Consciousness and Dharma Without Theism: A Combined Advaita–Mīmāṁsā Framework
Abstract
Contemporary atheistic discourse, while effectively negating the proposition of a personal deity, frequently defaults to a materialist metaphysic and a concomitant moral relativism. In contrast, Classical Hindu philosophy posits a robust alternative paradigm: a rigorous, non-theistic system achieved through the synthesis of Advaita Vedānta and Pūrva Mīmāṁsā. Advaita establishes consciousness (Brahman) as the fundamental, irreducible, and non-dual ontological primitive, thereby resolving the "hard problem" of consciousness without recourse to divine intervention. Concurrently, Pūrva Mīmāṁsā, as delineated in the Śabara Bhāṣya and Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s Ṭīkās, articulates a framework wherein dharma (ethical obligation) functions independently of divine agency. By synergizing these two systems, this paper delineates a coherent Hindu atheist ontology and ethics grounded in Śruti, demonstrating that the cosmos requires neither a creator for its existence, a legislator for its morality, nor a deity for its meaning.
1. Introduction
The modern atheist critique is predominately directed toward the refutation of a personal, creator God. However, this rejection often leaves unexamined metaphysical residues, specifically materialist reductionism and ethical nihilism, which lack sufficient philosophical rigor. Classical Hindu philosophy offers a sophisticated resolution: Advaita Vedānta addresses the phenomenological and metaphysical nature of consciousness, while Pūrva Mīmāṁsā elucidates the autonomous structure of moral order and dharma.
This synthesis engenders a non-theistic framework stratified into three layers:
- Advaita Vedānta – The positing of non-dual, auto-validating consciousness as the ultimate reality.
- Pūrva Mīmāṁsā – The establishment of an objective, impersonal dharma governed by automatic karmic causality.
- Śruti – The utilization of authoritative textual testimony to substantiate both non-theism and an impersonal cosmic order.
This stratified methodology demonstrates that Hindu philosophy provides a comprehensive atheistic worldview that historically antedates modern secularism by millennia.
2. Advaita Vedānta: The Irreducibility of Consciousness
Advaita Vedānta proceeds from an epistemological rather than a doxastic foundation. It asserts that consciousness is svataḥ-siddha—self-evident and self-validating. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad articulates the non-objectifiability of the subject:
Sanskrit: न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेहवृपरिलोपो हवद्यते । न हि श्रोतु: श्रुतेहवृपरिलोपो हवद्यते । न हि मन्तुमृतेहवृपरिलोपो हवद्यते । न हि हवज्ञातुहवृज्ञातेहवृपरिलोपो हवद्यते ॥
IAST: Na hi draṣṭur dṛṣṭer viparilopo vidyate; na hi śrotuḥ śruter viparilopo vidyate; na hi mantur mater viparilopo vidyate; na hi vijñātur vijñāter viparilopo vidyate.
Translation: "The seer of seeing cannot be seen; the hearer of hearing cannot be heard; the thinker of thinking cannot be thought; the knower of knowing cannot be known."
— Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.4.2
This proposition establishes consciousness as an irreducible, self-luminous singularity that cannot be reduced to an object of perception. Materialism, which treats consciousness as an epiphenomenon of matter, fails to account for this primary, antecedent awareness.
The Aitareya Upaniṣad 3.3 provides the ontological confirmation:
Sanskrit: प्रज्ञानं ब्रह्म ।
IAST: Prajñānam brahma.
Translation: "Consciousness itself is Brahman."
2.1 Non-Theistic Implications in Śaṅkara Bhāṣya
Śaṅkarācārya rigorously reinforces this non-theistic interpretation by divorcing the Ultimate from agency:
Sanskrit: न ब्रह्म कािणकततृत्वाहिसंबन्धि, अहवद्याकन्धितत्वात्। ज्ञानस्वरूपमेव आत्मा, न कताृ न भोक्ता।
IAST: Na brahma kāraṇa-kartṛtvādi-sambandhi, avidyā-kalpitattvāt. Jñāna-svarūpam eva ātmā, na kartā na bhoktā.
Translation: "Brahman is not connected with causality or agency, for such relations are imagined through ignorance. The Self is of the nature of knowledge alone; it is neither agent nor enjoyer."
— Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya 2.1.14; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 4.3.7
These exegeses establish Brahman as impersonal and devoid of volitional action, thereby obviating the metaphysical necessity for a God-agent.
3. Pūrva Mīmāṁsā: The Autonomy of Dharma
While Advaita Vedānta addresses the ontology of the subject, Pūrva Mīmāṁsā concerns itself with the deontological structure of reality. Crucially, Pūrva Mīmāṁsā explicitly rejects the dependency of moral or ritual efficacy on divine will. Its scholarship posits that dharma, karma, and the validity of the Veda are autonomous, grounded in the inherent structural integrity of action itself.
3.1 The Apauruṣeya Nature of the Veda
Pūrva Mīmāṁsā asserts that the Veda is apauruṣeya (authorless), existing eternally without presupposing a divine speaker. This principle is axiomatic to its atheistic orientation.
Śabara Bhāṣya on Jaimini Sūtra 1.1.5
Sanskrit: न हि कहिि् वेिस्य कताृ। अपौरुषेयत्वात्।
IAST: Na hi kaścid vedasya kartā | Apauruṣeyatvāt |
Translation: "There is no author of the Veda; it is authorless."
This underscores that the authority of the Veda derives from its intrinsic, epistemic permanence rather than the agency of a deity or human intellect, establishing a non-theistic foundation for ethical injunctions.
3.2 The Automaticity of Karmic Law
Pūrva Mīmāṁsā further maintains that the mechanism of karma operates independently of divine intervention. The fructification of action is generated automatically via the inherent lawfulness of dharma.
Śabara Bhāṣya on Jaimini Sūtra 6.1.1
Sanskrit: न िेवता फलं ििाहत। कमृण एव फलोत्पत्ेेः।
IAST: Na devatā phalaṃ dadāti | Karmaṇa eva phalotpattiḥ |
Translation: "No deity gives the result; results arise from the action itself."
Here, the Bhāṣya emphasizes the autonomous causal efficacy of human action, demonstrating that ethical accountability functions without a divine administrator to adjudicate outcomes.
3.3 Critique of Divine Command Theory
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa advances a potent critique against the dependency of dharma on a deity. He argues that if moral law were contingent upon divine will, it would be rendered inherently capricious and subjective.
Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Ślokavārttika
Sanskrit: ईश्विाधीनता धमृस्य स्यात् तहिृ स्यािकतहिमता। इच्छामािप्रवतहत्त्वात्।
IAST: Īśvarādhīnatā dharmasya syāt tarhi syād akṛtrimatā | Icchā-mātra-pravṛttitvāt |
Translation: "If dharma depended on God, it would be artificial, since it would proceed merely from His will."
This argument establishes dharma as objective, rational, and self-sufficient, protecting the moral law from the arbitrariness of divine caprice.
3.4 Deities as Functional Entities
Finally, Mīmāṁsā hermeneutics interprets Vedic references to deities as symbolic or functional operatives rather than literal, sentient entities. The term devatā designates a syntactical or ritual role, not an autonomous agent.
Śabara Bhāṣya, Devatā-adhikaraṇa
Sanskrit: िेवताशब्ाेः हियाराृेः। न तु तत्त्वतेः पुरुषाेः।
IAST: Devatā-śabdāḥ kriyārthāḥ | Na tu tattvataḥ puruṣāḥ |
Translation: "The word ‘deity’ refers to functional roles in ritual, not actual persons."
This interpretive stance ensures that moral and ritual obligations remain efficacious within a strictly non-theistic ontology.
4. Ethical Implications: Morality Devoid of Divine Command
The non-theistic synthesis of Hindu philosophy demonstrates that ethical conduct is not predicated upon a divine legislator. In Advaita Vedānta, ethical insight is the natural corollary of recognizing the self’s non-dual, universal consciousness. This is exemplified in the Īśā Upaniṣad:
Sanskrit: यस्तु सवाृहण भूताहन आत्मन्येवानुपश्यहत ।
IAST: Yas tu sarvāṇi bhūtāni ātmany evānupaśyati.
Translation: "He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings does not turn away from it."
— Īśā Upaniṣad 6
This verse articulates a principle of metaphysical empathy: moral action arises from the cognitive realization of existential unity. The awareness of the Self within the 'Other' generates compassion and responsibility absent the threat of divine retribution.
When integrated with Pūrva Mīmāṁsā, which defines dharma as an impersonal, law-like structure, this perspective renders morality both objective and intrinsic. Actions necessitate consequences via karmic law (karmaṇ eva phalotpattiḥ), independent of divine oversight, while ethical discernment flows from the direct apprehension of interconnectivity.
Thus, Hindu philosophy provides a robust, autonomous ethical framework wherein consciousness and impersonal dharmic law ground moral behavior, rendering the concept of a supernatural legislator superfluous. Ethical imperatives are discovered through insight rather than imposed by command, ensuring a morality that is universal, rational, and intrinsically accessible.
Conclusion
The non-theistic framework emerging from the synthesis of Advaita Vedānta and Pūrva Mīmāṁsā presents a compelling alternative to the contemporary binary of religious theism versus materialist nihilism. By positioning consciousness as the self-evident and irreducible ground of reality, Advaita resolves the metaphysical "hard problem" without invoking a creator deity to justify the existence of awareness. As the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad suggests, this awareness is not an empirical object to be observed, but the very luminosity that renders observation possible; it is auto-validating.
When this metaphysical foundation is coupled with the Mīmāṁsā conception of an impersonal, mechanistic dharma, the result is a cosmos that is structurally ordered and ethically vibrant without the prerequisite of a divine legislator. This system argues that moral outcomes are not the dispensations of divine favor or judgment, but the automatic, causal fructifications of actions themselves. Indeed, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s critique serves as a reminder that if morality were merely the product of divine will, it would be rendered inherently subjective and arbitrary. By rooting ethics in the intrinsic nature of reality and the recognition of non-dual consciousness, this framework ensures that justice is discovered through insight rather than imposed by decree.
Ultimately, this Hindu non-theistic perspective proposes a universe mature enough to exist autonomously. It invites the seeker to transcend the "transactional" relationship with a deity in favor of a profound accountability rooted in the veracity of one's own awareness and the self-executing laws that bind all existence. It supplants blind faith with the pursuit of direct knowledge (jñāna), proposing that ultimate meaning is found not in an upward gaze toward a ruler, but in an inward gaze toward the Self and an outward recognition of a unified world.