Being an atheist Hindu?

[bp789]

This is something that I've read a lot online, but I've been confused about. How is it possible to be both an atheist and a practicing Hindu at the same time? I mean I understand people that are atheists, but identify themselves as Hindu for cultural reasons like celebrating Diwali and Holi and stuff. But how is it possible to be a practicing Hindu and an atheist? I mean I see people saying atheism is one path to moksha, but how would that work since the Vedas have belief in God?

 

[Satnaam]

Just like there are polytheistic, monotheistic schools within 'Hinduism' there are also atheistic schools within Hinduism.

The Cultural Hindus may not be following that particular atheistic school of Hinduism but may be atheist simply because they do not take their faith seriously.

So the cultural Hindus are not 'real Hindus' as they are not following it, but you can be a pracisting Hindu and atheist. These are two different things.

See this article for more information:

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Hindu is also used broadly as a cultural term. So when a person practices 'Hindu' culture, he can be an atheist. Diwali and Holi are probably the best two examples of festivals that really overlap into the culture. In India you will get almost everyone there acknowledging and participating, regardless of their faith, just like here in America non-Christians get somewhat involved in Christmas by buying gifts, saying "Merry Christmas" and having a big feast. Certainly there are many atheists and others that wouldn't turn down any excuse to enjoy some camaraderie.

 

[Satnaam]

Your question was how can you be a practising Hindu and an atheist, I answered that. There are various atheistic schools within Hinduism.

However I did add that not every atheistic 'Hindu' has therefore have to be a practiser of any of those schools (if he is a cultural Hindu and atheist).

And you do not become a Hindu by practising Hindu culture alone, how many Sikh and Muslim women in India do wear a Mangal Sutra etc, do they suddenly become Hindus?
Cultural Hindus are the ones born in Hindu families and who take part in the festivals but do not really believe in a God.

You can't call me a cultural Christian or me practising the Christian culture simply because I give gifts on Christmas because I don't do it for the historical event but as a holiday in the society I live.

To sum it up:

1. A practising Hindu (faith not culture) can be an atheist.
2. Not every atheist 'Hindu' has to be practising the atheistic Hindu schools as he may as well be a cultural Hindu (which doesn't make you a follower of the Hindu dharma).
3. You do not become part of a religion simply by having fun on its religious days.
4. Cultural Hindu, cultural Muslim et al are born into the faith and are not serious in the observance of the religious code but do partake in the festivals due to familial, social pressure or just to enjoy as you said.

 

[bp789]

Hindu is also used broadly as a cultural term. So when a person practices 'Hindu' culture, he can be an atheist. Diwali and Holi are probably the best two examples of festivals that really overlap into the culture. In India you will get almost everyone there acknowledging and participating, regardless of their faith, just like here in America non-Christians get somewhat involved in Christmas by buying gifts, saying "Merry Christmas" and having a big feast. Certainly there are many atheists and others that wouldn't turn down any excuse to enjoy some camaraderie.

Your question was how can you be a practising Hindu and an atheist, I answered that. There are various atheistic schools within Hinduism.

However I did add that not every atheistic 'Hindu' has therefore have to be a practiser of any of those schools (if he is a cultural Hindu and atheist).

And you do not become a Hindu by practising Hindu culture alone, how many Sikh and Muslim women in India do wear a Mangal Sutra etc, do they suddenly become Hindus?
Cultural Hindus are the ones born in Hindu families and who take part in the festivals but do not really believe in a God.

You can't call me a cultural Christian or me practising the Christian culture simply because I give gifts on Christmas because I don't do it for the historical event but as a holiday in the society I live.

To sum it up:

1. A practising Hindu (faith not culture) can be an atheist.
2. Not every atheist 'Hindu' has to be practising the atheistic Hindu schools as he may as well be a cultural Hindu (which doesn't make you a follower of the Hindu dharma).
3. You do not become part of a religion simply by having fun on its religious days.
4. Cultural Hindu, cultural Muslim et al are born into the faith and are not serious in the observance of the religious code but do partake in the festivals due to familial, social pressure or just to enjoy as you said.

Perhaps I should have worded my question more clearly. I'm aware that Hindu is also used as a cultural term. I understand atheists that identify themselves as Hindu because of cultural reasons or that they celebrate festivals or pray to keep mom and dad happy. A lot of my friends are cultural Hindus like I described. That I understand clearly.

My confusion is with being a "Practicing" Hindu and an atheist...or rather how would they practice their faith. Theist Hindus practice their faith through means such as puja, worshiping the murtis, and going to the temple, etc, and the goal is to attain moksha and to eventually be reunited with God. But how would a Mimamsa or Samkhya (two atheist schools of Hinduism) practice their faith? I couldn't find much online about Mimamsa and Samkhya practice in depth. Does it just consist of practices like meditation? What is the end goal of their practice (do they also want to attain moksha)? Is Mimamsa or Samkhya Hinduism essentially Buddhism or Jainism except that they believe in the Vedas? But how would that make sense since theist Hindus believe the Vedas are of divine origin, while Mimamsa and Samkhya are atheist schools, yet they believe in the Vedas?

I have no idea if I clarified myself or if I just confused everyone more haha....

 

[Vinayaka]

I have no idea if I clarified myself or if I just confused everyone more haha....

I have no idea on it either. It certainly wouldn't work for me. I think you'd have to talk to someone within the tradition itself, and I don't think any frequent here. Besides that, saying a school exists, and having that school actually (still) exist are two different things.

We had an atheist (not of a specified tradition, as far as I know) on our temple building society, but he wasn't really that active in talking about it. He denied the existence of Ganesha as a reality. He worked just for the benefit of the cultural group, and did a decent job. There was also a lot of ego involved, IMHO, which also didn't really affect he quality of what he did. In fact he probably did a better job because of that.

 

[bp789]

I have no idea on it either. It certainly wouldn't work for me. I think you'd have to talk to someone within the tradition itself, and I don't think any frequent here. Besides that, saying a school exists, and having that school actually (still) exist are two different things.

Yeah haha, I couldn't actually find that much information on people that practice those two traditions. I think it's just the semantics that confuse me. I understood Hindus that say Buddhists and Jains can be liberated from the reincarnation cycle. I'd also understand that about the Mimamsa or Samkhya schools. It's just my confusion comes with the last two believing in the Vedas, which is necessary to be a non-cultural Hindu, but the two schools are atheist, yet the Vedas talk about the existence of God/gods. I don't feel any confusion about Buddhists/Jains not believing/caring about God since they don't believe in the Vedas.

We had an atheist (not of a specified tradition, as far as I know) on our temple building society, but he wasn't really that active in talking about it. He denied the existence of Ganesha as a reality. He worked just for the benefit of the cultural group, and did a decent job. There was also a lot of ego involved, IMHO, which also didn't really affect he quality of what he did. In fact he probably did a better job because of that.

Interesting. Assuming he's Indian, I'd most likely consider that guy as just being a cultural Hindu (also assuming he identifies as a Hindu).

 

[Vinayaka]

I think it's just the semantics that confuse me.

That's probably accurate. You can call it Cosmic Consciousness, Absolute reality, the Great Void, or a few other things, all of which could be considered semantically as not God.

 

[jagat]

bp789,

My confusion is with being a "Practicing" Hindu and an atheist...or rather how would they practice their faith. Theist Hindus practice their faith through means such as puja, worshiping the murtis, and going to the temple, etc, and the goal is to attain moksha and to eventually be reunited with God. But how would a Mimamsa or Samkhya (two atheist schools of Hinduism) practice their faith? I couldn't find much online about Mimamsa and Samkhya practice in depth. Does it just consist of practices like meditation? What is the end goal of their practice (do they also want to attain moksha)? Is Mimamsa or Samkhya Hinduism essentially Buddhism or Jainism except that they believe in the Vedas? But how would that make sense since theist Hindus believe the Vedas are of divine origin, while Mimamsa and Samkhya are atheist schools, yet they believe in the Vedas?

The Mimamsakas 'practiced' Hinduism through participation in elaborate rituals laid out in the Karma-Kanda section of the Vedas. The aim of life in Mimamsa is the attainment of heaven through ritual actions dedicated to the devas. In Mimamsa, there are devas, but there isn't an Ishwara- the vedic texts are divine but they are unauthored by any being, human or divine (this view applies to the other orthodox schools of Hinduism, also).

The Samkhya school sought liberation through a philosophical enquiry into the nature of the self and the world. Through analysis of the self-Purusha, and the world, Prakriti, there arises the discrimination of their dual natures, and thus their untanglement, whereby the Purusha is freed from bondage. Samkhya philosophy became incorporated into the orthodox system of Yoga, which is theistic, thus Samkhya-Yoga accepts the existence of God, Ishwara. Both the Samkhya and Mimamsa systems of Hinduism accept the existence of supernatural realities, an immortal self, and the absolute authority of the Vedic texts, thus they don't really conflict with the overall trend of Hinduism. I hope this helps.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The problem is also how do you define Hinduism. Is it only the Astika traditions that are Hindu. I see no reason to believe so. If both Astika and Nastika are Hindu, then Hinduism is ripe with both Agnostic and Atheistic thought.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Theist Hindus practice their faith through means such as puja, worshiping the murtis, and going to the temple, etc, and the goal is to attain moksha and to eventually be reunited with God

IMO!!!! Th one overarching concept of Hinduism is Dharma.

Look at the many ways moksha is defined. To some Vaishnava Moksha is a literal Vrindavana. You are not liberated till you get their.

The one idea that can't be sacrificed is Dharma. What ever a Hindu does he must follow Dharma whether he want Moksha or Artha. Any goal is fine as long as he follows dharma.

 

[jagat]

Wannabe Yogi,

The problem is also how do you define Hinduism. Is it only the Astika traditions that are Hindu. I see no reason to believe so. If both Astika and Nastika are Hindu, then Hinduism is ripe with both Agnostic and Atheistic thought.

The problem with this approach is that 'Hinduism' becomes too broad a label, and thus loses its meaning. Astika is defined as any tradition or system of thought which accepts the Vedas as absolutely authoritative; nastika refers to any tradition or system which does not. If we say that both astika and nastika are Hinduism, then there is nothing that is not Hinduism, and thus the term 'Hinduism' lacks specificity. We could then say Christianity is Hinduism, because it rejects the authority of the Vedas, and we are saying that even those traditions which reject the Vedas are also Hinduism. There are six schools of astika 'philosophy' in India, and three schools of nastika philosophy, but outside of India there are countless other nastika traditions and philosophies. If we say that all these are Hinduism, then 'Hinduism' as a label doesn't distinguish one tradition or system of thought from another, so it becomes redundant.

 

[Aum_425]

This has interested me as well. As far as I can tell, wouldn't atheist Hindus follow guidelines of dharma?

According to the Tantra Sara, “Who abhors violence and division in every form, who always practices harmonious behavior, who is a lover of Wisdom, who respects all teachers of Wisdom, who practices one-pointed meditation, such a one may be said to be a Hindu.”

This definition of "Hindu" says nothing of race, culture, or worshiping Gods. Personally, it hits home.

Jai Maa