Can Hindus be atheist?

[Aupmanyav]

I've never really delved into Buddhism in any philosophical or practical way, but by the mere fact that the vast consensus of those who have is that they are separate is enough for me. Maybe its just the lazy man's out. I trust my fellow man to make accurate assessments on such things.

Ha ha, but I have tried to. Buddhism may differ from main-line Hinduism, but from where I see - atheist advaita - there is no difference bar a haze at the border. I say existence can perhaps change into non-existence (a-la Nasadiya Sukta) and vice-versa, Buddhism says it is not important in practical life, something which I do not disagree with. My position is not something out of my *** but very scriptural.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I specifically alluded to HInduism and its tendency to promote cults, false supernatural claims, subdue vast population into perpetual poverty, and decrease IQ throw devaluation of human pursuits. Examples can be:

• Breatharianism
• Religious figure cults (Sri Baba, Prabupada etc)
• The multitude of IQ research in Hindu nations
• Caste system
• Orthodoxy and self proclaimed hierarchy (something Sunni Islam faces right now)

Hinduism does not promote Breatherainism or cults, but the problem is what do we do with people who believe in these things? We can only try to explain to them, which we do. We cannot behead them. That is not our way. I do not think Hindus have any IQ problem. Sayak has explained it better, so I do not need to do it (Kindly remember, there is no Hindu nation in the world. Both India and Nepal are secular nations. Sure, they have a Hindu majority).

Caste is a pre-Aryan social system compounded by the four-way social system of Aryans going back to a few thousand years. It is very deep-rooted and complex. Caste combines in it tribal association (like among Jats, Ahirs, Meenas), professions (Lohar, Sonar, Kumhar, Teli), regions (Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Kashmiri), religious traditions (Ramanamis, Kabirpanthis, SriVaishnavas, Madhvas, Lingayat), etc. It is not just Brahmin, dalits and warrior castes, as generally understood. It would take much time and education to get eradicated, although we have made very good laws against it.

As for orthodoxy and self proclaimed hierarchy, it is not at all prominent in current day Hinduism, and certainly nothing as compared to what it is in Sunni Islam. No one gives out fatwas in Hinduism.

Lastly, by 2050 or even earlier as the economists predict, India is going to be the second largest economy in the world leaving USA behind. It is already the third on basis of PPP based GDP and have left Japan behind. We would be the second best in nearly everything. It is not predicted that we will overtake China in anything except population.
World Bank: India Overtakes Japan as World's Third Largest Economy
India 'to overtake China's population by 2022' - UN - BBC News

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hinduism does not promote Breatherainism or cults, but the problem is what do we do with people who believe in these things? We can only try to explain to them, which we do. We cannot behead them. That is not our way. I do not think Hindus have any IQ problem. Sayak has explained it better, so I do not need to do it (Kindly remember, there is no Hindu nation in the world. Both India and Nepal are secular nations. Sure, they have a Hindu majority).

Caste is a pre-Aryan social system compounded by the four-way social system of Aryans going back to a few thousand years. It is very deep-rooted and complex. Caste combines in it tribal association (like among Jats, Ahirs, Meenas), professions (Lohar, Sonar, Kumhar, Teli), regions (Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Kashmiri), religious traditions (Ramanamis, Kabirpanthis, SriVaishnavas, Madhvas, Lingayat), etc. It is not just Brahmin, dalits and warrior castes, as generally understood. It would take much time and education to get eradicated, although we have made very good laws against it.

As for orthodoxy and self proclaimed hierarchy, it is not at all prominent in current day Hinduism, and certainly nothing as compared to what it is in Sunni Islam. No one gives out fatwas in Hinduism.

I should add that Sunni Islam has no hierarchy on paper. A fatwa is a meaningless concept as it has no basis in the religion itself. Hinduism is no different except that its hierarchy is a result of a longer tradition but archaic Islam never had this.

On top of this is the end result that Islam unlike Hinduism is not a direct product of culture. Sanatana dharma is merely a collaboration of cultural influences on a set theological understanding or appreciation. Be it the Vedas or the Upanishads.

For example how on earth can mockery and atheism be regarded as a Hindu theological framework? Carvaka is exactly this and by modern standards they are 1 blasphemy away from being anti-theists.
I am sure you will make Hinduism distinct from the culture but in no way shape or form can I possibly rationalize that in all my years of study due to the simple fact that is is so centralized in a culture and its geography that to say it is distinct is to call Judaism ethnically diverse.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I for now would like to reply to Sayak's posts that I left out before because I was busy responding to the preceding posts.

Firstly I believe that one can indeed be a Hindu Buddhist or a Hindu Jain.

This is nonsense. I mean non-sense, as Wittgenstein would say. We use words to communicate meanings and when words are not used properly they create confusion or nonsense. If I use words like the existent non-existent, the empty full, a materialist idealist, a gay straight person, a square circle, they have no correspondence to anything that exists or can be thought, rather they cancel each other out because they are opposites. If I say "square" people know I am referring to the shape that is square. If I say "circle" people know I am referring to the shape circle. But if I say "square circle" it refers to nothing that exists or can be thought. It is non-sense. Similarly, there is no such thing as a Hindu Buddhist or a Hindu Jain, and for matter Hindu Christian, Hindu Muslim, and more importantly an Hindu atheist. When I say 'Hindu' people all around world know I am referring to members of the Hindu religion; when I say 'Buddhist', they know I am referring to member of the Buddhist religion; when I say Christian they know I am referring to a member of the Christian religion. But if I say "Hindu Christian" it produces non-sense, because it does not refer to any religion.

Now, regarding syncretic religions. I will respond to this point to a later quote of yours.

One won't be a Vedic Hindu in that case, but there are plenty of non-Vedic Hindu-s around, like those who follow tantra and agama texts.

There is no such thing as a non-Vedic Hindu. Hinduism is the Vedic religion. This has been decided by the Supreme court of India judgement a few decades ago, to give a legal definition of somebody who is Hindu in response to a 1995 petition by the Ramakrishna mission to be declared non-Hindu to avail of the religious minority status. The traditions of religions that come from the Vedic tradition are called Hinduism. This is why Buddhism and Jainism are not recognised as part of Hinduism, because they come from a parallel tradition known as Sramana. In the same way "Charvaka" is not recognised a part of Hinduism either. It is rather anti-Hinduism.

Thereafter, the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:

(35). ...The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. The Hindu teachers were thus obligated to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that " all of them accept the view of the great world rhyme. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This theory is not inconsistent with belief in progress: for it is not a question of the movement of the world reaching its goal time without number, and being again fforced back to its starting-point. It means that the race of man enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realization. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.26] `It may also he said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy belief in rebirth and pre-existence. `Our life is a step on a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in the infinite. On this road, death is never an end or an obstacle but at most the beginning of new steps [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.27].'

https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047​

The argument that Shaivism and Shaktism are anti-Vedic is not true. This argument is actually motivated by politics which wants to create a division between the so-called Vedic Aryan North and the so-called Dravidian South. In the scripture there is no such north and South division. One of the most respected Vedic Rishis is Agastya, a Rishi from the South and one of the most influential schools of Shaivism is Kashmir Shaivism in the North.

It is also not tenable, because the deities Shiva and Goddess themselves come from the Vedas. Notwithstanding Aupmanyav's speculations that they are pre-Vedic IVC gods(for which he has not an iota of proof) but based on factual records we can see the very earliest proto-form of Shiva is Rudra of the Rig Veda, and the epithet "Shiva" is used repeatedly to refer to Rudra, that later in the Upanishads the word "Shiva" comes to denote him. Similarly, the first proto-Goddess is in the Rig Veda as Aditi, Saraswati, Ushas later in the Upanishads became Durga, Kali etc.

In the later sects of the Tantra tradition Shaiva and Shakta the Vedic deities of Shiva and Goddess are adopted by the Tantra movement, and their dialogues are recorded in the form of Agamas. Hence, the Agamas then become the principal texts of their religion and regarded as authoritative, if not more, than the Vedas. However, the the view that Tantra is anti-Vedic or rejects Vedas is exaggerated. See:

Wiki: Tantra​

The Vedas and Upanishads are common scriptures of Hinduism, states Dhavamony, while the Agamas are sacred texts of specific sects of Hinduism.[8] The surviving Vedic literature can be traced to the 1st millennium BCE and earlier, while the surviving Agamas can be traced to 1st millennium of the common era.[8] The Vedic literature, in Shaivism, is primary and general, while Agamas are special treatise. In terms of philosophy and spiritual precepts, no Agama that goes against the Vedic literature, states Dhavamony, will be acceptable to the Shaivas.[8] Similarly, the Vaishnavas treat the Vedas along with the Bhagavad Gita as the main scripture, and the Samhitas (Agamas) as exegetical and exposition of the philosophy and spiritual precepts therein.[8] The Shaktas have a similar reverence for the Vedic literature and view the Tantras (Agamas) as the fifth Veda.[8]

The heritage of the Agamas, states Krishna Shivaraman, was the "Vedic peity maturing in the monism of the Upanishads presenting the ultimate spiritual reality as Brahman and the way to realizing as portrayed in the Gita".[34] David Smith remarks, that "a key feature of the Tamil Saiva Siddhanta, one might almost say its defining feature, is the claim that its source lies in the Vedas as well as the Agamas, in what it calls the Vedagamas".[35] This school's view can be summed as,

The Veda is the cow, the true Agama its milk.
​

— Umapati, Translated by David Smith[35]
​

Cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

The notion that Tantra, particularly the LHP is anti-Vedic is based on the attitude of mainstream RHP Hinduism against the LHP practices, like meat eating etc. It is not anti-Vedic, but anti mainstream. It cannot be anti-Vedic, because Shiva and Devi themselves are Vedic deities. I myself practice LHP practices and I have no opposition to the Vedas, Bhagvad Gita etc

Even the conventional definition of Hinduism includes Shaivism and Shaktism as sects of Hinduism, they are not separate religions. What you are doing here is trying to show that Charvaka should be acceptable because Hinduism allows many sects with radically different philosophies and beliefs, and therefore Charvaka can be just another philosophy among them. The fallacy here is you are comparing different traditions within Hinduism with a tradition that is not Hindu, was never considered Hindu and never considered itself Hindu. Your general approach appears to be to assimilate all traditions, all philosophies and all thoughts in India as "Dharmic" without recognising the traditional distinction between astika and nastika.

You cannot assimilate Buddhism into Hinduism because it is nastika. Nor the Buddhists appreciate attempts by Hindus like yourself to assimilate Buddhism into Hinduism or merge them together. I know this from a first hand experience I had with a Buddhist who lived in a Buddhist monastery I met. I tried to be, like yourself, a friendly, open minded "Lets all be Dharmic" Hindu, by showing the similarities and the kinship between them. He was having none of it. He accused me of being a Hindu-Nazi(Hindutva) who was out to assimilate his religion and then proceeded to show me how Buddha was anti-Hindu. I remained polite and tried to show him the common links, but he just proceeded to show me everything evil and wrong about Hinduism Brahmanism, caste system, its beliefs in Brahman, Atman etc. That was the last time I met him.

What you need to acknowledge is that Buddhism is not a complimentary tradition with Hinduism, it is mutually opposing. Hindus were not traditionally friendly to the Buddhists, we drove them out of India. We call Buddha a deceiver. The word "Buddhist" is just pejoratively by Hindus traditionally. In the Puranas Kaliki will come to annihilate the Buddhists.

In the same way Charvaka or Atheism is mutually opposing with Hinduism.

I have also talked about Mimamsa, Samkhya and Vaisesika. It is absolutely irrelevant about what most modern Hindu-s think, a person who chooses to follow Vaisesika sutra-s only will still be a Hindu no matter what others say.

And I have refuted this argument already. They deal with different subject matters. Vaiseshika deals with the entities that constitute the empirical world. Samkhya deals with prakriti up to the causal stage. Mimamsa deals with rituals(karma khanda) of the Vedas by which one can attain what they want in life. They are not mutually opposing, but complimentary. They all accept the authority of the Veda.

Vaiseshika is very much like that we today call modern physics. Is a Hindu who believes in physics necessarily atheist? Of course not. Nor were the Vaiseshikas. All the Vaiseshika thinkers were theist and considered God to be a necessary postulate to explain how the original atoms starting to combine and what maintains their combinations.

I find it interesting how you ignored the last sutra I cited of Vaisehsika which states that the authority of the Veda is proven by it being the word of God. Come on Sayak, you are not the type of person to ignore contrary evidence.

Its an important and much venerated text, but it is not that important. Many Hindu schools do not use the Gita in any way shape or form. Saiva-s and Sakta-s particularly. Not everybody is a Vaishnava. Outside of the Vaishnava circle, in the east and in the south, and in many places in the North...Gita is not that important at all. Its a great text and a very good introduction to certain key ideas...and hence people (including me) use it often to introduce and talk about Hinduism to non-Hindu-s. But most people in my Sakta tradition do not use Gita at all in their public or private worship. Its Siva, Durga, Kali mostly. Is Gita more authoritative than scriptures of Devi or Saiva Tantra-s or Vaisesika Sutra or Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad? No. Hindu-s in various ages go this way or that way regrading what is more popular or what is less popular. That has very little to say about who is or is not a Hindu. If a person follows only the scriptures and yajna rituals of Rig Veda today and reject the entire rebirth idea that is nowhere present in it, paying homage to Indra, Mitra, Varuna or Agni so that they gain a good life and heaven afterwards, he will still be a Hindu.
So, no, Gita is not authoritative to all Hindu-s and cannot be used to exclude anyone from Hinduism. If someone follows teachings of Gita, he is a Hindu. But if someone does not, that implies nothing whatsoever

Ok, first of all I want to tell you why I pointed out how authoritative the Bhagvad Gita is: I wanted to show that it is not just any scripture or text of Hinduism, as you and I know there are literally thousands of shastras. These are the main points which makes the Bhagvad Gita the central scripture of Hinduism

1. It is the gospel of Lord Krishna, who is considered across Hinduism to be an avatar of Vishnu, even by Shaiva and Shaktas
2. It is part of the triple canon of Vedanta of every school of Vedanta, monism/nondualism, qualified dualism, dualism, difference and non difference and later every sect of Hinduism was influenced by Vedanta. Hinduism from the middle ages has strongly been influenced by Vedanta. Even the later Tantra tradition is influenced by Vedanta
3. It is part of the Mahabharata which is part of the itihas-Puranas of Hindus. All Hindus accept the itihas-puranas, because it is the shared history and mythology of all Hindus
4. It is considered by the Modern Indian state to be the Hindu equivalent of the bible
5. It is the distillation of the doctrines of the Upanishads, with many passages directly taken from the Upanishads​

What I was not doing was playing this pissing contest of which scripture is the most important. Yes, I know different Hindus consider different scriptures more important. But that does not mean they reject what the Bhagvad Gita says. Please find me a single Shaiva or Shakta sect that rejects the Bhagvad Gita or the Mahabharata of which it is a part.

Cont.

 

[sayak83]

The second link was reciting previous data and frame an analysis. It was the opposite of pseudoscience and ended its claim very abruptly before attempting to conjecture any falsehood or probability of falsehood.

It is pseudoscience precisely because it seeks to distort statistics and does so in a non-peer-reviewed opinion piece in a crank website. A scientific evidence, has to be published in a scientific journal. To claim anything else to be scientific evidence is pseudo-science. So...

Please provide links to a scientific article that corroborates your claims that Hinduism reduces IQ of people.

You lack the most fundamental insight to sciences yet alone research.

Bachelors Mechanical Engg
Master's Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Engg.
PhD Chemistry of Reacting systems
PostDoc Combustion and Energy Science

Is that sufficient exposure to scientific research or is something lacking? Do I need to get a few more PhD's in some other fields before you consider me to have sufficient IQ level for a conversation? I find it amusing that people untrained in science accuse me of ignorance of the sciences.

I guess I was mistaken for having a bit of hope towards a Hindu which yet again proves my previous held assumption (do not associate with bigotry or prejudice). Not everybody kowtows to your religion for its "liberal theology."

I see nothing other than bigotry and prejudice.

Your inability to respond to my refutations based on actual scientific articles as if they were never mentioned is also noted.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

his is a great example of cherry-picking. Most of early part chapter 16 is focused on behavioral and psychological qualities associated with Asuric people, and indeed self-obsessed atheistic hedonism is a part of the mix as well as those who think themselves overtly self-righteous or use religious rituals to aggrandize their own ego and power.

No, I am not cherry picking. I posted virtually the entire passage, so I did not take it out of context. It is you who are denying the obvious here. Krishna explicitly mentions the beliefs of these demonic people, and one of them is too explicit, that it makes me question your objectivity --- it says "no god" It is obvious to any scholar of the Bhagvad Gita that this is an explicit reference to the Charvaka schools. The Bhagvad Gita is a synthesis of the existing schools of thought that existed in India at the time of its composition, most scholars agree it was composed later and added to the Mahabharata, the main ones being Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Bhakti and Vedanta. It also contains answers to and criticisms of rival schools of philosophy re: Jainism, Buddhism and Charvaka.

This is also why it is considered the beginning of Smriti literature, Smriti meaning it is not Sruti or revelation, it is reconstructed. It, together with the Brahma Sutras, presents the first attempts to give a coherent united view of Hinduism. Henceforth, why since Shankara every Vedanta acharya has referenced them.

I also think you are using the word "scripture" here far too loosely. Not every text of Hinduism is scripture. The Vaiseshika sutas, Mimamsa sutras, Nyaya sutras, Samkhya sutras, Brahma sutras and Yoga sutras are philosophical texts composed by human authors(not Rishis) and contain a summary of their respective school and arguments for their tenets and arguments against others. Similarly, Kamasutra, Arthashastra are not scripture either. Nor is Charaka or Susrutha Samhita.They make no claim to be divine or revealed. In contrast the Vedas, Bhagvad Gita are revealed texts.

Thus apparently, according to you, Gita has been refuted, since non-belief in God does not result in demonaiacal properties in many many people. In fact they have divine qualities described earlier in the text.

No, the people who you have identified are not demonic people. However, from this it does not follow the the Gita has been refuted. Rather we argue that these people may self-identify as atheist, but they are not really truly atheist or practice atheism. To understand this, I will reference something from Richard Dawkins, considered the spokesperson of atheists today, he says that though metaphysically or ontological he believes in materialism, ethically he would never practice materialism. In fact he thinks the implication of practising materialism would lead to a dangerous world of nihilists and hedonists etc. The Gita is referencing the Charvaka, who were not just atheists but materialists, and here atheists means strong atheists that reject everything supernatural, soul, afterlife etc. As Charvaka was not just a philosophy but also a religion, its adherents practised it. This is why the Charvaka were condemned by all Dharmic religions as being immoral, nihilistic and self-destructive. It is only modern times that philosophy has been divorced from religion as a separate academic subject, but in ancient times it was not like that. Philosophers not only believed in philosophical theories but also practised it, like for example in Greece Epicureans, Pythagorean, Platonists, Stoics etc --- similarly in India Jaina, Buddha, Ajivika, Charvaka etc. In modern times, we can hold one philosophical worldview but practice an entirely different one.

The examples you gave of Stalin, Mao etc are examples of people who both believe in the philosophy of materialism and strong atheism and also practised it.

Buddhism and Jainism are not actually atheist and hence why the strongest atheist that has posted here so far has rejected them from being acceptable to atheists. Both Buddhism and Jainism accept gods/deities as plural. They do not accept a single God or Ishvara of Hindus which created this universe and all beings in it, but they do accept the universe is populated by gods of all forms. In addition they accept the universe has truth, there is a moral law, there is purpose and meaning and condemn lust and sensuous desires. Therefore, the Gita quote is not referencing them either.

One cannot be both at the same time. But one can be many things in different periods of life and even in different times of the day. Just as one can be a neutral professional by day and a loving spouse by night, so to humans can take on many persona-s and beliefs during different periods as and when suitable.

Sure, I can agree with that. Even Shankara somewhat strawmans the Jaina argument. The Jains are not saying all truths are equally valid, but rather that truth are conditionally valid from a certain point e.g. Everything is impermanent is valid from one viewpoint and everything is permanent from another(Naya-vada) However, things can be true or false(or partially true and partially false) based on the same conditions e.g. The Earth cannot be both flat and non-flat from the same condition.

A person can choose to be Hindu at one time and Christian at another, Muslim at another and Atheist at another, but they cannot be one or many at the same time.

If an atheist says he is a Hindu, or if a Muslim or a Christian says he is a Hindu...I would not reject the possibility outright at all. I will ask and inquire about the basis from which he is saying such a thing.

The first thought it would provoke in my mind and many minds is nonsense. If then I inquire into why they identify as two mutually opposing religions, it will invariably reveal that they do not understand that they are mutually opposing and have cherry picked what they liked from both.

There is no problem having syncretic religions though, as syncretic religions do exist. However, then we know that it is a syncretic religion and we can separate it from the parent religions it is a syncretism of. However, a syncretic religion can only work if the views are consistent and coherent e.g. you can't combine the Hindu belief in reincarnation and Christian belief you only live once and then face judgement. However, you might be able to combine the Hindu practices of Yoga with Christianity to form Christian Yoga.

n quantum mechanics one is often forced to hold two contradictory ideas and images at the same time due to our mind's inability to visualize the realities of quantum mechanics any other way. One can mathematically prove that QM is consistent, but the mind cannot see that. A set of carefully constructed worldviews may actually encapsulate the same reality in different ways and their equivalency can be proven.

I think your analogy to quantum mechanics is flawed. I was talking about two mutually opposing views being held at the same time cannot be true. This is indeed true. You cannot hold two thoughts at the same time, if I tell you to think of a square circle, you cannot think it. You can think of a square followed by a circle or vis versa, but you cannot think of them both at the same time. You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory statements either.

Finally, even in quantum mechanics, a distinction is made between quantum and non-quantum reality because they cannot be both true at the same time. Hence, terms are used like quantum decoerence or wavefunction collapse or implicate and explicate order. In Samkhya similarly we use manifest and unmanifest prakriti. They cannot be both true at the same time. You also do not recognise because quantum theory presents a contradictory view of reality is why it is considered an incomplete theory. In any case, I think this analogy needlessly complicates the discussion.

Cont.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I reject the idea that Hinduism has a set of core beliefs that Hindu-s must follow. There are some beliefs that are more prevalent today, but they would be different from the beliefs that were prevalent 2000 years ago and will be different than that which would be prevalent 2000 years hence. Theologically and philosophically, the Mimansika-s are as distant from Vaishnavas as Vaishnava-s are from Buddhism. Furthermore Pure Land Buddhism is as different from Theravada Buddhism as each are from Samkhya. Just bringing in a set of beliefs that most Hindu-s happen to hold today and calling them core is unsound practice and is a transparent attempt to make Hinduism (and Buddhism) like other religions of the Abrahamic world where beliefs are the core and one can splinter into violent wars based on little differences.

You can reject it all you want, but it is not going to change the fact that Hinduism has core beliefs which are universal across Hinduism. The core beliefs of any religion are contained in their scriptures and foundational text. We know the core beliefs of Christianity from the Bible and other Christian texts and the core beliefs of Islam from the Quran and Hadiths. Similarly, we know the core beliefs of Hinduism from the Hindu scriptures: The Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita, Agamas, Tantras. Some are, in no particular order

1. Atman: The belief in pre-existence of the soul and is separate from the body
2. Ishvara: The belief there is a creator, preserver and destroyer of this universe
3. Brahman*: The belief that there is an ultimate transcendent being which we must worship or attain to, merge ith or attain oness with. That is both formless and with form.
4. Trimurit: The belief in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva
5. Yugas: The belief in the cycles of time from atomic to cosmic
6. Varna-Ashram dharma: The belief in the four stages of life and the four castes
7. Samsara and reincarnation: The belief that the universe is multidimensional and consists of several interpenetrating lokas or realms through which the soul circulates
8. Karma: The belief that all actions are governed by a universal moral law
9. Dharma: The belief that there is a natural law for everything which we must live by e.g. father dharma, mother dharma, solider dharma, king dharma and if we do not we incur sin(paap)
11. Prakriti: The belief in the feminine power or shakti/maya of Brahman which is the mother of the universe, all matter, energy
12. Spiritual evolution: The belief that we evolve through 84 lakhs species from single to complex
13. Spiritual life: The belief in spiritual entities, preta, ghandarvas, devis, devatas, siddhas, adityas, rudras
14. The 5 elements: The belief in the 5 elements that make up the entire universe, the main of one being akasha
15. Pranava: The Belief in OM as the primordial vibration
16. Rishis: The belief in enlightened sages who reveal the truths
17. Guru-shishya paramparaThe belief in the tradition of knowledge being passed down from gurus and respect and reverence for gurus
18. Itihas-Purana: The belief in the lunar and solar dynasties, the dynasty of Bharat, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Krishna, Rama etc
19. Purusharthas: The belief in the four pursuits of life
20. Yoga: The belief that some of spiritual practice, especially meditation is required to purify the mind​

* If you object that Brahman is not a belief of Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika, I refute this by saying that they all accept the authority of the Veda and Brahman is a belief in the Veda, seen in the later books of the Rig Veda and then the concluding portion of all the Vedas(Vedanta) it means they accept it.

Now to prove by proof of analogy(fourth pramana of Nyaya) Suppose if I have in a sealed opaque box a card with the name of a mystery religion. I ask somebody to guess which religion it is by telling them just a few items of this list. Suppose I say: This religion believes in the cycle of rebirth. Which religion will they think of? Christianity, Islam? Nope. They will think of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. If I then say: This religion believes that we have a permanent soul that pre-exists. What religion will think of? Buddhism? Nope, they think will of Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism. If I say this religion believes in a supreme transcendental being that one should worship and attain to. What religion will they think of? Jainism? Nope, they think will Hinduism and Sikhism. If I then say this religion believes in a trinity of preserver, creator and destroyer -- they will think of Hinduism.

We know what religion we are instantly talking about by their distinguishing beliefs and practices. If I say: This religion believes in heaven and hell. It will bring to mind half a dozen religions from around the world. If I say "This religion believes in the tradition of gurus and Rishis" it will instantly bring up Hinduism.

Therefore, your argument that there are no core Hindu beliefs is refuted.

And in Indian discourse, you know who is a non-Hindu by seeing who are NEVER MENTIONED. The Confucians (though there was extensive contact with China), the Roman and Greek polytheists (though Bactrian Greeks and Kushans had multiple Greek influenced people), the Christains (though they had settled in South India for a long time), the Zoroastrians, the Muslims (though they were around vigorously). They are never ever mentioned at all. They were considered the true outsiders, the ones who are not trained and cannot comprehend what the issues are and how to investigate and analyze them.

Hindus did not care about them because they were Mlecchas, barbarians who were outside of India and outside the caste system.

1) For me Hinduism is a methodology by which one investigates truths about life, reality, self and morality and does not pre-decide the conclusions of such investigations. Hence it is akin to the scientific method but more all encompassing. My key effort is to demonstrate that the scientific method is a subset of and can usefully and fruitfully be integrated with Hinduism, and Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism can be used by science to understand how it can expand its scope beyond the material in a fruitful manner.

I respect that you are trying to reconcile Hinduism and other Dharmic religions with Modern science. However, you are doing so, by reinterpreting Hinduism in the light of Modern science. For example, as I corrected you earlier in another thread where you were interpreting 74,000 nadis as arteries and veins, when in fact nadis are energy pathways(pranic passages) in the subtle body and not the gross body. These pathways connect the subtle body to the gross body. Arteries and veins are described in the Ayurvedic texts. Similarly, Aupmanyav tries to do the same thing by equating Brahman with energy/quantum fields. He is not the first, nor the last, several modern Hindus who are also lovers of science have tried to equate Hindu things with science.

The stuff that does not fit in with modern scientific and rational sensibilities like siddhis, astral worlds and beings, devis and devatas, rituals, gods and goddesses, avatars is conveniently just ignored by these Hindus. This is why I say it is cherry picking.

You may try to present this sanitised scientific, liberal and rational version of Hinduism to make it agreeable with modern minds, rationalists, materialists, atheists, scientists etc --- but they will very soon find out when they actually investigate Hinduism is not just that. So it is misleading to do so. It is like Hindus present Hinduism as being tolerant of all religions and saying all religions are valid paths to God. This is nonsense, traditionally Hinduism has not at all been tolerant of non-Hindu religions. Ask the Buddhists.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I should add that Sunni Islam has no hierarchy on paper. A fatwa is a meaningless concept as it has no basis in the religion itself. Hinduism is no different except that its hierarchy is a result of a longer tradition but archaic Islam never had this.

On top of this is the end result that Islam unlike Hinduism is not a direct product of culture. Sanatana dharma is merely a collaboration of cultural influences on a set theological understanding or appreciation. Be it the Vedas or the Upanishads.

For example how on earth can mockery and atheism be regarded as a Hindu theological framework? Carvaka is exactly this and by modern standards they are 1 blasphemy away from being anti-theists.
I am sure you will make Hinduism distinct from the culture but in no way shape or form can I possibly rationalize that in all my years of study due to the simple fact that is is so centralized in a culture and its geography that to say it is distinct is to call Judaism ethnically diverse.

Shair (which means poet in Hindi/Urdu), Hinduism has no hierarchy at all. I will be well within my rights to challenge even a Sankaracharya (Heads of four/five religious orders established by the first Sankaracharya in the eighth Century) if I had valid reasons. Hinduism is a deep-rooted tree like the Banyan, where even disappearance of the main stem also does not cause the tree to dry up. Christianity and Islam were born only yesterday.

Atheism arises out of our scriptures. You might have seen me quoting 'Nasadiya Sukta' which categorically says that Gods came up after the creation of the universe (see it here: Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.), the 'Nireeshwara vada' (non-theist philosophy) of Samkhya or the atomic world of Vaisesika philosophy among others (you can check all these in Wikipedia). And it is all scriptural, considered valid in Hinduism. Charvaks may not have lasted till now, but that does not mean that there are no atheists among Hindus. We appreciate even the Charvak diatribe because it asks valid questions.

No, you cannot label Hinduism in any way since it has may ways. We do not mind a little mockery but heartily participate in it. Some examples:

 

[sayak83]

I for now would like to reply to Sayak's posts that I left out before because I was busy responding to the preceding posts.

This is nonsense. I mean non-sense, as Wittgenstein would say. We use words to communicate meanings and when words are not used properly they create confusion or nonsense. If I use words like the existent non-existent, the empty full, a materialist idealist, a gay straight person, a square circle, they have no correspondence to anything that exists or can be thought, rather they cancel each other out because they are opposites. If I say "square" people know I am referring to the shape that is square. If I say "circle" people know I am referring to the shape circle. But if I say "square circle" it refers to nothing that exists or can be thought. It is non-sense. Similarly, there is no such thing as a Hindu Buddhist or a Hindu Jain, and for matter Hindu Christian, Hindu Muslim, and more importantly an Hindu atheist. When I say 'Hindu' people all around world know I am referring to members of the Hindu religion; when I say 'Buddhist', they know I am referring to member of the Buddhist religion; when I say Christian they know I am referring to a member of the Christian religion. But if I say "Hindu Christian" it produces non-sense, because it does not refer to any religion.

Of course its not nonsense. Since I know several Hindu Buddhists and Buddhist Hindu-s who simultaneously follow Buddha, attend Buddhist temples and meditation centers and also worship Hindu deities like Krishna and Durga. They do so and hence they are Buddhist Hindus. When will you understand that it is not incumbent on any Hindu or a Buddhist to take and believe each and every sloka or verse said in specific scriptures or accept each and every point of a certain Hindu/Buddhist/Jain school? Most Hindu-s do not this. Most Buddhists do not do this. If you do this, great. But that does not make you a more authentic Hindu or a Buddhist. And there has been Muslim Hindus, like Kabir, people who have worshiped both Rama and Allah as supreme God and who are considered masters. Bauls of Bengal are another example.

Hinduism is not a religion. Neither is Buddhism or Jainism. They are dharma.

There is no such thing as a non-Vedic Hindu. Hinduism is the Vedic religion. This has been decided by the Supreme court of India judgement a few decades ago, to give a legal definition of somebody who is Hindu in response to a 1995 petition by the Ramakrishna mission to be declared non-Hindu to avail of the religious minority status. The traditions of religions that come from the Vedic tradition are called Hinduism. This is why Buddhism and Jainism are not recognised as part of Hinduism, because they come from a parallel tradition known as Sramana. In the same way "Charvaka" is not recognised a part of Hinduism either. It is rather anti-Hinduism.

Supreme Court has as much authority in determining Hinduism as the sparrow outside my house. In legal contexts for the ease of matters of State such distinctions may need to be made, but not in any other respect.

Thereafter, the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:

(35). ...The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. The Hindu teachers were thus obligated to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that " all of them accept the view of the great world rhyme. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This theory is not inconsistent with belief in progress: for it is not a question of the movement of the world reaching its goal time without number, and being again fforced back to its starting-point. It means that the race of man enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realization. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.26] `It may also he said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy belief in rebirth and pre-existence. `Our life is a step on a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in the infinite. On this road, death is never an end or an obstacle but at most the beginning of new steps [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.27].'

https://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047

And I can quote you many religious books saying that Carvaka, Ajjivika, Tantra etc. are non-Vedic heterodox traditions of Hinduism.

The argument that Shaivism and Shaktism are anti-Vedic is not true. This argument is actually motivated by politics which wants to create a division between the so-called Vedic Aryan North and the so-called Dravidian South. In the scripture there is no such north and South division. One of the most respected Vedic Rishis is Agastya, a Rishi from the South and one of the most influential schools of Shaivism is Kashmir Shaivism in the North.

It is also not tenable, because the deities Shiva and Goddess themselves come from the Vedas. Notwithstanding Aupmanyav's speculations that they are pre-Vedic IVC gods(for which he has not an iota of proof) but based on factual records we can see the very earliest proto-form of Shiva is Rudra of the Rig Veda, and the epithet "Shiva" is used repeatedly to refer to Rudra, that later in the Upanishads the word "Shiva" comes to denote him. Similarly, the first proto-Goddess is in the Rig Veda as Aditi, Saraswati, Ushas later in the Upanishads became Durga, Kali etc.

In the later sects of the Tantra tradition Shaiva and Shakta the Vedic deities of Shiva and Goddess are adopted by the Tantra movement, and their dialogues are recorded in the form of Agamas. Hence, the Agamas then become the principal texts of their religion and regarded as authoritative, if not more, than the Vedas. However, the the view that Tantra is anti-Vedic or rejects Vedas is exaggerated.

Using the name of the same deity does not make it the same religion. Otherwise Judaism and Christianity and Islam would have been the same religion. There is far far greater differences between the Agama religions and Vedic religions than between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If you just list the number of theological points differentiating the various agama and vedic religions and compare them to the differences in Judaism, Islam and Christianity...you will see this clear as day. Your argument that some of the Rig Vedic Goddesses changed their names and became the later Agamic deities is just apologetic gloss done by later commentators in order to bring autonomous sakti religious traditions into the fold. And frankly that is exactly what is being done today by making Jesus come and die in Kashmir as a Hindu saint. Upanisadic Hinduism believes in one God in many manifestation. Thus it constructs a puranic narrative connecting a new god to an old god and hence expands the reach of Hinduism outwards. Look at SouthEast Asia and Bali for good examples. Buddhism does it too. The entire Tibetan polytheistic pantheon has become Bodhisatvas of various order in Tibetan Buddhism etc. Buddha becomes a Vishnu incarnation and Brahma becomes the first disciple of Buddha. All dharmic spirituality as usual. And that is how it should be.

 

[sayak83]

You can reject it all you want, but it is not going to change the fact that Hinduism has core beliefs which are universal across Hinduism. The core beliefs of any religion are contained in their scriptures and foundational text. We know the core beliefs of Christianity from the Bible and other Christian texts and the core beliefs of Islam from the Quran and Hadiths. Similarly, we know the core beliefs of Hinduism from the Hindu scriptures: The Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita, Agamas, Tantras. Some are, in no particular order

1. Atman: The belief in pre-existence of the soul and is separate from the body
2. Ishvara: The belief there is a creator, preserver and destroyer of this universe
3. Brahman*: The belief that there is an ultimate transcendent being which we must worship or attain to, merge ith or attain oness with. That is both formless and with form.
4. Trimurit: The belief in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva
5. Yugas: The belief in the cycles of time from atomic to cosmic
6. Varna-Ashram dharma: The belief in the four stages of life and the four castes
7. Samsara and reincarnation: The belief that the universe is multidimensional and consists of several interpenetrating lokas or realms through which the soul circulates
8. Karma: The belief that all actions are governed by a universal moral law
9. Dharma: The belief that there is a natural law for everything which we must live by e.g. father dharma, mother dharma, solider dharma, king dharma and if we do not we incur sin(paap)
11. Prakriti: The belief in the feminine power or shakti/maya of Brahman which is the mother of the universe, all matter, energy
12. Spiritual evolution: The belief that we evolve through 84 lakhs species from single to complex
13. Spiritual life: The belief in spiritual entities, preta, ghandarvas, devis, devatas, siddhas, adityas, rudras
14. The 5 elements: The belief in the 5 elements that make up the entire universe, the main of one being akasha
15. Pranava: The Belief in OM as the primordial vibration
16. Rishis: The belief in enlightened sages who reveal the truths
17. Guru-shishya paramparaThe belief in the tradition of knowledge being passed down from gurus and respect and reverence for gurus
18. Itihas-Purana: The belief in the lunar and solar dynasties, the dynasty of Bharat, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Krishna, Rama etc
19. Purusharthas: The belief in the four pursuits of life
20. Yoga: The belief that some of spiritual practice, especially meditation is required to purify the mind​

* If you object that Brahman is not a belief of Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseshika, I refute this by saying that they all accept the authority of the Veda and Brahman is a belief in the Veda, seen in the later books of the Rig Veda and then the concluding portion of all the Vedas(Vedanta) it means they accept it.

You just mentioned a laundry list of anything and everything found in disaprate works and called them core beliefs. And no, Nyaya and Vaiseshika do not accept the concept of Brahman. Vaisesika and Nyaya is explicit that atoms cannot be created or destroyed and has never ever been created and destroyed. Theistic philosophers of Nyaya consider God to be an external being completely separate from the world who acts as the prime mover. Vaisesika are agnostic about this. It is now you who are refusing to see the obvious fact that Hinduism is NOT a religion. It is a dharma composed of tens and hundreds of big and small darsana-s (just like Buddhism is from India to Japan) and a vast and diverse body of lay practitioners who pick and choose various aspects of the darsana-s as they see fit. Your attempt to cast Dharmic beliefs in the way Christainity, Islam etc. are cast is simply unworkable.

Now to prove by proof of analogy(fourth pramana of Nyaya) Suppose if I have in a sealed opaque box a card with the name of a mystery religion. I ask somebody to guess which religion it is by telling them just a few items of this list. Suppose I say: This religion believes in the cycle of rebirth. Which religion will they think of? Christianity, Islam? Nope. They will think of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. If I then say: This religion believes that we have a permanent soul that pre-exists. What religion will think of? Buddhism? Nope, they think will of Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism. If I say this religion believes in a supreme transcendental being that one should worship and attain to. What religion will they think of? Jainism? Nope, they think will Hinduism and Sikhism. If I then say this religion believes in a trinity of preserver, creator and destroyer -- they will think of Hinduism.

We know what religion we are instantly talking about by their distinguishing beliefs and practices. If I say: This religion believes in heaven and hell. It will bring to mind half a dozen religions from around the world. If I say "This religion believes in the tradition of gurus and Rishis" it will instantly bring up Hinduism.

Therefore, your argument that there are no core Hindu beliefs is refuted.

You have shown nothing other than the fact that there are certain popular beliefs in the Hindu dharma that could help identify it. People will as easily identify Hinduism if someone asks:- which religion considers cow to holy, which religion has Benaras as its sacred place, which religion burnt its widows, which religion believed that certain people are too impure to touch, which religion has an elephant headed god.

Could you show me the set of scriptures that say that you have to believe in those 20 beliefs to be a Hindu? And you will find it hard to find enough Hindu-s who have reflected on all 20 of them enough to say yes or no to half of them, and even then most would say no to several of those "core beliefs" and would interpret several of the other key words completely differently.
Let me be frank. All of what you say are your beliefs. Fine, they are quite ok for a Hindu to hold. But your attempts to assert that they must be held by every Hindu or they are not true Hindu-s is falling flat.
Please post a poll showing that majority of Hindu-s believe that these are the core beliefs (not popular beliefs but essential beliefs) and one cannot be a true Hindu if they do not believe them.

Hindus did not care about them because they were Mlecchas, barbarians who were outside of India and outside the caste system.

They were not outside of India (as I have shown) and obviously Buddhists and Jains are outside of the caste system. Try again.

I respect that you are trying to reconcile Hinduism and other Dharmic religions with Modern science. However, you are doing so, by reinterpreting Hinduism in the light of Modern science. For example, as I corrected you earlier in another thread where you were interpreting 74,000 nadis as arteries and veins, when in fact nadis are energy pathways(pranic passages) in the subtle body and not the gross body. These pathways connect the subtle body to the gross body. Arteries and veins are described in the Ayurvedic texts. Similarly, Aupmanyav tries to do the same thing by equating Brahman with energy/quantum fields. He is not the first, nor the last, several modern Hindus who are also lovers of science have tried to equate Hindu things with science.

I do not use later interpretations in texts that precede those interpretations, as I have told you. I have linked what Sankara says of the passages as well as how current sanskrit scholars, based on their study of linguistic in the Upanishads era, have translated them. I do not say which is wrong and which is right. So how could you have corrected me? I am agnostic on most things.

The stuff that does not fit in with modern scientific and rational sensibilities like siddhis, astral worlds and beings, devis and devatas, rituals, gods and goddesses, avatars is conveniently just ignored by these Hindus. This is why I say it is cherry picking.

Which is perfectly OK in Hinduism and Buddhism. One is not required to believe in things one is not confident in. There is an entire host of truth claims in various scriptures and shastra-s and most Hindus and Buddhists believe only in a small section of them. Indeed people should believe in even less, as many believe things without careful reflection and that is undesirable in Dharmic religions. One believes more when one becomes confident of these claims through reflection, which may take time, and one may never get there. Or one may believe everything through a direct spiritual insight. Again perfectly fine.

You may try to present this sanitised scientific, liberal and rational version of Hinduism to make it agreeable with modern minds, rationalists, materialists, atheists, scientists etc --- but they will very soon find out when they actually investigate Hinduism is not just that. So it is misleading to do so. It is like Hindus present Hinduism as being tolerant of all religions and saying all religions are valid paths to God. This is nonsense, traditionally Hinduism has not at all been tolerant of non-Hindu religions. Ask the Buddhists.

I think it is you who has fallen into a false perception that your own personal subjective experience of Hinduism is generalize-able to a vast majority of Hindu-s in the world. I assure you it is not. I am quite confident that people who actually wish to know about Hinduism will quickly understand that texts are secondary to the praxis of Hinduism in its diverse communities who use these texts with discernment and selectivity to aid in their ethical, social and spiritual journey. I am not making anything up. I am speaking of how I have seen Hinduism practiced in actuality among the communities in east, north, south and the diaspora.

I have taken several of my American friends to Bengali puja-s and interacted about Hinduism with Hindu and Upanisadic texts in multi-faith discussion groups. i have also regularly attended Vipassana meditation practice for several years and invited my Buddhist friends for Diwali celebration. I have also given a series of talks on the place of naturalism within Hindu and Buddhist thought in atheist and humanist groups. Since none of them has ever said anything bad about Hindus and Hinduism, who is it I am supposed to ask? Are Buddhists in Nepal, Sikkim, Uttaranchal or Bodh Gaya being persecuted by Hindu-s? That would be news to me.

And you do know that the famous Nalanda Mahavihara was founded by the Hindu emperor Kumaragupta, son of Chandragupta II? (we have inscriptions, coins and historical accounts of Buddhist monks if you are skeptical) So what great history of intolerance are you talking about? Is this based on some Purana again?

 

[sayak83]

No, the people who you have identified are not demonic people. However, from this it does not follow the the Gita has been refuted. Rather we argue that these people may self-identify as atheist, but they are not really truly atheist or practice atheism. To understand this, I will reference something from Richard Dawkins, considered the spokesperson of atheists today, he says that though metaphysically or ontological he believes in materialism, ethically he would never practice materialism. In fact he thinks the implication of practising materialism would lead to a dangerous world of nihilists and hedonists etc.

This is not what Dawkins says at all. He is an atheist and does not believe in God or afterlife or any objective moral law. But most modern atheists (like Dawkins and other humanists) do not believe such things are necessary to ground human values and morals and that they can successfully argue that materialism does not entail either nihilism or pejorative hedonism. In ancient Greece, epicureans believed the same thing. If you carefully look at Epicurean hedonism, you will find its not hedonism at all but, lo and behold, the Buddhist Middle Way!

Epicurus | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Although all pleasures are good and all pains evil, Epicurus says that not all pleasures are choiceworthy or all pains to be avoided. Instead, one should calculate what is in one's long-term self-interest, and forgo what will bring pleasure in the short-term if doing so will ultimately lead to greater pleasure in the long-term.

Because of the close connection of pleasure with desire-satisfaction, Epicurus devotes a considerable part of his ethics to analyzing different kinds of desires. If pleasure results from getting what you want (desire-satisfaction) and pain from not getting what you want (desire-frustration), then there are two strategies you can pursue with respect to any given desire: you can either strive to fulfill the desire, or you can try to eliminate the desire. For the most part Epicurus advocates the second strategy, that of paring your desires down to a minimum core, which are then easily satisfied.
Epicurus distinguishes between three types of desires: natural and necessary desires, natural but non-necessary desires, and "vain and empty" desires. Examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires.

Vain desires include desires for power, wealth, fame, and the like. They are difficult to satisfy, in part because they have no natural limit. If one desires wealth or power, no matter how much one gets, it is always possible to get more, and the more one gets, the more one wants. These desires are not natural to human beings, but inculcated by society and by false beliefs about what we need; e.g., believing that having power will bring us security from others. Epicurus thinks that these desires should be eliminated.

An example of a natural but non-necessary desire is the desire for luxury food. Although food is needed for survival, one does not need a particular type of food to survive. Thus, despite his hedonism, Epicurus advocates a surprisingly ascetic way of life. Although one shouldn't spurn extravagant foods if they happen to be available, becoming dependent on such goods ultimately leads to unhappiness. As Epicurus puts it, "If you wish to make Pythocles wealthy, don't give him more money; rather, reduce his desires." By eliminating the pain caused by unfulfilled desires, and the anxiety that occurs because of the fear that one's desires will not be fulfilled in the future, the wise Epicurean attains tranquility, and thus happiness.

Would a person who lives like Epicurus be demoniacal? It is a simple flow of logic. If happiness and suffering in this life are the only thing there is, then the logical thing to do is to stop heaping suffering on yourself by running after hard to attain fame and wealth whose happiness returns are poor and anxiety returns are great and instead focus on simple happiness of hearth and home, simple food, companionship and love and the peace of honest labor. So you see, materialism does not necessarily lead to the things you believe Gita says it does.

And of course modern humanist ethics grounds morality and meaning within a material universe by a simple (and Greek question) what is it that makes this life right here meaningful and satisfactory

It is no longer true (and was not true if you see Epicurus) that a materialistic ontology leads to a self-obsessed or a nihilistic life stance. In fact I would go so far as to say that a person who is a materialist and also self-obsessed or a nihilist in the Gita sense is being illogical. At best such a life can be called an addiction, something that provides and illusion of happiness but actually causes great suffering in this life itself. Thus, I consider materialism is an excuse that a person addicted to a dissolute life makes (just as a drunk man would make an excuse of a broken marriage) to justify his dissolution. But there actually is no logical route from materialism to a dissolute life.

Sure, I can agree with that. Even Shankara somewhat strawmans the Jaina argument. The Jains are not saying all truths are equally valid, but rather that truth are conditionally valid from a certain point e.g. Everything is impermanent is valid from one viewpoint and everything is permanent from another(Naya-vada) However, things can be true or false(or partially true and partially false) based on the same conditions e.g. The Earth cannot be both flat and non-flat from the same condition.

A person can choose to be Hindu at one time and Christian at another, Muslim at another and Atheist at another, but they cannot be one or many at the same time.

I disagree on a technicality. If a person thinks that he is an extended being through time then he can legitimately describe himself as both a Hindu and a Buddhist even though he is either one or the other in various instances.

There is no problem having syncretic religions though, as syncretic religions do exist. However, then we know that it is a syncretic religion and we can separate it from the parent religions it is a syncretism of. However, a syncretic religion can only work if the views are consistent and coherent e.g. you can't combine the Hindu belief in reincarnation and Christian belief you only live once and then face judgement. However, you might be able to combine the Hindu practices of Yoga with Christianity to form Christian Yoga.

It is good that we agree on this. I consider most practincing Hindu-s and practicing Buddhists and practicing Jains mix and match between different schools within tradition and often between traditions as well. What I disagree with is I consider the "mixed-up" , unsystematic spiritual practice of lay followers the core of the religion which supports the more philosophically systematic sub-schools.

I think your analogy to quantum mechanics is flawed. I was talking about two mutually opposing views being held at the same time cannot be true.

And I have never implied that. See previous comment. Since the self is an extended entity he can legitimately say that he is a Hindu-Buddhist if he goes to Vipassana on Thursday and Krishna Kirtan on Friday.

This is indeed true. You cannot hold two thoughts at the same time, if I tell you to think of a square circle, you cannot think it. You can think of a square followed by a circle or vis versa, but you cannot think of them both at the same time. You cannot simultaneously hold two contradictory statements either.

The example of quantum mechanics was given to show that often the mind cannot simultaneously hold on to aspects of even a logically compatible reality. So the square circle idea is not a suitable analogy. That was the point.

 

[SomeRandom]

Christianity wholesale has never institutionalized suffering though. Hinduism is a whole other story and on top of this is that the caste system as a general conception is a logical extent of archaic reincarnation and the systematic cycle it glorifies.

Tell that to all the people dying in agony from AIDS due to misinformation spread by the Catholic Church. I'm not blaming Catholicism mind you, but an organisation representing the Catholic Faith basically tortured millions. And shall we go back in history and bring in the Burning Witches and Inquisition cliches again? Because religion as a whole has a lot to answer for. If one is so inclined to blame them for the misdeeds of their followers, that is.
As for Uganda, where do you think the Kill the gays law came from? Evangelical preachers, basically spreading misinformation about Gay People. Which you'd think would be a sin. Bearing false witness and all that. But whatever.
There's actually a very balanced documentary about the ill effects of Christianity on Uganda. It's called God Loves Uganda. Check it out, very interesting.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Part 1 of 2

If I make any mistake or say anything untrue about the traditions I am speaking of, please anyone feel free to correct me with something I can look at to confirm it. I don't claim to be an expert and haven't studied much in depth in a good while so I might be rusty and make mistakes.

Ok, I think it is fair to say that we are close in the sect of Hinduism that we identify with. I am a Shaiva LHPer currently and so are you. However, I do not see any place for atheism in Shaivism, because that would be absurd, how can you be a follower of Shiva and also not believe in Shiva at the same time?

I think the problem you and many other have on this is that theism and atheism are just two sides of the same dualistic type of coin. Both fail in language to properly speak what they are trying to say since people use "god" in many different ways. It's often a matter of perspective.

In that manner everything in this world is the same type of the dualistic coin hot and cold, profit and loss, pain and pleasure, medicine and poison, but that does not mean we do not make practical distinctions between them. I do not put my hand in fire, I do not try to to make a loss in business, I do not give myself pain, and I do not take poison. In the same way we make a distinction between philosophical positions materialism, idealism, monism, dualism, theism, atheism.

Atheism is clear that it is disbelief or lack of belief in God. The word is A + theos(God) not God. It is clearly defined position and there hundreds of millions of adherents of it. To tell them "Oh, God depends on all semantics" will only invite derision. You can try it, by posting this on Richard Dawkins forum.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

This is rather weak. Even I could have done a Wiki search for atheism in Hinduism. This is a badly written article based on the subjective option of some internet Hindu(probably Hindu atheists) and bereft of scholarship. See:

The Brihadaranyaka, Isha, Mundaka (in which Brahman is everything and "no-thing") and especially the Chandogya Upanishads have also been interpreted as atheistic because of their stress on the subjective self.[

There is no atheistic school of Vedanta. See: Vedanta - Wikipedia

In order for atheists to put forth an atheist interpretation of Vedanta they too will have have to offer a consistent commentary of the Hindu scriptures re: Upanishads, BG and Brahma sutras. However, this will be close to impossible, because the Upanishads declare Brahman is the supreme lord(isa) the creator, pure consciousness. See:

Brahman the main purport of all Vedantic texts.

Brahman is realisable only through the scriptures.

Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 (3)

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.

Tattu Samanvayat I.1.4 (4)

But that (Brahman is to be known only from the Scriptures and not independently by any other means is established), because it is the main purpose (of all Vedantic texts).​

Brahman (the intelligent principle) is the First Cause.

Ikshaternasabdam I.1.5 (5)

On account of seeing (i.e. thinking being attributed in the Upanishads to the First Cause, the Pradhana) is not (the first cause indicated by the Upanishads; for) it (Pradhana) is not based on the scriptures.

Section 1 – Brahma Sutras – Chapter 1: Samanvaya Adhyaya​

Brahman is known through the scriptures, which scripture? Upanishads. This the main pramana(mukhya pramana) for knowledge of Brahman. Brahman is not known through perception or inference, it is only known from testimony of Rishis. This is a core doctrine held across Hinduism

Brahman is a sentient principle, because the Upanishads say Brahman is consciousness(pranjana Brahman) that Brahman is a thinking entity(Brahman thought) and that Brahman is the Self. This refutes the doctrine of pradhana that Brahman is material energy. This is also a core doctrine held across Hinduism.


Mimamsa was a realistic, pluralistic school of philosophy which was concerned with the exegesis of the Vedas.[15] The core text of the school was the Purva Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini (c. 200 BCE–200 CE). Mimamsa philosophers believed that the revelation of the Vedas was sacred, authorless (apaurusheyatva) and infallible, and that it was essential to preserve the sanctity of the Vedic ritual to maintain dharma (cosmic order).[16][17]:52–53 As a consequence of the belief in sanctity of the ritual, Mimamsas rejected the notion of God in any form.[15] Later commentators of the Mimamsa sutras such as Prabhākara (c. 7th century CE) advanced arguments against the existence of God.[18][19] The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but said that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits.[20]

Samkhya is an atheistic[21] and strongly dualistic[22][23] orthodox (Astika) school of Indian philosophy. The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhyakarika (c. 350–450 CE) of Iśvarakṛṣṇa.[17]:63 The Samkhyakarika is silent on the issue of Isvara's existence or nonexistence, although first millennium commentators such as Gaudapada understand the text as compatible with some concept of god. However, the Samkhya Sutra (14th c. CE) and its commentaries explicitly attempt to disprove god's existence through reasoned argument.[24]
​

I have repeatedly refuted this argument in this thread and even in the OP, by not acknowledging my refutation you and Sayak and and everybody else who have pointed to these so-called schools of atheist philosophy automatically have conceded this point to me. It means you have no answer to my refutation. I said that Samkhya, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika etc accept the authority of the Veda and hence they indirectly accept Brahman and Brahman is the concluding teaching of the Veda.

​

That the Samkhya pravichana sutras reject a personal God is not the same thing as rejecting God. In Advaita Vedanta we also reject a personal God, or rather we only give provisional truth to a personal God, but we do not reject an impersonal God. Similarly, the Samkhya pravichana Sutra, explicitly makes it clear that it does not reject the authority of Veda:

Aph. 98. * The declaration of the texts or sense [of the Veda, by Brahm, for example], since he knows the truth, [is authorative evidence].

a. To complete [the aphorism, we must say], 'since Hiraṉyagarbha [i.e., Brahm,] and others [viz., Vishṉu and Śiva], are knowers of what is certain, i.e., of what is true, the declaration of the texts or sense of the Vedas, where these are the speakers, is evidence [altogether indisputable].'​

The Sankhya Sutras of Kapila Book 2

​

Cont

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

In the past I had called myself a transtheist before but transtheism isn't theism. Transtheism is the position that neither atheism or theism are totally correct. This is part of where perception comes into play and can change how someone might define if they are atheist or theist.

But I would say that transtheism isn't theism becuase it doesn't hold that spirit realms, gods and souls and spirits are real like the material universe is. Again, Brahman is impersonal and so it can't be theistic. A theistic god is personable, fully real and can manifest materially. I wouldn't proscribe this to any specific deity I know rather they can be personifications of Brahman.

So ultimately no I'm not a theist, but it would be more accurate to call me a transtheist although I find even that term lacking but then again I don't spend a lot of time trying to identify with labels that don't really make sense for me to invest energy into.

Ok, but transtheism is not acceptable to atheism either. A lot of Hinds posting here seem to think(wrongly) that atheism is just a rejection of a monotheistic God, a personal God, a creator God or even narrower Abrahamic God. No. Atheism is a rejection of God in all forms or lack of belief in God in all forms. It includes polytheism, henotheism, deism and transtheism.

Nor is Advaita Vedanta ultimately atheism. Advaita Vedanta accepts Ishvara as the closest experience a conditioned jiva can get to Brahman(God proper) Ishvara is Brahman reflected in Maya. Jiva is Brahman reflected in avidya or ignorance. Hence, for all intents and purposes we agree God is the creator, preserver and destroyer and a personality endowed with all the divine qualities. Only that we say ultimately that all distinctions collapse and we realise the Self is Brahman. This is not compatible with atheism.

Gods are tools. I use them as one would use something frightening in a dream to awaken them to reality. Not to say that all deities are frightful, though many are!

This is another neo-Hindu idea. The gods are described in scriptures as real as you and me. Just as you would not appreciate being called my tool to be used by me, nor do they. In fact the scripture says the opposite "Just as animals are foods for humans, the humans are foods for gods" If I was a God I would be laughing at your human arrogance right now that I am just a tool to be used by you You are just a mere mortal with a frail, impure and perishable body living in a world of shadows. They are divine beings with bodies of pure light with imperishable bodies living in higher dimensions.

I don't think it's very useful to think like that, because it preoccupies one onto egos and not towards truth. It binds us into karma. That's why a disbelief in reincarnation can actually be benificial towards one's journey to Moksha. It also means they are less likely to hesitate in their spiritual journey and push it off until "another life"! Beliefs likewise can be tools. I don't know if reincarnation is true or not, but I choose to think it's unlikely although I'm open minded. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me and I choose to not think about it.

It doesn't matter what you personally think about reincarnation. Whether you accept it or reject it is your prerogative. The fact it is a core doctrine of traditional Hinduism. No sect of Hinduism rejects reincarnation, it is a core belief. It is universally taught across Hinduism. You cannot call yourself Hindu, and reject reincarnation, because reincarnation is central to all other Hindu doctrines: Dharma, Karma, Samsara, Moksha, spiritual evolution, subtle body etc

Dharma and Karma: A Hindu acts in accordance with dharma, so that they do not incur bad karma, otherwise they will have to pay for it later, or in the next life. As it the case that we do not always pay for our deeds in a single lifetime, e.g. a criminal gets away with their crime and dies without facing any consequences, the consequences are delivered in their next life through their pradrabdha. Similarly, Karma also explains why people are born differently, some rich and some poor; some beautiful and some ugly; some intelligent and some stupid; some strong and some weak etc etc​

Samsara and Moksha: The soteriology of Hinduism is premised on breaking the cycle of rebirth due to the original ignorance(avidya) of the soul and this is called moksha. This can only be achieved through knowledge, because knowledge is the antidote of ignorance and that knowledge is the direct experience of truth, God etc​

Spiritual evolution and subtle body: Hinduism teaches how life and its diversity originates through the passing of previous learning to the next, and this demands a carrier that transmigrates from body to body. If all you had was just a gross body, then that body is perishable and there would be no learnings to be transferred. We we cannot learn all there is about life in a single lifetime, as we cannot experience everything, as we do not bear the all the fruits of our karma in a single lifetime a belief in reincarnation is required to justify the spirtual practices of Hinduism. Otherwise why go through all the austerities if you could be dead the next day? Death does not come with an appointment, it can come suddenly at any age and at any place​

Therefore you cannot just willy nilly reject reincarnation without rejecting most of Hinduism, as it is so central to Hinduism(Dharmic religions in general in fact) If you do, I would argue you either an ignorant, misguided or deluded Hindu or an imposter. This is what ajay brought up, he used a more condemning term "troll" you cannot come into our Hinduism DIR forums rejecting our beliefs. If so, then perhaps I should self-identify as a Muslim and go onto the Islam forum and reject Mohammed as the last and final prophet, or as a Christian and reject the divinity of Jesus. Hence, I am in agreement with ajay, that people identifying as Hindus should not be allowed to reject Hindu beliefs, practices, scriptures and Gods in the Hinduism DIR. Rather, they should do so in debate forums.

Although there are many Neo Hindus who identify as atheist, they cannot be regarded as representative of the traditional 5000-10,000 year old Hinduism. These are people who are mostly just ignorant about the religion because they have never bothered to read a single scripture. They are as representative of Hinduism as Mormons are of Christianity or Bahai of Islam. Neo-Hindus atheists need to separate their new ideology from traditional Hinduism.

I believe something fairly close to the various sects of Kashmir Shaivism, Trika included. All those various Tantric sects sprang out of Kapalika which had a lot of mutual influence with the Tantric Buddhism practiced in Tibet. So it is not in the least surprising to me that you say this.

I agree that Tantra was a cross-Dharmic religion phenomena, however the tantra that formed in Hinduism is different from the tantra of Buddhism. Tantra does not accept the doctrine of no self(anattta) This is what distinguishes Hinduism(and Jainism) from Buddhism.

Well then I would say that disagreement is at the root of house Kuala sees the heart. There is an analog in Tantic Buddhism that the true nature is the Buddha nature and so one will seek to become Buddha just as the Kuala pracitoner will seek to become Shiva. If one is ultimately Shiva and seeks out Shivagama it is necessarily because they desire to do so. I think also perhaps the Bhagad Gita being Right Hand Path might see the heart and desire as going against the journey towards Moksha, where something Left Hand Path like Kuala would see it as beneficial.

I don't think the Bhagvad Gita sees sattvic desire that is desire for God as a bad thing, otherwise Krishna would not say that his devotee should desire him to attain him, if they desire other things, they will attain to them. Not all desires are wrong. My desire to eat and drink is not a wrong desire. It is indiscriminate desires like craving for sensual enjoyments that the Gita condemns because they detract from God. Now, Kaula Tantra takes a different approach, that even the lesser base or animalistic desires can become springboards to God, because through exploring them and learning to re-channel the energies towards God, they can become a means to God. That is what Tantra is, it means using tools and props to get to God, through mantra, yantra, tantra, asana, pranayama, mudras, bandhas , dharanas. This is why I find it a useful set of techniques for my spiritual development. I use both RHP and LHP techniques, but the latter has been more useful at my current stage in my life.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Spirit_Warrior , I can't help but think you are trying way too hard to assign labels.

I think you will eventually find out that there is little consensus on what is admissible for atheists, transtheists and the like. And even less need for such consensus.

I'm not sure that is any less true for Hinduism, either...

 

[sayak83]

Vaiseshika does in fact accept the authority of the Veda and hence the authority of God/s. The last sutra of the Vaiseshika sutra says:

The authoritativeness of the Veda (follows) from its being
the Word of God. 370.​

The later Vaiseshika thinkers like Sridhara etc are all thoroughly theistic.

​

.

I have not discussed this as it was a small point. But in this case the English translation is obviously wrong. It is creative translation indeed to get that English sentence from the Sanskrit below:-

Tatvachanat-Amnayayasya Pramanyam-iti

Because of this exposition, the reflections here have authority- end.

I am at a loss of how it was translated in the way you quoted it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Part 2 of 2



I think you are thinking of something like Shiva Siddhanta which I am not referring to. There are Tantric sects that don't or don't fully trace their texts or lineage through the Vedas. (If I am wrong I invite people to show me how sects like the Aghori, Kapalikas, Trika ect were/are Vedic since I honestly don't know to what degree if any they really are). They might hold them as having varying levels of significance but I would say that they are generally more in conflict than in agreement with them.

Far to the right on this chart we are non-Puranic and beyond the Siddhanta Tantras. As we get further from Vedic values we also get further from using them as any kind of scripture. I can only speak generally as to how many sects are like this, because I'm not an expert in the subject but I do know they are numerous and I mentioned some of the more well known ones and ones I'm familiar with. But in the end there are a lot of Tantriks who do not trace their lineage to the Vedas or at least they are not as important as other texts.

This is an interesting and good illustration. I do agree that Kaula tantras are very from RHP Vedic values, but that does not mean they reject the Vedas. If they did reject the Vedas then Tantra would be considered a separate religion, but it is not a separate religion from the Vedic religion, it is a later development in the same religion. Like Protestantism is from the original Catholicism.

I am of course not telling you an untruth, Tantra is not regarded as a separate religion from Hinduism, but as a sect of Hinduism.

For example I would rate the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta is more important to what I beleive than the Bhagad Gita. I respect the Gita as an insightful text but I don't hold that it is 100% correct. Also I'm telling you as a Shaivite that I don't hold Krishna in any special regard. I know more Vedic like Shaivites will, but I'm not them.

That is fine, I also like the Tantra literature like Vijnana Bhairva Tantra more than the Bhagvad Gita. Like I said it is not a pissing contest on which scripture is the best, rather my point the scriptures are not contradictory but complimentary.

Also if a Shaivte believes that what Krishna said in the Gita is 100% true they wouldn't be able to be a Shaivite since Krishna says that he is the supreme personality in there, as well as if I recall correctly says dualism is true which is also in disagreement with.

They could believe that Krishna is the manifestation of Vishnu who in turn is a manifestation of Shiva. We both in Vaishnava scriptures and in Shaiva scriptures have devotion for both Shiva and Vishnu.

Anyway I think we are going off-topic a bit. The topic was not whether Hindus can be Shaivites or Shaktas, because they obviously can as it is a sect within Hinduism, but whether Hindus can be Charvaka atheists, which is not a sect within Hinduism it is in fact outside of Hinduism and anti-Hinduism.

This is slightly more tricky but I would say that I would be called an atheist and have been by many. Though I would say I am nontheist which is different. I can point you towards nontheist followers of Shiva such as myself but specifically atheist? Sure I can find some but I would say a proper interpretation falls more into nontheism but I hold that the scriptures could easily be understood atheisticially while still being true. Gods represent things, truths transcendent beyond what misconceptions about the world those in the past might of had.

You cannot be a Shaivite, which means a follower of Shiva, and not believe Shiva exists at the same time. It is absurd. It is also nowhere to be found in traditional Hinduism. It is only recent Neo-Hindus who have forced these postmodern ideas on the rest of us Hindus and we do no appreciate it. Just as Muslims do not appreciate postmodern Muslims rejecting the final prophethood of Mohammed or Christians do not appreciate postmodern Christians rejecting the divinity of Jesus.

You also do not understand the flaw in postmodern, it says that all truths are relative and socially constructed, except that truth itself which is absolute. If you believe it fine, but I don't believe it and I don't appreciate it being forced on me. I am not going to accept somebody as Hindu who does not believe its teachings, I am going to call such a person misguided, ignorant or deluded or worse an imposter. They are not practising the same religion as I am.

Perhaps "god" here means a supreme, eternal and unchanging truth. Something like Brahman that is God, but not in the theistic sense of the word.

Again, atheism is the rejection of any God, personal and impersonal.

My apologies then if I mistakenly called you a Viashnava. However I would suggest caution in that exploration. While my own practice might be very tame and close to Trika and Kuala it's still left hand in orientation (like much of Kuala) and so isn't orthodox even if not as extreme as other left hand practices. I'm more like left hand lite but without careful consideration and good guidance it can be a pitfall for the unprepared in the same way that the orthodox teachings can sometimes be corrupted and misused.

I understand this. I have been quite indiscriminate and reckless as I started, but I am starting to develop some control. I opened a Pandoras box, so now I need to go through what I have released. In time, hopefully I get better control.

Just about any strongly monotheistic religion. Islam for example takes a very hard stance against atheists. And I know that I talked to some people of the Baha'i faith who didn't take kindly to my nontheistic views and proposed to tell me what Hindu deities really were.

Sure, but my point was you do not find explicit condemnations of atheists in the scriptures of other religions as you do in Hinduism. In Islam the condemnation is more directed to pagans. In Christianity it is more directed to the pharsee's/jews and in Judaism it is more about the non-Israeli tribes. Can you direct me to citations from scriptures of other world religions that have condemned atheism and materialism so strongly.

My apologies then. However not all sects are Puranic as I've shown and said before. I would say that Krishna is a manifestation of Shiva, but I wouldn't place any significance upon him more than any other deity I don't feel any connection to although I do see wisdom in many of the things he has been purported to say.

I agree. Krishna is also not my favourite deity and I am not as inspired by him as I am Shiva. To me Shiva represents self-deification and Krishna/Vishnu doesn't. Vishnu is too perfect, too good, to pure sattvic for me to relate to, whereas Shiva to me represents both the sacred and the profane. He is more real for me and the symbolism of him as one who has many human vices(anger, innocence etc) and one who has conquered the darker side is more of an inspiration to me. Yet, this does not mean I reject Krishna or Vishnu. As you said yourself you can see wisdom in what Krishna says, likewise many Shaivites and Shaktas do too. They do not deny either his historicity or his divinity.

In any case, you really have no argument from me that Tantra/Shaiva/Shakta is not Hinduism. What I am arguing is Charvaka is not Hinduism.

So I don't see it as mattering too much to argue about which Hindu path is the "correct" path or which interpretation is the "correct" one, since we all have different pieces of the same puzzle, all reflecting on and showing the truth in each other's understandings as much as our own. We will all be liberated in our own time.

I agree. I am not here arguing about which Hindu marga is the correct one: Jnana, Karma, Bhakti or which school is the correct one Advaita, Viseshadvaita, Dvaita or which deity is the supreme one. I am arguing that atheism is not a sect or path or philosophy anywhere in Hinduism. I take great objection to this attempt to force Hindus to accept Charvaka as a valid path.

The best bet I know is the Kapalikas. In any case I would say it's more that I don't hear any Shaiva of the kind I talked about in depth saying anything on the Gita. So I don't know how important they hold it to be. It seems mostly irrelevant to what they do and believe in, if that makes sense. Perhaps it's like more of a distant cousin? I honestly don't really know.

Can you show my any scripture of the Kapalikas that rejects the authority of the Bhagvad Gita and/or rejects the historicity and divinity of Lord Krishna

Also I think it's Shaivite not Shaivist I made that mistake years ago when I first was exploring the subject.

Thank you. I have used the corrected version now in this post.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Brahman necessarily atheist, at that level?

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Krishna's Universal Form -- as the universe and everything in it -- an atheist, at that objective level?

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Maya an atheist?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Brahman necessarily atheist, at that level?

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Krishna's Universal Form -- as the universe and everything in it -- an atheist, at an objective level?

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Maya an atheist?

I have been trying to reply to posts in chronological order. However, as your questions are short, they can be answerd briefly.

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Brahman necessarily atheist, at that level?

No, because except Advaita Vedanta, every other school of Vedanta accepts Brahman as Lord(Ishvara) and even the Upanishads refer to Brahman as Lord and the creator of the universe. In Advaita Vedanta we too accept Brahman as Ishvara, but with the caveat that Ishvara is just Brahman reflected in the Maya aspect and thus the closest a conditioned Jivan get to experiencing Brahman. This does not mean that the closest is unreal, it just means that it is second to last stage where the Jiva realises Brahman as the pure Self.

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Krishna's Universal Form -- as the universe and everything in it -- an atheist, at an objective level?

Recall the Purusha Sukta, 1/4 of that cosmic Purusha is here in the manifest visible universe, 3/4th remain abstract and hidden in the unmanifest. That is, the visible and manifest universe is only the lower section(the feet) of God, then there is the invisible subtle universe which accounts for the middle section and finally the top section which accounts for the highest causal heaven -- respectively we say triloka and beyond that is the highest realisation of the supreme. In Vedanta we give them names: The cosmic being at the gross level is virat; at the subtle level is hiryanagarbh and the causal level it is Ishvara.

So no we do not believe in Spinoza's naturalistic God. That is just 1/4th of the total truth. It is a perfect metaphor though for the ignorant atheist Hindu, they only hear 1/4th of the truth, and thinks it is the total truth.

Isn't any Hindu who believes in Maya an atheist?

I am not sure how this makes sense. Maya is the creative potency or energy that Brahman wields and via which creates this entire universe.