Charavaka Philosophy: School of Materialism in Indian Philosophy

Materialism is a term most of us are aware of. The term generally is mentioned negatively where most often we hear claims such as, society has become too materialistic because we think that more and more people in the modern time pursue sensual pleasures, instead of spiritual pleasures. India as a society has traditionally been thought of as spiritual rather than materialistic, but this is not true. India has a very long tradition of materialistic philosophy, which dates back to the Vedic period. This philosophy is the Charavaka, also known as Lokayata philosophy or Brhaspatya philosophy. In this article let us learn more about it.

The founder of Charvaka philosophy as mentioned in the Vedas is Brihaspati, although there is no direct evidence of the existence of him. The primary literature of the charvakas was mentioned to be the Brihaspati sutra, which has long being lost. So everything that we know about Brihaspati sutra is through secondary literature, which talks about them. How did this philosophy got the name Charvaka is unclear, some speculate that char means to “chew” so Charavaka followers got their name as someone “who chews his own self or soul”. The name Lokayata means “popular amongst people” so scholars speculate that this philosophy got the name Lokayata for being popular amongst people. Brahaspatya is just the name given to the followers of Brihaspati.

The oldest recorded scholar on Charavaka philosophy is Ajita Kesakambali, who got his name kesakambali because he used to wear a garment made up of human hairs. He is believed to be the contemporary of Buddha and Mahavira and is thought to have laid down the final doctrines of the Charvakas. Nothing is left of his teachings as well and everything we know comes from secondary sources. Moreover, although Charavaka philosophy is blamed to be Materialistic and Hedonistic, Ajita Kesakamabali is mentioned to have lived an ascetic life. Therefore, we should be very careful in judging his philosophy.

No other philosophy has been vilified more than the Charavaka philosophy. There is mention of the Charvaka in both the Ramayana and the Mahabhaarata. In Ramayana, when Bharata goes to the forest to bring Rama back to Ayodhya, Jabali who is a Charavaka goes with him. Jabali argues with Rama and says that one is alone in this world, all the relationships are just an illusion and there is nothing in this world beyond our senses, then why bear the pain of living in a forest for 14 years. Since Rama came to the forest for the sake of his father and his father is now dead, Jabali argues that Rama should return back to Ayodhya as the entire city wants him to come back. This reasoning angers Rama and he admonishes Jabali, finally Jabali relents and says that after talking with Rama he realized his mistake

In Mahabhaarata after the war ends and Yudhisthir is performing yagna to become emperor, there is a mention of Charvaka, who rebukes Yudhisthir.

“Charvaka said, ‘All these Brahmanas, making me their spokesman, are saying, ‘Fie on thee! Thou art a wicked king. Thou art a slayer of kinsmen. What shalt thou gain, O son of Kunti, by having thus exterminated thy race? Having slain also thy superiors and preceptor, it is proper for thee to cast away thy life.’ Hearing this everybody in the assembly realize the Charvaka to be a Rakshasha and slay him there

So what did this philosophy teach which caused so much hatred against it? To understand this lets go to the fundamentals. Every philosophy has its epistemology, which means what that philosophy considers as the valid source of knowledge. As an example the most popular Hindu philosophy, the Vedanta considers 6 means of knowledge as valid. These are

1. Pratyakṣa (perception, what you see is what you believe in)
2. Anumāṇa (inference, as an example if you see smoke then you can infer there is fire)
3. Upmāṇa(comparison and analogy, as an example if you have never seen a moose and I tell you that the moose looks like a stag with different antlers. In future you see a moose and you realize that you have identified moose then you have realized it through Upmana)
4. Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances, you see something and then you make a guess for the truth. This is how all modern scientific theories have been developed, as an example you observe that the galaxies are moving further from each other, so you postulate at some instance back in time all the galaxies were at a single point and the universe came into existence with big bang)
5. Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof, you have never seen a penguin fly in the sky, so you know that penguins cannot fly)
6. Śabda (scriptural testimony/ verbal testimony of past or present reliable experts, as an example considering the Vedas to be a reliable source of knowledge).

Through these valid sources of knowledge Vedanta philosophy comes up with their theory on how the world works and then it preaches right conduct to live a fulfilling life in such a world. This is how all-Indian philosophies work. So whenever you want to understand a philosophy, it is very important that you understand its epistemology. Now Charavaka philosophy has a different epistemology than Vedanta. It does not believe in these many sources of knowledge, it only believes in one valid source of knowledge, which is Pratyaksha, or what they are able to see or feel directly. As an example let us consider Anumana, where I gave the example that if you see smoke then we can infer that there must be fire. A Charavaka in this situation will argue that no I will not believe that if there is smoke then there is fire, because there might be some other source of smoke which we do not know and so unless I see the fire by my own eyes, I will not believe that there is fire just by looking at smoke.

Since a Charavaka only believes in what he sees, his belief will only be limited to material things, because that is all our sense can perceive. A Charavaka therefore thinks that the entire existence is limited to this physical world and when a man dies nothing is left of him. A Charavaka does not believe in the existence of God or the Soul, as he cannot directly perceive them. For a Charavaka spiritual leaders, who make claims about deep spiritual experiences, are either lying or hallucinating. One can clearly understand why this school of thought has been vilified so much. Since a Charavaka believes that there is no God or soul and that when a man dies nothing is left of him. For Charavaka therefore it straight away follows then that one’s karma dies with the man. This means that we should not worry about moksha, kaivalya or nirvana, instead we should just work towards increasing our pleasures in this life and as long as nobody is aware of our bad behavior during our lifetime, there will be no consequences of it for us. Living a virtuous life is of no use if others are not aware of it and living a sinful life is not bad, as long as other are not aware of it. So as you can see if the society takes up the Charavaka philosophy then it goes down the path of hedonism, where ethics become egocentric and an individual’s personal needs take highest priority instead of the greater good of the group. Virtues are practiced not for the sake of upholding dharma, but instead only to gain power and influence. Dharma cannot be preserved in such a society and it will eventually collapse.

When faced with the difficulties of life again Charavaka philosophy is not of much use. If anything bad happens to a Charavaka his convictions will shake, as he doesn’t see anything higher than himself to fall back on. With no high ideals that a man should aim at, he gets stuck in his lowest form and lives the life of an animal, completely unaware that there might be something higher than him. Limiting himself to the physical world, a Charavaka is scared of death, as he knows that after his death nothing will be left of it. The mind in this situation would like to enjoy as much sense pleasures as possible. Unfortunately going after sense pleasure will eventually lead to discontent and anxiety and then depression will follow. No wonder they got so much censure from all the other Indian schools of philosophy.

Is the Charavaka philosophy now extinct? I don’t think so. You must note that the modern science follows exactly the same epistemology as Charvaka. In Science also we can never prove the existence of God and soul, as science is also limited to this physical world that our sense can perceive. So if you are a person who only thinks within the confines of modern science then you are a Charvaka. In other words the Charvaka philosophy has not died, it is very much alive and thriving.

Now you must understand that I am not criticizing science here, science is great and the scientific method must always be used while dealing with this physical world. Ancient India was very advanced in science. However believing that science can answer everything is incorrect. We must understand that there might be some higher truths that are beyond our cognition. Just as a cow does not have the capacity to understand mathematics, there might be some truths that we humans lack the capacity to understand. Whenever a child grasps a new idea, he starts by believing in it. Similarly to grasp these higher truths we have to start with believing in them. That is why just limiting your epistemology to Pratyaksh is a big mistake.

Originally published at https://stoicsadhu.com on November 2, 2019.