Revisiting Lokayata—Rajarshi Adhikary

As a student of history, I have been fascinated by various heterodox sects from our past. The re-reading of such traditions in the light of contemporary times interests me even more. These traditions had been marginalized, ridiculed and slandered throughout the course of history because they dared to challenge the meta-narratives of their times. The study of these peripheral traditions has not been encouraged in recent times. On the contrary, the rise of majoritarianism in various forms has established these meta-narratives as unassailable which makes their re-reading even more important. In this essay, I make an attempt at revisiting some of the materialist heterodox traditions of Ancient India which have been collectively called Lokāyata. 

One major handicap in studying these traditions is that none of their texts have survived the test of time. Rather, it should be mentioned that the subcontinental literati dominated by Brahminism never felt the urge to preserve these texts. So, our sources are confined to a few references made to these sects in certain ancient texts like the Arthaśāstra. The other way of reconstructing their arguments would be to study the fragments of their sayings that have somehow survived in the writing of their opponents. However, these were intended to depict how vile and vulgar the philosophy of materialism had been. The traces of materialism were left behind in the Early Indian enquiries into natural science. The recent years have witnessed a greater urge to revisit science in Early India. However, no serious attempts have been made to study the materialistic basis of such scientific inquiry.  Quite contrarily, the ruling dispensation wants natural science to be read in the light of divinity and spirituality. 

As complexities in social formations increased with urbanization and population growth, the Brahminical system found the appropriation of the surplus produce from the workforce (typically the śūdras) absolutely necessary for its very survival.  However, a social system had to be brought in place to justify this exploitation. This was achieved through the invocation of origin myths in the various Dharmaśāstras like Manusmṛti and epics (the introduction of the killing of the Śambūka episode by Rāma in a later interpolation in Rāmāyaṇa). Interpolations were made in the Vedic Corpus (the puruṣasūkta, presumably a later addition) to justify this phenomenon. This social structure went by the name of Varnāśramadharma. Its function was to remind the working masses that they were sans agency and basic rights because the creator had made them that way.

Invocation of divinity resulted in a wrath against logic and rationality. The social system was backed up by a philosophical system characterized by an aversion to reality.  It maintained that the material world was false and fictitious. The idealist arguments varied with time and context but the basic claim was that consciousness- be it of the form of thought or anything else- was the ultimate reality. The materialist tradition of Lokāyata developed as a reaction to Brahminical idealism. An invalidation of reality makes any theoretical argument inherently self-defeating. Hence, the Lokāyatikas fell back upon empirical observations to determine truth and reality. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya quotes some of their arguments as was recorded by Mādhava, in his bid to refute materialism- 

“If a beast slain in the Jyotiṣṭoma rite itself go to heaven, 

Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?

If he who departs from the body goes to another world,

How is it that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred?

Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brāhmans have established these here.”

In saying so, the materialists mounted an insurmountable challenge upon the very essence of Brahminical orthodoxy- the concepts of souls, moksa and karma. In other words, their arguments were based on the primacy of perception and inference based on proper experimentation. This would go a long way in shaping early Indian notions of natural science. The Lokāyatikas rejected the idealist notion of the soul (some form of divine or universal consciousness) above the human body. They pointed to the lifeless corpse to identify the body with the self. The idealists defended the divine by citing the brewing of alcohol where none of the constituents could produce an intoxicating effect but only the prepared product could. Given the nature of scientific inquiry and instruments, the materialists were not equipped to explain certain phenomena such as chemical changes. Yet they attributed such changes to Svabhāva (natural phenomenon). Nonetheless, this was a significant assertion. 

Rasa-prakāśasudhākara by Yaśodhara was a text enquiring into something that can be largely described as chemistry in modern terminology. He observes, ‘All the chemical operations described in my book have been performed with my own hands- I am not writing from mere hearsay. Everything related is based upon my own conviction and observations.’ (Translation by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya) The Caraka– saṃhitā states-‘The specialists assert that the phenomenon called life of those things that are called living beings- that is of all creatures- is made of food and drink with desirable colour, smell, taste and touch, consumed in right manner. They assert this because of the results are being directly observed (pratyakṣa-phala-darśanāt).’ (Translation by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya).The Suśruta saṃhitã advised ancient surgeons to dissect the human body by hand and to observe the same through their own eyes.

Quite ironically, Debiprasad Chattopadhaya elsewhere has located the first Indian Scientist in the Upanishads in the form of Uddālaka Āruṇi, also known by the clan name Gautama. 

“The king said to Uddālaka Āruṇi: ‘Gautama,

Whom do you revere as the ātman’?

`The Earth, indeed, sir, oh king’, said he.” We can interpret this as the beginnings of primitive materialism where the world was being explained in terms of its constituent elements- Earth, Fire, Water, Air. From these above excerpts, we can safely conclude that natural science was inherently materialistic in Early India. On the contrary, Dharmaśāstras like Manusmṛti often preached against the touching of a corpse. It can be inferred with certainty that the progress of natural science in Ancient India was impeded by the Brahminical traditions.

The name Lokayāta, signifies what is common (ayata) among the people (loka). The acceptance of materialism by the masses are somewhat confirmed in refutations of the same by Saṃkarachārya. Harṣacarita by Bāṇabhaṭṭa mentions peasants commenting on the divine right of a king to rule. Romila Thapar has interpreted this as the popularity of heterodox sects like that of Lokayāta. Their popularity had subjected them to intense slandering by the Brahminical orthodoxy. The name Lokayāta was gradually put out of usage. A new word was coined Cārvāka. The latter was extensively used for the first time by Kamalaśīla writing in the 8^th century AD. Mādhava used the term Cārvāka whereas Ṡ́aṃkara used the term Lokayāta in their respective treatises. The dates are often disputed but the trend shows that relatively later texts were using the word Cārvāka instead of Lokayāta. It should mean cāru + vāk, implying the sweet-worded one. This however should not be taken as a compliment. The word also carries the root ‘carv’ meaning to ‘munch or eat’. This should imply that these were the hedonists par excellence in Indian Philosophy. Mahābhārata even recordsa demon named Cārvāka who denounced the king for killing his kins. A shocked Yuddhisthira who thought of committing suicide had to be consoled by brahmins saying that a true brahmin would never question the authority of the king. The other name by which they were referred to was Bṛhaspati.  This appears somewhat strange for Bṛhaspati is considered to be the creator in the Brahminical tradition. Certain Later Vedic Texts like theViṣnu-purāṇa and the Maitrī Upaniṣad considered asuras and devas to originate from Bṛhaspati but during a war between them, Bṛhaspati is said to have preached the materialist doctrine amongst the asuras eventually leading to their downfall. So, we must take this epithet not as a proper name but as a warning against materialism which is bound to lead to disastrous consequences. Much was done to slander the materialists. Some found refuge in the Nyāya Vaiśeṣika tradition. They did maintain that a material body was required for consciousness but accepted the full authority of the scriptures.

The materialists were marginalized by the proponents of Brahminical traditions. This was because they were shackled by their times. Marx observes in his Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of the Right, ‘The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions is a call to abandon a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo’. Elsewhere in Grundrisse, Marx had argued that ideas could not be changed if material conditions were not changed. The materialists of the past did question the illusory philosophy of the Brahminical traditions but had failed to change or challenge the conditions which allowed for the existence of such a philosophy. A rejection of materialism is also the rejection of means by which economic exploitation can be understood by the masses.

In conclusion, we end with Tagore’s brilliant observations as he was flying over Iraq observing British bombers bombing common folks with impunity. He records this in a travelogue named Pārasye : ‘The philosophy preached by the Gītā is also some kind of an aircraft like this. It carried the compassionate mind of Arjuna to a dizzy height from where, when he looked below, there remained hardly any distinction between the killer and the killed, between the kin and the foe. There is in the human arsenal many a weapon like this made of philosophical stuff. These serve the purpose of concealing the real. These are to be found among the theories of the imperialists, in sociology and in religion. Those on whom death is showered therefrom are left only with one consolation- na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre– It (the soul) is not slain when the body is slain’” (Translation by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya) Thus, a re-reading of materialism should be attempted to find the early roots of resistance to economic exploitation under the garb of Varnāśramadharma in the Indian context.