When I was revising my article: Using Mother for God and Nature, I asked Open AI to get a complete list about various theisms. After it gave, when I went through it, particularly as I asked it to give the names of those who first coined that particular ‘theism’ I was bit surprised to note that there was not a single Indian mentioned in the entire list. Even those that mentioned as ‘ancient concept, no single coiner, there was no mention of India anywhere else. Late when I was reflecting on this topic, I couldn’t understand why even though there was no English word coined in India by any Indian, still there were several terms that could fit in one or few other terms in the list.
For example the present term ‘Atheism’ commonly used for ‘Nastik[a]’ for those who denied the existence of God. But then I realized that how the ‘nastik’ could not be translated in English as ‘Atheism’ which could be ‘a = theism’. Whatever might be the actual meaning of the English word Atheism, though Open AI says, ‘Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods’, that could not be what ‘nastik’ actually means in Indian tradition. However even this concept of ‘nastik’ in the original text and later interpreted by Indian acharyas and commentators might not even give any singular view about this term. For example in which ancient Indian text the word ‘nastik’ appeared? Again in stead of hunting from my own collections first I asked Open AI about this question:
DB: could you please give some information when actually the word ‘Nastik’ or ‘Nastika’ appeared first time in Indian text? Does this term have uniform meaning in later text? How various acharyas and commentators interpreted the term according to their need and understanding. You need not give an elaborate summary but short and up to the point would be great help for me. Thanks.
And this is what it shared:
The term “Nastika” or “Nastik” first appears in Indian texts in the early Upanishads and Buddhist literature, generally to denote someone who does not believe in the authority of the Vedas. It contrasts with “Astika,” which refers to those who accept the Vedas as authoritative. Here’s a brief summary of its usage and interpretation:
### Earliest Appearance
– **Upanishads and Buddhist Texts**: The term “Nastika” is used in early Upanishads and Buddhist texts to describe those who reject Vedic authority. In the *Brihadaranyaka Upanishad*, it refers to those who do not believe in the afterlife.
### Uniformity of Meaning
– The meaning of “Nastika” has not been entirely uniform across later texts, though the core idea of rejecting Vedic authority remains consistent. Over time, it has been used more broadly to refer to non-believers or heretics in general.
### Interpretation by Various Acharyas and Commentators
– **Adi Shankaracharya**: In his commentaries, Shankaracharya uses “Nastika” to refer to those who deny the authority of the Vedas and do not accept the existence of the soul and God as described in the Vedas.
– **Madhvacharya**: He interprets “Nastika” similarly but places more emphasis on the rejection of dualism and the supreme personal god Vishnu.
– **Jain and Buddhist Texts**: These traditions themselves have been labeled “Nastika” by orthodox Hindu traditions due to their rejection of Vedic authority, though they have their own scriptures and belief systems.
– **Medieval and Modern Interpretations**: In later periods, the term “Nastika” has been used more loosely to denote atheism or agnosticism, particularly in the context of Western philosophical influence.
### Summary
The term “Nastika” has evolved from its early use to denote Vedic non-believers to a broader concept encompassing various forms of disbelief or heterodox thought. Different scholars and traditions have adapted its meaning to fit their doctrinal contexts, but the central theme of rejecting Vedic authority remains a common thread.
Then I asked Open AI this question: Though the English word ‘Atheism’ is used for ‘Nastik’ for Indian term, according to my understanding that could not be the correct translation of this Indian term. Can you further throw some light on this point. Thanks–DB
AI’s response:
You are correct that translating the term “Nastik” as “atheism” is not entirely accurate, as the concepts behind these terms are rooted in different cultural and philosophical traditions. Here’s a more nuanced explanation:
### “Nastik” vs. “Atheism”
#### “Nastik”
– **Definition**: In the Indian context, “Nastik” broadly refers to those who reject the authority of the Vedas, the traditional Hindu scriptures. This term encompasses a wide range of beliefs and philosophies that do not conform to orthodox Vedic tradition.
– **Examples**: Jainism and Buddhism are considered Nastika schools because they do not accept the Vedas as authoritative, despite having their own spiritual doctrines and practices.
– **Philosophical Scope**: “Nastik” can include various forms of skepticism about religious doctrines, metaphysical views, and spiritual practices that are part of the Vedic tradition. It doesn’t necessarily imply a disbelief in God or gods but rather a rejection of specific religious texts and the authority they are given.
#### “Atheism”
– **Definition**: Atheism typically refers to the absence of belief in the existence of deities. It is primarily a stance on the existence of gods.
– **Scope**: Atheism is more narrowly focused on the belief in gods and does not necessarily address other aspects of religious belief or practice. An atheist does not believe in any gods, but this position does not inherently reject religious or spiritual texts or practices unless they are based on belief in deities.
– **Cultural Context**: Atheism, as understood in Western contexts, is often associated with secularism, scientific skepticism, and sometimes anti-religious sentiment.
### Key Differences
– **Religious Authority**: “Nastik” involves a rejection of the Vedas’ authority, whereas atheism specifically involves disbelief in deities.
– **Philosophical Range**: “Nastik” can include spiritual or philosophical systems that have their own concepts of spirituality, karma, and liberation (e.g., Buddhism and Jainism), whereas atheism is focused on the disbelief in gods without necessarily proposing alternative spiritual frameworks.
– **Cultural Context**: The term “Nastik” is deeply rooted in the Indian philosophical and religious milieu, reflecting specific historical and doctrinal debates within Hinduism and related traditions. Atheism, however, has developed within a different historical and cultural context, primarily in relation to Western monotheistic religions.
### Conclusion
While “atheism” is often used as a convenient translation for “Nastik,” the latter term encompasses a broader and more complex range of beliefs related to the rejection of Vedic authority rather than merely the disbelief in gods. Understanding these nuances is important for appreciating the rich diversity of philosophical perspectives within Indian traditions.
Edited by AI in mobile:
*Section Two:*
### Introduction
There is a Tamil proverb: “If the beginning is twisted, the end will be twisted.” I think this also applies when it comes to God. The following points are written from a layperson’s perspective, in a non-academic manner, completely lacking even an iota of Sanskrit knowledge.
### Monotheism and Atheism
When it comes to God, we can categorize it into two extremes: Monotheism and Atheism. Though chronologically this may not be accurate, for the sake of argument, I will present these two extreme views about God. I have already shared my views on this so-called ‘Monotheism’ in several other places. [See for example, Unknown God: ‘Primitive Pantheism’](https://dayanandbharati.in/unknown-god-primitive-pantheism/). As noted above, the word ‘Atheism’ does not strictly mean disbelief in the existence or need for a God. I believe the word ‘Theo’ [derived from Greek], which stands for God in English, was later applied as a common term for deities. The term ‘Atheism’, divided as A + Theism, now has a new meaning associated with the denial of the existence or need for God due to the word ‘Theo-ism’. However, as noted above, Nastik is not Atheism in the original sense. If this is accepted, then the word ‘Theo’ cannot be applied to Brahman, which is a major point of discussion in Indian philosophies, not even to God.
Though in every Sect (Sampradaya) the respective deity is equated with Brahman, Brahman is still not God or Ishwar or Bhagavan. Even if these terms are commonly used, the word ‘atheism’ strictly has nothing to do with the denial of God.
### Rig Veda and the Concept of Brahman
I am taking only one well-known example, even by scholars interpreting the Rig Veda: “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” (Rig Veda 1.164.46).1 As I have pointed out, this has nothing to do with ‘Monotheism’. [See more on this](https://dayanandbharati.in/judaism-and-hinduism/) (specifically note 8). It is not discussing the existence of one god but what this ‘BRAHMAN’ is. The interesting word here is ‘Sad’, which, like many Sanskrit words, is also translated as ‘Truth’. For example, in the convocation address by the Guru at the end of completing his Gurukulavasam (staying at the Guru’s home to do Vedic study), the Brahmachari was given this mahamantra: “Satyam Vada; Dharmam Chara” (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11.1) = Tell the Truth and walk on the path of Dharma.2 Though strictly speaking, here the word ‘Satyam’ could refer to Truth, that is not the case uniformly for the Sanskrit word ‘Sad’.
Even in Rig Veda 1.164.46, “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” means “Truth is One, the wise speak of it in many ways.” The word ‘Sad’ stands for ‘existence’, as we notice in the famous shloka in the Bhagavad Gita: “Anadimat Param Brahma Nasato Vidyate Bhava” (Bhagavad Gita 2.16) = “The Supreme Brahman is without beginning; it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.”3 Brahman alone is existing, which some call ‘existing or non-existing’.
Another popular term that comes to mind is ‘Satchidananda = Sat + Chit + Anand’. Here ‘Sat’ stands for ‘Existence’ and not as ‘Truth’.
### The Role of Brahman in Indian Philosophy
No technical terms coined by known and unknown persons throughout history, from Monotheism to Atheism, can be strictly applicable when it comes to Indian Brahman. Several scholars have provided etymological and various other interpretations and explanations of the word Brahman. If we consider them all, it would result in another article or even a separate book. Let me reiterate, I am focusing on only one word, ‘Atheism’, to highlight my point. In the Appendix, I provide a few scholarly points to authenticate my view. I need not explain every other term related to Brahman or God. Because, ‘ost of these Indian traditions are not ‘theistic’ (poly, heno, mono, or whatever) in the way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are.4
### Personal Reflection on Brahman and Theism
For me, as a layperson, the question is: If any of the ‘theism’ words, from ‘Mono’ to ‘A-theism’, cannot be applied to this Brahman, then what is His, Her, or Its role or relationship to Atman?
Considering all the contexts of the word ‘Brahman’, though the word ‘God’ is superimposed on it, the only way for me to understand it is in its relationship with the other two important criteria (according to me) in [Indian] philosophy/theology: ‘Atman and Jagat’. As the famous later Sanskrit shloka says, “Brahma Satyam; Jagan Mithya; Jivo Brahmaiva Na Para” (Adi Shankaracharya)5 = “Brahman alone exists, the world is transitory, and the atman is none other than the very Existence, viz., Brahman.” Note that it is not that Brahman is Atman, but Atman is Brahman. To interpret this in a simplified way: the very EXISTENCE (Brahman) becomes NON-EXISTENCE if He [or She or It] is not related to Atman. If Atman is not there, then there is no EXISTENCE either for BRAHMAN or the WORLD. To say it another way, the very ‘Existence’ of Brahman is for Atman to realize that it is Brahman or a minute part of Brahman—either created or co-eternal with Brahman.
To communicate my thought, I have to use extra words and make several repetitions. To understand my view, I have to ask a few questions: Why was Atman created [if it is created or comes back to this world due to its karma, still remaining a minute part of God or the very essence of Brahman]? According to the Satapatha Brahmana, Prajapati feared to remain alone, so He created.6 Nowhere in the Veda is it specifically stated that Atman was also created with the same purpose to give company to Prajapati. However, the world was created not only to give company to Prajapati but also to facilitate Atman in working out its own mukti.7 However, with the help of AI, I found only one direct reference that says this creation took place for Atman to work out its salvation. According to Klinger, Creation ‘marks the beginning of God’s history of salvation with the world’ [in Muktiveda].8 And according to some other schools, this took place as the lila of God. But what is this divine play for? Though I cannot find an explicit reference that this divine play happened for Atman to get an opportunity to work out its salvation, according to OpenAI, ‘Sri Aurobindo’s interpretations of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita provide insights into the concept of Lila. He explains that the world is a manifestation of the divine play, wherein souls engage in various experiences and evolve towards self-realization and liberation.’9 Even if it is a divine play (lila), Brahman needs an Atman and a stage to enact its lila. So Atman is the center of the Universe, and without it, there is no need for Brahman to act in the first place.
### Conclusion
To put it bluntly: only when an Atman exists in this transitory world do both Brahman and Jagat exist in their relationship with it. Otherwise, though both Brahman and Creation have always existed in one form or another, their existence becomes meaningful only in their relationship with Atman. This being the case with Brahman and Creation, what can be said about God, on whom various masks were created by each and every individual Atman to put on and introduce in life as ‘This is the Sad, and the rest of them are asad,’ i.e., my particular chosen deity alone exists (for me), and the rest of them are not untrue but have no other existence other than my chosen deity. This is the stand taken by almost the entire Indian theistic tradition, i.e., not denying the existence of other deities but placing all of them in a hierarchy, with one’s own chosen deity as the Supreme Brahman. [See also Guru and God: https://dayanandbharati.in/guru-and-god/]
So when I contemplate God, I have to say: Oh my God, how many more masks are there for everyone to put on, from ‘Monotheism to Atheism’? If all other non-Indians could coin various Theisms, then why not have one from India as ‘Guru-Theism,’ as I have pointed out in another article ‘Guru and God,’ where Guru is treated as God. Now this term ‘Guru-Theism’ should be included in the list of various theisms.
**References:**
1. **Rig Veda 1.164.46:**
– Sanskrit: एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति
– Translation: “Truth is One, the wise speak of it in many ways.”
2. **Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11.1:**
– Sanskrit: सत्यम् वद; धर्मम् चर
– Translation: “Tell the Truth; walk on the path of Dharma.”
3. **Bhagavad Gita 2.16:**
– Sanskrit: अनादिमत् परम् ब्रह्म नासतो विद्यते भवः
– Translation: “The Supreme Brahman is without beginning; it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.”
4. S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India studies, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012, p. 143
5. **Adi Shankaracharya:**
– Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सत्यं; जगन्मिथ्या; जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः
– Translation: “Brahman alone exists, the world is transitory, and the atman is none other than the very Existence, viz., Brahman.”
6. “He was alone and did not enjoy it. He desired a companion. In seeking a companion, he split himself into two: prana (the breath of life) and apana (the breath of exhalation), thus becoming two.”
11.1.6.1-2. According to the text, Prajapati, or the Lord of Creatures, created the universe out of a sense of loneliness. Specifically, the passage states that Prajapati, desiring not to be alone, proceeded with the creation of the world.
In the “Satapatha Brahmana,” it is mentioned: “He was afraid; therefore, one who is alone is afraid. He thought to himself: ‘Let me have a companion.’ He divided this very self in two; and thence arose husband and wife” [[❞]](https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe41/sbe4129.htm) [[❞]](https://sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv07.htm).–Accessed AI, on 6-7-2024
7**Brahma Sutras**: The Brahma Sutras, which systematize the teachings of the Upanishads, also address the purpose of life and creation. In **Brahma Sutra (1.1.12)**, it is indicated that:
8 It turns nature into a fact of historical conduct. Creation is the first salvational fact. It marks the beginning of God’s history of salvation with the world.— Historical Thinking and Creation. Elmar Klinger. Pp. 207-[220]252, in, Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, p. 212,
DB, Gurukulam
20-7-2024
Appendix: Atheism
In the Kathopanisad (I.20) Naciketas says that people existed who thought that there was no survival of the soul after death and Yama declares that he who does not believe in the world hereafter again and again comes within his grasp (2.6). the word `Nastika’ is derived by Panini in `astinastidishtam mati’: IV.4.60 (the meaning being nasti paraloka iti matiryasya).@ — P.V. Kane. History of Dharmasastra. Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.VII. Reviling the Veda. Fn. 875. pp. 358-59
@”नास्ति परलोक इति मतिः यस्य”** translates to **”He whose belief is that there is no afterlife”—AI, accessed on 22-7-2024
But it is wrong to say that the Indian philosophical standpoint was one of ‘committed atheism’. As a general statement that is profoundly misleading. It will require to be qualified in several important ways. The Indian philosophical position was not ‘atheistic’ in the Western sense of that word. In order to be that, it would have to be concerned with God as the explanation of the creation of the world. Indian philosophy for the most part was really not concerned with that problem. Its non-creationist view of the world was derived, not from opposing and rejecting the views of some theology based on revelation, but from a systematic concern with the problem of cause and effect. The non-theistic character of Indian philosophy was already entailed in the various theories of causation, the precise (p.267) relation between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, and the question whether there was even such a thing as ‘cause’, being the most substantial part of Indian epistemology. The rest, including Indian ethics, followed mostly from the different positions taken in that regard.— Karma, Apuurva, and “Natural” Causes: Observations on the Growth and Limits of the Theory of Samsaara. Wilhelm Halbfass, in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999, pp.267-8
The earliest usage of the aastika-naastika distinction seems to occur in the context of the rise of medical science in ancient India, particularly in relation to the practice of scholastic disputation. In the Caraka Samhitaa (second century CE–the major source for the theory and practice of Ayurveda medicine—naastika denotes one who refutes a position within the context of a scholastic debate (vaada) rather than an expositor of heterodox philosophies . Indeed, according to Dasgupta*, the origins of Indian traditions of debate are to be found not in philosophical works or doctrinal disputations but in the more pragmatic and empirical context of Indian medical science— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999.p.43
* [Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 1-5, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Originally published in 1922, first Indian edition 1975,1988, Vol II: 401-2]
…astika and nastika … These Sanskrit terms have been translated variously, and the arbitrariness of these translations is an indication of how unsophisticated Indologists have been on heresiological matters in general. The pair of terms does not mean “theist” and “atheist,” although some have translated them this way, perhaps under the influence of the modern Hindi words astik and nastik… The most common translations of astika and nastika are “orthodox” and “heterodox.” Although this is an improvement, use of these two terms transposes Indian discourses of the Other into a Christian heresiological context that inevitably obscures as much as it elucidates. Because of the different heresiological presuppositions in Indian doxography and in Christian heresiography, it is best to avoid as much as possible such terms drawn from Christian traditions.— — Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 166
What kind of ‘atheism’ am I talking about? Not the Western atheism: that makes no sense to the many Indian traditions because of two things: (a) as the above story suggests, the road to ‘enlightenment’ does not go through Jerusalem. That is, Prajapathi does not tell Indra that he should ‘believe in God’ in order to be enlightened; (b) consequently, most of these Indian traditions are not ‘theistic (poly-heno-or mono- or whatever) the way Judaism, Christianity and Islam are. Consequently, Western forms of ‘atheism’ do not have the Western kind of theistic doctrine to oppose, when they came to India.— S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India studies, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012, p. 143
When I was revising my article: Using Mother for God and Nature, I asked Open AI to get a complete list about various theisms. After it gave, when I went through it, particularly as I asked it to give the names of those who first coined that particular ‘theism’ I was bit surprised to note that there was not a single Indian mentioned in the entire list. Even those that mentioned as ‘ancient concept, no single coiner, there was no mention of India anywhere else. Late when I was reflecting on this topic, I couldn’t understand why even though there was no English word coined in India by any Indian, still there were several terms that could fit in one or few other terms in the list.
For example the present term ‘Atheism’ commonly used for ‘Nastik[a]’ for those who denied the existence of God. But then I realized that how the ‘nastik’ could not be translated in English as ‘Atheism’ which could be ‘a = theism’. Whatever might be the actual meaning of the English word Atheism, though Open AI says, ‘Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods’, that could not be what ‘nastik’ actually means in Indian tradition. However even this concept of ‘nastik’ in the original text and later interpreted by Indian acharyas and commentators might not even give any singular view about this term. For example in which ancient Indian text the word ‘nastik’ appeared? Again in stead of hunting from my own collections first I asked Open AI about this question:
DB: could you please give some information when actually the word ‘Nastik’ or ‘Nastika’ appeared first time in Indian text? Does this term have uniform meaning in later text? How various acharyas and commentators interpreted the term according to their need and understanding. You need not give an elaborate summary but short and up to the point would be great help for me. Thanks.
And this is what it shared:
The term “Nastika” or “Nastik” first appears in Indian texts in the early Upanishads and Buddhist literature, generally to denote someone who does not believe in the authority of the Vedas. It contrasts with “Astika,” which refers to those who accept the Vedas as authoritative. Here’s a brief summary of its usage and interpretation:
### Earliest Appearance
– **Upanishads and Buddhist Texts**: The term “Nastika” is used in early Upanishads and Buddhist texts to describe those who reject Vedic authority. In the *Brihadaranyaka Upanishad*, it refers to those who do not believe in the afterlife.
### Uniformity of Meaning
– The meaning of “Nastika” has not been entirely uniform across later texts, though the core idea of rejecting Vedic authority remains consistent. Over time, it has been used more broadly to refer to non-believers or heretics in general.
### Interpretation by Various Acharyas and Commentators
– **Adi Shankaracharya**: In his commentaries, Shankaracharya uses “Nastika” to refer to those who deny the authority of the Vedas and do not accept the existence of the soul and God as described in the Vedas.
– **Madhvacharya**: He interprets “Nastika” similarly but places more emphasis on the rejection of dualism and the supreme personal god Vishnu.
– **Jain and Buddhist Texts**: These traditions themselves have been labeled “Nastika” by orthodox Hindu traditions due to their rejection of Vedic authority, though they have their own scriptures and belief systems.
– **Medieval and Modern Interpretations**: In later periods, the term “Nastika” has been used more loosely to denote atheism or agnosticism, particularly in the context of Western philosophical influence.
### Summary
The term “Nastika” has evolved from its early use to denote Vedic non-believers to a broader concept encompassing various forms of disbelief or heterodox thought. Different scholars and traditions have adapted its meaning to fit their doctrinal contexts, but the central theme of rejecting Vedic authority remains a common thread.
Then I asked Open AI this question: Though the English word ‘Atheism’ is used for ‘Nastik’ for Indian term, according to my understanding that could not be the correct translation of this Indian term. Can you further throw some light on this point. Thanks–DB
AI’s response:
You are correct that translating the term “Nastik” as “atheism” is not entirely accurate, as the concepts behind these terms are rooted in different cultural and philosophical traditions. Here’s a more nuanced explanation:
### “Nastik” vs. “Atheism”
#### “Nastik”
– **Definition**: In the Indian context, “Nastik” broadly refers to those who reject the authority of the Vedas, the traditional Hindu scriptures. This term encompasses a wide range of beliefs and philosophies that do not conform to orthodox Vedic tradition.
– **Examples**: Jainism and Buddhism are considered Nastika schools because they do not accept the Vedas as authoritative, despite having their own spiritual doctrines and practices.
– **Philosophical Scope**: “Nastik” can include various forms of skepticism about religious doctrines, metaphysical views, and spiritual practices that are part of the Vedic tradition. It doesn’t necessarily imply a disbelief in God or gods but rather a rejection of specific religious texts and the authority they are given.
#### “Atheism”
– **Definition**: Atheism typically refers to the absence of belief in the existence of deities. It is primarily a stance on the existence of gods.
– **Scope**: Atheism is more narrowly focused on the belief in gods and does not necessarily address other aspects of religious belief or practice. An atheist does not believe in any gods, but this position does not inherently reject religious or spiritual texts or practices unless they are based on belief in deities.
– **Cultural Context**: Atheism, as understood in Western contexts, is often associated with secularism, scientific skepticism, and sometimes anti-religious sentiment.
### Key Differences
– **Religious Authority**: “Nastik” involves a rejection of the Vedas’ authority, whereas atheism specifically involves disbelief in deities.
– **Philosophical Range**: “Nastik” can include spiritual or philosophical systems that have their own concepts of spirituality, karma, and liberation (e.g., Buddhism and Jainism), whereas atheism is focused on the disbelief in gods without necessarily proposing alternative spiritual frameworks.
– **Cultural Context**: The term “Nastik” is deeply rooted in the Indian philosophical and religious milieu, reflecting specific historical and doctrinal debates within Hinduism and related traditions. Atheism, however, has developed within a different historical and cultural context, primarily in relation to Western monotheistic religions.
### Conclusion
While “atheism” is often used as a convenient translation for “Nastik,” the latter term encompasses a broader and more complex range of beliefs related to the rejection of Vedic authority rather than merely the disbelief in gods. Understanding these nuances is important for appreciating the rich diversity of philosophical perspectives within Indian traditions.
Edited by AI in mobile:
*Section Two:*
### Introduction
There is a Tamil proverb: “If the beginning is twisted, the end will be twisted.” I think this also applies when it comes to God. The following points are written from a layperson’s perspective, in a non-academic manner, completely lacking even an iota of Sanskrit knowledge.
### Monotheism and Atheism
When it comes to God, we can categorize it into two extremes: Monotheism and Atheism. Though chronologically this may not be accurate, for the sake of argument, I will present these two extreme views about God. I have already shared my views on this so-called ‘Monotheism’ in several other places. [See for example, Unknown God: ‘Primitive Pantheism’](https://dayanandbharati.in/unknown-god-primitive-pantheism/). As noted above, the word ‘Atheism’ does not strictly mean disbelief in the existence or need for a God. I believe the word ‘Theo’ [derived from Greek], which stands for God in English, was later applied as a common term for deities. The term ‘Atheism’, divided as A + Theism, now has a new meaning associated with the denial of the existence or need for God due to the word ‘Theo-ism’. However, as noted above, Nastik is not Atheism in the original sense. If this is accepted, then the word ‘Theo’ cannot be applied to Brahman, which is a major point of discussion in Indian philosophies, not even to God.
Though in every Sect (Sampradaya) the respective deity is equated with Brahman, Brahman is still not God or Ishwar or Bhagavan. Even if these terms are commonly used, the word ‘atheism’ strictly has nothing to do with the denial of God.
### Rig Veda and the Concept of Brahman
I am taking only one well-known example, even by scholars interpreting the Rig Veda: “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” (Rig Veda 1.164.46).1 As I have pointed out, this has nothing to do with ‘Monotheism’. [See more on this](https://dayanandbharati.in/judaism-and-hinduism/) (specifically note 8). It is not discussing the existence of one god but what this ‘BRAHMAN’ is. The interesting word here is ‘Sad’, which, like many Sanskrit words, is also translated as ‘Truth’. For example, in the convocation address by the Guru at the end of completing his Gurukulavasam (staying at the Guru’s home to do Vedic study), the Brahmachari was given this mahamantra: “Satyam Vada; Dharmam Chara” (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11.1) = Tell the Truth and walk on the path of Dharma.2 Though strictly speaking, here the word ‘Satyam’ could refer to Truth, that is not the case uniformly for the Sanskrit word ‘Sad’.
Even in Rig Veda 1.164.46, “Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” means “Truth is One, the wise speak of it in many ways.” The word ‘Sad’ stands for ‘existence’, as we notice in the famous shloka in the Bhagavad Gita: “Anadimat Param Brahma Nasato Vidyate Bhava” (Bhagavad Gita 2.16) = “The Supreme Brahman is without beginning; it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.”3 Brahman alone is existing, which some call ‘existing or non-existing’.
Another popular term that comes to mind is ‘Satchidananda = Sat + Chit + Anand’. Here ‘Sat’ stands for ‘Existence’ and not as ‘Truth’.
### The Role of Brahman in Indian Philosophy
No technical terms coined by known and unknown persons throughout history, from Monotheism to Atheism, can be strictly applicable when it comes to Indian Brahman. Several scholars have provided etymological and various other interpretations and explanations of the word Brahman. If we consider them all, it would result in another article or even a separate book. Let me reiterate, I am focusing on only one word, ‘Atheism’, to highlight my point. In the Appendix, I provide a few scholarly points to authenticate my view. I need not explain every other term related to Brahman or God. Because, ‘ost of these Indian traditions are not ‘theistic’ (poly, heno, mono, or whatever) in the way that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are.4
### Personal Reflection on Brahman and Theism
For me, as a layperson, the question is: If any of the ‘theism’ words, from ‘Mono’ to ‘A-theism’, cannot be applied to this Brahman, then what is His, Her, or Its role or relationship to Atman?
Considering all the contexts of the word ‘Brahman’, though the word ‘God’ is superimposed on it, the only way for me to understand it is in its relationship with the other two important criteria (according to me) in [Indian] philosophy/theology: ‘Atman and Jagat’. As the famous later Sanskrit shloka says, “Brahma Satyam; Jagan Mithya; Jivo Brahmaiva Na Para” (Adi Shankaracharya)5 = “Brahman alone exists, the world is transitory, and the atman is none other than the very Existence, viz., Brahman.” Note that it is not that Brahman is Atman, but Atman is Brahman. To interpret this in a simplified way: the very EXISTENCE (Brahman) becomes NON-EXISTENCE if He [or She or It] is not related to Atman. If Atman is not there, then there is no EXISTENCE either for BRAHMAN or the WORLD. To say it another way, the very ‘Existence’ of Brahman is for Atman to realize that it is Brahman or a minute part of Brahman—either created or co-eternal with Brahman.
To communicate my thought, I have to use extra words and make several repetitions. To understand my view, I have to ask a few questions: Why was Atman created [if it is created or comes back to this world due to its karma, still remaining a minute part of God or the very essence of Brahman]? According to the Satapatha Brahmana, Prajapati feared to remain alone, so He created.6 Nowhere in the Veda is it specifically stated that Atman was also created with the same purpose to give company to Prajapati. However, the world was created not only to give company to Prajapati but also to facilitate Atman in working out its own mukti.7 However, with the help of AI, I found only one direct reference that says this creation took place for Atman to work out its salvation. According to Klinger, Creation ‘marks the beginning of God’s history of salvation with the world’ [in Muktiveda].8 And according to some other schools, this took place as the lila of God. But what is this divine play for? Though I cannot find an explicit reference that this divine play happened for Atman to get an opportunity to work out its salvation, according to OpenAI, ‘Sri Aurobindo’s interpretations of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita provide insights into the concept of Lila. He explains that the world is a manifestation of the divine play, wherein souls engage in various experiences and evolve towards self-realization and liberation.’9 Even if it is a divine play (lila), Brahman needs an Atman and a stage to enact its lila. So Atman is the center of the Universe, and without it, there is no need for Brahman to act in the first place.
### Conclusion
To put it bluntly: only when an Atman exists in this transitory world do both Brahman and Jagat exist in their relationship with it. Otherwise, though both Brahman and Creation have always existed in one form or another, their existence becomes meaningful only in their relationship with Atman. This being the case with Brahman and Creation, what can be said about God, on whom various masks were created by each and every individual Atman to put on and introduce in life as ‘This is the Sad, and the rest of them are asad,’ i.e., my particular chosen deity alone exists (for me), and the rest of them are not untrue but have no other existence other than my chosen deity. This is the stand taken by almost the entire Indian theistic tradition, i.e., not denying the existence of other deities but placing all of them in a hierarchy, with one’s own chosen deity as the Supreme Brahman. [See also Guru and God: https://dayanandbharati.in/guru-and-god/]
So when I contemplate God, I have to say: Oh my God, how many more masks are there for everyone to put on, from ‘Monotheism to Atheism’? If all other non-Indians could coin various Theisms, then why not have one from India as ‘Guru-Theism,’ as I have pointed out in another article ‘Guru and God,’ where Guru is treated as God. Now this term ‘Guru-Theism’ should be included in the list of various theisms.
**References:**
1. **Rig Veda 1.164.46:**
– Sanskrit: एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति
– Translation: “Truth is One, the wise speak of it in many ways.”
2. **Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11.1:**
– Sanskrit: सत्यम् वद; धर्मम् चर
– Translation: “Tell the Truth; walk on the path of Dharma.”
3. **Bhagavad Gita 2.16:**
– Sanskrit: अनादिमत् परम् ब्रह्म नासतो विद्यते भवः
– Translation: “The Supreme Brahman is without beginning; it is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.”
4. S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India studies, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012, p. 143
5. **Adi Shankaracharya:**
– Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सत्यं; जगन्मिथ्या; जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः
– Translation: “Brahman alone exists, the world is transitory, and the atman is none other than the very Existence, viz., Brahman.”
6. “He was alone and did not enjoy it. He desired a companion. In seeking a companion, he split himself into two: prana (the breath of life) and apana (the breath of exhalation), thus becoming two.”
11.1.6.1-2. According to the text, Prajapati, or the Lord of Creatures, created the universe out of a sense of loneliness. Specifically, the passage states that Prajapati, desiring not to be alone, proceeded with the creation of the world.
In the “Satapatha Brahmana,” it is mentioned: “He was afraid; therefore, one who is alone is afraid. He thought to himself: ‘Let me have a companion.’ He divided this very self in two; and thence arose husband and wife” [[❞]](https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe41/sbe4129.htm) [[❞]](https://sacred-texts.com/hin/yv/yv07.htm).–Accessed AI, on 6-7-2024
7**Brahma Sutras**: The Brahma Sutras, which systematize the teachings of the Upanishads, also address the purpose of life and creation. In **Brahma Sutra (1.1.12)**, it is indicated that:
8 It turns nature into a fact of historical conduct. Creation is the first salvational fact. It marks the beginning of God’s history of salvation with the world.— Historical Thinking and Creation. Elmar Klinger. Pp. 207-[220]252, in, Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, p. 212,
DB, Gurukulam
20-7-2024
Appendix: Atheism
In the Kathopanisad (I.20) Naciketas says that people existed who thought that there was no survival of the soul after death and Yama declares that he who does not believe in the world hereafter again and again comes within his grasp (2.6). the word `Nastika’ is derived by Panini in `astinastidishtam mati’: IV.4.60 (the meaning being nasti paraloka iti matiryasya).@ — P.V. Kane. History of Dharmasastra. Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.VII. Reviling the Veda. Fn. 875. pp. 358-59
@”नास्ति परलोक इति मतिः यस्य”** translates to **”He whose belief is that there is no afterlife”—AI, accessed on 22-7-2024
But it is wrong to say that the Indian philosophical standpoint was one of ‘committed atheism’. As a general statement that is profoundly misleading. It will require to be qualified in several important ways. The Indian philosophical position was not ‘atheistic’ in the Western sense of that word. In order to be that, it would have to be concerned with God as the explanation of the creation of the world. Indian philosophy for the most part was really not concerned with that problem. Its non-creationist view of the world was derived, not from opposing and rejecting the views of some theology based on revelation, but from a systematic concern with the problem of cause and effect. The non-theistic character of Indian philosophy was already entailed in the various theories of causation, the precise (p.267) relation between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, and the question whether there was even such a thing as ‘cause’, being the most substantial part of Indian epistemology. The rest, including Indian ethics, followed mostly from the different positions taken in that regard.— Karma, Apuurva, and “Natural” Causes: Observations on the Growth and Limits of the Theory of Samsaara. Wilhelm Halbfass, in Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (1983) Reprint 1999, pp.267-8
The earliest usage of the aastika-naastika distinction seems to occur in the context of the rise of medical science in ancient India, particularly in relation to the practice of scholastic disputation. In the Caraka Samhitaa (second century CE–the major source for the theory and practice of Ayurveda medicine—naastika denotes one who refutes a position within the context of a scholastic debate (vaada) rather than an expositor of heterodox philosophies . Indeed, according to Dasgupta*, the origins of Indian traditions of debate are to be found not in philosophical works or doctrinal disputations but in the more pragmatic and empirical context of Indian medical science— Richard King, Indian Philosophy, An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, ANE Book, New Delhi, 1999.p.43
* [Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 1-5, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Originally published in 1922, first Indian edition 1975,1988, Vol II: 401-2]
…astika and nastika … These Sanskrit terms have been translated variously, and the arbitrariness of these translations is an indication of how unsophisticated Indologists have been on heresiological matters in general. The pair of terms does not mean “theist” and “atheist,” although some have translated them this way, perhaps under the influence of the modern Hindi words astik and nastik… The most common translations of astika and nastika are “orthodox” and “heterodox.” Although this is an improvement, use of these two terms transposes Indian discourses of the Other into a Christian heresiological context that inevitably obscures as much as it elucidates. Because of the different heresiological presuppositions in Indian doxography and in Christian heresiography, it is best to avoid as much as possible such terms drawn from Christian traditions.— — Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 166
What kind of ‘atheism’ am I talking about? Not the Western atheism: that makes no sense to the many Indian traditions because of two things: (a) as the above story suggests, the road to ‘enlightenment’ does not go through Jerusalem. That is, Prajapathi does not tell Indra that he should ‘believe in God’ in order to be enlightened; (b) consequently, most of these Indian traditions are not ‘theistic (poly-heno-or mono- or whatever) the way Judaism, Christianity and Islam are. Consequently, Western forms of ‘atheism’ do not have the Western kind of theistic doctrine to oppose, when they came to India.— S.N. Balagangadhara, Reconceptualizing India studies, New Delhi, Oxford, 2012, p. 143
Leave a Reply