Vedic definition of atheism

[Guest guest]

>In the Vedic times nobody was so stupid so as to not believe in gods or

>higher realities, so then atheists were those who rejected the Supreme

>Personality of Godhead. As far as I know the sanskrit word for an atheist

>is asura, ei. a demon, or they are called pashandi.

 

Yes, I don't think there is a word for atheist in sanskrit - other than

asura with direct meaning is quite different. I guess also that when we

apply the word to our religion then you are an atheist if you do not accept

Krishna in a bono fide way - which includes accepting Srila Prabhupada

fully.

 

However, the word atheist can have many other meanings in other contexts.

For example in the eyes of some we are theists when it comes to Krishna but

atheists when it comes to other gods, for example Zeus (is that the name in

English?). Zeus might resemple Indra, but there are also differences and

therefore we lack faith in the existence of Zeus. So when it comes to him we

are atheists. So in that sense one can be both a theist ans an atheist at

the same time.

 

>The Supreme God is one -- Krsna -- and the demigods are delegated with

>powers to manage this material world. These demigods are all living

>entities

>(nityanam) with different grades of material power. They cannot be equal to

>the Supreme God -- Narayana, Visnu, or Krsna. Anyone who thinks that God

>and

>the demigods are on the same level is called an atheist, or pasandi.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 4.12

 

Yes, that's interesting because that definition is quite different from

other definitions of atheist. I like the definition, it's just different. I

think it good for us to know were our definition of atheist differs from the

definitions used by atheist or others non-devotees. If we want to defeat

them we have to know how they define the words.

 

>Anyway, as you point out, buddhists and mayavadis are also considered

>atheists. In fact, most Christians are atheists because they decry Krishna.

>In the CC it says that those who worship Krishna without Radha, or even

>those who don't accept Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are demons, so they must also

>be

>atheists.

 

It interesting that on some point we have a very strict definition: Even if

you accept Krishna, but not Caitanya Mahaprabhu then you are an atheist. At

the same time we also define anyone who is ignorant about God as an atheist

- as far as I understand Prabhupada - which includes even agnostics. They

must be a type of atheists.

 

>In ISKCON I would say that anyone who has doubts in Prabhupada is an

>atheist.

 

I think that's a reasonable way to use the word in an ISKCON context.

 

Ys, AKD