|
August Thalheimer
Introduction to Dialectical Materialism
Indian Materialism
The Greeks played the leading role in the
foundation of science and philosophy, and
in the detachment of these from religion,
but they are not alone in having made this
progress. It is no more than just to mention
the great intellectual labor performed by
the people of the East, even though this
labor was not as consequential as that of
the ancient Greeks. The elements of materialism
which were developed in the East can there
serve as a point of departure for dialectical
materialism. Therefore, before concluding
the first section of lectures, I should like
to speak of materialism in ancient India.
I will reserve discussion of China for the
last section. In the next chapters I proceed
directly to the doctrines of Marx and Engels.
Materialism had already appeared in ancient
India by the sixth century B. C. This is
the period which immediately follows primitive
times. This period of primitivity is also
called the period of the Vedas, because the
Vedas, the oldest religious poems of ancient
India, afford the best reflection of this
period. The time in which materialism made
its appearance is called the epic period
of India, because then the great popular
epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana,
emerged. It was a time of great religious
and philosophical agitation; Buddhism then
made its appearance as the new world religion
and with it an allied religious reform called
Jainism. It was thus a time of profound crisis
for ancient religious views, a crisis for
the ancient religion which bore the name
Brahmanism. The members of the ancient priestly
caste of India were called Brahmans. It was
a time of broad mass movements against the
authority of this Brahman caste and against
the religious views on which the authority
of the Brahmans rested.
Whence came this crisis? There were profound
transformations in the class relations which,
in the last analysis, brought on this crisis.
Originally the Brahmans were priests of magic
and sacrifice, such as we find more or less
among all undeveloped peoples. Brahma originally
signified the magic inherent in them. The
Brahmans, the priests, thus developed into
the highest ruling caste. They claimed authority
over the other three principal castes. They
obtained this authority chiefly through their
talent for knowing the rituals of sacrifice,
which they had built up into a highly developed
system. This priestly caste lived at the
expense of the other classes on sacrificial
offerings which they exacted from them.
The Brahmans ruled without serious competition
in this early period, in the time of the
Vedas. This was a time when the communistic
village-community prevailed in its primitive
form. This village-community was founded
on agriculture and stock-farming, without
great economic differences between the individual
members of the community, without great differentiation;
hence a village-community had an economically
and socially democratic government. But then
the old inhabitants were subjugated by lighter-skinned
Aryan Indians who immigrated into India from
the north, a fair-complexioned people, linguistically
very closely related to European groups
(Greeks, Celts, Persians, etc.). The conquered
natives were made the slaves of the conquerors.
Thus was created, instead of free and equal
members of the democratic, communistic village-community,
a class of people who lived not on a basis
of social and legal equality, but who were
the oppressed, the slaves, the enthralled.
The opposition between the ruling conquerors
and the defeated natives carried class opposition
even into the ranks of the conquerors themselves.
So there appeared more and more class oppositions
in this primitive communistic village-community.
The primitive Aryan peasants who were part
of the conquerors were often replaced by
native slaves. Large estates were built on
the foundation of this slave enterprise.
The great landed proprietors were, first
of all, war-lords and great merchants. Merchants
often ran their businesses with slaves also,
just as we saw in ancient Greece. In time
the agricultural slaves raisied themselves
to a higher rank, to thralls such as we have
in the Middle Ages. These thralls or slaves
formed the lowest caste in ancient India.
They were called the Sudras. In the northeast
where Buddhism and the religious reform movement
emerged, class oppositions developed more
sharply than in the east where the old Brahmanist
religion had long held sway.
I will now briefly describe the situation
in the sixth century, just when materialism
and Buddhism emerged in ancient India. At
this time the communistic village-community
still prevailed. But it had already begun
to disintegrate. The land could already be
bought or leased, which was not the case
in the pure, primitive communistic state,
since the land belonged to the community;
from time to time it used to be apportioned
to individuals, but it could neither be bought
nor leased. Since then many merchants had
become land-buyers. There were even some
free wage laborers, but only in very insignificant
numbers. For the most part they worked on
the greater landed estates, either for board
and lodging, or for wages. The real slaves
were mainly domestic slaves, just as they
have been in China for a long time. Crafts
developed. Craftsmen were organized in corporations
or guilds. Rich merchants already existed
in this period. They did a large business
by means of caravans overland, or by maritime
trade to China, to Alexandria, to Egypt,
etc. This trade comprised mainly silks, fine
cloths, ivory, jewels - by and large, luxuries
for the use of kings and nobles. For the
most part, barter had already been replaced
by money transactions. At this time there
were already money-lenders, and in the village
the usurer already played an important role.
Accordingly one can say that a disintegration
of the primitive, simple, communistic village-community
was already taking place. This disintegration
was connected with the introduction of commodity
production, and the latter, in turn, with
the development of the forces of production
in agricultural economy and with the development
of private property. The introduction of
slave labor, of the labor of thralls, was
linked with the establishment of great landed
estates, with the formation of commercial
and money capital. Thus, when we consider
the class divisions of this society in which
materialism emerged in ancient India, we
have the following main characteristics:
on one side the ruling priest caste stood
opposed to the noble landed proprietors and
the rich merchants. The latter struggled
with the priest caste for social supremacy.
On the other side, there developed a caste
of freemen, whoowned little or no property,
and a caste of slaves or thralls. These profound
social changes from primitive times gave
the impulse for a spiritual and religious
crisis. On one side Buddhism emerged as a
new reformed popular religion opposed to
the ancient Brahmans, who were set against
the broad masses of the people. On the other
side materialism emerged, the materialistic
philosophy which was already breaking through
the limitations of religion. Its bearers
were characteristically the richest merchants,
just as they were in the Greek commercial
colonies of Asia Minor.
Class differentiation assumed a peculiar
form in India, however; namely, the form
of a caste system. A caste comes into being
when the division of labor in a certain society
becomes hereditary. That is, the son of a
warrior must become a warrior; the son of
a potter, a potter, etc. Associated with
this homogeneity of castes is the fact that
the members may marry only in their own caste,
that each such caste has special religious
customs, special customs in daily life, in
eating, in dressing, etc. The precepts and
customs of a given caste completely govern
all details in the life of a man who belongs
to the caste. The formation of castes is
not limited to India. In antiquity we also
have a very strong caste system in ancient
Egypt. The starting point for the formation
of castes in ancient India is already described
in the term. The old Indian word for caste,
Varna, originally mans color. The starting
point was the separation of the light-complexioned
Aryan conquerors from the dark-complexioned
natives who were made slaves or bondsmen.
From this separation of dark-colored natives
from light-colored conquerors there came
the partition into castes. Four main castes
are distinguished. I list them in the order
of rank: The first, the most aristocratic
and the ruling caste, was the Brahman or
priest caste; the second, the warrior caste;
the third was the caste of the rest of the
free men, merchants, and farmers; and the
fourth and lowest was the caste of slaves,
thralls, or Sudras, whom we have already
named. Without these class oppositions in
the form of castes the development of thought
in ancient India after the Vedic times is
not understandable. Therefore, at the outset,
one must explain the castes, their significance
and role, in order to understand the problems
about which thought in ancient India revolved.
The fundamental questions of Indian thought
revolve around problems related to the nature
of the castes, that is, the nature of the
special form which class relations assume
in India. The fundamental conceptions of
Indian thought are derived from this and
understandable only through this: The fate
of individual men in a caste society was
completely deter-mined by the caste into
which they were born. Thinking on social
questions had to assume the following form:
What determines the caste into which an individual
is born? The individual wanted to be able
to determine this. For him this offered the
only possibility of determining or changing
his fate. But this possibility rests upon
two assumptions: first, that connection exists
between the individual's present existence
in a certain class, his previous existence
in another class, and his future existence
in still another form. These connections
quite naturally give rise to the idea of
regeneration, of the eternal recurrence of
birth. The Indian name for this is Sansara,
recurrence. This name and this conception
are familiar to everyone who has same knowledge
of Buddhism. The same conception of eternal
regeneration grew up in ancient Egypt and
was based on the same relationships. I have
already mentioned that ancient Egypt likewise
had a caste system. We have here two main
concepts. The first concept, Sansara or regeneration,
is the basis for the second fundamental concept:
Karma, which means that my birth is determined
by the fact that I have lived aprevious life.
If I conduct myself well in this life I shall
perhaps later be born again into a higher
caste or if I behave badly, into a lower
casteor even as an animal or a plant. If
my behavior is completely god, I may be reborn
as a god or a hero, etc. This is the basic
concept of Indian thought, and only in this
form (fantasy) is it possible to change caste,
to change my social destiny. Indian thought
revolved about these two fundamental concepts
as soon as class oppositions developed and
began to be more and more embodied in castes.
Buddhism emerged as a rebellion against the
caste system in general, and against the
supremacy of the priest caste in particular,
but as a rebellion still in religious form.
I can only touch upon Buddhism here. According
to evidence, Buddha himself, the founder
of this religion, was a simple nobleman.
He belonged to the second caste. He was not
the son of a great king, as has often been
said. He allied himself with the two castes
which were struggling against the Brahmans
for social supremacy. Buddhism opposes priestly
sacrifice as a means of deliverance. In the
acknowledgement of the exclusive power of
the Brahman priests to make offerings lay
the foundation of their social dominance,
and their economic position was ideologically
based on the same thing, since the priests
lived on the offerings which were brought
to them. Thus Buddhism taught - and this
constitutes its basis - that freedom from
Sansara cannot be attained through sacrifices,
but through knowledge of religious truths
and through the stifling of passions. At
the basis of Buddhism lies the principle
of victory over the caste system; not an
actual, but an ideal fantastic victory. Accordingly,
the injunction of poverty is established,
the organization of religious beggary. This
must be considered as reaction against the
existing class differentiation, a reaction
which naturally must have been very agreeable
to the exploited levels of the population.
Buddhism, like Christianity, did not persist
in its original form. In the course of time
and in consequence of its transplantation
into different lands, it has undergone extraordinary
changes. Buddhism qualifies as a world-religion,
because, first, like Christianity, it raises
itself above local and national ceremonial
rites; second, because it propounds a completely
universal formula for the redemption of human
wrongs which is thus applicable to the most
various social forms and classes; to exploiter
as well as to the exploited, to slaves, free
nomads, as well as to merchants.
The most radical form of criticism of Brahmanism,
a criticism which went beyond the bounds
of religion, was ancient Indian materialism,
of which I shall now speak. This ancient
Indian materialism certainly existed in 500
B. C., that is to say, simultaneously with
Buddhism. In all probability it existed even
somewhat earlier than Buddhism. Unfortunately
this ancient Indian materialism is known
to us only through statements of it made
by opponents - the Brahmanist scholars -
so that much of what was said about ancient
Indian materialism is slander and misrepresentation.
This ancient materialism was called Lokayata,
derived from an old Indian word, Loka, meaning
the
(secular) world. It is thus the theory of
laymen, as opposed to the theory of priests.
The theory was also called Tcharwaka, from
Tscharv (to eat greedily). This is the name
which the opponents of the doctrine gave
to it. They wanted to describe it as a theory
of men whose eating and drinking are their
chief concern. These materialists directed
an extremely sharp attack against the Brahmans.
Their aim was to break the monopoly of the
Brahman priests and establish complete religious
freedom. As merchants these materialists
had a great interest in religious tolerance.
I will briefly describe the main theories
of this ancient Indian materialism. It maintained
that the source of all knowledge is simply
sensory experience. They did not recognize
the authority of religious revelation; but
neither did they recognize the course of
reason, the drawing of conclusions from given
experiences, as the source of knowledge.
Only immediate sensory experience is the
source of all knowledge: all spirituality
arises, according to this conception, from
the material, from the four elements
(which they had in common with the Greeks).
Thought they considered as an activity of
matter, matter alone is knowable and real.
There is no hereafter and no immortality
of the soul. The priests, they say, are deceivers
and buffoons who perform their sacrifices,
their ceremonies, etc., in order to cheat
the people and live on the sacrifices. These
materialists were also opposed to the Buddhists.
One of the basic doctrines of Buddhism is
that all is sorrow and that all pleasures
of the world are illusory and had. To that
the materialists answer: it is absurd to
condemn pleasures because they are mixed
with sorrow and dissatisfaction. Man does
not throw rice away because the kernel is
wrapped in a rough shell.
I will quote a few verses which present a
concise summary of the theory of ancient
Indian materialism. They run thus:
There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world, Nor do the
actions of the four castes, orders, etc.,
produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the
three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves,
and smearing one's self with ashes, Were
made by Nature as the livelihood of those
destitute of knowledge and manliness. If
a beast slain in the Jvotistoma rite will
itself go to heaven, Why then does not the
sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?
If the Sraddha produces gratification to
kings who are dead, Then here, too, in the
case of travellers when they start, it is
heedless to give provisions for the journey.
If beings in heaven are gratified by our
offering the Sraddha here, Then why not give
the food down below to those who are standing
on the housetop? While life remains let a
man live happily, let him feed on ghee even
though he runs in debt. When once the body
becomes ashes, how can it ever return again?
If he who departs from the body goes to another
world, How is it that he comes not back again,
restless for love of his kindred? Hence it
is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans
have established here All these ceremonies
for the dead - there is no other fruit anywhere,
The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons,
knaves and demons. All the well-known formula
of the pundits, jarphari, turphari, etc.
And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded
in the Asvamedha, These were invented by
buffoons, and so all the various kinds of
presents to the priests, While the eating
of flesh was similarly commanded by night-prowling
demons. 1)
With that I leave these materialists. I might
simply mention, in conclusion, that in ancient
India there was an independent development
of the theory of thought or logic. This theory
was called Nyaya, that is, the theory of
concepts, etc. This logic developed in ancient
India as it did in ancient Greece: from discussions
of various conflicting philosophical systems
as a defensive technique in these discussions
and as an aid to thought. This was one of
the great achievements of ancient India.
|
