An atheist question about Hinduism

[atanu]

At the end of the day, the nastika-astika division does not apply to the vast majority of Hindus who don't know the Vedas. ...

That is wrong. Surely majority of Hindus do not know anything of the Vedas, but they do follow their gurus. And I request Aup. to show us writings/teachings from teachers of Hinduism anything similar to what he claims.

 

[atanu]

Jeremy, when were Hindus not materialistic. See the purusharthas, Artha, kama along with Dharma, Moksha.

You are at your old game. When you do not believe in an reincarnating self of the nature of awareness, what is purushartha? What is moksha?

We have had very bitter discussions on these and I surely do not wish to repeat that. But I will say for the last time that your view of 'energy' as Brahman is not Hinduism. As per scripture Brahman/atman is beyond mind/word and Brahman is of the nature of prajnanam-sat-anandam (Truth-consciousness-bliss).

As far as I know, you disagree to these very fundamental tenets of the nature of Brahman/atman. Your Brahman is not what Vedanta teaches.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. as @axlyz said its the worry of advaitins now ..haha

Yes, it was a masterpiece statement from Axlyz.

 

[atanu]

What I meant by this was that the term 'Hindu' is a neologism which arose an an exonym for the broad set of roughly Vedic/Upanishadic and Shramana traditions existing in India, which was later taken on board as an endonymic title for the set of traditions in tandem with the rise of solidarity within that group. Thus producing what we now call the Hindu identity. My point was more to emphasise the diversity and inclusiveness found under this umbrella.

Kirran. This reflects a tendency of some people to give too much credence to history. At present, we have the scriptures and we have commentaries of revered teachers of Hinduism. There is no need to dig history.

Some elements DO claim that Muslims of India are also Hindus. That is a cultural-political view and should not apply to Hinduism Dir, IMO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My understandings of Hindu ideas of Karma is it are cannot be diluted into a materialist or scientific understanding of cause and effect, on the one hand, and a vague piece of psychological advise that if you do bad you will often suffer consequences. Karma has a distinctly non-materialist, non-metaphorical meaning, as far as I'm aware. What could Karma mean but a vague metaphor for what sometimes occurs, but sometimes doesn't, to a materialist.

I do believe in karma but not in its transference to any other life since according to my belief there is none. As in the Buddhist parlance, Aupmanyav is the accretion of various elements in a particular shape which keeps changing according to laws of nature (he had a thick flock of black hair, now the hairline has receded and his hair are white with black streaks) with a certain education, training (samskaras) and experiences; and acts accordingly. This whole is not going to happen again. During this life, if a person is taught about dharma then he/she will act accordingly, engage in righteous action and refrain from evil deeds. These deeds are going to affect the person materially and psychologically. Aupmanyav arose from a million things and when he is no more, those elements would go back to nature again and will be a part of millions of things. As I said Aupmanyav has already transcendented the the idea of many to the idea of one, and that is the end, there is no further to go.

Who doesn't follow their dharma, then? Who doesn't have a meaningful spirituality, then?

There are people who do not follow their dharma, and those who do not look beyond material things. They would not even feel like visiting RF.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I do believe in karma but not in its transference to any other life since according to my belief there is none. As in the Buddhist parlance, Aupmanyav is the accretion of various elements in a particular shape which keeps changing according to laws of nature (he had a thick flock of black hair, now the hairline has receded and his hair are white with black streaks) with a certain education, training (samskaras) and experiences; and acts accordingly. This whole is not going to happen again. During this life, if a person is taught about dharma then he/she will act accordingly, engage in righteous action and refrain from evil deeds. These deeds are going to affect the person materially and psychologically. Aupmanyav arose from a million things and when he is no more, those elements would go back to nature again and will be a part of millions of things. As I said Aupmanyav has already transcendented the the idea of many to the idea of one, and that is the end, there is no further to go.

So, in other words, your understanding of Karma is entirely materialistic and psychological. It is, in fact, no different from any understanding of experience and consequences that just about anyone will have.

You do this a lot. You use Hindu terms, but you use them in the most metaphorical and etiological sense possible, and underneath you seem to be referring to nothing but materialist and naturalist notions. Even when you say Brahman is all and we are Brahman you seem to mean there is only matter (the physical) and we, as material or physical beings, are entirely part of it.

 

[atanu]

I do believe in karma but not in its transference to any other life since according to my belief there is none. As in the Buddhist parlance, Aupmanyav is the accretion of various elements .......

Yeah. That is not what Shankara taught. Accretions do not constitute Aupmanyav or Atanu.

To this Buddhist philosophy, Shankara counters "What then sees a pot and in the next moment touches and knows touching it?"

In my opinion, you make light of the basic tenets of Hinduism and get away with that in this forum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And I request Aup. to show us writings/teachings from teachers of Hinduism anything similar to what he claims.

You mean it is essential to follow someone completely and no one should have independent thoughts? I have mentioned it earlier also and mention it here too, if that was the case then there would not have been any sects, just the 'salafi' (Wahabi) equivalent of Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

You mean it is essential to follow someone completely and no one should have independent thoughts? I have mentioned it earlier also and mention it here too, if that was the case then there would not have been any sects, just the 'salafi' (Wahabi) equivalent of Hinduism.

I asked you to show anything from any Hindu teacher to support your brand of Hinduism-Advaita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

When you do not believe in an reincarnating self of the nature of awareness, what is purushartha? What is moksha? .. But I will say for the last time that your view of 'energy' as Brahman is not Hinduism.

I have this life and 'dharma' is important for me in this life. What I get from society, I must return it at least in the same measure. For me (I think I should coin an acronym for 'as said earlier', ASE) Moksha/nirvana/enlightenment is understanding of the world with no residual questions, whatever can be answered is answered and the questions that cannot to answered with today's knowledge kept for future generations. Like Brahman, you can't say much about energy too, where it arises from and where it disappears (if it does that). There are similarities. It too is uninvolved and formless.

"What then sees a pot and in the next moment touches and knows touching it?"

What does it is an illusion, even the pot too. Did not Sankara say so? Sankara famously said 'Which elephant?'

Surely majority of Hindus do not know anything of the Vedas, but they do follow their gurus.

Debatable. How many Hindus have gurus? My family never needed one in four generations.

Even when you say Brahman is all and we are Brahman you seem to mean there is only matter (the physical) and we, as material or physical beings, are entirely part of it.

The material is the same as non-material. It only a difference in form.

One gram of mass is equivalent to the energy released by explosion of 21.5 kiloton of TNT ( 9×10 raised to the power 13 joule). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Binding_energy_and_the_.22mass_defect.22

 

[atanu]

What does it is an illusion, even the pot too. Did not Sankara say so? Sankara famously said 'Which elephant?'

To recognise the illusion, a conscious knower is required. Shankara refuted the so-called atheistic Buddhists with this precise argument. Shankara reiterates the Nyaya argument to refute the Nihilism of Buddhism, as below:

"Were this the case, there would be no re-identifying awareness (anusandhāna), e.g. “I who saw that pot am now touching it”, for there cannot be any recognition by one of what is apprehended by another."

The teaching on atman is the basic tenet of Hinduism and of Shankara that you do not agree to. You do not agree with mahavakya 'praGYaanaM brahma'. When you say I believe in "All is brahman", it is not the brahman of upanishads. We had very long discussion earlier without any resolution.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/pragyaanam-brahma.160436/

Thus, I see no point in engaging with you point by point. It will be waste of time. The following is a page from internet that describes your 'brahman':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aupmanyav

I request you to show anything from any Hindu teacher to support your brand of Hinduism-Advaita-Strong atheism, your definition of brahman, and your denial of atman.

There is nothing wrong that you are a Lokyata. You will be welcome as you are. But your attempts at distorting teaching of Shankara and of Vedanta is despicable.

 

[Kirran]

That is wrong. Surely majority of Hindus do not know anything of the Vedas, but they do follow their gurus. And I request Aup. to show us writings/teachings from teachers of Hinduism anything similar to what he claims.

Would you say the majority of Hindus have a guru?

Kirran. This reflects a tendency of some people to give too much credence to history. At present, we have the scriptures and we have commentaries of revered teachers of Hinduism. There is no need to dig history.

Some elements DO claim that Muslims of India are also Hindus. That is a cultural-political view and should not apply to Hinduism Dir, IMO.

No disagreement.

 

[atanu]

Would you say the majority of Hindus have a guru?

Yes. Since dharma grantha-s are gurus too.

You can be a christian, or a muslim and be an Indian, and in the language of Hinduttva vadi-s, cultural Hindus too. But can one who denies atman and who denies the basic nature of brahman as 'satyam-anantam-jnanam' (Truth, Infinite, Knowledge) or who denies 'prajnanam brahman' be called an advaitin follower of Shankara, just because that person claims so?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kirran. This reflects a tendency of some people to give too much credence to history. At present, we have the scriptures and we have commentaries of revered teachers of Hinduism. There is no need to dig history.

Some elements DO claim that Muslims of India are also Hindus. That is a cultural-political view and should not apply to Hinduism Dir, IMO.

That is OK for those who are not interested in history. But then, they should also not insist on making Aryans as original Indians. Leave that to historians.

Most of the Muslims in the Sub-continent descend from Hindus. They changed their religion, either because of force or to escape the various cruel taxes imposed by Muslim rulers or sweat-talk by sufis. In Kashmir, all Hindu brahmin castes exist among muslims including such give-aways as Bhats/Butts, Gurus or Panditas. In Pakistani Punjab you have Sethis, Chauhans, Ranas and Raos, Khukhrains and Kayanis, etc. There are 1,100,000 Muslim Khatris in Pakistan. Khatri derives from 'Kshatriyas', the Hindu warrior clans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Khatris, https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/17586/PK

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. Since dharma grantha-s are gurus too.

Many poor Hindus are illiterate. They do not even have access to dharma granthas also. Where they get their knowledge is poetry of the local sages/sant/bhaktas and their elders.

To recognise the illusion, a conscious knower is required.

With one foot in 'Paramarthika' and the other in 'Vyavaharika', I am able to see both sides. I am the knower and the known.

Oh, yes, our views differ. Let us end the matter here since to continue it will only be a repetition. I have said many times that I do not fully agree with my gurus, Sankara as well as Buddha. I do not claim to be a 100% follower of any of them. I have chartered my own path.

 

[Kirran]

Yes. Since dharma grantha-s are gurus too.

You can be a christian, or a muslim and be an Indian, and in the language of Hinduttva vadi-s, cultural Hindus too. But can one who denies atman and who denies the basic nature of brahman as 'satyam-anantam-jnanam' (Truth, Infinite, Knowledge) or who denies 'prajnanam brahman' be called an advaitin follower of Shankara, just because that person claims so?

Hmm. Honestly, I don't know atanu. I do have a lot of respect for your position here. But I am basically leaving any deciding on this issue alone. Don't feel it is fair for me, as someone uninformed and lacking in Self-knowledge.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Yes. Since dharma grantha-s are gurus too.

Most Hindus do not have Gurus or scripture. Their religious practices are what were handed down through tradition. It is a misconception to think that all Hindus aspire Moksha are are working towards it. I know staunch Smarthas, affiliated with the Sringeri Math, Staunch Madhvas who are affiliated with the Uttaradi Math and they have no interest in Moksha and would be unable to define Brahman. Yet, they are very religious in their nithya karmas, fasting, visiting temples, etc. Coming to non-Brahmins, it is even more unlikely, that they would be aware of any of this (Brahman, moksha, etc). Even if they were exposed to these concepts, there would little or no interest. This is is quite different from Western Hindus, who approach the religion through books and/or Gurus.

But can one who denies atman and who denies the basic nature of brahman as 'satyam-anantam-jnanam' (Truth, Infinite, Knowledge) or who denies 'prajnanam brahman' be called an advaitin follower of Shankara, just because that person claims so?

I agree. I cannot claim to be Shankara's follower and then state that I do not agree with him on key matters.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Many poor Hindus are illiterate. They do not even have access to dharma granthas also. Where they get their knowledge is poetry of the local sages/sant/bhaktas and their elders.

Exactly.

Oh, yes, our views differ. Let us end the matter here since to continue it will only be a repetition. I have said many times that I do not fully agree with my gurus, Sankara as well as Buddha. I do not claim to be a 100% follower of any of them. I have chartered my own path.

Why is why, I think you should consider using a new name for your new path. Labeling a new (and different path) as Advaita or Buddhism leads to confusion and is not entirely correct.

 

[atanu]

Most Hindus do not have Gurus or scripture. Their religious practices are what were handed down through tradition. ....

And most traditions have had their Ishta Devata.

I agree. I cannot claim to be Shankara's follower and then state that I do not agree with him on key matters.

Why is why, I think you should consider using a new name for your new path. Labeling a new (and different path) as Advaita or Buddhism leads to confusion and is not entirely correct.

That is all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why is why, I think you should consider using a new name for your new path. Labeling a new (and different path) as Advaita or Buddhism leads to confusion and is not entirely correct.

Kindly suggest me a name which suits a non-dualist other than an 'advaitist'.