Can Hindus be atheist?

[SomeRandom]

I would like to later reply individually to the posts people I have made, but I wanted to just single this out in particular, because I recalled this verse from the BG cited above as soon as I read it:

16.15-16:

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

Bewildered by many a fancy, entangled in the snare of delusion, addicted to the gratification of lust, they fall into a foul hell.
​

Simply attending or performing a temple ceremony does not make you Hindu. If that is the case people of other religions who go to Hindu temples have become Hindu just by doing so. Hindus who are Hindu by birth and attend temples and perform temple rituals out of a sense of duty to their parents or heritage but have no belief in them, cannot be considered members of Hinduism.

​

Who are you to presume that you are the true judge of who are and who are not considered "real Hindus?" Arrogant much? If one is there out of a sense of duty then they are following their Dharma, are they not? Which is the entire crux of Hinduism to begin with. Following one's Dharma.

What are the four goals? Sound them out with me now.
Dharma, virtue. Where does it state that one must believe in a or multiple gods to achieve this?
Artha, success. Again, where does it state a belief in god is necessary?
Karma, pleasure. Where is the belief of god necessary?
Moksha, release. Still not seeing how god belief is necessary. Believing that everything is interconnected through some force or energy is not necessarily the same as being a theist.
These are our four goals, these are what defines our paths, more or less. Just because you might need to believe in a deity for Moksha, doesn't mean everyone necessarily has to. Is it because of the Atman? Because atheists can still believe in souls. It's not like one has to renounce being an atheist just because they believe in souls or even paranormal phenomenon.

A Hindu is a Hindu when they identify as such. It doesn't matter if they believe in God or the Cosmos or energy flowing through everyone or science (in the sense that they reject any belief that is unsupported by scientific evidence.) There is no such concept as Apostasy in Hinduism. There isn't even a concept of initiation. If you are a born Hindu, you can't suddenly not be a Hindu. It simply doesn't work that way. We don't think like that. Religion and culture are far too intertwined to make it possible. I can no more not be Hindu than I can be not be half Australian or half Indian. It's in my blood. It's who I am and part of my identity forever. Whether I like it or not.
Beliefs are not what defines a Hindu. Their life does. Living the philosophy, trying to achieve the four goals. Beliefs are inconsequential at the end of the day, because once you get down to it, they're nothing more than following tradition out of a sense of duty and desire to live righteously. Ahem ahem ahem.
(Course this will differ between born Hindus and "converts.")

Also not sure what relevance that scripture has on the discussion at hand. Its just as apt to apply to theists of all varieties than atheists. It reminds me of evangelical preachers living the high life or mystic Hindu healers basically doing the same thing. Good god, there are Buddhist monks who are atheists. Hell, Jainism rejects the idea of a creator God and the philosophy is classified as either non-theist or even atheist. I'd like to see you try to lecture them on their materialism and lust.

 

[SomeRandom]

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?"

Ahh the dichotomy of "good and evil" or divine and demonic, if you please, in Hinduism are less concerned with individual belief as they are with action and thought. Indeed one can be an athiest and have divine qualities and one can be a theist and have demonic qualities. God within Hinduism might favour devotion, but following Dharma is of utmost importance. Dharma is roughly ethics, morality, duty, responsibility and values. How they apply to an individual is entirely dependant on their individual circumstances. Indeed God doesn't really discriminate between demon or divine as there are many demon devotees held in high regard. I doubt a being such as a God would be so petty as to disregard fulfilled Dharma just because the person is an atheist....

Well, maybe Indra would.

 

[Sha'irullah]

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.

HInduism is filled with collective baggage that makes it useless to many atheists regardless of it being taken literally or metaphorically. Jungian archetypes are exactly what they are, archetypes. Graphic novels do a better job at this today than deities from ancient cultures. Philosophically Hinduism is bankrupt the same way Pythagoreanism is. I love Pythagoras yet at the same type he is rendered so invalid by modern times there is no point in continuing the name considering the vast disassociation that would be result.

No religion offers something to an atheist's life other than his/her own life and their pursuit for happiness. Philosophy on the other hand and its potential praxis is a better discussion.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Who are you to presume that you are the true judge of who are and who are not considered "real Hindus?" Arrogant much? If one is there out of a sense of duty then they are following their Dharma, are they not? Which is the entire crux of Hinduism to begin with. Following one's Dharma.

My friend, I think you are shooting the messenger here. It is not me who is excluding atheists from Hinduism, but Lord Krishna in the Bhagvat Gita. The only way you could maintain atheism is still valid within Hinduism, is to reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita, but this would put you in a difficult position, because the Bhagvad Gita is a central scripture of Hinduism and Lord Krishna a central figure of Hinduism.

What are the four goals? Sound them out with me now.
Dharma, virtue. Where does it state that one must believe in a or multiple gods to achieve this?
Artha, success. Again, where does it state a belief in god is necessary?
Karma, pleasure. Where is the belief of god necessary?

I would argue you are cherry picking certain doctrines of Hinduism you agree with and ignoring those which you disagree with. What you are ignoring is so central to Hinduism that it puts you in a difficult position, the belief in deities or gods is central in Hinduism. It is in every scripture of Hinduism Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagvad Gita, Manusmriti, Agamas, Tantras. Can you name a single scripture of Hinduism that does not believe in a deity? The primary sects of Hinduism, in fact all presuppose a belief in deity: Vaishnavism(Vishnu) Shaivism(Shiva) Shaktism(Goddess) and Smartism(misc deities Hanuman, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Surya Deva) which accounts for almost 99% of Hindus in the world. As Vinakaya said, Hinduism is thoroughly theistic, and this is self-evident to anybody who visits a Hindu temple and witnesses the crores of gods Hindus worship.

Moksha, release. Still not seeing how god belief is necessary. Believing that everything is interconnected through some force or energy is not necessarily the same as being a theist.

Here I would argue you are reinterpreting the doctrine of moksha in Hinduism. Moksha means release or liberation but that is release and liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Sure, this does not necessarily require a belief i god/s, as Buddhism and Jainism also share the doctrine of moksha, but in Hinduism moksha means something very specific which is what differentiates it from them, that is release from the cycle of birth and death so that one merges back into God or attains oneness with God or reunited with God. God is central in Hinduism which is what makes it so different to the nastika Dharmic religions of Buddhism and Jainism.

These are our four goals, these are what defines our paths, more or less. Just because you might need to believe in a deity for Moksha, doesn't mean everyone necessarily has to. Is it because of the Atman? Because atheists can still believe in souls. It's not like one has to renounce being an atheist just because they believe in souls or even paranormal phenomenon.

There is strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the lack of belief in anything "supernatural" which includes soul and afterlife etc. Weak atheism is simply lack of belief in God/s, but can allow supernatural and paranormal things to exist. I think what you are not owning up to, the belief in God/s is a core belief in Hinduism.

A Hindu is a Hindu when they identify as such. It doesn't matter if they believe in God or the Cosmos or energy flowing through everyone or science (in the sense that they reject any belief that is unsupported by scientific evidence.)

I already answered this argument in the OP, self-identifying as a Hindu atheist does not make it right, anymore than it self-identifying as a giant cucumber. We can self-identify as anything as we want, it does not make make it right. I can self identify as the president of America, does not make me the president of America.

There is no such concept as Apostasy in Hinduism. There isn't even a concept of initiation. If you are a born Hindu, you can't suddenly not be a Hindu. It simply doesn't work that way. We don't think like that. Religion and culture are far too intertwined to make it possible. I can no more not be Hindu than I can be not be half Australian or half Indian. It's in my blood. It's who I am and part of my identity forever. Whether I like it or not.

This is a political definition of Hinduism rather than a religious one. The notion that one is Hindu just because they are Indian, is based on the old geographic definition of "Hindu" as simply being one who lives in India, but in modern times 'Hinduism' no longer means that, it means one who is a member of the Hinduism religion which presupposes sharing certain core beliefs e.g. reincarnation, gods etc.

Beliefs are not what defines a Hindu. Their life does. Living the philosophy, trying to achieve the four goals. Beliefs are inconsequential at the end of the day, because once you get down to it, they're nothing more than following tradition out of a sense of duty and desire to live righteously. Ahem ahem ahem.
(Course this will differ between born Hindus and "converts.")

I generally agree with you that beliefs matter less than practice in Hinduism, however practice presupposes belief in the first place. The practice of Bhakti yoga for example which is the most common practice of Hinduism presupposes belief in deities to which bhakti is given. The other doctrine which is presupposed is the doctrine of moksha or release from the cycle of rebirth.

Also not sure what relevance that scripture has on the discussion at hand. Its just as apt to apply to theists of all varieties than atheists. It reminds me of evangelical preachers living the high life or mystic Hindu healers basically doing the same thing. Good god, there are Buddhist monks who are atheists. Hell, Jainism rejects the idea of a creator God and the philosophy is classified as either non-theist or even atheist. I'd like to see you try to lecture them on their materialism and lust.

Scripture obviously matters a lot, because without scripture we wouldn't know what the doctrines of Hinduism are.

 

[sayak83]

My friend, I think you are shooting the messenger here. It is not me who is excluding atheists from Hinduism, but Lord Krishna in the Bhagvat Gita. The only way you could maintain atheism is still valid within Hinduism, is to reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita, but this would put you in a difficult position, because the Bhagvad Gita is a central scripture of Hinduism and Lord Krishna a central figure of Hinduism.

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?

 

[Curious George]

My friend, I think you are shooting the messenger here. It is not me who is excluding atheists from Hinduism, but Lord Krishna in the Bhagvat Gita. The only way you could maintain atheism is still valid within Hinduism, is to reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita, but this would put you in a difficult position, because the Bhagvad Gita is a central scripture of Hinduism and Lord Krishna a central figure of Hinduism.



I would argue you are cherry picking certain doctrines of Hinduism you agree with and ignoring those which you disagree with. What you are ignoring is so central to Hinduism that it puts you in a difficult position, the belief in deities or gods is central in Hinduism. It is in every scripture of Hinduism Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagvad Gita, Manusmriti, Agamas, Tantras. Can you name a single scripture of Hinduism that does not believe in a deity? The primary sects of Hinduism, in fact all presuppose a belief in deity: Vaishnavism(Vishnu) Shaivism(Shiva) Shaktism(Goddess) and Smartism(misc deities Hanuman, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Surya Deva) which accounts for almost 99% of Hindus in the world. As Vinakaya said, Hinduism is thoroughly theistic, and this is self-evident to anybody who visits a Hindu temple and witnesses the crores of gods Hindus worship.



Here I would argue you are reinterpreting the doctrine of moksha in Hinduism. Moksha means release or liberation but that is release and liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Sure, this does not necessarily require a belief i god/s, as Buddhism and Jainism also share the doctrine of moksha, but in Hinduism moksha means something very specific which is what differentiates it from them, that is release from the cycle of birth and death so that one merges back into God or attains oneness with God or reunited with God. God is central in Hinduism which is what makes it so different to the nastika Dharmic religions of Buddhism and Jainism.



There is strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the lack of belief in anything "supernatural" which includes soul and afterlife etc. Weak atheism is simply lack of belief in God/s, but can allow supernatural and paranormal things to exist. I think what you are not owning up to, the belief in God/s is a core belief in Hinduism.



I already answered this argument in the OP, self-identifying as a Hindu atheist does not make it right, anymore than it self-identifying as a giant cucumber. We can self-identify as anything as we want, it does not make make it right. I can self identify as the president of America, does not make me the president of America.




This is a political definition of Hinduism rather than a religious one. The notion that one is Hindu just because they are Indian, is based on the old geographic definition of "Hindu" as simply being one who lives in India, but in modern times 'Hinduism' no longer means that, it means one who is a member of the Hinduism religion which presupposes sharing certain core beliefs e.g. reincarnation, gods etc.



I generally agree with you that beliefs matter less than practice in Hinduism, however practice presupposes belief in the first place. The practice of Bhakti yoga for example which is the most common practice of Hinduism presupposes belief in deities to which bhakti is given. The other doctrine which is presupposed is the doctrine of moksha or release from the cycle of rebirth.



Scripture obviously matters a lot, because without scripture we wouldn't know what the doctrines of Hinduism are.

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).

 

[SomeRandom]

My friend, I think you are shooting the messenger here. It is not me who is excluding atheists from Hinduism, but Lord Krishna in the Bhagvat Gita. The only way you could maintain atheism is still valid within Hinduism, is to reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita, but this would put you in a difficult position, because the Bhagvad Gita is a central scripture of Hinduism and Lord Krishna a central figure of Hinduism.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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 would argue you are cherry picking certain doctrines of Hinduism you agree with and ignoring those which you disagree with. What you are ignoring is so central to Hinduism that it puts you in a difficult position, the belief in deities or gods is central in Hinduism. It is in every scripture of Hinduism Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagvad Gita, Manusmriti, Agamas, Tantras. Can you name a single scripture of Hinduism that does not believe in a deity? The primary sects of Hinduism, in fact all presuppose a belief in deity: Vaishnavism(Vishnu) Shaivism(Shiva) Shaktism(Goddess) and Smartism(misc deities Hanuman, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Surya Deva) which accounts for almost 99% of Hindus in the world. As Vinakaya said, Hinduism is thoroughly theistic, and this is self-evident to anybody who visits a Hindu temple and witnesses the crores of gods Hindus worship.

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.
Besides there are entire atheistic schools of Hinduism and no one really has cared. Except fundamentalists, maybe. 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.
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 a political definition of Hinduism rather than a religious one. The notion that one is Hindu just because they are Indian, is based on the old geographic definition of "Hindu" as simply being one who lives in India, but in modern times 'Hinduism' no longer means that, it means one who is a member of the Hinduism religion which presupposes sharing certain core beliefs e.g. reincarnation, gods etc.

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.

I already answered this argument in the OP, self-identifying as a Hindu atheist does not make it right, anymore than it self-identifying as a giant cucumber. We can self-identify as anything as we want, it does not make make it right. I can self identify as the president of America, does not make me the president of America.

I didn't realize you were the arbiter of right and wrong, oh wise Godhead. Give me a break, this holier than thou attitude is what we strive to avoid. It's a very Abrahamic thing (no offence Abrahamics, just an observation.)
Personal free will is important, no one is responsible for any one else's spiritual path. You can rant and rave like Helen Lovejoy all you like. People are free to follow or not follow whomever they please. This is what makes Hinduism so vast and endless. You are trying to place restrictions upon an ocean using a sieve.

There is strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is the lack of belief in anything "supernatural" which includes soul and afterlife etc. Weak atheism is simply lack of belief in God/s, but can allow supernatural and paranormal things to exist. I think what you are not owning up to, the belief in God/s is a core belief in Hinduism.

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.

Here I would argue you are reinterpreting the doctrine of moksha in Hinduism. Moksha means release or liberation but that is release and liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth. Sure, this does not necessarily require a belief i god/s, as Buddhism and Jainism also share the doctrine of moksha, but in Hinduism moksha means something very specific which is what differentiates it from them, that is release from the cycle of birth and death so that one merges back into God or attains oneness with God or reunited with God. God is central in Hinduism which is what makes it so different to the nastika Dharmic religions of Buddhism and Jainism.

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

I generally agree with you that beliefs matter less than practice in Hinduism, however practice presupposes belief in the first place. The practice of Bhakti yoga for example which is the most common practice of Hinduism presupposes belief in deities to which bhakti is given. The other doctrine which is presupposed is the doctrine of moksha or release from the cycle of rebirth

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

Scripture obviously matters a lot, because without scripture we wouldn't know what the doctrines of Hinduism are.

Back to being Abrahamic. Hindus don't have a dependence on scripture to the levels of Christianity or Judaism. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, but that's just a difference between the paradigms. Dogma just gets in the way, I find.
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."

 

[Valjean]

A Hindu can be polytheist, monotheist, henotheist or atheist. A Hindu can be several of these at the same time, depending on which level of reality s/hes talking about.

Hinduism is based on levels of reality. What's real in one may not be real in another, and at the highest level a Hindu not only doesn't believe in God, he doesn't believe in himself -- or the world, or the visible universe.

I believe I'm sitting in bed typing on a laptop. I also believe I'm dreaming the bed and laptop, and they are just illusions -- all in my head, so to speak.
It all depends on what level I'm talking about. Level 3: bed, laptop and self. Level 5: No bed or laptop, just self. Level 7: no bed, laptop or self.

Gods can be part of a subjective reality, like anything in a dream, but don't expect them to remain Real once you wake up.

 

[Kapalika]

This post and the following 2 took me almost 2 hours to write. So I hope at least one doesn't go un noticed. I broke it where it most made sense to.

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.

The Ramayana and Gita are not the only texts in Hinduism nor authoritative among all sects. I can't speak for the Ramayana as I've never read it but as for the Gita could you be specific as to the exact location you are referencing? I've not read it in quite some time and can't recall that part.

In my personal view, one cannot be a Hindu, and an atheist. One of the core tenets of Hinduism is theism. Yes, it may differ widely from the Abrahamic or philosophical takes on what theism is exactly, but if it is some power or force or etheric substance that is recognised to be beyond the realms of normal consciousness, then we can call it God. Hinduism has always maintained the belief in this, whether we call it Brahman, spirit, cosmic consciousness, or whatever else.

I hope SW, that this thread will bring new insights to an oft debated topic.

That isn't theism though. If it is a power or force it's impersonal and thus can't be a personal deity (which is required for theism). I'm aware that there are Hindu sects that are theistic, which in my experience most often is Vaishnavism but for any school that would proscribe an impersonal nature to Brahman can't be theistic unless you want to expand the definition of god to things that are less real than Brahman. But it's my understanding that generally speaking in Hinduism the only thing that is real is that which is unchanging and eternal. I don't think that culturally specific deities whom themselves undergo changes throughout the ages can be described as unchanging and so can't be "real" in this kind of sense.

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

I would call it a bit more than just archetypes, but I don't see how that idea is incompatible with say for example Yoga so far as I understand it. Since many take on whatever Ishvara they want (although Shiva is super common) it's rather implied that they are archetypes or tools used for attaining liberation. Ironically the best argument close to this line of thinking I've seen I read from theistic yogis.

Atheism can easily be a part of Hinduism; materialism, on the other hand, does not seem to mesh with the general tenets of Hinduism imho.

I would say this is pretty much the crux of it. The closest I've seen to materialism is Trika which I'm pretty close to myself in belief. Essentially it's realist in regards to the material universe (edit: meant its realist in regards to the material universe) but not ultimately materialist. It's nondualistic but that nondual essence isn't material but rather Shiva which isn't ideal either (IMO).

 

[Kapalika]

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.

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.

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

To meditate and see Shiva, and then go no further, that takes a theist. It takes a nontheist to go "no, this isn't real" and go further on their journey towards Moksha, least they become distracted.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

....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.

Hence, the viewpoints of the Bhagvad Gita are authoritative for Hindus. Now let us look at what it says about atheists from Chapter 16 on the Yoga of divine and demonic:

Okay good! Then you do have that part!

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.

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.

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.

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?

10. Filled with insatiable desires, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work with impure resolves.

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".

This perhaps the strongest condemnation I have seen of atheism in any world religion.

Then you haven't looked very far.

The irony here is, this is considered the gospel of God incarnate Lord Krishna by Hindus.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Kapalika]

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.

Just because atheism is heavily correlated with naturalism doesn't mean that it is the same thing as that. And atheism doesn't reject supernaturalism just the idea of a god. While I myself reject the supernatural I don't think the word naturalist would fit entirely. There are many sects which can be understood without appealing to supernaturalism.

If you only studied some of the most popular sects it would appear so. But that isn't all of them. And since you were broad enough to day dharmic I'd like to point out that originally and in many sects Buddhism was/is still atheistic.

Add to that, a lot of Hinduism would be described as nontheistic which isn't necessarily atheistic but it surely isn't theistic.

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.

Why is everyone comparing Hinduism to Abrahamic faiths? And this isn't even true as pork isn't forbidden in Christianity just like how not all of Hinduism is inherently theistic.

No religion offers something to an atheist's life other than his/her own life and their pursuit for happiness. Philosophy on the other hand and its potential praxis is a better discussion.

Well I take it you really didn't study Hinduism in depth since it's rich in philosophy. It's actually pretty complex on many levels but I think most people don't ever go that deep beyond the surface layers to really see that. But then again it also varies by sect but you'd be surprised by what's out there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. 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.

That is where atheist Hindus will differ from Charvakists. Sure, there are no God/s, no soul, no afterlife, you only get one life, but that does not mean that one can do whatever one's heart desires. I am bound by my 'dharma', my reponsibilities towards family, society, the nation and the world as a whole. I won't be a Hindu if I did not fulfill them. As for existence of Gods and Goddesses, the scriptures have said that only one entity exists in the world and there is no other. All things are but that, Brahman. Therefore, my stance is correct scripturally also. So, I think you should reconsider your stance and avoid saying that a Hindu cannot be an atheist (I have quoted the scriptural references many a times in the forum, therefore I have not repeated them here, now if a particular sect thinks that this is not correct, then it is not my problem but the problem of that sect. They have not understood Hinduism correctly).

Sure, BhagawadGita is a beautiful book. It is post-Panini in language. That will make it younger than 500 BC at the most. It is Central to Vaishnava sects but not to many others. Upanishads also are just as important and some perhaps older.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

No religion offers something to an atheist's life other than his/her own life and their pursuit for happiness. Philosophy on the other hand and its potential praxis is a better discussion.

Greetings, Sha'irullah. If you are pointing at the prohibition of beef in Hinduism, please be informed that many Hindus traditionally eat beef. I have nothing against eating beef, but avoid it because my tradition and my people will be offended by that. I think I can have my choice on eating or not eating beef.

They say 'No man is an island' and that is true for an atheist also. Along with their pursuit of happiness, they also have to think about the happiness of others. So an atheist should not live just for pleasure in his/her life. There are many other things to consider.

 

[Vinayaka]

There will always be differing views philosophically on whether or not to call Brahman God. Lots of Hindus do. Lots of Hindus don't. If we look at 100 sources on-line or elsewhere, that's what we get. That doesn't matter, in the grand scheme, other than some ego, "I'm right, you're wrong" misdirection of energy, it is largely irrelevant. What matters is our behaviour towards mankind, our loved ones, the planet, ourselves. That is called dharma, as Aup puts it.

Personally, I call Brahman God. Came to that conclusion long ago. Yes, it is a very different conception of God than in Abrahamic religions, mostly because it takes in a much wider scope. Maybe it's because of poor translations, maybe not. And from that, I can honestly say I've never met a Hindu atheist, on-line or in real life. I've met atheists, yes.

But it's all rather moot.

 

[Aupmanyav]

O Vinayaka! After so many years of interaction, you still refuse to accept that I am an atheist, a Hindu atheist.
But then I think you are right. We have never met. We can meet if and when you decide to visit Himalayas, because I would not ever be coming to your beautiful country which is so far away. I satisfy myself by seeing the photographs (though I do not like bears. They don't give people even a chance).

 

[Vinayaka]

O Vinayaka! After so many years of interaction, you still refuse to accept that I am an atheist, a Hindu atheist.

That's because I could find at least 100 times when you contradicted yourself. Why, just the other day, in the Sivaratri thread, you said you weren't going to Sivaratri, because you could easily have a one on one conversation with Siva. Now you tell me, does that sound like an atheist?

As one who has been trained to read between the lines its been pretty easy to see, I have to admit.

I don't think this oft spouted claim, "I am an atheist." is fooling anyone any more. You're just going to have to try harder, I'm afraid. But remember, Ganapati is watching, and enjoying the mischievous fibbing. Maybe you could ask him to stop watching.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't be too mad at me. We created Siva and we created Ganapati in our imagination. So one can always talk to people whom our imagination creates - very easily. Moreover, if I am not wrong you too are a monist. After your tough 'sadhana' is complete, you too will have 'ekakara' with 'what exists', Siva, in this life or perhaps after ten (since you believe in rebirth). I have only short-circuited the journey.
Like Srinivasa Ramanujam, arrived at the solution without the usual intermediate steps.

 

[Vinayaka]

Don't be too mad at me.

Trust me, Aup, I'm not mad at you. Anger isn't part of my make-up any more, just as it isn't part of yours. Differing understandings are perfectly acceptable to me.

But I liken this to the guys who say , "I'm not a racist!" or "I'm not a chauvinist!" and then goes about proving by action or words how very false their statements were.

I'm a monistic theist, believing God is both with form and without form. It forms the complete picture. There is a monist component and a theistic component. So rather than debating, 'this or that' it's a compromise of 'this and that'.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

It is all on personal takes of what a deity is and means exactly. Some of us don't really have an affinity for belief in their literal existence. That has very little consequence beyond those that arise from dealing with people who expect us to be believers.

 

[metis]

In the past, there have been some non-theistic schools in Hinduism.