Charvakas: Wise Men or Fools?

Philosophical debates in ancient India were typically of a very high standard. If you were a philosopher at that time, the way to refute a rival philosophy or philosopher would be to state the purva-paksa i.e. the view of the opponent which one intends to demolish. The arguments in the purva-paksa were as a rule* authentic and truthful--they were written keeping in mind what the opponent would have articulated had he been in one's presence. Often, more arguments would be added to the opponent's view (in the purva-paksa) which would seek to strengthen the view of the opponent. Only after this would one go about attempting to refute or demolish the view of the opponent.

Together with the above, one must also keep into account the fact that a wide range of views were tolerated in ancient India. Hindu philosophy itself consists of six classical systems of philosophy (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimansa, Vedanta) and there are other systems of hindu philosophy which are not included in these six systems. For instance Kashmir Saivism. We learn from one of the dialogues of the Budha that there were no less than sixty two distinct theories regarding the nature of the soul existing in his time. And Count Keyserling, writing about India, says:

"This philosophical nation par excellence has more Sanskrit words for philosophical and religious thought than are found in Greek, Latin and German combined."

(to be continued)

* This is not to deny that there have been several specific occasions when certain philosophers have flouted this general rule and have resorted to unfair means to 'win' the argument by using various debating tricks. The highest standards, though, were set by Vachaspati Mishra who has written standard commentaries on every classical system of hindu philosophy with 'total perspective' (i.e. he writes on the Vedanta as if he is a Vedantin and on Nyaya as if he is a Nyayayika and so forth), and who refers to Budhist philosophers like Dignaga with the highest respect, and accurately sums up their views, following which he refutes what they say. Only when it came to the Charvaka philosophy did Vachaspati fail to maintain a scholarly equanimity--and resorts to some unfortunate vulgarities. In a subsequent post i shall attempt to explain the reason why Vachaspati and also some of the most renowned of all Indian philosophers including Jayanta Bhatta and Adi Sankara behave in a petulant manner when it comes to the Charvaka philosophy and to what extent they were justified in loosing their cool when it came to the Charvakas.

Rashmun wrote:Philosophical debates in ancient India were typically of a very high standard. If you were a philosopher at that time, the way to refute a rival philosophy or philosopher would be to state the purva-paksa i.e. the view of the opponent which one intends to demolish. The arguments in the purva-paksa were as a rule* authentic and truthful--they were written keeping in mind what the opponent would have articulated had he been in one's presence. Often, more arguments would be added to the opponent's view (in the purva-paksa) which would seek to strengthen the view of the opponent. Only after this would one go about attempting to refute or demolish the view of the opponent.

Together with the above, one must also keep into account the fact that a wide range of views were tolerated in ancient India. Hindu philosophy itself consists of six classical systems of philosophy (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimansa, Vedanta) and there are other systems of hindu philosophy which are not included in these six systems. For instance Kashmir Saivism. We learn from one of the dialogues of the Budha that there were no less than sixty two distinct theories regarding the nature of the soul existing in his time. And Count Keyserling, writing about India, says:

"This philosophical nation par excellence has more Sanskrit words for philosophical and religious thought than are found in Greek, Latin and German combined."

(to be continued)

* This is not to deny that there have been several specific occasions when certain philosophers have flouted this general rule and have resorted to unfair means to 'win' the argument by using various debating tricks. The highest standards, though, were set by Vachaspati Mishra who has written standard commentaries on every classical system of hindu philosophy with 'total perspective' (i.e. he writes on the Vedanta as if he is a Vedantin and on Nyaya as if he is a Nyayayika and so forth), and who refers to Budhist philosophers like Dignaga with the highest respect, and accurately sums up their views, following which he refutes what they say. Only when it came to the Charvaka philosophy did Vachaspati fail to maintain a scholarly equanimity--and resorts to some unfortunate vulgarities. In a subsequent post i shall attempt to explain the reason why Vachaspati and also some of the most renowned of all Indian philosophers including Jayanta Bhatta and Adi Sankara behave in a petulant manner when it comes to the Charvaka philosophy and to what extent they were justified in loosing their cool when it came to the Charvakas.

The reason why some of the greatest of all Indian philosophers known to history display anger when dealing with Charvaka philosophy was that the Charvakas were not just articulating their views. Atheism, which they articulated, was not unknown to hindu philosophers. One of the most renowned schools of hindu philosophy, the Sankhya, is famous for the fact that it is an atheistic school. This is confirmed by the earliest known book on the Sankhya--Sankhya Karika--and its two traditional commentators (Gaudapada and Vachaspati Mishra). So it was not the atheism of the Charvakas which so annoyed the traditional hindu philosophers. What annoyed, even angered, the traditional hindu philosophers was the fact that the Charvakas, besides articulating their atheism and materialsm, were attempting to destroy hinduism. Sample this verse attributed to the Charvakas by multiple traditional hindu sources:


The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

In other words, the Charvakas had started attacking the basis of Hinduism, which is the Vedas. They were not interested in reforming hinduism, by criticizing superstitions that had crept into hinduism for instance. Their goal seems to have been to destroy hindusim following which they presumably thought that everyone would become atheists like them. And this explains why traditional hindu philosophers like Vachaspati Mishra displayed anger towards the Charvakas.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Philosophical debates in ancient India were typically of a very high standard. If you were a philosopher at that time, the way to refute a rival philosophy or philosopher would be to state the purva-paksa i.e. the view of the opponent which one intends to demolish. The arguments in the purva-paksa were as a rule* authentic and truthful--they were written keeping in mind what the opponent would have articulated had he been in one's presence. Often, more arguments would be added to the opponent's view (in the purva-paksa) which would seek to strengthen the view of the opponent. Only after this would one go about attempting to refute or demolish the view of the opponent.

Together with the above, one must also keep into account the fact that a wide range of views were tolerated in ancient India. Hindu philosophy itself consists of six classical systems of philosophy (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimansa, Vedanta) and there are other systems of hindu philosophy which are not included in these six systems. For instance Kashmir Saivism. We learn from one of the dialogues of the Budha that there were no less than sixty two distinct theories regarding the nature of the soul existing in his time. And Count Keyserling, writing about India, says:

"This philosophical nation par excellence has more Sanskrit words for philosophical and religious thought than are found in Greek, Latin and German combined."

(to be continued)

* This is not to deny that there have been several specific occasions when certain philosophers have flouted this general rule and have resorted to unfair means to 'win' the argument by using various debating tricks. The highest standards, though, were set by Vachaspati Mishra who has written standard commentaries on every classical system of hindu philosophy with 'total perspective' (i.e. he writes on the Vedanta as if he is a Vedantin and on Nyaya as if he is a Nyayayika and so forth), and who refers to Budhist philosophers like Dignaga with the highest respect, and accurately sums up their views, following which he refutes what they say. Only when it came to the Charvaka philosophy did Vachaspati fail to maintain a scholarly equanimity--and resorts to some unfortunate vulgarities. In a subsequent post i shall attempt to explain the reason why Vachaspati and also some of the most renowned of all Indian philosophers including Jayanta Bhatta and Adi Sankara behave in a petulant manner when it comes to the Charvaka philosophy and to what extent they were justified in loosing their cool when it came to the Charvakas.

The reason why some of the greatest of all Indian philosophers known to history display anger when dealing with Charvaka philosophy was that the Charvakas were not just articulating their views. Atheism, which they articulated, was not unknown to hindu philosophers. One of the most renowned schools of hindu philosophy, the Sankhya, is famous for the fact that it is an atheistic school. This is confirmed by the earliest known book on the Sankhya--Sankhya Karika--and its two traditional commentators (Gaudapada and Vachaspati Mishra). So it was not the atheism of the Charvakas which so annoyed the traditional hindu philosophers. What annoyed, even angered, the traditional hindu philosophers was the fact that the Charvakas, besides articulating their atheism and materialsm, were attempting to destroy hinduism. Sample this verse attributed to the Charvakas by multiple traditional hindu sources:


The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

In other words, the Charvakas had started attacking the basis of Hinduism, which is the Vedas. They were not interested in reforming hinduism, by criticizing superstitions that had crept into hinduism for instance. Their goal seems to have been to destroy hindusim following which they presumably thought that everyone would become atheists like them. And this explains why traditional hindu philosophers like Vachaspati Mishra displayed anger towards the Charvakas.

No extant work of the Charvakas survives although we know that they existed at one time because they are referred to in other sanskrit works. (There is for instance a reference to a Charvaka text written by a certain Bhaguri.) What seems to have happened is that in pre-Budhist times the attacks on Hinduism were tolerated. We are informed that Charvakism flourished in pre-Budhist India. After Budhism took over in India and threatened at one stage to take over from Hinduism as the dominant religion of what is now India, and also because Charvaka attacks on Hinduism may have increased in their sharpness, an anti-Charvaka reaction seems to have set in and they were persecuted systematically and their works destroyed. We know about them today only because of references to them and their views in the purva-paksa of works written by their intellectual enemies.

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Philosophical debates in ancient India were typically of a very high standard. If you were a philosopher at that time, the way to refute a rival philosophy or philosopher would be to state the purva-paksa i.e. the view of the opponent which one intends to demolish. The arguments in the purva-paksa were as a rule* authentic and truthful--they were written keeping in mind what the opponent would have articulated had he been in one's presence. Often, more arguments would be added to the opponent's view (in the purva-paksa) which would seek to strengthen the view of the opponent. Only after this would one go about attempting to refute or demolish the view of the opponent.

Together with the above, one must also keep into account the fact that a wide range of views were tolerated in ancient India. Hindu philosophy itself consists of six classical systems of philosophy (Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimansa, Vedanta) and there are other systems of hindu philosophy which are not included in these six systems. For instance Kashmir Saivism. We learn from one of the dialogues of the Budha that there were no less than sixty two distinct theories regarding the nature of the soul existing in his time. And Count Keyserling, writing about India, says:

"This philosophical nation par excellence has more Sanskrit words for philosophical and religious thought than are found in Greek, Latin and German combined."

(to be continued)

* This is not to deny that there have been several specific occasions when certain philosophers have flouted this general rule and have resorted to unfair means to 'win' the argument by using various debating tricks. The highest standards, though, were set by Vachaspati Mishra who has written standard commentaries on every classical system of hindu philosophy with 'total perspective' (i.e. he writes on the Vedanta as if he is a Vedantin and on Nyaya as if he is a Nyayayika and so forth), and who refers to Budhist philosophers like Dignaga with the highest respect, and accurately sums up their views, following which he refutes what they say. Only when it came to the Charvaka philosophy did Vachaspati fail to maintain a scholarly equanimity--and resorts to some unfortunate vulgarities. In a subsequent post i shall attempt to explain the reason why Vachaspati and also some of the most renowned of all Indian philosophers including Jayanta Bhatta and Adi Sankara behave in a petulant manner when it comes to the Charvaka philosophy and to what extent they were justified in loosing their cool when it came to the Charvakas.

The reason why some of the greatest of all Indian philosophers known to history display anger when dealing with Charvaka philosophy was that the Charvakas were not just articulating their views. Atheism, which they articulated, was not unknown to hindu philosophers. One of the most renowned schools of hindu philosophy, the Sankhya, is famous for the fact that it is an atheistic school. This is confirmed by the earliest known book on the Sankhya--Sankhya Karika--and its two traditional commentators (Gaudapada and Vachaspati Mishra). So it was not the atheism of the Charvakas which so annoyed the traditional hindu philosophers. What annoyed, even angered, the traditional hindu philosophers was the fact that the Charvakas, besides articulating their atheism and materialsm, were attempting to destroy hinduism. Sample this verse attributed to the Charvakas by multiple traditional hindu sources:


The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.

In other words, the Charvakas had started attacking the basis of Hinduism, which is the Vedas. They were not interested in reforming hinduism, by criticizing superstitions that had crept into hinduism for instance. Their goal seems to have been to destroy hindusim following which they presumably thought that everyone would become atheists like them. And this explains why traditional hindu philosophers like Vachaspati Mishra displayed anger towards the Charvakas.

No extant work of the Charvakas survives although we know that they existed at one time because they are referred to in other sanskrit works. (There is for instance a reference to a Charvaka text written by a certain Bhaguri.) What seems to have happened is that in pre-Budhist times the attacks on Hinduism were tolerated. We are informed that Charvakism flourished in pre-Budhist India. After Budhism took over in India and threatened at one stage to take over from Hinduism as the dominant religion of what is now India, and also because Charvaka attacks on Hinduism may have increased in their sharpness, an anti-Charvaka reaction seems to have set in and they were persecuted systematically and their works destroyed. We know about them today only because of references to them and their views in the purva-paksa of works written by their intellectual enemies.

Sadly, the usually high standards of a purva-paksa were not always maintained when it came to the Charvaka philosophy. Hence the persistent and erroneous claim that the Charvakas believed only in perception as a valid means of knowledge, and not in inference. This is a myth as i have explained in detail here:

http://rivr.sulekha.com/charvakas-the-problem-of-inference_325288_blog

To recapitulate briefly, Charvakas were ascribed the denial of inference as a valid means of knowledge, and attacked on this ground by their opponents. But what is inference? Suppose one sees smoke at a distance, one infers that there is a fire even if one has not seen the actual fire. If one actually perceives the actual fire, then that is perceptual knowledge or perception. Once the Charvakas are made to agree to this silly position--of not accepting inference as a means of knowledge--it becomes easy to attack them. The truth is that Charvakas accepted inference as a means of knowledge but only in so far as it applied to the material world, and not to the transcendental world. As i wrote earlier:

Explaining the views of an actual Charvaka, Purandara, some of whose writings have survived in fragments, S.N. Dasgupta writes(History of Indian Philosophy (HIP), vol. iii, pg 536):
"Purandara admits the usefullness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the laws of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience."


According to Purandara, the Charvaka position is that inference is valid within the range of the emperically known world; if, however, one proposed to extend its application beyond the range of the this-worldly objects, one's claim would be a forbidden one.

And this is not a dogmatic asserton on the part of Purandara. Dasgupta tries to explain the grounds of Purandara by following the suggestions of Vadideva Suri, the Jaina author, who also quoted a sutra of Purandara (HIP iii.536):

"The main reason for upholding such a distinction between the validity of inference in our practical life of ordinary experience, and in ascertaining transcendtal truths beyond experience, lies in this, that an inductive generalisation is made by observing a large number of cases of agreement in in presence of together with agreement in absence, and no case of agreement in presence can be observed in the transcendtal sphere; for even if such spheres existed they could not be perceived by the senses. Thus, since in the supposed supra-sensuous transcendent world no case of hetu agreeing with the presence of its sadhya can be observed, no inductive generalisation or law of concomitance can be made relating to this sphere."

Thus, according to the impression which Vadideva Suri gives us about the Charvaka epistemology, the inferential process was only secondary in importance. The Charvakas wanted to attribute primacy to sense-perception. Manibhadra in his commentary to the Sat Darsana Samuccaya (on SatDS v.81), gives us some extremely striking reasons for the Charvaka emphasis on the primacy of sense perception.

The reasons are socio-political and appear to be strangely modern and relevant even today. There are cunning deceptors (according to the Charvakas) in religious garbs, trying to generate in the minds of the people illusions concerning the attainment of heaven and the discrimination between good and evil; and they are trying to establish their claims on the basis of futile references to such sources of valid knowledge as inference, scriptures, etc. The Charvaka insistence on the primacy of sense-perception was meant to be a defense against such deception and exploitation; it wanted to warn the people against the dangers of religious exploitation.

Vachaspati Mishra was present in around circa 9th century AD.