The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Brahmanism, is a very misguiding & dud term, coined by the tribes of western self-termed/so-called universalists, indologists, & missionaries, communists, militant atheists & what-have-you, with deviousness in its essence. i have seen it being used umpteen times. one of the most funny instances of it being used - 'the Bhagawat Geeta was/is a product of Brahamanism, meant to be another tool to exploit the downtrodden/masses/dalits/poor' (add more such commie-favourite terms here).

P.S. - IDK what made our writers refer to Brahma as 'Brahman', creating royal mess all around. English indeed is a phunny language!

also, Buddhism does have plenty rituals as practised anywhere according to the land (with their indigenous traditions). same goes for xtianity & islam (to varying extent).

 

[Kshatriya87]

According to Buddha there is no other way.

There are other ways. Kshatriyas at the time of Mahabharata achieved moksha through karma yoga, not meditation.

 

[archie]

You are right Brahminism and Buddhism are not similar.btw Brahmins smartly uprooted/imbibed some Buddhist traits in Hinduism..

Shifted to Vegitarian food.
Opted White robe(saffron for Buddist monks).
Stopped/minimized useless Animal Sacrifice ,Yajnas&Yagas.
To some extent Hindus also started following 'Dharma'(Righteous).etc


Last but not least Buddhism strict RULES are only for MONKS not for every Buddhist.

Buddhism Branched of from Hinduism .. Dhrama was always a part and parcel of Hinduism. The so called Exclusivity created by Bramins was counter to the true meaning of Hinduism and that was re-established by Buddha and branched off .. Adi-shankara brought about the revitalization of Hinduism with the correct interpretations...

Either way the exclusivity came about due to the fact that the spirt of scriptures needs guidance to know the full meaning and means of interpretation ..

Brahmins are nothing more than to mean a learned person(more to do with nature of person) and that over generations became a caste.. and a rigid one

 

[archie]

Well You Need to look at the past first.... Hinduism has many schools of Philosophy making it way way broader than anything in the world ..

Caste system is not Hinduism and the original explanations of caste system is essentially a non rigid social structure based on ones occupation... Just Like how you call Engineers , doctors and soo on ...

Do you know who wrote Ramayana .. He was not a born Brhamin .. he was born in the family of Fishermen folk..

Pls Understand how Gurukulam worked to grade people on ability and not by BIRTH

 

[Anupu]

I am starting to get a hint regarding that explanation but I'm still not able to digest the fact that I can't ask the question "why". If I can't, then how else am I supposed to understand the reason behind and for all this?

Well, I am not sure about vedanta, but asking "why" is actually asking for a cause for something, cause or causality can exist only when time exists. So asking "when" and "why" without the existence of time, doesn't make any sense. Indians philosophers were smart enough to realize that time doesn't exist before creation. Hence the quote, I believe. What do you think?

 

[Kshatriya87]

Well, I am not sure about vedanta, but asking "why" is actually asking for a cause for something, cause or causality can exist only when time exists. So asking "when" and "why" without the existence of time, doesn't make any sense. Indians philosophers were smart enough to realize that time doesn't exist before creation. Hence the quote, I believe. What do you think?

The point makes sense when you are thinking of time only as an entity in this world. Why not think about the time before this world was created? What was before this world? Surely an entity of time or something similar to time must have existed before this world was created?

 

[Anupu]

The point makes sense when you are thinking of time only as an entity in this world. Why not think about the time before this world was created? What was before this world? Surely an entity of time or something similar to time must have existed before this world was created?

There is certainly no time before existence, creation is the moment when the world begins, in Physics we are very certain of that as the space time is created with Big-Bang. As a philosopher too, think about it how can time exist before there is existence, what will it be for? Think of time as counter in a software program, it doesn't even exist before the software is run. Though it's an interesting question, Nasadiya sukta runs into this query.

 

[Kshatriya87]

how can time exist before there is existence

Just like it exists now.

what will it be for?

Umm.. Brahman / God?

My point being, before the universe and such there was, is and always will be Brahman. What about its existence? As Gita says, Atma/Soul is a part of Brahman and has always existed and will always exist. Nothing can destroy it. If it has always existed, it existed before the world/Maya was created. If so, existence was indeed there. Which provokes the thought that an entity similar to time must also have existed and which in turn begs & validates the question - WHY?

 

[kr9]

The point makes sense when you are thinking of time only as an entity in this world. Why not think about the time before this world was created? What was before this world? Surely an entity of time or something similar to time must have existed before this world was created?

I think 'Time' is a man made phenomenon to explain recurring change.
Today, it has lots of meanings.
But in essence if we put 100 people in a box and nothing changes for 10 days, time would have stopped. This is why people who have been kept captive in prison or bunkers lose track of 'time'.

If there is no change in the entire universe, 'time' will literally have stopped.

So the point of creation we seek is the 'point of creation of change'. But that may not mean matter did not exist before that point.

Does that make sense??
It is just a thought.

 

[Kshatriya87]

I think 'Time' is a man made phenomenon to explain recurring change.
Today, it has lots of meanings.
But in essence if we put 100 people in a box and nothing changes for 10 days, time would have stopped. This is why people who have been kept captive in prison or bunkers lose track of 'time'.

If there is no change in the entire universe, 'time' will literally have stopped.

So the point of creation we seek is the 'point of creation of change'. But that may not mean matter did not exist before that point.

Does that make sense??
It is just a thought.

Absolutely. I'm gonna take some time off and think about this. Will get back if I have anything to say. Thanks.

 

[Anupu]

Just like it exists now.



Umm.. Brahman / God?

My point being, before the universe and such there was, is and always will be Brahman. What about its existence? As Gita says, Atma/Soul is a part of Brahman and has always existed and will always exist. Nothing can destroy it. If it has always existed, it existed before the world/Maya was created. If so, existence was indeed there. Which provokes the thought that an entity similar to time must also have existed and which in turn begs & validates the question - WHY?

Hmm.. I don't believe in a god, but certainly such a creature would be beyond time. Time is an aspect of creation, for such a being time is like what x,y,z co-ordinates are for us, we can go forward and backward freely in these dimensions, a being beyond time could basically will look at the whole time at once.

How will causality work for him, we don't know, can a 2-d creature really understand the 3-d world. But surely our questions based on the concept of one-directional flow of time, don't make sense here for such a being. What do you think?

 

[Kshatriya87]

Hmm.. I don't believe in a god, but certainly such a creature would be beyond time. Time is an aspect of creation, for such a being time is like what x,y,z co-ordinates are for us, we can go forward and backward freely in these dimensions, a being beyond time could basically will look at the whole time at once.

How will causality work for him, we don't know, can a 2-d creature really understand the 3-d world. But surely our questions based on the concept of one-directional flow of time, don't make sense here for such a being. What do you think?

Understood. I like the question raised here "can a 2D creature understand a 3D world?" Puts things in perspective.

I guess the only way to know is by actually attaining Niravana. Like @OneGrimPilgrim said, this question should be pointed inwards introvertly.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Anupu]

Understood. I like the question raised here "can a 2D creature understand a 3D world?" Puts things in perspective.

I guess the only way to know is by actually attaining Niravana. Like @OneGrimPilgrim said, this question should be pointed inwards introvertly.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

There is a book called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. It would be an excellent read for that question.

 

[Kshatriya87]

There is a book called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. It would be good read for that question.

If you are talking about the concept of 1 to 10 dimensions, I know about them.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Anupu]

If you are talking about the concept of 1 to 10 dimensions, I know about them.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

No no, It's a good read trust me, it's a story of a square named "Square" living in 2-D world, where he dreams about a 1-D world and a 3D world, it's interesting read it. Kind of can turn any Atheist into an Agnostic.

 

[asingh10]

Aganna Sutta where Buddha explains Varnashrama as a sociological fact :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggañña_Sutta#The_Birth_of_Social_Order_and_Castes

Discourse ends with "The Khattiya (Kshatriya) is the best among those who maintain their lineage; He with knowledge and conduct is best of gods and men."

Ambatha Sutta :-

[99] 'But thereby, Ambattha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation. still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahmans inferior.

28. 'Moreover it was one of the Brahmâ gods, Sanam-kumâra{1}, who uttered this stanza{2}:

{p. 122}

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."

'Now this stanza, Ambattha, was well sung and not ill sung by the Brahmâ Sanam-kumâra, well said and not ill said, full of meaning and not void thereof. And I too approve it; I also, Ambattha, say:

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-03tx.htm

Or the Vasishtha Sutta where Buddha says Brahmin is not Brahmin by birth alone :-

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Vasettha_Sutta

Buddha on 'who's a true brahmin' in Dhammapada, uses Arhat and Brahmin interchangeably for an enlightened person :-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/sbe1028.htm


Its a myth that Buddhism eschewed caste. Buddha and most of his disciples were upper caste themselves. Most Boddhisatvas were born in Kshatriya or Brahmin order. Final Maitreya is Brahmin. Uma Chakraborty catalogued Jati of earliest Buddhist monks, most were Brahmins, rest Dvijas. Very rare to find a "shudra". Out of his ten principle disciples, one was a Shudra (Upali) :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ten_principal_disciples

Buddhism delinked Varna from birth, but didn't reject Varnashrama outright. You can find evidence of the same even in Rig Veda & Chandyoga Upanishad which predate Buddhism. See story of Satyakama Jabala. Or even the Bhagavata cult which is older than Buddhism & had similar reformist ideas on Varna by guna/karma & opening doors of Moksha to all varnas, women included :-

https://vajrin.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/bhagavad-giita-evolution-of-bhagavata-system-and-buddha/

Buddhism's core concern was never social reform anyway, it was attainment of Nibbana. But then again don't let facts come in the way of emotion. Carry on with Buddhism = reform/revolution, Hinduism = evil.

 

[asingh10]

Here is another Indic Dharma, Jainism, that has also shown as a revolution against caste by indologists and historians.

Quoting from Bhadrabahu's Kalpasutra on birth of 24th Tirthankara Mahavira. Indra transfers the embryo of Mahavira from a Brahmani to a Kshatrani because a Tirthankara cannot be born outside of the Kshatriya caste :-

'Reverence to the Venerable Ascetic Mahâvîra, the Âdikara, the last of the Tîrthakaras who was predicted by the former Tîrthakaras, &c. 1 I here adore the Revered One yonder, may the Revered One yonder see me here!' With these words he adored, he worshipped the Venerable Ascetic Mahâvira, and sat down on his excellent throne facing the east. Then the following internal, reflectional, desirable idea occurred to the mind of Sakra, the chief of kings and gods: (16)

'It never has happened, nor does it happen, nor will it happen, that Arhats, Kakravartins, Baladevas, or Vasudevas, in the past, present, or future, should be born in low families, mean families, degraded families, poor families, indigent families, beggars' families, or brahmanical families. (17) For indeed Arhats, Kakravartins, Baladevas, and Vasudevas, in the past, present, and future, are born in high families, noble families, royal families, noblemen's families, in families belonging to the race of Ikshvâku, or of Hari, or in other suchlike families of pure descent on both sides. (18)

http://sacred-texts.com/jai/sbe22/sbe2282.htm


My goal is not to criticize either of the great Shramana religions (respect them greatly) but show why people need to be careful of falling in this trap of anachronistic backdating of today's ideals onto people who lived several thousand years back. You won't find social equality, feminism etc (by todays standards) in texts that are 1000s of years old. Ancient Buddhism and Jainism were very different from the popular western narrative.

 

[Mad Indian]

Aganna Sutta where Buddha explains Varnashrama as a sociological fact :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggañña_Sutta#The_Birth_of_Social_Order_and_Castes

Discourse ends with "The Khattiya (Kshatriya) is the best among those who maintain their lineage; He with knowledge and conduct is best of gods and men."

Ambatha Sutta :-

[99] 'But thereby, Ambattha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation. still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahmans inferior.

28. 'Moreover it was one of the Brahmâ gods, Sanam-kumâra{1}, who uttered this stanza{2}:

{p. 122}

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."

'Now this stanza, Ambattha, was well sung and not ill sung by the Brahmâ Sanam-kumâra, well said and not ill said, full of meaning and not void thereof. And I too approve it; I also, Ambattha, say:

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-03tx.htm

Or the Vasishtha Sutta where Buddha says Brahmin is not Brahmin by birth alone :-

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Vasettha_Sutta

Buddha on 'who's a true brahmin' in Dhammapada, uses Arhat and Brahmin interchangeably for an enlightened person :-

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/sbe1028.htm


Its a myth that Buddhism eschewed caste. Buddha and most of his disciples were upper caste themselves. Most Boddhisatvas were born in Kshatriya or Brahmin order. Final Maitreya is Brahmin. Uma Chakraborty catalogued Jati of earliest Buddhist monks, most were Brahmins, rest Dvijas. Very rare to find a "shudra". Out of his ten principle disciples, one was a Shudra (Upali) :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ten_principal_disciples

Buddhism delinked Varna from birth, but didn't reject Varnashrama outright. You can find evidence of the same even in Rig Veda & Chandyoga Upanishad which predate Buddhism. See story of Satyakama Jabala. Or even the Bhagavata cult which is older than Buddhism & had similar reformist ideas on Varna by guna/karma & opening doors of Moksha to all varnas, women included :-

https://vajrin.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/bhagavad-giita-evolution-of-bhagavata-system-and-buddha/

Buddhism's core concern was never social reform anyway, it was attainment of Nibbana. But then again don't let facts come in the way of emotion. Carry on with Buddhism = reform/revolution, Hinduism = evil.

Also, if buddhism had gotten rid of castes, why would the lower castes remain Hindus? That had always eluded me tbh.

 

[archie]

IF not wrong,Gurukul were only for Ruling&Priest classes!. Past is past

Repeat: Caste/nepotism (Doctor/Soldier /Politician son as Doctor/Soldier /Politician) is very bad.Anyway caste is slowly dying practically.

Practically its evolving now a days the caste system is social grouping from the same industrial background... in years it will reform into similar system.. I for one have heard people asking for only Engineers and doctors in hand for marriage .. how far along is the principle behind it???

The point makes sense when you are thinking of time only as an entity in this world. Why not think about the time before this world was created? What was before this world? Surely an entity of time or something similar to time must have existed before this world was created?

You cant define a system in totality when you are within the system... Say you wake up inside a car/ bus or closed space.. will you be able to exactly define that car/bus/ closed space??

The Answer would be no you would be able to see the system only when you get out of it .. the rest would only be a peek and best guess.


Time is a similar paradime.... We are all experiencing time on a daily basis no one can escape it to say what it is to be without time ..

To say what time actually feels like to a human is our perception of this lifetime.. to A moth that lives for only a day its time is definitely different ..

Say for example Planets can perceve time its time frame of reference will be completely different than what we consider time is.. The question of God is only a question of label on the forces of this universe that operate beyond human perception yet the force that can act on humans....

All of worlds philosophy talk only of All knowing and All powerful being and to make it simple for the human mind depict it in a human form or a form that can be recognised ..

Read of Multi verse universe and that of concept of Maya .. meaning all that we see is only due to perception of senses.. totally different concepts that will make sense to the question what was before and what after

 

[asingh10]

Also, if buddhism had gotten rid of castes, why would the lower castes remain Hindus? That had always eluded me tbh.

It's just a case of people trying to match their religion with whatever are the modern day left-lib preconceptions. Buddhism spread far and wide only after it received patronage from the Kshatriya elite of Gangetic valley. Bimbisara and Ajatshatru in the life of Buddha. This alone defies the logic of "revolutionary significance" that marx and other orientalists have ascribed to it. That's why I said it's not good idea to view everything through modern day orientalist lens that is always hell bent on the over simplified and two dimensional cardboard cut outs.