J. Sai Deepak’s Senseless Diatribe Against the Much-Maligned
Charvaka
Shrikant G. Talageri
Recently, I wrote an article on Anand Ranganathan (being interviewed about “Dhurandhar”) in which I stated that the three greatest Hindu intellectuals today are Anand Ranganathan, J. Sai Deepak and Vikram Sampath. I still stand by it, but someone just directed my attention to the video of a recent talk by J. Sai Deepak which was so incredibly fatuous and naïve that I was literally struck dumb. I still cannot believe that J. Sai Deepak said all these things. And I would really be very much interested in knowing whether Anand Ranganathan would agree with him in respect of what he says in this video (particularly about atheists, or those who do not believe in an “after life”, being “woke”):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfkVM9Df3c
I wonder whether J. Sai Deepak really understands the meaning of words that he has used in the video, like Charvaka, atheism, Sanatana Dharma, wokism, etc. Almost everything he said in this video was so bizarre that I really began to wonder whether it was an AI-generated video, although common sense told me it was not.
In this video, J. Sai Deepak, after pointing out (correctly) that European culture is being completely destroyed by wokists, goes on to claim that Charvaka was the “woke-pati” of India responsible for the decline and fall of Hinduism/Indian-Culture.
Before going into the matter, let us first understand whatever little is known about Charvaka (though I took the information from Google AI overview for instant results, any other source will yield the same information, since that is basically all the information that is available):
Question Put to Google: “Aphorisms of Charvaka”.
Google AI Overview Reply:
“The
Charvaka school (or Lokāyata) is an ancient Indian materialistic and hedonistic
philosophy that rejected the Vedas, afterlife, and supernaturalism, asserting
that direct perception is the only source of knowledge. It posited that
consciousness arises from matter and that human life should focus solely on
maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain.
Key
Aphorisms and Doctrines
·
"Live well, as long
as you live. Live well even by borrowings, for, once cremated, there is no
return." — Often quoted as the core hedonistic mantra, rejecting the
concept of rebirth.
·
"While life remains,
let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt."
·
"There is no heaven,
no final liberation, nor any soul in another world."
·
"Earth, water, fire,
and air are the principles, nothing else." — Denying the existence of
an immaterial soul.
·
"Perception indeed
is the (only) means of right knowledge." — Skepticism towards
inference and scripture.
·
"The fire is hot,
water cold... By whom came this variety? They are self-existent." —
The world exists naturally, not by a divine creator.
·
"The only liberation
is death." — (Maranameva mokshaha).
Key
Principles
·
Body is
Life: Consciousness is an emergent property of the body, just as
intoxication is produced by mixing ingredients (such as wine).
·
Anti-Ritualism: They
argued that Vedic rituals (like sacrifice) were invented by cunning priests for
their own livelihood, and offer no actual results.
·
Rejection of the
Soul: When the body is burned, it is cut off, annihilated; nothing
survives death.
Note: Much of Charvaka philosophy is reconstructed from the works of opponents, as their original texts (like the Barhaspatya Sutras) were lost.”
The above is a practically complete list of Charvaka’s doctrines; all, moreover, known, as correctly pointed out above, only through the works of opponents or followers of rival doctrines. In describing the evils of Islamic Imperialism and its (Islam’s) record in the destruction of temples, Sita Ram Goel has pointed out that the value of the evidence is all the more powerful because it comes from Islamic sources themselves, rather than from sources inimical to Islam. Likewise, that the condemnation of defeated peoples by the victors who defeated and destroyed them (including the strong indictments of Pagan religions and Native American religions by Christian Evangelist sources) is always to be taken with a heavy and cynical pinch of salt is a very basic doctrine in evaluating evidence for the purpose of passing judgment. Here, the criticisms of Sai Deepak are based exclusively on the quotes of critics and opponents.
But that – i.e. alleging that the descriptions of Charvaka’s philosophy as described by its critics and opponents are necessarily biased and false (much of it is in fact reasonably correct) − is not my main criticism of J. Sai Deepak’s condemnation of Charvaka, although that is also a factor to be taken into consideration in evaluating condemnation of anyone by anyone. My main criticism is that what J. Sai Deepak condemns about Charvaka (and his allegation that Charvaka represents the “Wokism” that was responsible for the decline and fall, and for the destruction, of India/Hinduism/Indian-Culture) seems to have no connection with the doctrines of Charvaka as known to anyone (see the full known doctrines given above), and Sai Deepak seems to have invented a new strawman-“Charvaka” having no connection whatsoever with the real Charvaka.
Firstly, what is wrong about “Wokism” is not that woke people do not unquestioningly accept as facts orthodox concepts of the afterlife and orthodox doctrines of God, karma, punarjanma, scriptural authority, etc. By that criterion people like Savarkar, Anand Ranganathan, and myself, besides literally countless others fighting for the Hindu Cause, would also be liable to be branded as at least as “woke” as Charvaka, and can equally be held (by Sai Deepak’s criterion) to be as much villains as, and in the same category as, the actual woke forces out to destroy Hinduism and Indian Culture.
It will be seen above that Charvaka’s doctrines (whether one likes them or not) merely delineate a particular philosophy of life, and a valid one at that, with no social activism of any kind involved anywhere. It is not for nothing that Charvaka’s doctrines are included in the Sarva-Darshana-Sangraha along with all the other philosophies of life prevalent in India in ancient times. Or that Charvaka is also classified as a muni (seer).
What is wrong with “Wokism” is not its philosophy in matters of the afterlife or in matters of ethics/morals, but its intrinsically destructive social activism, a central point of Woke ideology, which seeks to destroy the fundamental socio-cultural units and concepts of society, and seeks to actively block, stonewall and destroy people whose views are not palatable to them.
Not only is there no indication of any kind anywhere, directly or indirectly, that followers of Charvaka’s philosophy indulged in any kind of social activism directed against those not believing in their doctrines − trying to block, stonewall, destroy, isolate, boycott, expel, etc. anyone − but in fact there is direct evidence in many places that it is believers in the orthodox doctrines of God, karma, punarjanma, scriptural authority, etc. who believed in doing all these things to the real or believed-to-be followers of Charvaka’s philosophy.
In the Valmiki Ramayana, for example, in Ayodhya Kanda 109, we have the following words put in the mouth of Rama: “Those who preach the heretical doctrine of the Charvaka school, are not only infidels, but have deviated from the path of truth. It is the duty of a monarch to deal with such persons as with felons, nor should men of understanding and learning stand in the presence of such atheists”. An additional quote, considered to be an interpolation (obviously since the Buddha does not precede Rama in time and cannot have been known in the actual time of Rama), also says: “It is a well-known fact that a follower of Buddha deserves to be punished precisely in the same way as a thief, and know an unbeliever to be on par with a Bauddha, and these should be punished in the interest of the people, and a wise man should shun them”. Regardless of which quotes are “original” and which “interpolated”, it must be noted that the “woke” attitude of targeting and persecuting people with different views is not derived from Charvaka but from the doctrines of practically any religion. In that sense, Wokism is practically a religion in itself!
Clearly, classifying Charvaka as “woke” is the height of incongruity.
Secondly, even if one assumes (totally against the data and evidence) that the doctrines of Charvaka were capable of “woke”-like interpretation, leading to the destruction of society and culture, what was the actual reach of these doctrines?
Right from the time of the eponymous Charvaka (whatever his date) till the present day, it is doubtful whether at any point of time even .01 per cent of the population of India were ever aware even of his name, and much less of his doctrines; and not even a minuscule number even among these people may ever have been “influenced” by his views. And certainly there is not even a grain of possibility in the idea that his views influenced India to such an extent that it could have led to the destruction of Indian culture (as alleged by Sai Deepak). Nor is there the slightest evidence to show that the doctrines of Charvaka led to the foundation of a sect which propagated his views. In fact, if not for its description in the Sarva Darshana Sangraha, and mentions in the form of stray references in other ancient texts, the philosophical viewpoint of Charvaka would not even have been known to ever have existed.
The allegation that Charvaka was the cause of the destruction of Indian culture therefore has an eerie aura of unreality.
Thirdly, what exactly is there in the doctrines of Charvaka that is so dangerous to society or culture? Read all the doctrines as detailed above. Nowhere is there the slightest incitement to physical, mental or social violence; there is no advocacy of robbing, killing or even hating anyone; and nor is there any incitement against family values or society. In fact, he does not even advocate drinking or gambling or any other standard vice. In fact he is not even unorthodox enough to specifically advocate meat-eating.
Yes, certain of the doctrines seem to show a rather cavalier and irresponsible attitude towards certain basic principles of a decently sensible way of living: e.g. “Live well, as long as you live. Live well even by borrowings, for, once cremated, there is no return”, or “let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt”. But then this kind of attitude prevails, and has prevailed, among sizable sections of human society in every time and clime. It can be nobody’s claim that people read this doctrine of Charvaka’s and then, under its influence, decided to live a life of debt and profligate spending. So Charvaka cannot be held responsible even for this trend among any Hindus.
On the other hand, the basic principle of Charvaka’s teaching, “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain” is probably more fundamental for the betterment of any society than the basic principle of any religion. This statement is not elaborated by adding “even if, in the process you reduce the pleasure of other people and cause pain to others”. It is simply a standalone statement, proclaiming a fundamental truth, and after all it is not wrong in itself from any point of view (except a sadistic-masochistic one) for a human being to want to “focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain” and in fact the principle can be logically expanded as follows: “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain for one’s own self as well as for others and for humankind in general”. Can there be a better principle for improving the world and making it a better place for everyone? Any religion, on the other hand, has its own system of classifying human acts (or even ideas, ways of life, or particular views of “God” or “afterlife”, or particular forms of worship) as “good” or “bad” − and no two religions coincide in their views on these matters − and then every religion goes further by proclaiming “consequences” (ranging from a permanent “hell” full of tortures, to “reincarnation” into lives full of tortures) for those who fail to follow these rules in their behavior.
In comparison, the principle (as elaborated above) “human life should focus solely on maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain for one’s own self as well as for others and for humankind in general” is faultless.
But in the video, Sai Deepak expresses his criticism for Charvaka (or rather for the strawman-Charvaka of his own creation) in many more ways, not one of which makes any sense.
For example he tells us (using the usual criticism against atheism) that Carvaka and (one assumes) his “followers” were responsible for the decline and fall of India and the destruction of Indian culture because “they had no faith in the concept of karma. They had no faith in the consequences of an action. If consequences of an action don’t matter, then what is good and what is bad? What is justice and what is injustice? Everything is same. So they believe even today that there is no life after life. And therefore there is no concept of a soul. What you see is everything. The two consequences are: it first kills the central unit, the family structure. It normalizes all kinds of behavior and says everything is correct. That means garbage and gold are both the same. That means the power of vivek is completely eliminated, since what is the need for vivek if everything is the same. Once the family unit is destroyed, how will society survive? And after that, what do you fight for?”
Please see, above, the aphorisms of Charvaka as recorded (by third parties): where do you see a single word attacking the family unit, or saying there is no such thing as “good” and “bad” (Charvaka simply refrains, unlike the teachings of simply any religion, from imposing his views in the matter of what is “good” and what is “bad”) or that there is no such thing as “justice” and “injustice”, or that “all kinds of behavior” (except for advocating enjoying life even by falling into debt) are “correct”, or that one’s vivekabuddhi should be eliminated?
Charvaka only and simply rejects the philosophical idea of an afterlife, he does not advocate that this should stunt or distort our ideas of good and bad or justice and injustice in living this one life.
The idea, suggested by Sai Deepak, that not believing in an afterlife automatically frees a person from any responsible idea of good and bad, or justice and injustice, and leads that person into a life of sin or of uncivic or unethical behavior, is an idea found among the most naïve and unintellectual proponents of religion, and does not behove a really erudite and highly intelligent person like Sai Deepak. For starters, Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” deals absolutely thoroughly with this ridiculous idea. The utter untenability of the idea, that religious people are necessarily more moral, ethical, good and just than people who don’t believe in religious ideas, should be so clear to anyone, even to a child, that I cannot find any justification for a person of Sai Deepak’s intellectual caliber resorting to this cliché-ridden view.
[At this point, let me make clear that if my defense of atheism leads anyone to believe I am an atheist, he will be wrong. In fact, the words theist and atheist are themselves fundamentally wrong: the correct words should be astik, nāstik, and ajñāstik. By this, I don’t mean we should use the Sanskrit words rather than the English ones: actual English, or any other language, words directly equivalent in meaning to the Sanskrit words would be equally correct. I will deal with this division in the appendix].
As to Charvaka’s doctrines “killing” or “destroying” the family unit: there is no indication at all as to the attitude advocated by Charvaka towards family and family life. He neither advocates celibacy nor sexual profligacy, and nor does he advocate misogyny either. He is silent on all these matters, and his doctrines (even if they be considered likely to influence society) are therefore less liable to destroy the family unit or family life than the religious doctrines of almost every religion known to us. Every religion, in some manner or the other, and to some extent or the other, directly allows, and sometimes even enforces, social systems and rules which oppress certain sections within the family (usually the female members in the family). A person could even argue that all the monastic sects of the world (Buddhism, Jainism, Catholicism, numerous Hindu Brahmachari sects and orders, etc., not only in the matter of not marrying, but often also in the matter of leading to the breaking of all ties with the family of birth) “destroy” the sanctity of the family and family life. Almost every religion advocates (to different extents) the breaking or loosening or discarding of ties with, or even hostility towards, family members not following certain religious rules or customs.
So how is Charvaka responsible for “killing” or “destroying” the family unit in the first place, and then for doing this to such an extent that Indian culture itself got destroyed as a result?
Going on further, Sai Deepak tells us: “Don’t treat every Khajuraho painting as an achievement of your civilization. It could have been created during the patansheelata (downfall phase) of your civilization because of woke people of that period”! Now, one can either appreciate all aspects of Indian culture, or one can express reservations about certain aspects which go against one’s ideas of orthodoxy or propriety or decency. But is it logical to just decide that people who held/hold views or attitudes of certain kinds, which you do not share or agree with, were “woke” people? This seems to be an untenable free-for-all use of the word “woke” as a label for anything one does not like. In fact, even as he admits, again, that “we don’t know what they were at that time”, he repeats the charge that “they could have been the woke people of that period”!
After labeling everything, from “destroying the family unit” to (as I see the meaning of his words) “creating vulgarly erotic art” to “woke” people of ancient India inspired by Charvaka, Sai Deepak concludes: “So, Charavakaism is bad, in whichever form, and it is now on the rise in Bharat once more, when we should be looking at the rise of Sanatana Dharma”!
He then adds: “Nowadays it is even being said that Charvaka was a Hindu. Yes, he may have been a Hindu but he cannot have been a Sanatani”, and goes on to declare that people who say they are atheist Hindus, “whatever this vichitra creature is”, are free to “please go ahead and believe that but just spare Sanatana Dharma of your nonsense. We have suffered enough already. We don’t need this New Age nonsense to infect us once more. It is self-created by us. India did not suffer as much from Islamic invasions as it did from Charvaka nonsense from within. You have a response to an outer enemy since he is clearly from the outside, so you can see who is an insider and who is an outsider, But if an insider infects this “Trojan (horse)” from inside ,….”.
He goes on to diversify into new fields by explaining that it is western strategy to “remove religion, spirituality and consciousness and family structures and society structures from the community altogether and make them dependent on corporations and governments. Because corporations want a wider consumer base and governments want a wider voter base….” and concludes by asking Hindus to become free of the influence of corporations and governments. I personally would have agreed with all of this part, if it had not been presented as a continuation of all the preceding stuff.
Let us see again all the implications of this talk by J. Sai Deepak:
1. He firstly picks Charvaka as the fall guy to be blamed for all the ills of Indian history and society, and attributes all kinds of things to him which are completely missing in all the known records of the doctrines and aphorisms of Charvaka. And it is difficult to even start to guess where he gets all his data from: is he in possession of some secret documents of Charvaka’s teachings totally unknown to the whole rest of the world – perhaps some kind of “Protocols of the Elders of Charvakaism”?
2. He then gives totally new meanings to the word “woke”, attributing all the ills of Indian society to Charvaka, whom he calls the “woke-pati” of India responsible for the decline and fall of Hinduism/Indian-Culture, even when Charvakaism and Wokism are as different from each other as chalk and cheese.
Then he proceeds to classify whole segments of people such as the artisans who carved the erotic sculptures of Khajuraho, as “woke”, and directly attributes all these woke activities to the influence of Charvakaism.
Incidentally, by his definition of “woke” as people who do not believe absolutely in the idea of “life after life” (i.e. karma, punarjanma, etc.), he indicts large sections of those fighting for Hinduism as “wokes” and “Charvakaists”, and specifically states that “India did not suffer as much from Islamic invasions as it did from Charvaka nonsense from within”. In short, though he does not specifically name them, people like Savarkar and Anand Ranganathan (and, incidentally myself, apart, of course, from the sculptors of Khajuraho) are more dangerous than Islamic activists, and are in fact “Trojan horses”.
3. Throughout the talk, he keeps drawing a distinction between a Hindu and a Sanatani (to use his own words, “whatever this vichitra creature is”), and tells us that Charvaka “may have been a Hindu but he cannot have been a Sanatani”, as if being a Hindu is irrelevant but being a Sanatani is important. He asks people who call themselves atheist Hindus to “just spare Sanatana Dharma of your nonsense. We have suffered enough already. We don’t need this New Age nonsense to infect us once more. It is self-created by us”.
The word Hindu has been used, directly or indirectly, right from the period of the Greek and Persian invasions BCE. It is now many centuries since it has been accepted by all Hindus as the most appropriate word to describe members of our Indic civilization (Indic ultimately having the same root in the Rigveda as Hindu). and atheist Hindus have been part of this definition since time immemorial.
On the other hand, Sanatana Dharma and Sanatani are words which have been used only since the last century or two to describe ourselves, and I have already written an article on this subject, where I wrote “All these words (Sanātanī, Ārya, etc) produced out of an inexplicable allergy for the word "Hindu" and as substitutes for it, were nothing but ill-thought-out pseudo-nationalistic reactions to colonial rule and scholarship, and do not in any way reflect our own self-description in the same way as the word Hindu”:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/04/hindu-dharma-or-sanatana-dharma.html
So anyone can judge which are the words and concepts which represent “New Age nonsense …. self-created by us”.
4. Unfortunately, the whole point of the talk seems to be to carry out a Grand Inquisition to decide who are “Sanatanis” (since the word Hindu does not matter): people who do not believe in a “life after life” are, according to the talk, wokes and Charvakaists, and cannot be classified as “Sanatanis”, and are more dangerous for Indian culture and society than even the Islamic invaders. and are in fact insider enemies and Trojan horses.
Many Hindu thinkers have been “infected” by this Abrahamic idea of semantically expelling sections of Hindus from the definition of “Hindu” solely on the basis of what religious concepts they believe in. Tilak had also set up similar criteria to determine who is a Hindu: his primary criterion being a belief in the supremacy of the Vedas. By his definition, not only Buddhists and Jains, but vast sections of even the writers of our ancient Hindu scriptures were outside the definition.
One of the aphorisms of Charvaka (see above) is “Anti-Ritualism: They argued that Vedic rituals (like sacrifice) were invented by cunning priests for their own livelihood, and offer no actual results”. But does this mean Charvaka or atheists are not Hindu? As I have pointed out in an earlier article, acceptance or rejection of religious concepts, and even criticism of actual scriptures (even the Vedas), was a common and perfectly legitimate practice in ancient India. If we expel all these ancient writers of Hindu texts from the definition of who is a Hindu (I genuinely do not care for the New Age word Sanatani) on the basis of Abrahamic-type criteria, we will be left with little of our heritage to call our own.
My article referred to above:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/12/apologetics-in-guise-of-hindu-response.html
APPENDIX: ASTIK, NĀSTIK, AND AJÑĀSTIK:
There is a general tendency to classify religious beliefs into two main categories: theist and atheist, and the third natural point of the triangle, agnostic.
Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion”, in a section titled “The Poverty of Agnosticism” (pages 46-53) has the following harsh words to say (or at least to quote committed theists saying) about those who claim to be agnostics, and I append quotations from it below for those interested, before continuing my points: “The robust Muscular Christian haranguing us from the pulpit of my old school chapel admitted a sneaking regard for atheists. They at least had the courage of their misguided convictions. What this preacher couldn't stand was agnostics: namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters. …... In the same vein, according to Quentin de la Bedoyere, the Catholic historian Hugh Ross Williamson 'respected the committed religious believer and also the committed atheist. He reserved his contempt for the wishy-washy boneless mediocrities who flapped around in the middle.'”
The theists were right to a certain extent: an average normal person, who has not thought deeply on the question of whether or not there is an eternal “God” who created everything and rewards and punishes people for their actions, would certainly be either a theist (firmly believing), an atheist (firmly non-believing), or to different degrees (classified by Dawkins in this section) not sure of himself but inclined to either this side or that: in short, an agnostic.
[Note:
this “God” may be Jehovah of the Bible, Allah of the
Quran, Ahura Mazda of the Avesta, or any of the supreme Hindu
Gods or Goddesses (Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, etc.) or the Gods
of any other ancient culture: Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian,
Mexican, or whatever)].
But when it comes to an intelligent thinker, this kind of ambiguous “maybe-or-may-not-be” agnostic attitude would indeed be symptomatic of diplomatic behavior, or lack of courage to put forward a definite opinion, or disinclination to think deeply on such esoteric matters.
Dawkins gives instances of cases where a thinker would be absolutely justified in being agnostic:
“Carl Sagan
was proud to be agnostic when asked whether there was life elsewhere in the
universe. When he refused to commit himself, his interlocutor pressed him for a
'gut feeling' and he immortally replied: 'But I try not to think with my gut.
Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.'
The
question of extra-terrestrial life is open. Good arguments can be mounted both
ways, and we lack the evidence to do more than shade the probabilities one way
or the other. Agnosticism, of a kind, is an appropriate stance on many
scientific questions, such as what caused the end-Permian extinction, the
greatest mass extinction in fossil history. It could have been a meteorite
strike like the one that, with greater likelihood on present evidence, caused
the later extinction of the dinosaurs. But it could have been any of various
other possible causes, or a combination. Agnosticism about the causes of both
these mass extinctions is reasonable”.
Dawkins therefore distinguishes two types of agnosticism:
“How
about the question of God? Should we be agnostic about him too? Many have said
definitely yes, often with an air of conviction that verges on protesting too
much. Are they right?
I'll
begin by distinguishing two kinds of agnosticism. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism
in Practice, is the legitimate fence-sitting where there really is a definite answer, one way or the other, but we
so far lack the evidence to reach it (or don't understand the evidence, or
haven't time to read the evidence, etc.). TAP would be a reasonable stance towards
the Permian extinction. There is a truth out there and one day we hope to know
it, though for the moment we don't.
But
there is also a deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting, which I shall call
PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle). The fact that the acronym spells a
word used by that old school preacher is (almost) accidental. The PAP style of
agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter
how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable.
The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond
the zones where evidence can reach. An example might be that philosophical
chestnut, the question whether you see red as I do. Maybe your red is my green,
or something completely different from any colour that I can imagine.
Philosophers cite this question as one that can never be answered, no matter
what new evidence might one day become available. And some scientists and other
intellectuals are convinced - too eagerly in my view - that the question of
God's existence belongs in the forever inaccessible PAP category. From this, as
we shall see, they often make the illogical deduction that the hypothesis of
God's existence, and the hypothesis of his non-existence, have exactly equal
probability of being right. The view that I shall defend is very different:
agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP
category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day
we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about
the probability.”
In short, Dawkins insists that there can be no “agnosticism’ about whether “God” exists or not: the answer either has to be “yes” or “no”, and his own answer is a definite “no”. So, incidentally, is mine. Does this mean I am an “atheist”? But then a Christian who believes in a “God” who sends to a permanent Heaven people who believe in Jesus, (and to a permanent Hell a person who doesn’t), a Muslim who believes in an “Allah” who sends to a permanent Heaven people who believe in Mohammad, (and to a permanent Hell a person who doesn’t), and a Hindu who believes in any “God” who rewards and punishes (regardless of what one believes in) on the basis of a law of karma and by way of punarjanma, are all three “theists” in respect of each his own particular beliefs but “atheists” in respect of the beliefs of the other two. So no-one could be a full “theist”. I myself, like Dawkins would be classifiable as an “atheist” in all three cases
So the basic question cannot be about “theism” in general, since it becomes a very muddled and item-specific issue. the question of the existence of “God” (with very specific characteristics) is basically in the same category as that of what Dawkins calls “Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot”:
“Many orthodox
people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received
dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot
revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to
disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too
small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go
on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable
presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be
thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot
were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and
instilled into the minds of children at school,
hesitation to
believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the
doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the
Inquisitor in an earlier time.
We would not
waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots; but,
if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is
positively no orbiting teapot.
Yet
strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that
there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism
towards a-teapotism.”
Like
“Russel’s teapot”, any “God” with a specific name, cultural
identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and beliefs to
be followed by his believers, will have his band of “theist’ followers,
but the “atheists” in the case of this “God” would not only
include all-round atheists, but also those who would be “theists”
in respect of some other “God” (with a different specific name,
cultural identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and
beliefs to be followed by his believers).
[Of
course, let me clarify that this will be so only for staunch followers of rigid
Abrahamic religions: a Christian will not believe in Allah,
Ram or Zeus, and a Muslim will not believe in the Ram,
Zeus, or the Jehovah of Christianity, but the
followers of most Pagan religions, including Hinduism, would be
inclined to regard the “Gods” of all other religions to be just other
forms of their own God, rejecting only the idea that they themselves
will be heading towards Hell for also believing in their
own “Gods”].
So, as Dawkins points out, being “agnostic” in respect of any particular “God” or of a Universal “God” (with a specific name, cultural identity, history, chain of command, and rules and regulations and beliefs to be followed by his believers) is not possible.
This is because the terms used are themselves wrong: “theist” refers to someone who believes in “God”: this may be, as mentioned above, a particular “God” or a Universal “God”, but then there are systems of belief which can function without an all-powerful “God”. Even the concept of a relentless law of karma where action begets consequences, and where no “God” can tweak the law by allowing anyone to escape the consequences of actions, will not be classifiable as “theism” because the law of karma would be higher than that “God”.
The true classification should be based on “is there anything beyond this life?” and the terms should be “astik” (one who believes there is existence beyond this life), “nāstik” (one who believes there is no existence beyond this life), and “ajñāstik” (one who frankly does not know whether or not there is any existence beyond this life, and sees no possibility of ever knowing, since, apart from stories in religious myths and superstitious beliefs, and horror-stories, no-one has ever really come back after death to testify to anything). This is true agnosticism, about which Dawkins writes: “The PAP style of agnosticism is appropriate for questions that can never be answered, no matter how much evidence we gather, because the very idea of evidence is not applicable. The question exists on a different plane, or in a different dimension, beyond the zones where evidence can reach.”
This true agnosticism (the third point in this triangle of astik, nāstik and ajñāstik) is found in Hindu texts long before any mention of karma or punarjanma, and is therefore at least as Hindu as the astik ideas of karma or punarjanma. which Sai Deepak takes as the only true form of what he calls “Sanatan Dharma”.
In my article “Are Indian Tribals Hindus?”, I had written the following:
“The fact is, Hinduism can never be in true conflict with any other religion (other than the two predator Abrahamic religions which themselves choose conflict with all other religions) since it has no particular God, Ritual or Dogma to impose on the followers of other religions. In itself, Hinduism contains the seeds of every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable with all streams of thought, and not necessarily to do with the worship of “Gods”. In Hinduism, we find all kinds of atheistic and materialistic philosophies, the most well known being the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka, who believed that there is only one life, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and that our only purpose in life should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains. The very basic texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of agnostic philosophies, from the Rigvedic NasadiyaSukta (X.129. 6-7, which says: “Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it? He whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.”) to the Upanishadic speculations which reject everything, after deep discussion, with the phrase “neti, neti”: “not this, not this”, i.e., “no, this is still not the ultimate truth”. And then of course, there is every kind of deistic, henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, and every other kind of theistic philosophy, including even (but not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus the hatred of “other” false religions and false Gods, and the concepts of permanent Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of Abrahamic monotheism)”.
This appendix, it should be emphasized, was more in order to explain the concept of true agnosticism in its true perspective rather than to deal with Sai Deepak’s talk, which concluded just before this appendix.
