RE: hinduism to atheism
June 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2011 at 7:39 pm by BethK.)
Hello Kriskiran. Good to count you as one of "us".
I too am a convert from Hinduism, specifically the Samkhya sect. It's a bit of an unusual sect. It is much like Buddhism, in that it is really not important, nor is it stressed, on whether the gods exit or not, and are assumed NOT to take part in the day-to-day lives of people. I converted to that (indirectly) from Wicca, which assumes that the gods exist, listen, care, and take part in day-to-day lives.... note that a god can dislike you and choose to smite you for any or no reason at all. Seemed kind of arbitrary and hodge-podgish. Hinduism is somewhat the same way, but has better "rules" lain down for how gods are likely to react and what will or will not please them. And, there are sadhana (holy acts - may take a day, or 3, or 9, or...), and tapas (penance).
I got the same thing out of sadhana and tapas that the Buddha got - that there had to be a "better" way, so went for nontheistic Samkhya. Most Samkhyins agree that the gods do not exist, but Universal Consciousness (Purusa) does exist, as does Primordial Material (Prakritti). OKAY! So, we've just redefined individual consciousness, and the fact that we'll mostly act alike due to social reasons and evolutionary reasons and taken the "Primordeal Soup" from which first particles, then atoms, then molecules, then substance, all the way through biology worked and given them names.
Let's simplify this a tad: How about we use the basic sociology and biology that defines how and why people and other animals (and even plants) will act a certain way and how it benefits the survival of their species to reproduce? How about use physics to define what probably existed right after the Big Bang, and things like chemistry, geology, biology, and so forth to define just what matter IS? Ba-da-bing, Ba-da-boom. Samkhyini to Atheist in one easy bound.
I guess that's why Bhaktins (following the path of devotion - e.g. Hare Krishnas) call us "impersonalists" when they are being "nice", and call us "the ATHEIST sect" when they're being unnice. Well, it IS a "slippery slope" from Samkhya to atheist. It IS a "slippery slope" from going from the devotion to any god to viewing it as an impersonal force to be reckoned with to being an atheist. It's a matter of whether you call the storm clouds "Thor" and "Fred" and "Tom" or whether you call them "cumulonimbus" and "mammus" or you just see the heads of elephants and tigers. The latter is something I'd expect from a child. The middle one is from anyone with knowledge of meteorology. The first is just silly personifications, and not unlike the last one.
Yet, I still practice some of the suggested meditations from Samkhya. For one thing, it is the best sleep-aid that I've ever discovered, plus it's free, legal, and available without a prescription. For another, their mindfulness exercises make me more aware and better able to attain the information I need to make the best decisions I can.
Nice to see someone who fails to believe in many gods! LOL
Beth
I too am a convert from Hinduism, specifically the Samkhya sect. It's a bit of an unusual sect. It is much like Buddhism, in that it is really not important, nor is it stressed, on whether the gods exit or not, and are assumed NOT to take part in the day-to-day lives of people. I converted to that (indirectly) from Wicca, which assumes that the gods exist, listen, care, and take part in day-to-day lives.... note that a god can dislike you and choose to smite you for any or no reason at all. Seemed kind of arbitrary and hodge-podgish. Hinduism is somewhat the same way, but has better "rules" lain down for how gods are likely to react and what will or will not please them. And, there are sadhana (holy acts - may take a day, or 3, or 9, or...), and tapas (penance).
I got the same thing out of sadhana and tapas that the Buddha got - that there had to be a "better" way, so went for nontheistic Samkhya. Most Samkhyins agree that the gods do not exist, but Universal Consciousness (Purusa) does exist, as does Primordial Material (Prakritti). OKAY! So, we've just redefined individual consciousness, and the fact that we'll mostly act alike due to social reasons and evolutionary reasons and taken the "Primordeal Soup" from which first particles, then atoms, then molecules, then substance, all the way through biology worked and given them names.
Let's simplify this a tad: How about we use the basic sociology and biology that defines how and why people and other animals (and even plants) will act a certain way and how it benefits the survival of their species to reproduce? How about use physics to define what probably existed right after the Big Bang, and things like chemistry, geology, biology, and so forth to define just what matter IS? Ba-da-bing, Ba-da-boom. Samkhyini to Atheist in one easy bound.
I guess that's why Bhaktins (following the path of devotion - e.g. Hare Krishnas) call us "impersonalists" when they are being "nice", and call us "the ATHEIST sect" when they're being unnice.
Well, it IS a "slippery slope" from Samkhya to atheist. It IS a "slippery slope" from going from the devotion to any god to viewing it as an impersonal force to be reckoned with to being an atheist. It's a matter of whether you call the storm clouds "Thor" and "Fred" and "Tom" or whether you call them "cumulonimbus" and "mammus" or you just see the heads of elephants and tigers. The latter is something I'd expect from a child. The middle one is from anyone with knowledge of meteorology. The first is just silly personifications, and not unlike the last one.Yet, I still practice some of the suggested meditations from Samkhya. For one thing, it is the best sleep-aid that I've ever discovered, plus it's free, legal, and available without a prescription.
For another, their mindfulness exercises make me more aware and better able to attain the information I need to make the best decisions I can.Nice to see someone who fails to believe in many gods! LOL
Beth
