Log in

View Full Version : Carvaka



Comrade-Z
22nd July 2006, 00:03
Does anybody know anything more about this Carvaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvaka) that I stumbled upon on Wikipedia? It sounds rather remarkable that there would exist a materialist, atheist, and hedonist school of thought in Ancient India. It almost seems like the Indians had a lot of advanced things going for them for a while. What happened to them?

Some snippets from Wikipedia:


Madhavacharya, the 14th-century Vedantic philosopher from South India starts his famous work The Sarva-darsana-sangraha with a chapter on the Carvaka system with the intention of refuting it. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods Siva and Vishnu, ("by whom the earth and rest were produced"), Madhavacharya asks, in the first chapter:

...but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain:
While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it e'er again return?


Those parts which survive indicate a strong anti-clerical bias, accusing brahmins of fostering religious beliefs only so they could obtain a livelihood. The proper aim of a Charvakan or Charvaka, according to these sources, was to live a prosperous, happy, and productive life in this world.


Carvakas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called "speculative metaphysics" were to be avoided. The Carvakas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything.


A Carvaka's thought is characterised by an insistence on joyful living, whereas Buddhism and Jainism are known to emphasise penance. Enjoyment of life in a tempered manner, much like the Epicureans of Greece, was the Carvakas' primary modus operandi.


Whereas most systems of Hindu philosophy advocated a caste system, the Carvakas denounced the caste system, calling it artificial, unreal and hence unacceptable. "What is this senseless humbug about the castes and the high and low among them when the organs like the mouth, etc in the human body are the same?"

Connolly
22nd July 2006, 00:21
That sounds pretty good actually.

Are there any still 'practicing' this?

Free Left
22nd July 2006, 00:23
It almost seems like the Indians had a lot of advanced things going for them for a while. What happened to them?

Yeah, they did but Muslim, Mongol(?) and British invasions kinda screwed it up.

I wound't descibe the 14th century as "Ancient" but it's true that this shows a degree of advanced thinking, moving away from absolute religious ideas.

Comrade-Z
22nd July 2006, 01:51
That sounds pretty good actually.

Are there any still 'practicing' this?

Wikipedia says,


Aaine-Akbari, written by Abul Fazl, the famous historian of Akbar's court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence. Some Carvaka thinkers are said to have participated in this symposium.

So there were still active Carvaka thinkers as late as 1578, it would seem.


I wound't descibe the 14th century as "Ancient"

But the school of thought originated as far back as the 7th century BCE:


Originally posted by wikipedia
Available evidence suggests that Carvaka philosophy was set out in the Brhaspati Sutra in India, probably about 600 BCE

Pretty impressive!


Yeah, they did but Muslim, Mongol(?) and British invasions kinda screwed it up.

Ah, tru dat.

RedAnarchist
22nd July 2006, 02:06
"However, women were clearly in a lower position than the men in Charvakan society and were merely tools for sexual pleasure"


From the wiki article. The males didnt want to be submissive to a diety, but they certainly wanted their women to be submissive to them.

Comrade-Z
22nd July 2006, 03:49
"However, women were clearly in a lower position than the men in Charvakan society and were merely tools for sexual pleasure"

From the wiki article. The males didnt want to be submissive to a diety, but they certainly wanted their women to be submissive to them.

Yeah, stuff like this is one reason why I'd like some independent knowledge or clarification on this Carvaka stuff, to see if wikipedia is correct on this kind of stuff. If it is, then that's a messed up attitude. :(

The Sloth
2nd August 2006, 17:09
Originally posted by Free [email protected] 21 2006, 09:24 PM
Yeah, they did but Muslim, Mongol(?) and British invasions kinda screwed it up.


the indian culture was too rich and too complex to have ever been completely swayed by the mongols. same goes for the chinese.

and, i'm not too sure about the muslim invasion, but i suspect that its profundity was limited.. regional conflicts and sikhism may have came about from such contact, but traditional indian culture, to this day, in some places, is just as warped as it was centuries ago. the difference now is that it's finally regressive, compared to the modern world and all.