Symbianize Forum
Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.
All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!
Totoo ba na may Diyos? Nag-eexist ba siya talaga?
- Thread starter Christian369
- Start date
- Replies 379
- Views 23,733
- Status
- Messages
- 626
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 28
Siguro yung mga microorganisms na nasa pinaka ilalim ng dagat pwede pa mag evolve? Marami rin naman dating pagkakataon na pwedeng maging hadlang para mapigilan ang evolution pero nagpatuloy parin gaya ng pagkasira ng mundo dahil sa mga meteors na tumama sa mundo nung panahon ng mga dinosaurs saka yung ice age. Kung yun ngang mundo nabuo galing lang sa gas at sa dust yun pa kaya ngayon maraming factors na pwede makaapekto para magkaroon ng evolution or mag mutate ang isang organism. Kung talagang meron at totoo yan meron silang isolated na lugar kung saan nila pagaaralan yan. Naging scientist pa sila kung titigil na sila sa pagtuklas na posible parin magkaroon ng evolution or mutation. Yung mga ancient mammals nga na pinaniniwalaang pinanggalingan ng mga elepante, tigre o kung ano pang mga hayop e wala na. Ngayon milyong taon na nag eexist parin ang mga chimpanzee na dapat nag evolve na rin kasabay ng mga tao dahil 99% ng genes nila is kapareho ng sa mga tao.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Patuloy ang evolution sa ilalim ng dagat at iba pang isolated locations sa mundo. Sa Brazil, Argentina, at Australia, etc., patuloy ang paglabas ng mga papers na pinoprofile ang mga bagong discovered na species. Ang Australia at South America ang pinaniniwalaang nagkaron ng malawakang split sa evolutionary chain mula ng huwilay ang land mass nila sa Pangaea event. Curiously, just today lumabas yung silver boa sa Caribbean lang mismo.
Di naman tumitigil ang evolution under any circumstances. Iba lang ang profile ng evolution sa mga secluded/isolated places na bago pa lang nadidiscover. In the age of humanity, it just points in many directions, some drastic and beyond our lifetime to ascertain. Halimbawa, it remains to be seen how overpopulation, extreme pollution, the proliferation of synthetic foods in the human diet, working long night shifts and other modern living/working conditions will affect humans long-term. Nagkalat ang mga papers na may mga short-term profiling, and covering specific countries/people groupings. Mahirap subaybayan pag di ka specialist sa field, though.
- - - Updated - - -
For those interested, the following is an interesting piece about Chemical Gardens as key to synthesis of life from abiotic origins, something that goes deeper than the DNA-RNA approach.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Animistic ang religion ng Pirahã people na xang karaniwang belief system ng mga hunter-gatherers. Nauso lang ang theism nang magkaroon na ng civilization pero bago un, lahat sila naniniwala sa supernatural. Intuitive ontology ang supernaturalism at walang human society ang walang belief sa supernatural (gods, spirits, etc.). Walang primitive societies ang purely naturalistic dahil ang naturalism ay produkto lang ng modern science, at ang naturalistic beliefs ay naging posible lang pagkatapos ng Industrial Revolution. Maging Ancient Greeks na pinagmulan ng "natural philosophy," konektado pa rin ang science nila sa polytheistic beliefs nila. Naging posible lang ang (modern scientific) atheism nang paghiwalayin ang science (natural philosophy), religion (moral philosophy) at philosophy proper dahil sa criterion ng falsifiability, at nang naturalism (o materialism) na ang naging predominant worldview sa science nung panahon ng Enlightenment.
Ang pagkakamaling ginagawa kasi ng marami lalo na ng mga science believers ay ine-equate nila ang naturalism sa "scientific fact" pero ang hindi nila alam, isang assumption ang (methodological) naturalism sa konteksto ng science, at isang worldview naman ang naturalism sa philosophy. Ang ibig sabihin nun, hindi dahil may scientific explanation ka na para sa mga natural phenomena ay na-disprove mo na ang mga claim ng religion (gaya ng evolution vs. creationism, o kahit ng mga god-of-the-gap claims). Unfalsifiable ang claims ng religion, at hindi mutually exclusive ang science at religion. Ang mutually exclusive o hindi pwedeng maging parehong totoo ay ang (metaphysical) naturalism at supernaturalism na parehong conflicting philosophical worldviews.
Ang pagkakamaling ginagawa kasi ng marami lalo na ng mga science believers ay ine-equate nila ang naturalism sa "scientific fact" pero ang hindi nila alam, isang assumption ang (methodological) naturalism sa konteksto ng science, at isang worldview naman ang naturalism sa philosophy. Ang ibig sabihin nun, hindi dahil may scientific explanation ka na para sa mga natural phenomena ay na-disprove mo na ang mga claim ng religion (gaya ng evolution vs. creationism, o kahit ng mga god-of-the-gap claims). Unfalsifiable ang claims ng religion, at hindi mutually exclusive ang science at religion. Ang mutually exclusive o hindi pwedeng maging parehong totoo ay ang (metaphysical) naturalism at supernaturalism na parehong conflicting philosophical worldviews.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Some historical/anthropological works (eg Turnbull, Durant) describe African (pygmy) tribes that were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. Some accounts confirmed they even appeared to lack simple superstitions.
Atheism is hardly a modern phenomenon. It is well represented and excellently articulated, perhaps better than the current forms, in the so-called astika ("orthodox") schools of Hindu philosophy, the Samkhya and the early Mimamsa Rig Vedas, Jainism, and Buddhism and others in the Rig Vedas. In the Greek and Roman traditions, it appeared through the works of Anaxogas and Xenophanes. Remember that the Rig Veda preceded the other text of the other current major religions by perhaps ten thousand years.
Three things are important when considering atheism in the context of the current world:
1. Even a nonreligious person could say even if there is no god, our evolutionary history has undoubtedly given humans a propensity to believe in supernatural beings, and perhaps this innate tendency is too strong, too deeply bred into us, to be overcome by mere education and reason.
2. Perhaps human beings are not intrinsically religious, but the religious memes woven into our society have grown so strong and so well-entrenched that no competing idea could ever realistically hope to dislodge them.
An important point to add in #2 is this: atheism, in the modern sense if we insist on that qualification, has always been with us and at various times quite widespread. At other times, though, it was not so widespread and even though it existed among individuals both the failure to be widespread and the failure of individuals to say anything about it was because of the reign of terror perpetrated by religious authorities in any culture. And those same religious authorities would have made a point of censoring out historical references to it.
3. Perhaps the comforting ideas promised by religion, such as a life after death and godly help to miraculously solve life’s difficulties, are too appealing for the comparatively comfortless claims of atheism to lure people away.
In the rest of this section, I'll just quote the work by Adam Lee:
In all of these cases, atheism might persist but would forever remain a fringe idea, unable to capture the assent of more than a small minority.
However, I think such gloomy predictions are overblown. Atheists are a minority now, there can be no doubt of that, but it is premature in the extreme to declare that we will always be so. I do not deny the mere possibility. It may be the case, when all is said and done, that atheism will never appeal to the majority. But so far we do not possess anywhere near the amount of knowledge that would enable anyone to make such a claim with any confidence.
After all, one might argue that atheism has only just gotten started. I do not mean that atheism is a new idea; on the contrary, in every culture that has a written history, we find that there have been atheists for at least as long as there have been believers. Rather, the innovation is atheism’s ability to compete freely with religion in the marketplace of ideas. That is something new, and something that did not exist in human society until very recently indeed.
It was only a historical instant ago that blasphemy was outlawed and atheists were barred from holding public office. Until recently in human history, merely speaking out as an atheist was a crime that could get a person harshly punished or even executed, and that is still the case in many countries around the world. Even the separation of church and state itself is a relative newcomer to the playing field, and it is easy for people who have grown up with it to overlook how remarkable it is. For the vast majority of people throughout the vast majority of human history, the accepted and unquestioned default was that the church and the state were fused into one and that the religious beliefs of a leader determined the religious beliefs of his people. In such a hostile atmosphere, it was all but impossible for atheist ideas to take root. They did spring up many times, occurring repeatedly to independent minds – a few sparks here, a brief bright flicker there – but the brutal oppression and persecution waged by society prevented them from joining together to kindle a lasting light.
Though enlightened societies have annulled these unjust laws, their shadow still lingers, continuing de facto what is no longer permitted de jure. To a large extent even today, a person who publicly identifies as an atheist faces an inevitable torrent of hatred, ridicule and malice, often including exclusion and ostracism by family and former friends and even harassment and violence. This stealth campaign of discrimination, I have no doubt, discourages a significant number of people from becoming atheists, or at least discourages many people who do become atheists from speaking out about it and instead frightens them into remaining silent, in the closet, and uncounted.
But in spite of this, the tide is turning. More and more people are identifying as atheists – helped, no doubt, by the Internet, which as I have said before is a wonderful invention for helping people of like mind find each other – and are uniting to speak out. As a result, nonbelievers have already made substantial social progress, largely beneath the radar of religious society, and there is much more to come.
In light of these facts, I have a rejoinder to people who claim that atheism will always be unpopular: just wait and see. Religion has had literally thousands of years to acquire its monopoly on the minds of humanity, while organized atheism has been around for less than a few hundred. Considering the vast head start that theism has had, I would say that even our current numbers are fairly impressive, but I believe there is more to come. We nonbelievers are just getting started – wait around a few hundred years more, and who knows how much more we may have accomplished by then?
After all, in the last few hundred years, humanity has undergone several other major revolutions of opinion. Racism was a very popular position until recently, but in just a few decades, there seems to have been a massive societal paradigm shift. While racist sentiments have by no means been obliterated, they have lost the vast majority of their power and are nowhere near as widely held or as widely accepted as they once were. Similarly, until almost as recently, the idea that only members of the male gender were qualified to vote or hold office was the conventional wisdom, widely believed and unquestioned. An apologist for sexism alive in the late 1800s or early 1900s might have claimed that people were designed to believe that men were the superior sex, and that this belief would always persist. But this belief, too, as widespread as it was, has now been overthrown and cast down, and ideas of female equality, once a shockingly radical position, have blossomed throughout the world.
Social revolutions like this show the paradoxical nature of the human mind: although human beings can be fiercely irrational and dogmatic, we are also capable as a species of changing old opinions with amazing suddenness and thoroughness when the social forces impelling such a change grow sufficiently strong. In our time, ideas that were once near-universally held and seemed graven in stone have crumbled in the space of a single lifetime. Evidence such as this should give the brash apologists and the gloomy nonbelievers who proclaim theism’s eternal superiority reason to pause before making their judgment. The verdict of history may yet surprise them.
See here for more.
And apologies for the long excerpt. As usual, gotten lazy to paraphrase. Besides, we do not always need to reinvent the wheel, do we...?
Atheism is hardly a modern phenomenon. It is well represented and excellently articulated, perhaps better than the current forms, in the so-called astika ("orthodox") schools of Hindu philosophy, the Samkhya and the early Mimamsa Rig Vedas, Jainism, and Buddhism and others in the Rig Vedas. In the Greek and Roman traditions, it appeared through the works of Anaxogas and Xenophanes. Remember that the Rig Veda preceded the other text of the other current major religions by perhaps ten thousand years.
Three things are important when considering atheism in the context of the current world:
1. Even a nonreligious person could say even if there is no god, our evolutionary history has undoubtedly given humans a propensity to believe in supernatural beings, and perhaps this innate tendency is too strong, too deeply bred into us, to be overcome by mere education and reason.
2. Perhaps human beings are not intrinsically religious, but the religious memes woven into our society have grown so strong and so well-entrenched that no competing idea could ever realistically hope to dislodge them.
An important point to add in #2 is this: atheism, in the modern sense if we insist on that qualification, has always been with us and at various times quite widespread. At other times, though, it was not so widespread and even though it existed among individuals both the failure to be widespread and the failure of individuals to say anything about it was because of the reign of terror perpetrated by religious authorities in any culture. And those same religious authorities would have made a point of censoring out historical references to it.
3. Perhaps the comforting ideas promised by religion, such as a life after death and godly help to miraculously solve life’s difficulties, are too appealing for the comparatively comfortless claims of atheism to lure people away.
In the rest of this section, I'll just quote the work by Adam Lee:
In all of these cases, atheism might persist but would forever remain a fringe idea, unable to capture the assent of more than a small minority.
However, I think such gloomy predictions are overblown. Atheists are a minority now, there can be no doubt of that, but it is premature in the extreme to declare that we will always be so. I do not deny the mere possibility. It may be the case, when all is said and done, that atheism will never appeal to the majority. But so far we do not possess anywhere near the amount of knowledge that would enable anyone to make such a claim with any confidence.
After all, one might argue that atheism has only just gotten started. I do not mean that atheism is a new idea; on the contrary, in every culture that has a written history, we find that there have been atheists for at least as long as there have been believers. Rather, the innovation is atheism’s ability to compete freely with religion in the marketplace of ideas. That is something new, and something that did not exist in human society until very recently indeed.
It was only a historical instant ago that blasphemy was outlawed and atheists were barred from holding public office. Until recently in human history, merely speaking out as an atheist was a crime that could get a person harshly punished or even executed, and that is still the case in many countries around the world. Even the separation of church and state itself is a relative newcomer to the playing field, and it is easy for people who have grown up with it to overlook how remarkable it is. For the vast majority of people throughout the vast majority of human history, the accepted and unquestioned default was that the church and the state were fused into one and that the religious beliefs of a leader determined the religious beliefs of his people. In such a hostile atmosphere, it was all but impossible for atheist ideas to take root. They did spring up many times, occurring repeatedly to independent minds – a few sparks here, a brief bright flicker there – but the brutal oppression and persecution waged by society prevented them from joining together to kindle a lasting light.
Though enlightened societies have annulled these unjust laws, their shadow still lingers, continuing de facto what is no longer permitted de jure. To a large extent even today, a person who publicly identifies as an atheist faces an inevitable torrent of hatred, ridicule and malice, often including exclusion and ostracism by family and former friends and even harassment and violence. This stealth campaign of discrimination, I have no doubt, discourages a significant number of people from becoming atheists, or at least discourages many people who do become atheists from speaking out about it and instead frightens them into remaining silent, in the closet, and uncounted.
But in spite of this, the tide is turning. More and more people are identifying as atheists – helped, no doubt, by the Internet, which as I have said before is a wonderful invention for helping people of like mind find each other – and are uniting to speak out. As a result, nonbelievers have already made substantial social progress, largely beneath the radar of religious society, and there is much more to come.
In light of these facts, I have a rejoinder to people who claim that atheism will always be unpopular: just wait and see. Religion has had literally thousands of years to acquire its monopoly on the minds of humanity, while organized atheism has been around for less than a few hundred. Considering the vast head start that theism has had, I would say that even our current numbers are fairly impressive, but I believe there is more to come. We nonbelievers are just getting started – wait around a few hundred years more, and who knows how much more we may have accomplished by then?
After all, in the last few hundred years, humanity has undergone several other major revolutions of opinion. Racism was a very popular position until recently, but in just a few decades, there seems to have been a massive societal paradigm shift. While racist sentiments have by no means been obliterated, they have lost the vast majority of their power and are nowhere near as widely held or as widely accepted as they once were. Similarly, until almost as recently, the idea that only members of the male gender were qualified to vote or hold office was the conventional wisdom, widely believed and unquestioned. An apologist for sexism alive in the late 1800s or early 1900s might have claimed that people were designed to believe that men were the superior sex, and that this belief would always persist. But this belief, too, as widespread as it was, has now been overthrown and cast down, and ideas of female equality, once a shockingly radical position, have blossomed throughout the world.
Social revolutions like this show the paradoxical nature of the human mind: although human beings can be fiercely irrational and dogmatic, we are also capable as a species of changing old opinions with amazing suddenness and thoroughness when the social forces impelling such a change grow sufficiently strong. In our time, ideas that were once near-universally held and seemed graven in stone have crumbled in the space of a single lifetime. Evidence such as this should give the brash apologists and the gloomy nonbelievers who proclaim theism’s eternal superiority reason to pause before making their judgment. The verdict of history may yet surprise them.
See here for more.
And apologies for the long excerpt. As usual, gotten lazy to paraphrase. Besides, we do not always need to reinvent the wheel, do we...?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Ang atheism sa Hinduism at Buddhism ay limitado lang sa rejection ng personal o creator God, hindi sa rejection ng supernatural. Dalawa kc ang definitions ng atheism: una ung narrow o strict definition na "lack of belief in God/s." Pasok sa definition na ito pati ang animistic, shamamistic, pantheistic at Taoic religions. At ang pangalawa ay ung broad o general definition na "lack of belief in the supernatural." Modern atheism lang ang pasok sa definition na ito at hindi kasama rito ang mga religions na nabanggit. Kaya mas akmang gamitin ang general definition ng atheism dahil maraming belief systems ang maka-categorize ng mali kung ung strict definition ang gagamitin.
x
x
Sa madaling salita, hindi ka atheist kung naniniwala ka sa transcendental reality o kung meron pang mas mataas na realidad kesa mundong ito. Iba ang atheism nung unang panahon na may supernatural elements pa rin sa modern atheism na nakabase lang sa philosophical naturalism at scientific materialism na nagsimula lang nung Age of Enlightenment.
x
x
Sa madaling salita, hindi ka atheist kung naniniwala ka sa transcendental reality o kung meron pang mas mataas na realidad kesa mundong ito. Iba ang atheism nung unang panahon na may supernatural elements pa rin sa modern atheism na nakabase lang sa philosophical naturalism at scientific materialism na nagsimula lang nung Age of Enlightenment.
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
subjective debate
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Ang Charvaka na hango rin sa Hinduism ay hindi lang limitado sa rejection ng personal or creator god, lubos din niyang nirereject ang lahat ng ideya ng supernaturalism. Gaya ng modern atheism or Epicureans, ang Charvaka ay totally materialistic at antireligious, antisupernaturalistic ang worldview. Ayun sa mga experts, sa kanya nagsimula ang sumunod na worldview ng Jainism, Buddhism, at iba pang atheist philosophical systems na nahaluan or nagkaron na ng ibang spiritual flavor.
Aware ang mga atheists sa issue ng individual inclinations ng mga kapwa nila atheists, and in this respect iniiwasan nila ang trappings ng categorization na nakasanayan na sa mga sekta at iba pang sistema.
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.
According to Markandey Katju, Chairman of the Press Council of India and former judge of the Supreme Court of India, "...there are six classical systems of Indian philosophy, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa, and three non-classical systems, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvak. Out of these nine systems eight of them are atheistic as there is no place for God in them. Only the ninth one, that is Uttar Mimansa, which is also called Vedanta, has a place for God in it."[32][33]
According to Markandey Katju, Chairman of the Press Council of India and former judge of the Supreme Court of India, "...there are six classical systems of Indian philosophy, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa, and three non-classical systems, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvak. Out of these nine systems eight of them are atheistic as there is no place for God in them. Only the ninth one, that is Uttar Mimansa, which is also called Vedanta, has a place for God in it."[32][33]
Aware ang mga atheists sa issue ng individual inclinations ng mga kapwa nila atheists, and in this respect iniiwasan nila ang trappings ng categorization na nakasanayan na sa mga sekta at iba pang sistema.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Fake daw ang Charvaka philosophy na inimbento lang ng isang German Jew historian. At hindi bahagi ng Hinduism ang Charvaka philosophy.
http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/sanatana-dharmahinduism-exhumed-and-resurrected4capt-ajit-vadakayil
https://plus.google.com/108698557790255433345/posts/UbQTA22Hkjs
http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-h...hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/
http://www.speakingtree.in/blog/sanatana-dharmahinduism-exhumed-and-resurrected4capt-ajit-vadakayil
https://plus.google.com/108698557790255433345/posts/UbQTA22Hkjs
http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/28/is-h...hindu-identitys-usurpation-of-indian-culture/
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Yung una mong link walang laman.
Yung pangalawa: well, the source is google+ post, and the poster is a great unknown na mukhang loaded ang utak ng conspiracy theories. Interestingly, nagawa pa niyang pagtagpi-tagpiin sina Rothschild, Rand, Illuminati. Whew!
Yung pangatlo, which appears to be made by someone in the know, walang sinasabing fake ang Charvaka. Instead, dinidiscuss nya ang points ng Charvaka along with its contemporaries.
Isa laban sa napakaraming authorities ng Indian philosophy: take your pick.
Yung pangalawa: well, the source is google+ post, and the poster is a great unknown na mukhang loaded ang utak ng conspiracy theories. Interestingly, nagawa pa niyang pagtagpi-tagpiin sina Rothschild, Rand, Illuminati. Whew!
Yung pangatlo, which appears to be made by someone in the know, walang sinasabing fake ang Charvaka. Instead, dinidiscuss nya ang points ng Charvaka along with its contemporaries.
Isa laban sa napakaraming authorities ng Indian philosophy: take your pick.
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Ung pangatlong link ang nagsasabing hindi xa bahagi ng Hinduism. Isang materialist philosophy ang charvaka na nag-exist bago pa ang Hinduism at maling na-incorporate lang sa religion. Matagal na panahon na rin xang extinct. Hindi rin xa kahit kelan naging popular belief. Hindi rin sa charvaka nagmula ang Buddhism at Jainism dahil ayon dito, conflict ang teachings ng charvaka sa Buddhism at Jainism. Hindi purely naturalistic ang atheism noon. Kung meron man noong nag-exist na isa o dalawang materialist philosophies, exception sila hindi ang rule.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Since the author of your third link thinks differently about the label "Hinduism," it follows that he will also think differently about the connection between Hinduism as we know it and Charvaka. Although I do not see the necessity of belaboring the point, I will quote the following from Wikipedia:
Charvaka is categorized as a heterodox school of Indian philosophy.[10][11] It is considered an example of atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition.[12][13][14]
According to Chattopadhyaya, the traditional name of Charvaka is Lokayata. It was called Lokayata because it was prevalent (ayatah) among the people (lokesu), and meant the world-outlook of the people.[18] The dictionary meaning of Lokāyata (लोकायत) signifies "directed towards, aiming at the world, worldly".[15][19]
In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature.[20] The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason,[21] logical philosophies) – Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata. However, Lokāyata in the Arthashastra is not anti-Vedic, but implies Lokāyata to be a part of Vedic lore.[22] Lokāyata here refers to logic or science of debate (disputatio, "criticism").[23] Rudolf Franke translated Lokayata in German as "logisch beweisende Naturerklärung", that is "logically proving explanation of nature".[24]
In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra,[25] Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."[26]
The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science".[27] Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism,[5][28] with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka.[29] The terms Lokayata and Brhaspatya have been used interchangeably for the Charvaka philosophy of materialism.
Source
Now, I'd like for the author of your link to come out in the open and contest the widely held belief through corroborated and peer-reviewed papers and rewrite the Wiki entry itself.
In the end, it is not difficult to conclude that the complexity of the Rig Vedas and the entire Hindu traditions allows for much divergent interpretations, some for or against the position or connection with the others.
Charvaka is categorized as a heterodox school of Indian philosophy.[10][11] It is considered an example of atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition.[12][13][14]
According to Chattopadhyaya, the traditional name of Charvaka is Lokayata. It was called Lokayata because it was prevalent (ayatah) among the people (lokesu), and meant the world-outlook of the people.[18] The dictionary meaning of Lokāyata (लोकायत) signifies "directed towards, aiming at the world, worldly".[15][19]
In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature.[20] The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason,[21] logical philosophies) – Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata. However, Lokāyata in the Arthashastra is not anti-Vedic, but implies Lokāyata to be a part of Vedic lore.[22] Lokāyata here refers to logic or science of debate (disputatio, "criticism").[23] Rudolf Franke translated Lokayata in German as "logisch beweisende Naturerklärung", that is "logically proving explanation of nature".[24]
In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra,[25] Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."[26]
The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science".[27] Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism,[5][28] with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka.[29] The terms Lokayata and Brhaspatya have been used interchangeably for the Charvaka philosophy of materialism.
Source
Now, I'd like for the author of your link to come out in the open and contest the widely held belief through corroborated and peer-reviewed papers and rewrite the Wiki entry itself.
In the end, it is not difficult to conclude that the complexity of the Rig Vedas and the entire Hindu traditions allows for much divergent interpretations, some for or against the position or connection with the others.
Last edited:
" nagkaganyan ako noon hanggang sa ngayon parang ito yong nasa isip mo pre..kung pareho yong nasa isp natin.,,totoo bang may diyos?...bat di sya magpakita? At bakit nya pinabayaan ang mga libung-libong inusinting nabiktima ng bagyo bakit di nya tinulongan kong ttoto0 talaga sya? Kayang kaya nya na dina daanin sa dugo nya ang pagligtas satin kasi nga makapangyarihan sya ano lang tayong mga tao para sa kanya, sumagi rin sa isip ko na di sya diyos talagang tao lang sya na matalino o marunong sa kanilang henerasyon noon, pero kung walang diyos? Bakit tayo ginawa ng magkaiba na may ibat-ibang katangian? May hayop at tao,, bay may hangin at lupa , kahoy at iba pa para mabuhay tayo.. At parang napakahirap paniwalaan nman ang theory ni charles darwin at theory na paano nagkaroon ng mundo kasi kahit anong paliwanag ng sensya di parin ako kumbinsido kasi nga hanngang theory lang,..
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
di ako naniniwlang may diyos... sige sa bible, sabi lahat daw ng sumulat ng bible eh apostol, pano genesis? napaka ditalyado naman ng kwento dun... sino sumulat nun? 24/7 niya sinulat yun? buhay na siya nung lumilikha ang diyos (daw)... grabeng galing nung manunulat, mas magaling pa sa diyos na yan...
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Dalawa ang ibig sabihin ng term na "Hindu." Ang una ay tumutukoy sa mismong Hindu religion (Hinduism). At ang pangalawa ay ang kahit ano/sino na nagmula sa India kahit walang kinalaman sa religion (Hinduism). Sanātana Dharma ang isa pang tawag sa Hinduism. Indian philosophy ang Charvaka pero wala xang kinalaman sa Hinduism at hindi xa bahagi ng Sanātana Dharma. Kung ano ang western humanism/atheism sa Christianity, un din ang Charvaka sa Hinduism. Opposing views sila ng religion. Hindi sila subset ng mga religion na un.
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Malinaw na pinaliwanag kung paano connected ang Charvaka sa Hinduism kahit dun sa source na ginawa ko and the succeeding reference materials. All over the place ang naglalahad kung gaano kalinaw na halaw pa rin sa Hindu tradtions ang Charvaka. Ang nakapagtataka, if you think you know better than the Hindu experts, why not come up with distinct papers about it? Let me see how it goes then.
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 26
Un mismo ang interpretation ko sa wiki link mo. Hindu ang Charvaka in a geographical sense, pero hindi xa Hindu in a religious sense. Parang western-Christian distinction. Western pareho ang humanism/modern atheism at (western) Christianity pero hindi Christian ang humanism/atheism. Gaya ng western humanism/atheism na nadevelop sa Christian environment, ganun din ang Charvaka sa Hinduism. Non-vedantic philosophy ang Charvaka. Ang western counterpart ng non-vedantic ay secular parang secular humanism. Na-confuse lang xang bahagi ng Hinduism dahil sa umbrella term na "Hindu" na ginagamit pareho sa religious at secular contexts.
Ang dalawang keyword dito na dapat mong alamin ay "Hindu" at "Dharma." Lahat ng Dharmic ay Hindu pero hindi lahat ng Hindu ay Dharmic.
Dharmic = Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism
Hindu = all Dharmic religions + heterodox schools of thought and non-vedantic philosophies including Charvaka
Ang dalawang keyword dito na dapat mong alamin ay "Hindu" at "Dharma." Lahat ng Dharmic ay Hindu pero hindi lahat ng Hindu ay Dharmic.
Dharmic = Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism
Hindu = all Dharmic religions + heterodox schools of thought and non-vedantic philosophies including Charvaka
- Messages
- 2,145
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 28
Sumusunod ka kase sa strict definition ng Hinduism as a religion. Yun ang source ng difference natin. Ako naman I follow your strain of thought, but I am more inclined to see Hinduism in the mainstream point of view, as expressed here:
SOURCE
The whole Indian traditions of Rig Veda and Hinduism is always a tricky affair even for the experts. Until a definite demarcation line is established by various experts in the field (which I don't see happening easily), I am comfortable with the above view, though always aware how others may see the limited side of it.
- - - Updated - - -
Let me quote some instructive ideas about whether we should treat Hinduism as a religion or a philosophical system:
1. In the end, Hinduism puts the question of whether it is a philosophy or religion right back at you. Start with a definition of the goals of philosophy. Mark Siderits, in "Buddhism as Philosophy" says:
This makes the question of whether Hinduism is a religion more complex. Hinduism does not ask you to accept its core principles on faith, it does not ask you to simply believe the results of someone else's gnosis.
In other words, Hinduism does not want you to believe. It wants you to seek out the truth—the very essence of philosophical inquiry. Over the course of thousands of days & nights, you will have the opportunity to believe many things and your experience will be a guide to which are correct and which are not.
2. This is a very important question, but really tricky. You would come across people saying that it's not a religion, it's a way of life, it's an open source religion and so on. According to my limited knowledge in this most ancient and vast subject, the answer would depend upon the context. Let me clarify.
The most common one - Hinduism is not a religion
Religion is a western term. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma. This is covered in my next point. For this point, please note that when we talk of religion, we usually refer to Abrahamic religion. Religion, according to this paradigm, is generally understood to have the following characteristics [1] :
Has a specific prescriptive model of god
Has very prescriptive DOs and DON'Ts
Usually has an identifiable founder
Threatens potential transgressors with hell
Usually aggressively conquering / proselytizing
Has one main scripture with subsidiaries
Has well defined, unvarying rites and rituals
I am not saying all Abrahamic religions are like this, but these points are generally associated with the term "religion".
Hinduism has none of the above characteristics. Some treat Maa Shakti as greatest, some as Vishnu, etc. Some believe in rituals, some treat God as formless, some prefer Vedas, some Gita and so on. So in this paradigm, Hinduism is not a religion—this is the common case.
Hinduism as a religion
Now if we take the correct definition of religion as on wiki - Religion, Hinduism would be considered as a Dharmic religion. Although the origin of the word "Hinduism" is debatable, its a well known fact that it is called as Sanatana Dharma since ancient times. Sanatana means eternal and Dharma refers to Laws and duties of an individual that are necessary to maintain harmony in the universe.
So according to the universal definition, which is the correct one that we should consider, Hinduism is a religion.
Hinduism as a way of life - clearing a common misconception
Sure, Hinduism is a way of life. But so are all the religions, Abrahamic or otherwise. Many people incorrectly think that Hinduism is not a religion because it is a way of life, or Hinduism is a way of life because it is not a religion. This is a misconception. Every religion prescribe certain customs, beliefs, etc that people adopt in their day-to-day life. The difference in Hinduism is that it does not prescribe specific customs or beliefs. It's a philosophy on decentralized paradigm where individuals can choose to follow what they like.
Hinduism as an open-source religion
Now they are millions of Gods, thousands of scriptures, uncountably many beliefs, etc under the umbrella "Hinduism". People are free to choose whom they pray, what they study and follow, etc. Not only this, people can pick any "version" and extend and customize it according to the needs of the hour, ie. it keeps on getting "refreshed", otherwise it would have become obsolete. Swami Vivekananda, Chaitanya, etc - all of them popularized different schools of thoughts. So in this sense Hinduism is called an open-source religion. But a very important distinction from open-source softwares is that the core values of Hinduism like concepts of Karma, Yoga, Dharma, Moksha, universal peace, etc remain the same and so does the core messages of the scriptures.
SOURCE
Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s) nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist.[38][39][40] Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas covered by the term Hinduism, arriving at a comprehensive definition is difficult.[24] The religion "defies our desire to define and categorize it".[41] Hinduism has been variously defined as a religion, a religious tradition, a set of religious beliefs, and "a way of life...."[42][note 1]
SOURCE
The whole Indian traditions of Rig Veda and Hinduism is always a tricky affair even for the experts. Until a definite demarcation line is established by various experts in the field (which I don't see happening easily), I am comfortable with the above view, though always aware how others may see the limited side of it.
- - - Updated - - -
Let me quote some instructive ideas about whether we should treat Hinduism as a religion or a philosophical system:
1. In the end, Hinduism puts the question of whether it is a philosophy or religion right back at you. Start with a definition of the goals of philosophy. Mark Siderits, in "Buddhism as Philosophy" says:
What sets philosophy apart as a discipline is more its concern with how to answer questions than the answers themselves. To study philosophy is to learn to think carefully and critically about complex issues. It is not necessarily to learn the 'answers' that the discipline has arrived at.
This makes the question of whether Hinduism is a religion more complex. Hinduism does not ask you to accept its core principles on faith, it does not ask you to simply believe the results of someone else's gnosis.
In other words, Hinduism does not want you to believe. It wants you to seek out the truth—the very essence of philosophical inquiry. Over the course of thousands of days & nights, you will have the opportunity to believe many things and your experience will be a guide to which are correct and which are not.
2. This is a very important question, but really tricky. You would come across people saying that it's not a religion, it's a way of life, it's an open source religion and so on. According to my limited knowledge in this most ancient and vast subject, the answer would depend upon the context. Let me clarify.
The most common one - Hinduism is not a religion
Religion is a western term. Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma. This is covered in my next point. For this point, please note that when we talk of religion, we usually refer to Abrahamic religion. Religion, according to this paradigm, is generally understood to have the following characteristics [1] :
Has a specific prescriptive model of god
Has very prescriptive DOs and DON'Ts
Usually has an identifiable founder
Threatens potential transgressors with hell
Usually aggressively conquering / proselytizing
Has one main scripture with subsidiaries
Has well defined, unvarying rites and rituals
I am not saying all Abrahamic religions are like this, but these points are generally associated with the term "religion".
Hinduism has none of the above characteristics. Some treat Maa Shakti as greatest, some as Vishnu, etc. Some believe in rituals, some treat God as formless, some prefer Vedas, some Gita and so on. So in this paradigm, Hinduism is not a religion—this is the common case.
Hinduism as a religion
Now if we take the correct definition of religion as on wiki - Religion, Hinduism would be considered as a Dharmic religion. Although the origin of the word "Hinduism" is debatable, its a well known fact that it is called as Sanatana Dharma since ancient times. Sanatana means eternal and Dharma refers to Laws and duties of an individual that are necessary to maintain harmony in the universe.
So according to the universal definition, which is the correct one that we should consider, Hinduism is a religion.
Hinduism as a way of life - clearing a common misconception
Sure, Hinduism is a way of life. But so are all the religions, Abrahamic or otherwise. Many people incorrectly think that Hinduism is not a religion because it is a way of life, or Hinduism is a way of life because it is not a religion. This is a misconception. Every religion prescribe certain customs, beliefs, etc that people adopt in their day-to-day life. The difference in Hinduism is that it does not prescribe specific customs or beliefs. It's a philosophy on decentralized paradigm where individuals can choose to follow what they like.
Hinduism as an open-source religion
Now they are millions of Gods, thousands of scriptures, uncountably many beliefs, etc under the umbrella "Hinduism". People are free to choose whom they pray, what they study and follow, etc. Not only this, people can pick any "version" and extend and customize it according to the needs of the hour, ie. it keeps on getting "refreshed", otherwise it would have become obsolete. Swami Vivekananda, Chaitanya, etc - all of them popularized different schools of thoughts. So in this sense Hinduism is called an open-source religion. But a very important distinction from open-source softwares is that the core values of Hinduism like concepts of Karma, Yoga, Dharma, Moksha, universal peace, etc remain the same and so does the core messages of the scriptures.
SOURCE
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
if you want to know the answer add me in my skype: Chymeblack
- Status
