Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t14: Return of Cārvāka

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s5.t14

Language
English

Return of Cārvāka

c6.s5.t14.1

Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa, the author of *Tattvopaplavasirṁha*, flourished between ᴄᴇ 770–830. He was a staunch follower of a very hard-core school of Cārvāka system. But his harsh criticism of the epistemologies of all systems establishes him as a nihilist and non-believer. A votary of scepticism, Jayarāśi did not postulate any viewpoint and declared that he had excelled even Bṛhaspati, the first proponent of Cārvāka school. *Tattvopaplavasirṁha* is a great exercise in *vitaṇḍā* (cavil). He refuted all epistemological categories of Nyāya, called the views of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa as *bālavalgitam* (child’s quibbling).¹²⁶ He not only refuted the theses of Buddhist philosophers, he also refuted their refutation of the Naiyāyikas on *jāti* (universal).¹²⁷ He had refuted the concept of *pramāṇa* as propounded in the philosophies of Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā, Sāṁkhya, Buddhism, Vyākaraṇa and Purāṇa. In his treatment of Mīmāṁsā, he quoted the definitions of *pramāṇa* given by Kumārila and for Buddhism he cited Dharmakīrti’s definition only. But he gave prominence to the refutation of Nyāya system and cited the definitions of all the four *pramāṇas* from *Nyāyasūtra* for their rejection. He seemed referring to *Vākyapadīyam* of Bhartṛhari for the denouncement of the philosophy of grammar.

c6.s5.t14.2

Vijñānavāda to him was *mugdha-vilasita* (fancy of fools).¹²⁸ The Naiyāyikas were described by him as animals (p. 14), fools or childish (pp. 29, 32). Since even *pratyakṣa* (perception) is invalid, there is no scope for holding the other *pramāṇas* like *anumāna*, etc. The theory of Anekānta is also negated. All the concepts of *mokṣa* (liberation) are in same way demolished. On the other hand, he cited Bṛhaspati with respect adding the appellation *Bhagavān* before his name.¹²⁹

c6.s5.t14.3

Jayarāśi had adopted a specific methodology for demotion of any system of thought resting on discursive analysis. He would present a number of alternatives for any category and then taking each one by one would show the impossibility of each one. He cited Dharmakīrti’s definition of perception (*pratyakṣam kalpanāpauḍhaṁ*—*Nyāyabindu* I.4) and then gave twelve alternatives for *kalpanā* and refuted them all.¹³⁰

c6.s5.t14.4

Jayarāśi proclaimed himself as a follower of Bṛhaspati, but he even demolished the very first aphorism of his mentor, which says that there are only four elements — the earth, the waters, the fire and the wind. Offering justification for this overruling, Jayarāśi said that Bṛhaspati actually did not propose the existence of these four elements; he was just referring to the popular belief.¹³¹ With a gusto, Jayarāśi prided in himself claiming that the varieties of thoughts occurring to him that eradicate the arrogance of the hypocrites, were unforeseen even by Bṛhaspati, the teacher of the gods.¹³²

c6.s5.t14.5

Like Nāgārjuna and Śrīharṣa, the author of *Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya* (see Chap. 1), Jayarāśi shunned all positions, but unlike these two he was neither a Śūnyavādin nor a Vedāntin. He had presented his magnum opus as an exercise in *vikalpas* (alternatives).¹³³ The purpose of composing a text in *vitaṇḍā* like this for him might have been to repeal the hypocrisies that got attached to every dogma and also to show the way to win a debate.

c6.s5.t14.6

Jayarāśi became a model for the practitioners of *vāda*. A number of Jaina monks utilized his method for debating with rival systems.¹³⁴ Vidyānanda, a Jaina philosopher who flourished between CE 810-75, had not only cited *Tattvopaplavasimha* by name in his *Aṣṭasahasrī*, but also produced excerpts from Jayarāśi's text with a view to refute him.

Linked texts (3)