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
