PDA

View Full Version : Eleven arguments favored by the Charvaka Faith and rebuttal



rcscwc
18 June 2010, 01:07 AM
Eleven arguments favored by the Charvaka Faith and rebuttal.
(Satyarth Prakash by Dayanand)

1."There is no author of the universe*. All things combine together by virtue of properties inherent in them."


2."There is neither heaven nor hell, nor is there any entity like the soul to reap, hereafter, the fruits of deeds done in this life,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Charvakas, Buddhists, Jainees and Abhanakas - all these four orders of atheists hold the same view with regard to Cosmogony, i.e., there is no author of the universe nor does the performance of duties pertaining to one's Class and Order bear any fruit."*
-----------

3."If the animal offered as sacrifice goes to heaven, why does not the Yajmana (master of ceremonies) send his parents, etc., to heaven, by killing them by way of sacrifice."

4."If oblations offered to the manes of departed ancestors satisfy the latter, what need is there, then, for people going abroad to take with them victuals, clothes, cash, etc., for maintaining themselves during the journey. If a thing offered in the name of a departed ancestor reaches him in heaven, why cannot things, offered in the name of the person, gone abroad, by his relations staying at home reach him in foreign lands. If it be impossible to convey anything to foreign lands in this way for the benefit of a traveler, how much more so would it be to convey things to heaven (for the benefit of the departed ancestor)?"

5. "If the physical wants of an ancestor in heaven cant be satisfied by offerings made in his name in this mortal world, why cannot the cravings of hunger, felt by a person in the upper story of a house, be satisfied if eatables are offered in his name by some one in the lower story."

6. "Therefore, let a man pass his life in ease and comfort; if he has got nothing with him, let him borrow money from others. No obligations exist to pay back debts hereafter, for a particular individual (combination of the body and the soul) that contracted the debt will never return to this world. Who will, then, demand payment and who will have to pay?"
7. It is wrong to say that, after death, the soul leaves the body and is transported to the next world, for if it be otherwise, why does not the departed soul return home, impelled by love for its family."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Charvakas have no belief in the existence of the soul and in a future life but the Buddhists and Jainees do not subscribe to that belief. In other matters their beliefs are almost identical.
--------------

8. "Hence, all these practices have been invented by the priests for their own pecuniary benefit. The ceremony of offering rice balls on the 10th day after death, and other funeral ceremonies like this have 'been devised for the same selfish purpose."

9. "The authors of the Vedas were buffoons, scoundrels and devils. The words like jarfari and tarfari are symbolic of the rascally teachings of pundits."

10. "Mark! What the rascals teach. Who but a scoundrel can promulgate that the wife of the master of ceremonies should have sexual intercourse with a horse and obscene jokes should be cracked at the expense of the bride."

11. "The portion of the Veda which inculcates indulgence in flesh-diet has been composed by some fiend (in the garb of a man).
Rebuttal of the eleven arguments.

1. Dead and inert substances cannot combine together of their own accord and according to some design unless the Conscious Being - God - fashions and shapes them. If they could combine together by virtue of inherent properties, why does not another set of the sun, the moon, the earth and other planets spring into existence by themselves.

2. The enjoyment of happiness constitutes heaven while the suffering of (extreme) misery constitutes hell. If there be no soul, who would enjoy happiness or suffer misery, just as in this life the soul enjoys and suffers, likewise it will enjoy and suffer in the next birth. Will the cultivation of even such virtues as veracity in speech and benevolence by people belonging to a particular Class and a particular Order go unrewarded?

3, 4, 5. The Veda and other Shaastras do not at all sanction animal sacrifice; the practice of offering oblations to the manes of departed ancestors is an invention of priests, because it is opposed to the Vedic and Shaastric teachings and finds sanction only in the Puraana like the Bhagvat. We have, therefore, nothing to say against the refutation of this doctrine.

6. Whatever exists cannot cease to exist. The soul is an entity, therefore it can never become non-entity. It is not the soul but the body that is reduced to ashes (when it had been cremated). The soul (after death) passes into another body. Whoever, therefore, enjoys himself by borrowing from others and does not pay back his debts is verily a sinner and will, doubtless, suffer terribly in the next birth.

7. After leaving the body, the soul is transported to another place and takes on another body; it forgets all about its previous birth and its family, hence it is impossible for it to return to its previous family.

8. Yes, it is true that the priests have devised these funeral rites from motives of pecuniary gain, but, being opposed to the Vedas, they are condemnable.

9. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that if the Charvakas had read or heard them read, they would never have reviled them by saying, that they had been composed by buffoons, scoundrels, and devils. It is, no doubt, true that commentators like Mahidhar were the real buffoons, scoundrels and devils.

It is on account of their rascality that such teachings have been fathered upon the Vedas. What a pity that the Charvakas, the Abhanakas, the Buddhists and the Jainees never cared to study the four Vedaas in original with a learned man. This was the reason why their intellectual vision was blurred and distorted and they began to revile the Vedas in a foolish and nonsensical fashion. There read only the un-authoritative, absolutely wrong, and dirty commentaries by wicked Vama Margis, turned against the Veda and fell deep down in the bottomless pit of ignorance.
10. No sane man would believe that any people except the Vaama Maagis are capable of sanctioning such practices as the co-habitation of the wife of the master of ceremonies with a horse and poking obscene fun at his daughter. Who but these vile reprobates (i.e., Vama Margis) could have thought out such a filthy, incorrect exposition quite at variance with the Vedic text?

It is much to be deplored that the Charvakas, etc., took to a thoughtless vilification of the Vedas. They ought to have made some use at least of their sense. But they were greatly to be pitied because they did not possess enough knowledge to enable them to sift truth from falsehood, to champion the cause of truth and denounce error.

11. Flesh-eating is not all enjoined by the Veda, it is only the Vama Margi commentators who have perverted the Vedic texts to yield this meaning, they verily deserve to be called demons in human shape. The Vama Margi commentators and those, who have thoughtlessly reviled the Vedas without having properly studied them or picked up any reliable information about them, will doubtless suffer for having committed this sin.

sambya
18 June 2010, 02:18 AM
today , when not a single charvaka exists anywhere in this planet , is there really any need to discuss or refute their philosophy ?

Kumar_Das
18 June 2010, 06:14 AM
Charvaka/Jains/Buddhists when you think about it. Ultimately their skeptical thinking only resulted in Hinduism moving towards a much more logical direction.

Everyone of the world's major religions had a point where they were full of superstitions.

This sort of a thinking provided Hinduism to evolve to the respectable faith that it is today.

Today we see strong oppositions to abrahamism by the skeptics. Hinduism endured this in the past.

Of course some of these carvakas were no more than untouchables upset over brahminical orthodoxy.

rcscwc
18 June 2010, 09:12 AM
All of the Charvaks were scholars and learned ones, all of them sages, mostly Brahmins. No caste angle was there.

sambya
18 June 2010, 09:15 AM
All of the Charvaks were scholars and learned ones, all of them sages, mostly Brahmins. No caste angle was there.


sages ?!!

Sahasranama
18 June 2010, 10:36 AM
LOL

Charvakas are boring.

I'd give more respect to the Greek epicurists.

rcscwc
18 June 2010, 07:19 PM
Vatsayana, is he not considered a rishi?

sambya
18 June 2010, 11:31 PM
umm ............ not exactly . a scholar - a pandita . words like rishi and muni are for spiritual people only .

by the way , was vatsayana a charvaka ? never heard that before . if he was ....that probably explains his preoccupation with sex !!

Sahasranama
19 June 2010, 08:58 AM
No, he was not a charvaka. Vatsyayana also speaks of the importance of dharma.