An atheist question about Hinduism

[atanu]

For all I know you are speaking the truth itself, Atanu... but I fear this kind of argument is well above my paygrade. I may attempt to negotiate this terminology later. But I'm not holding my breath.

Simple or not, I am having a very hard time even starting to read it.

Yes. I realise that. Let me try it in short. brahma is defined by its self nature as 'satyam-jnanam-anantam' - Truth-Intelligence-Infinite. If one removes just one aspect of this self nature, the whole of Hinduism is negated-denied.

 

[Sumit]

I am an illusion.

OK

I am conscious in an illusory way.

As you say.

The real consciousness is with Brahman.

So brahman is conscious.

Combining all your stat we get a new version "Advaita2014", congrats.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. I realise that. Let me try it in short. brahma is defined by its self nature as 'satyam-jnanam-anantam' - Truth-Intelligence-Infinite. If one removes just one aspect of this self nature, the whole of Hinduism is negated-denied.

That sure seems to correspond to the idea of God well enough. Yet it seems that at least some people believe the Samkhya school to have diverged from that reading. Am I misunderstanding this issue?

 

[Poeticus]

That sure seems to correspond to the idea of God well enough. Yet it seems that at least some people believe the Samkhya school to have diverged from that reading. Am I misunderstanding this issue?

Why would Samkhya diverge
from it? It's not even of the
Vedanta. It's a whole different
ballpark.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you accept now ' Prajnanam brahma' (Consciousness is Brahman ) as mentioned in the Aitreya Upanishad from the Rg Veda, and not the mass of physical energy you earlier mentioned Brahman to be, which has no basis whatsoever in Hinduism or Hindu Dharma!

No, Ravi, you have still not understood my point. I have never said that Brahman has no consciousness. I say that the consciousness of Brahman is not the same as human consciousness. The two are very different concepts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why would Samkhya diverge
from it? It's not even of the
Vedanta. It's a whole different
ballpark.​

Atanu said that it is a requirement of the whole of Hinduism. As I understand it, Sanatana Dharma is all-encompassing, while Hinduism is a more specific family of faiths and Vedanta is even more specific. I thought Samkhya was part of Hinduism, but not of Vedanta.

 

[Poeticus]

Atanu said that it is a requirement of the whole of Hinduism.

Yeah, I'd take that with a grain of salt.
Because I'm unsure. The only requirement
that I am aware of is that Vedas = divine.
​

 

[atanu]

Atanu said that it is a requirement of the whole of Hinduism. As I understand it, Sanatana Dharma is all-encompassing, while Hinduism is a more specific family of faiths and Vedanta is even more specific. I thought Samkhya was part of Hinduism, but not of Vedanta.

But wait. Samkhya talks of Purusha that is of the nature of pure consciousness and Samkhya teaches of moksha as that Purusha dis-entangling from prakriti.

How it negates Veda or Vedanta by rejecting nature of brahman as "satyam-jnanam-anantam"? Where it rejects re-birth, and where does it reject the devas and the Veda?

I said earlier: that Veda itself is a teaching of Agnosticism about a creator Lord. But Veda confirms a conscious Seer at the root. And Veda teaches of various kinds of worship towards the Seer.

 

[LuisDantas]

I said earlier: that Veda itself is a teaching of Agnosticism about a creator Lord. But Veda confirms a conscious Seer at the root. And Veda teaches of various kinds of worship towards the Seer.

So you are saying that Vedanta is agnostic in relation to a creator God, but theistic in relation to an all-encompassing God?

Also, please clarify: what is the relationship between Samkhya and Vedanta?

 

[atanu]

Atanu said that it is a requirement of the whole of Hinduism. As I understand it, Sanatana Dharma is all-encompassing, while Hinduism is a more specific family of faiths and Vedanta is even more specific. I thought Samkhya was part of Hinduism, but not of Vedanta.

The 'Taittariya Upanishad' II.1, saying "satyam jnanam anantam brahma", "Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity", is Sruti.

Which Hindu teacher has taught partial acceptance or partial rejection of Sruti? Interpretations may change but "satyam jnanam anantam brahma" will not change.

 

[Poeticus]

Also, please clarify: what is the relationship between Samkhya and Vedanta?

I always thought that
Samkhya would view
Vedanta as incompatible,
like how it similarly saw
Mimamsa, even though
all three view the Vedas
as divine.​

 

[atanu]

So you are saying that Vedanta is agnostic in relation to a creator God, but theistic in relation to an all-encompassing God?

Also, please clarify: what is the relationship between Samkhya and Vedanta?

Not Vedanta but the Veda itself. Creator God as the highest divinity is not accepted by most schools.

I was talking of the Nasadiya Sukta, which leaves the question of a Conscious Creator as unknowable. But the Nasadiya Sukta confirms a CONSCIOUS SEER. Veda names the slumber-less Seer as Rudra and there are verses of adoration, prayers, and yajnas for Rudra as Ishwara.

Now the point is, if we strip the root of 'jnana'... the whole Veda is negated.

Samkhya does not negate the conscious nature of Purusha. Moksha is Purusha established in its own nature. Shri Krishna says that the fruits of Samkhya and Yoga are not different. Shri Krishna says that those who see these as leading to different goals are ignorant.

Now, do I accept Gita or do I accept view of someone who does not agree to conscious nature of Purusha, regarding the knowledge of Samkhya?

 

[Poeticus]

Not Vedanta but the Veda itself. Creator God as the highest divinity is not accepted by most schools.

Wait, wouldn't that make it "agnostic"
only to non-dharmic religious paradigms?
Or do you mean unsureness in its literal
sense? That the Veda, itself, is unsure?​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. I realise that. Let me try it in short. brahma is defined by its self nature as 'satyam-jnanam-anantam' - Truth-Intelligence-Infinite. If one removes just one aspect of this self nature, the whole of Hinduism is negated-denied.

I do not think the structure of Hinduism is that weak, built upon one brick. If one removes Brahman, then we have Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. And even if we remove these three, there are hundreds upon hundreds Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So brahman is conscious.

I suppose you have seen my answer at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3720240-post25.html

I thought Samkhya was part of Hinduism, but not of Vedanta.

IMHO, that is correct.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you are saying that Vedanta is agnostic in relation to a creator God, but theistic in relation to an all-encompassing God?

I have not come across agnosticism in Hinduism. It is mostly 'yes', but sometimes 'no'.

Also, please clarify: what is the relationship between Samkhya and Vedanta?

None as far as I see.

 

[atanu]

Wait, wouldn't that make it "agnostic"
only to non-dharmic religious paradigms?
Or do you mean unsureness in its literal
sense? That the Veda, itself, is unsure?​

Veda is clear as whom the oblations should go to.

 

[LuisDantas]

None as far as I see.

Aren't Samkhya and Vedanta at least both examples of Hinduism, or failing that of Sanatana Dharma?

 

[atanu]

Atanu said that it is a requirement of the whole of Hinduism. As I understand it, Sanatana Dharma is all-encompassing, while Hinduism is a more specific family of faiths and Vedanta is even more specific. I thought Samkhya was part of Hinduism, but not of Vedanta.

How does that matter. Samkhya considers the Veda (aptA vacya) valid proof and also draws upon the veda to forward its tenet that attaining Kaivalya (isolation from prakriti) is the goal. The goal is moksha only .. in some other word.

Samkhya is a sanskrit word. It propounds Purusha (which is used in Veda and is equivalent of aatmaa) as the foundational unchanging consciousness. The purusha of samkhya and aatmaa of vedanta are often interchangeably used in vedanta.

Now, let me cite a few lines from Samkhya karika to show that Samkhya only rejects the idea of Supreme controller to be only a creator. But it does not reject the idea of a free Purusha who is controller of Prakriti.

III. The argument from control
1. Nature does not control herself.
2. But there is control, e.g. we overcome suffering.
3. A controller independent from nature must exist.

IV. The argument from experience to experiencer.
1. We have experiences of pain and pleasure.
2. There must be something to experience pain and pleasure.

V. Argument from ascetic isolation. Valid testimony of scripture and seers. There is something beyond nature, viz., an isolated spirit..

LVI. Evolution is on account of prakriti itself. Not by God, not Brahman, and not by Ishvara the Lord.

LVII. If God is a creator, he would create only happy mortals. And if mortals were in pain, he would be obligated to eliminate it. Thus, God cannot be involved in the operation of prakriti. As prakriti is basically insentient, it cannot be blamed for pain and evil.

Samkhya has not rejected a controller of Prakriti. Samkhya has rejected the creator as the God.

I do not see in Samkhya anything contradicting the Vedas. Samkhya accepts Veda as a valid pramana and also accepts it a s a valid means of removal of suffering. However, Samkhya puts emphasis on Kaivalya through Jnana of the Purusha (Spirit) as better the Vedic rituals.

And most importantly, Purusha of Samkhya is of pure jnana nature, which is not contradictory to svarupa lakshana of brahman of Vedanta.

aum

 

[Poeticus]

Samkhya accepts Veda as a valid pramana and also accepts it a s a valid means of removal of suffering.

^This.​