Questions on Indian Philosophy

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>Bhatrihari
>(spelling?), who it turns out was not a Charvaka (i think he was an
>Advaitist, but i am not sure). The point being that Gunaratna and

Bhart.rhari. Grammarian, primarily.

But are you sure about the name? When authors of other
schools refer to the cArvAkas, they mostly quote what is
called the text of b.rhaspati, who was a cArvAka.

>others, in
>their zeal to refute the Charvakas, stand accused of over generalisation
>and
>exagerration (and even deliberate distortion), if Gangopadhyaya (and
>Chattopadhyaya) are to be believed.

The evidence from the writer Purandara is straightforward.
However, it still puzzles me that authors from across the
board (nyAya, vedAnta, bauddha, jaina) have all accused the
cArvAkas of not accepting anything but direct perception as
valid. It may be that the cArvAka school also underwent some
historical development, moving from a position that allowed
only perception to one that allowed some inference as well.
I don't think that authors from widely different schools of
thought, who all believed in a deeper reality than what is
immediately apparent, conspired together to deliberately
misrepresent the cArvAka position. Rather, it seems to me
that if at all there was anything like a continued school
of cArvAka thought, writers like Purandara may have been a
minority within the school. I am not putting forth this as
a serious conclusion, but as one possible solution that fits
the evidence and needs to be examined.

>==> Afaik, Mimansakas believe that the correct performance of ritual leads
>to salvation. The words "Indra", "Varuna", etc. are not names of

Not salvation in the sense of moksha/nirvANa. Correct
ritual performance leads to life in "heaven". And heaven
was not considered an already existing place "out there",
to which the sacrificer goes immediately after performing
the sacrifice. It was thought of as a place created through
the efficacy of the sacrifice, by the sacrificer. Just as a
man on earth may build a house to live in, the sacrificer
was thought to "build" his heavenly place through sacrifice.

>Gods, they
>claim, but mere sounds used in the spell. In other words, the rituals by
>themselves constitute the summum bonum, and there is no place for any God
>(or gods). This, of course, reminds one of primitive magic.

This is a rather crude generalization of a quite subtle
school of thought. No wonder it sounds like primitive magic.

The Mimamsa does not believe in a "God" who hands out the
fruits of actions. But if you were to ask the questions,
who are the rituals dedicated to, what is the reality of
the deity invoked in the ritual, etc., the answer is that
the reality of the deity is the reality of the mantra. When
a sacrificer says, "agnaye svAhA, agnaya idam na mama", and
pours out an oblation, the deity agni invoked here is not
a mere figment of the imagination. This school of thought
is not a denial of the existence of the gods; it is just a
different way of understanding in what sense the gods exist.

If you were to push the logic of any religious belief, it
will end up in "primitive magic". It seems to me that belief
in the Vedic ritual is no more or no less primitive than the
beliefs in

1. observing Kosher rules and keeping the Sabbath from
   sunset Friday to sunset Saturday; or
2. the bread and wine in the Eucharist constituting the
   flesh and blood of Christ; or
3. doing the namaz five times daily; or
4. expressing devotion to Krishna/Siva and the notion
   that surrender leads to salvation.

The Mimamsaka does not wave his hands and point to a magical
awarding of the results of ritual action. He postulates that
the performance of action brings into being the process by
which the results of action accrue to the performer of action.
He says that what sets this process into motion is called
apUrva, because it comes into being. This is as good or as
bad a religious belief as any.

>
>--> As regards Mimansa ontology, my opinion was based after reading S.N.
>Dasgupta, Radhakrishnan and Chattopadhyaya. Would you recommend someone
>else?

Ganganatha Jha. Ultimately however, if you want to really
understand these on your own, you have to move beyond the
secondary sources, and read the primary texts.

Re: nyAya, what I generally recall Matilal as saying is
that the "theism" is incipient at best during the time of
the sUtras, but has grown in the later texts. I can't be
sure of what he says exactly, as it has been a while since
I read him and memory is apt to be faulty.

Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.