I Spy Hindutva

Re: # 120

Maju Anna,

I thought you've been banned from writing on chowk...:) Dint see you for a few days or you were on another nic abusing me?

Vengy Garu,

Kaal bhai knows all 'bout Charvaka and his concept of materialism. If I am not mistaken he has already posted on the concept on chowk.

Regards

Re: # 114; 'O' mighty Eklavya

No concept will stand the test of time, however relevant it appears to be at a certain point of time. You may not be comfortable with the term 'Muslim Atheist' but you would have to accept and reconcile with Hindu atheism. Though I haven't studied Carvaka's Lokayata, I can fairly guess what it could be.

I am sorry for the copy/paste:


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka

CÄ?rvÄ?ka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Find out more about navigating Wikipedia and finding information •Jump to: navigation, search
For the village in Kyrgyzstan, see Charbak, Kyrgyzstan.
CÄ?rvÄ?ka is a system of Indian philosophy that assumed various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifference.[1] It is also known as LokÄ?yata. It is named after its founder, CÄ?rvÄ?ka, author of the BÄ?rhaspatya-sÅ«tras.[2]

In overviews of Indian philosophy, CÄ?rvÄ?ka is classified as a "heterodox" (nÄ?stika) system, the same classification as is given to Buddhism and Jainism.[3][4] It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. While this branch of Indian philosophy is not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[5]

Contents [hide]
1 Name and origins
2 Loss of original works
3 Madhavacharya and CÄ?rvÄ?ka system
3.1 Quotations attributed to CÄ?rvÄ?ka from Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha
4 Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayaraasi Bhatta
5 Astika schools, Buddhism, and Jainism versus CÄ?rvÄ?ka
6 Abul Fazl on Lokayata
7 See also
8 Notes
9 Bibliography
10 External links



[edit] Name and origins
The name LokÄ?yata can be traced to Kautilya's Arthashastra, which refers to three Ä?nvÄ«ká¹£ikÄ«s (logical philosophies), Yoga, Samkhya and Lokayata. Lokayata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio, "criticism") in general and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. Similarly, Saddaniti and Buddhaghosa in the 5th century connect the "Lokayatas" with the Vitandas (sophists).

Only from about the 6th century is the term restricted to the school of the LokyÄ?tikas. The name CÄ?rvÄ?ka is first used in the 7th century by the philosopher Purandara, who refers to his fellow materialists as "the CÄ?rvÄ?kas", and it is used by the 8th century philosophers Kamalaśīla and Haribhadra. Shankara, on the other hand, always uses LokÄ?yata, not CÄ?rvÄ?ka.[6]

E. W. Hopkins, in his The Ethics of India (1924) assumes that CÄ?rvÄ?ka philosophy is co-eval with Buddhism, mentioning "the old CÄ?rvÄ?ka or materialist of the 6th century BC"; Rhys Davids assumes that lokayata in ca. 500 BC came to mean "scepticism" in general without yet being organized as a philosophical school, and that the name of a villain of the Mahabharata, CÄ?rvÄ?ka, was attached to the position in order to disparage it. The earliest positive statement of skepticism is preserved from the epic period, in the Ramayana.

regard only that which is an object of perception, and cast behind your back whatever is beyond the reach of your senses (2.108)
The CÄ?rvÄ?ka school thus appears to have gradually grown out of generic skepticism in the Mauryan period, but its existence as an organized body cannot be ascertained for times predating the 6th century. The Barhaspatya sutras were likely also composed in Mauryan times, predating 150 BC, based on a reference in the Mahabhasya of Patanjali (7.3.45).[7]


[edit] Loss of original works
Main article: Barhaspatya sutras
Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of CÄ?rvÄ?ka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[8]

Available evidence suggests that CÄ?rvÄ?ka philosophy was set out in the Barhaspatya sutras, probably in Mauryan times. Neither this text nor any other original text of the CÄ?rvÄ?ka school of philosophy has been preserved. Its principal works are known only from fragments cited by its Hindu and Buddhist opponents. CÄ?rvÄ?ka philosophy appears to have died out some time in the 15th century.

Countering the argument that the CÄ?rvÄ?kas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Dale Riepe says, "It may be said from the available material that CÄ?rvÄ?kas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem."[9]


[edit] Madhavacharya and CÄ?rvÄ?ka system
Madhavacharya, the 13th & 14th-century Vedantic philosopher from South India starts his famous work The Sarva-darsana-sangraha with a chapter on the CÄ?rvÄ?ka system with the intention of refuting it. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods Shiva 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?

[edit] Quotations attributed to CÄ?rvÄ?ka from Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha
The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes —
Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.
In this school there are four elements, earth, water, fire and air;
and from these four elements alone is intelligence produced —
just like the intoxicating power from kinwa &c, mixed together;
since in "I am fat", "I am lean", these attributes abide in the same subject,
and since fatness, &c, reside only in the body, it alone is the soul and no other,
and such phrases as "my body" are only significant metaphorically.
If a beast slain in the Jyothishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,
why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?
If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead,
then why not give food down below to those who are standing on the house-top?
If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
how is it that he come not back again, restless for love of his kindred?
Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here
all these ceremonies for the dead, — there is no other fruit anywhere.
The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.
All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphari, turphari, etc.
and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in Aswamedha,
these were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests,
while the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling demons.
[10]

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.


[edit] Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayaraasi Bhatta
Main article: Jayarashi Bhatta
The Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarashi Bhatta (ca. 8th century) is often cited as the only extant authentic CÄ?rvÄ?ka text, but which also shows Madhyamaka influence. It is, in any case, among the most important documents for the study of the CÄ?rvÄ?ka school.


[edit] Astika schools, Buddhism, and Jainism versus CÄ?rvÄ?ka
CÄ?rvÄ?kas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called "speculative metaphysics" were to be avoided. The CÄ?rvÄ?kas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything. Though their opponents tried to caricature the Lokayatikas' arguments, the latter did not completely reject the method of inference. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya quotes S. N. Dasgupta:

"Purandara (a Lokayata philosopher) [...] admits the usefulness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the law of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience."[11]
A CÄ?rvÄ?ka'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 CÄ?rvÄ?kas' primary modus operandi.

The CÄ?rvÄ?kas did not deny the difference between the dead and the living and recognized both as realities. A person lives, the same person dies: that is a perceived, and hence the only provable, fact. In this regard, the CÄ?rvÄ?kas found themselves at odds with all the other religions of the time. Of the five fundamental elements, the Panchamahaabhutas, Prithvi (earth or solidity), jal (water or liquidity), agni (fire or fieriness or brightness), vaayu (wind or movement), and aakaasha (aether or emptiness), the CÄ?rvÄ?kas recognised the validity of only the first four and thought that a combination of these four elements produced a certain vitality called life.

Rejection of the soul as separate from the body led the CÄ?rvÄ?kas to confine their thinking to this world only. This does not mean that they denied the cause-effect relationship. They accepted the "like causes like result" (Karmavipaaka) rule, restricted it to this life and this world and admitted exceptions to that rule.

Whereas most systems of Astika philosophy advocated a caste system, the CÄ?rvÄ?kas 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?"[12]

The CÄ?rvÄ?ka scholars carried on research, termed Aanvikshiki, into every branch of knowledge and developed it elaborately. It is possible that they also observed and kept records of the historical supernovae, which the Chinese, the Incas and Mayans and all other ancient civilizations did, as per records left to posterity in the form of astrological writings (Chinese) and cave paintings (Incas and Mayans). However, the Indian records have not yet come to light, perhaps due to the predominance of oral tradition in India, liable to easy distortion. More probably, any records have been destroyed by the CÄ?rvÄ?kas' opponents.[13]


[edit] Abul Fazl on Lokayata
Ain-i-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 CÄ?rvÄ?ka thinkers are said to have participated in this symposium.[14]

Under the heading "Nastika," Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious administration, and welfare schemes that were emphasized by the CÄ?rvÄ?ka lawmakers. Somadeva has also mentioned the CÄ?rvÄ?ka method of defeating the enemies of the nation. However, the so called peasant religions or opinions never told that you should not live happily, rather they said that the means of happiness is giving up which goes in contradiction to carvaka, who said the material pleasure are enough to give happiness to the material body.

Re: # 99
@ KaalChakra

I completely agree.
I was being sarcastic when referring to Golwalker.

akcheema #97 {"I have no issues with you and would like to keep it that way, if it is all the same to you."}

Cheema Sahib,
I have no issues with you either, and in fact have enjoyed reading several of your posts and anecdotes. You have every right to your points of view and every right to express them, my friend.
As for me, I have never been a "tableeghi" type of missionary and do not enjoy giving or receiving lectures on religion, God, faith, or righteousness. My belief in God and the Holy Prophet (PUBH) is a personal matter that makes sense to me. I only discuss it when it comes under attack by those trying to ridicule me or insult me by using profanity against those I consider sacred.

I don't mind discussing "atheism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity," or any other lighthouse of absolute truth in an academic setting. My comments against alcohol and so-called aggressive "atheists," were directed at one implacable megalomaniac who persists in trying to hurt Muslims by using the most profane rhetoric against the Holy Prophet (PBUH). I strongly support true atheists in their God-given right to believe in the absolute absence of a Supreme Being. I look forward to polite and interesting discussions with you.

#96 Posted by mistaken_enigma on May 12, 2008 3:17:58 pm
Re: # 95
@ Selim_Chauhan ji
...Are you related to Salim_Chauhan by any means ? "}

Vaibhav,
Yes, Selim is the Turkish spelling of Salim. OTOH, there is an annoying imposter named "Saleem_Chauhan" who is stalking me lately with profanity, lewd comments, and general behavior resembling a Paindoo. Please ignore him as I do.

The downside of being an atheist is that ... you have no one to talk to when you are getting a blowjob.

Sorry for the digression; let's get back to bashing hindutvas and kaal's in-laws.

vengat, the question is of the use of language, and of use of important concepts in ways that remain understandable to others.

Suppose Hinduism had an absolute requirement - all Hindus must worship a black-reared chihuahua by offering it freshly caught sea-water fish three times a day.

Now comes a person who says he or she hates chichuhuas, is out to save sea-water fish, and certainly doesn't wish to see the two together.

Yet such a person wants to be a called a Hindu on the strength of freedom of expression.

This misuse of human language will destroy any social discourse using such concepts as Hindu or Hinduism.

Language is not an individual's creation. It is a social tool, collectively created and inter-subjectively understood. Individuals can have only so much liberty with distorting it before they begin to exact unacceptable cost from others.

Ref Sanatani #106

[But sorry to say (it is of course second hand info told by a friend) from what I have heard in TN in either the Vanniyar or the Thevar belt to do so would be suicide.]

But you should read "The Anti-Hindu" and read between the lines.

Recently, in a village called Uthapuram, a wall dividing the dalits from the rest of the village was demolished.

The Anti-Hindu consistently called the non-Dalits as "Upper Castes".

They are not "Upper Castes" in the Mandal Commission sense.

They are OBCs for which our politicians are carrying water in the form of 27% reservation.

But you wouldn't know that if you read the Anti-Hindu or any other newspaper in India.

Inscription on an actual tombstone: "Here Lies an Athiest. All wraped up and nowhere to go".

This may be irrelevant to the highly charged discussion going on here but I thought it'd be nice to throw in.

Eklavya,

For an atheist, even if he is a Muslim, he will not be worried about semantics. Call him an apostate, he will say, "exactly".

It requires more courage and conviction to be a Muslim apostate than a Hindu one...and lots of reasoning ability too...

Believers know that if you call an atheist an apostate then it would mean a far damaging contrasting truth they would have to confront with.

"it has to be done by religous or cultural groups and not by so-called progressives."

I have no problem in the religious or cultural groups fighting the casteism, once they start doing it the so called progressives would keep quite. Happy now?

Thevar side suffered most of the casualties and many don't openly admit to the truth.

Re: # 107
"I believe in caste but not caste pride and esp not one that is detrimental to any other caste"

Sanatani,

I think I share this.We need the caste system but not the vertical arrangement and no caste should equate to any particular profession.

Vanniyars and Thevars are glorified inappropriately. I think in todays Tamilnadu, nobody would dare to prick the dalit pride. Dalits have nothing to lose vis-a-vis thevars and vanniyars. Tamil dalits cannot be subjugated by violence like their 'rest-of-india' counterparts. Its been quite some time since the last major caste violence took place. It was between the dalits and the rest of the castes with thevars leading in front. Thevars' side suffered most of the casualties and many don't openly admits to the truth.

Also if we have to fight this sort of casteism (I believe in caste but not caste pride and esp not one that is detrimental to any other caste) it has to be done by religous or cultural groups and not by so-called progressives.

But unfortunately Hindus never understand enlightned self interest.

Sanatani

Re: # 102

Vengat,

For a commie sometimes you do speak the truth.

It reminds me of a trip to a village in west UP when I told the Brahmins. Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars there that well as an outsider I saw no difference in their hygeine level and that of the Chamars and other Dalits in that village with the exception that the Dalits at least did a lot to clean up will they only spread dirt and if the Chamars were untouchables so were they in my eyes.

It nearly got me lynched but the message went home. The marriage dinner was eaten with the Dalits also sitting down with all in the same line instead of 2 rows back except they had to lift and clean their plates after the same.

But it was profoundly enlightening to one's thought process. Why I did not get lynched and why were they allowed to sit down. That was because there was some groundswell of support for such a move amongst the locals but lacked courage to do so openly, when I acted as a catalyst they coalesced behind me.

But sorry to say (it is of course second hand info told by a friend) from what I have heard in TN in either the Vanniyar or the Thevar belt to do so would be suicide.

Santani