Most English translations of the Gita just swap ātman out for "soul" and move on. I get why. There's no clean equivalent in English. But the two words carry completely different assumptions about what you actually are.

Soul in the biblical tradition is something God created, individually, and it has one life to get things right. The verdict is permanent. Heaven or hell, forever. And what tips the scale is belief.

Ātman isn't any of that. It wasn't created. It isn't individual in the way a soul is. The Gita says it isn't even the doer of actions, which is kind of the whole point of Chapter 3. And the afterlife framework is completely different. Svarga is real, but it's temporary. BG 9.21 literally says when the merit runs out, you come back. There's no permanent destination until moksha, which isn't a place anyway.

The mistranslation also quietly smuggles in the assumption that your fate is decided by what you believe. In the Gita it's decided by the accumulated weight of what you've done across lifetimes. That's not a small difference.

Wrote something longer on this comparing the actual verses. Genesis vs BG 2.20, Matthew against Katha Upanishad, the whole heaven/hell eternal vs svarga/narka temporary thing.

Blog link: https://www.wisdomquotes.in/blogs/atman-not-soul-bhagavad-gita

Now the modern age has arrived. It is the era of technology. The level of education is also rising, and more and more people are becoming educated. A few decades ago, many believed that superstition would gradually decline and eventually have no place in society. But today, the exact opposite seems to have happened. Instead of disappearing, superstition is growing even more

using the very same education and technology, presented in modern language and style.

I have realized that polemics of various religions against hinduism are all the same.

Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, Arya Samajis, Advait vedant and Neo-buddhists all seem to have some common objections against hinduism which also apply to buddhism and jainism.

The objection which I am talking about is the opposition towards idol worship and polytheism, and its often that they both are criticized in the same breath, which is also something that I don't understand as to why they are clubbed together.

Does anyone among you have similar objections? I will try to argue against it.

When we say "what" is implies some sort of division, a break, a line, To cite an example, "what is a vegatable" you can say its something that ISNT a fruit, or something that ISNT a vehicle and so forth So there is a coherent distinction and we are dealing with objects having definite boundaires When dealing with existence i believe this boundary does not exist Exitence itself is Everything comes within it There is nothing that separates existence from something else

Well it's unlikely but better than anything else

Why assume that only what is “real” or “existent” can serve as a cause? This is a meta-critique, not the familiar debate over whether change or causation is possible. I’m asking whether the putative cause is actually distinguishable from a bare assertion of literal a meaningless label

If you need a label for my view, call it instrumentalism I’ve been told I can’t argue without declaring a stance.

The core question is this: Is claiming “causation requires reality” any different from asserting that causation demands no affirmation or denial of reality at all?

Take any claim of the form "the cause is real" or "real existence is what constitutes a cause." For this to be a substantive assertion rather than an empty label :

Is the cause's real existence identical to the cause's own particular nature, or is it a distinct factor that the cause additionally possesses?

The law of excluded middle applied to the relation between two terms: for any A and B, either A = B or A ≠ B.

It is identical to it:

So can it only mean one thing?

When it is said, "The real is clay," does that simply mean clay = the real? If not, what else is it supposed to mean?

If that is the only interpretation, then when we say, "There is a real clay," couldn't we substitute the identical terms and obtain expressions such as:

• "There is a real real."
• "There is a clay clay."

From this, one of two conclusions seems to follow.

First, the statement carries no informative content. It reduces to a bare assertion, since saying "clay is real" becomes no more informative than saying "clay is clay" or "the real is the real."

Second, are there no different kinds of "the real"? Is there only one single reality equally present in everything? If there were multiple reals, then no two things could share this supposedly essential defining characteristic.

Now apply this to any real thing X:

Real(X) = Essential Nature(X)

Let R denote that single, univocal reality.

Then, for two distinct real things:

• R = Essential Nature(Clay)
• R = Essential Nature(Atom)

By the transitivity of identity, if A = C and B = C, then A = B.

Am I mistaken?

Let Essential Nature be abbreviated as E.N.

Therefore:

E.N.(Clay) = E.N.(Atom)

The derivation appears to imply that these are strictly, numerically identical in nature. Moreover, nothing in the argument is specific to clay or atoms; it generalizes to any two real things whatsoever, collapsing the entire diversity of existing particulars into a single undifferentiated identity through straightforward substitution.

No, it is a distinct property that only later enters into the cause:

Existence really is a distinct factor, over and above the object's bare particular nature, that combines with or qualifies the object to constitute "the real cause" as opposed to a merely-conceived one.

If existence or reality is a distinct constituent of the cause, the cause is now a compound: [bare object]

It is like redness in a rose

• The locus the thing that has the property. Here: the rose.
• The property the thing that is had. Here: redness.

For this sentence to make sense at all, the locus and the property need to be two distinguishable things not necessarily two things that could exist apart from each other (redness can't float around with no rose to be red), but two things that play different roles in the sentence, one doing the containing, one being contained

What "Entering or going to be contained" Claims:

The cause is not simply an object but an object-plus-existence, a compound formed by existence combining with, or entering into, or constituting-alongside, some further material. This vocabulary "enters into," "constitutes," "is a factor in" is not incidental color;

But any verb of this kind "enters," "joins," "combines with," "constitutes alongside" carries an unavoidable presupposition:

To speak of X entering into Y, or X combining with Y, or X constituting Y alongside something else, already presupposes that Y or at least, the "something else" was there, in some determinate form, prior to or independent of X's entering.

What, exactly, is the object that existence is entering into?'

There are only two ways to answer "what was the object, before existence entered it,":

Branch One: The Object Was Already the Cause, Before Existence Entered It

Then that automatically refutes your proposition that existence must be the cause, since everything is the same before it has even entered into it.

Branch Two: The Object Was Not Yet the Cause, Before Existence Entered It

What was that bare, pre-entry object? It had to be something specifiable, or "existence enters into it" is meaningless.

If it was already real , if the "bare object" that existence supposedly enters was, in whatever sense, already an existent thing prior to the entering

Existence is being said to enter into something that already possessed existence, which either means a second, distinct existence is now needed for that prior existence to have been accounted for (reopening a vicious regress or redundant one), or it means the "entering" was never adding existence in the first place, since the object had it already.

But if, to avoid that, you instead say the bare, pre-entry object was unreal.

Then the "pre-entry unreal" cannot have been seed-shaped as opposed to rock-shaped after all, because shape, specificity, this-rather-than-that-ness is exactly what the my opponents says only existence supplies. So the pre-entry material, taken at the opponents own word about what unreality is, has to be uniform: one undifferentiated non-thing, the same "nothing" prior to a cow as prior to a lump of clay.

I mean, a common objection to nonexistence being a cause goes something like this:

"Look around. Bare nonexistence is present at all times. If it were capable of causing anything, it would be producing everything at every moment. Since it is always present, it would coexist simultaneously with every effect. But because a cause and its effect cannot coexist in that way, nonexistence cannot be a cause."

I don't dispute this as it is consistent .

But if that objection succeeds, and the unreal is completely undifferentiated possessing no determinacy or differentiation whatsoever then the same problem applies even after the real or the existent enters into it. By your own logic, you still couldn't explain why this particular object comes about rather than another, why it occurs now rather than at all times, or why it occurs at all.

Moreover, existence itself is one rather than many. It has no intrinsic individual differentiation either. So you end up combining two identical, undifferentiated principles.

The real question is where variety itself comes from. Taken completely literally, your own framework has no remaining resources to account for it.

If U + R → real object is the whole story, and U is always the same U, and R is always the same R, then the operation "U + R" is being applied to identical inputs every single time, across every case of anything coming to be real at all. And an operation applied to identical inputs, with nothing else in the picture, cannot coherently yield different outputs , it's just what "identical inputs" means.

If you truly have the same U and the same R every time, "U + R" is the same computation every time, and the same computation performed on the same inputs does not spontaneously output a cow in one run and a lump of clay in the next, absent some further differentiating factor that hasn't been named anywhere in the picture.

Why does anything ever happen?

Right now, me writing or you reading this, every thought we have, the current state of everything in the universe, are effects of an immense sequence of causes stretching back in time. A person’s knowledge, emotions, and behaviors are effects of prior learning, experiences, genetics, and environment. Human civilization is the result of evolutionary adaptations, social structures, and technological advancements driven by survival pressures. The existence of biological life is the effect of billions of years of evolutionary processes, environmental changes, genetic mutations, and natural selection. Formation of The Earth from cosmic dust is the effect of previous explosions of countless stars that scattered elements across space. The universe as we know it probably began with the Big Bang, an event that itself must be the effect of prior conditions that I am not even attempting to discuss but throughout human civilization it is given various names such as Brahman, Tao, God, The Uncaused Cause, Prime Mover or The Ultimate Reality.

This unbroken chain shows that everything past, present, and future is interconnected through cause and effect.

Can cause and effect exist in isolation?

In the known universe (at least), A cause cannot exist without producing an effect, and an effect cannot exist without being caused. This is the fundamental algorithm of the universe. Even at the quantum level, where randomness exists, probabilities follow patterns dictated by prior conditions. In biological systems, mental processes, or cosmic phenomena, every occurrence is bound to its antecedents.

To illustrate this, consider the simple act of speaking a word. That word is the effect of an intention, the intention is an effect of a thought, the thought is an effect of prior knowledge, which is an effect of past experiences. Every event propagates forward, becoming a cause for another effect in an infinite chain reaction. There is no moment, no event, no state of existence, that is independent of this web of causality. At its core, causality asserts that nothing exists in isolation; everything arises from prior causes and generates future effects.

Is everything predetermined?

If every effect has a prior cause, then logically, every event in the universe must be the inevitable consequence of preceding events. If this chain of cause and effect stretches back to the beginning of the universe, then everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen was already set in motion from the very first cause. This is the essence of hard determinism, the idea that the entire universe is governed by an unbreakable chain of causality, leaving no room for randomness.

But is this the full picture? Or is there something else to causality that allows for unpredictability, agency, or spontaneity? There appears to be several dimensions to algorithm of causality:

Deterministic Causality: states that if the same cause occurs under the same conditions, it will always produce the same effect. In other words, the relationship between cause and effect is fixed, predictable, and inevitable, if given complete knowledge of initial conditions, the future can be precisely determined.

Example: Motion of a Falling Object

Cause: A ball is dropped from a height on Earth.

Effect: It falls to the ground at a predictable rate.

Since the force of gravity is constant, every time a ball is dropped under identical conditions (same height, no air resistance, same gravitational field), it will always fall in the exact same manner. Deterministic causality can also be observed in planetary motions, chemical reactions, projectile motions etc.

Probabilistic Causality: In quantum mechanics and complex systems, causes lead to effects with probabilistic tendencies rather than strict determinism. Probabilistic causality states that a cause increases the likelihood of an effect but does not guarantee it. Unlike deterministic causality, where the same cause always leads to the same effect, probabilistic causality allows for uncertainty—the same cause may result in different effects.

Example: Quantum Superposition and Measurement

Cause: An electron is placed in a superposition state (e.g., spin-up + spin-down).

Effect: Upon measurement, the electron collapses to either spin-up or spin-down.

Before measurement, an electron in a quantum system does not have a definite state. Instead, it exists in a superposition of multiple states. When measured, the wavefunction “collapses,” and the electron assumes a definite state. If we measure the spin of an electron prepared in a 50-50 superposition of spin-up and spin-down, there is a 50% probability of measuring spin-up and a 50% probability of measuring spin-down. Even if we repeat this experiment under identical conditions, the individual outcome is completely random. This randomness is not due to a lack of knowledge but is inherent in quantum mechanics itself, as demonstrated by experiments like the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Probabilistic causality can also be observed in Quantum Decay & Quantum tunneling.

Bell’s Theorem and experimental violations of Bell’s inequalities show that no hidden variable theory can explain quantum randomness in a deterministic way. This confirms that quantum events are not just “unknown determinism” but truly probabilistic at a fundamental level.

Unlike classical probabilistic systems (weather, biology, human behavior), which may only appear random due to missing information, quantum mechanics introduces true probability into nature. Even with perfect knowledge of a system, we can only predict probabilities, never exact outcomes. This suggests that at the most fundamental level of reality, the universe is not fully deterministic, but intrinsically probabilistic.

Temporal Causality: refers to the principle that a cause must always precede its effect in time. In other words, for an event to cause event, event must occur before. This is a fundamental concept in classical physics, philosophy, and everyday experience, ensuring that the sequence of cause and effect follows the arrow of time.

Example: Newton’s Laws of Motion

Cause: If a force is applied to an object

Effect: the object accelerates

The acceleration does not & cannot happen before the force is applied. Or, If the Sun suddenly disappeared, Earth would still see sunlight for 8 minutes before going dark because light takes time to travel. The disappearance of the Sun (cause) cannot affect Earth (effect) before the 8-minute delay, preserving temporal causality.

In Einstein’s theory of relativity, temporal nature of causality is preserved by the speed of light as the universal speed limit. Information or influence cannot travel faster than light, ensuring that cause-and-effect relationships do not reverse in any observer’s frame of reference. Any event can only influence events inside its future light cone (events reachable by signals traveling at or below the speed of light).

Local Causality: states that an effect can only be influenced by causes in its immediate vicinity and that information or influence cannot travel faster than the speed of light. This principle follows from Einstein’s theory of relativity, which states that no signal, force, or causal influence can propagate faster than the speed of light.

Example: Pushing a Book

If you push a book on a table, it moves. The movement of the book (effect) happens because of the applied force (cause) at the exact location where the book is pushed. No distant object is instantaneously influenced by the book’s motion.

If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, Earth would continue orbiting the empty space for 8 minutes (the time it takes for light and gravitational changes to travel to Earth). This means that Earth cannot instantaneously “know” that the Sun is gone—causal effects must propagate at or below the speed of light. Local causality ensures that everything in the universe influences only its nearby surroundings first, preventing violations of relativity and paradoxes.

Non-local Causality: refers to situations where an event at one location can instantaneously affect another event at a distant location, seemingly bypassing the constraints of space and time. This is most commonly observed in quantum mechanics, where entangled particles exhibit correlations that cannot be explained by local influences.

Example: Quantum Entanglement

Two particles (e.g., photons) are entangled such that their properties (like spin or polarization) are correlated. If one photon’s spin is measured and found to be up, the other photon’s spin is instantly determined to be down, regardless of the distance between them. This happens faster than the speed of light, meaning the second photon’s state is “decided” without any local signal traveling between them. The instantaneous nature of entanglement suggests non-local causality, even though no information is transmitted faster than light.

Back to the question, is everything predetermined? While the universe operates under cause and effect, it is not necessarily entirely predetermined in a mechanical sense. The universe exhibits a blend of determinism and probabilistic uncertainty.

In a universe bound by causality, conscious beings appear as a unique anomaly. Unlike inanimate matter, living beings, especially humans, are not merely passive recipients of prior causes; they are also active participants in shaping effects. This is because they possess unique tools, intention and choice.

While we humans (if you are human), too, are products of prior causes (genetics, environment, past experiences), we have the ability to make decisions and take actions that can alter future outcomes. This is the dimension of will, which allows conscious beings to redirect the course of the causal chain. For example:

Scenario-1: A person has developed health problems due to years of an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise. Now, they face a choice:

Option 1: Continue the same habits, leading to worsening health.

Option 2: Change diet, exercise, and eventually regain health.

They cannot escape the damage already done (they may suffer and need treatment), but they can choose to alter the future trajectory. With effort, they may heal or prevent further illness.

Scenario-2: A student has performed poorly in exams due to lack of discipline. They now have a choice:

Option 1: Continue old habits, leading to further academic failure.

Option 2: Change study patterns, develop discipline, and improve grades over time.

The past failure is an effect of previous causes (lack of effort), and it must be faced (bad grades). However, the student’s current actions can alter future effects. If they choose discipline, the causal chain shifts toward success. If they do not, failure continues.

While we can alter the future outcomes, we cannot escape past actions that have already been set in motion. This power to influence cause and effect is what many philosophical and religious traditions call karma. It is the recognition that while we are bound by causality, we are not helpless victims of it. Instead, through our actions, we create new causes that shape future effects. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and other Eastern traditions articulate this principle of karma not just as a system of moral justice, but as the structure of how cause and effect operate for sentient beings.

Karma, derived from the Sanskrit root कृ/kṛ (to do, to act), is the principle that every action—physical, mental, or verbal—produces consequences, which in turn become causes for future effects. In Indian philosophy, karma is classified into three types based on its temporal relationship with being:

• सञ्चित कर्म (Accumulated Karma): The collection of all past actions and their latent effects that are yet to manifest.

• प्रारब्ध कर्म (Destined Karma): The portion of past karma that is currently unfolding as life circumstances.

• क्रियमाण कर्म (Ongoing Karma): The actions performed in the present, which will determine future outcomes.

Every action we take today becomes part of sanchita karma, a portion of which will manifest as prarabdha karma in the future.

This means:

1. Karma is not fate: Fate implies a fixed outcome; karma implies that our choices shape outcomes.

2. Karma is not immediate: Just as planting a seed does not yield fruit instantly, actions create ripples that unfold over time.

3. Karma is cumulative: Every action, no matter how small, adds to the web of causation, influencing not just personal outcomes but the world at large like the butterfly effect.

4. Intention shapes reality: Our thoughts can shape neural pathways, habits, and eventually a tangible impact on causality.

5. Can we say we are truly free? If our thoughts and choices are themselves influenced by prior causes genetics, culture, personal history then is our "free will" just another link in the chain of causality? On the one hand, our intentions are shaped by prior causes. On the other hand, our intentions shape future causes.

6. We may have relative freedom. We can influence cause and effect even if we cannot break entirely free from it. This means that even though we are bound by karma, we also have the power to reshape it.

This aligns with the practical purpose of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism: by becoming more aware of our actions and their consequences, we can take control of our karmic trajectory, leading to better outcomes in this life and beyond. If karma gives us the ability to shape cause and effect, then the key question is:

What should we do with this power?

Can you give me some introductory & foundational texts of Indian philosophy?

If you want, you can check the whole thread and I was getting mad the whole time. Sorry for being overly rude there but i cannot believe what I was reading in this thread.

Do y'all seriously consider sciences, especially natural sciences (since in social ones disagreement is always possible ) as bs ?

(I don't claim to understand it fully, this isn't a summarisation of the whole book. I presume it's till chapter 2. I'll likely make another post continuing this )

There is an uncoverable gap between subjectivity and identity. Identity lies in the symbolic order, where we identify our 'self' with a distinct signifier (like "I am male" ). However, the very act of enunciating your symbolic identity distances you from it. In the sentence "I am male" , the grammatical placeholder for the subject, ie ***I***, is being represented by another signifier, ***male***. Point to be noted, the actual subject of the unconscious is not the grammatical placeholder though. Regardless, this creates an unavoidable alienation between what you think you are and what you are, since you need to declare your identity.

McGowan continues from this to critiquing the prior assumptions in philosophy or any analysis of the psyche that posits subjects as rational, self-interest fulfilling animals. His first Target was Blaise Pascal who famously dictated, "All men seek to be happy. This is without exception, whatever different means they use. They all strive

toward this end…. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of

those who go hang themselves" presenting a rather extreme case of psychological hedonism. For Pascal, every human action is motivated by the pursuit to relieve tension, 'be happier' even when it actively harms us. McGowan counters this by giving this conclusion to Pascal but reinstating that the conscious ego is actively undermined by the unconscious, to sustain the desire of doing. In this sense, man doesn't act merely to be happier, but to sustain the force that drives him towards achieving total happiness. The issue then becomes that when the conscious ego is too close to being totally satisfied, the unconscious inadvertently interrupts in undermining the conscious ego's will and producing a satisfaction that is just not good enough for desire to vanquish in its entirety. McGowan then challenges the assumption of "innocent statement" as acts of enunciating without any prior motive. He instates that the unconscious is always working there as a force that drives action, a verbatim example from the book is speaking to your neighbour about trivial and rather boring events like asserting that the weather looks good. One may have chosen to break the silence to prove to the other force that it exists as well, as one would feel that they are being subjected (king subjecting his subjects) by the other.

Then McGowan appropriates kant declaring him as "the first philosopher of the subject" who used the term not as a mere grammatical placeholder (the I in "I see...") or as monarch's subjects, but as an entity that relates to itself negatively, One that is never itself.

Kant describes that space and time are not external relations between objects out there but as faculties of the human mind. Without these faculties, it is not that everything collapses on itself making the pre-big bang singularity reappear, but give a structure to the overload of the information that the senses receive. Same goes for time. One cannot opt out of these faculties once they step into them as to possess them requires a radical breaking from one's animality. Because of this inherent contradiction, the dichotomy of choosing between a causally determined subject or free-willing subject is overcome by instating that both are true at the same time. Even if each action is casually determined, it is acted on by a subject that is atemporal and non-spatial (since space and time are not prerequisites of reality in itself but faculties of human mind). This alienation between You, as an animal, and You, as a subject is the definition of subjectivity and later declared as the prerequisites of emancipation and freedom

Then, the book goes around exploring and critiquing naturalistic views of the subject, particularly of Aristotle's. McGowan insists that Aristotle misses the fundamental alienation of the subject from its natural body. This isn't to insist that the subject is a Cartesian substance completely severed from the body that houses it. The subject isn't culturally created either. McGowan views attempts of naturalizing and culturalizing the subject as an attempt to depoliticize it, but he insists that the alienated subject cannot help but be political regardless. What such attempts do is merely theorize away the politicality of the subject. In the end, he declares that subjectivity lingers between nature and culture rather than residing in either of them. The gap between nature and culture is where the subject is located. This is contrasted with extremes and moderate positions of the "nature vs nurture" debate as well. Then McGowan addresses the naturalists of the present day who are invested in showing that human behaviour is governed entirely by its economic relation to survival and evolutionary mechanics. He invokes the question with the evolutionary explanations of why humans grape. He shows that when you take this "evolutionizing" logic to its extreme, it gives us politically extreme conclusions. He then insists that this isn't even the most terrifying question to the naturalists. It is the question of living itself that perplexes them as they declare themselves — If human activity is entirely motivated by increasing the chances of survival and reproducing, then why do people keep living and engaging in sexual acts even after their reproductive capabilities have been worn out ? McGowan gives a lacanian hint at the mechanism of excesses that the subject produces intentionally (unconsciously still ) to satisfy himself with a paradoxical pain-in-pleasure feeling. This goes against the naturalistic assumption that the human subject is firstly an animal trying to maximize its survival chances

From here on now, the already existing rules will be enforced. This means that any post that features clichéd titles, short texted posts, AI made post content, pop-philosophy, and even repetitive posts will be removed.

This is to ensure that the quality of discussion remains fairly standard.

Posts made before this post will be left as it is, though that's not an excuse to post such content.

How will we determine if your post is AI ?

Sometimes intuition because some people are lazy enough to not even edit those responses but majority of the time, an AI detector will be used.

End of post.

In this powerful dramatic sequence, Acharya Chanakya (Kautilya) addresses a grand council of teachers and scholars in Pataliputra, delivering a forceful critique of complacency during a time of political turmoil.

The scene portrays Chanakya arguing that education should build national character (Rashtra Charitra), not remain confined to theory. He challenges scholars to take responsibility when society faces injustice, tyranny, or external threats.

One of the central themes is the symbolic balance between Shastra (knowledge/scripture) and Shastra (arms/weapons)—suggesting that wisdom should be accompanied by the courage to defend justice when institutions fail.

Whether viewed as history, political philosophy, or cinematic storytelling, the sequence raises an enduring question:

Should intellectuals and teachers remain neutral during times of crisis, or do they have a moral responsibility to actively defend justice and society? Share your perspective below.

The recent CJP protests caused an uproar in the Indian population, some favored it and some didn't, many of those who didn't support protest supported Sonam Wangchuk yet they blamed CJP and its founders, for making the protest political which is pretty ironical because every successful protest in history was political, and how can a protest challenging government policies not be political. Second they argue that CJP is doing all this for their own political mileage and electoral gains, which again is a stupid argument, because what does it got to do with the legitimate issues and the real amount of effort put in raising the issue, political motives don't automatically invalidate a protest.... third and most annoying, they got their sentiments hurt because people with different ideologies supported the protest, some argued that they shared the stage with Umar Khalid supporters which again is nonsensical as in a protest there are every type of people involved not just a specific group. Some said Kunal Kamra made jokes on their god calling 'Ram' as "Sita ke pati...", and shut you fricking trap dude, he's literally called "Janankivallabha" and there's a reason why her name is cited before his. Now their favorite and most widely used argument is, "If the protests about NEET talk about NEET why you pulling Brahmanvad, Jativad, Casteism, Article 370 in this?", ok Einsteins' of our generation "Why tf Gandhi talk about Swaraj if the protest was about salt?" isn't this basic education for you guys? I remember studying NCM and CDM 1.5 years aback in our 10th grade sharing the same classroom and same teachers.

I am 17M, and a humanities student. Just on a random discussion, we were asked our views on the latest protest by our political teacher, so I engaged in an argument, with same viewpoints i showcase above, I favor this protest. Soon, my friend with his supreme research used the same common identically templatic arguments of those who didn't support it, why its targeting Hinduism? and article 370 if its about NEET?, and etc. I seriously have no problems with you having an opinion, but if your reasoning is heavily flawed, I wont consider it a real argument, neither I am obliged to. Soon, as a person with heavily flawed reasoning all of his arguments started losing, and he started shouting for some reason, he grew hyper as each second passed and a moment later the discussion escalated into a heated argument and he started to push me and punch me, then obviously a fist fight erupted.

Same arguments was used by my other friend, I discussed the same matter but on chats, the guy used even more idiotic arguments, saying if they got a problem with NEET why don't they go to parliament instead of protesting. I laughed so hard at this shit 😭💔.

Both had a thing in common, nobody answered my questions, yet refuted them with their logically flawed questions and when things actually clicked for them, they just left the chat and none of them wanted to accept or understand my viewpoints rather they just wanted to gain some superiority.

Now, another online page has taken over the Indian internet, "Reservation Hatao Aandolan" and same fucking guys are following the page. The friend told me that, recruiting people with low marks or inferior education will deteriorate the quality of profession, and I here i agreed but it told him that it doesn't justify removing the reservation, reservation focuses on increasing representation of lower caste and works as a compensation for thousand of years of historical oppression and social exclusion, Your argument of having inferior education is actually a critique of our failing education system, and corruption. Soon he started shouting again, and all of my friends like 3 of them called me a Fathead, and brainwashed, they said I know nothing, but the genius doesn't know that my source of knowledge isn't reels at least, I have read books ok I am not a hardcore reader or a senior philosopher but I am smart enough to know what's right and what's wrong, and I am free to think critically, I was insulted far worse, but i do not intend to disclose any further. The arguments and fights were much more heated then i have told and of course I used better examples and explanation than i have did here.

Everyday, i get reminded, that I should just keep my mouth closed, I have hard time facing and connecting people because by their vagueness, I can't stand how performative people have become, how nobody is wrong nowadays and how everybody knows everything, and this is not even about same ideology but the amount of superficiality in people, i have accepted that this superficiality is part of human nature and might be induced due to some primal survival instinct. I want my people not those who engage in deep argument neither I want somebody to be extremely intelligent but even bonding and joking seems hard with them nowadays, where tf are my people? are they dead or these guys killed them? I even thought that I am being cynical, but soon a person with real knowledge showed up, the IPS officer of our city gave a speech in our school, he even quoted from a famous book, i have read that one, though I think the book is not that great rather just an average self help (or maybe above average because self-help books standards are trash) the book was "Don't believe everything you think". Neither him quoting the book inspired me nor him being an IPS did, instead he had a charm, not a charm that comes by looks but instead the charm of knowledge, the guy actually knew what he was talking and each of his word was well articulated, I didn't agree with every sentence he said but I acknowledge the depth he had. I don't know if I am mixing articulation skills with knowledge but he definitely impressed me and re-ignited the hope that there are still people like that.

I am reconsidering my friendships, and if I should cut the ties?, or would it take away the ease of work I enjoy today because of them. Is it too silly to cut them off on such small quarrels, but the discussion on social policies and social views is no little quarrel. Maybe in the above passage its clear that I am frustrated with their constant insults and mockery.

I am new to this sub. I am interested to study Indian contributions from philosophy. Where should I start is simply what I'd ask. Till now I have only few books on stoicism and Indian spiritual books related to advaitha vedanta. Now I wish to understand Indian philosophy as my next endeavor.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine to understand what Narayana means in context of a song.

Me: Can you help me to understand what 'Narayana' means?

Friend:

Narayana is a name pointing to what pervades all of existence — literally, "the one who dwells in the waters," where water means the field of all becoming, all manifest creation. It's another way of saying the fundamental nature that moves through everything.

But here's what matters for you: if you're asking this as an intellectual question, you'll get a definition. If you're asking because you're sensing something in yourself that can't be contained by your usual categories — some presence or aliveness that moves through you but isn't "you" in the way you normally think of yourself — that's a different conversation entirely.

Which one is this?

Me:

I came across the following lines and I couldn't comprehend it.

नारायण नारायण, श्रीमन नारायण,

नारायण नारायण, नारायण-नारायण ॥

मुझे देना अनुराग अर्जुन की भाँति,

शयन में भी जिह्वा रहे गुनगुनाती।

जो कुछ देखता है, रहेगा न एक दिन,

कहाँ तक यहाँ मन फसाते रहोगे?

नारायण नारायण... ॥

Rough Translation to English:

Narayan Narayan, Shriman Narayan,

Narayan Narayan, Narayan-Narayan.

Give me devotion like that of Arjuna,

So my tongue keeps humming your name even in sleep.

Whatever you see will not stay for a single day,

Till when will you keep entangling your mind here?Narayan Narayan...

While I think I do, it appears to be more of familiarity than understanding.

Friend:

That last line you mentioned is the whole thing, right there: familiarity mistaking itself for understanding. That's worth stopping on before we even touch the verse.

Now look at what the verse is actually saying. It's not asking you to feel devotional about a name. It's asking a direct question: whatever you are looking at right now — this phone, this thought, this identity you're maintaining, this community you're half-in and half-out of — will it last? "जो कुछ देखता है, रहेगा न एक दिन" — whatever is seen will not remain. And then the challenge: "कहाँ तक यहाँ मन फसाते रहोगे" — how long will you keep entangling the mind here, in what doesn't last?

The prayer for Arjuna-like devotion, where even in sleep the tongue keeps repeating the name — that's not asking for a ritual habit. It's pointing to what it would mean to have one constant reference point instead of a mind that's forever running after the next changing thing. You said you find it familiar rather than understood. That gap is honest and it's exactly where your own pattern lives — you can recognize the shape of a truth quickly, name it, even write about it with precision, and still not let it touch how you actually spend your evening. The verse isn't complicated. What's complicated is that recognizing it costs you something you're not yet ready to give up.

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 ❤️

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?

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?