-
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!
Does Hinduism have scientific evidence proving that it's a true religion?
- Thread starter Eihab
- Start date
arun
Member
Science and religion will meet together.But the present science has to progress a lot in-order to explain the extraordinary mental phenomena or the truths of Yoga.
These are some excepts from Complete Works Of Swami Vivekananda.
excerpt from chapter Paper on Hinduism :
"Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, it would stop from further progress, because it would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could not progress farther when it would discover one element out of which all other could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfill its services in discovering one energy of which all others are but manifestations, and the science of religion become perfect when it would discover Him who is the one life in a universe of death, Him who is the constant basis of an ever-changing world. One who is the only Soul of which all souls are but delusive manifestations. Thus is it, through multiplicity and duality, that the ultimate unity is reached. Religion can go no farther. This is the goal of all science.
All science is bound to come to this conclusion in the long run. Manifestation, and not creation, is the word of science today, and the Hindu is only glad that what he has been cherishing in his bosom for ages is going to be taught in more forcible language, and with further light from the latest conclusions of science. "
According to the Raja-Yogi, the external world is but the gross form of the internal, or subtle. The finer is always the cause, the grosser the effect. So the external world is the effect, the internal the cause. In the same way external forces are simply the grosser parts, of which the internal forces are the finer. The man who has discovered and learned how to manipulate the internal forces will get the whole of nature under his control. The Yogi proposes to himself no less a task than to master the whole universe, to control the whole of nature. He wants to arrive at the point where what we call "nature's laws" will have no influence over him, where he will be able to get beyond them all. He will be master of the whole of nature, internal and external. The progress and civilisation of the human race simply mean controlling this nature.
Different races take to different processes of controlling nature. Just as in the same society some individuals want to control the external nature, and others the internal, so, among races, some want to control the external nature, and others the internal. Some say that by controlling internal nature we control everything. Others that by controlling external nature we control everything. Carried to the extreme both are right, because in nature there is no such division as internal or external. These are fictitious limitations that never existed. The externalists and the internalists are destined to meet at the same point, when both reach the extreme of their knowledge. Just as a physicist, when he pushes his knowledge to its limits, finds it melting away into metaphysics, so a metaphysician will find that what he calls mind and matter are but apparent distinctions, the reality being One.
The end and aim of all science is to find the unity, the One out of which the manifold is being manufactured, that One existing as many. Raja-Yoga proposes to start from the internal world, to study internal nature, and through that, control the whole both internal and external. It is a very old attempt. India has been its special stronghold, but it was also attempted by other nations. In Western countries it was regarded as mysticism and people who wanted to practice it were either burned or killed as witches and sorcerers. In India, for various reasons, it fell into the hands of persons who destroyed ninety per cent of the knowledge, and tried to make a great secret of the remainder. In modern times many so-called teachers have arisen in the West worse than those of India, because the latter knew something, while these modern exponents know nothing.
Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain. It has well-nigh destroyed Yoga one of the grandest of sciences. From the time it was discovered, more than four thousand years ago, Yoga was perfectly delineated, formulated, and preached in India. It is a striking fact that the more modern the commentator the greater the mistakes he makes, while the more ancient the writer the more rational he is. Most of the modern writers talk of all sorts of mystery. Thus Yoga fell into the hands of a few persons who made it a secret, instead of letting the full blaze of daylight and reason fall upon it. They did so that they might have the powers to themselves.
In the first place, there is no mystery in what I teach. What little I know I will tell you. So far as I can reason it out I will do so, but as to what I do not know I will simply tell you what the books say. It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practice, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study. There is neither mystery nor danger in it. So far as it is true, it ought to be preached in the public streets, in broad daylight. Any attempt to mystify these things is productive of great danger.
These are some excepts from Complete Works Of Swami Vivekananda.
excerpt from chapter Paper on Hinduism :
"Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, it would stop from further progress, because it would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could not progress farther when it would discover one element out of which all other could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfill its services in discovering one energy of which all others are but manifestations, and the science of religion become perfect when it would discover Him who is the one life in a universe of death, Him who is the constant basis of an ever-changing world. One who is the only Soul of which all souls are but delusive manifestations. Thus is it, through multiplicity and duality, that the ultimate unity is reached. Religion can go no farther. This is the goal of all science.
All science is bound to come to this conclusion in the long run. Manifestation, and not creation, is the word of science today, and the Hindu is only glad that what he has been cherishing in his bosom for ages is going to be taught in more forcible language, and with further light from the latest conclusions of science. "
_________________
excerpt from chapter Introduction to Raja-Yoga :
According to the Raja-Yogi, the external world is but the gross form of the internal, or subtle. The finer is always the cause, the grosser the effect. So the external world is the effect, the internal the cause. In the same way external forces are simply the grosser parts, of which the internal forces are the finer. The man who has discovered and learned how to manipulate the internal forces will get the whole of nature under his control. The Yogi proposes to himself no less a task than to master the whole universe, to control the whole of nature. He wants to arrive at the point where what we call "nature's laws" will have no influence over him, where he will be able to get beyond them all. He will be master of the whole of nature, internal and external. The progress and civilisation of the human race simply mean controlling this nature.
Different races take to different processes of controlling nature. Just as in the same society some individuals want to control the external nature, and others the internal, so, among races, some want to control the external nature, and others the internal. Some say that by controlling internal nature we control everything. Others that by controlling external nature we control everything. Carried to the extreme both are right, because in nature there is no such division as internal or external. These are fictitious limitations that never existed. The externalists and the internalists are destined to meet at the same point, when both reach the extreme of their knowledge. Just as a physicist, when he pushes his knowledge to its limits, finds it melting away into metaphysics, so a metaphysician will find that what he calls mind and matter are but apparent distinctions, the reality being One.
The end and aim of all science is to find the unity, the One out of which the manifold is being manufactured, that One existing as many. Raja-Yoga proposes to start from the internal world, to study internal nature, and through that, control the whole both internal and external. It is a very old attempt. India has been its special stronghold, but it was also attempted by other nations. In Western countries it was regarded as mysticism and people who wanted to practice it were either burned or killed as witches and sorcerers. In India, for various reasons, it fell into the hands of persons who destroyed ninety per cent of the knowledge, and tried to make a great secret of the remainder. In modern times many so-called teachers have arisen in the West worse than those of India, because the latter knew something, while these modern exponents know nothing.
Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain. It has well-nigh destroyed Yoga one of the grandest of sciences. From the time it was discovered, more than four thousand years ago, Yoga was perfectly delineated, formulated, and preached in India. It is a striking fact that the more modern the commentator the greater the mistakes he makes, while the more ancient the writer the more rational he is. Most of the modern writers talk of all sorts of mystery. Thus Yoga fell into the hands of a few persons who made it a secret, instead of letting the full blaze of daylight and reason fall upon it. They did so that they might have the powers to themselves.
In the first place, there is no mystery in what I teach. What little I know I will tell you. So far as I can reason it out I will do so, but as to what I do not know I will simply tell you what the books say. It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practice, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study. There is neither mystery nor danger in it. So far as it is true, it ought to be preached in the public streets, in broad daylight. Any attempt to mystify these things is productive of great danger.
chinu
chinu
Hi friends,
Does Hinduism have scientific evidences proving that it's a true religion?
Because I read that there are Hindu texts said the earth is 4.32 billion years old and I read something about evolution as well, it was in Yahoo answers, and the answers were vague, so I want to be sure and have clear information from you.
Thanks.
To which religion do respected "Jesus Christ" belong ?
To which religion do respected "Muhammed" belong ?
To which religion do respected "Gautam buddha" belong ?
Or
What do you mean by religion ?
_/\_Chinu.
arun
Member
Hi zenzero,
So what do you think is that method of studying mind with mind ?
I believe it is Yoga.Yoga is about studying our inner nature and awakening of Kundalini.When Kundalini reaches the sahsrara chakra, we achieve state of samadhi/superconsciousness where mind/reasoning does not exist.Yoga is the practical part of Hinduism,I think the most important.So the question is whether Hinduism has a scientific proof or not ? I think that in the future, science will advance and it will be able to give scientific explanation for the truths of Yoga.Now,these truths can only be experienced individually and it takes practice.
generally when we say science,we mean 'material science or science of studying external nature' .'Science of studying internal nature or mind' is true Religion.In the case of Hinduism,we call that science Yoga.So both of these studies,of external and internal will converge when the scientist discovers that the mind is made up of a finer matter called x,and make equations about it.And The Yogi will realize that when the x aggregates it becomes matter.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend arun,
Firstly thank you for your response.
However since you have opened a discussion; let us discuss and come to a common understanding.
Yog means PLUS.
PLUS or addition of what?
The individual form which is energy and that of universal energy which is labelled God/Brahman.
How it happens you have described already.
The practice of which is labelled as a way or path or religion and sanatan dharma covers innumerous or rather any way comes under the purview of sanatan dharma.
Scientific explanation has been given earlier too but only those who were close to the masters but now it is for everyone as humans have evolved and understanding has developed; however REALIZATION of IT will always remain individualistic even though flowering of innumerous flowers take place during its season but they have to flower individually as each has its own uniqueness in terms of beginning of the form and end of it that the energy IS.
Love & rgds
Firstly thank you for your response.
However since you have opened a discussion; let us discuss and come to a common understanding.
Yog means PLUS.
PLUS or addition of what?
The individual form which is energy and that of universal energy which is labelled God/Brahman.
How it happens you have described already.
The practice of which is labelled as a way or path or religion and sanatan dharma covers innumerous or rather any way comes under the purview of sanatan dharma.
Scientific explanation has been given earlier too but only those who were close to the masters but now it is for everyone as humans have evolved and understanding has developed; however REALIZATION of IT will always remain individualistic even though flowering of innumerous flowers take place during its season but they have to flower individually as each has its own uniqueness in terms of beginning of the form and end of it that the energy IS.
Love & rgds
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Madhuri has already alluded to some of the scientific facts contained within Hinduism, as noted by some great scientists and intellectuals(Sagan, Einstein, Schrodinger etc). I want to bring another perspective to this thread that has not yet been brought up here. It has been stated that science and religion are mutually contradictory, and that this is also true in Hinduism. This is not really true. Hinduism is often called the scientific religion, because it is claimed that Hinduism is just a more advanced version of science. Its proper name, "Santana dharma" implies a religion that is natural and scientific.
I would like to share a few scientific facts about Hinduism which have been known in Hinduism for thousands of years, that modern science have only just discovered. I do not expect anybody to take my word for it, please do cross-reference the sources I provide.
Molecules, atoms and subatomic particles
The mention of atoms is first found in the Samkhya philosophy where they are described as tanmatras meaning subtle elements which constitute matter. However, it is in the Vaiseshika philosophy where a very systematic theory of atoms is given which resembles modern atomic theory strongly. In the Vaiseshika sutras, the evolution of matter is described as coming into being through an aggregation of atoms. The first atoms are completely invisible and imperceptible points in space. These atoms then aggregate to form binary atoms, the binary atoms them aggregate to form tertiary atoms, the various permutations and combinations of these tertiary atoms then go onto form all visible matter. According to the Vaiseshika theory all matter is made of out of its parent particles, but the aggregate has emergent properties which are not present in either of the parent particles.
The Vaiseshika identify four distinct type of atoms: light atoms(tejas), force atoms(vayu), liquidious atoms(apas) and solid atoms(pritvhi) These are all indivisible units that constitute all visible matter. It is easy to see the correlation to modern scientific entities like photons, forces, electrons and atoms. Even more striking is that the Vaiseshika describe these atoms as coming in order. First there are force atoms, then light atoms, then liquidious atoms and finally solid atoms. This sequence then continues to form even larger matter. The Vaiseshika also identified a 5th element which was non-atomic and all pervasive: akasha(close to ether) and within this propogated waves. These waves would then gradually take on material form in the sequence described above. The Vaiseshika explained that each of these atoms had a distinct property. Solid atoms had weight and extension; liquidious atoms had flow; light atoms had colour, form and heat; force atoms had movement. Finally the last element was just vibration.
The Vaiseshika's knew about the notion of kinetic energy as being the reason for the states of matter of solid, liquid and gas. They explained the change of state of a solid to a gas as being caused by the disjunction of the solid atoms caused by providing heat energy, thereby they gain kinetic energy and their form changes into water. Similarly,the water atoms when provided heat energy via the sun's rays, experience disjunction and gain more kinetic energy and become gaseous.
The Vaiseshika posited that all atomic bonds can only be broken only when energy is provided and they release energy when the bonds are broken. They demonstrated this through pure reasoning as well by empirical observation such as by observing the chemical reaction when a shard of pot is heated and its properties change. The Vaiseshika also noted that bonds can only be formed if both elements contain compatible parent particles.
Here we can see that many modern atoms concepts have been anticipated. The knowledge of chemical reactions, atomic reactions, thermodynamics and kinetic energy, equivalance of energy and matter, knowledge of photons, forces, waves. Even the notion that matter is originally not matter but a propogation of a wave in an all pervasive field(wavefunction)
Newtonian mechanics
Remarkably Newtonian mechanics is very clearly articulated, again in the Vaiseshika philosophy. The Vaiseshika describe that all objects continue to move in a straight line once momentum is provided through self-reproduction of the original momentum energy, unless a force acts on them. It explains the motion of an arrow as such: It gains its initial momentum energy through the volition of the bowman and the bow string, it then sails forward through the reproduction of the initial momentum energy at a constant velocity, but then it begins to fall due to work done against it by gravity(it describes this property of gravity as being due to the pulling of the earth's centre)
Here we can see very clearly the knowledge of force vectors and horizontal and vertifical components of a vector.
Optics
The Vaiseshika propounded some very interesting theories on optics, however the most interesting aspect of their theory which is not present in modern theory, is that seeing takes place after an interaction between the light atoms in the eyes and the light atoms being received by the eye(although this may indicate the knowledge of pigments in the eyes) It explains that the light rays bouncing of an object and entering the eye. Very interestingly it explains how the blue colour of the sky is an optical illusion caused by the light rays and the conjunction with the atmosphere which gives space a hue. In fact space is colourless.
Quantum mechanics
The Vaiseshika only dealt with matter which was apparent, and only alluded to another substance called akasha where matter was in wave form. This akasha is today known as the quantum field. It is a field that pervades all of space and in this field all matter exists in a superpositioned state. However, the Samkhya philosophers went beyond the apparent and explained the stages prior to the apparent. The Samkhya proposed the existence of an unmanifest, potential and primordial matter which they called moolaprakriti which translates, remarkably to root/quantum matter. The Samkhya philosophers explained how this quantum matter exists in a completely unmanifest state until the observer observes quantum matter and collapses it. It then manifests gradually into being going from potential, to subtle, to gross.
The Samkhya also anticipate sting theory for they posit string like potencies called the gunas which always operated in triplet pairs(active, inertia, neutral) and resided in quantum matter were the cause of all matter. All matter is originally the vibrations of these gunas.
Unsurpsingly perhaps, Samkhya was the core inspiration behind Schrodinger's wave mechanics and Schrodinger's cat paradox was taken from an ancient Samkhya paradox. However, ironically, Schrodinger wanted to show the observer collapsing the wavefunction was absurd to refute the Copenhagen interpretation. The Samkhya actually support the Copenhagen interpretation(particularly Wigners paradox)
Big bang, inflationary and supersymmetry theory
Amazingly, the Rig Veda's Nasadiya Suktam(creation hymn) contains a poetic description of what sounds like the big bang theory. It describes how originally everything was non-existent, a pure vacuum of space. There is nothing in existence yet, no night or day, no birth or death. Then, the ONE provides a great heat and the suddenly the universe manifests and expands outwards. This universe is called Viraj, referring to the body of the ONE. The Purusha Suktam describes the process similarly, but differently. In this case the great cosmic man sacrifices itself and from that sacrifice the universe is born - the stars and suns, moons, planets, organisms, Vedas and societies.
Now this is as well and good, but it is ultimately a poem and it would be an exaggeration to call this the big bang. However in the Samkhya philosophy a very detailed scientific description is given. In the beginning quantum matter is unmanifest and the gunas are in balance. Then the observer observes the quantum matter and the balance of the gunas is disturbed leading to a violent vibration(In Tantra it is known as spanda) The first force that acts is rajas(activity) and because of there is a sudden and very quick expansion of space and matter. Gradually, the force of rajas begins to weaken and the force of tamas inertia) begins to grow preponderant at which stage space begins to contract back to its point of orgin. This is known as the cycle of evolution and involution.
In later texts Hindus calculated actual figures for how long this cycle lasts. The expansion and contradiction cycle is said to last 311 trillion years. These cycles contain subcycles where one day and night of Brahma is 6.64 billion years. This roughly corresponds to the lifetime of Earth at the end of which the Earth is destroyed. There are yet even more subcycles within the lifetime of an earth called manvantaras which are 306,720,000 years, corresponding approx to the time it takes for the solar system to go around the galactic centre. This also roughly corresponds to the time a species(manu) rules the planet, after which it is destroyed.
Madhuri has already alluded to some of the scientific facts contained within Hinduism, as noted by some great scientists and intellectuals(Sagan, Einstein, Schrodinger etc). I want to bring another perspective to this thread that has not yet been brought up here. It has been stated that science and religion are mutually contradictory, and that this is also true in Hinduism. This is not really true. Hinduism is often called the scientific religion, because it is claimed that Hinduism is just a more advanced version of science. Its proper name, "Santana dharma" implies a religion that is natural and scientific.
I would like to share a few scientific facts about Hinduism which have been known in Hinduism for thousands of years, that modern science have only just discovered. I do not expect anybody to take my word for it, please do cross-reference the sources I provide.
Molecules, atoms and subatomic particles
The mention of atoms is first found in the Samkhya philosophy where they are described as tanmatras meaning subtle elements which constitute matter. However, it is in the Vaiseshika philosophy where a very systematic theory of atoms is given which resembles modern atomic theory strongly. In the Vaiseshika sutras, the evolution of matter is described as coming into being through an aggregation of atoms. The first atoms are completely invisible and imperceptible points in space. These atoms then aggregate to form binary atoms, the binary atoms them aggregate to form tertiary atoms, the various permutations and combinations of these tertiary atoms then go onto form all visible matter. According to the Vaiseshika theory all matter is made of out of its parent particles, but the aggregate has emergent properties which are not present in either of the parent particles.
The Vaiseshika identify four distinct type of atoms: light atoms(tejas), force atoms(vayu), liquidious atoms(apas) and solid atoms(pritvhi) These are all indivisible units that constitute all visible matter. It is easy to see the correlation to modern scientific entities like photons, forces, electrons and atoms. Even more striking is that the Vaiseshika describe these atoms as coming in order. First there are force atoms, then light atoms, then liquidious atoms and finally solid atoms. This sequence then continues to form even larger matter. The Vaiseshika also identified a 5th element which was non-atomic and all pervasive: akasha(close to ether) and within this propogated waves. These waves would then gradually take on material form in the sequence described above. The Vaiseshika explained that each of these atoms had a distinct property. Solid atoms had weight and extension; liquidious atoms had flow; light atoms had colour, form and heat; force atoms had movement. Finally the last element was just vibration.
The Vaiseshika's knew about the notion of kinetic energy as being the reason for the states of matter of solid, liquid and gas. They explained the change of state of a solid to a gas as being caused by the disjunction of the solid atoms caused by providing heat energy, thereby they gain kinetic energy and their form changes into water. Similarly,the water atoms when provided heat energy via the sun's rays, experience disjunction and gain more kinetic energy and become gaseous.
The Vaiseshika posited that all atomic bonds can only be broken only when energy is provided and they release energy when the bonds are broken. They demonstrated this through pure reasoning as well by empirical observation such as by observing the chemical reaction when a shard of pot is heated and its properties change. The Vaiseshika also noted that bonds can only be formed if both elements contain compatible parent particles.
Here we can see that many modern atoms concepts have been anticipated. The knowledge of chemical reactions, atomic reactions, thermodynamics and kinetic energy, equivalance of energy and matter, knowledge of photons, forces, waves. Even the notion that matter is originally not matter but a propogation of a wave in an all pervasive field(wavefunction)
Newtonian mechanics
Remarkably Newtonian mechanics is very clearly articulated, again in the Vaiseshika philosophy. The Vaiseshika describe that all objects continue to move in a straight line once momentum is provided through self-reproduction of the original momentum energy, unless a force acts on them. It explains the motion of an arrow as such: It gains its initial momentum energy through the volition of the bowman and the bow string, it then sails forward through the reproduction of the initial momentum energy at a constant velocity, but then it begins to fall due to work done against it by gravity(it describes this property of gravity as being due to the pulling of the earth's centre)
Here we can see very clearly the knowledge of force vectors and horizontal and vertifical components of a vector.
Optics
The Vaiseshika propounded some very interesting theories on optics, however the most interesting aspect of their theory which is not present in modern theory, is that seeing takes place after an interaction between the light atoms in the eyes and the light atoms being received by the eye(although this may indicate the knowledge of pigments in the eyes) It explains that the light rays bouncing of an object and entering the eye. Very interestingly it explains how the blue colour of the sky is an optical illusion caused by the light rays and the conjunction with the atmosphere which gives space a hue. In fact space is colourless.
Quantum mechanics
The Vaiseshika only dealt with matter which was apparent, and only alluded to another substance called akasha where matter was in wave form. This akasha is today known as the quantum field. It is a field that pervades all of space and in this field all matter exists in a superpositioned state. However, the Samkhya philosophers went beyond the apparent and explained the stages prior to the apparent. The Samkhya proposed the existence of an unmanifest, potential and primordial matter which they called moolaprakriti which translates, remarkably to root/quantum matter. The Samkhya philosophers explained how this quantum matter exists in a completely unmanifest state until the observer observes quantum matter and collapses it. It then manifests gradually into being going from potential, to subtle, to gross.
The Samkhya also anticipate sting theory for they posit string like potencies called the gunas which always operated in triplet pairs(active, inertia, neutral) and resided in quantum matter were the cause of all matter. All matter is originally the vibrations of these gunas.
Unsurpsingly perhaps, Samkhya was the core inspiration behind Schrodinger's wave mechanics and Schrodinger's cat paradox was taken from an ancient Samkhya paradox. However, ironically, Schrodinger wanted to show the observer collapsing the wavefunction was absurd to refute the Copenhagen interpretation. The Samkhya actually support the Copenhagen interpretation(particularly Wigners paradox)
Big bang, inflationary and supersymmetry theory
Amazingly, the Rig Veda's Nasadiya Suktam(creation hymn) contains a poetic description of what sounds like the big bang theory. It describes how originally everything was non-existent, a pure vacuum of space. There is nothing in existence yet, no night or day, no birth or death. Then, the ONE provides a great heat and the suddenly the universe manifests and expands outwards. This universe is called Viraj, referring to the body of the ONE. The Purusha Suktam describes the process similarly, but differently. In this case the great cosmic man sacrifices itself and from that sacrifice the universe is born - the stars and suns, moons, planets, organisms, Vedas and societies.
Now this is as well and good, but it is ultimately a poem and it would be an exaggeration to call this the big bang. However in the Samkhya philosophy a very detailed scientific description is given. In the beginning quantum matter is unmanifest and the gunas are in balance. Then the observer observes the quantum matter and the balance of the gunas is disturbed leading to a violent vibration(In Tantra it is known as spanda) The first force that acts is rajas(activity) and because of there is a sudden and very quick expansion of space and matter. Gradually, the force of rajas begins to weaken and the force of tamas inertia) begins to grow preponderant at which stage space begins to contract back to its point of orgin. This is known as the cycle of evolution and involution.
In later texts Hindus calculated actual figures for how long this cycle lasts. The expansion and contradiction cycle is said to last 311 trillion years. These cycles contain subcycles where one day and night of Brahma is 6.64 billion years. This roughly corresponds to the lifetime of Earth at the end of which the Earth is destroyed. There are yet even more subcycles within the lifetime of an earth called manvantaras which are 306,720,000 years, corresponding approx to the time it takes for the solar system to go around the galactic centre. This also roughly corresponds to the time a species(manu) rules the planet, after which it is destroyed.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Evolution and abiogensis
It is a well known fact that Hinduism says that we are evolving to once again return to our true nature. However, it is not that well known that according to Hinduism we pass through 8,400,000 organisms ranging from most base and simple to higher and complex. The first organism forms through the reaction of heat with water(it is highly likely that Thales got this idea that water was the source of life from the Hindus) and this is a simple germ entity. It is claimed that the 10 avatars of Vishnu closely parallel the evolution of organisms on the planet(however this is very metaphoric and difficult to prove). The Samkhya explain why this evolution takes place as a telealogy. The soul that becomes entangled with matter and becomes identified with that is at contradiction with its nature and therefore it acts against it and then nature begins to evolve gradually the apparatus it needs to liberate itself(mental organs, sensory organs, motor organs, body etc) In other words evolution is a the resultant of the organism interacting with its environment, which puts nature into motion to develop features for that organism to survive in its environment and ultimately acquire rational faculties to break free of its entanglement.
Psychology: Psychodynamic/analytical, cognitive, learning, transpersonal
The first proto-psychological theories can be seen in the Samkhya philosophy(there are references also in the earlier Upanishads) However, the first mature and systematic psychological theory is put forward by Patanajli in the Yogasutras. The Yogasutras foreshadows many modern psychological discoveries and theories. It describes a continuum of awareness levels(conscious, subconscious, unconscious) and explains how all behaviour is driven by unconscious forces(samskaras) These are generated when one acts which leaves an imprint as a habit pattern in the unconscious mind. The more one does the same kind of action, the more reinforced that habit pattern becomes. In order to weaken the habit pattern the opposite habit must be cultivated. This is very clearly psychodynamic psychology. The Sutras also describe how there is an internal representation of the external world in our mind and how associations develop between thoughts and stimuli(network of attachments) Hence, when presented with a certain stimulus, a chain of thoughts is triggered. This is a dead ringer for learning psychology. The Sutras also describe personality and language formation creating personality complexes. The most recent field of psychology, transpersonal psychology is also covered in very extensive detail. The Sutras delinate step by step the various levels of consciousness one experiences during meditation and the symptoms of entering them.
I hope this post has helped in illuminating the scientific facts contained within Hinduism. I personally believe that there is no doubt that Hinduism is a true religion. There is no other religion on this planet that has got all these scientific facts correct. Hinduism does indeed live up to its name: natural/eternal/scientific religion - Santana dharma.
It is a well known fact that Hinduism says that we are evolving to once again return to our true nature. However, it is not that well known that according to Hinduism we pass through 8,400,000 organisms ranging from most base and simple to higher and complex. The first organism forms through the reaction of heat with water(it is highly likely that Thales got this idea that water was the source of life from the Hindus) and this is a simple germ entity. It is claimed that the 10 avatars of Vishnu closely parallel the evolution of organisms on the planet(however this is very metaphoric and difficult to prove). The Samkhya explain why this evolution takes place as a telealogy. The soul that becomes entangled with matter and becomes identified with that is at contradiction with its nature and therefore it acts against it and then nature begins to evolve gradually the apparatus it needs to liberate itself(mental organs, sensory organs, motor organs, body etc) In other words evolution is a the resultant of the organism interacting with its environment, which puts nature into motion to develop features for that organism to survive in its environment and ultimately acquire rational faculties to break free of its entanglement.
Psychology: Psychodynamic/analytical, cognitive, learning, transpersonal
The first proto-psychological theories can be seen in the Samkhya philosophy(there are references also in the earlier Upanishads) However, the first mature and systematic psychological theory is put forward by Patanajli in the Yogasutras. The Yogasutras foreshadows many modern psychological discoveries and theories. It describes a continuum of awareness levels(conscious, subconscious, unconscious) and explains how all behaviour is driven by unconscious forces(samskaras) These are generated when one acts which leaves an imprint as a habit pattern in the unconscious mind. The more one does the same kind of action, the more reinforced that habit pattern becomes. In order to weaken the habit pattern the opposite habit must be cultivated. This is very clearly psychodynamic psychology. The Sutras also describe how there is an internal representation of the external world in our mind and how associations develop between thoughts and stimuli(network of attachments) Hence, when presented with a certain stimulus, a chain of thoughts is triggered. This is a dead ringer for learning psychology. The Sutras also describe personality and language formation creating personality complexes. The most recent field of psychology, transpersonal psychology is also covered in very extensive detail. The Sutras delinate step by step the various levels of consciousness one experiences during meditation and the symptoms of entering them.
I hope this post has helped in illuminating the scientific facts contained within Hinduism. I personally believe that there is no doubt that Hinduism is a true religion. There is no other religion on this planet that has got all these scientific facts correct. Hinduism does indeed live up to its name: natural/eternal/scientific religion - Santana dharma.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
There are other scientific facts to be found in other Hindu philosophies. Ayurveda for example gives very detailed descriptions of microbes(krimis) and extensive classifications of various types of microbes(it classifies 30+ distinct types) and the symptology of the diseases caused by the microbes. How the ancient Ayurvedic physicians could see these microbes is mysterious, however in the Charaka Samhita, a very curious reference is found. It says something to the effect of, "Krimis are invisible to the naked eye, but can be seen by an instrument" The Charaka Samhita also gives a very detailed description of the formation of an embroyo, again how such details could have been furnished without modern technology is mysterious. There is also an allusion to genetics and chromosomes. What is most remarkable about the Charaka Samhita is the way it scientifically breaks down each disease/ailment into etiology, symptology, treatment. It describes hundreds of diseases(including diabetes, arthritis etc) like a modern day medical database.
Equally impressive is the Sushrutha Samhita which gives a detailed description of complex surgical procedures classified into 8 types and a classification of 125 surgical instruments. The surgeries described are cataract removal, plastic surgery(particularly rhinoplasty), brain surgery, eye and throat surgery, treatment of injuries and fractures, stone removal etc etc
Then there is the subject of grammar and no grammatical text exists in the ancient or the modern world which compares to Panini Ashtadhyayi. This spectacular work foreshadows all of ancient and modern linguistics and mathematical linguistics and computing theory. It is the first work on formal languages, the first to use databases, objects, auxillary symbols and analytical devices to study language. It is estimated by linguists that the extent of knowledge in this text may continue to inform the science of linguistics for a few more centuries! In addition to Panini's great work is Pingla Chandashastra This amazing work on metre gives extensive classifications for metres, describes binary coding and hashing algorithms and error checking mechanisms. It is also describes so-called pascals triangle and binomials.
It is incredibly curious indeed that such scientific knowledge was known to ancient people which even rivals our most modern knowledge. The only way to explain this is to posit that a highly scientific civilisation existed a few thousand years ago, whose religion was Hinduism: the scientific religion.
Equally impressive is the Sushrutha Samhita which gives a detailed description of complex surgical procedures classified into 8 types and a classification of 125 surgical instruments. The surgeries described are cataract removal, plastic surgery(particularly rhinoplasty), brain surgery, eye and throat surgery, treatment of injuries and fractures, stone removal etc etc
Then there is the subject of grammar and no grammatical text exists in the ancient or the modern world which compares to Panini Ashtadhyayi. This spectacular work foreshadows all of ancient and modern linguistics and mathematical linguistics and computing theory. It is the first work on formal languages, the first to use databases, objects, auxillary symbols and analytical devices to study language. It is estimated by linguists that the extent of knowledge in this text may continue to inform the science of linguistics for a few more centuries! In addition to Panini's great work is Pingla Chandashastra This amazing work on metre gives extensive classifications for metres, describes binary coding and hashing algorithms and error checking mechanisms. It is also describes so-called pascals triangle and binomials.
It is incredibly curious indeed that such scientific knowledge was known to ancient people which even rivals our most modern knowledge. The only way to explain this is to posit that a highly scientific civilisation existed a few thousand years ago, whose religion was Hinduism: the scientific religion.
kaisersose
Active Member
Once again, "scientific facts to prove a true religion" is something of an oxymoron. Religion is a matter of faith and has nothing to do with science. There is no such thing as a true religion outside the realm of faith and there can be no scientific evidence to prove the validity of any religion - not even Scientology.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Namaste Kaisersose,
I do not subscribe to this rigid definition of religion you have put forth as faith and this arbitrary exclusion from science. Religion is not always about faith, just as science is not always about the physical.
A religion is any institution which aims to transform a human being's moral dimension and consists of practices and moral codes to moralise the human being to bring him/her to an ideal state. It does not necessarily subscribe to faith in deity and the supernatural. This is why even Secular humanism which is bereft of faith in deity and the supernatural, is also a religion for it aims to transform a human being morally. Most forms of Buddhism reject faith in deity and the supernatural, rather they subscribe to a philosophy which is based on truths that one can find hard to deny: mental suffering exists in the world, attachments are the cause of suffering, things are temporal and always subject to change, and things are mutually-dependent on other things.
The same approach is truth in Hinduism as well. A method ofphilosophical reasoning is used to arrive at the truths contained therein which is known as the pramana method. Although Hinduism is clearly a religion(with a rich tapestry of myths, legends, pantheon of gods and goddesses) its fundamental doctrines are philosophical ones, as opposed to faith. All pramana begins with empirical observation, just as science does. The Vaiseshika for example concluded their atomic theory by making empirical observations on matter. They then used pure rationalism to develop their atomic theory.(This is a pecularity of Indian science; Indian science is a rational tradition, as opposed to Western science which is empirical tradition)
The vast majority of Hinduism's fundamental doctrines are developed in the darshana philosophy using its scientific method of ascertaining truth. These are then embellished with rituals, myths, legends in the various sects that arise in Hinduism during the puranic phase. For example the doctrine of Atman is argued for extensively in Vedanta philosophy. The Hindu universe consisting of the continuum of the mental to the physical is argued for extensively in Samkhya philosophy.
Now faith is a completely different entity. Faith is not based on argument or method, it is based on feeling something to be true. For example, "I feel that Jesus is the only way, life and truth" or "I feel that god exists" or "I feel my prophet is the chosen one" The problem with faith is that it cannot be tested. It is not reliable or valid knowledge. The Abrahamic religions differ from the dharmic religions in that fact that they are faith-based. The dharmic religions are either reasoned based on direct experience based.
It is safe to say that the dharamic religions have a scientific character. Whatever assertion one makes in the dharmic religions has to be proven through a method of either philosophical reasoning or peer-reviewed direct inner-experiences. Remember from what I have posted already that the scientific discoveries of the dharmic religions are consistent with the discoveries of modern science.
It is my contention that faith is a useless means in ascertaining truth. Science is the only way of getting actual truth. Now it is a common misconception that science only deals with the physical world and not the metaphysical(the domain of religion) But this is nothing more than a dogma born of an artificial distinction between the physical and metaphysical first drawn by Descartes.
There are strongs overlaps between the physical and the metaphysical in science. For example the postulates of quantum mechanics and string theory strongly veer on the side of the metaphysical - other dimensions, spooky action, observers collapsing wavefunctions, physical reality not existing(correlation to maya), invisible entities constituting all of matter. In psychology the metaphysical appears in the form of unconscious forces in the mind, a study of various consciousness states and transpersonal experiences such as OBEs and NDE's. Then there are scientists who use the scientific method to study paranormal phenomenon like telepathy and clairvoyance and have produced considerable data in this research which has been published in scientific journals. There are also studies done in reincarnation and past life memory.
In the last century science has become very metaphysical. It no longer supports the old Newtonian view of reality of objects suspended in space being acted on by forces(billiard ball universe) The truths that science is discovering now is in fact validating Hinduism very strongly in all areas of scientific research. All the core doctrines of Hinduism are getting scientific support.
I do not subscribe to this rigid definition of religion you have put forth as faith and this arbitrary exclusion from science. Religion is not always about faith, just as science is not always about the physical.
A religion is any institution which aims to transform a human being's moral dimension and consists of practices and moral codes to moralise the human being to bring him/her to an ideal state. It does not necessarily subscribe to faith in deity and the supernatural. This is why even Secular humanism which is bereft of faith in deity and the supernatural, is also a religion for it aims to transform a human being morally. Most forms of Buddhism reject faith in deity and the supernatural, rather they subscribe to a philosophy which is based on truths that one can find hard to deny: mental suffering exists in the world, attachments are the cause of suffering, things are temporal and always subject to change, and things are mutually-dependent on other things.
The same approach is truth in Hinduism as well. A method ofphilosophical reasoning is used to arrive at the truths contained therein which is known as the pramana method. Although Hinduism is clearly a religion(with a rich tapestry of myths, legends, pantheon of gods and goddesses) its fundamental doctrines are philosophical ones, as opposed to faith. All pramana begins with empirical observation, just as science does. The Vaiseshika for example concluded their atomic theory by making empirical observations on matter. They then used pure rationalism to develop their atomic theory.(This is a pecularity of Indian science; Indian science is a rational tradition, as opposed to Western science which is empirical tradition)
The vast majority of Hinduism's fundamental doctrines are developed in the darshana philosophy using its scientific method of ascertaining truth. These are then embellished with rituals, myths, legends in the various sects that arise in Hinduism during the puranic phase. For example the doctrine of Atman is argued for extensively in Vedanta philosophy. The Hindu universe consisting of the continuum of the mental to the physical is argued for extensively in Samkhya philosophy.
Now faith is a completely different entity. Faith is not based on argument or method, it is based on feeling something to be true. For example, "I feel that Jesus is the only way, life and truth" or "I feel that god exists" or "I feel my prophet is the chosen one" The problem with faith is that it cannot be tested. It is not reliable or valid knowledge. The Abrahamic religions differ from the dharmic religions in that fact that they are faith-based. The dharmic religions are either reasoned based on direct experience based.
It is safe to say that the dharamic religions have a scientific character. Whatever assertion one makes in the dharmic religions has to be proven through a method of either philosophical reasoning or peer-reviewed direct inner-experiences. Remember from what I have posted already that the scientific discoveries of the dharmic religions are consistent with the discoveries of modern science.
It is my contention that faith is a useless means in ascertaining truth. Science is the only way of getting actual truth. Now it is a common misconception that science only deals with the physical world and not the metaphysical(the domain of religion) But this is nothing more than a dogma born of an artificial distinction between the physical and metaphysical first drawn by Descartes.
There are strongs overlaps between the physical and the metaphysical in science. For example the postulates of quantum mechanics and string theory strongly veer on the side of the metaphysical - other dimensions, spooky action, observers collapsing wavefunctions, physical reality not existing(correlation to maya), invisible entities constituting all of matter. In psychology the metaphysical appears in the form of unconscious forces in the mind, a study of various consciousness states and transpersonal experiences such as OBEs and NDE's. Then there are scientists who use the scientific method to study paranormal phenomenon like telepathy and clairvoyance and have produced considerable data in this research which has been published in scientific journals. There are also studies done in reincarnation and past life memory.
In the last century science has become very metaphysical. It no longer supports the old Newtonian view of reality of objects suspended in space being acted on by forces(billiard ball universe) The truths that science is discovering now is in fact validating Hinduism very strongly in all areas of scientific research. All the core doctrines of Hinduism are getting scientific support.
kaisersose
Active Member
We can agree to disagree.
If we look at Darshanas, the only Darshana that came close to being scientific is Lokayata (my personal favorite for which I am constructing a website when time permits). In a nutshell, their involvement in polemics was just that - other darshanas required faith to compensate for lack of evidence. Faith in the concept of a soul or the afterworld or Brahman, etc. If Lokayatikas believed these other Darshanas were scientific, then they would not have used this line of criticism at all.
Chanakya in his Arthshastra named three schools of logic - Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayata. We do not know what Sankhya looked like during his time, but Sankhya as we know it today is theistic and requires one to accept the concept of a soul that spans across bodies. And that is not scientific, as no evidence is available or even possible for such a position.
The only scientific school - Lokayata and other semi-scientific schools like Sankhya and Nyaya all disappeared long ago, in favor of Rama and Shiva worship, Bhajans, pilgrimages, etc., - none of which have any scientific elements. This highlights the difference between religion and Science.
The argument used by Nyaya and Mimamsa (later used by Vedanta as well) was that the Veda had no known author and was hence authorless. Without a human author, it was not subject to human error and was hence perfect. Therefore, it was all correct and to be accepted as axiomatic truth. The purpose of Shastra was to provide knowledge that was not available through Perception - like for example the afterlife. In other words, Shastra was meant to reveal knowledge that had no scientific evidence.
This line of argument may have worked several centuries ago, but today we have a lot more knowledge on the Veda than our ancestors. There has been a lot of pertinent information uncovered by Philology, Archaeology, DNA studies, etc., and we know for a fact that these compoistions did have authors and are hence subject to all the usual human errors. With the Apaurusheyatva position taken out, it all comes down to faith - faith in someone's words that there must be a soul, afterlife, Vaikunta, Moksha, etc.
And that is not scientific at all.
If we look at Darshanas, the only Darshana that came close to being scientific is Lokayata (my personal favorite for which I am constructing a website when time permits). In a nutshell, their involvement in polemics was just that - other darshanas required faith to compensate for lack of evidence. Faith in the concept of a soul or the afterworld or Brahman, etc. If Lokayatikas believed these other Darshanas were scientific, then they would not have used this line of criticism at all.
Chanakya in his Arthshastra named three schools of logic - Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayata. We do not know what Sankhya looked like during his time, but Sankhya as we know it today is theistic and requires one to accept the concept of a soul that spans across bodies. And that is not scientific, as no evidence is available or even possible for such a position.
The only scientific school - Lokayata and other semi-scientific schools like Sankhya and Nyaya all disappeared long ago, in favor of Rama and Shiva worship, Bhajans, pilgrimages, etc., - none of which have any scientific elements. This highlights the difference between religion and Science.
The argument used by Nyaya and Mimamsa (later used by Vedanta as well) was that the Veda had no known author and was hence authorless. Without a human author, it was not subject to human error and was hence perfect. Therefore, it was all correct and to be accepted as axiomatic truth. The purpose of Shastra was to provide knowledge that was not available through Perception - like for example the afterlife. In other words, Shastra was meant to reveal knowledge that had no scientific evidence.
This line of argument may have worked several centuries ago, but today we have a lot more knowledge on the Veda than our ancestors. There has been a lot of pertinent information uncovered by Philology, Archaeology, DNA studies, etc., and we know for a fact that these compoistions did have authors and are hence subject to all the usual human errors. With the Apaurusheyatva position taken out, it all comes down to faith - faith in someone's words that there must be a soul, afterlife, Vaikunta, Moksha, etc.
And that is not scientific at all.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I am afraid I cannot agree to this. There is no point engaing in a discussion on the truth of a matter and then just stopping it prematurely without getting anywhere closer to the truth on the matter. I will respond to each and everyone of your points with counter-arguments if and when I can. I will stop discussing the matter when you stop. However, expect me to counter each and everyone of your points if I disagree, or have evidence to the contrary.
You claim that Lokayata was the most scientific school of philosophy. I disagree my friend. I disagree because the Lokayata only accepted perception as their pramana and rejected all reason. They stated that only things in perception exist and nothing else, and therefore because we cannot see any metaphysical entites like souls, minds, atoms, deities, other planes of reality that only matter existed and nothing else. They argued away the mind as nothing more than a epiphenonena of matter(like modern day materialists) Their position was that because we only get one life and all is matter, the whole purpose of life was to gratify the body and the senses(like modern day hedonists)
Is this science? No, it is just the ordinary common sense view of reality held by people who are not aware of any reality other than their common sense view of it. This is why it is called Lokayata: the philosophy of the ordinary man. Most people you talk to subscribe to this philosophy. However, science definitely does not subscribe to this philosophy. According to science there are hidden causes for all things in reality which are not apparent to the senses: gravity, atoms, electromagnetic radiation, quantum fields. According to the Lokayata's philosophy many of these that we know to exist today should not exist. They would have equally opposed modern science.
Modern science has greater affinity with Vaiseshika, Nyaya and Samkhya because it accepts inference as a valid means to getting knowledge of hidden causes, as they did. They accepted in addition to perception, inference and testimony. However, in order of priority testimony got merely lip service. The vast majority of the philosophical pursuit of Vaiseshika, Nyaya and Samkhya was inference. This is easy to see by reading the shastras in these fields which are full of reasoned arguments, with nary a reference to the Vedas. So your statement that they accepted faith in Vedas alone as justification for their philosophies is blatantly incorrect.
It is true that the astika Darsanas did make arguments that the Vedas were authorless, revealed knowledge and inerrant. However, Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaiseshika did not use the Vedas as proof nor even as their premise for any of their conclusions. They used perception as their starting point - things that can be observed to be true. Then they used inductive reasoning(Nyaya 5-step syllogism) to discover unseen truths. For example, there is fire on the moutain because there is smoke on the mountain. The fire is unseen, but the observation of smoke and knowledge of its invariable concommitance with fire, leads to deriving the conclusion that fire is present. The Vaiseshika used similar arguments to prove the existence of atoms. Atoms are unseen but from the seen differences in magnitude, shape and size of things like a mustard seed and a mountain it can be inferred that there must be a limit to matter which cannot be divided any further, otherwise there would be an infinite regress. The reasoning they provide for the motion of an arrow follows a similar inductive pattern. The arrow was first at rest but then only through conjunction with the bow and the volition provided by the bow man did it move, therefore the movement is due to the unseen cause of an initital momentum energy provided and its constant velocity is the reproduction of that energy(as no other cause is observable) They infer the existence of an external cause of gravity because of the falling of the arrow. As there is no cause present in the arrow itself to cause it to fall, it follows there is an external downwards force acting on the arrow, due to which it loses its momentum energy and begins to fall. The Samkhya also use the inductive reasoning to prove the existence of quantum matter. They argue that the observed effect can only be a transformation of the cause. As we can observe a chain of effect and cause there must be an ultimate material cause else there would be an infinite regression. This ultimate material cause must therefore be a potential state from which all existent things arise. However, when all things are resolved to the ultimate material cause, what initiates the collapse of that ultimate material cause to cause existent things to arise. As no cause is present within the material cause that provide the initial movement. They identify this cause can only be the observer because the observer itself is not reducible to a material cause(an argument also put forward by Eugene Wigner, a quantum physicist) The material cause is superpositioned and and there is nothing that is non-superpositioned to break the superpositioned state, other than the observer itself which is outside of material nature. Therefore Samkhya conclude that in addition to the material cause, there is an efficient cause that collapses the potential state of matter and causes it to vibrate. All existent things being modifications of the gunas in matter.
This is how Samkhya declares the existence of infinite observers that become associated with matter by collapsing it, but which are always outside of matter.
Thus it should become apparent to you now that in the above cases only pure observation and reasoning is used and not a single line from the Vedas is used. This makes it through and through scientific.
By the way I find it curious that you did not acknowledge the similarity between the scientific facts I posted earlier and the scientific facts in modern science. If Hinduism really is pure faith, then how did it get all those science facts correct?
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend kaisersose,
Mind requires something to hold on to and for which *faith* is required but in reality once one enters the realm of no-mind or the meditative state, there is nothing as faith. Existence is so scientific that all science, maths, physics, chemistry, history, geography are all is contained in IT from the eternal beginning.
This is personal understanding
Love & rgds
What is have stated is correct except that part about *faith*.
Mind requires something to hold on to and for which *faith* is required but in reality once one enters the realm of no-mind or the meditative state, there is nothing as faith. Existence is so scientific that all science, maths, physics, chemistry, history, geography are all is contained in IT from the eternal beginning.
This is personal understanding
Love & rgds
kaisersose
Active Member
You are leaving out their conception of a soul, the need for liberation - all of which are unsubstantiated. As these are their end goals, any perceivable logic they use in their initial arguments like the origin of the world, nature of the world, etc, etc., are ultimately rendered pointless.
Ajita Keshakambalin, 2600 years ago said there was no other world because there was no evidence of it. That statement still holds good. The day we have evidence of a soul and its existence after the body dies, then obviously, our religious beliefs become scientific. Until then the credibility of the soul theory is no higher than that of Santa Claus.
Scientific support is still not evidence. Scientists of the 19th century were interested in topics like mermaids, water diviners, alchemy, etc., and even published articles in the American Journal of Science. Who spends time on these topics anymore? Like I said, let us get to the point where we have empirical evidence of the existence of a soul (outside/after the body) and then I will have no problems agreeing on this.
Another important point here is the Hindu doctrine does not say that the existence of a soul can be known by evidence. It directs one to Shastra and atempts to prove the validity of this shastra.
(I will respond to your other post soon as I find time)
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
The goal of ending suffering makes no difference to the actual inquiry. As long as the inquiry uses valid pramanas perception and inference and the conclusions are demonstrated using logical arguments and empirical evidence it is valid. Even in science the goals a scientist has can be for realising a greater moral good, but this makes no difference to the scientific research.
The goal of ending suffering was declared by every science in ancient India. Even the treatises on drama began with "to end suffering" It is a pecularity of Indian culture to begin all philosophical treatises by declaring your supreme goal as ending suffering.
As I said Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya and Yoga based all their conclusions on perception and inference and only paid lip service to the Vedas. Vedanta and Mimmasa, on the other hand, was purely based on testimony of the Vedas, but was an attempt to rationally explain what the Vedas taught. They are rightly known as theology.
Lokayata was not really philosophy, because they rejected reasoning. Philosophy is all about reasoning about what you can see and presenting arguments. Lokayata did not present any arguments, they just asserted the dogma of common sense experience as seen in perception and declared life had no other motive other than sensory indulgence and pleasure seeking. According to them world is flat and the sun goes around the Earth. This is why other schools of philosophy did not take them seriously, even other nastika schools.
The existence of the soul was declared by all the astika schools, but once again in the case of Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Samkhya and Yoga the existence of the soul was proven through logical arguments, not through an appeal to the Vedas. The proved the existence of the soul using the same rigour as they did to prove the existence of atoms, gravity and other things.
That was his opinion, and an opinion which I do not share. The soul or consciousness does not require proof. I do not need proof to prove that I am aware. I am aware that is why I can talk to you. There first has to be something to know something, in order to have any knowledge. There are two categories that we can positively asset to exist: the knower and objects known to exist. Now I cannot really doubt the the knower exists, because then I would have to doubt the one who knows the knower to doubt. However, I certainly can doubt things that are known to exist and their nature. It appears to my senses that the sun is going around the earth, but a doubt enters in my mind when I observe that the sun appears to be rising somewhere and setting somewhere simltaneously. I then use my faculty of logic which then tells me that the only way to explain these facts is to posit that the the earth is spherical and rotates on its axis going around the sun rather than vis versa. Similarly, my senses are showing me a world that is solid and seemingly permenant. However, a doubt enters my mind when I investigate that everything that is seemingly solid seems to be in a constant state of change and therefore what is in a constant state of change cannot have any real substance, but it must actually be in constant flux. Thus I conclude that matter is actually not solid.
Likewise, I can do an investigation into the emprical self. My senses show me that I have an individual personal self who has w body, x name, y parents and z beliefs and habits. However a doubt enters my mind when I investigate into this self, for whenever I do, I do not find such thing entity called a self but just changing mental states, physical states, habits and patterns. I therefore conclude that the apparent self is not the real self, and there is an actual self that must be realised.
Thus the self is not something that is open to doubt. The body is open to doubt,the mind is open to doubt and all objects I sense are open to doubt because they lack substance, but the self that endures between each body state change, mental state change, sensory state change is not at all open to doubt. It is constant. It is outside of the time and space for it does not change. Therefore "I" am not in time and space. I am the one who observes the world of time and space and changing states. I do not have the body that I had when I was 9 months old. I do not have the body that I had when I was 5 years old. I do not have the body that I had 10 years ago. I do not have the body that I had 5 min ago. Every moment the cells are being replaced. Therefore clearly my self does not depend upon the body, but can have many bodies. Hence I have no reason to believe that once this body is completely gone that the self will be gone too, for it is not dependent or contingent on the body.
However, suppose we were to accept for the sake of argument that the self is in the body. Then why do we not find any self when we open up the body and investigate it? The answer is very simple the self is not an object in time and space to be seen. In addition when we open up the body and investigate it, why do we not find anybodies thoughts, memories, intentions? The answer is very simple the mind is not in the body.
The body is just the most outer shell of our complex psycho-physical structure. In Vedanta philosophy there are said to be 5 levels of the body. There is the physical body, the energy body, the mental body, the intentional body and finally the conscious body. Physical body being the most dense is the outermost layer and conscious body being the least dense is the inner most layer. When things come into being they come into being in sequence from the least dense to the most dense. Thus there is no way that the physical body comes first and then consciousness develops later. It is the other way around.
It is very easy for a rational person to arrive at the conclusion that they are not their body. If I am my body, then who is the one that is aware of this body and controls the body? If the body is self-aware then why do I have only one singular consciousness of the entire body. If the body is conscious every part of my body should be conscious and each part should have its own identity and do its own thing. Clearly this is not true, my body does not decide to do anything by itself. It is I who control it. If I want body to go left, it goes left. If I want it to go right, it goes right. If I want to change the breathing pattern, I change it. In fact studies show that all so-called involuntary bodily processes can all be controlled. Therefore, it would be absurd to say I am my body or even inside the body, when it is an object that I know as separate from me and which I control. It is no more "me" than the clothes I put on and change everyday.
I am not a body. I am a conscious being. If one says who they are they say "I" and what does the I look like? Ever seen an "I" What shape does it have, what form, what colour, what taste, what touch and what does it sound like? What place does it reside in? None, because it is not something that is sensory or something that is in time and space. Verily, the fact that there is awareness of time and space is only possible because I the conscious being exist. These are all known to exist and are dependent on consciousness. You take consciousness out of the equation and they disappear into nothingness.
I am that is why there is a world at all. If I am not, then there is no world. Can you prove anything exists if consciousness ceases to exist?
Last edited:
Eihab
Journalist
Surya Deva, thank you.
That's exactly what I'm looking for, but no one could answer me, maybe because of may bad English.
Thanks again. :yes:
kaisersose
Active Member
Sorry for the delay.
Lokayatas believed in Anumana (infererence too) as evidences by Panduranga, Manibhadra, et al. Empirical as they were, they did not use inference as in inferring a creator, a soul, reincarnation, etc. Both Perception and Inference were strictly scoped to this world. A Lokayata would be perfectly happy to explore a possible cure for cancer, but would not waste time over researching the existence of an ocean of milk.
1) Please show me the statement, where I said they depend on Sabda (testimony) alone for knowledge? I said their positon is Sabda is the only source for the paranormal as that cannnot be determined through any other means. Else, they would not require Sabda at all. This makes me curious. When Nyaya and Sankhya supported Sabda as a Pramana, what do you think that meant? Please explain your version, as you disagree with mine.
2) What was intent of all this research by Sankhya, etc? How were they any different from their peers? They held the *exact* same ideas as everyone else of that time. Man was in bondage, it was impossible for him to be happy as long as he was in bondage and so the ultimate goal was liberation. They just differed in the details. I fail to see the role of science here. Instead of focusing on all of them together, let us pick one. What is it that you find scientific about Sankhya? Please be as specific as you can, so we can examine this position in detail.
3) Inference is not necessarily scentific. The boogeyman was inferred by sounds in darkness. While perception and inference both were considered valid sources of knowledge, it was also recognized by scholars that incorrect knowledge could be perceived or inferred and considerable effort went into filtering knoweldge. Obviously, there was no universal methodology here or we would not have had multiple battling doctrines. Lokayata took the most stable position by keeping inferences to the minimum.
Not correct. Sankhya, Yoga and Nyaya all recognize Sabda as a valid Pramana. Why are you leaving that out? Vaiseshika was merged into Nyaya. So let us keep it simple. Nyaya, Sankhya and Yoga - all accepted the Veda as a valid source of knowledge. This is the reason why they belong to the set of Astika Darshanas. They did accept Pratyaksha, Anumana, etc., but their dependence of Sabda and their inferences on unproven paranormal entities, undermines any scientific value they ma yhave had. Again, if these inferences were sound, we would not be having multiple conflicting doctrines.
Thank you for the detail on Sankhya. All that was well and good, but what has this got to do with their primary goal of finding liberation for the man/soul in bondage? If they were all scientific and valid - according to you - then why do we have Sankhya and Vaiseshika, both saying different things and also disagreeing with each other? To me, it obviously means, their inferences were unsound - the kind that was rightfully criticized by Lokayata, but I would like to hear your view on this difference. And finally, why did they have to use Sabda as a valid source? The Lokayatika were clear on this that they would not even use the words of a previous Lokayata celebrity as testimony (See Jayarasi Bhatta).
I did look back, but am not finding this. Can you please provide the post #? It is perfectly possible for some scientific facts to have been unravelled 3000 years ago. After all, the Great Pyramid was built in 2900 BC. If man could do that back then, they were capable of other things too - except this has nothing to do with religion at all, as far as I can see.
I am absolutely fine with that. The only concern was this is a DIR forum and the moderators may disagree.
Not quite. Lokayatas were realists. They refused to buy into all the nonsense that was passed off as religion. They believed in what could be perceived and what made sense within the frame of what was preceived. Hence, it followed they refused to perform Yajnas and waste time on useless speculations. Instead, they took the position that people should work towards material welfare (economics) and focus on happiness during this life and not wait to be happy after death (the position of all religions beliefs).
Lokayatas believed in Anumana (infererence too) as evidences by Panduranga, Manibhadra, et al. Empirical as they were, they did not use inference as in inferring a creator, a soul, reincarnation, etc. Both Perception and Inference were strictly scoped to this world. A Lokayata would be perfectly happy to explore a possible cure for cancer, but would not waste time over researching the existence of an ocean of milk.
My position is the exact opposite. A realist Lokayata view is possible and held by very few people. The "ordinary man" needs to believe in a power higher than him as can be seen all around us and is therefore incapable of being a Lokayata. For example, how many Lokayatas do we have on this forum?
Chanakya and several others called the Lokayatikas astute logicians. There is absolutely no reason why a Lokayatika would oppose science. On the contrary, of all the darshanas, it is the Lokayata Darshana that would be most supportive of science - as long as it was not about investigating mermaids and after-lifes. When we talk about science, let us keep science as focused on the normal and science as focused on the paranormal separate. Compare this with other religious beliefs, where adherents dislike science and curse scientists for advancing into areas that threaten their pet, age-old beliefs. The earth turned out to be round, Rahu and Ketu were not demons, Indian civilization is not billions of years old. It threatens the very fabric of religion - if all of this has turned out to be false, what is the credibility of everything else that came from the same source? For the faithful, there is a lot to lose and hence more incentive to suppress science. The Lokayatika goes by perception. I don't believe in an afterlife because I have no evidence. Show me evidence and I will believe it. It cannot get any simpler.
1) Please show me the statement, where I said they depend on Sabda (testimony) alone for knowledge? I said their positon is Sabda is the only source for the paranormal as that cannnot be determined through any other means. Else, they would not require Sabda at all. This makes me curious. When Nyaya and Sankhya supported Sabda as a Pramana, what do you think that meant? Please explain your version, as you disagree with mine.
2) What was intent of all this research by Sankhya, etc? How were they any different from their peers? They held the *exact* same ideas as everyone else of that time. Man was in bondage, it was impossible for him to be happy as long as he was in bondage and so the ultimate goal was liberation. They just differed in the details. I fail to see the role of science here. Instead of focusing on all of them together, let us pick one. What is it that you find scientific about Sankhya? Please be as specific as you can, so we can examine this position in detail.
3) Inference is not necessarily scentific. The boogeyman was inferred by sounds in darkness. While perception and inference both were considered valid sources of knowledge, it was also recognized by scholars that incorrect knowledge could be perceived or inferred and considerable effort went into filtering knoweldge. Obviously, there was no universal methodology here or we would not have had multiple battling doctrines. Lokayata took the most stable position by keeping inferences to the minimum.
Not correct. Sankhya, Yoga and Nyaya all recognize Sabda as a valid Pramana. Why are you leaving that out? Vaiseshika was merged into Nyaya. So let us keep it simple. Nyaya, Sankhya and Yoga - all accepted the Veda as a valid source of knowledge. This is the reason why they belong to the set of Astika Darshanas. They did accept Pratyaksha, Anumana, etc., but their dependence of Sabda and their inferences on unproven paranormal entities, undermines any scientific value they ma yhave had. Again, if these inferences were sound, we would not be having multiple conflicting doctrines.
Thank you for the detail on Sankhya. All that was well and good, but what has this got to do with their primary goal of finding liberation for the man/soul in bondage? If they were all scientific and valid - according to you - then why do we have Sankhya and Vaiseshika, both saying different things and also disagreeing with each other? To me, it obviously means, their inferences were unsound - the kind that was rightfully criticized by Lokayata, but I would like to hear your view on this difference. And finally, why did they have to use Sabda as a valid source? The Lokayatika were clear on this that they would not even use the words of a previous Lokayata celebrity as testimony (See Jayarasi Bhatta).
I did look back, but am not finding this. Can you please provide the post #? It is perfectly possible for some scientific facts to have been unravelled 3000 years ago. After all, the Great Pyramid was built in 2900 BC. If man could do that back then, they were capable of other things too - except this has nothing to do with religion at all, as far as I can see.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
I think many of your arguments are strawmans. Allow me to illustrate:
Nyaya-Vaiseshiks, Yoga and Samkhya are also not about investigating mermaids and afterlife. They are about investigating the world as it appears to perception, and then from that drawing inferences using the classical effect to cause and cause to effect logic that is peculiar of Hindu philosophy.
None of the claims you are making were made of Rahu, Ketu are demons, Indian civilisations were made by Nyaya-Vaiseshika, Samhya-Yoga. They were made by Puranic Hindus, and Puranic Hinduism is not Hindu philosophy.
You should not put metaphysics in the same category as superstition and fantasy. It is disrespectful to metaphysical philosophers and their actual works(vast majority of philosophers in history have been metaphysicians, including Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Bergon etc) Like all philosophy they are using formal logical arguments to make their cases. To argue that to use philosophy to make a case for the soul and reincarnation is not philosophy is nothing more than narrow minded dogma.
Philosophy does not contain any preconditions within it that formal reasoning can only be used for x, but not for y. You can use formal reasoning to establish any conclusion, as long as your argument obeys formal rules of logic. If the conclusion is demonstrated by your premises it is valid.
Likewise, empirical science does not have to be limited to the physical. You can use the scientific method to study anything that is empirical and apparent to us. The scientfic method can be used to study meditation for example, and in fact such studies have been done. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods we have a huge body of scientific evidence for meditation. Researchers have also also studied rare phenomenon like past life memories using investigate methods in science, OBES, matter-mind interactions. Again there is no precondition in empirical science that you must study x, but not y. Anything that is empirical is open to scientific study.
The inference that there is a boogeyman by sound in the darkness is not entailed by sound in the dark, because first of all the boogeyman is a premise which itself is in need of proof(like the sky flower) and there is no relationship of invariable concomitance between sound in the dark and boogeyman. The only conclusion one can infer from actual sound in the dark using causal logic that there is cause in the dark that is causing the sound that is not visible. Various possibilities are possible it is an object falling, there is animal or another human being inside the room etc. In order to resolve this doubt we must examine the quality of the sound and match it the sound qualities that it matches. If the sound is barking then one can infer there is a dog present in the dark, or a human imitating a dog, or a recording of a dog.
Inference was very important to Hindu philosophers(especially Nyaya) so they studied the science of formal reasoning very precisely and what made an argument valid or invalid. The conclusion has to be entailed by the premises, if it is not, the argument is invalid. So very precise attention was paid to proving ones doctrine using very precise arguments and formal reasoning. This is the difference between philosophy and faith. None of the arguments presented in Hindu philosophy are based on faith.
I am not sure where you are getting this from. They said that things that cannot be known by perception and inference, can be known from testimony. This does not mean that they said soul, reincarnation, karma etc are proven by testimony, in fact on the contrary, they proved these things through inference using observable evidence. What they mean by testimony is things that cannot be known by either means, such as the experience of infinite bliss and love, gods. These things can only be known through supersensuous experience(anubhava) and here the testimony of the Vedas is offered.
As for the proof of mind, soul, karma, reincarnation, other planes of reality, god. For this the Nyaya-Vaiseshika, Samkhya gave logical proofs. The Nyaya-Vaiseshika for example give very extensive arguments to explain why the body is not the mind, why a creator is required to explain the act of creation(Hindu versions of the cosmological argument). The Samkhya gave their proofs of the existent effect in order to prove that matter originally is only potential and all matter is reducible to the root prakriti. The only thing that is not reducible is the observer itself and they explain this by showing a property dualism between the two by citing the properties of both entities and giving logical arguments to prove the existence of the observers and root matter(Hindu version of mind-body dualism)
Nyaya and Vaiseshika are realist philosophers because they believe that the universe is real and has particular entities which are not reducible any further. It consists of the 5 elements, mind, space and time and consciousness.(later was added the category of non-existence) In these 9 primary and unqiue substances abide unique logical qualities which distinguish them from one another, for example the distinct property of mind is cognition, as opposed to the distinct property of earth which is weight and extension. The distinct property of consciousness is pain, pleasure, ignorance, knowledge and desire, as opposed to the property of body which is inert(jada)
Lokyata were not realists because all they admitted to exist was matter and did not believe in any particular entities, everything other than matter was unreal(they admitted only 4 elements, and not time, space, mind, consciousness) They are monists in that all that exists is matter and nothing els. The proof of anything other than matter existing was established through inference, which lokayata did not accept. That is because senses only show matter and nothing else. If you accept just the senses as your means of knowledge then you must conclude all is matter. However, it is impossible to deny that we have means of knowledge other than our senses. They tell us divergent conclusions to what our senses tell us.
The conclusion that consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body is not shown by the senes. The senses appear to show that bodies that were conscious are no longer conscious. Logic shows however that consciousness and body are not reducible to one another. If one ceases to exist the others non-existence is not entailed. This is because body continues to exist after death even without consciousness, thus showing that one can exist without the other, hence there is no relationship of pervasion. If the body is the substance that leads to consciousness than the body must contain consciousness within it, but this is not true for the body can exist without consciousness. It is also inferred that perception only ever takes place if three conditions are present: objects, instruments of objects and observer. The body and senses maybe working, but if the mind is not present, no perception ever takes place. If it only when the mind is present that perception becomes determinate. So what is this entity called mind which can be present or not present, and where does it go when it is not present? It is certainly not in the body otherwise we would be able to see it all the time. Logic is telling us here and mind can disassociate from body and senses, thus proving it is a distinct and particular entity separate from the body. These are the formal arguments Nyaya give for the existence of the soul as separate from the body. Now where in this line of reasoning is a single appeal made to testimony?
Samkhya go further than Nyaya because Nyaya deals with only particulars, but Samkhya is more interested the cosmology of how particulars arise through reducing the Nyaya categories even further into just two irreducible categories of observers and objects in to prove purusha and prakriti. Again they do this using formal logical arguments and not a line from testimony is cited.
I think many of your arguments are strawmans. Allow me to illustrate:
Nyaya-Vaiseshiks, Yoga and Samkhya are also not about investigating mermaids and afterlife. They are about investigating the world as it appears to perception, and then from that drawing inferences using the classical effect to cause and cause to effect logic that is peculiar of Hindu philosophy.
None of the claims you are making were made of Rahu, Ketu are demons, Indian civilisations were made by Nyaya-Vaiseshika, Samhya-Yoga. They were made by Puranic Hindus, and Puranic Hinduism is not Hindu philosophy.
You should not put metaphysics in the same category as superstition and fantasy. It is disrespectful to metaphysical philosophers and their actual works(vast majority of philosophers in history have been metaphysicians, including Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Bergon etc) Like all philosophy they are using formal logical arguments to make their cases. To argue that to use philosophy to make a case for the soul and reincarnation is not philosophy is nothing more than narrow minded dogma.
Philosophy does not contain any preconditions within it that formal reasoning can only be used for x, but not for y. You can use formal reasoning to establish any conclusion, as long as your argument obeys formal rules of logic. If the conclusion is demonstrated by your premises it is valid.
Likewise, empirical science does not have to be limited to the physical. You can use the scientific method to study anything that is empirical and apparent to us. The scientfic method can be used to study meditation for example, and in fact such studies have been done. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods we have a huge body of scientific evidence for meditation. Researchers have also also studied rare phenomenon like past life memories using investigate methods in science, OBES, matter-mind interactions. Again there is no precondition in empirical science that you must study x, but not y. Anything that is empirical is open to scientific study.
The inference that there is a boogeyman by sound in the darkness is not entailed by sound in the dark, because first of all the boogeyman is a premise which itself is in need of proof(like the sky flower) and there is no relationship of invariable concomitance between sound in the dark and boogeyman. The only conclusion one can infer from actual sound in the dark using causal logic that there is cause in the dark that is causing the sound that is not visible. Various possibilities are possible it is an object falling, there is animal or another human being inside the room etc. In order to resolve this doubt we must examine the quality of the sound and match it the sound qualities that it matches. If the sound is barking then one can infer there is a dog present in the dark, or a human imitating a dog, or a recording of a dog.
Inference was very important to Hindu philosophers(especially Nyaya) so they studied the science of formal reasoning very precisely and what made an argument valid or invalid. The conclusion has to be entailed by the premises, if it is not, the argument is invalid. So very precise attention was paid to proving ones doctrine using very precise arguments and formal reasoning. This is the difference between philosophy and faith. None of the arguments presented in Hindu philosophy are based on faith.
I am not sure where you are getting this from. They said that things that cannot be known by perception and inference, can be known from testimony. This does not mean that they said soul, reincarnation, karma etc are proven by testimony, in fact on the contrary, they proved these things through inference using observable evidence. What they mean by testimony is things that cannot be known by either means, such as the experience of infinite bliss and love, gods. These things can only be known through supersensuous experience(anubhava) and here the testimony of the Vedas is offered.
As for the proof of mind, soul, karma, reincarnation, other planes of reality, god. For this the Nyaya-Vaiseshika, Samkhya gave logical proofs. The Nyaya-Vaiseshika for example give very extensive arguments to explain why the body is not the mind, why a creator is required to explain the act of creation(Hindu versions of the cosmological argument). The Samkhya gave their proofs of the existent effect in order to prove that matter originally is only potential and all matter is reducible to the root prakriti. The only thing that is not reducible is the observer itself and they explain this by showing a property dualism between the two by citing the properties of both entities and giving logical arguments to prove the existence of the observers and root matter(Hindu version of mind-body dualism)
Nyaya and Vaiseshika are realist philosophers because they believe that the universe is real and has particular entities which are not reducible any further. It consists of the 5 elements, mind, space and time and consciousness.(later was added the category of non-existence) In these 9 primary and unqiue substances abide unique logical qualities which distinguish them from one another, for example the distinct property of mind is cognition, as opposed to the distinct property of earth which is weight and extension. The distinct property of consciousness is pain, pleasure, ignorance, knowledge and desire, as opposed to the property of body which is inert(jada)
Lokyata were not realists because all they admitted to exist was matter and did not believe in any particular entities, everything other than matter was unreal(they admitted only 4 elements, and not time, space, mind, consciousness) They are monists in that all that exists is matter and nothing els. The proof of anything other than matter existing was established through inference, which lokayata did not accept. That is because senses only show matter and nothing else. If you accept just the senses as your means of knowledge then you must conclude all is matter. However, it is impossible to deny that we have means of knowledge other than our senses. They tell us divergent conclusions to what our senses tell us.
The conclusion that consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body is not shown by the senes. The senses appear to show that bodies that were conscious are no longer conscious. Logic shows however that consciousness and body are not reducible to one another. If one ceases to exist the others non-existence is not entailed. This is because body continues to exist after death even without consciousness, thus showing that one can exist without the other, hence there is no relationship of pervasion. If the body is the substance that leads to consciousness than the body must contain consciousness within it, but this is not true for the body can exist without consciousness. It is also inferred that perception only ever takes place if three conditions are present: objects, instruments of objects and observer. The body and senses maybe working, but if the mind is not present, no perception ever takes place. If it only when the mind is present that perception becomes determinate. So what is this entity called mind which can be present or not present, and where does it go when it is not present? It is certainly not in the body otherwise we would be able to see it all the time. Logic is telling us here and mind can disassociate from body and senses, thus proving it is a distinct and particular entity separate from the body. These are the formal arguments Nyaya give for the existence of the soul as separate from the body. Now where in this line of reasoning is a single appeal made to testimony?
Samkhya go further than Nyaya because Nyaya deals with only particulars, but Samkhya is more interested the cosmology of how particulars arise through reducing the Nyaya categories even further into just two irreducible categories of observers and objects in to prove purusha and prakriti. Again they do this using formal logical arguments and not a line from testimony is cited.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
This was the goal of most Indian philosophy(including nastika philosophy) It is found not just in philosophical texts, but non-philosophical texts. It is a pecularity of the Indian tradition to begin something by saying, "this will end suffering" The real goal of Samkhya was to discriminate between matter and consciousness and understand their interaction. The real goal of Nyaya was to understand how to form valid arguments and study the structure of reasoning. The real goal of Vaiseshika was to enumerate all beings that exist and study their logical properties. The real goal of Yoga was to study the structure of mind though meditation(chit vritti nirodha or otherwise gradual analysis of the mind through experience) So as you can see there is no real religious goal here, the goal is actually scientific.
Because each one took a different view of reality. The Nyaya-Vaiseshika studied the empirical ONLY and never said anything that was not derivable from the empirical. They were realists and only interested in what actually existed and classifying that accordingly. Anything unseen even something as simple as magnetism was called adrishya. The Samkhya studied the metaphysical - the unseen world that is not empirical. They used a special kind of reasoning known as analogical reasoning. The Yoga studied the psychological, but used the method of direct witnessing of the mind and no reasoning. The Vedanta are the only school that relies on Vedic testimony as their starting premise, but they attempt to justify the Vedic testimony in the Upanishads by giving direct proofs for the the doctrines of atman, brahman and maya. Each point in this school is just as cogently demonstrated as other astika schools.
The best way to describe the seeming differences is as follows
Vaiseshika are interested in the world of objects only.
The Samkhya are interested in the interaction between the object and the observer
The Yoga are interested in observing that interaction by observing what the mind does through controlled observation
The Vedanta are interested in what is beyond the interaction of the object and observer, the non-dual reality.
Lokayata is the only philosophy that isn't really a philosophy. It is interested in only what we can see(the ontic world) and pays no attention to the ontological. The sensory world is not as the world really is. To accept the sensory world as ultimate and final is naive realism. The fact is what we know about the world today from modern science is counter-intuitive to the sensory world and thus counter-intuitive to the Lokayata view.
They believe that Atman and Brahman cannot be arrived by perception or inference but only through mystical experience. Adisankara rejected this, and showed that inference can be used to go all the way up to Atman and Brahman. He demonstrated this by offering a rational exigesis on the Upanishads by explaining them rationally.
#27 and 28
Last edited: