So when I try to trace the earliest history of materialism I found this
Materialism developed, possibly independently, in several geographically separated regions of Eurasia during what Karl Jaspers termed the Axial Age (c. 800–200 BC).
In ancient Indian philosophy, materialism developed around 600 BC with the works of Ajita Kesakambali, Payasi, Kanada and the proponents of the Cārvāka school of philosophy. Kanada became one of the early proponents of atomism. The Nyaya–Vaisesika school (c. 600–100 BC) developed one of the earliest forms of atomism (although their proofs of God and their positing that consciousness was not material precludes labelling them as materialists). Buddhist atomism and the Jaina school continued the atomic tradition
Source :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Now both Ajita Kesakambali and Payasi’s view was directly described in sutta as part of wrong views but I don’t find kanada reference at all in sutta
Now I want to quote every references about kanada’s view and his school the vaisheshika founded in suttacentral so we don’t repost what’s already posted
This is an attack from a Madhyamaka buddhist to vaisheshika school of brahmanism
This is an interesting quote showing an attack from a sarvastivadin buddhist to a vaisheshika teacher during a debate
This is an attacks to the vaisheshika school from a mahayanist
This shows that vaisheshika school embrace essentialism especially atomism
Because of finding the state of excess of visible data, etc. (rupadinam
adhikabhavadassanatof. the first theory holds the view, “visible data, etc. are their
qualities” because it is found that they are associated with these special aspects, that is,
the resplendent visible datum in fire, sound audible by its basic nature in air, the odour
beginning with fragrance in earth, and sweet taste in water. The teacher has stated the
conclusion ofthe first theory with the statement, beginning with, “iccheyyama”. By the
same means the second theory is refuted. Or optionally, it should be understood that the
words “athdpi vadeyyum (then they may say)”, etc. are stated in order to refute the view
of Kanada, which asserts that the eye, etc. are respectively made by fire, space, earth,
water, and air, having special qualities like visible data, etc, respectively after having
taken it up. The odour, even if being apprehensible in fermented liquor, is ofthe earth
that is mixed with water, which is different from cotton, therefore the odour of cotton
would not have the state of excess. If it is argued in this manner, it is not so, since the
earth of the cotton is not overpowered [by water]. For the earth mixed with water in
fermented liquor is overpowered by water, but not the earth of the cotton. Therefore
odour of cotton only should be in excess. Fire associated with hot-water is to be
obtained as distinct, thus considering, like contact of hot-water, its resplendent form too
would be known. Therefore the form of cold-water, not contacted with fire, would be
weaker than the form ofhot-water.Taking final release (apavaggagaho)'. assuming final release to be in the immaterial
world like that of Ramuddaka, and Alara, etc., or in a World Apex (lokathupika) like
that of the Niganthas. And by the word etc. are included also ‘those who hold that
nibbana is acquired in this very life’ as the selfs establishment in its own self when it
has become dissociated from the qualities (guna), owing to the non-occurrence of the
Basic Principle (padhana), and being in co-residence with, standing in vicinity of, in
association with, Brahma world. Here non-occurrence of the Basic Principle
(padhanassa appavatti) means non-change of the Basic Principle into the state of
intellect (mahat), etc. or its non-manifestation. When assuming of unity regarding self,
pleasure, pain, and delusion is removed by knowing difference between pakati and
purisa that arises as, “I am different from pakati”, the Basic Principle does not appear
by the method already told. That is called release according to the followers of Kapila.
Dissociatedfrom qualities (gunaviyuttassa): those who follow the system of Kanada
maintain that selfis dissociated from nine qualities, namely, intelligence, pleasure, pain,
wish, hate, exertion, righteousness, non-righteousness, and formationsOr it is a selfthat knows (attájünati va): in this way one thinks, like a follower of
Kapila, and so on. Or [a self] does not know (na jánáti va) like a follower ofKanada
and Áfivika, and so on. For Kanada also said that a self does not know by itself. When it
is associated with property of intelligence (mahat), then only it knows - in this way he
desires. It is he who does and makes others to do (so eva karoti ca kdreti ca): one who
experiences pleasure and suffering in the next life is the same person who performs
merit and demerit and makes others to do in this life, not other person - this is the
implication. Putting into shape (santhapentá): as producing two atoms, etc. and
[causing it to fulfilling] according to wish. He (so): a being called self. Endowed with
faculties (indriyasampanno): being endowed with faculties, such as, the eye. By this the
teahcer shows the appearance ofsix bases. For all this is said through wrong-view, thus,
“Thinking the function of ignorance, etc. that occur according to conditions, to be the
activity ofsoul, the holder ofwrong-view is deluded.” [All beings are] moulded byfate
and coincidence and nature (niyatisañgatibhávaparinatá): determination of preceding
and succeeding is fate (niyati) just as unbroken gem hung by an unbroken thread.
Coincidence (sañgati) of fate or only fate which is coincidence is niyatisañgati.
Through this niyatisañgati one undergoes a change in life, reaching the state of a human
being, a deva, a bird, and so on. “Niyatisañgati bhávaparinata”: reaching the different
states through fate, coincidence and nature called bháva (life) - this is the meaning
according to some.
This was an attack from a theravadin to vaisheshika, this quote comes from paramatthamanjusa which is a commentary to visuddhimagga, visuddhimagga had 3 commentaries and paramatthamanjusa is the longest commentary made by Ven dhammapala in 6th century ad this paramatthamanjusa then was translated from pali to English by Cha Myang Hee as part of his doctorate thesis to Pune university
Source:https://archive.org/details/paramatthamanjusa-VisuddhimaggaSubcomy-ChaMyangHee
So I know nearly all buddhist schools have attacked vaisheshika view but i don’t know whether sutta or agamas have attacked or refuted it or not which I find hard to believe knowing scholars dated it earlier than ebt, it’s the earliest among ehts(earliest hindu text School) yet we don’t find any trace of it in ebts hence my question
If we can find it that would be interesting because that means all earliest view about materialism have been debunked by the buddha and earlier arahants yet majority of scientist refers back to this wrong view 2500 years later
I am still learning English I hope you understand atleast 1 or 2 words of mine
May you be happy
May you be free from suffering
May you not lose your current success and achievement