Manifesto of Charvaka Movement
#25
(18-Sep-2010, 01:07 AM)Shantanu Wrote: I suppose their overriding hedonism means that 'duty' (for example duty to society) takes a back seat or not seat at all in their lives. Why after all should the Charvakas feel that they have a duty to anyone else but themselves in terms of the pleasure they seek?
Hasn't Social science proven that a society will prosper when they collaborate with other societies? The developed countries will do very well even if they do not import clothes and baskets weaved in Africa. But, in doing so they can potentially cause animosity among the have-nots in the future. Duty to society, and the duty of the society to co-exist with other societies would certainly be a good thing. Isn't it so?
Reply
#26
(05-Jan-2011, 11:53 PM)muffintop Wrote:
(18-Sep-2010, 01:07 AM)Shantanu Wrote: I suppose their overriding hedonism means that 'duty' (for example duty to society) takes a back seat or not seat at all in their lives. Why after all should the Charvakas feel that they have a duty to anyone else but themselves in terms of the pleasure they seek?
Hasn't Social science proven that a society will prosper when they collaborate with other societies? The developed countries will do very well even if they do not import clothes and baskets weaved in Africa. But, in doing so they can potentially cause animosity among the have-nots in the future. Duty to society, and the duty of the society to co-exist with other societies would certainly be a good thing. Isn't it so?

The whole idea of 'duty to society' makes me uncomfortable. A more appropriate moral guide is compassion (born of empathy, a quantifiable and fairly malleable biological trait ), a value that is, unfortunately, decried by certain freethinkers.

The thing to keep in mind is that without adding subjective value one cannot simply reason what is good. Whether we do well or badly as a species when we collaborate with other cultures, there is an experiential element involved when asking moral questions. The idea of "duty" (I prefer 'showing kindness and love to your fellow human beings') to society involves values judgments that must be informed by reason and science. Santanu's fault is in assuming that if one claims to be a rationalist/atheist/freethinker, one must have no values.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
[+] 1 user Likes Ajita Kamal's post
Reply
#27
Thanks for resurrecting the honour due to Brihaspati who was derogatorily called Charvaka by theist philosophers. Although your arguments against organized religion is true, it does not address the question "Who am I?". The search for one self or one's true nature could be categorized as rational or religious search, depending upon your bent of mind. What are your your ideas about search for self as propounded by Upanishads, Ramana or Rajneesh? Their concept of religion is experiential rather than a belief system. I would be glad to hear other insights into this quest.
Reply
#28
(01-Mar-2011, 01:53 PM)satyapriya Wrote: Although your arguments against organized religion is true, it does not address the question "Who am I?". The search for one self or one's true nature could be categorized as rational or religious search, depending upon your bent of mind.

My arguments were not in response to the question "Who am I?", so your argument presents a straw man.

What do you mean by "one self or one's true nature"? If you think (like most of us here) that science and rational analysis of observed evidence offers the best answers to the question, then I don't see how it could be a "religious search". If you are claiming that religion has access to some observable truth that science does not, then I ask that you please submit these truths so that we may evaluate your claims.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#29
(01-Mar-2011, 01:53 PM)satyapriya Wrote: What are your your ideas about search for self as propounded by Upanishads, Ramana or Rajneesh? Their concept of religion is experiential rather than a belief system. I would be glad to hear other insights into this quest.

The self that Upanishad's describe comes from certain states of the brain. There is nothing privileged about them.

A freethinker like me wouldn't have any problem with people trying to get into those states of mind. But what I do have a problem with is when people assign special significance to such states and make claims like those states should be the goal of life and it's ultimate meaning. I see your argument coming from such a stance.

As Ajita said, unless you provide some evidence on why such states are privileged, I see your argument as something similar to - religions settled on a color X that is appealing to humans in general, so how does a rationalist address the quest for finding appeal in color X?
Reply
#30
(01-Mar-2011, 10:16 PM)Lije Wrote:
(01-Mar-2011, 01:53 PM)satyapriya Wrote: What are your your ideas about search for self as propounded by Upanishads, Ramana or Rajneesh? Their concept of religion is experiential rather than a belief system. I would be glad to hear other insights into this quest.

The self that Upanishad's describe comes from certain states of the brain. There is nothing privileged about them.

A freethinker like me wouldn't have any problem with people trying to get into those states of mind. But what I do have a problem with is when people assign special significance to such states and make claims like those states should be the goal of life and it's ultimate meaning. I see your argument coming from such a stance.

As Ajita said, unless you provide some evidence on why such states are privileged, I see your argument as something similar to - religions settled on a color X that is appealing to humans in general, so how does a rationalist address the quest for finding appeal in color X?

The states of mind is manifested by knowledge, and this is common for all the creatures. Excepting the humans, this knowledge is purely on basis of perception in other creatures on earth. In case of humans, it amounts to inference that drives the knowledge into intelligence and further persisted through the memory. When the Sun rise, all other creatures feel the awakening of new morning as a strong bonding to nature, but humans associate the same to artificial time machine. This is nothing but inference which is no way perceivable, but logically approached as mere coincidence or luck.
Reply
#31
(26-Aug-2014, 11:12 AM)Ravi Reddy Wrote:
(01-Mar-2011, 10:16 PM)Lije Wrote:
(01-Mar-2011, 01:53 PM)satyapriya Wrote: What are your your ideas about search for self as propounded by Upanishads, Ramana or Rajneesh? Their concept of religion is experiential rather than a belief system. I would be glad to hear other insights into this quest.

The self that Upanishad's describe comes from certain states of the brain. There is nothing privileged about them.

A freethinker like me wouldn't have any problem with people trying to get into those states of mind. But what I do have a problem with is when people assign special significance to such states and make claims like those states should be the goal of life and it's ultimate meaning. I see your argument coming from such a stance.

As Ajita said, unless you provide some evidence on why such states are privileged, I see your argument as something similar to - religions settled on a color X that is appealing to humans in general, so how does a rationalist address the quest for finding appeal in color X?

The states of mind is manifested by knowledge, and this is common for all the creatures. Excepting the humans, this knowledge is purely on basis of perception in other creatures on earth. In case of humans, it amounts to inference that drives the knowledge into intelligence and further persisted through the memory. When the Sun rise, all other creatures feel the awakening of new morning as a strong bonding to nature, but humans associate the same to artificial time machine. This is nothing but inference which is no way perceivable, but logically approached as mere coincidence or luck.

Ravi,

Can you clarify your post? I do not see how it is addressing the point (highlighted in red, at least I think that is the key point in the post) raised by the post to which you seem to have responded.
Reply
#32
I think the Charvakas should first stress on rational thinking. They need to get organised and cultivate an atheist culture.
Reply
#33
(25-Feb-2015, 10:54 AM)praggy1973 Wrote: I think the Charvakas should first stress on rational thinking. They need to get organised and cultivate an atheist culture.

Charvka's philosophy is summed up in one sanskrit verse:
"Bhasmi-bhutasya-dehasya-kutah-punar-agamano-bhavet"
Translation: "When the body is burned to ashes, everything is finished" No more coming again.

But this is effectively countered by Krishna in the Bhagavat Gita (2.13)

dehino ’smin yathā dehe
kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir
dhīras tatra na muhyati

Word for word meaning:
dehinaḥ — of the embodied; asmin — in this; yathā — as; dehe — in the body; kaumāram — boyhood; yauvanam — youth; jarā — old age; tathā — similarly; deha-antara — of transference of the body; prāptiḥ — achievement; dhīraḥ — the sober; tatra — thereupon; na — never; muhyati — is deluded.

Translation:
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
Reply
#34
Krishna's reply is not an effective counter.

Carvakas demand proof that there is a soul; Krishna simply asserts this is true.
Krishna's rebuttal is a epic FAIL
Reply
#35
Bhagavat Gita Chapter 15 Text 10 has this to say:


utkrämantam sthitam väpi
bhunjänam vä gunänvitam
vimüdhä nänupasyanti
pasyanti jnäna-caksusah

utkrämantam—quitting the body; sthitam—situated in the body; väpi—either; bhunjänam—enjoying; vä—or; guna-anvitam—under the spell of the modes of material nature; vimüdhäh—foolish persons; na—never; anupasyanti—can see; pasyanti—one can see; jnäna-cakshusah—one who has the eyes of knowledge.

TRANSLATION
The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body, nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can see all this.

PURPORT
The word jnäna-caksusah is very significant. Without knowledge, one cannot understand how a living entity leaves his present body, nor what form of body he is going to take in the next life, nor even why he is living in a particular type of body. This requires a great amount of knowledge understood from Bhagavad-gétä and similar literatures heard from a bona fide spiritual master. One who is trained to perceive all these things is fortunate. Every living entity is quitting his body under certain circumstances; he is living under certain circumstances and enjoying under certain circumstances under the spell of material nature. As a result, he is suffering different kinds of happiness and distress, under the illusion of sense enjoyment. Persons who are everlastingly fooled by lust and desire lose all power of understanding their change of body and their stay in a particular body. They cannot comprehend it. Those who have developed spiritual knowledge, however, can see that the spirit is different from the body and is changing its body and enjoying in different ways. A person in such knowledge can understand how the conditioned living entity is suffering in this material existence. Therefore those who are highly developed in Krishna consciousness try their best to give this knowledge to the people in general, for their conditional life is very much troublesome. They should come out of it and be Krishna conscious and liberate themselves to transfer to the spiritual world.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  On Rama's supposed rebuttal of the Charvaka case arvindiyer 6 8,351 31-Aug-2014, 05:44 AM
Last Post: arvindiyer



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)