• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu Only: Advaita Charvak? :)

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. and the hash out the difference between Advaita Vedanta and Advaita Carvaka regarding the nature of consciousness. :)
Where did you get this term, Advaita Charvak? As far as I know the Charvaks were not Advaitists. They were totally atheistic and materialistic.

Charvakists did not believe in anything surviving physical death. They had no concern for dharma. As we have heard:
'Yavat jeevet sukham jeevet, rinam kriitva ghritam pibet;
bhasmibhutasya dehasya, punaragamanam kutah."


While you live live happily, live grandly even if it requires taking loans;
because once the body is burnt, there is no coming back.
(The one who lent you money will not be able to come after you)

An advaitist would not do that. He/she will go by dharma.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Where did you get this term, Advaita Charvak? As far as I know the Charvaks were not Advaitists. They were totally atheistic and materialistic.

Charvakists did not believe in anything surviving physical death. They had no concern for dharma. As we have heard:
'Yavat jeevet sukham jeevet, rinam kriitva ghritam pibet;
bhasmibhutasya dehasya, punaragamanam kutah."


While you live live happily, live grandly even if it requires taking loans;
because once the body is burnt, there is no coming back.
(The one who lent you money will not be able to come after you)

An advaitist would not do that. He/she will go by dharma.

I suppose I sort of made it up in an attempt to understand your views. Clearly you tried it on and didn't like it. ;)

I was unaware that Charvakists reject dharma. Do you have a resource to verify this?

From what I understand your view is much more materialistic than traditional Avaita Vedanta. While I agree that your views are most certainly Advaitin, I question how much of your views are found in Vedanta. That's why Charvaka seemed to apply here.

It is my understanding based on what you read that reject cit as inherent to Brahman, viewing Brahman as all that is, even in the physical in vyavaharika. While what is physical in vyavaharika being Brahman isn't technically wrong, I consider the physical there to be avidya; it is merely an appearance. You appear to take the physical as being Brahman in a much more literal sense, saying there is nothing but but displaced atoms surviving death of the body and ultimately taking up another form. In other words, you apply form of some sort (even an atom is form) to Brahman, where Vedanta posits [Nirguna] Brahman is formless.

Please feel free to correct me if and where I'm wrong about my understanding of your views.

Or perhaps it might be more productive to explain where you feel your views diverge from Charvaka...
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Well, not repaying a loan is not dharma.

My grandpa used to tell me the Rajasthani story of "A hair from the Mustache". Once a person came to a money lender and requested a loan of 10,000 bucks. The money lender asked him for surety. The man said I do not have anything else other than this hair from my mustache. The money lender took the hair and paid him 10,000 bucks. A bystander was surprised that the money lender (he thought) was so foolish. So, I will also go and get a loan which I will never repay. The scene was repeated with the new man. Money lender too the hair and looked at it and said" Friend, your hair of the mustache is a bit crooked, give me a straight one. The person said, that is no problem. Here is a second hair from my mustache. The money lender took up a broom and asked the person to immediately leave his shop. He said, if you do not value the hair of your own mustache, then you are not a person worth believing. Moral of the story: A promise is a promise, no playing with it.

Saint Tulsi Das said in his Ramacharitmanas about Lord Rama:
"Raghukul reet sada chali a'i, pran ja'e par vachan no ja'i." (It is a tradition of the Radhu clan, one may loose his life but never renegade on a promise)
Raghu, FYI, is supposed to have told a lion who was killing a cow that it should release the cow, he may have Raghu's body for his meal. Lion agreed and Raghu took the cow to her place and returned to the lion. The lion, then revealed its true form, it was (I think) Dharmaraja Yama.

Charvaks, apparently were no great keepers of their word.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I do not think you will find my views anywhere in the books. These are my personal views. No one was as a strict follower of advaita as I am. Every one left space for a God, be it Gudapada or Sankara. I am not sure but perhaps the writer of Nasadiya Sukta (Prajapati Parameshthi) in RigVeda or the writer of Mandukya Upanishad.

You see, Salix, the Brahman which exists in the universe, does not go away somewhere in Vyavaharika. It is still here in the form of worldly things, humans, animals, vegetation and non-living things. Brahman is sure nirguna, it is form-free, it assumes many forms, it is our own faulty viewing and naming which sees it in various forms. That is what sage Uddalaka Aruni told his son Svetaketu in Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4:

"Yatha Soumya, ekena mritpindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnatam, syad vacharambhena vikaro namadheyam, mrittika eva satyam."
"O young man, like by seeing one thing of clay all that which is composed of clay is known, names are but a distortion in manner of speaking, the truth is that clay alone is the truth."
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Unfortunately, we do not have any original material on Charvaks. Buddha met one of them - Ajita Kesakambali (Kesakambali - whose hair were a blanket covering his body) in Samannaphala Sutta. All material that survives on Charvaks was written by their adversaries, the Hindus and Buddhists. Charvak system was founded by Brihaspati (nothing known about him).

Basically, I will differ with Charvaks in matter of dharma. For me, dharma (duties) are greater then any God or Goddess. Otherwise I have no problems with them.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
You gave an example of non-repayment if a loan, but aside from that, how do you feel your views on dharma differ from those of Charvaks?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You gave an example of non-repayment if a loan, but aside from that, how do you feel your views on dharma differ from those of Charvaks?
Charvaks are described as hedonists although I do not believe they were that. As described by the adversarial literature, they would have had no problem in having sex with a neighbor's wife. For a Hindu, including the Advaitists, that will be against 'dharma'.
 
Top