The caller was trying to have two conversations at the same time. One with Vimoh and the other one with himself. Hence the confusion and the source of our collective migraines.
@@Benetic_360 you're actually uneducated on the topic bro. They didn't believe in blind faith but only in what they saw with their own eyes. Which itself leads to more problems obviously
Wait there were a seal in indus vally civilisation that depicts a man doing a yoga pose and the inventer of yoga is considered as Maharishi patanjali and yoga is also first mentioned in vedas.
More deals with how to make life better in the human realm. And what is observed is true scientific/empirical evidence is needed. And science is definitely not sanatan. It evolves continuously. I mean science is in a constant process of scrutinizing its own theories and becoming better.
The problem with neocharvak is that he's all over the place. I really wish this would have been a coherent discourse, instead its just 20 mins of neochravak trying to get his point accross and vimoh trying to break it down so it could be a lucid conversation. I guess it's hard to have such discussions. For where credit's due- I'm totally intrigued by neocharvak's arguments ans I honestly believe he should compile his arguments better and have a longer discourse with Vimoh.
The term Hindu-Atheist would have been correct had the term "Hindu" didn't metamorphosed and begun to entirely mean religion. The metamorphosis of the term Hindu started during the colonial times. Hinduism was never a religion, Hinduism as a form of religious consciousness never existed in the history of Indiam subcontinent. It is for this reason some muslims preferred to be called themselves as Hindu-Muhammedans during colonial times. Hindu as religious conciousness primarily got the momentum when it was decided to partition the nation on religious lines by the British. It was natural for the British to see the broader identity of a community of people to be strictly religious because western world and abrahamic religions viewd it as such. If one goes by present scenario, the term Hindu means religion for 99.99% of India's population. Many people fall into these traps of naming because there is an ongoing attempt to once again change the present nature of the term Hindu so that it can assimilate every other distinct forms of thought like atheism, buddhism, humanisms, theism, sikhism, jainism, tribalism, (excluding Islam and Christianity) into Hindu fold so that the Hindu order which is another name of caste order is maintained by ensuring people not leaving the Hindu fold due to the formation of these thoughts. This further ensures the hegemony of the ruling/powerful castes to be maintained by not letting them exposed into minorities. These castes would continue derive their power so long as the broader Hindu identity remain intact.
@@NeoCarvakChannel I agree but Hinduism as we understand today is not a atheistic religion. One of the reason Hinduism is distinct from Buddhism, Jainism, etc because the former is theistic while the latter are atheistic and disregard the vedas. Hinduism as defined by swami vivekananda is a religion which believe in God and the authority of vedas. In his views, Hinduism is vedantic religion. Actually, in my previous comment, I should have added the adjective 'theistic' before mentioning Hinduism as a religion. Nevertheless, it was implicit, because thats how people perceive Hinduism as a religion.
He's close to athiest... Than to be a charvaka. Neo charvaka is not a Philosophical position, but rather an emotional position. It's like u don't want to completely leave the scriptures, traditions, festivals, philosophies etc. But u also don't believe in God. This ain't a buffet. Why he's not choosing Christian athiest? Since He's ready to change somethings from the definition, then we can skip jesus part and say u r chirstain atheist, who doesn't believe in christ. I too in earlier years felt, I'm an hindu athiest (before even knowing this term existed)... Now when I look back, I understand it was my starting and I didn't wanted to completely nullify everything. Wanted to be close the culture. But since an year or two, I realised.. I can't combine athiesm. If I am an hindu athiest, then I also become Christian athiest, muslim athiest too the same time, since I've removed the very focal point of what seperates Christians, Muslims and Hindus. I actually feel bad about my athiest stance too sometimes, when I eat at Bhandaras or at a pooja i'm invited too. 😅, feels like I'm betraying them and im kinda selfish. So yeah, this hindu athiesm word could give me some moral and feeling of togetherness with them but it's just a self justification and not actually my correct ideology.
I don't know what's there to be ashamed at Eating at Bhandaras? Be Greatful to the Farmer who cultivated that Grain, be Greatful to the Cook who prepared it, not to some Imaginary Being
@@basantprasadsgarden8365 feelings are irrational. Dilemma is uncomfortable. Humans are more comfortable with extreme positions where they can have clarity This middle ground feels like being dishonest to both sides. Its like having an affair🤪
@@basantprasadsgarden8365Exactly. There are secular food cantins too run by many NGOs....Tata,Azim Premji Foundation etc. do charity without religious proselytization.
Well vimoh was not aggressive enough... just because the caller was polite doesn't mean he was rational and asking for clarification is not being aggressive.
Apart from all the confusion, why a lot of atheists still fill out certain forms as Hindus is solely because of the caste system. The caste system applies to every Indian and the governments policies are being aimed at it. In order to be a person of a certain caste to avail these benefits (which are their right) they have to fill out forms as Hindus and state their caste. Conversion into an atheist would deprive them of these measures that bring them social equality.
If they believe in any cast or varna they are not atheist ....Sneha Parthibarajan did a PIL to get "No Caste No Religion" certificate ...and she got it from the Tamil Nadu govt. Agar cast ka bhi malai khana hain ...to wo log jhute atheist hain ...according to my opinion. There are so-called atheists too who marry according to the Hindu Marriage Act to get the benefits tax cuts of HUF (Hindu Undivided Family)..they are false atheists.
Thats a dumb argument. If you are an atheist and dont believe in caste, then suddenly all caste based discirminaitons disappear? If you're from obc or sc or st and you've become an atheist, it would not change the fact that you were oppressed and you still need reservations and government benefits as they are your rights. So mo atheists should let go of their caste certifcate until a time comes when the government deems reservation is not needed and equality has been somewhat achieved in all fields. Kindly watch Vimohs umpty number of videos about reservation and get some insight.
@@pratheshwarmeiyananthan8464 I am against any kind of affirmative action. A section of society was discriminated by a particular religion ...the section had the liberty to change religion ...still, most of them stayed in that faith which had subjugated them. I believe that a market economy controlled by law supply and demand eliminates these kinds of social evils. In tokugawa clan ruled Japan there was a strict hierarchy of four casts...which withered away with industrialization and Meiji restoration. If you don't know about Tokugawa cast system you can google it.
@@pratheshwarmeiyananthan8464 There are many families among SC and ST sections of north and south india who have a per annum income above 24 lacs...how on earth they are oppressed ? Similarly there are certain sections of ST community in north east region who do not even know about reservation and barely make ends meet (they are living under extreme poverty). Still the government has no interest in granting benifits to those ST people in North Bengal and NE.
I would always answer HIndu because It a better option. There is more short term profit to that. I do not have to engage in stupid arguments that comes after saying I am an atheist. Proud to be a HIndu
Please debate with Acharya Prashant he is the one who would be a real challenge, not that I support him or his understanding but it would definitely be a learning experience.
I asked Chat GPT a question: Does Hindu atheist is same as Charvaka? Whats common and what not? And answer was: While both Hindu atheism and Charvaka philosophy share a skepticism towards traditional religious beliefs and an emphasis on empirical evidence, they differ in their historical context, ethical considerations, and the extent of their metaphysical speculations. So no, Charvaka's philosophy is not same as Hindu Atheism.
I think the caller does not have a legal understanding that why he is confused. Article 12 provides the definition of State but it's different from the definition of State under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Why is that? because whenever a legal term defines itself it is defined within a contour. The word "his" in Representation of the People Act, 1951 has a different meaning than we use in normal English. The word "Hindu" in article 25B has its contours. ITS FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. When we are talking about fundamental rights a Buddhist is considered a Hindu, That means that if we made a change in fundamental rights for Hindus it would be applicable for Buddhists also, that's it. Article 25B does not provide a philosophical definition of Hindus or Buddhism.
I am atheist but fill up certain forms as Hindu because there is simply no option to enter atheist as a choice. Electronic forms do not have the "atheist" option. The census officer just asks if there is a new member in the family or deaths but does not ask for change in status for existing member.
I think I've understood what this whole Hindu-Atheist label is about. It appears to be an attempt to unify two distinct identities. One is a cultural identity rooted in religious tradition, while the other is a secular identity based on the rejection of religious theology, or more broadly the rejection of the supernatural. The need to combine these identities arises because a purely secular identity often lacks the cultural and ethical frameworks that provide meaning. The atheistic label merely signifies a rejection of theology and does not convey one's values, which most people derive from their culture. For example, an atheist can also be a proud racist, and their racism would be independent of their atheism since atheism does not prescribe any particular values or moral beliefs. However, I do need my cultural identity to be racist because there is no objective reality to race and racial hierarchy. This perspective also explains why relatively so few Indians identify solely as atheists. Unlike religion, atheism does not offer a comprehensive moralizing belief system or a sense of belonging. This explains why both identifiers are required to convey an accurate picture of oneself. What do you think? Am I onto something?
But what arguments would you present if I were to ask why carvaka school of philosophy can’t add new ideas and concepts to its way of thinking? Are we forbidden from evolving our thought processes?
Vimoh just play word games. He can't accept that there is anything like hindu atheism. He says in modern times hindu is a specific religion but the problem is who decides its a specific religion even if the so called hinduism itself doesn't fit into the molds of a religion. He says why you need to specifically call yourself a hindu atheist it creates confusion. It does create confusion and that's why we need educate people. Why an atheist should only be identified with the western version. Why we can't have our own version if it fits with our indigenous philosophies. It's kinda arrogant to say that no athiesm is the birth right of only west India didn't had anything like this. He says that he doesn't need permission from hindus to be an atheist so why you have problem with hindu atheism? Oh yeah it creates confusion but what if hindus starts saying that your version of atheism is confusing them so stop calling yourself atheist call yourself hindu atheist.
@@romeomontague9294 I am not getting what are you saying about Vedanta and Sankhya. The grammar is illegible (can't be understood). Kindly please rewrite , explain lucidly and give definition of Hinduism.
NeoCharvak's issue is he thinks definitions are explanations. They aren't. Definitions are supposed to be the starting point for a discussion or debate. I do agree with one point that philosophies can change and new additions can be done to ones that existed before. But even then, he can't call himself a "Carvaka" since modifying it even a bit makes it cease to exist.
The bridge from Matter is a function of something else, more fundamental, to saying "Matter doesn't exist" is too long. Scientists agree on the former but not with the latter, which is settled and rested.
He's so FOCUSED on proving himself right that he'll reject ANY point which does not support his arguments and talk over people when they try to make a coherent argument and keep talking in circles until everyone is completely confused and he can then say that he proved his point since his talking in circles somehow proves something. Also, he seems to forget how Hinduism is practised TODAY. Indians do not practice hinduism as a philosophical path that can lead somewhere, its basically worshipping gods, going to temples and doing their daily rituals. MOST, if not all, hindus in India just do what every other religious person does. Hindus do not go philosophizing about brahman, philosophy, truth etc.
Copy-pasting from the livestream video Regarding NeoCharvak's Constitutional definition of Hinduism, article 25 2b is specifically for the purpose of administering Hindu institutions and application of Hindu Code bill. Hindu code is also applicable to Buddhists and Sikhs. It apso allows provisions and exceptions for sikhs. Yet despite that, Buddhists and Sikhs do not like that.
@@vimohhow?? Socialism is the stage after the Marxist revolution, which a temporary stage to get to the ultimate aim of stateless society called communism, socialism is just the collective contol of Means of Production, which is essentially a Marxist Idea, that's why non Marxist socialist isn't a thing, may be you want to say Social democrat??
Kitne bar batau ...Charvaka are materialists .. not Hindus ...Yavat jibet Sukham jibet, rinam kritwa ghritam pibet....they have rejected samhitas,Brahmans, Aranyakas and Upanishads...period. Ye Neo Charvaka Vedanta ko lekar obsessed kiu hain ? He himself is a Charvaka na ? Khud atheist ban ke astik philosophies ko defend karne a gaya...
@@sarthakgothalyan8952 source : Sarva Darshana Samagra by Madhavacharya. We have no sources about the lokayata Brigaspatya sutras of Charvaka scholar Brihaspati. We know about them through Buddhist and Hindu quotations in their scriptures. The tripitaka talks about Ajita Keshkambli who was a charvaka.
@@sarthakgothalyan8952 Apne man se nahi likh raha hoon...wahi likh raha hoon ...jo scholars ne likhe hain...We have no direct sources of Charvaka Brihaspatya sutras...apke pas hain kiya?
First define 'hinduism' then move to the conclusion whether charvaks are hindus are not. And yes they are materialists but what made you say that materialists can't be hindus
@@romeomontague9294 Sab milke define define khelte hain chalo fir. I don't like the term Hinduism ....I call it Vedic- Puranic religion. The Vedic clans and tribes used to worship the 33 deities ...12 Adityas , 11 rudras , 8 Vasus , 1 Prajapati, 2 aswini kumars. Nowadays people only worship them passively while worshipping and praying to Puranic deities like Shiva, Kali , Durga , Ganesh etc. (Varuna and Mitra are worshipped while doing Puja of Durga). Then the Upanishads along with some parts of Brahmans and Aranyaka books form the 6 philosophies (shad darshana) Sankhya , Yoga , Vaiseshika, Vedanta , Mimansa and Nyaya. Buddhism , Jainism and Sikhism have their own institutions , school of thoughts and practices ...they are not part of the "Vedic Puranic religion". Charvakas are one kind of materialists (there are different types of materialism)...period.
Also there is no such things as Hinduism as a religion, its a disgusting term given to us by invaders, maximum we can call it as a cultural identity rather than a religion, The term Hindu itself derived from the River Sindhu. The various practices or ideologies together are called as Hinduism by invaders/outsiders. And since they were the one ruling us for multiple centuries, they made it as the identity of people here and called it as a religion according to their understanding, and we stupidly started calling ourself that. And you don't want us to undo it, you want to emphasie their narration or term on us
@@watwenyyyy exactly, Castesim and Hinduism are a narration created by west and abused by people like you to demonise our culture, When and how did we switched from varna system to Caste system? tell me which scripture mention any of the caste??? how a professions started becaming caste? You are not interested in that, coz you want to set a narrative to demonise my culture. That's why I said these terms are disgusting
Have you even read anything? or even tried to understand what the text says and means? You don't think beyond casteism is because that is what you are brainwashed into thinking. You people are no less then brainwashed right wing extremists. Hyporcrites who just have made their own decision and do not want to even try to understand the reality.
Hinduism is simply a forced term to categories all indigenousily born philosophies in India apart from the imported thought systems like Christianity and Islam. The problem is that if you start applying modern definition of religion to Hinduism there would be many philosophies and schools of thoughts that would be broken apart from Hinduism and would deserve to be called another religion. Even in very recent times there have been hindu sects that demanded themselves to be separated from Hinduism so that they can get a minority status because they were being persecuted in Bengal. When you talk about hindu atheist it actually make sense because you are identifying yourself with those hindu philosophies that are atheistic in nature. It doesn't create any confusion until and unless you don't like listening hindu and atheists words together
Philosophically you have to subscribe to Materialism to be an Atheist...You can not believe in Idealism like Advait and be an atheist at the same time.....
Then be an agnostic, why do you have to label yourself and bind your views in a form. The basic tenant of atheism is curiosity so be curious and skeptic.
@@dragoons292010where does disbelief in God comes from chote bhai, society fills us with the Belief of God but it is only through skepticism and logic you find truths for yourself. Thoda deep toh jao tab dimag khulega naah, People say they are "rational" "atheist" par khud ek kua ke mendak Bane reh jate hai. These people are laughable at the very least .
@@HumanityNotDoomedtrue😂 being an curious agnostic who is acceptive and inclusive and respect towards each other culture and constructive criticism is better than egoistic and ignorant atheistic pov just like him
Let me expand this. Advaita of the Shankar Mathas (not a Neo Advaita retreat built by a Scientist and Engineer in California based on Knowledge seeking and Spiritual Materialism), is very incompatible with Science. Period. Their Advaita is as compatible with Science just around a little more than how compatible are Christianity, Islam or Dwaita. Matter does exist and so does Energy. Matter and Energy being a function of something else, is possible, like a sort of an Ultimate Physical Existence, BUT it will not negate the Physical Existence of Matter and Energy, like their Advaita does. The Neo Advaita folks do make up some Science compatible claims and must be examined on case by case basis.
Man advaita doest say that matter isnt real. Advaita vedanta simply says that everything is real but not in the way you think it to be. In very easy and crude example would be a movie. If there is a movie going on then yeah its definitely real a movie is playing on a TV but problem arises when you start assuming that you're part of that movie in that sense its not real not that everything is like a matrix or something as most people assume to be when they first read advaita vedanta
why is this so difficult New Charvak? position is simple right? It's just to say Atheism should have no bones to pick with the atheisitic side of the vedas... Theistic prayers can be ignored... that's the bloody position... whether god exists or not is questioned or not in Vedas as well.. it's hypothetical.. Vedas talk about non duality and that is a state of mind which can be achieved through meditation and contemplation.. that's all.. if you debate the way you currently do, Vimoh will convert me to be atheist
Okay, I have seen about 15 minutes of this and my migraine just got worse.
The caller was trying to have two conversations at the same time. One with Vimoh and the other one with himself. Hence the confusion and the source of our collective migraines.
Charvakha was an Atheistic sect of people. Vedas are not harrapan.
Why are Hindus coping? I'm an atheist, borm hindu in devbhoomi, btw
They hated vedhas
@@Benetic_360 you're actually uneducated on the topic bro. They didn't believe in blind faith but only in what they saw with their own eyes.
Which itself leads to more problems obviously
Wait there were a seal in indus vally civilisation that depicts a man doing a yoga pose and the inventer of yoga is considered as Maharishi patanjali and yoga is also first mentioned in vedas.
@@Benetic_360 have you ever read them?
Sanatan = eternal
Charvaka = no eternal only material
That's it
More deals with how to make life better in the human realm. And what is observed is true scientific/empirical evidence is needed. And science is definitely not sanatan. It evolves continuously. I mean science is in a constant process of scrutinizing its own theories and becoming better.
The problem with neocharvak is that he's all over the place. I really wish this would have been a coherent discourse, instead its just 20 mins of neochravak trying to get his point accross and vimoh trying to break it down so it could be a lucid conversation. I guess it's hard to have such discussions. For where credit's due- I'm totally intrigued by neocharvak's arguments ans I honestly believe he should compile his arguments better and have a longer discourse with Vimoh.
Brings more confusion 😂
Vimoh your prefrontal cortex brian develop next level
No. It is not. You are brai nwashed.
The term Hindu-Atheist would have been correct had the term "Hindu" didn't metamorphosed and begun to entirely mean religion. The metamorphosis of the term Hindu started during the colonial times. Hinduism was never a religion, Hinduism as a form of religious consciousness never existed in the history of Indiam subcontinent. It is for this reason some muslims preferred to be called themselves as Hindu-Muhammedans during colonial times.
Hindu as religious conciousness primarily got the momentum when it was decided to partition the nation on religious lines by the British. It was natural for the British to see the broader identity of a community of people to be strictly religious because western world and abrahamic religions viewd it as such.
If one goes by present scenario, the term Hindu means religion for 99.99% of India's population.
Many people fall into these traps of naming because there is an ongoing attempt to once again change the present nature of the term Hindu so that it can assimilate every other distinct forms of thought like atheism, buddhism, humanisms, theism, sikhism, jainism, tribalism, (excluding Islam and Christianity) into Hindu fold so that the Hindu order which is another name of caste order is maintained by ensuring people not leaving the Hindu fold due to the formation of these thoughts.
This further ensures the hegemony of the ruling/powerful castes to be maintained by not letting them exposed into minorities. These castes would continue derive their power so long as the broader Hindu identity remain intact.
"Ruling/powerful castes" does it even mean anything
@@NeoCarvakChannel I agree but Hinduism as we understand today is not a atheistic religion. One of the reason Hinduism is distinct from Buddhism, Jainism, etc because the former is theistic while the latter are atheistic and disregard the vedas. Hinduism as defined by swami vivekananda is a religion which believe in God and the authority of vedas. In his views, Hinduism is vedantic religion.
Actually, in my previous comment, I should have added the adjective 'theistic' before mentioning Hinduism as a religion. Nevertheless, it was implicit, because thats how people perceive Hinduism as a religion.
I assume listening to Deeps talk is what being high feels like.
As a high person i agree with your conclusion
He's close to athiest... Than to be a charvaka.
Neo charvaka is not a Philosophical position, but rather an emotional position.
It's like u don't want to completely leave the scriptures, traditions, festivals, philosophies etc. But u also don't believe in God.
This ain't a buffet. Why he's not choosing Christian athiest? Since He's ready to change somethings from the definition, then we can skip jesus part and say u r chirstain atheist, who doesn't believe in christ.
I too in earlier years felt, I'm an hindu athiest (before even knowing this term existed)... Now when I look back, I understand it was my starting and I didn't wanted to completely nullify everything. Wanted to be close the culture. But since an year or two, I realised.. I can't combine athiesm. If I am an hindu athiest, then I also become Christian athiest, muslim athiest too the same time, since I've removed the very focal point of what seperates Christians, Muslims and Hindus.
I actually feel bad about my athiest stance too sometimes, when I eat at Bhandaras or at a pooja i'm invited too. 😅, feels like I'm betraying them and im kinda selfish. So yeah, this hindu athiesm word could give me some moral and feeling of togetherness with them but it's just a self justification and not actually my correct ideology.
I don't know what's there to be ashamed at Eating at Bhandaras?
Be Greatful to the Farmer who cultivated that Grain, be Greatful to the Cook who prepared it, not to some Imaginary Being
@@basantprasadsgarden8365 feelings are irrational. Dilemma is uncomfortable. Humans are more comfortable with extreme positions where they can have clarity
This middle ground feels like being dishonest to both sides. Its like having an affair🤪
@@gamesong6600TRUE.
@@basantprasadsgarden8365Exactly. There are secular food cantins too run by many NGOs....Tata,Azim Premji Foundation etc. do charity without religious proselytization.
@@gamesong6600 Just be Honest to yourself, not side is Honest to you, no need to be Honest to anyside 👍
It's "No religion" and not "Athiest" provided in government forms
I kinda like this guy, he's polite, It felt like Vimoh is being kinda too aggressive bro, invite me sometime haha
come on any saturday
Well vimoh was not aggressive enough... just because the caller was polite doesn't mean he was rational and asking for clarification is not being aggressive.
@@lukahansdavlogs💯
Vimoh has godly patience
ungodly
Apart from all the confusion, why a lot of atheists still fill out certain forms as Hindus is solely because of the caste system. The caste system applies to every Indian and the governments policies are being aimed at it. In order to be a person of a certain caste to avail these benefits (which are their right) they have to fill out forms as Hindus and state their caste. Conversion into an atheist would deprive them of these measures that bring them social equality.
If they believe in any cast or varna they are not atheist ....Sneha Parthibarajan did a PIL to get "No Caste No Religion" certificate ...and she got it from the Tamil Nadu govt. Agar cast ka bhi malai khana hain ...to wo log jhute atheist hain ...according to my opinion. There are so-called atheists too who marry according to the Hindu Marriage Act to get the benefits tax cuts of HUF (Hindu Undivided Family)..they are false atheists.
Thats a dumb argument. If you are an atheist and dont believe in caste, then suddenly all caste based discirminaitons disappear? If you're from obc or sc or st and you've become an atheist, it would not change the fact that you were oppressed and you still need reservations and government benefits as they are your rights. So mo atheists should let go of their caste certifcate until a time comes when the government deems reservation is not needed and equality has been somewhat achieved in all fields. Kindly watch Vimohs umpty number of videos about reservation and get some insight.
@@pratheshwarmeiyananthan8464 I am against any kind of affirmative action. A section of society was discriminated by a particular religion ...the section had the liberty to change religion ...still, most of them stayed in that faith which had subjugated them. I believe that a market economy controlled by law supply and demand eliminates these kinds of social evils. In tokugawa clan ruled Japan there was a strict hierarchy of four casts...which withered away with industrialization and Meiji restoration. If you don't know about Tokugawa cast system you can google it.
@@pratheshwarmeiyananthan8464 I do not support Vimoh on his views about reservation and I tam against his socialism too.
@@pratheshwarmeiyananthan8464 There are many families among SC and ST sections of north and south india who have a per annum income above 24 lacs...how on earth they are oppressed ? Similarly there are certain sections of ST community in north east region who do not even know about reservation and barely make ends meet (they are living under extreme poverty). Still the government has no interest in granting benifits to those ST people in North Bengal and NE.
I would always answer HIndu because It a better option. There is more short term profit to that. I do not have to engage in stupid arguments that comes after saying I am an atheist. Proud to be a HIndu
Please debate with Acharya Prashant he is the one who would be a real challenge, not that I support him or his understanding but it would definitely be a learning experience.
I think Acharya Prashant is atheis
I asked Chat GPT a question: Does Hindu atheist is same as Charvaka? Whats common and what not?
And answer was: While both Hindu atheism and Charvaka philosophy share a skepticism towards traditional religious beliefs and an emphasis on empirical evidence, they differ in their historical context, ethical considerations, and the extent of their metaphysical speculations.
So no, Charvaka's philosophy is not same as Hindu Atheism.
Bro this title is the best
If there's no god then what explains this 🍆🍅? Checkmate Vimoh!
I thought you didn't know chess.
I think the caller does not have a legal understanding that why he is confused. Article 12 provides the definition of State but it's different from the definition of State under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Why is that? because whenever a legal term defines itself it is defined within a contour. The word "his" in Representation of the People Act, 1951 has a different meaning than we use in normal English. The word "Hindu" in article 25B has its contours. ITS FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. When we are talking about fundamental rights a Buddhist is considered a Hindu, That means that if we made a change in fundamental rights for Hindus it would be applicable for Buddhists also, that's it. Article 25B does not provide a philosophical definition of Hindus or Buddhism.
I am atheist but fill up certain forms as Hindu because there is simply no option to enter atheist as a choice. Electronic forms do not have the "atheist" option. The census officer just asks if there is a new member in the family or deaths but does not ask for change in status for existing member.
i am a cultural hindu
There is no option, so you are a Hindu atheist haa
Culture based on religion 😂@@AyushKumar-fo5yu
I think I've understood what this whole Hindu-Atheist label is about. It appears to be an attempt to unify two distinct identities. One is a cultural identity rooted in religious tradition, while the other is a secular identity based on the rejection of religious theology, or more broadly the rejection of the supernatural.
The need to combine these identities arises because a purely secular identity often lacks the cultural and ethical frameworks that provide meaning. The atheistic label merely signifies a rejection of theology and does not convey one's values, which most people derive from their culture. For example, an atheist can also be a proud racist, and their racism would be independent of their atheism since atheism does not prescribe any particular values or moral beliefs. However, I do need my cultural identity to be racist because there is no objective reality to race and racial hierarchy.
This perspective also explains why relatively so few Indians identify solely as atheists. Unlike religion, atheism does not offer a comprehensive moralizing belief system or a sense of belonging. This explains why both identifiers are required to convey an accurate picture of oneself.
What do you think? Am I onto something?
I am a vegetarian but I want to call myself a Non Vegetarian as When we call Non Vegetarian means it includes both veg and non veg. Did you get it ?
But what arguments would you present if I were to ask why carvaka school of philosophy can’t add new ideas and concepts to its way of thinking? Are we forbidden from evolving our thought processes?
Vimoh just play word games. He can't accept that there is anything like hindu atheism. He says in modern times hindu is a specific religion but the problem is who decides its a specific religion even if the so called hinduism itself doesn't fit into the molds of a religion. He says why you need to specifically call yourself a hindu atheist it creates confusion. It does create confusion and that's why we need educate people. Why an atheist should only be identified with the western version. Why we can't have our own version if it fits with our indigenous philosophies. It's kinda arrogant to say that no athiesm is the birth right of only west India didn't had anything like this. He says that he doesn't need permission from hindus to be an atheist so why you have problem with hindu atheism? Oh yeah it creates confusion but what if hindus starts saying that your version of atheism is confusing them so stop calling yourself atheist call yourself hindu atheist.
Charvaka and Sarvastivada , Vibhasha, Shunyavad schools of Buddhism are the only atheistic philosophies n India. Sankhya , Vedanta are not atheistic.
@@combinatorics1224 Who is saying that Sankhyas and vedanta is atheistic are not? Did someone asked?
@@romeomontague9294 I am not getting what are you saying about Vedanta and Sankhya. The grammar is illegible (can't be understood). Kindly please rewrite , explain lucidly and give definition of Hinduism.
@@romeomontague9294 No one has asked. But you are claiming ABOUT A TERM CALLED HINDU ATHEISM. There are no Hindu philosophies which are atheistic.
@@romeomontague9294 Charvaka and Buddhism are not any part of Hinduism.
NeoCharvak's issue is he thinks definitions are explanations. They aren't. Definitions are supposed to be the starting point for a discussion or debate. I do agree with one point that philosophies can change and new additions can be done to ones that existed before. But even then, he can't call himself a "Carvaka" since modifying it even a bit makes it cease to exist.
The bridge from Matter is a function of something else, more fundamental, to saying "Matter doesn't exist" is too long. Scientists agree on the former but not with the latter, which is settled and rested.
these conversations are member exclusive ??
He's so FOCUSED on proving himself right that he'll reject ANY point which does not support his arguments and talk over people when they try to make a coherent argument and keep talking in circles until everyone is completely confused and he can then say that he proved his point since his talking in circles somehow proves something. Also, he seems to forget how Hinduism is practised TODAY. Indians do not practice hinduism as a philosophical path that can lead somewhere, its basically worshipping gods, going to temples and doing their daily rituals. MOST, if not all, hindus in India just do what every other religious person does. Hindus do not go philosophizing about brahman, philosophy, truth etc.
I am a non Muslim non Christian hindu atheist😅
😂😂😂
I have already seen many chances given to yhis person, who is also terrible listener.
You are brainwashed by lies.
Tu pan nastik ahe ka ?
How to join in for a convo with you?
Any Saturday at 8 pm on the live stream channel. Link on main page.
This guy is jumping from one extreme to another
Hindu distinct from Islamic christian religions? I see a link between the words Brahma and Abraham.
they are different
You didnt even understand whatever he said.
I did. But if you think I didn't, feel free to come on the live stream and explain it to me in a better way.
@@vimoh sure.
You need a better guest who can argue his position well. This was pointless.
if you think you are that better guest, come join on any Saturday at 8 pm
Copy-pasting from the livestream video
Regarding NeoCharvak's Constitutional definition of Hinduism, article 25 2b is specifically for the purpose of administering Hindu institutions and application of Hindu Code bill. Hindu code is also applicable to Buddhists and Sikhs. It apso allows provisions and exceptions for sikhs. Yet despite that, Buddhists and Sikhs do not like that.
This guy is deeply confused.... Sounds like a highly immature teenager...
Vimoh Non Marxist Socialist is as oxymoronic as Hindu Atheist, coz socialist is literally an intermediary stage of Communism goal
It's the other way around
@@vimohhow?? Socialism is the stage after the Marxist revolution, which a temporary stage to get to the ultimate aim of stateless society called communism, socialism is just
the collective contol of Means of Production, which is essentially a Marxist Idea, that's why non Marxist socialist isn't a thing, may be you want to say Social democrat??
Kitne bar batau ...Charvaka are materialists .. not Hindus ...Yavat jibet Sukham jibet, rinam kritwa ghritam pibet....they have rejected samhitas,Brahmans, Aranyakas and Upanishads...period. Ye Neo Charvaka Vedanta ko lekar obsessed kiu hain ? He himself is a Charvaka na ? Khud atheist ban ke astik philosophies ko defend karne a gaya...
Ye shlok kaha se uthaya wo bhi batana hota hai maharaj apne mn se kuch bhi nhi likh skte
@@sarthakgothalyan8952 source : Sarva Darshana Samagra by Madhavacharya. We have no sources about the lokayata Brigaspatya sutras of Charvaka scholar Brihaspati. We know about them through Buddhist and Hindu quotations in their scriptures. The tripitaka talks about Ajita Keshkambli who was a charvaka.
@@sarthakgothalyan8952 Apne man se nahi likh raha hoon...wahi likh raha hoon ...jo scholars ne likhe hain...We have no direct sources of Charvaka Brihaspatya sutras...apke pas hain kiya?
First define 'hinduism' then move to the conclusion whether charvaks are hindus are not. And yes they are materialists but what made you say that materialists can't be hindus
@@romeomontague9294 Sab milke define define khelte hain chalo fir. I don't like the term Hinduism ....I call it Vedic- Puranic religion. The Vedic clans and tribes used to worship the 33 deities ...12 Adityas , 11 rudras , 8 Vasus , 1 Prajapati, 2 aswini kumars. Nowadays people only worship them passively while worshipping and praying to Puranic deities like Shiva, Kali , Durga , Ganesh etc. (Varuna and Mitra are worshipped while doing Puja of Durga). Then the Upanishads along with some parts of Brahmans and Aranyaka books form the 6 philosophies (shad darshana) Sankhya , Yoga , Vaiseshika, Vedanta , Mimansa and Nyaya. Buddhism , Jainism and Sikhism have their own institutions , school of thoughts and practices ...they are not part of the "Vedic Puranic religion". Charvakas are one kind of materialists (there are different types of materialism)...period.
My tummy is full with all the jalebis he made😂
Weird debate between an atheïst and an atheïst.
@NeoCarvakChannel says that he is a political hindu
@@dragoons292010like Mossoline😂
Also there is no such things as Hinduism as a religion, its a disgusting term given to us by invaders, maximum we can call it as a cultural identity rather than a religion, The term Hindu itself derived from the River Sindhu. The various practices or ideologies together are called as Hinduism by invaders/outsiders. And since they were the one ruling us for multiple centuries, they made it as the identity of people here and called it as a religion according to their understanding, and we stupidly started calling ourself that. And you don't want us to undo it, you want to emphasie their narration or term on us
why is it disgusting term? it has no abuse In it!!! are you joking??? I don't think it has idiology other than casteism
@@watwenyyyy exactly, Castesim and Hinduism are a narration created by west and abused by people like you to demonise our culture, When and how did we switched from varna system to Caste system? tell me which scripture mention any of the caste??? how a professions started becaming caste? You are not interested in that, coz you want to set a narrative to demonise my culture. That's why I said these terms are disgusting
Have you even read anything? or even tried to understand what the text says and means? You don't think beyond casteism is because that is what you are brainwashed into thinking. You people are no less then brainwashed right wing extremists. Hyporcrites who just have made their own decision and do not want to even try to understand the reality.
Hinduism is simply a forced term to categories all indigenousily born philosophies in India apart from the imported thought systems like Christianity and Islam. The problem is that if you start applying modern definition of religion to Hinduism there would be many philosophies and schools of thoughts that would be broken apart from Hinduism and would deserve to be called another religion. Even in very recent times there have been hindu sects that demanded themselves to be separated from Hinduism so that they can get a minority status because they were being persecuted in Bengal. When you talk about hindu atheist it actually make sense because you are identifying yourself with those hindu philosophies that are atheistic in nature. It doesn't create any confusion until and unless you don't like listening hindu and atheists words together
Philosophically you have to subscribe to Materialism to be an Atheist...You can not believe in Idealism like Advait and be an atheist at the same time.....
Then be an agnostic, why do you have to label yourself and bind your views in a form. The basic tenant of atheism is curiosity so be curious and skeptic.
@@HumanityNotDoomed There are no basic tenets for atheism, except for disbelief in god
@@dragoons292010where does disbelief in God comes from chote bhai, society fills us with the Belief of God but it is only through skepticism and logic you find truths for yourself. Thoda deep toh jao tab dimag khulega naah, People say they are "rational" "atheist" par khud ek kua ke mendak Bane reh jate hai.
These people are laughable at the very least .
@@HumanityNotDoomedtrue😂 being an curious agnostic who is acceptive and inclusive and respect towards each other culture and constructive criticism is better than egoistic and ignorant atheistic pov just like him
Let me expand this. Advaita of the Shankar Mathas (not a Neo Advaita retreat built by a Scientist and Engineer in California based on Knowledge seeking and Spiritual Materialism), is very incompatible with Science. Period. Their Advaita is as compatible with Science just around a little more than how compatible are Christianity, Islam or Dwaita. Matter does exist and so does Energy. Matter and Energy being a function of something else, is possible, like a sort of an Ultimate Physical Existence, BUT it will not negate the Physical Existence of Matter and Energy, like their Advaita does. The Neo Advaita folks do make up some Science compatible claims and must be examined on case by case basis.
Man advaita doest say that matter isnt real. Advaita vedanta simply says that everything is real but not in the way you think it to be. In very easy and crude example would be a movie. If there is a movie going on then yeah its definitely real a movie is playing on a TV but problem arises when you start assuming that you're part of that movie in that sense its not real not that everything is like a matrix or something as most people assume to be when they first read advaita vedanta
Are aaj din me kaise ana hua ?
❤❤❤❤❤
Sir kisi takkar wale se debate karo ye to time waste hora h
Debunk arya samaj ideology of God
I also leave arya samaj
Arya samaj called matter and prakriti eternal which is doesn't make sense.
Good morning Vimoh
👍
😂
why is this so difficult New Charvak? position is simple right? It's just to say Atheism should have no bones to pick with the atheisitic side of the vedas... Theistic prayers can be ignored... that's the bloody position... whether god exists or not is questioned or not in Vedas as well.. it's hypothetical.. Vedas talk about non duality and that is a state of mind which can be achieved through meditation and contemplation.. that's all.. if you debate the way you currently do, Vimoh will convert me to be atheist