Atheism in Ancient India

Indian thought process is focussed on `investigation of truth'. many did it by assuming that there is a super power controlling it and then found it out and gave methods how to find them. there were more then one methods all equally valid.

There were some Indians who did not make any assumption or hypothesis and carried out investigation. Some found the ultimate truth through these paths as well. there were some who were unsucessful in reaching the highest level of truth declared their findings that they did not found any superpower and hence recommended toe at drink n be marry.

Budha and Mahavir never talked about God still reached ultimate truth.

Charwak etc met with failure and hence wrote whatever they observed.

Everybody enjoyed freedom to publihs their results without any bias. But nobdoy carried out conversion drive using money and muscle power. People used to go to Gurus if they want to switch over from one method of investigation to another like we change our Ph D guides.

Christianity and Islam being agresisve religions alive with te oxygen of conversion, changed the whole scenerio. Missioneries and gaji's agresisvely apprached people with money material help and sword and whatever worked they used. Indian religions felt insecured. They retaliated if they could and the whole intolerance you can see today.

let's attack the root of the eveil and not those who are fighting the evil.

Indian philosophy of `Live and let live' is being slowly replaced by semetic philosophy of `kill and get killed' for religion.

Indians should relise the truth and take necessary action to establish peace and bring properity to this land. Demonising the victims will not wolk as being tried by some of us.

The Carvaks were ultra materialists and can be classified athiests for one main reason i.e. they accepted only one (of six) means of knowledge as valid - perception or empiricism ('pratyaksha'). In other words, the carvaks rejected everything that could not be perceived directly via the five human senses. Since things like god, afterlife, higher states of consciousness etc. could not be perceived by the five temporal human senses, the carvaks rejected them as invalid.

In this sense of extreme reductionism to the lowest material denominator, the carvaks are indeed similar to the secular humanists (SH) of today. However, there are many more sharp differences between them and the carvaks would have ridiculed many of the SH beliefs as untenable.

In the Indian scheme of things, the carvaks would be deemed exclusivistic and intolerant because of their rejection of five of the six valid means of knowledge that form the basis of Indian philosophical diversity.

the carvaks would be deemed exclusivistic and intolerant because of their rejection of five of the six valid means of knowledge that form the basis of Indian philosophical diversity. - They excluded 'faith', but retained the love for human. The people who had 'faith', did not turn out to be loving fellow humans - did they? If love for humans is the benchmark, I can't at least term them 'intolerant'.

Diganta wrote: The people who had 'faith', did not turn out to be loving fellow humans - did they?

It was a Russian man who first brought to my attention to a stark fact. He said that the most horrible atrocities, mass murders, genocides etc. actually happened in less than a 100 years of communist (athiest) rule than under 2000 years of theocracy in Europe.

If love for humans is the benchmark, I can't at least term them 'intolerant'

The Buddhists are human too but the carvaks would have rejected them. Why? because the Buddhists accepted "verbal testimony" or 'shabda' as a valid means of knowledge but the Carvaks did not. It is easy to understand the motivations of the Buddhists i.e. for them, accepting the validity of verbal testimony was a necessity. It was a pre-requisite for accepting the words, and giving weight to the verbal testimony, accepting as true the teachings of, The Buddha.

Since the Carvaks thoroughly rejected 'shabda' as a valid means of knowledge, they would also reject The Buddha and his teachings. If this is not intolerance, I don't know what qualifies.

Ironically, the Carvaks wanted people to accept as true their own verbal testimony" or 'shabda'. It was always someone else's shabda that they could not tolerate.

I find the discussion very intellectual indeed. Please permit to say one thing. Jainism practised the synthesis of all six schools of philosophy not because of diplomacy but according to Jainism, the truth is sum total of all conditional viewpoints. I believe in this pluralistic philosophy called anekanta. The key word syat in Sanskrit is a prefix meaning conditionally true. it is the context that would qualify a statement true or false. Under logistic pressure from such schools, Carvaka and to a greater extent perhaps Buddhism faded out in the main land and Shankara filled the gap with his advaita.
So absolute viewpoint has no place any time in our life.But each viewpoint be it Carvaka or Mimamsa has relevance under certain situations. Absolute truth is summum bonum of all.
With love
Dev

Prof. C. Devakumar: very well stated indeed and thanks very much for enlightening us. I think the true difficulty comes from real life i.e of building a truly pluralistic society.

As you stated, a pluralistic philosophy teaches us that all viewpoints are relevant under certain situations. This may give the impression that Anekanta and Advaita are only as valid as carvak philosophy and that there is equality between them, however defined.

But the fact remains that I would much rather prefer to have the Anekanta/ Advaitists hold power in my society rather than the carvaks. Here I do make a distinction.

@Prof Devkumar
Thanks for your insights into Jainism, actually I didn't find any significant difference between atheist approach of Jain & Buddhism, both of whom actually reduced the 'mandatory' nature of God.

@Sanjay
I am not discussing the communism here, neither do Carvakas did something that can be termed as 'intolerant'. Rejection of any 'faith' does not make anybody 'intolerable' - in that case the whole study of Science would probably be defined as the most intolerable of them all. And let me remind you, most of the 'faith's started with rejection of an existing one.

BTW, under Indian laws, verbal testimony is accepted only if it matches with context and there are no bias proven beforehand. Do you think Indian Laws are intolerant?

@Diganta
I am not discussing the communism here, neither do Carvakas did something that can be termed as 'intolerant'

Communists are an example of self-professed athiests so they are very relevant to this discussion. It is important to note that when the communists gain power, among the first things they do is to suppress all religions, faiths etc., with deadly force if necessary.

Neither of us knows enough about Carvak history to come to any conclusions about their conduct. However, it must be said that some carvaks were known to be great surgeons and did good for humanity. By the same token, there is a little known story of a Carvak - close friend and supporter of Duryodhana - who was beheaded following the mahabharata war.

Rejection of any 'faith' does not make anybody 'intolerable' - in that case the whole study of Science would probably be defined as the most intolerable of them all

If you reject a faith for your own self, that is fine. As soon as you start influencing people other than yourself to reject a faith or (faith in general, in the case of science) - you are on the path to spreading intolerance.

And let me remind you, most of the 'faith's started with rejection of an existing one.

How is this relevant to the discussion? If we apply the same standard to evaluate faith and athiesm, then each is simply shown to be two sides of the same coin - each is intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs.

BTW, under Indian laws, verbal testimony is accepted only if it matches with context and there are no bias proven beforehand. Do you think Indian Laws are intolerant?

This is an incorrect comparison. Indian courts accept verbal testimony only about knowledge gained from perception and inference.

Indian philosophy accepts verbal testimony as valid for knowldege gained beyond normal human perception or inference. The two are almost diametrically opposed.

It is important to note that when the communists gain power, among the first things they do is to suppress all religions, faiths etc., with deadly force if necessary. --- Atheist Communism is as dogmatic as religion is Saudi Arabia. I do not see on what basis you compare them with Carvakas where no proof of their 'suppression' exists. Historically, whoever assumed power, has tried to supress the ideology of the sect other than his one. Communists were no exception to this.

As soon as you start influencing people other than yourself to reject a faith or (faith in general, in the case of science) - you are on the path to spreading intolerance. --- So, what happens if you disagree? You should not tell it to others? You should not try to spread what you feel?

Indian philosophy accepts verbal testimony as valid for knowldege gained beyond normal human perception or inference. - But modern science does not. And it's not at all an 'unjust' comparison, since, the logic of my article is that Carvakas had more scientific and humanist philosophy than ancient Indian religions had.

@Diganta:I do not see on what basis you compare them with Carvakas where no proof of their 'suppression' exists. Historically, whoever assumed power, has tried to supress the ideology of the sect other than his one. Communists were no exception to this.

I beg to differ. When power is assumed by exclusivists, then they will, by definition, suppress those with whom they disagree. Otoh, inclusivists do not exclude anyone so they do no feel the need to suppress any sect/ belief system. Therefore, it makes logical sense to bring to power those who have the most inclusive philosophy.

So, what happens if you disagree? You should not tell it to others? You should not try to spread what you feel?

You can do whatever you want but this misses the point. The real question is whether you are spreading an exclusivistic philosophy or an inclusive one.

But modern science does not. And it's not at all an 'unjust' comparison, since, the logic of my article is that Carvakas had more scientific and humanist philosophy than ancient Indian religions had.

Yes. That is why ancient Indian philosophy is also much more inclusive than modern science or humanist philosophy. Using the principle of inclusivity in power, the clear conclusion is that neither modern science nor modern Humanist philosophy should be allowed to gain power over those those who believe in ancient Indian philosophy.