The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[Forgotten Prince]

Who knows? I am always reminded of this:



There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.

 

[sydsnyper]

Dear Seeker, I am the local self-appointed expert of R K Mission Views & Wisdom here . Please find the answer from an all-renouncing monk of R K Mission:

I have met Swami Sarvapriyananda.... he is comes off as quite agnostic, very humble, no pretensions and the best part is, in his talks he only quotes science and philosophies he knows to be true... unlike the nuts who mix "quantum" in every bullcrap they can dream of. If not anything, he seems like someone who has realized the truth.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Which flaw ?

30 character..............

30 character..............[/QUOTE]
The 'Big Bang' has now mostly been substituted with the Big Inflation. Instead of a super massive explosion, as envisioned in a bang, most physicist are coming around to the idea, first proposed by Alan Guth of MIT, that the universe( along with all the matter) expanded uniformly. The even distribution of energy in early cosmos, as observed by the WMAP satellite, proves that instead of a big bang, our story began as a big 'swell'... Of course the other postulations proposed by the big bang theory remains more or less the same...

 

[S.A.T.A]

Who knows? I am always reminded of this:



There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.

Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.

From the ' Nasadiya Sukta'... You must listen to the beautiful rendering of the first few slokas from the sukta in OST of 'Bharat ek khoj' the telescreen adaptation of Pt Nehru's Discovery of India '

 

[S.A.T.A]

I have met Swami Sarvapriyananda.... he is comes off as quite agnostic, very humble, no pretensions and the best part is, in his talks he only quotes science and philosophies he knows to be true... unlike the nuts who mix "quantum" in every bullcrap they can dream of. If not anything, he seems like someone who has realized the truth.

Intellectuals and philosophers from the Rama krishna mission seems to be more close to Shankaracharya school of atheist philosophy, even more than Sringeri vidyapeetha or the Kanchi kamamoti.... It's also ironic that so many temples in karnataka, kerala and TN, are claimed to have been established by the avowed atheist Shankaracharya...

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Intellectuals and philosophers from the Rama krishna mission seems to be more close to Shankaracharya school of atheist philosophy, even more than Sringeri vidyapeetha or the Kanchi kamamoti.... It's also ironic that so many temples in karnataka, kerala and TN, are claimed to have been established by the avowed atheist Shankaracharya...

Dharma leans towards patheism. It says that entire universe is one unit and all entities are connected. Things like Jyotishya are evidence that connection of humans to other entities. In Abrahamic terms, this appears more or less atheistic as the Abrahamic idea of god is separate from man.

I recommend that you follow David Frawley on twitter. He writes correct things about these ideas

 

[S.A.T.A]

Dharma leans towards patheism. It says that entire universe is one unit and all entities are connected. Things like Jyotishya are evidence that connection of humans to other entities. In Abrahamic terms, this appears more or less atheistic as the Abrahamic idea of god is separate from man.

I recommend that you follow David Frawley on twitter. He writes correct things about these ideas

The Advaita interpretation of Vedanta philosophy by Shankara, does not recognize any universe or entities (human or otherwise) but a single universal consciousness (Brahm- Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya). So where is there any question of connections.... Let's first try to understand what our schools of philosophy say, before we make comparisons with foreign philosophies...

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The Advaita interpretation of Vedanta philosophy by Shankara, does not recognize any universe or entities (human or otherwise) but a single universal consciousness (Brahm- Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya). So where is there any question of connections.... Let's first try to understand what our schools of philosophy say, before we make comparisons with foreign philosophies...

First read properly on what I said. The universe is one unit mean that the entities in universe is interconnected like organs in a body. That one unit is Brahmana. Advaita does not derecognise the existence of individual entities but only states that the individual entities are all part of Brahmana. Similar concept has been put forth in Bhagvad gita too.

First you understand the reason given by Adi Shankara. According to Adi Shankara, one must not take a line from scripture out of context. One must accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are incompatible with any".

You have failed in the basic understanding of advaita by cherry picking a statement. To get the full context, one must also answer questions like - if there is only 1 Brahmana, how are there crores of people and different celestial bodies like Sun, moon, earth?

So, without basic understanding, don't argue with me just for the sake of arguing

 

[Khalsa_Panth]

Atheism is gay.



30 characters

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Atheism is gay.



30 characters

Atheists are fanatics who are just like other Abrahamic people with a tendency of imposing their view on others. The Indian or Chinese atheism is based on spiritualism where separate god is not proclaimed but unlike Western atheists, Indian view is not something people impose with force but only convinced with arguments

 

[chetan chopade]

Atheism is gay.



30 characters

joke

 

[chetan chopade]

Atheists are fanatics who are just like other Abrahamic people with a tendency of imposing their view on others. The Indian or Chinese atheism is based on spiritualism where separate god is not proclaimed but unlike Western atheists, Indian view is not something people impose with force but only convinced with arguments

no man...fanatic is the one who is ready to kill or die for his belief...atheist under death threat can say anything ...do anything to make others happy about GODDD...including me....fuck it-why should i die for not yelling "har har mahadev"/ "alaah hu okuber"/ "jo bole so nihal" etc etc

 

[chetan chopade]

this how a militant atheist east/west look like...

 

[S.A.T.A]

First read properly on what I said. The universe is one unit mean that the entities in universe is interconnected like organs in a body. That one unit is Brahmana. Advaita does not derecognise the existence of individual entities but only states that the individual entities are all part of Brahmana. Similar concept has been put forth in Bhagvad gita too.

First you understand the reason given by Adi Shankara. According to Adi Shankara, one must not take a line from scripture out of context. One must accept only meanings that are compatible with all characteristics" and "exclude meanings that are incompatible with any".

You have failed in the basic understanding of advaita by cherry picking a statement. To get the full context, one must also answer questions like - if there is only 1 Brahmana, how are there crores of people and different celestial bodies like Sun, moon, earth?

So, without basic understanding, don't argue with me just for the sake of arguing

Dear Mr Tiwari, if you ever get time please do look up some serious literature, from genuine scholars, on Shankaracharya and his exposition on "Advaita". Advaita means "non dual",all experiences of duality or phenomenon(including all material things like earth, moon, your mobe) is illusion( Maya as sankara calls it) caused by ignorance (Avidya as sankara describes it)

Although I doubt it, but you may have mistaken "Advaita" of Sankara with "Vishishtadvaita" of Ramanuja. The latter school of philosophy does concede duality exists, but only as a temporary but non-real phenomenon.

Rama Krishna ashrama has published some very good translations of Sankara's commentary on the "Vedantasutra", esp that of Swami Madhavananda. You can also start with Surendranath Dasgupta's, although might be slightly dated, 'A History of Indian Philosophy', which explores all six schools of philosophy in some depth. Karl Potter 's incomplete volume is also a good recommend, but a difficult read.

 

[Willy3]

this how a militant atheist east/west look like...

No... they look like this

 

[chetan chopade]

No... they look like this
View attachment 33011

No sir...nazism, communism and maoism are “state religion”/“cult following” similar to islam

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

no man...fanatic is the one who is ready to kill or die for his belief...atheist under death threat can say anything ...do anything to make others happy about GODDD...including me....fuck it-why should i die for not yelling "har har mahadev"/ "alaah hu okuber"/ "jo bole so nihal" etc etc

Wrong. Atheism by communism has shown killer zeal. You can't simply claim anything.

Dear Mr Tiwari, if you ever get time please do look up some serious literature, from genuine scholars, on Shankaracharya and his exposition on "Advaita". Advaita means "non dual",all experiences of duality or phenomenon(including all material things like earth, moon, your mobe) is illusion( Maya as sankara calls it) caused by ignorance (Avidya as sankara describes it)

Although I doubt it, but you may have mistaken "Advaita" of Sankara with "Vishishtadvaita" of Ramanuja. The latter school of philosophy does concede duality exists, but only as a temporary but non-real phenomenon.

Rama Krishna ashrama has published some very good translations of Sankara's commentary on the "Vedantasutra", esp that of Swami Madhavananda. You can also start with Surendranath Dasgupta's, although might be slightly dated, 'A History of Indian Philosophy', which explores all six schools of philosophy in some depth. Karl Potter 's incomplete volume is also a good recommend, but a difficult read.

I am sorry for mistaking Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta with Dharma. I got a bit carried away when you challenged me and in the confusion I started speaking on topics like Advaita which I had no idea about.

I generally don't discuss someone's work as I don't consider anyone as perfect, not eve Adi-Shankara. I wrote in general about philosophy of dharma. Dharma means "set of all prinicples which maintain balance in the universe". These kind of Advaita or Dvaita etc are only an opinion of an author rather than evidence based approach.

Ironically, Shankaracharya himself sought to create theories which can suit all scenarios. But he ended up concocting things like "Maya" which he can't give any evidence to prove it.

According to various historical texts, it has been stated almost unanimously that a man is not separate from the whole or atma is not separate from the entirety. This has been stated in Bhagvadgita, Vedas etc. But we can consider only those theory which has proper details and evidence to corroborate it. Here, one f the most glaring evidence that comes is Jyotishya. According to it, it can be concluded that the philosophy that universe is interconnected seems to be true as the planetary motion being linked with man's fate is a very good evidence of how things are interconnected.

I did get waylaid when I went to question you by speaking unnecessarily about Shankara's Advaita. But my intent was only to state dharmic truth rather than Shankara's opinion. I stated in my original comment:

Dharma leans towards patheism. It says that entire universe is one unit and all entities are connected. Things like Jyotishya are evidence that connection of humans to other entities. In Abrahamic terms, this appears more or less atheistic as the Abrahamic idea of god is separate from man.

I recommend that you follow David Frawley on twitter. He writes correct things about these ideas

I only intended to give a picture of things based on evidence rather than Shankara's opinion. Howsoever great a man may be, his opinion must not be considered as absolutely true. In case of Shankara's Advaita, the lack of proof for his opinion is quite glaring and I recommend that you reject his theory and follow things based on evidence. Following proofless opinions will make you no different from Abrahamics.

 

[S.A.T.A]

If you survey the vast span of Hindu religious literature, composed over the last three thousand years or so, one fundamental constant is that, a single universal consciousness pervades all things. Now the question that animated all philosophers and thinkers, from krishna down to Swami Vivekananda, was the nature of this 'consciousness' and why this consciousness allowed for multiples of phenomenon..

Indian thinkers have wrestled with these questions and Hindu Dharma Darsanas(Hindu philosophy) is a compendium of the answers that they have presented, on these very ancient questions. Neither Krishna nor Sankara offer any proof, but profess to lead one to the absolute truth, provided you follow the method suggested by them. This is what an average Hindu believes and this is his first Dharma.

Acharya Sankara was not the first argue about non-dualism, his guru Govinda bhagavatpada and their predecessor 'Gaudapada' have elaborated on it. Elements on non-dualism can be found in the 'Gita' and Badarayanas 'Brahmasutra' is probably the first to bring out the non-dual nature of 'Brahman' as described in the Upanisads. Of course no doubt Sankara is its most celebrated champion. The philosophies of Sankara and Ramanuja, one may argue , are the very roots of Hindu and Dharma... So dismiss them at your own peril.

Note - Sankara's "Maya" may be problematic, but it is no more problematic than Ramanuja's "Lila" (playful nature of consciousness) or Nagarjuna's "Sunyatavada" (emptiness as the true nature of consciousness). Moreover Sankara does not have to provide proof for duality, because it already exists and we experience it every day. Mayavada was merely a use of language to describe its existence, as a cause for duality. What Sankara was interested in describing how we can lift the veil of duality by Vidya(knowledge of the non-dual nature of the Brahman)

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

If you survey the vast span of Hindu religious literature, composed over the last three thousand years or so, one fundamental constant is that, a single universal consciousness pervades all things. Now the question that animated all philosophers and thinkers, from krishna down to Swami Vivekananda, was the nature of this 'consciousness' and why this consciousness allowed for multiples of phenomenon..

Indian thinkers have wrestled with these questions and Hindu Dharma Darsanas(Hindu philosophy) is a compendium of the answers that they have presented, on these very ancient questions. Neither Krishna nor Sankara offer any proof, but profess to lead one to the absolute truth, provided you follow the method suggested by them. This is what an average Hindu believes and this is his first Dharma.

Acharya Sankara was not the first argue about non-dualism, his guru Govinda bhagavatpada and their predecessor 'Gaudapada' have elaborated on it. Elements on non-dualism can be found in the 'Gita' and Badarayanas 'Brahmasutra' is probably the first to bring out the non-dual nature of 'Brahman' as described in the Upanisads. Of course no doubt Sankara is its most celebrated champion. The philosophies of Sankara and Ramanuja, one may argue , are the very roots of Hindu and Dharma... So dismiss them at your own peril.

Note - Sankara's "Maya" may be problematic, but it is no more problematic than Ramanuja's "Lila" (playful nature of consciousness) or Nagarjuna's "Sunyatavada" (emptiness as the true nature of consciousness). Moreover Sankara does not have to provide proof for duality, because it already exists and we experience it every day. Mayavada was merely a use of language to describe its existence, as a cause for duality. What Sankara was interested in describing how we can lift the veil of duality by Vidya(knowledge of the non-dual nature of the Brahman)

When you argue merely on the basis of someone else's work or its interpretation, then it becomes an opinion. The argument must always be on replicable logic or fact. The fact I am presenting is Jyotishya which actually works well (of course, a fool claiming to be a Jyotishi can ruin it). This is some form of wonder as it is very much replicable. From the prediction of Buddha becoming a saint (when Buddha was a newborn infant) to today, the replicable nature of Jyotishya has been astounding. So, this is a fact that can reveal some details and theory that states that all objects are united makes more sense.

Adi Shankaraa Maya is highly debatable and is too vague. The wording used by Krishna is somewhat vague in relation to the inanimate object. Krishna only mentions the atma to be unkillable and as part of a greater consciousness. But he doesn't specify the composition of the other aspects. Kriahna only mentioned this as a question-answer to Arjuna and hence the information is incomplete. Similarly, Ramanuja theory is very close to what I am saying but has some element which are not backed with data.

The way I see it is that the recent scholars became barbarians and sought immediate gains rather than slow gains over generation. Immediate gain in the form of moksha or simple steps became a priority. This attitude caused distortion in the theory to create a formula for immediate results

 

[S.A.T.A]

When you argue merely on the basis of someone else's work or its interpretation, then it becomes an opinion. The argument must always be on replicable logic or fact. The fact I am presenting is Jyotishya which actually works well (of course, a fool claiming to be a Jyotishi can ruin it). This is some form of wonder as it is very much replicable. From the prediction of Buddha becoming a saint (when Buddha was a newborn infant) to today, the replicable nature of Jyotishya has been astounding. So, this is a fact that can reveal some details and theory that states that all objects are united makes more sense.

Adi Shankaraa Maya is highly debatable and is too vague. The wording used by Krishna is somewhat vague in relation to the inanimate object. Krishna only mentions the atma to be unkillable and as part of a greater consciousness. But he doesn't specify the composition of the other aspects. Kriahna only mentioned this as a question-answer to Arjuna and hence the information is incomplete. Similarly, Ramanuja theory is very close to what I am saying but has some element which are not backed with data.

The way I see it is that the recent scholars became barbarians and sought immediate gains rather than slow gains over generation. Immediate gain in the form of moksha or simple steps became a priority. This attitude caused distortion in the theory to create a formula for immediate results

It is quite unbelievable that you are trying to portray a pseudoscience like astrology (jyotishya) as some kind fact and logic based discipline, but dismiss nearly three thousand years of highly developed Indian philosophy, as some kind of tea shop opinion. So all the works of Aitreya, Yagnavalkya, krishna, Gaudapada, Kumrarila Bhatta, Badararayana, Sankara, Suresvara, Madhava, Nagarjuna, Vallabhacharya,Vidhyaranya,Sayana..etc, are second second rate options, but Bejan Daruwala's weekly predictions are to be treated as logical facts.


You may not be aware that Indian 'darsana sastras' have always been considered as 'Tarkasastras' (science of logic) and Jyotishya was a minor Vedanga. You also want to go through vast body of literature which has been written on, how jyoti-sastra (science of studying celestial lights) degenerated into the Horosastra(Horoscope reading). Jyoti-sastra was early astronomy, where it studied the position of the celestial bodies, required for rituals and ceremonies. Horasastra was nothing more than a Greek import, along with their romantic notions that celestial bodies can determine the fates of human affairs. Not to offend anyone, but modern Indian jyotishya is quackery and should strictly be seen as entertainment only.

P. S: Since you already mentioned you are not aware about the various Indian philosophies or about their major proponents, please desist from making any off the cuff remark regarding any of them.