r/Philosophy_India

Maya or illusion is one of the central concepts in Indian philosophy. According to this idea, the world we experience is not ultimately real; it is like a dream or an illusion. The famous Indian philosopher Adi Shankaracharya explained this concept by comparing life to a dream. When we are dreaming, everything appears completely real. We experience emotions, people, and events as if they are actually happening. In the same way, he argued that the world we live in is also a kind of Maya.

However, I have a different perspective. I do not believe that this world is an illusion. I believe that the world is real.

Let us take the example of a dream. Suppose I dream that someone kills me. While I am dreaming, it feels real. But when I wake up, I realize that I am still alive. It was only a dream created by my subconscious mind.

Now compare that with the real world. If someone shoots a bullet at me in reality and I die, I do not wake up again as I do after a dream. Death in the real world has real consequences. This shows an important difference between dreams and reality. Dreams exist only in our subconscious mind, while the physical world exists independently of our imagination.

We breathe, eat, work, build relationships, experience happiness and pain, and interact with the world every day. These experiences have real effects on our lives. Because of this, I believe that the world cannot simply be dismissed as an illusion.

From my point of view, dreams are a product of the mind, but the world we live in is real. While the concept of Maya is a profound philosophical idea that encourages us to question the nature of reality, I believe that our physical existence and the consequences of our actions demonstrate that this world is not merely an illusion but a real place in which we live our lives.

I’ve always wondered about this. If a man truly loves his wife, why does he still choose to have children with her, knowing that pregnancy can be physically painful, emotionally demanding, and sometimes even risky? I’m genuinely curious to hear different perspectives from both men and women. What are your thoughts?

I’m an atheist(don’t believe in god) and a philosophy enthusiast, I have always found this debate on existence of god interesting. Since I’m interested to know how theists and agnostics would respond to this, feel free to engage in a discussion on this topic.

The problem of evil remains one of the most important questions that abrahamic faith fails to answer. The problem of evil is the idea that a classical notion of god(all powerful, all knowing, all good) could not possibly exist considering the amount of evil and suffering that remains unchecked in this world.

It remains a trump card for atheism in the debate of existence of god. People have tried to provide an explanation for that, with the claims that it is a part of divine judgment because of the acts we’ve done at some point in our life, accumulating sin leading upto our own suffering, or that, it is a free will granted to humans by god and hence god cannot intervene in human affairs. But there still remains two unsolved problems, one, that the free will thing doesn’t explain natural or nature based suffering(where there is no human intervention), two if you say it is still because of our sins, then how does one justify early deaths in children because of biological conditions? They didn’t gain enough maturity to be punished for a sin in their lifetime.

Philosophers like Saint Augustine, Thomas aquinas and Anslem of Canterbury have tried enormously to provide a reasonable theodicy but have failed to give a complete answer, the only explanation that remains is that the rational order of god works in mysterious ways that is beyond human comprehension and so nonetheless we have to keep our faith intact.

On the other hand, in Hinduism, we have concept of rebirth, and apparently with the immortality of soul and concept of past karma, we claim to have answered the problem of evil, especially when the question of suffering in young infants were left unanswered by abrahamic religions, we answer it with the sins of previous life(now pragmatically and out of emotions, sometimes even if you’re a theist, you might reject this idea because you understand the depth of suffering but we need to understand here that this model is logically consistent and good enough to answer the problem of evil).

Unfortunately it doesn’t end here. I believe that Hindu philosophy gives a better framework to answer the problem of evil much better than the abrahamic faiths, but people don’t realise the number of new unanswered questions that arises which are more than the questions that are solved. I would love to share them one by one:

1. Moral relativism: this would’ve sustained even for the initial arguments before we discussed the rebirth. The issue with trying to solve the problem of evil with divine judgment is that it is pre assumed that the morals are objective, at least with respect to the religions which we’re talking about. Post Nietzschean and post modern philosophers have realised how morals are shaped by contingent cultural, geographical, and other factors specifications of an individual that go beyond the reach of an individual himself. So it’s pointless to punish an individual for not following a certain moral that isn’t absolute at all.

2. Absence of “self” and “free will”: expanding on the previous point, British empiricists have convincingly argued how the concept of self is an illusion and Nietzsche too has argued how free will is a myth. To me it is a very convincing idea, because even if one could argue that the tabula rasa theory(that everybody is a same blank slate when born, and the self of a person keeps shaping up as he grows depending on the environment he grows in) which Hume accepted is false, I would agree but that still doesn’t confirm the self or free will. Because what remains in a person when you takeaway his upbringing isn’t a blank slate, otherwise the concept of genetics would not even be a branch of science to study. So the slate might not be blank but the slate is definitely different for every person during his birth. And so there is no point in punishing a person, because a person was responsible for himself at the first place, what was responsible was a combination of his genetics and his upbringing.

3. The paradox of will to action: this might sound a weak argument but it still holds a pragmatic weight. If the Hinduism framework is sufficient in itself with the all powerful, all knowing, all good god, why is there a constant urge for will to action in the mythological/historical stories and why the need for divine interventions. Why the need for Vishnu to reincarnate as Narasimha and Krishna to save Prahlada and Arjuna to deal with hiranyakashipu and kauravas respectively, when he could’ve dealt with the judgement in the rebirths. Why the need for Arjuna to call for action, when he could’ve punished kauravas through their next births, a possibility could be that the god is under confident with his capability deliver divine judgements without the help of few chosen human beings. It feels like an astrologer making a certain prediction for a person and then conveying not to take any actions that could change the discourse or trajectory from the prediction.

4. Proof of rebirth: the two unverifiable and unobservable transcendental concepts; divine judgement and rebirth, act as a causation for each other, so divine judgement is only deemed possible if rebirth is deemed true, for which there is no proof.

5. Divine hiddenness of divine judgement: it would be foolish for a judicial system to convict or punish a criminal without conveying him the crime he has committed, and so if I’m suffering for something wrong I’ve committed, I need to be made aware of what wrong I have done, otherwise the punishment system is pointless.

Despite all this, Hindus can still convey the argument that was left out with the abrahamic faith followers, that is, god works in ways thy at we cannot comprehend and so the order is rational in itself but is beyond our understanding, but the fact remains that rebirth didn’t really solve the problem of evil for me.

Let me know what do you think of this.

Note: It might sound like I’m making a strong affirmative rejection of transcendental elements, but what I’m rather trying to convey is that the immanent structure we have is self sufficient in itself. I’m aware of how science fails to answer the questions that go beyond the boundaries of human reason but nowhere does that imply the existence of a transcendental truth, and nowhere at all to the existence of god.

Just to be clear, the concept of consciousness isn’t necessarily transcendental. People can argue that science or immanence cannot explain consciousness, no it can, consciousness arrived from another consciousness, what rather can be a metaphysical or unanswerable question for science is where the first consciousness originated from, or whether there was “first consciousness” at all at the first place, which is equivalent to asking the origin of universe itself.

My theory is people are by default Right wing, follow the tradition, hence have been inducted into patriarchy, patriotism, societal morals and so own, as they are taught. And being a liberal or left is an acquired taste for most, considering the parents are similar orthodox people. I feel as most of the people are traditional, believe in God etc. The only way out of the belief system is educating one self, reading or by Golden luck getting teachers who themselves ain't traditional in their mindset. So all in all, I feel people who are rw even actually believing in Rw ( no qualms), actually haven't even read Liberal arts, or Marx etc. They haven't encountered other points of views of looking at life, they don't even know what they are fighting tooth and nail. Maybe a person who kills the other in the name of religion, caste or gender. Doesn't even know how to think otherwise, in this case, he himself can't be blamed too.

One of the, or I should say, the leading factor why children grew up "religious" is because of their parent's religion.

There is a massive credibility enhancing display in a child's surrounding while growing in a religious environment.

Social context influences our worldview and thinking to a large extent.

Studies suggest that many of the children who grow up to be "religious" is not through reasoning or rationale but through societal constraints, conditioning and emotional factors.

Conformity and prestigious bias also largely shape the worldviews of the child because there is a natural inclination towards believing what majority of the people believe and to consider believes of "prestigious figures" as absolute truth.

The "practice what you preach" attitude further strengthens the view because we, as humans, have a natural bias leaning towards thinking what other people believe and practice as being true.

To a large extent we are products of our cultural learning and environments.

What I desire is that religions should be held under scrutiny, be questioned, put under investigation, thought about rationally rather being thought as a geographic, social or cultural "accident".

J Krishnamurthy

Krishnamurti argues that a peaceful and compassionate world cannot be created merely through political, social, or economic strategies such as ideologies or reforms. While these may change external conditions, they cannot remove the inner causes of conflict fear, greed, hatred, and ambition. He believes that real transformation begins with a profound psychological change in each individual through direct self-observation, not through following gurus, organized religion, or any ideology

What's your take on this?

You do realise it is possible that Gandhi Zeus Eros Jesus and Allen can all live on the same planet at the same time in peace

As the title suggests, I wish to denounce this trope or at least start a discourse around the topic without being labelled "unscientific". Spencer's idea of natural selection was rudimentary and did not account for the racial malice humans are capable of.

Survival of the fittest might be a sophisticated lie - propagated by the whites to justify their subjugation of others. And we being meek docile Indians accepted it without any concrete reasoning.

My problem with this trope is that it enables the "fitter beings" to make others unfit - entire mechanisms and toolkits enriched with resources deployed to make others unfit, only to justify their own extravagant survival.

With the advent of artificial intelligence, the wealthy may become fitter without actually ever putting in the efforts and the supposedly u fit are digging their own grave by feeding their inconsequential ideas and patterns to AI databases.

The western idea of enlightenment propagates monstrosity under the guise of law of natural selection.

We are living in an age of information, yet we remain the most mentally colonized generation in history. From the ancient scriptures of the East to the 'enlightened' nihilism of the West, we have been fed a steady diet of intellectual poison. Let’s strip the mask off this entire industry.

1. The 'Guru' Cult (Acharya Prashant, Osho, and their clones):

These people are not teachers; they are parasites. Take Acharya Prashant—he has built a career out of weaponizing the word 'ego' to gaslight people into submission. He takes complex human emotions—love, ambition, friendship—and labels them 'bondage' so you can feel guilty enough to keep buying his courses and watching his 'wisdom'. And Osho? He was the original scam artist, selling 'liberation' through hedonism and narcissism. These gurus don't want you 'free'; they want you insecure. If you were actually free, their business model would collapse. You aren't 'spiritual'; you are just a paying customer in a cult.

2. Modern Philosophies are just rebranded cowardice:

Modern 'wisdom'—like the Neo-Stoic craze or modern secular nihilism—is for people too terrified to actually live. 'Oh, don't react, be stoic.' 'Oh, life is meaningless, so why bother?' This is the philosophy of the defeated. It’s a comfort blanket for the mediocre to feel superior while they waste their lives. They call it 'mental strength', but it's actually emotional castration. They have taught you to suppress your natural instincts so you don't threaten the status quo.

3. The Western-Eastern Pincer Movement:

Whether it’s the Buddhist/Jain 'renunciation' or the Western metaphysical obsession with 'higher truths', it’s all the same scam: They invalidate the physical for the sake of the imaginary. They tell you your body is a 'temple' or a 'trap', that your desires are 'low', and that your focus should be on some abstract concept of 'truth'. This is a strategic hit on your vitality. They have systematically convinced you that wanting, winning, and feeling is 'wrong' so that you stay a docile, obedient worker bee.

4. The 'Humiliation' of the Human Spirit:

These philosophies are objectively humiliating. They look at a human—a biological miracle capable of love, rage, ambition, and creation—and tell them they are 'nothing', 'ego-driven', or 'suffering'. They have turned the human experience into a clinical pathology. They don't want you to be a powerhouse; they want you to be a 'peaceful' zombie.

5. Why you are still falling for it:

You are falling for it because you are weak. You are scared of the responsibility of being a free human, so you look for a 'truth' that someone else can hand you. You buy their books, watch their reels, and parrot their 'deep' quotes because it's easier than facing the harsh, scientific reality that there is no 'path'. There is only your biology, your hard work, and the results you get. Everything else is a fairy tale for the mentally soft.

I am declaring a total war on 'Wisdom'. I am done with the Acharya Prashant, the modern Stoics, the religious dogma, and the academic philosophy. They are not 'enlightened'—they are intellectual cowards and opportunistic scammers who prey on the frustrated and the lost.

If you want to be a human, start by killing the 'Guru' in your head. Burn your books, delete your 'inspirational' reels, and look at your own biology. Your 'Ego' isn't the problem—the problem is that you are too spineless to own your life without someone else's permission.

Post this wherever you want. I know it’s going to trigger the 'enlightened' lot—that’s the whole point. You aren't 'woke'; you are programmed. It's time for a factory reset."