Can Hindus be atheist?

[Spirit_Warrior]

I have some more time now to reply to individual posts. I hope you don't mind that I am responding to them together in the next series of posts, this is to avoid making too many posts. I can also be briefer than usual, because I am replying to so many at a time.

Question: can one consider the gods to be archetypes of the collective unconscious and still be Hindu?

This is a modern Jungian theory and thus has nothing to do with traditional Hinduism.

Yes. Modern sensibilities not-withstanding early Samkhya and Vaisesika were indeed atheists or agnostics as well as Mimansa. And, modern sensibilities not withstanding, Buddhists, Jains and Ajjivikas were part of the darsana-s that characterized the Dharmic way of living in India and were fully included in the debates and conversations about theology and philosophy by all ancient commentators. If one says that they are non-Vedic, then so are the Agama-s.
The narrowing of the originally expansive Hinduism in the late Middle ages is something to be lamented and corrected, not clung to, going forward.

The basic problem with your argument that all darsanas were included in debates about theology and philosophy and therefore they are also integral parts of the "Dharmic way of living" is: There is no Dharmic religion. Dharmic is only a category of religion referring to Indian religions. You found this out recently in your thread "Can't we be just dharmic" In the same 'Abrahamic' is not a religion, it is a category of religion referring to religions descending from Abraham. In the Dharmic category of religion there are four mutually opposing religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka. Yes, they do include each other in discussion and debate, but only in a negative and polemical sense -- the Hindus refute the Buddhists, calls Buddha a deceiver(intentional) and the Vedantins and Nyayakas have strongly refuted Buddhism and were instrumental in driving it out of India. Similarly, Buddhism and Jainism are not brethren, they refute each other. Charvaka is the common enemy of all of them and is refuted and condemned by them all. In the same way in the Abrahamic category, there are three mutually opposing religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They do mention each other, but in a negative and polemical sense.

I think you might have a bit of a romantic view of the unity of Dharmic thought. If you recall in your thread, I did actually agree with you on the nearly a dozen doctrines that they share and how closely intertwined they are, but they also have very core doctrinal differences as well. Historically, they have viciously fought with one another. I am not sure about actual violence(Sri Lankan Buddhists do actually record persecution by Hindu kings) but the views are not positive e.g. in Puranas, Kalkiavatar comes to wage war on the country of the Buddhists and annihilate them.

Regarding your view that early Samkhya and Vaiseshika were atheist. I have already refuted this argument in my OP. Early Samkhya, the oldest which is found in the Upanishads was in fact theistic and the Samkhya in the Bhagvad Gita is also theistic. The so-called atheist version is based on Ishvarkrishna's Samkhykarika meaning it is later summary of Samkhya thought. It is not atheist and nor is agnostic, it is just silent on God. You need to appreciate some nuances here. Atheism is rejection of belief in God, Agnosticism is claiming you do not know about God, and being silent on God is neither atheistic, agnostic or theistic. If I write a paper on pure mathematics and do not mention God once in the paper, it does not mean I am atheist or agnostic --- see the fallacy? In fact, even in Samkhyakarika the authority if the Veda is accepted:

6. But the knowledge of supersensible things is obtained by through inference based on general observation; and the knowledge of supersensible things not established even by that, is established through the testimony of testimony and revelation(apta agama)
​

The purport is this, though Samkhya is a philosophy which has been wholly constructed on the basis of inference, it does not contradict what cannot be established by inferences which are declared in the Veda etc Hence, why it is not considered nastika but astika. It does not contradict the authority of the Veda.

Vaiseshika does in fact accept the authority of the Veda and hence the authority of God/s. The last sutra of the Vaiseshika sutra says:

The authoritativeness of the Veda (follows) from its being
the Word of God. 370.​

The later Vaiseshika thinkers like Sridhara etc are all thoroughly theistic.

​

I keep hearing about these so-called atheist schools of Hindu philosophy and yet I can't find any. If you say Mimamsa is atheist, how can it be, when it is about performing the ritual ceremonies to Gods? Later Mimamsa developed the concept of a divine logos principle too "Shabd Brahman" There is therefore no atheistic Hindu philosophy. They all accept belief in God/s.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic, in a very Irish Catholic family. I will always be Catholic. It's a culture, besides being a religion.

Hinduism appears to be similar in that regard. It's bigger and more pervasive than just the theology. It's a culture as well. Doesn't matter what you think is right.
Tom

I don't think a lot of Roman Catholics would consider you a true member of their religion if you are an atheist. However, whether you can be a Christian atheist is a different debate. Let us stuck to "Whether Hindus can be atheists" debate here.

Im just making an educated guess. Im assuming in the past, atheist the word atheist didnt exist. Then it was pagan vs. X-believer. If atheist arose out of something, it wasnt the general "disbelief in god/s" but, like other terms, opposing the abrahamic god.

Like protestants to catholics, it could be athiests to god-believers/creators.

Hindu isng a religion of abraham. So, unless the atheist believes in no deities (not specifically a creeator), he may be using the term to identify is "disbelief" but maintains his belief in Hinduism but rejecting ither gods all gods atheism specifically applies to.

If my history and guessing serves me correct that ia.

I find this a very strange idea that I have seen in many posts in this thread, that atheism is just a rejection of the Abrahamic God. Atheism is the rejection of any kind of belief in God, Gods, or any kind of theism. Pantheism, Monotheism, Henotheism, Deism, deities. In that sense even Buddhism and Jainism cannot be called atheist.

As I have stated already, in the past we did actually have a word for "Atheists" they were called 'Charvaka' and lokayata and was founded by philosopher called Brihaspati. It is considered a heretical doctrine in Hinduism(nastika) and strongly condemned.

To answer this question, a question needs to be ask, before your question can be answered.

Does the core of Hinduism mean accepting and believing in any Hindu deity?

If "no", then of course, a Hindu can be an "atheist".

If "yes", then no, Hindus cannot be atheists.

Atheism is simply a belief that there are no deity or deities.

Theism is about accepting the existence of deity or deities, believing these entities are real.

So if you were Hindu, and you follow Brahma, Kali, Indra, Siva or Vishnu, then you cannot be an atheist.

Yes, every sect of Hinduism accepts the belief in deities. Hinduism is usually divided into denominations by the deity which they worship. The three most common ones in order of popularity are: Vaishnavism(worship Vishnu) Shaivism(Worship Shiva) and Shaktism(Worship Goddess) and there is a fourth one Smartism which is the liberal one, which is the worship of any Hindu deity, even the lesser ones like Sun God, Wind God, Hanuman, Ganesha or a combination of Vishnu, Shiva and Goddess. Most Hindus tend to be smartas worship all Hindu gods. There is also traditional folk Hinduism which the worship of various local village deities.

There is no such thing as an atheist sect of Hinduism. The worship and/or belief in deity is central in Hinduism.

Let me also put it this way.
There are some in my culture who believes that it is an inviolable part of Hinduism that a new wife has to enter her new home holding tightly onto a live fish. in her right hand and a earthern pitcher filled with water in her left hand. Now its fine if someone is genuinely interested in doing this, but forcing people to do such things by saying they are necessary rituals is a form of superstition masquerading as Hinduism. Many such less benign forms of tradition exist. It is perverse as to how a religion whose goal is to free the self has filtered down and watered down to such a level that many people have become slaves to traditions that are mostly sui generis. The situation was obviously worse earlier this century.

This is a strawman fallacy. You are here referring to some obscure local traditions like a newly wed wife has to enter the house with a live fish, where my argument is about the central doctrines of Hinduism by which we can recognise it is Hinduism and not say Buddhism or Jainism or for that matter Islam or Christianity. These are indeed inviolable, because violating them would exclude you from the religion e.g. Atman, Brahman in Hinduism. Hinduism is distinct from Buddhism and Jainism because its accepts the existence of a supreme God or Lord. As I just stated earlier belief in deity is central in Hinduism.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

If another Hindu pursues atheism for a period of time or Christianity for another period of time (which may last a few days to a few lifetimes even if you believe in reincarnation) there is no cause for concern at all. I believe, that in Hinduism, what matters is not what belief you are pursuing but how you are pursuing it.

This view has been called by some Hindu scholars as "radical universalism" If a Hindu wants to be a Christian or a Muslim, then there is no need for a religion called Hinduism, just be a Christian or Muslim. This sort of distorted thinking has been used to convert a lot of Hindus to other religions. I would simply argue such Hindus are just misguided and ignorant. I am a Hindu, because I believe in Hindu doctrines and I believe Hinduism is the full truth. I am not Muslim, because I do not believe in Islam and I do not believe it is the full truth. I cannot be both, because they are mutually opposing.

In the same way you cannot be atheist or Hindu at the same time. Shankara has a great argument against type of thinking which he alleges against Jainism's doctrine of equivalence of all positions. He argues to hold two contradictory views at the same time is like position of a mad-man or schizophrenic, who at the same time holds two conflicting beliefs and is driven mad because he cannot decide. It is like believing both left and right are equally valid, hence being unable to choose one and remaining perpetually indecisive. I think this sums up those Hindus who believe all religions are equally valid.

I was a great theist Hindu while I was that. I am a great atheist Hindu now. I don't have to denounce the theism of other Hindus to prove that I am an atheist Hindu. Some nonsense is endearing, yours as well as those of theist Hindus. Great.

The real question in Hinduism is not that whether a person is a theist or an atheist, the real question is whether a person is fulfilling his 'dharma' or not (duties to family, society, the nation or the world as a whole). One who follows his 'dharma' is certainly a Hindu.

"śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ, para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt;
sva-dharme nidhanaḿ śreyaḥ, para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ." BG 3.35

It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's ways perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's way, for to follow another's path is horrendous.

The duties are prescribed in the Dharma shastras and they include sacrifices to Gods. Here you are interpreting duties as you like, however this is not uncharacteristic of you, you are always reinterpreting words as you like, rather than what their conventional meaning is.

That is a very relevant matter to raise, IMO. Largely because of the emphasis of the Abrahamics on the importance of believing in God's existence, the idea that belief is a big deal has been imported into Dharmas that do not really have much of a place for it.

It is questionable whether the Devas are even suitable for belief as such. And it is just as questionable whether it is proper for Dharmi to presume to state whether a Deva "truly exists". Where would the authority to make such a claim come from?

Atheists do not just reject Abrahamic gods, but also Dharmic gods, Taoist Gods, Shaman gods, any God.

8. They say: “This universe is without truth, without a (moral) basis, without a God, brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause; what else?”

I'm a bit confused here. Here are the first 5 verses of chapter 16 of the Bhagavad Gita.

The Blessed Lord said: Fearlessness, purification of one's existence, cultivation of spiritual knowledge, charity, self-control, performance of sacrifice, study of the Vedas, austerity and simplicity; nonviolence, truthfulness, freedom from anger; renunciation, tranquility, aversion to faultfinding, compassion and freedom from covetousness; gentleness, modesty and steady determination; vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, freedom from envy and the passion for honor-these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.
Arrogance, pride, anger, conceit, harshness and ignorance-these qualities belong to those of demonic nature, O son of Prtha.
The transcendental qualities are conducive to liberation, whereas the demonic qualities make for bondage. Do not worry, O son of Pandu, for you are born with the divine qualities.
I have seen atheists with these qualities of divine nature, and I have seen theists with the qualities listed being of demonic nature.
Can this discrepancy be attributed to how the particular individual (of either divine or demonic nature) defines "god?"

It is true that Lord Krishna begins by dividing divine and demonic qualities(which is the title of the chapter) but he makes it explicitly clear which beliefs also characterise demonic people: "The universe is without truth, without any moral basis, no God brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause what else etc" These are very common beliefs held by a variety of atheists. I have emboldened one one because that is the exact definition of an atheist. He is saying atheist are demonic people.

The vast majority of atheists can have the following beliefs

1. There are no god/s
2. There is no soul, afterlife, supernatural realms
3. There is no moral law
4. The universe and life is an accident
5. Life is about reproduction
​

An atheist tend to share many of these beliefs.

As an atheist and somebody who took some time studying dharmic religions I do not see the compatibility with modern atheism. As atheists we have become very predominantly naturalist as this is a default position due to what atheism is rejecting, the supernatural.
Hinduism offers nothing to an atheist if he or she looks at it in depth. It does not offer legitimate answer to what we want or desire EVEN if it gives us answers to something we find valid through other means. For example many Abrahamic religions forbid consumption of pork yet any person, man or fool could find this out for themselves with some medical research. Google is one click away from curing you of your ignorance.

Thank you for this, although as a Hindu I am opposed to your worldview/religion/ideology, but at we least we can agree we are mutually opposed. The problem is the group of Hindus who are going around claiming this mutual opposition does not exist, that in fact Hindus can be atheists too. However, this is a common problem among many Hindus, who going around claiming the unity of religions and claim they can be Hindu Christians, Hindu Muslims, Hindu atheists, but they are not met with the same enthusiasm by the other side --- e.g. The vast majority of Christians(Unitarians excluded) would not consider a Hindu Christian valid; same goes for Muslims. A vast majority of atheists would not consider Hindus worshipping millions of gods in temples to be atheist.

I would argue that those groups of Hindus that claim they can be two mutually opposed religions at once are just misguided, confused and ignorant about what their religion teaches.

This would be an interesting discussion because Gita is one of my favorite books. So could you explain how Krishna says atheists cannot be Hindu-s there?

I have answered this in response to Crossfire.

I think you are making many assumptions on definitions in this thread. "God" "atheist" but perhaps most surprising: "hindu."

Now it may be well that you have thought through these terms and that which they entail create an internal inconsistency. But, perhaps you should try first to get an understanding on how others use the terms, because it seems apparent to me you are not using them the same way other posters have (again, not that they are right and you are not).

I am using a no nonsense definition of the term: A Hindu is one who believes in Hindu teachings re Brahman, Atman, reincarnation, samsara, moksha, gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, gurus. Just as a Buddhist is one who believes in Buddhist teachings re: dukkha, impermanence, anatman, nirvana, rebirth, Buddha nature, noble truths etc. Just as a Jain is somebody who believes in Jain teachings: Re: Titrthakaras, ahimsa, no God, atoms etc. Just as a Muslim is one who believes in Islamic teachings: Re Allah, Mohammed is last and final prophet etc

I cannot see how you can be a member of a religion and at the same time reject its core beliefs. Like being Christian, literally meaning a follower of Christ, and rejecting Christ lol

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have some more time now to reply to individual posts. I hope you don't mind that I responding to them together in the next series of posts, this is to avoid making too many posts. I can also be briefer than usual, because I am replying to so many at a time.




This is a modern Jungian theory and thus has nothing to do with traditional Hinduism.



The basic problem with your argument that all darsanas were included in debates about theology and philosophy and therefore they are also integral parts of the "Dharmic way of living" is: There is no Dharmic religion, Dharmic is only a category of religion referring to Indian religions. You found this out recently in your thread "Can't we be just dharmic" In the same 'Abrahamic' is not a religion, it is a category of religion referring to religions descending from Abraham. In the Dharmic category of religion there are four mutually opposing religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka. Yes, they do include each other in discussion and debate, but only in a negative and polemical sense -- the Hindus refute the Buddhists, calls Buddha a deceiver(intentional) and the Vedantins, Nyayakas have strongly refuted Buddhism and were instrumental in driving it out of India. Similarly, Buddhism and Jainism are not brethren, they refute each other. Charvaka is the common enemy is all of them and is refuted and condemned by them all. In the same way in the Abrahamic category, there are three mutually opposing religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They do mention each other, but in a negative and polemical sense.

I think you might have a bit of a romantic view of the unity of Dharmic thought. If you recall in your thread, I did actually agree with you on the nearly a dozen doctrines that they share and how closely intertwined they are, but they also have very core doctrinal differences as well. Historically, they have viciously fought with one another. I am not sure about actual violence(Sri Lankan Buddhists do actually record persecution by Hindu kings) but the views are not positive e.g. in Puranas, Kalkiavatar comes to wage war on the country of the Buddhists and annihilate them.

Regarding your view that early Samkhya and Vaiseshika were atheist. I have already refuted this argument in my OP. Early Samkhya, the oldest which is found in the Upanishads was in fact theistic and the Samkhya in the Bhagvad Gita is also theistic. The so-called atheist version is based on Ishvarkrishna's Samkhykarika meaning it is later summary of Samkhya thought. It is not atheist and nor is agnostic, it is just silent on God. You need to appreciate some nuances here. Atheism is rejection of belief in God, Agnosticism is claiming you do not know about God, and being silent on God is neither atheistic, agnostic or theistic. If I write a paper on pure mathematics and do not mention God once in the paper, it does not mean I am atheist or agnostic --- see the fallacy? In fact, even in Samkhyakarika the authority if the Veda is accepted:

6. But the knowledge of supersensible things is obtained by through inference based on general observation; and the knowledge of supersensible things not established even by that, is established through the testimony of testimony and revelation(apta agama)
​

The purport is this, though Samkhya is a philosophy which has been wholly constructed on the basis of inference, it does not contradict what cannot be established by inferences which are declared in the Veda etc Hence, why it is not considered nastika but astika. It does not contradict the authority of the Veda.

Vaiseshika does in fact accept the authority of the Veda and hence the authority of God/s. The last sutra of the Vaiseshika sutra says:

The authoritativeness of the Veda (follows) from its being
the Word of God. 370.​

The later Vaiseshika thinkers like Sridhara etc are all thoroughly theistic.

​

I keep hearing about these so-called atheist schools of Hindu philosophy and yet I can't find any. If you say Mimamsa is atheist, how can it be, when it is about performing the ritual ceremonies to Gods? Later Mimamsa developed the concept of a divine logos principle too "Shabd Brahman" There is therefore no atheistic Hindu philosophy. They all accept belief in God/s.



I don't think a lot of Roman Catholics would consider you a true member of their religion if you are an atheist. However, whether you can be a Christian atheist is a different debate. Let us stuck to "Whether Hindus can be atheists" debate here.



I find this a very strange idea that I have seen in many posts in this thread, that atheism is just a rejection of the Abrahamic God. Atheism is the rejection of any kind of belief in God, Gods, or any kind of theism. Pantheism, Monotheism, Henotheism, Deism, deities. In that sense even Buddhism and Jainism cannot be called atheist.

As I have stated already, in the past we did actually have a word for "Atheists" they were called 'Charvaka' and lokayata and was founded by philosopher called Brihaspati. It is considered a heretical doctrine in Hinduism(nastika) and strongly condemned.



Yes, every sect of Hinduism accepts the belief in deities. Hinduism is usually divided into denominations by the deity which they worship. The three most common ones in order of popularity are: Vaishnavism(worship Vishnu) Shaivism(Worship Shiva) and Shaktism(Worship Goddess) and there is a fourth one Smartism which is the liberal one, which is the worship of any Hindu deity, even the lesser ones like Sun God, Wind God, Hanuman, Ganesha or a combination of Vishnu, Shiva and Goddess. Most Hindus tend to be smartas worship all Hindu gods. There is also traditional folk Hinduism which the worship of various local village deities.

There is no such thing as an atheist sect of Hinduism. The worship and/or belief in deity is central in Hinduism.



This is a strawman fallacy. You are here referring to some obscure local traditions like a newly wed wife has to enter the house with a live fish, where my argument is about the central doctrines of Hinduism by which we can recognise it is Hinduism and not say Buddhism or Jainism or for that matter Islam or Christianity. These are indeed inviolable, because violating them would exclude you from the religion e.g. Atman, Brahman in Hinduism. Hinduism is distinct from Buddhism and Jainism because its accepts the existence of a supreme God or Lord. As I just stated earlier belief in deity is central in Hinduism.

Its an educate assumption based on the history of how people opposed to god given christian colonizations, and other. People have been theorizing and christianity the christian faith for centuries. All those who werent catholic, were pagans.

The dictionary defined marriage as between man and woman only during the Clinton and Jr. Bush days on back. Almost recently (probably due to the repeal of the DOMA), now the dictionary says marriage between male and female and then female and female (male/male) join together in a union like a traditional one. Gearing around or avoiding saying "Marriage is a legal binding contract between two people."

Atheism, the same way but other way around. It sounds more like a protest opposition against christianity. Which questioned the "existence" of god not disbelief.

Now its watered down to disbelief in god even though many theist claim KNOWLEDGE of god's existence not belief.

Why would a theist believe something he thought wasnt true?

Now you got atheist saying its a "rejection" of god. Others think evolution is somewhere involved in the definition.

Outside of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish, is there such a word as atheism? Because I notice other religions on the other side of the world dont base their religion on beliefs but action and their duty to their community and family. So, Im assuming if a Hindu wouldnt question a persons lack of belief in gods if they knew that person was honoring the gods, custums, etc as was raised and taught.

Atheism in america (and like-minded folk) is not atheism in other parts of the world were religion is based on action not what one believes or disbelieves. Atheism is obsolete.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is a very relevant matter to raise, IMO. Largely because of the emphasis of the Abrahamics on the importance of believing in God's existence, the idea that belief is a big deal has been imported into Dharmas that do not really have much of a place for it.

It is questionable whether the Devas are even suitable for belief as such. And it is just as questionable whether it is proper for Dharmi to presume to state whether a Deva "truly exists". Where would the authority to make such a claim come from?

When I practiced Buddhism and studied it, it was more practice and alining yourselves with the practices ans values of The Buddha's Dharma. In Mahayana, the devas, etc where personifications of different parts of our mind. In Veitnameze Buddhism (from a former Veit buddhist through family) he tells me each boddhisattva means something. Like Shariputra I think is wisdom. So, like catholics to saints, they call upom boddhisatvas because they uave the wisdom and told to protect the Dharma as said by The Buddha.

Belief, though, honestly sounds mew age. Muslim and Jews believe in action just as any other faith. In oje faith and cukture, what we think of as atheist to them they use a word like outsider because that person has turned his back to duty to the community and family etc. Just disbelief in gods, i think thats a church thing. If atheism has a history, it probably was opposition to the church.

 

[Fool]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. It seems strange to me that one could be a Hindu atheist, when Hindu scriptures condemn atheism very strongly. In the Ramayana an atheist tries to corrupt Lord Rama's mind, and Rama strongly rebukes him and condemns his beliefs. In the Bhagvad Gita, Krishna calls atheists the worst of names demonic, deceitful, arrogant etc and condemns them to hellish births. In fact the biggest condemnation we hear in Hindu scriptures is not for other religions who believe in other Gods, but atheism and materialism.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

Charvaka - Wikipedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Atheists are just as capable of employing archetypes and mystical journeys as anyone else, @Vinayaka

Yes of course. Just as theists can deny mysticism. Don't forget I knew a couple of atheists really well, namely my father, (softer. leaning to agnostic) and my brother (hard core evangelizing atheist). Besides that, I've had long acquaintances with many atheists throughout life, and have great respect for them. I do consider you an atheist, BTW, but you don't let it slip how much you believe in God, either. lol

 

[ajay0]

I would say that charvaka's who rejected the vedas and God and the Divine and reincarnation are not Hindus . It's as simple as that.


I was surprised when in the vedanta forum, some atheist claiming to be a Hindu expressed disbelief in Krishna and reincarnation. There are many such trolls claiming themselves to be Hindu while entertaining anti-hindu beliefs and expressing them for underming the religion and its beliefs in a clandestine manner to suit their ideologies.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry for starting this debate and then not participating in it so far, I have just been occupied. Some interesting views shared so far, and I think the popular view so far that Hindus can be atheists or they can be anything they want. The problem I have with this view, it though it sounds pleasant to hear for our liberal modern minds, the same view by namesake is called "Charvaka" by Hindus in the philosophical tradition, which means sweet and pleasant sounding, it denotes the views of the Charvakas who were atheists and materialists. According to them there are no God/s, no soul, no afterlife, you only get one life and life is all about doing what your heart desires.

However, this system of philosophy or worldview(darsana) is considered nastika meaning heretical, but technically meaning anti-Vedic religion. It is recognised as a separate religion in its own right(in the Gita it is called asura dharma or demonic religion) just as Buddhism and Jainism are separate religions and also considered nastika. Hence, if Buddhism and Jainism are different religions from Hinduism and are mutually exclusive of one another, then it makes as much sense as being a Hindu Buddhist etc as a Muslim pagan or a Jewish Christian. Hence, one cannot be a Charvaka Hindu, that would be living a contradiction. Such a person is an oxymoron.

Firstly I believe that one can indeed be a Hindu Buddhist or a Hindu Jain. One won't be a Vedic Hindu in that case, but there are plenty of non-Vedic Hindu-s around, like those who follow tantra and agama texts. In fact they may even be the majority of Hindu people given their importance in Saivism and Sakta traditions. I have also talked about Mimamsa, Samkhya and Vaisesika. It is absolutely irrelevant about what most modern Hindu-s think, a person who chooses to follow Vaisesika sutra-s only will still be a Hindu no matter what others say. Your attempt to import western religious type distinctions between the dharmic darsana-s is worrying to me.

I referenced in the OP what the Bhagvad Gita says about atheists. The Bhagvad Gita is not just an ordinary or one of many texts in Hinduism, it enjoys the status of being practically the Bible of Hindus today. In the Indian state for example they make Hindus swear on oath on the Bhagvad Gita in a court of law. The Bhagvat Gita is considered the de facto scripture for the majority of Hindus. It is also part of the core canon of the Vedanta tradition which accounts for the majority of Hindu sects. It is the gospel of Lord Krishna, who is considered god incarnate by virtually all of Hindu sects, including Shaiva and Shakta sects. This preamble was to only give an idea to the readers of the central position this scripture takes in Hinduism.

Its an important and much venerated text, but it is not that important. Many Hindu schools do not use the Gita in any way shape or form. Saiva-s and Sakta-s particularly. Not everybody is a Vaishnava. Outside of the Vaishnava circle, in the east and in the south, and in many places in the North...Gita is not that important at all. Its a great text and a very good introduction to certain key ideas...and hence people (including me) use it often to introduce and talk about Hinduism to non-Hindu-s. But most people in my Sakta tradition do not use Gita at all in their public or private worship. Its Siva, Durga, Kali mostly. Is Gita more authoritative than scriptures of Devi or Saiva Tantra-s or Vaisesika Sutra or Brihad-Aranyaka Upanisad? No. Hindu-s in various ages go this way or that way regrading what is more popular or what is less popular. That has very little to say about who is or is not a Hindu. If a person follows only the scriptures and yajna rituals of Rig Veda today and reject the entire rebirth idea that is nowhere present in it, paying homage to Indra, Mitra, Varuna or Agni so that they gain a good life and heaven afterwards, he will still be a Hindu.
So, no, Gita is not authoritative to all Hindu-s and cannot be used to exclude anyone from Hinduism. If someone follows teachings of Gita, he is a Hindu. But if someone does not, that implies nothing whatsoever.


Continued.

 

[sayak83]

@Spirit_Warrior

Now let us look at what it says about atheists from Chapter 16 on the Yoga of divine and demonic:

6. There are two types of beings in this world—the divine and the demoniacal; the divine has been described at length; hear from Me, O Arjuna, of the demoniacal!

7. The demoniacal know not what to do and what to refrain from; neither purity nor right conduct nor truth is found in them.

8. They say: “This universe is without truth, without a (moral) basis, without a God, brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause; what else?” 1

9. Holding this view, these ruined souls of small intellects and fierce deeds, come forth as enemies of the world for its destruction.

...........................................
​

This perhaps the strongest condemnation I have seen of atheism in any world religion. The irony here is, this is considered the gospel of God incarnate Lord Krishna by Hindus. As a Hindu I should be sharing these views about atheists, as this is what my religion teaches me and as I consider Krishna to be an avatar of the supreme God Vishnu, I cannot doubt his words. Now, those Hindus who are doubting this, can they really be considered Hindus or just Charvakas masquerading around as Hindus?

This is a great example of cherry-picking. Most of early part chapter 16 is focused on behavioral and psychological qualities associated with Asuric people, and indeed self-obsessed atheistic hedonism is a part of the mix as well as those who think themselves overtly self-righteous or use religious rituals to aggrandize their own ego and power. But do you think Mahavira and Buddha, Ajita Kesakambalin and many great atheist humanitarians of the past and the present fall under the rubric of:-

10. Filled with insatiable desires, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work with impure resolves.
11. Giving themselves over to immeasurable cares ending only with death, regarding gratification of lust as their highest aim, and feeling sure that that is all,
12. Bound by a hundred ties of hope, given over to lust and anger, they strive to obtain by unlawful means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyment.
13. “This has been gained by me today; this desire I shall obtain; this is mine and this wealth too shall be mine in future.”
14. “That enemy has been slain by me and others also I shall slay. I am the lord; I enjoy; I am perfect, powerful and happy”.
15. “I am rich and born in a noble family. Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice. I will give (charity). I will rejoice,”—thus, deluded by ignorance
16. Bewildered by many a fancy, entangled in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into a foul hell.
17. Self-conceited, stubborn, filled with the intoxication and pride of wealth, they perform sacrifices in name, through ostentation, contrary to scriptural ordinances.
18. Given over to egoism, power, haughtiness, lust and anger, these malicious people hate Me in their own bodies and those of others.
19. These cruel haters, the worst among men in the world,—I hurl all these evil-doers for ever into the wombs of demons only.
20. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded birth after birth, not attaining Me, they thus fall, O Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that!


Could you clarify which of these people below fall under this above description:-
List of nonreligious Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Let's look at one person among the crowd. Linus Pauling.

Linus Carl Pauling (February 28, 1901 – August 19, 1994)[4] was an American chemist, biochemist, peace activist, author, and educator. He published more than 1,200 papers and books, of which about 850 dealt with scientific topics.[5]New Scientist called him one of the 20 greatest scientists of all time,[6] and as of 2000, he was rated the 16th most important scientist in history.[7] Pauling was one of the founders of the fields of quantum chemistry and molecular biology.[8]
For his scientific work, Pauling was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954. In 1962, for his peace activism, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This makes him the only person to be awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes.

Pauling was raised as a member of the Lutheran Church,[42] but later joined the Unitarian Universalist Church.[43] Two years before his death, in a published dialogue with Buddhist philosopher Daisaku Ikeda, Pauling publicly declared his atheism.[44]



While at Cornell, he delivered a series of nineteen lectures[58] and completed the bulk of his famous textbook The Nature of the Chemical Bond.[59][60]reface While at Cornell, Pauling resided at the Telluride House.[61] It is based primarily on his work in this area that he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 "for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances".[10]Pauling's book has been considered "chemistry's most influential book of this century and its effective bible".[62] In the 30 years after its first edition was published in 1939, the book was cited more than 16,000 times. Even today, many modern scientific papers and articles in important journals cite this work, more than seventy years after the first publication.[63]

In November 1949, Pauling, Harvey Itano, S. J. Singer and Ibert Wells published "Sickle Cell Anemia, a Molecular Disease"[78] in the journal Science. It was the first proof of a human disease caused by an abnormal protein, and sickle cell anemia became the first disease understood at the molecular level.

The aftermath of the Manhattan Project and his wife Ava's pacifism changed Pauling's life profoundly, and he became a peace activist. In 1946, he joined the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, chaired by Albert Einstein.[103] Its mission was to warn the public of the dangers associated with the development of nuclear weapons.His political activism prompted the U.S. State Department to deny him a passport in 1952, when he was invited to speak at a scientific conference in London.[104][105].Joining Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other leading scientists and intellectuals, he signed the Russell-Einstein Manifesto issued July 9, 1955.[108] He also supported the Mainau Declaration of July 15, 1955, signed by 52 Nobel Prize laureates.[109]....Later in 1958, Pauling published No more war!, in which he not only called for an end to the testing of nuclear weapons but also an end to war itself. He proposed that a World Peace Research Organization be set up as part of the United Nations to "attack the problem of preserving the peace".[10]

Public pressure and the frightening results of the CNI research subsequently led to a moratorium on above-ground nuclear weapons testing, followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. On the day that the treaty went into force, October 10, 1963, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Pauling the Nobel Peace Prize for 1962.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Should i next talk about Jawaharlal Nehru?

Continued....

 

[sayak83]

And which part of the Amsterdam Humanist Declaration do you think is demoniacal?

Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world’s great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you think Isac Asimov qualifies as a man born to a demoniacal destiny. Could you care to explain how?

Isaac Asimov - Wikipedia

People who will qualify are quite obvious though. People like Stalin, Napolean, Pizarro and more recently Trump.

Thus apparently, according to you, Gita has been refuted, since non-belief in God does not result in demonaiacal properties in many many people. In fact they have divine qualities described earlier in the text.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The duties are prescribed in the Dharma shastras and they include sacrifices to Gods. Here you are interpreting duties as you like, however this is not uncharacteristic of you, you are always reinterpreting words as you like, rather than what their conventional meaning is.

It is true that Lord Krishna begins .. characterise demonic people: "The universe is without truth, without any moral basis, no God brought about by mutual union, with lust for its cause what else etc".

3. There is no moral law, 5. Life is about reproduction

​

However, this is a common problem among many Hindus, who going around claiming the unity of religions and claim they can be Hindu Christians, Hindu Muslims, ..

The duties are prescribed in the Dharma shastras and they include sacrifices to Gods. Here you are interpreting duties as you like, however this is not uncharacteristic of you, you are always reinterpreting words as you like, rather than what their conventional meaning is.

I am using a no nonsense definition of the term: A Hindu is one who believes in Hindu teachings re Brahman, Atman, reincarnation, samsara, moksha, gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, ..

I cannot see how you can be a member of a religion and at the same time reject its core beliefs. Like being Christian, literally meaning a follower of Christ, and rejecting Christ lol

Why should not I interpret words in my own way when the others have interpreted them in their own way?

Oh, Lord Krishna was talking about demonic people, but I am not demonic. I believe the existence of two truths, Paramarthika and Vyavaharika, since I consider Sankara as my guru (though I do not go with him 100%). I believe in morals. Now you cannot say that those who do not believe in God are all immoral. As for sex and care for the young, evolution made us that way. I do not agree with your points 3 and 5. Life is not just about reproduction, it is also about family, society, country and the whole world. I do not believe in unity of religions. Mine is mine and theirs is theirs a-la Surah Al-Kafirun in Qur'an.

Now, Shastras say that I am 'THAT'. If I am 'THAT', then whom do I worship? Worship myself?

andham tamah pravisanti ye'sambhutimupasate l
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah ll .. Ishavasya Upanishad, Verse 12

"They enter into blind darkness who worship the unmanifested, and in greater darkness they fall who worship the manifested."

Remember the Mahavakyas and other declarations in various Upanishads, I do not think I need to repeat them all here. You too know them very well. Even Lord Krishna wants us to abandon all sorts of dualities. I quote two of many such lines:

"Nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho, niryoga-kṣema ātmavān." BG 2.45
Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

"Nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho, sukhaḿ bandhāt pramucyate." BG 5.3
Such a person, free from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna.

I accept existence of one entity in the universe, Brahman. Atman means self (the human body), Samsara, Moksha/Nirvana/Enlightenment/Jnana but I mean understanding/realizing the truth about universe and life by that. I do not mean any getting out of life cycle by that. True, there is a cycle, but it is of a chemical and atomic nature. Jnana can only be achieved by abandoning all pre-conceived beliefs. Many people do not have the courage to face truth. Being an atheist I do not believe in Gods and Goddesses but I have no problem if other Hindus have that belief.

Core beliefs - the core belief in Hinduism is action according to one's 'dharma' and nothing else. All the rest is secondary.

@ajay0, I believe your views are without any proof and pure hog wash (Prove Krishna historically or reincarnation scientifically. I do not ever ask such questions but your post has made me do so).

 

[Curious George]

I am using a no nonsense definition of the term: A Hindu is one who believes in Hindu teachings re Brahman, Atman, reincarnation, samsara, moksha, gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, gurus. Just as a Buddhist is one who believes in Buddhist teachings re: dukkha, impermanence, anatman, nirvana, rebirth, Buddha nature, noble truths etc. Just as a Jain is somebody who believes in Jain teachings: Re: Titrthakaras, ahimsa, no God, atoms etc. Just as a Muslim is one who believes in Islamic teachings: Re Allah, Mohammed is last and final prophet etc

I cannot see how you can be a member of a religion and at the same time reject its core beliefs. Like being Christian, literally meaning a follower of Christ, and rejecting Christ lol

And what makes you so certain that your "no-nonsense" interpretation is correct?

 

[Vinayaka]

To me, this is far more about how attached a person is about their own beliefs being right or wrong, versus the opposite: willingness to allow others to hold their opinions without undue debate, than it is about the actual debate itself.

 

[Vinayaka]

I knew atheists who attended Temple when I was younger.

We had an atheist on our temple board. He worked with us because he thought the temple would be good for the community, and was a member of the bigger cultural community. He considered himself non-Hindu and atheist, as did I.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Uhh, no he's not. Are you confusing Hinduism for............ISKCON? I mean I haven nothing against the movement personally. But they're not representative of all Hindus.
If Krishna is your Ishta then, so be it. I mean your choice is your choice. Krishna is certainly a fun deity. But that's not an all encompassing approach of Hinduism. Not even an all encompassing belief really.

Actually my Ishta is Shiva. I thought that would have been clear from my avatar.

I think you are confusing ISKON for Vaishnavism. ISKON is just one sect of Vaishva religion. You also do not seem to be aware that though Shaiva and Shakta sects choose to worship Shiva and Goddess, they do not reject the divinity of Vishnu either. See:

Wiki: Shiva​

The Vaishnava (Vishnu-oriented) literature acknowledges and discusses Shiva. Like Shaiva literature that presents Shiva as supreme, the Vaishnava literature presents Vishnu as supreme. However, both traditions are pluralistic and revere both Shiva and Vishnu (along with Devi), their texts do not show exclusivism, and Vaishnava texts such as the Bhagavata Purana while praising Krishna as the Ultimate Reality, also present Shiva and Shakti as a personalized form and equivalent to the same Ultimate Reality.[147][148][149]The texts of Shaivism tradition similarly praise Vishnu. The Skanda Purana, for example, states:

Vishnu is nobody but Shiva, and he who is called Shiva is but identical with Vishnu.

— Skanda Purana, 1.8.20–21[150]
Mythologies of both traditions include legends about who is superior, about Shiva paying homage to Vishnu, and Vishnu paying homage to Shiva. However, in texts and artwork of either tradition, the mutual salutes are symbolism for complementarity.[151] The Mahabharata declares the unchanging Ultimate Reality (Brahman) to be identical to Shiva and to Vishnu,[152] that Vishnu is the highest manifestation of Shiva, and Shiva is the highest manifestation of Vishnu​

The Bhagvad Gita is not just a scripture used by Vaishnava sects, it is also used by Shaiva and Shakta sects. Shaiva and Shakta sects do not reject the itihas-purana of the Mahabharata either, that they believe in in the historicity of Lord Krishna and consider him an avatar of Vishnu. In general then the Bhagvad Gita is considered a most sacred scripture universally across Hinduism.

However, the condemnation of atheism can be found across Hindu scriptures, not just the Bhagvad Gita, the Bhagvad Gita is more vocal in its condemnation. It is also condemned in the Ramayana. Here is an account when an atheist tries to corrupt the mind of Lord Rama:

Hearing that argument of atheism inuntiated by Jabali, Rama the prince with a terrible energy, without tolerating his words, spoke in reproach to him (as follows):

"The virtuous say that truth, piety, valour, compassion for all beings, polite speech and worship of Brahmanas, gods and unexpected guests are the paths to heaven. Therefore the learned, well-instructed in what is to be their greatest advantage; follow their purpose resolutely and fulfill their duty in its entirety properly and attentively, seeking to attain the highest realms."
​

"I accuse the act done by my father in taking you into his service, you with your misleading intelligence, a firm atheist fallen from the true path. It is an exact state of the case that a mere *intellection deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the people. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist."

​

The Ramayana is also a central scripture and epic of Hinduism.

​

The central scriptures are not the same as say the Bible, where there is (usually) a more vested interest in accepting all of it. We don't. We don't even have to read scripture to be Hindu. We can reject whatever passages we feel is outdated. The world shapes our scripture, not the other way around. People are free to be a Hindu AND have whatever belief they want about the divine. That is a core element of the philosophy.

It is because you have not read scriptures and have relied on your own devices that you have come up with such a wrong understanding of Hindu beliefs. Scripture is there basically to lead us to correct belief. It is true that Hindus are allowed to question and doubt it, but this is an exercise to remove doubts so that one has faith in the scripture. The testimony of scripture is accepted as authority in every sect of Hinduism and every school of philosophy.

You don't have as much freedom as you would like to believe, I am coming to this point in response to your next quote:

The central figurehead for Hinduism is whichever deity (or lack thereof) your specific school venerates. Shaktas worship Deva, Shaivites worship Shiva, Vaishnavas worship Vishnu and/or Krishna, Smartas have the five figured combo etc. Though the most common is Brahman. Which is essentially a cosmic spirit/entity/energy force that is the common name for the "Nameless, formless timeless One." And is a label used to denote something that is beyond labels, human comprehension and even deities themselves. (Well you know what I mean.)

The scripture very explicitly calls Brahman consciousness. It does not say it is an energy or a force, that doctrine is known as Pradhana which is the doctrine that the ultimate principle is unmanifest causal matter, like a potential energy which is the source of all other energies. This doctrine is strongly refuted by Vedanta, which posits Brahman as the material cause.

The Upanishads actually say that those worship the unmanifest nature(pradhana) fall into darkness.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but you sound more like an Abrahamic than you do a Dharmic. (Not that I have anything against the Abrahamics.)

I will not, because also don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like you consider any view that does not agree with what you believe about Hinduism to be Abrahamic . I have seen a lot of Hindus here and elsewhere define Hinduism as the binary opposite of the Abrahamic religion, particularly Christianity and Islam. What needs to be understood here, Hinduism was around long before Christianity and Islam. I have formed my views about Hinduism from reading the primary texts of Hinduism before the modern era. I did not find the kind of postmodern attitudes you betray in the texts e.g. the Hindus were as dogmatic, as the Christians and the Muslims were in condemning non Hindu religions, like Buddhism and Jainism. There are also reported cases of violence. If this sound "Abrahamic" it is simply because they are similar.

As I have studied one sect of Hinduism Advaita Vedanta traditionally I know we are not friendly to rival philosophical schools even within our own religion, forget outside our religion.

Also verse and chapter please. I have never known Krishna to specifically state that atheism excludes someone from their ability to follow their Dharmic path.

I have already answered this point in response to crossfire

Why do I have to? I don't need scripture for my religious journey. I'm not that intellectually lazy. At least I try not to be

Well this is why I argue you have wrong understanding about Hinduism. You have formed your views by yourself without much reading and overestimating your intellectual abilities. In fact it sounds very egotistical the way you are wording it. Just as a mathematician today cannot by themselves discover all that has been discovered in maths in the last 5000 years, you cannot expect to understand everything about Hinduism from the last 5000 years. Even myself, though I have been studying the religion for the past 20 years or so, still learn something new. It will take me lifetimes to read all the scriptures. However, as I have several dozen primary scriptures from across many schools Vedanta, Yoga, Tantra, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika, I have a more informed understanding about its tenets, teaching and history.

Your understanding does not seem informed. In fact your views come across as very emotional,.
.

Besides there are entire atheistic schools of Hinduism and no one really has cared. Except fundamentalists, maybe.

Which? I think I have already refuted that argument. There is not a single atheistic sect of Hinduism. Unless you are referring to recent neo-Hindu sects, if so please link them.

Even on these forums, Uncle Aup is staunchly atheistic and though many disagree with him, I cannot bring myself to even suggest the possibility that he is not Hindu. He has shown time and time again, though I disagree with his theories and opinions, that he understands Hinduism and lives and breathes it.

With all due respect to Uncle Aup as he is my senior, I find him confused. I do not want to speak about him in the third person when he is here, as that is disrespectful, so I will address him directly:

Sir, you call yourself an "Advaitist Hindu" when your views are not Advaita. You simply take the word "advaita" which literally means not-two, to say all is "matter/energy" However, that is not what the word conventionally means. It means the school of Vedanta founded by Shankara. So you are not an Advaitin, and it is misleading to call yourself as such. The closest term that describes your ontological position is "Charvaka"

Sir, you often talk about doing pujas chanting mantras and ceremonies to deities, but you don't even believe in them. I think Vinayaka has bought up this point as well.

The problem with being a Hindu and atheist is you going to end up living a contradiction. You also create conflict with other Hindus. It is like me calling myself a Hindu Muslim, and then posting in the Islam forum saying Mohammed was another avatar of Vishnu etc. It will create conflict. Similarly, when Hindu atheists post against Hindu beliefs, rejecting Hindu gods, scriptures, beliefs etc. It creates conflict.

Again, are you the Godhead? Are you the grand high Judge and jury determining the validity of other peoples' personal salvation paths? Who died and made you grand king?
This is again a very Abrahamic approach.

This is very emotional. I think you need to clam down and try to approach this discussion dispassionately. I am not arbitrating anything. I am showing through argument how the positions of being atheist and Hindu are mutually opposed. Here, I am refuting the argument that just because some Hindus self identify as atheist that it a valid position to take, by showing that one can self-identify as anything, that does not make it a valid position. Relax.

Uhh who the hell says that all Indians are Hindu? Or that one is Hindu by virtue of being an Indian? This isn't the 1900s. And there are many Indian Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Bahai's etc.
Also the word Hinduism is already a bastardized (in some circles) word that used to mean Santana Dharma. Or "Eternal Dharma." And literally includes everyone who tries to follow a Dharmic path. Whether or not religious adherence is specifically included in that definition varies person to person. Or school to school, rather.

Again, you are being emotional, so you actually failed to read what I wrote. I said that the term "Hindu" was used geographically in the past, but it is no longer a geographical reference, it is a religious reference which refers to Hinduism or the tradition of religions that came from the Vedic tradition.

No I am saying that it's nuanced. The whole "we believe in God" thing is actually a rough Westernized translation of our theology to begin with. That is how we have translated things to people, to the average layperson, but it's not exactly the whole picture. Because translations between the East and West are tricky at best.
What Christians call god, Hindus might call the Universe. What Muslims call Allah Hindus may call nature. There are so many endless beliefs and relationships to the Divine/Energy/World/ etc that I can't even begin to fathom it.
And for you to just be all like "oh they're not real" reeks of the elitist drivel that the Colonials used to try to dumb down our original theology in the first place.
And again, you are refusing to acknowledge just how intertwined Hinduism is with culture. Hinduism is a very private affair, but it's also staunchly familial.

You seem to be unaware that in Hinduism we have a term for universe, it is jagat and it is separate from ishvara or God. So no we do not consider the universe to be God(Spinozas naturalistic God) We do not take energy(pradhana) to be God either. You would know this, if you had actually read the scriptures and shastras.

Ahh, but reincarnation is not a central belief of Hinduism. Moksha is. So not always

Of course it is. It is a central belief across Dharmic religions. Can you mention a single traditional sect that does not believe in reincarnation. If it a Neo-Hindu sect, then please link it.

Only if you assume that reincarnation is a core belief of Hinduism. But it's not. So.........

Of course it is. I have not seen any Hindu sect say otherwise. It is a core belief around which other beliefs are linked in samsara, karma, dharma, moksha.

Many Hindus, especially from poor communities, have never read or even heard a single word of any Hindu scripture. Which is impressive because there's like hundreds. But that's never been a problem for thousands of years, as they follow familial traditions and happily practice Hinduism all the same.
Hell, the only time I have seen any of my highly devout family use scripture is to do a very specific ritual and they just wanted to be traditionally correct. Otherwise the Pundits and even the Gurus are more or less ignored in everyday Hindu-ing. "Doctrine" is a very Christian thing, Hindus don't seem too bothered by it, except for the "converts."

This is probably why there are a lot of confused, misguided and ignorant Hindus spreading false ideas about what the religion teaches. They get their knowledge from second hand sources; hearsay, traditions, media and their own thinking about it, without bothering to read a single scripture of the religion. We must make a distinction between learned/informed Hindus and lay Hindus. Most of the 1 billion+ Hindus are just Hindu because they are born in it, they have not even read the Gita.. I am a 'convert' but I have actually more knowledge about Hinduism, its tenets and practices than the average person who was born Hindu. I know this because I have many Hindu friend who I have to teach about Hinduism. We converts appreciate Hinduism more because we chose it.

 

[sayak83]

This view has been called by some Hindu scholars as "radical universalism" If a Hindu wants to be a Christian or a Muslim, then there is no need for a religion called Hinduism, just be a Christian or Muslim. This sort of distorted thinking has been used to convert a lot of Hindus to other religions. I would simply argue such Hindus are just misguided and ignorant. I am a Hindu, because I believe in Hindu doctrines and I believe Hinduism is the full truth. I am not Muslim, because I do not believe in Islam and I do not believe it is the full truth. I cannot be both, because they are mutually opposing.

One cannot be both at the same time. But one can be many things in different periods of life and even in different times of the day. Just as one can be a neutral professional by day and a loving spouse by night, so to humans can take on many persona-s and beliefs during different periods as and when suitable. Scientists move from classical to quantum mechanical models effortlessly within a single research project. Humans can have many beliefs that are appropriate to specific times and conditions that appear to contradict each other because human beings are greater than and radically transcend the beliefs they hold. As I said. Either one is a master of beliefs or mastered by beliefs. If the former then one uses beliefs and worldviews as and when appropriate as effortlessly as one changes clothes or eats various foods during the day. Otherwise..you get to the kind of constrained thinking of exclusion that you are showing, unfortunately. Krishna in Gita, and throughout Mahabharata is a great example of the former, combining disparate ideas and worldviews effortlessly and using them as and when necessary in new synthesis. So was Buddha, if you read all his works. So was Gandhi. A student of literature or music is right in sticking to one literary or musical tradition and learn it well, but mastery is transcending those bounds and bringing new creative structures from multiple genres. A great example is Vacaspati Misra who wrote 30 commnetries in Mimansa, 10 commentries in Nyaya as well as famous commnetries on Advaita. and Yoga.
The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Indian metaphysics and epistemology
If an atheist says he is a Hindu, or if a Muslim or a Christian says he is a Hindu...I would not reject the possibility outright at all. I will ask and inquire about the basis from which he is saying such a thing.

In the same way you cannot be atheist or Hindu at the same time. Shankara has a great argument against type of thinking which he alleges against Jainism's doctrine of equivalence of all positions. He argues to hold two contradictory views at the same time is like position of a mad-man or schizophrenic, who at the same time holds two conflicting beliefs and is driven mad because he cannot decide. It is like believing both left and right are equally valid, hence being unable to choose one and remaining perpetually indecisive. I think this sums up those Hindus who believe all religions are equally valid.

In quantum mechanics one is often forced to hold two contradictory ideas and images at the same time due to our mind's inability to visualize the realities of quantum mechanics any other way. One can mathematically prove that QM is consistent, but the mind cannot see that. A set of carefully constructed worldviews may actually encapsulate the same reality in different ways and their equivalency can be proven. Examples are Schrodinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics, or a theory of fluids based on Boltzman statistics and a theory of fluids based on continuum mechanics. I can go on and on (E=mc^2). Even in mathematics, various approaches to set theory can be proved to be equivalent even though they look very different. I have no idea if you are interpreting sankara accurately, but as you interpret it, he was wrong. Lazy universalism just says they are equivalent and leave it at that. Good universalism carefully works out different models of reality and shows reasons as to why its plausible (or ideally provable) to state that they are equivalent. And there will always be worldviews that are wrong and needs to be discarded.

I am using a no nonsense definition of the term: A Hindu is one who believes in Hindu teachings re Brahman, Atman, reincarnation, samsara, moksha, gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, gurus. Just as a Buddhist is one who believes in Buddhist teachings re: dukkha, impermanence, anatman, nirvana, rebirth, Buddha nature, noble truths etc. Just as a Jain is somebody who believes in Jain teachings: Re: Titrthakaras, ahimsa, no God, atoms etc. Just as a Muslim is one who believes in Islamic teachings: Re Allah, Mohammed is last and final prophet etc

I reject the idea that Hinduism has a set of core beliefs that Hindu-s must follow. There are some beliefs that are more prevalent today, but they would be different from the beliefs that were prevalent 2000 years ago and will be different than that which would be prevalent 2000 years hence. Theologically and philosophically, the Mimansika-s are as distant from Vaishnavas as Vaishnava-s are from Buddhism. Furthermore Pure Land Buddhism is as different from Theravada Buddhism as each are from Samkhya. Just bringing in a set of beliefs that most Hindu-s happen to hold today and calling them core is unsound practice and is a transparent attempt to make Hinduism (and Buddhism) like other religions of the Abrahamic world where beliefs are the core and one can splinter into violent wars based on little differences.

 

[sayak83]

@Spirit_Warrior

For now I would encourage you to focus on my counter that Gita only condemns selfish hedonistic atheism and there are many other ways of being an atheist than that.



The more fundamental difference between you and me regarding Hinduism is that:-
1) For me Hinduism is a methodology by which one investigates truths about life, reality, self and morality and does not pre-decide the conclusions of such investigations. Hence it is akin to the scientific method but more all encompassing. My key effort is to demonstrate that the scientific method is a subset of and can usefully and fruitfully be integrated with Hinduism, and Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism can be used by science to understand how it can expand its scope beyond the material in a fruitful manner.

2) You are here claiming that, instead, Hinduism is a set of core beliefs that one must hold and assert . This I disagree with very strongly, even if those beliefs happen to be true and would be the final outcome of the methodology when pursued to its end. This distinction is crucial. One is not a scientist because he believes General Relativity is true, one is a scientist because he is competent in following through with the scientific method even if it happens to be the case, that, when pursued, GR is established to be the true conclusion. This allows a person to be skeptical of GR (say a string theorist) to be a scientist against majority opinion because he is competent in the scientific method. Now comes the polemical discourse between a GR believer scientist and a GR skeptical scientist. The argument may be rancorous, but they are both scientists.

3) I will note that this is the same case in Hindu discourse. In a scientific rebuttal papers, you mention fellow scientists with whom you vehemently disagree. You do not mention tin-foil hat pseudoscientists who are not competent in the method in any way shape and form. And in Indian discourse, you know who is a non-Hindu by seeing who are NEVER MENTIONED. The Confucians (though there was extensive contact with China), the Roman and Greek polytheists (though Bactrian Greeks and Kushans had multiple Greek influenced people), the Christains (though they had settled in South India for a long time), the Zoroastrians, the Muslims (though they were around vigorously). They are never ever mentioned at all. They were considered the true outsiders, the ones who are not trained and cannot comprehend what the issues are and how to investigate and analyze them.

I do not know how to proceed to resolve such a fundamental disagreement on the nature of Hinduism itself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wouldn't it be a contradiction to say one is a Hindu by culture but not by religion, when the culture is not it's own island but based on the religion and beliefs that mirror or shape it?

For example, I am Catholic by sacrament. If someone asked me if I were Catholic, I would say yes. That experience of initiationn, living, praying, and worshiping as a Catholic will not leave me. It shaped both negative and positive ways I see Christianity, other religions, and spirituality as a whole; it created part of my religious culture. Yet, I will never say I am an atheist Catholic because the core of the culture when one is a Catholic is you must believe that god exist and that jesus is god. You have to have a personal relationship with jesus and the Church in order to rightfully say, "I am Catholic" beyond duty, former experience, and culture.

In Hinduism, is it the same way culture and belief go hand in hand and without one you really don't have the other? If you're living in belief in Vishnu but never fulfill your duties as a Vishnu, would you be considered a follower of Vishnu?

Likewise, if you follow Vishnu but don't believe the existence with which your duties and culture are based on, can you consider yourself a Vishnu follower?

In Hinduism, are the duties and practices based on who defines the practices or are the duties and practices separated from the gods and goddesses that defines them?

In general, would it make sense to call myself a Catholic atheist rather than saying "I am Catholic" or "I am atheist" instead? I usually say "Catholic by sacrament" but never the other two.

Does that make sense?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

That would be a mis-characterization to say that anyone has argued that a Hindu can be anything they want. Sure, there is a line that must be drawn, but speaking both historically and modernly atheism is by far not the line. Nontheism and Hinduism have a very long history together going back at least to 600 B.C.E. I don't see how you can say that every sect ever must be theistic.

Thank you, I am glad we can agree that must be a demarcation between a Hindu and Non-Hindu. However, that demarcation I argue, reiterating what Vinayaka said, is theism. Hinduism is thoroughly theistic and believes in souls, spirits, devatas, supernatural realms(astral plane) reincarnation, god/goddesses.

I'd like to backup a little bit and distinguish that atheism and nontheism are different, although there were/are some atheistic leanings/sects.

Which? I have asked several members now who have made claim to explain which schools of Hinduism are atheist and which sects? Please link them.

Atheism is just a lack of belief in god(s) that could just mean that the particular person just doesn't see the deities as real even if what they manifest from is real. Again, what is ultimately the most real is unchanging and eternal. I'd take the view that the gods are little more real than our egos and are simply a vessel by which one personifies various truths. The Hindu gods we read about in the scriptures are not eternal but have come into our consciousness by amalgamation of various tribes in ancient India. No one started off believing in Shiva for example out of nowhere, the concept and personification of Shiva came slowly from many different influences. If it wasn't going to be Shiva it would of been some other personality. In my view those who mistake the personality for the truth are theists.

This sounds a bit like transtheism. I don't think most atheists would accept this form either. If you are saying the gods in their manifest form seem real and they are more real than our ego, but ultimately are proven to be unreal, this is transtheistic belief, in the initial stages they seem real as you and me, but on the final analysis they are transcended. Advaita Vedanta is also transtheist, jagat, jiva and ishvara or universe, soul and god are manifestly real, but on the final analysis they are transcended to reveal only Brahman as the only reality.

Atheism is a rejection of all forms of theism and not just monotheism. I am sure atheists would argue, I don't know ask them here yourself, that you are trying to smuggle God in through the backdoor with transtheism.

The problem with theistic gods is that people project their ego onto it or use it as a proxy for themselves in an unaware and unconductive fashion. Souls are just our ideas of our egos surviving death. See, the problem with most people who strongly advocate reincarnation is that they totally miss the point; It doesn't matter who you were in a past life, that was a different ego.

Although not strictly on topic, but the ego that you were in your past life of course does matter, because it is the same stream of consciousness. In much the same way your ego at this moment matters, because it is the same stream from the previous moments and the previous etc.

That isn't you. Your ego isn't you, that life wasn't you. So yes, we only have "this life". Some just die and maybe or maybe not the bits of their 'spirit' get recycled into another conciousness. I don't know if that's true or not but that doesn't really matter to me because I can't change what this 'spirit' might of been or what it might be after my death if I am not liberated. Ultimately, what I am is Shiva not a cycle of reincarnations. I don't know if reincarnation is true or not, but it doesn't really matter to me or what I practice.

Well this sounds like Buddhism now. It sounds like you are combining Buddhism with Hinduism here, in particular with Shaivism.

Doing what one's heart desires, if truly followed will ultimately lead to liberation so what's the issue? There is a sect in Shaivism known as Kuala that emerged from the Kapalika tradition (though it's fairly different from it as a householder sect) that holds that the heart (Aham) is the home of the Citta and Ananda which is equivalent with Shiva in fundamental nature. It's designed in a way to both keep one from being limited by society's preconceptions as well as one's own ego. I guess part of the idea is that society and it's dualistic rules and ideas get in the way of certain personality types from their easiest path towards breaking the karmic bonds to rebirth that prevent one from experiencing nonduality with Shiva-Shakti.

I agree with this, though note your qualifier "if truly followed" this presupposes that there is a true desire of the heart that if we follow we would be lead to liberation. However, in the context of the BG it meas indiscriminate desires like material desires, lust etc, which if followed lead to bondage no liberation(bound by hundred of desires)

Not all sects of Hinduism are based on the Vedas. In fact, there are quite a few Tantric sects who don't trace their lineage to originating in the Vedas. Like the Kapalikas and those who came from them.

And perhaps in some of them is something similar to Charvaka.

The Tantra accept the authority of the agamas, but they do not reject the Vedas. This is why Shaiva and Shaktra are still considered astika not nastika.

....What. Is this a joke? In Shaivism Shiva is god incarnate hence the name. In Shakta it's MahaKali. You make us all out to be Vaishnavas.

I answered this point already. While Shaivism accepts Shiva as supreme, it does not reject the divinity of Vishnu and his avatars Lord Rama, Lord Krishna etc.

Please give me examples of atheist sects in Shaivsm, the followers of God Shiva

Ya, well there is no pure or impure. But I think in this context Krishna meant it in the 'what is right' kind of sense. Sure certain conduct is bad/adharmic if actually done that's why someone can do them symbolically to break the dualism though.

This is straight forward. The chapter begins with describing divine qualities, then goes onto describe demonic qualities, and then explicitly mentions the beliefs and attitudes of such demonic people:

What you are missing is that someone can be without "a god" and still hold that the universe has truth and a moral basis. This is just a generalization it isn't true that all atheists lack a belief in truth or moral foundation. Perhaps the atheist might even hold that the "god" is just a figment of one's mind and that ultimate reality which transcends any limited personification is inherently impersonal?

The verse in question simply gives a list of the kind of belief people of demonic quality harbour: One of them is, there is no God.

I do get your point that you can have atheists who believe in moral law(like karma etc)

What's wrong with desire if it can be channeled and transformed for the furthering of the spiritual path? Sure it should probably have strict ritualistic restrictions. As for hypocrisy, pride and the rest I agree is terrible and self-destructive *except* that it isn't necessarily bad to work with something "impure" for impure in itself is a limiting dualistic aspect for some that can chain one to dualism which in turn helps maintain the ego's perceptional model of the world that necessarily includes it's own dualistic existence as ultimately "real".

I agree I am a Shaiva too and I believe in working with desire, exploring it, experimenting with it and playing with it.

Then you haven't looked very far.

Can you give examples from other world religions that condemn atheism so strongly?

Speak for yourself. Not every Hindu believes that Krishna is the ultimate "God incarnate" I don't know if this is spoken out of blatant misrepresentation or out of ignorance but it just isn't true.


Your entire argument is basically hinging upon the idea that all Hindus believe in a theistic idea of Krishna "god incarnate" as in a literal incarnation of which you believe is the ultimate one. That is nessisarily Hindu but as a premise it falls flat becuase even if someone believes Krishna is an incarnation that doesn't mean he's the ultimate one to them nor does it justify your specific interpretation.

I never said that other sects believe Vishnu is supreme and Krishna is the supreme God incarnate, all I said that they do not deny the divinity of Vishnu and Krishna. They do not reject the itihas-purana, and the Bhagvad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata which all Hindus accept as ititas-purana. Ironically, the Mahabharata in many places considers Shiva supreme and even Krishna calls Shiva supreme.

So there is not this either or situation. Like If you worship Shiva, than you hate Vishnu; if you worship Vishnu you hate Shiva. This is why I as a Shaivist can speak respectfully and devotionaly about Vishnu. To reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita which underpins the majority of Hinduism is strange. Can you actually show me any links to Shaiva sects rejecting Bhagvad Gita?

The text is a generalization. It wasn't saying that atheists are all those things but that the demonic are those things. That doesn't mean that just because someone has one thing described that they automatically are all those things described.

I will explain this in response to Sayak's posts.

Good for you (stern look). But I don't take kindly to a Viashnava telling me, not a Viashnava that I'm "masquerading" as a Hindu. My apologies to any Viashnavas here. The Viashnavas I know I respect as Hindus and people but it always seems to be Viashnavas I don't really know who want only their interpretation of Hinduism to be the "correct" one. I'm aware that isn't representative of all Viashnavas but it's *very* irritating and frankly ignorant in the literal sense.

I don't know if I would use the word "atheist" for myself but it surely isn't theistic. Both are kind of limiting terms due to our dualistic ideas of the world but whatever.

I never said Shaivas are not Hindu. I said Charvakas are not. Hindus hate Charvakas and Charvakas hate Hindus. They are mutually opposed. Charvaka is not an astika darsana, it is a nastika one, like Buddhism and Jainism.