In short, no.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Hindus be atheist?
- Thread starter Spirit_Warrior
- Start date
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
It is logical here, because you claim certain attitudes are Abrahamic, but these attitudes were around before the the main Abrahamic religions Christianity and Islam were around. Hence really it is bad argument to say "This sounds more Abrahamic to me"
I think we have sibling rivalry, but at the end of the day, I don't really care if you are I fundamentally disagree on anything or everything. That's just humanity in action.
Nope, we believed like every philosophical school does and anybody who takes a position on something that their worldview and position is right and then by mutual exclusion others are wrong. For example I take the view reincarnation is correct, therefore by mutual exclusion I think Islam and Christianity are incorrect. Likewise, I am a Hindu, because I accept the Hindu worldview. I am not a Muslim, Christian, Jew, or atheist because I do not take take that view. I have a right to subscribe to a worldview.
I never said the universe was separate from God. I am saying that the visibe gross or physical universe is not all there is. There are far greater subtle universes beyond this and planes beyond this. I say this because I am a Hindu and that is what we believe. The irony is I am having to tell this to another Hindu. You should know this if you have read the scriptures
Samsara as a concept we find the earliest reference to is in the Upanishads, and its proto-form in the Rig Veda:
Wiki: Samsara:
The concept of Samsara developed in the Vedic times, and is traceable in the Samhita layers such as in sections 1.164, 4.55, 6.70 and 10.14 of the Rigveda.[5][17][18] While the idea is mentioned in the Samhita layers of the Vedas, there is lack of clear exposition there, and the idea fully develops in the early Upanishads.[19][20] Damien Keown states that the notion of "cyclic birth and death" appears around 800 BCE.[21] The word Saṃsāra appears, along with Moksha, in several Principal Upanishads such as in verse 1.3.7 of the Katha Upanishad,[22] verse 6.16 of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad,[23] verses 1.4 and 6.34 of the Maitri Upanishad
The majority of the core doctrines that now characterise Hinduism developed in the Upanishad stage, which is called Vedanta(Veda+anta) because it is the concluding teaching of the Veda and marks the end of the Vedic age. All the teaching of the Upanishads can be traced in their proto-form to the Rig Veda e.g. Brahman to the later philosophical hymns Nasadiya Sukta and Purusha Sukta and the concept of Ekam Sat that developed over the course of Vedic times; Shiva to Rudra; Dharma to Rta; Yoga to Tapas; heaven to reincarnation.The concept of Samsara developed in the Vedic times, and is traceable in the Samhita layers such as in sections 1.164, 4.55, 6.70 and 10.14 of the Rigveda.[5][17][18] While the idea is mentioned in the Samhita layers of the Vedas, there is lack of clear exposition there, and the idea fully develops in the early Upanishads.[19][20] Damien Keown states that the notion of "cyclic birth and death" appears around 800 BCE.[21] The word Saṃsāra appears, along with Moksha, in several Principal Upanishads such as in verse 1.3.7 of the Katha Upanishad,[22] verse 6.16 of the Shvetashvatara Upanishad,[23] verses 1.4 and 6.34 of the Maitri Upanishad
Hinduism is not as fluid as you think it is. It is not infinitely fluid that is. We know Hinduism developed over a course of thousands of years from the early Vedic period to the late Vedic period, but by the late Vedic period all the core doctrines of Hinduism had formed. All of the 20 core doctrines I listed in response to Sayak had formed by the time of Vedanta(Upanshad era) Thereafter, what came was regarded as smriti, remembering or reconstructing and debating the concept which gave rise to the Mahabharata, Dharma Shastras and the Darsanas. Standards were developed that Smriti must be in accordance with Sruti for it be acceptable.
Rather than denying that there are no doctrines of Hinduism, which I frankly think is delusional, please refute the 20 items I listed as universal across Hinduism. I gave Sayak and opportunity but he failed to even try. So you have a go.
You are entitled to your views, but if they are your own personal views then don't pass them of as the views of Hinduism the religion. Your statement is also in correct "We do not rely on scripture" Where do you get your knowledge about Hinduism from then? Do you make it up, dream it up, heresay, television and movies? You of course get it from somewhere. I know most Hindus get it from just heresay they hear from family and relatives, what they watch on TV and movies(like the Hindu teleserials and read from books) and their own imperfect interpretations of what they think is Hinduism. These Hindus are not different from the laity in any religion. Many Christians too get their knowledge about Christianity from family and relatives, what they watch on TV and movies and the occasional Church sermon they attended. Hence, this is why you need to make a distinction between lay Hinds who are ignorant and leaned Hindus who are informed. I am in a better position to talk about Hinduism because I have read several dozens of scriptures than you are. In much the same way a Christian priest or a Muslim Imam who have gone through a study course have studied the scriptures, the history and the literature on their religion.
As I said before, don't overestimate your intellectual abilities. If you have gaps in your knowledge and if there are many things you don't know, then allow yourself to be educated by those who do
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
A convert not starting out as Hindu(although I started out as Sikh, so I was already quasi Hindu) later on makes a conscious decision to convert to Hinduism is because they read about it, show an interest in it, want to find out more about it and eventually make a decision to convert. On the other hand, those who are born Hindu, inherit being Hindu from birth and had no choice in the matter, philosophically they might not even relate to Hinduism, they might think atheism, secularism, rationalism etc is more their street. They might even think Islam and Christianity is better. Hence, just because one is born into the Hindu religion, does not make them anymore Hindu than a convert. You are Hindu if you believe what the Hindu religion teaches. I am a convert, because I believe in what Hinduism teaches(see 20 items) Many converts have converted to Hinduism because it was the closest to what they already believed.
The word you are looking for is "nastika" not "astika" You can't even tell the difference between your nastika and your astika. That is the extent of your ignorance about Hinduism.
Already refuted several times in this thread. They all accept the authority of the Vedas as infallible. The Vedas assert the existence of God/s hence they all accepted God/s existence.
As for your claim that Nyaya was atheist. This is the sutra in the wiki article which is being interpreted as atheist
19. God, says some one, is the sole cause of fruits, because man's acts are found occasionally to be ,unattended' by them.-19. Seeing that man does not often attain Success proportionate to his exertions, some one infers that these are entirely subservient to God who alone can provide them with fruits.
20. 'This is, some are afraid,' not so, because in the absence of man's acts there is no production of fruits.-20. The fear referred to arises thus :--If God were the only source of fruits, man could attain them even without any exertions.
21. ' Since fruits are awarded by God, man's acts, we conclude, are not the sole cause thereof.-21.
This is not at all refuting the existence of God. It is saying that God is not the sole cause for why man attains fruits of his actions, because if God was the sole cause then man would not need to act, they would just be dispensed fruits of their action purely by God's will. However, this is not the case, man only obtains fruits based on their actions, hence they are part of the cause of attaining the fruits of their actions. This argument has been later analysed further in Vedanta schools to come up various factors that are involved in the production of an act: karta(agent) karana(causes) and karma(action) and the causes are further analysed material cause, efficient cause etc20. 'This is, some are afraid,' not so, because in the absence of man's acts there is no production of fruits.-20. The fear referred to arises thus :--If God were the only source of fruits, man could attain them even without any exertions.
21. ' Since fruits are awarded by God, man's acts, we conclude, are not the sole cause thereof.-21.
You see this is the difference between being informed and ignorant or having only half knowledge. This is why I recommend you do read scriptures so you don't make these very basic school boy errors.
No it does not boil down to different interpretations and definitions of Hinduism. We are not arguing interpretations here. We are not arguing which sect of Hinduism is correct, which school of Vedanta is correct, which marga of Yoga is correct, which deity is supreme, which scripture is the best. What we are arguing here is whether atheism has any place at all in Hinduism. And I am showing factually that there is not a single atheistic sect or school of Hinduism. That atheism is fact the exact antithesis, polar opposite of Hinduism. It is anti-Hinduism. Hinduism is throughout theistic.
You have no pramana for any atheism in Hinduism and what you just gave me as pramana or proof is based on half knowledge.
Last edited:
I get the point, Luis, but at the same time, some people take great pains to keep everything obscure and vague.
No argument there, @Vinayaka !
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Apologies for taking so long to get around to you Aupmanyav!
There are many reasons for why atheism is wrong, but we will not go into that here, as that is not the topic of discussion. All that should suffice here is that atheism is mutually opposing to Hinduism. Atheism is teaching the exact opposite teachings to what Hinduism teaches, and this is why we have traditionally identified it as 'asura dharma' There are condemnations of atheism throughout the Hindu scriptures.
That is fine, that is the epistemology in Buddhism. It is not the same epistemology as in Hinduism, especially in matters that are supersensible and cannot be established either by perception or by reasoning, such as Brahman. I just cited the Brahma Sutras earlier, which explicitly state the only means of knowledge for Brahman is scripture. We can then provide supporting proofs in the form of arguments to show what scripture is saying is rational. The Upanishads themselves say that because Brahman precedes the senses and precedes all thought, neither the senses and thoughts can apprehend Brahman. Hence, our proof for Brahman rests purely on the revelation of Rishis.
Those things which are not supersensible can be established by perception e.g. the craters on the moon are not supersensible, they can be established by a telescope.
Those things which are supersensible but still within the realm of manifest existence can be established by inference e.g. atoms are supersensible because they are subtle, but through inference we can establish they exist. Inference can be used to establish other supersensible things but still within the limits of inference such as parallel universes, extra spatial dimensions, dark energy and dark matter etc
You take conventional meaning to be true, because words have no meanings outside of the meaning that they are conventionally given. The correspondence between word and object is arbitrary, it is decided only by convention that a word, say "rose" corresponds to the object rose. If I say "Bring me a rose" and you bring me nettles, then we can say you misunderstood the meaning. Similarly, 'Advaita Vedanta;, means something by convention, it denotes the school of Vedanta founded by Shankara. This is not an atheist school(In fact there is no atheist school of Vedanta) but you are here portraying it as atheist. You have decided to change the meaning of every word used in the school. This is not as valid, as much it was not valid for you to change "rose" to nettles.
I would charge that you are misleading people and it is worse that you doing this consciously, because you know that what you are preaching here is not Advaita Vedanta, but you still call it Advaita, and even worse you claim it is Advaita of Shankara. If somebody had not read what Advaita Vedanta was, and you were the first person they learned of it from, they would form wrong views about it. Then they might go repeating those views to others. This is how wrong views spread. It is because people who originally spread these wrong views are irresponsible and ignorant themselves --- the blind leading the blind. Hinduism is especially prone to this, because it such a vast and complex religion, many Hindus like yourself go around based on half knowledge spreading wrong views about it, creating work for more learned Hindus like myself to counter them. I think there are already too many misconceptions about Hinduism as they are, don't add to them.
What you are here representing as "Advaita" is the doctrine of pradhana which is rejected in the Brahma sutras(as I just demonstrated earlier) Brahman is not material energy, Brahman is sentient and described as being pure consciousness. If you want to justify an interpretation of the Upanishads, BG and Brahma Sutras as teaching an atheist and materialist doctrine, then like Shankara and his successors, write a commentary on all three that consistently shows this doctrine is being taught. You can sit there and think you have a better understanding than Shankara et al on what the Upanishads are teaching, but if so, then prove it. If you think the Upanishads are teaching Brahman is just material energy, then support it.
If it was that easy Aupmanyav, it would have been done by now. There is not a single atheist school of Vedanta in the last 2000 years.
There are many reasons for why atheism is wrong, but we will not go into that here, as that is not the topic of discussion. All that should suffice here is that atheism is mutually opposing to Hinduism. Atheism is teaching the exact opposite teachings to what Hinduism teaches, and this is why we have traditionally identified it as 'asura dharma' There are condemnations of atheism throughout the Hindu scriptures.
That is fine, that is the epistemology in Buddhism. It is not the same epistemology as in Hinduism, especially in matters that are supersensible and cannot be established either by perception or by reasoning, such as Brahman. I just cited the Brahma Sutras earlier, which explicitly state the only means of knowledge for Brahman is scripture. We can then provide supporting proofs in the form of arguments to show what scripture is saying is rational. The Upanishads themselves say that because Brahman precedes the senses and precedes all thought, neither the senses and thoughts can apprehend Brahman. Hence, our proof for Brahman rests purely on the revelation of Rishis.
Those things which are not supersensible can be established by perception e.g. the craters on the moon are not supersensible, they can be established by a telescope.
Those things which are supersensible but still within the realm of manifest existence can be established by inference e.g. atoms are supersensible because they are subtle, but through inference we can establish they exist. Inference can be used to establish other supersensible things but still within the limits of inference such as parallel universes, extra spatial dimensions, dark energy and dark matter etc
You take conventional meaning to be true, because words have no meanings outside of the meaning that they are conventionally given. The correspondence between word and object is arbitrary, it is decided only by convention that a word, say "rose" corresponds to the object rose. If I say "Bring me a rose" and you bring me nettles, then we can say you misunderstood the meaning. Similarly, 'Advaita Vedanta;, means something by convention, it denotes the school of Vedanta founded by Shankara. This is not an atheist school(In fact there is no atheist school of Vedanta) but you are here portraying it as atheist. You have decided to change the meaning of every word used in the school. This is not as valid, as much it was not valid for you to change "rose" to nettles.
I would charge that you are misleading people and it is worse that you doing this consciously, because you know that what you are preaching here is not Advaita Vedanta, but you still call it Advaita, and even worse you claim it is Advaita of Shankara. If somebody had not read what Advaita Vedanta was, and you were the first person they learned of it from, they would form wrong views about it. Then they might go repeating those views to others. This is how wrong views spread. It is because people who originally spread these wrong views are irresponsible and ignorant themselves --- the blind leading the blind. Hinduism is especially prone to this, because it such a vast and complex religion, many Hindus like yourself go around based on half knowledge spreading wrong views about it, creating work for more learned Hindus like myself to counter them. I think there are already too many misconceptions about Hinduism as they are, don't add to them.
What you are here representing as "Advaita" is the doctrine of pradhana which is rejected in the Brahma sutras(as I just demonstrated earlier) Brahman is not material energy, Brahman is sentient and described as being pure consciousness. If you want to justify an interpretation of the Upanishads, BG and Brahma Sutras as teaching an atheist and materialist doctrine, then like Shankara and his successors, write a commentary on all three that consistently shows this doctrine is being taught. You can sit there and think you have a better understanding than Shankara et al on what the Upanishads are teaching, but if so, then prove it. If you think the Upanishads are teaching Brahman is just material energy, then support it.
If it was that easy Aupmanyav, it would have been done by now. There is not a single atheist school of Vedanta in the last 2000 years.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Hence why I said that atheist Hindus end up living a contradiction and behaving schizophrenic. You are are an atheist in thought, but a theist in practice. What you think is one thing, what you say is another, and what you do is another. In Hinduism it is taught that we should harmonise what we think, what we say and what we do so that the mind, speech and action are consistent.
Well if you are going to make a truth claim, you need to support it with evidence, just as you just asked me before. Your claim that these are pre-Vedic IVC deities needs evidence. Have any? It is rich then that you are asking others to prove their claims, but cannot prove your own. If we rely purely on evidence, Shiva and Durga for the first time occur in the late Vedantic texts(Upanishads) and their earlier proto-forms in the Rig Veda. Krishna is a post-Vedic historical character, the earliest mention of which is in the Mahabharata. The earliest mention of Rama is also in the Mahabharata, as an ancient legendary person.
This is another poor attempt to justify as an atheist interpretation. The Sukta is not actually rejecting God, it is saying the devas came after the ONE(ekam sat) This is in fact the first unambigious sukta that describes proto-Brahman concept, which is later developed further in the Brahmanas and then becomes a fully developed concept in the Upanishads. Let us look at it: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/vishnu/nasadiya.pdf
नासदासीन्नो सदासी�दानींनासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत्। �कमावर�वः कुह कस्य शमर्न्नम्भः �कमासीद्गहनंगभीरम ्॥ १॥ nāsad āsīn no sad āsīt tadānīṁ nāsīd rajo no vyomā paro yat | kim āvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmann ambhaḥ kim āsīd gahanaṁ gabhīram || 1 ||
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence, There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it. What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Explanation: In the beginning before the manifest universe came into being, there was none of this universe that we see today, none of this space, where was all this space in the beginning and from what did it originate? That state that was before the universe even existed could not be described as existent because it was not manifest but nor could it be described as nothing, because from it the existent manifested.
This verse deals with the space aspect
न मत्यृ ु रासीदमतं ृ न त�हर्न रा�या अह्न आसीत्प्रके तः । आनीदवातंस्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः �कञ्चनास
॥२॥ na mr̥tyur āsīd amr̥taṁ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsīt praketaḥ | ānīd avātaṁ svadhayā tad ekaṁ tasmād dhānyan na paraḥ kiṁ canāsa
|| 2 || Then there was neither death nor immortality Nor was there then the torch of night and day. The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining. There was that One then, and there was no other.
॥२॥ na mr̥tyur āsīd amr̥taṁ na tarhi na rātryā ahna āsīt praketaḥ | ānīd avātaṁ svadhayā tad ekaṁ tasmād dhānyan na paraḥ kiṁ canāsa
|| 2 || Then there was neither death nor immortality Nor was there then the torch of night and day. The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining. There was that One then, and there was no other.
Explanation: Then there was no time, there was no night or day, nothing to measure the passage of time with because nothing yet existed. This deals with the time aspect.
There was only that ONE(ekam sat) that which was beyond manifest space and time. Hence later we have called it "Mahakasha" and "Mahakaal" the great primordial space and time
तम आसी�मसा गू हळमग्रेप्रके तंस�ललंसवार्ऽइदम ्। तु च्छ्येनाभ्व�प�हतंयदासी�पसस्तन्म�हनाजायतैकम
॥३॥ tama āsīt tamasā gūl̥ham agre 'praketaṁ salilaṁ sarvam ā idam | tucchyenābhv apihitaṁ yad āsīt tapasas tan mahinājāyataikam
|| 3 || At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness. All this was only unillumined water. That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing, arose at last, born of the power of heat.
॥३॥ tama āsīt tamasā gūl̥ham agre 'praketaṁ salilaṁ sarvam ā idam | tucchyenābhv apihitaṁ yad āsīt tapasas tan mahinājāyataikam
|| 3 || At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness. All this was only unillumined water. That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing, arose at last, born of the power of heat.
Explanation: Before this universe was manifest there was unfathomable void and nothingness, but that ONE which was beyond the manifest space and time, stirred through the void and nothingness
कामस्तदग्रेसमवतर्ता�ध मनसो रेतः प्रथमंयदासीत्। सतो बन्धमस�त ु �नर�वन्दन्हृ�द प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ॥४॥ kāmas tad agre sam avartatādhi manaso retaḥ prathamaṁ yad āsīt | sato bandhum asati nir avindan hr̥di pratīṣyā kavayo manīṣā
|| 4 || In the beginning desire descended on it. That was the primal seed, born of the mind. The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom know that which is kin to that which is not.
|| 4 || In the beginning desire descended on it. That was the primal seed, born of the mind. The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom know that which is kin to that which is not.
Explanation: This is where any atheist interpretation collapses. This ONE which was beyond manifest space and time which was covered by this void and nothingness was a sentient principle that had a mind and could desire and from that desire was born this entire creation. Later in the Upanishads, this is articulated as:
Desiring that he should become many, that he should make of himself many forms, Brahman meditated. Meditating, he created all things. Creating all things, he entered into everything. Entering into all things, he became that which has shape and that which is shapeless; he became that which can be defined and that which cannot be defined; he became that which has support and that which has not support; he became that which is conscious and that which is not conscious; he became that which is gross and that which is subtle. He became all things whatsoever: therefore the wise call him the Real” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2:6:1c).
The Ekam Sat(ONE) of the Nasadiya Suktam is later called Brahman, from the root Brih meaning "ever expanding, all encompassing, infinite existence" and the void and nothingness which is neither existent or non-existent becomes 'Maya'
�तरश्चीनो �वततो रिश्मरेषामधः िस्वदासीदप�र ु िस्वदासीत्। रेतोधा आसन्म�हमान आसन्त्स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रय�तः परस्तात्॥५॥ tiraścīno vitato raśmir eṣām adhaḥ svid āsī3d upari svid āsīt | retodhā āsan mahimāna āsan svadhā avastāt prayatiḥ parastāt
|| 5 || And they have stretched their cord across the void, and know what was above, and what below. Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces. Below was strength, and over it was impulse.|
|| 5 || And they have stretched their cord across the void, and know what was above, and what below. Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces. Below was strength, and over it was impulse.|
Explanation: The cord stretching across the void is between manifest universe and unmanifest universe, and the crucial link between them is linked with being, because the sages have meditated and realised that consciousness is the background in which the manifest and non-manifest are linked, and hence the later identification of akasha(space) with consciousness(chit) and ultimately Brahman with Atman or Self. Later in the Yoga darsana it becomes chitta or mind-field and in the Tantra literature chidakasha
The seminal powers are the powers(devas) that reside in the unmanifest consciousness but drive the manifest e.g. The seminal power Surya or Savitur deva drive the manifest Sun. This is the interpretation that is later formed into a full philosophical doctrine in the Upanishads e.g. The dialogue when the sage Balaki goes to the king Ajatsatru to teach him meditation, but Ajatsatru ends up teaching him instead:
3. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the sun, on him I meditate (as Brahman).'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'No, no! do not challenge me (to a disputation) on this 1. I meditate on him who is called great, clad in white raiment 2, the supreme, the head of all beings. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes supreme, and the head of all beings.'
4. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the moon, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Soma, the king, the self, (source) of all food. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self, (source) of all food.'
5. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the lightning, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self in light. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self in light.'
6. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the thunder, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of sound 1. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of sound.'
The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Kaushîtaki-Upanishad: Adhyâya IV
को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं�वसिष्टः ृ । अवार्ग्देवा अस्य �वसजर्नेनाथा को वेद यत आबभू व ॥६॥ ko addhā veda ka iha pra vocat kuta ājātā kuta iyaṁ visrṣṭ̥ iḥ | arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yata ābab || 6 |4. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the moon, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as Soma, the king, the self, (source) of all food. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self, (source) of all food.'
5. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the lightning, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self in light. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self in light.'
6. Bâlâki said: 'The person that is in the thunder, on him I meditate.'
Agâtasatru said to him: 'Do not challenge me on this. I meditate on him as the self of sound 1. Whoso meditates on him thus, becomes the self of sound.'
The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Kaushîtaki-Upanishad: Adhyâya IV
But, after all, who knows, and who can say Whence it all came, and how creation happened? The gods themselves are later than creation, so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
इयं�वसिष्टयर्त ृ आबभू व य�द वा दधेय�द वा न । यो अस्याध्य�ः परमेव्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद य�द वा न वेद ॥७॥
iyaṁ visr̥ṣṭir yata ābabhūva yadi vā dadhe yadi vā na | yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyoman so aṅga veda yadi vā na veda
|| 7 || Whence all creation had its origin, he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not, he, who surveys it all from highest heaven, he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
Cont.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
The same question is further expanded in the Kena Upanishad:
Explanation: We cannot see what precedes seeing, hear what precedes hearing, think what precedes thinking, speak what precedes speaking --- meaning whatever we perceive is always indirectly through the instruments of the 5 senses and the mind. That is all we can ever know because we are using instruments to perceive this reality. Hence, our manifest reality is reality that has already been processed by our senses and minds before it becomes available for us to study. The stages that we cannot perceive are apperception that is reality prior to manifest perception. This is unknowable by our senses of perception hence it requires another means of knowledge. This is where the Rishis come in -- declaring there is a means --- and that is direct perception(later dubbed by Vedanta as aparoksha jnana) and which Yoga also calls intuition or revelation. This is premised on the presupposition that because this entire reality is a projection of consciousness, one knows this reality directly through consciousness. Later, we see this become a famous ancient dictum which we found in the Greek temples "Know thyself, and you will know the universe and the gods" Hence, whatever knowledge you get using the senses and the mind is indirect knowledge, but whatever knowledge you get from intuition is direct knowledge. This is asserted in the Yoga sutras:
The more scriptures and shastras you read the more things will fall into place. Just like when you are piecing together a jigsaw, the more pieces you have, the clearer the picture becomes. You don't have to have every piece to form the picture. Similarly, you do not need to read every scripture and shastra, but read enough and things will become clearer. However, your current approach, which I am sorry to say is egotistical and based on arrogance overestimating your intellectual abilities to even think that your understanding is even better than Shankara, is based on cherry picking whatever you like from scriptures and shastras to buttress your atheist ideology. You take everything out of context.
You do not even realise cherry picking is a fallacy:
It is also intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest? If not, then don't call your views Advaita when you know Advaita does not support your views. Do not call your Guru Shankara, when you go against the very thing(pradhana) that Shankara vituperated. If not, then don't call the beliefs of Hinduism "Voodo/village Hinduism" when these are the universal beliefs of Hindus across every scripture and shastra.
Please just be honest.
In a round about way you are calling me a "dumb Hindu" because I believe in what you call "voodo" such as astral worlds(lokas) psychic powers(siddhis) astral bodies(sukshmasharias) spiritual life forms(pretas, ghandarvas, asparas, sidddhas etc) occult knowledge(mantra, yantra, tantra vidyas) gods and goddesses(devi/devatas) and magik(yagyyas) and uphold the authority of scriptures(sabda)
Conversely, you are a "smart Hindu" because you do not believe in any of that stuff, but you believe in pramanas, doing your dharma, atoms, energy/matter etc.
In actual fact you are cherry picking in a completely arbitrary way whatever you like from anywhere in Hinduism to support your atheist materialist views. Even from the so called rational schools you claim to be a proponent of, you take what suits you and leave the rest e.g. Vaiseshika does not only talk about atoms, but it also talks about the existence of disembodied souls and minds and separates the soul from the body. It does talk about atoms, but it also talks about how subtle atoms make up the celestial heavens and the bodies of celestial beings like ghandarvas and gross atoms the physical things. It also talks about and justifies ritual magik. Nyaya does talk about pramanas, but it also accepts Yogic perception or ESP as a pramana and talks about the infallibility of the Vedas. It similarly talks about the soul existing as separate from the body. Samkhya does talk about energy and matter, but it also talks about subtle bodies, reincarnation, astral worlds and beings and psychic powers.
There is no method or rhyme behind how you selectively pick whatever you want, other than whether you like it or not.
In effect, really you are an atheist and materialist who is looking to support their views from Hinduism and because Hinduism is thoroughly theistic, or what you call "voodoo" you end up contradicting yourself all the time.
Why was he smart, because he left Hinduism and became Buddhist? Then does that not mean every Hindu that leaves Hinduism to join Buddhism is a smart fellow? I hope you can see why I as a Hindu would take objection to this and question your allegiance to Hinduism. If you don't like the religion, why claim you are a member of it? If think it is Hutu voodo, silly, dumb village stuff, then you are free to leave. Nobody is holding you at gun-point to stay. If you feel more Buddhist, then become Buddhist. If you are atheist and materialist, then become atheist and materialist.
The more statements you make like this, because I am not the only one who has pointed this out, both Ajay and Vinayaka have raised questions at some of the anti-Hindu things you say, the more conflict you will create with Hindus. Just as I would create conflict with Muslims by denying Mohammed Prophethood or with Chrisrians by denying Jesus's divinity. You deny Hindu beliefs because you are are an atheist. Makes sense.
Then that is fine, you are a Charvaka. Why claim to be Hindu then? I have no problem with you accepting perception as your only means of knowledge. Souls, reincarnation, heaven, hell etc is based on inference and testimony. If you only accept perception, I can see how you are forced to your conclusions and I respect that. However, what I don't respect is calling this Hinduism. In Hinduism we accept inference and testimony and hence we are forced to our conclusions. We belong to a different darsana than you do. If you claim you are part of our darsana, we have the right to call you an imposter.
As I already argued there is no atheist Advaita position
I am sorry, but I don't take self-identification with something as a valid reason to accept it. If you self identify as a giant cucumber, and I see a human man, I am going to go with what I see . Similarly, though you identify as Hindu, but everything I see you saying is Charvaka, I am going with what I see. You are a Charvaka, as far as I am concerned.
1. THE Pupil asks: 'At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?'
2. The Teacher replies: 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal 1.
3. 'The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it.
4. 'It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this.
5. 'That which is not expressed by speech and that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
7. 'That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
8. 'That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
9. 'That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.'
2. The Teacher replies: 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed (from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal 1.
3. 'The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it.
4. 'It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this.
5. 'That which is not expressed by speech and that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
7. 'That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
8. 'That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
9. 'That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.'
Explanation: We cannot see what precedes seeing, hear what precedes hearing, think what precedes thinking, speak what precedes speaking --- meaning whatever we perceive is always indirectly through the instruments of the 5 senses and the mind. That is all we can ever know because we are using instruments to perceive this reality. Hence, our manifest reality is reality that has already been processed by our senses and minds before it becomes available for us to study. The stages that we cannot perceive are apperception that is reality prior to manifest perception. This is unknowable by our senses of perception hence it requires another means of knowledge. This is where the Rishis come in -- declaring there is a means --- and that is direct perception(later dubbed by Vedanta as aparoksha jnana) and which Yoga also calls intuition or revelation. This is premised on the presupposition that because this entire reality is a projection of consciousness, one knows this reality directly through consciousness. Later, we see this become a famous ancient dictum which we found in the Greek temples "Know thyself, and you will know the universe and the gods" Hence, whatever knowledge you get using the senses and the mind is indirect knowledge, but whatever knowledge you get from intuition is direct knowledge. This is asserted in the Yoga sutras:
1.48 The experiential knowledge that is gained in that state is one of essential wisdom and is filled with truth.
(ritambhara tatra prajna)
1.49 That knowledge is different from the knowledge that is commingled with testimony or through inference, because it relates directly to the specifics of the object, rather than to those words or other concepts.
(shruta anumana prajnabhyam anya-vishaya vishesha-arthatvat)
Explanation: Intuitive knowledge is knowledge that comes from within, when you just know and you know with certainty, without having to get at it through the ordinary means of observation and reasoning. This knowledge is "truth-filled" and is real experiential knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge obtained using instruments is knowledge of word-objects or concepts. Hence, the Dharmic attitude of going inwards rather than outwards to search for knowledge.(ritambhara tatra prajna)
1.49 That knowledge is different from the knowledge that is commingled with testimony or through inference, because it relates directly to the specifics of the object, rather than to those words or other concepts.
(shruta anumana prajnabhyam anya-vishaya vishesha-arthatvat)
The more scriptures and shastras you read the more things will fall into place. Just like when you are piecing together a jigsaw, the more pieces you have, the clearer the picture becomes. You don't have to have every piece to form the picture. Similarly, you do not need to read every scripture and shastra, but read enough and things will become clearer. However, your current approach, which I am sorry to say is egotistical and based on arrogance overestimating your intellectual abilities to even think that your understanding is even better than Shankara, is based on cherry picking whatever you like from scriptures and shastras to buttress your atheist ideology. You take everything out of context.
You do not even realise cherry picking is a fallacy:
Cherry picking
(also known as: suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Logical Form:
Evidence A and evidence B is available.
Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.
Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2.
Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.
(also known as: suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)
Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Logical Form:
Evidence A and evidence B is available.
Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.
Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2.
Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.
It is also intellectually dishonest. Are you intellectually dishonest? If not, then don't call your views Advaita when you know Advaita does not support your views. Do not call your Guru Shankara, when you go against the very thing(pradhana) that Shankara vituperated. If not, then don't call the beliefs of Hinduism "Voodo/village Hinduism" when these are the universal beliefs of Hindus across every scripture and shastra.
Please just be honest.
In a round about way you are calling me a "dumb Hindu" because I believe in what you call "voodo" such as astral worlds(lokas) psychic powers(siddhis) astral bodies(sukshmasharias) spiritual life forms(pretas, ghandarvas, asparas, sidddhas etc) occult knowledge(mantra, yantra, tantra vidyas) gods and goddesses(devi/devatas) and magik(yagyyas) and uphold the authority of scriptures(sabda)
Conversely, you are a "smart Hindu" because you do not believe in any of that stuff, but you believe in pramanas, doing your dharma, atoms, energy/matter etc.
In actual fact you are cherry picking in a completely arbitrary way whatever you like from anywhere in Hinduism to support your atheist materialist views. Even from the so called rational schools you claim to be a proponent of, you take what suits you and leave the rest e.g. Vaiseshika does not only talk about atoms, but it also talks about the existence of disembodied souls and minds and separates the soul from the body. It does talk about atoms, but it also talks about how subtle atoms make up the celestial heavens and the bodies of celestial beings like ghandarvas and gross atoms the physical things. It also talks about and justifies ritual magik. Nyaya does talk about pramanas, but it also accepts Yogic perception or ESP as a pramana and talks about the infallibility of the Vedas. It similarly talks about the soul existing as separate from the body. Samkhya does talk about energy and matter, but it also talks about subtle bodies, reincarnation, astral worlds and beings and psychic powers.
There is no method or rhyme behind how you selectively pick whatever you want, other than whether you like it or not.
In effect, really you are an atheist and materialist who is looking to support their views from Hinduism and because Hinduism is thoroughly theistic, or what you call "voodoo" you end up contradicting yourself all the time.
Why was he smart, because he left Hinduism and became Buddhist? Then does that not mean every Hindu that leaves Hinduism to join Buddhism is a smart fellow? I hope you can see why I as a Hindu would take objection to this and question your allegiance to Hinduism. If you don't like the religion, why claim you are a member of it? If think it is Hutu voodo, silly, dumb village stuff, then you are free to leave. Nobody is holding you at gun-point to stay. If you feel more Buddhist, then become Buddhist. If you are atheist and materialist, then become atheist and materialist.
The more statements you make like this, because I am not the only one who has pointed this out, both Ajay and Vinayaka have raised questions at some of the anti-Hindu things you say, the more conflict you will create with Hindus. Just as I would create conflict with Muslims by denying Mohammed Prophethood or with Chrisrians by denying Jesus's divinity. You deny Hindu beliefs because you are are an atheist. Makes sense.
Then that is fine, you are a Charvaka. Why claim to be Hindu then? I have no problem with you accepting perception as your only means of knowledge. Souls, reincarnation, heaven, hell etc is based on inference and testimony. If you only accept perception, I can see how you are forced to your conclusions and I respect that. However, what I don't respect is calling this Hinduism. In Hinduism we accept inference and testimony and hence we are forced to our conclusions. We belong to a different darsana than you do. If you claim you are part of our darsana, we have the right to call you an imposter.
As I already argued there is no atheist Advaita position
I am sorry, but I don't take self-identification with something as a valid reason to accept it. If you self identify as a giant cucumber, and I see a human man, I am going to go with what I see . Similarly, though you identify as Hindu, but everything I see you saying is Charvaka, I am going with what I see. You are a Charvaka, as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I only mentioned your name as only an example of a strong atheist who is mutually opposed with us, Hindus. Is mentioning your name abusing you?
Yet you place Islam and Christianity above it, which are together responsible for crusades, witch burning inquisitions, jihad, genocides of many natives around the world. In comparison, the history of Hinduism is peaceful.
So you know nothing about pramanas?
Can you give examples. I never heard that Hinduism denies the dead are dead, or do you mean that the dead continue to exist as souls after in the afterlife or come back reincarnated? If so, that belief is not exclusive to Hinduism, it is held nearly by every religion.
Then who are greater gods? If you really are anti-theist, then all gods should be nonsense to you. How can you have lesser and greater gods?
In the years when you were doing your PhD on Hinduism did not even once come across this:
Dāna - Wikipedia
Excerpts:
The Gods have not ordained hunger to be our death: even to the well-fed man comes death in varied shape,
The riches of the liberal never waste away, while he who will not give finds none to comfort him,
The man with food in store who, when the needy comes in miserable case begging for bread to eat,
Hardens his heart against him, when of old finds not one to comfort him.
Bounteous is he who gives unto the beggar who comes to him in want of food, and the feeble,
Success attends him in the shout of battle. He makes a friend of him in future troubles,
No friend is he who to his friend and comrade who comes imploring food, will offer nothing.
Let the rich satisfy the poor implorer, and bend his eye upon a longer pathway,
Riches come now to one, now to another, and like the wheels of cars are ever rolling,
The foolish man wins food with fruitless labour: that food – I speak the truth – shall be his ruin,
He feeds no trusty friend, no man to love him. All guilt is he who eats with no partaker.
— Rigveda, X.117, [18]
Learn three cardinal virtues - self restraint, charity and compassion for all life.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, V.ii.3, [19][21]
Chandogya Upanishad, Book III, similarly, states that a virtuous life requires: tapas (asceticism), dāna (charity), arjava (straightforwardness), ahimsa (non-injury to all sentinent beings) and satyavacana (truthfulness).[19]
The Adi Parva of the Hindu Epic Mahabharata, in Chapter 91, states that a person must first acquire wealth by honest means, then embark on charity; be hospitable to those who come to him; never inflict pain on any living being; and share a portion with others whatever he consumes.[24] In Chapter 87 of Adi Parva, it calls sweet speech and refusal to use harsh words or wrong others even if you have been wronged, as a form of charity. In the Vana Parva, Chapter 194, the Mahabharata recommends that one must, "conquer the mean by charity, the untruthful by truth, the wicked by forgiveness, and dishonesty by honesty".[25]
An assurance unto all creatures with love and affection and abstention from every kind of injury, acts of kindness and favor done to a person in distress, whatever gifts are made without the giver's ever thinking of them as gifts made by him, constitute, O chief of Bharata's race, the highest and best of gifts (dāna).
— The Mahabharata, XIII.59[5][27]
Tirukkuṛaḷ, written between 200 BCE and 400 CE, is one of the most cherished classics on Hinduism written in a South Indian language. It discusses charity, dedicating Chapter 23 of Book 1 on Virtues to it.[29] Tirukkuṛaḷ suggests charity is necessary for an virtuous life and happiness. He states in Chapter 23: "Giving to the poor is true charity, all other giving expects some return"; "Great, indeed, is the power to endure hunger. Greater still is the power to relieve other's hunger"; "Giving alms is a great reward in itself to one who gives".[29][30]
You do not sound anti-theist. You just sound anti-Hindu. You have so far been praising Islam and Christianity in all the posts you have made in this thread and condemning Hinduism in the most harshest and uncouth language. In any case a discussion about the merits and demerits of Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam is outside of the pale of this discussion. Please stick to atheism as the OP demands.
Also this debate is only limited to participation by Hindus and Atheists. If you are a Christian or Muslim hiding behind the identity of atheist or anti-theist, it will become clear.
Last edited:
I wonder how accurate you may even conceivably be on any of the above.
For one, you seem to be set on lending atheism a substance and a significance that ought to keep misleading you. Atheism is utterly simple and inconsequential. It is not worth judging "wrong", not worth taking as a premise for a whole school of religious thought, not worth opposing in any way.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I am not sure what your argument is. As far as Hindus are concerned, atheism is Charvaka, a nastika darsana which we also call 'asura dharma'. It is a darsana in its own right because it has its own epistemology, metaphysics and ethics etc. Although the original charvaka literature is lost, what we know of it survives through quotations of their thoughts in other schools.
It is not for me to speak for (presumably all) Hindus, but what you say sure sounds far too bold to be accurate.
With all due respect, I have to say that I doubt you outright.
I take it that you mean Charvaka here?
Because atheism proper definitely lacks any of those.
It is compatible with some forms of those, indifferent to others, and incompatible with still others. But it is not enough to sustain any of those, let alone to derive specific instances of them all of its own.
Are you then assuming that Charvaka is somehow representative of atheism as a whole?
That is quite the mistake. I assume that Charvaka is indeed incompatible with Hinduism. That tells us nothing whatsoever about whether Hinduism is or fails to be recognizant of the legitimacy of atheism.
Well then, Hinduism (as you see it) is wrong again. As atheism has a far broader range of views than Carvaka, as I have explicitly shown.
It is impossible to get a hang of the Carvaka doctrine bases on quotations of people who disagreed with them, they may have been deliberately distorting its point of view. The best systematic work on Carvaka refutes this common perception of unalloyed sense-gratification idea of Carvaka-s
Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata
So its highly likely that the Carvaka positions portrayed in the opponent schools are caricatured straw-mans.
Overall, the primary mistakes I observe in your viewpoints are these:-
1) You believe that Hindu-s and Hinduism (as well as Buddhism) are defined by its various theological and philosophical schools. This is simply not true. Most Hindu-s (and Buddhists) are simply that, Hindu-s and Buddhists, and exist outside of these schools of Vedanta, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Mimamsa, Bhakti etc. and do not subscribe to (or vehemently reject) much of their theological and philosophical notions. Strict adherence to and following the doctrines of any of these schools has always been a province of a minority of practitioners. Thus your entire analysis of who is what and who is in or out based on texts of these schools is entirely wrong headed.
2) The same goes for the scriptures as well. Very few Hindu people will ever be bothered to read and properly investigate the entirety of their entire favored scripture traditions (be it Sakta or Saiva or Vaishnava or whatever mix they prefer). They will use the parts that resonate with them in their practice and reads bits and pieces of the philosophy as when they see fit, often neither strongly agreeing nor strongly disagreeing. And in any case, new interpretations and commentary texts are appearing every decade from many Hindu Guru-s, Buddhist leaders and other places which may be followed more if one is attracted to such groups. Once again this is perfectly fine. There is no injuction in Hinduism that one is required to read all the texts and believe in them to be a Hindu. A person strongly identifying with a certain school may choose to do so, but that is his/her choice, nothing else.
3) What this means is that Hinduism (and Buddhism) is primarily personal and unique in nature, as many ways as there are people. The popular schools are indicative of the macro-trends in belief in certain periods of the dharma-s history, but they do not have any normative authority. The people drive Hinduism from one age to the next and the scriptures follow, not the other way round. Same for Buddhism and Jainism.
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I do not speak for all individual Hindus. I speak for the religion as defined in the scriptures. I am looking at the scriptures in exactly the way it has been traditionally understood, sruti and smrti have to agree. I think this is fair, because that is also how we learn about other religions too, from their scriptures. This shows us how Hinduism ought to be followed.
If we consider the views of some 1 billion individual Hindus, well of course there is going to massive variance, because it is subjective. Just as there would be with 1.5 billion Muslims or 2 billion Christians. This is why it cannot be taken as the means to establishing what the religion teaches. It does show us how it is followed though if we look at how Hindus behave.
I agree with Vinayaka that it does seem some atheists go out of their way to be as vague and wishy washy as possible. I personally only take strong atheists to be real atheists, because they take a definitive position. Like these guys:
Life is short. Nevertheless, billions of people invest incalculable hours making fruitless pleas to nonexistent gods, participating in lavish rituals with no tangible effects, and whittling away tight budgets to support extravagant religious institutions or "spiritual advisors." Worse still, antiquated religious ideas lead people to impose needless hardships on themselves and others, to rationalize discrimination and other forms of mistreatment, and to hasten environmental destruction because they believe that "the end of the world" is imminent anyway. And for every outward manifestation of wasteful, counterproductive, and even downright harmful activity motivated only by religious belief, there are countless instances that are not nearly so obvious.
Religious belief has exacted a toll on people's emotional well-being as well. Just how much energy has been drained searching for meaning where none is to be found, or been squandered on false hopes and unwarranted fears? How many believers have agonized over the uncertain destination of their loved ones after death? How many have struggled to discern exactly what they did to displease God after falling victim to a natural disaster? How many have been tormented trying to make sense of why God allows terrible things to happen to good people? In the absence of any clear revelation about what God wants us to do, how many have fretted about whether their own actions or beliefs, or those of the people dearest to them, are enough to avoid hellfire?
How many of those who have lost their faith in old age have looked back at all the missed opportunities, the roads not taken, the life that could have been, had they not been born in a religious household, or had they abandoned religion in their younger days! Imagine how deep the regrets must be for the former missionary, seminary student, or long-time minister after realizing that this life is probably the only life that one will ever have.
About Internet Infidels
Religious belief has exacted a toll on people's emotional well-being as well. Just how much energy has been drained searching for meaning where none is to be found, or been squandered on false hopes and unwarranted fears? How many believers have agonized over the uncertain destination of their loved ones after death? How many have struggled to discern exactly what they did to displease God after falling victim to a natural disaster? How many have been tormented trying to make sense of why God allows terrible things to happen to good people? In the absence of any clear revelation about what God wants us to do, how many have fretted about whether their own actions or beliefs, or those of the people dearest to them, are enough to avoid hellfire?
How many of those who have lost their faith in old age have looked back at all the missed opportunities, the roads not taken, the life that could have been, had they not been born in a religious household, or had they abandoned religion in their younger days! Imagine how deep the regrets must be for the former missionary, seminary student, or long-time minister after realizing that this life is probably the only life that one will ever have.
About Internet Infidels
I fully understand and can respect this view. This a well defined view. Its epistemology is empiricism, only that which can be known through the senses or extensions to senses can can be proven to exist, anything beyond that cannot and hence it cannot be said to exist. Its metaphysics is naturalism, only that which exists in the natural universe exists, nothing supernatural like souls etc exist. Its ethics is based on the notion that you only live once, and life is short, so rather than waste your life on things that don't exist, maximise your life on things that do exist and benefit you directly. Maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
This a well developed, consistent system of philosophy and I can see why people would take this view, as I took this view myself at one stage in my life. You are forced to its by its epistemology. However, I accept the epistemology of inference and testimony too, so I am forced to another philosophy. The Charvaka were right to reject inference, because inference opens the door to the supernatural. Even Newton when he published his theory of gravity, was accused by other scientists of smuggling in occult magical forces that act at a distance in physics. Then quantum theory was accused of bring consciousness into physics. Today, string theory get accused of bringing in other realms. Other fields of science like parapsychology also use inference to study ghosts etc. Inference is a doorway into the supernatural leads to weak atheism. Like that of Buddhism and Jainism
If you allow testimony, that is when you open up the door to God. It is only revelation of Rishis or prophets that can reveal God. I find it ironic that I am saying this, because not that too far back, I never accepted scripture as a valid means of knowledge. I am wiser now, I understand the logic behind it, thanks to my schooling. I accept God based on testimony of Rishis.
In Hinduism, however, we reject all kinds of atheism: Strong atheism and weak atheism. Hence, why we not only reject Charvaka(strong) but also Jaina and Buddhist(weak). In this thread, a lot of the Hindu atheists who are posting here are strong atheists, like dear Aupmanyav. I argue they are confused, they think they are Hindu, but do not realise they are on the other side of the line -- nastika.
I am glad you agree Charvaka is incompatible with Hinduism. Then you will understand why I have questioned some strong Hindu atheists here on their status as a "Hindu" But for arguments sake we also reject weak atheists like Jain and Buddhists.
Last edited:
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
Dear Sayak, I will respond to your latest post with your previous posts that I have not responded to yet. I will be responding to yours next anyway
I have yet to meet A Hindu atheist. As for our dear Aupmanyav, I consider him a theist, although he doesn't. If we let up on such discussions for awhile, and just chat casually about Hindu stuff, he usually lets his guard down to expose himself as the theist he is. This discussion may end that though, as the guard may be continually up.
But again, I reiterate that this clear marking of lines in the sand by no means means hatred. A few years back, I had started two threads titled 'What makes a Hindu a Hindu?" and several of us had long discussions, even occasionally heated. Yes, definitions vary. In this thread when you listed 20 beliefs, I could honestly say I agreed with all of them. I think there is a great deal of consensus out there, with relatively minor disagreement. Still I don't feel it is up to anyone to dictate to other what they want to call themselves.
You're certainly not the first to take this challenge on on these forums, just the latest. I think its a well needed discussion, and am grateful. I no longer have any inclination to do exhaustive research. Sadhana and finding inner peace is far more important, personally.
Hindu, atheist, anti-theist? What will you call him?Dear Sayak, I will respond to your latest post with your previous posts that I have not responded to yet. I will be responding to yours next anyway
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy - Wikipedia
Spirit_Warrior
Active Member
I just wanted to say Sayak before responding to all your points. Just as I accused Aupmanyav of really being a strong atheist and materialist who is looking to support his views with Hinduism, you seem to be a secular humanist who is supporting his views with Hinduism. This is not a phenomena exclusive to Hinduism, you find it many religions. It usually takes the form of the believers trying to justify their religion by appealing to science and rationality, usually by pointing to some prescient scientific claim in their scripture e.g. Islamists who point to verses like "In the beginning was smoke" and relate it to big bang or torture etymologies of words like a word used to describe the shape of an earth, as "ostrich egg" Buddhists are often seen relating Buddhist teachings to QM
You are basically the Hindu equivalent. Searching through Hindu scriptures to find prescient scientific claims to support your religion and not feel embarrassed when you talk with your scientific peers. I know it well, because I use to do the same thing in the past. I also interpreted Brahman as energy and quantum fields. I also interpreted 74,000 nadis as veins, arteries, capillaries, nerves; I also interpreted Hindu theories of evolution as Darwinian etc.
So I have been at the stage you now seem to be at. However, I was able to quickly realise a problem in taking them to be same thing. If we validate Hinduism through Modern science, then it means Modern science is greater, because we have a far more scientific and detailed understanding of energy, quantum field than is available to us in any scripture or shastra, this makes Modern science superior to Hinduism. At best we can give our ancients a pat on their back for being proto-scientists, but we have now far surpassed our ancients in our scientific knowledge --- so what use is Hinduism or any ancient system. This is the presupposition behind modernity -- the old is now obsolete.
But what if they are not the same thing? What if it is actually true there is another energy body with 74,000 pranic pathways that connect to the gross body. What if Brahman really is a infinite field of consciousness? What if really do evolve gradually over billions of years transmigrating from body to body? If that is true it still means Hinduism has something more to teach us than Modern science. It means, in fact, Modern science has not caught up with Hinduism. Therefore, Hinduism is still relevant. The Rishis are still an authority. Modernity is false -- the old still has a lot to teach us.
Now, having studied Hinduism more, having studied one darsana formally Advaita Vedanta and the others informally over 20 years. Having read all the major shastras and scriptures of Hinduism I have accepted the stuff that I did not initially accept: Re siddhis, lokas, gods/goddesses, pretas, God etc. I am a proud Hindu. I do not need to apologise to anybody for my beliefs. Lets just say I understand something they do not because they are at a lesser stage of developmemt. Hence, I also have sympathy, not to sound patronising for them, because I have made the same errors in understanding in my earlier life. I just hope they can get past that stage too.
Next, i will respond to all your points, and I will try to be brief as I know it is not fun reading through walls of text.
You are basically the Hindu equivalent. Searching through Hindu scriptures to find prescient scientific claims to support your religion and not feel embarrassed when you talk with your scientific peers. I know it well, because I use to do the same thing in the past. I also interpreted Brahman as energy and quantum fields. I also interpreted 74,000 nadis as veins, arteries, capillaries, nerves; I also interpreted Hindu theories of evolution as Darwinian etc.
So I have been at the stage you now seem to be at. However, I was able to quickly realise a problem in taking them to be same thing. If we validate Hinduism through Modern science, then it means Modern science is greater, because we have a far more scientific and detailed understanding of energy, quantum field than is available to us in any scripture or shastra, this makes Modern science superior to Hinduism. At best we can give our ancients a pat on their back for being proto-scientists, but we have now far surpassed our ancients in our scientific knowledge --- so what use is Hinduism or any ancient system. This is the presupposition behind modernity -- the old is now obsolete.
But what if they are not the same thing? What if it is actually true there is another energy body with 74,000 pranic pathways that connect to the gross body. What if Brahman really is a infinite field of consciousness? What if really do evolve gradually over billions of years transmigrating from body to body? If that is true it still means Hinduism has something more to teach us than Modern science. It means, in fact, Modern science has not caught up with Hinduism. Therefore, Hinduism is still relevant. The Rishis are still an authority. Modernity is false -- the old still has a lot to teach us.
Now, having studied Hinduism more, having studied one darsana formally Advaita Vedanta and the others informally over 20 years. Having read all the major shastras and scriptures of Hinduism I have accepted the stuff that I did not initially accept: Re siddhis, lokas, gods/goddesses, pretas, God etc. I am a proud Hindu. I do not need to apologise to anybody for my beliefs. Lets just say I understand something they do not because they are at a lesser stage of developmemt. Hence, I also have sympathy, not to sound patronising for them, because I have made the same errors in understanding in my earlier life. I just hope they can get past that stage too.
Next, i will respond to all your points, and I will try to be brief as I know it is not fun reading through walls of text.
Actually this is not true. My temper is more Socratic. Whenever somebody says that he/she knows with certainty X is true or the way it is, I immediately ask what are the grounds for such certainty? Your current assessment that I am secular humanist is stemming from the fact that you just said with certainty that atheists are not Hindu-s because (according to your interpretation) Gita says atheists must be demoniacal in their activities and character. Thus I have swung to secular humanism as a contrast class examine this certainty of yours.
I am not a secular humanist since it does not adequately see the merit of many things the religious traditions of inquiry have been saying about the experiences of transcendent. I am also skeptical of the overtly mechanistic theories of "spiritual veins and zones" in the body used by many Hindu (and Daoist) traditions to explain how human beings gain insight into Brahman, Atman, Dao etc. I also do not accept the idea that Brahman is the quantum field or latest scientific gizmo. I am currently of the view that the manner in which science-ethics-religion-spirituality-transcendence can be properly and carefully integrated into one well-formulated endeavor is as yet unknown and is a project for the future, but it has to be done by giving equal weight-age to all these fields and traditions and without presupposing the infallibility of any one. This is why I have been saying that different schools of Hindu-s, Buddhists and Jains really have to start doing philosophical, theological and experiential inter-disciplinary projects with each other to really get to the bottom the diverging experiences they have about the fundamentals of reality and make progress on those issues as they once did when Nalanda and Taxila were flourishing. Why does Yoga and Vipassana lead to different results? Etc. Etc. The other part is having real grounding in what science is saying about the world and how the methods and conclusions of science should be treated in a systematic manner. At the very least, it would eliminate some of the absurd new age mangles between poorly understood science and poorly grasped dharmic traditions. At the ideal, they may actually suggest certain methods of doing science or help open up new scientific fields that can fruitfully contribute to theologically significant aspects of reality.
But none of this will ever happen if every school takes the view that my school is correct 100% and everybody else is at least partially wrong. And this is where you are. You have become a "proud Hindu" who is immediately classifying me in some opposing non-Hindu camp because I disagree with you? I have no use for such beliefs that make me a proud Hindu, a proud atheist, a proud scientist, a proud secular humanist, a proud Buddhist, a proud Christian, a proud Muslim or a proud Communist. The world is full of such proud certain identities..with no great benefit as far as I can see. So I will go on as I have gone on before, doing science, reading Mahabharata, Gita, Upanisads, reading other philosophies from other traditions, doing puja to Saraswati and Durga, partcipating in Buddhist meditation, taking part in Hindu, Buddhist, secular humanist as well as other groups as and when opportunity arises...and trying to absorb the insights from all these into the best life I can lead for myself and for others. Classify me as you wish.