Atheism and Agnosticism in India Atheism in India Atheism can come in at least two flavors. The weaker one is a system of thought that simply makes no use of God. The stronger atheism will actually hold that God does not exist. In ancient Hindu thought the Charvakas and the Mimamsa schools represent the stronger form while the Vaisheshika school represents the weak form. This is all made trickier by the fact that Hindus have a great range of conceptions of Gods encompassing forms similar to the Judaeo-Christian God as well as pantheistic and polytheistic conceptions. Another complexity is added by the very different notion of orthodoxy. Unlike the clear creeds such as the Nicene creed that many Christians recognize or the universal “there is no God but Allah” of the Muslims, Hindus define orthodoxy in terms of recognition of the sacred scriptures the Vedas regardless of the particular interpretation thereof. Thus the six orthodox or astik schools are so called simply because they recognize and interpret the Vedas. (The six ancient schools are Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, and Vedanta). Charvakas, Buddhists and Jains among others are considered unorthodox or nastik schools.

CHARVAKAS Of the numerous schools of thought that gained prominence during the epic period as a reaction against the excessive ritualism and empty dogmatism of Vedic religion or perhaps the increasing rigidity of caste system, one school of thought attracts the attention of present day scholars not only for its radical approach to the problems of blind belief but also for its similarities with the modem day rationalism and materialism of the west. It was the lokayata school of thought, believed to have been founded by Charvaka, whose history is shrouded in great mystery and myth. All that is known about the system is gleaned from polemical texts that were criticizing the Charvakas. The world lokayata was used to refer to the person who believed in the reality of this world and the physical existence of man and of other beings on earth and nothing else. ‘Loka’ means the world and ‘lokayata’ means he who is centered around or relies upon this world only. The lokayatas believed in the existence of this world only, neither in heaven nor in hell, neither in vice nor virtue. They accepted only that reality which they could subjectively perceive and interact with, not in any imaginary world or some kind of ideal world. Practical and down to the earth, they believed in the existence of four elements only, namely the earth, water, fire, and air instead of the five elements of the vedic scriptures of which space or ether was the fifth element. The Charvaka system of thought believed neither in God nor in the after life of man. their doctrines are traced to an ancient scripture called the Charvaka Dharma probably written by an author of the name of Charvaka. Reference to the Charvakas or the Lokayatas was found in some ancient Hindu and Buddhist Scriptures such as the Prabhodha Chandrodaya, an allegorical play in which a character sums up the beliefs of this school, and also the epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. One of the chief protagonists of this school existed during the time of the Buddha and his name was Ajita Kesakamabali. He recognized only four elements and declared that a combination of these four elements produced certain vitality called life, which is very much in tune with the modern theories of creation of life on earth. At the time of death these four elements would return to their respective sources, earth to earth, air to air and so on. There was no mystery of life beyond this. “When the body dies both fool and wise alike are cut off and perish. They do not survive after death.” According to the Charvakas there was no soul. Death was the end of all existence. The body itself was Atman and enjoyment of this life in the bodily form should be the chief purpose of life. Whatever was within the field of perception was true and it alone existed. Anything beyond the senses was false, a mere illusion or self induced delusion. Inference by itself could not be the basis of truth and therefore it was invalid. We should not depend upon the experience of others to know the truth. We should not base our belief upon the teachings of others as long as they were not confirmed by our own personal experience. Subjective experience was therefore the basis of all truth and of ones conduct in this world. The Charvakas did not accept the Vedas, nor the vedic rites prescribed by the Vedas. They contended that one should not practice these religious rites, whose results no one could verify with certainty. They did not believe in karma or the concept of sacrifice. What was the use of sacrificing something today, in the hope of getting some future benefit whose arrival was never certain? Earthly enjoyment was the highest ideal and it should not be sacrificed in the hope of some better after life. Since matter was the only thing that was perceivable by the senses, matter alone was real. Intelligence was also a form of matter, like the body, because it was produced by the modification of the four elements and was destroyed the way the body was destroyed when these elements were dissolved. The physical self alone was real and the mind and the body were part of this physical self. Two interpretations are given for the word Charvaka. According to one interpretation, the word ‘char’ means ‘charming and alluring and the word ‘yak’ means speech. Probably the Charvakas were good orators and their words were instantly appealing to the audience as they appealed to the senses directly and required no blind faith to sustain themselves. According to another interpretation, the word ‘charva’ means grinding and chewing and the world ‘Charvaka’ means he who grinds both vice and virtue. The Charvakas are also known as Brihaspatayas because it is believed that Brihaspathi was the author of this doctrine. Another sect which was close to the lokayatas in their thinking was the sect of the kapalikas, who believed in the practice of sex and gory rituals to gain siddhis or spiritual powers. Probably the Charvaka school must have provided some background from which the later schools of Tantricism emerged both in Hinduism and Buddhism as a way of compromise between materialism and spiritualism. The disbelief and atheism of ancient India is summed up in the following lines from the Sarvadarshana Samgraha which expresses the atheistic, anti-religious, nonvedic, anti-Brahamin, and anti-caste system:

There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world, Nor do the actions of the four castes, etc., produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic‘s three staves, smearing one’s self with ashes, Were made by Nature as the livelihood for those destitute of knowledge and manliness.

The Charvakas had the greatest contempt for religious rituals:

If a beast slain in the Jyoti rite will go to heaven Why not sacrifice one‘s own father at once? If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead Then here, too, in the case of travelers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey, If beings in heaven are gratification by our offering the sraddha here Then why not place the food on the ground for those standing on the roof? While life remains, let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he go into debt When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again? How is it that he comes back out again, restless for love of his kin? Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmins have established here All the ceremonies for the dead — there is no fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons All the well-known formulas of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc. And all the obscene rites of the queen commanded in the Asvamedha These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

They believe that the whole complex panoply of Hindu ritual was created by Brahmins to keep them in business. They had a clear commitment to materialism and absolutely deny the idea of an immortal, immaterial, self or soul. In this school, the four elements, earth etc., are the original principles; from these alone, when transformed into the body, intelligence is produced, just as the inebriating power is developed from the mixing of certain ingredients; and when these are destroyed, intelligence also perishes also... Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished by the attribute of intelligence, since there is no evidence for any self distinct from the body, as such cannot be proved, since this school holds that perception is the only source of knowledge. The orthodox questioned how consciousness could arise from unconscious elements. But the Charvakas saw it as a kind of reaction of different elements forming a new kind of element — as two gases hydrogen and oxygen might form a different kind of thing — a liquid water. The Charvakas feel that since consciousness and a body always go together, they must be causally connected. The orthodox might claim that a dead body had no consciousness and a reincarnating soul has consciousness with no body. The Charvakas feel that a dead body is no longer a functioning body — and we have all seen that a well- fed healthy body tends to have a clearer consciousness. As for the transmigrating soul, the Charvakas rightly note that this simply assumes that there is a reincarnating soul. Unlike the Buddhist and the Hindu ascetics, the Charvakas were somewhat hedonistic: Can begging, fasting, penance, exposure to the burning heat of the sun, which emaciates the body, be compared with the ravishing embraces of women with large eyes, whose prominent breasts are compressed with one‘s arms? Against the Buddhists they say: Such are the fooleries of the unenlightened men. They conceive that you ought to throw away the pleasures of life, because they are mixed with pain; but what prudent man will throw away the unpeeled rice which encloses excellent grain because it is covered with the husk? To the end they keep their focus on the human context, the here and now of the material world.

VAISHESHIKA One of the six orthodox Hindu schools, vaisheshika admits at least of atheism, if not of the thoroughgoing cynicism of the Charvakas. They were empiricists and atomists, studying the constituent parts of the world and naming and categorizing them. Strikingly, their exhaustive chronicling of the things of the world, both material and spiritual, made no mention of God (in particular this is true of their foundational text the Vaisheshika sutra by the great philosopher Kanada). They believed that the world was governed not by an all-powerful father in heaven but by natural and moral laws. In the middle ages, however, the Vaisheshikas came increasingly under the sway of theistic thinkers who dominated the later development of the school — replacing the more abstract system of laws and principles. There are elements in Vaisheshika that would give a humanist pause, however, such as their belief in certain spirits and non-material entities.

PURVA MIMAMSA Another of the six great schools, it is an unlikely place to find atheistic thought. Mimamsa focuses a great deal on the meaning of dharma in the Vedic sense, as well as sacrifice as a means to gain heaven. Dharma, to the Mimamsakas was simply what led towards the highest good. The route to this highest good is via the Yajña (a system of sacrificial rituals of great complexity and diversity). Yajña grew steadily in importance and became a direct path to salvation and indeed all human goals. God scarcely merited a mention. Indeed they do not believe in a creator God since they believe the universe has always existed and will never end. More surprisingly, ancient Mimamsaka scholars made specific arguments against it. Kumarila says: And at the time (before humans) who would know God and explain God’s character to the later created persons? (If we hold that God cannot be perceived by any human, then) without perception (or cognition of some sort by some one), how can we determine this (fact of God’s existence)? The very idea of creation is questioned: Then again, in what manner do you believe the world to have had a beginning in time? (If it be held that it is brought about by a desire on the part of Prajapati, then) since Prajapati is (held to be) without a material body, how could he have any desire for creation? And if He does have a body, surely this body could not have been created by himself; thus we would have to posit a creator in turn for this body and so on ad infinitum... If Prajapati’s body is held to be eternal, then (we ask) — so long as earth (water etc.) have not been produced, of what material would that body be composed? In other sections, the text raises the old philosophical pet peeve of theodicy: Then again, in the first place, how is it that He should have a desire to create a world which is fraught with all sorts of troubles for living beings? For at that time (in the beginning of creation) he has not got any guiding agencies, in the shape of the virtue (or sin), etc., of the living beings themselves. Nor can any creator create anything, in the absence of means and instruments ... If it be urged that “without some pain neither creation nor the preservation of the world would be possible,” (then we reply that) when everything depends upon the Creator’s will what is impossible for him? Along the same lines, obstacles are placed in the path of belief in a creator or destroyer in numerous other ways. What end did he have for creation? If he has an end is he perfect? If he acts without purpose is he a fool? How could we know if he did created the world? How do we know whether to trust the words of God or even if they are his words?

POINTS TO PONDER Western atheism rejects God as well as souls, spirits etc. In India it is often the reliance on the existence of an eternal soul that makes God unnecessary. Immortality in the west is only into the future (thus allowing creation), in India it is infinite in both directions — past and future. Thus there is no creation. In Vaisheshika not only is the material world governed by laws, so is the spiritual and moral realm, neither requires a presiding deity. Western atheists may be perfectly comfortable with a Hindu view of the universe as interconnected flowing patterns of energy. . . Awe and reverence for nature could constitute a believer in India and an atheist in the west. . .