Prachin Jaingamo Me Charvak Darshan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Prachin Jaingamo me Charvak Darshan" by Sagarmal Jain, based on the provided excerpt:

The article, "Presentation and Review of Charvaka Philosophy in Ancient Jain Agamas" by Prof. Sagarmal Jain, explores how the materialist philosophy of Charvaka (also known as Lokayata) is depicted and critiqued within ancient Jain scriptures.

Introduction and Scope:

• Charvaka is recognized as a prominent materialist philosophy in Indian thought, with evidence of materialist life perspectives dating back to ancient times.
• Every Indian religious and philosophical tradition has critiqued Charvaka.
• Jain literature, spanning approximately 2500 years from Mahavira's era to the present, has consistently presented and analyzed this ideology.
• Due to scope limitations, this essay focuses primarily on the Prakrit Agama literature, specifically the Acharanga Sutra, Sutrakritanga, Uttaradhyayana, and Rishibhashita, believed to have been composed between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE.
• The Upaanga text, Rajaprasniya, is also included due to its rich presentation and critique of Charvaka, and its perceived antiquity, as a similar dialogue appears in Buddhist Tripitaka literature between Buddha and King Payasi.

Key Jain Texts and Their Treatment of Charvaka:

1. Acharanga Sutra:

   • Considered one of the oldest Jain Agamas, possibly containing Mahavira's direct teachings.
   • While not explicitly mentioning "Lokayata," it critiques its underlying principles.
   • It establishes four principles against Charvaka: Atmavada (soul-theory), Lokavada (world-theory), Karmavada (action-theory), and Kriyavada (deed-theory).
   • The text instructs the abandonment of "Lokasamjna" (world-consciousness), which is identified as the Lokayata philosophy.
   • The critique is brief and lacks detailed logical reasoning.

2. Sutrakritanga:

   • The first Skandha of this text is also considered very ancient (around 4th century BCE).
   • It presents Charvaka's Panchamahabhuta-vada (theory of five great elements) and Tajjivatachchhariravada (the doctrine that life is merely this body).
   • It states that beings originate from the five elements (earth, water, fire, air, and ether), and the soul perishes with the body.
   • It asserts that there is no afterlife or consequence of good and bad deeds.
   • The second Skandha of Sutrakritanga is believed to be slightly later and does present a critique of Charvaka.

3. Uttaradhyayana:

   • Charvaka philosophy is referred to as "Jana-shraddha" (people's faith) in this text.
   • It highlights Charvaka's focus on present worldly pleasures ("direct experience") over an unseen, uncertain afterlife.
   • It directly negates the concept of rebirth.
   • Chapter 14 of Uttaradhyayana presents Charvaka's principle of Asatkaryavada (genesis from non-being), specifically their idea that consciousness arises from the five elements. The text uses examples that support Satkaryavada (genesis from being) to critique this, suggesting the examples are chosen to facilitate criticism.
   • It states that the soul, being formless, is eternal and beyond sensory perception.

Key Charvaka Tenets Identified in the Agamas:

• Referred to as "Loka-samjna" and "Jana-shraddha."
• Did not consider the soul an independent entity; consciousness arises from the five great elements.
• Accepted Asatkaryavada (creation from non-being).
• Believed the soul perishes with the body and denied rebirth and the existence of an afterlife (heaven/hell).
• Rejected the concept of karma, merit, and demerit.
• A section of philosophers in that era supported Akriyavada (non-action), whom the Jains considered "hidden Charvakas" for denying the consequences of good and bad deeds while affirming the soul.

4. Rishibhashita:

   • The 20th chapter, "Ukala," offers a more detailed and logical presentation of Charvaka beliefs, particularly Tajjivatachchhariravada.
   • It describes life as limited to the duration of the body, stating that just as a burnt seed cannot sprout, a burnt body cannot regenerate.
   • It explicitly denies rebirth, the afterlife, and the results of good and bad deeds.
   • Critically, Rishibhashita introduces five types of "Ukala" thinkers who reject the karma principle:
     • Dandokkala: Believed life and body are inseparable, using the analogy of a staff. They were Dehatmavadi (body-soul theorists).
     • Rajjuokkala: Viewed life as merely a collection of the five elements, like a rope made of threads. They were Skandhavadi (aggregate theorists).
     • Stenokkala: Accused of presenting arguments from other philosophies as their own, potentially engaging in intellectual "trickery" or debate tactics.
     • Deshokkala: Believed the soul to be an "akartha" (non-doer) while acknowledging its existence. This position, by denying the cause-and-effect of karma, was considered a partial negation. These are seen as precursors to Sankhya and Upanishadic Vedanta.
     • Sarvvokkala: Advocated for Sarvochedavada (total annihilation), believing that nothing exists eternally in all aspects and all times, and that creation arises from nothingness. This is seen as an ancient form of Buddhist nihilism.
   • The term "Ukala" itself is analyzed, suggesting potential Sanskrit roots like utkal (removed from the group), utkul (outcast from lineage), or utkool (removed from the shore/boundary), implying their exclusion from spiritual traditions and transgression of moral boundaries.

5. Sutrakritanga (Second Skandha):

   • This text offers a logical presentation and critique of Charvaka and Tajjivatachchhariravada.
   • It argues that if the body is the self, then there is no afterlife, action, inaction, merit, demerit, heaven, hell, etc.
   • It attempts to refute the idea that the soul and body are distinct by presenting analogies where one cannot be separated from the other (e.g., sword and sheath, milk and butter). However, the critique simply states these people claim their religion is true and get entangled in worldly pleasures, rather than providing counter-arguments.
   • It also mentions Panchamahabhuta-vadi (believers in only the five elements as reality) and those who believe in five elements plus a sixth entity, the soul (Atma). The latter are seen as precursors to Sankhya, considering the soul as asat (non-existent) or akarta (non-doer).
   • The critique in Sutrakritanga is noted as lacking strong logical grounds for refuting body-soul theory, primarily stating that life is not limited to the body's lifespan.

6. Rajaprasniya Sutra:

   • This is the first Prakrit Agama text that presents arguments both for and against Charvaka's Ucchedavada (nihilism) and Tajjivatachchhariravada.
   • It details a dialogue between Acharya Keshikumara Shramana and King Payasi (or Prasenajit).
   • King Payasi's Arguments (supporting Charvaka):
     • His irreligious grandfather, who should have gone to hell, did not appear to him to warn him.
     • His religious grandmother, who should have gone to heaven, did not appear to bless him.
     • A thief died in a sealed iron vessel without any opening for the soul to escape, proving the soul and body are not separate.
     • When a corpse was melted in a sealed vessel and found to be infested with worms, it indicated no external soul entered.
     • Weighing a person alive and dead showed no difference in weight, suggesting no soul departed.
     • Examining a thief's body parts revealed no visible soul.
   • Acharya Keshikumara's Rebuttals:
     • Those in hell cannot appear in the human world due to lack of strength, prohibition by hell-keepers, unexhausted negative karma, or unexpired lifespan in hell.
     • Those in heaven are too engrossed in divine pleasures and love for the human world is severed. Their lifespan also differs vastly from humans.
     • Sound travels from a sealed chamber, demonstrating that a non-perceptible entity (like the soul) can also move freely.
     • Fire enters a heated iron ball without a hole, suggesting the soul, being imperceptible, can enter and exit freely.
     • The analogy of air in a dried-up mushroom is used to explain that the soul, being agurulaghu (neither heavy nor light), doesn't alter the body's weight. (The author notes this argument is not scientifically sound by modern standards).
     • A parable of a person failing to find fire by dissecting wood, while another finds it by rubbing wood (aranis), illustrates that the soul's manifestation requires specific processes, not physical dissection of the body.

Overall Significance and Conclusion:

• The ancient Jain Agamas, particularly Rishibhashita and Rajaprasniya, offer significant, sometimes unique, philosophical presentations and critiques of Charvaka.
• Rishibhashita's classification of "Ukala" thinkers is particularly noteworthy for including precursors to Buddhist and Sankhya philosophies within a critique of materialist thought.
• While some arguments from these texts may not hold up to modern scientific scrutiny, they represent the philosophical debates of their time and demonstrate the historical development of ideas within Jainism and its interaction with other schools.
• The presence of similar arguments in Jain and Buddhist traditions points to their historical authenticity and antiquity.
• The article concludes by mentioning the Visheshavashyakabhashya as a key source for detailed philosophical critiques of Charvaka, particularly its "Ganadharavada" section, which engages in extensive logical analysis of concepts like soul, karma, and liberation.