Charvaka

Answer : Hume was an empiricist. He accepts empirical theory of the origin of knowledge. On the basis of empiricism he opined that if all we can know is our impression, we have no right to assert the reality either of material substances or of spiritual substances. Metaphysics, theology and natural science cannot yield universal and necessary sciences knowledge, the God and the universe and that the soul is just impossible as rational sciences. This made Kant wake up and he came up with his theory that made a compromise between rationalism and empiricism. Thus it brought an end the long drawn out controversy between rationalism and empiricism. It was a kind of revolution in the western philosophy. What Hume did in western philosophy was very much similar to what carvaka generated in Indian philosophy. He accepted perception as the only valid means of real and valid knowledge. On the basis of his epistemology was based his metaphysics and ethics. Thus he denied the existence of God, soul, liberation and other eternal things. This is something completely averse to the long established notion of valid knowledge and the concept of God, Soul, liberation and other concepts related to external world. In fact what carvaka said was a kind of challenge to the other Indian school of thoughts. Carvaka School of thoughts was not traditional and it raised a controversy as to what was the valid means of knowledge. It made other philosophers think again and again before they put forward their theory of knowledge and metaphysics. Hence they could go ahead with their philosophical thoughts only after the refutation of the Carvaka notion of knowledge and metaphysics. Thus Carvaka helped enriched the Indian philosophy to a great extent and thus represented a completely different stream of though in the Indian philosophy.

Answer : The Charvaka admits the existence of four elements earth, water fire and air only. In the metaphysics of Charvaka souls and God are rejected. Everything which exists including the soul is due to a particular combination of these four elements. Consciousness is regarded as a mere product of mater. It is a product formed when the elements combine in a certain proportion. It is found always associated with the body and vanishes when the body disintegrates. Just as the combination of betel, nut and lime produces the red colour or just as tormented yeast produces the intoxicating quality in the wine, though the ingredients separately do not possess either the red colour or the intoxicating quality, similarly a particular combination of elements produces consciousness. Consciousness is the result of an emergent and dialectical evolution. Given the four elements and their particular combination, consciousness manifests itself in the living body. The so called soul is simply the conscious living body. God is not necessary to account for the world.

Severe and contemptuous criticism has been leveled against this doctrine by all schools of Indian philosophy. If consciousness means self consciousness as it means in the human beings, then it cannot be identified with the living body. The animals also possess the living body but not the rational consciousness. The Charvaka replies that it is a particular combination of the elements which obtains only in the human body that produces consciousness and that therefore living human body and consciousness are always associated together and nobody has seen consciousness apart from the living human body. But the argument is wrong. It the consciousness is the essential property of the human body, it should be inseparable from it as the Charvaka claims. But it is not. In fits living body is been without consciousness. And on the other hand in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of making life, dreams life and deep sleep life and is much superior to material body.

Answer : The epistemological doctrine of the Charvaka School is that perception (Pratyasha) is the only means of valid knowledge. The validity even of inference is rejected. Inference is said to be a mere leap in the dark. We proceed here from the known to the unknown and there is no certainty in this though some inference may then out to be accidentally true. A general proposition may be true in perceived cases, but there is no guarantee that it will hold true even in unperceived cases. Deductive inference is vitiated by the fallacy of petitio principii. It is merely as argument in a circle since the conclusion is already contained in the major premise the validity of which is not proved. Inductive inference undertakes to prove the validity of the major premise of deductive inference.

But induction now is uncertain because it proceeds unwarrantedly from the known to the known. In order to distinguish true induction from simple enumeration, it is pointed out that the former unlike the later, is based on a causal relationship which means invariable association of Vyapti. Vyapti therefore is the nerve of all inference. Bu the Charvaka challenges this universal and invariable relationship of concomitance and regards it mere guess work. Perception does not prove this Vyapti. Nor can it be proved by inference for inference itself is said to presuppose its validity. Testimony too cannot prove it. Hence inference cannot be regarded as a valid source of knowledge. The crude Charvaka position has been vehemently criticized by all systems of Indian philosophy all of which have maintained the validity of at least perception and inference. To refuse the validity of inference from the empirical standpoint is to refuse to think and discuss. All thoughts all discussions all doctrines, all proofs and disproof are made possible by inference.

Answer : The Charvaka admits the existence of four elements earth, water fire and air only. In the metaphysics of Charvaka souls and God are rejected. Everything which exists including the soul is due to a particular combination of these four elements. Consciousness is regarded as a mere product of mater. It is a product formed when the elements combine in a certain proportion. It is found always associated with the body and vanishes when the body disintegrates. Just as the combination of betel, nut and lime produces the red colour or just as tormented yeast produces the intoxicating quality in the wine, though the ingredients separately do not possess either the red colour or the intoxicating quality, similarly a particular combination of elements produces consciousness. Consciousness is the result of an emergent and dialectical evolution. Given the four elements and their particular combination, consciousness manifests itself in the living body. The so called soul is simply the conscious living body. God is not necessary to account for the world.

Severe and contemptuous criticism has been leveled against this doctrine by all schools of Indian philosophy. If consciousness means self consciousness as it means in the human beings, then it cannot be identified with the living body. The animals also possess the living body but not the rational consciousness. The Charvaka replies that it is a particular combination of the elements which obtains only in the human body that produces consciousness and that therefore living human body and consciousness are always associated together and nobody has seen consciousness apart from the living human body. But the argument is wrong. It the consciousness is the essential property of the human body, it should be inseparable from it as the Charvaka claims. But it is not. In fits living body is been without consciousness. And on the other hand in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of making life, dreams life and deep sleep life and is much superior to material body.

Answer : In Charvaka’s philosophy the validity of inference is rejected. The basis of this rejection is that the epistemological doctrine of the Charvaka School is that perception is the only means of valid knowledge. Therefore, according to Charvaka inference is just a leap in the dark. We proceed from the known to the unknown. But there is no uncertainly in this. Sometimes some inferences may turn out to be true. But that is accidental. That cannot be taken for granted. A general proposition may be true in perceived cases, but there is no guarantee that it will hold true even in unperceived cases.

Deductive inference is vitiated by the fallacy of petitio principii. It is merely an argument in a circle since the conclusion is already contained in the major premise the validity of which is not proved. Inductive inference undertakes to prove the validity of the major premise of deductive inference. But induction from is uncertain because it proceeds unwarrantedly from the unknown to the known. In order to distinguish true induction from simple enumeration is based on a causal relationship which means invariable association or Vyapti. Vyapti therefore is the nerve of all inference. But the Charvaka challenges this universal and invariable relationship of concomitance and regards it a mere guess work. Perception does not prove this Vyapji. Nor can it be proved by inference, for inference itself is said to presuppose its validity. Testimony to cannot prove it, for, firstly, testimony itself is not a valid means of knowledge and secondly, it testimony proves Vyapti, inference would become dependent on testimony and then none would be able to infer anything by himself. Hence inference cannot be regarded as a valid source of knowledge. Induction is uncertain and deduction is argument in a circle. The logicians, therefore, find themselves stuck up in the mud of inference.

It is interesting here to note that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta also have rejected the ultimate validity of inference. There has been a long controversy between Udayan, the logicians and Shriharsa, the Vedantin regarding the validity of inference and Sriharas has denounced all attempts to prove the validity of inference. But there is a radical difference between the Charvaka’s views on the one hand and the Sunyavada and the Vedenta view on the other.

The Charvaka accepts the validity of perception and thereby upholds the truth of the means of valid knowledge, though he rejects all other means of knowledge as invalidity of all means of knowledge as such including perception, though they insist on the empirical validity of all means of knowledge. The distinction between ultimate and empirical knowledge is unknown to the Charvaka. To accept the validity of perception and at the same time and how the same standpoint to reject the validity of inference is a thoughtless self contradiction.

The Charvaka position has been vehemently criticized by all systems of Indian philosophy all of which have maintained the validity of at least perception and inference. To refuse the validity of inference from the empirical standpoint is to refuse to think and discuss. All thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations and denials, all proofs and disproof are made possible by inference.

The Charvaka’s view that perception is valid and inference is invalid in itself is a result of inference. The Charvaka can understand him only through inference. Thoughts and idea, not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Hence the self-refuted Charvaka position is called seer nonsense and no system of philosophy. Perception itself which is regarded as valid by the Charvaka is often found untrue. We perceive the earth as flat but it is almost round. We perceive the earth as static but it is moving round the sun. We perceive the disc of the sun as of a small size, but it is much bigger then the size of the earth. Such perceptual knowledge is contradicted by inference. Moreover, pure perception in the sense of mere sensation cannot be regarded as a means of knowledge unless conception of thought has arranged into order and has given meaning and significance to the loose threads of sense data.

The Charvaka cannot support his view without giving reasons which presuppose the validity of inference. Thus the Charvaka’s philosophy does not conform either to materialistic or non-materialistic school of philosophy. Moreover the arguments of Charvaka regarding inference cannot support the experiences in our day to day life. This really shows the hollowness of Charvaka philosophy. That is why the epistemology of Charvaka is nothing but a crude individual. It really ignores our four human values Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha.

Answer : In Ethics the Charvaka regards sensual pleasure as the summum bonum of life. Eat drink and be merry for once the body is reduced to ashes; there is no hope of coming back here gain. There is no other world. There is no soul survival after death. Religion is the means of livelihood of the priests. All values are mere phantoms created by a deceased mind. The Ethics of the Charvaka is a crude individual pleading pleasures of the senses in this life and that too of the individual is the sole end. Out of the four human values Dharma, Artha, Kama and the Moksha only Karma or sensual pleasure is regarded as the end and Artha or wealth is regarded as the means to realize that end, while Dharma and Moksha are altogether rejected.

Pleasure is regarded as mixed up with pain, but that is not reason why it should not be acquired. Rejection of the authority of the Veda and the denouement of the Brahman priests must have considerably helped the downfall of the Charvakas. But it is not the sole cause, since the Jainas and the Buddhists also have been equally contemptuous towards them. Rejection of God also is not so much responsible for their downfall because the Jainas, the Buddhist, the Samkhyas and the Mimamsakas too do not believe in the existence of God. The main cause, therefore, should be sought for in the Charvaka’s denial of all human values which make life worth living. Life without values is the animal life not the human life. Sensual pleasure is a very faint shadow of the supreme pleasure.

There is a qualitative difference in a pleasure. The pleasure of the pig is certainly not the same as the pleasure of the philosopher. It was for this reasons that, later on, distinction was made between crude and refined Materialists. As man after all is also a biological animal, satisfaction of the senses is as natural as the satisfaction of hunger. But because men are not merely a biological animal, but also a psychological and a moral creature, a rational and a self-conscious person capable of realizing the values, he should transform the animal pleasure into human pleasure by self control.