An atheist question about Hinduism

[LuisDantas]

I think that asking questions, even in a debate mode, is fine, as long as, one does not impose one's view as the final word and especially if that view is in contrast to all other views of the Dir members.

Well the above is my opinion only.

Oh, I completely agree. I enjoy it and I find it constructive and respectful. From what I can gather, so do you folks.

But it is not really me just asking questions, now is it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. An atheist who does not believe in a consciousness independent of Prakriti, .. is not Vedic, Vedantic, or Agamic, includin the Samkhya.

Beg to differ. I will stick with my signature.

 

[atanu]

Maybe so. But it is not clear to me that an atheist will necessarily have such a strictly phenomenological perspective (assuming I understood correctly what you say here).

But i am talking specifically of an atheist who rejects consciousness. Is it very difficult to agree that such an atheist does not agree with either the brahman or the Purusha?

Maybe atheistic advaita is indeed a contradiction of terms. I can't say that I know otherwise. But I don't know that it is, either. You seem to be saying that it is, but I am not following.

To be sincere, the wording after "superposition" is very difficult and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Suppose an atheist says "i believe in atheism, since i believe in the advaita absolute (paramarthika) view "brahman is all'". Now, in the absolute view, there is naught but the advaita. So, superposing a belief, such as atheism, entails superposing on advaita, which is one without a second, some atheists and theists as real. This is contradiction of terms, in the absolute-paramarthika view.

It is however, perfectly plausible to have multitude of beliefs and multitude of so called believers in the vyavarik view (the phenomenal view). But again, in the phenomenal view, based on Vedas, advaita like any other Hindu school, believes in deities beyond mind- senses and also suggests theistic worship.

However, an advaitin who does not follow theistic traditions but only follows jnana yoga, is not a non Hindu, as long as he does not reject the fundamental 'knowledge' nature of Brahman, Atman, or Purusha.

In my understanding, the crucial point hinges on acceptance or rejection of the basic ' intelligence' nature of brahman. Rejection of the 'intelligence' nature of brahman/purusha is rejection of Veda/Darsana-s/Vedanta. If one rejects the basic 'consciousness' nature of brahman, then one rejects the same for soul, and consequently rejects all other key tenets, such as, karma and rebirth of soul.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that asking questions, even in a debate mode, is fine, as long as, one does not impose one's view as the final word and especially if that view is in contrast to all other views of the Dir members.

Well the above is my opinion only.

I agree. But I will point out two problems.

1. An atheist who does not believe in a consciousness independent of Prakriti, is rejecting Veda and its darsana-s, including Samkhya.

2. Saying brahman alone is and/or brahman is all, is advaita. Ok. But then the advaita is broken by superposition of a word atheism, since then, one more atheists and one or more theists are called for.

In other words, in paramarthika view, advaita and atheism/atheist do not go together. In the vayvarika, all advaita teachers have taught theistic practices, since divinities beyond the mind-senses is accepted.

So, in my view, a belief in above two positions together, is not Vedic, Vedantic, or Agamic, includin the Samkhya.

A belief of the two points listed above is Lokyata darsana, which is not Hinduism.

In that case, I will answer your post. I am not imposing my views on anyone. I am just describing my position. I have done it many times but people do not understand it. Hopefully, I will be more successful this time.

1. I do not believe in Samkhya, in Pradhana and in Prakriti. My advaitic world view has only one entity, Brahman. I have never denied the consciousness of Brahman, and have said that it is completely different from that of humans.
2. I consider that Brahman is no God or Supreme Spirit. It is just the bed-rock of all that exists in the universe as in 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman) - Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1.

"Yatha, saumya, ekena mrt-pindena sarvam mrnmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrttikety eva satyam."

Some may say that the position not be Vedic or shastric, that does not worry me. See my new signature. Irrespective of all things, I would stick with what I consider truth. Even Lord Rama in Valmiki Ramayana said:

"Satyam eva Ishwaro loke, satyena dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyena nasti parama padam."

(Truth is God in the world, all dharmas depend on truth;
everything has roots in truth, there is no position higher than truth."

One can give only his/her own opinion on Hinduism but no one can define Hinduism for all Hindus (the point is many a times forgotten).

 

[Ravi500]

In that case, I will answer your post. I am not imposing my views on anyone. I am just describing my position. I have done it many times but people do not understand it. Hopefully, I will be more successful this time.

1. I do not believe in Samkhya, in Pradhana and in Prakriti. My advaitic world view has only one entity, Brahman. I have never denied the consciousness of Brahman, and have said that it is completely different from that of humans.
2. I consider that Brahman is no God or Supreme Spirit. It is just the bed-rock of all that exists in the universe as in 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman) - Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1.

"Yatha, saumya, ekena mrt-pindena sarvam mrnmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrttikety eva satyam."

Some may say that the position not be Vedic or shastric, that does not worry me. See my new signature. Irrespective of all things, I would stick with what I consider truth. Even Lord Rama in Valmiki Ramayana said:

"Satyam eva Ishwaro loke, satyena dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyena nasti parama padam."

(Truth is God in the world, all dharmas depend on truth;
everything has roots in truth, there is no position higher than truth."

One can give only his/her own opinion on Hinduism but no one can define Hinduism for all Hindus (the point is many a times forgotten).

If Hinduism is not defined properly as per the shrutis, and each one is entitled to his personal opinion and fancies, then the result is anarchy and chaos.

There are truths and there are falsehoods.

The Dharma which you constantly speak about is itself dependent upon truth, as falsehood corrupts it to the point of adharma.

This is the reason why Lord Rama criticized Jabali for his distorted views.

As per your line of thinking, Jabali also would be entitled to his own views which should be accepted as Hinduism or Hindu teachings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How did a properly defined Hinduism come to acquire a thousand sects and six darshanas with their shakhas (Vedanta for example has many)? If Hinduism were to be defined properly (as you say) and put in chains, that would be the end of Hinduism. Hinduism is not a monolith and should not be one. That is my view.

 

[Ravi500]

How did a properly defined Hinduism come to acquire a thousand sects and six darshanas with their shakhas (Vedanta for example has many)? If Hinduism were to be defined properly (as you say) and put in chains, that would be the end of Hinduism. Hinduism is not a monolith and should not be one. That is my view.

All these sects and darshanas are valid ways to attain the realisation of Brahman or God. And more such sects may come , as long as they are established as valid ways to attain Brahman or God-realisation.

If however falsehoods are entered into the religion in the name of hinduism, the result will be adharma. As adharma is but falsehood in action.

Hence the need to define properly the truths , as even a drop of falsehood in it corrupts it resulting in adharma as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

But i am talking specifically of an atheist who rejects consciousness. Is it very difficult to agree that such an atheist does not agree with either the brahman or the Purusha?

On that respect, I have to ask you to check this other thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...61608-so-dharma-odds-atheism.html#post3721408

 

[Aupmanyav]

If however falsehoods are entered into the religion in the name of hinduism, the result will be adharma. As adharma is but falsehood in action.

Atheism is not related to dharma. An atheist can be very much dharmic (to clarify, doing his best to fulfill his duties and engaging in righteous action). Or do you think atheists are only criminals and murders?

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is not related to dharma. An atheist can be very much dharmic.

Maybe you want to continue on that matter on my other thread, Aup? General Religious Debates is our friend. And also a friend of peace on the DIRs.

 

[Ravi500]

I have nothing against atheists. I don't consider atheism as adharmic , as long as the atheist is well-established in mindfulness or the state of awareness through meditation.

He does not have to believe in God, but he can believe in nature as a sentient intelligence, and through meditation he is coming in tune with its rhythm, which will help him to perceive Dharma or the right path intuitively.

I believe I have stated over here that I was a fan of Bhagat Singh and Bertrand Russel who were atheists.

As LuisDantas remarked, I would like to continue this discussion on the thread in the General Religious Debates , and will not post here further.


:namaste

 

[popsthebuilder]

Chhandogya Upanishad - 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (You are that), 'Ekam evadvitiyam brahma' - (Brahman is one, without a second), Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman).

The only existent entity is Brahman. I too am Brahman. Is Brahman God? Can that mean that I too am God. Am I a God? Am I all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading. That will be very presumptuous. Can I ask the sun not to set? No, I can't. Therefore, I am no God, I am human. If I am Brahman and no entity other than Brahman exists, then how come an entity (God) which is neither Brahman nor me can exist? Therefore, there is no God (or Goddess).

If there are no controversies, then it would not be Hinduism. Agreeing does not require inclusiveness. Controversies require inclusiveness.

With your avatar and explanation; how can you contradict yourself?

The fact that we can contradict ourselves is proof that there is one within us, yet with two opposed directions, and motives. All other existence follows the preordained path. Is that not so?

We are indeed unique in the ability to alter the course of existence as we know it.( gift/ curse of free will.) This duality is similar to the duality, or balance of all existence as we know it.

Asceticism seems to be very applicable in being more connected to existence and secondarily connected to God.

Existence is from the Creator which we all have a tiny little piece of. This minute percentage of natural good/ creation is infinitely powerful if(only in regards to humans)and when it is used completely, and for the sake of existence under God/ Creator.

Thank you.

Please excuse my blunt tone, or demeanor. I have much respect for the little I know in regards to your belief system.

Thank you respectfully,
I look forward to your reply.

 

[Aupmanyav]

With your avatar and explanation; how can you contradict yourself?

We are indeed unique in the ability to alter the course of existence as we know it. ( gift/ curse of free will.) This duality is similar to the duality, or balance of all existence as we know it. Asceticism seems to be very applicable in being more connected to existence and secondarily connected to God. Existence is from the Creator which we all have a tiny little piece of.

Please excuse my blunt tone, or demeanor. I have much respect for the little I know in regards to your belief system.

Where do you find a contradiction? The image shows a young boy at the time of being given the sacred thread (Yajnopavita). This is a sort of initiation ceremony when the child goes to a boarding school for studies. He is supposed to concentrate on his studies, engage in such things which will increase his strength (exercise) and refrain from getting involved in anything else. This is part of my culture.

I do not really believe in free-will. I believe that all our actions are conditioned. Who is talking about ascetism? I do not even believe in a creation, so what to talk about a creator.

Oh, no. There is no need to ask for excuse. You have asked questions and I am trying to reply to them. I have sense enough to take a discussion in a friendly way. Ask more questions, I will happily reply. This helps me to refine my views. Thanks.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Satyamavejayanti,

How are you?

Is Jainism a root of Hinduism, or is Hinduism a trunk from which Jainism branched?

It is my opinion that Abrahamic law was initially very similar to the general consept of what you speak of(Jain/Hindi).

I feel that Abrahamic way or path was flawed from the start because of greed, but not code or direction of existence or God.

God is a term for Creator/ creation, the selfless good that man is capable of wholly directed in the direction of creation for the sake of creation humbly under, and always centered under the Creator.

I think that somewhere along the ancient line the the base, natural belief system was the same, generally.

Manipulation was incured through greed, throwing of truthful representation of self.

This lead to the Creator/creation actually punishing these people. To set them straight.

Since that time there have been obvious links to the actual teachings of John the Baptist, and more widely known, the prophicied lamb of God,
Jesus of Nazareth, or Joshuah, or Jesus the Christ.

To deny the existence of a Creator that both set all into motion, preordaining all and activily guides those of his choosing through a consciousness and complete submition to It(as all other existence does) just doesn't add up.

The materialistic want is foreign and wholly damning as it leads to the absence of reality or existence.

Thanks.

Please help me to understand your schools.

Please excuse my forwardness.

Thank you, respectfully.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Aupmanyav,

Is it not the peaceable lamb as opposed to the consuming goat that is the merkabah, or link to existence/ truth, and rughtiousness?

Thank you, all praise is to God.

 

[popsthebuilder]

LuisDantas,

Stop ridiculing these peaceable, intelegent, informative people,

I would ask if you have no shame, but I know the answer. These individuals are all very knowing in the ways of truth and existince, and the nature there of.

This fact, you evidently cannot accept for reasons of selfish pride as opposed to outward regard.

If you are confused; that is fine. Once you accept the knowledge that has been shown to you as truth, you willful ignorance will not be fine in regards to your own personal energy and existence.

Please set back and think without the predisposition of getting offended at someone else for your lack of knowledge up to this point. No harm, no foul as they say.

Be happy through truth and looking forward. Do not begrudge the past or people whom enlighten with true knowledge.

Thanks, good luck.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Aupmanyav,

I think, perhaps I musinterpretted something initially. This is my folly.

It seems from this thread or discussion that Hinduism in general accepts the orthodox view of the Christian trinity.

Please do not confuse this with the traditional Roman Catholic traditional view of the trinity, or triun.

God= Creator, or force that started existence and is actively involved in it through truth, known as Faith in God or reality. Supreme creative force.

Son= all observable existence that is under the direction of God.

Holy Ghost= the selfless direction of positive truthful knowledge leading to peaceful action for the benifit of existence as we know it, under the direction of God.

Again, thank you.

I too learn daily.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is Jainism a root of Hinduism, or is Hinduism a trunk from which Jainism branched?

Hinduism is the root from where Jainsim and Buddhism arose. It was and is a folk religion practiced in various ways in various regions and tribes. Before the time of Mahavira and Buddha Aryans arrived in India with their Vedic rituals. The assimilation of Aryans in the indigenous people made the Vedic rituals and sacrifices a part of Hinduism. These rituals and sacrifices could be conducted only by the brahmins and having them performed was costly. Brahmins were fleecing people under the guise of religion. There was opposition to that. Mahavira, Buddha and Charvakists were all part of this revolt. In time Hinduism made course-corrections and Jainism and Buddhism merged back into Hinduism and the Charvakists became extinct. That is why the number of Jains and Buddhists is so small in India.

As for your Abrahamic views of creation and creator, this is not the appropriate forum, therefore I reserve my reply.

 

[Aupmanyav]

LuisDantas, Stop ridiculing these peaceable, intelegent, informative people,

I would ask .. with true knowledge.

Popsthebuilder, people in this forum know Luis well and love him. Luis is not a person who would ridicule anyone. So do not worry about that.

Aupmanyav, I think, perhaps I musinterpretted something initially. This is my folly.

It seems from this thread or discussion that Hinduism ..

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, this is not the forum for discussion on Christianity or Abrahamic religions. Kindly go to the relevant forums. I do not accept the existence of God or creation.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Aupmanyav,

I must have missed the obvious again, I do that at times.

I do apologize.

He was being negative, yet to you it is none of my business, and causes turmoil. However, a more harmonious existence for all in the longrun would to be to confront and remedy said negativity in order to limit its negative potential.

Thanks again, sorry for the ignorance, or misunderstanding.