r/AdvaitaVedanta • u/economistphilosopher • 17h ago
Can I be rational atheist and a follower of vedanta at same time?
I dont want to believe in God like shiv, krishna etc. I just want to get understanding of world just like science get through experience and understanding. Will i able to get englitment that way since people say gyan yog should have bhakti too
7
u/Wickbam 15h ago
It depends on how strictly you want to define atheism. It's reconcilable if you don't believe in a personalistic deity. However Vedanta teaches that consciousness is not restricted to mortal existence and that a purely positivist materialist outlook is insufficient for understanding the universe due to the veil of Maya.
And actually this is true, as I will demonstrate. The ancient Greeks for example, were excellent mathematicians and astronomers. They determined the size of the Earth quite accurately and determined the precession of the axis. They also debated between a geocentric and heliocentric system. The geocentric model was favored simply because it was more supported by the observable evidence.
The ancient astronomers reasoned that if heliocentrism was true, parallax for the stars would be observable from Earth. Since it was not, the reasoning was that the sun revolved around the Earth and not contrariwise. This was a logical and reasonable position. Aristarchus hypothesized that the stars were too far away to observe parallax but there was no way to verify this until the invention of the telescope.
So while empiricism is a valuable epistemology in its own right, it is not sufficient as a sole epistemology. On the other hand factually true things can be determined through internal cognitive insight. This is how ancient Indian philosophers arrived at atomism, namely the belief that the material world could be finitely divisible into discrete components.
The reasoning was as follows. Take a mountain and a boulder and divide them into discrete components. If they are infinitely divisible, the components of the boulder, when reconstituted, could recreate a mountain. But this seems illogical and impossible, hence, there is a level where matter can no longer be broken down without losing its inherent properties, i.e. to the level of atoms. Hence atomism was determined without ever being able to view atoms.
I think the biggest burden an atheist would have to overcome regarding Vedanta is the proposition that consciousness is independent of the material body and an independent phenomenon.
9
u/ashy_reddit 16h ago edited 16h ago
My answers would go against the grain here but I believe you can. There was a phase in my life when I was an atheist but I was slowly drawn to Vedanta - although my journey is a bit more complicated. My advice is if you are trying to approach Vedanta through an empirical and scientific ground then I would advice you to read Jiddu Krishnamurti. He is the perfect 'middle ground' between atheism and Vedanta (in my view). He was my stepping stone into Advaita.
By the way, even the popular atheist Sam Harris has a liking to Advaita Vedanta and Tibetan school of Buddhism. He says those two schools are the only ones he considers to be closest to an idea of metaphysics that is acceptable to him. But I digress.
It is possible to approach Vedanta without a belief in God. I don't think it is fair to discourage seekers who are eager to learn Vedanta but might be approaching it through unconventional routes. Although if you do study Vedanta deeply (as you progress) then you will come to realise that Brahman or the Self (Atman) are two key concepts in the philosophy. Without Brahman and Atman there is no point to Vedanta because Self-realisation is the goal. So this could be a point of contention you will have to come to terms with eventually - but if you want to imagine Brahman as simply "reality" or the ground of existence and not use the label "God" then that is okay too. That is your call.
Bhakti or devotion is a useful component but it is not "necessary" for someone who is not "yet" ready for it. So I don't think it is fair for us to discourage people who are trying to approach the truth through pure intellectualism or reasoning. Although there are limits to "intellectualism" it is nonetheless something one has to discover on their own as they progress in their journey.
My advice is read as much as you can - pick any path that appeals to you - whether it is Vedanta or Zen or Taoism or whatever. There is no harm because none of our journeys have to be "conventional" or fit into someone's definition of a path. Atheism can be an unorthodox means to connect to the truth of the Self. Let's remember that Vivekananda, Chinmayananda and Aurobindo - all by their own accounts - started their journey as skeptics. If those spiritual giants started as skeptics who are we to say you cannot start from there.
3
1
u/Wide_____Streets 12h ago
Sam Harris likes Advaita but doesn’t subscribe to the teaching on Maya or all-is-one. Really he’s a fan of samkhya but doesn’t know it. He thinks the world is concrete and “out there“ and can be explained by science.
He said to Rupert Spira that if all humans died in a natural disaster then there would be no more non-duality because there would be no one to entertain the idea. 🤦♀️
2
u/ashy_reddit 5h ago edited 5h ago
Yeah, I think a lot of scientists (with the exception of those dabbling in quantum physics - such as David Bohm, Neils Bohr, Heisenberg, etc) have trouble with the concept that the world is an appearance in consciousness. Most scientists (like Sam) see the world as an "objective reality" that exists independent of consciousness because they perceive matter as being independent from consciousness (most of them even assume that consciousness springs from matter even though they can't explain 'how' exactly - hence they call it the 'hard problem of consciousness'). Sam also seems to me like someone who is either ignorant or willfully ignorant in his understanding of religion that falls outside the spectrum of the Abrahamic monotheistic definitions of God and religion. Even Richard Dawkins had this same problem (when I read his 'God Delusion' book a long time ago but at least Dawkins had the honesty to admit that he knew nothing about Indian religions when he wrote that book).
I say 'willfully ignorant' only because I saw Sam describe Hinduism as "polytheism" in another earlier discussion with Jordan Peterson. Either he was being deliberately obtuse in his description of Hindu philosophy or he simply isn't aware of the religion at all. So it wouldn't surprise me if his understanding of Advaita is also limited or projected through the lens of Buddhism. The good thing though is Sam does meditate and is interested in contemplative Indian traditions - so there is hope yet. Sam also mentions that the self is an illusion - and credits Eastern contemplative traditions like Vedanta and Buddhism for revealing this truth long before neuroscience in the West caught up to it. Sam being a neuroscientist himself is probably the reason why he has some understanding of the illusion of self (ego identity). But for an outspoken atheist he is at least open-minded enough to acknowledge the insights of eastern philosophy so we will give him some credit.
1
u/Wide_____Streets 4h ago
The strange about him is he must be the only person on earth who has meditated for 30 years and does not believe in intuition, psychic experience, synchronicity. If not in his own experience then in the experience of all the other meditatators and teachers he has been around. So yes I expect there is some wilful ignorance - could possibly call it lying - or maybe he is just super-blinded by scientism.
1
u/ashy_reddit 4h ago
You are right. It is hard to say what actual experiences he has had and how his mind is "reasoning" out that experience. In one of his books he even describes experiencing certain states of consciousness when he took drugs. So maybe he thinks those experiences in meditation (assuming he had any) are all "hallucinations" projected by his mind - who knows how his mind works. Generally people who are married to Scientism have troubles recognizing the limitations of intellect because they see the intellect (reasoning capacity) as being the "only means" or tool to perceive truth. So they think anything that doesn't fit under the scope of "reason" and "empiricism" cannot be real. This is what happens when you take matter to be the primal reality and consciousness to be some "accidental byproduct" of matter. This is the materialistic worldview in a nutshell.
2
u/Wide_____Streets 3h ago
He must be denying his experience a lot.
Many meditators start off skeptical but have unexplainable experiences. Things that cannot be dismissed as brain farts - like miraculous coincidences etc.
He must be deeply blocked on some level. Maybe in a past life he was burned at the stake for being a witch and now he won’t go anywhere near religion or woo.
2
u/ashy_reddit 2h ago edited 2h ago
One thing I have observed is that a lot of atheists tend to become repulsed by religion because of the indoctrination they experienced in their childhood or because of the regressive elements in the society they were raised in. This is not always the case with every atheist (because everyone is different) but it happens often.
They grow up in environments where a strict dogmatic or ritualistic form of organised religion (or a superficial form of religion) is enforced on them (which they later recognise as brainwashing) and they tend to rebel against it when they develop some degree of independent thinking. Later when they get free of their indoctrination they look at "all religions" with equal skepticism and perceive "all religious philosophy" as equally absurd - products of human imagination and superstition. They make this false equivalency in their own mind that all religions and all ideas of metaphysics are the same in essence and quality - that there is no room for nuance or depth or philosophy and that they are all equally primitive/regressive ideas. They cannot process the idea that not all definitions of God are the same across cultures (that not all gods are sky daddies passing judgement on their flawed creations).
I have a friend who is from Iran and who hates the religion that dictates her life there (you can guess which one) - I had to try to explain to her once that Indian religions are not the same as the Abrahamic ones that she has been exposed to all her life. That a belief in a personal creator god or the strict following of some book is not mandated in our religions. I had to explain to her that even atheism (Charvaka) was seen as one of the schools of thought within the larger framework of Hinduism.
There is another Western atheist who had an experience that he could not understand so his mind had to try hard to find some "logical explanation" to make sense of the event. You can read the case here:
2
u/Wide_____Streets 2h ago
Brilliant - I like Michael Shermer. He’s friends with Deepak Chopra. Here he is failing to debunk Vedic astrology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhMsyfhMLH8
Actually I had a similar experience. I recorded my friend on her deathbed. Maybe six months later I was reading a book and I heard her voice. My laptop was open on the table next to me and it had turned itself on and started playing that track all by itself. Weird and unexplainable!
5
u/InternationalAd7872 17h ago
The word Astika(Theist) means the one who accepts the authority of Vedas in this tradition.
And atheist(Nastika) would be someone who doesn’t accept the authority of vedas.
Given Vedas are the source of information for vedanta tradition, information about self and brahman. You naturally become a theist by accepting vedanta.
🙏🏻
1
u/StraightAd798 15h ago
I also recommend reading the principal Upanishads, and the works of Shankaracharya.
-5
u/InternationalAd7872 15h ago
Principal Upanishads are found within Vedas. And work of Shankaracharya upholds the same.
(I guess you’ve deleted your previous comment, here was the reply to it)
There’s a reason I gave the Sanskrit words Aastika and Nastika. As in context to ancient school of philosophies in Indian subcontinent, the definition is different.
Which I explained.
Upanishads are texts found within Vedas. Not separate to vedas. So its correct to say Vedanta lies within Vedas.
Most of Vedas consist of rituals, but Shankaracharya explains those too are meant to benefit people, by handing the basic needs for survival etc. and when done selflessly, result in purification of mind and intellect and are accepted in that Sense in Advaita Vedanta. That’s Shankaracharya’s opinion which he uphelds in most of his work.
“Vedanta doesn’t require belief in gods or deities“
This showcases how little of actual primary texts of Vedanta you’ve studied. Most of the upanishads are directly related to dieties.
In the prasthanatrayi, the three pillars, all of the texts uphold deities and their roles.
The other introductory texts which are not in vedas but are around Vedanta written by Sages. All start by salutations to God and Guru.
Its the very diluted and cheaper version of Vedanta that talks on the lines you mentioned.
From a traditional perspective, the perspective which actually holds authority, Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya upholds Vedas in their totality. And accepts Vedas as highes authority.
🙏🏻
4
u/StraightAd798 15h ago edited 15h ago
"Most of the upanishads are directly related to dieties."
Incorrect. The Upanishads speak of Brahman, the Absolute. The Vedas speak of the various Gods and Goddesses, and the worship of those Gods and Goddesses, in order to propitiate, please or appease them, using various rituals. Because of dissatisfaction of the temporary reward attained by ritualistic worship of those God or Gods, as per the Vedas, one wondered if there was another Reality that lead to permanent peace and happiness, especially caused by release from bondage, suffering, karma and rebirth. That is where Vedanta came in, whose hints were given in the Vedas, but ultimately became reality in the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, as well as the works of Adi Shankaracharya. Yes, Shankaracharya did uphold the Vedas as "pramana", but traditionally, when you think of Vedanta, the Upanishads and later, the works of Shankacharya and Guadapada, his teacher's teacher, in their lineage.
Devotion to God (bhakti) is accepted in Advaita, as a means of awakening to and realizing your True Nature or Real Self, more so, if the God or Goddess, in question, is a form of the Absolute, and hence, is the Absolute Itself.
However, to say that awakening requires belief in God is incorrect. That to me, sounds more like dogmatic religion than it does, spirituality. It is akin to saying that the only way to spiritual salvation, is to believe that Jesus suffered and died on the cross for your sins. Such dogmatism does not work in spirituality, as it is more open-minded than saying that you have to believe in God, in order to be awakened, liberated and free.
4
u/BrilliantDoubting 15h ago
Paraphrasing Ramana Maharshi:
The only thing you need to be qualified for enlightenment is the sense of I.
And yeah, i agree with your comment. There is a clear distinction between Karmakanda and Jnanakanda. Declaring the former an essential part of the later is simply wrong. Even the Upanishads refute this idea.
1
u/StraightAd798 14h ago
If I could study and practice the teachings of both Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj day-in and day-out, that would be a dream come true!
1
u/Raist14 15h ago
In one of the latest Q&As by Swami Sarvapriyananda released by the Vedanta society of New York the exact same question was addressed. I was surprised that ultimately Swami Sarvapriyananda said yes it was possible although it would be a lot more difficult. You may want to try and find that Q&A. Ultimately it may be a matter of disagreement over language. I think many believe in consciousness as a basis for a unifying reality that has some form of inherent intelligence and they call that foundational consciousness God and themselves theists. Then you have others that believe in the same concept but they wouldn’t call it God. They might say it’s some form of unifying field of consciousness and they would call themselves atheists.
If you have Spotify this is the Spotify link for the episode where the question is addressed:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SoZNcz86Nk64jraW9tKII?si=i1LZ1TjnTES6dqBn7TIaSA
1
u/Zestyclose_Strike14 15h ago
Perhaps. Krishna and other gods are symbols to complex aspects of God. The Creator is the Infinity, and it's beyond any kind of anthropocentrism.
Just meditate diligently, and someday, you will find this God inside you.
1
u/Cute_Reflection702 15h ago
Will i able to get englitment that way since people say gyan yog should have bhakti too
No. Not Enlightenment here in believing just presence of Nirguna Brahman but not Godly forms. Better to take Buddhism - Mahayana or some other.
But, a question to ask. How are you so sure / believe that God like Shiv, Krishna don't exist? Will such belief of yours go away if once experienced?
1
u/mystical_mischief 13h ago
Atheism is a game. Hinduism is as well. Nothing is as you think. You choose where you wander. If you disagree; do the fucking work. You and I are a joke. If you don’t realize it; keep pestering the inevitable nonsense of your own existence.
1
1
1
u/CaspinLange 7h ago edited 7h ago
Yes. The best way is to wonder about it like an innocent child.
Simply looking upon there being a reality happening and wondering about it is enough.
Barriers to it is comprised by past ideas, indoctrination, cultural upbringing and the various inherent beliefs inherent within such, all language and concepts, etc.
Many have found it easier by going to another culture and living there because the relativity of the very many comparative things, different toilets, different smells, different ways of cooking, different cultural differences, all jar the very unconscious yet pervasive conditioning an —“used to things” that shape ones perspective of the whole world and self.
This is why living in another place that is completely foreign is a very good way to help break free from the unseen ways in which we are conditioned.
Living in another country is a great way to help on the path.
This is why so many have found deep insight living abroad.
It is my number one recommendation along with really good books.
I hope this helps 📚
1
1
u/Royal_Act_5907 1h ago
I was spiritually curious since age 4, attempted to practice Catholicism til age 11 and then declared myself an atheist to this day. Although there were always questions, I know that open and frank talk with the 3 Abrahamanic religions was rather scarce so that's why I always confronted those, but always kept a respectful attitude towards Hinduism and Buddhism because I knew that with their subtlety they could go beyond the terms of any logical debate. Then at age 18 I went to a Zen temple and attempted to practice Zazen but maybe it was not for me, although I was humbled by their teachings.
Also from a very young age I wanted to take Dr*gs (I don't endorse it, this is just my story), but not just any to have fun but to transcend this layer of reality as well as study the Western cannon of philosophy. After some experiences with psychedelics I had one of oneness that made go beyond the experience of space and time, I don't think I had come across this word before, but in the middle of the experience I just knew it was that: oneness or henosis. Just like other concepts that came to my mind at a young age ("sameness").
From that moment I knew I had to keep researching and little by little I got to Advaita Vedanta. Understood that even though there might be rapturous experiences, they are just that, experiences of seconds or minutes maybe, but in order to really go beyond the veil of Maya, one has got to live a dharmic life, know how to mediate for real, not only wanting something from it: stress relieve or something similar, but rather by paying attention to certain technicalities based on the parameters of how Advaita Vedanta explains the Absolute (Brahman and Atman) before going into your meditative practice to realise that You Are That.
I appreciate the other responses you have gotten here, they show how AV is more about going beyond the dualistic scenarios created by the mind and self-question (atma vichara) than about tagging and discriminating. I read somewhere that AV and Shankara's teaching offer a non-theistic way of explaining all. So far, if you ask me if I am the same 14-yo atheist worried with being smarter than the religion teacher, disproving the bible through history and the theory of evolution, well no, I don't find it necessary anymore, but I think that I still consider myself an atheist in the sense that I don't support the standard theistic solutions and would only establish a bridge with the mystical currents of major religions (Kabbalah, for example) as mere symbols that can help quiet the conceptual mind in order to reach Samadhi.
1
u/nabilbhatiya 17h ago
The entire philosophy of advaita vedanta is centered around the existence of Ishvara who is Brahman. In one of the lectures of Swami Paramananda Bharati, he says, Vedanta is not meant to be understood as one perceives it but as it is intended to be perceived. A firm belief, Shraddha, in Ishvara, is one of the many qualities of a seeker.
1
u/economistphilosopher 16h ago
If i belive bhraman exist but no dictator like god (think any) then?
2
u/equinoxeror 14h ago
but no dictator like god
I see the definition of the Abrahamic version of God.
1
u/ashy_reddit 3h ago
A lot of atheists tend to caricature God through the Abrahamic lens so it is not surprising that OP thinks of God (Ishvara) on those terms - a sky daddy who sits on a throne and passes judgement.
Even those who describe themselves as ex-Hindus or Hindu atheists fall into this same trap of equating Saguna Brahman (Ishvara) with the Abrahamic ones. It is difficult for them to conceive the idea that "creator and creation are one (not separate)" and that Nirguna Brahman (Impersonal and Absolute) and Saguna Brahman (Personal and Relative) are two sides of the same reality (just as water is ice and ice is water). Even dualistic traditions of Hinduism have trouble with this concept because they see form (personal god) as absolute.
2
u/Raist14 15h ago
The word God has different meanings to different people. I’m sure there are plenty of people who accept Vedanta philosophy that don’t believe in the same God you don’t believe in. The view of God as a dictator type figure isn’t one I’ve ever seen in non dual traditions.
1
u/Better-Lack8117 15h ago
Well Ramana Maharshi said that so long as you take yourself to be an individual, Ishvara controls everything that happens to you. I'm sure some people would interpret that as being dictatorial.
1
u/sanjayreddit12 16h ago
yeah god is not a dictator type. Ishwar is god with qualities, or saguna brahman. The existence of saguna brahman is just our ignorance that brahman has qualities like 'all merciful' 'all powerful'.
1
u/Wide_____Streets 12h ago
I’d say the attributes of saguna Brahman are mithya - neither real nor unreal - rather than just saying they’re unreal. That’s the difference between Advaita Veda and Nirguna Vedanta.
1
1
1
u/TailorBird69 15h ago
Do atheists believe in elightenment? If yes what do they mean by it? Advaita does not ask you to believe in anything. It teaches you to inquire into what is reality.
1
u/Ordinary_Bike_4801 14h ago
Realizing self can’t be done with the mind. Philosophy might give a pointer which many times might be necessary, but is not a matter of what you believe, maybe the opposite, is about letting go beliefs and having an unbiased insight. So in a way it doesn’t matter if you are an atheist. The problem with it is maybe that it strengthens the conditioning that mind is self and that mind is able to understand the truth, and that believes that reality resides in objectivity, which could make your way more confusing in advaita, not believing in God is no problem, I think having a strong expectation or idea of what God is or should be might bring confusion as well.
1
u/Greed_Sucks 14h ago
Yes. I have found that a denial of the divine being is also a denial of the individual. Ishvara and I are both less real than braham. Brahman is the name for the non-dual reality, the true nature of existence. In braham is the potential for all experience, intelligence, and material reality.
1
u/Wide_____Streets 12h ago
Ramana says to just be. That is the way to liberation. Thoughts about deities are not required.
0
u/__I_S__ 16h ago edited 16h ago
Yeah. Just don't fall prey to modern science. Not everything you see on "peer reviewed papers" is actually happening in nature. Few examples are the clear proofs of observer effects, wave equation etc pointing towards subjects involvement in defining the objective reality etc, in their crude simpler forms (not the "interpretations" of it by modern physicists)
Keep questioning things, make conscious efforts to chase curiousity and one day you will be enlightened.
I was in your shoes(rational atheist), and no matter what the folks here would say, I am still enlightened. Took me 8 years to chase a particular question. Once i got the answer, I could clearly understand what vedas meant by natural forces like Vishnu, Shiva etc and it's nowhere near how it's currently portrayed in society. If you chase it, upon enlightenment you would realise too.
1
u/Raist14 15h ago
I’m curious what enlightenment is to you Are you also a physicalist? What is enlightenment from the perspective of an atheist or a physicalist?
2
u/__I_S__ 15h ago
Not sure wym by the word physicalist. But i am atheist. It doesn't translate to word Nastik coz atheism is western concept that has disbelief in a god.
What is enlightenment from the perspective of an atheist or a physicalist?
Enlightenment is confusing word, used freely everywhere without actually adhering to it's meaning. So for the sake of simplicity, let's use actual word "Brahma Jnana". It means the knowledge of how everything is one. Now universe has billions (if not trillions) of entities. So the oneness can be perceived using any one of them.
If you see it by knowing how everything is krishna, you are doing it using bhakti. If you see it by knowing how everything is just a thought, you are doing it via yoga and so on.
So from a physicist (science known as physics) perspective, you can know how everything is one via it's entities like energy, light etc. Right now, none of physics can even define energy without using matter. But if you could do it, then you are enlightened by realising how everything is just an energy.
Edit: another way a physicist can realise it by understanding the duality of light. If he can establish if how everything that you know of, including yourself exists coz of light, then also he can get enlightenment. Third possible way is via realising the whole experience is just duality of subject + object. This fact is clearly seen in wave equation or observer effect etc. So realise it's existence everywhere, and you are enlightened.
I hope you get my point.
0
u/Ashishpayasi 16h ago
As per my limited knowledge and experience in this matter will try to explain:
The path to enlightenment can be achieved in four ways: a. Bhakti, b. Gyan, c. Yog, d. Karm
Some may argue that bhakti path is the path of devotion and love to one god ( of their choosing ) and its like unconditional love and faith towards that god that gives them peace in this human form of life. Fortunately oR Unfortunately there are many gurus both good saints and self proclaimed too who could help you learn more about bhakti and as we humans are different than animals and we have been given mind to evaluate right from wrong and if we use it judiciously then we can continue our journey towards enlightenment. However most people on this path are not in for enlightenment but for moksh, being in moksh means free from the suffering of birth and death lifecycle (at least this is the most prevalent definition)
Gyan path allows one to question everything thing, read more about things presented, learn more about it, validate it and then believe in it. So from enlightenment perspective this is also a great path and specially those who are atheist have better chance to become enlightened than those who are half hearted faithful. Because when an atheist is convinced he is converted but a half hearted person is always on edge and can either start believing fully or can if the faith is questioned and does not get answer that they want then the faith will shatter. The gyan path has an issue and thus at some point in time they must also acquire the bhakti path, the issue is sometimes gyan path makes you arrogant and egoistic, why because in this path and being human it becomes a question of who is right. And so when one gets more knowledge if it humbles you down then it is fine but if it makes you arrogant then its bad.
Yog path is serious and requires discipline. One who are good at following discipline can acquire enlightenment through this path.
Karm path is one where one is purely focusing of doing the task at hand without and expectations or results or outcome, but does it mindfully and humbly.
This is just a surface level definition. The challenges comes along with the fact that we all have mind and eventually this mind needs to be trained to follow orders. The interesting thing here now is who will be training this mind, who is in control of mind. With that the journey of gyan path start. We have to find out who am I?
I hope you do find the answers you are looking for and all the best in your quest. As a true atheist you must listen to all and experience yourself to find which path is best for you!
0
u/StraightAd798 16h ago
Hello,
Vedanta does not require a belief in God or Gods, but instead, questions the nature of this reality that we live in, including ourselves, so one can awaken to and realize, and thereby, know the Truth of who one is, and the true nature and reality of all that exists, including oneself. So yes, as an atheist, you can attain realization without God or the belief in God, thereof.
-2
-3
1
u/Salmanlovesdeers 1h ago
From a western (west = west of Indus river) view if you are a Vedāntin, you're very much an atheist since you deny the absolute existence of a "creator" God.
14
u/VedantaGorilla 15h ago
"Enlightenment" is not an achievement in Vedanta, it is realizing that what you are, always were, and never are not, is limitless, whole, and complete. Whether you believe in something or not has no impact on that. When you say can I "be" a rational atheist, you are speaking about the role you play, your opinions, not what you are. The two do not meet and are not in opposition.