CARVAKA- Materialistic Philosophy in Ancient India

Dr.V.K.Maheshwari Dr.Suraksha Bansal

Ph.D Ph.D
Former Principal Sr.Lecturer
DIMS,Meerut DIMS,Meerut
India India

Jabali, a learned Brahman and a Sophist skilled in word,

Questioned Faith and Law and Duty, spake to young Ayodhya’s lord:
“Wherefore, Rama, ideal maxims cloud thy heart and warp thy mind,
Maxims who mislead the simple and the thoughtless human-kind...
Ah, I weep for erring mortals, who, on erring duty bent,
Sacrifice this dear enjoyment till their barren life is spent,
Who to Gods and to the Fathers vainly still offering make.
Waste of food! For neither God nor Father doth our pious homage take!
And the food by one partaken, can it nourish other men?
Food bestowed upon a Brahman, can it serve our Fathers then?
Crafty priests have forged these maxims, and with selfish objects say,
“Make thy gifts and do thy penance, leave thy worldly wealth, and pray!”
There is no hereafter, Rama, vain the hope and creed of men;
Seek the pleasures of the present, spurn illusions poor and vain.

It is a genral belief that the Western and Eastern minds work indifferent ways,
that they see the world from different perspectives. Nevertheless, and as a generality, it
can be said that Eastern philosophy,at least as it is represented by the traditions of India,
is not so much amatter of abstract analysis as a way of life, a way of life which has at
itsheart a deeply spiritual orientation: Hindu philosophy comprises the same areas of
rational enquirythat have pre-occupied the philosophers of the West since thetime of
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle – namely ontology , epistemology logic, and ethics.
Various societies at different times have dazzled with their bursts of creative and
intellectual energy. Historians have a penchant for dubbing them Golden Ages.
Examples include the Athens of Herodotus, the Baghdad of Haroun al-Rashid, and the
India of the Buddha. But though India has long been famous for its "ancient wisdom",
the few historical sources refers that around 600-500 BCE,in parts of the Indo-Gangetic
plain of north India, people were asking some very bold and original questions: What is
the nature of thought and perception? What is the source of consciousness? Are virtue
and vice absolute or mere social conventions? Old traditions were under attack, new
trades and lifestyles were emerging, and urban life was in a churn, reducing the power
of uptight Brahmins

It comes as a surprise to many that in ancient "spiritual" India, atheistic

materialism was a major force to reckon with. Predating even the Buddhists, is one of
the earliest materialistic schools of Indian philosophy, named after one Carvaka,
Carvaka Philosophy is a fanatical effort made to rid the age of the weight of the past that
was oppressing it. It is a system of Indian philosophy that adopted numerous forms of
philosophical agnosticism and religious impassivity. The branch is also known as
Lokayata philosophy, as is stated in the"Rig Veda"

Named after its founder, Carvaka, (also known as Charu or Brhaspati) author of
the Barhaspatya-sutras, the Charvaka Philosophy is an atheistic, acquisitive and wild
thought. It is also known as `Lokayata` because it admits the existence of this world
(loka) alone. Materialist philosophers who are referred to as Charvakas are also known
as Lokayatas or Laukayatikas, because they act like ordinary people. The name
`Lokayata` can be found in Kautilya`s Arthasastra" that refers to the three `anviksikis`
or logical philosophies - , and Lokayata. This very term was restricted to the school of
the `Lokyatikas`. In 7th century, the philosopher Purandara had used the term
`Charvaka` for the first time. The 8th century philosophers Kamalasila and Haribhadra
had also used the same term.

In the outlines of Indian philosophy, Carvaka is classified as a "heterodox"

(nastika) system, the same classification as is given to Buddhism and Jainism. While
this branch of Indian philosophy is not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools
of Hinduism, it is a remarkable testimony of the materialistic movement within
Hinduism

Carvaka, an atheistic school of Indian philosophy, traces its origins to 600 BCE,
while some claim earlier references to such positions.[ It was a hedonistic school of
thought, advocating that there is no afterlife. Dharmakirti, a 7th century philosopher was
deeply influenced by carvaka philosophy, .carvaka is a system of Indian philosophy that
assumes various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifferencei It is
characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought.

Saddaniti and Buddhaghosa in the 5th century connect the "Lokayatas" with the
Vitandas (sophists).Only from about the 6th century is the term restricted to the school
of the LokyÄtikas. The name Carvaka is first used in the 7th century by the philosopher
Purandara, who refers to his fellow materialists as "the Charvaka, and it is used by the
8th century philosophers Kamalaala and Haribhadra. Shankara, on the other hand,
always uses LokÄyata, not Charvaka. etymological meaning of the word Charvaka is 'a
person who is clever in speech and is extremely fond of wrangling W. Hopkins, in his
The Ethics of India assumes that Charvaka philosophy is co-eval with Buddhism,
mentioning "the old Charvaka or materialist of the 6th century BC"; Rhys Davids
assumes that lokayata in ca. 500 BC came to mean "scepticism" in general without yet
being organized as a philosophical school, and that the name of a villain of the
Mahabharata, Charvaka, was attached to the position in order to disparage it. The
earliest positive statement of skepticism is preserved from the epic period, in the
Ramayana".regard only that which is an object of perception, and cast behind your back
whatever is beyond the reach of your senses.

The system of philosophy named after its founder, Carvaka, was set out in the
Brhaspati Sutra in India probably about 600 BCE. This text has not survived and, like
similar philosophy in that this is a rationalistic and skeptical philosophy, this
undermines the widespread belief in the West that Indian philosophy is primarily
religious and mystical. Amartya Sen has argued, in fact, that there is a larger volume of
atheistic and agnostic writings in Pali and Sanskrit than in any other classical
tradition—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Arabic. He adds that this applies also to
Buddhism, the only agnostic world religion ever to emerge.

Charvakas philosophy developed at a time when religious dogma concerning our

knowledge of reality, the constitution of the world, and the concept of an afterlife were
being increasingly questioned, both in India and elsewhere. Specifically,t he school of
Carvaka contained within itself a materialism that ruled out the supernatural (lokayata),
naturalism (all phenomena described in terms of the properties of the four elements),
rejection of the Vedas (nastika), and a skepticism that included rejection of inferential
logic, or induction.One of the best sources for Charvakas atheistic argument happens to
be a book, Sarvadarshansamgraha (the collection of all philosophies), written in the
Fourteenth Century by Madhavacarya, a Vaishnavite (Hindhu) scholar.

Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and
occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as
well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on
materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other hilosophical schools
possess.. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these Available
evidence suggests that Carvaka philosophy

The Carvaka scholars carried on research, termed Aanvikshiki,whereevery branch of

knowledge and developed it elaborately. It is possible that they also observed and kept
records of the historical supernovae, which the Chinese, the Incas and Mayans and
all other ancient civilizations did, as per records left to posterity in the form of
astrological writings (Chinese) and cave paintings (Incas and Mayans). However, the
Indian records have not yet come to light, perhaps due to the predominance of oral
tradition in India, liable to easy distortion. More probably, any records have been
destroyed by the Carvakas' opponents.

NO original text of the Carvaka school of philosophy has been preserved. Its
principal works are known only from fragments cited by its materialistic, atheistic sutras
were the foundational text of the Carvaka school of materialist (nastika) philosophy.
Dale Riepe says, "It may be said from the available material that Carvakas hold truth,
integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteembut how can we
attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has
been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower
of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated.

A symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence.

Some Carvaka thinkers are said to have participated in this symposium Abu al-Fazl ibn
Mubarak also known as Abul-Fazl, Abul Fadl and Abul-Fadl Allami: the vizier of the
great Mughal emperor Akbar, and author of the Akbarnama, the official history of
Akbars reign.. ...Under the heading "Nastika," Abul Fazl has referred to the good work,
judicious administration, and welfare schemes that were emphasised by the Carvaka
lawmakers. Somadeva has also mentioned the Carvaka method of defeating the enemies
of the nation.

CARVAKA METAPHYSICS
Carvakas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called
"speculative metaphysics .According to the Carvakas, there is no such thing as the
atman. One does not and cannot perceive the atman, and one cannot establish its
existence with the help of inference, because inference is not a valid source of
knowledge. The Carvakas state that consciousness is not due to the atman. When a man
dies, his/her consciousness goes away and one cannot prove that it vanishes and exists
somewhere else. Being conscious is a peculiar quality of the living human body. It can
keep back the consciousness so long as the physical parts are healthy and stay together
in a certain form. Consciousness thus is an emergent quality of the physical parts
coming together in specific proportions. For example, when yeast is blended with
certain juices, they turn into wine. The property of being wine is a new quality which
yeast and juices obtain when blended. Therefore, according to Carvakas metaphysics,
life also is only a new configuration of matter. Nothing but matter is real. Therefore the
atman or self-awareness is only the physical body with a new emerging quality. But one
always says that, `I have a handsome body, a tall body` and so on. If the `I` is not
different from the body, how can it say: `I have such and such a body`? To this the
Carvakas answer by saying that the use of `have` in these expressions is only
conventional, created by the false impression that the `I` is different from the body.
The Carvakas metaphysics speak of the mind (manas), which is different from the
atman. But the Carvakas appear to think of mind as the consciousness in its knowing
function, which of course is not separate from the body. The body together with its
consciousness is the atman and consciousness in its experiencing function is the mind.
Mind knows the external world through the senses.

The world is the material world only. According to the Carvakas, it does not
consist of five elements, as the Mimamsa believes. Earth, water, fire, air, and ether are
the usual five elements corresponding to the qualities smell, taste, colour, touch, and
sound, and also corresponding to the five sense organs, nose, tongue, eye, touch, and
ear. The first four elements are perceivable, but not ether. So the Carvakas deny the
reality of ether. It was thought that the cause of sound in the ear was the all-pervading
ether. But the Carvakas say that sound is caused by air touching the ear. It is due to the
movement of air not of ether. The other four elements constitute the world. They consist
of tiny particles, which are not, however, the invisible atoms of the Naiyayikas. The
particles accepted by the Carvakas are visible particles; they could not accept the reality
of anything that could not be perceived with the senses.

There is no external cause for the four elements coming together and obtaining
the qualities of life and consciousness. It is their nature to come together and to have
those qualities. But we cannot generalize on this process and establish a law that,
whenever these four elements come together in certain ratio, life and consciousness will
emerge. The elements may change their nature any time. We cannot, therefore say that
Nature contains some eternal laws. Every event is a chance, and if it develops into
something, then it develops according to its own particular nature. One may conclude
that, according to the Carvakas, the existence of everything is a chance, and that there
are no laws of nature, but every object has its own nature.

Carvakas defended a complete reductive materialism according to which the four

elements of earth, water, fire, and air are the only original components of being; all
other forms are products of their composition. Consciousness arises from the material
structure of the body and characterizes the body itself—rather than a soul—and perishes
with the body.Ajita Keshakambalin, a prominent Carvakas and contemporary of the
Buddha, proclaimed that humans literally go from earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to
dust:

According to the Carvakas, the soul is only the body qualified by intelligence. It
has no existence apart from the body, only this world exists Carvaka metaphysics states
that nothing that is not perceived with the senses or consciousness is real and existing".
The Carvakas state that consciousness is not due to the atman. When a man dies, his/her
consciousness goes away and one cannot prove that it vanishes and exists somewhere
else. Being conscious is a peculiar quality of the living human body. It can keep back
the onsciousness so long as the physical parts are healthy and stay together in a certain
form. Consciousness thus is an emergent quality of the physical parts coming together
in specific proportions. For example, when yeast is blended with certain juices, they
turn into wine. The property of being wine is a new quality which yeast and juices
obtain when blended. Therefore, according to Carvaka metaphysics, life also is only a
new configuration of matter. Nothing but matter is real. Therefore the atman or self-
awareness is only the physical body with a new emerging quality. But one always says
that, `I have a handsome body, a tall body` and so on. If the `I` is not different from the
body, how can it say: `I have such and such a body`? To this the Carvakas answer by
saying that the use of `have` in these expressions is only conventional, created by the
false impression that the `I` is different from the body.
 The Carvaka metaphysics speak of the mind (manas), which is different from the
atman. But the Carvakas appear to think of mind as the consciousness in its knowing
function, which of course is not separate from the body. The body together with its
consciousness is the atman and consciousness in its experiencing function is the mind.
Mind knows the external world through the senses. The world is the material world
only.

Carvaka metaphysics are of the faith that there is no external cause for the four
elements coming together and obtaining the qualities of life and consciousness. It is
their inherent quality to come together and to have those qualities. However one cannot
generalise on this process and establish a law that, whenever these four elements come
together in certain ratio, life and consciousness will emerge. The elements may alter
their nature any time. One cannot, therefore say that Nature comprises some eternal
laws. In this school the four elements, earth, fire, water and air are the original
principles. From these alone, when transformed into the body, intelligence is
produced”just as the intoxicating power of some herbs is developed from the mixing of
certain ingredients. When the body is destroyed, intelligence at once perishes also.

Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished by the attribute of intelligence,
since there is no evidence for any self distinct from the body. Therefore the existence of
such a separate self cannot be proved,According to the Carvakas, the soul is only the
body qualified by intelligence. It has no existence apart from the body, only this world
exists .All anti-Vedic schools and even some Vedic schools such as Samkhya and
Mimamsa, were atheistic. The existence of god was a standard topic for rational debate.
In the 11th century Udayana, , set forth five ways of proving the existence of god. The
atheists put forward excellent rejoinders, like the following: "If the universe requires a
maker because it undergoes change, even God needs a maker because he sometimes
creates, sometimes destroys." "Madhavacharya, in his works, has elaborated on the
theory of materialist philosophers who believed only in the present existing world. They
did not believe in the theory of divine creation of the universe by a supernatural power.
According to them, if there is a benevolent God supervising humanity, then why is it
that a majority of the human population is in the throes of misery and suffering? If there
is a just God above us, then why is there so much injustice on the earth, against the poor
and deprived sections of society?"

Accepting only perception as the valid source of knowledge, the Carvakas

disapproved the reality of God. No one has ever seen God and no one can see him in
future. In fact, in the Carvaka way of life, even the minor gods also do not exist. They
and the Vedas belong to the imagination of guileful priests, who invented them to make
a living out of them by refereeing at sacrifices, and to awe people into submission by
saying that God would punish them if they did not abide by the Vedas. There is no
heaven, no hell, no God, and there are no objective ethical laws. The only laws binding
men are the laws of the state, obedience to which brings rewards and disobedience of
which fetches punishment. And the science (shastra) of the laws of state is the only
science worth studying. What is meant by heaven is the pleasure one has in eating,
drinking, making merry and singing. And hell is the pain one experiences in this world
itself

"Madhavacharya, in his works, has elaborated on the theory of materialist

philosophers who believed only in the present existing world. They did not believe in
the theory of divine creation of the universe by a supernatural power. According to
them, if there is a benevolent God supervising humanity, then why is it that a majority
of the human population is in the throes of misery and suffering? If there is a just God
above us, then why is there so much injustice on the earth, against the poor and deprived
sections of society?

CARVAKA EPISTOMOLOGY
Of the three important sources of knowledge accepted in common by all the
orthodox schools (perception, inference, and verbal testimony), the Carvakas accepted
only perception as the valid source of knowledge and rejected both inference and verbal
testimony. Whatever we know through perception is true and real. The Carvakas at first
seem not to have been aware of the difficulties in accepting perception as a valid source
of knowledge, which were pointed out later by the Buddhist and Vedanta dialecticians.
The later Carvakas showed that they knew of the difficulties, but they did not discuss
the implications of this question and maintained on the whole a realistic position.

It is interesting to note that, in their examination of inference, the Carvakas

anticipated the European skeptics. They said that inference was not a valid source of
knowledge, because the major premise of an inference cannot be proved. For example:
Wherever there is smoke, there is fire (Major premise);
This mountain has smoke (Minor premise) ;There is fire in the mountain (Conclusion}.
This is the classical example of inference in Indian epistemology. The Carvakas
ask:

(i) How can we formulate the major premise unless we have seen all the instances of
smoke? If we have not seen all the instances, how can we logically be justified in using
the word 'wherever'? If we have seen all the instances, we must have seen the present
case, viz. the mountain also.

(2) Then what is the use of making an inference when we have already perceived that
there is fire in the mountains? So the Carvakas say that inference is either impossible or
unnecessary. Inference cannot yield truth.
But are not causal statements like 'Fire causes the bodies to expand' true? And
they are universal propositions like the major premise. The Carvakas say that these
causal laws also cannot be true. If we are able to apply causal laws and find them to be
true, it is only an accident. In fact, there are no causal laws. Every event is a chance
everything comes into existence and passes out of it according to its own nature. Even
this nature is not a universal law; it too may change. However, i t should also be noted
that they did not deny the formal validity of inference, because they used the very laws
of inference to show that one cannot obtain material truths about the world through
inference. They questioned only on the premises regarding how one can obtain the
major premise. But they never stated that, even if one had the major premise, inference
was wrong. They did not criticise the structure of the syllogism, but only wanted to
prove that it was absolutely useless for obtaining any new truth about the world. In fact,
they used the law of contradiction in disproving the doctrines of their rivals.On verbal
testimony the Carvakas make a strong attack. Verbal knowledge is only knowledge of
words and their meanings based upon inference. My friend says: 'The orange is red.'
Now, through the established meanings of the four words, I infer that the object before
the mind of my friend is an orange and that it is red. But it has already been pointed out
that inference is a risky source of knowledge. And how can I be sure of the reliability of
my friend? For either reason, verbal testimony is not a reliable source of knowledge.
But are not the Vedas reliable? , the Carvakas make their strongest attack on them. The
Vedas are not reliable at all, because they are self-contradictory. 'At one place they
enjoin on us not to commit any injury; but at another place they ask us to sacrifice
animals to gods.' How can one believe that the killing of animals in sacrifices brings one
merit?

Carvakas theory of knowledge is not exactly skepticism or agnosticism, but a

fairly thoroughgoing positivism. They accept the reality of whatever we can perceive
with our senses and deny the reality of whatever we cannot so perceive. They did not
deny the formal validity of inference, because they used the very laws of inference to
show that we could not obtain material truths about the world through inference. They
questioned only how we could obtain the major premise, but they did not say that, even
if we had the major premise, inference was wrong. They did not criticize the structure of
the syllogism, but only wanted to show that it was utterly useless for obtaining any new
truth about the world. In fact, they used the law of contradiction in refuting the doctrines
of their rivals. The validity of inferential knowledge was challenged on the ground that
all inference requires a universal major premise ("All that possesses smoke possesses
fire") whereas there is no means of arriving at a certainty about such a proposition. No
amount of finite observations could possibly yield the required universal premise. The
supposed "invariable connection" may be vitiated by some unknown "condition," and
there is no means of knowing that such a vitiating factor does not exist.

The sound is eternal, that is, the words of the Vedas and their meanings eternally
exist. But how can we believe that the word-sounds are eternal? There is no sound,
when no one utters it. And it stays only when produced by the vocal organs. . And
perception does not show that the word-sound can be eternal.
Carvaka theory of knowledge speak that there is no existence of causal laws.
Every event is a chance; everything comes into existence and passes out of it according
to its own nature. Even this nature is not a universal law; it too is subject to change. The
Carvakas make a strong attack on verbal testimony. Verbal knowledge is only
knowledge of words and their meanings are based upon inference. observer is an orange
and that it is red. But it has already been pointed out that inference is a dicey source of
knowledge.. For either reason, verbal testimony is not a reliable source of knowledge.

The Carvakas perhaps make their strongest attack on the authenticity of the
Vedas. The Vedas are not reliable at all, because they are self-contradictory. . If it is
said that its timelessness can be proved by inference, it has already been established that
inference is not reliable. And perception does not show that the word-sound can be
eternal. The Carvaka theory of knowledge is not exactly scepticism or agnosticism, but
a fairly thoroughgoing positivism. They accept the reality of whatever one can perceive
with one`s senses and refute the reality of whatever one cannot perceive..

The Carvakas sought to establish their materialism on an epistemological basis

and their thought resembles that of British empiricist and skeptic David Hume, as well
as of logical positivists. The Carvakas believed sense perception alone as a means of
valid knowledge.Since inference is not a means of valid knowledge, all supersensible
things like "destiny," "soul," or "afterlife," do not exist. To say that such entities exist is
regarded as absurd, for no unverifiable assertion of existence is meaningfull"The
Carvakas did not deny the difference between the dead and the living and recognized
both as realities. A person lives, the same person dies: that is a perceived, and hence the
only provable, fact. In this regard, the Carvakas found themselves at odds with all the
other religions of the time. Of the five fundamental elements, the Panchamahaabhutas,
Prithvi (earth or solidity), jal (water or liquidity), Agni (fire or fieriness or brightness),
vaayu (wind or movement), and aakaasha (aether or emptiness), the Carvakas
recognized the validity of only the first four and thought that a combination of these
four elements produced a certain vitality called life.

The Carvaka denied the authority of all scripture s Dhishan, the disciple of
Brihaspati, considers the composers of the Vedic texts a group of confidence-tricksters.
First, knowledge based on verbal testimony is inferential and so vitiated by all the
defects of inference. They saw the scriptures as characterized by three faults: falsity,
self-contradiction, and tautology. On the basis of such a theory of knowledge, The
Carvakas defended a complete reductive materialism according to which the four
elements of earth, water, fire, and air are the only original components of being; all
other forms are products of their composition The Lokayata doctrine conceived of the
universe as being formed of the four elements: earth, water, air and fire. In some texts, a
fifth element (the ether) is added. These elements, in turn, were said to be composed of
atoms, indivisible units which were conceived as immutable, indestructible and having
existed for all time. The properties of any given object were determined by the atoms
that comprised it. Likewise, consciousness and the senses were the result of a particular
combination of atoms and the proportions in which they were combined. After the death
of an organism, this combination disintegrated into elements that then combined with
corresponding types of atoms in inanimate nature. In this school the four elements,
earth, fire, water and air are the original principles. From these alone, when transformed
into the body, intelligence is produced—just as the intoxicating power of some herbs is
developed from the mixing of certain ingredients. When the body is destroyed,
intelligence at once perishes also. They quote the Vedic text for this:

Springing forth from these elements itself

solid knowledge is destroyed
when they are destroyed—
after death no intelligence remains.
Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished by the attribute of intelligence,
since there is no evidence for any self, distinct from the body. Therefore the existence of
such a separate self cannot be proved, because this school holds that perception is the
only source of knowledge and does not allow inference as an alternative source.

This early Indian materialism, for its incompleteness and native elements,
contains the germs of a profound idea and represents a brilliant anticipation of modern
atomic science in the same way as the philosophy of Democritus, Leukippus and
Epicurus in ancient Greece. Moreover, in some ways it anticipated the modern theory of
evolution. Some of the texts describe how certain elements originate from others, with
the earth as the primordial source of all development. In the field of epistemology (the
theory of knowledge) the doctrine of Lokayata is sensory, that is to say, it states that all
human knowledge is derived from the senses (sense-perception). The sense-organs can
only apprehend objects because they themselves are composed of the same elements.
Like is known to like. Therefore it denied the possibility of any indirect knowledge.
Inference and conclusion were regarded as false instruments of cognition. Of the
recognised means of knowledge (pramana), the Carvaka recognised only direct
perception (anubhava).

"Seeing is the source of all evidence," Brihaspati is supposed to have said.This

shows the . Consciousness is a product of the material structure of the body and
characterizes the body itself”rather than a soul”and perishes with the body. "man is
formed of the four elements. When he dies, earth returns to the aggregate of earth, water
to water, fire to fire, and air to air, while his senses vanish into space. Four men with the
bier take up the corpse: they gossip as far as the burning-ground, where his bones turn
the color of a dove's wing and his sacrifices end in ashes. They are fools who preach
almsgiving, and those who maintain the existence [of immaterial categories] speak vain
and lying nonsense. When the body dies both fool and wise alike are cut off and perish.
They do not survive after death.

Rejection of the soul as separate from the body led the Carvakas to confine their
thinking to this world only. This does not mean that they denied the cause-effect
relationship. They accepted the "like causes like result" (Karmavipaaka) rule, restricted
it to this life and this world and admitted exceptions to that rule. .

Refrancees and Bibliography

Aaine-Akbari, written by Abul Fazl, the famous historian of Akbar's court, mentions a
symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence. Some
Carvaka thinkers are said to have participated in this symposium. Abu al-Fazl ibn
Mubarak also known as Abul-Fazl, Abul Fadl and Abul-Fadl Allami: the vizier of the
great Mughal emperor Akbar, and author of the Akbarnama, the official history of
Akbars reigns.

Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa was an 8th or 9th century Indian philosopher (dated to ca. 770-830 by
Franco 1994), author of the Tattvopaplavasimha (tattva-upa.plava-simha "The Lion that
Devours All Categories"/"The Upsetting of All Principles"). The manuscript of this
work was discovered in 1926 and published in 1940 (eds. Sanghavi and Parikh). .

Under the heading "Nastika," Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious
administration, and welfare schemes that were emphasized by the Carvaka lawmakers.
Somadeva has also mentioned the Carvaka method of defeating the enemies of the
nation.
Madhavacharya, the 14th-century Vedantic philosopher from South India starts his
famous work The Sarva-darsana-sangraha with a chapter on the Carvaka system with
the intention of refutation
Monier-Williams (1899); the name literally means "speaking nicely", from cāru
"agreeable" and vāk "speech"
Radhakrishnan and Moore, "Contents".p. 224.
Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy.
(Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227-
49. .

Satis chandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta. An Introduction to Indian

Philosophy. Eighth Reprint Edition. (University of Calcutta: 1984). p. 55.
Riepe, Dale. The Naturalistic Tradition of Indian Thought (Motilal Banarasidas,
Varanasi) p.7
Aaine-Akbari, Vol. III, translated by H. S. Barrett, pp 217–218 (also see Amartya Sen
[2005], pp 288–289)

Debiprasad(1959). Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism. New Delhi:

People's Pub. House

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1964). Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction. New

Delhi: People's Pub. House

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1976). What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian

Philosophy. New Delhi: People's Pub. House

Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli; and Moore, Charles A. A Source Book in Indian Philosophy.

Princeton University Press; 1957. Princeton paperback 12th edition, 1989.

Dale (1964). The Naturalistic Tradition of Indian Thought, 2nd ed., Delhi: Motilal

John M. Koller, Skepticism in Early Indian Thought, Philosophy East and West (1977).

R. Bhattacharya, Carvaka Fragments: A New Collection, Journal of Indian Philosophy,

Volume 30, Number 6, December 2002, pp. 597-640.