Ours is at instant glance a clickbaiting, controversial and contentious title. Various expressions of atheism/theism/agnosticism from a Hindu lens have already been made, and certainly one does not expect to refute sanātana satyas of Dārśaṇika nature by any gymnastics of logical argumentation. But as a palpable “civilizational consciousness” spreads upon us, with at least a few fundamental points of disagreement within the larger in-group, it merits laying out the landscape insofar as **atheism** is concerned. That is our objective in this piece.
Our wisdom begins, as it usually does, with a definition of terms. We must discern between at least a few types of ‘atheisms’ that could be meant when a Hindu calls himself an atheist.
- Most strictly, it could be a rejection of the broad Judeo-Christian theology. That is, a rejection of the classic God hypothesis in general, and of any notions of father, son or messiah in specific. This still leaves aside important questions from a Hindu POV, which we will get to.
- Spreading the above broader, we approach the question of whether there is design/intent/will/agency behind the creation and existence of reality. This can accommodate a variety of positions, and can fold within itself deistic views which liken to the blind watchmaker analogy.
- But then we must list the constituents of whatever can fairly be generalized as a Hindu theology, and these are what a Dhārmika position on theism/atheism must address-
- The notion of Supreme Consciousness underpinning existence and being its fundamental nature.
- The idea of conscious experience, as we know it, being inherently of the same nature as Fundamental Consciousness itself.
- Cyclical churn at the root of all being, leading not only to helically repeating spirals of time and existence, but also to a state of constant re-incarnation of mind in matter.
- The pickup of a kārmika residue along this churn, which both strengthens its bind on mind (meaning a cycle of lives and deaths for us) and indebts it to fellow travellers- leading to Hinduism’s classical pañca ṛna.
- And though not strictly a purview of atheism itself, which gives no more of a self-definition than ‘a-’ ****‘-theism,****’ beyond each of the above positions lies the question of how an atheist might or might not associate with the other dimensions of religion, culture and community. We recall here Prof. Balagangadhara’s description of a Roman statesman at the dawn of Christianity, who did not really believe in the “truth” of his religion but had no compunction abiding by its traditions nonetheless. What would modern Hinduism make of such a compatriot?
But readers might have noticed- if wisdom begins with a definition of terms, then of paramount importance is the question- ****which terms** **specifically?**** And thus we must begin in earnest with native terms.
Āstika, Nāstika
These are the terms that come to mind when looking for Sanskrit equivalents of theist and atheist respectively. What do we know about them from within tradition?