I am writing this post on semi literal point of view about atheism. The term I am using here “Semi Literal” because even after reading about western atheism, I believe that I am still the novice in this subject. My Post here mentioning the criticism of Indian atheism (and will be long, as usual, go get a cup of coffee).
Before moving further I would like to coin a term “Indian atheism” which I defined as “An Indian position of rejecting God on basis of Western atheism without inquiring the traditional understanding of the subject”. here I would like to define “Carvakas” which is regarded as high in Indian school of heterodox as “Athiest (materialistic) but not Indian philosophy rejectors”. So, I would like to dissect my post Why I disagree with most of Hindu atheist (not Muslims and Christians because they are following the atheism which is based on their religious structure).
1. Why are Indian atheist different than a Western atheist?
Indian (Hindus) Athiest lacks the understanding of Indian concept of God. Most of Hindu atheist is confused that Hindu worships god (which is murtis and they are not idols (icons)). However, their viewpoint is that where is God? and where it exists? (which is based on the ritualistic practice of Hindus). Now my issue is that Indian atheist doesn’t understand the basic difference. A western atheist rejects the idea of God which means he rejects a supernatural entity which is authoritative and punitive in core nature but Indian concept of God is not about the Supernatural entity (I am again repeating it). The Hindu idea of God is Brahman (supreme principle), Iswara (Divinity which rule), Ataman (divinity in self). Western Idea of God rejects Divinity in self and any other things. That’s why they have the concept of Holy (means “dedicated or consecrated to God” i.e Holy Quran and Holy Bible) but not sacred (connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.) Quran and Bible. Sacredness means you accept the divinity inside the material things. On this note, Western Atheism rejects the idea of God as an external entity as claimed by western religion but the problem lies with the divinity claimed by Indic religion in everything as supreme principle. This difference the definition of Indian atheism when you reject the divinity in nature, not supernatural entities.
2. Why Carvaks but not the atheist?
I will welcome every Hindu atheist if they realigned their position as Carvakas rather than Athiest. Because as per my understanding the Carvakas reject the idea of Hindu God (Puranic sense) but they fond of the philosophy as Samkhya, Nyaya, Yogas, and Vedanta. Accepting western atheism blindly will also reject this non-religious philosophy of Hindus which are like Greek philosophies. Trust me, No western well-read atheist reject the Greek philosophy in mere disguise in religion. They have very clear borderline between Myths, western ancient science and Western philosophy which Indian atheist don’t have. In name of atheism (partial understanding about that), Indian atheist rejects the philosophy and heritage of Indian Botany, zoology, Natya Shastra, Sastras, Smriti, maths, medicine etc. in name of shallow understanding of atheism or called it Saffron dogma or saffronisation. That is absurd to me.
3. Indian atheist have the victim of postmodernism studies?
Most of the Indian atheist in name of being progressive are direct targets of Postcolonial scholars of India and west. The short definition of Postmodernism is that “All Ancient Narrative of past was oppressive and dangerous to current modern value system”. You will be astonished to know that the highest number of postmodernist is produced by India (China reject postmodernism so do Japan and another eastern country). The Postmodernist of US and UK never given awards for limelight them in mainstream intellectual public Except for Indians. Postmodernist target and clubbed with Indian Marxist to target the educated class of India (but they have no dare to say the same thing about the US). In the US any postmodernist about the US considers as third tire intellectual. Now the problem with Indian atheist that they took these theories of postmodernism handy to shine more liberal, open-minded and progressive without inquiries. few theories are given below (Don’t judge them by their subtitle. They are more nefarious inside).
1. India was never a country before Mughal.
2. Brahminism was the different religion than Hinduism.
3. Sanskrit was patronage language of Kings to promote oppression on local masses.
4. Ramayana is the tale of oppression.
5. Bhagwat Gita is the dishonest book.
The problem with such theories that these theories are based on Freudian psychoanalysis, Political philology, and various western analogical tools applicable to western religion but not for eastern dharma. Understanding such analogical tools required a competent level intellectualism which Indian atheist don’t have.
4. Why are Indian atheist innocent sepoys of breaking India force?
There is no doubt in my mind that Indian atheists are nationalistic. But the issue with them that they have high moral ground on things which they don’t understand as the totality. For example, the Ravana was better than Rama and Duryodhana was the great person than Krishna. However, its sheer insult of traditional intellectual class but also its half cooked knowledge. In name of political philology, a negative narrative has been started by Western Intellectuals which is dangerous. Moreover, I don’t have the problem if these narratives are confined to intellectual debate but now the problem is that most atheist innocently (thinking white is always right) believes that these discourse are actually real. which is dangerous to tradition and even digest/Reverse the very idea of Dharma.
With End footnote: I would like to says that India has lack of Intellectual Indian atheist (with no disrespect). I do not believe in Western atheism but Carvakas tradition of Hinduism. Hope this will enlightened few Indian atheists.