Proving Brahman to an Atheist!

[seekinganswers]

I haven't always been supportive in this forum, due to my wavering faith, but at least now through deep meditation I have accepted the reality of Brahman. This is a hypothetical argument presented between a Hindu and an atheist.


Atheist: What is Brahman?

Hindu: Brahman is without attributes, "not this not this"

Atheist: Like all Gods, Brahman doesn't exist.

Hindu: In that case we agree, because what doesn't exist ultimately has no attributes.

Atheist: But you are contradicting yourself! You can't say that Brahman both exists and doesn't exist!

Hindu: Exactly, "not this, not this"

Brahman from a materialistic perspective does not exist which means he exists but they contradict, hence "not this not this". Brahman is an indbetween category, TRANSCEDENTAL

[philosoraptor]

The problem is, Brahman does have attributes, if by Brahman you mean the entity described in the Upanishads. Whether described as "purusha," "AkAsha," "tejas," "prANa" or any number of other myriad labels, the most straightforward understanding of these statements is that this is an entity who ensouls all other entities, supports all other entities, has consciousness and many other attributes. Well, the very idea of supporting and maintaining all other entities is itself an attribute. As is consciousness.

An entity without attributes cannot be described, much less exist. The atheist in your hypothetical conversation is correct - an entity cannot exist and not exist. This sort of double-speak would be a major hole in your argument, and seems to implicitly accept that an entity without attributes cannot exist. Also, the "neti neti" line of reasoning merely emphasizes His boundless, transcendental nature - He is not confined or defined merely by the observable universe around us - this does not mean that He has no attributes or that He does not exist.

[philosoraptor]

Also, I think the basic premise of the posting, viz "Proving Brahman to an Atheist" is rather missing an important point. You can't prove the existence of a suprasensory entity to someone who only accepts sensory input and deduction based on the same as his sole means of acquiring right knowledge.

Finally, the starting point really shouldn't be "does God/Brahman exist?" but rather "Can true happiness be found in this world?" The beginning point of a Hindu's spiritual life comes about when he recognizes the truth that so-called happiness in this world is at best transient, and alternates with suffering and misery as he experiences the results of his endless good and bad karmas. He develops intelligence and realizes that he must search for bliss elsewhere, hence his inquiry into Brahman.

[wundermonk]

@OP,

If you would like, ask the mod to move this to the Advaita folder if you would like Advaitins to respond to your post. Otherwise, like your other threads, this too will be derailed and you will be left hanging unable to contribute to your own posts.

[Viraja]

In my understanding (from an upanyasa by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan) Brahman is not completely attributeless - there is 'Saguna Brahman' - Brahman with attributes belonging to 'Sattwa guna' and then there is 'Nirguna Brahman' - Brahman who is formless and attributeless - it is said that like 2 sides of paper, this Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are ALWAYS 2 facets of the same brahman and they are indispensible - both of them reside together at the same time with the Brahman.

[seekinganswers]

The problem is, Brahman does have attributes, if by Brahman you mean the entity described in the Upanishads. Whether described as "purusha," "AkAsha," "tejas," "prANa" or any number of other myriad labels, the most straightforward understanding of these statements is that this is an entity who ensouls all other entities, supports all other entities, has consciousness and many other attributes. Well, the very idea of supporting and maintaining all other entities is itself an attribute. As is consciousness.

An entity without attributes cannot be described, much less exist. The atheist in your hypothetical conversation is correct - an entity cannot exist and not exist. This sort of double-speak would be a major hole in your argument, and seems to implicitly accept that an entity without attributes cannot exist. Also, the "neti neti" line of reasoning merely emphasizes His boundless, transcendental nature - He is not confined or defined merely by the observable universe around us - this does not mean that He has no attributes or that He does not exist.

actually an entity that is described as having no attributes would not exist by the view point of a materialist. therefore the materialist would be forced to accept that there is indeed a Brahman because he is without attributes and fullfills his own definition to the supreme. Also by not existing, he supports the world because in order for there to be a reality "i.e. this is real" then there must be "then there is such thing as that which doesn't exist"

it doesn't contradict at all. non-existence is a form of consciousness

[philosoraptor]

actually an entity that is described as having no attributes would not exist by the view point of a materialist.

Pranams.

An entity that is without attributes does not exist, period. Can you give me an example to prove me wrong?

therefore the materialist would be forced to accept that there is indeed a Brahman because he is without attributes and fullfills his own definition to the supreme.

This sentence does not follow from the first one. First, the atheist does not have any concept of the "supreme." Second, whether you speak of no supreme entity or a supreme entity that (paradoxically) has no attributes in spite of being supreme, the fact remains that these are just two variations of the same theme.

Also by not existing, he supports the world because in order for there to be a reality "i.e. this is real" then there must be "then there is such thing as that which doesn't exist"

This makes no sense. A non-existent entity cannot support anything.

it doesn't contradict at all. non-existence is a form of consciousness

Um, no. Non-existence would imply absence of consciousness.

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Atheist: What is Brahman?

Hindu: If you really have great interest in this I world first like to ask you to read a few upaniṣad-s first. This will set the stage. If you still have interest after reading them, we can pursue your line of thought.


If the atheist comes back ready to talk, then it would be appropriate to engage him/her in an initial conversation. If the atheist does not return , then you are carrying out the instructions offered by the wise: Save the breath.



praṇām

[sayak83]

The opening post's logic makes no sense. However logic is not much help here. Upanishadic Hinduism has concepts that can only be grasped through deep meditation or selfless worship. The upanishads speak on the nature of Brahman in this way only to force the mind to look deeper into themselves and into the world.

However the experiences that you get may leave you unconvinced as Buddha demonstrated and an atheist may still ask if the experiences and realization that one gains actually refers to anything real. This is very difficult to ascertain by debate alone.