What is the most intelligent, believable, philosophically profound account of religion you have found yet, Veeky Forums?

>What is the most intelligent, believable, philosophically profound account of religion you have found yet, Veeky Forums?
Hinduism by far, it's way more expansive and in-depth than any other religion I've found. Most religions talk of God and say to love him, but don't tell you specifically the methods of how to achieve God, how to love him, what the world is, how God relates to the world, how he relates to you, and so on. Hinduism perfectly describes all of this and more. Additionally it's not based off of mere blind faith, but direct perception of the truth is emphasized.

>What historical/literary sources you found that were most compelling and even made you religious?
Read the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, as it contains the gist of all Hindu teachings

Didn't even see this but this user is also correct, the Srimad Bhagavatam answers any religious or metaphysical question you could possibly have.

The works of Plato and Aristotle represent a high point in theology. Pre-Han daoism is respectable.

Neoplatonism and later daoism is shit tier.

Seconding Chesterton. C.S. Lewis also wrote some dope stuff on Christianity.

...

Are you a HareKrishna fag?

My questions to followers of Krishna is:

how do you go from

>Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

(in the Gita)

to the

thousands of rituals, mantras, etc.

you have in Hinduism?*

>The works of Plato and Aristotle represent a high point in theology
But they don't offer any... practical religious advice. It's just philosophy.

Christianity is only good tier if you're a hermit or a monk and 100% devoted to understanding God, it's shit tier if you're a non-ascetic follower and are just going to parrot apologetics and logical proofs.

I might have the same type of problem OP
After being a basic teenage-atheist/neo-pagan larper, I got into eastern religions and western ancient philosophy. Then I actually understood the concept of transcendence through taoism and heraclitus. Now I wish I was a proper christian but I can't help but to apply the same concepts of divinity and transcendence into most other religions, in a sort of perennialist/traditionalist way.
I've been told I'm a heretic, wat do?

> Ancient Aliens
Ha!
> Not even meaning
Ha!

Wait, what do you mean by "practical religious advice"?

By studying the works of Plato and Aristotle, you will have some understanding of the divine. That involves an understanding of morality. Morality is discussed in practical terms by both authors.

If you mean that we will not have a set of rituals to perform, then you are correct. You could try to reinstate and recreate ancient religious rituals I guess, but Platonism doesn't require it. Actually, Platonists should not literally believe in the myths, and I don't see why we can't make new practices today for social purposes.

Personally, I believe the way forward on the question of rituals is to recreate Zhou era ancestor worship. Platonists should acknowledge the validity of ancestor worship, and Chinese texts give very specific details on how to perform the rituals.

In the future, we ought to dress as Zhou-era Chinese, study Platonism, and perform ancestor worship rituals.

>I've been told I'm a heretic, wat do?
AUTO-de-fe*. Burn yourself at the stake.

*Got the pun?

This, once you overcome the cultural disconnect you see find that in the various sects and texts there are guides to virtually every sort of religious/metaphysical/mystical experience.

There are different schools of thought in Hinduism, some of which place more or less emphasis on rituals and mantras. I have read the Bhagavad-Gita and Krishna does not say that rituals and the like are worthless or bad but rather that it's better to practice yoga and selfless service instead of spending your effort on rituals. That shouldn't be interpreted as condemning rituals and saying they have no value though.

Are you part of a Hindu sect? Are you Indian?

Nope, I am a white American although I am fairly well-read in eastern philosophy. I may decide to be initiated into some sect someday but I don't have much of a desire to do so right now.

Hinduism is an essentially perennialist religion and can be appreciated by anyone whether they are atheist, agnostic or of any other religious persuasion.

I am mainly repelled by Hinduism because of the Hare Krishna, they do seem like a cult

Solipsism, a philosophic theory that says that you are the only human and everything's around you is more a dream than. Quite depressing but fascinating as well. Mindblowing af.

>ethical and cosmical dualism
>no dumb purity laws

Zoroastrianism obviously

Many Hindus consider them to be a weird cult created by foreigners who misunderstand Hinduism. They are way more outside of India than in India.

So I am God?

*way more active outside of India

> created by foreigners
But an Indian created it.

sun worship makes the most sense in real cosmology, anthropology

the sun literally created the earth and sustains all life on it, it creates cycles of night and day and seasons, it's implacable and distant, etc.

Of course, you are the only existing power and nothing is over or under you.

>worship
>makes sense

My bad, I should have said "spread by" or "perpetuated" by foreigners.

It is not very popular in India and most Indians just worship Krishna the regular way through the Vaishnavite tradition.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

That's not "intelligent, believable, philosophically profound" though. That's just a nonsensical assertion.

It's only nonsensical if you have not been given understanding through the working of the Holy Spirit.

Did something happen to you early on that caused you to mistakenly believe that other people would take you seriously?

Jesus Christ is Lord. You know this in your heart but you are repressing it.

"This is the path, there is no other that leads to vision." (Dhammapada 274)

Buddha was just a wise man. Christ was/is God.
Who has the final word?

Christianity's theology conceptualizes God to be an impersonal, formless spirit. Because he is formless, you need a logos, or Christ, in order to access him. As such, most of Christianity focuses on Christ and not God himself because the philosophy is set up in a way that Christ is crucial to understand God. God does possess this formless state but it is not his highest, original state of being.

God's original and highest state is his personality, his personal form. If you approach the topmost, personal form of God you do not need a logos to access him, as you simply approach the source. Similarly, the names of God are nondifferent from his personal form. We can call God "Father" but if we want to address him directly we must use his actual name, be it Krishna, Allah, or any other name of God.

George Carlin had the right idea.
youtube.com/watch?v=B4diugMg5kQ

Paganism

Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism is quite accurate but it is imperfect in the sense that it describes God impersonally and additionally does not prescribe a method for reaching God. Without a practice, all the knowledge is useless. Hinduism is superior in this sense as it not only accurately describes God, but extensively lays out yogic practices.

>be it Krishna, Allah, or any other name of God.
No.

So you want to reach God with breathing exercises? :)

gross

neo-platonists should just call themselves plotinians or something. stop sullying Plato's good name.

Take the Zoroatrianism pill friendo

In this age that meditational system utilizing breath control cannot be properly executed. Instead, all of the perfections of that system can be realized through bhakti-yoga, the sublime process of devotional service unto God, specifically mantra-yoga, the glorification of Sri Krsna through the chanting of Hare Krsna. The mind must be always fixed on God. Insofar as our mind is absorbed in thoughts of Krsna, we have attained the perfection of yoga.

The word yoga literally means "union" or "linking up" and refers to the soul attaining union with the God. The aim of the yoga system Krsna describes in the Bhagavad Gita is threefold: to control the senses, purify one's activities, and to link one to Krsna in a reciprocal relationship. It is the mind that carries the conditioned soul from body to body, therefore yogic practice is prescribed to restrain the mind so that at the moment of death the soul remembers God, and subsequently returns to him.

> the glorification of Sri Krsna through the chanting of Hare Krsna
I knew you would reveal yourself...
You people spread your cult on /x/, didn't know you were active here, too.

top tier:
>buddhism
>zoroastrianism
>jainism
high tier:
>taoism
>mohism
>shinto & shinto-buddhism
mid-tier:
>hinduism
>sikhism
>confucianism
>american and african folk religion
low-tier:
>judaism
>paganism
trash-tier:
>neo-anything
>all other abrahamic faiths, especially american ones

>judaism higher than Christianity
Hello, Schlomo.

This, but non-ironically.
The religion of your ancestors is the best religion for you.

That sounds like a shitty version of Pure Land practice

This.
Hare Krishna is a shitty version of Pure Land Buddshim, which in turn is a shitty version of Christianity.

You know in your heart religion is bullshit and you're lying to yourself

>Hare Krishna is a shitty version of Pure Land Buddshim, which in turn is a shitty version of Christianity.

>describes God impersonally and additionally does not prescribe a method for reaching God.
Neither of those statements are true. Like Hinduism it describes God both personally (saguna) and impersonally (nirguna). As for methods of realization see:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

Which is better in your opinion: Viashnavism or Shaivism?

Vaishnavism*

Hare Krishnas are a cancer to Hinduism. Any lurkers, please don't let them off put you from Vedantic or Hindu philosophy and practices because there is much genuine wisdom to be found.

Vaishnavism, Shiva is the highest of the Demigods, but still supreme

Vaishnavas make up the biggest subschool within Hinduism, what are you talking about

ISKCON itself adheres entirely to Vaishnava philosophy, to discount the Hare Krishnas is to discount not only Vaishnavism but also legitimate books such as the Gita.

but still not the supreme*

I never understood this; why do atheists insist that they are some manner of enlightened?

I get you're responding to somebody but I've seen this sort of post without solicitation plenty times.

Exactly, Heil Wotan

Christianity.

What if your of mixed descent or your ancestral beliefs are unknown because they were possibly wiped out?

I've been reading up on Satanism and it's pretty interesting. I think the church of satan is a bunch of retarded edgelords but the philosophy behind it is actually something I could get behind. Someone tell me why my opinion is shit.

any mysticism
tantrism

experimenting the divine through action and awakening of the inner forces.

everything else is mental rubbish

throw the books as if they were burning

Why do you post this same shit every day? It's even different every time. But it always boils down to
>I think religion is stupid but I want it help me pick one.

It's every fucking day with you, please stop.

>ISKCON itself adheres entirely to Vaishnava philosophy, to discount the Hare Krishnas is to discount not only Vaishnavism but also legitimate books such as the Gita.

I don't know much about the Hare Krishna but I've seen Indians on /pol/ who can read Sanskrit who say that the ISKCON translation of the Gita is inaccurate.

The funny thing is, it's the first time I post this
So there must be someone else posting the same thing
I woulldn't lie about it (why would I? it's an user board)

>Christianity's theology conceptualizes God to be an impersonal, formless spirit.
No it doesn't. That may be an accurate characterization of the Absolute as conceived by Spinoza or Hegel, but it is the opposite of Christian theology. Christianity focuses more on Christ because of its soteriology than its theology proper (though there are also some theological reasons why Christ is represented more, having to do with the distinction between the deus absconditus vs. the deus revelatus). But Christians presuppose a personal God. They deny only the ability of man to comprehend absolutely His essence ("finitum non possit capere infinitum"). The questons on the knowability of God posed by the scholastics who spoke of Him as the Incomprehensible One were: "An sit deus?" "Quid sit deus?" and "Qualis sit deus?" The only question to which it was conceived that there could be no answer was the second, which really concerns His essence: what makes God to be what He is? What is the nature of His inner constitution? This is what cannot be approached by man.

But by the very nature of God as a revealed God, it is necessary that He be personal. It is not necessary that He be incarnate -- and, indeed, He was not incarnate during the entirety of the Old Covenant administration. Yet He was always considered personal. Revelation occurred before the Logos, who prior to the incarnation, and indeed with respect to His deity, is formless. His communicable attributes and the doctrine that man possesses the imago Dei are impossible if He is not personal. He can be communicated with as a person. The anthropomorphic and anthropopathic representations of God in Scripture attest to His personality. His knowledge, wisdom, mercy, grace, truth, and love attest to His personality.

Moreover, Christianity's conceptions of the names of God are not quite the way you describe. It is true that in the SINGULAR sense "the name of God" refers to the whole manifestation (or personality: hint, hint) of God, and thus has similarities to the idea in Eastern thought that a name is not a mere vocable, but an invocation of the essence of a thing. But when referring either in the singular or in the plural sense of the name or names of God, Christians still have as their reference point the revelation of God. Thus it is not the infinity of His divine essence, but His self-condescension to our form of understanding that we have any name at all for Him, for He is nameless and yet has many names. And of the many names He has provided for us, there are a mixture of proper names, His attributes as they are revealed to us, and his "nomina personala," His personal names (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). We have many proper names for him: El, Elohim, Elyon, Adonai, Shaddai, Yahweh, Yahweh Tsebhaoth, Theos, Kurios, Pater, et al. And we name Him just as properly by His attributes: The Most High, Most Glorious, Most Infinite, Most Wise, Most Just, Most Holy, Most Free, Most Absolute, etc.

But we cannot delve into or invoke the divine essence, such that there is no name in any tongue by which we can access God as He is in His infinite Self. That is not at all a Christian idea, but a pantheistic one.

I would have to specifically read the verses they talk about to comment on that.

I do know that there is some argument about the latest edition of Prabhupada's translation because some words were altered from his 1972 translation, but the changes are minor grammar changes at best from what I have seen.

The only thing the bible is useful for is wiping your ass after taking a big, creamy, messy shit

This thread:

>"When Daoist philosopher say "Heaven", they usually mean it as the order of existence that is self-so; so whatever is so by itself, spontaneously --- like the principles of Nature. While the opposite of Heaven is whatever is contrived, planned, by human beings."

>"I actually understood the concept of transcendence through taoism and heraclitus. Now I wish I was a proper christian but I can't help but to apply the same concepts of divinity and transcendence into most other religions, in a sort of perennialist/traditionalist way."

>"I have read the Bhagavad-Gita and Krishna does not say that rituals and the like are worthless or bad but rather that it's better to practice yoga and selfless service instead of spending your effort on rituals. That shouldn't be interpreted as condemning rituals and saying they have no value though."

>"God's original and highest state is his personality, his personal form. If you approach the topmost, personal form of God you do not need a logos to access him, as you simply approach the source."

>"The aim of the yoga system Krsna describes in the Bhagavad Gita is threefold: to control the senses, purify one's activities, and to link one to Krsna in a reciprocal relationship. It is the mind that carries the conditioned soul from body to body, therefore yogic practice is prescribed to restrain the mind so that at the moment of death the soul remembers God, and subsequently returns to him."

>"The questons on the knowability of God posed by the scholastics who spoke of Him as the Incomprehensible One were: "An sit deus?" "Quid sit deus?" and "Qualis sit deus?" The only question to which it was conceived that there could be no answer was the second, which really concerns His essence: what makes God to be what He is? What is the nature of His inner constitution? This is what cannot be approached by man."

And then there's YOUR contribution.

Yes. I'm very proud :^)

that user was making a profound statement as to the worth of a mere book (physical object), when in fact the letter killeth and only the spirit givety life. clearly his intention is to draw our attention toward the holy church's tradition which is prior to scripture and in fact produced it. his extreme manner of expression was meant forstly to filter out superficial edgelords like yourself who can't look pst the exterior appearance of his post, and secondly in order to shock us from our passive and "lukewarm" stupor―for christ detests the lukewarm, as revealed in the book of revelation.

The perennial philosophy by Aldous Huxley with it's implications for Christianity. If mysticism is the truth, and Christianity is mystical, that means that Jesus was an ordinary mortal who achieved a state of constant divine consciousness. This means that perhaps, the purpose of our human life is to reach a similar state. Looking at the Gospel through new eyes, the Holy Ghost may have been misinterpreted. It is not a specter who makes you feel bad when you commit transgressions, but is instead the Divine Judge of Humanity, a second Christ.

I am here to shill for Stoicism.
Read Mediations.

Everyone with an ideology would rather believe that their opponents are dishonest and secretly agree with them, who are only objecting out of spite or some other moral failing.

I've had lots of experiences with God and I never found any religion that kinda matched.

describe those experiences as best as you can, if you dont mind

The same reason that religious people do.
Brainlets think they have everything figured out despite not practicing even the shallowest self criticism.

bruh the buddha was the envy of the gods (devas)

his transcendence IS the final word

>Most peaceful religion

Jainism

>Not a religion.

Buddhism

>Not Buddhism

Zen

>"I absolutely must follow the abrahamic god."

Noahidism
Judaism if you're a Jew

>The Official religions of : "I tried to fix it."

Baha'ii
Unitarianism
Islam
Cao Dai

>Jesusism (Good Christianity)

Christianity as a destitute desert hermit

>Christianity (Bad Christianity)

Cradle Protestantism
Cradle Catholicism
Cradle Orthodoxy
Convert Protestantism
Convert Catholicism
Convert Orthodoxy

>islam
>fixing things

kek

>Zen Not Buddhism
finally somebody who understands

Then the last known religion.
If you're mixed, then you have a choice.

T. Christcuck

Zorastarism.

>Bhagavad Gita As It Is
>reading the Hare Krishna translation
Please no

That's silly. A western person trying to larp Zhou-era Chinese is only cringeworthy. By doing that you are abandoning all your own cultures traditions trying to be something that you're not. Combining western philosophy with eastern religions does not work and it shouldn't be done. Ancestoral worship does not belong to any European tradition and it does not make sense since all of your ancestors probably didn't believe in that.
You don't nees some bullshit spirituality in order to follow platonism and you don't need to abandon your own culture that the very ancestors of yours created.

>Ancestoral worship does not belong to any European tradition
>What is Rome
GTFO of my board

Rome (not the city) is dead.