I'm glad to see a topic about Hinduism, even though it hasn't really gone anywhere for now.

OP, you might like this : http://www.hinduism.co.za/heavenhell.htm

I've been researching Hinduism lately and this site has a lot of info. I certainly don't agree with all of it, but it's something.

I myself became interested in Hinduism after I convinced myself that either the individual and collective karma permeates everything or the world is somewhat imperfect. I prefer to believe that the world has no imperfections, so I accepted the doctrine of karma and after that I gradually began to understand a lot of Hindu and Buddhist ideas that I couldn't previously understand. I won't go into too much detail. (though I wouldn't mind dropping a few PMs if anyone is interested)

But here's one thing. I'm a Karma freak and here's what I think of Karma and why it's so important.

I see Karma mostly as the fundamental aspect of reality that ensures that every action or cause will always bring about its most appropriate result.

Passing from each moment into the next and having each cause have its appropriate effect is governed by the law and immanence of Karma. That's the most fundamental aspect as far as I can tell.

Now that I've established the basic idea of Karma, I can observe how popular and not-so-popular views of Karma fall into place.

One popular view of Karma is that one will always get what they deserve and if they try to somewhat cheat the system (which is the cleanest definition of sin I can come up with) they will reap a transient reward, but also suffer an inevitable punishment.

The not-so-popular view of this aspect of Karma is that Karma punishes not because of revenge and not even strictly to deliver justice (although I do find justice important). In fact, it doesn't really punish at all. Challenging Karma comes as a corrective that actually brings one closer to his highest goal - his highest and most perfect Self.

Now I'll go into the more refined Hindu and Buddhist ideas, which I only recently came to understand.

Here's a good video to watch on the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b02SihR324A

Now. Karma is a good thing. I can easily defend the proposition that if Karma exists as I describe it, it really is a good thing.

It preserves us from one moment to the next and it brings out the most appropriate responses to everything that happens. It is more appropriate to receive the appropriate responses to our choices and actions than to receive something else. It is also most appropriate for the soul to find its highest calling and greatest good. It is plausible that negative Karmic consequences are a necessary Evil that serves an important corrective function on our way to perfection. Thus Karma serves as a beneficiary to the Soul.

However, as the video hints at - negative Karmic consequences come to bind us to a reality that is ultimately incompatible with our greatest good. Even if what Morpheus says were true - that everything begins with choice, it turns out that freedom is it's own worst enemy. Once a choice is made and the wheels of causality have started turning, one becomes subject to causality (which is just the most appropriate aspect of Karma). Karma can be seen as a chain that binds a soul until it has reaped the consequences of its actions/choices. This karmic reality is what Hindus and Buddhists call Samsara . Most average believers see it as something negative and undesirable. I see it as something that is temporarily required, but will be eventually transcended.

And here is the point that I'm trying to make.What Hindu and Buddhist thinkers have stated resonates true with me. Us doing time in this merciless Karmic world is not unjust, nor it is unfair or unkind. On the contrary - our most appropriate response to it should be one of gratitude. (though one should also be grateful to himself for it is his own efforts that mater)
But what Buddha and many before him saw is that ultimately we have to free ourselves from the chains of Karmic causality and corrective punishment. Being forever a slave to Karmic consequences is not compatible with the perfect destiny of the soul. Thus, the Buddhist and Hindu doctrine of directing one's efforts towards liberation.

Here comes and important distinction between types of individual Karma. I'll clarify that these are my views on the topic, but since there hardly exists an authority or consensus on the matter I find no problem with presenting my own.

The dark of it (too much Planescape : Torment) is this - some Karmic actions have generated and continue to generate more Karma that we have to work out and thus bind us in the chains of causality. Other Karmic actions generate no further Karma and serve to extinguish previous Karmic debts and to free us from the chains of causality.

Now the thing is that we have needed to be chained to causality and will need it up to a point. We will need it until we have generated enough liberating Karma to be free.

Here's what appears in the wiki article on Karma - Buddhism : " Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna."

Here is from "Karma in Buddhism".
"There is a further distinction between worldly, wholesome karma that leads to samsāric happiness (like birth in higher realms), and path-consciousness which leads to enlightenment and nirvana. Therefore, there is samsāric good karma, which leads to worldly happiness, and there is liberating karma—which is supremely good, as it ends suffering forever. Once one has attained liberation one does not generate any further karma, and the corresponding states of mind are called in Pali Kiriya. Nonetheless, the Buddha advocated the practice of wholesome actions: "Refrain from unwholesome actions/Perform only wholesome ones/Purify the mind/This is the teaching of the Enlightened Ones""

If one is interested - both the Buddhist and Hindu doctrines provide ample ideas about generating good Karma and attaining liberation. Hindu followers generally believe in God, while Buddhists don't. In Hinduism one is generally expected to realize that he is not separate from God and in some sense IS God. Buddhism differs here and I won't go into more detail in that regard.

My conjecture about Samsara is that Samsara is beneficial to us in that it prevents us from realizing our potential for terrible things. Karmic consequences come as correctives and those correctives present themselves as urgent problems that need to be solved. Those are generally questions pertaining to the development of our own Self. One very simple example of why this is good is this - if we had absolute freedom we could inflict unnecessary suffering to ourselves or others. Or we could become lost in exploring aspects of infinity that would be sub-optimal instead of striving for our greatest good. Or Karma thus should be seen as a welcome guide, instead of something negative.

Also, I believe that it is 100% guaranteed that each being will be delivered from Samsara. The very nature of it - it's pervasive suffering is actually the most appropriate (up to a point) mechanism by which our Karma makes us face our real problems and solve them.

I should add - while I do see liberation as a greater good on our path, I don't pretend to know what it would be like. To be free from the chains of causality or more likely - to transcend them is an experience that we have never had, so I can only say that it is probably beyond our current understanding, but one can surely try and meditate on it and see what happens.

And finally - a lot of believers suppose that each Soul is given an appropriate Karma that has to be worked out. I understand the process by which a Soul receives its Karma as something akin to responding to the souls highest calling, which is quite unique to itself. In this regard I don't agree with the Buddhist idea of extinguishing the Self. On the contrary - I see our existence as a process in which we fit into our perfect Self as a hand fits into a glove.

Oh, well I could go on if someone found all this interesting. I think that's quite enough for now.

P.S. In my sleep tonight I suddenly realized a certain Buddhist truth in my dream and instantly entered an incredible and previously unknown state of blissful non-attachment, which was very sublime. It did not last, but I find it as a sign that I'm on the right path.

I'd like to add one more thing. Darwinian evolution generally presents itself as a major problem to Abrahamic religions. It does not present a problem to the all-pervading law of Karma that is central to Hindu and Buddhist thought. I would go into greater detail if someone is interested, but since I am now very tired I'll be brief now.

It is only natural that the greater good outlasts the lesser good. After all - this seemingly blind evolution of Earthly biological beings has given us bodies capable to sustain our quest for enlightenment and liberation. We have the capacity for consciousness, introspection, deliberation and most importantly - spiritual growth. That this gift comes at a price is natural. And the price is - we have to comply with the very laws of nature that allowed our current existence in the first place. We are allowed to progress on our path at the price that we have to endure everything that is part of human nature and existence. One is limited in that he has to make choices and live with the consequences, in a world which is not overly friendly to our worldy ambitions.

I often wish it wasn't so, but that's how it is.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. That's how it is in Rome.

I'm reading Blavatsky's book on Karma right now and it's pretty good imo, but it's in Bulgarian. If one is interested one can try and search for it. It's probably easy to find.

How about when a species goes extinct, or the holocaust?

You just see that as karma doing it's job?

What about the 5 mass extinctions that have occurred on earth?

Just karma at work? Stabilising the system is it?

This sounds like a lot like early capitalism arguments for the 'invisible hand effect'.

Karma doesn't need to be immediate or immediately proportional.

Like most any other religion the explanation to your examples is that the earth is transitory/an illusion in some sense. I don't have good words and think sloppy words would encourage the perception of Hindu fatalism. The short way to say it is just that the things you are bringing up don't matter very much. That's not to say they don't matter but a Hindu would certainly say they don't matter the way you're trying to make them.

There does seem to be some evil in this world, but... Can you imagine any world where there wouldn't be any evil?

Because whatever world you imagine I might be able to find something that I think could be improved and label the opposing force as evil.

Instead, one can suppose that some things aren't meant to be improved at this time and that it's all part of a deeper meaning. I suppose there is necessary evil, but one shouldn't draw preliminary conclusions.

The problem of evil is after all perhaps the most difficult problem of theology and philosophy. Do you seriously expect me to solve it here? : D

My general point is that even if the world was a thousand times better, we'd still find some things as evil. It's part of our way of thinking. My opinion is that our stay in Samsara is a necessary evil, which will last only a finite time, while our liberation will be eternal. Basically - a finite number divided by an infinite number gives us 0. That's my take - simple as it is. : )

Do any of you have a shred of evidence for why any of this is true? I suppose one can debate what orthodox Hinduism actually says (although who cares if the first question cannot be answered?) but if you don't have evidence for your views, why even say them?

It is difficult to justify pretty much any metaphysical claim. But it is not so wise to dismiss people's beliefs as superstitions. People can't always give you a thorough account of the reasons for their beliefs; those beliefs are usually the product of a whole life of philosophic contemplation and their justification has a lot to do with intuition, rather than crystal clear logical inferences or empirical data. But you shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the value of human intuition either. My opinion is that intuition is our greatest tool and that science and philosophy serve mostly to hone our intuition and not to replace it by any means.

So, some significant evidence is that Hinduism and Buddhism doctrines resonate with the intuition s of about one third of Planet's population. That's empirical data right there.

Other than that.. I base my own belief on logical inferences, intuition and imagination. One big thing is that after I understood the more fundamental tenets of H/B deeper levels of meaning suddenly emerged. It's all in all an elegant theory. It's biggest problem is admittedly that it is very difficult to falsify. Perhaps Buddhists and Hindus ought to think of ways to present it more scientifically. It is generally thought that Hindu and Buddhist tenets can be proven trough rigorous philosophical investigation, trough contemplation, meditation, mindfulness and other means. I'm not familiar with any empirical proofs as of yet, though there could be some. I just don't know.

The thing is, there could be a whole lot of empirical proofs all around us and it could be that we're just too ignorant to appreciate them.

I practice Hinduism mostly for the benefits. I think it improves my life (and do believe there's some chance that it's going in the right direction towards the unknowable). Also, Hinduism has virtually no missionary history. I for the most part don't share my views. If somebody asks me what my religion is I say Hinduism but if they want to know more I usually direct them to sources and wish them well. If I see a thread like this I might pop in with a post or two.

I think it should also be noted that most of us have very little personal evidence for most of the stuff we believe. Choosing to follow a path that may lead to enlightenment doesn't seem much more far fetched to me than taking the surgeon general for his word when I plan my diet.

As much as I appreciate the non-proselytizing, it has nothing to do with whether the metaphysical claims of hinduism are true or not. I do think it is possible there are normative benefits to ones life of meditation and the like, I just think there is no evidence its metaphysical claims are true.

Except, of course, that the recommendations of modern medicine are based on science and evidence and studies. This is entirely the opposite of choosing to believe something without any communicable evidence.

Seriously? So the fact that the intuition of the other 2/3rds of the planet is that hinduism and buddhism are NOT true does not count as empirical data? Or all the thousands of completely different religious people have believed for thousands of years? Please. Popularity of a belief has no bearing on its correctness. Thank goodness we have science otherwise we would all believe the world was flat and people like you would tell us it was justified because it was intuitively popular.

Sure. The question is, why believe in it now, when there are no empirical proofs or evidence of any kind?

You're way too short-sighted.

That's a good point. I'm not sure what you're looking for though. Of course Hinduism isn't provably true. Religion is the pursuit of the unknowable. I think I thought you were asking why pursue at first where as it seems you aren't. You're simply stating that things like Hinduism aren't possible to prove on a large scale if I'm reading this correctly. Of course you are right.

I also think you're taking the word belief a little too far (at least for me anyway). I believe what the surgeon general says based on some of the things you say but that belief isn't 100% obviously. I don't do or know how to do much of the work that goes into his claims. Leading scientists have often been wrong throughout history and the trend continues. The surgeon general will almost certainly reverse himself on something within the next few months I imagine. I still say I believe what he says. He's the best source going.

Hinduism is similar for me. It's the best source going for those unknowable things (in my opinion). Does that mean I believe it? Well, I believe it more than the other alternatives and less than I believe any individual claim the surgeon general makes.

How so? because I don't accept popularity contests for truth the way you do?

I am asking exactly this. Why believe something when there is no evidence for it? Should we believe in unicorns despite there being no evidence for it? I have no problem with meditation having a measurable, naturalistic benefit. I just think it should be decoupled from the religious baggage that goes with it like a believe in the metaphysical claim of reincarnation. There is no evidence for it, so why believe it?

It is an appeal to authority. But it is a real authority we know exists, and we know the general methodology and outlook of. And we know that believing in modern medicine has led to tremendous advantages. We don't need to do all the tests our selves to make this inference.

As for certainty, of course not 100%, the question is, what evidence is there for us to believe hinduism's claims in the slightest?

I believe there are things that are unknowable, or are at least unknowable in my apparent condition. I suppose that is debatable but I'm going to use it as a given. With that said I think those things are worth pursuing. Based on that I choose to pursue.

That's the why part. As to why "believe" Hinduism, it's just what's worked for me. If you're going to pursue something that grand in scope you have to start somewhere. Hinduism is where I'm at. Basically, the whole religion of Hinduism can be boiled down into a statement like, "there are things that are divine/higher/beyond man...man should try to get closer to these things". I agree and the prayer/meditation/etc are a part of it I'm pursuing.

I don't have the best words and any time making a statement in a format like this I'm afraid of making generalizations or misrepresentations but I hope that was ok.

So either you're asking/saying, "why pursue these things you can't know about them" or you're asking, "why pursue these things through Hinduism rather than something else". The quick answer to the first is I think it's worth a try. If you don't, you don't. The answer to the second one is very long and in my opinion personal.

Oh, also the quick answer to the unicorn example is Hinduism doesn't have anything like that. I have a hard time with Christianity for example because it seems to say, "believe the son of God died on a cross, rose from the dead, ascended and prepared a Heavenly kingdom for you, and listens to your prayers to decide whether you get in or not". Hinduism in practice basically says, "pursue enlightenment...enlightenment is beyond Hinduism...but Hinduism might be a good path in that direction". That is a lot different than believing in a unicorn. It's believing there are things beyond you and deciding to try to pursue them.

Also, I'm sorry for posting a specific example. There are many arguments about the various religions and I'm not a religious scholar. I'm just trying to answer the unicorn experience in an honest way and those are the best words I can think of.

Sorry for a stupid iPad post that ignores most of what you said...

and why do you believe THAT is true? Do you have any evidence of this higher divinity? And rational argument for why this occurs? It seems like your answers are a long way of saying "no". Sorry, but I believe things that have an evidential basis. And I suspect in every other aspect of your life, outside of religion, you do to.

Btw, this is minor, but saying "unknowable" is bad linguistics. How can you "know" anything about something that is "unknowable"? If Hinduism aims to try and provide a path towards this unknowable it is utterly doomed from the outset by this poor definition.

I suppose it's something similar to early explorers. At some point everybody said, "the map ends here. don't you see?" and they decided they thought maybe there was more and gave it a shot. Now yes...you can say there was evidence for there being more, but at that time for them it was probably very shaky evidence at best. It's similar with religion. There seems to be more. I'm giving it a shot.

Again, I think you're just very hung up on the word believe. I don't believe there is other advanced intelligent life in the universe but if somebody said, "we've really improved the speed of space travel, you want to come along and see what we find?" I'd probably agree to do that. It might be a fruitless journey. There's no good evidence that what is being searched for even exists. I'd choose to go.

My language especially English is not very good I've said that. I also think I said unknowable within the scope of my apparent current life. Basically maybe a sloppy way of saying I think there are "things" that I'm not going to figure out in this life. If that's the case and there's a major way some people say you might figure these things out I figure give it a go. I remember speaking to a professor about religion and the conversation boiled down to him saying, "How can I put into words what happens for the man who spends 40 years in the dessert fasting and praying? Religion is experiential.". That stuck with me. To me a religious person tries to experience that which is beyond learning without the experience, the apparently unknowable.

I'm sure these answers are going to be unsatisfactory but that's ok. I can't do better and am uncomfortable making big statements about religion as it's such a personal thing (again, the experience thing). Best wishes.

Because you leave out 90% of my argumentation in favor of some weak point and also for thinking people are so universally misguided that their life experience and intuition count for so little or nothing at all.

Well, I have to admit, I myself am equally biased towards Christianity. I think it's utter nonsense that mostly plays on people's fear of damnation. But Hindu and Buddhist doctrines are much more open-minded and logical. It is said that Buddhism is remarkable in that it puts no pressure at all on people to believe in it; it's never had wars or persecutions and still so many people believe in it and the number is perpetually increasing. Buddhism preaches that all will be saved, so there are no urgent reasons for believing in it.

Oh I am sorry, can you tell me one more time what the other 90% of your argument is? I must have missed it. What evidence or rational argument do you have to support a single one of the metaphysical claims of buddhism?

Just because it doesn't proselytize or have wars or persecute people (although i doubt any of those things are actually true), does not count as an argument for why its claims are actually true. You say it is "logical", well what is the logical argument?

And no, just because people believe in it does NOT count as evidence. People have intuition that the earth was flat and many people believed in this. That does not make it true. It is simply a horrible standard of evidence.

We actually have a methodological epistemology that has a long history of actually giving us new information about the nature of our universe: science. This is the basis of modern society. There are, as far as I understand, precisely zero examples of knowledge that any of the innumerable religions of the world have arrived at. So if you don't believe anything particular about the nature of the universe and just want to go exploring finding out new stuff, why on earth would you stick with something that has no precedent of success instead of the one that has enormous precedent of success. And of all the innumerable religions the world has come up with that are equally insuccessful at arriving at truth, how do you choose between all of these on which to go with?

None of us doubt the effectiveness and goodness of science. But what Buddhism and Hinduism deal with are philosophical questions, which are not strictly scientific questions; they are precisely those important questions that traditional science (physics,math, chemistry,biology) has difficulty answering.

If you are so fast to reject Hindu and Buddhist thought as unscientific, then you'd probably reject Philosophy as unscientific. (and you may be right - philosophy is not strictly speaking scientific; analytical philosophy and logical positivism try to be more scientific, but the rest is quite different.) There is little difference.

The difference being that Hindu and Buddhist thought are inserting presuppositions into questions that are not philosophical in nature. Positing that you'll be reborn after death is a scientific question, not a philosophical one.

There are two issues here. One is the sets of facts that science and religions respectively claim. The other is the methodologies they go about to acquire knowledge.

Now you can say that Hinduism is just doing philosophy if you will and that is fine. But it also makes very concrete claims about the nature of the universe, such as the notion of reincarnation. If you make a claim you need to JUSTIFY it. So what is the justification for this claim? Is there a any evidence of it? Any rational argument in support of it?

What you cannot do (and remain intellectually honest) is claim there is this big other domain which science does not apply to, and then give no reason why this domain even exists or how we form an epistemology in this new domain if not methodological naturalism.

Hindu and Buddhist beliefs seem to me like String theory - there is little empirical proof, but it appeals to our intuition.

I think the doctrines of H/B all come down to the question of Karma. Does Karma exist and what does it entail?

I think the main reason people find the idea of Karma appealing is that most or maybe even all people are constantly searching for an underlying order to reality. This search presupposes that there actually is such an order and this order is what people have labeled Karma.

I admit that my conjectures about Karma might be a bit premature. I was speaking to a prominent Buddhist author the other day; I showed him what I had written and he told me that the Buddha taught that the details of Karma can be known only by enlightened beings.

But the feeling that draws one towards Karma is not to be dismissed as arbitrary. People's intuition shouldn't be underestimated. It is indeed responsible for much of our progress and I hold that people should realize that intuition plays a big part even in the scientific method. Since you can't apply the scientific method to prove itself, then it means that one accepts it based on his intuition. Read that again if it's not clear; this is pretty important.Furthermore, one should realize that human behavior is always greatly dependent on one's intuition.

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein