[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1640194005960.png (108.56 KB, 1200x1080, P_religion_world.svg.png)


Wanted to make a theology general to discuss whatever questions or topics about religion people here may have. I thought about posting this in /siberia/ but I rather have a higher quality discussion tbh, and since /edu/ has much less traffic I think a thread about theology and religion in general would work better than a specific topic about particular denominations and such. So to start, something I had been wondering for a while, in buddhist theology when you die you reincarnate and depending on your karma you'll either be reborn into a human or an animal. So if you are reborn into an animal, after this life what would determine what you reincarnate into? Does buddhism have a way to judge animals? Do you reincarnate into a human by default after living as an animal and just keep the cycle going until you achieve enlightenment? If anyone knows I'd really appreciate it.


is there any writing on eastern religions that isn't poisoned by western gaze


How do you even talk about theology coming from marxism?


I doubt OP is coming from marxism and isn't a christfag shill


In my OP do you even see anything that could imply either political or religious background? Fucking paranoid faggot
Why would we need to talk about theology from a Marxist perspective? If you want you can use this thread for that but it's for a discussion about theology in general, whether through Marxist lenses or not.


This is leftypol so one expects things here to have a leftist bend somehow.
The issue here is not "Why should we talk about theology here" but "how is theology relevant to this place"


Is religion compatible with dialectical materialism?


they're both nonsense so yes


Where's the nonsense?


A lot of threads in this board have nothing to do with leftism


Get ready for angry edgy athetists.


This is /edu/, not /leftypol/. This is the general education board, it is not meant to be exclusively for politics.


Could some sects of Islam like Alawites or Alevis be considered an ethnoreligious group? The reason I ask this is because as far as I know from what I've read about these groups online you can't convert into their religion. Only way to be an Alawite or Alevi would be to be born into a family of that religion. I think it's interesting because no other sect of Islam (and I know a lot of other muslims don't consider Alawites to be muslim) seems to work this way.

Also, apparently Alawites and Alevis are not the same bit are quite similar in their beliefs. They're both Shia (not sure if Twelver or another branch) and seem to have similar distinct aspects to their brand of Shiism. Also, there's another group of Shias that are supposedly also very similar called Bektashis, most common in Albania. And from what I've read these ones you actually can convert into their particular brand of Islam.


bumping this


File: 1640811138857.jpg (13.76 KB, 320x288, 1614990682635.jpg)

don't start nothing, won't be nothing
religion started this conflict a long time ago and on top of that, here you come deliberately looking to stir shit up about it, acting like you're not the one trying to start shit
there's a good reason atheists tend to be angry about religion and all the barbarism it involves
your culture is not above criticism. if you want to believe in this stuff, whatever. don't be a child about people criticising it.


I can't speak for Buddhism, but for the more literal reincarnation concept found in Hinduism, the idea is that your 'form' is a manifested expression of latent desires & actions articulated in your prior life, with the soul's preservation persisting beyond lives, as a means through which the corporeal earthly form can then articulate itself, varying with each iterative life in terms of its permutations and its expressions.
So, to answer your question, an animal would be 'judged' (it is not judged though, this is a Christian preconception/bias that I think you seem to have which is carrying over and clouding your understanding of an unrelated paradigm. It is merely expressed in its subsequent life as an altered extension, or evolution/mutation of its previous life, beholden to no 'grand moral arbiter', only beholden to the varieties of character) according to its prior actions in its specific form, there would be no external standard which is extricated from it and applied to it, as it is only itself interacting with the universe, part of a whole which is the network of expressions found in the various forms of life/existence. For example, a Sloth is, by design of its species, a certain 'way', but the particularities of that 'way' are what grant insight into the unique character of that form, and which may influence the subsequent form the sloth will take on, but the 'way' itself, i.e. being a sloth, is also its own standard, and speaks not to some eternal quality of the soul, but as a latently manifested expression of particularly exhibited characteristics found within one's previous life. So, a sloth which is less lazy than other sloths typically would be by nature is, for example, already somewhat 'different' than the normal sloth, and so is less likely to reincarnate into something 'sloth-like' in subsequence. It is also possible, therefore, to reincarnate into the same thing repeatedly–part of the process of enlightenment consists in traveling through different forms throughout numerous lives, of apprehending a universally holistic perspective which can only ever be truly attained by having experienced all those facets of the universe piece by piece.


In a way, this is equally in part terrifying and potentiating–we often restrict our conception of what we might reincarnate into just through the purview of earth. Problem is, the universe is incomprehensibly larger than just earth, so there's a certain cosmic horror of ambiguous grandeur to the premise of reincarnation on a universal scale.


I mean yeah, but we know what their referring to, anyone who was on image boards/reddit during the late 00s and early 10s knows the u n b e a r a b l e smugness of atheists back then. Most atheists are chill, but shit, those guys really jack my dick.

Still, the irony is those guys influenced the 'feminist sceptic' videos which bled into the alt right and then came back round to conservative Christianity. So they kind of got what they deserved ideologically


If you cannot convert except be born into it, I think that would be the strictest definition of an ethno-religion, even Jews accept converts generally speaking. Also alot of those obscure MENA sects are actually syncretised heavily with their pre-islamic folk beliefs either through cultural influence or to avoid suspicion.


What do you mean? That is diluted by new-age crap or historical criticism?


I suggest you read material from a believer and practitioner of that religion that belongs to a mainstream current within it, eastern religions tolerate a certain amount of plurality so it would be wise to read multiple perspectives.


File: 1640857188740-0.jpg (28.66 KB, 295x475, 19264315.jpg)


Thanks for the explanation


The case of the alawites is the most interesting imo because as you say, for multiple reasons they purposefully "islamicized" some of their more folk beliefs to be more accepted societally. It's interesting thinking about what would've happened had they not done that, maybe they would be like the Druze who are very distinctly not islamic (with a few similar beliefs iirc). But for the case of the alawites they found themselves in a position where they are constantly forced to prove how they are muslims and whatnot, again despite having some very distinct non-islamic beliefs such as reincarnation. But as of now it seems their position is secured though, and at least in Syria I believe they're considered muslims by most of the population (I guess except sectarian sunnis of course).


>in buddhist theology
In buddhist cosmology*. Theology studies god, not the creations of god.
>when you die you reincarnate and depending on your karma you'll either be reborn into a human or an animal
It's much more complex than that. If you want a fast explaination and how each creature interract with each other, just look at Dark Souls. It copy pasted buddhist reincarnation doctrine.
Specifically, if I remember correctly, in ascending order (from the easiest life to the worst) Gods, Demigods, Humans, Beasts, Raging Ghosts and Demons.
They fail to become Buddha because of many different reasons (for example, Gods fail because they have pride).
Humans have a very low chance to become Humans, let alone Demigods/Gods.
The norm is that Humans become Beasts.
Killers can become Demons, or Raging Ghosts.
Buddhas are individuals that understand that the world cannot be divided in smaller concepts (the car is made of tires, that are made of gum, that is made of trees that are made of dead bodies etc.) so after they "realigned" themselves with the world they can choose who to become when they die.
They can even choose to stay in the plane between death and life, if i recall correctly.
Buddhas usually choose to become Humans because it's easier to spread the
Historical Buddha's teachings.
Historical Buddha is the Buddha that described this system in this Era.
In Buddhism there are different Eras, that usually finish because the world gets destroyed or something similar.

Why dont you read a book, anon?
In the one i posted, search for the chapter called "The Wheel of Life".
>implying commies know something about religion
Anon, whenever you commies wanna make some cupcakes for breakfast and you dont have a recipe you go to /edu/ and ask "is there a cupcake recipe written from a marxist perspective? I cant find anything on marxists.org…"
No offense, but sometimes you need to actually touch grass.

Because I've answered OP question, let's discuss Confucian work and study ethic.
First of all, I have only read the Analects of Confucius, and if someone has the other books called" four books and five classics" pls post them i wanna read them.
Second, let's actually talk about what confucius teaches of work and study.
First of all he talk about himself as an expert of liturgy. And his preference for the status quo over innovation, makes me think that work should be considered as a perennial focus on one job that should be honed to perfection.
We can draw an analogy with regard to family structure when it comes to superiors: hierarchy must be always respected.
In the free time, the person should focus on study, again, for the improvement of work.
Study is a very huge part of Confucian doctrine, that should not be forgotten.
He used to send his kids to read whenever they stopped phisical work, same for him.
Knowing that studing should be related to work (even if he doesnt say it directly), it is logical that only administration (in this case, imperial) will learn of politics.
As I said earlier, though it is logical that he was focusing his studies on religious subjects, it is also understandable that he also studies other, different subjects. This is explainable by his habit not to eat meat after three days that the animal was killed.
Therefore, study can be used notnonly to improve the product of your job, but also of your life.
What does marxism say about this? What do other religions say about this? What do (you) think about this?


i've read some Taoist texts and they always shit on Confucius, but these days I think that ethic is way more chill, ill have to go and actually read some confucian stuff and then re-read the daoist stuff.

from what you've said, and what ive read and heard before, it seems like the confucian ethic is pretty scientific, in that it basically says "you can't do anything for arbitrary reasons, you follow the hierarchy, you work, and you study" - but if there's study, then there's innovation, and the innovation will alter the hierarchy and dogma up to this point in some ways, where unavoidable. But right now i can't really tell if he's just a plain ol conservative (always follow the dogma, don't challenge it), or for a conservative but scientific approach to society, where you don't change things or speak about what you dont know about, but someone will be there to follow the best knowledge and advance that knowledge, so you can be at ease and know that what you're doing is the best that can be done right now. The second would be pretty cool.

And same with the filial piety thing, i'm american and here this is almost totally dead. Families have falling outs over minor disagreements, and there's this crazy shit i keep hearing, like "her kid is autistic. And she yells at him sometimes it's so mean. Oh but she's a good mother, yes she's a good mom she does all she can do. She takes him to therapy." There's this obsession with the idea that actually parenting doesn't impact kids unless it's literally super abusive or neglectful. And there's a culture of rebellion in general. It's so strange, since parents should just take responsibility (even tragic responsibility) for what they have brought into the world, and kids should be taught that they are brought into this world by their family and society, and thus have no magic spark of individuality which puts them above the world, they are just the natural progression of this chain of becoming. I think this isn't seen because we have an obsession with a certain kind of unique, singular individual, rather than a particular individual. So anyways, needless to say Confucius might be the antidote we need. But i should read him first ;) I hope someone with actual thoughts can chime in here


Any interesting books on more obscure liberation theologies? Hindu, buddhist, shinto, small muslim sects?


>liberation theology
that’s a good one


>taoists and confucianists shit on each other
They do that because taoists think that you reach the tao by doing nothing (because tao is nothing), while confucianists say that you gotta do something (specifically, something good) to reach the tao.
I think that they are the products of two different reasonings, one is metaphysics the other is… Materialism (?)… Idk, i dont study philosophy, really.
Confucianists actually focus on the Sky (with the big S), thats how they call god.
The problem with my sources is that i only read the analects, that is just a "how to live a life 101" written by a religious scholar.
So it's not very religious. It feels like confucius wasnt even that religious, it felt like he tought of religious as any other job. I mean, you dont ask yourself why you push a button, and how it interracts with other machinery, in a industrial complex. Same for him.
>if there's study, then there's innovation, and the innovation will alter the hierarchy
Consider this: confucius never explicitly said you need to follow the hierarchy. While he did say that you need to do less specific things like being wise, or virtuous.
Specification, in confucianism plays a very important role: when he needs it, confucius specifies. When he is asked, he either generalizes or specifies.
Considering this, i suppose that we can consider that what must be emphatized in Confucius's view is the hierarchy itself, that can eventually change, especially as you said, through study and innovation. The innovation will bring something, which has to be hierarchical.
>where you don't change things or speak about what you dont know about, but someone will be there to follow the best knowledge and advance that knowledge
This is also possible. Confucius focuses on filial piety in the relationship between the prince and the commoner. Filial, not political, nor military, nor "identical to filial", etc.
Plus what ive said earlier, it might be that confucius didnt support the prince a priori.
I still think that something must be the base in confucian worldview, because if not, it would be a taoist worldview. And that something is the hierarchy, i. e. some kind of "father(s)" that controls the "sons" actions.
>unless it's literally super abusive or neglectful.
I'd say it's not very "confucian". The "middle" is very much what confucians go for.
Compared to other individualistic religions (even like buddhism), confucianism gives a much wider outlook on who you refer to when you talk about religion and it's correlation to real life.
In buddhism, for example, even if you have to spread the message among the people, the ending result of your activity as a religious person is only YOU: YOU will become buddha, YOU conquer death and so on and so forth.
Confucianism is a very ancient religion, so it starts on the same premises as other, similarly old religions. The sense that god will interact with you as a collective is probably(because ive only read the bible and the influence is very present) present in other religions like zoroastrianism. Later judaism already acquired this sense of individuality compared to earlier texts, and with jesus christ it completely disappeared this old sense of communality.

And that's a good question: can someone talk about the sense of common praise/neglection by the gods in their religions? What does polytheist religions say about being considered as a whole compared to individual blessings/cursings? How does, for example, hinduism see the recipient of the gods message? As a single person or as a collective?
I know nothing of liberation theology.

Also, i found a good website for sacred texts, for those who wants it. The texts are copyright free, but they look nice.
Ive started reading the da Costa "the dionysian artificiers". Very nice book, even if its a little bit schizo.


ive gone back and forth about whether Taoism is idealist or materialist… (and i mean philosophical taoism, not like the i ching or whatever other retard shit… taoism is a broad umbrella sadly)

I think it sits at the point where there is a great confusion between ideal and material. The tao is both something you can discover and the sage can choose to act in accordance with (as the origin of things), but also something best achieved by acting unconsciously. This is an idealist and dialectical-materialist version, where in one it's something to be acted in accordance with, and in the other something which already by necessity animates us. The middle road which is kind of despised is the common man, who overthinks things but isnt a sage, who has basically fallen from eden, normal shit i guess. It's kind of sad imo.

I see this sentiment a lot with hate for modernity and shit, like conscious thought or critique is the enemy. I appreciate religious/philosophical traditions which allow us to have a positive reconciliation, like the sage…. just it feels kind of ambiguous in taoism since the sage often is someone abnormal and with a special insight, rather than someone who's learned to chill tf out. I think the goal of taoism should be… going beyond taoism. Or something. I guess a lot of the message is like that, but its very mixed. It's weird. Like there's not clarity on what is good or bad. It's like some pomo autism where they try hard to not say the moral, idk. Maybe im too used to explicit western styles, who can say. I'm gonna go back and read the inner chapters. Btw this and liezi are mostly what i talk about since the TTJ is like… art of war tier, idk. It's very much a manual often. It's very pragmatic, and iirc it may be thought to be more influenced by or emerging from mohism. Which is very utilitarian and pragmatic.

Anyways this is just me rambling, no point here apparrently.


What do you mean on Eastern religions? Read a good book on daoism, or confucianism, or buddhism, or hinduism. To conflate them is western poisoned.


I'm not a reincarnation expert but I'm pretty sure most believe you stay as a human for the most part. You are progressing into advanced forms instead of regressing.

>The idea of the transmigration of souls is also present in Hinduism. Generally speaking, a human soul evolves from incarnation to incarnation. Therefore, it is normal for a human soul to be born again and again only in human bodies until liberation. But there may be rare exceptions. In these exceptional cases a human soul may be born once or twice in a subhuman body to work out very bad Karma. When the bad Karma is worked out, the soul incarnates again in a human body and goes through the process of gradual spiritual evolution.


You might find this (first) book interesting, it's by a Chinese scholar so it's an insider view.
>I know nothing of liberation theology.
Neither do I! Well, not that much, just a bit about the LatAm current, there's more of Christian ones too, like Black liberation theology or that of the Dalits in India. I've read this Michael Lowy article, which I thought was a good if slightly outdated primer, and I have these books but I still haven't read. The marxist in particular Mariategui from Peru also influenced Fr. Guiterrez, a major figure of the LatAm liberation theology.


>>10447 (me)
I had a bit of time to dig more on this topic, I found these articles about Buddhist liberation theology/Dhammic socialism


>>10447 (me)
>>10498 (me)
And this on Islam.


that Yijie Tang book is really good, thanks for that

(it goes too soft on pomo tho)

Unique IPs: 22

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]