What does Bhagavad Gita make of persons who just go about doing their swadharma, fulfilling their duties (being a good child to parents, is a good spouse, a good parent, citizen etc.) but don't believe in a higher power or God?

  • 2
    Astika Schools have no problem being Athiest (one who doesn't believe in existence of God) as far as one believes Vedas as infallible truths. But Vedanta school, which is based on Jnana Khanda portion of Vedas, often cites BG, Brahma sutras. I think BG suggests to believe in existence of God.
    – The Destroyer
    Nov 21, 2016 at 8:04
  • Do you only want quotes from the Bhagavad Gita, or other scriptures as well? Nov 21, 2016 at 14:40
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Only BG. I think the other question is more generic so I wanted this to be this specific to BG. Nov 21, 2016 at 15:01
  • What is the background of your question?
    – Wikash_
    Aug 13, 2020 at 7:03
  • I'm pretty sure there are millions of people in the world who don't believe in God or care about him/her yet follow some basic dharma/duties. So what does BG make of them? Are they worthy, unworthy, etc.? @Wikash_ Aug 13, 2020 at 16:39

3 Answers 3


Updated version

There has been some criticism about my previous answer. hence I am posting an updated version which is hopefully better than the previous version.

Gita acknowledges the right of a person to reject its teachings.

‘..Reflecting on this entire teaching, do as you think fit.’

Gita 18.63

However, Gita has very low opinion about atheists.

According to them nothing is ultimately real in this world. It is Godless and without any moral basis. Being born of sex union, what else but lust can be said to be its cause?

Gita 16.8

We need to deal with 2 cases, that of immoral atheists and moral atheists.

immoral atheists

What happens to immoral atheists?

These vicious men, oppressive, cruel and sinful as they are, - are always hurled down by Me into demoniac wombs in life after life, in the transmigratory cycle.

Gita 16.19

What Gita means is that immoral atheists would remain in Samsara, the cycle of birth and death, since they will not do spiritual practice to purify their hearts and know God and will thus suffer. This is of course what will happen to any immoral person.

Moral Atheists

Of course there are also atheists who live moral lives. What would happen to them? The answer is that they will also remain trapped in Samsara since God realization is the only way out of Samsara. However, they will most probably have pleasant life since they have lived a moral life.

The only way to end of sorrow is to know God. When men shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then will there be an end of sorrow, apart from knowing God.

Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.20

Does Gita discriminate between atheists and believers?

The answer is no. Even believers will remain trapped in Samsara unless they purify their mind.

For the attainment of mental purity, spiritual aspirants (Yogins) perform action devoid of attachment, with their body, mind, intellect or even merely with the senses.

Gita 5.11

The point is that Gita or Hindu shastra does not say that intellectual belief or disbelief plays any role in the fate of a person. It is only mental purity that determines whether a person will be able to escape the cycle of Samsara. An atheist will remain trapped in Samsara not because of his belief but because of not striving for mental purity. It is his choice. Similarly a believer who does not purify his mind will remain trapped in Samsara. Again it is his choice. God does not play any role in deciding whether any person remains in Samsara or not.

  • I think Gita 16.8 is talking about atheists, materialists, Buddhists, etc. See Who are “they” in BG 16.8? Atheists? Cārvākas? Vaiśeṣikas? 16.6 divides the entire humanity into divine and demoniacal which I think is a false dichotomy. Aug 13, 2020 at 16:46
  • An atheist does not need to be a materialist. It is not a direct implication.
    – Wikash_
    Aug 29, 2021 at 0:35
  • @SayNoToCensorship I disagree and partly agree. On one hand, an atheist is disliked, but it's not because they disbelieve in god which is an essential quality to reach moksha which makes the Nastika faiths demonic. It is the fact they don't follow morality expounded upon by authoritative sources such as smirtis.
    – Haridasa
    Feb 28 at 2:03

As already discussed in comments, an Atheist in Hinduism is:

  • One who doesn't believe in the infallible authority of the Vedas

But your question asks: "who do not believe in higher power or God". So your question is asking, to those, who view the world as fully material only.

[As an example Buddhism doesn't believe in infallible authority of the Vedas, but Buddhism does talk of higher beings like Devas and Shakra and MahaBrahma. So although they are atheist in Vedic point of view they are not Atheist from "who do not believe in higher power"]

So, I'm taking "Atheist" here to mean "who do not believe in higher power" i.e., They do not believe in things like re-incarnation and afterlife, law of Karma, etc.

More precisely they believe that Consciousness in our body is only due to congregation of atoms and product of mass of atoms.

Now a question may arise Is there any Indian Philosophy which considers consciousness is merely a product of the conglomeration of its constituents?

Yes, there is a philosophy called Chārvāka Vāda which holds consciousness is only product of body and the self which we see in our body comes with the birth of our body and dies with death of our body. They do not believe in any higher power. They believe only in Pratakshya Pramāna (direct testimony).

So, does Bhagavad Gita gives us freedom to say that self comes as product of body and goes when body dies?

Yes, while teaching about eternity of soul in Chapter 2 Lord states:

अथ चैनं नित्यजातं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम् ।
तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैनं शोचितुमर्हसि ।।

BG 2.26: If, however, you think that the self is subject to constant birth and death, O mighty-armed Arjuna, even then you should not grieve like this.

Here, Lord is stating that, even if you believe that self dies when body dies, then, you shouldn't grieve like it. But this doesn't mean that Lord is endorsing this statement. This only means Lord is giving freedom to Arjuna to believe in this type of philosophy also. This means Bhagavad Gita doesn't detest atheists. Here, Lord is using the words "Atha Cha" which means "Even if"; this clearly shows Lord is giving freedom to Arjuna to have this view also.

In Vedanta, Brahman is the source of everything including higher powers as I discussed in answer here and from 1.2 of Mandukya Upanishad "Aayam Atman Brahman" or "This Atman is the Brahman." So, disbelief in Eternal Atman means disbelief in Brahman and Brahman is the source of higher power also. So, disbelief in Atman clearly gives view of discarding higher powers (in Vedanta) as Brahman is the source here.

But as we already know from Verses of Upanishads and Vedas that non-atman view is not correct. Then a question may arise Why is Lord giving freedom to have this view also?

It's because it is not so easy to understand about Atman. Some people by their Prakriti Swabhāva (innate nature) become atheists. They can't change their view at all. So, Lord is giving them freedom. A similar conversation also occurs in Shiva Gita as I discuss here. Here Lord Rama asks:

शृण्वन्तोऽपि तथात्मानं जानते नैव केचन ।
ज्ञात्वापि मन्वते मिथ्या किमेतत्तव मायया ॥ ३६॥

And some can't even know Atman after hearing too and some while knowing also call it false. Why is it so? Is it your Maya?

And Lord replies as:

एवमेव महाबाहो नात्र कार्या विचारणा ।
दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया ॥ ३७॥

Oh Mahabaho it is as you spoke, there is no doubt in it. My maya is very hard to overcome.

So, due to Maya of Lord and due to factors like past life Karmas some can't even know Atman after reading scriptures. But for those also, in Gita, Lord states to do their duty. Hence that verse came.

OP also asks "persons who just go about doing their swadharma, fulfilling their duties."

We can term such person as unsuccessful yogi i.e., He doesn't have complete knowledge but doing meritorious activities. Such persons enjoy the portion of merit and get good or virtuous birth in next life by the virtue of their meritorious Karma and can have right or Dharmic view. In the chapter 6 Lord states:

प्राप्य पुण्यकृतां लोकानुषित्वा शाश्वती: समा: |
शुचीनां श्रीमतां गेहे योगभ्रष्टोऽभिजायते || 41||
अथवा योगिनामेव कुले भवति धीमताम् |
एतद्धि दुर्लभतरं लोके जन्म यदीदृशम् || 42||

BG 6.41 The unsuccessful yogis, upon death, go to the abodes of the virtuous. After dwelling there for many ages, they are again reborn in the earth plane, into a family of pious and prosperous people. Else, if they had developed dispassion due to long practice of Yoga, they are born into a family endowed with divine wisdom. Such a birth is very difficult to attain in this world.

Another question may arise: In many places, is Lord condemning certain views and states "those having such views are unintelligent", etc.?

We shouldn't take those condemnations in absolute sense. Lord is only condemning out of compassion of Jeevas, so that Jeevas may be able to get liberation as soon as possible. Gita already states everything as manifestation of Brahman, so there can't be anything that is not Brahman:

ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् |
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना || 24||

BG 4.24: For those who are completely absorbed in God-consciousness, the oblation is Brahman, the ladle with which it is offered is Brahman, the act of offering is Brahman, and the sacrificial fire is also Brahman. Such persons, who view everything as God, easily attain him.

Vedas also declare the same as I discuss in my answer here.

As the above verse clearly holds everything is Brahman in absolute sense, so condemnation of any view in other parts of Gita can't be taken in absolute sense. They are only to be taken relatively as everything is Brahman in absolute sense.

Furthermore, it is also difficult to see Lord in everything:

बहूनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मा प्रपद्यते ।
वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभ ।।

BG 7.19: After many births of spiritual practice, one who is endowed with knowledge surrenders unto me, knowing me to be all that is. Such a great soul is indeed very rare.

i.e., only after spiritual practice from many births a rare person can see that Lord resides everywhere (i.e., Vãsudeva).

As the BrihadAranyaka Upanishad states:

III-ix-3: ‘Which are the Vasus /’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars – these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.’

As clear from above "all this is (whole Universe)" placed in Vasus and Lord residing on these Vasus is Vãsudeva. So, only a rare person can actually see that Lord is present everywhere and it is difficult too.

And furthermore, teachings of Bhagavad Gita are words of Supreme Brahman. In the Aswamedha Parva before Anu Gita, regarding Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna states: "परं हि ब्रह्म कथितं योगयुक्तेन तन्मय"..."Param Brahman had told (Bhagavad Gita) while I was concentrated in higher Yoga." So, it can't be that Brahman hates someone. If we see some condemnation in Bhagavad Gita it is not that Brahman hates such people, it's just due to compassion of Brahman.

So, in conclusion we can say: Bhagavad Gita neither detests Atheists nor endorses Atheism.


Short answer

No, Gita doesn't detest Atheists.

SAmkhya philosophy is considered "atheism" by most of the philosophers. Now, according to Gita, the result of SAmkhya (knowledge of Atman) & the devotional Yoga, both leads to Moskha.

BG 5.4 - The fools, not the learned ones, speak of Sankhya (the path of Knowledge) and (Karma-) yoga as different. Any one who properly resorts to even one (of them) gets the result of both.

However, atheism has different interpretations by different people. Some people interpret in good way "no personal form of god, but higher self" and some people interpret in bad way "no concern about god related questions." See last section for the bad interpretation of "atheism".

Long Answer

"... but don't [believe] in a higher power or God?"

Note that, I am referring "Theist" as Astika & "Atheist" as NAstika, as they are interpreted in popular culture. They need not have 1:1 relation. I will cover other perspective as well.
From dictionary:

  • Theist (may be, Astika): Believes in the existence of God
  • Atheist (may be, NAstika): Disbelieves in the existence of God

From Gita:

BG 13.13 - I shall speak of that which is knowable (should be known). Knowing which, one attains immortality. The supreme Brahman (god) dwelling under Me, is beginningless. "That" is said to be neither existent nor non-existent." (existent = being)

Hence, in context of Gita, both have tendency towards god. Just that former tends by "belief" and later tends by "disbelief". This is kind of love-hate relationship, where the emotion doesn't matter (love or hate), but tendency matters (relationship).

  • "theist" believes in god's personal form (SAkAra)
  • "atheist" disbelieves in personal form; in other words: believes in formless (nirAkAra)

Both schools of thoughts exist: Astika & NAstika.

  • Vaishnava, DevimA, Rudra, Christianity & many more try to understand god through personal form.
  • Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, ChArvAka, Ajivika, Scientology & certain other schools reject any personal form of God.

IMO, Neti Neti strikes the best balance among these 2.

The main Qn:

"What does Bhagavad Gita make of persons who just go about doing their swadharma, fulfilling their duties ... but don't believe in a higher power ...?"

Quite similar Q&A happened between Arjuna & Krishna at the beginning of chapter-12.

BG 12.1 - Arjuna said: [Among] the devotees, thus continuously engaged in your devotion and those again [engaged] in your indestructible, unmanifested [form]; Who experiences the union better?

Krishna opines that the devotees with Astika nature are the best in this comparison. However, NAstika also attains the supreme ultimately, but the way is difficult & painful.

BG 12.4, 12.5 - Fully controlling all the senses and always being even-minded, they, engaged in the welfare of all beings, attain Me only. For them who have mind attached to the Unmanifested the struggle is greater; For embodied [beings], the destination to unmanifested is painful.

Another interpretation of "Atheism"

In above answer, we have taken the literal meaning of "believe". But did you mean "care"? i.e.

"... but don't [[care]] about higher power or God?"

This changes the question entirely. Such people, may or may not be praying to god or supreme on face value. You may find them in temples as well. Inside their hearts, these people actually are not concerned about any topic related to "higher power" at all.

In such case, we are talking about Daivi sampadA (divine quality) vs Asuri sampada (demonic quality). Gita's whole chapter 16 is dedicated to it, hence not quoting it except:

BG 16.20 - Being born in demoniacal species in births after births, [those] fools, without certainly not achieving Me, O son of Kunti, attain condemned destination.

Note: This is slightly amusing to me. The true form of god is "Unmanifested". Any personal forms are just means/tools to attain this unmanifested. Interestingly, the people who are plugged into the true form i.e. "Unmanifested" actually have to go through hardships. While the people who believe in personal forms which are incomplete, find the way to supreme easily!

  • 3
    Astika and Nastika are not theist and Atheist. Astika means orthodox and Nastika means unorthodox. This is because, as per some philosophers, Vedas themselves are not sure about existence of God.
    – The Destroyer
    Nov 21, 2016 at 8:01
  • @TheDestroyer, unsure about "orthodox" thing. But you are right about, "Theist-Atheist" doesn't necessarily have 1:1 with "Astika-NAstika". But most of the people treat it like that because of their meaning. "Theist = God exists", while "Astika = There exists". Don't they look similar? Due to this, I had to present 2 perspective. 1st is based on "belief" system and 2nd is based on "Daivi/Asuri sampada". According to Gita, "that" (read God) is neither sat (existent) nor asat (non-existent). Hence, theist (believing in existence) & atheist (believing in non-existence), both are correct.
    – iammilind
    Nov 21, 2016 at 8:33
  • 2
    @iammilind Atheist doesn't mean that some one who believe in no-form. Atheist is some one who believe there is no supreme power, regardless of form or formless, at all. And I think you might have to think a little more. It is true that people who believe in incomplete forms attains supreme easily. Because they can easily focus their efforts on god with any visual. Those who are seeking god without any form will have lot more difficult and needs even more training to attain god. That is not a comparison between theist and atheist, in my opinion. Nov 21, 2016 at 13:07
  • 1
    As @TheDestroyer said, this answer completely misunderstands the Astika/Nastika distinction. Astikas are those who accept the infallible scriptural authority of the Vedas. Nastikas are those who reject the authority of the Vedas. The only six Astika schools are Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva Mimamsa, and Vedanta. Of these schools, Samkhya is explicitly atheistic, Purva Mimamsa is essentailly agnostic on whether a supreme being exists, and the other four schools believe in the existence of some sort of surpreme being, either with a form (Sakara) or without a form (Nirakara).. Nov 21, 2016 at 13:30
  • 1
    And Nastikas include Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka, Ajivika, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, and Taoism. Of these, some are atheists, and others accept the existence of a supreme being, either with a form or without a form. Nov 21, 2016 at 13:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .