Questions on Indian Philosophy

[Satya Upadhya]

>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.


--> Brahaspati is indeed considered to be the founding father of Charvaka
thought. It is his verses, for example, that Madhvacharya quotes in his
famous "Sarva darsana sangraha".

--> On the other hand, those quotes of Bhart.rhari, in which he rejects
inference as a pramana, are quoted by Gunaratna, Jayanta Bhatta and others
in their refutation of the Charvakas. What is especially interesting is that
these philosophers (Gunaratna,etc.) do not mention the fact that they are
quoting Bhart.rhari when they actually do so ; this fact was only found out
later (by modern scholars).

--> You will find the above discussed in Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya's
"Indian Logic at its Sources".

--> Further, i am fairly sure that the Bhart.rhari that Gangopadhyaya speaks
of in his book was an Advaita Vedantist.


>
>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.
>


--> One thing to be noted, however, is the intense hatred that the other
schools of Indian philosophy had for the Charvakas. All the othe r schools
of Indian philosophy were affiliated to some religion (Hindu, Budhist, or
Jain). Charvaka philosophy, however, attacked religion vigorously and denied
the notions of God, rebirth, etc. And hence we find that Charvakas have
often been referred to as "rakshasas", "asuras", and other such words in
Indian philosophical/religious texts. Even the really great philosophers of
Indian philosophy have resorted to name calling when refuting the Charvakas.
Gunaratna and Jayanta Bhatta call them "naive fools", and Vachaspati Mishra
calls them "more beastly then the beasts". Even Sankar calls them "unlearned
people". Where there is so much hatred, i would not be surprised if there
was also some distortion of Charvaka views.

--> Also to keep in mind is, of course, the famous scene in the Mahabharata
where someone called "Charvaka" is burnt to death (by orthodox brahmins),
after being identified to be a "rakshasa".




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

--> I do not regard the Mimansa philosophy to be a crude one. The Mimansa
principles of interpretations, which have been used widely by the Indian law
givers to resolve contradictions in legal texts(and which are even used to
this day sometimes in Indian law courts), reveal that the scholars who came
up with them were highly intelligent people. Further, by emphasising the
reality of the world, they played an important part in refuting Indian
idealism.

--> It is true, however, that there is an irrational side to the Mimansa
philosophy. Thus, the Mimansakas believe, for example, that if you wish to
have a son, you will have to perform the appropriate ritual for that in a
correct and flawless fashion. This, i submit, is magic.


>>
>>--> 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.

--> I have actually read those parts of Kumarila Bhatta's "Slokavartika" in
which he refutes the idea of God in quite a comprehensive manner. I have not
read Prabhakar, in the original, but i understand that he has done the same.
I also understand that there was a tendency to "smuggle in" (Radhakrishnan's
words (see his "Indian Philosophy vol.2"), not mine) God into the Mimansa
philosophy, by the later Mimansakas (i.e. several centuries after Kumarila
Bhatta and Prabhakara) and that the early Mimansakas, at least, were
atheists.

-Satya





_________________________________________________________________________
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.