In this article an attempt is made to detect what could have been the dialectical reasons that impelled the Cār-vāka thinker Udbhatabhatta to revise and reformulate the classical materialistic concept of cognition. If indeed according to ancient Cārvākas cognition is an attribute entirely dependent on the physical body, for Udbhatabhatta cognition is an independent principle that, of course, needs the presence of a human body to manifest itself and for this very reason it is said to be a peculiarity of (...) the body. Therefore, Udbhatabhatta seems to de-scribe the cognizing faculty according to a double ontology: it is both a principle and a characteristic, both inde-pendent and dependent. Two philosophical contexts—Vaisesika and Nyāya schools—are here taken into account as possible anti-Cārvāka fault-finding points of view that spured Udbhatabhatta to reconsider the Cārvāka per-spective. Although we do not have so much textual material on this particular aspect of the ancient and medieval philosophical debate in India, it nonetheless can be supposed that Udbhatabhatta’s reformulation of the concept of cognition was a tentative response to the Vaisesika idea that cognition is not an attribute of the body, rather of the mind (which is here supposed to be eternal), and to the Naiyāyika perspective according to which cognition would be an attribute of an everlasting self. In the case of the Nyāya school, fortunately we have at our disposal the criticism put forward by Vātsyāyana against the materialistic conception of cognition during this time. By examining some Vātsyāyana’s objections, it will emerge that Udbhatabhatta’s idea of cognition really seems to have the aspect of a consistent answer to them, from a renewed materialistic point of view. (shrink)

G. Hegel in his Introduction to the History of Philosophy limits the initiation of this study to the field of the kind of thinking that emerged in Greece in the S. V ac, starting to do it that in other traditions (in which states, the Taoism, the religion of the Vedas, the Buddhism), the thinking is not autonomus in relation to a religious, mystical, mythological or customs justifications. Therefore there is no thought free of external determinations in these traditions. This (...) Hegelian principle has been accepted by the vast majority of those who carry out the study on the origin and history of philosophy. This paper intends to point out, following comments from experts in the field, how in certain traditions of Indian philosophy defined as nastika darshanas, and taking the Cārvāka materialism as example, philosophical thought occurs free from external determinations (religious, mythological, etc.), without prejudice to those philosophical systems which have been useful when justifying or discredit certain positions in these branches of human action. (shrink)