A History of the Carvakas

A History of the C•rv•kas

Phil Hari Singh
Introduction
The problem that faces us in addressing the status of the C•rv•kas in the
history of Indian thought has been expressed by one of the leading experts in
the field of Indian materialism, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya:
However, as it is well known, there is a special reason that makes
the study of the Lok•yata particularly difficult. While at least the
major texts of the other schools are preserved for us, all the original
works of the Lok•yatikas are lost beyond the prospect of any
possible recovery. What we are actually left with are merely a few
fragmentary survivals of the Lok•yata, but all these as preserved in
the writings of its opponents, i.e., of those who wanted only to refute
and ridicule it. Lok•yata thus remains to be reconstructed from the
essentially hostile references to it.[1]
Whilst this is true to certain extent, Lok•yata is not alone in this. It must be
noted that in the writings of all schools of Indian thought, refutation of rival
views and the presentation of opponent's ideas that can sometimes border on
caricature occurs in order to advance the arguments of the proponents.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the materials at our disposal that Lok•yata was
viewed with far greater opprobrium than any other dar•ana, although it is not
exactly clear why this should be the case. There appears to be an underlying
hostility towards the C•rv•kas that is not fully borne out by the analysis of
their doctrines. The depth and variety of Indian thought actually precludes the
idea that the C•rv•kas came to be so disparaged on philosophical arguments
alone.
There is however a glaring difference between the ontological position of the
C•rv•kas and all the other major streams of thought in ancient and medieval
India. The C•rv•kas rejected absolutely the concept of an afterlife in any shape
or form, and that there was no karmic law of reward and retribution that could
influence the destiny of a human being whatsoever. A widely respected
account of Lok•yata,[2] given by the Advaita Vedanta theologian S•yana M
•dhava (in the Sarvadar•anasamgraha, 14th century CE), says of this, "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."[3] The text continues:
The Agnihotra [fire sacrifice], the three Vedas, the ascetics
three staves and smearing oneself with ashes were made by
nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and
manliness. If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself
go to heaven, why then does the sacrificer not offer his own

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (1 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

father immediately?…While life remains let a man live

happily, let him eat ghee [clarified butter] even if he runs
into debt. When the body turns into ashes, how can it ever
return again? If he who departs from the body goes to
another world, how is it that he does not come back again,
restless because of his love for his kindred? Hence it is a
means of livelihood that the Brahmin priests have
established all these ceremonies for the dead- there is no
fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were
buffoons, knaves and demons.[4]

We may note here some of the features that have come to be associated with
this school. There is the rejection of the efficacy of Vedic sacrificial ritual and
ascetic practises, combined with a contemptuous attitude directed towards the
Vedic priesthood. There is also a tacit acknowledgement of the "Eat, drink and
be merry, for tomorrow we may die" philosophy that has been associated with
the C•rv•ka system. It is noticeable that only three Vedas are mentioned,
which we may assume to mean the Rig, Yajur and S•ma Vedas. The exclusion of
the Atharvaveda from the text is curious, given that by the 14th century it had
become part of the Vedic corpus in Samhit• recension. The reason for this could
be that the text or oral tradition that M•dhava based his account on was
composed before the Atharvaveda was accepted as •ruti. It is generally accepted
that the ancient Indian tradition in general speaks of only three Vedas, and that
the Atharvaveda occupies a rather ambivalent position in the Veda. There may
be a different explanation to be placed on the exclusion, in this text, of the
Atharvaveda (and its possible relationship to Lok•yata) in Chapter 2.
M•dhava gives in his account an exposition of the philosophical tenets of the C
•rv•kas. These are as follows:
1. Metaphysics- "In this school the four elements, earth, etc., are the
original principles; from these alone, when transformed into the body,
[5]
intelligence is produced."
2. Ethics- "The only end of man is enjoyment produced by sensual
pleasures."[6]
3. Epistemology- "Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished
by intelligence, since there is no evidence for any soul distinct from the
body, as such cannot be proved, since this school holds that perception is
the only source of knowledge and does not allow inference, etc."[7]
4. Causality- "From this it follows that fate, etc., do not exist, since
these can only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say, if you do
not thus allow adrishta,[8] the various phenomena of the world become
destitute of any cause. But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since
these phenomena can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent
nature of things."[9]
We shall deal with the origins and development of these tenets, and whether

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (2 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

the tradition that M•dhava is drawing on is an entirely accurate one, in later

chapters. First, let us examine the meaning of the term Lok•yata.

1. Lok•yata
Early in the Sarvadar•anasamgraha we find this interesting quotation:
The mass of men, in accordance with the •astras of
policy and enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the
only ends of man, and denying the existence of any object
belonging to a future world, are found to follow only the
doctrine of C•rv•ka. Hence another name for that school is
Lok•yata - a name well accordant with the thing
signified.[10]

The use of the phrase "The mass of men" is curious. Does M•dhava really mean
to suggest here that the majority of the Indian populace were adherents of a
system that denied the validity of the concept of rebirth, a central theme in
Indian thought from the post-Vedic period onwards?
The word Lok•yata is a compound term, a combination of loka (the material
world) and ayatah (that which was prevalent in or amongst).[11] Rhys Davids
says, "Lok•yata is explained by Wilson as ‘the system of atheistical philosophy
taught by C•rv•ka’, and by the Petersburg Dictionary as ‘Materialism’."[12] He
also quotes from a Buddhist text: "Buddhaghosa in our passage has: Lok•yatam
vuccati vitanda v•da-sattham: ‘the Lok•yata is a text-book of the Vitandas
(Sophists)’."[13] This quotation of Rhys Davids' own interpretation gives another
meaning to Lok•yata:
…about 500 BC the word Lok•yata was used in a
complimentary way as the name of a branch of Br•hmin
learning, and probably meant Nature-lore - wise sayings,
riddles and rhymes, and theories handed down by tradition
as to cosmogony, the elements, the stars, the weather, the
scraps of astronomy, of elementary physics, even of
anatomy, and knowledge of the nature of precious stones,
and of birds and of beasts and of plants. To be a master of
such lore was then considered to by no means unbecoming
to a learned Br•hmin, though it ranked, of course, below
his other studies… The amount then existing of such lore
was too small to make a fair proficiency in it incompatible
with other knowledge. As the amount of it grew larger, and

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (3 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

several branches of natural science were regularly studied,

a too exclusive acquaintance with Lok•yata came to be
looked upon with disfavour. Even before the Christian era,
masters of the dark sayings, the mysteries, of such
mundane lore, were marked with sophists and casuists.[14]

Rhys Davids is quite correct in stating that the study of Lok•yata was at one
time not incompatible with Br•hmanical learning. In the Artha••stra, composed
sometime around 300 BCE,[15] we find this reference:
…1.The branches of learning are: Logic, the three Vedas
(tray•), agriculture, cattle-raising and trade (collectively
called v•rt•) and the technique of ruling (dandan•ti)…3. For,
logic is only a branch of Vedic lore…10. Logic-based
philosopy (anv•kshik•) (is represented by the following
three): S•mkhya, Yoga and Lok•yata…12. Logic is ever
accepted to be the lamp of all branches of learning, the
means for all kinds of activities and the basis of all virtues
(dharmas).[16]

Against this, we have a text from a much later date that depicts the C•rv•kas in
a distinctly different manner. Gunaratna (c. 15th century CE) is here
commentating on the Saddar•anasamuccaya of Haribhadra, a Jain philosopher (c.
8th century CE):[17]
First, the characteristics (svar•pa) of the N•stikas[18] are
being stated. The N•stikas are a kind of people, including
Brahmins and ending with the low-born, who carry human
skulls, smear their bodies with ashes and practise yoga.
They do not admit the self, virtue (punya), vice (p•pa)
and the like. They speak of the world as consisting of only
four forms of matter. Some sections of the C•rv•kas,
considering •k••a as the fifth form of matter, declare that
the world consists of five forms of matter.
In their view, consciousness is produced from these
forms of matter, like the power of intoxication. Living
beings are like water-bubbles. The self is nothing but the
body as characterised by consciousness. They take
spirituous drinks and meat and also copulate with those
unfit to be sexually approached (agamy•) like the mother,
etc. Every year, on a particular day, they assemble and
copulate randomly with women. They do not consider

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (4 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

dharma to be anything different from k•ma.[19]

Gunaratna here appears to be identifying the C•rv•kas with what is evidently

some form of Tantric ritual.[20] This identification however is not clearly made
in the Saddar•anasamuccaya, and it is possible that Gunaratna is using a different
text or oral tradition for this view.[21]
Thus it appears that there is no exact consensus regarding the meaning of
Lok•yata, and these are the possibilities that have been presented: a populist
doctrine that concentrates purely on the means of self gratification in one's
lifetime (the pursuit of wealth and desire, artha and k•ma); an atheistic system
that stands in comparison to the materialist school of Epicurus (341-270 BCE) in
ancient Greece[22]; a form of sophistry or casuistry; folk-lore (touching on
elements of witchcraft?) that anticipates a more formal approach to scientific
enquiry; a respected branch of logic-based philosophy; or a sect that is inclusive
of Br•hmanas and Tantrikas, holding a physicalist (or more precisely
epiphenomenalist) position whilst engaging in what appear to be hedonistic
practises. Not all of these descriptions are mutually exclusive (apart from the
stark contrast between anv•kshik• and Tantric ritualism), but they do
nevertheless represent shadings of difference.
What is also noticeable is the lack of a clear, precise chronology as to when (or
indeed if) these views of Lok•yata were in circulation. This is a problem that
faces all scholars engaged in the study of Sanskrit literature. Of this,
K.B.Krishna gives the view that, "We are confronted in Indian history with the
perennial difficulty of assigning dates of events of individuals. Because
Brahmins, one of the ruling and dominant classes in India, systematically
sabotaged history-writing. They substituted myth-making to history-
writing."[23] It is highly debatable whether Br•hmanas did actually engage in
wanton destruction of texts that were not to their liking.[24] However it would
be fair to say that a great deal of what is referred to as history in the Western
tradition has been, in India, embedded within a more mythic tradition from the
time of the Rigveda onwards. There are historical arguments that can and
indeed, in the sense that we are deprived of any hard historical "facts", must be
constructed from these texts, for it is in these that we find the first mention of
the founder of Lok•yata.

2. Brihaspati
An alternative appellation for the Lok•yata system is B•rhaspatya, a
straightforward term that means, "those who follow Brihaspati." Most scholars
are agreed that this Brihaspati was the founder of the Lok•yata system, though
there is a question as to the historicity of this person. The tradition associated
with Lok•yata suggests that Brihaspati also provided it with its original s•tras,
but in the absence of a clearly substantiated B•rhaspatya text, this claim is not
sustainable. We do have at our disposal far more material on the mythic

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (5 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

Brihaspati. He was originally an early Vedic deity also known as

Brahmanaspati, and there are references to him stretching back to the Rigveda.
There appears to be some confusion as to the exact role of Brihaspati within the
Vedic pantheon. With reference to the god Indra, Brockington states:
Indeed, he is often joined or replaced in allusions to the
myth [the slaying of Vritra] by Brihaspati, a little mentioned
deity who does not figure in the original pantheon, and
accompanied by the priestly band of Angirases, who
sometimes play the major role. The term Brihaspati was no
doubt originally an epithet of Indra, indicating his priestly
functions as king of the gods, for the word means "lord of
brahman (the power of the ritual, but originally ‘hymn’ or
‘formula’)"; indeed the title is occasionally applied to Agni,
the priestly god. Just as the Vedic king progressively
relinquished his religious duties to professional priests, so
Indra was replaced by Brihaspati in this context.[25]

In contrast to this apparent respectability, we find this reference in the Maitri

Upanishad vii. 9:
Really speaking, Brihaspati, taking the guise of •ukra,
created this ignorance for the security of Indra and the
destruction of the Asuras. It is because of this (ignorance)
that they (Asuras) consider good as evil and evil as good.
They claim: Let people consider as dharma that which is
destructive of scriptures like the Veda, etc. [26]

The mention of the destruction of the Asuras is odd, because we find in the
Rigveda that Asura is interchangeable with the word Deva (i.e., god or deity).[27]
But between the composition of the hymns of the Rig-Veda and the
Upanishads, the application or meaning of epithets undergoes a great deal of
change, and the Asuras are demonised in the latter. Not only that; the focus of
attention in the Upanishads (though not exclusively) is on a quest for the
meaning behind the mythology and ritual formulae of the Vedic hymns.
But what exactly do we mean by Vedic hymns? As we briefly touched on in
the introduction, there is a section of Veda that sits rather uneasily with the rest
of corpus, in that it is not primarily centred on the sacrificial ritualism of the
earliest section of the Rigveda. Brockington says of the Atharvaveda:
The Atharvaveda is, like the Rigveda, a collection of
complete hymns rather than isolated verses, but its general
lack of connection with sacrificial ceremonial led to some
reluctance to accept its authority alongside the other three
Vedas. It takes its title from one of the great priestly

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (6 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

families (partly mythological) of the Rigveda, while an older

name for it links the Atharvans with that other notable
priestly family, the Angirases. It consists of a diverse
compilation of spells for every purpose, whether to secure
success and wealth, or to procure health and offspring.
There is, of course, little basic difference between the spell
and sacrifice, for both seek to achieve similar ends, and the
distinction between the Vedas is by no means absolute; the
Rigveda contains, for instance, a hymn likening the
chanting of Br•hmans to frogs croaking (RV 7.103), often
misunderstood as satirical but in fact a rain charm used as
such up to modern times. So too, the spells of the
Atharvaveda have been given a priestly veneer throughout,
some spells have been included which do pertain to the
sacrifice, and its last and latest book, book twenty, seems to
have been added specifically to link the work to the
sacrificial cult.[28]

Speculative thought is also more prevalent in the Atharvaveda:

Philosophy in India has always been firmly rooted in
practical aspirations, so the presence in the Atharvaveda of a
greater amount of philosophical speculation than in the
other three Vedas is not inappropriate. Knowledge of the
true nature of things is not seen as merely a liberating force
for the individual concerned, but as a means of acquiring
ascendency [sic] over his fellows, particularly his enemies,
and thus of gaining wealth and temporal success…
Altogether, the Atharvaveda provides important evidence of
older Vedic thought and, as a forerunner of the oldest
Upanishads, presents a valuable insight into the continuity
and development of Indian speculative reflections.[29]

The development of the Veda is commonly portrayed in a rather linear

fashion by scholars; we are presented with the early Vedic hymns,
commentated and expanded upon in the Br•hmana literature and in the Arany
•ka texts, before reaching their final culmination in the brahman/•tman
identification in the Upanishads.[30] But this brief analysis of the Atharvaveda
suggests a rather different model. What we have instead is a division of Vedic
religion into two aspects: the sacrificial and the magical[31], and it is by no
means certain which of the two is anterior to the other. As the speculations of
those connected to the sacrificial cult developed, so too did those of the priests

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (7 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

who had followed the traditions of the Atharvaveda, at least until the
harmonising of all these trends in the final redaction of the Vedic corpus. Could
the rituals associated with the fourth Veda have been the knowledge imparted
by Brihaspati to the Asuras?[32] And if so, did this knowledge have any bearing
on the development and doctrines of Lok•yata?
There is another aspect of Brihaspati that requires mention. In 1921, Dr. F.W
Thomas translated and published "The Brihaspati S•tra."[33] This document is a
work devoted to the art of statesmanship and the ordinances of correct
government, bearing a close resemblance to the Artha••stra, and exhibits no
clear affiliation to any particular school of philosophy. However there are
several indications that the text draws upon Lok•yata traditions, e.g., "…5.
Universally the Lok•yata system of doctrine is alone to be followed at the time
of acquiring gain; 6. Only the K•p•lika as regards attainment of pleasure;…"[34]
Here we see Brihaspati connected with a system advocating the pursuit of artha
and k•ma, in conjunction with the attainment and consolidation of political
power. Set against this, we have an episode in the Mah•bh•rata that can be
interpreted as casting a different complexion on the ethics of the C•rv•kas.

3. C•rv•ka

The earliest explicit mention of the name C•rv•ka is not found in any of the
philosophical texts dealing with Lok•yata, but in the Mah•bh•rata. The Epic
deals with the war between the Kur•s and the P•ndavas, and its most important
aspect for later Hindu theology is the separate text incorporated within it, the
Bh•gav•d G•ta. The episode involving C•rv•ka is found in 12. 1. 414 of the Mah
•bh•rata, and it is worth quoting in full:
When the Brahmins were now once again standing
silent, C•rv•ka the R•xasa,[35] in the disguise of a Brahmin,
addressed the King. This friend of Duryodhana, concealed
under the garb of a mendicant with a rosary, a lock of hair
on his crown, and a triple staff, impudent and fearless,
surrounded by all the Brahmins exceeding a thousand in
number, who were anxious to utter their benedictions -
men who practised austerity and self-restraint - this wretch,
wishing evil to the magnanimous P•ndavas, without
saluting those Brahmins, thus addressed the King: "All
these Brahmins, falsely imputing the malediction to me,
themselves exclaim, woe to you, wicked king, the son of
Kunt•? Since you have slaughtered your kinsmen and
elders, death is desirable for you, and not life." Hearing this
speech of the wicked R•xasa the Brahmins were pained and
indignant, being maligned by his words. But they, as well

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (8 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

as King Yudhishtira, all remained silent, being ashamed

and cut to the heart. Then Yudhishtira said: "Let all your
reverences be reconciled to me, who bows down and
supplicates you: you ought not to curse me who has
recently (?)[36] undergone such great misfortunes." All the
Brahmins then exclaimed: "We never uttered the words
imputed to us; may your Majesty enjoy prosperity." Then
these noble-minded Brahmins, versed in the Vedas and
purified by austerities, recognised (the pretend mendicant)
by the eye of knowledge, and exclaimed: "This R•xasa
called C•rv•ka, friend of Duryodhana; in the garb of a
vagrant he seeks to accomplish the purposes of your
enemy; we speak not so, righteous King; let all such fears be
dissipated; may prosperity attend you and your brothers."
Then all these Brahmins, infuriated with anger, uttering
menaces, slew with, with muttered curses, the wicked R
•xasa; who fell down consumed by the might of of utterers
of Vedic incantations, burnt up by the bolt of Indra, like a
tree covered with leaves.[37]

Of chief interest to us here the reasoning behind C•rv•ka's denunciation of the

King: "Since you have slaughtered your kinsmen and elders, death is desirable for you."
There was evidently something in this particular act of war that appalled him.
Before we address this, let us first examine the etymology of C•rv•ka.
Dakshinranjan Shastri says, "The word c•rv•ka is often taken as car•
(beautiful) and v•ka (speech). And it is interesting that car• is also a synonym
for Brihaspati. Thus it may be suggested that c•rv•ka stands for "the word of
Brihaspati".[38] The first explanation, "Beautiful speakers", could indeed be
another way of describing sophists or casuists. The second is slightly less
convincing, in that the name B•rhaspatya occurs frequently in texts in order to
serve roughly the same purpose. It is still a possibility though. Another view is
that C•rv•ka is derived from the root c•rv, "to chew or to eat". Richard King
says, "This may be the name of their founder, but C•rv•ka means ‘one who
eats’ and so may refer to the materialist philosophy of ‘eating up’ all that is
given in perception."[39] Gunaratna gives a similar explanation in the text we
have already quoted from.[40] Alternatively, the name can be interpreted in a
more literal sense, and requires a somewhat lengthy digression.
There is this strange passage in the Ch•ndogyopanishad, I. xii:
Next we come to the chant of the dogs.
Baka D•lbhya, or [as he was called,] Gl•va Maitreya,
retired to study the Veda. [One day] a white dog appeared
on the scene, and other dogs gathered round him saying:

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (9 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

"Venerable sir, get us some food by singing; we are

hungry."
[The white dog] said to them: "Gather round me here
tomorrow morning." So Baka D•lbhya, that is, Gl•va
Maitreya, kept watch.
[The next day] the dogs appeared making the same
motions as [priests] make when, hand in hand, they start
chanting the hymn of praise called Bahishpavam•na. Then
they sat down together and said: "Hin! Om. Let us eat; Om,
let us drink! Om. May the god Varuna, may Praj•pati and
Savitri bring food here! O Lord of food, bring food here, -
bring it here![41]

Most commentators have understood this passage to be a rather curious satire

on the excesses of priestly ritual. But why choose dogs to satirise priests? Why
is the satire confined merely to the description of the participants in this strange
rite, and not to the actual words of the rite itself? As has been noted, the hymn
of the croaking frogs in the Rigveda may not have been intended as a satire on
the Vedic priesthood. They were called frogs not out of a playful or mythical
sense, but because "the frogs" was the name of the clan or tribe to which these
priests belonged. And the use of the term dogs was not meant as an insult or as
a parody, but was in fact the tribal name of this group of people involved in
this act. There are surprising examples of this:
Kautilya in his Arthasastra spoke of a people called the
dogs. They, along with a few other people, belonged to the
raja-sabdopaviji-gana. A whole chapter of the Harivamsa was
devoted to describe the geneology of a highly respected
family, called the family of dogs. The Mahabharata referred
to a section of the Yadavas called the dogs. The same epic,
at least in two more places, mentioned human groups
called the dogs.[42]

The origin of the use of the name dogs could have been a form of totemism.
Chattopadhyaya states:
The essence of totemism is as follows. Each clan of
which the tribe is composed associates itself with an animal
(or a plant), which is called its totem. The clansmen regard
themselves as akin to their totem-species and as descended
from it. Thus the people belonging to the dog-clan, for
example, would consider themselves to be dogs and as
descended from the dog.[43]

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (10 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

The evidence of totemism in Vedic literature is not accepted unanimously.[44]

But the use of animal names is almost certainly retained in the Upanishads:
Even some of the principal Upanishads bear obvious
animal names. These are the Svetasvatara (from the white
mule), the Mandukya (from the frog), the Kausitaki (from the
owl), the Taittiriya (from a species of bird). Another
Upanishad, though it is now extinct in its Sanskrit form was
called Chagaleya, a name derived from the goat.[45]

What is being suggested here is not that the name c•rv•ka itself is totemistic,
rather it relates to a form of ritual that was prevalent in India when the
predominant structure of society was on a tribal basis. We do have this example
from the Taittiriyopanishad :
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
I am food! I am food! I am food!
I am an eater of food! I am an eater of food! I am an eater of
food!
I am a maker of verses! I am a maker of verses! I am a
maker of verses!
I am the first-born of the universal order (rita),
Earlier than the gods, in the navel of immortality!
Whoso gives me away, verily, has succoured me!
I who am food eat the eater of food!
I have overcome the whole world!

He who knows this shines with a golden light.[46]

"I am an eater of food." Could this be a primitive c•rv•ka, and, if so, what
significance does this have for the passage from the Mah•bh•rata?
C•rv•ka's hostility in this episode is directed at the slaying of svaj•nam (one's
own kindred) in the name of dharma. That the war involved fratricide is not
contested, and is indeed the source of the dialogue between Krishna and
Arjuna in the Bh•gav•d G•ta. The passage explicitly notes that the priests
evidently felt shame as a result of C•rv•ka's denunciation of inter-tribal killing.
But whatever qualms they may have held about this were soon dispelled, and C
•rv•ka is killed by them. If c•rv•ka is truly representative of an older form of
tribal ritual, then the death of C•rv•ka in this passage could be interpreted as
marking the disappearance of religious practises that focussed exclusively on
the needs of the immediate tribe. Admittedly, this is pure hypothesis,[47] and
that the C•rv•kas are not viewed by Kautilya in the Artha••stra as opposing
the requirements of the state and society in general (if indeed his reference to
Lok•yata is concomitant with C•rv•ka). However, there is evidence that there

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (11 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

were teachers proclaiming doctrines similar to the C•rv•ka position in the

period that saw the rise of Jainism and Buddhism.

4. Deh•tmav•da
For the C•rv•kas, there was no metaphysical concept of the "Self" as depicted
in the Upanishads, and the karmic law that necessitated the rebirth of this entity
into the next life was nonsensical. The believed that consciousness was the
body endowed with intelligence. M•dhava adds that the C•rv•kas quote from
the Brihad•ranyaka Upanishad ii. 4, 12 to support this assertion,"Out of these
elements (bh•ta) do [all contingent beings] arise and along with them are they
destroyed. After death there is no consciousness (samjn•): this is what I say.
Thus spake Y•jnavalkya."[48] Y•jnavalkya here was presumably acting as p
•rvapakshin,[49] as his true philosophical position was in direct opposition to the
C•rv•ka view. In fact, we can fairly say that that is the case for all the
Upanishadic sages, with the possible exception of Brihaspati in the Maitr•
Upanishad.
These philosophers have one other thing in common: their caste status is either
Br•hmana or Kshatriya. And in many instances we find examples of a reversal
of the functions of these twice-born castes, whereby the Br•hmana becomes the
pupil of the Kshatriya. It could possibly be that what we are witnessing here is
a reflection of the political realities that faced Indian society in the period when
fully-fledged statehood is being carved out between warring tribal factions (as
evidenced, or at least hinted at, in the events of the Mah•bh•rata and possibly
the R•m•yana). The important point is that we do not have at our disposal in
these texts the philosophical speculations of those castes that were outside of
this Br•hmana-Kshatriya hegemony. This is not a simply a question of literacy.
As in all Vedic literature, the Upanishads were taught and expanded upon by
centuries of oral tradition long before transcription, and there is no reason to
believe that the lower castes in Indian society did not have a similar oral
tradition over the same period, or at the least have leaders or teachers who
shaped these traditions.
The most famous of these teachers who rejected the Vedic orthodoxy were of
course the Buddha and Mah•v•ra. There were other thinkers in this period
who are documented in the Buddhist and Jain literature. Makkhali Gos•la[50]
appears to have been quite a formidable influence at the time and his sect, the
•j•vikas, may have at one time been more important than the Jains.[51] There
are others who appear to have been expounding a form of crude
materialism.[52] One such teacher was Ajita Ke•akambala, and we have this
said of his thought:
A second teacher, Ajita Ke•ambala, represented the
following view: "There is no gift in charity, there is no
sacrifice, there are no offerings. There is no fruit and

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (12 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

ripening of good and bad actions. There is not this world or

that. There is no mother nor father. There are no suddenly­
born beings. In the world, there are no ascetics and Br
•hmanas who have gone along the right path of conduct
and follow the right conduct, who have seen this world and
that world out of independent knowledge and proclaimed
it. A man consists of four Elements. When he dies, earth
goes into the mass of earth (prithiv•k•yah), water into the
mass of water, fire into the mass of fire, breath into the
mass of air, and the sense-organs enter into space (•k••ah).
Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry forth the dead
person, and they carry on their talk until they come into the
place of cremation. Then there remain only white bones and
all sacrifices end in ashes. The gift of charity is, therefore,
the doctrine of a buffoon; it is empty and false talk when
anybody asserts that there is something beyond. Fools and
wise men are destroyed and disappear when the body falls
to pieces. There are no more after death.[53]

The are extremely close similarities between this text and the description of Lok
•yata in M•dhava's account, although there are no references in the Buddhist
literature to Ajita Ke•ambala explicitly naming him as a C•rv•ka or a Lok
•yatika. Another notable feature of his teaching is the sense of pessimism that
pervades the text. This is not surprising, as it could be argued that these anti-Br
•hmanical thinkers were as much influenced by the perceived deterioration of
the material culture in which they lived as by their rejection of the hollowness
of the sacrificial cult.
But neither the Buddhists or the Jains reached the conclusion that the only
existent property in the world was matter, as Lok•yata did. The theory of
consciousness that the C•rv•kas developed from this position is referred to as
deh•tmav•da or bh•tacaitanyav•da in the philosophical texts of classical India. In
a Ny•ya[54] text that explicitly mentions the latter, the bh•tacaitanyav•din is
described as "one who admits the consciousness of material elements."[55] In his
commentary on the Brahma-s•tra,[56] •ankara gives this view of deh•tmav•da:
The existence of an intelligent Self joined to a body and so
on which are the bode of activity can be established (by
inference) only; the inference being based on the difference
between living bodies and mere non-intelligent things, such
as chariots and the like. For this very reason, viz, that
intelligence is observed only where a body is observed
while it is never seen without a body, the Materialists

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (13 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

consider intelligence be a mere attribute of the body. Hence,

activity belongs only to what is non-intelligent.[57]
There is a problem here with •ankara's use of the word intelligence, rather than using cit or
caitanya, i.e., consciousness. It could be argued that the theory of mind depicted here is
synonymous with the S•mkhya theory of how intelligence is arrived at.
S•mkhya is a form of dualism that accepts the separation of consciousness and
matter. It is an ancient philosophical system that was in its original form
atheistic, and pre-dates the composition of the Upanishads. The S•mkhya
system views the world as a construction of prakriti and purusha, i.e., primeval
matter and consciousness.[58] The relationship between these two concepts
forms the basis of S•mkhya philosophy. Prakriti, and its constituents, evolves in
order to liberate the purusha that is imprisoned within the material world, and
the system is sometimes (though not always) referred to as the "Evolutionist"
school. Prakriti can also be translated as "primal nature".
Primal nature is the physical phenomenon through which everything, except
purusha, comes into being. In the unevolved avyakta state it consists of three
gunas (literally ropes or strands): sattva, rajas and tamas. These are intelligence,
energy and mass,[59] respectively. The mixture of these unfolds, and the
intellect, mahat, comes into being. Following on from that is the ego, ahamkara,
and from that emerges the mind-organ, manas. At each stage of this
development, the evolutes of prakriti are in contact with the organs of sense and
action, and the potentialities inherent within them. Purusha, the indestructible
consciousness that pervades and is contained within every human individual,
is held in bondage within this material world until liberation is achieved; and
that occurs when the individual realises he or she is not at one with the
individual's body:
This evolution, from the Great to the specific elements
(bhuta), accomplished by the modifications of Nature
(prakriti), is for the emancipation of each individual spirit.
It is for the sake of another, though it appears to be simply
for its own sake.
Just as insentient milk flows for the nourishment of the calf,
so too does Nature (prakriti) act for the sake of the spirit's
liberation.
Just as people engage in action to satiate desire, so does the
unevolved function for the liberation of the spirit.
Just as the dancer stops dancing after she has displayed to
the spectators, so too does primal Nature (prakriti) stop
after displaying herself to the spirit.[60]

The S•mkhya philosophers constructed an elaborate system whereby all the

features of the mind, except for what we would be later called •tman by the
Advaita Ved•nta school, could be produced from insentient matter. There is

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (14 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

the possibility that this could have been influential in the development of Lok
•yata, although the C•rv•kas apparently saw no difference between the
products of mind (i.e., intelligence, ego etc.,) and the quality of consciousness
that S•mkhya refers to as purusha.
Deh•tmav•da, in the sense of being a negation of anything outside of the
material elements from which the body was constituted,[61] could also be
construed as being "the cult of the body". The Tantrikas and the adherents of
the Yoga school also emphasised the importance of the body, and bodily
functions, in their systems. But the ultimate goal of their rituals and practises
was similar to the liberation aimed at by S•mkhya. Nevertheless, there are
scholars who see a connection between Lok•yata and Tantrism, i.e., the K•p
•lika sect. Dhakshinranjan Shastri states:
Formerly, this sect flourished in an independent form. In
course of time it became weak, and lost its independence.
Probably the inhuman cruelties, or the dreadfulness of the
sect, brought about its ruin. As k•ma or the enjoyment of
sensual pleasure was the goal of this sect, it came gradually
to be affiliated to the N•stika form of the Lok•yata school,
according to which the summum bonum of human life is
pleasure. Thus the K•p•likas, like the Assassins, became
the solitary historical example of a combination of
materialistic philosophy with cruelty, lust, supernatural
power and systematic crime. Or, it may be that the
followers of orthodox schools, through bitter contempt,
identified the Lok•yatikas with the fierce K•p•likas, as in
previous cases the Vedicists used freely terms of abuse like
"bastard", "incest" and "monster" with regard to the Lok
•yatikas. At the time of the author of Artha••stra, these K•p
•likas were a distinct sect. In Gunaratna's time we find
them identified with the Lok•yatika school which had
already become a hated name in the country.[62]

It must be noted that the evidence connecting Lok•yata with the K•p•likas is
extremely fragmentary, and that we do not possess a definitive chronology for
the development of the latter sect. But Shastri may be right in suggesting that
there was an alternative form of Lok•yata that did not meet with the approval
of other schools of thought.
Chattopadhyaya gives this quotation from the Vinaya Pit•ka:
Now at that time the Chabbagiya Bhikkhus learnt the
Lokayata system.
People murmured, etc., saying "Like those who still enjoy
the pleasures of the world!"

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (15 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

The Bhikkhus heard of people thus murmuring; and those

Bhikkhus told the matter to the Blessed One.
"Now can a man who holds the Lokayata as valuable reach
up, O Bhikkhus, to the full advantage of, or attain full
growth in, to full breadth in this doctrine and discipline?"
"This cannot be, Lord!"
"You are not, O Bhikkhus, to learn the Lokayata system.
Whosoever does so shall be guilty of dukkata (a form of
offence for the monk)".
Now at that time the Chabbagiya Bhikkhus taught the
Lokayata system.
People murmured, etc., saying, "Like those still enjoying the
pleasures of the world!"
They told this matter to the Blessed One.
"You are not, O Bhikkhus, to teach the Lokayata system.
Whosever does so shall be guilty of dukkata."
…"You are not, O Bhikkhus, to learn - to teach, - the low
arts."[63]

Could these low arts have been some form of magic? If they were, it may be
that some Lok•yatikas still adhered to the forms of ritual that are found in the
Atharvaveda. The use of such rituals by magicians is for attaining power (for
whatever purpose), and is also the aim of Hindu Tantrikas in their sex rituals.
This does open up the (admittedly hypothetical) possibility that the C•rv•kas,
or at least some of them, were connected to the K•p•likas, using the Tantra in
the pursuit of artha and for the fulfilment of k•ma.

5. Svabh•vav•da
The following is an account of Lok•yata epistemology, drawing from
traditional sources, by Surendranath Dasgupta:
…The C•rv•kas admitted the validity only of perception.
There is nothing else but what can be perceived by the five
senses. No inference can be regarded as a valid means of
knowledge, for inference is possible only when the
universal concomitance of the reason (hetus) with the
probandum is known, and such a reason is known to be
existing in the object of the minor term (vy•pti-pak•a-
dharmat•-••li hi lingam gamakam). Such a concomitance must

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (16 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

first be known before an inference is possible; but how can

it be known? Not by perception, for concomitance is not an
objective entity with which the senses can come in contact.
Moreover, the concomitance of one entity with another
means that the entities are associated with each other in the
past, present and future (sarvo-pasamh•rayatr• vy•ptih), and
the sense organs can have no scope to future associations or
even with regard to all past time…If the concomitance
cannot be perceived by the sense organs, it cannot be
perceived by the mind either, for the mind cannot associate
itself with the external objects except through the sense
organs. The concomitance cannot be known through
inference, for all inference presupposes it. Thus, there being
no way of perceiving concomitance, inference becomes
impossible...[64]

It would be an extremely rare occurrence for one to come across a modern

textbook on the schools of Indian philosophy where an analysis differing from
this one is to be found. It has become something of a cliché in the modern
understanding of Lok•yata that its adherents accepted pratyaksha (perception)
as the only pram•na. The C•rv•ka rejection of anum•na (inference) is dealt with
in greater length in the p•rvapak•in tradition than any other doctrine of theirs
by their contemporaries. The material pertaining to this argument is probably
the decisive factor in persuading modern scholars that there was an inherent,
inescapable flaw in the C•rv•ka's philosophy that today renders it as almost a
footnote or an afterthought in our texts. And let us make no mistake about this:
the refusal to accept inference as a pram•na, and reliance on perception alone
renders not only the discipline of philosophy impossible. If we cannot rely on
an object of knowledge that is not immediate to our sense-data, if we cannot
believe in anything that is not presented before our very eyes, then we have
ceased to be rational human beings and our ability to function as such in the
world is practically nil. That, in essence, is the epistemology of the C•rv•kas
followed to its logical conclusion. Chattopadhyaya quotes the Ny•ya
philosopher Udayana as reaching the same conclusion.[65]
There is simply something intuitively wrong in accepting this as a true
representation of Lok•yata logic, and a closer look at the passage above reveals
why: "…and the sense organs can have no scope to future associations or even
with regard [etc]." The future associations in this context simply mean that
which is likely to be known or to happen in the future, e.g., the sun rising in the
east and setting in the west. The method in determining this is a process of
induction that involves inferential reasoning. But what if the object of future
knowledge in question is extended beyond the phenomena of this world? We
have already seen in M•dhava's critique that the C•rv•kas denied the existence

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (17 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

any object belonging to a future world outside of the one lived in on a daily
basis, that "There is no heaven, no final liberation." The rejection of inference by
the C•rv•kas was not an attempt to stunt and distort the human intellect. They
rejected inferential thinking as a means of establishing the existence of paraloka.
However, in the extant sources this argument is corroborated on only one
occasion. Dasgupta finds this reference to a certain Purandara in Kamala••la's
Panjik•:
Purandara, however, a follower of C•rv•ka (probably of
the seventh century), admits the usefulness of inference in
determining the nature of all worldly things where
perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be
employed for establishing any dogma regarding the
transcendental world, or life after death or the laws of
Karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual
experience. The main reason for upholding such a
distinction between the validity of inference in our practical
life of ordinary experience, and in ascertaining
transcending truths beyond experience, lies in this, that an
inductive generalization [sic] is made by observing a large
number of cases of agreement in presence together with
agreement in absence, and no cases of agreement in
presence can be observed in the transcendent sphere; for
even if such spheres existed they could not be perceived by
the senses.[66]

This explanation must be measured against the arguments found in the

Tattvopaplavasimha, an apparently newly discovered text that is accredited by
some scholars to the C•rv•ka school, and dating from the 8th century CE.[67]
The author, Jayar••i Bhatta, claims to be drawing on Brihaspati as an
authority.[68] But the main aim of his text is to demolish the epistemological
arguments of the C•rv•ka's opponents, rather than establishing any definite
pram•na-v•da for his own school. In that sense the text is a-pram•na, i.e., Jayar
••i Bhatta rejects not only inference but all pram•nas as being valid sources of
knowledge, and that his true philosophical position is one of agnostic
scepticism. Walter Ruben writes:
In this way, a definite sophistic-agnostic-antiphilosophic
tradition comes down through more than a thousand years
and our author is to be placed as belonging to this trend to
certain extent [sic]; but the difference of his argumentation,
in several instances, is also to be noted. Jayar••i Bhatta
specially invents for himself a bagful of points of opposition
and hair-splittings…He declares with pride at the end of his

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (18 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

work that his arguments have not come under the purview
of Brihaspati. As Jayar••i's agnosticism does not hold good
philosophically, so is his claim of originality unfounded
and the sign of pettiness.[69]

The mention of hair-splittings and pettiness is significant, for this could be the
vitand•, fallacious argumentation, that Buddhaghosa accused the C•rv•kas of
engaging in.
But if the C•rv•kas rejected the use of the pram•nas in establishing the existence
of a world outside of our sense-data, then how were they to account for
existence of the empirical world and its causal relations? Lok•yata had no place
for Divine creation in its system, nor did it hold that the world unfolded as an
outward manifestation of Brahman, as taught by the Advaita Vedanta school.
Causality, if the materialists were to maintain a consistent doctrine, must be
due to purely physical processes only and there could be no room for adrishta in
this system. We can quote from M•dhava:
From this, it follows that fate, etc., do not exist, since these
can only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say,
if you do not thus allow adrishta, the various phenomena of
the world become destitute of any cause. But we cannot
accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena can all
be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of
things. Thus it has been said -
The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing and cool the
breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety? From their own nature was it
born.[70]
Gunaratna gives a more precise definition of the doctrine self-origination:
The Svabh•vav•dins argue as follows. Here, it is the
"essential nature" (svabh•va) of a thing that it undergoes
transformation by itself (svatah). All entities are born due to
the influence of svabh•va. Thus for example, from clay, a jar
is produced and not cloth, and from yarn, a cloth is
produced and not the jar, etc. But this production according
to a fixed rule cannot be explained to take place without it
being characterised by such specific svabh•va. Therefore, it
is to be concluded that all this is due to svabh•va. Thus it has
been said: "Who produces sharpness in thorns? (Who
creates) different dispositions in animals and birds? All this
has proceeded from svabh•va. There is no scope for action
according to one's will. What is the use of effort?"[71]

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (19 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

He also describes an alternative view of causality:

According to the view of the Yadricch•v•dins, the
word yadricch• means the attainment of objects without any
prior deliberation (abhisandhi) (i.e. accidentally). But who
are these Yadricch•v•dins? The answer is as follows. The
Yadricch•v•dins are those who, in this world, do not admit
to any fixed cause-effect relation in respect to objects, but
maintain (such relation to be due) to yadricch• (accident).[72]

As we have noted with regard to Lok•yata epistemology, there are clearly

problems in establishing a cause-effect relationship in the absence of
perceptually verifiable evidence. Gopinath Kaviraj[73] has this to say on the
relationship of the theories described above:
It is very difficult to distinguish between Svabh•va and
Yadricch•, as both are identical so far as the rejection of the
causal principle is concerned. But the distinction, however,
may be taken to lie in this, that whereas in svabh•vav•da a
niyama is formally admitted which is technically known as
svabh•v•niyama, in yadricch•v•da there is no scope for any
such restriction. With reference to the question - why a jar
should be produced from vlay and not from threads - the
answer of the Svabh•vav•din is a plain statement of the
nature of the thing which is unchangeable; but the answer
of the Yadricch•v•din would be a flat denial of any such
natural principle. The observed order and regularity in our
experience is due to mere chance, they would say.[74]

It is possible that the C•rv•kas held the view that the world was caused merely
by accident. We would certainly not be surprised to find that this was the view
of a sceptic such as Jayar••i Bhatta. But the element of chance in the causal
process also opens up the possibility that there is a property outside of our
sense-data that has an influence on events in the physical realm. If the C•rv
•kas accepted yadricch• as the causal axiom, then they would be accepting,
however crude, a form of adrishta into their system. On balance, the C•rv•kas
probably accepted svabh•vav•da. It could be consistent with their materialistic
outlook by virtue of the fact that even if the creation of an entity or object could
not be directly experienced, then it could be inferred (if Purandara's account of
inference is to be accepted) that the object actually present in the world
contained within itself the potentiality for that origination.

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (20 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

6. The Disappearance Of The C•rv•kas

The C•rv•kas are not mentioned in any other text after the 16th century CE,
and there are no sects in India today that claim any direct descent from them.
What happened to them, and why has none of their literature been preserved?
Richard King has this to say:
The fact that so little is known about the C•rv•kas may
stem from their suppression by other groups, but it may
also reflect their own repudiation of tradition. Ancient
Indian philosophical systems have survived for millenia not
just because their views and arguments have proved
compelling and worth taking seriously by adherents, but
also because they have been associated with institutional
structures and traditions. The rejection of authoritative
testimony (•abda-pram•na) or tradition (•gama) in any form
as a valid source of knowledge (as exemplified in their
critique of the Hindu, Jain and Buddhist adherence to their
own sacred texts), made it less likely that the materialists
would be able to preserve their views as a sustained
tradition with some form of institutional backing or lineage
(samprad•ya).[75]

For the latter, it could be argued that the C•rv•kas did in fact consistently
argue that they claimed their descent from Brihaspati, who as a Vedic deity
could certainly be seen as authoritative, at least in terms of stature. But the texts
that we have at our disposal that actually quote him as an authority, the
Brihaspati S•tra and the Tattvopaplavasimha, are not considered by scholars to be
truly representative of the Lok•yata school. We should also be wary of reading
too much into the favourable manner in which the Artha••stra viewed Lok
•yata. There is a good deal of evidence that some rulers in India found common
cause with materialism for purely atavistic purposes, and this may have been
the reasoning behind Kautilya's advocacy of the Lok•yata doctrine.[76]
As to possibility of suppression by other groups, we have already noted that
K.B Krishna believed, without presenting any real evidence for this claim, that
the Lok•yata texts were systematically destroyed by the Brahman class. That
there is evidence that there was a certain level of misinterpretation by the C•rv
•ka's opponents is probably not beyond dispute. But that these texts were
systematically destroyed by them is not provable, for we are hardly likely to
come across any written evidence where the opponents actually admit doing it.
There is an alternative hypothesis for the disappearance of their literature.
What we do know is that towards the end of the first millenium CE, atheism in
India was under sustained attack, due to the resurgence of the Brahmanical
tradition, i.e., the Ved•nta and Bhakti (i.e., devotional) movements. Even the

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (21 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

ancient S•mkhya system had long succumbed to the admittance of a theistic

element. The major victims in this were the Buddhists. It is widely
acknowledged that for centuries the Buddhists had played a massive role in the
collection of, and commentaries on, all the philosophical traditions in India.As
the Buddhist presence in India dwindled, it is possible that the texts dealing
with the older atheistic movements became concentrated in fewer places,
possibly at N•landa. This university, and with it the Buddhist presence in
India, was eradicated during the invasions and eventual domination of
Northern India by the Islamic conquests that began in the 11th century. It is not
entirely implausible that the Lok•yata texts were also lost in the ferocity of the
Islamic attitude towards Buddhism. Of course, that would also hold true for
any individual who proclaimed to be a follower of the stark atheism of the C
•rv•kas. The Brahmanic faith survived due to the eventual accommodation
reached between its adherents and the Islamic conquerors. It is doubtful
whether there was any possibility of accommodation with Lok•yata.[77]

Conclusion
For a text that bears the title, "A History of the C•rv•kas", the most striking
feature of this document is the lack of a precise chronology that we would
normally associate with a historical examination. If I am to be accused of being
rather vague with dates, then it is entirely due to the fact that all histories of
Indian thought must be constantly aware of the problems in assigning absolute
and non-controvertible dates to the key events and the formation of new ideas.
This is particularly relevant in the case of the Vedic and Epic material that I
have used in the argument set out, though I believe I have not deviated too far
from the overall development of philosophical structures in India.
Before I begin to summarise this argument, there is this interesting quotation
from Nirad Chaudhuri:
Hinduism differs fundamentally from Christianity in this,
that for its followers it is not an alternative to the world, but
primarily the means of supporting and improving their
existence in it. Of course, as in all other religions, so in
Hinduism there is belief in another world, in life after
death, and in all the supra-mundane things which form the
staple of every religious system. The Hindus also make a
distinction between this world (iha-loka) and the other world
(para-loka), between things which belong to here (ahika) and
those that belong to there (p•ratrika). They also speak of
salvation (moksha). But the unwordly aims of religion when
put against the worldly have hardly ant weight.
As to the notion of salvation, it is wholly unreal and

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (22 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

unattractive - a mere talking point, as indeed so much

verbiage about it shows. Salvation is never the object of the
religious observances and worship of the Hindus. The main
object is worldly prosperity, and this absorption in the
world has made the doctrine of rebirth in it the most
appealing and strongly held belief among all the notions
put forward by them about existence after death. They so
loved the world that they made the possibility of leaving it
for good even after many cycles of birth as remote and
difficult as possible.[78]

Of course, no one in ancient India is represented as loving the material world

more than the C•rv•kas. And yet they saw no reason for believing that they
were ever coming back to it. Did they pursue artha and k•ma because the denial
of the karmic law necessitated enjoying the one and only life to the full? There is
a maxim attributed to them in the K•ma S•tra: "A pigeon to eat is worth more
than a peacock in the sky."[79]
The worldliness of the Hindu religion is not a recent phenomenon. We can trace
this right back to the Rigveda, where the sacrifices and rituals are performed
with the express intention of receiving some earthly benefit. As the
performance of these rites increased in complexity so too did the speculations
that dwelled on their meaning, ultimately developing into the thoughts
recorded in the Upanishads. Alongside of this, there was the different tradition
of the Atharvaveda, not completely independent of Vedic society, but
nevertheless viewed by the more orthodox Brahmanas as somewhat lacking the
authority of their own tradition. If the interpretation of the episode in the Ch
•ndogyopanishad is correct, the "chanting dogs" could have been priests who
were allied to the shamanistic aspect of the Atharvaveda rituals, in fact, the
forerunners of the later Lok•yata. But I have only been able to infer or
hypothesise this; the link between magic and materialism (as a philosophical
school) is a difficult one to establish in the absence of texts.
The period that saw the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism, roughly 600 BCE
onwards, also saw the rise of the Mah•janap•das,[80] possibly alluded to in the
Epic literature where we first see an explicit mention of C•rv•ka. His death at
the hands of the orthodoxy could be interpreted as the point at which Lok•yata
lost the tribal basis of its origins, but nevertheless retaining the mantras from its
early history.[81] And these mantras were only later viewed in disfavour by
other philosophical schools as their own doctrines increased in sophistication.
The Lok•yata mantras, connected with wordly things, could have been
influential in informing the C•rv•ka philosophy that the only thing that existed
was the materiality of the world. But I think it is doubtful that Lok•yata is
synonymous with the modern usage of scientific materialism.

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (23 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

Bibliography
Bharati, A. The Tantric Tradition, London: Rider & Company, First
published 1965
Biardeau, M. Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilisation, Delhi: OUP,
English edition, 1989
Brockinton, J.L The Sacred Thread: Hinduism in its Continuity and Diversity,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, First published 1981
Chattopadhyaya, D. C•rv•ka/Lok•yata: An Anthology of Source Materials
and someRecent Studies, New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical
Research, First published 1990
Chattopadhyaya, D. Lokyata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism, New
Delhi: Peoples Publishing House, First published 1959, Seventh edition 1992
Chaudhuri, N.C, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By, New Delhi: OUP, First
published 1979
Danielou, A. trans. The Complete K•ma S•tra,Vermont: Park Street Press
1994
Dasgupta, S. A History of Indian Philosophy Vols. I, & III Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press, 1922 40, Reprinted 1973-75
Shubhada, Dr., A. Lok•yata - A Critical Study (Indian Spiritualism
Reaffirmed), Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1995
King, R. Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought,
Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press, 1999
Kinsley, D.R. Hindu Goddesses, London: University of California Press,
Paperback 1988
Krishna, K.B. Studies in Hindu Materialism, Guntur: Milinda Publications
First edition 1994
Mookerjee, A. & Khanna, M. The Tantric Way: Art, Science, Ritual, London:
Thames & Hudson, 1977
Nambiar, Dr., S.K. The Prabodhacandrodaya of Krishna Mi•ra, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, Second Edition 1998
Radhakrishnan, S. History of Philosophy Eastern and Western Volume One,
London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1952
Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy Volume I, London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., First Published 1923, Eighth impression 1966
Sharma, C. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1976
Shastri, D. Charvaka Philosophy, Calcutta: Rabindra-Bharati University, First
edition 1996
Thapar, R. A History of India Volume One, London: Pelican Books Ltd., 1966,
Reprinted in Penguin Books 1990
Thapar, R. Interpreting Early India, New Delhi: OUP, First Published 1992
Zaehner, R.C. Hindu Scriptures, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., First Trans.,
& Ed., published 1966
[DS1]

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (24 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

[1] D Chattopadhyaya, Lok•yata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism, New

Delhi, 1959, p xv
[2] D Chattopadhyaya, ed., C•rv•ka/Lok•yata: An anthology of source
materials and some recent studies, New Delhi, 1990, p. 247
[3] R King, Indian Philosophy: An introduction to Hindu and Buddhist
thought, Great Britain, 1999, p. 16
[4] ibid, pp. 16-17
[5] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 248
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] Literally meaning "The unseen"; here it is referring to a non-empirical
process of causation.
[9] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p.253
[10] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 248
[11] Chattopadhyaya gives a slightly different version, "Lokesu ayatah lokayata. It
was called Lokayata because it was prevalent (ayatah) among the people
(lokesu)." Chattopadhyaya, op cit, p. 1
[12] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p.369
[13] ibid, p. 371
[14] ibid, p. 374. It must also be noted that Rhys Davids held the view that there
was no specific school of thought known as Lok•yata/C•rv•ka, though
scholarship in general is of the view that it was a firmly established dar•ana.
[15] S. Radhakrishnan, History of Philosophy Eastern and Western Volume I,
London, 1952, p. 107
[16] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, pp. 74-75
[17] ibid, p. 257
[18] ibid, p. 258. Although n•stika is a label that is applicable to all non-
Brahmanical sects, Haribhadra explicitly designates the Lok•yatas as n•stikas,
and I am inclined to think that his description of them is from drawn from
•stika sources that used the same identification.
[19] ibid, pp. 266-267
[20] I am not quite sure whether he is referring to the Aghorin or Kap•lika sects.
There seems to be a general consensus amongst scholars who have discussed
the connection between Lok•yata and Tantrism that the reference is to the Kap
•likas.
[21] There is, of course, the possibility that Gunaratna has included this
reference from his own invention as a purely slanderous device, concentrating

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (25 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

on the rather more salacious aspects of Tantrism. We must also bear in mind
that he is writing some seven centuries after the composition of the
Saddar•anasamuccaya, and that the denigration of the (probably by then extinct)
C•rv•kas may have been a commonplace occurrence.
[22] K.B. Krishna, Studies in Hindu Materialism, Guntur, 1994, p. 40
[23] ibid, p. 33
[24] I will assess the evidence for the absence of Lok•yata texts in Chapter 6.
[25] J. L. Brockington, The Sacred Thread: Hinduism in its continuity and
diversity, Edinburgh, 1981, p.12
[26] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 7
[27] Brockington, op cit, p. 10
[28] ibid, pp. 22-23
[29] ibid, p. 24
[30] Not all presentations of Indian philosophy are as simplistic as this model;
nevertheless, due to the influence of Advaita Ved•nta in modern Indian
thought, this tends to be the general impression given.
[31] I would argue that the use of spells in the context of the Atharvaveda could
be classed as a form of sorcery or witchcraft, which is the distinction I wish to
draw by using the word "magical".
[32] I have made a connection between Brihaspati and the Atharvaveda on the
admittedly slim evidence of the proximity of Brihaspati to the Angirases in the
Rigveda. I have done this because it is highly unlikely that his instruction to the
Asuras was the Lok•yata doctrine in its advanced philosophical form, which
appears to be the view of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. See Chattopadhyaya,
op cit, pp. 40-42
[33] F.W. Thomas, Brihaspati Sutra: or the Science of Politics According to the
School of Brihaspati, Lahore, 1921.
[34] ibid, p. 11
[35] This should spell "r•kshasa", meaning demon or evil spirit.
[36] Translator's question mark.
[37] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, pp. 358-359
[38] ibid, p. 429
[39] King, op cit, p. 17
[40] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 267
[41] R.C. Zaehner, Hindu Scriptures, London, 1966, p. 85
[42] Chattopadhyaya, op cit, p. 85
[43] ibid, p. 88
[44] ibid, p. 89-91

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (26 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

[45] ibid, p. 83
[46] Zaehner, op cit, p. 144
[47] Some may argue that this is actually pure fantasy, but I am trying to locate
the C•rv•kas in a period when there are very few historical records to work
from, and the general consensus is that the period covered in the Great Epic
does represent a time of massive social upheaval in India where there is, with
the emergence of n•stika sects, a great deal of opposition to the prevailing
norms.
[48] Zaehner, op cit, p. 47
[49] In the Indian philosophical tradition, the p•rvapakshin first expounds the
view of his opponent in order to criticise or refute their position.
[50] The spelling of this name varies in different texts.
[51] Brockington, op cit, p. 80
[52] By materialism here, I mean in the strict ontological meaning of the term,
i.e., the existence of matter only.
[53] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, pp. 479-480
[54] School of logic in classical India.
[55] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 85
[56] ibid, p. 234
[57] ibid, p. 235
[58] Or sometimes rendered as spirit, though obviously not in any "ghostly"
sense.
[59] This is sometimes translated as darkness or inertia.
[60] S•mkhya Karika, verses 56-59
[61] Apart from those C•rv•kas quoted by Gunaratna who included •k••a as a
fifth element.
[62] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 424
[63] Chattopadhyaya, op cit, pp. 39-40. Chattopadhyaya also states here that
"the low arts" was understood by these Buddhists to be some form of sorcery,
which was the view of T. Rhys Davids.
[64] S. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy Volume III, Great Britain,
1940, pp. 533-534
[65] Chattopadhyaya, op cit, p. 23
[66] Dasgupta, op cit, p. 536
[67] Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, p. 491
[68] ibid, p.505
[69] ibid, p. 516
[70] ibid, p. 253

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (27 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]

A History of the Carvakas

[71] ibid, pp 296-297

[72] ibid
[73] ibid, p.441
[74] ibid, pp. 448-449
[75] King, op cit, p. 22
[76] See Chattopadhyaya, ed., op cit, chapter on P•y•si Suttanta pp. 8-32, and
essay by Eric Frauwallner pp. 474-486
[77] It could be argued that in laying the blame firmly at the door of the
Muslims, I am seeking the easy way out. What we do know is that atheism was
anathaema to the more extreme exponents of martial Islam, and Lok•yata was
atheism par excellence.
[78] N.C. Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live By, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 10­
11
[79] A. Danielou, trans., The Complete K•ma S•tra, Vermont, 1994, p. 38
[80] The absorption of the g•nas, the small tribal units, into the larger "nation­
state" ethos.
[81] Chattopadhyaya, op cit, pp. 37-38

[DS1]

Return to DARSHANA

file:///D|/Archivio/Texts/Indoiranica/A%20History%20of%20the%20Carvakas.htm (28 di 28) [09/11/2004 22.03.27]