Bharat Rakshak

A_Gupta wrote: Yes, but the net result is that we have adopted their understanding of us as our own, and that is what we're now passing off as "an arrogant assumption of our rightness". That is the death knell of our culture. The OIT thread is just one (feeble) attempt to throw out this "colonial consciousness".

SwamyG wrote: The then Greeks or Indians, believed in gods who were superhumans and influenced the human lives. So if different people believed in super humans intervening in lives, why cannot they be compared?

A_Gupta wrote:

1. What are your core beliefs/values?

Is this meant to be "beliefs or values"? Is there an implication that values arise from beliefs? etc.

Anyway, I will give an answer to move the conversation along:

The four goals of human existence are dharma, artha, kama, moksha. The latter three are to be pursued in accordance with dharma. This is the core of Hindu life. You tell me if these are "core beliefs/values".

UlanBatori wrote:IMO the reason why "western XXXXism" is a big deal, fill in any of many things into the XXX, is that yindoos have been traditionally unable or unwilling to give a clear, coherent answer to the questions:

1. What are your core beliefs/values?
2. What is the hierarchy of your literature that I can go look up to learn more about these?

The answer usually degenerates into
1. The Question is Improper!
2. It is wrong to even THINK of Core Beliefs or Values, those are WESTERN concepts!
3. Our literature starts with the Vedas (sorry, it is blasphemy to speak of the Vedas as literature onlee), Ramayana (no that is not Vedas), BG (no, that is not Vedas),Puranas (obviously not)..
4. But my Core Belief is that if I don't dunk my skull into this pond, facing to the East and holding my nose and/or my ears, before 7AM every day, the whole Universe may go down the tubes. Rain or shine. If you try this in a land where the pond is frozen, well, that is your fault for cross the seas. Brasht onlee!

This is why XXXX Universalism and all other nonsense run riot in yindoostan, not to mention every where else. So develop clear answers. Or frame new questions that anyone can ask and get clear answers, that define SD/Hinduism/ whatever u call it.

UlanBatori wrote:I am trying to see what to make of all this. Do we then declare ourselves to be ABOVE all discussion of religion, since religion is simply a habit of the lesser mortals who have been misguided? The danger there is that we get declared to be Pagans, or Heathen, whatever those mean, and are denied our space among people who already have some Belief System/Faith/Certainty/Whatever.

But what about aspects of Hindu dharma that reject the concept of "superhuman" or "God" and refer only to the ultimate reality/existence? This allows one to say that there is no such thing as Allah or Ganesha. Only the absolute truth is. It is a different matter that the absolute truth is referred to as Ishvara or paramatma - but this absolute truth neither coerces you to follow Allah/Ganesha nor reject him. It is neutral to such activities.

What is the comparable feature of Islam and Christianity?

RamaY wrote:JohneeG garu,

Bhestern Universalism doesn't squeeze X-ism. It just squeezes (if at all) the institution of Church; because there is a new institution called Govt has been created (king has to rule, you know...).

shudh-desi Sikularism squeezes Yinduism; not just yindu institution called ????; there is no church equivalent in pagan-yinduism. In yindustan, the king always rules...

So, Bhestern universalism, Seckularism, Socialism, Communism and even modern science all agree that the dominant religion has to be weakened or eliminated. For this purpose, the support of the 'minority' creeds is taken.

this is factually wrong. None of these social ideologies have any fight with X-ism per se. The X-ism has issues with 'modern' science because it disagrees with Xism in some aspects.

symontk wrote:If one says that these acts of killing are merely 'judgements', then the question will rise: it was never said in the commandments that one could kill in certain situations.

>> Yes it is correct. Try to understand Christian Trinity and Dual nature of Christ

The commandment seems to be simply saying 'don't kill'. Of course, Moses himself supposedly killed people for praying to an idol of golden calf immediately after obtaining these commandments. So, Moses and 'god' both violated the injunction 'not to kill'. Every soldier violates this commandment.

>> If anyone (Moses or soldier) violates the commandments, price have to paid. I explained the God's part earlier

Similarly, according to the X-ism myth, 'god' had affair with wife of somebody else and jesus was born. This is against two commandments:
thou shall not desire the wife of your neighbor.
thou shall not commit adultery.

>> wrong, Mother Mary was pregnant before marriage

By the way, according to OT, Abraham pimped his own wife to pharaoh of Egypt. When Pharaoh thought she was Abraham's sister(Abraham misrepresented it). So, Pharaoh was furious when he came to know the truth and returned the wife of Abraham to him. So, Abraham's wife violated the commandment of 'adultery'. There is also a hint of incest here.

>> Yes its correct and commandment do apply. BTW it was Abraham's decision and not God's to do like that

If killing of jesus (Yashas) was an act of 'god', then again he violated the command of 'not killing'.

>> Wrong, Killing of Jesus was done by people not by God

Jesus himself has supposedly said that he was here to break the families. It seems that disregarded his family and mother according to New Testament. So, this goes against the commandment of 'thou shall honour your father and mother'.

>> Jesus didnt tell that, he told that by believing in Jesus your family members would hate you. he was warning his followers about the challenges ahead

And all people(including X-ists) make images and idols. So, this goes against the commandment of 'thou shall not make graven images'. Perhaps, Zorasthrians are the only ones who don't make any image and pray only to fire. But, all other groups make some images or idols to venerate them.

>> Yes correct, its against commandments

Anyway, this whole idea of some other life being sacrificed for benefit of another set is highly abhorrent. Somebody else being killed for my sake or your sake is wrong. No one should be killed for the mistakes of another.

Of course, one can be punished for one's own mistakes. Thats the theory of Karma.

In this theory, if jesus was the son of 'god' and he suffered, then his suffering must be due to his own doing.

>> I dont think Jesus follows Karma, but why you say that others cannot be sacrificed for your mistakes? It may be abhorrent but why it is wrong

Anyway OT to the topic

I dont think Jesus follows Karma, but why you say that others cannot be sacrificed for your mistakes? It may be abhorrent but why it is wrong

johneeG wrote:In my limited understanding, the primary axioms of Sanathana Dharma(Hinduism) is:
a) 'Veda(s) are the eternal truth.'

b) 'Veda(s) are divine. They are not man-made.'

c) 'Veda(s) are the authority on all things.'

d) 'All the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people that are in consonance with the Vedic teachings are acceptable. And all the experiences, words, customs and ideologies of the people contradictory to Vedic teachings are rejected.'

The word Veda refers to all the four Vedas along with Vedanta(Upanishads).
-------
Based on the above fundamental axioms, Indic philosophies have been categorised as Astika and Nastika.

Astika Philosophies are 6(Shat Darshanas). They accept the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Nyāyá, the school of logic (by Gautama)
b) Vaiśeṣika, the school that proposes atoms (by Kanada)
c) Sāṃkhya, the enumeration school (by Kapila)
d) Yoga, which assumes the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya (by Patanjali)
e) Mimāṃsā or Purva Mimāṃsā, the tradition of Vedic exegesis that stresses on the importance of Vedic rituals. (restored by Kumarilla Bhatta - who is disciple of Jaimini - who is disciple of Vyasa)
f) Vedanta or Uttara Mimāṃsā, the Upaniṣadic tradition.(restored by Adi Shankaracharya - who is disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada - Gauda Bhagavatpada - Shuka - Vyasa)

Nastika philosophies. They reject the Vedic authority. They are:
a) Buddhism (supposedly by Siddhartha Gautama)
b) Jainism (supposedly by Rishabha, the first Tirthankara. Mahavira is the last of the 24 Tirthankaras.)
c) Cārvāka - Materialistic and hedonistic school of thought.

-----
Then, there are Tantras or Agamas. The Tantras like Darshanas(Philosophies) can also be Vedic or Non-Vedic. All the Tantras/Agamas (or the aspects of Tantras) that are in consonance with Vedas are acceptable. Rest are rejected.

The Tantras also claim their origin from divine beings. Even so, if the teachings are contradictory to Vedas, they are rejected.
-----

Then, there are Smritis or Dharma Shaastras. Smritis are authored by the Rishis. They deal with the rules of conduct. There are several Smritis.

The general rule is that the whole (or part) of a Smriti which is conflicting with Vedas is rejected.

-----

Then, there are Itihasaas(Ramayana & Mahabharatha) along with the 18 Puranas and 18 Upa-Puranas. Generally, they can be treated similar to Dharma Shaastras.

-----

Finally, there are traditions of family. Each family follow certain traditions and customs which it has inherited from its ancestors. These traditions are also acceptable and encouraged as long as they are not in conflict with the above mentioned scriptural teachings.

------

IMHO, the above is the outline of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

johneeG wrote: Now coming to the topic of Hindhu position:

johneeG wrote:There has been a serious debate on Dharma on this thread.

In Hinduism, there are 2 types of Dharma:
a) Samanya Dharma (General)
b) Vishesha Dharma (Special) (Contextual)

Samanya Dharma(General):

It seems, according to Manu:

ahimsa satyam asteyam shaucham indriyanigraham
etam samasikam dharmam chaaturvarnye abhravin manuh

Ahimsa(Non-violence), Satyam(Truth), Asteyam(Non-Stealing), Shaucham(Cleanliness) and Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses) are the Dharma of all the 4 varnas.

The general Dharma applicable to all are:
Ahimsa(Non-violence),
Satyam(Truth),
Asteyam(Non-Stealing),
Shaucham(Cleanliness) and
Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses)

The priority is also clear. Ahimsa(Non-Violence) has the highest priority(over and above Satya/Truth also).
Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah.
Ahimsa is the highest Dharma.

So, when there is a conflict between Ahimsa(Non-Violence) and Satya(Truth), then Ahimsa get higher priority.

Ahimsa(Non-violence) can cover topics like: Murder, genocide, harassment(of any kind), injury(direct/indirect), abortion(killing of foetus), ...etc.
Satya(Truth) is self-explanatory. It can cover topics like: Cheating, scams, misrepresentations(specially in public discourses), breaking the agreements, adulterating the items ...etc.
Asteya(Not-stealing) can cover topics like: stealing, bribes, extra-marital affairs(stealing others' wives/husbands/girl-friends/boy-friends ... etc).

The above three are guarding against the wrong actions.
Shaucha(cleanliness) is a quality that is to be encouraged and inculcated.

Shaucha can cover topics like: personal hygiene, keep the environment clean and safe, pollution(air/water/land/sound...etc).

Finally, the bonus quality which is to be respected, admired and rewarded.
Indriya Nigraha: Control of senses(including mind). Indriya Nigraha forms the basis for all other Dharmas. One who is hankering after the sensual enjoyments would hardly care about law or dharma.

These 5 are the general rules for all.
Then, there are special rules. The special rules are based on the time, place, circumstance and subject. It varies from person to person, from gender to gender, from place to place and time to time.

The Special rules have higher priority than the General rules. So, a soldier, whose special duty is to kill, is exempted from the general rule of Ahimsa.

What happens when a person is forced to perform one himsa(violence) or the other?
This is not a hypothetical question, it is based on the reality of life. Ahimsa is a huge topic, so briefly: The reality of the world is that there is conflict and violence in all dealings directly or indirectly. So, no one can abjure violence completely. So, the rule is that as long as one is acting with in one's own needs/duties, himsa(violence) is alright. For example, when a tiger kills a deer, its alright. Similarly, when a soldier kills an enemy, its alright.

A person must not harm anyone(even a plant or animal or insect) beyond one's need/duty. There is a story of Vidura's past life in MB. If one harms even insects, unnecessarily, then it accounts as severe violence. If one kills other men also, as part of duty/need(self-defense), then such a violence is negligible.

Killing oneself(suicide) is considered highest himsa(violence). Suicide is a bigger offense than the Murder. Murder/injury of a close relative/friend is a bigger offense than killing a stranger. Killing/harming someone who helped you in the past is a great offense.

The punishments given for the same crime are not equal. The one with higher privileges gets higher punishment for the same crime.

A robbery by an uneducated poor hungry guy is not the same as the robbery by an educated rich powerful guy. That means the punishments for the rich and powerful(elites) would be more severe than the punishments for the ordinary.

The taxes are equal to all. 1/6th of one's earning. No indirect taxes. The good ruler must take care of the invalids in one's country. The ruler must encourage the entrepreneurs. He must create situations such that the loans are easily available. The ruler must take care that the farmers are provided by seeds and fertilizers. The farmers must also have the chance to sell their produce for fair amounts.

This is the Hindu system.

Link to post

So, Hindhuism is neither strictly contextual nor totally ignorant of context. The problem that other systems generally suffer is when they are either totally contextual or totally devoid of context. Hindhuism has more elegant solution to this by dividing the Dharma into two parts one that is based on context and one that is absolute.

johneeG wrote: Coming to the point...

If you ask a hundred Hindus to define Sanatana Dharma, you will get a hundred conflicting, confused answers. If you ask a thousand Hindus, you will get a thousand answers. This, to me, indicates that Hindus have LOST TOUCH WITH THE AXIOMS OF THEIR FAITH. They are unable to agree on a consistent definition of Hinduism (or more accurately, SD). The fact that they cannot explain their faith in one sentence, indicates that they do not understand SD at all.

I agree with your above observation. And I also agree with you that this is a major problem. Further, I agree with you that this problem needs to be solved.

But, before we solve the problem, lets try to find out the reasons for this problem i.e. what is causing this problem?

There are two possible answers:
a) The conflicting and confused answers of the people reflect the conflicting and confused state of Hinduism.
OR
b) The conflicting and confused answers of the people reflect their ignorance about the basics of Hinduism.

In short, we have two options:
a) Blame the religion for the faults. Solution: Reform the religion.
b) Blame the ignorance of the people. Solution: Educate the people.

------
Lets consider Option a)
The conflicting and confused answers of the people reflect the conflicting and confused state of Hinduism.

The solution to the above problem would be reform the religion such that it is suitable and simplified for modern clients.

But, there is a huge contradiction here. Why? Because this above approach confirms the charges of your cousins. Charges of your cousins are:

"Why is Hinduism such a confused mish-mash? How can you people be so stupid as to follow all this?"

If we choose option (a) and admit that there is a problem with the religion itself, then we cannot blame your cousins for pointing out, what we ourselves are admitting.

There is another problem here. People will ask a pin-pointed question: Is Hinduism right or not? If it is right, then there cannot be any major reforms. If it is wrong, then it is wrong.

Any attempt at adding a new concept or dropping an original concept will only confirm the charge that Hinduism was always a mish-mash of various opinions that keep changing with people. It also signals that people who are trying to reform, have no faith in the true-ness of the religion.(It applies to X-nity also, if they are trying to digest Indic or Hindu concepts).

So, as soon as one chooses option (a), one admits their lack of faith in Hinduism. This position is more or less a position that supports the charges of your cousin.

--------

Now, lets consider option (b):
The conflicting and confused answers of the people reflect their ignorance about the basics of Hinduism.

The solution to the above problem is to educate people. But before we educate people. We need to know what exactly is leading to their confusion or ignorance.

IMHO, the real problem for all the confusion is: Each individual is formulating his own view on what constitutes Hinduism.

The attitude of Hindus goes like this: I am a Hindu. My family is Hindu. So, what we do, what we believe and what we know, constitutes Hinduism.

This is the root of all the problems. Because most of these people don't have much knowledge about Hinduism. They come to their own conclusions. They create their own arguments. None of them is related to what Hinduism is actually saying.

Let me give you an example: If I say, "I am an Indian. My family is Indian. So, whatever we do, we believe and we know, is what constitutes Indian culture or ethos. I don't have to read any history to know about India. Because I am already living it. I don't have to read the constitution to know what is the real constitution, because I already living it. I don't have to go to any expert. I know everything about India."

Do you see the problem with the above attitude? This is exactly the attitude that many hindus have. I don't want to sound pompous, so let me admit that I also had the same attitude not too long ago.

What happens with this attitude is that, not only are people ignorant but they are so ignorant that they don't even know they are ignorant. This ignorance combined with smug feeling that they know, is used by the missionaries. The missionaries know that their targets have no knowledge about their religion. They also know that their targets think they know about their religion. They use this. They ask silly and simple questions. Their targets can't answer them. Does not mean there are no answers for these silly and simple question in Hinduism. It just means that the target is unaware of the original Hindu position. So, when faced with this situation:
a) Some emotional people succumb to the missionary. Eg: Your brother.
b) Some intelligent people try to create their own answers to the missionary's questions. Eg: You.
c) Others are left confused.

The whole problem starts with people having their own definitions of Hinduism.

The solution is to know what Hinduism is saying. What is the definition of Hinduism according to Hinduism? This is THE most important point.
Similarly, what is the position of Hinduism on various issues? THAT is what we should learn. One has the freedom to agree or disagree to what Hinduism is saying. But misrepresenting Hinduism must not happen because that leads to unnecessary confusion.

Instead of knowing the official Hindu position(Orthodox Hinduism) on various issues, people are creating their own definitions of Hinduism(Heterodox Hinduism). Infact, this exercise is not limited to Hinduism. Many Hindus have false ideas about other religions also. They make up their own definitions about Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,...etc totally unrelated to what those religions themselves are saying. Armed with these false ideas, people go on to postulate that all religions are equal.

When someone says that all religions are equal, he is simultaneously misrepresenting all religions. His understanding of all religions is flawed. He is unable to appreciate the differences that these religions have from each other.(Of course, there would be similarities also).

So, in conclusion, the problem is that people make up their own ideas about something, instead of trying to find out the truth. Incidentally, Vedanta's definition of Maya is exactly this. People look at a rope and think its a snake. And they panic. People create their own ideas without verifying whether those ideas stand upto the truth. Similarly, people make their own opinions about what constitutes Hinduism. Then, some of them, go on to reject it and convert to some other religion. The irony is that these people have no knowledge about the religion they are leaving or the religion they are entering.

------
Solution:
Solution to the problem is to stick to the official position of Hinduism(or for that matter, any other religion). When we talk of Hinduism, me must not talk about what we think Hinduism is. Instead, we must stick to what Hinduism itself says(through scriptures and Orthodox Gurus).

Of course, people can agree with Hinduism or differ with it. Its their choice.
------

I think even you will agree that what you identified as axioms woefully fall short on any or all of these criteria. Again, no offense.

Saar,
these are not my axioms. These are the traditional orthodox axioms. They are Hinduism's axioms according to traditional and orthodox scriptures, commentators and Gurus. One may or may not accept them. But one should not misrepresent the basics of Hinduism's for one's own convenience. Because, it is precisely this misrepresentation, that leads to confusing and conflicting ideas about what is Hinduism.

But, interestingly, the church has not become weak. I would say that church was perhaps at its weakest around 1750-1800. After that period, the church again seems to have reinvigorated.

Hindus believe in Karma (ownership & unavoidability of actions/results), oneness of God (they cannot exist separate from God) and pursuing their Artha/kamas in a Dharmic way. You can go & ask any Hindu these three things and you will get the same answer from a Veda-Brahmana or Chandala.

UlanBatori wrote: I would agree. Thx. Except your No. 2 is rejected by the MadhavAcharya / "Dvaita" school of thought, per my limited understanding. Corrections welcomed. IMO most of the justification for worship comes from that, and hence the entire "religion" aspect of SD comes from that. Otherwise one finds oneself worshipping oneself (which of course is fine with me), which negates the effort put into building temples, learning music and dance, skills of any sort except the absolutely required hunting and fishing. IOW, y bother onlee?

The Indic dances/arts/pujas etc., all are linked to yoga. Your breathing...

only till Moksha.

shiv wrote:
The second is a philosophical exploration of the origins of the universe and cosmos - explanations that are said to become self evident if one is interested in following the rules of study, meditation and yoga that form part of the Hindu body of knowledge. In fact the Vedas deal in this most esoteric aspect of Hindu dharma.

That is as good as I can make it, in brief

Robert Post is Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Before coming to Yale, he taught at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall). Dean Post’s subject areas are constitutional law, First Amendment, legal history, and equal protection. He has written and edited numerous books, including Democracy, Expertise, Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State (2012); For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom (with Matthew M. Finkin, 2009); Prejudicial Appearances: The Logic of American Antidiscrimination Law (with K. Anthony Appiah, Judith Butler, Thomas C. Grey, and Reva Siegel, 2001); and Cons titutional Domains: Democracy, Community, Management (1995). He publishes regularly in legal journals and other publications; recent articles and chapters include “Theorizing Disagreement: Reconceiving the Relationship Between Law and Politics” (California Law Review, 2010); “Constructing the European Polity: ERTA and the Open Skies Judgments” in The Past and Future of EU Law: The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty (Miguel Poiares Maduro & Loïc Azuolai eds., 2010); “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash” (with Reva Siegel, Harvard Civil-Rights Civil-Liberties Law Review, 2007); “Federalism, Positive Law, and the Emergence of the American Administrative State: Prohibition in the Taft Court Era” (William & Mary Law Review, 2006); “Foreword: Fashioning the Legal Constitution: Culture, Courts, and Law” (Harvard Law Review, 2003); and “Subsidized Speech" (Yale Law Journal, 1996). He is a member of the American Philosophical Society and the American Law Institute and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has an A.B. and Ph.D. in History of American Civilization from Harvard and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

rajpa wrote:How about science as an example of universalism?

Essentially it is the belief that anything can be refuted unless proved otherwise.

shiv wrote:

rajpa wrote:How about science as an example of universalism?

Essentially it is the belief that anything can be refuted unless proved otherwise.

Interesting thought. It follows that if something cannot be proven or refuted, it is neither true nor untrue.

There is no proof that God exists, but his existence cannot be refuted.

I can see, feel, hear, smell and taste things and for me that is reality. They exist. But if I cannot sense something, does it exist? One way of getting around this is to trust someone else and say "If that person/that group of people can sense something, it exists"

But here it becomes belief. You have to believe someone else and you have to, at some stage believe anything that someone else says on the grounds that what you cannot sense can be sensed by someone else. In every case above, reality or existence, or proof of existence is relative. If there is something that neither you nor others can sense - it cannot exist at all. Or can it?

Ultimately "science" as we are taught tells us that anything that exists must be sensed or detectable to be measured, weighed, compared and assessed to be allowed to exist. If something does not conform to those requirements, it does not exist.

Hindu science posits that human senses are limited. The inability of humans to sense something (by some means or other) does not rule out its existence. It also postulates the occurrence of an entity called the "absolute reality" which exists outside of all ability to sense or measure.

However it is important for clever Hindus to remember that the existence of an absolute reality does not absolve one from the need to live day to day life as it is to be lived - i.e. study, work, procreate, help, feed, give comfort and protect.

rajpa wrote: There is a concept of falsifiability introduced by Karl Popper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Quoting from wikipedia:

Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience


Science, interestingly is not so much about measurability as it is about repeatability (of a phenomenon or experiment).

UlanBatori wrote:RamaY:

Hindus believe in Karma (ownership & unavoidability of actions/results), oneness of God (they cannot exist separate from God) and pursuing their Artha/kamas in a Dharmic way. You can go & ask any Hindu these three things and you will get the same answer from a Veda-Brahmana or Chandala.

I would agree. Thx. Except your No. 2 is rejected by the MadhavAcharya / "Dvaita" school of thought, per my limited understanding. Corrections welcomed. IMO most of the justification for worship comes from that, and hence the entire "religion" aspect of SD comes from that. Otherwise one finds oneself worshipping oneself (which of course is fine with me), which negates the effort put into building temples, learning music and dance, skills of any sort except the absolutely required hunting and fishing. IOW, y bother onlee?

JohneeG:
Request permission to steal from your statements above. How should one refer to the fact that they are stolen from you? The list of "schools" is very succinct and exactly what I was looking for, among other things.

johneeG wrote:Pramana means 'means of knowing a truth'.

There are 3 pramanas:
a) observation (Prathyaksha)
b) words of others (Shabdha)
c) inference (anumaana)

Observation (Prathyaksha) and words of others (Shabdha) form 'facts'. Inference (anumaana) forms 'theories/hypothesis/opinion'.

But, as is commonly seen in the world, there is lot of difference among observations of different people. Similarly, different people say/write different things. So, in such situation, what is to be accepted as the absolute foundation?
Modern science implicitly views 'observation' (Prathyaksha) as the absolute foundation. Of course, in practice this is not followed. For example, most of the physicis theories on origin of universe, or theories like relativity are not based on 'observation' (Prathyaksha). They are based on inference or rather guestimate(or imagination) i.e anumaana by some people. The common people take the words (Shabdha) of these 'experts' and believe them.

The reason is simple, at any higher level of discourse, it is understood that observation (Prathyaksha) cannot be the basis. All people cannot directly observe things by themselves. So, they depend on words of others for the knowledge. Of course, it also needs to be understood that any knowledge that is not based on direct observation (Prathyaksha) is merely approximation only.

So, invariably, one has to depend on the words of others to learn(at least initially). So, whose words(Shabdha) to believe?

In Hindhuism,
Hindhu sects or philosophies all agree on one basic fact: Vedhas(including Upanishadhs) are the Pramana. This is called Shabdha Pramana. All Hindhu sects & philosophies agree that words(Shabdha) of Vedhas are to be believed. According to Hindhus, Upanishadhs(Vedhantha) is an integral part and parcel of Vedhas.

In Buddhism,
The words(Shabdha) of Buddha are taken as the pramana.

In Abrahanic creeds,
the words(Shabdha) of their respective so-called prophets is taken as pramana.

But the differences are:
Hindhuism says that one has to depend on others words only for sometime(initially). Ultimate aim is to get the direct observation(Prathyaksha) of the truth(whatever that truth maybe).

Buddhism says that some special personalities(called Bodhisattvas) alone can learn the truth. The common people are not qualified to learn the truth. Only Bodhisattvas can become Buddhas. A Bodhisattva is a special being who has the potential to become a Buddha. Of course, common people can aim to become a Bodhisattva if they try for many lives. Also, it is not necessary to become a Buddha or Bodhisattva to get nirvana. Nirvana itself has two meanings: 'state of nothingness' and heaven.

Abrahanic creeds say that some special personalities(called prophets) alone can learn the truth. And this truth is revealed to them by the god. god only reveals what he wants to reveal. The prophets don't have any power to learn beyond what the god reveals. god reveals to prophets by sending messages to them through angels. So, generally, prophets do not talk to god directly. They do not see the god directly. They only know what they are told by the angels according to Abrahanic creeds. This is the state of so-called prophets. As for the common people, their situation is truly miserable. According to Abrahanic creeds, the common people are sent messages by the god through prophets(who are sent messages through angels. We don't know how angels get message of god). If the common people do not accept the words of the god sent through prophets, then they will burn in hell for eternity. If the common people accept the words a 'false' prophets, then they will burn in hell for eternity. And common people have no way of verifying whether a particular claimant is a 'real prophet' or 'false prophet'. The common people, themselves, have no way of ever knowing the truth directly(prathyaksha). They are prohibited from using their inference(anumaana).

You can clearly see the devolution of ideas starting from Hindhuism to Buddhism to Abrahanic creeds. Hindhuism says that everyone will ultimately perceive the truth for themselves(Prathyaksha). Direct experience of the truth(whatever it maybe). Buddhism says that such experience is reserved for Buddha. And only a Bodhisattva can become a Buddha. But, Buddhism does not completely close the door on common people. So, common people can become a Bodhisattva. Of course, it is taken as a rare occurrence. And Buddhism says that common people can get their liberation without the need of becoming a Bodhisattva or Buddha. Abrahanic creeds go one step ahead on this path. They say that direct experience is not possible for anyone. Everyone depends on the words of others. People depend on the words of so-called Prophet. So-called Prophets depend on the words of so-called angels. So-called angels claim that they are speaking on behalf of so-called god. And so on. No one has anyway of verifying these claims.

So, according to Hindhuism,
the 'facts' are words(Shabdha) of Vedha. They are treated as axioms.

According to Buddhism,
the 'facts' are words(Shabdha) of Buddha.

According to modern science,
the 'facts' are whatever theory(anumaana) that is popular at that time.

But, the difference between Buddhism and Hindhuism in this regard is:
all the dominant Hindhu sects and philosophies have no dispute on the content of the Vedhas(including Upanishadhs/Vedhantha). So, as far as Hindhuism is concerned, there is no dispute on the basic 'facts' or 'axioms'.

But, the same is not true in the case of Buddhism. In Buddhism, as far as I know and understand(and please correct me if I am wrong), there is dispute on the 'facts' or 'axioms' itself. What are the 'facts' or 'axioms' of Buddhism? The 'facts' or 'axioms' of Buddhism are: words of Buddha i.e. teachings of Buddha.

There are different versions of Pitikas(baskets). Pitika refers to the contents of teachings of Buddha. And different schools(which are categorized as Buddhist) have different versions of pitikas. The number of pitikas(baskets) can vary from 3 to 12(or perhaps even more). Over the years, 3 pitikas have become popular because that is adopted by the Theravadha school. According to the Buddhist history itself, the thervadha school became popular because of the royal patronization(in Magadh). Thats why Theravadha school adopts the maagadhi(i.e Paali) language as its official language(of course, it may also have to do with controlling the narrative by controlling the language, but that would be a digression in this post).

So, there are different versions of the teachings of Buddha. One version accepted by one school is not accepted by the other schools. So, there is dispute on the very basic 'facts' or 'axioms' itself. (This is similar to different versions of hadiths. Different versions of Hadhiths have different portrayals of Mo. naroK is interpreted on the basis of these hadiths.)

But, in case of Hindhuism, there is no dispute on the teachings of Vedha. There is no dispute on the words(Shabdha) of Vedha. The dispute(or disagreement) is on the interpretation of the words(Shabdha) of Vedha.

I hope you are able to see the difference.

Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaaktheyas, Gaanapathyas, Skaandhas, and Sauras all quote Vedhas to prove their supremacy. They argue with each other on who is the supreme according to Vedhas(including Upanishadhs).

Similarly, different Hindhu(Aasthika) philosophies quote Vedhas to prove themselves.

There is no dispute on the words of Vedha. The dispute is on interpretation. For example, Taththavamasi is part of Vedha. All Hindhu philosophies and sects agree on this. But Dhwaitha and Adhwaitha have different interpretations of the same words is different. The dispute is one whose interpretation of words of Vedha are correct.

But, in case of Buddhism, the very teachings of Buddha are disputed. What exactly are words of the teachings of Buddha, that in itself, is disputed by the various schools of Buddhism.

For example, tell me what is the teaching of Buddha about the reality of the world(including heaven and hell)?
Does the world(including the heaven and hell) exist or not according to Buddha?

johneeG wrote:

it is the ONLY process left for our human mind to understand what are the workings of the world we see.

The first and foremost thing for a human mind to understand is the human mind itself. Everything that is seen and understood is done through the prism of human mind. As long as the mind itself is not fully understood, all the other understandings(which are derivatives of the mind) are on a shaky ground.

People reach understanding of things in the following manner:
a) observation (Prathyaksha)
b) inference (anumaana)

You observe a phenomenon and then you make a inference(i.e. you propose a theory to explain the observation). The observation is supposed to be facts while the inference(or theory) is supposed to be an opinion. A theory(or opinion) that best explains the available facts(observations) is generally accepted. If a better theory, comes up, then that new theory will be accepted.

But, there are several problems in the above approach:
First and foremost, not all the facts are verifiable for everyone by observing. What I mean to say is that not everyone can observe and verify for themselves certain 'facts'. For example, not everyone can go to a space station and personally observe whether earth revolves around the sun or not. Or if the earth is circular or oval. ...etc.

In such cases, people have to depend on others' words. Words can be either heard or written. For example, most people obtain their knowledge by reading words in text-books, magazines, articles, papers, ...etc or they obtain their knowledge by listening to the words of 'experts'.

Word is called 'Shabdha' in Sanskruth.

People have to listen to the words of others and then, either accept them or reject them. Whether to accept someone's words or not, is again a subjective matter and not any objective matter.

Generally, what happens is if all people say the same thing, then it is accepted as the truth because there is no one challenging it or doubting. But, if there is a contrary view, then the controversy starts. When there are different views(on what are the facts), then which view to accept? That means the 'facts' themselves come under a scanner and are doubtful. This problem is frequently encountered in study of 'history'. When a record of history is taken, how does one know whether that record is truthful or not? Frankly, there is no way unless one can see into the past directly(i.e. make a direct observation). Any other method is only an approximation.

In 'science', people depend on 'experts' to get their facts. People believe that these 'experts' have personally observed(prathyaksha) and then arrived at their theories(anumaana).

Now, at a certain level, experiments are repeatable for laypeople and satisfy themselves. For example, there is gravity on earth. One can satisfy oneself by simply dropping any object and verifying it.

But, after a certain level, experiments are not repeatable for lay people. For example, gravity exists on moon. or gravity does not exist on moon. Now, unless one travels to moon and performs this experiment oneself, one cannot directly verify it.

In such cases, people would depend on those who claim to have done those things. So, their words have to be taken and believed. From this point on, there are 3 factors:
a) observation (prathyaksha)
b) words (shabdha) of others who claim to have observed
c) inference or theories (anumaana)

As I said, it is easy to believe others words, if there is only one viewpoint. But if there are multiple opposing viewpoints then, it becomes a question of which viewpoint one would like to believe.

For example, there are people who claim that they have seen God or Goddess. And similarly, there are people who claim that they have seen aliens or UFO. There are people who claim that they have gone to Moon and observed Earth. So on and so forth.

Now, from a neutral viewpoint, it is not possible for a person to verify any of the above claims. One is forced to simple accept or reject those claims. That means one is forced to place blind faith in the words of others. And generally people make decisions of whom to trust based on their biases. If a person is inclined to believe in Gods or Goddesses, then he may believe certain claims. If a person is a huge fan of modern day science, then they may believe aliens or UFO or landing on Moon ...etc. Basically, it comes down to the mentality of the person. What he likes and dislikes. What he wants to believe and not believe.

There is another point: people lie frequently.

People frequently lie. It happens all the time at all the places. Scientists, politicians, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, technicians, priests, ...etc all lie. And if people are forced to choose between lying and forgoing their jobs/perks/pleasures, then the lying will increase.

So, people are prone to lying and open to lying. Further, people are also prone to being fooled by others. All of us can fool others and be fooled by others.

Then, everyone has certain needs and weaknesses. And most important point is that there are powerful groups in the world who can control things by controlling the finances. So, which scientific experiment needs to be funded and which should not be funded is ultimately decided based on whether its useful or not to the person who is funding it.

And if these powerful people form into a cartel, then they can easily dictate what kind of 'facts' and theories are encouraged and which are discouraged. These cartels can be government bodies or private bodies or quasi-government bodies.

These bodies will make sure that no person can make claims of observations or inferences that run contrary to their interests.

And if they control the media, which frequently they do because the media also needs money to run, then they can also make sure which theories become popular among public and which are considered as 'superstitions' or 'loony'.

Basically we can divide science(including physics) into two categories:
a) verifiable for laymen by performing the experiments themselves. (Prathyaksha)
b) unverifiable for laymen and hence depend on others. (Shabdha)

In (b), physics is no different from any religion. One has to have faith in the words of high priests. Thats that.

In (a), one can make direct observation one self.
But, the point is 'beauty is in the eye of beholder'. That means what you see is based on your mind. What you think you observe is the interpretation of your mind.

Most of the times, mind makes many assumptions to fill in the blanks. It sees only partially and then makes certain fill in the blanks to optimize. So, one's mind itself is doing some internal chores which most of the time one is not aware of.

So, the basic question is:
when you observe an object, are you sure that that object actually exists in that manner only?
It is an accepted fact that certain circumstances can create tunnel vision.
Soldiers in battle generally have tunnel vision. So, their observations cannot be accepted completely because their vision is not proper. The problem is not with their eyes. The problem is with their minds.

Taking this further:
When you make an observation, are you sure that this object of your observation actually exists in the first place?
Because this is the fundamental question, right. Again, it is common experience that people observe objects that do not exist in physical realm. Such observations are made in dreams, hallucinations or delusions. But a critical thing to notice is that the person who is dreaming does not know that he is dreaming. Or the person who is hallucinating does not know that he is hallucinating. So, for them, the observation is as real as it gets.

So, one realizes that one is dreaming only when one has woken up. But that raises important point, then how do we know that when we make an observation, we are not dreaming or hallucinating or deluding? How do we know that the object that we see actually exists?

One simple way of verifying would be to ask others whether they can also see the object, right!

Here is a scenario:
You see a huge car hanging from the roof of a building. You ask a passerby whether he also sees the same, he says that he does. So, you assume its true. Then, you wake up from your dream and realize that both the car hanging from the roof and the passerby were part of the dream. So both of them were the creations of your own mind.

So, how can any one be sure that when one observes an object, the object exists?

Link

Link

Basically, at too higher(or lower) levels of physics, physics transforms into philosophy.

shiv wrote:Naipaul said that the ancient Indians had found all the answers they needed for life within themselves and were content to live that way because no further answers were required. So when the invaders and looters came, they had no answers.

For many of us, theory masters as we are in everything Indian, it is clear that the ancient Indian civilization, having reached its zenith actually forgot some of the most important aspects of dharma - that is the karma or actions that one must undertake to preserve dharma.

Indian universalism is universal only in the way in which it can be found within every single human being. It is inward looking and contemplative. For many years - perhaps over a decade now I (and others) have pointed out that if you remove violence from Islamism, it will cannot spread. Western Universalism also comes with pain attached to not conforming, and less pain, even reward, in conforming. It shows you a route. It does not necessarily show you a Universal route. That which "requires to be applied on others" is technically not universal but no one will listen to such logic.

I would prefer to call it Western pseudo-Universalism.

shiv wrote: They can be compared but how do you compare aspects of Hindu dharma that do not exist in Islam and Christianity. Religion is defined in the dictionary as systems in which people believe in gods or superhumans. This is true of Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Christians and Muslims. To that extent they can be compared

But what about aspects of Hindu dharma that reject the concept of "superhuman" or "God" and refer only to the ultimate reality/existence? This allows one to say that there is no such thing as Allah or Ganesha. Only the absolute truth is. It is a different matter that the absolute truth is referred to as Ishvara or paramatma - but this absolute truth neither coerces you to follow Allah/Ganesha nor reject him. It is neutral to such activities.

What is the comparable feature of Islam and Christianity?

The point I am trying to make is that we have accepted the use of the word "religion" for Hindu dharma although it has features that no other religion has. We have taken an apple and an orange and have accepted that both are oranges.

SwamyG wrote: Both Christianity and Islam have their own philosophical components - that answer similar questions as that of Hinduism. However, being strongly tied to the Book; they do not have the same freedom to explore different answers. Like an apple that cannot role far away from a tree, these religions' philosophical components stay close to the Book. Hinduism, like the seeds tend to float further away from the tree. It is a different matter if we like or reject the existence of philosophical components in Christianity and Islam. After Christianity gained foothold in Europe, it co-opted and heavily borrowed from the ancient Greeks and Romans way of life.

So when the theist components can be compared; and one can discuss the merits and demerits of the rituals, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism etc; one could also compare the philosophical components attached (or that co exists) with these. Hinduism has wider range and deeper explorations and explanations.

Polytheist pagans, idolaters and racists/slavers (did not consider humans equal)

shiv wrote:

rajpa wrote: There is a concept of falsifiability introduced by Karl Popper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability. Quoting from wikipedia:

Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience


Science, interestingly is not so much about measurability as it is about repeatability (of a phenomenon or experiment).

Actually all of modern science depends on observation and measurement for the purpose of repeatability and falsifiability.

When observation and measurement are not possible it is neither possible to prove nor disprove (falsify). But in these cases "scientists" have sometimes simply fudged issues and have pushed as "correct" what "seems to be right to me" sometimes based on socio-cultural factors and religion.

rajpa wrote: OTOH, to believe in rebirth just because a few people say a few things about their "past lives" invites skepticism as well.

SwamyG wrote:
You have your right to see theism and philosophy unitedly. However, the common man when praying to his favorite god to help him in his exams, get a good job, health for his parents and family, some wealth and a cricket win operates at the level where he expects the god to intervene. He does not posit if Brahman manifests or not, he does not care for Saguna vs Nirguna. Growing up I never encountered these terms, let alone be taught and asked to explore. Coming from a semi orthodox Brahmin family, if such is the lifestyle of a city Brahmin, and looking at my past circle of family and friends, nobody discussed philosophy. Religious rituals were conducted as per individual's community traditions.

When rubber meets the road, there was not much difference between a Kuppusamy, Kuppuswamy, Kadhir, Kaadhir or Kevin worshipped their gods. Sure their outlook and respect of other religions and thoughts were shaped by their own tradition and books.

shiv wrote:

rajpa wrote: OTOH, to believe in rebirth just because a few people say a few things about their "past lives" invites skepticism as well.

Good science cannot rely on "personal incredulity" as proof of anything. Things that "invite scepticism" actually prove nothing either way - other than reveal an inbuilt bias that makes one look for solutions that one does not somehow "feel sceptical about". The number of things that "invited scepticism" and even death sentences (at one time in the past) make a mockery of the entire community of people who call themselves "scientists"

But that is a digression from this thread.

shiv wrote: Two significant errors in the quote above - but they are errors that have become commonplace ever since Indian education had to move out of traditional Hindu education to a British style "technical education" in search of employment - that started among Indians, starting with forward castes in the late 1800s.

The first (relatively minor) error lies in the (claimed) lack of awareness of Hindu tradition beyond simple bhakti/worship as performed at home - and an assumption that one's personal level of awareness in this regard can be generalized to apply to all others. But these are true of a lot of modern day Indians with 150 years of secular education in their family history

shiv wrote:For a Hindu to be secular, he has to say that all religions are equal and that all Gods are the same, and that one can be replaced by the other.

How this relates to Universalism is that Hindus have, over 150 years, placed themselves in a position of apology and defensiveness where they automatically agree that their traditions must be wrong. For an Indian to be a world citizen he has to be in denial and apologetic about his culture - and the less he knows and the more he fudges the easier it is to be a "world citizen".

shiv wrote:The philosophical components of Islam and Christianity have hardly achieved the volume and depth of Hindu philosophy and I cannot accept any kind of equality there - to be set aside as "one equally matched philosophical component of Hindu dharma and the Abrahamic religions" and then move aside to discuss the theist components.

shiv wrote: The second part is that once you take a Christian or Islamic Acharya/Pandit/Shastri and and set up a debate with a Hindu Bishop or Mullah/Atatollah you find that the Hindu Bishop/Mullah's debate is chock full of observations about the self and Brahman while the Christian or Muslim shastri/acharya deal at the level of belief in what is written in a book, punishment (or lack of reward) for not believing and either heaven or hell. No life after death. Death is the end of life. No theory about where the soul comes from or where it goes that does not involve God or heaven. You must believe first and then ask where you come from and where you go. From the viewpoint of science that is utter nonsense and it is allowable only because the Abrahamic religions pre-date western science.

SwamyG wrote:
If one understands the spread of Hinduism, as we now know it, the big ideas were preached by rishis/muni, poet/philosophers and Kings. Local worship rituals were folded into the umbrella called Hinduism. The villager worshiping the grama daivata did not think about philosophy; he had a specific purpose when conducting the worship. The non-Vedic cultures had their own versions of worship and life style.

symontk wrote:There is no Hindu philosophy, its only collection of multiple philosophies.

symontk wrote: This is wrong info about Christianity. Christianity is all about after life. From the first book / chapter of Bible to the last book / chapter it deals with that only

symontk wrote:

shiv wrote:For a Hindu to be secular, he has to say that all religions are equal and that all Gods are the same, and that one can be replaced by the other.

How this relates to Universalism is that Hindus have, over 150 years, placed themselves in a position of apology and defensiveness where they automatically agree that their traditions must be wrong. For an Indian to be a world citizen he has to be in denial and apologetic about his culture - and the less he knows and the more he fudges the easier it is to be a "world citizen".

I don't think this was imposed by minorities by Hindus. It might have been assumed by Hindus. But truth is that secularism can be achieved even if Hindus believe in their Gods and other minorities believe their own Gods. There is no need for Hindus to be denial and apologetic about their culture

Rudradev wrote: At present, these Western categories are used to relentlessly frame, define, characterize, criticize and bash India BY DEFAULT... that is why they are a Western "Universalism", a usurpation of the mantle of worldwide human values by the West. And that is why understanding Western Universalism is such a big deal.