is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ?

[Aupmanyav]

Upamanyu was quite adamant about conducting as many fire-sacrifices as possible -

I think my supposed ancestor Upamanyu was an intelligent person. Looking at the progress of science and availability of new knowledge, he might have modified his views as my grandfather did. The third tranche of Vishweshwara Smriti (which was BTW not allowed in the forum) would have shown the acceptance by him of fossils dates and human evolution from chimps to humans. Is it not irrefutable? I do not think Hindus are supposed to be 'koopa-mandukas' (frogs of a well).

 

[Poeticus]

Looking at the progress of science and availability of new knowledge, he might have modified his views as my grandfather did...I do not think Hindus are supposed to be 'koopa-mandukas' (frogs of a well).

No one here is trying to refute science,
nor hinder the progress of it nor hinder the "availability
of new knowledge". Refinement is the signature of
progression, of change. However, that is not what
this conversation is about. You repeatedly exclaim
your [albeit, speculative] "heritage" as an identifier of
your 'Hinduness' - something because of which you
cannot make your Hindu identification "subversive";
yet, it's completely ironic that you use it as a credential
of some sort; what Upamanyav would have held steadfast
to is the whole notion of non-authored
revelation - aka: the Shri Veda-s. If he was alive,
I wouldn't be surprised if he worked
in a stem-cell research lab, but he'd also believe in the
divine origin of the Shri Veda-s, something
which you do not...correct?​

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think you have a point here. But I am not a 'nastika'. I accept the existence of Brahman. Now you may call it as Sri Krishna, others may know it as 'Shiva', or take Mother Durga to be the source of all what exists. I have no problem with that. There is a difference of meaning in the words 'nastika' (nothing exists - ninilist) and 'atheist' (nothing described as God exists). An 'atheist' can also be an 'astika' in some sense.

Speculative, sure. Some 3,000 years and some 120 generations, and nothing to support it other than my 'gotra' which we Hindus, sort of, cling to, come what may. Even some Muslims (converted) in India have their 'gotras'.

 

[Kalidas]

I think you have a point here. But I am not a 'nastika'. I accept the existence of Brahman. Now you may call it as Sri Krishna, others may know it as 'Shiva', or take Mother Durga to be the source of all what exists. I have no problem with that. There is a difference of meaning in the words 'nastika' (nothing exists - ninilist) and 'atheist' (nothing described as God exists). An 'atheist' can also be an 'astika' in some sense.

Speculative, sure. Some 3,000 years and some 120 generations, and nothing to support it other than my 'gotra' which we Hindus, sort of, cling to, come what may. Even some Muslims (converted) in India have their 'gotras'.

So let me get this straight. You believe in the general idea of Brahman(the all encompassing force that is responsible for creation) but not "God" ? Or not an intellegent God... just trying to wrap my head around this. It is interesting though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I believe in existence of one entity which constitutes all formed/observed/unobserved entities and term it as Brahman. We are also constituted by Brahman and the way we are constituted makes us sentient, but the way a rock is constituted, does not make it sentient, though Brahman underlies everything. I do not believe in a creator (sustainer/destroyer) God or Goddess, who is involved with the world, and who should be worshiped. The premise is so simple. I do not know why people have any problem with it? Nirakara, nirguna, nirvikara, nitya, akshaya; what I am following is perfectly OK with Hinduism, as far as I think.

 

[Kalidas]

Yes, I believe in existence of one entity which constitutes all formed/observed/unobserved entities and term it as Brahman. We are also constituted by Brahman and the way we are constituted makes us sentient, but the way a rock is constituted, does not make it sentient, though Brahman underlies everything. I do not believe in a creator (sustainer/destroyer) God or Goddess, who is involved with the world, and who should be worshiped. The premise is so simple. I do not know why people have any problem with it?

Well when you explain it, it becomes easier to understand. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

Ratikala, whatever be my views, I do not dispute any view of other Hindus (barring certain situations, which I have listed earlier also - 1. Nobody should now be designated as an avatara or Bhagawan (the only one which has to come is Kalki after 427,000 years, and 2. There should be no intrusion of other religions in Hinduism). I do not believe in cocktails. Should be on the rocks (if my simile is correct).

Aupmanyav ji says ....
''I do not dispute the veiws of other Hindus '' .....except .... and then gives conditions ....? ...? ..?

this leads us back to the age old question as to what defines a Hindu ?

but I am interested that you accept Kalki as Bhagavan , which leads me to ask which past avatars you accept to be Bhagavan ? ....

however I can agree completely that '' There should be no intrusion of other religions in Hinduism.''
allthough in the past it has happened to some degree although not nececarily by intrusion but by close proximity .

so again we return to what defines hunduism ?

to some it is a faith , to some a philosophy , to others a way of life .
and within some people their understanding of it will develop during this lifetime , which dosent mean that hinduism has changed , but that we are awakening to different aspects of that eternal truth .

 

[Aupmanyav]

Conditions, sure. At the absolute level, no conditions, no Gods, no messengers, no sons. At the pragmatic level, religions, those who established them, countries, competition, my people, their people, wolves come in many garbs, one has to be careful to save one's turf. IMHO, simple enough. Therefore, no mixing which weakens.

In the past, there were adjustments, assimilation, as agreed upon by both parties. I think, they were beneficial to the parties involved.

I accept all Gods, Goddesses, avataras of Hinduism. They are my mythology. In their stories the wisdom and culture of my people is preserved. One who says that he is a hindu and follows 'dharma' (fulfills his/her duties and engages in righteous action) is a hindu. Hinduism is everything to its people, religion, philosophies, ways of life.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji :namaste

Conditions, sure. At the absolute level, no conditions, no Gods, no messengers, no sons. At the pragmatic level, religions, those who established them, countries, competition, my people, their people, wolves come in many garbs, one has to be careful to save one's turf. IMHO, simple enough. Therefore, no mixing which weakens.

no dilution of the truth , I agree but in order not to dilute the truth one has to know what the truth is .....one cant just sit there defending ones own invention shouting '' no compomise !! no compromise !! ''

In the past, there were adjustments, assimilation, as agreed upon by both parties. I think, they were beneficial to the parties involved.

???

I accept all Gods, Goddesses, avataras of Hinduism. They are my mythology. In their stories the wisdom and culture of my people is preserved. One who says that he is a hindu and follows 'dharma' (fulfills his/her duties and engages in righteous action) is a hindu. Hinduism is everything to its people, religion, philosophies, ways of life.

Oh how I prefer the translation of Histories as opposed to Mythologies !!!

itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ, :namaste

on the subject of history I did ask you ...

''but I am interested that you accept Kalki as Bhagavan , which leads me to ask which past avatars you accept to be Bhagavan ? ....'' you say all ? but you spoke earlier as if you did not feel that all avatars are genuine ? prehaps I missunderstood you ?
how do you consider Chaitanya Mahaprabu ji ....Sri Krsna Chaitanya ?

I should have asked which do you beleive to be the last true Avatar ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

''but I am interested that you accept Kalki as Bhagavan, which leads me to ask which past avatars you accept to be Bhagavan?'' you say all? but you spoke earlier as if you did not feel that all avatars are genuine? prehaps I missunderstood you? how do you consider Chaitanya Mahaprabu ji .. Sri Krsna Chaitanya?

I should have asked which do you believe to be the last true Avatar ?

If I accept Kalki, then it goes without saying that I accept the all the earlier avataras also for Hindus (as Gods or as heroes of my mythology ). These days everyone tries to be or is being made a Bhagwan. Avataras should not/cannot be manufactured as they have been in recent times.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was one of the six great teachers of Vedanta. His philosophy - Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita, is an integral part of Hinhduism (though I have serious problems with Vallabhacharya). Last avatara - Lord Buddha.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

If I accept Kalki, then it goes without saying that I accept the all the earlier avataras also for Hindus (as Gods or as heroes of my mythology ). These days everyone tries to be or is being made a Bhagwan. Avataras should not/cannot be manufactured as they have been in recent times.

so which do you consider manifactured ???

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was one of the six great teachers of Vedanta. His philosophy - Achintya Bhedabheda Advaita, is an integral part of Hinhduism

Achintya Bheda Abheda , .....not ''Achintya Bhedabedha Advaita'' ??? surely that is a contradiction , you canot have 'Inconceivable oneness and difference' followed by Advaita (non duality) sorry it makes no sence ....I thought all knew that shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu refuted the non duality of advaita ???

(though I have serious problems with Vallabhacharya).

please explain , what problem do you have with shri Vallabacharya ji ?

Last avatara - Lord Buddha.

jai jai , and how may I ask do you understand Lord Buddha ? for what function did he manifset ?

 

[John Doe]

One can believe in one God, two Gods, seventy billion gazillion Gods; but, if that person doesn't view the Veda-s as of divine origin (keep in mind that one doesn't even have to read the Veda-s), then that person is not of the astika, and thus is not Hindu.
I didn't make this rule up. "It's just is what it is" = the basic definition of astika.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

This point is revolving on the notion 'divine'.'Divine' is a very emotive term, and clearly defining it is as easy as nailing jelly to a tree. Nevertheless, we have to at least examine and discuss what it might mean if this definition of 'astika' is to make any sense.
This is the ignostic approach. It is utterly meaningless to ask whether a person believes in the vedas having a divine source if we are not mutually clear on what is meant by divine.
For a yogi there is some sort of practice, a sadhana, which informs and reveals the mind, and educates a person about the relationships of 'cognition', 'phenomena', 'identity' and so forth, and which leads to genuine realisation. Hopefully this practice is not limited to reading texts and commentaries, and engaging in belief and sentiments driven by "the flowery language of the vedas".
There is fairly standard language to discuss this, although of course there will always be fine points of differentiation among schools and individual practitioners. Generally speaking, we find the words dharana, dhyana, and samadhi used in relation to the unfolding of direct knowledge as a yogi practices. A yogi focuses the mind, beginning with basic dharana practices of some form. This leads to one pointed mindfulness, also called meditative absorption - dhyana. From this the yogi learns to yield the gross egoic activities of thought and emotion, and the state of samadhi occurs - the direct knowing of the ground of being and awareness. In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, this surrendering of the mundane mental and emotional activities is called Ishvara pranidhana - 'surrendering to the divine' is an expression oft used.
Note however, that 'divine' refers to the reality of the yogi's nature when the mundane activities are not the focus of attention. It is in one sense quite ordinary - there is no being whose nature is not already this way, however there are beings whose attention is absorbed in the conditional and temporal - what is commonly called ignorance.
It really is that simple. Any further speculation about who or what 'the divine' is, is just that -speculation. Speculation is an activity of the monkey mind - manas - and as such is yielded, surrendered, renounced. This is what Ishvara pranidhana means.
There are three forms of what we commonly call knowledge - referential, inferential and experiential.
Referential - somebody tells you. Perhaps someone you trust, or a book which you have been conditioned to trust.
Inferential - 'facts' arrived at through logical consideration, inference.
Experiential - direct perception.
When you say 'the Vedas are divinely inspired' therefore, it means that this wisdom has its origin in direct knowledge - samadhi.
Prior to the yogi's experience of samadhi, all knowledge of the so-called 'divine' is referential and inferential. For a hindu, the choice of trusted references and inferences is obviously the body of hindu texts and the teachers who purport to explain them. That is not, however, the same as direct experience.
A mind informed and educated by direct experience will recognise referential and inferential expressions of that direct experience. These expressions will not be limited to "the flowery language of the vedas" by any means.
Experience trumps speculation. The direct experience of samadhi has nothing to do with the cultural images and descriptions of deities. These images and descriptions are part of a system of mind-training which hopefully leads an aspirant through dharana and dhyana, such that direct knowledge is found in samadhi.
In conclusion, in reference to 'astika', the term which you say defines a hindu - only one who has direct, experiential spiritual knowledge - samadhi - knows what is meant by 'divine' when that term is used in hindu teachings. Such a person can then be called 'of the astika'. It is the direct knowledge which can affirm or refute any referential or inferential knowledge. If such a one says " I reject the notions of the theists and the atheists alike, as they are speculations which must be surrendered", then that one is expressing yogic wisdom.
Such a yogi may not even have read any hindu texts, or identify as hindu - their practice may have been sufi, or zen, or even spontaneous and un-named. However, if such a one recognises, due to direct experience, the referential and inferential knowledge presented in hindu texts, then this one is surely 'of the astika' . In comparison, a person who claims hinduism by cultural association, cognitions and sentiments, who has no direct knowledge, is not in a position to know what 'divine' means, and therefore, by your definition, cannot be 'of the astika'.

So, is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ? Hopefully only temporarily, until it matures into practice of dharana and dhyana - which may be of various forms, including bhakti and jnana yoga. Ultimately, direct knowledge - samadhi - is the only measure and sign of spiritual wisdom. Faith and philosophy are based on referential and inferential knowledge only.

 

[Poeticus]

This point is revolving on the notion 'divine'.'Divine' is a very emotive term, and clearly defining it is as easy as nailing jelly to a tree. Nevertheless, we have to at least examine and discuss what it might mean if this definition of 'astika' is to make any sense.
This is the ignostic approach. It is utterly meaningless to ask whether a person believes in the vedas having a divine source if we are not mutually clear on what is meant by divine.
For a yogi there is some sort of practice, a sadhana, which informs and reveals the mind, and educates a person about the relationships of 'cognition', 'phenomena', 'identity' and so forth, and which leads to genuine realisation. Hopefully this practice is not limited to reading texts and commentaries, and engaging in belief and sentiments driven by "the flowery language of the vedas".
There is fairly standard language to discuss this, although of course there will always be fine points of differentiation among schools and individual practitioners. Generally speaking, we find the words dharana, dhyana, and samadhi used in relation to the unfolding of direct knowledge as a yogi practices. A yogi focuses the mind, beginning with basic dharana practices of some form. This leads to one pointed mindfulness, also called meditative absorption - dhyana. From this the yogi learns to yield the gross egoic activities of thought and emotion, and the state of samadhi occurs - the direct knowing of the ground of being and awareness. In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, this surrendering of the mundane mental and emotional activities is called Ishvara pranidhana - 'surrendering to the divine' is an expression oft used.
Note however, that 'divine' refers to the reality of the yogi's nature when the mundane activities are not the focus of attention. It is in one sense quite ordinary - there is no being whose nature is not already this way, however there are beings whose attention is absorbed in the conditional and temporal - what is commonly called ignorance.
It really is that simple. Any further speculation about who or what 'the divine' is, is just that -speculation. Speculation is an activity of the monkey mind - manas - and as such is yielded, surrendered, renounced. This is what Ishvara pranidhana means.
There are three forms of what we commonly call knowledge - referential, inferential and experiential.
Referential - somebody tells you. Perhaps someone you trust, or a book which you have been conditioned to trust.
Inferential - 'facts' arrived at through logical consideration, inference.
Experiential - direct perception.
When you say 'the Vedas are divinely inspired' therefore, it means that this wisdom has its origin in direct knowledge - samadhi.
Prior to the yogi's experience of samadhi, all knowledge of the so-called 'divine' is referential and inferential. For a hindu, the choice of trusted references and inferences is obviously the body of hindu texts and the teachers who purport to explain them. That is not, however, the same as direct experience.
A mind informed and educated by direct experience will recognise referential and inferential expressions of that direct experience. These expressions will not be limited to "the flowery language of the vedas" by any means.
Experience trumps speculation. The direct experience of samadhi has nothing to do with the cultural images and descriptions of deities. These images and descriptions are part of a system of mind-training which hopefully leads an aspirant through dharana and dhyana, such that direct knowledge is found in samadhi.
In conclusion, in reference to 'astika', the term which you say defines a hindu - only one who has direct, experiential spiritual knowledge - samadhi - knows what is meant by 'divine' when that term is used in hindu teachings. Such a person can then be called 'of the astika'. It is the direct knowledge which can affirm or refute any referential or inferential knowledge. If such a one says " I reject the notions of the theists and the atheists alike, as they are speculations which must be surrendered", then that one is expressing yogic wisdom.
Such a yogi may not even have read any hindu texts, or identify as hindu - their practice may have been sufi, or zen, or even spontaneous and un-named. However, if such a one recognises, due to direct experience, the referential and inferential knowledge presented in hindu texts, then this one is surely 'of the astika' . In comparison, a person who claims hinduism by cultural association, cognitions and sentiments, who has no direct knowledge, is not in a position to know what 'divine' means, and therefore, by your definition, cannot be 'of the astika'.

So, is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ? Hopefully only temporarily, until it matures into practice of dharana and dhyana - which may be of various forms, including bhakti and jnana yoga. Ultimately, direct knowledge - samadhi - is the only measure and sign of spiritual wisdom. Faith and philosophy are based on referential and inferential knowledge only.

However...​

...yoga dharma is not the precedent.​

 

[Asha]

Namaste,

So, is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ? Hopefully only temporarily, until it matures into practice of dharana and dhyana - which may be of various forms, including bhakti and jnana yoga. Ultimately, direct knowledge - samadhi - is the only measure and sign of spiritual wisdom.

Speaking as one from a bhakti tradition, I canot think of one God brother or sister who would consider it possible to love God with out faith in his being.
Within bhakti traditions even the most mature devotee wouldnt wish that their faith should deminish as their sadhana increases, should my faith diminish I would feel my self to be utterly fallen and any jnana utterly lost.

Faith and philosophy are based on referential and inferential knowledge only.

Allthough I understand your words I canot begin to understand your opinion,
Just goes to show how different two human beings conception can be !

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram mr doe :namaste

This point is revolving on the notion 'divine'.'Divine' is a very emotive term, and clearly defining it is as easy as nailing jelly to a tree. Nevertheless, we have to at least examine and discuss what it might mean if this definition of 'astika' is to make any sense.

do we need to define it ? save to say it is beyond the mundane of our own level , aside from that surely we all have differing levels of understanding when it comes to the divine .

This is the ignostic approach. It is utterly meaningless to ask whether a person believes in the vedas having a divine source if we are not mutually clear on what is meant by divine.

non worldly , non mundane , ...

For a yogi there is some sort of practice, a sadhana, which informs and reveals the mind, and educates a person about the relationships of 'cognition', 'phenomena', 'identity' and so forth, and which leads to genuine realisation. Hopefully this practice is not limited to reading texts and commentaries, and engaging in belief and sentiments driven by "the flowery language of the vedas".

what is a Yogi , but one who seeks to unite the mind with god , with that which many consider divine , that which is in full knowledge , thus the Yogi wishes to addopt the sadhana that will bring him to this goal .

and who but the fully accomplished Yogi should even think to pass judgement upon the vedas let alone to dismiss ?

There is fairly standard language to discuss this, although of course there will always be fine points of differentiation among schools and individual practitioners.

yes, I must admit I allways did wish to ask a student of Patanjali why this school thought it fit to reduce the Yamas and Niyamas form ten a peice to five ?

Generally speaking, we find the words dharana, dhyana, and samadhi used in relation to the unfolding of direct knowledge as a yogi practices. A yogi focuses the mind, beginning with basic dharana practices of some form. This leads to one pointed mindfulness, also called meditative absorption - dhyana. From this the yogi learns to yield the gross egoic activities of thought and emotion, and the state of samadhi occurs - the direct knowing of the ground of being and awareness. In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, this surrendering of the mundane mental and emotional activities is called Ishvara pranidhana - 'surrendering to the divine' is an expression oft used.
Note however, that 'divine' refers to the reality of the yogi's nature when the mundane activities are not the focus of attention. It is in one sense quite ordinary - there is no being whose nature is not already this way, however there are beings whose attention is absorbed in the conditional and temporal - what is commonly called ignorance.

true it is our true nature ...to be atained ...

It really is that simple.

everything is simple , but still difficult to atain ...

Any further speculation about who or what 'the divine' is, is just that -speculation. Speculation is an activity of the monkey mind - manas - and as such is yielded, surrendered, renounced. This is what Ishvara pranidhana means.

and true surrender prehaps the higest atainment , ..acheives only by the rare few .

There are three forms of what we commonly call knowledge - referential, inferential and experiential.
Referential - somebody tells you. Perhaps someone you trust, or a book which you have been conditioned to trust.
Inferential - 'facts' arrived at through logical consideration, inference.
Experiential - direct perception.
When you say 'the Vedas are divinely inspired' therefore, it means that this wisdom has its origin in direct knowledge - samadhi.

or is the knowledge of the fully surrendered soul

Prior to the yogi's experience of samadhi, all knowledge of the so-called 'divine' is referential and inferential. For a hindu, the choice of trusted references and inferences is obviously the body of hindu texts and the teachers who purport to explain them. That is not, however, the same as direct experience.
A mind informed and educated by direct experience will recognise referential and inferential expressions of that direct experience. These expressions will not be limited to "the flowery language of the vedas" by any means.

again excuse me but I must repeat , only the Yogi possesed of the higest atainment is qualified to pass such judgement .

Experience trumps speculation. The direct experience of samadhi has nothing to do with the cultural images and descriptions of deities. These images and descriptions are part of a system of mind-training which hopefully leads an aspirant through dharana and dhyana, such that direct knowledge is found in samadhi.
In conclusion, in reference to 'astika', the term which you say defines a hindu - only one who has direct, experiential spiritual knowledge - samadhi - knows what is meant by 'divine' when that term is used in hindu teachings. Such a person can then be called 'of the astika'. It is the direct knowledge which can affirm or refute any referential or inferential knowledge. If such a one says " I reject the notions of the theists and the atheists alike, as they are speculations which must be surrendered", then that one is expressing yogic wisdom.

Wo id this grand Yogi who anounces such things ?

" I reject the notions of the theists and the atheists alike, as they are speculations which must be surrendered", then that one is expressing yogic wisdom.

Such a yogi may not even have read any hindu texts, or identify as hindu - their practice may have been sufi, or zen, or even spontaneous and un-named. However, if such a one recognises, due to direct experience, the referential and inferential knowledge presented in hindu texts, then this one is surely 'of the astika' .

he she is a 'PaccekaBuddha' ...

In comparison, a person who claims hinduism by cultural association, cognitions and sentiments, who has no direct knowledge, is not in a position to know what 'divine' means, and therefore, by your definition, cannot be 'of the astika'.

one who has no direct experience understands divine as that which is not mundane .

So, is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ? Hopefully only temporarily, until it matures into practice of dharana and dhyana - which may be of various forms, including bhakti and jnana yoga. Ultimately, direct knowledge - samadhi - is the only measure and sign of spiritual wisdom. Faith and philosophy are based on referential and inferential knowledge only.

why did Patanjali remove Astikya from the Niyamas ? ...and vrata ? and Ishvarapujana ??? ...and what of modesty ? ...and why change siddhanta shravana?

please prehaps you might kindly tell me ?

 

[Vinayaka]

For the record, I voted faith, because in my opinion, a faith encompasses a philosophy, and much more. For the intellectual Hindu who cannot go beyond that aspect of life, then sure it's (just) a philosophy. I'd say about 5% of my involvement in Hinduism involves philosophy, the rest being bhakti, seva, dharma, life in general.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji :namaste

For the record, I voted faith, because in my opinion, a faith encompasses a philosophy, and much more. For the intellectual Hindu who cannot go beyond that aspect of life, then sure it's (just) a philosophy. I'd say about 5% of my involvement in Hinduism involves philosophy, the rest being bhakti, seva, dharma, life in general.

my feelings are much the same , the philosophy is there in the background , and like dharma it supports , but there is so much more than philosophy , there is the reason for life , and allthough philosophy can explain life it canot live it .
becoming one with the faith of others living and celebrating that faith is to me the pinacle of existance ....

jai jai , ....I rejoice in your good fortune :namaste

 

[Ravi500]

In conclusion, in reference to 'astika', the term which you say defines a hindu - only one who has direct, experiential spiritual knowledge - samadhi - knows what is meant by 'divine' when that term is used in hindu teachings. Such a person can then be called 'of the astika'. It is the direct knowledge which can affirm or refute any referential or inferential knowledge. If such a one says " I reject the notions of the theists and the atheists alike, as they are speculations which must be surrendered", then that one is expressing yogic wisdom.
Such a yogi may not even have read any hindu texts, or identify as hindu - their practice may have been sufi, or zen, or even spontaneous and un-named. However, if such a one recognises, due to direct experience, the referential and inferential knowledge presented in hindu texts, then this one is surely 'of the astika' . In comparison, a person who claims hinduism by cultural association, cognitions and sentiments, who has no direct knowledge, is not in a position to know what 'divine' means, and therefore, by your definition, cannot be 'of the astika'.

I have to say that I agree with this statement of John over here.

The goal and end of the vedas, is but the creation of the enlightened sage, one established in Nirvikalpa samadhi. Such a one is called the Rishi or Avadhuta or Buddha. One such would be the astika in the true sense of the word.

Surely the brahmin scholars in Benares who refused to dine with the enlightened sage Guru Raidas and discriminated against him on account of his being a cobbler, cannot be called astika, inspite of their scholarship in the vedas and their faith in the vedas being of divine origin.

Inspite of all their scholarship and faith in the vedas, they could not recognize Guru Raidas who was the personification of the Vedas.

On the other hand, Mirabai , who was a great lover of God with superconscious perception, was able to recognize the greatness of Guru Raidas and accepted him as her Guru and never committed the grave sin of discriminating against him on account of his humble origins.

The enlightened one,established in nirvikalpa samadhi, is scriptures itself in bodily form. For such a one, the Vedas are like a tank of water when a huge flood is present in the area.

However to attain the state of samadhi, let alone nirvikalpa samadhi, is no easy feat. But it is only then that one can be called a true 'astika' or a spiritual person.

 

[Poeticus]

Surely the brahmin scholars in Benares who refused to dine with the enlightened sage Guru Raidas and discriminated against him on account of his being a cobbler, cannot be called astika, inspite of their scholarship in the vedas and their faith in the vedas being of divine origin.

Inspite of all their scholarship and faith in the vedas, they could not recognize Guru Raidas who was the personification of the Vedas.

I agree with the assessment that the discriminatory
actions of the brāhmiṇ-s of Banāras were wrong and
absolutely horrendous.​

However, to be of the astika is not based on actions -
for that involves different classifications and categor-
izations. To be of the astika simply involves that one
believes that the Veda-s are of divine origin and/or of
being non-composed by man.
In other words, belief classifications can't be dictated,
surely not of those that believe the Veda-s are divine.
However, judgements or assessments on their charact-
er can most definitely be passed.​

But, you bring up an important point that relates to
the thread, and that is the phrase, "the personification
of the Veda-s". If you would be willing, can you expand
or comment with detail on what you mean by that
statement, and what passes as "personification of the
Veda-s?" I ask this because I am of the karma kaṇḍa,
more specifically the kāmya karma; and, kalpa-śikṣā
and its related notions of satya and dharma are what I
am obligated to study, as per the wishes of my Guru-s.​

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ravi ji :namaste

I have to say that I agree with this statement of John over here.

The goal and end of the vedas, is but the creation of the enlightened sage, one established in Nirvikalpa samadhi. Such a one is called the Rishi or Avadhuta or Buddha. One such would be the astika in the true sense of the word.

surely in Nirvikalpa Samadhi one is in full knowledge therefore knowing is the pinical of faith . as faith is beliving , surely Nirvikalpa Samadhi being knowing is the fruit ?

all yoga schools follow the yamas ans niyamas , 'The Ethical Law' and 'The Observances'

thus Astikya (the fourth niyama) is faith , the holding of strong beleif and reliance on ones guru and on the teachings of ones school , as such teachings are the path .

surely Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the goal of such a path ?

Surely the brahmin scholars in Benares who refused to dine with the enlightened sage Guru Raidas and discriminated against him on account of his being a cobbler, cannot be called astika, inspite of their scholarship in the vedas and their faith in the vedas being of divine origin.

Inspite of all their scholarship and faith in the vedas, they could not recognize Guru Raidas who was the personification of the Vedas.

On the other hand, Mirabai , who was a great lover of God with superconscious perception, was able to recognize the greatness of Guru Raidas and accepted him as her Guru and never committed the grave sin of discriminating against him on account of his humble origins.

these brahmins who shuned the presence of the enlightened sage Guru Raidas were fools and canot be called followers of any path as they are confident only in their own knowledge thus displayed their pure ahamkara .

The enlightened one,established in nirvikalpa samadhi, is scriptures itself in bodily form. For such a one, the Vedas are like a tank of water when a huge flood is present in the area.

jai jai , thus I say they are in knowledge , as they have become knowledge in its fullness .

However to attain the state of samadhi, let alone nirvikalpa samadhi, is no easy feat. But it is only then that one can be called a true 'astika' or a spiritual person.

here I dissagree and must say that the 'astika' or spiritual person is the one who recognises the fullness whether it is in the vedas or in the one who has atained Nirvikalpa Samadi and pertains to the atainment of that fullness , thus Mirabai recognising that fullness took Raidas ji as her guru .

this is clearly indicated by the inclusion of astikya in the niyamas , the observances , ...this is a guideline for us to follow , our path .