Cārvāka Fragments: A New Collection

Ramkrishna  Bhattacharya

This essay proposes to review the problems of reconstructing and interpreting ancient texts, particularly philosophical commentaries, in the context of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata system of India. Following an overview of the Indian philosophical text tradition and the ontological and epistemological positions of the Cārvākas, three cases are discussed: (1) when there is no invariance in the text and the commentary, (2) when commentators differ among themselves in their interpretations, and (3) when contradictory interpretations are offered. The paper further discusses why certain commentaries are to be treated as inconsistent with the base text and concludes that innovations inconsistent with the intention of the author should be treated differently from glosses that seek to explain the author’s original intentions.

I try to deconstruct the Carvaka philosophy and presents a a detailed account of its epistemological, metaphysical and ethical underpinnings with the help of secondary sources and texts. Carvaka philosophy rejects the concepts of ishwara, atman, paraloka, and the supremacy of the Vedas and recognises perceptions as the only legitimate form of knowledge, and emphasizes on sensory pleasure over other things. The Carvaka School of Thought in Indian Philosophy has been misunderstood, misconstrued and refuted in unequivocal terms by scholars propounding different philosophical traditions and that the materialistic, hedonistic and worldly theories of Carvaka, rather, hold water and are being unconsciously manifested in the contemporary world.

In spite of the fact that the mūla-text of the Cārvākasūtra is lost, we have some 30 fragments of the commentaries written by no fewer than four commentators, namely, Kambalāśvatara, Purandara, Aviddhakarṇa, and Udbhaṭa. The existence of other commentators too has been suggested, of whom only one name is mentioned: Bhāvivikta. Unfortunately no extract from his work is quoted anywhere. The position of the Cārvākas was nearer the Buddhists (who admitted both perception and inference) than any other philosophical system. But in order to brand the Cārvākas as pramāṇaikavādins they were made to appear as one with Bhartṛhari. Even though the commentators of the Cārvākasūtra had some differences among themselves concerning the interpretation of some aphorisms, they seem to have been unanimous in regard to the number of pramāṇas to be admitted. It was perception and inference based on perception. Only in this sense they were pramāṇaikavādins. Unlike other systems of philosophy, the Cārvāka/Lokāyata did not accord equal value to perception and inference. Inference, they said, must be grounded on perception first, so it was of secondary kind (gauṇa). From the available evidence it is clear that the commentators were unanimous in one point, namely, primacy of perception which includes admittance of such laukika inference as is preceded and hence can be tested by repeated observations. In this respect both Aviddkarṇa and Udbhaṭa were in agreement with Purandara. Bhaṭṭodbhaṭa or Udbhaṭabhaṭṭa was known as a commentator who differed from the traditional Cārvākas and broke new grounds in explaining some of the aphorisms. His commentary is creative in its own way but at the same time unreliable in reconstructing the original Cārvāka position. Udbhaṭa seems to have digressed from the original, monist materialist position by taking a dualist position concerning the body-consciousness relation. Moreover, he seems to verge on the idealist side in his explication of an aphorism. In this sense he was a reformist or revisionist. Aviddhakarṇa, like Udbhaṭa, attempted to interpret the Cārvāka aphorisms from the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika point of view, perhaps without being converted to the Cārvāka. Since it is not possible at the present state of our knowledge to determine whether they were Cārvākas converted to Nyāya or Naiyāyikas converted to Lokāyata, the suggestion that they simply adopted the Cārvāka position while writing their commentaries without being converted to the Cārvāka, may be taken as a third alternative. In spite of the meagre material available, it is evident that (1) not unlike the other systems, there is a lack of uniformity in the commentary tradition of the Cārvākasūtra, (2) not all commentators were committed monistic materialists; at least one, namely, Udbhaṭa, was a dualist, and (3) in course of time Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika terminology, such as gamya, gamaka, etc., quite foreign to the traditional Cārvāka, has been introduced into the Cārvāka system.

RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION INTRODUCTION A collection of all available Cārvāka fragments has been a desideratum since Henry Thomas Colebrooke first wrote on the materialist tradition in India in 1827.1 For a pretty long time scholars relied almost exclusively on Sāyan. a-mādhava’s exposition in the Sarvadarśanasm . graha (SDS), 2 Chapter 1. Slow but steady discovery of many a Cārvāka fragment, specially in the Buddhist and Jain works and other compendia of philosophical systems, made it clear that there was more than meets the eye. Formerly only two legendary names were associated with the materialist system: Br. haspati and Cārvāka. Śāntaraks. ita’s Tattvasaṅgraha and Kamalaśı̄la’s Pañjikā provide three historical names of Cārvāka authors: Aviddhakarn. a, Kambalāśvatara and Purandara. Cakradhara mentions two more: Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a and Bhāvivikta.3 Several aphorisms and extracts from the works of these commentators were welcome additions to the meagre number of Cārvāka fragments known before the 1920s. Dakshin. ārañjan Shāstrı̄ (1894–1961) first attempted to compile the Cārvāka fragments in his English-Sanskrit work, Carvaka Shashti (1928).4 Not satisfied with those attributed to Br. haspati or the Cārvākas in general, he sought to find materialist traits in other systems of philosophy. Thus he compiled one hundred aphorisms from various sources, some of which, however, are not of Cārvāka origin (he quoted from the M¯ımām . sā-, Nyāya- and Sām . khya-sūtra -s as well).5 He also reproduced sixty verses (hence the title of the work, Cārvāka-s. as. .ti). They are taken from the Nais. adh¯ıya-caritam by Śrı̄hars. a (verses 1–47), Sarvadarśanasam . graha by Mādhavācārya (48–55, 57–59), Vidvanmodataraṅgin. ¯ı by Cirañjı̄va Bhat.t.ācārya (56) and S. ad. darśanasamuccaya by Haribhadra (60). He then published another collection of fifty fragments entitled “Cārvāka-pañcāśikā” (in Bengali) in 1944.6 Later, in an appendix to his Bengali book, Cārvāka Darśana (1958) he selected fifty-four aphorisms and verses out of all these and printed them under the title, “Bārhaspatyasūtram”.7 He was Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 597–640, 2002 c 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.. 598 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA of the opinion that many more such sayings could be collected and an authoritative work on the Bārhaspatya system might be had if pains were taken to do so.8 Sarvānanda Pāt.hak reproduced these fifty-four aphorisms and verses verbatim (with Hindi translation) in his work on the Cārvāka philosophy in 1965.9 Mamoru Namai has complied and analyzed the Bārhaspatya aphorisms and verses in a long article (in English and Japanese) in 1976.10 Of the fifty-four aphorisms and verses reproduced in Pāt.hak’s work he omitted nineteen and added nine new ones from different sources, including Tibetan. There are thus forty-five aphorisms and verses arranged under six heads (A–F) with the sources given in more detail. It is known that Erich Frauwallner also collected the Cārvāka fragments for his own use but, to the best of my knowledge, they have never been published.11 In spite of the pioneering works of D.R. Shastri and Namai, there is still scope for yet another attempt to (a) reconstruct the lost Cārvākasūtra and (b) compile the extracts from its commentaries, followed by (c) some verses (called ābhān. aka-s and lokagāthā-s in SDS) attributed to the Cārvākas, and (d) other miscellaneous fragments mostly found in non-philosophical works. In what follows I propose to offer such a collection of the first three. Most of the fragments already printed by D.R. Shastri and Namai will be found here, but unlike D.R. Shastri, all fragments will not be treated as sūtra-s (aphorisms). I am unable to admit some fragments considered genuine by D.R. Shastri and Namai as emanating from authentic Cārvāka sources.12 Therefore it will be necessary to explain why I have found it advisable to omit some fragments that were admitted by them. At the same time, I propose to add a few more aphorisms, verses and other fragments. The justification for both exclusion and inclusion of some fragments is duly furnished. The fundamental problem of collecting Cārvāka fragments is to separate the wheat from the chaff. Although very few fragments are available, each one has to be critically tested before it may be accepted. Ancient authors, whether in India or in Greece, were not very particular about quoting verbatim. The practice of modern editors of putting some phrases and sentences within inverted commas or printing them in bold or italic types often facilitates locating the quotations. But sometimes, I feel, such quotation marks or special types are unwarranted.13 The second problem lies in deciding whether the alleged quotation comes from the original source, or is merely re-quoted. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 599 Last but not least, we have to reckon with some spurious statements attributed to the Cārvākas. This is most apparent in the case of poems and plays containing Cārvāka or Kali or a follower of his doctrines as a character.14 A look at the Cārvāka fragments collected to date reveals the fact that most of them are found in works written between the eighth and twelfth centuries CE. Although Cārvāka studies really began after the publication of the editio princeps of SDS, it should be noted that this digest rarely quotes any Cārvāka aphorism that can be taken as genuine. It only purports to give, both in prose and verse, the essence of the Cārvāka philosophy, not in the words of any Cārvāka author, but as the learned fourteenth-century Vedāntin understood it. Nor does he mention the name of a single Cārvāka work, text or commentary (which he does profusely while dealing with other philosophical systems in the same work). So it may be admitted that all Cārvāka works had disappeared from India even before Sāyan. a-mādhava’s time. Hence, it may also be assumed that any author born after the twelfth century had no access to the authentic Cārvāka works. Any reference to the “aphorisms of Br. haspati” or any statement ending with “Thus said the Lokāyatikas” should not be accepted at its face-value. Paradoxically enough, we have to adopt a very conservative attitude in dealing with the most radical philosophical system in ancient India. At the same time, we cannot afford to throw away any scrap of a fragment because of its dubious authenticity. Pending the discovery of the lost Cārvākasūtra along with its commentaries (yes, I am an invetarate optimist in this matter – as in all other matters, too!), all we can do is to assiduously collect all statements which refer to the Cārvāka directly (i.e., mentioning the authority or authorities by name) or indirectly (attributing some idea to them rather vaguely). After all such direct or indirect references have been collected, we may start threshing. Such a collection, however, will pose further problems. The Cārvākas were criticized by the protagonists of almost all philosophical systems, but mostly by the Naiyāyikas, Vedāntins, Jains and Buddhists. True to the Indian tradition or polemics, they first propounded the exponent’s view (pūrvapaks. a). In order to do justice to the exponent, the opponent would not only reproduce what the former had actually said, but would liberally add what he might or should have said to strengthen his position further. Having apparently made the exponent appear with the array of the best possible arguments, the opponent would then set out to refute the former’s views one by one. 600 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA However admirable the practice may be in other respects, it is, however, more a hindrance than an aid to the reconstruction of the actual views of the exponent. Another problem lies in choosing the right reading from the number of variants available. In connection with the stray verses attributed to Br. haspati in SDS, I have chosen the reading that comes chronologically first. The second hemistich in the well-known verse, yāvaj j¯ıvam . sukham . ¯ jıven, etc. was originally nāsti mr. tyor agocarah. as is found in the earliest source.15 The other reading, r. n. am . kr. tvā ghr. tam . pibet (found in SDS alone) is spurious. It occurs only once in the fourteen instances in which the verse is wholly or partly quoted or adapted.16 Similarly, in the case of another verse, agnihotram, etc., the fourth pāda as given in SDS (j¯ıvikā dhātr. nirmitā) is spurious. Everywhere else, in ten out of eleven instances, it reads: j¯ıviketi br. haspatih. .17 But what to do when we are confronted with such a slight variation as pratyaks. am eva pramān. am and pratyaks. am evaikam . pramān. am? The former reading occurs first in Kamalaśı̄la’s TSP (eighth century) and is so quoted by Abhayadevasūri, Kr. s. n. amiśra (both eleventh century) and others. The latter reading, however, is first found in Jinabhadra’s Vbh / Svr. (sixth / seventh century) which is followed by Anantavı̄rya (tenth century), Vādidevasūri (eleventh century) and many others. Prabhācandra first chooses the former reading and a few lines after quotes the latter one.18 If we follow the same principle as adopted in the case of the verses, the former reading, viz., “perception is the one and only means of valid knowledge”, has to be accepted. But that would go flatly against what Purandara, himself a Cārvāka, says: “The Cārvākas, too, admit of such an inference as is well known in the world, but that which is called inference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is prohibited [by them]”.19 The same idea is found in SMS, too.20 Therefore to brand the Cārvākas as refusing to accept any other means of valid knowledge excepting perception (as Sureśvara (eighth century) does in his Mānasollāsa)21 or, in other words, rejecting the validity of inference as such (as Jayantabhat.t.a and Vācaspatimiśra (both ninth century) represent them to be)22 will amount to a distortion of the true Cārvāka position. And the acceptance of the true position would also entail the rejection of another so-called Cārvāka aphorism: nānumānam . pramān. am (or its 23 variants). Kamalaśı̄la ascribes this view to the grammarians as well as to the Cārvākas on two different occasions.24 In fact, while attributing this view to the Cārvākas, the opponents invariably quote a verse (or CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 601 verses) from Bhartr. hari (fifth century),25 not any aphorism from the sūtra-work. The Cārvākas were quite prepared to accept inference as a means of valid knowledge in so far as it was preceded or verifiable by perception. They, however, made a clear distinction between the lokasiddha (commonly accepted) and tantrasiddha (following from scripture) hetu-s.26 Jayantabhat.t.a used another set of terms to designate the same distinction: utpanna- and utpādya-prat¯ıti-s.27 Therefore, chronological priority cannot be the only criterion in selecting the right reading of the so-called Cārvāka aphorisms. The first one that reaches us may not be the original reading. A late source, on the contrary, may retain it. We have to take all the basic tenets of the doctrine into consideration and see whether a fragment conforms to them or not. Another difficulty is to distinguish between a verbatim quotation from a Cārvāka work (the collection of aphorisms and its commentary) and a paraphrase. SDS first summarizes the Cārvāka philosophy in prose and repeats the same in verse – both in the same chapter.28 This has led Dasgupta to declare: “There was at least one metrical version of the main contents of this system from which extracts are found quoted 29 in Mādhava’s Sarva-darśana-sam . graha and in other places”. This is a mere conjecture that may not prove true in all cases. Versified versions of a philosophical system made by an opponent are not altogether unknown.30 Verbatim quotations, we may safely hypothesize, will be few and far between, and even those which appear to be so, should be weighed more than once before accepting them as genuine. The last problem: from where to begin? Should we start from the hints and suggestions pointing to the existence of heretics, sceptics and free-thinkers in India as may be culled from the Vedic literature?31 Uddālaka (Chāndogya Upanis. ad, 6.1 ff) has been claimed to be the first materialist-scientist in India.32 There are references to Asuramata in the Upanis. ads and the G¯ıtā.33 There is every reason to believe that Ajita Kesakambala, a senior contemporary of the Buddha, preached a protomaterialist doctrine.34 While referring to the Lokāyatikas, both Bhāvaviveka (sixth century) and Candrakı̄rti (sixth/seventh century) quote a passage which resembles the words of Ajita as reproduced in SPhS.35 The SKS also refers to some such protomaterialist doctrine which Śı̄lāṅka could not identify. He referred to both the Sām . khya and Lokāyata.36 The Mahābhārata, Śāntiparvan, Ch. 211 contains a clear reference to materialism.37 602 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA I would, however, like to start from the time when the name, Cārvāka, is unequivocally mentioned in connection with the materialist philosophy. The word, lokāyata, can be traced back to the Kaut. il¯ıya Arthaśāstra;38 its Pali and Prakit variants are also found in Buddhist and Jain canonical works. But as I have tried to show elsewhere, lokāyata originally meant disputatio, the science of disputation, both in Pali and Sanskrit.39 Only from the sixth century CE do we find a verse attributed to the Lokāyatikas.40 The verse in question presents the lesson of a parable designed to establish the superiority of perception to mere inference that is not preceded or supported by perception.41 The word, bārthaspatya, although favoured by D.R. Shastri, Namai and some others, should, in my opinion, better be avoided. It encourages the identification of the author of the Cārvākasūtra with the preceptor of the gods (suraguru). Why and how an uncompromisingly materialist doctrine originated with a mythical sage associated with the gods is told in the Purān. a-s.42 Jayarāśibhat.t.a names Bhagavān Br. haspati and Suraguru when he refers to the eponymous founder of materialism in India.43 As there were a lawbook (smr. ti) purpotedly composed by a Br. haspati, some scholars have tended to take the founder of a philosophical system and the law-maker to be the same person.44 To make the confusion worse confounded, a collection of rather odd aphorisms called the Bārhaspatyasūtram arthāt Bārhaspatya Arthaśāstram, a piece of transparent forgery (as F.W. Thomas, the editor, himself indirectly acknowledged) still haunts the scene.45 Rejecting both the names, Lokāyata and Bārhaspatya, I, therefore, prefer to call it Cārvāka, which is at least not as dubious as the other two.46 And there is a special reason to do so. The first philosopher known to have used the name is Purandara, himself a materialist. He refers to his fellow-philosophers as “the Cārvākas”.47 Kamalaśı̄la and Haribhadra (both eighth century) employ this name in their works,48 and they are followed by a host of writers (Interestingly enough, Śaṅkara always uses the term, “Lokāyatika”, never “Cārvāka”, when he refers to the materialists).49 Materialism may very well be as old as philosophy (as both Radhakrishnan and Frauwallner assert),50 but a methodical presentation of any system in the ancient Indian context requires, first, a book of aphorisms which would generate a commentary to be followed by a series of sub-commentaries. I would, therefore, for the present purpose, leave behind all references to asuramata, ucchedavāda, tajj¯ıvatacchar¯ıravāda, dehātmavāda, etc.51 and start from such works as refer directly or indirectly to the sūtra-work or its commentaries. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 603 First, the aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms (those which look like aphorisms but may not be so – not merely on stylistic grounds but because each of them is found in only one source). IV.1, IV.3–5 and V.1–2 (see below) may be taken as examples of pseudo-aphorisms. Variant readings are mostly of a negligible nature, excepting in the case of III.1.52 The sources in each case are arranged chronologically as far as practicable (undated works like SMS and the Purān. a-s have been placed at the end). The Aphorisms and Pseudo-aphorisms section (marked A) is followed by the extracts from commentaries (B) and finally the verses attributed to the Cārvākas (C). Miscellaneous fragments mostly found in nonphilosophical works will have to wait for some time to be collected and presented. The fragments are then rendered into English. Wherever translations are extant, I have reproduced them with minor amendments (when absolutely necessary). My views on the fragments are then given separately. Those fragments which have not been included by Shastri and/or Namai are marked with + before the number of the fragment. Additional sources too have been marked with +. Following abbreviations have been used (General: Bhā/s = Bhās. ya/s, Comm/s = Commentary/ries, N = Namai, Ś = D.R. Shastri and Śl/s = Śloka/s). For others, see Abbreviations at the end. TEXT A. Aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms I. bhūtavāda I.1. athātastattvam . vyākhyāsyāmah. (Ś 1, N A1) TUS, p. 1 (Franco p. 68); NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100.8; GrBh (on NM, Ch. 1), p. 100.20. I.2. pr. thivyāpastejovāyuriti tattvāni (Ś 2, N A2) TSP, p. 633; MAP, p. 99b (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–3); LTN (on 2.3), f. 24a; + UBhPK, p. 668; + TSV (on 1.98 and 1.104), pp. 27– 28; ŚBh (with some variants) (on 3.3.54), p. 854; + Bhām (on BS 3.3.53), p. 854; BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; TUS, p. 1 (Franco p. 68); + NKC, p. 341; + PKM, p. 116; + PVA, p. 54; + GrBh (on NM, Ch. 1), Part 1, p. 100.20; PC, Act 2, p. 40; ST, p. 13; ĀLVr. (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–8); + SVR, pp. 1075, 1086; VPS, p. 211; TRD, p. 307 (This and the following four aphorisms are also found in many philosophical digests such as SDS, p. 2). 604 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA I.3. tatsamudāye śar¯ırendriyavis. ayasam . jñah. (Ś 2, N A3) TSP, p. 634; LTN, f.24a; UBhPK, p. 668; TUS, p. 1 (Franco, p. 68); TSV (on 1.104), p. 28; BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; ĀLVr. (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–8); NKC, p. 341; PKM, p. 116; + PVA, p. 54; NVV, p. 93; TRD, p. 307. I.4. tebhyaścaitanyam (Ś 3, N A4) TSP, p. 633; + UBhPK, p. 668; + TSV (on 1.104), p. 28; ŚBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851; BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; ĀLVr (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–8); + GrBH (on NM, Ch. 7), Part 2, pp. 257–258; NKC, p. 341; + PKM, p. 116; + PVA, p. 54; + NVV, pp. 93, 106; + ST, p. 13; + SVR, pp. 1073, 1081; + TRD, p. 307. I.5. kin. vādibhyo madaśaktivat (Ś 4, N A5) + LTN (on 2.31), f.24a; + UBhPK, p. 668; ŚBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851 (with variants); + SKSVr. , p. 11 (with variants); + PrPañ, p. 326; + NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 217.23 (cf. p. 201.26); BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; SVT, Part 1, pp. 283, 291; (cf. + YTC, pp. 252–253); ĀLVr. (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–8); NKC, p. 342; PKM, p. 115; + PVA, p. 54; ST, p. 13; + NVV, pp. 93, 107; SVR, pp. 1073, 1086; KB p. 44; + VK, p. 854 (cf. PrPa, on MS 18.6; p. 64; S. DSam, v. 84, p. 306; TRD, p. 307). I.6. caitanyaviśis. .tah. kāyah. purus. ah. (Ś 7, N A10) + LTN, f.24a; ŚBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851; (cf. on 1.1.1, pp. 81–82); + PrPañ, Ch. 8, p. 320; [NM, Ch 7, Part 2, p. 201.21]; + Vyo, Part 1, p. 137; + NVV, p. 93; TRD, p. 300 GBhŚr (on G¯ıtā 16.11), p. 643; GBhM (on G¯ıtā 16.11), p. 642 (cf. dehamātram . caitanyaviśis. .tam . ātmā, GBhM (on G¯ıtā 2.13), p. 48); ABS, Ch. 2, p. 99; GBhN (on G¯ıtā 16.11–12), p. 642. I.7. śar¯ırād eva (Ś 22, N A9) TUS, p. 88 [cf. TS, p. 635: kāyād eva, which Ś quotes]; + I.8. śar¯ıre bhāvāt + ŚBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851 (cf. Śaṅkara on Pr. Up. 6.2. p. 195). I.9. jalabudbudavajj¯ıvāh. (N A6) + LTN, f.24a; [UBhPK, p. 668]; [SKSVr. , p. 11], [YTC, p. 253]; SVT, pp. 283, 291; NKC, p. 342; SVR, p. 1074; TRD, p. 300. II. svabhāvavāda II.1. janmavaicitryabhedājjagadapi vicitram (N A7) ĀLVr. (see, N, p. 38, n11 on A2–8). II.2. mayūracandrakavat (N A8) ĀLVr. (see, N, p. 38, n11 on A2–8) (cf. NVV, Part 2, p. 106: svabhāvādeva mayūracitrādivat . . .). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 605 III. pratyaks. aprādhānyavāda III.1. pratyaks. am (ekam) eva pramān. am (Ś 20, 25; N A13) + VABh, Part 2, p. 439; + TSP, p. 945; + UBhPK, p. 668; SKSVr. , pp. 10, 12; + AS, p. 36; + SVT, pp. 277, 293; TBV, Part 1, p. 73; NKC, p. 347; + PKM, pp. 177–178; PC, Act 2, p. 40; + SVR, p. 261; + NSi (on Pr.Pañ., Ch. 6, v.1), p. 112; + VPS, p. 211 (Also found in Mān., Ch. 5, v.1, p. 59; + AYVD, on v.20, p. 130; + NTD, p. 88; SDS, Ch. 1, p. 3; SDK, pp. 4, 108; SMS, p. 15; SDŚi, p. 1). III.2. pramān. asyāgaun. atvād anumānād arthaniścayo durlabhah. (Ś 21, N D1) NM, Ch. 1, pp. 177, 183; AS, p. 36; NBh, p. 210; Vyo., Part 2, p. 161; TBV, pp. 70, 72, 354; PVSVT p. 25; PKM, p. 178; SVR, pp. 261, 265. IV. punarjanmaparalokavilopavāda + IV.1. paralokasiddhau pramān. ābhāvāt SVR, p. 1109 (cf. UBhPK, p. 668; PC, Act 2, p. 40; SDK, p. 4). IV.2. paralokino’bhāvāt paralokābhāvah. (Ś 17, N A11) TSP, p. 633; TUS, p. 45 (Franco, p. 228); + ĀD . , Act 3, p. 65; + YTC, p. 269; TBV, pp. 71, 91, 739; NKC, pp. 343, 345; + PKM, p. 116; SVR, p. 1109. + IV.3. paralokicaitanyam . niravayavatvāt SVR, p. 1109. V. vedaprāmān. yanis. edhavāda + V.1. dharmo na kāryah. NM, Ch. 4, Part 1, p. 388 (cf. KS, 1.2.25: Ś 9, N A16). + V.2. tad upadeśes. u na pratyetavyam NM, Ch. 4, Part 1, p. 388. B. Extracts from commentaries + Bhā.1. evamādis Tattvat.ı̄kāyām udāharan. aprapañco dras. .tavyah. . TSP, p. 521 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1458). + Bhā.2. Aviddhakarn. as Tattvat.ı̄kāyāmāha – “nanu vā pramān. ena kim iti parah. pratipādyate, ubhayasiddham . hi pratipādakam . bhavat¯ıti? tad etad ayuktam; yasmād vacanātmakam anumānam, na ca vaktuh. pramān. am, atha ca vaktā tena param . pratipādayati, parapratipādanārthatvāt prayāsasya, nāvaśyam ubhayasiddhena prayojanam” iti. TSP, p. 529 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1484). 606 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA + Bhā.3. tena yad ucyate ’viddhakarn. n. ena – “satyam anumānam is. yata evāsmābhih. pramān. am lokaprat¯ıtatvāt kevalam . lim . galaks. n. amayuktam”. PVSVT, p. 19. + Bhā.4. tena yad ucyate ’viddhakarn. n. ena – “anadhigatārthaparicchittih. pramān. am ato nānumānam . pramān. am arthaparicchedakatvābhāvād” iti. PVSVT, p. 25. + Bhā.5. itarasya acetanasya vā bhūmyādeh. mūrtasya. anena Aviddhakarn. asya samayo darśitah. . SVT, p. 306. + Bhā.6. kaścana cārvākaviśes. o ’viddhakarn. ah. . NVV, Part 2, p. 101. + Bhā.7. suśiks. itacārvākāh. Udbhat. ādayah. . GrBh, p. 52.26 (on NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 52.18–19). See also Bhā.29. + Bhā.8. cārvākadhūrtastviti. Udbhat. ah. . sa hi lokāyatasūtres. u vivr. tim . kurvan “athātastattvam . vyākhyāsyāmah. ” “pr. thivyāpastejovāyur iti” sūtradvayam . yathāśrutārthatyāgenānyathā varn. ayāmāsa. prathamasūtre tattvapadena pramān. aprameyasaṅkhyālaks. an. aniyamās´akyakaran. ¯ıyatām āha, dvit¯ıyasūtram api prameyāniyamapratipādakam . tena vyākhyātam. tatra hi “pr. thivyāpastejovāyur iti” ya “iti” s´abdah. sa evam . prāyaprameyāntaropalaks. an. atvena tasyābhimatah. . GrBh, p. 100.19–24 (on NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100), Shah, p. 43. + Bhā.9. cirantanacārvākair hi Bhāvivikta-prabhr. tibhih. “bhūtebhyaścaitanyam” iti sūtram . bhūtebhya iti pañcamyantapadayojanayā vyākhyātam, bhūtebhya utpadyate caitanyam iti. Udbhat. ena tu “bhūtebhyah. ” iti padam . caturthyantatayā vyākhyātam, bhūtebhyaścaitanyam bh ūt ārtham . . caitanyam . svatantram eva śar¯ırārambhakabhūtopakārakam ityarthah. . GrBh, p. 257.24–26–258.21 (on NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 257); Shah, p. 197. + Bhā.10. yathā Udbhat. ena uktam – “śar¯ırārambhakakāran. ānām eva bhūtānam . sa kaścit tādr. śo vicitrasukhaduh. khopabhogado dharmah. svabhāvaviśes. a ityarthah. ”. GrBh, p. 262.25–27 (on NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 262); Shah, p. 198. + Bhā.11. Tattvavr.ttāvudbhat. ena – “laks. an. akārin. a lāghvikatvenaiva śabdaviracanavyavasthā, na caitāvatā’numānasya gaun. atā, yadi ca sādhyaikadeśadharmidharmatvam . heto rūpam . brūyuste, tadā CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 607 na kācillaks. an. e’pi gaun. ¯ıvr. ttih. ”. SVR, p. 265.16–19. + Bhā.12. “hetoh. svasādhyaniyamagrahan. e prakāratrayamis. .tam . darśanābhyām aviśis. .tābhyām . darśanena viśis. .tānupalabdhisahitena bhūyodarśanapravr. ttyā ca lokavyavahārapatitayā, tatrādyena grahan. opāyena ye hetor gamakatvam icchanti tān prat¯ıdam . sūtram. lokaprasiddhes. vapi hetus. u vyabhicārādarśanam asti tantrasiddhes. vapi tena vyabhicārādarśanalaks. an. agun. asādharmyatah. tantrasiddhahetūnām . tathābhāvo vyavasthāpyata iti gaun. atvam anumānasya. avyabhicārāvagamo hi laukikahetūnām anumeyāvagame nimittam . sa nāsti tantrasiddhes. viti na tebhyah. paroks. ārthāvagamo nyāyyota idam uktam anumānād arthaniścayo durlabha iti”. SVR, p. 265, 23–24, p. 266, 1–8. + Bhā.13. uktam ca Tantravr.ttau Bhat..todbhat. ena – “sarvaśca dūs. an. opanipāto’prayojakahetum ākrāmat¯ıtyaprayojakavis. ayā viruddhānumānavirodhaviruddhāvyabhicārin. ah. ”. SVR, p. 270, 3–5. Tantravr. tti may be misprint for Tattvavr. tti (as noted by Solomon, p. 990 n14). + Bhā.14. yatra tu Bhat..todbhat. ah. prāc¯ıkat. at – “nahyatra kāran. am eva kāryātmatāmupaiti yata ekasyākāran. ātmana ekakāryarūpatopagame tadanyarūpābhāvāt tadanyakāryātmanopagatir na syāt. kim . tvapūrvameva kasyacidbhāve prāgavidyamānam bhavat tat kāryam. tatra vis. ayendriya. manaskārān. ām itaretaropādānahitarūpabhedānām . sannidhau viśis. .tasvetaraks. an. abhāve pratyekam tadbh āv ābhav ānuvidhānād . anekakriyopayogo na virudhyate. yata ekakriyāyām api tasya tadbhāvābhāvitaiva nibandhanam . sā cānekakriyāyām api samānā” iti. SVR, p. 764. 6–13. + Bhā.15. tatrāyam . jaraddvijanmā mahānubhāvo’bhinavam etam uttaramārgam asmān prati prakāśayati. SVR, p. 764, 24–25. + Bhā.16. yadācas. .ta Bhat..todbhat. ah. – “itiśabdah. pradarśanaparo na punah. samāptivacanaś caitanyaśabdasukhaduh. khecchādves. aprayatnasam . skārān. ām tattvāntaratvāt pr. thivyādiprākpradhavm . cātyanta. sāpeks. ānyonyābhāvānām prakat. atvād uktatvavilaks. an. atvācceti”. SVR, p. 1087, 1–4. 608 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA + Bhā.17. Kambalāśvatroditam TS, Ch. 22, v. 1863, p. 635; TSP on TS (as above). See also “Aphorisms and Pseudo-aphorisms”, I.7 Bhā.18. Purandaras tvāh – “lokaprasiddham anumānam . cārvākair ap¯ıs. yata eva, yattu kaiścil laukikam m ārgam atikramy ānumānam . ucyate tannis. idhyate” (Ś 35, N D2). TSP, p. 528 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1481). + Bhā.19. emeya karivi appan. iya utti / kim . jam . pasi paüram . dariya vitti // Mahā P, 20.18.9, p. 328. + Bhā.20. [caianyasya] mūrtasya pr. thivyādi-catus. .tayasya jñānam anena pauram . [paurandaram . ] matam . darśitam. SVT, p. 306. Mahendrakumāra Nyāyācārya offers an emendation of the first word: caitanyaviśis. .tasya (p. 306 n16). + Bhā.21. . . . na kevalam Purandarādeh. . . . NVV, Part 2, p. 101. + Bhā.22. [Purandara] cārvākamate granthakartā A marginal note on a passage found in a MS of Pus. padanta’s Mahāpurān. a (most probably the passage cited above as Bhā.19), quoted in P.D. Gune’s introduction to the edition of Dhanapāla’s Bhavisayatthakahā, p. 42. + Bhā.23. Bhāvivikta GrBh, p. 257.24 (on NM, Ch. 7 Part 2, p. 257); Shah, p. 197. See, Bhā.14 above. Bhā.24. ya garbhasthāt¯ıtaloko’st¯ıti tadarthasiddhyartham . garbhasthāt¯ıtabuddhih. samanantaraniruddhabuddhipūrvikā, buddhitvāt, tadanantarabuddhivad iti sādhanam . vadanti, tes. ām . dr. s. .tānto nāsti. evam maran am y āvat sthit ān ām manus y ān ām . . . . . . . buddhyekamātratvanis. pannatvāt, tatastāvan na pūrvaloka iti (N F2). PrPr, 204, a, 2–4 (on MS 16.1) (For another restoration, see, Pandeya, Part 2, p. 3). Cf. TUS, p. 57. Bhā.25. na hi devadattasya maran. acittam . cittāntaren. a pratisandh¯ıyate, maran. acittatvāt, arhato maran. acittavat (N F3). PrPr, 204, a, 4–5 (on MS 16.1) (For two other restorations see, Pandeya, Part 2, p. 3 and Franco, 1997, p. 116). Cf. TSP, p. 635 (on TS, vv. 1862–1863). + Bhā.26. deśāntaram . kālāntaramavasthāntaram . vā paralokah. . TSP, p. 637 (on TS, Ch. 22, vv. 1871–1876). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 609 Bhā.27. ihalokaparalokaśar¯ırayor bhinnatvāt tadgatayorapi cittayornaikah. santānah. (Ś 18, N F4). TSP, p. 663 (on TS, vv. 1938–1940). Cf. PVA, p. 105. 21. + Bhā.28. jātismaran. amasiddhamekagrāmāgatānām . sarves. ām . smaran. āt. TSP, p. 665 (on TS, Ch. 22, v. 1945). + Bhā.29. aśakya eva pramān. asaṅkhyāniyama iti suśiks. itacārvākāh. . NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 52. 18–19 (see, Bhās. 8 and 16). + Bhā.30. suśiks. itatarāh. prāhuh. – dvividham anumānam, kiñcid utpannaprat¯ıti, kiñcid utpādyaprat¯ıti, ¯ıs´varādyanumānantu utpādyaprat¯ıti. NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184.6–7. See also Śls. 18–20 below. C. Verses attributed to the Cārvākas Śl.1. na svargo nāpavargo vā naivātmā pāralaukikah. / naiva varn. āśramād¯ınām . kriyāśca phaladāyikāh. // (Ś 39, N B4). PPu, Sr. s. t.ikhan. d. a 13.323; SDS, p. 13, v. 1, lines 110–111; VMT, 3.2. Śl.2. agnihotram . trayo vedās tridan. d. am . bhasmagun. .thanam / buddhipaurus. ah¯ınānām . j¯ıviketi br. haspatih. // (Ś 40, N B7). RVP, p. 285; PC, 2.26, p. 44; GrBh, Part 2, p. 228 (on NM, Ch. 7); NC, 17.39; NP, p. 365 (on NC, 17.39); SDS, pp. 5.50–51, 13.112– 113; BhD on the Mbh., Śāntiparvan, 218.25 (Vulgate ed.), 211.24 (Critical ed.); ABS, Ch. 2, p. 100; SMS, p. 15; SSS, p. 6. Śl.3. paśuscen nihatah. svargam . jyotis. .tome gamis. yati / svapitā yajamānena tatra kasmān na him . syate // (Ś 41, N B8). VPu. 3.18.26; PC, 2.20, p. 40; SDS, p. 13.14–15; ABS, p. 101 (quoting from VP). Cf. ŚKA, p. 19 (DA, p. 321, vv. 23–24). Śl.4. mr. tānām api jantūnām . cet tr. ptikāran. am / . śrāddham nir. vān. asya prad¯ıpasya snehah. sam . vardhayec chikhām // (Ś 42, N B9). PC, 2.21, p. 40; SDS, p. 13. 116–117. Śl.5. gacchatām iha jantūnām . vyartham . pāthyeyakalpanam / gehasthakr. taśrāddhena pathi tr. ptir avāritā // (Ś 43, N B10). SDS, p. 14. 118–119. 610 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA Cf. VPu. 3.18.29, also quoted in ABS, Ch. 2, p. 101; Rām., Ayodhyā. 109.15 (Vulgate). Śl.6. svargasthitā yadā tr. ptim . gaccheyus tatra dānatah. / prāsādasyoparisthānām atra kasmān na d¯ıyate // (Ś 44, N B11). SDS, p. 14. 120–121. Śl.7. yāvaj j¯ıvam . sukham . j¯ıven nāsti mr. tyor agocarah. / bhasm¯ıbhūtasya śāntasya punarāgamanam . kutah. // (Ś 45, N B3). + VDMP, 108. 18–19; + TSP, p. 17; + NM, Ch. 4, Part 1, p. 388; Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 257; + TBV, p. 505 n6; + YTC, Part 2, p. 253; MB, p. 14; + Pari., p. 113 (on NS, 1.1.2); TSPC, 1.345, p. 12; Doha., p. 86; NC, 17.69; SDS, p. 2. 17–18; p. 14. 125–126; TRD, p. 202; SDK, 108. Śl.8. yadi gacchet param . lokam . dehād es. a vinirgatah. / kasmād bhūyo na cāyāti bandhusnehasamākulah. // (Ś 46, N B12). SDS, p. 14. 124–125. Śl.9. tataś ca j¯ıvanopāyo brāhman. air vihitas tviha / mr. tānām . pretakāryān. i na tvanyad vidyate kvacit // (Ś 47, N B13). SDS, p. 14. 126–127. Śl.10. trayo vedasya kartāro bhan. d. adhūrtaniśācarāh. / jarbhar¯ıturphar¯ıtyādi pan. d. itānām . vacah. smr. tam // (Ś 48, N B14). SDS, p. 14. 128–129; + GBhŚr (on G¯ıtā, 16.8); GBhVi (on G¯ıtā, 16.8); SMS, p. 15 (first line only – with variants). Śl.11. aśvasyātra hi śiśnam . tu patn¯ıgrāhyam . prak¯ırtitam / bhan. d. ais tadvat param caiva gr āhyaj ātam . . prak¯ırtitam // mām . sānām . khādanam tadvan niśācarasam¯ıritam // (Ś 49, N B15–16). SDS, p. 15. 130–132. Śl.12. nagna śraman. aka durbuddhe kāyakleśaparāyan. a / j¯ıvikārthe ’pi cārambhe kena tvam asi śiks. itah. // (Ś 51, N B6). TUS, p. 79. 17–18. Śl.13. etāvān eva purus. o yāvān indriyagocarah. / bhadre vr. kapadam . hy etad yad vadanti bahuśrutāh. // (Ś 19, N B2). + PrPa, Vol. 2, p. 65 (on MS, 18.6); MAV, p. 209; PrPr, Vol. 2, p. 3 (on MS, 16.1), 64 (on MS, 18.6); VBhSVr. , Part 1, p. 186; CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 611 Part 2, pp. 344, 439; TSP, p. 637. 19–20; S. DSam., p. 301. 14–15; v.81; LTN, v.33, f. 24b; MVr. , p. 129 (on SK, 17); SKSVr. , p. 10 (on SKS, 1.1.6); S. ad. – DS, p. 81, v.160; Hemachandra Sūri on GV, 1.5(1553), p. 10; LS. DSam., p. 256. Cf. Mbh., Śānti, Vulgate, 134.2; Crit. ed. 132.1ef–2ab. + Śl.14. + piba khāda ca cārulocane yadat¯ıtam . varagātri tanna te / nivartate samudayam ātram idam na hi bh¯ıru gatam . . kalevaram // PrPr, Vol. 2, p. 3 (on MS, 16.1), 64 (on MS, 18.6); S. DSam, p. 304. 14–17, v.82; SKSVr. , p. 10 (on SKS, 1.1.6), 49 (on SKS, 2.3.11); ĀSVr. , p. 123 (on ĀS, 1.4.2); S. ad. -DS, p. 81, v.161 (verbatim reproduction of S. DSam., v.82). Śl.15. tapām . si yātanāś citrāh. sam . yamo bhyogavañcanā / ¯ıd. eva laks. yate // agnihotrādikam karma b ālakr . (N B5) + VDMP, 1.108.14cd–15ab; + LTN, v.34, f. 25a; TRD, p. 302. 18–19. + Śl.16. + viśes. e ’nugamābhāvāt sāmānye siddhasādhanāt / tadvato’nuppannatvād anumānakathā kutah. // NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 177. 12–13; PrPañ, p. 206 (first line only: viśes. e ’nugamābhāvah. sāmānya siddhasādhyatā); AS, Ch. 1, p. 36 (first line only: sāmānye siddhasādhanād viśes. e ’nugamābhāvāt); PVSVT, p. 26 (first line only: viśes. enugamābhāvah. sāmānye siddhasādhanam); Vyo., Part 2, p. 161 (first line only: sāmānye siddhasādhanam . viśes. e ’nugamābhāvah. ); JñaNi, No. 7, p. 268 (first line only, as in PrPañ); ibid., No. 7, p. 274 (first hemistich only, as in above); ibid., No. 11, p. 379 (first line only, as in above excepting b: siddhasādhanam); SD, p. 63 (ab as in PrPañ, cd: anumābhaṅgapaṅke ’smin nimagna vādidantinah. ); ibid., p. 71 (first line only, as in PrPañ); PKM, p. 177.16 (first line only, as in PVSVT); RNi, No. 2, p. 54 (as in SD but line 1 becomes line 2 and line 2 = line 1 with variants in 2d); SVR, p. 263. 12–13 (as in NM); PaPañ, p. 24 (the second line reads: tadvato’nupapannatvādi anumānakathā kutah. ). + Śl.17. + anumānavirodho vā yadi ces. .tavighātakr. t / viruddhāvyabhicāro vā sarvatra sulabhodayah. // NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 179. 1–2; SVR, p. 263.14–15 (v.2) (c. viruddhāvyabhicārastu). + Śl.18. + tatra dhūmānumānādeh. prāmān. yam . kena nes. yate / ato hi sādhyam . budhyante tārkikairaks. atā api // NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 8–9. 612 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA + Śl.19. + yattvātmeśvara – sarvajña – paralokādigocaram / anumānam . na tasyes. .tam . prāmān. yam . tattvadarśibhih. // NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 10–11. + Śl.20. + .rjūnām . jāyate tasmānna tāvad anumeyadh¯ıh. / yāvat kut. ilitam . vit. atārkikaih. // . ceto na tes. ām NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 12–13. TRANSLATION A. Translation of the aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms I. Materialism I.1 We shall now explain the principles. I.2 Earth, water, fire and air are the principles, nothing else. I.3 Their combination is called the “body”, “sense” and “object”. I.4 Consciousness (arises or is manifested) out of these. I.5 As the power of intoxication (arises or is manifested) from the constituent parts of the wine (such as flour, water and molasses). I.6 The self is (nothing but) the body endowed with consciousness. I.7 From the body itself. I.8 Because of the existence (of consciousness) where there is a body. I.9 Souls are like water bubbles. II. The doctrine of inherent nature (lit. own being) II.1 The world is varied due to the variation of origin. II.2 As the eye in the peacock’s tail. III. The doctrine of the primacy of perception III.1 Perception indeed is the (only) means of right knowledge. III.2 Since the means of right knowledge is to be non-secondary, it is difficult to ascertain an object by means of inference. IV. The doctrine of the denial of rebirth and the other world IV.1 There is no means of knowledge for determining (the existence of) the other-world. IV.2 There is no other-world because of the absence of any other-worldly being (i.e., the transmigrating self). IV.3 Due to the insubstantiality of consciousness (residing) in the other-world. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 613 V. The doctrine of the uselessness of performing religious acts V.1 Religious act is not to be performed. V.2 Its (religion’s) instructions are not to be relied upon. B. Translation of the extracts from commentaries Comm.1. See a number of such examples in Tattvat. ı¯kā [the commentary on the Cārvākasūtra by Aviddhakarn. a]. Comm.2. Aviddhakarn. a had said in Tattvat. ¯ıkā: “By this means of knowledge (sc. Inference) what is conveyed to the other? What is conveyed has to be admitted by both (the speaker and the addressee). That is not right. As inference is in the form of a verbal statement, not a means of knowledge for the speaker, so he conveys (what he has to say) to the other. His effort is to convey, hence admitting (inference) by both is not necessary”. Comm.3. Therefore, as has been said by Aviddhakarn. a: “It is true that inference is admitted by us as a source of knowledge, because it is found to be so in general practice; (what we only point out is that) the definition of an inferential mark is illogical”. Comm.4. Therefore, as has been said by Aviddhakarn. a: “A source of knowledge means (an instrument) which produces an awareness of an object not (already) cognized and therefore, inference is not a source of knowledge, because it is not an instrument for producing a definite awareness of an object”. Comm.5. Of something else, i.e., of the unconscious elements such as earth, etc. which have corporeal forms. By this is shown the conclusion of Aviddhakarn. a. Comm.6. Thus (said) a certain Cārvāka (called) Aviddhakarn. a. Comm.7. The well learned ones are Udbhat.a and others. Comm.8. The cunning Cārvāka [is] Udbhat.a. While explicating the two aphorisms in the Lokāyatasūtra-s, “We shall now explain the principles” and “earth, water, fire and air (are the principles)” [see, aphorisms I.1 and 2], he described it in another way, forsaking the conventional interpretation. In the first aphorism, the term, tattva, tells the impossibility of laying down any fixed number and essential characteristics of the sources of knowledge and objects of knowledge. The second aphorism, too, is explained by him as referring to the objects of knowledge. The word, iti in the (aphorism), “the earth, water, fire and air iti” indicates also the possibility of similar objects of knowledge other than the earth, etc. Such is his view. 614 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA Comm.9. The ancient Cārvāka-s like Bhāvivikta and others explained (the aphorism) “Consciousness (is produced) from the elements”, as in the word, bhūtevyah. , the fifth declension (in the ablative case) has been employed. But Udbhat.a explains the word, bhūtevyah. as having the fourth declension, meaning “consciousness is for (the sake of) the elements; consciousness is independent and aids the physical elements which constitute the body”. Such is the meaning. Comm.10. As has been said by Udbhat.a, “It means that there is an unseen property of the elements, the particular nature of the elements that constitute the body, which brings about the experience of diverse pleasures and miseries”. Comm.11. Udbhat.a has said in Tattvavr. tti: “The one who framed the definition aimed at brevity of expression, but not only because of this does inference become secondary. And if they were to define the characteristics of probans as attributes of the thing which is a part of the probandum, there would be no secondary significance even in the definition”. Comm.12. In the grasping of the invariable relation of the probans with the probandum, three modes are recognized: [1] by two unqualified perceptions. [2] by perception along with a qualified non-perception, and [3] by the process of repeated perception as found in worldly behaviour. This aphorism is aimed at those who recognize the probans as gamaka (capable of yielding knowledge) according to the first mode of grasping. Failure of concomitance is not seen even in the case of probanses well-established in the world; so also it is not noticed in the case of the probanses established in the scriptures; so, on the basis of the quality characterized by “non-perception of failure of concomitance” being common to them, the probanses established in the scriptures are admitted as being gamaka. It is because of this that inference is secondary. Now the knowledge of non-failure of concomitance in respect of worldly probanses is instrumental in bringing about the knowledge of the probandum. But that is not there in the concept of probanses established by the scriptures. So it is not proper that non-perceptible things should be known with the help of these. Hence it is said that the ascertainment of things is difficult to attain by dint of inference. Comm.13. Udbhat.a, too, has said in Tantravr. tti [sic]: All the objections (viz, Viruddha, Virodha-viruddha-vyabhicarin, etc.) you raise against inference apply to the incapable reasons (hetu-s), they do not affect capable reasons. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 615 Comm.14. [Literal translation of this passage is beyond my power, I give below only a summary of what Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a is alleged to have said]: It cannot be said that the cause attains the nature of the effect, but the effect is something new which appears in the presence of the cause. Comm.15. This respectable veteran twice-born is revealing to us a novel way of answering criticism. Comm.16. As said Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a, “The word, iti does not denote the end, (but) it is illustrative. There are other principles such as consciousness, sound, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, impression and others. There are also prior non-existence of the earth, etc., posterior non-existence, the mutual difference which are quite apparent and distinct (from the principles, viz., earth, etc.)”. Comm.17. (As) said by Kambalāśvatara. Comm.18. But Purandara said: “The Cārvākas, too, admit of such an inference as is well-known in the world, but that which is called inference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is prohibited [by them]”. Comm.19. “Arranging your arguments in this way, why do you blurt out the commentary of Purandara”? Comm.20. Cognition belongs to the group of the four elements, such as the earth, etc. which have assumed a corporeal form – by this is shown the conclusion of Pauram [Paurandaram]. Comm.21. Not only of Purandara and others. Comm.22. [Purandara] author of a work on the Cārvāka doctrine. Comm.23. Bhāvivikta [The name of an ancient Cārvāka philosopher]. Comm.24. Those who want to prove that there is a previous world of the embryonic state with the help of the argument that “the previous intelligence in the embryonic stage is always preceded by the cessation of an immediately preceding intelligence”, since it is intelligence, like the intelligence coming after the embryonic state cannot stand, as because the instance given by them is not proper. Man, till he is dead, has only one stream of intelligence, therefore there is no previous world. Comm.25. The dying consciousness of Devadatta is not recognized by another consciousness because the consciousness is about to die, as the dying consciousness of the arhat. Comm.26. The other-world consists in another place, another time, or another state. 616 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA Comm.27. The body in this world and the body in the “other world” being entirely different, the chain of cognitions in those two bodies cannot be one and the same. Comm.28. Remembrance of previous birth cannot be admitted, because there is remembrance of all men coming from the same village. Comm.29. The Cārvāka-s, the well-versed ones, say that it is really impossible to specifically state the number of the sources of cognition. Comm.30. Now those who (think themselves to be) more well-versed, say that (in fact) there are two kinds of inference, “some in case of which the inferential cognition can be acquired by oneself” (utpanna-prat¯ıti), and “some in case of which the inferential cognition is to be acquired (on somebody else’s advice)” (utpādya-prat¯ıti) [The former kind is valid, but the latter kind is not]. C. Translation of the verses attributed to the Cārvāka-s 1. There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world. Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc., produce any real effect. 2. Br. haspati says – The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing one’s self with ashes, – (all these) are the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness. 3. If a beast slain in the Jyotis. t.oma rite will itself go to heaven. Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? 4. If Śrāddha (offering of rice balls to a dead person) produces gratification to beings who are dead, then oil may rear the flame of an extinguished light. 5. (If the Śrāddha produces gratification to beings who are dead), then here, too, in the case of the travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey. 6. If beings in heaven are gratified by our offering (the Śrāddha) here, then why not give the food down below to those who are standing on the housetop? 7. While life remains let a man live happily; nothing is beyond death. When once the body becomes ashes, how can it even return again? 8. If he who departs from the body goes to another world, how is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred? 9. Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here. All these ceremonies for the dead, – there is no other fruit anywhere. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 617 10. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarphar¯ı turphar¯ı &c. 11. And all the rites for the queen (e.g., holding the penis of the horse) commanded in the Aśvamedha (the Horse sacrifice). These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests. While the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by nigh-prowling demons. 12. O, the naked one (Jain), ascetic (Buddhist), dimwit, given to practising physical hardship! Who has taught you this way to leading life? 13. Man consists of only as much as is within the scope of the senses. What the vastly learned ones speak of (as true) is but similar to (the statement) “Oh! Dear! Look at the footprint of the wolf”! 14. Oh! The one with beautiful eyes! Drink and eat (as you like). Oh! The one with a charming body! That which is past does not belong to you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back. This body is nothing but a collectivity. 15. Penances are only various forms of torments, and abstinence is only depriving oneself of consuming (the pleasures of life). The rituals of Agnihotra, etc., appear only to be child’s play. 16. No concomitance being possible in the case of the particular and there being the charge of “proving the proved” in the case of the universal, the subject cannot be justified as a locus of the probandum. How can, therefore, one talk about inference (as a source of valid knowledge)? 17. It is easily possible to find, in all cases, that one’s inference is contradicted either by probans “which nullifies one’s own thesis”, or by a probans “which is an invariable opposite”. 18. Indeed, who will deny the validity of inference when one infers fire from smoke, and so on; for even ordinary people ascertain the probandum by such inferences, though they may not be pestered by the logicians. 19. However, inferences that seek to prove a self, God, an omniscient being, the other-world, and so on, are not considered valid by those who know the real nature of things. 20. Simple-minded people cannot derive the knowledge of probandum by such inferences, so long as their mind is not vitiated by cunning logicians. The translations of Śls, 1–11 are taken from Cowell’s trans. of SDS (with some modification, particularly in the case of Śls. 2 and 7); that 618 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA cf Śls. 13–20 from Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya’s trans. in C/L, pp. 258, 271, 269, 130, 132, 140 respectively (with some modification, particularly in the cases of Śls. 13–14). Śl. 12 has been translated by me. As for the reasons for choosing the readings I have adopted, see, Bhattacharya, 1996b, 1999i and 2002a. A. Comments on the aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms D.R. Shastri and Namai include all kinds of fragments – complete aphorisms and verses as well as extracts from the works of critics of the Cārvāka (Shastri even accepts passages from poems and plays in which Cārvāka is ridiculed) – purporting to represent the Cārvāka doctrine. I omit some of them as doubtful. Hence some explanation of why some fragments are not admitted is only to be expected. In what follows I append the reasons. Both Shastri and Namai adopt the following fragments: kāma evaikah. purus. ārthah. , “pleasure is the only aim of life” (Ś5, N A15). It is found in a seventeenth-century work, ABS by Sadānanda Kāśmı̄raka. Other writers such as Śrı̄dhara (before the fifteenth century), Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄ (sixteenth century) and Nı̄lakan. t.ha (seventeenth century) in their respective commentaries on the G¯ıtā, 13.11, mention it. However, Shastri himself includes another fragment, arthakāmau purus. ārthau, “Wealth and pleasure are the two aims of life” (Ś 27) which is found in two earlier sources, viz. PC and SDS.53 What are we to believe, then? Did the Cārvākas admit of only one aim of life or two? The question itself needs to be questioned. It is extremely doubtful whether they at all used to speak or write in terms of purus. ārtha, a typically Brahminical concept. It seems the detractors of the Cārvāka did not know what the Cārvāka view was in this regard. So they elected to foist on the Cārvāka what they considered to be improper and/or despicable. Some chose “pleasure” only, some others decided to add “wealth” as well. Both are mere conjecture, not based on any statement found in any authentic Cārvāka source. So I reject Ś5 and Ś27. For similar reasons I have desisted from accepting N A12: maran. am evāpavargah. , “death indeed is emancipation” (also taken from ABS). Apavarga, like purus. ārtha, is a concept relevant to the believer in rebirth, from the cycle of which a pious man seeks to be released. But the Cārvākas denied and ridiculed the very idea of rebirth and emancipation. So the use of such a term is not to be expected of them. Some Cārvāka might have once said something to this effect: “What do you people mean by ‘emancipation’? Death is the end of life. The cycle CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 619 of birth, death and rebirth, and the possibility of final emancipation are mere figments of the imagination”. Hence some opponents of the Cārvāka might have framed this “aphorism”. A variant of this (mr. tyurevāpavargah. ) is found in PC.54 Shastri includes it as a separate fragment (Ś 30). That, too, is therefore dispensed with. Now to a cluster of fragments from Vātsyāyana’s Kāmasūtra. Almost all scholars before and after Shastri and Namai have accepted them as authentic Cārvāka fragments. Let us look at them one by one. Speaking of the three aims of life, viz., virtue, pleasure and wealth, Vātsyāyana mentions three groups of people: The Lokāyatikas who say: na dharmām . ścaret, “religious acts are not to be practised” (Ś 9, N A16), the followers of the doctrine of wealth who prohibit pleasure, and those of the doctrine of pleasure who say that searching for wealth is useless.55 Thus each group upholds only two aims of life, wealth and pleasure, virtue and wealth, and virtue and pleasure respectively. Vātsyāyana himself prefers to follow all the three aims of life as does Kaut.ilya.56 The only difference between them is that Kaut.ilya considers wealth to be the foremost of the three aims,57 whereas Vātsyāyana apparently thinks pleasure to be so. However, as I have argued above, the Cārvākas presumably did not think in terms of the so-called aims of life at all. Vātsyāyana simply conjures up three schools of thinkers who were not trivargavādins, but dvivargavādins. Vātsyāyana then makes all the three groups spell out their doctrines. The Lokāyatikas are made to say as follows: es. yat phalatvāt, sām . śayikatvācca, “for they do not bear any fruit in this world and (at the same time) it is also doubtful whether they will bear any fruit at all” (KS 1.2.26–27; Ś 10–11, N A17–18). Vātsyāyana then “cites” a few quotable quotes which have been accepted by almost all modern scholars as genuine Cārvāka aphorisms, viz., ko hy abāliśo hastagatam . paragatam . kuryāt, “who but a fool would give away that which is in his own hands into the hands of another” (KS, 1.2.28, Ś 12, N A19)? varamadyakapotah. s´vo mayūrāt, “it is much better to have a pigeon in hand today than a peacock tomorrow” (KS, 1.2.29; Ś 13, N A20). varam . sām . śayikānnis. kādasām . śayikah . , “a copper coin in hand is better . kārs. āpanah than a dubious gold coin” (KS, 1.2.30; Ś 14, N A21). The commentator of KS has shown that 1.2.29 is related to 1.2.26. The Mı̄mām . sakas, too, admitted that the fruit of religion is not always available immediately, it is to be expected in the future. KS, 1.2.26 seems to be an echo of this declaration. Similarly KS, 1.2.30 is related to 1.2.27. And 1.2.29 and 1.2.30 are merely popular maxims, laukika nyāya-s.58 They cannot be regarded as aphorisms of any philosophical 620 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA school. KS, 1.2.28, too, is a mere rhetorical question. Vātsyāyana also represents the views of the artha- and kāla-cintaka-s in the form of aphorisms. But there is no evidence that these two groups had any set of aphorisms of their own. Then where does Vātsyāyana get those so-called aphorisms? The only plausible answer is that he authored them himself. The same is true of these alleged aphorisms attributed to the Lokāyatikas. Even if the ideas contained in them tally with those of the Cārvāka, they cannot have been composed by any Cārvāka philosopher. If the word dharma is taken to mean yajña, “ritual sacrifice”, KS, 1.2.26–27 might have also originated from the Jain and Buddhist circles, for they, too, were opposed to the Vedic sacrificial cult. Now to Ś 53–54. Namai takes them to be one (N B1). The fragment/-s runs/run as follows: laukiko mārgo’nusartavyah. . lokavyavahāram . prati sadr. śau bālapan .d . itau. “The worldly way should be followed. In respect to worldly practice the child (i.e., the unwise) and the learned one are similar”. Both are taken from TUS. But, as Eli Franco has shown, both belong to the category of popular maxims and on the two occasions the second sentence occurs in Vyo. “the context of the discussion has nothing to do with Lokāyata”.59 Ś 15 runs as follows: śar¯ırendriyasaṅghāta eva cetanah. ks. etrajñah. , “the union of the body and senses is consiousness”. Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄ quotes it in his commentary on the G¯ıtā, 13.6. In the same passage, while expounding the Nyāya view on consciousness, he refers to Nyāyasūtra, 1.1.10. side by side with the Lokāyatika view. But the term, ks. etrajña is found exclusively in the Sām . khya; to be more exact, 60 in the epic Sām . khya. It is highly improbable that a Cārvāka aphorism would contain such a term. kāma eva prān. inām . kāran. am, “pleasure is the cause of (the birth of) animals” (Ś 16), is taken from Śaṅkara’s commentary on the G¯ıtā, 16.8. Śaṅkara refers to it as “the view of the Lokāyatikas”. The view, however, is essentially Vedic. As the famous Nāsadı̄ya hymn (The R . gveda, 10.129.4) says: Desire in the beginning came upon that, (desire) that was the first seed of mind. Sages seeking in their hearts with wisdom found out the bond of the existent in the non-existent.61 So there is no reason why the sentence found in Śaṅkara should be taken as a Cārvāka aphorism. etāvāneva purus. o yāvān indriyagocarah. , “man is as much as is admissible to the senses” (Ś 19), is the first line of a verse (Śl. 13 of CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 621 ours). Namai has taken the whole verse (N B2). Shastri was apparently led by TSP to adopt the first line only. Similarly, kāyādeva tato jñānam . prān. āpanādyadhisthitādyuktam . jāyate, “consciousness proceeds from the body equipped with (the life breaths), Prān. a, Apāna and the rest” (Ś 22), is taken from Kambalāśvatara’s exposition of the Cārvākasūtra (Bhā. 7 of ours), and is not an aphorism by itself. sarvatra paryanuyogaparān. yeva sūtrān. i br. haspateh. , “the aphorisms of Br. haspati are everywhere merely for the sake of objections” (Ś 23), is taken from TBV. But in an earlier source, this sentence is called a sūkta, not a sūtra, as TBV calls it.62 So it need not be accepted as a genuine Cārvāka saying. On the other had, it apparently reflects the view of the opponents of the Cārvāka, such as Jayantabhat.t.a, who similarly explained: “In the Lokāyata view, no precept is indeed (positively) prescribed. It is only the assertions of a Vaitan. d. ika (representing merely, the destructive criticism of others). It is not really a body of precepts”.63 So Ś 23 does not and cannot originate from any Cārvāka source. Ś 24–34 are taken from Kr. s. n. amiśra’s allegorical play, PC. They are all quoted from the speech of Cārvāka, one of the dramatis personae in the play, allied to a group of vicious characters. Even though some of the sayings of this Cārvāka correspond to the Lokāyata view found in other sources (e.g., Ś 25 ∼ our III.1, Ś 26 ∼ our I.2, Ś 28 ∼ our I.3, Ś 29 ∼ our IV.1, Ś 34 ∼ our Śls. 8–9), some others are manufactured by Kr. s. n. amiśra himself to suit the context of the play. Thus Cārvāka teaches his disciple: Lokāyatameva śāstram, “Lokāyata is indeed the science” (Ś 24). There is no reason to regard it as an aphorism. Ś 27 and Ś 30 have already been discussed above. Ś 31 and 32 run as follows: dan. d. an¯ıtireva vidyā and atraiva vārtāntarbhavati, “penal code (lit. the rule of the rod) is the science (of polity)” and “agriculture, animal husbandry, trade and commerce, etc. are included in it”. The bases of these two sentences lie in taking Br. haspati to be the author of both the Bārhaspatyasūtra and the Bārthaspatya Arthaśāstra.64 But the fragments of Br. haspati Smr. ti show that the author was a great admirer of Manu, and the lost Br. haspati Arthaśāstra must have belonged to the same brahminical tradition to which the Kaut. il¯ıya Arthaśāstra belongs.65 So the idea of vārtā and dan. d. an¯ıti as parts of the Cārvāka doctrine is utterly misconceived. Moreover, one should be wary of accepting any view put in the mouth of a character in a play to be a truthful representation of a philosophical system. Just think of Socrates as presented in Aristophanes’s The Clouds. And think how the two Buddhist and Jain monks are represented in 622 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA 66 ĀD . and PC. If one is to form one’s opinion about the doctrines of Buddhism and Jainism solely on the basis of ĀD . and PC, the result would be, to say the least, ludicrous. No serious student of philosophy would do so. But when it comes to the Cārvāka doctrine, Radhakrishnan, Moore and many others have blindly accepted PC to be a reliable source.67 But such sources as ĀD . , PC and NC are always to be treated as dubious, and, unless confirmed by cross-reference, should better be left out of discussion. Ś 36–38 are taken from ABS. They represent the views of those who believe “the senses”, “mind” and “life” to be the self.68 Sadānanda Kāśmı̄raka does not explicitly attribute them to the Cārvākas: he simply mentions “some”, “others”, etc. The fact is that all the three doctrines have their origin in the Upanis. ads69 long before the Cārvākas appeared in the arena. The Vedāntins, right from Śaṅkara down to Sadānanda Yati or Yogı̄ndra or Sarasvatı̄ (c. fifteenth-sixteenth century) mention several views of the self held by different schools.70 The Cārvākas have traditionally been branded as dehātmavādins.71 Any other theory which takes “the senses” or “mind” or “life” or anything else as the self is alien to the Cārvākas.72 Nor is there any evidence that such theories were propounded by other Cārvāka schools.73 Thus Ś 36–38 cannot be accepted as Cārvāka fragments proper. I append below a concordance of the fragments: Ś N RKB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A1 A2, 3 A4 A5 A15 A14 A10 A12 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 – – All F4 I.1 I.2, I.3 I.4 I.5 – – – – – – – – – – – – IV.2 Bhā.28 CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION Ś N RKB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 B2 A13 D1 A9, C1 F5 – See, A13 – – – – – – – – – D2 – – – B4 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B3 B12 B13 B14 B15–16 – B6 – B1 B1 Ś1.13 see, III.1 III.2 I.7 – – III.1 – – – – – – – – – Bhā.17 – – – Śl.1 Śl.2 Śl.3 Śl.4 Śl.5 Śl.6 Śl.7 Śl.8 Śl.9 Śl.10 Śl.11 – Śl.12 – – – 623 B. Comments on the extracts from Bhās. yas (commentaries) The extracts from the commentaries on the Cārvākasūtra (in so far as they can be identified with some degree of certitude) have been arranged alphabetically by the names of the commentators (Bhās.1–23; rest are anonymous). So far five names have been found mentioned in different philosophical works, viz., Aviddhakarn. a, Udbhat.a Bhat.t.a (Bhat.t.odbhat.a), 624 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA Kambalāśvatara, Purandara and Bhāvivikta. All but Udbhat.a belonged to or before the eight century CE; Udbhat.a, too, must have flourished by or before the ninth.74 The names of Aviddhakarn. a and Bhāvivikta are also referred to in context of Nyāya. Whether they were Naiyāyikas turned Cārvākas or vice versa or two different persons altogether cannot be ascertained at the present stage of our knowledge.75 Of the five, Udbhat.a appears to have been an odd man out who sought to bring the Cārvāka doctrine closer to Nyāya.76 He interpreted three fundamental aphorisms of the Cārvākasūtra (our I.1, I.2 and I.4) in a novel manner (see, Bhās. 13 and 14). He may very well be regarded as a “revisionist” among the later Cārvākasūtra commentators. That there were several schools of interpretations of the Cārvāka aphorisms even before the eighth century is clear from TSP and other sources.77 But nothing definite is known about them. Translations of Bhās. 1,2,17,18,26,27 and 28 are quoted (amended) from Ganganatha Jha’s English rendering of TS and TSP; of Bhās. 8,9 and 15 from Esther O. Solomon’s article; 19 was translated by C.R. Deshpande (see, Bhattacharya 1999g, p. 493 nll). Bhās. 29, 30 and 31, as translated by Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya, are taken from C/L, pp. 154, 140 and 320 respectively. Bhās. 24 and 25 were restored to Sanskrit from the Tibetan version by Sanjit Kumar Sadhukhan. The rest are translated by me with the help of Gangopadhyaya and Sadhukhan. C. Comments on the Śloka-s (verses) attributed to the Cārvākas As is evident from the verses printed above, they are mostly taken from SDS (eleven out of twenty). I have first concentrated exclusively on such verses as have been cited in well-known philosophical digests like SDS and independent philosophical works like TUS. Some of these verses are quoted directly from the Purān. as and Upapurān. as. Now, there are also other verses attributed directly or indirectly to the Cārvākas in the same sources (some verses there have been attributed to Br. haspati). There is no reason why they, too, should not be admitted as Cārvāka fragments. The only problem is that there is no evidence to prove that the verses are quoted from some authentic Cārvāka source. Hence I have desisted from including such verses in this collection. It is rather strange that neither D.R. Shastri nor Namai has included some other verses found in VPu, PPu and VDMP. Similarly if the etāvān eva verse (our Śl.13) is included, why should the verse that follows in Haribhadra’s S. DSam be left out? It neatly rounds off the parable of the wolf’s footprint.78 CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 625 One significant omission in all previous collections is another verse found in no fewer than twelve sources: viśes. e anugamābhāvāt, etc. (our Śl.16). Similarly four verses in NM appear to be direct quotations from some Cārvāka source. I am inclined to adopt them as genuine Cārvāka fragments (our Śls.17–20). Versified versions of the materialist doctrine are also found in the Mbh, Śāntiparvan, 2.11.22–30 and in the Rām, Ayodhyākān. d. a, 100.2– 17. But, very much like the verses found in the Purān. as mentioned above, these verses cannot be definitely attributed to any authentic Cārvāka source. As to the Purān. as, the most detailed account of the nāstika doctrines is found in PPu, Sr. s. t.ikhan. d. a, Ch. 13.79 This is a part of a general denunciation of the Jains, Buddhists and Cārvākas. The passage in PPu is taken almost verbatim from VPu, 3.18.24–29. As I have mentioned above, some of the verses may very well be treated as ābhān. aka-s and lokagāthā-s. Māt.hara has, in fact, quoted a verse from PPu.80 ABS, too, quotes from VPu.81 To the best of my knowledge nobody has referred to the chapters on the Cārvāka in Sarvadarśanaśiroman. ih. by Śrı̄kāñci Rāmānujācārya and the two Śarvadarśanakaumud¯ı-s, the first by Mādhava Sarasvatı̄ (sixteenth century) and the second by Pan. d. it Dāmodara Mahāpatraśāstrı̄ (twentieth century) published as late as 1965.82 The latter is a mere rehash of the prevalent (mostly wrong) views regarding the Cārvākas. He quotes all the eleven verses from SDS and one each from the Bhāgavata-purān. a and Br. haspatismr. ti. Verses containing the Cārvāka view also occur in Haribhadra’s Lokatattvanirn. aya and Śāstravārtāsamuccaya, Jayantabhat.t.a’s Āgamad. ambara, Siddhars. i’s Upamitibhavaprapañcākahā, Kr. s. n. amiśra’s Prabodhacandrodaya, Hemacandra’s Tris. as. .ti-śalākāpurus. acarita, and Śrı̄hars. a’s Nais. adh¯ıyacarita. However, most of the verses attributed to Cārvāka or his followers are the authors’ own composition. Therefore, they are not fit to be included in the collection of Cārvāka fragments. The same remark applies to such philosophical digests as Sarvadarśanasiddhānta-sam . graha and Sarvadarśanasiddhāntasārasam . graha. Although Śāntraks. ita sometimes quotes from the works of his opponents (e.g., from Kumārila and Bhartr. hari), it is doubtful whether he has also done so in TS, Ch. 22. Haribhadra and Rājaśekhara have quoted two verses which are elsewhere attributed to the Lokāyatika-s (our Śls. 13–14). There is nothing to show that any other verse in the two S. ad. darśanasamuccaya-s is of the same kind. 626 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA There is an anthology of verses called Rasakalpadruma (RKD) compiled by Jagannāthamiśra in which a number of verses have been quoted from a lost play called Bhaktivaibhava by Kavi D. in. d. ima. RKD is a very late work compiled between 1725 and 1775 CE somewhere in Orissa. Nothing is known about D. in. d. ima. So, not much credence is to be given to the authenticity of the verses attributed to Cārvāka.83 The play seems to have been influenced by PC. Mention may also be made of the verses printed by Sarvananda Pathak in 1960.84 Unfortunately Pathak merely informs us that he got the verses from a manuscript (incomplete) but does not furnish any details of its author, date, etc. It may very well be a recent work. In any case, it does not warrant much discussion since content-wise there is nothing new. The basic issues raised in the verses are as follows: (a) Futility of animal sacrifice (with or without the doctrine of nonviolence and vegetarianism). (b) Rejection of the irrational. (c) Refusal to believe in any verbal testimony which appears contrary to reason. These three are all compatible with the Cārvāka doctrine as we know it today. But the insistence on vegetarianism (implied in our Śl.11) along with (a) raises one pertinent question: does it emanate from the Cārvākas or from the Buddhists. In connection with some verses in SDS, E.B. Cowell referred to Eugene Burnouf’s Introduction à l’histoire du Buddhism Indien, p. 209.85 It contains a French translation of a passage from the Śardūlakarn. āvadāna (Divyāvadāna).85 F. Max Müller (1878) also remarked: Some of these objections [in SDS] may be of later date, but most of them are clearly Buddhistic. The retort, why if a victim slain at a sacrifice goes to heaven, does not a man sacrifice his own father, is, as Professor Burnouf has shown, the very argument used by Buddhist controversialists.86 Müller also refers to Jābāli’s speech in the Rām., Ayodhyākān. d. a, 109.14ff (Vulg. ed.).87 Similar objections to ritual violence are found in the writings of the Jains. So, we can never be sure whether SDS, vv.3 and 11 (our Śls.3 and 11) originated from the Buddhist or from Jain sources. In deriding the Brahmins, DA says that the cruel Brahmins devised animal sacrifice in order to partake of meat, a view which tallies with SDS (v.11). We may close our discussion on the note that only some twenty verses can be taken as Cārvāka fragments proper, although there is no CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 627 guarantee that even these were composed by some Cārvāka philosophers. It is more probable that the satirical verses were current in one or the other part of India and were orally transmitted. Hence they are called ābhān. aka-s and lokagāthā-s. Since many of them reflected the spirit of doubt and denunciation of Vedic religious rites, they were attributed to the Cārvāka-s at least from the sixth century CE. Together they constitute the counterpoint in Indian philosophy – the extreme left wing, so to say.88 Against this trend all other philosophical systems, Brahminical, Buddhist and Jain, rallied all their force, leaving no weapon unused (calumny not excluded). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful acknowledgement is made to Eli Franco with whom I have been corresponding for quite a number of years on the Cārvāka system of philosophy. Long discussions with Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya over a greater number of years have helped me untie many a knotty problem, specially connected with translation and interpretation. Sanjit Kumar Sadhukhan restored some passages from the Tibetan version into Sanskrit, solely for my benefit. I thank them all for their kind assistance. The usual disclaimers, of course, apply. Thanks are also due to Subrata Basak, Rinku Chaudhuri, Pradyut Kumar Datta and Siddhartha Datta for all sorts of help. NOTES 1 H.T. Colebrooke, pp. 402–405. The essay was first read at a public meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on 3 February 1827. 2 The editio princeps of SDS was first published by Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar in BI, 1853 (first fascicule) and completed in 1858. 3 TSP on TS, v, 1484; TS, v, 1863; TSP on TS, v, 1481; GrBh/NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100; Ch. 7, p. 257, SVR, pp. 265, 270, etc. also mention Udbhat.a. 4 D.R. Shastri (1928), Sanskrit Section, pp. 1–53. An unauthorized reprint has been published by one Gagan Deo Giri, Ph.D., Ranchi University (Patna, Ranchi, Varanasi: Jyoti, 1980) with Hindi translation of certain parts. 5 Ibid., Appendix A, pp. 1–8. Acarya Ananda Jha (1969, 1983) and Kewal Krishan Mittal (1974) similarly utilized all orthodox and heterodox philosophical texts in their studies of materialism in India, as did Riepe (1961) in his work on naturalism. 6 See, D.R. Shastri (1944). 7 Shastri (1959), pp. 173–176. 8 Ibid. (1982), p. 203. 9 Pathak (1990), pp. 136–146. 10 Namai (1976), pp. 29–44. Halbfass (1992), p. 330 n13 refers to another article by Namai (published in 1981) which is not available to me. 11 Namai (1989, 1991), p. 229 n52 and Halbfass, ibid. 628 12 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA The basic reason is that such fragments are found only once in much later works or have been copied from the same source without any evidence to support their authenticity. See, e.g., Shastri (1959, 1982) Nos. 9–14 = Namai (1976) A16–21 (taken from KS) and Shastri, Nos. 26–34 (all taken from PC) but not admitted by Namai. The question will be discussed below in more details. 13 A good example has been provided by L.V. Joshi: “. . . Bhāsarvajña explains the application of anekānta following almost verbatim the text of Akalaṅka’s Tattvārthavārtika. The editor, Svami Yogindrananda seems to believe that Bhāsarvajña has verbatim quoted the passage from Tattvārthavārtika and hence he puts the passage into inverted commas which (marks) are not found in the Photostat of Nyāyabhūs. an. a. As a matter of fact, Bhāsarvajña has paraphrased the TAV text in his own way”, p. 97. 14 See, e.g., PC, NC and VMT. 15 The earliest source is presumably VDMP followed by TSP and NM. 16 See, Śl.7 below. The issue has been elaborately dealt with in Bhattacharya (1996b) and (1999i), p. 176. 17 See, Bhattacharya (1999i). 18 For details, see, Bhattacharya (2000b), pp. 29–30. See also Śl.2 below. 19 Quoted in TSP, p. 528. See, Bhā. 17 above. 20 SMS, p. 15. It is also echoed in TRD, p. 306 and the anonymous Avacūrn. i on S. DSam, p. 508. 21 Mān., 2.17, 5.1; pp. 20, 59. Varadarāja / Varadācārya quotes 2.17–18 in his Tārkikaraks. ā, as does SMS on p. 14 (attributing the verses to the “logicians”, nyāyavidām . ). 22 NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 43 (but see, ibid., p. 52 where the well-educated Cārvāka-s (presumably Udbhat.a and others) are made to say that the number of pramān. a-s cannot be determined); Bhām. on BS, 3.3.54, pp. 851–852. 23 See, Bhattacarya (2000b). 24 See, Bhattacharya (1999g), p. 495 n33, (2000e), pp. 50–51 and p. 54 n23. 25 VP, 1.52–54. See also n24 above. 26 Udbhat.a quoted in SVR, pp. 265–266. See, Bhā. 12. 27 NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. Jayanta seems to have taken it from some commentary, most probably by Udhhat.a, on the Cārvākasūtra. 28 SDS, pp. 6–7. 29 Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 532. 30 Siddhasena Divākara presents in verse form the basic tenets of Vaiśes. ika and some other philosophical systems in his Dvātrim . śad Dvātrim . śikā. But they are all composed by him, not taken from any other source. 31 See, Radhakrishnan-Moore, pp. 34–36. 32 See, Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1991), Ch. 7, pp. 89–148. He first staked this claim in an earlier paper, later reprinted as “Materialism in Indian Philosophy” which forms Ch. 7 of his Knowledge and Intervention (1985), pp. 196 ff. He elaborated the theme in the Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture (New Delhi, 1988), which was afterwards printed in IHR, Vol. 13, pp. 37–57. 33 See, Chāndogya 8.7–9; G¯ıtā, 16.7, 9. See also Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 529 and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1959, 1973), Ch. 1, “Asura View”, pp. 1 ff. K.C. Chattopadhyaya has strongly objected to this (pp. 153–154 n42). 34 See, Bhattacharya (1997a) and (1999a). 35 See, MS, Vol. 2, pp. 60, 63–64 and 66 (on MS 18, 5–7) Cf. DN, Part 1, p. 48. 36 SKSVr. , p. 10 (on SKS, 1.1.7). 37 Mbh., 12.211. 26–27 (218.27–28 in Vul.). See, Bhattacharya (1999g), pp. 490– 491. CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 629 38 KA, 1.2.10. See, Bhattacharya (1998a), pp. 70–74. A more elaborate Bengali version was published in 1996 (Anus. .tup, Year 30 No. 3, pp. 1–31). 39 See, Bhattacharya (1998b) and (2000c). Eli Franco (2000) recently mentions that the Spitzwer MS fragment 143b (SHT – 810 of the Turfan MSS) contains references to laukāyatā (sic) besides Sām . khya and Vaiśes. ika (p. 548 [63] n23). He, too, notes that the word is not used “in the sense of a materialistic philosophical school, but as a science whose nature is to criticize with reasons”. 40 The anonymous commentary on SK, v. 27 (translated into Chinese by Paramārtha) refers to a verse, yena śukl¯ıkr. tā ham . sāh . , etc. and identifies it as a Lokāyatika saying. See, Bedekar (1961), p. 10 n45 and S.S.S. Shastri, p. 36. For the etāvān eva verse, see, Śl. 13 below and Bhattacharya, 2002a. 41 See, Bhattacharya (1999c) and (2002a). 42 VPu, 3.18.1–29; PPu, Sr. s. .tikhan. d. a, 13.291–371. See also Hazra (1940, 1987), p. 25 and his Introduction to VPu (1972), pp. k–l. 43 TUS, pp. 45.11 and 125.13. See also p. 88.9. The very mention of Br. haspati as the preceptor of the gods and addressing him as bhagavān, I believe, are further evidence to prove that Jayarāśi was not a Cārvāka/Lokāyata, for no Cārvāka would deign to admit the existence of the gods and their guru and refer to him as a god or demi-god. 44 For the many Br. haspati-s, See, Aiyangar, p. 79. Ms. Saraswati Bali’s Br. ihaspati in the Vedas and the Purān. as (1978) is not available to me. 45 Thomas, p. 17, Kangle, Vol. 2, p. 6 n4 and Vol. 3, p. 43. The Br. haspati-n¯ıti teachings that a learned Brahmin taught Draupadı̄’s brother (Mbh., Āran. yakaparvan, 33.57), “are at any rate as orthodox as one can wish” (Jacobi (1911), S. 737 = (1918), p. 104)! See also Bhagavad Datta, p. 9. 46 The name, Cārvāka is first found in the Mbh., Ādiparvan, 2.63 (Vul., 2.74); Śānti, 39.23–47 (Vul., Chs. 38–39). He is, however, a demon who got a boon from Brahmā by satisfying Him in penance. To identify this Cārvāka with the founder of a philosophical school is downright absurd, although some people tend to do so. – As to the Br. haspati-s, see, n44 above. 47 See, n19 above. 48 See, TSP, pp. 639, 649, 657, 663, 665 and S. DSam, 85d. 49 See, ŚBh on BS, 1.1.1, 2.2.2, 3.3.53; on G¯ıtā, 16.8, etc. 50 Radhakrishnan, p. 277; Frauwallner, Vol. 2, p. 216 (= S.296). 51 Some other doctrines called prān. ātmavāda, etc. found in the Upanis. ads and in the works of later Vedāntins are also left out because they are older than the Cārvāka doctrine. See, n72 below. 52 See, Bhattacharya (2000b). 53 PC, Act 2, p. 40: SDS, Ch. 1, p. 2.19–20. 54 PC, Act 2, p. 40. 55 KS, 1.2.32–47. 56 KS, 1.2.51; KA, 1.7.3–7. 57 KA, 1.7.6–7. 58 See, Jacob, Part 1, p. 44. 59 Franco (1987, 1994), Introduction, pp. 43–44 and p. 299 n4. See also Vyo, Part 2, pp. 108, 172. 60 Cf. Mbh., Śāntiparvan, 204.8, 211.12, 228.10, 308.105, etc. 61 Trans. A.A. Macdonell, p. 209. 62 SVT, p. 277; Vidyānanda’s Pramān. apar¯ıks. ā, accr. Franco (1987, 1999), pp. 6 and 47; TSV, p. 70; PVSVT, p. 26. See also Bhattacharya (1999c). 63 NM, Ch. 4, Part 2, p. 388 (C/L, p. 157). 64 Cf. SMS, p. 15; D.R. Shastri (1982), p. 154. 630 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA 65 Aiyangar, 27.3. See also Bhattacharya (1997a), specially pp. 14–15. ĀD . , Acts 1 and 2; PC, Act 3. Cf. Mattvilāsaprahasana by Mahendra Vikramavarman. 67 Radhakrishnan, p. 278n; Radhakrishnan-Moore, pp. 247–249; D.R. Shastri (1928), aphorisms 59, 70 and 86; Pathak (1990), pp. 139–141. 68 ABS, Ch. 2, p. 101. 69 Cf. Taittir¯ıya Upanis. ad, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and Chāndogya Up. , 5.1.7. 70 ŚBh on BS, 1.1.1; VS, Ch. 3.123–127, pp. 69–72. 71 SDS, p. 6.53, See also ŚBh, pp. 81, 850; Vyo., Part 2, p. 126; PrPañ, Ch. 8, p. 320. 72 Vyo., Part 2, p. 126, refers to the indriyacaitanyavādin-s and manaścaitanyavādin-s; SVSSS, vv. 523–576, to many others. ST, pp. 5.19, 20–24, too, mentions indriyātmavāda, mana-ātmavāda and prān. ātmadvāda besides dehātmavāda. According to Subrahmanya Sastri, those who say, deham eva ātmā are the Cārvāka-s, but those who call the senses (indriya-s) to be so, are the Paurān. ika-s (see, PrPañ, p. 315nn 5 and 7). 73 Opinions differed regarding the interpretation of some aphorisms among the commentators of the Cārvākasūtra (see, Bhās. 18 and 19 regarding I.1, 2 and 4). But as regards I.6–8 no such difference is known to have existed. 74 See, NCC, Vols. 1,2 and 12. 75 See, Franco (1997), pp. 99 and 142 and Bhattacharya (1999g), p. 493 nn.13, 15 and 16. 76 See, Solomon, pp. 990–991 and Franco, ibid. 77 TSP on TS, vv. 1857–1858, pp. 633–634; NKC, p. 342; PKM, pp. 116–117; SVR, pp. 1081, 1086. 78 See, Bhattacharya (2002a). 79 Kalikata ed., vv. 366–371; Poona ed., vv. 370–376. 80 PPu, Kalikata ed., Sr. s. t.ikhan. d. a, 13.327. Quoted in MVr, on SK, v. 61, p. 11. 81 ABS, pp. 100–101, quoting four verses from VPu., 3.18.24–27. 82 The second ed. was published by Od. iśā Sāhitya Ekādemı̄ (Academy), Bhub(v)aneshwar in 1993. 83 Vv. 106–109 (p. 507); vv. 384–385 (p. 605); vv. 516–550 (pp. 628–631). Vv. 521–532 are reproduced from SDS, p. 2.17–18, p. 5.50–51 and pp. 13.110–115.132. 84 See, Pathak (1960). 85 SDS (trans.), p. 16n20. Cowell refers to the first ed. of Burnouf’s work (1844). Burnouf translated long extracts from the Śārdūlakarn. āvadāna (in DA) on pp. 205– 210. 86 Müller, p. 145. He, too, refers to Burnouf’s Introduction, etc. p. 209. 87 Ibid., p. 145 n1. 88 Cowell once noted: “We can only tell that at a very early period in Hindu speculation, the ‘negative arm’ was unusually vigorous; and it would not perhaps be impossible to reconstruct from still extant allusious a complete series (though not in chronological order), corresponding in Greek philosophy to that from Xenophanses to Sextus Empiricus” (p. 382). 66 ABBREVIATIONS ABORI = Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona. ABS = Sadānanda Kāśmı̄raka. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, ed. Gurucharana Tarkadarsanatirtha and Panchanana Tarkavagisa (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1930). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 631 ĀD . = Jayantabhat.t.a. Āgamad . ambara, ed. V. Raghavan and Anantalal Thakur (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1964). Aiyangar, K.V.R. = Br. haspatismr. ti (Reconstructed) (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1941). ALVr. = Jñānaśrı̄bhadra. Āryālaṅkāvatāravr. tti (Tibetan trans.) (Namai, 1976), p. 38 n11. AS = Vidyānandasvāmin. As. .tasahasri, ed. Vam . śı̄dhara (Aklooj: R.N. Ghandhi (sic), 1915). ASVr. = Śı̄lāṅka. Ācārāṅgasūtravr. tti, re-ed. Muni Jambuvijayaji (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Indological Trust, 1915). Avacūrn. i = Anon. in S. DSam, ed. Mahendra Kumar Jain (Calcutta: Bharatiya Jnanapith, 1969). AYVD = Hemacandra. Anyayogavyavaccheda-dvātr. im . sikā. Comm. Mallis. en. a’s Syādvādamañjar¯ı, ed. A.B. Dhruba (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933). Bedekar, V.M. = “The doctrines of Svabhāva and Kāla in the Mahābharata and other old Sanskrit works”. Journal of the University of Poona (Humanities Section), No. 13, 1961. Bhām = Vācaspatimiśra. Bhāmat¯ı. See, BS. Bhagavad Datta = See, Thomas (ed.). Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1996b) = “ ‘r. nam . kr. tvā ghr. tam . pibet’. Who said This?”, JICPR, Vol. XIV No. I, September–December, 1996, pp. 170–174. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1997a) = “Origin of Materialism in India: Patrician or Plebeian?”, BSC, Vol. XX, No. 1–2, March–June, 1997, pp, 12–23. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1998a) = “Sām . khya, Yoga and Lokāyata in the Kaut.ilı̄ya Arthaśāstra: A Review”, BSC, Vol. XXI, Nos. 1–2, January-June, 1998, p. 70–74. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1998b) = “On lokāyata and lokāyatana in Buddhist Sanskrit”, ABORI, LXXIX, 1998, pp. 231–235. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999a) = “Ajita Kesakambala: Nihilist or Materialist?”, JAS(B), Vol. XLI, No. 1, 1999, pp. 74–83. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999b) = “What did the Cārvākas mean by ‘sukham . jı̄vet’?”, IS, Vol. 11, No. 12, 15.4.99, pp. 4–8. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999c) = “The Parable of the Wolf’s Footprints”, IS, Vol. 12, No. 1, 15.5.99, pp. 31–36. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999e) = “On the Authenticity of Two Alleged Cārvāka Aphorisms”, IS, Vol. 12, No. 5, 15.9.99, pp. 4–8. 632 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999g) = “Paurandarasūtra Revisited”, JIP, Vol. 27, No. 5, October 1999, pp. 485–497. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999i) = “ ‘jı̄vikā dhātr. nirmitā’ or ‘jı̄viketi br. haspatih’?”, JICPR, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 1999, pp. 171–176. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000b) = “Perception and Inference in the Cārvāka Philosophy”, JAS(B), Vol. XLII, Nos. 1–2, 2000 (pub. 2001), pp. 29–38. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000c) = “The Significance of lokāyata in Pali”, JDPCU, Vol. 10, 2000, pp. 39–46. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000e) = “Yogācāra Against the Cārvāka: A Critical Survey of Tattva-Saṅgraha, Chapter 22”, Anvı¯ks. ā, Vol. XXI, December 2000, pp. 46–55. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2002a) = “Haribhadra’s S. ad. darśanasamuccaya: Verses 81–84: A Study”, JJ, Vol. 36, No. 3, January 2002. BI = The Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society). BhD = Nı̄lakan. t.ha. Bhāratabhāvad¯ıpa (Commentary on the Mahābhārata), ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Calcutta: Vangavasi, Śaka, 1826) (1904 CE). See, Mbh. BS = The Brahma Sūtra with Śaṅkara Bhās. ya and Bhāmat¯ı, Kalpataru and Parimala, ed. Pandit Anantakrishna Sastri & Vasudev Laxman Shastri pansikar (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1982) (reprint of the Nirnay Sagar ed.). BSBh = Bhāskarācārya. Brahmasūtrabhās. ya, ed. Pandit Vindhyesvari Prasad Dvivedi (Varanasi: Chowkhambha, 1915). BSC = Bharatiya Samajik Chintan, Allahabad – Kolkata. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959, 1973) = Lokāyata (New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1973) (first pub. 1959). Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1985) = “Materialism in Indian Philosophy”, Knowledge and Intervention (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1985). Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1988) = “Uddālaka Ārun. i: The Pioneer of Science” (New Delhi: Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture, 8.2.1988), IHR, XIII, Nos. 1–2. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1991) = History of Science and Technology in Ancient India (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1991), Vol. 2. Chattopadhyaya, K.C. = “The Lokāyata System of Thought in Ancient India”, Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Institute, 1975, Vol. 31. C/L = Cārvaka/Lokāyata, ed. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya in coll. with Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya (New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1990). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 633 Colebrooke, H.T. = Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. 1 (London: Wm. H. Allen and Co., 1837). Cowell, E.B. = “The Chārvāka System of Philosophy”, JAS(B), Vol. 31 No. 4, 1862. DA = Divyāvadāna, ed. P.L. Vaidya (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1959). Dasgupta, Surendranath = A History of Indian Philosophy, Vols. 1–3 (Delhi: MLBD, 1975) (first pub. in 1922, 1932, 1940). Dhanapāla = Bhavisayatthakahā, ed. C.D. Dalal and P.D. Gune (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1923) (reprinted 1967). DN = D¯ıghanikāya, ed. J. Kashyap (Patna: Pali Publication Board (Bihar Government), 1958), Parts 1–3. Dohā = Abhayadeva. Sanskrit commentary on Sarahapāda’s Dohākos. a, ed. Prabodhchandra Bagchi (Calcutta: Metropolitan Publishing House, 1938). Franco (1997) = Eli Franco, Dharmak¯ırti on Compassion and Rebirth (Wien: Arbeitkreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien, 1997). Franco (2000) = “The Spitzer Manuscript – Report on Work in Progress”, Abhidharma and Indian Thought, Essays in Honour of Prof. Junsho Kato (Tokyo: Shunjusha, 2000). Franco (1987, 1994) = See, TUS. Frauwallner = Erich Frauwallner. Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Band 2 (Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag, 1956). Frauwallner (trans.) = Erich Frauwallner. History of Indian Philosophy (1956) (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973), Vol. 2. GBhB = Baladeva. G¯ıtābhās. ya. Śr¯ımadbhagavadg¯ıtā (with a number of commentaries), ed. Pandit Damodar Mukhopadhyaya (Calcutta: Sri Dhirendranath Vandyopadhyaya, 1845 Śaka). GBHM = Madhusūdana Sarasvatı̄. G¯ıtābhās. ya. See, GBhN. GBhN = Nı̄lakan. t.ha. G¯ıtābhās. ya. Śr¯ımadbhagavadg¯ıtā with the commentaries of Śaṅkara, Ānandagiri, Nı̄lakan. t.ha, Dhanapati, Śrı̄dhara, Abhinavagupta, Madhusūdana and Śrı̄dharmadattāśrama, ed. Wasudev Laxman Sastri Pansikar (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978). GBhŚa = Śaṅkarācārya. G¯ıtābhās. ya. Śr¯ımadbhagavadg¯ıtā. See, GBhN. GBhŚr = Śrı̄dharsvamı̄. G¯ıtābhās. ya. Śr¯ımadbhagavadg¯ıtā. See, GBhN. GBhVi = Viśvanātha. G¯ıtābhās. ya. Śr¯ımadbhagavadg¯ıtā. See, GBhB. GrBh = Cakradhara. Granthibhaṅga. See, NM. 634 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA GV = Jinabhadra. Gan. adharavāda. With Hemacandra Sūri’s Comm., ed. Muni Ratnaprabha Vijaya (Ahmedabad, 1942). Halbfass, Wilhelm = Tradition and Reflection (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1992) (first pub. 1991). Hazra, R.C. (1972) = “Introduction” to Wilson’s trans. of the Vis. n. upurān. a (q.v.), 1972. Hazra, R.C. (1940, 1987) = Studies in the Purān. ic Records on Hindu Rites and Customs (Delhi: MLBD, 1987) (first pub. 1940). IHR = The Indian Historical Review (New Delhi). IS = Indian Skeptic (Podanur (Tamil Nadu)). JAS(B) = Journal of the Asiatic Society (of Bengal) (Kolkata (formerly Calcutta)). Jacob, Colonel G.A. = Laukikanyāyāñjalih. /A Handful of Popular Maxims (Delhi: Niraja, 1983). Jacobi, Hermann (1911) = Jacobi. “Zür Fruhgeschichte der indischen Philosophie”, 1911. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften, ed. Bernhard Kolver, Teil 2 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970). First pub. in Seitzunsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 732–743. Jacobi, Hermann (1918) = “A Contribution Towards the Early History of Indian Philosophy”, in: Indian Antiquary 47, 101–109. JICPR = Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (New Delhi). JDPCU = Journal of the Department of Pali, Calcutta University (Kolkata). JIP = Journal of Indian Philosophy (Dordrecht). Jha, Ananda = Cārvāka-Darśana (Lucknow: Uttar Pradesha Hindi Samsthana Prabhag, 1983). JJ = Jain Journal (Kolkata). JñāNi = Jñānaśrı̄mitra, Nibandhāvali, ed. Anantalal Thakur (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1987). Joshi, L.V. = “Nyāya Criticism of Anekānta”, in: ed. Nagin J. Shah, Jaina Theory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass & B.L. Institute of Indology, 2000). KA = Kaut. il¯ıya Arthaśāstra, ed. & trans. R.P. Kangle (Bombay: University of Bombay, 1965–1972), Parts 1–3. Kangle = See, KA. KB = Varadarājamiśra. Kusumāñjali-bodhan¯ı (commentary on Udayana’s Nyāyakusumāñjali), ed. Gopinath Kaviraj (Allahabad, 1922). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 635 KS = Vātsyāyana. Kāmasūtra (With Jayamaṅgalā comm.) (Varanasi: Chowkhambha, n.d.), ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Calcutta: Vangavasi, 1334 Bengali Sal). KS (trans.) = Kāma-Sūtra of Vatsayana (sic). Trans. and ed. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mukherji (Calcutta: Oriental Agency, 1945). LTN = Haribhadra. Lokatattvanirn. aya (Amedabad: Shrihamsavijayaji Jain Free Library, Vikram Sam . vat 1978) (1922 CE). LS. DSam = Anonymous. Laghus. ad. darśana-samuccaya-sat.¯ıka, in: Śr¯ı.sad. darśana-samuccaya-sat. ¯ıka, ed. Vijayajambusūri (Davoi, 2006 V.S.). Macdonell Arthur A. = A Vedic Reader for Students (Madras: Oxford University Press, 1978). Mahap = Mahapurān. a (Tisat. .thimahāpurisagun. ālaṅkāra) by Pupphadanta (Pus. padanta), ed. P.L. Vaidya (Bombay: Manikchand Digambara Jain Granthamala Samiti, 1937), Vol. 1. Mān. = Mānasollāsa Sam . graha by Sureśvara (Viśvarūpa), ed. Svami Vasisthanandapuri (Kalikata: Vasumati Sahitya Mandira, 1952 (?)). MAP = Kamalaśı̄la. Madhyamakālaṅkāra-pañjikā (Quoted in Namai, 1976), p. 38 n11. MVr = Māt.hara. Māt. haravr. tti. See, SK. MB = Mugdhabodhin¯ı (N¯ıtivyakhyāmr. tavyākhyā) (Mumbai, n.d.). Mbh = The Mahābhārata. Critical ed. by V.S. Sukthankar and others (Poona: Bhandarker Oriental Research Institute, 1933–1966). Vulgate ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Kolikata: Vangavasi, 1832 Śaka) (with Nı̄lakan. t.ha’s commentary). Mittal, Kewal Krishan = Materialism in Indian Thought (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, Pub. 1974). MS = Nāgārjuna. Madhyamakaśāstra (with a number of commentaries), ed. Raghunath Pandeya (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1988–1989) (in two parts). Müller, F. Max = Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, The Hibbert Lectures, 1878 (London and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901). Namai, Mamoru (1976) = “A Survey of Bārthaspatya Philosophy”. Indological Review (Kyoto), No. 2, 1976, pp. 29–74. Namai, Mamoru (1989, 1991) = “Two Aspects of paralokasādhana in Dharmakı̄rtian Tradition”, in: ed. Ernst Steinkellner, Studies in the Buddhist Epistemological Tradition. Proceedings of the Second International Dharmakı̄rti Conference. Vienna, June 11–16, 1989. (Wien: Verlag der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991). 636 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA NBh = Bhāsarvajña. Nyāyabhūs. an. a, ed. Svami Yogindrananda (Varanasi: Saddarsana Prakasana Pratisthana, 1968). NC = Śrı̄hars. a. Nais. adhacarita, ed. Sivadatta and V.L. Panshikar (Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1928). NCC = New Catalogus Catalogorum, ed. V. Ranghavan et al. (Madras: University of Madras, 1968), Vol. 1 (R.Ed.), Vol. 2 (1966) and Vol. 12 (1982). NKC = Parbhācandra. Nyāyakumudacandra, ed. Pandit Mahendrakarmar Nyayashastri (Mumbai: Sri Manikchandra Digambar Jain Granthamala, 1938). NM = Jayantabhat.t.a. Nyāyamañjar¯ı, ed. Gaurinatha Sastri (Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, 1982–1984) (with Cakradhara’s Granthibhaṅga). NP = Nārāyan. a. Nais. adhaprakāśa (Commentary on NC, q.v.) NS = See, PrPañ. NTD = Jayasim ıpikā. Comm. on Bhāsarvajña’s . hasūri Nyāyatātparyad¯ Nyāyasāra, ed. S.C. Vidyabhushana (Calcutta, 1832 śaka). NVV = Vādirājasūri. Nyāyaviniścayavivaran. a, ed. Mahendra Kumar Jain (Kashi: Bharatiya Jnanapith, 1949). Pandeya = See, MS. PaPan = Vāsudevasuri. Padapañcikā. Comm. on Bhāsarvajña’s Nyāyasāra, ed. K.S. Sastri (Trivandram, 1931). Pari = Udayana. Nyāyavārtika-tātparya-pariśuddhih. , ed. Anantalal Thakur (Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1996). Pathak, Sarvanand [1960] = “Cārvakasas. t.i kā Dārśanika Vis. aya Vivecana”. The Nava-Nalanda Mahavihara Research Publication, Vol. II., ed. Satkari Mookerjee (Patna: [1960]) (Hindi Section). Pathak, Sarvanand (1965, 1990) = Cārvāka Darśana ki Śāstr¯ıya Sam¯ıks. ā (Varanasi: Chowkhamba, 1965) (enlarged edition, 1990). PC = Kr. s. n. amiśra. Prabodhacandrodaya, ed. Sita Krishna Nambiar (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971). PKM = Prabhācandra. Prameyakamalamārtan. d. a, ed. Mahendra Kumar (Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1941). PPu = Padma Purān. a Sr. s. t.ikhan. d. a, ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Kalikata: Vangavasi, 1310 Bengali Sal (= 1893–1894 CE). Poona: Anandashrama, 1893–1894). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 637 PrPa = Candrakı̄rti. Prasannapadā (on Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamakaśāstra). See, MS. PrPañ = Śālikanāthamiśra. Prakaran. apañcikā with Nārāyan. abhat.t.a (Jayapurı̄)’s Nyāyasiddhi commentary, ed. Mimamsa Ratnam Pt. A. Subrahmanya Sastri (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1961). PrPr = Bhāvaviveka. Prajñāprad¯ıpavr. tti (on Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamakaśāstra). See, MS. PVA = Prajñākaragupta. Pramān. avārttikālaṅkāra, ed. Rahula Sankrityayana (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1953). PVSVT = Karn. akagomı̄. Pramān. avārttikasvopajñavr. tti-t. ¯ıkā, ed. Rahula Sankrityayana (Illahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1943). Radhakrishnan, S. = Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1980) (first pub. 1940). Radhakrishnan – Moore = A Source Book in Indian Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973). Rām. = The Vālm¯ıki Rāmāyan. a. Ayodhyākān. d. a. Critical ed. P.L. Vaidya (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1962). Ram (Vulgate) = The Vālm¯ıki Rāmāyan. a, ed. S.S. Katti (Delhi, etc.: Parimal Publications, 1983). Riepe = Dale Riepe. The Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought (Delhi, etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964) (first pub. 1961). RKD = Jagannāthamiśra (comp.). Rasakalpadruma, ed. Pandit Banambara (Vanambara) Acaryya Sharma (Bhub(v)aneswar: Orissa Sahitya Akademy, [1964]). RNi = Ratnakı̄rti. Ratnak¯ırti-Nibandhāvalih. , ed. Anantalal Thakur (Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975). RVP = Śālikanātha, R ı), ed. S.K. . juvimalāpañcikā (on Prabhākara’s Br. hat¯ Ramanatha Sastri (Madras, 1934). S. ad. -DS = Rājaśekharasūri. S. ad. darśanasamuccaya. See, S. DSam (Varanasi ed.). ŚBh = Śārirakabhasya by Śaṅkara on BS (q.v.). ŚD = Pārthasārathimiśra. Śāstrad¯ıpikā, ed. Sri Dharmadattasuri (Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar press, 1915). SDK = Mādhava Sarasvatı̄. Sarvadarśanakaumud¯ı, ed. K. Samvashiva Shastri (Trivandram, 1938). SDS = Sāyan. a-Mādhava. Sarvadarśanasam . graha, ed. Vasudeva Shastri Abhyankar (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1978). 638 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA SDS (Trans.) = Trans. E.B. Cowell & A.E. Gough, ed. K.L. Joshi (AhmedabadDelhi: Parimal Publications, 1981). S. DSam = Haribhadra. S. ad. darśanasamuccaya, ed. Luigi Suali (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1905–1914) (with TRD). – with Man. ibhadra’s commentary, Laghuvr. tti, ed. Kamesvaranatha Misra (Varanasi: Chowkhamba, Sanskrit Series Office, 1979) (with Rājaśekharasūri’s S. ad. darśanasamuccaya) – with Gun. aratna’s and Somatilakasūri’s commentaries, ed. M.K. Jain (Calcutta, etc.: Bharatiya Jnanpith 1969). SDŚi = Śrı̄kām . cı̄ Rāmānujācārya. Sarvadarśanaśiroman . ih . , ed. S.P. Anantacarya (Srikamci, n.d.). Shah, N.G. = Ed. Nyayamañjar¯ıgranthibhaṅga of Cakradhara. L.D. Series 35. (Ahmedabad, 1972). Shastri, D.R. (1928) = Chārvāka-Shashti by Dakshinaranjan Shastri (Calcutta: The Book Company, [1928]). Shastri, D.R. (1944) = “Bārhaspatyadarśana”. “Cārvāka-pañcaśikā” (in Bengali), Bhāratavars. a. Year 32 Part 1 No: 1, Ās. ād. ha 1351 Bengali Sāl (= June–July 1944). Shastri, D.R. (1959, 1982) = Cārvāka Darśana by Dakshinaranjana Sastri (Kolkata: Purogami Prakashni, 1959). Reprinted with additions in 1982 by the West Bengal State Book Board, Kolkata. Shastri, S.S.S. = “The Sām . khya Kārikā. Studied in the Light of the Chinese Version” [by Paramārtha] (Bulletin of the Department of Indian Philosophy, Madras University, 1933). SK = Īśvarakr.s. n. a. Sāṁkhyakārikā, ed. Svami Divakarananda (Mandirbajar (West Bengal): Jagannath Barman, 1968) (with Māt.hara’s Vr. tti). ŚKA = Śārdūlakarn. āvadāna, ed. Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyaya (Santiniketan: Visvabharati, 1954). SKSVr. = Śı̄lāṅka. Sūtrakr. tāṅga-sūtravr. tti, re-ed. Muni Jambuvijayaji (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Indological Trust, 1978). SMS = Sarvamatasam . graha. Anonymous, ed. T. Ganapati Sastri (Trivandram, 1915). Solomon, E.A. = “Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a”, ABORI, LVIII and LIX, 1978. SPhS = Sāmañña-phala-sutta in DN, Pt.1. SSS = Sarva [darśana] siddhāntasaṅgraha, ed. M. Rangacarya (Madras, 1909). ST = Yāmuna. Siddhitraya, ed. T. Viraraghavanacharya (Tirpati, 1942). SVR = Vādidevasūri. Syādvādaratnākara, ed. Motilal Ladhaji Osval (Delhi: Bhartiya Book Corporation, 1988). CĀRVĀKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 639 SVS = Haribhadra. Śāstravārtā-Samuccaya, ed. K.K. Dixit (Ahmedabad: Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandira, 1969). SVT = Anantavı̄rya. Siddiviniścayat. ¯ıkā, ed. Mahendrakumara Nyayacarya (Kashi: Bharatiya Jnanapitha, 1959). TBV = Abhayadevasūri. Tattvabodhavidhāyini¯ı. Comm. on Sanmatitarkaprakaran. a, ed. Pandit Sukhlalji Sanghavi and Bechardas Doshi (Ahmedabad: Gujarata Vidyapitha, 1921–1931). Thomas, F.W. ed. = Brihaspati Sūtra. Introductory Remarks and Indexes by Bhagavad Datta (Lahore: The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, 1921) (first pub. 1916). TRD = Gun. aratna. Tarka-rahasya-d¯ıpikā, ed. Luigi Suali (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society 1905–1914). TS = Śāntaraks. ita. Tattvasaṅgraha, ed. Dwarikdas Shastri (Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1968, 1981). TSP = Kamalaśı̄la. Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā. See, TS. TSPC = Hemacandra. Tris. as. .tiśalākā-purus. a-carita, ed. Muni Caranavijaya (Bhavnagar (Kathiawad): Sri Jaina Atmanada Sabha, 1936). TSV = Vidyānandı̄. Tattvārtha-śloka-vārttika, ed. Manoharlal Nyayashastri (Mumbapuri: Nirmaysagar Prakashan, 1975 Vikram Samvat) (1918 CE). TUS = Jayarāśibhat.t.a. Tattvopaplavasim . ha, ed. Sukhlalji Sanghavi and Rasiklal Parikh (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1940; reprinted Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati, 1987). TUS (Franco) = Eli Franco. Perception, Knowledge and Disbelief. A Study of Jayarāśi’s Scepticism (1987) (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (MLBD), 1994). UBhPK = Siddhars. i. Upamitibhavaprapañcākathā, ed. Peter Peterson and Hermann Jacobi (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1901–1914). Up. Bha. = Upanis. adbhās. yam. Vol. I., ed. S. Subrahmanya Sastri (Mt. Abu and Varanasi: Mahesh Research Institute, 1979). VABh / SVr = Jinabhadra. Viśes. āvaśyaka-bhās. ya and Svopajñavr. tti, ed. Dalsukh Malvaniya (Amedabad: Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology, 1966–1968). VDMP = Vis. n. udharmottara Mahāpurān. a (Bombay: Ksemaraja Srikrsnadasa, Saka 1834). VK = Amalānanda. Vedānta-Kalpataru. See, BS. VMT = Cirañjı̄vaśarman (Bhat.t.ācāryya). Vidvanmodataraṅgin. ¯ı, ed. Janakinatha Kavyatirtha (Calcutta: Chatrapustakalaya, 1323 BS) (1916/17). 640 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA VP = Bhartr. hari. Vākyapad¯ıya, ed. K.A. Subramanya Iyer (Poona: Deccan College, 1966). VPS = Vidyāran. ya (Sāyan. a-Mādhava). Vivaran. aprameyasam . graha, ed. R. Tailanga (Benares: E.J. Lazarus & Co., 1893). VPu = Vis. n. u Purān. a, ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Kalikata: Aryya Sastra, 1965–1966. Poona: Anandashram). English translation by H.H. Wilson (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1972 reprint) (first pub. 1840). VS = Sadānanda Yati (Yogı̄ndra). Vedānta-sāra, ed. and trans. Swemi Nikhilananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1990). Vyo = Vyomaśivācārya. Vyomavat¯ı, ed. Gaurinatha Sastri (Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, 1983–1984). YTC = Somadevasūri. Yaśastilakacampū, ed. Pandit Shivadatta and Kashinath Pandurang Parav (Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1903). Ananda Mohan College Kolkata India

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Cārvāka Fragments: A New Collection

Cārvāka Fragments: A New Collection

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS