人类学杂志报告

抽象的

People's Philosophy People's Movement

Muttaki Bin Kamal*

This paper argues that the Adivasi and local environmental movements in India correspond with Carvaka or Lokayata philosophy’s outlook and receives condescending treatment from the political hegemony like them. Both Lokayata and the environmental movements hold a bottom-up materialist policy outlook against the state’s top-down approach in the question of resource distribution and development. The challenge this argument faces is that Lokayata school does not exist in its name at present and it is not a single school of thought either. Several Indian philosophical schools as Tantra, Buddhism, Sangkhya philosophy, Ajivikas. shows links to Carvaka philosophy. Also, documents written by the Carvaka philosophers are rare and we barely know names of such philosophers. We come to know about them mostly from the scholars who criticized them. Secondly, the word “Carvaka” is not used anymore to coin someone as a follower of that tradition. But the word Lokayata is still used in languages as Bengali. Curiously in Bengali, it means popular, traditional, secular or materialist. Harshly criticized them for their materialistic philosophy, accused them of being utterly immoral and hedonistic who only pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

The word Lokayata is derive from two Sanskrit terms “Loka” and “Ayata” meaning “people” and “extended among”. Together, Lokayata means the philosophy extended among people. Chattyopadhyay argued that Lokayata was a philosophy that mostly prevailed among the working class and indigenous people of ancient India which is related to the primitive form of tantra. He posited Lokayata to be the philosophy of proletariat, rather than a sect of erudite. He argued that the Lokayata philosophy was materialistic and thus challenged prevailing theistic philosophies in the postvedic era. His discussion suggests that adivasis and the working class of that era were the followers of this philosophy. As a result, spokesmen of the hegemony, as the scholar madhavacharya criticized the followers of lokayata doctrine. Theistic recrimination of the Lokayata mostly based on three aspects. Firstly, Lokayata were reprimanded to be Nastikas. Lokayata epistemology argues that anything that cannot be experience physically does not exist. This argument posits them as materialist and by implication, atheists. Secondly, they were travestied as the hedonists. Scholars of theistic philosophy argued that those who do not believe anything beyond matter cannot liberate themselves from the moha or illusion of the matter. Thus, they pursue only for matter and material pleasure. To the theistic scholars, the materialists do not have any accountability to the divine and thus are immoral in their conduct. This recrimination of the Lokayata materialists became most popular. Thirdly, they were the assailants of any of the established theistic philosophies or hegemonic doctrines. In the analysis of this paper, I will show that the people’s environmental movement in India assails top down policy approach of the state, challenge transcendent symbolism of environmental elements and are perceived by the hegemony to pursue local economic gains rather than contributing to the development of the nation.