is hinduism a faith or a philosophy ?

[Aupmanyav]

Please Prabhu ji of what nature are these realisations ? Jai Shree Krishna

Quite simple, Asha. 'Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma'. Jai Shri Krishna. 'Sab Krishna hai'. (Though I am considered a villain in the forum) :sad: (Well, what will be will be)

 

[ShivaFan]

Aupmanyav

I will never consider you a villain on the forum! You are one of the nice ones, most everyone knows!

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Quite simple, Asha. 'Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma'. Jai Shri Krishna. 'Sab Krishna hai'. (Though I am considered a villain in the forum) :sad: (Well, what will be will be)

Don't get so hard on yourself....

 

[satyaroop]

aupmanyav, I will say you're not a villain if you give me a frubal (and no I'm not a man of my word, I'm a real villain)

anyway, about villains, my favourite would be the joker (from batman)
after all his acts of terror, when a stern looking batman confronts him, he mockingly asks him "why so serious?". Don't you find that adorable.

yes ^ that is my useless contribution, I'll leave you people in peace :run:

 

[Kalidas]

aupmanyav, I will say you're not a villain if you give me a frubal (and no I'm not a man of my word, I'm a real villain)

anyway, about villains, my favourite would be the joker (from batman)
after all his acts of terror, when a stern looking batman confronts him, he mockingly asks him "why so serious?". Don't you find that adorable.

yes ^ that is my useless contribution, I'll leave you people in peace :run:

Well that was offtopic... lol. But my favorate villian would be Iago from Othelo.

Eithet way what happened? I haven't kept up with the thread so I'm lost.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram kalidas ji :namaste

Well that was offtopic...

Whats new ?

Eithet way what happened? I haven't kept up with the thread so I'm lost.

no no , it is Aupmanyav that is lost ... he some what foolishly asserts that hinduism thrives on controvercy ????

I foolishly thought it thrived on love of god ...or goddess in your case and shri gods in MVji's case

however if you would be so kind as to re boot the conversation I would be most greatfull , I had replied to your last post in post no 47 , ......

 

[Kalidas]

namaskaram kalidas ji :namaste



Whats new ?





no no , it is Aupmanyav that is lost ... he some what foolishly asserts that hinduism thrives on controvercy ????

I foolishly thought it thrived on love of god ...or goddess in your case and shri gods in MVji's case

however if you would be so kind as to re boot the conversation I would be most greatfull , I had replied to your last post in post no 47 , ......

Will do boss! Lol

I won't quote your orginal post because I am on a phone and its hard for my phone to scroll past long messages when I quote. For some reason it scrolls only to a certain point before it starts moving the entire window and NOT the post anymore, so annoying.

Yes I agree the faith part is the "main" aspect and philosophy is how we get there. See unlike western religions where faith begets faith (ie I believe what I read becausr what I read tells me to believe what I read) while eastern religions first observe, notice common phenomen, speculate, and then finally faith is derived. Its more of a "scientific" approach. There is rarely blind faith, but faith derived from observationaly derived philosophy. Yet to me both are of equal importance, faith may be the end, but without the philosophical means the faithful become blinded by their own lack of trying to understand. A massive theme in Hinduism is the destruction of ignorance, the earnest search of the truth, not in books or some mesiah or church but from within. That's why I give each equal importance.

Can philosophy be without faith? That is hard being philosophy is the study of that which we can't know. While faith is the belief in something we can't know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

^^^ ".. while eastern religions first observe, notice common phenomena, speculate, and then finally faith is derived. Its more of a "scientific" approach. There is rarely blind faith, but faith from observation-derived philosophy."

I think, that should be my signature line.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram jaskaran ji :namaste

Don't get so hard on yourself....

our dear friend is not being hard on himself , he enjoys being subversive

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji



please I asked you serious a question on the subject of faith , prehaps you would be so kind as to answer it ?

have these divine words been handed down throughout time and scripture preserved out of respect alone or have they been preserved so perfectly because they are held with more than respect they are held with firm faith or beleif to be true ?

you take great delight in refuting the meaning of a word then when you are shown clear explanation of its usage from scripture you egnore it and all questions relating to it

 

[Aupmanyav]

Our dear friend is not being hard on himself , he enjoys being subversive

Ratikala, I am sorry that you understand me wrong. Whatever be the beliefs of my fellow Hindus (mostly various kinds of theism - I do not deny that, I consider that to be a need or a stage for some people. I too have passed through that stage), but I want Hinduism to be strong and robust to face the onslaught of any criticism. Superstition and theism have chinks (for example, the Problem of Evil), but 'atheistic advaita is unassailable'. It is the most scientific explanation available at the moment. That is why I support it.

You take great delight in refuting the meaning of a word then when you are shown clear explanation of its usage from scripture you ignore it and all questions relating to it

I can answer any question. Sometimes I hold myself back so as not to hurt the feelings of other Hindus. In those cases I take recourse to silence. Hindu scriptures are meant to be advisory. They were written by some of the brightest minds of the world (I do not believe that any of them are divine, after all, I am an atheist Hindu). In that way I can easily refute ideas like 'my God is the only legitimate God in the world', 'my God is the strongest in the world', and 'my scriptures are the best'. In that way I am not obliged to take a apologetic/defensive position with respect to miracles. How can I, a descendant of Sages Vasishtha and Upamanyu, a clansman of a 1000 BC Vedic commentator (i.e., Aupamanyava), and the grandson of a smriti writer, be subversive to Hinduism, his own religion. Perish the thought. I have a great tradition to follow, the only difference is that MY TRADITION IS NOT SUPERSTITIOUS. I was given that kind of 'samskaras' by my father and grandfather.

 

[John Doe]

As a yoga practitioner, I can consider myself hindu because I employ the method of arriving at self-knowledge described by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras.

I voted 'neither'. Yoga is not faith-based, it is an activity which produces results. It is not a philosophy, although there is a philosophical aspect to it, insofar as there are instructive texts.

But that is my path, not yours. Perhaps faith and/or philosophy describe where you are at. The actual experience(s) of Being and The Path are not hindu, or christian, or atheist, or panentheist, or any other descriptor.

If your hinduism is either 'faith' or 'philosophy', then, IMO, you are attached to ideas, sentiments and expectations.

The practice of yoga is essentially experiential. Samadhi is neither faith nor philosophy. It is neither theistic nor atheistic. These words only apply to conditioned cognitive behaviors. Conditioned cognitive behaviors are momentary distractions, however lofty and emotive they may be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is nice. There are two realities, absolute and pragmatic.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Aupmanyav ji :namaste

Ratikala, I am sorry that you understand me wrong. Whatever be the beliefs of my fellow Hindus (mostly various kinds of theism - I do not deny that, I consider that to be a need or a stage for some people. I too have passed through that stage), but I want Hinduism to be strong and robust to face the onslaught of any criticism. Superstition and theism have chinks (for example, the Problem of Evil), but 'atheistic advaita is unassailable'. It is the most scientific explanation available at the moment. That is why I support it.

I am greatly sadened by your responce , I too amongst others , would like to see Hinduism strong and robust but I feel that is best done by maintaining traditions , and not by passing judgement about the validity of stages , after all who is to say your attainment of a higher stage is not merely dissilusionment on your part ?

'atheistic advaita' may be unassailable to you but to me it is surpassed by vedic science .

however I have no wish to dispute that with you , I am only happy to say that I consider my self fortunate not to have fallen from my lowly state of faith .

I can answer any question. Sometimes I hold myself back so as not to hurt the feelings of other Hindus. In those cases I take recourse to silence. Hindu scriptures are meant to be advisory. They were written by some of the brightest minds of the world (I do not believe that any of them are divine, after all, I am an atheist Hindu).

dear aupmanyav ji ,

you do not hold your self back when refuting the meaning of words constantly used by numerous acharyas , or even words spoken by sri Krsna himself , why then do you hold your self back at othertimes ?

as for the advisory nature of of hindu scriptures....sri Krsna advised Arjuna of his duty , but also warned him that if he did not perform his prescribed duty that sri Krsna would get down of the chariot and do it for him as what is needfull must be done , so we must contemplate the nature of such advice before we dismiss it as posibly being discressionary .

and of these fine and bright minds ? are they not the finest and brightest because they were devoted to selflessly performing their own dharma as scribes ..and if they are fine and bright it is because they lack any personal ambition which might cloud their perception of absolute reality ....

and of course coming from the Astika veiwpiont I will of course hold to the claim of the divine origin of all truth .

How can I, a descendant of Sages Vasishtha and Upamanyu, a clansman of a 1000 BC Vedic commentator (i.e., Aupamanyava), and the grandson of a smriti writer, be subversive to Hinduism, his own religion. Perish the thought. I have a great tradition to follow, the only difference is that MY TRADITION IS NOT SUPERSTITIOUS. I was given that kind of 'samskaras' by my father and grandfather.

I have no wish to insult your ancestery
but please please do not try to diminish the meaning of sanskrit to suit your own argument , it is the action of one who is envious of profound meaning .

my tradition and the traditions of many Astika Hindus are not based upon superstition either but upon truth ,and upon self realisation .

I have no wish to argue with you , nor do I take any offence my faith is too firm to be easily shaken .
you are intitled to your own veiw but please bo not try to devalue the faith of others .:namaste

 

[Poeticus]

How can I, a descendant of Sages Vasishtha and Upamanyu, a clansman of a 1000 BC Vedic commentator (i.e., Aupamanyava), and the grandson of a smriti writer, be subversive to Hinduism, his own religion. Perish the thought. I have a great tradition to follow, the only difference is that MY TRADITION IS NOT SUPERSTITIOUS. I was given that kind of 'samskaras' by my father and grandfather.

I find it hard to believe that your "ancestor" would approve.

As far as I know - Upamanyu was quite adamant about
conducting as many fire-sacrifices as possible - these things
you refer to as superstitious. Wouldn't he find the misappropriation
of his lineage as some sort of a credential, by someone who finds
the things he did out of faith as superstitious, to be insulting?​

 

[John Doe]

I find it hard to believe that your "ancestor" would approve.

As far as I know - Upamanyu was quite adamant about
conducting as many fire-sacrifices as possible - these things
you refer to as superstitious. Wouldn't he find the misappropriation
of his lineage as some sort of a credential, by someone who finds
the things he did out of faith as superstitious, to be insulting?​

I do not see a conflict within Aupmanyav's position. It is an assumption that someone would do rituals out of faith (in the usual religious sense). Speaking from a personal perspective, it is possible to perform a ritual, even a ritual which invokes a name of a deity, without the kind of faith and belief typically associated with religion.

This can be a tricky subject to discuss, especially in a world of such polarised dogmas. My view, for example, does not fall into the usual categories of athiest or theist. The works of Dr John Lilly may be helpful in appreciating this, particularly "Simulations of God" and "The Human Biocomputer : Programming and Metaprogramming". I am not endorsing all that Dr Lilly had to say, but he certainly found a way out of the 'binary opposition syndrome' of atheist v theist, materialist v mystic etc etc.

Certainly hinduism is typically interpreted in a theistic way - but not by everyone. For many, including myself, the religious texts are an idealised, poetic approximation of the reality - and can only ever be so.

Even the notion of 'revealed texts' is open to interpretation, and one's interpretation is necessarily informed by experience. "Revealed by God" necessarily means something different to a dvaitist than it does to an advaitist for example.

 

[Poeticus]

I do not see a conflict within Aupmanyav's position. It is an assumption that someone would do rituals out of faith (in the usual religious sense). Speaking from a personal perspective, it is possible to perform a ritual, even a ritual which invokes a name of a deity, without the kind of faith and belief typically associated with religion.

This can be a tricky subject to discuss, especially in a world of such polarised dogmas. My view, for example, does not fall into the usual categories of athiest or theist. The works of Dr John Lilly may be helpful in appreciating this, particularly "Simulations of God" and "The Human Biocomputer : Programming and Metaprogramming". I am not endorsing all that Dr Lilly had to say, but he certainly found a way out of the 'binary opposition syndrome' of atheist v theist, materialist v mystic etc etc.

Certainly hinduism is typically interpreted in a theistic way - but not by everyone. For many, including myself, the religious texts are an idealised, poetic approximation of the reality - and can only ever be so.

Even the notion of 'revealed texts' is open to interpretation, and one's interpretation is necessarily informed by experience. "Revealed by God" necessarily means something different to a dvaitist than it does to an advaitist for example.

...Apophenia?​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

...Apophenia?​

Dang, and you blame me for calling out bAhlikAmlec*ha over on H*F, yet now this? How hypocritical!
Just kidding...

 

[John Doe]

...Apophenia?​

Apophenia /æpɵˈfiːniə/ is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

The term is attributed to Klaus Conrad[1] by Peter Brugger,[2] who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness", but it has come to represent the human tendency to seek patterns in random information in general, such as with gambling and paranormal phenomena.[3]

wikipedia

How does that relate to my post ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

my tradition and the traditions of many Astika Hindus are not based upon superstition either but upon truth ,and upon self realisation.

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).