• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu: The fallacy of 'Hinduism'

Pleroma

philalethist
If you are rational you will now accept that Advaita does indeed teach that the only existent reality is consciousness and everything else is an illusion, including Ishvara and jiva. I am not holding my breath.

All this doesn't change the fact that you have been misinformed by the institute where you learnt Advaita. The world of Ishvara and Jiva are as real as the world of Brahman, one reality doesn't exist without the other.


"The Isha Upanishad introduces to us the integral spiritual realisation and the principle of the integral yoga; within a short space it resolves many difficult problems. It is a śruti replete with sublime, profound and fathomless significances. This Upanishad, concluded in eighteen slokas, explains in these small mantras many major truths of the world. Such “infinite riches in a little room” can be found only in this śruti.

Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguṇo guṇī, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithyā, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction. The oneness of the universe in motion and the immobile Purusha, enjoyment of all by renunciation of all, eternal liberation by full action, perpetual stability of the Brahman in movement, unbound and inconceivable motion in the eternal immobility, the oneness of the Brahman without attributes and the Lord of the universe with attributes, the inadequacy of Knowledge alone or of Ignorance alone for attaining Immortality, Immortality obtained by simultaneous worship of Knowledge and Ignorance, the supreme liberation and realisation gained not by the constant cycle of birth, not by the dissolution of birth but by simultaneous accomplishment of Birth and Non-Birth, — these are the sublime principles loudly proclaimed by the Upanishad.

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of unnecessary confusion regarding the meaning of this Upanishad. Shankara is generally recognised as the most important commentator of the Isha Upanishad, but if all these conclusions are accepted, then Mayavada, the Illusionism of Shankara, sinks in the bottomless ocean. The founder of Mayavada is incomparable and immensely powerful among the philosophers. Just as thirsty Balaram brought to his feet the Yamuna unwilling to alter her course, by dragging and pulling her with a plough, so also Shankara, finding this Upanishad destroyer of Mayavada and standing across the path toward his destination, dragged and pulled the meaning till it agreed with his own opinion. One or two examples will suffice to show the miserable condition to which this Upanishad has been reduced by such treatment."

- Sri Aurobindo


It is because of you people who only rely on knowledge that the world is still in ignorance, one should worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha and also the unmanifested Brahman. This is the complete view of the Upanishads and the correct Advaita Vedanta.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Sigh, and I even emboldened these parts

6.194. As the dull-witted imagine that the Akasa reflected in a cloud is the Akasa absolute, so the undiscriminating do not see the distinction between Brahman and Ishvara.

6.195. By deep enquiry and by the application of the rules of interpretation to the Vedic text we come to know that Brahman is associationless and unconditioned by Maya, whereas Ishvara is the creator conditioned by Maya.

6.210. The Liberation, however, can be obtained through the knowledge of reality and not otherwise. The dreaming does not end until the dreamer awakes.

6.211. In the secondless principle, Brahman, the whole universe, in the form of Ishvara and Jiva and all animate and inanimate objects, appears like a dream.

6.212. Maya has created Ishvara and Jiva, represented by the sheath of bliss and the sheath of intellect respectively. The whole perceptible world is a creation of Ishvara and Jiva.

6.213. From the determination of Ishvara to create, down to His entrance into the created objects, is the creation of Ishvara. From the waking state to ultimate release, the cause of all pleasures and pains, is the creation of Jiva.

6.214. Those who do not know the nature of Brahman, who is secondless and associationless, fruitlessly quarrel over Jiva and Ishvara, which are creations of Maya.

6.230. Just as it is impossible to establish the eternal existence of pleasure derived from flowers and sandalwood, so it is impossible to establish the associationlessness of Atman as long as the world and Ishvara are believed to be realities and ever-existing.

6.236. Maya is said to be the desire-fulfilling cow. Jiva and Ishvara are its two calves. Drink of its milk of duality as much as you like, but the truth is non-duality.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
You can preach how much ever you want about the Mayavada but one thing is a fact the Shruti doesn't support your theory of Mayavada.

No one said Jiva and Ishvara are different from Brahman. [Brahman is real, the empirical world is only a state of mind, the noumenal world of Jiva and Ishvara is real and everything in this noumenal world is Brahman.] This is the actual mantra of the Upanishads. Who is dull-witted now?
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Whether Shruti does or doesn't is another question.(That I will not be debating with you, because I do not think you are capable of rational discussion)

You just said my knowledge of Advaita is wrong and Advaita is theistic. I have now proven by citing the core text of Advaita that indeed I am not wrong, Advaita is transtheist/atheist, it does not accept the real existence of God. It only accepts the existence of Brahman/Atman as a pure substance of consciousness that is the only true reality. Hence why it is called Advaita - not two.

Goodbye.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
Whether Shruti does or doesn't is another question.(That I will not be debating with you, because I do not think you are capable of rational discussion)

You just said my knowledge of Advaita is wrong and Advaita is theistic. I have now proven by citing the core text of Advaita that indeed I am not wrong, Advaita is transtheist/atheist, it does not accept the real existence of God. It only accepts the existence of Brahman/Atman as a pure substance of consciousness that is the only true reality. Hence why it is called Advaita - not two.

Goodbye.

Which clearly implies that you don't tolerate difference in opinion and want to preach your own way, "my way or no other way", the fallacy is not from Indian Hindus, Indian Hindus are more matured and they are indeed pluralistic and understand the beliefs of different people and know that all Hindus are arriving at the one truth in one way or the other. I as an Indian Hindu can understand and incorporate your beliefs and opinions but you cannot tolerate a difference of opinion. Now in whose side the fallacy actually lies.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Well even I don't like to call myself a Hindu because no one seems to me is following the Vedic Aryan religion here and everyone is obsessed with Krishna, Rama, Jesus etc etc.

The orthodox religions of the world like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc must die because I think there is no truth in them.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I am sorry it is silly denying that we have not progressed compared to a few hundred years ago. I am not even going to debate something so silly. Compare the rights of women today to the rights she had hundreds of years ago, or even today in places in like Afghanistan, and tell me with a straight face weve not made progress?

Compare the average human life expectancy today with the average life human expectancy a few hundred years ago, and tell me that we have not made any progress in general health and management.

Compare the democratic governments in the advanced world today with the feudal governments a few hundred years ago and tell me we have not made progress in the rights of citizens.

There was a time where free and independent thinkers like me would have been executed or burned at the stake. Phew, how I am relived I am living in the 21st century.

Oh, yeah, where we live in constant fear of a nuclear apocalypse, where millions of people die every day from car accidents, where the sun is becoming more dangerous because of a diminishing ozone layer, where resources are fast diminishing to the point where a war over water is in the foreseeable future, where rape threats are made against a woman simply because she criticizes tropes in modern media... PROGRESS!!!

I'd demonstrate further here, but I'm still working out my thesis on this subject. Know, however, that you haven't exactly convinced me.

After all, there's no real defined goal. How can there be progress if there's nothing being progressed to?
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I disagree, religion is mans attempt at negotiating the relationship between himself and others and nature. Hence, why all religions deal with morality, how to live a good life and how to attain salvation/happiness/end suffering. Religion makes claims to knowledge. It claims to know the truth about why suffering happens, what our relationship with nature is, how to attain salvation or ending suffering, where we come from etc

Every religion has its own set of claims to knowledge. Some say for example we have been on Earth as a test by God. Some say we are sinners and must redeem our sins by accepting Jesus. Some say that we are here due to ignorance of our essential nature. Some say we are here to desires/craving etc

Obviously the truth claims made by different religions are contradictory, so it is impossible that all are true. Either they are all equally false or one of them is true. My position is Advaita(the real Santana dharma) is the only true religion out there and every claim Advaita makes is true.

Then here is the main cause of our disagreement: we view religion itself through different lenses.

Religions do have claims to knowledge, but by and large, I discount those. Knowledge is the domain of the senses.

The problem with your definition is that other practices and ways of thinking fall under that, but aren't generally referred to as "religions." In addition, AFAIK, there are plenty of religions (generally indigenous ones) that don't make any sort of claim as to what might bring about "salvation". Therefore, your definition is not accurate.

BTW, you saw that I did once say that there are false religions. If you want an idea as to what really constitutes a false religion in my mind, google "Cullenism" and, if you don't already have one because you already know what that is, get ready for a VERY sore face because of a HUGE facepalm.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Which clearly implies that you don't tolerate difference in opinion and want to preach your own way, "my way or no other way", the fallacy is not from Indian Hindus, Indian Hindus are more matured and they are indeed pluralistic and understand the beliefs of different people and know that all Hindus are arriving at the one truth in one way or the other. I as an Indian Hindu can understand and incorporate your beliefs and opinions but you cannot tolerate a difference of opinion. Now in whose side the fallacy actually lies.

Well even I don't like to call myself a Hindu because no one seems to me is following the Vedic Aryan religion here and everyone is obsessed with Krishna, Rama, Jesus etc etc.

The orthodox religions of the world like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc must die because I think there is no truth in them.

Wait, what? :confused:
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Wait, what? :confused:

Well its a fact that even though I have called myself an Indian Hindu, no one here share my beliefs and opinions so I feel its better if I don't associate myself with Hinduism at all. It is a fact that not many Indian Hindus are following the Vedic Aryan religion which should have been the common religion followed by all Hindus. If everyone in India had adhere themselves to this Vedic Aryan religion then this fallacy of Hinduism would never been a topic of discussion in the first place.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Well its a fact that even though I have called myself an Indian Hindu, no one here share my beliefs and opinions so I feel its better if I don't associate myself with Hinduism at all. It is a fact that not many Indian Hindus are following the Vedic Aryan religion which should have been the common religion followed by all Hindus. If everyone in India had adhere themselves to this Vedic Aryan religion then this fallacy of Hinduism would never been a topic of discussion in the first place.

No, I'm confused because you said you were capable of living in friendly tolerance, and then you said that certain religions should die.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
No, I'm confused because you said you were capable of living in friendly tolerance, and then you said that certain religions should die.

Yes, but I am not a fundamentalist, education and practical knowledge is the key and I will educate people in and around me as much as possible and show humanity what the truth is and make this world a better place.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Yes, but I am not a fundamentalist, education and practical knowledge is the key and I will educate people in and around me as much as possible and show humanity what the truth is and make this world a better place.

...but you're still capable of living in tolerance of religions that you would see wiped out...

You seriously don't see the contradictory nature of this viewpoint?
 

Pleroma

philalethist
...but you're still capable of living in tolerance of religions that you would see wiped out...

You seriously don't see the contradictory nature of this viewpoint?

No, the consensus is slowly changing and many physicists are actually looking at India and following some sort of Sanatana Dharma even though they are not aware of the deepest truths of the Vedic religions, so I remain optimistic that one day everyone will realize the truth and as I said education and practical knowledge is the key. We are not far away from more and more people recognizing and accepting the Vedic religion. God will illuminate their minds, I don't need to do anything silly. :)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
No, the consensus is slowly changing and many physicists are actually looking at India and following some sort of Sanatana Dharma even though they are not aware of the deepest truths of the Vedic religions, so I remain optimistic that one day everyone will realize the truth and as I said education and practical knowledge is the key. We are not far away from more and more people recognizing and accepting the Vedic religion. God will illuminate their minds, I don't need to do anything silly. :)

Hate to break it to you, but physicists don't represent all people. Most people see that branch of science as, essentially, arcane, and the scientists who specialize in it, as wizards.

Education won't cause your interpretation of the Vedic religion to become prominent. The most we can hope for is further evolution of other religions to those depths, because they are capable of it.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Hate to break it to you, but physicists don't represent all people. Most people see that branch of science as, essentially, arcane, and the scientists who specialize in it, as wizards.

Education won't cause your interpretation of the Vedic religion to become prominent. The most we can hope for is further evolution of other religions to those depths, because they are capable of it.

They are certainly capable of it but will the orthodox Christians agree with the below statements?

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."
(Gospel of Philip)

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
They are certainly capable of it but will the orthodox Christians agree with the below statements?

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."
(Gospel of Philip)

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

Doesn't matter, since orthodoxy will not likely survive the evolution. It's power is already starting to wane.
 
Top