From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Cārvāka)
Jump to: navigation, search

RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system?[edit]

See comments in white box. Formerip (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: Yes, Carvaka was a Hindu nastika system.

There doesn't seem to be any remaining dispute about this. The sourcing is clear (I've also been able to verify it for myself) and editors seem to be in agreement that what was initially contentious - the use of "Hindu" - is appropriate. Additional issues have been raised about whether is might be misleading for readers who have only a basic understanding about Hinduism. I don't think it's necessary to address those in detail, because this is not what was originally asked and the article appears stable at the moment. FWIW, though, I don't find the lead as it is currently written misleading.

Is it correct to say that Cārvāka was a "Hindu" nastika system? --Rahul (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead mentions that "Cārvāka is classified as a heterodox Hindu (Nāstika) system.[1][2][3] However, the sources provided here seems to be unreliable or misrepresented. "Radhakrishnan and Moore" and "Galvin flood" does not support the assertion. "M.h.Siddiqui" is of dubious reliability and also does not directly say that it was a "Hindu" movement. I think the word "hindu" should be replaced with Indian.

The second line of the same paragraph states that "It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. While this branch of Indian philosophy is today not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, some describe it as an atheistic or materialistic philosophical movement within Hinduism.[4][5]" The sources seem to be misrepresented again. The Jain monk Haribhadra, for example is a primary source. The other mentioned source also does not back up the assertion. --Rahul (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Philosophical & Socio" by M.h.Siddiqui, p. 63|quote="Carvaka is classified as a "heterodox" (nastika) system", "part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism"
  2. ^ Radhakrishnan and Moore, "Contents".
  3. ^ p. 224. Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
  4. ^ Though this school of thought is not commonly considered as a part of six orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy, Haribhadra Suri, a Jain mendicant from c. seventh century, considers this school as a part of those six in his book ShaDdarshan Samucchaya. Potter, Karl H. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 A.D. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publications. pp. 435–436. ISBN 978-81-208-1968-9. 
  5. ^ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore. A Source book in Indian Philosophy. (Princeton University Press: 1957, Twelfth Princeton Paperback printing 1989) pp. 227–49. ISBN 0-691-01958-4.
(( Add the reflist so we can see what sources the numbers refer to. (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC) ))
Despite these sources seems to be large in amount, if you start mining for the sources, you may find many more reliable sources, that would be considering Carvaka as Hindu. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow Radhakrishnan and Moore, and Flood. Sources must not be misrepresented. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised that this rfc was requested, and then edits made before even giving a chance for discussion. It would be sensible Rahul to revert and discuss this. FMMonty (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have self-reverted for now. --Rahul (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In my view after reading the link provided by Bladesmulti in "Further Notes", Radakrishnan did NOT regard Lokayata/Cervaka as within orthodox Vedanta, but paved the way for that school by demolishing the old patterns of thought.Arildnordby (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking into that source provided in Further Notes this philosophical school of thought died out around 1000 AD (+-30%). However (this is a poor summary please read the source to see where I'm going, to help I have added in a few page numbers) parts of the philosophy passed into Jainism and Hinayana Buddhism, as well as into the philosophical schools of Samkhya and Vaisesika (p76). As Samkhya is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy (is it just me who finds a religion where you can be an atheist fascinating) I'm be inclined to make a couple of arguments.
  • Cārvāka was a nastika system (is there any argument over this?).
  • Elements of Cārvāka survive in Hindu philosophy as Samkhya (Samkhya is epistemologically very close to the Cārvāka system (p89), however it is Astika), Cārvāka sources were cited by Samkhya thinkers as authoritative (p84), so it was an accepted "Hindu" school of philosophy, if not orthodox Hindu.
I need to do a lot more reading, however on the grounds that Hinduism is variably a religion, a set of Indian philosophies, and a set of practices / way of life I think it'd be hard to find something you couldn't call Hindu rather than the other way round. FMMonty (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no argument over the fact that Carvaka was a nastika system. The argument is whether it is a "Hindu" nastika system or not. I also agree that elements of Carvaka might have survived in Hindu philosophy, Jain philosophy and/or Buddhist philosophy. I think we can mention that Carvaka is an Indian nastika system in the lead (instead of Hindu). Also, either, we can remove the "Hinduism" template, or add "Jainism" and "Buddhism" templates too, since they also have parts of Carvaka philosophy. (Jainism, Buddhism and many other non-abrahamic religions are atheistic) I am in favor of removing Hinduism template. --Rahul (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Carvaka shares nothing so special with buddhism or Jainism. It is a heterodox Hindu nastika system. There isn't anything to argue, as the picture is clear. Tomorrow someone will make a new religion which will share similarities with Carvaka so we will need more templates? No. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, if it was clear from what we currently have to hand this discussion wouldn't be continuing. Rahul and you do not share the same definition of Hindu. You can keep repeating it is a heterodox Hindu nastika system as often as you'd like, but unless you understand why Rahul disagrees you're setting yourself up for an eternal editwar.
Rahul, do you have any specific reason to believe that Carvaka, with its deep roots in Hindu thought is not an unorthodox line of thinking within the body of Hindu philosophy? FMMonty (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Carvaka, along with Ajivika, Jainism and Buddhism are some of the schools of thought which has their roots in Indian thought. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, most of which clearly says that the above four philosophies are not part of Hinduism. We can write that Carvaka was an "Indian" hetrodox movement in the lead and discuss their precise relation with Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other religions somewhere in the body of the article. --Rahul (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No one is talking about Ajivika, Buddhism or Jainism. We already got reliable sources for confirming that Carvaka is classified as a heterodox Hindu (Nāstika) system, those I had posted on main page. They clearly confirm so. Hope you are not repeating yourself. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, lets see if we can help with why it is hard to agree
  • Reference 1, page 63, Indian philosophy that shows a strand of materialism in Hinduism, note doesn't directly call it Hindu philosophy. Haven't read outside of p63.
  • Reference 2, Indian philosophy
  • Reference 3, I don't have access to Flood without requesting it from the library.
@Bladesmulti, the reason that Rahul doesn't agree is that you've not made a clear enough argument from the sources. It is both a Hindu philosophy and an Indian philosophy, which makes you both right, yet you're both trying to tell the other that they are wrong! To a follower of Buddhism / Jainism, Carvaka would be seen through the lens of their beliefs as a philosophy rejecting the past and helping strengthen parts of their faith. To a Hindu it would be seen as part of the rich history of philosophies making up the Hindu body of thought.
That said, if you look at pages 67 and 82, page 19, drawing from the more formal Halbfass, Wilhelm . (1988), India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding, State University of New York Press  you'll find that we should probably keep Hindu (pretty much the same argument I made earlier but made by people who aren't me), but it would be good to mention it's importance to the other faiths. FMMonty (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I am still in favor of keeping "Indian" philosophy. If possible, please have a look at the conversation here at Talk:Cārvāka#Carvaka.2C_a_Hindu_philosopher.3F. I have also left messages at the talk page of User:Mayasutra and User:Kenfyre for more opinion. --Rahul (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
As I said, according to the sources it's both, and it would not be in agreement with the sources to not include both Indian and Hindu. I would suggest Carvaka was an Indian philosophy that is usually classified as a non orthodox, atheist Hindu philosophy. Using the terms heterodox or nastika are unnecessarily confusing. FMMonty (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, are we on the same page on what we mean by Hinduism? The ancient texts, which describe Carvaka, don't use the word Hindu. Because the word have not come into use then. Carvaka, if described as Hindu anywhere, are done so by some modern scholars. Originally, Hindu was used to describe all the people living east of the Indus. Later, it came to refer to the religion/set of philosophies. If we describe Hinduism as the set of all philosophies originating in India, it would include Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism along with Carvaka. As some have mentioned, Carvaka, Buddhism and Jainism were categorised as Nastika philosophies, philosophies that were contrary to Vedic principles. Vedic religion was much different from modern Hinduism. I propose that if Carvaka has been called a Hindu philosophy, it should be explicitly mentioned by whom. But, it should be not be in the introductory sections. Kenfyre (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi @Kenfyre, can you clarify something for me please. As far as I can see from the current sources the prevailing view is that Carvaka was atheist, opposed to Vedic principles, and stopped being mainstream about 1000 years ago. The current sources we have available (on this page) also say that scholars these days usually classify Carvaka as a non orthodox Hindu philosophy. Do you disagree with any of those statements / sources? FMMonty (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree with those sources. But, I am opposed to putting them in the introductory section. The Oxford Dictionary defines Hindusim as, "a major religious and cultural tradition of South Asia, which developed from Vedic religion". Thus, layperson arriving via a search will be left confused by such an introduction, if he is not aware of the intricacies of Hinduism. Kenfyre (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we're all on the same page with the sources. Now all we need to do is agree the wording. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you think people will find confusing, so I can't suggest some changes. What do you think would be confusing? FMMonty (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If the word "Hindu", if means a follower of the religion of "Hinduism", then Charvaka cannot be described as a "Hindu". The authoritative books on Hinduism such as flood and Dongier does not mention Charvaka as hetrodox Hinduism. However, the word is ambiguous. For example, according to the constitution of India the followers of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. are collectively called as Hindu. This might be the reason that Indian authors characterize charvaka as a Hindu movement, because the word "Hindu", in this sense is synonymous to the word "Indian". --Rahul (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. However I can't imagine anyone who doesn't have an interest in philosophy coming onto the page of a 1000 year old philosophy, that'd be a little like accidently stumbling onto Heraclitus. Actually Heraclitus is a good example simply because he wasn't considered to be within a school of thought at the time, however later followers were classified as Heracliteans, and eventually (somewhat changed) Stoics. I'm not convinced that avoiding the statement that these days it is usually classified as a Hindu philosophy is necessary, however I'd like to work with you guys on how that could best be worded. What we don't want is to give the idea that it is a Hindu religious sect, as that would be way off base. FMMonty (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
FMMonty, the other way someone might arrive at Talk:Cārvāka is via AN/I.  :-)   The discussion seems to have trailed off, but without decisions being finalized into mainspace. Currently the article is in the somewhat-confusing state of having the Hindu-infoboxen up top, as preferred by Bladesmulti, and the "Indian" keyword in the first sentence, as preferred by Rahul. We might end up with Sophists infoboxen, if we aren't careful! Can you please suggest a compromise-wording, that covers what you think the sources are telling us here? I had never heard of Cārvāka before, and am not versed in either the ancient or the modern languages that describe it best, plus as Rahul says the original primaries are lost, so I have little to put forward in the way of prose-suggestions of my own at the moment. But if you are willing, please put forward some suggested wordings, either one at a time or several in a bunch, and we'll see what folks think is closest to the sources. Thanks for improving wikipedia, please drop a note on my talkpage if you reply, and I don't respond promptly. p.s. Suggest making an arbitrary section break since this is getting pretty long in the tooth. (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further notes[edit]

Radhakrishnan viewed Carvaka as orthodox vedantin.[1] Bladesmulti (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ James Thrower. [[1] The Alternative Tradition: Religion and the Rejection of Religion in the Ancient World] Check |url= value (help). Walter de Gruyter. p. 54. ISBN 9789027979971. 

Haribhadra and Carvaka[edit]

Ogress: I checked Karl Potter, and there is no mention at all of "Haribhadra, from circa the seventh century, considers Carvaka school as a part of six orthodox schools of Hinduism in his book, Shaddarsana-samuccaya", on pages 435-436 or anywhere else. I have removed it from the lead, though you added it here. It needs a source, as this fringe claim is simply very different than the widely accepted scholarly view on Carvakas. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I have also reverted several of your Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha and Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha edits because it does not match what the source states, but left two instances of change where your and's corrections matched the source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I didn't add those sources, I took one giant REF tag full of stuff and split it into individual REFs, placing statements from that tag directly into the text. I attest to no truth of the matter and I agree. I literally just separated it into separate tags and/or put sentences onto the page so problematic things like this could be found. Thank you. As for the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha, is there some reason we aren't citing onto the quote but rather putting the REF before it? That seems like a weird decision? I changed the text to Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha for technical reasons but I erred in changing the content of that quote: my apologies for that oversight. I do a lot of wikignome and errors do happen. Ogress smash! 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


While the consensus in the original discussion was that the Cārvāka philosophy, unlike Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivikism, was a nastika Hindu philosophy, it has been discovered recently that User:Bladesmulti was a sockpuppet of a master of masters puppeteer, OccultZone. OZ had 225000+ edits on his main account alone and staggering thousands more on puppets (one alone had 5000) as well as 16,000 edits alone as Bladesmulti. It seems he did reliable work but also gamed the living heck out of the system, especially on Indian-related issues. Should we reexamine that evidence to check if in general it appears to support the conclusion? Ogress smash! 20:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I was not part of the RFC discussion. Could you explain your concern in the light of at least five reliable sources cited in the article, that state "Carvaka to be a heterodox Hindu philosophy"? Several of them have embedded quotes. If you have equivalent reliable sources that state something different, please add it with those sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the level of hostility you have aimed at me on this and other pages today. In the light of a current conflict on this and another page - which one participant wanted me to get involved in, assuming I stood for their position-, I wanted to examine those edits and the conclusion of the vote. I did not edit the page and change what it already says about its Hindu/non-Hindu status; I simply am aware Bladesmulti gamed the heck out of Wikipedia votes. I have not yet examined the material.
As I stated earlier, I routinely examine quotes to check that they actually say what they claim or that they exist. You could simply have stated that "five reliable sources cited in the article state that Carvaka is a heterodox Hindu philosophy".
If you want to change the name of the page, run a vote. In the meantime, the fact that I standardised the page's spelling of Carvaka is not cause for a revert of my work on both pages. If you don't like it, discuss changing the name. I didn't change any quotes or titles. There's no cause for you to do that. Ogress smash! 23:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Cārvāka and Carvaka[edit]

Both spellings are in use in reliable sources (see, for example, KK Chakrabarti (1995), Definition and Induction: A Historical and Comparative Study, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0824816582, page 141). Lets keep both spellings in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Ogress smash! 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Because both spellings are in use in reliable sources. Why pick one spelling, why pick a side? Is there a wikipedia policy or guideline page that requires this? I am fine with either spelling, and have no particular preference for the title being Cārvāka or Carvaka. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Cārvāka is the vṛddhi or patronymic form of Carvaka (i.e., Cārvāka can mean "of or related to or descending from Carvaka"), just as Vāsudeva is the vṛddhi form of Vasudeva. The latter (Carvaka), unfortunately, is also the diacritic-free form. So we must be careful in a given instance *both* whether that source is using the "ancestor" or "descendent" form, and whether that source is using IAST/marked-up spellings at all. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The editor has a point. Also, who is picking a side? I'm just organising the spelling. What "side"? Is there some war going on? I'm trying to prevent confusion. Ogress smash! 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Carvaka not part of Hinduism[edit]

Carvaka is not part of Hinduism. This is clear from referring to one of the most celebrated studies of Carvaka/Lokayata philosophy by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism. Bladesmulti was a disingenuous editor, a sockpuppet and a POV pusher. The decision arrived at on the basis of statements made by him (and perhaps by his socks) above, about Carvaka being a heterodox Hindu philosophy, is hence no longer valid. Concerned editors/reviewers may verify my claim by consulting Chattopadhyay's book mentioned above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya is an interesting but dated Marxist-POV scholar. Minority views can be included in this article, but not by suppressing the majority scholarly view. The article has multiple recent reliable sources, with embedded quotes, that state Carvaka is a Hindu philosophy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: Please identify the page number where Chattopadhyaya states "Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The entire book Sarah Welch is a thesis which shows that Carvaka was a materialist school of philosophy in ancient India which challenged Brahminical orthodoxy (much like the materialist school of Epicureanism was a challenge to Christianity.) The word Hinduism FYI has not been used in 1.the Vedas 2. the Upanishads 3. the Puranas 4. the Brahmanas 5. the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata 6. the Bhagavad Gita... in none of the Hindu texts until the 19th century. The first mention of the word "Hindooism" is by the social reformer Ram Mohun Roy in 1816 (See David Lorenzen's "Who Invented Hinduism"), and Hinduism itself as a collection of sects as we know it today is a late 19th century development. So you will not come across simple textbook sentences like "Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy" but read at least the first chapter of Debiprasad Chattopadhyay and it will be clear to you why Carvaka is not part of Hindu philosophy. And it is not fair to make flippant comments like Marxist-POV dated etc when the only two book-length studies of Carvaka philosophy are by Debiprasad Chattopadhyay and Ramkrishna Bhattacharya. And both of them come to the same conclusion: that Carvaka was a materialist philosophy which was completely antagonistic to the Vedas and the Upanishads. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I will ignore your discursive forum-like lecture and your opinions. You are doing original research when you derive new conclusions such as "Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy" after "reading this or that chapter" of a book by Debiprasad Chattopadhyay, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya or someone else.
Policy: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
You must find and present a source, or a specific page from the published Debiprasad Chattopadhyay book where he reaches or implies the conclusion "Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
You are lecturing me Sarah Welch without reading the book I have cited. The book clearly shows that Carvaka philosophy refuted the claims made in the Vedas and challenged Vedic authority. The central texts of Hinduism are the Vedas and any philosophy which is completely antagonistic to the Vedas can't be part of Hinduism. This is not original research, this is how you reason to categorize something as belonging to one class or the other. (This is the reasoning used to class almost all the scriptures, texts, sects and philosophies as part of Hinduism as the word "Hinduism" itself was not used until 19th century.) The first chapter of Chattopadhyaya's book does make it very clear that Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy.
Here is an excerpt from the book which implies that Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy: "To the Vedantist sruti or revelation was the highest authority. Arguments alone could not prove any thesis; these had validity only as subservient to sruti. Therefore, for a Vedantist, the surest proof for a statement is some quotation from the Upanisadic texts. But this was exactly the opposite of the Lokayatika attitude. Even on Madhava's own admission, the Lokayatikas looked at the sruti as but fabrications of the lazy cheats." (p.22) -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hinduism is not Vedanta. You're taking a source that might say that Charvaka was against Vedanta/Upanishads, and applying original research to conclude that it is therefore not part of Hinduism. For example, when you say that "The central texts of Hinduism are the Vedas and any philosophy which is completely antagonistic to the Vedas can't be part of Hinduism", this is an argument of your own, not something from a reliable source. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: That excerpt does not reach or imply the conclusion, "Carvaka was not a Hindu philosophy". Your conclusion is OR. Your excerpt is unacceptable, your lecturing tendentious. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Shreevatsa: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you Sarah Welch. Please show me which book on Carvaka (and don't quote from books on Hinduism) says Carvaka is a school of Hindu philosophy. Books on Astika philosophy (by people like S. Radhakrishnan) are written by Idealists, and books on Carvaka are written by Materialists (Marxists/dialectical materialists). Idealists cannot decide what Carvaka is and call it a subsidiary rebel sect of their religion. Their opinions hold no water. The materialists' definition of their materialism is what matters and none of the Carvaka philosophers like Brihaspati, or its modern dialectical materialist interlocutors like Chattopadhyay and Bhattacharya, call Carvaka a Hindu philosophy. If you impose a Hindu identity on Carvaka based on Hindu sources you would be adopting a fascist and hegemonic approach. This is a serious matter. This affects the ethos of the whole of wikipedia and the non-fascist democratic spirit of the internet. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Mohanbhan: Scholarly secondary and tertiary sources such as recent books on Hinduism, and peer reviewed publications are reliable sources for wikipedia. The article already meets the "burden of proof", it has multiple RS that state, "Carvaka is a Hindu philosophy". RS doesn't mean "the Chattopadhyay book you, @Mohanbhan, likes".

As I noted earlier, if you find any reliable source that verifiably concludes, "Carvaka was not a Hindu philosophy", we can include that minority opinion somewhere in this article. So far you have only offered OR, tendentious lectures, and in your latest reply a confusing spiel about "fascist and hegemonic approach". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

RS, in this case, would be books written by Materialists for the reasons stated above. You have reduced my argument to "RS means a book that I like." What can I say to this? Radhakrishnan and Moore's book is a survey of Indian philosophy, for an article like this one has to look at specialist works on Carvaka philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Every Hindu believes that Vedas are supreme and that anyone who denies Vedas are not Hindus. Charvaka simply denies Vedas and Hindu orthodoxy. So how can it be considered as a Atheistic school of Hinduism. The term "Hindu" is a recent origin. It did not existed at the timne of Philospher Charavaka. Charvaka never claimed himself to be a Hindu just like Buddha never claimed to be an Avatar of Vishnu. So on what basis you can claim a philosophy which never claimed himself to be a Hindu and denied their orthodox medthods. Mohanbhan I agree with your thoughts. Terabar (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what is happening on the talk page, Terabar, it is not appropriate to continue an edit war, and especially not to mark it as a minor edit. Ogress smash! 00:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hinduism and Vedic religion are different things, if you want to keep sidebar of Hinduism then delete symbol of "om" from it, because it is symbol of "Vedic religion" not Hinduism. There is no mention of word "Hindu" in Vedas. Hindu is very recent geographic term. Or simple create new sidebar of "Indian religions" or "Indian philosophies" and keep all religions(theist+atheist) in it. We can call it as "part of series of Indian philosophies". --Human3015 knock knock • 00:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Terabar: I respect your right to believe in whatever you want – however profound or absurd it might be, but content in Wikipedia is based on reliable verifiable sources. Read the discussion above, respond constructively with pages numbers and reliable sources. Please do not delete the template from the article, because the template is supported by the content and reliable sources cited therein, and because this issue is being actively discussed. Your edit was disruptive. Please do not engage in such behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: This is from the Carvaka article. "Cārvākas rejected religious conceptions of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, such as those of the afterlife, reincarnation, samsara, karma and religious rites. They were critical of the Vedas, as well as Buddhist scriptures.Source: name=Richard Hayes (2000), The Question of Doctrinalism in the Buddhist Epistemologists, in Philosophy of Religion: Indian Philosophy (Editor:Roy Perrett), Routledge, ISBN 978-0815336112, pages 187-212" Now what do you say to this, if the Carvakas had rejected Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions how can they be identified as belonging to Hindu philosophy? What carries greater weight? What the Carvakas themselves claimed or what some 20th century non-materialist Hindu scholars, privileging the Hindu POV, say about them? -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: This, as you note, is already in the article. I checked the source again, and clarified the language. A sub-school can reject traditions, concepts and/or beliefs, and still be included under the same umbrella concept. A heterodox school of any philosophy/religion, by definition, does not conform with orthodox standards or beliefs - yet is included in the study of that philosophy/religion. Just a reminder: Wikipedia articles are not RS, this talk page is not a forum, and you need to provide an "external", reliable source that verifies the content you wish to add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Change the title of article to Lokayata[edit]

I don't know what "sub-school" you are talking about. I have already provided RS: Chattopadhyay's Lokayata. This is what some of the world's great thinkers had to say about the book:
  • Joseph Needham, best known for his multi-volume Science and Civilisation in China, wrote to the author: “Your book will have a truly treasured place on my shelves. It is truly extraordinary that we should have approached ancient Chinese and ancient Indian civilisations with such similar results....”
  • Louis Renou, the then doyen of French Indologists, said: “The book is of definite value and deserves to be carefully studied by Indologists and sociologists.”
  • George Thomson, Professor of Greek, University of Birmingham, UK, spoke of it as “the work of a creative Marxist who knows and loves his subject.”
  • Walter Ruben was of the opinion that Chattopadhyaya’s “books are indicative of a new period of Indian investigation of Indian philosophy.” Source: Fifty Years of Lokayata by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya What can I do if you won't look at it?
Also, I think the title of this article has to be changed to "Lokayata", because that is what they called themselves and what it was known as. Carvaka was the name given to it by outsiders and critics. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I oppose your title change proposal. Read WP:TITLE. The policy is, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." The numerous reliable sources cited in this article confirm that the term Carvaka is the predominant usage. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The "numerous reliable sources" also mention the word Lokayata, if you look at them. But it is Lokayata which is the popular and more acceptable term. Google search for Lokayata yields 1,01,000 hits while for Carvaka it is only 48,300.
These are the titles of book-length studies on Lokayata philosophy which use Lokayata as the title:
  1. Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
  2. Studies in Carvaka/Lokayata by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya
  3. The Philosophy of Lokayata by Bijayananda Kar
  4. Athena's Loom: A Collection of Modern Lokayata Sutras by Wade Rawluk
  5. Athena's Loom: A Modern Lokayata Tantra by Wade Rawluk
  6. Lokayata, a critical study: Indian spiritualism reaffirmed (Sri Garib Das oriental series) by Shubhada A Joshi
  7. Carvaka/Lokayata: An Anthology of Source Materials and Some Recent Studies by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
5 Books use Lokayata as their title while 2 use both Carvaka and Lokayata. A total of 7 books use the word Lokayata as title.
These are the titles of book-length studies on Lokayata philosophy which use Carvaka as the title:
  1. Studies in Carvaka/Lokayata by Ramakrishna Bhattacharya
  2. Carvaka/Lokayata: An Anthology of Source Materials and Some Recent Studies by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya
  3. Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought by Heera Bhupendra
  4. Scepticism In Indian Thought : Carvaka Philosophy Reexamined by Latika Chattopadhyaya
  5. Cärväka by Russell Jesse
3 books use Carvaka as the title while 2 books use both Carvaka and Lokayata as the title. A total of 5 books use Carvaka as title.
It is very clear which is the more popular word, both among the public and in the academia. So following WP:TITLE the article has to be retitled Lokayata. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: You claim, "Google search for Lokayata yields 101,000 hits". But this search includes hits irrelevant to the ancient school of materialism in India. Vast majority of the search hits include shop and galleries with the same name, such as 1, 2 and others.

Your list of books is incomplete. Here are a few I can remember having come across some while ago, 1. Carvaka Darsana Ki Sástriya Samiksa (a Critical Study); 2. Carvaka: Barhaspatya Sutras, Jayarasi Bhata, Astika; 3. The Tale of Carvaka: The Hindu Hedonist-philosopher; 4. Carvaka, Jaina, Buddha; 6. Carvaka Philosophy Truth Inquirer; and many more. Your list also ignores numerous scholarly books and peer reviewed journal articles that include Carvakas, as a chapter or section, in their scope. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well I have restricted myself to books in English, if you start adding books in non-English languages then the list would be long and unverifiable. Also, I have only included scholarly studies of Lokayata philosophy. "The Tale of Carvaka: The Hindu Hedonist-philosopher" is not a scholarly work but a fictional (or semi-fictional) story of Carvaka, the character who appears in the Mahabharata. But yes the hits on Google books and Google scholar are more for Carvaka than for Lokayata, so I will not pursue the matter any further. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There is also a book in Bengali titled 'Lokayata Debiprasad' which includes the writings of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and also other contributors (this is not the same book as the english Lokayata):
Tentative Support. The best chronicler of this philosophy has been Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. He has written the book Lokayata (which has been praised and endorsed by many international scholars of world wide reputation including Joseph Needham, Louis Renou and others). In explaining the word Lokayata, Chattopadhyaya refers to a sanskrit saying: Lokesu ayata Lokayata--it was called Lokayata because it was prevalent among the people. Charvaka, argues Chattopadhyaya, was a term coined by the opponents of these philosophers. The word Charvaka seems to be derived from the root word charva meaning to chew. That is, that according to the opponents of these philosophers the Lokayata philosophers were hedonists. Additionally, Lokayata was always categorized as a Nastika philosophy along with Jainism and Buddhism throughout the history of Indian philosophy. However, i would also suggest that we could change the title to 'Charvaka/Lokayata'. But if we have to choose only one word, i would go with Lokayata. Soham321 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: as per WP:COMMONNAME, most of people know him by name Carvaka. Article mentions that his original name is "Lokayata", also Lokayata redirects here and I think that much importance is enough for name Lokayata. --Human3015 knock knock • 19:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Both names are obviously acceptable, and one can selectively cite sources to support either, but overall Cārvāka appears to be the more commonly used name in academic literature. For example see this bibliography of 125 secondary sources on the subject (an online version/update of The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, vol I), in which Cārvāka is used almost thrice as often as Lokāyata in the titles (43 vs 15 by my count using page-search). Btw, if editors cannot agree, a formal WP:RM should be opened instead of voting "support" and "oppose" as part of a discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya as a source for this article[edit]

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's has been an important, interesting and useful source on Carvakas/Lokayata, particularly his 1959 book. He is a dated source though, and per the critical review of Dale Riepe, Chattopadhyaya wrote with a Marxist-perspective and his book highlight his communist ideological leanings. Chattopadhyaya published his book 50+ years ago with People's Publishing House, a small publisher in India that is not known for having an editorial process. It is a primary source in many parts, and caution is necessary given Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. His views if and where included must be checked and balanced out with recent scholarly publications. Jessica Frazier's chapter published in 2014 by Oxford University Press, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya's recent books on Carvakas, and the like are examples of good recent sources. It is worth noting that Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, the prolific modern writer on Carvakas sparingly cites Chattopadhyaya as his source, and cites other scholars more frequently.

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, in 1969, published a book titled, "Hindu Atheism" through a Calcutta publisher, which included Carvaka/Lokayata as the thematic example in it (check page 378, second last line of Stephen Bullivant and Michael Ruse (2014), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, ISBN 978-0199644650). This book is out of print and now rare. Chattopadhyaya in 1973 traced what he called, "ancient Hindu materialist thought" (Carvaka) to Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads (check page 156 of Ramkrishna Bhattacharya (2011), Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata, ISBN 978-0857284334).

Chattopadhyaya is known for some good pioneering work, but also for strange writings. For example, Ramkrishna Bhattacharya writes, Chattopadhyaya did not deny Ajita Kesakambali was a materialist, but Chattopadhyaya chose to emphasize that "Ajita was no less a philosopher of futility and moral collapse than the Buddha, Mahavira, Purana ..."(check page 27 of Ramkrishna Bhattacharya (2011), Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not really worried about the publisher of Chattopadhayaya's work, since its notability is well established by the numerous secondary citations. But you are right that while Chattopadhayaya did yeoman work in studying the materialist schools and bringing them to prominence in 1950s-60s, his work is dated and sometimes blinkered by his political ideology. See Gerald Larson's write-up on Chattopadhyaya for example (pages 63-66). Best to use him with care, and in conjunction with more recent scholarship, such as Bhattacharya that you already mentioned or others listed here. Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Indeed. Yours is a useful link to Karl Potter's bibliography. I will add it to this article's external links section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The 1969 book is titled 'Indian Atheism' and not 'Hindu Atheism'. Chattopadhyaya continued to write on the Charvaka/Lokayata philosophy into the 1990s. In his books and articles, Dale Riepe praises Chattopadhyay's writings on Indian philosophy. Your claim that Dale Riepe is criticizing Chattopadhyaya only undermines your credibility here. Also, tearing stray sentences out of context just so that you can slam Chattopadhyaya are clearly inappropriate. See the book 'History of Science and Technology' volume 2 for for his detailed analysis of Ajita Kesakambli. Soham321 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And Chattopadhyay's book 'Indian Atheism' does not have a single chapter about the Charvaka/Lokayata philosophers. He writes about Sankhya Atheism, Nyaya-Vasiesika Atheism, Mimansa Atheism, Atheism of the Buddha, Mahyayana and Hinayana Buddhism, and Jain Atheism. He also talks a bit about the Advaita Vedants should not be regarded as theism since it denies the existence of a personal god who is the creator and moral governor of the world. Sara Welch's claim that Chattopadhyaya talks of the Lokayata/Charvaka in his book (which she has wrongly spelled) only goes to undermine her credibility here. It is true that Chattopadhyaya had leftist views when it came to politics, but so did Bertrand Russell. So did many people of their generation. Sara Welch seems to have a very strong bias and prejudice against Chattopadhyaya. This was first seen in the talk page on Adi Shankara where she was refusing to accept him as a source on Indian philosophy and demanded that i give references to peer reviewed philosophical material which accepts him as an authority. I have done so on the Adi Shankara talk page.Soham321 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Soham321: This is not the talk page for Adi Shankara, therefore I will ignore your discursive comments about that article and not summarize your recent edit disputes with multiple editors on that talk page. Both @Abecedare and I are saying Chattopadhyaya is a "notable source for Carvakas/Lokayata", but his work is dated, it is best to use him with care and in conjunction with more recent scholarship in this article.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox source for any political ideology, it is a neutral source of information summarized from a plurality of mainstream reliable sources. Wikipedia is not Chattopadhyaya-pedia. Best to use Chattopadhyaya with care in this article and elsewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The desperation and intolerance of your comments speak for themselves. Carvaka philosophy, if you are still confused, is an atheistic philosophy, and Chattopadhyaya is its most renowned expert. Chattopadhayaya's work is not being used to re-write all the articles on Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, nor is it being used to reassess the religiosity or otherwise of the Vedas. (What are you getting so worked up about?) This is what is being proposed: to use Chattopadhayaya for the purpose of modifying this article which has been written entirely from a theistic, Astika point of view. I don't know why you should have a problem with that?
It is indeed strange that you expressing your impatience about Chattopadhayaya's atheism on a page about ancient Indian atheism and materialism. I think you should calm down and realise that this is not a page on Advaita Vedanta; your outbursts on atheism and materialism do not make any sense here. I think you have come here to prove that Carvaka philosophy was somehow not atheistic and materialistic and that it was "Hindu". And since you are not being able to assert its "Hinduness", and its subordination to the Hindu tradition, you are trying to undermine its depth and rigour, its popularity among people and the serious challenge it posed to Vedantic and theistic thought---all of which could be powerfully asserted by adding content sourced from Chattopadhyaya. So your extreme opposition to Chattopadhayaya even before we have added anything by him make your intentions very clear. But maybe you should read this: WP:NOTCENSORED; you cannot censor views on wikipedia just because they are unpalatable to you.
And BTW if you really are the champion of "pluralism" that you say you are you should include Chattopadhyaya's views in the Rigveda article. Since you have stated in this article that the roots of Carvaka philosophy can be traced back to Rigveda, the roots of Carvaka thought must also be acknowledged in the Rigveda article. Can you do it? Or did I just ask you to move the mountain? -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And this is Dale Riepe's review of the book 'Indian Atheism': You should be able to read the first page even if you do not have a JSTOR subscription. We will have to do away with books on Indian history by D.D. Kosambi, D.N. Jha, Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, Irfan Habib and others (because of their leftist political views) if Chattopadhyaya should not be considered an authority on the ground Sarah Welch is giving. Soham321 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Abecedare: interesting, Larson's piece on Chattopadhyaya. Interesting view, Samkhya as an outgrowth of pre-Vedic, proto-Tantric agri-cultural fertility-rites. Also interesting is the "contradiction" between the "Great Tradition" and the 'pre-Vedic/proto-Tantric folk tradition'. It seems that more authors, also Indian, have taken this alternative stance. I think that many conlicts at India-related articles are also related to this distinction: supporters of the "Great Tradition" versus alternative accounts, c.q. scholarly mainstream accounts. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagging and edits by User:Mohanbhan[edit]

@Mohanbhan: You tagged "The origins of Cārvāka can be traced to the Rigveda" for citation needed here. The source is clearly provided at the end of that sentence. I checked, and it is in the first paragraph of the referenced Radhakrishnan's book on page 227. The chapter is titled Carvaka, and the second sentence reads, "Its origin can be traced as far back as the Rg veda...". Concerns? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch, I had removed original research in which dictionary meanings were provided to explain the meaning of Carvaka and Lokayata. OR as you know very well is not acceptable. When I had cited the reason for removal with a link to WP:NOR, that is when my deletion was in accordance with wiki policy, you should not have reverted those. You are clearly indulging in disruptive edits and edit-warring and then going on the offensive by asking me not to edit war. This is not done. You should have discussed the changes on the talk page before resorting to disruptive edits. I had deleted nothing from the article except repetitions and had just reordered content to elucidate the meaning of Carvaka philosophy. Your only point seems to be to show that it is part of Hinduism and that it is not antagonistic to the Vedas. It is clear to me that you are pushing a POV and spoiling the article. Please don't do it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: Once again, just like Radhakrishnan's book above on Rig Veda, you are refusing to check Natalia Isaeva's book (Shankara and Indian Philosophy, 1993, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0791412817) which is referenced at the end of the paragraph. On page 27, footnote 18, she explains the etymological origin of Carvaka as sweet talker, and Lokayata as worldly. But you deleted it again. I am puzzled. I will give you some time to explain you action or concern, before I reinstate that well sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Natalia Isaeva's book is on Shankara who was clearly antagonistic to Carvaka philosophy; so the etymology of Carvaka as sweet talkers is not "well sourced content". As I said, for an article on Carvaka we have rely on expert studies on the subject and Chattopadhyaya, a renowned expert, offers a different etymology for Carvaka. That could be added to the article. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: That is not a reasonable explanation. "The book @Mohanbhan likes" is not Wikipedia's definition of RS. Natalia Isaeva's book is a reliable scholarly source. FWIW, you mentioned Bhattacharya's book on this talk page as a source for Carvaka/Lokayata. Have you read it? On pages 166-167, it discusses etymology of Carvaka and cites Monier Williams? Isaeva and Bhattacharya books both support the paragraph you deleted more than once. @Abecedare: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Again quoting selectively in order to deceive the community. Here is the link to the said page. Is Bhattacharya supporting that etymology? He is discussing many etymologies, and he is calling this particular derivation "an irregular construction" and that it is "definitely not known whether the word caru is to be taken as an adjective (meaning agreeable, pleasant, etc) or as a noun (which is another name of Brihaspati)" Why would you add such a problematic derivation? And why would you select only this from among the many derivations that he is discussing? It is clear to me that you are pushing a POV. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: If there are more than one side, don't call it problematic and delete it. Don't pick and choose content you like or don't like. Don't take sides. Just summarize all the sides. That is NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I have added a summary from Bhattacharya. If you have concerns, discuss it on this talk page before deleting sources and sourced content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you jumped the gun and added that problematic etymology while we were still discussing it. You are picking and choosing from many etymologies, not me. You are violating the NPOV, not me. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The point is you have not added "a summary from Bhattacharya", it is evident from the above link. You have picked and added a particular (problematic) etymology to push a POV. That is not OK. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: in your latest revert here, where you deleted, "Bhattacharya notes that the word Carvaka is of irregular construction, as cara as an adjective means "agreeable, pleasant", but as a noun is another name of Brihaspati, and both derivations are plausible." (Bhattacharya (2011), page 166). Please explain your concern. Alternatively, suggest a different etymological summary from Bhattacharya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: My concern is clearly stated above. It is a problematic etymology and doesn't clarify anything. Bhattacharya also states, "All the derivations proposed are plausible in so far as the formation of the word is admitted to be irregular." Carvaka, as I have already stated, is not a word that the Lokayatas gave themselves; it is derogatory label given to them by their opponents. This is stated in Chattopadhyaya which you, for some strange reason, call a primary source. It is a secondary source and the chief source of reference for the IEP article on Lokayata/Carvaka. This article too mentions the accepted etymology, "Literally, "Lokāyata" means philosophy of the people." Etymology is quoted to clarify and extend the meaning of a concept, not to distort it. May I know your reasons for wanting to add a problematic etymology? -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: You ask, "May I know your reasons for wanting to add a problematic etymology?" Reasons: Carvaka etymology is discussed in recent scholarly sources, and this is an article on Carvaka. An encyclopedia tries to comprehensively presents information, it does not avoid problematic perspectives about the topic. As the veteran contributor and admin @Abecedare above on this talk page, and I have earlier noted, "Chattopadhyaya work is dated and sometimes blinkered by his political ideology." This article should include, but not exclusively present Chattopadhyaya's dated POV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: You are deliberately distorting Chattopadhayay's standing and stature as an expert of Lokayata philosophy to suit your purposes. His work is not "dated", Bhattacharya considers him the greatest authority on the subject. You disregard him as "strange" and problematic and try to include an etymology that Bhattacharya himself concedes is not definitive. You have avoided Chattopadhyaya because he offers what you think are problematic perspectives on the topic; if that is your rationale for excluding content why do want to add an etymology which is decidedly problematic? Either you include all "problematic" content or you include none--you cannot be selective about including problematic content. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely with Mohanbhan. Sarah Welch comes across as a Vedantin based on my interaction with her on the talk page of Adi Shankara. I am disturbed by her repeated denunciation of Chattopadhyaya as an authority despite my showing her peer reviewed philosophical material which accepts him as an authority. In my opinion people who have a strong affiliation with the Vedanta philosophy do not have a neutral point of view when it comes to the Lokayata/Charvaka philosophy and for this reason should refrain from editing this page. Soham321 (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock’s edits[edit]

Cpt.a.haddock: You have reverted my deletion of Carvaka etymology stating that "considering it was already there it should not have been removed." Is that your argument: something that is in the article should not be removed even if it is problematic? I have quoted WP:NOR that adding dictionary definitions to interpret the meaning of a concept constitutes original research. I have discussed why a book on Sankara cannot be used to source content for an article on Carvaka. I have also stated how Carvaka was a derogatory appellation given to the Lokayatas and that it was not a name that they accepted. Are these reasons not valid enough to merit the removal of the etymology according to you? Does this exercise of discussing mean nothing to you that you just go ahead and revert a well-reasoned and well-discussed deletion? You might be a senior editor but that doesn’t give you the right to override wiki policy—or does it? Why couldn’t you discuss before reverting? -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Considering that the article is titled Cārvāka, having its etymology is useful. The section now includes a variety of plausible etymologies for the word and I've tweaked it further in my last edit. If you have any other plausible etymologies from a reliable source which are not included, then please include them. Going by your discussions above, I believe these already cover the ones mentioned by Bhattacharya and Chattopadhyaya.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The question of Inference[edit]

Mohanbhan According to S.N. Dasgupta (in the third volume of 'History of Indian Philosophy') and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (in his book 'Lokayata'), the Charvaka view is that inference is not done away with completely. They argue this , based on the writings of an actual Charvaka excavated from ancient philosophical writings by Dasgupta.Explaining the views of the Charvaka Purandara, some of whose writings have survived in fragments, S.N. Dasgupta writes(History of Indian Philosophy (HIP), vol. iii, pg 536):

Purandara admits the usefullness of inference in determining the nature of all worldly things where perceptual experience is available; but inference cannot be employed for establishing any dogma regarding the transcendental world, or life after death or the laws of karma which cannot be available to ordinary perceptual experience.

According to Purandara, the Charvaka position is that inference is valid within the range of the emperically known world; if, however, one proposed to extend its application beyond the range of the this-worldly objects, one's claim would be a forbidden one. And this is not a dogmatic asserton on the part of Purandara. Dasgupta tries to explain the grounds of Purandara by following the suggestions of Vadideva Suri, the Jaina author, who also quoted a sutra of Purandara (HIP iii.536):

The main reason for upholding such a distinction between the validity of inference in our practical life of ordinary experience, and in ascertaining transcendental truths beyond experience, lies in this, that an inductive generalisation is made by observing a large number of cases of agreement in in presence of together with agreement in absence, and no case of agreement in presence can be observed in the transcendental sphere; for even if such spheres existed they could not be perceived by the senses. Thus, since in the supposed supra-sensuous transcendent world no case of hetu agreeing with the presence of its sadhya can be observed, no inductive generalisation or law of concomitance can be made relating to this sphere.

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, in his book Lokayata, elaborates on this point of the Charvaka approach towards inference. Soham321 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: So what are you proposing? The lede mentions conditional inference, doesn't it? "Cārvāka, originally known as Lokāyata and Bṛhaspatya, is the ancient school of Indian materialism. Cārvāka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects Vedas, Vedic ritualism and supernaturalism" -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In the Epistemology section, there should be an elaboration of the Charvaka view of inference. Right now it is very confusing. Soham321 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that Dasgupta and Chattopadhyaya have two different interpretations of the writings of the Charvaka Purandara on inference considering "the vast ancient and medieval literature" which says the Charvakas did not accept any form of inference. However, this "ancient and medieval literature" describing the Charvaka view of inference consists of writings not of the Charvakas but of their philosophical opponents. (Nehru, in his Discovery of India, conjectures that the Charvaka writings were deliberately destroyed by their philosophical opponents at some point of time in Indian history and the Charvakas were subjected to persecution. This point is also mentioned by Chattopadhyaya.) So how do you interpret the writings of Purandara who is an actual Charvaka? Dasgupta says he is not sure. Chattopadhyaya argues that the Charvaka view of inference has been distorted by their philosophical opponents.Soham321 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
From what I can make of the Purandara paragraph you have quoted the description "conditional inference" seems safe to me. Inference, as long as it is about the empirical world, (and not about the transcendent ultimate reality of the Vedantins), is valid according to him. What the Epistemology section says is that Carvakas are suspicious of Inference as a source of knowledge--this may be true. Standard textbooks say that perception (pratyaksha) is the only means of valid knowledge for the Carvakas, which does seem to be a distortion and simplification. So I think it is safe to say that they considered inference as a valid source of knowledge as long as the inference was about the material/empirical world. I will have to go to Chattopadhayaya and see whether a definitive statement like this could be made. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do so. I don't have Chattopadhyay's Lokayata with me right now otherwise i would have done some editing on this in the main page myself. Soham321 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ramkrishna Bhattacharya has two articles in which he discusses the role of inference in Carvaka's epistemology
    • "What the Cārvākas Originally Meant: More on the Commentators on the 'Cārvākasūtra'", Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 38, No. 6 (December 2010), pp. 529-542
    • "Lokayata Darsana and a comparative study with Greek materialism" in Materialism and Immaterialism in India and the West: Varying Vistas., Patha Ghose (editor), Centre for the Studies on Civilizations , 2010, pp.21-34.
in which surveys the common scholarly views on this topic (ie, (roughly speaking) Carvaka's only accepted perception as a source of knowledge) and presents his own analysis (that their philosophy allowed for inference as long as it was based on perception). Also the subject of Chapter 4 of his 2011 book, Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata, which I guess all editors have seen by now. Any of these recent sources would be suitable for summarizing the subject (per WP:NPOV, we don't need to decide which view is correct,of course). (PS:This section is how the discussion on this page should be conducted. Try keeping this collaborative spirit up!) Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Please clarify as to whether Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's books can be used as source material in the main article. Also, the most exhaustive compendium of original source material when it comes to the Charvaka philosophy is a book edited by Chattopadhyaya: Carvaka/Lokayata Soham321 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As I sated above, Chattopdhayaya's 1959 book Lokāyata is of great historic importance in the field, but it is also dated and sometimes constrained by his Marxist ideology. This does not mean that cannot be cited or that his views should be ignored. What it does mean is that the book should be used with care and we should largely rely on more recent scholarship (like the works I cite above, which have the benefit of 50+ years of additional studies and findings), to determine how and which views of Chattopdhayaya's to include in the article instead of trying to pick and choose from the work ourselves.
As for Carvaka/Lokayata: An Anthology of Source Materials and Some Recent Studies: on wikipedia, we rarely cite primary sources, so the "source material" part of the work is unlikely to be of much use to us. However, the "recent studies" part of the book should be fine, with the usual caveat that more recent academic sources will of course be preferred. (see WP:HISTRS for further details)Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Ramakrishna Bhattacharya who you are considering to be a trusted source also has Leftist political views for your information--just like Chattopadhyaya. And this is Ramakrishna Bhattacharya's eulogy written for Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya: So as per your criterion, we should use his material also with 'care' because of his political beliefs. I have one further question: Do we exercise 'care' when considering views of Vedantins who have written on the Charvaka philosophy? In that case we would have to exercise similar caution when considering the writings of Radhakrishnan and S.N. Dasgupta--the former identified himself with the Advaita Vedanta philosophy and the writer was more sympathetic to the Dvaita Vedanta philosophy. Every writer's bonafides and political and religious and philosophical affiliation will have to be looked into if you start applying this kind of a yardstick on Chattopadhyaya. My own solution is that we can give the views of Vedantins, give the views of Hindutvas, give the views of people with leftist views, rightist views, centrist views on the Charvaka philosophy--as long as they are from 'reliable sources' because Wikipedia's stated goal is not 'truth' but to give all possible views of a subject. Reliable source does not mean you start checking up the religious or political or philosophical affiliation of a source. Soham321 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is a relevant link to the description of the Lokayata/Charvaka philosophy in the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy which is described as a peer reviewed source: One may note that Chattopadyaya's book Lokayata is being considered a reference by this encyclopedia. Soham321 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham, the "dated scholarship" concerns do apply to Radhakrishnan and Dasgupta, and yes, they too should be used with care (which again, does not mean that they cannot be used or their views ignored etc). In fact, I have made this point about Dasgupta in a previous discussion with you (see last sentence).
As for concerns with the Chattopadhyaya's Marxist ideology, I bring them up only because reliable sources (see last para on p. 65 and next page) point out that they coloured his analysis at some points. I am also aware of sources making the point about Radhakrishnan's Vedantic bias (Joshua can cite chapter and verse! :)). If there are similar sources about Ramakrishna Bhattacharya's analysis, we should certainly take that into account; have you come across any? To be clear: our personal views of the scholar's ideology are irrelevant. Abecedare (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Scholars will invariably disagree with one another on topics of Indian philosophy. Some scholars like Chattopadhyaya's writings, some do not. Romila Thapar is a Marxist, so was D.D. Kosambi. Both Thapar and Kosambi have been criticized by other scholars (including Hindutva scholars) for their political inclinations and a question mark has been sought to be put on their entire corpus of work. But Thapar has done collaborative work with Michael Witzel, and Kosambi had earlier collaborated with D.H.H. Ingalls--neither of whom is/was a Marxist. My fundamental point is that if Chattopadhyaya is good enough for a peer reviewed philosophical source ( ) where his book Lokayata is listed among the references in the writeup on the Lokayata/Charvaka philosophy then he is good enough for wikipedia. One other reference: The Times of India is a mainstream publication, not a Leftist publication. But this 2012 article in the Times of India hails Chattopadhyaya as 'a renowned historian of philosophy': Soham321 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There are 16 secondary sources cited in that IEP article. Why ignore the other 15? Why not include summary that is in recent and two or more sources for balance, NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Not the right venue for such complaints. Take it to ANI if you wish (although I'd strongly recommend against it) Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan, Ms Sarah Welch Sorry i had to mention this before this gets out of hand. Based on their editing on the talk page of Adi_Shankara, and elsewhere, the two editors Sara had approached to take a look at this page (in particular study the editing of a particular editor on this page) have the same philosophical affiliation (towards the Vedanta philosophy of Adi Shankara) as Sarah. Soham321 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Respect WP:TALKNO. The applicable guideline there, "Do not use this talk page as a forum or soapbox. Do not make ad hominem attacks." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You need to respect WP:CANVASS. Please read your edits at the links i gave. They constitute blatant canvassing, particularly given your interaction with these two editors (whom you approached) in the past. Soham321 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: Who is making ad hominem attacks? The two links provided by Soham321 speak for themselves? Why did you mention my name here on this talk page for adding request tags? What is wrong in seeking citation? And why are you going around to making ad hominem attacks on me? This is not done. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch didn't ask to take a look at this page; she asked how to deal with the unpleasant behavior of the two of you. That's a wise rsesponse. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think you should also give the correct order of threads, and my response:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on the name Bṛhaspatya[edit]

Why is the early period labeled Bṛhaspatya and not Bārhaspatya? The regular vṛddhi is the latter, meaning "of or concerning Bṛhaspati" and appears in the dictionaries. The former is not a form I'm familiar with and does not appear (either as brihaspatya or brhaspatya) in the basic NGRAM i ran here. Ogress smash! 17:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Indeed. Bhattacharya uses Bārhaspatya, if I remember correctly, in chapters 1 and 2 of his book Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata in the article. Note though, that for unclear reasons, this source uses Bṛhaspatya (2nd para, at the end). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


The entire 'Pleasure' section and also a portion of the 'Etymology' section contains information about the alleged hedonism subscribed to by the Charvaka philosophers. I will just point out that this charge of hedonism has been strongly refuted by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya in his book 'Lokayata'. Chattopadhyaya frames his argument based on information about the Charvakas present in the Mahabharata, where an individual called 'Charvaka' is voicing an opinion which clearly does not indicate a philosophy of hedonism; and, also the fact that all the information that we have about the Charvakas are known not through their writings but from the writings of their philosophical opponents. With respect to the Barhaspatya sutras, Chattopadhyaya argues that many of the sutras in this text are spurious (consisting of interpolations in the original text) and not representative of original Charvaka philosophy. This point about the Barhaspatya sutras containing spurious material (consisting of interpolations) has also been made by S.N. Dasgupta in his 'History of Indian Philosophy'. Chattopadhyay's views on the alleged Charvaka hedonism, and also the views of other scholars who agree with this view, can be included in the main article. (I don't have Chattopadhyay's book Lokayata with me right now so i am unable to include this information in the main page.) Soham321 (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: This article has a section on Controversy, which includes the controversy on hedonism charges, summarized from Bhattacharya. Lets stick with Bhattacharya because his is a more recent source, and because Chattopadhyaya publications, for reasons cogently explained above, were tainted by his Marxist/Communist ideology, and must be considered with care and cross checked recent scholarly publications. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: Stop using the word "tainted", as already discussed that charge could be made about anyone including Bhattacharya (Marxism) and Radhakrishnan (Vedantism). You still haven't added the Carvaka roots bit to the Rigveda article. May I know why? And why are you intent on mentioning it only here? -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Views of major Indian philosophers[edit]

I would like to see views of some of the major philosophers of ancient and medieval India on the Charvaka philosophy in the main page of the article. A detailed description of the very well known 8th century Vedanta philosopher Adi Shankara's views on the Charvaka philosophy are to be found in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's books Lokayata and What is living and what is dead in Indian philosophy. Just to give you some idea, this is Adi Shankara writing on the Charvaka/Lokayata philosophy:

Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of the opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self. For this very reason, viz. that intelligence is observed only where a body is observed while it is never seen without a body, the Materialists (Lokayatikas) consider intelligence to be a mere attribute of the body.

Soham321 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Do you have page number of the Chattopadhyaya book, and historical text or verse he cites for each major philosopher? Chattopadhyaya publications, for reasons cogently explained above, were tainted by his Marxist/Communist ideology, and must be considered with care and in the light of recent scholarly publications. I oppose addition of any text from Chattopadhyaya that is not verifiable, or nor specific enough for scholars to check and comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, Mohanbhan This is the wikipedia page of D.D. Kosambi. It clearly tells you that he was a Marxist. Now this is the wikipedia page about the famous Harvard Oriental Series. Please note carefully who are described as 'Author' of Volume 42 of the Harvard Oriental Series. It is true that this text is actually a sanskrit text which has been edited by Kosambi and Gokhale. However, it has a long introduction by Kosambi. If its ok for Harvard to accept Marxist scholarship, why is it not ok for you? Soham321 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: Nothing has been explained "cogently". Do not make unfounded allegations. Assume good faith, focus on content and do not speculate on the motivations and ideologies of philosophers. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Mohanbhan I do not see Sarah Welch engaging in unfounded allegations, not assuming good faith or not focusing on content. Ogress smash! 03:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"Chattopadhyaya publications... were tainted by his Marxist/Communist ideology" is unfounded allegation, not assuming good faith and not focusing on the content suggested for inclusion. Materialism is a mainstream scientific ideology which questions supernatural claims. This page is on ancient Indian materialism. If Adi Sankara has made derogatory comments about Lokayata from his transcendental perspective that must be reflected in this article. Trashing the source as ideologically "tainted" when it is widely acknowledged as one of the most comprehensive studies on the subject is an unfounded allegation and an irrational and prejudiced attack on Chattopadhayay's scholarship. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See discussion and cited reviews above. See Gerald Larson's write-up on Chattopadhyaya, page 63-66, a review @Abecedare mentioned above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF is about users, not sources. We evaluate the reliability of sources constantly. As has been discussed, it is important neither to dismiss a scholar's contributions nor to ignore whatever ideological baggage they bring to the table. His commitment to the Marxist project was the origin of his interest in the subject, and we have scholars who note where that bias has affected his analysis. Scholarship isn't an on-off button; we don't have to reject Chattopadhyaya, we just have to be careful we're not using material that has been seriously criticised. This is no different than when we examined the work of British scholars of the same period with a critical eye because of their capitalist, colonial, racist views of India. We still use those scholars' work in many cases; we just use it carefully and note where it has been criticised for being colonialist, racist or capitalist. Wikipedia is neither for nor against a communist paradigm; our guidelines urge us to be neutral and call out problematic scholarship. That sometimes means including critical voices, such as Larson's counter to Chattopadhyaya's theory of agricultural, matriarchal mutterrecht as not representing any actual period of Indian history and being based entirely on his political agenda for India. Other times it means using material that has consensus. This isn't an anti-Communist fusillade, it's normal WP procedure. Ogress smash! 07:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has any objection to sources being "evaluated" but this evaluation cannot be original research, as Abecedare also pointed out in a discussion. Calling Chattopadhyaya's work "tainted" is to make a very huge claim and pass judgement over his entire corpus--these words come out of sheer prejudice and they must be avoided. Larson appreciates Chattopadhyaya for his scholarship and also disagrees with him here and there; he does not diss Chattopadhyaya's scholarship like Sarah Welch has repeatedly done here. This is a matter of great concern. Stigmatizing a scholar, in fact one of India's greatest philosophers, for his political views, and calling his work "tainted" is not acceptable. Political intolerance and discrimination (for being Marxist or gay) is definitely not acceptable on wikipedia. Every scholar agrees and disagrees with an earlier scholar's work, this doesn't make the earlier scholar's work invalid, "dated" or "tainted." And we must not forget that Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya was not just a scholar or historian, he was a philosopher, and philosophers, because they make epistemological, metaphysical and hermeneutic claims from specific philosophical standpoints, their views cannot be refuted the way a factual statement can be refuted by showing evidence to the contrary. A philosopher does not become "dated" insofar as he is making philosophical and hermeneutic claims. And Chattopadhyaya, in interpreting Rigvedic, Buddhist and Post-Vedic texts, is making hermeneutic claims. One can disagree with an interpretation but one cannot refute it absolutely and say it is wrong. If philosophers could become "dated" Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche -- all of these philosophers would be "dated". But if they are not dated it is because it is perfectly legitimate to hold their views and be a Platonist, Aristotelian, Spinozist or Nietzschen today. So a wikipedia editor cannot cite paltry or even serious disagreements of a later scholar and claim the philosopher is "dated" or call his philosophy and scholarship "tainted". These are prejudiced views and constitute hate speech, and hate speech is not OK on wikipedia. -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Charvaka view of Consciousness[edit]

The section on the Charvaka view of Consciousness needs to be expanded greatly. This is one of the fundamental principles of the Charvaka philosophy that is often discussed by their philosophical opponents like Adi Shankara. Mention needs to made of the famous Charvaka example of alcohol consumption: The Charvakas claim that the fact that consuming alcohol (which is clearly matter) has a direct impact on consciousness proves that consciousness is not something distinct from matter. Soham321 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the best descriptions of the Charvaka view of consciousness has been given by the 8th century Vedanta philosopher Adi Shankara (in his commentary to the Brahma Sutra, also known as Vedanta Sutra):

Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of the opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self. For this very reason, viz. that intelligence is observed only where a body is observed while it is never seen without a body, the Materialists (Lokayatikas) consider intelligence to be a mere attribute of the body....Here now some materialists (Lokayatikas) who see the Self in the body only, are of opinion that a Self separate from the body does not exist; assume that consciousness (caitanya), although not observed in earth and other external elements--either single or combined--may yet appear in them when transformed into the shape of a body, so that consciousness springs from them; and thus maintain that knowledge is analogous to intoxicating quality [which arises when when certain materials are mixed in fixed proportions], and that man is only a body qualified with consciousness. There is, thus, according to them no Self separate from the body and capable of going to the heavenly world or obtaining release, through which consciousness is in the body; but the body alone is what is consciousness, is the Self. For this assertion they allege the reason stated in the sutra, 'On account of its existence where a body is.' For wherever something exists if some other thing exists, and does not exist if that other thing does not exist, we determine the former thing to be a mere quality of the latter; light and heat, for example we determine to be qualities of fire. And as life, movement, consciousness, remembrance and so on--which by the upholders of an independent Self are considered qualities of the Self--are observed only within the bodies, and not outside bodies and as an abode of these qualities, different from the body, cannot be proved, it follows that they must be qualities of the body only. The Self, therefore, is not different from the body.

This is a primary source, but this quote is present in Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's books Lokayata and What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy.Soham321 (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed a comprehensive description of dehavada. This must be included in the main article. The info provided in the main article under "Consciousness and afterlife" is very sketchy and written in a careless, offhand manner. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is a decent translation of Shankara commentary on verse 3.3.53 of Brahma Sutras. The translation is from George Thibaut, but very slightly distorted in the above quote attributed to Chattopadhyaya. Shankara does not state "unlearned people", but does mention Lokayatikas. You can read Thibaut translation here.

I support the addition of a summary of this, but only if, for NPOV and completeness, a summary of the Shankara commentary on verse 3.3.54 on Lokayatikas is also included. Two minor notes. First, this is not about alcohol, this argument is far more interesting and subtle, on both sides. Second, both Thibaut and Chattopadhyaya are dated source. Include them, but rely on a more recent scholarly discussion about Shankara's Brahma Sutras commentary and Carvakas in 3.3.53 and 3.3.54, such as in Oliver Leaman's 2000 book Eastern Philosophy published by Routledge, ISBN 978-0415173582, page 96. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

at the suggestion of Sarah, i looked up Oliver Leaman. I find he does not specialize in Indian philosophy. Soham321 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The words in Thibaut's translation starting from 'Here now some materialists' are exactly the same as the words starting onwards from 'Here now some materialists...' given by Chattopadhyaya. The reason for this is that Chattopadhyaya is using the translation of Thibaut. The words 'Unlearned people and the Lokayatikas are of the opinion that the mere body endowed with the quality of intelligence is the Self.' used by Shankara are to be seen in his commentary on Brahma Sutra i.1.1: here. Soham321 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What follows is from Chattopadhyaya's Lokayata after he has given and elaborated upon Adi Shankara's explanation of the Charvaka view of consciousness: Such a view of the Self was moreover very ancient; it was older than the Brahma Sutra on which Adi Shankara was commenting on. For we find the same view, or at least a similar view, referred to in the Upanisads. As an example, consider the Brihad-Aryanyaka Upanisad; in this Upanisad, Yajnavalkya tells his wife Maitreyi (ii.4.12, translator Hume):

"Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them also one vanishes away. After death there is no consciousness (na pretya samjna asti)."

Maitreyi is naturally bewildered to listen to such a view of the Self from Yanjavalkya, but it was obviously not his own view; it was the position of his opponent which he was contesting. Therefore, it could have been the view of the ancient Charvakas. S.N. Dasgupta writes that this was the way in which the Nyaya philosopher Jayanta Bhatta (circa 9th century AD) wanted to look at the Upanisadic passage just quoted (History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 3, pg 519):

"Jayanta says in his Nyaya Manjari that the Lokayata system was based on the views expressed in passages like the above, which represent only the opponent's view (purva paksa)." Soham321 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

On Ajit Kesakambli not being a Charvaka[edit]

The main article is saying: "Ajita Kesakambali is credited as the forerunner of the Carvakas." A very clear distinction between the views of Ajita Kesakambali's views and Charvaka views have been made by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya in his 1991 book History of Science and Technology in Ancient India Volume 2: Formation of the Theoretical Fundamentals of Natural Science and also in his 1977 book 'Science and Society in Ancient India'. Although both Kesakambli and Charvakas accept materialism, and deny the existence of God, because of which their views appear similar the difference in philosophy between Ajit and Charvakas springs from the fact that Ajit subscribes to the doctrine of 'yadrccha vada' according to Chattopadhyaya while Charvakas accept 'svabhava vada'. Both svabhava vada and yadrccha svabhava have been mentioned and described as two distinct theories in the Upanishads (as puva paksa--the view of the opponent). Chattopadhyaya explains the difference between svabhava vada and yadrccha vada by saying that the former is the doctrine of 'sheer chance' (called yadrccha or akasmikatva); according to this doctrine, pure accident is the ultimate cause. In contrast, svabhava vada is translated by Chattopadhyaya to mean 'doctrine of nature' or 'naturalism'. Comments Chattopadhyaya:

According to the doctrine of yaddrchha, everything being fortuitous, it is futile to search for any cause of the world, either natural or supernatural.In contrast, according to svabhava-vada although the supernatural cause is illegitmate, the natural cause is not so. In fact,according to svabhava-vada, the exclusive reality of natural causation is the ground for the total rejection of the possibility of any supernatural causation.The two doctrines thus represent the alternative standpoints of pure scepticism (yadrccha); and positive science(svabhava-vada) in which Nature by its own inherent efficacy accounts for the origin and maintainance of the world.

Besides Kesakambli, Chattopadhyaya gives the views of five other individuals--including Makkhali Gosala--all of who, he argues, subscribed to the view of yadrccha vada. The names of these six heretics, together with a brief description of their views, may be seen in this article on Buddhism (these five are believed to have been contemporaries of the Buddha):Six Heretics.

Given this fact, i am removing from the main article the sentence "Ajita Kesakambali is credited as the forerunner of the Carvakas." Soham321 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that i might be doing Original Research if i delete sourced content. I think the thing to do is to just plug in the views of those who believe Ajita Kesakambli and the other five skeptics and heretics who were contemporaries of the Buddha had a philosophy which was similar to Charvaka philosophy but with a distinct difference since these skeptics subscribed to yadrccha vada while Charvakas subscribed to svabhava vada. Soham321 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Kesakambli being a forerunner for carvaka philosophy is well-supported by the cited ref and may be the level of detail needed for this article. However, if someone is interested, there is justification for writing a Materialism in Indian philosophy article, which can compare the various materialist schools and philosophers in further details. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
It is well established that Kesakamblin was a contemporary of the Buddha. But as i pointed out earlier, there is speculation that Charvaka views are to be found in the Upanishads and these precede the Buddha. And that means Kesakamblin was not the immediate forerunner of the Charvakas. At any rate, i would insist on applying the disclaimer 'according to Ramakrishna Bhattcharya' or 'according to some scholars' if you wish to retain this and of course the mention of the counter-view that Charvaka views are believed to be present in the Upanishads according to some scholars (in the form of purva paksa or view of the opponent). I would also suggest that since this material is disputed amongst the scholars it should not be present in the lead. Soham321 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestion of a 'Materialism in Indian Philosophy' article, but such an article has to make a clear distinction between svabhava-vada and yadrccha vada. Personally, i think there needs to be a separate article on svabhava-vada since it is well established that Charvakas subscribed to this view. Additionally, the Sankhya philosophers--who were also atheists--subscribed to this view of svabhava-vada. Soham321 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

One other point: i mentioned about the Six Heretics earlier. These included Ajita Kesakambli and i mentioned that though their views had significant similarities with the Charvaka view, they also had a significant difference from the Charvaka view because they did not subscribe to the Charvaka view of svabhava-vada. So my question is: Why is Ajita Kesakamblin being singled out from amongst the six heretics? If you say it is because Ramakrishna Bhattacharya is singling him out then you must add the qualifier 'according to Ramakrishna Bhattacharya". In fact, i would like there to be a wikipedia article on the Six Heretics--just one article, because the views of all these six individuals are simply variations of yadrccha vada about which i wrote in an earlier edit in this section. Soham321 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

CārvākaCharvaka – Lay readers unacquainted with Cārvāka and unfamiliar with IAST's c/ch scheme (will) pronounce it Kār-vāka instead of Chār-vāka. While many scholarly sources do prefer the IAST spelling, others, particularly those (like Wikipedia) that find a more general audience, prefer to not confuse their readers. For example, Upinder Singh in her university textbook, Romila Thapar in her Early India, DN Jha in his Ancient India, et al. all prefer to avoid IAST in their books for the mainstream and use Charvaka instead of Cārvāka. Encyclopaedia Britannica does too and in my opinion, so should Wikipedia. This will keep things clear and consistent, and avoid needlessly misleading/bewildering readers.

The IAST spelling can be retained as a parenthetical pronunciation guide linked to the IAST page. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: For the reasons stated above.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. Even Adi Shankara's page is called what it is rather than Adi Sankara. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: For reasons stated above. Soham321 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Has the advantages listed by Cpt Haddock and no information will be lost since IAST transliteration will be available in the first sentence. Abecedare (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NGRAM shows nearly three times the reference usages of Cārvāka to Charvaka (it does not distinguish between macron and non-macron vowels). It's not a common English word like "Mahayana" and "Theravada" and we should use IAST, as its entire purpose is to provide a solid transcriptional system. Do we abandon Pinyin because it uses funny letters? Do we abandon Vietnamese because it has diacritics? In addition, are we seriously suggesting there are a lot of lay readers unfamiliar with IAST reading about Cārvāka? Kind of an obscure subject. Ogress smash! 20:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Either Charvaka or Carvaka. The latter is also common (see [1] Stuart Hackett (1979), Oriental Philosophy: A Westerner's Guide to Eastern Thought, University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 978-0299077945, pages 195-197; [2] Purusottama Bilimoria (1990), Hindu doubts about God, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 30, Issue 4, pages 481-499; [3] J Noonan (2012), Materialist Ethics and Life-Value, McGill-Queen's University Press, ISBN 978-0773539648, page 4; etc). I have no particular preference between the two, till both spellings are mentioned in the main article somewhere. Wikipedia article titles should avoid diacritics and special characters, particularly when reliable sources use alternate spellings with regular keyboard characters. The spellings with diacritics and unusual characters should be included in the main article, from RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - because it is in accordance with WP:NCIN, which should be the primary reason here. This policy also specifies giving the IAST transliteration in the lead. Imc (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The vast majority of the Wikipedia readers are unfamiliar with IAST, and IAST overuse makes things complex to read. utcursch | talk 16:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - English transliteration of Sanskrit words is well-established. We don't need IAST for page titles, which makes life complicated in various ways. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support common Indian English spelling. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


In the Epistemology section, there are a lot of inaccuracies in my opinion. One of the reasons for this is undue importance is being given to this paper: MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16. If you actually read this paper you will find that the author is a graduate student. It is strange that this talk of two different kinds of perception is being discussed by a graduate student while scholars considered specialists on Charvaka philosophy do not make this distinction. The whole paper also gives the impression of a confused mind. I think we need to find better sources for this section. Soham321 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: It is peer reviewed publication, and meets wikipedia's RS guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read Undue. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bold, revert and discuss cycle[edit]

@Soham321:, @Mohanbhan: Your recent edits ignored the suggestions of Abecedare and I above on the use of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya as a source. I suggest you use Bhattacharya and others instead, for reasons already explained above. Some of your edits that added terms such as "vulgar people" etc is not only incorrect, it is a misrepresentation of most accepted translation of the Brahma Sutra 3.3.53 (a primary source) that you quoted, and it is not-NPOV. Similarly, you lumped the reality and nature of consciousness discussion into epistemology section, which is OR in its classification, and the discussion is better covered by more recent scholars. I suggest you get a consensus for each major change, with recent RS per suggestions above, before changing this otherwise stable article. I welcome your efforts to improve this wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't just remove well sourced content from Chattopadhyaya's writings on your own considering that the consensus is against you when it comes to doing so. Please try to get consensus before deleting well sourced content from Chattopadhyaya's writings. "vulgar mob" was not my phrase but Chattopadhyaya's and he gave the original sanskrit equivalent along with his translation of Adi Shankara's commentary (which i also included). Soham321 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
In the talk page of the Two truths doctrine, Ogress writes:

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya was a specialist in Cārvāka - he got into it from his Marxism as an ancient Indian counter-proposal to Hinduism - and as such is mostly a fantastic source.Every scholar has things that need unpacking, and for him it is modernity...He wasn't studying the Cārvāka because he was an armchair historian, he wanted to apply it as a tool to liberate the minds and bodies of his fellow humans.

Soham321 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: Your outbursts about DC have created problems for all of us, and if you cannot get over your irrational hatred for the man, and work with the editors in collaborative spirit, specifying the exact problems you have, your outbursts will not be heard or responded to. It is the right of every editor to point out errors and problems in an article, and you have every right to object to certain portions in this article, but, as has been informed to you earlier, you have no right to declare a philosopher outdated or problematic just because you don't like him. We have discussed extensively on Chattopadhayaya and he has emerged as the most important scholar and philosopher in this field. If you have a personal problem with what Chattopadhyaya has written I am sorry you will have to deal with it yourself.
As far as I can see, you seem to have a problem with how Charvaka philosophy criticizes Vedic and Vedantic thought; you also seem to be disturbed by what Adi Shankara has written about Charvaka philosophy. Now, you will have to sit down calmly and ask yourself whether what Chattopadhyaya has reported as Shankara's commentary on Charvakas is Shankara's own or Chattopadhyaya's creation. If you have no proof to show that Chattopadhyaya has not created it, and that Shankara has indeed called ordinary people "vulgar mob" and that he has compared the thoughts of the "vulgar mob" to the ideas of Charvakas, then you will have to just accept it. This is how mature people behave. If you come here with the intention of destroying this page because you don't like what the Charvakas said about the Vedas or what Shankara said about the Charvakas, your actions will not be entertained.
Charvaka philosophers were completely antagonistic towards the Vedic philosophers, this is a fact. And it is Charvaka philosophy which is in consonance with modern scientific thought and with the thought of major continental philosophers like Spinoza, Marx, Nietzsche and Deleuze. This makes Charvaka philosophy very powerful indeed. If you cannot digest this fact you have a problem. Do not come here with the intention of denigrating this philosophy or the greatest exponent of this philosophy Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya.
Coming to the specific points you make: (i) "vulgar people" objection has been responded to both by Soham and me. (ii) Epistemology is the part of philosophy which determines how knowledge is created or what makes true knowledge possible. I have studied philosophy formally and I am not sure I understand the phrase "you lumped the reality and nature of consciousness discussion into epistemology section, which is OR in its classification". Consciousness is traditionally covered under epistemology as determining the nature of consciousness also answers the question "How knowledge is made possible?" It can also be looked at ontologically, when we ask the question, "Does consciousness really exist?" or sometimes, "How does consciousness exist?" So your objection about classification being OR does not make any sense here, philosophies are understood in terms of their ontology and epistemology.
Specific objections, queries etc are welcome and would help us make the article better. Denigration of philosophers and philosophies will not be entertained and just ignored. -Mohanbhan (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: You need to present reliable sources with page numbers with your suggestions for improving this article, rather than forum-like lectures loaded with your personal opinions on this talk page. @Soham321: WP:BRD and WP:NOTFORUM applies here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

All the content in the article is cited Sarah Welch, show me content which is not. Let's talk ONLY about the content and not about each other. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
After indulging in unnecessary vandalism--destroying content because of her irrational prejudice against the source(Chattopadhyaya)--Sarah Welch is now accusing me of edit warring and "disruptive behavior" on my talk page. I would suggest to Sarah to correct her ways because if she continues to engage in vandalism--destroying well sourced content from an authority on the subject, without respecting consensus--then she may lose the privilege of editing on Wikipedia. Soham321 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan: The disputed source is your long-favored Marxist author Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Both @Abecedare and I have explained above on this talk page why Chattopadhyaya is a dated and a controversial source, and he needs to be included but used with caution. Soham321 and you have replaced sourced stable content with fringe-y Chattopadhyaya-content with OR and Synthesis in this article. This is not acceptable. As I suggested above, consider summarizing Bhattacharya who is a more recent source and a prolific writer on Carvakas with many books. I welcome content where both Chattopadhyaya and Bhattacharya concur on, or where Chattopadhyaya and a more recent source concur on, but relying entirely on dated and fringe-y Chattopadhyaya is not acceptable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: Your calling Chattopadhyaya fringy or whatever does not make him that. We have already discussed this above. You don't seem to understand the distinction b/w a historian and a philosopher which has been explained to you above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


The claim that Chattopadhyaya's scholarship should be categorized as fringe material is clearly ridiculous if we read his WP biography-- Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya --which says that his scholarship has the endorsement of Joseph Needham. In fact, Needham wrote the foreword to one of Chattopadhyaya's books. Additionally, with respect to Chattopadhyaya being 'out of date' i will point out that he died in 1993 and further i will copy something i wrote on the talk page of Two truths doctrine: I am now tired of listening to this refrain of how up to date a source should be in discussions related to the humanities. The question of being up to date makes sense in science, but not always in humanities, certainly not in philosophy. I have with me a translation of Sun Tzu's book The Art of War translated by Samuel Griffith. In the preface, Liddell Hart writes:

Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more 'dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal the middle of the Second World War, I had several visits from the Chinese Military Attache, a pupil of Chiang Kai-Shek. He told me that my book and General Fuller's were principal textbooks in the Chinese military academies---whereupon I asked: 'What about Sun Tzu?' He replied that while Sun Tzu's book was venerated as a classic, it was considered out of date by most of the younger officers, and thus hardly worth study in the era of mechanized weapons. At this, I remarked that it was time they went back to Sun Tzu, since in that one short book was embodied almost as much about the fundamentals of strategy and tactics as I had covered in more than twenty books. In brief, Sun Tzu was the best short introduction to the study of warfare, and no less valuable for constant reference in extending study of the subject.

Mohan Bhan has also earlier in this talk page explained why Chattopadhyaya's scholarship cannot be considered 'outdated' because he was making hermeneutic arguments which cannot be refuted. If Sarah Welch continued with her tirade against Chattopadhyaya then i am afraid she will be judged to be lacking in competence. Soham321 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Please respect WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mohanbhan:, @Soham321: There is abundant evidence and review summaries above on this talk page that confirm Chattopadhyaya publications are controversial and fringe-y. Those views of Chattopadhyaya on Carvaka which are broadly accepted by scholars should present you no difficulty in finding a second, more recent source such as Bhattacharya and others. Are you unwilling to rely on and include a more recent, second source wherever you wish to include Chattopadhyaya-sourced content in this article? if so, why? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Since you continue with your tirade against Chattopadhyaya--continuing to describe him as a fringe source--despite the endorsement of his scholarship by several eminent scholars including Joseph Needham, Louis Renou and others i will continue to advise you to read lacking in competence carefully.Soham321 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: That WP:CIR link you added, about "lacking in competence", reads, "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors"!! Your response is not constructive. Endorsement or kind generic words for Chattopadhyaya by Joseph Needham and Louis Renou is irrelevant for this article. Once again: Why not rely on and include more recent, second sources on Carvaka wherever you wish to include Chattopadhyaya-sourced content in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Your repeated tirades against Chattopadhyaya have exhausted my patience. Whenever you declare him to be a fringe source i reserve the right to point out lacking in competence to you.Needham and Renou do not use polite generic words when endorsing his scholarship; they are specific when endorsing his writings and in fact Needham has written the foreword to one of Chattopadhyaya's books (the first volume of his History of Science and Technology in Ancient India). Soham321 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Foreword or an endorsement by a friend are irrelevant to this article. Wikipedia is not Chattopadhyaya-pedia. This Wikipedia article should include a summary of Carvaka-related content that is widely accepted by scholars as well as at least a minority of scholars (plural). Those views of Chattopadhyaya on Carvaka that are broadly accepted by scholars should present you no difficulty in finding a second, more recent source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@JJ: Would DRN or ANI be better? @Soham321 edit warring in this article, promoting Chattopadhyaya while refusing to constructively address a request for second source, and TALKNO violations may be a WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
ps @JJ (and I add the following for future contributors to this article): The issue with Chattopadhyaya isn't clear cut not-RS versus RS. Chattopadhyaya's publications have been reviewed and cited. He has been and should be considered for this article. Chattopadhyaya's publications included valuable primary research, but his publications are "dated and blinkered with his political ideology" as @Abecedare noted above. Again to quote @Abecedare, "Best to use Chattopadhyaya with care, and in conjunction with more recent scholarship, such as Bhattacharya that you already mentioned or others listed here." Karl Potter's bibliography list has over 100 publications on Carvaka to source content from. Cross-checking Chattopadhyaya's views with recent scholarly sources is possible and easy for anyone who wishes to help improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sarah Welch: Let me ask this: Chattopadhyaya, in my estimation, is the greatest Indian philosopher of 20th century. Who are you to sit in judgement over him? And what is the basis on which @Abecedare has said what he has said? This is original research; wiki editors do not have the right to declare a writer "dated and blinkered with his political ideology." There is no wiki policy which gives them the right to do so. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If you cannot prove, by citing reliable sources, that Chattopadhyaya is a biased source your edit will be reverted. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mohanbhan: Have you read the sources @Abecedare and I cited above? In case you missed, I quote a few

  • Quote from Larson (2011), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199812608, page 63: [Chattopadhyaya...] sustained Marxist interpretation of Indian thought.
  • Quote from Larson again, pages 65-66: "what begins [in Chattopadhyaya] as a refreshing anthropological methodology for studying ancient thought and culture is reduced to an ideological perspective designed to show that "...private property and the state machinery are not eternal adjuncts to human existence..." and that "... the spiritualistic outlook is not innate in man".
  • Quote from Prasad (1993), Social Scientist, Vol. 21, No. 5/6, pages 102-105 on Chattopadhyaya's publications: "a result of much of his commitment to values of scholarship" as to the "communist movement" in India.

You are, of course, free to believe in your "Chattopadhyaya, in my estimation, is the greatest Indian philosopher of 20th century" POV or anything else you want to. Wikipedia articles, however, are better and NPOV encyclopedic when they are a faithful summary of reliable sources (plural). We must use caution with a source when scholarly reviews suggest so. I ask again: Why not rely on and include more recent, second sources on Carvaka wherever you wish to include any Chattopadhyaya-sourced content in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: I have read them. 1st and 2nd quotes: Marxist interpretation is a dialectical-materialist interpretation of Indian materialist thought which means it is a Charvaka viewpoint. What is wrong with the Marxist viewpoint on an article on ancient Indian materialism? The second comment by Larson is about Chattopadhyaya's views on Samkhya which according to Chattopadhyaya and many other scholars is an atheistic, and not a astika, philosophy. This is Larson's objection to that interpretation. How does this make Chattopadhyaya a biased source? That spiritual outlook is NOT innate to man is what Charvaka-, Greek-, Marxist-, Deleuzian materialists hold. Why do you quote that as an objection? 3rd quote: Can you cherry pick and provide a more tattered and out-of-context phrase? Is this the basis on which you are concluding Chattopadhyaya as a fringe, academically-not-respected thinker? This is no good Sarah Welch. I can produce these kinds of comments on the greatest of western philosophers like Hegel, Heidegger and Deleuze. I will leave it to other editors to see your revert and decide whether you are helping in improving this page or destroying it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Anvaya and Vyatireka[edit]

just wanted to clarify that the terms anvaya and vyatireka are used by Jayanta Bhatta in his Nyaya Manjari when he frames and puts forward the argument connecting food with consciousness. The relevant extract from the Nyaya Manjari has been given by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya in his What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy. Soham321 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A section on sources[edit]

I think this article will do well to have a section that explicitly lists some of the main primary sources of our current knowledge on Charvakas. We may even separate the sources as those that explicitly mention or deal with Charvaka views, and those sources where we need to infer a viewpoint as being those of a Charvaka. Candidates may include works like Sarva Darshan Samgraha by Madhavacharya. We may also have a separate list that gives the works that we know were written by Charvakas, but are now lost. As it stands, the Origin section is vague and rambling. Manoguru (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Manoguru: Indeed, including names of known primary sources on Charvakas would improve the article. That should go into the Works sections, not Origin section. Madhavacharya is already mentioned in that section. If you have additional reliable source on Charvaka original works, please add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes, noticed that. I think the list of sources should be placed much higher up in the article rather than at the bottom. It would confirm to standard scholarly practise. There are other work that deal with Charvaka other than Madhavacharya, such as the one by Adi Sankara (or at least attributed to him) who too wrote a philosophical compendium, though maybe not as well known. Anyway, I will add them when I have more time at hand.Manoguru (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits by @[edit]

@ Please explain why you are deleting Rigveda, with the edit comment Nasadiya Sukta. This Sukta is in Rigveda. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:That hymn itself does not define charvaka philosophy but reflects early agnostic thought rather than atheism or materialism. Yes, that sukta is in rigveda but the hymn is late within rigveda, which is not mentioned. Same hymn could be used to point out agnosticism in Jainism or Buddhism but it would not be accurate. It would be appropriate to add "late Vedic-period" or Śramaṇa movement as Charvaka flourished along side Jainism and Buddhism. (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Will you be happy if we add late Vedic period along side Rigveda, in that section? This article already mentions flourished along side Ājīvika, Jainism and Buddhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: It would be appropriate to add Śramaṇa movement rather than Rigveda since there is no particular hymn in Rigveda that refutes the Vedas itself or proposes materialism as valid thought. Since we only know about their existence through Jain, Buddhist and later Hindu texts, Śramaṇa movement would be appropriate. This is also keeping in mind that it belongs to nāstika school of thought rather than āstika. (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @ It seems you have personal views/wisdom/prejudice on this topic. You are free to believe whatever you want, but we must ignore your beliefs, and we need reliable sources before we can add/revise something in wikipedia articles. If you identify page number(s) and reliable source, that has not been included in this article, it will be helpful, and we can then add from that source. Please note you must provide external reliable source, not wikipedia links as you did above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't have any personal prejudice regarding this topic. I looked at the source but there was no mention about Rigveda but even if we consider Sukta hymn to be important aspect of early agnostic thought then we still need to add "Late Vedic-period" along side Rigveda like you mention before as it's late within Rigveda. Most sources i found in google books connect Charvaka school to Sarmana movement, which flourished during late vedic period. (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
User at @117.192.216.*: I have reworded it, and added a source. We can't write "late Vedic period" as that is vague and can mislead the reader. The Sukta is likely from ~1000 BCE, while Vedic period continued for few more centuries. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the lead[edit]

@ / @151.67.*.*: You re-arranged the lead with this edit, you deleted this well supported sentence from the lead: "It is considered an example of atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition", and you introduced unsourced commentary (WP:OR) into the lead. Please explain your concerns and sources that support your changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn't mean to do it. I'll revert it.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New studies[edit]