Is Christianity compatible with Indian philosophies? Does anyone besides Guenon talk about this?

You offer no credibility to your word.
Therefore, I am inclined to reject your opinion until sufficient evidence is provided.

Sure there are some similarities amongst the many cultural interpretations of the Divine. Most have a "heaven" for instance.

No, modern saints from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy referred to the Dharmic religions as demonic

they are brainlets

that is because they're beyond the pale of the visible boundaries of the church

read ficino

Jay does embarrassingly bad there, although the perinnealist is not well spoken in it either so nobody comes out looking good

he did read all theses books though!!

whats the tldr of how he differs from earlier neoplatonism?

Schopenhauer and Wagner - Arthur being one of the greats and a German Idealist, Wagner being the greatest artistic genius to ever of lived.

Attached: Wagner with hat.jpg (300x300, 10K)

Schopenhauer was a brainlet who interpreted Hinduism as atheistic.

Schopenhauer was not an atheist.

>Catholicism isn't Christianity
nigga I'm not even Catholic but read Ignatius of Antioch or Irenaeus of Lyon

lol here we go...Schopenhauer wasn't an atheist...Heidegger wasn't an atheist...don't make me kek

>How does one misunderstand both Schopenhauer and Hinduism so badly

don't you mean buddhism?

yeah schopenhauer talks about this in book 3 or 4 of the world and will as representation vol 1... particularly how they manifest themselves in the actions of individuals

Alan Watts.

Attached: alan watts supreme identity.jpg (146x210, 12K)

and of course the intuitive cognition that correlates with such action... the philosophies themselves just being means to this cognition (the negation of the will to live)

Attached: 9781626548688.jpg (372x400, 50K)

You've read Jung before Watts right?

he was interested in the links between neoplatonism and christian theology

he's a charlatan

No. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). There is of course the occasional wisdom by inspired individuals in other, false religions, philosophy and the arts but Christianity as a whole is not "compatible" with anything other the the one absolute and eternal truth, namely the Logos.

Attached: AKE.jpg (220x273, 14K)

>Christianity as a whole is not "compatible" with anything other the the one absolute and eternal truth, namely the Logos.

You were doing good until this which is just a backdoor for traditionalists in this thread.

cringe and bluepilled

So how is Christianity any different from other good religions (Do not take me for a fool this is necessary for the debate)?

In the words of Blumpf
“Wrong”.

The fact "saints" of Christianity can so casually brand other doctrines as being from the very originator of evil itself (i.e Satan) is a demonstration of how underdeveloped Christian spirituality is, even those considered it's highest-ranking members. Christians haven't committed themselves to a basic introspection of their psychology, whereby they'd soon recognize that Satan, whether such a being exists or not, is to humans merely a category for whatever an individual does not like. Christians call people without religion demonic, people of other faiths demonic, even those within their faith demonic - but they'll never ask themselves whether the very institution which gave them the category, may itself belong to it best. As far as I see, Jesus Christ started the most successful cult in history. A cult whereby you only have one lifetime, are in eternal servitude to an entity you've never seen, are personally responsible for a mythological event you never yourself committed, and must now spend your life worshipping a church of elite priests who mediate between you and this invisible power and help ensure you do not head for a place of eternal torment following your death, and must also spread this creed to every land and people until "every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord".

Yeah, sounds like the very definition of a demonic plot to enslave humanity, to me. I'll take Buddhism instead, and focus on my individual enlightenment and escape from the wheel of rebirth.

bnr

>Is Christianity compatible with Indian philosophies?
No. Christianity believes in a personal God, it is a dualist religion, time is linear instead of circular and no reincarnation/rebirth. Just to mention a few differences.

The only people that say they're the same are Christians that are trying to cope with the fact that Christianity is all but dead and are now trying to subvert other religions in order to bring new life into their religion. Or they've read non-Christian metaphysics and realized the baby-tier logic of Christians but are not yet ready to leave the religion because daddy will disown them or something.

Attached: 1528314238826.png (2776x1388, 430K)

>How dare those Christians have doctrine and morals and shit, why can't we all just get along and navelgaze???

>I'll take Buddhism instead
as a Buddhist though, surely you can at least see the merit in Christianity and other religions insofar as they inspire one to act morally/ethically, and to cultivate wholesome states of mind, instead of say, a nihilist, who has no such guidelines.

>wrote it at age 12
yea sure bucko

Christianity is not compatible with any religion.

>Jesus explained, “I am the Way, I am the Truth, and I am the Life. No one comes next to the Father except through union with me. To know me is to know my Father too.

>Jesus said to them, “I give you this eternal truth: I have existed long before Abraham was born, for I AM!”

>All of John chapter 1

Jesus is the Word, who became flesh, died for our sins and rose on the 3rd day.

So no, Christianity is not compatible with any other religion.

Absolutely. I try to be neutral in my evaluation of faiths, and not disparage any blindly. Christianity has many virtues to it, such as the emphasis on community, the tremendous literary value of the scriptures, and personal wisdom found in Biblical teachings. But as soon as God comes into the picture, everything reverses - ethics are thrown out the window in favor of blindly supporting whatever an ostensibly-mythological character has done as being "morally righteous", even the most horrendous of human acts are forgivable and still let you into Heaven but verbally denigrating the Holy Spirit is unpardonable and damns oneself forever, every religion which doesn't preach of Jesus of Nazareth is from the Devil and followers are demonic themselves or simply foolish, etc. These and several other aspects are the dregs of Christianity, and if Christians would remove these aspects from their faith, they and their institution would improve greatly. Unfortunately, such aspects latch onto the unenlightened psyche quite easily, and trap many Christians from progressing on their spiritual path. I like Buddhism because it seems the most direct a path towards spiritual enlightenment, has the least dogma and mythology, emphasizes praxis over mere intellectual study, and rests on a foundation of universally-relevant tenets that every person in the world would benefit from bringing into their lives. Just my personal opinion.

Not him but yes you should accept the merit of religiosity even for the Abrahamics but this should only be done covertly/passively while openly their faiths should debated and dunked on. A basic study of their scriptures and history shows that whenever they take part in ecumenalism it is because they are currently the weaker side but once they have the upper hand this sort of ecumenalism and compassion and acceptance of other worldviews are thrown out the window.

The fact that there are Hindu-Christian temples in India right now only helps the Christians, and if you think the Christians will allow pujas to Ganesha right next to Jesus once they've achieved religious and cultural majority then you've not payed attention.

>Not him but yes you should accept the merit of religiosity even for the Abrahamics but this should only be done covertly/passively while openly their faiths should debated and dunked on
Well yeah I'm the one you're replying to and I'd agree with that entirely.

>half lotus
jesus wtf

>compatible
The word is typically suggestive of a syncretism, and if taken in this sense, no, the Christian and Indian doctrines are not compatible.
They are comparable by degrees and levels, but Christianity stops where religion stops, which is at the Creator. Eastern doctrines do not stop until the goal of liberation is reached, and by this approach achieve a metaphysical level that most Westerns cannot even begin to comprehend.

That perennialist subscribes to Schopenhauer's theories, so he isn't a perennialist in the sense that Guenon or whatever is

historical perspective on this can be quite boner inducing as well. Too lazy to find the sources but look up for things about the first jesuit missions in India. Some french doing "histoire sociale" in the 70' 80' underlined how the jesuits struggled to have locals accept Jesus as the one savior exactly because they would welcome it in their pantheon as a "karma" amongst others. The highly integrative tendencies of hindus was exactly what drove them nuts in the 16th century because they were so good at cooperating while maintaining their belief system. Overly simplifying of course but there are some funny travel chronicles on that.

jej

Attached: 54684531321.jpg (126x99, 4K)

Jung to an extent, but not specifically India

Kalki, the tenth avatar of Vishnu, shall come riding a white horse, wielding a sword, to end the Kali Yuga. Compare with Revelation 19:11,15. Jesus will come riding a white horse with a sword too.

he's more used to a couch or a lazyboy

I wonder what it represents...

lol

This is brutal

If all this is illusion and we get to the knowledge that we have to escape this illusion while being in this illusion. Then why isn't that knowledge also an illusion?

Illusion has connotations of 'not real', but that isn't what it actually means. Most english speakers don't have the correct words to apprehend the meaning of Maya. All of the illusory knowledge and information picked up by your senses is very much real, the TRICK is that the illusion is strong enough to make us all seperate from the absolute/God, and to take our senses and consciousness as what we actually are.

The Buddha came to the correct conclusions, for a person who predates the gospel.

read about what various church leaders and theologians had to say about Gnosticism in the first centuries of the Church. You should realize that everything they condemn in Gnosticism is easily applicable to Hinduism and Buddhism.

You have the psychology of a battered wife.

>not worshiping Pērkons
O Laima, do not be resentful, their faces do not know the warmth of pagan sun.
youtube.com/watch?v=lkZ4we_ZsK8

Attached: you.came.to.the.wrong.neighborhood.mazafaka.jpg (1007x652, 150K)

You seem like a very humble person.

I’m an arrogant dickhole and your girlfriend loves it

>time is linear instead of circular
This is only true for the mortal world. God exists in eternity and the angels and saints in a kind of time that is in-between the two.

>Read Emerson
Read Emerson.

The Transcendentalists were heavily influenced by Hindu thought. Read a collection of works by Emerson and Thoreau, then read this book.

Attached: 51I26PfX6EL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (314x499, 34K)

That's what most of the written accounts and histories in sanskrit that survive say, yes. They are nearly unanimous in agreeing that his taking up sannyasa and the writing of his commentaries happened at an exceptionally young age.

Attached: wagner.png (900x900, 876K)

Sikhism > Hinduism. You'll all realize this in about 50 years when conventional thinking undergoes another shift.

why?

>muh flood
>muh inevitable conclusion
It's so egocentric and solipsistic

I disagree.

I do like how sihks basically admit: it’s impossible for any religion to fully grasp the divine so we can’t claim that we have a monopoly on truth

That only allows people that claim a monopoly on truth to bend you over the railing and make you their bitch.

kerouac

By an orthodox priest.

Attached: 51MysLCx5CL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (333x499, 37K)

Read Fear and Trembling.

Sikhism doesn't really diverge enough from Hinduism to offer compelling enough reasons for large amounts of Hindus to convert, the Sikh conception of God is very similar to Vedanta, saints and poets whose works were included in the Granth Sahib are already worshipped and read by Hindus.

Not really. What you describe was already being done to the Hindus (by Islamic conquest) to which Sikhism arose as an militant answer.

The same people who wrote the Bible wrote the vedas.

Yeah and India was this close(|--|) to becoming a Muslim subcontinent. And really the reason why Hindus and Sikhs survived was because they deep down do not actually believe that grasping the divine is relative.

More it's about perspective, but relative perspective does not mean relative Truth. Quite the opposite actually.
>objective empirical(relative) Truth gangang

Attached: 1534650466911.png (300x250, 26K)

Read Merton albeit about japan and christianity not indian thought

Attached: C19FCD07-EF0E-4D7D-824C-A4989EE50A1D.jpg (329x499, 25K)

wrong sweetie

Ahh, yes, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the prolific militant who defied Islamic conquest. Excellent insight, user.

Thanks Satan

Yes, if you're okay with stealing theology and being a contrarian bitch who reinterprets everything the way your feel feels tell you.
Otherwise no. Satanic idolatry does not comply with the truth in Christ.

It answers to itself alone, else there would be no absolute meaning to the question.

>Christianity and Dinduism can only be bound with Neosatanism

Attached: 1500709695789.png (150x100, 16K)

Why do you think that Neoplatonism is satanic?