Post 2/4
2. indiafacts.co.in/are-indian-tribals-hindus-part-6/
So now the novel argument is that the Vedas is the propounder of agnosticism. And of course it requires a novel interpretation of the translated verses from the Vedam to come to that conclusion, but whatever it takes, right? That is NOT what the verses are saying.
Even from a basic tack then. Anyone at all - moi, for instance - with only the slightest (barely passing) familiarity with the sorts of questions Vaidika Hindoos had/contended with could easily come to more valid conclusions that are far more consistent with the statements. => "Is the Ishwara of the Vedas the material cause as well as the efficient cause or only the latter?" - a question Vaidika POVs seemed to have kept themselves busy with - is a far better fit, surely, especially as the first quotation takes the Ishwara (the "He, first origin of this creation") as a given (a fundamental assumption), as is obvious from the phrasing of the questions. The question being, did Ishwara bring the stuff making up the cosmos (incl time and space) into being too, and if so or even otherwise, how did it come to be?
By the way, the typically Vaidika question of whether Ishwara is the material as well as efficient cause or only the latter, not only presupposes the Ishwara (well obviously) but is one of the underpinning differences between some otherwise highly-similar Vaidika Hindoo POVs. The matter concerns the specific nature of the (materia and other stuffs of the) cosmos and Ishwara's specific relation to it. (E.g. Nyaya and Pashupatas IIRC had Ishwara as the efficient cause alone. I now looked it up and can't make out if Vaisheshika has Ishwara aka Maheshwara as the material cause as well, but it seems like it.)
It's getting Beyond Annoying to see Indic atheists/agnostics encroaching on Hindoo heathenism, i.e. theism.
I understand that Hindoo heathenism=theism doesn't compute to de-heathenised who still feel they want to be a part of it and who moreover insist they are a part of it and must be a part of it.
Apparently it is not enough to lump Lokayata and Buddhism and Sikhism and Jainism etc as Hinduisms. Now the Vedas has to be rewritten to suddenly propound an "agnostic" POV.
I take it back: Indian atheists/agnostics are far more annoying than the militant (evangelically atheist) kind of western atheists (who are non-dabbling of course). At least the latter don't feel self-entitled to turn heathenism into "actually" an atheism/agnosticism.
CORRECTED above: inserted the crucial word of "militant=evangelical" western atheists, to distinguish them from plain vanilla western atheists/agnostics who don't want to convert the world to their POV, but who would like to be left alone in turn [not unlike heathens who are similarly non-missionary], and who are no threat to heathens/heathenism. But even missionary atheists - like Dawkins' evangelical activities for atheism - are not so offensive in their atheism (separate from Dawkins' extra-curricular interference in India) in that at least they don't dabble in heathenism or otherwise try to subvert heathenism into "actually" being an atheism.
[Aside:
Also, Jabali - sp? - of Ramayanam was not an atheist, contrary to internet "Hindus" of the non-theist variety suddenly trying to promote their equal right to Vaidika religio-history that way.
Jabali admits to no more than deliberately espousing un-Vaidika views in order to sway Rama by any means to IIRC stop continuing the exile so Rama would break his word to his father (and king) Dasharatha and return to Ayodhya instead. But in many -possibly all- heathen religions, giving one's word is not only binding on the giver but is an act that invokes the Gods as witness, and breaking one's word is thus considered the same as uttering untruth. (E.g. "I promise to do X" but if I don't do X thereafter, then that makes my promise into a lie.) And truth - as Rama says - is the Ishwara himself [i.e. Ishwara of the Vedam=Hindoo heathenism alone, there is no other Ishwara].
After Rama denies Jabali's arguments - I think Rama essentially declared these subversive - Jabali says he merely espoused them as any means to the end of getting Rama to return, not that these were his own views.
Here:
]
As for Talageri's reference to "neti neti", it can be easily argued that it admits to no more than negating definitions=limitations for what describes/defines Parabrahman. The same negation is specifically employed for the Tao, for example, since it is particularly indefinable (both for reasons to do with the nature of the unmanifest Tao, and because the Tao is ultimately all that is/everything reduces to the Tao ultimately). That is, the Tao is the conceived, the conceivable, and that which is beyond conception 'the inconceivable' (though not inconceivable to the Tao, of course). Can also compare with the Platonist definition of the Eka of Platonist view of Hellenismos, which in my understanding seems related 'similarly' to the many - or similar enough for Taoists and Hindoos to begin to understand Platonist reasoning.
Anyway, was it not the Agni or Vayu Purana, Correction: it was the Garuda Purana -and almost the same shlokam also in Srimad Bhagavatam- that said that atheists will hijack dharma and play at being its authorities? Well, if aliens like Elst are allowed to do it, I don't see why more sympathetic persons like Talageri aren't allowed. Then again, whoever does it, won't make it correct.
Of course there will be applause for Talageri's statements, replacing critical thinking and even the most basic logical reasoning on whether what Talageri claimed about the Vedam supposing or implying agnosticism actually necessarily matches with the translated statements of the Vedam he quoted.
I have Nothing against atheism. I even come up with arguments specifically for [western] atheist friends to employ to defend themselves against missionary terrorists. But. There can be no confusing nor conflating heathenism with atheism. This is not a line drawn by me. Nor by masses of heathen Hindoos, Taoists and Hellenes (ancient ones but also more recent ones like emperor Julian). It is a very real line. And it may not be blurred. Heathenism - e.g. the Vedam, the Tao, Philosophy, etc etc, and all that has come of these things - belongs to heathens and not to unheathens. That's all there is to it. Non-heathens need to accept that and stick to what is theirs. Not covet what is not theirs. You either are a heathen or not. If you're not, heathenism does not belong to you and may not be contorted to plead that it advocates your unheathenism. Else, it is equally right for christians to contort heathenism to plead that it advocates christianism. SAME difference, same attempt at subversion, same outcome: de-heathenising heathenism (to hijack it for replacement ideologies or personal views).
Oh, and BTW, heathenism is NOT monopolytheistic (mono, poly, heno etc), contrary to Talageri's descriptions of Hinduism. ISKCONism is monotheistic (though it starts off as a henotheism), but then, it is actually a replacement theology.
People need to know the meaning of christo-accusations/the labels that christianism uses to box heathens into so it can better subsume their heathenism as a christianism.
Polytheism in the heathen Greek sense is not wholly objectionable but not wholly a true/accurate description of Hindu and Taoist religions. For better explications of how views of Eka and Naika go hand-in-hand in Hindoos' heathenism, can see Taoism or to some extent Hellenismos (had long ago posted an extract discussing the Eka-Naika in Hellenismos in the Contra Buddhism thread). <- Professional heathens say it so much better than I ever could anyway.
2. indiafacts.co.in/are-indian-tribals-hindus-part-6/
Quote:In itself, Hinduism contains the seeds of every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable with all streams of thought, and not necessarily to do with the worship of ââ¬ÅGodsââ¬Â. In Hinduism, we find all kinds of atheistic and materialistic philosophies, the most well known being the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka, who believed that there is only one life, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and that our only purpose in life should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains.
The very basic texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of agnostic philosophies, from the Rigvedic Nasadiya Sukta (X.129. 6-7, which says: ââ¬ÅWho verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this worldââ¬â¢s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it? He whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.ââ¬Â) to the Upanishadic speculations which reject everything, after deep discussion, with the phrase ââ¬Åneti, netiââ¬Â: ââ¬Ånot this, not thisââ¬Â, i.e., ââ¬Åno, this is still not the ultimate truthââ¬Â. And then of course, there is every kind of deistic, henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, and every other kind of -theistic philosophy, including even (but not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus the hatred of ââ¬Åotherââ¬Â false religions and false Gods, and the concepts of permanent Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of Abrahamic monotheism).
So now the novel argument is that the Vedas is the propounder of agnosticism. And of course it requires a novel interpretation of the translated verses from the Vedam to come to that conclusion, but whatever it takes, right? That is NOT what the verses are saying.
Even from a basic tack then. Anyone at all - moi, for instance - with only the slightest (barely passing) familiarity with the sorts of questions Vaidika Hindoos had/contended with could easily come to more valid conclusions that are far more consistent with the statements. => "Is the Ishwara of the Vedas the material cause as well as the efficient cause or only the latter?" - a question Vaidika POVs seemed to have kept themselves busy with - is a far better fit, surely, especially as the first quotation takes the Ishwara (the "He, first origin of this creation") as a given (a fundamental assumption), as is obvious from the phrasing of the questions. The question being, did Ishwara bring the stuff making up the cosmos (incl time and space) into being too, and if so or even otherwise, how did it come to be?
By the way, the typically Vaidika question of whether Ishwara is the material as well as efficient cause or only the latter, not only presupposes the Ishwara (well obviously) but is one of the underpinning differences between some otherwise highly-similar Vaidika Hindoo POVs. The matter concerns the specific nature of the (materia and other stuffs of the) cosmos and Ishwara's specific relation to it. (E.g. Nyaya and Pashupatas IIRC had Ishwara as the efficient cause alone. I now looked it up and can't make out if Vaisheshika has Ishwara aka Maheshwara as the material cause as well, but it seems like it.)
It's getting Beyond Annoying to see Indic atheists/agnostics encroaching on Hindoo heathenism, i.e. theism.
I understand that Hindoo heathenism=theism doesn't compute to de-heathenised who still feel they want to be a part of it and who moreover insist they are a part of it and must be a part of it.
Apparently it is not enough to lump Lokayata and Buddhism and Sikhism and Jainism etc as Hinduisms. Now the Vedas has to be rewritten to suddenly propound an "agnostic" POV.
I take it back: Indian atheists/agnostics are far more annoying than the militant (evangelically atheist) kind of western atheists (who are non-dabbling of course). At least the latter don't feel self-entitled to turn heathenism into "actually" an atheism/agnosticism.
CORRECTED above: inserted the crucial word of "militant=evangelical" western atheists, to distinguish them from plain vanilla western atheists/agnostics who don't want to convert the world to their POV, but who would like to be left alone in turn [not unlike heathens who are similarly non-missionary], and who are no threat to heathens/heathenism. But even missionary atheists - like Dawkins' evangelical activities for atheism - are not so offensive in their atheism (separate from Dawkins' extra-curricular interference in India) in that at least they don't dabble in heathenism or otherwise try to subvert heathenism into "actually" being an atheism.
[Aside:
Also, Jabali - sp? - of Ramayanam was not an atheist, contrary to internet "Hindus" of the non-theist variety suddenly trying to promote their equal right to Vaidika religio-history that way.
Jabali admits to no more than deliberately espousing un-Vaidika views in order to sway Rama by any means to IIRC stop continuing the exile so Rama would break his word to his father (and king) Dasharatha and return to Ayodhya instead. But in many -possibly all- heathen religions, giving one's word is not only binding on the giver but is an act that invokes the Gods as witness, and breaking one's word is thus considered the same as uttering untruth. (E.g. "I promise to do X" but if I don't do X thereafter, then that makes my promise into a lie.) And truth - as Rama says - is the Ishwara himself [i.e. Ishwara of the Vedam=Hindoo heathenism alone, there is no other Ishwara].
After Rama denies Jabali's arguments - I think Rama essentially declared these subversive - Jabali says he merely espoused them as any means to the end of getting Rama to return, not that these were his own views.
Here:
- valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga108/ayodhya_108_frame.htm, where Jabali tries unVaidika arguments out on Rama as a last-ditch effort, after Bharata's arguments failed to get Rama to forsake his word in favour of returning home to rule as king;
- valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga109/ayodhya_109_frame.htm, where Rama becomes seriously displeased with Jabali's attempts and essentially says 'never try to get at me that way' and denounces Jabali for his arguments;
- still at valmikiramayan.net/utf8/ayodhya/sarga109/ayodhya_109_frame.htm, you can at the end see Jabali admit that these were not really his own arguments, that they were merely employed opportunistically for the sake of expediency/for the exigency of getting Rama to return by whatever means or arguments would work. The brahmana Jabali is an adviser/royal minister type person and ministers when desperate for a greater good could apparently try to argue anything to get the job done - going by what Jabali attempted. (But surprised he didn't just try to kidnap Rama. About as much chance of that succeeding...)
]
As for Talageri's reference to "neti neti", it can be easily argued that it admits to no more than negating definitions=limitations for what describes/defines Parabrahman. The same negation is specifically employed for the Tao, for example, since it is particularly indefinable (both for reasons to do with the nature of the unmanifest Tao, and because the Tao is ultimately all that is/everything reduces to the Tao ultimately). That is, the Tao is the conceived, the conceivable, and that which is beyond conception 'the inconceivable' (though not inconceivable to the Tao, of course). Can also compare with the Platonist definition of the Eka of Platonist view of Hellenismos, which in my understanding seems related 'similarly' to the many - or similar enough for Taoists and Hindoos to begin to understand Platonist reasoning.
Anyway, was it not the Agni or Vayu Purana, Correction: it was the Garuda Purana -and almost the same shlokam also in Srimad Bhagavatam- that said that atheists will hijack dharma and play at being its authorities? Well, if aliens like Elst are allowed to do it, I don't see why more sympathetic persons like Talageri aren't allowed. Then again, whoever does it, won't make it correct.
Of course there will be applause for Talageri's statements, replacing critical thinking and even the most basic logical reasoning on whether what Talageri claimed about the Vedam supposing or implying agnosticism actually necessarily matches with the translated statements of the Vedam he quoted.
I have Nothing against atheism. I even come up with arguments specifically for [western] atheist friends to employ to defend themselves against missionary terrorists. But. There can be no confusing nor conflating heathenism with atheism. This is not a line drawn by me. Nor by masses of heathen Hindoos, Taoists and Hellenes (ancient ones but also more recent ones like emperor Julian). It is a very real line. And it may not be blurred. Heathenism - e.g. the Vedam, the Tao, Philosophy, etc etc, and all that has come of these things - belongs to heathens and not to unheathens. That's all there is to it. Non-heathens need to accept that and stick to what is theirs. Not covet what is not theirs. You either are a heathen or not. If you're not, heathenism does not belong to you and may not be contorted to plead that it advocates your unheathenism. Else, it is equally right for christians to contort heathenism to plead that it advocates christianism. SAME difference, same attempt at subversion, same outcome: de-heathenising heathenism (to hijack it for replacement ideologies or personal views).
Oh, and BTW, heathenism is NOT monopolytheistic (mono, poly, heno etc), contrary to Talageri's descriptions of Hinduism. ISKCONism is monotheistic (though it starts off as a henotheism), but then, it is actually a replacement theology.
People need to know the meaning of christo-accusations/the labels that christianism uses to box heathens into so it can better subsume their heathenism as a christianism.
Polytheism in the heathen Greek sense is not wholly objectionable but not wholly a true/accurate description of Hindu and Taoist religions. For better explications of how views of Eka and Naika go hand-in-hand in Hindoos' heathenism, can see Taoism or to some extent Hellenismos (had long ago posted an extract discussing the Eka-Naika in Hellenismos in the Contra Buddhism thread). <- Professional heathens say it so much better than I ever could anyway.