Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:16:38.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art. XI.—Verses from the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, the Vishnu Purāana, and the Rāamāayana, illustrating the tenets of the Chāarvāakas, or Indian Materialists, with some Remarks on Freedom of Speculation in Ancient India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

J. Muir Esq
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his essay on the heretical schools of the Hindus, Mr. Colebrooke has given an account of the tenets of the Chāarvāakas, or Materialists (Misc. Essays, L, 402 ff). Professor Wilson also, in his “Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus” (As. Ees., Vol. XVI., pp. 5, 6), alludes to the attacks made by the founder of the atheistical, or materialistic school, Vrihaspati, on the Vedas and the Brahmans, and quotes some verses attributed to that author, in which he asserts that “the whole Hindu system is a contrivance of the priesthood to secure a means of livelihood for themselves.” I am not aware whether either the aphorisms of Vrihaspati (Vāarhaspatya Sŭutras), to which Mr. Colebrooke refers (Misc. Ess., L, 404) as having been quoted by one of the commentators on the Vedanta, or the work which contains the verses adduced by Professor Wilson, be still extant or not. As, however, the Sarva Darśsana Sangraha of Māadhava ÃAchāaryya (a work containing a concise account of the different philosophical schools of India, both orthodox and heretical), from which Professor Wilson derived the verses which he cites, contains a good many more of a similar tendency, which are both satirical and clever, I shall translate the whole, and compare them with passages of the same tenor which occur in the Vishnu Purāana and in the Rāamāayana.

Type
Original Communications
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 19 , January 1862 , pp. 299 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1862

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 299 note 1 Published in the Bibliotheca Indica, Nos. 63 and 142.

page 300 note 1 See Professor Wilson's “Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus,” above referred to; and for the words tridanda and tridandin, consult Boehtlingk and Roth's Lexicon, with the passages there cited from Manu, ix., 296, and xii., 10, 11, and other writers.

page 300 note 2 This refers to the notion expressed by Manu, v. 42: —“The twice-born man, who, knowing the meaning and principles of the Veda, slays cattle on the occasions mentioned, conveys both himself and those cattle to the summit of beatitude.” (Sir W. Jones.) In the second act of the drama called Prabodha chandrodaya (which has been translated into English by Dr. Taylor, and into German by Professor Goldstücker), Māayāamoha (or Delusion), and a Chāarvāaka are introduced among the dramatis personce, and give utterance to the tenets of the Indian materialists. The second and third of the verses quoted in the text from the Sarva-darśsana-sangralia, are adduced there also. Verse 4 of the text is varied as follows:—“ If a śsrāaddha satiates even defunct creatures, then oil must nourish the flame of an extinguished lamp.” The following stanzas are of a similar purport with verse 1 of the text:—“ The idea that the soul exists with an essence distinct from that of the body, and that it enjoys rewards after it has gone to another world, is [as vain as] the expectation of luscious fruit from trees growing in the sky.” “ If heaven is obtained by worshippers, after the performer, the ceremonial, and the materials of the sacrifice have all passed away, then will abundant fruit be produced from trees which have been consumed in the conflagration of a forest.” In another verse the gratifications of the voluptuary are contrasted with the mortifications of the ascetic in a sense favourable to the former.

page 300 note 3 See Manu, chap. iii., verses 122 to the end.

page 300 note 4 Dum vivimus, vivamus. “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.”— 1 Cor. xv., 32.

page 301 note 1 Compare “Original Sanskrit Texts,” ii., 183, and iii., 45. The words jarbharī, turplvarī, occur in Rig Veda, x., 106, 6. See Boehtlingk and Roth's Lexicon, under these words, and Nirukta, xiii., 5.

page 301 note 2 I give the literal meaning of this line, in Latin:—”Fâmâl notum est equimembrum genitale a reginâ capiendum esse.”See Wilson's translation of the Rig Veda, vol. ii., Introd., p. xiii.; Rāmāyana, i., 13, 36 (Schlegel's edit.); i., 13, 34(Gorresio's edit.); Mahābh., xiv., 2645; Vājasaneyi Samhita, xxiii., 20 ff. and commentary; Śatapatha Brāhmana, pp. 990 ff.; Kātyayana's Sūtras, p. 973.

3 I do not perceive the exact allusion here, unless it be to the Brahmans' grasping character. Possibly there may be a reference in the next line to the practice of the 'Sāktas. Goblins are represented by the Hindus as fond of flesh.

page 302 note 1 The satirical purport of this half-verse has not been correctly understood by Professor Wilson, who renders it thus:—“ It must be unnecessary for one who resides at a distance to bring food for presentation in person.”

page 303 note 1 Schlegel reads here dharmāpetam, and Gorresio dharmopetam. The former is the best reading.

page 303 note 2 Verses 4—11 in Gorresio's edition, urging that Rāma had sufficiently fulfilled his duty to his father, and exhorting him to take possession of the kingdom, have nothing parallel to them in Schlegel's recension.

page 303 note 3 The same reflection, with a different moral annexed, occurs in the very striking verses of Manu, viii., 17, and iv., 239 ff.; which I have attempted to put into verse as follows: —

1. Our virtue is the only friend that follows us in death, While other ties and friendships end with our departing breath.

2. Nor father, mother, wife, nor son, beside us then can stay, Nor kinsfolk,—virtue is the one companion of our way.

3. Alone each creature sees the light, alone the world he leaves, Alone, of actions, wrong or right, the recompense receives.

4. Like log or clod, beneath the sod, their lifeless kinsman laid, His friends depart, with aching heart, but virtue guards the dead.

5. Be then a hoard of virtue stored, to help in day of doom, By virtue led, we cross the dread, immeasurable gloom.

This passage is imitated, and expanded in the xiiith or Anusāsana Parva of the Mahābhārata, verses 5,805—5,815. The words in Manu, iv., 244, tamas tarati dustaram, “he crosses the gloom difficult to cross,” are probably derived from the Atharva Veda, ix., 5, 1. Tirtvā tamāmsi bahudhā mahānti ajo nākam, ākramatām tritiyam: “Having crossed the dark abysses in many directions immense, let the unborn [or, the moving] one ascend the third heaven.”

page 305 note 1 Compare Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parva, verse 4205.

page 306 note 1 These are the principles of the Chārvākas. “Perception is the only proof,” says the Māyāmoha, in the Prabodha-chandroya, Act ii.

page 307 note 1 This section of the Rāmāyana, and those which follow it, as given in the three different editions of the Rāmāyana, well illustrate the peculiarities of their different texts. In Schlegel's edition, section 108 concludes with the 18th verse, which is immediately succeeded by the reply of Rāma to Jāvāli's suggestions, in the 29 anushtubh verses, which stand at the commencement of section 109. To these are added nine more verses in a longer metre, the Upajāti, which Schlegel regards as spurious. As regards some of the verses his opinion is no doubt just; for Rāma is represented in the first of these additional stanzas as a second time commencing his answer to Jāvāli, and the tone in which he then repudiates the sentiments of the latter is much harsher than in the earlier (anushtubh) verses of the section. In the 36th and following verses of the addition, Jāvāli is introduced as apologizing for, and half recanting, the opinions he had expressed: —“ The Brahman then addressed to Rāma these true, wholesome, and believing (āstika) words: —‘ I do not utter the doctrines of the nihilists (nāstikas): I am not a nihilist; nor does nought exist. Having regard to opportuneness of time, I have again become a believer (āstika), and on an opportune occasion I may again become a nihilist.’” In one of these Upajāti verses, the Buddhists are expressly mentioned. Gorresio's edition, however, contains much more extensive interpolations than Schlegel's. As we have seen, stanzas 4—11, and 28—39, of section 116 of the former, are all in excess of the verses contained in the corresponding section of the latter. But section 116 of Gorresio's edition does not stop even there. It contains, in verses 40 ffi, a short repudiation by Rāma of Jāvāli's doctrincs. Another discourse of Bharata's follows in section 117, and it is not till section 118 that Rāma is represented as beginning (a second time) the answer to Jāvāli, which corresponds to that in section 109 of Schlegel's edition.

Carey and Marshman's text generally coincides (as regards the sections under consideration) with Gorresio's, though in some readings it agrees with Schlegel's when that and Gorresio's differ.

I will not here enter on the question, of which I have not studied both sides, as to the comparative antiquity of Schlegel's and Gorresio's texts, but I will adduce from the speech of Vaśishtha in the 110th section of Schlegel's edition, as compared with the corresponding section of Gorresio's, what I conceive to be one decided argument in favour of the greater antiquity of the former text. We there read (in Schlegel's edition), “ There was then nothing but water, in which the earth was formed. From thence was produced Brahmā, the self-existent, together with the deities. He then becoming a boar, raised up the earth, and created the whole world, with his sons, who were perfected in spirit. Brahmā waa produced from the ether,” &c. It is therefore Brahmâ, who here becomes a boar, and in that form raises up the earth,—an incarnation and an act which are elsewhere, as in the Vishnu Purana (pp. 27—32 of Wilson's translation), and in the Bhāgavata Purāna, i., 3, 7, and iii., 13, 18 ff., ascribed to Vishnu. To harmonize the account in the Rāmāyana with that in the Purānas (which is to all appearance of later origin), the author of the recension edited by Gorresio changes the words Brahmā svayambhūr daivatais saha, “ Brahmā, the self-existent, with the gods,” into Brahmā svayambhūr Visknur auyayah, “ Brahmā, the self-existent, imperishable Vishnu;” and in a subsequent line substitutes the words sacharācharam avyayam, for saha putrair kritātmabhih, i.e., “ he created the whole imperishable world, moveable and immoveable,” instead of “ he created the whole world, with his sons,”&c. This last alteration was rendered necessary by the fact that sons are ascribed by mythological tradition to Brahmā, but none to Vishnu. When, therefore, the name of Vishnu was introduced, it became necessary to strike out all reference to sons. These alterations are not found in Carey and Marshman's edition, which here agrees with Sehlegel's.

page 309 note 1 The word which I have translated expiation is apachita (apachiti?). The word apachiti occurs in the viith, or Drona Parva, 7,811.

page 310 note 1 Though reasoning is looked upon by Manu (ii. 11,) and other orthodox writings (e.g. Mahābhārata, iii. 13,463, śushka tarha), with great jealousy, as likely to be employed against the Vedas, its aid is also invoked as necessary for their defence and exposition (Manu, xii. 105), and professors of different systems oi logic or speculation (haituka and tarkin) are referred to (xii. 111) as essential component members of a Brahmanical conclave of ten (daśavarā parisliat).

page 312 note 1 See Professor Banerjea's Dialogues on the Hindu philosophy, where Śankara's refutation of this doctrine, the Vijmāna-vāda, is quoted from his commentary on the Brahma Sūtras, ii., 2, 28.

page 313 note 1 See also “Original Sanskrit Texts,” Part iii., p. 216.

page 313 note 2 He there says, “For the Mimānsā has generally been turned into a school of materialism (or atheism, lokāyatīkrita), but I have made this attempt to bring it into the paths of theism (or the recognition of a future existence, āstihapathe). See Orig. Sansk. Texts, iii., p. 209. Comp. Professor Banerjea's Dialogues, pp. 78 ff., 477 ff.