An atheist question about Hinduism

[Aupmanyav]

Now, if people do not understand my stand even after more than 8,000 posts, is it my fault? I am an orthodox Hindu and a staunch advaitist. How can one ask an advaitist to accept the separate existence of a God? And I am surely not a God. Why should people make what exists (Brahman) in to a God and give it properties of their liking?

 

[atanu]

I won't pretend to be learned in the scriptures or the various schools of thought. But correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't at all possible to live using Hinduism as a philosophy of life?

Why not? Perfectly possible. No one has any objection to that.

The problem here is however not that. The problem is that from Aup's posts, it will appear to learners that Advaita guru Shankara taught strong atheism and that Advaita is same as naturalism or materialism.

 

[Rival]

If some of you posting here have a serious problem with Aupmanyav posting in this DIR, please take it to Site Feedback so that the moderators can discuss it together.

Rival.

 

[SomeRandom]

Why not? Perfectly possible. No one has any objection to that.

The problem here is however not that. The problem is that from Aup's posts, it will appear to learners that Advaita guru Shankara taught strong atheism and that Advaita is same as naturalism or materialism.

Learners have the responsibility to study claims for themselves. If one takes posts on a forum at face value without deeper thought, more inquiry and at least some curiosity that's not the poster's fault.

 

[Kirran]

There has long been non-theism within Hinduism, as far as much evidence shows. Samkhya has certainly accommodated atheism, as have Mimamsa, Vaisheshika and Nyaya, while Advaita does not address theism vs. atheism (as far as a personal God goes). Vedantic schools of philosophy aren't the only Hindu philosophies either - there have been Hindu atheists outside Vedanta but within Hinduism. Some Buddhists probably identify as Hindu (Buddhism being a Hindu-derived philosophy, depending on definitions) in the same way as some Sikhs identify as Hindu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I still think the best is to have two sub-forums in Hinduism, Bhakti and Jnana. People can swoon in devotion in the Bhakti sub-forum and discuss views in the Jnana sub-forum.

 

[Chakra]

Aup's views are closer to Charvaka than they are with the other Vaidika darshanas like Samkhya, Nyaya, Mimsamsa, Vedanta etc. Why Aup wants to brand his beliefs as Advaita, I don't know. I don't really care anyway, he's the Advaitins' problem now.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Why not? Perfectly possible. No one has any objection to that.

The problem here is however not that. The problem is that from Aup's posts, it will appear to learners that Advaita guru Shankara taught strong atheism and that Advaita is same as naturalism or materialism.

The problem is atheist means many different things to different people. Aupamanyav says he accepts Brahman is all that exists, and therefore, there is no Ishvara distinct from him - and that is why, he is an atheist.

And he is not wrong. Denying Ishwara has been held as a nastika view by many. And by this definition, serious Advaita would classify under atheism.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

But he is ambiguous. Sometimes he will put his beliefs in Hindu terms, so he does sound like an Advaita or Jain or Buddhist who refuses to call Brahman or the Ultimate Reality God; but, at other times, he will seem to show agreement with modern Western style atheism and naturalism. This is surely not the sort of atheism or non-theism that Hinduism can find acceptable. It is similar to Charvaka beliefs.

 

[SomeRandom]

But he is ambiguous. Sometimes he will put his beliefs in Hindu terms, so he does sound like an Advaita or Jain or Buddhist who refuses to call Brahman or the Ultimate Reality God; but, at other times, he will seem to show agreement with modern Western style atheism and naturalism. This is surely not the sort of atheism or non-theism that Hinduism can find acceptable. It is similar to Charvaka beliefs.

I have no problem with it. My faith is my faith. Aup's faith (however he wants to define that) is his own. This is the essence of Hinduism.
Aren't we often called to just accept things for what they are? Aren't we supposed to allow atheists to find their own way without pushing our interpretation of Brahman/God onto them? We are not the Abrahamics, we don't go door to door disturbing people on hangover day to preach to them. (Thank god!)
You can disagree with his views, that's cool. I'm still learning so I can't say definitively yet whether I agree or not.
But having different views is interesting and it allows you to be challenged. And allowing them to somewhat coexist(albeit not always very peacefully ) is a great strength of the Dharmic faiths. Does that mean the DIR is sometimes uncomfortable? Hmm a distinct possibility, I'd hope no one feels discouraged to post regardless.

 

[atanu]

The problem is atheist means many different things to different people. Aupamanyav says he accepts Brahman is all that exists, and therefore, there is no Ishvara distinct from him - and that is why, he is an atheist.

And he is not wrong. Denying Ishwara has been held as a nastika view by many. And by this definition, serious Advaita would classify under atheism.

Can you show me which serious advaitin has taught so? The turiya atman remains PRABHU for even Gaudapada or Shankara.

Shankara or any advaita teacher did not teach rejection of Ishwara. Gita does not teach that. That is not what Shri Ramana taught. Shankara himself had Narayana as Ishta and also instituted mutts with Shiva lingas.

 

[atanu]

Anyway, we had somewhat unsavoury discussion last year and It is better not to revisit that situation.

Even in Buddhism Dir, some very strong naturalistic-materialistic views prevail.

Foundation of atheist-materialistic view is that life-consciousness are products. Which is opposite of what Veda, Vedanta or Buddha teach. Hinduism and Buddhism are not Charvakism.

Karma and purushartha, two main tenets of Hinduism lose meaning if we believe in the materialistic view that consciousness is a product and not the foundation.

Prajnanam Brahman is a mahavakya that our friend Aup has rejected consistently.

To avoid unnecessary arguments I avoid posting in Hinduism Dir.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aup's views are closer to Charvaka than they are with the other Vaidika darshanas ..

That is a bit insulting (though not very much, I can survive through it) that with my respect to deities, scriptures, rituals and traditions, I would be termed closer to crass materialists Charvaks. I do not think I am that. :yes, a bit sad:

Were they that or were they too misunderstood in there time? Because all references to the Charvaks are from people who were opposed to them. :wonders:

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I have no problem with it. My faith is my faith. Aup's faith (however he wants to define that) is his own. This is the essence of Hinduism.
Aren't we often called to just accept things for what they are? Aren't we supposed to allow atheists to find their own way without pushing our interpretation of Brahman/God onto them? We are not the Abrahamics, we don't go door to door disturbing people on hangover day to preach to them. (Thank god!)
You can disagree with his views, that's cool. I'm still learning so I can't say definitively yet whether I agree or not.
But having different views is interesting and it allows you to be challenged. And allowing them to somewhat coexist(albeit not always very peacefully ) is a great strength of the Dharmic faiths. Does that mean the DIR is sometimes uncomfortable? Hmm a distinct possibility, I'd hope no one feels discouraged to post regardless.

But surely there must be a limit? We are not talking here of non-theism in the Buddhist or Jain sense, but complete materialism and naturalism in the Western sense. Hindu is wide and inclusive, but surely it can't be so inclusive as to include complete opposition to all spirituality (except the vague sort of spiritual feelings of awe for the material universe the likes of Dickie Dawkins sometimes speak of). How would a complete atheist even accept the authority of the Vedas in a meaningful sense?

Again, what is the point of DIR if it can be so broad? I am not saying there is a problem, but it does seem strange.

 

[Chakra]

That is a bit insulting (though not very much, I can survive through it) that with my respect to deities, scriptures, rituals and traditions, I would be termed closer to crass materialists Charvaks. I do not think I am that. :yes, a bit sad:

Were they that or were they too misunderstood in there time? Because all references to the Charvaks are from people who were opposed to them. :wonders:

It seems that you misunderstood me. I merely stated that you have beliefs closer to Charvakas than other Vaidikas. I did not say that you are a Charvaka. You are probably a materialist, but not a Charvaka. Btw, you don't become a Vaidika by simply respecting deities, scriptures, rituals, and traditions.

Charvaka seemed to have died out due to criticism from Vedantins, Buddhists, other Vaidikas etc. From what the Wikipedia page states about them their arguments against Vedas were quite childish and can easily be responded by Vedantins.

To claim any atheist as a followed of Charvaka is a bit too much, in my opinion. Wikipedia states that Charvaka rejected the need for morals or ethics. There is more to a name than just what it means. People who classify atheists as Charvakas just because both reject Ishvara are wrong in my opinion, just as Aup is wrong in classifying himself as an Advaitin just because he accepts one entity. My opinions only.

adiyen

 

[Aupmanyav]

How would a complete atheist even accept the authority of the Vedas in a meaningful sense?

Give all authority to Vedas and one would not know if there is one God or fifty. Acceptance of Vedas is really respect to Vedas, because Vedas say different things. And Jeremy, half the Hindus have not even heard the name of Vedas, they would say 'what do we know about that?' Hinduism is not limited to Vedas, it is much more than that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wikipedia states that Charvaka rejected the need for morals or ethics. There is more to a name than just what it means. People who classify atheists as Charvakas just because both reject Ishvara are wrong in my opinion, just as Aup is wrong in classifying himself as an Advaitin just because he accepts one entity. My opinions only.

I think you edited your post to take out the 'mocking' part. Really there was no need to do that. I can give you the names of other forums that I use, Secular Cafe for example. I am the same everywhere, a Hindu advaitist atheist who respects his deities, scriptures, rituals and traditions. I cannot even think of mocking these. And yes, ethics and morals are important to me as understood in Hinduism. But I cannot find a term other than 'advaitist' for a person who believes in non-duality. I do not understand the meaning of 'vedanta', I do not claim to be a 'vedantin', I know 'advaita' only.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

It seems that you misunderstood me. I merely stated that you have beliefs closer to Charvakas than other Vaidikas. I did not say that you are a Charvaka. You are probably a materialist, but not a Charvaka. Btw, you don't become a Vaidika by simply respecting deities, scriptures, rituals, and traditions.

Charvaka seemed to have died out due to criticism from Vedantins, Buddhists, other Vaidikas etc. From what the Wikipedia page states about them their arguments against Vedas were quite childish and can easily be responded by Vedantins.

To claim any atheist as a followed of Charvaka is a bit too much, in my opinion. Wikipedia states that Charvaka rejected the need for morals or ethics. There is more to a name than just what it means. People who classify atheists as Charvakas just because both reject Ishvara are wrong in my opinion, just as Aup is wrong in classifying himself as an Advaitin just because he accepts one entity. My opinions only.

adiyen

Were not Charvakas materialists, empiricists, and philosophical sceptics? I agree that this doesn't equate to atheism in a blanket sense, but there is quite an overlap between this and modern Western atheists, naturalists, and materialists. The Charvakas had their own framework though, which might not always be the same.

Give all authority to Vedas and one would not know if there is one God or fifty. Acceptance of Vedas is really respect to Vedas, because Vedas say different things. And Jeremy, half the Hindus have not even heard the name of Vedas, they would say 'what do we know about that?' Hinduism is not limited to Vedas, it is much more than that.

But who, in this sense, is not a Hindu? Would this mean all Indians, except Muslims and Christians, are Hindus?

Philosophically and metaphysically, where do you differ from someone like Epicurus or Richard Dawkins or the Charavkas? Of course, you don't despise religion like Dickie Dawkins, but in philosophical and metaphysical terms, where do you differ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But who, in this sense, is not a Hindu? Would this mean all Indians, except Muslims and Christians, are Hindus?

Philosophically and metaphysically, where do you differ from someone like Epicurus or Richard Dawkins or the Charavkas? Of course, you don't despise religion like Dickie Dawkins, but in philosophical and metaphysical terms, where do you differ?

Anyone who does not want to be termed as a Hindu. I wish I could have read Richard Dawkins and other Western atheists or even Deepak Chopra, but I do not feel the need to do so, I am complete in myself.

I think differ from what is reported of Charvaks in many things, for example rituals. I think they have great psychological value. I respect the Hindu scriptures and deities even if as characters of mythology because I find wisdom in their stories. I am all for ethics, morals and 'dharma' (the sense of duty and righteousness). I have never taken a debt in 72 years of my life, traditional Hindus like me hate it like plague. My debts are the three 'rinas' which I am trying to repay.

Yes, my philsophy of life is somewhat epicurean, though I would not subscribe to his 'Principle of Multiple Explanations'. That is more like Jainism (Anekantavada, Syadavada). I would say that there is one principal cause of anything that happens in the universe, others may be secondary. For example, Ötzi may have died of an arrow hit, though he may also be famished, but the principal cause of his death was the arrow hit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epistemology

 

[SomeRandom]

But surely there must be a limit? We are not talking here of non-theism in the Buddhist or Jain sense, but complete materialism and naturalism in the Western sense. Hindu is wide and inclusive, but surely it can't be so inclusive as to include complete opposition to all spirituality (except the vague sort of spiritual feelings of awe for the material universe the likes of Dickie Dawkins sometimes speak of). How would a complete atheist even accept the authority of the Vedas in a meaningful sense?

Again, what is the point of DIR if it can be so broad? I am not saying there is a problem, but it does seem strange.

Do all Hindus even know the Vedas specifically? Among the Hindus I know they don't seem to (unless my pronounciation was indeed that terrible when I asked.) They still manage to attempt to follow the "big 4" goals nonetheless. Should there be limits on the DIR? I honestly don't know.
My skeptical nature does not allow me to blindly accept the Vedas as wholly perfect. I don't reject the wisdom, but even still. Should I not consider myself a Hindu? Should I reject my heritage? Do you want me to leave the DIR? Should I stop questioning in my pursuit of knowledge?
Perhaps it's what I see around me with fundamental Christians that elicits such a reaction to blind obedience of (any) scripture within me. Maybe I'm just too arrogant still.

Now see, the virtue of allowing such discussions has allowed me to ponder what it means to me to be a Hindu. Is that not a good thing?

Also Dick Dawkins is an anti theist. That's a very specific brand of Atheist, one that doesn't fit Aup from what I've seen from his posts.Personally I prefer Hitchens. At least he was honest and went after the "off limits" targets which didn't win him any favours among the PC crowd. Don't agree with all either says but ehh. Dawkins did help me pass grade 8 Physics so I can't be that mad at him.