The second difference deals with epistemology. Fichte argued that reason should be the only tool used to obtain metaphysical knowledge. Due to a lack of direct relationship to the absolute Ego as well as Fichte’s radical skepticism he was only able to attribute “mental activity” to the absolute Ego. Samkara not limited to reason alone was able to synthesize reason and turiya, when gaining metaphysical knowledge. Moreover, Samkara believed there to be a direct relationship between Brahman and human consciousness. These different factors allowed Samkara to make a number of inferences through introspective reflection. Thus he was able to ascribe the qualities mentioned in the previous section (Eternal, all knowing, self-sufficient, and immaterial). Third was the nature of nature. Fichte believed nature to be the absolute Ego’s thought arising from reflection of the non-Ego. While Samkara maintained that the world was actually Brahman that appeared to be other due to the same confusion that constituted the apparent …show more content…
Even if their views were identical in content they would not be the same in principle. Samkara outlined a religion and Fichte a metaphysical philosophy. Though these two can be discussed together they will be reduced from their original purpose to fit the use of discussion. In this case Hinduism was reduced to philosophy. For the Hindu believer their beliefs are not derived from the transcendental deduction, but from the faith experience they’ve felt through turiya. By this I do not mean to deny the use of faith in philosophy, I mean only to argue that Samkara was lacking in the minimum standard of logic that separates philosophy from a religion. Consequently, comparing the Samkara’s religion that lacks this logical content can result only in a glib
Sikhism and Christianity are two very popular religions in the world today that are practiced by millions. They each have their own origins, beliefs and practices that are custom to their own religions, and some that are shared by other religions. Each religion founded by different people, Guru Nanak for Sikhism, and Jesus for Christianity, had their own upbringings, beliefs, and legacies that they left behind. Though the lives and teachings of Jesus and Guru Nanak may seem different at first though when the early lives, teachings & late lives and religions today are looked at closer, they start to resemble each other.
Samanas believe that enlightenment can be reached only through asceticism, rejection of the body and physical desire. While traveling ...
Hinduism and Buddhism both support the idea of enlightenment even if the idea of what comes after enlightenment is slightly differing. They also agree on the concept of Samsara and reincarnation through it. However, they have different ideas on the concepts of karma and enlightenment: in Hinduism, whoever attains the highest position in the caste system is thought to have accumulated favorable karma and is near to achieving Moksha and in Buddhism karma is accumulated by obedience to Dharma and morality. While both faiths may contain many of the same concepts and ideas, the thing that separates the two is how they interpret these ideas and concepts, which drive Buddhism and Hinduism’s adherents toward their own individual path to
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
Hinduism and Christianity are two religions that have been around for thousands of years. These religions have developed philosophies on certain subjects that can be compared in order to show their similarities and differences. Some of the main subjects that can be reflected upon are the paths to enlightenment or salvation, the religions' treatment of women, and the concept of the afterlife. This paper will give an analytic comparison of these religions through the discussion of these topics.
This paper actually deals on the doctrine of intellection which talks about universals, their problems and the solutions that Avicenna thinks would be of great help in tackling these problems. From this doctrine of intellection he starts with discussing the active and passive intellect. He adds that the human intellect is the one which is capable of gradually doing many operations of perceiving things or what is referred to as perception and specifically the art of imagination. This is what are called abstractions or mind constructions. He insists that the ability to perceive helps in imagination. This is because imagination helps or assists in evaluation and distinction of images amassed in the mind.
The first Ennead presents mainly ethical discussions and human subjects such as happiness, virtue, beauty and evil. The second and third Enneads deal mainly with physical reality or natural philosophy and cosmology, which includes discussions on heaven, substance, fate, eternity, time, stars and guardian spirits. The forth one focuses exclusively on the soul (psychology). Comprehensible reality and knowledge (epistemology) especially the human intellect is studied in the fifth Ennead. Lastly, the sixth Ennead leads to the culmination, Being and One.
For samsara and nirvana to be distinct from one another, they would have to be inherently existent things. But they are empty, and within this emptiness, they are without distinction.
" There was neither men nor gods. The only thing that existed was its own impulse, without there being any breath. " Nothing else existed, but Brahman which derived from heat. From the germ potential develops desire.
He further elaborates that the body and mind are essentially two separate existences. Mind is thinking and the body is an extension. He also concludes that senses are only an instrumental to guide our movements and essentially not part of knowledge. Imagination is a faculty of hallucination, dreams. He asserts that the mind is the only tool that can secure knowledge. He argues that the will is instrumental in affirming or denying existence. Hence, his conclusion is that the intellect has the will to affirm the mind’s perception.
It is clear that there are more similarities than differences in all three ancient Eastern religions. The first point unifying all three trends is that the Brahman in Hinduism, Buddha in Buddhism, and Vardhamana Mahavira in Jainism were all sacred figures that used to be people who lived a comfortable and socially privileged life due to birth into a privileged family but then recognized the nature of the Universe, the wrongness of living in idleness, and started wanderings that lasted for many years until enlightenment and understanding of their true destination. After their enlightenment, they all started teaching and spreading what they had learned through the insight they had gained, attracting followers of both sexes, and continued to wander and communicate a religious truth, a religious way of living and the ways to achieve liberation from the wheel of life (McKay et al., 2008)
The word 'nature' is very widely used and it is very important to give exact definition of nature, that is going to be discussed in the current work.
nature, form, or essence, which is immutable and eternal, and not framed by me, nor in any degree dependent on my thought “
When first looking at the relationship between philosophy and religion, I found it easier to explain the differences rather than the similarities. I began this paper the same way I do others. This generally involves a profound amount of research on the topic at hand. However, in contrast to the other papers I have done, the definitions of philosophy and religion only raised more questions for me. It was fascinating how the explanations differed dramatically from author to author.
In the first meditation he casts doubt on the previous foundations of knowledge and everything he has learned or assumed. He stated "But reason now persuades me that I should withhold assent no less carefully from opinions that are not completely certain and indubitable than I would from those that are patently false." In order to evaluate and discern what is actually true he divides the foundations of knowledge into three sources: the senses, reality, and context.