I had once a talk with a college student who sat next to me on a long bus ride. She grew up in a village near Meerut, went to the local Hindi medium school and enjoyed her time in school. But when she went for higher studies, she almost gave up, as English was a big hurdle. Yet after one year struggle, she managed well.
She told me that most of her college mates, who had been to English medium schools, had become atheists. Yet she loves her Hindu faith and we had a good conversation about the depth of her tradition.
When I was studying at Hamburg University in the 1970s, atheism was fashionable, too. Peer pressure also did its part. None of my friends went to church on Sundays, including me.
Google explains the driving factors for atheism in this way:
“Studies suggest that higher levels of education, increased access to scientific information and secular philosophies via the internet, and a generational shift away from organized religion are the primary drivers of this growth.”
This sounds, as if atheism is more rational than belief in a God. Isn’t it?
The prominent Israeli historian, Yuval Noah Harari, who was hosted and praised also on an Indian TV channel, and is a regular speaker at the WEF, also said, “It’s ridiculous to believe in a God and a soul.”
He is a heavy-weight. His books sell in tens of millions. So, he should be right, isn’t it?
Let’s try to find out:
Harari didn’t explain what he means by God and soul. And the definition is of course crucial. Most people may say,” Isn’t it clear? God is the English word for the Creator of the universe, for the Highest Truth.”
Few will doubt, except some atheists, that this universe, and we included, has to come from somewhere and ‘God’ is given as the answer. He is seen as the ultimate power, from which all else emanates.
Now how to describe this great power? Here lies probably the reason why atheists don’t believe in God:
Somehow, the Abrahamic view of God has taken predominance, maybe, because the majority of humans are Christians or Muslims:
God is seen as a male, all-knowing, all-powerful superhuman entity in heaven. He has allegedly conveyed to a few special persons what he wants from us humans. He is also compassionate and loving. But he loves only those who believe in him and who follow the instructions sent down through those special envoys. Those who don’t follow his instructions will be sent to eternal hellfire.
This view is reinforced and fear of eternal hell is instilled in children, generation after generation. Even in most adults, this belief has become part of their mental make-up.
However, though Christianity, Islam and Judaism go all back to Abraham and have similar views regarding the creator, each one claims that its own God alone is the true one and needs to be worshipped.
Except for Judaism, which does not want converts due to its belief that Jews are chosen by God to rule the world, the two other Abrahamic religions see it as their duty to make the whole world believe in their particular God. That means, Christianity claims all must become Christians, and Islam claims all must become Muslims to gain entry into heaven. And they can be (and have been) ruthless in pursuing their goal.
This notion of God needs urgent scrutiny – not only by outsiders, but also by insiders in those Abrahamic faiths.
Is it possible that the Supreme is a sort of superhuman entity and heavily biased towards his followers and unforgiving towards ‘others’? It’s difficult to believe that this kind of God is the highest truth.
So, does it mean that Yuval Noah Harari and atheists are right?
Let’s look at a different view about God before deciding on this important issue.
Here, ancient India comes in:
In ancient times, long before Judaism, Christianity or Islam appeared, Vedic Dharma (today called Hinduism) had a very mature understanding of the Highest Truth which is called Brahman in the Vedas (there are other names, like Paramatman, Tat..).
Brahman is not personal, not a superhuman entity, not male or female, but the most subtle, invisible, conscious, one basis of all. The Rishis declared, “Brahman is not what the eyes can see, but That whereby the eyes can see. Brahman is not what the mind can think but That whereby the mind can think” (Kena Upanishad).
They realised that this varied universe is a mistaken perception of the one Brahman due to its innate creative Shakti or Maya. Maya makes this manifold world appear as a Lila (play) on the one Brahman. It can be compared with a movie that plays temporarily on the one screen (Brahman) or like a dream of Brahman.
The Rishis give another example how it is possible to miss the truth though it is right in front of our eyes: we go to a potter’s shop. We see all types of cups and jugs, but we miss to see the mud from which they are made. The mud is the essence of the temporary form of a cup. It remains after the cup is broken.
Similarly, Brahman, best described as pure consciousness, is the essence of our person and remains when our person has ceased to exist.
Yet do the Rishis have any evidence for their view?
Yes, they have. The Rishis vigorously and intelligently enquired into the truth which is reflected in the ancient texts, especially the Upanishads. For example, they give criteria for the absolute truth:
One: it must be at all times – past, present and future,
Two: it must not need anything else to shine or in other words, it has to be self- evident.
Those two criteria dismiss the whole universe as not absolutely true. Apart from the fact that it is not always, it also needs something to ‘shine’ – it needs consciousness.
So, what is left?
The Rishis came to the conclusion that the subtle, conscious basis of everything is left – Sat-Chit-Ananda. It is here right now as pure, thought-free awareness. It is not some separate thing at some different place, like in heaven. It is our very Being and therefore there is a chance to ‘real-ise’ (know it as real) by turning inwards to what is unchanging and true in us and develop devotion for it.
But why should we do this? Why should we try to still the mental chatter at least sometimes for a little while? Is there any benefit? Yes, there is an immense benefit:
The Rishis claim that our essence is not only the source of valuable inspiration, but is also most blissful – far more blissful than what any worldly enjoyment can give. And the Rishis spoke from experience.
This Indian knowledge is very valuable and needs to spread. And even atheists may come to the conclusion that the Indian Rishis have a point.
Yet instead, Western media and even academia often demean the Hindu tradition as primitive and even demonic. Why? Do they not want humans to know that ‘God’ is within them??
By Maria Wirth
if you like my writing, consider getting my books
“Why Hindu Dharma is under attack…” both in English and Hindi
“Thank you India” in English,
also in Kindle and abroad available.
Link: https://www.amazon.in/s?k=maria+wirth
10 Comments
“But why should we do this? Why should we try to still the mental chatter at least sometimes for a little while? Is there any benefit? The Rishis claim that our essence is not only the source of valuable inspiration, but is also most blissful – far more blissful than what any worldly enjoyment can give.”
If I lose my ‘self’ identity, who remains to experience this bliss? This has puzzled me for a long time.
Also, I thought it was the purpose of human birth – to ‘real’ise one’s self..
Very nicely written article Maria. I would have gone even one step further – and not use words like God for Brahman. Over the years word God has taken a meaning, as you also explain, it has become God as described in Abrahamic religions- Christianity or Islam.
Using word God pollutes the whole thinking or Understanding about Brahman. Specially the fact that God word is associated with Belief systems.
While Brahman is not part of any mind game – including beliefs.
Even atheism is a belief or belief system. Very few atheists realize this are prepared to accept it.
the Abrahamic Gods are basically within Maya. like Devas and Asuras, but Devas and Asuras are based on and one with Brahman, like everything else in Maya. the Abrahamics don’t know about that absolute level, it seems.
maybe it’s just Bliss experiencing itself?
Excellent article maria ji
Dear Mariaji
Thank you for sharing this well articulated lucidly logical piece .
We all Sanatanis also feel immensely proud & grateful about your understanding , conviction of and dedication to the foundation of eternal ( Sanatan ) wisdom of India
While I completely agree with your article , I have a different perspective on the cause & hence the solution to the issue of atheism.
Just as is difficult to uproot, a grown up tree , whose roots have gone deep into the soil, even in a storm; no belief with a strong foundation can be shaken easily , even under peer pressure
I believe if an investment is made in early growing up of a child by way of setting foundation of this Sanatan wisdom in its mind , with greater clarity & reinforced through the child’s growing up ( call if Sanatan Sanskar ) – it is difficult for any peer ambience or even missionary influence . Those who get affected invariably have a zero or weaker understanding of traditional wisdom – it has not taken roots in the mind.
The right place & source to do it is Child’s Home.
This used to happen in earlier times , till if/as you may know about the Indian /Asian Joint family system …it had many knowledgeable & dedicated family members across generations who would do this job .
With breaking down of Joint family system and today’s parents overwhelmingly preoccupied with amassing material assets to the exclusion of everything else — Sanatan Sanskars has become a cruel casualty ( yet may not be so for a Muslim family )
This is a result of degenerated parenthood , who have disowned their obligation to ‘ bring up a child as a responsible citizen’ & that is where is the source for solution . For better fruits , we need to work at the roots of the issue
Thank you Krishna ji
I fully agree with your analysis.
Yet I can’t really blame the parents, because their tradition was since long under heavy attack and those who went through the English education system didn’t actually know any longer why one should hold on to Hindu Dharma. Yes, Dharma, doing the right thing, is still deeply ingrained. But very few could explain to their children why their tradition is superior to the Abrahamic religions. Or do i see this wrongly?
Namaste Mariaji
Today only I have found time to read your article which is as crystal clear as the rest of your writings, and so easy to understand by any literate person – unless s/he refuses to understand!
Of course I am in agreement with your arguments that should out to rest any atheist sincere enough to accept the limitation and invalidity of that concept – which itself is based on a shaky premise, namely the absence of definition of what/who is God and soul, which one would think that such a – I presume – rational writer like Noah Harari would realise is the starting point of any discussion on atheism.
My caveat is that the closest equivalent of God in our framework is Ishwara – the One who is the active ruler in Existence, and not Brahman, who is immutable and actionless, and is so to say the driver of the process carried out in practice by Ishwara. Trying to understand for myself this concept more clearly to others, especially the youth, I have come up with this analogy: imagine a family where the grandpa is still living. He is the driver of the family in the sense of being its inspiration and possessor of the wealth and knowledge of how to live. But he sits in silence and allows his children to take charge, organise and plan actions which are then executed by the grandchildren and others.
So it’s like this: Brahman= gandpa/ma; Ishwara = next level parents/uncles/ aunties aka devis and devas; grandchildren = those who carry out activities.
Please check out on YouTube Shraddhallu Ranade’s “The Panchmahabhutas” who introduces the driver concept. In my book on Hinduism I have referred to Ishwara being the closest equivalent og the Abrahamic God, without detailing as I you have given me the opportunity to do here.
My other problem with Abrahamics is that in their frame work is incomplete, because they only speak about the creation – but what about preservation ( sustenance, maintenance) and destruction – which is the complete cycle that obtains in nature, and which we are taught in science eg carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, Krebs cycle etc etc.
I am also posting this as a comment on your blog.
Kind regards
Radha
Thank you for your comment.
You are right. Ishwar is closer to the Abrahamic God because they don’t have the absolute level.
Yet from their viewpoint, God signifies the Absolute, Highest. So in this sense, we need not lower our “Highest” if I can say so. Most of them may not understand though.
Calling it Ishwara is of course not lowering. Just a different viewpoint, or rather a broad viewpoint seen from being within Maya/mind. There is not really a viewpoint for Brahman because it is beyond mind.