Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.

by Rishi Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:22 pm

Enthusiasm oozes out when he describes the ancient Hindu philosophies. Today’s devout God-fearing Hindus, temple-goers and practitioners of a daily puja, would not feel at home with the old-school Hindu philosophers, many of whom were functionally or even explicitly atheist. Daya Krishna cites Karl Potter with approval: “If, for example, one chooses the second century AD, one would discover that ‘the major systems extant at that time – Samkhya, Mimansa, Nyaya and Vaisesika, Jainism, the several schools of Buddhism, and Carvaka – are none of them theistic’. But ‘if one slices instead at, say, the fourteenth century AD, one finds that Nyaya-Vaisesika has become pronouncedly theistic, that Buddhism and Carvaka had disappeared, and that several varieties of theistic Vedanta have come into prominence.’” (p.40) I guess that proves God punishes those who don’t believe in Him with disappearance. But it also shows in passing that medieval and modern Hindus are very different from their ancient ancestors, including the rishis they swear by.

Daya Krishna questions two common assumptions, viz. that Indian philosophy is “spiritual”, and that it is chiefly concerned with moksha, “liberation”. Of course much philosophizing was technical and not concerned with meditation and liberation. For instance, Nyaya philosophy has a lot to say on what philosophers call epistemology, i.e. the ways of knowing, but it has less to offer to those who are eager for liberation. The philosopher quotes a list of mundane works (p.33-34), including treatises on painting and on eroticism, that start out with a promise that the knowledge provided here will lead to moksha. This was just a convention, a work that wanted to draw attention to itself just had to announce itself as a way to liberation; and the reader should use his own discrimination to decide which books really deal with liberation.

The difference between Indian schools of philosophy lies not in their respective conceptions of moksha. They quarrel about metaphysical or epistemological issues, about how many fundamental building blocks the cosmos has, or about the status of the Vedas – but rarely about the need for, and even less about the way to liberation. Moksha was taken for granted, at least in the age that concerns us here, after the introduction of alphabetic writing in India ca. 300 BC. The way towards liberation was generically called yoga, and its modus operandi was left to teachers in confidential settings.

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/12/an-indian-sceptic.html

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:57 am

Our extremely brilliant SU-CH scholars will be excited to read these new posts of yours.

by Idéfix Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:29 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Our extremely brilliant SU-CH scholars will be excited to read these new posts of yours.

Guruvu-gaaru, what do you think? Is he right in claiming that around the second century CE, the major philosophical systems were not theistic?

by Sponsored content

Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.

Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.

Re: Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.

Re: Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.

Re: Many of ancient Hindu philosophers were functionally or even explicitly atheist.