Lokayata Materialism: Classification of Source Materials

This is written for those who have at least some general acquaintance with Indian worldviews (religions and philosophies) and not for specialists in Indian/Indic worldviews and philosophy although I would hope they too might find something of worth in this preliminary introduction.

Philosophy East and West, 2016

2011

In this paper, which has the structure of an interview, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya answers questions on several aspects concerning the Cārvāka/Lokāyata philosophy. Taking Bhattacharya’s 2009 book Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata as a starting point, the discussion, beginning from Bhattacharya’s personal experience in the field of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata studies, develops mainly through the ontology, epistemology and ethics of Indian materialists. Cārvāka/Lokāyata ontology accounts for only four elements (earth, water, fire and wind) as primary constituents of whatever exists; however, in later times a, so to speak, ‘reformed’ Materialism took place, according to which also other primary elements would be admitted, opening in this way the door – Bhattacharya argues – to some sort of idealism. The epistemology is of a perception-based kind: being perception the most reliable means of knowledge, inference is accordingly accepted only if and when supported by the senses (consequently, gods, the afterlife, destiny or fate are all to be denied from an epistemological point of view). Despite the criticism put forward by some ancient thinkers, according to whom the Cārvāka/Lokāyata would have professed an ethical view, rooted in an ‘eat, drink and be merry’ lifestyle, nowhere the attested primary sources at our disposal testify such a Hedonistic approach. Moreover, the problem of the paucity of direct and authentic Cārvāka/Lokāyata fragments is also dealt with, along with the explanation of why Jayarāśi’s Tattvopaplavasiṃha should not be considered a text on/of Materialism, as some scholar seems instead to suggest.

forthcoming in Hybris

The paper deals with the salient features of Materialism as it emerged in India long before the Buddha and the social philosophy it preached. The opponents of Materialism accuse the materialists of being anti-sexist and anti-casteist, as found in the allegorical play, 'Prabodha-candrodaya' by Krsnamisra and the epic, 'Naisadhacarita' by Sriharsa.

Philosophy East and West 68 (2): 645-648.

Asian Philosophy, 2013

Materialism is considered to be an anathema to Indian philosophy. Despite this, Indian tradition boasts of a strong materialist trend predating the Vedas. This paper traces the proto-materialist ideas as found in the ancient Tantra and pre-classical or original Sāṃkhya. Representing the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy, ancient Tantra identified the brain as the seat of human consciousness. The pre-classical Sāṃkhya considered matter as the primal non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause from which the universe was to evolve. It considers the material cause to be self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world; the principle of consciousness is potentially contained in the primeval matter. This paper aims to provide an overview of the Indian materialist viewpoint for multidisciplinary scholars.

The Lokayata or more properly the Charvaka school of philosophy flourished in India during the eighth century CE and wielded its influence up to the twelfth or thirteenth century. Then it seemed to have disappeared from the philosophical scene without leaving any trace whatsoever. All the works – the basic text (a collection of aphorisms) and its several commentaries – are lost. All we have are fragments found quoted and/or paraphrased by its opponents. Attempts have been made to reconstruct the system on the basis of apitifully few specimens. It is not easy to say what the Charvakas really meant, for we know that their views have been distorted and misrepresented by those who were not only idealists and fideists butalso staunch supporters of status quo ante in social and economic life. Yet the Charvaka/Lokayata is the only system of philosophy that was materialist, and, if the opponents are to be believed, opposed to sex discrimination and the caste system. Krishnamisra and Sriharsha, two Vedantists and sworn opponents of Lokayata, say that the Charvakas denied caste hierarchy and defended women against the charge of being inferior to men. Moreover, the Charvakas are accused of preaching equality of the two sexes. The validity of caste and inferiority of women were accepted without a murmur by the orthodox Vedists. Besides the Buddhists and the Jains, only the followers of the Bhakti cult and the adherents of the Little Tradition dared to go against this so-called god-ordained Varna system. It is not that the dignity of man was never acknowledged in th orthodox tradition. Parasara and Hamsa (Prajapati) in the Mahabharatadeclare: There is nothing more glorious that being born as man, even in the lowliest state of life (Critical Edition, Santi Parvan, Chs.266 and 288). Such words inevitably remind us of what the shade of Achilles told Odysseus when he met him in the land of the dead (The Odyssey, 11.488-91). However, in the caste-ridden and slave societies of ancient India and Greece, such a sentiment, however noble it may sound in relation to humans as a species being, had no practical significance. The Charvakas have often been accused of promoting heedless hedonism, but it seems to be as much a slander as was directed against Epicurus. The Charvakas, like Epicurus, preached: ‘As long as you live, live happily.’ This is not a plea for sensual gratification, but an exhortation to abstain from futile self-denial as a road to so-called deliverance. It will be absurd to revive all the tenets of the Charvaka philosophy today. Its materialism was of a primitive kind based as it was on the doctrine of four basic elements, namely, earth, air, fire and water. But there are other aspects, such as its secular, anti-sexist and anti-caste stand, which may be relevant in this new world of globalization.water. But there are other aspects, such as its secular, anti-sexist and anti-caste stand, which may be relevant in this new world of globalization. .

Interview by Richard Marshall. 'Pāyāsi did not directly contribute to the development of logic in India. Since his objection to the existence of the immortal soul, etc. could not be refuted by providing any proof other than comparison or inference by analogy that the author of the sutta of King/Governor Pāyāsi advanced a second instrument of cognition, inference by analogy. Thus the proto-materialists are indirectly responsible for the development of logic.' 'Materialism in India had nothing to do with nihilism as such. They were thorough-going realists. However, it could be, as you say, an attack on the dualistic system that spoke of consciousness and matter as two different entities, one can exist without the other.' 'Both the Buddhists and the Cārvākas (but not the earlier materialists) accept two instruments of cognition, namely, perception and inference (in the case of the latter, only such inference as is preceded by orgrounded in perception). The earlier materialists, the Pre-Cārvākas, were in two respects quite different. They accepted perception alone, not even inference based on perception, as the only instrument of cognition. Second, the Pre-Cārvākas spoke, like all others, of five elements, namely, earth, air, fire, water and ether (ākāśa, vyoma, often translated as space).'