See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303919191

Materialism in India; After Carvaka

Conference Paper January 2000

CITATIONS READS

0 89

1 author:

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya
, Pavlov Institute, Kolkata, India
106 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Philosophies in India View project

Novel in modern Indian literature View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramkrishna Bhattacharya on 12 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Materialism in India: After Crvka
Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

In the history of classical Indian philosophy the Crvka school since the eighth
century CE remains the lone representative of the materialist system. It is known by
various names: Lokyata, Dehtmavda, Tajjvatacchariravda, Vrhaspatyamata,
Bhtavda, etc. Materialism in India is undoubtedly very old. Indirect mention of it is
found from the Upaniadic era. It was in vogue along with other doctrines at the
time of the Buddha and Mahvra (sixth - fifth centuries B.C.)

However, the word, crvka is not encountered in connection with materialism

before the eighth century CE, the word, lokyata, then did not mean sophistry (as it
means in Pali and Buddhist Sanskrit literature), it meant materialism. Is the Crvka
philosophy a natural continuation of the materialism of the pre-Common Era, which
came to be known as Lokyata doctrine or the doctrine of Bhaspati? In other words,
is it just a change of names? No definite answer can be given at the present state of
our knowledge. However, one thing can be said: the system which we at present
know as Crvka, attained its complete form before the seventh century. and some
continuity in its tradition can be observed at least up to the twelfth century.

Like other philosophical systems, the basic text of the Crvka school was a
collection of aphorisms (stras). Stra means a unit idea stated in as few words as
possible. What the commentary (bhya) does is to explain those aphorisms. Not
only philosophy, but subjects like grammar and political economy (arthastra) in
ancient India were presented in the same way. This was how the collection of
grammatical rules called the Adhyy was compiled by Pini. Later on, a
commentary on it was written by Patajali. Of course the interval between the two is
quite long. The Adhyy was composed in the fourth century BCE whereas the
Mahabhasya was written only in 150 BCE. Likewise, the Nyyastra of Gautama was

1
compiled in the first or second century, but its commentary on Vatsyayana was
composed in about 500.

Similarly, the Crvka philosophy also had a book of aphorisms and there were more
than one commentary. None of those have been found to date. But a few quotations
from those are scattered at various places, and a few verses containing the basic
doctrines of the Crvkas have been quoted in various works.

Many scholars, including the professors of Indian philosophy, believe that there was
no development of the Crvka system. What was told at the time of the Upaniads
or of the Buddha was simply echoed and re-echoed afterwards without anything
added or modified. Another theory about this philosophy is current which is not only
wrong, but also harmful, namely, the Crvkas allegedly had no higher sense of
being at all; 'eat, drink and be merry' was their only philosophy in life; they were so
bluntly stupid that they did not accept any other means of valid knowledge except
sense-perception, and their only preoccupation was finding fault with other
philosophical systems.

It is a fact that some polemicists and followers of other doctrines (like Vednta,
Nyya, etc.) said such things about the Crvkas. But are these allegations true?
Right from the seventh century to the twelfth, there was a prolonged debate
between the followers of the Crvka and their opponents. On one side, there were
the Crvkas alone and on the other, all pro-Vedic systems like Skhya, Nyya-
Vaieika, Mms, Vednta, etc., and non-Vedic ones like the Buddhists and the
Jains (the vetmbaras and the Digambaras). In this debate not only the aphorisms
and verses come up, some extracts from the works of different commentators of the
Crvka aphorisms are also quoted more or less verbatim. Some of them are also
found elsewhere. Wide efforts to refute the Crvka doctrines are found in the
writings of the Buddhist Dharmakrti (seventh century A.C.), Jain Akalanka (eighth
century,) Mimamsaka Kumarila (eighth century), Vedntist akarcrya, Naiyyika
Jayanta Bhaa (ninth century), sarva-tantra-svatantra Vcaspati Mira (tenth
century) and others. The basic issues of the debate were:

2
1. Whether consciousness comes from four basic elements (viz. earth, air, fire and
water)
2. Whether there can be any permanentl spirit or soul that survives outside the
body, and

3. Whether inference (anumna) can be rightly treated as a means of valid

knowledge (prama). 5516

They had to write a lot to refute the views of the commentators of the Crvkastra
as the opponents arguments were not negligible. What is interesting to note is that
in this debate, the opponents of the Crvkas do not mention hedonism. The
distortion of the Crvka doctrines that it deals with perceptible physical world
only, hence it thinks about nothing except sensual pleasure was initiated by the
Vedantist, Kamira (eleventh century) and rhara (twelfth century). From the
omniscient one of the Kali era (kaliklasarvajaa) Hemcandra (twelfth century)
began the campaign to portray the Crvkas as 'sensualists' in order to defame
them. Another Jain commentator, Guaratna (fifteenth century) followed suit and
the Vedantist, Syaa-mdhava (fourteenth century) contributed to this campaign
by distorting the reading of a verse.

Allegation of hedonism has also been made against other philosophical systems as
well. In Mharas commentary on the Skhyakrik , a verse written by an
opponent of Skhya has been quoted:

'Always laugh, drink, play, make merry, enjoy everything, do not fear. If you
know the Kapila doctrine, you will obtain eternal emancipation as well as joy.

The strategy seems to have been like this: whichever philosophical system is
unorthodox and does not mention God, brand it as hedonist. There is no reason or
evidence to treat hedonism as a component of the Crvka doctrines. The actual
controversy was in the field of epistemology. (Not only the stras of the Lokyata,
but also the writings of their commentators (as we have them) contain nothing to

3
suggest that the Crvkas were sensualists. Nobody mentions any aphorism in this
regard but simply goes on branding the Crvkas as mere hedonists. 09052016

These introductory remarks having been made, we would now mention five
commentators on the base text of the Crvka philosophy

1. Kambalvatara: his name occurs in the Pajik by the Buddhist philosopher,

Kamalala (eighth century). A part of a sentence from his writings has been quoted
there "From the body comes (consciousness)".

The phrase seems to have been taken from an aphorism or its commentary. Nothing
about Kambalvatara is known. He surely belonged to the eighth century or before.
Benoytosh Bhattacharya presumed that this Kambalvatara was identical with a
veteran preceptor (acarya) of musicology; he also tried to identify him with Ajita
Kesakambala (Keakambalin), a philosopher of the Buddha's times. Like Nrada and
Tumburu, Kambalvatara is a mere name to us. Absolutely nothing is known about
him. Kambala and Avatara may be two different persons. The name
Kambalkambalambara is also found in Buddhist literature. A philosopher named
Prajarakita has been said to be a follower if Kambalmbara. There is no reason to
treat all of them as identical just on the basis of the word 'Kambala' in common to
their names.

2. Purandara: His name is also found in the Pajik by Kamalala. A Jain

philosopher named Vdidevasri (eleventh century) quoted a 'paurandaram stram'
that has been quoted in the name of Crvka in Prameyakamalamrtaa written by
another Jain philosopher, Anantavrya's (tenth century) Siddhivinicayak.

Moreover, while speaking of the Crvka system, the Jain poet Puhpadanta (tenth
century) mentioned a 'paurandariya vitti' (paurandarya vtti). It suggests that a
philosopher called Purandara complied the aphorisms of the Crvka/Lokyata
doctrine, and himself wrote a commentary on them. Kamalala most probably cited
a sentence from this commentary.

4
In the compilation if aphorisms that Purandara made, were only the traditional ones
or did he himself add some? It is not possible to answer the question. However, he
undoubtedly belonged to the eighth century or before. Vdirjasri (eleventh
century) also mentions the name of Purandara.

Purandara declares categorically that the Crvkas have no objection to accepting

inference in earthly matters; in supernatural matters (God, afterlife etc.) they do not
accept it. In spite of this categorical declaration, the canard against the Crvkas by
their opponents continues unabated.

3. Aviddhakara: Aviddhakara wrote a commentary on the Paurandarastra. The

Jain philosopher, Vadirjasri distinctly refers to this writer as a 'Crvka'. A
Buddhist commentator named Karakagomin (ninth or tenth century) also mentions
him. In Kamalala's Pajik two Aviddhakaras are mentioned - one with a
Naiyyika, and the other, a follower of Crvka. The name of the commentary by
the second one was Tattavatk. In Anantavrya's work, the quotations from
Aviddhakara are most probably taken from this commentary. Mahendrakumr
Nyayacarya assumed this Aviddhakara to be the author of Purandarasutra. But
Vdirjasri has referred to the names (and quoted from their works) separately.

4. Bhvivikta: Cakradhara the Naiyayika (eleventh century) mentions him as a

'classical Crvka master' (cirantana Crvkacarya) i.e., one of the principals of the
traditional Crvka School. He also wrote a commentary in the Crvka-stra. It may
be assumed that he is one of the commentators whom Kamalala and Prabhcandra
mentioned. A Nayayika bearing the same name (Bhvivikta) is also encountered, but
like the first Aviddhakara no work of this Bhvivikta has survived. His time also can
not be determined, but surely he belonged to the eighth century or before.

5. Bhaa Udbhaa (or Bhaodbhaa or Udbhaa Bhaa): His name is found more
than once in the works of Cakradhara and Vdirajasuri. The name of his book was
Tattvvrtti. He was an atypical commentator of the Crvka doctrine; it may not be
wrong to call him a 'revisionist'. He explained the sutra, tebhyacaitanyam, "from
these (fire, air, earth, water) comes consciousness in a new and unconventional

5
way. Bhvivikta and other commentators explained the stra as follows: 'from these,
consciousness is evolved'. Udbhaa said: 'No, consciousness evolves for the sake of
these.' In the explanation of this aphorism two distinct views were in existence long
before. Kamalala and Prabhcandra mentioned them. Again, Udbhaa has given a
new explanation of the aphorism which has been quoted as 'paurandram sutram'.
According to Charkadhara, by 'the cunning Crvka' or 'the learned Crvka' Jayanta
Bhatta meant this very Udbhaa. Then he must have been a contemporary of or an
anterior to Jayanta (ninth century). Vdidevasri also mentions him as an 'old noble
twice-born' (jaradvijanma mahnubhava). This also suggests that Udbhaa
belonged to the ninth century or before. From the few quotations which are found
from his writings, it is quite clear that he was well versed in Nyya. It is said that the
second stream of the Crvka philosophy starts from his writings. In the finesse of
the Nyaya has blended well with uncompromising materialism. Like Aviddhakara he
too offered new arguments on the issue, why inference is not a primary means of
valid knowledge (pramna) as perception.

The upshot of this survey is that, like all other philosophical systems in India, there
were various developments in the Crvka system as well. The commentators were
not always unanimous in their views on all issues, and, in scholastic arguments they
proved equal (if not superior) to the Naiyayikas, the Jains and the Buddhists. Yet it is
a mystery why all the texts and commentaries have been lost and nothing except a
few stray fragments have survived.

Erich Frauwallner noticed that the writings of the later commentators, the Crvka
philosophy had become more enriched than before. It is a matter of great regret
that modern scholars of Indian philosophy do not seem to be well informed about
this matter. Throughout the last fifty years almost all of them have been merely
echoing the same hackneyed words; as if nothing new has been known since
Radhakrishnan, Surendranath Dasgupta and others. However, from the beginning of
this century, other than the Crvka-stra, the names and works of a number of
Crvkas have come to light.

Let us have a look at the time of publication of our sources.

6
 Prameyakamalamrtaa by Prabhcandra was first published in 1912 (new
edition in 1941)

Sydvdaratnkara by Vdidevasri was first published in 1941, (it has been

reprinted in 1988).

ntarakhitas Tattvasagraha and Kamalalas Pajik appeared in 1926

(reprint 1984). An English translation appeared in 1937. A new edition of the
text was published in 1968 (reprinted in 1981). The translation too has been
reprinted in 1986.

Pramavrttikavittiti by Karakagomin came out in 1943.

Nyvinicayavivaraa by Vdirjasri in 1949 and 1954.

Siddhivinicayatk by Anantavrya appeared in 1956-59.

Cakradharas Granthibhaga was first printed in 1972, a new edition has been
25
brought out in 1982-85

So, there is no justified reason for pleading unavailability of their writings. Besides,
Esther E. Solomon has written an excellent article on Bhatta Udbhaa. Eli Franco
contributed an important article on Paurandarastra. Yet, no impression of all this is
found in the college text books or in the discussions in philosophical journals. Still
now what Jayanta Bhatta, Vcaspati Mihra, Prabhcandra and others said about the
Crvkas - that they did not admit inference as a means of valid knowledge even in
earthly matters, etc., is repeated ad nauseam although their charges are all false
and misleading.

Notes and References

1. For details of compiling and arranging these fragments, see Indian Skeptic,
Vol. 12, No.4, August 1999, pp. 16-18.

7
2. Krsamia, Prabodhacandrodaya, Act 2 verse 22; Sriharsa, Naiadhcarita,
Canto17. Verses 50, 68, 69; Hemcandra, Triaialkpuruacaritra, 1.1.340-
44; Guaratna, Tarkarahasyadpik, Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1905-14,
pp. 300-10, Sayana-Mdhava, Sarvadarsanasamgraha, Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research institute, 1978, p.14, verse 7 [The second hemistich
(distorted) means as follows: Let him feed on ghee (=clarified butter) even
though he runs in debt. A detailed study on the various readings of this
versehas been done in Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research,
Vol.xiv,No. 1, Sept-Dec 1996, pp. 170-74]
3. On Skhyakrik, verse 37, Swami Divakarananda (ed.), Matilal (24
Parganas): Jagannath Burman, 1375 B.S., p.149.
4. ntarakita, Tattvasagraha and Kamalala, Pajik, Varanasi:
Bauddhabharati, 1968, p.225, verse 1863.
5. Foreword, Tattvasagraha of ntaraksita, ed. Embar Krishnamacharya,
Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1926 (1984 reprint), pp. xxxviii-xxxix. G. Tucci was
also in favour of treating Kambalvatara as identical with Ajita Kesakambalin
(Linee di una storia del Materialismo Indiano in: Opera Minora, Parte I, Roma
1971, p.140). Eli Franco refuted this view (Dharmakrti on Compassion and
Rebirth, Wein (Vienna): Arbeitstreis fr Tibetische und Buddhistische Studien,
Universitt Wein,1997, p.103). Franco thinks that Kambalvatara wrote a
commentary of Bhaspatistra in c.540 CE.
6. See V. Raghavan (ed.), New Catalogos Catalogorum, Vol.I. Revised ed.
Madras: University of Madras, 1968, pp.168-69.
7. See Pajik (n 4), p.528.
8. Vdidevasri, Sydvdaratnkara, Delhi: Indian Book Corporation, 1988 (first
published: 1926-30, p.265. the aphorism without the name Purandara is
found in Naymajar by Jayanta Bhaa, Nyaybhana by Bhsarvaja and
Prameyakamalamrtaa by Prabhcandra. See Eli Franco, Paurandarastra
in: Aspects of Jainology III, Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malvania Felicitation Volume I,
ed., M.A. Dhaky, Varanasi: Sagarmal Jain P.V. Research Institute, 1991, p.161
n.1.
9. Anantavrya, Siddhiviniscayak, Kasi: Bharatiya Jnanapitha, 1959, p.306.

8
10. Pupphadanta (Pupadanta), Mahapurana (tisahimahpurisagunlakra),
Mumbai; Manik-cand Digambara Jain Granthamala Samiti, 1937, Part I, p.328.
its editor, Parasuram Laxman Vaidya took Indra, the king of the gods to be
Purandara, who is said to be the founder of the Crvka doctrine along with
Brhaspati (ibid, p.643n). no such mention, however, is found anywhere else.
So, following Kamalala and Anantavrya, Purandara may better be taken as
an author belonging to the Crvka doctrine. In a manuscript of
Pupadantas book this is written in the margin (quoted by P.D. Gune in his
Introduction to Dhanaplas Bhavisayattakah, Baroda: Oriental Institute,
1923, p.42)
11. 9. Anantavrya, Siddhiviniscayak, Kasi Bharatiya Jnanapitha, 1954,
part 2, p.101.
12. Ibid., p.101. Crvkavieoviddhakara, Karakagomin,
Pramavrttikavttika, Allahabad: Kitab Mahal, (1943), pp.19,25.
13. See New Catalogos Catalogorum (n6), pp.426-27.
14. See Introduction, Anantavrya, Siddhiviniscayak (n9) p.77.
15. See Anantavrya, Siddhiviniscayak, p.101.
16. Granthibhaga commentary on Nyayamanjari, chapter 7, Varanasi:
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, part 2, 1983, p.257.
17. See Eli Franco (n5), pp.99, 142.
18. See Granthibhaga n16, Chapter 1, part I, 1982, pp.52, 100, Chapter 7, part
2, pp.257, 263 Vdidevasri, Sydvdaratnkara n8, pp.265, 269-70, 764-65,
1087.
19. See Granthibhaga n16, part 2, p. 257; n.8, p.1087.
20. See Tattvasagraha-Pajka n4, pp.633-34 (on verses 1857-58);
Prabhacandra, Nyyakumudacandra, Bombey, 1938, p.352.
21. See Granthibhaga n16, Part 1, pp.52, 100.
22. See Vdidevasri, Sydvdaratnkara n8, p.764.
23. See Anantavrya, Siddhiviniscayak n12, p.25; n8, p.261.
24. Erich Frauwallner, History of Indian Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass,
Vol.2, 1973, p.225.

9
 25. Detailed information may be obtained in Karl H. Potter, Encyclopedia of
Indian Philosophies, Vol.I, Bibliography, Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1995.
The dating assumed by Potter is controversial.
26. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Diamond Jubilee
Volume (Vol.LVIII-LIX), 1977-78, pp.985-992.
27. See Franco (Vdidevasri, Sydvdaratnkara n8)

Acknowledgements: Buli Basu, Pradyut Kumar Dutta and Supreo Phani.

10

View publication stats