Philosophical Anarchism: Charvaka Hedonistic Morality
Among other ideologies, Charvaka philosophy, also known as Lokyata philosophy, is a moral anarchist in the philosophical sphere. In accordance with hedonism, Charvaka philosophy includes certain conceptions of unorthodox morality and ethics. The Charvaka school was founded in India in 600 BCE by Brihaspati, a figure about whom little is known. The Brhaspati Sutra is the most famous representation of Charvaka’s core philosophy. However, the manuscript’s location is uncertain. It’s been suggested that the original text was either misplaced or destroyed. According to the article “Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels” by Prabhakar Kamath, a series of responses are revealed from Mr. Charvaka on the premise of what this ideology rejects and why. The essence of Charvaka school embraces philosophical skepticism and unorthodoxy. Charvaka, like Jainism and Buddhism, is a heterodox school that rejects the authenticity of the Vedas. Such opposition was regarded as disrespectful. The article “Lokayata/Carvaka — Indian Materialism” by Abigail Turner-Lauck Wernicki summarizes the values of materialism in Charvakanism. As we further analyze the philosophical reasoning behind Charvaka, it becomes evident that the rejection of the imperceptible is due to the lack of tangible sight. Brahman, for example, is rejected by Charvaka because it cannot be sensed. According to what we can deduce, the reflection of imperceptible things, the strong belief system of logic to validate the physically seen, the acceptance of acquiring material that gives you pleasure, and the dismissal of castes, collectively lead to the ultimate realization that Charvaka’s central goal is happiness. In Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching” it was said that ‘when there is no competition there is no jealousy, and when there is no jealousy, there is happiness’. This simple quote can relate to Charvaka’s ethical principles and perspectives towards the rejection of caste systems and the dismantling of socio-psychological upheaval resulting from social discrimination. In the article “Charvaka: Understanding the Material World in the Philosophy of Ancient India” by Joshua Mark explicates the values of Charvaka. Charvaka can be related to the concepts of benevolence and universalism in this manner. If there is to be no jealousy, there must only be equality of ethics and love, which is reinforced by one’s philanthropy toward one’s people and self. Coupled with, a man’s universalism toward his followers in comparison to impartiality makes man much more compatible to attain happiness. Karma is rejected since it is thought to be a ploy used to subjugate those who feel guilty by instilling fear in them. This unconventional ideology provides people with the choice of either embracing self-actualization or renouncing the divine truth and suffering the consequences. Finally, the essay “The Concept of Atman or Eternal Soul in Hinduism” by Jayaram V clarifies the role of Atman in Hindu ideology as well as the enlightened perspective on the importance of morals. Overall, the eminent qualities in Charvaka will be discussed in relation to its moral values throughout their opposition of the intangible and the correlation to atheism, their rejection of asceticism and the promotion of materialism, and finally, their consideration of dharma on the premise of ethical equality and refusal of the caste system.
Incipiently, the moral values throughout Charvaka’s rejection of the intangible solidifies the correlation to atheism. In Charvaka, the goal of life is to attain happiness, not nirvana, and one’s internal divine being is not their Atman, rather, it is the energy that gives them life. Mr. Charvaka is asked a series of questions regarding how Charvaka is related to atheism in reference to Prabhakar Kamath’s article “Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels”. The basis of Charvaka’s atheistic temperaments arises from the rejection of knowledge gained by inference, known as Anumana. This paradigm is reinforced by the mechanisms they employ to accept knowledge: the five senses perception (Pratyaksha). Because they are not based on perception, Charvaka rejects “atman, brahman, God, karma, dharma, heaven, hell, Papam (sin), Punyam (merit), moksha, and nirvana” (Kamath). It is widely assumed that individuals who adhere to rituals are mindless. They accept the dogma that instills ignorance in their minds because they are frightened of the after-death consequences of their sins. The fear of non-sensory observed entities such as heaven and hell has been cultivated by religions and other philosophies to further instill the fear of punishment. As a corollary, Charvka opposes rituals such as Yajna and Pooja, astrology, and the occult. In sharp contrast to the Hindu and Buddhist promises of nirvana, Charvaka entirely denied the notion of an afterlife. Rather, although death is unavoidable, there is nothing beyond it. The further proposition that if there is no heaven or hell, construed the idea that one can sin without retribution. This was not the case. Therefore, anti-Charvakans scoffed at this concept, declaring it unethical and barbaric. However, the objective of life was not sinning, but rather, happiness. It can thus be articulated that those who attain materialism and pleasure, comit the sin of hedonism, which is forbidden in Buddhism and Hinduism. In contrast, they promote living simply and practice ascetism to douse their desires. According to the article “Charvaka: Understanding the Material World in the Philosophy of Ancient India” by Joshua Mark, the discussion of atheism is presented. As mentioned earlier, Charvaka’s passionate opposition to the rejection of ascetism has presented the notion of embracing materialism and pleasure in order to achieve complete satisfaction in one’s life without fear of repercussions. On the basis of morals, Buddhist and Hindu adherents would be shocked to learn that atman, brahman, heaven, and hell, among other things, do not exist merely because they cannot be seen. They’d also be enraged to discover that the objective of life is selfish enjoyment rather than nirvana. Some would think that the supra-agnosticism praised in Charvaka is to disassociate with God, whereas the reasoning is to simply free the soul of non-existent limitations. It’s inconceivable to believe that one can freely desire whatever they want and exult in pleasure. However, in faith, the concept of pleasure can provide a moral threshold. This is due to the perception of pleasure as sexual, greed and evil. It must be stated unequivocally that pleasure can be obtained by eating delectable food, dressing elegantly, and resting in a warm bed made of the finest silk. Thus, the moral boundary in Charvakanism that defies traditional philosophy is the pursuit of pleasure in one’s life in order to be fulfilled. Charvaka draws parallels with atheism when it comes to unconventional values. The rejection of a heaven, hell, and God is an unequivocal claim to this concept of secular humanism because the individual autonomously decides what to pursue without moral conviction. The Bhagavad Gita, which is a Hindu doctrine, expresses that Charvaka possesses, “neither purity nor right conduct nor truth is found in them” (Mark). This component adds to Charvaka’s contention that heaven does not exist, that the cosmos is also unreal, and that the universe does exist without a moral justification of reasoning. As a result, Charvaka utilizes epistemology rather than orthodox ontology to justify their convictions. If we further expand on the concept of the morals and beliefs resulting from epistemology, we can begin to understand the various types of justifications that validate Charvaka belief. Our immediate senses, such as observation of our actual environment, are used in direct perception. Second, logical inference uses other concepts we are familiar with, such as common sense. The intellectual and empathic knowledge of ideas within a concept is what justifies intuition. Finally, the justification of testimony takes the form of a reference to something that has been universally accepted, such as the current date and year. In essence, Charvaka defends its hedonistic principles by reasoning that one must enjoy life thoroughly because one cannot reclaim the desires of one’s past after death.
Supplementarily, morals relate to the rejection of asceticism and the promotion of materialism in Charvaka. Even though modern-day Brahmanism disagrees with Charvaka’s favor of materialism, it was intriguing to uncover that its principles are not as dichotomous as they appear. The early form of Brahmanism practiced in ancient India held views that contrasted to those of modern Brahmanism. Kama (desire), artha (wealth), dharma (law), and samsara were its focal objectives. Upanishadism and Bhagavatism, both of which were clearly designed to overturn Brahmanism, have been integrated into today’s Brahmanism (Kamath). In principle, Charvaka coheres with Brahmanism on the premise of kama and artha. Another resemblance is Charvaka’s perpetual pursuit of happiness which coincides with the morals of Vedic Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Now, though all seem to synergize harmoniously, the issue of Charvaka’s dissent arises. Charvaka teaches that life is to be lived and enjoyed at the fullest extent, to which the Brahmins had agreed. However, Brahmins claimed that the only way they can truly attain happiness and fulfillment will be in the afterlife through karma-driven practices. Mr. Charvaka, when asked about this, claimed that “There is absolutely no valid proof whatsoever to this claim. To us, this was a straightforward case of scam. When we accused them of fraud, they began to hate us” (Kamath). This pertains to the Brahmin’s displeasure with Charvaka’s rejection of supra-sensory entities. The Brahmins and Buddhist alike had preached living a life dejected of pleasure and material wealth, and a life full of restraint, ascetism, and suppression. Because Charvaka viewed those values as nonsensical, the promotion and encouragement of attaining monetary wealth and luxurious material, should that make you content, was morally plausible. It is indoctrinated in traditional Indian philosophy that a life absent of abundance makes one attain true gratitude. From gratitude thus comes the appreciation for a simple life. However, in simplicity there is the absence of adequate things that can make one truly happy. It is Charvaka’s ultimate ideology that urges people to enjoy themselves to the fullest, to amass wealth, and to spend on the gratification of their desires. In the article “Lokayata/Carvaka — Indian Materialism” by Abigail Turner-Lauck Wernicki discusses how materialism was perceived as sinful. Indian Materialism celebrated the pleasures of the body. Thus, people began gratifying their senses with no restraint. Pleasure was asserted as the highest good and, according to the Lokāyata, was the only reasonable way to enjoy one’s life (Wernicki). The life we live in the present of now on this planet is the life that we must strive to attain happiness in. Materialism in Charvaka is conceptualized as all existing within the universe and all that composes the universe, such as earth, water, fire and air. In addition to the discussion of moral relation to Brahmanism, Upanishadism upholds their own individual discourse with Charvaka. Pleasure, according to the Upanishads, is undesirable because it creates pain. Charvaka had rejected this view, believing that despite the possibility of pain from pleasure, one should not allow this limiting condition to prohibit them from enjoying life. In the article “The Concept of Atman or Eternal Soul in Hinduism” by Jayaram V mentions the significance of atman. As we know, atman is another supra-sensory feature that is rejected in Charvaka. However, its intangible existence conflicts with the morals of pleasure in Charvaka. The article expresses that, “atman is the immortal aspect of our mortal existence, the individual Self, which is hidden in every object of creation including humans” (V). Thus, the essence of our existence is not energy, but the atman. Overall, the purpose to live and experience the trials of pleasures and pain within our earthly life has been instilled in all of us by atman (V). The essence of Charvaka materialism is opposed by this supra-sensory idea. Charvaka embraced material because it is physical, present, and tangible. Charvaka is considered to be the only exclusively materialistic system; all others embrace spiritual paths. This unconventional unorthodoxy composed as Charvaka is what truly constitutes the basis of non-secular materialism in philosophy. Evidently, the values of empiricism and materialism conceptualized in Charvaka contributed to the hedonistic movement of the contemporary world.
In further consideration, Charvaka’s concept of dharma on the premise of ethical equality and refusal of the caste system had led to an ethical revolution. Even though numerous philosophies such as Buddhism and Hinduism encourage equality and goodwill to all beings, social hierarchy nevertheless exists. Discrimination will exist wherever there is a promise of equality. The social caste system in India is one of the most extreme hierarchical systems in the world. In today’s modern Indian community, one’s social status is still significant. The article “The Concept of Atman or Eternal Soul in Hinduism” by Jayaram V, discusses the corruption of the churches. The great distinguishment between the rich class and the poor class was recognized in the early time of Charvaka. When churches preached to people that they must atone for their sins by giving gifts or sacrifices to the church, Charvaka realized that this was absurd. It was obvious that this practice would primarily benefit the wealthy and weaken the poor (V). Charvaka had dismissed the notion of a social caste for the very reason that ethical systems are moral laws. The article “Charvaka: Understanding the Material World in the Philosophy of Ancient India” by Joshua Mark delves into the ethical boundaries presented in Charvaka. It was believed that Charvaka had rejected “ethical systems only complicated this very simple truth, denied people pleasure, burdened them with guilt, and did nothing else except contribute to the control of the many by the few” (Mark). As can be interpreted by Mark, Charvaka dismantled the burden that was placed upon people who were deceived by the fabricated truths. Furthermore, good would be interpreted as pleasure. As the polar opposite of good, evil was defined as the absence of pleasure. Because of their incapacity to pursue their own personal enjoyment, people began to initiate or participate in behaviors that others regarded as illegal and punished the culprits. The authorities, on the other hand, were no more moral than those who had committed the crime; they were merely seeking to maintain their own level of enjoyment at the expense of those who had been denied (Mark). The ultimate perception of what we deem as moral and amoral can greatly impact the nature and justification of our ethics. The majority of academics believe that Indian materialism fosters egoistic ethics. To put it another way, this embraces the belief that one’s own desires take precedence over those of others. This can be construed as egotistical. Individuals, on the other hand, have no ethical obligation to promote the welfare of society unless it benefits them as well. Individual beliefs and practices are central to Indian philosophy, which contrasts dramatically with the West’s endorsement of cultural and individual relativism (Wernicki). If we revisit the older topic of dharma, we can grasp that it relates to social order. In relation, to the article “Charvakas: Sweet-tongued Rebels” by Prabhakar Kamath, Charvaka condones the acceptance of pure dharma because it promotes equality. However, Upanishad dharma had mistreated people based on their creed. Therefore, Charvaka had rejected dharma initially, because it was senseless and prejudiced. The reasoning was that those who practice discriminative dharma will not be able to attain happiness. Another philosophical concept is Jainism. Jainism can relate to the ethical stance of Charvaka because they do not believe in injuring, abusing, enslaving, killing, or oppressing others. All living things are seen as equal and violence is forbidden. Fundamentally, Charvaka’s ethical system accepts dharma and rejects Upanishad social systems.
In essence of the summary, Charvaka philosophy includes certain conceptions of morality and ethics that are strikingly different from traditional Indian philosophy. On the basis of morality, Charvaka is known to encourage the duality of hedonism and materialism in their teachings. The moral concept of quenching materialistic desires in this life in order to attain true happiness poses as an anarchist concept compared to orthodox philosophies. Thus, the practice of asceticism was undoubtedly rejected. Evidently, the values of empiricism and materialism conceptualized in Charvaka contributed to the hedonistic movement of the contemporary world. This modernized way of thinking led many to dissent against Charvaka. In reflection, Charvaka’s prominent traits have rejected the intangible and have been equated to atheism. Many individuals assume that Charvaka encourages atheism since it negates the existence of everything we cannot perceive. This has been profoundly argued in many debates about Charvaka and their true credibility in dejecting thousands of years’ worth of philosophy and religious invention. Finally, Charvaka’s modernized dharma on the premise of ethical equality ultimately refused the caste system. Dharma and the promotion of equality in society is encouraged by Charvaka because it promotes the ethics of happiness. Charvaka’s ethical system accepts true dharma and rejects the traditional Upanishad social systems. Inequality, prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and bias do not create a society of happy people when all judge upon another’s creed. Hostility, rage, resentment, suffering, and the feeling of unpleasant emotions result instead. The Charvaka School discovered that not all pain is caused by pleasure. Those who adhere to Charvaka’s philosophy are not necessarily deficient in spirituality or religion, but rather in the servile theocratic dogma of cognitive bias. Religion is not irrational. However, using religion to manipulate others towards a difficult, unfulfilling, and painful path is unethical. Religion and philosophy, two systems invented by man in order to acquire faith and find peace in accepting death, have undeniably shaped the modern world.
Works Cited
Kamath, Prabhakar. “Charvakas: Sweet-Tongued Rebels.” Nirmukta, 24 Nov. 2014, nirmukta.com/2010/08/01/charvakas-sweet-tongued-rebels/.
Mark, Joshua. “Charvaka: Understanding the Material World in the Philosophy of Ancient India.” Brewminate, 7 Nov. 2021, brewminate.com/charvaka-understanding-the-material-world-in-the-philosophy-of-ancient-india/.
V, Jayaram. “The Concept of Atman or Eternal Soul in Hinduism.” The Concept of Atman or Eternal Soul in Hinduism, Hindu Website, www.hinduwebsite.com/atman.asp.
Wernicki , Abigail Turner-Lauck. “Lokayata/Carvaka — Indian Materialism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5 Jan. 2003, iep.utm.edu/indmat/.
