The Descent of Man — Stages of Charvaka-ism

Uncategorized, , , ,

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/gita-126.jpg

There is an old story about a Brahmana who had traveled to Greece and was conversing with a Sophist. The Sophist said that the Greeks had separated God from studying Science so that their rational temper would not be clouded by their Spirituality. The Brahmin laughed, saying in order to understand Science correctly, you must first understand God.

While it is true that many quantum physicists are known to be religious, this story is less a riposte to agnostics than it is to atheists. After all, according to western logic, the agnostic position is indeed the most “rational” as based strictly on scientific evidence (i.e. primarily pratyaksha) God can’t be “proven”. Nevertheless, Indic logic recognises Sabda pramana as well—sabda in this case referring to the Veda, as well as the word of Enlightened Spiritual beings living the Dharmic tradition. As such, Indic logic is more robust as it doesn’t suffer from the solipsistic arrogance of modern man (who believes unless a phenomenon (divine or otherwise) makes itself observable—it must not exist). Interestingly, modern man echoes many of the views of Ancient Charvakas.

Despite having many agnostic and even a few atheist friends, we will, in the spirit of civilized discourse (and indeed, due to the impending technology-driven doom of mankind), give a structured rebuttal to the popular notion that God does not exist—or even that God-worship has caused mankind’s “social evils” (aka “religion is the opiate of the masses”). Those who know the difference between Dharma and religion may indeed believe the latter to be an opiate, but the former is not. This is because it doesn’t emphasise burdens of “dogma”: 1 way, 1 book, 1 person, 1 jealous god.

This is less a remark towards the religious of other religions—for at this stage, it may be (and that’s a big “may be”) better for a man to be religious than irreligious. It is simply a necessary tangent regarding the difference between Dharma and religion. The problem is, under the pretext of criticising religion, or superstition, one often finds the subtext of criticising God-worship or worship of the Divine. This is the moola-mantra of the Marxist. It is why both the Charvaka & the Marxian drive the descent of man into societal destruction.

But before Bernie bros get their boxers in a twist, we will focus not on Socialism (which has already been deconstructed here), but on how the Charvaka view of God-denial drives the demoniac.

The thought process of man’s descent into societal destruction:

God-harmony -> Ahamkar -> “Mujhe kya mila” -> Physical Fixation-> Sensuality -> Lust -> Hedonism -> Everyone is doing it -> Cruelty -> Inhumanity

After all, an egotistical person inherently is not in complete God-harmony as he believes “Aham-kaar!“. If I am the one who is deterministically doing this and that, then don’t I have the right to demand mujhe kya mila (what’s in it for me?). Does this not then lead to fixation on the physical (excessive focus on the erotic) or material (general greed for ‘things’)? Isn’t the result then sensuality then lust then hedonism (i.e. anything goes/sukham jivet rnam krtva) ignoring karmic debt, then finally mindless mob-thinking, then cruelty (the mark of the asura), then finally inhumanity (rakshasa-tattva)?

Thus, from Deva-bhakti man descends into Asura-bhaava. A slow but sure progression, duly aided by Yavat jivet.

If God-harmony is the goal, then what are the various motivations that influence whether or not society avoids or ambles toward destruction?

Bhakti -> Love of Truth -> Sadhachara -> Cultural Norms / Moral Living -> Ethical Living -> Legalist Living -> Groupthink -> Charvaka-ism -> Nihitha Svaartha -> Asura-bhaava

That is how mankind descends from manava-tattva to rakshasa-tattva. And it is not just men; many women are guilty of this too—Exhibit A: Golddiggers.

In fact, the seed of man’s problem is in the denial of woman. When “we” is reduced to “me”, the natural Rta between microcosmal-shiva & microcosmal shakti becomes discordant (much to the chagrin of Macrocosmal Shiva and Macrocosmal Shakti). It is this spanda (vibration) that emanates from bindu to become naadha, that determines our mentality. Is it a discordant one (with a wild amplitude and irregular frequency) or is a harmonious vibration (operating at a more sonorous frequency)? If Kaali is wild and untameable and yet a promoter of harmony it is because she only mates with Shiva. Thus, it is her mono-andry that ironically makes her stable and free. Her creation and her desires are subject to her will, rather than her will being subject to desire. It is the slavery to senses and sense gratification that prevent women from attaining the state of Kaali (or more specifically Shakti) & that certainly prevent men from attaining the state of Kaala or Shiva.

Abhicharakas and practicioners of all sorts of “black magic”—may or may not be superstitious, but their Egos and rootedness in the “I” over the “We” is what destroyed the sanctity of the Tantric tradition. It is the espousal of the material over the spiritual and the denial of each microcosmal Pinda-Shiva needing a specific sviya Shakti (and vice versa) that opens up a panoply of never-ending sensual possibilities rather than seeking merger with Parama-Shiva (macrocosmal) and Paraa-Shakti (macrocosmal). It is this “me” that separates sex from “we”. It is also this first separation of “we” that makes splitting a potato more difficult (for men).

Through this egoism (which eventually becomes egotism), any and all possibilities become plausible, because yavat jivet sukham jivet rnam krtva ghrtam pibet  (Be happy as long as you are alive, if need be go into debt to enjoy ghee). Forget the sukham of others’ happiness, even the rnam of karmic debt is forgotten, because not only the most personal “we” with respect to jeevatman, but the overarching “We” of paramatman is denied—so who or what’s to stop us from the deliciously endless buffet of buffoonery?

Much like nitwit Nazis who see national socialism as the solution to Communist Hedonism, many Charvakas are like rakshasas manipulated by greater asuras—picking only choice A or choice B, rather than thinking outside the box. These scientism-advocates believe science to be the key to perfecting man rather than spirituality. But Nazi Nationalists are as dangerous to any society as are individualistic Liberal hedonists. Both destroy the decentralisation of society that defends against tyranny, and exhort the reduction of worship to mere ritual, and religion or Dharma to mere tribalism.

But piety is not virtue. Indeed, with “piety” again one finds ego. True spirituality & true Dharma is rooted in humility…Vinayasya moolam vruddhopa seva. When one is more interested in petty ambition than seva, humility which would come through serving elders, does not flower. Thus vinayam is absent in such social misfits.

But leave aside humility, where is humanity? Where is mankind today? Whether humans (of all nationalities) wish to admit it or not, they are flirting with (if not wholesale embracing) inhumanity. Whatever the sloganeering of “insaniyat” in the quest for “kashmiriyat”, mankind has forgotten its maana-tattva. It is why Aurobindo referred to modern civilization as not civilization, but “a carefully ordered barbarism”. And that is why, what humanity is in the midst of is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash for civilization.

After all, it is human cruelty that distinguishes the barbarian from the Aryan, or any civilised person for that matter. If civilization is a mega-culture, then what many people call “culture” is in fact merely so in an anthropological sense. Even if arts exist in such a society, its aesthetic is driven by the predatory, and thus, unworthy of being called ‘sanskriti‘. Sanskriti literally refers to refinement—if predator societies insist on calling what they have ‘culture’—perhaps it may indeed be best to restrict it to its anthropological sense, and assert Sanskriti as another ‘non-translatable’.

Real culture is not simple pack mentality, emblematic of the behaviour of predators. What is a predator in a suit and tie but merely a predator in more pompous clothing?

vivekanandagentlemen

Real culture recognises the Dignity of every Man and every Woman.

Abandoning of elderly mothers, bahu slapping saas, women using men, men exploiting women, brother usurping from brother, even the foundational relationships of mother & son or father & daughter are being destroyed in the name of “rnam krtva ghrtam pibet”. Society is literally eating itself out.

Though ethics and genetics can explain why many of these are wrong (especially the latter two), it was the concept of God/Paraa-Shakti/ParaBrahman that gave sanctity to all these relationships in the first place. By “Invading the Sacred”, the sanctity of life and living right has been lost, in favour of living pleasant. Preyas has finally and completely obliterated Shreyas. But all the plastic surgery in the world cannot hide the ugliness that humans have on the inside.

Without+photoshop+_305e904f954ae7c6b82bd7893278408d

Does Nastika simply mean heterodox/denying Veda or actual atheism?

In fact, the Sanskrit word for orthodox is nisthavaan. So the question of orthodoxy vs heterodoxy is not necessarily rooted in astika and nastika.

As a person who embraces the Veda as apaurusheya, one might venture to ask this question: Is all that’s happening today why great saints condemn denial of God?

It is true that there can be good, ethical individuals who happen to be atheist. It is also true that if one is to live by strictly “rational” or “scientific” standards, agnosticism (as opposed to atheism) is the more empirical position (as it admits we don’t know—not enough evidence). But the question isn’t what happens when very good or even the best people take atheist/agnostic positions—it’s whether Pandora’s box has been opened for the middling or the very worst to behave as they please.

Despite being a person who revers the Veda as sacred, one might ask  whether the greater sinner is in fact not the Veda Virodhaka , but the Deva Na-asti-ka..

Is this what the Puranas meant when they said that “popular preachers” in the Kali Age would be…”Naastikas” and Pashandas—those skilled at feeding both their bellies and their genitals?—because whatever Vedic ritual they do…they don’t believe God exists.

After all, if life is in the material (rather than the conscious spirit), then there is nothing after death (it’s lights out). So technically speaking, setting aside the very good and very bad people, how will very “average” people behave? There is nothing wrong in being “average” or wanting to appreciate all aspects of life. But when one is just “average” in virtue or Dharma, that means he or she is only as good or as bad as society allows him or her to be. Such a person simply wants to “get along, and live comfortable life without hurting others …if possible…”.

So with no aspiration to live an exemplary life, life essentially becomes a matter of triangulation: “Eh I don’t really care to be a Sati-Savitri, but I don’t want to be a Surpanakha either—what’s everyone else doing?”. But as society slowly but surely dilutes the definition of bad (“there is no good/bad, just perspective), men and women slip more and more towards the bad (because, “neethulu koodu guda pettavu” until finally…“rnam krtva ghrtam pibet”).

It is of course also important to note that by Deva na-asti-ka, we refer not to just those who reject the possibility of any deity, but rather, those denying the existence and agency of Paramatman or ParaBrahman or Paraa-Shakti.

Many charvakas in fact masquerade as (small d) deva-worshippers while overcompensatingly boasting about virility (again, small d…or in this case, no d). This in turn drives the sadism of their views and espousal of nazi theories, and the distinctly un-dharmic concept of “patriarchy”. It is a denial of Veda by denying Vedanta (which is more than just a school of philosophy (Uttara Mimamsa, or higher investigation)—but the literal “end” purpose of the Veda). Real rishis know this, and thus tell the followers of Purva Mimamsa (earlier/beginning investigation) to “proceed further”. But this attachment to ritual, privilege, and ritual privilege has led to an espousal of materiality, ironically on religious grounds. It is also why a real rishi like Ramana maharshi is often insulted by them—it is no different than the charvaka of old misguiding the masses and falsely portraying others. This segues to our conclusion.

We conclude as we began. An important point need be stressed about deity-worship, as all deities are not benevolent. And Dharma is not paganism.  It is true that Vedanta (‘literally the End of the Vedas’) emphasises that there is a Supreme Brahman which is the pervading and active spirit in all beings. Modern Charvakas often attempt to conflate this either with 1 true God-ism, or non-theism (giving some inert non-autonomous quality to it). This is typically done as it then gives justification to the Asuric—that is non-benevolent, or even malevolent deities that egotistically manipulate human beings for their own ultimate Supremacy—in defiance of the Supreme.

After all, many of the devas (i.e. Varuna) were originally Asuras. Regardless of paying lip-service to the Devaraja, such worship is usually characterised by imbalance, and even if the masculine is balanced by the feminine—it is done cynically, debasing both in the process. Whatever “we” that is there is contractual, terminating with its conditions, and reverting back to the original egotistical “me”. In fact, while much may not be known today about the historical Charvakas, the Mahabharata provides a parable for the modern reader that is particularly prescient. And we will end with that:

” After the great Kuruksetra war, when the Pandava brothers were returning
triumphantly, thousands of brahmins gathered at the city gate to bestow their blessing on Yudhisthira. Among them was Charvaka. He moved forward and
without the consent of the rest of the brahmins, he addressed the king thus:”

A little while after when the Brahmanas had become silent, a Rakshasa of the name of Charvaka, who had disguised himself as a Brahmana, addressed the king. He was a friend of Duryodhana and stood therein the garb of a religious mendicant. With a rosary, with a tuft of hair on his head, and with the triple staff in his hand, he stood proudly and fearlessly in the midst of all those Brahmanas that had come there for pronouncing benedictions (upon the king), numbering by thousands, O king, and all of whom were devoted to penances and vows. That wicked wight, desirous of evil unto the high-souled Pandavas and without having consulted those Brahmanas, said these words unto the king.’

“Charvaka said, ‘All these Brahmanas, making me their spokesman, are saying, ‘Fie on thee! Thou art a wicked king. Thou art a slayer of kinsmen. What shalt thou gain, O son of Kunti, by having thus exterminated thy race? Having slain also thy superiors and preceptor, it is proper for thee to cast away thy life.’ Hearing these words of that wicked Rakshasa the Brahmanas there became deeply agitated. Stung by that speech, they made a loud uproar. And all of them, with king Yudhishthira. O monarch, became speechless from anxiety and shame.’

“Yudhishthira said, ‘I bow down to you and beseech you humbly, be gratified with me. It doth not behove you to cry fie on me. I shall soon lay down my life.’ 1

“Vaisampayana continued, ‘Then all those Brahmanas, O king, loudly said, ‘These are not our words. Prosperity to thee, O monarch!’ Those high-souled persons, conversant with the Vedas, with understanding rendered clear by penances, then penetrated the disguise of the speaker by means of their spiritual sight.’ And they said, ‘This is the Rakshasa Charvaka, the friend of Duryodhana. Having put on the garb of a religious mendicant, he seeks the good of his friend Duryodhana.

We have not, O thou of righteous soul, said anything of the kind. Let this anxiety of thine be dispelled. Let prosperity attend upon thee with thy brothers.’

“Vaisampayana continued, ‘These Brahmanas then, insensate with rage, uttered the sound Hun. Cleansed of all sins, they censured the sinful Rakshasa and slew him there (with that very sound). Consumed by the energy of those utterers of Brahma, Charvaka fell down dead, like a tree with all its sprouts blasted by the thunder of Indra. [1]

Unfortunately, many such Rakshasas disguising themselves as Brahmanas have been subtly disseminating Charvaka beliefs by misinterpreting texts and misguiding the naïve, trusting, and the devoutly orthodox. The time has come to expose them and their misguiding malevolence, before all of Hindu Society not only descends into Charvaka-ism, but is destroyed by it.

References:

  1. The Mahabharata. Shanti Parva. Section 36. Page 82.http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a038.htm

Related Posts