• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Extinction of Charavakas line...

  • Thread starter V.Balasubramani
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

V.Balasubramani

Guest
Pranams,

Extract of an article published in The Hindu dt:1st Dec.2013 - Open Page -
'Of liquor shops & supersitions' by G. Dwarakanath.


Hundreds of years ago there was a group of people called Charavakas who preached atheism. Charavakam means asking difficult questions. This group was well informed about the Vedas and other scriptural lore and would ask incovenient questions that the believers found it difficult to answer................


One of the cardinal teachings of the Charavakas was Beg, Borrow or Steal, make yourself happy and enjoy today whatever you want because you may not be alive tomorrow............


The group started with ordering solitary confinement of the queen and later supervised the birth of the child so that no other child was substituted in the place of the ligitimate baby.


After some time the Charavakas became bold enough to demand that they be allowed to watch the king and the queen copulating, so that, they could certify the legitimacy of the child....An angry king chopped off the heads of these busy bodies and other kings also picked up courage and followed suit. That ultimately led to the extinction of the Charvaka line.



Would like to know more on this


With regards

Courtesy: The Hindu dt:01.12.2013 - OPEN PAGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.....One of the cardinal teachings of the Charavakas was Beg, Borrow or Steal, make yourself happy and enjoy today whatever you want because you may not be alive tomorrow............

If you are going to copy/paste at least give a link to the original article, that is the least one could do: Of liquor shops & superstitions - The Hindu

Charvaka/Lokayata is the earliest materialist philosophy ever developed. You would find similar thought among Greek philosophers such as Epicurus who also argued there is no after life and the only goal is to be happy. They did not believe in gluttonous consumption because that will lead to serious unhappiness even though there was some amount of fleeting happiness to be found. Yet, ignorant people equate Epicurus with fine dining.

Only bits and pieces of Charvaka text is available, that too only via poorvapaksha discussion of commentators. They were obviously hostile to Charvaka thought. Some of these commentators were downright mean to suggest Charvakas encouraged beg, borrow, steal. But, that is what we have to face, hostility free of knowledge, crush the opposing view with lies and outright lies.


No, some of them moved here to TB site, LOL
well prasad1 strikes again, always angry at those who dare to have a different POV. His obvious mock aside, yes, I am more drawn to Charvaka philosophy than the superstition ridden Vedanta of all kinds, and, almost forgot, LOL ....
 
If you are going to copy/paste at least give a link to the original article, that is the least one could do: Of liquor shops & superstitions - The Hindu

Charvaka/Lokayata is the earliest materialist philosophy ever developed. You would find similar thought among Greek philosophers such as Epicurus who also argued there is no after life and the only goal is to be happy. They did not believe in gluttonous consumption because that will lead to serious unhappiness even though there was some amount of fleeting happiness to be found. Yet, ignorant people equate Epicurus with fine dining.

Only bits and pieces of Charvaka text is available, that too only via poorvapaksha discussion of commentators. They were obviously hostile to Charvaka thought. Some of these commentators were downright mean to suggest Charvakas encouraged beg, borrow, steal. But, that is what we have to face, hostility free of knowledge, crush the opposing view with lies and outright lies.


well prasad1 strikes again, always angry at those who dare to have a different POV. His obvious mock aside, yes, I am more drawn to Charvaka philosophy than the superstition ridden Vedanta of all kinds, and, almost forgot, LOL ....

T
he group started with ordering solitary confinement of the queen and later supervised the birth of the child so that no other child was substituted in the place of the ligitimate baby.

That would be more interest to some of these charvakas than anything philosophical.
 
Charvaka professed their founders to be the teachers and Lords of the world, while they refuse to believe in the Eternal, Supreme Spirit who is the Lord of Lords. The question is who was the teacher of those founders? If the answer is that they evolved knowledge out their own minds, it cannot be right, because no effect can come into existence without a cause. The teacher had to be taught.

Ethics of Charvaka is a crude individual hedonism; pleasure of the senses in this life and that too of the individual is the sole end. Considering ethical concepts, Charvakas regarded the notion of good and evil as an illusion created by the human imagination. They suggested that only aim of human life is happiness of their own.
 
Last edited:
If you are going to copy/paste at least give a link to the original article, that is the least one could do: Of liquor shops & superstitions - The Hindu

Charvaka/Lokayata is the earliest materialist philosophy ever developed. You would find similar thought among Greek philosophers such as Epicurus who also argued there is no after life and the only goal is to be happy. They did not believe in gluttonous consumption because that will lead to serious unhappiness even though there was some amount of fleeting happiness to be found. Yet, ignorant people equate Epicurus with fine dining.

Only bits and pieces of Charvaka text is available, that too only via poorvapaksha discussion of commentators. They were obviously hostile to Charvaka thought. Some of these commentators were downright mean to suggest Charvakas encouraged beg, borrow, steal. But, that is what we have to face, hostility free of knowledge, crush the opposing view with lies and outright lies.


Sir,

Thanks for the information on Charvakas and the Archaeology discovery link.

As for providing link in C&P postings, shall stick to that in future.

With regards
 
Charvaka professed their founders to be the teachers and Lords of the world, while they refuse to believe in the Eternal, Supreme Spirit who is the Lord of Lords. The question is who was the teacher of those founders? If the answer is that they evolved knowledge out their own minds, it cannot be right, because no effect can come into existence without a cause. The teacher had to be taught.

Ethics of Charvaka is a crude individual hedonism; pleasure of the senses in this life and that too of the individual is the sole end. Considering ethical concepts, Charvakas regarded the notion of good and evil as an illusion created by the human imagination. They suggested that only aim of human life is happiness of their own.

Sir,

Thanks for the information.


With regards
 
BTW I had a to study a little about Charvaka Philosophy during me final part of my 2 year Sanskrit course and it was clearly stated that even though Charvaka Philosophy was not believing in the Authority of Vedas it was still very much encouraging peace and harmony and good behaviour among its followers.

So I wonder how much is actually true about the article in the OP to start with.
 
Last edited:
Actually what i so wrong about Charvaka philosophy?

At least it teaches us to be in the present and live to the fullest within certain codes of conduct.

I feel most other schools of thought are always preparing humans for the after world..and do not teach us to live in the present..wanting everyone to prepare for a live that they have no idea about..each Guru keep silent about everything..may be God knows if these Gurus actually know anything at all to start with.

Why the heck live in such a restricted way just to secure better places in the after world and some make life for others a living hell in that process.

I feel to a certain extent a philosophy that encourages us to live in the present and be good to others and ourselves will be the best philosophy.

There is no use shouting from on top of the roof that Vedas is the Authority if we cant live in the present....living for the unknown after life is almost like a Delusion!
 
Pranams,

Extract of an article published in The Hindu dt:1st Dec.2013 - Open Page -
'Of liquor shops & supersitions' by G. Dwarakanath.


Hundreds of years ago there was a group of people called Charavakas who preached atheism. Charavakam means asking difficult questions. This group was well informed about the Vedas and other scriptural lore and would ask incovenient questions that the believers found it difficult to answer................


One of the cardinal teachings of the Charavakas was Beg, Borrow or Steal, make yourself happy and enjoy today whatever you want because you may not be alive tomorrow............


The group started with ordering solitary confinement of the queen and later supervised the birth of the child so that no other child was substituted in the place of the ligitimate baby.


After some time the Charavakas became bold enough to demand that they be allowed to watch the king and the queen copulating, so that, they could certify the legitimacy of the child....An angry king chopped off the heads of these busy bodies and other kings also picked up courage and followed suit. That ultimately led to the extinction of the Charvaka line.



Would like to know more on this


With regards

Courtesy: The Hindu dt:01.12.2013 - OPEN PAGE
hi

YAAVAD JEEVETH.....SUKHAN JEEVETH.....RUNAM KRITVA GRTHAM PIBA......BASMI BHOOTASYA DEVASYA PUNARAAGAMANAM

KUTAHA..............यावत् जीवत् सुखं जीवत् ,,,,,,ऋणं कृत्व ग्रथं पिब

बस्मी भूतस्य देहस्य .....पुनरागमनं कुतः .....
 
Last edited:
The following is an excellent introduction to Charvaka Philosophy through a mock dialogue by Dr.Prabhakar Kamath
Dr. Prabhakar Kamath, is a psychiatrist currently practicing in the U.S. He is the author of Servants, Not Masters: A Guide for Consumer Activists in India (1987) and Is Your Balloon About To Pop?: Owner’s Manual for the Stressed Mind.

Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels
Part-1

Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels | Nirmukta
Around 600 B. C., when numerous heretical philosophies were budding in the turbulent post-Vedic period of India, someone by the name of Brihaspati wrote a classic atheistic philosophical treatise known as Barhaspatya Sutras. Later on his philosophy came to be labeled as Lokayata (“pertaining to the world”) or Charvaka (“Sweet-tongued”) philosophy. Westerners labeled this philosophy as “Materialism.” Because vested interests of theistic philosophies perceived this atheistic philosophy as too dangerous, they mercilessly ridiculed it, deliberately misinterpreted it, and freely caricatured it. In his classic treatise on ancient philosophies of India titled Sarva-Darshana-Samgraha, Madhavacharya (1268 -?) sarcastically referred to this philosophy as, “Crest-gem of Nastik schools.”

The most authoritative modern textbook on Carvaka philosophy, written by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya



There is no philosophy in the world today about which there are so few original documents, and yet on which so many eminent people have commented so much. Thanks to the marvel of the Internet, if you just Google “Charvaka” numerous excellent articles on Charvaka philosophy will pop up, which give you a lot of factual information and divergent opinions on it. Therefore, there is absolutely no point in my writing another article summing up the materials from those articles. Instead, I decided to put some flesh and blood into the skeletal information available from the semi-original sources, and humanize this philosophy, and to give it a historical context. Thus, I have invented a conversation with a Charvaka philosopher of medieval times, say 14th century A. D., who has suddenly materialized in the twenty-first century. By means of this conversation, I hope to convey the true spirit of Charvaka philosophy to the reader.

Mr. Charvaka, what is the essence of your philosophy in life?

I have but one life to live; and therefore, if there is an object of the senses I can enjoy, or a pleasurable sensation I can experience, let me go for it today and not defer it till tomorrow, for I shall not pass this way again.

What is the basis of your Atheistic temperament?

We believe that all valid knowledge (Pramana) must be gained only by means of perception of our five senses (Pratyaksha). We do not accept knowledge gained by inference (Anumana), intuition or testimony. All these three are hotbeds of false knowledge. Therefore, we do not believe in supra-sensory stuffs such as Atman, Brahman, god, Karma, Dharma, heaven, hell, Papam (sin), Punyam (merit), Moksha, Nirvana and all other supra-sensory stuff Indian religions are made up of. Nor do we believe in various mindless rituals and practices such as Yajna, Pooja, Yoga, astrology, miracles, and the like, which were invented to gain or lose these non-existent supra-sensory entities.

How is it that your philosophy was so much hated and caricatured by theistic systems?


Opposition to the Vedas and Veda-based rituals is as old as Vedas themselves. You know that the post-Vedic period of 800-200 B. C. was one of great turmoil due to steady decadence of Brahmanism, which became obsessed with sacrificial rituals, superstitions, class system and other nonsensical stuff. We Charvakas were the only people who challenged them, “Prove your claims or just shut up.” Unlike other rebels, we did not mince words when we did so. Whenever someone challenges Brahmanic shenanigans, their response is to indulge in personal attacks against him. They portrayed us as some type of demons who were born to destroy the world. So they attacked us, distorted our philosophy and caricatured us as some freaks of nature, and even destroyed our literature.

What aspects of Brahmanism do you agree with?

Well, first of all Brahmanism of ancient India was somewhat different from Brahmanism of today. Its goals were Kama (desire), Artha (wealth), Dharma (Law) and Samsara (transmigration of soul). Today’s Brahmanism is the result of incorporation of Upanishadism and Bhagavatism, both of which were clearly designed to overthrow Brahmanism. As a result, somewhat incongruously neo-Brahmanism claims that its newfangled goals are: Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha (liberation from Samsara and union with godhead). Therefore, neo-Brahmanism is a bundle of contradictory ideas and doctrines, for as we will discuss later, Kama and Artha will guarantee that one will not attain Moksha.

In principle, we are in agreement with Brahmanism as far as Kama and Artha are concerned. Like Brahmins and Kshatriyas of Vedic times, we believe in ceaseless pursuit of happiness. Life is for us to enjoy it to the fullest extent. The problem was that Brahmins claimed then, and they claim even today, that one could obtain wealth (Artha) and pleasure here on earth and heaven hereafter by means of Kama-driven Yajnas and rituals (BG: 2:43; 4:12; 9:20). There is absolutely no valid proof whatsoever to this claim. To us, this was a straightforward case of scam. When we accused them of fraud, they began to hate us.carvaka

Why are you opposed to Dharma?

We are not opposed to Dharma when it stands for pure Righteousness. However, we have problem with the idea of Dharma as defined by Brahmanism. What Brahmanism loyalist call Dharma is nothing but Adharma, pure and simple. The hallmarks of Brahmanism are Varna Dharma and Jati Dharma. How can a Dharma consider some people as inherently inferior to others and condemn them to a life of servitude? The doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti and Law of Karma, the very foundation of Brahmanism and Varna Dharma, were evil inventions of Brahmins to maintain their class superiority over everyone else, and to rule them for personal profit and security. By brainwashing people about these dogmas (BG: 3:5, 27, 33; 18: 40-45; 59-60), they practically enslaved them psychologically. Over three thousand years, millions upon millions of people suffered untold misery due to class and caste discriminations officially sponsored by Brahmanic Adharma.

A Dharma, which does not treat all people as equals; mistreats people on the basis of their skin color, race, occupation or some other feature; and which does not strive for the welfare of all people in the society, is not Dharma at all. It is Adharma. Even Upanishadists declared Brahmanism as Adharma (BG: 4:7-8) and proceeded to replace their doctrines with Upanishadic doctrines (BG: 2:39-40) of Brahman and Yoga. Even they condemned Varna Dharma by saying that Brahman was the same in all and therefore all people are equal (BG: 5: 18-19). Brahmanism pretended to embrace Upanishadism and yet kept on promoting Varna and Jati Adharmas.

So you do not believe in the Gunas of Prakriti?

We Charvakas believe in the Theory of Naturalism -Svabhava- Vada. We believe that each object in nature has its own inherent quality. For example, fire is hot; water flows; air blows, etc. This is distinct from Brahmanism’s theory of the Gunas. Now, where is the proof that three Gunas of Prakriti exist in reality? This is nothing but a figment of imagination. There is no proof to the fact that certain groups of people share a specific Guna. If the doctrine of the Gunas were true, how come so many “lower class people” allegedly of Tamasic Guna are more “Sattvic” than many “high class” Brahmins of Sattvic Guna? If the Gunas determine the quality of all actions, how come so many “lower class” people perform such great and honorable deeds? To be candid about it, Brahmins even stole our Svabhava-vada idea to justify Guna-based class distinction (BG: 18: 41-44, 47). After declaring that the classes were divided as per unequal distribution of the Gunas and Karma (BG: 4:13), they declared that their deeds were based on their respective Svabhava!

Why do you reject Law of Karma?

Old Brahmanism claimed that one is born again in another body after one dies. They called this cycle of birth, death and rebirth Samsara. They claimed that one’s enjoyment or suffering in this life was determined by their deeds in their previous lives. Where is the proof for all this nonsense? We believe that the body is made up of four base elements: earth, fire, water and air, and consciousness arises from these elements no different than alcohol arising from a mixture of grain, hops and yeast. When we die consciousness also dies with it, and these elements go back to their original forms.

To profit from this concept of Samsara, Brahmins conceived a place out there in the sky, which they called heaven. They brainwashed people into believing that if they followed Brahmanic dictates faithfully and performed expensive and elaborate sacrifices to please gods, they would go to heaven after death. If they did not follow Brahmanic dictates, they would suffer dishonor here on earth and go to hell hereafter. This was a classic reward-punishment tactic to control people and profit from it. So the hoax of Law of Karma not only served the purpose of keeping the “lower classes” subjugated, but also was a source of income to Brahmins. Brahmanism primarily operated from inside this Samsara box.

Why do you reject Moksha?

The brief answer is this: Since there is no valid evidence (Pramana) to either Samsara or Moksha, we rejected them both. Now let me explain. Moksha was a Bhagavata concept, specifically conceived to overthrow Brahmanism. This is an example of creating one fraud to tackle another. Moksha (liberation) has basically two meanings. The first meaning is liberation from Samsara followed by one’s Atman merging with Parameshwara, residing in the Abode of Parameshwara (Supreme God) located somewhere out there in the sky. No one knows where this Abode is. This Abode was offered to replace heaven, the Abode of various Vedic gods. The difference between these two abodes is that, the ticket to heaven is two-way and the ticket to Abode of Parameshwara is one way (BG: 9:20-28).

The second meaning of Moksha is liberation from the evil of Brahmanism. Bhagavatas declared that Krishna was the Dharma himself (BG: 14:27); and by taking refuge in him, one could transcend the force of the Gunas (BG: 7:14); and by offering fruits of one’s deeds to him one could overcome the Law of Karma (BG: 9:28). Thus, by overcoming these two Brahmanic doctrines, one would conquer the three evils emanating from these doctrines: Shokam (grief), Dwandwam (mental agony) and Karmaphalam (Samsara). In fact, Bhagavatas repeatedly claimed that one could never attain Moksha by means of the Vedas, Yajnas, Tapas or Brahmanic rituals (BG: 11:48, 53). Yet, Brahmins fraudulently claimed that Vedic sacrifices led to Moksha (BG: 17: 25). Such is the duplicity of neo-Brahmanism.

What is your opinion of Yajna?


If one truly believed that he could send meat to gods in heaven by sacrificing animals in the fire, why can’t one jump into the fire so he could reach heaven immediately? Where is the proof that heaven exists? The truth is, it is by deluding people with the idea of appeasing supernatural beings with sacrificial rites and other senseless rituals that Brahmins make their living. They like to make their living by easy means. They know that they are hoodwinking naive people with their ever-scheming minds. They claim that the Vedas are sacred. What makes them so sacred? Ancient priests churned out these Vedas for purposes that are little understood and long gone. These priests hang on to every word in them not knowing their real intent or meaning. They have absolutely no relevance to current times, and they serve no useful purpose except to fill the stomach of Brahmins.

Continued in Part-2 Below
 
Part-2
Why do Upanishadists condemn you?

Upanishadists’ main goal was to dismantle Brahmanism by developing a new set of doctrines. They came up with the doctrine of Brahman/Atman to replace the Brahmanic doctrine of the Gunas of Prakriti. They put forth the practice of Yoga to replace the ritual of Yajna (BG: 4: 33). The problem is that they too tackled one fraud by creating another. As you know, they created the “all-pervading” Brahman, which was beyond the perception of the senses (“not this, not this”) without realizing the long-term consequences of their creation. Then they said that a small portion of Brahman resides in one’s heart as Atman. If you cleave open the heart of man, you can’t find this Atman there. How can an entity exist and not be perceived by the senses? When questioned by doubters, their patent answer was, “Have Faith!”

It might surprise you to know that just as we agreed with Brahmanism’s goal of Kama and Artha, we agreed with Upanishadists’ goal to dismantle Brahmanism. However, that is where we parted ways with them. We do not believe in Atman as the “life force” which is the source of our consciousness or knowledge. We believe that consciousness arises from the chemical interaction between the four components that make up the body: earth, fire, wind and water. When the body dies consciousness also dies. Even the great Upanishadic sage Yajnavalkya admitted this in one of his moments of befuddlement (Brih. Up: 2:4:12):

“Thus verily, O Maitreyi, does this Being, endless, unlimited, consisting of nothing but knowledge, rise from out of these elements, and vanish again in them. When he has departed, there is no more knowledge, I say, O Maitreyi!”

Besides, we reject Upanishadists’ claim that since enjoying sense objects is the womb of pain (BG: 5:22) one should quit enjoying sense objects. Just because one risks getting hurt does not mean he should refrain from enjoying life. Every action of ours comes with a pain-pleasure warning label. Just because you risk getting into an accident, you do not give up driving a car. Just because all medicines are potentially poisonous, you do not refrain from using them. Just because a chainsaw is potentially dangerous, you do not avoid using it. While pursuing pleasure one should be smart enough to avoid pain, or deal with it, if and when it appears. That is no reason to avoid enjoying life. Besides, pain is essential to stimulate growth of intellect.

Upanishadists are a bunch of hypocrites. I tell you why. When king Janaka tempted Yajnavalkya (Brih. Up: 4:1:1), “For what object did you come, wishing for cattle, or for subtle questions?” the greedy sage replied, “For both, Your Majesty!” This was the same man who told his wife Maitreyi (Brih. Up: 2:4:2), “But there is no hope of immortality by wealth.”

Because of our rejection of Atman/Brahman, they have condemned our philosophy as false knowledge created by Brihaspati to delude demons: Maitrayani Up: 7: 9:

“Brihaspati, having become Sukra, brought forth that false knowledge for the safety of Indra and for the destruction of the Asuras. By it they show that good is evil and evil is good. They say that we ought to ponder on the new law, which upsets the Veda and other sacred books. Therefore, let no one ponder on that false knowledge. It is wrong. It is, as it were, barren. Its reward lasts only as long as the pleasure lasts, as with one who has fallen from his caste. Let that false science not be attempted.”

Now you tell me, which of the two is false knowledge? Upanishadists claim that Brahman/Atman, which is “not this, not this” because it is beyond the senses, is Real, and all material things we perceive by means of the five senses is Unreal, or just Maya (illusion). We say exactly the opposite. To the skeptics like us who question their claims they say, “You should have Faith in the testimony of great sages that they have intuitively attained Atman through Yoga; and one could infer validity of this claim by looking at their glowing faces.” Forgetting that the original purpose of creating Brahman/Atman and Yoga were simply to overthrow Brahmanic doctrines of the Gunas and Karma, these ignorant “sages” have made these doctrines an end in themselves. Now Yoga is a multibillion-rupee/dollar business in the world.

What beef do Bhagavatas have with you?

When Brihaspati in his Sutras spelled out Charvaka philosophy around 600 B. C., the word Nastik meant, “One who does not believe in the Vedic Dharma.” It did not mean, “One who does not believe in god.” The concept of god, as we know it today or even in the Bhagavata sect, was born much later. There was no great god for us not to believe in when Brihaspati wrote his Sutras. However, since we did not believe in the concept of supernatural, Bhagavatas branded us as Atheists, meaning those who do not believe in god. As you know, Bhagavatas came much later than the Upanishadists. Their only goal was to dismantle Brahmanism from top to bottom. However, being rabidly theistic, they demonized us atheists and condemned us to no end! Look what they had to say about us:

BG: 16: 7-11: The demoniac know not what to do and what to refrain from; neither purity nor right conduct nor truth is found in them. They say, “the universe is unreal, without a moral basis, without a God, born of mutual union, brought about by lust; what else?” Holding this view, these ruined souls of small intellect, of fierce deeds, rise as the enemies of the world for its destruction. Filled with insatiable desires (Kama), full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work with impure resolve. Beset with immense cares ending only with death, regarding gratification of lust as the highest, and feeling sure that that is all (there is to life).

As you know, Barhaspatya Sutras disappeared from circulation altogether. Either Charvakas were too busy in their pursuit of pleasure to save and promote their own treatise, or Brahmins destroyed them as too dangerous for the society. That is why all original information we have about Charvaka philosophy comes to us from condemning articles written by our sworn enemies. You can imagine how reliable they might be as evidenced by the above shlokas!

What is your view about means (Pramana) of gaining valid knowledge?


Well, we believe that knowledge gained only by direct perception (Pratyaksha) by means of five senses is true knowledge. You can say that we were probably one of the earliest scientists in India. We do not ordinarily believe in inference (Anumana), intuition or testimony. As we discussed before, this is exactly opposite of what Upanishadists believe in. We are not entirely opposed to inference. For example, if my bedroom were filled with smoke while I was asleep, I would immediately run for a safe exit to save my life inferring that my house was on fire. I would not be foolish enough to verify if there was actually a fire in the house. What we object to is inferring that there is a supernatural power or an object based on such claims as, “We performed a Yajna and it rained the next day. So god of rain obliged us.” Or, “Baba produced ashes by the wave of his hand.” In our view, people who fall for this kind of fraud are plain stupid.

How do you address the accusation that Charvakas are devoid of moral principles?

To the uninformed, the idea of enjoying life appears to be narcissistic and devoid of morals. This is not true. Just because there is no literature available of our philosophy does not mean we did not have morals in our philosophy. We do not believe in hurting anyone else in the pursuit of our happiness. However, we do not make a ‘great production’ of our morals, and use morality as a method of declaring our superiority over others. We do not believe in pronouncing Satyamaeva Jayate, Naanritham (Only Truth Will Prevail, Not Untruth), and indulge in deceptive practices with a straight face. With us, what you see is what you get. One does not need a religion or gods to be a good, moral and decent person.

We believe that enjoying life to the fullest extent does not necessitate one to be greedy or dishonest. In fact, when one is liberated from the shackles of fear of evil, and dependence on gods and rituals for fulfillment of one’s desires, one is free to enjoy life to the fullest extent. We believe that a man must work hard and honestly to earn his money and enjoy his life. Now let me ask you: How moral are holier-than-thou Brahmins who fleece innocent people of their life-savings by making false promises to them about gaining wealth here on earth and heaven hereafter? How moral are Brahmins who extort money from people in distress promising to ward off unknown evil by means of mindless rituals? We disapprove of the ways by which priests delude people to make their living. When we question this fundamental modus operandi of Brahmanism, they get bent out of shape because their very livelihood is threatened. No matter how you slice it, the ultimate purpose of religion and gods is just this: To fill one’s stomach.

Mr. Charvaka, you have given us core values of your philosophy. Thank you very much. Is there anything I can do for you?

Well, I am hungry! Is there a good steakhouse around here where I can have a couple of drinks and good steak dinner? By the way, may I borrow a couple of bucks from you?

I knew then that this was, indeed, a genuine Charvaka!
 
............ Extract of an article published in The Hindu dt:1st Dec.2013 - Open Page -
'Of liquor shops & supersitions' by G. Dwarakanath. .......
Dear Prof Sir,

FYI, Google search for 'Of liquor shops & superstitions' by G. Dwarakanath' gives the link for that page in 'The Hindu' within a second!

Some members just C - P some extracts without mentioning the source. That should be avoided. :)
 
Dear Renu,

'Live the life to the fullest' might make people go astray!
They may start thinking, 'Nothing is wrong if it gives ME pleasure'!! :dance:
 
Part-1
Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels | Nirmukta
Around 600 B. C., when numerous heretical philosophies were budding in the turbulent post-Vedic period of India, someone by the name of Brihaspati wrote a classic atheistic philosophical treatise known as Barhaspatya Sutras. Later on his philosophy came to be labeled as Lokayata (“pertaining to the world”) or Charvaka (“Sweet-tongued”) philosophy. Westerners labeled this philosophy as “Materialism.” Because vested interests of theistic philosophies perceived this atheistic philosophy as too dangerous, they mercilessly ridiculed it, deliberately misinterpreted it, and freely caricatured it. In his classic treatise on ancient philosophies of India titled Sarva-Darshana-Samgraha, Madhavacharya (1268 -?) sarcastically referred to this philosophy as, “Crest-gem of Nastik schools.”

The most authoritative modern textbook on Carvaka philosophy, written by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya


Part-2
Why do Upanishadists condemn you?

What beef do Bhagavatas have with you?

What is your view about means (Pramana) of gaining valid knowledge?

How do you address the accusation that Charvakas are devoid of moral principles?

I knew then that this was, indeed, a genuine Charvaka!


Sir,


Nice input. It gives an interesting reading. Thanks a lot.


With regards
 
Dear Renu,

'Live the life to the fullest' might make people go astray!
They may start thinking, 'Nothing is wrong if it gives ME pleasure'!! :dance:

Dear RR ji,

But other philosophies also lead people astray by encouraging them to not live in the present and prepare for an unknown after life which no one even knows about....that is even worse cos that most of the time gives rise to a Holier Than Thou attitude and make lives of others hell by unnecessarily imposing man made rules.

Going astray is actually a very subjective word..what might be going astray for one might be within acceptable behavior for another.

I feel to a certain extent Humans need religion only to make them feel they are are in a better of position than someone else..as long a person can feel Holier than another person he/she gets the religious high.

So I feel if a Charvakian exists it still does good to the Non Charvakian cos the Non Charvakian has the opportunity to feel 'I am Holier than you"..The so called 'good' and so called "bad" can not survive without each other. So each one of us should be thankful the opposites of ourselves exist.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Charvaka, you have given us core values of your philosophy. Thank you very much. Is there anything I can do for you?

Well, I am hungry! Is there a good steakhouse around here where I can have a couple of drinks and good steak dinner? By the way, may I borrow a couple of bucks from you?

I knew then that this was, indeed, a genuine Charvaka!

The article seemed good but this last few lines just showed sarcasm and ruined the value of the article.
 
The article seemed good but this last few lines just showed sarcasm and ruined the value of the article.

My take on the last para is that the author wants us to know that if Charvakas are purely rational and ethical then there would be no difference between them and Buddhists ( the author has highest respect for Lord Buddha and he has written a separate article titled "Buudha the most sensible rationalist " . I feel he wants to point out that while the Charvaks are also rational people they also love to enjoy life and do not subscribe to the extreme denial of life as taught by Buddha ( living a life of begging ) .
 
I feel he wants to point out that while the Charvaks are also rational people they also love to enjoy life and do not subscribe to the extreme denial of life as taught by Buddha ( living a life of begging ) .


Lord Buddha finally did not preach extreme denial...the extreme denial stage was the early stages where Lord Buddha was still searching for what is right and the most conducive for spiritual growth and finally settled for the Middle Path...where one is not in any extreme situation.

After all even Geeta Lord Krishna recommend the Middle Path in the following verse:

nāty-aśnatas 'tu yogo 'sti
na caikāntam anaśnataḥ
na cāti-svapna-śīlasya
jāgrato naiva cārjuna

TRANSLATION
There is no possibility of one's becoming a yogī, O Arjuna, if one eats too much or eats too little, sleeps too much or does not sleep enough.


Ok now back to topic..why is it misunderstood that a Charvakian needs to be an extremist?

He could be just be a well adjusted person living in the present..enjoying what his senses allow him to without hurting anyone or himself in the process and he need not focus on the thought of an after life or even the concept of God.

The problem the Hindu mind always equates enjoyment = going astray and this starts all the problem.
 
Last edited:
Ok now back to topic..why is it misunderstood that a Charvakian needs to be an extremist?

There is lot of misconception about Charvakas and one group says that they are just atheistic people who believe in 'Hedonism' and others say they are "purely rational people " . The article posted by me gives a more balanced view of the same with the author concluding with a jovial end hinting that the Charvakas liked to enjoy life and they did not like to deny themselves of the pleasures of life ( which are considered sins by a spiritual minded person ) and they were not shy of accepting the same openly . I have no complaints about what they feel .But since material on Charvaka Philosophy and their way of life is scarce I feel there will always be controversies when Charvakas are discussed .
 
There is lot of misconception about Charvakas and one group says that they are just atheistic people who believe in 'Hedonism' and others say they are "purely rational people " . The article posted by me gives a more balanced view of the same with the author concluding with a jovial end hinting that the Charvakas liked to enjoy life and they did not like to deny themselves of the pleasures of life ( which are considered sins by a spiritual minded person ) and they were not shy of accepting the same openly . I have no complaints about what they feel .But since material on Charvaka Philosophy and their way of life is scarce I feel there will always be controversies when Charvakas are discussed .

Dear Sir,

Agreed with everything you wrote but one thing I admire about Charvaka Philosophy is the honesty.

I feel the average human who says he believes in God is actually leading a life along the lines of Charvaka philosophy.. that is everyone craves material and sensual enjoyment but tries to deny it and at the same time needs God to just make himself/herself feel better and holy and also an opportunist to benefit from God in someway or the other.

After all show me a person who prays only for the sake of God??

Everyone has a vested interest in their dealings with God that too in a transaction manner.

So that way I admire Charvaka Philosophy..they have the balls to stand up on their own..lead life using the senses without harming anyone and are not opportunist parasites that try to live off the Mahima of God.
 
Actually what i so wrong about Charvaka philosophy?

At least it teaches us to be in the present and live to the fullest within certain codes of conduct.

I feel most other schools of thought are always preparing humans for the after world..and do not teach us to live in the present..wanting everyone to prepare for a live that they have no idea about..each Guru keep silent about everything..may be God knows if these Gurus actually know anything at all to start with.

Why the heck live in such a restricted way just to secure better places in the after world and some make life for others a living hell in that process.

I feel to a certain extent a philosophy that encourages us to live in the present and be good to others and ourselves will be the best philosophy.

There is no use shouting from on top of the roof that Vedas is the Authority if we cant live in the present....living for the unknown after life is almost like a Delusion!

Referring to the highlighted part, in your post above -

Do you include Puttaparthi Sathya Sai Baba too in your list of Gurus whom you doubt if they actually know anything at all to start with? Or do you have special consideration for Sathya Sai Baba and have the impression and under delusion that the whole world consider him as true Guru/Godman?


to the rest of your post -

Philosophies that encourages to look into big picture and compose oneself to go through the ocean of Life & Death on an elevated scale are what that human kind needs to evolve for better with ethics, morality and spirituality. Such philosophies gives more importance (as possible) to selflessness while living the mundane life of "I" and "Mine". It teaches not to go astray, crazy, wild and crude in the name of self happiness, ruining one self by such self practices-by inducing others to get into their fold with such ideas and ruin them-by attempting to make their concept universal by hook or crook etc..etc.

Dharma Shastras/vedas does not profess "not to live" a mundane life in the present and dwell in hills and forest in isolation, to attain salvation quickly.

 
Last edited:
Dear Renu,

There are certain activities which the 'world' shuns! Thiruvalluvar says,

'mazhiththalum neettalum vENdA ulagam
pazhiththadhu ozhiththu vidin'.

Meaning: There is no need of a shaven crown or of tangled hair,

if a man abstain from those deeds which the wise have condemned.

So, there IS good and bad deeds in this world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top