Posted: Jul 20, 2011 5:44 pm
by cavarka9
Shiv wrote:
cavarka9 wrote:

Well, this is the problem with religious people, they cannot stop their urge to take credit.


Why not? Especially when it's due? Instead of completely erasing all of atheistic thought, Hindu*ism* still preserved them because they had a lot of questions that will recur in every thinking individual. It did not *ban or issue fatwa* against *heretic* atheist thought and questions. Why?


Because it stands out only in comparison with Christianity and Islam not so with Jainism and Buddhism with which it actually had grown with. Also it is not true of all Hindus or all religious Hindu scholars, put it simply we find this individual to be intellectually accomplished. Al-beruni for example was a muslim in 11th century AD and has shown a greater intellectual maturity than even the 19th century *academic* scholars, not to mention perhaps many 20th century scholars. Also in today's world this is common.Also, you shouldnt assume it as being about preserving them intact. It was about showing that they have infact won the debate.




Shiv wrote:
cavarka9 wrote:

Firstly, What did andy say?. He said that agnosticism seems to not conflict with hinduism, which is true not just with hinduism, it is true with every religion in the world and as we are here talking about hinduism, it is particularly true here as well.


What makes you think that agnosticism is a modern concept that suddenly seems to have no problem with any religion? If it was a thought, why could it not have been thought of already?

Agnosticism as a word and hence as a conscious concept emerged only recently. So even if such an understanding came about in times gone by, how do we call it?. Agnosticism suffices, if you wish to explore the existence of such a view from ancient past, go ahead and do so, who is stopping you.

Shiv wrote:
cavarka9 wrote:

We do not know whether madhavacharya was vidyaranya or not, we do not even have much evidence for vidyaranya,


The peetham for which he was the head carries continuous records of all activities and related people, its own and other sister peethams too. So do those other sister peethams and their evidences correlate each other. Contradictory evidences not available, therefore I accept them to be true. Those records state that Sri Vidyaranya Tirtha (Tirtha being one of the titles of the Dasanami orders) was known as Madhava during his period of Brahmacharya.


You do realize that you have just stated something without establishing it right?. You are once again welcome to do so, show the sources and establish it as such. You might also gain some respect as a historian in doing so.
Shiv wrote:
cavarka9 wrote:

As far as the ascending and descending goes, these are merely interpretations, the author does not explicitly claims so(no such evidence is put forward).


The evidence is in how each system is handled. The author uses the succeeding school of thought to question the current one and carries on doing this. It is obviously to establish the supremacy of his own lineage of Advaita, but when you read and understand the text, you will find that not only many of the questions atheists are asking now, but also questions that will simply stump you, along with their answers!


Why dont you bring those questions and then later when and if those questions do stump us, give us the answer. Once again, he merely uses arguments from one system to criticize another system leading up to his own system which he does not even discuss because he claims it to have discussed it else where, it seems his motivations then have been to not just show the superiority of his faith but also to state about the various speculations of his native country too.Which is what the title of the book is, (compendium of various worldviews)

It doesnt compare for example the charvaka directly to paniniya or jaina directly to advaita.In which case it is clear that he did not make a direct to direct comparison of various systems.To account all their flaws and all their merits, in which case it once again becomes a presumption to claim what the author is doing. But even he does, so what?.It would merely show that the said person even he had been biased to his side atleast made it a point to state others view.
As I said, Amartya Sen is the kind of person who would praise people for even the tiniest amount of good. He infact quotes from Manu smriti in his "Argumentative Indian". To show that even that author makes some correct points.

Shiv wrote:
cavarka9 wrote:

As far as why people are still religious inspite of having many atheists in India, the answer is pretty simple. Power has always been in religious peoples hands. If there are more atheists today, it is because we can explain much more today without god butting in or being bought into discussion than we ever before. Not to mention, technology. So yes, these people did exist. Why they lost out is also pretty obvious dont you think?.


That is a very cheerful assumption that many atheists like to make, unfortunately not true in an Indian context, although it is probably true in the case of European atheism. Why could *atheism* not have been refuted through clear and proper arguments that are also logical and reasonable? Why couldn't there be a school that asked questions that any *atheistic* school could not answer?

E.g. Buddhism, which was so powerful for a few centuries was completely pushed off. How? Why?

And even assuming that advaita and sankhya and other schools were so popular or powerful as you say, none of them uphold idol worship and rituals. Why then do we find 1000s and 1000s of temples in our country. Why are people so superstitious?

It is so not obvious. Please do explain it to me.


Not true in Indian context?. Why, are they not human beings, do they not use their brains?. Or is it your claim that Indian faiths had been intellectually superior to Atheism unlike in Europe where you think those faiths were not?.
As far as Atheism being rejected logically is concerned, it is pretty simple, these charvakas did not reject logic as much as they rejected mythical logical extension of inference. Put it simply, they wished to explain the world as it is, not circular logic of stating that the God wrote the bible, bible says jesus is the way and hence jesus is the god and god wrote the bible. Circular logics are difficult to reject, What finally emerged as physics in europe and scientific method among the arabs for example too was about explaining the physical without predisposed mythical logic on the basis of inference.
Once again, you wish to down play the importance of power and religion, werent you the one to bemoan about Islam and Christianity as invaders etc, blame a lot of loss due to these power struggles?. Are you claiming that buddhists in afghanistan was defeated by intellectual debates by the muslims for example?. Buddhism itself spread due to a significant act of the emperor of India feeling sorry for waging a war, put it simply, the religion of the king and those in power seems to matter in survival of various faiths.
I could very well claim that sikhs for example survived inspite of being a puny minority because they fought. As far as Idol worship is concerned, orthopraxy was an essential component of vedas and unfortunately those rituals survive. Even sankara never tried to stop idol worship, not to mention why would the brahmins give up on the source of their power and living.
Those rituals perhaps are the single most important reason as to why Indian society is unable to go beyond caste, because castes and rituals go together, but that is a bigger problem to you as a Hindu because they are some of the reasons why there are such divisions amongst your own religion, not to mention my countrymen.
Finally education, how many of those are educated enough?. How many of them are graduates and actually understand what they write in their exams?.