Rushibhashit Me Prastut Charvak Darshan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the Jain text "Rushibhashit me Prastut Charvak Darshan" by Sagarmal Jain, based on the provided pages:

The text "Rushibhashit me Prastut Charvak Darshan" by Sagarmal Jain discusses the presentation and critical examination of Charvak Darshan (the Charvaka philosophical system) within ancient Jain scriptures, specifically highlighting its presence in the Rushibhashit (4th century BCE). It also mentions its subsequent appearance in the Sutrakrutanga's second Shruta Skandha (1st century BCE) and Rajprashniya (1st century BCE).

The core of the discussion revolves around the 20th chapter of Rushibhashit, titled "Ukkal," which is entirely dedicated to the logical exposition of Charvaka beliefs. The primary focus is on the Charvaka concept of "Tajjivatchhariravada" (the soul being identical with the body).

Charvaka Beliefs as Presented in Rushibhashit:

Soul and Life are Limited to the Body: Charvakas believed that the soul (Jiva) is synonymous with the body, existing from the soles of the feet to the tips of the hair. Life is defined as the period from the body's creation to its destruction.
No Afterlife or Rebirth: Just as a burnt seed cannot sprout again, a burnt body cannot lead to a new life. Therefore, there is no afterlife, no fruit of meritorious or demeritorious actions (karma), and no rebirth. Merit (punya) and sin (papa) do not affect the soul, making salvation and sin meaningless.

Jain Critique and Reinterpretation:

The Rushibhashit, while presenting these Charvaka views, also offers a critique. The Jain response refutes the notion that life is only limited to the physical body. The text uses the Charvaka's own analogy of the burnt seed: just as a burnt seed doesn't produce a new plant, a burnt body doesn't lead to rebirth. However, the Jain perspective argues that by transcending merit and demerit, one can achieve liberation from the cycle of rebirth. The text cleverly uses the Charvaka's logic to demonstrate that a person can escape the cycle of rebirth by rising above karma and sin.

Five Types of "Ukkal" (Charvakas):

A significant contribution of this text is the identification of five distinct types of Charvakas within Rushibhashit, which differ from classifications found in other philosophical texts (like soul as the body, senses, or mind). These five types are:

Dandoqqal: These thinkers used the analogy of a staff (danda). Just as a staff doesn't cease to be a staff if its parts (end, middle, beginning) are separated, they argued that the soul is not separate from the body. Therefore, upon the destruction of the body, the cycle of birth also ends. Their core belief was the inseparability of the body and life. They are described as body-soul theorists (dehatmavadi).
Rajjukkal: These individuals believed that just as a rope is a mere collection of threads (skandha), life is a collection of the five great elements (panchamahabhuta). When these collections are broken, the continuity of existence also ceases. They considered the aggregation of the five elements as the fundamental principle of the world and did not accept the soul as an independent entity. They are described as collection theorists (skandhavadi).
Stenoqqal: According to Rushibhashit, these materialist thinkers adopted arguments and examples from other philosophical systems and presented them as their own, effectively destroying opposing views. Their method of using arguments from others' systems in their own arguments is suggested to be a form of "chhal" (deception or sophistry) in debates. The author speculates that Stenoqqal might represent an early form of the Naiyayikas or a precursor to Sanjay Velatthiputra's philosophy, potentially influencing the development of anekantavada (non-absolutism). The text notes that Rushibhashit presents a path to liberation through the arguments of these body-soul theorists.
Desoqqal: These thinkers, while proving the existence of the soul, considered the soul to be "akarta" (non-doer). By asserting the soul as a non-doer, they negated the concepts of merit and demerit, bondage and liberation. Therefore, they are also partially classified as "uchchhedavadi" (annihilationists) because their denial of karma and liberation made them reject the principles of karma, morality, and religion. Rushibhashit is noted as possibly the only text that labels these non-doer theorists as annihilationists. They are seen as precursors to Sankhya and Upanishadic Vedanta. Jainas considered them "utkool" (outcastes) or "uchchhedavadi" because their beliefs contradicted the reality of the world (lokavada), the principle of karma (karmavada), and the concept of the doer-soul (kriyavada).
Sabbuqqal: These thinkers asserted that everything originates from absolute non-existence (sarvabhava). They established a doctrine of "sarvauchchhedavada" (complete annihilationism), stating that no entity exists absolutely, in all its forms, or at all times. In other words, those who denied any permanent principle behind creation and believed in creation from non-existence declared that no entity persists universally and eternally. Their denial of any fundamental being at the root of the world led them to be called "sarvauchchhedavadi." The author suggests this might be an early, logically reasoned form of the annihilationist viewpoint mentioned in Buddhist texts, which later developed into Buddhist "shunyavada" (emptiness).

Key Contributions and Implications:

"Ukkaal" Terminology: The author highlights the unique use of the term "Ukkaal" in Rushibhashit to refer to these thinkers, suggesting its Sanskrit roots could be "utkal," "utkul," or "utkool," meaning "outcast" or "one who transgresses boundaries." This specific terminology and classification are not found elsewhere.
Inclusion of Diverse Schools: The text's classification is notable for including not only body-soul theorists but also collection theorists (precursors to Buddhist skandhavada), complete annihilationists (precursors to Buddhist shunyavada), and non-doer theorists (precursors to Sankhya and Vedanta) within the "Ukkaal" category. This is because, logically, all these schools are seen as denying the principles of karma and religious order.
Precursors to Other Philosophies: The Jain belief presented in Rushibhashit, where the soul's manifestation is limited to the body, is seen as a potential precursor to the Jain concept of the soul being of the same measure as the body. The text's critique of body-soul theories also reflects potential early forms or seeds of Jain, Buddhist, Sankhya, and Upanishadic Vedanta philosophies, possibly arising from efforts to reconcile these diverse views.
Critique of Body-Soul Argument: The critique of body-soul theories in the text is presented as lacking solid logical basis, merely stating that life is not limited to the body's existence and destruction. This implies that some thinkers, while considering the soul dependent on the body, also accepted the possibility of existence in another body (rebirth).

The Nature of Lokayata/Charvaka:

The text concludes by challenging the common perception of Lokayata (Charvaka) as purely materialistic and pleasure-seeking. By quoting the description of a liberated being in Rushibhashit – one who is achieved, awakened, renounced, sinless, self-controlled, compassionate, and a complete renunciate – the author argues that these body-soul theorists were not immoralists. Instead, they were part of the Indian Rishi tradition, supporting paths of renunciation and ethical philosophy. The author posits that if Sankhya's non-doer theory, Vedanta's Brahma-vada, or Buddhist philosophies are considered conducive to tapas (austerity), renunciation, and morality, then the body-soul Lokayata philosophy should also be viewed as supporting the same path. The text asserts that Charvaka or Lokayata philosophy, despite being body-soul oriented, supported moral values and good conduct. It advocated for spending this limited life on the righteous path and opposed ritualistic practices, not virtuous moral life. This is demonstrated by the details provided in Rushibhashit.