Cārvāka Fragments: A New Collection

RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA

CARVAKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION

INTRODUCTION

A collection of all available Carvaka fragments has been a desideratumsince Henry Thomas Colebrooke first wrote on the materialist tradition inIndia in 1827.1 For a pretty long time scholars relied almost exclusivelyon Sayan.a-madhava’s exposition in the Sarvadarsanasm. graha (SDS),Chapter 1.2 Slow but steady discovery of many a Carvaka fragment,specially in the Buddhist and Jain works and other compendia ofphilosophical systems, made it clear that there was more than meetsthe eye. Formerly only two legendary names were associated with thematerialist system: Br.haspati and Carvaka. Santaraks.ita’s Tattvasangrahaand Kamalasıla’s Panjika provide three historical names of Carvakaauthors: Aviddhakarn.a, Kambalasvatara and Purandara. Cakradharamentions two more: Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a and Bhavivikta.3 Several aphorismsand extracts from the works of these commentators were welcomeadditions to the meagre number of Carvaka fragments known beforethe 1920s.

Dakshin. aranjan Shastrı (1894–1961) first attempted to compile theCarvaka fragments in his English-Sanskrit work, Carvaka Shashti(1928).4 Not satisfied with those attributed to Br.haspati or theCarvakas in general, he sought to find materialist traits in othersystems of philosophy. Thus he compiled one hundred aphorismsfrom various sources, some of which, however, are not of Carvakaorigin (he quoted from the Mımam. sa-, Nyaya- and Sam. khya-sutra -sas well).5 He also reproduced sixty verses (hence the title of thework, Carvaka-s.as. t.i). They are taken from the Nais.adhıya-caritamby Srıhars.a (verses 1–47), Sarvadarsanasam. graha by Madhavacarya(48–55, 57–59), Vidvanmodatarangin. ı by Ciranjıva Bhat.t.acarya (56)and S. ad. darsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra (60). He then publishedanother collection of fifty fragments entitled “Carvaka-pancasika” (inBengali) in 1944.6 Later, in an appendix to his Bengali book, CarvakaDarsana (1958) he selected fifty-four aphorisms and verses out of allthese and printed them under the title, “Barhaspatyasutram”.7 He was

Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 597–640, 2002c© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands..

598 RAMKRISHNA BHATTACHARYA

of the opinion that many more such sayings could be collected and anauthoritative work on the Barhaspatya system might be had if painswere taken to do so.8

Sarvananda Pat.hak reproduced these fifty-four aphorisms and versesverbatim (with Hindi translation) in his work on the Carvaka philosophyin 1965.9

Mamoru Namai has complied and analyzed the Barhaspatya aphorismsand verses in a long article (in English and Japanese) in 1976.10 Of thefifty-four aphorisms and verses reproduced in Pat.hak’s work he omittednineteen and added nine new ones from different sources, includingTibetan. There are thus forty-five aphorisms and verses arranged undersix heads (A–F) with the sources given in more detail.

It is known that Erich Frauwallner also collected the Carvaka frag-ments for his own use but, to the best of my knowledge, they havenever been published.11

In spite of the pioneering works of D.R. Shastri and Namai, there isstill scope for yet another attempt to (a) reconstruct the lost Carvakasutraand (b) compile the extracts from its commentaries, followed by (c)some verses (called abhan. aka-s and lokagatha-s in SDS) attributed tothe Carvakas, and (d) other miscellaneous fragments mostly found innon-philosophical works. In what follows I propose to offer such acollection of the first three. Most of the fragments already printed byD.R. Shastri and Namai will be found here, but unlike D.R. Shastri,all fragments will not be treated as sutra-s (aphorisms). I am unableto admit some fragments considered genuine by D.R. Shastri andNamai as emanating from authentic Carvaka sources.12 Therefore itwill be necessary to explain why I have found it advisable to omit somefragments that were admitted by them. At the same time, I propose toadd a few more aphorisms, verses and other fragments. The justificationfor both exclusion and inclusion of some fragments is duly furnished.

The fundamental problem of collecting Carvaka fragments is toseparate the wheat from the chaff. Although very few fragments areavailable, each one has to be critically tested before it may be accepted.Ancient authors, whether in India or in Greece, were not very particularabout quoting verbatim. The practice of modern editors of putting somephrases and sentences within inverted commas or printing them in boldor 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 quotationcomes from the original source, or is merely re-quoted.

CARVAKA FRAGMENTS: A NEW COLLECTION 599

Last but not least, we have to reckon with some spurious statementsattributed to the Carvakas. This is most apparent in the case of poemsand plays containing Carvaka or Kali or a follower of his doctrines asa character.14 A look at the Carvaka fragments collected to date revealsthe fact that most of them are found in works written between the eighthand twelfth centuries CE. Although Carvaka studies really began afterthe publication of the editio princeps of SDS, it should be noted thatthis digest rarely quotes any Carvaka aphorism that can be taken asgenuine. It only purports to give, both in prose and verse, the essenceof the Carvaka philosophy, not in the words of any Carvaka author, butas the learned fourteenth-century Vedantin understood it. Nor does hemention the name of a single Carvaka work, text or commentary (whichhe does profusely while dealing with other philosophical systems inthe same work). So it may be admitted that all Carvaka works haddisappeared from India even before Sayan.a-madhava’s time. Hence,it may also be assumed that any author born after the twelfth centuryhad no access to the authentic Carvaka works. Any reference to the“aphorisms of Br.haspati” or any statement ending with “Thus said theLokayatikas” should not be accepted at its face-value. Paradoxicallyenough, we have to adopt a very conservative attitude in dealing withthe most radical philosophical system in ancient India.

At the same time, we cannot afford to throw away any scrap of afragment because of its dubious authenticity. Pending the discoveryof the lost Carvakasutra along with its commentaries (yes, I am aninvetarate optimist in this matter – as in all other matters, too!), allwe can do is to assiduously collect all statements which refer to theCarvaka 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, wemay start threshing.

Such a collection, however, will pose further problems. The Carvakaswere criticized by the protagonists of almost all philosophical systems,but mostly by the Naiyayikas, Vedantins, Jains and Buddhists. True tothe Indian tradition or polemics, they first propounded the exponent’sview (purvapaks.a). In order to do justice to the exponent, the opponentwould not only reproduce what the former had actually said, but wouldliberally add what he might or should have said to strengthen his positionfurther. Having apparently made the exponent appear with the array ofthe best possible arguments, the opponent would then set out to refutethe former’s views one by one.


However admirable the practice may be in other respects, it is,however, more a hindrance than an aid to the reconstruction of theactual views of the exponent.

Another problem lies in choosing the right reading from the numberof variants available. In connection with the stray verses attributed toBr.haspati in SDS, I have chosen the reading that comes chronologicallyfirst. The second hemistich in the well-known verse, yavaj jıvam. sukham.jıven, etc. was originally nasti mr. tyor agocarah. as is found in the earliestsource.15 The other reading, r. n. am. kr. tva ghr. tam. pibet (found in SDSalone) is spurious. It occurs only once in the fourteen instances in whichthe verse is wholly or partly quoted or adapted.16

Similarly, in the case of another verse, agnihotram, etc., the fourthpada as given in SDS (jıvika dhatr. nirmita) is spurious. Everywhereelse, in ten out of eleven instances, it reads: jıviketi br.haspatih. .17

But what to do when we are confronted with such a slight variationas pratyaks.am eva praman. am and pratyaks.am evaikam. praman. am? Theformer reading occurs first in Kamalasıla’s TSP (eighth century) and isso quoted by Abhayadevasuri, Kr.s.n.amisra (both eleventh century) andothers. The latter reading, however, is first found in Jinabhadra’s Vbh /Svr. (sixth / seventh century) which is followed by Anantavırya (tenthcentury), Vadidevasuri (eleventh century) and many others. Prabhacandrafirst chooses the former reading and a few lines after quotes the latterone.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 validknowledge”, has to be accepted. But that would go flatly against whatPurandara, himself a Carvaka, says: “The Carvakas, too, admit of suchan inference as is well known in the world, but that which is calledinference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is prohibited[by them]”.19 The same idea is found in SMS, too.20 Therefore tobrand the Carvakas as refusing to accept any other means of validknowledge excepting perception (as Suresvara (eighth century) doesin his Manasollasa)21 or, in other words, rejecting the validity ofinference as such (as Jayantabhat.t.a and Vacaspatimisra (both ninthcentury) represent them to be)22 will amount to a distortion of the trueCarvaka position.

And the acceptance of the true position would also entail the rejectionof another so-called Carvaka aphorism: nanumanam. praman. am (or itsvariants).23 Kamalasıla ascribes this view to the grammarians as well asto the Carvakas on two different occasions.24 In fact, while attributingthis view to the Carvakas, the opponents invariably quote a verse (or


verses) from Bhartr.hari (fifth century),25 not any aphorism from thesutra-work. The Carvakas were quite prepared to accept inference asa means of valid knowledge in so far as it was preceded or verifiableby perception. They, however, made a clear distinction between thelokasiddha (commonly accepted) and tantrasiddha (following fromscripture) hetu-s.26 Jayantabhat.t.a used another set of terms to designatethe same distinction: utpanna- and utpadya-pratıti-s.27

Therefore, chronological priority cannot be the only criterion inselecting the right reading of the so-called Carvaka aphorisms. Thefirst 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 ofthe doctrine into consideration and see whether a fragment conformsto them or not.

Another difficulty is to distinguish between a verbatim quotationfrom a Carvaka work (the collection of aphorisms and its commentary)and a paraphrase. SDS first summarizes the Carvaka philosophy in proseand repeats the same in verse – both in the same chapter.28 This hasled Dasgupta to declare: “There was at least one metrical version ofthe main contents of this system from which extracts are found quotedin Madhava’s Sarva-darsana-sam. graha and in other places”.29

This is a mere conjecture that may not prove true in all cases.Versified versions of a philosophical system made by an opponentare not altogether unknown.30 Verbatim quotations, we may safelyhypothesize, will be few and far between, and even those which appearto be so, should be weighed more than once before accepting them asgenuine.

The last problem: from where to begin? Should we start from thehints and suggestions pointing to the existence of heretics, sceptics andfree-thinkers in India as may be culled from the Vedic literature?31

Uddalaka (Chandogya Upanis.ad, 6.1 ff) has been claimed to be thefirst materialist-scientist in India.32 There are references to Asuramatain the Upanis.ads and the Gıta.33 There is every reason to believe thatAjita Kesakambala, a senior contemporary of the Buddha, preached aprotomaterialist doctrine.34 While referring to the Lokayatikas, bothBhavaviveka (sixth century) and Candrakırti (sixth/seventh century)quote a passage which resembles the words of Ajita as reproduced inSPhS.35 The SKS also refers to some such protomaterialist doctrinewhich Sılanka could not identify. He referred to both the Sam. khya andLokayata.36 The Mahabharata, Santiparvan, Ch. 211 contains a clearreference to materialism.37


I would, however, like to start from the time when the name, Carvaka,is unequivocally mentioned in connection with the materialist philosophy.The word, lokayata, can be traced back to the Kaut.ilıya Arthasastra;38

its Pali and Prakit variants are also found in Buddhist and Jain canonicalworks. But as I have tried to show elsewhere, lokayata originally meantdisputatio, the science of disputation, both in Pali and Sanskrit.39

Only from the sixth century CE do we find a verse attributed to theLokayatikas.40 The verse in question presents the lesson of a parabledesigned to establish the superiority of perception to mere inference thatis not preceded or supported by perception.41 The word, barthaspatya,although favoured by D.R. Shastri, Namai and some others, should, inmy opinion, better be avoided. It encourages the identification of theauthor of the Carvakasutra with the preceptor of the gods (suraguru).Why and how an uncompromisingly materialist doctrine originatedwith a mythical sage associated with the gods is told in the Puran.a-s.42

Jayarasibhat.t.a names Bhagavan Br.haspati and Suraguru when he refersto the eponymous founder of materialism in India.43 As there were a law-book (smr. ti) purpotedly composed by a Br.haspati, some scholars havetended to take the founder of a philosophical system and the law-makerto be the same person.44 To make the confusion worse confounded,a collection of rather odd aphorisms called the Barhaspatyasutramarthat Barhaspatya Arthasastram, a piece of transparent forgery (asF.W. Thomas, the editor, himself indirectly acknowledged) still hauntsthe scene.45

Rejecting both the names, Lokayata and Barhaspatya, I, therefore,prefer to call it Carvaka, which is at least not as dubious as the othertwo.46 And there is a special reason to do so. The first philosopherknown to have used the name is Purandara, himself a materialist. Herefers to his fellow-philosophers as “the Carvakas”.47 Kamalasıla andHaribhadra (both eighth century) employ this name in their works,48 andthey are followed by a host of writers (Interestingly enough, Sankaraalways uses the term, “Lokayatika”, never “Carvaka”, when he refersto the materialists).49

Materialism may very well be as old as philosophy (as bothRadhakrishnan and Frauwallner assert),50 but a methodical present-ation of any system in the ancient Indian context requires, first, a bookof aphorisms which would generate a commentary to be followedby a series of sub-commentaries. I would, therefore, for the presentpurpose, leave behind all references to asuramata, ucchedavada, tajjıva-taccharıravada, dehatmavada, etc.51 and start from such works as referdirectly or indirectly to the sutra-work or its commentaries.


First, the aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms (those which look likeaphorisms but may not be so – not merely on stylistic grounds butbecause each of them is found in only one source). IV.1, IV.3–5 andV.1–2 (see below) may be taken as examples of pseudo-aphorisms.Variant readings are mostly of a negligible nature, excepting in the caseof III.1.52 The sources in each case are arranged chronologically as faras practicable (undated works like SMS and the Puran.a-s have beenplaced at the end).

The Aphorisms and Pseudo-aphorisms section (marked A) is followedby the extracts from commentaries (B) and finally the verses attributedto the Carvakas (C). Miscellaneous fragments mostly found in non-philosophical works will have to wait for some time to be collectedand presented.

The fragments are then rendered into English. Wherever translationsare extant, I have reproduced them with minor amendments (whenabsolutely necessary).

My views on the fragments are then given separately. Those fragmentswhich have not been included by Shastri and/or Namai are marked with+ before the number of the fragment. Additional sources too have beenmarked with +.

Following abbreviations have been used (General: Bha/s = Bhas.ya/s,Comm/s = Commentary/ries, N = Namai, S = D.R. Shastri and Sl/s =Sloka/s). For others, see Abbreviations at the end.

TEXT

A. Aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms

I. bhutavadaI.1. athatastattvam. vyakhyasyamah. (S 1, N A1)

TUS, p. 1 (Franco p. 68); NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100.8; GrBh (onNM, Ch. 1), p. 100.20.

I.2. pr. thivyapastejovayuriti tattvani (S 2, N A2)TSP, p. 633; MAP, p. 99b (see, N, p. 38 n11 on A2–3); LTN (on2.3), f. 24a; + UBhPK, p. 668; + TSV (on 1.98 and 1.104), pp. 27–28; SBh (with some variants) (on 3.3.54), p. 854; + Bham (on BS3.3.53), p. 854; BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; TUS, p. 1 (Francop. 68); + NKC, p. 341; + PKM, p. 116; + PVA, p. 54; + GrBh (onNM, Ch. 1), Part 1, p. 100.20; PC, Act 2, p. 40; ST, p. 13; ALVr.(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 foundin many philosophical digests such as SDS, p. 2).


I.3. tatsamudaye sarırendriyavis.ayasam. jnah. (S 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; ALVr. (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. tebhyascaitanyam (S 3, N A4)TSP, p. 633; + UBhPK, p. 668; + TSV (on 1.104), p. 28; SBh (onBS 3.3.53), p. 851; BSBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 196; ALVr (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. vadibhyo madasaktivat (S 4, N A5)+ LTN (on 2.31), f.24a; + UBhPK, p. 668; SBh (on BS 3.3.53),p. 851 (with variants); + SKSVr. , p. 11 (with variants); + PrPan,p. 326; + NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 217.23 (cf. p. 201.26); BSBh (on BS3.3.53), p. 196; SVT, Part 1, pp. 283, 291; (cf. + YTC, pp. 252–253);ALVr. (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. caitanyavisis. t.ah. kayah. purus.ah. (S 7, N A10)+ LTN, f.24a; SBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851; (cf. on 1.1.1, pp. 81–82);+ PrPan, Ch. 8, p. 320; [NM, Ch 7, Part 2, p. 201.21]; + Vyo, Part 1,p. 137; + NVV, p. 93; TRD, p. 300 GBhSr (on Gıta 16.11), p. 643;GBhM (on Gıta 16.11), p. 642 (cf. dehamatram. caitanyavisis. t.am.atma, GBhM (on Gıta 2.13), p. 48); ABS, Ch. 2, p. 99; GBhN (onGıta 16.11–12), p. 642.

I.7. sarırad eva (S 22, N A9)TUS, p. 88 [cf. TS, p. 635: kayad eva, which S quotes];

+ I.8. sarıre bhavat+ SBh (on BS 3.3.53), p. 851 (cf. Sankara on Pr. Up. 6.2. p. 195).

I.9. jalabudbudavajjıvah. (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. svabhavavadaII.1. janmavaicitryabhedajjagadapi vicitram (N A7)

ALVr. (see, N, p. 38, n11 on A2–8).II.2. mayuracandrakavat (N A8)

ALVr. (see, N, p. 38, n11 on A2–8) (cf. NVV, Part 2, p. 106:svabhavadeva mayuracitradivat . . .).


III. pratyaks.apradhanyavadaIII.1. pratyaks.am (ekam) eva praman. am (S 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.Pan., Ch. 6, v.1), p. 112; + VPS, p. 211 (Alsofound in Man., 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; SDSi, p. 1).

III.2. praman. asyagaun. atvad anumanad arthaniscayo durlabhah. (S 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. punarjanmaparalokavilopavada+ IV.1. paralokasiddhau praman. abhavat

SVR, p. 1109 (cf. UBhPK, p. 668; PC, Act 2, p. 40; SDK, p. 4).IV.2. paralokino’bhavat paralokabhavah. (S 17, N A11)

TSP, p. 633; TUS, p. 45 (Franco, p. 228); + AD. , 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. niravayavatvatSVR, p. 1109.

V. vedapraman. yanis.edhavada+ V.1. dharmo na karyah.

NM, Ch. 4, Part 1, p. 388 (cf. KS, 1.2.25: S 9, N A16).+ V.2. tad upadeses.u na pratyetavyam

NM, Ch. 4, Part 1, p. 388.

B. Extracts from commentaries

+ Bha.1. evamadis Tattvat.ıkayam udaharan. aprapanco dras. t.avyah. .TSP, p. 521 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1458).

+ Bha.2. Aviddhakarn. as Tattvat.ıkayamaha – “nanu va praman. enakim iti parah. pratipadyate, ubhayasiddham. hi pratipadakam.bhavatıti? tad etad ayuktam; yasmad vacanatmakam anumanam,na ca vaktuh. praman. am, atha ca vakta tena param. pratipadayati,parapratipadanarthatvat prayasasya, navasyam ubhayasiddhenaprayojanam” iti.TSP, p. 529 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1484).


+ Bha.3. tena yad ucyate ’viddhakarn. n. ena – “satyam anumanamis. yata evasmabhih. praman. am lokapratıtatvat kevalam.lim. galaks.n. amayuktam”.PVSVT, p. 19.

+ Bha.4. tena yad ucyate ’viddhakarn. n. ena – “anadhigatarthapari-cchittih. praman. am ato nanumanam. praman. am arthaparicche-dakatvabhavad” iti.PVSVT, p. 25.

+ Bha.5. itarasya acetanasya va bhumyadeh. murtasya. anenaAviddhakarn. asya samayo darsitah. .SVT, p. 306.

+ Bha.6. kascana carvakavises.o ’viddhakarn. ah. .NVV, Part 2, p. 101.

+ Bha.7. susiks. itacarvakah. Udbhat.adayah. .GrBh, p. 52.26 (on NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 52.18–19). See alsoBha.29.

+ Bha.8. carvakadhurtastviti. Udbhat.ah. . sa hi lokayatasutres.u vivr. tim.kurvan “athatastattvam. vyakhyasyamah. ” “pr. thivyapastejovayuriti” sutradvayam. yathasrutarthatyagenanyatha varn. ayamasa.prathamasutre tattvapadena praman. aprameyasankhyalaks.an. a-niyamasakyakaran. ıyatam aha, dvitıyasutram apiprameyaniyamapratipadakam. tena vyakhyatam. tatra hi“pr. thivyapastejovayur iti” ya “iti” sabdah. sa evam.prayaprameyantaropalaks.an. atvena tasyabhimatah. .GrBh, p. 100.19–24 (on NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 100), Shah, p. 43.

+ Bha.9. cirantanacarvakair hi Bhavivikta-prabhr. tibhih.“bhutebhyascaitanyam” iti sutram. bhutebhya iti pancamyanta-padayojanaya vyakhyatam, bhutebhya utpadyate caitanyamiti. Udbhat.ena tu “bhutebhyah. ” iti padam. caturthyantatayavyakhyatam, bhutebhyascaitanyam. bhutartham. caitanyam. svatan-tram eva sarırarambhakabhutopakarakam ityarthah. .GrBh, p. 257.24–26–258.21 (on NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 257); Shah,p. 197.

+ Bha.10. yatha Udbhat.ena uktam – “sarırarambhakakaran. anam evabhutanam. sa kascit tadr. so vicitrasukhaduh. khopabhogado dharmah.svabhavavises.a ityarthah. ”.GrBh, p. 262.25–27 (on NM, Ch. 7, Part 2, p. 262); Shah, p. 198.

+ Bha.11. Tattvavr.ttavudbhat.ena – “laks.an. akarin. a laghvikatvenaivasabdaviracanavyavastha, na caitavata’numanasya gaun. ata, yadica sadhyaikadesadharmidharmatvam. heto rupam. bruyuste, tada


na kacillaks. an. e’pi gaun. ıvr. ttih. ”.SVR, p. 265.16–19.

+ Bha.12. “hetoh. svasadhyaniyamagrahan. e prakaratrayamis. t.am.darsanabhyam avisis. t. abhyam. darsanena visis. t. anupalabdhi-sahitena bhuyodarsanapravr. ttya ca lokavyavaharapatitaya,tatradyena grahan. opayena ye hetor gamakatvam icchanti tanpratıdam. sutram. lokaprasiddhes.vapi hetus.u vyabhicaradarsanamasti tantrasiddhes.vapi tena vyabhicaradarsanalaks.an. agun. asad-harmyatah. tantrasiddhahetunam. tathabhavo vyavasthapyata itigaun. atvam anumanasya. avyabhicaravagamo hi laukikahetunamanumeyavagame nimittam. sa nasti tantrasiddhes.viti na tebhyah.paroks. arthavagamo nyayyota idam uktam anumanad arthaniscayodurlabha iti”.SVR, p. 265, 23–24, p. 266, 1–8.

+ Bha.13. uktam ca Tantravr.ttau Bhat.t.odbhat.ena – “sarvascadus.an. opanipato’prayojakahetum akramatıtyaprayojakavis.ayaviruddhanumanavirodhaviruddhavyabhicarin. ah. ”.SVR, p. 270, 3–5.Tantravr. tti may be misprint for Tattvavr. tti (as noted by Solomon,p. 990 n14).

+ Bha.14. yatra tu Bhat.t.odbhat.ah. pracıkat.at – “nahyatrakaran. am eva karyatmatamupaiti yata ekasyakaran. atmanaekakaryarupatopagame tadanyarupabhavat tadanyakaryat-manopagatir na syat. kim. tvapurvameva kasyacidbhavepragavidyamanam. bhavat tat karyam. tatra vis.ayendriya-manaskaran. am itaretaropadanahitarupabhedanam. sannidhauvisis. t.asvetaraks.an. abhave pratyekam. tadbhavabhavanuvidhanadanekakriyopayogo na virudhyate. yata ekakriyayam api tasyatadbhavabhavitaiva nibandhanam. sa canekakriyayam api samana”iti.SVR, p. 764. 6–13.

+ Bha.15. tatrayam. jaraddvijanma mahanubhavo’bhinavam etamuttaramargam asman prati prakasayati.SVR, p. 764, 24–25.

+ Bha.16. yadacas. t.a Bhat.t.odbhat.ah. – “itisabdah. pradarsanaparona punah. samaptivacanas caitanyasabdasukhaduh. khecchadves.a-prayatnasam. skaran. am tattvantaratvatpr. thivyadiprakpradhavm. sapeks. anyonyabhavanam. catyanta-prakat.atvad uktatvavilaks.an. atvacceti”.SVR, p. 1087, 1–4.


+ Bha.17. KambalasvatroditamTS, Ch. 22, v. 1863, p. 635; TSP on TS (as above).See also “Aphorisms and Pseudo-aphorisms”, I.7

Bha.18. Purandaras tvah – “lokaprasiddham anumanam. carvakairapıs. yata eva, yattu kaiscil laukikam. margam atikramyanumanamucyate tannis. idhyate” (S 35, N D2).TSP, p. 528 (on TS, Ch. 18, v. 1481).

+ Bha.19. emeya karivi appan. iya utti /kim. jam. pasi pauram. dariya vitti //Maha P, 20.18.9, p. 328.

+ Bha.20. [caianyasya] murtasya pr. thivyadi-catus. t.ayasya jnanam anenapauram. [paurandaram. ] matam. darsitam.SVT, p. 306.Mahendrakumara Nyayacarya offers an emendation of the firstword: caitanyavisis. t.asya (p. 306 n16).

+ Bha.21. . . . na kevalam Purandaradeh. . . .NVV, Part 2, p. 101.

+ Bha.22. [Purandara] carvakamate granthakartaA marginal note on a passage found in a MS of Pus.padanta’sMahapuran. a (most probably the passage cited above as Bha.19),quoted in P.D. Gune’s introduction to the edition of Dhanapala’sBhavisayatthakaha, p. 42.

+ Bha.23. BhaviviktaGrBh, p. 257.24 (on NM, Ch. 7 Part 2, p. 257); Shah, p. 197. See,Bha.14 above.

Bha.24. ya garbhasthatıtaloko’stıti tadarthasiddhyartham.garbhasthatıtabuddhih. samanantaraniruddhabuddhipurvika,buddhitvat, tadanantarabuddhivad iti sadhanam. vadanti, tes. am.dr. s. t. anto nasti. evam. maran. am. yavat sthitanam. manus.yan. am.buddhyekamatratvanis.pannatvat, tatastavan na purvaloka iti (NF2).PrPr, 204, a, 2–4 (on MS 16.1) (For another restoration, see,Pandeya, Part 2, p. 3). Cf. TUS, p. 57.

Bha.25. na hi devadattasya maran. acittam. cittantaren. a pratisandhıyate,maran. acittatvat, 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).

+ Bha.26. desantaram. kalantaramavasthantaram. va paralokah. .TSP, p. 637 (on TS, Ch. 22, vv. 1871–1876).


Bha.27. ihalokaparalokasarırayor bhinnatvat tadgatayorapicittayornaikah. santanah. (S 18, N F4).TSP, p. 663 (on TS, vv. 1938–1940). Cf. PVA, p. 105. 21.

+ Bha.28. jatismaran. amasiddhamekagramagatanam. sarves. am.smaran. at.TSP, p. 665 (on TS, Ch. 22, v. 1945).

+ Bha.29. asakya eva praman. asankhyaniyama iti susiks. itacarvakah. .NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 52. 18–19 (see, Bhas. 8 and 16).

+ Bha.30. susiks. itatarah. prahuh. – dvividham anumanam, kincidutpannapratıti, kincid utpadyapratıti, ısvaradyanumanantuutpadyapratıti.NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184.6–7. See also Sls. 18–20 below.

C. Verses attributed to the Carvakas

Sl.1. na svargo napavargo va naivatma paralaukikah. /naiva varn. asramadınam. kriyasca phaladayikah. //(S 39, N B4).PPu, Sr.s.t.ikhan.d.a 13.323; SDS, p. 13, v. 1, lines 110–111; VMT,3.2.

Sl.2. agnihotram. trayo vedas tridan. d. am. bhasmagun. t.hanam /buddhipaurus.ahınanam. jıviketi br.haspatih. //(S 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., Santiparvan, 218.25 (Vulgate ed.), 211.24(Critical ed.); ABS, Ch. 2, p. 100; SMS, p. 15; SSS, p. 6.

Sl.3. pasuscen nihatah. svargam. jyotis. t.ome gamis.yati /svapita yajamanena tatra kasman na him. syate //(S 41, N B8).VPu. 3.18.26; PC, 2.20, p. 40; SDS, p. 13.14–15; ABS, p. 101(quoting from VP).Cf. SKA, p. 19 (DA, p. 321, vv. 23–24).

Sl.4. mr. tanam api jantunam. sraddham. cet tr.ptikaran. am /nir.van. asya pradıpasya snehah. sam. vardhayec chikham //(S 42, N B9).PC, 2.21, p. 40; SDS, p. 13. 116–117.

Sl.5. gacchatam iha jantunam. vyartham. pathyeyakalpanam /gehasthakr. tasraddhena pathi tr. ptir avarita //(S 43, N B10).SDS, p. 14. 118–119.


Cf. VPu. 3.18.29, also quoted in ABS, Ch. 2, p. 101; Ram., Ayodhya.109.15 (Vulgate).

Sl.6. svargasthita yada tr. ptim. gaccheyus tatra danatah. /prasadasyoparisthanam atra kasman na dıyate //(S 44, N B11).SDS, p. 14. 120–121.

Sl.7. yavaj jıvam. sukham. jıven nasti mr. tyor agocarah. /bhasmıbhutasya santasya punaragamanam. kutah. //(S 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.

Sl.8. yadi gacchet param. lokam. dehad es.a vinirgatah. /kasmad bhuyo na cayati bandhusnehasamakulah. //(S 46, N B12).SDS, p. 14. 124–125.

Sl.9. tatas ca jıvanopayo brahman. air vihitas tviha /mr. tanam. pretakaryan. i na tvanyad vidyate kvacit //(S 47, N B13).SDS, p. 14. 126–127.

Sl.10. trayo vedasya kartaro bhan. d. adhurtanisacarah. /jarbharıturpharıtyadi pan. d. itanam. vacah. smr. tam //(S 48, N B14).SDS, p. 14. 128–129; + GBhSr (on Gıta, 16.8); GBhVi (on Gıta,16.8); SMS, p. 15 (first line only – with variants).

Sl.11. asvasyatra hi sisnam. tu patnıgrahyam. prakırtitam /bhan. d. ais tadvat param. caiva grahyajatam. prakırtitam //mam. sanam. khadanam tadvan nisacarasamıritam //(S 49, N B15–16).SDS, p. 15. 130–132.

Sl.12. nagna sraman. aka durbuddhe kayaklesaparayan. a /jıvikarthe ’pi carambhe kena tvam asi siks. itah. //(S 51, N B6).TUS, p. 79. 17–18.

Sl.13. etavan eva purus.o yavan indriyagocarah. /bhadre vr.kapadam. hy etad yad vadanti bahusrutah. //(S 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;


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 Suri on GV,1.5(1553), p. 10; LS. DSam., p. 256.Cf. Mbh., Santi, Vulgate, 134.2; Crit. ed. 132.1ef–2ab.

+ Sl.14. + piba khada ca carulocane yadatıtam. varagatri tanna te /na hi bhıru gatam. nivartate samudayamatram idam. 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); ASVr. , p. 123 (on AS, 1.4.2); S. ad. -DS, p. 81, v.161 (verbatimreproduction of S. DSam., v.82).

Sl.15. tapam. si yatanas citrah. sam. yamo bhyogavancana /agnihotradikam. karma balakrıd. eva laks. yate //(N B5)+ VDMP, 1.108.14cd–15ab; + LTN, v.34, f. 25a; TRD, p. 302.18–19.

+ Sl.16. + vises.e ’nugamabhavat samanye siddhasadhanat /tadvato’nuppannatvad anumanakatha kutah. //NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 177. 12–13; PrPan, p. 206 (first line only:vises.e ’nugamabhavah. samanya siddhasadhyata); AS, Ch. 1, p. 36(first line only: samanye siddhasadhanad vises.e ’nugamabhavat);PVSVT, p. 26 (first line only: vises.enugamabhavah. samanyesiddhasadhanam); Vyo., Part 2, p. 161 (first line only: samanyesiddhasadhanam. vises.e ’nugamabhavah. ); JnaNi, No. 7, p. 268(first line only, as in PrPan); ibid., No. 7, p. 274 (first hemistichonly, as in above); ibid., No. 11, p. 379 (first line only, as in aboveexcepting b: siddhasadhanam); SD, p. 63 (ab as in PrPan, cd:anumabhangapanke ’smin nimagna vadidantinah. ); ibid., p. 71(first line only, as in PrPan); PKM, p. 177.16 (first line only, asin PVSVT); RNi, No. 2, p. 54 (as in SD but line 1 becomes line 2and line 2 = line 1 with variants in 2d); SVR, p. 263. 12–13 (as inNM); PaPan, p. 24 (the second line reads: tadvato’nupapannatvadianumanakatha kutah. ).

+ Sl.17. + anumanavirodho va yadi ces. t.avighatakr. t /viruddhavyabhicaro va sarvatra sulabhodayah. //NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 179. 1–2; SVR, p. 263.14–15 (v.2)(c. viruddhavyabhicarastu).

+ Sl.18. + tatra dhumanumanadeh. praman. yam. kena nes.yate /ato hi sadhyam. budhyante tarkikairaks.ata api //NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 8–9.


+ Sl.19. + yattvatmesvara – sarvajna – paralokadigocaram /anumanam. na tasyes. t.am. praman. yam. tattvadarsibhih. //NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 10–11.

+ Sl.20. + r. junam. jayate tasmanna tavad anumeyadhıh. /yavat kut.ilitam. ceto na tes. am. vit.atarkikaih. //NM, Ch. 2, Part 1, p. 184. 12–13.

TRANSLATION

A. Translation of the aphorisms and pseudo-aphorisms

I. MaterialismI.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 perceptionIII.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 worldIV.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.


V. The doctrine of the uselessness of performing religious actsV.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. ıka [the commentaryon the Carvakasutra by Aviddhakarn.a].

Comm.2. Aviddhakarn.a had said in Tattvat. ıka: “By this means ofknowledge (sc. Inference) what is conveyed to the other? What isconveyed 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 hehas 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 thatinference is admitted by us as a source of knowledge, because itis found to be so in general practice; (what we only point out isthat) the definition of an inferential mark is illogical”.

Comm.4. Therefore, as has been said by Aviddhakarn.a: “A source ofknowledge means (an instrument) which produces an awareness ofan object not (already) cognized and therefore, inference is not asource of knowledge, because it is not an instrument for producinga definite awareness of an object”.

Comm.5. Of something else, i.e., of the unconscious elements suchas earth, etc. which have corporeal forms. By this is shown theconclusion of Aviddhakarn.a.

Comm.6. Thus (said) a certain Carvaka (called) Aviddhakarn.a.Comm.7. The well learned ones are Udbhat.a and others.Comm.8. The cunning Carvaka [is] Udbhat.a. While explicating the

two aphorisms in the Lokayatasutra-s, “We shall now explain theprinciples” and “earth, water, fire and air (are the principles)” [see,aphorisms I.1 and 2], he described it in another way, forsakingthe conventional interpretation. In the first aphorism, the term,tattva, tells the impossibility of laying down any fixed number andessential characteristics of the sources of knowledge and objectsof knowledge. The second aphorism, too, is explained by himas referring to the objects of knowledge. The word, iti in the(aphorism), “the earth, water, fire and air iti” indicates also thepossibility of similar objects of knowledge other than the earth,etc. Such is his view.


Comm.9. The ancient Carvaka-s like Bhavivikta and others explained(the aphorism) “Consciousness (is produced) from the elements”,as in the word, bhutevyah. , the fifth declension (in the ablative case)has been employed. But Udbhat.a explains the word, bhutevyah. ashaving the fourth declension, meaning “consciousness is for (thesake of) the elements; consciousness is independent and aids thephysical elements which constitute the body”. Such is the meaning.

Comm.10. As has been said by Udbhat.a, “It means that there is an unseenproperty of the elements, the particular nature of the elements thatconstitute the body, which brings about the experience of diversepleasures and miseries”.

Comm.11. Udbhat.a has said in Tattvavr. tti: “The one who framed thedefinition aimed at brevity of expression, but not only because ofthis does inference become secondary. And if they were to definethe characteristics of probans as attributes of the thing which is apart of the probandum, there would be no secondary significanceeven in the definition”.

Comm.12. In the grasping of the invariable relation of the probanswith the probandum, three modes are recognized: [1] by twounqualified perceptions. [2] by perception along with a qualifiednon-perception, and [3] by the process of repeated perception asfound in worldly behaviour. This aphorism is aimed at those whorecognize the probans as gamaka (capable of yielding knowledge)according to the first mode of grasping. Failure of concomitance isnot seen even in the case of probanses well-established in the world;so also it is not noticed in the case of the probanses establishedin the scriptures; so, on the basis of the quality characterized by“non-perception of failure of concomitance” being common tothem, the probanses established in the scriptures are admitted asbeing gamaka. It is because of this that inference is secondary.Now the knowledge of non-failure of concomitance in respect ofworldly probanses is instrumental in bringing about the knowledgeof the probandum. But that is not there in the concept of probansesestablished by the scriptures. So it is not proper that non-perceptiblethings should be known with the help of these. Hence it is said thatthe 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 againstinference apply to the incapable reasons (hetu-s), they do not affectcapable reasons.


Comm.14. [Literal translation of this passage is beyond my power, Igive below only a summary of what Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a is alleged tohave said]:It cannot be said that the cause attains the nature of the effect, butthe effect is something new which appears in the presence of thecause.

Comm.15. This respectable veteran twice-born is revealing to us a novelway of answering criticism.

Comm.16. As said Bhat.t.a Udbhat.a, “The word, iti does not denotethe end, (but) it is illustrative. There are other principles suchas consciousness, sound, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort,impression and others. There are also prior non-existence of theearth, etc., posterior non-existence, the mutual difference which arequite apparent and distinct (from the principles, viz., earth, etc.)”.

Comm.17. (As) said by Kambalasvatara.Comm.18. But Purandara said: “The Carvakas, too, admit of such an

inference as is well-known in the world, but that which is calledinference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is prohibited[by them]”.

Comm.19. “Arranging your arguments in this way, why do you blurtout the commentary of Purandara”?

Comm.20. Cognition belongs to the group of the four elements, suchas the earth, etc. which have assumed a corporeal form – by thisis shown the conclusion of Pauram [Paurandaram].

Comm.21. Not only of Purandara and others.Comm.22. [Purandara] author of a work on the Carvaka doctrine.Comm.23. Bhavivikta [The name of an ancient Carvaka 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 “theprevious intelligence in the embryonic stage is always precededby the cessation of an immediately preceding intelligence”, sinceit is intelligence, like the intelligence coming after the embryonicstate cannot stand, as because the instance given by them is notproper. 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 byanother 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, oranother state.


Comm.27. The body in this world and the body in the “other world”being entirely different, the chain of cognitions in those two bodiescannot be one and the same.

Comm.28. Remembrance of previous birth cannot be admitted, becausethere is remembrance of all men coming from the same village.

Comm.29. The Carvaka-s, the well-versed ones, say that it is reallyimpossible to specifically state the number of the sources of cogni-tion.

Comm.30. Now those who (think themselves to be) more well-versed,say that (in fact) there are two kinds of inference, “some in caseof which the inferential cognition can be acquired by oneself”(utpanna-pratıti), and “some in case of which the inferential cogni-tion is to be acquired (on somebody else’s advice)” (utpadya-pratıti)[The former kind is valid, but the latter kind is not].

C. Translation of the verses attributed to the Carvaka-s

1. There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in anotherworld.Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders, etc., produce any realeffect.

2. Br.haspati says – The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s threestaves, and smearing one’s self with ashes, – (all these) are thelivelihood 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 Sraddha (offering of rice balls to a dead person) producesgratification to beings who are dead, then oil may rear the flameof an extinguished light.

5. (If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead),then here, too, in the case of the travellers when they start, it isneedless to give provisions for the journey.

6. If beings in heaven are gratified by our offering (the Sraddha) here,then why not give the food down below to those who are standingon 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 itthat he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred?

9. Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans haveestablished here.All these ceremonies for the dead, – there is no other fruit anywhere.


10. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons.All the well-known formulae of the pandits, jarpharı turpharı &c.

11. And all the rites for the queen (e.g., holding the penis of the horse)commanded in the Asvamedha (the Horse sacrifice).These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds ofpresents to the priests.While the eating of flesh was similarly commanded by nigh-prowlingdemons.

12. O, the naked one (Jain), ascetic (Buddhist), dimwit, given topractising physical hardship! Who has taught you this way toleading 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 belongto you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back. This bodyis nothing but a collectivity.

15. Penances are only various forms of torments, and abstinence isonly depriving oneself of consuming (the pleasures of life). Therituals of Agnihotra, etc., appear only to be child’s play.

16. No concomitance being possible in the case of the particular andthere being the charge of “proving the proved” in the case ofthe universal, the subject cannot be justified as a locus of theprobandum. How can, therefore, one talk about inference (as asource of valid knowledge)?

17. It is easily possible to find, in all cases, that one’s inference iscontradicted 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 infersfire from smoke, and so on; for even ordinary people ascertain theprobandum by such inferences, though they may not be pesteredby the logicians.

19. However, inferences that seek to prove a self, God, an omniscientbeing, the other-world, and so on, are not considered valid by thosewho know the real nature of things.

20. Simple-minded people cannot derive the knowledge of probandumby such inferences, so long as their mind is not vitiated by cunninglogicians.

The translations of Sls, 1–11 are taken from Cowell’s trans. of SDS(with some modification, particularly in the case of Sls. 2 and 7); that


cf Sls. 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 Sls. 13–14). Sl. 12 has been translated byme. 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 – completeaphorisms and verses as well as extracts from the works of criticsof the Carvaka (Shastri even accepts passages from poems and playsin which Carvaka is ridiculed) – purporting to represent the Carvakadoctrine. I omit some of them as doubtful. Hence some explanation ofwhy some fragments are not admitted is only to be expected. In whatfollows I append the reasons.

Both Shastri and Namai adopt the following fragments: kama evaikah.purus. arthah. , “pleasure is the only aim of life” (S5, N A15). It is foundin a seventeenth-century work, ABS by Sadananda Kasmıraka. Otherwriters such as Srıdhara (before the fifteenth century), MadhusudanaSarasvatı (sixteenth century) and Nılakan. t.ha (seventeenth century) intheir respective commentaries on the Gıta, 13.11, mention it. However,Shastri himself includes another fragment, arthakamau purus. arthau,“Wealth and pleasure are the two aims of life” (S 27) which is foundin two earlier sources, viz. PC and SDS.53

What are we to believe, then? Did the Carvakas admit of only oneaim of life or two? The question itself needs to be questioned. It isextremely doubtful whether they at all used to speak or write in termsof purus. artha, a typically Brahminical concept. It seems the detractorsof the Carvaka did not know what the Carvaka view was in this regard.So they elected to foist on the Carvaka what they considered to beimproper and/or despicable. Some chose “pleasure” only, some othersdecided to add “wealth” as well. Both are mere conjecture, not basedon any statement found in any authentic Carvaka source. So I rejectS5 and S27.

For similar reasons I have desisted from accepting N A12: maran. amevapavargah. , “death indeed is emancipation” (also taken from ABS).Apavarga, like purus. artha, is a concept relevant to the believer inrebirth, from the cycle of which a pious man seeks to be released.But the Carvakas denied and ridiculed the very idea of rebirth andemancipation. So the use of such a term is not to be expected of them.Some Carvaka might have once said something to this effect: “What doyou people mean by ‘emancipation’? Death is the end of life. The cycle


of birth, death and rebirth, and the possibility of final emancipationare mere figments of the imagination”. Hence some opponents ofthe Carvaka might have framed this “aphorism”. A variant of this(mr. tyurevapavargah. ) is found in PC.54 Shastri includes it as a separatefragment (S 30). That, too, is therefore dispensed with.

Now to a cluster of fragments from Vatsyayana’s Kamasutra. Almostall scholars before and after Shastri and Namai have accepted them asauthentic Carvaka fragments. Let us look at them one by one.

Speaking of the three aims of life, viz., virtue, pleasure and wealth,Vatsyayana mentions three groups of people: The Lokayatikas who say:na dharmam. scaret, “religious acts are not to be practised” (S 9, N A16),the followers of the doctrine of wealth who prohibit pleasure, and thoseof 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. Vatsyayanahimself 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 tobe the foremost of the three aims,57 whereas Vatsyayana apparentlythinks pleasure to be so. However, as I have argued above, the Carvakaspresumably did not think in terms of the so-called aims of life at all.Vatsyayana simply conjures up three schools of thinkers who were nottrivargavadins, but dvivargavadins.

Vatsyayana then makes all the three groups spell out their doctrines.The Lokayatikas are made to say as follows: es.yat phalatvat,sam. sayikatvacca, “for they do not bear any fruit in this world and(at the same time) it is also doubtful whether they will bear any fruitat all” (KS 1.2.26–27; S 10–11, N A17–18). Vatsyayana then “cites” afew quotable quotes which have been accepted by almost all modernscholars as genuine Carvaka aphorisms, viz.,

ko hy abaliso hastagatam. paragatam. kuryat, “who but a fool would give away thatwhich is in his own hands into the hands of another” (KS, 1.2.28, S 12, N A19)?varamadyakapotah. svo mayurat, “it is much better to have a pigeon in hand todaythan a peacock tomorrow” (KS, 1.2.29; S 13, N A20).varam. sam. sayikannis.kadasam. sayikah. kars. apanah. , “a copper coin in hand is betterthan a dubious gold coin” (KS, 1.2.30; S 14, N A21).

The commentator of KS has shown that 1.2.29 is related to 1.2.26.The Mımam. sakas, too, admitted that the fruit of religion is not alwaysavailable immediately, it is to be expected in the future. KS, 1.2.26seems to be an echo of this declaration. Similarly KS, 1.2.30 is relatedto 1.2.27. And 1.2.29 and 1.2.30 are merely popular maxims, laukikanyaya-s.58 They cannot be regarded as aphorisms of any philosophical


school. KS, 1.2.28, too, is a mere rhetorical question. Vatsyayana alsorepresents the views of the artha- and kala-cintaka-s in the form ofaphorisms. But there is no evidence that these two groups had any setof aphorisms of their own.

Then where does Vatsyayana get those so-called aphorisms? Theonly plausible answer is that he authored them himself. The same istrue of these alleged aphorisms attributed to the Lokayatikas. Even ifthe ideas contained in them tally with those of the Carvaka, they cannothave been composed by any Carvaka philosopher. If the word dharmais taken to mean yajna, “ritual sacrifice”, KS, 1.2.26–27 might havealso originated from the Jain and Buddhist circles, for they, too, wereopposed to the Vedic sacrificial cult.

Now to S 53–54. Namai takes them to be one (N B1). The fragment/-sruns/run as follows:laukiko margo’nusartavyah. . lokavyavaharam. prati sadr. sau balapan. d. itau.

“The worldly way should be followed. In respect to worldly practicethe child (i.e., the unwise) and the learned one are similar”.

Both are taken from TUS. But, as Eli Franco has shown, both belongto the category of popular maxims and on the two occasions the secondsentence occurs in Vyo. “the context of the discussion has nothing todo with Lokayata”.59

S 15 runs as follows: sarırendriyasanghata eva cetanah. ks.etrajnah. ,“the union of the body and senses is consiousness”. MadhusudanaSarasvatı quotes it in his commentary on the Gıta, 13.6. In the samepassage, while expounding the Nyaya view on consciousness, he refersto Nyayasutra, 1.1.10. side by side with the Lokayatika view. But theterm, ks.etrajna is found exclusively in the Sam. khya; to be more exact,in the epic Sam. khya.60 It is highly improbable that a Carvaka aphorismwould contain such a term.

kama eva pran. inam. karan. am, “pleasure is the cause of (the birthof) animals” (S 16), is taken from Sankara’s commentary on the Gıta,16.8. Sankara refers to it as “the view of the Lokayatikas”. The view,however, is essentially Vedic. As the famous Nasadıya hymn (TheR. 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 thenon-existent.61

So there is no reason why the sentence found in Sankara should betaken as a Carvaka aphorism.

etavaneva purus.o yavan indriyagocarah. , “man is as much as isadmissible to the senses” (S 19), is the first line of a verse (Sl. 13 of


ours). Namai has taken the whole verse (N B2). Shastri was apparentlyled by TSP to adopt the first line only.

Similarly, kayadeva tato jnanam. pran. apanadyadhisthitadyuktam.jayate, “consciousness proceeds from the body equipped with (thelife breaths), Pran.a, Apana and the rest” (S 22), is taken fromKambalasvatara’s exposition of the Carvakasutra (Bha. 7 of ours),and is not an aphorism by itself.

sarvatra paryanuyogaparan. yeva sutran. i br. haspateh. , “the aphorismsof Br.haspati are everywhere merely for the sake of objections” (S 23),is taken from TBV. But in an earlier source, this sentence is called asukta, not a sutra, as TBV calls it.62 So it need not be accepted as agenuine Carvaka saying. On the other had, it apparently reflects the viewof the opponents of the Carvaka, such as Jayantabhat.t.a, who similarlyexplained: “In the Lokayata 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 S 23 does not and cannot originate from any Carvaka source.S 24–34 are taken from Kr.s.n.amisra’s allegorical play, PC. They are

all quoted from the speech of Carvaka, one of the dramatis personaein the play, allied to a group of vicious characters. Even though someof the sayings of this Carvaka correspond to the Lokayata view foundin other sources (e.g., S 25 ∼ our III.1, S 26 ∼ our I.2, S 28 ∼ our I.3,S 29 ∼ our IV.1, S 34 ∼ our Sls. 8–9), some others are manufacturedby Kr.s.n.amisra himself to suit the context of the play. Thus Carvakateaches his disciple: Lokayatameva sastram, “Lokayata is indeed thescience” (S 24). There is no reason to regard it as an aphorism.

S 27 and S 30 have already been discussed above. S 31 and 32 runas follows: dan. d. anıtireva vidya and atraiva vartantarbhavati, “penalcode (lit. the rule of the rod) is the science (of polity)” and “agriculture,animal husbandry, trade and commerce, etc. are included in it”. Thebases of these two sentences lie in taking Br.haspati to be the author ofboth the Barhaspatyasutra and the Barthaspatya Arthasastra.64 But thefragments of Br.haspati Smr. ti show that the author was a great admirerof Manu, and the lost Br.haspati Arthasastra must have belonged to thesame brahminical tradition to which the Kaut.ilıya Arthasastra belongs.65

So the idea of varta and dan. d. anıti as parts of the Carvaka doctrine isutterly misconceived.

Moreover, one should be wary of accepting any view put in the mouthof a character in a play to be a truthful representation of a philosophicalsystem. Just think of Socrates as presented in Aristophanes’s The Clouds.And think how the two Buddhist and Jain monks are represented in


AD. and PC.66 If one is to form one’s opinion about the doctrines ofBuddhism and Jainism solely on the basis of AD. and PC, the result wouldbe, to say the least, ludicrous. No serious student of philosophy woulddo so. But when it comes to the Carvaka doctrine, Radhakrishnan,Moore and many others have blindly accepted PC to be a reliablesource.67 But such sources as AD. , PC and NC are always to be treatedas dubious, and, unless confirmed by cross-reference, should better beleft out of discussion.

S 36–38 are taken from ABS. They represent the views of thosewho believe “the senses”, “mind” and “life” to be the self.68 SadanandaKasmıraka does not explicitly attribute them to the Carvakas: he simplymentions “some”, “others”, etc. The fact is that all the three doctrineshave their origin in the Upanis.ads69 long before the Carvakas appearedin the arena. The Vedantins, right from Sankara down to SadanandaYati or Yogındra or Sarasvatı (c. fifteenth-sixteenth century) mentionseveral views of the self held by different schools.70 The Carvakas havetraditionally been branded as dehatmavadins.71 Any other theory whichtakes “the senses” or “mind” or “life” or anything else as the self isalien to the Carvakas.72 Nor is there any evidence that such theorieswere propounded by other Carvaka schools.73 Thus S 36–38 cannot beaccepted as Carvaka fragments proper.

I append below a concordance of the fragments:

S N RKB

1 A1 I.12 A2, 3 I.2, I.33 A4 I.44 A5 I.55 A15 –6 A14 –7 A10 –8 A12 –9 A16 –10 A17 –11 A18 –12 A19 –13 A20 –14 A21 –15 – –16 – –17 All IV.218 F4 Bha.28


S N RKB

19 B2 S1.1320 A13 see, III.121 D1 III.222 A9, C1 I.723 F5 –24 – –25 See, A13 III.126 – –27 – –28 – –29 – –30 – –31 – –32 – –33 – –34 – –35 D2 Bha.1736 – –37 – –38 – –39 B4 Sl.140 B7 Sl.241 B8 Sl.342 B9 Sl.443 B10 Sl.544 B11 Sl.645 B3 Sl.746 B12 Sl.847 B13 Sl.948 B14 Sl.1049 B15–16 Sl.1150 – –51 B6 Sl.1252 – –53 B1 –54 B1 –

B. Comments on the extracts from Bhas. yas (commentaries)

The extracts from the commentaries on the Carvakasutra (in so far asthey can be identified with some degree of certitude) have been arrangedalphabetically by the names of the commentators (Bhas.1–23; rest areanonymous). So far five names have been found mentioned in differentphilosophical works, viz., Aviddhakarn.a, Udbhat.a Bhat.t.a (Bhat.t.odbhat.a),


Kambalasvatara, Purandara and Bhavivikta. All but Udbhat.a belongedto or before the eight century CE; Udbhat.a, too, must have flourishedby or before the ninth.74 The names of Aviddhakarn.a and Bhaviviktaare also referred to in context of Nyaya. Whether they were Naiyayikasturned Carvakas or vice versa or two different persons altogether cannotbe ascertained at the present stage of our knowledge.75

Of the five, Udbhat.a appears to have been an odd man out whosought to bring the Carvaka doctrine closer to Nyaya.76 He interpretedthree fundamental aphorisms of the Carvakasutra (our I.1, I.2 and I.4)in a novel manner (see, Bhas. 13 and 14). He may very well be regardedas a “revisionist” among the later Carvakasutra commentators.

That there were several schools of interpretations of the Carvakaaphorisms even before the eighth century is clear from TSP and othersources.77 But nothing definite is known about them.

Translations of Bhas. 1,2,17,18,26,27 and 28 are quoted (amended)from Ganganatha Jha’s English rendering of TS and TSP; of Bhas. 8,9and 15 from Esther O. Solomon’s article; 19 was translated by C.R.Deshpande (see, Bhattacharya 1999g, p. 493 nll). Bhas. 29, 30 and31, as translated by Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya, are taken from C/L,pp. 154, 140 and 320 respectively. Bhas. 24 and 25 were restored toSanskrit from the Tibetan version by Sanjit Kumar Sadhukhan. The restare translated by me with the help of Gangopadhyaya and Sadhukhan.

C. Comments on the Sloka-s (verses) attributed to the Carvakas

As is evident from the verses printed above, they are mostly taken fromSDS (eleven out of twenty).

I have first concentrated exclusively on such verses as have beencited in well-known philosophical digests like SDS and independentphilosophical works like TUS. Some of these verses are quoted directlyfrom the Puran.as and Upapuran.as. Now, there are also other versesattributed directly or indirectly to the Carvakas in the same sources(some verses there have been attributed to Br.haspati). There is noreason why they, too, should not be admitted as Carvaka fragments.The only problem is that there is no evidence to prove that the versesare quoted from some authentic Carvaka source. Hence I have desistedfrom including such verses in this collection.

It is rather strange that neither D.R. Shastri nor Namai has includedsome other verses found in VPu, PPu and VDMP. Similarly if theetavan eva verse (our Sl.13) is included, why should the verse thatfollows in Haribhadra’s S. DSam be left out? It neatly rounds off theparable of the wolf’s footprint.78


One significant omission in all previous collections is another versefound in no fewer than twelve sources: vises.e anugamabhavat, etc. (ourSl.16). Similarly four verses in NM appear to be direct quotations fromsome Carvaka source. I am inclined to adopt them as genuine Carvakafragments (our Sls.17–20).

Versified versions of the materialist doctrine are also found in theMbh, Santiparvan, 2.11.22–30 and in the Ram, Ayodhyakan.d.a, 100.2–17. But, very much like the verses found in the Puran.as mentionedabove, these verses cannot be definitely attributed to any authenticCarvaka source. As to the Puran.as, the most detailed account of thenastika doctrines is found in PPu, Sr.s.t.ikhan.d.a, Ch. 13.79 This is a partof a general denunciation of the Jains, Buddhists and Carvakas. Thepassage in PPu is taken almost verbatim from VPu, 3.18.24–29. As Ihave mentioned above, some of the verses may very well be treated asabhan. aka-s and lokagatha-s. Mat.hara has, in fact, quoted a verse fromPPu.80 ABS, too, quotes from VPu.81

To the best of my knowledge nobody has referred to the chapterson the Carvaka in Sarvadarsanasiroman. ih. by Srıkanci Ramanujacaryaand the two Sarvadarsanakaumudı-s, the first by Madhava Sarasvatı(sixteenth century) and the second by Pan.d. it Damodara Mahapatrasastrı(twentieth century) published as late as 1965.82 The latter is a mererehash of the prevalent (mostly wrong) views regarding the Carvakas.He quotes all the eleven verses from SDS and one each from theBhagavata-puran. a and Br. haspatismr. ti.

Verses containing the Carvaka view also occur in Haribhadra’sLokatattvanirn. aya and Sastravartasamuccaya, Jayantabhat.t.a’sAgamad. ambara, Siddhars.i’s Upamitibhavaprapancakaha, Kr.s.n.amisra’sPrabodhacandrodaya, Hemacandra’s Tris.as. t.i-salakapurus.acarita,and Srıhars.a’s Nais.adhıyacarita. However, most of the verses attri-buted to Carvaka or his followers are the authors’ own compo-sition. Therefore, they are not fit to be included in the collec-tion of Carvaka fragments. The same remark applies to suchphilosophical digests as Sarvadarsanasiddhanta-sam. graha andSarvadarsanasiddhantasarasam. graha.

Although Santraks.ita sometimes quotes from the works of his oppon-ents (e.g., from Kumarila and Bhartr.hari), it is doubtful whether he hasalso done so in TS, Ch. 22. Haribhadra and Rajasekhara have quotedtwo verses which are elsewhere attributed to the Lokayatika-s (ourSls. 13–14). There is nothing to show that any other verse in the twoS. ad. darsanasamuccaya-s is of the same kind.


There is an anthology of verses called Rasakalpadruma (RKD)compiled by Jagannathamisra in which a number of verses have beenquoted from a lost play called Bhaktivaibhava by Kavi D. in.d. ima. RKDis a very late work compiled between 1725 and 1775 CE somewherein Orissa. Nothing is known about D. in.d. ima. So, not much credenceis to be given to the authenticity of the verses attributed to Carvaka.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 gotthe verses from a manuscript (incomplete) but does not furnish anydetails of its author, date, etc. It may very well be a recent work. Inany case, it does not warrant much discussion since content-wise thereis nothing new.

The basic issues raised in the verses are as follows:

(a) Futility of animal sacrifice (with or without the doctrine of non-violence 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 Carvaka doctrine as weknow it today. But the insistence on vegetarianism (implied in ourSl.11) along with (a) raises one pertinent question: does it emanatefrom the Carvakas or from the Buddhists.

In connection with some verses in SDS, E.B. Cowell referredto Eugene Burnouf’s Introduction a l’histoire du Buddhism Indien,p. 209.85 It contains a French translation of a passage from theSardulakarn. avadana (Divyavadana).85 F. Max Muller (1878) alsoremarked:Some of these objections [in SDS] may be of later date, but most of them are clearlyBuddhistic. The retort, why if a victim slain at a sacrifice goes to heaven, does not aman sacrifice his own father, is, as Professor Burnouf has shown, the very argumentused by Buddhist controversialists.86

Muller also refers to Jabali’s speech in the Ram., Ayodhyakan.d.a,109.14ff (Vulg. ed.).87 Similar objections to ritual violence are found inthe writings of the Jains. So, we can never be sure whether SDS, vv.3and 11 (our Sls.3 and 11) originated from the Buddhist or from Jainsources. In deriding the Brahmins, DA says that the cruel Brahminsdevised animal sacrifice in order to partake of meat, a view which tallieswith SDS (v.11).

We may close our discussion on the note that only some twentyverses can be taken as Carvaka fragments proper, although there is no


guarantee that even these were composed by some Carvaka philosophers.It is more probable that the satirical verses were current in one or theother part of India and were orally transmitted. Hence they are calledabhan. aka-s and lokagatha-s. Since many of them reflected the spirit ofdoubt and denunciation of Vedic religious rites, they were attributed tothe Carvaka-s at least from the sixth century CE. Together they constitutethe counterpoint in Indian philosophy – the extreme left wing, so tosay.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 havebeen corresponding for quite a number of years on the Carvaka systemof philosophy. Long discussions with Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyayaover a greater number of years have helped me untie many a knottyproblem, specially connected with translation and interpretation. SanjitKumar Sadhukhan restored some passages from the Tibetan versioninto Sanskrit, solely for my benefit. I thank them all for their kindassistance. The usual disclaimers, of course, apply.

Thanks are also due to Subrata Basak, Rinku Chaudhuri, PradyutKumar 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 ofthe Royal Asiatic Society on 3 February 1827.2 The editio princeps of SDS was first published by Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar inBI, 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 beenpublished 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 KrishanMittal (1974) similarly utilized all orthodox and heterodox philosophical texts intheir 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 articleby Namai (published in 1981) which is not available to me.11 Namai (1989, 1991), p. 229 n52 and Halbfass, ibid.


12 The basic reason is that such fragments are found only once in much later worksor have been copied from the same source without any evidence to support theirauthenticity. 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 byNamai. The question will be discussed below in more details.13 A good example has been provided by L.V. Joshi: “. . . Bhasarvajna explainsthe application of anekanta following almost verbatim the text of Akalanka’sTattvarthavartika. The editor, Svami Yogindrananda seems to believe that Bhasarvajnahas verbatim quoted the passage from Tattvarthavartika and hence he puts the passageinto inverted commas which (marks) are not found in the Photostat of Nyayabhus.an. a.As a matter of fact, Bhasarvajna 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, Sl.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 Sl.2 below.19Quoted in TSP, p. 528. See, Bha. 17 above.20 SMS, p. 15. It is also echoed in TRD, p. 306 and the anonymous Avacurn. i onS. DSam, p. 508.21Man., 2.17, 5.1; pp. 20, 59. Varadaraja / Varadacarya quotes 2.17–18 in hisTarkikaraks. a, as does SMS on p. 14 (attributing the verses to the “logicians”,nyayavidam. ).22 NM, Ch. 1, Part 1, p. 43 (but see, ibid., p. 52 where the well-educated Carvaka-s(presumably Udbhat.a and others) are made to say that the number of praman. a-scannot be determined); Bham. 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, Bha. 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 Carvakasutra.28 SDS, pp. 6–7.29 Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 532.30 Siddhasena Divakara presents in verse form the basic tenets of Vaises.ika andsome other philosophical systems in his Dvatrim. sad Dvatrim. sika. But they are allcomposed 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 thisclaim in an earlier paper, later reprinted as “Materialism in Indian Philosophy” whichforms Ch. 7 of his Knowledge and Intervention (1985), pp. 196 ff. He elaboratedthe theme in the Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture (New Delhi, 1988), which wasafterwards printed in IHR, Vol. 13, pp. 37–57.33 See, Chandogya 8.7–9; Gıta, 16.7, 9. See also Dasgupta, Vol. 3, p. 529 andDebiprasad Chattopadhyaya (1959, 1973), Ch. 1, “Asura View”, pp. 1 ff. K.C. Chat-topadhyaya 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.


38 KA, 1.2.10. See, Bhattacharya (1998a), pp. 70–74. A more elaborate Bengaliversion was published in 1996 (Anus. t.up, Year 30 No. 3, pp. 1–31).39 See, Bhattacharya (1998b) and (2000c). Eli Franco (2000) recently mentions thatthe Spitzwer MS fragment 143b (SHT – 810 of the Turfan MSS) contains referencesto laukayata (sic) besides Sam. khya and Vaises.ika (p. 548 [63] n23). He, too, notesthat the word is not used “in the sense of a materialistic philosophical school, butas a science whose nature is to criticize with reasons”.40 The anonymous commentary on SK, v. 27 (translated into Chinese by Paramartha)refers to a verse, yena suklıkr. ta ham. sah. , etc. and identifies it as a Lokayatika saying.See, Bedekar (1961), p. 10 n45 and S.S.S. Shastri, p. 36. For the etavan eva verse,see, Sl. 13 below and Bhattacharya, 2002a.41 See, Bhattacharya (1999c) and (2002a).42 VPu, 3.18.1–29; PPu, Sr.s.t.ikhan.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 asthe preceptor of the gods and addressing him as bhagavan, I believe, are furtherevidence to prove that Jayarasi was not a Carvaka/Lokayata, for no Carvaka woulddeign to admit the existence of the gods and their guru and refer to him as a godor demi-god.44 For the many Br.haspati-s, See, Aiyangar, p. 79. Ms. Saraswati Bali’s Br. ihaspatiin the Vedas and the Puran. 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-nıtiteachings that a learned Brahmin taught Draupadı’s brother (Mbh., Aran.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, Carvaka is first found in the Mbh., Adiparvan, 2.63 (Vul., 2.74);Santi, 39.23–47 (Vul., Chs. 38–39). He is, however, a demon who got a boon fromBrahma by satisfying Him in penance. To identify this Carvaka with the founder ofa 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, SBh on BS, 1.1.1, 2.2.2, 3.3.53; on Gıta, 16.8, etc.50 Radhakrishnan, p. 277; Frauwallner, Vol. 2, p. 216 (= S.296).51 Some other doctrines called pran. atmavada, etc. found in the Upanis.ads and in theworks of later Vedantins are also left out because they are older than the Carvakadoctrine. 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, Part2, pp. 108, 172.60 Cf. Mbh., Santiparvan, 204.8, 211.12, 228.10, 308.105, etc.61 Trans. A.A. Macdonell, p. 209.62 SVT, p. 277; Vidyananda’s Praman. aparıks. a, accr. Franco (1987, 1999), pp. 6 and47; 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.


65 Aiyangar, 27.3. See also Bhattacharya (1997a), specially pp. 14–15.66 AD. , Acts 1 and 2; PC, Act 3. Cf. Mattvilasaprahasana by Mahendra Vikramav-arman.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. Taittirıya Upanis.ad, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1 and Chandogya Up. , 5.1.7.70 SBh on BS, 1.1.1; VS, Ch. 3.123–127, pp. 69–72.71 SDS, p. 6.53, See also SBh, pp. 81, 850; Vyo., Part 2, p. 126; PrPan, Ch. 8,p. 320.72 Vyo., Part 2, p. 126, refers to the indriyacaitanyavadin-s and manascaitanyavadin-s;SVSSS, vv. 523–576, to many others. ST, pp. 5.19, 20–24, too, mentions indriyatmavada,mana-atmavada and pran. atmadvada besides dehatmavada. According to SubrahmanyaSastri, those who say, deham eva atma are the Carvaka-s, but those who call thesenses (indriya-s) to be so, are the Pauran. ika-s (see, PrPan, p. 315nn 5 and 7).73 Opinions differed regarding the interpretation of some aphorisms among thecommentators of the Carvakasutra (see, Bhas. 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, 15and 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. isa Sahitya Ekademı (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 Sardulakarn. avadana (in DA) on pp. 205–210.86 Muller, 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 Hinduspeculation, the ‘negative arm’ was unusually vigorous; and it would not perhaps beimpossible to reconstruct from still extant allusious a complete series (though not inchronological order), corresponding in Greek philosophy to that from Xenophansesto Sextus Empiricus” (p. 382).

ABBREVIATIONS

ABORI = Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona.

ABS = Sadananda Kasmıraka. Advaitabrahmasiddhi, ed. GurucharanaTarkadarsanatirtha and Panchanana Tarkavagisa (Calcutta: Universityof Calcutta, 1930).


AD. = Jayantabhat.t.a. Agamad. ambara, ed. V. Raghavan and Anantalal Thakur(Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1964).

Aiyangar, K.V.R. = Br.haspatismr. ti (Reconstructed) (Baroda: Oriental Institute,1941).

ALVr. = Jnanasrıbhadra. Aryalankavataravr. tti (Tibetan trans.) (Namai, 1976),p. 38 n11.

AS = Vidyanandasvamin. As. t.asahasri, ed. Vam. sıdhara (Aklooj: R.N. Ghandhi(sic), 1915).

ASVr. = Sılanka. Acarangasutravr. tti, re-ed. Muni Jambuvijayaji (Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass Indological Trust, 1915).

Avacurn. i = Anon. in S. DSam, ed. Mahendra Kumar Jain (Calcutta: BharatiyaJnanapith, 1969).

AYVD = Hemacandra. Anyayogavyavaccheda-dvatr. im. sika. Comm. Mallis.en.a’sSyadvadamanjarı, ed. A.B. Dhruba (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental ResearchInstitute, 1933).

Bedekar, V.M. = “The doctrines of Svabhava and Kala in the Mahabharata andother old Sanskrit works”. Journal of the University of Poona (HumanitiesSection), No. 13, 1961.

Bham = Vacaspatimisra. Bhamatı. See, BS.

Bhagavad Datta = See, Thomas (ed.).

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1996b) = “ ‘r.nam. kr.tva ghr.tam. pibet’. Who saidThis?”, JICPR, Vol. XIV No. I, September–December, 1996, pp. 170–174.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1997a) = “Origin of Materialism in India: Patricianor Plebeian?”, BSC, Vol. XX, No. 1–2, March–June, 1997, pp, 12–23.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1998a) = “Sam. khya, Yoga and Lokayata in theKaut.ilıya Arthasastra: A Review”, BSC, Vol. XXI, Nos. 1–2, January-June,1998, p. 70–74.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1998b) = “On lokayata and lokayatana in BuddhistSanskrit”, ABORI, LXXIX, 1998, pp. 231–235.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999a) = “Ajita Kesakambala: Nihilist or Mater-ialist?”, JAS(B), Vol. XLI, No. 1, 1999, pp. 74–83.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999b) = “What did the Carvakas mean by‘sukham. jıvet’?”, 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 AllegedCarvaka Aphorisms”, IS, Vol. 12, No. 5, 15.9.99, pp. 4–8.


Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999g) = “Paurandarasutra Revisited”, JIP,Vol. 27, No. 5, October 1999, pp. 485–497.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (1999i) = “ ‘jıvika dhatr.nirmita’ or ‘jıviketibr.haspatih’?”, JICPR, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 1999, pp. 171–176.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000b) = “Perception and Inference in the CarvakaPhilosophy”, JAS(B), Vol. XLII, Nos. 1–2, 2000 (pub. 2001), pp. 29–38.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000c) = “The Significance of lokayata in Pali”,JDPCU, Vol. 10, 2000, pp. 39–46.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2000e) = “Yogacara Against the Carvaka: ACritical Survey of Tattva-Sangraha, Chapter 22”, Anvıks. a, Vol. XXI,December 2000, pp. 46–55.

Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2002a) = “Haribhadra’s S. ad. darsanasamuccaya:Verses 81–84: A Study”, JJ, Vol. 36, No. 3, January 2002.

BI = The Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society).

BhD = Nılakan. t.ha. Bharatabhavadıpa (Commentary on the Mahabharata),ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Calcutta: Vangavasi, Saka, 1826) (1904 CE).See, Mbh.

BS = The Brahma Sutra with Sankara Bhas. ya and Bhamatı, Kalpataru andParimala, ed. Pandit Anantakrishna Sastri & Vasudev Laxman Shastripansikar (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1982) (reprintof the Nirnay Sagar ed.).

BSBh = Bhaskaracarya. Brahmasutrabhas. ya, ed. Pandit Vindhyesvari PrasadDvivedi (Varanasi: Chowkhambha, 1915).

BSC = Bharatiya Samajik Chintan, Allahabad – Kolkata.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1959, 1973) = Lokayata (New Delhi: People’sPublishing House, 1973) (first pub. 1959).

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1985) = “Materialism in Indian Philosophy”,Knowledge and Intervention (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1985).

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1988) = “Uddalaka Arun. i: The Pioneer ofScience” (New Delhi: Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture, 8.2.1988), IHR,XIII, Nos. 1–2.

Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad (1991) = History of Science and Technology inAncient India (Calcutta: Firma KLM, 1991), Vol. 2.

Chattopadhyaya, K.C. = “The Lokayata System of Thought in Ancient India”,Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Institute, 1975, Vol. 31.

C/L = Carvaka/Lokayata, ed. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya in coll. with MrinalKanti Gangopadhyaya (New Delhi: Indian Council of PhilosophicalResearch, 1990).


Colebrooke, H.T. = Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. 1 (London: Wm. H. Allenand Co., 1837).

Cowell, E.B. = “The Charvaka System of Philosophy”, JAS(B), Vol. 31No. 4, 1862.

DA = Divyavadana, 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).

Dhanapala = Bhavisayatthakaha, ed. C.D. Dalal and P.D. Gune (Baroda:Oriental Institute, 1923) (reprinted 1967).

DN = Dıghanikaya, ed. J. Kashyap (Patna: Pali Publication Board (BiharGovernment), 1958), Parts 1–3.

Doha = Abhayadeva. Sanskrit commentary on Sarahapada’s Dohakos.a, ed.Prabodhchandra Bagchi (Calcutta: Metropolitan Publishing House, 1938).

Franco (1997) = Eli Franco, Dharmakırti on Compassion and Rebirth (Wien:Arbeitkreis fur tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universitat 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. Gıtabhas. ya. Srımadbhagavadgıta (with a number ofcommentaries), ed. Pandit Damodar Mukhopadhyaya (Calcutta: SriDhirendranath Vandyopadhyaya, 1845 Saka).

GBHM = Madhusudana Sarasvatı. Gıtabhas. ya. See, GBhN.

GBhN = Nılakan. t.ha. Gıtabhas.ya. Srımadbhagavadgıta with the commentariesof Sankara, Anandagiri, Nılakan. t.ha, Dhanapati, Srıdhara, Abhinavagupta,Madhusudana and Srıdharmadattasrama, ed. Wasudev Laxman SastriPansikar (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978).

GBhSa = Sankaracarya. Gıtabhas.ya. Srımadbhagavadgıta. See, GBhN.

GBhSr = Srıdharsvamı. Gıtabhas.ya. Srımadbhagavadgıta. See, GBhN.

GBhVi = Visvanatha. Gıtabhas.ya. Srımadbhagavadgıta. See, GBhB.

GrBh = Cakradhara. Granthibhanga. See, NM.


GV = Jinabhadra. Gan. adharavada. With Hemacandra Suri’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. upuran. a(q.v.), 1972.

Hazra, R.C. (1940, 1987) = Studies in the Puran. ic Records on Hindu Ritesand 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 (formerlyCalcutta)).

Jacob, Colonel G.A. = Laukikanyayanjalih. /A Handful of Popular Maxims(Delhi: Niraja, 1983).

Jacobi, Hermann (1911) = Jacobi. “Zur Fruhgeschichte der indischen Philo-sophie”, 1911. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften, ed. Bernhard Kolver, Teil 2(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970). First pub. in Seitzunsberichteder Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 732–743.

Jacobi, Hermann (1918) = “A Contribution Towards the Early History ofIndian 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 = Carvaka-Darsana (Lucknow: Uttar Pradesha Hindi SamsthanaPrabhag, 1983).

JJ = Jain Journal (Kolkata).

JnaNi = Jnanasrımitra, Nibandhavali, ed. Anantalal Thakur (Patna: KashiPrasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1987).

Joshi, L.V. = “Nyaya Criticism of Anekanta”, in: ed. Nagin J. Shah, JainaTheory of Multiple Facets of Reality and Truth (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass& B.L. Institute of Indology, 2000).

KA = Kaut.ilıya Arthasastra, ed. & trans. R.P. Kangle (Bombay: Universityof Bombay, 1965–1972), Parts 1–3.

Kangle = See, KA.

KB = Varadarajamisra. Kusumanjali-bodhanı (commentary on Udayana’sNyayakusumanjali), ed. Gopinath Kaviraj (Allahabad, 1922).


KS = Vatsyayana. Kamasutra (With Jayamangala comm.) (Varanasi: Chow-khambha, n.d.), ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Calcutta: Vangavasi, 1334Bengali Sal).

KS (trans.) = Kama-Sutra of Vatsayana (sic). Trans. and ed. Dr. SantoshKumar Mukherji (Calcutta: Oriental Agency, 1945).

LTN = Haribhadra. Lokatattvanirn. aya (Amedabad: Shrihamsavijayaji JainFree Library, Vikram Sam. vat 1978) (1922 CE).

LS. DSam = Anonymous. Laghus.ad. darsana-samuccaya-sat.ıka, in:Srıs. ad. darsana-samuccaya-sat.ıka, ed. Vijayajambusuri (Davoi, 2006V.S.).

Macdonell Arthur A. = A Vedic Reader for Students (Madras: OxfordUniversity Press, 1978).

Mahap = Mahapuran. a (Tisat. t.himahapurisagun. alankara) by Pupphadanta(Pus.padanta), ed. P.L. Vaidya (Bombay: Manikchand Digambara JainGranthamala Samiti, 1937), Vol. 1.

Man. = Manasollasa Sam. graha by Suresvara (Visvarupa), ed. SvamiVasisthanandapuri (Kalikata: Vasumati Sahitya Mandira, 1952 (?)).

MAP = Kamalasıla. Madhyamakalankara-panjika (Quoted in Namai, 1976),p. 38 n11.

MVr = Mat.hara. Mat.haravr. tti. See, SK.

MB = Mugdhabodhinı (Nıtivyakhyamr. tavyakhya) (Mumbai, n.d.).

Mbh = The Mahabharata. Critical ed. by V.S. Sukthankar and others(Poona: Bhandarker Oriental Research Institute, 1933–1966). Vulgate ed.Pancanana Tarkaratna (Kolikata: Vangavasi, 1832 Saka) (with Nılakan. t.ha’scommentary).

Mittal, Kewal Krishan = Materialism in Indian Thought (New Delhi:Munshiram Manoharlal, Pub. 1974).

MS = Nagarjuna. Madhyamakasastra (with a number of commentaries), ed.Raghunath Pandeya (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass, 1988–1989) (in twoparts).

Muller, F. Max = Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, The HibbertLectures, 1878 (London and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901).

Namai, Mamoru (1976) = “A Survey of Barthaspatya Philosophy”. IndologicalReview (Kyoto), No. 2, 1976, pp. 29–74.

Namai, Mamoru (1989, 1991) = “Two Aspects of paralokasadhana inDharmakırtian Tradition”, in: ed. Ernst Steinkellner, Studies in the BuddhistEpistemological Tradition. Proceedings of the Second InternationalDharmakırti Conference. Vienna, June 11–16, 1989. (Wien: Verlag derosterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991).


NBh = Bhasarvajna. Nyayabhus. an. a, ed. Svami Yogindrananda (Varanasi:Saddarsana Prakasana Pratisthana, 1968).

NC = Srıhars.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 = Parbhacandra. Nyayakumudacandra, ed. Pandit MahendrakarmarNyayashastri (Mumbai: Sri Manikchandra Digambar Jain Granthamala,1938).

NM = Jayantabhat.t.a. Nyayamanjarı, ed. Gaurinatha Sastri (Varanasi:Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, 1982–1984) (with Cakradhara’sGranthibhanga).

NP = Narayan.a. Nais.adhaprakasa (Commentary on NC, q.v.)

NS = See, PrPan.

NTD = Jayasim. hasuri Nyayatatparyadıpika. Comm. on Bhasarvajna’sNyayasara, ed. S.C. Vidyabhushana (Calcutta, 1832 saka).

NVV = Vadirajasuri. Nyayaviniscayavivaran. a, ed. Mahendra Kumar Jain(Kashi: Bharatiya Jnanapith, 1949).

Pandeya = See, MS.

PaPan = Vasudevasuri. Padapancika. Comm. on Bhasarvajna’s Nyayasara,ed. K.S. Sastri (Trivandram, 1931).

Pari = Udayana. Nyayavartika-tatparya-parisuddhih. , ed. Anantalal Thakur(Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 1996).

Pathak, Sarvanand [1960] = “Carvakasas.t.i ka Darsanika Vis.aya Vivecana”.The Nava-Nalanda Mahavihara Research Publication, Vol. II., ed. SatkariMookerjee (Patna: [1960]) (Hindi Section).

Pathak, Sarvanand (1965, 1990) = Carvaka Darsana ki Sastrıya Samıks. a(Varanasi: Chowkhamba, 1965) (enlarged edition, 1990).

PC = Kr.s.n.amisra. Prabodhacandrodaya, ed. Sita Krishna Nambiar (Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass, 1971).

PKM = Prabhacandra. Prameyakamalamartan. d. a, ed. Mahendra Kumar(Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1941).

PPu = Padma Puran. a Sr.s.t.ikhan.d.a, ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna (Kalikata:Vangavasi, 1310 Bengali Sal (= 1893–1894 CE). Poona: Anandashrama,1893–1894).


PrPa = Candrakırti. Prasannapada (on Nagarjuna’s Madhyamakasastra).See, MS.

PrPan = Salikanathamisra. Prakaran. apancika with Narayan.abhat.t.a (Jayapurı)’sNyayasiddhi commentary, ed. Mimamsa Ratnam Pt. A. SubrahmanyaSastri (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1961).

PrPr = Bhavaviveka. Prajnapradıpavr. tti (on Nagarjuna’s Madhyamakasastra).See, MS.

PVA = Prajnakaragupta. Praman. avarttikalankara, ed. Rahula Sankrityayana(Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1953).

PVSVT = Karn.akagomı. Praman. avarttikasvopajnavr. tti-t. ıka, ed. RahulaSankrityayana (Illahabad: Kitab Mahal, 1943).

Radhakrishnan, S. = Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1 (Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress, 1980) (first pub. 1940).

Radhakrishnan – Moore = A Source Book in Indian Philosophy (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1973).

Ram. = The Valmıki Ramayan. a. Ayodhyakan.d.a. Critical ed. P.L. Vaidya(Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1962).

Ram (Vulgate) = The Valmıki Ramayan. a, ed. S.S. Katti (Delhi, etc.: ParimalPublications, 1983).

Riepe = Dale Riepe. The Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought (Delhi,etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1964) (first pub. 1961).

RKD = Jagannathamisra (comp.). Rasakalpadruma, ed. Pandit Banambara(Vanambara) Acaryya Sharma (Bhub(v)aneswar: Orissa Sahitya Akademy,[1964]).

RNi = Ratnakırti. Ratnakırti-Nibandhavalih. , ed. Anantalal Thakur (Patna:Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975).

RVP = Salikanatha, R. juvimalapancika (on Prabhakara’s Br.hatı), ed. S.K.Ramanatha Sastri (Madras, 1934).

S. ad. -DS = Rajasekharasuri. S. ad. darsanasamuccaya. See, S. DSam (Varanasied.).

SBh = Sarirakabhasya by Sankara on BS (q.v.).

SD = Parthasarathimisra. Sastradıpika, ed. Sri Dharmadattasuri (Mumbai:Nirnay Sagar press, 1915).

SDK = Madhava Sarasvatı. Sarvadarsanakaumudı, ed. K. Samvashiva Shastri(Trivandram, 1938).

SDS = Sayan.a-Madhava. Sarvadarsanasam. graha, ed. Vasudeva ShastriAbhyankar (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1978).


SDS (Trans.) = Trans. E.B. Cowell & A.E. Gough, ed. K.L. Joshi (Ahmedabad-Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1981).

S. DSam = Haribhadra. S. ad. darsanasamuccaya, ed. Luigi Suali (Calcutta:The Asiatic Society, 1905–1914) (with TRD). – with Man. ibhadra’scommentary, Laghuvr. tti, ed. Kamesvaranatha Misra (Varanasi: Chow-khamba, Sanskrit Series Office, 1979) (with Rajasekharasuri’sS. ad. darsanasamuccaya) – with Gun.aratna’s and Somatilakasuri’s comment-aries, ed. M.K. Jain (Calcutta, etc.: Bharatiya Jnanpith 1969).

SDSi = Srıkam. cı Ramanujacarya. Sarvadarsanasiroman. ih. , ed. S.P. Ananta-carya (Srikamci, n.d.).

Shah, N.G. = Ed. Nyayamanjarıgranthibhanga of Cakradhara. L.D. Series 35.(Ahmedabad, 1972).

Shastri, D.R. (1928) = Charvaka-Shashti by Dakshinaranjan Shastri (Calcutta:The Book Company, [1928]).

Shastri, D.R. (1944) = “Barhaspatyadarsana”. “Carvaka-pancasika” (inBengali), Bharatavars.a. Year 32 Part 1 No: 1, As. ad.ha 1351 Bengali Sal(= June–July 1944).

Shastri, D.R. (1959, 1982) = Carvaka Darsana by Dakshinaranjana Sastri(Kolkata: Purogami Prakashni, 1959). Reprinted with additions in 1982by the West Bengal State Book Board, Kolkata.

Shastri, S.S.S. = “The Sam. khya Karika. Studied in the Light of the ChineseVersion” [by Paramartha] (Bulletin of the Department of Indian Philos-ophy, Madras University, 1933).

SK = Isvarakr.s.n.a. Samkhyakarika, ed. Svami Divakarananda (Mandirbajar(West Bengal): Jagannath Barman, 1968) (with Mat.hara’s Vr. tti).

SKA = Sardulakarn. avadana, ed. Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyaya (Santiniketan:Visvabharati, 1954).

SKSVr. = Sılanka. Sutrakr. tanga-sutravr. 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 = Samanna-phala-sutta in DN, Pt.1.

SSS = Sarva [darsana] siddhantasangraha, ed. M. Rangacarya (Madras,1909).

ST = Yamuna. Siddhitraya, ed. T. Viraraghavanacharya (Tirpati, 1942).

SVR = Vadidevasuri. Syadvadaratnakara, ed. Motilal Ladhaji Osval (Delhi:Bhartiya Book Corporation, 1988).


SVS = Haribhadra. Sastravarta-Samuccaya, ed. K.K. Dixit (Ahmedabad:Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandira, 1969).

SVT = Anantavırya. Siddiviniscayat. ıka, ed. Mahendrakumara Nyayacarya(Kashi: Bharatiya Jnanapitha, 1959).

TBV = Abhayadevasuri. Tattvabodhavidhayiniı. Comm. onSanmatitarkaprakaran. a, ed. Pandit Sukhlalji Sanghavi and BechardasDoshi (Ahmedabad: Gujarata Vidyapitha, 1921–1931).

Thomas, F.W. ed. = Brihaspati Sutra. Introductory Remarks and Indexes byBhagavad Datta (Lahore: The Punjab Sanskrit Book Depot, 1921) (firstpub. 1916).

TRD = Gun.aratna. Tarka-rahasya-dıpika, ed. Luigi Suali (Calcutta: TheAsiatic Society 1905–1914).

TS = Santaraks.ita. Tattvasangraha, ed. Dwarikdas Shastri (Varanasi: BauddhaBharati, 1968, 1981).

TSP = Kamalasıla. Tattvasangrahapanjika. See, TS.

TSPC = Hemacandra. Tris. as. t.isalaka-purus.a-carita, ed. Muni Caranavijaya(Bhavnagar (Kathiawad): Sri Jaina Atmanada Sabha, 1936).

TSV = Vidyanandı. Tattvartha-sloka-varttika, ed. Manoharlal Nyayashastri(Mumbapuri: Nirmaysagar Prakashan, 1975 Vikram Samvat) (1918 CE).

TUS = Jayarasibhat.t.a. Tattvopaplavasim. ha, ed. Sukhlalji Sanghavi and RasiklalParikh (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1940; reprinted Varanasi: BauddhaBharati, 1987).

TUS (Franco) = Eli Franco. Perception, Knowledge and Disbelief. A Studyof Jayarasi’s Scepticism (1987) (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (MLBD),1994).

UBhPK = Siddhars.i. Upamitibhavaprapancakatha, ed. Peter Peterson andHermann Jacobi (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1901–1914).

Up. Bha. = Upanis.adbhas.yam. Vol. I., ed. S. Subrahmanya Sastri (Mt. Abuand Varanasi: Mahesh Research Institute, 1979).

VABh / SVr = Jinabhadra. Vises. avasyaka-bhas.ya and Svopajnavr. tti, ed.Dalsukh Malvaniya (Amedabad: Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology,1966–1968).

VDMP = Vis.n. udharmottara Mahapuran. a (Bombay: Ksemaraja Srikrsnadasa,Saka 1834).

VK = Amalananda. Vedanta-Kalpataru. See, BS.

VMT = Ciranjıvasarman (Bhat.t.acaryya). Vidvanmodatarangin. ı, ed. JanakinathaKavyatirtha (Calcutta: Chatrapustakalaya, 1323 BS) (1916/17).


VP = Bhartr.hari. Vakyapadıya, ed. K.A. Subramanya Iyer (Poona: DeccanCollege, 1966).

VPS = Vidyaran.ya (Sayan.a-Madhava). Vivaran. aprameyasam. graha, ed. R. Tail-anga (Benares: E.J. Lazarus & Co., 1893).

VPu = Vis.n. u Puran. 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 = Sadananda Yati (Yogındra). Vedanta-sara, ed. and trans. Swemi Nikhil-ananda (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1990).

Vyo = Vyomasivacarya. Vyomavatı, ed. Gaurinatha Sastri (Varanasi:Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya, 1983–1984).

YTC = Somadevasuri. Yasastilakacampu, ed. Pandit Shivadatta and KashinathPandurang Parav (Mumbai: Nirnay Sagar Press, 1903).

Ananda Mohan CollegeKolkataIndia

Date post:	29-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pavlovinstitutekolkata
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Cārvāka Fragments: A New Collection

Documents