Differentiate between the Carvākas' refutation of self as a transcendental category and the Buddhist rejection of ātmā.

Carvaka’s Refutation of Self

Carvaka, also known as Lokāyata, is a materialistic school of thought that asserts that perception (pratyakṣa) is the only valid source of knowledge (pramāṇa). They reject inference (anumāna), testimony (śabda), and comparison (upamāna) as reliable means of attaining truth. Consequently, any concept that cannot be directly perceived is deemed unreal. The ‘self’, being a non-perceptible entity, falls into this category.

• Rejection of Transcendental Categories: Carvakas deny the existence of any soul, spirit, or consciousness that exists independently of the body. They view consciousness as an emergent property of the material body, specifically the brain. When the body dies, consciousness ceases to exist.
• Empirical Basis: Their argument rests on the observation that we only experience the body and its functions. There is no independent experience of a ‘self’ separate from these.
• Critique of Atman Doctrines: Carvakas actively critique the Brahmanical concept of ātman as a permanent, unchanging entity. They argue that such a concept is unsupported by empirical evidence and serves only to perpetuate priestly authority and ritualistic practices.
• The Body as the ‘I’: For Carvakas, the ‘I’ is simply the body itself, a complex arrangement of material elements (earth, water, fire, and air).

Buddhist Rejection of Ātmā

Buddhism, particularly the Theravada school, rejects the notion of a permanent, unchanging self (ātman) through the doctrine of anatta (no-self). However, this rejection differs significantly from the Carvaka position. Buddhism doesn’t deny the existence of experience or consciousness; rather, it asserts that these are impermanent, constantly changing, and lack an inherent, independent existence.

• Anatta (No-Self): The core of the Buddhist rejection of ātman is the understanding that what we perceive as ‘self’ is merely a collection of five aggregates (skandhas): form (rupa), sensation (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formations (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana).
• Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda): Buddhism explains the arising of phenomena, including the illusion of self, through the principle of dependent origination. Everything arises in dependence upon other factors; nothing exists independently.
• Impermanence (Anicca): All phenomena, including the skandhas, are subject to impermanence. Because there is no unchanging core, there can be no permanent self.
• Suffering (Dukkha): The belief in a permanent self is seen as a root cause of suffering. Attachment to the illusion of self leads to craving, aversion, and ultimately, dissatisfaction.

Comparing the Refutations

While both schools reject a permanent self, their methods and implications diverge considerably. The following table highlights these differences:

Feature	Carvaka	Buddhism
Epistemology	Empiricism (perception only)	Analysis of experience, dependent origination
Nature of Rejection	Denial of self as a non-perceptible entity	Denial of inherent existence of self; self is an illusion
Consciousness	Emergent property of the body	A stream of consciousness, impermanent and conditioned
Metaphysical Implications	Materialism; the universe is composed solely of matter	Middle Way; avoids extremes of materialism and eternalism
Goal of Philosophy	Enjoyment of worldly pleasures	Liberation from suffering (Nirvana)

The Carvaka refutation is a direct, materialistic denial. If it cannot be perceived, it does not exist. The Buddhist rejection, however, is more nuanced. It doesn’t deny experience but deconstructs the notion of a substantial, enduring self *within* experience. Buddhism doesn’t claim the self doesn’t exist, but rather that it is ‘empty’ of inherent existence (sunyata). This difference stems from their differing epistemological foundations – Carvaka’s strict empiricism versus Buddhism’s analytical approach to understanding the nature of reality.