Skip to main content

Lessons from Lokayata



There were intelligent seekers of truth even in India as far back in history as seventh century BCE. One such school was Charvaka whose doctrine was known as Lokayata. Very little information about them has survived to our day. No copy of their central text, the Brihaspati Sutra, which dates from 600 BCE, is available now. It is assumed by historians that the Lokayata texts were systematically destroyed by the Brahmins whose authority was questioned by these texts. But, rather ironically, the works which argued against the Lokayata texts were preserved and thus we have sufficient information about this rebellious doctrine.

The adherents of this doctrine, the Charvakas, rejected life after death. They considered such beliefs funny. Thinking and feeling are part of our physical system and in the due course of time they wear out and die. Nothing is left to live on after death. The ancient play, The Rise of the Moon Intellect, has a character who ridicules religious believers as “uncivilised ignorant fools” who expect fruits to hang from trees growing in air. This character supported the Lokayata doctrine.

Truth is obvious, according to Lokayata. You can perceive it through your senses or reason. Entities like gods are creations of the imaginations of crooked people whose intention is to deceive others.

The Charvakas thought of the ascetic’s approach to life as sheer waste. We have just one life, this one here on earth. It is our duty to enjoy it as much as possible.

The Charvakas were highly critical of religious approaches to life. They considered the Vedas as fraudulent. The Vedic faith in a higher system of justice was particularly questioned by this school. The Vedas cheat people, according to Lokayata, by imposing absurd rituals on them. There are some interesting arguments given by the Charvakas. The Vedas say that the animals slain in religious sacrifices will ascend to heaven. If people really believed that, surely they would sacrifice their parents and thus give them an express ride to paradise.

Lokayata obviously did not believe in gods or heaven. They believed in hell which, they insisted rather gleefully, is here below. We create the hell with our actions and frustrations mostly. If we exercise our intellect properly, we will do things to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Virtue belongs to the intelligent, in other words.

Religion is both foolish and fraudulent. The Sarva-darsana-samgraha cites the Charvakas as saying that the Vedas are “tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology.” The Charvakas ridiculed the Brahmins as people who used religion as a means of livelihood. Death was the best for them. There are so many ceremonies associated with death.

*

Interestingly, Lokayata and its adherents did not survive for long. What they considered irrational, absurd and ridiculous survived and flourished. Why? This is what Lokayata should make us wonder about. Why do we still – nearly three millennia after the Lokayata doctrine – keep killing people for the sake of divine entities whose existence is not even certain? Why are we so irrational and absurd though we keep claiming that we are rational and capable of great wisdom?

This is something that has baffled me for years. In the autumn of my life, I am still left with this enigma. In a very enlightening book titled Doubt, the author Jennifer Michael Hecht makes a very interesting observation. “People throughout the ancient world had argued that a thinking person could be happy and moral without God or gods, but most of them worried about what the average man or woman would do, and feel, without religion.” Doesn’t that imply that religions and their gods belong to the mediocre? Well, I’m not arrogating intellectual superiority to myself and other doubters. But I’d like to leave that question to all those who go around peddling gods even using the electronic media.

PS. This is powered by #BlogchatterA2Z

The previous posts in this series can be read here.

Tomorrow: Murderer

Comments

  1. Enjoyed reading this post! Had heard/read about the "Charvakas" somewhere but this post was very informative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Charvakas are not much liked by people even today. I don't accept their materialism totally. But i find them very tickling.

      Delete
  2. Charvakas seem interesting i so far as they challenged the existing belief systems. Though i have read about them here i will definitely be reading further.
    Deepika Sharma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not much is available on them. But whatever is there is interesting.

      Delete
  3. I hadn't heard about charvakas. It is sad that there is no reading material available around their beliefs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's always difficult for dissenting groups to survive being pitted against dominant religious powers. The situation isn't any different even today.

      Delete
  4. "We create the hell with our actions and frustrations mostly. If we exercise our intellect properly, we will do things to avoid pain and increase pleasure. Virtue belongs to the intelligent, in other words."

    This is so true! I hadn't heard about charvakas but after reading Sapiens I can relate to their theory that your post highlights. Maybe the answer to why it is so is because that was an easy way to control groups as said in Sapiens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'd be really hard to control people without gods and their eternal punishments, etc.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband. Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version . [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship. Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot ...

Hindutva’s Contradictions

The book I’m reading now is Whose Rama? [in Malayalam] by Sanskrit scholar and professor T S Syamkumar. I had mentioned this book in an earlier post . The basic premise of the book, as I understand from the initial pages, is that Hindutva is a Brahminical ideology that keeps the lower caste people outside its terrain. Non-Aryans are portrayed as monsters in ancient Hindu literature. The Shudras, the lowest caste, and the casteless others, are not even granted the status of humans.  Whose Rama? The August issue of The Caravan carries an article related to the inhuman treatment that the Brahmins of Etawah in Uttar Pradesh meted out to a Yadav “preacher” in the last week of June 2025. “Yadavs are traditionally ranked as a Shudra community,” says the article. They are not supposed to recite the holy texts. Mukut Mani Singh Yadav was reciting verses from the Bhagavad Gita. That was his crime. The Brahmins of the locality got the man’s head tonsured, forced him to rub his nose at t...