Rebuffing the accusation of atheism Charvakas were, and still are, falsely accused by malevolent^1 supernaturalists of being atheists. That’s because the wide variety, both Eastern and Western, of supernaturalists have during the past 3000 years failed to produce a common (or universally accepted) and cogent definition of God in perceptual terms,^2 the accusation is null and void. However, the smart Charvaka could counter the accusation^3 that he/she is an atheist by claiming, with justification, that he/she is indeed a monist theist. For, to the Charvaka choosing this defence, nature is God.^4 Moreover since nought exists beyond nature, nature is ONE. Hence the Charvaka, when deflecting the accusation and vilification of atheism, can, at least tongue in cheek, claim to be a monotheist. Home © 2021 by Victor Langheld

1. i.e. ill-intentioned because they seek to harm if not eliminate their opponents. Against the Charvaka, who undermines their unprovable propositions, the supernaturalists were/are on the defensive. 2. Fantasy, i.e. non natural descriptions or definitions, and which includes name calling, fail as valid proofs Sanskrit: pramanas). 3. Supported by the Upanishad statement: ahambrahmanasmi, to wit: ‘I am Brahman/GOD,’ whereby Brahman is now understood to mean the basic, thus universal procedure that generates (i.e. ‘grows’) all identifiable realities (i.e. nature). 4. In short, the Charvaka can, when push comes to shove, justifiably self-describe as a pantheist. More on pantheism