Hinduism Debate

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka, not sure if I walk like a duck when it comes to Hinduism, but if people don't believe me then there is nothing I can do about it.

Maya

There are many varieties of duck. The issue at hand was about tone and attitude, in my opinion. There was a lot of non-Hindus talking about non-Hindu topics in the Hindu DIR. Hopefully the blue color will cause some hesitation.

 

[Maya3]

There are many varieties of duck. The issue at hand was about tone and attitude, in my opinion. There was a lot of non-Hindus talking about non-Hindu topics in the Hindu DIR. Hopefully the blue color will cause some hesitation.

But actually there are NO ducks

Just teasing, I know what you mean. I wasn´t part of it that stuff that much I was really busy then and managed to miss most of it it seems.
I hope blue is the right thing for everyone.

Maya

 

[Ravi500]

Is it okay to allow atheistic views in the Dir, as being representative of Hindu dharma?

Lord Rama himself , severely criticized as 'atheistic talk' the words of his minister Jabali, who used sophist arguments to persuade him to return to Ayodhya aborting his vanavasa period in the middle.

Indeed when scriptures are misinterpreted by people according to their fancies, truth is being distorted and falsehood is presented as truth, which in turn brings great unrighteousness in the process, as righteousness or dharma is but truth in action, while unrighteousness or adharma is but falsehood in action.

It is indeed important that the scriptural truths are presented in the proper perspective.

Lord Krishna himself states that there is nothing in this world as purifying as spiritual knowledge.

We can conversely infer from this that there is nothing in this world as corrupting as falsehood presented as truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wait wait, its been a month since i posted here. And now i see the Hindu Dir in blue, correct me if i am wrong, am i not allowed to represent my atheistic hinduism anymore in hindu directory?

Oh, no. I too am an 'atheist hindu' and I post. The rule says I can put in my views indicating that they are personal, but cannot criticize the views of any one else, which will do, till sometime in future if and when they make the forum green again. Wise people do not pay much attention to victories and defeats. The same rule applies to theist Hindus. They can put their view indicating that these are their personal views but cannot criticize the views of atheist Hindus. I suppose people are clear about this or otherwise it would be a violation of Rule 10.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Self identified non Hindus? Someone who is Hindu but says that he/she is not? Or someone who is NOT Hindu and says that he/she is not?
Or do you mean someone who says that she/he IS Hindu but you or other people don't believe it? I'm confused.

Maya

:jiggy:

 

[Ravi500]

We however can request the Admin to create a forum called Indian Philosophy to represent all sides better. Can we discuss this point?

Regards

I would say that this is an excellent idea.

The Dharmik forum can also be used for the charvaks/lokyatas/atheists for this purpose too for expressing their views.

This will allow the Hinduism forum to be uncorrupted by the nastika views and help preserve the pristine purity of jnana and bhakti as taught by the scriptures, without fear of defilement or corruption by completely divergent or opposite views. This would greatly increase the quality of the forum and reduce a lot of unnecessary chaos.


:namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

My humble suggestion is that members of the Hindu forum should use General Religious Debates forum and Same Faith Debates forum more frequently rather than being boxed up in the Hindu forum. That way more people would come to understand Hinduism. This would also reduce pressure on Hindu forum. Remember 'Nireeshwaravada', atheists are a part of Hindu diversity, there is nothing wrong with that.

And Ravi, Charvaks and Lokayatas are out for more than 1500 years. We do not even fully know what their beliefs were. Why do you keep repeating their names?

 

[Ravi500]

My humble suggestion is that members of the Hindu forum should use General Religious Debates forum and Same Faith Debates forum more frequently rather than being boxed up in the Hindu forum. That way more people would come to understand Hinduism. This would also reduce pressure on Hindu forum. Remember 'Nireeshwaravada', atheists are a part of Hindu diversity, there is nothing wrong with that.

Atheists are not a part of Hindu diversity. They are a part of Indian philosophy, i.e that of charvaka dharma.

Same as the Buddha Dharma and Sikh Dharma, which were created in India, but are not part of Hinduism.

And Ravi, Charvaks and Lokayatas are out for more than 1500 years. We do not even fully know what their beliefs were. Why do you keep repeating their names?

We all know well that the charvaks / lokyata philosophy were atheistic. No one is denying this.

I am repeating their names to emphasise that the charvaka dharma is part of Indian philosophy, as much as Buddha Dharma and ajivikya dharma , but are not part of Hindu dharma.

Bracketing them together in the same forum is equivalent to putting cats and dogs together in the same room thinking that as quadripeds, they are prone to get along with each other, which is not the case. Only pure chaos is the result.

 

[Ravi500]

I basically came over here to enjoy the company of bhakta yogis and increase my proficiency in bhakti yoga in the process. I find bhakti yoga deeply relaxing and enjoy the bhakti culture, even though I am intrinsically a jnana yogi.

Now , Bhakti is like poetry. You need a lot of sensitivity and delicacy in its practice and expression.

I certainly felt uncomfortable to express my theistic views with the posts and presence of atheists over here who had a condescending,sneering attitude, reflecting intellectual arrogance(though I found the posts superficial and lacking intellectual depth.) and declaring atheistic views now and then rejecting the Hindu deities. In fact the posts put a lot of stress on me by hurting my theistic sensibilities. And I noticed this as the case with the other Bhaktas.


The self-declared atheist was also ripping apart jnana yoga over here in the hinduism forum , contradicting the teachings of the established masters.

I have no issues with atheists, and am a fan of atheists like Bhagat Singh, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. I have great affection and love for some of my atheistic friends. The atheist in question has also some good points in some posts when it comes to discussion of cultural practices and Hindu pilgrimage sites.

However there is a conflict of views between theists and atheists , which can result in unnecessary posting and discussion in the Hinduism forum which can be a major waste of time and energy.

For the atheists, if there is no Hindu forum, they can at least go to the atheist forum.

But for the Hindu theists, there is no other forum to go to, to express their views.

And finally, let me say that it is because of Bhakti that most Hindus cling to the religion, as people in general respond more to feeling than to the intellect.

And it is hard to be full of feeling when there is a sneering condescending attitude around, creating ego in oneself.

I hope this thread will lead to the forum members considering these points and making life easier for the Jnana yogis and bhakta yogis so that they can express their views without fear of ridicule and contradiction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We all know well that the charvaks / lokyata philosophy were atheistic. No one is denying this.

Atheism is not contra-indicated in Hinduism - Nireeshwaravada (No-God doctrine of Samkhya)

"There was no continuity in the Chārvāka tradition after the 12th century. Whatever is written on Chārvāka post this is based on second-hand knowledge, learned from preceptors to disciples and no independent works on Chārvāka philosophy can be found. Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Chārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cārvāka#Loss_of_original_works

 

[Aupmanyav]

I certainly felt uncomfortable to express my theistic views with the posts and presence of atheists over here who had a condescending, sneering attitude, reflecting intellectual arrogance (though I found the posts superficial and lacking intellectual depth) and declaring atheistic views now and then rejecting the Hindu deities. In fact the posts put a lot of stress on me by hurting my theistic sensibilities. And I noticed this as the case with the other Bhaktas.

Did I ever stop you from singing or reciting your bhajans? I am an atheist Hindu. Any reason why I should not visit Hindu forum? Did I ever object to the presence of Bhaktas (who believe in devotion) in the forum? Why, then, you object to the presence of an atheist Hindu in the forum? Why should the forum be reserved only for them? Can you give me just one reason?

 

[atanu]

Atheism is not contra-indicated in Hinduism - Nireeshwaravada (No-God doctrine of Samkhya)----]

Atheism and Nireeshwaravada are not same.

Samkhya teaches of Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (Pradhana/Nature) as two distinct (duality).

And you do not ascribe to a consciousness distinct from body (or matter). Even Brahman you categorise as physical.

..............

What are you up to? Mixing and matching parts of all darsanas to suit your Rationalist-Atheist belief?

You are 71 year old. If you need to propagate Rationalistic-Atheistic philosophy why you are destroying the knowledge of Indic darsana.

I can only appeal to your good self (which you do not believe to exist) that desist from such distortions so that young fellows do not get confused. My humble request.

 

[Ravi500]

Atheism is not contra-indicated in Hinduism - Nireeshwaravada (No-God doctrine of Samkhya)

Sankhya extolls Purusha as 'consciousness' which you ignore. Eternal consiousness is the very essence of Purusha which you deny.

If you want to project atheistic views, do it technically then in line with the Sankhya teachings of Hinduism, which is the only system in Hinduism suggested by some to entertain atheistic doctrines , though it is also disputed by other scholars who claim it to be theistic.

This would then be precise and correct, and would be technically in line with the teachings of Hinduism.

You can discuss the views of Sankhya in the Hinduism forum, from an atheistic viewpoint.

I would then have no issues whatsoever.

"There was no continuity in the Chārvāka tradition after the 12th century. Whatever is written on Chārvāka post this is based on second-hand knowledge, learned from preceptors to disciples and no independent works on Chārvāka philosophy can be found. Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Chārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka#Loss_of_original_works

Charvaka tradition existed, or else we will not be discussing this over here. The criticism of theism itself through God and Vedas itself defines it as an atheistic philosophy.

C

Thus Charvak dharma and its discussions are, technically speaking, a part of Dharmik Forums , as the Charvak Dharma is considered a nastika dharma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Samkhya teaches of Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (Pradhana/Nature) as two distinct (duality).

And you do not ascribe to a consciousness distinct from body (or matter). Even Brahman you categorize as physical.

If Samkhya has the freedom of its views, why it should not be given to me or to anybody else? What I believe is my business. My being 71 or 21 does not matter.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Charvaka tradition existed, or else we will not be discussing this over here.

Thus Charvak dharma and its discussions are, technically speaking, a part of Dharmik Forums , as the Charvak Dharma is considered a nastika dharma.

Even Vaisesika and Purva Mimamsa are nastikas. How come they are among the six. Who has denied the existence of Charvaks in history? Though there are no authentic sources, what we know of Charvaks is from what is written by later theists. The tradition has long been dead. That is why I am objecting to your branding me as a Charvakist. This is biase, ad-hominims, and slander.

 

[atanu]

If Samkhya has the freedom of its views, why it should not be given to me or to anybody else? What I believe is my business. My being 71 or 21 does not matter.

You have full freedom to honestly state "I am a rationalist-atheist Hindustani (Indian)". Your tagging yourself as "Hindu-advaita-atheist" is a prevarication. As if Sankara taught what you believe in. And your drawing support from other darsana-s and other gurus is wrong, since no astika darsana and no hindu guru taught the following that you propund:

1. Consciousness does not last beyond body
2. There is no Ishwara
3. No karma-no rebirth
4. Brahman is physical energy

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, for all your protests, I remain a 'atheist advitist Hindu'. You have the freedom to whine but not to change that.

 

[atanu]

Well, for all your protests, I remain a 'atheist advitist Hindu'. You have the freedom to whine but not to change that.

I do not whine. The karma for prevaricating will be what will be.

I am somewhat concerned that you try hard to disguise as a Hindu advaitan of Sankara school, thereby distorting to others the teaching of Sankara particularly and of Hinduism in general.

 

[Maya3]

Aupmanyav can believe what he wants. Maybe he is right no one can prove that he isn't.
The universe is diverse and full of different beliefs and ideas. That is a good thing.

Would you argue the same with someone who believes that Lakshmi is the Goddess? Or a Queen Bee?

Maya

 

[atanu]

advaita guru Sankara considers the advaita Atman-Brahman as satyam, jnanam, and ananatm. Our friend does not grant his brahma the 'quality of jnanam.

Sankhya is devoid of a concept of Ishwara. OK. But Samkhya considers Purusha (the consciousness) as distinct from inert Prakriti (nature). Our friend Aup. rejects a distinct consciousness.

All Hindu teachers have a common agreement to the Hindu ideas of Karma-Rebirth.

Hinduism teaches of two levels of phenomenal existence: the Divine and the Manifest samsara; the latter derived from the former. The transcendental advaita Lord is Seer and being pure jnanam, is the awareness axis in the phenomenal realms.

No Hindu teacher rejects a Supreme Purusha -- not even Samkhya. Gurus teach of Iswara. Yoga talks of Ishwara.

It is fine to be a Rationalist-Atheist, but from my perspective, it is not OK to cite Sankara and Samkhya to rationalise one's Rationalist-Atheistic belief, which has no place for Consciousness, Karma and Rebirth. It is an injustice to Sankara and injustice to Hindu gurus. You may not feel this way but I feel it strongly.