What the Crvkas Originally Meant: More on the Commentators on the "Crvkastra"

Author(s): Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

Source: Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 6 (December 2010), pp. 529-542
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23502237 .
Accessed: 14/02/2015 16:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Indian Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J Indian Philos (2010) 38:529-542

DOI 10.1007/sl0781-010-9103-y

What the Crvkas

on the Commentators

More

Ramkrishna

Published

on the Crvkastra

Bhattacharya

online: 30 October 2010

Springer Science+Business

Abstract

This

Media

essay

ancient

interpreting
the

Meant

Originally

B.V.2010

to

proposes

texts,

Crvka/Lokyata

particularly

of

problems
an

Following

in the context

overview

of

philosophical text tradition and the ontological and epistemological

three

Crvkas,

and

cusses
and

when

(3)

why

there

differ

are

to be

treated

inconsistent

with

from

that seek

to explain

and

Reconstructing
there

Recently

text.

I believe
Daode

has

Interpreting

been

Michael
that

there

either

meant

Jing
is

no

Texts:

on

the task

one

declared

is trying

to its original
basis

Ancient

a controversy

LaFrague

for

placing

the intention

as

quite
best

authors
any

Two

the

interpreta
further

paper
with

dis

the base

of the author

the author's

Commentaries

literature
philosophical

Development
Inconsistency

The

as inconsistent

that innovations
glosses

in their

offered.

of

Indian

in the text and

themselves

are

the

positions of the

is no invariance

among

interpretations

Sanskrit

Interpretation

not,

(1)

commentaries

differently

Keywords

ancient

when

commentators

contradictory

certain

concludes

treated

are discussed:

when

(2)

commentary,
tions,

cases

and

reconstructing

commentaries,

philosophical
India.

of

system

the

review

text

should

be

intentions.

original

Reconstruction

Views

of a modern

commentator

on

an

unambiguously:
as

one

can

to reconstruct

and

audience

or one

limits

to

can

what

what

is not.
be

the

If one

considered

is
a

legitimate interpretation. (Qtd. Goldin 750)

Paul R. Goldin has taken exception to this attitude. He writes: While it is praise
worthy

...

to

remind

readers

that

authors

and

audiences

of

the

did

past

not

R. Bhattacharya (El)
Pavlov Institute, 98 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata 700 007, India
e-mail: carvaka_rkb@yahoo.com;
ramkrishna.bhattacharya@gmail.com

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Spring er

R. Bhattacharya

530

share

necessarily

our

modern

one

world-view,

cannot

that

deny

twentieth-century

critics such as Gadamer, Ricoueur and Derrida - whose Hermeneutics LaFrague

freely

are

grants

to his

opposed

own

demonstrated

compellingly

a narrowly historicist approach. (Goldin 750)

Goldin admits that "historically informed reading"
defended.

Nevertheless,

author's

intent

original

troverts
people

in his

view,

is the

modern

LaFrague

by pointing

continually

find new

out:

it cannot

Texts

only

that

concern."
the ages

through

Texts

that

die,

the

"reconstructing

legitimate

that survive
in them.

meanings

of

has its merits and can be

be contended

reader's

the limitations

He

do

con

so because
are

by contrast,

ones

that have to be read as though we are all living in the third century B. C. (Goldin
750).
further

Goldin

seeks

would

Lawyers

stitutional

law

understood

view

LaFrague's

the

by

observation:

following

of the argument is apparent if one tries to apply it to juris

The weakness
prudence.

to refute

are

hardly

by

the

authors

its original

that

agree

reconstruct

to

the

two

only

constitution

and

as

alternatives
it would

or to disavow

audience,

in con
have

been

limits

any

to

what can be considered a legitimate interpretation (Goldin 750).

This

difference

Daode

totally

reconstructed

the works
the

that

fact

its

all

its literature
the

basis

The

task

to the

on
field

ancient

texts

other

of my

study,

the

than

the

Crvka/

their

stand

centuries

on

follow
the

In spite

inference).
resulted

have

of this,

the

all

rules

views

attempts

system

the more
of fair

of

the

made

reconstruction

in a tentative

whole

or paraphrased

quoted

is made

always

The

century.

found

of reconstruction
not

and

the twelfth

after

of fragments,

misinterpreted

did

opponents
distorted

they

example,
two

its bearings

relevant

on

of its opponents.

deliberately
last

with

disappeared

to be

by

has

obviously

it particularly

materialist system of philosophy, which flourished in ancient India and

Lokyata
has

of opinion
I find

Jing.

in

difficult

play.

Quite

Crvkas

of the system

(for
in the

by scholars

in broad

outline (Bhattacharya 2009, pp. 69-104).

me

Let

declare

at

and

reconstructor

the

am

that

outset
out

totally

of

with

agree

about

LaFrague

with

sympathy

the

task

of

hermeneutics

postmodernist

which is avowedly a-historical. The case of jurisprudence cited by Goldin is beside

the point.

No

maker

clauses

Some

have

constitution

of a country's

and

to be reinterpreted

can

even

foresee

all

later

amended

suitably

developments.

to keep

with

pace

the changing times. The case of an ancient philosophical text is altogether different.
well

It may

very

is now

as dead

intention
own

to know

we

from
be

and
can

only

consideration.
study

of later

first what
its audience
where

judge

the intent

the

and

some

But

unless

developments

elements

the system

was

at the time

Later

and

until
cannot

been

of the base
to the

like,
some

This

text to suit

that is, what

later

intent

too,

Yet

cannot

is fairly

well

fruitful.

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to

their

it is nec

it meant
Then

adherents

have

but

to the original

system.

of course

developments,

truly

in the past

stuck

first systematized.

when)

the original
be

alien

originally

it had

or redactor(s).

concern.

of adherents

adherents

the words
quite

if possible,

of the author(s)

legitimate

that not all

evident

reinterpreted

new

(and

number

a considerable

It is also

or to incorporate

author(s)
then

so that it had

of the author

taste

essary

be

as a dodo.

and

turned
and

should

be

taken

understood,

to its
only
away
not
into
the

What the Crvakas

Meant

Originally

The Indian Philosophical

In

the

Indian

tradition

531

An Overview

Tradition:

the

base

of

texts

some

of

systems

are

philosophy

first

composed in the form of a collection of aphorisms (sutras). The aphorisms are brief
and

to the point

terse

by a guru
herself

of being

or, in his absence,

or

(auto-commentary)

adherent

to the

Over
cases,

of time

further

works

independent
too

are

refuted

of explanatory

material

such

commentaries

and

widely
similarly

rise

gave

of Vednta

systems
dualist,
the

times.

separated

etc.)

base

too

more

called

the

base

The

Vednta
tradition

not

himself

or
an

necessarily

number

Brahmastra

by

too

than

five

of a now

lost

were
We

2009,

initiated

pp.

continued

the

also

read

of

109-111).
the

dualist

in

Other
and

non

to be rooted
and

It had

a base

text

base

is

Paurandaram

Whether
base

for centuries.

Vaisesika

line.

The

to the aphorisms

or redacted

four

in

Yoga

tradition.

same

written.

has
writing

by Sakarcrya,

both

Mmms,

of the

literature

authors

all claiming

works,

continuum

referring

work

system,

non-dualist,

views

a vast

for instance,

different

that

along

commentaries

presumably

system,

The

is how

by four

Bdaryana.

developed

Brhaspatya-stra.2

Nyya

of secondary

to this text-commentary

belong

to be written.
This

in some

and,

of the philosophical

ideas

works.

modified

non-dualist,

(Bhattacharya

text

is created.

non-dualist

offer a large

PauramdarTyavrtti,
commentary

is

sub-commentaries

) come

in these

to a commentary

CrVka/Lokyata

which

provided

explanation

by the author

who

the basic

sub-commentaries

The

(dualist,

the

text,

systems
The

also

and

to elucidate

Nyyamajari

to be

sought

consisting
chief

some

either

author

commentaries

purporting

as Jayantabhatta's

(such

system

later

some

by

written

system.1

the course

opponents

without

incomprehensible
by a commentary

text

Purandara

and

his auto

recast

for

the

on

and

stram

of Purandara

itself

text

sometimes

the

old

first time

is

not known. Did he add new aphorisms? Again we do not know. It is highly probable
that he was

the first to employ

the name

to mean

Crvka

a system

that

was

previ

ously known as Lokyata in early Tamil epics, such as the Manimekalai (incidentally,
these

Tamil

existence

and

works

of two other

their

commentaries,

materialist

schools

largely
besides

neglected

Lokyata

so

far, testify

in southern

India,

to the

namely,

Vcaspati Misra composed commentaries on the base texts of Nyya, Smkhya, Vednta, etc. Most
probably he was a non-dualist Vedntin but he is credited with being independent of all systems (sarva
tantra-svatantra), for he is reputed to have interpreted the base texts faithfully without introducing his
own views. How far it is true needs further verification, since it is difficult, if not impossible, to be
absolutely neutral in philosophical questions.
2
Both Shastri (1944, 1959) and Mamoru Namai (1976) have called their respective collections of apho
risms Brhaspatya(stram),
following the Purnic tradition of considering Brhaspati, the guru of the gods,
as the eponymous founder of the doctrine. Jayantabhatta has indeed used the name Barhaspatyastram
once
too there are references to brhaspateh strni, "the aphorisms of Brhaspati" (see
occurring in Jha's translation of the
Bhattacharya 2009, p. 106 for details). The name "Lokayata-Stra"
TSP (2: 893) is not supported by the Sanskrit text (22.1871 in Baroda d.), which has stram only, not
However, Cakradhara has once called it so (GrBh 1: 100). But there are reasons to
"Lokyata-Sutra".
(NM 2: 196). Elsewhere

called themselves Crvkas (TSP 2: 528. For a

see Bhattacharya 2009, p. 76-77). All writers since the eighth century CE, when
referring to materialism, indiscriminately employ all the three names and many more, some more fanciful
than others (such as bhiitamtratattvavda
and niahbhtodbhtacaitanyavdamata
(Malayagirisri)
(Prajakaragupta), both qtd. In Franco (1997, p. 274 and no. 3).
believe

detailed

that the materialists in India such as Purandara

discussion

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

532

R. Bhattacharya

and

bhtavdins
all

these

philosophers,
systems,
taries

they

many

Over

and

number
cited

all

taken
above

have

two

verbatim

sources

and

the

The

digests.

best

satirical

verses

in

originated

the

Crvka

on the basis

It is almost

were

to
at the

certain

that

text.
thereon),

of them

quite

have

view,

Crvka/Lokyata

(A compendium of all philosophies).

samgraha

non-Vedic

the commen

that

commentaries

known

of other

of our knowledge

a few

again.

the base

(aphorisms

state

Only

over

from

to contain

purporting

philosophical

and

over

all

to be reconstructed

were.

originally

two

and

from

excerpts

and

text

there
quoted

case,

in the works

Nyya

the base

at the present

or less

these

of epigrams,

in several

Since

It is not possible

found

more

found

Vednta,

Jainism.

aphorisms
are

In any

p. 36).
are

of the Crvka/Lokyata

of controversy
were

and

fragments.

how

1973,

commentaries,

of non-dualist

followers

the views

available

determine

and

Buddhism

Yogcra

of these

Vanamamalai

aphorisms

mostly

are lost,

centre

the Sarvakas.
both

works,

been

is the Sarva-darsana

It is possible that not all of these

circles.

Some

of

them

seem

to

have

Buddhist and Jain origins. In so far as the anti-Vedic attitude is concerned, the
Crvkas

were

philosophical
will

Nobody

the

by

regarded

Vedists

to be

at one

with

these

two

religious-cum

schools.
that a successful

deny

philosophical

cannot

system

remain

the same,

exactly as intended by its original proponent and understood by his original audi
ence.

New

face
text

of the

their

from

the

from

quotations

the
are

of the

clusions

can

be

The

few,

from

What

are
may

the

the

human

body,

can

no

be

stated

as

is made

of four

without

consciousness

and

and

ontological
documented.

Purandara.

from

fragments

by

verbatim

the

lost

epistemological

At

least

some

con

of the Crvka/Lokyata

The

basic

Udbhatabhatta

text

position
to be

appear

the

against

fragments.

positions

epistemological

follows:

leveled

to

base

of the base

materialist

fragments

well

fairly

available

basic

has

system

of the

the criticism

and

aphorisms

are

and

ontological

be

of the

the

commentators

commentaries

the

the fundamental

The Ontology and Epistemology

They

account

of Aviddhakarna,
the

of

regrettably

The

of the

defend

Most

Crvka/Lokyata
drawn

to

examples.

number

into

fragments

tried

when

particularly

systems.

to take

the commentaries

although

commentaries
positions

had

and

to arise,

of other

commentators

of arguments

Thus,

bound

followers

its opponents.

by

how

means

the

Crvka/Lokyata

system

exhibit

are

interpretations

criticism

elements,
the

of

whole

the

earth,

namely,

living

body;

of the

material

the

spirit

Crvka/Lokyata?

world,

has

no

the

including

air, fire and

water;

there

extracorporeal

existence and, far from being imperishable, it perishes with the death of the body.
As a natural corollary to this ontological position, all religious acts, worship of the
gods,
are

The

to Brahmin

obeisance

paying
considered

epistemological

to be the only

valid

position
means

is

scriptures

alone,

perception

but on revelation,

priests,

performance

of post-mortem

rites,

etc.

futile.

absolutely

rejected

clearly

supports

of knowledge.
out

of

this ontology.

Inference,
hand

not amenable

because

Perception

is admitted

in so far as it is based

on religious

the

to verification

scriptures

are

by the senses,

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

not

based

on

and

thus

tend

What the Carvkas

Meant

Originally

533

to promote irrational faith in the after-life (rebirth) and the after-world (heaven and
hell), God, and the omniscient being (like the Buddha or Mahvra) (Bhattacharya
2010, pp. 21-34). In short, the Crvka system appeared in the Indian philosophical
scene

as

materialismus

militans,

strongly

to

objecting

and

all

opposing

religious

dogmas (not just Vedism but Buddhism and Jainism as well). Its epistemology was
fashioned

match

to

its

which

ontology,

consisted

of

series

of

The

negations.

insistence on empirical verification is the hallmark of this system. In fact one has a
feeling

that

current

in India

the

first provided

Crvkas
at least

from

the

the Buddha's

to the

epistemology
when

time,

ontology

Kesakambala

Ajita

already
had

come

out with his proto-materialistic ideas.

Commentaries

The

on

is: Do

question

materialism,
base

satisfactory

literal

reflect

are

meaning

of these

aphorisms

is not

being

true

to the

however,

the

intention

mentaries

are

at one,

defend

and

of

Invariance

acrobatics,

intention

of the

the

and

and

aphorism
new

the position

in Intention

tries

lexical

although

or to elucidate

When

transparent.
and

their

or not they adhered

instances

are

there

in the way

some

of
the

aphorisms,
goes

the

beyond

some

other

significance

by

is every

reason

to suspect

that

In

author/redactor.
its

to

in the

aphorisms

stands

a commentator

to extract

most

interpretations
further

and

of the base

The

brevity

there

however,

Fortunately,

is fairly

to grammatical

resorting

text, whether

of the author/redactor?

not self-explanatory;

understanding.
of which

of the base

the intention

admit,

meaning

literal

he

must

Crvkastra

the commentators

always

text, we

any

the

of the
in

given
are

arguments

cases,

the

com
to

provided

text.

Interpretation

Here is an example. There are two aphorisms: (1) "Perception indeed is the (only)
means of right knowledge" , and (2) "Since the means of right knowledge is to be
non-secondary

it is difficult

(agauna),

to ascertain

(III. 1-2. Bhattacharya 2009, pp. 80-87).

believed
other

in one
schools

and

only

admitted

one

instrument

of cognition,

word

inference,

an object

by means

of inference"

This has led to a notion that the Crvkas

(verbal

sense

namely,
testimony),

while

perception,

comparison,

in

etc.

addition to perception. This gave rise to the obvious criticism that by denying
inference,

the Crvkas

proved

themselves

to be

utterly

nave

and

unfit to be called

logicians (cf. NM, I: 9, Vcaspati Misra, Bhmot on Brahmastra, 3.3.53; C/L 154,
243).
Did
Purandara

the Crvkas
has

really

often

been

hold
cited

such

a view?

to disabuse

A fragment

the critics

from

the commentary

of this notion.3

Purandara

by
said:

3
Mookeijee (pp. 368-369), Dasgupta (3: 539) and others (for instance, Gangopadhyaya,
pp. 32, 55 no.l,
56 no. 4, 66 no. 51, and Chattopadhyaya, p. 52) drew attention to this significant passage from time to
time, which however was completely ignored or overlooked by many modern scholars, as by ancient
authors. They continued to ascribe the ont-pramna
position to the Crvkas (more appropriate to
Bhartrhari, who considered agama (scripture) to be the one and only valid means of knowledge. See
Bhattacharya (2009, pp. 117-118, 152).

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

534

R. Bhattacharya

"The

Carvakas

admit

too

an

of such

inference

as

is well

known

in the

but

world,

that which is called inference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is pro
hibited [by them]." (qtd. TSP 2: 528)
Purandara

was

another

karna,
a source

not

the

of knowledge,

one

only

also

commentator,

to explain

said:

because

"It

the

in this

aphorism

is true that inference

it is found

to be

so

in general

He

19).

further
an

source

of

"A

explained:

knowledge,

source

of an

object

because

it

awareness

of
not

is

means

knowledge

not

an

an

instrument

for

we

(qtd. PVSVT

instrument

and

cognized

(already)

by us as
(what

practice;

only point out is that) the definition of a inferential mark is illogical"

produces

Aviddha

way.

is admitted

which
is not

therefore,
a

producing

definite

awareness of an object" (ibid.). Udbhatabhatta too said so and distinguished be

tween the (1) probanses well established in the world (lokaprasidhha-hetu) and
(2) probanses established in the scriptures (tantrasiddha-hetu) (qtd. SVR 266). He
resorted to the Nyya-Vaisesika
terminology to establish why inference is to be
as

regarded
Some

secondary.
commentator4

anonymous

further

between

distinguished

two

kinds

of

inferential cognition: (1) "some in case of which the inferential cognition can be
acquired by oneself' (utpanna-pratti) and (2) "some in case of which the infer
ential

is

cognition

to

be

on

acquired

else's

somebody

advice"

(utpdya-pratti)

(NM, 1: 184). He thereby suggests that the firstkind is valid, the second is not.
Did
Some

all

these

modern
Franco

p. 159;
who

commentators
scholars
and

Preisendanz

in the wake

appeared

of the Crvkas,

position

then

indeed

desert

think

so

1998,

p.

180).

of Dharmakrti
and

of inference

intention

of the

the admission

It can,

of other

that

deny
(cf.

NM,

means

164).

Yet,

"scripture"

the

on a par
as

his

with

inference

connection

not

a view

the original

limited

consistent

exactly

is not well

word,
of

(jyestha)

assert

all

"perception"

to interpolation

based

etc.

on

are

with

perception

they

anvksa),

with

inference;

and

simple.

it mentions

the

of
all

has
cannot

The

base

cognition

independent

to be
be

perception

which

alone.

The

is

not

preceded
admitted.

sa

anumnam,

text never

added
'nvks,

unwarranted

speaks

the

never

to it: co-ordinate,

inference

(pratyaksgmsritam

pure

a way

When

etc.,

instruments

not subservient
declares,

(1.1.5)

founded.

comparison,

is that inference,

perception,

pratyaksgambhymksitasynvksanam
amounts

from

in howsoever

in his commentary on the very first Nyya aphorism (1.1.1)

to

text?
1991,

audience.

that such

not

to turn away

of inference

base

Franco

225;

that the commentators

postulate

forced

of inference,

the Nyyastra

2:

word, 2: 308). What is proposed is that this

foremost
indeed

they

Hence,

perception.

Vatsyyana

speak

They

of the

position
trans.,

development,

and

demonstrated

is

What

of knowledge,

a later

schools

perception
I:

subordinate.
by

be

however,

philosophers

was
author

original

original

were

is a pointer to this Abkehr (Frauwallner's

acceptance

the

(Frauwallner

and

of scripture

in

status

of

independent

Jayantabhatta ascribed this view to "the more learned ones" (NM 1: 184). The use of plural may not be
honorific but satirical. The identity of this commentator (or commentators) is not known. Cakradhara,
and the "learned ones" Jayanta meant Udbhatabhatta
however, mentions that by "cunning Crvka"
(GrBh 1: 52, 100). Most probably the designation, "more learned ones," refers to some commentator(s)
other than Udbhata, signified by the use of the comparative degree. It may mean Purandara and his
followers.

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What the Crvakas

535

Originally Meant

perception is an admitted fact in all realist philosophical

Crvkas

the status

denied

ipso

facto

was

found

ception

did

not

true

on

Veda

and

such

includes

are

Smrti,

the view

too

inference

inference

text on

of this,5

was

the

Crvka
and

from

scripture,
Purandara,

the

sort but only

Other

of earlier,

as
con

inference

the

deserting

to perception.

the view

they

inference

commentators,
not

of a particular

in relation

as this

in

derived

were

one,

such

apprehended
as

the four

all

of knowledge,

only

Thus,

sensually

Therefore,

text by admitting
aware

accepted

inferences

anonymous

were

materialists

is

such

the

of the base

authors

what

Only

and

but

systems. So, when the

means

(lokavyavahara).

both

not admitted.

Udbhata

of the base

of inference

practice

apprehension.

Aviddhakarna,
stand

kinds

in everyday

perception

based

all

reject

as an independent

of inference

original

explicating
non-Crvka
Indian

pre-Crvka

too.

How do we know all this? A passage in the Mbh, Sntiparvan (crit. ed. 211.26;
says:

vulgate 218.27)
The

conclusion

ception.

and

Perception
reasoned-out

tical;

on

based

direct

(a)
(b)

doctrines

be

understood
It was

to have

of

inference
assumed

(scripture)

their

the

as
a

time

an

focal

and

the

Both

position.
to

ed.,

of

the

people

anumna

the

Vedists

were

raging,

knowledge

is to

and

the

that

the

with

along

and

Vtsyyana

establish

mentioned:

pratyaksam),

1119).

between

particular)

means

independent

energy

in

per
iden

of eminent

practice

(crit.

debates

Jains

are

siddham

"Presumably,

in pratyaksa"

philosophical

and

Buddhists

(the
of

question

included

in
are

in)

of cognition
the

(c)

rooted

perception.6

(lokatah

and

are

to believe
but

is nothing

observes:

parvan,

both

told

world

scriptures,

of this

been
when

later,

only

non-Vedists

much

the editor

the

by

are

instruments

three

(147.9)

by the

propounded

Dandekar,

(sista).

too

confirmed

perception

too

(^inference)

tradition
we

(what

testimony

truth

In the Anussanaparvan

and

inference

word

Jayantabhatta
status

independent

of

spent
inference

(C/L, pp. 76ff and 128ff). Inference in fact is the chief, if not the sole, concern of
the

itself.

Nyyastra

Therefore, the explication of the two Crvka aphorisms (HI. 1-2) made by the
commentators
materialists,
regardless
this

regard:

knowledge,

reiterates

merely
both

pre-Crvka

of their
they
and

differences
do

not

at the

admit
same

and
and

reinforces
the

of opinion
the
time

the

other

concerning

status

independent
they

of

position

state

clearly

the

The

Crvka/Lokyata.

are

issues,

of inference
that

ancient

Indian

commentators,

inference

unanimous
as

a means

based

on

in
of
per

ception is definitely admissible and is actually admitted by the Crvkas. Once we

understand
Hemacandra

this,
(cf.

much
AYVD,

of the lampoon
v. 20)

and

and
others

derisive
turn

out

remarks
to be

of its opponents
mere

such

as

calumny.

Gunaratna (TRD on SDSam, v. 83), Ratnaprabh (on PNTA 540. See Bhattacharya 2010, p. 30), and the
anonymous authors of Avacrni (on SDSam, v. 83) and SMS (15) (Bhattacharya 2009, pp. 116-117, 168)
quite unambiguously refer to this interpretation.
6
Bronkhorst translates this verse somewhat differently (p. 310) but his interpretation too refers to direct
perception as the root of all true knowledge.

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Springer

536

R. Bhattacharya

When

Commentators

Differ

So far, so good. The position of the Crvka/Lokyata

clear

crystal
mentators

the

by

in their

differ

Udbhata's

commentators.

The

of certain

interpretations
of

interpretation

the

vis--vis inference is made

arises

problem

when

same

set

of com

aphorisms.

"Earth,

aphorism,

the

fire

water,

and

air

are

the

principles, nothing else (iti)" (1.2. Bhattacharya 2009, p. 80) is a case in point. The
word

iti denotes

"space"
pp.

the end.7

33-41

Since

the

Crvkas

accept

these

only

four

not

elements,

as the fifth,as some earlier materialists (cf. Bhattacharya 2009,

(ksa)
for

and

sources)

(bhta-catustaya-vdins)

others

many

as

did,

to

opposed

are

they

the

called

four-elementalists

five-elementalists

(bhuta-pacaka

vdins). Udbhata, however, claimed that it was impossible to lay down any fixed
number

and

essential

characteristic

of the

of knowledge

sources

I:

(NM,

and

52),

objects of knowledge too are more than four: 'the word, iti, in the (aphorism),
"earth, water, fire and air iti" indicates also the possibility of similar objects of
Vdidevasri
The

than

other

knowledge,

the

quotes

word,

principles

etc.'

earth,

more
not

such

consciousness,

as

from

extensively

iti, does

denote

GrBh

(qtd.

the

end

100).
commentary:

it is illustrative.

(but)

sound,

1:

Udbhata's

pleasure,

There

are

desire,

pain,

other

aversion,

effort, impression and others (SVR 1087).

Not

satisfied

with

non-existence

of

these

the

Udbhata

categories,

earth,

etc.,

further

writes:

"There
the

non-existence,

posterior

are

also

mutual

prior

difference

which are quite apparent and distinct (from the principles, viz., earth, etc.)."
(qtd. SVR 1087).
Cakradhara

that

stated

clearly

interpretation (yathsrutrtha-tygena)
Udbhata

Apparently

Vaisesikas.

was

was

Udbhata

referring

here

the

forsaking

conventional

(GrBh 1: 100).
to issues

that

are

well

known

to the

Nyya

He knew full well that iti cannot be equated to ityadi (etc.). Yet he
to fit the

attempted

Crvka

aphorism

into

the Nyya-Vaisesika

frame.

This may be considered ingenious, as is his defence of the Crvka position of

viewing

inference

Crvkas
adduce

ever
any

to inference).
maybe

with

as

thought

new
On

argument

in

terms

he flies

of intentions,

But

above).

of Nyya-Vaisesika

in support

the contrary,

the best

(see

secondary

of his

novel

in the face

introduces

there

is nothing

categories.
explication
of the accepted

Nyya-Vaisesika

to show
Udbhata

(as

he does
meaning

categories

that
does

the
not

in relation
of iti and,
which

are

quite alien to the original Crvka/Lokyata.

Explaining KA 1.2.10 (smkhyam yogo lokyatam cetynvksik) Jacobi says: "According to Kautilya
the essence of philosophy lies in systematic investigation and logical demonstration; in his judgement
these conditions are satisfied only (iti) by Smkhya, Yoga and Lokayata" (p. 102).

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What the Crvakas

Originally Meant

537

All this does show marks of what is sometimes viewed as "growth" or "radical
innovation", but at the same time it exhibits alien addition as well.8

The Crvka

View on Inference in the SDS

It is well

known

that

mentaries,

had

disappeared

verbatim
even
chapter

of

system

was

name

the

SDS

(It may

sine

non;

See

qua

Aiyangar

himself

had

guru-sisya

Crvka

any

that

on his

be

added

amount

10.

Cf.

work

to learn

Moreover,
Crvka

from

the

of perception

admissibility
the

summarily
absence

claims

alone

all

others

as

first

about

the

heard

from
was

subsitute
whether

the guru
was

there

Apparently

a very

for it.

and

that

cogent

was

the

argument

is

to justify the Crvka position regarding

a valid

instrument
word,

(inference,

of cognition,

rejecting

and

comparison,

or

updhi

of a condition).

Nevertheless
statement
no

of

Yet

not

SDS,

gurumukhTvidya

to disciples)

Crvka.

found in the SDS (7-10; C/L, pp. 250-251)

knew

a fitting

work.

com

a single

of the

he had

it is doubtful

preceptors

the

author

else)
what

the

of the

the

India

considered

1: x).

about

anything

be

authentic

continuum

(a

on

and
Not

whole

someone

that in ancient

would

regret,
at an

in the

probably

text

composed.

Whatever
or

most

base

was

is found

himself
but

reading

in parentheses

Jha's

the SDS

of Brhaspati).

of reading

glanced

parampar

source

only

before

(Syana-Mdhava

no

ever

India

the

works,

Crvka/Lokyata

from

(excepting

not based

his guru.

the

from

quotation

a single

all

it will

not

reflecting

evidence

supporting

in

the passage

mentioned,

be

advisable

the genuine

passage

view.

The

a representation.

of such

be taken

the

accept

Crvka/Lokyata

favour

should

to

as a formulation

in

Since

made

the

reason

no

as

there

is

SDS

is this:

is

authority

by the learned

author

of the SDS, not by a Crvka. This is an instance in which the view of the digest
maker

is not

to be

Purandara
reason

admitted

no mention

Moreover,
and

others

the

why

tra, 1.2.26-30,

because

is made
have

passage,

of the lack
in the SDS

the

so-called

Offered

Interpretations

Now

come

to an

example

is the

four

elements

and

text

probably

we

and

object,

corroborative

(see

Lokyata

validity
above).

aphorisms

evidence.
of inference,
This
in

is

the

as

another
Kmas

is unacceptable (see Bhattacharya 2009, pp. 94-95).

Contradictory

principle

declared

unequivocally
like

of any

of the limited

the base

says,

by

of contradictory
that

their

Commentators

explanations.
combination

in the very

next

After
is called

aphorism,

that

stating
the

body,

(that

tebhyas

the

sense
is,

Karin Preisendanz (2008) apparently does not consider such alien additions to be of much significance.
She classifies commentaries into two kinds: (i) creative, (ii) philosophically unproductive (pp. 609-611).
In her usage Udbhata would be considered creative in the sense of being "philosophically
productive".
But as both Cakradhara

and Vdidevasri

noted (see below), Udbhata was known to be an innovator and

who apparently remained true to the spirit of the base text (GrBh 2:
was not treated on a par with Bhvivikta and others, since he did not represent the

hence was contrasted to Bhvivikta

Udbhata
257-258).
views of the ancient (cirantana) Crvka teachers. Similarly, when Solomon calls Udbhata "a progressive
Crvka" (p. 990) she implicitly admits that he did not adhere strictly to the original stand of the school.

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Springer

R. Bhattacharya

538

(1.2-4).

bhiltebhyas)caitanyam

As

consciousness."

ments),

the sentence

called

(technically

of the base

text

can

commentators.

be

only

One

it appears

Literally
is evident,

there

Two

was

different

the

said:

(anonymous)

"From

in the mind

verb

should

ele

(the

to complete

of the redactor/s

were

suggestions

missing

them
verb

supplementary

What

adhyhra).

guessed.

to mean:

is no

made

be

"is

by two
the

born";

other (again anonymous) proposed "is manifested" (TS v. 1858, TSP 2: 633-634).
The

two

be

vice

that

suggest

human

second

for, if the

contradictory,

versa.

to the existence

prior
the

are

proposals
and

true

The

first would

of a living

consciousness

human

then

proposal

would

The

existent,

when

it is manifested

body;

that

body.

is already
mean

first is admitted,

assert

there

human

desertion

of

the
be

from

and

body

is formed

the

second

no

quite

monistic

cannot

consciousness

on the other

second,

apart

the

can

would

hand,

of

independent
and

born.

materialist

The

position

traditionally ascribed to the Crvkas.

is not all.

This

commentators,
word
In

Sanskrit

"from
can

mean
aphorism

explained

consciousness

comes

into

to establish

sought

prior

to matter.

may

have

He

did

view

from

not concern

and

explained

of)

of the

this

meaning,

elements

that

the missing

verb

apart

the second

consciousness

elements;

second

four

with

existed

from

anonymous

(fifth declension).

the

of the

himself

his cue

Smkhya)

sake

sake

that consciousness

taken

case

Preferring

the

two

understanding

of ablative

well.

as

it is for

He

apparently

is for (the

"Consciousness

these"
as:

being.9

derived

been

or so after these
the common

in the sense

"for

a dualist

had

a century

by challenging

taken

these",

the

tebhyah

at least

writing
the issue

reopened
as

tebhyah

Udbhata

but

Udbhata,

from

and

even
(or it

interpretation
as

aphorism

follows:

is independent

and

aids

the physical elements which constitute the body" (qtd. GrBh 2: 257).
Udbhata's interpretation is not grammatically invalid. There is indeed a rule in
Vrttika

Ktyyana's
declension
that

saying
human

(on

to suggest

is

Udbhata

body

Crvka

position

or intent

purpose

consciousness

was

(tdarthye

the

door

open
no

monistic:

essentially

the

of

independent

leaves

that

1.4.44)

Astdhyy

to

provides

for the use

caturthT

Vasu

four
a

body,

vcy,

elements

that

non-materialist
no

of the fourth
352).

But

by

constitute

the

position.

The

Even

if we

consciousness.

take Udbhata to be a dualistic materialist, it clearly involves desertion of the original

Crvka position.
All
move

this

does

away

contrasts

show

from

the

original

with

Udbhata

of growth

signs

but

doctrine.

Bhvivikta

at the

Quite

and

same

time

ancient

Crvka

to

Cakradhara

therefore,

appropriately,

other

a tendency

exhibits

teachers

(GrBh

2:

257). Unlike them, Udbhata did not uphold the old, traditionally accepted position.
On

another

occasion,

too,

Cakradhara

notes

that

Udbhata

forsook

the

conventional

interpretation (GrBh 1: 100).

9

This

second

matter vis--vis

realist but anti-materialist stand regarding

position is reminiscent of Sri Aurobindo's
consciousness
. Unlike the non-dualist Vedantins like Sakara he admitted this world to

be real but added:

[T]here is a course of life and consciousness
originally alien to Matter which has yet entered into
an occupied Matter, - perhaps from another world. From whence, otherwise, can it have come...
nothing can evolve out of Matter which is not therein already contained, (pp. 96-97).
Sri Aurobindo does not accept the dualist position of Smkhya
of illusion as valid (p. 11).

either, nor does he regard Sankara's

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

theory

What the Crvkas

Originally Meant

539

Vadidevasri

too writes, "This respectable veteran twice born (sc. Udbhata) is

to
us
a
novel way of answering criticism." (SVR 764).
revealing
Here

the

redactor(s)

assertion

made

of the base

text

framed

they
must

the aphorism.

is

LaFrague
not have

Since

for a reasonable

go

by
could

we

of

have

all

no way

If he had

conjecture.

seminal

meant

the

first

two

aphorisms

(tattva).

principle
second

state

clearly

If consciousness
would

aphorism

have

the

were

said

so

second

the author's

or the third

of

the

four

or one

principle

instead

when

he/

mind,

we

interpretation

doctrine would be compromised.

primacy

the

the

Surely

interpretations

of knowing

in mind, the very basis of the Crvka/Lokyata

The

importance.

three

of naming

elements

the four

all

as

the

of the principles,

the

elements

indi

vidually and stopping there with a decisive word, iti. So the second and the third
of the third

interpretations
third
But

to defy

interpreters
one

is evident:

point

what

audience,

only

pretations

definitely

of the

are

aphorism
the

spirit

the

the

first three
could

aphorisms

first interpretation
different

suggest

both

The

the second
is not

aphorisms

mean,
says.

lines

led

What

unacceptable.

of the

to the

second

of development

the

to us.

author

and

to his

the

third

inter

and

away

and

known

the intention

from

author.

Conclusion
and

Development
continue
which

becomes

story

is repeated

theistic

over

the

allied

Such

to be

only

centuries.

to Yoga

when

system.

are

growth

to exist

the

and

have

philosophical

the

theistic

with

merges

doubtless

The

system.

Vaisesika

reflect

that

systems

of Smkhya,

development

a syncretic

Nyya

doctrines

syncretic

we

becomes

atheistic

of all

expected

Thus

and

same

becomes
and

development

growth.

Nevertheless, they are not to be identified with the original Smkhya or the original
Nyya or the original Vaisesika. When we speak of development and growth, which
are

move

forms

we

inevitable,

admittedly

often

from

away

of development

should

not turn a blind

the original

position

and

necessarily

growth

to the fact

eye

of the system.
reflect

the

that later

works

It is not the case

that all

intention

of the

original

author.
The

critics

Udbhata
to call

had

of the

other

and

become

This
been

the

interpreted

it is impossible
is attributed,

of

the

from

its

tradition

positions

of

gain

this

as

called

are

in a different
may

be

or

way,

we

to affirm

the

by

the
to

presumably

the event

cannot

over

system,

its later
On

development.

proposed,

that

Are

viewed

currency
that

well

one.

proposed

validity,

well

too

only

the original
are

arguments

very

contrary

knew

seen,

the

but

but

be

course

they

of

evince

same.
Mmms

in a dozen

to assert
had

may

inconsistencies

to Nyya,

happened

and

to reassert

of the aphorisms

a part

all

but

have
different

quite
facts

events

novel

Such

inconsistency.

inconsistency
has

such

quite

new

in order

text

the contention

support
called

base

when

hand,

that was

When

or explicators,

adherents

we

Crvka/Lokyata,

a position

this development?

contention

time

the

of
taken

in mind.

what
Yet

different

and

ways

systems.

be

The

denied

so much

the authorship
that he must

in fact

Brahmastra

by its commentators,

to whom

Bdaryana,
it cannot

other

have

so that

of the base
had

text

something

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

R. Bhattacharya

540

in his mind which the commentators in their zeal to establish their own philo
sophical

have

systems
he held.

position

more

After

than

once

all Bdaryana

sometimes

misused,

could

not have

been

going

a dualist,

the

against

a non-dualist,

modified non-dualist, a realist, a subjective idealist, etc. all at the same time! It is
therefore

futile

think

to

the

of

Vednta

doctrine.

We

have

several

Vednta

and

Crvka

doctrines. That is all.

Vednta

consistent
these
is

of course

is
also

systems

exhibit

with

in

order

commentators
forced

any

as a case

words

of the

their
from

but

The

their

audiences.

and

and

them

by

and

conventional

how

some

is a sign
it has

use,

tries

to study
approach

there

violence

doing

certain

In order

where

the commentator

more

be considered

a historicist

note

and

the

can

Whenever

position.

grammar

the more

use),

of which

on the doctrine,

original

interprets

conventional

not all

developments
with

Mmms

Nyya,

authors

the

of inconsistency.

But

solely

inconsistent

aphorism

and

(grammar

trace

away

explanation,

taken

case.

approaches,

of concentrating
to

moved

extreme
different

of the original

the view
instead

systems,

essential

an

several

to hold

to these

of

to be

fast to the
two

it is that he is moving

criteria
from

away

the original position. Udbhata's interpretations of iti and tebhyah are cases in point.
Polemicists like Jayantabhatta may not distinguish between the original position and
the new
axe

either

grind

as best

ascertain,
and

but

position,

to

then

a student
in

as one

or

what

can,

to study

proceed

of philosophy

defense

the

cannot

afford

of

reputation

the doctrine

any

meant
of the

development

not to do

system,10

to its author
over

system

so.

one
and
the

no

Having
should

first

its audience,
No

ages.

other

approach can do justice to the systems of philosophy in India that flourished and
continued

to

hold

sway

over

or

one

the

other

section

of

the

for

people

several

centuries.
Let

me

reiterate:

there

system

of philosophy

should

not

bias

should

view

all

not make

is no

because
such

supposed

a master

Lokyata

not

excepted.

on

changes

us forget

to be

that

gainsaying
of its constant

of all

a par

with

that in pre-modern
philosophical

Consider,

for

some

interface
one

changes

are

with

other

another.

India

systems,
instance,

living
the

or religious

of philosophy

or dead,

the
of

praise

we

But

systems.

Doctrinal

a master

in any

inevitable

was

Crvka/

Vyomasiva

(or Vyomasambhu or Vyomesa) in the Ranode stone inscription (Epigraphia Indica,

1: 358) in which Vyomasiva is eulogized as lokyate sadgurur bbuddho buddhamate
jinoktisu jinah, Sadguru (Brhaspati) in the Lokyata, the Buddha in the doctrine of
the Buddha, and Jina (Mahvra) in the sayings of the Jina (line 37). Had it been
otherwise, the authors of philosophical digests and compendia from Haribhadra
(eighth
in their

century)
works

down
all

to Cimanabhatta

systems,

both

orthodox

(nineteenth
and

century)

heterodox,

would
known

not have

included

to them.

10
No less a savant than Louis de Valle Poussin, because of his idealist mindset, calls materialists
(8: 494). Speaking of the parable of the Wolfs Footprint (SDSam,
"philosophers without philosophy"
v. 81), he writes: 'A man who wanted to convertlet us say "pervert"a
woman to his materialist
article!
(ibid.). All this in an encyclopaedia
opinion...'
To cite another example, nearer home: B. Bhattacharya proposed to identify Kambalsvatara
of the TS
with the Kambalsvatara
mentioned in the Sargttloka on the following ground: "It is not at all strange
that a member of a materialist sect should devote himself to music; disbelieving in transmigration of soul
or in a future life the cultivation of pleasure in this life should seem logical and entirely proper"
(p. xxxviii).

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What the Crvkas

Originally

Dipak

Acknowledgements

541

Meant

Bhattacharya,

Amitava

Johannes

Bhattacharyya,

Bronkhorst,

Sanjib

Mukhopahyaya.

Abbreviations
Avacmi.

and References

(1969). Anon, in SDSam (M. K. Jain, Ed.). Calcutta: Bharatiya Jnanapith.

B. (1926).
Foreword to Tattvasahgraha
Ed.).
(E. Krishnamacharya,

Bhattacharya,
Institute.

Baroda:

Oriental

Firenze: Societ Editrice Fiorentina.

Bhattacharya, R. (2009). Studies on the Crvka/Lokyata.
Bhattacharya, R. (2010). Lokyata Darsana and a Comparative Study with Greek Philosophy. In P. Ghose
and lmmaterialism
in India and the West: Varying Vistas (pp. 21-34).
(Ed.)., Materialism
New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Bronkhorst, J. (2007). Greater Magadha.
Chattopadhyaya, D. (1989). Defence of Materialism in Ancient India.

New Delhi:

People's

Publishing

House.
in collaboration
with M. Gangopadhyaya.
C/L. Crvka/Lokyata.
(1990), eds. D. Chattopadhyaya
Research.
New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical
(reprint).
Dasgupta, S. (1975). A History of Indian Philosophy (vols. 1-5). Delhi: MLBD
Epigraphia Indica. (1892), ed. J. Burgess (vol. 1). Calcutta.
Franco, E. (1991). Paurandarasutra. In M. A. Dhaky (Ed.), Aspects oflndology. Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malvania
Felicitation Volume (vol. III). Varanasi: Sagarmal Jain P.V. Research Institute.
and Rebirth, Universitat Wien, Wien: Arbeitkreis fiir
Franco, E. (1997). Dharmakirti on Compassion
Tibetische

und Buddhistische

Studien

Materialism, Indian School of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Ency

clopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 6). London: Routledge.
(translation of Geschichte
Frauwallner, E. (1973). History of Indian Philosophy (vol. 2). Delhi: MLBD
der indischen Philosophie. Band II. Salzburg: Otto Muller Verlag, 1956).
The Validity of Inference. New Delhi:
M. K. (1984). Indian Logic in Its Sources:
Gangopadhyaya,
Munshiram Manoharlal.
edited by L. Suali.
comm. on Haribhadra, SDSam,
Gunaratna. Tarka-rahasya-dpik.
(1905-1914),
Franco, E., Preisendanz,

K. (1998).

Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

& W. G. Frisina Eds.),
Goldin, Paul. R (2008). Review of Teaching the Daode Jing (G. D. DeAngelis
New York: Oxford University Press. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 128(4, October
December pp. 479-452).
GrBh. Cakradhara. Granthibhanga. See NM.
Jacobi, H. (1918). A Contribution Towards the Early History of Indian Philosophy. Indian Antiquary, 47,
101-109.
Jha, G. (1937-1939).

Introduction.

The Tattvasangraha

by Shantaraksita

(Vols.

III).

Delhi:

MLBD

(reprint 1986).
Edited and translated by R. P. Kangle. Bombay: University of
KA. Kautiliya Arthasstra. (1965-1972).
Bombay, Parts 1-3.
Varanasi: Chowkhambha,
KS. Vtsyyana. Kmastra with Jayamahgal.
(n.d.)
The. (1933-1966).
Mahbhrata,
Critically edited by V. S. Sukthankar & others. Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute.
The. Vulgate (1832 Saka /1910 CE) with Nlakantha's commentary, Bhratabhvadpa,
Mahbhrata,
ed. Pancanana Tarkaratna. Kalikata: Vangavasi.
Mookeijee, S. (1935). The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux. Calcutta: Calcutta University.
Review (Kyoto), 2, 29-74.
Namai, M. (1976). A Survey of Brhaspatya Philosophy. Indological
NM. Jayantabhatta. (1982-1984).
NyOyamajari with Cakradhara's Granthibhanga, ed. G. Sastri (in three
parts). Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Visvavidyalaya.
Darsana
Phanibhsana,
(1981-1989)
Vtsyyana
Bhsya
Nyyasutra.
Tarkavgisa,
Nyya
(in Bengali). Calcutta: West Bengal State Book Board (reprint).
NS. Nyyasutra. Trans. M.K. Gangopadhyaya
(1982). Nyya, Calcutta: Indian Studies.
Genre.
Preisendanz, K. (2008) Text, Commentary, Annotation: Some Reflections on the Philosophical
NS.

Journal of Indian Philosophy,

PVSVT.
(1943).
Karnakagomin.
Ilahabad: Kjtab Mahal.

36, 599-618.
Pramna-vrttika-svopajna-vrtti-tk

Rahula

Sankrityayana

(Ed.).

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

542

R. Bhattacharya

on Vdi Devasri's
(1967).
Ratnaprabh.
Commentary
Pramna-nyya-tattvloklamkra,
English
trans, and comm. by H. S. Bhattacharya. Bombay: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandai.
(1978). Sarvadarsanasamgraha
(V. S. Abhyankar, Ed.). Poona: BORI (reprint).
Syana-Mdhava.
SDSam.
Haribhadra. (1969). Saddarsanasamuccaya,
with Gunaratna's
and Somatilakasri's
commen
taries (M. K. Jain Ed.) Calcutta: Bharatiya Jnanapitha.
D. R. (1944).
32: 1,
(in Bangla), Bharatavara,
Brhaspatyadarsana.
"Crvka-paficsik"
(Asadha 1351 Bengali year).
Shastri, D. R. (1959). Crvka Darsana
(in Bengali).
Purogami Prakashani: Kolkata (Reprinted with
Shastri,

additions

in 1982 by the West Bengal State Book Board, Kolkata).

E. A. (1977-1978).
Bhatta Udbhata. Annals of the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research
58-59, 986-987.
SMS. Sarvamatasamgraha.
(1915), edited by T. G. Sastri, Trivandram.
Sri Aurobindo. (2001). The Life Divine. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram (reprint).
Solomon,

SVR. Vadidevasuri.

(1988).

Sydvadaratnkara

(M. L. Osval,

Ed.).

Delhi:

Bhartiya

Book

Institute

Corporation

(reprint).
TS. Sntaraksita. (1981). Tattvasangraha
(D. Shastri Ed.). Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati.
TSP. Kamalasila.
See TS.
Tattvasangrahapajika.
Vcaspati Misra. Bhmat in Brahmastra. (1982). The Brahmastra with Sankara Bhsya and BhmatT,
Sanskrit
Kalpataru and Parimala, edited by P. A. Sastri, V. L. S. Pansikar. Varanasi: Chowkhamba
Series Office (reprint of the N. Sagar ed.).
Valle Poussin, L. de (1908). Materialism (India). In J. Hastings (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Religion and
Ethics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
N. (1973). Materialist Thought in Early Tamil Literature. Social Scientist, 2(4),
Vanamamalai,
(available in JSTOR archive).
Vasu, S. C. (1982). The Siddhnta Kaumudt of BhattojT Dksita. Delhi. MLBD
(reprint).

Springer

This content downloaded from 194.95.59.195 on Sat, 14 Feb 2015 16:17:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

25-41