Are Nastika's Hindu?

[Surya Deva]

The Nastikas are not, what are sometimes misunderstood to be atheists. They are people who reject the Vedic religion and its core concepts of atman and brahman. They are Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and Charvakas(and some sects of tantra). They are distinct from the Astikas who accept the Vedic religion and its core concepts of atman and brahman. They are Samkhya, Mimassa, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika and Vedanta.

However, my question is can nastikas be a part of Hinduism or are they completely separate from it? I meet many people who are nastikas such as materialists who insist they are Hindu. Some Hindus insist that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are Hindus.

If the word Hinduism simply refers to the religions, way of life and culture and philosophy of India. Then why does that not include the nastikas?

 

[Onkara]

It seems you have exposed a problem with the term Hindu. If we included nastikas and astikas then what really is a Hindu? Does it become cultural or geographical only? We then need to say Vedanta or Nastika etc to confirm what type of hindu someone might be.

I was not aware of this issue before now.

 

[Surya Deva]

It would seem then that a Hindu is only those religions, cultures and philosophies that originated in India? But even this is problematic, because Sikhism is not purely influenced by Indian religions, but has many influences from Islam. Secondly, what about later traditions like Arya Samaaj, Sri Aurobindo, Hare Krishnas, and Ramakrishna movement, all of which have some Western influences in them. This would mean a Hindu is everything and nothing. The term would become redunant.

I think either we need to come to an agreement on what the term Hindu means or agree to new a more precise term that describes our religion more accurately. The term that I use is Santana dharma to refer to the Vedic religion - knowledge religion. My religion is science as articulated in the Vedic religion. I accept the core concepts of atman and brahman, the science of Samkhya-yoga, the metaphysics of Vedanta and the scientific method of Nyaya-Vaiseshika. In other words I think it is the astika tradition which defines Hinduism.

 

[Onkara]

I agree, given what I understand. I am comfortable with the term Sanatana Dharma over Hindu.

Do we face the problem that Sanatana Dharma may imply that it includes Buddhist Dharma? How is it implicitly Vedic?

 

[Surya Deva]

No, because Buddha dharma refers to the dharma as enunciated by one person: Siddhartha Gautama. Santana dharma refers to the eternal dharma that countless Risis have enunciated and many future risis will. In fact I will go as far as to say the Risis on other planets in our universe have also enunciated the same.

 

[kaisersose]

The govt of India (as far as I know) is clear that Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs are not Hindu.

When it comes to atheist, we enter a gray area. Atheist is not an accurate translation of Nastika. Nastika means one of the three -

1) Non-believer in other worlds (para-loka) as defined by Panini
2) Non-believer in the Veda as defined in the Manu Smriti
3) Non-believer in God as defined in the Gita

But the english word atheist has only one meaning which closely aligns with (3), but not exactly.

I personally do not subscribe to the Hindu => Veda followers idea. I know for a fact that this is incorrect. This concept came due to Western interest in Indian beliefs. To the West, a religion has to have a book and a single God or else they get confused or find it hard to take that religion seriously. This led to pigeonholing Hindu beliefs into a form of religion that could be understood by Westerners - with Vedas/Gita as core books, a single Brahman and so on. But this is far removed from actual Hinduism practised in India.

I am Hindu because I was born into a Hindu family - not because I accepted the authority of the Veda or accepted a single God. Now that I am pretty much an atheist, have I lost my Hindu status? What about Lokayatikas like Brihaspati, Ajita, Jayarashi, Purandara et al.,? Do we say they were not Hindus? The answer to these questions would depend on how the word Hindu is defined. Right now, I cannot think of a good definition for the word that would take the atheist Hindu out of the gray area.

 

[Onkara]

I personally do not subscribe to the Hindu => Veda followers idea. I know for a fact that this is incorrect. This concept came due to Western interest in Indian beliefs. To the West, a religion has to have a book and a single God or else they get confused. This led to pigeonholing Hindu beliefs into a form of religion that could be understood by Westerners - with Vedas/Gita as core books, a single Brahman and so on. But this is far removed from actual Hinduism practised in India.

Sorry to split hairs, but polytheism existed in Europe in Greece, Rome, Germany etc so I wouldn't say "Westerners" find it difficult, I would rather suggest it might be people limited to abrahamic faiths which find it more difficult.

 

[kaisersose]

Sorry to split hairs, but polytheism existed in Europe in Greece, Rome, Germany etc so I wouldn't say "Westerners" find it difficult, I would rather suggest it might be people limited to abrahamic faiths which find it more difficult.

Yes. And they were all looked down upon as inferior, pagan beliefs. I said Westerners find it diffcult to understand it or to accept it as a religion.

 

[kaisersose]

Thinking some more, can there be a Hindu atheist?

X -> An American born into a Christian family, but is now an atheist
Y -> An Indian born into a Hindu family, but is now an atheist

As atheists, X = Y. Clearly, we will not label X as a Hindu. Then Y cannot be a Hindu either.

The problem I have is with the simplistic meaning of the word atheist. It appears inadequate.

 

[Satsangi]

They are Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and Charvakas(and some sects of tantra). They are distinct from the Astikas who accept the Vedic religion and its core concepts of atman and brahman. They are Samkhya, Mimassa, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika and Vedanta.

Charvakas are atheists. NOT all Buddhists reject Atman and God. About the Jains- my knowledge is limited about what actually Lord Mahavira said and hence will not comment. But, even Jains have some Hindu Gods in their temples. Jain's first Tirthankar Rishabhdevji is considered an Avatar by Hindus and he achieved enlightenment at Ashtapad (which is an excellent Spiritual place) in Kailash Mansarovar Kshetra. Ashtapad has an exceptional view of the Lord Kailash and Nandishwar. Jains also consider Lord Krishna as their Tirthankar and their Mantras start with Aum. Sikh's literature does accept Vedas to be true- this is what I read in some postings on RF by "Gursikh" and they do accept Aum to the best of my knowledge.

The Government of India CONSIDERS the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as HINDUS for sure. Hindus have no objection to it. But some in the above communities want to be identified separately.

My opinion- Sanatana Dharma encompasses all- the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs etc. About Atheists- I do not believe they belong to any Dharma by definition- atleast in their mind- till their own illusion breaks down later with self experience. Very few of the atheists dies as atheist.

 

[Onkara]

Thinking some more, can there be a Hindu atheist?

X -> An American born into a Christian family, but is now an atheist
Y -> An Indian born into a Hindu family, but is now an atheist

As atheists, X = Y. Clearly, we will not label X as a Hindu. Then Y cannot be a Hindu either.

The problem I have is with the simplistic meaning of the word atheist. It appears inadequate.

This is the problem, we assume that an American is likely to be Christian, so by definition cannot be Hindu or Jain. If I said X is a religious American, most people would not assume that X worships Ma Durga.

We need to rethink how we define the world by location and religion in addition to how we define Atheist and Nastika. Better still we need to be careful what we type and say ourselves.

The problem is that the world has changed a lot in 200 years when Hindu referred to a culture as much to a religion because the two were bound by location. So cultural names like Hindu, American and Westerner are no longer adequate and are generalisations which risk error and stereotyping.

If we could "drop" the label Hindu for Indians then we could re-define the position of Nastikas in Indian philosophical thought if necessary.

Consider, for example, that the word "hindú" is defined in Spanish for anyone from Asia (India), even Muslims and Christians!

Hindú = Perteneciente o relativo a este país de Asia.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I
I think either we need to come to an agreement on what the term Hindu means or agree to new a more precise term that describes our religion more accurately. The term that I use is Santana dharma to refer to the Vedic religion - knowledge religion. My religion is science as articulated in the Vedic religion. I accept the core concepts of atman and brahman, the science of Samkhya-yoga, the metaphysics of Vedanta and the scientific method of Nyaya-Vaiseshika. In other words I think it is the astika tradition which defines Hinduism.

I agree that it is the astika tradition that defines Hinduism. That does not mean that others need to be excluded.

 

[kaisersose]

Charvakas are atheists. NOT all Buddhists reject Atman and God. About the Jains- my knowledge is limited about what actually Lord Mahavira said and hence will not comment. But, even Jains have some Hindu Gods in their temples. Jain's first Tirthankar Rishabhdevji is considered an Avatar by Hindus and he achieved enlightenment at Ashtapad (which is an excellent Spiritual place) in Kailash Mansarovar Kshetra. Ashtapad has an exceptional view of the Lord Kailash and Nandishwar. Jains also consider Lord Krishna as their Tirthankar and their Mantras start with Aum. Sikh's literature does accept Vedas to be true- this is what I read in some postings on RF by "Gursikh" and they do accept Aum to the best of my knowledge.

The Government of India CONSIDERS the Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as HINDUS for sure. Hindus have no objection to it. But some in the above communities want to be identified separately.

My opinion- Sanatana Dharma encompasses all- the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs etc. About Atheists- I do not believe they belong to any Dharma by definition- atleast in their mind- till their own illusion breaks down later with self experience. Very few of the atheists dies as atheist.

I was partly incorrect. By Indian Law, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism come under one "Hindu Law". But the constitution recognizes them as different religions.

While Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Jews have personal laws exclusive to themselves; Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are governed by a single personal law known as Hindu personal law. Article 25 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India states that references to Hindus include "persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion".Furthermore the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 defines the legal status of Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs as legal Hindus but not "Hindus by religion".

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

(and some sects of tantra).

I have read some non-Tantric scholars say that some Tantras reject the Vedas. All the Tantric scriptures and Tantric scholars say that Tantra is a vedic religion that dates back to early times. Do you know the proof that the western scholars use to identify Tantra as non-Vedic. Arthur Avalon who see seen as the western scholar with the most knowledge of the Tantra's believed that it was Vedic.

 

[kaisersose]

It would seem then that a Hindu is only those religions, cultures and philosophies that originated in India? But even this is problematic, because Sikhism is not purely influenced by Indian religions, but has many influences from Islam. Secondly, what about later traditions like Arya Samaaj, Sri Aurobindo, Hare Krishnas, and Ramakrishna movement, all of which have some Western influences in them. This would mean a Hindu is everything and nothing. The term would become redunant.

I think either we need to come to an agreement on what the term Hindu means or agree to new a more precise term that describes our religion more accurately. The term that I use is Santana dharma to refer to the Vedic religion - knowledge religion. My religion is science as articulated in the Vedic religion. I accept the core concepts of atman and brahman, the science of Samkhya-yoga, the metaphysics of Vedanta and the scientific method of Nyaya-Vaiseshika. In other words I think it is the astika tradition which defines Hinduism.

More than half of the Indian population still reside in villages. Villages have their local Gods, not documented anywhere. These Gods are neither Vedic nor Puranic.

Question to you - How many Hindus do you think are Hindu by your definition? The Naastika case is the least of the problems here. As I see it, your definition discounts most people who call themselves Hindu today and I am not talking about atheists. Sankhya and Nyaya/Vaiseshika were buried a long time ago (it should be noted that they were two different , independent doctrines who disagreed with each other). The metaphysics of Vedanta (another independent doctrine), Atman and Brahman are of interest only to a to a handful of Brahmanas and the Brahmin population is less than 4%. A handful of this would be 0.1% of the Indian population. If we add non-Indian Hindus, the number will go up, but not much.

Your definition fails because it disregards Bhakti which is 99% of Hinduism. I doubt anyone here will disagree with this.

 

[Satsangi]

More than half of the Indian population still reside in villages. Villages have their local Gods, not documented anywhere. These Gods are neither Vedic nor Puranic.

Question to you - How many Hindus do you think are Hindu by your definition? The Naastika case is the least of the problems here. As I see it, your definition discounts most people who call themselves Hindu today and I am not talking about atheists. Sankhya and Nyaya/Vaiseshika were buried a long time ago (it should be noted that they were two different , independent doctrines who disagreed with each other). The metaphysics of Vedanta (another independent doctrine), Atman and Brahman are of interest only to a to a handful of Brahmanas and the Brahmin population is less than 4%. A handful of this would be 0.1% of the Indian population. If we add non-Indian Hindus, the number will go up, but not much.

Your definition fails because it disregards Bhakti which is 99% of Hinduism. I doubt anyone here will disagree with this.

Everyone does not need to be a Scientist to enjoy the benefits of Science. In the same way everyone does not need to be an expert in the Shashtras to be a Hindu. Even the Christians and Muslims do not know what is in their single Scriptural book - Bible and Koran respectively. How can one blame the Hindus?

"Sarvam Khalavidam Brahman" that is what the Shruti says. Even if the local Gods are not "listed" in the Vedas, it is just by sheer faith that a stone becomes Shiva. Hence, one cannot just go by a list and say the "local Gods" are "non Vedic"; that would be a very short sighted reading of the Vedas.

Bhakti is an intertwined aspect of any of the branches above when you consider definition of Bhakti as one of the nine types listed in "Navadha Bhakti". Hence, it is an inseparable aspect of Hinduism.

Regards,

 

[GURSIKH]

The Nastikas are not, what are sometimes misunderstood to be atheists. They are people who reject the Vedic religion and its core concepts of atman and brahman. They are Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs and Charvakas(and some sects of tantra). They are distinct from the Astikas who accept the Vedic religion and its core concepts of atman and brahman. They are Samkhya, Mimassa, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika and Vedanta.

?

hi Suraj ji ,

i was not aware that Sikhs are Nastiks

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Personally find all such questions as mind delusions as only only when the mind stills [also when no more questions remain ] only then is one religious or of the path consciously and so being atheist or even theist are matters of the mind as only through the mind one develops belief systems which are in fact delusions and only by transcending that very delusional mind does one loses the self to be that flow!

Love & rgds

 

[kaisersose]

hi Suraj ji ,
i was not aware that Sikhs are Nastiks

Nastika has multiple meanings as I posted earlier.

He uses the term to mean non-believers in the Veda and your usage is as the english word atheist.

 

[kaisersose]

Friends,
Personally find all such questions as mind delusions as only only when the mind stills [also when no more questions remain ] only then is one religious or of the path consciously and so being atheist or even theist are matters of the mind as only through the mind one develops belief systems which are in fact delusions and only by transcending that very delusional mind does one loses the self to be that flow!

Love & rgds

You are saying,

1) These questions are mind delusions.
2) Then you say the mind itself is delusional.

This implies that everything you think and everthing you read and post on these forums are delusions too. This means whatever you post should not be taken seriously.

See the problem?