Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
BIBLIOGRAPHY
16. The DTgha nikaya : Editor Bhikkhu J. Kasyap Pali Publication 1958.
(Silakkhandavagga)
27. Hirriyana, M. : Out lines of I.P. Motilal Bnarasi Dass New Delhi.
40. The MajjhimaNikaya-I: Editor Dr. P.V. Bapat G.Editor Bhikhu J. Kasyap
(M ula pannasakam) Pali Publication.
4 3 .N a m ,H . C. : Basic Buddhism.
70. Z . Berbesking
L . Yakovlava What is hi storycal materialism ?
O . Zerkin
Ouaterly
(1) International Philosophical Dec. 2000. Vol xl. No. 4
(2) Indian Philosophical Quarterly Jan, April Vol xxvii No. IV 2000.
(3) Indian Philosphical Quarterly Vol xxx No I. 2003.
(4) International Philosophical Quarterly D ec. 2000 vol xi No -4
(5) Darshana, International Quarterly - Vol. xxxix Jan. 1999 No I
(6) Divyadaan Vol.II, No 3 .2000.
CHAPTER - 6
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
For the bare necessities of thought some have developed their basis while
another group has tried to build on highly special facts, as that living beings
are put together in a purposive manner or that human beings are subject to
as fallacious and the proofs based on the general facts of existence and motion
are only felt to be valid by a minority of thinkers who cannot demonstrate their
absence of any cogent proofs of the Being they believe in And non religious
Findlay writes, we should give greater precision to our use of the term
to be some ancient shapeless stone, or identify him with the bearded Father of
the Sistine ceiling, and quite another matter, we make him an all pervasive
analogical manner. 2
God and the Ultimate are significant descriptions of the divine, the three
terms corresponding to three perspectives, the Non-theistic, the theistic and the
trans-theistic, which span the vast and complex Indian religious landscape,
The Hindu scripture, when it speaks the language of not this, not this,
presupposes on the part of the receiver who listens to the word it sounds an
Brahman.
p ro v id e n c e .
H e is so m e th in g in h im s e lf o u t o f a ll re la tio n s an d fu n c tio n s, e v e n th e
m o s t in tern al o f th em . T h is is A b s o lu te a n d h e is n o t m e r e ly a te rm o f th e
u n d erstan d s G o d as th e G re a t B e in g (B ra h m a n ) w ith o u t a se c o n d .
T h ro u g h o u t a ll th e o u r d is c u s s io n o f r e lig io u s fa ith , w e h a v e c o m e to
o f a n y b e l i e f th at w e h a v e J C ie rk e g a a rd , th e re fo re is c o n c e rn e d i ' : _ w i t h
faith
three opinions - one can believe anyway in the existence of God (meaning that
one has theistic faith) or one can believe in the non-existence of God (meaning
that one has an atheistic faith) or one can hold no beliefs at all on the question
have a theistic faith. To him it we do anything wrong you run the risk of losing
eternal life and suffering eternal damnation. But if we have a theistic faith,
even if we are wrong, there is little that we will really have lost. In short belief
Pascal right in supposing that the non-believer will lose eternal Salvation
because of his non-belief? Granted that there is no evidence either way, would
And if God would not do that, then Pascals argument collapses. Secondly,
what is the purpose of this argument? Can a person choose what he is going to
belief? And if he cannot then how will he be led to a religious belief by virtue
of Pascals argument.
By way of contest, William James wants to claim that there are atleast
some cases in which we may legitimately come to hold a belief even though
the evidence on that issue is inconclusive. The religious beliefs Asuch cases
not acts of faith. Theism is based upon the faith of man on the supernatural
proof. Skeptical atheism certainly does not fit that definition, as skeptical
atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism:? closes, but still does not really match,
as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data when
there must be evidence for the belief. But of course atheists see no evidence
where it has abided us so far, whereas atheist might invoke it to defend his
view with the argument that the absence of evidence regarding divine
speak of atheists being anti-religious they usually mean that the atheists have
Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of super human power, nor
May be it is not a religion in the strict sense of the word, but surely
belief in atheism (or science) us still just an act of faith, like religion is. Faith;
tendency - however, there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state
Now, the question is, do the theistic proofs prove the existence of God
of theism? Or do they just prove the existence of some sort of less impressive
6 Ibid 18 9
(15
But surely the theistic proofs fail to include in the existence of a being or
1. Show that theists are rational in their belief in the existence of God.
many of the things that atheist philosophers often believe in (e.g. the
wrong.
5. Show that it is irrational not to believe that God exists (that is, it is
Indeed one can imagine that many atheists and agnostics are not being
bothered at all if some theistic proofs showed that theists are rational in
7. Ibid
P. 189-190
(15$
number of occasions has opined that for somebody living in the twentieth
thinks carefully about the matter - for such a person it is irrational to believe
in God. 8
provers were aware o f the fact that there were people who did not share their
beliefs about God. Anselm referred to the fool of the Psalms who said There
is no God in his argument in Proslogion II. Still the theistic proofs that these
and other medieval thinkers offered, sound like intellectual efforts that are
largely internal to faith. The purpose of medieval theistic proofs was not to
convince people that God exists, but to show that God exists can (via
modem period, changes in the context and purpose of theistic proofs took
seventeenth century and hi its stride in the eighteenth. Some of its central
theme were
guides to truth.
accept a claim on any subject merely because the Church or the Bible or the
Church Fathers endorsed it. We can land the same reflections among the
Indian atheists.
bits of materialist ideas of the Carvakas and others, long since buried under the
ground, and to rehabilitate them as the really valuable elements of the Indian
by trying to explain the being and becoming of the world in a rationalists and
materialists way.
This materialistic trend distinguishes it from all others and also from
the nature philosophical schools. Naturally, materialism could reach its aim
most quickly if it denied the existence of soul. But so far as the assumption of
a soul served only the explanation of the phenomenal world, as was the case in
the old nature philosophy before it was connected up with belief in God and
satisfied themselves all the while with their positing of a purely negative aim.
appropriate.11
had to fall back upon the material world. The existence of matter by itself, or
skeptics who expounded their nihilist doctrines on the logical deductions from
the early spiritualist cult which was being set up in order to drug the victims of
social chaos, so that they might ignore the miseries of this world as bad
dreams. 12
f
W.B Drees
P 268 360
( 1.6)
reviler of the Vedas. The Carvaka philosophy disappeared long ago from India
was looked down upon greatly by the Brahmanical Orthodoxy that no sin
identification of body with the self were incorporated into it. In its third stage,
freedom of thought - social, religion and political formed the most important
feature of this school. The reaction to this extreme form of licentiousness was
destructive to the very vitality of this school. From that period this extremely
attack from the spiritualists, it gave apart from the body and tried, gradually to
identify the sense organs, breath and the organ of thought with the self. Before
that the materialists had affirmed that inference was not a means of
knowledge. But at this stage, they accepted at first probability and then even
15. G . Tucci
A S k e tc h o f Indian M aterialism
Q td. Ibid p. 3 8 4
inference, though in a restricted form, as a true source of knowledge.10
naturalists.
In the same context, the naturalists make out that man's soul is hut a
particles in aimless flight. It is an accident and death may blot out the human
moving atoms. The nature of the human self is interpreted in a way in which
roles it of its reality. Biologists argue that the individual person is the product
mind, which is the seat of instincts and emotions, is the determining factor m
man's life. Sociologists argue that the social environment in which a man s
born moulds his mind and character. On such a materialist view, the role of the
that governs human affairs, historic destiny, fate, providence, and economic
excludes the possibility of the existence of, God or Brahman. By, this, DevStma
Clarke and dHolbach citing some points argue, that God as a reflexive
active and divergent fundamental units which are radically responsible for all
that is and acts. Clarke demonstrates three successive predicates about reality.
These are (1) eternal (2) immutable and independent and (3) self-existent or
necessary. dHolbach concurs these attributes but counters that they inhere
nature or matter. Clarke is right about his predicates, he is wrong about their
subject.18
traces these effects back to their originating forces. Newton himself admitted
that discourse about god was like a blind man talking about colours. He
suggests as the only alternative to his view of god, nature and destiny. His
image of god is unacceptable but his alternative goes perfectly with the
since it negates the existence of God and the eternal soul. But the two differ in
one point because Buddhism accepted law of karma i.e. retribution for good
and bad. In all the proceedings of Buddhas sermon, his bold and hostile
the same time he with equal gesture opposes Indian materialism only because
years. The triumph of Buddhism and its supremacy for so many centuries
could not check the tide of materialism and rationalism. The metaphysical
resulted from the earlier speculation of thinkers no longer satisfied with the
19. Ibid
P. 313
(164 )
fantacies and fairy tales of the primitive vedic religion.20
Karl Marx also comments, The Indian Brahmin who proves the
holiness of the Veda by reserving for himself alone the right to read it.21
attack of Vedic sacrifices, the old heretic attackers became move powerful. It
was Samikara and his school who did not even consider the Carvaka School as
Siddhanta Sara Samgraha, that by adopting only those means which are seen,
etc., a wise man should endeavour to enjoy pleasure here in this world.
other orthodox schools citing Manus uttering (iii 65) e.g. Nastikya
20 Materialism
M.N. Roy
P .8 2
21 Marx (& Engels) OR 25
Qtd in Indian Atheism
P .3 5
22. A Short History of ind Materialism, Sensationalism and Hedonism
D R. Shastri
Qtd in Carvaka/Lokayata
Etd.. DPC
P 422 -423
( 165)
modem philosophers.
Plato, one of the spiritualistic thinkers of the west in his fanatical zeal
would have liked to buy up and bum all the works of Democritus, the father of
their fanatical zeal ollected and destroyed the original works of the Brhaspati
Buddhistic and the Jaina schools were spiritualistic and therefore they did not
from the upanisads and originated on the heels of Vedanta. But later on it
eschewed all links with older tradition developed that intellect being relational
Prajna)
that it is the only reality, the one universal essence. In Buddhism, this
identifying of the real self or soul with Brahman is not to be found. It was
scientific in its approach and plainly atheistic. Buddha rejected the Brahmin
philosophy, which spoke of Atman as the soul or self, which had a share in the
self.
like Buddha gives priority to man and tries to establish humanity as GodHe
saidf My first thought was God, my second reason my third and lastman. ,27
and in the fantastic being called God. So God is the product of pure human
imagination. He said religion is the dream of human mind and the turning
point of history will be the moment when man becomes aware that the only
God o f man is man him self .28 For Devatma also there is no evidence in
Nature from which we can infer the existence of God as perfect spirit,
omniscient, omnipotent and all good. He like Spinoza, under takes to study the
nature of human personality in the context of the cosmos and understands and
interprets the good and evil of human personality, its bondage and freedom in
this total context, Spinoza maintains, there is no God other than Nature
Feuerbach writes, religion believes in and worships not God but human
*the aim of his teaching is to change friends of God into friends of man
believers into thinkers, worshippers into workers'.29 In this way for him
and in man. Descartes God depends upon Nature in order to be God. What is
28. Ibid
P. 10
29. Ibid
P 10
<16g)
as it is evident from the fact that they began their study in and around humai
interests. Buddha was concerned with the problem of human sorrow and it
(bodh) in the shape of the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path.
Marx was also equally concerned with human suffering like Buddha
But unlike the latter, he understood it in a specific sense, i.e. suffering of man
Marx has been called as a natural bom atheist. Marx highly influenced
'fictitious' creation of man's sick conscience. Man is the only reality, the onh
meaning of the universe of evolution and of history. Thus liberated from the
divine shackle he is free to create himself fully in solidarity with his fellow
humanism . 0
Generally religions are built on faith rather blind faith it would seem
30. Ibid
PP10,11
usually translated as faith or belief. But saddha is not faith as such but
Buddha is qualified as ehi passika inviting us to come and see, but not to
come and believe. With reference to his own enlightenment the Buddha said,
the eye was bom, knowledge was bom, light was bom. It is always seeing
through knowledge or wisdom and not believing through faith. And the
Buddha opines that there is no other reliever of pain than Truth. Truth heals
intensely spiritual and ethical. The Jainas, therefore, are not atheistic in this
sense. Denial of God does not necessarily mean atheism in Indian Philosophy.
Otherwise, the Sankhya and the MTmlmsa, which do not believe in the
It seems that the composition of the earlier Upanisads and the Vedanta
sutras have been separated by several hundred years. During that period the
In the Jaina literature we find that although the Jaina denies God, but it
no necessity of bringing in God to explain creation, for the world was never
has built temples for them, has worshipped their idds, has shown the same
devotion to them as other Hindu Orthodox people have shown to their gods.
The Jainas like the Brahmanism, also believed in soul, but they
the orthodox simple and immortal divine spark of man. They thought that the
was constantly increasing and decreasing. That, in their opinion did not affect
the permanence of the soul, for a thing can be permanent and non-permanent
at the same time. For example, although the water is constantly flowing, the
belong to one and the same thing. They subjected the conceptions of
32 Materialism
M.N Roy
P. 101
(17S)
result was the rejection of the doctrine of Brahman. The disruptive effect of
their views and methods or reasoning can be judged from the charge
Samkaraeharyya brought against them, If you maintain that the heavenly
world and final release exist or do not exist and are eternal or non-eternal, the
absence of all determinate knowledge, which is implied in such statements,
will result in nobodys acting for the purpose of gaining the heavenly world
and final release'33
The theistie systems of philosophy are generally anthropomorphic.
They bring down God to the level of man. Jainism, on the otherhand looks
upon himself as God when his inherent powers are fully in blossom. Jainism
favours the spirituality of mans inner life by acquiring good qualities. . In
Manusambit! (10/63) as we find besides the ritualismof rites and sacridices
Manu has advised man to acquire the four qualities chatuvarayam) ahimsa
(non-violence), satyam(truthfulness),aste-yaCnon-siealin^and sdiaudia. (cleanliness).
Ahimsa satyamasteyayamshauchamindriya nigraha.
Etat satnasik&mdharma chaturvamtyamabrabin manu Manusamhita (10/63)
' - t Jainism also takes these
qualities as the vows of their life. The Jainas seven fold mode of predication
(saptabhangi) is right so far as it cautions us against one sided conclusions but
33. Ibid
P.P. 10(3-103
{Ill)
independence and freedom to man. Jaina philosophy tries to give light to the
view that Kala (time), svabhava (nature) niyatil/ (desKn-y), Karma (action)
and purusartha (ahdeaveour) these five jointly mould our happiness or sorrow
but not God or Super Natural being. It is quite contrary to the Vedic point of
Super Natural Being is the prime govemer of our happiness & sorrow.
The philosophical view of the sihkhya with its dualism of purusa and
However, the Sahkhya system would not allow these differences to be true of
purusa, but of prakrti. Further if these differences are taken away, there is
nothing to distinguish one purusa from another and hence plurality of purusas
collapses. Sankhya, again in its reaction against.. Absolutism, the doctrine has
discarded the idea of a universal soul, but considering it into two prakrti and
The author of Sveta ^vStara Upanisad did the same. There were some law
Sankhya view as much heretical as those of the Buddhists, Jainas and the
Lokayatas; even a mere touch of the followers of any of these views, they
declared was a sin and pollution which could be removed only by ritual
bathing. 37
allow even a scrap of theism in his philosophy only to be loyal to the spirit of
So Max Muller referring to the charge of atheism that has been brought
against Jaiminis MTmamsa observes This sounds a very strange charge after
what we have seen of the character of this philosophy, of its regard for the
Vedas, and the defense of its revealed character, lay its insistence on the
b ro u g h t b o th in a n c ie n t a n d in m o d e m tim e s . H o w e v e r th e re se e m s to b e a
m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g h e r e . 39
It se e m s th e re fo re rid ic u lo u s , h o w a n a lm o s t fa n a tic a l z e a l fo r th e
V e d a s le d th e M T m a m sa k a s to a c c e p t a ra d ic a l fo rm o f a th e is m , th e re a l re a s o n
m ig h t b e th e e n o rm o u s tim e -g a p b e tw e e n th e V e d a s a n d o u rs e lv e s h a s re s u lte d
fo r u s in th e lo s s o f s o m e v ita l a s p e c ts o f th e a n c i e n t V e d i c t r a d i t i o n . 40
M a x M u l l e r 41 a g a i n , w r i t e s I t w a s b u t a n o th e r a tte m p t a t ju s tif y in g th e
w is d o m o f G o d , a n a n c ie n t T h e o d o c e e th a t w h a te v e r w e m a y th in k o f it
c e rta in ly d id n o t d e se rv e th e n a m e o f a th e is m . I f th e M lm lm s a k a s w e re c a lle d
a th e is ts , it m e a n t n o m o re th a n th a t th e y trie d to ju s tify th e w a y s o f G o d in
th e ir o w n w a y .
S a m k a r a 42, h im s e lf v ig o ro u s ly a rg u e d w ith a g re a t d e a l o f o b v io u s
S a n k h y a to th e V e d ic s ta n d p o in t w a s c o m p le te ly s p u rio u s . T h e S a n k h y a
39. Max Muller C .W XIX 42. Samkara (on Brahma Sutra ii 1 12)
Qtd in I.A. refutes at least 60 of the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutra
D.P.C were pointedly meants to retute the Sankhya
P .2 0 6 Qtd. in I A .
40. Ibid D .P C
P. 211 P. 204
41. Max Muller
Qtd in I A
D.P.C.
P. 207
( 175)
the same more clearly, Much of the SSftkhya literature apprears to have been
lost, and there seems to be no continuity of tradition from ancient times upto
the age of the commentators. In such systematic works as we have, one seems
help us much but which are suggestive enough to tempt us to construct the
43
system anew .
Philosophy as anybody else perhaps was. This hostility led them to share a
least one aspect of the vedic tradition and the Munamsa philosophy, the latter
being both historically and logically only a cultivation of the former. The
Sankhya derives the doctrine of Prakrti from the SvetaSvatara Upanisad, the
theory of the three Gunas from the three colour in the Chandogya and the
doctrine of purusa, the relation of mind, intellect and soul from the Katha
Upanisad.45
T h ro u g h o u t o u r e n tire d is c u s s io n th e p ro b le m c e n tre d ro u n d th e
q u e s tio n - I s G o d a h is to ric a l p e rs o n ? P e rh a p s th e re a s o n w h y h is e x is te n c e is
o fte n d e n ie d is b e c a u s e o f h is B e i n g c a n n o t b e s u b je c te d to th e te s t o f
e m p iric a l h is to ry .
W e h a v e s e e n th a t m o s t o f th e In d ia n p h ilo s o p h e rs o f d iffe re n t s c h o o ls
h a d s h o w n th a t th e lo g ic a l a rg u m e n ts a n d re lig io u s e x p e rie n c e s fa il to
e x p la n a tio n th a t s c ie n c e h a s d is c o v e re d a b o u t th e u n iv e rs e .
u n iv e rs e . T o h o ld th a t G o d in te rfe re s in th e w o rk in g o f u n iv e rs e in th e fo rm o r
m ira c le s is re p u g n a n t to s c ie n c e . S o m ira c le s w h ic h m e a n n o n -n a tu ra l
s c ie n tific la b o ra to rie s .
T h e a u to n o m o u s c h a ra c te r o f th e u n iv e rs e s re p e ls th e id e a o f a s u p e r
b io lo g ic a l, p s y c h o lo g ic a l, s o c ia l, a e s th e tic , m o ra l a n d s p iritu a l e v e n ts in th e
u n iv e rs e . T h e id e a ls h a v e a s m u c h ro o ts in th e n a tu ra l o rd e r a s fa c ts . I t m e a n s
th a t th e e v e n ts in th e u n iv e rs e g iv e n o g ro u n d fo r in te rfe rin g th e e x is te n c e o f
G o d .
( 177)
For the Indian atheists the concept of God was only a subjective error
exist within the same framework of thought, the rejection of this particular
assumption that for any perceivable object, there is an inner or true reality,
phenomenon pain and some real pain hiding behind this phenomenon. Pain
yelling, crying etc. though these phenomena themselves are not pain . 46
a rational scheme of reality and for solving the problem of the origin of the
intellectuals , scientists .
The world view which assimilates human world into physical world is
failure was due to the fact that the two worlds are reduced or translated into
this law again have value aspect too. Every change furthers or retards the
others. Since a change does not merely further or endanger the existence but
also either improves or ruins the qualities of the entities and change is cosmic,
changes in the atmospheric conditions and the living species that paved the
way for the rise of human species were changes for the better, for human
changes in individuals and species which make for betterment in the strength
and qualities of existents for nutual good. There is an opposite process too.
The law of devolution. This law is the nature for those processes in individuals
and species which adversely affect the strength and qualities of existents and
also discovers that consciousness is related to body and is inseparable from it.
Regarding the existence of God Einstein said, It have become a scientist only
to know whether God was free or not to create the world. Further he said,
Science is lame without religion and religion is blind without science. But
etc. could not do away the concept of God. Newton made his famous, line in
reason of world synthesis, so I do not assume any theory. At the good grace of
God or Divine Being, the sun, the moon and all the planets shall go in their
own way. Australian physicist Paul Davis in 1983 in his book God and new-
physics asks the questions - who created this world ? How will it be
admits that no other questions are so complicated and deep rooted than the
deliberately denied God, because they had created for themselves a new
his life. Similarly,, Marx, the noted Marxist accepted Feuerbachs proposition
( 181)
and maintains that man makes religion, religion does not make man. To him,
man is the creator of his world, his history and himself. Religion for him is
only the illusory sun about which man revolves so long as he does not revolve
classes in the society. By treating ever one equally, the classes in the society
will disappear.
new God who dwells on earth, creating a heaven over here. For him God is
really, man. He eries boldly God is dead, the Christian God. He will replace
God the creator and guiding spirit of history, and will plan and manage history
head in the sand of heavenly things but to bear it freely, a earthly head, which
man to love the human race. Thus transforming the philosophy of positivism
mans arrested youth! Man can satisfy completely his religious appetite by
directing his thoughts, feelings and actions towards his own humanity. Comte
(
182)
him human . 49
Thus, atheism of these intellectuals paved the way for many changes in
the church today. Side by side atheistic thought' feacted to the theistic proofs,
understanding have the least tendency to warrant the truth of the belief in God.
Charles Bradlaugh says - The atheist doesnot say, there is no God, out he
says I know not what you mean by God. I am without the idea of God. The
49 Religion Culture
Radhakrishnan
P. 104
50. Charles Bradlaugh in his Plea of Atheism
Qtd in Ercy of Phil Vol I
P 176
CH A P TER- 5
ATHEISM IN SANKHYA AND M IM lM SA
ATHEISM IN SANKHYA AND MlMAMSA
But the common feature of all of them is that none of these schools has faith n
established by the time of the flourishing of the Sramana schools, 500 B.(
Among the orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy, the Sankhya and the
sahkhya) since it does not uphold God as the creator, and therebx it is
distinguished from the Yoga which is called the 'Theistic Sankhya' (Sesutr.i-
Sahkhya).
As we come across that the Vedas are the fountainhead of all forms <>i
Hinduism and they are mostly God-oriented. The Vedas regard Him as I'm.
(Agni), the Majestic (Indra). the terrible (Rudra) and the just (Varunai
the transcendent Being, ever free and ever the Lord ' 1 and this consciousness
Contrary to this stand, however in the Vedic hymns itself, we find sonu
passages which refer to heretics and unbelievers. They evidently were tin
pioneers of the revolt against the natural religion and as such fore fathers o'
Indian Philosophy. The origin o f naturalist and skeptic thought can be found ti.
the Rg Veda itself, for instance the creation hymn" which concludes the
dialogue between the parents o f mankingjt- the twin brother and sister. Yam.i
and Yam i. This thought was also developed in some of the major IJpanisads.
Kapila, the founder of this school while fighting against the nihilistic
tendencies came very close to materialism. He had to prove the reality of some
and as a result Kapila had to fall back upon the material world. But the late
Sankhyas e.g. Vijnlnviksu, in the Sixteenth century tried to revive the earlier
theism in Sankhya. The first available work of the Sankhya school is the
Sankhya-Sutra' of Kapila.
wrote some books which aimed at a clear and elaborate exposition of the
Sankhya system. As these works were lost in course of time, only available
Sankhya System.
human nature enumerating and defining its elements analyzing their manner of
distinct from each other, yet anyone firmly established in either gains the fruit
of both.
(118)
monads (purusa) and matter (Prakrti). (2) that matter (Prakrti) though
itself, under three distinctly differentiated aspects (the so called gunas) which
are comparable to the three stands of a rope and (3) that every one of the life
The Sankhya upholds the theory of Sat Karyavada. Prakrti being the,
primal cause, though unintelligent and Purusa, being the self conscious the
teleological evolution starts, the different gross and subtle evolutes arise in the
process.
These ideas do not belong to the original stock of the Vedic Brahman k
teachings of the Sankhya. The Sankhya system along with its allied system tin
yoga related to the mechanical system of the Jainas. The Sankhya System is
therefore, traced back its origin in the Upanisads and in the Bhagvad-Gita.
of the doctrines of other people, and excluding the parables attached to the
Kapila, was regarded as semi-mythical holy man who stands outside the
the Mahabharata.5
Kapila and others also maintain a clear cut dualism between Purusa and
Prakrti. Purusa like Aristotle's God is the "sour, "self, 'the spirit', the
5. Mahabharata 3.107
Qtd. in Philosophies of India Zimmer P. 282
( 120)
It is neither body nor senses nor brain, nor mind (manas) nor ego
objects. All worldly effects are latent in this uncaused cause, it is the first
called Jada. In the Sankhya philosophy, the world process is described b\ the
purusa - Prakrti (soul and Nature) instead of God. In Zoroastrianism, like the
two warring principles struggle and in their struggle is grounded the drama of
cosmic life and human history. Here, one is the principle of light, justice and
good, and the other is the principle of darkness, injustice and evil. The battle
between these two is decided by the victory of the good. Before the triumph of
light over darkness is complete, the universe and mankind must pass through
6. Religion 7 Culture
Radhakrishnan
P.P. 35, 36
( 121)
In Sankhya philosophy also, the life monad also known as Purusa, man,
atman, self is the living entity concealed behind and within all the
Just in the Jainism, here also the number of life monads (JTvas) in the
regarded as totally different from that of the life less matter (Prakrti) in
which they are engulfed. They are termed Spiritual (cit. citi, cetana, caitanya)
and are said to be of the nature of sheer, self effulgent light (prahhasa) . *7
Within each individual, the self luminous purusa, atman or pums illuminates
all the processes of gross and subtle matter - the processes that is to say of
both life and consciousness - as these develop within organism, yet this life
an absolute spirit as well as its doctrine of the relation of avidya and the souls
means that there is no other powerful man than God and it limits Gods power
and his power becomes finite. So if God exists, Nature has dependent and
created existence, for if it exists in its right, it limits Gods power. Therefore,
interest of truth to reject the equivalence of Nature and God and proceeded to
for it and the invariable precondition for the inference would be the perception
of an invariable relation between that probans and God. But since God is never
perceived, the perception of such an invariable relation between Him and the
imagine that there can be ^ inferential proof for the existence of God.
9
Qtd. In Ind. Atheism
DPC
P - ^ '3
( 123)
The Sankhya philosophers who repudiate the existence of God give the
He is free, He will not create this world of pain and misery. Either God is
Law of Karma, He is not free; if not He is a tyrant. Again, God being pure
knowledge, this material world cannot spring from Him. The effects are
implicitly contained in their cause and the material world, which is subject to
and immutable God. Again, the eternal existence of the Purusas is inconsistent
with God. If they are the parts of God, they must have some divine power. If
they are created by God, they are subject to destruction. Hence there is no
God .10
maintained that Gods existence cannot be proved by logical evidence. But the
real merit of his philosophy is the recognition of the objective reality of the
physical world.
contradictory (to its reality), and because it is not the (false) result of dcpra\cd
consciousness, there are subtle, elements, sense organs and 'gross clement',
evolution is set on its head, the realities however are derived inducti\el\
from the immediately perceptible gross elements. The existence of the subtle
elements' (Sound, colour, touch, taste and small) is inferred from the gross
elements' which are directly perceptible. The process is traced to the primal
reduces the gross elements' to atoms, but Kapila traces a simpler, all
pervading substance the severally existing atoms down to a still simpler all
rejecting materialism.
II M at e r i al i sm 12 Ib id
M .N Ro v l>. 89
P. 88
( 125)
Slnkhya, nature is not only eternal, but self operative. Thus, Nature is the
Final Cause. Since mind and self-consciousness are placed within the scheme
o f nature, they are included in the materialistic system. Only the soul stands
for explaining the being and becoming of the world. The existence of nature is
inferred from its perceptible phenomena, these are real, they must have a real
cause. Those ultimate elements are called in the Vaisesika. and Nyaya systems,
atoms.
souls are purely empirical. They do no have the least tendency to prove the
parts of the natural order i.e. empirical in original, character and content.
life o f that period was occupied by the Sahkhya system of Kapila. He being
engage itself in producing effects like mahat (i.e. the first evolute o f the
But in reply it can be said that there is instance in which we can sec
may engage itself to serve some purpose e.g. the unconscious milk How s lor
the nourishment of the calf, also the unconscious water flows lor the benefit
of the world. Similarly, prakrti, though unconscious, will act for the liberation
of the purusa.
Vataspati Misra. 14
Madhava and Vaeaspati Misra agreed that the primeval matter, moved by the
and development of the world. The self sufficiency of the principle of Prakrit
and water taken by the cow, naturally got themselves transformed into milk
that nourishes the calf. So, was the process of the transformation of primeval
matter into the world or the evolution of the world from the primeval matter.
world. 15 .
The theists claim that Gods existence was proved by His being the
15. Ibid
P 81
16. V ijn a n a v ik s u
O n S a n k h y a -S u t r a , V . 1
Q td . in Ib id
P .8 9
( 128) -
the fruits of actions is not due to the superintendence of God, because that is
The Sahkhya Philosophers further ask the theists how far the idea of
maintains that they came to the reasoned conclusion that it had none in as
The theists maintain that on the one hand God had to create the pre
condition for pain and suffering and on the other God is also moved by the
Madhava and Vacaspati Misra agree. But significantly they both were not
in defending theism.
17 Sankhya Sfflrav II
Ibid
P.89
( 129)
Isvara- The Sankhya teachers have said - "H ow can things endowed wi l l
The Nyaya Vaisesika and the Sankhya held that perception is a means
temporal. The Sankhya Sutra on this point felt obliged to deny God but the
later Naiyayikas never saw any antagonism between those points and then
P. 84
v
( 130)
In the fifth chapter of the Sankhya Stltra we find the polemic and
logical refutation of the theistic assumption. In first, third and the sixth
He argued that the denial of God was not to be confused with the denial of
the possibility of the theoretical proof for His existence. He in the same spirit
showed that it was designed simply to deny the possibility of proving God and
maintain that both these expression Because God is unproved and Because
In order Says Garbe, to bridge over the chasm between the Sankhya
fundamental doctrines of the genuine Sankhya, which is the denial of God 21.
Sankhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his Sahkhya pravacana bhffsya,
more with the views of the Sankhya doctrine of the Puranas, where both the
diverse purusas and the prakrti are said to be merged in the end in Isvara, by
whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each
rational explanation, that it could explain all facts without the intervention of
God or Isvara and Vijnanaviksu could not do away with such atheistic
explanations.
explanation of the gunas as being of the nature of pleasure, pain and dullness
idea of God whose very existence cannot be proved. The God is the creator,
but he has no origin. If it is admitted that there must be a creator and ruler ol
the world, then there arises the question - who created the creator? Whence
did He come? The creator is said to be without beginning and w ithout end.
without any limit. But after all, he is a creator, which implies a personalitx on
his part. The God is indeed, considered to be the creator. But a person cannot
be without beginning and end and other limits. If the God is limited then, is t
not possible that there may exist a power over and above. Him? The God is
believed to be all powerful and all-pervading. But these attributes of the God
cease to be what they are believed to be, as soon as they are imagined by man
Thus, the essence of the God, the creator, disappears. Then, it is taught that
desire is the cause of creation. From this, it follows that God Himself is not
2 3 . M a te r ia lis m M . N R o y 1 0 5
( 133)
Further, if the universe is created by the will of God, then God Himself must
have the feeling of want, for wish grows out of want. The feeling of want
ascribed to God.
or better known as the Purva Mfmamsa school, we do not find any mention of
God or Supreme Being in the process of creation just like the SaAkhya.
This school was the outcome of ritualistic side of the Vedic culture just
speculative side. The mimamsa school helps and support ritualism (a) by
The Buddhists, Jainas and the CHrvakas challenge the authority of the
Vedas. The reality of the world and the existence of soul are denied by some
Buddhists. Some Upanisads disparage the idea that heaven is the goal of man
and rituals are the best possible human activities. The Mimamsa tries to meet
all such criticisms and upholds the original faith underlying ritualism.
( 134)
Jaimini 24, as the founder of the Mtmamsa school and also author of the
Mfmamsa-Stltra was held high by Badaranya, himself who has his distaste for
thrives on the Vedas, draws its entire intellectual nourishment from the Vedas
and in its major part, intends to be nothing more than the effort to settle the
Karma Mffnamsa puts it rather mildly, the atheism of the true MfmamSa is
across in the Mimamsa literature are practically the same as found in the
writings of the Buddhists and the Jainas, though as it is well known from the
point o f view o f Vedic Orthodoxy, the Mimamsakas were the most determined
opponents of the Buddhists and the Jainas. Thus, not withstanding all the
mutual differences between the Buddhists, Jainas and the Mimamsakas, there
could have been some kind of free exchange of ideas among these
philosophers is so far as they all belonged to the some fraternity of the Indian
atheists.27
Both commented on Sabarabhasya. Apart from his major work called the
prominent authors of the Mimamsa system are Mandana Misra, Partha Sara!In
of the external world and of the individual souls. They believe in the l aw <!
Karma, in Unseen Power (Apurba), in heaven and hell, in liberation and in the
and the mention of the deity secondary. The performance of the ritual act
generates the apurva and this apurva ultimately leads to the result designed
existence. However Sahara shows in Vedic deities and also the Mtmamsa
thesis that these were nothing more than the words used in the V e d a -,
But later Mimamsakas accepted Saharas views but later on being confronted
with the attack from the theists they could not stand Saharas rejection of God.
Both Prabhakara and Kumarila with all their mutual differences, elaborately
The Mimamsakas give priority to ritual performance i.e. yajna, not the
1 *
devas. Those who desire heaven (in the sense of pleasure) should perform the
instrumentality of the yajna itself and not of the devas in producing the fruit.
This fruit or result is the real purusartha or that which is the aim of man and it
is mans endeavour for the sake of Purusartha and not of the deity.30
But the question arises how the performance of the ritual directly
generates the apurva? Sahara answers that this is proved by verbal testimony
i.e. specifically the Vedas. The knowledge that anything gives fruit i.e. any
inducing agent gives a partieularfruit, arises from verbal testimony and not
Nyaya Vaisesikas proof for the existence of God. The later Buddhists and
Jainas were also concerned with the refutation of NySya Vaisesikas proof for
God as their brother atheists were. They felt bothered by a special problem
and the Jainas. This followed from their attitude to the Vedas. While the
Buddhists and. the Jainas were interested in the Vedas at best negatively i.e.
only in the sense of rejecting their validity - the Mimamsakas were utmost
serious about the authoritativeness of the Vedas. And the Vedas, atleast as
apparently understood, were full of all sorts of gods or devas. They were Agni,
Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc. How then were the Mimamsakas to look at the Vedic
Gods? Were they to reject the ideas of one God in favour of a multitude of
whether the vedic gods have anything to do with the human lot, with ritual
actions and their results, whether these gods have any real or substantive
existence!
But he came to the conclusion that these gods could have no existence
in the real sense of the term. Sahara, therefore, answered that in the Vedas
these stood for mere sounds or words i.e. the only existence which the Vedic
gods had was purely verbal. The so called gods Mitra, Varuna.etc. were not
It followed from this that from the Mimamsa point of view there was no
possibility of any interference by these Vedic gods with human lot. They had
nothing to do with the results of human actions. Hence there was no sense in
existence, these gods could not accept any offering not could they feel pleased
with these.
die book. The cultural Heritage of India Thus, the Mimamsa, Buddhism and
the Jainism together establish firmly the self-sufficiency of the moral law and
lay the basis for classical doctrine of Karma according to which moral action
produced their own fruits without reference to any kind of divine dispensation.
The great difficulty arose out of the logical impossibility of reconciling self
sufficiency of moral law with omnipotence of God. Once the self sufficiency
God as the creator of the world, the Prabhakaras along with the Bhattas argued
that the idea of creation itself was a myth. Experience Prabhakara urges show
us the bodies of all animals being produced by purely natural means, we can
argue hence to the facts of the past and the future, and need invoke no
extraneous aid. 33
existents or beings to every new existent comes into being as the result of the
action of some immutable process of Nature, and again when any existent
of Nature. By the immutable law o f Nature, he means that the same set of
conditions produce the same effect. He, therefore, to put in the words of B.
universe but he admits that the universe is made of components' parts. But he
rejects the view that the universe has had a beginning at any particular point
of time or that it would come to an end at any particular point of time. But in
mundane or Gods interference in the merit and demerit (dharma and adharma)
of the individual souls resulting from their past actions. According to him
dharma and adharma must belong to the same individual to whom itself the
intelligent he might be. God could have no knowledge of the dharma and
adharma of the being that is bom as man or animal etc, and without such
conclusion that the relation between God and the destiny (dharma - adharma)
The two relations samyoga and samavaya could not be maintained. Sanm;i
(conjunction) is possible only between the substances but the Nyaya Vaisesika
intelligent cause of the world also means Him as the exclusive sole - sufficient
of the individuals.
In this sense, the upholder must admit that God existed before the
creation of everything. But what was the time, place and condition of the
universe when God existed before creation, the theists cannot give suitable
reply.
Again, the theists had to admit that the creator either possesses a bod\
or he does not. In both the cases difficulty arises, because if God is without i
body, he cannot have any desire or wish to create the world, and if He is with
a body, he had to face all troublesome questions the answers of w hich are not
satisfactory.
(14 3 )
If God creates the world with a desire the question arises why he should create
a world M l of evils?
God? The theists reply just as the spider could create something without any
external material, God also creates out of nothing. But Kumarila argues Even
the production of the spiders net is not to be viewed as being without any
material basis, the net is produced by the saliva which in its turn, is produced
The theists claim that some amounts of pain or evil were indispensable
for the creation of the world. To this kumarila argues, God being viewed as
omnipotent, some amount of evil was indispensable for creation could not be a
binding on Him. If it is a binding on Him, the theists could not claim Gods
omnipotence.
Kumarila further attacks the theists point of God as an all perfect being.
If God creates the world, what is the purpose behind His creation of this
world? But the theists reply of Gods compassion or pity to create the world
Badarayana replies that God creates the world out of Sport or Lila. The
kings engage themselves in the act of hunting not to satisfy specific want but
because it is a mere pastime for them. Children fond to play for having the
Kumarila points - If the activity of the creator were due to a desire for
mere amusement, that would go against His ever contentedness. And (instead
o f affording any amusement) the great amount of work (required for creation)
would be a source of infinite trouble for Him. And His desire to destroy the
world (at the time of Pralaya or Periodic cosmic, dissolution) would be hardly
explicable. 36
passing away. 37
position of the theists argued that the Vedic passages apparently referring God
and His creation were not to be taken as actual evidences for the existence of
God.
misunderstood. For the Vedantic theists the strongest proofs for the existence
dissolution like its theological counterpart creation hardly made any sense.38
of God. But Kumarilas refutation covered three parts. First, the refutation of
comments, The Locuna of the Purva Mfmamsa was so unsatisfactory that the
Apadeva etc. Of these two, the former produced a strange work called the
Ses'vara MnnamsS-or Mlmamsa with God while latter advanced the thesis -
also strange from the Mimamsa point of view - that during the time of the
universal dissolution (pralaya) the Vedas remained and retained in the memory
of God.
Apadevas theory that God retained the Vedas during the timt, of
pralaya could be advanced only in complete disregard of the older and the
conception of pralaya, like that of srsti or creation, was only a figment of the
hundred million of gods as the authority of anybody. The glory of man is that
identity of. the individual who must not let himself be submerged by any
philosophy.
4 1 . S w a m i V iv e k a n d a s V e d a n t ic S o c ia lis m -
R . K . D a s G u p ta
P 50
CHAPTER - 4
ATHEISM IN JAINISM
ATHEISM IN JAINISM
The Jainism, which has affinities with the Buddhism and with the Sanikhya
does not recognize the validity o f the vedic (Hindu) scriptures and thus is
but reflects the cosmology and anthropology o f a much older Pre- Aryan upper
as they are primarily needed to guide the Jaina monks in their religious practices.
is called Nastika. Nastika, according to grammarians is one who does not believe
in the other worlds, and in this sense the Jainas are nastikas. B ut according to
smrtis nastika means one who denies creation by an intelligent agent and also
one w ho denies the authority o f the Vedas. In both these senses, the Jainism is
nastika because it never accepts the theory o f creation and also it does not accept
But the Jainism does accept a God. and hence the term atheist in its
etymological, sense can not be leveled against Jainism .If atheism means non-
acceptance of a popular God. who creates, protects and4:stroys the world assumed
contains two types o f entities - souls or life monads (jivas) and non-living mattei
(ajives or pudgals). The main teachings o f the Jainas are that there is a sharp
distinction between souls and matter that normally souls are implicated through
karma in the painful round o f rein incarnation and that by the practice o f virtue
meditation and great austerity. the ultimate release o f the soul is possible. Jainism
is atheistic but does not deny the existence o f gods as beings inside the cosmos
Henry Z im m er. therefore has called the Jainsm as trans theistic for it regards
the conqueror. He conquered his own self. He turned his attention from outw ard
nature to the study o f the human self. By a steady process o f austerity, discipline
self purification and under standing who had attained divine status. His example
puts. He was not the founder o f a new ascetic community but the reformer o l ' a i i
4 Ibid P xciv
5 Philosophies of India P 182
(9 9 )
old one. H e was not the teacher o f a new doctrine, but is represented as having
gained at the time of his illumination the perfect knowledge o f something which
both he and his community had known before only imperfectly and in part6.
Sruti considers that o f all sciences the science o f die self is the greatest adhyatma
lays down as an essential condition o f spiritual life atma anatma vastu viveka,
the knowledge o f the distinction between the soul and the non - soul. There is
ones soul.
the w orld like Buddha, who was not entangled in the bonds o f matter, but who
was able to realize the inward dignity o f his own self. W hat are the ways by
which w e can attain this self realization? O ur scriptures tell us, if w e w ish to
know;! the self, sravana, manana and nididyasana as Vedanta maintains are to be
practiced. The Bhagvad Gita also says, Tad vidhi pranipatena pariprasnena
sevaya8.
cardinal teaching o f Jainism . The path to liberation lies through right faith,
6. Ibid P. 224
7. Religion &Culture Radha Krishnan P. 135
8 Srimat Bhagvad Gita Sloka 34 P 134
Qtd in Ibid. P 135
9 Umasvami Tat sut 1 2 3
Qtd in Introduction to Indian Phil. S.C. Chattejee P 105
( 100)
As the Buddhism, has mentioned the three jew els o f the Buddha, the
Dharma and the Sangha, the Jainism also has mentioned these three jew els o f
moral conduct.
something superior to the things o f this world. M ere faith, blind unthinking
faith w ill not do. We must have manana (reflection). By reflection, w e convert
life eternal by mere textual learning10. We m ust embody these principles in our
own life. Caritra or conduct therefore, is equally essential. We m ust start with
come to nididhiyasana, seva or caritra. According to the Jainas, these all are
River-Crossing who represent the goal o f all human beings, the goal infact of
all living entities in this living universe o f re-incamating monads - are cut o f f
Although the Jainas maintain the Upanisadic ideal o f self realisation but
w ith certain variations. The Jainism differs from the Hindu and the Buddhist
views and equated Atman and Jiva, only the Jiva is corrupt. The Jainism teaches
existing things are stressed only as regards their substance, hence soul and
body are considered to lee more intimate than m ilk and w ater12. Teaching the
and corrupted the soul. The Sankhya system, in a like manner uses empirical
o f selves can be demonstrated by the obvious difference in the birth and death,
that there are plurality o f selves . Regarding the plurality souls o f Jainas Prof.
philosophical system and code o f morals is the hylozoistic theory that not only
animals and plants but also the smallest particles o f the elements, earth, fire,
being in two parts-one (Lokakasa) where movement is possible and the other
(alokakasa) where it is not. W hatever is, is only the former and the latter is
14
empty akasa, an abyss o f nothing , stretching infinitely beyond it. M atter
possesses colour, flavour odour and touch'5,sound being looked upon not as a
The Jainas and the M imamsakas also agree in holding that Atman is
12. The concept of man D.K Sankeethanany P 392 15. Sparsa-rasa-gandha-varnavantah pudgalah
Qtd. Divyadaan Vol-2 Umasvati Tattvarthadhigama sutra v. 23
13. Prof. Jacobi- Op. cit.Part 1 P xxxm Qtd m Ibid P. 160
Qtd in outlines of Indian Phil. Hirriyana P 160 16 Gunaratna- Op. Cit p.p.69-70
14 Ibid P 160 Qtd in Ibid P 160
( 102)
Jainism. B ut M imamsakas simply say that they are changes in the soul staff.
not accept any idea like the individual souls being drawn back into some higher
m ust belong to something which itself does not change. This interpretation is
fact, Indian philosophy holds that our M ana or mind is in ceaseless change.
self is said to be a factor w hich accounts for the empirical w orld o f change.
But for Devatma, the naturalist o f the nineteenth century, what ever exists
Buddhas anattavada is also the removal o f the soul from the noumenal world and
make it part o f empirical world. Devatma in affirming the universal law o f change,
denies substantial being to God or soul. There is no God, for there can be no
changeless being.
moral law and lay the basis for classical doctrine o f karma, according to which
moral action produced their our fruits w ithout reference to any kind o f divine
dispensation.
animate throughout by life monads which circulate through its limbs and spheres
and this organism will never die. We, ourselves i.e. the lifemonads contained
w ithin and constituting the very substance o f the imperishable great body are
imperishable too. We ascend and descend through various states o f being now
human, now divine, now animal, The bodies seem to die and to be bom , but the
chain is continuous, the transformations are endless, and all w e do have passed
form one state to the next19. Leibnitz, in his Monadology, similarly states, the
monad has no windows through which anything pass in or out, but in its action it
is dependent only on God and on its e lf. To have clear and distinct perceptions
only is the prerogative o f God. Leibnitz calls the active principle form, the
passive matter, and makes the monad, since it is not like God. purus actus and
involved in the substantiality o f individual beings together with the moral interests
and the opposing interests o f religion. On the one hand, creation for him is an
teaches with the mediaeval philosophers that it was not accomplished by a single
with the Sankhya as they both believe in the eternity o f matter and the perpetuus
o f the world. The Sankhya derives the development o f the material world ant;
living beings from the principles o f purusa and prakriti. The Jainas trace then
all to primeval nature. The Jaina conception o f the activity o f the soul has more
A peculiar feature o f the Jaina theory is its doctrine that there are souls
even in inorganic objects, like metals and stones. The condition o f a soul depends
on the condition o f its body. Devatma, also shows compassion not only for
animals but also the feeling o f care even for inanimate things. It is no wonder
like the Jainas, that he made it a part o f the religion for his disciples to realize
their deep dependence on and inseparable relation with the inanimate w orld to
protect, preserve w hat was beautiful in it. In Jainas view, in an inorganic body
the souls consciousness remains dormant, while it ju st stirs in the organic body;
Throughout the entire Jaina view o f the souls getting entangled in the not
souls and seeking to get disentangled from these, there was absolutely no place
for any God or Isvara. The development o f the world is rendered possible by the
produce new sets o f qualities. It is quite contrary to Carvaka view. The Jainas
accidents, W hen the Jainas confronted w ith the theistic assumption, or the
categorically against it. Hence, the Jainas were committed atheists orjisVara-
belonged to the eight century A.D. Gunaratna, who was an acute logician of the
dipika23. He was interested in refuting the Nyaya Vaisesika's proofs for tin.
existence o f God. In the whole of Indian history, we come across only two majoi
philosophies with a distinct bias for theism. These were the Vedanta and tin
later Nyaya Vaisesikas Vedanta was basically satisfied with the scriptura
declarations in favour o f the existence o f God and therefore was not mud
bothered by any need o f logically proving the existence of God. To the Vedanm
philosophers the scriptures were absolutely beyond the scope o f any possible
doubt. But in contrast, the Nyaya Vaisesikas were firm followers of logic am
therefore when they felt the need o f admitting God. they could not reman
satisfied with anything short of a formal proof for His existence. Therefore
they were the only philosophers in India to have insisted on a formal proof fot
Earth, jar etc. are caused by an intelligent agent, because there are of the
In order to prove the probans, because these (earth etc.) are o f the nature
o f being effects", suffer from no logical defect, the Nyaya Vaisesikas analyse
proved that earth etc are actually o f the nature o f being effects, and hence it
must have an efficient cause. This intelligent agent or cause is God. The order,
design, co-ordination between different phenomena comes from God (kar\ a t).
contradictoy (viruddha). Thus, for example, the probans o f the inference ' sound
found in the probans ofN yaya Vaisesikas inference o f an intelligent cause ('1
earth etc. Thirdly, it is not possible to object that, the probans under consideration
the probans is connected with the presence o f the probandum, while on the other
hand, the absence o f the probans is definitely connected with the absence o f the
it.
(ii) (ii)The inherence (sam avaya)ofthe being (satta) o f the previously non
(iii) Being the object o f the knowledge in the form "It is p ro d u ced '
Again, God is said to be without body or form. How can He then w o rk >i
and perfection generally attributed to Him are also doubtful. If God is omnipotent
He should be supposed to be the cause o f all things. But this is not true as w <.
come across various objects like houses, pots etc. are not created by God. Again,
if He is eternally Perfect Being, then also it does not sound good. Because
perfect who was never imperfect. Did God or didn't He exist in some form
prior to the making o f the world? If it is said that it all depends on the inscrutable
will o f God, we should put and end to all science and philosophy. Water can burn
Gods are only according to the Jainas embodied souls like men and
animals, different from them in degree but not in kind27. Although the Jainas
reject God as the creator o f the world, they think it necessary to meditate or
and worship the liberated perfect souls (Siddhas). The liberated souls possessing
the God like perfections take the place o f God. Prayers are offered to them loi
(panca paramesti)28also forms a part o f the daily routine o f the devout Jainas
The liberated souls serve only as beacon lights. Realisation o f one's true sel
and not devotion to Tirthankaras is the way to freedom. We. conscious living-
souls. find ourselves bound to Karmic matter and the end o f our life is to remov i
this Karmic dress and regain our intrinsic nature. Hence Jainism also lift.
Buddhism aims at an ethical teaching and its aim is the perfection o f soul. Jainisn.
emphasises the one, the permanent, the real and early Buddhism emphasizes tlu
many.the changing, the unreal. Jainism points out that both are the two sides o*
the same thing. Substance has its unchanging essence and therefore is permanent.
But it also has its changing modes and therefore it is subject to origination and
decay. Jainas take into account all the partial views; therefore it is called
goes hand in hand with Anekantavada. They are like two sides o f the same com
The m etaphysical side that reality has innum erable characters is called
2 8 . T h e s e a re T h e A rh a ts , T h e S id d h a s , T h e A c a ry a s ,
T h e U p a d h y a y s , T h e s a d h u s V id e D ra v y a S a m g ra h a P. 4 9
2 9 . H o p k in s R e lig io n s o f In d ia P .2 8 3
Q t d . in O u t l i n e s o f In d P h il. H ir r iy a n a P. 1 5 5
(Ill)
Anekantavada. Jainas epistemological and logical side that we can know onl\
some aspects o f reality and that therefore all our judgem ents are necessarih
Jainism has rightly points out that all our knowledge is necessarily relati\ e.
paramartha, the Jainas bluntly refused any such distinction50. But according n
the Jainas right belief is constituted by a clear comprehension from the reai
point o f view o f the nature o f the following categories - Jiva (soul), Aj iva (non
soul). Punya (virtue), papa (vice), Asrava (in flow o f karmas) Samvara (stoppage
(emancipation).
criticism from its opponents. The Jainas take relative views ^ a b s o lu te while
all other teachings are relatively real, the Jaina teaching is held to be absolutely
real. This goes against the Jaina doctrine itself. If relatively is the only truth
how can the Jaina teaching be absolutely true? Jaina's acceptance o f Kevalajnana
transcendental yet they have by implication always admitted it. The distinction
philosophers o f the world. It is opinion and truth in Parmenides, the world and
the form o f Socrates, the sense and the idea o f Plato, the matter and the mover
o f Aristotle, the phenomenal and the noumenal o f kant.the Apara Vidya and
distinction appears as the distinction between the indirect (paroksa) and tIn
as direct is here called indirect) between Syadvada and Kevalajnana. betw een
believes in the transmigration o f soul and law o f Karma. Like Vedanta. Sahkhy.i
and Buddhism, it holds ignorance to be the real cause o f bondage and ignorance
can be removed only by right knowledge. Karma is the link which unites the
soul to the body. Ignorance o f truth and four passions anger (krodha)greed (lobha >
pride (mana) and delusion (maya) which are called Kasaya or sticky substances
where Karmic particles stick, attract the flow o f karmic matter towards the soul
I f through proper self discipline all karma is worked out and there arises the
full blaze o f omniscience in the Jiva, it becomes free. A free liberated soul in
What Vedanta puts negatively. Jainism puts positively, the former links nescience
with misery' and the latter omniscience with eternal bliss, the Vedanta annihilates
nescience by submerging the individual into the universal while Jainism sa> s
that the individual itself becomes universal, still each retaining its separate
individuality, with this omniscient bliss, when stripped o f its karmas. 1lie
omniscience is possessed by Jaina prophets like Mahavtra and b> all liberated
souls 6.
Every Jaina has to take five vows - not to kill anything (A him sa). not to
lie (Satya) not to take what is not given (A steya), to pressure chastitv
the most important o f all is the vow o f ahimsa, the vow o f non violence, o f non
injury to living beings. Some Jainas even renounce agriculture for it tears up the
soil and crushes insects. In this world it is not possible to abstain from v iolenc e
Life is the food o f life37. Sikhism also favours highly o f ahiriisa but it has not
stretched it like the Jainas. The Jainas accepted the caste system and some ol
their teachings are the same as those o f the Brahmanical religion. But the>
rejected the Vedas, forbade sacrifices and prohibited the killing o f living beings.
Their spirit was similar to that o f Buddhism. M. K. Gandhi, shares the same
faith in non-violence and the pow er o f love. In his words there is no other way
o f apprehending God than the way o f love. God is present in everyone o f us and
thereby a gradual process o f extending love we can love everybody and thereby
God himself. This kind o f love demands a kind o f self - sacrifice - a sacrifice
o f the egoistic and selfish ways for the love, and the good o f others. For Gandhi
Truth is G od. To him, God is a matter o f inner realization and faith. Jainism
also brings down God to the level o f man. It looks upon man him self as God
w hen his inherent powers are fully in blossom. God is only another w ord for the
soul at its best. Jainism, therefore can be called atheistic. To Jainism, karma, by
itself w ithout the intervention o f any divine pow er is adequate to explain the
w hole o f experience and thus im press on the individual his com plete
38
responsibility for w hat he does .
Jainism more than any other creed gives absolute religious independence
established that the original teachings of the Buddha were, to a large extent
overlook the similarity between the Sankhya and the Buddhism. In rejecting
God, Buddha was no less deliberate and categorical than the Slnkhya system.
As the Sankhya school developed much earlier than Buddhism, it can be said
with strong presumption that at least for his atheism, the Buddha was directly
indebted to the Slfikhya, although he differs from Kapila in his main interest. 1
1. Indian Atheism,
D P. Chottapadhyya,
P.9 5
(71)
represents the basic. Original teachings of the Buddha, although with a good
deal o f Scholastic elaboration. The Sarvastivadins are divided into two classes
The Theravadin scriptures are written in Pali. They are divided into
not? Does the soul survive after death? And hence forth to him, these
are not less fool than that man, whose heart pierced by a poisonous arrow and
who instead of taking it out whiles away his time on idle speculation about
2. BrahmajalasuttSTnta (Dighanikaya 1.30 34) translated by T,W. Rhys Davids 'Sacred Books of the
Buddhists'
Qtd. in H. Zimmer - Philosophies of India,
P 331.
3. Ency of Phil. Vol I,
P 419
(72)
the origin, the size, the metal, the maker and the shooter of the arrow .4
Buddhas main teachings are centred round with the practical questions
anicca or impermanence.
Buddha was an ethical teacher with a practical and realistic view of the
determining the nature of the ultimate cause of the world Buddha saw
Eight fold Paths for the cessation of misery. Avidya (ignorance) which is the
root cause of suffering; is the wrong belief in Atman, and Prajna (wisdom)
consists in eradication of this belief. To him God was only an illusion; there
was no proof for his existence. He was not only the discoverer to Truth but
also its revealer to mankind. He shared with men the truth, which he had
iThe anatta or no-self doctrine implies both that living beings have no
eternal souls and that there is no cosmic self. The Buddha indeed did not
believe in a creator and seems to have found the existence of evil and suffering
4. Majjhima NikSya I 63
Qtd in Critical Survey of Indian Phil. Chandradhar Sarma,
P. 70
(73)
underlying self is superfluous and erroneous. This is in line with the doctrine
contemporaneously in Jainism .5
To the Vaibhasikas, a thing exists in all the three points of time - past
present and future though its modes undergo changes every moment. But to
the Sautantrikas, a thing exists only in the present - neither in the past nor in
the Upanisads and the Buddha, it is not in their views of the world experience
Again RadhaKrishnan observes that both the Buddha and the Upanisads
and pain. Both agree in the point of placing before us the ideal of a state
beyond all possibility of pain and bondage. The Upanisads speak it more
But the Buddha emphasizes the negative aspect of it. Nirvana is the
annihilation of sorrow.8
writes about Buddhas arguments against belief in God. Buddha argues if there
is an Omnipotent, all good God, there can be no evil in the world. If God is
all-good and all movements of things and actions of men are His actions, so
they are also good. But quite contrastingly, we see sufferings, evils, in and
around us, so there can be no all good God. Buddha argues against Brahman
too. If Brahman is beyond all relation of things, then his existence cannot be
Bradley also justifies this view. How can that which depends on nothing and is
related to nothing, produces things which are related to one another and
reason is the final, indeed the only arbiter of what can be rationally believed.
8 Ibid
P 18
( 75 )
evident with respect to the senses (that it is something that we know direct!>
through the senses). For modem philosophers like Descartes, Hume a belief is
now in pain' or I miwseem to be seeing a green apple or. But that belief in ( r o d
God as he holds reason and experience to be the source and test of a true
belief. A belief is true if it satisfies the laws of logic and is verified b>
questions. The confusion arises as Geden says, The inference however, that lie-
intended to imply personal disbelief in the supernatural and in the existence >l
a God, and to urge or enjoin this upon his disciplines is certainly mistaken
The position which it was his purpose to adopt was neither atheistic, nor in the
But for his hearers it was immaterial whether the reply was in the affirmative
practical life, and the consideration of which would only minister to a harmful
the possible existence of God. It proves that the Buddha himself preferred to
follow the foot stepps of Kapila and looked at the concept of God as at best a
regarded as having prepared the way for the peculiar-teaching of Buddha, and
discover already in the Upanisad.1" Thus, the whole tenor of the earh
Buddha, eliminates the conception of self altogether. There are other points >t
resemblance between the two, but the belief in the Karma doctrine found m
thought.14
Kinnars and Nagas aare common to both, the old Vedic gods India and
worshipped by both . 15
criticizing the Vedic animal sacrifices, priest craft and worship of natural
Karma, moral retribution and rebirth. He did no condemn the whole Sruti, but
only that part of it, which enjoins sacrifices. Kapila also rejected
Buddha concentrated his main fire against the Upanisadie idealism and
and Moggalana, belonged to the realistic school of the Vaibhasikas, which was
performance, which would purify persons from the effects of their evil deeds.
suffer for the things he did in this world itself. One cannot escape the
used the word Karma in a sense just opposite to the Upanisads. The plurality
holding that motives, rather than the acts themselves are what count and that
Karma needs craving (tanha) as a necessary condition for its effectiveness. For
that the contemplative knowledge that the self is the sole reality brings
present, the affect arises. It is contained in the Second Noble Truth i.e. There
is cause of suffering and the Third Noble Truth i.e. there as cessation of
two aspects of the same reality. Pratitya Samutpada, viewed from the point of
view of relativity is Samsara, and viewed from the point of view of reality, it
is nirvana.
sees the Buddha, and whosoever sees the Buddha sees the Dharma (Truth of
Reality) . 17
The Hindu affirms that man can realize his identity with Brahman, the
ground of all beings, the Buddhist say that man can live in a transfigured
The stream ceases to flow where water earth and air function not, there the
whirlpool whirs not, there itself both mind and matter come to final
Buddha said - There are two extremes, Omonk, from which he who leads a
religious life must abstain. What are those two extremes? One is a life of
17 He who sees the Paticcasumppada sees the Dharm ma and he who sees the Dharm ma, sees
the paticcasumppada' Dialogues II
P 44
Qtd. in the C entral Phil. O f Buddhism T .R V Murty
P 7
18. S ara Sutta 31 .27 33
Sam yukta Nikaya I.P. X II
( 81)
less ness in the famous stanza - As the Chariot is known depending on the
different parts o f it, so a being is known depending on the five aggregates'
Just as the Chariot on account o f its having all these things - the pole, the
work, the yoke and the goad - comes under the generally understood symbol
their own account, for that would imply their never ceasing to be active 22
Samkaracharyya pointed out their activity can never cease and the material
world is eternal.23
Therefore, for the solution of the question of life, Buddha found that
belief in God was useless since the existence of God, as the spiritual cause of
22 M a t e ri a l i sm M . N . R o y
P .9 8
23 Ibid
P .9 8
24. Ibid
P 98
(83)
parts, whether animate or inanimate are composed of only two kinds of things.
One of them is called the Matter and the other is termed as the force. Both
these things form the substance out of which the whole Nature and all its
Matter exists; (2) Force exists and (3) Matter and Force are inseparable from
each other. 26
matter rather than deny it. To say, that something of a piece of matter can be
changed into force is to assert that matter exists, and again to say that force
become matter is to assert that force exists. So^say that they are
, 25 Materialism M. N. Roy
P.97
26. The Ethics of Devatma
S. P Kanal
P. 49
27 Ibid
P 54
(84)
being. 28
Matter and motion are inseparable. It would not be incorrect to say that
the vaibhasika concept of matter and change comes nearest to the modem
Buddhlistic system lies in reducing all psychic process to purely physical ones,
negating the independent existence o f the sowl and affirming that the so called
time.
world. This means that He is the exclusive and self sufficient cause of
Having these qualities, God could not maintain this precarious conditions >(
presupposes some conscious agent, and that the world being an effect, point <
Law o f the world, accept the presence o f God. Naiyayikas believe God to be ,
following way -
(1) It is true that an effect implies a cause, but it does not necessarily impl\
to germ, the germ into a title and so on without the aid o f any conscious
principle. In the same way, the world 'pro?ets can go without tin
(2) God, is regarded as the uncaused cause. But it is not tenable, since am
It can therefore, be asked from what cause has God come into being? 31
(3) God is regarded as all perfect, benevolent, whereas the world is full of
full of evils and imperfections? If all the evils and imperfections found
benevolent also, why he created the world full of pains and sufferings?
The Bhutidatta Jataka, thus asks as to why God does not make all men
happy and why He does not bring order into the world?
own deeds, then the law of karma will have to be regarded as the
(4) It may be asked whether God acts with or without some purpose. If He
has some purpose, He is not perfect, because purpose means the wish to
31 Ibid
P .4 5 6
32. Ibid
P. 456 & Sarva Siddhanta Sara Samgraha I.P, Vol I p.p. 4 56,458
(87)
who creates such a vast world without any purpose must be very
unintelligent,33
(5) If God, be the agent or cause of everything, men will have no freedom
(Buddha) say, to so then because of the will of their creator and God,
the free will to do what is to be done and also refrain from doing what
is not to be done.34
(6) The Nyaya Vaisesikas hold that the four kinds of atoms, as also other
substances like aklsa, space, self etc. are eternal. These substances
But Santark Sita and Kamalasila argue that this argument of Naiyayikas
from a jug that the same principle cannot be applied to both the cases35.
(7) Even if, for the arguments sake, it is accepted that there is an
phenomena.36
(8) It is said that God creates, maintains and destroys the world in
accordance with the good and bad deeds of beings. If be so, God cannot
be regarded as independent.37
also. For the cessation of suffering in life one should not take refuge in God,
practical value, it does not help us in moral progress. It is Karma and not God,
Buddha is of opinion that the belief in God will make men illogical,
35. A. K II 64
T.S. Isvara Parika 61
Ibd 158
36. T.S. Isvara Parika 73, 92
Ibid 158,161
37. Purusa Parika
Ibid 158,161
(89)
If God is regarded as the sole cause of the universe, men will throw all the
burdens one him and will not rely on their own efforts. But Buddha does not
the cause of the world o%is based on a false belief in an eternal self (atman).
soul (Atman) in man, which persists through changes that overcome the body,
exists before birth and after death, and migrates from one body to another.
Buddha, throughout his life, abandons the question of such a soul. But the
question may be put, how does then. Buddha explain the continuity of a
through the different states of childhood, youth and old age? Though denying
the continuity of an identical substance in man, Buddha does not deny the
continuity of the stream of successive states that compose his life. Life is an
unbroken series of states, each of these states depends on the condition just
38 A. K 58
ibid 161
(90)
running through the different states, The conception of a soul is thus replaced
James also. The present state of consciousness inherits its characters from
previous ones, the past in a way continues in the present, through its effect.
repeatedly exhorts his disciples to give up the false view about the self.
Buddha points out that who suffers from the illusion of the self, does not know
its nature clearly, still he strongly protests that he loves the soul, because he
life, the pervasiveness of suffering in a way not wholly alien to the doctrine of
the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality .39
Buddhas view is also similar to this. He says each one has to pass
through this world full of the futility of our achievements the restlessness of
in order to fulfill himself and recognise at the depth of all struggles the lastin
salvation. 40
causal law governing them (dharma - sanketa). According to him this alom
succeeding state (good or bad) is the result of the previous state. I hus n
acceptance of the permanent soul on the one hand and nihilism or material ivu
to change is to imply force. Leibnitz opines - Not only is a body at rest the
present movement of its motion in a place commensurate to it, but it has also a
conation or effort to change its place, so that the succeeding state follows on
itself from the present state by the force of Nature, otherwise in the present
and also in any moment a body which is in motion would differ in no way
mans existence is life itself. Man is only a bundle of transient emotions and
sensations, tossed to and fro, on a surging and suffering sea of becoming. The
meaningful. But man, by his act of defiance against God has brought tragedy
into human life.43 Since the existence of God, as the spiritual cause of the
to the denial of God. God cannot be reached except through the doctrine of
theory).
42. Ibid
P.5 2
43 De Krester Man in Buddhism & Christianity 64-65
Qtd. In D.K Sankethamonee's The concept of Man
Published in Divyadaan Vol. 2
(93)
life, lose all meaning, we would in that case, be neither the better nor the
worse for our efforts. The atman is the not cause of all attachment, desire,
opposed to it.
Buddha, according to Mrs. Rhys Davids44 did not deny the soul or self
outright but only that body, the sense organs etc. were the self. The words
body is not the self mind is not the self, cannot rationally be said to imply
that there is no self or soul or real man. Buddhism never denied the existence
not the ultimate reality (not adharma) whereas Kant defines reality as a trinity
of ideas God self and the world. Vedanta reduces it to two and finally to one in
terms of the famous formula Brahman is real, the world is illusory and the
self is the same as Brahman and no other. The world is eliminated and God,
identified as the self. In Vedic conception true self is identical with Absolute
(Brahman).
Buddha denies soul and hence the theory o f transmigration o f souls. But
does life end after death? What about the good and bad deeds committed by
that life in general is endless and the good and evil deeds o f man are
remembered by his successors. The individual body and mind vanish but his
contribution to society lives and becomes past o f the eternal human process.
ancient India was not a part o f the larger Hindu tradition and that there was
Sramana tradition which was certainly non-Vedic, but it was one o f the two
main strands o f our religious tradition, the various facts o f which collectively
f I Buddhists systems grew out o f them much in the way the Brahmanical
sacrificial piety to the spiritual religion which they formulate, but they did not
attack in the way in which the Buddha did. The Buddhas main object was to
bring about a reformation in the religions practices and a return to the basic
principles. All those who adhere to the essential frame work of the Hindu
religion and attempt to bring it into conformity with the voice of awakened
who reclaimed Hindus from sanguinary, rites and erroneous practices and
purified their religion of the numerous abuses which had crept into it. Our
Puranas describe the Buddha as the ninth avatara of Visnu. The Buddha
view.
the doctine of the eternal Buddha, which was not distinguishable from the
The cult of bodhisattvas, who make it the mission of their life to bring
selfless ethics. Instead of seeking private and personal salvation, people came
to value the service of fellow beings to the surer and better path to higher life.
stand of Indian Culture. He also maintained that the Hindus worship the
Buddha49.
know n to the students o f Indian Philosophy as a Purva Paksa in alm ost all the
systems. The references o f the Lokayata or the Carvaka darsana are found in the
used for m aterialism is also called Lokayatam ata i.e. the view o f common
i.e. accepted and supported inlarge by the com m on people. They exert
themselves about it, strive about it through the pleasure they take in discussion,
for living beings donot stir-up their hearts to right doing by reason. The lokayata
sattham3.
century. In the M ilinda also, the word is used for twice. In the Brahmajala sutta,
Pitakas refer to famous saying tarn jivam tam sariram (for instance in M ahali
Samkaracharyya also used the word Lokayata in his Brahm asutra for
several times. H e uses it in the same sense as the view o f those w ho look upon
the soul as identical w ith the body, as existing only so long as the body exists,
not continuing, after death, in a new condition and separate from the body5.
The Lokayatas Claim that the cause o f the world is svabhava as commented
by Bhatta Utpala6 in the commentary o f the Brhat Samhita. From svabhava, arises
We find verses attributed to the Carvaka and the name o f Brhaspati as the
founder o f the Lokayata school, more familiarly known as the Carvaka Darsana
century A.D.).
There are various view points also as to the origin, o f the Lokayata or
carvaka school.
this school. Sometimes this Brhaspati is equated with the teacher o f the gods
5 Ibid
P370
6 Cf Bhatta Utpala - Brhat Sam hiti (1.7) Quoted in Gopinath Kabiraj Lokayata & Doctrine of Svabhava'.
1 Carvaka/Lokayata. Edited DPC
P 449
(47)
who propagated materialism among the asuras so that they might be ruined.
Carvaka, after whose name this school is so called, is said to be the chief disciple
this school. According to still another view, the word Carvaka is not a proper
name but a common name given to a materialist, and it signifies a person who
believes in eat, drink and be merry (the root charv) means to eat, or a person
who eats up his own words or who eats up all moral and ethical considerations
superficially attractive7.
(b) That Mahabharata and elsewhere materialistic views are put in the
(c) That about a dozen sutras and verses are found quoted or referred
g
to by different authors as the materialistic teaching of Brhaspati.
future existence. We can cite some of the passages containing atheistical and
satirical remarks. These are similar to the same tenor, which occurs in the Visnu
of future reward.
are only means of livelihood ordained by the creator for men who
out upon a journey with any provisions (as their friends to remain
5. Since (as you say) persons in heaven are filled with oblations
presented upon earth why is food not similarly offered (by those
6. While a man lives, let him live merrily, let him borrow money,
and swallow clarified butter how can a body return to earth after
7. If a man goes to another world when he quits his body, why does
like manner, also well known what other sorts of things are to be
In Visnu Purana, similar verses are quoted which are identical with
above passage.
from the arrangements made by his late father Da/aratha and return from the
9 Qtd in J Muirs
Carvaka/Lokayata Edt by DPC,
P 352
( 50)
forests of the south to Ayodhya to take possession of the throne offered to him
by his dutiful brother Bharata. In his speech Javali tried to incite Rama in the
following way:
any other.
with troubles.
3. Da^aratha (his father) is now nothing to you, nor you to him, that
king (was) one person and you (are) another, do, therefore, as I
advise.
6. Accept this great kingdom, which is free from rivals and enemies.
which are developed through the different vedic and other religious literary
works. As for example there are lofty examples in M anus Institutes eg. ii, II, it
-sastra), shall despise these two sources o f (Knowledge, the J>ruti and the Smrti)
is to be cast out by good m en as a nihilist and reviler o f the Veda xii, 9 5,96.
A ll religious systems (smrtis) which stand apart from the Vedas, and all
heretical opinions whatever, are unprofitable in the next world, for they are
founded on darkness. W hatever books separate from the Vedas, spring up and
In the Rg Veda viii, 89,3.4, reference is made to some free thinkers who
But no well known text on Lokayata has come down to us. So the principal
tenets o f this school can be restored only on the basis o f the Lokayatam ata that
works.
In the long list o f various sorts o f hermits given in the Harsa carita, the
H Ibid
p.p 3 6 8 ,3 6 2.
(52)
The w ord lokayata was used in about 500 B.C. in a complimentary w ay as the
name o f a branch o f Brahmin learning and probably meant N ature Lore - wise
the elements, the stars the weather, scraps o f astronomy, o f elementary physics,
even o f anatomy, and knowledge o f the nature o f precious stones and o f birds
and beasts and plants. Even before the Christian era masters o f the dark sayings,
the mysteries o f such mundane lore, w ere m arked w ith sophists and casuists12.
longish chapter ascribes to the Lokayatikas the m ost extreme forms o f the let-
us-eat and drink for tomorrow w e die view o f life, o f Pyrrhonism in philosophy,
Kautilya, in the fourth century B.C. speaks o f the LokSyatikas only once
in his work, but the connection in which he speaks o f them seems to indicate
o f L oklyata sutras and refutes them. These sutras relate to the desirability or
3. And is doubtful.
Lokayata.
In the eighth century, Haribhadra Suri, the voluminous writer o f the Jainas,
writes six verses in his saddarsana samuccaya noting the fact that the Lokayatas
regard earthly enjoyment as the highest aim o f human life. But his commentator
tebhyascaitanyam16. Earth, water, fire and air are the four elements and out o f
were Lokayatikas even in his time, the end o f the fifteenth century A.D., that
they were given to eating and drinking, that they indulged in all sorts o f sensual
excesses, that they w ere KSpalikas, besmeared w ith dust and they w ere Yogins
Samkarlcaryya in the early part o f the ninth century, it is stated that BSrhaspatya,
A rhata and Buddhism are non-Vedic systems o f philosophy. The well known
verse agnihotram trayo Vedah etc. Samkara attributes to Brhaspati and he says
that the Lokayatas do not believe in the blessings o f the future existence, but
which produce tangible results in this world. This is w hat Kautilya also says
(coercion)17.
possible to recount a history o f the system from the seventh century B .C. to the
present day. Here it was written as - The Lokayatikas do not believe in'Kvara or
in a future existence. Virtue and vice they have none. They believe in the present
and not in the past nor in the future. They are positivists. They have few doctrines
to defend but many to assail, and in the matter o f assailing they are bold, direct
1. Those who take a dip under the water o f the Ganges with a view to
the sacrifice not kill his father and send him to heaven?18
which has been eagerly studied by all scholars interested in Indian history, thought
and society. Brhaspati is said to have been propounder o f the doctrine o f the
Lokayatikas. The Brhaspati sutras give us the most important piece of information
as regards the Lokayatika's close connection with the Kapalikas. It says, for the
Kapalika is the sastra. But the Brhaspati sutras tell us that the Kapalikas are an
distinct sects, but Gunaratna identifies the Kapalikas with the Lokavatikas
Nodoubt Brhaspati sutra gives the idea that there are more Kapalikas bent on
Kamasadhanathan Buddhists19.
and nothing else20. In it vitanda was essential. It was in its original stage. withou>
any constructive element and without any positive theory to propound. It \\a>
Bhatta. This negative aspect o f the doctrine finds expression in the Vedas
themselves. The Vedic hymns pointedly refer to scoffers and unbelievers. I hose
hymns which are traditionally ascribed to Brhaspati, son o f Loka. contains tin.
first germs o f protest against a mere verbal study o f the Veda and emphatically
declare that a man who tries to understand the Veda is far superior to a mere
19 ibid
p.p 381 - 383
20 D R Sastri : A Short History of Indian Materialism. Sensationalism and Hedonism
Qtd in C'arvaka/I.okavata
P. 400
(56 )
who are described as raising their voices together at the commencement o f the
rains like Brahmin pupils rapeating the lessons o f their teachers, and this
hood. Yaska clearly tells us that those w ho merely memorize the texts w ithout
knowing the meaning, do not see the real form o f the Veda. In the Chandogya
better result than a perform ance w ithout knowledge. Jaimini, in his Purva
MImamsa system, devotes an entire chapter to drawing the conclusion that study
consists not only in learning by heart the letter o f the Vedas but also in clearly
no authority other than its own. In its seconc^stage, in explanation o f the origin
/' "
svabhava maintains that the effects are self existent and are produced neither
found for the filament o f the lotus or the eye like marks on the pea-cocks tails.
a re -
-A. Bhutavada - That is m atter is the only reality. These ate earth,
knowledge,
the only shastra, perception is the only authority, earth, water, fire and air are
the only elements, enjoyment is the only end of human existence, mind is only
sense organs is the only valid source of knowledge. Lokayatas do not accept
facts. Out of the four substances earth, water, fire and air arise bodies, senses
and objects of this world just as red colour is produced by the combination of
betel nut, leaf and lime. There is no soul or consciousness apart from the body.
So, the continuity of self or soul is meaningless. When the body perishes, soul
also perishes. Therefore, transmigration of soul, heaven, hell etc. are mere
imagination. Plato says, there are four elements out of which the body is
com posed. These are earth, fire, w ater and air24. K am alasila w rites in
this school denied the existence o f the universal mysterious agency called fate
or Adrsta or Daiva i.e. dependence on the being or the supernatural. It denies the
Indian philosophers are in conformity the the law o f karm a and simultaneously
with the retribution o f good and bad deeds. The opponents argue that fate must
w orld. B rhaspati and others bring forw ard the doctrine o f Svabhava or
one o f this -
thing .
materialistic out look. Those who thought that material elements alone were
cintakah27.
[But an opponent w ill say] if you thus do not admit adrsta, (the unseen)
the various phenomena o f the word would be just fortuitous (akasmika). However
(answer the Lokayatas) this is not properly said in as much as it [i.e. the causation
the w ater is cold and air is neutral (i.e. neither hot nor cold) to touch. By whom
are all these varieties created? because ofSvabhava all these are so29. Devatma,
also finds no supernatural hand in the creation o f the world. It is by natural force
everything is created.
also called N astika, since it negates soul, the authority o f the Vedas,
transmigration o f soul etc. For Indian materialist it is not only the denial o f the
soul and the exclusive restriction to matter as the cause for the explanation o f
the world. Its aim is to dispute and deny the continuance o f life after death, the
restriction o f good and bad work, and the moral claims derived out o f them. Its
since it regards the four elements as the ultimate for the origin o f everything.
are prominent.
is no fruit and ripening o f good and bad actions. There is no this world or that.
(6 1 )
There is neither mother nor father. There are no ascetics and Brahmanas who
have gone along the right path o f conduct and follow the right conduct who have
seen this world and that world out o f independent knowledge and proclaimed it.
A man consists o f four elements. W hen he dies earth goes into the mass o f
earth, water into the mass o f water, fire into mass o f fire, breath into the mass o f
are seven masses, which are neither created nor brought forth. They are unfruitful,
unchangeable and are firm like a pillar. They move not, nor do they change, they
do not disturb each other, nor are they also to procure joy, g rief or jo y and
grief. The seven masses are the earth mass, the water mass, the five mass, the air
A ccording to them, quality and action are not separate categories distinct from
namely, aklsa, time, space, self and mind are not admitted as realities in thp
carvaka philosophy. The old w ritings o f the Jainas also describe sim ilar
30 Materialism - E Frauwaliner
Carvaka/Lokayata Edt by DPC 31 Ibid
P 479 P. 480
(6 2 )
Carvakas materialistic, atheistic and naturalistic tendencies under the three heads,
Lokayata, perception (Pratyaksa) is the only source o f knowledge and they deny
the validity o f other sources such as inference (Anumana) and o f testim ony
(sabda). \
We m ust see the view points or the Carvakas for their acceptance o f
Pratyaksa Pramana as the source o f knowledge. A t the same time enquire under
w hat ground they try to reject inference and other pramanas as sources of
knowledge.
Both the heterodox and orthodox accordingly set about examining their
rejection o f inference is that there is not sufficient w arrant for believing in the
truth o f the inductive relation or Vyapti which forms its basis. The ascertainment
o f this relation, depends upon observed facts, and since observation is necessarily
restricted in its scope it does not entitle us, it is urged, to universalize the
(63)
conclusion reached with its help. It is necessary to find out w ith certainty the
limiting the universality o f the relation on which all inference are based is in
Slnkhya tattva Kaumudi, there is an example when the materialist affirms that
inference is not a means o f knowledge, how is it that he can know that a man is
ignorant or in doubt or in error? For ignorance, doubt and error cannot possibly
ignorance etc., in other man m ust be inferred from conduct and from speech
will32.
So, it is seen that ancient Lokayata lost its original character as it was no
more a rilti, but became a hetuvidy a, a tarka vidya full o f logical subtleties33.
Later on, the Loklyatas appear to have disappeared, but its doctrine still
in every country even in a country which can be called the fatherland o f idealism34.
also have rejected the ultim ate validity o f inference. There has been long
controversy between Udayana, the logician and Sriharsa, the Vedantin regarding
the validity o f inference and Sriharsa has denounced all attempts to prove the
viewpoint and the Vedantins and Sunyavadins view points. The Carvakas accept
only perception and uphold it as a the true means o f valid knowledge. But the
Sunyavadins and the Advaitins reject the ultimate validity o f all means o f
validity o f all means o f knowledge. The distinction betw een ultimate and
external material objects ? I f so, does it not compel us to believe that there is in
i
w hich is called soul or spirit (Atm3)? The Nyaya Vaisesika and others admit a
separate sense organ called mind. W ith its help people experience pleasure,
pain etc. But in the CUrvaka view, no separate internal sense organ in the form o f
35
the m ind has been admitted . But science, neurological sciences admit the
existence o f mind.____________________________________________________
34. Ibid
P. 392
35 Ananta Kumar Bhattacharya C ah'aka Darsana
Qtd m Lokayata/Carvaka Bdt. by DPC,
P 463
(65)
perception. But they deny that consciousness is the quality o f any unperceived
a soul is nothing more than this eonscious living body (caitanya vi&ta deha eva
atmS), the non-material soul is never perceived. We have direct evidence o f the
identity o f the self with the body in our daily experiences and when we say I am
fat, I am lame, I am reading and writing, I am sitting etc. in these cases, the body
i
only is the self, in the said awareness involving the T , it is being revealed as the
doer. I f the T , the self, w ere different from the body, th ese w ould be
meaningless36.
due to particular combination o f four material elements, earth, water, fire and
the end o f the individual. All questions about previous life, after life, rebirth,
denounce the existence o f God on the basis that it is not perceivable. The four
elements are sufficient for the creation o f the world, the supposition o f a creator
36 Ibid
P 454 i
(66 )
is meaningless.
give rise to this wonderful world? D o w e not need an efficient cause for
In reply, the Carvaka states that the material elements themselves have
i
got each its fixed nature (svabhava). It is by the natures and laws inherent in
W henever a new existent comes into being, it is the result o f the action o f
some immutable process o f Nature and w hen any existent grows or evolves
B ut Devatma accepts the law o f causality since the change does not take
immutable law o f nature. By the immutable law o f nature, Devatma means that
37 Ethics of DevatmS
S P Kanal
P 74
(67)
human life in heaven which can be attained hereafter by perform ing vedic rites.
But according to Carvaka, the notion o f heaven hell etc. are the inventions o f
good conduct in relation to other human beings as ethical conduct. They regard
being called God and the distrinction between Ethics and Religion falls within
the natural world. Devatmas Ethics is naturalistic in the sense that it denies any
being beyond good or evil or that the love o f or identity w ith or realization o f
38
supersensible reality is the highest destiny for human personality .
a super natural or transcendental being, and w ith it also belief in everything that
the universe nor conscience which guides man, and it does not care for b elief in
a life after death, which, so far as right conduct is concerned, matters more
according to the Indian than even b elief in the existence o f God39. Thus it draws
away m ans mind altogether from the thought o f a higher life and fixes it upon
38 Ibid
P 194
39 Outlines of Indian Phi. Hirriyana
P 193
(68 )
the w orld o f sense. O f the four purusarthas or human values (dharma, artha,
kama and moksa), the Carvakas o f Lokay atikas reject two viz, dharma and moksa,
thus restricting the scope o f human effort to the attainment o f sensual pleasure
(Kama) or securing the means there o f (Artha). The Carvakas are so impatient
o f obtaining pleasure that they do not even try to secure freedom from pain,
N obody casts away the grain because o f the husks so say the Carvakas in
Sarvadarsana Samgrah. The repudiation o f the traditional teaching and all the
moral and spiritual discipline for which it stands is a necessary corollary to this
i
crude utilitarianism, whose motto, is sufficient unto the day is the good there
but not without that o f dharma. The life devoid o f dharma is to reduce man to the
applied to the main questions o f philosophy, a judgm ent free from the fancies
o f theology and the dictates o f authority. M aterialism is the first answer to the
philosophy41.
The chief importance o f the CSrvaka system for us lies in the evidence it
o f expression.
4 6 Ibid
P 194
41 Ind. Phil Vol-1 Radha Knshnan
P 285
i
(6 9 )
agnostic and materialist thought in ancient India found its culmination in the
Carvaka Philosophy. The Carvaka view that no inference can yield certain
affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence1. It is
views rejecting faith in the supernatural (spirits, gods, life beyond grave etc.)
the sources of religion and the reasons for its emergence, criticizes religious
dogmas from the stand point of a scientific study of the universe, exposes the
social role of religion and shows how religious prejudices are to be overcome.
We can say that many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness
religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately
understand.
actively believe that particular gods or all gods do not exist. Just lacking belief
means, Without or Not, Theos, which means deity. Thus, a person who
Godless are still frequently used as terms of abuse. Never the less, there are
relatively few people in whom the thought of atheism and atheists arouse
unspeakable horror.
In France, until the revolution and in most other countries it was illegal
to publish works in defence of atheism and infact real or alleged atheists were
the burning of all undistributed copies and in the expulsion of Shelley and his
Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major
that such a God could exist. Others are atheists through skepticism because
logical argument to back up their atheism. For some, it is simply the most
acting in a moral situation. He,in his Appeal to the people denies the charge
of atheism. We need no other god (Than the moral world order) and we
beyond the moral world order to a separate entity as its cause.6 Paul Tillich has
rj
defined atheism as the view that life has no depth, that it is shallow.
5. Ibid 7. Ibid
P. 174 P 175
6. The Encyclopaedia of Philophy, Vol. I,
P 192.
(4 )
maintains that there is no God, that is, the sentence God exists expresses a
false proposition.8
passively believes that no God exists and/or who actively asserts this belief
believes that there is no. God.9 This definition implies that atheists have
investigated proofs for the existence and non-existence of God, and have
phenomenally small. It includes a closet atheist - one who believes that there
is no God but does not assert this belief to others. This definition would seem
to imply that a person, who believes in the existence of a Goddess, but not a
God, is also an atheist. This definition will probably not satisfy many
definition that includes non-male deities - one who disbelieves or denies the
8. Ibid
P. 175
9. W ebsters New World Dictionary
P. 137
10. Ibid
P 173
(5 )
more consistent and forceful statement of the original Pyrrhonian view. Hume
argues that our ideas reach no further than our experience. Hume in his
proofs for the existence of God, as did Immanual Kant. Kants skeptical
thought provided a new road to Pyrrhonism. He holds that all our knowledge
begins with experience. But neither Hume nor Kant were atheist, but their
But agnostic like T.H. Huxley did not categorically deny the existence
(strong) atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a
higher power existed was unsolved and unsuperable. He denies that we have
any knowledge of God who is beyond the realm of human knowledge and
definition.
from the invisible towards the visible, from the transcendent towards the
that the universe. consists of nothing but those physical and psychical
positive belief. 15
Here to contrast the atheistic views with the theistic ones, a brief survey
Theism is the belief that all the entities in the cosmos which are known
dependent for their origination and for their continuance in existence upon the
Will .16 And in course of time, this self -existent. Being progressively reveals,
His essence and character in the ideas and ideals of His rational creatures, and
thinking. In other words intuition supplies the material and thinking supplies
knowledge about the different uses of the word God and correspondingly the
supposed to have created the world and to rule it. He is immensely powerful,
highly intelligent and very good, loving and just. God on Tillichs view,
in Islam Allah in Christianity, the Holy Trinity (God), the father, (God), the
universe owes its existence and its continuance in existence to the reason and
will o f a self existent Being, who is infinitely powerful, wise and good . 18
The basic source of our idea of God is pure feeling, which is completely non-
rational. The idea of God developed along with the development of religious
people through the experience of dreams and supposed ghosts come to believe
in the existence of super human beings who act for or against human welfare
and are thus objects of worship and fear. They believed that the energies in
nature are the manifestation of Wills resembling their own. This idea has been
prevailed long before the idea of one Infinite Supreme Being is reached. These
Sevage people along with this conception of a variety of finite super human
all the changing phenomena of nature. They by their intuitive idea of infinity
regard this reality, as the omnipresent cause which controls all the forces of
nature. And this reality in course of time manifests Himself in varying degrees
10
within the human souls.
deities is a theist. Theists belief in God may be viewed from three positions -
The western scholars and some of the Indian scholars inspired by and
19 E. R.E. Vol. 2,
P.P. 173,174
(9 )
even obsessed with the western interpretation are apt to believe that when the early
Vedic Aryans, who were primitive, semi civilized and semi barbarians settled down
and began to wonder at the charming and tempting events and to fear the terrible and
fashion and called them gods and goddess and began to worship them.
gradually polytheism yielded place to monotheism and the latter to monism. Max
Henotheism means belief in one and only God, because the Vedic Aryans regarded
any God they were praising as the most supreme and the only God.20
external forces of nature and attributing them to mystical beings (gods, spirits).
religions - in Islam and Judaism it occurs in hidden form. Animism is the belief in
the soul and spirits that affect the lives of people and animals and exert and influence
over the objects and phenomena of the surrounding world. Primitive men imagined
01
that things, plants and animals possessed souls.
The conceptions of tribal and national gods came into existence with the
and the rise of classes and the state. The conception of a single and omnipotent
Almighty God, deity, the Lord of Heaven took shape as a copy of the single oriental
despot. 22
Vedas and the Upanisads. In the Vedas, there are many gods and not one o f
them can be styled the Supreme G od, not one o f them is superior to others.
the One G od and thecas having different names and different attributes and
A long w ith the use o f G od, the terms Brahm an and A tm an are also
used in the Upanisads for ultimate realities, which have been, described as the
two pillars on which rests nearly the whole edifice o f Indian Philosophy. 24
In the Purusa Sukta 25 or the Hymn o f the cosmic person, w e have the
22. Ibid
P. 178
23. Ibid
P. 178
24. Outlines of Indian Phil.
Hirriyana,
P .5 4
25. Rg veda X. 90
Qtd. In A Short History of Religion & thought in India,
K. Swami,
P 6
( 11)
immanent and transcendent reality. The all compassing Purusa, who is all
heads, all eyes and all limbs everywhere, envelops and permeates creation
from all sides and stands above its as the glorious immortal. Such is the
majestic purusa, the god of all gods. From Him proceeds the* original
Similarly, the Nasadiya Sukta of Rg. Veda26 (10, 129) gives for the first
time intimations of the seers sounding the depths of Being. The astounding
vision of the transcendent by the relative is the apparent theme of this famous
hymn. Though the Absolute is the Being above all beings existence beyond ail
nothing definite can be said and of which no definition can be given, when it
before the manifestation of the heaven and the earth. There was as if, only an
anyone. There was neither death, nor immortality, for there was no
There was only That One (Tad Ekam) Presence throbbing in all splendour
and glory but appearing as darkness to the eye that would like to behold it.
There was nothing second to it, it alone was. From it, this creation arose. But
how it all happened no one can say, for everyone came after creation.
is one, though the wise ones call it by various epithets like Indra, Mitra,
Vanina, Agni, Yama, Vayu, thus unifying all the gods in a single being.
The word Veda stands for the Mantras and the Brahmanas. The
Mantras and the Brahmanas are called Karma Kanda or the portion dealing
with the sacrificial actions, while the Aranyakas and the Upanisads are called
The main theme of the Upanisad is the spiritual unity of all existences.
Isavasyam idam sarvam 28 - conveys the idea that one supreme, omnipotent
reality of the entire cosmic scheme is hailed as Isa or the supreme ruler. The
s u p re m e ru le r.
T h e M a n d u k y a U p a n is a d a n a ly s e s th e p ra n a v a m a n tra A U M . O n e o f
o r m a n ) is B ra h m a , o c c u rs in th e B rh a d a ra n y a k a U p a n is a d . A t firs t th e re
w a s th e A tm a n a lo n e S a y s th e A ita re y a 30 A g a in , A ll th is is B r a h m a n 3 1 , I
a m B ra h m a n 32 a re so m e o f th e lo fty m a h a v a k y a s o f th e U p a n is a d s .
T h e c h a n d o g y a a n d th e B rh a d a ra n y a k a U p a n is a d s p ro v id e a m p le sc o p e
th o u a r t T a t t v a m a s i.
29 Brhadaranyaka 2.5.19,
Qtd. in An Introduction to Ind. Phil
S. C. Chatterjee, & D.M Dutta
P. 356
30. 'OmAtma Vaidam eke eva agreasti' Aitareya - 1 .1 .
Ibid, P 356
31. Brahma eva idamvisvam (Mundakya Upanisad, 2.2,11 and Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma
Chandogya Upa, 3 14 1,
Ibid P 356
32 Aham Brahma asmi Brhadaranyaka 1.4.10,
Ibid, P. 356
33. Tat tvam asi chandogya - 6,
Qtd, in A critical survey of Ind Phil
C. D. Sharma,
P 26
T Q ^S lS if
(1 4 )
Though the Upanisads are absolutistic in their approach, they are not
lopsided in any sense of the term. Together with their lofty proclamations of
Brahman beyond the range of understanding, they provide for the emotional
aspiration of man by their concept of God, who creates, preserves and destroys
Along with the use of words God, Brahman, the word Absolute has
/
also been used to. mean the highest reality. In the Upanisads and Samkara used
it for both the immanent, personal aspect and also for the transcendent
impersonal aspect. Hegel, used the term Absolute in place of God and
God as an Infinite Being, free from the limitations of space and time. But for
Sri Aurobindo, the Absolute or Saccidananda, as he calls it, projects Itself out
of Itself. This self projection is a self limitation and this is what we call
creation.
skepticism, the common element in all these isms is that the idea of God is
to ritual of Brahmanas and embody a theory of the universe quite distinct from
the above.
ceremonial in the course of which it is stated that whosoever hopes for real
good to aceruefum these rites is a fool and is sure to be overtaken again and
(b) God creates the universe out of nothing and the world is controlled
by Him.
the limits of which are indeterminate matter at the bottom and God or Pure
We can raise some questions - Is there any reason to suppose that God
exists ? Is there any proof of His existence ? Is there some reasons to suppose
There are three classifical proof of the existence of God. One of these is
the cosmological argument. It argues that there must be a God to create the
world or nothing would exist in the world. The Teleological argument argues
that there must be a God the world would not be orderly, harmonious as it is,
The Western and the Indian philosophers give various proofs of the existence
of God.
(a) Everything that is moved requires something to move it, every effect
that this or that exists, there must be something that is not merely
perfect objects.
Since everything is caused by the fust cause, the first cause must be
most perfect being, the cause of all perfect things in the world. St.
God therefore, is the first and final or purposive cause of the universe.
God created the world including matter out of nothing. God, being the first
The Cosmological proof has taken a number of forms, the most important, of
which are known as the causal argument and the; argument from contingency,
causal argument tries to justify God as the cause of the total chain of events
called the universe, whereas the argument from contingency tries to prove the
existence of God from the fact that the things and events have dependent
The ontological argument put forward by St. Anselm 38 begins with the
very conception of God as all perfect - as that being than which nothing
greater can be conceived, therefore, God must exist and that His existence is
his argument - Truly there is a God although, the fool hath said in his heart
there is no God (Psalm XIV-I). The relation between Gods nature or essence
and existence is necessary as the relation between triangle and three sidedness
is necessary. Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the
contains all reality does not imply existence. Existence is not a real predicate
like red, omniscience etc. Existence does not follow from the bare concept of
the most real being, we cannot spin out of an arbitrary Idea, the existence of an
possesses the properly of existence but about the concept of God that there is
experience.
is the argument, which supports the view that the universe was created by a
wise creator, God. His presence maintains order and purposive adaptiveness,
so that the parts of natural objects are made and put together in. such a way to
efficient cause, but not material cause of the universe. God creates the
universe out of eternal atoms, space, time, ether, minds (manas) and souls.
directive cause of actions of all living beings. He is said to possess all the six
freedom. Thus, God is the moral Governor of the world of living beings, the
(20)
The Naiyayikas arguments Tor Proofs for the existence of God are more
There are equally tenable arguments against the existence of God. The
two points that contradict the existence of God are (i) The eternity of matter
Science maintains that matter is eternal and this claim rales out a God
conceived as the creator of the material universe. If the physical universe had
been created by God, it would follow that there was 'a time when the quantity
of matter was less than it is now, when it was infact zero. But physics
presupposes or proves that the quantity of matter has always been the same.
Since the most ordinary people include creator of the material universe
in their concept of God and since they mean by creation a temporal act of
The evils and imperfections in the universe contradicts the very idea of
God as a all wise, all powerful and all good being. If God is all wise, He
able to see that they do not occur. Then if He exists, how is it that they too do
these properties do not literally possessed by God - then the argument would
collapse.
a) Evil is an illusion.
Thus the presence of evil threatens the existence of God as an ail powerful
Being.
42. Ibid
P176,177
(22)
In India also, the dissatisfaction with the Vedic Natural religion gave
rise to speculations about the origin of things, M.N. Roy observes Indian
and a precarious form of monotheistic religion. Yet towards the close of the
mystic Vedic era, approximately about the 7th or 8th century B.C., there arose
He puts it, Not only was the authority of the Vedas boldly challenged,
but the earlier forms of metaphysical thought were subjected to ridicule, and
the denial of the Gods or supernatural agencies was stretched to the logical
In the Vedas and the Upanisads we to a great extent find atheistic and
Indra. He said, There is nobody called Indra, who has seen him ? Whose
In Nirukta 1/15, Yaska Kautsa declared that the hymns of the Vedas
A
( 23)
w e re m e a n in g le s s a n d q u ite c o n t r a d i c t o r y .4 6 In U p a n is a d s a ls o w e fin d th e
h e re tic a l v ie w s .
M .N . R o y w r i t e s 47, i t d e n ie s t h e e x is te n c e o f G o d a n d s o u l, it h o ld s th a t
in a w a rd in g h a p p in e s s o r m is e ry to m e n , p e o p le d e lu d e d b y flo w e ry sp e e c h e s
AO
d e lu d e d .
4 6 . C a r v a k a D a r s a n a 4 8 . O u t l i n e s o f I .P .
D . P C . H i r r i a y a n a
P . 5 2 P . 4 4
4 7 . M a t e r i a l i s m 4 9 . C h a n d o g y a U p a n i s a d 8 . 7 . 8
M . N . R o y Q t d . I n L o k a y a t a D a r s a n a
P . 7 7 D . P . C . P 5 5
(24)
The highly intellectual theories of God, soul > and the world put forth
neither understand them since they were too abstract nor consequently could
he practise them. Therefore, he either went back to the barren ritualism of the
in Indian thought. Developing from the Vedas, the Brahmanas and the
thought. The spirit of seeking reality is the hidden basic nature of humanity,
and at this point in Indian history this spirit asserted itself through religious
philosophy.
viz- the Carvaka or the LokSyata, the Buddhists and the Jainas. We will
discuss. Early Buddhism mostly. They are simply called atheists, as they do
not believe in God or the Authority of the Vedas. And among the orthodox
groups, there are some philosophers who do not believe or mention God in the
process of world creation, yet they are included in Orthodox schools only
because they accept the authority of the Vedas. Some of the Sahkhya and the
atheists in the right sense of the term because they do not believe in God or
supernatural deity and also do not accept the authority of the Veda. Brhaspati,
materialism.
commoners-the political and social crisis rampant in the age, the exploitation
o f the masses by petty rulers, monks and the wealthy class, the lust and greed
(2 6 )
and petty dissentions in an unstable society paved the way for the rise of
materialism in India. 51
blanket of hair with him, who believed only in perception and in four elements
knowledge and what is arrived by means of direct perception is the only truth
elements earth, water, fire and air can explain the development of the world
elements and it is destroyed when the elements from which it arises are
dissolved.
j There is no world, other than this, neither heaven, nor hell. These' are
[
To treat history as Gods witness to justice or the events of the world are
planned by evidence for the salvation of the soul is nothing short of hypocrisy.
Nature thus thinks herself without any meddling by the gods. The Carvakas
their philosophy of matter as the ultimate reality and perception being the
>
this school exercised a profound influence on the current beliefs and broke the
fascination of the past. The materialist theory had a good deal to do with the
Buddha, the enlightened one founded Buddhism, His greatness lies in the
the term.
He taught only two things to his disciples - (1) Misery and (2)
Cessation of misery. His philosophy centred round the Four Noble Truths,
gamini pratipat)
(bhava Cakra), the wheel of rebirth. Truth. This life circle of the Buddha
In the Fourth Noble Truth the Buddha enumerates the Eight fold Path
(astangka margp) i.e. Right views, Right resolve, Right Speech, Right
conduct, Right livehood, Right effort, Right mind fulness, and Right
concentration.
Buddha was quite consistent that the world of experience does not
require for its explanation any God. Buddha tau ght that each man could grin
salvation for himself without the mediation of the priests or any reference to
God.
Buddha being disinterested seeker after truth did not start with any
with modem scientists who are of opinion that the idea of supernatural
phenomena. ^
with Vedic polytheism and religion set aside the transcendental aspect as
dectrine.54
The sages (rishis) of the Upanisads laid the greatest emphasis on the
differently. The Hinayanists are the followers of real old Buddism, which
iseonservative, and they deny the existence of God. Here, Dharma has taken
the position of God. It denies God but however allows worship of Buddha.
They accept the Law of Karma, rebirth and Nirvana as the cessation of
The other group the Mahayana Buddhism is a bit liberal and according
to it, Nirvana is not a negative but a positive state of bliss. Its ideal saint is
Karma chain which binds man and causes pain in more than one birth.
adores deified saints, possesses clergy, practicing celibacy and think it sinful
to take the life of any animal for any cause. The central feature of Jamas
55. Ibid
P.P. 354-355
( 31)
a s c e tic e th ic s .
J a m a s m e te rp h y s ic a l th e o ry o f A n e k a n t a v a d a is re a lis tic a n d
s e p a ra te a n d in d e p e n d e n t re a litie s . It re m in d s u s o f le ib n itz s m o n a d is m a n d
in o rg a n ic o b je c ts lik e m e ta ls a n d . s to n e s . In a n in o rg a n ic b o d y th e s o u ls
e n d o rs e m e n t u n c o n s c io u s n e s s w h ilis t is a c tiv e in h u m a n b e in g . In J a in a s
k n o w le d g e .
o r in s a c rific e .
T o s tre n g th e n th e p o s itio n o f p ro te s t, th e y b o th d e n y G o d fo r w h o s e
s h o w a w a y o u t o f th e m is e ry o f life b y a u s te rity in w a rd a n d o u t w a r d . 56
T h e re m a rk a b le re s e m b la n c e b e tw e e n J a in is m a n d B u d d h is m in , th e ir
e th ic a l a s p e c t is d u e to th e fa c t th a t th e y b o th b o rro w fro m th e sa m e
B ra h m a n ic a l s o u rc e s .
A m o n g th e is tie p h ilo s o p h e rs w h o d o n o t re c o g n iz e G o d a s th e s o le
5 6 . I .P .V o l 1
R a d h a k ris h n a n
P .2 9 3
( 32)
fo u n d e r o f th e S a n k h y a S c h o o l.
T h e e le m e n ts o f S a n k h y a w e re s u b o rd in a te d in th e U p a n is a d a n d th e
S a n k h y a d o e s n o t u p h o ld th e is m . In its in d iffe re n c e to th e su p re m a c y o f a n
s o u l s e n ta n g le m e n t in S a m s lra , th e S a n k h y a re m in d s u s o f B u d d h is m .57 B u t
la te r S a n k h y a s a s fo r e g . V ijn a n a v ik s u in th e s ix te e n th c e n tu ry trie d to re v iv e
e a rlie r th e is m in th e S a n k h y a . T h e S a n k h y a m a in ta in s a c le a r c u t d u a lis m
T h e S a n k h y a is n o t a th e is tic in th e s e n s e th a t it e s ta b lis h e s th a t th e re is
n o G o d . I t o n ly sh o w s th a t th e re is n o re a s o n fo r s u p p o s in g th a t th e re is o n e . I t
th is e v o lu tio n a ry p ro c e s s M a h a t, A h a n k a ra , M a n a s , se n s o ry o rg a n s , m o to r
o rg a n s a ris e .
T h e o ld g o d s o f th e V e d ic h y m n s m a n a g e to liv e u n d e r th e a e g is o f th e
P ra k rti.
57 . Iib id V o l. II
P 316
( 33 )
Like the SUnkhya, the MTmamsa philosophy also does not mention (>00
concerned with the ritualistic part o f the Vedas. It is also like the Sankhw:
and hell, and God is ruled out as an unnecessary hypothesis, though the late
philosophy . 38
Mlmamsa does not admit the periodic creation and dissolution, tin
'
world. The world was never created and never shall it be destroyed. Thougl
individuals come and go, though the finite material products arise and perish
yet the world as such the universe as a whole goes on forever, uncreated an<
imperishable. There was never a time when the universe was different Iron
what is now.
nothing existed it was necessary to rely upon the existence o f the material
nihilists, the Sankhya were driven very close to out and out materialism . 59
answering all the questions raised by those dissatisfied with the dogmas of
natural religion.
*
Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandlya studies the
A
Sastras60 (Bhagvata).
assumption that it is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the
subject are opposed to each other as much as darkness and the light are and
is associated with a certain power called Avidya which is the cause of all the
appearances of the world, the power cannot be called Being, tor Being is
non being, for 4t any rate, it produces the appearances of this world. MSya
i
accused o f atheism.61
insisted that an ultimate being i.e. an absolute could not have relations. In as
theistic stance..
implicates there being another entity outside the one which has relation and
this inescapably limits and confines the latter. An entity being in relation
absolute. The absolute with the all inclusive and limitless, is possible only
when our discourse is grounded in the dimension of power but not when it is
it does not hold with respect to an absolute being i.e. to a God, who is
Kant defines reality as at rinity if Ideas - God, self and the World. The
great value of Kants work is that it has shown the absolute necessity of self
for this reason K.C. Bhattacharyya defines philosophy itself as self evident
62. God, the self and Nothingness Collection by I.C P.R. Luknow
Reflections Eastern and Western
Essay Monotheism Encyclopaedia Judaica
P. 5?
( 37)
the self or subject and pleads for a real subjective study of the subject.<
schanung.64 He holds that there is nothing over and above nature. A naturalist
power.65
God on three grounds. (1) The work of Gods power in the mineral world. <2
the work of God's power in the body of man and (3) the work of God's pow et
made book, we have to admit the existence of an intelligent author of it. in the
63. R a d hakrishnan & in teg ratly E xperience 65. E n cy clo p aed ia o f Phi
J.G, A rpura V ol. 5
P. 45 P. 145
64. T he E th ics o f D evatm a
S.P. K anal
P. 34
(38)
same way behind the expressions and relations of Nature, we have to admit
the existence of an intelligent author behind the book of this infinite Nature, of
which man is merely an infinitestimal part, and that this author is God.
In support of his second argument he put forward the view that there
are several bodily organs of man which do not move by mans own will viz.
lungs, liver, heart etc. These organs must work by the will of somebody. That
somebody is God.
who is the author of that beauty of higher life, that felicity of mind and those
higher urges which we feel in our soul when the higher feelings are awakened.
Devatma himself came to reject these arguments on his reaching the true
understanding of the nature of force. He sat4, 'he error involved in all these
three arguments was as regards the ignorance about the nature of force and the
deductions based upon it. Force in whatever form it exists, inanimate, organic,
these attributes associated with the supposed person called God. Is God the
light of the sun which produces variety of beautiful colours in the vegetable
world, and which enables us to see various forms with our eyes? Again, is
God any of those multifurious life forces which work in millions of plants,
related causally to one another. The human Soul also is not uncreated in
be independent of its living body, nor can the living body be independent of
soul, thus as a part of nature is in ceaseless change. The soul is also subject of
the laws o f nature i.e. life and death. Transcendental soul, free will is a
it. Its relation with supra natural or transcendental in the form of God or
Devatma rejected the belief in God only when he realized the scientific
A scientist may have the religions beliefs such as the belief in God or
soul etc. But in their scientific research they wont find the reason of such
impressively of his religion and moval convictions, but these convictions are
natural sciences.
which arise in the course of human life rather than with anything else of
philosophical problems.
Religions are phenomena within reality. Thus, they can be studied just like
other human phenomena. Such naturalists view portrays the richness of matter.
Naturalists view of reality does not imply that we devalue human but that we
not follow that they are insignificant or equal in significance to e.g. sponges,
supports a sense of gratitude towards the reality which has given birth to us
(1) Mans natural endowment together with the deposit of his past
(2) Things and process in non-human nature on which man depends for
The first group includes religions humanists like Feuerbach Comte etc.
Feuerbach declared there was nothing outside nature and man, and that the
the ideal has been thought of a service of God, Unity with God or submission
to Gods will. To naturalist like Devatma, Dewey etc. the religious quality
can be more effectively solved if the quest is not carried on under this banner.
To reflective men, super naturalist dogma will always appear dubious at best.
Huxley, a thorough going naturalist holds that the super naturalist world
higher levels of development with all the sources and principles of this
The idea of a first cause does not help us in moral progress. It lead to
inaction and irresponsibility. If God exists, He must be the sole cause of all
that happens good as well as evil and man can have no freedom of his will.
and artists have been avowed atheists. And increase in atheism has <|one hand
conservative religious groups have in recent years conceded that atheism may
Jean Marie Le Blond expresses that atheism can be serene and deeply
human .71
Secularism etc.72
Camus. The existentialists maintain that the essential defect of rational thought
divided the world into two spheres the objective and the subjective, Rational
thinking which takes selfconscious existence as the proper subject and point of
consequences from a consistent atheistic position .73 He holds that the very
communion with God. There are some great intellectual atheists like
Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Comte of our times who deliberately denied God
and they created for themselves a new, attractive God of their own. An
elaborate discussion of the same has been made in the last chapter of the
present work.
74. Ibid
P. 589