Hinduism Debate

[Maya3]

But he does not call himself and Advaitin, he calls himself an Atheist Advaitin.

Maya

 

[atanu]

But he does not call himself and Advaitin, he calls himself an Atheist Advaitin.

Maya

No he does not.

 

[Maya3]

No he does not.

Read what it says under his name. It´s pretty clear.

Maya

 

[atanu]

Read what it says under his name. It´s pretty clear.

Maya

Calm down maya. You could have seen yourself if you wanted to. He writes:

Religion: Atheist:Hindu:Advaita:

Have you heard of a Hindu religion wherein Brahman is not jnanam? Have you heard of any Hindu religion wherein there is no place for Ishwara? Have you heard of any religion called Advaita that is not the Vedanta Advaita of Sankara? Have you ever read Sankara teaching anything that Shri Aup. is claiming.

Maya, I request objectivity from you .... humbly. Nothing personal here.

 

[Maya3]

I´m not saying anything about Advaita, I´m talking about what HE thinks, and he can think what he wants. That´s it.
I´m leaving this debate now, as you observed I have not followed it, but I think it´s important to point out that people can believe what they want and it´s not a big deal.

I believe what I believe, lots of people don´t agree with me either, and thats ok.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe what I believe, lots of people don´t agree with me either, and thats ok.

Maya

Yeah me too. It would be such a boring world if we all agreed on everything.

 

[Poeticus]

Calm down maya.

Nonsense. She did
nothing wrong.​

 

[atanu]

I´m not saying anything about Advaita, I´m talking about what HE thinks, and he can think what he wants. That´s it.
I´m leaving this debate now, as you observed I have not followed it, but I think it´s important to point out that people can believe what they want and it´s not a big deal.

I believe what I believe, lots of people don´t agree with me either, and thats ok.
Maya

Dear Maya

I had no debate with you. If Aup. believes that he is Hindu and advaitin then, IMO, I have a right to point out that his opinion may be wrong. Why that should be a big deal? Any way. This is not important.

But, in my perspective, it is important to record that Sankara, whose name Aup. takes again and again taught "brahman satyam, jnanam, anantam" and not "Brahman is physical energy", which is the belief of Aup. As per aup., consciousness is a product and not the swarupa of brahman.

Similarly, about atheism, Aup., conveniently refers to Samkhya, misleading many, as if, in Samkhya, the Consciousness is not distinct from matter.

When it is pointed out that Sankara did not teach that Brahman was "Physical enrgy", Aup. refers to Shri Ramanuja, Nimbarkara, Chaitanya as other advaitans. Again misleading as if these gurus taught what he believes. None of these Gurus teach that Brahman was physical energy or that the Atman has no continuation beyond body.
...................................

I can understand the apathy and (even antagonism) of some. But allow me to humbly state I consider the misappropriation and mis-representation of the teachings of teachers in order to support one's Rationalistic-Atheistic view point a serious matter.

 

[Ravi500]

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.

Sankhya is one of the six astika schools of Hinduism, which has been recognised by the established authorities.

What you believe has not been recognised by the established authorities or shruti.

This is the difference.

 

[Ravi500]

Even Vaisesika and Purva Mimamsa are nastikas.How come they are among the six.

Wrong, they are astika.

Āstika and nāstika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

I term you as charvakist because your atheistic views reflect theirs. What can I do !

And I had mentioned your views does not at all resemble Sankhya, which is the only established astika philosophy, which is said by some scholars to be atheistic, and disputed by others as theistic.

 

[Ravi500]

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.

See Maya.

Krishna had different views from Duryodhana who had his own views.

However can we state that Duryodhana has the right to believe what he wants !!


Maya, the issue over here is that Aupmanyav's views are completely opposed to the scriptures. This is productive of great bad karma, and that is why Atanu is trying to gently stop it.


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.


The Vedas are the divine Revelations of God, which were obtained by the Rishis through great meditation. It is not something to be messed with.

It is said that the vedas , when pronounced improperly, can become counter-productive and create negative vibrations and hence negative karma.

It has been noticed that vedic rituals practiced in areas where there had been years of drought resulted in rainfall. This had happened too many times to be a mere coincidence.

We have seen how the European scholars in the 19th century, without proper academic standards, distorted the teachings of the Vedas, especially the term 'Arya' .

Arya means the noble, cultured and civilized person.

This was however distorted to a race-related concept, which was productive of great bad karma.

The negative karma had its results in the second world war shortly, which killed over a 100 million people, and devastated and bled Europe in the process , from which it had never yet recovered emotionally .

Germany was crushed, devastated and humiliated in the end of the war with the loss of many millions of lives. Eckhart Tolle has talked about how he felt energy fields of pain and suffering in Germany while growing up over there.

I myself feel great compassion for Germany because of my great regard for its philosophers Kant , Schweitzer and Schopenhauer.


It is said that the sages are scriptures in bodily form.

The innocent sage Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans, who were the mightiest power in the world at that time.

The Roman empire soon lost vitality and deteriorated rapidly afterwards till it disintegrated completely after a few centuries and never became its former self.



The Sikh sage Guru Teg Bahadur was tortured and beheaded by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The Mughals at that time were the mightiest power in Asia.

The Mughals however soon deteriorated after Aurangzeb ,with a succession of weak rulers, losing vitality and prosperity and disintegrated completely after a century.



On the other hand, by following the teachings of Krishna, the Pandavas were able to overcome great adversities from a much superior enemy and attained great prosperity.


By following the teachings of Guru Ramdas, Shivaji established the Maratha empire and attained great prosperity.

By following the teachings of Guru Gorakhnath, Bappa Rawal established a great kingdom and attained fame and prosperity and founded the Mewar dynasty.

By following the teachings of Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya established the Mauryan empire and attained great prosperity.

There are many such examples.



Thus we can see that following the Shrutis and sages, one begets great positive karma, and gains great prosperity, while not doing so incurs great negative karma, which results in destruction of sreyas and preyas i.e spiritual and material prosperity.

I myself have had experience of what I had mentioned over here, and hence my alarm.



I have nothing against Aupmanyav, and have stated earlier that I have respect for his views on his cultural practices and pilgrimage sites . He can post such posts in the Hinduism forum. I have great compassion and even affection for the man and I wish him well, seriously.

But he can post his atheistic views, which does not correspond to Sankhya, in the Dharmik forum which can accomodate the Charvaka philosophy, which is nastika and not astika.

This ,thus, will not lead to the dilution of the Hindu teachings or views in the Hinduism forum, retaining its purity, and will reduce much of its chaos,and will also reduce confusion and increase clarity.

Readers from outside will also get an accurate idea of Hinduism, which is beneficial and important, and not get mislead and beget negative karma in the process.



The yajna of knowledge is a valid yajna as well, and it is important to ensure it is uncorrupted.

These are my views, and by stating this, I am only doing my duty and cleaning my hands of any stains that may occur.

I wish all well.

:namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

See this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3713195-post11.html

However, Aup. is not a follower of Hinduism or of Advaita. This needed to be shown.

Also it needs to be shown that Sankara's advaita is not the only variety of 'advaita'. There are many others, and there is no bar for new ones to come up.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have a right to point out that his opinion may be wrong.

You have pointed it out so many times, and I have disagreed every time; exactly like what Ravi500 has done, reminding me that Arya means noble and IS NOT the name of a people. I do not agree with him too. Now what are you going to do? Put me in jail till I repent?

.. Sankara, whose name Aup. takes again and again taught "brahman satyam, jnanam, anantam" ..

FYI, I have NEVER used this particular saying because while I agree that Brahman is satyam and anantam, I do not believe Brahman is human consciousness.

Similarly, about atheism, Aup., conveniently refers to Samkhya, misleading many, as if, in Samkhya, the Consciousness is not distinct from matter.

I do not follow Samkhya. I refer to Samkhya only to say that it does not believe in a Supreme Soul/Ishwara/God. "Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God)" - Wikipedia

When it is pointed out that Sankara did not teach that Brahman was "Physical enrgy", Aup. refers to Shri Ramanuja, Nimbarkara, Chaitanya as other advaitans. Again misleading as if these gurus taught what he believes.

I point out these Acharyas to show that like Hinduism, 'advaita' too is not a monolith.

But allow me to humbly state I consider the misappropriation and mis-representation of the teachings of teachers in order to support one's Rationalistic-Atheistic view point a serious matter.

Read what I have written above and show me where there has been any misappropriation or mis-representation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sankhya is one of the six astika schools of Hinduism, which has been recognised by the established authorities.

Ravi, I would not ask you to study Samkhya Karika, but just visit Wikipedia - Samkhya, and read the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction which says "Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God)". That much for what you consider as 'astika' darshana.

Wrong, they are astika.
Āstika and nāstika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I had mentioned your views does not at all resemble Sankhya, which is the only established astika philosophy, which is said by some scholars to be atheistic, and disputed by others as theistic.

Unfortunately, you are ill-informed and have not studied anything beyond 'Satyartha Prakash'. More unfortunate is that you do not want to confirm what you think you know. The last sentence of the second para of the introduction of Wikipedia page on 'Astika and nastika' says "Notably even among the āstika schools, Sāṃkhya is an atheistic philosophy." I am not a follower of Samkhya school.

Don't you think that the underlined portion in your post is bullsheet. On one hand you say Samkhya is 'astika' but also mention that some scholars consider it to be atheistic. What is it, then? Astika or nastika?

 

[Poeticus]

Ravi, I would not ask you to study Samkhya Karika, but just visit Wikipedia - Samkhya, and read the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction which says "Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God)". That much for what you consider as 'astika' darshana.

Both Samkhya and Mimamsa deny a "final cause"
or creator deity. However, they are far from being
atheistic. This is because both acknowledge Dual-
Ordinances, such as Indra-Varuna, Indra-Agni.
They acknowledge them as supernatural powers.
That would mean anything but atheism.

Out of the two, Mimamsa is extremely orthoprax.
Mimamsa goes to great lengths defending the idea
of non-authorship of the Vedas by "threading" on
how the meaning of a rica can be derived from
analyzing the arrangement of the words found within.
It also goes to great lengths in expounding on how
a yajna must be conducted and why it must be
conducted correctly.
​

 

[Poeticus]

The last sentence of the second para of the introduction of Wikipedia page on 'Astika and nastika' says "Notably even among the āstika schools, Sāṃkhya is an atheistic philosophy." I am not a follower of Samkhya school.

Aup, do you have access to a library database?
Library databases can come in quite handy.

For example:

"According to most classical Samkhya commentaries,
the Vedas have no author" (Lutsyshyna, 2012, p. 453).
_____________________
Lutsyshyna, O. (2012). Classical Samkhya on the
Authorship of the Vedas. Journal Of Indian Philosophy,
40(4), 453-467.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Vedas are the divine Revelations of God, which were obtained by the Rishis through great meditation. It is not something to be messed with.

We have seen how the European scholars in the 19th century, without proper academic standards, distorted the teachings of the Vedas, especially the term 'Arya' .

This, thus, will not lead to the dilution of the Hindu teachings or views in the Hinduism forum, retaining its purity, and will reduce much of its chaos, and will also reduce confusion and increase clarity.

Readers from outside will also get an accurate idea of Hinduism, which is beneficial and important, and not get mislead and beget negative karma in the process.

The yajna of knowledge is a valid yajna as well, and it is important to ensure it is not corrupted.

Ravi that was a long rambling post. I would not reply to your superstitious ramblings, but take up some specific points. Please remember that I am an atheist advaitist Hindu.

Vedas were written by nice, wise, and imaginative people. They are not revelations of any God. Sure, they are old treasures of Hindu/Aryan tradition, and as with all old treasures, should not be trifled (changed) with.

Scores of European scholars have done excellent work with Indian scriptures and we should be thankful to them. Actually, they collected manuscripts, brought the scriptures to our attention, otherwise we would perhaps have forgotten about them.

That there were people, perhaps the first domesticated horses and invented chariots, who relished the intoxicant ‘Soma’ and performed fire-sacrifices, worshiped Gods such as Varuna, Mitra, Nasatya, Indra, etc., had Vedas or equivalent literature as their chants, were generally known as Aryans. They, their language, and their culture, spread over a vast area extending from India to Ireland.

Accepting truth can never harm Hinduism. What will harm it is untruth and false positions. These will give wrong information to people who want to know about Hinduism. They will think that Hinduism is just another superstitious religion like Christianity and Islam. See, how by keeping superstition away Buddhism has prospered. Hinduism can do even better than that if it is not pulled back by superstitious people.

Ravi, kindly do not try to help. Have you heard the story of a King and his monkey who was trying to chase away a fly from the King’s nose, but ended up in cutting the King's nose. To help also requires wisdom. By all means perform the ‘yajna of knowledge’ but that does not include following biased ways. You have to throw away prejudices. The ‘yajna of knowledge’ cannot be done without that. With regards.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Both Samkhya and Mimamsa deny a "final cause" or creator deity. However, they are far from being atheistic. This is because both acknowledge Dual-Ordinances, such as Indra-Varuna, Indra-Agni. They acknowledge them as supernatural powers. That would mean anything but atheism.

Source, please. The second para is irrelevant, and is nothing other than superstition.

 

[Poeticus]

Source, please. The second para is irrelevant, and is nothing other than superstition.

My pleasure (even though the
burden of proof is on you since
you made the initial affirmation
that the two were quite atheistic):​

Mimamsa --

"To the god Pusha [sic] the entire offering is of flour
by reason of the text, for there is a rule of the
Shashtra; there being no purpose served in the
dual offerings, there is no flour. On the other
hand in one by reason of its being the quality of
the sacrifice like Indra-Agni; to dual deities there
is no such offering because it is not so ordained"
(Jaimini Sutra 3.3.43-44)*.

Samkhya --

"There are two realities: prakrti, the one all-pervading
material cause of the universe, and purusa, the
many pure conscious intelligent entities who are
not subject to change" (Golden Research Thoughts, 2012)**.
___________________
*Sandal, M. L. (1999). Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini (reprint).
M. Banarsidass Publishers: New Delhi, India.

**A brief study on the philosophy of Samkhya.
[serial online]. 2012; Available from: OAIster, Ipswich,
MA. Accessed April 3, 2014.​

In regards to your statement that "The second para is irrelevant, and is
nothing other than superstition", I really have no idea what you are
trying to say. Because, the argument is not on whether you view the
tenets of Samkhya and Mimamsa as superstition or not. The argument is
how the two are definitively not atheistic.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

"According to most classical Samkhya commentaries, the Vedas have no author" (Lutsyshyna, 2012, p. 453).

Classical commentators - 6th to 14th Century. No wonder they say Vedas have no author. By that time lip service to Vedas was a norm.

Did not find much on Lutsyshyn/Lutsyshyna, probably Olena. Not on Amazon. There is an article on 'Why Buddha did not become a Samkhya philosopher'.

"A majority of modern academic scholars are of view that the concept of Ishvara was incorporated into the nirishvara (atheistic) Samkhya viewpoint only after it became associated with the Yoga, the Pasupata and the Bhagavata schools of philosophy. This theistic Samkhya philosophy is described in the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita." Wikipedia- Samkhya