Charvaka philosophy briefly. WITH
Charvaka
The term "carvaka" can be considered synonymous with the term "materialist". The origin of the word “Charvaka” itself is not clear, and there are several versions on this matter: firstly, “Charvaka” was the name of the first sage-philosopher who came up with the ideas of materialism; secondly, the term is derived from “charu” - “pleasant, intelligible” and “vak” - “word”; thirdly, the term is derived from “charv” - “eat, chew” and is associated with the slogan of materialists “eat, eat, have fun.”
A number of Indian authors consider the founder of the Charvaka teachings to be the legendary sage Brihaspati, who is credited with composing the most rebellious Vedic hymns and into whose mouth speeches in a materialistic spirit are put in the Mahabharata and other epic poems.
Charvaka is the only materialistic school of philosophy Ancient India; at an early stage of development, this teaching was called “lokayata” (from “loka” - “this world”); it arose in the middle of the 1st millennium BC.
Major works. Only a few fragments have survived.
Philosophical views. Theory of knowledge. A reliable source of knowledge is only direct sensory perception; all indirect sources of knowledge (inference, testimony of other persons, etc.) are unreliable and often lead to misconceptions. Our experience, based on sensory perception, speaks of the existence of only one world, material and corporeal.
God (or gods) cannot be perceived through the senses, so we have no basis to talk about his existence.
Ontology. All material objects are composed of four elements: air, fire, water and earth. (Most schools of Indian philosophy also allow the existence of a fifth element - ether (akasha), but Charvaka denies its existence, since it is not directly perceived, but is comprehended by logical deduction.)
All objects that exist in the world (both living and non-living) are various combinations of these elements. There is nothing immaterial, including the soul. The immaterial soul cannot be perceived. What people mistakenly call the soul is actually a body endowed with consciousness. We find the basis for such statements in our Everyday life, where we often say: “I am thin”, “I am blind”, etc. If our “I” were fundamentally different from the body, such statements would be meaningless.
Human consciousness is a product of matter. The elements of matter themselves (air, fire, etc.) do not have consciousness, and many objects consisting of these elements also do not have consciousness. But there are many examples of the fact that properties that did not exist in components taken separately appear in an object formed from these components. For example, if you chew betel, nut and lime at the same time, the resulting mass will be red, although neither betel, nut, nor lime have this color. Similarly, the human body, composed in a certain way from inanimate elements, acquires consciousness. It cannot exist outside the body and without the body, therefore, after the death of the body, consciousness disappears, and nothing remains that could experience suffering or pleasure.
Hence it makes no sense to perform any religious ceremonies in anticipation of retribution the afterlife. You should not trust the Vedas and priests who earn their living by taking advantage of the gullibility of people.
Ethics. Once clever man must strive to receive maximum pleasure and minimum suffering from earthly life. Therefore, good deeds are those that lead to pleasure, and bad deeds are those that lead to suffering.
Wealth is an important means of obtaining pleasure, so it is worth striving for. But we must not forget that wealth is only a means, not an end.
Some representatives of the Charvaka school considered gross sensual pleasures (food, drink, sex, luxury, etc.) to be the main ones, while others were supporters of noble pleasures, for example, those obtained from art.
TO orthodox schools that recognize the authority of the Vedas include: Vedanta, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika. TO unorthodox, those who do not recognize the authority of the Vedas include Charvaka Lokayata, Ajivika, early Buddhism, and Jainism. This classification is not entirely scientific. We will divide the darshans into philosophical and paraphilosophical. The latter will be joined by early Buddhism and Jainism.
Vedanta fully and completely recognizes the supreme authority of the Vedas and Vedic literature, including the Upanishads, whose views she brought to an integral idealistic system; Vedanta asserts that the source of the highest truth is the supernatural revelation received by chosen people about God, the essence of the world and the meaning of life; Vedanta accepts God as the creator of the world; Vedanta considers the primary spiritual in the person of atman-brahman; Vedanta believes in the posthumous existence of the soul.
Mimamsa, unlike Vedanta, it does not recognize God as the creator of the world, but in many ways it is close to Vedanta.
Yoga, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika they also do not recognize God the creator. But, unlike Mimamsa and Vedanta, these darshans build their worldview on their own principles. All these five darshanas believe in life after death.
Unlike all these darshans, carvaka-lokayata rejects the Vedas, does not believe in life after death, refutes the existence of God in every sense and builds his teaching on the recognition of the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. This is ancient Indian materialism. The origin of the term "charvaka" is not entirely clear. According to one version, the word “charvaka” was originally the name of a certain sage who came out with a materialistic worldview. Others think that “charvaka” comes from the word “charv” (eat, chew), and therefore those who preached hedonism (pleasure) were called charvakas. Still others derive the term “charvaka” from “charu” (pleasant) and “vak” (word), thus interpreting charvaka as “an intelligible, pleasant word.” The term "lokayata" or "lokayatika" comes from "lokayatana" - "the point of view of ordinary people." This term speaks of the closeness of the Charvaka teachings to everyday consciousness. Charvaka philosophy is a system of ancient materialism in which ontology, epistemology, and ethics are connected.
The most striking point in the teachings of the Lokayatika Charvakas is their theory of the origin of consciousness. The Charvaks came close to understanding that consciousness is a property of highly organized matter. Consciousness arises from the mahabhutas when they, properly united with each other, form a living body. By themselves, vayu - air, agni - fire, ap - water and kshiti - earth do not have consciousness. However, properties that were originally absent in the separated parts of the whole can appear as something new when these parts are combined. The combined earth, water, air and fire give rise to a conscious living body. Madhavacharya reports about the Charvaka school: “In this school, 4 elements are recognized: earth, water, fire, air. And it is from these 4 elements that consciousness arises.” When the body disintegrates into elements, consciousness also disappears.
Charvaka Lokayata is the main current of ancient Indian materialism. The writings of the creators of this doctrine have not reached us. Due to the sharply negative attitude towards them on the part of adherents of the Brahmanical-Hindu tradition, their works were considered heretical, were not reproduced and were even destroyed. The mythological founder of the school is the sage Brahispati.
In India, the word "charvaka" has become synonymous with the word "materialist". The meaning of this word is associated with the word “charv” in the sense of “chew”, “eat” (on this basis, ideological opponents attributed to charvakas calls for physical pleasures: food, drink, etc.) or in the meaning of “absorb”, i.e. e. logically destroy the arguments of your ideological opponents. The word "lokayata" is usually translated as "relating to the people", "common among the people", i.e. as the point of view of ordinary people.
The starting position of the localists and ordinary people is that the mind is observed only where the body is, and is nowhere observed without the body; therefore, the mind is a simple attribute of the body. The Mahabharata contains the reasoning of Bharadwaja, who was the direct predecessor of the Lokayatikas. They speak with extreme skepticism about the idea of the existence of the soul after the death of a person, about the “auspicious new birth” supposedly ensured by the observance of rituals and offerings to the priests.
The Lokayatikas emphasized that the subject of their study was the sensory world. They considered sensory perception to be the only true source of knowledge and criticized those who considered inference and evidence to be the reliable source of knowledge.
Let's give an example of logical inference. For example, we observe smoke on a mountain and conclude that there is fire on it. But at the same time, we make a certain leap into the unknown: from the perception of smoke to imperceptible fire.
We can say that such a leap is justified by previous knowledge, that it is based on the general proposition that where there is smoke, there is fire. However, this judgment is doubtful, since we do not know all the cases of connection between fire and smoke. Of course, just as fortune telling, magic water, etc. sometimes give the desired result, a logical conclusion can also sometimes turn out to be true. Sometimes, but not always.The testimony of other people, including competent ones, also cannot be considered a reliable source of truth. The point is that evidence is made up of the words we hear. These words name things that are outside the given process of perceiving words. Therefore, errors are possible here. In particular, the authority of the Vedas cannot be accepted. Only the priests who performed divine services and received rewards for this received tangible benefits from performing the rituals prescribed by the Vedas.
If perception is the only reliable source of knowledge, then one cannot believe in the existence of God, the soul, life before birth and after death, fate, etc., because all this goes beyond the limits of perception. The Shiva-Nya-na-siddhiyar states about the position of the Lokayatikas: “Their source of knowledge is sight and other senses. The six senses are necessary (for cognition), but inference and other types of indirect knowledge are not necessary - so they think. Objects perceived by the senses are elements that are said to be solid and liquid, to which are added heat and air, which are difficult to sense.”
The Lokayatikas believed that the material world consists of four elements: air, fire, water and earth. By combining these elements, all objects are formed, including living organisms, which, after their death, turn back into the same elements.
Arunandi Thevar writes:
From the combination of elements connecting (with each other) many forms arise
Just as many pots are created from clay placed (on a potter's wheel);
(And) from these (combinations of elements) all the senses and sense organs,
(having) the quality of mind, occur,
Just like bubbles blowing out of water.
Material elements, when combined in a special way, give rise to a living body endowed with consciousness. How does consciousness arise? In response to this question, Dhishan makes the following comparison.
Wine is made from molasses and rice. If someone eats molasses and rice separately, he will not become drunk. The wine is made through a special process in which molasses and rice are mixed. And if anyone drinks this wine, he will become drunk. Similarly, earth, water, fire and air are not conscious individually, but when they come together to form a body, consciousness arises by a special process. “When a person dies, there is no consciousness left.”The Charvakas denied the law of karma. In this regard, they asked the question: if the soul! is capable of moving from one body to another, then why does a person not remember his past births? If a person is reborn after death in a new body, then why doesn’t he try to take on his previous appearance out of love for the loved ones he left behind? Observations of an infant do not indicate the presence of a mind transferred from a past existence; in old age, consciousness fades along with the decline of vitality. No one has observed the process of transmigration itself; all ideas about it are based on preconceived ideas.
Things and all living things are formed by a combination of elements acting on the basis of natural laws, but the idea of karma arises either due to a misunderstanding of these laws, or as a result of a deliberate distortion of the truth. It should be noted that, by denying karma, Lokayata is opposed to all other philosophical and religious movements in Ancient India.
The favorite theme of opponents of the Charvakas is accusing them of immorality, of allegedly seeing the meaning human life in crude physical pleasures. But actually it is not.
The Charvakas said that the very existence of our body is associated with both pleasure and suffering. We can only strive to reduce our suffering to a minimum and obtain maximum pleasure. Liberation in the sense of a complete cessation of suffering can only mean death.
The Charvaks put forward the thesis about the unique compatibility of pain and pleasure. After suffering comes joy, and joy itself is felt in contrast to suffering. “Here are two lovers meeting after a long separation... They constantly shed tears and lavished many sighs. Now their meeting gives them extraordinary joy, which the couple, who have never parted, has no idea about.” “The blessing of rest can only be fully appreciated after hard work...
If you want to fully enjoy your food, experience hunger first. The longer you suffer from thirst, the more pleasure you will get from drinking cool water.”Those who suppress their natural inclinations, believing that they are associated with suffering, are fools. No reasonable person “will refuse grain just because it is in the husk”, “will not stop eating fish because there are bones in it”, “will not stop sowing grain for fear of being eaten by livestock”, “not will stop preparing food for himself for fear that a beggar may ask him for some share.”
We must not neglect the opportunities for enjoyment in this life because of the foolish hope of enjoyment in the next. “Better a dove today than a peacock tomorrow.” “Better a real shell than a fake coin.” “He is a fool who, instead of having money in his hands, gives it to someone else to keep.” Arunandi says: “People strive for wealth; but the ultimate goal of man should be pleasure. Wealth in itself cannot be a goal; it is needed only as a condition for pleasure.”
The Charvaks were reproached for their desire for gross pleasures. But this reproach is unjustified. It is known that many of them saw pleasure in the fine arts, of which there were 64 types. Vatsyayana emphasized self-control, spiritual discipline and refinement, without which human pleasures are reduced to the level of animals. In general, we do not find in the texts where the Charvaka philosophy is expounded, any call for immorality or licentiousness.
Socially, the Charvakas opposed the caste organization of society. They spoke with respect about those activities that bring direct material benefit - agriculture and cattle breeding. They condemned the priesthood for its desire to live at the expense of others and enjoy undeserved privileges.
The Charvaks opposed the worship of God, against the official teaching on the holiness of the Vedas. They said that the ideas contained in the Vedas do not constitute a single teaching, often contain contradictory opinions, and therefore cannot be accepted as an absolute, holistic truth. The rituals of Vedism and sacrifices were condemned. Charvakas said that everything in the world ends in death, and therefore sacrifices, ideas about paradise and salvation are deception. “There is no world except this, there is no heaven, no paradise.”
But how can one consider the highest deity to be the source of eternal bliss if this view is decisively refuted by the Charvakas - the most ardent atheists, followers of the teachings of Brihaspati? And it is really difficult to fight Charvakas, because in most cases all people adhere to the common view:
“As long as we live, let us be happy!
There is no one here who will not die;
When will he die and turn to ashes -
Where will he come from again? 48
Many people, in accordance with the science of politics and pleasure, consider sole purpose life wealth and pleasure and rejecting the other world, follow only the teachings of the Charvakas. Hence this doctrine is also called lokayata, which is quite consistent with its essence.
This school proclaims the four elements as its principles (bhuta) - land and others. And consciousness arises only from them when they form a body, just as when mixing quinoa 49 and others there is an intoxicating power [in the drink]. And when the elements disintegrate, consciousness disappears. As they say: “Conscious
tion, arising from these elements, disappears with their decay; after death there is no consciousness left" [Brihad. Pack. II. 4.12]. Thus, the soul is only a body, the peculiarity of which is consciousness. And there is no evidence of the existence of the soul separately from the body. For the only means of knowledge [according to this teaching] is sensory perception, while inferential knowledge and other [means of knowledge] are not recognized.
The only meaning of human life lies in the pleasures provided by sensual pleasures. And they should not be rejected on the grounds that pleasures are always associated with suffering. It is in our power to use greatest number pleasures and avoid the suffering that inevitably accompanies them, just as a person who wants a fish takes it with all the bones and scales and, having eaten as much as he wants, throws away the rest, or just as someone who wants to [gather] rice takes it with straw and everything else and , taking what he needs, throwing away the rest. Therefore, we should not, for fear of suffering, reject the pleasures to which we are inclined. After all, a person does not stop sowing rice just because there are wild animals that can trample it. And he does not refuse to cook food because there are beggars who will ask for their share. And if someone, out of fear, began to neglect obvious happiness, he would become like a stupid animal. No wonder it says:
"A man must renounce pleasures,
delivered by sensual things,
Since they involve suffering, this is
admonition of fools.
But here are the ears of rice, filled with ripe white
grains, -
Is it wise to throw them away just because they are in
dust and husks?
They may object to us: if there is no happiness in the other world, then why even wise people make a sacrifice Agnihotra and other [rites prescribed by the Vedas] that require a lot of money and effort? But this objection cannot be considered proof
proof of the opposite. After all, the three [Vedas] suffer from vices - deceit, contradiction, verbosity; and those who consider themselves experts in the Vedas are simply rogues and swindlers; they expose each other: the evidence of the supporters of [sacred] knowledge is refuted by the supporters of [sacred] action, and the arguments of the supporters of [sacred] action are refuted by the supporters of [sacred] knowledge, and the three Vedas are just stupid chatter of deceivers, and agnihotra[and other rituals] are a way of feeding them. And they also say this: "Agnihotra, three Vedas, tridanda 50 and sprinkling yourself
wisdom and hard work” 51 - this is what Brihaspati says.
From this it follows that there is no hell except the suffering generated by [earthly] sorrows; there is no supreme deity except the Raja, whose existence is obvious to everyone, and there is no other liberation except the disintegration of the body [into the elements].
According to the doctrine of the identity of soul and body, in the expressions “I am full”, “I am thin”, “I am black”, etc. “I” and its properties refer to the same subject. The expression “my body” is used in the same allegorical way as the expression “Rahu’s head” 52 . All this is stated like this:
“The only happiness of a person is in achieving
sensual pleasures.
Hell is the name for suffering generated by fear of thorns and other [earthly sorrows]. Raja, whose existence is obvious to the world, is the one who is known as omnipotent,
and not something otherworldly.
Liberation comes with the disintegration of the body, not with
the achievement of [sacred] knowledge.
This school [recognizes] four elements: earth,
water, fire, air. And it is from these four elements that arises
consciousness, Just as when mixing quinoa and others
[substances] an intoxicating power arises.
In the expressions “I am full”, “I am thin” [“I” and its properties] refer to the same subject.
And since “fullness,” etc., is associated only with the body, only it is the soul, and nothing else.
The expression “my body” is used only
allegorically",
“So be it,” they will object to us. - But one could agree with you if inferential knowledge and other [means of cognition] did not have reliability. But they have authenticity. For how else can one who sees smoke conclude about the [presence of] fire? Or why, having learned from someone that there are fruits on the bank of the river, those who want to collect the fruits go to the bank?
However, all these [arguments] are just prejudices. Supporters of the reliability of inferential knowledge consider its basis to be a sign that must invariably be accompanied by a larger term and which must be present in a smaller term. This is a constant accompaniment (vyapti) 53 must be a connection that does not depend on conditions. The eye and other organs [of perception] are a source of knowledge by virtue of their existence, grab but only by virtue of recognition. But what then are the means of establishing [get it]!
Just not sensory perception. Either external or internal perception is recognized. The first cannot be such a means. For, although knowledge arises from direct contact [of the sense organs] with an object, nevertheless such contact cannot exist in the past or in the future, and therefore [from it] it is impossible to deduce and vyapti. It also cannot be considered that the means of establishing grab is universality. For (in some cases] there is no connection between the internal essence and a separate object. It is not [a means of establishing vyapti] and the second [type of perception - internal perception]. Indeed, in relation to [cognition of] external objects, the internal organ, [the mind], depends on the external senses, and its independence from them cannot be proven. As they say: “The eye and other [sense organs] have their objects, as was
said. But the mind in [knowing] the external [world] depends on another” [“Tattvaviveka” 54. 20].
The conclusion is also not a means of establishing vyapti. Indeed, in this case, one conclusion for its justification entails another, and so on ad infinitum.
Also the evidence (shabda) cannot be [such] a means. For, according to the teaching of Canada 55, shabda is an integral part of inferential knowledge. Or you can add the following: it does not eliminate [those objections] that in what was just said before refuted the justification [of the conclusion], because it itself shabda depends on the recognition of the sign - the message of a knowledgeable person. In addition, taking at word the existence of an internal connection between fire and smoke is the same as believing the words of Manu 56, etc. [Further], for a person to whom the internal connection [of the greater and middle term] is not indicated, there will be no conclusion itself about one thing based on the perception of another; This means that any conclusion “for oneself” and “for another” 57 is no more than empty talk.
Comparison, etc., must also be rejected [as a means of establishing vyapti]. For it only indicates the connection between the name and the bearer of the name, but not an unconditioned connection.
In addition, the absence of conditions cannot be established. For all conditions together cannot be perceived; therefore, although the absence of perceived objects can itself be considered perception, the absence of non-perceptible objects must be considered non-perception; and since here we have to resort to inference, etc., we will not eliminate those objections that have already been used to refute the inference, etc. So, the condition should be defined as that which always accompanies the larger term. It is said this way: “A condition is that which does not always accompany the middle term, which always accompanies the greater term, and which must accompany the greater term. When proving [by the Nyaya school] the non-eternality of sound, these three [points] are necessary to eliminate such false conditions as “produced by [man],” “having the nature of a pitcher,” and “inaudible.” As such
there must be an understanding of the conditions; the same is said in the shloka of the great teacher, beginning with the word Samasama 58 .
But since knowledge of the condition must here precede knowledge of the absence of the condition, this means that only when there is knowledge of the condition is knowledge possible vyapti - knowledge of such a connection between the middle and major terms in which any of such conditions is absent; since knowledge of the condition depends on knowledge grab, we inevitably expose [our opponents] to the error of a vicious circle that strikes them like thunder. Thus, if it is not possible to establish the internal essence, then there is no basis for inferential knowledge and other [means of cognition other than perception]. The transition from knowledge of "smoke" to knowledge of "fire" can be considered either based on perception or as an error. And the fact that this transition is sometimes successful is as accidental as the coincidence [of appearance and reality] when playing gems, during witchcraft, drinking [intoxicating] drinks, etc.
It follows that there is no fate (adrishta) etc. They may object to us: “If you reject fate, then chaos and confusion will ensue in a world devoid of cause.” But this objection is untenable. For everything in the world happens due to inner nature (swab-hava) the things themselves. As the saying goes:
“The heat of fire, the calmness of water, a pleasant touch
breeze -
Who created all this diversity? All this
stems from their inner nature."
Brihaspati says about all this:
“There is no heavenly paradise, no final liberation, no soul in other world.
There is no reward for pious observance
[prescriptions] varnasramas 59 .
Agnihotra, three Vedas, tridanda and sprinkling yourself
[All this is just] a way of feeding those who are deprived
wisdom and hard work.
If a [sacrificial] animal slain in a ritual
jyotishtoma 60, goes to heaven,
Then why doesn’t the donor give to
the slaughter of your father? If sraddha 61 brings satisfaction
to the dead,
Then the oil should strengthen the flame even when broken
And why then give food to the one going to
After all, he could be satisfied on the road shraddha,
perfect staying at home?
If those in heaven are pleased with our
offering [sraddha],
Then why not give it to those standing here on
roof of the house?
While a person is alive, let him live joyfully and drink ghee 62, even if borrowed; When the body turns to dust, how can it
to be reborn again?
If what leaves the body goes to another world, why doesn’t it return again, attracted
love for your loved ones?
This means that all these rites of remembrance of the dead are only a method established by the Brahmins for
their food. [For] there is no reward! Fraudsters, buffoons, tramps - that's who made up the three
Pandits 62 also recognize their reading as [sacred spells] jarbhari, turphari. In the ritual ashwamedha 63 force the [king's] wife
hold [the horse] by the trunk, The same deceivers who praise and
offering gifts [to brahmanas]. And the consumption of [sacrificial] meat [by the priests] was also established by these same vagabonds.” That is why for the good of people it is necessary
adhere to the teachings of the Charvakas.
This is the presentation darshans Charvakov in “Sarva-dar-
shana-samgrahe" of the highly revered Sayana Madhavacharya.
VI. [RELIGIOUS INQUISITION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE]
The excerpt below is taken from the book “India” * by the great Central Asian scientist and thinker Biruni, who at the beginning of the 11th century. spent several years in India and left valuable information about its life, religious, philosophical and scientific systems. In one of the chapters of his work devoted to the astronomical teachings of India, Biruni writes that the Indian astronomers Brahmagupta and Varahamihira knew very well the true nature of the solar and lunar eclipses and described it in their treatises. And yet, Biruni continues, sometimes they supported the mythological explanation of these phenomena, given by the Brahmins in the Puranas, according to which eclipses of the sun and moon occur because the head of the evil demon Rahu flying across the sky periodically swallows these luminaries and thereby causes their eclipses . Biruni reveals the reason for such inconsistency in the works of Indian astronomers.
These words of Varahamihira, despite the fact that above we could more than once be convinced of his exact knowledge the structure of the world, still cannot be approved unless we take into account that at times he spoke in concert with the Brahmins, to whom he belonged and close communication with whom was inevitable for him. Further, he does not deserve blame, for his feet are firmly based on the truth and he openly proclaims it, as, for example, in the story we cited from his words regarding the essence sandhi 64.
If only all worthy people would follow his example! Look, however, at Brahmagupta, and he is the most excellent representative of this class among the Indians. After all, he, belonging to the Brahmins, who read in their puranas, that the sun is lower than the moon, and who, as a result, need a head that bites the sun so that it can be eclipsed, rejects the truth and supports lies, although it is quite possible that out of extreme irritation he says this, mocking them, or forced, like a person, consciousness who is darkened by the fear of death...
I believe that Brahmagupta was forced to say the above words by something like Socratic trouble,
* Abureikhan Biruni. Selected Works, Vol. II. India. Tashkent, 1963, pp. 436-438.
which befell him, despite his great learning and the sharpness of his mind, at his early age and his youth at that time, for he wrote the Brahma-sid-dhanta when he was only thirty years old. If this is his excuse, we accept it and be done with it!
As for the above-mentioned people, with whom there should be no difference of opinion, how can they understand the astronomical theory that the moon eclipses the sun when in its puranas they place the moon above the sun. For what is above cannot hide what is below from the sight of those who are below them both. Therefore, they needed some creature that would grab the moon and the sun, like a fish grabs bread, and would give them the form in which their eclipsed parts are. After all, no nation is spared from ignorant people and even more ignorant leaders...
VII. [RELIGION CREATED TO DECEPTION THE PEOPLE]
The Chinese Xuan-Zan, who committed in the 7th century. n. e. pilgrimage to Buddhist holy places in India, left behind valuable notes about this country. They contain a story he heard in one of the regions of the country about how those in power, in alliance with the priests, came up with instructions, according to which every person must disinterestedly fulfill his duty, including military duty, and fraudulently imposed them on the people as supposedly divine to force him to fulfill them. The reference here is obviously to the Bhagavad Gita, although it is not named, which by that time was already considered a sacred scripture of divine origin. In other words, this story testifies to the presence in India of that time of views that were bold for those times, according to which religion has a completely earthly, and far from clean, origin and fulfills, in modern terms, the social order of the ruling elite.
The story is given in an abbreviated version according to the publication: “On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India. 629-645” by Th. Watters, vol. I. London, 1904, p. 314-315. Translation by N. P. Anikeev.
The leaders of the two clans, who had been waging a long, stubborn struggle for power with each other with varying success, agreed on a decisive battle, which should
their fate was finally determined. But the people, tired of the endless war and devastating raids, were outraged by such a conspiracy and refused to participate in another bloody massacre. Then the ruler of that part of the country that later became known as the “divine land” (sthanesvara), planned to deceive his subjects into fighting, using their belief in miracles for this purpose.
He called one smart Brahman to him and ordered him to draw up a treatise on duty - dharma-sutra. When the order was carried out, the ruler hid the treatise in a mountain cave, where it lay for several years, until the whole place was overgrown with grass and all traces of people being here disappeared. After this, the ruler announced to his entourage that the god Indra visited him in a dream and told him about the sacred book located in the mountains. This news quickly spread throughout the country, and many people went to the cave indicated by the ruler, where they actually discovered the book. This led everyone to great amazement and made them believe in her divine origin. By order of the ruler, the book was read out in front of all the people. It said that life and death are a vast ocean, in endless change and agitated by constant ebbs and flows; people are toys of this ever-whirling ocean of worldly sorrows and suffering, nothing can tear them out of its tenacious embrace, and they are doomed to eternal torment. The only thing that can save them from such a fate is participation in the upcoming battle: although many people will die in it, since it is carried out according to a sign from above, all its participants will receive God's blessing and will be reborn to life again. Their descendants, who will live in this place and honor their ancestors, will achieve endless happiness. And if a virtuous act is so insignificant, and the reward for it is so great, then every intelligent person should take the opportunity and take part in the battle, for this will provide him with favorable karma, and his death will be tantamount to returning to life.
After this there was no shortage of willing warriors, and the battle took place. There were so many people who died there that huge piles of bones still rise on the “sacred ground.”
In Indian philosophy, "Charvaka" is a word that usually means "materialist". However, the origin of this word is shrouded in mystery. According to one version, the word "charvaka" was originally the name of a sage who came out with materialistic views. From this proper name came the general name that began to be used to designate the followers of this sage, that is, materialists.
Others think that the word "charvaka" has long been used to designate materialists - either because they preached the doctrine of "eat, drink, be merry" ("charv" - eat.chew), or because their words were pleasant and intelligible ("charu " - pleasant, intelligible; "vac" - word). The word “lokayata-mata” is also used to denote materialism, that is, the point of view of ordinary people. Accordingly, a materialist is also called a Lokayatika.
About knowledge
Genuine grounded knowledge in Indian philosophy is called prama, and the source of such knowledge is pramana. The Charvakas believe that perception is the only pramana. To substantiate this position, the Charvakas criticize those who admit the possibility of the existence of other sources of knowledge, such as logical inference and the testimony of others, considered by many Indian philosophers as reliable pramana.
Followers of the Charvaka system consider only perception to be a reliable source of knowledge. They point out that all indirect sources of knowledge that are outside the process of perception, such as inference, testimony of others, etc., are unreliable and often misleading. Therefore, we should not believe anything except what we know directly through perception.
Questions arise: If we do not believe in some established universal law underlying the world of phenomena, then how can we explain the uniformity of perception of the objects of our experience? Why do we always feel fire hot and water cold? Charvakas answer that things, in accordance with their nature, have their own particular characteristics. We do not need any supernatural principle to explain the properties of perceived natural objects. There is no guarantee that what was perceived in the same way in the past will be perceived in the same way in the future.
A student of modern inductive logic would be tempted to ask the Charvakas: “But cannot we base our knowledge of the invariable connection between smoke and fire on their causal connection?”
The Charvakas would reply to this that the causal connection, being only a kind of unchangeable connection, cannot be established through perception due to the same difficulties. The Charvakas would further point out that a causal or any other permanent connection cannot be established simply by the repeated perception of two simultaneously occurring phenomena, since we cannot be sure that in each such case there will not remain unperceived conditions on which this connection depends.
For example, if a person who had observed fire accompanied by smoke several times, the next time he perceived fire, would conclude about the existence of smoke, then he would fall into error, since he would lose sight of one condition - the presence of moisture in the fuel, due to which fire is accompanied by smoke. Until it is proven that the connection between two phenomena is unconditional, there is no sufficient basis for the conclusion.
So-called authority, according to the Charvakas, often misleads us. For example, many people treat the authority of the Vedas with great respect. However, in reality, according to the Charvakas, the Vedas are the writings of several clever priests who earned their livelihood by deceiving ignorant and gullible people. From the false hopes and promises of the Vedas, which persuade people to perform the rituals prescribed by the Vedas, only the priests who performed divine services and received rewards for this received tangible benefits.
World structure
Perception reveals to us only the material world, consisting of the four elements of matter (bhuta): air, fire, water and earth, the existence of which we can verify through our sensations. All objects in the world we perceive consist of these elements. There is no reason to admit the existence of something like the immaterial soul (ether) of a person.
Man, too, consists entirely of matter. Of course, a person has consciousness, but consciousness is a quality of a living body, which, in turn, is a product of matter. One should not think that if the elements of matter are devoid of consciousness, then there cannot be consciousness in objects formed from these elements.
Consciousness cannot exist outside the body. Charvakas admit that the existence of consciousness is proven by perception. But they deny that consciousness is a property of some imperceptible immaterial, spiritual entity, since consciousness is something perceived in a perceiving living body consisting of material elements; it must be recognized as a property of this body itself.
When a person dies, there is nothing left of him to suffer or enjoy the consequences of his actions. Therefore, the continuation of a person’s existence in any form after his death is unproven. The existence of God is also a myth. God cannot be perceived through our senses. The world is not a divine creation, but an arbitrary combination of material elements.
Ethical foundations of human life
Many Indian philosophers believe that the highest purpose of man is liberation, and by liberation is meant the complete destruction of all suffering. Others believe that liberation can only be achieved after death, when the soul is freed from the body; others believe that such a state can be achieved even during life. However, the Charvakas consider both these points of view to be unreasonable.
If by liberation we mean the liberation of the soul from physical shackles, then this is absurd, since there is no soul at all. If by liberation we mean the achievement of a state in which a person is freed from all suffering while still alive, then this also cannot be the ideal of life. The very existence of our body is associated with both pleasure and suffering.
We can only strive to reduce our suffering to a minimum and obtain maximum pleasure. Liberation in the sense of a complete cessation of suffering can only mean death. Those who during life try to achieve liberation from pleasure and pain by severely suppressing their natural inclinations, believing that all pleasures, if satisfied, are associated with suffering, act, according to the Charvakas, as fools.
It is therefore stupid to perform any religious rituals for the sake of some posthumous pleasure of happiness in heaven or for the sake of the desire to please God. One should not believe the scriptures of the Vedas and the insidious priests who, taking advantage of the gullibility of people, earn their living.
Therefore, the main goal of a reasonable person’s life should be pleasure. the largest number pleasures here, in this life, the existence of which we are only sure of. It is foolish to abstain from pleasures in life simply because they are sometimes accidentally mixed with suffering. It would be like if we gave up grain because of its husk, or stopped sowing grain for fear of it being eaten by livestock. We should try to make the best of this life, enjoying it as much as possible and avoiding occasional suffering as much as possible.
According to some Indian thinkers, human activity is aimed at achieving four goals: wealth, pleasure, virtue and liberation. Of these four goals, the last two are rejected by the Charvakas. Liberation in the sense of the destruction of all suffering can only be achieved with death, but to it at will no reasonable person can aspire to.
Virtue and vice are concepts invented by sacred scripture, the authority of which cannot be recognized. Therefore, neither liberation nor virtue should be the purpose of our lives. Wealth and pleasure are the only rational goals that every reasonable person should strive to achieve. The ultimate goal it should be precisely pleasure; wealth in itself cannot be a goal; it is needed only as a condition for pleasure.