Talk:Carvaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Fundamental elements

The articl says that there are five fundamental elements of creation, but cites six; also, the element that corresponds to fire is Agni, not Tejas. According to my understanding, the five elements of creation in Indian mythology are: Prithvi (earth), Agni (fire), Aap (water), Vaayu (air) and Akasha (space). I also remember that Tejas (consciousness, mind) is considered to be an additional element. Can someone clarify this? --ashwatha 05:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Sanskrit, the word for water is 'jal' or 'paaniyam.' Isn't 'aab'/'aap' Persian? --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:50, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Jalam" means water in Sanskrit, correct - but "Aap" also means water. In any case, it doesn't make a difference whether we use "Jal" or "aap" here; my main question was with the use of Tejas for fire, which to the best of my knowledge is incorrect. It should be Agni. --ashwatha 23:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of aap being Sanskrit, and the traditional scriptures always use jal, so I'll alter that. As for tejas, I agree with you. It means, variously, "lifeforce", "potency", "energy", "strength", and secondarily even "semen". But "agni" would be the traditional and denotatively accurate word for 'fire.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

aap is very Sanskritic; Vedic actually. Agni is refered to as नपमापात् ("born of water"). Sarayuparin 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable Source

The first of the bibiliographical source cited under the article is a book in Marathi, Aastikashiromani Chaarvaaka authored by one Dr. A. H. Salunkhe. This, to me, may not be correct because Aastik in various Indian languages means one who believes in god/gods which evidently Carvakas & Lokayatas were not. In my opinion, it should have been Naastikashiromani Chaarvaaka.

Can somebody who is familiar with the Marathi book clarify this point?

MANOJTV 08:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well Salunkhe has called Charvak Astikshiromani because in his opinion Astik translates as one who has belief in what he sees, which in his opinion epitomises the rational Charvak philosophy. Not the generally understood meaning of Astik and Nastik as believer and non believer in god(s). Salunkhe is a learned Sanskrit scholar. Yogesh Khandke 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carvaka and Adishankara

They considered artha (finance) and kaama (satisfaction of passions) as the two purposes of life, discarding the other two — dharma (religion) and moksha (salvation) — proclaimed as a fourfold goal system by the Hindu thinkers. While summarising the Carvaka position in Sarvadarsanasangraha Sankara, the Hindu sage Adi Sankara, the main exponent of Advaita Vedanta, stated that those having self-respect undertake farming and other means of creating real property.

I deleted the above paragraph from the article, because:

It says Sarvadarsanasangraha was authored by Adi Sankara, which is patently wrong.
Even if it is assumed that this is a syntactical error, it is false to suggest that Adi Sankara discussed/summarised "Carvaka position in Sarvadarshanasangraha". Adi Sankara lived in the 8th century CE whereas the Madhavacharya, the author of Sarvadarsanasngraha lived in the 14th Century CE, a full 6 centuries after the former's death!
Adi Sankara, being an exponent of orthodox Hinduism, might have commented upon Carvaka's philosophy calling it a sect with the sole purpose of amassing wealth and indulging in passions. But this is salandering, not exposition. Hence it doesn't deserve a place in the article as it now appears in the page. It can definitely be brought back, if differently worded with supporting evidence such as citing the chapter and verse of Sankara's works. MANOJTV 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

I have added the ISBN number for this article. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandit Sukhlal Sanghvi and Satkari Mookerji

The article of Charvaka without reference of Pandit Sukhlal Sanghvi and Satkari Mookerji gives impression that really nobody knows about Charvaka. vkvora 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tattvopapalavasimha (Charvaka Philosophy) of Jayarashi Bhatta, edited with an introduction and indices by Pandit Sukhalal Sanghavi & Prof. Rasiklal Parikh; vkvora 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be merged

The Articles Carvaka and Charvak essentially deal with the Charvak philosophy. Only the spellings Carvaka (based on transliterated style) and Charvak (actual pronunciation in Hindi) are the reasons why these exist as two articles.

[edit] ....

The Charvak is more popular. Carvak to be merged with Charvak.

vkvora 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree

[edit] Citations...

"However, women were clearly in a lower position than the men in Charvakan society and were merely tools for sexual pleasure."

Citations please?

I removed this and other related material - highly POV and unsourced. Metamagician3000 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carvaka, a Hindu philosopher?

Charvak is as much a Hindu philosophy, as Adi Sankara is a Hindu philosopher. It is an avedic darshan. It will be a gross misunderstandig of Hinduism to deny Charvak a place in it.Yogesh Khandke 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the categorization of Indian Philosophy, Carvaka is shown under Hindu Philosophy. This is not correct. Carvakas stood for a materialist/atheist philosophy and against all orthodox religious practices including Hinduism. Hence Carvaka requires a seperate identity apart from other religious philosophies. May be the title Materialist Philosophy would be appropriate. Since I am not familiar with editing templates, I request somebody to make the required changes in the Indian Philosophy template.MANOJTV 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, none of the carvaka leaders said that they are founding a new religion. They just said that they want to remove discrepancies of the religion of that time. Same procedure was repeated by the likes of vivekananda and dayananda too. They too were against orthodox religious practices. If they said that they are starting a new religion, in that case they would have been under a different heading.nids (♂) 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

- Vivekananda and Dayananda were Hindu reformers, not materialist/atheists. Carvaka Philosophy is different. It is an out and out materialist philosophy. And completely different from whatever religious existed during that period. And it deserves separate identity and should not be part of Hinduism or any theistic philosophy.MANOJTV 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to define carvaka as separate philosophy then its fine. But just to add, Hinduism had atheistic philosophies like Poorva Mimamsa and Samkhya.nids (♂) 12:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

- I agree with nids that there are atheistic currents and followers in Hinduism. This could be attributed to the fact that Hinduism did not exist as an organised religion until the recent past and every philosophic current practiced in India was embraced under the universal term "Hinduism". If this is so, Hinduism should be defined in a very wide sense and should not be equated with the way it is accepted today.

Coming to Carvaka, have a look at theis quotation: "The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes — Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense." - Doesn't this quotation challenging the Vedas(from Sarvadarshanasangraha) & attributed to Carvaka sufficient enough to prove that Carvaka should not be part of Hinduism? MANOJTV 07:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you define Hinduism as an offshoot to Vedic religion, then you are correct in your analysis. But in that case, many Hindus, including me and Veer Savarkar will loose our identity as a Hindu. (I dont care how Max muller or Michael Witzel define Hinduism.)--nids (♂) 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Yogesh Khandke 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

- Some minor clarifications:

How do you define Hinduism?
About Savarkar, what is the meaning of the highlighted portion of the following sentence taken from the wikipedia article on Savarkar: Although generally espousing atheism, Savarkar began studying Indian history, Hindu scripture and observing religious traditions.MANOJTV 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, many of the western scholars defined Hinduism on the basis that whether one accepts Vedas as supreme or not. It is obviously wrong as many Shaktas and Shaivites do not worship vedas. Puranas is mostly Vaishnavite concept.

About Savarkar, or even Bal Gangadhar Tilak, they have openly claimed themselves to be Hindu and atheist at the same time. Savarkar was an self proclaimed atheist. (He was the person who coined the term Hindutva). So, basically you dont need to worship God, or even Vedas to be a hindu.(not talking about western scholarly defination).nids (♂) 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- Yours is a typical neti, neti style! Ultimately, philosophically, you need not to have to be anything to be a Hindu!! Of course that is the beauty of the pluralist Hinduism, which has withstood the fundamenalist-political-Hindu onslaught. But if one views it as a semi/monolithic enitity, one has to define it.

Your clubbing of Tilak and Savarkar may not be correct. Tilak was using (if it was a correct political strategy is a different question) the religiousness of the Indian masses (Ganesha Festival, for instance, to mobilise the people) to take on the British empire. As to Savarkar (especially post The First War of Independance), he was mis/using the tag of Hinduism to take on an imagined enemy and not just the British empire. In fact, he was politically inactive after he appealed for clemancy from the British & subsequently released from Anadaman jail. You may disagree. MANOJTV 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that Savarkar was politically inactive after he appealed for clemancy. My simple point is that i dont agree with any definition of hinduism that restricts a person to be a beleiver of Vedic philosophy. Savarkar was just a remote example, there were several others who did not beleived in the doctorine of vedas but were still hindus.nids (♂) 07:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Culturally when Hindus define themselves from the inside, they may say "I'm from Madras", or "I'm a Brahmin", and do not want, as any one, to enter into too much detail about those two declarations; a cultural identity does not make room for speculation and philosophy [don't ask me how i am a catholic or i lazily send you to Max Weber's definition of the Church]; in the same way seen from Europe and even with an educated eye and years of keen interest in the Hindu "philosophies" there is no problem saying, "orginal Buddhism was a Hindu philosophy" and "Carvaka is another one", we just keep being amazed at the diversity and richness of investigation into 'the meaning of life' that India produces as a peculiar cultural identity in spite of history's "ups and downs", and this alone is a necessary and sufficient definition of Hinduism; in France we could say, "our philosophy and religion is a product of history and politics" and hardly ever escapes the field, few exceptions like Bernard de Clairvaux shaped history with the power of their religious insight. Eric Paroissien; 3 Sept 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.67.176.231 (talk • contribs) .

Savarkar's definition of "Hindu" (and Hindutva) was a trans-religious and trans-cultural paradigm. Read Hindutva and The Volcano and you'll get a sense of it. Bluntly speaking, Savarkar's use of "Hindu" could easily be conflated with "Indian", since he considered Muslims and Christians as "Hindus". If we follow that logic, then, yes, Carvaka could be considered with the "Hindu" philosophical universe. In the stricter sense of "Hindu" orthodoxy, it cannot. The problem lies in the application of "Hindu", it's an irresponsible, ambiguous term used to cover too many philosophical systems, some of which are diametrical opposites. Sarayuparin 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carvaka and the Role of Women

The quotation from Naishadhiya (17.42) does not lead to the inference made in the article that Carvaka "sees women as mere sexual objects if sexual pleasure and wealth are its goals". This is clearly brought out in the Note appearing in the same section. The question now is should we retain the sentence related to the wrong inference?

I am not very sure. This is because though the inference itself is wrong, the Note does give an interesting piece of information about a logical fallacy which many fall prey to.MANOJTV 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECarvaka_d10f.html"