Atheism in Hinduism

Silverbackman said:
I personally do not like to label myself.....although my spiritualality does involve an ultimate Supreme Reality that the definition of Brahman (or Dao) describes well....so in some ways I can be considered a Hindu atheist.....although like I said I reject labels.
Click to expand...
Labels have their own importance. Can you reach my house if I do not give you the address?

Brahman can be taken as the Supreme Spirit or it could be taken just as 'what exists'. Who knows Brahman? In that case one is an atheist and could as well be a hindu too (which I am, a hindu atheist). My spirituality does not require God/Gods/Goddesses/soul/creation/birth/death/judgment/reward or punishment. :)
 
Silverbackman said:
After all the label "Hinduism" is a very big misnomer and overgeneralizing label by westerners for what is widely different religions within this umbrella..
Click to expand...
And why is hinduism a misnomer? Hinduism can embrace various 'matas' (opinions) and panthas' (roads). It is not like christianity and islam that if you do not accept what the book says, you cannot escape eternal hell. It is not a misnomer but the western people need to understand that worshiping this God or that Goddess or none is negotiable. What is not negotiable is 'dharma' (one's duties and righteous action). Gods and Goddesses are not the base of hinduism, 'dharma' is.
 
nativeastral said:
.. probably those 'pure' athiests still respect and give offerings-arti- to their local deities as well as the 'mainstream' ones. the belief that they can help in worldly matters is endemic ..
Click to expand...
No, I do not give offerings-arti to local or mainstream Gods and Goddesses and I do not ever seek any divine help. I am a strong atheist. I realize they are stories in which my society has woven its morality and ethics. That does not mean that I show disrespect to them or their stories. These are beacons for hindu morality and ethics. Whether fair or unfair, these stories still teach us something.
 
param said:
The logic of atheists is based on perception (Pratyaksha Pramana), .. The divine miracles are experienced by the devotees and the experience cannot be contradicted. .. The theory of Vedas and Bhagavath Gita never contradicts the perception .. The Bliss is derived by the devotee from the divine knowledge of the human form of the Lord. .. Veda says ‘Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat’, ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’.
Click to expand...

My logic is not based on perception. Perception is a mirage. BhagawadGeeta clearly contradicts perception. It does not even accept the killed and the killer. Nothing that we perceive is true. I accept 'Anumana' (like the Vaisesikas). What I would not believe is Shabda. That needs to be verified. Why are miracles perceived only by devotees? Why do I not perceive them? I would accept them if there was independent evidence. Bliss/Satisfaction is derived from getting answers to one's questions. If all questions are answered, then it is 'supreme bliss', 'nirvana' (no forest, clear view), moksha, and 'gnana' (understanding). You have used ‘Yat Saakshat Aparokshaat’ and ‘Pratyagatmana Maikshat’ many a times on internet. Would you kindly give me the book number (mandala) and hymn (richa) so that I could check the meaning in context myself.
 
Lunitik said:
Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin, Brahman is not a being it is an absense, a non-existence, a void. Brahman cannot be directly conceived as something personal like the other God's of Hinduism are posited. Advaita practitioners uphold the personal character of Ishwara, but even here it is a maya - why have they stalled here? The point is escaping maya, not finding a more profound maya.
Click to expand...
We do not know what Brahman is. You say it is an absense, non-existence. It could be. Or it could be presence and existence. We do not have the answer yet. But this is something which needs to be looked into. Perhaps existence and non existence are related. Perhaps 'what exists' arises out of 'void'. Science is making inquiries. Even the 'Nasadiya Sukta' (you can check it at 'sacred-texts.com', Book 10, Hymn 129, Verse 4 - I cannot post the link yet. Perhaps Seattlegal would do it for me) in RigVeda hinted at that saying 'sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.'

I follow advaita but stop at 'Absolute truth' (Parmarthika). I do not accept 'Pragmatic' (Vyavaharika) as truth. That does away with 'Ishvara'. I have not stalled anywhere. I have not rejected mythology. I have accepted it for what it is, guidance for the society. I have no quarrel with theism. It may not be a necessity for me, but it is a necessity for many people.
Lunitik said:
This is the problem with Advaita though, it is as far as mind can take you, but the goal is not of the mind - it transcends mind.
Click to expand...
There is nothing beyond mind. What goal are you referring to and what makes you say that it transcends mind? At one time 'relativity' and 'quantum mechanics' also were beyond mind. It takes data and time to understand things.
 
bhaktajan said:
The Conclusion of the Vedas (aka, Vedanta) is attainable only through a Guru who is a bonafide representative of the Science of Self-realization.
Click to expand...
Kindly give reference to the book and hymn where Vedas say this.
bhaktajan said:
Q: "How does one know who their real father is?"
A: "Ask your mother"
Click to expand...
:D Sometimes even the mother does not know. When Satyakama asked this question, his mother said, 'Son, at the time you were conceived, I sported with many men. I do not know who your father is.'
bhaktajan said:
Atheism in "Hindu Schools of Logic" do not deny the topic God - they just talk past the topic. Since the soul is made of Brahman-Stuff, ..
Click to expand...
I deny all, God/Gods/Goddesses and Soul, because I do not find any evidence.
 
bhaktajan said:
Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?
Click to expand...
Krishna instructed Arjuna according to Arjuna's capabilities. But he also said:

"Gata-sangasya muktasya, jnānāvasthita-chetasah;
yajnāyācharatah karma, samagram pravilīyate." (BhagawadGeeta 4.23)

(The work of a man who is unattached to the modes of material nature and who is fully situated in transcendental knowledge merges entirely into transcendence.)

He (or she, if the person is a woman) is Brahman, there is no difference. :)
 
Lunitik said:
This is exactly what I say is wrong with Advaita, always these conclusions are restricted to mind or body, yet we are not these so this is not useful. It can facilitate trust in later meditation, but all too often it is never taken to meditation and so they continue disputing.
Click to expand...
Are we more than body (that includes mind as well)? Sure, meditate all you want. But what will you meditate on? Meditation is seeking answers to a question.
Lunitik said:
I can logically explain anything I want, ..
Click to expand...
No, you can't. If you can, prove logically the existence of God/Gods/Goddesses (in a separate topic).
Lunitik said:
.. and indeed most mystic branches of faith..
Click to expand...
I do not think there is anything mystic with Advaita. Whatever the universe contains is made up of 'physical energy' (heat, light, electricity, gravity), so we say "Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (all things here are Brahman). I do not know of anything that is made up of anything other than 'physical energy'.
 
seattlegal said:
I know of a couple of advaitists I can invite over to debate you. One is rather settled in his beliefs, and is a polite debater. The other is more muddied in his beliefs, and loves to argue for the sake of arguing.

Lemme know if you want me to invite one or both over. :p
Click to expand...

I think 'muddled' ones need moderated forums ;)
 
seattlegal said:
Space? Time? Qualia?
Click to expand...
Zero-point Energy. Space is energy/mass. Time also is somehow involved - acceleration changes mass - we (I) may not know exactly how.
seattlegal said:
I know of a couple of advaitists I can invite over to debate you. One is rather settled in his beliefs, and is a polite debater. The other is more muddied in his beliefs, and loves to argue for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...
Which one of them am I? (I understand which person you may be talking about. But are there not people with muddied beliefs everywhere?) :D
 
Aupmanyav said:
Zero-point Energy. Space is energy/mass. Time also is somehow involved - acceleration changes mass - we may not know exactly how.
Click to expand...


It may indeed come down to our current state of knowledge. And maybe a desire to maintain a more qualatative dimension to experience / reality. Space may be full of dark matter. E=mc2 removes that duality. Time and qualia are psychological constructs, and where is the mind located? I reject Cartesian dualism, I accept mind-body is undivided.

What indeed can be left?
 
seattlegal said:
OK, you've outed me in my creative misspellings. Shall I proceed directly to the Two Truths thread, or can I stop by and pick up some dark chocolate on the way? ;)
Click to expand...

That's always a good idea. Can you get Lindt 90% there? I thought it'd be too plain even for me but it is just heaven in a white wrapper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top