reminds me of what gurudev Tagore had once said to english loving bengalis
Tomader dekhey amaar dukhho hoye, tomra chesta koreyo engrez hotey parley naa, aar golemaley banglatao bhuley geley.
(i feel sorry for you as you people couldnot muster being an englishmen totaly & at the end have forgotten bengali amidst all this hullabulla.)

Hujur wrote

“Atleast Brihaspati, the doyen of the Carvaka school of thought, was knowledgeable enough to construct intelligent arguments to stress the primacy of the Laukika (Materialistic/Temporal Realm) over the Astika (Belief in the Absolute) …and to his credit, Brihaspati does sound very convincing in his arguments, both in favor of a “joyous life” and against the existence of anything remotely supernatural (a la Richard Dawkins). But then, given my background and interests, I have done my fair share of studying and researching the epistemology of various schools of Hindu philosophy, including the Carvaka doctrine (not your usual quickie on google).

“Internet slagfest”? Sheesh…. we just blew away the basic instinct and the fundamental right of the Argumentative Indian – to debate topics that we know well and withdraw gracefully when we don’t.

Self-loathing “Modernism” among Indians comes in various shades, from a repugnance of one’s own mother-tongue to not “caring too hoots” to study a symbolic rite or philosophy before critiquing it (why bother anyway?), to a cursory, “generalized” dismissal of any seekers of the Dharmic Paths as being as “irrational” as Abrahamic cults.”

I realize this is a pretty old thread now, but I was Googling for Carvaka references and found that this exchange struck a chord with me. Not sure if Hujur is still following any discussions on this page, but it’s just possible that my personal encounter with Lokayata philosophy and with Brhaspati’s apparent sentiments may intrigue her(?)/him(?) — or others still following this exchange.

I’ve been a skeptic most of my life and have also been greatly interested in the most recent breakthroughs on evolution. I was very sad when Stephen Jay Gould died, because he contributed decisively to a new understanding of evolution as something that proceeds by relatively compact and discrete leaps forward, thanks to intense pressures of the moment, rather than in the more traditionally understood gradual but never-quite-halting way assumed by original pioneers in evolution like Darwin and Wallace.

Thoughts about the practical needs of the human family have led me to concentrate on the process of socialization as central to humanity’s being able to evolve as a thriving species at all. Yes, the urges to eat or to have sex, etc., are also tied to survival, obviously. But the cohesion that the human family has developed over the millennia seems just as crucial to me and has led me, as strictly a layman, to conclude that the urge to look out for our fellow human beings and to feel empathy is just as critical to our species’ evolution as the urge to procreate, etc. This is why I now view the development of cohesive communities, all the way from the humblest village to the most sprawling global alliance, as a reflection of something just as biological/natural as the most impassioned sexual courtship.

Consequently, I view history’s written paper trail as crucial — crucial, that is, in detailing our most significant leaps forward in humanity’s growing comprehension of that inner voice that tells us to care for our neighbor.

The earliest (known) social reformer is the ancient Sumerian leader Urukagina, who also reformed the temples in his native Lagash to reflect his belief in his god Ningirsu as the shield and safeguard of the “widow and orphan” (the first time this phrase appears in writing), and who was the first to promulgate altruism and to introduce the concept of “freedom” (“amagi” in Sumerian) to the human comedy. His basic idea of protecting the vulnerable reappears through the millennia every time some new gutsy countercultural spin emerges on the nature of deity, whether from Buddha, Socrates, Jesus or many another theistic pioneer.

As a skeptic myself, I was eager to uncover the earliest surviving gutsy skeptic in ancient times who (hopefully) had also addressed the social ways of his times as well, thus coupling new ideas on the cosmos with equally new ideas on society in just the way that the pioneering countercultural theists of the ancient past had always done. The earliest (known) atheist is clearly Brhaspati, the founder of the Lokayata philsophy. His original Brhaspati Sutra is lost, so his ideas survive primarily in (in chronological order) Haribhadra Suri’s Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya, Samkara’s Sarvasiddhantasamgraha and (roughly half a millennium later) Madhavacarya’s Sarvadarsanasangraha. I was delighted to learn that Brhaspati too had submitted certain countercultural notions on how we should treat each other, and I pursued translations of these three source texts with the utmost eagerness……..

Sure enough, Haribhadra Suri cites Lokayata thinking directly as maintaining that

“There is neither god nor liberation” [freeing from the entanglements of this world]. “This world consists of only as much as is within the scope of the senses.” “Moreover, earth, water, fire and air are the four forms of matter”, and so on. This was just what I was looking for!

Samkara confirms much of this unequivocally skeptical take on things:

“There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid impostors of other schools of thought.”

Samkara even provides purportedly direct quotes from Brihaspati himself:

“‘The Agnihotra ritual, the three Vedas, the triple staff, the ash-smearing, are the ways of gaining a livelihood for those who are lacking in intellect and energy.’” This even has an invigorating dash of real humor to it. Great! And the direct quote of Brihaspati himself even includes a warning on how we should regard others:

“‘[G]ifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
‘The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others.’”

Huh? Is this caring for one’s neighbor? Well, let’s not jump to conclusions. Let’s first see what Madhavacarya says. Even though Madhavacarya is 500 years later, he actually goes into far greater detail on Brhaspati’s own ideas than either of the other two and quotes Brhaspati directly the most often of all. Many scholars of today give greater weight to this third summary than to any other precisely because of its greater detail. Yes, one should be wary of a source text so many years later than its subject, but if its greater detail impresses scholars the most (in some cases), that probably means this summary is still worth close scrutiny.

Madhavacarya quotes Brhaspati directly as saying “‘The Sacrifices, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves,
and smearing oneself with ashes-
[T]hese are but means of livelihood
for those who have no manliness nor sense.’”

This, at least, tallies with a direct quote in Samkara. So far, so good. Any advice on proper behavior? Since there is somewhat more from Brhaspati himself here than in Samkara, that may mean that there may be at least something somewhere that reflects a more socially responsible spirit than the remarks against the hungry and against travelers that we see in Samkara:

“‘While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee though he runs in debt’”.

Candidly, while I see nothing wrong with living happily, the notion that it’s O.K. to get fat and drown in debt seems almost counter-evolutionary to me. But perhaps, the fact that this is not as early a source as Samkara should make me take this with a grain of salt. Frustratingly, there is nothing anywhere in this third summary that suggests a contradiction with either the letter or the spirit of the remark against the hungry and travelers in Samkara.

Let’s, though, keep in mind something else that might point to all of this being taken with a grain of salt as well: neither Haribhadra Suri nor Samkara nor Madhavacarya are promulgators of Lokayata philosophy, so we’re receiving this info from somewhat unsympathetic quarters. It’s true that two of these sources agree on Brhaspati’s remark about the rituals being a waste of time, so that is probably something that Brhaspati really said. But the rest?

Both Samkara and Madhavacarya end their summations with a statement of their own, a statement apparently intended to provide a sensible rationale for this philosophy. Neither statement explicitly harks back to anything quoted directly from Brhasapati. In fact, Samkara’s ending statement comes immediately after a closing remark to a previous “paragraph”: “[S]so believes Brhaspati” explicitly referring to the last statement previous to that concerning the rituals. So Samkara’s closing statement is clearly outside any quote and is in his own voice:

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

Something surprising here: this is one of the more provident prescriptive sentiments in the Samkara summary, leaving the reader with a less explosive impression than from the earlier quotes.

And the closing Madhavacarya statement also follows a similar pattern. After the notation “Iti.” signaling the conclusion of a direct Brhaspati quote, Madhavacarya closes by saying in his own voice:

“Hence, in kindness to living beings, let’s fly to the Carvaka doctrine. Such is the pleasant conclusion.”

Frustratingly, no other reference pointing to a general concern with other living beings can be found in any of the three summaries. I don’t know about you, but the impression I get from both these conclusions is that both writers are attempting to tame an explosive philosophy rather than demonise it. Might this mean that the most uncomfortable sentiments earlier on are most likely accurate precisely because they are uncomfortable? Let’s see: how does Haribhadra Suri close?

“The implication of the conclusions is to be critically discussed by the intelligent.”

To my chagrin — as both a social activist and a skeptic for most of my life — I find that Brhaspati is also the earliest (known) espouser of an entirely self-centered ethic! It’s sobering to me that the earliest (known) atheist is also the earliest (known) social isolationist.

Of course, it’s not impossible that this uncanny pattern involving religious founders versus pionering atheists is simply a series of coincidences, but over thousands of years? Founders of religions (their bloodthirsty, frequently immoral, followers across the centuries are a separate case) introduce countercultural altruism again and again while subsequent countercultural innovators in atheism like the Greek, Critias, of a century or so later than Brhaspati, and quite a number of others in ancient and not so ancient times as well, are primarily — not exclusively, but primarily — supporters of a recurring self-centered ethic until the philosophical demographics among such countercultural atheists finally start shifting to a more socially conscientious point of view only a few hundred years ago.

If such a self-centered ethic is indeed counter-evolutionary for humanity — and I’m reasonably sure it is — then might that mean that both altruism and belief are equally essential to any human evolution? If so, does it make sense for belief, as opposed to unbelief, to be positively evolutionary even were there no such thing as deity? Or is that supposition ultimately illogical, and would the apparent primacy of the role of belief in human evolution automatically point to deity itself (whether mono- or poly-) being also essential to human evolution and thus entirely real?

It’s not especially comfortable for someone like me, who has kept theistic belief at arm’s length for as long as I can remember, to have to face these questions. But my bitter disappointment at the first extant atheist also being the first extant self-centered philosopher and vice versa has brought me to the point where I’m seriously wondering, how good can a wholesale skepticism really be for healthy cultural evolution? Instead of my being delighted at having finally found the earliest espousal of ideas that have characterized much of my own thinking for most of my life, the baggage these ideas come in has left me dismayed and questioning. Could I be wrong in assuming that empathy and altruism are the essential glue to humanity’s cultural evolution? Or was I wrong in expecting that the first extant atheist would also have a social conscience? And so, is atheism therefore wrong?

Thoughts?

Jaimini

In ‘Kim’, Rudyard Kipling mentions them as living in and around Dharamtollah Street and having flourishing family businesses.

The poor Anglo-Indians were a social embarrassment for the Raj. For them were the posts in the Indian Railways (engine drivers and guards) and the police (the traffic sergeants). After Independence, the more ‘fair’ amongst them were allowed entry into Australia and Canada.

I remember a Mrs Sanders, a frock-clad spry lady, who was unable to conceal the bitterness that her fair complexioned husband had blithely emigrated to Australia, leaving her to fend for herself on a tiny salary offered by a missionary school. Her skin tone was not deemed ‘white’ enough even for a tourist visa.

On the other hand, Cyril d’Mello was a Calcutta University Blue, a sports commentator on the Akashvani and a society darling because of his impeccable manners.

But to the ordinary daal-bhaath Bengali, any one who wore European costumes, complete with a hat…(remember Bhowani Junction?) while the women folk wore frocks, talked in chi-chi english, used a knife and fork at the table……..WAS a SHAHEB!
And if this sahib had a ‘deep tan’ given by the ‘bloody indian sun’, why, he must be an Anglo-Indian!

I’m surprised Raima thinks that having Anglo friends is a sign of modernity. The poor Anglo-Indians have been reviled by pretty much every community in India (including the Goan and Mangalorean Catholics, sad to say).

n!

coool man…that shayari was amazing

“I am proud of you too. But unforunately to them you will always remain a funny looking coon who speaks our language (i.e ENGLISH) with an even funnier accent. Remember the whole Shetty episode?”

No I don’t know the Shetty episode, and I don’t care. What I do care about is your view that English speaking foreigners look on us as “coons”! I am astonished because I have never experienced that anywhere, be it UK, US, or Canada on my business trips. In fact they frequently marvel at our English speaking and admit that I speak it better than them!

Maybe they are being sarcastic and I don’t get that?

However, I agree there will always be people who will mock our “thank you come again” accent. How is that different more more malicious than a Bengali mocking a Marwari trying to speak Bangla, or anyone else mocking Bengalis for trying to speak any other language. We all do that.

Remember this joke? A Bengali was trying to spout shayiri (to be recited with a strrong Pranab Mukherjee accent –

“Ham na geela karaga, na shukha karega; tum shala mat raho yehi dua karaga”

(Hum na gilaa karenge, ne shikhwaa karange; tum salamat raho, yehi duaa karenge)

While it is accepted that a bengali should know the language, a sort of stigma does exist for the bengali communicating at times in english or supposed ‘english’ music, films, books ….. Being called a ‘Tyaaansh’ ( a deregotary term for Anglo Indians , only heard in Calcutta)and ‘Bangla maayer anglo shontaan’ are few such examples. This is different kind of exclusion.What’s ur take on these uber-bangalis?

Mahabharata was a personal war against injustice.
It was fought a time when kings were the sole authority in a kingdom.
And soldiers were ready to die (else they would not be fighting). Single duel a la Thalaiva Rajni style would be nice but then it is a matter of the kings getting armies along (If kauravas insist that they bring their 18 crore infantry along, the pandavas would be very much stupid in not getting an army of their own).

Cut to present, Mushraff insulting Patil’s husband (Well there is not much left of Pratibha Patil to insult anyways). Hmm. India does not have options. It would just rave rant and pull out the diplomats etc. We are a democracy now.. If you asked a question and if Pratibha Patil were queen (the sole authority) and i were a solidier and had great respect for Pratibha and felt I can do something to avenge a slight and if Pratibha felt that she needs to avenge Musharaff by carpet bombing Pakistan and Pakis, I would be willing.
So there is a lot of difference here between the cup and the lip.

Thanks Ravi for this discussion. My only grouse was the verses from Gita being put in the same bracket as those of Quran or the Old Testament.
Your atheism( an assumption) is of no issue to me and the discussion above was not to show that Krishna was God and other things attached. I wanted to just clarify that the verses you quoted were not appropriate for the situation and that is all. You can also have the last word here, but my belief that, Sanatana Dharma is indeed very much differnt and unique from all other ways of life (religions which impose a certain way of life included), has only been strengthened.