An atheist question about Hinduism

[kalyan]

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).

Nitya sanyasi Krushna meant to give up the ideology when doing any work like 'I am doing this, without me this could not have been done, am doing this expecting result for me' becauae that causes attachment and karma binds you.

Arjuna is in a war and as a kshatriya its his job to end the adharma but he backs a little but as he is gudakesa who has won over his 5 indriyas/senses and without jealous of any thing Sri Krushna chose him to deliver bg..anyway point is killing without hate or anger does not justify killing

 

[kalyan]

If you mean soul in spirituality, then that is not my view, because along with Gods, I do not (I have mentioned it earlier too) believe in birth, death, reincarnation, karma transferring to a future birth, judgment, punishment, rewards or even creation.

I think this is full opposite of advaita..advaitans here can correct me if am wrong...the greatest Adi Shankara would be sad...! Yours is more like charvaka.......anyway, When Brahman has reflected in Maya, advaita says similar to Visista-advaita( how the supreme brahman can be reflected in maya is different topic altogether) it gets split into 3 entities jiva, isvara and prakriti and then whole creation starts...advaitans can correct me..i would like to see a thread dedicated to advaita to know of it more..

I believe nastikatvam makes no sense..if something is working in an ordered way there haa to be an intelligent tattwam behind it, take anything in universe it has to fit this..
Also nastikas when they say 'there is no X' I Could ask them what is not there? By saying something does not exist they are confirming the existence of same thing no?

Adiyen Ramanuja daasa

 

[atanu]

Would you say the majority of Hindus have a guru?

Yes. Since dharma grantha-s are gurus too.

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.

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.

I agree to all of these. But please consider further as to how many of these grassroots level Hindus are on Internet forums trying to distort the meaning of Brahman, advaita, teaching of Shankara and the fundamental nature of Hindu dharma being adhyatmic and theistic?

There are a few Lokyatas very active in Internet space to redefine what is Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

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

Lokyata
Naturalist.
Material Monist.
...... and many more.

In these world views life force and consciousness are products of inert materials.

Advaita Vedanta is not monism but is Non dualism and in this world view the Non Dual - - One Without a Second is consciousness-truth-bliss. It is life and intelligence of all.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I think this is full opposite of advaita..advaitans here can correct me if am wrong...

Yes, you are wrong. Gaudapada (Shankara's Guru's Guru) says in his Karikas -

No Jiva is ever born. There does not exist any cause which can produce it. This is the highest truth that nothing is ever born - MK 3.48

Shankara's commentary on this karika - All these ideas regarding the discipline of the mind, ideas regarding devotional exercises are given as means to the realization of the nature of the ultimate reality. They have, in themselves, no meaning, whatsoever. The truth is that no jiva is ever born....

There is no dissolution, no birth, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth - MK 2.32

Shankara's commentary on this karika - This verse sums up the chapter. When duality is perceived to be illusory and Atman (Brahman) is alone known as the sole reality, then it is clearly established that all our experiences - ordinary or religious, verily pertain to the domain of ignorance. Then one perceives, there is no dissolution, birth, liberation.... [there is a lot more here, but this will do for this discussion]

1. Aupamanyav has always been clear that he accepts that Brahman alone exists and as you can see, his position does not negate they key principle of Advaita.

2. Atheist means different things to different people. There are devout Christians who would label Ramanuja as an atheist for he did not accept Jesus Christ as the only true God and his savior. Without understanding Aupmanyav's definiton of atheism and why he considers himself one, there is little point in criticizing him.

3. The problem is most people who claim to known Advaita possess a very superficial understanding of it obtained from internet articles. You yourself say above that Aupamanyav must be wrong in his views (on Advaita) and then you follow up saying you are not really sure, calling out for expert opinions!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Lokyata
Naturalist.
Material Monist.
...... and many more.

In these world views life force and consciousness are products of inert materials.

Advaita Vedanta is not monism but is Non dualism and in this world view the Non Dual - - One Without a Second is consciousness-truth-bliss. It is life and intelligence of all.

Lokayata does not accept Brahman, but Aupmanyav does.

 

[atanu]

Lokayata does not accept Brahman, but Aupmanyav does.

But Aup's Brahman is not the Brahman of the Vedas. That is the crux and this has been pointed out by so many learned posters here.

 

[atanu]

I think this is full opposite of advaita..advaitans here can correct me if am wrong...the greatest Adi Shankara would be sad...! Yours is more like charvaka.......anyway, When Brahman has reflected in Maya, advaita says similar to Visista-advaita( how the supreme brahman can be reflected in maya is different topic altogether) it gets split into 3 entities jiva, isvara and prakriti and then whole creation starts...advaitans can correct me..i would like to see a thread dedicated to advaita to know of it more..

As per Shankara all changes are apparent modifications of Brahman only. For a Self realised person abiding in paramarthika there is no birth, no conditioned jiva, and nothing coming into being.

But obviously at the level we are discussing as different individuals with different minds, the Guru, the God, the samsara and the suffering limited jiva are all phenomenally true.

Guru Ramana, a teacher of ajAtivAda, taught "Never apply advaita on Guru and God".

We know that Shankara himself instituted mutts for his followers. And Gaudapada, who taught ajAtivAda -- the doctrine of no creation, himself says::

Mandukya karika of Gaudapada

IV-100. Having realised the non-dual state that is hard to perceive, deep, unborn, uniform and serene, we offer our salutations to It, as best as we can.​

Finally we can use Shri Shankaracharya's own words to explain his teaching:

I salute Brahman, the destroyer of the fear of those who take refuge in It—which, though unborn, appears to be associated with birth through Its own majestic powers; which, though motionless, appears to be moving; and which, though non— dual, appears to have assumed many forms to those whose vision is deluded by the perception of diverse objects and their attributes.​

.........

The salutation, the praise, the worship of the non dual brahman is the hallmark of advaita and even of ajAtivAda school of advaita darsana.

 

[atanu]

1. Aupamanyav has always been clear that he accepts that Brahman alone exists and as you can see, his position does not negate they key principle of Advaita.

Can you show us that Aupmanyav's Brahman is same as the Brahmam of sruti?

Are you not contradicting your own earlier posts?

 

[atanu]

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

If one is abiding in paramarthika, as is claimed by some, then Brahman alone is. There cannot be then the classification of "I am a strong atheist".

It is called adhyAsa (superposition) by Shri Shankara.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lokayata. Naturalist. Material Monist. .. and many more.

Advaita Vedanta is not monism but is Non dualism and in this world view the Non Dual - One Without a Second is consciousness-truth-bliss.

I fully agree to your first statement, but not to the second. I do not know the second to describe it. I do not know about consciousness of what exists (I think we can term it 'the absolute'), it will certainly not be like human consciousness, so how does a human recognize/understand the consciousness of the absolute. Also, it may just be an impression because of our trying to observe/measure it or trying to find its properties (like in science the act of observance results in skewed results - the double-slit experiment). Then what do people mean by it being bliss? Is it sorrow too? Or is it the effect of our observing it? Is it reflecting us? If it has a 'vikara' like bliss, does it have other 'vikaras' too? What other 'vikaras' does it have?

And as Shiva said in the next post, I deny the existence of any 'jiva'. it is Brahman only that exists. Perhaps I am a better 'advaitist' than you without knowing even an iota about 'karikas' which I have never read. Now I see that Sri Gaudapada's karika agrees with me. That is to say that I am a 'natural advaitist'. I subscribe to MK 2.32 also, but I have a different meaning of liberated or liberation. Liberated for me is the liberation from one's own ignorance which results in absence of questions.

How can I be a 'lokayata' when lokayatas "consistently denied the existence of Brahman" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokayata:_A_Study_in_Ancient_Indian_Materialism). That means I have to remain in 'Advaita'. I have nowhere else to go.

 

[atanu]

If one is an advaitist and believes brahman is all there is, then one cannot be an atheist since atheist has an opposite. Atheism-theism divide the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But my Brahman is not a God.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

If one is an advaitist and believes brahman is all there is, then one cannot be an atheist since atheist has an opposite. Atheism-theism divide the world.

Atanu, what is your definition of atheist? As I have posted earlier, there are three well known tradition definitions for nastika in Indian tradition. Counting Western definitions, we will have more. Here are the Indian definitions of nastika -

1. One who denies Paraloka (other worlds)
2. One who denies Ishwara (personal deity??)
3. One who denies the authority of the Veda

Note that Purva Mimamsa Brahmins have sometimes been criticized as Nastikas [Per definition #2]. Sankhya is atheistic too as in not requiring Ishwara, but is Astika as in endorsing the Veda. Here are two definitions of Nastika by the Jains -

1. One who does not understand the purport of Shastra
2. One who denies the existence of Atman

↑

Can you show us that Aupmanyav's Brahman is same as the Brahmam of sruti?

Brahman of Shruti, according to whom? This Brahman has been described very differently by different schools of Vedanta.

Per Advaita, any description you provide for the Nirguna Brahman is incorrect (neti neti). If you call it Ananda, etc., then it is not it. Any description/attributes you provide can only hold good for Saguna Brahman, which is transient and ultimately unreal. I do not have to provide supporting quotes as I am sure you already have them.

Regards,

 

[atanu]

Atanu, what is your definition of atheist? As I have posted earlier, there are three well known tradition definitions for nastika in Indian tradition. Counting Western definitions, we will have more. Here are the Indian definitions of nastika -

1. One who denies Paraloka (other worlds)
2. One who denies Ishwara (personal deity??)
3. One who denies the authority of the Veda

Note that Purva Mimamsa Brahmins have sometimes been criticized as Nastikas [Per definition #2]. Sankhya is atheistic too as in not requiring Ishwara, but is Astika as in endorsing the Veda. Here are two definitions of Nastika by the Jains -

1. One who does not understand the purport of Shastra
2. One who denies the existence of Atman

↑

Brahman of Shruti, according to whom? This Brahman has been described very differently by different schools of Vedanta.

Per Advaita, any description you provide for the Nirguna Brahman is incorrect (neti neti). If you call it Ananda, etc., then it is not it. Any description/attributes you provide can only hold good for Saguna Brahman, which is transient and ultimately unreal. I do not have to provide supporting quotes as I am sure you already have them.

Regards,

Shiva I will take up each of your points in detail in a separate thread in 'Same faith debate' section.

Here, it will be sufficient to remind you that Aup defines his Brahman as energy, and often further qualifying it with 'like electricity'. So Aup's definition is correct and acceptable for a Hindu but Vedic-upanishadic definitions are not?

Second. What remains after Neti Neti? That is swarupa lakshana of Brahman and advaitins accept 'Prajnanam Brahman' as a mahavakya and 'Satyam-jnanam-anantam' as the swarupa lakshana of Brahman.

 

[atanu]

But my Brahman is not a God.

I know that from
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aupmanyav

I believe in existence of Energy (as in physics, light, electricity, etc.) and equate that with 'Brahman'.

Contrast the above with advaita guru Shankara:

Shri Shankara concluding the Mandukya Upanishad
I salute Brahman, the destroyer of the fear of those who take refuge in It—which, though unborn, appears to be associated with birth through Its own majestic powers; which, though motionless, appears to be moving; and which, though non— dual, appears to have assumed many forms to those whose vision is deluded by the perception of diverse objects and their attributes.

Readers may just compare. The salutation, the praise, the worship of the non dual brahman is the hallmark of advaita and even of ajAtivAda school of advaita darsana.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, there is a difference. When did I not accept that? Perhaps if you look deeply, then there is no difference. But did Sankara had a copy-right on Advaita? If it was so the other branches of Vedanta would not have come up (Bheda-Abheda, Upadhika, Vishishta, Dvaitadvaita,
Shuddha, Achintya). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta#Schools_of_Vedanta

And what do we know about electricity? Don't be too sure that you know all about electricity. There is a whole lot to know about electricity and we do not know all. Here is a write up by a teacher about how wrongly we interpret electricity:

"Physicists try to tell us that the charges of electricity are not energy, and that a flow of charges is not a flow of energy. But then what's an electric current? Electric currents aren't flows of energy, so under the definition of "electricity" used by all the non-scientists, an electric current IS NOT a flow of electricity!"
http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Lokayata does not accept Brahman, but Aupmanyav does.

Perhaps, although often he seems to have simply renamed matter and energy in their entirety as Brahman. The problem is not that he is an atheist per se, in all meanings of that term. It is he is essentially a modern Wester atheist and materialist who sometimes uses Hindu metaphors and cultural terms to refer to essentially materialist (or physicalist if you want to make the point that energy is not matter) entities.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

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

Energy as understood by physics is not enough to show one is not a naturalist and physicalist (if one is differentiating between materialism and physicalism). If Braham is simply energy in a physical sense, then this does not change any of my points.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What I am trying to say is that people see a difference where perhaps there is none. You are dividing the world into two spheres, materialism and non-materialism, and thereby complicating things. What exists is only one. If Brahman is different from these then there should be no energy, gravitation, magnetism, light, heat, mass, dark energy, dark matter, normal matter or anti-matter.