A non-Hindustani: "The religion sounds nice, not going to lie, but I don’t see any valid or reasonable arguments for it which is exactly what I’m looking for. I already kind of understood Hinduism before, but I’ve never seen any solid reason that would make me live according to such a belief. Saying that it might be good for me or for society isn’t an argument about truth; it’s just an ideology.
Where does this philosophy actually come from? How can it be proven? For example, reincarnation doesn’t really make sense. At what point do we even define something as "alive"? And the concept seems to require that the same amount of living beings must always exist, which is factually not true.
It all sounds nice, sure but you shouldn’t accept something based on feelings alone. You should accept it because your mind finds it reasonable. 😯"
Let me give you a clear, intellectually honest breakdown. I won’t try to convince you that Hindu metaphysics is true, but I can show you where the philosophy comes from, what kind of reasoning it uses, how it thinks reincarnation makes sense, and what counts as “evidence” inside that framework so you can evaluate it on rational rather than emotional terms.
---
1. Where does this philosophy come from?
Hindu philosophical systems (the Darśanas) are not based primarily on myth or faith. They come from formal philosophical schools that developed through debate over ~2500 years:
The main orthodox philosophical schools:
Nyāya — Logic and epistemology
Vaiśeṣika — Atomism and metaphysics
Sāṅkhya — Dualism of consciousness and matter; analytic psychology
Yoga — Applied psychology/phenomenology
Mīmāṃsā — Hermeneutics and language theory
Vedānta — Metaphysics of consciousness
These schools argue with each other fiercely, sometimes contradicting each other completely. Hinduism is not one big belief, it’s a philosophical ecosystem.
Most of the metaphysical claims (including rebirth) come from Nyāya, Vedānta, and Sāṅkhya, using arguments that they considered rational, not revealed.
---
2. What counts as “proof” in these systems?
Ancient Indian philosophy uses explicit epistemology.
The Nyāya school defines 4 valid means of knowledge (pramāṇas):
1. Perception
2. Inference
3. Comparison/analogy
4. Testimony (expert, not arbitrary)
“Testimony” does not mean “believe scripture blindly.” It means:
> A statement is valid if it comes from a reliable expert source and is not contradicted by other means of knowledge.
This is similar to how we treat expert scientific testimony today.
So “proof” in this context is often inferential, not empirical, similar to how metaphysics or mathematics works.
---
3. Why reincarnation is proposed (the rational argument, not the mythic one)
Hindu philosophers never begin with “reincarnation is true because scripture says so.” Their argument is basically this:
3.1. Consciousness behaves differently from matter
They argue that:
Matter is extended, divisible, measurable.
Consciousness is not.
Experiences are qualitatively different from physical properties. This is similar to contemporary arguments about the hard problem of consciousness.
So they propose an immaterial conscious subject (ātman).
3.2. Mental continuity cannot be fully explained by the body
Their reasoning:
Personality, impressions, tendencies (saṃskāras) persist over time.
But the body and brain are constantly changing.
There must be a substrate that carries continuity through change.
Modern cognitive science disagrees here, but the argument is structurally similar to modern dualist or emergentist consciousness theories.
3.3. Causal explanation of psychological differences
This is where they make the move to reincarnation:
They argue:
People are born with vastly different psychological tendencies, talents, temperaments.
Genetic and environmental factors explain some but not all variation.
Therefore (they infer) there exist latent mental impressions carried from a previous life.
You may disagree, but this is an inference from observed psychological inequality, not myth.
3.4. Rebirth doesn’t require a fixed number of living beings
Your point: “Reincarnation implies a fixed number of living beings; that’s factually untrue.”
Hindu philosophers don’t define “living being” biologically.
They define it as a locus of consciousness.
So:
One consciousness stream → one living being
A single consciousness can inhabit any biological form
The number of biological organisms can increase or decrease
But this does not imply a fixed or limited “stock” of consciousnesses
Consciousness is not “made” from matter, so new beings can appear
So they avoid the “fixed quantity” objection.
---
4. What kind of evidence would even be possible?
Hindu schools admit empirical evidence is not enough for metaphysics. Instead, they use:
1. Phenomenological evidence
Insights from meditation or introspection similar to what Husserl or contemporary consciousness research does.
2. Inference to best explanation
If a theory explains:
Consciousness
Personality continuity
Psychological differences
Moral causality then it is rationally acceptable.
This is structurally similar to:
Kantian metaphysics
Bayesian inference
Parfit on personal identity
Whitehead on process philosophy
3. Coherence
A metaphysical system is judged by:
internal consistency
explanatory power
ability to explain experience
Not by empirical testability because metaphysics in general isn’t empirically testable.
This is true for:
Platonism
Theism
Idealism
Panpsychism
Multiverse theories
Many parts of theoretical physics
---
5. So why would anyone live according to it?
Not because it’s comforting. Because it offers a coherent explanatory model of:
The nature of consciousness
The origin of suffering
The persistence of personality
Ethics as a causal law
Psychological development
Whether this is true is a separate question. But it is not just “nice stories.”
It’s a philosophical system competing with other metaphysical models.
---
6. Your core question is excellent
You said:
> I don’t see reasonable arguments for it. I don’t want ideology, I want truth about the universe.
If you’re interested, I can go in any of these directions next:
A point-by-point rational critique of reincarnation
A comparison of Hindu metaphysics with neuroscience
Aniruddha Basnet ॐ
A non-Hindustani: "The religion sounds nice, not going to lie, but I don’t see any valid or reasonable arguments for it which is exactly what I’m looking for. I already kind of understood Hinduism before, but I’ve never seen any solid reason that would make me live according to such a belief. Saying that it might be good for me or for society isn’t an argument about truth; it’s just an ideology.
Where does this philosophy actually come from? How can it be proven? For example, reincarnation doesn’t really make sense. At what point do we even define something as "alive"? And the concept seems to require that the same amount of living beings must always exist, which is factually not true.
It all sounds nice, sure but you shouldn’t accept something based on feelings alone. You should accept it because your mind finds it reasonable. 😯"
Let me give you a clear, intellectually honest breakdown. I won’t try to convince you that Hindu metaphysics is true, but I can show you where the philosophy comes from, what kind of reasoning it uses, how it thinks reincarnation makes sense, and what counts as “evidence” inside that framework so you can evaluate it on rational rather than emotional terms.
---
1. Where does this philosophy come from?
Hindu philosophical systems (the Darśanas) are not based primarily on myth or faith. They come from formal philosophical schools that developed through debate over ~2500 years:
The main orthodox philosophical schools:
Nyāya — Logic and epistemology
Vaiśeṣika — Atomism and metaphysics
Sāṅkhya — Dualism of consciousness and matter; analytic psychology
Yoga — Applied psychology/phenomenology
Mīmāṃsā — Hermeneutics and language theory
Vedānta — Metaphysics of consciousness
These schools argue with each other fiercely, sometimes contradicting each other completely. Hinduism is not one big belief, it’s a philosophical ecosystem.
Most of the metaphysical claims (including rebirth) come from Nyāya, Vedānta, and Sāṅkhya, using arguments that they considered rational, not revealed.
---
2. What counts as “proof” in these systems?
Ancient Indian philosophy uses explicit epistemology.
The Nyāya school defines 4 valid means of knowledge (pramāṇas):
1. Perception
2. Inference
3. Comparison/analogy
4. Testimony (expert, not arbitrary)
“Testimony” does not mean “believe scripture blindly.” It means:
> A statement is valid if it comes from a reliable expert source and is not contradicted by other means of knowledge.
This is similar to how we treat expert scientific testimony today.
So “proof” in this context is often inferential, not empirical, similar to how metaphysics or mathematics works.
---
3. Why reincarnation is proposed (the rational argument, not the mythic one)
Hindu philosophers never begin with “reincarnation is true because scripture says so.”
Their argument is basically this:
3.1. Consciousness behaves differently from matter
They argue that:
Matter is extended, divisible, measurable.
Consciousness is not.
Experiences are qualitatively different from physical properties.
This is similar to contemporary arguments about the hard problem of consciousness.
So they propose an immaterial conscious subject (ātman).
3.2. Mental continuity cannot be fully explained by the body
Their reasoning:
Personality, impressions, tendencies (saṃskāras) persist over time.
But the body and brain are constantly changing.
There must be a substrate that carries continuity through change.
Modern cognitive science disagrees here, but the argument is structurally similar to modern dualist or emergentist consciousness theories.
3.3. Causal explanation of psychological differences
This is where they make the move to reincarnation:
They argue:
People are born with vastly different psychological tendencies, talents, temperaments.
Genetic and environmental factors explain some but not all variation.
Therefore (they infer) there exist latent mental impressions carried from a previous life.
You may disagree, but this is an inference from observed psychological inequality, not myth.
3.4. Rebirth doesn’t require a fixed number of living beings
Your point: “Reincarnation implies a fixed number of living beings; that’s factually untrue.”
Hindu philosophers don’t define “living being” biologically.
They define it as a locus of consciousness.
So:
One consciousness stream → one living being
A single consciousness can inhabit any biological form
The number of biological organisms can increase or decrease
But this does not imply a fixed or limited “stock” of consciousnesses
Consciousness is not “made” from matter, so new beings can appear
So they avoid the “fixed quantity” objection.
---
4. What kind of evidence would even be possible?
Hindu schools admit empirical evidence is not enough for metaphysics.
Instead, they use:
1. Phenomenological evidence
Insights from meditation or introspection similar to what Husserl or contemporary consciousness research does.
2. Inference to best explanation
If a theory explains:
Consciousness
Personality continuity
Psychological differences
Moral causality
then it is rationally acceptable.
This is structurally similar to:
Kantian metaphysics
Bayesian inference
Parfit on personal identity
Whitehead on process philosophy
3. Coherence
A metaphysical system is judged by:
internal consistency
explanatory power
ability to explain experience
Not by empirical testability because metaphysics in general isn’t empirically testable.
This is true for:
Platonism
Theism
Idealism
Panpsychism
Multiverse theories
Many parts of theoretical physics
---
5. So why would anyone live according to it?
Not because it’s comforting.
Because it offers a coherent explanatory model of:
The nature of consciousness
The origin of suffering
The persistence of personality
Ethics as a causal law
Psychological development
Whether this is true is a separate question.
But it is not just “nice stories.”
It’s a philosophical system competing with other metaphysical models.
---
6. Your core question is excellent
You said:
> I don’t see reasonable arguments for it.
I don’t want ideology, I want truth about the universe.
If you’re interested, I can go in any of these directions next:
A point-by-point rational critique of reincarnation
A comparison of Hindu metaphysics with neuroscience
How Nyāya “proves” the soul
How Vedānta argues consciousness is fundamental
Philosophical alternatives: materialism, physicalism, panpsychism
Where Hindu arguments are weak or fail
What a fully rational secular version of these ideas looks like
Just tell me which angle you want to tackle!
1 week ago (edited) | [YT] | 7