Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 08-13-2002, 08:30 PM

From Samkhya-Darsan:

"God is not subject to proof because evidence does not exist of his existence". [Earlier it has been observed that (1)all men see the material world to exist; (2) no one has seen it not to exist; (3) reality of the world is uncontradicted by anyone: therefore the world is real. But in the case of god no such perceptual evidence is available. Therefore God does not exist.] (1,92).

"God can be neither free nor bound, nor something else". [If bound in the material world he cannot be omnipotent; if he is free completely of the material world he cannot create, because he needs matter to create material world. If he is neither of the two, then no human mind can conceive him. Therefore again he cannot be proved]. (1,93).

"Either way he is inefficient". [If free he wouldnot desire to create anything material; if not free he is powerless to create everything]. (1,94)

Book V again says that about God's existence ---
1. there is no evidence of senses.
2. inference is not possible either. From effect we can infer a cause, but no effect of God's creation is seen. [text and commentary not clear: so far I can understand what they are saying is we never see God actually creating anything or have an object that we know is definitely created by God, and so we cannot point to the world and say it is created.]. There is also absence of invariable association. Whenever we have seen fire we have also seen smoke and so we associate the two. But in the case of God such association is not possible. Therefore we cannot infer that God exists.

These two arguements are also used to prove that God if he exists cannot be eternal.

Why God cannot govern the world:
"The fruit follows from the merit or demerit of actions performed and not because the world is governed by a Supreme Being". [god cannot distribute punishments and rewards according to his will].(5,1)

then some verses explaining if God did this merely for his own pleasure then he would be selfish and human. But God has no passion. So what happens to the individuals happen because of their own actions. Ergo, god does not govern the world.

though the sankhya argument is more agnostic --- they only assert you cannot prove God, not that God does not exist --- they are atheists actually. They insist that everything is created from matter which is uncreated and eternal.

On the other hand they also believe in eternal souls, and rebirth!

lcb · 08-13-2002, 09:41 PM

inappropriate and pointless post deleted

lcb, take any further such crap to Rants&Raves. If you have nothing substantive to say about Hinduwoman's thoughtful and informative post, shut your yap. Jobar, moderator.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Aquila ka Hecate · 08-14-2002, 05:32 AM

idiotic comment by lcb deleted- Aquila, no reflection on you intended here.

lcb,
The above is one of the greatest reasons why I detest the majority of christians.Parochial clod.

Or was that meant to be funny?
In that case, there's a second reason I don't care for most christians.Humourless hicks.

Did you even try to understand what hinduwoman was saying?

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Jobar · 08-14-2002, 06:55 AM

Gawd, I deleted your post only because lcb's comment, which you quoted, is highly inappropriate and unwelcome in this forum. No reflection on you- your 'rolleyes' response was entirely correct.

This forum is meant for serious commentary only. Such inane and asinine responses as lcb's will be dealt with summarily.

hinduwoman, I have pointed out the basic agreement between Vedantic and atheistic thought before- I am quite partial to the Diamond Cutter Sutra, too. I would be interested to hear your comments on any other aspects of Hindu thought, and the impossibility of a God independent of creation.

Demigawd · 08-14-2002, 11:13 AM

I never claimed to be Gawd, Jobar. Just a demigawd.

I was really grooving on hinduwoman's article. HW, what is/are the foundation(s) for the belief in eternal souls and rebirth, according to the texts? From my own fundy indoctrination, God (Supreme Being) and human souls were supposedly irrevocably intertwined, so I'm having a hard time imagining an atheistic belief that maintains existence of souls. Or I should say, souls that are distinct from the bodies they apparently occupy.

hinduwoman · 08-14-2002, 06:41 PM

In christianity, God created souls, right?

In Sankhya, The soul was always there, from the begining.

Matter (Prakriti) and Soul (Purusha)are eternal and uncreated, both of them, both existing simultenously. But this soul do not create anything. Only matter does. in their orignal state --- before creation --- they have nothing to do with one another.

There are multiple souls naturally. They reside in bodies, but they mistakenly think, they are their bodies. When they realize they have nothing to do with the world of matter, they achieve discrimination and become free from Prakriti.

Weird huh, from a Semitic viewpoint?

Jobar · 08-14-2002, 08:28 PM

hw, do you agree that there is no fundamental distinction between the soul and consciousness in Hindu thought? I am still uncertain if there is any sort of universal consciousness, of which each of us is a facet or aspect. My own opinion is that if there is any possibility of the word 'God' having a meaning, it lies in some form of Supreme Soul/Awareness. I enjoy Hindu/Buddhist philosophy because of the attempts to equate the individual being with ultimate being- an equation which seems to me to solve the Problem of Evil, and various other paradoxes created by a non-pantheistic God.

Aquila ka Hecate · 08-14-2002, 09:11 PM

Hinduwoman,

Apologies if this is a trite question;it is one which trouble me greatly-

OK, souls are eternal without a creator, this sounds fine, if unproveable.

The problem I'm having is very specifically to do with Alzheimer's.It's a problem which seems to me insurmountable.

Where does the soul of a person with this disease go to?(Assuming a soul is present in the first place).

And if the soul leaves, why does it do so in such a leaking-away fashion?

The problem of Alzheimer's(and perhaps similar diseases, although I've only had direct experience with this one)is to me the major obstacle to a belif in souls of any kind.

Do your sources of wisdom(and I'm not being sarcastic here) have anything to say on this matter?

I'd be greatly interested.

Ruy Lopez · 08-15-2002, 06:14 AM

From Jobar

My own opinion is that if there is any possibility of the word 'God' having a meaning, it lies in some form of Supreme Soul/Awareness. I enjoy Hindu/Buddhist philosophy because of the attempts to equate the individual being with ultimate being- an equation which seems to me to solve the Problem of Evil, and various other paradoxes created by a non-pantheistic God.
-----------

Can you explain a bit how equating or relating the individual with the Ultimate being seems to solve the problem of evil? I am familiar, I think, of Supreme Soul/Awareness idea.
===========

Hinduwoman: I am not acquainted with Hindu metaphysical terminology but I read about a way of thinking about God which is probably a variant of New Age writers. It goes like this:

In the observed universe, we say there is MATTER and ENERGY, two sides of the same coin. "Good and Evil"?; Black or White(not necessarily light). So this writer says: God is spirit or non-matter that is the necessary opposite or antithesis? of the material world. Both had no beginning nor an end; they automatically exist together.

Still does not explain what is or what God can do. IS THERE A PARALLEL FOR THIS PROPOSITION IN HINDUISM? If so, how is the idea further explained? So at least I have something additional to chew on. Thanks in advance.

hinduwoman · 08-16-2002, 05:49 PM

Jobar, in materialist philosophy of Carvaka, consciousness and soul are one. However in other branches of philosophy, it is not neccessarily so. The Soul is usually identified with the Universal Soul or God; consciousness/mind is considered to be another organ of the body, which perishes when the body dies. But the eternal soul and the accumulated karma remains and they pass onto the next rebirth. Only when the human soul understands that it is actually a portion of this universal awareness, does it achieve liberation --- not salvation.

Acquila, don't worry about offending me --- I am a follower of the Carvaka school. However the Sankhya and Vedanta philosophers would explain that when you get the disease, only your physical brain-structure is affected. The essential soul remains untouched and it will pass onto heaven/hell and then to the next body.

Demon-sword, in Hinduism theodicy was never a problem because it does not assume that Brahman is omnibenevolent. Nirguna Brahman is attributeless, beyond good and evil; human concepts apply only to saguna Brahman, or the created world. Brahman is responsible for everything in the world and if humans complain of evil, that is tough luck --- that was how Brahman created the world and It does not really care what you think of it.
About definition of God, there are several schools of philosphy as I explained. The Samkhya school would probably agree about matter and energy definition, but they reject the notion of God. The other theistic schools however insist that everything is Brahman ---matter and energy are merely two aspects of itself. Brahman cannot be the opposite or anti-thesis of anything, because it is the source of everything. It is not even the anti-thesis of evil, because evil in this context simply means the sorrows that arise from not realizing that all --- including oneself --- is Brahman.
I hope this clarifies the point for you.

08-13-2002, 08:30 PM	#1
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Hindu view of why God is not From Samkhya-Darsan: "God is not subject to proof because evidence does not exist of his existence". [Earlier it has been observed that (1)all men see the material world to exist; (2) no one has seen it not to exist; (3) reality of the world is uncontradicted by anyone: therefore the world is real. But in the case of god no such perceptual evidence is available. Therefore God does not exist.] (1,92). "God can be neither free nor bound, nor something else". [If bound in the material world he cannot be omnipotent; if he is free completely of the material world he cannot create, because he needs matter to create material world. If he is neither of the two, then no human mind can conceive him. Therefore again he cannot be proved]. (1,93). "Either way he is inefficient". [If free he wouldnot desire to create anything material; if not free he is powerless to create everything]. (1,94) Book V again says that about God's existence --- 1. there is no evidence of senses. 2. inference is not possible either. From effect we can infer a cause, but no effect of God's creation is seen. [text and commentary not clear: so far I can understand what they are saying is we never see God actually creating anything or have an object that we know is definitely created by God, and so we cannot point to the world and say it is created.]. There is also absence of invariable association. Whenever we have seen fire we have also seen smoke and so we associate the two. But in the case of God such association is not possible. Therefore we cannot infer that God exists. These two arguements are also used to prove that God if he exists cannot be eternal. Why God cannot govern the world: "The fruit follows from the merit or demerit of actions performed and not because the world is governed by a Supreme Being". [god cannot distribute punishments and rewards according to his will].(5,1) then some verses explaining if God did this merely for his own pleasure then he would be selfish and human. But God has no passion. So what happens to the individuals happen because of their own actions. Ergo, god does not govern the world. though the sankhya argument is more agnostic --- they only assert you cannot prove God, not that God does not exist --- they are atheists actually. They insist that everything is created from matter which is uncreated and eternal. On the other hand they also believe in eternal souls, and rebirth!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2002, 09:41 PM	#2
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	inappropriate and pointless post deleted lcb, take any further such crap to Rants&Raves. If you have nothing substantive to say about Hinduwoman's thoughtful and informative post, shut your yap. Jobar, moderator. [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

08-14-2002, 05:32 AM	#3
Aquila ka Hecate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Luna City Posts: 379	idiotic comment by lcb deleted- Aquila, no reflection on you intended here. lcb, The above is one of the greatest reasons why I detest the majority of christians.Parochial clod. Or was that meant to be funny? In that case, there's a second reason I don't care for most christians.Humourless hicks. Did you even try to understand what hinduwoman was saying? [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

08-14-2002, 06:55 AM	#4
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Gawd, I deleted your post only because lcb's comment, which you quoted, is highly inappropriate and unwelcome in this forum. No reflection on you- your 'rolleyes' response was entirely correct. This forum is meant for serious commentary only. Such inane and asinine responses as lcb's will be dealt with summarily. hinduwoman, I have pointed out the basic agreement between Vedantic and atheistic thought before- I am quite partial to the Diamond Cutter Sutra, too. I would be interested to hear your comments on any other aspects of Hindu thought, and the impossibility of a God independent of creation.

08-14-2002, 11:13 AM	#5
Demigawd Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place Posts: 2,254	I never claimed to be Gawd, Jobar. Just a demigawd. I was really grooving on hinduwoman's article. HW, what is/are the foundation(s) for the belief in eternal souls and rebirth, according to the texts? From my own fundy indoctrination, God (Supreme Being) and human souls were supposedly irrevocably intertwined, so I'm having a hard time imagining an atheistic belief that maintains existence of souls. Or I should say, souls that are distinct from the bodies they apparently occupy.

08-14-2002, 06:41 PM	#6
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	In christianity, God created souls, right? In Sankhya, The soul was always there, from the begining. Matter (Prakriti) and Soul (Purusha)are eternal and uncreated, both of them, both existing simultenously. But this soul do not create anything. Only matter does. in their orignal state --- before creation --- they have nothing to do with one another. There are multiple souls naturally. They reside in bodies, but they mistakenly think, they are their bodies. When they realize they have nothing to do with the world of matter, they achieve discrimination and become free from Prakriti. Weird huh, from a Semitic viewpoint?

08-14-2002, 08:28 PM	#7
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	hw, do you agree that there is no fundamental distinction between the soul and consciousness in Hindu thought? I am still uncertain if there is any sort of universal consciousness, of which each of us is a facet or aspect. My own opinion is that if there is any possibility of the word 'God' having a meaning, it lies in some form of Supreme Soul/Awareness. I enjoy Hindu/Buddhist philosophy because of the attempts to equate the individual being with ultimate being- an equation which seems to me to solve the Problem of Evil, and various other paradoxes created by a non-pantheistic God.

08-14-2002, 09:11 PM	#8
Aquila ka Hecate Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Luna City Posts: 379	Hinduwoman, Apologies if this is a trite question;it is one which trouble me greatly- OK, souls are eternal without a creator, this sounds fine, if unproveable. The problem I'm having is very specifically to do with Alzheimer's.It's a problem which seems to me insurmountable. Where does the soul of a person with this disease go to?(Assuming a soul is present in the first place). And if the soul leaves, why does it do so in such a leaking-away fashion? The problem of Alzheimer's(and perhaps similar diseases, although I've only had direct experience with this one)is to me the major obstacle to a belif in souls of any kind. Do your sources of wisdom(and I'm not being sarcastic here) have anything to say on this matter? I'd be greatly interested.

08-15-2002, 06:14 AM	#9
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	From Jobar My own opinion is that if there is any possibility of the word 'God' having a meaning, it lies in some form of Supreme Soul/Awareness. I enjoy Hindu/Buddhist philosophy because of the attempts to equate the individual being with ultimate being- an equation which seems to me to solve the Problem of Evil, and various other paradoxes created by a non-pantheistic God. ----------- Can you explain a bit how equating or relating the individual with the Ultimate being seems to solve the problem of evil? I am familiar, I think, of Supreme Soul/Awareness idea. =========== Hinduwoman: I am not acquainted with Hindu metaphysical terminology but I read about a way of thinking about God which is probably a variant of New Age writers. It goes like this: In the observed universe, we say there is MATTER and ENERGY, two sides of the same coin. "Good and Evil"?; Black or White(not necessarily light). So this writer says: God is spirit or non-matter that is the necessary opposite or antithesis? of the material world. Both had no beginning nor an end; they automatically exist together. Still does not explain what is or what God can do. IS THERE A PARALLEL FOR THIS PROPOSITION IN HINDUISM? If so, how is the idea further explained? So at least I have something additional to chew on. Thanks in advance.

08-16-2002, 05:49 PM	#10
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Jobar, in materialist philosophy of Carvaka, consciousness and soul are one. However in other branches of philosophy, it is not neccessarily so. The Soul is usually identified with the Universal Soul or God; consciousness/mind is considered to be another organ of the body, which perishes when the body dies. But the eternal soul and the accumulated karma remains and they pass onto the next rebirth. Only when the human soul understands that it is actually a portion of this universal awareness, does it achieve liberation --- not salvation. Acquila, don't worry about offending me --- I am a follower of the Carvaka school. However the Sankhya and Vedanta philosophers would explain that when you get the disease, only your physical brain-structure is affected. The essential soul remains untouched and it will pass onto heaven/hell and then to the next body. Demon-sword, in Hinduism theodicy was never a problem because it does not assume that Brahman is omnibenevolent. Nirguna Brahman is attributeless, beyond good and evil; human concepts apply only to saguna Brahman, or the created world. Brahman is responsible for everything in the world and if humans complain of evil, that is tough luck --- that was how Brahman created the world and It does not really care what you think of it. About definition of God, there are several schools of philosphy as I explained. The Samkhya school would probably agree about matter and energy definition, but they reject the notion of God. The other theistic schools however insist that everything is Brahman ---matter and energy are merely two aspects of itself. Brahman cannot be the opposite or anti-thesis of anything, because it is the source of everything. It is not even the anti-thesis of evil, because evil in this context simply means the sorrows that arise from not realizing that all --- including oneself --- is Brahman. I hope this clarifies the point for you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.