Haribhadra's views on svabhavavada and the Lokayata

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya examines the Jain scholar Haribhadra’s analysis of the doctrine of svabhāvavāda (inherent‑nature theory) and its relation to the materialist Cārvāka/Lokāyata school. He notes that earlier writers, including commentators on the Sāṃkhyakārikā and the fourteenth‑century author Vidyāraṇya, had associated svabhāvavāda with Lokāyata, claiming that both upheld nature as the supreme reality. Bhattacharya points out that these associations are largely conjectural and lack textual support. Haribhadra, an eighth‑century Jain philosopher known for his encyclopaedic knowledge of Indian systems of thought, critically discussed the Lokāyata doctrine in his works such as Ṣaḍdarśana‑samucaya and Śāstravārtā‑samucaya. Haribhadra summarised the Lokāyata position, which denies an afterlife and rejects the authority of the Vedas, gods and ritual; the Lokāyatikas hold that consciousness is a property of the physical elements and that pleasure is the goal of life. He then refuted their arguments by asserting the existence of a self (ātman) independent of matter, the law of karma and the consequences of virtue and vice. Bhattacharya emphasises that Haribhadra does not conflate svabhāvavāda with Lokāyata; he treats them separately and shows that Lokāyata views are untenable because they deny perception‑based inference and moral accountability. The article further explains that svabhāvavāda, as used in other contexts, sometimes refers to doctrines involving fate, natural laws or God’s will, but Haribhadra’s usage is distinct. Bhattacharya concludes that the later linkage of svabhāvavāda with Lokāyata in some Sanskrit texts was a misunderstanding and that proper study of Haribhadra’s writings clarifies the differences.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.