Thread: Can you be an atheist and a TamBrahm?

Atheism existed as an undercurrent of Hinduism atleast since 600 B.C. from the time Charvaka (or Charvaka-I, as some would like to name him to distinguish him from the later Charvakas) coined his philosophy. Charvaka's philosophy did not accept the existence of either God or Brahman, and so was clubbed with Buddhism and Jainism (which too rejected the concept of God / Brahman) as Sunyavada.

It appears that the society was more open to divergent thought in the Vedic period. So, though amounting to heresy, Charvaka's School as well as its guide-text, the Brihaspathi Sutra, were allowed free currency. Philosophers belonging to the Charvaka line were invited to the scholarly gatherings, where fierce debates would take place on the existence or the absence of God / Brahman. While treatises were being written against each other's arguments, apparently no restriction on freedom of expression was in vogue (a view expressed by Dr. S.Radhakrishnan).

While Brihaspati Sutra itself got lost, Sri Madhvacharya quoted verbatim from the said text in 14th Century A.D. (in the process of refuting Charvaka's tenets in his Sarva Dashana Samgraha), which today gives us a glimpse of what exactly the philosophy of Charvaka was:

While life is yours live joyously;
No one can avoid Death's searching eye:
When this body of ours is burnt,
How can it ever return again?

That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects
is to be relinquished because it is accompanied by pain,
is the reasoning of fools.

Here the Charvaka School differs from Jainism & Buddhism that advocate relinquishing wordly pleasures.

The kernels of the paddy are rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest, would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?

The Sacrifices, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves,
and smearing oneself with ashes,
according to Brihaspati are but means of livelihood for those who
have no manliness nor sense.

(very strong statement indeed!)

Charvaka School accepted only four elements - earth, fire, water and air - and refuted the fifth one - Akasha or aether - as nonsense. It said that knowledge is a product of these four elements, and gets destroyed when these elements in the body are destroyed, i.e., consciousness perishes with the body, or there is nothing after the body perishes.

Springing forth from these elements itself,
solid knowledge is destroyed when they are destroyed.
After death no intelligence remains, thus spake Brihaspati.

There is no heaven, no final liberation,nor any soul in another
world, Nor do the actions of the four castes,orders,
or priesthoods produce any real effect.

The following verses are Charvaka's pun on sacrificial offerings:

If a beast slain as an offering to the dead will itself go to heaven,
why does the sacrificer not straightway offer his father?

If offerings to the dead produce gratification
to those who have reached the land of the dead,
why the need to set out provisions
for travellers starting on their journey?

(=Why not send them directly?)

If our offering sacrifices here gratify beings in heaven,
why not make food offerings down below
to gratify those standing on house-tops?

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

In Telugu, the above verse can be summarized as "Appu Chesi Pappu Koodu". I am sure there will be an equivalent in Tamil.

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
why does he not come back again,
restless for love of his kin-folk?

It is only as a means of livelihood
that brahmins have established here
abundant ceremonies for the dead -
there is no other fruit anywhere.
Hence for kindness to the mass of living beings
we must fly for refuge in the doctrine of Charvaka.

While reading the above verses, we must not forget that Charvaka himself was a Brahmin. He must have got thoroughly disillusioned with the ritualism in vogue during those days to say these things.

Charvaka picked on certain grotesque rituals that accompanied Yagas such as Ashwamedha (please do your own research to know what these were), and very strongly rebelled against them. He said:

The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.
All the well-known formulae of the pandits such as jarphari and
turphari, and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in
Aswamedha,were invented by buffoons, and so were the various
kinds of presents to the priests,while the eating of flesh was
similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

It appears that while he advocated balanced enjoyment of earthly pleasures, Charvaka was against the animal sacrifices and eating of animal flesh. He wanted some kind of reform in the religion as it was practised then. Since the name Charvaka means, "the one who speaks sweetly," Charvaka must have been a soft-spoken man who possessed good oratory skills, and must have been popular with the masses who were experiencing some kind of revulsion towards ritualistic religion. I do not know though, what Jarphari and Turphari (to which he was referring to in the above verse) were.

A few Hindus / Brahmins apparently have not seen any contradiction between being an atheist and being Hindu. Vinayaka Damodar Savarkar, or Veer Savarkar as he is referred to, was an atheist (not withstanding the fact that he was a Chitpavan Brahmin and one of the founders of Hindu Mahasabha, and was also named in the "Right Wing Hindu Plot" to assassinate M.K.Gandhi). Those who consider Hinduism as a way of life rather than a religion sometimes extend strong arguments to be an Atheist and a Hindu. When these people call themselves Hindu / Brahmin, the word rather refers to the cultural aspects of Hinduism / Brahminism.

Those who have read Valmiki Ramayana would remember a sage, Jabali, who comes to Rama in the forest after he abdicates the throne in favour of Bharatha (Ayodhya Kanda : Sarga 108, 109 & 110). Jabali urgen upon Rama to default and go back on the promise made to his father Dasharatha, giving several atheistic arguments, as to why Rama should not bother about the promise made to his father or the "other world", and why he should think only about this world. Rama gets taken aback by this preaching by a sage, and questions Jabali as to how a sage could advice him this way? Vasistha does a timely step in, and saves the situation. "Brahmin atheists" or "atheist Brahmins" have been around since those times.

There are also Schools of Indian Philosophy which can not be strictly categorized as Theist or Atheist.

The Samkhya Philosopy of Sage Kapila accepted the existence of only Purusha (that pure consciousness which is absolute, ever independent, above all experience and knowledge, and non reproducible & non destroyable), and Prakrithi (Material matter, which is inert, unconscious, reproducible and destroyable). The Samkhya Philosophy in its purest form, as proposed by Kapila, did not accept the existence of a personified God or impersonal Brahman. But it does have a causation theory.

For the sake of cursory comparision, Purusha of early Samkhya Philosophy is something like 'Tao' of Taoism. The concept of Ishwara was later added to the Samkhya Philosophy due to its interaction with the Yoga Philosophy of Sage Patanjali.

Another Philosophical School, the Purva Mimamsa School of Sage Jaimini (who had also reportedly produced the Jaimini System of Astrology, as opposed to the commonly followed Parashara System of Astrology), too did not recognize the existence of God or Salvation.

I guess to many, the mental picture of a Rishi or a Muni would be like a character straight out of Ramanand Sagar's TV serials - a fellow with long white hair & white flowing beard, meditating under a forest tree or within an ant-hill, before whom different Gods and Goddesses of Hindu Panthenon (and sometimes celestial nymphets) appear in varying orders. But in reality, these were thinkers with diverse opinions.

Yes, I have read Dawkins. Belief (and faith, and trust) are not founded on proof/evidence. I have written about scepticism elsewhere, and I subscribe to Santayana's views on the subject (see quote in earlier post).
In Advaitic philosophy - God is not constructed in the image of man, nor held responsible for random tragedies/justice. Your position appears to be: God cannot be good or worthy of worship unless he/she obeys the precepts of human morality.
Here, I wonder alongwith Omar Khayyam whether "... It (God/Brahman/Providence) moves as impotently, as you, or I!"
I find Dawkins' philosophy consistent with rational, reductionist thinking. It is one mode of apprehending the universe. I personally find that mode of thinking dry, mechanistic and inadequate because it fails to admit/ acknowledge the emotional, social and aesthetic landscape of our lives (which are genuine aspects of our being).
As Santayana says "There is no dilemma in the choice between animal faith and reason, because reason is only a form of animal faith, and utterly unintelligible dialectically, although full of a pleasant alacrity and confidence, like the chirping of birds." Santayana, like the Advaitin believes that we never know facts, we only know those features of facts, which we perceive. In an earlier post, I wrote "all knowledge is subjective" - that our reality is our interpretation of our limited and finite perceptions of this universe, based upon our personal experience. We are blind men, in a dark room, searching for a black cat that may not be there. And that is okay, because that is all we have - as long as we are willing to grant the next person that same latitude.
I personally think that Advaita is not incompatible with an atheistic world-view, since Brahman is 'nirguna' (See: 'Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction', by Eliot Deustch). However, I am aware that Sankaracharya did not preach atheism or advocate such a stance.

Originally Posted by Chora Iyer Ka

Has anyone here read any of Oxford Zooologist Richard Dawkins' books? He contrasts Eienstenian religon, which is wonder at the true nature of the Universe as understood scientifically, to Supernatural religon ( all world faiths) which ask you to believe in God without evidence. I often felt my scepticism about God ( due to various random tragedies I saw in the lives around me) was a product of Western style scientific rationalism ( Most astro-physicists are atheists, for example ) but I was told by a learned Bengali friend that doubting God has always been a minor, but present current in Indian thought for 3000 years and some Indian religons like jainism and buddhism are actually atheistic. Anyhow, I found Dawkins views on the non-supernatural and scientific creation and purpose of the Universe and mankind resonating with my own beliefs and I wondered if there were others like me on this site.

sirs- atheism means not believing in god. an atheist cannot also believe in rituals too . so automatically, an atheist is disqualified from being a bramin. there was a time many centuries before , when persons of other varnas got converted to braminism. it were persons among these who indulged in 'atheistic braminism'! since the good name of bramins was getting damaged,it was decided by bramins not to allow conversions henceforth from other varnas. so it is centuries since the doors have been closed! so there is no scope, recognition or respect for 'atheist' bramins since then.

but a 'bramin' who is an atheist can call himself a hindu, if he is a vegetarian.

Kspv, Baam & CIK,

Great posts. As of now most of it are flying past me as lamposts seen from a moving train. I will re, re & re-read it & hopefully understand.

Anychance you have the Dawkins book in softcopy ?

Dear Srimathi 'Baam' Ji and Kspv Ji,

Great posting. One thing the reductionist rationalism of atheism misses is the fact that when one is part of a closed system, one can not 'perceive' stuff outside of such a system. We all know from certain animals that we can perceive only a fraction of the whole spectrum through our senses. So, as human beings we need to operate in 'phase space' anyways to enlarge our knowledge. And this is the limit of science (and by inference our senses and mind).

It is quite astonishing that all the so called 'mystics' in each and every religion has drawn the picture of the 'God' akin to our own have. This says that there is a different kind of perception out there ('subtle' as Chintana Ji puts it), that is accessible to us through looking inwards.

There is another 'minus' to believe in atheism. If one believes in God's existence and that proves to be not true, no harm is done. But there is a problem if it happens to be the other way around! And just for this purpose, I believe in a Jewish God!

Pranams,
KRS

Baami & kspv,

Thank you for such informed and well-written responses. I shall certainly explore Santayana's writings and see if I can get my hands on translations of surviving fragments of Charvak's works. The only point I have to make, and it's a half-thought not articulated particularly well, is that if we have only a limited and finite perspective with which to understand the Universe, that imposed by our physical and intellectual human powers, then that understanding ( based on evidence ) still sounds more true than one believed in through blind faith or an "intuitive" understanding that discards logic. I am still an advaitinist (!) at heart because it appeals to a universal morality my Nehruvian parents instilled in me. But is it true? Or is it a fiction my mind invented to make me feel good?To some, only the end delivery matters, but to any mind that is a slave of logic, it does I think leave serious areas of doubt.

Available in softcover on Amazon. My advaitist principles forbid me from pushing Bit-Torent versions. :-) Hari

incidentally, kspv, on a lighter note, the lurid imagery of our ancients of the queen lying with a decapitated horse behind a curtain to symbollicaly take his seed ( as prescribed in the Ashvamedha)is still preferable to me( except for the decapitation) to our modern-day Talibanist VHP Hindus who waste energy protesting about Valentine's day