Jain Sources for the Study of Pre-Carvaka Materialist Ideas in India

Summary

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya investigates Jain canonical literature as a source for reconstructing the history of Indian materialist philosophy before the emergence of the well‑known Cārvāka school. Early Jain texts such as the Sūtrakṛtāṅga Sūtra (SKS) and their commentaries contain polemics against various “heretical” groups. These criticisms provide valuable evidence about competing philosophical ideas in ancient India and show that there were at least two distinct materialist theories before the seventh century. The SKS begins by attacking opponents of Jainism – described as Śramaṇas and Brāhmaṇas who deny the soul and indulge in pleasures. Śīlāṅka’s ninth‑century commentary identifies some of these opponents as followers of Bṛhaspati (Bārhaspatya materialists) and bhūtavādins who believe that the five elements constitute everything, even the soul. Bhattacharya explains that this identification is contested. Other verses distinguish between groups who accept a sixth substance in addition to the five elements or who hold the soul and the five elements to be eternal. Sometimes Śīlāṅka glosses the same term as referring to Vedists, Sāṃkhyas and Śaivas, and later verses criticise Buddhists for their doctrine of momentariness. By comparing the SKS verses with Śīlāṅka’s glosses, the article reconstructs a range of pre‑Cārvāka materialist theories. Some schools taught that only the five elements exist; others added a sixth principle; and still others accepted a permanent soul but denied karma and rebirth. This diversity suggests that the label “Cārvāka” was not monolithic but was shaped by multiple earlier strands. The article situates Jain evidence alongside Buddhist and Brahminical sources and argues that Jain texts are indispensable for studying early Indian materialism. Because many materialist works have been lost, polemical references preserved by rival traditions provide rare data. Bhattacharya shows that Jain authors documented debates among philosophers and preserved terms like bhūtapañcakavādin and bhūtavādin. By mining these sources the article sheds light on the evolution of rationalist and sceptical thought in India and challenges the assumption that materialist ideas begin only with the classical Cārvākas. The study concludes that scholars should treat Jain canonical literature not merely as religious doctrine but also as a historical repository. Integrating Jain sources into broader histories of Indian philosophy reveals the diversity of early materialist ideas and uncovers the intellectual interactions that shaped later heterodox schools.