Ancient Indian Charvaka Argument

Ancient Charvaka Faith:
Ancient Charvaka argument:

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no author of the universe. All things combine together by virtue of properties inherent in them. [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is neither heaven nor hell, nor is there any entity like the soul to reap, hereafter, the fruits of deeds done in this life,[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]nor does the performance of duties pertaining to one's Class and Order bear any fruit.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
  [*][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is wrong to say that, after death, the soul leaves the body and is transported to the next world, for if it be otherwise, why does not the departed soul return home, impelled by love for its family.[/FONT][/FONT]

Refutations:

• Inert substances cannot combine together of their own accord unless the Conscious Being fashions and shapes them. If they could combine together by virtue of inherent properties, why does not another set of the sun, the moon, the earth and other planets spring into existence by themselves.
• The enjoyment of happiness constitutes heaven while the suffering of (extreme) misery constitutes hell. If there be no soul, who would enjoy happiness or suffer misery.
• Whatever exists cannot cease to exist. The soul is an entity, therefore it can never become non-entity. It is not the soul but the body that is reduced to ashes (when it had been cremated).
• After leaving the body, the soul is transported to another place and takes on another body; it forgets all about its previous birth and its family, hence it is impossible for it to return to its previous family.

Madhavacharya's argument agains Charvaka Atheism

Charvak: I believe in only sense perception .

Madhvacharya: How did you come to know about your belief!

Charvak: Silent (Belief is not perceived by any senses)

Charvak proclaim that only eyes etc (senses-jnanendriya) are true. This statement is self contradictory. Here if one relies purely on the senses for knowledge then one is denying the self and its existence as the one who is actually gaining the knowledge.

This self is not visible or heard. We say "this is my hand and this is my body", wherein the word 'my' is indicative and is inferred as some entity 'me', which is neither the hands nor the body, nor that is seen or heard.

The self contradictory [vyahatha bhasha] is imperative in Charvakâ's words. What is vyahatha? It is akin to saying "My mother is a barren woman". The sentence itself shows it is wrong and contradictory. If a charvak is teaching his student his philosophy, how can he deduce that student has learnt his philosophy, by facial expression? He will have to somewhere infer it. So inference has to be accepted by Charvakas.

Third is the textual proof. Charvak says that Vedic text cannot be believed. What people say, what Vedas say, what religion says need not be true. Let us ask a Charvak what day is today? Charvak says it is Thursday! How did he come to know that? Either he will have to refer a calendar for that. So Charvak is accepting Textual proof as well.

Shankara on Brahma Sutra i.1.1

"Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of the opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self.

For this very reason, viz. that intelligence is observed only where a body is observed while it is never seen without a body, the Materialists (Lokayatikas) consider intelligence to be a mere attribute of the body. "

The non-difference [i.e. the identity] between the body and the soul is not logically tenable. It is logical instead to view the soul as distinct from the body. And the reason for this is: the absence of its alleged quality in spite of its presence. The alleged quality of the body i.e. consciousness, is observed to be absent in spite of the presence of the body itself. Thus on the basis of the observation of the presence of the qualities of the soul during the presence of the body, it is claimed that these qualities belong to the body.


However, if so, what prevents you to admit that these qualities are qualities of something other than the body? It is reasonable to admit this because of the characterestic difference between the qualities of the soul and the qualities that belong genuinely to the body. Thus, so long as the body is present, let the genuine qualities of the body like complexion, etc. be also present. Still, after death, the qualities like life, volition, etc. are not present in spite of the presence of the body. Besides, the qualities of the body like complexion, etc. are perceived by others. But not so are the qualities of the soul, like consciousness and memory."

Nyaya-Vaisesika Argument against Atheism

Vatsyayana on Nyaya Sutra iii.2.47
A body is never perceived without complexion, etc. However, a body is sometimes perceived without consciousness. Therefore consciousness is not a quality of the body.

Vatsyayana on Nyaya Sutra iii.2.53
The qualities of body are of two kinds only, viz. (1)imperceptible, like heaviness and (2) perceptible by external senses eg complexion, etc. Consciousness differs from both these kinds: it is not imperceptible for it is internally apprehended, and it is not perceptible by the external senses, for it is an object known by the mind only. Therefore, consciousness is a quality of some substance other than the body.

Badarayana's Argument against Atheism


|| Om abyugamepi arthaabavaath Om ||

• Philosophy is meant to increase happiness.
• Happiness more than what we presently have.
• Philosophy is meant to reduce miseries in present birth and freedom from misery forever.
• If philosophy does not say what to do and what not to do , then it is of no use
• The perception and relying solely on it is form of self denial and existence. It is akin to ignoring self
• So such philosophy should be discarded.

There are hardly few if any people who remain atheist throughtout their life and die as atheist. I would go along anytime with Adi Shankara and Badrayana rather than the Charvaks whose highly misleading theories are based just on denying the Truth rather than anything else.

Regards,