Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

As me and Sayak have mutually agreed to end our specific debate, I want to bring up a separate point based on the thoughts shared by many in this debate.

I think Hinduism gets unfair treatment when it comes to treating it as a religion. In other religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism etc there are more commonly agreed criterias that distinguish their religion e.g.

Buddhism: Founder: Buddha, but believed to be one of many; Scriptures: Tripatika, Suttas, Dharmapada: Core beliefs: Four noble truths; Practice: 8-fold path, vipasana
Sikhism: Founder: Guru Nanak, but one of 10 Gurus; Scriptures: Adi Granth, Dasagranth; core tenents: Nirguna Brahman, Naam
Islam: Founder: Mohammed, but the last in a line of prophets; Scriptures: Quran and Hadiths: Core tenents: There is only one God and his name is Allah, and the Mohammed is the last and final prophet; Practices: the 5 pillars, jihad
Christianity: Founder, Jesus Christ; Scriptures: Bible; Core beliefs: Jesus is God-incarnate, Jesus died for our sins, the only salvation is to accept Jesus and be born again in spirit, immaculate conception; Practices: Worship, prayer and singing hymns, confessions

But for some reason when it comes to Hinduism its postmodern madness: Founder: There is no founder, everybody makes it up as they go; Scripture: There is no central scripture and there is no need for scripture or following any scripture; core beliefs: There are no core beliefs you can believe you want, all religions are truth, no religions are false; you can be anything atheist, theist, polytheist, monist, deist; practice; you can do anything you want, anything goes, rituals, meditation, prayer, beating oneself up, sticking needles into your face, masturbating in public.

This is the common myth that you hear being spread not by non-Hindus mind you, but people who call themselves Hindu. Let us call these Hindus Neo-Hindus or Postmodern Hindus. Then a traditional Hindu like me comes along and argues "Hang on, wait we do have founders, we do have scriptures, we do have core beliefs, we do have practices" and the Neo-Hindus cry "NAZI, HINDU TERRORIST, FUNDAMENTALIST, ZEALOT" because we crash their free for all party. Meanwhile, we traditionalists insist they are bad Hindus.

Now the question arises how do we demarcate between a good Hindu and a bad Hindu. Is every Hindu, and there is about 1 billion of us, spokespeople of the religion? Of course not. Just as not every 1.5 billion Muslims are spokespeople of the religion or 2 billion Christians are spokespeople for their religion. If we ask 2 billion Christians what they believe and practice we will get 2 billion different answers. Therefore, we cannot define the distinguishing criteria of a religion based on the subjective opinions of all its adherents. There has to be a demarcation criteria which separates the laity from the educated and learned class of that religion. We have that in Hinduism: They are called pandits, shastris, swamis, gurus etc These are the people who have studied the scriptures, literature and history of their religion --- who can give you informed answers to your questions about the religion.

When a Hindu tells you something about Hinduism, first make it clear what credentials they have. What scriptures have they read, what practices do they do etc I know from first hand experience, that a huge number of people who call themselves Hindus know next to nothing about their religion. When asked about it, either they cannot answer or they spread false ideas about it. This surprised me when I converted to Hinduism, I found I had to educate many born-Hindus on what their religion actually teaches. The outcome was good though, I was able to actually make them appreciate it and understand it more.

Now to answer the questions of criteria:

Founder: The Rishis, these are sages who in their highest state of meditation have realised certain truths and then passed them down generation to generation over thousands of years
Scripture: The Veda, which includes two aspects karma khanda(ritual part) which includes the Samhitas, Brahmans and the jnana khanda(knowledge or gnostic aspect) which includes the Arayakas and the Upanishad. These are called Sruti, considered to be the original revelation. Everything else that comes after is Smriti and is measured in accordance with Sruti. This includes Itihas, Puranas, Agamas, Sutras, Tantras and various shastras.
Core beliefs: The 20 items I mentioned earlier, including Brahman, Atman, dharma, karma, samsara, moksha etc
Practices: Yoga, including all forms of Yoga Karma, Bhakti, Jnana and Raja

Just as one would not consider a Jain eating meat a true jain, I cannot consider a Hindu not accepting the above as a true Hindu. I have a right to assert this.

 

[sayak83]

The mind-boggling arrogance of the previous post is noted. True Hinduism does not reside in the self-appointed high priests of the faith, but in the active and lived faith of the billion of its adherents, in their daily practices and rituals, hopes and beliefs, guided with care and discernment through scriptures and teachers as and when needed. Every religion has a few religious zealots that seek to arrogate for themselves the role of the spokesperson of the faith and the true interpretation of the scriptures. The less one pays them heed the better. We are a very tolerant creed and the zealots have their place in its expanse as well. But they exist only as a fringe group not representative in any way shape and form the breadth and depth of the tradition.

 

[Curious George]

....

... I know from first hand experience, that a huge number of people who call themselves Hindus know next to nothing about their religion. When asked about it, either they cannot answer or they spread false ideas about it. This surprised me when I converted to Hinduism, I found I had to educate many born-Hindus on what their religion actually teaches. The outcome was good though, I was able to actually make them appreciate it and understand it more....

Undoubtedly with great humility. I am glad you are on your journey to plant your flag. Enjoy it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The mind-boggling arrogance of the previous post is noted. True Hinduism does not reside in the self-appointed high priests of the faith, but in the active and lived faith of the billion of its adherents, in their daily practices and rituals, hopes and beliefs, guided with care and discernment through scriptures and teachers as and when needed. Every religion has a few religious zealots that seek to arrogate for themselves the role of the spokesperson of the faith and the true interpretation of the scriptures. The less one pays them heed the better. We are a very tolerant creed and the zealots have their place in its expanse as well. But they exist only as a fringe group not representative in any way shape and form the breadth and depth of the tradition.

You don't realise the irony in what you just said. You are saying I am not allowed to insist that a Hindu conforms with the criteria of the religion, but you are allowed to dictate "True Hinduism does not reside in the self-appointed high priests of the faith, but in the active and lived faith of the billion of its adherents, in their daily practices and rituals, hopes and beliefs, guided with care and discernment through scriptures and teachers as and when needed."

This is where your postmodern dogma that you are forcing on us Hindus collapses on itself.

Every religion has a few religious zealots that seek to arrogate for themselves the role of the spokesperson of the faith and the true interpretation of the scriptures.

This is funny, because that is what I said would happen:

Then a traditional Hindu like me comes along and argues "Hang on, wait we do have founders, we do have scriptures, we do have core beliefs, we do have practices" and the Neo-Hindus cry "NAZI, HINDU TERRORIST, FUNDAMENTALIST, ZEALOT" because we crash their free for all party. Meanwhile, we traditionalists insist they are bad Hindus.

Is a Muslim who tells another Muslim who eats pork that they are not a true Muslim a zealot? Is a vegan who tells another vegan who eats meat a zealot?

The only person being zealous here is you, because you are forcing me to accept your Neo-Hindu Postmodern anarchy HInduism where you pick and choose anything you want, believe anything you want, do anything you want. Whereas, I am like, "Hang on dude, we are a 5000-10,000 year old religion, we are not going to let some bunch of Neo-Hindu Postmodern misguided people claiming to be Hindu to subvert everything our religion teaches."

Coming back to topic, you are forcing us to accept atheism and matrialism as a valid path in our religion, and we are not buying it. because we know it is mutually opposing .

 

[sayak83]

You don't realise the irony in what you just said. You are saying I am not allowed to insist that a Hindu conforms with the criteria of the religion, but you are allowed to dictate "True Hinduism does not reside in the self-appointed high priests of the faith, but in the active and lived faith of the billion of its adherents, in their daily practices and rituals, hopes and beliefs, guided with care and discernment through scriptures and teachers as and when needed."

This is where your postmodern dogma that you are forcing on us Hindus collapses on itself.



This is funny, because that I what said would happen:



Is a Muslim who tells another Muslim who eats pork that they are not a true Muslim a zealot? Is a vegan who tells another vegan who eats meat a zealot?

The only person being zealous here is you, because you are forcing me to accept your Neo-Hindu Postmodern anarchy HInduism where you pick and choose anything you want, believe anything you want, do anything you want. Whereas, I am like, "Hang on dude, we are a 5000-10,000 year old religion, we are not going to let some bunch of Neo-Hindu postmodern misguided people claiming to be Hindu to subvert everything our religion teaches.

Coming back to topic, you are forcing us to accept atheism and matrialism as a valid path in our religion, and we are not buying it. because we know it is mutually opposing .

We are no longer debating, remember?
You say what you want and I will say what I want. We have very different opinions on who is it actually doing the subversion. What we believe you are doing is a recasting of Hindu dharma into the Abrahamic mold of a religion, something it never was and will never will be. YHWH or Allah is a zealous God and hence its primary requirement of discipleship is obedient zealotry (examples abound).So a very good case can be made that a good Muslim or a good Christian is a zealot. Not so in Hinduism. Here being over-zealous is a sign of poor understanding and immature faith . Indeed as Lal Ded said:-

Up woman! Go make your offering.
Take wine, meat and cake fit for the gods.
If you know the password to the Supreme Place,
you can reach wisdom by breaking the rules.

Or as Appar said:-
Why chant the Veda? Why perform sacrifices?
Why study the Lawbooks every day,
Why know the six Vedanga texts?
All this is in vain,
If you do not love the Lord.

Why rise at dawn and bathe?
Why Practice each rite according to the rules?
Why perform sacrifices at great altars of fire?
All this is in vain if you do not say,
"He is my friend."

All very postmodern though very 8th-12th century.

Last we discussed about atheism, you were failing to demonstrate the fact that modern atheists and secular humanists I mentioned actually pursue the demoniacal lifestyle or have the character depicted in the Gita.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Undoubtedly with great humility. I am glad you are on your journey to plant your flag. Enjoy it.

Actually quite the opposite, I am in no position to be anybodies guru. You decided to interpret this in the worst possible light that you could. All I said was I helped them appreciate it understand it more. What is wrong with that? They tell me themselves, and some of them are even ahead of me now. You cannot accuse me of not being humble, because there is contradictory evidence on this page itself "I said my knowledge of Sanskrit was basic, hence I do not try to translate Sanskrit scriptures myself, but rely on experts" compare and contast with "Dude, a 1908 translation is not a critical work. To be a critical work it has to clearly write all possible ways to read the text and then show which is the most probable reading. As far as I know there has not been a critical translation of Brahmasutra done yet.Everybody follows the traditional ways to read it along with all the interpolations" based on a knowledge of Sanskrit at high school level he is contradicting PhD and experts"

" I said "I am not a shastri" meaning I do not consider myself an expert in the shastras. In fact what I said was earlier on in this thread, "I have some knowledge, more than the average lay person" compare and contrast this with claiming to be an expert on darsanas, but not having a single credential in the field.

It is clear who is being humble and who isn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is clear who is being humble and who isn't.

I would say so. Humble people do not attempt to convince others to be people of the book.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

We are no longer debating, remember?

As juvenile as this sounds, you started it again

The mind-boggling arrogance of the previous post is noted.

(Btw I refuted your 'plain reading' translation in an edit above)

You say what you want and I will say what I want. We have very different opinions on who is it actually doing the subversion.

That is fair enough. It is a debate and we have opposing oppositions. However, I think by far, though of course I would be biassed, my position is backed up with scriptural evidence and reasoning, and yours is just based on a lot of rhetoric. e.g. you cannot point me one one single example of an atheist denomination of Hinduism. I think I have the upper hand by miles.

The fact that you failed in your "Lets be Dharmic" attempt is another feather in my cap.

You have also said some blatantly absurd things that you have even bothered to check, "Abrahanic religions all worship the same God"

You have failed to refute several of my arguments.

What we believe you are doing is a recasting of Hindu dharma into the Abrahamic mold of a religion, something it never was and will never will be. YHWH or Allah is a zealous God and hence its primary requirement of discipleship is obedient zealotry (examples abound).So a very good case can be made that a good Muslim or a good Christian is a zealot. Not so in Hinduism. Here being over-zealous is a sign of poor understanding and immature faith .

I have refuted this several times already, just because you think it sounds Abrahamic does not mean it is an Abrahamic mould. There are many religions that are older than Christianity and Islam and they also have founders, scriptures, core beliefs and practices. I gave examples earlier. You failed to refute it.

You have not even bothered to engage my argument that is a vegan telling another vegan that eats meat they are not a true vegan a zealot?

Indeed as Lal Ded said:-[

Up woman! Go make your offering.
Take wine, meat and cake fit for the gods.
If you know the password to the Supreme Place,
you can reach wisdom by breaking the rules.

Or as Appar said:-
Why chant the Veda? Why perform sacrifices?
Why study the Lawbooks every day,
Why know the six Vedanga texts?
All this is in vain,
If you do not love the Lord.

Why rise at dawn and bathe?
Why Practice each rite according to the rules?
Why perform sacrifices at great altars of fire?
All this is in vain if you do not say,
"He is my friend."

As always, you missed the forest for the trees. I am very familiar with Bhakti literature and even in Vedanta shastras it talks about how useless scriptures are in attaining self-knowledge. Yet, you do not see the irony, if Vedanta is based on scripture itself, then why would it say it is useless. It is because a secondary meaning is intended which having a bit more knowledge Vedanta philosophy and having read a few shastras, you would understand. Although scripture does not bring you realisation of Brahman, it instructs you such a thing as Brahman exists and can be directly experienced. Then, you must practice to realise that. Hence, our three fold method of education: Sharvanam(listening) Mananam(contemplation) and Nidhidyasanam(meditation). The knowledge of Brahman begins first by hearing about it. Then you contemplate on it(jnana abhyasa) and then you meditate on it to realise it.

I am not sure why I am even telling you this, because your cup is too full.

All very postmodern though very 8th-12th century.

So read more carefully:

Why chant the Veda? Why perform sacrifices?
Why study the Lawbooks every day,
Why know the six Vedanga texts?
All this is in vain,
If you do not love the Lord.

It is an IF THEN statement. If you do not love the lord, then what use is the Veda, the lawbooks, the Vedangas etc. It is not saying reject scriptures. This is classical Vedanta teaching, the scriptures are a means towards an end. They signpost God, but then you need to practice yoga, karma, bhakti, jnana etc to realise it.

You remind me so much of Virochana in the Upanishads (Read up on it, and you will understand what I am saying)

Last we discussed about atheism, you were failing to demonstrate the fact that modern atheists and secular humanists I mentioned actually pursue the demoniacal lifestyle or have the character depicted in the Gita.

I already refuted this argument. Atheists and materialist people who self-identify as such, do not really practice it. I gave you an example of Richard Dawkins who himself admitted that ethical materialism would lead a dangerous world. You failed to refute it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I would say so. Humble people do not attempt to convince others to be people of the book.

Again I ill put forward the same refutation. If you tell a Theravada Buddhist, that the Tripitaka canon is authoritative for them, you are not being humble and you are forcing them to be a religion of the book?

 

[LuisDantas]

Again I ill put forward the same refutation. If you tell a Theravada Buddhist, that the Tripitaka canon is authoritative for them, you are not being humble and you are forcing them to be a religion of the book?

If you do that with the assumptions and the attitude that you are showing towards Hinduism?

Yes, I would say so. You would be showing a serious misunderstanding of what Dharma is, and hinting at too much influence from Abrahamism.

 

[sayak83]

As juvenile as this sounds, you started it again

Juvenile is the word for it, mostly applicable to you. You should stop quoting me if you do not want to debate.

(Btw I refuted your 'plain reading' translation in an edit above)

Umm..no you did not. You said it does not make sense in the plain reading, but it does. See the complete translation here,
Can Hindus be atheist?

Now an investigation into Brahman (Athato Brahmajijnasa )- from which the birth of this (Janmadyasya yatah ), that being the womb of the Shastras (Sastrayonitvat ), that but a consequence of direct awareness not based on scriptures/testimony (Tattu Samanvayat īkṣateḥ-na-shabdam).

You seriously cannot understand the above sentence?

That is fair enough. It is a debate and we have opposing oppositions. However, I think by far, though of course I would be biassed, my position is backed up with scriptural evidence and reasoning, and yours is just based on a lot of rhetoric. e.g. you cannot point me one one single example of an atheist denomination of Hinduism. I think I have the upper hand by miles.

I have the opposite viewpoint. You have failed to argue anything based on either scriptural evidence or reasoning. By the way testimony of experts extends beyond scripture to experts in all walks of life including modern day and medieval seers and saints. Veda-s is just a subset of sabd-pramana (I can quote Nyaya if you like).
I have quoted abundant scripture
Can Hindus be atheist?

The fact that you failed in your "Lets be Dharmic" attempt is another feather in my cap.

Wow. Just wow. I was quite satisfied with the thread. Most were of the opinion that the divisions are there to make things manageable and that Buddhism DIR is quite free in allowing for fellow Dharmics and other people interested in Buddhism to post in it.

You have also said some blatantly absurd things that you have even bothered to check, "Abrahanic religions all worship the same God"

Oh, most people (Christians and Jews) outside the fundamentalist evangelical minority agree on this. Muslims of course believes this 100% as the Quran says so. And the Catholics agree
Do Muslims Worship the Same God Catholics Do? | Catholic Answers
And Anglicans agree
A beginner's Guide to The Episcopal Church
"This belief is common to many major religions. Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God, in different ways."

You have failed to refute several of my arguments.

I refuted those that seemed significant. Most of your arguments are moot once we note that the people in the scriptures themselves say that scriptures are not the normative authority, as I have shown.

I have refuted this several times already, just because you think it sounds Abrahamic does not mean it is an Abrahamic mould. There are many religions that are older than Christianity and Islam and they also have founders, scriptures, core beliefs and practices. I gave examples earlier. You failed to refute it.

Not many religions are older than Judaism (900 BCE), and theologically speaking Christianity and Islam are simply sects of Judaism. But its unclear what the point is supposed to be. Vaisesika is also founded by a person, his name is Kanada. The classical Visita-Advaita school is founded (or in large part forged) by Ramanuja. etc.

You have not even bothered to engage my argument that is a vegan telling another vegan that eats meat they are not a true vegan a zealot?

You have not bothered to tell tell me how the argument is relevant.
You, yourself have not bothered to tell me that whether you think that a scholar of grammar is correct in chastising Bob Dylan or Faulkner for writing "bad" grammatically incorrect sentences.

As always, you missed the forest for the trees. I am very familiar with Bhakti literature and even in Vedanta shastras it talks about how useless scriptures are in attaining self-knowledge.

You are? What a relief?

Yet, you do not see the irony, if Vedanta is based on scripture itself, then why would it say it is useless.

Who said its based on scripture? In fact my quotes directly refutes the point that it is based on scripture, though parts of scripture can certainly be read to support Vedanta.

It is because a secondary meaning is intended which having a bit more knowledge Vedanta philosophy and having read a few shastras, you would understand.

No, a primary meaning is intended, which, if you actually see Hinduism in practice in addition to reading scriptures, you would understand.

Although scripture does not bring you realisation of Brahman, it instructs you such a thing as Brahman exists and can be directly experienced. Then, you must practice to realise that. Hence, our three fold method of education: Sharvanam(listening) Mananam(contemplation) and Nidhidyasanam(meditation). The knowledge of Brahman begins first by hearing about it. Then you contemplate on it(jnana abhyasa) and then you meditate on it to realise it.

This step by step cycle is an invention of later schools like Sankara and is nowhere present in the Upanishads or Gita. They say exactly the opposite in many cases (as I have quoted) Its also directly refuted by the hundreds and thousands of poets, seers, saints, bhakta-s and sadhu-s who have realized Brahman directly through the ages of India.

I am not sure why I am even telling you this, because your cup is too full.

More useless comments. I, for my part, sincerely hope that you grow beyond this.

It is an IF THEN statement. If you do not love the lord, then what use is the Veda, the lawbooks, the Vedangas etc. It is not saying reject scriptures. This is classical Vedanta teaching, the scriptures are a means towards an end. They signpost God, but then you need to practice yoga, karma, bhakti, jnana etc to realise it.

You remind me so much of Virochana in the Upanishads (Read up on it, and you will understand what I am saying)

Your inability to understand the difference between saying that scriptures as assistive guides in Dharmic traditions and scriptures as normative authority in Abrahamic traditions continues to be the one point where you fail to understand Hinduism. One does not reject the scriptures by saying (as many in Bhakti and Upanisadic books, as well as Gita- have) that they do not have normative control over how one realizes Brahman and lives in faith. In fact its the scripture-mongerers who are likely to miss the forest for the trees.

I already refuted this argument. Atheists and materialist people who self-identify as such, do not really practice it. I gave you an example of Richard Dawkins who himself admitted that ethical materialism would lead a dangerous world. You failed to refute it.

I have directly refuted you by explicitly showing that Dawkins have been misquoted and showing explicitly how a good ethical outlook is generated from materialism by Epicureans in the past and secular humanists of today. You failed to refute it,
Can Hindus be atheist?

 

[Vinayaka]

I would say so. Humble people do not attempt to convince others to be people of the book.

Humble people don't try to convince anybody of anything, Luis. As a wiser person once said, 'Let it Be'. As the watcher of debates of all kinds, I generally see ego on all sides. Humble people are more prone to just withdraw, realising, for one, that its an internet forum, and convincing one anonymous person from some far off land about some minor detail in the grand scheme of life really isn't doing much at all.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Juvenile is the word for it, mostly applicable to you. You should stop quoting me if you do not want to debate.

My dear, you don't know how to debate, by ignoring your opponents argument and not engaging them you don't win a debate.

Umm..no you did not. You said it does not make sense in the plain reading, but it does. See the complete translation here,
Can Hindus be atheist?

Here you have failed to refute my argument above that if you translate something from another language into another plainly and literally it produces nonsense. See

Издание со ссылкой на свои источники сообщает, что США пересматривают свою стратегию отношений с Пхеньяном. Новый президент США Дональд Трамп, как известно, крайне негативно относится к северокорейскому режиму. Недавно он заявил, что Северная Корея является главной угрозой для США.

Literal translation: Edition with citation on their sources reports what USA reviewing its strategy relations from Pyongyang
Actual translation: The publication, citing its sources reported that the US is rethinking its strategy of relations with Pyongyang.

You have self-appointed yourself a translator of Sanskrit, decided the experts are all wrong, and you only have a High school level knowledge of Sanskrit . I will take translations done by experts, nothing personal. I think you think because you have a PhD in Physics/Chemistry, you have become an expert in every other field Sanskrit, Indology, Hindu studies, Indian philosophy. This is why you remind me of Virochana.....

I have the opposite viewpoint. You have failed to argue anything based on either scriptural evidence or reasoning. By the way testimony of experts extends beyond scripture to experts in all walks of life including modern day and medieval seers and saints. Veda-s is just a subset of sabd-pramana (I can quote Nyaya if you like).
I have quoted abundant scripture
Can Hindus be atheist?

Here you have failed to refute my argument where I have shown by citing directly from every darsana that they accept the authority of scripture.

Can Hindus be atheist?

I can also cite the Mahabharata, Dharma shastras, Agamas, Tantras etc that the authority of scripture is universally accepted in Hinduism.

Wow. Just wow. I was quite satisfied with the thread. Most were of the opinion that the divisions are there to make things manageable and that Buddhism DIR is quite free in allowing for fellow Dharmics and other people interested in Buddhism to post in it.

You were told it was not going to happen. Period. They are mutually opposing. If I am allowed to post in the Buddhism DIR could I go i there saying "Buddha was a deceiver, all Buddhists have been deceived to bring them to Hinduism by stealth. Discuss" or say "Kalki will come to annihilate the Buddhists, discuss"

Here again you failed to refute the main argument Hinduism and Buddhism are mutually opposing, as are Hinduism and Charvaka.

(It is ironic that even people who are leaning more to your side have acknowledged it)

Oh, most people (Christians and Jews) outside the fundamentalist evangelical minority agree on this. Muslims of course believes this 100% as the Quran says so. And the Catholics agree
Do Muslims Worship the Same God Catholics Do? | Catholic Answers
And Anglicans agree
A beginner's Guide to The Episcopal Church
"This belief is common to many major religions. Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God, in different ways."

We know they are not the same Gods. Allah is a pre-islamic pagan moon God, that the tribe of Mohammed Qureshi worshipped. Christians do not accept Allah as their God, you don't see Christians worshipping Allah or Muslims worshipping Jesus. I know I am right on this, and virtually the entire forum knows I am right on this. This is why it shows you up as a very unreasonable person who cannot accept even the most obvious of things.

In contrast, Hindus are belong to Vedic traditions and Hindus who belong to Agamic traditions, worship the same deities. Virtually every Hindu knows this.

I refuted those that seemed significant. Most of your arguments are moot once we note that the people in the scriptures themselves say that scriptures are not the normative authority, as I have shown.

But you haven't. You have not shown my that any sect rejects the authority of scriptures. Your attempts to show we reject scriptures include 1) Translating a single verse from the Brahma sutras from Sanskrit into English, based on high school of Sanskrit, knowing next to nothing about Sanskrit grammar, declensions and sandhi or the Brahma sutras itself and 2) A misreading of a Bhakti poem saying "What use are scriptures, if you do not love God"

Nothing you have said so far would stand up to scholarship. You were would be seen as an ignorant know-it-all.
You have not a single credential in any related field.

Not many religions are older than Judaism (900 BCE), and theologically speaking Christianity and Islam are simply sects of Judaism. But its unclear what the point is supposed to be. Vaisesika is also founded by a person, his name is Kanada. The classical Visita-Advaita school is founded (or in large part forged) by Ramanuja. etc.

"and theologically speaking Christianity and Islam are simply sects of Judaism."

LOL Man, not only are you making blatantly false and absurd statements about Hinduism, you are making blatantly false and absurd statements about Abrahamic religions too. The problem is, you don't even realise it, because you're a know-it-all. You are an expert in every field, in Hindu studies, Sanskrit in Indology, in Indian history, Indian philosophy, Buddhism, Abrahamic religons, philosophy, theology --- everything.

I really would love you to post this as separate debate in the debate forums and see you get mauled by at least half of the forum.

You are? What a relief?

This is what you don't get. We don't accept scripture as the means to realisation of Brahman. We accept scripture as the indicator of Brahman and hence shabd is the only pramana for Brahman. I gave a great illustration and argument for this in my thread 'Hinduism according to Advaita' If you are a 2D flatlander, how would you ever know the 3D exists and what is it like. You could only know if somebody from the 2D went to the 3D and told you about it.

Who said its based on scripture? In fact my quotes directly refutes the point that it is based on scripture, though parts of scripture can certainly be read to support Vedanta.

The Vedanta school itself dude. I have told you on repeatedly several times that the primary pramana(mukya pramana) of the Vedanta school is the scriptures, in this case the Prashtanatrayi(triple canon consisting of 13 Upanishads, BG and Brahma sutras). Every student of Vedanta knows this, because this is absolute basic Vedanta 101. It is taught i class 1.

Your problem is a you're a know-it-all. You have not studied Vedanta, in fact you have not studied a single school of Indian philosophy, do not have a single credential in these fields(other than high school classes in Sanskrit) and you are barging into this forum telling people who have studied these fields and have some credentials they are all wrong and only you are right.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

No, a primary meaning is intended, which, if you actually see Hinduism in practice in addition to reading scriptures, you would understand.

You failed to refute my argument that it is an IF THEN statement. It is not rejecting scripture, it is saying scripture is useless if you do not love God. And where do you get the knowledge of God in the first place? From scriptures

Again you know next to nothing(though you think you know it all) of he philosophy of the Bhakti sects. They actually composed their own scriptures and translated old scriptures like the Mahabharata into the vernacular tongue. They were not anti scripture, they were pro Bhakti. If you can't the difference, there is no hope for you(although I lost hope in you a long time ago)

This step by step cycle is an invention of later schools like Sankara and is nowhere present in the Upanishads or Gita. They say exactly the opposite in many cases (as I have quoted) Its also directly refuted by the hundreds and thousands of poets, seers, saints, bhakta-s and sadhu-s who have realized Brahman directly through the ages of India.

Here you go again, not having studied any of the scriptures and shastras, and yet knowing it all. Coming here barging into our Hindu religion and telling us our traditional three-fold method of education is an invention by later theistic Hindu propogandists:

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (II.iv.5) defines Nididhyasana as the meditation for the sake of direct vision.[7]Yajnavalkya tells his wife –

आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यो मैत्रेयि,
आत्मनो व अरे दर्शनेन श्रवणेन मत्या विज्ञानेनेदं सर्वं विदितम् ||
"The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realized – should be heard of, reflected on and medtated upon;
by the realization of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known." - (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad St.II.iv.5)

Shravanam:Mananam:Nidhidhysanam:
Atmaa vaare drshtavya mantavya nidhidhyasitavyah (Br.Up)​

Not only do I think you are not Hindu now, I think you are anti-Hindu and pretending to be one of us.

More useless comments. I, for my part, sincerely hope that you grow beyond this.

I think it needs to be said. I had a lot of respect for you in the past, but in the course of this debate it has literally evaporated. I have not seen such a bad case of "know-it-allia" You need to be more humble. It is obvious you are painfully ignorant about Hinduism, but you are showing the same painful ignorance about Abrahamic religions too.

If suppose we were talking the reactions of chemical systems, I wouldn't be opposing what you were saying, because I would accept my ignorance and allow you to educate me. Then I would learn something. But you are not only ignorant ,but arrogant at the same time. You do not even create the opportunity to be educated, because you already know-it-all

Your inability to understand the difference between saying that scriptures as assistive guides in Dharmic traditions and scriptures as normative authority in Abrahamic traditions continues to be the one point where you fail to understand Hinduism. One does not reject the scriptures by saying (as many in Bhakti and Upanisadic books, as well as Gita- have) that they do not have normative control over how one realizes Brahman and lives in faith. In fact its the scripture-mongerers who are likely to miss the forest for the trees.

Scriptures are not just guides. They are a pramana, meaning a valid means of knowledge. They are normative for us, as is the bible for the Christians and Quran for the Muslims. We consider Veda "Sruti" meaning revelation(directly heard) and we have developed standards to distinguish us from others, by accepting or rejecting Vedas(astika and nastika)

I think what you don't get we are not saying scripture is the end all and be all. We are not saying that scripture alone is enough to realise Brahman. All we are saying is scripture is the means of knowledge of Brahman and then we must practice to realise Brahman. So practice is ultimately more important. Hence we all accept all three means of knowledge re perception, inference and testimony. Your problem is you are rejecting scripture altogether and this is why I cannot consider you Hindu. In fact considering how you have continuously called traditionalists "zealots" fundamentalists, and your list includes Shankara as some early fundamentalist Hindu, actually makes you anti-Hindu.

I also sense a political motive. You describe yourself as "secular" which I know which political parties wear as their motto in India and you described Nehru as a great atheist. Nehru is infamous in India for his anti-Hindu politics and his rejection of all scriptures and shastras in favour of modern Western science and philosophy. You betray the same attitudes, betraying your political subscriptions.

I have directly refuted you by explicitly showing that Dawkins have been misquoted and showing explicitly how a good ethical outlook is generated from materialism by Epicureans in the past and secular humanists of today. You failed to refute it,
Can Hindus be atheist?

In that case, I will find the quote. However, I can also argue why ethical materialism leads to nihilism and hedonism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If you do that with the assumptions and the attitude that you are showing towards Hinduism?

Yes, I would say so. You would be showing a serious misunderstanding of what Dharma is, and hinting at too much influence from Abrahamism.

I don't agree. I am insisting on how we have traditionally defined Hinduism as the Vedic religion(vedik dharma) If this sounds like Abrahanic religions, then it just means we have that in common.

Anyway you know what I said regarding the Tripitaka canon of Theravada Buddhists is right, Theravada Buddhists do indeed accept it their canon, and for a Theravdin to point that out does not make them a zealot, fundamentalist or Ahrahamic. Similarly, for a Hindu to point out that the Sruti(Veda) is our sacred canon and Smriti has to be in agreement with Sruti does not make them a zealot, fundamentalist or Abrahamic.

I know that it seems prima farcie that in this debate the opposing view that Hinduism can be atheistic and is not a religion of the book etc seems more popular. But nothing is proven by popularity. If suppose we were a bunch of Jains debating whether meat eating is allowed in Jainism and there were a greater number of Jains and supporters saying it is allowed, and fewer saying it is not allowed, it is not going to make the former right. It is blatantly obvious that meat eating goes against the core beliefs of Jainism. Similarly, you cannot reject the authority of the Veda in Hinduism, from which it gets it namesake Vedik Dharma, because it uproots the very foundation of our religion and our belief in the Rishis. So great is our belief in the Rishis, we call India "Rishibhumi" meaning the land of the Rishis.

I am not going to allow a bunch of internet Neo-Hindus subvert our religion. Of course I am not going to be violent(because I am not a zealot ) but I am definitely going to let my opposition be known and debate my position. As this is a "debate" I am entitled to do that. The fact is it not opinion or perspective I am representing here, I am presenting the siddhantas(tenets) of our religion and I am doing it by showingly directly through citations from our scriptures and shastras that these indeed are our tenets.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't agree. I am insisting on how we have traditionally defined Hinduism as the Vedic religion(vedik dharma) If this sounds like Abrahanic religions, then it just means we have that in common.

It certainly means that your conception has that in common with them.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It certainly means that your conception has that in common with them.

So what are you saying? Buddhists can have canons dictating which are their authoritative scriptures are; Jains can have canons dictating what their authoritative scriptures are; Sikhs can have dictate what their scripture is

... But we Hindus cannot?

Why the double standards?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Humble people don't try to convince anybody of anything, Luis. As a wiser person once said, 'Let it Be'. As the watcher of debates of all kinds, I generally see ego on all sides. Humble people are more prone to just withdraw, realising, for one, that its an internet forum, and convincing one anonymous person from some far off land about some minor detail in the grand scheme of life really isn't doing much at all.

Dear Vinayaka, I think we are on the same side in this debate, so do not take this as a disagreement. I just do not see the wisdom in withdrawing from the debate and letting go of our position, thereby allowing the opposing position to win(It is a debate after all, and debates are fought to win) The opposing position is deeply anti-Hindu. It started of by forcing Hindus to accept atheism as a valid path within Hinduism. It then grew wider to force Hindus to accept Hinduism is not even a religion and now it has grown wide enough to reject the Vedas, reject all its core tenets, its epistemology, its metaphysics, its ethics, its holy men. I wish that this position was just some anonymous Internet HIndus from a far off land, but actually this is a position taken by a large number of Hindus outside of the internet in India, the so-called secular Hindus. Modern Hindu scholars like Rajiv Malhotra has pointed the growing institutionalised anti-Hinduism or Hinduphobia in the academic and political world, which has spread because Hindus like you and me did not challenge it earlier. Just recently, an attempt was made to literally erase India in US textbooks by calling it "South Asia" by this lobby of secular Hindus.

The worse thing that we can do is keep quiet. The least we can do is peacefully debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

So what are you saying?

That I don't acknowledge in you the authority to decide about such things, clearly.

Buddhists can have canons dictating which are their authoritative scriptures are; Jains can have canons dictating what their authoritative scriptures are; Sikhs can have dictate what their scripture is

... But we Hindus cannot?

Why the double standards?

"Can have canons dictating authoritative scriptures"? What a funny way of putting it.

Scriptures are at the very best marginal resources for any religion. Any authority that may exist in a religion will unavoidably come from living consciences, never from a scripture.

That is how a living dharma - or a living religion - is supposed to be.

 

[sayak83]

My dear, you don't know how to debate, by ignoring your opponents argument and not engaging them you don't win a debate.

Correct, the tactic that you, repeatedly use.

Here you have failed to refute my argument above that if you translate something from another language into another plainly and literally it produces nonsense. See

The word-by-word translation that has been made does not produce nonsense, making your example irrelevant. So your point is refuted.

You have self-appointed yourself a translator of Sanskrit, decided the experts are all wrong, and you only have a High school level knowledge of Sanskrit . I will take translations done by experts, nothing personal. I think you think because you have a PhD in Physics/Chemistry, you have become an expert in every other field Sanskrit, Indology, Hindu studies, Indian philosophy. This is why you remind me of Virochana.....

Indeed, I prefer to read the texts directly rather than the pages and pages of commentary and creative interpolations that separates the texts, breaks its flow and alters their meaning. Most of the scholars of religion in the university that I have studied with (I have taken courses in Hindu philosophy) do the same. They read the bhasya-s when talking about the philsophy of Sankara etc. but read the sutra-s separately as they are quite distinct works with their own flow, structure and worldview.

Here you have failed to refute my argument where I have shown by citing directly from every darsana that they accept the authority of scripture.

Can Hindus be atheist?

I can also cite the Mahabharata, Dharma shastras, Agamas, Tantras etc that the authority of scripture is universally accepted in Hinduism.

I have already shown how the verses in Yoga-sutra have been interpolated to provide a different meaning.Also here where another such dubious translation is refuted
Can Hindus be atheist?

Obviously Vaisesika believes in the idea of an atomic soul (like the Nyaya) and taken as a whole is not compatible with atheism. My main argument has always been that scriptures are not normative to the practice (but rather guide it) and it is entirely possible for a Hindu to use discerning and selective use of various scripture and philosiphical works to forge his/her own sadhana.
Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You were told it was not going to happen. Period. They are mutually opposing. If I am allowed to post in the Buddhism DIR could I go i there saying "Buddha was a deceiver, all Buddhists have been deceived to bring them to Hinduism by stealth. Discuss" or say "Kalki will come to annihilate the Buddhists, discuss"

If a Hindu posts in Hinduism DIR that " The people saying lower caste and those born of a non-Brahmin family can read scriptures are false Hindus according to scriptures, discuss" , I am pretty sure it would be migrated to the debate forum as well. I asked a simple question
"Shouldn't our DIR forums reflect this porosity by allowing all Dharmic people to comment in each others forums (no debating of course)" and the answer to that was,
I want to clarify rule 10 which exists both to save moderators a lot of work and to keep debate in debate areas.
Which is a perfectly acceptable answer. And given the kind of thought you expressed here, I think its a wise move. Not everyone is Dharmic after all....

Here again you failed to refute the main argument Hinduism and Buddhism are mutually opposing, as are Hinduism and Charvaka.

You haven't made any argument. As I have consistently said, people are not beholden to follow each and every aspect of philosophical school within Hinduism and Buddhism. Thus a person can be a Buddhist and worship Siva or Vishnu as great Boddhisatva-s for example, or a person can accept the entirety of 4 noble truths and the methods of eliminating suffering and simultaneously follow a Yogic path of Brahman realization through a parallel practice.

We know they are not the same Gods. Allah is a pre-islamic pagan moon God, that the tribe of Mohammed Qureshi worshipped. Christians do not accept Allah as their God, you don't see Christians worshipping Allah or Muslims worshipping Jesus. I know I am right on this, and virtually the entire forum knows I am right on this. This is why it shows you up as a very unreasonable person who cannot accept even the most obvious of things.

The delusion is strong in this one.
The Catholic position is an explicit yes, they worship the same God.
Nostra aetate
The mainstream protestant position outside of the evangelicals is also an explicit yes. I have shown the Episcopalians before. Here is more,
Yes, Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God (But Here's What That Means & Doesn't)
You could try and educate yourself and read some books
Do We Worship the Same God?
Muslim position is unambiguous in the Quran, they indeed do worship the same God.

But you haven't. You have not shown my that any sect rejects the authority of scriptures. Your attempts to show we reject scriptures include 1) Translating a single verse from the Brahma sutras from Sanskrit into English, based on high school of Sanskrit, knowing next to nothing about Sanskrit grammar, declensions and sandhi or the Brahma sutras itself and 2) A misreading of a Bhakti poem saying "What use are scriptures, if you do not love God"

Your continued avoidance of the Gita and Upanishads quotes is noted.

Nothing you have said so far would stand up to scholarship.

It would, since I have taken actual university courses in Hinduism and wrote term papers on them.

LOL Man, not only are you making blatantly false and absurd statements about Hinduism, you are making blatantly false and absurd statements about Abrahamic religions too. The problem is, you don't even realise it, because you're a know-it-all. You are an expert in every field, in Hindu studies, Sanskrit in Indology, in Indian history, Indian philosophy, Buddhism, Abrahamic religons, philosophy, theology --- everything.

Projection.

I really would love you to post this as separate debate in the debate forums and see you get mauled by at least half of the forum.

Since I have participated in multiple interfaith meets with Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists with actual practicing imams, rabbis and Christian priests giving invited talks, I am quote comfortable regarding my positions on this.

This is what you don't get. We don't accept scripture as the means to realisation of Brahman.

I agree

We accept scripture as the indicator of Brahman

I agree.

and hence shabd is the only pramana for Brahman.

Does not follow. Not supported by scriptures or experience of saints and hence reject.

I gave a great illustration and argument for this in my thread 'Hinduism according to Advaita' If you are a 2D flatlander, how would you ever know the 3D exists and what is it like. You could only know if somebody from the 2D went to the 3D and told you about it.

False analogy. We are 3D people who have temporarily forgotten about the third dimension. But depth (i.e. Brahman) exist within us and can express itself at any suitable opportunity, including sabd but also any other kind of life experience.

The Vedanta school itself dude. I have told you on repeatedly several times that the primary pramana(mukya pramana) of the Vedanta school is the scriptures, in this case the Prashtanatrayi(triple canon consisting of 13 Upanishads, BG and Brahma sutras). Every student of Vedanta knows this, because this is absolute basic Vedanta 101. It is taught i class 1.

Vedanta school is a specialized branch of late classical systemic philosophy. Many Hindus believe in the reality of Brahman, but most of them are not officially affiliated with the explicit Vedanta school nor subscribe to each and every aspect of its doctrines. Once again the Vedanta school is a good and useful guide but has no necessary normative authority on those Hindu-s who believe in and practice in their sadhana to realize Brahman

Your problem is a you're a know-it-all. You have not studied Vedanta, in fact you have not studied a single school of Indian philosophy, do not have a single credential in these fields(other than high school classes in Sanskrit) and you are barging into this forum telling people who have studied these fields and have some credentials they are all wrong and only you are right.

False (minor in Hindu philosophy). Projection.