Joined Oct 2012
3,562 Posts | 807+
Z
Merriam-Webster defines “religion” as “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or group of gods.” Few concepts have had a greater impact on human history than religion; every culture, every society, and every civilization in human history has invariably been a host to some sort of religion at some point in time. However, just as the concept of religion is universal and is found in many different cultures, so is the questioning of religion, and the tradition of skepticism and rationalism. For at least 2500 years, there have been humans who questioned the religious beliefs and practices of their respective cultures, and propounded alternate explanations of the universe and the “meaning of life” in place of traditional religious explanations. This essay will briefly present the views of such individuals from two very different civilizations, namely ancient India and ancient Rome. In particular, this paper will compare the views of the Charvaka school of Indian philosophy, with the views of the famous Epicurean school.
Before delving into the philosophy of the Charvakas, it is important to first provide some background about the religion and philosophy of the ancient Indians. The religion of ancient India was characterized by ritual chants from the Vedas, a corpus of sacred texts that were passed on orally by the Brahmans, the priestly class. The word veda literally means “knowledge” or “wisdom”, and shares a common linguistic ancestor with the German word wissen, as well as the English word wisdom itself. [1] The Vedic corpus consisted of three main texts – the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, and the Sama Veda – as well as a collection of prose texts known as the Brahmanas, which contain instructions for the proper conduct of rituals. In the orthodox Hindu view, the Vedas are regarded as infallible texts that are divinely inspired, or “heard” (shruti) rather than merely “created” by man. The Indian schools of thought (darshanas) that accept the authority of the Vedic corpus are called the astika (“orthodox”
schools.
Around the mid-1st millennium B.C.E., there was a wave of intellectual “dissent” in India that resulted in the emergence of heterodox, or nastika, schools of thought. These “heterodox” schools of thought were characterized by their skeptical and rational outlook, and their rejection of the Vedic corpus. The three main heterodox schools included Buddhism, Jainism, and Charvaka; of the three, the Charvaka school, also known as Lokayata, was the most radical, and the fiercest in its criticism of the Vedas and the orthodox Hindu sects. Likewise, the Charvakas and other nastika schools were reviled by the Brahmans and orthodox philosophers as ignorant and misguided. For example, the 9th century orthodox philosopher Vachaspati Mishra in his exposition of Indian systems of thought writes: “…even beasts, with a view of obtaining the beneficial and avoiding the harmful, move towards a field green with soft, fresh grass and leave one full of dried grass and thorns. The Nastika, not knowing what would lead him to his own good or what would lead him into harm, is more beastly than a beast.” [2]
Moving on to the comparison of the Charvaka school of thought with the Epicurean school, one of the major similarities between the two schools was their shared philosophy of materialism. Epicurus argued that the whole universe, including human beings as well as the gods themselves, were composed of nothing but atoms (extremely tiny, indestructible particles) and “void”, or empty space. [3] This view of the universe is elaborated quite lengthily and eloquently by Lucretius (1st century B.C.E.) in his poem De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”. In this poem, Lucretius argues that the narrative of divine creation is fundamentally illogical, because “nothing can be created from nothing” and anything that is created cannot be reduced to nothing. Thus, the universe in Lucretius’ view is eternal and uncreated, and all natural phenomena can be explained in terms of interactions between matter. The Charvakas also held similar ideas about the composition of the universe and the natural world. The Charvakas believed that the entire universe was composed of four elements – fire, earth, water, and air – and that all phenomena, without exception, were the result of interaction between the elements. Even human consciousness and intelligence, according to the Charvakas, arise only from the natural elements, and intelligence is destroyed when the body is destroyed. [4] This was in contrast to other Indian schools of thought, who maintained that souls could exist separately from the body and carry intelligence with them after death; the Charvakas, on the other hand, rejected the very notion that separate souls could exist, and considered the physical death of a human being to also mark the permanent end of that human’s consciousness.
The Epicureans and the Charvakas both criticized religion and denounced practices that they considered irrational and superstitious, but their exact religious philosophy differed in some ways. Despite being staunch materialists, as described above, the Epicureans did not actually reject the existence of gods. [5] Instead, they believed that the gods were “blessed beings” who lived lives of “perfect pleasure” and did not intervene in the human realm; thus, according to Epicurean philosophy, humans should set aside their fear of “divine punishment” and instead look to the gods as positive role models for living pleasurable, fulfilling lives. The Charvakas, on the other hand, were explicitly atheistic in their philosophy, rejecting not only the concept of gods, but also the concept of svarga (heaven), apavarga (liberation), and reincarnation of the soul (atma), as well as the concept of the caste system (chaturvarna). [6] They were especially critical of the Vedas and of the sacrificial rituals associated with the orthodox sects, sarcastically asking, “If a beast slain in a sacrificial rite will itself go to heaven, then why not offer your own father in a sacrifice?” [7] The Charvakas regarded the Vedas as nothing more than the “incoherent rhapsodies of knaves” that suffer from “untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology”, and denounced the associated Vedic religious rituals as “mere means of livelihood for those [i.e. the Brahman priests] who have neither manliness nor sense.” [9]
Perhaps the single greatest similarity between the Epicurean and Charvaka schools of thought, however, lies in their common philosophy of how to pursue “happiness” in their day-to-day lives. The Epicureans believed that the highest form of good was “pleasure”, defined particularly as the freedom of pain in the body (aponia) and freedom from anxiety and disturbance (ataraxia). [9] According to Epicurus, true happiness comes from taking pleasure in satisfying our basic desires for food, drink, shelter, and clothing, and not from seeking things that are more difficult to obtain (like fancy food, immense wealth, personal fame and honor, etc.), which tend to increase anxiety and are therefore detrimental to one’s happiness. Similarly, the Charvakas believed that the ultimate goal of life should be enjoyment of sensual pleasure and avoidance of pain. [10] Because they believed in neither an afterlife nor the possibility of the soul returning to the world in a new incarnation, the Charvakas emphasized that one should enjoy life to the fullest in the present existence, since the current existence was (in their view) the one and only opportunity for a human being to live. “While life remains,” goes a Charvaka saying, “let a man live happily, let him feed on butter even if he runs into debt. For when the body becomes ash, how can it ever return again?” [11]
Finally, both the Epicureans and the Charvakas shared the similar fate of being relegated into the realm of “fringe thinkers” in their respective civilizations, and of being misrepresented by their opponents for centuries. The Epicureans, in later years, were viewed as “wild, profligate hedonists” who could not control their urges for seeking pleasure. [12] This is a grave distortion of the actual philosophy of Epicurus, which emphasized self-control in seeking pleasures (since the careful choice of pleasures is itself important for maximizing happiness, and over-indulgence can upset ataraxia) and a simple lifestyle free of unnecessary luxuries, as described above. The Charvakas, although somewhat less principled than the Epicureans, similarly came under vicious criticism from orthodox writers in India, and were caricatured as being lowly, uncouth, and licentious. One example of such a depiction comes from the 15th century Indian writer Gunaratna, who in a commentary on a much earlier compendium of Indian philosophies says: “They [the Charvakas] take spirituous drinks and meat and also copulate with those unfit to be sexually approached, like the mother, etc. Every year, on a particular day, they assemble and copulate randomly with women. They do not consider dharma (ethical duty) to be any anything different from kama (sexual pleasure).” [13] Such portrayals were almost certainly stereotypical caricatures that were composed long after the Charvakas had ceased to be an important force in Indian intellectual life, and were clearly meant to demean the Charvakas due to their highly nontraditional and dissenting views.
In conclusion, the Epicurean school in the Greco-Roman world and the Charvaka school of ancient India represented two similar philosophies that arose independently in two very different civilizations. The two schools of thought, though differing in some details (such as the existence or non-existence of gods), can both be described as materialist and rationalist philosophies that challenged the dominant ideologies and beliefs of their respective civilizations. While both eventually faded away into history, the remnants that they left behind are indicative of a rich tradition of skepticism, free thought, and rational inquiry in both ancient India and the ancient Mediterranean world, and support the idea that rationalism is not the monopoly of any one culture or civilization, but is universal and common to humanity as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] Early South Asia” in David Damrosch, ed., The Longman Anthology of World Literature (Pearson, 2009), 802
[2] Vachaspati Mishra, “Bhamati,” in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, ed., Carvaka/Lokayata (New Delhi: Indian Philosophical Society, 1990), 243.
[3] Walter Englert, ed., Lucretius: On the Nature of Things (Newburyport, MA: Focus Pub., 2003), xi.
[4] “The Carvaka System” in Madan Mohan Agrawal, ed., Sarvadarshanasamgraha of Madhavacharya (Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2002), 4.
[5] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xiv.
[6] Agrawal, Sarvadarshanasamgraha, 17.
[7] Ibid, 18.
[8] Ibid, 7-8.
[9] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xv.
[10] Agrawal, Sarvadarshanasamgraha, 5.
[11] Ibid, 19.
[12] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xv.
[13] Gunaratna, “Commentary on Haribhadra,” in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, ed., Carvaka/Lokayata, 267.
Before delving into the philosophy of the Charvakas, it is important to first provide some background about the religion and philosophy of the ancient Indians. The religion of ancient India was characterized by ritual chants from the Vedas, a corpus of sacred texts that were passed on orally by the Brahmans, the priestly class. The word veda literally means “knowledge” or “wisdom”, and shares a common linguistic ancestor with the German word wissen, as well as the English word wisdom itself. [1] The Vedic corpus consisted of three main texts – the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, and the Sama Veda – as well as a collection of prose texts known as the Brahmanas, which contain instructions for the proper conduct of rituals. In the orthodox Hindu view, the Vedas are regarded as infallible texts that are divinely inspired, or “heard” (shruti) rather than merely “created” by man. The Indian schools of thought (darshanas) that accept the authority of the Vedic corpus are called the astika (“orthodox”
schools. Around the mid-1st millennium B.C.E., there was a wave of intellectual “dissent” in India that resulted in the emergence of heterodox, or nastika, schools of thought. These “heterodox” schools of thought were characterized by their skeptical and rational outlook, and their rejection of the Vedic corpus. The three main heterodox schools included Buddhism, Jainism, and Charvaka; of the three, the Charvaka school, also known as Lokayata, was the most radical, and the fiercest in its criticism of the Vedas and the orthodox Hindu sects. Likewise, the Charvakas and other nastika schools were reviled by the Brahmans and orthodox philosophers as ignorant and misguided. For example, the 9th century orthodox philosopher Vachaspati Mishra in his exposition of Indian systems of thought writes: “…even beasts, with a view of obtaining the beneficial and avoiding the harmful, move towards a field green with soft, fresh grass and leave one full of dried grass and thorns. The Nastika, not knowing what would lead him to his own good or what would lead him into harm, is more beastly than a beast.” [2]
Moving on to the comparison of the Charvaka school of thought with the Epicurean school, one of the major similarities between the two schools was their shared philosophy of materialism. Epicurus argued that the whole universe, including human beings as well as the gods themselves, were composed of nothing but atoms (extremely tiny, indestructible particles) and “void”, or empty space. [3] This view of the universe is elaborated quite lengthily and eloquently by Lucretius (1st century B.C.E.) in his poem De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”
. In this poem, Lucretius argues that the narrative of divine creation is fundamentally illogical, because “nothing can be created from nothing” and anything that is created cannot be reduced to nothing. Thus, the universe in Lucretius’ view is eternal and uncreated, and all natural phenomena can be explained in terms of interactions between matter. The Charvakas also held similar ideas about the composition of the universe and the natural world. The Charvakas believed that the entire universe was composed of four elements – fire, earth, water, and air – and that all phenomena, without exception, were the result of interaction between the elements. Even human consciousness and intelligence, according to the Charvakas, arise only from the natural elements, and intelligence is destroyed when the body is destroyed. [4] This was in contrast to other Indian schools of thought, who maintained that souls could exist separately from the body and carry intelligence with them after death; the Charvakas, on the other hand, rejected the very notion that separate souls could exist, and considered the physical death of a human being to also mark the permanent end of that human’s consciousness.The Epicureans and the Charvakas both criticized religion and denounced practices that they considered irrational and superstitious, but their exact religious philosophy differed in some ways. Despite being staunch materialists, as described above, the Epicureans did not actually reject the existence of gods. [5] Instead, they believed that the gods were “blessed beings” who lived lives of “perfect pleasure” and did not intervene in the human realm; thus, according to Epicurean philosophy, humans should set aside their fear of “divine punishment” and instead look to the gods as positive role models for living pleasurable, fulfilling lives. The Charvakas, on the other hand, were explicitly atheistic in their philosophy, rejecting not only the concept of gods, but also the concept of svarga (heaven), apavarga (liberation), and reincarnation of the soul (atma), as well as the concept of the caste system (chaturvarna). [6] They were especially critical of the Vedas and of the sacrificial rituals associated with the orthodox sects, sarcastically asking, “If a beast slain in a sacrificial rite will itself go to heaven, then why not offer your own father in a sacrifice?” [7] The Charvakas regarded the Vedas as nothing more than the “incoherent rhapsodies of knaves” that suffer from “untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology”, and denounced the associated Vedic religious rituals as “mere means of livelihood for those [i.e. the Brahman priests] who have neither manliness nor sense.” [9]
Perhaps the single greatest similarity between the Epicurean and Charvaka schools of thought, however, lies in their common philosophy of how to pursue “happiness” in their day-to-day lives. The Epicureans believed that the highest form of good was “pleasure”, defined particularly as the freedom of pain in the body (aponia) and freedom from anxiety and disturbance (ataraxia). [9] According to Epicurus, true happiness comes from taking pleasure in satisfying our basic desires for food, drink, shelter, and clothing, and not from seeking things that are more difficult to obtain (like fancy food, immense wealth, personal fame and honor, etc.), which tend to increase anxiety and are therefore detrimental to one’s happiness. Similarly, the Charvakas believed that the ultimate goal of life should be enjoyment of sensual pleasure and avoidance of pain. [10] Because they believed in neither an afterlife nor the possibility of the soul returning to the world in a new incarnation, the Charvakas emphasized that one should enjoy life to the fullest in the present existence, since the current existence was (in their view) the one and only opportunity for a human being to live. “While life remains,” goes a Charvaka saying, “let a man live happily, let him feed on butter even if he runs into debt. For when the body becomes ash, how can it ever return again?” [11]
Finally, both the Epicureans and the Charvakas shared the similar fate of being relegated into the realm of “fringe thinkers” in their respective civilizations, and of being misrepresented by their opponents for centuries. The Epicureans, in later years, were viewed as “wild, profligate hedonists” who could not control their urges for seeking pleasure. [12] This is a grave distortion of the actual philosophy of Epicurus, which emphasized self-control in seeking pleasures (since the careful choice of pleasures is itself important for maximizing happiness, and over-indulgence can upset ataraxia) and a simple lifestyle free of unnecessary luxuries, as described above. The Charvakas, although somewhat less principled than the Epicureans, similarly came under vicious criticism from orthodox writers in India, and were caricatured as being lowly, uncouth, and licentious. One example of such a depiction comes from the 15th century Indian writer Gunaratna, who in a commentary on a much earlier compendium of Indian philosophies says: “They [the Charvakas] take spirituous drinks and meat and also copulate with those unfit to be sexually approached, like the mother, etc. Every year, on a particular day, they assemble and copulate randomly with women. They do not consider dharma (ethical duty) to be any anything different from kama (sexual pleasure).” [13] Such portrayals were almost certainly stereotypical caricatures that were composed long after the Charvakas had ceased to be an important force in Indian intellectual life, and were clearly meant to demean the Charvakas due to their highly nontraditional and dissenting views.
In conclusion, the Epicurean school in the Greco-Roman world and the Charvaka school of ancient India represented two similar philosophies that arose independently in two very different civilizations. The two schools of thought, though differing in some details (such as the existence or non-existence of gods), can both be described as materialist and rationalist philosophies that challenged the dominant ideologies and beliefs of their respective civilizations. While both eventually faded away into history, the remnants that they left behind are indicative of a rich tradition of skepticism, free thought, and rational inquiry in both ancient India and the ancient Mediterranean world, and support the idea that rationalism is not the monopoly of any one culture or civilization, but is universal and common to humanity as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] Early South Asia” in David Damrosch, ed., The Longman Anthology of World Literature (Pearson, 2009), 802
[2] Vachaspati Mishra, “Bhamati,” in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, ed., Carvaka/Lokayata (New Delhi: Indian Philosophical Society, 1990), 243.
[3] Walter Englert, ed., Lucretius: On the Nature of Things (Newburyport, MA: Focus Pub., 2003), xi.
[4] “The Carvaka System” in Madan Mohan Agrawal, ed., Sarvadarshanasamgraha of Madhavacharya (Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 2002), 4.
[5] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xiv.
[6] Agrawal, Sarvadarshanasamgraha, 17.
[7] Ibid, 18.
[8] Ibid, 7-8.
[9] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xv.
[10] Agrawal, Sarvadarshanasamgraha, 5.
[11] Ibid, 19.
[12] Englert, On the Nature of Things, xv.
[13] Gunaratna, “Commentary on Haribhadra,” in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, ed., Carvaka/Lokayata, 267.
