CHARVAKA PHILOSOPHY

                                      Charvaka Philosophy

1.Pratyaksha(Perception) as  the only  Pramana, Critique of Anumana (Inference) and Shabda(Verbal Testimony) : The epistemological doctrine of the Charvaka school is that perception is the only means of valid knowledge.The validity of inference is rejected.Perception is based on sense organs.We have five sense organs – eye , ear ,nose,tongue,and skin .Through these sense organs we can have five types of perceptive knowledge which is direct and gained through sense-organs.Any type of knowledge which is not based  on sense organs is invalid knowledge,according to Charvaka.

Refutation of Inference(Anumana) and Verbal Testimony(Shabda) : Inference is indirect medium of knowledge.So,it cannot be accepted as valid means of knowledge.We infer about fire from the knowledge of smoke.Here we proceed from known to unknown and there is no certainty in this since the knowledge of fire through smoke is indirect.It may turn out to be accidently true but it is not necessarily true.We cannot say anything with certainty about the unperceived cases.Charvaka says that it is only due to the association of ideas that we assume their definite relation which is based on causality.

Charvaka says that inference is based on invariable concomitance and invariable concomitance is based on the theory of causation.The limit of the knowledge gained through sense-organs is restricted to the particulars.We cannot know anything about universals through sense-organs.So,when our knowledge is limited to the particular then we cannot cross the limit and assert something about universal.This deduction of universal from particular is only figment of our imagination.It is not something real.Through perception we can know only the association and succession of particulars but we cannot perceive the necessity,universality and certainty of these me particulars.Cause preceds the effect.But its causality cannot be proved through sense-organs.It gives only probable knowledge.

Though Shunyavada Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have also rejected the ultimate validity of inference.But the Shunyavadin and Advaitin reject the ultimate validity of all means of knowledge.The distinction between ultimate and empirical knowledge.The distinction between ultimate and empirical knowledge is unknown to the Charvaka.C D Sharma rightly says,”To accept the validity of perception and at the same time and from the same standpoint,to reject the validity of inference is a thoughtless self-contradiction.”1

Charvaka has rejected verbal testimony also.The basis of validity of the statements made by risis is based on inference only.And, when inference,itself is not valid source of knowledge then we can only assume the validity of verbal testimony.So,being based oninference,verbal testimony is also rejected by Charvaka.Charvaka says that if they talk about something which is knowable through sense organs,then it comes within the realm of perception.But if they talk about Adrishta,Apurva etc. then it is based on only imagination.Charvaka has rejected the validity of Vedas.

According to C D Sharma,”To refuse the validity of inference from the empirical standpoint is to refuse ti think and discuss.All thoughts,all discussions,all doctrines,all affermations and denials,all proofs and disproofs are made possible by inference.The Charvaka view that perception is valid and inference is invalid is itself a result a result of inference.The Charvaka Can understand others only through inference and make others understand him only through inference.Thoughts and  ideas,not being material objects,cannot be perceived;they can only be  inferred.Hence the self-refuted Charvaka position is called sheer nonsense and no system of philosophy.Perception itself which is regarded as valid by the Charvaka is often found untrue.

2.Rejection of Non-Material Entities and Dharma and Moksha :  Charvaka admits the existence of four elements – earth,water,fire and air – only and he rejects the ether because it is not perceived but inferred.Similarly,soul,God,dharma and moksha are rejected.Everything which exits,including the mind,is due to a particular combination of three four elements.The elements are eternal but their combinations undergo production and dissolution.

Consciousness as the By-Product of Matter : Consciousness is regarded as mere by-product of matter.It is produced when the elements combine in a certain proportion.It is found always associated with the body and vanishes when the body disintegrates.Just as the combination of betal,areca nut and lime produces the red colour or just as fermented yeast produces the intoxicating quality in the wine,though the ingredients separately do not possess either the red colour or the intoxicating quality,similarly a particular combination of the elements produces consciousness though the elements separately do not possesss it.

Rejecting this view of Charvaka,Samkhya saya that if it is said that the production of consciousness in the elemental body is like that of the power in an intoxicating mixture.We reply that,in the mixture in question,there is the development ,thereof,of the power to intoxicate,,on the combination of the several ingredients,in each of combination of the several ingredients,in each of which it is seen,by

 close observation to exist in a subtle or minute form.1

According to Charvaka,consciousness is the result of an emergent and dialectical evolution.Given the four elements and their particular combination,consciousness manifesta itself in the living body.Matter secrets mind as liver secretes bile.The soul is simply the conscious living body.God is not necessary to account for the world and values are a foolish assertions.

There are four different materialistic schools.One identifies the soul with the gross body,another with the senses;another with vital breath and and the last with the mental organ.All the schools agree in regarding the soul as a product of matter.

Raising objection to this assertion of Charvaka,Samkhya says that,were consciousness innate in the body,there would not be death of anybody

In the world.2

In swoons,fits,epilepsy,dreamless sleep etc. the living body is seen without consciousness.And on the other hand,in dream consciousness is seen without the living body.When the dreamer awakes,he still remembers the dream consciousness.Dream objects are aublated but the dream consciousness is not contradicted in the waking life.

1,Samkhya Pravachan Sutra , 3rd, 22st

2.Ibid,3^rd ,21^st

C D Sharma writes that if consciousness means self-consciousness as it means in the human beings,then it cannot be identified with the living    

body.The animals also possess the living body,but not rational    

consciousness.1

Consciousness persists through the stages of waking life,dream life and deep sleep life and is much superior to material body which is its instrument and not its cause.Further,the subject,the knower,cannot be reduced to the object,the known,since all objects presuppose the existence of the subject.

Rejecting matter as the cause of consciousness,Shankara says that there is separation of self from the body because its existence does not depend on the existence of the body,but there is not non-separation,as in the case of perceptive consciousness.2

Perceptive consciousness takes place where there are certain auxiliaries such as lamps and the like,and does not take place where they are absent,without its following therefrom that perception is an attribute of the lamp or the like.In the state of dream we have manifold perceptions while the body lies motionless.

Shankara ,further writes that qualities of the body,such as form and so on,are perceived by others, not so the qualities of the self,such as consciousness remembrance and so on.Moreover,we can indeed ascertain the presence of those latter qualities as long as body exists in

1.Sharma,C D –A Critical Survay of Indian Philosophy, p. -45

2.Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhasya, 3^rd, 54

the state of life,but we cannot ascertain their non-existence when the body does not exist,for it is possible that even after this body has

 died,the qualities of the self should continue to exist by passing over into another body.1

Another objection raised by Shankara is this that consciousness which Charvaka assumes to spring from the elements;for the materialists do not admit the existence of anything but four elements.Should he say that consciousness is the perception of the elements and what springs from the elements,we remark that in that case the elements and their products are objects of consciousness and that ,hence,the latter cannot be a quality of them,as it is contradictory that anything should act on itself.Consciousness is permanent,follows from the uniformity of its character,as also follows from the fact that the self,although connected with a different state,recognizes itself as the conscious agent- recognition expressed in judgements such as ‘I’ saw ‘this’- and from the fact of remembrance and so on being possible.

According to Charvaka,there is no self separate from the body and capable of going to the heavenly world or ontaining release through which consciousness Is in the body,but the body alone is what is conscious,is the self.Shankara says that if there were no self different from the body,there would be no room for injunctions that have the other world for their result;nor could it be taught of anybody that Brahman is his self.

In ethics,Charvaka regards sensual pleasure as the summum bonum of life.Eat,drink and be merry;for once the body is reduced to ashes,there

1.Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhasya, 3^rd, 54

is no hope of coming back here again.There is no other world.There is no soul surviving death,Religion is the means of livelihood of the priests.Pleasure of the senses in this life and that too of the individual is the sole end.Out of the four purusarthas-dharma artha,kama,moksha-only kama or sensual pleasure is accepted as the end and arth or wealth is regarded as the means to realize that end,while dharma and moksha are altogether rejected.Pleasure is regarded as mixed up with pain,but that is no reason why it should not be required.

Ethical views of Charvaka is the natural outcome of their epistemology and metaphysics.Since they don’t believe in the existence of anything which cannot be perceived,therefore God,soul and immortality is mrely figment of imagination of the priests to exploit people.Dharma is also useless epithet since they don’t believe in soul and rebirth.

Injunctions related to heaven and rebirth are ridiculous for them.Once this body ,after death,will turn into ashes,it wouldn’t return again into existence.Western philosopher Kant,also doesn’t believe in the knowability of noumenal realities,hence,there existence.But since he was believer of perfection,he accepted God,soul and Immortality as the postulate of mortality.So, the worst thesis put fprward by Charvaka is the rejection of moral values,which was the cause of the extinction of this school,so early.Also,due to this demerit,they were denigrated by all the other schools.