Charvaka Philosophy

The Charvaka Philosophy believes that only those

things that can be perceived is the ultimate reality.

Charvaka Philosophy is a fanatical effort made to rid the age

of the weight of the past that was oppressing it. It is a

system of Indian philosophy that adopted numerous forms of

philosophical agnosticism and religious impassivity. The

branch is also known as Lokayata philosophy, as is stated in

the Rig Veda. Named after its founder, Carvaka, (also known as

Charu or Brhaspati) author of the Barhaspatya-sutras, the

Charvaka Philosophy is an atheistic, acquisitive and wild

thought. It is also known as `Lokayata` because it admits the

existence of this world (loka) alone. Materialist philosophers

who are referred to as Charvakas are also known as Lokayatas

or Laukayatikas, because they act like ordinary people. The

name `Lokayata` can be found in Kautilya`s Arthasastra that

refers to the three `anviksikis` or logical philosophies -

Yoga, Samkhya, and Lokayata. This very term was restricted to

the school of the `Lokyatikas`. In 7th century, the

philosopher Purandara had used the term `Charvaka` for the

first time. The 8th century philosophers Kamalasila and

Haribhadra had also used the same term.

In the outlines of Indian philosophy, Charvaka is classified

as a "heterodox" (nastika) system, the same classification as

is given to Buddhism and Jainism. While this branch of Indian

philosophy is not considered to be part of the six orthodox

schools of Hinduism, it is a remarkable testimony of the

materialistic movement within Hinduism.

According to research by eminent scholars it has been found

that Charvaka philosophy is co-eval with Buddhism and in 500

B.C. it meant `scepticism`. Apart from the account of Charvaka

philosophy found in the Rig Veda, certain amount of material

is also contained in the Chhandogya Upanishad, the

Mahabharata, 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). Further research has proved

that during the Mauryan period the Charvaka philosophy had

grown out of generic skepticism but at the same time the exact

date of Charvaka philosophy cannot be ascertained before the

6th century. It has also been found that the Brhaspatya Sutras

were written during the reign of the Mauryas.

The Charvaka Philosophy is called the Lokayata because the

philosophy believes that only this world or the `lok` is the

truth. They believe that whatever is arrived by the means of

direct perception is the ultimate truth. Whatever is not

perceivable is non-existent because of the simple reason that

it cannot be perceived. The proponents of this school of

thought believed that since sense perception is the only form

of knowledge therefore in that case matter becomes the only

reality. It is only matter that is cognizable with the help of

senses. According to the philosophy the ultimate principles

are the four elements. The four elements are earth, water, air

and fire. These elements according to them are eternal and can

explain the development from a protozoan to a philosopher. In

fact they said that intelligence is also the modification of

the four elements and intelligence is perished when the

element from which it rises gets dissolved. Even consciousness

says the Charvaka philosophy is produced after combining the

four elements. Thought is also the function of matter. They

believe that there is no world other than this. There exists

neither hell nor heaven. For them religion is a foolish

aberration and God is not necessary to account for the world.

Thus with an audacious dogmatism the Charvaka philosophy has

swept the world clean of all its values and has put down

belief in the Almighty as a symbol of mendaciousness, weakness

and cowardice.

The Charvakas have emphasised that pleasure and pain are the

central themes of life and it is not possible to separate life

from all these. They have also claimed that virtue is nothing

more than a delusion and enjoyment is the only reality. The

Charvaka School of Thought believed that life is the end of

life. Unlike the Upanishads the Charvaka or the materialist

philosophy asserts the doctrines of uncontrolled-energy,

self-assertion and reckless disregard for authority.

Charvaka philosophy strictly believes in perception as the one

source of valid knowledge. Hence, everything is pivoted

according to this principle. Metaphysics or the knowledge of

being and knowing is also rigidly adhered with perception as

the source of knowledge. According to Charvakas, atman is not

a separate entity, as one can never `see` atman. It is

consciousness that makes one grasps the reality of everything

worldly. Hence, the mind, the physical body, or the world one

dwells in - everything depends on perception and the

realisation by the consciousness.

Charvakas believe not in the notion of stringent philosophy,

but in liberal beliefs. Hence, they refute most of the

already-established rules in the context of Indian philosophy.

The prime importance is laid on the likes and dislikes of

humans. As a result, Charvakas believe in the perceived

knowledge of the present life, and not in rebirth and past

life. According to them good deed is not much necessary to

perform in one`s lifetime, as is instructed by the crafty

priests. The basic thought of the Charvakas is to obtain

worldly pleasure by making merry, as there is no hell where

one can be hurled.

Hence, it can be concluded saying that the materialist

philosophy had a lot to do with regard to the repudiation of

old system of religion and custom of magic. The Charvaka

Philosophy is in fact a man`s return to his own spirit and

rejection of all those which are external and foreign. It also

says that nothing needs to be accepted by an individual which

do not find its place in the way of reason.

The Charvaka way of life

Charvakas lead a life on his/her own will, never

worrying about the past or fearing godly penalisation.

The Charvakas denied the validity of dhartna (self-dharma,

righteous duty) in any form. Action when completed, the

Charvakas would say, ends there. Apurva or the latent

potential form which action takes, or merit and demerit cannot

be perceived by anyone at all. They are therefore not real. It

is foolish to think that past actions become a kind of unseen

force (adrsta) and determines one`s future births. In fact,

according to the Charvaka way of life, there is no rebirth.

Humans have only one birth and that is the present one. If

there is rebirth, one ought to remember it; no one remembers

his/her previous births.

Accepting only perception as the valid source of knowledge,

the Charvakas disapproved the reality of God. No one has ever

seen God and no one can see him in future. In fact, in the

Charvaka way of life, even the minor gods also do not exist.

They and the Vedas belong to the imagination of guileful

priests, who invented them to make a living out of them by

refereeing at sacrifices, and to awe people into submission by

saying that God would punish them if they did not abide by the

Vedas. There is no heaven, no hell, no God, and there are no

objective ethical laws. The only laws binding men are the laws

of the state, obedience to which brings rewards and

disobedience of which fetches punishment. And the science

(shastra) of the laws of state is the only science worth

studying.

What is meant by heaven is the pleasure one has in eating,

drinking, making merry and singing. And hell is the pain one

experiences in this world itself. There is no point in trying

to obtain salvation and a life of eternal quietude; there is

an end to life at death and all will be quietened then. The

Charvaka way of life speaks that the differences between

castes and their distinctive duties are laid down misleadingly

by interested people. There are no objective ethical laws, so

one can do what one wishes to, provided he is careful that his

actions do not bring pain as an outcome.

Charvaka way of life are of the faith that the religion of

sacrifices is false and is circularised only by priests

concerned in sacrificial offerings. The life of the monk

belongs only to impotent persons. Charvakas go on to state

that, if the animal offered in sacrifice goes to heaven, why

should not man offer his parents in sacrifice instead and send

them to heaven? The priests, thus, do not believe in what they

preach. They instruct that the offerings made in this world on

death anniversaries of ancestors satisfy their hunger and

thirst in the other world. If so, an extinguished flame in one

lamp should burn, when oil is poured in another. It is useless

to make food offerings to people already beyond the realms of

this world. Charvaka way of life sates that there is no soul

that leaves the body after death and goes to the other world;

or else, because of its attachment to its family and friends,

it is bound to come back to this very body. Life belongs only

to this world and ends in this world. There is no other world.

Man should hence try to make the best of this life, without

believing in all that the Brahmanic religion preaches. The

teachings of the Vedas, viewed by Charvakas, are those

appropriate for fools, rogues, or demons. The priests should

thus never be trusted and man should do whatever possible to

enhance his pleasure and avoid pain. And any action done for

the sake of pleasure is justified.

The Charvakas do not seem to have advocated pleasures of the

moment, because pleasures of the moment and over-indulgence

may result in pain and pain has to be avoided. It is also said

that, because pleasure is associated with fine arts like

music, they encouraged them and contributed much for their

development. And because they were unwilling to kill animals,

some of the Charvakas are also believed to be vegetarians.

But the peculiar contribution, which this philosophy seems to

have made to the philosophy of life, was the philosophical

justification it tried to furnish to any kind of action for

the sake of pleasure. Of course, pleasure is not possible in

the absence of wealth (artha). By spending money one can

obtain pleasure (kama). The value of dhartna (duty) and the

value of salvation (moksha) were firmly rejected by the

Charvaka School.

Nothing is recognised by this school as a duty. A man can do

anything - beg, borrow, steal or murder - in order to

accumulate more wealth and more pleasure. But the state laws

prevent a man from doing whatever he desires and punishes him

when he disobeys them. If he is clever enough to outsmart

them, then his action is justified. Otherwise, he should

follow them to avert the pain of punishment. Kings, who have

the power over the state`s laws, themselves can do whatever

they like and do anything for increasing their wealth, power,

pleasure and dominion. Thus Charvaka philosophy was later made

to support what in Europe was called `Machiavellian policies

of princes`.

Metaphysics in Charvaka philosophy

Charvaka metaphysics states that nothing that is

not perceived with the senses or consciousness is

real and existing.

According to the Charvakas, there is no such thing as the

atman. One does not and cannot perceive the atman, and one

cannot establish its existence with the help of inference,

because inference is not a valid source of knowledge. The

Charvakas state that consciousness is not due to the atman.

When a man dies, his/her consciousness goes away and one

cannot prove that it vanishes and exists somewhere else. Being

conscious is a peculiar quality of the living human body. It

can keep back the consciousness so long as the physical parts

are healthy and stay together in a certain form. Consciousness

thus is an emergent quality of the physical parts coming

together in specific proportions. For example, when yeast is

blended with certain juices, they turn into wine. The property

of being wine is a new quality which yeast and juices obtain

when blended. Therefore, according to Charvaka metaphysics,

life also is only a new configuration of matter. Nothing but

matter is real.

Therefore the atman or self-awareness is only the physical

body with a new emerging quality. But one always says that, `I

have a handsome body, a tall body` and so on. If the `I` is

not different from the body, how can it say: `I have such and

such a body`? To this the Charvakas answer by saying that the

use of `have` in these expressions is only conventional,

created by the false impression that the `I` is different from

the body.

The Charvaka metaphysics speak of the mind (manas), which is

different from the atman. But the Charvakas appear to think of

mind as the consciousness in its knowing function, which of

course is not separate from the body. The body together with

its consciousness is the atman and consciousness in its

experiencing function is the mind. Mind knows the external

world through the senses.

The world is the material world only. According to the

Charvaka metaphysics, it does not consist of five elements.

Earth, water, fire, air, and ether are the usual five elements

corresponding to the qualities smell, taste, colour, touch,

and sound, and also corresponding to the five sense organs,

nose, tongue, eye, touch, and ear. Excepting ether, the first

four elements are perceivable. Hence the Charvakas deny the

reality of ether. It was believed that the cause of sound in

the ear was the all-pervading ether. But the Charvakas say

that sound is caused by air touching the ear. Sound occurs due

to the movement of air, not of ether. The other four elements

make up the world. They consist of tiny particles. The

particles accepted by the Charvakas are visible particles;

they could not accept the reality of anything that could not

be comprehended with the senses.

Charvaka metaphysics are of the faith that there is no

external cause for the four elements coming together and

obtaining the qualities of life and consciousness. It is their

inherent quality to come together and to have those qualities.

However one cannot generalise on this process and establish a

law that, whenever these four elements come together in

certain ratio, life and consciousness will emerge. The

elements may alter their nature any time. One cannot,

therefore say that Nature comprises some eternal laws. Every

event is a probability, and if it develops into something,

then it develops according to its own peculiar nature. One may

conclude that, according to the Charvaka metaphysics, the

existence of everything is a chance, and that there are no

laws of nature, but every object possesses its own nature.

Theory of Knowledge in Charvaka philosophy

Charvaka theory of knowledge states only the

validity of perception as a vaild source of

knowledge.

Of the three crucial sources of knowledge accepted in common

by all the orthodox schools (perception, inference, and verbal

testimony), the Charvakas accepted only perception as the

valid source of knowledge and disapproves both inference and

verbal testimony. They are of faith that, whatever one

experiences through perception is rightful and existent.

The Charvakas at first seem not to have been mindful of the

difficulties in accepting perception as a valid source of

knowledge, which were pointed out later by the Buddhist and

Vedanta logicians. The later Charvakas expressed that they

were aware of the difficulties, but they did not discuss the

significances of this question and maintained a realistic

position.

It is interesting to notice here that, in their examination of

inference, the Charvakas foresaw the European sceptics. They

said that inference was not a valid source of knowledge,

because the major premise of an inference cannot be proved.

For instance:

Wherever there is smoke, there is fire (Major premise);

This mountain has smoke (Minor premise);

There is fire in the mountain (Conclusion).

This is the classical example of inference in Indian

epistemology. The Charvakas ask - (i) `How can we formulate

the major premise unless we have seen all the instances of

smoke? If we have not seen all the instances, how can we

logically be justified in using the word `wherever`? If we

have seen all the instances, we must have seen the present

case, viz. the mountain also. (2) Then what is the use of

making an inference when we have already perceived that there

is fire in the mountains?` Hence the Charvakas say that

inference is either impossible or unnecessary. Inference

cannot generate truth.

However, causal statements like `Fire causes the bodies to

expand` are also regarded as truth. And they are universal

propositions like the major premise. The Charvakas state that

these causal laws also are bound to be false. If one is able

to apply causal laws and find them to be true, it is only just

a chance event. In fact, the Charvaka theory of knowledge

speak that there is no existence of causal laws. Every event

is a chance; everything comes into existence and passes out of

it according to its own nature. Even this nature is not a

universal law; it too is subject to change.

The Charvakas make a strong attack on verbal testimony. Verbal

knowledge is only knowledge of words and their meanings are

based upon inference. One can say that: `The orange is red`.

Now, through the established meanings of the four words, one

infers that the object before the mind of the observer is an

orange and that it is red. But it has already been pointed out

that inference is a dicey source of knowledge. One can never

be sure of the reliability of the observer of orange. For

either reason, verbal testimony is not a reliable source of

knowledge. The Charvakas perhaps make their strongest attack

on the authenticity of the Vedas. The Vedas are not reliable

at all, because they are self-contradictory. They propound

thus in their theory, `At one place they enjoin on us not to

commit any injury; but at another place they ask us to

sacrifice animals to gods. How can one believe that the

killing of animals in sacrifices brings one merit?`

Charvaka theory of knowledge also does not believe that the

word-sounds are eternal. There is no sound, when no one utters

it. And it stays only when produced by the vocal organs. If it

is said that its timelessness can be proved by inference, it

has already been established that inference is not reliable.

And perception does not show that the word-sound can be

eternal.

The Charvaka theory of knowledge is not exactly scepticism or

agnosticism, but a fairly thoroughgoing positivism. They

accept the reality of whatever one can perceive with one`s

senses and refute the reality of whatever one cannot perceive.

However, it should also be noted that they did not deny the

formal validity of inference, because they used the very laws

of inference to show that one cannot obtain material truths

about the world through inference. They questioned only on the

premises regarding how one can obtain the major premise. But

they never stated that, even if one had the major premise,

inference was wrong. They did not criticise the structure of

the syllogism, but only wanted to prove that it was absolutely

useless for obtaining any new truth about the world. In fact,

they used the law of contradiction in disproving the doctrines

of their rivals.