01 | Carvak Philosophy¶
Page 40
Chapter Three¶
MATERIALISM¶
I¶
INTRODUCTION¶
THE School of Materialism in India seems to be very old. References are found to it in the epics and in the early Buddhistic literature. Garbe says: 'Several vestiges show that even in the pre-Buddhistic India proclaimers of purely materialistic doctrines appeared.'¹ It must have arisen as a protest against the excessive monkdom of the Brāhmaṇa priests. The externals of ritualism which ignored the substance and emphasized the shadow, the idealism of the Upaniṣads unsuited to the commoners, the political and the social crises rampant in that age, the exploitation of the masses by the petty rulers, monks and the wealthy class, the lust and greed and petty dissensions in an unstable society paved the way for the rise of Materialism in India in the post-Upanisadic and pre-Buddhistic age. But Materialism in Indian Philosophy has never been a force. Born in discontent, it soon died in serious thought. Though the materialistic way of life, the way of enjoying the pleasures of the senses and the flesh is as old as humanity itself and will surely last as long as humanity lasts, yet Materialism as metaphysics has never found favour with the Indian philosophers. Jainism and Buddhism arose immediately and supplied the ethical and spiritual background which ejected Materialism.
Bṛhaspati, a heretical teacher, is regarded as the traditional founder of this school. His Sūtra, which we have no reason to doubt, has unfortunately perished. Sometimes this Bṛhaspati is equated with the teacher of the gods who propagated materialism among the Asuras so that they might be ruined. Chārvāka, after whose name this school is so called, is said to be the chief disciple of Bṛhaspati. According to another view, Chārvāka is the name of the founder of this school. According to still another view, the word 'Chārvāka' is not a proper name, but a common name given to a materialist, and it signifies a person who believes in 'eat, drink and be merry' (the root 'charv' means to eat), or a person who eats up his own words, or who eats up all moral and ethical considerations,² or a person who is 'sweet-tongued' (charuvāk) and
¹ The Philosophy of Ancient India, p. 25. ² charvante punyapāpādikam vastujātam iti Chārvākāḥ.
Page 41
therefore whose doctrine is superficially attractive. Another synonym of Chārvāka is Lokāyata which means a commoner and therefore, by implication, a man of low and unrefined taste. Nāstika-Shiromani or an 'arch-heretic' is another name for a materialist. In Rāmāyaṇa, they are called 'fools who think themselves to be wise and who are experts in leading people to doom and ruin'.¹ References to them are also found in Mahābhārata and Manusaṃhitā.² In Majjhima Nikāya, i, we find a reference to Ajitakeshakambalin, a materialist, probably so called because he must be having a blanket of hair with him, who believed only in perception and in four elements. Shāntarakṣita also refers to him as Kambalāshvatara (the man with a blanket and a mule).³
No original work of this school is extant with the single exception of a much later work, Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarāshi Bhaṭṭa, published by the Oriental Institute of Baroda in 1940. It is therefore very difficult to have a correct idea of it. Our chief sources of information are given in the works of the other schools. But this is done only to refute materialism. Thus we find the tenets of materialism often misrepresented. The weak points in this school are exaggerated and the strong points are omitted. So we get only a faint caricature and not a true picture. The Sarva-darshana-saṅgraha gives a summary of this school, but that too seems to be based on such accounts. It is indeed very difficult to believe that Materialism which is allowed the status of an independent school of Indian Philosophy should really be so crude and degenerate as it is painted. But in the absence of the original works, we have to remain satisfied with these meagre and one-sided accounts.
II¶
SOURCES¶
IN the second Act of the allegorical play called Prabodhachandrodaya, Kṛṣṇapati Mishra sums up the teachings of Materialism thus: 'Lokāyata is the only Shāstra; perception is the only authority; earth, water, fire and air are the only elements; enjoyment is the only end of human existence; mind is only a product of matter. There is no other world: death means liberation.' Some of the important Sūtras of Bṛhaspati which are quoted in the various philosophical writings may be gleaned as follows:
(1) Earth, water, fire and air are the elements.⁴ (2) Bodies, senses and objects are the results of the different combinations of elements.⁵
¹ Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodyakāṇḍa, 100, 38. ² Shāntiparva 1414, 1430-42; Manu III, 150, 161; IV, 30, 61, 163. ³ Tattvasaṅgraha, 1864. ⁴ pṛthivyaptejovāyuriti tattvāni. ⁵ tatsamudāye sharīrendriyaviṣayasaṁjñā.
Page 42
(3) Consciousness arises from matter like the intoxicating quality of wine arising from fermented yeast.¹ (4) The soul is nothing but the conscious body.² (5) Enjoyment is the only end of human life.³ (6) Death alone is liberation.⁴
The Sarva-darshana-saṅgraha⁵ gives the following summary of the Chārvāka position:
'There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world; nor do the actions of the four castes, orders etc. produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves and smearing one's self with ashes, were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness. If a beast slain in the Jyotiṣṭoma rite will itself go to heaven, why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?... If beings in heaven are gratified by our offering the Shrāddha here, then why not give the food down below to those who are standing on the house top? While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee (clarified butter) even though he runs in debt; when once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return here?... (All the ceremonies are) a means of livelihood (for) Brāhmaṇas. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons.'
III¶
EPISTEMOLOGY¶
THE epistemological doctrine of the Chārvāka school is that perception (pratyakṣa) is the only means of valid knowledge. The validity even of inference is rejected. Inference is said to be a mere leap in the dark. We proceed here from the known to the unknown and there is no certainty in this, though some inferences may turn out to be accidentally true. A general proposition may be true in perceived cases, but there is no guarantee that it will hold true even in unperceived cases. Deductive inference is vitiated by the fallacy of petitio principii. It is merely an argument in a circle since the conclusion is already contained in the major premise the validity of which is not proved. Inductive inference undertakes to prove the validity of the major premise of deductive inference. But induction too is uncertain because it proceeds unwarrantedly from the known to the unknown. In order to distinguish true induction from simple enumeration, it is pointed out that the former, unlike the latter, is based on a causal relationship which means invariable
¹ kiṇvādibhyo madashaktivad vijñānam. ² chaitanyavishiṣṭaḥ kāyaḥ puruṣaḥ. ³ kāma evaikah puruṣārthaḥ. ⁴ maraṇamevā pavargaḥ. ⁵ Chapter I.
Page 43
association or vyāpti. Vyāpti therefore is the nerve of all inference. But the Chārvāka challenges this universal and invariable relationship of concomitance and regards it a mere guess-work. Perception does not prove this vyāpti. Nor can it be proved by inference, for inference itself is said to presuppose its validity. Testimony too cannot prove it, for, firstly, testimony itself is not a valid means of knowledge and secondly, if testimony proves vyāpti, inference would become dependent on testimony and then none would be able to infer anything by himself. Hence inference cannot be regarded as a valid source of knowledge. Induction is uncertain and deduction is argument in a circle. The logicians, therefore, find themselves stuck up in the mud of inference.¹
It is interesting here to note that Shūnyavāda Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta also have rejected the ultimate validity of inference. There has been a long controversy between Udayana, the logician and Shrīharṣa, the Vedāntin regarding the validity of inference and Shīharṣa has denounced all attempts to prove the validity of inference. But there is a radical difference between the Chārvāka view on the one hand, and the Shūnyavāda and the Vedānta view on the other. The Chārvāka accepts the validity of perception and thereby upholds the truth of the means of valid knowledge, though he rejects all other means of knowledge as invalid. But the Shūnyavādin and the Advaitin reject the ultimate validity of all means of knowledge as such including perception, though they insist on the empirical validity of all means of knowledge. The distinction between ultimate and empirical knowledge is unknown to the Chārvāka. To accept the validity of perception and, at the same time and from the same standpoint, to reject the validity of inference is a thoughtless self-contradiction.
The crude Chārvāka position has been vehemently criticized by all systems of Indian Philosophy all of which have maintained the validity of at least perception and inference. To refuse the validity of inference from the empirical standpoint is to refuse to think and discuss. All thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations and denials, all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference. The Chārvāka view that perception is valid and inference is invalid is itself a result of inference. The Chārvāka can understand others only through inference and make others understand him only through inference. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Hence the self-refuted Chārvāka position is called sheer nonsense and no system of philosophy. Perception itself which is regarded as valid by the Chārvāka is often found untrue. We perceive the earth as flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static
¹ visheṣe'nugamābhāvāt sāmānye siddhasādhanāt. anumābhaṅgapaṅke'smin nimagnā vādidantinaḥ.
Page 44
but it is moving round the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun as of a small size, but it is much bigger than the size of the earth. Such perceptual knowledge is contradicted by inference. Moreover, pure perception in the sense of mere sensation cannot be regarded as a means of knowledge unless conception or thought has arranged into order and has given meaning and significance to the loose threads of sense-data. The Chārvāka cannot support his views without giving reasons which presuppose the validity of inference.¹
IV¶
METAPHYSICS¶
THE Chārvāka admits the existence of four elements—earth, water, fire and air—only and he rejects the fifth, the ether, because it is not perceived but inferred. Similarly, soul and God and the Hereafter are rejected. Everything which exists, including the mind, is due to a particular combination of these four elements. The elements are eternal, but their combinations undergo production and dissolution. Consciousness is regarded as a mere product of matter. It is produced when the elements combine in a certain proportion. It is found always associated with the body and vanishes when the body disintegrates. Just as the combination of betel, areca nut and lime produces the red colour,² or just as fermented yeast produces the intoxicating quality in the wine,³ though the ingredients separately do not possess either the red colour or the intoxicating quality, similarly a particular combination of the elements produces consciousness, though the elements separately do not possess it. Consciousness is the result of an emergent and dialectical evolution. It is an epi-phenomenon, a by-product of matter. Given the four elements and their particular combination, consciousness manifests itself in the living body. 'Matter secretes mind as liver secretes bile.' The so-called soul is simply the conscious living body. God is not necessary to account for the world and the values are a foolish aberration. Sadānanda in his Vedāntasāra mentions four different materialistic schools. One identifies the soul with the gross body (sthūla sharīra); another with the senses (indriya); another with vital breaths (prāṇa) and the last with the mental organ (manas).⁴ All the schools agree in regarding the soul as a product of matter. Shāntarakṣita says that the materialist Kambalāshvatara maintains the view that consciousness arises out of the material body associated with vital breaths.⁵
¹ Tattvasaṅgraha, K. 1456. ² Sarvasiddhāntasaṅgraha, 27. ³ Sarvadarshanasaṅgraha, ch. I. ⁴ Vedāntasāra, p 26-27. ⁵ Tattvasaṅgraha, K. 1864.
Page 45
Severe and contemptuous criticism has been levelled against this doctrine by all schools of Indian Philosophy. If consciousness means self-consciousness as it means in the human beings, then it cannot be identified with the living body. The animals also possess the living body, but not rational consciousness. The Chārvāka replies that it is a particular combination of the elements which obtains only in the human body that produces consciousness and that therefore living human body and consciousness are always associated together and nobody has seen consciousness apart from the living human body. But the argument is wrong. If consciousness is an essential property of the human body, it should be inseparable from it as the Chārvāka claims. But it is not. In swoons, fits, epilepsy, dreamless sleep etc. the living body is seen without consciousness. And on the other hand, in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. When a dreamer awakes, he disowns the dream-body but owns the dream-consciousness. The dream-objects are sublated in the waking life, but the dream-consciousness is not contradicted even in the waking life. When a person gets up after seeing a tiger in a dream, he realizes that the tiger is unreal, being only a dream-tiger, but the fact that he saw a tiger in a dream remains a fact even in the waking life. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of waking life, dream life and deep sleep life and is much superior to material body which is its instrument and not its cause. Moreover, the subject, the knower cannot be reduced to the object, the 'known, since all objects presuppose the existence of the subject. Again, the subject is the enjoyer and the object is the enjoyed and the two cannot be identified. Again, the mere fact that consciousness is not experienced without the material body, is no argument to prove that it is a mere product of matter. The eye, e.g., cannot see in darkness. Sight is not possible without light, yet light cannot be regarded as the cause of sight. Mere co-existence is not causation. The two horns of a bull which are always found together cannot be regarded as causally related. The body is a mere instrument for the manifestation of consciousness and cannot be regarded as its cause. Moreover, if consciousness is a property of the body, it must be perceived like other material properties, But it is neither smelt nor tasted nor seen nor touched nor heard. Again. if consciousness is a property of the body, then there should be no consciousness of the body, for why should the body, qualified to produce consciousness, itself stand in need of being manifested by consciousness? Further, if it is a property of matter, then like other material properties it should be known by all in the same manner and should not be private. But we find that consciousness is intimately private and consciousness of an individual cannot be shared by others. Again, if the existence of the soul surviving death cannot be demonstrated, its non-existence too cannot be so demonstrated.