Ces PENSEURS indiens de l'antiquité RIDICULISENT les CROYANTS sur JvArchive forum 18-25

Jackk2024

6 août 2024 à 07:00:40

Fragment d'un texte qui représente la pensée des Charvaka, un courant philosophique indien matérialiste et athée de l'antiquité:

"Higher than this world there is none. There is no svarga (or celestial world of enjoyment) and no hell. The world of Siva and other such (worlds) are all invented by those who are (followers of) other (systems of thought) than (what is followed by) ourselves and are (therefore) ignorant impostors.
The enjoyment of svarga consists in partaking of sweet food here, in enjoying the company of damsels of sixteen years of age, and also in enjoying the pleasures that are derivable from the use of fine clothes, sweet scents, flower garlands, sandal, and such other things (of delicious luxury)."

Paradis = bouffer des choses bonnes, baiser des teens, porter de beaux vêtements

Juste après ils donnent leur description de l'enfer:

"The experience of (the miseries of) hell consists (only) in the pain caused by enemies, by injurious weapons, by diseases and other causes of suffering. The final beatitude of moksa is, however, death (itself); and that consists in the cessation of (breath) the principal vital air."

Et ils t'expliquent que vu que, selon eux, le paradis et l'enfer sont juste le plaisir ou la douleur que tu ressens SUR TERRE et que l'au-delà n'existe pas, si tu stresses de ton sort après la mort et fait des rituels religieux t'es un cassos:

"Therefore it is not proper on the part of a wise man to take (any) trouble on account of this (final beatitude). It is only a fool that becomes thin and worn out to dryness by performing penances, and by fasting, etc."

Ça tacle même les fameux "puceaux par choix":
"Chastity and other such (cunning) conventions have been invented by clever weaklings."

Pour ceux qui se demanderaient comment ils justifient leur prémisse matérialiste:

"Whatever is arrived at by means of direct perception, that alone exists. That which is not perceivable is non-existent, for the (very) reason that it is not perceived. And even those, who maintain the (real existence of) adrsta (the unperceivable), do not say that what has not been perceived has been perceived.
[...]
How can that, which is always unseen, like the (ever unseen) horns of a hare, and other such things, be what is really existent?"

Tout ce qui existe est percevable, ce qui ne peut pas être percevable n'existe pas. Simple, clair, net et précis