Prachin Jainagamo Me Charvak Darshan Ka Prastutikaran - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text about the presentation and critique of Charvaka Darshan in ancient Jain Agamas:

The book "Prachin Jainagamo me Charvak Darshan ka Prastutikaran" by Sagarmal Jain, published by Z_Sagar_Jain_Vidya_Bharti_Part_6_001689.pdf (catalog link provided), delves into the portrayal and critical analysis of Charvaka (or Lokayata) philosophy within ancient Jain canonical literature. The author notes that Charvaka, a materialistic philosophy, has held a distinct place in Indian philosophical thought since ancient times, and its presence has been critiqued by various religious and philosophical traditions. Jainism, too, has engaged in this discourse, with discussions and critiques of this materialistic outlook appearing in Jain texts from the era of Mahavira up to the present day, spanning approximately 2500 years.

This essay, however, limits its scope to ancient Prakrit Agama literature. A significant finding highlighted is that the Rishibhasita (Isibhasiya) text views Charvaka Darshan not as a proponent of materialism and selfish, immoral living, but rather as a supporter of a value-based, virtuous life and an integral part of Indian Shramana culture.

The ancient Prakrit Agama literature primarily includes Acharanga Sutra, Sutrakritanga Sutra, Uttaradhyayana Sutra, and Rishibhasita. These are generally considered to have been composed between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE. Additionally, the Upaanga literature text Rajaprasniya Sutra is included due to its rich presentation and critique of Charvaka philosophy, being considered very ancient. This is further corroborated by similar discussions found in Buddhist Tripiṭaka literature between Lord Buddha and King Payasi. While some Jain scholars interpret Payasi as "Pradeshi," authorities like Devavachaka, Siddhasenagani, Malayagiri, and Munichandrasuri consider the Sanskrit form to be Prasenajit, a historically recognized king of Shvetambika (Serivya). His charioteer, Chitta, brought Acharya Keshikumara to him specifically to change the king's materialistic worldview. The inclusion of this narrative is justified by its antiquity, authenticity, and logical coherence.

The essay focuses on presenting and critiquing Charvaka's concepts of "tajjīvattaccharīravāda" (the view that life is identical with the body) and its understanding of the afterlife, merit, and demerit. The Rishibhasita, dating to the 4th century BCE, presents Charvaka's life philosophy in a unique way, categorizing them into five types: Dandokkala, Rajjukkal, Stenokkal, Desokkal, and Sabbokkal, which are not found elsewhere in Indian philosophical literature. Similarly, the arguments presented in the second Shrutaskandha of Sutrakritanga and Rajaprasniya Sutra for and against Charvaka philosophy are considered significant. In the Prakrit Agama commentary literature, Visheshavashyaka Bhashya (6th century CE) offers a critique of various Charvaka beliefs through debates between the Gandharas (disciples of Mahavira) and Gautama, which is deemed philosophically important. Other ancient Sanskrit commentaries (10th-11th centuries CE) and Jain philosophical texts also contain valuable critiques of materialistic life views. However, due to the essay's limited scope, the discussion remains focused on the ancient Prakrit Agamas.

The essay then proceeds to examine specific texts:

Acharanga Sutra: Considered one of the oldest, this text is believed to contain the direct teachings of Mahavira. While it doesn't explicitly mention "Lokayata Darshan," it critiques the concept that denies rebirth. The text posits the existence of an "aupapatika" (reincarnating) soul that traverses directions and sub-directions. Those who understand this are called "atmavadi" (believers in the soul), "lokavadi" (believers in the world), "karmavadi" (believers in karma), and "kriyavadi" (believers in action). These are established in opposition to Charvaka beliefs:
- Atmavad: Acceptance of the soul's independent and eternal existence.
- Lokavad: Acceptance of the world's reality and the soul's cycle of birth and death within it.
- Karmavad: Belief in the cause-and-effect relationship of auspicious and inauspicious actions.
- Kriyavad: The soul is the doer and experiencer of actions, and it is subject to change. The Acharanga Sutra instructs the abandonment of "loka-sangya" (worldly consciousness) and belief in these principles. "Lokayata" is understood to derive from "loka-sangya." While critiquing these beliefs, the text doesn't offer detailed logical arguments.
Sutrakritanga Sutra: Following Acharanga, its first Shrutaskandha (also considered ancient, around 4th century BCE) mentions the Charvaka concept of Panchamahabhuta-vada (theory of five great elements) and tajjīvattaccharīravāda. It states that the five great elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ether) are the origin of beings, and upon the destruction of the body, the soul also perishes. It asserts that every individual, whether ignorant or learned, has a soul that does not survive death, and beings are not subject to rebirth. There is no world beyond this one, nor merit or demerit. While the first Shrutaskandha presents these Charvaka tenets, it lacks a clear logical critique. However, the second Shrutaskandha offers a critique, though scholars consider it slightly later.
Uttaradhyayana Sutra: Here, Charvaka philosophy is referred to as "jana-shraddha" (people's faith), possibly an earlier name for Lokayata. It states that worldly pleasures are directly perceived, while the afterlife is unseen. Present pleasures are in hand, while future enjoyments are uncertain. Therefore, one should remain with "jana-shraddha." The fifth chapter critiques and refutes the Charvaka denial of rebirth. Chapter fourteen presents the Charvaka theory of asatkaryavada (creation from the non-existent), specifically the origin of consciousness from the five great elements. The examples used in the Uttaradhyayana to illustrate asatkaryavada (fire in arani, ghee in milk, oil in sesame seeds) paradoxically support satkaryavada (creation from the existent), suggesting they were used for easier critique. The text considers the soul, being formless, to be imperceptible by senses and therefore eternal.

The essay summarizes the following key points about Charvaka in these texts:

Charvaka Darshan was also known as "loka-sangya" and "jana-shraddha."
It did not consider the soul an independent entity, but rather believed consciousness originated from the five great elements.
It accepted asatkaryavada in the context of causality.
It believed in the destruction of the soul with the body, denying rebirth and the afterlife (heaven/hell).
It rejected merit and demerit, opposing the doctrine of karma.
Some philosophers of the time supported "akriyavada" (nihilism or non-action). Jain texts identified these as philosophers who considered the soul to be inactive and eternally unchanging. By denying the fruits of actions despite believing in the soul, they were considered "hidden Charvakas."

The essay concludes that while Acharanga, Sutrakritanga, and Uttaradhyayana briefly present Charvaka's concepts and state that this ideology is not proper, the presentation and refutation are neither logical nor extensive. The second Shrutaskandha of Sutrakritanga is identified as the first Jain Agama literature to logically present and critique the "tajjīvattaccharīravāda" school. It explains their stance that the body itself is the soul, and life exists only as long as the body. They argue that those who claim the body and soul are separate cannot demonstrate this, nor can they describe the soul's form, color, weight, etc. Therefore, they conclude that the view of those who do not differentiate the soul and body is logical. The text then lists analogies (sword and scabbard, etc.) to illustrate the inseparable nature of soul and body for the Charvakas.

Based on this body-identity, the Charvaka ethical concepts are presented: if the body is the soul, then there is no afterlife, no action-inaction, merit-demerit, good-bad, success-failure, or heaven-hell. Consequently, there is no sin in killing, digging land, cutting plants, burning fire, or cooking. The critique in this section is brief, stating that such people claim their own religion as true and, despite being Shramanas, become entangled in worldly pleasures.

The Sutrakritanga also mentions Panchamahabhuta-vadis and Sankhyas (who believe in five great elements plus a sixth soul). The Panchamahabhuta-vadis believed the five great elements were everything in the universe, responsible for all actions, and that the soul was inactive. The five great elements are described as uncreated, eternal, and self-existent. The text notes that Jain Agamas do not mention Charvakas who believed in only four great elements (excluding ether).

The essay further discusses those who believe in five great elements and a sixth soul, positing that the existent is never destroyed, and the non-existent is never created. They consider this the extent of the soul-body, astikaya (existence-body), and the entire universe. The five great elements are the cause of the world, and everything from a blade of grass moving to larger phenomena is due to these elements, as the soul is inactive. It is suggested that this might be an earlier form of Sankhya philosophy. In this view, the soul is considered non-existent by the Panchamahabhuta-vadis, and inactive by those who believe in five great elements and a sixth soul.

Sutrakritanga also considers Ishvara Karanavada (God as the cause) and Niyati-vada (destiny) as opposing the doctrine of karma and thus promoting mithyatva (false belief). The essay sees a close similarity between the "Desokkala" in Rishibhasita and the Panchamahabhuta and sixth soul proponents in Sutrakritanga. Jain belief was that all thinkers whose philosophical views did not clearly incorporate the concepts of dharma-adharma (merit-demerit) or karma were mithyadrishṭi (holding false views).

In conclusion, while Sutrakritanga logically refutes the idea that the body and soul are distinct, it does not provide clear arguments for why this view is incorrect. It supports the body-soul identity with arguments but doesn't offer counter-arguments to its refutation. The essay states that the discussion of Charvaka Darshan in Acharanga, Sutrakritanga, and Uttaradhyayana will be followed by a critique from the perspective of Rishibhasita and Rajaprasniya in subsequent articles.