The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

Jan,

Why did you never reply to my question on why Brahman, avatars etc. are common across BG and Hinduism?

Now you are debunking Wikipedia itself!!!

Please quote where this is stated.

Whatever; but your stand is that you can never convert to Hinduism, unless you are born to Hindu parents.

That is very kind of you and Hinduism will remember you for ages to come for this favor.
Your condescending attitude itself shows why you have the urge to see BG distinct from Hinduism.

Please do, then.

I prefer not to, if the only counter-argument is on whether the word 'Hindu' existed in the text.
Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't you distinguish between vengeance and consequence? Adam was warned of the consequences of sin for that reason. When he disobeyed God's command, he reaped the result: separation from God and paradise. Subsequent people inherited this state of separation. Although the relationship with God could be repaired, our relationship with creation (i.e., the natural consequences) persists.

Just punishment can't be called vengeance. If you do call it that, what exactly do you have an issue with?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ecclesiastes is about the importance of this life and what gives meaning to it, not how fleeting it is:

"I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.​

It's a false dichotomy, I agree. But whether you think you are (or should be) just spirit or just body will effect where you look for identity; "there your heart will be".

I was responding to your reference to the Bible. You told me that's what you thought it meant.

Don't flatter yourself. It's true that I didn't approach it from this specific angle until it became an issue, but I've been talking about religion for much longer than I've known you. I can't steer or correct you or anyone here, I don't have that power. If you take my arguments personally, it's because you identify closely with the position I'm arguing against. You certainly don't complain when I argue for the same point as you. The fact of the matter is: this isn't about you.

Of course you know this, but that's not what the argument was. In this instance, you quoted "treasures in heaven" as an example of the Bible teaching how fleeting this life is. It does say beauty is fleeting and possessions decay, but it doesn't undermine the value of life itself.

I haven't seen what CARM has to say about it. I've mostly been spending time on Hindu websites and reading scholarly articles to get a broader perspective. I also read Ghandi's biography on wikipedia, which was insightful.

If you wait until you've accumulated "enough" knowledge before you begin to live, you'll never get to it. Not I, nor the Bible nor the Gita could ever be a substitute for your decisions. You'll hear many conflicting ideas and opinions, and not just from me. Why should it be more significant when I disagree with you than anyone else? What you get from me is my perspective, and I try to make it meaningful for everyone who reads it by getting sources to back up my thoughts. Everybody knows I've put my faith in God, and that Christ is the reason why. My beliefs aren't aimed at you personally.

My apologies, I'll rephrase: People assume [/i]they[/i] can distinguish between what is "purely" them and what is "tainted". The impossibility of dissecting a personality like that is what makes the attempt futile. At most one can identify the origins of beliefs and try to modify them with new insights. It seemed applicable to the questioning you put forward: "What exactly does my mind have to do with me?" and "Whom does my ego belong to?", but I'll address this view to every reader except you, if that will help.

Everneo thinks I'm being self-righteous and you think I'm being patriarchal. What is it about my beliefs that cause such strong reactions? I'm not talking about right and wrong here, I just stand for a perspective among other perspectives. If it happens to challenge some preconceptions, great... otherwise, great.

If you don't think it's true, provide an alternative or let it go. I have many of these little aphorisms, and I think they're true. I have reasons why I think they're true, but that still doesn't mean I think everybody should agree. Most of them I found because people disagreed. Here's one I thought of this morning: "wanting to be free from desire is also a desire, so it cannot be something you can attain by trying".

That doesn't make them any less valid, does it? It's also a generalization, like saying optimistic philosophies were thought up by happy people. Even if it were all true, the people who study them and follow their logic certainly are neither exclusively happy or exclusively depressed. The attitude makes no difference to the logic. Few serious philosophers put much stock in emotional arguments.

Actually, no it isn't. It might lead to depression, but it's an easy enough deduction to make: If "everything leads to nothing" then "everything leads to nothing". It's just that people tend to think of the head and the tail separately. "All is one and we must seek unity" the say, without realizing that "one" seeking "unity" is a vicious circle. I said it tries to swallow itself, because it's a problem trying to obviate itself.

The rest of your arguments amount to "...is not!" Are you trying to provoke a similar reaction?

I'm hurt by the personal attack in response to a good-natured argument, yes. I understand that religious debates tend to get emotional, so I don't take it too personally. But knowing you as I do, I'm always upset to see you upset.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the scale of punishment cross a limit it is just a vengence. The limit for God seems infinity by your argument. Why should God punish zillions of souls just to punish a single man? Biblical answer is not convincing, so is the answer by any theistic religion. Why should God allow this perpetuating sin to happen? No answer from any religion.

 

Not punishment, *consequence* is the keyword.

The consequence of bad actions, in some other religion, is bad karma, and thus rebirth (as an animal), for example.
In Christianity, the consequence of sin, if unrepented and unatoned for, is death.

Religions present systems of ethics, and in them, bad actions don't go without consequences.

Systems of ethics adhere to the laws of cause and effect.

"Effect", when spoken of in terms of theological ethics, may be called "(divine) punishment".

 

Sure. But Omnimax God allowing a consequence (thats viewed as vengence by me and punishment by Jenyar) to the disadvantage of creation has no explanation. Similarly Brahman's unleashing or allowing maya that result in apparently seperate souls has no explanation. I mean, no convincing explanation in any religion.

 

What makes you think that those consequences are to the disadvantage of creation?

If you are looking for convincing explanations:
Whose wisdom will you take as authoritative: The wisdom you presently have, or the wisdom you might one day have, but don't have yet?

 

Sure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I presume, Krishna too would not mind being called hindu.

 

I would rather ask what advantage can be attributed? anyway, Jenyar would agree that the disadvantage is seperation from God.

I am not looking for convincing explanation from religions. It directly involves God and he is the direct authority to tell the truth whatever it may be.

 

You mean what advantage can be attributed to the consequences of sin as ordained by God?
Like, what good is it for the creation that some creatures are annihilated, or keep on being reborn?

But do you know God's mind?
Do you trust God?
How do you know God can be trusted?

If you say that God is the direct authority to tell the truth whatever it may be, don't you then agree that God may have assigned a beneficient purpose for the creation in that some creatures be destroyed or keep being reborn?

 

Yes, i guess, with modification in the question, "consequences that could have been prevented by God"


But do you know God's mind? : No
Do you trust God? : Yes
How do you know God can be trusted? : Because He/She/It is God.

I agree that God may have a beneficient purpose for his actions (whether it is hindu Maya or Biblical preventable consequences of the First sin), not what the religions tell it is.

 

everneo,

Then the question is why doesn't God prevent them.
But if you don't know God's mind, but you trust God, then why worry about the disadvantages of God's commandments and actions?

And if you trust God, then why do you wonder about things that God could prevent, but hasn't or doesn't?

Do you think God is fair?

Why do you think individual religions are or could be wrong about this?
Why do you think this beneficial purpose is something else than what the religions say it is?

 

Not if Krishna looks at Jan's logic- he will be bewildered on why he cannot be Hindu... whether his parents are Hindu, and if they are, whether any texts they had contained the name as 'Hindu' and so on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

UltiTruth,

Could be because I disagree with you, but maybe you can point this commonality out to me.

No. I just don't understand why meanings change according to the language it is written, especially when they are so closely related (german/english).

It is not stated, never said it was.

Whatever..nothing! Answer the question please.

There's nothing worse than someone who cannot defend his position, but insists on being a smart-arse.

What condescending attitude?

Don't believe you. I think you know BG is not a "Hindu-scripture" in actuality, but is percieved as such by some kind of default.

Jan Ardena.

 

Why exactly does it matter whether the Bhagavad Gita is Hindu scripture or not?

 

If the scripture is not Hindu, then it should not be portrayed as such, because it gives people the wrong impression.

Jan Ardena.

 

The scripture is Hindu. Hinduism refers to Indian Culture. Which religion considers Krishna to be an Incarnation of God? Hinduism.

The Vedas are mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, as are Hindu Demigods, and other Hindu concepts. So the BG is definitely Hindu. Anything revealed by God is a Shruti, the BG is considered a Shruti.

Some "Hindus" may worship Kali, Shiva, or Ganesh. The BG advises against demigod worship. Some Hindus are monotheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc...but they are all Hindu by definition.

"Hinduism" is really an incorrect term that refers to all of Indian Culture.

 

The wrong impression of what, in what regard?

Is wisdom not wisdom, regardless of whom it "belongs" to?

 

But this just doesn't matter to me when I read the Gita.
Surely, some contextual knowledge is useful and necessary, but apart from that, I see no use of it.

 

It can give the impression that the BG is Indian or Hindu which can be off-putting to someone who is of neither designation, or someone who may be impartial to either designation.
It gives the impression that Lord Krishna is Indian or Hindu, when neither concepts were even around at that time.
The Hindus claim of BG is the same as the atheists claim for Albert Einstein IMO.

Jan Ardena.