"The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the more appropriate available means of agriculture, tending cattle, trade, political administratrion, etc."

So it's confirmed that this Samkara summary consistently comes off more prudent than the Madhava one. While both summaries address themselves to what the individual should do for oneself rather than for others, they don't both imply the flouting of sensible behavior. Only Madhava seems to do that, making him not quite so even-handed after all..........

Incidentally, the NYPL scholar did second that the "Iti." notation does mean the conclusion of a quote, meaning that, in the Madhava, the final reference to "kindness for living things" comes from Madhava, not Brhaspati/Carvaka. But in any case, the Madhava shows this philosophy in such a caricatured and unfavorable light in most other respects compared to the earlier summation that I'm no longer inclined to give it the kind of close reading of the other one.

Cheers,

G Riggs

Sarvasiddhantasamgraha by Samkara (ca. 750 C.E.)

This contrasts with the Sarvadarshansamgraha by Madhavacarya (ca. 1350 C.E.), already referenced above.

Another interesting contrast with Madhava's precis is the series of suggestions for ways of living given in the Samkara precis of 600 years earlier. Unlike the tinge(?) of impracticality/recklessness(?) in the Madhava statement on melted butter/ghee, there is a no-nonsense tinge instead to the earlier Samkara precepts that suggest a slightly more responsible take on day-to-day living:

[1] "Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
[2] "The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others."
[3] "The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the proper visible means of agriculture, keeping cattle, trade, political administration, etc."

Thoughts?

G Riggs

Matt wrote:

1) Based solely on the text supplied above, I cannot say with certainty that the Carvakans were atheists. Are there other references that make the matter more clear? It seems that the author could be denouncing one form of religion in favor of his own.

===================================

[G Riggs] Some term the school Carvaka, others Lokayata. I put up a brief backgrounder on extant writings on this earliest atheist school at

=================>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/jbconv17.htm

where you can see why scholars take this to be an unequivocally atheist philosophy.

==========================================

Tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks.

Cheers,

G Riggs

1) Based solely on the text supplied above, I cannot say with certainty that the Carvakans were atheists. Are there other references that make the matter more clear? It seems that the author could be denouncing one form of religion in favor of his own.

===================================

[G Riggs] Some term the school Carvaka, others Lokayata. I put up a brief backgrounder on extant writings on this earliest atheist school at

where you can see why scholars take this to be an unequivocally atheist philosophy.

==========================================

[Matt] 2) I also find the reasoning used to be somewhat odd. Observe:

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

3) I also disagree with the seeming conclusion here. It appears that the author is saying that since there is no afterlife, we should live happily even if we have to do so irresponsibly. That is unethical behavior and I cannot support it. It is reminiscent of the concept of God being used to scare people into doing the right thing.

===========================================

[G Riggs] EbonMuse has already addressed your point quite thoughtfully. I would like to add, though, that when EbonMuse stresses that the writer is saying that one can be allowed fun even when poor, I'd guess there is an implicit interpretation there that (and I may be wrong?) the state of poverty already obtains here prior to the choice for (however reckless) fun. Yet the word in the original Sanskrit here apparently signifies not just butter, but ghee, which was a particularly expensive type of butter familiar mostly to the upper classes and also used in some religious ceremonies. (Today, I suppose Westerners might view caviar in the same light.) This would seem(?) to imply that the upper classes can feel free to indulge themselves to the utmost without fear of retribution. I offer this interpretation for what it's worth as one take on this passage that a fair number of scholars give, though not all.

============================================================

[Matt] Hence for kindness to the mass of living beings
we must fly for refuge in the doctrine of Carvaka.

It also sounds like this author was putting in a plug for his own belief system…anarchy perhaps…… :)

============================================================

[G Riggs] I've had a long and frustrating struggle with these final lines. EbonMuse presumably used the same Web page that I had come to view as quite reliable myself:

http://www.humanistictexts.org/carvaka.htm

This entire passage EbonMuse has cited here (and thank you for this, BTW) comes in turn from another citation inside a treatise written by an abbot roughly 700 years ago, a Madhava Acharya in the 1300s C.E., writing roughly 2000 years after Brhaspati. Madhava Acharya's article is a conscientious summary (surprisingly so, given Madhava's religious vocation) of the Lokayata/Carvaka philosophy that formed the first chapter of a complete book in which this abbot summarized all the circulating philosophies of the time, ranging from the most skeptical to the most devout.

Unfortunately, some editions of the Cowell translation used here give these final lines on "kindness" to "living beings" as the concluding part of the quote from Brhaspati's reflections of 2000 years earlier, while other editions place an unquote after the preceding statement, ending the Brhaspati quote after "[t]here is no other fruit anywhere". The latter arrangement would make the remark about "kindness" a final summation by Madhava of the gist of the philosophy, rather than something coming from Brhaspati himself (the "kindness" remark comes at the very end of Madhava's entire article on Lokayata/Carvaka).

Very frustrated by this discrepancy among different Cowell editions, I eventually tracked down a 2002 edition that places the original (and believe me, I can't read Sanskrit! -- wish I could!) and Cowell's translation side by side (Cowell's appears to be the only one around). There I ascertained that thoughout the article there is the customary notation in the original Sanskrit of "Iti." in the right margin of the concluding line of every quote that Madhava cites. There are a number of quoted passages that Madhava cites in addition to the one provided above, although I would agree with EbonMuse that the one he cites (above) is the most important.

To cut to the chase, the "Iti." notation appears after "[t]here is no other fruit anywhere", making the remark on "kindness" a later extrapolation by Madhava. So Madhava evidently intends that "kindness" remark to be his own final summation of the ultimate rationale for the Lokayata/Carvaka philosophy -- his attempt at evenhandedness, even though (in later chapters of the book) he himself indicates he is no subscriber to Lokayata/Carvaka thinking.

Cheers,

G Riggs

... I think most of us moderns really yearn to return to those roots with nature, living a less-complicated, stressed-out life.

<offtopic>

I'm sorry, I have to disagree. As someone who would have DIED before the age of three had I been born even 100 years earlier, I really, really prefer to live in my current time. After watching shows like Wilderness House and Colonial House, I believe most "moderns" would agree with me. Remember--the average lifespan in Western countries hasn't increased because people are necessarily dying later, but because so many are not dying in childhood. The idea that parents shouldn't bury their children is definitely a recent concept, and one I am glad for.

</offtopic>

Polly, I agree. I think I would have been MUCH happier if I'd lived 10,000 years ago in a hunter-gatherer society. In fact, I think most of us moderns really yearn to return to those roots with nature, living a less-complicated, stressed-out life.

The goal is not primarily to convert theists, but to get them to leave us alone and to stop interfering with science education. It would be nice to have everyone completely rational about their worldview, but acting rationally in the public sphere would suffice. (And theistic belief aside, I would say humans will always be more or less irrational in plenty of other ways.)
And I don't think it's a stretch to achieve that. Eventually we can live in a world where people who believe, personally, that they are in touch with a spiritual dimension or god or whatever will naturally abhor the obviously nonsensical idea that they must try to push it on others by force. There are millions (if not billions) who live that way now.

Just because Islam and Christianity (not Judaism) encourage proseletyzing doesn't mean it's a necessary part of the experience to give people that "meaning."

You can believe in the natural world and still have that "sprituality." It won't be defined by the supernatural, but the feelings are the same.

The human race is insane; all of us are to some degree.

Oh, you have discovered my secret! :) Too true, too true, insanity is rife and sometimes you just have to be patient with yourself and others on that count.

We all have desires and cravings that can't be satisfied, we all want ultimate purpose and meaning that we can't find. Most of us are selfish and ego-dominated, and it isn't going to change.

Well, as a humanist I've found ways of working through those issues myself, without reference to gods or other unsubstantiated claims, and that's generally enough for me. I'm not saying that such problems go away completely -- let's face it, no philosophical or religious belief can have that effect -- but life is certainly beautiful and livable.

If we are just products of nature (and the evidence points that way), then evolution made a serious mistake in giving mankind self-consciousness and awareness of mortality. The human race is insane; all of us are to some degree. We all have desires and cravings that can't be satisfied, we all want ultimate purpose and meaning that we can't find. Most of us are selfish and ego-dominated, and it isn't going to change.

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

Maybe this is an obvious point and that's why no one brought it up, but this reminds me of the Epicureans (and Stoics) that the apostle Paul's doctrines would conflict with. Refer to 1 Corinthians 15:32. The Epicureans were atomists in addition to being materialists. Even the "gods" were just superior men in their eyes, not divine.

Another point of similarity is in the book of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes 9:7-10

Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Obviously not atheistic, but certainly mirrored the idea of the Carvaka. This same theme is repeated throughout Ecclesiastes. I would say that the writer did not believe in an afterlife of any kind. Only later Xian scripture wrenching would read any kind of afterlife into these writings. Also, the OT, except for Daniel, seems to be silent on the concept of an afterlife and focused on THIS life.