pervasive colonial co-option of hindu terms and concepts

 
@afi[...]
21 hours ago
Hello csk, please relay this to the guest.
1. Your position that Hinduism is not a religion will backfire as it has has backfired in several places and taken advantage of by dais and evengelecals. In Indonesia xtian missionary used this to make half convert in the 1st generation and full convert in the following generation.

So Hinduism (or Hindutva) has to be called a religion with a definite future vision of the world in terms of food habits, life rituals, economics and technology.

2. Yes it is definitely needed to have a collective identity as i believe you did not properly answer csk's last question because you need an ingroup and outgoing not that I'm saying to hate the outgroup but the distinction is needed heck even in nature there is boundary.

It is needed to protect our unique identity amd pass it down to our children and them to theirs...... This also gives them a sence of identity in the world and will not make them identity less beings

1
@darkprince2490
3 minutes ago (edited)
Just yesterday I saw a believer claim that "izl#% is a way of life". And the day before that i saw some punk "hindu atheist" (oxymoron) confidently claim "his science" is deterministic. Even the old accusation about hinduism being "fatalistic" has been taken from us and turned into a positive for them. All done using specious rhetoric turned against us. They lie and shapeshift and they will not relent.
We need to make a sharp distinction between the heathen and the monotheist/atheist. Just state that we follow dharma. Only on official forms use religion as hindu. By now, even kids understand the difference between the two.
If we use "religion", then they will burden us with the crimes of monotheistic religion over the past 2000 years - that either we brought those crimes upon ourselves or we were the actual 'guilty' ones.
How long will we run and how long will we try to be like them.
They are even now stating that hinduism is colonial and fascistic in nature even though both colonialism and fascism come directly from monotheism. Passing on their crimes to us. And we eagerly comply as if it is some colonial era medal pinned to our chests.We need decolonization. there is no other way.
In older times, we followed dharma. They could lie all they wanted it did not matter to us or our conduct in the world. Now we follow "indology" (those same lies) to "learn about ourselves". And every two-bit lying demagogic pseudointellect gets to push us around.

 

    Managerial ideology, a relatively straightforward descendant of the Enlightenment liberal-modernist project, is a formula that consists of several core beliefs, or what could be called core managerial values. At least in the West, these can be distilled into:

    1. Technocratic Scientism: The belief that everything, including society and human nature, can and should be fully understood and controlled through scientific and technical means. In this view everything consists of systems, which operate, as in a machine, on the basis of scientific laws that can be rationally derived through reason. Humans and their behavior are the product of the systems in which they are embedded.
    2. Utopianism: The belief that a perfect society is possible – in this case through the perfect application of perfect scientific and technical knowledge. The machine can ultimately be tuned to run flawlessly. At that point all will be completely provided for and therefore completely equal, and man himself will be entirely rational, fully free, and perfectly productive.
    This state of perfection is the telos, or pre-destined end point, of human development (through science, physical and social). This creates the idea of progress, or of moving closer to this final end. Consequently history has a teleology: it bends towards utopia. This also means the future is necessarily always better than the past, as it is closer to utopia. History now takes on moral valence; to “go backwards” is immoral. Indeed even actively conserving the status quo is immoral; governance is only moral in so far as it affects change, thus moving us ever forwards, towards utopia.
    3. Meliorism: The belief that all the flaws and conflicts of human society, and of human beings themselves, are problems that can and should be directly ameliorated by sufficient managerial technique. Poverty, war, disease, criminality, ignorance, suffering, unhappiness, death… none are examples of the human condition that will always be with us, but are all problems to be solved.
    It is the role of the managerial elite to identify and solve such problems by applying their expert knowledge to improve human institutions and relationships, as well as the natural world. In the end there are no tradeoffs, only solutions.
    4. Liberationism: The belief that individuals and society are held back from progress by the rules, restraints, relational bonds, historical communities, inherited traditions, and limiting institutions of the past, all of which are the chains of false authority from which we must be liberated so as to move forwards.
    Old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits must all be dismantled in order to ameliorate human problems, as old systems and ways of life are necessarily ignorant, flawed, and oppressive. Newer – and therefore superior – scientific knowledge can re-design, from the ground up, new systems and ways of life that will function more efficiently and morally.
    5. Hedonistic Materialism: The belief that complete human happiness and well-being fundamentally consists of and is achievable through the fulfillment of a sufficient number of material needs and psychological desires. The presence of any unfulfilled desire or discomfort indicates the systemic inefficiency of an un-provided good that can and should be met in order to move the human being closer to a perfected state.
    Scientific management can and should therefore to the greatest extent possible maximize the fulfillment of desires. For the individual, consumption that alleviates desire is a moral act. In contrast, repression (including self-repression) of desires and their fulfillment stands in the way of human progress, and is immoral, signaling a need for managerial liberation.
    6. Homogenizing Cosmopolitan Universalism: The belief that:
    a) all human beings are fundamentally interchangeable and members of a single universal community;
    b) that the systemic “best practices” discovered by scientific management are universally applicable in all places and for all people in all times, and that therefore the same optimal system should rationally prevail everywhere;
    c) that, while perhaps quaint and entertaining, any non-superficial particularity or diversity of place, culture, custom, nation, or government structure anywhere is evidence of an inefficient failure to successfully converge on the ideal system; and
    d) that any form of localism, particularism, or federalism is therefore not only inefficient and backwards but an obstacle to human progress and so is dangerous and immoral. Progress will always naturally entail centralization and homogenization.
    7. Abstraction and Dematerialization: The belief, or more often the instinct, that abstract and virtual things are better than physical things, because the less tied to the messy physical world humans and their activities are, the more liberated and capable of pure intellectual rationality and uninhibited morality they will become.
    Practically, dematerialization, such as through digitalization or financialization, is a potent solvent that can help burn away the repressive barriers created by attachments to the particularities of place and people, replacing them with the fluidity and universality of the cosmopolitan. Dematerialization makes property more easily tradable, and can more effectively produce homogenization and fulfill desires at scale. Indeed in theory dematerialization could allow almost everything to take on and be managed at vastly greater, even infinite, mass and scale, holding out the hope of total efficiency: a state of pure frictionlessness, in which change (progress) will be effortless and limitless. Finally, dematerialization also most broadly represents an ideological belief that it is the world that should conform to abstract theory, not theory that must conform to the world.

Tibetan/Chinese accounts show "carvakas" with Devas.

Ankit Hooda· 3y
At least from chinese or tibetan accounts, we know that charvakas believed in devas which included celestial entities. About charvaks and buddhist more conclusions are drawn than what their writings suggest. If you don't believe in prophets which give The God’s words, u r going to be atheistic, with theistic conclusions being result of bad logic. Except for medieval claims by mimansikas about a-human origins of vedas, we don't find any divine truths. IMO, Truth is that all darshans believed in vedic gods, that would become necessary to operate phenomenon in absence of knowledge of natural laws which can explain phenomenon, atmospheric, terrestial, biological. That we can learn also from buddhists who took vedic gods to east asia. In absence of such explanations one is bound to believe in devas.

Interesting description above regarding the "caravakas" "having" Devas according to tibetan/chinese accounts. This is an obvious reflection of the term carvaka being used for ordinary egoists not interested in Moksha (revelers in sense pleasures using ISKCON terminology), which was secondarily and deceptively remapped onto (western) atheism by missionaries and Enlightenment indologists. To even conceive of a world without Deva-s requires the monotheist category of alienation which, in abrahamism, is applied at the level of cosmos (ie God) as well as at the level of the individual believer (western concept of consciousness refers to this sentiment of alienation, in contrast to indication with the underlying/implicit "Consciousness" of Brahman in Eastern ontology).

A qualification of the above quote: It is likely that in East Asia, the residual element was buddhist after the vedic element had diminished.

no concept of atheism in Hindu civilization

 

@pambashta1980
9 months ago
There was no concept of atheism in Hindu civilization. Naastiks, followers of Charvak philosophy were outcasted and looked down upon. And Charvak is not Hinduism. It's just a philosophical commentry. A faith which entertains atheism is bound to fail at some point of time!
2

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
Exactly. The ancient romans actually had to create some of these new terms like "atheist" to describe the Christians. Also, Christians accused romans of being "atheists" or nonbelievers in their plagiarized Jehovah. Atheism was a category within christianity in the ancient period and was conjured up again during the Enlightenment when Christians contacted heathens in Asia and the New World. Atheism is an extreme form of monotheism.

ADVAITA is not for grihasth ashram but for the SANYAS ashram

 

@iit-jeeadv[...]
6 months ago
 @MrP[...]  ADVAITA is not for grihasth ashram but for the SANYAS ashram AND acharya shankar has formulated rules of it so don;t be coward in the name of spirituality and stop liking boots and gand of abrahimic cancers.

Western origin of atheism - aristotelian rigidity of a single paradigm

@arunjetli7909
23 hours ago
My dad wrote a book called “ ethical philosophies of India” his name is Dr I C Sharma . His book was even a popular text book in USA My PhD is in western philosophy “ the role of the critic and the logic of criticism in Hegel, Bruno Bauer and the Frankfurt School” Purely a study of Phenomenology and Adorno. I finally read my dad’ book after he passed away and felt so guilty that I had never bothered to study indic schools of thought. He had explained to me the nastiest and astir schools Yes the Astic schools believe in tha Vedas , but you are not accurate as in even in astir schools the vedas can be denied, and this is crucial they believe the correctness of vedas not absolutely as the Abrahamics do.. Check my dad’ s book The atheists are basically Abrahamics , the only thing they reject is Abrahamic mythology , not its teachings, not it’s dogmatism , not it’s Aristotelian rigidity of a single paradigm

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
Good to see a real PHD in Philosophy take a certain JNU product/grifter-opportunist/colonial collaborator to task.

There was no such thing as atheism in ancient Bharata. Atheism is a product of the western Enlightenment, a result of secularization of christianity. Indologists/missionaries etc have been falsely projecting it back into ancient Bharata since it much easier to project a generic secularized christianity, than actual localized christianity. For example the term nirishwar refers to nirguna aspect of brahman and has nothing to with atheism. A lot of the evidence for "carvaka" is projection and much of it also colonial fabrication. Recently, this gang also discovered verses against "infidels" in the context of veda ninda in Hindu texts, predictably ascribed to ancient atheists, by citing translations of the missionary scholar Oliveille! It does not even make sense from everything we know about the type of culture/civilization that bharata was.
Nastik referred only to Jaina-s and Bauddha-s. And even this is a later usage referring not so much to anti-vedic but rather to post- or extra- vedic paths where the line of teachers/gurus is given precedence: eg boddhisattvas, buddhas, tirthankaras, etc. Neither of these were against Deities and indeed they both have Devas. They also tend to depict Deities in the form of a teacher or mendicant, changing rupa or bhesha of devas is also found in Sanatan.
In older literature nastika refers to the Aghori sect, as does the term chandala (Bhagavan Shiva as an ascetic with four dogs ie Vedas, implyng Knower of Vedas; Chhanda-la means protected or reared up by Chhandas, just as Shakunta-la refers to raised by birds; here the brits tried to remap the term to outcast tribe, a forerunner of "Dalit" construction by american academics). It is the aghori sect which is also discussed in Srimad Bhagavad Gita, certainly not buddhists or others.
Similarly, Sramana referred originally to Saiva wandering Sadhus as opposed to Brahmanas who were grihastha. We see these sadhus even today. When the carvaka supposedly states, there is no dharma or the like, this is quite obviously a remapping of the aghori's abandoning of vyaktigat dharma. When it supposedly states that there is only this world, this in fact is the hindu position of there being nothing outside the cosmos.
The verse regarding living on borrowed money is quite obvious a BEIC fabrication. Colonizers promote hedonistic views among their subjects to this day.
The earlier usage of nastika was for "extreme" left handed practices by ascetic orders like the aghori and possibly sakta (extreme in terms of accessibility to the grihastha). In both cases, it had nothing to do with atheism which is a western enlightenment product.
Carvaka is a completely fabricated category where the ordinary egoism discussed throught our texts is compelexed into a philosophical belief system. The phenomenological and its experiential transcendance is transformed into an ideological category in the usual monotheist fashion (referred in your post as 'doxa').
The inclusion of carvaka as nastik by Sri Ramanujam in his survey is only to emphasize that enlightenment is possible even among the mundane, which has always been the hindu view eg, Sisupala killed by Shri Vishnu and attaining moksha.
Carvaka also meant a conman in ancient India. A sophist. A contrarian. A degenerate. Something more degenerate than ordinary sansarik folk. Of course the sepoys will start making an ideology and religion out it. It just goes with the colonial trend projecting heinousness onto ancient bharata. It's done using native materials/texts using strained reinterpretation. Just like the distortionist/contortionist Devdutt.
Ajita Kesamkambali, the supposed atheist, is quite ibvioulsy a fabrication with specific refernce to the "hair shirt" worn by medieval christian monks! Just another colonial fabrication!
The Ramayana episode with the supposed carvak is another fabrication/interpolation as widely acknowldged. This just underlines that there was colonial intent in this case of fabrication of the carvaka as a "philosophical school"
The recounts of Makkhali Gosala make it quite clear that his "determinism" was simply a restating of the common hindu sentiment of sabh bhagwan ki dena or iccha hai. It was certainly not atheism.
Hedonism in ancient greece was associated with the dionysian which is for all practical purproses Shaiva-like. This again emphasizes that construction of hedonist philosophical school in ancient greece associated with the Gods was also very likely a monotheist colonial project. Also tied in here is 19th century recycling of greek terms into sociopolitical tracts eg the dionysian, the oedipal.
Brits and their sepoys tried to tamper with vedic traditions. Manu smriti is another such case. We know this happens. In fact they fabricated an ENTIRE false history for us.
@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity".
The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are. At some point this orientalist social discourse also appropriate material methods, likely as a guise. I am not at all convinced on the positivist origins of science. rather it seems an attempt to appropriate material methods, much as "Islamic science" or "Christian science". The primary doamin of postivism is the social, socail engineering, etc.
Cultural marxism is just the latest permutation of enlightenment postivism.
Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this.
The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable.
Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors and trends like Dostoevsky.
There was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata. This itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in colonial anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. To lend it credence as a genuine grouping is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient bharata.
Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka.
Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements which can be useful in colonial discourse and indeed engender such. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar (Chomsky). Even basic term are unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon.
Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where car-bak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler.
Savakar was not atheist. He wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation.
The claim that the Vedas show scepticism is plainly colonial projection. Not knowing is stated in the sense of being the opposite of Knowing, just as the gita discuses both acting and not acting as an attribute of the Stithpragna (or Deity).
This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalists are typologically the same as this gang and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects.
Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritualism, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology.
===============
Refer to:
[For more on atheism: At the Modern origins of Modern Atheism: Father Michael J Buckley.
Christians were called atheists, Even though they believe in Lord God. For more:
Porphyry among the Early Christians, In Romanitas et Christianitas, by Grant R.M., 1973.
Pagan criticism of Christianity during the first 2 centuries A.D., In Aufsteig and Niedergang der Rominschen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neuren Forscgung, pp1055-1118., by Benko Stephen, 1980.
Pagan Rome and the Early Christians: Batsford Ltd, London, by Benko Stephen.
Recent Book on Christian understanding Roman pagans:
Literature and Religion at Rome : Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs by Denis Feeney. In this book, the author argues that then pagans never had belief system, even though they held beliefs.]

Zoroastrianism is nonrevelatory

The Indian Origin Of Zoroastrianism & The Parsees | #AskAbhijit E15Q11 | Abhijit Chavda 

@darkprince2490
2 years ago (edited)
This idea that Zoroastrianism is monotheist/revelatory is a colonial Indological fantasy - it traces to the instance in the Bible where "Daniel" secures the obeisance of the Persian King to the monotheist "God". That is typical colonial monotheist history falsification (foreshadowing / predestination / "prophecy") and divide and rule tactics. Asura is, in fact, a name for Vedic Deities in the Veda - it is not used often but important nonetheless. Plus,there is no basis for stating that there was religious conflict between Zoroastrianism and Vedics. It was just fighting between kingdoms as we usually see. It's common to see alternate heroes taken up in Hinduism. There are, for example, temples to Duryodhana and Ravana. Even entire lexicons can be interchanged: Vaishnavas refer to Lord Vishnu as Supreme while Shaivas refer to Lord Shiva as Supreme. Each has their Sahasranama, many of which overlap. Lord Shiva is shown at the feet of Kali. All these "conflicts" are usually taken in the vein of Lila. Same applied to "Zoroastrianism". Hinduism is deep enough and varied enough and ancient enough that this is to be expected and entirely normal.
By default, we should always expect colonial mischief-making and projection in these situations

@aparn[...]
2 years ago
I agree all these separate religion can be easily categorised under an common umbrella Hinduism.
2
@anant[...]
2 years ago
Exact

@darkprince2490
2 years ago
​ @sid7161  You are just projecting the same colonial narrative that has infested itself in every "reading" of Hinduism. How can Zoroaster be against ritual when he uses the Vedic Fire ritual. How can be against the right shouldered Hindu thread when he uses a shawl in the same manner . It is just local variation in custom, which the Colonialists have predictably infused with ideological intent. There are many idols of Zoroastrian Deities including those of Goddesses such as Anahita, so again there is no anti idolatry. By such twisted logic even Hinduism is anti idolatry since the Vedic Yagna is central to much worship.
No one is falling for this colonial mischief making,

@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
Supreme God of Zoroastrianism i.e. Ahura Mazda is none but Lord Vishnu lol.
32
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
Probably it was Varuna
2
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago (edited)
 @gouravdey497  Varuna on a Bird...with a chakra ?? That too called as the "Wise Lord" ??
12
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 Badass guy  Yes .
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
 @shakyajitmaulik5579  Varuna is known in RV as an Asura, And moreover Mithra is an attendant of Ahura Mazda, And in RV both Mitra-varuna pair is found.
1
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @gouravdey497  But the depiction is nowhere close. Varuna has got nothing to do with Vishnu.
And infact...Vishnu is mentioned along with  Mitra in Rig Ved 1.156.1(bhavā mitro na śevyo ghṛtāsutirvibhūtadyumna evayā u saprathāḥ).
Also Vishnu and Varuna are being hailed together(or Vishnu is hailed as Varuna) in Atharva Veda 7.25.
5
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @darkprince2490  Who ?

@darkprince2490
2 years ago
​ @shakyajitmaulik5579  it was a compliment for you. The truth is always striking in its simplicity. You just reversed a few centuries of western indological dogma with one line of striking commentary.
Everything makes sense now. In India, the "reform" of Zoroaster would correspond to the rise of Vishnu, eg of Lord Krishna over Indra. That is, at least in popular perception since Lord Vishnu was indeed celebrated in the Vedas since early times.
There is also the mural of Lord Rama and Hanuman in Silemania, Iraq. And of course dozens of other correspondences between Persia/Mideast and ancient hinduism.

@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago (edited)
 @darkprince2490  Oh thanks
Actually there was never dominance of Indra over Vishnu. Infact Indra in vedas often refers to Vishnu only.
For eg...
"Indra art thou, Mahendra thou, thou art the world, the Lord of Life. To thee is sacrifice performed: worshippers offer gifts to thee. Manifold are thy great deeds, thine, O Vishnu." (Atharva Veda 17.1.18)
Here Vishnu is directly called as Indra and Mahendra.

Again...throughout RigVed we see that Indra is called the Lord of Maruts...whom they follow.
But suddenly we see this....

"To Viṣṇu, to the Mighty whom the Maruts follow let your hymns born in song go forth, Evayamarut" (Rig Ved 5.87.1)
4
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @darkprince2490  Vishnu was never a minor deity in Vedas. The greeks favoured Indra more bcoz of his association with soma...and greeks loved every drinkable lol .
So they made Indra specifically famous.
Infact India got its name from Indra.
That Hindu to India with removal of "H" and adding "ia" at end is straight up illogical bullshit.
5
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
 @shakyajitmaulik5579  first of all the context of vishnu in Vedas is slightly doubtful, Vishnu also represent a solar deity in RV.

The supreme god Vishnu probably the Purusha of Vedas

Even Varuna is one of the 101  names of Ahura Mazda
1
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @gouravdey497  Believe me brother...Vishnu is NOWHERE  a solar deity. How will he be the sun ??
As per Rv 7.99.4 He is the Father of Agni and Sun.
Just like Purusha is called father of Agni and Sun.
Here itself Vishnu is proved to be Veda Purusha.
Again....I've seen repeated claims by ppl that Vishnu in vedas is an aditya....but...Where has he been called an aditya ??
Not even a single veda out of 4 calls him aditya.
Infact...rig veda 1.156.2 calls him to be the "ancient and the last"...the uncreated creator.
Why should the vedas call him aditya ??
After all...the Goddess Aditi is called Vishnu Patni in Yajur veda.
In Taiitiriya Aranyaka Aditi is called as the Mother of all beings(gods humans gandharvas asuras..all)...so as she is VishnuPatni...Vishnu automatically becomes the Father of All.

positivism as an earlier stage of marxism

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
You are describing western positivism which is the older version of current cultural marxism. It is basically a "modernist" death cult that pictures humans as automatons ie, to re-fit neatly into the colonial system [1]. Christian muslim ummahs were older versions of this same death cult sentiment. Humans are not robots. Only weak minded people like these indian modernists fall for this kind of stuff.
Nastika referred to Jains and Buddhist, the left handed paths. It did not refer to atheists who are a product of the western enlightenment. "Carvakas" were fabricated by missionary/indologists much like they fabricated "aryans"[2].

 

[1] broken down according to "rational" factors or "traits" for reorganization.  Eastern ethny formation happens along the lines of a relational while western ethny formation happens along the lines of a static factor like color, language, etc. The latter are static entities and noninteractive in an essential sense except as determined or regulated by one of the three normative ethical theories; the moral is only accessible in western culture in terms of these artificially constructed theories ie, in terms of artifice.
[2]  earlier Aryans were fabricated as an extension of an aggrandizing trait (Nietezchean overman, reflective of a larger Nietzschean tribe/people). Here carvakas are fabricated as an extension of the rational trait, a construction of the European enlightenment.

Nastika as left handed paths (not atheism) of approach to devas.

As stated below, the term Nastika referred to left handed methods, commonly associated with Tantra. It did not and does not refer to atheism which is a local western phenomenon, an ideological phenomenon tied to christianity. It is likely that Nastika referred originally to rather extreme ascetic practices like Aghori which were not considered unnecessary for the grihastha (4 varnas). The term abstract below should be understood in the sense of experiential since the Devas are definitely central to the Astika Darshanas.

The Bauddha and Jaina traditions also fall under the ambit of nastika, concentrating and delving on certain aspects of the Astika, namely Karuna and Ahimsa (respectively). While Carvaka is a colonial fabrication and a back-projection by colonial interests intent on furthering an hedonistic iconoclastic worldview in order to abate the native resistance.

Can a person be nāstika and still have a dharma?
Ranjiv Kurup

Author of The History and Philosophy of the Hindu2y

So you’re confused about what nastika means?

That’s not surprising, as many Hindu too don’t understand its real meaning and think nastika means “atheism” and dharma is “religion”. Both are wrong.

The term derives from the root “asti”, which mean “bones”, the “skeleton”, or preferably, the “scaffolding” of knowledge on which the Hindu darshana are based. Skeleton is of course from knowledge of the construct of the human body, because you cannot see the skeleton (at least not normally), as it is fleshed out and then covered by skin. Does it make sense?

So astika is the abstract science or scaffolding, the shruti used to construct the knowledge traditions, which is then fleshed out with smriti folklore, itihasa, the shastras and so on. The key word here is that it is “abstract knowledge or science” and there is a process of validating abstract knowledge, the subject of nyaya/vaisheshika, mimamsa, yoga/samkhya et al.

Therefore, na-astika implies that it “does not use abstract science” to construct the darshana, even though the master/teacher knows the abstract science. The objective of nastika philosophy is the same as the Agama Tantra philosophy, which is to bring abstract knowledge of the Veda to the common citizens who are not trained in the Veda/Purana - the foundations and scaffolding of the philosophy.

There will be some bastards who take “nastika” to mean a “rejection of the Veda”, which is just as good as killing the Guru/Maharshi who brought the darshana to you. If the Guru does not understand the purpose foundation/scaffolding used to construct the building, how can they build any darshana?

Astika darshana go to the spiritual roots of dharma, which is an abstract. So how do the nastika darshana overcome the problem of not confusing people that are not trained?

By prescription! So nastika darshana will, instead of merely teaching principles, will enumerate how you can seek the divine using some simple practices, each of which can be defined as a sequence of steps.

So whether you adopt the astika or nastika darshana, you will, through training or through prescribed practices, be dharmic.

Astika traditions are for the master builders of Indian traditions, and Nastika traditions are for those who just want a house to live in.

No atheism in ancient Bharata - 2

There was no such thing as atheism in ancient Bharata. atheism is a product of the western Enlightenment, a result of secularization of christianity. Indologists/missionaries etc have been falsely projecting it back into ancient Bharata since it much easier to project a generic secularized christianity, than actual christianity. For example the term nirishwar refers to nirguna aspect of brahman - it has nothing to with atheism. A lot of the evidence for "carvaka" is projection and much of it also colonial fabrication. Recently, these guys also discovered verses against infidels in Hindu texts! It does not even make sense from everything we know about the type of culture/civilization that bharata was.  

Carvaka meant a conman in ancient India. A sophist. A contrarian. A degenerate. Something more degenerate than ordinary sansarik folk. leave it to sepoys to start making an ideology and religion out of that. It just goes with the colonial trend projecting heinousness onto ancient bharata. It's done using native materials/texts using strained reinterpretation. Just like the distortionist/contortionist Devdutt.  

Nastika only referred to Jain and buddhist who are para vedic, not anti vedic. They both have Devas,  But  they give more prominence to their Tirthankaras and Buddhas/Boddhisattvas. In older literature nastika refers to the Aghori sect[1], as does the term chandala. It is the aghori sect which is discussed in Srimad Bhagvad Gita. Sraman referred originally to Saiva wandering Sadhus as opposed to Brahmanas who were grihastha. We see these sadhus even today. 

Ajita Kesamkambali, the supposed atheist, refers to the "hair shirt" worn by medieval christian monks! Another fabrication! The Ramayana episode with the supposed carvak is another fabrication.

Brits and their sepoys tried to tamper with vedic traditions. Manu smriti is another such case. We know this happens. In fact they fabricated an ENTIRE false history for us. 

The truth is that nothing survives of carvaka because it was never a real school or teaching, etc. We have plenty of jain and buddhist texts. they need to posit "brahmin conspiracy" to explain everything away - a clear indication of the colonial/monotheist origin. Same applies to the contention that ancient india was a hotbed of anti-ritual and anti-idolatry "revolutionary activity". 

The entire "rational" vs "irrational" dichotomy emerged in Enlightenment Europe as a part of orientalist colonial discourse. The natives are deemed as irrational, needing to be saved and liberated by the colonizer. In this colonial discourse, the native is irrational just like women supposedly are.

Carvaka was just a description of certain tendencies in ancient people. It was not demagoguery, much more like psychopathy. Leave it to Indians to fall for a fabricated belief system out of this. 

The book was reviewed by someone on social media. it was unfavorable.

Most of the stuff being bandied around here as carvaka is just repackaged J Peterson and other fringe american political opinions. Even Westerners are not fully onboard the westerm cult of rationalism, as indicated by authors like Dostoevsky.

there was no category of religion or even ideology in ancient Bharata - that itself indicates that this entire thesis is just another exercise in anachronism. The "carvakas" are colonially constructed much like the "aryans" are constructed, as bringers of logic and civilization. It is like saying there was race of fools and buffoons in ancient india. 

Look at how a conman can be described - he uses deductive (or specious) logic and denies that he is using inference! Same as the carvaka. 

Logic is not a property of persons. It is a property of normative linguistic statements useful in colonial discourse. Mathematical logic is another animal altogether, different than social language. There is in fact no singular logic reflected by the fact that is no universal grammar. Even the term "No" is unknown in certain cultures. In psychological systems, there is a category for subjective logic, with objective logic simply being a subjective logic mutually agreed upon.

Car-bak literally means "sweet talker" ie a deceptive person, a "smooth operator" or swindler. The Hindi term 'achaar' referring to pickles (ie "not sweet") is of the same derivation! In traditional texts where carbak is used, it refers to this connotation of fool/buffoon/criminal/swindler.
Savakar was not atheist - he wrote poems to the goddesses in his own blood. neither was bhagat singh- his book on the subject is a forgery with no known manuscript, unlike his other writings. Just speaks to the fact that these atheists are acting like typical monotheists, trying to politically subvert and tamper with the culture and timeline. Both monotheists and atheists also try to coopt native terms for themselves. Inculturation. Cultural appropriation. 

This entire indian atheist gang is bad faith and unscrupulous and disingenuous. And they are widely known to be deracinated (their atheism is a consequence of their deracination). DMK rationalist are the same as these guys and DMK is known to be of colonial genesis. Pseudointellects.

Lastly, the development of atheism in the west started since the enlightenment and can be traced in minute detail as an outgrowth of christianity. Indian atheists are just a branch of the same. This ideology comes prepackaged with a bunch of plainly christian tropes: anti-ritual, anti-idolatry, anti-"priest", pro-colonial history, and millenarian pretensions to "reorganize society". all this signifies its cohesion as an ideology.

==============================================

[1] When the carvaka supposedly states, there is no dharma or the like, this is quite obviously a remapping of the aghori's abandoning of vyaktigat dharma.

By now it is quite clear that Elst is responsible for importing vast quantities of low grade quasi-fascist/western conservative "ideas" into hindutva. In the below sample, he little realizes that the positivism/empiricism/IE studies he swears by is just an earlier variant of cultural marxism. His supposed hippie past is also in doubt - there is no idealistic strand in him. A vulgarian to the core, rationalized as "rational atheism".

He is also ironically responsible for the fanatical AIT-believing sect among the "RW".

===============================================================================

@gaur[..]
11 days ago
​ @cryptonash16  Sapta Sindhu is Punjab and Haryana Region not whole India.. Haryana And some part of Rajasthan is Brahmvart, where vedas were written. And Aryavart is more older than Name Bharat..
1
@crypt[..]
7 days ago
 @gauravsharma_7  but that is just North West India.. How about North East, East and South??? The name India/ Sindhu or Jambudvipa is good enough to represent whole India.

@darkprince2490
20 minutes ago (edited)
​ @gauravsharma_7  it is literally ridiculous to confine vedas to some local tract - they had full sway over the entire course of bharata. A bandhu sitting in TN today is not any more distant to ganga in terms of mind space than some "local". same was even more true in the past. Also, westerners have falsely applied the logic of western empires to Bharata - they need some political unity for "influence" to spread. this was not the case among the heathens like us. Their empire based influence is a translation of the imperial nature of monotheism, and reflects even deeper division along the lines of tribes vs hostile outsider heathens. Our organizing was completely different. Elst is a fraud - the positivism he swears by is an earlier version of cultural marxism. At some point it colonized the hard sciences so it appears to be something different than what it truly is... its core is a colonial orientalist enlightenment discourse that fed into both mills' history of india and the eugenist race science of IE. Our tradition was much richer in lived reality than some formalized texts. we are only seeing a small snapshot of that diversity. Elst's method requires that diversity get generated via corruption of an original text with meaning. this does not apply to bharata where diversity of traditions was not ideologically generated, ,and their meaning was always multivariate from the git go.

===============================================================================

@vedritvik
5 months ago
 @Shiva-zj6od  No. Terms like "तुर्वशे यदौ" like in Ric 8.45.27 translated "Yadu-Turvasu tribe" by western "scholars" does not mean so most of the time because they did not care to study Nirukta (very important for understanding Vedic Sanskrit words) and they translated literally while Vedas are supposed to be understood in context or you will get stupid translations such as in Purusha sukta where they consider the creator Purusha's limbs when Ishvara has no body like us, Ishvara is VYAPTA-everywhere. Yadu/Yado in general means man/simple man / enemy who obstructs some work / adharmi / etc as per different scenarios in Vedic Sanskrit. The word comes from dhaatu (root) "yat" (yat+u = yatu = yadu) that could mean anything from to distress, beat, order, collect, work, prevent, remove, return, barter, purify, etc., hence CONTEXT MATTERS. Please do not be fooled by western translators, my friend. Bharatiyas who translated Vedas do not call them "translations", but "commentary". Vedas are words of knowledge gifted by Parameshvara to us.
 

@darkprince2490
10 months ago
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  so, according to you, JSD is a casteist and racist both!
It's like an abrahamist accusing indians of "heathenry" though the concept is only found in the bible and makes sense only there!
12
@subramaniamarunachalam130
10 months ago
 @darkprince2490  one of jsd's complaints in this speech: "the caste system was destroyed when the British brought abt an employment system based on qualifications". He whines abt it like it's a bad thing  what does that mean? That he wants a birth based employment system. Maybe you should actually pay attention to the actual things he says than blindly applauding all his nonsense
5

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  You're just fabricating allegations. No, JSD does not want a "birth based employment system". And, no, he is not talking about every tom dick and harry "job" out there. He is talking here about preservation of veda which has been the province of pathashalas and barring that within families themselves. Even your blue eyed boy Amreeka celebrates "family businesses" to no end. JSD is concerned with the preservation of India's culture which is essential to ensure foreign imperialism never strikes this land again. I'm sure that will dissapoint a faithful sepoy like you.
What JSD says in this video is that Indians/hindus had to resort to getting jobs in the colonial sepoy beuracracy after the native industries had been destroyed. Western authors say the same thing and India is not the only place this happened. There were no such thing as "jobs" prior to the rise of "professional classes" in conjunction with Europe's looting/criminal network that it deployed throughout the world. Even still, in Mahabharata, the pandavas take positions as various types of workers, including as an advisor to a king. Academics have identified a military market operating in Maratha times. So, your understanding of Indian social structure is woefully inadequate and you just conflate the slave/serf feudal system operative in Europe for millennia in which the church owned all land/"peasants" with that of Bharata. In europe, the nobility were opportunistic collaborators with the church until they struck out on their own with Anglicanism.
It is actually from the internalized monotheist attitudes (master/slave, believer/nonbeliever dichotomy) of this sepoy collaborator class that any identifiable casteist and racist attitudes seeped into Bharatiya society (with these attitudes anachronistically mapped onto varnas). For example, who promotes racialist theories like AIT in indian society? Answer: the secularists, a colonial collaborator class. Mughals also had such a collaborator system called Mansabdari system in which collaborators aped muslim manners against unbelievers. Casta is a portuguese term. And racism is well known for its origin in the west as an extension of Christian enslavement of nonwhites. These "snitchy" and dystopian collaborator systems are necessarily hierarchical, being copies of the European/Churcjh feudal system, but they are very different than social system in Bharata. No varna ruled over another in Bharata, even the kings were bound by dharma. And none interfered in the cultural practices of another - the heathens were known for their cultural tolerance.
The dysfunctional, dystopian, and paranoid dynamics of an overgrown church bureaucracy (which is what western monotheist "society" is), where diktat and fatwa rule the roost, is not the same as a natural heathen society where tradition, dharma, rta are guarded and prized. Two completely different beasts.
At any rate it is a fallacy to think of a varna as monolithic entity - the kshatriya did not conspire about brahmins and vaishya. Kshatriyas fought against other kshatriyas. Similarly Brahmins were no self-interest group. To conceive of them as such requires attributing to them biblical levels of conspiratorial thinking, more rooted in atrocity literature than reality. Sharm kar be itna behuda mat ban.
JSD sometimes uses western terms so he may have said "caste system" in some off-hand way, but he usually distinguishes feudal caste slave/serf system of Europe/mideast from jati varna of Bharata. Jati is ethnicity, which necessarily exists in every culture. Jati (from gyati=knwledge) itself is a term implying a guild and not necessarily "birth". Rama and the ferryman were of the same jati (Rama as ferryman) and so the ferryman did not charge Rama anything. Even today, such professional courtesy is shown in bharata. Varna is a theoretical term to understand various levels of duty in a Dharmik society. Still, the real ethnic marker in ancient Bharata was gotra which was actually shared between across varnas.
if you want to say that spirituality was monopolized by the Brahmins, then even that is wrong, because all ties are renounced in the various renunciate orders.
I suggest you take a look at the statement by jitendra tyagi, who left cult islam, where he states that there was no individual-level animosity between neighbors before arrival of monotheists in this land - yes kings fought each other but there was no nafrat at the public level. This nafrat is a consequence of the believers, where the early christians refused civic participation in preference to their own ideological company. Similarly, no identity politics in ancient Bharata.
You need a master class in decolonization from JSD.
You will always flounder if you lack a basic understanding of the differences between a monotheist "society" (church hierarchy writ large across a society it conquers or "harvests", exploits) and a heathen society (unstructured by edict, but whose dynamics can be interrogated via the conceptualization of varna). 

================================================================

@darkprince2490
10 months ago (edited)
This is venturing into the deep end but still, it is a learning point..
There are actually hundreds if not thousands of faceless hindu intellectuals going back more than two decades on whose backs both these two giants stand. Due to temperamental differences, JSD acknowledges their contribution while RM does not. And it is this difference in mindset that leads to friction between the two. RM has tried to confront JSD on some supposed gaffes. And JSD irked by these continuous minor interrogations finally called it quits with RM. Likely the temperamental differences are based partially on their different origins, RM is poor vaishya background with american corporate influence who always "takes credit" for "his work", while JSD is poor brahmin background. As said of the brahmin, their words may be sharp but their hearts are sympathetic. Likely, RM saw some of "his" points reflected in JSD's speeches and lashed out passive aggressively. And it bulit up to a rift.
RM has swung much further towards JSD's position as the years have gone by. For example, he used to actually be against focusing on AIT, which he said detracted from more important issues. He also attacked mathams directly by calling them "moron swamis" perhaps little acknowledging their historical constraints. In Hindu society, it is the mathams that "empower" or protect society by their sadhana while it is the duty of society at large to provide a safe place for the mathams. (For example, the sister protects the brother with raksha bandhan, or the priest protects the king or sponsor of the yagna with the tying of Kalawa). That is, it's not really the Matham's role to fight foreign invaders and their ideologies (The intelligentsia class was actually kshatriya in ancient bharata). Subconsciously, RM may be chancing upon this dynamic with his term "intellectual kshatriya" (which he applies to himself). Side point: in the shastra, the kshatriya has soft words but a hard heart. From the example of RM, we can say the vaishya (vast majority of hindus as husbandmen and artisans with a small "trader" offshoot) have hard words and a hard heart.
Thus, RM's shoot from the hip style ("moron swamis") also irks JSD.
JSD himself has been moving to his current position - for example, he used to believe that caste discrimination was hindu in origin, while he now correctly acknowledges the colonial origin of both caste/casta and caste discrimination attitude (the believer/nonbeliever distinction of monotheism when applied to a colonial collaborationist setting/bureaucracy morphs into what we recognize as casteist attitude which is related by type to the disdain the monotheist has for the nonbeliever; while hierarchical and static castes themselves have never existed in india and have been inappropriately and anachronistically conflated with both jati ethnicity and native ritualistically enacted theorization on the varna-s). (Here RM was much ahead of JSD - he did the initial work on Risley).
RM's critique of monotheism is based on its history-centrism (ie, the reinforcing conflation between the two monotheist concepts of manifest destiny/"progress"/fate and singular historical factuality/"truth" eg, Jesus is the son of god), and within this are based his exposes of cultural appropriation, inculturation, control of the narrative, and institutional abuse of power. While JSD's conceptual framework is broader and more generic, based on a conceptualization of the monotheist self as unilateralist while the heathen self is relational. Using this more basic conception, taken from Ghent, JSD can derive much of RM's work and go deeper eg, into monotheist alienation and monotheist "moralizing ethics" derived from a self-asserting/intentionalist "moral self" or "believing self" utterly alienated from its surrounds, from nature. From this position, JSD can also derive the whole gamut of historical monotheist colonial/political interventions. Interestingly Ghent and RM also had a rift.
That said It's not important to concentrate on the differences between the two. They are both stellar and on the same side, unlike many other pretenders/western collaborators masquerading as "rightist intellectuals" who are actually among our enemies.

M Shas[...] ​​Rwandian ethnic identity itself was introduced by the Belgians.

M Shas[...] Mahmood Mamdani states that the Belgian colonial power designated people as Tutsi or Hutu on the basis of cattle ownership, physical measurements and church records.

@sha[...]
2 months ago
Could the rise of communism in kerala and Bengal have some correlation to the stinking rich Brahmin-landlords in this region? Majority had no ownership of land.They only had the right to work and no right whatsoever for wages.
In China the communism dove toes with their culture and national interests.But in India the communists have always postures against national interests.This needs a clarification.Otherwise the right may not seem to be as right as is being debated.Communisms relevance needs to be put in the right place.
8
@anan[...]
2 months ago
In Kerala Brahmins were.not the only landlords. And tenants were sometimes very rich and often well off. (Not the peasant tillers). While five to ten percent were wealthy, the majority of Brahmin  "landlords" earned humble lease rents say 500 to 1000 kg of raw paddy per annum with which they had to meet their expenses and obligations.
6
@[...]halGucci
2 months ago
Marxist in WB reaped the benefit from millions of migrants who came from East Pakistan. The narrative of Brahmin landowners in Bengal is a gross generalisation, Bengali Brahmins dominated in education but Bengal had landowners from all varnas including sudra varna.Again, Bengal is fertile and food was plenty and had ancient communities that had flourishing rural industries in textile, pottery, handicrafts,which disappeared under the British Raj. Bengal endured man-made famine too under the British , something that was unheard of before the coming of the British. The landless ,homeless migrants of Partition, and the body of Mohammedans who stayed back, and those that have continued to come in and taken over lands forcibly with the help of Jyoti Basu's government gave the Marxist their stronghold over WB politics.
3

@darkprince2490
2 months ago (edited)
"Majority had no ownership of land" is because the land cannot be owned in heathen systems - just as stated by Chief Seattle halfway across the world. The Deity or king had marginal title and grants were made directly to the village level for land worked communally. To even think of selling land was inconceivable to the ancient indian, so aggregation would have been impossible. The native state cess was always marginal, while the colonial cess was extractive. The brahmins you speak of were displaced colonial collaborators feeding into the brit jamindari (colonial reward) system that itself was a copy of the earlier mughal/nawabi mansabdari system (also, imperfectly, copied by rajputs). Later even the native middleman was removed under ryotwari, and the propaganda campaign that accompanied that was the early communist agitation. The communist served the aggregation purposes of the colonial state and later the nehruvian state, blaming the native for disposession and poverty brought about by the colonials. these days they serve western corporates. both the caricature and reality of Sethji are colonial in origin. In ancient bharata, the vaishya or cultivator had traditional rights to the land.
it is like coming across the early brahmin dominated military companies in EIC and ignoring the collaboration and foreign company aspect and talking brahmin soldiers subjugating the population! 

 
@aru[...]
2 months ago
Yes communism has done the dirty work the west and Islam .sai you must study Marx’s manuscripts of 1844 to understand some of his spirit.I am not a Marxist although I did my PhD from the American University in philosophy I studied The Frankfurt Scool .
Not just Abrahamic, but Aristotelian as well This is my critique of you and Malhotra , You let The entire Aristotelian philosophy stay intact , and Aristotelian rejection of inductive logic in favor of Doxa is the basis of western exclusivism and it is bolstered by Abrahamic religions because it has the backing of Aristotle and thus the entire corpus of western philosophy

@darkprince2490
2 months ago (edited)
JSD is only concerned with the enlightenment and after in his book. He takes Kant/deontology to task and indirectly implicates Mill's utilitarianism via an excerpt on British bureaucracy and caste. Can these two ethical systems be derived from aristotle's character/virtue ethics? Confomity to a (moral/"rational") standard or set of standards?  While ideological partisans argue as to which is "correct" or "best", an outsider heathen can see the two acting in concert in the colonial project to sterilize the natural and natural cultural worlds.
From Kant there is a clear line to the Nietzschean and from Mills to the Marxist. Both of which together make up the modern. JSD lays bare the modern and rationalism as a variation of religion. It may start getting too complicated for activism purposes to implicate aristotle since aristotle is nominally pagan.

@aru[...]
2 months ago
 @darkprince2490  I will have to read him before I can reply , but thanks for introducing this to me.
My issue was that we in India are still within the Aristotelian paradigm which is the basis of Abrahamic thought , thus getting into epistemology is important Indic epistemology has a window into inductive reading through pramana shastra, the west has no such theme, but induction is introduced through science alone and thus religion and science are bifurcated ? There is no such fissure I. Indic thought , including the Eastern Chineses thought systems as well It  is interesting that Soviet Marxism failed because abuse it was unable to adapt to the changing conditions, and did not rely on accepting failure as a springboard to success. Thus ehen they had problems they went looking for answers in Marx Lenin or Plekhanov , not in real life, as they were indoctrinated by their Christian framework The The Chinese  being  practical went for practical solutions and succeeded. China needs to totally abandon collectivism , but they are in the right track. Yes they want to be  imperialists like Europe but I think in time they too will realize their roots and go a different way Very interesting .The attack needs to be on ontology and epistemology

Dharmic warrior
@Kashsoldier
"learned through media" looks like  you did. Charvaka was a fake metaphysics created by colonialists to promote hedonism, greed and gluttony so that then Indians focused more on Kam rather than Karma. Since it is mentioned in some books do not mean it is part of the tradition.

In other words, you have to logically and experientially validate them by having correct understanding of Vedic metaphysics. There are just 3 main metaphysics. Sankhya = Advaitha + Dvaitha. They don't contradict each other. Advaitha and Dvaitha are INCOMPLETE without each other.

 

 

the indologist as an expert in forcefitting ie, "empiricist"

Two different respondents noted the incongruity between Elst's transformation of Karma into "Just world theory" versus[a] the traditional understanding:

@yoge[...]
1 day ago
Very myopic view of things. 1:06:02  For eg: reward & punishment are a human personification. The existence of Dharma doesn't make The universe 'Just' in the sense of righteousness. The universe is 'Just' in the sense of cause & effect, everything will bear the consequences of its actions/choices, period. Good/bad actions are man-made personifications.

@rohi[...]
1 day ago
Karma is just consequence
It does not have moral value attached to it

My response noted that Elst's moralization of Karma situates karma in a normative framework that imparts colonial value to Karma; The flow of Karma is implicitly moral, but is not used as point of colonial harangue by Jivas[b] (in contrast to western normative "just world theories" deriving from the similar/approximate christian "just war" theories and "God is just" deontological theories/theologies). My response was as follows:

@darkprince2490
3 minutes ago (edited)
One instance. When ISKCON founder Prabhupada was pruriently asked about morality by westerners, he responded that the dharma was not about morality - morality is a trifle concern; that is, right conduct is taken as a given in Dharma and built-in. It does not require a separate theory, which is only needed in course of social engineering, which is of course the primary concern of the west and its abrahamism.

Morality emerges or rather is implicit in Dharma. 

Elst's entire talk here about "just world theory" is just another case of "thopna" of christian derived theology/theory (in this case specifically, christian utopia) into our Dharma. Of course, Elst, always soldiering on, will respond there is nothing particularly christian about a "just world" - but he is just ignoring the historical development from christianity to Enlightenment.

It is [only] in response to Elst's exercise in anachronistic theological force-fitting that we as heathens need to resort to such concepts as "personification" and "man-made", diabolical invention, etc.[c]

[a] Note that it is Elst who through his colonial reinterpretation of Karma induces an Aristotelian dichotomi-zation/dialectic-ization when the native necessarily responds to his mischaracterization. The native response impinges upon abrahamist catagories like symbolism, personification, amorality (utiltarianism; utilitarian normative ethics), and so on. The discourse is pulled in the direction of Abrahamization and can possibly serve as an inoculum for abrahamization, at least in "academic" (western) discourse about Hindu"ism". Karma gets transformed into an ideology. Another case of this is where Karma and other native categories are interpreted in social darwinist colors by some deracinated types. Note that the two Hindu responders to Elst incorporated both intentionalist (agent-intensive; nearly synonymous with the deontological (moral) duty that requires a primary agent) and utilitarian (agent-free; situational ethics that structure agent response) elements in their responses. Elst's initiation of the Aristotelian dialectic as he appropriates heathen elements into his discourse also reflects the historically colonial nature of Aristotelian discourse/ethics that either fed into or was appropriated and transformed by colonizing monotheism. We see here another path for creation of "moral cretins" (SNB) out of Hindus: their traditional ways of going about are divested of morality by incorporation into a foreign utilitarian framework or conversely made ideological by incorporation into a foreign deontological framework.
[b] The jiva is thus quite different from an agent/soul that carries/evinces ideology/belief as seen in abrahamism.
[c] Note that the heathen response incorporates monotheist categories of the Devil's invention/creativity. Elst incorporates karma into Just world doctrine (theorizing/theologizing) and then the heathen response gets structured by aristotlian dialectic; thus, a colonial dialectical discourse about karma gets initiated. Also reflected here is the appropriationist and corrupting nature of western empirics that posits explanations/theories claiming to describe the devilish or diabolical inventiveness of the natural heathen world. Thus positivism has both millenarian (social engineering) elements and explanatory (discursive) elements, and these are complementary and essential in the framework of positivism/empiricism. Aristotle both authored works on ethics and rhetorics, recalling their identity/unity in western (colonial) practice.

Reference: Sangam Talks video titled "Bhartiya Chaturashram: Historicity And Extrapolation" by Koenraad Elst" published on April 20, 2024

No atheism in ancient bharata

[Poster 1]
[..]I am a Hindu atheist, a follower of Charvaka. Charvaka, also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient school of Indian materialism. It is considered as one example of the atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism.

[Poster 2]
I don't personally like chavakas they are pure mock-whom-you-don't-like people..
Moreover theres a flaw in it

It’s pretty clear there was no school called carvaka - the term was just used to denote egoists in general without denoting any associated “philosophy”. It certainly was not atheism which is an Enlightenment extension of monotheism wherein God itself is devoured by monotheist-like iconoclasts. Ancient Hindus were not belief-centric; therefore, there was neither monotheism nor atheism in ancient bharata. Technically the term carvakas refers to sophist or “sweet talkers”.

There has been a concerted effort by missionaries/indologists and modernized deracinated indians influenced by western nihilism (usually propounded as part of the american project) to project atheism or unbelief onto ancient hindu texts using stray and incidental terms. This is a theological necessity for western religion - to find analogues to the monotheists/believers who not only had corrupted religion (hindus) but were never “contacted” or revealed to in the first place. Atheism or char-bak in ancient bharata is all modernist projection and strawman making.

The language of these modern indian “atheists” such as “rejecting rituals” betrays their dependence on monotheism.

For most ordinary current day indians identifying as “carvaka” under cultural influence, it is better stated that they are nonpracticing hindus.

That the “carvaka” denied even samsara signifies that they were just contrarians, better understood psychologically than philosophically. when they supposedly state there is only this world, they are stating the hindu reality that nothing exists outside this universe. These have all been twisted by colonial minded westernized thinkers to signify atheism - eager to find their ideological kin in ancient texts. Some of the verses used to support carvaka have been quite obviously fabricated while others are misinterpreted: eg, nirishwar refers to nirguna, the formless Deity.

Feyerabend completely exposed “rationalism” - it is just ordinary problem solving which certainly existed before modernity, as did technology. Interestingly, we also see the “rational” posited against the trope of the “irrational” native in orientalist literature - mimicking earlier monotheist invective against the heathen.

The oft cited verse in veda: “or perhaps He knows not” certainly is not skepticism - opposites are often cited in connection with Purusha: Thus Shree Krishna both acts and does not act.[a]

That nothing survives of the carvaka in text form also signifies their nonexistence as a school. Not that it was lost. We have plenty from the nastika jains and bauddhas. The fact that the “cunning brahmin priest” who erased the carvaka school gets invoked here again shows the dependence of this entire argument on protestant narrative (just like the “denying meaningless ritual”).

Nastika signifies post vedic or who follow other rites/traditions than vedic. Originally the three terms nastika (skull bearing), ajvika, and sraman all signified the ascetic saivaite orders including aghori who were distinguished from brahmins. These, again, had nothing to do with atheism.

In china, they “discovered’ communism in ancient china. Similarly, in india, missionary-allied DMK thinkers discovered atheism in ancient india! Likely this was a part of the project to falsely portray early monotheist christianity in india - a theological necessity as well as a contrivance to make indigenization of christianity less obviously problematic: see, ancient india was full of “deniers”

 

[a] not knowing in heathen ontology is an action, not a statement of belief, a manifesto, a declaration, a profession of belief, etc as seen in abrahamist ontology. 

================================================

it's important to remember that there is no such thing as school of carvaka - no writing is known of it, no school has been extant in any historical period or even before, and there is certainly no continuity with the same up to today. It was just a foil category denoting conman or fool or contrarian or sophist (car-vak literally means sweet talker) in hindu texts. Just as vatsayana did not endorse debauchery in kama sutra - he was just merely chronicling some of the ways of the world - just so, no hindu acharya has ever endorsed "carvaka". similarly buddhist texts talk of dvesha or "hatred' as an impediment to enlightenment. these are all terms referring to mundane ways of "ordinary" people which even then were likely a microminority in a Dharmik society as Bharata. 

Bharatiyas all indeed venerated the devas, even those associated with Nastik schools like Bauddha (concentrates on shunyata or dissolution of Self) and Jainism (concentrates on Ahimsa or anti- ontological violence). Nastika itself refers to post-vedic where the tirthankaras and/or boddhisattvas are given an elevated position. Similar to Sai baba etc today.

The conflation of carvaka or lokyata or worldliness with western atheism was a project of early jesuits, later taken up by their compadres and humsafars, the imperial indologist class. western atheism is a product of the Western Enlightenment that secularized christianity. atheism has a long and traceable pedigree in Europe as an extremist branch of christianity.

Mehra and his band of asinine followers are peddling wholesale secularism and they want to visit upon hindus the same colonial straightjacket as all the other seculars. We shouldn't pretend they have some connection to an ancient sect anymore than nehru or romila thapar belong to an ancient sect. They are political opportunists functioning as agent provocateurs. They are also trying to displace intellectual hindutva with dressed up secularism and mehra in particular is trying to do inculturation for western atheism.

Indeed, we can say there was no atheism known in ancient bharata. As said in this video by Pankaj Mishra the existence of the Deva-s was never in doubt to ancient (and current) Hindus.
==================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
This was a much needed setting the record straight by Shri Maldahiyar.
THERE WAS NO ATHEISM IN ANCIENT INDIA. ATHEISM ORIGINATED IN EUROPE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECULARISM and thus INNATELY HOSTILE TO HINDU VAIDIKA TRADITIONS.
"Nastikas" like Jainas and Buddhists all have Devas and these are the same as of Those the Hindus. They just give a preference to their line of teachers - Tirthankaras, Bodhisttvas, etc. Nastika means "heterodox".

"Carvaka" was a catch-all term meaning fool or buffoon, habitual contrarian, sophist, criminal/charlatan, or egoist in the ancient texts. It is like the term chewtiya used today. There is no authentic school of "carvaka" and  their supposed writings do not exist and probably never existed. In fact it was the early jesuit indologists who cleverly conjured up this "sect" in order to project disbelief onto the ancient Hindus (for obvious reason of facilitating conversion and colonial collaboration). One hundred years from now some jesuit indologist will similarly propose that the school of "chewtiya" existed in ancient Hinduism!

These indologists have screwed up our understanding so bad that today there are many who will even claim that advaita and dwaita and sankhya are atheistic[a] though these were founded and expounded by our Rishis and Munis!

[a] this appropriationist characteristic of atheism whereby the various darshanas are cross-culturally subsumed under its aegis signifies the identity of atheism with the category of monotheist religion.

============================

@vinayaktraders72
8 months ago
न मृ॒त्युरा॑सीद॒मृतं॒ न तर्हि॒ न रात्र्या॒ अह्न॑ आसीत्प्रके॒तः। आनी॑दवा॒तं स्व॒धया॒ तदेकं॒ तस्मा॑द्धा॒न्यन्न प॒रः किञ्च॒नास॑॥२॥ There was neither death nor immortality and nothing to separate night and day, That One existed enclosed in nothingness, there was only that One and no other. The dualities such as death/immortality, night/day were not there. When creation itself is not there, dualities cannot exist. Dualities are an inherent svarupa of the nature of the world. The Rushi immediately asserts “That ONE” is present. This assertion of the Rushi is his emphatic experience of the ONE. Other than “That ONE” nothing else is present. Indicating The “other” “this visible universe” has got folded back into the ONE. in our tradition we know the importance of the ONE.
mahadevan
1
@anujhe
8 months ago
correctly explain

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
Rather than "the one" you should state "the incomparable Brahman". "One" can be misinterpreted in the current intellectual climate.

================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @A[...]  Nothing survives of "charvak" because there never was anything there - charvak meant fool or buffoon in the ancient texts. "Nirishwar" is just a random term and it has nothing to do with atheism. It is like saying that the movie Nastik "promotes" atheism because the title is Nastik, when the exact opposite is true.
There is no atheism in Hinduism. It is an erroneous and abusive notion.

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @g[...]  He's just a subversive trying to turn Hinduism into a playground for his western atheistic ideology. The "debates" in ancient India were between enlightened gurus discussing nature of Parmatman. Atheism comes from the west and in fact atheism is an extreme branch of monotheism. We need education on these foreign ideologies, not debates with the interested and motivated parties.

@p[...]
8 months ago
There was no concept of atheism in Hindu civilization. Naastiks, followers of Charvak philosophy were outcasted and looked down upon. And Charvak is not Hinduism. It's just a philosophical commentry. A faith which entertains atheism is bound to fail at some point of time!

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
Exactly. The ancient romans actually had to create some of these new terms like "atheist" to describe the Christians. Also, Christians accused romans of being "atheists" or nonbelievers in their plagiarized Jehovah. Atheism was a category within christianity in the ancient period and was conjured up again during the Enlightenment when Christians contacted heathens in Asia and the New World. Atheism is an extreme form of monotheism.

========================

@QoSab[..]
10 months ago
Another brilliant talk by JSD  I just have 2 points that one would request for considering: I agree all aspects of Sanatana must be retaimed as is exactly and not tampered with..I would however advocate that there are certain reforms which the Dharmic clergy must congregate and agree on for the survival and betterment of Sanatana: women must be allowed with the agreement and guidance of Shastras to play a role in the propagation and practice of scriptures and temple traditions (in all the capacities as much as possible bearing in mind the sanctity of each belief system..(for example, NOT at the Sabarinala temple obviously because I too am #happytowait) and also their inclusion in the armed forces for the simple reason, that a large number of them are caregivers and hence play a more important role in what passes to the next generation..also though Carvakas are atheists, and though they cannot comment on practices and traditions in religious spaces, they need to be included and counted in the Hindu fold, simply for the sake of them being Hindu and for survival

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
Bhai, lets not conflate "carvakas" with atheists. there has never been a surviving group called carvakas in bharat, no one knows what they were or whether they really constituted a bonafide group, and none of their supposed writings survive, while the term itself seems to have been used as synonymously with buffoon or fool in ancient works. At the most, it denoted egoists, which are plainly decried across the Sastras, and likely it denoted egoists of the common folk variety (eg, yuddhisthara is described as beset by a Charvaka troublemaker who questioned his conduct in the war; the term seems to have been used a catch-all for contrarian behavior, contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism). In conttast, Atheists are a philosophical product of the Enlightenment; in intellectual history, atheists very closely bound up with secularists (the term "secular atheists")  who hound Hindus. Atheism is in fact an extreme branch of monotheism. 

Regarding the term nastika: Nastikas like Jains and Buddhists actually have Gods but they are usually depicted subordinate to Buddha or Tirthankar. Nastika seems to mean heterodox or even latter day teaching/tradition. Disillusioned persons are typicalyl described as Nastika (eg movie about Partition called Nastik), both terms do not seem to connote  a "philosophical level stand" in Bharatiya usage - just a set a behaviors.
Jesuit indoologists originally wanted to project disbelief onto ancient Bharata and they came up with this fabrication of Indian atheism. Every Darshana at one point or another has gotten lumped into atheism even Advaita and Samkhya; the latter lauded in BG. So, obviously there is a categorical level mistake in our understanding. On the whole, atheism  is an anachronistic usage for Bharata, and the goal of such usage can often be identified as subversionist. 

Yes, there are many confused and deracinated Hindus out there that really should be guided and not left in the morass of atheism. they will only deracinate further and turn real enemies. You can see this  clearly with certain self branded "charvakas" today.

Surya Tilak SRI RAM

 

The corrupting influence of orientalist indologists

@dvikauglau[...]
1 day ago
Really good talk. Didn't know about etymology of the word Dharma. Also it was traced back to eusebia.
It is extremely important that we teach this to all youngsters. 

@damodar[...]
4 hours ago
It wasn't traced back to eusebia. Eusebia was mentioned as dharma's equivalent.

 

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
 @damodaranvt6612  Except that Eusebia is not equivalent to dharma. Dharma has many contexts including one of cosmic duty. While Elst believes in a one true meaning that gets corrupted  (a "philological" stance that he inherited from christianity). It is clear that in this talk he is trying to whitewash the duty/"righteousness" aspect to dharma and paint it in quasi religious terms of piety, and from there as a version of (corrupted) abrahamist religion. Note that an early church father was named Eusebius. This is to make appropriation and then damnation easier. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Elst is an atheist, a stance which he also falsely attributes to hindus.[a]

As someone who is utterly alien to bharata, Elst like all westerners is incapable of understanding bharata or other pagans (ancient greeks) he pretends to support. That much is clear from this talk which is one canard after another.

The traditional derivation of dharma is well known, and is much richer in its explication: entire epics are about dharma. In dharma (the Way), rocks and animals have dharma. the devas have dharma, the Avataras have dharma, Rakshasas have dharma, and even Bhagwan has dharma. Does Elst's motivated pigeonholing (thopna) work here? of course not. But Elst will just hand-waive in his usual fashion - "but that all came later.. as Hindus corrupted their own religion, which they couldn't even understand... hehe." 

Also note that Elst bills himself as a "rationalist" - that is, just like the monotheists, he recognizes no obligations to any preceding culture, only to his own pretensions. That peculiar stance also feeds into his whitewashing of dharma as not having anything to do with duty.

It is also known that Greeks did not have an underlying unifying reality in their metaphysics similar to Tao or Brahman. Elst's canard about Dharma being piety undermines its aspect around balance. It is another LCD (least common denominator) approach meant to stultify the variegatedness of dharma, allowing for its recasting in western ideological/religious terms, and this  setting the eventual grounds for demonstrating its damnation/"error" (eg, in the atheist/"rationalist" context that Elst ultimately considers "true"[b][c]).  

Thus, the dharma yuddha also becomes undermined in Elst's "reading". Was Duryodhana's fault a lack of piety? Our itihaas and traditions has always maintained that it was mahatwakansha .. very roughly hubris.[d]

Dharma is context of Devas refers to duty to the Devas, not to a (state of) piety (which again is Elst indulging in christian anachronism).

Really tired of Elst and his white burden act. Just as every other westerner he loves to interfere, in fact driven to it by an ideological worldview, masked over as "rationalism".

 @darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
teach your kids ramayana and mahabharata - do not teach them indological propaganda.

===========================
[a] Indologists commonly claim a syncretist dynamic operating in ancient bharata whereby local cults were co-opted by a nonlocal (eg Vedic) cult. This view extends from an AIT type colonial framework and the existence of tribes as static operating units (for tribes vs native, refer to Keppens; tribes are ideological units and static, whereas the native is relational). What we state here is that the syncretist view is colonial and that what actually happens is that a centralizing and provincializing dynamic reflective of the believer-nonbeliever distinction is posited onto ancient bharata by indologists/academics. The "rupa" dynamic and the "lila" dynamic discussed by SNB and RM, respectively, and the supposed heathen cults in bharata have always existed in diversity. in fact the diversity, like that of language (Nichols), was far greater in the past. The vaishnava or vedic "cults" did not expand but an understanding of their essential forms was always diffused throughout bharata; just as Adi Sankara's influence spread into an already dharmik domain where the essential forms were implicit/known (and thus was well received), in the same way the diversity of traditions was always constituted in bharata. This version thus does not posit heathen cults as mini-religions/ideologies being spread by influence, but rather convergence of forms in situ, as experienced by a moral community. Thus the moral community of bharata (eg extending to SEAsia, CAsia, Japan, China, Mongolia, etc) contains within it the essential forms of all the extant traditions. It is only when these these heathen traditions are viewed through a western ideological lens that their diversity and common integration appears imposed or artificial. "Explanations" that require the positing of the spread of one cult require recasting these traditions as monotheistic ideologies ie, ontological violence to the heathen traditions existing naturally as a multiplicity of devas (ie, to "polytheism").
[b] it still isn't clear whether Elst is a crypto-christian atheist.
[c] traditions cannot be true or false.
[d] piety (ie, christian piety as the opposite of a state of sin) makes no sense in a heathen world since the value and reality of devas was never under question, nor mankind damned. Elst needs to transform this heathen world into one where there is skepticism/alienation (counterfactually represented as piety) in order to then negate it with his atheism, which he also projects into the ancient space (a "double shot", just to make sure the target is hit). Shraddha, tapasya, puja, prarthana are not piety. Also note that atheist Elst who is otherwise always salivating to remove superstition from our texts under pretense of historicity is eager to transform the texts as pious (christian-like). Both strategies converge to eliminate the Devas from the texts. 

Reference: Sangam Talks video titled "Bhartiya Chaturashram: Historicity And Extrapolation" by Koenraad Elst" published on April 20, 2024

Shri Ram Pran Pratishtha

 

Ahimsa

Even without looking into any verses it is clear that Ahimsa means protection of the weak. Even by analogy to samurai japan with its Bushido code, this is clear. Only when viewed through a western ideological lens, does ahimsa becomes transformed into an ideology ie, pacifism. Once the pattern of monotheist degradation and depredation is known, seeing through their subterfuge is easy.

Heathen historical sacrifices.

It is commonly stated that there was no sense of community among the ancient hindu/heathen. Of course, there was no category apart from the hindu/heathen; just as nature existed in diversity, so did the heathen. Only with advent of monotheism did the nexus or conspiratorial type of organization come into being, driven by an ideology- or belief-system based ontology. That is also precisely why there could not have been any type of nexus or conspiratorial organization, driven by ideology, and masterminded by a static class, in ancient bharata. A clear case of projection.

In consequence of their totality in ancient times, heathen evinced and pursued the ethical much more assiduously that the monotheists whose genocidal and de-culturing ways are signal.

Here we also encounter the claim the heathen were divided, while the monotheist united in purpose. The unity of the monotheists is prototyped in the tale of babel, unified by a unifying ideology based on some 'factor' (language, appearance, belief) while the heathen driven by the inexorable flow of karma. Were the heathen blind? Or simply as Swami Vivekananda stated, averse to pursuit of a totalitarian homogeneity if the path was through the suffering of innocents. perhaps they realized the connection between the abrahamist supremacist posture they saw, the deculturation/iconoclasm/surrender of the local/cultural it demanded, and the atrocities perpetrated. To us current heathen, the connection always been clear. As Swami Vivekananda said: we would rather suffer under extreme burdens than partake of independence at a cost to innocents (Paraphrase from Visuddhi films yt).

how provincialization is done - via ideologization

 इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न।
यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥
अन्वय- इयं विसृष्टिः यतः आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न। अस्य यः अध्यक्ष परमे व्यामन् अंग सा वेद यदि न वेद।
अर्थ – यह विविध प्रकार की सृष्टि जिस प्रकार के उपादान और निमित्त कारण से उत्पन्न हुयी इस का मुख्या कारण है ईश्वर के द्वारा इसे धारण करना। इसके अतिरिक्त अन्य कोई धारण नहीं कर सकता। इस सृष्टि का जो स्वामी ईश्वर है, अपने प्रकाश या आनंद स्वरुप में प्रतिष्ठित है। हे प्रिय श्रोताओं ! वह आनंद स्वरुप परमात्मा ही इस विषय को जानता है उस के अतिरिक्त (इस सृष्टि उत्पत्ति तत्व को) कोई नहीं जानता है

"The glories of Shri Vishnu Hari are legion and unknowable" - these types of statements have been refashioned as atheism in ancient bharata by modern atheist sympathizers.[1]

Of course to perform the heist, it is needed to read the veda along narrow provincial lines as expressing a dogmatic religion/ideology, and not circumscribing an entire cosmos  - it needs to be posited that they are the belief statements of a partisan or partisan tribe and of course there must be then be other disputants/stakeholders. If such constructions, well attested in aristotelian systems of dichotomy, are needed to usher in atheism in ancient bharata, then it is an artifice and forced reading.  The dialectic is used to operationalize some domain (eg. the heathen cosmos) as the arena of competing/oppositional ideologies/ideology sets.

Similarly, 'ek' as in 'ek aneka' signifies incomparable. SNB also has remarked on how 'ek' does not signify monotheism. Per monotheist operationalization, 'ek aneka' would be transformed into the one vs the many, and by inserting a meta-level of belief, further transformed into the believers of the one vs the believers of the many![a] The positing of the meta level construction of belief reflecting some revelation/theology/theory is needed for monotheistic operationalization/ideologization. Once made ideological, the domain then becomes contested.

An example of dichotomization/ideologization: positing the constructs of atheism/theism onto ancient bharata, as done by propagandists like Elst, despite knowing full well that these categories were generated in a monotheist setting. Or positing brahmin vs nonbrahmin caste (static and nonrelational) categories in ancient bharata, despite knowing that no such collective category as nonbrahmin existed in ancient bharata. These postulations, masquerading as philosophy/intellectual inquiry, are driving the monotheist agenda of ideologization of the heathen, making the heathen space contested, and the alien colonial disputants as stakeholders (who of course have an ideology based ontology), poised for setting the agenda and eventually wresting control.

[1] For example: the preceding statement would be transformed into an ideological statement: "I believe that the glories cannot be known" or " I do not believe in the glories". And then the ideological transformation whitewashed away by removing intentionality: "The glories are false").

[a] typologically, the meta-level of belief comes prior to its removal by de-intentionalization.

Bhagavan Shri Vishnu Hari in Vedas

 

Quoting from source:

Who is the God of the Purusha Sukta, Vishnu or Shiva?

Sripad Madhvacarya, in his Vedanta Sutra (1.2.26) Bhasya, quotes Brahma Maha Purana saying thus—

    "Just as the Purusha Sukta invariably declares only Vishnu, so be my mind ever devoted to Vishnu (alone)."

Acarya further quotes Brhat Brahma Purana saying thus—

    “All the Vedas and their supplementary disciplines do not, O Narada, declare Vishnu and Vishnu alone so distinctly and fully as the Purusha Sukta does."

Even further, Acarya quotes Skanda Purana which says—

    “At that time, great King Rama only is spoken of by every name (Rama was the subject of everybody’s talk), just as Vishnu alone is spoken of in the Purushasukta.”

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.20 states—

    तत्र गत्वा जगन्नाथं देवदेवं वृषाकपिम् । पुरुषं पुरुषसूक्तेन उपतस्थे समाहित: ॥

    “After reaching the shore of the Ocean of Milk, the demigods worshiped the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, the master of the whole universe, the supreme God of all gods, who provides for everyone and diminishes everyone’s suffering. With great attention, they worshiped Lord Viṣṇu, who lies on the Ocean of Milk, by reciting the Vedic mantras known as the Puruṣa-sūkta.”

Skanda Purana 5.1.57.22-24 states—

    इति श्रुत्वा वचस्तेषां ब्रह्मा लोकपितामहः ।।
    समुत्थाय ततः सर्वैर्विष्णुलोकं जगाम ह ।।
    तत्र गत्वा समाराध्य विष्णुं देवगणैः सह ।।
    स्तुतिं पुरुषसूक्तेन विष्णोरतुलतेजसः ।।

    “On hearing their words, Brahmā, the grandfather of the world, rose up from there. Then he went to Viṣṇuloka along with all of them. For propitiating Viṣṇu of uncomparable splendour they recited Puruṣasūkta, for their own prosperity.”

Padma Purāna 6.124.17 states —

    पुरुषसूक्तेन यो नित्यं कार्तिके अर्चयेद्धरिम् वर्षकोटिसहस्राणि पूजितस्तेन केशव

    He who, everyday in Kārtika, worships Viṣṇu with the recital of the Puruṣa-sūkta has worshipped Viṣṇu for thousands of crores of years.

Source 2

Rig Veda 1.22.20: Vishnu occupies the paramount position. All the other deities look always to His feet.

Rig Veda 1.22.21: They always sing the holy sublime glories of Lord Vishnu's supreme abode.

Rig Veda 10.113.2: Vishnu is glorified because of who and what He intrinsically is. Indra, on the other hand, is only glorious circumstantially. (Vīrasaiva said in a recent post that Indra is a name for Shiva, so here)

Rig Veda 1.156.2: Vishnu is the most ancient of all, yet also the most recent. Nothing and no one creates Vishnu, yet Vishnu creates everyone and everything.

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (of Rig Veda) 1.1.1: Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between.

Yajurveda Taittiriya Samhita 5.5.1: Vishnu is the supreme amongst devatas.

Satpath Brahmana (of Yajur Veda) 14.1.1.5: Viṣṇu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Viṣṇu is the most excellent of the gods.

RV 7.99.1: Men come not nigh thy majesty who growest beyond all bound and measure with thy body. Both thy two regions of the earth, O Viṣṇu, we know: thou God, knowest the highest also.

Narayana Sukta: The Lord Narayana is the Supreme Absolute; Narayana is the Supreme Reality; Narayana is the Supreme Light; Narayana is the Supreme Self; Narayana is the Supreme Meditator; Narayana is the Supreme Meditation.

It states this as well: Whatever all this universe is, seen or heard of—pervading all this, from inside and outside alike, stands supreme the Eternal Divine Being (Narayana).

Katha Upanishad 1.3.9: But the man who has a discriminating intellect for the driver and a controlling mind for the reins, reaches the end of the road, i.e., that highest place of Vishnu.

Shatapath Brahmana 3.6.3.3: All yagnas are for Vishnu alone.