Welcome to r/Philosophy_India.

This post is regarding the clarification of the community's epistemic standards and as to what constitutes a worthy post for the subreddit. The community's epistemic standards, the community's recognition for philosophical systems and traditions, notes on miscellaneous topics.

Since the last couple of days, we've seen an unusual amount of rules-violating contents that went unremoved and are diminishing the quality of the community. The mass amount of such posts was simply beyond our usual capacity to moderate. But now we've decided to be stricter with our community's rules and guidelines. Philosophical Criteria

Minimum Epistemic Standards

Basic Discussion Criteria:

1. The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):
   • No philosophical claim (especially metaphysical ones) can be accepted as a starting point unless it is preceded by a logical derivation. The post must provide the reasoning that leads to X, independent of the person saying it.
   • (¹) For every fact X, there must be provided a sufficient reason why X is the case.

> ^(This criterion might lead to (or can be argued to be a victim of Münchhausen Trilemma/Agrippa’s Trilemma, but as a space for discussions, the sub will restrain from picking a position. For every substantial claim the post is expected to beforehand clarify their position. It is important to note that, the post ought not to justify the prior epistemological justification, for every post P with content C, you ought only to prove why C is the case and not necessarily, C is the case because D reasoning and D reasoning grounds in E.... unless the post is specifically about epistemological inquiry and justifications there's no need to drift into infinite regress.)

In practice, this means: > Make a clear claim > Provide a reason > Clarify key terms > Avoid naked assertions.

2. Only Substantive Contributions are Allowed:

• A substantive contribution is an intellectually honest engagement that identifies a specific philosophical problem, provides a reasoned derivation (grounded in the PSR), and accurately represents the established definitions of the school being discussed before (or if) critiquing it. We are here for Vada (truth-seeking dialogue). If your post is Vitanda (merely attacking others without a counter-position) or Jalpa (shouting for your guru to win), it will be removed.

On note to Indian Philosophy: It's often a task to ground every ancient eastern and Indian philosophy to epistemic criteria that of western logic. We will not be enforcing that, instead, every post and comment that defends/attacks ancient traditions must be grounded in their classical philosophy textually/conceptually, meaning you ought to support your assertions and questions with established meaning of the scriptures and schools of thoughts. This does not necessarily grant poster to engage with fallacious reasoning.

On note to Continental Philosophy: Continental frameworks (phenomenology, deconstruction, hermeneutics) are completely welcome. However, stylistic obscurity is not a substitute for argument. Where a term resists easy definition as is legitimate in some traditions, posters are expected to acknowledge this explicitly and engage with why the ambiguity is philosophically productive rather than using it to avoid scrutiny.

^(continental philosophers, Heidegger especially use terms that are deliberately resistant to precise definition. Some philosophical terms resist strict definition, but they are still constrained by how they are used, described, and interpreted.)

Note on Bhakti/Anubhava: The community is aware that Anubhava is a legitimate pramāṇa in many Indian schools. However, posts grounding experiential claims in a textual or conceptual tradition are welcome and posts that merely share personal experience without philosophical engagement will be removed under the PSR standard. Meaning, it is allowed to talk about classical concepts of anubhava/bhakti and other ancient phenomenological topics only as classically established and talked about, not as a substantive claim of reality, unless, otherwise defended through rigor.

Note on Politics: Political parties, current political situation, protests, elections are all strictly forbidden. The discussion should, rather, be on the meta-level of politics, established political philosophy, theories of justice, legitimacy, sovereignty, the state, rights, and related foundational questions.

Note on Philosophical Memes: Memes are permitted only if they directly reference a specific, known philosophical concept, argument, or text in a way that is recognizable and accurate. Memes that merely use philosophical aesthetics or vaguely gesture at philosophical themes or will be removed.

Note on AI generated contents: All contents, with an exemption of images but, including comments must not originate from AI, it is highly discouraged to use artificial intelligence for debating and making your point. You're free to use it for understanding but AI copy-paste is strictly forbidden.

posts under the moderators' discretion.

If a beggar is suffering because of “past life karma,” we’ve built a theology that justifies doing nothing. That’s not spiritual wisdom — that’s social control dressed in Sanskrit.

The most dangerous idea in Indian philosophy isn’t materialism or atheism. It’s the one that makes injustice feel cosmically deserved.

Discuss.

TLDR: Had a conversation with a Muslim who asked "why do you pray to so many things?" and it hit me - we all know what our prayer means, we've just never spelled it out. We're not doing a confused version of Abrahamic prayer. We're doing a completely different thing - it's reverence, respect, gratitude. When we call Sachin the God of Cricket, nobody thinks he's Brahman. We're recognising peak mastery. Touching your grandmother's feet isn't worship. It's an honour. The whole "idol worship / many gods" confusion comes from people using the wrong framework to read us. Time we made the obvious obvious.

So I was on Omegle video chat the other day, and I ended up talking to a Muslim. We got into religion, and he asked me something that's been sitting in my head ever since.

"Why do you Hindus pray to so many things?"

And look, I've heard this question a hundred times. But something about the way he asked it made me realize - he genuinely didn't get it. He just couldn't wrap his head around it. Because in his world, prayer means one thing - you talk to 'Allah', the most powerful, supreme being. Prayer can ONLY be made to such a powerful entity. That's the Abrahamic background. Because why would you ask for something from non-powerful things?

And I get that, it's simple, that makes sense within that system and mindset.

The word "prayer" is doing all the damage here. Because what I do when I fold my hands and bow my head - that's not the same thing he does when he prays. Not even close. But we're using the same English word for both, and that's where the problem is.

When I bow to something, I'm not saying "you are the Almighty and I am nothing, give me something." I'm saying "I respect the hell out of what you represent." When we show devotion to Rama, we are in awe of what he stands for. It's pure gratitude, respect, we want to adopt those values. That's it. That's the whole thing.

I touch my grandmother's feet. Am I worshipping her? Obviously not. I'm saying - you've lived longer, you've seen more, you've carried more than I have. I respect that. That gesture IS the respect. It's not prayer in the Abrahamic sense.

I fold my hands in front of a river. Am I saying this river is God the way Muslims think Allah is God? No. I'm saying - this river has fed civilizations, it's sustained millions of lives, it was here before me and it'll be here after me. That deserves a pause, that deserves acknowledgement, respect.

This is the thing that every Indian knows intuitively but nobody makes explicit. We never needed to explain it to each other because we all just... know it. But when someone from outside looks in, they use their framework to interpret our actions, and the translation is completely off.

And this is where the biggest misconception lives. Pooja is not prayer. Let me say that again. Pooja is not prayer.

Prayer in the Abrahamic sense is asking. You go to God, you make a request, you want something granted. That's the relationship - you need, He provides. It CAN have a sense of gratitude as well but prayer is primarily a request for something.

Pooja is paying respect. That's it. When we do pooja to a cow, we're showing respect to it for what it gives us. When we do pooja to books on Saraswati Pooja, we're paying respect to knowledge itself. When we do pooja at a temple, we're expressing gratitude, reverence, awe. The relationship isn't "request for something." The relationship is "thank you".

People translated pooja as prayer, and that one translation broke the entire understanding of what we do.

Good example - We call Sachin Tendulkar the God of Cricket. Every single Indian knows what that means. The man was so ridiculously good at what he did that no other word captures it. He reached the absolute peak. When we say "god of cricket," we're saying he mastered his domain so completely that our highest word of respect is the only one that fits.

It doesn't mean he grants wishes. That's not our relationship with God in Indian philosophy. Of course some people do pray to get wishes - I'm not going to pretend that doesn't happen. But that's not what we usually mean when we show devotion to someone or something. Devotion is respect. It's appreciation. It's a sense of being grateful to that person or thing because it made a positive difference in our lives. The primary function of pooja for us is respect. We use devotion or pooja as "request for something" in specific circumstances, not primarily.

Nobody thinks Sachin created the universe. Nobody is building a theology around him. When someone reaches that level in anything, we recognize it with that word. Because in our philosophical framework, "divine" isn't a binary switch. It's not "either you're God or you're a regular person." Everything has something sacred in it, some things just express it more than others. A musician who channels something beyond themselves in a performance? There's something divine in that moment. A mother who sacrifices everything for her child? Divine. A scientist who uncovers a fundamental truth? Divine.

And this isn't just a Hindu thing. This runs through every philosophy that came out of India.

Sikhs talk about seeing the divine light in every person. When they do pooja to Guru Granth Sahib, it's not a prayer. It's showing reverence, respect, we all know this. Similar what Hindus do to Bhagavad Geeta, for example.

In similar way Jains offer reverence to the Panca-paramesthi.

Buddhism doesn't even bother with the God question but keeps the same core move. You bow to the Buddha not because he's God. You bow because he figured something out. He reached the peak of human understanding. You're paying respect to the achievement.

See what's happening across all of these? It's always "I see something extraordinary here, and I honour it."

That's a fundamentally different relationship with the sacred than what the Abrahamic traditions have. They're not the same thing. And when we keep using the same word - "prayer" - for both, we let people think we're doing a confused version of what they do. Like we just couldn't figure out which one God was, so we started praying to everything. That's not what's happening. At all.

Our entire philosophical foundation sees the sacred differently. It's not sitting in one place, up above, waiting for your requests. It's everywhere. The Upanishads say it plainly - tat tvam asi, you are that. The divine isn't separate from you. It's in you, in the river, in the mountain, in the stranger on the street. In the dog, pig, chicken, cow, you, me.

So when I do pooja, I'm not sending a request to some cosmic helpdesk. I'm stopping for a second and saying - this thing in front of me, this person, this force of nature, this achievement - it matters. It's bigger than my ego. I'm grateful it exists. It's a value alignment, so that I am not misdirected/distracted as I am going through life.

That's reverence. That's gratitude. That's respect. That's pooja.

And I think if more people understood this one distinction - that pooja is not prayer in the brahmic sense - a lot of those "why do you worship idols" and "why do you have so many gods" conversations would just dissolve. Because the question is built on a mistranslation. You're asking why I'm doing a bad version of your thing, when I'm doing a completely different thing.

We've just never said it out loud. Because to us, it was always obvious. It's time we made the obvious obvious.

I have been feeling a strange kind of heavy hollowness in me after initiating the breakup with my girlfriend. Its a stronger feeling to adjust to any distractions available to me. And my partner also feels the same.

We know that we are not compatible to each other in terms of life priorities, attachment styles, ideology, professional goals/purposes and even location. This relationship does not make sense to any level and we both know it but since we have this heavy feeling of hollowness we keep getting back to each other and then fight again. This loop is frustrating now!

I am not seeking a direct solution. I just want to understand this feeling in depth. why this feeling? is this feeling only for romantic relationships? Is it just the habit of each other which creates this hollowness when we are not together or is there more to it? what role does distractions play? How can I see for what this feeling really is than acting upon it? And anything more you'd want to add!

Wrote another piece following up on the one I wrote on Determinism and Free Will. What do you guys think?

Having learned a fair bit about human psychology, extremist factions tend to share a common trait: a deep fear of losing control. Because of this fear, control becomes their primary weapon. It reflects a psychological state where the ego takes over the individual, often leading them, and those around them, toward destructive outcomes.

You can see this pattern on both the far-right and the far-left. When the ego becomes rigid and fragile, it eventually leads to a state where unconscious impulses take over. At that stage, it becomes very difficult for a person to regain balance or sanity.

The ROLE of Human Intelligence in this Age of AI

First I want to define what is Intelligence. Intelligence is first a way to identify a pattern and then making a choice of an action path that's in service for a goal. For example a fridge "choosing" to switch on its light when you open the door.

There are ofcourse levels of intelligence. A thinking machine (TM) is more or less intelligent based on the number of abstractions that it can come up with. Basically it comes up with a decision tree based on possible variables at play. Corollary: Intelligence can be infinite in two dimensions

1. What is the level of depth that the TM can reach and evaluate.

2. How many branches can the TM come up with based on a decision state.

But having and implementing intelligence is a costly activity. So with the help of maths, science and technology, we humans have traditionally tried to create systems that simulate intelligence in some manner. For example, a car crash should trigger the opening of the air bags. This is achieved with an implementation of a complicated system. So during the industrial age we worked on building mechanical systems of intelligence. Then came the information age where we worked on building computational intelligence with the help of software.

But with all the benefits of intelligence, its not foolproof. In fact most of our problems in the world is because of the pitfalls of intelligence. And this branch of study "Philosophy" is, I feel, to explore how to mitigate these challenges. For example, to effectively come up with answers to questions, a TM needs a sense of self and a sense of the ego. Ego means that there will be a sense of self preservation and hence the TM will lie, cheat and deceive. Thus intelligence is fundamentally at odds with the pursuit of truth. Because a TM can only come up with an abstract idea, the Ego has developed "identity" as a way to protect the ideas that it comes up with. Hence Trump fight these wars, and I argue with my wife, to defend the ideas that are there in my head, because my brain is insecure that if my ideas are not accepted, then I don't have any worth.

The simple (not easy) way to escape this conundrum is to question everything. Till now, we have dual roles, coming up with ideas and validating them, both of which are difficult by themselves and compounded by the fact that because we generated ideas, our identity got wrapped around them, thus inhibiting our search for the truth. But now that AI can come up with ideas, we can be free from this role and focus only on the validating part. We had already made some parts of it easier with the help of search engines but we should drill more into this. There will always be a small group of people (artists, top scientists etc) who will be on the fringes and come up with the radical ideas that AI will not be able to come up with. But for the most of us common people, I think it makes sense to truly start questioning everything and hone our critical thinking skills. The good thing is that we are really good at specialising, the more we practice anything the more we become good at it, and this involves Critical Thinking.

Am I just rambling at this point?

Side note: Most of the discussions in this channel is a fight between AP Bhakts and AP Congis and I am disappointed that there is so little talk about what is clearly a defining moment of human civilisation. Why?

PS: AI probably might have made my ramblings more coherent, but I thought probably better to be more real. So forgive me.