Greater Magadha

Studies in the Culture of Early India, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Two India, Volume 19, Johannes Bronkhorst, Brill (2007)

INTRODUCTION - THE SEPARATE CULTURE OF GREATER MAGADHA

The definition of “Āryāvarta” (the land of the Āryas) expanded eastward between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE, indicating the spread of Brahmanical culture into what was previously considered foreign territory.
The region east of the confluence of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā, termed “Greater Magadha,” was the heartland of the Mauryan empire and its predecessors, whose rulers primarily patronized non-Brahmanical movements like Jainism, Buddhism, and Ājīvikism.
Early Brahmanical texts, such as the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, describe the people of the east as “demonic” and note their distinct cultural practices, like building round sepulchral mounds (stūpas), which contrasts with Brahmanical four-cornered mounds.
Vedic literature expresses disdain for the people of Magadha, considering them of low repute and criticizing their “barbarous” speech (Māgadhī).
Greater Magadha possessed a distinct, non-Vedic culture that was responsible for India’s second urbanization and the rise of major religious movements like Buddhism and Jainism.

PART I - CULTURAL FEATURES OF GREATER MAGADHA

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the culture of Greater Magadha before Buddhism and Jainism is derived from limited archaeological and literary sources.
Archaeological evidence shows a distinction between the Doab (Painted Grey ware) and Greater Magadha (Black and Red ware) until around 500 BCE, when both regions adopted Northern Black Polished ware.
Literary sources, primarily Buddhist and Jaina canonical texts, reveal major cultural differences between the two regions despite the shared pottery.
The reliance on religious texts results in a “top-heavy” understanding, focusing more on the milieus from which Buddhism and Jainism emerged than on other cultural aspects.
The primary task is to analyze these canonical texts to understand the fundamental ideology of these two religions.

CHAPTER I.1 - THE FUNDAMENTAL SPIRITUAL IDEOLOGY

The culture of Greater Magadha was characterized by a belief in rebirth and karmic retribution.
Most religious currents, with the exception of Buddhism, believed that all deeds lead to karmic consequences.
This led to the challenge of putting an end to all activity to achieve liberation.

Early Jainism

Liberation is achieved by suppressing all activity to prevent new karma.
Ascetic practices, such as voluntary starvation and motionlessness, served a dual purpose: to stop new karmic deeds and to destroy the traces of past deeds through pain.
Buddhism critiqued this approach, emphasizing mental intention over physical action and ridiculing the extreme discomfort of Jaina practices.
Early Jaina texts describe a path culminating in ‘pure meditation’ (sukkajjhāṇa), a process of progressively stopping all mental and physical activity, including breathing, until death.

Knowledge of the self

An alternative path to liberation, originating in Greater Magadha, was through knowledge of the true self.
This doctrine holds that the true self is inherently inactive and untouched by the actions of the body and mind.
Realizing this truth reveals that karmic retribution is based on a misunderstanding, as the self is not the true doer of actions.
This path sometimes combined knowledge with ascetic and meditative practices, with the latter gaining prominence over physical austerities.
Early Buddhist texts show awareness of this concept of a permanent, unchanging self but reject it, arguing that the constituents of a person are impermanent and painful.

The Bhagavadgītā

The Bhagavadgītā critiques complete inaction as impossible for an embodied being.
It advocates for performing one’s prescribed duties (svadharma) with a mental attitude of non-attachment to the fruits of action.
This non-involvement prevents actions from producing karmic effects.
Devotion to Kṛṣṇa and knowledge of the inactive nature of the soul are presented as means to cultivate this attitude of non-attachment.

Ājīvikism

The core doctrine was a strict determinism (Niyati), where human volition is ineffectual and all beings follow a fixed, unalterable course of rebirths over 8,400,000 great kalpas.
Ājīvikas practiced severe asceticism, which seems contradictory to their fatalism.
The proposed explanation is that unlike Jainas, Ājīvikas believed asceticism could not destroy past karma; it had to be exhausted naturally over the long cycle of rebirths.
Asceticism, specifically the non-performance of new actions, was still essential at the very end of this cycle to achieve final liberation.
They likely believed in an inactive self, meaning actions are performed by the material body following its predetermined course, which explains their doctrine of “non-action” (akiriyā).

Buddhism

Buddhism offered a different solution by first changing the problem.
It rejected the idea that all acts have karmic consequences, instead identifying intention or ‘thirst’ (tṛṣṇā) as the driving force behind karmic acts.
Liberation is attained by eliminating this psychological drive, not through physical immobilization or knowledge of an inactive self.
Because its approach was fundamentally new, it reveals less about the pre-existing ideology of Greater Magadha.

Conclusions

The fundamental ideology of Greater Magadha’s spiritual culture was the belief that all activity leads to karmic retribution.
Jainism, Ājīvikism, and certain Brahmanical traditions inherited this ideology and proposed solutions based on stopping activity.
Buddhism was the exception, redefining karma as being dependent on intention and thus creating a different path to liberation.

Funerary practices

The only early source, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, indicates that the sepulchral mounds of the people of Greater Magadha were round.
Later Buddhist practices underwent significant modifications and are not reliable for understanding the original culture.

Medicine

The medical practice of Greater Magadha, which is the root of Āyurveda, was distinct from Vedic medicine.
Evidence from Greek historian Strabo distinguishes between two types of healers:
- Śramaṇa healers practiced a rational therapy based on diet (grains) and external applications (ointments, poultices), which is fundamental to Āyurveda.
- Brahmin healers used a magico-religious approach involving sorcery, spells, and amulets, similar to the Vedic tradition.
The Vedic tradition viewed disease as caused by demonic forces, while the “empirico-rational” tradition of Greater Magadha explained it through the three-humour (tridoṣa) theory of wind, bile, and phlegm.

Kapila

Kapila is presented as a divine figure associated with the ascetic culture of Greater Magadha, often in opposition to the Vedic tradition.
The Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra describes Kapila as an Asura (demon), son of Prahlāda, and connects him to the non-Vedic system of the four āśramas.
In Sāṃkhya, Yoga, and the Mahābhārata, Kapila is depicted as a divine being, a supreme seer, and an incarnation of God.
Myths portray Kapila with destructive ascetic power, similar to other Asuras, and he is associated with Āsuri (‘son of an Asura’).
Texts like the Mahābhārata and Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita contrast Kapila’s path (nivṛtti dharma), which aims for liberation from rebirth, with the Vedic path (pravṛtti dharma), which focuses on sacrifice and attaining heaven.

Cyclic time

The concept of time being divided into repeating cycles or eons (kalpas) was a feature of religions from Greater Magadha like Buddhism, Jainism, and Ājīvikism.
These religions presupposed a beginningless cycle of rebirths (saṃsāra) structured by these vast time units.
Buddhist texts describe the world contracting and expanding between eons.
Jainism conceived of a revolving wheel of time with different periods, and Ājīvikism taught that every being passes through 8,400,000 great kalpas.
This cyclic view of time is absent from early Vedic texts but appears as a later addition in Brahmanical literature like the Mahābhārata, suggesting it was adopted from the culture of Greater Magadha.

CHAPTER I.3 - CONCLUSIONS TO PART I

Greater Magadha had a unique culture, distinct from its Vedic neighbours, with its own practices for dealing with the dead, healing, and worship.
Its most defining belief was in rebirth determined by one’s deeds (karmic retribution).
This belief raised two key religious questions: how to free oneself from the effects of past deeds and how to stop creating new karma.
Many features of this culture survived the confrontation with Vedic culture, most notably the belief in rebirth and karmic retribution.
Other surviving elements found in later Brahmanical literature include asceticism focused on immobilizing the body and the concept of an immutable self whose knowledge is required for liberation.

PART II - BRAHMANISM VIS-À-VIS REBIRTH AND KARMIC RETRIBUTION

INTRODUCTION

The belief in rebirth and karmic retribution is the most important cultural feature of Greater Magadha.
This belief is the foundation of the religions that arose in the region.
It eventually spread far beyond its original geographical and religious boundaries.
Brahmanical texts had mixed reactions to the belief, with some accepting it hesitantly, some ignoring it, and others rejecting it.

PART IIA - REBIRTH AND KARMIC RETRIBUTION HESITANTLY ACCEPTED

This section examines how Brahmanical culture absorbed cultural elements from Greater Magadha, specifically the ideas of rebirth and karmic retribution, by analysing specific texts.

CHAPTER IIA.1 - A DHARMA SŪTRA

This chapter uses the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra to illustrate the absorption of cultural elements from Greater Magadha into Vedic culture, contrasting the two traditions of asceticism.

Vedic asceticism

Vedic culture had its own form of asceticism, which was distinct from the traditions of Greater Magadha (e.g., Buddhism, Jainism).
This asceticism was an option for householders and was closely linked to the Vedic sacrificial tradition, particularly the restrictions (dīkṣā) undertaken by a sacrificer.
Within the Vedic tradition, there was opposition to extreme asceticism, especially sexual abstinence, because of the importance of having a son.
The grammarian Patañjali (2nd century BCE) noted an “eternal conflict” between Śramaṇas (ascetics of Greater Magadha) and Brāhmaṇas, highlighting the clear distinction between the two traditions.

The Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra

The text presents four life options (āśramas) rather than sequential stages and describes three distinct forms of asceticism.
Two forms originate from Greater Magadha:
1. The path of the wanderer (parivrāja), who seeks liberation from rebirth through insight into the self.
2. The path of the forest-dweller (vānaprastha), who practices inaction through a progressive fast to death.
The third form is of Vedic character, where a different type of forest-dweller combines asceticism with ritual activity, such as maintaining sacrificial fires.
The text attempts to “brahmanize” the non-Vedic paths by adding superficial elements like Vedic recitation, but the author ultimately rejects these paths in favour of the householder’s life.

Confirmation in Greek sources

The Greek ambassador Megasthenes (c. 300 BCE) described three types of Indian philosophers, which align with the distinctions in the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra.
He identified the Brachmanes (Brahmins), whose asceticism was linked to Vedic ideas of preparing for a better life after death.
He divided the Sarmanes (Śramaṇas) into two groups:
1. Hylobioi (forest-dwellers), corresponding to the ascetic vānaprastha.
2. Ascetics who studied “the nature of man,” corresponding to the insight-seeking parivrāja.
Megasthenes’ account provides external confirmation of the existence of one main type of Vedic ascetic and two main types originating from Greater Magadha.

CHAPTER IIA.2 - A PORTION FROM THE MAHĀBHĀRATA

This chapter analyses a section of the Mahābhārata to understand how Brahmanism dealt with the ideas of rebirth and karmic retribution from the east.

The chronological position of the Mahābhārata

The Mahābhārata is a vast text composed over a long period, with its first written version likely dating to the final centuries BCE.
It is a Brahmanical text intended to teach kings how to rule according to Brahmanical norms, possibly as a reaction to the non-Brahmanical Mauryan empire.
The surviving manuscripts likely descend from a much later archetype, not the original version.

The Rājadharmaparvan

The introductory narrative of this section, where Yudhiṣṭhira is persuaded to accept kingship, is likely a core part of the original epic.
Yudhiṣṭhira’s desire to renounce the world provides a platform to discuss and critique various religious ideologies from Greater Magadha.
The text shows awareness of Jaina-like practices, such as fasting to death to stop the cycle of rebirth through complete inactivity.
It also describes liberation through knowledge of the self (ātman), noting that this path was discovered by scholars who searched outside the Veda.
The text mentions the three guṇas (sattva, rajas, tamas) as mental attributes, parallel to the humours of Āyurveda, suggesting their origins may lie in Greater Magadha.
A form of fatalism called Kālavāda (doctrine of Time) is presented, which resembles the determinism of Ājīvikism.
The epic clearly distinguishes between Vedic asceticism (matted hair, fire rituals) and the asceticism of Greater Magadha (shaven head, begging), with some characters criticizing the latter as non-Vedic.

CHAPTER IIA.3 - THE EARLY UPANIṢADS

This chapter focuses on how the early prose Upaniṣads absorbed and adapted the ideas of rebirth and karmic retribution.

The first occurrences of the new doctrine

The doctrine of rebirth and karma first appears in the Upaniṣads in passages associated with Uddālaka and Yājñavalkya.
In the stories involving Uddālaka, he learns the doctrine from kings, who explicitly state that this knowledge was previously unknown to Brahmins, marking it as a non-Brahmanical import.
These passages describe two paths after death: one leading to liberation for the knowledgeable, and another leading to rebirth determined by one’s actions (karma).
In contrast, the Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad presents the Vedic sage Yājñavalkya teaching the doctrine, framing it as knowledge possessed within the Brahmanical tradition.
Yājñavalkya links liberation to the knowledge of a self (ātman) that is untouched by good or bad actions.

Rebirth and karmic retribution in relation to Vedic thought

The Upaniṣads dress the new doctrine in a “Vedic garb,” but the integration is often superficial.
In the Uddālaka stories, the complex journey after death is poorly connected to the principle of karmic retribution, suggesting two separate ideas were awkwardly joined.
The “liberating knowledge” in these stories (e.g., “knowledge of the five fires”) has Vedic roots but no logical link to escaping karma.
The Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa provides a more coherent integration by explaining that knowledge of the inactive self frees one from the consequences of actions.

The self in the early Upaniṣads

In most early Upaniṣadic passages, the self (ātman) is not inactive but is a microcosm corresponding to the macrocosm (the world or Brahman), and is deeply involved in the world’s activities.
The Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa presents a different concept of the self, describing it negatively (neti-neti, “not this, not this”) as an immutable and detached reality.
This conceptual shift was necessary to accommodate the self’s new role as the key to liberation from karmic retribution.

Vedic antecedents

The analysis suggests the doctrine of rebirth and karmic retribution was a foreign concept imported into the Vedic tradition, not a natural development from within it.
The Upaniṣads themselves, in the Uddālaka stories, acknowledge the doctrine’s non-Brahmanical origin.
Attempts by scholars to find Vedic precursors for the complete doctrine, including the crucial element of karmic retribution, have been unconvincing.
The core idea borrowed from Greater Magadha was that actions determine rebirth and that liberation is achieved through knowledge of a non-acting self, which Vedic authors then adapted using their own concepts.

PART IIB - REBIRTH AND KARMIC RETRIBUTION IGNORED OR REJECTED

The text questions whether the Brahmanical tradition accepted the doctrines of rebirth and karmic retribution, which originated in Greater Magadha, without resistance.
Evidence of criticism is hard to find because the textual tradition was preserved by those who accepted these doctrines, filtering out opposing views.
This section will explore areas of Brahmanical thought that either ignored these new beliefs or actively opposed them, with resistance lasting until approximately the end of the first millennium CE.

CHAPTER IIB.1 - REBIRTH AND KARMIC RETRIBUTION IGNORED

Despite some early Upaniṣads mentioning rebirth, the doctrine was not universally or immediately adopted within the Vedic tradition.
Several later Brahmanical texts, such as the Gṛhya Sūtras and Śrauta Sūtras, show no awareness of the concepts of rebirth and karmic retribution.
The Kaṭha Upaniṣad portrays doubt about existence after death as a profound question, even for the gods.
The Mahābhārata presents a mixture of the older worldview based on sacrificial ritual and the newer one focused on liberation (mokṣa).
The orthodox Mīmāṃsā school of Vedic interpretation ignored the notions of rebirth and liberation for centuries, as seen in Śabara’s Bhāṣya (c. mid-first millennium CE).
This prolonged ignorance by orthodox Brahmanism is evidence that the belief in rebirth was originally non-Vedic.

CHAPTER IIB.2 - REBIRTH AND KARMIC RETRIBUTION REJECTED

While some orthodox Brahmins ignored the new doctrines for a thousand years, the question remains whether any actively protested against them.
Surviving texts critical of rebirth are unlikely to exist, as the doctrine eventually became dominant.
Evidence for opposition can be found in texts that justify the doctrine or criticize its detractors.

Criticism of rebirth and karmic retribution in anonymous literature

Early Buddhist texts suggest the doctrine was not universally accepted; the Buddha’s enlightenment account includes direct confirmation of rebirth and karma, likely to counter doubters.
The Pāli canon attributes the rejection of an afterlife and karmic results to figures like Ajita Kesakambalī, who taught that beings are destroyed at death.
Early Jaina texts, like the Sūyagaḍa, also describe people who rejected rebirth, believing that a being is composed only of the five elements and perishes when they dissolve.
The story of King Pāyāsi (Buddhist) or Paesi (Jaina) features a ruler who denies the existence of another world and a soul separate from the body.
Numerous other texts, including the Carakasaṃhitā, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, and Nyāya Sūtra, contain arguments for or against an afterlife, indicating it was a widely debated topic.

The Cārvākas

Classical sources identify critics of rebirth with a school of thought known as Cārvāka, Lokāyata, or Bārhaspatya.
The school’s primary aim was to reject the “other world” (rebirth and karmic retribution), using materialism as a philosophical basis for this rejection.
Several sources, including Jaina commentaries, indicate that Cārvākas were often Brahmins and even used a Vedic passage (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12) to support their views.
Known Cārvāka teachers like Jayarāśi and Udbhaṭa had strong links to Brahmanical traditions like Nyāya and grammar.
Some Mīmāṃsakas, like Bhartṛmitra, were said to have turned Mīmāṃsā into Lokāyata by denying the fruits of actions in an afterlife, showing a closeness between the two schools.
The popular image of Cārvākas as fiercely anti-Vedic is likely a later misrepresentation, as criticism of the Veda is found mostly in late texts written after the school had disappeared.
The Cārvāka philosophy represents a long-lasting Brahmanical resistance to the foreign doctrine of rebirth, which was later ironically re-cast as an anti-Vedic movement.

PART IIC - URBAN BRAHMINS

Three different Brahmanical reactions to the new doctrine of rebirth are identified: acceptance (Upaniṣads), ignoring it (Mīmāṃsā sacrificial school), and criticism (Cārvāka school).
The text proposes that the difference between the Mīmāṃsā and Cārvāka reactions may be explained by the opposition between rural and urban life.
Traditional sacrificial Brahmins (Mīmāṃsā) likely lived in the countryside, while other Brahmins were attracted to cities and royal courts, becoming “urban Brahmins”.
The Artha Śāstra and the Kāma Sūtra are presented as texts written by and for these urban Brahmins.
The Kāma Sūtra focuses on the three aims of man (trivarga): dharma (duty), artha (wealth), and kāma (pleasure), with liberation (mokṣa) being almost entirely absent.
A single mention of mokṣa in the Kāma Sūtra is argued to be a later insertion, as it is inconsistent with the rest of the text and the concept of liberation plays no other role.
The text’s definition of dharma is close to that of the Mīmāṃsā school, which also originally had no place for rebirth or mokṣa.
Similarly, the Artha Śāstra focuses on the trivarga and shows little interest in mokṣa, even when discussing the four stages of life (āśramas).
The Artha Śāstra lists Lokāyata (a materialist school that rejected rebirth) as a legitimate “investigative science” alongside Sāṃkhya and Yoga, suggesting the author had no fundamental objection to it.
The skeptical or indifferent attitude towards rebirth and liberation in both texts suggests the urban environment was a fertile ground for Cārvāka philosophy.

PART III - CHRONOLOGY

CHAPTER III.0 - INTRODUCTION

This chapter will address late-Vedic chronology, presenting and then critically evaluating the widely accepted “classical” position.
The classical view dates Vedic literature based on two figures: the Buddha and the grammarian Pāṇini, placing the Ṛgveda around 1200 BCE, Saṃhitās around 1000 BCE, Brāhmaṇas around 800 BCE, and old Upaniṣads around the 7th century BCE.
The arguments supporting this classical view are weak and do not stand up to criticism.
Arguments centring on the Buddha:
- It is argued that since the oldest Buddhist texts presuppose the Veda and the Buddha lived around 500 BCE, the Veda must be older.
- It is also argued that because Buddhism presupposes the doctrine of rebirth (found only in the late-Vedic Upaniṣads), the Upaniṣads must predate the Buddha.
Flaws in the Buddha-related arguments:
- The oldest Buddhist texts do not presuppose the entire Veda, their written form is much later than the Buddha, and the Buddha’s death is now dated closer to 400 BCE.
- Buddhism and the Upaniṣads both borrowed the concept of rebirth from the preceding culture of Greater Magadha, not from each other.
Arguments centring on Pāṇini:
- It is argued that since Pāṇini’s grammar (c. 500 BCE) describes a more modern language than Vedic, Vedic texts must be older.
- It is also argued that since Pāṇini knew Śākalya (credited with the final form of the Ṛgveda), other Vedic texts that know an older form of the Ṛgveda must predate Pāṇini.
Flaws in the Pāṇini-related arguments:
- An archaic Vedic dialect likely co-existed with the more modern language Pāṇini described, and recent research dates Pāṇini to the mid-4th century BCE or later.
- Śākalya was not responsible for the final form of the Ṛgveda, which did not exist even by the 2nd century BCE.

CHAPTER III.1 - LINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS

The grammarian Pāṇini’s work is central to dating late-Vedic texts, based on comparing the language he describes with the language used in those texts.
A study by Bruno Liebich (1891) concluded that the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad preceded Pāṇini, while two Gṛhya Sūtras were closest to his time.
Liebich’s conclusion is contested because it wrongly assumes that any text containing forms Pāṇini labelled as “Vedic” must be older than Pāṇini. Archaic forms are often preserved in religious contexts.
Without this flawed assumption, Liebich’s own data indicates that the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa is linguistically the closest to the language described by Pāṇini.
Other studies by Liebich and Bhandarkar also show a close agreement between the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa and Pāṇini’s grammar regarding the use of cases and the aorist tense.
Otto Wecker’s (1906) study, which claimed certain Upaniṣads were older than Pāṇini, is dismissed as poor quality with circular reasoning.
The author criticizes broad, intuitive claims that place all Vedic literature before Pāṇini and concludes that detailed linguistic studies have not proven that late-Vedic texts must be older than Pāṇini (c. 350 BCE).

Pāṇini and the Veda: introduction

The Vedic texts known to Pāṇini were likely different from the versions available today, especially regarding phonetic details like sandhi and accentuation.
Pāṇini’s rules seem to describe an earlier stage of the Ṛgveda’s text than the one that has been preserved.
The term chandas in Pāṇini’s grammar refers broadly to ritual literature, including prose Brāhmaṇas and even some Sūtra texts, not just metrical works.
Pāṇini’s Vedic rules may have been prescriptive, not just descriptive, possibly serving as guidelines for composing new texts or for ūha (the ritual adaptation of mantras).
Evidence suggests that ūha was a significant practice and that modified mantras were once considered mantras themselves, which may explain why Pāṇini formulated rules to govern their creation.

Pāṇini and the Veda (1)

To determine which texts Pāṇini knew, the analysis focuses on specific word-forms he prescribed or rejected, as phonetic details are unreliable due to later changes in the texts.
Pāṇini certainly knew the collected Ṛgveda and its Padapāṭha.
He likely knew the mantra portions of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, but probably not its Brāhmaṇa portions or the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka, which contain non-Pāṇinian forms.
The Atharvaveda contains numerous forms forbidden by Pāṇini, suggesting he did not know it as a collected Saṃhitā, which was likely compiled later.
Major Brāhmaṇas like the Aitareya, Kauṣītaki, and Śatapatha contain multiple features that violate Pāṇini’s rules.
The evidence suggests Pāṇini did not know much of Vedic literature in its final, collected form, and that many texts were still in a state of flux.

Pāṇini and the Veda (2)

Using Paul Kiparsky’s analysis of Pāṇini’s optionality terms, the text challenges the assumption that Pāṇini lived after the completion of all Vedic literature.
Pāṇini’s rules on Vedic sandhi were likely prescriptive for how the language ought to be, as the phonetic form of the texts was still being finalized in his time.
Several of Pāṇini’s rules prefer forms common in Vedic texts but rare in Classical Sanskrit, suggesting he was closer in time to the era of the Brāhmaṇas.
The idea that Pāṇini’s “scientific” grammar must post-date the “magical” thought of the Brāhmaṇas is anachronistic; they could have been contemporaneous.

The Ṛgveda at the time of Pāṇini

The Ṛgveda known to Pāṇini was in a different, earlier form than the text we have today.
The process of fixing the text’s phonetic form, known as “orthoepic diaskeuasis,” was not yet complete in Pāṇini’s time.
Pāṇini’s grammar, the Aṣṭādhyāyī, is therefore older than the Ṛgveda Prātiśākhya, which describes a near-final stage of the text.

Patañjali and the Veda

An analysis of Vedic quotations in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya suggests that many Vedic texts had not yet been completely fixed even by his time (2nd century BCE).
Many supposed quotations of unique Vedic words may simply be acceptable linguistic variants, indicating textual fluidity.

Conclusions

The Veda was not a finished and closed canon at the time of Pāṇini.
Even by the time of Patañjali, Vedic texts had not reached their final, unchangeable form.
The traditional view of a “Vedic period” that entirely precedes Pāṇini is unsupported; Vedic texts were still being modified, and possibly composed, down to Patañjali’s era and perhaps later.

CHAPTER III.3 - THE VEDIC TEXTS KNOWN TO THE EARLY BUDDHISTS

The question of which Vedic texts were known to early Buddhists is complex because, unlike grammarians such as Pāṇini, we have no texts written by the Buddha himself.
The traditional argument that Buddhism must be later than the early Upaniṣads because it shares concepts like rebirth is considered unsound.
The inquiry is reframed to: “What parts of the Veda are known to the earliest Buddhist texts that have been preserved?”
It is difficult to determine which Buddhist texts are earliest, as the canon was composed by various authors over a long period and transmitted orally for centuries before being written down.
A reference to the Greeks (yona) in the Assalāyana Sutta suggests some parts of the canon were composed long after the Buddha’s death.
Therefore, a Buddhist text’s reference to a Vedic text only proves that the Buddhist passage is later than the Vedic one; it does not prove the Buddha knew that text.
Explicit references in the Pāli Sutta-Piṭaka are few but indicate knowledge of the three Vedas (Ṛgveda, Sāmaveda, Black Yajurveda) and likely the Atharvaveda, as suggested by mentions of different types of Brahmins and a 48-year study period.
The canon also lists ancient Vedic seers (ṛṣi) like Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra, but this provides little specific information about which texts were known.
Claims that the Buddha satirized the Puruṣa-sūkta (Ṛgveda 10.90) are rejected because the myth of creation from a cosmic being was widespread, and the Buddhist texts refer to Brahmā as the creator, not Puruṣa.
An alleged allusion to the Taittirīya Saṃhitā in a passage involving a pellet of cow dung is dismissed due to differences in key terms (gomaya vs. purīṣa) and context.
Apparent parallels between the Alagaddūpama Sutta and the Upaniṣads regarding the identity of the self and the world are insufficient proof of influence, as these ideas were likely part of the broader spiritual culture of Greater Magadha from which both traditions may have drawn.
An anecdote in the Brahmajāla Sutta about a lonely creator Brahmā is not considered a clear satirical reference to the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, as the theme was not exclusive to that text and there is no verbal similarity.
The final conclusion is that while Buddhist texts show awareness of Brahmanical society, no compelling evidence has been presented to prove that their authors knew the early Upaniṣads.

The Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BĀrUp) is composed of at least three originally separate portions (Kāṇḍas), identified by distinct teacher lineages (vaṃśas) at the end of each section.
The lineages suggest Portion I (Madhu-Kāṇḍa) and Portion II (Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa) were combined first, before being joined with Portion III (Khila-Kāṇḍa) by a final redactor, possibly named Pautimāṣya.
Portion III presents Yājñavalkya as a pupil of Uddālaka, whereas Portion II depicts Yājñavalkya defeating Uddālaka in a debate.
The redactor seems to have added an alternative lineage to Portion III to resolve this contradiction and harmonize the text.
Portion II is a hagiographical work designed to glorify Yājñavalkya, settling scores with rivals and refuting the idea that Brahmins learned the doctrine of rebirth and karma from non-Brahmanical sources.
The dialogue between Yājñavalkya and Maitreyī appears in both Portion I and II; the version in Portion II is modified to include the doctrine of an immutable self, which is absent from the version in Portion I.
The grammarian Kātyāyana refers to “brāhmaṇas uttered by Yājñavalkya” as being recent, which likely refers to the Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa as an independent text.
This evidence suggests the Yājñavalkya-Kāṇḍa is a late composition, and the final compilation of the BĀrUp occurred even later.

A reference to the early grammarians in the Upaniṣads?

A list of literary works found in the BĀrUp and Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad contains the sequence: sūtrāṇi anuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānāni.
The term anuvyākhyāna is rare and obscure; it is conjectured that it may be a corruption of the word anvākhyāna.
The sequence sūtra, anvākhyāna, vyākhyāna could refer to the three-tiered Sanskrit grammatical tradition.
In this interpretation, sūtra refers to Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, anvākhyāna refers to Kātyāyana’s vārttikas, and vyākhyāna refers to Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya.
If this conjecture is correct, the Upaniṣadic passage containing this list must have been composed after Patañjali (mid-2nd century BCE).

Conclusion

The two cases studied suggest that some late-Vedic texts, including crucial passages from the early Upaniṣads, may need to be dated later than is commonly believed.

CHAPTER III.5 - URBAN VERSUS RURAL CULTURE

Two main arguments are used to date late-Vedic literature (like the Upaniṣads) as being older than early Buddhist texts.
The first is that Buddhist texts mention cities, while late-Vedic texts do not, suggesting the latter predate urbanization.
The second is that Vedic thought appears more “primitive” than the thought found in Buddhist texts.
The text cautions that descriptions of cities in Buddhist literature may have been inspired by later Maurya-period urban centres and projected back to the Buddha’s time.

The second urbanization

While archaeology confirms the existence of cities during the Buddha’s time, the link between the rise of Buddhism and urbanization is debated by scholars.
The absence of cities in the early Upaniṣads is often seen as evidence that they were composed before this period of urbanization.
However, Vedic civilization expressed a strong dislike for cities, viewing them as impure, as evidenced in texts like the Dharma Sūtras.
This Brahmanical distaste for urban life suggests that Vedic texts may have intentionally ignored cities, even when they existed.
Various scholars (Weber, Frauwallner, Witzel) have noted that Vedic texts may have deliberately omitted information about contemporary developments like urbanization.
Therefore, the silence of late-Vedic texts regarding cities cannot be considered conclusive proof that cities did not exist when these texts were composed.

Magical thought in the Veda

Vedic literature is characterized by “magical thought,” including correspondences, identifications, and fanciful etymologies, which seems more “primitive” than the thought in Buddhist and Jaina texts.
This difference in conceptual worlds is often used to argue for the chronological precedence of Vedic literature.
However, such “correlative cosmology” is not unique to early historical periods and cannot be used alone to determine chronology.
Adherents to this worldview were not incapable of other forms of thought, as demonstrated by the grammarian Pāṇini, whose highly logical work co-existed with and was inspired by the Vedic worldview.

CHAPTER III.6 - CONCLUSIONS TO PART III

Dropping the assumption that the early Upaniṣads and all Vedic literature must predate Buddhism, Jainism, and Pāṇini causes the traditional late-Vedic chronology to collapse.
Evidence suggests much later dates for late-Vedic literature; some Brāhmaṇa texts may have been composed after 350 BCE, and the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad was likely compiled after Patañjali.
Consequently, parts of the early Upaniṣads introducing rebirth and karma may be contemporary with or later than the Buddha.
This shared development is likely due to a common influence from the culture of “Greater Magadha,” rather than direct Buddhist influence on the Upaniṣads.
The assumption of Brahmanical priority for shared ascetic rules found in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jaina texts is challenged, as the chronological arguments supporting it are weak.
Similarly, the claim that the concept of non-violence (ahiṃsā) has purely Vedic roots is disputed.
The idea that ascetic movements like Buddhism and Jainism were primarily protest movements against Vedic practices is questioned; their main goal was liberation from karmic retribution.
For both shared ascetic rules and ahiṃsā, it is possible that all three traditions (Brahmanical, Buddhist, Jaina) drew from a common, now-lost source belonging to the culture of Greater Magadha.

PART IV - CONCLUSION

CHAPTER IV.1 - DISCWORLD MEETS ROUNDWORLD

Two distinct cultures, Vedic and Greater Magadha, co-existed in ancient India, challenging the idea of a linear cultural development.
The culture of Greater Magadha was characterized by beliefs in rebirth and karmic retribution, cyclic time, and empirico-rational medicine.
Scholars suggest ‘Aryan’ was a cultural or religious identifier rather than a racial or linguistic one, and the ideology spread among diverse local groups.
Classical Indian culture resulted from the amalgamation of these two cultures, with Brahmanism absorbing key concepts from Greater Magadha like rebirth, karmic retribution, and the inactive self.
A metaphor is used to compare the two: Vedic culture is like “Discworld” (running on magic, ritual, and spells), while Greater Magadha’s culture is like “Roundworld” (more empirico-rational).
Brahmanical culture was characterized by a “magico-religious” worldview, focusing on ritual purity, curses, and access to supernatural powers, which they offered to rulers.
Brahmanical influence may have entered Buddhism, causing a shift away from the direct worship of “impure” bodily relics and contributing to the development of Tantrism with its focus on rituals and mantras.

PART V - APPENDICES

APPENDIX I - THE ANTIQUITY OF THE VEDĀNTA PHILOSOPHY

The Vedānta philosophy was not part of the philosophical debates in the early centuries of the Common Era.
Its first known mention by another school is in a 6th-century Buddhist text by Bhavya.
Some scholars propose that Vedānta (Uttaramīmāṃsā) and the ritualistic Pūrvamīmāṃsā were originally one single school of thought.
This idea is problematic, as Pūrvamīmāṃsā was not concerned with liberation, a central tenet of Vedānta.

Were the Pūrva- and Uttaramīmāṃsā originally one system?

The claim of an original unity, promoted by scholars like Hermann Jacobi, is based on a passage in Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Brahma Sūtra (3.3.53).
This passage is likely misinterpreted; Śaṅkara’s reference to “the beginning of the Śāstra” probably refers to his own work, the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, not the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra.
Śaṅkara’s claim that the Mīmāṃsaka commentator Śabara borrowed a section on the self from a Vedāntic source is incorrect; analysis shows this section was an earlier insertion into a text that Śabara was quoting.
The fact that the scholar Upavarṣa intended to comment on both the Mīmāṃsā and Brahma Sūtras does not prove he saw them as a single work.
Sureśvara, a disciple of Śaṅkara, is the only classical author to claim that Jaimini (author of the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra) also wrote the Brahma Sūtra, but this is a weak argument contradicted by others like Padmapāda.
Testimonies from Rāmānuja and the Prapañcahṛdaya suggest a later combination of the two systems, not an original unity.

Pūrva-Mīmāṃsāsūtra, Uttara-Mīmāṃsāsūtra and the teacher quotations

Asko Parpola’s theory that the terms Pūrvamīmāṃsā and Uttaramīmāṃsā evolved from book titles meaning “former part” and “latter part” of a single Mīmāṃsā Sūtra lacks direct textual evidence.
A more plausible explanation is that for thinkers like Rāmānuja, Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā was the “earlier” or preliminary study one must undertake before the “later” study of Uttara-Mīmāṃsā.
Parpola’s main argument for unity is that both the Mīmāṃsā Sūtra and the Brahma Sūtra cite an almost identical set of teachers.
This does not prove original unity. It is more likely that the Brahma Sūtra deliberately invoked the same authorities as the respected ritual Mīmāṃsā school to present itself as a superior form of Mīmāṃsā.
There is no independent evidence that these ritual authorities had any interest in Vedāntic thought.
The views attributed to Jaimini in the Brahma Sūtra are often extensions of his known ritualistic positions, which the text then rejects, further undermining the idea that he was a Vedāntin.

Conclusions

Uttaramīmāṃsā (Vedānta) was not originally part of Mīmāṃsā. It attached itself to the older, respected school of Vedic interpretation to gain legitimacy for its speculations on Brahma.
This explains why early ritual Mīmāṃsakas like Śabara and Jaimini never mention liberation; they did not believe in it and continued a world view closer to the Vedic ritualistic tradition.
The conservative ritualist tradition ignored the new ideas of karma and liberation for centuries after they appeared in the Upaniṣads.
Vedānta claimed it had always been part of Mīmāṃsā, but from a historical perspective, the ritual Mīmāṃsakas were correct in viewing them as separate.

APPENDIX II - A CĀRVĀKA IN THE MAHĀBHĀRATA

The Pañcaśikha-vākya (Mhbh 12.211-212) is a passage in the Mahābhārata where the revered Sāṃkhya teacher Pañcaśikha expresses views that are very close to Cārvāka (materialist) doctrine, despite the text being labelled as Sāṃkhya.
In chapter 211, Pañcaśikha argues against an afterlife, stating that the visible destruction of the body refutes any traditional claims of a next world.
He privileges direct perception as the root of knowledge and rejects the existence of a soul separate from the body.
Pañcaśikha critiques the concept of rebirth by arguing that a reincarnated person is completely different from their predecessor in form, birth, and wealth, so there is no meaningful connection.
He questions the purpose of good deeds and asceticism if another person reaps the rewards.
Death is described as a natural process of decay, like the passing of seasons, where the body’s components (senses, mind, flesh, bones) simply vanish and return to their source.
The author challenges other interpretations (like Motegi’s) that attempt to portray Pañcaśikha as refuting materialism, arguing that the text consistently presents a nihilistic viewpoint.
The introductory story paradoxically presents Pañcaśikha as an orthodox Brahmin who refutes “heretical” teachers, whose heresies are belief in rebirth and a transmigrating self.
In chapter 212, Pañcaśikha’s teaching continues this theme, arguing there is no individual consciousness (saṃjñā) after death because the soul (jīva) merges with others, like rivers flowing into the ocean.
His philosophy posits neither total annihilation nor an everlasting soul; instead, a “Knower of the Field” (kṣetrajña) exists within the mind but is not eternal.
The text explores the confusion of labelling this materialist doctrine as Sāṃkhya, citing other instances where Cārvāka and Sāṃkhya are linked, such as in another Mahābhārata passage and in the biography of the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang.
It is suggested that early materialists may have borrowed Sāṃkhya terminology (e.g., sattva, rajas, tamas, kṣetrajña) and even its name, but omitted the concept of an eternal soul (puruṣa), which was unnecessary for a philosophy that rejected karmic retribution.

APPENDIX III - VEDIC TEXTS KNOWN TO PĀṆINI

Pāṇini prescribes many Vedic words found exclusively in the Ṛgveda (e.g., vṛkati, cicyuṣe, jagṛbhma).
Three words (khanya-, kavya, ānṛhuḥ) are found only in the mantra portion of the Taittirīya Saṃhitā, suggesting he knew this part but not necessarily the brāhmaṇa portion.
Several Vedic forms are found only in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā (e.g., abhyutsādayām akaḥ, sāḍhyai, agrīya-), establishing his acquaintance with it.
Some Vedic forms are attested exclusively in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā (e.g., ramayām akaḥ, upacāyyapṛḍa) and the related Kapiṣṭhala Saṃhitā.
Words like śivatāti and māmakī are found only in the Atharvaveda (Paippalāda recension).
Other unique forms suggest knowledge of the Lāṭyāyana Śrauta Sūtra (khānya-), Mānava Śrauta Sūtra (hvarita), Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (dādharti), and Hiraṇyakeśi Śrauta Sūtra (yaśobhagīna).
Pāṇini’s rules exclude certain forms that are found in Vedic texts, suggesting he either did not know these texts or did not approve of the forms.
He forbids the periphrastic perfect in mantras (P. 3.1.35), yet it occurs in the Atharvaveda.
His rules on the suffix -vatsarīṇa (P. 5.1.92) are violated in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa.
He forbids certain compound endings (P. 5.4.158, P. 6.3.84), but exceptions exist in the Aitareya Āraṇyaka, Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, and Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa.
He prohibits the neuter itarad (P. 7.1.26) and the nominatives āvām/yuvām (P. 7.2.88) in Vedic, but they appear in numerous Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads.
Pāṇini’s non-optional rules are frequently violated in various texts, providing further evidence of texts or forms he may not have known.
A rule on case usage (P. 2.3.61) is contradicted by the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
A rule on aorist formation (P. 3.1.59) excludes forms that appear in the Gopatha Brāhmaṇa, Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and Atharvaveda.
Rules on word formation (P. 4.4.106, P. 5.4.103, P. 5.4.142) are contradicted by forms found across a wide range of texts, including the Atharvaveda, Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, and numerous Brāhmaṇas.
A rule on the form of ātman in mantras (P. 6.4.141) is contradicted by the Atharvaveda, Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, and Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā.
His grammar implies śiśira- is neuter (P. 2.4.48), but it is masculine in many texts, including the Atharvaveda and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.

APPENDIX IV - THE FORM OF THE ṚGVEDA KNOWN TO PĀṆINI

Pāṇini’s grammar contains rules attributed to authorities like Śākalya, Vyāḍi, and Śākaṭāyana which describe phonetic forms that are not in the current Ṛgveda but are consistent with its reconstructed, metrically regular original form.
Śākalya’s rule on vowel sandhi (P. 6.1.127), which prevents the merging of certain final vowels with a following dissimilar vowel, is reflected in the original Ṛgveda but not in the present text.
A rule from Vyāḍi and Gālava, involving the insertion of a semivowel (y or v) between vowels, would correct the metre in innumerable instances in the Ṛgveda, though it is not present in the current version.
Pāṇini’s rules for the sandhi of a final -as followed by a- (P. 8.3.17-19) can be interpreted to yield -ay+a- or -a+a-, forms which align with the original metre, unlike the current text’s -o-.
Evidence from the text itself, such as verses lacking a Padapāṭha, suggests that Śākalya was not the final redactor of the Ṛgveda and that the text underwent changes after his time.
Specific rules in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī, such as those concerning metrical completion (P. 6.1.134) and sandhi exceptions (P. 6.1.115-116), align almost perfectly with the metrically restored Ṛgveda, suggesting they predate the more complex rules of the Ṛgveda Prātiśākhya.
The absence of the retroflex consonant l in Pāṇini’s grammar and his simpler description of the svarita accent further support the conclusion that he knew an earlier version of the Ṛgveda than the one described in the Ṛgveda Prātiśākhya.

APPENDIX V - VEDIC TEXTS KNOWN TO PATAÑJALI

Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya often cites pairs of phrases where the first is an unusual form from a Vedic text and the second is a more common, grammatically regular form that often cannot be traced in the Vedas.
It is argued that the second phrase in these pairs is not a separate quotation but Patañjali’s explanation, paraphrase, or “correction” of the first.
Examples include tubhyedam agne (RV 5.11.5) being explained as tubhyam idam agne, and saṃbhṛtyā eva saṃbhārāḥ (MaitS 1.7.2) being paraphrased as saṃbhāryā eva saṃbhārāḥ.
In some cases, the second, explanatory phrase can also be found in a Vedic text, but this is considered a coincidence, possibly because later Vedic compilers also “corrected” the text.
Discrepancies between Patañjali’s quotations and existing Vedic texts (e.g., śivā udrasya bheṣajī vs. the Taittirīya Saṃhitā’s śivā rudrasya bheṣajī) suggest that the final redaction of some texts, like the Taittirīya Saṃhitā and Atharvaveda, occurred after Patañjali’s time.
Further evidence for the fluidity of Vedic texts includes Patañjali’s quotations of lohite carman (for rohite carman) and his discussion of gosanim versus the Ṛgveda’s goṣanim.
The author concludes that when Patañjali presents pairs with minor phonetic variations (e.g., kalmaṣam/karmaṣam), he likely considered both forms to be correct Vedic usage, rather than quoting one from a lost text.

APPENDIX VI - BRAHMINS IN THE BUDDHIST CANON

Several sermons in the Buddhist canon dealing with Brahmins (Assalāyana, Madhura, Aggañña, Vāseṭṭha, Tevijja, and Ambaṭṭha Suttas) show signs of being composed at a late date.
The Assalāyana Sutta mentions the Yonas (Greeks) and Kambojas, suggesting it was written after the time of Alexander of Macedonia.
The Madhura Sutta explicitly states it was delivered after the Buddha’s death.
The Aggañña, Vāseṭṭha, and Tevijja Suttas share the same interlocutors. The Aggañña Sutta uses the later term dhammakāya and refers to the Monastic Code (Vinaya), while the Tevijja Sutta mentions four specific types of Brahmins unknown elsewhere in the Sutta-piṭaka.
The Ambaṭṭha Sutta features a Brahmin named Ambaṭṭha, whose pride is deflated when the Buddha reveals his ancestor was a slave girl.
The name Ambaṭṭha is a Pāli form of the Sanskrit Ambaṣṭha, which in Brahmanical legal texts refers to the offspring of a Brahmin father and a lower-class mother.
The story’s author and audience would have known from Ambaṭṭha’s name that he was of mixed descent and not a pure-blooded Brahmin.
The Ambaṣṭhas were also a people from western India, far from the Buddha’s homeland, suggesting the author’s knowledge came from a later period.

APPENDIX VII - BRAHMANISM IN GANDHĀRA AND SURROUNDING AREAS

Early Brahmanical texts like those by Patañjali and Manu define the western limit of the Āryas’ land (Āryāvarta) at the point where the Sarasvatī river disappears, considering the Indus valley and lands beyond it as non-Brahmanical territory.
Texts such as the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Baudhāyana Śrauta Sūtra express negative views about the inhabitants of the north-west, including the Punjab and Gandhāra, and list them as tribes that Brahmins should not visit.
In the 3rd century BCE, Mazdaism was more predominant than Brahmanism in the region, and Buddhist and Aśokan texts note that the four-varṇa social system did not exist among the Yonas (Greeks) and Kambojas.
The Mahābhārata and Yuga Purāṇa express fears that foreign rulers like the Yavanas and Śakas would disrupt the Brahmanical social order, causing the varṇa system to collapse.
The migration of Vedic schools occurred primarily eastward and southward from Āryāvarta, with no evidence of them returning to the north-west, which was inhabited by the despised Bāhīkas (“outsiders”).
Art history from Gandhāra shows more Iranian and Central Asian religious influences than Indian ones.
Western accounts, such as Arrian’s Indica, distinguished between the people east of the Indus (Indians) and those to the west, applying descriptions of Indian social classes only to the eastern regions.
Chinese pilgrim Song Yun observed that the inhabitants of Gandhāra were followers of Buddhism.
Later texts, like Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī, described the Brahmins of Gandhāra as the “lowest of the twice-born.”
Potential reasons for the weak Brahmanical presence include centuries of foreign political domination (Achaemenid, Greek) and the persistence of independent indigenous cultures in the Indus valley.

APPENDIX VIII - CĀRVĀKAS AND THE ŚĀBARABHĀṢYA

An inserted passage within Śabara’s Bhāṣya, known as the Vṛttikāra-grantha, contains a debate on the existence of the soul.
The author argues that the opponent in this debate is a Cārvāka, correcting the previous identification by Erich Frauwallner that the opponent was a Buddhist.
Evidence for this is that the opponent, despite using some Buddhist-like terminology (santati, skandha), cites a Brāhmaṇa (from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) to support the claim that there is no awareness after death—a Cārvāka position, not a Buddhist one.
The Cārvākas were a Brahmanical school that denied both an enduring soul and life after death, which put them at odds with most Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jaina schools.
The Mīmāṃsā school of Śabara’s time was notably close to the Cārvāka position, as it ignored the concepts of rebirth and karmic retribution.
The passage reveals that Cārvākas did not accept that verbal usage (e.g., the words “I” or “self”) proved the existence of a soul.
They explained mental phenomena like memory as directly experienced sequences (santati) of momentary consciousness, which do not require an enduring self.