Read on Twitter
Charvaka school:
I see a lot of people getting high on Charvaka school of Hinduism. They seem to think its some sort of a revelation, and are akin to those idiots who pick out the most obscure and failed Polish film director as their favourite to sound intelligent.
+
I see a lot of people getting high on Charvaka school of Hinduism. They seem to think its some sort of a revelation, and are akin to those idiots who pick out the most obscure and failed Polish film director as their favourite to sound intelligent.
+
+
Charvaka school also known as Lokayata (loka – works, ayata – prevalent) . These people believe that only the 4 elements are ‘real’: earth, wind, fire, water. And the body is formed from these elements. And just as mixing of hops, barley, and yeast produces the alcohol,+
Charvaka school also known as Lokayata (loka – works, ayata – prevalent) . These people believe that only the 4 elements are ‘real’: earth, wind, fire, water. And the body is formed from these elements. And just as mixing of hops, barley, and yeast produces the alcohol,+
+
mixing of these elements spontaneously produces the self/soul/ intelligence. Hence after death as these 4 elements separate the intelligence dissipates. Therefore there is no soul distinct from the body, because an existence of the soul cannot be proved.
+
mixing of these elements spontaneously produces the self/soul/ intelligence. Hence after death as these 4 elements separate the intelligence dissipates. Therefore there is no soul distinct from the body, because an existence of the soul cannot be proved.
+
+
But when you say proved you must also highlight what you will accept as proof, isn’t it? So Charvakas say, we will accept only “pratyaksha” or direct perception as proof. And since I cannot see the soul, it must not exist.
+
But when you say proved you must also highlight what you will accept as proof, isn’t it? So Charvakas say, we will accept only “pratyaksha” or direct perception as proof. And since I cannot see the soul, it must not exist.
+
+
Extending this logic, I have not seen the Central African Republic, so it must not exist! Right from the get-go, you see the problem with this ‘philosophy’.
We know there are several methods to prove or KNOW something. I can prove by direct perception, or by inference, or
+
Extending this logic, I have not seen the Central African Republic, so it must not exist! Right from the get-go, you see the problem with this ‘philosophy’.
We know there are several methods to prove or KNOW something. I can prove by direct perception, or by inference, or
+
+
by comparison, or calculation, or elimination or by aptavaykyam i.e. someone who knows telling me, etc. But no…for charvakas “what I see exists, what I cannot see, CANNOT exist”. This is the crown of ignorance.
+
by comparison, or calculation, or elimination or by aptavaykyam i.e. someone who knows telling me, etc. But no…for charvakas “what I see exists, what I cannot see, CANNOT exist”. This is the crown of ignorance.
+
+
Now since only what I see exists, and I can see doing certain things to my body, putting certain things in it, etc give me pleasure, the Charvakas see sensual gratification as the highest goal of man.
+
Now since only what I see exists, and I can see doing certain things to my body, putting certain things in it, etc give me pleasure, the Charvakas see sensual gratification as the highest goal of man.
+
+
Its agreed that there will be some pains when you have to go for sensual pleasures, sugar will aggravate diabetes, in adultery you run the risk of the husband/ wife showing up and skinning you alive, etc.
+
Its agreed that there will be some pains when you have to go for sensual pleasures, sugar will aggravate diabetes, in adultery you run the risk of the husband/ wife showing up and skinning you alive, etc.
+
+
But still pleasures are the highest goal, and any problems you face while going for sensual pleasure is compared to how thorns sometimes prick you when you go to pick roses.
+
But still pleasures are the highest goal, and any problems you face while going for sensual pleasure is compared to how thorns sometimes prick you when you go to pick roses.
+
+
Which is why Charvakas motto is: take loans and drink ghee, who cares what happens afterwards (Narendra Modi had referred to this shloka in parliament also). Charvakas see, all prayer, all yagnya, all poojas, as means by crooked rishis and brahmins
+
Which is why Charvakas motto is: take loans and drink ghee, who cares what happens afterwards (Narendra Modi had referred to this shloka in parliament also). Charvakas see, all prayer, all yagnya, all poojas, as means by crooked rishis and brahmins
+
+
to con people out of their money. They have zero respect for the vedas and call them gibberish. (sounds like some secular politicians you know?)
For the charvaka heaven is when you get pleasure, hell is when you don’t get pleasure. This ‘philosophy’ is as simple as this.
+
to con people out of their money. They have zero respect for the vedas and call them gibberish. (sounds like some secular politicians you know?)
For the charvaka heaven is when you get pleasure, hell is when you don’t get pleasure. This ‘philosophy’ is as simple as this.
+
+
Now why are Charvakas so hell bent (and hell bound) on saying only direct perception is the acceptable way to gain knowledge? Because they say that when you infer something, you may get it wrong.
+
Now why are Charvakas so hell bent (and hell bound) on saying only direct perception is the acceptable way to gain knowledge? Because they say that when you infer something, you may get it wrong.
+
+
For example, we say where there is fire there is smoke, which is largely true, BUT, its possible that someone is putting water on dry ice to produce that smoke (and thus no fire!), and you are confused.
+
For example, we say where there is fire there is smoke, which is largely true, BUT, its possible that someone is putting water on dry ice to produce that smoke (and thus no fire!), and you are confused.
+
+
But you can see the impracticality of this right off the bat. If you have observed something 1000 times, then unless it is proven to be absurd, you have to allow for inference to be a source of knowledge.
+
But you can see the impracticality of this right off the bat. If you have observed something 1000 times, then unless it is proven to be absurd, you have to allow for inference to be a source of knowledge.
+
+
For Charvakas, heres an experiment.Wear a blindfold and stand on the railway tracks. Lets see when a train comes,do they step away,INFERRING from the sound that a train is about to hit me,or do they like true charvakas stand,saying, since I dont see it the train doesn’t exist.+
For Charvakas, heres an experiment.Wear a blindfold and stand on the railway tracks. Lets see when a train comes,do they step away,INFERRING from the sound that a train is about to hit me,or do they like true charvakas stand,saying, since I dont see it the train doesn’t exist.+
+
But there is a more elegant argument against this idiocy. When Charvakas say that inference is never a source of knowledge, why do they say this? Do they have PROOF of what they say? Of course not. So what are they doing? +
But there is a more elegant argument against this idiocy. When Charvakas say that inference is never a source of knowledge, why do they say this? Do they have PROOF of what they say? Of course not. So what are they doing? +
+
They are INFERRING based on whatever traumatic childhood experiences they have had, that inference is NOT proof. When you use ‘inference’ to prove that ‘inference’ is not a valid method of proof, its like saying my parents were never born!
+
They are INFERRING based on whatever traumatic childhood experiences they have had, that inference is NOT proof. When you use ‘inference’ to prove that ‘inference’ is not a valid method of proof, its like saying my parents were never born!
+
+
BTW it didn’t even take Adi Sankara to defeat hedonistic Charvaka school, the Buddhists managed to do it themselves. So for heavens sake when someone tells you he/she/it is a charvaka, you should know you are dealing with an idiot, or sum1 who has a big mouth, and walk away.
+
BTW it didn’t even take Adi Sankara to defeat hedonistic Charvaka school, the Buddhists managed to do it themselves. So for heavens sake when someone tells you he/she/it is a charvaka, you should know you are dealing with an idiot, or sum1 who has a big mouth, and walk away.
+
+
And look around you. The entire modern world almost is living negation of Charvaka. Modern science, medicine, technology, is all built on inference, observation, calculation, elimination. Only a complete idiot will profess belief in a such an obviously wrong system. END
And look around you. The entire modern world almost is living negation of Charvaka. Modern science, medicine, technology, is all built on inference, observation, calculation, elimination. Only a complete idiot will profess belief in a such an obviously wrong system. END
In the second tweet in the series please read Loka-world (not works - typo)
A point to clarify: Technically buddhism, jainism, and charvaka were classified as Nastika schools which mean "do not believe in the authority of vedas". If ive used atheistic anywhere re charvaka its more for convenience of language than anything else.
