Thoughts on Purush-Prakriti duality in Saamkhya-Yoga Darshana

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Here is a discussion I had with a friend regarding Saamkhya and Vedanta darshanas. Hope the readers will enjoy this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Vedantik argument - So by association with and observation of a liberated purusha (Ishwara) one is drawn towards that felicity in one's own entanglement with Prakrti. The other method is to keep working to resolve the problems of the self and life. Whatever the method, one must be able to first appreciate the concept that there is such a being as a fully liberated purusha (Ishwara) in order to take up Sankhya or yoga, even if Ishwara-praNidhAna is not the chosen method. Whatever the chosen method, the admiration of Ishwara or the earnest contemplation of that concept is there. That was what I was trying to say.

One suggestion. For time being, deracinate Ishwara (ईश्वर) and Vedanta (वेदांत) from your mind. Purva Paksha (पूर्वपक्ष).

Samkhya accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of Ishwara. The following arguments were given by the Samkhya philosophers against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, Ishwara:

If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of Ishwara as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if Ishwara enforces the consequences of actions then he cannot do so without performing karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a Ishwara.

Even if karma-Siddhanta (कर्मसिद्धांत) is denied, then Ishwara still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer Ishwara would be either born out of Ahamkaara (I-ness or Aatman or ego) or Anubandha (अनुबंध) (altruistic attachment towards world created by him). Now, Ishwara's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic Ishwara would not create a world so full of suffering. If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then Ishwara must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire. However, assuming that Ishwara has desire would contradict Ishwara's eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in karma. Moreover, desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of prakriti and cannot be thought to grow in Ishwara. The testimony of the Vedas, according to Samkhya, also confirms this notion.

Despite arguments to the contrary, if Ishwara is still assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly Ishwara would be no better or no worse than Samkhya's notion of higher self (Purusha).

Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of Ishwara. He is not the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him by inference and the testimony of the Vedas speak of prakriti as the origin of the world, not Ishwara.

Therefore, Samkhya maintains that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God.

The basic premise of Saamkhya-Yoga (सांख्ययोग) is that Purusha gets associated with Prakriti and world comes into existence. 

Lets see the terms involved..

Purusha (पुरुष) - Puram Ushati sa Purushah (पुरं उषति स पुरुषः) - One who lives/burns from within/spends time in/afflicts citadel (पूर) is Purusha. Pure energy OR consciousness. The terms like energy etc are also quite modern. The right word would be "tatva" (तत्व)...

Prakriti (प्रकृती) - प्र + कृत् - Something upon which intense action happens. Some energy acts upon this object. Without Prakriti, the knowledge of this energy would be unknown. 

Without Prakriti, Purush is intangible, it is intangible kaivalya (onlyness OR nothingness) (कैवल्य). 

Now let us check the terms which are repeatedly used in opening argument- 

Felicity, Admiration, appreciation, earnest contemplation, and most important of all, "being".

All these terms fundamentally imply existence of "Ahamkara"(अहंकार). Note that here the word Ahamkara does not have any negative connotations like pride OR vanity. Aham is "I", kaara is "ness". Ahamkara == Aatman == "I"ness. Sense that "I" exist. Without Ahamkara or ego, all these words and feelings denoted by these words are meaningless. To experience a thing, there has to be an "experiencer". Since there is no association with prakriti, Purusha alone (or Mukta-Purusha) is void, onlyness with no sanskaras (संस्कार) of prakriti. 

Now lets move to those Purush/prakriti couples who wish moksha (मोक्ष). There are various layers in which Prakriti attaches herself to Purusha. Yoga asks to step-wise severe those ties. To visualize a metaphor of Purush/Prakriti coupling, imagine a system of phospholipid bilayer in cell-membrane.

A lipids due to their inherent prakriti form various structures in presence of water. One of the structures is called "bilayer" which is fundamental reason behind phenomenon of "life". Two layers of lipids as shown in this figure, trap a small part of water inside their structure and after being trapped, this water trapped within suddenly comes to be known as "cell" which has its own "ego" or "ahamkara". Cell dies when membrane is broken and water within mixes with water outside. Ahamkara OR aatman vanishes.

Here, water is Purusha, the tendency of lipids to form such structure which sometimes results in generation of consciousness, is prakriti. It is because of water that lipids form such structures, so lipids are "being intensely acted upon" by water. Once a separate consciousness comes into existence then there is whole range of attachments, etc which arise - this is evident from diversity of life seen on planet. 

Furthermore, not all lipids form bilayer in presence of water. Most of lipids form a structure known as "micelle" which is also prakriti (effect of water acting intensely on lipids) but does not give rise to separate ego (cell). An entity with ego can act and be acted upon. An entity without ego cannot act. Thus, Samkhya-Yoga differentiates between karma and kriya (कर्म और क्रिया - deed and action). Anyways, we partially digress.

In similar manner, prakriti traps Purusha within her. Rather, Kaivalya trapped within bonds of prakriti is called by Saamkhyins and Yogins as Purusha. Kaivalya itself cannot yearn OR admire OR felicitate OR contemplate. It is Prakriti which performs all these actions. The premise of Saamkhya-Yoga is using Prakriti to get rid of Prakriti, against the will or drive of prakriti. Hence Patanjali calls Yoga as "Prati-Prasava (प्रतिप्रसव)" - Sequentially going reverse towards birth/origin. 

While this may sound similar to metaphor of Aatman -Brahman (आत्मा-ब्रह्म) from Vedanta, the key difference is that Kaivalya is not Sat-Chit-Aananda (सत् चित् आनंद - सच्चिदानंद). Prakriti is as "satyam" as Purusha is. And Chidananda (consciousness and bliss) is result of Prakriti's coupling with Purusha. 

In this process, while Prakriti herself breaks all the bonds with Purusha, the last bond called Beeja (seed) or Ahamkara or Aatman is not within prakriti's hands to sever. One can cut all body parts of self with sword in one hand. But after all body parts are cut, the hand wielding sword cannot cut itself. This is the moment where the fundamental connection is revealed as both beginning and end. The seed of entire existence is revealed. Hence all the steps or states of this sequential severing (known as Samadhi) prior to last step are called Sabeeja Samadhi (सबीज समाधी samadhi with seed intact). When this last tie is also severed, purush becomes kaivalya. But severing of last tie is not in the hands of Prakriti. This is one of the logical fallacies of Saamkhya Yoga. Maharshi Kapil and Maharshi Patanjali have acknowledged this fallacy and explained that as long as "sanchita karma" remains, the last tie cannot be severed. One has to finish up all the sanchita-karma before beeja vanishes. Once sanchita-karma is exhuasted, the beeja of Ahamkara simply drops off as effortlessly as a ripe fruit drops off from branch of a tree. This is Nirbeej Samadhi (निर्बीज समाधी - state of kaivalya without seed of prakriti).

Applying this to devatas which we worship, what else is Vishnu OR Shiva or Indra, but Purushas bound by Prakriti on much higher plane of existence than us? A plane where we would be if we do the necessary Sadhana. Vishnu, Shiva et al are not "Ishvara", they are Purush-Prakriti couples like we are. We can be Vishnu/Shiva or whatever, if we elevate ourselves to their plane.

I have covered aspect of Parabrahma in previous paragraph. Regarding an entity being "Mukunda" (मुकुंद), nobody can grant Moksha. Moksha has to be achieved. Once Sanchita karma (संचित कर्म) is exhausted, it is our natural state to be free. There is nothing in it to be granted, that is what Purusha is. Water within cell is no different from water outside. Once cell is broken, water mixes spontaneously. Another entity cannot break this bond for someone. One has to do it himself. And once one does it, one is naturally free, there is no need of a separate "Mukunda". One is one's own "Mukunda". 

The problem with Seshvaravaada (Indic Theism) is that it assumes too many big things to make life easier. Less said about Abrahmic theism, the better.

Hiranyagarbha Sukta - A Nirishwara-vaadi (Non-Theistic) inquiry

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

The background of this post lies in these two articles published long ago.

1. What is Existence (Satyam)?

2. Origin of Atheism in India

Readers can find entire Hiranyagarbha Sukta posted and discussed in second link provided above. The recurring phrase in Hiranyagarbha Sukta goes like this - 

कस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम ? (to) which god, (our) oblation offered/goes/given? 

The phrase comes after description OR characteristic OR act which pertains to creation OR existence of this world (I will not use the word Universe, simply because I do not know whether it is a "uni"verse or not)... 

हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत | स दाधार पर्थिवीं दयामुतेमां कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम || 

Now, the verb used for Hiranyagarbha's entry in our frame of inquiry is "Sama+vartana" - Sama + vartana - vartana (rotation), Sama refers to even, symmetrical, equal.. Samavartana means during course OR point of a symmetrical cycle (or existence, sustenance and dissolution, perhaps). Which point? Beginning (Agre) Samavartataagre - At the beginning of a symmetrical cycle. 

So हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे means Hiranyagarbha (one with a golden womb - something like sun) first arose upon the samaavartana (of? perhaps world). This is origin of our concept of Pralaya and new genesis. But the clause is not complete. Hiranyagarbha itself is an adjective. A description. But of whom? This is answered in second clause of the first line - 

भूतस्य जातः पतिः एक आसीत   One Lord of all beings who exist. 

So, in my understanding, sages are saying that the "One lord of all beings that exist, who is a Hiranyagarbha, came into being (aasit) at the beginning of this symmetrical cycle."

What did he do?

स द आधार पृथ्वी द्युः उत् इमा  He gave support to earth and skies (thus making this world which is fit for life to exist). 

So the entire verse comes to mean as following:

हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत | स दाधार पर्थिवीं दयामुतेमां कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम ||  

"One lord of all beings that exist, who is a Hiranyagarbha, came into being at the beginning of this symmetrical cycle. He (then) gave support to earth and skies (thus making this world which is fit for life to exist). Who is such a radiant being (deva) to whom we should offer our havi (offerings, oblation in yagna)"

They are asking this question to Prajapati. Prajapti is another name OR earlier name of Brahmadeva (creator). He is perhaps the most supreme force described in Vedic literature. Yet, he is not this "lord of all that exists" and who "supported earth and heavens". They are asking Prajapati this question, so they are perhaps sure that Prajapati is not the one. 

This entire Sukta (known as Hiranyagarbha Sukta, Rigveda 10.125) is question inquiring who this eka Bhootasya Jaata pati (one lord of everything that exists) is?

The answer comes 4 suktas later in Naasadeeya Sukta (RV 10.129). In the last verse, where they doubt whether even Prajapati knows the answer to this question or not. Perhaps even Prajapati (who is ultimate repository of all knowledge of this world because he created this world) does not know because perhaps there IS NO such "Eka Bhootasya Jaata pati (One lord of everything that exists). 

Ishwari Avatar - Is this a necessary concept?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

Carrying forward the chain of thoughts initiated in previous post regarding disturbances in ratio of societal segments leading to destabilizing of Dharma, we have two examples in Itihaasa which refer to disruption of this societal harmony by an Ishwariya Avataara. Did this lead to the destabilization of Dharma which is hinted in Indian narrative in form of "Kali-Yuga"?

The double culling of Kshtariyas during Parasuram avatar and the Mahabaharata war led to the change in the distribution according to Indian Narrative (Itihaasa). Especially the latter, for subsequent to that we find the rise of janapadas (democratically run states not requiring Kings) and the rise of reform religions Jainism and Buddhism emphasising non-violence. That is why  we need to do our duty to not force another avatar to manifest.

This is one of the drawbacks and deracinations introduced by Bhakti saints since 4th century AD. 

Ishwara is only good as long as he is in abstraction, minds and temples and yagna-kundas. Moment his complete human manifestation happens, more often than not he tends to screw things up in long run.. For nirishwarvaadi people who do not need Ishwara, Ishwariya avatar refers to human heroes whom public and intellectuals of all economic, social, spiritual dimensions attest as Swayam Bhagwaan walking on earth. His acts (however selfless) are not questioned. Thus too much of power concentrates in one pair of hands. 

Although avataras are called so because they know when to give up and leave the world, still why give such heroes a chance? I am talking about purna avataras like Parashuram, Sri Raam, Sri Krishna, Kalki etc.. Buddha is comparatively benign form (yet he indirectly did cause long term debacle of Dharma)...

Interestingly, this is what happened in middle east and west. Judaism was one of the many views of ancient times and like others, it was not proselytizing. Yes, they believed in "one true god" and said that roman, greek, egyptian, germanic, arab, persian and other gods are false gods. But after genocide of hittites, this remained more or less an ideological stance only. Yes, the God in Old testament is one of the most barbaric character ever created, but still he was less harmful to other cultures. Emergence of Christ started an avalanche which destroyed everything that west had gained and achieved. 

I can only imagine what pain the scientists and thinkers of greece, egypt, rome and other parts of west must be feeling when all of them were either converted and forced to obey christ OR were burnt at stake for blasphemy. for example, philosophers were talking about heliocentric model and laws of planetary motion in egypt and greece. If that trajectory was continued, it would not have delayed industrial revolution. Emergence of these avataras of abrahmic god plunged the world into dark age of 1200 years. India already had technology to coat iron with zinc nano-layer to avoid rusting. this requires parallel progress in many other fields of engineering and science. 

I would recommend the movie "Agora" based on burning of library of alexandria and persecution of philosopher-astronomer Hypatia by Christians. It is for people to judge how different they were from Taliban?

Thus, the Avatar of Ishwara is something not worth anticipating. In fact, as far as possible, it is worth avoiding. And it can be avoided by following one's Dharma and doing one's duty. Because, once it happens, things usually go unpredictable. The fatalistic tendency of Indians which compel them to adjust and wait for divine intervention, instead of making things right themselves is one of the principle deracinations that has occurred in past 1500 years. 

What is Existence (Satyam)?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

What is "Sat"?

Origin of Atheism in India

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत | 

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम ||  - Rigveda 10:129:1

THEN was not non-existent (Asatyam) nor existent (Satyam): there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

The primary and most fundamental attribute of "Sat" which is acceptable by all philosophies in India (including Naastika ones like Buddhism and Jainism) is the one that "Exists" in all spaces and times. The Chidaananda attribute is strictly Vedantic interpretation of reality. In a way, the very term "Brahman" is one-sided description of reality. How? Nasadiya answers in following manner.

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत | 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा | - Rigveda 10:129:4

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

Satya and Asatya are siblings - both came into existence together. The very "Idea" of "existence" comes with a corollary of "Non-Existence". Similarly vice-versa. Both these terms cannot exist without each other. In a way, this is also the origin of our "Saamkhya" philosophy. The sages here are describing a point when there was "Absolute Nothing".  This state of Absolute Nothingness (or what Buddha calls to as Shunyataa) is what is intriguing. 

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासीत रेतोधाासन 

महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात - 10:129-5

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

The term Brahman comes from the word-root "BRhat बृह" which means "expansion". One which "expands" is Brahma. One which expands extremely is "Para-Brahma" (usually they are used as synonyms.

This state of "absolute Nothingness" is what yogis, Saamkhyins, Buddhists, contemplate on. But hold on... Was there something even then? Can there be anything else which is more "fundamental" than "Existence"? Furthermore, if Brahman is "Satyam" (as proclaimed by Sri Adi Shankara) then what is "Asatyam"? And both "Satyam (Brahman) and "Asatyam" came into existence simultaneously (this is the "Ved-Vaakyam"). If we assume that time was there then (which isn't the case because the very concept of time requires a 3-D space which wasn't there. 

But for the ease of imagination (since our brains aren't evolved to run the simulations of such complexity to create images in mind) we assume that there is some axis relative to which all this is happening. So at point "X" satyam-Asatyam siblings are born. That means they weren't there "before that point". Thus the very term of "Satyam" is shown as "limited". And since Brahman == Satyam, this applies to Brahman as well. 

In this scenario, the factually correct statement would be "After that point X, Satyam (Brahman) refers to absolute and complete existence. As alluded in previous paragraph, Space-time came into existence after "Sat" came into existence. Thus Sat still holds true when it comes to its definition as "an entity which is changeless and existent in all spaces in all times". But what beyond/before that? Naasadiya leaves the question unanswered - 

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः | 

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव || RV 10:129:6

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||RV 10:129:7

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,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, [b]he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

All the Moksha-Maargas of India (aastika and naastika who delve this far) are in fact various approaches taken by different people in the quest to answer this riddle which the sages have put. Every body makes their bunch of assumptions and hypothesis and puts forth a theory. But there is always something which remains. Just as it is described in Purusha-sukta. Hence multiple approach is recommended in Upanishads. 

As far as Advaita is concerned, this is where the anomaly unfolds as both beginning and end. The necessity of the assumption of "Maya" is required here, and with that, we require a concept of "Maayaadhipati Ishwara". This is a very useful assumption (the assumption that Ishwara exists). I guess to be able to imagine this state of "nothingness", our brain needs to be secreting some weird and special neurotransmitters and chemicals in some special part. All the training by Yogis, the meditative practices, the mind-influencing drugs, is perhaps to induce this state in one's brain. It is one of the life-altering experiences (as described by sages). Yogis call it Kaivalya (Only-ness/Singularity), others call is Advaita, Shunyata (zero-ness), Moksha, nirvana, fanaa (by sufis). 

As many saints have said, Bhakti is the simplest way to induce this. You love something which is very grand so intensely that the state is induced and you experienced that which sages state in last two verses of Nasadiya Sukta but couldn't elaborate or explain. But corollary to this is that it would be difficult to be a Bhakta (lover in essence) after knowing that Ishwara (the beloved) is probably just an assumption. But Adi shankara, Santa Gnaaneshwara, Swami Vivekananda and many others have shown that it is possible.


In any case, the spirit of inquiry and scepticism shown in final two verses of Naasadiya Sukta is least common denominator and perhaps the "originator" for all the Indian religions and Indian way of life.

About Devas and Gods

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

About God, Gods and Devas

The terms like Bhagwaan, Ishwara are used liberally in Indic texts while referring to some supernatural power which manifests itself in some form OR as a formless force. With translation of texts into English, the words like God, Gods were introduced as synonyms of the aforementioned Sanskrit words.

However, one word which predates all these "adjectives" is the word "Dev (देव)". The word Dev comes from word-root "Div" which means "Luminiscent". In other words, an entity OR a person OR a force which radiant (tejaswi). The word Dev is the parent word for "Daeva (the evil forces in Zoroastrian literature)", for Greek "Theos", for Latin "Deus". Dev is the root for the name of Zeus in Greek Pantheon. Thus, outside India, the derivatives of the word "Dev" is specifically used for certain supernatural forces.

This trend is however broken in India. While the noun Dev is used for supernatural forces and natural forces which are imagined in personified form (agni, varuna, Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Buddha etc); it was not limited to them. We see the liberal usage of the word "Dev" while addressing men of honour, kings, sages, knowledgeable and rich men. Thus, similar to the noun "Aarya" which signifies nobility and aristocracy, the noun "Dev" refers to a being who possesses some quality which makes him "shine (literally and/or figuratively)".

The words like Sur, Dev all refer to "Shining". Thus, when Nasadiya sukta (Rigveda 10.129) proclaims all "Devas" were born much later than the moment of creation, it refers to all such people and supernatural forces. Thus, even while the figures from Indian "Itihaasa" (E.g.Raam, Krishna, and other characters) are referred to as "dev" in the literature, it is illogical to conclude on this evidence alone that they are ishwara.

The word Ishwara OR Eesh literally means Master, Lord. The word Bhagwaan literally means the "divider". Bhakti means to divide one's "self" infinitely so that no existence of "I" remains in the process. And Bhagwaan is the divider of this infinitesimal division. Prabhu refers to Pra+Bhu (One who exists intensely); in other words Supreme Truth, Satya.

Thus, we have established the true meanings of words which are commonly used in Indic literature while referring to both supernatural forces in universe and talented people in society.

Meaning of God

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, either derived from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a smallish shift of meaning could give the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked". - From Wiki.

Translation as synonyms.

On the lighter note, we observe that according to this etymology of the word "god", it refers to Hotaara OR Hutaashana or "Agni". Thus, if we act as grammar nazis :P , then God = Agni and hence we can proudly declare that there is no God but "Agni". (think of this in context of Islamic Shahada, it is fun). :D

Coming back to topic. With time, the word God was used as the word for the middle-eastern diety of Yahveh/Allah in his pristine monotheistic form with all its positive and negative attributes. The "panch-naamaa" of the Abrahmic god is done by Prof. Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion". I won't go into that, since that is outside the scope of this article.

What I would like to do is draw the attention of the gentle readers towards the discrepancy of using the term "God" as synonyms of Deva. I am talking about the psychological equation of Abrahmic God with Indic Ishwara and devas  in the process of translation. The metaphors, the adjectives, the similies and the arguments which are used by western system for and against the existence of "God" started being used as it is, in Indic context. We have a huge problem of Christian missionaries competing for the souls to harvest and indulging in mass-conversions using such misleading and specious translations which are most of the times used for defamation of Indic historical and mythological characters which were referred to as "Devas".  On the other end of the spectrum, we have new-age atheists who think that "Hinduism" is a religion which similar to Abrahmic religions and use the arguments of Western atheistic intellectuals  against Abrahmic god verbatim while negating the existence of Indic "Ishwara" and "Devas".

India possessed a system of systematic proselytizing of particular form of Ishwara and systematic negation of "Ishwara's existence". We have produced far more atheists and agnostics of various degrees and varieties than west has ever produced and all of them have argued and counterargued with each other without getting confused between usage of words Bhagwaan, Ishwara, Prabhu and Deva and other nouns and adjectives.

Deracination: Deracination here, as it is clear, is misunderstanding that Indic Devas and Ishwara is equivalent to Abrahmic "God". I am not asking everyone to stop using the word "God" and start using Ishwara. That will be acting like a Paki where they started enforcing removal of the word "Khuda" from vocabulary. God is an addition to Indian linguistic richness. It need not be discarded.

But it needs to be Indianized. One needs to understand the "nature" of Indic Ishwara and Deva and the meaning of these words. These words are used in different contexts and for different entities and people who may not qualify as "Abrahmic God". Abrahmic God is a small subset of Indic "Deva" and Dev is much more than abrahmic god alone. Only then, Indics will be able to withstand the ideological assault of Abrahmics and answer back from an advantageous position.

Most of the Indic "Devas" are as human and as divine as rest of us. Not all "Devas" in India are "God" and not all "Gods" are "Devas".

Origin of Atheism in India

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.

The origins of atheism and agnosticism are seen in Rgveda in following verses. These verses are present in 10th book of RgVed which is considered to be a last stage of Rgved composition and is conventionally dated around 1300 BC. Note the boldened and the underlined verses which exemplify their skepticism regarding existence of creator.

HiraNyagarbha Sukta (Rgved 10:121)

हिरण्यगर्भः समवर्तताग्रे भूतस्य जातः पतिरेकासीत | 

स दाधार पर्थिवीं दयामुतेमां कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम || 

य आत्मदा बलदा यस्य विश्व उपासते परशिषं यस्यदेवाः | 

यस्य छायाम्र्तं यस्य मर्त्युः कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम || 

यः पराणतो निमिषतो महित्वैक इद राजा जगतो बभूव | 

य ईशे अस्य दविपदश्चतुष्पदः कस्मै देवाय हविषाविधेम || 

यस्येमे हिमवन्तो महित्वा यस्य समुद्रं रसया सहाहुः | 

यस्येमाः परदिशो यस्य बाहू कस्मै देवाय हविषाविधेम || 

येन दयौरुग्रा पर्थिवी च दर्ळ्हा येन सव सतभितं येननाकः | 

यो अन्तरिक्षे रजसो विमानः कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम || 

यं करन्दसी अवसा तस्तभाने अभ्यैक्षेतां मनसारेजमाने | 

यत्राधि सूर उदितो विभाति कस्मै देवायहविषा विधेम || 

आपो ह यद बर्हतीर्विश्वमायन गर्भं दधानाजनयन्तीरग्निम | 

ततो देवानां समवर्ततासुरेकःकस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम || 

यश्चिदापो महिना पर्यपश्यद दक्षं दधानाजनयन्तीर्यज्ञम | 

यो देवेष्वधि देव एक आसीत कस्मैदेवाय हविषा विधेम || 

मा नो हिंसीज्जनिता यः पर्थिव्या यो वा दिवंसत्यधर्मा जजान | 

यश्चापश्चन्द्रा बर्हतीर्जजानकस्मै देवाय हविषा विधेम || 

परजापते न तवदेतान्यन्यो विश्वा जातानि परि ताबभूव | 

यत्कामास्ते जुहुमस्तन नो अस्तु वयं सयाम पतयोरयीणाम || 

Translation - 

1. IN the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born Only Lord of all created beings.

He fixed and holdeth up this earth and heaven. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

2 Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the Gods acknowledge -.

The Lord of death, whose shade is life immortal. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

3 Who by his grandeur hath become Sole Ruler of all the moving world that breathes and slumbers;

He who is Loord of men and Lord of cattle. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

4 His, through his might, are these snow-covered mountains, and men call sea and Rasā his possession:

His arms are these, his are these heavenly regions. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

5 By him the heavens are strong and earth is stedfast, by him light's realm and sky-vault are supported:

By him the regions in mid-air were measured. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

6 To him, supported by his help, two armies embattled look while trembling in their spirit,

When over them the risen Sun is shining. Is there any such god whom shall we adore with our oblation?

7 What time the mighty waters came, containing the universal germ, producing Agni,

Thence sprang the Gods’ one spirit into being. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

8 He in his might surveyed the floods containing productive force and generating Worship.

He is the God of gods, and none beside him. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

9 Neer may he harm us who is earth's Begetter, nor he whose laws are sure, the heavens' Creator,

He who brought forth the great and lucid waters. Which is a god like this whom shall we adore with our oblation?

10 Prajāpati! thou only comprehendest all these created things, and none beside thee.

Grant us our hearts' desire when we invoke thee: may we have store of riches in possession.

Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda 10:129)

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत | 

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम || 

न मर्त्युरासीदम्र्तं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः | 

आनीदवातं सवधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन न परः किं चनास || 

तम आसीत तमसा गूळमग्रे.अप्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वमािदम | 

तुछ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम || 

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत | 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा || 

तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः सविदासी.अ.अ.अत | 

रेतोधाासन महिमान आसन सवधा अवस्तात परयतिः परस्तात || 

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः | 

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव || 

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||

Translation - 

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. 

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6 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?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not

There are few interesting observations about Nasadiya Sukta. Consider this verse in nasadiya hymn.

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः परथमं यदासीत | 

सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन हर्दि परतीष्याकवयो मनीषा |

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent

The sages say that upon deep contemplation on the probable reason of creation, they found out that Sat (existence) is actually a sibling, a brother of Asat (Non-existence). Which means that both originated from same source simultaneously. This kind of makes sense because without the concept of existence, there can't a concept of non-existence.

However, this has a very interesting implication. In Indian philosophy, therea are three levels of reality.

1) Sat - One which exists or holds true in all times and all places. In other words, one which exists everywhere, all the time, without changing at all is Sat. Only Brahman OR the fundamental principle is considered as Sat. This is the basis for famous statement of Brahma satyam jagat Mithya.

2) Rutam - One which exists but not everywhere, all the time and which changes with change in space and/or time is Rutam. Everything apart from brahman is not constant and is hence Rutam. 

3) Asatya - Non-existence - one which does not exist at all is Asat.

Now, in first verse, Nasadiya says, - 

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत  - THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

In other words, there was no Sat (Brahman) nor there was Asat (non-existence) before creation of this universe. The very concepts of existence and non-existence were not present before creation.

This is where the atheism and free-rationalism of this verse show up. The concept which people believe as supreme and most fundamental of all, is said to be non-existent before creation of Universe. It became supreme after it came into existence. This everything starts making sense after a point when Brahman came into existence. Before that, nobody knows. And nobody can know.

The sages end this verse on the same note. They say - 

को अद्धा वेद क इह पर वोचत कुत आजाता कुत इयंविस्र्ष्टिः | 

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव || 

इयं विस्र्ष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | 

यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे वयोमन सो अङग वेद यदि वा नवेद ||

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,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

The composers acknowledge that it really can't be known how the universe came into existence and whether or not, there is a creator. All the demigods came into existence much later. The one who created the universe, perhaps only he knows or perhaps even he does not know because he does not exist.

Essence of Philosophy  and Concept of Brahman

 

Brahman is the STUFF universe is made up of.. whatever it is.. the most fundamental physical entity which makes up universe. Using modern physical analogy, it can be said that quantum fields which is hypothesized to make up everything in universe is Brahman... Now quantum fields may or may not be brahman... 

If it is proven that quatum fields do make up everything in this world including space-time and dimensions then it will be proven that quantum field is Brahman. If not, then perhaps there something even more fundamental in this universe than quantum fields. Indian philosophers did not inquire into the physical nature of that fundamental entity.. They just named the most fundamental entity as Brahman...

The aim is not to have information about this fundamental unity, but to KNOW it, experience it. As long as a person has ego (sense of "I" as separate identity), he can't experience the unity. The definition has to be open ended because if it is crystalline, it will resist any modification. And frankly, it is impossible to KNOW how far the chain goes.. Hence it is logical to remain open-ended. There is no crystalline concepts giving exact information, because it is impossible and bound to be wrong.

Exact information is God created heavens and earth in 6 days and he rested on 7th and he created man in his own image. This is exact, crystalline, clear and WRONG!!!

How can one expect an exact knowledge about origin of universe from bronze-age people? even today in space-age, we don't know the answer. science is working towards it. And is expected to reach a result which will most probably be the fundamental entity of world. Vedics simply named that expected fundamental entity as Brahman. 

The questions in life of everybody can't be answered by one scripture. Million people have million different natures and zillion different types of problems. It is impossible for a scripture to answer all of them. It is foolish to rely on scriptures. Vedic literature merely serve as signboards on journey, not as driver. For example, Yoga teaches how to control your mind and focus it on thing we want to. If we focus it on our problems, then we will get the solution depending upon the level of our intellect.. This does not mean that Patanjali answered all problems in his Yogsutras...

What vedic philosophy says is know one self.. once the knowledge of self comes, no problem is difficult to solve. 

Some questions asked to me by friends in course of discussion. 

What is the reason behind the composition of Veds?

They are chronicles of Vedic people over the period of time. everything they held true, believed in, thought about, throughout their creative years is Vedas. It is illogical to as a poet why does he compose poetry. There is no reason. It just is.

Why their are additions in Veds rather than separate work with a different name?

They are not separate books. They were just collection thoughts and ideas, memoirs. many pastoral societies who move about have such oral traditions which are passed on orally thorough generations. Later this tradition stopped for some reasons after they left their pastoral life-style and settled down. 

Why Veds are written by so many seers and all their work was called Veds?

explained above. It is compilation of thoughts and ideas of wise people from one civilization through the period of thousand years.

Do you accept everything which is written in Veds?? If not then what exactly you accept and what you don't?

I don't accept everything written in Vedas. If I feel it logical, relevant, and which can be explained without having to invoke divine idea, I am fine with it. Its not that I do not appreciate it. I appreciate Vedas a lot and hold them in high esteem as they are remarkable feet of creativity in terms of language, grammar, philosophy, rationalism, History. But appreciation need not be reverence and blind acceptance. 

Conclusion - Vedas have left a mark on India that is impossible to remove. The very concept of Bhaarat is found in Vedas along with the record of steady evolution and expansion of that concept. Almost all philosophies produced in India by Indians are influenced by Vedas. Some accept their authority, some reject them, but none can ignore them, not even rabid hedonists like Charvakas. The origin of all the philsophical schools ranging from Monism to Pantheism to Diesm to Polytheism to Agnosticism and Atheism, all of these schools can be traced in Vedas. Truly, they have given India her very cultural identity.

As far as atheism and free-rationalism is concerned, it also finds its origin in Vedas. It was widely practised in pre-islamic India. As education percolates, atheism and free-rationalism will again be popular amongst Indian masses.