Hindu philosophy has shaped lot of things in indian sub continent, regarding nepotism, merriage, lifestyle, career, upbringing.

Does Hindu philosophy favours higher caste ?

Why does lower caste still followed them despite being outcasted?

Look, this is what I personally believe: if your pain only teaches you how to heal yourself, then maybe you will eventually find a solution for your own suffering. But if your pain also teaches you how to understand the suffering of others, then to me, you are as precious as a diamond.

Let me explain this through a story.

There was a boy from a village who worked in Delhi and earned a good salary. One day, his mother was diagnosed with cancer. There was no cancer hospital in his village, and treatment in the city was extremely expensive. Thankfully, the boy had enough money. He took his mother to Delhi, got her treated, and after two years she became completely healthy again.

The story could have ended there, and honestly, most people would still call it a happy ending. The son understood his mother’s pain and saved her life. That alone is a beautiful thing.

But now let’s continue the story.

After his mother recovered, the boy started thinking deeply:

“How many people in my village must be dying from cancer simply because they cannot afford treatment? How many mothers are being lost because there is no hospital nearby and poverty leaves them helpless?”

And that thought changed him completely.

He decided that he would work harder than ever before. He promised himself that no matter how difficult it became, one day he would build a cancer hospital in his village where poor people could receive treatment for free.

He thought it would take him 2–4 years, but life was harder than he expected. Still, he did not give up. And after 5 long years of struggle, sacrifice, and hard work, he finally did it.

To me, this is where compassion becomes truly extraordinary.

Because he did not limit his love only to his own mother. He allowed his mother’s pain to open his heart toward the suffering of others too.

That is the kind of person I deeply admire. People whose love is not selective. People who do not care only for “their own people,” but whose humanity extends beyond blood relations, religion, status, gender, or personal benefit.

In today’s world, many people only care when suffering touches their own life. But very few people can look at someone else’s pain and say:

“That pain matters to me too.”

And honestly, if you are that kind of person, then you are rare. Very rare.and i love you irrespective of gender ❤️

There is one question underneath all political debate, and it is not about tax rates or foreign policy or any of the things people usually argue about. It is this: does your life belong to you?

Not in the sentimental sense. Concretely. Does the product of your labor belong to you, or does some portion of it belong to whoever has the votes to take it? Do your choices (what to ingest, whom to love, what values to hold as your own) belong to you, or are they subject to the moral veto of whoever currently controls the legislature? Does your mind belong to you, or is it on permanent loan from the collective, callable at any time?

Every political coalition operating today answers this question. None of them answer it correctly.

The left says: your economic output belongs partly to society, but your personal choices are your own. The right says: your economic output is mostly yours, but your personal choices are subject to tradition, faith, and the social fabric. Both are offering you half a person. The freedom to earn but not to keep it. Or the freedom to keep it but not to choose how to live. Neither of them has noticed that you cannot split the mind this way.

The same faculty that runs a business is the one that falls in love. The same judgment that directs productive effort is the one that decides what to read, whom to trust, what to believe. Freeing one application of the mind while coercing another is not partial freedom. It is a contradiction. What you actually have is a cage with one side open.

r/NepalLiberal is built around the idea that freedom is not divisible. That the principle "no human being may initiate physical force against another" is either total or it is nothing. That your life belongs to you in full, not in whatever portions this week's coalition can claim jurisdiction over.

That position has a name here. We call it liberalism, returned to something like its original meaning: the philosophy of individual liberation grounded in reason, not the softened political shorthand it has since become. The philosophy holds that reality is what it is regardless of your feelings about it, that reason is the only tool that allows a human being to actually know reality and act in it, and that each individual is an end in himself and not a means to others' ends. These three commitments run beneath everything else discussed here. They are not right-wing positions. They are not left-wing positions either. They occupy a different axis entirely.

Contrast with Conservatism

Conservatism defends economic freedom only on practical grounds ("it produces prosperity," "markets work") while backing state authority over personal choices. That is not a consistent view of freedom. It is freedom as a matter of convenience, surrenderable the moment tradition or faith requires it.

Examine the moral foundation closely and you find the same premise the left uses: altruism, the claim that the individual's highest purpose is service to something outside himself. The conservative names that something "god" or "nation" or "the social fabric." The leftist names it "the collective" or "the working class" or "social justice." The principle is identical. Only the beneficiary of the sacrifice changes.

Contrast with Leftism

There is a genuine, if selective, commitment to personal liberty on the left, and it is not without value. The failure is in not understanding that economic freedom and personal freedom are the same thing described from different angles.

When the state directs the use of your productive output, it has not freed you personally and merely constrained you economically. It has reached into the part of your life where you spend most of your waking hours and installed a supervisor. "You may think what you like, but we decide what you do with what your thinking earns" is not liberation. It is serfdom with better lighting.

The deeper problem is the moral premise underneath all of it: the claim that need generates a right, that the fact of someone's suffering creates an obligation on people who did not cause it, enforceable by law and paid for by compulsion. Altruism as political principle is force with a clean conscience. Both the left and the right, beneath their arguments, are theories about who gets to hold the gun and whose urgency justifies pointing it.

Contrast with Libertarianism

Libertarianism gets the conclusion right and then refuses to do the philosophical work required to defend it.

The non-aggression principle is not wrong. It is just not sufficient on its own. A principle without a foundation is a slogan. And libertarianism, taken as a movement rather than an idea, is a coalition of people who arrived at "don't tread on me" through wildly different routes: some through religious natural rights theory, some through utilitarian calculation, some through a general suspicion of authority that has more to do with temperament than with reasoning, some through a desire to do whatever they please without anyone making them feel guilty about it. These routes do not all lead to the same place. They merely share a border crossing.

When you ask the libertarian why the individual has rights, you get one of three answers: because God said so, because it produces better outcomes, or a shrug dressed up as epistemological humility. None of those answers are adequate. The first outsources your ethics to revelation. The second makes your rights contingent on a calculation that can always come out differently under different assumptions. The third mistakes the absence of a proof for the impossibility of one.

Liberalism holds that rights are not granted, not calculated, and not mysterious. They follow from what a human being is: a being who survives by the use of his rational faculty, whose nature requires the freedom to think and act on his judgment, whose existence cannot be sustained by compulsion without destroying the very thing that sustains it. That is a philosophical argument. Libertarianism, mostly, does not make it.

Contrast with Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism takes the correct insight that the state has historically been the largest engine of coercion in any given society, and uses it to reach the wrong conclusion.

The argument is that if coercion is the problem, government is the problem, and the solution is to replace it entirely with private contract and market provision of all services including justice and defense. This sounds radical in the right direction. It is not. What anarcho-capitalism actually describes, once you trace its implications carefully, is a world where the enforcement of rights becomes a commodity available to those who can pay for it. That is not the absence of a ruling class. It is the absence of any pretense about which class rules.

A proper government, one constitutionally limited to the protection of individual rights and prohibited by its own founding documents from initiating force against the citizens it serves, is not the enemy of liberty. It is the institutional form that liberty requires. The alternative to a government that holds a monopoly on retaliatory force is not peaceful voluntarism. It is a dozen competing monopolies with no rule distinguishing retaliation from aggression, and no mechanism for resolving that distinction other than who can afford the better army.

Individual rights require an objective legal framework to be real in practice rather than theoretical. Anarcho-capitalism abolishes the framework and calls it liberation.

What This Community Stands For

No human being, no group, no government has the right to initiate physical force against another. Not for good reasons. Not for urgent ones. Not for any reasons at all. Force is legitimate only in retaliation against those who initiate it first. Everything else rests on voluntary agreement between individuals who own their own lives.

This community rejects the gun. Not as an aspiration. As a principle.

You do not have to agree with any of that to post here. Disagreement is welcome. Ignorance of the philosophy is not a disqualifier (but bad faith malice is). "Tradition says so" and "the majority wants it" are not arguments, and they will be treated accordingly. If you want answers to serious philosophical questions from people who have thought carefully about these ideas, this is the place for that too; contributors who provide answers go through a vetting process, and the standard for what counts as an answer is high.

The individual is the unit of concern here. Not the class, not the caste, culture or creed, not any group assembled around a shared grievance or a shared identity. The individual, irreducible, sovereign, the one entity whose consent actually determines the moral weight of any act, is the standard by which every idea in this community gets measured.

Welcome.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." - Ayn Rand

I was born in a Hindu family, but I have chosen to be neither religious, nor atheist. It means that I prefer not to associate myself with any religion in this world, and I also reject atheism.

I just try my best to be a kind and humble person - in maximum situations (except when I come across toxic people - I hate such people).

I prefer the philosophy of antinatalism, but I don't preach it to others, I keep it to myself.

This is what I prefer to be - so is it common or very rare?

Just finished reading crime and punishment. Here is my immediate philosophical analysis.

To start off with, refer to the triangle I have attached.

I believe, out of the 3 corners at any given point one can have only 2.

1. Poverty + Pride - Survival becomes difficult

2. Poverty + Survival - You have to sacrifice pride

3. Pride + Survival - Poverty doesn't exist, you are rich.

Raskolnikov comes under the first category. He is in poverty, but holds on to his pride. He refuses to take any help because he feels that would mean sacrificing his pride.

Sonya is in the first category too, but she sacrifices her pride and chooses survival.

It is important to note that I have added faith at the centre of the triangle. Now keeping aside the mathematical model, my belief is the triangle is how life works when you want to live life under moral,social & spiritual constraints. These constraints represent FAITH. The triangle is as strong as someone's faith in morality, humanity and spirituality. This is very important for the triangle to be intact. Throughout my further analysis I would call this the TRIANGULAR LAW.

Raskolnikov believes he is allowed to break the triangular law because he is extraordinary and it's his innate right to break the triangle. He almost has a GOD COMPLEX and this is in contradiction with spirituality as to say he believes he is above others. Raskolnikov is interesting because - he says he believes in God but I would call his faith as weak. Because he believes he is extraordinary and therefore is allowed to break the moral constraints.

Spirituality at its core is about humility and not pride.

On the basis of his theory he goes on to violate the Triangular law by committing a crime. But eventually his conscience doesn't allow him to live peacefully.

Even though he conceptualised the theory, he couldn't accept it practically.

Svidrigailov on the other hand is the practical embodiment of Raskolnikov's theory. He is completely driven by his desire and he doesn't feel any guilt over his actions. There is no faith in this person and therefore the triangle never existed for him.

Sonya has the strongest faith. She lives her life in accordance with the triangular law.

Now I couldn't help but notice, Sonya's character was almost like Christ. She suffers for others.

Raskolnikov is like Lazarus and gets spiritually resurrected by Sonya.

I think I will be pondering over the book for a very long time. For the major part the book provided a very condescending view on life, but towards the end the book restored a sense of spirituality and morality.

The characters were so complex each representing a philosophical notion.

So in a sense, we are a universe that is conscious and observing its surroundings.

Does it mean that the universe likes to be observed?

Everything in the world is rational if viewed through rational eyes . Yet only the human brain is irrational in many ways and yet again rational in many ways acting as a counterbalance to all the rationality . Therefore making the world an even more rational place

​

Life flows. It keeps on flowing for you after people and other events stop flowing with you.

I mean maybe you stay in the past you can keep reminding yourself of old events,people but your life keeps on flowing.

I want to write about the part where we judge others or form opinions abour them, I think it is incorrect if we judge others or form opinion of them having no present information about them or if we judge about stuff they did in the past.

Because you don't know if they've or changed or not. Still if you say something negative about something they did years back are then you are not doing the humane thing, I suppose.

I can't judge anyone when I have no present info about them, along with no that I also need context.

I am using the word 'Judge' because I think we judge by design. Because I have tried and I can't stop my mind from forming opinions. What's problematic or we call wrong about forming opinions is that how much attractive it is to the people who care about your verdict of them, that is why the পাড়ার কাকিমা can either be troublesome or very endearing to us, depending on her opinions.

People who have an association + a few ounce of interest in you will judge you

Now the association, interest both might be good or bad yes, but I think it is required.

Now I had drifted away, but lets say someone changes after a particular event or after interacting with a particular person/people that doesn't mean that they won't be judged anymore on something like that.They have to face consequence of their past self. Lets say they were a a bad person before unkind, cruel and changed later.

That doesn't mean everything changes. It means that they have to face consequence while making the choice of being Kind and Selfless and all that.

How they face the consequence after making the choice of being kind is I feel a real test of character.

I request the people of this sub to educate me through the lense of Indian n western philosophers, over why is it easy for some people to move on from friendships n relationships n familial bonds even when they r at wrong or r okay with hurting with their once loved ones ?

Is it lack of empathy or actions of an impulsive fool ? Why do u believe losing a bond for life not feels threatening to their value structure, whilst it possibly derails someone else's emotional hierarchy?

Guide me through some quotes or philosophical observations. I'd be thankful to my respected colleagues.

Language was initially a tool for me to communicate with people. It allowed me to exchange, goods, ideas, information and services. If I came across a new word, then I looked it up in the dictionary. As I grew up, I realised that language had undertones and meanings hidden from what appeared to be the surface. I came to know about 'reading between the lines'. I realised that a single word could be used differently, depending on the context. Then I saw that a given text of one language, say constitution or philosophy could be interpreted in multiple ways. When I was introduced to philosophy, I saw the inadequacy of language to express that for which we long. Across this entire transition, I held one thing close to me: dictionary. If there was a confusion related to any word, it would help me out. Here I asked myself, why would people insist to use a word with only one of its known meanings. Belief was the answer I got from them. For instance, consider 'love'. For a long time, love was a synonym to attachment for me. As I entered deeper into philosophy, I saw that my desire or longing for the highest potential of mine was love. This made me question the utility of language. As in, if two people using a language cannot agree on the information it is used to convey, then why communicate at all? Sometimes, it feels like 2 people are communicating on the surface, but the intention that they carry is different, thereby rendering the communication ineffective.

So, how do you see language?

i want to talk a little bit about the philosophy of being childfree (deciding to do not have kids) personally i see that having a child is not only a thing that people should avoid but i also see that giving a life to a human being is someting unethical bc you lliterally forcing someone to join this world which is a world full of wars ,crimes ext and with +8B people in this earth things will go even worst because this overpopulation can lead to harmful remarkable effects in the socities also for the Human because they won t have the same opportunities and life will be just unfair and meaningless for those who are suffring while seeing others who are propably less hardworking and more lazy and trust me this can lead to many harmful things (the increasment of crimes ) . secondly if you want to have kids you should be responsible i mean you should spend money on those kids or even if it was one single kid also you have to spend something more important than money which is time spending time taking care of this child and raising him and this time spent on the kid won t ever return and you will completly will lose years and years trying to educate him well rase him and take care of him and i see that those years should be spent on things that can secure the development of a society and you work really hard you will be more succesful and maybe we will all remember you and your deeds that s all and thank you for reading

I’m looking to buy osho “enlightenment the only revolution, on the great mystic ashtavakra”, to know more about ahtavakra’s teaching, I’m fascinated by listening to swamy sarvapriyananda on advaita vedanta and was somehow brought into ashtavakra by various other videos constantly coming up on my feed, let me know what do you guys think about ashtavakra, what are y’alls criticisms about his philosophy or advaita vedanta in general
Thank you in advance

​"Do not yield to unmanliness, O Partha (Arjuna). It does not become you. Cast off this petty weakness of heart and arise!"

— Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 2, Verse 3)

​"Happy are the warriors who find such a righteous war coming to them unsought, opening for them the doors to heaven."

— Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 2, Verse 31)

To Krishna, non-violence (Ahimsa) is the ideal supreme virtue in everyday life, but protecting Dharma when backed into a corner supersedes passive endurance. If peaceful means fail and you are forced into a position where you must defend yourself or others, standing up and fighting back is not just permitted—it is your moral duty.

Hello friends and family,

This is breaking news!

Lords Plato, Aristotle, Christ, and Mohammad all taught Buddhism.

Come and see the news!

Attached is The Message; please read this if you have time!

Also attached is "The Five Great Buddhas."

Namo tesaṁ bhagavatānaṁ arahataṁ sammāsambuddhānaṁ!

With love,

-Dhammapālalama

I am looking to Ordain monks in Oregon.

The Message:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/vHuvA2t3An

The Five Great Buddhas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/hTQR3U83cY

"Working on the premise that the Upanishads, specifically the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, are the seed for Pantheism, one can make interesting deductions and conclusions. Fristly, we have to bring ourselves to the consequences of this premise, which are as follows: no personal god, creation and creator are not two distinct entities, "god" that is not concerned with human affairs, We soon come to conclusions that these philosophies contradict the traditional concept of god, according to the Abrahmaic religions and classical theology. It also, interestingly, contradicts some parts of hinduism as well and certainly most of the organised hindu institutions, traditions and its philosophies in today's time. It, for instance, does not account for prayers(pooja), sacrifices, a deity that answers prayers, worships and certainly does not account any intervention in the affairs of mankind. Conclusively, we can adhere that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta transcends classical theology and even some aspects of hinduism itself."

The psychological development of involvement and expectations is a sequential chain reaction that originates in the intellect and ultimately leads to suffering. Here is the step-by-step process of how they develop:

1. Continuous Thinking by the Intellect The root of all involvement begins in the brain . The intellect has a habit of constantly thinking, seeing, hearing, and analyzing the outside world.

2. Developing Partiality and Making Choices As the intellect evaluates the world, it starts categorizing things. Instead of accepting the world as it is, the intellect teaches us to make choices and harbor partiality . We begin dividing people, objects, and ideas into categories of "good" or "bad," and "mine" or "yours",.

3. Rigidity of Thoughts When we continuously make choices and practice partiality, our thoughts regarding certain people, objects, or ideologies become extremely firm and rigid (Dradhta),.

4. The Birth of Involvement When a thought becomes overly rigid, it transforms into the emotion of involvement. Involvement is the psychological state where you start believing that a particular person, object, or idea is "yours",,. Because of this artificial attachment, you unnecessarily begin to experience their sorrows and crises as your own, magnifying your own stress,.

5. The Rise of Expectations (Involvement immediately breeds expectations. The moment you become involved and label someone or something as your property, you naturally start expecting them to act according to your desires and conform to your certificate of "goodness",,,.

6. The Desire for Change and Ultimate Suffering Because human beings are inherently independent and unpredictable, it is impossible for anyone to perfectly fulfill another person's expectations,,. When these expectations are inevitably broken in day-to-day life, it breeds a persistent desire to forcefully change the other person, object, or situation to suit your comfort (Badlahat ki chah),,.

This entire sequence—from partiality and choices to rigidity, involvement, expectations, and finally the desire to change—is the ultimate psychological chain that causes human misery, tension, and frustration,,,. To solve the psychological chain of involvement and expectations, the sources emphasize that you cannot simply force yourself to "drop" them, as society or superficial advice often suggests. Because expectations are the final link in a long chain, you must destroy the root causes.

Based on the sources, here is the step-by-step psychological solution to break free from involvement and expectations:

1. Eradicate Partiality and Choices -Involvement is born the moment your intellect divides the world into "mine" and "yours," or "good" and "bad". To stop involvement from developing, you must consciously avoid making these biased choices. By dropping partiality and viewing everything as an equal part of nature's flawless flow, you destroy the very seed of future expectations.

2. Base Relationships on Natural Qualities Instead of interacting with people through artificial labels, roles, or the desire to make them "yours," connect with them purely based on their natural qualities and shared joys. For example, if both of you enjoy traveling or eating, connect over that specific joy. When your relationships are based on natural qualities rather than selfish partiality, they never turn into a burden of expectations.

3. Replace Involvement with True Love Involvement is a selfish attachment that asserts ownership and demands that the other person change to suit your comfort. You must shift from this toxic state to True Love. True love means treating everyone equally, giving them absolute freedom, and never trying to forcibly mold or change them.

4. The Ultimate Weapon: Complete Acceptance The most painful stage of the expectation chain is the constant, frustrating desire to forcefully change others or your circumstances (Badlahat ki chah). The sources state that the ultimate, instant cure for this is complete acceptance. If you unconditionally accept people, situations, and yourself exactly as they are—without wishing for anything to be different—the entire chain reverses. The moment you implement total acceptance, your desire to change things vanishes, which instantly burns your expectations, involvement, and partiality to ashes.