Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Questions on Karma

  1. #11

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    As was standard in Indian Philosophical circles, a variety of rational objections can be (and were) raised against the above view.
    Firstly, the charvaka has to define what exactly he is denying. If soul does not exist (as the charvaka believed) what exactly is he negating?
    It is about "not accepting". Not accepting a trasmigrating soul that spans multiple bodies or exists an individual entity after the death of the body - due to lack of evidence.

    Next, what evidence does the Charvaka put forth to believe that the afterlife does not exist?
    Lokayata does not have to prove anything here. The burden of proof is on the party who posited the existence of afterlife.

    Next, why does the Charvaka eat food to satiate his hunger? If it is based on induction, the Charvaka position is itself undermined as he unwittingly believe in induction. This leads to belief-behaviour conflict and the Charvaka can be rightly accused of hypocrisy - preach one thing but practise another, a.k.a. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

    If it is based on perception the Charvaka should clarify how he has reached the conclusion that food satisfies hunger.
    How do you prove perception? Btw, no system of philosophy has a problem with perception...so I am not clear if you are questioning the value of perception.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  2. #12

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    In that case, how do the lokayatas account for the phenomenon of consciousness?
    Svabhava. Consciousness can be known by perception and therefore is not a problem.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1646

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    It is about "not accepting". Not accepting a trasmigrating soul that spans multiple bodies or exists an individual entity after the death of the body - due to lack of evidence.
    Evidence could be of multiple forms. Perception while accepted by all Darshanas is but one means of evidence. That a self exists that is capable of feeling pain/pleasure, etc. and that karma guides this self in its varied experiences is a strong theistic argument for the existence of a self that simultaneously rescues the God from partiality and cruelty in having created this world. So, the theist is quite rational in holding that a self/karma exist. The Charvaka can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that a "soul does not exist" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face. More on this below.

    Lokayata does not have to prove anything here. The burden of proof is on the party who posited the existence of afterlife.
    The Burden of Proof is one who makes a claim. If the charvaka claims that a "soul does not exist" he shoulders the burden of proof. As I said before, no one cares what the charvaka thinks in the confines of his home privately. But the moment he comes out in public and shouts "There is no soul" or if he posts similarly on HDF, the burden of proof stares at him straight between his eyes. No amount of jostling to shift the burden of proof can work here. The "weak atheist" has no burden of proof as he is an agnostic atheist. The "strong atheist" who claims that "God does NOT exist" is the gnostic atheist and should provide proof. Also, non-existence CAN be proven. For e.g. I can prove that a highest prime does not exist. I can also prove that the moon is not made of cheese. So, one CAN prove a negative. The charvaka is yet to do so.

    How do you prove perception? Btw, no system of philosophy has a problem with perception...so I am not clear if you are questioning the value of perception.
    No one has thus far in this thread stated that perception needs proof. Please reread my argument above again. To distill its essence further, on what basis does the charvaka eat food to satisfy hunger? If it is past experience, then the charvaka indirectly admits memory as a valid source of knowledge refuting his stated position that perception is the only means of knowledge. There is further no reason to believe that the future will behave like the past unless one believes in induction. But any belief about the future can only be inferred but the charvaka, much to his distress, does NOT admit inference to be a valid source of knowledge.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    69
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Questions on Karma

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namast

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post

    karma = karman = action, special duty , occupation , obligation; Word, deed, action and reaction. We are told ( in general ) there are 4 kinds:
    • nirvartya - when anything new is produced
    • vikārya - when change is implied either of the substance and form
    • prāpya - when any desired object is attained
    • anīpsita - when an undesired object is abandoned
    Let's look at another's view:

    śeṣa patajali ( the author of the yoga-sūtras) informs us in the 3rd chapter (vibhūti pāda ) 22nd sūtra:

    sopakramaṁ nirupakramaṁ ca karma tatsaṁyamādaparāntajānamariṣṭebhyo vā ||22

    karma is of two kinds - sopakramaṁ and (ca) nirupakramaṁ ... ( he informs us of some other things in this sūtra, but I am only calling out the idea of karman).

    • sopakramaṁ = sopakrama = set about , undertaken
      • We note that sopakrama = sa + upakrama
        • sa in this use is 'bestowing'
    • nirupakramaṁ = nirupakrama = having no commencement
      • We note that nirupakrama = nir + upakrama
        • nir = nis = away from,
    What do you think these two types of karman are ?


    iti śivaṁ

    words

    4 kinds - yet there are other ways of looking at this also. Actions done in the past, the present , and those yet to come i.e. karma-pāka those actions that are ripening & growing
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 January 2013 at 08:18 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    The Charvaka can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that a "soul does not exist" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face. More on this below.
    With all due respect, this does not meet the basic test of logic 101. This statement is as ridiculous as -

    "Wundermonk can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that "Santa Claus is not real" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face".

    The Burden of Proof is one who makes a claim
    And yet, you missed the fundamentals and contradicted yourself. The theist made the claim and the Carvaka rejects it for lack of evidence. The Carvaka has *nothing* to prove here - not unless you agree with your own absurd Santa Claus logic above.

    Please take the time to read about "argumentum ad ignorantiam", Philosophic burden of proof and Russell's celestial teapot.

    To be more clear, my exact statement was - The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

    Lokayata makes no claims; they only reject claims that cannot be proven - a point that you clearly missed. Feel free to prove otherwise.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  6. #16

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    Svabhava. Consciousness can be known by perception and therefore is not a problem.
    What I meant is, what do they consider to be the source of consciousness? What is the difference to them between a living body and a dead body? Consciousness, obviously. But what gives rise to consciousness, according to them?
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  7. #17

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    What I meant is, what do they consider to be the source of consciousness? What is the difference to them between a living body and a dead body? Consciousness, obviously. But what gives rise to consciousness, according to them?
    I don't understand the question. Why should something give rise to consciousness?
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    69
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    218

    Re: Questions on Karma

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~


    namast

    It seems to me the string is veering-off topic...That of karman, yet we find ourselves on to other subject matter.

    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  9. #19

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~

    namast

    It seems to me the string is veering-off topic...That of karman, yet we find ourselves on to other subject matter.

    iti śivaṁ
    Apologies.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  10. #20

    Re: Questions on Karma

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    I don't understand the question. Why should something give rise to consciousness?
    Because consciousness is an irrefutable fact of life, as is the fact that it represents the difference between a living body and a dead body. Both are chemically the same, yet one has consciousness and the other does not. It is a poorly-thought-out philosophy that cannot accept at least the principle that something accounts for this property when seen in living things that is not present in dead things, if even only to acknowledge its existence without saying anything more about it.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Some questions on Karma principle
    By reflections in forum On Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02 January 2009, 05:17 PM
  2. New and becoming disheartened
    By ThouArt in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 05 November 2007, 05:09 PM
  3. Some questions on HK
    By Yogkriya in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06 August 2007, 02:03 PM
  4. Some questions on Karma in Hinduism
    By explorer_of_the_mind in forum On Dharma
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24 April 2007, 02:06 AM
  5. Seeker's Questions: Post-mortem Karma?
    By saidevo in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07 September 2006, 12:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •