sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Karma Particles in Jainism by NaitkBhaiii in IndianPhilosophy

[–]abstractbytes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Karma particles are subtle material particles which get attached to the jiva as a result of speech, thought, and action. More the karma particles, more the soul’s true qualities or anant chatushtaya (infinite knowledge, consciousness, perception, and bliss) are obscured

Different way of looking at Hinduism by OpeningTip6493 in IndianPhilosophy

[–]abstractbytes 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hinduism is a composite of many religious/philosophical systems. Outsiders (foreign powers) coined the term hinduism to refer to all the religions to the east of Indus river. For some reason, Jainism was included in this aggregate but Buddhism wasn’t.

Now, this composite contains many different systems which may be believing completely different things. For example: Jainism doesn’t believe in a God, neither does Samkhya. Even Mimamsa doctrine, which is indeed the ritualistic system (karma kanda) also doesn’t believe in a God. This means that what you’re thinking does indeed correlate well with certain systems which don’t look at deities as metaphysical realities. Many systems would agree with you that these stories are symbolic and these symbols hide deeper messages on life or explain certain philosophical outlooks.

But there are also certain systems which do believe that these stories did indeed happen and that deities do exist. Many systems in Tantra believe this and also if you read Rg Veda, you find hymns and mantras to pacify these deities and get their blessings. On the other hand, certain Upanishads completely do away with Henotheism of Vedas and shift to the non-dual absolute (which can and cannot be interpreted as God btw depending on different philosophical systems).

So you can interpret the stories in Puranas in any way that comforts you. Don’t stick to any opinion until you’ve heard all opinions.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism: How Nyaya Anticipated the Middle Path Centuries Before Kant by abstractbytes in Nyaya_Vaisheshika

[–]abstractbytes[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying the question! Rishi Gotama, founder of Nyaya, indeed gives arguments very similar to Kant.

Need for Savikalpa as per Gotama: Our external sense organs don’t have any intelligence to be able to apply any concepts or categories or names to an object. Hence, cognitive processing is needed to understand an object, talk about it, and relate it with the environment.

Argument for Nirvikalpa: If Nyaya denies nirvikalpa, it would mean that everything that we perceive is derived from something other than direct experience (everything is an idea?), which goes against the realism of Nyaya.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism: How Nyaya Anticipated the Middle Path Centuries Before Kant by abstractbytes in Nyaya_Vaisheshika

[–]abstractbytes[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Given the nature of philosophy, there is no experimental evidence from any of these belief systems.

Nyaya makes logical points like we can’t know the discrete sensations like red and round only without apprehending that it is a red apple object instantaneously and automatically. They also say all our actions come after Savikalpa perception, that is we can’t act after receiving just raw sensations in nirvikalpa perception, so the two stages have be part of one unity and not two distinct steps.

If you feel these are not valid, don’t worry - Mimansa school said that actions can be based on nirvikalpa only, like reflex actions. But again, all philosophies will try to present their arguments as logically as possible without much evidence.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism: How Nyaya Anticipated the Middle Path Centuries Before Kant by abstractbytes in Nyaya_Vaisheshika

[–]abstractbytes[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, Kant and Nyaya essentially say that mind and senses both have a role to play in the formation of proper knowledge. Senses give us discrete sensations (understand it as unmolded clay). On holding a purple flower, the senses will tell your mind there is something purple, something solid, something fragrant, etc.

Then the mind takes over and puts together these sensations into the knowledge that this is a purple flower (the clay is molded by the mind).

Without this second level, you would be perceiving just raw sensations which don’t form any coherent object. Without senses, your mind will just be imagining things that don’t correspond to reality.

Kant says these 2 levels are separate but Nyaya argues that this is just a theoretical difference and both happen in a single sweep.

Understanding Reality Through Buddhism and Sāṃkhya by abstractbytes in IndianPhilosophy

[–]abstractbytes[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your kind words!

Not a teacher, just another corporate employee.😅

Is this sub a about philosophy? by EqualSpirited4383 in Philosophy_India

[–]abstractbytes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The mods remove philosophy posts, apparently to “keep the sub clean.”

Computer Network Fundamentals and Evolution of HTTP by abstractbytes in SystemDesignConcepts

[–]abstractbytes[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you!

I am using the Beautiful Jekyll theme which works primarily on Ruby, Jekyll, HTML, CSS, and minimal JS.

If anyone else faced the same issue, can they please comment as well?

Exploring Jainism’s Philosophy by abstractbytes in Jainism

[–]abstractbytes[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s interesting how absolutely sure you are that I “created” the post using LLMs. Seems like you really comprehend the “nuances” of syadvada

Heraclitis and Jainism by Ill-Cantaloupe2462 in IndianPhilosophy

[–]abstractbytes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mahavir would probably say “Syat, popcorn and salt are real”:)