Male
Member Since Jun 26 2007
Adi Sankar on Charvakas
Jul 10 2007 | Views 60 |
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment
Note that Lokayata is the alternative name of Charvaka philosophy; the etymology of this word is interesting: Lokesu ayatah Lokayata--it was called Lokayata because it was prevalent among the people.
In his commentary on the Brahma Sutra (or Vedanta Sutra), Adi Sankar mentions the Charvaka (or Lokayata) views thrice, and invariably as the doctrine of there being no Self over and above the body.
Observes Sankar (on Brahma Sutra i.1.1):
"Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of the opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self.
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 (Lokayatikas) consider intelligence to be a mere attribute of the body.
Here now some materialists (Lokayatikas) who see the Self in the body only, are of opinion that a Self separate from the body does not exist; assume that consciousness (caitanya), although not observed in earth and other external elements--either single or combined--may yet appear in them when transformed into the shape of a body, so that consciousness springs from them; and thus maintain that knowledge is analogous to intoxicating quality [which arises when when certain materials are mixed in fixed proportions], and that man is only a body qualified with consciousness.
There is, thus, according to them no Self separate from the body and capable of going to the heavenly world or obtaining release, through which consciousness is in the body; but the body alone is what is consciousness, is the Self.
For this assertion they allege the reason stated in the stura, 'On account of its existence where a body is.' For wherever something exists if some other thing exists, and does not exist if that other thing does not exist, we determine the former thing to be a mere quality of the latter; light and heat, e.g. we determine to be qualities of fire. And as life, movement, consciousness, remembrance and so on--which by the upholders of an independent Self are considered qualities of the Self--are observed only within the bodies, and not outside bodies and as an abode of these qualities, different from the body, cannot be proved, it follows that they must be qualities of the body only. The Self, therefore, is not different from the body."
Thus we have here a view identifying the Self with the body, and clearly referred to as the Lokayata view. It is to be noted that Adi Sankar did not mention, nor did he care to refute, any other contention of the Charvakas; this implies that this was considered by him to be the most important among the Charvaka tenets.
Such a view of the Self was moreover very ancient; it was older than the Brahma Sutra on which Adi Sankar was commenting on. For we find the same view, or at least a similar view, referred to in the Upanisads. As an example, consider the Brihad-Aryanyaka Upanisad; in this Upanisad, Yajnavalkya tells his wife Maitreyi (ii.4.12, translator Hume):
"Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them also one vanishes away. After death there is no consciousness (na pretya samjna asti)."
Maitreyi is naturally bewildered to listen to such a view of the Self from Yanjavalkya, but it was obviously not his own view; it was the position of his opponent which he was contesting. Therefore, it could have been the view of the ancient Charvakas. S.N. Dasgupta writes that this was the way in which the Nyaya philosopher Jayanta Bhatta (circa 9th century AD) wanted to look at the Upanisadic passage i have quoted (History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 3, pg 519):
"Jayanta says in his Nyaya Manjari that the Lokayata system was based on the views expressed in passages like the above, which represent only the opponent's view (purva paksa."
Referring to this view of the Self, Rhys Davids draws our attention to the fact that the Charvaka view of the Self, or a view very similarly to the Charvaka view of the Self, has also been contested by the Budhists. Observes Rhys Davids (in "Budhist India", vol. 1, pg 167):
"A very similar view, if not indeed the same view is also controverted in the Brahmajala Sutta and is constantly referred to throughout the Pitakas under the stock phrase tam jivam tam sariram."
As translated by Rhys Davids, the passage is as follows ('Budhist India', vol. 1, pg 46):
In the first place, brethren, some recluse or Brahmin puts forth the following opinion, the following view:
'Since, Sir, this soul has form, is built up of the four elements, and is the offspring of the father and mother, it is cut off, destroyed, on the dissolution of the body; and does not continue after death; and then, Sir, the soul is completely annihilated.'
If such a view, as Rhys Davids said, was "constantly referred to throughout the Pitakas", then we are obliged to admit that a view like this must have been widely prevalent in Budhist India.
Elsewhere in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra (iii.3.53), Adi Sankar writes:
"The Lokayatikas do not admit the existence of anything but the four elements." By themselves the elements did not possess consciousness, still consciousness was viewed as emerging from them. How could that be possible? Just as rice, argued the Lokayatikas, and the other indgredients of producing wine did not by themselves possess any intoxicating quality, yet when combined in a particular way, these caused the intoxicating quality to emerge, so did the material elements constituting the material human body, though themselves without consciousness, caused consciousness to emerge when combined in a particular way to form the human body. This was surely one of the most significant things said by the ancients to establish the primacy of matter over the spirit.
© Rashmun., all rights reserved.
In case you missed...
Some other recent posts by Rashmun
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.
Recommend