Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Take away the attacks on religion, and retain the same metaphysics and philosophy as Dickie Dawkins, I still don't see how one can be Hindu, even if one has a cultural appreciation for Hindu culture.Do all Hindus even know the Vedas specifically? Among the Hindus I know they don't seem to (unless my pronounciation was indeed that terrible when I asked.) They still manage to attempt to follow the "big 4" goals nonetheless. Should there be limits on the DIR? I honestly don't know.
My skeptical nature does not allow me to blindly accept the Vedas as wholly perfect. I don't reject the wisdom, but even still. Should I not consider myself a Hindu? Should I reject my heritage? Do you want me to leave the DIR? Should I stop questioning in my pursuit of knowledge?
Perhaps it's what I see around me with fundamental Christians that elicits such a reaction to blind obedience of (any) scripture within me. Maybe I'm just too arrogant still.
Now see, the virtue of allowing such discussions has allowed me to ponder what it means to me to be a Hindu. Is that not a good thing?
Also Dick Dawkins is an anti theist. That's a very specific brand of Atheist, one that doesn't fit Aup from what I've seen from his posts.Personally I prefer Hitchens. At least he was honest and went after the "off limits" targets which didn't win him any favours among the PC crowd. Don't agree with all either says but ehh. Dawkins did help me pass grade 8 Physics so I can't be that mad at him.
What specific metaphysics are you referring to? Dawkins sees the world through a lens of science and engineering. Is that incompatible with spirituality? Not as far as I can see. No Hindu has to give up science it's not like a rule of initiation or something.
Whatever may be the technical definitions of the words, in common parlance a nastika is one who does not accept the existence of God. In that sense, I am a nastika, atheist. One who accepts the existence of Gods is an astika. But since I accept the existence of Brahman, I am also an astika. If you go by respect to Vedas, then also I am an astika.
Dawkins is a materialist. Indeed, I read his appreciative foreword to a work of Susan Blackmore's that was advocating eliminative materialism. It is not a question of the role of science strangely made into a hypostasis. He is not just someone who personally isn't that interested in the non-scientific and sees non-scientific knowledge as quite uncertain and generally airy fairy, though I'd question, too, if such a person wouldn't compromise much meaningful spirituality - but someone who rules out genuine spirituality entirely.
Jeremy, I beg to differ. I may be an atheist but I am as spiritual as any of the theists. I do not think my atheism has resulted in a loss of discipline (dharma), my Hinduism or spirituality. Buddha did not talk about God but talked about lesser deities and Jains had their own philosophy without Gods but with Devas and Tirthankaras. But they are not relevant to Hindu spirituality. I understood all through lens of the latest in science.
My spirituality goes straight to 'Parmarthika' and there is nowhere to go beyond that.Jeremy, I beg to differ. I may be an atheism but I am as spiritual as any of the theists. I do not think my atheism has resulted in a loss of discipline (dharma), my Hinduism or spirituality. Buddha did not talk about God but talked about lesser deities and Jains had their own philosophy without Gods but with Devas and Tirthankaras. But they are not relevant to Hindu spirituality. I understood all through lens of the latest in science.
No. By spirituality I meant the need in some way to transcend or transform the mundane, material, everyday aspects of life. In other words, I take spirituality to be the opposite of materialism and naturalism - the contentment with mundane reality seen as solely material.
I'm not sure he follows a meaningful spirituality. I think if we stretch spirituality to include materialists and naturalists then the whole concept is meaningless. But I don't especially object to his posts, and I agree his knowledge of Hinduism is great and deserves respect. It just makes me wonder what the Hindu DIR could mean if he is allowed to post some of the things he does.Jeremy, Aup has a great level of understanding and respect for Hindu tradition, and has his own philosophy and ideas regarding that. Through his commitment to dharma and to personal development, I think he very much follows spirituality in the way that is appropriate to him. But even if he does not somehow, then that is OK, because his beliefs work for him and he's not forcing them on anybody else. There is no utility to not whole-heartedly embracing him in the tradition if that is where he feels he is best suited to be
I think I get your point though your post is a bit too academic for me.
Love reading ur posts man, you could not have said it better...although i dont have anything against aupmanyav, some of his atheistic posts rejecting the vedas should not fit in DIR per se but well his theory of atheism well fit 'charvakas' a sect atmost but he brings in advaita too causing confusion...as @axlyz said its the worry of advaitins now ..haha
I think I get your point though your post is a bit too academic for me.
None of us are equipped to say whether another's spirituality is meaningful. This is subjective.
As for him posting in the DIR: a Hindu is someone who 1) Believes in and upholds the dharma, 2) Believes in the concept of karma (cause and effect) and brings this concept into their lives and 3) Refers to themself as a Hindu while doing so.
Aup checks the boxes
Jeremy, when were Hindus not materialistic. See the purusharthas, Artha, kama along with Dharma, Moksha. I will like to emphasize that materialism and naturalism is not anti-religious. Both are parts of life. And a Hindu can be a 'nitya sannyasi' (ever renounced - as Lord Krishna said) even when performing all duties of the phenomenal world. He can be a saint even when killing people in a war if he is doing it in cause of his duty without hate and anger). That is why majority of the sages in Hinduism were married, many times to more than one woman and had children. They were engaged in things that were dharma for them, studying scriptures and teaching. There is really no divide.
That is a subjective statement. My feelings are deep and your feelings are vogue. What are the feelings that you consider deep and why do you think that my feelings are only vague? Why should I not work for the happiness of my family (that is my dharma)? I should also not feel down-heated if things go against me (Krishna said happiness and sorrows are like seasons, they come in life and then pass away. The wise should not be disturbed by them).
I follow my 'dharma'. I have a 92 year old mother, till I am alive I have the responsibility for her happiness. I have a wife who has been with me for 48 years, till I am alive I have the responsibility for her happiness. Then the grandsons (my son is well-settled but my wife and myself do add to their care. Because of them, we can travel only occasionally - when it is holidays, then first it is time for them to travel with my son and his wife). If it was not for these responsibilities, I would have gone to Himalayas without a second's delay. These are the bonds that bind me but I do not regret them. That is life. Is your meaningful spirituality anything other than this?
This is not what materialism mean. I was keen to note that I am not saying spirituality rules out those perspectives that try to transform the mundane and material and understand its genuine spiritual place. Some varieties of Buddhism, for example, stress that Samsara is Nirvana, and mean something like this - that the ultimate reality that transcends all is also immanent. Indeed, in fact, almost all spiritual paths do not abandon the material as entirely worthless, except for some Gnostics and radical dualists (who have a metaphysically absurd position anyway). They simply transform their understanding of it, whilst transcending its solely material aspects. But materialism sees only the material, mundane world - and that only in an impoverished and false way - and that is an entirely untransformed way from the most worldly understanding of it. This is against any meaningful spirituality.
I was referring to the statements you sometimes hear from New Atheists and their ilk that they can be spiritual too because of some feelings of awe and beauty they sometimes feel for the material world or scientific discoveries. I was simply suggesting that this sort of vague feeling added to the materialism and naturalism I describe is not enough to make it genuinely spiritual.
Who doesn't follow their dharma, then? Who doesn't have a meaningful spirituality, then? Which path is not equally spiritual and worthy of taking?