Samkhya Karika on Charvaka

[wundermonk]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

However, for obvious reasons, one gets on shaky ground when attempting to infer the presence of a soul and after-life.

I would say it depends on ontology and definition. For instance, the Nyaya attempts to prove the existence of a self by:

(a)Identifying all possible substances.
(b)Identifying all possible qualities.
(c)Claiming qualities absolutely NEED a substance to exist. [Buddhists disagreed here.]
(d)Proving that there are certain qualities that cannot subsist in any substance other than the self.

The issue is, if you accept the ontology of Nyaya, their argument is correct and the self is proven as a substance.

[wundermonk]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

Did you see this comment on Carvaka in a karika or from a later commentator?

Yes, one of the first few aphorisms of Samkhyakarika.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Originally Posted by wundermonk

Yes, one of the first few aphorisms of Samkhyakarika.

I looked it up. The Sankhya Karika has about 70 Karikas. Starting from the fourth Karika, the next few discuss pramanas. The Karikas themselves do not mention other doctrines.

Colebrooke's translation which contains the comentary of Gaudapada does not mention Carvaka or Lokayata.

Swami Virupakshananda's translation, which included Vachaspathi Mishra's tattva kaumudi (his commentary on the karikas), does mention the Lokayata position in the commentary for karika 4.

It is not known who this Gaudapada was. Vachaspathi Mishra lived during the 10th Century CE and during his time, pratyaksham eva pramanam was firmly attached to the Lokayata position - at least by writers of other schools.

[wundermonk]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

Swami Virupakshananda's translation, which included Vachaspathi Mishra's tattva kaumudi (his commentary on the karikas), does mention the Lokayata position in the commentary for karika 4.

This is indeed the translation I have.