HinduWoman
15 Apr 2009, 03:13 PM
I am trying to write monographs on Carvakas (ancient Indian materialists) and how they would refute Vedic apologetics (we don't have much material about them so I am trying to carry their theory forward). Please review and give comments/criticisms.
We are told that Carvakas refused to accept Vedas as authoriarative statements since the Vedas have the defects of lies, conflicting statements and repetitions.
1) Carvakas give the example of sacrifices to beget sons. The Vedas declare that that those who perform this sacrifice will beget sons. However in practice we find that the results do not follow. Since many people ever after performing the sacrifice do not gain sons, the Vedas speak lies. As such they cannot be trusted to be speaking the truth about heavens etc. Nyayasutras (2:1:58) argue that this objection is not correct since if the performers, their works and the objects utilised for the sacrifice do not have the proper qualities the sacrifice will necessarily be futile. If parents suffer from any kind of disease or are unable to have a sexual relationship then a child cannot be born. Again if the sacrificial rituals are not properly performed then the sacrifice will not have any effect. Thirdly if the sacrificial material or chants are impure then the ritual would not work. Since all these elements have to be taken into consideration, it is incorrect to say that if the ritual does not work the Vedas contain lies.
However, the above refutations are defective. Healthy parents are able to have children without any sacrifice. It is only when parents cannot have children that they resort to sacrifices. But if defects of parents prevent offspring being born even if sacrifices are performed, then there is no necessity of a sacrifice in the first place. Another serious objection is that the Vedas make no mention of conditions. The Vedas simply state that if such and such sacrifice is performed then the performers will get a son --- nowhere is it mentioned that the health of the parents is the deciding factor and not the sacrifice itself. The second and third reasons appear logical in their context. However they also provide an excellent escape clause for priests: whenever a sacrifice fails they will claim that either a ritual or any material must have been defective. Therefore there is no chance of ever scientifically proving the efficacy of sacrifice. Thus even if no offspring is born the priests will be able to receive their fee by citing one reason or another.
2) the Vedas contain contradictory injunctions. In one verse they command that fire-worship is to be done at early dawn when the sun has not risen as yet; after sunrise; and at a time when there are neither the sun nor stars in the sky. But in another verse Vedas censure those periods for carrying out worship. The statements contradict one another and moreover if all these times are not suitable for worship, then there can be no worship at all. Thus the Vedas cannot be considered to be reliable. Nyayasutras (2:1:59) argue that this is not a defect because it is not simple contradiction. The second verse refers to people who have vowed to carry out their worship at a fixed time but then changed his mind and did it at another time. For a man who has made no such vow, all the times mentioned beforehand are valid. Thus it is not the time-spans themselves that are being censured but a man who breaks his vow. Therefore the declarations are not contradictory. However it should be noted that the Vedas themselves speak not of a man who changed his mind but of the time-spans only. The explanations smack more of special pleading to explain the contradictions after sceptics pointed them out.
3) Vedas are vitiated by repetitions. For example there are eleven mantras to be chanted while lightning fires. The first and the last are commanded by Vedas to be chanted three times each during a sacrifice. Only a madman would keep on repeating things. Thus Vedas are not reliable. Nyayasutras (2:1:60) argue that in order for the rituals to work properly, the mantras must be chanted in certain order and unless the first and last mantras are chanted three times each the ritual would not work. A first glance this appears to be a good answer and indeed it is so --- in its own context of magical ritual. However it is the very efficacy of magic that the Carvakas demand to be investigated. The important question to them was whether the ritual worked as advertised; and as we have seen they have pointed out that the rituals with visible effects like begetting sons have been demonstrated to be useless. Therefore if we place the answer to the third objection in a wider scientific context, we find it is unsatisfactory.
???
:)
We are told that Carvakas refused to accept Vedas as authoriarative statements since the Vedas have the defects of lies, conflicting statements and repetitions.
1) Carvakas give the example of sacrifices to beget sons. The Vedas declare that that those who perform this sacrifice will beget sons. However in practice we find that the results do not follow. Since many people ever after performing the sacrifice do not gain sons, the Vedas speak lies. As such they cannot be trusted to be speaking the truth about heavens etc. Nyayasutras (2:1:58) argue that this objection is not correct since if the performers, their works and the objects utilised for the sacrifice do not have the proper qualities the sacrifice will necessarily be futile. If parents suffer from any kind of disease or are unable to have a sexual relationship then a child cannot be born. Again if the sacrificial rituals are not properly performed then the sacrifice will not have any effect. Thirdly if the sacrificial material or chants are impure then the ritual would not work. Since all these elements have to be taken into consideration, it is incorrect to say that if the ritual does not work the Vedas contain lies.
However, the above refutations are defective. Healthy parents are able to have children without any sacrifice. It is only when parents cannot have children that they resort to sacrifices. But if defects of parents prevent offspring being born even if sacrifices are performed, then there is no necessity of a sacrifice in the first place. Another serious objection is that the Vedas make no mention of conditions. The Vedas simply state that if such and such sacrifice is performed then the performers will get a son --- nowhere is it mentioned that the health of the parents is the deciding factor and not the sacrifice itself. The second and third reasons appear logical in their context. However they also provide an excellent escape clause for priests: whenever a sacrifice fails they will claim that either a ritual or any material must have been defective. Therefore there is no chance of ever scientifically proving the efficacy of sacrifice. Thus even if no offspring is born the priests will be able to receive their fee by citing one reason or another.
2) the Vedas contain contradictory injunctions. In one verse they command that fire-worship is to be done at early dawn when the sun has not risen as yet; after sunrise; and at a time when there are neither the sun nor stars in the sky. But in another verse Vedas censure those periods for carrying out worship. The statements contradict one another and moreover if all these times are not suitable for worship, then there can be no worship at all. Thus the Vedas cannot be considered to be reliable. Nyayasutras (2:1:59) argue that this is not a defect because it is not simple contradiction. The second verse refers to people who have vowed to carry out their worship at a fixed time but then changed his mind and did it at another time. For a man who has made no such vow, all the times mentioned beforehand are valid. Thus it is not the time-spans themselves that are being censured but a man who breaks his vow. Therefore the declarations are not contradictory. However it should be noted that the Vedas themselves speak not of a man who changed his mind but of the time-spans only. The explanations smack more of special pleading to explain the contradictions after sceptics pointed them out.
3) Vedas are vitiated by repetitions. For example there are eleven mantras to be chanted while lightning fires. The first and the last are commanded by Vedas to be chanted three times each during a sacrifice. Only a madman would keep on repeating things. Thus Vedas are not reliable. Nyayasutras (2:1:60) argue that in order for the rituals to work properly, the mantras must be chanted in certain order and unless the first and last mantras are chanted three times each the ritual would not work. A first glance this appears to be a good answer and indeed it is so --- in its own context of magical ritual. However it is the very efficacy of magic that the Carvakas demand to be investigated. The important question to them was whether the ritual worked as advertised; and as we have seen they have pointed out that the rituals with visible effects like begetting sons have been demonstrated to be useless. Therefore if we place the answer to the third objection in a wider scientific context, we find it is unsatisfactory.
???
:)