The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
    Post Made Community Wiki by stoicfury
3 added 241 characters in body
source | link

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

However in the East this tradition of the philosophical poem continued, for example there is the Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna and his Madhyamika Karika (verses from the centre).

With that preamble out of the way - to your question.

According to psychological reasoning, which can be equated to simple mathematic problem solving, there should be proof, according to any discipline of science or observation to believe in anything.

Proof is a central occupation of mathematics as it is constituted now through the axiomatic method; but there is the wider question as to why we are justified in taking proof as central; and also is this as central as it claims to be; judgement of course is required in deciding which questions are important.

like I can create my own religion tomorrow with its own principles

This is not so easy! Its not enough to decide to be a prophet or sage, one must accrue followers and keep them, and keep getting them; it is the judgement of posterity that bestows the title of a religion or dharma.

So what ultimately forces me, or any other person, to be binded by a religion and follow it?

One might say one doesn't choose a dharma; it chooses you; Its in this sense that one might say one is possessed or obsessed by a dharma. Or as it is written in the Katha Upanishad:

The Self is not known from discourse, splitting hairs, learning however great; He comes to the man He loves; takes that mans body as his own

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

However in the East this tradition of the philosophical poem continued, for example there is the Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna and his Madhyamika Karika (verses from the centre).

With that preamble out of the way - to your question.

According to psychological reasoning, which can be equated to simple mathematic problem solving, there should be proof, according to any discipline of science or observation to believe in anything.

Proof is a central occupation of mathematics as it is constituted now through the axiomatic method; but there is the wider question as to why we are justified in taking proof as central; and also is this as central as it claims to be; judgement of course is required in deciding which questions are important.

like I can create my own religion tomorrow with its own principles

This is not so easy! Its not enough to decide to be a prophet or sage, one must accrue followers and keep them, and keep getting them; it is the judgement of posterity that bestows the title of a religion or dharma.

So what ultimately forces me, or any other person, to be binded by a religion and follow it?

One might say one doesn't choose a dharma; it chooses you; Its in this sense that one might say one is possessed or obsessed by a dharma.

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

However in the East this tradition of the philosophical poem continued, for example there is the Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna and his Madhyamika Karika (verses from the centre).

With that preamble out of the way - to your question.

According to psychological reasoning, which can be equated to simple mathematic problem solving, there should be proof, according to any discipline of science or observation to believe in anything.

Proof is a central occupation of mathematics as it is constituted now through the axiomatic method; but there is the wider question as to why we are justified in taking proof as central; and also is this as central as it claims to be; judgement of course is required in deciding which questions are important.

like I can create my own religion tomorrow with its own principles

This is not so easy! Its not enough to decide to be a prophet or sage, one must accrue followers and keep them, and keep getting them; it is the judgement of posterity that bestows the title of a religion or dharma.

So what ultimately forces me, or any other person, to be binded by a religion and follow it?

One might say one doesn't choose a dharma; it chooses you; Its in this sense that one might say one is possessed or obsessed by a dharma. Or as it is written in the Katha Upanishad:

The Self is not known from discourse, splitting hairs, learning however great; He comes to the man He loves; takes that mans body as his own

2 added 1212 characters in body
source | link

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

However in the East this tradition of the philosophical poem continued, for example there is the Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna and his Madhyamika Karika (verses from the centre).

With that preamble out of the way - to your question.

According to psychological reasoning, which can be equated to simple mathematic problem solving, there should be proof, according to any discipline of science or observation to believe in anything.

Proof is a central occupation of mathematics as it is constituted now through the axiomatic method; but there is the wider question as to why we are justified in taking proof as central; and also is this as central as it claims to be; judgement of course is required in deciding which questions are important.

like I can create my own religion tomorrow with its own principles

This is not so easy! Its not enough to decide to be a prophet or sage, one must accrue followers and keep them, and keep getting them; it is the judgement of posterity that bestows the title of a religion or dharma.

So what ultimately forces me, or any other person, to be binded by a religion and follow it?

One might say one doesn't choose a dharma; it chooses you; Its in this sense that one might say one is possessed or obsessed by a dharma.

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.

However in the East this tradition of the philosophical poem continued, for example there is the Buddhist Philosopher Nagarjuna and his Madhyamika Karika (verses from the centre).

With that preamble out of the way - to your question.

According to psychological reasoning, which can be equated to simple mathematic problem solving, there should be proof, according to any discipline of science or observation to believe in anything.

Proof is a central occupation of mathematics as it is constituted now through the axiomatic method; but there is the wider question as to why we are justified in taking proof as central; and also is this as central as it claims to be; judgement of course is required in deciding which questions are important.

like I can create my own religion tomorrow with its own principles

This is not so easy! Its not enough to decide to be a prophet or sage, one must accrue followers and keep them, and keep getting them; it is the judgement of posterity that bestows the title of a religion or dharma.

So what ultimately forces me, or any other person, to be binded by a religion and follow it?

One might say one doesn't choose a dharma; it chooses you; Its in this sense that one might say one is possessed or obsessed by a dharma.

1
source | link

The point of view you're taking is called the carvaka school in Indian philosophy; it is sceptical about the claims of the Vedas; that is it is to the Vedas as athiesm in the West is to Christianity.

This sceptism is alluded to in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, the Nasadiya Sukta

इयं विसृष्टिर्यत ।आबभूव यदि वा दधॆ यदि वा न ।

यॊ ।आस्याध्यक्ष: परमॆ व्यॊमन्त्सॊ आंग वॆद यदि वा न वॆद ॥७॥

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

In the Isha-Upanishad, it is noted that two forms of knowledge have to be yoked together; yoked is translated by yoga; in Yeats translation we have:

Pin your faith to natural knowledge, stumble through the darkness of the blind; pin your faith to super-natural knowledge stumble through a darkness deeper still.

That is neither material (natural) nor metaphysical knowledge on its own succeeds.

They that know and can distinguish between natural knowledge and super-natural knowledge shall, by the first, cross the perishable in safety.

But yoking them together, but still distinguishing them succeeds; it is a passage from a form of dualism to monism, in a sense.

Its interesting, that these ancient philosophical poems are written in poetic metre; a number of the pre-socratics, Parmenides and Empedocles amongst them wrote in the same style; in the Western tradition it was Aristotle that turned it towards prose, whereas Plato experimented with the dialogue - essentially philosophy in the form of a drama - given the visibility and honour that Greek tragic theatre had in Athens.