An atheist question about Hinduism

[SomeRandom]

LuisDantas,

Stop ridiculing these peaceable, intelegent, informative people,

I would ask if you have no shame, but I know the answer. These individuals are all very knowing in the ways of truth and existince, and the nature there of.

This fact, you evidently cannot accept for reasons of selfish pride as opposed to outward regard.

If you are confused; that is fine. Once you accept the knowledge that has been shown to you as truth, you willful ignorance will not be fine in regards to your own personal energy and existence.

Please set back and think without the predisposition of getting offended at someone else for your lack of knowledge up to this point. No harm, no foul as they say.

Be happy through truth and looking forward. Do not begrudge the past or people whom enlighten with true knowledge.

Thanks, good luck.

Whoa mate. Where was Luis ridiculing anyone?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Whoa mate. Where was Luis ridiculing anyone?

Frankly my words were overly harsh and I overstepped a boundary through assumption. As stated this is and was my folly and I accept it. I do apologize for my assumption and rash harshness on this topic. Thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We all here and Luis are not hard-hearted people. Just forget about the post. Let us be friends.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thank you.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Luis ji

There are seemingly endless arguments about what atheism and god are in other threads outside this DIR. I have come to conclude that many people lend the concepts a meaning that is simply not inherently there.

if one can put it simply , within Sanatana Dharma God is 'the un born' , 'the un originated sourse of all being' , ....if one uses the terms Theist and atheist , ....then one is implying two opposing thoughts theists being those that belive in ''the eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all'', ...and those that do not beleive in there being an eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all , .....
people may then inturpret God in different ways , each to their own understanding , but this is some what due to our limited understanding when it comes to the realisation as vast as there being an 'eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all' , .....

I don't really know whether Hinduism has clearly-defined and well-delimited concepts that avoid that (greatly exacerbated, IMO) kind of controversy, but I tend to doubt it. Ultimately atheism is little more than a minor difference of perception with hardly any consequence or importance.

to simplify this issue Hinduism accepts the vedas , if any one rejects the vedas then they are not Hindu , ...the vedas according to widkipedia , ....''The Rigveda contains several mythological and poetical accounts of the origin of the world, hymns praising the gods, and ancient prayers for life, prosperity, etc.[11] Some of its verses are still recited as Hindu prayers, at religious functions and other occasions, making it probably the world's oldest religious texts in continued us .'' .......speaks if the Rig the first of the four Vedas as ''mythological and poetical accounts '' ...this is non hindu inturprtation creaping in ! ..Atrue Hindu belives in the authority of the Vedas , therefore that it is not Mythology , and that there is an eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all , .....then from this source come the many gods of Hinduism , ..but the God , ...with capital G is that 'eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all' , .....

But that, of course, is generally speaking. I can hardly claim to have firm enough a grasp of Hindu Dharma to say how or if that perception applies to Hindu concepts, or how well settled the controversy (if any) is.

Then again, Hinduism (and particularly Sanatana Dharma) have a reputation for being incredibly inclusive, certainly far beyond the point of rejecting atheism just for being atheism.

Sanatana Dharma accepts the authority of the Vedas , .......the Vedas reveal that there is an eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all , ........ Sanatana Dharma may be accepting of all those that keep the principles laid out in the Vedas and even those who personaly are unsure about the existance of an eternal , unborn , unoriginated source of all , .....but it doas not accept those that are against this revealed knowledge .

there will of course allways be those who are personaly un sure in that they do not have strong Faith or direct understanding , ...but in all honesty the terms Theist and Atheist do not belong to Dharmic traditions therefore we are applying non Dharmic principles to Dharma which is bound to cause confusion in the long run .

 

[kalyan]

Popsthebuilder, people in this forum know Luis well and love him. Luis is not a person who would ridicule anyone. So do not worry about that.
As I mentioned in my earlier reply, this is not the forum for discussion on Christianity or Abrahamic religions. Kindly go to the relevant forums. I do not accept the existence of God or creation.

Neither these are the atheist forums...If you feel you are offended, you should report the post to the mods instead of trying to shut him @popsthebuilder down.

I would like the mods to ban you from the 'Hinduism DIR' for posing your strong atheist views and attaching those views ignorantly to 'hinduism'...You are trying to break/ affect the views of many in the DIR.
I can quote multiple instances where you have done that.

A question to MODS... How are we allowing this ? as per the rules if am not wrong, people coming from a different background should comply with 'hinduism' and its ordained rules? where this has gone wrong ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kalyan, kindly check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Atheism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mīmāṃsā#Atheism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#Views_by_the_Vedanta_School before you invite Mods to intervene. Should Samkha, Vaisesika and Poorva Mimamsa be abrogated from Hinduism? They are as much a part of Hinduism as Achintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita is.

 

[Rival]

Neither these are the atheist forums...If you feel you are offended, you should report the post to the mods instead of trying to shut him @popsthebuilder down.

I would like the mods to ban you from the 'Hinduism DIR' for posing your strong atheist views and attaching those views ignorantly to 'hinduism'...You are trying to break/ affect the views of many in the DIR.
I can quote multiple instances where you have done that.

A question to MODS... How are we allowing this ? as per the rules if am not wrong, people coming from a different background should comply with 'hinduism' and its ordained rules? where this has gone wrong ?

Aupmanyav has posted in the Hinduism DIR for a very long time and it has never caused a fuss. Hinduism incorporates many schools of thought and some of these schools include Atheism. We let him post here because of this. I suggest you read the articles he linked you to.

Thanks.

Rival.

 

[kalyan]

Kalyan, kindly check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Atheism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mīmāṃsā#Atheism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika#Views_by_the_Vedanta_School before you invite Mods to intervene. Should Samkha, Vaisesika and Poorva Mimamsa be abrogated from Hinduism? They are as much a part of Hinduism as Achintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita is.

Advaita says there is supreme brahman....atheism does not believe in anything and atheists does not believe in anything which they cannot see......so saying advaita is atheistic is highly offensive

 

[Aupmanyav]

Should not be. Advaita says only Brahman exists and nothing else. That is why it is called 'A-dvaita'. Excepting anything else makes it 'Dvaita'.

 

[kalyan]

Aupmanyav has posted in the Hinduism DIR for a very long time and it has never caused a fuss. Hinduism incorporates many schools of thought and some of these schools include Atheism. We let him post here because of this. I suggest you read the articles he linked you to.

Thanks.

Rival.

He might but he was saying in different thread that 'Advaita is atheistic' , advaita believes in supreme brahman, atheists won't believe in anything until they see it or it was proved by some empirical evidence.

I felt very offensive because I come here mostly to increase the religious knowledge and seeing some strong atheistic views in DIR hurts many people who are inclined to very religious views, it does not help him neither it does help us, then what is the point ? He might have posted for decades sure... but some of his views rubs the wrong way with many who hold traditional religious beliefs.

I could not take anything posted from wiki for granted but all the wiki links even say that these schools accept Vedas as supreme authority even though they do not believe in one supreme power, it is fine but the aupmanyav said multiple times 'he does not even accept vedas as authority' so I think we could create a new school but this is DIR, we could not crap this place.

, but may be we could have a sub-forum in DIR for those who believe in samkhya/atheistic schools of thought in 'hinduism DIR' so that atheistic views can be spun around there, am just sayin.

 

[kalyan]

Should not be. Advaita says only Brahman exists and nothing else. That is why it is called 'A-dvaita'.

Is Brahman proved by any evidence or you have seen it ? and also all the schools you posted accept VEDAS as Supreme Authority... Any school that accepts Vedas as supreme authority is not atheistic, you can call it one but it is not.

But your views as you said multiple times that you won't even accept 'Vedas as authority'

So which school that is, or should we create a new school perhaps ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, yes. there is ample evidence. I see it all around me. Behind all facades, something hides. Behind all reflections there is an object of whose reflection we see. Therefore, if I exist or you exist, or anything in the universe exists, there should be something that is giving rise to that feeling. Therefore, though we may not be able to describe it in all detail, there is some existence. And that is what we term as Brahman, the ultimate substrate from which all things arise. And this is corroborated by science which says that, as far as they know, the universe arose from a small ball of intense energy. What more evidence is required?

Vedas are hymns in the praise of Aryan Gods and Goddesses.
"The etymological origin of Richa is the Sanskrit word, ric, which means to praise. Richa, is therefore, one ric after the other. Other meanings of ric are splendour, worship, a hymn." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richa

I have utmost respect for Vedas and its hymns. One in RigVeda is ascribed to my progenitor, Upamanyu, it is in praise of Soma. A whole Mandala is ascribed to my family (Mandala 7 to Vasishthas, 104 hymns).Vedas are the best source of the history of Aryan people since all others have been either been destroyed or changed (that, in case of Zoroastrian Avesta where the older portions are a few. The rest is from Zoroaster himself).

And there is no problem about a new school in Hinduism. In the last millenium Srimad Ramanujacharya came up with Vishishtadvaita, Srimad Nimbarkacharya came up with Bhedabhedadvaita, Srimad Madhvacharya came up with Dvaita and Mahaprabhu came up with Achintya Bhedabhedadvaita. It is only a progression.

The problem is that you are trying to describe what your own school says is inconceivable. There is no need for a Hindu to get disturbed by different views of other Hindus. I am perfectly happy repeating 'Hare Rama, Hare Krishna' a hundred times since Rama and Krishna do not denote anything but Brahman.

 

[Rival]

He might but he was saying in different thread that 'Advaita is atheistic' , advaita believes in supreme brahman, atheists won't believe in anything until they see it or it was proved by some empirical evidence.

I felt very offensive because I come here mostly to increase the religious knowledge and seeing some strong atheistic views in DIR hurts many people who are inclined to very religious views, it does not help him neither it does help us, then what is the point ? He might have posted for decades sure... but some of his views rubs the wrong way with many who hold traditional religious beliefs.

I could not take anything posted from wiki for granted but all the wiki links even say that these schools accept Vedas as supreme authority even though they do not believe in one supreme power, it is fine but the aupmanyav said multiple times 'he does not even accept vedas as authority' so I think we could create a new school but this is DIR, we could not crap this place.

, but may be we could have a sub-forum in DIR for those who believe in samkhya/atheistic schools of thought in 'hinduism DIR' so that atheistic views can be spun around there, am just sayin.

If you think he's said something he shouldn't, please report it so that the mods can reach a decision as a group.

Also, it doesn't matter if his beliefs hurt your feelings, or rub you the wrong way. He is entitled to them and he has the right to post here, whether you like what he says or not.

If this really bothers you, please make a thread in the Site Feedback area.

Thanks.

 

[kalyan]

Oh, yes. there is ample evidence. I see it all around me. Behind all facades, something hides. Behind all reflections there is an object of whose reflection we see. Therefore, if I exist or you exist, or anything in the universe exists, there should be something that is giving rise to that feeling. Therefore, though we may not be able to describe it in all detail, there is some existence. And that is what we term as Brahman, the ultimate substrate from which all things arise. And this is corroborated by science which says that, as far as they know, the universe arose from a small ball of intense energy. What more evidence is required?

Vedas are hymns in the praise of Aryan Gods and Goddesses.
"The etymological origin of Richa is the Sanskrit word, ric, which means to praise. Richa, is therefore, one ric after the other. Other meanings of ric are splendour, worship, a hymn." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richa

I have utmost respect for Vedas and its hymns. One in RigVeda is ascribed to my progenitor, Upamanyu, it is in praise of Soma. A whole Mandala is ascribed to my family (Mandala 7 to Vasishthas, 104 hymns).Vedas are the best source of the history of Aryan people since all others have been either been destroyed or changed (that, in case of Zoroastrian Avesta where the older portions are a few. The rest is from Zoroaster himself).

And there is no problem about a new school in Hinduism. In the last millenium Srimad Ramanujacharya came up with Vishishtadvaita, Srimad Nimbarkacharya came up with Bhedabhedadvaita, Srimad Madhvacharya came up with Dvaita and Mahaprabhu came up with Achintya Bhedabhedadvaita. It is only a progression.

The problem is that you are trying to describe what your own school says is inconceivable. There is no need for a Hindu to get disturbed by different views of other Hindus. I am perfectly happy repeating 'Hare Rama, Hare Krishna' a hundred times since Rama and Krishna do not denote anything but Brahman.

Yes that is my point.......So don't try to hide behind the 'hinduism' to project your atheistic views..
The LINKS that you posted themselves says 'Samkhya and vaiseshika' accepts vedas as Supreme authority. You have literally failed there trying to project 'hinduism' as atheistic. you have no ground here.

First you said 'oh yes hinduism has atheistic schools and quoted 2' and when I said those are not atheistic as they accepts vedas as shabda pramana, you immediately backed off from that argument and then now you are saying 'what is wrong in establishing new school' ?
Literal fail of logic there

If every person can write his own interpretations, then that wont be hinduism.
Sanatana dharma has exquisite concepts from the origination of universe and it has some standards as the base which are VEDAS. one does not need to accept god if he accepts what was written in vedas, that is the flexibility, you cannot exploit this flexibility in wrong ways .

You should from now on say, these are my views and not supported by any school of 'hinduism' as a disclaimer to your posts instead of wrongly projecting sanatana dharma

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, these are my views. If I believe in only one thing existing in the universe, naturally my views will be classified as 'Advaita'. However, is it necessary to follow a school or have a guru to be a Hindu? Kashmir Shaivism does not have much use of Vedas. Lingayats do not accept Vedas but are Hindus. Perhaps you are forgetting Nasadiya sukta which said:

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ll
Arvag deva asya visarjanenatha ko veda yatababhuva ll
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm Verse 6.2

First you said 'oh yes hinduism has atheistic schools and quoted 2' and when I said those are not atheistic as they accepts vedas as shabda pramana, you immediately backed off ..

Did you read my link in Samkhya or Mimamsa? Does it leave any doubt that they are not atheistic philosophies?

 

[atanu]

Aupmanyav has posted in the Hinduism DIR for a very long time and it has never caused a fuss. Hinduism incorporates many schools of thought and some of these schools include Atheism. We let him post here because of this. I suggest you read the articles he linked you to
Thanks.
Rival.

I do not want to enter into a detailed debate. But advaita is not atheistic. Worship of Ishwara, God, in many forms, is inherent part of advaita. I wonder whether a person distorting sayings of Jesus, to gain support for atheism will be allowed in Christian Dir?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Aupmanyav has posted in the Hinduism DIR for a very long time and it has never caused a fuss. Hinduism incorporates many schools of thought and some of these schools include Atheism. We let him post here because of this. I suggest you read the articles he linked you to.

Thanks.

Rival.

Which schools? He appears to be a complete naturalist. Which schools are you referring to? Neither Samkhya or Mimamsa are naturalist, and arguably not even atheist. He obscures it at times, but he appears to be essentially a Western type atheist - which is certainly contrary to Hinduism. He was just praising Laurence Krauss here! The New Atheist! I don't know if it is really disruptive, but it is hard to se the point in the DIR if he gets to post some of things he does. It is a bit like someone who took on a few cultural and terminological aspects of Christianity and then posted in the Christianity DIR essentially atheistic opinions.

Surely it would make sense to say he shouldn't things contrary to Hindu understandings here?

 

[SomeRandom]

Which schools? He appears to be a complete naturalist. Which schools are you referring to? Neither Samkhya or Mimamsa are naturalist, and arguably not even atheist. He obscures it at times, but he appears to be essentially a Western type atheist - which is certainly contrary to Hinduism. He was just praising Laurence Krauss her! The New Atheist! I don't know if it is really disruptive, but it is hard to se the point in the DIR if he gets to post some of things he does. It is a bit like someone who took on a few cultural and terminological aspects of Christianity and then posted in the Christianity DIR essentially atheistic opinions.

Surely it would make sense to say he shouldn't things contrary to Hindu understandings here?

I won't pretend to be learned in the scriptures or the various schools of thought. But correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't at all possible to live using Hinduism as a philosophy of life? Does following Dharma actively require belief and/or worship in Brahma as God?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Well, I don't know how a modern Western sort of atheist would consistently square following Hindu lifestyle - other than a few practices, such as yoga - with his other beliefs, but I suppose one can do what you describe. I think the main problem people have is Aupmanyav does not refrain from making essentially atheistic claims in the Hindu DIR.