I've been extremely puzzled concerning possible contradictions
surrounding one rather elusive figure in ancient Indian history, and I
plead guilty to having lodged this query on a few forums as well<G>. I
would like, though, frankly, to get some idea of how much providing an
answer might cost before plunging in further. I'll provide here the
(rather extensive) background on my query and let you then inform me
how much coming up with the answer might cost. I will then proceed
from there. Much thanks.
I will give the background to my query first, then the query itself.
Apparently, the earliest known skeptical school of philosophy on the
planet comes from ancient India, ca. 600 B.C.E. It is called either
the Carvaka or the Lokayata philosophy.
Many scholars agree the Lokayata founder was one Brhaspati, although
an articulate number assume it was someone actually called Carvaka. If
one accepts the current plurality of scholars who feel it was probably
Brhaspati,, then there appear to be, at the least, two different
Brhaspatis: a Hindu deity, and this presumed Lokayata founder (the
latter a mere mortal from around 600 B.C.E.).
The puzzle involves the latter: extant expositions leave some scholars
assuming that Brhaspati/Charvaka is an amoral figure. Whether or not
we take that to be the case, Brhaspati/Carvaka's own Sutras on
Carvaka/Lokayata doctrine appear not to have survived, fragments of
his statements surviving only inside a few extensive polemics aimed
_against_ Car./Lok. doctrine. Clearly, this is nothing like the full
text of what Brhaspati/Carvaka wrote. But, for instance, an Indian
seventh-century C.E. treatise by a certain Haribhadra lifts eight
specific verses of Brhaspati's as fodder for a whole assemblage of
other commentators to tear apart at length. So at least, we have these
eight isolated verses. And there are other instances like this as
well: an occasionally cited assemblage of various different
philosophies put together by a certain Madhava in the 14th century,
C.E., for instance.
Only the work of one adherent of Brhaspati survives: a treatise in the
8th century C.E. by a certain Jayarasi Bhatta, the Tattvopaplavasimha.
Unfortunately, Bhatta's main concern in this treatise is to dissect
and refute the propositions of other philosophical schools rather than
to propound his own. So we have no fully laid out explication of the
Brhaspati school in Brhaspati's -- or Bhatta's -- own voice. But
Bhatta, who professes a fervent respect and a deep knowledge of
Brhaspati's thinking, does make passing reference to one of the
remarks Brhaspati himself made -- and Bhatta offers up a verse which
happens to be word-for-word identical to one of the eight verses cited
in the Haribhadra treatise. That would seem to suggest that the
fragments cited by Haribhadra are at least trustworthy as far as they
go.
But are they (and similar assemblages like those of Madhava's) really
the only kinds of fragments we have? I've come across a possible
contradiction to that assumption, and that contradiction is what this
current query concerns.
You see, a certain 20th-century historian and scholar, Dakshinaranjan
S(h)astri, came out in 1930 with a "History of Indian Materialism",
which tantalizes with one fleeting reference that I've been unable to
make head or tail of! He refers cryptically to Lokayata founder
Brhaspati's _extant_ "Vedic hymns"! What is he talking about?
Fortunately, S(h)astri readily acknowledges the fragmentary nature of
what survives. He makes a careful distinction between extrapolated
pronouncements and those he -- and other modern scholars -- can see
with their own eyes. It's in the latter context that he makes concrete
reference to these Brhaspati "hymns" (whether or not they're in the
actual Vedic literature or in some offshoot?) as concrete Vedic texts
that twentieth-century readers can apparently view for themselves!
Now it's possible that other scholars may not necessarily view these
(elusive?) "hymns" as being by the same Brhaspati as the one who
founded Carvaka/Lokayata at all. And S(h)astri himself readily
concedes that these hymns are not necessarily explications of
Carvaka/Lokayata doctrine as such, although S(h)astri does claim they
were indeed written by the same Brhaspati who founded
Lokayata/Carvaka.
S(h)astri states "[Brhaspati/C(h)arvaka] flung away the fetters of
religion that he might be righteous and noble. Some of the verses of
the Vedic hymns ascribed to Brhaspati are very noble in thought."
Bottom line: I'd very much like to view these "hymns" for _myself_,
since other modern scholars plainly have already! Also, S(h)astri
claims these "hymns" do at least give a window into what makes
Brhaspati tick, regardless of whether or not he says anything
substantive about Charvaka doctrine in them. Just that would be
fascinating enough, IMO. Since other modern scholars have plainly seen
these hymns already, as shown by S(h)astri's remarks, that means these
texts are at least extant. This is why I have not given up hope. D.
S(h)astri is a 20th-century historian who was well-acquainted with his
field. He was clearly referring to _something_ that is readily
available for others to view today. What was that _something_?
This is the question that teases me. Any enlightenment on that would
be much appreciated. Honestly, I haven't yet stumbled on these "Vedic
hymns" that S(h)astri ascribes to Br./Ch.
Please, might you know -- or could you point to someone who would --
where these presumptively Brhaspati "hymns" are to be found? Shastri
is clearly a modern, thoroughly versed historian and scolar. He must
be referring to _something_ that is readily accessible today. But
what?! Most important, could you either e-mail a few texts of those
Br./Ch. "hymns" or give some rough idea of what they say that's so
"noble in thought"?
I already have a Carvaka/Lokayata anthology assembled by a Mr.
Chattopadhyaya, which includes the Haribhadra, the Madhava, etc.
(published ca. 1995). But not a trace of these "hymns" do I see in
that (sizable) anthology!
(Is Shastri applying outdated scholarship, meaning these "hymns" were
simply traditionally ascribed to the Hindu deity, not the Lokayata
founder, and are now so understood? I just don't know, and I'd really
like to know.)
A very recent brief exchange on this topic on a related forum now
indicates the slight possibility that the "Vedic hymns" that the
historian D. S(h)astri refers to may, in fact, come from the
Upanishads. But that's still not certain.
I enclose the pertinent passages from that exchange:
_________________________________________________________
[Charlotte] I recalled something from my studies that I often forget
as a westerner: Upanishads literaly means: The Upa-Vedas. That hindus
regard the "Vedas" as four main parts of one whole called: samhita,
brAhmaNa, Aranyaka & upanishat. The samhitas are the core part of
vedas, a compilation of mainly mantras. The brAhmaNas are the
application/interpretation of the vedic samhitas. The Aranyakas and
upanishats are the philosophical parts.
Upanishads are the youngest of the Hindu scripture, and it is possible
that your scholar was refering to them. I believe we were so caught in
the western concept of "Vedas", that we did not see what is common to
the Hindu.
The Upanishads cover a spectrum of analysis of God and relation to it.
It contains a great deal of philosophy concerning the soul. In India,
a guru or yogini must establish that their theory stands with verses
from the Upanishads in order for the theory to be considered true
philosophy.
Hence, what you are seeking, I believe, must be in the Upanishads. The
problem for me is, I can not find a Brhaspati listed by name in the
Upanishads. So again, it could be a matter of personal interpretation
for your scholar.
[Yours truly] Another problem, perhaps, is that in there being
"verses" in the Upanishads, as you say, could any of them really count
as "hymns", the term S(h)astri uses? In the one source-book I have on
Carvaka/Lokayata, Chattopadhyaya's anthology released by ICPR (Indian
Council of Philosophical Research, 1990), there are indicative
passages provided from both the Chandogya Upanishad (Chandogya
Upanishad: viii, 7 - 9) and the Maitri Upanishad (Maitri Upanishad:
vii, 8 - 9). Since they are in English prose translation, though, it's
hard to tell if the originals of these two passages in question are in
verse -- or if they'd even count as "hymns".
What remains striking and reassuring, though -- and this is why I'm
hoping you've solved it -- is that the Chandogya passage involves a
certain Prajapati who at least maintains that there is no soul that is
separate from the body, a very Lokayatian principle. Yes, he is shown
in conversation with both a mortal and a god, and he says nothing
about the very concept of deity itself being a fiction (which is what
he _does_ maintain in the random snippets in Haribhadra and
elsewhere), and he also maintains that the combined soul/body unity is
capable of attaining a degree of immortality if and when and maybe.
But the nugget of attempting to persuade one (counter-culturally
so<G>) that attending to the body is in fact the directest way of
attending to the soul after all(!), whatever others may say, smacks
strongly of Lokayata philosophy. In addition, Chattopadhyaya presents
this passage as the very earliest extant example of presenting such a
doctrine!
Moreover, there is something lofty, as S(h)astri also suggests, in
Prajapati's words on the nature of the "self" (his own term for the
"soul/body unity" construct):
"The self is free from evils, without age, without death, without
sorrow, without hunger, without thirst; its desire inevitably comes
true, its contemplation inevitably becomes true. Such a self is to be
searched for, and one should desire to ascertain its nature."
(Chandogya Upanishad: viii, 7, 1)
As S(h)astri already implied, though, one must (apparently?) seek out
later sources after all (like Haribhadra) for the explicit
pronouncement of the doctrine that the very construct/concept of
deity/deities is itself a fiction as well.
___________________________________________________
But I then sheepishly posted this a day or so later:
___________________________________________________
[Yours truly] errrrr..............not quite................
Evidently, the Chandogya is one of the _prose_ Upanishads, no verse at
all! So it may be back to the drawing board for me --
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH! (The Maitri, whether prose or verse, has no direct
utterances, lofty or otherwise, from this Prajapati figure, although
it speaks of him; so that's a non-starter.)
Please, anyone else who wants to, feel free to step in here now.
Charlotte and I may have both reached a bit of a dead end here. Who
knows? -- although I'm still happy to explore any new suggestions from
Charlotte or anybody.
__________________________________________________________
Another poster kindly posted this:
__________________________________________________________
[Anand] In their authoritative book "A Sourcebook in Indian
Philosophy," Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore write that
the main work on which the Carvaka school is based, Brhaspati Sutra
(600 BCE) is "not available." So they had to rely on secondary
sources. Some of the books cited by the authors were:
- Sarvadarsanasamgraha (14th Century AD)
- Sarvasiddhantasamgraha by Samkara
- Selections from a well-know ancient drama Prabodha-candrodaya
- Tattvopaplavasimha (7th Century AD)
All the above books have been translated in early 20th Century. So
copies of these might be available in select libraries/bookstores.
___________________________________________________
Unfortunately, as I then pointed out:
___________________________________________________
[Yours truly] SFAIK (and please tell me if I'm wrong, I'd be sincerely
interested), all these texts are prose (even the play), not verse.
However, S(h)astri's reference in his 1930 History mentions "Vedic
hymns". That would seem to indicate verse, FWIW. Yes, I could be wrong
-- and I'd be delighted if I were. But the texts you cite are
available either in direct translation or in summary in a
Carvaka/Lokaayata anthology I already have, and the thoughts there are
occasionally rich and complex but still essentially amoral -- to a
degree -- and don't seem lofty enough to be either verse or reflective
of "noble thoughts" [paraphrase] such as S(h)astri suggests.
___________________________________________________
Since then, I fear that the trail appears to have run absolutely cold.
I have Googled this question myself quite a bit, frankly,
and.........._nothing_! It just seems very frustrating that a
twentieth-century specialist like S(h)astri should refer breezily to
certain extent texts -- that I simply have not been able to run to
ground at all! Does that make sense, I have to ask myself?
Any assistance that you can provide would be gratefully accepted. But
I have to be practical and know first just how much it might cost. On
the one hand, I fully recognize that this is a highly esoteric
question. But on the other, I simply do not see why, for goodness'
sake, it should prove so hard for me to track down texts of verses so
breezily referred to in a fully annotated 20th-century reference
work!!!!!
Please, can you help me.
Much thanks, and cordially,
Geoffrey Riggs |
