Is advaita vedanta based on Identity crisis

[atanu]

I agree with you that these aren't Hindu sentiments. Feel free to start a new thread in comparative or anywhere else you deem suitable. I'll gladly join you over there. The Hindu DIR has a long history of non Hindus discussing non Hindu topics in it. It should be a source of pride as to how open we are.

Thank you Vinayaka. Let me mention 2 points. First, it is not just mere sentiment. Second, i feel that dragging an issue from thread to thread is a problem.

Actually my good friend Apo opined in another thread that advaita led to circularity. I had in that thread asked him as to whose observation that was. He did not answer it there but raised the same question in this thread. I re-asked him as to who? He did not answer but provided some opinion, which I felt was not in conformity with core tenets of Sanatana dharma.

Its OK now. I have forgotten the whole thing and re-asked him in the original thread.

Although I stand by my opinion that views of Aup and Apo are not in conformity with core sanatana dharma tenets, let time clarify that to both of them. My respect for both have not diminished.

 

[atanu]

Carvaka is not of the astika; it is strictly a na-astika school of thought, just as how both Buddhism and Jainism are na-astika. In other words: it is merely an Indian philosophical school of the heterodox branch - it is not to be misappropriated into the Hindu conglomeration. For Carvaka to be astika, it must no longer hold the Vedas in skepticism, as it has always done.

The only way Carvaka can be "Hindu", is through the involvement of semantical digressions:

Anyone that lives beyond the river Sindhu, is a Hindu. Thus [hypothetically], the Carvakists, let's say, in Madhya Pradesh, are Hindus.​

Yes. This distinction must be made. I know Aup is author (or may be co-author) of a Wiki page that intends to rewrite history. As per Aup, Atheistic advaita is Hindu Dharma. He plays around like many atheists of India that atheism and naastika are two different things. And based on this they define Sankhya and Mimansa as atheistic (although these two are clearly aastika darsanas).

This argument is absolutely flawed since, to begin with, Veda contains verses that say that Veda is brought down to sages by Dhatar. So any darsana that relies on Veda is not atheistic.

Further, Aup takes the name of Shankara as his Guru. It is a mischievous thing, in my opinion. Shankara established so many places of worship and so much of bhakti literature. How can a real disciple of Shankara deny that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And Aup asserts that birth etc. was mere chance? Which Hindu spiritual teaching is that?

It is my own view (mata). Do you have any problem with that? Most people here are theists, so you do not want me to participate in discussions. I do not believe in the theories that you offer without an iota of evidence. At least I am not being dishonest. What is a birth if not a chance? Your father released more than one billion sperms (check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculate, at the age of 24, 1 ml of semen has about 300 million sperms, and I have taken the ejaculation at a minimum of one tea spoon, i.e., 5 ml), each one of them was able to produce a person like you and one succeeded. Now, never say that birth is not a chance.

 

[atanu]

---

Hopefully, we can reach a common understanding and expand on addressing misunderstandings that may have been developed from statements that exclaimed that both the Buddha and Krishna did not address poverty,

/samāpta-m/

I must agree that you present a very balanced view. I have noted my reservations in a previous post. Everything should be OK on its own. It already is.

 

[atanu]

It is my own view (mata). Do you have any problem with that? Most people here are theists, so you do not want me to participate in discussions. I do not believe in the theories that you offer without an iota of evidence. At least I am not being dishonest. What is a birth if not a chance? Your father released more than one billion sperms, each one of them was able to produce a person like you and one succeeded. Now, never say that birth is not a chance.

You are senior to me and I bow to you as per our culture. Your views are welcome.

Yet, it is my view that your variety of advaita is not Hindu Dharma. It definitely is a valid philosophical stream of the region but kindly do not forcibly claim that it is a school of Hindu dharma.

I have already noted that Shankara never taught atheism. He established many places of worship and he authored many devotional texts. Further, anyone who has experienced the non-dual within one's own awareness cannot but be full of love, as a devotee of the non-dual. It is difficult as a concept and it cannot be expressed. At mere touch of the non-dual, you would surmise that there was no other reason but love for the existence of samsara. Else, it does not make any sense.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In other words: it is merely an Indian philosophical school of the heterodox branch - it is not to be misappropriated into the Hindu conglomeration.

MaitraVarunih, I would like you to go through the linked article if you have not read it and then comment on Charvak (though I am not a materialist like charvakists; I have never 'rinam kritva ghritam pibet'). I would like other members also to read the article in the link. You are making Hinduism a 'koopa-manduka', which it is definitely not.

THE SPEAKING TREEThe Atheistic Roots of Hindu Philosophy - Times Of India

 

[Poeticus]

MaitraVarunih, I would like you to go through the linked article if you have not read it and then comment on Charvak (though I am not a materialist like charvak; I have never 'rinam kritva ghritam pibet'). I would like other members also to read the article in the link. You are making Hinduism a 'koopa-manduka', which it is definitely not.

THE SPEAKING TREEThe Atheistic Roots of Hindu Philosophy - Times Of India

For Carvaka to be Hindu, in the theological sense and not in the sense of geo-political, semantical digression, it must no longer hold the Vedas in skepticism, as it has always done. For Carvaka to be Hindu, it must no longer be identified as a school of na-astika origin. If Carvaka is Hindu, then by that reasoning, both Jainism and Buddhism would be Hindu, even though that is not the case, theologically speaking. For anything to be Hindu, it must be categorized as astika if and only if it does not hold the Vedas in skepticism. Otherwise, it can only be misappropriation. In other words, Carvaka is not Hindu philosophy - it is merely an Indian philosophical school of the heterodox branch of na-astika origin. However, it is an interesting and sophisticated philosophy, nonetheless - and for it to have been in existence in ancient times shows the inherent secular nature of Indian philosophy, whether it be of astika or na-astika orientation, something which Indians in the political or religious fields can be proud of as compared to the non-secular history of Western religio-politics in both ancient and medieval times.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I know Aup is author (or may be co-author) of a Wiki page that intends to rewrite history. As per Aup, Atheistic advaita is Hindu Dharma. He plays around like many atheists of India that atheism and naastika are two different things. And based on this they define Sankhya and Mimansa as atheistic (although these two are clearly aastika darsanas).

This argument is absolutely flawed since, to begin with, Veda contains verses that say that Veda is brought down to sages by Dhatar. So any darsana that relies on Veda is not atheistic.

Further, Aup takes the name of Shankara as his Guru. It is a mischievous thing, in my opinion. Shankara established so many places of worship and so much of bhakti literature. How can a real disciple of Shankara deny that?

I will answer your three points:
1. I am not an author or a co-author of any Wikipage. I only requested an author who had written a page on my grandfather to correct the spelling of his name. Though his name was Vishweshwar Nath Reu, he always wrote it as Bishweshwar Nath Reu. The Information can be checked at Wikipedia. He was a Sanskritist, Historian, and Archaeologist.
2. RigVeda itself contains hymn which is atheistic. I point to Nasadiya Sukta which says (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm):

6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

3. No, I do not deny that. Sankara was an atheist at the level of 'Paramarthika Satya', and a theist at the level of 'Vyavaharika Satya'. Kindly explain the meaning of 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'. Also kindly explain the meaning of all 'advaitic' mahavakyas: Eko Sad Dwiteeyo Nasti, Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma, Soham, Aham Brahmasmi, Ayamatma Brahman, Tat Twam Asi, Brahma Veda Brahmaiva Bhavati, etc. Is an 'advaitist' the God? I certainly do not agree to that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For Carvaka to be Hindu, ..

Dear Sir/Madam, I have already said that I am not a Charvakist. Did you have a look at the article for which I posted the link? It is a short article and discusses what is theistic in Hindu philosophy and what is atheistic. That the three nastika darshanas are always counted with the six astika (read the article, you might want to change your views), shows that they also (at least at one time) part of Hinduism. If the followers later decided to branch out, it is not the fault of Mahavira or Buddha. They both stressed on 'dharma' and used 'OM' in their symbols and chants.

 

[atanu]

==
2. RigVeda itself contains hymn which is atheistic. I point to Nasadiya Sukta which says (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm):

--.

Kindly read Nasadiya Sukta again, especially the last 2 lines.

 

[DanielR]

Is Aupmanyav our former member 'SuryaDeva', I wondered what happened to him, I remember he had a similar view that's why I'm asking (not trying to be offensive or anything)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kindly read Nasadiya Sukta again, especially the last 2 lines.

"he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not." If he does not know, even then you think he is a God. And even if he is a God, the previous verse says that 'The Gods are later than this world's production.'

See, what Swami Chidananda says:

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is Aupmanyav our former member 'SuryaDeva', I wondered what happened to him, I remember he had a similar view that's why I'm asking (not trying to be offensive or anything)

Daniel, I am 'aupmanyav' in all forums that I frequent and never have been anyone else anywhere. Those include IndiaMike, FRDB, SecularCafe, AtheistForums, and Interfaith. I also answer questions at AllExperts on Hinduism. I have been a member at Religious Forums since 2007, though for a long time I was not visiting it.

 

[Poeticus]

Dear Sir/Madam, I have already said that I am not a Charvakist. Did you have a look at the article for which I posted the link? It is a short article and discusses what is theistic in Hindu philosophy and what is atheistic. That the three nastika darshanas are always counted with the six astika (read the article, you might want to change your views), shows that they also (at least at one time) part of Hinduism. If the followers later decided to branch out, it is not the fault of Mahavira or Buddha. They both stressed on 'dharma' and used 'OM' in their symbols and chants.

I believe that we both are misunderstanding each other. I shall try to be succinct as possible, so as to not cause confusion:

To be categorized as Hindu, as per the Law of Shruti, it must be of the astika, and it must not hold the Veda-s in skepticism. Since it is not of the astika, and since it does hold the Veda-s in skepticism, it is not Hindu. However, Carvaka is an ancient Indian philosophical school, nonetheless.

 

[DanielR]

Daniel, I am 'aupmanyav' in all forums that I frequent and never have been anyone else anywhere. Those include IndiaMike, FRDB, SecularCafe, AtheistForums, and Interfaith. I also answer questions at AllExperts on Hinduism. I have been a member at Religious Forums since 2007, though for a long time I was not visiting it.

thanks for clarifying, I was just being curious :flirt:

 

[atanu]

Is Aupmanyav our former member 'SuryaDeva', I wondered what happened to him, I remember he had a similar view that's why I'm asking (not trying to be offensive or anything)

What about kaisersose -- or similar?

 

[atanu]

"he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not." If he does not know, even then you think he is a God. And even if he is a God, the previous verse says that 'The Gods are later than this world's production.'

See, what Swami Chidananda says:

No. The point is that a Seer is upheld -- all other things may or may not be true.

Again and again you try to obfuscate the real points.

1. Shankara was a theistic teacher.
2. Lokyata or charvaka are not Hindu dharma

 

[Aupmanyav]

To be categorized as Hindu, as per the Law of Shruti, it must be of the astika, and it must not hold the Veda-s in skepticism. Since it is not of the astika, and since it does hold the Veda-s in skepticism, it is not Hindu. However, Carvaka is an ancient Indian philosophical school, nonetheless.

Is Hinduism Shruti only? Then why we are worshiping Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, and Kartikeya, Hanumana, etc. along with hundreds of local Gods and Goddesses who are not mentioned in the Vedas? Where is the worship of Indra, Agni, Soma, Usha, Ashwinis, Maruts, Apam Napat, Dyava-Prithvi, Varuna, Parjanya, Pusan, Apas. Do we have temples of these Vedic Gods?

Hinduism is like Ganga-Yamuna, a confluence of two rivers. Indigenous and Vedic. It is not correct to make it solely Vedic. Why do you want to make Hinduism as you understand it. To be continued ..

 

[Aupmanyav]

To be categorized as Hindu, as per the Law of Shruti, it must be of the astika, and it must not hold the Veda-s in skepticism. Since it is not of the astika, and since it does hold the Veda-s in skepticism, it is not Hindu.

I hold Vedas in the greatest respect. They are the history of my people. And the Nasadiya sukta is simply 'sublime'. In my view it is the most advanced and scientific of all Vedic richas. Not even a word of it has been contradicted by 21st Century science, that it all started with a void (All that existed then was void and form less .. THEN was not non-existent nor existent .. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness .. this All was indiscriminated chaos .. by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit .. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent). Take away all the 1027 richas of RigVeda and just give me the Nasadiya Sukta, I would be satisfied. Thanks to that great visionary Prajapati Parameshthin (according to Anukramanis). Not a word is false even after 4,000 years (In my humble view, RigVeda must have been codified before the disappearance of River Saraswati around 1,900 BC).

Who is an 'astika'? If you go through the article that I gave the link for, 'astika' was one who accepted the Vedas. It did not have anything to do with existence or non-existence of God. I have already said that I greatly respect the Vedas. My forebear was a writer of a richa of RigVeda. One of my clansmen, Aupamanyava, was a Vedic commentator in around 1000 BC. Even my grandfather wrote (and were published) three books on RigVeda. How can I deny my recorded heritage? To be continued ..

(If you want a short statement, all those people who want to deny my Hinduism are not being fair to me, and I would not acquiesce to people who want to dictate their Hinduism to me as I have my own views about it)

 

[Poeticus]

Is Hinduism Shruti only? Then why we are worshiping Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, and Kartikeya, Hanumana, etc. along with hundreds of local Gods and Goddesses who are not mentioned in the Vedas? Where is the worship of Indra, Agni, Soma, Usha, Ashwinis, Maruts, Apam Napat, Dyava-Prithvi, Varuna, Parjanya, Pusan, Apas. Do we have temples of these Vedic Gods?

Hinduism is like Ganga-Yamuna, a confluence of two rivers. Indigenous and Vedic. It is not correct to make it solely Vedic. Why do you want to make Hinduism as you understand it. To be continued ..

That's an odd digression, because Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Ganesha, Kartikeya, and Hanuman did not view the Veda-s in skepticism, which would, in return, make them astika, as per the Law of Shruti. And, regarding the "Vedic" deities you mentioned...they do not have temples due to the mere fact that they are "appeased" or "summoned" through Yagyas. They aren't really supposed to have temples.

Why do you want to make Hinduism as you understand it.

Again, you have me misunderstood. For something to be astika, it must hold the Vedas as either infallible or in high authority...never in skepticism. Since Carvaka holds the Vedas in skepticism, it would make it na-astika: in other words, Carvaka is not Hindu because it is not astika.