Minimum Epistemic Standards

Have you ever thought about why we practice spirituality?

​In this video, the sage Ashtavakra challenges conventional religious conditioning by asking a profound question: If the Divine can be attained through good deeds, rituals, or worship, how is that any different from a marketplace transaction?

A new trend all over Instagram — devotional concerts by Krishna Das, with tickets ranging from ₹3,000 to ₹20,000 for a Diamond pass.
Wow. I mean, I’m not against these or anyone expressing their devotion. Everyone has their own way of connecting with God. But I can’t help but wonder: instead of spending thousands on a ticket, why not visit a temple every evening, attend the daily aarti, and experience devotion alongside other devotees?
And imagine if even a fraction of that money went towards providing food, shelter, and basic necessities to those who genuinely need them. Wouldn’t that be a more meaningful way to express our devotion? Wouldn’t the act of serving those in need be just as, if not more, pleasing to God?
I’m not questioning anyone’s faith. I’m questioning the culture we’re building around it.
Today, it feels like social media has found its way into everything, even devotion. Nothing seems to be left untouched by the need to experience, capture, post, and show the world.
**Somewhere along the way, are we becoming more interested in being seen as devotees than in actually practising what devotion teaches us?**

Found this banger on r/nihilism sub

One might argue that my claim is exaggerated, and perhaps it is. Nevertheless, what I want to ask is whether there have been any post-Hindu or post-traditional indigenous philosophical movements in India that shifted their focus from religiosity and contemplation towards engaging with the world beyond them, while moving away from karma as a foundational principle, theism, and dualistic or monistic rationalism.

I recognise that Hinduism and other Indian religious traditions have historically engaged with various aspects of everyday life and the material world. My question, however, concerns something more fundamental: a transformation in the philosophical framework itself, rather than merely an extension of traditional thought into worldly affairs.

To elaborate, consider the Western intellectual canon. Christianity was shaped, challenged, and reinterpreted through successive historical developments, including the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the emergence of natural philosophy, and eventually the modern sciences. These developments interacted with Christianity in different ways, whether through dialectical opposition, internal reform, or outright separation. I would also include Nietzsche in this discussion, given his place in the Western philosophical canon and his broader commentary on Hinduism and Buddhism.

I am therefore interested in whether India has produced comparable philosophical developments that move beyond the traditional religious and metaphysical frameworks, rather than simply reformulating them.

To clarify, I would not consider straightforward amalgamations of Western secular scientism with traditional Hindu thought, such as Arya Samaj, to be what I have in mind. Nor would I necessarily classify contemporary commentaries that reinterpret older philosophical traditions for the modern world as post-Hindu in the sense I am using the term.

I may be mistaken in some of my assumptions, and I do not intend this as a definitive claim or critique. Rather, this is a broad, exploratory question intended to open a discussion about the trajectory of indigenous Indian philosophy and whether it has undergone transformations comparable to those of the Western intellectual tradition.

I have been exploring Indian philosophies for the past few years, mainly Advaida and Buddhism and to some extent Samkhya and Vaisheshika too.

The problem I have is with the idea of liberation.

I have no problem with the core ideas. Advaida says the ultimate reality is Brahman. Which is perfectly fine. Then it says, Brahman is pure consciousness which I am not sure what it means but anyway that is fine.

This is similar in some way to saying there is some sort of foundational field. In physics there are all kinds of fields space time and quantum fields. So to say there is something behind everything else is fine. Whatever the nature of that thing is. Whether it is a field, or consciousness, or a void, that is fine.

Coming to Buddhism the core idea is nothing is permanent and everything is some kind of process, which is again fine. Because already in physics everything is process. Quarks and electrons are excitation of quantum fields and there is no real stuff or matter as such.

Having said that my problem is with the notion of getting liberated.

In Advaida the idea is I am Atman, which in turn is Brahman. Fine. But my problem is saying that "I am just that"

It is kind of saying, "you are made of atoms hence you are atoms". Yes, I am atoms but am "I" atoms?

May be I am struggling here to put into words exactly what I mean.

What I am trying to say is, for me "I" is this unique thing which you may call ego, or jiva. This bubble of memories, desires, emotions, perceptions all that. If the liberation process is to get rid of all that and be just conscious is that really "me" even if that state is the eternal reality?

Thing of me as a dune in a desert, the dune has a unique shape, yes it is fragile, it keeps changing by gravity, rain and wind but it is still a unique thing, but when we reduce it to sand and say "know that you are the desert" is it really me?

What is the point of existence if it is to leave samsara? Is that not the whole point of existence? To explore and experience. Yes there is suffering but there is joy too.

I have been searching for a Indian philosophy or text that aligns with this.

We become invested in something and when we feel we are going lose it ... We will chase it because we are heavily invested on it

I personally relate to this

Title

I genuinely want to believe in this "algorithm" of life that the universe has some underlying justice or fixed rule like "karma".. but looking at reality makes it so hard to justify.. time and again, we see powerful, corrupt people completely suppressing justice and crushing the innocent without facing any consequences.. (many incidents and likes of that ankita bhandari case, pune case, (I really hope justice is served for her and many others!)

but if there is a grand design and God doesn't just play dice with the universe.. why is the real world so disconnected from these ideals? Are the concepts of ultimate justice and karma just pure "hopium" and “randomness“ or am missing something?

tho, Wish you a very happy (belated) Dussehra and Diwali!!🪔🎆✨

Same as title !

CONTEXT: The guy was No Fap for some years and they asked him why.

“zada acha mat ban”
The illusion of objective morality (ref: On the Genealogy of Morality)

”nature banayeleya hai..”
Nietzsche views human beings not as rational souls or abstract minds, but as natural, biological organisms driven primarily by unconscious drives, impulses, and instincts. Nietzsche argues that traditional morality (particularly Christian values) acts as an enemy to life by trying to tame, castrate, or suppress natural instincts (such as passion, aggression, and pride). This suppression leads to cultural decadence, ressentiment (deep-seated resentment), and self-hatred

”andar se ho”
Become who you are.

For me it's critical theory -> theory of mass culture (especially social media)

The beauty of absurdism lies in the fact that one should accept that life has no meaning and still choose to live

Camus argues that realizing life lacks inherent meaning does not justify suicide; instead, it demands revolt, freedom, and passion.

Humans are like most animals the whole point of feeling emotions is to survive, in the end every action we do is for the sake of survival!

What do you think is the best philosophy?

lets see some verses that highlight a nuanced view of Vedas from the famous text "Jnaneshwari", a Marathi commentary on the Bhagwad Gita by Sant Dyaneshwar of 13th century Maharashtra during Yadava dynasty. Interestingly, these texts of Dyaneshwar are the oldest surviving literary works in the Marathi language, and considered to be milestones in Marathi literature. book link

Chapter 9, verse 330 - 334

(307) O Arjuna, please consider the persons about whom I am going to tell you. They perform actions according to their ordained duties as per their stage in life, as laid down by scriptures, in such a perfect manner that they become the standards to be followed by others.

(308) Seeing their performance of the sacrificial rituals, all the three Vedas nod in satisfaction and the fruit of their action stands in front of them together with the action.

(309) Such initiated scholars who partake of the juice 'Soma', who are the very image of sacrifice, have, by the way of merit in that action, actually earned the sin in bargain!

(310) They know the three Vedas, perform hundreds of sacrifices, but missing me who receives the offerings, choose to gain heaven.

(311) It is like a man of bad luck who sits below the divine wish-tree, ties the knot of his begging sack and starts out for begging!

(312) Similarly, they perform hundreds of sacrifices as a propitiation to me, but desire and aspire for the heavenly pleasures! Is it their merit? Is it not sin?

(313) So, it is the ignorants way of earning merit to desire heaven by denying me. The men of real knowledge call it a nuisance, a real loss!

(314) Actually, experiencing the pains in the hell, people call the condition in heaven as happiness but my real nature is the only eternal joy without any blemish.

(316) The heaven is reached by the sin which is wrongly called merit, and the hell is reached by the sin which is actually known as sin; but that action is pure merit by which I am reached.

(329) Just as a man spends all his money for a prostitute and then he is not allowed even to knock at her door, similarly shameful is then the living of such initiated people.

(330) Thus those who choose heavenly pleasure instead of my eternal reality lose the real deathlessness and come back to this world of death.

(331) They remain for nine mouths in the womb of their mothers, troubled by all sorts of hot secretions in their vicinity and come out only to die eventually after a life full of miseries.

(332) The heavenly pleasures of person who is well-versed in performance of sacrifices according to Vedas should be considered equal to the treasures received in the dream, which is lost as soon as the man is awake.

(333) O Arjuna, even if a man is well-versed in Vedas and if he does not know me, his life is useless just as some one who throws away the grain and takes the husk.

(334) Therefore, in the absence of knowledge of my Reality, the rules of all the three Vedas are useless. It is definite that if you know me, and do not know anything else, still you will be really happy.

It's from Acharya Prashant's beginner exam.