Chapter 5b - Atheism and the Indian systems of philosophy

We have arrived at the conclusion after careful enquiry that the claims of the atheists of recent times to be propounders of original views, are untenable in every case. They always express only the old views under a different name and garb. Many systems of philosophy have been promulgated in this country. Of these Sankhya, Naya, Vaishesika and Karmamimamsa are professedly atheistical. Patanjala and the pseudo monistic interpretation of Vedanta, are veiled forms of atheism. We can, in this place, only bestow a passing glance at them.

Sankhya philosophical system:—

God cannot be proved.—“Isvarasidheh” 1—92. If God is admitted He must be either free or dependent“Muktabaddhayorantyatrarabhavanna Tatsidhih” 1—93. Free God is unrealizable. Dependent God has not the quality of Godship. Bijnana Bhikshu commenting on this says that the following is, therefore, said in regard to the particular passages of the Scriptures bearing on God, “that they are merely eulogistic of the free soul or in praise of the successful pursuit of religious activities. God does not really exist”, “muktatmanah prasamsha upasasiddhasyava, 1—96. This much for Sankhya.

The System of Nayaya philosophy:—

It is made by Goutama. Goutama says that there are sixteen entities, “pramana-prameya....nihshreyashadhigamah”. The state of the highest good (nihshreyah) of Goutama is unintelligible. It appears as if the good of the jiva is attained if he can prevail in argument. God does not find a place among his sixteen entities. It is for this reason that the Vedas says that the natural inclination to God should not be allowed to be obsessed by casuistical argument. Goutama also notices the principle of evil. “Duhkhajanmapravritti-dosa-mith-yajnana namuttaraottarapaye tadanantarapayadapavargah.” Deliverance (mukti) is regarded in a general way as the cessation of extreme misery. According to Goutama there is no joy in the state of deliverance. Therefore, there is absolutely no such thing as Divine bliss. Whence the Nyava Shastra made by Goutama, is opposed to the Vedas.

Vaishesika philosophy made by Kanada:—

This system does not call for any elaborate discussion. If we consider the original .sutras made by Kanada himself we do not find any eternal God therein. Certain authors of this school have made an attempt to divest their system of its God-less-ness by naming as supersoul (paramatma) a principle under the entity ‘embodied’ (dehi) which is one of the seven entities. But scholars such as Sankaracharya, etc., in their respective commentaries on the Vedanta-sutra, have stated as their conclusion that the Kanada-doctrine is non-Vedic and godless. As a matter of fact it is found that those who do not admit that God is the Supreme Master without any reservation, even though the word God be found in their systems, are really atheists. It is the Nature of God that He must be recognized as the Lord of all entities. The view which admits the existence of eternal entities on a footing of equality with God, is atheistical

Karma mimansa:—

Jaimini is the author of the original sutras of this system. He makes no mention of God. His premier subject is dharma. “Chodana lakshanortho dharmah. Karmaike tatra darshanat.” The meaning conveyed by the Vedas is dharma. Its name is karma (work). His commentator Sabaraswami writes in this connection as follows: ‘Katham punaridamavagamyate? Asti tadapurmam.’ How is this to be known? Therefore, there must be an entity which bears the name of ‘previously nonexistent’ (apurva). When work is performed something previously non-existent is thereby manifested which awards the fruit. Where is the necessity of a god for bestowing the fruits of actions? What more is there that could have been said by modern atheists such as Comte, etc.?

Vedanta:—

The Vedanta philosophy supports in every devotion to God. In its commentaries dishonest thinkers have interpolated veiled Buddhistic thought under the garb of non distinctive monism. But saintly persons have shown the good path to the people of the world by composing with great care proper commentaries of the original sutras. We shall consider the futility of monism in another place.

Yoga:—

The shastra made by Patanjali Rishi bears the name of Yoga-Shastra. The following sutra is embodied in the chapter on method of the Shastra: “Klesakarma-bipakashayairaparamristah purusavisesha Isvarah. Tatra niratisayam sarvajnyavijam. Sha purbesamapi guruh kalenanavachhedat.” The being capable of taking the initiative untroubled by tribulations in the four forms of misery, work, consequence (bipaka), subject (asraya) bears the name of god. In him is located the seed of extreme omniscience. He is the preceptor of all the people that have gone before, in as much as he is uninterrupted by time. This statement of the subject of Godhead in this system has led many to think that Patanjali is really a devotee of God. But one who has read the Patanjali Yoga Shastra to its conclusion with special care and judgment, cannot be so mistaken. In the Kaiva1yapad occurs the principle “Purusartha-sunyanam pratiprashavah kaivalyam svarupapratistha. va chitisaktriti,” which is thus explained in the Bhojabritti: “Chichhaktervrittisharupyanivrittou svarupamanam tat kaivalyamuchyate.” The non-alternative state (kaivalya) is the name of the existence of the cognitive principle in its own proper condition. The point that requires to be considered in this connection is this, viz., what is meant by ‘the proper condition of the cognitive principle’? That is to say, whether the jiva who has attained the non-alternative state (kaivalya) will have any function? After the jiva has attained the non-alternative state (kaivalya) what will be his relation with the god of his unrealized state? In the said Shastra there is unfortunately no answer to this question. On repeated reading of this Shastra one is convinced that its god of the state of unrealized effort, is a kind of entity that is conceived merely for the success of worship. He is not to be found in the realized state. Can such Shastra be considered as theistic?

All these atheistical opinions have been preached in this as well as other countries under different names due to difference of language.