Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome views to this session. This session will be going to discuss Carvaka philosophy.
As I said in my first session, introduction to Indian philosophy, that will be starting
with heterodox system. Carvaka comes under heterodox system. You know already, what is
heterodox system still I repeat sothat you can also able to recapitulate whether you
have understood correctly or not. Heterodox system are those system who know that Veda
exist but, they do not believe in Vedas. So, therefore, in other sense you can call them
nastika, because they do not accept the authorities of Veda; however, they completely aware that
there is a scripture called Veda and it exist.So, these systems known as heterodox systems and
Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka; these 3 schools comes under heterodox system.
Now, today will start from Carvaka system onwards. Carvaka is an older system among
the all system, that is not I am saying,it is not my own opinion rather, the opinion
I collected from various sources and I conclude with the evidence that; yes, it is one among
the other, the oldest system. Now, will see what is the Carvaka system, how people have
an opinion on this system and what is Carvaka epistemology, Carvaka metaphysics for today
session. Today of course, is not possible to complete whole Carvaka system, will be
spending another session for this Carvaka session to complete the whole system.
A little background first I will be describing you about this Carvaka schoolthen I will be
telling that, others opinion on these Carvaka school then,we will be going to discuss about
the Carvaka epistemology. It is one among the other heterodox system
that I already said. It does not accept Vedas but, completely aware that there is a scripture
exist; that is, these are called as Vedas and you know that Vedas are 4 types Rig-Veda,
Samaveda, yajur Veda and Atharvaveda. Many people’s claim that Brhaspati is a Rushi
or you say founder of this Carvaka system.For their claim, they find the that there is a
Brhaspati sutra, this is a scripture. Under scripture it is stated that Brhaspati, the
founder of this school.Therefore, many scholars believe that the Brhaspati may be the founder
of the Carvakaschool. Next point, in Mahabharat, some scholars finds
that some of the comments that, how Carvaka said that the grass body is the self; the
last session if you can see that, you find that that self was explained in a atman Brahman,
in a way higher superlative degree, right, in Upanishad, in Veda also.
Scholars talks about self in a different way but, Carvakadid not sense, did not accept
this Veda said that, self is nothing, self is a human body. They claim that, how does
it matter for a human being whether self exist or not because, self is not like a table chair
which you can perceive it. And since we cannot perceive, we cannot claim that, this is the
valid knowledge for us. And henceforth, they say that in the present
life what we are seeing is our completely body, is a mixture of different parts, your
hand, eyes, legs,belly, your stomach many more things.So therefore, for them self is
nothing but, a combination of whole parts. You can say that a self is same as a body
because, one body dead, we do not know whether self remains in that body or goes some other
places, we do not know about it.Even also we do not know in the past, whether the body
always correspond to the self or self inners in the body or not, that you do not know because,
if cannot seen your previous life the past life henceforth, what you see is the physical
body. So, since they are materialistic and they believe in a compresses stand point they
said that, what you see, what you perceive is the only real thing. The world, that things
that you perceive is the real things and we claim that the knowledge we accumulated for
that object is a valid knowledge.And any other knowledge beyond that cannot be called a valid
knowledge.For example, hell and heaven; we have not seen that. After our death, whether
theself will be going to hell or heaven depend on our karma; past karma, present karma, future
karma all these things Carvakadoes not believe. They said that how does it matter what karma
you have done in your past birth, since you have not seen your karma and how does it matter
that after your death, where yourself will go.Whether the your self will go to the hell
or heaven, it depends on karma that other people say but,there is no reason that, it
is always the case that either, your self will go to hell and heaven because, you cannot
see that hell and heaven.If you cannot see anything, how can you believe on that. If
you believe then, if you believe in superstitions, what you believe is just in your fate.It is
a blind believe; that means,it cannot be a valid knowledge.Therefore they do not believe
in the existence of the hell and heaven also. If you seen that slide also you find in the
Ramayana,Valmiki also mentioned about the Lokayata in philosophy;the Lokaytha philosophy
is known as Carvaka philosophy.Manu is a Rushi also stated about Carvaka philosophy in the
scripture,Samhita and also there are ancient scriptures. From all these evidences, from
MahaBharatha, fromRamayanam, from Samhita and fromBrhaspati sutra you can conclude that
and these are the evidence lies in your hand to conclude that Carvaka school is one among
the other ancient school of Indian thought. So, henceforth we know that Carvaka, it comes
under heterodox system, believes in materialism or believes that perception is the only reality,
is the most ancient schools. Now, we will see the how people derive the
opinion on Carvaka. In other words, I can say that different people has a different
opinion on Carvaka. Many people say thatCarvaka is aRushi;theRushi name is a Carvaka and he
develop all the thoughts, materialist.Therefore, after his deadbut,after him the whole idea
accumulated and the school name is known as Carvaka. Then new scholarscame out. They reject
that view, they said that we do not accept this opinion but,we have a different opinion
on that. Now, let us see what are the people have a
different opinion and why they have put their opinion differently on Carvakaschool.
Now, you can find in my next slide. Now, before discussing, what are the opinion of different
people on Carvaka, now few points again I am highlighting so that you can have strong
understanding on Carvaka. Carvaka is a Nastika school,as said, you can
see that it conveystha, how you to enjoy in your life instead of searching for the ultimate
reality. Carvaka says that how does it matter that, whetherthe ultimate reality is a atman
and BrahmanBecause, it is nothing to do with this Athman and Brahman in your present life,
what you see in the present life is the materialistic world. So, therefore, you try to enjoy at
the best. Therefore many people has an opinion that if there are some people or there are
some school of people, if they believe that in the present life, you should eat good,
you should have a drink and also you should have a moral life, if you can practice these
3 principles then, you can have a happy life and once you can enjoy the happy life, you
are the most the liberated person in this earth. So, therefore, for them, liberation
means you must be eat, drink and be merry. These 3 principles you have to practice. So,
therefore, you find that never they bother about what is the real cause for creation
of the whole universe, what is the ultimate reality for creating the whole cosmos in a
particular order. So, what the real interested is to know that how to survive in thepresent
or in a beautiful world, that is their main concern.
If you can see my next point.The search for the truth and truth is nothingbut,to urge
a pleasure in the life. It challenges that all other schools including the other heterodox
system of Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism Buddhism accept some other sources of knowledge whereas,
Carvaka only accept the perception is the only source of the life; that means, what
you see is the only valid point or valid knowledge that you can claim for.
In other sources through which you accumulate knowledge or you attain some knowledge that
cannot be called as a valid knowledge because, you are not completely rely on that sources,
you cannot completely depend on that sources because, it is a various different rates coming,
the sources that, will be discuss in later part. Further if you find the Carvakaschool
it believes in the traditional value. Those schools who believe in a traditional value,
Carvaka arguesagainst that. They said that how can you believe the traditional values
because, the traditional value exist in that time. If you vary from time to time and place
to place, how can you stick to the traditional value and continue your whole life, how can
you have without enjoying your life, how can you sit like a ideally and pray for all the
times God. And at the one hand you cannot see the God. If you cannot see the God what
is the use of to pray the God and what is the use of to always try to get the liberation
in your life. The life that you get must enjoy with the life therefore, you will get the
liberation. If you see my last few points that in metaphysics
there are different schools including Jainism, Buddhism also talk about metaphysics, epistemology,ethics.
Now, I am telling about what is metaphysics.Metaphysics always deals with the existence of reality.It
is abeyond physics. In ordinary sense people claim that is beyond physicsbut,in philosophical
sense metaphysics understood as the cause for the existence of the reality. What is
the cause for the ultimate reality? What is the cause for the creation of this cosmos?
Now, coming to the epistemology, is a philosophical word which stands for the science of knowledge.
Anything you say, anything you derive, anything you conclude, you say that this is a knowledge,it
is a conceptual word,it is a science of knowledge through argument you establish. If you these
kind of exercise you do, you say that these are the epistemology. Because, epistemology
is nothing but,deals with the science of knowledge, which has nothing to do a saying that, whether
the world exists or not.You say that if the world exist, how the world exist? The question
arises, how? When you answer to the question, how,it is really talks about the epistemology,
the knowledge through which you establish the existence of word.
Now, regarding the ethics. As you know that ethics tells aboutour action, what action
we should perform sothat it can it will be a good or bad.It will be judge. that either
good or bad, a particular action, in a particular time cannot be called both good and bad though,
the good and bad is an ethical code of conduct, fixed for a particular society, for a particular
time. It varies from context to context; however, there are some common essence, ethical practices,
code, conduct, mannerism, behaviorism,all these things you find in ethics. And it is
because of ethics and moralprinciples, we live in a happy life. We also stay in a society
where different culture of people exist, different set of mind people exist, because of ethical
code of conduct, we know that human beings are superior than other animals. So, all these
view, you find on ethics epistemology metaphysics. In other school, are contrasted by the Carvaka.Carvaka
really concern about the enjoyment of life. How must you derive the pleasure from your
present life? That is the most concern for the Carvaka. If you see the last they believe
in a dogmatic stand point. What is a dogmatic stand point? Dogmatic stand point are those
point which deals with a practical aspect; that means, once they will do it they never
doubt further. But, on the other hand, skeptic, they doubt each and every thing. Even that
touching to a water bottle, the skeptic doubt whether it is a real water bottle or not.That
is what I said in the bracket dogmatism is oppose to Skeptism.Skeptismdoubt each and
everything. Even they doubt themselves. But,whereasdogmatic approach are those they believe that, if they
perceive something and they talk something through sense organ or they know that these
thing exist and they got the knowledge of that object and henceforth they never doubt
further. In that way you find the two schools dogmatic and skeptic;how they differs in their
own opinion.Carvaka in this contest is a dogmatic. Their approach to see the world, to see the
human life in a dogmatic approach,it is not a skeptical approach.
Now, further Carvaka school is a materialistic school, they believe that matter is the only
reality because, what you see is the only matter. In other words, you can claim that
the whole world, if the constituent of state of affairs; that means, the world is the amalgam
or mixture of objects or facts. In the world, if you say that no object, no facts exist
then this is not the empirical world, this may be some other world.For Carvaka, the really
concern about the material world. They never bother about the other world which does not
deal with the physical reality of these cosmological world.
Now, in this consideration, if this is their ground they claim further that, you cannot
able to see our mind, but; however, it is the mind through which you thing something,
through which we argue something, through which we can claim that how epistemology different
from ethics, how ethics different from metaphysics. Even in ethics you can also claim that how
good action different from bad action, why you should not practice bad action rather
than how better we can practice the good action.Though, we can do all these things through our mind
through our mental exercises or mental activitybut,we cannot see our mental or we cannot see our
mind.What we can see is that we can see our head because, we can touch it, you can feel
itbut,no one can see his or her mind.Therefore, though we accumulate knowledge in many cases
by the help over mind or mental exercise or mental activity as you say; however, all the
knowledge that we accumulate though or a mental activity cannot be called as an authentic
or valid knowledge because, for them we cannot see our mind.And henceforth, if you cannot
see our mind and through our sense we cannot know that there is a mind exist like a table
chair or other objects. We cannot strongly claim that that this a valid knowledge for
us. Further, they say that we ever that consciousness existbut,conciseness you cannot see. Since,
we cannot see the consciousness, we are not sure whether consciousness exist in human
mind or human body or any part of the human being or any part of the animals. Any creature
lives in this earth must have a consciousnessbut,if anyone ready to claim that that consciousness
is the product of matter then Carvaka ready to accept. Because, for them matter is the
only reality which exist, but; however, others school deny that how consciousness can be
a matter. If consciousness can be a matter,matter is to be perceive, but consciousness cannot
be perceive. In this contest, Carvaka disagree with other
schools of thought.Carvaka says that if nothing can be perceived then you cannot say that
the world exist, you cannot say that any animal exist. If you see something, if you perceive
something then that object, that matter, that animal, that fact only exist. Apart from that
and beyond that nothing exist. Now we will be switch over into the next slide.
Now, as I said regarding the opinions of the Carvaka. Now, you can see this in this slide,
the sage name called Carvaka; many people or many scholar believe that the Carvaka is
a sage name who construct the materialism and after him the school name is known as
Carvaka. Also I discussed with you that there are different group of people who thinks that
if you can practice,eat, drink and be merry in your life then you can be consider as a
Carvaka because, you believe the most way of enjoying in this life the present life.
Now, Lokayatamata also is known as materialism and hence its known as materialism, Carvaka
also known as some sense Lokayatamata; that means, the view of common form; that means,
what ordinary people behave, what ordinary people accept that Carvaka also accept. Because
no human being in this earth they do not seek for pleasure. No human being in this earth
they do not seek for the enjoyment of the life. No human being in this earth do not
seek for the happiness in life. No human being in this earth cannot seek for a wealthy life
or a prestigious life. If you look, for seek for all these life where you get it, you cannot
get through your yoga’s practices, asana Pranayama all these things you cannot get
it. So, you need a very very comfortable pleasure lifeand for that you to practice the materialism,that
is what they said, if you adhere to the principle eat, drink and be merry you will have a happy
life, what you need more in this life. And you do not know after your death whether yourself
remain with your body or it will be die with your body, you do not know because you cannot
see yourself. Therefore few scholars, they said that if I practice how to get the maximum
enjoyment from this present life it will be the best achievement that I will do and I
will be adhere to this principle. Henceforth, if you claim me as a materialist or if you
claim me as a Carvaka we have noise. Now, if you see that Madhavacharya is a dualist.Dualist
means who believes in 2 things. Or, those who believes that there are 2 things exist
in this world, anything you say, any concept you say, they say that it is divide into 2.
In the same way Madhavacharya say that Carvaka is a school, it constitute with 2 words;one
is caru another isVak. Caru stands for sweet where isVakstands for word. Caru means sweet,
the way you speak, it should be a polite, it should be a gentle and it should have a
sweet flavor andVakmeans the word, always you speak to the good words to the people.If
you can do that; that means, you accept the materialistic society and few scholar as said,
they claim that Brhaspati is the founder of the school. Because in the BrhaspatiSuthra
it is stated that, what are the practice somebody has to do in the life, what somebody is to
adhere in his principles or her principles. So, therefore, some scholar have an evidence
to claim thatBrhaspati is the founder of Carvaka school. Now,we will be discussing the Carvaka
epistemology.
Epistemology as I said it deals with the science of knowledge.And here the valid cognition
is known asPrama. What it means is that, what is a valid cognition; that means, you are
knowingsomething, you are understanding something and also you claim that you acquired the knowledge.
If you can do that that is a valid knowledge.And once you know that this is a valid knowledge,you
can call it as aPrama. Now, to have aPrama you must need aPramana.Pramana means the sources
through which you acquired a knowledge. There are four sources found in a Indian schools.
Though, many people have their different opinion on the four schools, many people even accept
more thanfour,but generally it is accepted that there are four sources; one is perception
another is inference, third one is comparison, the fourth one is verbal testimony.
Perception in Sanskrit it called Prathakya. Inference in Sanskritit is called Anumana.Comparison
in Sanskrit is called Upamana and the verbal testimony in Sanskrit,it is called Shabda.
So, now, you know that there are four sources, one is perception another is inference, third
one is comparisonand fourth one is verbal testimony.
Carvaka said thatperception is the only reality of knowledge; that means,they reject the other
sources of knowledge.They reject the otherPramanas such as inference, comparison, testimony,
but adhere to the principle that perception,if the only source of knowledge. Because, for
them matter adjust and you can see the matter and you can perceive the matter. Initially,
when they say that that matter exist and perception is the only reality of knowledge, traditionally
or initial way they claim that perception is same as visibility; that means, by the
help of your eyes, is a sense organ whatever you see it is only can be valid and the knowledge
you get by seeing something or claiming them, suppose you are seeing this is a table or
the table color is brown and the table exist in front of you; that means, you acquire the
knowledge of table; that means, you have a valid knowledge of table. And you acquired
through the perception. Here perception is aPramana and then knowledge of table is called
Apramana.It is a valid knowledge you got it. While rejecting inference, comparison, testimony
is always claims or the school always claims that we did not accept all thesePramanas because,
these are thePramanas has nothing to do with perception. Because inference is thePramana,
we conclude something which even we have not seen that.
In Upamana, we see something and we conclude some other thing by comparing something.And
the comparison we cannot see that. In verbal testimony, in verbal testimony we have to
accept, we have to believe some others words, which may true, may not true.Therefore, they
say that, what the person said if I cannot see that object, if I cannot see that fact,
if I cannot perceive that fact,how can I claim that this is a valid knowledge, how can I
accumulate from that verbal testimony that the object for which the person refers or
say something is a valid knowledge for me or I can identify that object accurately,
what the person says. In this way, the concept at only on perception ,while rejects other
sources of knowledge. The sources of valid knowledge,that is what they saidPramana. According
to Carvaka,the idea to the source of knowledge is only the perception and others sources
of knowledge for them is a unreal,it is not real.While doing that they rejects all other
sources of knowledge that I have already discussed. Now I will now coming the their epistemologies
sostronger that you find that Carvaka metaphysics many times, the analysis on metaphysics is
based on their epistemologicalground. Sankarananda is a sage or aRushi said that
Carvaka is a school, believes in a Accidentalism; that means, the thinks that there is no one
or you cannot give a credit to a person whocreates the whole world in a particular order, who
also puts time for every things to move; the sun to be raised, the sun to be sets, the
moon has to be raise, there will be a Amavasya, there will be a Pournima, there is a human
being, human being grows, they have a you know, child young age, old age, die again,
the self will go some other places, anyone will born and all these equal logical balance,
we cannot further, we cannot give credit to a one person. We cannot accept a super natural
being for that because if this is sothen we have to see whether the super natural being
exist or not. If He or She exist where He or She exist. If you cannot see it is just
a superstition for us or a blind belieffor us therefore, the knowledge for claiming that
one person is responsible for creating the whole universe and also making the whole universe
to move in a particular order, in a particular time it is just a nothing, but a blind belief
we adhere too. Thus they claim that,that everything happens in a accidentally. They say that fire
is hot, ice is cool, grass is green, sky is blue, you find different things has a different
attributes and they claim that different things has a different attributes or characteristics
just because they are having the different nature. And all these attributes are find
in the objects. You cannot claim that fire is cool because coolness is a attributes cannot
find in the fire.Fire is a such a unique object, the quality of heat inherits in it. In the
same way, you cannot say that ice issoheat or you cannot say that ice is, looks red,
you always say that ice looks white and ice is cool because, the coolness is a attributes
or a quality inherits in the ice. So, therefore, you cannot deduce the quality
of color, the quality of test, the quality, any other quality which accidentally joined
with that objects, you cannot deduce from that. If you deduce then the object never
remains as it is.For example if you remove appleness of an apple, the object you cannot
call that apple further because, in that object applenessdoes not like. You cannot put appleness
in an orange even because appleness is the essential quality of an apple it does not
find in any other fruit. Hence it is simply claimed that everything happens by accidents
and this is Carvaka accept. Because they do not have a, another claimto
made it. If they say that this happens due to some other sources of knowledge or somebody
is responsible for creating all these or putting attribute differently in different object
then immediately other schools can claim to Carvaka that, can you also perceive that person
who have done all these activities. Therefore Carvaka said that to be on preside, to be
in safe side, say that everything happens in accidental basis. That means sun rises
in the east,it is an accidental. We human beings speak, we understand each other’s
language is because of accident. So, therefore, they say that Accidentalism is the essence
of the whole world.The Accidentalism known as Akasmikatvada; that means, everything happens
in Akasmik way,it is a surprise way.
Now, continuing to thisview, they said that all these effects that you find which comes
from the objects are produced because of the object, because of the nature of that object.
It is not because of some voluntary person who has done that, which is known as Svabavavada;
that means,every object has its unique features and every object functions in a unique way.Therefore,
check with identify the chair is a chair; we never say chair is a table.Table has a
different purpose, table has a different actions. Table related to an attribute which may not
be resemble with the chair. Therefore, we claim table as a table, chair is a chair.
Achairnessdoes not find in a chair, a tablenessdoes not find in a table, then we cannot claim
that or we cannot say that these 2 objects are different and this happens just because
of the Accidentalism. No one can responsiblefor that.
Further they claim that if you adhere to this principle then let people also claims as that
we are naturalized because, we believe what exist in this phenomenal world, we believe
what really happens in the empirical world, we concern for that.Now, they have do not
believe even causality and universality. Now, I am explaining why they do not believe in
causality and universality. Inpeople say that or it is claim that every event has a cause;
that means,everything happens there is a cause behind this. In this, if thisso, Carvakaclaim
that what we can see is the we see only the cause, we see also effect, but we cannot see
the inherence relation that cause and effect have.For example, milk turns to the curd.
If curd is the effect then milk will be the cause. If this so,if you understood if this
phenomena then Carvaka claim that what we can see is that we see the milk in onehand,
we see the curd in another hand, but we cannot see what is the in between happen.We cannot
see the relation, the inherence relation between curd and milk. No one can claim that now this
the time when the milk turn to the curd, no one can claim. What people claim that, in
one hand they see milk in another hand they see the curd. If you cannot see the inherence
relation, Carvaka claim that, is it possible that what happened in the past it will same
way happening in the present or also happening in the future, if this is not so, how can
we believe in the causality because perception also fails here to see the inherence relation
between cause and effect. If you see the universalness, Carvaka accept
that how can we say that universal is exist. When I say a cow, do you mean that all the
cows exist in the phenomenal world, both present past and future.Can a person able to imagine
all the cows with all the features existing in this phenomenal world. If you not so, how
can you say that the universalness exist. When I say cow, when I say tree, you immediately
refer to a particular object or a particular animal. Then if you refer to a particular
animal and you claim that I can see that tree or see that animal, how can you say that the
universal exist when you always refer to a particular thing. So, in this case they reject
both causality as well as the universality because, for them perception fails to see
the universalness as well as the causality where cause effect has an inherence relation.
Now, furtherfor them causality is an imaginary relation because there is a relation between
the antecedent and consequent and the in between relation cannot be perceive through our perception.
So, what theguarantee is that, that what we perceive it is just because our sense organs
and for them perception not limited with the visibility, though the initially we start
with the visibility. Let us say that we have five sense of organs, flows mind;mind is asixthth
sense of organs, so including this six sense of organs, whatever things you to perceive
can be consider as a perceive; that means, if you take say five sense organs; nose, ear,
tongue, your eyes and skin, all these five sense organs, right, is a different function
and by the help of these five sense organs anything or any knowledge you accumulate that
is only the valid knowledge. And the source of knowledge should be perception; that means,
anything you do this five sense organit will valid. Further, they claim that mind is an
another sense organ, six sense organ through mind also we gain many knowledge, we accumulate
many knowledge, we attain many kind of knowledge achievements. However, all the knowledge we
gain through the mind asa sense organs, we cannot be called as a authentic and valid
knowledge.Because many things we cannot able to see it.
They highlight further stating that anything happens in our mind it is just because of
our sense organs. Sense organs are always attentive therefore, it sense the impression
or information to the mind and mind accumulates the knowledge and hence for the six sense
organs mind, whatever knowledge accumulate it is due to the other sense organs. Now,
you will see what these sense organs has a different functions.
Now, since as you know that I said, perception for them is the onlysource of knowledge and
this the, through perception any knowledge you accumulate is only valid knowledge and
any other sources you accumulate knowledge is not a valid knowledge. And also I have
described what is the internal perception, what is the external perception and how mind
depends on the external perception. And also I said that how perceptibility of world is
the only reality for them and why they stick this point.
If these are the case then you find that arbucustwo principles by Carvaka, one is empiricism another
is nabrealism.Now, you must understand what is nabrealism. Realism means that you see
in this world through your sense organs, you touch, you feel, you smell, you hear anything
through your sense organs, you do that is called a realistic approach; that means, you
touch an object,you feel the hardness, you say that these objects exist because its quality
is high, let’s say realistic approach. Nabrealism means, Carvaka believe that suppose you have
an idea, let say fire, in your child hood you have an idea fire, you know that fire
burns. So, you never put your finger on the fire right, but if the later period when you
grow and grow, you find that the total fire can be used in a different purposes.Therefore,
the total fire have a different meaning. When you accumulate experience the meaning also
changed; however, the earlier meaning that you have gained it remains at same only you
add some different meaning to that. I am giving on a complete example for understanding.
In your child hood, if by accidentally put your finger on a fire, you immediately know
that fire burns. So, you never do the same mistake further, but when you get adult, you
can also claim that these two friend fighting with each other and you can you can say that,
by identifying your friend say that, see these are the fires or their fire burns by just
pointing that how these two people are quarrelling with each other. So, the fire the term remain
same, the meaning gets change, the meaning just accumulated; that means, one term has
a different meaning. So, therefore, you interpret differently. So, this is the approach of nabrealism.
What Carvaka claim here is that, in this contest; suppose you see a chairtoday and tomorrow
you see that the chair color faded, still you can claim this is a chair because of different
chairs organs can you able to tell you that this is a chair because of soandsoreason,
it just fed up. Though, the color not remain same still you can claim this your knowledge
about the chair is a chair. And henceforth, youwill appreciate and accept the principle
called nabrealism and have the imprecision. Why they adhere to imprecision because for
them anything is real, it just find in the phenomenal world. They do not accept any such
things which is finding beyond the world. So, therefore, perception is the only reality
and there is no other sources through which if you accumulate knowledge cannot be consider
as a valid knowledge.
Now, as I said, now you will see the different function of sense organs, that how different
sense organs works differently or functions differently. The tactual organ perceive softness,
hardness, heat, cold likely manner. The gustatory organs perceives sweet, sore, pungent and
the like. The olfactory organs agreeable and disagreeable odours; through your nose you
can feel that the odour is a good one or bad one. Now the visual sense organscan through
which you can know that this is wall, mountain, duster, chalk piece or book, pen, etcetera.
The auditory organs by the help of ear you can know that different sounds. So, suppose
somebody knock to your door and put a calling bell you can make a difference. Because the
different sounds you hear differently and it happens because of Accidentalism. So, these
are the five sense organs responsible to accumulate a knowledge and the knowledge that we accumulate
through this sense organs is known as valid knowledge orPrama. And any knowledge we accumulate
beyond these sense organ cannot be consider as a valid knowledge for Carvaka.
Now, we will move to the next. How Carvaka really rejects inference as a validPramana,
what is the ground for them to rejects that inference is not a valid knowledge. As you
know that there are two types of inferences, one is detective inference another is a inductive
inference. In deductive inference, we move from general to particular; that means, we
conclude something best and some of the pre-propositions or propositions. I will give an a example,
if I say all man are mortal; Rama is a man therefore, Rama is a mortal. Here the first
proposition I made all man are mortal. Mortal is a generic preposition and I say Rama is
mortal because of soandsocause therefore, if anyone is a human being he or she will
be mortalThis is a called deductive; that means, we are deducing from general to particular.
On the other hand there is a inductive inference where you find, first there is a particular
instances, let say, I say crow x is black, crow y is black, crow z is black and there
is a gap; that means, any other people are can also say thatcrow x 1 is black, color
y 1 is black, depend on the experience and the later at the conclusion, you conclude
that because of soandsocases and evidences, some uniformities there, I can conclude that
all crows are black.So, there is a universality nature finding here, in case of induction.
Carvaka argues that in both the cases perception does not really work. You cannot initially
claim that all human beings are mortal, because can you see, can you perceive all human beings
which exist, work present, future as well as past life, it is not possible. In the same
way considering the, seeinductive inference, they said that if you see that crow x is black,
crow y is black, crow z is black, but how can you make sure that all the crows exist
in the whole world will beblack, because its, you have few experience, you cannot see the
whole world, because human being is a limited knowledge. There are every chances that if
one crows is not black or somehow different from black color still here conclusion is
not a valid one. Therefore since you could not able to perceive any of these inferences,
inference cannot be consider as a valid one. What is the inference for them? Infra in inference,
you find a Vyapthirelation, the Vyapthi relation says that, the first, the middle term and
the major term must have a universal invariable and concomitant relation.
Now, if you can see my slide, that from episteme is that stand point, the rejects the between
the inference both deductive and inductive while,while rejecting these inference they
claim that the inference itselfwe reject. We need not go to the, get the distinction
between inference because it is, it has nothing to do with a perception.Perceptiondoes not
work there. Further they said that we need a Vyapthi relation in all the inferences and
the for them Vyapthi relation is an universal invariable, unconditional and concomitance
relation between the major term and the middle term. Here, I would like to highlight what
is a major term, what is a middle term, how to know the major and middle term, that we
will find the next slide, but you must remember that any inference must have a Vyapthi relation.
If I say there is a inductive inference, immediately say or deductive inference there is a Vyapthi
relation; that means, at least we need few propositions to draw a conclusion. A conclusion
cannot be draw through a single proposition. And all the propositions that you or fix before
the conclusion must have a major premise, minor premise or conclusion. In the major
premiseyou find there is a relation between major term and the middle term. In the minor
premise you find there is a relation between the minor term and the middle term.So, hence
for you find the middle term which join the major term and minor term in the inference
and the conclusion we draw, we can only find in the major term and minor term.We never
find middle term in the conclusion. I repeat in an inference, we find three terms; one
is major term another is middle term another is minor term. The first premise, you take
say deductive inference. So, deductive inference is consist of three propositions. If you take
a inference or, he said that first proposition is you take say, all human beings are mortal.
If you say that Rama is a mortal; that means, here mortal is the middle term because you
find mortality find in both premises both the major and minor premise, but in theconclusion
you say that therefore, Rama is a human being. That means, Rama and human being are both
major tem and minor term. Here Rama is a minor term and human being as a valid term because
human beings find in the major premise, Rama is find in the minor premise.If this is you
understood then you know that the middle term must establish the relation between the major
premise and the minor premise and henceforth, the middle term does not appear in the conclusion.
In a conclusion, what it appears only the major term and the minor termSo, this about
the inference.
Now if you see that the middle term must establish an invariably relation between the major term
and the middle term then only we could able to establish conclusion.The Nyaya philosophy,
they consider a inference can be consist of more than three propositions.Now, it is before
you, the hill is fierybecause it is smoky, whatever is smoky is fiery. The hill is smoky
and the fifth one the hill is fiery. If you take either the first threeproposition or
a last three proposition, the inference will be completely ok.What do you find in three,let
us say you take 3, 4, 5, these three propositions, what do you find, this is a middle term, there
is a minor term, there is a major term. Here you find smoky is a middle term because is
a connect both major term and minor term right. Fire is a major term whereas, hill is a minor
term. So, hill is known as in SanskritPaksa, fire is known assadhya and smoke is a middle
term is known ashetu.Therefore, you findhetuandsadhya has an invariable, unconditional and universal
relation with each other. So, three things, three components you need
in your inference; one ishetuin Paksa, thenhetumust be associated withsadhya and at the conclusion
you establishSadya in Paksa.If these three things are there, then you can have good inferences.
Now, why Carvaka refutes the inferences. Today, I am highlighting some of the points and the
next class next session, I will be elaborating further. There are four grounds for Carvaka,
to say that that we cannot accept inferences. The first one is that, in inferencesthere
will be a concomitant relation between fire and smoke all the time. If you take that example.What
happened whenever you see a smoke there will be a fire. So, smoke and fire are always invariably
related with each other.At the conclusion, what is claim is that the hill is fiery because
we see the smoke. What it means is that whenever there is a smokeappears we always a there
is a fire, but Carvaka claim that what you see in this smoke, but we cannot see the fire.
If you cannot see the fire, is it the case that without seeing we can claim that all
the cases, fire and smoke are invariably related. You cannot saysobecause all the cases we cannot
see it. All the past, all the present and in the future you cannot able to see that
smoke and fire are invariably related with each other. If this is sohow can we claim
that? If perception, we cannot perceive all the past,present and future how can you claim
that there is an inference exist and through inference you can accumulate a valid knowledge.
Therefore I said that inference depend on concomitance relation. So, till this much,
now you understood. We will further discussing, how Carvaka really rejects the another sources
of knowledge.These are the inferences, comparison and verbal testimony. Why for them thesethreee
sources of a knowledge is not a valid knowledge. So, this class ends here and the next class
will be seeing that, that really how Carvaka establish that only perception is a valid
knowledge and why others sources of knowledge are not really consider as a valid knowledge.
In other sense the knowledge we accumulate through other sources is cannot be consider
as aPramawhereas, through perception whatever knowledge will get it is not a valid knowledge
orPrama. I hope whatever we have discussed today understood
to you and if you have not understood, you can ask the question so thatwe can have a
future discussion. However in the next class or the next session I will be discussing in
a more elaborate way. By presupposing, how Carvaka has stand point on the perception,
in a very brief. Then I will be stretching my point, a view by stating that howthey have
rejected all the sources of knowledge.