The Indian philosophy of materialism and atheism.
Greetings everyone! This is the second article in the series of Indian Philosophy that I’ve started. If you haven’t read the first article I request you to have a quick go through it first for a better understanding of this one. Today we are going to explore Charvaka Darshan or Charvaka Philosophy. The Charvaka philosophy is the same as that of Epicurus in ancient Greek, focusing extensively on materialism.
In Indian Philosophy, Charvaka is a part of the Nastika philosophy. As we’ve seen in the last piece that unlike the western understanding of atheism, in Indian Philosophy Nastika does not necessarily mean non-believer of God. In Indian Philosophy Nastikas are the ones who do not believe (or reject) the authority of the four Vedas. Charvaka, however, will fit perfectly in the western definition of Atheism. Let’s see Who were/are Charvakas and what are their rationales.
Charvaka means materialist. A materialist is a person who believes that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. For Charvaka there is no God, matter is the only reality. Brihaspati is considered to be a teacher of this philosophy, who propagated this philosophy against a spiritualistic and ritualistic understanding of the Universe. Every major Philosophy in the world consists of i. Epistemology, ii. Metaphysics, iii. Ethics.
Charvaka Epistemology (Theory of Knowledge)
Charvaka Epistemology is based on two tenants, “Prama” and “Pramana”. Valid cognition or the knowledge of reality is called prama and the source of such knowledge is called Pramana. For Charvakas perception is the only Pramana.
Epistemology of Charvakas focuses on two points:
- Uncertainty of Inference: As I mentioned earlier, Charvakas believes that perception is the only true source of knowledge, it is obvious for Charvakas to denounce the role of Inference (speculation) in epistemology. They reject everything that cannot be perceived. The universal law in their eyes is nothing but a hoax. They reject the notions of Heaven and Earth on this ground because they are solely based on inference and cannot be proved by any living human being. For Charvakas inference cannot be regarded as a Pramana.
- Testimony a precarious game: If the inference is based on thoughts (or Vichara) the Testimony has to be dependent on words (or Shabda). People often tend to have certain biases when they speak, therefor Charvakas also rejected Testimony to be Pramana for their Prama. Let’s understand this with one example. There is a drunk person and he says that the road in front of him is moving upwards, would you consider this true? Of course, not. This is what Charvakas argued and thus rejected testimony as a pramana or valid cognition.
So as we’ve seen Charvaka accepted neither Inference nor Testimony as a pramana, thus leaving perception as the only pramana or source of knowledge.
Charvaka Metaphysics
Metaphysics is a theory of reality. The metaphysical reason of Charvaka follows their epistemological conclusion. If perception is the only pramana then, only those things/objects which can be perceived are real. For Charvakas material objects are the only real objects, thus rejecting Vedic notions of God, heaven, and hell. The matter is the only reality.
Charvaka metaphysics has three arguments:
- Four elements that make the world: Almost all Indian thinkers believe that the world is made up of five elements, Bhagavad Gita calls it “Panchabhuta”. Those are Vayu (Air), Prithvi (Earth), Agni (Fire), Jal (Water), and Akasa (Space). However, Charvakas rejects the Akasa because its existence cannot be perceived. Therefore the world is made up of four perceptible elements and every living and non-living thing is a composition of those four elements.
- There is no soul: What is a soul or Aatma? Indian philosophy emphasized the existence of the soul which is eternal and resides within our body, which is responsible for consciousness in a way. Charvakas rejected this view by citing that consciousness is nothing but a combination of four elements. “Caitanya-visista-deha eva atma.” This means the soul is nothing more than this conscious living body. Charvaka argued that the existence of the soul apart from this body cannot be proved or perceived, failing the test of perception. And since there is no soul, there is no afterlife and rebirth, there is no heaven or hell and for that matter, this brings us to the last metaphysical argument of Charvaka philosophy. There is no god.
- There is no God: It is perhaps similar to the western belief of atheism that there is no supreme creator of everything, who is responsible for the destruction and preservation of this world and the universe. Charvaka not only rejects the notion of God but also rejects the need for God. No one can prove that there is one supreme being who is responsible for everything. Again failed the test of perception. On the contrary, they prefer naturalism, considering nature in which we human beings live, as a supreme mechanism. Perhaps they are right, when you see atrocities committed by people on other people when you see injustice prevailing everywhere in the world, you may ask, “Is there any God?”, if you ask Charvaka they simply say, “Open your eyes, there is no God.”
Ethics for Charvaka
Ethics is a field of natural science, which is considered to be a science of morality. It talks about achieving the highest goal “Summum Bonum”. Some Indian philosophers especially Mimansik believe that the highest goal is to attain heaven (or Hell). Charvaka straightforwardly rejected such a claim. For they believe, “Heaven and Hell are inventions of priests whose professional interests lies in threatening people in the name of the god and making perform people rituals” Charvaka not just rejected but also denounced rituals, in pursuit of any afterlife benefits. For them, pleasure is the highest goal. The ethics of Charvaka is “Maximization of pleasure”. They prefer the amalgamation of wealth and resources to attain maximized pleasure.
We should not throw away the opportunities of enjoying this life, In the futile hope of enjoyment hereafter. Rather a pigeon today than a Peacock tomorrow. A short shell is better than a doubtful golden coin.
Conclusion:
If you are a believer, The Charvaka Philosophy has the potential to hurt your sentiments at many levels, however, one should never lose reason while believing in something. You may like or may not like this philosophy but the arguments are worth considering. Mentions of Charvaka can be found in the ancient Indian epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana as well. However, it does have its critics. This Charvaka approach of life and pleasure is highly criticized by the Jaina Philosophers, Whom we will see of next week. We will see how Jaina perceive this world, what are their beliefs in human life and what are the ethical parameters for them. Stay Tuned.
