Editing Charvaka (section)

==Mention in other works==
No independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found except for a few [[sūtra]]s attributed to Brihaspati. The 8th century ''Tattvopaplavasimha'' of [[Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa]] with [[Madhyamaka]] influence is a significant source of Charvaka philosophy. Shatdarshan Samuchay and [[Vidyaranya#Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha|Sarvadarśanasaṅ̇graha]] of [[Vidyaranya]] are a few other works which elucidate Charvaka thought.{{sfn|Joshi|2005|p=37}}

One of the widely studied references to the Charvaka philosophy is the ''[[Vidyaranya#Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha|Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha]]'' (etymologically all-philosophy-collection), a famous work of 14th century [[Advaita Vedanta]] philosopher [[Vidyaranya|Mādhava Vidyāraṇya]] from [[South India]], which starts with a chapter on the Charvaka system. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods [[Shiva]] and [[Vishnu]] ("by whom the earth and rest were produced"), Vidyāraṇya asks, in the first chapter:{{sfn|Acharya|1894|p=2}}
{{Cquote|...but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain:
::While life is yours, live joyously;<br />None can escape Death's searching eye:<br />When once this frame of ours they burn,<br />How shall it e'er again return?{{sfn|Acharya|1894|p=2}} }}

Sanskrit poems and plays like the Naiṣadha-carita, Prabodha-candrodaya, [[agamadambara|Āgama-dambara]], Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī and [[Kadambari|Kādambarī]] contain representations of the Charvaka thought. However, the authors of these works were thoroughly opposed to materialism and tried to portray the Charvaka in an unfavourable light. Therefore, their works should only be accepted critically.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2011a}}

===Loss of original works===
{{Main|Barhaspatya sutras}}
There was no continuity in the Charvaka tradition after the 12th century. Whatever is written on Charvaka post this is based on second-hand knowledge, learned from preceptors to disciples and no independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2011a}} Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Charvaka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

<blockquote>
"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."{{sfn|Chatterjee|Datta|2004|p=55}}
</blockquote>

===Mughal era===
[[Ain-i-Akbari]], a record of the Mughal Emperor [[Akbar]]'s court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence{{sfn|Mubarak|1894|pp=217-218}} (also see {{harvnb|Sen|2005|pp=288–289}}). In the text, the Mughal historian [[Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak]] summarizes the Charvaka philosophy as "unenlightened" and characterizes their works of literature as "lasting memorials to their ignorance". He notes that Charvakas considered paradise as "the state in which man lives as he chooses, without control of another", while hell as "the state in which he lives subject to another's rule". On state craft, Charvakas believe, states Mubarak, that it is best when "knowledge of just administration and benevolent government" is practiced.{{sfn|Mubarak|1894|pp=217-218}}

===Controversy on reliability of sources===
{{harvnb|Bhattacharya|2011|pp=10, 29–32}} states that the claims against Charvaka of [[hedonism]], lack of any morality and ethics and disregard for spirituality is from texts of competing religious philosophies (Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism). Its primary sources, along with commentaries by Charvaka scholars, are missing or lost. This reliance on indirect sources raises the question of reliability and whether there was a bias and exaggeration in representing the views of Charvakas. Bhattacharya points out that multiple manuscripts are inconsistent, with key passages alleging hedonism and immorality missing in many manuscripts of the same text.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2011|pp=10, 29–32}}

The ''Skhalitapramathana Yuktihetusiddhi'' by Āryadevapāda, in a manuscript found in Tibet, discusses the Charvaka philosophy, but attributes a theistic claim to Charvakas - that happiness in this life, and the only life, can be attained by worshiping gods and defeating demons. Toso posits that as Charvaka philosophy's views spread and were widely discussed, non-Charvakas such as Āryadevapāda added certain points of view that may not be of the Charvakas'.{{sfn|Del Toso|2010|pp=543-552}}

Buddhists, [[Jain philosophy|Jains]], [[Advaita Vedanta|Advaita Vedantins]] and [[Nyāya]] philosophers considered the Charvakas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are indirect sources of Charvaka philosophy. The arguments and reasoning approaches Charvakas deployed were so significant that they continued to be referred to, even after all the authentic Charvaka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Charvaka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first-hand knowledge of Charvaka texts and should be viewed critically.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2011a}}

Likewise, states Bhattacharya, the charge of [[hedonism]] against Charvaka might have been exaggerated.{{sfn|Bhattacharya|2011|pp=10, 29–32}} Countering the argument that the Charvakas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, {{harvnb|Riepe|1964|p=75}} states, "It may be said from the available material that Cārvākas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem."

=== Influence on Europe and China ===
According to reports, the Europeans were surprised by the openness and rational doubts of the Mughal emperor [[Akbar]] and the Indians. In [[Pierre de Jarric|Pierre De Jarric]]'s ''Histoire'' (1610), based on the Jesuit reports, the Mughal emperor is compared to an atheist himself: "Thus we see in this Prince the common fault of the atheist, who refuses to make reason subservient to faith (...)"<ref name="Herbjørnsrud">{{Cite web|last=Herbjørnsrud|first=Dag|date=2020-06-24|title=India's atheist influence on Europe, China, and science|url=https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/06/24/indias-atheist-influence-on-europe-china-and-science/|access-date=2020-11-05|website=Blog of the APA|language=en-US}}</ref>

Hannah Chapelle Wojciehowski writes this concerning the Jesuit descriptions in the paper "East-West Swerves: Cārvāka Materialism and Akbar's Religious Debates at Fatehpur Sikri" (2015):<blockquote>''...The information they sent back to Europe was disseminated widely in both Catholic and Protestant countries (...) A more detailed understanding of Indian philosophies, including Cārvāka, began to emerge in Jesuit missionary writings by the early to mid-seventeenth century.''<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wojciehowski|first=Hannah Chapelle|date=2015-07-01|title=East-West Swerves: Cārvāka Materialism and Akbar's Religious Debates at Fatehpur Sikri|url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/genre/article-abstract/48/2/131/5711/East-West-Swerves-Carvaka-Materialism-and-Akbar-s|journal=Genre|language=en|volume=48|issue=2|pages=131–157|doi=10.1215/00166928-2884820|issn=0016-6928}}</ref></blockquote>The Jesuit [[Roberto de Nobili|Roberto De Nobili]] wrote in 1613 that the "Logaidas" (Lokayatas) "hold the view that the elements themselves are god". Some decades later, [[Heinrich Roth]], who studied Sanskrit in Agra ca. 1654–60, translated the ''Vedantasara'' by the influential Vedantic commentator Sadananda (14th). This text depicts four different schools of the Carvaka philosophies.

Wojciehowski notes: "Rather than proclaiming a Cārvāka renaissance in Akbar's court, it would be safer to suggest that the ancient school of materialism never really went away."

In ''Classical Indian Philosophy'' (2020), by [[Peter Adamson (philosopher)|Peter Adamson]] and [[Jonardon Ganeri]], they mention a lecture by [[Henry Thomas Colebrooke|Henry T. Coolebrooke]] in 1827 on the schools of the Carvaka/Lokayata materialists.<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://archive.org/details/bub_gb_n0xd8qVxIvMC|title=Miscellaneous Essays |first=H. T. |last=Colebrooke |volume=1 |date=1837|publisher=H. Allen|language=en}}</ref> Adamson and Ganeri compare the Carvakas to the "emergentism in the philosophy of mind," which is traced back to John Stuart Mill.

They write that Mill "sounds like a follower of Brhaspati, founder of the Cārvāka system, when he writes in his ''System of Logic'' that 'All organised bodies are composed of parts, similar to those composing inorganic nature (...){{'"}}

The historian of ideas [[Dag Herbjørnsrud]] has pointed out that the Charvaka schools influenced China: "This Indian-Chinese materialist connection is documented in a little-known but groundbreaking paper by professor Huang Xinchuan, "Lokayata and Its Influence in China," published in Chinese in 1978 (English version in the quarterly journal ''Social Sciences'' in March 1981). Xinchuan, a senior researcher at the China Academy of Social Science, demonstrates how the Indian Lokāyata schools exercised an influence on ancient Chinese over the centuries. He lists 62 classical texts in China that refer to these Indian material-atheistic schools, from the ''Brahmajala Sutra'' translated by [[Zhi Qian]] (Chih Chien, 223–253), of the Kingdom of Wu, to ''An Explanation for Brahmajala Sutra'' written by Ji Guang (Chi-kuang, 1528–1588) of the Ming Dynasty. In addition, Xinchuan mentions four texts on Lokayata in Chinese by Japanese Buddhist writers."<ref name="Herbjørnsrud"/>

Xinchuan's paper explains how the Buddhists regarded the Lokayatikas as fellow-travellers of the Confucian and the Taoist Schools, and how they launched an attack on them because of their materialistic views. Xinchuan cites, as also Rasik Vihari Joshi noted in 1987, dozens of texts where Chinese classical works describe Lokayata either as "Shi-Jian-Xing" ("doctrine prevailing in the world"), "Wu-Hou-Shi-Lun" ("doctrine of denying after-life"), or refers to "Lu-Ka-Ye-Jin" (the "Lokāyata Sutra").{{citation needed|date=October 2022}}