So, basically, Hinduism is something that you gotta do the ayar-de-bockity and deedle deedle queep, and the texts are hard to understand, and it's all great, and any Hindu who does something bad isn't a real Hindu, and it's one religion except when it's a bunch.

In other words, it's just like other religions.

andyx1205 wrote:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are centralized in that the literal interpretation of the text concludes that that particular religion is the only right one and all others are either blasphemous or only partially correct

Sorta, but none of those religions are monolithic either. Or in other words, what epepke said.

We are living in a world dominated by the abrahamic religions and in particular Christianity and before that Islam,most of the other faiths have been interpreted by the christian missionaries, so much so that other faiths today are infact hybrids.
It certainly is true of 'Hinduism', the word itself originates periodically from time to time and mostly by 'non-hindus' and eventually appropriated by the concerned people themselves.It eventually becomes a preeminent way to categorize Indians to a large degree from around 17-19th century.
I believe that it is prudent to use 'faith systems' rather than 'religion'. The word 'religion' is absurd, it makes other faiths mere models of Abrahamic ones, it also is academically improper to continue to view things as though they are all similar when infact they are not similar.

I dont want to keep repeating what I said. But if you believe that "atheism" and "agnosticism" and "rationality" all those other "new age" stuff are actually great discoveries of the modern west, kindly throw that assumption out with that "white male skydaddy" you throw out already!

There's a reason for stuff to exist even after 5000 years, with the last 1000 years spent in slavery. That is enough time to think up all the questions and answer them.

Being brought in a Christian environment, you obviously can only view all religions as the same. Unless if you use your reasoning and critical thinking.

The texts are hard - FOR ME i.e. they are written in Sanskrit and I'm not well versed in that language. I've got to depend on translations and commentaries. Apart from that, they are only as hard or difficult to understand as any other discipline like Genetics or Calculus etc.

andyx1205 wrote:Just to plug something in, Amartya Sen believes that his agnosticism is compatible with Hinduism:

Andy,

You dont actually need an Amartya Sen to know that. A casual reading of the different systems ought to tell you that the majority of them put "God" in his place. You've simply got to understand that it is more about oneself, than about some invisible, all powerful skydaddy.

cavarka9 wrote:We are living in a world dominated by the abrahamic religions and in particular Christianity and before that Islam,most of the other faiths have been interpreted by the christian missionaries, so much so that other faiths today are infact hybrids.
It certainly is true of 'Hinduism', the word itself originates periodically from time to time and mostly by 'non-hindus' and eventually appropriated by the concerned people themselves.It eventually becomes a preeminent way to categorize Indians to a large degree from around 17-19th century.
I believe that it is prudent to use 'faith systems' rather than 'religion'. The word 'religion' is absurd, it makes other faiths mere models of Abrahamic ones, it also is academically improper to continue to view things as though they are all similar when infact they are not similar.

Doode! I could not have put it better. I so love you.

Shiv wrote:I dont want to keep repeating what I said. But if you believe that "atheism" and "agnosticism" and "rationality" all those other "new age" stuff are actually great discoveries of the modern west, kindly throw that assumption out with that "white male skydaddy" you throw out already!

There's a reason for stuff to exist even after 5000 years, with the last 1000 years spent in slavery. That is enough time to think up all the questions and answer them.

Being brought in a Christian environment, you obviously can only view all religions as the same. Unless if you use your reasoning and critical thinking.

The texts are hard - FOR ME i.e. they are written in Sanskrit and I'm not well versed in that language. I've got to depend on translations and commentaries. Apart from that, they are only as hard or difficult to understand as any other discipline like Genetics or Calculus etc.

andyx1205 wrote:Just to plug something in, Amartya Sen believes that his agnosticism is compatible with Hinduism:

Andy,

You dont actually need an Amartya Sen to know that. A casual reading of the different systems ought to tell you that the majority of them put "God" in his place. You've simply got to understand that it is more about oneself, than about some invisible, all powerful skydaddy.

I disagree, I think andy has done it perfectly well to quote someone who wouldnt be called crazy for saying that and would be listened to. Amartya sen is a brilliant person, although too much of a leftist and too politically correct for my taste.

cavarka9 wrote:We are living in a world dominated by the abrahamic religions and in particular Christianity and before that Islam,most of the other faiths have been interpreted by the christian missionaries, so much so that other faiths today are infact hybrids.
It certainly is true of 'Hinduism', the word itself originates periodically from time to time and mostly by 'non-hindus' and eventually appropriated by the concerned people themselves.It eventually becomes a preeminent way to categorize Indians to a large degree from around 17-19th century.
I believe that it is prudent to use 'faith systems' rather than 'religion'. The word 'religion' is absurd, it makes other faiths mere models of Abrahamic ones, it also is academically improper to continue to view things as though they are all similar when infact they are not similar.

Not even in the Abrahamic fold does the term religion give the right associations all the time. The word 'religion', however, predates Christianity, and the practices it mainly was used to refer to back then were indo-european religions - closer related to Indian religion than to Abrahamic religions. One particular example among the abrahamic religions where the word itself causes problems is Judaism. The druze and some small iraqi religions also don't fit the ideas of stereotypical "religions" either.

"Faith system" is problematic as a word as well - not all religions hinge on faith, a lot of them hinge on praxis or some sense of community instead, and faith can be omitted, or seen as but an optional part in being a member in good standing.

Academics, when using words like religion, are probably more aware of possible problems with them anyway, and will try to surpass the associations the word has. Accepting any other word may also come just as rife with ideological presumptions, possibly colouring the studies of a religion in a way favoured by its adherents, abandoning academical objectivity.

A funny thing with regard to the word religion, is how a lot of Christians will distance themselves from the label as well - 'Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship (with Jesus)', 'Religions are full of obligations and rituals and rules, Christianity is about Christ's love for you', etc. (Of course, there's even funnier things happening here, such as those very same people often being very adamant in thinking that some specific rules are very necessary for the true Christian, etc)

One problem, probably, is that people want to be able to talk about religions without first knowing what it is they're talking about - and this isn't something that new or different words are going to solve.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:We are living in a world dominated by the abrahamic religions and in particular Christianity and before that Islam,most of the other faiths have been interpreted by the christian missionaries, so much so that other faiths today are infact hybrids.
It certainly is true of 'Hinduism', the word itself originates periodically from time to time and mostly by 'non-hindus' and eventually appropriated by the concerned people themselves.It eventually becomes a preeminent way to categorize Indians to a large degree from around 17-19th century.
I believe that it is prudent to use 'faith systems' rather than 'religion'. The word 'religion' is absurd, it makes other faiths mere models of Abrahamic ones, it also is academically improper to continue to view things as though they are all similar when infact they are not similar.

Not even in the Abrahamic fold does the term religion give the right associations all the time. The word 'religion', however, predates Christianity, and the practices it mainly was used to refer to back then were indo-european religions - closer related to Indian religion than to Abrahamic religions. One particular example among the abrahamic religions where the word itself causes problems is Judaism. The druze and some small iraqi religions also don't fit the ideas of stereotypical "religions" either.

"Faith system" is problematic as a word as well - not all religions hinge on faith, a lot of them hinge on praxis or some sense of community instead, and faith can be omitted, or seen as but an optional part in being a member in good standing.

Academics, when using words like religion, are probably more aware of possible problems with them anyway, and will try to surpass the associations the word has. Accepting any other word may also come just as rife with ideological presumptions, possibly colouring the studies of a religion in a way favoured by its adherents, abandoning academical objectivity.

A funny thing with regard to the word religion, is how a lot of Christians will distance themselves from the label as well - 'Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship (with Jesus)', 'Religions are full of obligations and rituals and rules, Christianity is about Christ's love for you', etc. (Of course, there's even funnier things happening here, such as those very same people often being very adamant in thinking that some specific rules are very necessary for the true Christian, etc)

One problem, probably, is that people want to be able to talk about religions without first knowing what it is they're talking about - and this isn't something that new or different words are going to solve.

I disagree, words are what we address to, what we refer to, how we represent, categorize. If we do not speak clearly, we have no bloody hope in ever solving the problems and we think in words. "Faith systems' explicitly makes it clear that there are indeed many different faiths and different systems. I however think that the real use of the word religion is its political use, because it brings a sort of unity of describing things, it helps people to politically try to speak in a manner as though they are all similar, After all the fundamentalists love being different, they love to be exclusive and designating themselves to be exclusive. It really depends on who is in power, people can use stereotyping for various reasons, to dilute identities, to box people into certain categories and describe them in only certain manners. But again the present politically correct world also wants to dilute identities of various religions. It I guess is supposed to bring people togeather. So factually I think the word 'religion' is wrong and something along the lines of 'faith systems' is correct. But if we wish to dilute peoples identities without them being conscious of this, then the word religion does the job well, except it gives an advantage to those groups which have a greater measure of power and hence associations.

But why do you prefer 'faith system', when as I said, a lot of them don't revolve around faith or even consider faith particularly important? It's an equally flawed or even worse substitute.

IMHO it looks like you're being misled by some kind of misguided essentialism.

Zwaarddijk wrote:But why do you prefer 'faith system', when as I said, a lot of them don't revolve around faith or even consider faith particularly important? It's an equally flawed or even worse substitute.

IMHO it looks like you're being misled by some kind of misguided essentialism.

I agree that I didnt think clearly, that perhaps stating facts as they are is not essentially a good thing for society in general , perhaps there is a need to blur the boundaries verbally to see them blur in our minds as well. I dont defend the word 'faith systems', I said anything along those lines, one could call it as 'systems of living' for example. I havent fixed my mind yet on this issue, I am only discussing.

...something along the lines of 'faith systems' is correct.

cavarka9 wrote:

I disagree, I think andy has done it perfectly well to quote someone who wouldnt be called crazy for saying that and would be listened to. Amartya sen is a brilliant person, although too much of a leftist and too politically correct for my taste.

Well, what does he intend to say through that statement? That is what I contest.

andyx1205 wrote:Just to plug something in, Amartya Sen believes that his agnosticism is compatible with Hinduism:

In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" – a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.

1. It is a given fact that there are not just a few Sanskrit texts in existence today that can be categorized as atheistic. This is in spite of the large number of texts destroyed by invaders and idiots. Those that were saved were passed down *religiously*, through lineages that thrived under and were protected by what we call today as *Hinduism*

2. Sarva-darshana-samgraha is a compendium, a review of all Hindu systems/schools of thought that were prevalent during the period of its author Saint Vidyaranya or Madhava Acharya. This text is a milestone because, though Vidyaranya belonged to Adi Shankara's lineage of Advaita, he very thoroughly details the principles of each school as though he is a student of that very school he is defending. Later he also takes on the role of an opponent and asks penetrating questions that expose flaws in each of those philosophies.

In his book, he orders the system according to an ascending order of integrity, based on how long and strong their philosophies withstand questioning and how soon they run out of answers. That Amartya Sen's "first chapter is "Atheism" – a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism." actually means it is the weakest of the lot, which is why it is first. It is followed by Buddhism and Jainism. But what the Arguing Indian fails to mention is each system is refuted(philosophically) as the text proceeds.

Check out this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidyaranya#Sarvadar.C5.9Banasa.E1.B9.85.CC.87graha to know more about the text. An old translation in English is available on Project Gutenberg for those interested.

3. There is a curious paradox here: if there were so many Atheistic philosophies with 100s of supporting texts, why were people still religious in India? Heck, even the teachers and authors of these atheistic philosophies went to temples and worshiped idols. The same Vidyaranya even composed Mahishasura-mardini Stotram - Hymns to the Warrior Goddess, who slayed the demon Mahishasura, which is so popular today. Why did these so called "atheistic" teachers go to great lengths to uphold religious traditions, worship, rituals etc?

I do respect the fact that Amartya Sen is entitled to his views and interpretations, especially when he is defending India from a western platform. But please dont tell me to accept them without questioning.

This is the article link from which the wiki page quotes Amartya: http://alumni.berkeley.edu/news/califor ... ing-indian

I cant delve into semantics and how stuff is understood by academicians and civilians etc. but the Hindu's religion is nothing like Christianity or Islam - there's no force or compulsion, and it contains atheistic elements within it's folds.

Let's say we try a sort of test:

When you think of *religion*, what is the first thing that pops up in your mind? If it's christianity or islam or anything related to any of the abrahamic faiths, clearly that is what we are trying to tell you. In spite of being atheists, you still live in an environment influenced by christianity and islam.

So, there is a high probability that you will think of Hindu*ism* in the same way as you think of christianity or islam, which it is not.

Shiv wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

I disagree, I think andy has done it perfectly well to quote someone who wouldnt be called crazy for saying that and would be listened to. Amartya sen is a brilliant person, although too much of a leftist and too politically correct for my taste.

Well, what does he intend to say through that statement? That is what I contest.

andyx1205 wrote:Just to plug something in, Amartya Sen believes that his agnosticism is compatible with Hinduism:

In some ways people had got used to the idea that India was spiritual and religion-oriented. That gave a leg up to the religious interpretation of India, despite the fact that Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language. Madhava Acharya, the remarkable 14th century philosopher, wrote this rather great book called Sarvadarshansamgraha, which discussed all the religious schools of thought within the Hindu structure. The first chapter is "Atheism" – a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism.

1. It is a given fact that there are not just a few Sanskrit texts in existence today that can be categorized as atheistic. This is in spite of the large number of texts destroyed by invaders and idiots. Those that were saved were passed down *religiously*, through lineages that thrived under and were protected by what we call today as *Hinduism*

2. Sarva-darshana-samgraha is a compendium, a review of all Hindu systems/schools of thought that were prevalent during the period of its author Saint Vidyaranya or Madhava Acharya. This text is a milestone because, though Vidyaranya belonged to Adi Shankara's lineage of Advaita, he very thoroughly details the principles of each school as though he is a student of that very school he is defending. Later he also takes on the role of an opponent and asks penetrating questions that expose flaws in each of those philosophies.

In his book, he orders the system according to an ascending order of integrity, based on how long and strong their philosophies withstand questioning and how soon they run out of answers. That Amartya Sen's "first chapter is "Atheism" – a very strong presentation of the argument in favor of atheism and materialism." actually means it is the weakest of the lot, which is why it is first. It is followed by Buddhism and Jainism. But what the Arguing Indian fails to mention is each system is refuted(philosophically) as the text proceeds.

Check out this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidyaranya#Sarvadar.C5.9Banasa.E1.B9.85.CC.87graha to know more about the text. An old translation in English is available on Project Gutenberg for those interested.

3. There is a curious paradox here: if there were so many Atheistic philosophies with 100s of supporting texts, why were people still religious in India? Heck, even the teachers and authors of these atheistic philosophies went to temples and worshiped idols. The same Vidyaranya even composed Mahishasura-mardini Stotram - Hymns to the Warrior Goddess, who slayed the demon Mahishasura, which is so popular today. Why did these so called "atheistic" teachers go to great lengths to uphold religious traditions, worship, rituals etc?

I do respect the fact that Amartya Sen is entitled to his views and interpretations, especially when he is defending India from a western platform. But please dont tell me to accept them without questioning.

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

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.

1). Let me assure you that no atheistic literature has survived independently, except perhaps one but that was from a radical skeptic. What has survived was infact atheistic arguments, which isnt that uncommon as the religious people believed that they actually answered these arguments. It is the works of refutation which have survived.

2). True, the author was praised for being considerate to other philosophies if not in full, atleast in parts(I havent read it so I am not entirely sure). We do not know whether madhavacharya was vidyaranya or not, we do not even have much evidence for vidyaranya, it could be merely tales which survived. Amartya Sen knows very well that the book is a work on refutation, he also speaks of a quote before he claims of atheism being given a strong favour, for describing it as first. 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). What we do know for sure is that the author kept atheistic religions together and first, this may be due to them being the best critiques of his own worldview. If so, then once again Amartya sen's statement that to have atheism upfront is indeed a strong presentation in favour of materialism comes out to be true. In other words, the author accepts which worldview is of greatest threat to his own worldview when dealing with refutation just as we today speak out first and foremost against those which is of immediate concern.

I think you have not understood the spirit of Amartya sen, most people dont. He is a brilliant person who would wish to see goodness in all, if there is none to be found then he is willing to look at an atoms worth of goodness atleast. He only commends madhavacharya for the book.

3). Well, you once again are wrong. Amartya sen never claims these works are the works of atheists, he claims that it has elements of atheistic thought, which is natural in my view because when there are those many gods, it becomes important to have a practical take on things,not to mention the confusion in keeping track of all their stories.
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?.

Also, in specific Amartya Sen quotes this , from the very beginning of the text. Sarva Darshana Samagraha

First chapter: Charvaka

We have said in our preliminary invocation "salution to Siva,the abode of eternal knowledge,the storehouse of supreme felicity".
But how can we attribut to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of atheistical school,the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspathi?. The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated,for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain-

While life is your,live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it ever again return?


The mass of men, in accordance with the Sastras of
policy and enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the
only ends of man, and denying the existence of any object
belonging to a future world, are found to follow only the
doctrine of Charvaka. Hence another name for that
school is Lokayata, a name well accordant with the
thing signified.
In this school the four elements, earth, &c., are the
original principles; from these alone, when transformed
into the body, intelligence is produced, just as the in
ebriating power is developed from the mixing of certain
ingredients ; l and when these are destroyed, intelligence at
once perishes also. They quote the Sruti for this [Brihad
Arany. Up. ii. 4, 12], "Springing forth from these ele
ments, itself solid knowledge, it is destroyed when they
are destroyed, after death no intelligence remains." *

http://www.archive.org/stream/thesarvad ... t_djvu.txt

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?

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?

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.

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!

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.

I'd like to see some evidence of this 5000-year-old greatness that makes Hinduism so swell. Something like a basic understanding of electricity. That shit just comes from the sky, and it isn't as if other religions haven't tried their hand at it.

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?

Probably because Hinduism is more bent on orthopraxy and ritualism than on orthodoxy.

(As for the ritualism - just look up why Panini made his study of Sanskrit pronunciation - in order that the liturgies be pronounced the same way forever!)

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?.

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?.

I'm not here to defend Christianity and Islam. Dont try to divert the discussion by interpreting my own arguments as you wish by including those two political theologies.

Yes, I'm here to defend my own traditions/culture/philosophies and to establish them to be much more better than either Islam or Christianity. That is why I said "not true in an Indian context", because unlike the treatment meted out to atheism as heresy by Christianity and Islam, in India there thrived a very encouraging environment for debate. Which is why you even find those atheistic arguments in records.

Why, are they not human beings, do they not use their brains?.

Very nicely done

While I keep repeating that there was astounding amount of intellectual activity in the formation of concepts, their opposition and defense in India, you are so very clever to ask this question. Aint you?

You are doing the same thing that pseudo-liberal, pseudo-secular, pseudo-intellectual pseudo-scholars and the media do in India. State a valid fact, but as though it was a crime. If you are not one of them, then answer my questions properly (and not in a jumble like above), not twisting my defense as you like. I will start our own debate on caste in the other thread.