Changes

== परिचय || Introduction ==

 

== परिचयः || Introduction ==

Charvaka, also called Lokayata (Sanskrit: Worldly Ones), a quasi-philosophical Bharat's school of materialists who rejected the notion of an afterworld, karma, liberation (''moksha''), the authority of the sacred scriptures, the Vedas, and the immortality of the self. Of the recognized means of knowledge (''pramana''), the Charvaka recognized only direct perception (''anubhava''). Sources critical of the school depict its followers as hedonists advocating a policy of total opportunism; they are often described as addressing princes, whom they urged to act exclusively in their own self-interest, thus providing the intellectual climate in which a text such as Kautilya’s ''Arthashastra''(The Science of Material Gain) could be written.  

Charvaka, also called Lokayata (Sanskrit: Worldly Ones), a quasi-philosophical Bharat's school of materialists who rejected the notion of an afterworld, karma, liberation (''moksha''), the authority of the sacred scriptures, the Vedas, and the immortality of the self. Of the recognized means of knowledge (''pramana''), the Charvaka recognized only direct perception (''anubhava''). Sources critical of the school depict its followers as hedonists advocating a policy of total opportunism; they are often described as addressing princes, whom they urged to act exclusively in their own self-interest, thus providing the intellectual climate in which a text such as Kautilya’s ''Arthashastra''(The Science of Material Gain) could be written.  

Although Charvaka doctrine had disappeared by the end of the medieval period, its onetime importance is confirmed by the lengthy attempts to refute it found in Dharmic philosophical texts, which also constitute the main sources for knowledge of the doctrine.

Although Charvaka doctrine had disappeared by the end of the medieval period, its onetime importance is confirmed by the lengthy attempts to refute it found in Dharmic philosophical texts, which also constitute the main sources for knowledge of the doctrine.

Charvaka (IAST: Cārvāka), originally known as Lokāyata and Bṛhaspatya, '''is the ancient school of Bharat's materialism'''. The School of Charvaka (those of sweet-talk) or Lokayata (those of the world) has a

Charvaka (IAST: Cārvāka), originally known as Lokāyata and Bṛhaspatya, '''is the ancient school of Bharat's materialism'''. The School of Charvaka (those of sweet-talk) or Lokayata (those of the world) has a

In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature. The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason, logical philosophies) – Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata.  

In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature. The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason, logical philosophies) – Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata.  

In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra, Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."

In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra, Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no papa."

The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science". Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism, with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka. The terms Lokayata and Brhaspatya have been used interchangeably for the Charvaka philosophy of materialism.

The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science". Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism, with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka. The terms Lokayata and Brhaspatya have been used interchangeably for the Charvaka philosophy of materialism.

# Since the Charvaka admitted only the immediate evidence of the senses, it accepted only four elements ('''''bhutas''''') – earth, water, fire, air; and denied the fifth the '''''akasha''''', space.It also refused to accept the idea of a soul or an atman as a surviving entity, for the reason their existence cannot be perceived.

# Since the Charvaka admitted only the immediate evidence of the senses, it accepted only four elements ('''''bhutas''''') – earth, water, fire, air; and denied the fifth the '''''akasha''''', space.It also refused to accept the idea of a soul or an atman as a surviving entity, for the reason their existence cannot be perceived.

# Since memory, feelings, senses and life exist only in body, and not outside the body, they are simply attributes of body.  

# Since memory, feelings, senses and life exist only in body, and not outside the body, they are simply attributes of body.  

# The theory of action cannot be proved. There is no result of good or bad actions. Who knows for certain that next birth and next world exist ? Who knows that good and bad actions result in happiness and unhappiness ? We daily experience that sinful persons prosper and enjoy in this world.  

# The theory of action cannot be proved. There is no result of good or bad actions. Who knows for certain that next birth and next world exist ? Who knows that good and bad actions result in happiness and unhappiness ? We daily experience that papi (पापी) persons prosper and enjoy in this world.  

# Nature alone is responsible for all happenings without any God. World is self -existent. '''''savabhavamjagathahkaaranamaahu''''' – the evolution is caused by natural laws ('''''svabhava''''' – inherent nature); and there is no need to look for a cause beyond nature ('''''nimtta-tara-nirapeksha''''').

# Nature alone is responsible for all happenings without any God. World is self -existent. '''''savabhavamjagathahkaaranamaahu''''' – the evolution is caused by natural laws ('''''svabhava''''' – inherent nature); and there is no need to look for a cause beyond nature ('''''nimtta-tara-nirapeksha''''').

# Only this perceptible world is real, rest is unreal. Body is life. There is no other life after the death of body. As regards Moksha, it remarked that death is the only liberation- '''''Maranameva mokshaha'''''.

# Only this perceptible world is real, rest is unreal. Body is life. There is no other life after the death of body. As regards Moksha, it remarked that death is the only liberation- '''''Maranameva mokshaha'''''.

How shall it e'er again return?''"</blockquote>

How shall it e'er again return?''"</blockquote>

Ain-i-Akbari, a record of the Mughal Emperor Akbar's court, '''mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence'''. '''AKBAR WAS A TERRORIST''' In the text, the Mughal historian Abu'l-Fazl Mubarak summarizes Charvaka philosophy as "unenlightened" and that their literature as "lasting memorials to their ignorance". He notes that Charvakas considered paradise as "the state in which man lives as he chooses, without control of another", while hell as "the state in which he lives subject to another's rule". On state craft, Charvakas believe, states Mubarak, that it is best when "knowledge of just administration and benevolent government" is practiced.

Ain-i-Akbari, a record of the Mughal Emperor Akbar's court, '''mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence'''. In the text, the Mughal historian Abu'l-Fazl Mubarak summarizes Charvaka philosophy as "unenlightened" and that their literature as "lasting memorials to their ignorance". He notes that Charvakas considered paradise as "the state in which man lives as he chooses, without control of another", while hell as "the state in which he lives subject to another's rule". On state craft, Charvakas believe, states Mubarak, that it is best when "knowledge of just administration and benevolent government" is practiced.

Sanskrit poems and plays like the Naiṣadha-carita, Prabodha-candrodaya, Āgama-dambara, Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī and Kādambarī contain representations of the Charvaka thought. However, the authors of these works were thoroughly opposed to materialism and tried to portray the Charvaka in unfavourable light. Therefore, their works should only be accepted critically.

Sanskrit poems and plays like the Naiṣadha-carita, Prabodha-candrodaya, Āgama-dambara, Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī and Kādambarī contain representations of the Charvaka thought. However, the authors of these works were thoroughly opposed to materialism and tried to portray the Charvaka in unfavourable light. Therefore, their works should only be accepted critically.

== Controversy on reliability of sources ==

== Controversy on reliability of sources ==

Bhattacharya states that the claims against Charvaka of hedonism, lack of any morality and ethics and disregard for spirituality '''is from texts of competing religious philosophies (Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism)''', '''Its primary sources, along with commentaries by Charvaka scholars is missing or lost.''' This reliance on indirect sources raises the question of reliability and whether there was a bias and exaggeration in representing the views of Charvakas. '''<u>Bhattacharya points out that multiple manuscripts are inconsistent, with key passages alleging hedonism and immorality missing in many manuscripts of the same text.</u>'''

Bhattacharya states that the claims against Charvaka of hedonism, lack of any morality and ethics and disregard for adhyatmikity '''is from texts of competing religious philosophies (Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism)''', '''Its primary sources, along with commentaries by Charvaka scholars is missing or lost.''' This reliance on indirect sources raises the question of reliability and whether there was a bias and exaggeration in representing the views of Charvakas. '''<u>Bhattacharya points out that multiple manuscripts are inconsistent, with key passages alleging hedonism and immorality missing in many manuscripts of the same text.</u>'''

Buddhists, Jains, Advaita Vedantins and Nyāya philosophers considered the Charvakas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are indirect sources of Charvaka philosophy. The arguments and reasoning approach Charvakas deployed were significant that they continued to be referred to, even after all the authentic Charvaka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Charvaka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first-hand knowledge of Charvaka texts and should be viewed critically.

Buddhists, Jains, Advaita Vedantins and Nyāya philosophers considered the Charvakas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are indirect sources of Charvaka philosophy. The arguments and reasoning approach Charvakas deployed were significant that they continued to be referred to, even after all the authentic Charvaka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Charvaka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first-hand knowledge of Charvaka texts and should be viewed critically.