Erich Frauwallner, the celebrated historian of Indian philosophy, held that materialism in India was created for the circle of Realpolitikers, practical politicians like Cāṇakya. In it they found a doctrine which, by denying the existence of God, after-life, heaven and hell, etc., put out of their way all moral scruples that were hindrances to their actions. “It is, therefore, no accident,” Frauwallner says, “that the first materialist whom tradition has handed down to us in living and vivid colours, is a King.” The king he mentions is a legendary one: Paesi (Pāyāsi), whose views are recorded in Prakrit (Jain) and Pali (Buddhist) works.

A.K. Warder also proposes that “another materialist school, besides Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa's, seems to have appeared among the kings themselves and especially their ministers including perhaps the celebrated Vessakara of Magadha, who in the Anguttara Nikāya, Vol. II, expresses a realist view in conformity with Arthaśāstra Lokāyata.”

Both Frauwallner and Warder arrived at the same conclusion on the basis of a supposed connection between materialism and Arthaśāstra, the science of polity. That the legendary founder of the Lokāyata/Cārvāka system and that of a school of Arthaśāstra bear the same name, viz. Bṛhaspati, seems to have contributed to this notion.

All this speculation, I contend, is wide of the mark. Let us take up the issues one by one.

First, king Paesi. In both Jain and Buddhist versions of the story, only one negative idea is stated: there is no soul.