• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An atheist question about Hinduism

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
There are seemingly endless arguments about what atheism and god are in other threads outside this DIR. I have come to conclude that many people lend the concepts a meaning that is simply not inherently there.

I don't really know whether Hinduism has clearly-defined and well-delimited concepts that avoid that (greatly exacerbated, IMO) kind of controversy, but I tend to doubt it. Ultimately atheism is little more than a minor difference of perception with hardly any consequence or importance.

But that, of course, is generally speaking. I can hardly claim to have firm enough a grasp of Hindu Dharma to say how or if that perception applies to Hindu concepts, or how well settled the controversy (if any) is.

Then again, Hinduism (and particularly Sanatana Dharma) have a reputation for being incredibly inclusive, certainly far beyond the point of rejecting atheism just for being atheism.

Any clarifications you might want to share with me? Are there, perhaps, specific schools or movements where the matter is better settled?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Chhandogya Upanishad - 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (You are that), 'Ekam evadvitiyam brahma' - (Brahman is one, without a second), Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman).

The only existent entity is Brahman. I too am Brahman. Is Brahman God? Can that mean that I too am God. Am I a God? Am I all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading. That will be very presumptuous. Can I ask the sun not to set? No, I can't. Therefore, I am no God, I am human. If I am Brahman and no entity other than Brahman exists, then how come an entity (God) which is neither Brahman nor me can exist? Therefore, there is no God (or Goddess).

If there are no controversies, then it would not be Hinduism. Agreeing does not require inclusiveness. Controversies require inclusiveness.
 
Last edited:

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
Chhandogya Upanishad - 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (You are that), 'Ekam evadvitiyam brahma' - (Brahman is one, without a second), Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman).

The only existent entity is Brahman. I too am Brahman. Is Brahman God? Can that mean that I too am God. Am I a God? Am I all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading. That will be very presumptuous. Can I ask the sun not to set? No, I can't. Therefore, I am no God, I am human. If I am Brahman and no entity other than Brahman exists, then how come an entity (God) which is neither Brahman nor me can exist? Therefore, there is no God (or Goddess).
But aren't you conscious and so the brahman.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
There are seemingly endless arguments about what atheism and god are in other threads outside this DIR. I have come to conclude that many people lend the concepts a meaning that is simply not inherently there.

I don't really know whether Hinduism has clearly-defined and well-delimited concepts that avoid that (greatly exacerbated, IMO) kind of controversy, but I tend to doubt it. Ultimately atheism is little more than a minor difference of perception with hardly any consequence or importance.

But that, of course, is generally speaking. I can hardly claim to have firm enough a grasp of Hindu Dharma to say how or if that perception applies to Hindu concepts, or how well settled the controversy (if any) is.

Then again, Hinduism (and particularly Sanatana Dharma) have a reputation for being incredibly inclusive, certainly far beyond the point of rejecting atheism just for being atheism.

Any clarifications you might want to share with me? Are there, perhaps, specific schools or movements where the matter is better settled?

I thought long and hard about this. I did, I swear!​

You'd have to ask a particular school of thought.
And for the best clarification, you'd have to ask
a specific school of thought of that particular
school of thought.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
=LuisDantas;3719128]
I don't really know whether Hinduism has clearly-defined and well-delimited concepts that avoid that (greatly exacerbated, IMO) kind of controversy, but I tend to doubt it. Ultimately atheism is little more than a minor difference of perception with hardly any consequence or importance.


I don't think there has been a concept of atheism (in the modern sense) in Hinduism, But there is the difference in opinion and those are traditionally known as Astika and Nastika, and i don't agree that Nastika means atheist and Astika means orthodox or theist, because traditionally if you look at the e.g; Sankhya school they are classified as Astika because they accept the Veda as authority and not because they believe in Ishvar.

So i think that the Astika and Nastika clarification does not have to do with a persons spiritual view (or the lack of it) but more of what are the means used to acquire the view they hold, more like "well what proof do you have", kinda classification.

I think traditionally Hindu philosophy is based in the refutation (as in intellectually not in any physical violence type way) of the materialistic view (Charvak, Lokyata) where the default view is materialistic which then is debated upon, even the Jain (Nastika) philosophers debated the materialistic view of the Charvaks.

So in traditional Hinduism and the other Dharmah philosophies in general i think the difference in world view was not pivoted on the believe or disbelief in a divinity, spirituality or the lack of it was respected as peoples personal opinions.

Obviously these days it is a different story, theism and atheism through the influence of the Abrahamic religions has narrowed the view of many peoples.

Anyways this is my opinion.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
I think of it in this way.

I don't believe in the concept of "God", in the christian religion, and i hold that the Veda is my authority.

Now am I Atheist?
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
...because traditionally if you look at the e.g; Sankhya school they are classified as Astika because they accept the Veda as authority and not because they believe in Ishvar...

I think of it in this way.

I don't believe in the concept of "God", in the christian religion, and i hold that the Veda is my authority.

Now am I Atheist?

That's far from being atheistic.
And, I don't believe in an "Ishvar"
either. Deep down inside, I get
the feeling that I am a Mimamsaka.​
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
Luis, I haven't come across a scripture-based definition of atheism (or theism). When these are mentioned, it tends to come from commentaries. Then again I haven't read every scripture. But it seems to me that our sacred texts tend to focus on exploring the nature of reality and glorify God/gods. Little else matters.
 

Ravi500

Active Member
The only remotely atheist philosophy in Hinduism is Sankhya, which is also said by many to be theistic. There is no other atheistic philosophy in Hinduism or Hindu Dharma.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
May you help me in understanding why the conflicting views about how theistic Sankhya is or fails to be? How deep of a contrast with other schools of Hindu thought Sankhya offers in other respects?
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
May you help me in understanding why the conflicting views about how theistic Sankhya is or fails to be? How deep of a contrast with other schools of Hindu thought Sankhya offers in other respects?

Samkhya, along with Mimamsa, does not believe
in a creator deity, i.e., Ishvar/Bhagwan. However,
it supports and acknowledges the existence of
dual realities/Dual-Ordinances. When compared
with non-Dharmic religious paradigms, particularly
those of the Abrahamic fold, this would tantamount
to atheism. This is what Satyamevajayanti was
attempting to get at by stating the narrowness of
establishing what qualifies as theistic, non-theistic,
or atheistic using the terms, "God" and "theism",
through unsuitable contexts. In terms of how deep
of a contrast with other schools of Hindu thought
Samkhya offers, Samkhya is of the astika - which
means that it, along with Mimamsa, holds the Vedas
as being of divine origin, not authored by humankind,
revealed by supernatural, metaphysical realities or
Gods, but in Samkhya's case: not revealed by a
creator deity. To a large extent, this position is quite
valid, Vedically - especially since countless Devas
have many overlapping qualities, hindering the
prospects of there being just "one", "almighty creator".​
 
Last edited:

Makaranda

Active Member
LuisDantas,

Typically in modern parlance 'atheist' refers to one who lacks a belief in a God or gods (small g), and this usually, though not always, goes hand in hand with a rejection of supra-sensuous or supernatural realities (that is, most atheists also tend to be materialists). There are some, such as certain sects of Buddhism, that could be deemed atheist or rather non-theist and yet uphold the existence of supra-sensuous realities.

Within the six Astika or orthodox 'schools' of Hinduism, there are two 'philosophies' which can be classed as non-theist as God does not enter into discussion. These are the Samkhya and Vaisheshika schools. The former posited an eternal dualism between consciousness and matter, and the latter posited the reductionism of the universe into atoms. Neither to my knowledge refer to the concept of Ishwara, God, as a distinct category (though I may be wrong on Vaisheshika). They do, however, affirm the existence of other supra-sensuous realities which are revealed in the Vedas. Later they were merged with two sister Astika schools, Yoga and nyAya respectively, both of which do accept the existence of God. Theremaining two Astika philosophies, mimAmsA and VedAnta, affirm the existence of both devas (small g gods) and/or Ishwara.

In Hinduism, orthodoxy is not defined by the acceptance or rejection of theism, per say, (though atheism is pretty much extinct in Hinduism since Vaisheshika is defunct and Samkhya became totally absorbed into Yoga/VedAnta) but rather as acceptance of the Vedas as a revealed and valid pramAna (authoritative means of knowledge).

nAstika philosophies, on the other hand, reject whole cloth the Veda as an authority and/or the supra-sensuous realities as revealed by the Veda. Buddhism and Jainism, for example, are nAstika. Modern day understanding of atheism in conjunction with materialism would also be nAstika, as it echoes the ancient nAstika atheistic/materialistic philosophy known as chArvAka, which denied both the authority of the Vedas and rejected the existence of God, devas, the soul, rebirth, etc.

Hope this is helpful.






Aup,

The only existent entity is Brahman. I too am Brahman. Is Brahman God? Can that mean that I too am God. Am I a God? Am I all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading. That will be very presumptuous. Can I ask the sun not to set? No, I can't. Therefore, I am no God, I am human. If I am Brahman and no entity other than Brahman exists, then how come an entity (God) which is neither Brahman nor me can exist? Therefore, there is no God (or Goddess).

This is nonsense. Look at the logic:

Premise: There is no God, since;

1)Only Brahman exists
therefore,
2)I am Brahman
and,
3)As I am a limited human being, not omniscient,omnipotent,etc, and as I am Brahman
therefore,
4)Brahman is a limited human being, not omniscient, omnipotent
and since,
5)Only Brahman exists, which is not omniscient, not omnipotent etc,
therefore,
6)There is no God.

This is wholly daft. The logical implication here is that if Brahman is identical to a human being called Aupmanyav and that alone is Brahman, then since Brahman alone exists then not only can there be no God, but there can be nothing in existence but the body/mind called Aupmanyav. There cannot be anything that exists but the upadhi called Aupmanyav. That means there are no other humans, nor anything else whatsoever. There is no understanding of the definition of 'Brahman', 'I', or the sentence 'Brahman is the only existent entity'. The mAhAvakyas need to be thoroughly deconstructed beyond their surface connotations (both the 'You' and the 'That' in 'You are That', for example, should be correctly understood) otherwise you are going to continue using logic in absurd ways as demonstrated above.The real connotation of the word 'I' or 'You' is not the limited and weak human body with which you identify. All of your objections proceed only from your own ignorance and sheer stubborn refusal to go past your materialistic presumptions and probe deeply into the true identity of 'I' as is revealed in VedAnta.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But aren't you conscious and so the brahman.
I am an illusion. I am conscious in an illusory way. The real consciousness is with Brahman.

Add: Since I believe in existence of Brahman, I am an 'yes sayer', an 'astika', and not a 'no sayer', a 'nastika'. Though I may not believe in Gods or Goddesses. 'Asti' - Yes, it exists.
I don't believe in the concept of "God", in the christian religion, and i hold that the Veda is my authority. Now am I Atheist?
They say you are an 'nastika' as far as Christian religion goes, but an 'astika' to Vedas. Theism and astika, and atheism and nastika, do not have the same meaning in Hinduism. They say a Christian is an atheist for Islam or Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

Ravi500

Active Member
I am an illusion. I am conscious in an illusory way. The real consciousness is with Brahman.

Add: Since I believe in existence of Brahman, I am an 'yes sayer', an 'astika', and not a 'no sayer', a 'nastika'. Though I may not believe in Gods or Goddesses. 'Asti' - Yes, it exists.

So you accept now ' Prajnanam brahma' ( Consciousness is Brahman ) as mentioned in the Aitreya Upanishad from the Rg Veda, and not the mass of physical energy you earlier mentioned Brahman to be, which has no basis whatsoever in Hinduism or Hindu Dharma!
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Aup, this is nonsense. Look at the logic:
Premise: There is no God, since;
1)Only Brahman exists therefore,
2)I am Brahman, and
3)As I am a limited human being, not omniscient, omnipotent, etc and as I am Brahman therefore,
4)Brahman is a limited human being, not omniscient, omnipotent and since,
5)Only Brahman exists, which is not omniscient, not omnipotent etc. therefore,
6)There is no God.

This is wholly daft. The logical implication here is that if Brahman is identical to a human being called Aupmanyav and that alone is Brahman, then since Brahman alone exists then not only can there be no God, but there can be nothing in existence but the body/mind called Aupmanyav. There cannot be anything that exists but the upadhi called Aupmanyav. That means there are no other humans, nor anything else whatsoever. There is no understanding of the definition of 'Brahman', 'I', or the sentence 'Brahman is the only existent entity'. The mAhAvakyas need to be thoroughly deconstructed beyond their surface connotations (both the 'You' and the 'That' in 'You are That', for example, should be correctly understood) otherwise you are going to continue using logic in absurd ways as demonstrated above.The real connotation of the word 'I' or 'You' is not the limited and weak human body with which you identify. All of your objections proceed only from your own ignorance and sheer stubborn refusal to go past your materialistic presumptions and probe deeply into the true identity of 'I' as is revealed in VedAnta.
There is no such thing as God is the conclusion and not the premise. You have jumped from 2 to 3. Did I discuss the attributes of Brahman? I said I am not 3-omni. My being not 3-omni does not define Brahman. Even a rock is constituted by Brahman. The way these things (bhutas) come into their virtual existence makes a difference. Brahman is also a human being called Makaranda if you go by 'advaita'. As I like to say even Hitler and Pol Pot, and Stalin and Osama, were nothing other than Brahman. Yes, what constitutes Aupmanyav, constitutes the whole universe. Similarly, what constitutes Makaranda, is also what constitutes the whole universe (Poornam adah ..). 'Advaita' does not accept dualities. To bring in science read about isomers here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomer. Is not diamond the same as graphite?
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
There are seemingly endless arguments about what atheism and god are in other threads outside this DIR. I have come to conclude that many people lend the concepts a meaning that is simply not inherently there.

I don't really know whether Hinduism has clearly-defined and well-delimited concepts that avoid that (greatly exacerbated, IMO) kind of controversy, ...

Luis

The matter is very simple, in my opinion.

It is not about isolating just one aspect and basing one's opinion on that one aspect alone but about the whole.

Veda states that the Truth is one and that the sages call it by different names. That makes it inclusive. OK. But what it says about that Truth? It calls the truth as brahma, and brahma as this very atma. The svarupa lakshana (the self nature) of brahma is stated as 'satyam-jnanam-anantam'. Nowhere in the Veda and nowhere in any darsana, it is negated that the Veda is not Seen. Veda is the proof of a conscious Seer, at the root of all this.

All darsanas accept Veda as valid proof of Truth. Some darsanas do not implicitly agree to a conscious creator Lord. And this is also rooted in the Rig Veda, in form of the famous 'Nasadiya Sukta', wherein a process of creation, by a conscious agency is left un-answered (as unknowable) but, the Nasadiya does confirm a conscious Seer in the highest heaven.

In the Vedas, the slumber-less Seer is designated as Rudra, who Sees, the birth of Hiranyagarbha (the world soul) and the devas (divine souls endowed with specific functions. The Vedas, and particularly Yajur Veda, teaches the worship of this Seer. Veda teaches about the highest Purusha and Veda teaches of Naraynana -- as whatever is known directly and whatever is known through report.

......
In short, Veda upholds the Conscious Seer and also the Seen/Known as worshippable (the worship is not just of the conventional kind but actually is a mental attitude --- and that would be the subject of Samkhya).

No darsana and no other scripture denies the CONSCIOUS nature of the brahman/Seer/Narayana. The basic Sruti regarding this is "prajnanam brahma ".. consciousness itself is brahma. The fact that I know, I see is on account of brahma. That I am self aware is on account of brahman being of the nature of "sat yam-jnanam-anantam".

Evolving from the above understanding, all schools of Hinduism have certain common tenets. Astika (taking Veda as a valid proof of Truth and Knowledge), devotion to the Universe and its root in loving worshipful mode (some may call this Theism), belief in Atma (untainted) and Jivatma (that accumulates the effects of karma), and rebirth of the jivatma (as per accumulated karma). There are teachings about escape from the cycle of birth and death, as per jivatma's level of jnana.

The whole purushartha -- the means and goals of existence-- is built upon the above understanding of the brahman being of the nature of 'satyam-jnanam-anantam' and it being the sole truth of the Seer, Seen, the Universe, the Jivas.... and whatever else.

Now, if you take away a crucial aspect the svarupa lakshana of brahman, the whole thing gets changed. Suppose you say "All is brahman, which, is infinite". But you build in a personal belief into it and say the Sruti "'prajnanam brahma' is not acceptable to me. The svarupa lakshana of 'jnana' in respect of brahman is not acceptable to me".

So, you destroy the whole edifice, beginning from a conscious Seer of the Veda, who also Sees birth of Hiranyagarbha and devas. You reject the understanding of human souls that take birth again and again, and of Karma. Since there is no consciousness beyond the body, there is no karma either.

It is simply dangerous. It is nothing but Charvaka, Lokyata philosophy that was rejected both by Hindus of the time and by Buddha himself.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Luis

The matter is very simple, in my opinion.

(...)

For all I know you are speaking the truth itself, Atanu... but I fear this kind of argument is well above my paygrade. I may attempt to negotiate this terminology later. But I'm not holding my breath.

Simple or not, I am having a very hard time even starting to read it.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
There can be some pantheist, mistaking advaita as teaching "Brahman is all. Brahman is consciousness" and forgetting the following:

purnam adah, purnam idam purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate (Brihad. 5.1.1)

Which most commonly is understood as (from Swami Krishnananda)

"Purnam adah: that origin of all things is full; purnam idam: this entire creation that has come from that origin of all things is also full; purnat purnam udachyate: from that Full this Full has come; purnasya purnam adaya: having taken away this Full from that Full; purnam evavasisyate: the Full still remains unaffected.

Pantheism does not take into account the transcendental fullness of brahman that is untainted and role of Ishwara pranidhana towards attaining that transcendental Truth.
 
Top