Talk:Hindu atheism

Treatement of Atheists in Hinduism

Can anybody please put some light on this? For example, it was a crime punishable by death in ancient Greece. Thanks in advance.

122.173.184.220 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Adi There was no punishment for any philosophical stand in India. Even the most hated from both the Shramana and Brahmana, the charvaka were never persecuted. That’s why India became best place for refuse for Zarathustra, Jews and many. Hoped I helped. Secularism in ancient India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.78.13.99 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What?

What is this article supposed to be about? It consists of "Astika", and other unrelated matter. If you could name it "Nidish Singhal, an atheist, but a Hindu", it would be more apt. :) ^Babub→Talk 15:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Astika just meant belief in doctrine of vedas and not in the beleif of existence of creationist God. Samkhya and purva Mimamsa were very clear in this respect. Even if you reject Nastika school of thoughts out of hinduism, you will have to accept that Shat Astik darshan had atheistic views.--nids(♂) 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this needs a new article? I fell this has to be merged or deleted. All this is anyway covered in Hindu philosophy. But, perhaps you could do something with the Indian philosophy article? ^Babub→Talk 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately not. But i found a stiff resistance, when i tried to include even a atheist can be a hindu in the Hinduism and related article.--nids(♂) 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But i think as of now, this article has enough ammo to stand on its own and a deletion would not be required. I would humbly request you to support the inclusion of even a atheist can be a hindu in hinduism article and redirect here for details.--nids(♂) 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian philosophy deals with some of the philosophies which are obviously not Hindu, under any definition. Like Ahmadi or Sufi movement. While Lokayakta is included in Hindu philosophies under many definitions. (Unorthodox and Nastika)--nids(♂) 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

If "noone" has problems with the title, I'm going to withdraw the AfD nom. ^Babub→Talk 03:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

'naastika' doesn't mean atheist

Naastika means veda-rejecting hindu traditions; while aastika means veda-adhering hindu traditions.

Schools based on purva mimaamsa and sankhya philosophy were atheistic; yet adhered to vedas.

Atheistic aastika traditions: samkhya; yoga(partly); mimaamsa Theistic naastika traditions: sikhism; veersaivism/lingayaatism; ayyavazhism

Hope this helps in cleaning up this section Leafy 22:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As for references or such - first off i think this section needs a clean up... Leafy 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I know that. and that is what is precisely written in this article.nids(♂) 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You would also like to refer to the Afd filed for the article. some users were contesting that Mimamsaks were theistic. I know they are atheistic, but it would be nice if you can arrange for some better references. Thank you.nids(♂) 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try; but spare me some time. Leafy 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse. Do whenever you get time. nids(♂) 08:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nids, you have not mentioned Vaisesika along with the other darshanas, though it got currupted later, the original thought did not require a creationist God, yet it was astik. It should be clearly understood here that we are Astika (believing in the wisdom of Vedas) Nireeshwarvadis and not secular atheists. Aupmanyav 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Aupmanyav, i just have a basic knowledge about the astika darshans. So basically, I have just written a stub. I dont know if Vaisesika was atheistic, but please add it if you are sure about the info. I dont think anyone would fight here to produce a source for it, but it'd be great if you can procure one. Thnx. nids(♂) 17:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All of what previous commentators wrote is true. Despite what many non-South Asians and western Atheists believe, Hindus are NOT Atheist, and just because someone is Hindu but not that religious it does not mean that they are atheist.100.34.143.131 (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Some people!

Some morons think being polytheistic or henotheistic or deistic or mahahajhdhdhdjhssktheistic is the same as being atheistic. Nothing I can do to help them . ^Babub→Talk 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not really your prob if you fail to understand what atheism means in the first place. Leafy 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand it very well: Belief in the non-existence of god(s). ^Babub→Talk 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Its disbelief in existence of a god i.e, absolute god/s. Mimamsa's devaas aren't gods - they're positions that one ascends to through karma according to my poor memory. Leafy 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Babub, why are you distorting facts and changing Hindu to Indian philosophy everywhere. Tomorrow, you will say that Lingayats are not Hindus.nids(♂) 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, you would like to work on Indian philosophy section and even expand Ahmadi and Sufi parts.nids(♂) 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Leafy, all Darshanas did require no Gods, and Advaita is not Sankara's theory. There is pre-Sankara advaita also. There are numerous instances when upanishads accept that there is nothing other than 'Brahman', and worship of Gods is erroronous; that leaves no space for a creationist God. Aupmanyav 15:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yoga section

Since i dont have the requisite knowledge on the subject, i request other editors to introduce the section of Atheism as present in Yoga philosophy.nids(♂) 10:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bal Thakeray the atheist?

I know that this is a good debating point, but it doesn't make sense to call him an atheist because of an outburst like that. My granny "turned atheist" after one of my uncles drowned in the temple tank. She stayed away from Him for 15 days and then apparently God called her back. It does not make sense to include people who just happen to be angry at God because of their misfortunes among those who adopt atheism as a philosophical position. — Ravikiran 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Should this be removed. I dont think he said because he was angry. Many of the swayamsevaks are atheists too.nids(♂) 11:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I went through the JSTOR article, and it only indirectly references an editorial in Saamna, I quote: `According to one report that cites an editorial by Thackeray in Saamna, Thackeray has declared himself an atheist'. I hardly think this is sufficient evidence to cite Thackeray as an atheist, especially considering his other Hindutva related activities. I am removing his name from the article. Shanth phy (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

madhav acharya as avatar

i have removed

Madhava Acharya himself was one of the founding fathers of the Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar, fought against Islamic domination and proclaimed himself as an avatara of Vishnu.

and other unsourced additions to the article.nids(♂) 09:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Materialism/Charvaka

Materialism has been around in India for at least 2600 years and deserves special mention in this article. The Charvakas were well known and prominent enough to deserve a mention in a number of popular texts. Other than Charvakas, we also had people like Ajita Keshakambalin who denied the existence of soul, rebirth, etc., but unlike the Charvakas did not recommend losing moral values.

Shvushvu 16:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to add anything in the article. Just remember that we have a separate article on Charvaka, and this article should just be a synopsis on the different atheistic viewpoints present in the Hinduism. You can o'course expand the main charvaka article anytime. Thanks.nids(♂) 17:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added Ajita Kesakambali to the See Also section until he can be more tightly integrated into the article. — coelacan talk — 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Title does not make sense

By definition Hinduism is a theistic religion. There is no such thing as Atheism in Islam, or Atheism in Christianity. Rightfully so, because, there can not be atheism within in a religion. It is nonsense. The tile should be changed to Atheism in Indian Though, or Atheism in Indian philosophy. --Natkeeran (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

sure, makes no sense. Title should be changed to Atheism in India. Docku: What up? 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism is usually thought about to be a theistic religion. Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism,panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism. Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Athism in India

There can be many diverse viewpoints or systems of thoughts within a religion, just as in Christianity. But one can not say that religion argues for irreligion. Atheism in India is a more appropriate title. --Natkeeran (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is just confusing. Atheism in India is rather broader and general in scope and "Atheism in Hinduism" can be included as a sub-section. Docku: What up? 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The premise that "Hinduism is by definition theistic" is highly dubious, as the article itself already establishes. Astika implies "belief in the Vedas", which doesn't amount to theism at all, but involves mysticist notions that are very far removed from anything resembling theism. This is a topic of Hindu philosophy. "Atheism in India" would be one of demographics (how many percent of Indians self-idenfity as atheists). That's a completely different issue. Out of six darshanas, only Vedanta strikes me as unambiguously theistic. Of course, Vedanta practically amounts to "Hinduism" today, but unlike what many Hindus would have you believe, Hinduism does in fact have a history, and a thousand years ago, the distribution of philosophical mainstream within Hinduism looked rather different from today. "Hinduism is by definition theistic" is a bit like saying "Christianity is by definition Trinitarian": it is a wrong use of "by definition" instead of "de facto (with marginal exceptions)". The meaning of "de facto" is actually the very opposite of that of "by definition". --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

complex and useful. My take is we create a new article Atheism in India. Docku: What up? 18:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the current content of this article, Atheism in India would be a better title -- I agree with a move. But, Atheism in Hinduism is also a worthy topic (just like Christian atheism).

@Natkeeran -- Like dab says, Hinduism is not a theistic religion by definition. In fact, whether it's a "religion" in the familiar Western sense is also debatable (many of its adherents proclaim that it's a "way of life"). Hinduism has no known founder or no formal organization structure. So, there is no authority to dictate whether a Hindu should believe in God or not. Many people (e.g. Hindu nationalist Veer Savarkar) call themselves " atheist" and "Hindu" at the same time: http://books.google.com/books?q=savarkar+atheist

That said, I feel that the current content of this article is better suited under the title "Atheism in India". Or if you want to expand its scope, it can be located at Irreligion in India, on the lines of Irreligion in the United States. You can leave some content under Atheism in Hinduism, but obviously, the discussion about Jainism and other Nastika philosophies should be located at Atheism in India. Similarly, Periyar E. V. Ramasamy was not a "Hindu atheist" -- he recommended Islam to his followers. All these things should be moved out of this article.

utcursch | talk 02:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Periyar was born a Hindu, voraciously read Hindu texts, re-interpretted, quite controversially, Ramayana, was strongly against the social heirarchy in Hindu religion. He believed in no God, but for people who wanted to follow a religion he recommended Islam which he believed was more socially egalitarian. It is going to be difficult to categorise him either way. Docku: What up? 13:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed to / merged with atheism in India. The present title makes no sense. At the very least, if it is not merged, the title should be changed to "Atheism and Hinduism". 89.253.122.71 (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is considerable room for improvement in this article, but that does not mean it is irrelevant. There is definietly a body of work within Hindusim that refers to and discusses atheism. If Vedanta is Hinduism, then so are Barhaspatya sutras and there do exist Mimamsa and Samkhya schools of thought, being atheists, yet astika : ) This article should stay where it is. If you can contribute, please improve it. Nshuks7 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed atheism has historically been very prominent in Hindu philosophy. As others have mentioned, the Nasktika philosophies are not really Hinduism strictly speaking because they denounce the authority of the Vedas but even in this article, it important to discuss them because they have influenced particular schools of Hindu philosophy. One day, somebody with time on their hands can also create a Polytheism in Hinduism article. The belief that many "gods" (devatas, devis) are all forms of the one "God" is the mainstream Hindu position but it is not the only position. Particularly if you want to describe the tribal and animist religions as (Folk Hinduism) Hinduism, polytheism becomes very significant. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate Atheism in Buddhism page?

I note the absence of an "Atheism in Buddhism" page --both are, doubtless, necessary.

The Pali Canon contains quite a lot of our evidence for atheistic schools of thought among ancient "Hindus" (a problematic term, as everyone knows) --viz., evidence that orthodox (Hindu) sources are not prone to record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.148.34 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Atheists- Useless section

The section on "Prominent Atheists" adds no value to the article. It needs to be deleted sandy (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

i seem to agree with you. It seems to fit well in Atheism in India, which has such a list already. --Docku: What's up? 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

i also feel that only those who identified themselves as a hindu and atheist should be added like sawarkar. But then people like Kumarila Bhatta and Kapila and many will be left as in their time there was nothing like hinduism the religion . Pratpandey13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

rename

Maybe it's better Hindu Atheism? --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed content

Hey, user Yogesh Khadke had written the following for Hindusim which was deleted by user Abecedare. I propose we add this content here:

File:Vedapramanyam kasya.JPG

Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine),
Believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya,
Having pride (vainity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost ones sanity.
Dharmakirti, Pramanvartik

The above shlok is from Dharmakirti's Pramanvartik, he was deeply influenced by Charvak philosophy.. The term Āstika ("pious, orthodox") is sometimes translated as "theist" and Nāstika as "atheist". According to Panini the terms are derived from the verb "one who says 'asti', one who believes in the existence [of God, of another world, &c.]" In Indian philosophy, three schools of thought are commonly referred to as Nastikas by the Hindus: Jainism, Buddhism and Cārvāka for rejecting the doctrine of Vedas. Nastika refers to the non-belief of Vedas rather than non-belief of God. However, all these schools also rejected a notion of creationist god and so the word Nastik became strongly associated with them. Cārvāka, an atheistic school of Indian philosophy, traces its origins to 600 BCE, while some claim earlier references to such positions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshuks7 (talk • contribs)

Added to the article, replaced image with Unicode text. utcursch | talk 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The content was undue in Hinduism but is relevant here. Note though, that most of the paragraph (except for the Dharmakirti's sloka) was copied from this article itself! I have edited the addition to eliminate repetition and formatted the refs etc.

Yogesh, you may want to create the article Pramanvartik, or expand the Dharmakirti article. Also, can you provide the complete details (publisher, year, isbn) for the book by Athavale ? Abecedare (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadashiv Athavale, Charvak Itihas ani Tatvadynan, (सदाशिव आठवले , चार्वाक; इतिहास आणि तत्त्वज्ञान) III ed., 1997, Pradnya Pathashala Mandal, Wai, 412803. No ISBN number, the Pathashala is a centre for study of the Hindu religious texts, and has published a few parts of their encyclopedia, the Dharmakosh. The link I had given had the above details, it was lost in all the editing. Perhaps! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Buddhism is Hinduism?

The title "Atheism in Hinduism" implies Buddhism is a Hindu tradition, a claim which almost all Buddhist would disagree with. Can we rectify this problem by renaming the title of this page to "Atheism in Indian philosophy" or something? Not doing so and keeping the same title seems like its implying Buddhism is a Hindu tradition. 76.115.15.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

I do not think so, as many jain and buddhist in India may say they are hindu but not all say that. It is very complex issue as even Bon is considered Buddhism but certainly it is not orthodox Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratpandey13 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism have their own articles on Atheism— God in Buddhism, God in Jainism both of which are a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism like this article. Therefore, we should consider removing content related to them from this article. However, Atheism in Hinduism requires an article of its own and hence the name and the scope of the article are well defined and need not be changed. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism are viewed by Hindu scriptures as nastika schools. This fact needs to be stated. However, going in detail about atheism as Buddhism and Jainism is not needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing the division of the article into Āstika and nāstika. A chronological arrangement in the following order— Vedas, Upanishads, Samkhya, Mimamsa, Ajivika, Cārvāka, Atheistic tendencies of Advaita (if I find content on this) and modern Hindu atheists would better show the development of Atheism in Hinduism. Whether a certain school believed in the testimony of the Vedas or not is a minor fact for this article and should be treated a such. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Moral values of Hindu theists and atheists same?

I have removed this statement from the article as I think it is problematic. Why would a Hindu call himself an "atheist" if he follows the same cultural and moral values as the religious Hindu? It does not make any sense, and the cited source is not by an expert and therefore not a reliable source. "They are unlike other Hindus in their religious outlook, but they share the same cultural and moral values." Source: Pandit, Bansi Explore Hinduism url=http://books.google.com/books?id=PT5h4IjBMk0C&pg=PA80 |year=2005 |publisher=Heart of Albion |isbn=978-1-872883-81-6 |page=80}} -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Nowhere in his essay has Bhagat Singh claimed to be an Hindu atheist. He was simply an atheist. That part should be edited out. Puravbhutta1996 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessarily clear whether Singh is a Hindu atheist from the essay alone. But he is notable within the Hindu community and was involved in many groups. Additionally, his essay cites Hindu principles to the point where it is clear he has a grasp of them (even if he uses them in a rather atypical way). He comes from a family of Hindus and a Hindu background. I think that all points to that part staying, at least until more editors agree it should be removed. Bass77_talkcontribs 07:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)