A flaw in Charvaka philosophy (or why it is not a good idea to start calling yourself Charvaka)

by Guest Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:01 pm

Of the three theories of matter worked out by Indian philosophers*, the most primitive is the Charvaka theory of matter. This is just one instance of why it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t253-indian-theories-of-matter#474

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:49 am

Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.

But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:57 am

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.
But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

Compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Sankhya philosophies the Charvaka theory of matter decidedly comes across as primitive. Hence the obsession of someone who claimed to be a modern day Charvaka and declared several times that he was calling himself Charvaka so as to pay a tribute to the Charvaka philosophers comes across as silly.

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:31 am

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:39 am

panini press wrote:But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

You have created quite the bunny boiler.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:29 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.
But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

What is apparent from whatever we know of Carvakas is that they accepted the physical world as we perceive through our senses. They also advocate that humans should indulge and enjoy themselves.

If you listen to a drunk, he may express similar views. That doesn't mean he/she formulates opinions based on evidence or is scientific. In fact, his/her behavior shows his/her uncritical nature (just like what believers in theology also show). A true scientist accepts uncertainties, is open to growth of knowledge with time and maturity, and realizes his/her innate inabilities to understanding complexities of the universe. I don't think, modern day drunks and the merry-making ancient Carvakas had such an inclination. To accept that we don't know everything but are amenable to learning more, if we can, is more scientific (akin to Russell's approach to science).

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:35 pm

Guruvu-gaaru, that is a tired old tactic of painting the Charvakas as hedonists.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:39 pm

Portraying Carvakas as scientists is like saying that CON in CONartists represents honesty!

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.
But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

Compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Sankhya philosophies the Charvaka theory of matter decidedly comes across as primitive. Hence the obsession of someone who claimed to be a modern day Charvaka and declared several times that he was calling himself Charvaka so as to pay a tribute to the Charvaka philosophers comes across as silly.

Just compare the Charvaka theory of matter with the the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter. Charvakas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of earth, water, air, and fire. In contrast, the Nyaya-Vaisesikas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of atoms. Isn't it obvious that the Charvaka theory of matter is primitive compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter?

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:58 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Portraying Carvakas as scientists is like saying that CON in CONartists represents honesty!

Charvakas were no more scientists than Socrates and Heraclitus were scientists. They were from many centuries before the scientific method was invented, so they could not possibly have been scientists.

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.
But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

Compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Sankhya philosophies the Charvaka theory of matter decidedly comes across as primitive. Hence the obsession of someone who claimed to be a modern day Charvaka and declared several times that he was calling himself Charvaka so as to pay a tribute to the Charvaka philosophers comes across as silly.

Just compare the Charvaka theory of matter with the the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter. Charvakas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of earth, water, air, and fire. In contrast, the Nyaya-Vaisesikas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of atoms. Isn't it obvious that the Charvaka theory of matter is primitive compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter?

It is, only if you get confused by the current meaning of the words "atom" and "element." Neither the Nyayaikas nor the Charvakas had the same understanding of the word "atom" or "element" that we have today.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.
But is it a good idea to become obsessed with someone who used charvaka as handle name?

PS: Far from being primitive, their idea that the universe is composed of physical elements was ahead of its time. Greek philosophers are not considered "primitive" for coming up with this theory (likely independently of the Charvakas). It is rather acknowledged as a step forward in the long journey of humanity's understanding of the universe.

Compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika and Sankhya philosophies the Charvaka theory of matter decidedly comes across as primitive. Hence the obsession of someone who claimed to be a modern day Charvaka and declared several times that he was calling himself Charvaka so as to pay a tribute to the Charvaka philosophers comes across as silly.

Just compare the Charvaka theory of matter with the the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter. Charvakas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of earth, water, air, and fire. In contrast, the Nyaya-Vaisesikas conceive matter to comprise of a combination of atoms. Isn't it obvious that the Charvaka theory of matter is primitive compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of matter?
It is, only if you get confused by the current meaning of the words "atom" and "element." Neither the Nyayaikas nor the Charvakas had the same understanding of the word "atom" or "element" that we have today.

The Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers have a specific understanding of the meaning of 'atom' (which they call 'paramanu' or 'anu'). The atom that they conceive of is very primitive. It does not have protons or neutrons or electrons or any other sub-atomic particles (mesons, etc.). After all, they did not have the technology to know greater details about the 'atom'. They postulate that if you keep dividing matter indefinitely, three things can happen:

1. You can keep dividing indefinitely ad infitum.
2. You will reach a stage where nothing is left. 'matter vanishes'.
3. You will reach a stage beyond which no further division of matter is possible.

They accept the third possibility and they give their reasons for doing so. Just as J.J. Thompson's 'Plum Pudding' model of the atom was primitive as compared to the modern conception of it, so the Nyaya-Vaisesika model of atom is primitive compared to even the J.J. Thompson model of atom. But at least they were going in the right direction. They were contemplating and discussing complex problems like the problem of atomic combination.

The Charvaka view of matter (that it comprises of a combination of water, air, fire, and earth) is clearly more primitive than the Nyaya-Vaisesika view of matter. The Charvakas--because of their more primitive understanding of matter--are unable to have any understanding of problems like the problem of atomic combination.

---------

by Petrichor Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:52 pm

"Atoms in Vaisheshika are essentially of four kinds: Earth, Apa- water, Tejas- Fire and Vayu-air. These atoms are characterized by their characteristic mass, basic molecular structure such as dyad, triad, etc, fluidity (or it’s opposite), viscosity (or its opposite), velocity (or quantity of impressed motion- Vega) and other characteristic potential color, taste, smell or touch not produced by chemical operation. It is these four kinds of atoms involved in all chemical reactions while the space remains unaffected."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701077.pdf

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:02 pm

atcg wrote:"Atoms in Vaisheshika are essentially of four kinds: Earth, Apa- water, Tejas- Fire and Vayu-air. These atoms are characterized by their characteristic mass, basic molecular structure such as dyad, triad, etc, fluidity (or it’s opposite), viscosity (or its opposite), velocity (or quantity of impressed motion- Vega) and other characteristic potential color, taste, smell or touch not produced by chemical operation. It is these four kinds of atoms involved in all chemical reactions while the space remains unaffected."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701077.pdf

------
My argument is that because the Nyaya-Vaisesikas had conceived of matter as comprised of atoms they could speculate on complex problems like the problem of atomic combination. The Charvaka conception of matter remained more primitive as compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika view of matter and as a result they were unable to say anything on more complex problems like the problem of atomic combination.

It goes without saying that the Nyaya-Vaisesika model of the atom is very primitive and full of flaws but the point is that they were going in the right direction as compared to the Charvakas.

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:07 pm

Nyaya-Vaisesika - Good
Carvaka - Bad/evil

by Petrichor Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:09 pm

>>The Charvaka view of matter (that it comprises of a combination of water, air, fire, and earth) is clearly more primitive than the Nyaya-Vaisesika view

I just quoted you a paper that disagrees with your statement above. Vaisheshika-n's also classified atoms the same way. Do you or do you not refute this?

I would like to hear from you why you think Charvaka conception of matter is primitive - arguments can be of the form that they did not even conceive of atoms, they had not done the grand unification theory while the Vaisheshika-r's had solved alchemy and higgs-boson with the same pithy equation that was shorter than e equals mc squared etc.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:10 pm

atcg wrote:>>The Charvaka view of matter (that it comprises of a combination of water, air, fire, and earth) is clearly more primitive than the Nyaya-Vaisesika view

I just quoted you a paper that disagrees with your statement above. Vaisheshika-n's also classified atoms the same way. Do you or do you not refute this?

I would like to hear from you why you think Charvaka conception of matter is primitive - arguments can be of the form that they did not even conceive of atoms, they had not done the grand unification theory while the Vaisheshika-r's had solved alchemy and higgs-boson with the same pithy equation that was shorter than e equals mc squared etc.

The point is that Nyaya-Vaisesikas talk of atoms, in their theory of matter, and Charvakas do not. This makes the Charvkas theory of matter more primitive.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:23 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Nyaya-Vaisesika - Good
Carvaka - Bad/evil

.

by Petrichor Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:28 pm

And which authentic original source of Charvaka school of philosophy organized as a chapter-book meant for middle schoolers are you consulting to conclude their stance on "theory of matter"?

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:36 pm

atcg wrote:And which authentic original source of Charvaka school of philosophy organized as a chapter-book meant for middle schoolers are you consulting to conclude their stance on "theory of matter"?

i have studied numerous books on the Charvakas and have in fact written several blogs on the Charvakas on Sulekha. There is no aspect of Charvaka philosophy which i have not studied.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:40 pm

Rashmun wrote:
atcg wrote:And which authentic original source of Charvaka school of philosophy organized as a chapter-book meant for middle schoolers are you consulting to conclude their stance on "theory of matter"?

i have studied numerous books on the Charvakas and have in fact written several blogs on the Charvakas on Sulekha. There is no aspect of Charvaka philosophy which i have not studied.

The best anthology of source material on the Charvakas is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Carvaka-Lokayata-Anthology-Materials-Studies/dp/8185636117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354829837&sr=8-1&keywords=charvaka+lokayata+debiprasad

by Petrichor Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:43 pm

Have you been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Everywhere I read, there are indications that very little is really known about Charvakas or their philosophy. Most of our current understanding seems to come from refutations by other schools.

You are holding yourself out as an authority based on some blog writings and your own biases. May be it is the inner charvak in me but I find that sketchy.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
atcg wrote:And which authentic original source of Charvaka school of philosophy organized as a chapter-book meant for middle schoolers are you consulting to conclude their stance on "theory of matter"?

i have studied numerous books on the Charvakas and have in fact written several blogs on the Charvakas on Sulekha. There is no aspect of Charvaka philosophy which i have not studied.

The best anthology of source material on the Charvakas is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Carvaka-Lokayata-Anthology-Materials-Studies/dp/8185636117/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354829837&sr=8-1&keywords=charvaka+lokayata+debiprasad

These are the chapters in the book i recommend:

Preface.

I. The source materials:

1. Chandogya upanisad: The Asura view.

2. Maitri upanisad: on the ancient heretics.

3. Payasi Suttanta: Denial of the doctrine of karma.

4. Samanna-phala-sutta: The non-conformists in Buddhist India.

5. Ancient grammatical literature.

6. Arthasastra: Earliest enumeration of philosophies.

7. Epics and puranas: See Muir's article in Part II (No. 20), where all relevant sources are quoted.

8. Nyayasutra with vatsyayana's commentary:

(a) On inference.

(b) Bhuta-caitanya-vada.

9. Prasastapada-Bhasya with Nyaya-kandali: self as distinct from body etc.

10. Jayanta Bhatta's Nyaya-manjari:

(a) Dehatmavada.

(b) On inference.

(c) Stray references.

11. Udayana's Nyayakusumanjali: Dehatmavada.

12. Santaraksita and Kamalasila:

(a) On lokayata.

(b) On svabhavada.

13. Sankara's Sariraka-bhasya: On Dehatmavada.

14. Vacaspati's Bhamati: On Dehatmavada.

15. Madhavacarya's Sarvadarsana-samgraha: The Carvaka philosophy.

16. Haribhadra with commentaries by Manibhadra and Gunaratna:

(a) Saddarsanasamuccaya on Lokayata with Manibhadra's commentary.

(b) Gunaratna on above.

(c) Gunaratna on Bhutacaitanya-vada.

(d) Gunaratna on Kalavada etc.

17. Prabhacandra's prameya-kamala-martanda and Nyaya-kumuda-candra:

(a) Bhuta-caitanya-vada.

(b) Refutation of anumana.

(c) Akhyativada.

18. Taranatha's history of Buddhism in India: A quaint legend of refuting Lokayata.

19. Krsnamisra's Prabodhacandrodaya: Caricature of Carvaka.

II. Modern scholars:

1. Verses illustrating the Carvaka tenets/J. Muir.

2. On Lokayata/Rhys Davids.

3. Lokayata/H.P. Sastri.

4. A sketch of Indian materialism/G. Tucci.

5. A short history of Indian materialism/D.R. Sastri.

6. History of materialism in India/Th. Stcherbatsky.

7. Lokayata and Svabhavavada/Gopinath Kaviraj.

8. Carvaka-darsana/Ananta Kumar Bhattacharyya.

9. The materialism/Eric Frauwallner.

III. On the Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarasi Bhatta:

Sukhlalji Sanghavi and R.C. Parikh.

Walter Ruben.

K.K. Dixit.

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:52 pm

An online review of some of my blogs on Indian philosophy:

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/rashmuns-posts-on-adi-sankaras-enmity.html

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:An online review of some of my blogs on Indian philosophy:

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/rashmuns-posts-on-adi-sankaras-enmity.html

This guy also says this about Deepak Chopra:

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/search/label/Deepak%20Chopra

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:58 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:An online review of some of my blogs on Indian philosophy:

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/rashmuns-posts-on-adi-sankaras-enmity.html

This guy also says this about Deepak Chopra:

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/search/label/Deepak%20Chopra

the guy is critical of deepak chopra; on the other hand he praises me. does that make you happy?

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:
the guy is critical of deepak chopra; on the other hand he praises me. does that make you happy?

So it is praise and recognition that you crave on the internets?

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:30 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
the guy is critical of deepak chopra; on the other hand he praises me. does that make you happy?

So it is praise and recognition that you crave on the internets?

it is just the reverse. i seek criticism of my views because criticism enables me to engage in self-assessment and self-evaluation of my views. Of course what i am talking about here is 'constructive criticism' .

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:49 pm

rashmun - why do u get distracted so easily?

you were asked if you have any peer reviews to share and if you were published etc. you provided the link to show some guy's review. all good till then.

where did craving online appreciation angle come from? stay focused and remember why you provided the review link Wink

i'm impressed btw by the amount of reading you do and knowledge on seemingly boring topics. you really do love history and philosophy b-)

by Guest Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:59 pm

seven wrote:rashmun - why do u get distracted so easily?

you were asked if you have any peer reviews to share and if you were published etc. you provided the link to show some guy's review. all good till then.

where did craving online appreciation angle come from? stay focused and remember why you provided the review link

i'm impressed btw by the amount of reading you do and knowledge on seemingly boring topics. you really do love history and philosophy b-)

it is hellsangel who asked me whether i crave for praise and my response was that no, i prefer constructive criticism of my views. Also, Thank you for your kind words.

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:38 pm

atcg wrote:Everywhere I read, there are indications that very little is really known about Charvakas or their philosophy. Most of our current understanding seems to come from refutations by other schools.

Exactly. Both my guruvu-gaaru's characterization of them as drunks and Rashmun's extrapolations regarding their "theory of matter" are ultimately sourced to the works that other people wrote about their views, with the goal of refuting them. In other words, those are based on strawmen that were erected precisely to be destroyed.

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:47 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Nyaya-Vaisesika - Good
Carvaka - Bad/evil

Hahaha, couldn't have said it better myself.

Instead of appreciating the advances these ancient thinkers -- both Vaishesikas and Charvakas -- made in humanity's understanding of the world, Rashmun prefers to call some of them primitive just to attack me by vague association. Reminds me of his earlier threads copy-pasting the views of the detractors of the Charvakas because a poster called charvaka called him out on his idiotic methods. (Yeah, there's irony there, but it is also quite sad.)

by Idéfix Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:48 pm

Latest standard of peer review: another blogger writes about your blog. Somebody should tell the cash-strapped publishing industry. There may be a new model for advancing human knowledge buried in there somewhere.

by Guest Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:06 pm

panini press wrote:
atcg wrote:Everywhere I read, there are indications that very little is really known about Charvakas or their philosophy. Most of our current understanding seems to come from refutations by other schools.
Exactly. Both my guruvu-gaaru's characterization of them as drunks and Rashmun's extrapolations regarding their "theory of matter" are ultimately sourced to the works that other people wrote about their views, with the goal of refuting them. In other words, those are based on strawmen that were erected precisely to be destroyed.

There is reason to believe that the Charvakas were not hedonists (evidence to the contrary in the Mahabharata). There is also reason to believe that Charvakas did not dismiss inference as a valid means of knowledge outright (evidence to the contrary in the writings of the Charvaka who calls himself Purandara and whose writings have survived in fragments--see volume 3 of S.N. Dasgupta's History of Philosophy in India). but there is no reason to disbelieve the view that according to the Charvakas matter was a combination of fire, earth, air, and water (In other words it was a a primitive view of matter) since every source of information we have about the Charvakas says the same thing.

by Guest Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:11 pm

panini press wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Nyaya-Vaisesika - Good
Carvaka - Bad/evil
Hahaha, couldn't have said it better myself.

Instead of appreciating the advances these ancient thinkers -- both Vaishesikas and Charvakas -- made in humanity's understanding of the world, Rashmun prefers to call some of them primitive just to attack me by vague association. Reminds me of his earlier threads copy-pasting the views of the detractors of the Charvakas because a poster called charvaka called him out on his idiotic methods. (Yeah, there's irony there, but it is also quite sad.)

Charvakas had a clearer conception than the Nyaya-Vaisesikas when it came to their understanding of consciousness. One could even say that the Nyaya-Vaisesika theory of consciousness is more primitive as compared to the Charvaka view of conscioiusness, just as the Charvaka theory of matter is more primitive as compared to the Nyaya-Vaisesika view of matter.

All traditional Indian philosophies have flaws in them. To hero worship one specific Indian philosophy, to declare yourself a Charvaka and repeatedly claim that your calling yourself Charvaka is a way of paying tribute to the Charvaka philosophers, is nothing more than childish obsession which needs to be eschewed.

by Guest Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:47 pm

one other thing to keep in mind is that the Charvakas do not just express disagreement for the Vedas. They actually go out of their way to insult and abuse the Vedas. They are the only traditional Indian philosophers to do so.

So if someone goes out of his way to endorse the Charvakas to the extent that he starts calling himself Charvaka and declares that he is doing so as a tribute to the Charvakas then his own hatred for the Vedas stands exposed.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:19 pm

panini press wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Portraying Carvakas as scientists is like saying that CON in CONartists represents honesty!
Charvakas were no more scientists than Socrates and Heraclitus were scientists. They were from many centuries before the scientific method was invented, so they could not possibly have been scientists.

Obviously, some goras invented the scientific method. Let us all line up and lick their behinds, then.

Compared to traditional chaddis, how many carvakas made discoveries in medicine, surgery, science, logic, astronomy and mathematics? Pl. enlighten us!

by Idéfix Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:26 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Let us all line up and lick their behinds, then.

Guruvu-gaaru, please feel free to do what makes you happy. Just don't drag the rest of us into it, is all I ask.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:28 pm

I leave it to you and Rashmun.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Dec 07, 2012 8:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:Of the three theories of matter worked out by Indian philosophers*, the most primitive is the Charvaka theory of matter. This is just one instance of why it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t253-indian-theories-of-matter#474

Actually, you are obsessed with him and he is with you. So, what is the message - that CHers should ignore Moghulitis and Carvaitis?

Actually, he isn't all that Carvaitic any more. Satya wasn't all that business minded when he started Sulekha. Now, I bet he even stopped practicing Zen! In Telugu, people say, "Kali kaalam andeeee, kali kaalam"!

by Guest Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:35 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Of the three theories of matter worked out by Indian philosophers*, the most primitive is the Charvaka theory of matter. This is just one instance of why it is not a good idea to become obsessed with Charvakas to the extent that you declare yourself to be a Charvaka and even start calling yourself Charvaka.

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t253-indian-theories-of-matter#474

Actually, you are obsessed with him and he is with you. So, what is the message - that CHers should ignore Moghulitis and Carvaitis?

Actually, he isn't all that Carvaitic any more. Satya wasn't all that business minded when he started Sulekha. Now, I bet he even stopped practicing Zen! In Telugu, people say, "Kali kaalam andeeee, kali kaalam"!

Sandilya in your opinion why do the Charvakas abuse the Vedas?
They could have made their point without resorting to slander and abuse.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Dec 09, 2012 8:53 am

They probably didn't see any relevance to their lives. DKheads, these days, also have similar views and behavior patterns.

If you look at youngsters these days, they perhaps, don't see any relevance either.

On the other side of the coin, characters like Ravan, who were scholars of Vedas, rejected the worship of Narayana.

According to Vedanta, accepting our personal views of the world as real, and allowing ahamkara to dictate our actions, lead us to behave in this fashion.

If you give a sword to a person, depending on his inclination, he may use it to slaughter innocent people, kill criminals or cut firewood.

Throughout history, most people in India lived their lives without knowing Vedas. Only a few paid attention to it, different people interpreted it in different ways, some matured and others became irresponsible.

There were no claims in Hinduism that reading Vedas was necessary for salvation! In fact, stories were written on those who read Vedas and became ahamkaris (Ravan, for example).

by Guest Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:10 pm

sandilya, thanks for sharing your perspective on this issue. Personally i would have had more respect for the Charvakas if they would have avoided showering the Vedas (and the composers of the Vedas) with slander and abuse. On the other hand, in my opinion, some of the things they say make a lot of sense. Let us not ignore everything the Charvakas say just because some (or many as the case may be) of them were obnoxious.

by Sponsored content