HS 301: Philosophy

(By C. D. Sebastian, PhD © 2023)

4. THREE KEY STANCES OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

(1) Many and One - Upanishads

(2) Middleway – Buddhist Thought
(3) Materialism - Charvaka

4. 3 INDIAN MATERIALISM, NATURALISM AND SCEPTICISM

There are many philosophies in Indian thought. And Indian thought has never been spiritual
alone, but the major part of the search in Indian thought was this wordily, naturalistic and
rational. It is a disservice to Indian philosophies to say and assert that it is a system of thought
that searches the only other worldly and spiritual matters. There is a mistakenly perceived view
that Indian philosophies have been all about the spiritual and inner life. =➔ For instance, “The
characteristics of Indian thought is that it has paid greater attention to the inner of man than to
the outer-world.”1 This not a correct assessment of Indian philosophy. The roots of skepticism
in India go back a long way, and it would be wrong to consider that Indian philosophy was all
about religion and spirituality, ignoring the skepticism and materialism. As Daya Krishna
repeatedly stated: “Indian philosophy can hardly be characterized as spiritual in character.” 2

There are elements of materialism, scepticism, positivism, atheism and hedonism in Indian
thought. Materialism is the general philosophical theory that the ultimate constituents of reality
are material or physical bodies, elements or processes. Positivism is a broad commitment to
empirical methods and rejection of the metaphysical tradition in philosophy. Atheism is the
position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So, an atheist is someone who disbelieves in
God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure
is the highest good and one should seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Scepticism: The term 'skeptic' derives from a Greek noun, SKEPSIS, which means
examination, inquiry, consideration. Philosophical skepticism3 is a critical attitude which
systematically questions the notion that absolute knowledge and certainty are possible.
Philosophical scepticism is opposed to philosophical dogmatism, which maintains that a
certain set of positive statements are authoritative, absolutely certain and true. The Chinese
philosopher Zhuang Zhou (Chuang Tzu) wondered whether there was any difference between
knowing and dreaming! In other words, => Skepticism: The thought common to this school is
that we cannot know the nature of things. Our senses tell us only how things appear to us, not
what they are in themselves. If we cannot know anything, we ought to suspend judgment, that
is, assume nothing at all. All that we can say is that we have such and such states of
consciousness, that an object appears white or black, not that it is white or black.4

1
S. Radhakrishnan, et al (Ed), History of Philosophy: Eastern and Western, Vol, 1, London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1952, p. 21
2
Daya Krishna, “Three Myths about Indian Philosophy”, in Daya Krishna, Indian Philosophy: A Counter
Perspective, Delhi, Sri Satguru Publications, 2006, p. 19.
3
For a detailed study on skepticism see this book: Christopher Hookway, Scepticism, London, Routledge, 1992
4
Frank Thilly, A History of Philosophy, (Revised by Ledger Wood, Professor of Philosophy, Princeton
University) Allahabad, Central Publishing House, 1984, pp. 142 – 143

1
A representative school of thought that had the elements of materialism, scepticism, positivism,
atheism and hedonism is that of the Charvaka.

1. Charvaka

Charvaka or Lokayata5 philosophy of scepticism and materialism flourished from the first
millennium BC. Lokayata is another name of the Charvaka system. The Charvakas are free
thinkers. They flourished in 7th/6th century BC. Lokayata means the philosophy of the people
(lokeshu ayatah lokayata = that which is prevalent among the people). Lokayata also meant
the philosophy of this-worldliness or materialism. It spoke of the life here and now. It rejected
all those views which are beyond the experience of human life here and now. The world
outlook of ancient India was instinctively that of materialistic also.

2. Some References on Charvaka

The Rg Veda (X.72) identifies Brihaspati with Laukya Brihaspati. Charvaka philosophy is
called Lokayata, as it admits the existence of this world (loka) alone. Materialist philosophers,
referred to as Charvakas, are also known as Lokayatas or Laukayatikas as they act like ordinary
people (loka). The Barhaspatya-sutras, also known as Lokayata-sutras, are no longer in
existence. However, Dakshinaranjan Shastri 6 collected 54 sutras of Brihaspati which form the
core of this philosophy. Sukhalalji Sanghavi is of the opinion that Tattvopaplavasingha by
Jayarashi Bhatta is a work of the old Charvaka school. But others note that its extreme
skepticism is not characteristic of the Charvaka school.

Much information about Charvaka views may be gathered from the criticism against Charvaka
philosophy and the deliberations of other schools. Apart from the account of Charvaka
philosophy found in the Rg Veda, considerable material is also contained in the Chhandogya
Upanisad (8. 7-9), the Mahabharata (Shantiparva and Shalyaparva), Krishnamishra's
Pravodhachandrodaya, Madhavacharya's famous Sarvadarshanasanggraha, Vatsyayana’s
Nyayabhasya (2.1.37; 3.2.35), Sridhara's Nyayakandali, Jayanta's Nyayamanjari, Udayana's
Nyayakusumanjali (1.15), Prabhachandra's Nyayakumudachandra, Shankara's
Sharirakabhasya (1.1.1; 2.2.2; 3.3. 53-54) and Vachaspati's Bhamati (3.3.53).

3. The Main Tenets of the Charvaka Philosophy

3.1. Naturalism, No Causality: A thing by its nature (svabhava) comes into existence at a
particular time without any cause. This means that an ‘effect’ does not depend on any cause,
but suddenly comes into being, a spontaneous generation of an event. Its appearance is
uncaused. It is its nature to be so, like sharpness of thorns, or heat of the fire. Breathing exists
as long as the living body exists, so it is the nature of the living body. Thus the Charvakas do
not believe in causality and its universality. Causality is an imaginary relation between
antecedents and consequents, which are perceived together on many occasions. Only
antecedent of one event and the consequence of another event are perceived. Perception is
confined to particular instances. It can never apprehend all instances in the present, past and

5
For a detailed study on the Lok yata or Ch rv ka see the book: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Lok yata: A
Study in Ancient India Materialism, New Delhi, People’s Publishing House, 1959.
6
D. R. Sastri, A Short History of Indian Materialism, Sensationalism and Hedonism, Calcutta, The Book
Company, 1930

2
future. The sequence of two events perceived in the past on numerous occasions may fail in
future under unforeseen circumstances.

3.2 Perception the only means of Knowledge, Denial of Inference: Perception (knowledge
gathered through 5 sense organs, and called as pratyaksha in Sanskrit) is either external or
internal. Internal perception depends on external perception. Manas (organ of internal
perception) depends on external sense organs. Whatever is beyond perception is not real:
heaven, hell, god etc. The Charvakas advocate naïve realism (realism asserts that the objects
of knowledge exist independently of the minds) and empiricism (a doctrine in epistemology
that holds all knowledge is ultimately based on experience).

3.3 Materialism: World is composed of four elements: earth, water, fire and air, which are
perceived, and the existence of the fifth element Ether is denied, because it is not perceived.
Body is only an aggregate of four elements. Consciousness is produced by the material
elements, like red colour is found in the combination of betel (pan leaf), betel-nut (supari) and
lime.

3.4 No Soul/Atman: The soul/atman is only the body endued with consciousness. There is no
proof for the existence of the soul apart from body. The soul’s identity with the body is proved
by such common experiences as “I am fat”, “I am lean”, “I am going” etc. Fatness, leanness,
movement etc. are qualities of the body.

3.5 No Pre-existence and Future: There is no pre-existence of soul before the birth of body,
for body is the cause of consciousness. There is no future existence either.

3.6 No Heaven and Hell: Heaven is non-existent. Heavenly happiness is only an imagination.
No sacrifice (Yajna) performed can take to that heaven. Hell is non-existent. There is no other
hell than bodily pain. The pain which one undergoes in the world is hell. It should be avoided.

3.7 No God: There is no god. God is non-existent.

3.8 Death is Moksha. Meaning of Moksha/liberation is the end of suffering. There will be
suffering and pain in the world. With death all sufferings come to an end.

3.9 Hedonism: The Charvakas reject the Dharma and Moksha as purusharthas. Kama is the
supreme end. Artha (wealth) is a means to that pleasure (kama). “Eat, drink and make merry,
for tomorrow you will die”. As long as we are alive, let us live in happiness. If we have to
borrow money for happiness, go for it. The past is dead gone. It never returns. Youth never
returns, so make most use of the present youthfulness. Bodily pleasure of this world is certain,
and the heavenly joys are uncertain and illusory. So it is foolish to give up the pleasures of this
world for the sake of an uncertain heavenly happiness. Avoid pain as much as possible, and
look for pleasure. Man should separate the husk from the paddy to eat the rice. It is foolish not
to cook food because beggars may pester us for a share of food. In the same way it is foolish
not to enjoy pleasure, and avoid pain. All tasty food should be eaten. It is foolish to avoid some
and eat some. Religious rites are childish play. It is ignorance of the people to think of other
worldly –madness of religion.

However, Vastyayana, the author of Kama Sutra, makes a distinction between higher pleasure
and lower pleasure. He includes Kama, Artha and Dharma (Trivargika) also in the list of

3
purusharthas. When there is the harmony of Kama, Artha, Dharma, that is higher happiness.7
There are 64 Fine Arts (Kala) which give refined pleasure. Both sensual pleasure and refined
pleasure should be pursued.

4. Critical Appreciation of the Charvaka Philosophy

Charvaka Hedonism has many things in common with Egoistic Hedonism of Aristippus (435
– 355 BC - Greek philosopher who is known as Aristippus of Cyrene, a member of Socrates’
entourage who after Socrates’ death (399 BC) founded the Cyrenaic school. Both these
philosophies give emphasis on individual happiness and sensual pleasures. It has much in
common with Epicureanism or the hedonistic philosophy of Epicurus (341 – 271 BC).
According to this philosophy the ‘innate’ human attitude is the pursuit of pleasure as the only
positive value. Epicurus argues that the behaviour of the newborn, and even of non-human
animals, confirms that to maximize pleasure and minimize pain is the natural and primal drive.
The absence of pain is itself pleasure. This controversial thesis goes to the heart of Epicurus’
ethics. In his view, most human misery results from ignorance of how to quantify pleasure.

Though the philosophy of Charvaka upheld the world as mechanical, and his denial of soul,
God, etc., and his propagation of hedonism, which may not be acceptable to many, this School
of thought had great contribution to make:
• The Charvaka helped Indian Philosophy from becoming too dogmatic and too religious.
• Rationality took upper hand and superstitions and blind faith were challenged.
• The Charvaka provoked the keenest controversy and intellectual pursuit on Indian soil.

5. Concluding Remarks

Lokayata is another term used for the Charvakas, and the term means lokeshu ayatah lokayata
(that is which is prevalent among the people). “Lokayata did mean the philosophy of the people
though those who were using this name in this sense (orthodox writers) had often a deep
contempt for the people along with their philosophy.”8 The resonance of heterodoxy was very
far above the ground in Indian tradition against the orthodox hegemony. The contempt for the
Lokayatas of those who are from the Vedic tradition is indeed well known. No less is the
contempt for the Lokayatas for them as well. The only available sourcebook about the Lokayata
is Madhvacharya’s Sarva Darshana Samgraha (14th century AD) where negativistic version
of the Lokayata is given. Unfortunately, the philosophy of the Lokayatas had the misfortune of
being known to us only through the writings of its opponents. Even the two modern historians
of Indian philosophy, namely, S. N. Dasgupta9 and S. Radhakrishnan10 did not do justice to
the Lokayata, due to their foundation on the Sarva Dashana Samgraha of Madhvacharya. D.
R. Sastri’s book 11 in 1930 A Short History of Indian Materialism, Sensationalism and
Hedonism paved way for researchers to look into the philosophy of Charvaka more seriously.
In beginning of the second half of the last century the monumental work of Debiprasad

7
The Kama Sutra, I: 1, II: 47, 49 – 50.
8
Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Lokayata: A study in Ancient Indian Materialism, New Delhi, People’ Publishing
House, 1959, p. 2
9
S. N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1922 - 55
10
S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, London, Allen and Unwin, Vol. 1 - 1923 and Vol. 2 - 1948
11
D. R. Sastri, A Short History of Indian Materialism, Sensationalism and Hedonism, Calcutta, The Book
Company, 1930

4
Chattopadhyaya entitled Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism 12 brought to light
many stunning facts and insights on this very system of heterodoxy. Amartya Sen, in his book
The Argumentative Indian, calls the challenging Charvaka philosophers as “the intellectually
combative Charvaka.”13

6. Other Sceptics in Indian Thought

6.1 Sanjaya (c. 6th century BC) was the foremost sceptic in Indian philosophy. He had
proposed 4 negative propositions in order to avoid errors in philosophical discourse.

(i) A is not B.

(ii) A is not −B.

(iii) A is not (B  −B).

(iv) A is not −(B  −B).

He never made any positive statement about anything. He differed from the
Absolutism/dogmatism, and resorted to negative pronouncements without asserting an ultimate
reality that transcends empirical description.

6.2 The Buddha (564/3 – 484/3/2) disregarded all speculations as he found them useless and
irrelevant to solve the practical problem of human suffering. Whereas Sanjaya was reluctant to
make any positive pronouncements through fear of falling into error, Buddha was willing to
recognize the limitations of human knowledge, and provide a reasonable description of truth
without reaching out to any ultimate objectivity. This approach helped him to avoid any
metaphysical commitments.

6.3 Nagarjuna: (c. 150 AD) He is one of the greatest philosophers of India. He was skeptical
of all philosophical standpoints. Nagarjuna has rightly merited the label of sceptic, for he
undertakes the dismantling of theoretical positions wherever he finds them, and does so in a
methodically logical manner.

6.4 Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa

Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa, who most likely flourished between 800–840 probably in Southern India, was
an Indian philosopher and a hardcore sceptic. He resorted to a kind of methodological
scepticism. He was affiliated to the materialist Cārvāka / Lokāyata school of thought. He is the
author of one of most extraordinary philosophical works in India, the Tattvopaplava-siṁha
(‘The Lion of the Dissolution of [all] Categories’ or ‘The Lion [Destroying] the Delusion of
Categories’). His main claim is that it is not possible to arrive at true knowledge with standard
means recognized by the traditionally adopted model of cognitive procedures (pramāṇa) in
Indian epistemology.

***

12
Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Lokayata: A study in Ancient Indian Materialism, New Delhi, People’
Publishing House, 1959
13
Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian, London, Allen Lane (Penguin Books), 2005, p. 24