Cārvāka fragments: A new collection

Journal of Indian Philosophy

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 515-533

  Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52649086696     PISSN: 00221791     EISSN: 15730395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. H.T. Colebrooke, pp. 402-405. The essay was first read at a public meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on 3 February 1827.
2. The editio princeps of SDS was first published by Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar in BI, 1853 (first fascicule) and completed in 1858.
3. TSP on TS, v, 1484; TS, v, 1863; TSP on TS, v, 1481; GrBh/NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100; Ch. 7, p. 257, SVR, pp. 265, 270, etc. also mention Udbhata.
4. D.R. Shastri (1928), Sanskrit Section, pp. 1-53. An unauthorized reprint has been published by one Gagan Deo Giri, Ph.D., Ranchi University (Patna, Ranchi, Varanasi: Jyoti, 1980) with Hindi translation of certain parts.
5. Ibid., Appendix A, pp. 1-8. Acarya Ananda Jha (1969, 1983) and Kewal Krishan Mittal (1974) similarly utilized all orthodox and heterodox philosophical texts in their studies of materialism in India, as did Riepe (1961) in his work on naturalism.
6. See, D.R. Shastri (1944).
7. Shastri (1959), pp. 173-176.
8. Ibid. (1982), p. 203.
9. Pathak (1990), pp. 136-146.
10. Namai (1976), pp. 29-44. Halbfass (1992), p. 330 n13 refers to another article by Namai (published in 1981) which is not available to me.
11. Namai (1989, 1991), p. 229 n52 and Halbfass, ibid.
12. The basic reason is that such fragments are found only once in much later works or have been copied from the same source without any evidence to support their authenticity. See, e.g., Shastri (1959, 1982) Nos. 9-14 = Namai (1976) A16-21 (taken from KS) and Shastri, Nos. 26-34 (all taken from PC) but not admitted by Namai. The question will be discussed below in more details.
13. A good example has been provided by L.V. Joshi: "... Bhāsarvajña explains the application of anekānta following almost verbatim the text of Akalaṅka's Tattvārthavārtika. The editor, Svami Yogindrananda seems to believe that Bhāsarvajña has verbatim quoted the passage from Tattvārthavārtika and hence he puts the passage into inverted commas which (marks) are not found in the Photostat of Nyāyabhūsana. As a matter of fact, Bhāsarvajña has paraphrased the TAV text in his own way", p. 97.
14. See, e.g., PC, NC and VMT.
15. The earliest source is presumably VDMP followed by TSP and NM.
16. See, Śl.7 below. The issue has been elaborately dealt with in Bhattacharya (1996b) and (19991), p. 176.
17. See, Bhattacharya (19991).
18. For details, see, Bhattacharya (2000b), pp. 29-30. See also Śl.2 below.
19. Quoted in TSP, p. 528. See, Bhā. 17 above.
20. SMS, p. 15. It is also echoed in TRD, p. 306 and the anonymous Avacūrni on SDSam, p. 508.
21. Mān., 2.17, 5.1; pp. 20, 59. Varadarāja / Varadācārya quotes 2.17-18 in his Tārkikaraksā, as does SMS on p. 14 (attributing the verses to the "logicians", nyāyavidām).
22. NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 43 (but see, ibid., p. 52 where the well-educated Cārvāka-s (presumably Udbhata and others) are made to say that the number of pramāna-s cannot be determined); Bhām. on BS, 3.3.54, pp. 851-852.
23. See, Bhattacarya (2000b).
24. See, Bhattacharya (1999g), p. 495 n33, (2000e), pp. 50-51 and p. 54 n23.
25. VP, 1.52-54. See also n24 above.
26. Udbhata quoted in SVR, pp. 265-266. See, Bhā. 12.
27. NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. Jayanta seems to have taken it from some commentary, most probably by Udhhata, on the Cārvākasūtra.
28. SDS, pp. 6-7.
29. Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 532.
30. Siddhasena Divākara presents in verse form the basic tenets of Vaiśesika and some other philosophical systems in his Dvātrimśad Dvātrimśikā. But they are all composed by him, not taken from any other source.
31. See, Radhakrishnan-Moore, pp. 34-36.
32. See, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1991), Ch. 7, pp. 89-148.
33. He first staked this claim in an earlier paper, later reprinted as "Materialism in Indian Philosophy" which forms Ch. 7 of his Knowledge and Intervention (1985), pp. 196 ff.
34. He elaborated the theme in the Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture (New Delhi, 1988), which was afterwards printed in IHR, Vol. 13, pp. 37-57.
35. See, Chāndogya 8.7-9; Gītā, 16.7, 9. See also Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 529 and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1959, 1973), Ch. 1, "Asura View", pp. 1 ff. K.C. Chattopadhyaya has strongly objected to this (pp. 153-154 n42).
36. See, Bhattacharya (1997a) and (1999a).
37. See, MS, Vol. 2, pp. 60, 63-64 and 66 (on MS 18, 5-7) Cf. DN, Part 1, p. 48.
38. SKSVr, p. 10 (on SKS, 1.1.7).
39. Mbh., 12.211. 26-27 (218.27-28 in Vul.). See, Bhattacharya (1999g), pp. 490-491.
40. KA, 1.2.10. See, Bhattacharya (1998a), pp. 70-74. A more elaborate Bengali version was published in 1996 (Anustup, Year 30 No. 3, pp. 1-31).
41. See, Bhattacharya (1998b) and (2000c). Eli Franco (2000) recently mentions that the Spitzwer MS fragment 143b (SHT - 810 of the Turfan MSS) contains references to laukāyatā (sic) besides Sāmkhya and Vaísesika (p. 548 [63] n23). He, too, notes that the word is not used "in the sense of a materialistic philosophical school, but as a science whose nature is to criticize with reasons".
42. The anonymous commentary on SK, v. 27 (translated into Chinese by Paramārtha) refers to a verse, yena śuklīkrtā hamsāh, etc. and identifies it as a Lokāyatika saying. See, Bedekar (1961), p. 10 n45 and S.S.S. Shastri, p. 36. For the etāvān eva verse, see, Śl. 13 below and Bhattacharya, 2002a.
43. See, Bhattacharya (1999c) and (2002a).
44. VPu, 3.18.1-29; PPu, Srstikhanda, 13.291-371. See also Hazra (1940, 1987), p. 25 and his Introduction to VPu (1972), pp. k-1.
45. TUS, pp. 45.11 and 125.13. See also p. 88.9. The very mention of Brhaspati as the preceptor of the gods and addressing him as bhagavān, I believe, are further evidence to prove that Jayarāśi was not a Cārvāka/Lokāyata, for no Cārvāka would deign to admit the existence of the gods and their guru and refer to him as a god or demi-god.
46. For the many Brhaspati-s, See, Aiyangar, p. 79. Ms. Saraswati Bali's Brihaspati in the Vedas and the Purānas (1978) is not available to me.
47. Thomas, p. 17, Kangle, Vol. 2, p. 6 n4 and Vol. 3, p. 43. The Brhaspati-nīti teachings that a learned Brahmin taught Draupadī's brother (Mbh., Āranyakaparvan, 33.57), "are at any rate as orthodox as one can wish" (Jacobi (1911), S. 737 = (1918), p. 104)! See also Bhagavad Datta, p. 9.
48. The name, Cārvāka is first found in the Mbh., Ādiparvan, 2.63 (Vul., 2.74); Śānti, 39.23-47 (Vul., Chs. 38-39). He is, however, a demon who got a boon from Brahmā by satisfying Him in penance. To identify this Cārvāka with the founder of a philosophical school is downright absurd, although some people tend to do so. - As to the Brhaspati-s, see, n44 above.
49. See, n19 above.
50. See, TSP, pp. 639, 649, 657, 663, 665 and SDSam, 85d.
51. See, ŚBh on BS, 1.1.1, 2.2.2, 3.3.53; on Gītā, 16.8, etc.
52. Radhakrishnan, p. 277; Frauwallner, Vol. 2, p. 216 (= S.296).
53. Some other doctrines called prānātmavāda, etc. found in the Upanisads and in the works of later Vedāntins are also left out because they are older than the Cārvāka doctrine. See, n72 below.
54. See, Bhattacharya (2000b).
55. PC, Act 2, p. 40: SDS, Ch. 1, p. 2.19-20.
56. PC, Act 2, p. 40.
57. KS, 1.2.32-47.
58. KS, 1.2.51; KA, 1.7.3-7.
59. KA, 1.7.6-7.
60. See, Jacob, Part 1, p. 44.
61. Franco (1987, 1994), Introduction, pp. 43-44 and p. 299 n4. See also Vyo, Part 2, pp. 108, 172.
62. Cf. Mbh., Śāntiparvan, 204.8, 211.12, 228.10, 308.105, etc.
63. Trans. A.A. Macdonell, p. 209.
64. SVT, p. 277;
65. Vidyānanda's Pramānaparīksā, accr. Franco (1987, 1999), pp. 6 and 47;
66. TSV, p. 70;
67. PVSVT, p. 26. See also Bhattacharya (1999c).
68. NM, Ch. 4, Part 2, p. 388 (C/L, p. 157).
69. Cf. SMS, p. 15; D.R. Shastri (1982), p. 154.
70. Aiyangar, 27.3. See also Bhattacharya (1997a), specially pp. 14-15.
71. ĀD, Acts 1 and 2; PC, Act 3. Cf. Mattvilāsaprahasana by Mahendra Vikramavarman.
72. Radhakrishnan, p. 278n; Radhakrishnan-Moore, pp. 247-249; D.R. Shastri (1928), aphorisms 59, 70 and 86; Pathak (1990), pp. 139-141.
73. ABS, Ch. 2, p. 101.
74. Cf. Taittirīya Upanisad, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and Chāndogya Up., 5.1.7.
75. ŚBh on BS, 1.1.1; VS, Ch. 3.123-127, pp. 69-72.
76. SDS, p. 6.53, See also ŚBh, pp. 81, 850; Vyo., Part 2, p. 126; PrPañ, Ch. 8, p. 320.
77. Vyo., Part 2, p. 126, refers to the indriyacaitanyavādin-s and manaścaitanyavādin-s; SVSSS, vv. 523-576, to many others. ST, pp. 5.19, 20-24, too, mentions indriyātmavāda, mana-ātmavāda and prānātmadvāda besides dehātmavāda. According to Subrahmanya Sastri, those who say, deham eva ātmā are the Cārvāka-s, but those who call the senses (indriya-s) to be so, are the Paurānika-s (see, PrPañ, p. 315nn 5 and 7).
78. Opinions differed regarding the interpretation of some aphorisms among the commentators of the Cārvākasūtra (see, Bhās. 18 and 19 regarding I.1, 2 and 4). But as regards I.6-8 no such difference is known to have existed.
79. See, NCC, Vols. 1,2 and 12.
80. See, Franco (1997), pp. 99 and 142 and Bhattacharya (1999g), p. 493 nn.13, 15 and 16.
81. See, Solomon, pp. 990-991 and Franco, ibid.
82. TSP on TS, vv. 1857-1858, pp. 633-634; NKC, p. 342; PKM, pp. 116-117; SVR, pp. 1081, 1086.
83. See, Bhattacharya (2002a).
84. Kalikata ed., vv. 366-371; Poona ed., vv. 370-376.
85. PPu, Kalikata ed., Srstikhanda, 13.327. Quoted in MVr, on SK, v. 61, p. 11.
86. ABS, pp. 100-101, quoting four verses from VPu., 3.18.24-27.
87. The second ed. was published by Odiśā Sāhitya Ekādemī (Academy), Bhub(v)aneshwar in 1993.
88. Vv. 106-109 (p. 507); vv. 384-385 (p. 605); vv. 516-550 (pp. 628-631). Vv. 521-532 are reproduced from SDS, p. 2.17-18, p. 5.50-51 and pp. 13.110-115.132.
89. See, Pathak (1960).
90. SDS (trans.), p. 16n20. Cowell refers to the first ed. of Burnouf's work (1844). Burnouf translated long extracts from the Śārdūlakarnāvadāna (in DA) on pp. 205-210.
91. Müller, p. 145. He, too, refers to Burnouf's Introduction, etc. p. 209.
92. Ibid., p. 145 n1.
93. Cowell once noted: "We can only tell that at a very early period in Hindu speculation, the 'negative arm' was unusually vigorous; and it would not perhaps be impossible to reconstruct from still extant allusious a complete series (though not in chronological order), corresponding in Greek philosophy to that from Xenophanses to Sextus Empiricus" (p. 382).