The Lokaayata school, representing the atheistic philosophy of India, is of great antiquity. The Sutras of Brihaspati are said to be the first scripture of the school. Nothing much is known about Brihaspati but numerous sutras from his primordial text of the school are quoted in later literature. Chaaravaaka was a renowned exponent of this school and hence this school is also called Chaaravaaka.
Germs of the school's thought is found in the Rig Veda. Scholars are of the opinion that the school is braahmanical in origin. In the Vedic period Anvikshiki or the science of logic was a highly valued subject of study in brahmanical circles. The intense analysis which logic was subjected to, resulted in exposing the weakness of logic itself and this is said to have led to the emergence of the Lokaayata school, which denied all means of knowledge except perception and in some cases denied that too! As long as they accepted the authority of the Veda they were tolerated inside the tradition. Rejection of the scripture seems to have earned them the label "heretic" (naastika).
In fact, the school of Brihaspati is the only heterodox school of Indian philosophy that finds explicit mention in the major Upanishads-in the Maitrayaniya Upanishad to be exact. The text states that Brihaspati deliberately propounded the atheistic views to delude the demons, so that the gods could conquer them.
In the Ramayana, a sage called Javali tries to motivate Sri Rama to rebel against his father and snatch the kingdom of Ayodhya. Javali is said to be a follower of atheism in this context, and he uses arguments similar to those attributed to the followers of this school.
In the Mahaabhaaratha, Yudhishtra burns his adversary Duryodhana's supporter named Chaaravaaka in the battlefield for preaching adharma. The murder of Chaarvaaka is apparently carried out at the instigation of brahmins. The word Chaarvaaka means "one who is a slick talker". The name therefore might be pejorative, indicative of the fact that the teachers of this school enticed common and simple minded people with their earthy reasoning, and lead them astray from the mainstream of the Indian society.
Another name for this school is 'Lokaayata.' Scholars opine that the name indicates that the teachings of this school was very popular amongst the laity. However, the name might also indicate that the intellectual sections of the society considered this school of thought too lowly and meant for the hoi-polloi. Other references to this school are found in the Pali Nikhaayas, where we find the Buddha engaged in dialogue with two brahmins named Lokaayata. In his Mahaabhaashya, Patanjali too mentions a commentary by Bhaguri on the Lokaayata shastra.
THE PHILOSOPHY
Besides the meanings of Lokaayata stated above, there is a view that the school is called Lokaayata since it holds that only this world (lokam) is. They are mainly against the concept of a supersensible reality. The Upanishads enjoin the reality of the Self/spirit beyond the senses and the mind. Since the spirit is beyond perception and its existence cannot be proved, the Lokaayatas deny it. Thus according to them, sense perception is the only true means of knowledge. Inference verifiable by perception is accepted.
According to the Lokaayata, matter is the only reality and it can think. There are only four elements - earth, water, fire and air. Ether, which is beyond sense perception is rejected. Intelligence is due to the modification of the four elements and it is destroyed when the elements from which it arises are dissolved. The Self is not some eternal entity, which passes from one birth to another. It is nothing apart from the body and is only the body qualified with intelligence. This is proved by the implications in the expressions : "I'm stout", "I'm young", "I'm old" etc. Since the Self is never perceived apart from the body, all theories asserting the individual existence of the Self apart from the body/mind are rejected. The Self perishes with the body.
From this it follows that the theory of karma itself is untenable. It's foolish to think that one will reap the rewards for ones acts in a future state. There is no heaven or hell and all these are only the invention of impostors.
A God is not necessary to account for the world. "Who colors so wonderfully the peacocks or who makes the cuckoos coo so well?" - only nature. And nature is absolutely dead to all human values, indifferent to good or bad. Thus the traditional discipline and universal love advocated by ethical schools is scorned and uncontrolled energy, self-assertion and reckless disregard for all authority is encouraged. Artha (wealth) and kaama (desire) are the true ends of life.
"While life is yours, live joyously;
none can escape Death's searching eye;
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it ever again return?"
The Vedas are repudiated with great bitterness. The Vedas are considered to be tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction and tautology.
"There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,
nor do the actions of the four castes, orders etc produce any real effect.
The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves
and the smearing of oneself with ashes
Were made by nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness.
If a beast is slain in the Jyotistoma rite will itself go to heaven,
Why then not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?"
"It's only as a means of livelihood that brahmins 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!"
TATTVOPAPLAVASIMHA
The only extant work of this school is Tattvopaplavasimha or the Upsetting of all principles by Jayaraashi Bhatta (6th century AD). In the work there's a reference to another Lokaayata treatise called Lakshanasaara or the essence of definition, probably by the same author, but it is lost to us. Tattvopaplavasimha is a brilliant epistemological work where the author endeavors to refute the theories of rival schools - both orthodox and heterodox. Jayaraashi belongs to a branch of the Lokaayatas, which advocated absolute nihilism. This school like the Advaita Vedaanta of Bhagvatpada Shankara and the Maadhyamaka Buddhist school of Naagaarjuna denied the validity of all means of knowledge. But bound neither by the scripture nor by spiritual experience, they used it to deny any reality to the world. Given below is a brief account of how Jayaraashi refutes inference, acknowledged as one of the valid means of knowledge by the Indian school of logic (Nyaaya) propounded by the philosopher Gautama and his followers.
The Nyaaya Sutra defines inference as that which is preceded by perception. In the kitchen one apprehends the relation between fire and smoke through the function of the eyes. By this, a connection is formed in the mind. Thereafter when smoke is again perceived on a hill, then one remembers the universal relation between smoke and fire and hence concludes that the hill is on fire.
Perception is the cause and inference the effect. Without one there cannot be the other. Thus it's impossible to apprehend an invariable relation between events (smoke and fire) without perception.
There's another reason why an invariable relation cannot be established. Is the cognition of a relation between two universals or two particulars or a universal and a particular?
It cannot be between two universals, for a universal is a concept and is not itself demonstrated. Nor can it be between a universal and a particular, as again one part of the equation, the universal, is not demonstrable. It cannot be between particulars, for the simple reason that there are too many particulars. Nobody could have seen all the smokes and all the fires.
Moreover perception itself is not competent to establish a relation among particulars due to remoteness of time and place. One cannot have knowledge of a relation without perceiving the related terms, which is the basis of the relation. But again we do not perceive the related terms at the time of perceiving the relation. It would be an undue assumption to regard something as perceived unless it appears to be perceived - else when we taste a fruit, the palatal perception would be accompanied by the perception of its color also.
Since inference is based on the effect, the fact of there being an effect is itself disproved.
An effect is generally defined as something, which arises, exists for a while and ceases to exist.
But smoke cannot be regarded as an effect since its cessation is not apprehended.
If it's said that the cessation of smoke is directly perceived, then the perception of what forces such a conclusion?
1. It cannot be smoke, for then there would be no point in saying the smoke has ceased.
2. It cannot be something else, for the perception of something only proves its existence and not the non-existence of another.
3. It cannot be nothing, for it neither affirms nor denies anything!
It cannot be asserted that destruction is only the end of existence and it is the object of perception, for then destruction is an altogether different object and the perception of it only proves its existence and doesn't deny the existence of another. Perceptions are limited only to their own objects and can only prove their existence.
Neither can it be said that in the knowledge of the destruction there is no awareness of smoke. Because in this perception of destruction, the three worlds too are not perceived, but that doesn't mean that the three worlds are destroyed!
Criticism of the concept of the relation of opposition
If the denial of smoke means being opposed to smoke, then what is the meaning of opposition?
Does opposition mean :
1. Non apprehension of smoke - But then even the three worlds are not perceived and that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist!
2. Non simultaneity of existence - Even the past, present and the future are not simultaneous!
3. Non perception of smoke, but perception of its opposite - Non perception of a thing may be due to various causes - due to obstruction of distance etc. The absence of a lamp in a dark room causes the non perception of the things in the room, but that doesn't mean that the things don't exist.
Impossibility of understanding the relation between cause and effect
A cause before producing the effect, cannot be considered as a cause. Neither can it considered a cause after the effect is produced. The exact moment when the cause produces the effect is beyond knowledge.
Like in a burning piece of wood, one can perceive either the wood or the fire, but cannot perceive the actual moment when wood is transformed into fire.
Impossibility of understanding the relation between inferable and inferent (the base on which something is inferred)
In a sunset, the sun generally sinks and then vanishes and this gives rise to the inference that the sun has set. But then when the sun has vanished, there's no perception of the sun itself. So based on the non-perception of sun, how can we make an inference that the sun has set? The same logic applies to sunrise too, for we cannot form a relation between the non-existence of the sun before it has risen, to the existence of the sun after it has risen. The relation between sunrise and sunset to the sun is thus logically untenable.
DEMISE OF THE SCHOOL
Some of the reasons cited as being the cause for the demise of the Lokaayata school are its anti-Vedic and anti-brahmin character, its denial of the permanent spiritual Self in man, its rejection of God and its assertion that reality is matter. All these could not have been the main causes for the downfall of the school as these traits are found in other schools, which have survived : Jainism and Buddhism were both anti-Vedic and anti-brahmin. All the schools of Buddhism too denied any spiritual Self in man. Apart from Jainism and Buddhism, even orthodox schools like the Purva Mimaamsa and Saamkhya have no use for a creator God. All the schools of realistic pluralism also advocate a material reality.
The real reason for the downfall of the school might lie in the fact that this school, which advocated hedonism as the only purpose of life denied human values, which gives ultimate meaning to life. To the people of the land, the animal hedonism of the Chaaravaaka must have paled in comparison to the inspiring teachings of spiritual giants - the Upanishadic sages, the Buddha and the Mahaavira. Plus the followers of all the ethical schools - both orthodox and heterodox - were unanimous in their condemnation of the Lokaayata and made short work of their logic. No school, which tried to undermine the importance of dharma and moksha could survive in the land.
APPENDIX : THE LOST TEXT OF THE CHAARAVAAKAS
A. Extant Fragments of Brihaspati Sutras: Numerous sutras of the original text of the school by Brihaspati are found quoted in hostile works-Buddhist, Jaina as well as Hindu. The first three aphorisms of the text are said to be the following:
1. Athato tattvam vyakyasaamah (Now we expound the tattvas or the fundamental elements)
2. Prithvi-ap-tejo-vayur iti tattvani (earth, water, fire and air are the elements)
3. tebhyas chaitanyam kinvadibhyo mada saktivat (from these 4 elements arises consciousness by their own accord)
Germs of the school's thought is found in the Rig Veda. Scholars are of the opinion that the school is braahmanical in origin. In the Vedic period Anvikshiki or the science of logic was a highly valued subject of study in brahmanical circles. The intense analysis which logic was subjected to, resulted in exposing the weakness of logic itself and this is said to have led to the emergence of the Lokaayata school, which denied all means of knowledge except perception and in some cases denied that too! As long as they accepted the authority of the Veda they were tolerated inside the tradition. Rejection of the scripture seems to have earned them the label "heretic" (naastika).
In fact, the school of Brihaspati is the only heterodox school of Indian philosophy that finds explicit mention in the major Upanishads-in the Maitrayaniya Upanishad to be exact. The text states that Brihaspati deliberately propounded the atheistic views to delude the demons, so that the gods could conquer them.
In the Ramayana, a sage called Javali tries to motivate Sri Rama to rebel against his father and snatch the kingdom of Ayodhya. Javali is said to be a follower of atheism in this context, and he uses arguments similar to those attributed to the followers of this school.
In the Mahaabhaaratha, Yudhishtra burns his adversary Duryodhana's supporter named Chaaravaaka in the battlefield for preaching adharma. The murder of Chaarvaaka is apparently carried out at the instigation of brahmins. The word Chaarvaaka means "one who is a slick talker". The name therefore might be pejorative, indicative of the fact that the teachers of this school enticed common and simple minded people with their earthy reasoning, and lead them astray from the mainstream of the Indian society.
Another name for this school is 'Lokaayata.' Scholars opine that the name indicates that the teachings of this school was very popular amongst the laity. However, the name might also indicate that the intellectual sections of the society considered this school of thought too lowly and meant for the hoi-polloi. Other references to this school are found in the Pali Nikhaayas, where we find the Buddha engaged in dialogue with two brahmins named Lokaayata. In his Mahaabhaashya, Patanjali too mentions a commentary by Bhaguri on the Lokaayata shastra.
THE PHILOSOPHY
Besides the meanings of Lokaayata stated above, there is a view that the school is called Lokaayata since it holds that only this world (lokam) is. They are mainly against the concept of a supersensible reality. The Upanishads enjoin the reality of the Self/spirit beyond the senses and the mind. Since the spirit is beyond perception and its existence cannot be proved, the Lokaayatas deny it. Thus according to them, sense perception is the only true means of knowledge. Inference verifiable by perception is accepted.
According to the Lokaayata, matter is the only reality and it can think. There are only four elements - earth, water, fire and air. Ether, which is beyond sense perception is rejected. Intelligence is due to the modification of the four elements and it is destroyed when the elements from which it arises are dissolved. The Self is not some eternal entity, which passes from one birth to another. It is nothing apart from the body and is only the body qualified with intelligence. This is proved by the implications in the expressions : "I'm stout", "I'm young", "I'm old" etc. Since the Self is never perceived apart from the body, all theories asserting the individual existence of the Self apart from the body/mind are rejected. The Self perishes with the body.
From this it follows that the theory of karma itself is untenable. It's foolish to think that one will reap the rewards for ones acts in a future state. There is no heaven or hell and all these are only the invention of impostors.
A God is not necessary to account for the world. "Who colors so wonderfully the peacocks or who makes the cuckoos coo so well?" - only nature. And nature is absolutely dead to all human values, indifferent to good or bad. Thus the traditional discipline and universal love advocated by ethical schools is scorned and uncontrolled energy, self-assertion and reckless disregard for all authority is encouraged. Artha (wealth) and kaama (desire) are the true ends of life.
"While life is yours, live joyously;
none can escape Death's searching eye;
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it ever again return?"
The Vedas are repudiated with great bitterness. The Vedas are considered to be tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction and tautology.
"There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world,
nor do the actions of the four castes, orders etc produce any real effect.
The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves
and the smearing of oneself with ashes
Were made by nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness.
If a beast is slain in the Jyotistoma rite will itself go to heaven,
Why then not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?"
"It's only as a means of livelihood that brahmins 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!"
TATTVOPAPLAVASIMHA
The only extant work of this school is Tattvopaplavasimha or the Upsetting of all principles by Jayaraashi Bhatta (6th century AD). In the work there's a reference to another Lokaayata treatise called Lakshanasaara or the essence of definition, probably by the same author, but it is lost to us. Tattvopaplavasimha is a brilliant epistemological work where the author endeavors to refute the theories of rival schools - both orthodox and heterodox. Jayaraashi belongs to a branch of the Lokaayatas, which advocated absolute nihilism. This school like the Advaita Vedaanta of Bhagvatpada Shankara and the Maadhyamaka Buddhist school of Naagaarjuna denied the validity of all means of knowledge. But bound neither by the scripture nor by spiritual experience, they used it to deny any reality to the world. Given below is a brief account of how Jayaraashi refutes inference, acknowledged as one of the valid means of knowledge by the Indian school of logic (Nyaaya) propounded by the philosopher Gautama and his followers.
The Nyaaya Sutra defines inference as that which is preceded by perception. In the kitchen one apprehends the relation between fire and smoke through the function of the eyes. By this, a connection is formed in the mind. Thereafter when smoke is again perceived on a hill, then one remembers the universal relation between smoke and fire and hence concludes that the hill is on fire.
Perception is the cause and inference the effect. Without one there cannot be the other. Thus it's impossible to apprehend an invariable relation between events (smoke and fire) without perception.
There's another reason why an invariable relation cannot be established. Is the cognition of a relation between two universals or two particulars or a universal and a particular?
It cannot be between two universals, for a universal is a concept and is not itself demonstrated. Nor can it be between a universal and a particular, as again one part of the equation, the universal, is not demonstrable. It cannot be between particulars, for the simple reason that there are too many particulars. Nobody could have seen all the smokes and all the fires.
Moreover perception itself is not competent to establish a relation among particulars due to remoteness of time and place. One cannot have knowledge of a relation without perceiving the related terms, which is the basis of the relation. But again we do not perceive the related terms at the time of perceiving the relation. It would be an undue assumption to regard something as perceived unless it appears to be perceived - else when we taste a fruit, the palatal perception would be accompanied by the perception of its color also.
Since inference is based on the effect, the fact of there being an effect is itself disproved.
An effect is generally defined as something, which arises, exists for a while and ceases to exist.
But smoke cannot be regarded as an effect since its cessation is not apprehended.
If it's said that the cessation of smoke is directly perceived, then the perception of what forces such a conclusion?
1. It cannot be smoke, for then there would be no point in saying the smoke has ceased.
2. It cannot be something else, for the perception of something only proves its existence and not the non-existence of another.
3. It cannot be nothing, for it neither affirms nor denies anything!
It cannot be asserted that destruction is only the end of existence and it is the object of perception, for then destruction is an altogether different object and the perception of it only proves its existence and doesn't deny the existence of another. Perceptions are limited only to their own objects and can only prove their existence.
Neither can it be said that in the knowledge of the destruction there is no awareness of smoke. Because in this perception of destruction, the three worlds too are not perceived, but that doesn't mean that the three worlds are destroyed!
Criticism of the concept of the relation of opposition
If the denial of smoke means being opposed to smoke, then what is the meaning of opposition?
Does opposition mean :
1. Non apprehension of smoke - But then even the three worlds are not perceived and that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist!
2. Non simultaneity of existence - Even the past, present and the future are not simultaneous!
3. Non perception of smoke, but perception of its opposite - Non perception of a thing may be due to various causes - due to obstruction of distance etc. The absence of a lamp in a dark room causes the non perception of the things in the room, but that doesn't mean that the things don't exist.
Impossibility of understanding the relation between cause and effect
A cause before producing the effect, cannot be considered as a cause. Neither can it considered a cause after the effect is produced. The exact moment when the cause produces the effect is beyond knowledge.
Like in a burning piece of wood, one can perceive either the wood or the fire, but cannot perceive the actual moment when wood is transformed into fire.
Impossibility of understanding the relation between inferable and inferent (the base on which something is inferred)
In a sunset, the sun generally sinks and then vanishes and this gives rise to the inference that the sun has set. But then when the sun has vanished, there's no perception of the sun itself. So based on the non-perception of sun, how can we make an inference that the sun has set? The same logic applies to sunrise too, for we cannot form a relation between the non-existence of the sun before it has risen, to the existence of the sun after it has risen. The relation between sunrise and sunset to the sun is thus logically untenable.
DEMISE OF THE SCHOOL
Some of the reasons cited as being the cause for the demise of the Lokaayata school are its anti-Vedic and anti-brahmin character, its denial of the permanent spiritual Self in man, its rejection of God and its assertion that reality is matter. All these could not have been the main causes for the downfall of the school as these traits are found in other schools, which have survived : Jainism and Buddhism were both anti-Vedic and anti-brahmin. All the schools of Buddhism too denied any spiritual Self in man. Apart from Jainism and Buddhism, even orthodox schools like the Purva Mimaamsa and Saamkhya have no use for a creator God. All the schools of realistic pluralism also advocate a material reality.
The real reason for the downfall of the school might lie in the fact that this school, which advocated hedonism as the only purpose of life denied human values, which gives ultimate meaning to life. To the people of the land, the animal hedonism of the Chaaravaaka must have paled in comparison to the inspiring teachings of spiritual giants - the Upanishadic sages, the Buddha and the Mahaavira. Plus the followers of all the ethical schools - both orthodox and heterodox - were unanimous in their condemnation of the Lokaayata and made short work of their logic. No school, which tried to undermine the importance of dharma and moksha could survive in the land.
APPENDIX : THE LOST TEXT OF THE CHAARAVAAKAS
A. Extant Fragments of Brihaspati Sutras: Numerous sutras of the original text of the school by Brihaspati are found quoted in hostile works-Buddhist, Jaina as well as Hindu. The first three aphorisms of the text are said to be the following:
1. Athato tattvam vyakyasaamah (Now we expound the tattvas or the fundamental elements)
2. Prithvi-ap-tejo-vayur iti tattvani (earth, water, fire and air are the elements)
3. tebhyas chaitanyam kinvadibhyo mada saktivat (from these 4 elements arises consciousness by their own accord)
0 comments:
Post a Comment