an episode about the Great Wall of China, called there "The Wall of Tears" because of the number of bodies in it.

The series is from 1997 and it used the English name of China's First Emperor as "Chin" but now known as Qin Shi Huangdi.

https://www.realmofhistory.com/2016...ou-should-know-about-the-great-wall-of-china/
4) The world’s longest graveyard?

A wall system that runs from near the Bo Hai Sea (northeast of Beijing) into the very borders of the unrelenting Gobi Desert, must account for its incredibly lengthy credentials. According to the figure announced by China’s State Administration of Cultural Relics in 2012, the wall runs across a whopping 13,170.69 miles (21,196.18 kilometers), by also including the aforementioned Ming dynasty built sections and the other crisscrossing structures. This astronomical number is actually more than twice the number flaunted by previous assessments.

Now once again reverting to estimation, it is said that around 300,000 people took part in the construction process, with most of their numbers presumably being allocated during the initial phases of the construction (in late 3rd century BC). In fact, during the Qin period, the administration officially gave harsh sentences to convicts that entailed rigorously working and toiling on the wall. These ‘forced’ laborers had their heads shaved and faces blackened, while being shackled in chains to prevent any thoughts of escaping. Suffice it to say, many of the workers died while trying to accomplice such a herculean task – and their bodies were interred to ‘cement’ the wall sections. This in turn alludes to the sober scenario on how the Great Wall of China might be the world’s longest graveyard, thus also leading to its moniker – the Wall of Tears.

The Qin, while they unified China, were known to be harsh.

They supposedly tried to execute all the Confucian scholars and to burn the Confucian classics.
Qin dynasty ditched the traditional Confucian ethics, for a strictly legalistic philosophy based on clearly delineated system of conformity, reward, and punishment.

Probably why their dynasty only lasted about 20 years -- for wherever good they did in unifying china, they were just too bloody harsh

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The Qin, while they unified China, were known to be harsh.

They supposedly tried to execute all the Confucian scholars and to burn the Confucian classics.
Qin dynasty ditched the traditional Confucian ethics, for a strictly legalistic philosophy based on clearly delineated system of conformity, reward, and punishment.

Probably why their dynasty only lasted about 20 years -- for wherever good they did in unifying china, they were just too bloody harsh

Someone has to make all the mistakes so others can learn.

Qin may have been the first, but he wasn't the last to commit mass murder against his countrymen.

 

[Cypress]

I gave you the Hindu canon on the instant torture of a corrupt soul. A soul can't be tortured into becoming a better person. We see the start of a global unity opposed to governments that intentionally keeps us divided and conquered. Knowledge is powerless without the courage of direct action. There's very little room for Gandhi at this time in history. Too many angry souls demanding results. Chaos will rule for at least the next 40 years.

Ghandi's inspiration for non-violent resistance was the transcendentalist Henry Thoreau, and the Christian pacifist Leo Tolstoy.

It wasn't Vedic scripture. If anything the Bagavad Gita embraces warfare in the context of duty and a just cause.

Hindu nationalism is what bound most Indians to a resistance mentality towards the British; it did not inspire them to follow the path of non-violence.

The only faith tradition in India which embraces a total commitment to non-violence is Jainism, and they were not a significant factor in the Indian independence movement

 

[goat]

Ghandi's inspiration for non-violent resistance was the transcendentalist Henry Thoreau, and the Christian pacifist Leo Tolstoy.

It wasn't Vedic scripture. If anything the Bagavad Gita embraces warfare in the context of duty and a just cause.

Hindu nationalism is what bound most Indians to a resistance mentality towards the British; it did not inspire them to follow the path of non-violence.

The only faith tradition in India which embraces a total commitment to non-violence is Jainism, and they were not a significant factor in the Indian independence movement

What I find interesting is the possibility of the Songs of God being 5000 years old. We know the Venus of Hohle Fels is at least 35,000 years old, the arrowheads in Sri Lankan cave are 48,000 years old, and Maltravieso cave paintings date to 64,000 years ago. I have a problem with the word prehistoric with all this human documentation. The ability to control fire is part of our history.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ghandi's inspiration for non-violent resistance was the transcendentalist Henry Thoreau, and the Christian pacifist Leo Tolstoy.

It wasn't Vedic scripture. If anything the Bagavad Gita embraces warfare in the context of duty and a just cause.

Hindu nationalism is what bound most Indians to a resistance mentality towards the British; it did not inspire them to follow the path of non-violence.

The only faith tradition in India which embraces a total commitment to non-violence is Jainism, and they were not a significant factor in the Indian independence movement

Duty and just cause appeal to me.

Despite different approaches, a lot of these beliefs focus on accepting a higher power, a higher duty.

 

[Cypress]

Duty and just cause appeal to me.

Despite different approaches, a lot of these beliefs focus on accepting a higher power, a higher duty.

My understanding is that the lesson of Baghavad Gita is that the disciplined person acts with commitment to duty and obligation, regardless of the results of the action. Too much attachment to results lead to desire, anger, frustration.

> One cannot go through life simply trying to avoid bad karma. Spiritual liberation can be achieved by disciplined commitment to family and caste.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

My understanding is that the lesson of Baghavad Gita is that the disciplined person acts with commitment to duty and obligation, regardless of the results of the action. Too much attachment to results lead to desire, anger, frustration.

> One cannot go through life simply trying to avoid bad karma. Spiritual liberation can be achieved by disciplined commitment to family and caste.

Agreed. People who worship sports or political heroes are eventually disappointed.

People who respect the higher callings of duty, honor, country are less disappointed in my experience.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. People who worship sports or political heroes are eventually disappointed.

People who respect the higher callings of duty, honor, country are less disappointed in my experience.

That is where the Hindus split off from the Jains

Jainism embraces a concept of total non-violence.
.
The Hindus maintain that you may have to go to war and kill people for a just cause, and technically that will bring you bad karma. But the act of pure commitment to duty, obligation, and family is in itself a form of spiritual purification.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That is where the Hindus split off from the Jains

Jainism embraces a concept of total non-violence.
.
The Hindus maintain that you may have to go to war and kill people for a just cause, and technically that will bring you bad karma. But the act of pure commitment to duty, obligation, and family is in itself a form of spiritual purification.

Which do you believe is most accurate?

Studying the history of religion is great. What makes it greater is what we, as a species, learn from it.

Personally, I'm with the Hindis on this one: there is universal truth but there is not a universal requirement for behavior. There are a lot of "It depends".

Example; is self-defense moral? IMO, yes, but there are a lot of "it depends" such as "Did I provoke the attack in the first place"?

If we are to believe that our actions as mortals affect our post-mortal existence, then we're not really talking about "killing" people, right?

More like "Kick out of out of the club"? They just move on to wherever we all go.

OTOH, if killing them means they are D-E-A-D forever, then so what? No posts-mortal consequences, only mortal ones.

 

[Cypress]

Which do you believe is most accurate?

Studying the history of religion is great. What makes it greater is what we, as a species, learn from it.

Personally, I'm with the Hindis on this one: there is universal truth but there is not a universal requirement for behavior. There are a lot of "It depends".

Example; is self-defense moral? IMO, yes, but there are a lot of "it depends" such as "Did I provoke the attack in the first place"?

If we are to believe that our actions as mortals affect our post-mortal existence, then we're not really talking about "killing" people, right?

More like "Kick out of out of the club"? They just move on to wherever we all go.

OTOH, if killing them means they are D-E-A-D forever, then so what? No posts-mortal consequences, only mortal ones.

I respect the Christian pacifism of the Quakers, and the binding commitment to non-violence of the Jains.

But the fact is that duty and moral obligation may require actions which superficially bring bad karma or are seemingly contrary to Jesus' pacifism.

The Hindus, Saint Augustine, and Muhammed all basically made the case for a type of just war, in light of that dilemma.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I respect the Christian pacifism of the Quakers, and the binding commitment to non-violence of the Jains.

But the fact is that duty and moral obligation may require actions which superficially bring bad karma or are seemingly contrary to Jesus' pacifism.

The Hindus, Saint Augustine, and Muhammed all basically made the case for a type of just war, in light of that dilemma.

I see no bad karma in a just cause.

If an attacker murders a mother and is raping one of her kids, I have no problem shooting him in the back of the head. Sad? Yes. Sadder for the motherless child and the trauma they suffer.

Looking at the bigger picture; if we see everything as one, then shooting the rapist/murderer is no different than removing a cancerous mole in order to preserve the integrity of the whole being.

 

[Cypress]

I see no bad karma in a just cause.

If an attacker murders a mother and is raping one of her kids, I have no problem shooting him in the back of the head. Sad? Yes. Sadder for the motherless child and the trauma they suffer.

Looking at the bigger picture; if we see everything as one, then shooting the rapist/murderer is no different than removing a cancerous mole in order to preserve the integrity of the whole being.

Yes, in those extreme cases, the moral imperatives seems crystal clear.

In Baghavad Gita, Arjuna is faced with the prospect of killing his own cousins, friends, and teachers who are fielded in the opposing army, creating for him a moral dilemma.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, in those extreme cases, the moral imperatives seems crystal clear.

In Baghavad Gita, Arjuna is faced with the prospect of killing his own cousins, friends, and teachers who are fielded in the opposing army, creating for him a moral dilemma.

Stories like Arjuna's, like the parables of Jesus, are great for conveying ideas and dilemmas facing each of us be it the Prodigal Son or killing friends and relatives in an opposing army.

Again, I do not see it as a moral dilemma. One gives their word, their word is their bond and if that bond means fighting an opposing enemy to the death, then the moral thing to do is fight.

 

[Cypress]

Stories like Arjuna's, like the parables of Jesus, are great for conveying ideas and dilemmas facing each of us be it the Prodigal Son or killing friends and relatives in an opposing army.

Again, I do not see it as a moral dilemma. One gives their word, their word is their bond and if that bond means fighting an opposing enemy to the death, then the moral thing to do is fight.

understood.

My project is to read or skim one foundational text from each major world faith tradition.

I wrapped up Saint Augustine's Confessions and the Analects of Confucius. On my picklist are Buddhism's Lotus Sutra, the Zhuangzi from the Daoist tradition, and probably some combination of Ruth and Isiah from the Hebrew Bible. Not sure what I am going to do about Islam yet. Maybe Fox News will have some tips!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

understood.

My project is to read or skim one foundational text from each major world faith tradition.

I wrapped up Saint Augustine's Confessions and the Analects of Confucius. On my picklist are Buddhism's Lotus Sutra, the Zhuangzi from the Daoist tradition, and probably some combination of Ruth and Isiah from the Hebrew Bible. Not sure what I am going to do about Islam yet. Maybe Fox News will have some tips!

Obviously all are great topics of research in ancient and current major religions.

My best advice is to invert that list. When I was working on my International Relations masters in 1989 most of the classes were on the Soviet Union. The cracks were already visible in the USSR and, looking to break out of the officer promotion pack, started looking at where the next wars would be; I picked South America and the Middle-East. Good for everyone is that the South American thing didn't pan out. LOL

With that logic in mind, and to better understand both the modern world and direction mankind is heading, I'd study the largest/most influential religions first.
Academically, your order would be the most logical. Using "practical reasoning" would be my approach.