No atheism in ancient bharata

[Poster 1]
[..]I am a Hindu atheist, a follower of Charvaka. Charvaka, also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient school of Indian materialism. It is considered as one example of the atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism.

[Poster 2]
I don't personally like chavakas they are pure mock-whom-you-don't-like people..
Moreover theres a flaw in it

It’s pretty clear there was no school called carvaka - the term was just used to denote egoists in general without denoting any associated “philosophy”. It certainly was not atheism which is an Enlightenment extension of monotheism wherein God itself is devoured by monotheist-like iconoclasts. Ancient Hindus were not belief-centric; therefore, there was neither monotheism nor atheism in ancient bharata. Technically the term carvakas refers to sophist or “sweet talkers”.

There has been a concerted effort by missionaries/indologists and modernized deracinated indians influenced by western nihilism (usually propounded as part of the american project) to project atheism or unbelief onto ancient hindu texts using stray and incidental terms. This is a theological necessity for western religion - to find analogues to the monotheists/believers who not only had corrupted religion (hindus) but were never “contacted” or revealed to in the first place. Atheism or char-bak in ancient bharata is all modernist projection and strawman making.

The language of these modern indian “atheists” such as “rejecting rituals” betrays their dependence on monotheism.

For most ordinary current day indians identifying as “carvaka” under cultural influence, it is better stated that they are nonpracticing hindus.

That the “carvaka” denied even samsara signifies that they were just contrarians, better understood psychologically than philosophically. when they supposedly state there is only this world, they are stating the hindu reality that nothing exists outside this universe. These have all been twisted by colonial minded westernized thinkers to signify atheism - eager to find their ideological kin in ancient texts. Some of the verses used to support carvaka have been quite obviously fabricated while others are misinterpreted: eg, nirishwar refers to nirguna, the formless Deity.

Feyerabend completely exposed “rationalism” - it is just ordinary problem solving which certainly existed before modernity, as did technology. Interestingly, we also see the “rational” posited against the trope of the “irrational” native in orientalist literature - mimicking earlier monotheist invective against the heathen.

The oft cited verse in veda: “or perhaps He knows not” certainly is not skepticism - opposites are often cited in connection with Purusha: Thus Shree Krishna both acts and does not act.[a]

That nothing survives of the carvaka in text form also signifies their nonexistence as a school. Not that it was lost. We have plenty from the nastika jains and bauddhas. The fact that the “cunning brahmin priest” who erased the carvaka school gets invoked here again shows the dependence of this entire argument on protestant narrative (just like the “denying meaningless ritual”).

Nastika signifies post vedic or who follow other rites/traditions than vedic. Originally the three terms nastika (skull bearing), ajvika, and sraman all signified the ascetic saivaite orders including aghori who were distinguished from brahmins. These, again, had nothing to do with atheism.

In china, they “discovered’ communism in ancient china. Similarly, in india, missionary-allied DMK thinkers discovered atheism in ancient india! Likely this was a part of the project to falsely portray early monotheist christianity in india - a theological necessity as well as a contrivance to make indigenization of christianity less obviously problematic: see, ancient india was full of “deniers”

 

[a] not knowing in heathen ontology is an action, not a statement of belief, a manifesto, a declaration, a profession of belief, etc as seen in abrahamist ontology. 

================================================

it's important to remember that there is no such thing as school of carvaka - no writing is known of it, no school has been extant in any historical period or even before, and there is certainly no continuity with the same up to today. It was just a foil category denoting conman or fool or contrarian or sophist (car-vak literally means sweet talker) in hindu texts. Just as vatsayana did not endorse debauchery in kama sutra - he was just merely chronicling some of the ways of the world - just so, no hindu acharya has ever endorsed "carvaka". similarly buddhist texts talk of dvesha or "hatred' as an impediment to enlightenment. these are all terms referring to mundane ways of "ordinary" people which even then were likely a microminority in a Dharmik society as Bharata. 

Bharatiyas all indeed venerated the devas, even those associated with Nastik schools like Bauddha (concentrates on shunyata or dissolution of Self) and Jainism (concentrates on Ahimsa or anti- ontological violence). Nastika itself refers to post-vedic where the tirthankaras and/or boddhisattvas are given an elevated position. Similar to Sai baba etc today.

The conflation of carvaka or lokyata or worldliness with western atheism was a project of early jesuits, later taken up by their compadres and humsafars, the imperial indologist class. western atheism is a product of the Western Enlightenment that secularized christianity. atheism has a long and traceable pedigree in Europe as an extremist branch of christianity.

Mehra and his band of asinine followers are peddling wholesale secularism and they want to visit upon hindus the same colonial straightjacket as all the other seculars. We shouldn't pretend they have some connection to an ancient sect anymore than nehru or romila thapar belong to an ancient sect. They are political opportunists functioning as agent provocateurs. They are also trying to displace intellectual hindutva with dressed up secularism and mehra in particular is trying to do inculturation for western atheism.

Indeed, we can say there was no atheism known in ancient bharata. As said in this video by Pankaj Mishra the existence of the Deva-s was never in doubt to ancient (and current) Hindus.
==================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
This was a much needed setting the record straight by Shri Maldahiyar.
THERE WAS NO ATHEISM IN ANCIENT INDIA. ATHEISM ORIGINATED IN EUROPE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECULARISM and thus INNATELY HOSTILE TO HINDU VAIDIKA TRADITIONS.
"Nastikas" like Jainas and Buddhists all have Devas and these are the same as of Those the Hindus. They just give a preference to their line of teachers - Tirthankaras, Bodhisttvas, etc. Nastika means "heterodox".

"Carvaka" was a catch-all term meaning fool or buffoon, habitual contrarian, sophist, criminal/charlatan, or egoist in the ancient texts. It is like the term chewtiya used today. There is no authentic school of "carvaka" and  their supposed writings do not exist and probably never existed. In fact it was the early jesuit indologists who cleverly conjured up this "sect" in order to project disbelief onto the ancient Hindus (for obvious reason of facilitating conversion and colonial collaboration). One hundred years from now some jesuit indologist will similarly propose that the school of "chewtiya" existed in ancient Hinduism!

These indologists have screwed up our understanding so bad that today there are many who will even claim that advaita and dwaita and sankhya are atheistic[a] though these were founded and expounded by our Rishis and Munis!

[a] this appropriationist characteristic of atheism whereby the various darshanas are cross-culturally subsumed under its aegis signifies the identity of atheism with the category of monotheist religion.

============================

@vinayaktraders72
8 months ago
न मृ॒त्युरा॑सीद॒मृतं॒ न तर्हि॒ न रात्र्या॒ अह्न॑ आसीत्प्रके॒तः। आनी॑दवा॒तं स्व॒धया॒ तदेकं॒ तस्मा॑द्धा॒न्यन्न प॒रः किञ्च॒नास॑॥२॥ There was neither death nor immortality and nothing to separate night and day, That One existed enclosed in nothingness, there was only that One and no other. The dualities such as death/immortality, night/day were not there. When creation itself is not there, dualities cannot exist. Dualities are an inherent svarupa of the nature of the world. The Rushi immediately asserts “That ONE” is present. This assertion of the Rushi is his emphatic experience of the ONE. Other than “That ONE” nothing else is present. Indicating The “other” “this visible universe” has got folded back into the ONE. in our tradition we know the importance of the ONE.
mahadevan
1
@anujhe
8 months ago
correctly explain

@darkprince2490
0 seconds ago
Rather than "the one" you should state "the incomparable Brahman". "One" can be misinterpreted in the current intellectual climate.

================================

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @A[...]  Nothing survives of "charvak" because there never was anything there - charvak meant fool or buffoon in the ancient texts. "Nirishwar" is just a random term and it has nothing to do with atheism. It is like saying that the movie Nastik "promotes" atheism because the title is Nastik, when the exact opposite is true.
There is no atheism in Hinduism. It is an erroneous and abusive notion.

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
 @g[...]  He's just a subversive trying to turn Hinduism into a playground for his western atheistic ideology. The "debates" in ancient India were between enlightened gurus discussing nature of Parmatman. Atheism comes from the west and in fact atheism is an extreme branch of monotheism. We need education on these foreign ideologies, not debates with the interested and motivated parties.

@p[...]
8 months ago
There was no concept of atheism in Hindu civilization. Naastiks, followers of Charvak philosophy were outcasted and looked down upon. And Charvak is not Hinduism. It's just a philosophical commentry. A faith which entertains atheism is bound to fail at some point of time!

@darkprince2490
8 months ago (edited)
Exactly. The ancient romans actually had to create some of these new terms like "atheist" to describe the Christians. Also, Christians accused romans of being "atheists" or nonbelievers in their plagiarized Jehovah. Atheism was a category within christianity in the ancient period and was conjured up again during the Enlightenment when Christians contacted heathens in Asia and the New World. Atheism is an extreme form of monotheism.

========================

@QoSab[..]
10 months ago
Another brilliant talk by JSD  I just have 2 points that one would request for considering: I agree all aspects of Sanatana must be retaimed as is exactly and not tampered with..I would however advocate that there are certain reforms which the Dharmic clergy must congregate and agree on for the survival and betterment of Sanatana: women must be allowed with the agreement and guidance of Shastras to play a role in the propagation and practice of scriptures and temple traditions (in all the capacities as much as possible bearing in mind the sanctity of each belief system..(for example, NOT at the Sabarinala temple obviously because I too am #happytowait) and also their inclusion in the armed forces for the simple reason, that a large number of them are caregivers and hence play a more important role in what passes to the next generation..also though Carvakas are atheists, and though they cannot comment on practices and traditions in religious spaces, they need to be included and counted in the Hindu fold, simply for the sake of them being Hindu and for survival

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
Bhai, lets not conflate "carvakas" with atheists. there has never been a surviving group called carvakas in bharat, no one knows what they were or whether they really constituted a bonafide group, and none of their supposed writings survive, while the term itself seems to have been used as synonymously with buffoon or fool in ancient works. At the most, it denoted egoists, which are plainly decried across the Sastras, and likely it denoted egoists of the common folk variety (eg, yuddhisthara is described as beset by a Charvaka troublemaker who questioned his conduct in the war; the term seems to have been used a catch-all for contrarian behavior, contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism). In conttast, Atheists are a philosophical product of the Enlightenment; in intellectual history, atheists very closely bound up with secularists (the term "secular atheists")  who hound Hindus. Atheism is in fact an extreme branch of monotheism. 

Regarding the term nastika: Nastikas like Jains and Buddhists actually have Gods but they are usually depicted subordinate to Buddha or Tirthankar. Nastika seems to mean heterodox or even latter day teaching/tradition. Disillusioned persons are typicalyl described as Nastika (eg movie about Partition called Nastik), both terms do not seem to connote  a "philosophical level stand" in Bharatiya usage - just a set a behaviors.
Jesuit indoologists originally wanted to project disbelief onto ancient Bharata and they came up with this fabrication of Indian atheism. Every Darshana at one point or another has gotten lumped into atheism even Advaita and Samkhya; the latter lauded in BG. So, obviously there is a categorical level mistake in our understanding. On the whole, atheism  is an anachronistic usage for Bharata, and the goal of such usage can often be identified as subversionist. 

Yes, there are many confused and deracinated Hindus out there that really should be guided and not left in the morass of atheism. they will only deracinate further and turn real enemies. You can see this  clearly with certain self branded "charvakas" today.