The Cārvākas against Caste and Gender Discrimination

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

[This is Part II of "Facets of Materialism in India: A Historical Outline". Part I is here]

The Carvakas against Caste Discrimination

Let us now see what these two arch-opponents of materialism say regarding the materialists’ (or, to be more specific, of the new materialists,’ i.e., the Cārvākas’) views on caste and women. 

In Kṛṣṇamiśra’s (eleventh century) allegorical play, Rise of Moon-like Intellect (Prabodhacandrodaya), Mahāmoha (Great Delusion), an avowed materialist, declares:   

tulyatve vapuṣāṃ mukhādyavayavair varṇakramaḥ kīdṛśo…| 2.18ab
If the bodies are alike in their different parts, the mouth, etc., how can there be a hierarchy of castes? (Trans. by S.K. Nambiar)

A heretic in Śrīharṣa’s (twelfth century) Naiṣadhacarita (Life of Naiṣadha) throws a challenge to the forces of status quo ante:

śuddhir vaṃśa dvayī śuddhau pitroryadekaśaḥ | 
tadanantakulādopādadoṣā jātirasti kā || 17.40

īrṣyayā rakṣato nārīrdhikulasthitidāmbhikān | 
smarāndhatvāviśeṣe’pi tathā naramarakṣataḥ || 17.42

tṛṇānīva ghṛṇāvādān vidhūnaya vadhūranu | 
tavāpi tādṛśasyaiva kā ciraṃ janavañcanā ||  17.58 

Since purity of caste is possible only in the case of purity on each side of both families of the grandparents, what caste is pure by the purity of limitless generations?

Fie on those who boast of family dignity! They hold women in check out of jealousy; but do not likewise restrain men, though the blindness of passion is common to both!

Spurn all censorious statements about women as not worth a straw. Why dost thou constantly cheat people when thou, too, art as bad as women?(Trans. by K.K. Handiqui) 

Both the authors intended to depict the Cārvākas as heretics and non-believers. Defiance of the caste system was considered a heretical idea and hence deserved censure.

Is there any truth in labelling the Cārvākas as opposed to the caste system? I think there is. Two oft-quoted genuine aphorisms attributed to the Cārvākas say that the human body is a combination of four natural elements, namely, earth, air, fire and water (I.2-3).[1] Apparently the Cārvākas gave no credence to the late Vedic idea that the Brahmaṇas, Rājanyas (warriors), Vaiśyas (agriculturists and traders), and Śūdras (manual workers) were different parts of the supreme person called puruṣa (Ṛgveda 10.90.11-12): 

yat puruṣaṃ viadadhuḥ, katidhā vi akalpayan? 
mukhaṃ kim asya? kau bāhu? kā ῡrῡ pādā ucyete?

brāhmaṇo ‘sya mukham āsīd, bāhu rājaniaḥ kṛtaḥ; 
ῡrῡ tad asya yad vaiśyaḥ padbhyāṃ śῡdro ajāyata. 

When they divided Puruṣa, into how many parts did they dispose him? What (did) his mouth (become)? What are his two arms, his too thighs, his two feet called? 

His mouth was the Brāhaman [Brāhamaṇa], his two arms were made the warrior, his two thighs the Vaiśya; from his two feet the Śῡdra was born. (trans.  A.A. Macdonell, pp.200-01) 

This was a convenient way of explaining why acceptance and observance of the hierarchy of castes was obligatory. The law books insist on the preservation and continuation of the caste system. The Cārvākas cared nothing for these sacred texts. Hence it is quite probable that the Cārvākas had no faith in the so-called divine origin of castes and did not observe caste rules in social life. A verse attributed to the Cārvākas runs as follows:  

na svarga nāpavargo vā naivātmā pāralaukikaḥ | 
naiva varṇāśramādīnāṃ kriyāśca phaladāyikāḥ ||  

There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul inthe other-world. 
Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc. produce any real effect.[2] 

The Carvakas against Gender Discrimination

As to the defence of women and treating them as equal to men, the Cārvākas apparently were very much anti-sexist. They did not believe, as Manu did, that women in general were basically untrustworthy, were not entitled to study the Vedas, and were never to earn freedom but should always be under their fathers’, husbands’ and sons’ protection and surveillance (Manusmṛti, 9.10-20). The Cārvākas’ claim of the equality of the sexes quite logically follows from their basic anti-śāstric stance. Being freethinkers, they could also very well be free from all prejudices against women that are rampant in the law books of ancient India. They did not admit word (śabda), that is, verbal testimony, as a valid instrument of cognition (pramāṇa). So they were not under any compulsion to accept what the Brahmaṇcal law books declared as something sacrosanct. This is why Sāyaṇa-Mādhava could make them say: ”[T]here is no more reason for believing on another’s word that smoke and fire are connected, than for our receiving the ipse dixit of Manu, &c.” dhῡmadhῡma-dhvajayor avinābhāvo ’stīti vacanamātre manvādivad viśvāsābhāvāc ca. [3] 

To sum up then: materialism in India, particularly the Cārvāka/Lokāyata,  appeared heretical to the powers that be, not only in respect of its ontology but also because of its social outlook. This is why two Vedantin poets considered it necessary to present it in poor light, as an enemy of the established order which is founded on the varṇa system and patriarchy. 

One word more. Eli Franco once suggested perceptively: “[A]ll the Lokayātikas were fighting for… was ultimately to found social and political institutions independently of religious dogma…”.[4] He might have had in his mind Frauwallner’s view that materialism in India was created for the Realpolitikers. I do not think so, as I have shown elsewhere.[5] I would, however, heartily agree with Franco’s suggestion. The Cārvākas did have a vision of an ideal society in which organised religion would have no room, and there would be no varṇa and gender discriminations. Their approach was thoroughly rational and they denounced such discriminations as impediments to founding a society based on equality of rights and opportunities. In this sense the social outlook of the Cārvākas was essentially democratic.

Appendix A 

Ajita Kesakambal's 'worldview'

O King, there is no (consequence to) alms-giving, sacrifice or oblation. A good or bad action produces no result. This world does not exist, nor does the other world.  There is no mother, no father. There is no rebirth of beings after death. In this world, there are no samanas [Śramaṇas] or brāhmaṇas established in the Noble Path and accomplished in good practice, who, through direct knowledge (i.e., magga insight) acquired by their own efforts, can expound on this world and the other world. This being is but a compound of the four great primary elements; after death, the earth-element (or element of extension) returns and goes back to the body of the earth, the water-element (or element of cohesion) returns and goes back to the body of water, the fire-element (or element of thermal energy) returns and goes back to the body of fire, and the air-element (or element of motion) returns and goes back to the body of air, while the mental faculties pass on into space. The four pall-bearers and the bier (constituting the fifth) carry the corpse. The remains of the dead can be seen up to the cemetery where bare bones lie graying like the colour of the pigeons. All alms-giving ends in ashes. Fools prescribe alms-giving; and some assert that there is such a thing as merit in alms-giving; but their words are empty, false and nonsensical. Both the fool and the wise are annihilated and destroyed after death and dissolution of their bodies. Nothing exists after death.’ (Ten Suttas, p.83, translation slightly modified.) 

Acknowledgements: Amitava Bhattacharyya, Sourav Basak, Sunish Kumar Deb, and Krishna Del Toso. The usual disclaimers apply.

Works Cited

Ācāraṅgasūtram and Sūtrakṛtāṅgasūtram  with Niryukti of Ācārya Bhadravāhu Svāmī and the Commentary of Śīlāṅkācārya. (1978). Ed. Ācārya Sarvanandājī Mahārāja. Re-ed. with Appendix by Muni Jambuvijayaji. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Indological Trust.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata. Firenze: Società Editrice Fiorentina, 2009.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. Development of Materialism in India: the Pre-Carvakas and the Carvakas, Esercizi Filosofici 8, 2013, pp. 1-12. (2013a). ISSN 1970-0164

http://www2.units.it/eserfilo/art813/bhattacharya813.pdf

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. Knowledge and Intervention. Calcutta:  Firma KLM, 1985.

Cārvāka/Lokāyata. Edited by D. Chattopadhyaya and M. K. Gangopadhyaya. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1990.

Cowell, E. B. The Chārvāka System of Philosophy, Journal of the Asiatic Society (Bengal), 31(4), 1862, pp.371-90.

Dasgupta, S. N. A History of Indian Philosophy. Vols. 1-5. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1975 ( Reprint).

Del Toso, K., "tebhyaś caitanyaṃ : il 'sé' secondo il Materialismo indiano", in A. Cislaghi and K. Del Toso (ed. by), Intrecci filosofici. Pensare il Sé a Oriente e a Occidente, Milano-Udine: Mimesis, 2012, pp. 135-153.

Franco, Eli.“Paurandarasūtra” in M.A.Dhaky (ed.), Aspects of Jainology, Vol. III. Varanasi: Sagarmal Jain P.V. Research Institute,1991.

Feanco, Eli. Lokayata, in Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism, vol.XI. Leiden; Brill, 2011.

Franco, Eli. Perception, Knowledge, Disbeilief / A Study on Jayarāśi’s Scepticism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.

Franco,Eli and Karin Preisendanz. Materilism, Indian School of, in Edward Craig (General Editor). Routledge Enclopedia of Philosophy. Vol.6. London: Routledge, 1998.

Frawallner, Erich. History of Indian Philosophy. Vols. 1-2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.

Gerschhiemer, Gerdi. Les ‘Six doctrines de spéculation’ (ṣaṭtarkī) – Sur la categorization variable des systems philosophiques dans l’Inde classique, in Expanding and Merging Horizons  (Wilhelm Halbfass Memorial Volume). Ed. Karin Preisendanz. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2007, pp.239-58.

Haribhadra. Samarāicca kahā. Ed. H.Jacobi, The Asiatic Society, Calcutta 1926.

Jayarāśibhaṭṭa.Tattvopaplavasiṃha of Jayarāśibhaṭṭa. Eds. Sukhlalji Sanghvi and Rasiklal Parikh. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1940.

Jayarāśibhaṭṭa. Tattvopaplavasiṃha of Jayarāśibhaṭṭa. Trans. V. N. Jha. Ernakulam: Chinmaya International Foundation Shodha Sansthans, 2013.

Joshi, K. L. (ed.). Sāyaṇa-Mādhava. Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha. Trans. E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough. Delhi: Parimal Publication, 1981.

Kṛṣṇa Miśra. Prabodha Candrodaya. Ed. and trans. Sita Krishna Nambiar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971.

Macdonell, A. A. A Vedic Reader for Students. Madras: Oxford University Press (reprint), 1978.

Maninekalai. Trans. Prema Nandakumar. Thanjavur:Tamil University, 1989.

Manusmṛti with nine commentaries. Vols.1-6. Ed. J. H. Dave. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1972-84.

Padmapurāṇa. Sṛṣṭikhaṇḍa. Ed. and trans. into Bangla by Tarakanta Devsarmma and others. Kalikata: Vangavasi, 1310 Bangla Sal [1903-04].

Radhakrishnan, S. and C. A. Moore. A Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

Ruben, Walter. Uddālaka and Yājñavalkya. Materialism and Idealism, Indian Studies Past and Present, Vol. 3 No. 3, April-June 1962, pp.345-54, reprinted in his Studies in Ancient Indian History, Calcutta: Indian Studies Past and Present, 1966.

Sarup, Lakshman (ed.). The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984 reprint.

Sāyaṇa-Mādhava. Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha. See Joshi, K.L. (ed.).

Shastri, D. R. A Short History of Indian Materialism, Sensationalism and Hedonism (1930). Calcutta: Bookland, 1957.

Śrīharṣa. Naiṣadhacarita. Eds. Sivadatta and V. L. Panshikar. Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1928. Trans. K. K. Handiqui. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate Research Institute, 1956.

Sūtrakṛtāṅgasūtram. See Ācāraṅgasūtram, etc.

Ten Suttas from Dīgha Nikāya. Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1987.

Vanamamalai, N. Materialist Thought in Early Tamil Literature, in: Social Scientist, 2:4, November 1973, pp.25-41 (available in JSTOR archive).

Varāhamihira. Bṛhatsaṃhitā with [Saṃhitā-]Vivṛti by Utpalabhaṭṭa. Ed. Avadha Vihari Tripathi. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1968.

---

[1] R. Bhattacharya 2009, pp.78-79, 86. 

[2] Qtd. Sāyaṇa-Mādhava in Joshi 1981, p.12. Emphasis added. The verse occurs in the Padmapurāṇa, Sṛṣṭikhaṇḍa 13.323. For other sources see R. Bhattacharya 2009, pp.84, 91.  

[3] Sāyaṇa-Mādhava in Joshi 1981, p.9. 

[4] Franco 1991, p.160. 

[5] Bhattacharya 2009, pp.21-32.

Prof Ramkrishna Bhattacharya taught English at Unversity of Calcutta, Kolkota and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He isnow a Fellow of Pavlov Institute, Kolkota


 

Read More

Manufacturing and Undermining National Icons: RSS Style

Ram Puniyani

Many a social and political processes related to projection of some icons and undermining of the others have intensified during last few years. Even during the last regime of NDA led BJP rule from 1998, Savakar’s portrait was unveiled in the Parliament. At one level the game of undermining some icons and projecting icons is a part of various political streams and RSS seems to be the past master in the same. One recalls its machinery has been putting forward some names. bypassing others and undermining some others. Since the time Modi has come to power as Prime Minister Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse is being upheld by many from RSS combine. One BJP MP called him a patriot and other BJP MP said that Godse chose the wrong target, instead of Gandhi; he should have chosen Nehru as his target. There are demands from various quarters to allot land for raising his statues in different places.

Times and over again Sardar Patel is projected vis a vis Nehru. In one of the speeches Modi said Patel should have been the first Prime minister of India instead of Nehru. Various ‘word of mouth’ propaganda to denigrate Nehru has been the consistent activity of many. Again to undermine Nehru Modi said something which was not true. He said that Nehru did not attend the funeral of Sardar Patel. This again is a blatant lie. As far as Mahatma Gandhi is concerned this present ruling dispensation has projected him but only for the values of cleanliness. One knows that the stature of Mahatma is such that even those who do not believe in his inclusive nationalism have also to pay obeisance to him at home as well as abroad. To circumvent this problem while the core essence of Gandhi’s struggle for Hindu Muslim unity is sidelined, the teachings of the Mahatma for National Integration are give a go bye and he is projected for only for swachhta abhiyan (cleanliness drive).

Currently major concerted efforts are being made to highlight Ambedkar. There are statements that Ambedkar and Hedgewars’ (The founder and first supreme leader of RSS) values were similar, both were against untouchability for example. RSS mouthpiece Organiser (English) and Panchjanya (Hindi) have come out with the special supplements on the life of Ambedkar, presenting his teachings in a distorted manner to create the illusion that there was similarity between the teachings of RSS ideology of HIndutva and Ambedkars values. Ambedkar had contributed in various ways for social justice and democratic values and struggle for annihilation of caste was the foremost amongst the movements launched by him.  Incidentally one need to recall that in contrast to Ambedkars Annihilation of caste, RSS has floated and organization called ‘Samajik Samrasta Manch’ (Social Harmony Forum) which works for bringing harmony between castes without challenging the very existence of caste, which was the prime motive of Ambedkar.

One can see two trends in the exercise being done by the RSS combine. On one hand since RSS never participated in the freedom struggle as an organization, it has no icon to present as a freedom fighter. This is why they have to stretch their myth making to project Savarkar as being a freedom fighter. The case of Savarkar is peculiar. He was initially working against the British rule but after he was jailed in Andaman’s, he buckled under pressure and turned from anti British revolutionary to the one who apologized to British and later never participated in any anti British agitation. That’s all RSS combine has to show for their participation in freedom struggle. Even Savarkar was not the part of RSS, but ideologically Savarkar and RSS both held Hindutva, Hindu nation as their goals.

As many in the RSS combine revere Godse, he always slips in as the major icon for them. Godse was initially trained in RSS Shakhas and later he went onto become the Secretary of Pune Branch of Hindu Mahasabha. Since many BJP leaders have background in RSS shakhas, and are on same page as Godse as far as Hindu Nationalism is concerned, they do come out to praise Godse. These two, Savarkar and Godse are projected to show their allegiance to the ideology of Hindu nationalism in contrast to Indian nationalism, which is the core part of Indian Constitution. This is necessary for them as they are projecting themselves as biggest nationalists unmindful of the fact that their nationalism is Hindu Nationalism and not Indian Nationalism. They want to derive legitimacy from Savarkars’ initial anti British role. The later part of Savarkar where he kept aloof from freedom movements is the exact way in which RSS also kept aloof from freedom movement.

At another level they want to contrast Patel with Nehru. It is meant to undermine Nehru. Patel and Nehru, both were close allies on most of the issues related to freedom movement, both were the major followers of Gandhi, who was their mentor and they were collaborating with each other in the national movement and later as part of the first Cabinet of Independent India. RSS combine cannot swallow the uncompromising stand taken by Nehru during his long years of Prime Minister-ship on the issues of secularism and his long association with these principles in a forthright way so they want to contrast him with Patel, who was also a deeply secular person.

At another level there are some in-house icons which are propped up or are undermined. RSS second Sarsanghchalak Golwalkar has been a great influence on generations of RSS workers. His book, ‘We or Nationhood defined’, shaped the thought process of many of them. He went to the extent of upholding Hitler’s method and type of nationalism expounded by him. His book used to be available in RSS shops for long time. One of his quotes sums up the RSS ideology very well, writes Golwalkar “German national pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of semitic races-The Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how neigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by. (We or Our nationhood Defined P. 27, Nagpur 1938). From more than a decade ago RSS started feeling embarrassed about this due to electoral-political compulsions and started making arguments that this book was not written by Golwalkar. It was withdrawn from market. Here electoral expediency shaped their decision.

At another level they have been projecting Deendayal Upadhayay as the major figure. Deendayal Upadhdyay is the ideologue who had coined “integral humanism’ as the concept, this essentially talks about upholding status quo of social relations of caste in particular. This is done to give a subtle message of deeper agenda of the RSS politics. The play with the icons goes with the long term program of the cultural and social manipulation for building a society with the hegemony of Hindutva politics, a politics which derives its name from a religion but at core is the political agenda of elite of the Hindu society, irrespective of the fact that some from the lower strata of society are also co-opted for this political agenda. It’s due to this that RSS focuses a lot on propagating the culture of a variety which is sectarian and backward looking, the agenda of Hindu Nationalism.

Read More

History of Materialism in India

Th. Stcherbatsky

Amidst the diverse philosophical systems which we find in India, ancient as well as modern, it is quite natural that there must have been some materialistic system too. Their main approach lies in reducing all the psychic processses to physical ones, negating the independent existence of soul, and affirming that the so-called soul is simply one of the properties of organized matter. This is philosophical materialism.

Th. Stcherbatsky

Another approach that we find in India is that of raising the practical question of the aim of human life and of the prevalence of material aims therein. Here, materialism is distinguished from all other trends by the fact that it negates the law of so-called karma, ie, retribution for good or bad works. The greater abstraction of the Indian mind, as compared with other ancient civilizations is expressed int he fact that there the moral law is not embodies in the person of God, the judge, but in the form of impersonal karma which may be characterized as the law of moral progress, as the faith in the fact that the world is rules bya special mechanism directing it evolution from the forms of low and unjust to good and perfection.

This law is fully negated by the extreme Indian mate­rialists. Nowhere, perhaps, has the spirit of negation of and resentment to the fetters of traditional morals and the religion connected thereto been expressed so clearly as among the Indian materialists. This is evidenced, for instance, by the following verses of Indian materialism.

The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes,-

Brhaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.[i]

The three authors of the Vedas were

The buffoon, the knave and the thief.[ii]

All the well-known formulae of the pandita-s-jarphari, turphari, etc.

And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Asvamedha

Those were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,

While the eating of flesh was similarly commended by night-prowling demons.[iii]

There is no other hell than the mundane pain produced by purely mundane causes as thorns etc;

The only supreme is the earthly monarch whose existence is proved by all the world's eyesight;

And the only liberation is the dissolution of the body.[iv]

According to the generally accepted system, in ancient India, the human life was regulated by three main aims: the property, love and duty. By the first were meant the various occupations giving means for life - cultivation, cattle breeding, trade and industry. The Government control with all its ramifications also came under this category. By the second aim was meant the family life, the children and also extra-family satisfaction of passions. What was meant by the third was mainly the religious duty, control of passions, with a view to secure award in the next life in one form or the other of eternal divinity. The normal life of man, according to the views of the orthodox Hindu, must have all these three aims in view. It is his duty to create family and to provide for it: this is interpreted as the service of love even to material aims. Later, having established his family, the Hindu may forsake it, become sannyasin, i.e. a poor homeless wanderer, directing all his thoughts to eternal bliss.

In individual cases, however, this equilibrium among the three aims of life was destroyed in favour of one of them. The materialists, naturally, did not give any importance to the aim of religious duty and openly proclaimed the property and love as the only aims of man.

On the other hand, there were many people in India who fully renounced all property and avowed celibacy, rather complete annihilation of all desires. They formed communities of wandering poor monks. These communities sometimes became so numerous that they became a real calamity for the working population which had .to support them somehow or other.

Like all other Indian teachings, Indian materialism was the speciality of a specific school, which preserved its tradi­tions, developed its teachings and put them into practice. Its origin goes back to the hoary antiquity. As early as c.1000 B.C., in the Upanisads, there is a reference to the teaching which does not acknowledge anything except matter[v].  Five hundred years before Christ, about the time of Buddha, thene were certain schools which did not acknowledge anything except matter, or as put at that time, the four great elements: earth, fire, water and air. There were also some who added a fifth element, ether, thinner than air, and filling the whole space.[vi]

Buddhism was, on the one hand, very close to mate­rialism, since it also negated the existence of God and eternal soul. But the two differed sharply in that Buddhism accepted the law of karma, i.e. retribution for good and bad works. In all the proceedings of the initial sermon of Buddha, his hostile and sharp attitude towards all the theories which accepted the existence of soul is clearly manifest. But at the same time, it was with equal reso­luteness that Buddha opposed Indian materialism which did not accept the moral law or the so-called karma.

Later, at a time when the Mauryas built a large and blossoming empire in Northern India, the materialists worked out a specific philosophical school. Canakya, the Minister to the King Candragupta, has left a treatise on politics,[vii] in which he enumerates the existing philosophical systems. There, he refers to materialism as one of the main systems which the future ruler must study. [viii]

In this epoch, all the three main aims of man in life-property, love and duty-are treated scientifically. During this period, we have the practical sciences (arthasastra), the science of love (kamasastra) and the science of religious duty (dharmasastra). Among the practical sciences, that of governing the country occupies the first place. With his teaching, Canakya himself marked the beginning of a special school of politicians. Quite independently of Canakya and probably at the same time, there also was the theoretician Usanas, whose political teaching differed considerably from that of Canakya. The latter was the representative, so to say, of the official political doctrine, according to which it was necessary to support religion with all force and which was convinced that the temporal power was illumi­nated with religious basis. Usanas, on the other hand, did not consider it necessary to found temporal power on religious base. According to him, there is only one science and that is the science of punishment, or literally, the science of rod (dandaniti).[ix] Brhaspati, to whom the main schools of Indian materialists are attributed, also was first a founder 'of a school of politicians. But his political school diverged from religion still further and remained known in history as the ardent hater of religion and advo­cate of theoretical materialism. It was called either Brhas­pati school after the name of its founder, or Carvaka's school, i.e., of the materialists proper who cared for daily bread alone.[x] Another name for it is Lokayata, that is, the people who care only about the earth and not about the heaven. No complete texts or works of this school have reached us; however, several extracts and passages preserved in the works of other schools, enable us to form a notion of its main aspects and the methods, by which they are proved. A list (as complete as possible) of the works, in which there are references to the teaching of the Carvakas and excerpts from their works, will be given below.

Now I shall dwell on two such works in which have been found extracts from the works of Carvakas unknown till now. The first of them is the Nyayamanjari by the well-known philosopher Jayantabhaga.[xi] Here the materialists have been mentioned twice. Speaking of the number of the sources of valid knowledge he refers to the first main aphorism or sutra of their main work.[xii] Some sutra-s had already been restored from various sources by Prof. Hillebrandt.[xiii] It is now possible for us to restore the first one also. It reads:

athatas tattvak vyakhyasyama iti

Here, the word tattva is set against the word dharma, which is prominent in orthodox schools. This sutra means: In our work, we shall talk of reality and not of duty. From the interpretation of this sutra, it is clear that the materialists then were divided into two camps: those who held the extreme view and fully negated consciousness and considered the human body a simple mechanism (jada) without any consciousness, and those who were moderate in their views and acknowledged its existence but only in the form of special function of the body. Jayanta calls the former Sophists (dhurta). It is the latter whom he calls the real scholars.[xiv] And in fact, the discussions of the former appear to be of sophistic nature.

The fact (tattva) mentioned in the first sutra cannot be either calculated or classified. Also, even the methods of its cognition cannot be found out, and all the attempts made in this connection proved futile. Thus, for instance, sitting in a dark room, we nevertheless know that there are fingers on our hands and that there is distance between them. We could not have known it by sight because it is dark. We did not know it by sense of touch too, for the skin is the organ of sense of touch and it cannot touch itself. We also cannot know it even from inference. Hence, it is proved by this method that all the accepted teachings about the sources of valid knowledge do not withstand criticism. Once it is seen that the cognition can­not be determined, it follows here from that it does not exist and that the processes however conscious, are in reality, mechanical phenomena (jada).[xv]

Jayanta distinguishes the highly educated materialists from these materialists-sophists. They claimed as follows:

"There is undoubtedly a sole conscious element, localized in the whole living body. We also allow that this conscious­ness is subject to synthesis and other mental processes. One would hardly argue against this; but that this continues to exist after death cannot be proved. The consciousness, leaving one body, naturally cannot settle in another. Had this been possible, we would have remembered about those things which we did in our previous births, exactly in the same manner as in this birth, we remember about things done in the childhood. We cannot show any reason why the same eternal soul, living now in one and sometimes in another body, has different memory: it remembers what it undergoes in one body and does not what it does in the other bodies. Having been convinced, therefore, that there is no soul after the death of the body it is neces­sary to do away with any talk of future life, which is traced back to the theory of eternal soul, and to try to live happily, according to the, principle:

“So long as we live, we shall be happy!

There is none here who will not die;

When he dies and is turned to ashes, ­

From where is he to appear again?”

Another extract, to which we would like to draw attention, occurs in the work of Vacaspatimisra, in his interpretation of Nyayasutra 3.2.39.[xvi] The school of Indian realists supposes that matter consists of particles moving in and combining in the body. Like Aristotle, they assume that the natural motion of all particles is rotatory (parispanda). The cons­cious motion (kriya), ie, the following up and achievement of aims, is under the influence of impulse from the side of psychic elements. This impulse was represented in semi­-anthropomorphic features. The main argument of the materia­lists was that a conscious act could be fully explained by the motion of particles of matter. The difference between the two motions is only superfluous. Just as the different material elements, connected with each other, may form such a substance as alcohol which does not resemble the substances of which it is made, in the same manner the different material elements, connected in the living body, develop a new quality, a conscious act, which is not similar to them.

But to this, the Naiyayikas raise the following objection: In a drink, each particle has alcohol whereas in case of material elements of the body, each one individually does not have consciousness. Any property of the matter, as for instance weight, must be wherever matter is. If the cons­ciousness and the will were also the qualities of matter, they would then have been everywhere where there was matter. However, we do not see this, for instance, in a pot and similar objects. One cannot, therefore, contend that consciousness and will appertain to matter.

The materialist objects thus:[xvii] Consciousness and will are not at all such properties as belong to matter in general, as for instance weight. They belong to it only in known combinations. Just as the seed kinva, mashed and fermented, gives us alcohol, exactly in the same manner, the elements of matter, having formed a body, may be converted into a kind of consciously moving objects.

To this the Naiyayikas reply[xviii] that every particle of alcohol, taken individually, has intoxicating effect. This power is not inherent in the known organized whole consisting of parts. Similarly even the parts of the body would have to think, each taken separately. One cannot affirm arbitrarily that matter thinks as a whole but does not think in parts of the body. It is possible to separate out three or four members, and the thought will continue to work. If it be assumed that thinking is inherent in parts of a body, a whole series of thinkers would have to be there in one body.

“Let it be so”, replies the materialist;[xix] “this does not contradict my principle.”

“No”, the Naiyayika replies.      We see that different people, if they are self-dependent, have different aims and all of them cannot do one work together, for there is no such law that many people accidentally should have one aim and would do one work. Besides in case of one person, in one body, the separate thoughts are in agreement among themselves; this is not the case with different bodies. This can be explained only by the fact that in one body, there is only one organ of thought. After the sensual sensation and its object change, there remains, nevertheless, their cognition in memory and we have a right to conclude that the cognition is not a property of either the organ of feelings or its object. Exactly, in the same manner, although the body changes, as evidenced by changing age - ­infancy, youth and old age - nevertheless the same memory remains.

Therefore, one cannot affirm that consciousness is a property of body. Besides, speaking of conscious motion, we have in view not merely a motion which is possessed by all particles of matter, but a conscious attainment of aim, achievement of what is desired and avoiding of what is not desired. The materialist, not paying any attention to this difference, founds his thesis on motion, in general, and not on the fact of motion towards aim.

LITERATURE ON INDIAN MATERIALSIM

A. In Sanskrit

1. Madhavacarya, Sarvadarsanasarrgraha, ed. Bibl. Ind. 1858, pp. 1-7
2. Haribhadra, $a¢dadanasamuccaya, ed. L. Suali, Bibl. Ind. 1905, p. 300ff.
3. Gunaratna, Tarkarahasyadipika, ib.
4. Jayanta, Nyaya-manjari, Benares 1895, pp. 64, 466ff.
5. Vatsyayana, Nyaya-bhasya on Nyaya-sutra iii. 2. 39.
6. Uddyotakara, Nyayavartika.
7. Vacaspati Misra Nyayavartika-tatparya-tika.
8. Sankaracarya, Sarvasiddhantasarrgraha, ed. & tr. by M. Rangacarya, Madras 1909.
9. Samkhya-sutra-vrtti, iii. 17-22
10. Samkhya-tattva-kaumudi, on Karika 5
11. Samkaradigvijaya.

B. European Studies

                                                                                                     

1. H. Jacobi, Zur Fruhgeschichte der indischen Philosophie (Sitzb. K. Preuss. Ak. d. w. 1911).
2. L. Suali, Materiaux pour servir a l'Histoire du Materia­lisme Indien, Le Museon, N. S. 9, Louvain, 1908.
3. Pizzagalli, Nastika Carvaka e Lokayatika, Pisa 1907.
4. A. Hillebrandt, Zur Kenntniss der indischen Materi­alisten.
5. Ego-khe, Ueber Materialisten und Skeptiker, Alt-Indian, Breslau 1890. p. 168ff.
6. Statii R. Garbe & L. de la Vallee Poussin in Hasting's Encyclopaedia. viii. 138 & 93.
7. John Muir, in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1861.
8. Hopkins, Great Epic, 1901, p. 86.
9. Dahlmann, Samkhya, p. 208.
10. Max Muller, Six Systems, p. 94.

---

[i] Sarvadarsanasamgraha (Bibl. Ind.) p. 3. cf. Sarvasiddhantasamgraha ii. 15. [The English translation given here are of Cowell and Gough]

[ii] Sarvadarsanasamgraha, p. 6.

[iii] Ib. p.6

[iv] Ib. p.4

[v] cf. H. Jacobi, Ueber das Verhaeltniss des Vedanta zum Samkhya, E. Kuhn's Festschrift, p. 38.

[vi] F. O. Schrader, Ueber den Stand der indischen Philosophie, p. 53

[vii] Kautilya, Arthasastra ed. Shamasastri, Mysore Sanskrit Series.

[viii] Ib. i.2

[ix] Ib. i.

[x] Saddarsanasmuccaya, ed. Suali, p. 300

[xi] Nyayamanjari of Jayantabhatta, ed. Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga, Benares, 1895. Vizianagram Series, Vol. viii

[xii] Ib. p. 64

[xiii] Hillebrandt, Zur Kenntniss der indischen Materialisten, E. Kuhn’s Festschrift, p. 24

[xiv] susiksita, cf. op. cit. p. 467

[xv] Ib. p. 64

[xvi] Nyayavartika-tatparya-tika, Vacaspati Misra, ed. Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga, Viz. Series, Vol. xiii, p. 400ff

[xvii] Ib. p. 400, line 14

[xviii] Ib. p. 400. line 17

[xix] Ikb. P. 400, line 21

 

ISPP, Vol. X, 1968-9, Translated by: H.C. Gupta

Read More

Indian Science and Revivalism

G. Ramakrishna

While laying the foundation-stone for a planetarium in Bangalore recentlyⁱ the President of India explained how the Vedic lore is replete with astronomical knowledge. He almost felt that the Vedic people seemed to know more astronomy than we do.

Shortly after the president's revelation about Vedic astronomy came Maj. Ahluwalia's analysis about the three-stage formation of the Himalayas. Giving the highlights of the book on his Himalayan, adventures, a news agency underline the rare eminence of this army officer who had discovered that Kalidasa was aware of the geological history of the Himalayas. The proof of this was traced to a particular stanza in the poet's Kumarasambhava.

Such research feats are registered by our intellectuals quite freely and frequently. A legislator in the Karnataka Assembly made an observation during the debate on the motion of thanks to the Governor in February 1982 according to which one has to go to Germany if, one wants to obtain a PhD on the Atharvaveda. Obviously, to him the Atharva­veda is the most mysterious ancient text by taking which away from India the Germans fabricated aircraft, while we remain backward as we don't understand our texts.

How many times has not Swami Chinmayananda declared rhetorically in his expositions of the Gita that Einstein's theory of relativity is nothing new because our ancient metaphysicians had posited it even more elaborately? No matter whether it is quantum mechanics or qualitative analysis, you have it in our ancient Sanskrit texts, especially the Vedas. There is precious little that you can discover anew in the world of knowledge. This is the kind of chorus, which we hear quite frequently.

If such opinion had been expressed merely by the laymen, there might have been no occasion for any alarm. But knowledgeable scientists, too, come up with such formulations, thereby demonstrating that they prefer to be greater saintists than scientists. Years ago a certain Mr. Curtis wrote a letter to Bertrand Russell saying that the more he read the scriptures, the more convinced he became that the fund of modern knowledge was all to be found in these ancient texts.

The following characteristic reply of Russell is well worth our attention: “I am afraid that I do no agree that contemporary events bear out scriptural prophecy except in the sense that virtually anything can be so considered if the inclination to do so exists. My own preference is to look upon theological writings as the slightly historical fantasy world of primitive tribesman, often savage and sometimes to interest” (Dear Russell, Allen and Unwin, P. 49).

Those of our scholars who fail to recognize the value of our ancient texts othen than by imposing modern knowledge on them are doing a disservice both to the texts and to science: to the texts because they fail to estimate the actual worth of these texts as the chief sources for our understanding of ancient society, and to science because they ignore the nature of science and its history. It is puerile to fear that the Veda might lose its value if some modern knowledge is not found therein.

For a keen student, the Veda is a storehouse of inexhaustible rich material about the evolution of our society. One does not have to mutilate it by superimposing either modern knowledge or transcendental wisdom on it. Secondly, how does knowledge grow or what is the nature of science? To put it in the simplest of terms, knowledge is cumulative and progressive. If we can see farther than our ancestors did, it is because we are standing on their shoulders. If mankind does not commit the folly of committing collective suicide through the employment of the nuclear arsenal, the horizons of knowledge may be expected to be extended still further in the ages to come.

There are quite a few questions about man, nature, and the universe that the present generation is capable of answering, many of them unanswered before: and yet there are several questions that even the present generation is unable to answer. The succeeding generations may answer many of them and in the process raise further questions, which will remain to be answered by their successors. For, the fundamental postulate of science is that there are several things unknown, but nothing unknowable.

What is unknown today is not something which can or will never be known. History sets a limit to the amount of knowledge that each given epoch knows and each epoch reduces the area of the unknown to the extent that is within its reach. To read the knowledge of a subsequent period into the treatises of an earlier period is, therefore, illogical and unnecessary. It is interesting in this connection to note that elements of modern knowledge are "discovered" in ancient texts by our pro­found researchers only after such elements have been added to the gamut of knowledge through other means and in other areas.

To wit, why did not our analysis of the ancient texts ex­pound the theory of relativity, say, during the 19th century itself through an analysis of the texts, albeit in a slightly different form than the one in which Einstein expounded it during the 20th century? Why did they have to wait till theore­tical physicist enunciated it through their studies during the present century? It is obvious that it is a clear case of min. placed enthusiasm and dogged romanticism. And it is achieved at the cost of the genuine scientific method.

The fact of the matter is that there has been no epoch in man's history when he made no attempts to come to grips with his surroundings. It is an inherent quality of man to enquire into the nature of things. He does it perforce when his survival itself depends on his ability to understand the law of the phenomena that he witnesses around himself. It is within man's experience that the level of his· sustenance is directly related to the power that he obtains to intervene in the happenings in nature through an understanding of its laws.

Naturally, man's grappling with nature provides him with ever-new problems for investigation, each of which when solved teaches him also the application value of that new knowledge. It is thus foolhardy to imagine that science is something absolutely new and modern. Science is coeval with man's confrontation and co-operation with nature. What is new in science at each successive epoch is its method and the application of knowledge accruing to man from generation to generation.

A crude dabbling with the phenomena of nature in the initial stages of primitive society places man at the food­gathering stage. Gradually he becomes a hunter, an agricul­turist, a metallurgist, a meteorologist, a physician, a surgeon, a technician and so on. At no stage is the unfoldment of his potentialities total and perfect. That, incidentally, is also why his knowledge at any given stage in history is neither total nor perfect; it is always a continuing process.

As time passes, this crude observer of himself and his surroundings takes to early magic as a possible means of imposing his will on the as yet un understood and therefore uncontrollable and unpredictable world of nature. Long after that, he follows the empirical method for increasing his knowledge before getting down to the theoretical experimental method, the method now generally accepted as characteristic of science.

The post-modern phase in the method of science might be of consultation with and guidance from the computer brains and the robot mechanics. This does not mean that science has developed its methods only m its current phase; it has had varying methods earlier, too. And ancient science might have differed from its modern counterpart only with respect to the methods.

But the credibility of ancient science is not lost simply because its methods are different from the ones adopted by modern science. Science of any given epoch develops its own ethos and method; they may be considered outdated in subsequent period, but not irrelevant. To assess the claims of ancient science with objectivity and not with any romantic fervor is thus a highly desirable thing.

It is only to be expected that ancient India, too, should have evolved a scientific method and apparatus to grapple with nature and enhance the degree of its freedom with the knowledge thus gained in its struggle with nature. Nobody can undermine the importance of the systematic work done in this direction by the ancient Indian scientists whose quest was sincere and whose limitations they recognized ungrudgingly.

What, however, is unfortunate is that some present day enthusiasts of ancient Indian science ignore these limitations which our early scientists themselves recognized and acknowledged. Our current enthusiasts seem to believe that science had been developed fully and perfectly by our ancient seers and they go a step further even and declare that science was developed intuitively by our ancients and not so much on the basis of observation and analysis. They unhesitatingly advocate the view that a nearly complete mastery had been established on nature by these intuitive ancient scientists.

The extremes to which the misplaced enthusiasm could go is best illustrated by an amusing interpretation of a passage in the Rigveda where the words "Vrishabho roraviti" occur. An enterprising scholar took this as scientific proof for the existence of tractors in the Vedic period. The onomatopoeic "roraviti", according to him, would be appropriate only in the context of a tractor metaphorically referred to as a "vrishabha" by the highly imaginative Vedic poet.

This kind of adulation of the past leads us nowhere. It is a sure indication of an attitude, which sacrifices science at the altar of romantic eulogy. This is a none too worthy pursuit of those sections of our contemporary society which hope to perpetuate the value system and the hierarchical social gradation of the past by justifying them indirectly. Their "respect" for ancient Indian science stems from the fact that they are defenders of the status quo, or even retrogression. If they can convince us that ancient India had evolved science to a perfect degree, then it will not be long before they come up with the next basic assertion that those who had developed science thus must have also designed a social system along right lines. So accept both!

This is no slander on ancient Indian scientists themselves. It is only an indictment of the contemporary impostors of ancient Indian science, the revivalists, whose interests lie elsewhere than in genuine science. The meticulous care with which the scientific temper and method were fostered by our early contributors to science can be partly understood if one is conscious of the struggle they had to wage to carryon with their scientific work in the face of almost insurmountable hurdles that the vested interests placed on their path.

The case of the medical practitioners illustrates this point amply. They were treated as outcastes by the orthodox law­givers as they, more than any other section of society, broke the barriers of the strictest caste stratification of society. Are our revivalists prepared to appreciate the integrity of these ancient medical men of our society who stubbornly resisted the onslaught unleashed on them by the orthodox lawgivers? And what dictum did the medical men enunciate as the fundamental axiom for their science?

The Caraka-samhita says among other things that "any success attained without reasoning is as good as sheer acciden­tal success" (vina tarkena ya siddhih yadriccha siddhireva sa). And yet our revivalist champions portray ancient Indian science as a complete and perfect body of systematized knowledge! This raw opinion is repudiated by the ancient methodologists themselves when they confess to their short­comings and limitations. "The little known and the vast unknown" is what beckons them to renewed scientific activity, but our all-knowing savants among the revivalists turn a deaf ear to all their warnings' about the scientific discipline.

Yet another factor that the revivalists conveniently forget is that ancient Indian science had a firm materialist basis. This "forgetfulness" is because of their bias for the idealist school of philosophical thought. The dual personality of the revivalist of today consists in his pretentious professing of the illusory nature of the world and the disgusting manner in which he goes about amassing wealth all the same.

Our ancient Indian scientists were singularly free from this blemish as they posited the reality of the objective world as something independent of the subjective consciousness of the perceiver and they squarely stood up to the wrath of the spiteful orthodox law-givers instead of meekly submitting to their dictates for the sake of comfort and money.

In cases where they displayed a dual personality, they did so consciously as the only means of propagating their scientific conclusions. They knew how orthodoxy would mercilessly trample upon their alleged heretical views, and hence they couched their findings in a language acceptable to the orthodoxy. Their devotion to science and perseverance in the face of heavy odds thus remain an inspiring chapter in the history of Indian science.

The inescapable question faced by the revivalists of today is whether they are courageous enough to follow in the footsteps of the great masters of ancient India by eschewing romanticism and by braving the monster of vested interests in its own den. If they dare not do it for any reason, then it does not lie in their mouth to sing panegyrics to ancient Indian science. One who renounces the principles, method and objectives that the ancient Indian scientists so deeply cherished, has no right whatsoever to show himself off as their trusted follower. A dishonest reverence for ancient Indian science is worse than a pronounced anti-science bias. And that is precisely what the revivalists are guilt of.

i This essay was first published in Deccan Herald, April 17, 1982

This essay was first published in  Deccan Heralad, Bangalore, April 17, 1982

It also appears in The Living Marx, Ma-Le Prakashana, Bangalore, 1983 (Page 67 - 74)

Dr. G Ramkrishna is the Chief Editor of Hosatu, a progressive periodical in Kannada. He was Professor of English at National College, Bangalore and a Visiting Professor at Kannada University, Hampi. He is the author a number of books in Kannada and English including The Strange Culture of M.S. Golvalkar,  The Living Marx, and Philosophy in China (in English), The features of the Anti-Fascist Movement, RSS – A Poisonous Tree, On Hindutva (Kannda)
Email ID: dgrkrishna@gmail.com

Read More