(October 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm)apophenia Wrote: I don't have a traditional Hindu upbringing, so someone like genkaus who does have that background might be better able to answer how atheists are perceived from a traditional Hindu perspective. And Hinduism is an umbrella term which connotes a broad diversity of traditions, so it's likely not useful to generalize in the absence of an understanding of that diversity anyway.
Well, this could be a whole another debate on its own. The problem with determining the traditional Hindu perspective on atheism is that, as you said, Hinduism is an umbrella term and there are no set rules regarding who gets to be under that umbrella. As is typical with such loosely defined terms, people tend to adopt the No True Scotsman fallacy as a mantra - try to slap the label on anything they like and reasonably can and try to remove it from things they don't like. The religion known as Hinduism came about more as a reactionary nationalistic propaganda against invasions of other religious entities - the so called Hindu traditions are under that umbrella by the sole virtue of not being a part of Islamic or Christian traditions. Atheistic and materialistic philosophies like Carvaka, which predate the advent of "Hinduism" by many centuries are put under that umbrella because they originated in the Indian subcontinent.
To get a better idea, imagine if Greeks had put all of their cultural history - their mythology, rites and rituals, philosophies, cultural, ethnic and racial specificities - into one big messy package called "Greekism" and said that anyone who picks one or more of the set gets to call himself "Greeky". What would you expect the "traditional" Greeky perspective to be?
That's what a traditional Hindu perspective would be like. You can identify yourself as a Hindu if that's what you are comfortable with and whether or not other other Hindus accept your claim would depend upon their personal feelings about Hinduism and how comfortable they are around you. Actually, even if you reject the label for yourself, if you fit the rather broad paradigm of Hinduism, they'd have no problem in regarding you as a Hindu. Thus, the traditional perspective would be that being a Hindu is more a matter of how you appear to be rather than what you believe in.
To give a few examples:
I remember Bobby Jindal receiving quite a bit of media coverage the first time he was elected to a political office in which he was regarded as a Hindu and his "achievement" as one for Hinduism. Which, at the time, seemed nonsensical to me because a) he was a Catholic, b) he never was an Indian Citizen and c) he is your arch-typical Republican douchebag. But because he was of Indian origin and reached a prestigious office in another country, it meant that quite a few people were comfortable trying to tag him as "one of us".
Quite a few of celebrated Indian political figures are atheist - such as Amartya Sen. As a matter of fact, the first Prime Minister of India - Jawahar Lal Nehru - was an atheist. And yet, no one seems to have any problem in regarding them as Hindus as well.
Specific to beliefs, my mother is an atheist as well. But she doesn't identify herself as one. And given that she observes certain aspects typical of Hinduism - such as dietary restrictions, festivals etc. - even I regarded her as a Hindu and had no inkling of her atheism until I asked her about it directly.
And then there is me. I don't subscribe to any of so called Hindu philosophies. I disagree with most of "Hindu" politics. I reject a lot of cultural norms - like dress-code and dietary restrictions. I'm openly opposed to religious convictions. I avoid religious festivities and temples like the plague. My participation in holidays is simply due to the fact that it is a holiday. But, I look like a Hindu, I talk with a Hindi accent, I have a Hindu name and I come from a Hindu family - so as far as traditional perspective is concerned, I'm a Hindu who is not acting like one.
