Can Hindus be atheist?

[sayak83]

Apologies for there being a large delay in addressing the rest of your point. I am trying to keep up, because you posting new replies as I am still busy composing a reply to the earlier points. So I will respond to your new posts after I have finished replying to the rest.

I just wanted to say are you an authority on Sanskrit, because I can see major problems in your attempts to translate, that is you are just literally translating word per word without any knowledge of sandhi and missing words. The translations I have cited are by people who are experts in Sanskrit and they are translations referenced by Hindu scholars. I think you might be overestimating your abilities again. Do you simply have problems with authority in general?

In general, modern critical scholarship significantly diverges on how these texts should be read in and translated from sanskrit. I find their methods more authentic. And if something does not add up, I do my own thing. Expertize has to be demonstrated explicitly to my satisfaction, otherwise I will not accept it.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

You just mentioned a laundry list of anything and everything found in disaprate works and called them core beliefs.

Vinayaka has already said he believed in all of them. Most Hindus would believe if not all, or most of them, because these are our beliefs. These are Hindu beliefs. And no I did not just look at several texts and assemble a list of beliefs, these are the beliefs that universally found across all major Hindu scriptures and shastras.

You would know this if you read the scriptures and shastras. I have read probably close to 50 and these are beliefs which repeat across them all. You can test it yourself: Read the 13 principal Upanishads, read the Mahabharata, read the Ramayana, read the Arthashastra, read the Dharma shastras, read the works of Shankara, Ramunja, Madhva, read the Agamas, Tantras, Samkhya sutras, Brahma Sutras, the Yoga Vasistha, the Adhyatma Ramayana, Ramachitramnas, Jnanaeshwara, read the 18 Puranas and 18 minor Puranas.

You will find those 20 core beliefs in all of them

And no, Nyaya and Vaiseshika do not accept the concept of Brahman.[/quote]

Show me where they reject Brahman. They all accept the authority of the Veda and Brahman is the teaching of Veda.

Vaisesika and Nyaya is explicit that atoms cannot be created or destroyed and has never ever been created and destroyed.

I never said they were not eternal. Atoms are eternal, but not the combinations.

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)

Nah man, you simply cannot accept it is a religion and like all religions its teaches supernatural beliefs like soul, god/s, heaven and hell, spirits and demons; like all religions it has rituals and priests that perform them. This is not an interpretation, because anybody can easily just go and visit a temple right now and see it all in action. They can pick up any Hindu scripture and see it. Rather it is you, who are cherry picking only the stuff that you think is rational and scientific atoms, energy, means of knowledge and presenting this sanitisied, scientific, rational and materiaistic view of Hinduism as science. I agree Hinduism does have a lot of scientific aspects to it, but also religious, spiritual, supernatural, ritualistic which you suppress. It is dishonest. I don't appreciate it, and nor the people who you try to mislead. All they need to do is just visit a Hindu temple or pick up a Hindu scripture.

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.

You don't get it it do you? These are the beliefs found in Hindu scriptures from where we get our beliefs from. No, there is no text specifically listing all beliefs and asking you to swear allegiance to them and there is no central authority to dictate to you. But this is where you get your false ideas about Hinduism having infinite freedom do whatever you want, believe what you want. Hinduism does not have one central authority, but hundreds of authorities --- called samapradayas. If you join a samapradaya you don't have infinite freedom to do whatever you want, you follow the dictates of your Guru who in turn follows the dictates of the tradition of his samapradaya.

When you join a samapradya you are initiated into it and you take vows and swear allegiance to its creed. Everything about what you wear, how you live, what you eat, who you can fraternise with is dictated by the samapradaya you join. Some are liberal and some are strict.

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.

I did not say that every Hindu must hold them. I am saying that these are the core beliefs of Hinduism and I judge how how good or bad of a Hindu you are by your comformity or non conformity to them. The fact that you reject them all, in my eyes, makes you a bad Hindu. Just as a Muslim eating pork and worshipping Goddess would be considered a bad Muslim. I would even argue this even if was not a Hindu, because I can easily see you are not conforming with either of beliefs and practices of Hinduism. You seem to show greater loyalty to Buddhism and Secular Humanism, even Materialism

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

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.

I don't think you honestly understand what a 'darsana' is, though you are always talking about the darsanas here. A darsana is a system of philosophy, this is how the words usually translated. Now, because it is a system, the matrix of beliefs within that system interconnect with one another, such that you cannot reject one core belief without rejecting several others.

A darsana is a complete system of philosophy which covers every major area of philosophy: Epistemology(pramana), Metaphysics(tattva), Cosmology(shrishti) Ethics(achara) and Soteiology(moksha) In this order. First the means of knowledge are established, because this is how we know how we know whatever they know; second, through that epistemology, the categories of knowledge are established to make up the "element" of that system; third a cosmology is established in which order or sequence the tattvas come; Then a system of ethics is developed on how one should live and finally the means to liberation.


There are several systems developed which deal with specific areas of study:

Vaiseshika: Vaiseshika deals with the subject of the real world of experience. It is based on using perception to analyse all the categories that make up the real world, hence the elements of the system are taxomonic(such as substance, qualities, actions etc) but this is done for the sake of it, it is done as the first sutra itself declares, to analyse the dharma of everything that exists so that knowing which one can know the right action to do and attain supreme happiness.

Nyaya: Nyaya deals with the subject of epistemology. It is based on analysing meaning the structure of inference and hence the elements of the system are all logic based (re means of knowledge, objects of knowledge) However, it is again not for its own sake, it is so that one can correctly attain discirminative knowledge.

Nyaya-Vaiseshika form a single pair because they share the same objective of correctly understanding the world we live and removing errors of understanding. Their main emphasis is to convince that we are not the body, that there is a soul which transmigrates from body to body carrying merit or demerit, and evolving gradually. The emphasis is to correct us to right thinking and right action so we evolve.

Samkhya: Deals with the subject of the structure of experience. It is based on analysing structure of experience for which there is an experiencing subject and an object which is experienced and instruments for which they are experienced(re: 5 senses, mind, ego, intellect etc) This is too not done for its own sake, it is so that the soul is released from all kinds of pain and attains its true nature(again declared in first sutra)

Yoga: Yogs is just the praxis aspect of Samkhya, it analyses the practice of meditation. It analyses what meditation should consist of(re yama, niyama, asana, pranayama) by which the goal of cessation of all pain of Samkhya is achieved.

Samkhya-Yoga form a single pair because they share the same objective of teaching the knowledge by which we are releaed. While, Samkhya explains to us the theory on how we cease all suffering and gain release from the cycle. Yoga is the practice by which it is achieved.

Purva Mimamsa: This studies the karma khanda of the Vedas. It reveals with the devas/gods, the controlling powers that control this universe, and how we can invoke these powers through the power of ritual to obtain whatever we desire.
Uttara Mimamsa: This studies the jnana khanda of the Vedas or the concluding teaching of the Vedas(Vedanta) which reveals Brahman as the supreme Lord and supreme reality and its relationship with us Atman. It reveals our ultimate goal to realise the Brahman in our Self, to either mege with Brahman, attain oness with Brahman or rejoin Brahman.

Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa form a single pair because they share the same objective of exegesis of the Vedas. They accept testimony of the Veda as their main means.

Altogether these 6 systems form a complete system which we know as the Vedic religion or HInduism. They are not opposing, but complimentary. I actually must laugh, you find Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and Charvaka as some single complimentary "dharma" despite the fact that they are mutually opposing and contradict one another. On the other hand, you view the six systems of Hindu philosophy as opposing despite they mutually compliment one another and link one another. None of them contradict the Veda. Samkhya accepts the means of knowledge of Pramana from Nyaya; Vaiseshika accepts the 5 elements of the Samkhya and further defines the tanmatras as atoms and goes into details on how they combine; Nyaya accepts the means of release of Yoga. They all accept moksha as the final goal(summon bunnom)

This is why scholars consider them systems of thought of a single Vedic dharma, and not consider them separate from it, as they do with Jaina, Buddha and Charvaka. So now that I have explained this, I can show you how we piece together the entire system

Epistemology: We accept the Rishis as the founders of our religion and hence their testimony is Word for us. All Smriti literature, such as Bhagvad Gita, Agamas and Tantra must agree with Veda we reject it. The Rishis are our Prophets and you cannot reject anymore a Christian can reject Jesus, a Buddhist Buddha, a Muslim Mohammed.

Metaphysics: Whether you accept the 24 tattva scheme of the Samkhya or the 36 Tattva scheme of Shaiva, the following are common in all of them: 5 subtle elements, 5 gross elements, 5 sense organs, 5 action organs, discriminating mind, ego and intellect, soul and nature. In addition we accept Ishvara, Maya and Brahman. The 36 tattva scheme is basically the same scheme but with Ishvara and Maya further divided into 5 aspects each

Cosmology: We accept that Brahman is the supreme being that has created this universe using his creative power of Maya and enters into it as trimurti as creator(Brahma) preserver(Vishnu) and destroyer) this creates the entire universe and all its regions and lokas. The avidya aspect of Maya deludes the jivas causing the first fall from grace, they either separate from Brahman, or leave Brahma abode or are Brahman themselves forgetting their original nature. This plunges the jiva to take repeated births in the universe, circling through the regions.

Ethics: We accept that the Jiva's transmigration is governed by the law of karma which in turn based on dharma. If we do our dharma correctly, the law of karma produces merit, if we do it incorrectly, it produces demerit. The merit or demerit that attaches to the jiva, taking it up and down the regions of samsara. Good karma to higher regions, bad karma to lower regions. It also decides the body they inherit and its aptitudes. This is further divided into a four-fold vision a mere labourer(a slave, a servant) a merchant(landowner) a warrior(king) or a sage. The Jiva must gradually through several lifetimes become a sage. In order for it do so, it must fulfil the first three goals of life kama, artha and dharma before it seeks moksha.

Soteriology: The release of the Jiva from samsara is for the jiva to gain knowledge, because action will only move it up and down samsara, but not release it from Samsara. It must realise it is not any of the multitude of bodies it has(gross, suble and causal) and it must detach from identification with the bodies and redirect all its desire to Brahman to win Brahman's grace. It must have a yearning desire for Brahman in whichever form it chooses to relate to Brahman or with whatever emotion(servant, friend, father, mother, teacher, child etc)

This is the Hindu darsana. The Hindu system. An extremely well developed and comprehensive system build up from premise to conclusion. How can I accept you as a Hindu if you reject our entire system? You reject our epistemology, you reject our metaphysics, you reject our cosmology, you reject our ethics and you reject our soteriology? You even reject our history(the solar and lunar dynasties, Krishna, Mahabharata)

How can I be Buddhist if I reject the four noble truths?
How can I be Charvaka if I reject materialism?
How can I be vegetarian if I reject eating vegetarian food?

I am sorry but it is not me imposing my beliefs on you. I am just the messenger and you are shooting the messenger. I am merely somebody who is pointing out to a vegetarian that they are not vegetarian if they eat meat. You can hate me for it all you want. It might make me unpopular with a lot of people -- but is the truth and I go with the truth.

 

[sayak83]

I will wait till you finish the posts.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am going to break the rules a bit, because I can make a very quick reply here.

In general, modern critical scholarship significantly diverges on how these texts should be read in and translated from sanskrit. I find their methods more authentic. And if something does not add up, I do my own thing. Expertize has to be demonstrated explicitly to my satisfaction, otherwise I will not accept it.

I just recalled this post of yours made earlier

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.

Can you tell me what credentials you have in Indology, Hindu studies, Sanskrit and Indian philosophy?

If you don't, I find it amusing that somebody who has no training in the field, is telling me here who has some credentials, that they have got it all wrong and misunderstood everything and even telling me translations of texts done by Sanskrit experts are wrong.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

While I await your answer, here another translations of the Brahma Sutras by a very respected expert in Hindu religion and Sanskrit:

Brahma Sutras


Athato Brahmajijnasa I.1.1 (1)

Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman.

Atha: now, then, afterwards; Atah: therefore; Brahmajijnasa: a desire for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman).


Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2)

(Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

Janmadi: origin etc.; Asya: of this (world); Yatah: from which.


Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 (3)

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.

Sastra: the scripture; Yonitvat: being the source of or the means of the 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).

Tat: that; Tu: but; Samanvayat: on account of agreement or harmony, because it is the main purpose.

The Brahma Sutras are also called Vedanta sutras, they were written to give a consistent interpretation of the Upanishads. The later sutras then go onto reference various verses in the Upanishads to show they form a consistent philosophy. Hence, why it begins, like any of the darsana texts, by first defining subject of study(Brahman) then giving a definition of subject(from which this world originates) and then declaring the means of knowledge(scripture being the source of knowledge)

If you are ignorant, then allow yourself to be educated.

 

[sayak83]

I am going to break the rules a bit, because I can make a very quick reply here.



I just recalled this post of yours made earlier



Can you tell me what credentials you have in Indology, Hindu studies, Sanskrit and Indian philosophy?

If you don't, I find it amusing that somebody who has no training in the field, is telling me here who has some credentials, that they have got it all wrong and misunderstood everything and even telling me translations of texts done by Sanskrit experts are wrong.

Modern scholars are also experts in language and they publish their work in peer reviewed works using university press. Amn example,
UT College of Liberal Arts:
UT College of Liberal Arts:

If you have objections to how I have translated it, based on looking at several divergent renderings I have across various versions , please show word by word how the correct rendering is supposed to be and I will be more than happy to correct my mistakes. I have simply translated one single sentence in Brahmasutra, it should not be too difficult to demonstrate the correct translation to be correct.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Modern scholars are also experts in language and they publish their work in peer reviewed works using university press. Amn example,
UT College of Liberal Arts:
UT College of Liberal Arts:

If you have objections to how I have translated it, based on looking at several divergent renderings I have across various versions , please show word by word how the correct rendering is supposed to be and I will be more than happy to correct my mistakes. I have simply translated one single sentence in Brahmasutra, it should not be too difficult to demonstrate the correct translation to be correct.

No, but what are your credentials in translating Sanskrit. You did still did not answer my question. It is a reasonable question. If suppose I was translating something from Russian into English, but I don't know Russian and moreover I even translated it contrary to how experts in Russian translate it, then wouldn't my translation be doubtful?

Again, what are your credentials?

 

[sayak83]

While I await your answer, here another translations of the Brahma Sutras by a very respected expert in Hindu religion and Sanskrit:

Brahma Sutras


Athato Brahmajijnasa I.1.1 (1)

Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman.

Atha: now, then, afterwards; Atah: therefore; Brahmajijnasa: a desire for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of Brahman).


Janmadyasya yatah I.1.2 (2)

(Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

Janmadi: origin etc.; Asya: of this (world); Yatah: from which.


Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 (3)

The scripture being the source of right knowledge.

Sastra: the scripture; Yonitvat: being the source of or the means of the 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).

Tat: that; Tu: but; Samanvayat: on account of agreement or harmony, because it is the main purpose.

The Brahma Sutras are also called Vedanta sutras, they were written to give a consistent interpretation of the Upanishads. The later sutras then go onto reference various verses in the Upanishads to show they form a consistent philosophy. Hence, why it begins, like any of the darsana texts, by first defining subject of study(Brahman) then giving a definition of Brahman(from which this world originates) and then declaring the means of knowledge(scripture being the source of knowledge)

If you are ignorant, then allow yourself to be educated.

The only thing that this translation has done is put in a lot of interpolated words that have no business being there. Its a common and spurious way to make scripture tow the theology of the sectarian schools. Its really a very simple sentence.
Now an investigation into Brahman (Athato Brahmajijnasa )- from which the birth of this (Janmadyasya yatah ), that being the womb of the Shastras (Sastrayonitvat ), that but a consequence of direct awareness not based on scriptures/testimony (Tattu Samanvayat īkṣateḥ-na-shabdam)

Your word by word translation also acknowledges these word-meanings but add large number of extra words to change the meaning. Sorry, but that is no way to translate.

 

[sayak83]

No, but what are your credentials in translating Sanskrit. You did still did not answer my question. It is a reasonable question. If suppose I was translating something from Russian into English, but I don't know Russian and moreover I even translated it contrary to how experts in Russian translate it, then wouldn't my translation be doubtful?

Again, what are your credentials?

I am translating nothing. I am using translations of other scholars. But i have 4 years of Sanskrit in high school. So I can read it adequately in simplified devnagari.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I am translating nothing. I am using translations of other scholars. But i have 4 years of Sanskrit in high school. So I can read it adequately in simplified devnagari.

Sayak, I it needs to be said, but I think you are being a bit arrogant and overestimate your intellectual abilities and knowledge. You have 4 years of high school Sanskrit, and you are challenging the translations of experts with the equivalent of Phd's in the field? The hypocrisy of your position is seen by your own reply listing your credentials in Physics and then saying you do not appreciate somebody less learned challenging you on it. And here you are with your high school Sanskrit education challenging somebody who has traditionally studied Sanskrit?

I think this is going to make you look very silly, but it has to be done to bring your ego down a peg. Here is another translation, this time by a modern Western scholar(which I think you will give more credibility to, because apparently all of our Hindu scholars, including Swami Sivananda are not credible for you) This by George Thibaut in 1904

1. 1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman
2. 2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c., of this (world proceed).
3. 3. Because Scripture is the source (of the knowledge of Brahman).
4. But that (i.e. the authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to Brahman) exists on account of the connexion (of Scripture with the highest aim of man).
5. On account of seeing (i.e. thinking) that which is not founded on Scripture (i.e. the Pradhâna) is not (what is taught by the texts referring to the origination of the world).

SBE 48: The Vedanta-Sutras with commentary by Ramanuja, George Thibaut, tr. Index

​

The reason that words have to be supplied is because that is the nature of sutra texts, sutras are not full sentences, they are a collection of aphorisms that link one another like a thread(hence sutra means thread) The first sutra introduces the subject Brahman, the second sutra links with it and then says "from which the origin etc of this" and this links the third sutra "because scripture is the source. If you don't know anything about translating sutra style of literature, then don't even bother.

You have now been supplied three different translations from three different translators which agree almost word for word. In fact, I really dont understand why you would even be so skeptical of the translations, because anybody who knows even the 101 of Vedanta philosophy knows that the scripture is the primary means of knowledge(mukhya pramana) and Brahma/Vedanta sutras are the foundation text of the school.

You are clearly very ignorant about Hindu philosophy. This is not a problem per se, it is only a problem when it is accompanied by arrogance. Allow yourself to be educated and you will learn something.

 

[sayak83]

Sayak, I it needs to be said, but I think you are being a bit arrogant and overestimate your intellectual abilities and knowledge. You have 4 years of high school Sanskrit, and you are challenging the translations of experts with the equivalent of Phd's in the field? The hypocrisy of your position is seen by your own reply listing your credentials in Physics and then saying you do not appreciate somebody less learned challenging you on it. And here you are with your high school Sanskrit education challenging somebody who has traditionally studied Sanskrit?

I think this is going to make you look very silly, but it has to be done to bring you down a peg. Here is another translation, this time by a modern Western scholar(which I think you will give more credibility to, because apparently all of our Hindu scholars, including Swami Sivananda are not credible for you) This by George Thibaut in 1904

1. 1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman
2. 2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c., of this (world proceed).
3. 3. Because Scripture is the source (of the knowledge of Brahman).
4. But that (i.e. the authoritativeness of Scripture with regard to Brahman) exists on account of the connexion (of Scripture with the highest aim of man).
5. On account of seeing (i.e. thinking) that which is not founded on Scripture (i.e. the Pradhâna) is not (what is taught by the texts referring to the origination of the world).

SBE 48: The Vedanta-Sutras with commentary by Ramanuja, George Thibaut, tr. Index

​

The reason that words have to be supplied is because that is the nature of sutra texts, sutras are not full sentences, they are a collection of aphorisms that link one another like a thread(hence sutra means thread) The first sutra introduces the subject Brahman, the second sutra links with it and then says "from which the origin etc of this" and this links the third sutra "because scripture is the source. If you don't know anything about translating sutra style of literature, then don't even bother.

You have now been supplied three different translations from three different translators which agree almost word for word. In fact, I really dont understand why you would even be so skeptical of the translations, because anybody who knows even the 101 of Vedanta philosophy knows that the scripture is the primary means of knowledge(mukhya pramana) and Brahma/Vedanta sutras are the foundation text of the school.

You are clearly very ignorant about Hindu philosophy. This is not a problem per se, it is only a problem when it is accompanied by arrogance. Allow yourself to be educated and you will learn something.

What is your background in sanskrit?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

What is your background in sanskrit?

I studied Sanskrit at the ashram when I studied Vedanta. However, my knowledge of Sanskrit is very basic and I can admit that, this is why I don't try to translate Sanskrit scriptures by myself This is also why I use the translations by those who are experts in it.

Dude, I think you lack humility(namrata). You have now been supplied three different translations by actual Sanskritists, and you still think your translation based on high school learning is correct?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I have been thinking of asking you this question for a long time, and now I think would be the appropriate time. Seeing as you reject all our scriptures and shastras as an authority(and still claim to be Hindu). Do you also reject the need for a Guru? There is a saying in Hinduism "There is no knowledge without a guru"(Guru bin gyan nahin hai) and the guru-shishya parampara has been going on since Vedic times. Even Lord Krishna and Rama had Gurus.

I think how you answer this will betray a lot about your attitudes to our religion.

 

[sayak83]

I studied Sanskrit at the ashram when I studied Vedanta. However, my knowledge of Sanskrit is very basic and I can admit that, this is why I don't try to translate Sanskrit scriptures by myself This is also why I use the translations by those who are experts in it.

Dude, I think you lack humility(namrata). You have now been supplied three different translations by actual Sanskritists, and you still think your translation based on high school learning is correct?

Yes. By the way, my exegesis of Sastrayonitvat comes from Sankara himself. He suggested that to be a valid alternative reading. Check out his commentary. The rest is just simple utilization of basic Sanskrit after reading through the main works.
If somebody here knows more sanskrit and can show explicitly why such a simple translation of the first 5 verses is wrong, he is free to show it to me.
Dude, a 1908 translation is not a critical work. To be a critical work it has to clearly write all possible ways to read the text and then show which is the most probable reading. As far as I know there has not been a critical translation of Brahmasutra done yet. Everybody follows the traditional ways to read it along with all the interpolations.
Cool, so you yourself are relying on authority without checking out if what the authority is saying is correct. Bad approach, do not recommend it.

 

[sayak83]

I have been thinking of asking you this question for a long time, and now I think would be the appropriate time. Seeing as you reject all our scriptures and shastras as an authority(and still claim to be Hindu). Do you also reject the need for a Guru? There is a saying in Hinduism "There is no knowledge without a guru"(Guru bin gyan nahin hai) and the guru-shishya parampara has been going on since Vedic times. Even Lord Krishna and Rama had Gurus.

I think how you answer this will betray a lot about your attitudes to our religion.

Specific guru with official diksha and all? Yes, certainly not. Most practicing Hindu-s have nothing of that kind and feel no need for anything like it. Never have. I know nobody in my entire circle in India who has done such a thing, and I lived in one of biggest cities (Kolkata).

Most of us broadly follow the Ramakrishna order and our family does Kali, Lakshmi and Sarswati puja in our own family temple. No diksha or guru.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Yes.

Then there is no hope for you. I think I will leave responding to the rest of your points, as you don't seem to be reasonable and you seem to be a know-it-all. You are an expert in all fields in Indian philosophy, in Indian history, in Sanskrit, in Hindu studies etc --- despite having no credentials beyond high school in any of the fields. You know more than Swami Sivananda, Shankara, all the scholars in these fields and than people who traditionally studied Vedanta.

I was going to reply to your points on 72,000 nadis being veins and arteries in the physical body and show you that the nadis clearly refer to pranic channels, but it would be a pointless, because you already know it all. You've already decided a priori that they are veins and every translation that says otherwise is Hindu propaganda by later theistic interpreters.

You have decided everything spiritual in the scriptures re subtle bodies, reincarnation, lokas, ghardarvas etc is all symbols, metaphors and mythology.

By the way, my exegesis of Sastrayonitvat comes from Sankara himself. He suggested that to be a valid alternative reading. Check out his commentary. The rest is just simple utilization of basic Sanskrit after reading through the main works.

Selectively reading again are we?

Here is the part you missed out:

Or else we may interpret the Sûtra to mean that Scripture consisting of the Rig-veda, &c., as described above, is the source or cause, i.e. the means of right knowledge through which we understand the nature of Brahman. So that the sense would be: through Scripture only as a means of knowledge Brahman is known to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world. The special scriptural passage meant has been quoted under the preceding Sûtra 'from which these beings are born,' &c.--But as the preceding Sûtra already has pointed out a text showing that Scripture is the source of Brahman, of what use then is the present Sûtra?--The words of the preceding Sûtra, we reply, did not clearly indicate the scriptural passage, and room was thus left for the suspicion that the origin, &c., of the world were adduced merely as determining an inference (independent of Scripture). To obviate this suspicion the Sûtra under discussion has been propounded.
​

Here is the previous sutra he is referring too:

2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c. (i.e. the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

The term, &c. implies subsistence and re-absorption. That the origin is mentioned first (of the three) depends on the declaration of Scripture as well as on the natural development of a substance. Scripture declares the order
​

1, and the nature of whose arrangement cannot even be conceived by the mind,--that cause, we say, is Brahman. Since the other forms of existence (such as increase, decline, &c.) are included in origination, subsistence, and dissolution, only the three latter are referred to in the Sûtra. As the six stages of existence enumerated by Yâska 2 are possible only during the period of the world's subsistence, it might--were they referred to in the Sûtra--be suspected that what is meant are not the origin, subsistence, and dissolution (of the world) as dependent on the first cause. To preclude this suspicion the Sûtra is to be taken as referring, in addition to the world's origination from Brahman, only to its subsistence in Brahman, and final dissolution into Brahman.
​

Dude, a 1908 translation is not a critical work. To be a critical work it has to clearly write all possible ways to read the text and then show which is the most probable reading. As far as I know there has not been a critical translation of Brahmasutra done yet. Everybody follows the traditional ways to read it along with all the interpolations.

Your arrogance really is staggering. You say every single translation and commentary that has been done of the Brahma Sutras over the last 3000 years or so by our acharayas, including several dozen done from 1908 to present, are not "critical" or scholarly, and you can say this on the basis of 4 years of High school Sanskrit? (I also find it ironic you say it is not critical, but Shankara actually offers several probable meanings)

Cool, so you yourself are relying on authority without checking out if what the authority is saying is correct. Bad approach, do not recommend it.

Mate, what are you actually opposing here? That scripture is not the primary means of knowing Brahman according to the Brahma Sutras? Have you even read the read the rest of the Brahma sutras? Here is the next sutra in Shankaras translation and commentary:

4. But that (Brahman is to be known from Scripture), because it is connected (with the Vedânta-texts) as their purport.
​

The word 'but' is meant to rebut the pûrva-paksha (the primâ facie view as urged above). That all-knowing, all-powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedânta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedânta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman). Compare, for instance, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'In the beginning all this was Self, one only' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1); 'This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'That immortal Brahman is before' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); and similar passages
​

The rest of the Brahma Sutras is purely based on references to the scripture (Vedanta) hence it not only declares it is the only means of knowledge, but it uses throughout as the only means of knowledge.

I think I will call it a day here. This in Nyaya is what is known as an occasion for rebuke.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Specific guru with official diksha and all? Yes, certainly not. Most practicing Hindu-s have nothing of that kind and feel no need for anything like it. Never have. I know nobody in my entire circle in India who has done such a thing, and I lived in one of biggest cities (Kolkata).

Most of us broadly follow the Ramakrishna order and our family does Kali, Lakshmi and Sarswati puja in our own family temple. No diksha or guru.

Thank you for being honest, that is exactly what I expected. You reject all scriptures, gurus and all authorities of Hinduism, because you think you know it all. You make it all up by yourself, you pick and choose what like you, discard what you don't like. Like a sophist, you are the measure of truth.

You have decided by yourself that Hinduism is not a religion, basically telling me my religion is not a religion. You have decided by yourself Hinduism has no tenets or beliefs. You have decided by yourself what the scripture teaches. You have decided by yourself all Hindu history is myth.

There has to be a demarcation point between a Hindu and a non-Hindu and somebody who rejects all our scriptures, all our holy men, all our history, all our tenets and doctrines and even rejects our religion as a religion certainly cannot be regarded as a Hindu.

With that I can terminate our specific debate.

Edit: Just to reply to the later posts as I do not want to continue this debate with you as I do not think you are reasonable.

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

Thus a plain reading of these verses of Brahma-sutra says exactly the opposite if what you (and often Sankara) wants it to read and exactly in keeping with what the Upanisads and Gita tells us...that Brahman cannot be realized from scriptures (as I have shown through numerous direct quotes).

This is now how we translate something from one language into the other, otherwise it produces nonsense like the above. Here is what happens when you do a similar plain literal translation

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

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

You are too sure about your everything you think you know, like with high school Sanskrit classes you think you have better Sanskrit knowledge than experts. This is why I can't debate with you.

 

[sayak83]

Then there is no hope for you. I think I will leave responding to the rest of your points, as you don't seem to be reasonable and you seem to be a know-it-all. You are an expert in all fields in Indian philosophy, in Indian history, in Sanskrit, in Hindu studies etc --- despite having no credentials beyond high school. You know more than Swami Sivananda, Shankara, all the scholars in these fields and than people who traditionally studied Vedanta.

I was going to reply to your points on 72,000 nadis being veins and arteries in the physical body and show you that the nadis clearly refer to pranic channels, but it would be a pointless, because you already know it all. You've already decided a priori that they are veins and every translation that says otherwise is Hindu propaganda by later theistic interpreters.

You have decided everything spiritual in the scriptures re subtle bodies, reincarnation, lokas, ghardarvas etc is all symbols, metaphors and mythology.



Selectively reading again are we?

Here is the part you missed out:

Or else we may interpret the Sûtra to mean that Scripture consisting of the Rig-veda, &c., as described above, is the source or cause, i.e. the means of right knowledge through which we understand the nature of Brahman. So that the sense would be: through Scripture only as a means of knowledge Brahman is known to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world. The special scriptural passage meant has been quoted under the preceding Sûtra 'from which these beings are born,' &c.--But as the preceding Sûtra already has pointed out a text showing that Scripture is the source of Brahman, of what use then is the present Sûtra?--The words of the preceding Sûtra, we reply, did not clearly indicate the scriptural passage, and room was thus left for the suspicion that the origin, &c., of the world were adduced merely as determining an inference (independent of Scripture). To obviate this suspicion the Sûtra under discussion has been propounded.
​

Here is the previous sutra he is referring too:

2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c. (i.e. the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

The term, &c. implies subsistence and re-absorption. That the origin is mentioned first (of the three) depends on the declaration of Scripture as well as on the natural development of a substance. Scripture declares the order
​

1, and the nature of whose arrangement cannot even be conceived by the mind,--that cause, we say, is Brahman. Since the other forms of existence (such as increase, decline, &c.) are included in origination, subsistence, and dissolution, only the three latter are referred to in the Sûtra. As the six stages of existence enumerated by Yâska 2 are possible only during the period of the world's subsistence, it might--were they referred to in the Sûtra--be suspected that what is meant are not the origin, subsistence, and dissolution (of the world) as dependent on the first cause. To preclude this suspicion the Sûtra is to be taken as referring, in addition to the world's origination from Brahman, only to its subsistence in Brahman, and final dissolution into Brahman.
​

Your arrogance really is staggering. You every single translation and commnetary that has been done of the Brahma Sutras over the last 3000 years or so by our acharayas, including several dozen done from 1908 to present, are not "critical" or scholarly, and you can say this on the basis of 4 years of High school Sanskrit? (I also find it ironic you say it is not critical, but Shankara actually offers sevral probable meanings)



Mate, what are you actually opposing here? That scripture is not the primary means of knowing Brahman according to the Brahma Sutras? Have you even read the read of the Brahma sutras. Here is the next sutra in Shankaras translation and commentary:

4. But that (Brahman is to be known from Scripture), because it is connected (with the Vedânta-texts) as their purport.
​

The word 'but' is meant to rebut the pûrva-paksha (the primâ facie view as urged above). That all-knowing, all-powerful Brahman, which is the cause of the origin, subsistence, and dissolution of the world, is known from the Vedânta-part of Scripture. How? Because in all the Vedânta-texts the sentences construe in so far as they have for their purport, as they intimate that matter (viz. Brahman). Compare, for instance, 'Being only this was in the beginning, one, without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'In the beginning all this was Self, one only' (Ait. Âr. II, 4, 1, 1); 'This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); 'That immortal Brahman is before' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 11); and similar passages
​

The rest of the Brahma Sutras is purely based on references to the scripture (Vedanta) hence it now only declares it is the only means of knowledge, but it uses throughout as the only means of knowledge.

I think I will call it a day here. This in Nyaya is what is known as an occasion for rebuke.

You are projecting your attitudes onto me. But it is quite clear that you will not change from your set in stone opinion that only your kind of over-zealous bookish Hinduism is the true Hinduism, regardless of how extraordinarily small minority of actual Hindu-s subscribe to something like that.

Your objection is irrelevant. Sankara admits that the interpretation I made is grammatically sound, which was what your objection to me was. I have already shown how the words in verse 4 naturally lines up without any interpolation when 4 and 5 are read together. See below. Simple, natural, zero interpolation. You can check as many advanced sanskrit dictionary and grammar books you want to verify that it grammatically holds up.

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

Thus a plain reading of these verses of Brahma-sutra says exactly the opposite if what you (and often Sankara) wants it to read and exactly in keeping with what the Upanisads and Gita tells us...that Brahman cannot be realized from scriptures (as I have shown through numerous direct quotes).

 

[sayak83]

Thank you for being honest, that is exactly what I expected. You reject all scriptures, gurus and all authorities of Hinduism, because you think you know it all. You make it all up by yourself, you pick and choose what like you, discard what you don't like. Like a sophist, you are the measure of truth.

You have decided by yourself that Hinduism is not a religion, basically telling me my religion is not a religion. You have decided by yourself Hinduism has no tenets or beliefs. You have decided by yourself what the scripture teaches. You have decided by yourself all Hindu history is myth.

There has to be a demarcation point between a Hindu and a non-Hindu and somebody who rejects all our scriptures, all our holy men, all our history, all our tenets and doctrines and even rejects our religion as a religion certainly cannot be regarded as a Hindu.

With that I can terminate our specific debate.

You should see how Hindu-s actually practice Hinduism before making such absurd judgements. How many Hindu-s have a diksha and associated with a guru? 5-10% max? Probably less. Your understanding of Hinduism is so completely colored by your own experience that you have fallen into the mistaken notion of thinking that is the way all Hindu-s are. They are not. Instead you are an extreme minority. I am surprised that you do not know it. You really don't or are you in denial?

You would be termed as a Hindu zealot by many of us. I too have little further interest in a debate with you.