Can Hindus be atheist?

[Chakra]

Okay, I'm not sure who to address this to, so I will simply make a neutral post because I think this has developed into a fantastic conversation from both sides.

The objection being raised is whether "atheism" is a part of Hinduism, and I mean *traditional* Hinduism (not the mindless universalism concealed as Hinduism by many). The definition of atheism that I was referring to in my earlier post was the pure, unadulterated definition of atheism, free from any possible associations from naturalism, scientism, existentialism etc.

Atheist: a person who lacks belief in the existence of a deity, all-powerful or not.
With this definition alone, I think it is reasonable to state that an atheist could believe in other supernatural elements and concepts such as karma, reincarnation, ghosts, spirits, etc. Not very likely, but per the definition, possible.

I think that it is possible that many early Hindu philosophies, especially Purva Mimamsa and possibly Vaisheshika were atheistic philosophies. In Purva Mimamsa, there is no need for a God for karma to interact (AFAIK) and in Vaisheshika, atoms, not Brahman, are the material cause of the universe. When a deity is not necessary for their metaphysics to function, then can they not be considered agnostic philosophies at the very least? Sure, they may have acknowledged some superior beings, but there was no need of an Ishvara for them.

Comments appreciated.

 

[Curious George]

Okay, I'm not sure who to address this to, so I will simply make a neutral post because I think this has developed into a fantastic conversation from both sides.

The objection being raised is whether "atheism" is a part of Hinduism, and I mean *traditional* Hinduism (not the mindless universalism concealed as Hinduism by many). The definition of atheism that I was referring to in my earlier post was the pure, unadulterated definition of atheism, free from any possible associations from naturalism, scientism, existentialism etc.

Atheist: a person who lacks belief in the existence of a deity, all-powerful or not.
With this definition alone, I think it is reasonable to state that an atheist could believe in other supernatural elements and concepts such as karma, reincarnation, ghosts, spirits, etc. Not very likely, but per the definition, possible.

I think that it is possible that many early Hindu philosophies, especially Purva Mimamsa and possibly Vaisheshika were atheistic philosophies. In Purva Mimamsa, there is no need for a God for karma to interact (AFAIK) and in Vaisheshika, atoms, not Brahman, are the material cause of the universe. When a deity is not necessary for their metaphysics to function, then can they not be considered agnostic philosophies at the very least? Sure, they may have acknowledged some superior beings, but there was no need of an Ishvara for them.

Comments appreciated.

I think you appropriately pick up on the fact that the problem rests in the definitions. How do we define atheism and what if anything does that entail. How do we categorize Hinduism and is it one religion or is there enough of a common thread to assert it as such? And certainly what defines a god. There are some profound questions derived from how we choose to define these seemingly simple concepts. And I am leery of any that purport to have the answers to these questions.

Moreso, I wonder why it is important to exclude or include based on their chosen definitions and interpretations. I think that many when thoughts when critically analyzed have internal inconsistency and this topic is trying to put the cart before the horse. But, I am enjoying the discussion nonetheless.

Cheers

 

[Vinayaka]

I think it's important to keep in mind that just because you don't consider someone part of your family by no means implies hatred. That border in the mind can be a friendly border just so long as the differences, and more importantly, the right to hold differences, is respected.

I've gained insight and knowledge from this thread, mostly because its been opened to respectful atheists, and by the addition of people relatively new to the forums.

 

[SomeRandom]

We had an atheist on our temple board. He worked with us because he thought the temple would be good for the community, and was a member of the bigger cultural community. He considered himself non-Hindu and atheist, as did I.

Which is totally his choice. I've known Atheists who consider themselves Hindu by birth. I can't decide one way or another for those people, I feel it's not my place.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think some Hindus here are slightly confused about the nature of atheism.

It is not all that often about rejection of any deities or Deva. Instead, we lack belief in their existence, which is something else entirely.

Personally, I have way too much respect for, say, Isis and Shakti to even consider lying about the matter of my belief (or lack of same) on their existence.

It is entirely different a situation from my relationship with the deity-concepts of Muslims and Christians, who make a point of having me either submit to them or reject them entirely.

 

[LuisDantas]

Comments appreciated.

I largely agree, although I am not sure I see a need for supernaturalism in religion.

Which is probably also why I just don't understand why it would be a big deal whether a practicioner holds any specific beliefs about the matter of the existence of deities. That is a matter of personal style, not of core doctrine, IMO.

 

[Vinayaka]

Which is totally his choice. I've known Atheists who consider themselves Hindu by birth. I can't decide one way or another for those people, I feel it's not my place.

He did a great job, although on occasion when he let his personal opinion come through, he could get slightly annoying. The old 'leave your ego at the door' routine while working with a group can be difficult at times for anyone, including the enthusiastic bhaktars amongst us. There were times when each of us had to give in to the consensus of the whole, for the progress of the project.

 

[Kapalika]

Part 1 of 2

If I make any mistake or say anything untrue about the traditions I am speaking of, please anyone feel free to correct me with something I can look at to confirm it. I don't claim to be an expert and haven't studied much in depth in a good while so I might be rusty and make mistakes.

Thank you, I am glad we can agree that must be a demarcation between a Hindu and Non-Hindu. However, that demarcation I argue, reiterating what Vinayaka said, is theism. Hinduism is thoroughly theistic and believes in souls, spirits, devatas, supernatural realms(astral plane) reincarnation, god/goddesses.

I think the problem you and many other have on this is that theism and atheism are just two sides of the same dualistic type of coin. Both fail in language to properly speak what they are trying to say since people use "god" in many different ways. It's often a matter of perspective.

Which? I have asked several members now who have made claim to explain which schools of Hinduism are atheist and which sects? Please link them.

Atheism in Hinduism - Wikipedia

This sounds a bit like transtheism. I don't think most atheists would accept this form either. If you are saying the gods in their manifest form seem real and they are more real than our ego, but ultimately are proven to be unreal, this is transtheistic belief, in the initial stages they seem real as you and me, but on the final analysis they are transcended. Advaita Vedanta is also transtheist, jagat, jiva and ishvara or universe, soul and god are manifestly real, but on the final analysis they are transcended to reveal only Brahman as the only reality.

In the past I had called myself a transtheist before but transtheism isn't theism. Transtheism is the position that neither atheism or theism are totally correct. This is part of where perception comes into play and can change how someone might define if they are atheist or theist.

But I would say that transtheism isn't theism becuase it doesn't hold that spirit realms, gods and souls and spirits are real like the material universe is. Again, Brahman is impersonal and so it can't be theistic. A theistic god is personable, fully real and can manifest materially. I wouldn't proscribe this to any specific deity I know rather they can be personifications of Brahman.

So ultimately no I'm not a theist, but it would be more accurate to call me a transtheist although I find even that term lacking but then again I don't spend a lot of time trying to identify with labels that don't really make sense for me to invest energy into.

Atheism is a rejection of all forms of theism and not just monotheism. I am sure atheists would argue, I don't know ask them here yourself, that you are trying to smuggle God in through the backdoor with transtheism.

Gods are tools. I use them as one would use something frightening in a dream to awaken them to reality. Not to say that all deities are frightful, though many are!

Although not strictly on topic, but the ego that you were in your past life of course does matter, because it is the same stream of consciousness. In much the same way your ego at this moment matters, because it is the same stream from the previous moments and the previous etc.

I don't think it's very useful to think like that, because it preoccupies one onto egos and not towards truth. It binds us into karma. That's why a disbelief in reincarnation can actually be benificial towards one's journey to Moksha. It also means they are less likely to hesitate in their spiritual journey and push it off until "another life"! Beliefs likewise can be tools. I don't know if reincarnation is true or not, but I choose to think it's unlikely although I'm open minded. Ultimately it doesn't matter to me and I choose to not think about it.

Well this sounds like Buddhism now. It sounds like you are combining Buddhism with Hinduism here, in particular with Shaivism.

I believe something fairly close to the various sects of Kashmir Shaivism, Trika included. All those various Tantric sects sprang out of Kapalika which had a lot of mutual influence with the Tantric Buddhism practiced in Tibet. So it is not in the least surprising to me that you say this.

I agree with this, though note your qualifier "if truly followed" this presupposes that there is a true desire of the heart that if we follow we would be lead to liberation. However, in the context of the BG it meas indiscriminate desires like material desires, lust etc, which if followed lead to bondage no liberation(bound by hundred of desires)

Well then I would say that disagreement is at the root of house Kuala sees the heart. There is an analog in Tantic Buddhism that the true nature is the Buddha nature and so one will seek to become Buddha just as the Kuala pracitoner will seek to become Shiva.

If one is ultimately Shiva and seeks out Shivagama it is necessarily because they desire to do so. I think also perhaps the Bhagad Gita being Right Hand Path might see the heart and desire as going against the journey towards Moksha, where something Left Hand Path like Kuala would see it as beneficial.

 

[Kapalika]

Part 2 of 2

The Tantra accept the authority of the agamas, but they do not reject the Vedas. This is why Shaiva and Shaktra are still considered astika not nastika.

I think you are thinking of something like Shiva Siddhanta which I am not referring to. There are Tantric sects that don't or don't fully trace their texts or lineage through the Vedas. (If I am wrong I invite people to show me how sects like the Aghori, Kapalikas, Trika ect were/are Vedic since I honestly don't know to what degree if any they really are). They might hold them as having varying levels of significance but I would say that they are generally more in conflict than in agreement with them.

Far to the right on this chart we are non-Puranic and beyond the Siddhanta Tantras. As we get further from Vedic values we also get further from using them as any kind of scripture. I can only speak generally as to how many sects are like this, because I'm not an expert in the subject but I do know they are numerous and I mentioned some of the more well known ones and ones I'm familiar with. But in the end there are a lot of Tantriks who do not trace their lineage to the Vedas or at least they are not as important as other texts.

For example I would rate the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta is more important to what I beleive than the Bhagad Gita. I respect the Gita as an insightful text but I don't hold that it is 100% correct. Also I'm telling you as a Shaivite that I don't hold Krishna in any special regard. I know more Vedic like Shaivites will, but I'm not them.

Also if a Shaivte believes that what Krishna said in the Gita is 100% true they wouldn't be able to be a Shaivite since Krishna says that he is the supreme personality in there, as well as if I recall correctly says dualism is true which is also in disagreement with.

I answered this point already. While Shaivism accepts Shiva as supreme, it does not reject the divinity of Vishnu and his avatars Lord Rama, Lord Krishna etc.

Please give me examples of atheist sects in Shaivsm, the followers of God Shiva

This is slightly more tricky but I would say that I would be called an atheist and have been by many. Though I would say I am nontheist which is different. I can point you towards nontheist followers of Shiva such as myself but specifically atheist? Sure I can find some but I would say a proper interpretation falls more into nontheism but I hold that the scriptures could easily be understood atheisticially while still being true. Gods represent things, truths transcendent beyond what misconceptions about the world those in the past might of had.

This is straight forward. The chapter begins with describing divine qualities, then goes onto describe demonic qualities, and then explicitly mentions the beliefs and attitudes of such demonic people:

The verse in question simply gives a list of the kind of belief people of demonic quality harbour: One of them is, there is no God.

I do get your point that you can have atheists who believe in moral law(like karma etc)

Perhaps "god" here means a supreme, eternal and unchanging truth. Something like Brahman that is God, but not in the theistic sense of the word.

I agree I am a Shaiva too and I believe in working with desire, exploring it, experimenting with it and playing with it.

My apologies then if I mistakenly called you a Viashnava. However I would suggest caution in that exploration. While my own practice might be very tame and close to Trika and Kuala it's still left hand in orientation (like much of Kuala) and so isn't orthodox even if not as extreme as other left hand practices. I'm more like left hand lite but without careful consideration and good guidance it can be a pitfall for the unprepared in the same way that the orthodox teachings can sometimes be corrupted and misused.

Can you give examples from other world religions that condemn atheism so strongly?

Just about any strongly monotheistic religion. Islam for example takes a very hard stance against atheists. And I know that I talked to some people of the Baha'i faith who didn't take kindly to my nontheistic views and proposed to tell me what Hindu deities really were.

I never said that other sects believe Vishnu is supreme and Krishna is the supreme God incarnate, all I said that they do not deny the divinity of Vishnu and Krishna. They do not reject the itihas-purana, and the Bhagvad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata which all Hindus accept as ititas-purana. Ironically, the Mahabharata in many places considers Shiva supreme and even Krishna calls Shiva supreme.

My apologies then. However not all sects are Puranic as I've shown and said before. I would say that Krishna is a manifestation of Shiva, but I wouldn't place any significance upon him more than any other deity I don't feel any connection to although I do see wisdom in many of the things he has been purported to say.

I would say that Krishna could be equally be seen as Shiva since everything and everyone is equally Shiva. This is true, and in this sense one could easily bring in the Vedas as important to my kind of view. But I don't see it as nessisary for realizing one is Shiva/whoever but ultimately it's whatever works for the person trying to accomplish the task that matters. For some this is through the Right Hand Path and the Vedas, for some that is through the Left Hand Path and various Tantras. And some still might take to the Puranas or Yoga. They might be theists, nontheists, pantheists, transtheists henotheists whatever. In the end everyone is on their own path and all those paths, from what I understand of Hinduism, are supposed to ultimately lead to Moksha for all entities either in this life or another life.

So I don't see it as mattering too much to argue about which Hindu path is the "correct" path or which interpretation is the "correct" one, since we all have different pieces of the same puzzle, all reflecting on and showing the truth in each other's understandings as much as our own. We will all be liberated in our own time.

This is why I as a Shaivist can speak respectfully and devotionaly about Vishnu. To reject the authority of the Bhagvad Gita which underpins the majority of Hinduism is strange. Can you actually show me any links to Shaiva sects rejecting Bhagvad Gita?

The best bet I know is the Kapalikas. In any case I would say it's more that I don't hear any Shaiva of the kind I talked about in depth saying anything on the Gita. So I don't know how important they hold it to be. It seems mostly irrelevant to what they do and believe in, if that makes sense. Perhaps it's like more of a distant cousin? I honestly don't really know.

Also I think it's Shaivite not Shaivist I made that mistake years ago when I first was exploring the subject.

 

[SomeRandom]

I will not, because also don't take this the wrong way, but you sound like you consider any view that does not agree with what you believe about Hinduism to be Abrahamic . I have seen a lot of Hindus here and elsewhere define Hinduism as the binary opposite of the Abrahamic religion, particularly Christianity and Islam. What needs to be understood here, Hinduism was around long before Christianity and Islam. I have formed my views about Hinduism from reading the primary texts of Hinduism before the modern era. I did not find the kind of postmodern attitudes you betray in the texts e.g. the Hindus were as dogmatic, as the Christians and the Muslims were in condemning non Hindu religions, like Buddhism and Jainism. There are also reported cases of violence. If this sound "Abrahamic" it is simply because they are similar.

No I was just saying your approach to religion seems more Abrahamic to me.

I don't care who came first, that's not a logical argument in most scenarios.

And people are flawed, I would be rather surprised to learn that the Buddha would allow his followers to light people on fire. And yet that's exactly what some Buddhists have done in the past. Christians are supposed to reject wealth, for it is harder for a camel to pass through an eye of the needle than a rich man to enter heaven. And yet, how much do these evangelical preachers make?
Hindus are supposed to be tolerant of other religions. And yet, you have constant interfaith violence.
People have their good and bad sides. Not everything a person does in the name of religion is necessarily accepted by the teachings of that religion.
Jains seem to be the only ones following their tenants religiously, if news reports are anything to go by. Even though that can be their undoing in some cases. (Eg, that girl who died from fasting.)
Perhaps they are the real true believers in this scenario.

As I have studied one sect of Hinduism Advaita Vedanta traditionally I know we are not friendly to rival philosophical schools even within our own religion, forget outside our religion.

I think we have sibling rivalry, but at the end of the day, I don't really care if you are I fundamentally disagree on anything or everything. That's just humanity in action.

You seem to be unaware that in Hinduism we have a term for universe, it is jagat and it is separate from ishvara or God. So no we do not consider the universe to be God(Spinozas naturalistic God) We do not take energy(pradhana) to be God either. You would know this, if you had actually read the scriptures and shastras.

Uhh I have. But I don't consider them separate. Nothing can be separate from God.
Have separate names all you like, they're called synonyms where I come from.
Philosophical difference. meh.

Of course it is. I have not seen any Hindu sect say otherwise. It is a core belief around which other beliefs are linked in samsara, karma, dharma, moksha.

Depends on who you ask. Samsara might have been a later import, in the evolution of Santana Dharma. With earlier schools simply having an afterlife controlled by Yama.

"Core beliefs." I reject the idea for Hinduism, considering it's not even one religion to begin with and never has been. It's an umbrella term for all sorts of different religions, that the West came up with because they were too lazy to recognize nuance. We might have been melding together with unusual frequency rather recently because of this Western pressure. Which has only ceased a couple of hundred years ago. But their influence may be more prevalent than some people would like to admit.

"Hinduism" is fluid. It's constantly changing and always has been like that. You have all these different religions basically using the same label, (except for the real old schoolers, who instead use Santana Dhama) and you're honestly surprised that some who identify as Hindu might not have these "core beliefs?" Really?
We're not that organized because we were never meant to be organized. Dharma is the one true core belief structure. Everything else is window dressing.

Well this is why I argue you have wrong understanding about Hinduism. You have formed your views by yourself without much reading and overestimating your intellectual abilities. In fact it sounds very egotistical the way you are wording it. Just as a mathematician today cannot by themselves discover all that has been discovered in maths in the last 5000 years, you cannot expect to understand everything about Hinduism from the last 5000 years. Even myself, though I have been studying the religion for the past 20 years or so, still learn something new. It will take me lifetimes to read all the scriptures. However, as I have several dozen primary scriptures from across many schools Vedanta, Yoga, Tantra, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Vaiseshika, I have a more informed understanding about its tenets, teaching and history.

My views are my views, and I have read scriptures. Just because I can't recite them verbatim doesn't mean I haven't read them. I just happen to read a lot of other books as well. And I was drinking last night, so I might not have been particularly coherent. I apologize for any over reaction I may have had towards you.
In our traditions scripture doesn't play an important role. We do not rely on scripture to live dharmically, only referring to it when we need to. I apologize if I sounded arrogant or was disregarding other views.

This is probably why there are a lot of confused, misguided and ignorant Hindus spreading false ideas about what the religion teaches. They get their knowledge from second hand sources; hearsay, traditions, media and their own thinking about it, without bothering to read a single scripture of the religion. We must make a distinction between learned/informed Hindus and lay Hindus. Most of the 1 billion+ Hindus are just Hindu because they are born in it, they have not even read the Gita.. I am a 'convert' but I have actually more knowledge about Hinduism, its tenets and practices than the average person who was born Hindu. I know this because I have many Hindu friend who I have to teach about Hinduism. We converts appreciate Hinduism more because we chose it.

I think it is not anyone's place to disregard, insult or otherwise denigrate someone else's path or devotion practices. God (however you define it) is the only one who truly knows what is pleasing and what is not. If it is not pleased with what they're doing, then it can communicate to them in a manner that is appropriate and understandable to those people.
And really? "We converts appreciate Hinduism more because we chose it" And you accused me of being arrogant? Well I was, but still.
Converts seem far more insecure to me than birthers. I mean it's the other way around sometimes too, don't get me wrong.
But this constant need to impress with knowledge, or this constant need to be accepted when most congregations already do so readily and without judgment (most of the time anyway.) This constant need to be "the correct type of Shakta, Vaishna what have you" and yes, even this constant need to decide who is or is not a "real Hindu" is absent from a lot of the born Hindus. (I mean in some circles of born Hindus the "you're not a real Hindu" is more prevalent, but still.) Especially the older generations. They proudly fly their often times quirky Hindu flag, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says about their specific traditions and beliefs.
Now that is what I think is a true Hindu. No ****s to give, just live their lives according to what they believe to be Dharmic.

As for Atheist Hindu sects (and these are considered orthodox by the by) They are called the Astika or "there is, there exists" Well, usually anyway. I just assumed you knew that.
(Note that while Astika is usually used to denote "atheism" it didn't originally mean that in Sanskrit. But perhaps because of the atheistic tendencies that developed from at least some of these schools, it may have morphed a little bit into shorthand for atheism. But just to be clear to the board, Astika is not necessarily an athiestic school. Many just happen to have atheistic doctrines or at least arguments against God.)
Samkyha. Samkhya - Wikipedia
Nyaya Nyaya - Wikipedia
Note that there both exists arguments for and against God by Nyaya sects.
Mimamsa Mīmāṃsā - Wikipedia
Although again there are both atheist and theistic doctrines. As you have stated earlier you have studied this, I'm surprised you don't consider this as proof of "Atheistic" Hinduism. Or at least non theistic philosophical Hinduism. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your definition of Atheism?
Also, fun fact they were instrumental in shaping Hinduism today, so it's not like these are recent schools. It's just that I couldn't remember the correct spelling earlier. Because I don't normally type in Hindi, much less Sanskrit. So I had a bit of trouble googling them at first.

I think what this all boils down to is we both have very different interpretations and definitions of "Hinduism."
I am more liberal, more "forgiving" of the outsiders and rebels, because I strongly believe in free will and the choice people have over their self identification. You are more strict and more concerned with "false self labeling."
That's fine. This is probably merely a reflection of the difference between our philosophies and our approaches to Hinduism. You are a proponent of the sect Advaita Vedanta. I am more of a village Hindu, following the Kali Kula sect more or less. I am already perhaps inclined to be a bit more sympathetic to roguishness, because the Kali Kula sect is more or less a bit of a rebellious path.
And perhaps that is why you consider me to be ignorant of our scripture. Scripture to me is nice and all, but I want experiences, not words. Religion following scripture so intently is hollow to me and too rigid. It may work for others and that's perfectly fine. But it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Willamena]

Reposted from Hindu DIR:

EDIT: Both Hindus and Atheists can participate in this debate.

I know that there are many atheists who identify as Hindus or Hindu atheists. But I understand there are atheists who identify as Christian as well or Christian atheists. Yet to me this sounds like an oxymoron. People can self-identify as anything, they can even think they are a giant cucumber, but that does not make it right. 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.

Then there is this argument that some schools of Hindu philosophy are atheist like Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. Actually, that is not completely true, and if it was true, it is no longer true. First of all, the original Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Bhagvad Gita and the later Samkhya in the Puranas is theistic. The classical Samkhya of Ishvarkrishna in the Samkhyakarika does not mention Ishvara as a tattva, but that does not mean that it is atheist. It is simply silent about God. That is because it is not a treatise on God, it is a treatise on Prakriti and her relationship with purushas. Similarly Jamini's Mimamsa sutras are not a treatise on God either, they are a treatise on the word meaning of the mantras and rituals. If even we grant that they were originally atheist schools of thought, they are definitely not now. Samkhya was merged into Vedanta by medieval times and ceased to exist as an independent school and Mimamsa was merged into Vedanta in the late middle ages and ceased to exist as an independent school. Therefore, if there ever was an atheist school of Hindu philosophy, it certainly does not exist now.

Rejecting God, reincarnation, soul etc in Hinduism would be akin to rejecting Jesus in Christianity and Mohammed in Islam. That would excommunicate one from the religion.

It depends on what you think a "god" is.

 

[Curious George]

I think it's important to keep in mind that just because you don't consider someone part of your family by no means implies hatred. That border in the mind can be a friendly border just so long as the differences, and more importantly, the right to hold differences, is respected.

I've gained insight and knowledge from this thread, mostly because its been opened to respectful atheists, and by the addition of people relatively new to the forums.

What counts as family, and how far distant of a relationship can one be and still be considered family?

 

[SomeRandom]

He did a great job, although on occasion when he let his personal opinion come through, he could get slightly annoying. The old 'leave your ego at the door' routine while working with a group can be difficult at times for anyone, including the enthusiastic bhaktars amongst us. There were times when each of us had to give in to the consensus of the whole, for the progress of the project.

Yes I can imagine. I recall seeing a particularly heated argument at Temple between two guys who were usually very serene and peaceful. It was the first time I'd seen either so animated before. But by dinner both were happily joking with each other as though nothing had happened.

 

[Vinayaka]

What counts as family, and how far distant of a relationship can one be and still be considered family?

Just an analogy, George, and maybe a poor one at that. In this case, for me, Hindu is the family, and any non-Hindu is outside that family. But as you and I both know, in the analogy, we often get along much better with non-family than with family.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes I can imagine. I recall seeing a particularly heated argument at Temple between two guys who were usually very serene and peaceful. It was the first time I'd seen either so animated before. But by dinner both were happily joking with each other as though nothing had happened.

I've been one of those guys.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've been one of those guys.

Lol. I think we all are at one point or another. Heat of the moment gets to us. I've been trying to keep my emotions under control, but I think I am failing at it rather miserably. Especially on this thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, the condemnation of atheism can be found across Hindu scriptures, not just the Bhagvad Gita, the Bhagvad Gita is more vocal in its condemnation.

Condemnation alone is not enough. It should be supported by reasons. Tell me the reason foryour condemnation of atheism. And do not like Christians and Muslims, make scriptures your only proof of condemnation.

Lord Buddha, the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu told Kalamas: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā), nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū). Kalama Sutta - Wikipedia

 

[Curious George]

Just an analogy, George, and maybe a poor one at that. In this case, for me, Hindu is the family, and any non-Hindu is outside that family. But as you and I both know, in the analogy, we often get along much better with non-family than with family.

My question was directed at how arbitrarily some draw lines. I think your analogy is perfectly fitting. Except we can add that sometimes we think someone is not family and later realize upon better understanding of our family, that they are in fact so.

 

[Vinayaka]

My question was directed at how arbitrarily some draw lines. I think your analogy is perfectly fitting. Except we can add that sometimes we think someone is not family and later realize upon better understanding of our family, that they are in fact so.

For me personally, if someone says they're a Hindu, that's good enough for me, unless they chronically say things that prove otherwise, like quoting the Christian bible, condoning adharmic behaviour, and more. It would take some time and a lot of reading between the lines before I'd conclude they weren't Hindu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. You simply take the word "advaita" which literally means not-two, to say all is "matter/energy" However, that is not what the word conventionally means. It means the school of Vedanta founded by Shankara.
2. Sir, you often talk about doing pujas chanting mantras and ceremonies to deities, but you don't even believe in them. I think Vinayaka has bought up this point as well.
3. The problem with being a Hindu and atheist is you going to end up living a contradiction. You also create conflict with other Hindus.
4. it is a religious reference which refers to Hinduism or the tradition of religions that came from the Vedic tradition.
5. Of course it is. It is a central belief across Dharmic religions. Can you mention a single traditional sect that does not believe in reincarnation.
6. I am a 'convert' but I have actually more knowledge about Hinduism, ..

1. Why should I take convention to be true? I do have the highest respect for Sankara and consider him to be my guru, but as I have already mentioned, I do not agree to all his premises. It is something like Vaishampayana-Yajnavalkya situation. What is 'advaita' anything other than 'not two'?
2. Yes, I know little about pujas, that is why I talk about them. There is no contradiction in my thought. It is all absolutely crystal clear like the water of Mother Yamuna at Yamunotri.
3. I do not create any conflict among Hindus, to theists, I reply as a theist. However, I can stoutly defend my position when called to do so.
4. That is not the true story. Hinduism is more indigenous than Vedic, and that is why you find people worshiping Rama, Krishna, Shiva and Durga; and not Indra or Ashwinis. None of these is a Vedic deity.
5. Any reason why should there has be a sect to believe or not believe in something? My views are my views and I have reasons for it. If you want to attack my views then give me your reasons. As I have already mentioned, just citing the scriptures is not a proof. That is circular reasoning - 'the idea is correct because it is some scripture'. That way, even atheism is validated by Nasadiya Sukta in RigVeda because it says "अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव" (Arvāga devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yatābabhūva - The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?).
6. I appreciate the fact that you have tried to understand Hinduism, but kindly do not assume that you know all about it. You still have to learn many things. None but the dumbest Hindus make such silly claims. Perhaps you can go through Sayak's topic on 'Nyaya', where 'pramana' is discussed. Place of Rational Inquiry in Dharmic Worldviews, PramAna