On the fashion of Atheism.

Recently, I was having a discussion on this very topic with a dear friend of mine. It was on how it seemed cool to denigrate our culture, our values just for the sake of a few laughs, and that got me thinking how an empty rebellion, with no thought under it, was being flaked as it attracted scores of people behind it. Why did it feel cool to be an atheist? That answer is easy, it just means that you have at least thought about it. You are not sheep following traditions just for the sake of it. You take a scientific temperament or a template rather and apply it to the rituals and the stories told to you by your family. But this is a dangerous phenomenon, because once Occam's Razor is applied to thousands of years old history, it seems impossible to reconcile it with the mindset of today. What is so dangerous in that, you might ask? We'll get to that later, but keep that in mind that, once a framework of not just 'how to act' is replaced by 'what the world is made of' or 'how it works', then you can very easily, very quickly dive into Nihilism. And if that is what you like, then all power to you, but that is a dark place, and it is not easy to get out of there. You get left alone in the middle of a crowd of lonely people. You don't even have a decision-making process guiding you. Because for a Nihilist, as it were, extreme scientific temper would have resulted in thinking of humans and interactions as mere chemicals contributing towards entropy. No one can argue that, not even yourself. No one can argue that, because it is true. We are indeed made up of atoms and our bodies are a metaphorical river of atoms, which are assembled in a certain way and this assembly shall remain, with new atoms coming and old ones going,  in existence only till you are alive, then it crawls back to its natural form, whatever that might be. But this knowledge is not helpful. It is rather, depressing to know that you don't have any control over your actions, and whatever actions you do take won't matter, because it is all just atoms. Atoms which are simply contributing to the entropy of the Universe. You have that knowledge, and now you are put into the world. If this knowledge was perfect, why it doesn't help a minister take a decision on whether to fund AIDS research or open a Cancer institute? Because science can only provide you data. And data does not speak for it itself. You have to put an interpretive structure over it. You might have the knowledge of every single atom in the room, its location, speed and direction, and yet it does not help you how to behave in that room. Why is it so? Why the most perfected method we know, fall on its face, when we tell it to provide a decision? Why it is easy to teach a computer how to play chess before it can be taught how to walk? Babies, 2-year-old infants can walk better than machines. Maybe this method isn't so perfect then. Maybe this is why it doesn't provide answers to the really tough questions like, 'where do we come from?', 'what is the purpose of life?' and most importantly, 'who am I?' Nihilism, the older descendant of Atheism, only takes you so far.

Sure, atheism can take pride in the beautiful inventions and the millions of lives it has saved through the millennia. It has resulted in the saving of the human species in more ways than one. But, and there's always a but, it could not have achieved any of that without a goal. A goal is a target, a more desirable place than we currently inhabit. And so moving from A to B has a desire behind it. Now answer me this, what is the shape of desire in the atheistic terms? You can contribute it to chemicals in your brain to a certain extent, but that just takes away your pride in building it, so you're stuck with depression. You have no ground to stand on. Many famous atheist scientists too had desires, which were benevolent in nature. But benevolence has no place in atheism. Because what benevolence, what desire can you have when everything you see is nothing more than a bag of atoms. What I am saying is, the famous atheists too have a moral frame in them. And this moral frame, may it be self-created or socially imposed, helps them in life. What has this got to do with religion and faith, you ask. Well, that moral framework, which helps you take correct decisions is what is called Dharma. It is very separate from religion or faith, because they are very different things and how can you translate a word like Dharma to English with a simple one-word analogy? There is no word for Dharma in English. Religion come from 'relegere' meaning 'to bind', to bind you in chains behind a cause. Faith comes from 'fides' meaning 'to trust' in a higher moral order than you create for yourself. Any of these words may not be called Dharma. So now we can safely call the scientists atheists who simply followed Dharma. But atheism has no Dharma. So, let’s get more sophisticated. Those inventors and scientists and all the great men, were simply following Dharma.

There are many types of Dharma, or rather many reflections of the same Dharma. As my teacher explained it to me, so I shall present it to you in the same manner. Even water has Dharma, that it cannot break by will. It cannot decide to stop boiling at 100 degrees C. It has to. It just cannot overstep the framework it is currently present in. It is called 'GunDharma' (गुणधर्म) or a property of water. But if water or any other chemicals follow Dharma, would you call water as Atheist? No, that would be foolish. I decide that I want to stop smoking, because it is bad. I put a frame over cigarettes and decided that I want to get away from it. It has a moral binding to it, propounded on it by me, hence it is called 'SvaDharma' (स्वधर्म). Sometimes, what position we are in, also imbibes a framework on us. A king has to take care of his subjects or there will be no subjects, or no king. A father or mother has to take care of their family. A brother has to love his brother. Now, these humans, as humans they are, can choose not to follow these, but it is still expected of them. And I am not saying, by other people, I am saying, it is governed biologically, if enough people stop doing it society will collapse. If a mother does not take care of her child, the child will simply die. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Research had to be done on this to confirm it. Orphan infants if are not subjected to physical contact, even with full access to food, water and sanitation, will die. And even if they live, they will never get socialized properly. There needs to be a mother, or at least someone who fulfils that role. This is called Dharma of a Mother(मातृधर्म). Similarly we have Dharma of Father, Son, Husband, Citizen of a country, as a leader. We can choose to not follow them, but that is not that ideal system. Hence it is called Adharma (अधर्म). This has still nothing to do with religion. What if we could, all humans collectively, decide a framework which worked for all of us individually, as well as with everyone else, which also followed the laws of nature, and would work even if eons would have passed? Something that satisfies all those conditions, works for you, and others, and also helps the society progress, and also works for a very long time is called 'Sanatan' (सनातन) and such a framework is called 'Sanatan Dharma' (सनातन धर्म).

I don't hate Atheism, since my culture has been a boon for Atheists. There were numerous schools of thought dedicated to Atheists. How do you think Buddhism and Jainism emerged? There was Charvak before them. There was great Muni by the name of Kanad, the first discoverer of the existence of atoms, and he was a pure atheist genius and still he was considered Hindu. In fact he was given the title of Rishi. There is a built-in drive in Men to rebel. Rebelling against everything feels so good because you are momentarily free of the bonds that society or yourself has put on you. We feel so light when we rebel, like a bird. A bird which refuses to abide by the law of Gravity and desires to fly, and it does it of its own will. It feels like freedom. But we are not birds, and even birds don't break the laws of nature. Does that mean we should not rebel? Of course not, the urge to rebel is natural. But rebellion should mean an end that is more desirable than the present, and if it only contributes to entropy then it is empty. Here is where rebellion against our scriptures and gods fall flat. There is a general disgust for someone who believes in Sanatan Dharma, when in truth, it should be the polar opposite. Just read Rigved (10.129.1-7) and you will understand my predilections. Just because a few individuals feel that they have the right to smear their own ideology on the books that I revere, an entire populace runs behind them as it seems rebellious. Just because you don't have the fortitude to read your own scriptures, absolute garbage can be fed to you and you will accept it. Why, you ask? Because you don't know. First you feel that this stuff looks heavy and hard to read and grasp, so we run for shortcuts. Then, later when someone sells you some crap about your own scriptures, you gulp it down and decide that you are too good to read it. You judge something without even knowing it, based on other people's opinions about it and call it a day. Not only did you miss the opportunity to witness greatness, but you also willingly shut yourself off from a chance to imbibe pride. If that is not unscientific, then I don't know what is.

People who forget their culture, culture forgets them. If you're going to criticize it, at least read the damn thing. But we are not done yet. There are those who read simplifications and dumbed down versions and stick their opinions of that version onto the real thing. Allow me to give you an example. In the English Mahabharata translated by Max Muller has the description of marriage of Abhimanyu, in the UdyogParva, the one which was just before the War, has a line which goes like this, "... Abhimanyu put his hands over the feet of his mother and she rubbed his head in a calm manner...". This was the translation done by a man who has never seen an Indian taking the blessings of their parents. This is what happens when an ignorant intellectual feels that he is qualified to translate something as grand as the Mahabharat. This was not a small error, which when read by an Indian would have unfogged the matter. This was wilful blindness, a sort of deliberate ignorance, designed to put doubt into the minds of any reader. Also, who knows how many such "translations" have contributed to the besmirching of our scriptures. This is the reason we need Indian translators doing it. But no one gives two hoots to an Indian who has translated the Mahabharat. And why do we even need a translation? Why can't we just learn the very language, whose very name defines it as perfect. But no, this is imposition in the eyes of the intellectuals and so the world remains blind.

This permeates even further into the psyche when people feel downright ashamed to call themselves Hindu. In fact, you can do the test right now. Ask yourself, "Are you proud on the fact that you are Hindu?", "Do you feel lucky to have been born into this country, in a Hindu family?". If the answer is "No." then serious thinking needs to be done. And this is not asking you to become narcissistic and become ultra-patriotic, no. This is supposed to make you come out of the veil of shame that has been put on us by invaders in hopes of getting slaves. And if you cannot do that then maybe it is time to rebel against yourself. Tamil Hindu Kings built the biggest religious building in the world and we are not taught about it. Why do you think that is? If I asked you to name six great Hindu kings, would you be able to do it? Because we are kept away from our culture and there is a deliberate hand behind it. We helped the Greeks set up ports in their country, and it is written in their books and you don't even know about it. We Indians were literally the first people in the world to have a civilization. We had cities when the rest of the world was a stream of warring tribes. There is so much, so much to be proud of and feel immensely lucky that you were born in India, and to find that there are people who are proficiently ungrateful and feel ashamed of even being called Hindu. But why am I talking about India, on the topic of Atheism? Because all Indians before the 14th century were Hindus and almost all of the others after it were converted out of Hinduism and also because hating religion has perversely turned into hating India, and that is a sad truth. We are living in a time when, if someone from the majority of the population declares their views, they are shunned on the basis. Why because some people sticking to the views taught to them by the British, cannot come out of their slavery even 70 years after Independence.

This framework called Hindutva, may have had its chinks and cracks, but it still guided our civilization for more than 15000 years. That is Sanatan enough for me, is it for you?