Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s3: Debates between Idealism and Materialism

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c8.s3

Language
English

Debates between Idealism and Materialism

c8.s3.1

Cārvāka “may possibly be characterized as primitive proto-materialism”.⁸ It is the oldest philosophical school in India. It has been a challenge to rest of all philosophical systems emerged during the past three millennia. The philosophy of materialism is discussed in the Upaniṣads. *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad* (IV.12) says:

c8.s3.2

The consciousness is generated out of matter and dissolves in the matter, there is no life after death.

c8.s3.3

The Āgama texts of Jaina tradition refer to the Cārvākas as Bhūtavādins or Bhūtacaitanyavādins.⁹

c8.s3.4

The Cārvāka system is refuted by all other systems and regarded to be one of the toughest rivals.¹⁰ Of all the Indian philosophical systems, this seems to be the most misunderstood and misrepresented one also. Cārvākas are supposed to be licentious and indulging in vandalism.

c8.s3.5

In fact, Cārvāka is not a single and unified philosophical school. Various groups of Cārvākas have been flourishing in different periods of the history of Indian philosophy for the past two/three millennia. The materialist is one of them. Kṛṣṇa Miśra in his play *Prabodhacandrodaya* presents the materialist Cārvāka's view in a precise way. Accordingly, perception is the only valid means of knowledge; there are four elements — earth, fire, air and water; and consciousness is indivisible with the body. There was another group of Cārvākas that accepted inference also as the second means of knowledge or *pramāṇa*. Sāṁkhya and Vaiśeṣika were also categorized as Cārvākas. The Ājīvaka sect formed one of the strongest of Cārvāka groups (see Chap. 2).

c8.s3.6

The Cārvākas were known for their debating skills and for centuries had been challenging the other systems which had developed very subtle and intricate categorizations and conceptual frameworks and sufficient textual material. This is very much evidenced by Jayarāśi's text on the deconstruction of all philosophies (see Chap. 2). The Cārvākas excelled in disputation and deconstruction of prevalent theories and norms. The methodology developed by them for disputing with others came to be defined as *vitaṇḍā*. Buddhaghoṣa described Lokāyata as Vitaṇḍāvādaśāstra.

c8.s3.7

Bṛhaspati is said to be the first preceptor of this philosophy.¹¹ He is said to have composed the *sūtras* (aphorisms). Some of them are quoted in later works. Max Müller calls Bṛhaspati “a perplexing character”.¹² One Bṛhaspati was a Vedic seer. Several hymns in *Ṛgveda* are attributed to him.¹³ Bṛhaspati is also a Vedic deity.¹⁴

c8.s3.8

In Purāṇic mythology Bṛhaspati is known to be the *guru* of the gods. The identity of Bṛhaspati — the author of *Bārhaspatyasūtra* — and the mythological Bṛhaspati has been mingled in later texts. *Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad* says that Bṛhaspati, the *devaguru*, became Śukrācārya and faked a philosophy of materialism to trap the *asuras* (demons) and ensure their defeat.¹⁵ Even Haribhadra, a Jaina philosopher, confirms the story of Bṛhaspati’s disguise as Cārvāka.

c8.s3.9

Jayarāśi, the author of *Tattvopaplavasiṁha*, is a devout Cārvāka, but his voluminous work is only concerned with deconstructing all the systems of philosophy rather then establishing the Cārvāka system.

c8.s3.10

Cārvāka philosophy developed in three stages. The Cārvākas were initially known as debaters, who undauntedly questioned all prevailing norms. They were nihilists. Subsequently, some of them thought of formulating a system of philosophy, which can be termed as Svabhāvavāda (naturalism). This came in the second stage. At the third stage of the development some sort of epistemology and cosmology came to be introduced. It was at this stage that the philosophers like Ajitakeśakambalin, Purāṇakaśyapa and Kambalāśvatara were associated with the system of Lokāyata. Philosophers like Purandara accepted inference also as a valid means of knowledge. In fact, the Cārvāka came to be understood as an umbrella term incorporating various groups of philosophers who opposed all orthodox philosophies and systems that created dogmas and sects. Lokāyatikas (materialists), Svabhāvavādins (naturalists) and Ucchedavādins (nihilists) — these three major schools under the Cārvākas are taken up for refutation by other philosophies. *Rāmāyaṇa* of Vālmīki is one of the earliest text that mentions the Lokāyatikas (see Chap. 2) who employed the wisdom from Ānvīkṣikī (logic, probably including Sāṁkhya and Yoga also as per the definition given by Kauṭilya — [see Chap. 2]) for misuse. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa has used the word *cārvākamata* in the sense of atheism in general.¹⁶

c8.s3.11

In seventh-eighth centuries, the philosophy of Cārvāka was reborn in the form of the Sahajīyā sect. The Sahajīyās regarded love and natural life as the core of the religion. Sarahapā is said to have been the founder of this school. He was born in eastern India at a place called Sarolī in the city of Rājī. He used to listen to the discourses by Amita and developed interest in Buddhist philosophy. There are stories about his having taken wine and the brāhmaṇas in the locality going to the king with a complaint and plea for his banishment. Sarahapā proved his innocence by coming out unscathed in the tests of fire, water, etc. Then onwards he came to be worshipped. Bringing in empiricism in his philosophy of pure bliss, he said:

c8.s3.12

The sprout of mind should be irrigated with the waters of pure bliss revived from the worldly pleasure, otherwise it will not grow as a great tree of *kalpavṛkṣa*.¹⁷

c8.s3.13

This is a critique of all systems which are based on *aparigraha* (non-possession) and *saṁnyāsa* (renunciation).

c8.s3.14

The Sahajīyās stood against renunciation and deliberately renouncing worldly pleasures. It is the *rāga* (attachment to the objects of the world) that binds and it is the *rāga* that liberates — says the author of *Hevajratantra*.¹⁸

c8.s3.15

Bengali poet Caṇḍīdāsa was a follower of Sahajīyā school. In his *Dohākośa* Sarahapā refuted all the systems of the orthodox philosophy like Vedānta and Sāṁkhya, and also various systems under Jaina and Buddhist philosophy.

c8.s3.16

Chiranjib Bhattacharya in his *Vidvanmodataraṅgiṇī* recorded all the views belonging to the schools of non-believers. In twentieth century Dakshina Ranjan Shastri wrote a treatise *Cārvākaṣaṣṭi*.¹⁹

c8.s3.17

The texts belonging to the orthodox systems of Indian philosophy cite²⁰ and criticize Cārvāka, but Cārvāka philosophy as such was not included in the curricula in the *gurukulas* or *āśramas*. The Buddhists took Cārvākas more seriously. Max Müller has referred to a *Ambaṭṭhasutta* where Lokāyata is mentioned as a subject for the study of a brāhmaṇa.

Linked texts (11)