Does anyone know of an atheist who calls himself a sanyassi?

[Shantanu]

In Hinduism a sanyassi is someone who has given up all worldly attachments and lives in contemplation. An atheist has stopped contemplating, for he has fixed his/her views. So the life of a sanyassi is not for him/her.

Any thoughts?

 

[Laika]

An atheist has stopped contemplating, for he has fixed his/her views.

This isn't my DIR so my apologies for intruding. Atheism is not necessarily a "fixed" position without a need for contemplation. "Atheism" is really an umbrella term for competiting philosophies which share a common "lack of" or "disbelief" in god, making it hard to define. I'm under the impression that there a minority of atheists who take the view that religion-even when false in terms of belief in a deity- says something true about human beings.They rely on introspection and intuition to find out what it means to be "human", therefore having similarities to forms of mysticism.

Using a broader definition which does not equate atheism with naturalism, you can also have religious atheists (such as Atheistic Left-Hand Path or Buddhism, etc). I am under the impression Sam Harris has also taken a sympathetic view on meditation as an area of research for neuroscience, but I don't know any deatils. There is also a variety of Marxism known as "God Building" which believed that even if religion was abolished, it was still necessary to satisfy man's "inner" and "emotional" life by creating something eqivilent to a new religion. there were widespread social experiments along these lines in choatic environment of Russia in the 1920s but they were later stamped out as heretical.

The mystical and intitutive side is very much an under-current in atheism and so (to the best of my knowledge) does not have a clear philosophical school beyond a reliance on intuition and intrspection, but existentialist philosophies are often both atheist and contemplative. It is possible to argue that this is more closely related to agnosticism until you take into account that when atheism takes god out of the picture, as "god" is often considered to be an organising principle of the universe this can have nihilistic implications. This is not always true as it depends on the philosophical assumptions involved and is somewhat peculiar to very strong and even militant forms of atheism which reject god as the creation of man and therefore a projection of man's self-image. In response to the threat of nihilism, some forms of atheism necessarily try to find alternatives to religious explanations and create "atheistic" philosophies in their place. Again, it does very much depend on the kind of atheism involved.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a direct answer to your question in the OP, as I know very little about Hinduism. But I'd say very cautiously it's not impossible.

 

[Shantanu]

This isn't my DIR so my apologies for intruding. Atheism is not necessarily a "fixed" position without a need for contemplation. "Atheism" is really an umbrella term for competiting philosophies which share a common "lack of" or "disbelief" in god, making it hard to define. I'm under the impression that there a minority of atheists who take the view that religion-even when false in terms of belief in a deity- says something true about human beings.They rely on introspection and intuition to find out what it means to be "human", therefore having similarities to forms of mysticism.

Using a broader definition which does not equate atheism with naturalism, you can also have religious atheists (such as Atheistic Left-Hand Path or Buddhism, etc). I am under the impression Sam Harris has also taken a sympathetic view on meditation as an area of research for neuroscience, but I don't know any deatils. There is also a variety of Marxism known as "God Building" which believed that even if religion was abolished, it was still necessary to satisfy man's "inner" and "emotional" life by creating something eqivilent to a new religion. there were widespread social experiments along these lines in choatic environment of Russia in the 1920s but they were later stamped out as heretical.

The mystical and intitutive side is very much an under-current in atheism and so (to the best of my knowledge) does not have a clear philosophical school beyond a reliance on intuition and intrspection, but existentialist philosophies are often both atheist and contemplative. It is possible to argue that this is more closely related to agnosticism until you take into account that when atheism takes god out of the picture, as "god" is often considered to be an organising principle of the universe this can have nihilistic implications. This is not always true as it depends on the philosophical assumptions involved and is somewhat peculiar to very strong and even militant forms of atheism which reject god as the creation of man and therefore a projection of man's self-image. In response to the threat of nihilism, some forms of atheism necessarily try to find alternatives to religious explanations and create "atheistic" philosophies in their place. Again, it does very much depend on the kind of atheism involved.

Unfortunately, I can't give you a direct answer to your question in the OP, as I know very little about Hinduism. But I'd say very cautiously it's not impossible.

This forum is not for debate on atheism versus theism but I should point out the basis of my consideration by stating that there is nothing 'unfixed' (leaving wriggle-room for argumentation) in the 'disbelief in the existence of gods/God' which is all atheism is. It is either you believe it, do not believe it or still have not made up your mind by calling yourself an atheotheist, that is someone who has not seen any evidence for the existence of God/gods but does not rule out the possibility that science may yet yield this evidence. Agnostics do not know. If one takes this the atheotheist position, that is not an atheistic position and allows plenty of room for contemplation and speculation on the Nature of existence.

As to Hinduism's, I am proposing that a sanyassi (as I defined) has been rendered to contemplative life that forms religions from having seen plenty of evidence for the existence of God/gods; so much so that he/she has decided that life just cannot go on in isolation from this reality so he/she has resigned himself/herself to living the rest of his/her life in contemplation of how the God/gods that he/she has experienced would be best served from one's day to day conduct during the rest of one's life.

This is the basis of my suggestion that atheism and sanyasshood are mutually exclusive. Please note that the atheist's consideration of what are 'appropriate' human values to live by on the basis of rationality, logic, science or societal brainwashing have no basis unless one takes the evolutionary perspective into account and regards humans as just another animal species. Without such a foundational consideration atheism is a product of imagination, nothing more.

 

[LuisDantas]

In Hinduism a sanyassi is someone who has given up all worldly attachments and lives in contemplation. An atheist has stopped contemplating, for he has fixed his/her views. So the life of a sanyassi is not for him/her.

Any thoughts?

Are you not perhaps using an unrealistically strict reading of what makes one an atheist?

 

[Laika]

This forum is not for debate on atheism versus theism but I should point out the basis of my consideration by stating that there is nothing 'unfixed' (leaving wriggle-room for argumentation) in the 'disbelief in the existence of gods/God' which is all atheism is. It is either you believe it, do not believe it or still have not made up your mind by calling yourself an atheotheist, that is someone who has not seen any evidence for the existence of God/gods but does not rule out the possibility that science may yet yield this evidence. Agnostics do not know. If one takes this the atheotheist position, that is not an atheistic position and allows plenty of room for contemplation and speculation on the Nature of existence.

As to Hinduism's, I am proposing that a sanyassi (as I defined) has been rendered to contemplative life that forms religions from having seen plenty of evidence for the existence of God/gods; so much so that he/she has decided that life just cannot go on in isolation from this reality so he/she has resigned himself/herself to living the rest of his/her life in contemplation of how the God/gods that he/she has experienced would be best served from one's day to day conduct during the rest of one's life.

This is the basis of my suggestion that atheism and sanyasshood are mutually exclusive. Please note that the atheist's consideration of what are 'appropriate' human values to live by on the basis of rationality, logic, science or societal brainwashing have no basis unless one takes the evolutionary perspective into account and regards humans as just another animal species. Without such a foundational consideration atheism is a product of imagination, nothing more.

That's fine. the atheism-theism debate is pretty exhausting (and irritatingly endless), so I'm happy not to get into it. I only wanted to point out that the words only inadequately describe how and why people reach such conclusions and are therefore that the concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. that maybe something worth exploring at some point but its still up to you.

 

[Shantanu]

Are you not perhaps using an unrealistically strict reading of what makes one an atheist?

What is proposed is that the sanyassi has given up on standard pursuits in living by reliance on spiritual guidance whereas the atheist lives by standardised ethics that follow the strictly human prescription that requires the obliteration of personal independent contemplation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not my DiR, so I have to say that this does not look at all accurate to me and leave it at that.

 

[Shantanu]

That's fine. the atheism-theism debate is pretty exhausting (and irritatingly endless), so I'm happy not to get into it. I only wanted to point out that the words only inadequately describe how and why people reach such conclusions and are therefore that the concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. that maybe something worth exploring at some point but its still up to you.

If a person is an atheist, what has he/she got left to contemplate about?

 

[Laika]

If a person is an atheist, what has he/she got left to contemplate about?

I sort of did a thread on that two days ago and it should be relatively self-explanatory. although I think Carl Sagan was agnostic rather than atheist, the video is well worth a watch. there is alot for contemplation.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...-you-realise-the-universe-doesnt-care.185345/

 

[LuisDantas]

If a person is an atheist, what has he/she got left to contemplate about?

If you want an answer, you have to ask it outside this DIR. Unless you want to restrict the answers to atheistic Hindus, I suppose.

 

[Madhuri]

In Hinduism a sanyassi is someone who has given up all worldly attachments and lives in contemplation. An atheist has stopped contemplating, for he has fixed his/her views. So the life of a sanyassi is not for him/her.

Any thoughts?

Lacking a belief in God does not mean that an individual cannot dedicate him/her self to contemplation. A lack of belief in a Deity does not equate to a sense of knowing everything or being enlightened. Look at Buddhists for example. A Buddhist may dedicate his life to meditation and contemplation but they generally do not believe in God. Furthermore, an atheist may wish to give up worldly attachments. So I don't see why an atheist could not become a sanyassi.

 

[Madhuri]

If a person is an atheist, what has he/she got left to contemplate about?

Anything and everything. How is this different from being a theist?

 

[Shantanu]

Anything and everything. How is this different from being a theist?

God/gods are invisible and undetectable by the normal processes of scientific examination and scrutiny so that theism requires a mode of apprehension of reality that is totally faith-based and which provides satisfaction to the mind through the processes of yoga; and as you must be aware, yoga (gyana, karma, dharma, bhakti) are not amenable to anything but deep mental contemplation of the supernatural. The atheist on the other hand is satisfied with the reality that requires simple sensual-perception and being such a quest gives the person the limited satisfaction that science yields so that there is no cause or need for contemplation on the fundamentals of how and why things happen in Nature beyond ones materialistic endeavours.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If a person is an atheist, what has he/she got left to contemplate about?

Madhuri pointed out the problem. I am an atheist and a nitya-sannyasi (at least trying to be). Since I do not know the nature of Brahman (in my case, physical energy) in full, I keep abreast of new scientific developments and constantly contemplate about it.

"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyāsi, yo na dweshti na kānshati,
nirdwandvo hi, Mahābāho, sukham bandhāt pramuchyate." BG 5:3

Know him as ever renounced, who neither hates nor desires. Free from dualities, O Mighty-armed (Arjuna), such a person easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated.

 

[Shantanu]

Madhuri pointed out the problem. I am an atheist and a nitya-sannyasi (at least trying to be). Since I do not know the nature of Brahman (in my case, physical energy) in full, I keep abreast of new scientific developments and constantly contemplate about it.

"Jneyah sa nitya-sannyāsi, yo na dweshti na kānshati,
nirdwandvo hi, Mahābāho, sukham bandhāt pramuchyate." BG 5:3

Know him as ever renounced, who neither hates nor desires. Free from dualities, O Mighty-armed (Arjuna), such a person easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated.

Have you asked yourself the question: do you want 'to know' in this life or die a frustrated atheist reading and relying on western science that only serves material objectives like how to get to the moon, solve fusion, and prolong life?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you asked yourself the question: do you want 'to know' in this life or die a frustrated atheist reading and relying on western science that only serves material objectives like how to get to the moon, solve fusion, and prolong life?

Hah, I have no frustration. I will know as far as science goes. Anything wrong with western science? Is it not Indian too? Indian/India-born/Indian-origin scientists are part of all developments taking place. Science also tells about Higgs Bosons and gravity waves.

 

[Shantanu]

Hah, I have no frustration. I will know as far as science goes. Anything wrong with western science? Is it not Indian too? Indian/India-born/Indian-origin scientists are part of all developments taking place. Science also tells about Higgs Bosons and gravity waves.

When one blends standard science with Hindu religious concepts like gunas and truth consciousness we arrive at a comprehension of Reality that is more accurate than that which can ever be arrived by standard science alone. Yes you will get to play with toys like Higgs Boson and gravity waves by studying particle physics and understand how some diseases are the effect of genetic abnormalities but you will not be able to get the whole picture of how the universe or biology works.

The only way in which one can be certain of the truth is to do what is necessary to determine whether a higher power is ready and willing to clarify the uncertainties in ones mind not only on fundamentals of how the universe works but for the intelligence needed to cope with day-to-day survival issues. This is accomplished through the ancient Hindu method of yoga. Thus the science that we need in order to know is yoga.

 

[Madhuri]

God/gods are invisible and undetectable by the normal processes of scientific examination and scrutiny so that theism requires a mode of apprehension of reality that is totally faith-based and which provides satisfaction to the mind through the processes of yoga; and as you must be aware, yoga (gyana, karma, dharma, bhakti) are not amenable to anything but deep mental contemplation of the supernatural. The atheist on the other hand is satisfied with the reality that requires simple sensual-perception and being such a quest gives the person the limited satisfaction that science yields so that there is no cause or need for contemplation on the fundamentals of how and why things happen in Nature beyond ones materialistic endeavours.

The only difference is that the subject of contemplation is different. An atheist may also strive for self-realisation but simply does not believe that a deity must exist in order for this to be possible.
I disagree that yoga needs contemplation on the supernatural. Bhakti arguably does, but an atheist might consider practice of bhakti to be the act of selfless devotion to all living things.

What I am explaining is based on what I have heard and read from those who are Buddhist or from Hinduism and become atheist. I can understand that perspective quite easily and if I were to reach a point where I believed that a God does not exist, I think that I would still practice a dharmic life which includes yoga (don't forget Raja yoga).

 

[Shantanu]

The only difference is that the subject of contemplation is different. An atheist may also strive for self-realisation but simply does not believe that a deity must exist in order for this to be possible.
I disagree that yoga needs contemplation on the supernatural. Bhakti arguably does, but an atheist might consider practice of bhakti to be the act of selfless devotion to all living things.

What I am explaining is based on what I have heard and read from those who are Buddhist or from Hinduism and become atheist. I can understand that perspective quite easily and if I were to reach a point where I believed that a God does not exist, I think that I would still practice a dharmic life which includes yoga (don't forget Raja yoga).

If we remove the supernatural from our biology, the only thing we have are our genes-directed mental and physical attributes which vary from one person to another and science is the basis for such an analysis of the self so that the atheist will have to consult a doctor and a psychiatrist/psychologist in order to carry out whatever 'self'-realisation he/she wishes to; in other words there is no need for personal contemplation of what the person is made up of as it is physical facts-based knowledge acquisition. That is what the atheist is restricted to. The karma or actions of the individual atheist are similarly based on the psychological status of the individual as he has been brainwashed with by the wider society so that he/she will do what is expected in terms of his duties to society. There is no yoga in any of this.

Yoga on the other had knows no limitations on what the body is constituted with and therefore does not disregard supernatural inputs into how the body and mind work. The science of yoga is totally self-guided and one does not need to consult a doctor or a psychiatrist to aid the process of self-realisation in any way. Mere acceptance of external sources of guidance defeats the purpose of self-realisation. Yoga places emphasis on truth-apprehension as the guide and the process of realisation does not rule out that truth can come from a supernatural source residing within the person. When engaged in karma yoga, the yogi is not guided by society but by his/her mind and the thoughts that the mind generates.

I am glad you mentioned Raja Yoga, which Swami Vivekanada described as the psychological Yoga, the psychological way to union and clarified that instinct, reason and inspiration are the three instruments of knowledge: instinct belongs to animals, reason to men and inspiration to Godmen. Things that reason cannot get at are brought to light by inspiration, but inspiration should not contradict reason; all this requires deep concentration.

So in our Hindu understanding that great men have expressed views on before, I say that yoga leads one to the truth; and if the aspiration to attain the highest level of knowledge is persistent and enduring it leads to the discovery that all our mental faculties are governed by supernatural elements and depending on our gunas will affect individuals differently.

 

[Madhuri]

If we remove the supernatural from our biology, the only thing we have are our genes-directed mental and physical attributes which vary from one person to another and science is the basis for such an analysis of the self so that the atheist will have to consult a doctor and a psychiatrist/psychologist in order to carry out whatever 'self'-realisation he/she wishes to; in other words there is no need for personal contemplation of what the person is made up of as it is physical facts-based knowledge acquisition. That is what the atheist is restricted to. The karma or actions of the individual atheist are similarly based on the psychological status of the individual as he has been brainwashed with by the wider society so that he/she will do what is expected in terms of his duties to society. There is no yoga in any of this.

I respectfully disagree. An atheist can be a deeply spiritual person. I think perhaps you haven't spoken to enough spiritual atheists.
Like I mentioned earlier, Buddhism is a perfect example. It is an atheistic religion dedicated to Enlightenment/Self-Realisation. Buddhists are known more for meditation than Hindus are. When people think 'monks', they associate more with Buddhism and Hinduism. It is clear that an atheist can dedicate his/her life to contemplation and the path to self knowledge through meditation and various dharmic principles.

An atheist is not restricted to one particular view of reality. Any sort of atheist wishing to live in contemplation is clearly not the sort of bland atheist you are talking about.