Hinduism Debate

[Poeticus]

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

1. Your "source" citation is not credible enough. I would be greatly
   obliged if you were to cite scholarly sources, preferably from
   library databases.
2. Regarding your comment on "lip service", this is not the topic of
   the argument, and is a vehement digression. The argument is on
   whether Samkhya and/or Mimamsa are definitively atheistic. So
   far, the citations clearly prove that the two are quite theistic.
3. Regarding your comment on O.Lut, it is not my responsibility to
   provide her accreditation. This is where you will have to utilize
   a library database in order to gain access to her articles, as well
   as other articles on the subject.
4. The matter at hand is not that theism is only foundational on
   the notion of their being a creator deity. The scholarly sources that
   were cited by me clearly support the analytical fact that the two
   astika schools of thought are quite theistic, especially in their
   dualistic outlook regarding dual-realities. Mimamsa outright urges
   the satiation of dual-realites; and, Samkhya definitively suggests
   the existence of dual-realities, which modern atheists would refer
   to as superstition.
5. See post #99.

 

[atanu]

..... I agree that Brahman is satyam and anantam, I do not believe Brahman is human consciousness.

I do not follow Samkhya. I refer to Samkhya only to say that it does not believe in a Supreme Soul/Ishwara/God. ......

Yes. Dear elder brother. You do not believe any part of Veda-Vedantic scripture that contradicts your Materialist Monism. But the problem is that what you leave out are the most crucial defining aspects. No problems.

Seemingly, I had a karma to do. It's done.

 

[Ravi500]

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.

Reminds me of the Sanskrit saying, " Vinashakale Vipareeta Buddhi ".

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I will reserve my comment about Samkhya for the moment, but this is about Mimamsa from Wikipedia:
"The school of Mimamsa consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines and is not deeply interested in the existence of God, but rather in the character of dharma."
"The core tenets of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā are ritualism (orthopraxy), anti-asceticism and anti-mysticism. The central aim of the school is elucidation of the nature of dharma, understood as a set ritual obligations and prerogatives to be performed properly."
"Mīmāṃsā theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mīmāṃsā argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. To that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of Gods."
Wikipedia - Kumarila Bhtta: "In his varttika Kumārila Bhaṭṭa goes to great lengths to argue against the theory of a creator God and held that the actions enjoined in the Veda had definite results without an external interference."

The Mimansakas were interested in rituals, for which Vedas were accepted as 'apaurusheya' (otherwise the rituals would not hold authority). Gods and double-ordinances (as you mention) for them were just incidental (because they could not refute them without endangering the authority of Vedas). They were not true theists. They were karma-kandis.

 

[Ravi500]

Unfortunately, you are ill-informed and have not studied anything beyond 'Satyartha Prakash'.

More delusion. You actually presume that I am an Arya Samaji, which I am not as I am an Advaitin .

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.

Now why doesn't wikipedia or the established hindu authorities does not conform to your viewpoint that Sankhya is atheistic, and hence nastika !! Why do they state that Sankhya is astika !

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.

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?

So , you want to refute here as well the established authorities view that Sankhya is an 'astika darshana' , and claim that it is nastika which has never been said by any established Hindu scholar .

That is most ignorant and deluded.


Religion is not endless intellectual discussion, but realization through experience.

There is a saying," There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

Sankhya focusses on walking the path and attaining Self-realization .


Here is a saying by the enlightened master Sri Yukteshwar ....

' Because of one Sankhya aphorism, 'Ishwar-ashidha', - 'A Lord of Creation cannot be deduced ' or 'God is not proved' - many scholars call the whole philosophy atheistical.

The verse is not nihilistic. It merely signifies that to the unenlightened man, dependent on his senses for all final judgements, proof of God must remain unknown and therefore non-existent. True Sankhya followers, with unshakable insight born of meditation, understand that the Lord is both existent and knowable.'


The focus here , in both Sankhya as well as Mimamsa, is to focus on the means rather than the ends , and in the process come to the ends.

This is the reason why they are considered astika, instead of nastika like the charvak.

 

[Poeticus]

I will reserve my comment about Samkhya for the moment, but this is about Mimamsa from Wikipedia:
"The school of Mimamsa consists of both atheistic and theistic doctrines and is not deeply interested in the existence of God, but rather in the character of dharma."
"The core tenets of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā are ritualism (orthopraxy), anti-asceticism and anti-mysticism. The central aim of the school is elucidation of the nature of dharma, understood as a set ritual obligations and prerogatives to be performed properly."
"Mīmāṃsā theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mīmāṃsā argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. To that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of Gods."
Wikipedia - Kumarila Bhtta: "In his varttika Kumārila Bhaṭṭa goes to great lengths to argue against the theory of a creator God and held that the actions enjoined in the Veda had definite results without an external interference."

The Mimansakas were interested in rituals, for which Vedas were accepted as 'apaurusheya' (otherwise the rituals would not hold authority). Gods and double-ordinances (as you mention) for them were just incidental (because they could not refute them without endangering the authority of Vedas). They were not true theists. They were karma-kandis.

You are most certainly welcomed to reserve your comment(s) on Samkhya, but
the fact remains that the two astika schools of thought in said question are
quite theistic. For an astika school to be theistic, it does not have to hold to
the notion of a Supreme Being. Aup, are you even reading my posts care-
fully? Nowhere have I argued that the two schools in said question hold to
the notion that there is a Supreme Being. I have only relayed the scholarly,
highly analytical comparisons that both Samkhya and Mimamsa are quite
theistic, since they believe in Dual-Ordinances, or dualistic realities that are of
the supernatural. The argument is not on whether the two schools believe in
a creator deity. The argument is on whether the two are theistic or atheistic.
And, having a creator deity is not the primordial qualifier for theism. If that
were the case, then I wouldn't be classified as a theist.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

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).

"A Brief Study on the Philosophy of Samkhya", R. Muthamil and S. Veerapandian, Golden Research Thoughts, 2012

"There are two realities: prakrti, the one all-pervading material cause of the universe, and purusa (Aup adds: make it purushas, innumerable), the many pure conscious intelligent entities who are not subject to change"

"Another uniqueness of Samkhya is that not only physical entities but even mind, ego and intelligence are regarded as forms of Unconsciousness, quite distinct from pure consciousness." Wikipedia - Samkhya

"In the Sāṅkhya philosophy, “puruṣa” is metaphorically considered to be masculine, but unlike our concept of virility it is absolutely inactive. It is pure consciousness: it enjoys and witnesses Prakṛti’s activities, but does not cause them." Sankhya [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Do you mean your Gods, purusas, are absolutely inactive, and just a witness to Prakriti's activities, as is mentioned above? The last is a nice article on Samkhya, and I will go through it when I have some time.

 

[Poeticus]

"A Brief Study on the Philosophy of Samkhya", R. Muthamil and S. Veerapandian, Golden Research Thoughts, 2012

"There are two realities: prakrti, the one all-pervading material cause of the universe, and purusa (Aup adds: make it purushas, innumerable), the many pure conscious intelligent entities who are not subject to change"

"Another uniqueness of Samkhya is that not only physical entities but even mind, ego and intelligence are regarded as forms of Unconsciousness, quite distinct from pure consciousness." Wikipedia - Samkhya

"In the Sāṅkhya philosophy, “puruṣa” is metaphorically considered to be masculine, but unlike our concept of virility it is absolutely inactive. It is pure consciousness: it enjoys and witnesses Prakṛti’s activities, but does not cause them." Sankhya*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Do you mean your Gods, purusas, are absolutely inactive, and just a witness to Prakriti's activities, as is mentioned above? The last is a nice article on Samkhya, and I will go through it when I have some time.

I mean one thing and one thing only:

The mere mentioning of Gods and holding them as supernatural
entities that are categorized as Devas makes the very foundation
of Samkhya theistic. In other words, it is not atheistic. To simply
put it in the words of Dawkins, it is no different than a flying
spaghetti monster in the skies, regardless of the probability these
deities interact with us or stay inactive.​

 

[Poeticus]

I mean one thing and one thing only:

The mere mentioning of Gods and holding them as supernatural
entities that are categorized as Devas makes the very foundation
of Samkhya theistic. In other words, it is not atheistic. To simply
put it in the words of Dawkins, it is no different than a flying
spaghetti monster in the skies, regardless of the probability these
deities interact with us or stay inactive.​

And, by "deities", I do not mean it in the usual sense of
actual Gods that are to be directly worshipped, but rather
in the sense of supernatural realities that are beyond
human control. Samkhya definitively suggests the existence
of these realities, and holds them as supernatural. In fact,
the mere declaration of the Vedas having no authors by
the philosophers of Samkhya makes its foundation theistic,
especially when it concentrates on the liberation of a "soul",
or the "sign-body" (from your recent source: click me).

In fact, your article makes a clear distinction between Samkhyan
duality with Western duality, concluding that because it doesn't
abide by the Supreme God concept, it is atheistic only in comparison
to the dualistic theologies formally acknowledged here in the
West.​

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Sāṅkhya adduces three arguments to prove that there is a separate puruṣa for each individual: (1) Birth, death and the personal history of everybody is different (it is determined by the law of karma, according to our merits collected in previous lives). If there were one puruṣa only, all bodies should be identical or at least indistinguishable for the function of the self orpuruṣa is to be a supervisor of the body. But this is clearly not so. Hence, there must be a plurality of distinct puruṣa-s. (2) If there were only one puruṣa, everyone would act simultaneously alike, for the puruṣa is the supervisor of the body. But this is clearly not so. Hence, there must be a plurality of distinct puruṣa-s. (3) If there were only onepuruṣa, we would all experience the same things. However, it is evident that the opposite is true: our experiences are inherently diverse and private, and they cannot be directly shared. Hence, there must be a separate puruṣa for us all." Sankhya [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] - Purusa

Now begin counting: Seven billion for humans. birds? Fish? Tigers? Lions? Buffaloes? Deers? Rabbits? Squirels? Hogs? Dogs? Goats? Sheep? Cows? Elephants? Rhinos? Hippos? Zebras? Crocs? Keep counting. Monkeys? Wolves? Jackals? Bears? Keep Counting. Bacterias? Viruses? Do we add vegetation? Banyans, Pipals, Neems, Tamarinds, Teaks, Deodars, Chir pines, Eucalytus, ... That many purusas. Is that right, Poeticus?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here is a saying by the enlightened master Sri Yukteshwar ..

If I can differ with Adi Sankaracharya, what importance do Yogananda, Yukteshwar, Lahiri Mahashaya, or Mahavatara Babaji have to me. I don't even count them.

 

[Poeticus]

"Sāṅkhya adduces three arguments to prove that there is a separate puruṣa for each individual: (1) Birth, death and the personal history of everybody is different (it is determined by the law of karma, according to our merits collected in previous lives). If there were one puruṣa only, all bodies should be identical or at least indistinguishable for the function of the self orpuruṣa is to be a supervisor of the body. But this is clearly not so. Hence, there must be a plurality of distinct puruṣa-s. (2) If there were only one puruṣa, everyone would act simultaneously alike, for the puruṣa is the supervisor of the body. But this is clearly not so. Hence, there must be a plurality of distinct puruṣa-s. (3) If there were only onepuruṣa, we would all experience the same things. However, it is evident that the opposite is true: our experiences are inherently diverse and private, and they cannot be directly shared. Hence, there must be a separate puruṣa for us all." Sankhya*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] - Purusa

Now begin counting: Seven billion for humans. birds? Fish? Tigers? Lions? Buffaloes? Deers? Rabbits? Squirels? Hogs? Dogs? Goats? Sheep? Cows? Elephants? Rhinos? Hippos? Zebras? Crocs? Keep counting. Monkeys? Wolves? Jackals? Bears? Keep Counting. Bacterias? Viruses? Do we add vegetation? Banyans, Pipals, Neems, Tamarinds, Teaks, Deodars, Chir pines, Eucalytus, ... That many purusas. Is that right, Poeticus?

Yes, it's theistic. In your words,
that would mean one thing and
one thing only:

superstition.​

Also, it's ironic how your source
enabled the solidification of my
rebuttal to your initial affirmation,
which currently stands as invalid.

(BTW, you forgot pandas on your
list, which is a big no-no. :sad4​

 

[Ravi500]

If I can differ with Adi Sankaracharya, what importance do Yogananda, Yukteshwar, Lahiri Mahashaya, or Mahavatara Babaji have to me. I don't even count them.

Yes, you don't count the Shrutis or Shankara or any of the enlightened masters in Hinduism and yet want to declare yourself as 'advaitin' and 'Hindu' though whatever you state is hitherto unknown in Hinduism and has no basis in it.

This is the reason why this thread was put in the first place.

Hope this makes sense to you !

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, Sankara and other Acharyas cannot be compared with modern-day riff-raff (barring a few like Ramana or Narayana Guru, etc.).

 

[Aupmanyav]

(BTW, you forgot pandas on your list, which is a big no-no. :sad4

No, I never said it was a comprehensive list, I forgot to add ants, bees, also, which I wanted to add. Sorry for that. Actually got tired of counting 'purusas'.