coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Thank you for your input: Wikipedia articles are linking the references to the work of all the major western free thinkers, who started this movement and played the key role in getting rid of the powers of the church in the Europe. As compared to the writings of all these western freethinkers and their own testimonies, and the testimonies of all the Secularists, we have a claim by a religious person, whose whole argument is based upon this own "CONJECTURE". No, my views are based on reading Ambedkar, Vivekanand, Aurobindo who are modern thinkers, yet respected tradition. They all worked to reform Hinduism. I don't copy past and color code my views to call it CONJECTURE! Ambedkar refused to add "secular" to the constitution preamble because he thought it was not indegenous to Indian dharmic tradition of pluarality. Quote Although there is no Utopian Land present, but we have likes of Scandinavian countries and they are gradually going very close to be 100% non-religious on the state level. This is so much overwhelming that these countries are considered to non-religious. If we have to go through your Standards, then it means that there is also no "religious" state present in the world, and actually never existed ever. Free thinking should come from within the system, from people within. Just like, Islam can reform only when moderates try to reform it, voice strong opinion against radicals and not cry Islamophobia at the drop of a har. All reform from different societies have come from people who wanted to reform, Modern liberalism is to rebel all tradition and cause chaos - Anarchists, all of them. You are mixing a lot with Secularism. It is only about conflict of interest of state v/s orgainzed religion. Quote Therefore, for me putting this conditions only upon Secular states are sign of "Double Standards". I again completely disagree with this claim. This credit goes only to Secularism that it ended the slavery system, and also the like of caste systems. No religion or religious state succeeded in doing it. And egalitarian society ..... all are free to lead their personal life as they wish. Unlike religion and a religious society, they impose NOTHING upon the individuals. This brings the most diverse society which has all types of colours present in it. Go read again, you have been corrected many times. Slavery in US ended because of conservatives, not the democrats/liberals. Untouchability was aboplished by Hindu reformers, when India was not a secular state. Egalitarian is about uniformity, and not accepting difference. Yeah right, Secularism ended world wars, caused world peace, eradicated world hunger, caused technological industrial revolution and will now rid the world of corona virus as well. Quote Tolerance VS Respect allegation: I am unable to understand this strange argument. Tolerance is itself about "Respecting the rights" of the people to choose their own choices. What else do you mean by "Respect"? Does "respect" for others in the Vedas mean to "start following them" blindly? Or does "respect" in Vedas mean that others have no right to "criticise" the other idealogies? If you want to stick to your claim of Tolerance VS Respect, then make is clear first what does that all all mean to you. I don't like you, because you think I will go to hell as I don't pray to the same god as you, but I will tolerate your bad beliefs and live and let live. - Tolerance v.s I respect you as a human being and the whole world is one big family, and I believe all faiths lead to the same god - Respect. Edited March 16, 2020 by coffee_rules Laaloo 1
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: Don't take the name of Charvaka to Secularism bucket. That philosophical group was against the ritualistic practice of Rigveda. They preached that the rituals of Vedas are not be all and end all. There is more to it, which led to explanation of the true meaning of Vedas in Upanishads and eventually Vedanta. Some of the Upanishads preached renunciation which inspired Buddha eventually. Don't mix up stuff from sanatana DHarma with inferior concepts from the West. Rigveda speaks of inclusion of all sects, practices, and philosophies, not just of those that were victorious. That is akin to Mohd following pagan practicies in Islam after he killed all the pagans in ME. Rigveda is the text which talks of plularity (respect for all) where the concept of inclusion of all is the way for a long lasting society. It is a "Haryanvi" (the land of rigveda) concept that all of India accepted and followed. I wonder why could we not take the name of Charvakas? They were the "freethinkers", who rejected the Vedas "all together" . For them, there existed no "wrong" or "true" meaning/interpretations of Vedas any more, but they totally rejected the Vedas themselves. Therefore, bringing the excuse of true meanings being present in Upanishads etc is not going to work here. Same is exactly true for Mahatama Buddha too. There is absolutely nothing special in the so called Sanatana Dharma. So much so that Mahatama Buddah also rejected 100% of the Vedas and the whole Sanatana Dharma. Again and again Sanatana Dharma has been presented as a supreme thing which could not be criticised or could be compared with the Western ideologies. But again and again we see that even the Jainism saw nothing special in Sanatana Dharma and thus they also rejected the Vedas totally and thus Vedas has absolutely no value for them. And again the same process we saw in Sikhism too, where they also saw absolutely nothing special in the Vedas and rejected it completely and give absolutely no importance to either Vedas or Upanishads or whichever sacred book of Sanatana Dharma is concerned.
coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 16 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I wonder why could we not take the name of Charvakas? Because they were accepted in Sanatan "Dharma" fold and were respected for their views. Quote They were the "freethinkers", who rejected the Vedas "all together" . For them, there existed no "wrong" or "true" meaning/interpretations of Vedas any more, but they totally rejected the Vedas themselves. Therefore, bringing the excuse of true meanings being present in Upanishads etc is not going to work here. You take rejection of vedas from an Abrahamic point of view or an atheist point of view. It is not absolute. It is a tradition of questioning, debating and reforming practicses. You should come from with in the tradition to understand it. Not reading Western Indoligists who have no clue what the oral tradition is, what the belief system is and the history behind the belief. Quote Same is exactly true for Mahatama Buddha too. There is absolutely nothing special in the so called Sanatana Dharma. So much so that Mahatama Buddah also rejected 100% of the Vedas and the whole Sanatana Dharma. What is with you and percentages? Buddha considered himself a Hindu and brought in Upanishad value into practice. An alternate to Vedic rituals. He didn't preace to burn Vedas as you make it out to be. When he died, his followers performed Hindu vedic rituals as per his will and wont and immersed his ashes in Ganga. If he had preached to reject Hinduism, why did his followers did exactly what he asked for, as he believe he will attain moksha. In Santana Dharma, there is a tradition of debating and convincing other about his philosophy. Adi Shankara did this and defeated the Buddhist followers. It is the 18th century Western Indologists, who thought that Buddhism is anything what Hindusim was about. While, as per tradition, there is policy of mutual respect, which they can't understand. You have no idea about Dharma to say how special it is. Quote Again and again Sanatana Dharma has been presented as a supreme thing which could not be criticised or could be compared with the Western ideologies. But again and again we see that even the Jainism saw nothing special in Sanatana Dharma and thus they also rejected the Vedas totally and thus Vedas has absolutely no value for them. And again the same process we saw in Sikhism too, where they also saw absolutely nothing special in the Vedas and rejected it completely and give absolutely no importance to either Vedas or Upanishads or whichever sacred book of Sanatana Dharma is concerned. Go read about Guru Nanak, and Guru Gobind. They respected Hindu gods and prayed for them. Too bad, Sikhism went the Khalsa way and became more like Islam after Guru Gobind. You don't know about how one can disagree and provide an alternate way of life. Jains believe in renunciation to the extreme. Indian constitution applies the same set of personal laws to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians, while Muslims get their own personal law.
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: No, my views are based on reading Ambedkar, Vivekanand, Aurobindo who are modern thinkers, yet respected tradition. They all worked to reform Hinduism. I don't copy past and color code my views to call it CONJECTURE! Ambedkar refused to add "secular" to the constitution preamble because he thought it was not indegenous to Indian dharmic tradition of pluarality. I don't know about Aurobindo. Vivekanand was a Hindu Reformer and thus his opinion has no value about the Secularism. And since Secularism does not have a central personality/god, therefore, opinions of Ambedkar also have no "authority" (neither about the birth and spread of Secularism in the West, nor in India). Therefore, how could we reject the testimonies of the European Scholars who started the movement of Secularism in Europe and then led it for centuries, and then to accept your conjectures about the birth and development of Secular movement? I feel that you are trying to hide your conjectures behind the name of Ambedkar. Let me ask you, if Ambedkar really wrote that movement of Secularism started in Europe due to the sectarian fights of the Christians? If he didn't write it categorically, how could then you use his name for defending your conjecture? Ambedkar may had been of opinion that Secularism belong to the Westen society, but this is different than claiming that he believed in the sectarian fight theory. And at the end, if I am not mistaken, then Ambedkar also rejected the Sanatana Dharam and Vedas and Upanishads completely, and converted to Buddhism. Am I right? 10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Free thinking should come from within the system, from people within. There is no "rule" which claims that it is "obligatory" that freethinking should only come from within the system. The "freethinking" which comes "within" the system, then than freethinking is itself "limited" to the domain of that religion. The prime example of this "limited freethinking" is Akbar itself. Although he tried to bring some reforms, but he was unable to get rid of Islam and it's all evil teachings completely. While the freethinking of Charvakas and Buddah and Jainism and Sikhism went outside of the system itself and they denied the whole system itself by considering it corrupt. 10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Go read again, you have been corrected many times. Slavery in US ended because of conservatives, not the democrats/liberals. Untouchability was aboplished by Hindu reformers, when India was not a secular state. Egalitarian is about uniformity, and not accepting different. And I have many times answered it too that those Western people remained religious only in their personal life. But as far as the State System was concerned, then they have already rejected the Religious Laws completely and went for 100% non-religious system. Therefore, only after adopting this non-religious state system, they were able to abolish the slavery too. Christian religion had itself ZERO role in the abolishing of the slavery. Church was unable to end slavery during thousands of years of it's power and government. And Hindu reformers were never completely succeeded in abolishing the caste system, while it was so much deeply integrated in the religious books and the religious system. 10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: I don't like you, because you think I will go to hell as I don't pray to the same god as you, but I will tolerate your bad beliefs and live and let live. - Tolerance v.s I respect you as a human being and the whole world is one big family, and I believe all faiths lead to the same god - Respect. To be clear, this type of Respect is against the Logic and Rationale and Wisdom. We know that Muhammad fabricated Allah from his own imagination, who should help Muhammad in all his "Desires". Prophets of Bani Israel also used the Abrahamic God in order to fulfil their own desires. Such greedy people in India created numerous such gods at their own while they wanted to benefit themselves by claiming the priesthood of those gods. The salvation of humanity lies in exposing all these false men made gods and their religions, while respecting such gods is equal to deceiving the humanity and bringing harm to it. Therefore tolerance (i.e. respecting the right of the choice of individual people) along with the "right to criticise" in order to expose the false Dramas of religions is the most wise and appropriate behaviour, while respecting all is all together a wrong approach.
coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I don't know about Aurobindo. Vivekanand was a Hindu Reformer and thus his opinion has no value about the Secularism. And since Secularism does not have a central personality/god, therefore, opinions of Ambedkar also have no "authority" (neither about the birth and spread of Secularism in the West, nor in India). Therefore, how could we reject the testimonies of the European Scholars who started the movement of Secularism in Europe and then led it for centuries, and then to accept your conjectures about the birth and development of Secular movement? Vivekanand is one of the modern-day thinkers that even your masters in the west agree. I will take his advice any day over drivel that you peddle. Because that is reality. You can't get a alien Euro thought and thopofy on an ancient civilization which has dealt with such issues 1000s of years back. Quote I feel that you are trying to hide your conjectures behind the name of Ambedkar. Let me ask you, if Ambedkar really wrote that movement of Secularism started in Europe due to the sectarian fights of the Christians? If he didn't write it categorically, how could then you use his name for defending your conjecture? Ambedkar may had been of opinion that Secularism belong to the Westen society, but this is different than claiming that he believed in the sectarian fight theory. Google and find out. Quote And at the end, if I am not mistaken, then Ambedkar also rejected the Sanatana Dharam and Vedas and Upanishads completely, and converted to Buddhism. Am I right? Yes, he was put off by the caste system and the people's mindset. Not from Dharma, he rejected Western religions and chose something indigenous. Quote There is no "rule" which claims that it is "obligatory" that freethinking should only come from within the system. The "freethinking" which comes "within" the system, then than freethinking is itself "limited" to the domain of that religion. The prime example of this "limited freethinking" is Akbar itself. Although he tried to bring some reforms, but he was unable to get rid of Islam and it's all evil teachings completely. While the freethinking of Charvakas and Buddah and Jainism and Sikhism went outside of the system itself and they denied the whole system itself by considering it corrupt. Akbar today would have been stoned to death for blasphemy. The fact that Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists were not lynched by sanatana dharma followers and are till today freely practicisng religions should be appreciated by modern secularists. You are still stuck on rejection of vedas. Shruthis set the voice of the society and how people think. There is no word for Blasphemy in Sanskrit of Indian languages. It is an Abrahamic concept. Quote And I have many times answered it too that those Western people remained religious only in their personal life. But as far as the State System was concerned, then they have already rejected the Religious Laws completely and went for 100% non-religious system. Therefore, only after adopting this non-religious state system, they were able to abolish the slavery too. Christian religion had itself ZERO role in the abolishing of the slavery. Church was unable to end slavery during thousands of years of it's power and government. Wrong. Only on paper, USA is practically a judea-christian country and is formed on religious principles with a motto - 'In God we trust'! Quote And Hindu reformers were never completely succeeded in abolishing the caste system, while it was so much deeply integrated in the religious books and the religious system. To be clear, this type of Respect is against the Logic and Rationale and Wisdom. We know that Muhammad fabricated Allah from his own imagination, who should help Muhammad in all his "Desires". Prophets of Bani Israel also used the Abrahamic God in order to fulfil their own desires. Such greedy people in India created numerous such gods at their own while they wanted to benefit themselves by claiming the priesthood of those gods. The salvation of humanity lies in exposing all these false men made gods and their religions, while respecting such gods is equal to deceiving the humanity and bringing harm to it. Therefore tolerance (i.e. respecting the right of the choice of individual people) along with the "right to criticise" in order to expose the false Dramas of religions is the most wise and appropriate behaviour, while respecting all is all together a wrong approach. Sorry, you have comprehension issues. Read it again. I am respecting the other as the same human being, while you think I will go to hell. Nobody created any god in Hindusim., People believed in collectively praying to a deity and were convinced, there is no book to certify who can be considered sacred. It is futile to discuss with somebody who has no idea of how Indian belief system has evolved. You read your western commentary as sacred , leave our beliefs to ourselves. Edited March 16, 2020 by coffee_rules
Muloghonto Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: While that thread was written from the point of view of the right wing religious person and already a lot of discussion was done there from their point of view. While I had to write entirely new post about this topic about the "origins" of the secularism, from the point of view of Secularists themselves. Thus, due to the importance of this subject, and due to reviving this debate right from the beginning from the Secular point of view, I had to create a new thread. secularism is inapplicable to Hinduism , Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism because these religions do not hold religious laws as ultimate for society, nor do they make it a religious obligation to convert or oppress the non believers. As such, these religions are inherently secular and secularism originated in Abrahamic ideology lands.
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 53 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Because they were accepted in Sanatan "Dharma" fold and were respected for their views. It is not respect, it is then "Tolerance". You could claim that they were in the Sanatana Dharma, but reality is this that for Charvakas it was only the Tolerance as they rejected the Hindu Vedanta itself. The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position as follows: There is no other world other than this; There is no heaven and no hell; The realm of Shiva and like regions, are fabricated by stupid imposters. — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8 So, if Charvakas had absolutely no god, then how could Charvakas could lead to the same one god? Whatever name of "fold of Satanaa Dharama" you give to it, but this reality does not change that it is exactly the modern Atheism. 53 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: You take rejection of vedas from an Abrahamic point of view or an atheist point of view. It is not absolute. It is a tradition of questioning, debating and reforming practicses. You should come from with in the tradition to understand it. Not reading Western Indoligists who have no clue what the oral tradition is, what the belief system is and the history behind the belief. No comments, while I don't think that this claim has any weight and value. 53 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Buddha considered himself a Hindu and brought in Upanishad value into practice. An alternate to Vedic rituals. He didn't preace to burn Vedas as you make it out to be. When he died, his followers performed Hindu vedic rituals as per his will and wont and immersed his ashes in Ganga. If he had preached to reject Hinduism, why did his followers did exactly what he asked for, as he believe he will attain moksha. This is the process of "evolution". It started from the criticism of practices of Hindu Dharama, and gradually ended in complete rejection of Vedas/Upanishads. Finally they came out of the fold of Sanatana Dharama completely. 53 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: In Santana Dharma, there is a tradition of debating and convincing other about his philosophy. Adi Shankara did this and defeated the Buddhist followers. It is the 18th century Western Indologists, who thought that Buddhism is anything what Hindusim was about. While, as per tradition, there is policy of mutual respect, which they can't understand. You have no idea about Dharma to say how special it is. This respect was limited to the Tolerance level only, while Buddhists finally rejected the sacred books and practices of Hinduism. 53 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Go read about Guru Nanak, and Guru Gobind. They respected Hindu gods and prayed for them. Too bad, Sikhism went the Khalsa way and became more like Islam after Guru Gobind. You don't know about how one can disagree and provide an alternate way of life. Jains believe in renunciation to the extreme. Indian constitution applies the same set of personal laws to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians, while Muslims get their own personal law. Guru Nanak also respected Islam and went for Hajj too. But after the evolution period, Sikhism also completely rejected Islam as well as Hinduism and mutual respect was limited to the tolerance level only.
Muloghonto Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: It is not respect, it is then "Tolerance". You could claim that they were in the Sanatana Dharma, but reality is this that for Charvakas it was only the Tolerance as they rejected the Hindu Vedanta itself. The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position as follows: There is no other world other than this; There is no heaven and no hell; The realm of Shiva and like regions, are fabricated by stupid imposters. — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8 So, if Charvakas had absolutely no god, then how could Charvakas could lead to the same one god? Whatever name of "fold of Satanaa Dharama" you give to it, but this reality does not change that it is exactly the modern Atheism. atheism is within the fold of Hinduism because it meets the definition of a heterodox pantheistic ideology. 12 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: No comments, while I don't think that this claim has any weight and value. This is the process of "evolution". It started from the criticism of practices of Hindu Dharama, and gradually ended in complete rejection of Vedas/Upanishads. Finally they came out of the fold of Sanatana Dharama completely. except they didn’t come out of the fold because the fold accepts atheism. Hindu orthodoxy isn’t absolute, since our creation stories are speculative, not authoritative.
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 The Contradiction: 1st Claim: Sanatana Dharama is based upon "respecting" all. 2nd Claim: Sanatana Dharama could neither respect, nor accept the modern Atheist and Secular ideologies. Remember that Secular ideology is showing much more tolerance and respect to the Hindu religion as compared to the Charvakas, who considered Hinduism to be stupidity.
Muloghonto Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 8 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: The Contradiction: 1st Claim: Sanatana Dharama is based upon "respecting" all. 2nd Claim: Sanatana Dharama could neither respect, nor accept the modern Atheist and Secular ideologies. Remember that Secular ideology is showing much more tolerance and respect to the Hindu religion as compared to the Charvakas, who considered Hinduism to be stupidity. Secular ideology is far more hostile to Hinduism and has called Hindu festivals like Holi and dusshera as barbaric and is nothing more than abrahamic ideology trying to infiltrate the last major bastion of non abrahamic ethics. coffee_rules 1
coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: The Contradiction: 1st Claim: Sanatana Dharama is based upon "respecting" all. True, India is a melting pot of gods, practices and faiths, all are respected and followers are free to follow. Quote 2nd Claim: Sanatana Dharama could neither respect, nor accept the modern Atheist and Secular ideologies. Because it is redundant. It is inherently secular. Whatever you want in western secularism is already there in Sanatana Dharma. Still it is not fundamentalist and is not revolting and lynching them, as long as they don't impose their alien ideas, they are free to follow their ideology. Quote Remember that Secular ideology is showing much more tolerance and respect to the Hindu religion as compared to the Charvakas, who considered Hinduism to be stupidity. It was always about following, if you can convince a whole bunch of people of your philosophy, there will be followers. Hinduism/Vedic ritual/non-imposotion of religion appealed to most and they are following. If Charavakas had a strong leader, it would have been popular and followed as well. There are athiests even in our puranas, who debate with scholars and some of them are popular as well. But, as a society these philosophies didn't become popular as shown by this article: A very good explanation of the Charvaka philosophy, and what is meant by rejection of vedas is explained by this author: https://medium.com/@anannyauberoi/perspectives-on-charvaka-as-a-school-of-hindu-philosophy-5ce668fd2e3a Quote Here, I would like to add that it is an exceedingly simple and uncomplicated philosophy, and this works in its favor. There are no excessive rules and regulations to abide by, no prophecies to head to, no God to believe in. It is a very human and passion-driven philosophy, something very central to the primitive human brain. But, in being uncomplicated, it fails to acknowledge a need for social harmony and societal well-being. Simplistic solutions work in the short run and on an individual level, but fail to work in the long term for societies as a whole, and may cause pain and suffering to more people. Through ideas of a soul, a God and rebirth, Hindus in positions of power were able to control animalistic behavior and keep the masses in check. Edited March 16, 2020 by coffee_rules sergio04 and Muloghonto 2
MechEng Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 @Alam_dar If by secularism you mean unconditionally respecting all religions/cultures, then yes it is universal. But if you are talking about the modern definition of secularism, then it is a Western construct. While many may not be aware of this, the religious practices in history were quite different from what it is today. For example the original Khans - Mongols were religiously fluid, Kublai Khan was a Buddhist but his mother was a Christian and his sibling Berke Khan was a Muslim, at the end of the day they were a strong knit family and proud of being Mongols. A Muslim of 21st century would probably have had a hard time to make sense of things if he/she were time traveled to that era. Modern secularism is mostly a result of dumbed down understanding of religion by medieval Europeans who for some strange reason believed that God told them to directly fight wars. Muloghonto and coffee_rules 2
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: True, India is a melting pot of gods, practices and faiths, all are respected and followers are free to follow. Again a contradiction. Despite being claim of respecting all other, still the behaviour is to blame the followers of the modern Atheist and Secular movement to be foreign to India and their followers to be traitors of India. 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Because it is redundant. It is inherently secular. Whatever you want in western secularism is already there in Sanatana Dharma. It is your own claim about yourself and your religion. While we view your and your religion to be lacking it. 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Still it is not fundamentalist and is not revolting and lynching them, as long as they don't impose their alien ideas, they are free to follow their ideology. Strange. What has the modern Atheist/Secular movement done that you have been constantly wrongfully blaming them to be fundamentalist and lynching and Imposing their ideology through power? Actually these are your Sanatana Dharma movement in India, which is showing the fundamentalist behaviour, lynching others, and imposing it's ideology through Ghar Wapsi like movements. I see only this that religious people are quick to make mountains of wrong allegations against the others, but never look into their own "GARAYBAN"; where they are themselves committing the same crime. 3 hours ago, coffee_rules said: It was always about following, if you can convince a whole bunch of people of your philosophy, there will be followers. Hinduism/Vedic ritual/non-imposotion of religion appealed to most and they are following. If Charavakas had a strong leader, it would have been popular and followed as well. There are athiests even in our puranas, who debate with scholars and some of them are popular as well. But, as a society these philosophies didn't become popular The situation today is totally opposite. Modern science is totally favouring the Atheist movements and destroying all the religions and their fantasy stories. As a result, non-religious movements are automatically becoming popular all over the world. And many educated scientific people automatically abandoning their religions and becoming atheists/agnostics. The most popular and the fastest growing ideology in the West and in the Islamic countries and also in India is the non-religious ideology. Present day Sanatana Dharama has no attraction for the others to accept it as compared to the non-religious ideology.
Alam_dar Posted March 16, 2020 Author Posted March 16, 2020 3 hours ago, coffee_rules said: A very good explanation of the Charvaka philosophy, and what is meant by rejection of vedas is explained by this author: https://medium.com/@anannyauberoi/perspectives-on-charvaka-as-a-school-of-hindu-philosophy-5ce668fd2e3a Quote Here, I would like to add that it is an exceedingly simple and uncomplicated philosophy, and this works in its favor. There are no excessive rules and regulations to abide by, no prophecies to head to, no God to believe in. It is a very human and passion-driven philosophy, something very central to the primitive human brain. But, in being uncomplicated, it fails to acknowledge a need for social harmony and societal well-being. Simplistic solutions work in the short run and on an individual level, but fail to work in the long term for societies as a whole, and may cause pain and suffering to more people. Through ideas of a soul, a God and rebirth, Hindus in positions of power were able to control animalistic behavior and keep the masses in check. This is again the false allegation which has been constantly made by the religious elements against the non-religious movements. Big part of China is irreligious for thousands of years, and there is no such problem there for thousands of years as has been mentioned in your above article. Despite being irreligious, neither the Chinese society became fail, nor it lost the social harmony, nor lost the societal well-being. The simple solution of Atheism worked in long term in China (for thousands of years) and nit didn't cause pain and suffering to more people. The deceptive idea of God and Rebirth only helped the Brahmins to keep the low caste Hindus their subordinate for thousands of years.
coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 14 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: This is again the false allegation which has been constantly made by the religious elements against the non-religious movements. Big part of China is irreligious for thousands of years, and there is no such problem there for thousands of years as has been mentioned in your above article. Despite being irreligious, neither the Chinese society became fail, nor it lost the social harmony, nor lost the societal well-being. The simple solution of Atheism worked in long term in China (for thousands of years) and nit didn't cause pain and suffering to more people. The deceptive idea of God and Rebirth only helped the Brahmins to keep the low caste Hindus their subordinate for thousands of years. Go read about current state of China, they are going back to their grand narrative, a proud population of their Confuscious philosophy and the Chinese grand narrative. After 70+ rule of imposed communism, they found out that if their civilization has to last a 1000 more years, they need to get back to their spiritual roots. Hence, they want to crush Uighirs and want to de-radicalize them, which is a threat to their national security. They have reversed the one-child policy as a happy citizenry is needed for future. Religion is back in China . https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/13/confucius-comes-home https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/03/china-love-confucius-170328144603740.html Next
coffee_rules Posted March 16, 2020 Posted March 16, 2020 26 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Again a contradiction. Despite being claim of respecting all other, still the behaviour is to blame the followers of the modern Atheist and Secular movement to be foreign to India and their followers to be traitors of India. Wtf? Where is this coming from? We went from secularism to Hindus lynching Atheists. Who's feeding you this? 26 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: It is your own claim about yourself and your religion. While we view your and your religion to be lacking it. Fine, we care less for your opinions. 26 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Strange. What has the modern Atheist/Secular movement done that you have been constantly wrongfully blaming them to be fundamentalist and lynching and Imposing their ideology through power? Actually these are your Sanatana Dharma movement in India, which is showing the fundamentalist behaviour, lynching others, and imposing it's ideology through Ghar Wapsi like movements. There is no major Ghar Wapsi movement, you are being fed by traitors like Rana Ayyub and Saba Naqvi 26 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I see only this that religious people are quick to make mountains of wrong allegations against the others, but never look into their own "GARAYBAN"; where they are themselves committing the same crime. The situation today is totally opposite. Modern science is totally favouring the Atheist movements and destroying all the religions and their fantasy stories. As a result, non-religious movements are automatically becoming popular all over the world. And many educated scientific people automatically abandoning their religions and becoming atheists/agnostics. The most popular and the fastest growing ideology in the West and in the Islamic countries and also in India is the non-religious ideology. Present day Sanatana Dharama has no attraction for the others to accept it as compared to the non-religious ideology. Read about advances in mind sciences. They are taking the meta-physical experiences of yogis and Buddhist vipassana technique to make advance research in Mind science. Everything can't be explained by science. Meta-physical out of the body experiences and research on what consciousness is, is being worked in partnering with "yogic" experts. 26 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:
Alam_dar Posted March 17, 2020 Author Posted March 17, 2020 8 hours ago, MechEng said: @Alam_dar If by secularism you mean unconditionally respecting all religions/cultures, then yes it is universal. But if you are talking about the modern definition of secularism, then it is a Western construct. Secularism is not about respecting the "religions", but it is about "respecting the RIGHTS" of an individual to make his own choice. As far as religions/cultures/practices are themselves concerned, then they are totally open for criticism and denial. If Charvakas considered Hinduism to be religious stupidity, then there is absolutely no "BASIC" difference between them and the modern Atheism. Claim is made that Charvakas were indigenous and different than modern Secularism/Atheism, which is a false claim. And as proof this argument is presented that Charvakas respected the Hindu religion and Hindu traditions, but again this is a false argument as Charvakas openly criticised the Hindu Religion and considered it only a Human Drama of the Brahmins. Next argument is made that Charvakas were not imposing themselves, but the modern Atheism/Secularism "impose" themselves, and they don't bear the differences, and they want to form a egalitarian state by forcing things upon the people. Again this is also a completely false accusation upon the modern Secularism. The modern Secularist movement in India is Indigenous as ideology is not connected to any land, but ideology is connected to human mind. Therefore, blaming Indian Secularists to be agents of the West only on the bases of their agreeing to the principles of Secularism, is entirely wrong attitude. The principles of Secularism are "universal". If any Russian accepts Hinduism, then he does not becomes an agent of India, while Hinduism is a "universal" ideology and any person in this universe could adopt the Hindu ideology. 8 hours ago, MechEng said: While many may not be aware of this, the religious practices in history were quite different from what it is today. For example the original Khans - Mongols were religiously fluid, Kublai Khan was a Buddhist but his mother was a Christian and his sibling Berke Khan was a Muslim, at the end of the day they were a strong knit family and proud of being Mongols. A Muslim of 21st century would probably have had a hard time to make sense of things if he/she were time traveled to that era. Modern secularism is mostly a result of dumbed down understanding of religion by medieval Europeans who for some strange reason believed that God told them to directly fight wars. Mangols were tied through strong family bonds, but modern Secularism bonds people of different religions and colour and races and nationalities on the bases of "humanity and love". This makes the modern Secularism to be a beautiful blessing for all human beings. Modern Secularims is an enlightenment and it is the result of modern freethinking and thus removing all the prejudices and bias against the colour and race and religion and making "humanity and tolerance" the very base of this ideology. Due to the Secularism, we see a diverse Western society where people of different races and colour and languages are very easily integrating into the Western Secular societies. But same could not be said about the religions and the religious societies. Even the religious Hindu society is not able to integrate others in it despite all the tall claims of plurality of Sanatana Dharama. Actually, the religious Hindu society is so much narrow minded that it didn't even accept and integrate the low caste Hindus in their society and family. Actually, the master Brahmin caste were not even marrying the other upper castes. The modern Secular movement in India is challenging these practices of the religious Hindu society, and compelling it to make reforms in it's narrow minded attitude. PS: In my opinion, Mangols accepted Christianity or Islam mainly due to the political reasons (in order to make political allies). Therefore, religion played a secondary role in their life.
Alam_dar Posted March 17, 2020 Author Posted March 17, 2020 5 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Wtf? Where is this coming from? We went from secularism to Hindus lynching Atheists. Who's feeding you this? Firstly, it was your claim that modern Indian Secularism is not indigenous while they don't respect the Hindu traditions and impose their ideology forcefully. I denied these charges and showed that actually this is the Hindu religious community itself who is imposing it's ideology and practices forcefully, using their power due to being a majority. Contrary to the charges upon the Secularist Indian movement, it is the Hindutva movement which is lynching the Muslims, while blaming the Secularists to be not indigenous to India and thus traitors to India and agents of the West. 5 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Read about advances in mind sciences. They are taking the meta-physical experiences of yogis and Buddhist vipassana technique to make advance research in Mind science. Everything can't be explained by science. Meta-physical out of the body experiences and research on what consciousness is, is being worked in partnering with "yogic" experts. Firstly, physical Yoga or meditation are not considered parts of religion. Secondly, despite studies, science yet has not confirmed the presence of any meta-physical god. Thirdly, science is exposing all the religions and their fantasy stories. Thus it is supporting the modern Atheist movement and due to this atheism is the fastest spreading ideology in the world at moment.
coffee_rules Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 9 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Firstly, it was your claim that modern Indian Secularism is not indigenous while they don't respect the Hindu traditions and impose their ideology forcefully. I denied these charges and showed that actually this is the Hindu religious community itself who is imposing it's ideology and practices forcefully, using their power due to being a majority. Contrary to the charges upon the Secularist Indian movement, it is the Hindutva movement which is lynching the Muslims, while blaming the Secularists to be not indigenous to India and thus traitors to India and agents of the West. My claim: Secularism comes from EU, Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma is plural. It need not adapt to EU / West theories. I showed that with the number of religions in India still thriving this is a verifiable claim. Compare that to Islamic countries you will know who is pushing their agenda. You are mixing Secularists, Atheists and Muslims. Hindus are not lynching anybody, but are getting lynched by Muslims in India. Your jihadi mindset can't be changed with tags of Atheism. Fake-Atheist! Left liberal secularists hate Hinduism (not Hindutva), by the amount of garbage they impose on our festivals and practices, while mollycoddling Muslims and Jihadis. 9 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Firstly, physical Yoga or meditation are not considered parts of religion. Secondly, despite studies, science yet has not confirmed the presence of any meta-physical god. Thirdly, science is exposing all the religions and their fantasy stories. Thus it is supporting the modern Atheist movement and due to this atheism is the fastest spreading ideology in the world at moment. You are an illiterate. Yoga is one of the six principles of Hinduism (, the proper goals or aims of human life, namely Dharma (ethics/duties), Artha (prosperity/work), Kama (desires/passions) and Moksha (liberation/freedom from the cycle of death and rebirth/salvation);[17][18] karma (action, intent and consequences), Saṃsāra (cycle of death and rebirth), and the various Yogas (paths or practices to attain moksha).[) It is so basic part of Hinduism, it is also a philosophy (one of the six darshana, Vedanta and Yoga being main principles of Hinduism). You Secularists have usurped the agenda of Yoga and digested it, by removing the Hinduism out of it. This is how appropriation happens of ancient philosophies and re-packaged as modern western thoughts. I am not talking of meta-physical god, but meta-physics about consciousness and the science behind it. Laaloo 1
MechEng Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 13 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Secularism is not about respecting the "religions", but it is about "respecting the RIGHTS" of an individual to make his own choice. As far as religions/cultures/practices are themselves concerned, then they are totally open for criticism and denial. If Charvakas considered Hinduism to be religious stupidity, then there is absolutely no "BASIC" difference between them and the modern Atheism. Claim is made that Charvakas were indigenous and different than modern Secularism/Atheism, which is a false claim. And as proof this argument is presented that Charvakas respected the Hindu religion and Hindu traditions, but again this is a false argument as Charvakas openly criticised the Hindu Religion and considered it only a Human Drama of the Brahmins. Next argument is made that Charvakas were not imposing themselves, but the modern Atheism/Secularism "impose" themselves, and they don't bear the differences, and they want to form a egalitarian state by forcing things upon the people. Again this is also a completely false accusation upon the modern Secularism. The modern Secularist movement in India is Indigenous as ideology is not connected to any land, but ideology is connected to human mind. Therefore, blaming Indian Secularists to be agents of the West only on the bases of their agreeing to the principles of Secularism, is entirely wrong attitude. The principles of Secularism are "universal". If any Russian accepts Hinduism, then he does not becomes an agent of India, while Hinduism is a "universal" ideology and any person in this universe could adopt the Hindu ideology. Mangols were tied through strong family bonds, but modern Secularism bonds people of different religions and colour and races and nationalities on the bases of "humanity and love". This makes the modern Secularism to be a beautiful blessing for all human beings. Modern Secularims is an enlightenment and it is the result of modern freethinking and thus removing all the prejudices and bias against the colour and race and religion and making "humanity and tolerance" the very base of this ideology. Due to the Secularism, we see a diverse Western society where people of different races and colour and languages are very easily integrating into the Western Secular societies. But same could not be said about the religions and the religious societies. Even the religious Hindu society is not able to integrate others in it despite all the tall claims of plurality of Sanatana Dharama. Actually, the religious Hindu society is so much narrow minded that it didn't even accept and integrate the low caste Hindus in their society and family. Actually, the master Brahmin caste were not even marrying the other upper castes. The modern Secular movement in India is challenging these practices of the religious Hindu society, and compelling it to make reforms in it's narrow minded attitude. PS: In my opinion, Mangols accepted Christianity or Islam mainly due to the political reasons (in order to make political allies). Therefore, religion played a secondary role in their life. No one said that secularism or atheism is bad, it's that secularism is not indigenous to South Asia but a product of transitioning from mindless religious wars in medieval era to industrial revolution in Europe. Secularism will function best in Europe because it is their philosophy. Regarding Charvakas, I really don't know. The thing is that we actually have no idea of what really happened in ancient times because the ancient Indian history we study today was only possible due to German Indologists studying and trying to decode ancient texts, so there is a possibility of bias in their research. In 1700s Indians were under Mughal rule and were completely out of touch with their ancient roots, Germans did very well in connecting Indians back to their roots but there could be mistakes made by them as well.
Recommended Posts