1. Lokayata Darsana or Lokayata The Materialist Philosophy of India Apurba Chandra Barthakuria

LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA-THE MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY OF INDIA

DR. APURBA CHANDRA BARTHAKURIA

Published by : Dr. Apurba Chandra Barthakuria K. C. Kutir CONTENTS

Kamarpara, Guwahati (Assam) Pages

Preface 051813 Chapter - I 181:46 Introduction 1 - 24.

First Edition : APa /L

July, 2004 Chapter - II YA UNIVERSIT) The Lokayata Philosophy in a Nutshell 25-33 SANSKAIT Chapter - III CHAR A brief History of the Lokayata School 34-55 LIBRARY Chapter - IV 33574 The Lokayata Philosophy in Buddhist and SREE SANKAR X KALADY Copyright reserved with the author Jaina Works 56-85

Chapter - V Materialist Philosophy in Āstika Schools 86-112

Chapter - VI Lokāyata views in other Literary Works 113-132

Price Rs. 350/- Chapter - VII Poetical Literature in the Lokayata Philosophy 133-136

Chapter - VIII Svabhāvavāda (Naturalism) 137-144

Chapter - IX

Printed at : Concluding Remarks 145-164

saraighat printers M. C. Road Bibliography 165-167 Guwahati 8I003ITAA& ANGMAHO ABRUSA .RO Index 168-171

PREFACE

The Lokayata darsana or the materialist philosophy of India is very old. The evidence of the existence of many nāstikas or disblelievers in the Indian society since the Rgvedic age is found in many Vedic mantras. The Upanisad also refers to Asuras clinging to materialist doctrines. But a systematic materialist philosophy emerged sometime before Pānini who refers to the Lokāyata in his ukthādigaņa. Kauțilya and Vālmīki two ancient Sanskrit writers have given us a brief idea of the Lokāyata system. While Kauțilya descsribes the Lokāyata philosophy as useful for the people Vālmīki presents it as an injurious philosophical doctrine. Traditionally, Brhaspati is supposed to be the author of the Lokāyata system who wrote his śästra in the sūtra form. Brhaspati's work was probably an extensive one. But only a few sūtras of this great philosopher have been restored to us mainly by the effort of the Baudha and Jaina philosophers. Kamalaśīla and Guņaratna have rendered a great service to us in this regard. These philosophers and also Mādhava, Šankarācārya and Sadānandayati have examined the views. of the materialsts in an appropriately critical manner which have given us an oppoprtunity to gather a vast knowledge of the materialist system. We are gratful to Dr. Dakshina Ranjan Sastri who has collected and presented together all the available sūtras of Brhaspati in his book "A Short History of Indian Materialism. Hedonism, Sensationalism" Lokāyata is a prefect materialist philosophy. Brhaspati and his followers recognise only the material universe composed of atoms as real. They do not believe in the existence of God, or soul or heaven or hell for the reason that they are beyond our perception. They also declare material enjoyment as the goal of human life. These are the reasons for which the followers of Lokāyata darśana have been called nāstikas by ancient Indian thinkers and perfectly identified as materialists by mordern scholars.

The Lokāyata philosophy had attracted a section of people by sweet, popular ideas through several centuries. In Mādhava's age, it gained a strong ground in the society. The philosophy, CHAPTER - I however, passed through different phases of evolution during its long history of about two thousand years. We shall discuss in INTRODUCTION our book all these important points in a clear and systematic manner. Many scholars in the East and the West have already written several books on the Lokāyata darśana: We have merely India has earned a respectable position in the world

tried to follow the footsteps of these great writers. It has been civilisation for propounding high religious and spiritual ideas.

noticed that even after the basic views of the Lokāyata have Through centuries the Indian mind has been influenced by

been presented to us, by these writers, many important noble religious, moral and spiritual thoughts of the Vedas, the

materials have been left out from their discussion. In the Upanișads, the Epics and the Purānas. Almost every Indian has

present book, we shall try to examine all the different views of a great fear for religious preachings of great seers, and a deep

the Lokäyata preacher Brhaspati and his followers together with esteem for gods and goodesses depicted in religious scriptures.

the observation made by eminent Bauddha, Jaina, Naiyāyika Though people have only a vague idea of mukti or salvation, the

and Vedantist and other thinkers, and the Sanskrit grammarians, largest section of the people have a love for virtue and a fear for hell after death. But it is interesting to note that even in the poets, dramatists and other authors on the Lokāyata system. Our aim in the present context is to present all the important midst of strong religious campaign of religious preachers, a

details of the philosophy and present some of these in the section of materialists grew up in the Indian society in the Vedic age itself whose materialistic ideas gradually gained ground in original: Our chief objective is to write a book on the Indian the society. These materialists under the leadership of Brhaspati materialistic philosophy purely in the academic interest. We are (a historical figure and not god Brhaspati) and Cārvāka not followers of the Lokāyata philosophy. The Lokāyata motto prepared a materialistic doctrine of far-reaching importance viz. 'kāma evaikaḥ purușārthaḥ' cannot be the final end of which mainly taught the hedonistic path of life to the masses. human life. Material comforts are always desirable. But a In Mādhava's age, Cārvāka materialism became firmly rooted hedonistic path alone cannot be the ultimate goal of life, in the minds of the people, for which Madhava angrily because man cannot live by bread alone. He wants someting complains in his Sarvadarśanasamgraha as : more to satiate his mental craving. durucchedam hi cārvākasya I am grateful to professor Dr. Rajendra Nath Sarma, M.A., ceștitam. prāyeņa sarvaprāņinastāvat Ph. D., D.Litt. formerly Head of the Department of Sanskrit, yāvajjīvam sukham Gauhati University, Dr. Dilip Kumar Chakravarty and Dr. jīvennāsti mrtyoragocaraḥ Sibnath Sarma, Professors of Philosophy of Gauhati University, bhasmībhūtasya dehasya Dr. Mukta Biswas, Reader in Sanskrit Gauhati University, and punāragamanam kutaḥ Dr. E. Srikrishna Sharma of Gujrat for the great inspiration iti lokagāthām anurundhānāḥ ....... cārvākamatam given to me for publishing this book. anuvartamānā evānubhūyante'1 Mādhava says that the philosophy of Cārvāka is also Apurba Chandra Barthakuria known by another significant name viz. Lokāyata which means

2 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 3

a philosophy of the common people (loka+āyata).2 It is difficult indicates the materialistic thinking of a section of people in the for us to give a definite idea of the source where the word was Vedic age. first used. But the Lokāyata philosophy is the name of the It has been said above that the word Lokāyata is very old materialist philosophy propounded by Brhaspati3 in the sūtra in Indian literature. Pāņini refers to this term in the ukthādigaņa form though the name does not appear in the sūtras available to of his great grammar.8 Kautilya describes Sāmkhya, Yoga and us. Of course, Jayarāśi refers to Brhaspati as the author of a Lokāyata as ānvīkșikī vidyā.9 The Rāmāyaņa of Vālmīki gives an significant statement viz. "laukiko mārgonusartavyaḥ" in his idea of the Lokayatikas as Brahmanas who should not be Tattvopaplavasimha.4 The word lokāyata probably appeared followed under any circumstances.10 Patañjali, in his from this very statement) Mahābhāsya says that Bhāguri wrote a Varņikā or Vartikā Gunaratna, a Jaina writer and philosopher who disliked the commentary on the Lokãyata śāstra1 which proves that the Lokāyatikas or the followers of the Lokāyata school has Lokāyata system had already developed into a neatly worked explained the term Lokāyata in the following manner : out system on which a commentary was written in the pre-

lokā nirvicārāḥ sāmānyalokāstadvad Christian era. Vātsāyana refers to the practical views of

ācaranti smeti Lokāyatā Lokāyatikā ityapi.5 Laukāyatikas in his Kāmasūtra.12 The Lokāyata system was also known by some other It appears from Guņaratna's interpretation that Lokāyata names like Bārhaspatya and nāstika (atheist).13 Pāņini gives a not only denoted the philosophy but also its followers. rule to frame the word nastika.14 The word nāstika is generally The Lokāyata daraśana appears to Guņaratna as the used in Sanskrit literature as a non-believer in the authority of darśana of the thoughtless, ordinary people. But in reality it the Veda. The Bauddhas, the Jainas, the Kāpālikas and the was a highly scientific and neatly worked out system. In that Lokāyatikas are recognised as nāstikas. But the Lokāyatas or age, when religion deeply influenced the minds of the general Lokayātikas are called nāstikas particularly for the reason that people, it was a wonder that Brhaspati wrote a sensational they do not believe in the existence of God, heaven or hell or doctrine for the masses where he had to defend his position in soul. They are perfect materialists for whom matter is the only the most scientific manner. reality and material enjoyment is the goal of life. Patañjali, The materialistic ideas cropped up in the Indian society in while explaining the Paninian rule "astināstidiștam matiḥ the Vedic age itself. In a sükta of the Rgveda dedicated to Indra, (4.4.60) indicates that the word nāstika is used in this sense.15 it has been said that a section of the people questioned the very Kaiyata explains the view of Patañjali more explicitly existence of Indra, for which the Vedic seer had to reply to them According to him, those who do not believe in paraloka are as : nāstikas.16 It may be noted here that Brhaspati denies paraloka

'śrad asmai dhatta sa janāsa in his sūtra viz. 'paralokino'bhāvāt paralokābhāvaḥ.17

Indraḥ'6 (O people, please believe in Indra, he exists). In Brhaspati : another sūkta of the Rgveda, there is a reference te Kīkatas, (According to the Indian tradition, Brhaspati is the Sāyaņa explains the term Kītkata as a group of materialists founder of the Lokāyata system. Of course, his name appears as whose view of life was to eat, drink and enjoy.7 Of course, it the author of the materialist system only covertly in the may be Sāyaņa's own interpretation of the term kīkața .? But the Maitrāyaņī Upanisad and most distinctly only in later Sanskrit relevant verse viz. kinte krņvanti kīkațeșu gāvaḥ clearly texts like the Pañjikā commentary of Kamalaśīla, the

4 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 5

Probhacandrodaya and the Sarvadarśanasamgraha of views on religion. One of these poems appears with a slight Mādhava. He framed a number of sūtras to propound his difference in the Sarvadarśanasamgraha27of Mādhava, the doctrine. However, it is worthnoting that a sūtra form of a Naişadhacarita28 of Śrīharșa, the Prabodhacandrodaya29 of śāstra assumes its form only when the śāstra gains a strong Krşņamiśra, Nīlakaņțha's commentary on the Mahābhārata and ground in the society in other forms. It is a fact that Nārāyaņa's commentary on the Naișadhacarita. Similar other materialistic ideas occured in the minds of many Indians since poems are quoted from Lokāyata texts in the commentary of very ancient times. Brhaspati probably gave a new shape to it Guņaratna and the Vișnupurāna also. However, it cannot be by adding his own results of research to the system. definitely said that they were written by Brhaspati himself. The There were at least 18 sūtras of Brhaspati. Only a few of earlier Sanskrit writers like Patañjali, and Vātsāyana who have them have been handed down to us by different philosophers. referred to the philosophy of the Lokāyata school are silent Probably, there were many more śūtras which have been lost to about such poems, and even Sāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla do us now. Kamalaśīla,18 the commentator on the Tattvasamgraha, not mention any such poetical text of Brhaspati. Sadānandayati19 and Gunaratna,20 the commentator on the Though the Lokayata philosophy had earned an

Şaddarśanasamuccaya of Haribhadrasūri have rendered a very honourable place in the society since very ancient times, the useful service to the academic circle by presenting many reference to Brhaspati's sūtras is found in the writings of a later important sütras of Brhaspati which give us an idea of some period only. It may be noted here that the sūtra text of basic views of the materialist thinker. The loss of a number of Brhaspati has been brought to the knowledge of scholars by sūtras, is however, quite clear from Kamalaśīla's commentary. Kamalaśīla who flourished in about 8th century A. D. It identifies the sūtras 1 and 2 and then suddenly refers to the sūtras 17 and 18.21 A few other sūtras in the commentary A brief idea of Brhaspati's Philosophy :

appear to us as quoted from Brhaspati's text, but there is no Brhaspati was a true materialist. Like some materialist direct reference to Brhaspati in them.22 Among other philosophers of the West, Brhaspati also recognises matter as philosophers Sadānanda clearly mentions the author of three the only reality. According to his first sūtra,30 the universe is

sūtras viz. composed of the elements. He does not reçognise 'akāśa' as a

(a) caitanyaviśiştaḥ kāyah purușaḥ. reality. Regarding the valid forms of knowledge, Brhaspati's

(b) kāma evaikaḥ purușārthaḥ and view is that perception alone gives us a correct idea of things.

(c) maraņamevāpavargaḥ23 This is clear from his sūtra viz. pratyakşam evaikampramāņam (nanyat).31 This theory has been partially revised by some later as Brhaspati but does not identify the position of the sūtras in materialists Brhaspati's text. Gunaratna quotes some important views of Brhaspati does not believe in the existence of soul or any Brhaspati viz. madaśaktivaccaitanyam utpadyate, jalabudbuda- such permanent entity. According to him, there is no soul or an vajjīvāh and caitanyaviśistah kāyah purușah of which the third afterworld to which the soul is supposed to migrate after one is a sūtra of Brhapati24 and probably the first two also. death.32 He describes in the sūtra viz. caitanyaviśistah kāyaḥ The first two sūtras of Brhaspati appear in different forms purusah that the body itself pervaded by consciousness is in different philosophical works.25 According to Mādhava, another name of 'soul'. Thus, soul is a material object in his Brhaspati composed a few poems also26 in order to present his opinion. He also considers death as the liberation of the body-

6 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 7

soul.33 According to him, the final aim of the human life is to Bhāguri : enjoy it fully (kāma evaikaḥ purușārthaḥ). Some ideas of Brhaspati have been either amended or Bhaguri was the commentator on the Lokāyata sāstra. We

exapanded in later times. It may be noted here that one learn for the first time about a commentary written under the

Brhaspti was the author of a nīti-śāstra. Dr. S.N. Dasgupta fails title of Varņikā or Vartikā on the Lokāyata śāstra or śūtras.

to determine the date of Brhaspati.34 But if he was the Bhāguri's name appears in Patañjali's Mahābhāșya (2nd century

propounder of the Lokāyata philosophy as described by B.C.) as the author of the commentary. Dr. S. N. Dasgupta fixes

Guņaratna, Mādhava and Krșņamiśra, his date can be pushed Bhaguri's date in the 2nd or the 3rd century B.C.38 He was

back to the Pāņinian era (6th century B. C.) or earlier. naturally a materialist writer who flourished a few centuries after Ajitakeśakambalī. Patañjali could give his readers some

Ajitakeśakambalī : idea of the nature and contents of the commentary, which he did not. Therefore, we have been deprived of a golden opportunity Sanskrit Buddhist texts have frequently referred to the Lokāyatikas. Thus, the Lankāvatārasūtra of the Mahāyāna of writing a continuous account of the materialistc philosophy

Buddhists has advised the followers of Buddha not to follow after Ajita.

the Lokāyatikas who misguide people by sweet words.35 Kambalāśvatara :

However, the earliest reference the Lokāyata doctrine in Kambalāśvatara, who had flourised much after

Buddhist sources is met with in the statements of one Ajitakeśakambalī also wrote his philosophical doctrine in sūtras Ajitakeśakambalī, a philosopher who was described as like Brhaspati. Unfortunately, only one sutra of

keśakambalī probably for the reason that he possessed a mass Kambalāśvatara, viz. 'kāyādeva' has come down to us by the of hairs and wore a rug. He was a contemporary of Lord, grace of Kamalaśīla.39 The sūtra has been adequately explained Buddha. Ajita's materialistic views have been recorded in the by Śāntarakșita in his Tattvasamgraha. According to

Dīghanikāya.36 One important difference between Brhaspati Brhaspati, the conscious body is itself the soul (caitanyavisistaḥ and Ajita was that the latter presents his views in plain kāyah purușaḥ). But Kamabalāśvatara says that when the body statements while Brhaspati frames scientific sūtras to give an remains associated with prāņa and apāna winds, it generates

idea of his materialistic ideas. consciousness.40 Ajita bluntly rejects all religious concepts. He says that there is no paraloka. In this respect, his view agrees with that Cārvī and Cārvāka :

of Brhaspati laid down in the sūtra viz. paralokino'bhāvāt Cārvīs were a class of materialist teachers according to

paralokābhāvah. Ajita says that when a man dies the elements the Kāśikāvṛtti (7th century A. D.). The Kāśikā gives an idea of

disintegrate and merge with their sources. There are also no their excellent mode of teaching which inspired the students of

good or bad results of his good and bad actions37 perfomed in the Lokāyata system. The Vrttikāra says :

his life. cārvī buddhiḥ tatsambandhād ācāryopi Though Ajita presents many revolutionary ideas which carvī sa lokāyate šāstre padārthān will be discussed elaborately in a future context reserved for nayate upapattibhiḥ sthirīkṛtya him, his ideas have been ignored by traditional writers. Ajita's śişyebhyaḥ prāpayati, te yuktībhiḥ

name is mentioned.by modern scholars alone. sthāpyamānāḥ sammānitāḥ pūjitā bhavanti.41

LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀ YATA INTRODUCTION 9

8

Now, a question may be raised as whether there is any of Šāntarakșita, Haribhadrasūri, Kamalaśīla, Mādhava,

connection between Cārvī and Cārvāka or Cārvākas who earned Guņaratna and Krsņamiśra that Cārvākas were the followers of a name as avowed and die-hard materialists. It may be noted the Lokayata school. The present work will show that Cārvāka here that the word Carvaka is not met with in the relevant or Cārvākas explained and developed the ideas of Brhaspati. context (1.3.36) in the Kāśikā and the word Carvī also There were two distinct groups of Cārvākas viz. the dhūrta disappears from the history of the materialist philosophy. Cārvākas and the suśikșita Cārvākas. The dhūrta Cārvākas laid Whatever that might be, the Lokayata philosophy earned more emphasis on physical enjoyment and propagated anarchy. a strong footing in the India society during the age of the The Cārvāka philosophy flourished in the society in the Vrttikāvras *. It was taught as another important philosophical age Gunaratna (14th century A.D.) and Mādhava (12th century system. A. D.) as a perfect hedonistic philosophy. Guņaratna adequately Bānabhatta, who flourished in the same century with the replies to many important views of the Cārvāka school. Vṛttikāra Jayāditya, gives a vivid description of the open Mādhava mainly presents the views of the Cārvāka school .university of Divākaramitra in the 8th Ucchvāsa of his without trying to reject him. The Bauddhas and the Jainas, and Harșacarita where the Lokāyata system was duly taught in the also some Naiyāyikas like Jayantabhațța have refuted the university42 along with other āstika and nāstika philosophies. It Cārvāka standpoints with the help of appropriate logic. We shall appears from Bānabhatta's reference to the system that try to discuss it clearly in appropriate contexts. Lokāyata enjoyed its due importance in the seventh century without being disturbed by other schools at least in the Some Cārvāka philosophers :

academic scene of the country. (There were both well-known and unknown philosophers in The name of Cārvāka as an individual appears in the the Carvaka school who have contributed a great deal towards

Mahābhārata (Šāntiparvan, 38.22-23). In later Sanskrit the development of the Carvaka philosophy. Readers learn literature, Cāravāka appears casually as an individual and about them from the writings of Gunaratna, Madhava,

sometimes the word is used in the plural number (Cārvākāḥ) as Jayantabhatța and Kamalaśīla. Thus, Guņaratna says that a the representatives of materialist thinkers. But Cārvāka or section of Cārvāka philosphers recognise 'ākāśa' as a fifth Cārvakas as philosophers were known practically since the 8th element, though Brhaspati speaks about only four element viz. century A. D. Śāntarakșita who flourished in this century and earth, air, water and light and not. 'ākāsa'. While discussing the Kamalaśīla who was probably his junior contemporary give kārikās of Haribhadrasūri, Guņaratna states : some important ideas of the Cārvaka philosophy. There are different meanings of the word Carvaka, who is generally kecittu cārvakaikadeśīyāḥ ākaśam pañcamam bhūtam

ridiculed as the propagator of the philosophy of eating abhimanyamānāḥ pañcabhūtātmakam jagaditi nigadanti.44

(carvaņa). Scholars like Dr. S. N. Dasgupta are not sure whether Mādhava45 (and also Sankarācārya46) states that the

Cārvāka was a nick-name or a real name.43 It is also difficult for Cārvākas recognise the doctrine of svabhāva. But earlier writers scholars to ascertain whether Cārvāka refers to an individual or including Sāntarakșita have not attributed the svabhāva doctrine the members of Lokayata school. Is is clear from the discussion to the Cārvākas. Mādhava also refers to an important view of the Cārvāka school viz. mņam krtvā ghrtam pibet" (i.e. one * Jayāditya and Vāmana, the co-authors of the Kāśikāvrtti are known should enjoy ghee even by borrowing money). This particular as Vrttikāras. view is a part of the śloka viz :

10 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 11 yāvajjīvam sukham jīvet etc. which appears in other works as- Șaddarsánasamuccaya51 of Haribhadrasūri the

yavajjīvam sukham jīvet Sarvadarsánasamgraha of Mādhava and Kamalasīla's

nāsti mrtyoragocarah commentary on the Tattvasamgraha53. However, as Guņaratna

(bhasmībhūtasya dehasya has said, a section of later Cārvākas recognise ākāsá also as a

punarāgamanam kutaḥ).47 fifth element. But this is not the general view of the Cārvākas. The Cārvakas recognise the other views of Brhaspati. But Jayantabhatta discusses some new arguments put forth by Sadānandayati shows that there was a significant evolution of Cārvākas on the dehātmavāda of Brhaspati. These views have the concept of soul in the Carvaka darsána54. According to been given by some unidentified Cārvākas. According to these Brhaspati, the soul is identical with the body. But later Cārvākas, one simple and concrete example of matter Cārvākas searched a subtler soul than the gross body, for which generating consciousness is the origination of worms in a pot of they have recognised sometimes the mind, sometimes senses curd conserved for a long period.48 and sometimes the prana as the soul. While discussing ; the Cārvāka views, Kamalaśīla The Cārvākas generally recoginse pratyakșa or perception incidentally presents two important views of the Cārvāka as the only form of valid knowledge. They do not recognise school. One view is that the Cārvāka materalists recognise anumāna or inference as it cannot give us a correct knowledge matter as possessing a momentary character, like the Bauddhas. of a thing But as it has been stated above, a section of Cārvākas He remarks- like Purandara recognise popular inference as another means of mahābhūtacatuştayam (paraiḥ) pramāņa but reject supra-sensory inference.55 The Cārvākas cārvākaiḥ kşaņikam abhyupgamyate.49 rigidly follow Brhaspati and declare the concept of 'paraloka'

Though this is an important view, it has not been attributed as unreal.56

to any particular authority. Brhaspati declares material enjoyment (kāma) as the

Among the philosophers of the Cārvāka school of a later ultimate goal of life. But in the age of Krsnamiśra and

period, the name of Purandara appears in Kamalaśīla's Mādhava, Cārvākas realised that material enjoyment without

commentary on the Tattvasamgraha. Kamalaśīla says that he wealth is impossible. Therefore, they have declared artha and

for the first time admits that the Cārvākas recognise laukika kāma as the two goals of the human life.57

anumāna or popular inference as a second means of valid Philosophers of all schools in India have talked about

cognition.5p mokșa or apavarga (salvation). According to the Vedānta, the realisation of Brahman as the one and only reality is salvation, A brief idea of the Cārvāka philosophy : while other philosophical systems speak differently of moksa or

Though Cārvāka or Cārvākas propagate the materialist salvation. But Cārvākas describe death as the liberation of a

philosophy of Brhaspati, there is a significant evolution of the person.58

philosophy in the Cārvāka school. Acccording to Mādhava,59 and Śrīharșa,60 the Cārvākas

The Carvakas generally recognise the four elements which declare that there is no existence of svarga, or soul that

constitute the universe as the reality. This is clear from the migrates to another world. They scoff at all religious beliefs and practices and condemn the śrāddha ceremony.61

INTRODUCTION 13 12 LOKĀYATĄ DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

Kāpālikas : important views of Brhaspati in his Tattvopaplavasimha. Guņaratna describes Kāpālikas as the followers of the Jayarāśi was a materialist. Some other philosophers like Vācaspati Miśra, Pārthasārathi Miśra, Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, materialist school.62 The Kāpālikas flourished in India since the age of the Vādideva (Jaina) and Bhattotpala have casually referred to a Upanișads. They were a sub-sect of the Māheśvaras or Śaivas. few Lokāyata theories on anumāna (inference), Purușa (soul), We learn from relevant Sanskrit texts that the Kāpālikas were the apaurușeyatva of the Veda, and svabhāvavāda Thus, hedonists. It has been said in the Prabodhacandrodaya that by . Vācaspati Miśra describes that the Lokāyatikas reject anumāma embracing a beloved woman beautiful like Pārvatī, Kāpālikas as a pramāna in a śūtra viz nānumānam pramāņam.65 attain Śivahood.63 They eat meat and drink wine regularly. But Pārthaśārathi Miśra shows that the Lokāyata philosophers they may not be called materialists in the same sense as the describe the theory of apauruseyatva of the origin of the Vedas Cārvākas, because the Kāpālikas aspire for the liberation of the as propagated by the Mīmāmsakas as a fit of imagination.66 soul. In the Prabodhacandrodaya, the Kāpālika Somasiddhānta Madhusūdana Sarasvatī presents the Bārhapatya sūtra viz declares that the holy wine prescribed in the Kāpālika religion caitanyavisistah kāyah purusah in his commentary on the Gitā delivers the soul from the clutch of pāśas or fetters:64 If the (16.11). Bhattotpala. the commentator on the Brhatsamhitā of Kāpālikas joined the camp of nāstikas, it was certainly in a later Varāhamihira refers to the theory of svabhāva of the Lokāyatikas according to which the world is an outcome of period of the evolution of the materialist philosophy of the svabhāva, or in other words, it has naturally come into existence Cārvākas. without being produced by any divine agent. Vādideva presents Materialist Philosophy described in later Sanskrit a sūtra of Purandara on inference and its interpretation in his Literature : Syādvādarutnākara. The Purāņas and particularly the Vișnupurāņa, and the It has been stated above that the Lokāyata philosophy allegorical dramas like the Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamiśra originated in the Vedic age itself. The philosophy was best and the Naișadhacarita of Srīharșa discuss some important known as the Lokāyata system in the early stage of its views of the Cārvāka school. - development. But in a later period it was known as the Cārvāka It appears from the above works that though most of the philosophy. Philosophers 'of both orthodox and non-orthodox authours in these works have discussed a few common views schools in India have adequately discussed the materialist only, their dicussion on the Cārvāka darśana shows that there philosophy of the Cārvākas which they have never accepted. was certainly a great popularity of the Cārvāka philosophy in Among the philosophers, Sānkarācarya, Śāntarakșita (a all ages. Buddhist) Mādhava, Haribhadrasuīi (Jaina), Guņaratnasūri (Jaina) Kamalaśīla (Bauddha), Hemacandra (Jaina), Mallisena The dehatman theory of Brhaspati : (Jaina), Śālikanātha (Mīmāmsaka) Jayantabhațta (a renowned Brhaspati, the founder of the Lokāyata philosophy, Naiyāyika) Sadānandayati (Vedantist) and Udayana and recognises the body endowed with consciousness as the soul in Varadārāja (both Naiyayikas) have examined the views of the his sūtra viz. caitanyaviśiştaḥ kāyah purușah. The sūtra appears materialist school in their works. Among them, Kamalaśīla, in Śankara's Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, Guņaratna's Guņaratna and Varadaraja are three renowned commentators. commentary on the Saddarśanasamuccaya of Haribhadrasūri, Jayarāśi is another philosopher who has discussed some and the Advaitabrahmasiddhi of Sadānandayati etc.

INTRODUCTION 15 14 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

This revolutionary theory of Brhaspati has been severely system in this country where astika thoughts still dominate the

criticised by different philosophers. Guņaratna, a Jaina Indian minds.

philosopher champions the cause. He examines in all possible Brhaspati and Cārvāka or Cārvākas are separated by a long

ways the materialist view and discards it with appropriate logic. period. But some ancient thinkers of India try to establish a

Śāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla are two other philosophers who direct relationship between the two great materialist thinkers

have also refuted the dehātman theory with adequate Thus, Krsnamiśra, the author of the Prabodhacandrodaya

arguments. We shall give an idea of their standpoint in the says :

appropriate context. tadetad asmadabhiprāyānubandhinā vācaspatinā praņīya cārvākāya samarpitam Materialists and the concept of rebirth : tena ca śisyānuśişyadvāreņa jagati bahulīkrtam tantram.70

Indian philosophers including the Bauddhas have Krşņamiśra describes Cārvāka as a contemporary of propagated the theory of rebirth. It may be noted here that the Brhaspati. But Mādhava refers to him as 'Brhaspatimatānusārī71 Bauddhas do not recognise the soul. According to the which means a follower of Brhaspati's view. He was not a Upanișads67 and the Śrīmadbhagavadgītā,68 there is an eternal contemporary of the great materialist preacher. In fact, Cārvāka soul which does not die with the body, but enters into a new (or Cārvākas) flourished in the Indian scene several centuries body after the death of a person. The Vedantists, the Naiyāyikas after Brhaspati's Lokāyata doctrine was known to Kauțilya and and also the Jainas recognise such an immortal soul. But the others. Bauddhas reject the very concept of such a permanent soul. Cārvaka, the exponent of the Lokayata philosophy was not

2 However, the Bauddhas also speak about the continuation of the same person with Cārvāka of the Mahābhārata, because in vijñāna or consciousness.69 The Bauddha philosopher the epic, this person appears in the garb of an ascestic who Sāntarakșita, the Jaina philosopher Gunaratna and even the holds a tri-fold staff (tridanda) in his hand, and wears a garland Naiyāyikas like Jayantabhațta believe that the behaviour of a of beads. Cārvāka of the Lokāyata philosophy always hates the newly born "untrained" baby is governed by his behaviour of his previous life. The materialists, on the other hand, opine that religious ear-marks and particulary the 'tridaņda'. Cārvāka is described as a Rākșasa in the epic, and a wicked friend of there is no such rebirth of a so-called permanent soul. The -body-soul perishes and disappears with death. They argue that Duryodhana.72

if there was such a "live" soul which transmigrates to another Cārvāka, Pāșanda and Pākhaņda : body, in that case, the soul of an elephant and a horse will be one and the same, but it is not. Moreover, if such a soul existed Pāșaņda and pākhaņda are synonymous words. In fact,

at all, every child would have remembered the activities of his pākhaņda is a corrupt form of pășanda. The words are generally

past life which is never seen. used in the sense of the opponent of the Veda. M.R. Sakhare quotes a passage from the Brahmavaivartapurāņa viz, Brhaspati and Cārvāka : pāśabdena trayiāśabdaḥ The Lokāyata philosophy has been frequently described as pālanājjagato mataḥ Cārvāka darsána by Sanskrit writers. Though Brhaspati was the tam khandayanti tasmāt te founder of the Lokayata philosophy, his views were explained pakhaņdās tena hetunā and expanded by Cārvāka or Cārvākas which popularised the

16 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 17

in his Lingārcanacandrikā73 in order to show that the word "prthivyāpastejo vāyuriti tattvāni,

pākhaņda in particular is used in this sense. Though the word tatsamudāye śarīrendriyavișayasamjñā."77

pāșanda also coveys the sense of an opponent of the Veda, many Jayarāśi's book has been published by the Oriental members of different religious sects of India use the word to Institute of Baroda (1940) and republished by Bauddha Bharati condemn their opponents without considering its original (Varanasi) in 1987. No work of the Lokāyata school was significance. Thus, the Kāpālika Somasiddhanta in discovered by scholars prior to the the publication of this book. Ānandarāyamakhin's Vidyāpariņaya states that the Kāpālikas However, many parts of book are lost. But the remaining and Pāñcarātrins are condemned as pāsandas by their opponents portion is an asset in the treasurehouse of Indian philosophy. in spite of the fact that they recognise the authority of the Regarding Jayarāśi, Dr. D. R. Sastri says : Veda74. They are described as pāsaņdas by their enemies exclusively for the reason that they perform some unorthodox There are different classes of Cārvākas. A particular

religious rituals.75 But that cannot be a sufficient ground for division of school engaged themselves in rejecting all sorts of

calling them anti-Veda. The Kāpālikas eat meat and drink. pramāņas. Jāyarāśi belonged to that group .....

wine. But they recognise the Vedic god Rudra as the Supreme Jāyarāśi accepted Brhaspati as his Guru and with his

Being. They remain engaged in spiritual persuit for liberating permission demolished the doctrines of other schools ....

the soul from the clutch of the pasas. The Pancaratrins are the To him there is no valid means of knowledge.78

followers of Visņu. Visnu is a great Vedic god who has been Jāyarāśi examines the views of different philosopical later on recognised as Brahman in religious literature. The schools on pramanas, and the theories of soul. In the last Kaulas of the left path are also not pāșaņdas or anti-Veda section of his work, he examines sabdaprāmanya. In this because they worship the Vedic god Maheśvara (Rudra) and the context, he specially refers to the theory of sphota found in the Upanisadic goddess Umā though they adopt a hedonistic path grammatical school.79 He strongly supports the view of in their religion. The Cārvākas are pāșaņdas or pākhaņdas in the Brhaspati that there is no other world or a soul which migrates true sense of the term. This is the reason for which the to the other world.80 commentator on the Yaśastilakacampū of Somadevasūri We quote a portion from the editorial comment on explains the word pākhandilingāh in a passage of this Jāyarāśi's purpose below. campūkāvya as 'pākhaņdilingāḥ cārvākādayaḥ.76 "A careful reading of the text leaves the impression that Jāyarāśi is as serious a thinker as any other, and that he wants Jāyarāśi : to show the incapacity of human instruments of knowledge to

It has been stated above that Jāyarāśi has dicussed some know anything really.81

impotant views of the great materialist philosopher Brhaspati in Different names of materialists : his Tattvopaplavasimha. Jāyarāśi was a great original thinker. He was a loyal follower of Brhaspati. He lays an emphasis on The Indian materialists are known by different names.

living a popular way of life. He says : They are generally called nāstikas. According to Manu, a nāstika is a non-believer in the authority of the Veda. Guņaratna 'laukiko mārgo' nusartavya', Thereafter he quotes two says that the materialists are known by different names like very important sūtras of Brhaspati viz. Cārvākas, Lokāyatas, Lokāyatikas and Bārhaspatyas.8? It should >/

18 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 19

be noted here that the.word Carvaka has been used in the sense contributed to the Lokayata philosophy in their historical of materialist philosophers in the works of some later Sanskrit works. writers only like Śāntarakșita, Guņaratna, Mādhava and Dakshina Ranjan Sastri quotes a large number of Krsņamiśra. The early writers like Kauțilya, Patañjali and even Brhaspati's sutras in his "A Short History of Indian Kaiyața do not refer to Cārvāka anywhere in their works.) Materialism, Hedonism, Sensationalism" which have been

Commentaries on the Lokāyatadarśana : laboriously collected by this celebrated scholar from various sources. ( There were several commentaries on the Lokāyata darśana Dr. Shastri's another book "Cārvāka sașți" is an important written in different times. Patañjali refers to the Varņikā contribution to the study of the Cārvaka philosophy. commentary of Bhāguri. Kamalaśīla refers to at least two Dr. Sarvananda Pathak's "Cārvāk Darshan ki Sastriya commentaries while explaining the Kārikā viz. Samiksa" is an excellent critical exposition of the Cārvāka

tebhya eva tathā jñānam jāyate philosophy. The author spares no effort in collecting the sūtras

vyajyatethavā of Brhaspati, Kambalāśvatara and Purandara. in Śāntarakșita's Tattvasamgraha (1858) The present work : There were similar commentaries in different times as it (The present work will be mainly a critical exposition of can be easily imagined from the works of Udayana, the materialistc views of Brhaspati and his followers which Jayantabhatța, Guņaratna and Mādhava where there are some remain scattered over a vast range of Indian literature like Veda, excellent discourses on the body-soul theory of Cārvākas. Upanișad, Purāņa, philosophical texts, Sanskrit drama and

Modern writers on Materialism : poetry, Ayurvedic work, and also the Päli sources. We shall

In India, there is a good deal of research on the materialist adequately explain these views together with a reference to the

philosophy of Brhaspati and Cārvāka. Dr. Haraprasad Shastri arguments and counter-arguments of the advocates and

and Dr. Dakshina Ranjan Sastri are two great exponents of opponents of the materialist philosophy. While doing so, we

Lokāyata darśana. Dr. Haraprasad Shastri is recognised as the shall discuss the gradual evolution of Lokāyata darśana through centuries. But as a critical discussion on the darsana may create pioneer in the mater. Dr. Dakshina Ranjan Sastri has written some difficulty to the general readers to understand the three excellent books in English on Lokāyata viz. Charvak philosophy, we shall add a brief chapter on the Lokāyata system philosophy, Cārvāka șaști, and A Short History of Indian in the present work to give them a clear idea of the philosophy Materialīsm, Hedonism. Sensationalism. His another book viz through a simple and easy method. We shall present as much Carvak Darsan writen in Bengali is also very useful for new material as available to us from various sources not scholars. However, Dr. Deviprasad Chattopadhyaya's Lokayata mentioned by other writers in order to make the study a is: a very famous work. Among other writers Dr. Baladev comprehensive and fruitful one.) Upadhyaya and Dr. Sarvananda Pathak (Carvak Darsan ki Sastriya Samiksa) have written on the subject in Hindi. Dr. S. Radhaskrishnan and Dr. S. N. Dasgupta have also greatly

20 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 21

References : 23. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99.

1. Sarvadarśanasamgaha, p. I. 24. Șaddarśanasamuccya, p. 451.

2. Ibid, p. I. 25. prathivyāpastejovāyuriti tattvāni,

3. Șaddarsanasamuccaya, p. 451. Tattvopaplavasimha (Jayarāśi), p.1. pṛthivyāpastejovāyuriti catvāri tattvāni, 4. Tattvopaplavasimha, p. I Tattvasamgraha, p. 63. 5. Șaddarśanasamuccaya. p 451. 26. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p.5. 6. Rgveda, 2.12.5. 27. agnihotram trayo vedāstridaņdam 7. Vide Sāyaņa on Rgveda 3.53.14. bhasmaguņthanam 8. Pāņini, 4.2.60. buddhipaurușahīnānām

4. Sāmkhyam yogo lokāyatam cetyānvīkșikī . jīvikā dhātunirmitā, Ibid, p.5. ānvīkșikī lokasyopakaroti, 28. agnihotram trayītantram tridandam bhasmapuņdrakam, Arthasāśtra, 1.2. prajñāpaurușaniḥsvānām 10. kaccinana lokāyatikān jīvo jalpati jīvikā Brāhmaņān tāta sevase Naișadhacarita 17.39. Ayodhyākāņda, 100.38. 29. agnihotram trayo vedāstridaņdam 11. Mahābhāșya, 7.3.45. bhasmaguņthanam

12.Kāmasūtra, 2.23-24. prajñāpaurușahīnānām jīviketi Brhaspatih, 13 .* Șadarśanasamuccaya. pp. 450456. Prabodhacandrodaya. II. 26. 14. astināstidișțam matiḥ, 4.4.60. 30. pṛthivyāpastejovāyuriti (catvāri) tattvāni, 15. Mahābhāșya, 4.4.60. tatsamudāye vișayendriyasamjñā

16. Kaiyata under Ibid. Bārhaspatya sūtra I, Tattvasamgaha, p. 633.

17.Tattvasamgraha, Part II, p. 637. 31. Saddarsanasamuccaya. p. 223. 32. Vide sūtra 17 (quoted above). 18. Ibid, pp. 633-634, 637. 33. maraņam evāpavargaḥ, Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99 19. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99. (quoted). 20. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 34. A History of Indian Philosophy, part III p. 531. 21. Tattvasamgraha, p. 637. 35. Lokāyatiko vicitrairhetupadavyañjanair 22. etāvāneva lokoyam yāvān indriyagocaraḥ; bālān vyāmohayati, Lankāvatārasūtra p. 70. punaruktadeśāntaram kālāntaram avasthāntaram 36. Dīghanikāya, Sāmaññaphalasutta. 2.23. vā paraloka, Ibid, p. 637. 37. Ibid, Sāmaññaphalasutta, 2.23.

22 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INTRODUCTION 23 38. A History of Indian Philosophy, Part-III, p. 531. 39. Tattavasamgraha, Part-II, p. 635. 62. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 451.

40. kāyādeva tatojñānam 63. Prabodhacandrodaya, III.

prāņāpānādyadhișthitāt. 64. idam pavitram amṛtam yuktam jāyata ityetat kambalāśvataroditani, pīyatām bhavabheșajam Ibid, 1863. paśupāśasamuccheda- 41. Kāśikā, 1.3.36. kāraņam bhairavoditam,

42. Harșacarita, 8. Ibid, III. 20.

43. A History of Indian Philosophy, Part-III, p. 532. 65. nānumānam pramāņam iti vadatā lokāyatikenāpratīpannaḥ sandigdho 44. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 450. viparyasto vā puruşa katham pratipadyeta, 45. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p.5. Sāmkhyakārikā, pp. 124-125. 46. Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha 66. Ślokavārtika, p. 60. 47. See Bhāskara's commentary m Īśvarapratyabhijñā- 67. Kathopanișad, 1.2.18. vimarśinī, part, p 316. Bhāskara reads bhasmībhūtasya 68. Gītā, 2.22. śāntasya in stead of bhasmībhūtasya dehasya in his commentary 69. Tattavasamgraha, 1938.

44. Nyāyamañjarī. Part. II, p. 13. 70. Prabodhacandrodaya, p. 71. 49. Tattvasamgraha, part-II, P. 639. 71. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. I. 50. Ibid, Part-I, P. 526. 72. rājānam brāhmaņacchadmā 51. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, 83. cārvāko rākșaso'bravīt 52. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, pl. tatra duryodhanasakhā

45. Tattvasamgraha, Part-II, pp. 633-634. bhikșurūpeņa samvtaḥ sākșaḥ śikhī tridaņdī ca 54. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p 101. dhṛsto vigatasādhvasaḥ, 55. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 457. Sāntiparvan, 38, 22-23. 56. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p.5. 73. Lingārcanacandrikā, ed. by M.R. Sakhare (1941), p. 289. 57. Ibid, p.1; Prabodhacandrodaya, p. 70. 74. Vidyāpariņaya, Act IV, p 86. 58. mrtyurevapavaragah, Prabodhacandrodaya, p. 70 .: 75. Ibid, p. 86. 59. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p.1. 76. Yaśastilakacampū, N.S. Press Bonbay, p. 435. 60. Naișadhacarita, 17, M 61. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 5. 77. Tattvopaplavasimha, p. 1. 78. Charvak philosophy, p. 24.

24 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

79. Tattvopaplavasimha (Bauddha Bharati edition, Varanasi, 1987), pp. 22 .- 123. CHAPTER - II 80. idamca cetasi samāropyāha THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN Bhagavān Brhaspatīḥ 'paralokino'bhāvāt paralokābhāvaḥ, Ibid, p. 45. A NUTSHELL

80. Tattvopaplavasimha, Introduction, pp XIII-XIV. 82. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p 451. In the previous chapter we have casually discussed some important views of Lokāyata school. But a casual and piecemeal discussion on the Lokāyata philosopy cannot give us a systematic and total idea of the philosophy. Therefore, before entering into a critical discussion on the philosophy, we shall give an idea of the basic views of this only materialistic system of India in a nutshell purely in the interest of the common readers who will be able to gather a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the Lokāyata philosophy without being entangled in an intricate process of a critical deliberation. It has been discussed earlier that Brhaspati was the propounder of Lokāyata Darśana or Lokāyata materialism. Though the Maitrāyanī Upanisad indentifies this Brhaspati with the preceptor of gods, he was actually a historical person whose date has not been fixed till this date. Brhaspati wrote his Lokāyata philosophy in a sūtra form. Materialist ideas occured in the minds of many thinkers in the Vedic age itself. But Brhaspati is the earliest authority on the materialist philosophy who presented a scientific and systematically worked out doctrine where many revolutionary views find a place which revolutionised the entire philosophical world. Panini who flourished in the 6th century B. C refers to Lokāyata in his great grammar. This shows that Brhaspati's philosophy flourished in the sixth century B. C or one or two centuries earlier. Patañjali, the renowned Sanskrit grammarian of the 2nd century B. C describes a Varņikā commentary written on the Lokāyata śāstra in his Mahābhāsya (7.4.45). It can be imagined from the above accounts of great grammariams that

27 THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN A NUTSHELL 26 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA Lokāyata Darśana assumed a distinct shape during the four doctrine in sūtras, Ajita gives his views in plain prose hundred years between Pāņini and Patañjali. The materialist statements in the Dīghanikāya. Both Brhaspati and Ajita philosophy was adored by the people in the age of Jayāditya, recognise the world as a material composition. They do not the co-author of the Kāśikāvrtti (7th century A. D). He describes believe in the existence of paraloka or a world after death and that the Cārvī teachers of Lokāyata Darśana earned a great a permanent soul. Ajita boldly declares that there are no good applause from their students by explaining the Lokāyata views or bad results of good and bad activities performed by a man in to them in a convincing and attractive manner. his life. Bāņabhațța (7th century A. D) who was a contemporary of Ajita also does not recognise the blood relation among Jayāditya describes in his Harșacarita that Lokāyata darśana men. He says that there is no father or mother of anybody in was regularly taught in the university of Divākaramitra in his this world. A similar philosophy has been propagated by Jāvāli time. However, though Lokāyata was studied in India for also in the Ayodhyākāņda of Vālmīki's Rāmāyaņa. several hundred years, no Sanskrit writer has made any attempt The meaning of Lokāyata : to give the readers any idea of the materialist text of Brhaspati There are many meanings of the word Lokāyata. But the or its commentaries till the 8th century A. D. It was Kamalaśila simple and easily acceptable meaning of the word is 'a people's (8th century A. D.) who presented for the first time some philosophy'. Mādhava accepts this meaning in his important sūtras of Brhaspati in his Pañjikā commentary written Sarvadarsanasamgraha. He says that the common people on Sāntarakitas's Tattvasamgraha. Of course, Sāntarakșita has always adore artha or material acquisition and kāma or material discussed many views of Brhaspati in the form of kārikās in his enjoyment as the sole aims of life as described by Cārvāka, and famous Buddhist work. It may be mentioned here that Jāvāli, a totally forget the Supreme Reality, that is, the Supreme Being. materialist describes some important anti-religious views of the Lokāyata is an appropriately significant word which denotes a materialist school in the Ayodhyākāņda of the Rāmāyana. After philosophy which is always adored by the common people. Kamalaśīla, Guņaratana, the commentator on the Şaddarśanasamuccaya of Haribhadrasūri, Mādhava, the author Lokāyata epistemology : of the Sarvadarśanasamgraha and Sadānandayati, the author · Brhaspati recognises pratyaksa or direct perception as the of the Advaitabrahmasiddhi have widened our horizon of only valid means of knowledge (pratyaksam evaikam knowledge by discussing some new and rare sūtras signifying pramāņam). the evolution of the Lokayata philosophy through the ages. There are some distinct reasons behind this. We generally Guņaratna, Mādhava and Sadānandayati, again, give us an accept whatever object we perceive as real, because as we appropriate knowledge of Cārvaka atheism and hedonism. perceive it with our own senses which cannot be false. Many Gunaratna had a direct knowledge of the behaviour of the people including the scientists talk of the existence of many Lokäyatas of his age. These hedonists were anarchists, who other things in the universe, Now, because these objects are enjoyed everybody's women without any discrimination and beyond our perception, we cannot ordinarily, accept them as without fear for the law of the country. true or real. There is another reason behind the rigid view Brhaspati and Ajitakeśakambalī were great authorities on propagated by Brhaspati. He had a great suspicion regarding the the Lokāyata darśana. While Brhaspati presents his materialist behaviour of religious preachers and priests. These advocates of

28 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀ YATA PHILOSOPHY IN A NUTSHELL 29 religious practices have always taught the people that there are virtue and vice, heaven and hell and results of good and bad inference alone as a second pramāna, Such an inference is actions of a man. These religious preachers always propagated involved in such sentences as parvato vahnimān dhūmāt (i.e the view that when some specific Vedic sacrifices are there is fire in the hillock because smoke is constantly rising performed, the performers gain a place in heaven and live there from it) But Purandara and other materialists do not recognise a happy divine life after death. Brhaspati observed that nobody any alaukika anumāna or suprasensory inference by means of ever perceived such a divine land. Therefore, he had a strong which a causal relationship between religious activities and suspicion in his mind regarding the religious preachers. He their results is established (cf. yāgāt svargo bhavati) Guņaratna thought that these people played a trick upon their innocent clearly mentions the new approach of later materialists in his followers and exploited wealth from them in the name of commentary on the Saddarśanasamuccaya. performing religious activities. Therefore, he states firmly 'pratyakşam evaikam pramāņam', that is, perception alone is Lokāyata metaphysics : the valid form of knowledge (and there is no scope of anumāna Brhaspati and Ajitakeśakambalī recognise the material or inference in this world). world composed of the four groups of material elements viz However, anumāna or inference is also essentially earth, air water and light as the real world, and reject any idea necessary for us in our practical life apart from pratyakșa or of paraloka or a world after death According to Brhaspati there perception. This point will be clearly explained in the present is no soul apart from the conscious body and no afterworld to chapter. Anumāna has been accepted as a pramāna by all other which the soul is supposed to migrate after the death of a philosophers including the Bauddhas. Anumāna is necessary for person. The Upanisadic philosophers and also Naiyāyikas and us in life even for some common matters of everyday Jainas have recognised a permanent ätman apart from the body. experience. Let us cite one such instance. We sometimes hear the whistle of a train while sleeping at home. We immediately This atman is conscious. But Brhaspati says : caitanyaviśiștaḥ draw the conclusion that a train is on its track. In this case, we kāyah purusah which means that, the material body which take the help of anumāna or inference which is based on our - remains associated with consciousness is the purusa or soul. past experiences that a train sounds its whistle before moving There is no other soul apart from the body. The orthodox phifosophers describe the soul as the source or while running on the track. We sometimes see a column of smoke on a hillock and draw the conclusion through inference of consciousness of the body. But Brhaspati does not accept this which is based upon our past, direct experiences that there is view. According to him, when the elements are combined into fire in the hillock, because where there is smoke there is fire. the form of a body they themselves produce consciousness 10 Though Brhaspati does not recognise anumāna or (tebhyaścaitanyam)) He argues that country liquour is produced inference, some later materialists, as Kamalaśīla obseryes, by putting together the ingredients like rice, water and molasses headed by Purandara fully realised the necessity of anumāna in (guda). When wine is finally produced from them it possessess our practical life. Therefore, these materialists have accepted intoxication. But the ingredients themselves are without any anumana also as another means of valid knowledge. However, intoxication. Similarly, when the inanimate elements assume these philosophers recognise laukika anumāna or popular the form of the body, they also produce consciousness which is absent from the constituting elements.

30 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN A NUTSHELL 31

Brhaspati composed a revolutionary sūtra in support of his theory which appears sometimes as madaśaktivaccaitanyam The ultimate goal of life : think. eh Exu.e and sometimes as madaśaktivadvijñānam. The sūtra in any According to the orthodox Indian thinkers, dharma, artha, form proves that Brhaspati was a believer in asatkāryavāda, kāma and mokșa are the four purușārthas or goals of human though his concept of asatkārya is somewhat different from that life. But Brhaspati recognises kāma or material enjoyment as of other philosophers. Śāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla, however, the only goal of life. Man must utilise his worldly life for a say that according to some commentators, consciousness distinct purpose. According to Brhaspati, this purpose is to remains latent in the material elements themselves which enjoy life fully, particularly because nothing exists of a man emerge into full form when they assume the form of the body. after death. Brhaspati declares his hedonistic view in a sūtra viz The cause and effect relationship between the material kāma evaika purusārthah. He was a propagator of hedonism. body and consciouness is, however, not accepted by the But it is also a fact that he wished everybody to live a opponents of the Lokayata philosophy on the pertinent ground comfortable life at all costs. that a dead body is always deviod of conciousness in spite of possessing all The Carvaka school and its philosophical ideas : the élements. Kambalāśvatara, therefore, opines in the the sūtra viz kāyādeva Another materialist The Carvaka school appeared at the final stage of the that when the body remains associated with the two vital winds development of the Lokāyata system. The Lokāyata philosophy prāņa and apāna, it remains conscious. is sometimes called Cārvākadarśana also. It is not finally determined whether Cārvāka was an individual philosopher or Ākāśa in Lokāyata Philosophy : the name represented a class of materialists in the beginning. All pholosophical schools of India except Lokāyata The name of Cārvāka appears in the Lokāyata philosophy only recognise ākāśa or space as a distinct entity. Brhaspati does not in about 8th century A. D. when Kamalaśīla, the famous recognise ākāśa because it cannot be perceived. Its existence is Buddhist philosopher mentions the name in his work. The term merely inferrable. But Brhaspati does not accept inference, Cārvāka has been variously derived by scholars from carvaņa However, as Guņanatra observes, a section of later Cārvāka (eating) and cāru vāk (sweet words) because Cārvāka preaches materialists have recognised ākāśa also as a fifth element. They the doctrine of material enjoyment as the goal of human life have probably done so under the pressure of other philosophical with sweet words. Cārvāka or Cārvākas have accepted the systems for whom ākāśa is a reality. important materialist views of Brhaspati, but occasionally these views have been partially amended to adjust the philosophy The concept of salvation in Brhaspati's doctrine : with the existing situation. The different philosophical schools of India have It has been already discussed that Purandara and some propagated different theories of salvation (apavarga or mokșa). other Cārvākas have accepted popular inference also as second Brhaspati also gives a sūtra on apavarga or salvation. According valid means of knowledge. Cārvākas (the plural number is also to him, death itself is the end of a man. When a man dies, used with the term) have accepted artha or material acquisition nothing remains of him not to speak of a soul. Therefore, death or material possession as another purușārtha, because without it itself is salvation for a man (maranam evāpavargaḥ). no material enjoyment is possible. One important contribution of Cārvākas tothe Lokāyata philosophy is that they recognise

33 32 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀ YATA THE LOKĀ YATA PHILOSOPHY IN A NUTSHELL

the king of country or the image of a deity as God, but do not According to Cārvākas all men should enjoy life fully.

accept an invisible God.) The Cārvāka philosophy which is They should drink ghee even by borrowing money (rņam krtvā

merely a continuation of the Lokāyata philosophy is a perfect ghrtam pibet). hedonistic system. The Cārvākas have laid a greater emphasis on material enjoyments rather than on research on Brhaspati's Svabhāvavāda :

scientific materialism. The Cārvākas condemn all religious Indian materialists do not recognise God or any invisible

activities. agent as the creator of the universe. They opine that everything grows in the universe by nature. This is the famous svabhāva Anti-ireligious views of the Cārvāka School : theory of the Indian materialists. * The Cārvāka materialists were avowed enemies of religion. In fact, the Lokayatikas since the age of Ajitakeśakambalī were against all religious beliefs and practices. Ajita denounces sacrifices, gift-making and such other religious activities. He declares that there are no good or bad results of one's pious, or immoral and illegal activites. In the Rāmāyaņa of Vālmīki, a materialist philosopher Jāvāli advises Rāmacandra not to perform śrāddha or any other religious activity which is without any significance in life. He says that śräddha performed for a dead man is merely a wastage of money and materials and nothing else. The Cārvākas also declare religion as a meaningless affair. Mādhava quotes several poems in his Sarvadarśanasamgraha supposed to be written by Brhaspati himself. The Cārvākas utilise these poems fully for propagating the atheistic views of the Lokayata school. According these poems, there is no heaven (or hell) or salvation, nor a permanent soul. The materialists condemn Vedic sacrifices and the śrāddha ceremony. According to one poem, some wicked people and demons created the Vedas. In another poem viz. agnihotram trayo vedāstridaņdam bhasmaguņthanam etc, religion is described as a means of earning livelihood of * The views briefly discussed here will be critically and elaborately a section of worthless people who have no talent or power to do discussed in the succeeding chapters in the interest of scholars and

anything else in the world. researchers.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 35

CHAPTER - III The philosophy of the Kikata materialists is probably the

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE beginning of hedonistic materialism which was later on embraced by the Lokayatikas as their ultimate goal of life. LOKĀYATA SCHOOL In a later philosophical text vix. the Saddarśana- samuccaya of Haribhadhadrasūri, we read a similar statement of the Lokāyata philosophers which says "piba kāda ca cārulocane yadatītam varagātri tanna te".4 However, except for

India is a land of many philosophical systems. The wise casual references to the nastikas, we do not find any clear-cut

men of India since the age of Upanişads till modern times have idea of the hedonisitc philosophy of the Lokāyatas or

presented philosophical ideas which bear the stamp of their Lokāyatikas from the Vedic literature.

great originality. The Indian philosophies have been broadly Coming to the Upanisadic period, we hear a materialistic

. divided into two groups viz. Āstika darśana and Nāstika declaration about the non-existence of a permanent soul

darśana. The Āstika school is represented by six well-known surviving after death in a passage of the Brhadāraņyaka

systems viz. Sāmkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeșika, Mīmamsā and Upanișad viz na pretya samjñāstī (2.4.12) Again, we read about

Vedānta. The Nāstika or the heretical school comprises the the doctrine of 'svabhāva' or Naturalism in a passage of the

Lokāyata (Materialist) or the Cārvāka philosophy, the Bauddha, Śvetaśvataropanişad viz.

the Jaina, the Kapalika and such other systems. The svabhāvameke kavayo vadanti fundamental difference between the two philosophical schools kālam tathānye parimuhyamānāḥ.5 is that the Astika philosophies believe in the authority of the Though in the beginning svabhāvavāda or Naturalism was Vedas, while the Nāstika refuses to recognise the prāmāņya of not described as a theory propounded by the materialists, it a the Vedic texts. later period, Mādhava and Bhattotpala ascribe its origin to the The Lokāyata or the Cārvāka system is the only Lokāyata school. Šāntarakșita gives us a clear idea of the materialistic system of India. It vehemently opposes the Vedas doctrine of svabhāva by citing appropriate illustrations in his and the Vedic cult. The Lokāyata Materialists are, therefore, famous philosophical work the Tattvasamgraha.7 The doctrine rightly called Nāstikas.1 has its own merits. We shall discuss the point more elaborately in another context. According to 'svabhāvavāda', 'svabhāva' or The Early stage of the Lokāyata : 'nature' is responsible for the emergence of all the diverse The Lokāyata philosophy as it has been discussed in the objects of the world. previous chapter is as old as the Vedic Samhitās. In this context It is a fact that the history of the materialist philosophy can a reference has been made to the Vedic verse viz. 'kim the be traced back to the Vedic age. But a scientifically worked out kṛņvanti kīkațeșu gāvaḥ' etc2. It contains some views of the philosophy presented in the sūtra form was available to scholars early Lokāyata thinkers. The commentator Sāyaņa, while in a much later period.

explaining the verse remarks in the following manner : The Maitrāyaņī Upanișad (7.9) covertly refers to the origin of the Lokāyata philosophy. But it does not mention the pibatakhādatāyām eva loko na para iti vadanto name of the philosophy except describing god Brhaspati as its nāstikāh kīkațāḥ.3 author.

36 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀ YATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀ YATA SCHOOL 37

It has been discussed earlier that references to Lokāyata darśana are met with in Pāņini's Aștādhyāyī, Kauțilya's a priest in the Aśvamedha sacrifice performed by Pușyamitra Arthaśāstra, the Rāmāyana, the Kāmasūtra of Vātsāyana and (Cf. iha puşyamitram yājayāmaḥ : Mahabhāșya, 3.2.115) Pāņini refers of Lokāyata in his great grammar (4-2-60). Patañjali's Mahābhāșya. The Mahābhārata also casually refers But he does not find any scope to discuss the philosophy. On to the materialist doctrine (1.70.46) Pānini the greatest grammarian of India flourished in the the other hand, Vālmīki, Kauțilya, Vātsāyana, Patañjali and the author of the Mahābhārata give some idea of some basic 6th centrury B. C. Kautilya, who was the Prime Minister of Candragupta Maurya belonged to the fourth century B. C. as features of the philosophy. Patañjali renders another valuable Candragupta became the paramount ruler of India sometime service to the academic circle by bringing to the knowledge of scholars that there was a commentary on the Lokāyata Śāstra after 327 B. C. the date in which Alexander invaded India and wirtten by the philosopher Bhāguri. quickly left the country without fighting against Magadha. In the Ayodhyākāņda of the Rāmāyaņa, Rāma advises Mahesh Candra Pal, the editor and publisher of the Bharata to avoid the company of Lokāyatika Brāhmaņas. He Kāmasutra of Vātsāyana after a thorough research on the date describes these materialist preachers as : of the author of the Kamasūtra has finally drawn the conclusion that Vātsāyana was a contemporary of Candragupta Maurya anarthakuśalā hyete bālāḥ (4th century B. C.).6 paņditamāninaḥ There is a great deal of research on the date of the dharinaśāstreşu mukhyeșu Rāmayaņa of Vālmīki also. M. Winternitz, after a laborious vidyamāneșu durbudhā research on the date of Vālmīki's Rāmāyana has arrived at the buddhimān ānvīksikīm prāpya following conclusion : nirartham pravadantite.8 "everything indicates that our epic (Rāmāyaņa) was In the chapter 108 of the Ayodhyakāņda of the Rāmāyaņa composed only after the appearance of the Buddha and of the Rāma meets a materialist Jāvāli who advises Rāmcandra to 'birth of the oldest Pali literature i.e. after the 5th century B.C."7 behave like a truely practical man.9 He says that there is no It should be noted here that the epic became popular in father or mother of anybody. He says that neither Dasaratha is India before the first century A. D., as the Jaina monk related to Rāma, nor Rāma is related to Daśaratha, who gave Vimalasūri recast the Rāmayaņa legend in his Prakrt poem birth to his 'son' through a physical process.10 Jāvāli also Paumacariya. decribes the śraddha ceremony performed for the dead relatives The Sāntiparvan of the Mahābhārata (ch. 28) discusses as a colossal wastage of material as the dead person never some views of the nastikas or Indian materialists. The enjoys the śrāddha ceremony performed for him. Jāvāli advises Säntiparvan was apparently written after the development of Rāma to avoid all kinds of dāna, dīkșā, yāga and tapasyā as they Pāli Buddhism, because some very important Buddhist views do not yield any result."" These views are strikingly similar to on life, death and rebirth have been discussed together with the the materialist views of Ajita Keśakambalī and Cārvākas. Both materialist views in the same chapter of the same section of the Ajitakeśakambalī and the Cārvākas scoff at religion and epic (Śāntiparvan, 218.32-34). religious practices. Like Jāvāli, Ajita also declares that there is . Patañjali was a contemporary of the emperor Pusyamitra no father or no mother of anybody. He describes all meritorious Śunga, who flourished in the second century B. C. Patañjali was or: religious activites like gift-making (dinna) and the performing of sacrifices (ittham or istam) as useless."

38 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 39

Kauțilya praises the Lokāyata system in the following synonym of Natural philosophy or Naturalism.15 Guņaratna manner : describes Lokāyata as a philosophy of foolish people (loka) sāmkhyam yogo lokāyatamcetyānvikșīkī having no power of judgement. anvīkșamāņā lokasyopakarotī vyasanebhyudayeca buddhim avasthāpayati (1.2). Brhaspati, the propounder of the Lokāyata doctrine :

Vātasāyana praises the Lokāyatikas as a class of practical According to the Indian tradition, Brhaspati was the

people who always said : varam adya kapotaḥ śvo mayūrāt. propounder of the Lokāyata doctrine. Though this Brhaspati

varam sāmśayikānnișkād asāmśayikaḥ kārsāpaņaḥ" (It is was a historical person, the Maitrayanī Upanișad tries to

better to have one dove in hand than a peacock in the bush. A identify him with the preceptor of gods. It says : Brhaspatir vai Śukro bhūtvendrāsyābhayāya ...... imām avidyām asrjat, (7.9). small coin in hand in better than a gold coin yet to attain.) They The Maitrāyaņī Upanișad is comparatively a new reject religion on practical grounds.12 Upanisadic text which came into existence during the period of The name of Lokāyatas and their philosophy appear in the development of the Buddhist philosophy. It refers to the such ancient Buddhist texts as the Vinayapitaka (Cullavagga, 5.17.44), the Samyuktanikāya (12.48.50) and the Dīghanikāya. Nairātmyavāda of the Buddhists in a passage.16 There is a reference to Brhaspati as the founder of the The Lokāyata philosophy, however, bloomed into full form in a Lokāyata school in the Sanskrit texts of a comparatively much later period. modern period like the Sarvadarśanasamgraha17 of Mādhava

The meaning of Lokāyata : and the Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamiśra.18 Several poems19 apart from a number of sūtras are attributed to Brhaspati. Lokāyata is a significant term. It is not easy to give a definite idea of the origin of the term. But scholars have tried The sūtra text of Brhaspati : to explain it as lokeşu āyatam prasṛtam (śāstram) meaning a It is clear from the commentary of Kamalaśila written on popular philosophy. the Tattvasamgraha of Sāntarakșita, the commentary of Dr. S. N. Dasgupta interprets the term in two different Gunaratna written on the Saddarśanasamuccaya of ways : Haribhadrasüri and also the Advaitabrahmasiddhi of (i) loka+a+ yatam and Sadānandyati that Brhaspati wrote a philosophical text on the (ii) loka + ā + yatam.13 Lokāyata views in sūtra form. An account of the sūtras of the

According to the first interpretation, Lokāyata means a Lokāyata philosopher is given below together with their philosophical system which propagates the doctrine of non- sources :

action (ayatam). According to the second interpretation, it 1. prthivyāpastejovāyuriti tattvāni : Tattavopaplavasimha of means a popular philosophical doctrine. Jayarāśi;20 Kamalaśīla's commentary on the Other scholars have given some other meanings of Tattvasamgraha21 of Šāntarakșita; Guņaratna's commentary Lokāyata. Thus,(Dr. S. Radhakrishnan opines that Lokāyatas are on the Saddarśanasamuccaya.22 so called, because they recognise this world alone as real.14 Dr. 2. tatsamudāye vișayendriyasam̧jñā Kamalaśïla's A. K. Warder, on the other hand, considers Lokāyata as a commentary on the Tattvasamgraha.23

40 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 41

3. tebhyaścaitanyam : Ibid;24 Guņaratna's commentary on the commentary39, and the Prakaraņapañjikā.40 But Guņaratna and Şaddarśanasamuccaya25; Tattavopaplavasimha.26 the author of the Prakaraņapañjikā also do not clearly state that 4. caitanyaviśistaḥ kāyaḥ purușaḥ : Brahmasūtra- it was given by Brhaspati. The sūtra appears in the śāmkarabhāşya27 Advaitabrahamasiddhi of Sadānandayati;28 Śāmkarabhāsya of the Brahmasūtra in a slightly different Gunaratna's commentary on the Saddarśanasamuccaya;29 form.41 The fourth sūtra viz. caitanyavisiştah kāyah puruşaḥ is Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī. the foundation stone of the bhūtacaitanyavāda of the materialists which faces a serious criticism in later times. 5. maraņamevāpavargaḥ : Advaitabrahmasiddhi;30 The fifth sūtra appears in an amended form as 6. paralokinobhāvāt parālokābhāvaḥ : Kamalaśīla's mrtyurevāpavarga in Krsnamiśra's allegorical drama the commentary the Tattvasamgraha;3 Tattvopaplavasimha.32 Prabodhacandrodaya. 7. pratyakşam evaikam pramaņam. : Sammatitarkaprakaraņabhāșya;33 Șyadvadamanjarī of A critical analysis of the sūtras : .

Mallisena.34 Brhaspati lays the foundation stone of the Lokāyata 8. kāma evaikaḥ puruşārthaḥ : Advaitabrahmasiddhi35 philosophy in his sūtras. According to him, there are only four . ihalokaparalokaśarīrayor bhinnatvāt tadgatayorapi elements viz. earth, air, water and light. These four elements cittayor naikah santānah : Tattvasamgraha.36 compose the (human) body, and also the other objects of the

10. jātigrahaņam asiddham ekagrāmagatānām world. The orthodox philosophers viz. the Vedantists, the sarveșām smaraņāt : Tattvasamgraha. Naiyāyikas, and also Jaina 'heretics' have recognised the The first sūtra in our list appears as the second sūtra in existence of 'ākāśa' or space. But Brhaspati. does not consider Kamalaśīla's commentary. Naturally, a question arises 'ākāśa' as a fifth element. The most important reason for the regarding the first sūtra in Brhaspati's sūtra text. It was non-recognition of 'ākāśa' as another element is that Brhaspati probably laukiko mārgonusartavyaḥ. as it appears in the does not accept 'anumāna' or inference as a 'pramāņa'. Ākāśa Tattavopaplavasimha of Jayarāśi. is not a subject of direct perception, but of inference, for which The second sūtra viz. tatsamudāye vișayendriyasamjñā as he has rejected 'ākāśa'. Kamalaśīla has clearly discussed this in we quote it from Kamalaśīla's work appears in two other forms his commentary.42 in Gunaratna's commentary on the Saddaraśanasamuccaya and The other elements have been recognised by the later some other sources. Gunaratna presents the second sūtra as : materialist philosophers like Ajitakeśakambalī also. Ajita

tatsamudāye śarīravișayendriyasamjña.37 while Jayarāśi describes this world as 'catummahābhūtikoyam puriso'.+3 When gives a slightly different version of the sūtra viz. tatsamudāye the four mahabhūtas or elements are combined due to the śarīrendriyavișayasamjñā.38 natural factors, the body is created.

The third sūtra was probably followed by another sūtra The sūtra 'tebhyaścaitanyam' bears a great significance in the philosophy of Brhaspati. Brahaspati was a perfect viz. madasaktivaccaitanyam. Though the sūtra is not mentioned by Kamalaśīla and Sadānandayati, the author of the materialist. He rejects the view of many orthodox schools that

Advitabrahmasiddhi, it finds a place in Guņaratna's there is a conscious soul or God apart from the material body which is made up of inanimate beings viz, the four elements.

42 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 43 According to the third sūtra, consciousness in a live body is generated by the inanimate matter, and there is no fifth object It has been discussed above that the sūtra viz. called Jīva or tman which is supposed to be the source of 'caitanyaviśistaḥ kāyah purușah' appears in the consciousness by the Vedantists, the Jainas and the Naiyāyikas. Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, Guņaratna's commentary on the Now, a question arises as : "How does inanimate matter Saddarśanasamuccaya and the Advaitabrahamasiddhi of generate consciousness?" To this, the materialists reply that Sadånanadayati etc. According to this very significant stūtra, like water, molasses and rice preserved in a pot for sometime the body endowed with consciousness is the purusa or the soul. which generate the intoxicating wine though these ingredients The famous body-soul theory (dehātmavāda) of the materialists

are non- intoxicating by character, the inanimate material starts from this very sūtra. Sadānanda clearly describes the

elements also generate consciousness when they are combined above sūtra as a composition of Brhaspati himself. But

into the form of a body.44 This is the meaning of the sūtra Abhinavagupta attributes its authorship to the Cārvākas in a

madaśaktivaccaītanyam which was lost from Brhaspati's text general way in his Iśvarapratyabhījñāvimarśini." However, Bhāskara refers to Brhaspati as its author.50. but was restored by other philosophers in different forms. The The fifth sūtra viz. maranamevāpavargah is equally sūtra has been explained by different authors. Thus, singificant like the earlier sutras. Other philosophical schools Haribhadrasūri gives a brief idea of the Lokāyata view laid recognise the existence of a soul or a conscious state after down in the sutra in the following manner : death. But for Brhaspati and his followers death is salvation.

pṛthīvyādibhūtasamhatyā Certainly for achieving salvation no special effort is needed in the Lokāyata philosophy. tathā dehapariņateḥ The eighth sūtra viz. kāma evaikah puruşārthaḥ draws our madaśaktiḥ surāngebhyo attention to the hedonistic path advocated by Brhaspati for the yadvattadvaccidātmani.45 common pepole. As the material body perishes and disappears The author of the Prameyakamalamārtaņda explains the forever, Brhaspati says that every person should enjoy his life sūtra more clearly as : fully. This has been stated in a poem also ascribed to Brhaspati by Mādhava viz. "pṛthivyādibhūtebhyaścaitanyābhivyaktiḥ, piştodakagudadhātakyādibhyo madásaktivat."46 yāvajjīvam sukham jīven

Śankarācārya,47 and Sadānadayati,48 who were Vedantists, nāsti mityoragocaraḥ bhasmībhūtasya dehasya probably do not heartily adore the image of wine, for which punarāgamanam kutah.51 they give another image also, that is, the image of betel-nut which becomes red after it is chewed with leaf and lime. (This poem has been quoted in a previous context)

Whatever may be the argument of opponents on But a man cannot follow a hedonistic path unless he has

Brhaspati's view on the issue, it is a fact that he is the first an adequate wealth to lead a 'pleasant life'. Therefore, later materialists have described artha and kāma as the two ultimate philosopher who revolts against the religious order and tries to goals of the human life. Mādhava writes about this new standpoint give a scientific interpretation of the body and the 'soul'. of the materialist thinkers in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha. There are different theories about salvation (moksa or apavarga) in

44 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 45

Indian philosophies. In most of these philosophies there is a reference to a life after death. The Bauddhas do not recognise Kamalaśīla quotes the sūtra viz. punaruktadeśāntaram

the existence of a 'self' or God. But they also propagate the kālāntaram avasthāntaram vā paraloka, but does not interpret

theory of rebirth. The Upanișads, the Gītā, the Vedānta it. However, the apparent meaning of the sūtra is that the

philosophy, and the philosophies of the Jainas and the materialists recognise a different place, a different time or a

Naiyāyikas clearly and categorically refer to the theory of different state as paraloka; but it does not necessarily refer to

rebirth. But Brhaspati propagates an entirely contradictory view a different world like heaven or hell.

viz. maranamevāpavargah, that is, man attains salvation at his Ajitakeśakambalī : death. Ajitakeśakambalī was another great philosopher of the This view has not been accepted by many philosophers of materialist school after Brhaspati. His views are recorded in the other schools. The Naiyayikas and the Jainas have said that a Dīghanikāya. The text of Ajita's philosophy is given below. newly born baby sucks its mother's breast without any tutoring. This is possible only because the baby inherits the habit of his natthi (mahārāja) dinnam, natthi yittham, natthi hutam, previous birth. The materialists, on the other hand, cling to the natthi sukațadukkațānam kammāņam phalam vipāko; natthi

theọry viz. ayam loko natthi paroloko natthi māta, natthi pitā cātummahābhūtiko ayam puriso yadā ihalokaparalokayor bhinnatvāt kālam karoti pațhavī pathavikāyam anupeti ......... etc.55 tadgatayorapi cittayor naikaḥ santānaļ. Dr. S. N. Dasgupta gives us a clear idea of the above It has been quoted by Kamalaśīla in his Pañjikā statement of Ajita in the following way : commentary as the eighteenth sūtra of Brhaspati.52 "Another philosophical school led by Ajitakeśakambalī The Buddhist philosopher refers to four other sutras found thought that there was no fruit or result of good or evil deeds; in the Lokayata literature. They are- there is no other world, nor was this one real; nor had parents

(i) etāvān eva puruso yāvān indriyagocarah, nor any former lives any efficacy with respect to this life."56 One important view expressed by Ajita in the passage (ii) punaruktadeśāntaram kālāntaram avaśthāntaram vā catummahābhūiko ayam puriso etc. that the world is made of paralokah, the four elements and when a man dies, his body is disinte- (iii) nānumānam pramānam, and grated, and the constituents of the body return to their original (iv) vacanāllingād vivakșā pratiyate.54 sources. Thus, nothing is left of a person after death.

He does not discuss the authorship of them. But Brhaspati A Note on Ajita's Views : himself was probably their author. There is a kārikā in the Ajita presents some important views on the materialist ... Şaddarsanasamuccaya of Haribhadrasūri which is strikingly philosophy. Ajita says that the human body is made up of four similar to sūtra (i). Haribhadra says that according to the elements. When appropriate time comes, the earthy portion of materialists: the body merges with earth, the watery part with water and so etāvān eva lokoyam yāvān indriyagocarah. on. And thus, nothing remains after death. He speaks in categorical terms that the dead body is carried by four persons

46 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 47

on a cot who are his last friends. When the body is burnt down, tasamān mātā pitā ceti nothing remains.57 Thus, there is no soul wich transmigrates to Rāma sajjeta yo naraḥ another body after death in Ajita's philosophy. unmatta iva sa jñeyo Ajita does not believe in the existence of a paraloka. He nāsti kaściddhi kasyacit.59 says clearly 'natthi paro loko'. It reminds us of the famous sūtra In later times, Śankarācārya propagates the same idea -... of Bṛhaspati viz. paralokino' bhāvāt paralokābhāvaḥ (Sūtra17). He, however, does not recognise this world also as real (natthi from a Vedantic point of view.60 Ajita further says that there is no wise man in the the world even among the Brāhmanas or ayam loko). According to Haribhadrasūri, the materialists the Sramanas who has perceived this world or the other world declare: the world which people perceive and live in is alone and communicated his knowledge to other persons.61 real. But Ajitakeśakambalī denies its existence also for the Ajita has made an important contribution to the evolution reason that this beautiful world is practically a bundle of the of the materialist doctrine by elaborating it and adding some four elements viz. earth, air, water and light. When these new ideas to the views of Brhaspati. It is interesting to note that elements are separated from one another, the world falls into while other philosophcial schools were engaged in propagating pieces and thus, its existence is only relative. The materialist religious ideas, and ideas about the world after death, both philosopher was a non-believer in religious beliefs and Brhaspati and Ajita could boldly stand against their views. practices. He says that there are no such things as alms, sacrifice or oblations. For him, they are merely futile exercises Bhāguri :

which do not produce any meritorious result. It reminds us of The name of Bhāguri appears as a materialist philosopher a passage in the Mahābhāsya where the nāstikas argue that in Patañjali's Mahābhāșya. Patañjali who flourished in the there is nothing called 'dharma' in this world,58 or, in other second centrury B. C. describes Bhāguri as a famous words, dharma is a meanigless term. The religious preachers of commentator on the Lokāyata śāstra. Bhāguri was a great India have always taught that a man reaps the rewards of his grammarian of ancient India who discovered some important good or bad actions in this life or the life after death. But Ajita phenomena of the Sanskrit language. Whether this grammarian

boldly discards this view as : was identical with Bhäguri, the materialist writer or not is not

natthi sukațadukkațānam kammāņam phalam vipāko (i.e. clear to us.

nāsti sukṛtadușkṛtānām karmaņām phalam vipākaḥ.) Patañjali says that Bhäguri was the author of the Vartikā or the Varņikā commentary written on the Lokāyata doctrine (cf. According to Ajita, there is neither mother nor father Varņikā Bhāgurī Lokāyatasya; Vartikā Bhāgurī Lokāyatasya,

(natthi mātā, natthi pitā). This is a nihilistic view similar to the Mahābhāșya, 7.3.45) Kaiyața explains the word Varņikā as

view of morden existentialists. However, in the Rāmāyaņa, vyākhyānī and țīkāviśeșah.(2 Nāgeśa also explains the word in

Jāvāli is the first philosopher who preaches such a doctrine. He a similar manner as-Lokāvata-sāstrasya vyākhyānarūpo

tells Rāmacandra : granthaviśeşah.63

kaḥ kasya puruşo bandhuḥ kimāpyam kasya kenacit The word 'Lokāyata' appears in the Astādhyāyī of Pāņini.

eko hi jāyate jantureka eva vinaśyati The Lokayata doctrine florished in India since pre-Paninian times. It appears from Patañjali's reference to the Varņikā and

48 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 49

Vartikā that the Lokāyata śāstra had assumed a definite yadudumbaravarņānām scientific shape before the 2nd centutry B. C. Bhāguri certainly ghațīnām maņdalam mahat wrote a famous commentary on this śāstra which became popular in the academic circle in the days of Patanjali. pītam na gamayet svargam kim tat kratugatm nayet.67. Patañjali : These people were apparently a group pf materialists in Patañjali was a grammarian. But while discussing he age of the Mahābhāsya. important features of the ablative case, he casually refers to the nāstikas who reject the very concept of 'dharma'. He says : Kambalāśvatara :

"ya eşa manusyah sambhinnabuddhir bhavati sa Like Brhaspati, Kambalāśvatara also propagates the theory paśyati nedam kiñcid dharmo nāma nainam karișyāmi."64 that the body itself generates consciouness. Kambalāśvatra

The word sambhinnabuddhi in the above passage is wrote his materialist doctrine in sūtras. The relevant sūtra in significant. Kaiyata explains it as : the present context is kāyadeva.68 which has been quoted by sambhinnabuddhir dharmādharmayor ekākārabuddhir Kamalaśīla in his commentary on the Tattvasamgraha. nāstika ityarthaḥ.65 Sāntarakșita, the author of the Tattvasamgraha was a Buddhist

The nāstikas or materialists treat both virtue and vice as thinker. He elaborates the sūtra of Kambalāśvatāra in the unreal, for which they are described as sambhinnabuddhi' by following manner : Patañjali. Patañjali explains the word nāstika as nāstīyasya matiḥ kāyādeva tato jñānam

(Mahābhāșya, 4.4.60) Kaiyața elaborates the view in the prāņāpānādyadhișthitāt

following manner : yuktamjāyata ityetat kambalāśvataroditam paro lokostīti matir yasya sa āstikastadviparīto nāstikaḥ.66 (Tattvasamgraha 1863) Kaiyața gives only a partial idea of the meaning of nāstika. The materialists not only reject the concept of paraloka Materialists argue that a man's life begins with the foetus but also everything which is beyond our perception. It has been born in mother's womb. Consciousness is totally absent said in a previous context that Brhaspati rejects the idea of (particularly in the early stage of the foetus) from the foetus. paraloka. Mādhava says in his Sarvadarsanasaingraha that Therefore, the view that consciousness is inherited by a body Brhaspati expresses the same idea in a poem which denies the from the previous birth cannot be treated as logically correct. existence of svarga or heaven, apavarga (salvation) and also the However, it may be argued that it remains potentially present in soul. the foetus. But this is also not acceptable to materialist thinkers In the first Āhnika of Patañjali's Mahābhāșya, some because, consciousness cannot exist potentially without a opponets of the Vedic religion discuss the idea of drinking holy wine during he Sautrāmani and the Vajapeya sacrifices as foetus. Some philosophers argue that a new body comes into

meaningless in the following poem existence immediately with the death of a person. Materialists rejects this uptopian view also.

50 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 51

According to the materialists, the last mental state of a individual philosopher or a class of materialists. Cārvāka worldly person possessing a deep attachment for the world appears as a Brāhmana ascetic and a friend of Duryodhana in cannot generate a conscious state at his death, because the man the Mahābhārata, and in the Veņisamhāra7 of Bhattanārayaņa is dead. So is the case of a saint without any attachment. as a cunning person but not as a follower of the Lokāyata Therefore, the new body cannot inherit consciousness from a school. In the Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamiśra, Cārvāka is previous body. Kambalāśvatara readily upholds the body-soul described as the first direct disciple of Brhaspati. But the word theory of Brhaspati apparently for this reason. But he says that Cārvāka appears as a class of materialist philosophers in the the body which remains invariably associated with the two vital Şaddarśanasamuccaya72 of Haribhadrasūri. The Pañjika winds viz. prāņa and apāna alone generates consciousness,69 not commentary of Kamalaśīla, on the other hand, describes otherwise. This is a significant departure from Brhaspati's Cārvāka as another name of Brhaspati.73 The name of Cārvāka concept of the conscious body. There is probably a reason (s) appears constantly in the works of Sanskrit authors since the behind this. The dead body, though it is composed of four kinds time of Kamalaśīla (8th century A.D.): of elements, is without consciousness in the absence of the vital winds. The Meaning of Cārvāka : It may be noted here that Sāntarakșita explains the The word Cārvāka has been variously explained by Bārhaspatya sūtra 'tebhyaścaitanyam' as : Sanskrit writers. The general idea is that the term has emerged

tasmād bhūtaviśeebhyo from either cāru vāka (sweet words) or carvaņa (eating).) The

yathā suktasurādikam Cārvāka philosophers always use sweet, pleasing words like

tebhya eva tathā jñānam 'piba khāda ca cārulocane' (o beautiful maid, eat drink and be

jāyate vyajyate'thavā.70 merry), and yāvajjīvam sukam jīvet. (so long as you are alive,

The interpretation is singnificant, because one school of you should live a happy life). According to the materialist

thinkers opine that consciousness is not actually generated but philosophers, carvana or enjoyment is the only goal of life. It is another reason for which the Indian materialists are generally it remains latent in matter which becomes manifest to others called Cārvākas. The word Cārvāka may also mean Cāru's vāk after the elements are combined. This is not the orthodox view of Indian materialists. or Brhaspati's vāk or philosophy Gunaratna, on the other hand, attributes a figurative meaning to the word. According to him,

Carvāka : the Cārvākas swallow both virtue and vice i.e., they do not believe in the existence of either of them, for which they are The name of Carvaka occupies an equally important poslton like Brhaspati in the Lokāyata philosophy. In fact, the called Cārvākas (eaters)74. Guņaratna says that word 'cārvaka'

materialist philosophy is popularly called the Cārvaka according to Hemacandra is an irregular word like 'mayāka'

philosophy in Sanskrit literature. Scholars are unable to and śyāmāka.75 The Cārvāka philosophy is partly an ampification and ascertain whether Carvāka was a nickname or real one, and an partly an enlargement of Brhaspati's ideas.

52 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKĀYATA SCHOOL 53

References : 17. Sarvadarśanasamgraha. p. 1.

1. nāstiko vedanindakaḥ, Manu, 2.11. 18. Act II, p. 71.

2. Rgveda, 3,52.4. 19. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 5;

3. Sāyaņa under Ibid, Şaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 453

4. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, 83 20. Tattvopaplavasīmha, p. I.

5 Śvetāśvataropanișad, 6.1. 21. Tattvasamgraha part II, p. 633.

6. Kāmasūtra, ed. by Mahesh Chandra Pal, Introduction, 22. Șaddarśanasmuccaya, p. 458. p. 13. 23. Tattvasamgraha, part II, p. 633. 7. A History of Indian Literature by M. Winternitz, Vol I. P. 24. Ibid, part II, p. 634. 489. 8. Ayodhyākāņda 100.38. 25. Saddarśanasamuccya p. 458. 26. Tattvopaplavasimha, p. 1. 9. Ibid, 108.17. 27. Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, pp. 765-766. 10. na te kaściddaśarathas tvam ca tasya na kaścana 28. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99

anyo rājā tvamanyastu 29. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 451. tasmāt kuru yaducyate, 30. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99. Ayodhyākāņda, 108.10. 31. Tattvasamgraha, p. 633. 11. aştakāpitradevatyam ityayam prasṛto janaḥ 33. Sammatitarkaprakaraņabhāșya, p. 73.

annasyopadravam paśya 34. Syādvādamañjarī, p. 130. mṛto hi kim aśişyati 35. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99. 36. P. 633. yajasva dehi dikşava tapastapyasva samtyaja 37. Șaddarśanasamuccaya p. 458.

sa nāsti param ityetat 38. Tattvopaplavasimha, p.1. kuru buddhim mahāmate, Ibid, 108.14,17. 39. Șaddarśanaśamuccaya, p. 451 12. Kāmasūtra, 2. 21-24. 40. Prakaraņapañjikā p. 143. 13. History of Indian philosophy Vol. III, P. 514. 41. madaśaktivadvijañānam, Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, 14. Indian Philosophy, p. 279 p. 765. 15. Outlines of Indian Philosophy, p. 33. 42. idam ca mahābhutacatuşțayam pratyakșasiddham. 16. nairātmyavādakuhakair na caitad vyatirekeņānyattattvam asti pratyakșasiddham, mithyādrsțāntahetubhiḥ, Tattvasamgraha, part II. p. 634. Maitrāyaņī Upanișad, 7.8. 43. Dīghanikāya, p. 48.

54 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOKÃYATA SCHOOL 55

44. kāyākarapariņatebhyo bhūtebhyaścaitanyam 68. Tattvasamgraha Part II, P. 635. samutpadyate .... madyāngebhyo madaśaktivat, 69. Ibid, Kārikā 1863 Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 223. 70. Ibid, Kārikā 1858. 45. Ibid, Kārikā, 84. 71. Act VI. 46. Prameyakamalamārtaņda, p. 115. 72. lokasya tadvimūdhatvam 47. Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha, Śloka 7. cārvakāḥ pratipedire, 48. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 100. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, 85.

45. tathā ca dehābhimānabhūmikāyām 73. tatra yaduktam Cārvākeņa-ihalokaparalokaśarīrayor

sthitāścārvākālı caitanyaviiştah kāyah purușaḥ bhinnatvāt tadgatayorapi cittayor naikaḥ santānaḥ

iti kāyam eva prādhānyena, .... Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, (Bārhaspatya sūtra 18), Tattvasamgraha, p. 663.

part I, pp. 316-318. 74. carvanti bhakșayanti dharmādharmau tattvato na

50. Ibid, p. 317. manyante puņyapāpādikam parokșam vastujātam iti Cārvākāḥ, 51. Sarvadarsanasamgraha, p. I. Şaddarśanamuccaya. p. 451. 52. Tattvasamgraha, p. 663. 75. Ibid, p. 451. 53. Ibid, p. 637. 54. Ibid. part. p. 520. 55. Dīghanikāya, P. 45. 56. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol-I, p. 80. 57. Sāmaññaphalasutta. 58. Mahābhāșya, 1.4.25. 59. Ayodhyākāņda, 108. 3-4. 60. kā tava kāntā kaste putraḥ, Mohamudgara, verse 3. 61. Sāmaññaphalasutta, 2. 33. 62. Vide Pradīpa under Mahābhāsya, 7.3.45. 63. Udyota under Ibid, 7.3.45. 64. Mahābhāșya, 1.4.24. 65. Pradipa under Ibid, 14.24. 66. Ibid. 67. Mahābhāșya (N. S. Press) Vol-I, p. 36.

THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 57

CHAPTER - IV combination of the four elements in it like the intoxication of -- THE LOKĀ YATA PHILOSOPHY IN wine produced by the non-intoxicating ingredients of wine.' We have already explained this view in an earlier context BUDDHIST AND JAINA WORKS Kamalaśīla quotes the Bārhaspatya sūtra viz. tebhyaścaitanyam (sütra 3) in this context. It has been generally explained by scholars that consciousness is generated by the four elements But Sāntarakșita signigficantly remarks that according to the It has been discussed in the previous chapter that materialists. Ajitakeśakambali was a great philosopher of the early Buddhist tebhya eva tathā jñānam period. Ajita's views were gradually forgotten and Brhaspati jāyate vyajyate' thavā. (1858) and Carvaka rose into prominence in the writings of Buddhist, Jaina and orthodox writers. It may be noted here that no In this context Kamalasīla opines that some

comprehensive text of the Lokāyata school is available to commentators think that consciousness is generated by the

scholars at present. They can gather the views of materialist elements, while others opine that consciousness (which remains

thinkers mainly from the writings of the opponents of Brhaspati latent in the elements) is manifested (and not generated).2

and Carvaka and those, too in a fragementary form. The materialists state that when the four elements are combined into a single entity, it is called the body, the senses Śāntarakșita : etc. Sāntarakșita reminds his readers of the Bārhaspatya sūtra

Sāntaraksita, the author of the Tattvasamgraha and viz.

Kamalaśīla, its commentator have rendered a very valuable tatsamudāye arīrendriyavișayasamjñā in this context.

service to the literrary circle by presenting the important views Kamalaśīla clearly explains this point in his Pañjikā

of the Lokāyata school. Sāntarakșita begins the discussion on commentary.3

the Lokāyata philosophy with a note on the dehātmavāda of the The author of the Tattvasamgraha adequately discusses

materialist school. the dehātmavāda of the Lokāyatikas with the help of the

It is clear from his discussion that the Crvākas accept the arguments of the two opposing groups.

Buddhist doctrine of momentariness. Now, because all objects The Vedantists and also the Jainas argue in favour of the

of the universe are purely momentary, the Cārvāka philosophy existence of a permanent soul which transmigrates after death

argues that the body, mind intellect etc. are also governed by into another body. The Lokäyatikas, on the other hand, believe

the same law. It is bacause of this very important reason, there that the animate body which is their soul, ends in death, and

is no possibillity of the existence of a permanent soul after nothing survives after this. The opponents argue on this view of

one's death. While corroborating the view of Sāntarakșita, the Lokāyata school and particularly the sūtra 'kāyādeva' of

Kamalasila quotes the Bārhaspatya sūtra (17) Viz. Kambalāśvatara that consciousness remains as a potential force

paralokinobhāvat paralokābhāval. after the death of a person without a substratum. The

Santarakșita says that according to the Lokāyatikas Lokāyatikas reject this view on the ground that such a potential

consciousness is generated in a body as a result of the consciousness cannot exist.+ Consciousnesss invariably remains . in a body. A section of opponents argue that a new body comes

58 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 59

into existence immediately with the death of a person. But the materialists are not ready to accept such an imaginary body, commentary.8 Cārvāka rejects both of them as non-pramāņas.

because it has not been perceived by any person in this world.5 Anumāna or inference is based on three imortant factors :

The Lokāyatikas firmly deny that the same consciousness 1. pakșadharmatā,

continues in a new body. Consciousnesss refers to the cognition 2. sapakșattva, and

of objects for which the function of the sense-organs is 3. vipakşataḥ sarvato vyāvrtti or vipakșāsattva. essentially necessary. But in a foetal body (kalala) particularly in its early stage, the presence of consciousness is impossible Let us explain the points clearly now. We sometimes see

even in a dormant form, because the sense organs are not fully a column of smoke arising from a hill. It is due to our past

developed in this immature foetal body. Again, if the same experience elsewhere, we think that there cannot be smoke

consciousness is supposed to linger in a different body, in that without fire and therefore, there is fire in the (yonder) hill. We draw this conclusion through inference. case, the consciousness of à horse and an elephant must be Now, in order to draw a perfect conclusion through recoginsed as the same, which no sane person will accept.6 The inference, one must depend upon the following factors. Cārvakas have said in a categorical manner in a sūtra (framed The mark or the sign with the help of which we proceed by Brhaspati) viz. Gihalokaparalokaśarīrayor bhinnatvāt to the conclusion is called linga or hetu in the Nyāya tadgatayorapi cittayor naikah santānaḥ (Sūtra 18) that the Philosophy. Smoke is the linga in the present case. It is present same consciousness cannot exist in two different bodies- one in the hill which is a case of paksa, while fire is a case of

related to the present world and the other pertaining to the sādhya in the language of the Nyaya. The presence of the linga world after death, In fact, the Cārvākas do not believe in in the paksa is a must in the process of inference. This

paraloka. But they raise the question of paraloka only in a phenomenon is called pakșadharmatā.

theoritical sense in order to reject it with appropriate arguments. Linga must be present not only in the pakșa but also: similar other objects which are known to possess the sādhya (in

The place of anumāna in the Lokāyata Literature : the present case kitchen, anvil etc. where we always see smoke

Śāntarakșita covertly refers to the Bārhaspatyas or remaining associated with fire).

Lokāyatikas who refuse to recognise anumāna as a form of This is called sapaksasattva in the Nyāya philosophy.

valid knowledge in the following passage : Lastly, the linga must not be present in any such thing where the sädhya does not exist (a lake or a pool in the present na pramāņam iti prāhur instance). This is described as vipakşavyāvrtti i

etta anumānam tu kecana Nayayadarśana. (Tattvasamgraha 1455) > The above factors must be duly applicable to a case of

or: Kamalasila appropriately explains the word 'kecana'as anumāna without fail. The Cārvākas reject such inferential

** Barhaspatyādayah"7 (nanumānam pramāņam āhuḥ) knowledge as similar with mithyājnāna or false knowledge.9

There are two kinds of anumāņa viz. svārthānumāna and These materialists describe 'vivaksā' or the intention of the

pararthanumana. Kamalasīla explains them appropriately in his speaker as 'vacanāllingād vivakșā pratīyate.10 In it, there is a covert reference to anumāna as a means of cognition,

60 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 61

Sāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla criticise them for contradicting their own standpoint when they say nāumānam pramāņam.1! There was a materialist philosopher Purandara who coolly Now, the negative attitude shown by Cārvākas regarding replies to the question of anumana. Millions of people all over inference deserves our attention.Inferential knowledge is not the world always resort to anumana or inference to gather the based on the same footing with, 'mithyajñana or false knowledge of many things which do not belong to the scope of knowledge. Inferential knowledge is valid knowledge like the pratyakșa. Again, all the philosophical schools, except the results of perception.Sāntarakșita asks the materialists : Lokāyata declared anumāna as a valid pramāņa for distinct

trirūpālingapūrvatvam reasons. Udayana says in his Nyāyakusumāñjali that Cārvākas also must depend upon anumāņa for practical purposes.17 These nanu samvādilakșaņam tallaksaņaņca mānatvam are some of the reasons for which Purandara (probably 8th

tat kim tasmān nișidhyate.12 century A.D.) re-examines the theory on 'anumāna'.

Kamalaśīla comments upon this in the following manner : Purandara's theory of anumāna : "yatastrirūpalingatvam yajjñānam It has been said in an earlier context that there is a general tat pāramparyeņa vastuni pratibaddham, view that the Lokāyatikas do not recoginse 'anumāna' or ato'visamvādakam pratyakșavat".13 inferece as a 'pramāna'. But scholars learn from the He means to say that in anumana the knowledge of a fact commentary of Kamalaśīla that some later materialists have is derived indirectly through a particular process unlike in' accepted popular inference also as another means of pratyakșa. But that cannot be treated as a case of 'false knowledge. The Cārvākas by and large have rejected 'anumāna' knowledge'. The result attained in anumana is as good as the as a means of knowledge for the reason that it is not free from result derived from pratyaksa or perception. It is a fact that a fallacy. But Purandara, a materialist, says that lokaprasiddha or mistake may occur in the observation of the man in the process popular inference has been recognised by the Cārvākas of inference. Thus, sometimes a mass of vapour or fog may be (including himself) also. Kamalaśīla quotes the view of wrongly thought as smoke, and sometimes a doubt may arise Purandara in the following passage of his Pañjikā : about the actual nature of the object. In such cases, the viewer will never achieve the correct result.18 Upon this Śāntarakșīta Purandarastvāha-'lokaprasiddham anumānam

says that the linga or hetu is attained by the intelligent people cārvākaira-pīșyata eva, yattu kaiścidalaukikam through constant observation, like the gem-testers who acquire mārgamatikram-yānumānamucyate tannişiddhyate.1s a perfect knowledge of the colour of gems through a similar The materialists since the time of Brhaspati had rigidly method.15 clung to the view that perception alone can give a correct Kamalaśīla says : knowledge of a matter. But in later times, the Cārvākas realised

vivecayantyeva vāșpādibhyo dhūmādīn that some kind of anumana is necesary for practical purposes. anabhyastatattat svalakșaņāh. tataḥ pravivecya If a Cārvāka goes away to a distant place, he cannot perceive pravṛttaścaite prāpnuvantyeva vahnim ..... his wife and children from there. Does it mean that they do not na hi dhūmāt supariniścitāt anumitasya exist? Certainly not. A materialist will certainly go to a shop for vahneranyathābhāvaḥ śakyate kartum".16 buying commodities. He will also attend his duty in a royal office. Now, because the market is at a distant place or the royal

THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 63 62 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

office is a few miles away from his home, will he take it for iti na tebhyaḥ parokșārthāvagame nyāyyatā

granted that the market or the office is non-existent, because it idamuktam anūmānād arthalābhaniścayo durlabhaḥ.21

is beyond his perception? It is for such reasons, the later There is an appropriate logic when Purandara

materialists accepted 'anumāna' also as another pramāņa. distinguishes between popular inference and supra-sensory

Moreover, anumāna is based on pratyaksa. Therefore, there is inference, because in the case of popular inference the

less difficulty in recognising anumāna of a popular nature like conclusion is drawn after a regular observation of a particular

parvato vahnimān dhumāt. But the materialists had a bitter phenomenon over a long period, while in the case of

enmity with religious preachers who inspired the innocent suprasensory (alaukika) inference as involved in such cases as people to practise religion with an assurance that they would yāgāt svargo bhavati, there is no scope of examining the certainly derive meritorious results in this life or in the other relationship of hetu and sādhya as it is beyond the scope of

world from religious' activities. Materialists considered these common observation.

preachings as false and meaningless. The results of religious Popular inference is less prone to fallacies, while

activities as described by the propagators of religions are the suprasensory inference is not. Inference is an important means

subject of supra-sensory inference which is not acceptable to of gathering the knowledge of many scientific truths. But

materialists. popular inference based upon perception like that which is

Vādidevasūri, a Jaina philosopher quotes a sūtra from involved in the case of fire being determined with the help of

Purandara's materialist text in his Syādvādaratnākara which is smoke cannot help us in learning some scientific. truths. The

as follows: pramāņasya gauņatvād anumānād arthaniścaya- 'black hole' and ultraviolet ray cannot be perceived by human

durlabhāt.19 It is clear from Vādideva's reference to the above beings. But they are realities. The knowledge of their existence

sūtra that Purandara wrote his work in sūtra form. The passage is gathered through inference which depends upon some other

quoted by Kamalaśīla in his Pañjikā from Purandara's work is important scientific data.

apparently a part of the commentary written on his sūtra text. Purandara apparently rejects supra-sensory inference (alaukika Śāntarakșita's reply to the materialists :

anumāna) in the above sūtra, which is essentialy necessary for Śāntarakșita does not accept some basic views of the

establishing the existence of heaven or hell or other materialist school. Though as a Buddhist, he does not recognise

supermundane objects, and not popular inference (laukika a permanent, or a transmigrating soul, he also does not approve

anumāna) which is involved in such instances as parvato the view that nothing remains after death. It is a fact that in

vahnimān dhūmāt. Guņaratna has clearly distinguished between death, the physical body is totally destroyed. But according to

laukika anumāna and alaukika anumāna in his commentary on Sāntarakșita, vijñāna or conscious states are beginningless and

the Saddarśanasamuccaya.20 endless facts. Consciousness is not produced by material

The intended meaning of the above sūtra of Purandara can element. A newly born baby feels the desire to suck his or her

be easily understood from the following interpretation of the mother, and he or she is also afraid of certain situations (like the

sūtra. sudden appearance of a jackal). Similarly, some persons feel the sense of love, and compassion towards other persons avyabhicārāvagamo hi laukikahetūnām spontaneously without being tutored by anybody to do so. amumeyāvagame nimittam sa nāsti tantrasiddheșu

64 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 65

These are some of the proofs of the existence of a conscious state before birth which is responsible for a series of similar correct. In fine, there is no cause and effect relationship between body and.consiousness. states in different births.22 Both Śāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla critically examine the It may be argued, however, that the body which remain's

important view of the Lokāyata school and refute and reject associated with senses generates consciousness. Kamalaśīla

them with the help of appropriate arguments. They argue that says that this is also not correct. Now, if the presence of one or all the senses in perfect order is necessary for producing the cause and effect relationship of body and consciousness consciousness, in that case even the malfunctioning or the total cannot be proved without giving rise to a fallacy. They say that disorder of a single sense (indriya) will stop the process.27 Thus, if the last conscious state before death is not recognised, in that it can be safely said that the body is not the cause of case, a conscious state in this very birth must be accepted. It consciousness. Some materialists argue that the sound body must be eternal, or must be without cause, or must be caused duly nourished through nutritious food and best exercises etc. by God or some other external agent, or by the atoms which are increases one's desires, attachment and other mental faculties momentary in character according to the Cārvākas.23 According which decidedly proves their theory that there is a causal to the two Buddhist philosophers, all these arguments are futile. relationship between the body and its consciousness. If a thing is recognised as eternal and uncaused it is not correct. Kamalaśīla says that the absence of such a phenomenon is also It is also not possible for the Cārvākas to prove the causal noticed in many cases. Therefore, the materialist theory is relationship between -body and consciousness, because the without any foundation.28 presence and absence of consciousness alone cannot determine The conscious states are a continuous and unending the cause and effect relationship between the two.24 series. According to Sāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla, paraloka is a Kamalaśïla proceeds against the body-soul theory of merely a state in this series of conscious states and nothing Brhaspati in a logical manner and refutes it with the help of his else.29 Sāntarkșita says that though there are two distinct states sound critical analysis. of a person in two distinct and successive lives, the conscious He says that, if atoms are considered as the generators of state which existed at the time of his death generates the consciousness in a body they may generate it either as single feelings or tendencies according to the man's prior habit. He entities, or through a cumulative behaviour. In the first case, the weeps, cries, smiles or fears difficult situations to which he was results will vary. Now, if the second alternative is accepted, in fully accustomed in the previous birth.30 Now, a question may that case, when a part of the body is crippled, no consciousness be raised as : "Why does then he not remember the past events will arise, like sprout that does not emerge from a seed in the of the previous birth?" The question is quite logical. The absence of earth, air or light.25 Kamalaśīla further argues that materialists have said “jātigrahaņam asiddham;

when a man is born with a sound body, but later on becomes ekagrāmagatānām sarveșām smaraņat."31 It means that it is

crippled does not lose his previous mental faculties. Again, an not possible for any man to remember his incidents of previous

elephant which possesses a massive body will be more birth, because had he ever recollected these incidents, then all

intelligent or mentally sound than a man who has a smaller persons in the world would have recollected them without any

body. Similarly, a little boy will be comparatively dull than an discrimination like persons coming from the same village.

aged man,26 because he has a smaller body. But this is not On this point, Sāntarakșita says that it is due to the severe shock the person receives in the foetal state, he does not

66 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 67

remember his past life. But the pious persons who have never befool the simple people of the world who believe them as true. received such shock, can remember all past incidents of When the religious wives did not listen to these teachings of previous birth very clearly.32 their husbands, one day a materialist woke up in the night, took his wife with him and created some artificial foot-prints of a Haribhadrasuri's treatment of the Lokāyata Philosophy : wolf with his fingers. When it was morning, the village people Haribhadrasūri, a Jaina philosopher and the author of the observed these artificial foot-prints of an imginary wolf and the Șaddarśanasamuccaya devotes a chapter of his work on the news of the wolf intruding into the city spread like wild fire. treatment of Lokāyata philosophy. Haribhadra presents some Thus, the materialist could convince his wife that the general well-known views only of the Lokāyata School. But Guņaratna public always believe in the religious preachings of presents many new ideas in his commentary. hyprocritical preachers35 without questioning or examining Haribhadra presents the basic views of the Lokāyata them. school in seven kārikās (Lokāyatamatam 80-87). He describes Haribhadrasuri shows that the materialists lay an that according to the Lokāyata school there are only four excessive emphasis on the enjoyments of the world. They elements viz. earth, air, water and light and only one means of provoke the women to enjoy life in the following manner : knowledge viz. perception.33 These points have been clearly discussed in preceding chapters. Haribhadra says that the piba khāda ca cārulocane

Lokāyatikas describe the body which is composed of the yadatītam varagātri tanna te

inanimate material elements itself generates caitanya or na hi bhīru gatam nivartate

consciousness like the intoxication of wine produced by rice, samudāyamātram

molasses etc.34. preserved together. This is the famous idam kalevaram.36

bhūtacaitanya theory of Brhaspati with which scholars are The materialists consider those persons who persue already acquainted. supermundane happiness as fools.37 According, to them Haribhadra shows that the Cārvākas recognise kāma or "dharmah kāmāt paro na hi"38 or the enjoyment of worldly material enjoyment as the sole aim of the human life. They do happiness is the only dharma in our life. Haribhadra and the not believe in the existence of a permanent or eternal soul or commentator Guņaratna are silent about the Bārhaspātya sūtra the other world to which the soul is supposed to migrate after viz, kāma evaikaḥ purușārthaḥ. But they adequately explain the the death of a person by orthodox philosophers. They also do materialist standpoint on the ultimate goal of life. not recognise virtue or vice, the results of good or bad actions or the salvation of the soul (in the Vedantic sense). According Guņaratna :

to the Lokāyata materialists, 'etāvān eva lokoyam yāvān Gunaratna, the commentator on the Saddarśana- indriyagocaraḥ" (addarśanasamuccaya. Kārikā 81). samuccaya was a great philosopher. He explains the Lokāyata Now, some women did not believe in the philosophy of views presented by Haribhadra adequately. He also gives his their materialist husbands. These women had a deep faith in own opinions on some materialist views under the Jainamata religious preachings. But their husbands regularly pleaded with section also of Haribhadra's work. He gives two entirely. them that virtues, vices, heaven and hell or the liberation of the different meanings of Lokāyata and Cārvāka from other soul are purely the creation of the religious preachers who writers.

68 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 69

Guņaratna quotes the relevant sūtras of Brhaspati in his vaccaitanyam" and "caitanyaviśiştaḥ kāyaḥ purușaḥ."43 The discussion.39 Occasionally, the philosopher adds some new first sūtra apppears in the Prakaraņapañjikā 44 also while the ideas to the traditional thoughts collected from later Cārvāka second sūtra appears in two other works viz the Śāmkarabhāșya literature.40 on the Brahmasütra and Sadānandayati's Advaitabrahmasiddhi. Gunaratna says that though the Lokayatikas by and large Prabhācandra, another Jaina philosopher adequately explains recoginsed four bhūtas or elements, a section of Cārvākas in a the view laid down in the sūtra.45 later period have recognised ākāśa or space also as a fifth The Carvakas boldly argue that consciousness is invariably element. These materialists could not resist the idea of the and exclusively noticed in a body. It remains in the body so Vedantists and the Naiyāyikas or the idea the general people for long as the body exists, and disappears as soon as the body is whom there is 'ākāśa' at least in a conventional sense. Even the destroyed. Thus, we can safely draw a conclusion that there is modern scientists recognise the existence of space. It has been causal relationship between the body and its consciousness. It already said that Cārvākas generally do not recognise ākāśa should not be assumed that consciousness is derived from a jīva because it is inferrable and not a subject of direct perception. or soul, because such a soul is non-existent like an imaginary According to the learned, commentator, Kāpālikas and some lotus in the sky.46 Brāhmanas and members of lower castes embraced the Now, a question may be raised here as : "Why is then materialistic ideas in his age. consciousness non-existent in a deadbody?" To this question, Guņaratna gives his readers some new ideas about the Cārvākas reply that the mere appearance of the body is not Lokāyata philosophy and Cārvāka hedonism. He says that the enough, unless it possesses all its constituents. Otherise, even materialists describe ·the individual self (jīva) as the picture of a horse shall behave as a live horse. The dead "jalabudbudavajjīvāḥ."41 We have so long learnt that the body does not possess two basic constituents viz. air and light. Lokāyatikas recognise the conscious or animate body as the Therefore, conciousness disappears from a dead body.47 soul. But they could not resist the pressure of the common idea It is clear from the arguments put forward above that the of the people that there is a jīvātman apart from the body. It is body itself generates consciousness. It is not derived from any probably for this reason they had to offer a new sūtra in which conscious soul which is non-existent by all means. No body has the character of the material soul is described in a symbolical language. The author of the Nyāyakumudacandra explains the ever perceived such a soul. Therefore, when we say "I am happy"" or "I am lean", the word I (aham) refers to the significance of the sūtra very clearly. He says that in an ocean conscious body and nothing else. The materialists sum up their and elsewhere, bubbles appear in the water due to physical view in the following way : factors which are natural and not the handiwork of any invisible agent. Similarly, the 'soul' which experiences pleasure and pain tataḥ siddham śarīrakāryameva caitanyam. is nothing but an effect of the combination of the four elements tataśca caitanyasahite śarīra eva in the body.42 There is no proof of the existence of any eternal aham pratyopapattiḥ siddhā.48 and independent soul apart from this. The sūtra madaśaktivaccaitanyam' is the basis of the The Jaina authors, however, do not accept the materialistic bhūtacaitanya theory of the Lokāyatikas which says that intepretation of the soul. Gunaratna quotes two other rare sūtras consciousness emerges from the combination of the elements of the Lokāyata teacher Brhaspati viz. "madaśakti- themselves as their chemical effect.

70 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 71

Gunaratna presents an elaborate account of the hedonistic life led by the Cārvakas in his time. They considered material the case of 'soul', such an analogy is useless, because none has enjoyment as the only goal of life. There were two distinct ever perceived soul in order to draw the analogy.51 groups of Cārvākas viz. the dhūrta Cārvākas and the suśikșita 4. The Vedantists and even Jainas and Bauddhas recognise Cārvākas. The dhūrta Cārvakās were engaged in immoral āgama or holy scripture or, to speak more precisely, the behaviour and anarchy. Some of the Carvākas who disobeyed statements made therein as an authority. But no 'āgama' has social rules of permitted sex, probably belonged the Kāpālikas ever established the fact that anybody anywhere in the world at turned atheists as described by Guņaratna. any time has perceived 'soul', Moreover, āgamas very often make contradictory statements. Therefore, āgamas cannot be Guņaratna criticises the dehataman theory : treated as an authority.52 Guņaratna bitterly criticises the dehātmavāda or body-soul 5. The Mīmāmsakas recognise arthāpatti also as another theory of the Cārvakas. He elaborately presents all the different valid means of knowledge. One common example of arthāpatti views put forward by the materialists in support of their theory is pīno Devadatto divā na bhunkte i.e. Devadatta is fat, but he that there is no separate jīva or 'ātman' except the body which does not eat in daytime. Therefore, it can be deduced that he generates the consciousness mistaken by orthodox philosophers eats in the night for which he grows fat. It is impossible to as an attribute of a permenent soul. apply such a method of deduction in the case of Ātman.53 1. The Cārvākas deny the existence of a soul apart from Gunaratna refutes the view of Brhaspati that the body the body. The existence of a soul cannot be proved with the help itself generates consciousness. He says that the gross material of any pramāņa or means of cognition. The Cārvākas by and body does not produce any effect in the form of consciousness. large recognise pratyaksa or perception as the sole pramāņa. He shows that consciousness disappears from the body of a

Therefore, they say mad man, a man remaining in a state of coma or in sleep. In

pratyaksaprameya ātmā, tataścavidyamāna eva some cases a fat man sometimes loses much of his

prayogaścātra: nāstyātmā, atyantāpratyakșatvāt consciousness, while in many cases, a thin man possesses more

yadatyantparokşam tannāsti, yathā khapușpam.49 consciousness than a fat man.54 1. Guņaratna challenges the Cārvāka view that matter 2. The materialists do not recognise anumāna as a means generates consciousness. He says that nobody has perceived of knowledge. But even if anumāna is accepted as a theoritical this phenomenon anywhere. The Cārvākas do not recognise measure, it cannot prove the existence of 'soul', because 'anumāna', Therefore, we must depend upon pratyakșa alone in anumāna or inference is always based on pratyakșa or this context. As conciousness is abstract in character, nobdy can perception. If nobody has ever perceived 'soul' its existence perceive the cause and effect relationship between matter and cannot be proved with the help of anumāna. If however, consciousness.55 somebody argues for the sake of logic that he has perceived 2. It has been said by Brhaspati that consciousness is soul, then, anumāna becomes redundant.50 generated in a body in the same manner as the intoxication of 3. Naiyāyikas recogise upamāna or analogy as a kind of wine generated by non-intoxicating agents. Upon this, pramāņa. One common example of upamāna is 'gauriva Gunaratna states that a body remains devoid of consciousness. gavayaḥ' i.e. gavayas are animals which look like a cow. But in when it is dead in spite of the presence of the material elements in the them.56

72 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 73

The Cārvākas try to give a fitting reply to this argument. there is a live agent which inspires the body to behave in They say that consciousness is the cumulative effect of all the different ways in different circumstances. This live agent is the elements. But in a dead body, there is no light and air. soul. One can easily infer the presence of a hidden active agent Therefore, there is no consciousness. Gunaratna says on this (jīva) in this case behind all physical operations. It is the prime that even when a dead body is placed on a pyre, and enough air mover of the body.61 is pumped into it, it does not regain consciousness.57 Therefore, The Jainas have been described as nastikas for the reason the dehātman theory of Cārvākas is without any logical that they do not recognise the authority of the Veda. But foundation. Gunaratna's discussion on the essential attributes of the soul Gunaratna not only disproves the body-soul theory of the which clearly shows that his arguments in favour of the materialists, but also establishes with the help of appropriate existence of a transmigratory soul is not different from the logic the existence of jīva as an independent entity and the āstika view on the subject. Gunaratna says that the soul locus of different attributes. 3. Some Cārvākas, again, argue in the same manner as transmigrates to another body after death. Unlike the 'soul' of

Kambalāśvatara that the body remains conscious when the vital the Cārvākas, it does not disappear along with the body; but

airs prāņa and apāna remain associated with it, but becomes occupies a new body after death. This is the reason for which

dead in their total absence. Gunaratna says upon that at the babies desire to suck their mother from the day of their birth,

time of death, prāna blows more rapidly, but the body fast loses which is a habit inherited by them from their previous life.62

consciousness. On the other hand, a yogin holds his breath in Guņaratna shows that Cārvākas were great enemies of

the state of meditation; but he gains more consciousness in this religion. They expressed their anti-religious views in a few poems also. The poems are quoted below : state.58 4. Gunaratna refutes the materialist idea that 'I am fat' or tapāmsi yātanāścitrāḥ 'I am lean' refers to the body. He describes such expressions as samyamo bhogavañcanā purely secondary.59 agnihotrādikam karma According to the philosopher, ātman or jīva or soul is a bālakarīdeva lakșyate subject of perception. In this world, whatever object possesses yāvajjīvam sukam jīvet attributes is subject of perception. The soul posseses the tāvad vaişayikam sukham specific attributes like memory, desire to know things, desire to bhasmībhūtasya dehasya act or move, and also consciousness (vijñāna). Therefore, like punarāgamanam kutaḥ.63 other objects possessing attributes, the 'soul' is also perceptible. However, such a perception is not physical, but it It appears from Guņaratna's work that Cārvākas in a later

is purely mental.60 period of the development of the Bärhaspatya philosophy Gunaratna says that the existence of soul can be composed really excellent poems in support of the materialist established through inference also. He argues that the body philosophy. Some more poems of a similar nature are found in functions in different ways. It possesses the desire to act Mädhava's Sarvadarśanasamgraha and the Advaitabrahma- according to the necessity. The body makes different physical siddhi of Sadānandayati. These poems will be critically efforts; the senses hear, see, smell and touch. In all such cases, examined in Ch. VIl of the present work.

74 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 75

The Lokāyata and the Kāpālikas : their sweet will.7 No other author has drawn such a grim

Guņaratna describes that some Brāhmaņas and Kāpālikas picture of anarchy regarding the materialists. One important of the Māheśvara school also embrace the Lokāyata philosophy. gain derived from Gunaratna's work is that the commentator It is a fact that many Brahmanas were followers of the Lokāyata presents a vivid picture of Lokāyata's hedonistic philosophy system since the age of the Rāmāyaņa. In the Ayodhyākāņda of from his personal experience. the Epic, Ramacandra has advised his brother Bharata not follow the Lokāyata Brāhmanas in the following poem : Guņaratna's reference to anumāna in the Lokāyata

kaccinnalokāyatikān brāhamaņān tāta sevase.64 Guņaratna philosophy :

furnishes an information for readers that the Kāpālikas also It has been already described that a section of Cārvākas in

embraced the nāstika (Lokāyata) philosophy. He says : kāpālikā later times accepted laukika anumāna also as another means of

bhasmoddhūlanaparā, brāhmaņādyantyajāśca kecana valid knowledge. Gunaratna, while discussing the views of

nāstikamatam ādriyante.65 Brhaspati casually refers to the Cārvākas of his age who

It may be noted here that Silanka, the commentator on the accepted popular inference as another means of gathering

Sütraktāngasūtra writes that many followers of the Sāmkhya knowledge in worldly life. He says :

and the Bhagavata religions first become initiated in their viśesah punaścārvākair · lokanirvahaņapravaņam

religion and after reading the Lokāyata system they become dhūmādyanumānam ișyate kvacana na punaḥ svargādrsțādipra- deeply involved in it and start a materialistic life. Then they sādhakam alaukikam anumānam.72 It is clear from the above wear blue garments.66 passage that the Cārvākas in Guņaratna's time as in the age of The Kāpälikas are one of the four different sects of the Kamalaśīla fully realised the practical utility of anumāna. Of Māheśvara school as described by Šankarācārya. (Brahmasūtra, course, they did not recognise such cases of anumāna as yāgāt 2.2.37). According to the Prabodha-candrodaya67 of svargo bhavati.' This has been clearly discussed by Purandara Krsņamiśra and the Vidyāpariņaya68 of Ānandarāyamakhin, the in the passage quoted earlier. Kāpālikas live a hedonistic life. However, they are not nāstikas probably in the same sense as the Cārvākas, because, as it has Mallisena : been discussed earlier, they hanker for attaining Sivahood after death. Mallisena quotes the relevant sütra of Brhaspati regarding

Guņaratna gives his readers an appropriate idea of the the validity of a single pramāņa viz, pratyakşam evaikam

gross hedonistic life which was led by the Indian materialists in pramāņam.73 Mallisena being a practical thinker fully realises

his age. It is learnt from Mādhava's Sarvadarśan-asamgraha that pratyaksa or direct perception alone cannot give the idea of

that the Cārvākas always advocated physical enjoyment as the every object in the world, or a state of mind. Thus, when a man

goal of the human life. According to them, one should drink displays certain facial expressions, another man grasps his .

ghee even by borrowing money.69 Gunaratna says that the mind. When a man, for example, expresses joy on hearing the

Lokāyatikas enjoyed meat and wine. They copulated even with words of another person, the other person realises that the man

their mothers.70 In a particular period of the year, they went out is willing to hear him. This is a clear case of anumāna or of their residence in a group and enjoyed women according to inference and not of pratyakșa.74

76 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKAYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 77

It may be noted in this context that Vācaspati Miśra has further argues that sometimes due to the diseased condition, clearly stated that the inner state of a man such as his ignorance many persons see two moons, which is a false knowledge. of an object, or his doubt about the real nature of an object Therefore, perception alone cannot give a viewer the correct cannot be learnt with the help of pratyaksa. In such cases, knowledge of a thing always, as it is imagined by the the anumāna is the only shelter.75 Vācaspati Miśra describes in his Cārvākas. 80

Bhāmatī the Cārvākas as worse than animals, because animals Now, because perception is not enough to give the

also select their right food and the place of sleeping through universal idea of the existence or non-existence of an object anumāna while Cārvākas reject anumāna totally.76 some other pramāna is also necessary for people to gather the

Mallisena further argues that the standpoint of materialists knowledge of certain things. Thus, for establishing the

that there is no paraloka as it is not directly perceived by existence of paraloka or heaven and hell, and the soul or God,

anybody is wrong. Pratyaksa or perception is related to the pratyakșa or perception alone cannot be the shelter.8t One can

present affairs alone and not the past or the future. Thus, the establish their reality through other pramānas only such as

existence of paraloka can be established through inference,77 or anumāna (inference)

āgama and not perception. Materialists by and large do not Regarding bhūtacaitanyavāda, the philosopher refers to

recognise inference. Therefore, they bluntly reject the idea of Rāmacandra's Dravyālamkāra where it has been stated that consciousness is not generated by matter. Had it been so, men anumāna. Again, Mallisena observes that all types of partyakșa are could have discovered its existence in every material thing

not acceptable. Some kinds of partyaksa, for example, the idea everywhere. Now, the Carvakas argue that when matter assumes

of the existence of water in a mirage is false. Therefore, we the form of a body (as is the case of the human body), it

recognise only that pratyaksa or perception which gives us a generates consciousness. The Cārvākas give the example of

correct knowledge of a thing.78 wine in this case. They say that consciousness is generated like

Mallisena rejects some important views of the materialist the intoxication in wine as a cumulative effect of the

school in an adequate manner. He says that pratyaksa or combination of four distinct classes of matter.82

perception must be related to reality to give us a correct The author of the Dravyālamkāra argues that if it is so, in

knowledge of a thing. But to know whether the particular that case even in a deadbody the presence of consciousness

instance of pratyaksa is related to the reality or not, one must could be felt. The materialists cannot argue that a dead body is different from a live body as it contains all the elements. depend upon anumāna or inference again. And why? Because, it is through inference only he can assert the validity of valid Rāmacandra says that like a live body a dead body also possesses blood etc. But there is no consciousness in it.83 perception.79 The point is explained more clearly below : The Indian materialists offer new arguments in support of Sometimes, a mirage can create the impression of the their contention. They say that a live person remains completely existence of water in it. The impression is a result of perception. ignorant of what is happening in the world in sleep. Therefore, But the result so derived is wrong. Now, after a careful it can be agrued that consciousness is affected by the condition examination of the phenomenon, it is found that the mirage of the body.84 Ramacandra says that in sleep, man's does not contain any water. Thus, in this case, initial perception consciousness is temporarily obstructed by torpor. But when he does not give the viewer a correct idea of the essential character awakes, he remembers all previous incidents. He further argues of the mirage, where inference alone is our shelter. Mallisena that even a man with a sound body may be mentally disturbed.

78 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 79

Again, even a sick person may possess a sound mind. Thus, Vādideva :

there is practically no causal relationship between the body and Vādideva, a Jaina philosopher who wrote the its consciousness.85 Syādvādaratnākara quotes a sūtra of Purandara on anumāna which has been discussed above. He also gives an idea of the Prabhācandra : points on which Cārvākas have disputed the authority of

Prabhācandra examines the Bārhaspatya sūtra pratyakșam anumāna as a pramāņa.

evaikam pramānam which appears in an amended form in his According to him, these materialists consider anumāna or inference as indistinct (aspașțatvāt); it is based upon perception work as pratyaksam ekam eva hi pramāņam, aguņatvāt for which it cannot be a valid pramāna. Inferences are pramāņasya.86 Prabhācandra's contention is that the materialists sometimes contradicted. Again, there is no uniform rule that a recognise pratyakșa alone as a form of valid knowledge, linga will always give an idea of the sadhya,89 in anumana because it is not secondary or subordinate to other pramāņas. It is clear from Vādideva's discussion that the Cārvāka There is some truth in the above observation. Direct perception philosophers offered some important arguments in rejecting needs no help from any sécondary source for drawing a correct anumāna as a means of knowledge. They have made a forceful conclusion about a thing. attempt to dismiss anumāna as a pramāņa on several grounds But it has been already discussed that perception cannot considered by them as most scientific and irrefutable by their give a correct knowledge of a matter in all cases. A viewer of opponents. But in spite of this the Cārvāka position is not a mirage observes through perception that there is water in it. invulnerable. But the result of this perception is wrong. The earth looks flat, These philosophers have laid an emphasis on 'vividness'

but it is scientifically proved that it is round like all other in rejecting anumāna. They mean to say that unlike pratyakșa

planets. Thus, in many affairs of worldly importance, which gives a knowledge of a thing due to the direct contact of

perception alone cannot be the only flawless pramāņa. It has the thing with the senses, anumāna gives the knowledge of a

been shown above that anumana is essentially necessary in thing or a phenomenon only indirectly, and therefore, it does

gäthering many worldly truths not possess the vividness of pratyaksa. Hence, it cannot be

Similarly, authoritative statements are also sometimes accepted. To this point, it can be replied that vividness is not a essential for us to learn a fact. Patañjali says in his Mahābhāșya that the Greeks (Yavanāh) invaded Sāketa (Ayodhyā) in his determining factor of a pramāņa. Sometimes, even pratyakșa

time.87 Both pratyakșa and anumāna are useless in the present does not give a correct knowledge. This point has been discussed in the previous context. case to learn this historical fact. Prabhācandra refutes the sūtra One strong argument of the Cārvaka materialists is that of .,materialists given above adequately in his anumāna is based on pratyakșa or perception, for which it Prameyakamalamārtaņda. Prabhācandra says that pratyakșa or cannot be a valid means of knowledge. But this argument is not perception is not always aguna or non-secondary, because correct. False inferences are always contradicted and refuted; sometimes it depends upon anumāna for giving a correct but there are thousands of cases of right inferences, which must knowledge of thing.88 be accepted for practical reasons.

80 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 81

The materialists further argue that the invariable References :

relationship between hetu and sādhya cannot be established as 1. tasmād bhūtaviśe șebhyo a universal phenomenon. There is some truth in it. Sometimes, yathā suktasurādikam a column of smoke may be drifted away by the wind, and it tebhya eva tathā jñānam may accumulate in a nearby hillock. But it does not mean that jāyate vyjyatethavā, Tattvasamgraha, 1958. there is fire in the hillock. It is for such reasons, the mental 2. faculty of the observer to judge the phenomenon in a proper tatra kecid vṛttikārā vyācakșate : utpadyate tebhyaścaitanyam anye manner is essentially necessary.90 abhivyajyate ityāhuḥ, Ibid, p. 633-634.

Hemacandra and the Cārvka philosophy : 3. Ibid, p. 634

Hemacandra, the great Jaina philosopher who was a 4. na cāpi śaktīrūpeņa tadā

renowned grammarian, linguist, poet and poetician had an dhīravatișthate, Ibid, 1886.

appropriate knowledge of the Cārvāka philosophy also. He 5. Ibid, p. 636.

explains the word Cārvaka as an irregular one like the words 6. yadi dehoparodrstah māvāka and śyāmāka in the uņādi section of his grammar. He kathamastīti gamyate describes Cārvākas as prakațanāstikas in the following poem of bhinnadehapravrttañca his Yogasastra gajavājyādicittavat, Ibid, 1968. varam varākaścārvāko yosau prakațanāstikaḥ Vide also History of Indian philosophy, Part- III, p. 541.

vedoktitāpasacchadmā. 7. Ibid, Part I, p. 520.

channam rakșo na jaiminiḥ. (2.38) 8. anumānam svārthapararthabhedena dvividham

Hemacandra gives an appropriate idea of the hadonistic tat svārtham yat trirūpāllingāt pakșadharma-

views of Indian materialists, for whom the human life is meant tvam, sapakșe sattvam, vipakșācca sarvato vyāvrttiḥ

for the best material enjoyments and nothing else, in his epic ..... parārtham tu yathoktatrirūpalingaprakāśavacanā-

'the Trişaştisalākāpurușacarita. According to him, the tmakam draşțavyam,

materialists propagate the bhūtacaitanya theory discussed in Ibid, Part -I, PP. 494-495.

'earlier contexts, and do not believe in the existence of paraloka 9. Ibid, Part I, p. 520.

and reject the concepts of dharma and adharma. They criticise 10. Ibid, Part I, p. 520.

'the worship of stone images of gods and goddesses.91 11. Ibid, kārikā 1456. 12. Ibid, Part I, p. 523. 13. na hi dhūmo vāșpādirūpeņa sandihyamāno vahner niścāyako bhavati, I, pp. 525-526. 14. Ibid, Part I, p. 526.

82 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST 83

15. Ibid, Part I, p. 526. 32. svalpīyānapi yeșam tu 16. Ibid, Part I, p. 526. nopaghāto mahātmanām

16. Nyāyakusumāñjali : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1957, śrūyante visphuțā vācastesām sā ca smrtiḥ sphuțā, p. 355. Ibid, 1946. 18. Tattvasamgraha, Part I, p.526. 33. pṛthvī jalam tathā tejo 19. History of Indian Philosophy, Part III, P. 536n. vāyurbhūtacatușțayam 20. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 451. ādhāro bhūmiretesām

17. History of Indian Philosophy, p. 536n. mānam tvakșajam eva hi, Şaddarśanasamuccaya, kārikā 83. 22. Tattvasamgraha, 1938. 34. Ibid, Kārikā 84. 23. Ibid, Part II, p. 639. 35. bhadre vrkapadam paśya The relevant passage is quoted in Ch. I, Fn 49. yadvadantyabahuśrutāḥ 24. Ibid, Part II, p. 640. Ibid, Kārikā 81.

18. Ibid, 1936. Vide also Guņaratna, Ibid, pp. 452-455.

Vide, also : 36. Ibid, Kārikā 83

(a) "paralokotra sādhayitum 37. Ibid, p. 451.

iştaḥ sa ca katham sidhyati, yadi 38. Ibid, Kārikā 86. buddhir anādyanantā sidhyati asya evā- 39. Ibid, p. 450. vasthāviśesaḥ paralokaprajñapteh, 40. Ibid, pp450-451. na tu deha āropyadhātau, dehābhāvepi 41. Įbid, p. 451. paralokābhyupagamāt" Kamalaśīla, Ibid, Part II, p. 662. 42. yathaiva hi samudrādau niyāmakadṛstārthaka- padārthasāmarthyavaśād (b) paraloka ityavasthā-bhedakstam prādurbhavanti tathā .... jīvaḥ, Ibid, p. 342. vyavasthāmātrameva, bālyayauvanādibhedavat, 43. Ibid, p. 451. Kamalaśīla, Ibid, Par II, p. 670. 44. Prakaraņapañjikā, p. 146. 26. Ibid, p. 642. 45. Prameyakamalamārtaņda, p. 117. 27. Ibid, p. 642. 46. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 217. 28. Ibid, p. 642. 47. Ibid, p. 224. 29. Ibid, p. 637. 48. Ibid, p. 217. 30. Ibid, p. 649. 49. Ibid, p. 217. 31. Ibid, p. 665. 50. Ibid, pp. 218-219.

84 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA THE LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY IN BUDDHIST .85

51. Ibid, p. 219. 78. Ibid, p. 132. 52. Ibid, p. 219. 79. Ibid, p. 132. 53. Ibid, p. 220. 80. Ibid, p. 132. 54. drśyate ca kesāmcit krśataraśarirāņāmapi 81. Ibid, p. 132. cetanāprakarșaḥ, keșāmcit sthūladehānāmapi tadaprakarşaḥ, Ibid, p. 222. 82. Ibid, p. 133.

52. Ibid, pp. 222-233. 83. Ibid, p. 133.

53. Ibid, p. 223. 84. Ibid, p. 133.

54. Ibid, p. 224. 85. Ibid, p. 133.

55. Ibid, p. 224. 86. Prameyakamalamārtaņda, p. 177.

56. Ibid, p. 222. 87. Mahābhāșya, 3.2.111.

57. Ibid, p. 226. 88. Prameyakamālamārtaņda, p. 177.

58. Ibid, p. 228. 89. Syādvādaratnākara, pp. 131-132.

59. Ibid, pp. 234-235. (see History of Indian Philosophy,

60. Ibid, p. 453. Dr. S. N. Dasgupta, part III, p. 537).

61. Rāmāyaņa, Ayodhyākāņda, 100.34. 90. Ibid, pp. 131-132.

62. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 450. 91. I. 230, 235-236.

63. Vide Sūtra-krtāngasūtra (N.S. press edition), pp. 280-281. 67. Act III. 68. Vidyāpariņaya, Act IV. 69. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 5. 70. Şaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 451. 71. Ibid, p. 451. 72. Ibid, p. 457. 73. Syādvādamañjarī, p. 130. 74. Ibid, p. 131. 75. Sāmkhyakārikā, pp. 124-127. 76. Bhāmatī under Brahmasūtra, 3.3.54. 77. Syādvādamañjarī, p.132.

MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 87

CHAPTER - V argue that consciousness remains in the body so long as a MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN person is alive and disappears as soon as he is dead) This

ĀSTIKA SCHOOLS phenomenon clearly proyes the causal relationship between matter and consciousness.4 Śankarācārya critically examines the theory propagated by the materialists best known in the philosophical tradition as bhūtacaītanyavāda, and rejects it as fallacious on different Śankarācārya : grounds. Śankarācārya, the renowned Vedantist, has critically (i) He says that the materialists lay emphasis on the fact examined some important views of the Lokāyata school in his that consiousness remains till the body remains alive, and bhāşya on the Brahmasūtra. Šankara places the Lokāyatikas in disappears as soon as the body is dead. But this is not sufficient the same category with the ordinary people who have no to prove the cause and effect relationship between matter and spiritual knowledge. While discussing their nature of 'ātman' consciousness. According to Sankara, consciousness, memory Sankara says in his Brahmasūtrasāmkarabhāsya: etc. are the attributes or properties of the self which

"dehamātram caitanyaviśistam ātmeti prākrtā janā transmigrate to another body after death, while the material

lokāyatikāśca pratipannāh".1 attributes like the form of a body continue even after death for a period. The sub-commentator Govindananda explains the meaning (ii) The physical form is visible to other persons also. But of 'prākrtāh' as : consciousness etc. belonging to a person are never experienced “śāstrajñānaśūnyā prākṛtāḥ".2 by others.

Śankarācārya examines an important view of the Lokāyata (iii) Sankarācārya further says that physical properties like the form of the body are experienced by us through school laid down by Brhaspati in his sūtra viz. "tebhyaścaitanyam". According to the Lokāyatikas, the consciousness. If consciousness is also treated as a material

aggregate of the four elements which assumes the form of the property generated by the combination of elements, it will be

body itself produces the consciousness of the body. There is no wrong, because consciousness never experiences itself like the

other object called 'soul' which is supposed to be a permanent fire which never burns itself or the expert actor who cannot ride on his own shoulder though he is expert in his own art.5 entity by many others. This point has been discussed clearly in % However, the great Vedantist discusses some new Vedantic previous cotexts. Sankarācarya shows that the Lokayatikas rigidly stick to ideas in this context The Lokayatikas consider the conscious.

the view of Brhaspati that like the intoxication of wine which body itself as synonym of soul'. The body itself possesses the

is produced by the innocent, non-intoxicating ingredients like tendency to perform different actions. But ankara says that it

water and molasses, consciouness is also generated in the body is the Supreme Person (Iśvara) who creates the tendency in a

by the combination of the inanimate material elements which body which is insentient by itself. Now, a question arises in this

constitute the body (madasáktivad vijñānam3).) They further context. The Supreme Person is 'akriya'. He does not perform anything, but remains a mere witness or observer. The Vedantist

88 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 89

philosopher says on this point that though the Supreme Person remains an observer, He like a piece of magnet that remains 8. There is no heaven or hell except this world. There are

without motion, becomes the mover of the body by his very many people in this world who imagine the existence of

presence. Therefore, the body which is insentient by itself acts Śivaloka or Vișnu's celestical abode. But these are merely some

according to the wish of the prime mover false concepts propagated by wicked persons.14

Śankarācārya is said to be author of the Sarvasiddhānta- 9. All religious and welfare activites of the generous

samgraha also, which is a philosophical work written in poetry. people are meaningless in this world. The Lokāyatikas say that

The first chapter of the work deals with the Lokāyata system. the gifts made to the needy, and religious temples, roadside

In this chapter, the author presents all the views of the Lokāyata gardens, the reservoirs of water and inns prepared by the

school with which readers are already acquainted. The salient magnanimous people with a pious motive are merely the

features of the the Lokāyata philosophy presented by Šankara in sources of attraction for padestrians, having no religious

the form of poems are discussed below. It may be noted here effect.15

that Śankara does not furnish any new philosophical data 10. The materialists declare that the death of a person is

regarding the Lokāyata doctrine. itself his salvation.16

1. Sankara says that the Lokāyatikas recognise only four 11. They advise the people to abandon the religious path.

elements viz, earth, water, light and air.7 They tell the cammon people that by practising penaces or

2. They recognise pratyaksa as the only form of valid fasting on religious occasions they merely reduce the body but

knowledge.8 do not render any useful service to themselves.17

3. The materialists do not accept the existence of adrsta or 12. The Lokāyatikas declare religious activities as a means

heaven or hell which people have never seen. They argue that of earning livelihood.18

nobody has seen the 'unseen'. It never exists like the horns of A critical examination of the views presented by the

a hare.9 author of the Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha on the Lokāyata school

4. According to the Lokāyalikas, the pleasure arising from shows that there is no new idea apart from what have been

the enjoyment of women and fine garments and fragrant discussed earlier. The different sūtras of Brhaspati and the age-

consmetics is the synonym of heaven while physical pains are old preachings of the Cārvākas have been nicely blended in the

another name of hell.10 poems. The Lokāyatikas have advised the people to earn money through their prescribed occupations and enjoy life fully.19 5. Svabhava or nature is the cause of the different According to Śankarācārya, the Lokāyatikas denounce the vow phenomena in this universe, like the multi-coloured body of a of chastity of women also as : peacock or the melodious song of a koel (svabhāvavyatirekeņa vidyate nātra kāraņam.)1 pātivratyādisamketo buddhimadbhir

6. The body (made up of the four elements) which passes durlabhaiḥ krtaḥ.20

through different phases of evolution is the soul.12 The materialist philosophy in Mādhava's Sarvadarśana- 7. Consciousness is generated by the combination of the four elements like the betel nut, leaves and lime producing the samgraha :

intoxicating effect in the body.13 Mādhava gives his readers an appropriate idea of the materialist thoughts of the Cārvākas of his age in his

-90 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 91

Saravdarśanasamgraha. He discusses the origin of the Cārvāka philosophy, its great popularity among the masses, and its basic people in the other world. To this question, the Cārvākas reply

views in the first chapter of his philosophical text.21 According that there is no existence of such happiness.

to this philosopher, Cārvāka recognises artha or material wealth They argue in this case in a strong manner in support of

and kāma (material enjoyment) as the goals of human life.22 their view. They say that the very idea of the existence of any

Cārvāka strongly supports the views of Brhaspati that there are supermundane happiness in a paraloka is full of fallacies on the

only four material elements. When they assume the form of a following ground. The section of Action in the Veda denounces

body, they generate consciousness. But when the body is the section of Knowledge (the Upanisads), and vice-versa. And thus, there is no valid reason to recognise paraloka. Cārvākas destroyed, consciousness disappears forever. There is no soul say that the believers in karmakānda refute the authority of the apart from the body. Cārvāka follows Brhaspati in a faithful jñānakāņda, and the advocates of jñānakāņda refute the manner, and says that perception alone is the form of valid authority of the karmakāņda. Therefore, Cārvākas suspect that knowledge.23 Most of these views have been already discussed religion is merely a means of earning livelihood of a section of in the previous sections of this work. wicked people and nothing else. Mādhava describes meterialists as practical people, who In fact, the Vedantists do not reject the idea of paraloka or advise the people not to avoid hapiness because it remains the result of meritorious activities like Vedic sacrifices. But they associated with pain. In this context they argue that no wise opine that such results are not permanent. Mādhava quotes a man will throw away the best kind of rice because it remains poem from the Lokāyata literature viz. blended with husk, or discard the best fish because it contains bones. The eater should remove the unwanted elements and Agnihotram trayo vedās

enjoy the desirable portion.24 The materialist philosophers scoff tridandam bhasmaguņthanam

at religious ideas and practices as the means of livelihood of buddhipaurușahīnānām

worthless people.25 jīviketi Brhaspatiḥ.28

The Carvakas were practical people. They argued that no to preach the 'truth' that religion is a practical means of earning body should behave in a cowardly manner in this world. They bread of a class of cunning Brāhmaņas. This is a famous poem

should enjoy their life against all odds. They say that if some of the Carvaka school which is available in different versions in cultivator does not grow paddy in his field fearing that wild different works.29 According to this poem, the religious animals will eat it up, or a householder stops cooking due to practices like the Agnihotra sacrifice, the study of the three

the presence of beggars in his house, he is a coward and a fool. Vedas, the holding of the three-armed staff (which is a symbol

The Lokāyatikas were always the strongest opponents of of the controlling of speech, mind and body), and the smearing of the body with ashes are some means of earning livelihood of the religious order. We have already given some idea of the anti-religious views of the followers of Brhaspati in previous a section of people who are without any intellect and power.

contexts. Now, it can be argued that happiness may not be Now, the Agnihotra sacrifice is performed with cow's milk. Some householders perform it every day. The word always mundane, but even some pious persons may enjoy them 'Agnihotra' used in the above poem represents all Vedic even in heaven after death. Therefore, religious scriptures and sacrifices. That the Cārvakas were opposed to all Vedic preachers have propagated religious ideas for the benifit of the sacrifices can be clearly understood from the scathing criticism

92 ·LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 93

levelled by Indian materialists against the Vājapeya yāga in the Both Mädhava and Gunaratna have rendered a very Naişadhacarita. It has been said in this Māhākāvya that priests valuable service to the readers by presenting the anti-religious

advise the yajamāna to tie some elephants in trees, and when views of the Cārvākas in a clear and appropriate manner. They

the yäga is over, the priests take away the elephants. Thus, it is were conversant with the relevant poems of the materialists

a glaring example of Vedic priests exploiting their devotees. denouncing religion. The author of the Sarvadarśanasamgraha

The 'tridanda' is held by saints of different sects. Many describes that the king of the country is parameśvara or the

Vedantists are associated with this practice. The rubbing of the supreme Lord (God) of he universe according to the Cārvāka

body with ashes is a regular religious rule of the Saivas. The philosophy. He quotes a poetical passage from the Cārvāka

materialists think that these are some means of deceiving the literature in this context viz.

lay followers by a section of worthless people, who earn their lokasiddho bhaved rājā

livelihood with the help of them. pareśo nāparaḥ smtaḥ.33

Mādhava presents some imortant philosophical views of It is clear from above śloka that the Cārvāka materialists the Carvaka school in the following passage were not opposed to the monarch or the monarchical system.

"kanțakādijanyam duḥkhameva narakam. The theory viz. dehocchedo mokşah reminds us of the

lokasiddho rājā parameśvaraḥ dehocchedo mokșaḥ."30 Bārhaspatya sūtra viz. maraņamevāpavargaḥ. Accoding to the Cārvakas the expression 'I am fat' and 'I According to the above passage, the physical pain am lean' refer to the body and not the soul. They argue that use generated by bodily wounds is the synonym of hell. The like 'my body' is merely a secodary use like Rāhu's head.34 The concept of hell has emerged from the wise thinking of Indian point deserves a critical examination. The Cārvākas advocate

seers who belived that every anti-social and non-believer is the dehätaman theory of Brhaspati. Therefore, when the

bound to reap the reward of his action in hell. But Mādhava quotes Vedantists argue that 'aham' or 'I' refers to the individual self,

a passage from the Lokāyata literature to show that the Cārvākas it becomes unpalatable for Cārvākas. Therefore, they try to

do not believe in the existence of paraloka31. It has been clearly prove the correctness of their theory by referring to expressions

stated by Gunaratna that the Lokāyatikas scoff at the idea of like 'aham sthūlaḥ' (I am fat) and 'aham' krśah (I am thin)

vices and virtues and paraloka in the following manner : which naturally refer to the body. The soul cannot be fat or thin as it is never perceived. But sometimes speakers use another yat pare jīvam punyapāpe tatphalam significant expression, that is, 'this is my body'. In this case, svarganarakādikam ca prāhuh, tan nāsti there is a clear distinction between the body and its master (the apratyakşatvāt soul of the Vedanta philosophy). The Cārvākas argue that yāvātā parikalpyamānaḥ paralokayāyī jīvah 'mama sarīram' or 'my body' is merely a secondary use like the

pratyaksena nānubhūyate, tavatā 'head of Rähu'. According to Indian mythology Rähu which is

b jivasya sukhaduhkhanibandhanau dharmādharmau not a planet possesses only the head, but people use the

shav tatprakrstaphalabhogabhumī svarganarakau expression 'Rahoh sirah' in a secondary sense. Similar is the

bitv akase vicitracitraviracanam iva case of the expression 'mama śarīram' according to the.

Ptnrtolıkasya na nāma hāsyāvahāni.32 Cārvākas who recognise the conscious body as a synonym of 'soul'.

94 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 95

Mādhava, after examining the basic views of the Cārvāka On this point, the Cārvākas argue that anumāna in order to

school which remain scattered over a wide range of literature, rise to the position of a valid means of knowledge must be free from all fallacies. summarises them in following poems : Now, when a person sees smoke in a kitchen he anganālinganājjanyasukhameva approaches it and finds that it is associated with fire. Therefore,

pumarthatā when he notices the same or similar cases elsewhere also, then

kanțakādivyathājanyam he draws the conclusion on the basis of his experience that

duhkham niraya ucyate wherever there is smoke, there is fire, This is a case of

lokasiddho bhaved rājā anumāna. But it is not possible for a person to examine all such

pareśo nāparaḥ smṛtaḥ cases of association of fire and smoke in the past and also future. Therefore, the relation of concomittance cannot be dehasya nāśo muktistu treated as universal in this case. na jñānānmuktirișyate Similarly, anumāna or śabdapramāņa also cannot help us in atra catvāri bhūtāni establishing a universal concomittance in the present case. bhūmivaryanalanilaḥ According to the followers of Kaņāda śabdapramāņa is included caturbhyaḥ khalu bhūtebhyaś in anumāna itself. Now, if this pramāņa is not accepted by us caitanyamupajāyate in that case, we can choose the authoritative statements of

kiņvādibhyaḥ sametebhyo ancient seers (vrddhavyavahara) for our purpose. But it will be

dravyebhyo madaśaktivat equally fallacious like the statements of Manu which cannot be

aham sthūla krśosmīti accepted as true. The position of upamāna is also the same.

sāmānādhikaraņyataḥ Thus, anumāna, upamāna etc. cannot be treated as valid

dehaḥ sthaulyādiyogācca pramāņas.36 Mādhava is silent on Purandara's view. He quotes the view of orthodox Cārvākas in the. following passage : sa evātmā na cāparaḥ.35 dhūmādvijñānānantaram agnyādivijñānapravrttiḥ Madhava examines the Carvaka theory of knowledge : pratyakșamūlatayā bhrāntyā vā yujyate.37

The Cārvākas recongise 'pratyaksa' or perception alone as Now, a question may be raised regarding Cārvāka atheism as : the only form of valid knowledge. The reason for this is that "If there is no svarga or naraka or any invisible object in whatever is perceived is beyond our doubt. But what is inferred the universe, there is no invisible agent also like God. If so, cannot be stated as correct or valid for distinct reasons. So is the how does the universe function at all without such an agent? To case of other pramāņas. Mādhava discusses the Cārvāka theory this question Cārvakas reply that it is svabhāva or Nature which

of knowledge most elaborately in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha. is at the root of everything which emerges to our view in the

We have repeatedly stated that the Cārvakas by and large form of creation".38

do not recognise anumāna or inference as a means of valid knowledge. But why? Anumāna is essentially necessary to Cārvākas and religion :

prove the existence of fire in a hill, for instance, from a distance Mādhāva presents a number of poems from the Cārvāka

on noticing the constant emergence of smoke from the hill. literature. One such poem is

MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 96 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA 97

na svargo nāpavargo vā Now, there is a highly controversial poem in Mādhava's

naivātmā pāralaukikaḥ.39 `collection, in which the Vedic mantras have been described as nonsensical utterances. The Cārvāka materialists refer to the according to which there is neither heaven, nor salvation or a Vedic mantra viz. soul which transmigrates to the (non-existent) paraloka. The poem reminds us of the Bārhaspatya sūtra viz. sṛyeva jarbharī turpharī tu etc. (Rgveda 10.106.6)43 in this context. paralokinobhāvāt paralokābhāvaḥ. The Cārvākas point out to the mantra as a glaring case of The Cārvākas ridicule Vedic sacrifices. They describe the a nonsense utterance where not a single word is word in the Vedas as the creation of the hypocrites, the knave and the true sense of the term. Sāyana refers to similar other mantras Rākșasas. like amyak sā te rstirindra in his Introduction to the Rgveda44

They say : which have been rejected by the Cārvākas as meaningless

trayo vedasya kartāro ślokas. This is the reason for which Cārvāka Lokāyatikas

bhaņdadhūrtaniśācarāḥ. describe the Rgveda as a creation of hypocrites. It may be noted here that Sāyana explains this Vedic verse It may be noted here that Madhava describes the above in an easily intelligible manner. According to him, the verse has poems and also those which will be discussed below as the part been dedicated to the Aśvins.45 Yāska and Sāyaņa interprete the of poetical writings of Brhaspati himself.14 But it is highly adjectives jarbharī and turpharī most adequately. Yāska explains doubtful that Brhaspati at all composed these poems. There are the words as 'jarbharī bhartarāvityarthah, and turpharī tu references to Brhaspati's sūtras in different philosophical hantārau' (Nirukta), 13.5). Sāyaņa explains them as 'jarbhari works, but nowhere the authors ever refer to these poems of bhartārau ekatraivāvasthāpakau tathā turpharī tu tarphitārau Brhaspati. The poems were probably current in the society śatrūņām hantārau (Rgvedabhāșya, 10.106.6). through verbal transmission in the name of Brhaspati. There is an obscence ceremonial in the Aśvamedha section It has been already discussed that Jāvāli denounces the of the White Yajurveda.46 The Carvākas seize the opprtunity to

śrāddha ceremony as a meaningless wastage of money and criticise the Yajurveda as a creation of dhūrtas for this

materials. The other Indian materialists also declare in the same particular reason.

manner the performance of the śraddha ceremony for the dead The Vedas prescribe animal sacrifices. Different kinds of

as a futile excercise. The say : birds and beasts are sacrificed at the altar of deities in the Vedic sacrifices. Thus, the readers of the Suklayajurveda (chapter 24) mṛtānāmapi jantūnām find that different varieties of domestic and jungle birds, and śrāddham cet trptikāraņam other animals including the the porpoise, lions, the snakes, the nirvāņasya pradīpasya. frogs and peacocks and fowls were offered to gods and snehaḥ samvardhayeccikhām.42 goddesses in the Vedic animal sacrifice.

It means that if srāddha performed for a dead man can Now, the Crvakas think that these animals were sacrificed

give satisfaction to him though he is dead, in that case oil in order to legalise meat-eating by the Srotriyas in a covert

poured into a light which is extinguished will reburn. But this manner. Bacause, demons are fond of meat, the Cārvākas argue

is impossible. that surely the demons created the Yajurveda in their own

98 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 99

interest. The view of these materialists, is, however, not based Materialists have criticised the śrāddha ceremony as a on a sound logical foundation. Many of the animals mentioned futile activity since the age of the Rāmāyaņa. But śrāddha is a above like the lion and the porpoise are not consumed by solemn religious ceremony where the dead relatives are human beings and particularly the Śrotriyas. On the other hand, remembered with honour. It is a fact that nobody has perceived the Cārvākas themselves were the worst meat-eaters. It has the dead persons enjoying the religious offerings in Śrāddha in been said in a poem of the Cārvākas a human form, or in other forms in another world. But it must

bhojanam māmsarahitam be remembered that religion is religion. It rests on belief-belief

śayanam sundarīm vinā in the unseen. Everything in the world cannot be experienced with the help of perception. In many cases we have to depend pādacāreņa gamanam narakam kim ataḥparam.47 on supra-sensory powers of the seers which connot be dismissed as false. Apart from this debatable view, the Śrāddha Hemacandra describes Cārvākas as prakațanāstikas for the ceremony has another important aspect. The pinda offered to reason that they favour meat-eating openly. the dead is thrown to the water for the benifit of aquatic According to Madhava, Brhaspati gives several poems, creatures, or given to the cows. This is a great benificial service some of which are already quoted by us. We shall discuss the to the animal kingdom. remaining poems in chapter-VI of this book. In the poem viz svargasthitā yadā trptim gaccheyuḥ etc. in Mādhava renders a useful service to the academic circle by the cluster of eleven poems mentioned above, there is a quoting a cluster of eleven poems from the Lokāyata text of sarcastic remark about gift-making in honour of dead persons Brhaspati apart from some other poems the authorship of which during the śrāddha ceremony. But gift-making is always a great is not clearly mentioned by him, in the first chapter of his benificial act, which nobody should condemn or criticise. Of Sārvadarśanasamgraha.48 The eleven poems truly reflect the course, the recepient of the gift must be a worthy man. anti-religious views of the founder of the Lokāyata system. Sāyaņa : Sāyaņa discusses some important views of the : In the third poem, Indian materialists criticise animal Lokāyata school where the authority of many Vedic mantras sacrifices not out of compassion for animals, but out of hatred have been challenged by the materialists.49 for the priests. Animal sacrifice was not a part of the Vedic Udayanācārya : Uayanācārya, the famous Naiyāyika religion alone, but it was a regular religious feature of many gives some important views of the Lokāyata school in his other countries. In ancient Greece a goat (tragos) was sacrificed Nyāyakusumāñjali and Kiraņāvali. at the altar of gods which was a painful sight for many viewers. In the introduction to the Nyāyakusumāñjali, Udayana The word tragedy emerged in English literature from this 'sad' describes the concept God in different philosophical schools. affair. Animal sacrifice is not heartily accepted by many According to him, the Lokāyatikas consider God as religious worshippers in India. The Indian religon has passed lokavyavahārasiddha.50 The commentator Varadārāja explains through different phases of reform as a result of rethinking of the term 'lokavyavahārasiddha' adequately. According to him, religious preachers on old religious preachings, and now, no the Lokāyatikas do not believe in an invisible, eternal God who animal is sacrificed in Vedic or Puranic worships. The only is the paramount Lord of the universe. They opine that if there exception is noticed in the Tantric religion. is a God at all, he is either the king of the country or the image

ITY OF SAASKRIY 100 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN AST CHOOES SREPSANA of a deity.51 The king is the sole authority in the country. He is, a hand which is the upadana or a constitdel 18 however, a visible, mortal being. The Lokāyatikas believe only severed (in a battle) the body separated fron hand wil in the existence of visible objects and nothing invisible. remember the past experiences of the hand.53 The commentator Nārāyana Miśra also explains the term not so. lokavyavahārasiddha in a similar manner. He says : Now, the opponents of Udayana raise a new and strong “lokavyavahārasiddhaḥ=rājādiḥ pratyakșaḥ, caturbujādyu- point. They argue that the atoms which constitute the body petā pratimaiva vā pratyakșātiriktasya pramāņasyābhāvāt."52 remain in fact in the body. It is the consciousness which is

Udayana examines the "dehatman" theory of the inherently possessed by the atoms is inherited by the material

Cārvākas who do not believe in paraloka. They reject paraloka body. Udayana adequately replies to this point also. He says

in the following manner : that the consciousness of the atoms is not experienced by the senses like the form of the atoms. So, the argument bears no nānyaddrstam smarantyanyo logic. naikam bhutam apakramāt Udayanācārya explains the view expressed by vāsanasamkramo nāsti Praśastapāda on the dehātmavāda of the Cārvākas most na ca gatyantaram sthire (1.15) adequately in his Kiraņāvali. Praśastapāda does not state in

The cryptic but significant statement has been adequately categorical terms when he examines the dehātmavāda that he

explained by the commentators. The Cārvākaś do not believe in actually discusses a well-known Cārvāka standpoint on the

the existence of an immortal, transmigratory soul on the concept of the origin of caitanya.

ground that a newly born person never remembers the incidents Praśastapāda rejects the dehātman theory on the following

of his past life for the simple reason that a soul does not grounds :

transmigrate to the new body. Udayana argues that the human na śarīrasya caitanyam body is changing all the time. The body of a little child does ghațādivad bhūtakāryatvān, 051813 not linger after a certain period. The little boy, the young lad mrțe ca sambhavāt.54 and the old man do not possess a single body. Therefore, the thing which has been experienced by a child should not be Udayana explains the above view most appropriately. He says that the body is not the locus or storehouse of remembered by him when he grows young or old due to the changing character of the body. But in reality it is not so. consciousness. If consciousness is recognised as an inherent

Therefore, the theory that body generates consciousness is attribute of the body, in that case, it should remain even in a dead body like the form of the body which remains inherently wrong. present in it even after death till it is totally disintegrated. All Udayana says that some materialist thinkers may argue that the upādāna or the constituents of an object themselves material objects derive their material attributes from their basic

transmit their attributes to the effect. In that case, in spite of the elements. These attributes remain present in the effect of the

everchanging character of the body, the body may derive elements till the end. It is also worthnoting in this context that consciousness is consciousness or memory from its cause. The philosopher argues that if this view is accepted as true, in that case, when conspicuously absent from the material elements, and therefore, it is difficult to assume that it is generated by matter in the

102 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ASTĪKA SCHOOLS 103

body.55 Praśastapāda examines the soul theory of later Cārvākas in a critical manner. body remains alive; but after the death of a person, it is totally

Praśastapāda says that even the indriyas are not the soul as destroyed. They argue that if the soul had lingered even beyond

it is thought to be by a section of materialists. Sadānandayati death, in that case it would have remembered all the activities

discusses this view of later materialists in his Advaitabrahma- of the past life. It has been said in an earlier context that the

siddhi. Bauddhas and the Jainas have rejected this view.

Praśastapāda rejects the view on practical grounds. He The Carvakas argue that a dead body which is burnt down

says that (for example) if the eyes become blind a man cannot come back in any form to the world. They ask the

remembers his past experience. Thus, the soul has its .question :

independent identity from the senses. He suggests that the soul bhasmībhūtasya śāntasya is the ultimate source of all experience and not the senses. punarāgamanam kutaḥ? 59 The soul is also not a synonym of the mind. According to Praśastapāda and Udayana the mind differs from other indriyas Like other opponents of the view, Jayantabhatta also offers

only in name.56 an adequate reply to the Cārvākas.

The body-soul theory has been discarded even in the Jayanta says that the soul is not like other material objects

Kārikāvali of Viśvanātha where it has been said- “śarīrasya na (such as a jar) which can be destroyed. The material objects

caitanyam, mṛte tu vyabhicārataḥ."57 which have different parts are destroyed. For example, when a

The theory was propounded by the materialists, and the cloth is torn into pieces, the fibres go out of it and the cloth is

Naiyāyikas have firmly challenged the theory. reduced to small invisible particles. Then the cloth is said to be destroyed. The gradual destruction and disappearance of the

Praśastapāda's Conclusion : cloth or a jar is noticed by all. But the soul is not a visible

Praśastapāda shows that 'atman' or the soul has its own object the destruction of which can be declared. Jayantabhatta

separate and independent existence. He describes the 'ātman' states in categorical terms that the soul is not like the body

as one who controls the body. He also describes it in different which is burnt down or a lump of flesh which is torn into pieces

ways as the controller of the mind like the body. His views are by birds. Nobody has ever seen the destruction of the soul. The

based on the traditional concept of the 'atman' found in soul is ever-existing. It is a permanent being.60

orthodox philosophical systems.58 Regarding the transmigration of the soul, which is refuted by the Cārvākas, it has been said by Jayanta that transmigration

Jayantabhatța refutes Cārvāka views : is not a popular phenomenon in the case of the ätman. The soul

Jayantabhatta, the author of the Nyāyamañjarī presents is all-pervasive. Therefore, it exists in every body at all times

some important philosophical views of the Cārvāka school and equally. This is the reason for which even when a man goes to

refutes them with the help of adequate logic. Vārānasī, he feels desires for worldly or unworldly things and

It has been discussed above that the Cārvākas believe in remembers past incidents as before.61

the dehātmavāda. Jayantabhațța says that dehātmavāda was As regards the bhūtacaitanyavāda of the Cārvākas, Jayanta

propagated by the Suśikșita (Educated) Cārvākas. According to says that the bhūtacaitanya theory is without any logical

these educated materialists, the so-called soul remains till the foundation. The Cārvākas argue that caitanya or consciousness is inherently related to the body. When a person is fed with

104 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 105

healthgiving food, it positively works upon his consciouseness. is that he quotes a few sutras of Brhaspati in his work, and Thus, when a boy is given Brähmī ghee and such other presents some new ideas of the materialists on 'soul'. The substantial foods, he becomes intelligent and sharp. Again, sūtras quoted by Sadānanda from the Lokāyata literature are- during the rainy season, worms grow up quickly in a pot of curd from inanimate curd itself. All this is suggestive of the fact that (i) caitanyaviśiştaḥ kāyah purușaḥ,

consciusness is an attribute of the body (and not of the soul).62 (ii) kāma evaikaḥ purușārthah, and

To this point, Jayanta replies that caitanya is related to the (iii) maraņam evāpavargaḥ. 65

knowing of an object. It is with the help of caitanya, a person The first sūtra appears in the works of Sankarācārya and perceives or knows something. It has nothing to do with Brāhmī Guņaratna also. But unlike Sadānanda these two authors do not ghee or such other substantial food. The consciousness of the mention the authorship of the sūtra. All the three sūtras quoted self is present everywhere. Sometimes, it generates worms and above have been adequately discussed in previous contexts. The other living organs in curd or other things when they are opponents of the Indian materialists have clearly discussed the polluted due to different factors. * 63 view of the Lokāyata school that there is no immortal soul to Jayantabhatta firmly adheres to the age-old view that the survive after death. But none else has referred to the specific soul is eternal, all-pervasive and conscious. It is the sūtra of Brhaspati describing death as the salvation of man. consciousness of the soul which remains in the body till one's The materialist philosohers recognise only four elements death. Like the Bauddha and Jaina philosophers Jayantabhatta and not 'ākāśa', and pratyakșa is the only pramāņa according to also says that a baby expressess its joy and sorrow, and desires their philosophy. Sadnanda says that they do not believe in to suck its mother without being tutored by anybody. His God or paraloka. We are already conversant with these views of

behaviour in the present case is guided by the recollection of his the Indian materialists. According to Sadānanda these

similar behaviour in pervious births. Jayanta explains his point materialists describe that childhood, youth, old age etc, and the

more clearly in the following sentence : caste-division and religious ceremonies like cūdākaraņa are purely related to the body, and have no connection whatsoever "sarāgā eva jantavo jāyante na khalu loke with the soul. Even when an elderly person or a Brāhmana kaścana tādṛśo drāśyate prāņī yo jāto blesses a junior person as 'śatam jīva' it refers to the body.66 vītarāgaśca. sa eșa sarāgo jāyamānaḥ, Now, a question may be raised as follows: "If pūrvopacitam rāgādivāsanām anusaratīti consciousness is generated by matter, why does then an earthen siddho janmāntarasambandhaḥ.64 pot not behave as an animate being?" To this the Lokāyatikas

The materialist philosophy in the Advaitabrahmasiddhi : reply that an earthen pot contains only a single element, that is, earth, while an animate being contains all the four elements Sadānandayati discusses many important views of the together.67 Lokāyata school in his Advaitabrahmasiddhi. An important Sadānanda describes the bhūtacaitanya theory of contribution of Sadãnanda to the study of the Lokāyata system materialists with the help of a new similie in stead of the old similie of wine. He says that according the Lokāyata * Worms grow out of the eggs laid by certain insects in curd. The phenomeon has no relation with the Carvaka theory. philosophy the elements combined together generate consciousness like betel nut, leaf and lime pasted together

106 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 107

producing the red colour.68 Sadānanda quotes several poems vedasya prajñāpauruahīnān prati jīvikāmātravișayatvāt from unnamed Lokāyata sources to present the above views of taduktam : the Lokāyata School. agnihotrañca pītañca The author of the Advaitabrahmasiddhi gives his readers tripuņdram bhasmadhāraņam some additional knowledge of the concept of 'soul' of the later prajñāpaurșahīnānām materialists. Most philosophers have discussed that the jīvo jalpati jīvikām.73 materialists stick to the theory of Brhaspati viz. caitanyaviśiştaḥ kāyah purușah, that is, the conscious body is Sadānanda's reply to the materialists : the soul. But this theory could not satisfy the later Lokāyata Sadānanda rejects the body-soul theory of the materialists. thinkers who were compelled to review the old theory for many He firmly adheres to the Vedantic theory of soul. He says that distinct reasons. There were three distinct schools of thinkers there is an eternal soul. In this world we notice many who have given some new ideas about the essential character of irregularities and differences. Sometimes, even a pair of twins the soul. born from the same parents possess different physical structures (i) The members of the first school observed that and different behaviours. The Lokāyatikas opine that such Brhaspati's theory was not applicable to a dead body. which differences are caused by Nature. But Sadānanda says that totally loses consciousness, in spite of the material combination Nature (Svabhava) is beyond our perception which is the only remaining the same. They have described the senses which form of valid knowledge according to the Lokāyatikas. remain active till the death of a person as the soul Therefore, the svabhäva theory is untenable in this case. Hence, (maraņaparyantam yāvantīndriyāņi tișthanti tānyevātmā).69 one must recognise an eternal soul, the active agent who is (ii) The second school opines that sometimes even when responsible for creating such differences between the children the indriyas do not function, the mind remains active. of the same parents.74 Therefore, the mind is 'atman.'70 He further says that the existence of a distinct 'I' the soul can be easily ascertained from such statements regularly used (iii) According to the thinkers of the third school, the by us like 'mama dehaḥ' (my body), 'mama manaḥ' (my mind) yogins withdraw the mind from all objects in the state of trance; but prana or the vital wind functions regularly in this state also. and 'mama prāņaḥ' (my life).75 Therefore, prāna itself is the soul.71 The Carvakas have identified the conscious body with the soul. They have said that 'I am fat' 'I am lean', 'I am young The members of these three philosophical schools realised and 'I am old' and such other expressions refer to the body and that the soul is a subtle object and certainly subtler than the never to an independent Vedantic soul. Gunaratna has described body. such expessions of the Lokāyatikas as secondary or mere Sadānanda describes the gross hedonism of Lokāyata imposition of the body on the soul which can exist materialists most appropriately. He says that the Lokāyatikas independently. Sadānanda clearly distinguishes between 'I' live a sensuous life, and abhor all worldly pains. Sadānanda (aham) and 'my' (mama) in his discussion in order to justify the refers to the anti-Vedic and anti-religious views of Cārvākas in Vedantic concept of the soul. He says that the expressions like the following passage of his Advaitabrahmasiddhi : 'my body', 'my senses', 'my mind', and 'my life' are indicative

108 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 109

of the existence of an independent, eternal, conscious soul apart 5. Ye hi dehadharmā rūpādayaḥ yāvaddehe bhavati from the body or mind, sense etc.76 na hi natah śiksitaḥ san Sadānanda collects the following poems from some svaskandham adhirokşati, Ibid pp. 769-768. Cārvāka literature : 6. yathāyaskānto maņih svayam pravrttirahitopyasaḥ pramāņamekam pratyakșam pravartako bhavati ..... evam pravrttirahitopīśvaraḥ tattvam bhūtacatustayam ..... pravartayed ityupapannam, Ibid, p. 419. mokșaśca maraņānnānyaḥ 7. lokāyatikapakșe tu kāmārthau purușārthakau tattvam bhūtacatuștayam na hi khalvīśvaraḥ kartā prthivyāpastahā tejo paralokakathā vṛthā vāyurityeva nāparam, deham vināsti cedātmā Kārikā 1. kumbhavad drśyatām puraḥ 8. pratyaksagamyamevāsti hrasvo dīrgho yuvā bāla nāstyadrstam adrstataḥ 'iti dehobhidrśyate Kārikā 2 asti jātaḥ pariņato 9. vṛddhaḥ ksīņo jaro mrtaḥ.77 kvāpi drstam adrstam cet adṛstam brūvate katham nityādrştam katham sat syāt śaśaśṛgādibhiḥ samam, Kārikā 3.

References : 10. svargānubhūtir mrstātir dyaştavarșavadhūgamaḥ 1. Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, pp. 43-44. sūkşmavastrasugandhasrak 2. Ibid, P. 43. candanādinișevaņam,

Ibid, p. 766. Kārikā 9. 3. 11. śikhinaścitrayet ko vā 4. (i) ata eva pratyakșe dehe sati darśanād asati kokilān kaḥ prakūjayet uev rādarśanād dehasyaiva caitanyamapite nLokāyatikāḥ pratipannāh, svabhāvavyatirekeņa vidyate nātra kāraņam Brahmasūtraśāmkarabhāșya, p. 418. Kārikā 5. (ii) dehamāțrātmavādino Lokāyatā .... 12. Kārikā 6. a samastavyastesu bāhyesu prthīvyādișvadrsțamapi I nocaitanyam sarīrākārapariņateșu bhūteșu syād 13. jadamūkavikārāsu

or (naitiotebyaścaitanyam madaśaktivadvijñānam caitanyam yatra drśyate

a: noicaitanyaviśistah kāyah purușa iti cāhuḥ, tāmbūlapūgacūrņāni

Ibid, ppi 765-766. yogādrāga īvotthitam, Kārikā 7.

110 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHY IN ĀSTĪKA SCHOOLS 111

14. ihalokāt paro nānyaḥ 26. na hi mrgāḥ santīti śālayo nopyante

svargosti narako navā na his bhikukāh santīti sthālyo nādhiśrīyante śivalokādayo mūdhaiḥ yadi sa purușo mūrkho bhavet, Ibid. p. 2.

kalpyantetaiḥ pratārakaiḥ, 27. Ibid, p. 2. Kārikā 8. 28. Ibid, p. 5. 15. Kārikā 14. 29. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 453; Naișadhacarita, 17.> 16. mokșastu maraņam tatra 30. Sarvadaraśanasamgraha, p. 2-3. prāņavāyunivartanam, 31. na svargo nāparvargo vā naivātmā pāralaukikah Kārikā 10. Ibid, p. 5. 17. Kārikā 11. 32. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 453. 18. Kārikā 14. 33. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p.5 (śloka 2). 19. Kārikā 15. 34. Ibid, p. 2.

20. Kārikā 12. 35. Ibid, p. 3.

21. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 1. 36. Ibid, p. 3.

22. nītikāmaśāstrānusaraņārthakāmāveva 37. Ibid, p. 4.

purușārthau manyamānā ........ evānūbhūyante 38. agnirusņo jalam śītam samasparśo tathānilaḥ

Ibid, p. 1. kenedam citritam tasmāt svabhāvāttadvyasthitiḥ,

23. Ibid, pp. 1-2. Ibid, p. 5. 39. Ibid, p. 5. 24. tyājyam sukham 40. Ibid, p. 5. vişayasamgamajanma pumsām duhkhopaşrştam iti 41. Ibid, p. 5.

mūrkhavicāraņaișā 42. Ibid, p. 5 (śloka 4).

vrīhīn jihāsati 43. Ibid, p. 5. sitottamataņdu lādhyān 44. vide Rgvedabhāșyabhūmikā, Part I, p. 4. ko nāma bhos 45. vide Sāyaņa on Rgveda 10.106, 6. tușakaņopahitān hitārthī, 46. Śuklayajurveda, 23.20. Ibid, p. 2. 47. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 100. 25. agnihotram trayo vedāstridaņdam 48. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 5. bhasmaguņthanam buddhipauruşahīnānām 49. Vide Introduction to Rgveda, part I, p. 4.

jīviķeți Brhaspatiḥ 50. Nyāyakusumānjali 1.7.

Ibid, p. 5. 51. Varadārāja on Ibid. 1.7.

112 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

52. Vide Nārayana Miśra's commentary on Ibid, 1.7. 53. Nyāyakusumāñjali, p. 75. CHAPTER - VI

53. Kiraņavali, p. 86. LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER 55. Ibid, p. 86. LITERARY WORKS 56. Ibid, p. 86. 57. Bhāșāpariccheda, 1.48. 58. Kiraņāvali p. 87. 59. Nyāyamañjarī, part, II, p. 39. Anti-religious views of nāstikas in the Vișņupurāņa : 60. Ibid, p. 46. The Vișnupurāņa casually refers to the anti-religious 61. Ibid, p. 40. views propagated by the nāstika Māyāmoha who exerted a 62. Ibid, p. 13. strong influence on demons. It has been said in this Purãna that 63. Ibid, p. 13. one Māyāmoha, a nāstika preacher propagated a doctrine 64. Ibid, p. 41-42. among the demons which was completely opposed to the Vedic 65. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 99. religion. Dressed in a red garment, this preacher told the

54. Ibid, p. 99. demons in a sweet language :

55. ghatasya kevalapārthivatvāt jñanaśūnyatvepi "O demons, if you hanker for heaven or salvation, you bhūtsamudāymātrakatvāccarīrasya must avoid the religion of killing animals in the name of jñānàvattvasambhavāt, Ibid, p. 99. perfoming sacrifices. The entire universe is nothing but 68. cūrņaparņādisamudāye tāmbule rāgotpattivat, consciousness ... . The world is without any substance. It is Ibid, p. 99. merely an illusion. It is full of attachment and other passions 69. Ibid, p. 101: which throw us into a pool of pains."

56. Ibid, p. 101. The description of Mayamoha found in the Vișnupurana

57. Ibid, p. 101. 3.18.2 gives the reader an idea that the Purāna refers to

58. Ibid, p. 100. Digambara preachers here. But Digambaras never wear a red dress and always remain naked. Moreover, the philosophy of 73. Ibid, p. 101. The reading of the relevent poem is new The word 'pītañca is probably a later inlerpolation. Māyāmoha appears to scholars as akin to the philosophy of the vijñānavāda school of the Buddhists. However, some views of 74 Ibid, p. 102. Māyamoha immediately lead the readers to the world of 75. Ibid, p. 103. Cārvākas. 76. Ibid, p. 99. Māyāmoha condemns animal sacrifices as : 77. Ibid, p. 99. naitad yuktisaham vākyam himsā dharmāya neșyate He refers to a passage of the Manusamhitā viz. ā

114 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 115

yajñārtham paśavah srsțās śamyādi yadi cet kāștham tasmād yajñe vadhovadhaḥ in the present context. tadvaram patrabhuk paśuḥ nihatasya paśor yajñe He rejects the age-old view of the Vedic preachers that svargaprāptiryadīsyate articles burnt down in a yajña yield meritorious results like svapitā yajamānena heaven. He refuses to believe in such an unscientific idea. kinnu kasmānna hanyate Māyāmoha quotes a poem from the Cārvāka literature. The trptaye jāyate pumso poem viz. bhuktam anyena cittataḥ

nihatasya paśor yajñe dadyācchrāddham śraddhayānnam

svargaprāptiryadīșyate na vaheyuḥ pravāsinaḥ. (3.18.24-27)

svapitā yajamānena There is some similarity between these verses and a few kinnu kasmānna hanyate. poems quoted by Mādhava in his Sarvadarśanasamgraha. In

appears in Madhava's Sarvadarśanasamgraha and the first poem, it has been said that by killing animals in a Krsnamiśra's Prabodhacandrodaya. also. In this poem, sacrifice no extraordinary result is achieved. It is a foolish idea Cārvaka argues that if an animal killed in an animal sacrifice that the ghee burnt down in a sacrifice yields any result. The (as is the Vedic belief) reaches heaven, the sacrificer can kill second poem is very interesting. It says that Lord Indra enjoys his own father in a sacrifice in order to assure a berth for him the burnt down śamī wood in sacrifice. Indra is the greatest of in heaven. gods. If he meets this plight even goats and cows which eat Māyāmoha also makes a sarcastic remark about the green leaves are in a more covetable position than Indra. śraddha ceremony. He says that if the meal enjoyed by a Brähmaņa on behalf of a dead person, gives the dead man Śrīharșa's Naișadhacarita and the Cārvāka philosophy : satisfaction in the other world in that case it is useless to carry Poet Śrīharsa gives an idea of the hedonistic and anarchist any food while going abroad, because another person can views of later Cārvākas in his Naișadhacarita (Canto 17). (remaining at home) satisfy the hunger of the traveller, from a The materialists in the age of Śriharsa gave themselves distant land.3 The Visnupurāna also gives a few poems describing the upto laxity. They refused to believe in the words of religious preachers and led a licentious life. In the epic of Śrīharsa, the Cārvāka philosophy. In this Purāņa, Māyāmoha utters the hedonists have induced the people to enjoy sex-life fully. They following verses condemning the established religious order : twist the meaning of the Paninian rule apavarge trtīyā (2.3.6)

naitadyuktisaham vākyam and say that except the third sex (the eunuch) all other people

himsā dharmāya nesyate should remain engaged in sex-life.5

havimşyanaladaghāni The materialists discourage all kinds of religious phalāyetyarbhakoditam practices. According to them, fasting as a religious cause and yajñairanekairdevatvam taking a holy bath in sacred places (like Prayāga) are without avāpyendreņa bhujyate any benifit for the followers of religion.6

116 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 117

They advocate the best known philosophical view of The sūtra 'tadatyantavimoksopavargaḥ' is a cryptic but Brhaspati that there is no soul apart from the body .? They argue highly significant sūtra. Jayantabhatta explains it as follows : that when a man dies and his body is burnt down in the pyre navānām ātmaguņānāmn buddhisukhaduḥkhecchādveșa- nothing is left out. Therefore, no body should fear for prayatnadharmā dharmasamskārāņām nirmūlocchedo performing immoral acts.8 The Cārvākas scoff at the śrāddha ceremony performed in pavargah"."!

honour of the deceased persons. They ridicule the idea that the It is learnt from the writings of Jayantabhatta that the

first meal in the Srāddha ceremony enjoyed by a Brāhmaņa Vedantists compare such a state of a person to a piece of dull gives satisfaction to the departed soul. They laugh at, this and lifeless stone. They do not desire such salvation.

absurd idea of a Śrāddha ceremony producing such an The Vedantists state : unbelievable result as : ko hi nāma śilākalpam apagatasakalasukhasamvedana-

mṛtaḥ smarati janmāni sampadam ātmānam upapapādayitum yateta ......... mṛte karmaphalormayaḥ apavargeņa samsāra eva varam.12

anyair bhuktair mrte trptir Gunaratna also discusses the view of the orthodox ityalam dhūrtavārtayā. (17.53) philosophers who reject such a salvation.13 In the Naisadhacarita the Indian materialists describe Cārvāka condemns Gotama for propagating such a view

religion as a means of livelihood of a section of people who are as a perfect cow (go-tama)14 in the Naișadhacarita.

deovid of any intellect and power. They condemn the Śmrti Śrīharșa lays more emphasis on the Cārvāka views on

texts, the Purāņas, the Mīmāmsa philosophy, the Nyāya views religion than on other aspects of the materialist philosophy. and the Vedānta Sāstra. According to the materialists the According to Śrīharșa, the materialists adore the theory "kāma Manusamhitā prescribes various types of fine for offenders evaikaḥ purușārthaḥ."15

only in order to enrich the royal coffer.9 The Mīmāmsā śāstra Cārvāka advises the people not to take bath in the cold

directs the king to tie many elephants in the name of waters of the Ganga in the name of earning punya because, it

performing sacrifice. But when the sacrifice is over, the is a painful job for the religious devotees',16 particularly in the

Brāhmaņas take away the elephants. This is merely a covert wintry season.

means of collecting high priced elephants by priests.10 In the Naișadhacarita, the materialists denounce the Vedic

The Nyāyāsūtra of Gotama describes salvation in his sūtra sacrifices and other religious activities in the usual manner.

viz "tadatyantavimokso'pavargaḥ" (1.1.22). It means that a The Vedic texts inspire the people to perform the person aspiring for salvation must remain completely free from Jyotistoma sacrifice in the following manner : the senses of pleasure and pain. Cārvākas do not desire such a 'Jyotiştomena svargakāmo yajeta' mukti or apavarga. According to the materialists this statement has no It may be noted here that like the Cārvākas, the Kāpālikas authority. It is a false statement like "a rock floats in the also do not aspire for such a state of life in the name of seeking water."7 They criticise the religious activities like the salvation. perfoming of the Agnihotra sacrifice and the reading ofthe

118 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 119

Vedas with a religious motive as the means of earning livelihood of a section of people.18 Readers are already advices to Manu which is impossible for a fish.24 The Purānas

acquainted with this view in Mādhava's Sarvadarśanasamgraha. and other Sāstras declare that if a devotee worships Hari and

In the Naișadhacarita there is an interesting discussion on Hara with single-minded devotion, he attains liberation. If it is

the body-soul theory of the materialists. The materialists argue so, Cārvāka asks: "Why do the consorts of Visņu and Śiva

that the body is another name of the 'soul'. It is destroyed in remain undelivered till now in spite of their steadfast devotion

the pyre. Together with this body, all the sins committed by it to their husbands?25 Cārvāka scoffs at the Manusmrtī also.26

are also burnt down. Now, if it is said that the 'soul' survives Cārvāka advocates a hedonistic life for all people. He says

after death and experiences the evil effects of the sins 'kurudhvam kāmadevājñām brahamādyaira-pyalanghitam.27

committed by the previous body, in that case, a new problem Śriharsa replies : arises. The non-sinner receives the punishment for others' crimes, which is not acceptable to anybody. It is for such Śriharșa tries to reply adequately to all the points raised

reasons, the Cārvākas do not recognise a permanent 'soul' by Cārvāka against religion. The materialist philosopher

apart from the body.19 delivers a long tirade against all orthodox systems of

There were many Brāhmaņas in the society in Śrīharșa's philosophy. Many of the views expressed by Cārvāka were

time who claimed their purity. The materialists rightly probably the result of Sriharsa's own deduction from the basic

challenge their purity. They say that it is an impossible task to views of Cārvāka. He shows that the materialist philosopher

maintain purity through generations. Nobody can claim that his does not spare Vedic seers Vyāsa, Manu, Gotama and other

family has never been contaminated in the past.20 opponents of the Lokāyata system. Most of these views are not

Cārvāka tells the people that it is the mischievous found in other sources where materialism has been discussed.

propaganda of the notorious people that the dead man Śrīharșa makes a serious attempt to reject many of the

remembers his relatives; the dead person experiences the atheistic views of the Cārvāka school, but his arguments are

effects of his past action and then when Brähmanas are fed, the very often questionable. Śrīharșa argues in the traditional

dead person feels satisfied in the other world. In fact, there is manner that many persons remain childless in spite of a normal

no soul or no paraloka.21 Therefore, the religious preachers physical intercouse with their spouse. They regularly complain

merely play a trick on innocent followers to earn money that they did not perform the religious activities in the past life

through a cunning method. which are favourable for having a son in the present life.28 Such

The materialist philosopher Cārvāka points out to the utterances are practically based upon beliefs, without having

common fact that there are divergent and conflicting opinions any scientific foundation. However, the Indian tradition largely

in the Vedas and Dharmaśāstras or other śāstras, and the believes in such ideas of religious thinkers.

different philosophical systems which stand on the way of Regarding 'paraloka', he says that many persons are

materialist teachings. He condemns Vyāsa for his illegal sex prematurely taken away by Yama's messengers to the abode of

relationship with his own relatives.23 He refers to the Purāņas death, and then returned to their relatives after sometime. These

where manyw absurd matters are narrated. Thus, in the persons have narrated the personal experiences of Yamaloka to

Matsyapurana, a fish is described as giving some important the people. Hence, there is very little doubt about the existence of paraloka.29

120 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 121

Again, many people in different parts of India were The materialist philosophy in the Prabodhacandrodaya : reportedly appoached by the 'departed souls' to perform the The Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsnamiśra is an important śraddha ceremony in Gayatīrtha for their deliverance from the source for the study of the Lokāyata-cārvāka philosophy of a state of "moving spirits".30 Śrīharșa says that this is an later period. Its author presents all the important views of the adequate proof of the existence of paraloka and the supreme school together in the third Act. The author says : need of the śrāddha ceremony for the deceased. sarvathā lokāyatameva śāstram yatra pratyakșam But these arguments are flimsy. The Cārvākas do not eva pramāņam, prhivyāpatejovāyuriti tattvāni believe in 'anumāna' for distinct reasons. The report of persons arthakāmau purușārthau bhūtānyeva cetayante returning from Yama's house and the the dead man imploring nāsti paralokaḥ mrtyurevāpavargaḥ.32 a relative to perform śrāddha for his deliverance appear to their These views have been adequately discussed in previous hearers as amusing stories which cannot be relied upon. The chapters of the present work. connection established between childlessness and the error in 1. The statement 'sarvathā lokāyatameva śāstram' in the the past life can be similarly dismissed. In India, people talk of above: drama is significant. Kauțilya in his Arthaśāstra fate and the results of past action most frequently. But these describes Sāmkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata as the ānvīkșikī vidyā. cannot be treated as strong postulates for establishing the According to him, the Lokāyata śāstra renders a great service existence of 'paraloka'. to the people. The Lokāyata is related to the practical life of the In India, as the commentator Nārayaņa describes, many people. It teaches people how to live a practical life with

householders blame themselves for not performing religious perfect ease and comfort without being guided by emotions and

activities in the past life for which they remain childless in the religious dogmas.

present life.31 Childlessness may be the effect of the lack of 2. In the age of Krsnamiśra (1 1 th century), the materialists

fertillity or caused by impotency also. But Indians generally learnt to recoginse artha (material wealth) and kāma (enjoyment) as the two goals of the human life. Material wealth think otherwise. is essentially necessary as a means of enjoying the life to its The Cārvākas possess a scientific outlook in all matters. full. Therefore, Brhaspati's theory viz. "kāma evaikaḥ But we cannot support some of the excesses of the Cārvāka purusārthaḥ" was revised by the later Cārvākas. school. The Cārvākas have advocated a hedonistic life for all 3. Purandara, who flourished a few centuries before people. But hedonism sometimes my lead to social anarchy and Krsnamiśra, declared 'anumāna' as another pramāņa for insecurity of women also. Srīharșa does not discuss the most practical reasons. But the author of the Prabodhacandrodaya important sūtras of Brhaspati except "kāma evaikaḥ was not aware of the new standpoint of the Cārvākas. It is quite purusārthah'. He gives his readers an approiate idea of the life clear to the readers that the Cārvāka theory of knowledge viz.

and preachings of the 'dusta' Crvakas who forgot totally the pratyaksam eva pramānam as found in the Prabodhacandrodaya

theories of their great master and misused his views on "kāma is an amended form of the Bārhaspatya sūtra already known to

evaikab puruşarthah". These Lokāyatikas were interested in them.

rebuking the religious ideas. They blame the priestly class 4. The dramatist slightly amends the sūtra viz.

alone; but not the real exploiters of the society. "maraņamevapavargaḥ" given by Brhaspati as "mrtyur evāpavargah" in his allegorical play.

122 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKAYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 123

5. The view vix. "bhūtānyeva cetayante" is a new form of In the Naişadhacarita, Cārvāka rebukes the religious the Bārhaspatya sūtra viz. "tebhyaścaitanyam". 6. Krsņamiśra recasts the Bārhaspatya sūtra (17) viz. people for cheating the rich men. But Cārvāka has never

"paralokinobhāvāt" paralokābhāvaḥ as 'nāsti paralokaḥ'. uttered a word against the unscrupulous behaviour of the rich men. Readers will notice a new dimension of the Lokāyata In the Prabodhacandrodya, the author has proved that the philosophy in the Prabodhacandrodaya. In this drama, Indian materialists were practical people. They advised people Mahāmoha questions the validity of the caste-division in the not to refrain from enjoying happiness because it remains following way : asscoiated with pains. There is no golden road to happiness. It

"tulyatve vapuşām mukhādyavayavaīḥ is very often fraught with dangers and difficulties. But

varņakramaḥ kīdṛśaḥ".33 everybody should enjoy a happy life at all costs. They argue that if the finest kind of paddy seeds remain mixed with husks The 'wicked' Mahamoha plays the role of a progressive and broken grain, no sane person will ever throw the basket to thinker in this verse where he asks the reason of the caste- the street.36 division maintained by the Indian society. While a Brāhmaņa, Like other writers on Lokāyata philosophy Krşņamiśra a Kşatriya and a Šūdra look alike, it is difficult to imagine a also describes that the materialists scoff at all religious caste distinction among them from external physical signs. A activities. They challenge the utility of the Vedic sacrifices in similar question has been raised by the grammarians also about the following manner: castes. They find it extremely difficult to determine the caste of If a performer of a Vedic sacrifice reaches heaven after his a person from physical structure.34 Mahāmoha's revolt against death, a burnt down tree also can bear fruits in a similar casteism is certainly admirable. The caste-system was an manner.37 But this is impossible. The materialists describe the instrument in the hands of a section of people for exploiting religious vows and austerities as false and futile exercises.38 and torturing the downtrodden class of the society. In the Prabodhacandrodaya, Cārvāka ridicules the Mahāmoha, however, plays the role of an anarchist when śrāddha ceremony performed for the dead person in the he propagates the theory of enjoying anybody's woman and following poem : wealth without any regard for immorality.35 mṛtānām api jantūnām Women are not born for the physical enjoyment of men. śrāddham cet trptikāraņam They are born with equal rights and privileges of which they nirvāņasya pradīpasya have been deprived over centuries. The emancipation of women snehaḥ samvardhyecikhām.39 is a primary concern of every progressive society. But the Cārvākas have propagated an anti-women philosophy. Had the [ If the śrāddha ceremony performed for a dead man gives

Cārvākas advocated the theory of an equal distribution of satisfaction to the dead, in that case even the oil poured on a

wealth among all members of the society, it was appreciable. light extinguished already will surely help it to reburn].

But they have preached an anarchical theory instead of fighting He denounces animal sacrifices in another poem : for a society free from rich and poor. In fact the Lokayatas had nihatasya paśor yajñe no idea of richmen's exploitations of the poor. svargaprāptir yadīsyate

124 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 125

svapitā yajamānena which we never perceive. The ultimate goal of life is material kinnu kasmānnahanyate.40 enjoyment. The concepts of virtue and vice are unreal.43 This verse appears in the Vișņupurāņa and Cārvāka, the staunch follower of Brhaspati also appears Sarvadarśanasamgraha also. In fact Krsņamiśra does not on the stage in this play. He recognises pratyaksa as the only present any new idea regarding Lokāyata philosophy except for pramāņa, and questions the Buddhist monk as "kim anumānam Mahāmoha's hatred for caste-system. api te pramānam?"44 This shows that Ānandarāyamakhin had Cārvāka in Krsņamiśra's drama criticises the painful no idea of the additional knowledege furnished by Kamalaśīla religious vows like parāka and sāntapana, and tells his student regarding laukika anumāna accepted by Puranadara and other that the religious people have misguided their honest followers later Cārvākas as a second valid means of knowledge. by advising them to observe these vows which do not yield any Cittaśarman declares that the aim of the Lokāyatikas is to eat, meritorious result at all.40 Cārvāka describes Vedas a drink and enjoy sex-life without any discrimination of time, dhūrtapralāpāstrayī.41 It reminds the readers of a poem written by Brhaspati (?) viz place and the legal right of possession.45 The entire description in the present context is perfectly applicable to the anarchist trayo vedasya kartāro section of Cārvākas who became a menace to the society at bhaņdadhūrtaniśācarāḥ least from the 11th century onwards when Krsnamiśra wrote his found in Mādhava's Sarvadarśanasamgraha. historic drama the Prabodhacandrodaya.

Lokāyatikasiddhānta in the Vidyāpariņaya : Lokāyata darśana in Nīlakaņțha's Commentary : Lokāyatikasiddhānta is a dramatic character representing Nīlakaņtha discusses some important views of the the group of heretics (Pāsanda) together with the Bauddha and Lokāyata school in his commentary on the Mahābhārata. the Digambara Jaina monk in the Vidyāpariņaya of These views have been already examined by us in previous Ānandarāyamakhin, written in the 18th century. chapters. Nīlakantha's discussion deserves the attention of The Lokāyatikasiddhānta or the Lokāyata in this. drama scholars for the originality of his approach to them. The complains that the foolish people are not supporting his Mahābhārata presents the theory of non-existence of a doctrine though it teaches them to live a comfortable life.42 He permanent soul and also the theory that perception alone is the soon disappears from the stage, but his views are adequately valid means of knowledge propagated by the philosophers of explained by Cittaśarman to the king. But he also does not the Lokāyata school in a few ślokas (218.27-30) of the present any new idea apart from what has been discussed Śāntiparvan. earlier by us about the Lokayata philosophy. While explaining these ślokas, Nīlakantha says that the He says that according to the philosophy of the Lokāyatikas do not believe in the existence of a soul described Lokāyatikas, the human body is a cumulative product of the by many other philosophers as a permanent entity. According four elements, which generate consciousness in the body like to these materialists, a live body derives its consciousness from the red colour produced by betel nut, leaves and lime chewed the material elements which compose the body (and not from together, Conscious bodies are souls. Perception is the only valid form of knowledge. There is nothing in the universe a soul). In this context they refer to the similie of wine already discussed by us for the emergence of consciousness. They also

126 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 127

present another striking similie of a pair of woods (arani). They his readers some very important information on the Lokāyata

opine that when two pieces of wood are rubbed against each. philosophy.

other, they generate fire, and in a similar manner inanimate He presents some new data on the Lokayata philosophy in

matter also generates consciousness.46 his commentary. Gangādhara describes the Lokāyatikas like

Now, when consciousness arises in this manner, it acts as Pāņini, Patañjali, and Guņaratna as nāstikas. The views the mover of the senses in the body, like a magnet which goads discussed by the learned commentator have rendered a very a dull and inanimate piece of iron to move towards it.47 valuable service to the researchers on the Lokāyata philosophy, This is a new philosophy of the Lokāyata school. The though like many other commentators, he has not mentioned

materialists, however, derive the symbol of magnet here from the particular Lokāyata texts where these views are recorded.

the commentary of Sankarācārya written on the Brahmasūtra.48 Gangādhara discusses the new views of the Lokāyata Nīlakaņțha does not accept the bhūtacaitanya theory of school together with the counter-arguments put forward by the

the Indian materialists for the simple reason that a dead body philosophers of the ästika schools believing in the existence of

does not possess consciousness in spite of the fact that all the ätman. It has been already said that according to the Lokāyata

material elements are present in it.49 Philosophy, the material components of the body generate

The commentator furnishes a sensational information to consciousness which is misinterpreted as the attribute of an

his readers that the Lokāyatikas of his age tried to cure the independent, conscious, permanent soul by other philosophers.

allergic fever of the cold season (sītajvara) by appeasing a Gangādhara says that the nāstikas or materialists opine that

goddess with the help of mantras. The goddess is supposed to there is an inherent tendency in the material elements which

enter into the body of the sick man and cure the disease. The constitute the human body to create the body. This tendency is

goddess certainly assumes a subtle form the form of a spirit. absent from other material objects like stones and wood. This

But the Lokayatikas do not believe that any subtle object tendency and its absence are the effects of the desire for and

including the soul ever enters into another body. If, however, aversion to the action of moulding the human body. However,

the goddess is supposed to possess a gross body, it is wrong, this desire or aversion is possible for a conscious object or

because in that case the goddess would have been visible to the person only. It proves that consciousness remains potentially

public. It is under such circumstances, the recognition of two present in matter.52 Now, because, matter itself possesses

separate and distinct entities viz. the soul and the body consciousness, it is needless to recognise an independent,

becomes imperative. conscious soul apart from the conscious body which is the soul.

Nīlakaņtha shows that Cārvākas strongly condemn The opponents of this view argue that there is a conscious

religious matters. According to them, Vedic studies, religious soul apart from the body. The material body does not possess

ear-marks and religious practices are a covert means of earning any consciousness. The soul creates the tendency in material

bread of a section of worthless people.51 elements to shape the human body according to its will and purpose. Even mind is subordinate to the soul. Mind cannot be The Lokāyata Philosophy in Ayurvedic Text : treated as a substitute of soul.53

Gangadhara, the author of the Jalpakalpataru It appears from the discussion of the materialists

commentary on the Carakasamhitā compartively a modern mentioned above that they believe in the existence of

writer and an authority on the Ayurveda has incidentally given consciousness in matter in its potential form. But the

128 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 129

philosohers like the followers of Kapila do not accept this view. It has been already discussed in a previous context that Kapila says that the body is constituted of five kinds of matter. some materialists considered senses as a synonym of soul. There are senses and sense organs apart from the body, and Gangādhara says that the opponents of this view clearly prove also the mind. The soul is a completely distinct entity from them. The followers of Kapila reject the above view of the with the help of certain illustrations that senses are not the soul.

materialist thinkers on the ground that consciousness is According to them some persons of a sensitive nature who have

significantly absent from Mahat, the second tattva of the a great liking for sour objects, become so much

Sāmkhya philosophy, which has a material character.54 psychologically involved in sour objects that at the sight of

It has been already discussed that Śāntarakșita refers to them their tongue is filled with water out of greed. Now, this

two distinct groups of materialist thinkers. One of them opine phenomenon adequately proves that there is an ātman or soul that inanimate matter itself generates consciousness, while the which remembers past affairs. If senses are recognised as other group adhere to the above view. The thinkers of the first remembering agents, in that case only the sense of sight would group immediately challenge the argument put forward by the have reacted at the sight of a sour object, and not the sense of followers of Kapila. They'say that like the non-intoxicating taste.59 ingredients of wine, inanimate matter also generates Some later materialists recognise Manah or Mind as a consciousness.55 synonym of ātman. But the orthodox philosophers reject this The opponets of this view (the Samkhyas) reject it on the view also of the Lokāyatikas. They say that mind is without ground that the intoxicating charater is present in every any consciousness. But when it becomes associated with ingredient which is involved in producing wine. Therefore, ātman, it behaves like a conscious being under the impact of when wine is finally produced the inherent character of the the soul.60 ingredients emerge into full form in wine.56 The orthodox philosophers and also the Bauddhas and the The philosophers of India headed by the Upanisadic seers Jainas believe in rebirth. They argue that a newly born baby recognise an immortal and eternal soul which can exist independently even after the destruction of the body. The Jainas feels the tendency to suck its mother's breast because of a

also recognise an immortal soul. Krsna says in the Gītā that the similar tendency felt by the baby in its previous birth which

body is perishable not the soul. The Lokāyatikas say that if the it inherits in the next birth. The Lokāyatikas challenge this

soul is immortal, while the body perishes, in that case, even if view. They opine that if the view is accepted, a new problem

a live body is burnt down like a dead body, it will not affect the will arise. All babies in this world feel the same tendency

soul in any way. Therefore, there is no sin in burning down a which is supposed to be inherited by them from their previous live body which is as useless as a dead body.57 birth. Now, a man who is free from all worldly attachment The opponents of this view argue that it is a fact that the should not behave like other babies in the next birth. But no soul is immortal, and the body is impermanent and perishable. exceptional case is noticed in the case of babies after birth. But in a live body, the soul remains associated with the body Therefore, the very theory of rebirth is false. The materialists which enjoys worldly pleasures. Now, if the body is burnt down say that the baby feels the intution to suck the mother without it will be deprived of its enjoyments, which will be a great previous memory like a piece of iron being automatically sin.58 attracted by a magnet.61

130 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA LOKĀYATA VIEWS IN OTHER LITERARY WORKS 131 To this, the opponents reply that a man who is completely 16. Ibid, 17.71. free from worldly attachment is never reborn after death. 17. Ibid, 17.37. Therefore, the argument of the materialiasts is without any foundation.62 18. Ibid, 17.39. 19. Ibid, 17.71. 20. Ibid, 17.40. References : 21. Ibid, 17.53. 1. Vișņupurāņa, 3.18.14-17. 22. Ibid; 17.79. 2. Manusamhitā, 5.36. 23. Ibid, 17.66. 3. Vișņupurāņa, 3.18.27. 24. Ibid, 17.64. 4. Ibid, 3.18.24-27. 25. dārā hariharādīnām ..... A poem similar to, 3.18.26 is found in Hemacandra's kim na muktāh, kutaḥ santi Yogaāstra in the following manner. kārāgāre manobhuvaḥ, Ibid, 17.76. svarge yānti yadi tvayā 26. Ibid, 17.50 vinihatā yajñe 27. Ibid, 17.59. dhruvam prāņinah yajñam 28. Ibid, 17.89. kim na karoși matrpitrbhiḥ putraiḥ iștato bāndhavāiḥ, 2.40. 29. Ibid, 17.91. 5. Naișadhacarita 17.52. 30. Ibid, 17.90. Ibid, 17.48,71. 31. Ibid, p. 712. 6.

32. Prabodhacandrodaya pp. 70-71. 7. yasminnāsīti dhīr dehe tad dāhe vaḥ kim enasā, Ibid, 17.52. 33. Act. II.18. 8 balāt kuruta pāpāni tānyaktāni vah 34. Vide Bālamanoramā on the Siddhāntakaumudī, Sūtra 418 sarvān balakṛtān doșān aktān manurabravīt, 35. Prabodhacandrodaya, II.18. Ibid, 17.49. 36. Ibid, II., 23. 9. Ibid, 17.63. 37. Ibid, II. 19. 10. Ibid, 17.61. 38. Ibid, 22. 11. Nyāyamañjarī, Part II, p. 78. 39. Ibid, II.21. 12. Ibid, p. 78. 40. Ibid, II.20. 13. Şaddarśanasamucaya, pp. 286-287. 41. Ibid, p.71 14. Naișadhacarita, 17,75. 42. Vidyāpariņaya, 4.11. 15. Vide Nārāyana's commentary on the Naișadhacarita, 17,70. 43. Ibid, 4.12.

132 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

44. Ibid, p. 74 CHAPTER VII 45. Ibid, 4.13. 46. Mahābhārata, Sāntiparvan, Chitrasala press, p. 403. POETICAL LITERATURE IN THE

45. evam utpannam caitanyam LOKĀYATA PHILOSOPHY ayaskāntamaņir loham iva indrīyasamghātam cālayișyati, Ibid, p. 403. 48. Quoted in Ch.V, Fn 6. 49. Mahābhārata, Šāntiparvan, p. 403. It has been said in previous contexts that Brhaspati, Ajita

46. Ibid, p. 403. and Kambalāśvatara propagated some important philosophical

47. agnihotram trayīdharmās- doctrines either in sūtras or prose sentences. But scholars can

trīdandam bhasmaguņthanam learn from the works of Gunaratna, Mādhava and

buddhipaurușahīnānām Sadānandayati that some excellent poems were also composed

jīviketi Brhaspatiḥ, Ibid, p. 403. by materialist thinkers, a few of which have been commonly

52. Carakasamhitā (Sūtrasthāna), P-120. quoted by Sanskrit writers. Two such poems have been

53. Ibid, P-120. presented by Gunaratna is his commentary while remaining

54 Ibid, P-121. poems appear in Mādhava's, Sarvadarśanasamgraha, and the writings of Jayantabhatta and others authors. According to the 55. Ibid, P-121 poems quoted by Gunaratna, penaces, rigorous vows, self- 56. Ibid, P-121. control and restriction on food and drink in the name of 57. śarīradāhe pātakābhāvāt. religion, and also the performance of Vedic sacrifices are like śarīrasya śavarūpsya dāhe the play of little children having no connection with the tasya purușavadhapāpasyābhāvāt, Ibid, P-114. practical world.' Sadănandayati quotes another poem viz.

58 ātmā nityah ... ... tasya. bhojanam mamsarahitam etc. which has been discussed in an bhogayātanam śarīram .... tadbhogavināśe pātakam, earlier context. He presents some important kārikās also which Ibid, P-114. describe the Lokāyata views appropriately. These kārikās were

59 Ibid, P-112. apparently collected from some Cārvāka source.

60. Ibid, P-124. Mādhava quotes a few poems from the Cārvāka literature,

61. Ibid, P-127. the authorship of which is attributed to the materialist thinker

62. vītarāgajanmādarśanāt vigatarāgasya Brhaspati. These poems are given below.

purnar janmādarśanāt, Ibid, P-127. 1. na svargo nāpavargo vā naivātmā pāralaukikaḥ naiva varņāśramādīnām kriyāśca phaladāyikāḥ

134 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA POETICAL LITERATURE IN THE LOKĀYATA 135

2. agnīhotram trayo vedās tridandam bhasmaguņthanam 10. trayo vedasya kartāro

buddhipauruşahīnānām bhaņdadhūrtaniśācarāḥ

jīvikā dhatunirmitā jarbharī turpharītyādi paņditānām vacaḥ smrtam. 3. pasuścenihataḥ svargam jyotistome gamișyati 11. aśvasyātha hi śīśnam tu

svapitā yajmānena patnīgrāhyam prakīrtitam

tatra kasmān na hanyate. bhaņdaistāvat parām caiva grāhyajātam prakīrtitam 4. mrtanām api jantūnām māmsasya khādanam tadvan śrāddham cet trptikāraņan niśācarasamīritam.2 nirvāņasya pradīpasya snehaḥ samvardhayeccikhām The materialist philosophy laid down in some of the above poems have been discussed in a previous context. 5. gacchatām iha jantūnām A critical examination of the verses shows that the vyartham pātheyakalpanam materialists had a strong disgust for Brahmanical preaching. gehasthaktaśrāddhena The Cārvākas put forward strong arguments that the śrāddha pathi trptiravāritā ceremony performed in this world cannot give satisfaction to

svargasthitā yadā trptīm the dead person living in another world in verse 5. In verse 6, 6. gaccheyustatra dānataḥ the gift made in honour of a dead man is described as a futile excercise. prāsādasyoparisthitānām The Cārvakas do not believe in a soul or a spirit that atra kasmānna dīyate survives after the death of a person. In the eighth poem, they 7. yāvajjivam sukham jīved argue that if any person survived in a new form after his death, mam krtvā ghṛtam pibet he would have cartainly returned to his relatives out of love for

bhasmībhūtasya dehasya them which nobody has ever experienced. punarāgamanam kutaḥ The seventh poem appears as :

8. yadi gacchet param lokam yāvajjīvet sukham jīvet

dehādeva vinirgataḥ tāvad vaişayikam sukham

kaşmād bhūyo na cāyāti bhasmībhūtasya dehasya

bandhusnehasamākulaḥ punarāgamanam kutaḥ in Guņaratna's Tarkarahasyadīpikā. 9. tātaśca jīvanopāyo brahmaņair vihitāstviha The third line of the poem, again, appears as

mṛtānām pretakāryāņi bhasmībhūtasya śāntasya etc. in Jayantabhațța's Nyāyamañjarī

na tvanyad vidyatekvacit and the Bhāskarī commentary of Bhāskara on the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī.

136 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

Some other readings of the second poem quoted above have been already presented in different contexts. Nārāyaņa, CHAPTER - VIII

the commentator on the Naisadhacarita presents another SVABHĀ VAVĀDA (NATURALISM) version of this poem viz.

agnihotram trayo vedās tridandam bhasmapuņdrakam buddhipauruşahīnānām The svabhäva theory gained a strong ground in the jīvīketi Brhaspatiḥ.3 Lokāyata philosophy. The Indian materialists of a later period

Mädhava gives yet another version of the poem where the have constantly discussed that all things in the universe come

poem ends as jīvīketi Brhaspatiḥ4 Similarly, he gives a into being with all their specific and inherent characters by

different version of the verse 7 also, where the second line nature. They do not recognise any invisible creator like God

appears as nāsti mrtyor agocaraḥ.5 Sadānanda reads responsible for their orgination. The svabhāva doctrine blooms

bhasmadhāranam in stead of bhasmagunthanam or into its full form in the writings of Sanskrit writers like

bhasmapundrakam in the second line of the poem.6 Aśvaghoșa, Guņaratna, Bhațțotpala, Mādhava, Šankarācārya

Unlike the above poems, the poems quoted by and Šāntarakșita.

Sadānandayati in his Advaitabrahmasiddhi (p. 99) are a mere Aśvaghoșa elaborately discusses the Svabhāva theory in

summary of the Lokāyata views discussed by the philosopher. the following passage of his Buddhacarita : kecit svabhāvād iti varņayanti śubhāśubham caiva bhāvābhāvau ca svābhāvikam sarvam idamca References : yasmād ato'pi mogho bhavati prayatnaḥ (9.58)

Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 453 (quoted in Ch. IV of the yad indriyāņām niyataḥ pracāraḥ 1. present work). priyāpriyatvam vișayeșu caiva

2. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 5. samyujyate yajjarayārtibhiśca kastatra yatno nanu sa svabhāvaḥ. (9. 59) 3. Naișadhacarita, 17.39. * * * * *

3. Sarvadarśanasamgraha, ed. by Vasudeva Abhyankar, p. 5 kaḥ kaņtakasya prakaroti taikșnyam 5. Ibid, p. 2. vicitrabhāvām mrgapakșiņām vā 6 Advaitabrahmasiddhi, p. 100. svabhāvataḥ sarvam idam pravṛttam na kāmakārosti kutaḥ prayatnaḥ. (9. 62) According to the above poems, all good and bad things originate due to their own nature. The same is the case of life and death. The svabhāvavādins say that the thorn becomes sharp, and different birds and beasts possess distinct colour,

138 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA SVABHĀVAVĀDA (NATURALISM) 139

structures and behaviour due to their inherent nature. Aśvaghoşa describes the svabhāvadins as 'tajjnāḥ' but not as universe emerge with a distinct colour, a distinict quality, and

Lokāyatikas. a distinct character. No other factor is responsible for this.

Guņaratna gives a clear idea of the Svahāva doctrine in The svabhava theory is presented by the author of the

the following passage of his commentary on the Šāstravārtāsamuccaya in the following passage :

Şaddarśanasamuccya : dan daclsa Sur na svabhāvātirekeņa

(svabhāvavādino hyevam āhuḥ-iha vastunaḥ garbhabālaśubhādikam

svata eva pariņatiḥ svabhāvaḥ sarve bhāvāh yat kiñcijjāyate loke

svabhāvavaśād upajāyante tathāhi tadasau kāraņam kila

mrdaḥ kumbho bhavati na pațādiḥ, sarvabhāvāh svabhāvena

tantubhyopi pața upajāyate na ghațādiḥ svasvabhāve tathā tathā

etacca pratiniyatam bhāvānām na tathā vartante' tha nivartante

svabhāvam antareņa ghațā samțankam āțīkate.1 kāmacāraparānmukhāḥ na vineha svabhāvena Guņaratna quotes one poem from Asvaghoșa's mudge paktirapīșyate Buddhacarita and another poem from the Lokatattvaniścaya. The meaning of the first poem has been discussed above. tathā kālādibhāvepi nāśvamāsasya sā yatah. (Verses 169-172) This poem appears in different forms in different works including (Bhattotpala's commentary on the Brhatsamhita The author cites one very common illustration while

(quoted below) explaining svabhāvavāda. He says that all other factors

The second poem viz remaining in tact the mudga pulse becomes boiled only due to its own nature. (vadaryāḥ kanțakāștīkșņā Gunaratna explains the point very clearly in the following rjurekaśca kuñcitaḥ phalam ca vartulam tasya passage of his Tarkarahasyadīpikā :

vada kena vinirmitam (Lokatattvaniścaya, 2.22)2) apica, anyat kāryajātam, iha mudgapaktirapi na

means that the thorns of a vadarī plant are sharp; svabhāvam antareņa bhavitum arhati tathā hi

its some thorns are straight and others are bent; sthālīndhanakālādisāmagrīsambhavepi na tasmād yad yad

its fruit is round. The poet asks; bhavati tattad anvayavyatirekānuvidhāyi tatkrtam iti

"Who has made them so?" svabhāvakṛtamudgapaktire șțavyā tatah sakalmevedam

Gunaratna nicely presents the basic views of the vastujātam svabhāvahetukam avaseyam.3

svabhāvavādins (Naturalists) in the above passage. These The author of the Mathara commentary on the philosophers opine that nature is responsible for the origination Sāmkhyakārikā also discusses the svabhāva theory. But he does of things in a particular manner. Such is the nature of things not offer any critical discussion on the theory. He says : that earth produces only pots and not garments, and threads produce garments and not pots It is by nature all things in the apare svabhāvam āhu-svabhāvaḥ kāraņam iti tathāhi -. yena śuklīkrtā hamsāḥ

140 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀ YATA SVABHĀVAVĀDA (NATURALISM) 141

śukāśca haritīkṛtāḥ According to this poem, the specific and inherent mayūrāśctiritā yena attributes of fire, water, air etc. are not the effects of the action sa no vṛttim vidhāsyati.4 of any agent, but these elements naturally become so. In a All the philosophers whose names we have mentioned in similar manner, we notice that a swan is white, while a parrot the present context have discussed the basic view of the is green. We cannot attribute the origin of such phenomena to svabhäva theory, but none of them have said that the svābhava the action of an unseen agent. Water produces transversial theory has been advocated by the Lokāyatikas. But Bhattotpala, waves, while some other physical objects generate longitudinal Śankarācārya and Mādhava clearly sate that the Lokāyatikas waves, and why? This is the natural character of these objects. strongly advocate the theory. Śankarācārya casually refers to the svabhāva theory of the hattotpala says in his commentary on the Brhatsamhitā Lokāyata school in his discussion on the Lokāyata philosophy of Varāhamihira that the Lokāyatikas. have propagated the in the Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha. (Kārikā 5) svabhāva theory. He presents the same view of the materialists that it is by nature a peacock possesses multi-coloured plumes, and According to him : similarly a koel becomes a melodious singer. Lokāyatikāḥ svabhāvam jagataḥ kāraņam āhuḥ. svabhāvād Śāntarakșita devotes a chapter of his Tattvasamgraha to eva jagad vicitram utpadyate svabhāvato vilayam yāti tathā ca the theory of svabhava.But the philosopher does not state tadvākyam : categorically that the svabhāva theory was propounded by kaḥ kaņțakasya prakarotī taikșņyam Indian materialists. Śāntarakșita discusses the svabhāva vicitrabhāvam mrgapakșiņām ca doctrine in the following manner : mādhuryam ikșoḥ kațutām ca nimbe sarvahetunirāśamsam svabhāvatah sarvam idam pravrttam.5 p b, g bhāvānām janma varņyate Like Bhattotpala, Madhava also describes Indian svabhāvavādibhistehi materialists as the advocates of the svabhāva theory, which nāhuḥ svam api kāraņam alone is their shelter to avoid the ästika theory of God creating rājīvakesarādīnām this universe. According to the materialists, no invisible hand vacitryam kaḥ karotihi of an invisible creator is involved in the emergence of the mayūracandrikādirvā multi-coloured world. Some objects are naturally cold, some vicitraḥ kena nirmitaḥ are hot. The Carvakas opine that these specialities are natural yathaiva kaņțakādīnām and spontaneous. Mādhava quotes the following poem from taikşņādikam ahetukam

Lokayata literature which defends Naturalism kādācitkatayā tadvad duḥkhādīnām ahetutā agniruşņam jalam śītam (Tattvasamgraha, Kārikās 110-112). samasparśāstathānilāḥ kenedam citritam tasmāt It is clear from Sāntarakșita's discussion on the subject

svabhāvāttadvyavasthitiḥ.6 that there were some philosophers who propounded the theory of svata eva bhāvā jãyante or things are born out of themselves.

142 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA SVABHĀVAVĀDA (NATURALISM) 143

Sāntarakșita discards this view of these philosophers. A question has been raised by the naturalists in the

According to the svabhāvavadins or Naturalists, things are not following manner : born out of anything nor they are generated by some other cause, but they are 'svaparakāraņanirapekșa.7 "If there is a cause of such things as we have described above, it cannot be proved. Who has seen the cause mentioned These philosophers ask a critical question : by you?" rājīvakesarādīnām vaicitryam kah karoti hi To this Śāntarakșita replies :

mayūracandrikādirvā One cannot disbelieve everything which is not perceived. vicitraḥ kena nirmitaḥ? 8 The durva grasses and such other things (say rocks and stones) Šāntarakșita gives an appropriate reply to Lokāyatikas' are lying inside the caves or holes of mountains which we have question viz rājīvakesarādīnām vaicitryam kaḥ karoti hi? He not seen. But these things exist."1

says : The propounders of the svabhāva theory certainly deserve sarojakesarādīnām a great credit in spite of the challenge offered by Santaraksita anvayaryatirekavat There is some truth in their obsevation. Fire is hot, because it avasthātiśayakṛāntam bījapamkajalādikam.9 is its inherent nature. A lotus grows red. It is also its inherent character. Light travels in straight line, Why? Even science will The philosopher says that a lotus and other plants or trees: say it is its inherent law. A peacock has multi-coloured plumes. with their special features are born from seeds. Moreover, A swan is white. A crow is black. According to the Lokāyatikas water and mud are also two other important factors or causes responsible for the origination of lotús plants in particular. these birds are naturally so. But the non-materiatlists, who are

Therefore, the theory of svabhavavadins is totally untenable. surprised by the beauty of a peacock or a swan or a parrot will

The comnentator Kamalaśila explains the above point naturally imagine an active agent who is behind such a

most clearly in the following manner : wonderful creation. This invisible creator is God. Not to speak

Cyadi hi rājivādīnām tad hetutā of the common people, even a great scientist like Einstein

pratiniyatadeśakālahetutā na syāt, tadā yeyam recognises the existence of God.

upalādiparihareņa salilādervā pratiniyatadeśe vttiḥ (In reply to the materialist view of the svabhāvavādins, the

yā ca śiśirādiparihāreņa nidāghādisamaye vrttiḥ Śvetāśvataropanișad says :

sā na prāpnoti, kintu sadaiva deśe kāle ca te rājīvādyo svabhāvameke kavayo vadanti bhāvā bhaveyuḥ.10 7a fva Som grale lai6 ? p -gr kālam tathānye parimuhyamānāḥ

In other words, Kamalaśīla says that if time and place are devasyaia mahimā tu loke not recognised as the causes of the growth of lotus plants, in yenedam bhrāmyate brahmacakram.12 that case, even a rocky bed would be an ideal place for the growth of these plants. Similarly, lotus would have appeared in According to this Upanisad the Supreme Person is the

all seasons and not in summer alone. cause of everything.

144 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

References : CHAPTER - IX

1. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p-19. CONCLUDING REMARKS 2. Ibid, p-20. 3. Ibid, p-20. 4. Ibid, p-19. 5. Bṛhatsamhitā, part I, p. 9. All the materials available in different literary sources

Sarvadarśanasamgraha, p. 3. related to the study of Lokāyatadarśana or the materialist 6. philosophy of India have been duly examined in the preceding 7. Tattvasamgraha, part I, p. 79. chapters of the present work. One important fact which easily 8. Ibid, Kārikā, 111 p. 201 flashes in the minds of scholars from a critical study of these

9. Ibid, Kārikā, 113. materials is that most of the authors including Sankarācārya

10. Ibid, part-I, p. 81. and Haribhadrasuri have laid an emphasis on a few selected sūtras of Brhaspati and some poems composed by later 11. Ibid, part-I, p. 83. Cārvāka poets in their treatment of Lokāyata. There was a 12. Švetāśvatara Upanișad, 6.1. distinct purpose behind it. Lokāyata was extensive and neatly worked out philosophical system at one time. It possessed at least 18 sūtras composed by Brhaspati apart from the poems written by Cārvākas and commentaries. The number of Brhaspati's sūtras was probably more as it can be imagined from a critical examination of Kamalasīla and Gunaratna's writings. (Kamalaśīla quotes a number of important sūtras from Brhaspati's materialist text But he does not discuss the relative position of some of the sūtras like-

i) jātismaraņam asiddham; ekagrāmagatānām sarveșām smaraņāt, ii) etāvān eva purușo yāvān indriyagocarah, iii) punaruktadeśāntaram kālāntaram avasthāntaram vā paralokaḥ and iv) nānumānam pramāņam in the work of Brhaspati. Gunaratna quotes a few other sūtras of Brhaspati in his commentary. But he is also silent about the actual position of

146 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 147

the sūtras in Brhaspti's materialist text. Sadānandayati also darśana is available to readers except some parts of the darśana does not try to mention the numbers of the Bārhaspatya sūtras found in traditional sources. quoted by him. It has been discussed in earlier contexts that Kamalaśīla, Now, if these sūtras followed the sūtra Guņaratna and Sadanandayati have presented may new and ihalokaparalokayor bhinnatvāt tadgatayor api cittayor naikaḥ important ideas regarding the Lokāyata philosophy, which have santānaḥ (sūtra 18) in the sūtra text of the great materialist not been discussed by many eminent authors probably due to philosopher, the number of Brhaspati's sūtras will naturally the non-availability of these materials to them. It is exceed the No. 18. worthnoting in this context that the authors like Sankarācārya, Only a part of Brhaspati's sūtra text, and the poems have Haribhadrasūri, Mādhava and Krsnamiśra who play a leading been restored to readers by Indian writers. role in the treatment of the Lokāyata draśana have remained Lokāyata was a highly developed and very popular confined to a small number of Brahaspati's sūtras and the philosophical system in the age of Jayāditya (7th century A.D.). atheistic and hedonistic views of Cārvākas. They express Jayāditya writes in his Kāśikāvrtti that the teachers of Lokāytata darśana earned a great applause from their pupils by almost the same ideas in their discussion on this philosophical system. It is for this reason the present study may appear to delivering attractive lectures enriched with sound and convincing arguments. The philosophy flourished in full form some readers as a repitition of the same old views. However, an

even a few centuries after Jayāditya. In religious discourses attempt has been made to collect as much new material as

organised by emperor Akbar, the Cārvākas also participated." possible from the vast range of Sanskrit literature in the present

Akbar ruled between a 1556-1606. Therefore, the Lokāyata work.

philosophy existed in the 16th and the 17th century> It is clear from the Pañjika commentary of Kamalaśīla, the

Kamalaśīla, Guņaratna, Udayana and Jayantabhațța describe in Nyāyakusumāñjalī of Udayana, the Nyāyamañjarī of

their works that Lokāyatikas strongly defended the Jayantabhațța and Gunaratna's commentary

bhūtacaitanya theory, the theory of the non-existence of Saddarśanasamuccaya that Lokāyata was a living philosophy on . the

paraloka and rebirth with the help of appropriate logic. These in ancient India. Regular debates and discourses were held on

materialists presented many new ideas in their philosophical Lokāyata darśana, where both the exponents and opponents of

debate. the philosophy put forth strong views rich in original thinking.

It can be easily imagined that there was an extensive, These views were certainly recorded in some literary texts.But

scientifically worked out philosophical text (or texts) in the age the above authors have not mentioned the texts where these

of these writers. There were probably some commentaries also views were put in writing. on the sūtras of Brhaspati which adequately dealt with the It may be noted here that later Sanskrit poets have laid

views of the opponents. But there are only a covert reference greater emphais on the anti-religious and hedonistic views of

to them in the works of above writers. the Carvaka school mainly found in the poems written by

The Lokãyata philosophy, however, gradually lost its materialist poets, in their discussion on the Lokāyata

importance except some casual references to a few important philosophy. These poems were current in the Indian society views of Lokāyata darśana, and the philosophical texts of over a long period. The anti-religious views particularly those Lokāyata started to disappear for reasons best known to history. which are related to the Vedic sacrifices and the śrāddha

In modern times, no systematic or complete text of Lokāyata ceremony and the hedonistic views such as one should enjoy

148 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 149

sex-life fully probably earned a dominating place in the philosophy of the later Cārväkas, for which the Indian poets does not believe in the existence of Iśvara. It also does not

like Śrīharșa, Hemacandra and the author of the Vișņupurāņa recognise the periodic creation and dissolution of the universe.

consider it their duty to focus the attention of the readers to Kaņāda, the founder of the Vaiśeșika philosophy does not refer

them. It may be mentioned here that Srīharsa and the author of to God directly anywhere in his stras. However, his follower

the Vișnupurāna not only utilise the old poems but also Praśastapāda describes Maheśvara or Īśvara (Śiva) as the prime

compose some new poems either to amplify or to discredit the mover of the atoms.

.materialist system. There are two distinct schools of the Samkhya philosophy.

While discussing the Lokayata philosophy, it will be One school believes in the existence of Iśvara, while the other

proper for the present author to acknowledge that some shool does not. According so Gunaratna, the non-believers in

philosophers have rendered a very valuable service to the Īśvara, however, worship Nārāyaņa as their deity.2 But

academic circle by giving some additional information Nārāyaņa is a synomym of Vișnu, who is described as the

regarding the materialist philosophy avoided by other authors, Supreme Lord of the universe in the Visnupurāna.3 The

in spite of the fact that these philosophers also lay an emphasis Bauddhas and the Jainas have been described as nāstikas in

on some common and better known views of the Lokāyatas in Indian philosophy. The Bauddhas do not believe in either God

their works. Thus, Santarakșita and Kamalaśīla bring to the or Soul. The Jainas, on the other hand, recognise immortal

knowledge of scholars the essence of Kambalāśvatara's individual souls, but not God.'

. philosophy. According to Mādhava and Varadārāja, the Cārvāka

Kamalaśīla has quoted several rare sūtras from some materialists recognise God. Mādhava says that this God is none

Lokāyata text not known to other writers. These sūtras were else than the king of the country. It may be noted here that the

probably written by Brhaspati himself. Kamalaśīla and Mahābhārata describes the king as a great god, who lives on

Guņaratna, again, discuss a very important view of later the earth in a human form.4 But the Cārvākas do not accept any

Cārvākas that they also recognise (popular) inference as such theory of the divine origin of the king. For them, the king

another means of cognition. Two other philosophers viz. is a man. He exerts supreme power over his people in a all

Mādhava and Varadārāja refer to a very important standpoint of aspects of life for which he has been described as God in a

the Lokāyata school that the king of the country is a synonym metaphorical sense by the Cārvākas. Varadārāja states that the

of God. Cārvākas recognise the king or the image of a deity as God. It suggests that God must be a visible person or object in this

A Note on the concept of God in the Carvaka Philosophy : philosophy and not an invisible one whose existence is

In Brhaspati's sūtras, there is no reference to Iśvara or established through supra-sensory inference only.

God. But the Cārvākas casually refer to. Iśvara in their philosophical texts. However, their concept of Iśvara is entirely Lokāyata and some other philosophies :

different from that of ästika philosophers. It may be mentioned Like the Lokayata philosophy of Brhaspati, the Bauddha

in this context that several pholosophical schools of India do and Jaina philosophies are also described as nāstika darśana in

not recognise Iśvara or God. Thus, the Mīmāmsā philosophy Indian tradition. The Bauddhas and the Jainas do not recognise the authority of the Veda. This is the main reason for which

150 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 151

these religious people are called nastikas in the Indian society. The Bauddhas also do not believe in the existence of soul. The philosophy to a materialistic system though originally it was Buddhists of the Sarvāstivāda school, again, declare everything not so.5 Jayāditya says in his Kāśikāvrtti that some

in this world as real (sarvam asti) though they are momentary Mīmāmsakas become nāstikas after some time after following in character. In spite of all this, the Bauddhas are not treated as their philosophy.6

materialists, because they believe in rebrith and Nirvāņa The Mīmāmsā philosophy is, however, not treated as a (salvation). The Jainas consider matter (pudgala) as a reality. materialist philosophy in spite of casual references to some They do not recognise God. But they are not called materialists materialistic ideas in it, because it recognises the authority of though they are placed in the category of nāstikas by the side the Veda. Moreover, the philosophers like Kumārilabhațța have

of Cārvākas. The reason for this is that the Jainas believe in carried the Mīmamsa philosophy towards a higher spiritual

Karma, the soul, its captivity and salvation (moksa). The Jainas goal.

prescribe an austere religious life for the people to reach the It has been discussed in a previous chapter that Guņaratna

ultimate goal of life, that is, mokșa. describes the Kāpālikas as nastikas or materialists.

In this connection, we can refer to the Vaiśeşika and some Tīrthasvāmin in his Darśanakaņikāsamgraha refers to the other Indian philosophies also which possessed or possess Kāpālikas as kāmātmavādins.

some materialistic elements. But they are not recognised as Now, because Inidan materialists consider kāma as the

materialist philosophies for pertinent reasons. ultimate goal of life, there is a scope to think that Kāpālikas

The Vaiśeşika philosophy propagated by Kaņāda was were materialists_But tradition has recognised these Śaiva

initially a materialist system. Kaņāda describes eternal atoms ascetics as a group of religious people. They hanker for mukti

as the cause of the material universe. The atoms are combined through the path of bhoga. Similar is the case of Kaula

into dyad, triad etc. under the impact of adrsta (chance or Tantrics. The Kaulas belong to the left path which is

unseen power). The theory has been challenged by undoubtedly a hedonistic path. But their aim is also to achieve

Śankarācārya on pertinent grounds. Kaņāda's disciple moksa. Their hedonism is only a means to an end and not an

Praśastapāda realises the limitation of Kaņāda's theory, and and in itself. The Bārhaspatyas or the Lokāyatikas are the

amends it suitably by adding the concept of Maheśvara or Lord perfect materialists.

Sīva as the prime mover of the atoms. The new approach has The Lokāyata philosophy was propagated with great

saved the philosophy from being treated as a materialistic one. enthusiasm by Ajitakeśakambalī in the Buddhist period. A

The Mīmamsa philosophy does not recognise God. The partial knowledge only of the anti-religious views of Lokāyata

older Mīmāmsā texts and their followers laid a great emphasis darāsana can be gathered from the limited number of sūtras of

on the Karmakānda or the ritualistic aspect of the Veda, Brhaspati. Ajita presents these views in an exhaustive manner

through which, it was believed, a colourful divine land after in his eloquent lecture. His language is bold and assertive.

death could be gained, or, some villages, or cattle, or other Kambalāśvatara firmly advocates the bhūtacaitanya

covetable objects could be earned. Thus, there is a distinct theory of Brhaspati. Only one sūtra of Kambalāśvatara is

materialistic trend in the philosophy. Kumārilabhatta says that available to modern readers form Kamalaśīla's commentary.

the philosophers like Bhartrmitra reduced the Mīmāmsā Kambalāśvatara amends the bhūtacaitanya theory suitably under pressure from his opponents.

152 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 153

There was apparently a comprehensive text written by Kambalāśvatara on materialism or at least the bhūtacaitanya Brhaspati first examined the nature of the human body

theory, as the present sūtra appears only as a fragment of a and found that the body is made up of four distinct kinds of

discourse on the theory. That there was a loss of an important elements. Now, a man is born as a conscious being. But when

portion of the sūtra work of Kambalāśvatara can be imagined he dies, his consciousness totally disappears. Brhaspati

from the very sturcture of the sūtra. This is a sad message for critically examines the matter and finally draws the conclusion

scholars. Similarly, the loss of the Vartikā or the Varņikā that consciousness is merely a cumulative product of the

commentary of Bhäguri is equally regrettable. There were material elements of the body and nothing else. Brhaspati lays

probably many important data regarding the Lokāyata emphasis on the cumulative effect (tatsamudāya) generated by

philosophy in this commentary. In fact, this is the only the four elements, because a single element has never produced

commentary written on Lokāyata darśana as recorded by Indian consciousness in this world. The point has been clearly

tradition. Scholars probably will blame the opponents of the discussed by Sadānanda in his work. Brhaspati, however, fails

materialist system for the loss of materialist texts. However, it to convince his opponents. His theory has raised a strong

is these enemies of Indian materialism who have preserved the controversy in the religious circle. While challenging the

important views of Lokāyata darśana in their works. theory the Vedantists and the Bauddhas and the Jainas have depended on their śāstras and āgamas; but Brhaspati's The Vedic religion and Brhaspati : followers have defended the theory with the help of scientific

The Vedic religion was apparently responsible for the arguments.

emergence of Brhaspati's Lokāyata philosophy. 1 p The However, Brhaspati's opponents have rejected the extravagant Vedic rituals and the bold claims of Vedic bhūtacaitanyavāda on pertinent grounds. The philosophers like preachers that there is an extraodinary meritorious result of Kamalaśīla, Udayana and Rāmacandra have adequately proved Vedic sacrifices by dint of which the sacrificer can move to a that there is no cause and effect relationship between the colourful divine land (svarga) after death had raised a strong material body and its consciousness. doubt in the mind of Brhaspati, an inborn materialist about the Now, when a man dies, his consciousness disappears from utility of the Vedic religion. It inspired him to examine the the body. Thy Upanisadic thinkers opine that the individual issue of religion from a practical and scientific angle. soul, the source of consciousness of the body, migrates to The Vedic religion received a serious jolt in the hands of another body after death for which the consciousness Upanisadic thinkers who declared the Vedic sacrifices as disappears. Brhaspati does not recognise such a soul, because useless. In the Mundakopanişad 1. 2.7 the sacrifices are it is not perceived by anybody. Kamalaśīla has discussed this described as producing no permanent, beneficial result and tying the sacrificer to the chain of rebirth. The Bauddhas and materialistic view of the Lokāyata school very clearly.

the Jainas also started a revolt against the Veda and established Brhaspati also rejects the idea of the existence of a divine land

their own religions. But these religious sects preached and to which, a pious Vedic sacrificer is supposed to move after

practised an austere religious life. The platform of Brhaspati death, because such a land is also not perceived by anybody .:

was entirely anti-religious. He does not accept anumāna because unlike pratyaksa it dosi not give a correct and convincing result universally.

154 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 155

After rejecting the Upanisadic idea of soul and a land after The Carvakas accepted the Buddhist doctrine of death, Brhaspati now examines the question of the ultimate momentariness and declared that the atoms are of a momentary goal of human life. He finds that in the absence of a soul that character. We have distinctly shown that there were two distinct survives the body, a man's existence is strictly confined to the groups of Carvakas-the educated and the wicked. The life he lives in this world, As there is no supramundane reality Educated Cārvākas played a great role in the development of for which he should live, Brhaspati advocates a life of pleasure the Lokāyata philosophy. Udayana, Jayantabhatta and and comfort for him. Gunaratna show that these materialists defended the Brhaspati was a perfect materialist. The religious bhūtacaitanya theory with strong, scientific arguments. Again, preachers of India never accepted his view. But his Sadānanda describes that some Cārvāka philosophers advanced materialistic ideas remained a constant source of worry for new theories on soul. Gangādhara also presents some new centuries for religious philosophers. The great popularity of his philosophical ideas of later Cārvākas. system can be imagined from the strong voice of protest raised The wicked Cārvākas, on the other hand, became by the religious preachers, against it. It is a wonder that in those dangerous for the society. In the age of Krsnamiśra, Guņaratna days when the Indian society was mainly religious and God- and Mādhava, these Cārvākas gained a strong ground in the fearing, Brhaspati launched a revolution against religion. Indian society. They propagated the idea of gross hedonism Brhaspati was a hedonist in the eye of his opponents. But he among the people. For them, everybody's property could be had a noble motive of seeing the people happy.8 usurped by anybody, and everybody's woman could be enjoyed Brhaspati was an opponent of religion. He did not believe without fear. Krsnamiśra and Gunaratna give a vivid picture of that religious activities produce any result. Some of his the philosophy of total anarchy propagated by these notorious followers in the age of Vatsayana, however, argued in a elements. different way against the utility of practising religion. These wicked materialists disturbed the very stability of According to them, there is a great doubt about religious the society for which Brhaspati's theory of enjoyment itself activities yielding any result, as it cannot be proved by was responsibłe. anybody, and, even if these activities produce any (meritorious) results, they cannot be enjoyed in the present birth as such Lokāyata and Western materialism : results are supposed to benefit the performers of these activities There are some similarities between the Lokāyata in the next life only. Therefore, religion is useless for them in philosophy and some Western materialistic philosophies in their practical life.9 many respects. Scholars very often point out to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270) B.C. while discussing the The Carvakas and the new trend in the Lokāyata Lokāyata philosophy. philosophy : Thus, Dr. Dakshina Ranjan Sastri compares the Lokāyata The Carvakas became an irresistible force in the Indian or Cärvāka philosophy swith the philosophy of Epicurus in the society in a later period of the development of Lokāyata following manner : 4 philosophy. Readers notice a progressive trend in the Lokāyata "Epicurus says with Lokāyata that all mental pleasures philosophy in the age of Sāntarakșita and Kamalaśīla. The are derived from and related to the bodily pleasures of sense. trend certainly started some time before these philosophers. There is a considerable agreement between these two schools

156 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 157

in their ends of actions. According to Epicurus pleasures and The ultimate goal of the Epicurian philosophy is described in pain are the sole motives of our actions. That pain must be the Encyclopedia Americanna in the following manner : avoided and pleasure persued is a dictum as plainly evident as With Epicurus man's chief end is the attainment of that fire is hot and ice is cold. Every animal as yet uncorrupted by false opinion naturally and instinctively persue pleasure and pleasure not in the sense, however, that life is a heedless

seek to ward off pain. In all our striving, willing and acting pursuit of pleasure not pleasures. The Supreme pleasure, which

thus relate to pleasure and pain, we may call pleasure the is the constant source of all other pleasures is the tranquil and

highest good, and pain the worst evil, Lokāyata says the very happy mind.

same thing, sukham eva puruşārthaḥ (?) duḥkhameva Epicurus taught that mere bodily pleasures were not an

narakam".10 end in themselves but only as they minister to the peace of

Sastri describes the canons of Epicurus in the following mind.14

way : Thus, Epicurus discarded the idea of living a voluptuous

1. The pleasure which produces no pain is to be embraced. life, a life of laxity, but like the Indian seers he believed in the

2. The pain which produces no pleasure is to be avoided. complete tranquility of mind which is the source of real happiness which is the final goal of life. In order to achieve this 3. The pleasure is to be avoided which presents a greater goal, Epicurus advised abstention from sexual love, and family pleasure. life and from public life with its ambition and prizes.15 4. The pain is to be endured which averts a greater pain or It is now clear that the Epicurian philosophy secures a greater pleasure.11 fundamentally differs from the Indian materialist philosophy of

According to Dr. Sastri, Epicurian philosophy is Egoistic kāma evaikaḥ purușārtha.

hedonism.12 However, scholars equipped with more data will probably The soul theory of Epicurus :

refuse to accept the view of Sastri. Epicurus is very often According to Epicurus the soul is composed of primodial misunderstood by many interpreters of his philosophy. The data atoms, and hence it is dissolved immediately on leaving the which are available to us from different other sources show that body at the death of a man. Thus, there is no life to come after the great Greek philosopher was not what he is thought to be. death. The philosopher opines that soul is a material body of Unlike the Cārvākas, his pursuit was not for small pleasures, fine parts which is protected by the body. So long as it is but pleasure which meant tranquility and happiness. He was a great thinker for whom mental peace is the most important protected by the body it sensationates-communicates sensation

objective in life. He says : to the body. But when it leaves the body it dissipates and disappears.16 It is not unbroken succession of drinking, feasts and of revelry, not the pleasure of sexual love, not the enjoyment of Lokāyata and Aristippus : fish and delicacies of a splendid table which produce a Dr. Dakshina Ranjan Sastri compares some important pleasant life, it is reasoning, searching out of the reason for materialistic views of the great ancient philosopher Aristippus every choice and avoidance and banishing those beliefs through which greatest tumults take possession of the soul".13 with the similar views found in the Lokāyata system. Sastri says :

158 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 159

the view of Aristippus of Cyrene (435-356 BC) Indian materialists as discussed above, identify the conscious have no less a resemblance to the views of Lokāyata. According body itself with the soul. to Aristippus, the only good of life is the individual's own Now, coming to the philosophy of Democritus, it is found pleasure. Present enjoyment should never be sacrificed for the that this ancient Greek philosopher also describes the soul as sake of future pleasures, for which future is always uncertain. an atomic composition. It has been discussed above that We should fully enjoy the present. To sacrifice the present to the according to the Lokāyata Philosophy the body is composed of furture is unwarranted and perilous.17 different kinds of atoms, and consciousness is a product of the Sastri does not refer to the source from where he gathers combination of atoms. Democritus, on the other hand, the above views of Aristippus. In the discussion on the recognises an atomic soul where the component atoms are the "Egoistic hedonism" of Epicurus also he is similarly silent finest, the smoothest and most mobile objects. When they about the source on which the discussion is based. remain in isolation, they remain insensible, but when they are Now, when the view of Aristippus quoted above is duly combined, sensation arises.20 The theory of Democritus' examined, it immediately reminds its readers of the practical insensible atoms generating sensation when combined approach of the Lokāyatikas to the realities of life. It has been immediately reminds us of the Bārhaspatya sūtra viz. already said that according to Vātsāyana the materialists tebhyaścaitanyam and its interpretation, though the standpoint consider money or object already possessed as better than what of Democritus and Brhaspati are different. is to be attained. Democritus opines that soul atoms behave differently in different organs. The soul atoms are lost in exhalation, and The soul theory of Democritus : respiration, but life is maintained by inhaling fresh soul-atoms. In Indian philosphy, the soul occupies a vital position in The supply of atoms ceases at one stage when atoms are totally both materialist and non-materialist systems. The Upanișads exhausted and the soul perishes in the same manner as the describe the soul as : body.21 According to Democritus, the soul is an atomic

ajo nityaḥ śāśvatoyam purāņo structure, an idea which Indian materialists have never

na hanyate hanyamāne sarīre.18 conceived of during the long period of the development of their philosophy. The Bhagavadgītā gives a description of soul as : .. nainam chindanti śastrāņi Western materialism in the modern age :

nainam dahati pāvakaḥ Some views of ancient Greek materialists have been na cainam kledayantyāpo na discussed above. Materialism has been revived in the Western śoșayati mārutaḥ.19 world in recent centuries. The development of science has

Whatever may be the character of the soul according to contributed a great deal to the revival of materialism in the

the above religious works, it is at least not material in West in new form.

character. While the material body perishes, it remains Bacon, Hobbes, Descertes and Marx have played a

independently. The Bauddhas do not recognise the Upanisadic leading role in the new movement. Regarding Bacon, the father

soul or any other permanent entity called ätman or soul. The of English materialism, Marx says :

CONCLUDING REMARKS 161 .160 LOKĀYATA DARŚANA OR LOKĀYATA

`"The real founder of English materialism of all modern It is the opium of the people.27 'Opium of the people'-a

experimental science was Bacon."22 He describes Baconian penetrating complement for religion-which has been echoed by

concept of matter in the following manner : Lenin in his book "On Religion".28 The Cārvākas rebuff

The first and the most important of the inherent qualities religion in a stronger language than Marx, the father of

of matter is motion, not only mechanical and mathematical Communism. Marx describes religion as 'religion is the self-

movement, but still more, impules, vital life spirit, tension 23 ... consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself in the same way."29 Marx also says that according to the teachings of Bacon, Cārvākas, on the other hand, describe religion as a creation of senses are infallible and they are the source of all knowlege."24 wicked religious propagators for cheating the people. There is a similarity between the materialist views of But their view is wrong and motivated. Religion is not the Bacon and those of the Cārvākas, particularly in regard to the creation of wicked people. The wise men of ancient India source of knowledge. preached religious ideas of great moral and practical value in Thomas Hobbes is another great materialist thinker of modern times who, however, did not deny the existence of God religious scriptures in the interest of the society. The fear for

or any immaterial things but intelligently evaded them and the consequences of immoral, illegal and anti-social activities

spoke about material bodies alone.25 generated by religious scriptures, which the sinners face in

In the words of Marx, Hobbes, a perfect materialist opines burning hell is aimed at controlling the unruly elements in the

that since only what is material is perceptible, knowable, interest of preserving peace and order in the society. Again, the

nothing is known of the existence of God.26) concepts of virtue and heaven inspire people to perform good deeds-deeds appreciated by the society. Materialists in

Lokāyata and Marxism : Śankara's Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha describe the meritorius

There is a great similarity between Lokāyata and Marxism activities of kings and rich men like the building of inns for

particularly in the matter of religion. Karl Marx, a German travellers as a source of attraction and nothing else. But the

philosopher, is one of the greatest materialist philosophers of religious inspiration derived by kings and rich men from

all times, whose (Marxist) philosophy was the guiding spirit in śāstras to perform such noble religious activities finally

the Bolshevik revolution of Russia. benefits the society enormously. After all, the service to the

Karl Marx observed that religion acted as a sleeping pill human society is a great religion. It is a fact that many

for the people. The people (proletariat) were constantly members of the priestly class have a professional outlook of

exploited by the stronger class in the society but they could not religion, but for that noble ideas propagated by religion cannot.

stand up against the exploiters. Religion could not help them in be ignored.

the matter. On the other hand, religious speeches promised a The wicked Cārvākas treated woman as an object of

sweet world for them after death. The entire social enjoyment. Their very idea was wrong and dangerous. Women

phenomenon was keenly observed by Marx. He says in an are not anybody's property. They are not born for satiating the

essay dated 1844 : lust of sex-hungry men. It is the duty of every man to honour

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of woman and offer a proper status to her in social life. The great

heartless world just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation, law-giver Manu says : lidq

162 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA CONCLUDING REMARKS 163

yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra devatāh (gods benifit the academic circle. It is an objective study of the

adore that land where women are worshipped.) 30 philosophy where the question of any personal involvement is A similar poem is found in the Mahābhārata also which ruled out. It is a fact which everybody must accept that

is : materialism cannot be the shelter of a man, who is above other animals. Man cannot live by bread alone. Every person in this pūjyā lālayitavyāśca world seeks physical pleasure, physical comfort and happiness. striyo nityam, janādhipa But a purely materialistic life prescribed for a man by the striyo yatra pūjyante ramante tatra devatāḥ.31 Lokāyata materialists cannot give him lasting mental peace. The Paņdavas gained the supreme power to rule the vast Indian Both Marxism and Lokāyata are materialist philosophies. empire. But they also quitted the empire in search of lasting But apart from this common feature, it is difficult to compare peace. these two philosophical systems, because their aims are different. Karl Marx casually refers to religion as the opium of the References : people. But his philosophy was mainly aimed at the emancipation of the oppressed people of the society. He 1. The Mughul Empire, p. 135. appeals to the opressed class- the workers to unite and rise 2. Șaddarśanasamuccaya, p. 141. against their exploliters in the Communist Manifesto in the 3. following manner : Vișņupurāņa, 1.9, 39-41. 4. Mahābhārata, 12.68.40. Workers of all countries, unite. You have nothing to lose but yours chains. 5. Ślokavārtika, Pratijñāsūtra, 10, p. 5.

The Indian materialists, on the other hand, laid an 6. Kāśikā, 2.1.53. extraordinary emphasis on material enjoyment and nothing 7. Vide. The Soma or the Soma sect of the Śaivas, else. They consider religion and religious propogations and Chintaharan Chakraborty, Historical Quartely, Vol-VIII. priests as their chief enemy. Hedonism is the ultimate goal of 8. Carvākamatasyāpi their life. Karl Marx did not consider hedonism as the final paropakāranișțhatvameva, Bhāskara on goal of the human life. Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, Part I, p. 317. Marx desired to see the establishment of a classless 9. na dharmamścaret-eşyatphalatvāt, sāmśayikatvācca, Communist society free from the exploitation of the bourgeoisie, Kāmasūtra, 2.21. where everybody would enjoy a legitimate share of the national wealth. The Communist society would be a stateless one 10. Charvak Philosophy, pp. 35-36.

without any ruler or ruled. It still remains a utopia. 11. Ibid, p. 36.

Can materialism give peace ? 12. Ibid, p. 36.

In the present work an elaborate study of the Lokāyata 13. Encyclopedia Americanna, Vol .- 10.

philosophy has been made with a sincere wish that it will 14. Ibid, Vol-10.

164 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA

15. Chamber's Encyclopedia, Ch. V, p. 369. BIBLIOGRAPHY 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 648. (Classical Works) 17. Charvak Philosophy, p. 36. 18. Kațhopanișad, 1.2.18. Advaitabrahmasiddhi : Sadanandayati : Ed. by Pandit

16. Bhagavadgītā, 2-23. Vamana Shastri : Parimal Publication, 1981

17. Encyclopedia Americanna, Vol .- 16, p. 426. Arthaśāstra : Kauțilya : Mysore University, 1960

18. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol .- 7, p. 188. Bhāşāpariccheda : Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Calcutta, San. 1354 22. On Religion (Karl Marx), Progress Publishers, Moscow, p. 57. Brahmasūtrasāmkarabhāșya : Ed. by J. L. Shastri, Motial Banarasidass, 1988 23. Ibid, p. 57. Brhatsamhitā : Varanaseya Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi, 24. Ibid, p. 57. 1968. 25. Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol .- 7, p. 426. Buddhacarita : Aśvaghosa : Chowkhamba Vidya Bhavan, 26. On Religion, (Karl Marx) Progress Publisher, Moscow Varanasi, 1983. p. 38. Carakasamhitā : Ed. by Tryambakeswara, Berhampur, Bengal 27. Ibid, p. 38. Dīghanikāya : Pali Publication Board, 1958 28. On Religion, Moscow, 1968. Harșacarita : Bāņabhatta : Ed. by Dr. P.V. Kane 29. On Religion, Karl Marx, p. 38. Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī : Motilal Banarasidass : 30. Manusamhitā, 3.56 Varanasi, 1986.

19. Anuśāsanaparvan, 46.5. Kāmasūtra : Ed. by Mahesh Chandra Pal : Calcutta 1133 Sal Kāśikā : Ratna Publications, Varanasi, 1985 Kiraņāvali : Udayana : Oriental Institute; Boroda, 1971 Lankāvatārasūtra : Ed. by P.L. Vaidya : The Mithila Institute, 1963 Māhabhārata : Geeta press, Gorakhpur (U. P.) Mahābhāșya : Patañjali : N. S. Press Bombay, 1935 Maitrāyaņī Upanișad : N. S. Press, Bombay Mohamudgara : Šankarācārya Manu or Manusamhitā : N. S. Press, Bombay Naișadhacarita : Śrīharșa : N. S. Press, 1952 Nyāyakumudacandra : Manikchandra Granthamala, Bombay.

166 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA BIBLIOGRAPHỲ 167

Nyāyakusumāñjali : Udayana : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Modern Works : 1957 Nyāyamañjarī, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Vanarasi, 1969 Dasgupta, S. N. : A History of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarasidass, 1975 Prabodhacandrodaya : N. S. Press, 1955 Majumdar, R. C. : The Mughul Empire : Bharatiya Vidya Prakaraņapañjikā : Śālikanātha, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Bhawan, Bombay, 1974 Series, Varanasi. Pathak, Dr. Sarvananda : Charvak Darshan Ki Sastriya Prameyakamalamārtaņda : Bombay, 1941 Samiksa, Chowkhamba Vidya Bhawan Varanasi, 1965 Rāmāyaņa : Geeta Press, Gorakhpur (U.P.) Radhakrishnan, S : Indian Philosophy Rgveda : Vaidik Samsodhan Mandal, Pune Sastri, D. R. : Charvak Philosophy, Calcutta, 1967 Rgvedabhāșyabhūmikā : Rgveda, Vaidik Samsodhan Mandal, Warder, A. K. : Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Pune, Vol .- 1 Banarasidass, 1971. Saddaraśanasamuccaya : Ed. by Dr. Mahendra Kumar Jain, Bharatiya Jnanapeeth, 1969 Sāmkhyakārikā : N. S. Press, Bombay Sammatitarkaparakaraņa : Gujrat Puratattva Series, Vol .- 1 Sarvadarśanasamgraha : Mādhava : Anandasrama, Pune Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha : Śankaracaraya; Ed. by M Rangacarya, Ajoy Book Service, New Delhi, 1983 Śatapatha Brāhmaņa : Anandasrama, Pune Ślokavārtika : Ratna Publications, Varanasi, 1993 Śvetāśvatara Upanișad : N. S. Press, Bombay Syādvādamañjarī : Mallisena Ed. by A.B. Dhruva, Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series 1. XXXIII Tattvasamgraha : Śāntarakșita with Kamalaśīla's Panjikā : Bauddha Bharati, 1968 Tattvopaplavasimha : Jayarāśi : Bauddha Bharati, 1987 Vidyāpariņaya : Ānandarāyamakhi : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 1967. Vișņupurāņa : Nava Bharat Publishers, Calcutta Yogaśāstra : Hemacandra Ed. by W. Jones, Asiatic Society, Calcutta.

INDEX 169

INDEX Gangādhara : 127, 129, 156. Gītā : 43, 44, 129. Advaitabrahmasiddhi : 21, 22, 23, 26, 38, 39, 40, 42, 52, 53, Guņaratna : 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 27, 28, 29, 39, 40, 42, 68, 73, 104, 105, 112, 137, 148. 50, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 134, 136, 139, 140, Ajita : 6, 7, 44, 45, 46. 148, 149.

Ajitakeśakambalī : 6, 7, 27, 29, 37, 40, 44, 45, 55, 152- -Lokāyata views 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.

materialistic views 44. Haribhadrasūri : 11, 26, 35, 38, 44, 45, 50, 65, 67.

Arthaśāstra : 21, 36, 121. Harșacarita : 26.

Asatkāryavāda : 30. Jalpakalpataru : 127.

Āstika : 8, 34, 85. Jayantabhatta : 10, 13, 15, 102, 103. -

Aśvaghoșa : 138, 139. -body-soul theory of the Cārvākas 102-103.

Bhāguri : 7, 19, 46, 47. Jayarāśi : 2, 13, 17, 18, 39.

Bhāmatī : 75, 84. Kaiyata : 3, 19, 21, 47.

Bhattotpala : 13, 14, 35, 141. Kamalaśīla : 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 26, 29, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 145, 148, 149. Brhaspati : 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, Kāmasūtra : 3, 21, 36.

56, 57, 60, 70, 71, 75, 85, 95, 97, 104, 105, 121, 122, 125, 134, Kāmātmavādins : 152.

146, 147, 149, 153, 154, 155, 157. Kambalāśvatara : 7, 20, 31, 48, 49, 56, 59, 71, 153.

Brhatsamitā : 19, 141. Kāpālikas : 3, 12, 13, 17, 73, 74.

Buddhacarita : 138. Kārikāvali : 102.

Candragupta Maurya : 36. Kauțilya : 3, 16, 19, 36, 37, 121.

Carakasamhitā : 127. Kiraņāvali : 99, 101.

Çārvāka : 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 33, Lankāvatārasūtra : 6, 22.

34, 37, 49, 50, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, Laukāyatikas : 3. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, Lingārcanacandrikā : 16. 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, Lokatattvaniścaya : 139. 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 127, 134, 136, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 156, 161, 162, 163. Mādhava : 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 27, 42, 43, 51, 73, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 114, 115, 124, 134, Cārvī : 8 137, 141. Darśanakaņikāsamgraha : 152. -discussion on Cārvāka darśana 89-99, 141.

Dravyālamkāra : 77 Madhusudana Sarasvatī: 13 Mahābhārata : 5, 8, 16, 36, 37, 50, 125, 126, 132, 150, 164.

170 LOKĀYATA DARŠANA OR LOKĀYATA INDEX 171

Mahābhāșya : 3, 7, 45, 46, 47, 48, 78. Saddarśanasamuccaya : 4, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 35, 38, Maitrāyaņī Upanișad : 25, 35, 38. 39, 42, 51, 52, 53, 54, 65, 66, 81, 82, 83, 84, 110, 137, 148,

Mallisena : 75, 76. 164

Māțhara (vṛtti) : 140. Sāmkhyakārikā : 84, 140.

Muņdakopanişad : 154. Śankarācārya (Lokāyta darșana) : 85, 86, 87, 88.

Nāgeśa : 47. Śāntarakșita : 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 26, 35, 48, 55, 56, 57, 59,

Naișadhacarita : 5, 14, 115, 116, 117, 118, 131, 136, 137. 62, 63, 64, 65, 142, 143, 144. examination of Lokāyata views : 56-65. Nārāyaņa : 5, 136. Sarvadarśanasamgraha : 1, 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, 38, 43, 52, 53, Nārāyaņa Miśra : 99. 54, 74, 83, 84, 89, 98, 111, 114, 115, 118, 124, 174, 137, 145. Nīlakaņțha : 5, 125, 126, 127. Sarvasiddhāntasamgraha : 87, 88. Nyāyakumudacandra : 68. Šāstravārtāsamuccaya : 140. Nyāyakusumañjalī : 99. Sūtrakrtāngasūtra : 74.

Nyāyamañjarī : 102. Svabhāvavāda : 10, 34, 95, 107, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142. Pāņini : 3, 25, 36, 37, 47. Tattvasamgraha : 7, 11, 19, 22, 23, 26, 35, 38, 39, 48, 52, 53,

Pañjikā : 4, 7, 50, 60, 148. 55, 56, 57, 80, 145.

Pārthasārathi Miśra : 13. Tattvopaplavasimha : 17, 24, 38, 39.

Prabhācandra : 68, 77, 78. Tīrthasvāmin : 152.

Prabodhacandrodaya : 5, 14, 15, 22, 23, 38, 121, 122. Udayana : 60, 99, 100, 101.

Prakaraņapañjikā : 40, 52. Vācaspati Miśra : 13, 75.

Prakațanāstika : 80, 97. Vādideva (sūri) : 13, 14, 61, 78, 79.

Prameyakamalamārtaņda : 41, 78. Varadārāja : 13. -concept of God in the Lokāyata Philosophy : 99 Praśastapāda : 101, 102. Varņikā : 3, 7, 25. Purandara : 11, 20, 29, 60, 61, 62, 122. Vartikā : 3, 7. Rāmacandra : 4, 73, 77. Vātsāyana : 3, 5, 36, 159. Rāmāyaņa : 3, 26, 27, 36, 37. Vidyāpariņaya : 17, 74, 124. Rgveda : 2, 51, 96. Vișņupurāņa : 5, 113, 114, 124. Rgvedabhāșyabhūmikā : 101. Winternitz : 36. Sadānanda (yati) : 4, 13, 14, 26, 38, 41, 42, 68, 101, 104, 105, Yaśastilakacampū : 17. 106, 137. Yogaśāstra : 30, 130.