An Outline of

UNIT 1 AN OUTLINE OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY* Indian Philosophy

Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Philosopher’s Look at Reality
1.3 Knowledge in Indian Context
1.4 Philosophy and Life
1.5 Let Us Sum Up
1.6 Key Words
1.7 Suggested Readings and References
1.8 Answers to Check Your Progress

1.0 OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this unit are:
• To dispel certain misconceptions about Indian philosophy held mainly by
western scholars and certain other misconceptions held by some Indian
scholars. In order to grasp Indian philosophy in proper perspective, it is
necessary that these misconceptions are erased;
• To distinguish philosophy from religion in the Indian context. This unit
shows that, taken in the strict sense of the term, philosophy is not the same
as religion. Some key philosophical issues developed in the Indian context
are on very different lines as compared to western thought;
• To project the essence of Indian thought.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the Indian context, philosophy is taken to mean Darśana or tattva. Let’s see
how the etymological meaning of ‘philosophy’ correlates itself with Darśana or
tattva. ‘Dr̩ śyate anena iti darśanam’ translates as ‘the one through which it is
seen’. From a philosophical point of view, to ‘see’ means to ‘realise’. Darśana,
therefore, means to realise. Further, the verb “realise” is a transitive verb.
Whenever we realise, we always realise ‘something’. To say that we realise
‘nothing’ is to admit that there is no realisation at all. If we recollect whatever
that was said about ‘know’, then it becomes clear that to a great extent ‘to realise’
corresponds to ‘to know’, and hence realisation corresponds to knowledge. This
correspondence is nearly one-to-one; i.e., it is nearly isomorphic. This aspect
shall unfold itself in due course.
Simultaneously, the word tattva is derived from two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’.
Tat means ‘it’ or ‘that’ and tva means ‘you’. Therefore tattva, etymologically,
means ‘you are that’. What is important is to know what tat stands for in Indian
15
*Prof. M. R. Nandan, Department of Philosophy, Govt. College for Women, Mandya.
Introduction to thought. It means reality or ‘ultimate’ reality. This is also what one division of
Indian Philosophy philosophy, i.e., metaphysics talks about. Now, since Darśana is about knowing
reality, it involves not only an important metaphysical component but also an
important epistemological component. Hence, the summation of these two
components more or less satisfactorily completes the description of philosophy
as Darśana in Indian context.
There is yet another component that remains to be understood. Obviously, ‘you’
(tva) stands for knower, i.e., the epistemological subject and by identifying the
epistemological subject with reality, we arrive at an important corollary. Indian
thought did not distinguish between reality and the person or epistemological
subject and hence etymologically, knowledge in Indian thought became inward
(however, it must be emphasized that it outgrew the etymological meaning in
its nascent stage itself). But what is of critical importance is the philosophical
significance of the above mentioned corollary. Wherever man is involved,
directly or indirectly, value is involved, hence axiology surfaces. When man
is identified with reality, it and the whole lot of issues related to reality gain
value-overtones. Hence, in Indian context, value is not merely a subject
matter of philosophy, but philosophy itself comes to be regarded as ‘value’.
Consequently, the very approach of Indian thinkers to philosophy gains some
distinct features.

1.2 PHILOSOPHER’S LOOK AT REALITY

Indian thought is essentially pluralistic as we understand through the exposition
of reality. First, we can begin with types of reality and this can be done from
two different angles.
Table 1:

Table: 2

16
 Let us try to understand what Table 1 says. But before doing so, it is better to An Outline of
answer the question; what is reality? Indeed, this is the most difficult question Indian Philosophy
to answer. To start with: ‘reality’ can be defined as the one which is the ultimate
source of everything and itself does not have any source. It also can be taken
to mean that which is independent. This definition itself is hotly debated in
philosophical circles. If we take this as a working definition of reality, then we
find it to our surprise that ancient Indians offered various answers resulting in
“proliferation of an ocean of theories”, to use Feyerabend’s phrase. Contrary to
widespread belief that prevailed in the past, all Indian thinkers did not recognize
reality as spiritual. Nor did they unanimously regard it as secular. A complex
discipline like philosophy does not allow for such simple divisions. Surely, some
thinkers accepted only spiritual reality and on the contrary, some other thinkers
accepted only ‘secular’ reality. However, an upshot of this division was that
thinkers in India neglected neither this world nor the ‘other’ (if it exists), and
this is a significant aspect to be borne in mind.
Curiously, at Level 2, the divisions of secular and spiritual theories are mutually
exclusive and totally exhaustive, i.e., physical and non-physical, on the one
hand and theistic and non-theistic, on the other. Though within secular range
(and similarly within spiritual range) the divisions exclude each other any
division of secular theory can go with any division of spiritual theory without
succumbing to self-contradiction. Accordingly, we arrive at four combinations
which are as follows:
1. Physical – Theistic
2. Physical – Non-Theistic
3. Non-Physical – Theistic
4. Non-Physical – Non-Theistic
Now let us delve into the meaning of these terms. A theory which regards the
independence of the physical world is physical. Likewise, a theory which regards
the independence of any other substance than the physical world is non-physical.
The former need not be non-theistic. A theory of reality can accord equal status
to this world and god. Surely, it does not involve any self-contradiction. The
Dvaita and the Vaiśes̩ ika illustrate the former, whereas Cārvāka (Physical- Non
theistic) illustrates the latter. A diagram illustrates the point.
Physical Theistic
(A) __________________________ (C)

Non- Physical Non-theistic

(B) __________________________ (D)
What is to be noted here is that A and B lack connectivity; and so also C and D.
In western tradition, the term ‘mind’ replaces the term non-physical. However,
in Indian context such usage is inaccurate because, at least, some schools regard
mind as a sixth organ. The Sāṅkhya is one school which regards the mind as
an evolute of prakriti (creation). Hence, it is as much physical as any other
17
Introduction to sense organ. The Vaiśes̩ ika is another school which has to be bracketed with
Indian Philosophy the Sāṅkhya in this regard. At this stage, we should get ourselves introduced
to two key metaphysical terms, realism and idealism; the former with all its
variants regards the external world as ultimately real, whereas the latter with
all its variants regards external world as a derivative of mind. Of course, here
mind is not to be construed as a sixth organ. The Yogācāra, a later Buddhistic
school is one system which subscribes to idealism.
Now it is clear that (A) and (B) are mutually exclusive and totally exhaustive.
Under D (Non-theistic) there are two sub-divisions; atheistic and agnostic.
C (Theistic) on the one hand, and atheistic and agnostic on the other hand
are mutually exclusive and totally exhaustive. Since, atheistic and agnostic
doctrines are philosophically different, 2nd and 4th types are further split into two
each. So, instead of 4, we will have six theories. Each theory differs from every
other theory. The differences are, sometimes gross and sometimes subtle. It is,
now, more than obvious that Indian philosophy does not lend itself to simple
and easy categorization. Complexity and variety must be regarded as salient
features of Indian thought. This aspect is further compounded when table 1
and table 2 intersect. Before considering such an intersection we should first
elucidate table 2.
Table 2 explicates theories of reality and distinguishes theories on the basis of
number, i.e., the number of substances, which are regarded as real, becomes
the criterion to make any distinction. Monism asserts that reality is one. The
assertions of dualistic and pluralistic theories can be ascertained without
difficulty, since they stand for ‘two’ and ‘more than two’ respectively. Non-
dualistic theory, i.e., The Advaita is unique. It does not make any assertion
about numbers, but only negates dualism (if dualism is inadmissible, then
pluralism is also inadmissible). The Upanis̩ ads are monistic and The Vaiśes̩ ika
is pluralistic.
Now we shall integrate table 1 and table 2. An integration of this sort yields
in all twenty four systems. This is not to imply that twenty-four systems
dominated the scene. But the majority of them did flourish at one time or
another. Consideration of questions in respect of reality should make it clear that
no qualitative difference can be discerned between the Indian and the western
traditions. Questions are alike; because problems are alike. But the same set of
questions may eli2cit different answers from different minds at different times
and places. Always, spatio-temporal factor play a major role in determining
solutions. The last aspect becomes clear after we consider issues in respect of
knowledge.
Check Your Progress I
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
           b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. What is the meaning of the term ‘Darśana’?
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
18
 ……………………………………………...………………………… An Outline of
Indian Philosophy
……………………………………………...…………………………
2. Define Darśana in Indian Philosophical Context.
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………

1.3 KNOWLEDGE IN INDIAN CONTEXT

Desire is not an extraordinary quality of man. This is an instinct which can
be discerned in any animal. However, human beings have a very powerful
desire to know. The extent of knowledge acquired or capable of being acquired
varies from species to species. This is one difference. Second, human’s motive
to acquire knowledge and their concept of knowledge differ from culture to
culture, thus the concept of knowledge is relative to culture. The essence of
philosophy consists in these two principal factors; motive and idea.
Indian and western concepts, whether ancient or modern, are best understood
when they are compared and contrasted. Ancient Greeks believed in the principle
‘knowledge for the sake of knowledge’, which gave impetus to birth and growth
of pure science. In contrast, the post-renaissance age heralded the contrary
principle ‘knowledge is power’. This dictum propagated by Bacon changed
forever the very direction of the evolution of science. However, ancient Indians
exhibited a very different mindset. While medicine and surgery developed to
meet practical needs, astronomy and mathematics developed for unique reasons,
neither purely spiritual nor purely mundane, in order to perform yajñas to meet
practical ends and yajñas to achieve spiritual gain. At any rate, ancient Indians
never believed in the Greek dictum. Nor did they, perhaps, think of it. If we
regard knowledge as value, then we have to conclude that it was never regarded
as intrinsic. On the other hand, it was mainly instrumental. The only exception
to this characterization is the Cārvāka system which can be regarded as the
Indian counterpart of Epicureanism.
In a restricted sense, the Indian philosophy of knowledge comes very close
to the Baconian philosophy of knowledge. Truly, Indians regarded knowledge
as power because for them knowledge (and thereby, philosophy) was a way
of life and was never intrinsic. But, then, it is absolutely necessary to reverse
the connotation of the word ‘power’. While the Baconian ‘power’ was meant
to experience control over nature, the Indian ‘power’ was supposed to be the
instrument to subjugate one’s own self to nature. This is the prime principle
which forms the cornerstone of early Vedic thought. This radical change in
the meaning of the word ‘power’ also explains the difference in world view
which can be easily discerned when the belief-systems and attitudes of Indians
and Europeans (for our purpose ‘west’ means Europe only) are compared and
contrasted. Post-Baconian Europe believed that this universe and everything
in it is meant to serve the purpose of man because man is the centre of the
universe. (The spark of this thought did characterize a certain phase in the 19
Introduction to development of Vedic thought, only to be denounced at later stages). On the
Indian Philosophy other hand, ancient Indian philosophers believed in identifying themselves with
nature. For the western thinkers, knowledge was not only ‘power’ but became
a powerful weapon to address their economic and political agenda. At no point
in time did they look upon knowledge as a means to achieve anything even
remotely connected to a spiritual goal. Just as the Cārvāka is an exception in
Indian context, Socrates and Spinoza can be regarded as exceptions in western
context. Most Indian philosophers did not regard worldly pleasure as ultimate.
For them there was something more important and enduring and therefore the
conquest of nature was never a goal. Precisely, this attitude has generated a
lot of needless controversy. This characterization, which, no doubt, is true,
was grossly misunderstood and, consequently, it was argued that the Indian
thought rejects altogether this world and presents life as totally irrelevant and
insignificant. This argument, which stems from total misunderstanding, is
altogether unwarranted. To say that x is more important than y is not to say that
y is insignificant. If something is more important, then it means that something
else is ‘less’ important. In other words, Indian tradition, surely, includes the
‘present’ life, but it is not restricted to it only rather goes beyond it.
Evidently, Indian tradition maintains a certain hierarchy of values. Knowledge,
as a way of life, encompasses not only all sorts of values but also it changes
one’s own perspective. Accordingly, the so-called spiritual goal in life can be
attained only by one who has acquired knowledge of the truth. It points to the
fact that ignorance or Avidyā is a hindrance to attain spiritual goals in particular
and any other goal in general. One who has acquired true knowledge or knows
truly, acts and thinks, very differently, different from ignorant, a characteristic
Socratic thought in Indian attire. However, this characteristic is conspicuous by
its absence in western tradition. In this context, while Socrates and Spinoza are
at one end of the thread, Bacon and Heidegger are at the opposite end. The point
is that in Indian tradition, philosophy and value are inseParāble, whereas in the
west it is not necessarily so.
This sort of emphasis upon values led to a hermeneutic blunder. Consequently,
many western thinkers argued that Indian philosophy was never distinct from
religion. Hence, according to critics, in India there was no philosophy at all
worth the name, that there was no religion in India (with the exclusion of tribal
religion). However, the so-called Hindu dharma cannot be mistaken and ought
not to be mistaken for religion. This confusion arose because many scholars
mistakenly identified religion with spirituality. An analogy may clear the mist
surrounding Indian philosophy. Western philosophy is not divided into Christian
philosophy and Jewish philosophy, though all western philosophers (excluding
Greek philosophers) in loose sense are either Christians or Jews. Likewise, it
is highly inappropriate to talk about ‘Hindu philosophy’, though majority of
Indian philosophers were Hindus. It is true that a few philosophers in India
became the heads of religious groups or sects (eg. Rāmānuja or Madhva). But
then there are medieval philosophers like St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, etc. in the
west also. But surely, we have Buddhist or Jaina philosophy because neither
Buddhism or Jainism is a religion in the strict sense of the term. At this point,
a pertinent question arises, if there is Buddhist philosophy, then why not Hindu
philosophy? To believe that there is such philosophy amounts to putting the
20 cart in front of the horse. Philosophy in India did not originate from Sanātana
dharma — or Hindu dharma as it is popularly known as — but it is rather the An Outline of
other way round. Indian Philosophy
Therefore, in sharp contrast to western tradition, Indian philosophy can be
spiritually oriented. The concept of reality and aesthetic values also are endowed
with spirituality. The Upanis̩ adic or Advaitic notion of Brahman is a classic
example. It is spiritual because it is neither worldly (physical) nor religious. If
knowledge is spiritual, then its pramā (object) also must be spiritual. ‘Raso vai
sah̩ ’ (that is, indeed, rasa) is an example for spiritual status of aesthetic value.
In this case ‘that’ according to, at least one interpretation means ‘Para Brahma’
or highest reality and Rasa may be taken to mean beauty. The metaphysical or
spiritual element involved in philosophy must have been hijacked by religions
to formulate their notions of gods (and perhaps to counter their rivals).
Let us return to knowledge again. Indian philosophy recognizes knowledge
at two levels; Parā Vidyā (higher knowledge) and Aparā Vidyā (lower
knowledge). Since knowledge is spiritual, only the former is true knowledge
of reality, whereas the latter is slightly inferior, it refers to worldly knowledge.
Though the Upanis̩ ads subscribe to this view, subsequent systems, (with the
exception of Pūrva Mīmāṁsā) which are supposed to be commentaries on
the Upanis̩ ads, regarded perception, for example, as a means of knowledge.
Upamāna (comparison) is another pramān̩a (means of knowledge). Not only
lower knowledge, but also erroneous knowledge was seriously considered as
species of knowledge (e.g., akhyāti) by systems of philosophy. Therefore even
Aparā Vidyā retained its place. Parā Vidyā and Aparā Vidyā have their own place
in the Indian thought, however they have been reconciled in Indian ethics in a
remarkable manner. The concept of the purus̩ ārtha clarifies that only through
Dharma, i.e., righteous means, man should acquire artha (wealth) and satisfy
kāma (any sensuous desire), the very same means to attain moks̩ a (liberation).
The law of parsimony is very well adhered to in regard to the questions of social
and moral philosophy in the Indian context.
Check Your Progress II
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer
            b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1. ‘Knowledge is Power’, analyse this dictum in Indian Philosophical
Context.
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
2. Write a note on the possibility of the applicability of the term “Hindu
Philosophy’.
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
21
Introduction to ……………………………………………...…………………………
Indian Philosophy
……………………………………………...…………………………

1.4 PHILOSOPHY AND LIFE

We have seen that in Indian philosophy value and human life are inextricably
blended. Now, the next pertinent question is: what is the aim of life according
to Indian philosophers? To understand it simplistically, the aim of life according
to the Indian tradition is to make a pilgrimage from ‘misery to happiness’. This
is a single thread which runs through the whole gamut of Indian philosophy.
At one point of time, vertical split occurred in philosophical tradition leading
to the birth of orthodox and heterodox schools of thought, yet, they concur on
one issue, i.e., the aim of life. The dispute between these two poles did not
prevent them from embracing a common goal. But in what sense is this goal
a philosophical issue? This is one question which arises in this context: how
can two opposing schools of thought have a common denominator? This is
another.
Answers to the first question can be construed as follows. Knowledge as value
is unique by itself. If the instrument which gives thrust to the quality of lifestyle
has any economic value, then from a different perspective, if any, knowledge
which reforms lifestyle also must possess value. Therefore knowledge became
‘the’ value in Indian thought. A Jñāni (knowledgeable person) in Socratic sense
perceives not only routine life, but also the world in which he lives, differently
because knowledge changes his world view. This type of change carries with it
moral value. It means that the aim of life becomes an ethical issue. In this sense
it becomes a philosophical issue.
Answer to the second question is still simpler. All schools of philosophy
unanimously admit that the pursuit of happiness is the sole aim and unanimity
stops there. But these two poles differ when they specify what happiness is.
An example may make the point clear. All political parties, in their election
manifesto, proclaim that their sole aim is uplifting the downtrodden. But the
mechanism of doing so differs from one party to the other. Now the position is
clear. Orthodox and heterodox schools differ on what happiness is and on what
constitute happiness. Even within the heterodox system the idea of happiness
differs. The Cārvāka School maintains that happiness consists in pleasure
whereas Buddhism asserts that happiness consists in nirvān̩a if happiness is to
be construed as elimination of misery.
As we have mentioned that spirituality is the essence of Indian philosophy.
Against this background, let us analyse what happiness is. Neither is the physical
world nor is earthly pleasure permanent or ultimate. Hopefully, no one entertains
the illusion that this world is eternal. However, not many care to think whether
or not everlasting peace or happiness is possible within the bounds of a finite
world. Indian philosophy is characterized by this thought. The desire to attain
eternity is common to the Greek and the Indian traditions. However, in the latter
case this desire takes a different form. Hence eternity is tantamount to permanent
liberation from misery. A permanent liberation from misery is tantamount to
attainment of permanent happiness and this it eternity. It is variously designated
22 as moks̩ a, nirvān̩a, etc. In its ordinary sense vairāgya means renouncing
happiness. But in real sense what has to be renounced is not happiness, but An Outline of
pleasure. Vairāgya in conjunction with knowledge leads to eternal happiness. Indian Philosophy
Hence in Indian context vairāgya is ‘renounce worldly pleasure and attain
eternal happiness’. It is possible that the very idea of renunciation invites strong
objections. But in one definite sense such a renunciation is desirable. Vairāgya
should be construed as elimination of greed and inclusion of contentment in
life. This is the hidden meaning of vairāgya. What happened, in course of time,
was that both dimensions were wrongly interpreted leading to the conclusion
that vairāgya is not only negative but also is the sign of pessimism. It did not
stop at this stage, but extended to the whole of Indian philosophy.
Moreover, in the twentieth century, westerners believed that in India there was
nothing like philosophy, but only myth and casuistry in the garb of philosophy.
While the western scholars argued that in India, philosophy was totally corrupted
by religion, some Indian scholars under the influence of Marxism failed to
separate philosophy from custom and tradition. The merits and demerits of
their arguments and counterarguments are not relevant presently. But the sense,
in which the world religion has to be construed, if it has to be regarded as
philosophically constructive, is important. If the word religion is taken to mean
tribal religion, then its association with philosophy spells doom to the latter. In
India, philosophy was not influenced by religion in this sense. On the other hand,
various religious sects, which grew later, were influenced by philosophy.
Now, let’s take the criticisms of those scholars, who admit that in ancient India
there was a philosophical movement, merit our considerations. According to
one criticism, Indian thought prompted a negative outlook and therefore, is self-
destructive because it negates the reality of the physical world. This criticism
can be rebutted in two stages. In the first place, Indian philosophy does not deny
the physical world in absolute terms. A particular system of philosophy does not
become a negative doctrine just because it regards the world as impermanent
and that what is impermanent is regarded as not ultimately real. No scientist
has ever dared to say that the universe is eternal. If the critic’s argument is
admitted, then Plato’s philosophy also becomes negative in character. Indian
philosophers, like Plato, admitted something permanent. Impermanence and
permanence are relative terms; relevance of any one of them demands the
relevance of another. Secondly, what is relative is always relative to something
different. There is nothing like absolute relativity. The last two statements which,
actually, explicate the essence of the theory of relativity holds good here also.
Now let us consider the second stage of refutation. Is it legitimate to categorize
any doctrine as negative? Refutation is an important step in arguments, but it is
not final. If science can be characterized as ‘satisfying a negative requirement
such as falsifiability’ (Karl Popper, 1959, p.41), then philosophy, whether Indian
or western, also is entitled to the same benefit or status. To a great extent Indian
philosophy followed the principle of ‘Assertion through refutation’.
The second criticism is about the accusation that Indian philosophy is pessimistic.
Any theory, which negates this world and life in absolute sense, ought to be
pessimistic. The very fact that this criticism draws support from two sources of
error shows the degree of misunderstanding. The desire to escape from misery was
misconstrued as the desire to escape from the external world; it was ultimately a
matter of discouraging merely earthly pleasure. Negation of earthly pleasure is 23
Introduction to not tantamount to the negation of happiness because pleasure and happiness are,
Indian Philosophy evidently, different. Moks̩ a is simply the Sanskrit version of happiness. Pleasure
is not only momentary but also is not pure in the sense that pleasure always
comes with pain. If we consider British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s criteria,
then these criteria satisfy not pleasure but happiness. Duration, intensity and
purity do not, in reality, characterize pleasure but happiness. Perhaps proximity
alone satisfies pleasure. If so, even from a practical standpoint any philosophy
which regards moks̩ a as ideal ceases to be pessimistic.
Desire to escape from this world perhaps appears to be escapist. However, in
the Indian context, to move beyond this world is to liberate oneself from the
cycle of birth and death and indulgence in the world. Yet, attainment of moks̩ a
is regarded as a possibility during the lifespan of an individual (this is what is
called jīvanmukti), there is no reason to regard the external world as an evil. It
is, however, true that not only critics, but also the votaries of Indian philosophy
misunderstood the concept of moks̩ a and it led to the cardinal mistake of treating
the external world as evil.
One more objection can be raised to moks̩ a. Is moks̩ a a meaningful ideal? In
the first place moks̩ a must be possible, and secondly, its realisation must be
humanly possible. In the absence of either of them does it not cease to be
meaningful? Let us assume that it is humanly possible to attain moks̩ a, then it
remains an ideal. But then nothing is lost. If we pursue an unattainable ideal,
then we progress towards that ideal. What matters is progress. Plato’s Utopia
is an example which comes very close to the ideal of moks̩ a in this respect.
Progress in the right direction is true progress. There is no way to know if one
can truly achieve moks̩ a in one’s lifetime, however all one can do is pursue
a life towards moks̩ a almost like an ideal which shall help one live a more
morally fulfilling life.
In the western tradition only Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul.
It became totally alien to modern western philosophy, though it found favour
with Christianity. The Paradox is that immortality of the soul is a common
theme to Christianity and Indian philosophy, whereas it ought to have been
common to western philosophy and Christianity because the west happens to be
the mainland of Christianity. It illustrates one crucial factor. Religion does not
determine philosophy. On the other hand, philosophy has the required potential
at least to influence religion, if not determine the same.
We saw that moks̩ a, nirvān̩a, cessation of all kinds of misery are the goals of
Indian philosophical schools. Some scholars say that Indian Philosophy has a
soteriological purpose. But the idea that the central thought of Indian philosophy
is soteriological purpose is not free from dispute. Some people consider it
a philosophy of life and declare it philosophy on this basis, some declare it
different from philosophy on the same basis. Indian Philosopher Bimal Kr̩ s̩ n̩ a
Matilal considers it philosophy by establishing epistemology as the central
element and also considers it equivalent to Western philosophy, while Daya
Kr̩ s̩ n̩ a declares it philosophy on the basis of “Conceptual Confusions and
Conceptual Clarifications”, that is, philosophy contemplates on concepts from
arguments and so does Indian philosophy, that is the reason to call it darśan
(philosophy).
24
Thus there are many ideas in this regard as to why Indian philosophy is An Outline of
philosophy. Although a detailed study can be done in this regard from the Indian Philosophy
reference list and it is sufficient to state it here as an indication for this unit, so
that whatever historical and characteristic description is done, there will remain
no doubt as this is the only idea and it is accepted to all.
Check Your Progress III
Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer.
            b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit.
1. What is ‘quest of life’ according to Indian Philosophy?
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
2. Is Indian Philosophy pessimistic and escapist? Evaluate.
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………

1.5 LET US SUM UP

Philosophy is derived from two Greek words which mean love of knowledge
or wisdom. In Indian tradition philosophy means Darśana or tattva. Indian
outlook is essentially different from western outlook. In terms of problems there
is no difference between Indian and western philosophical traditions. Indian
philosophers perceived knowledge as power in a different perspective. Bacon
regarded knowledge as the means to establish authority over the external world.
On the other hand, Indians regarded knowledge as essential to establish control
over one’s own self. Indians recognized philosophy itself as a value. Therefore
philosophy, in India, was accepted as a way of life. With the sole exception of
the Cārvāka, all other systems of philosophy in India accepted liberation in one
or the other sense. Philosophy is independent of religion. However, religion
may or may not be independent of philosophy.

1.6 KEY WORDS

Yāgas and Yajñas : Yagas and Yajñas are sacred rituals done to
appease God, performed during the Vedic
period.
Pessimism : Pessimism, from the Latin ‘pessimus’ (worst),
is a painful state of mind which negatively
colours the perception of life, especially with
regard to future events. Value judgments may 25
Introduction to vary dramatically between individuals, even
Indian Philosophy when judgments of fact are undisputed.

1.7 FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Agarwal, M.M. “Nothingness and Freedom: Sartre and Krishnamurti”. Journal
of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Vol. IX, No. 1 (September-
December, 1991).
Aleaz, K.P. The Relevance of Relation in Śaṁkara’s Advaita Vedānta. Delhi:
Kant Śaṁkara Publications, 1996.
Bagchi, Kalyan Kumar. “Ontological Argument and Ontology of Freedom”.
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Vol. X, No. 1 (1992).
Balasubramanian, R. The Metaphysics of the Spirit. New Delhi: Indian Council
of Philosophical Research, 1994.
Barlingay, Surendra S. Reunderstanding Indian Philosophy. Delhi: D K
Printworld, 1998.
Bharthakur, J. K. “A Theory of Time”. Indian Philosophical Quarterly. Vol.
XXII, No.4 (1995): pp. 271-90.
Bharthakur, J. K. “A Journey Towards Essence of Mandukya Upanis̩ ad for a
Theory of Time”. Indian Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. XXV, No.1 (1998): pp.
15-48.
Brown, Jason W. “Microgenesis and Budhism: The Concept of Momentariness”.
Philosophy East and West. Vol. 49, No.3 (1999).
Chadha, Monima. “Perceptual Cognition: A Nyāya-Kantian Approach”.
Philosophy East and West. Vol.51, No.2 (2001).
Chakrabarti, Arindam. “Rationality in Indian Philosophy.” In A Companion
to World Philosophies. Edited by Eliot Deutsch & Ron Bontekoe, 259-278.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. Indian Philosophy: A Popular Introduction. New
Delhi: Peoples Publishing House, 1964.
Daya Krishna. Indian Philosophy: A Counter Perspective. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
Daya Krishna. Contrary Thinking (Collected Essays of Daya Krishna). Edited
by Nalini Bhushan, J L Garfield & Others. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2011.
Hiriyanna, M. Outlines of Indian Philosophy. London: Unwin Publishers,
1973.
Mishra, G. “Scope and Limits of Sruti as as Pramana: Perspectives from Pūrva
Mīmāṁsā and Advaita Vedānta, in Sabdapramana in Indian Philosophy. Edited
by Manjulika Ghosh and Bhaswati Bhattacharya Chakraborti, 108-117. Delhi:
Northen Book Centre, 2006.
Natarajan, Kanchana. “Primordial Waters: Some Remarks on Rig Vedic Creation
26 Hymns”. JICPR, 17/2(2001): 147-168.
Pappau, S S Rāma Rao & R. Puligandla (ed.). Indian Philosophy: Past and An Outline of
Future. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982. Indian Philosophy
Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1977.
Ramaujan, A K. “Is There an Indian Way of Thinking? An informal essay.”
Contributions of Indian Sociology, 23/1(1989): 41-58.
Thachil, J. An Initiation to Indian Philosophy. Alwaye: Pontifical Institute of
Philosophy and Theology, 2000.

1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Answers to Check Your Progress I
1. The word ‘darśana’ comes from the word tattva — the ultimate reality. This
ultimate reality is the knowing reality. It not only describes the metaphysical
component but also the epistemological component. However, the summation
of both the components is necessary in describing darśana. Epistemological
component is very important, since it involves knowing the ultimate reality.
In the initial stage there was no distinction between reality and epistemic
subject. Epistemologically knowledge became inward. In the course of time
human related oneself to value and identify with the reality. So in Indian
context, value is not regarded only to the subject matter of philosophy but
philosophy itself is regarded as value.
2. In Indian context philosophy is understood as ‘darśana’ -to see or to realize.
This realization corresponds to that of knowledge. When we say that we are
realizing a thing, it amounts to say that we have some sort of knowledge.
This correspondence relationship is one to one and it is nearly isomorphic.
Tattva stands for two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. The etymological meaning of
this word is ‘you are that’. This mainly refers to the Ultimate reality in
Indian philosophy. The word darśana stands for the ultimate reality and it
is a knowing reality thus involving both metaphysical and epistemological
components and satisfactorily explaining the description of darśana in
Indian context.
Answers to Check Your Progress II
1. In the post-renaissance age Bacon propagated the famous dictum ‘knowledge
is power’. This principle changed forever the very direction of the evolution
of science. But the ancient Indians never believed in this dictum. On the
contrary, they performed yāgas to meet practical ends and yajñas to achieve
spiritual gain. But in a strict sense, Indians regarded knowledge as power
because for them knowledge was a way of life and this is the reason why for
them knowledge was never intrinsic. However, it is necessary to look into
the connotation of the word power. The Baconian ‘power’ was necessary
to experience control over nature, but the Indian ‘power’ was supposed to
be the instrument to subjugate one’s own self to nature. This is the prime
principle which forms the cornerstone of early vedic thought. This radical
change in the meaning of the word ‘power’ also explains the difference
in worldview which can be easily discerned when the belief-systems and
attitudes of Indians and Europeans are compared and contrasted 27
Introduction to 2. In this regard, an analogy may clear the mist surrounding Indian philosophy.
Indian Philosophy Western philosophy is not divided into Christian philosophy and Jewish
philosophy, though all western philosophers (excluding Greek philosophers)
in loose sense are either Christians or Jews. Likewise, it is highly inappropriate
to talk about ‘Hindu philosophy’, though majority of Indian philosophers
were ‘committed’ Hindus. It is true that a few philosophers in India became
the heads of religious groups or sects (eg. Rāmānuja or Madhva). But
then we have St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, etc. in the west also. But nobody
characterizes their philosophy as Christian philosophy. But surely, we have
Buddhist or Jaina philosophy because neither Buddhism nor Jainism is a
religion in the strict sense of the term. At this point, a pertinent question
arises, if there is Buddhist philosophy, then why not Hindu philosophy? To
believe that there is such philosophy amounts to putting the cart in front of
the horse. Philosophy in India did not originate from Sanātana dharma – or
Hindu dharma as it is popularly known as – but it is the other way round.
Answers to Check your progress III
1. It is easy to discover a solution to this quest in Indian philosophy. However,
it is not so easy to reach the same in western tradition (it is true that
existentialism attempted the same, but it remained a sort of island and
was obliterated by analytic tradition). The aim of life according to Indian
tradition is to make a pilgrimage from ‘misery to happiness’. This is a single
thread which runs through the whole gamut of Indian philosophy. At one
point of time, vertical split occurred in philosophical tradition leading to the
birth of orthodox and heterodox schools of thought. However, they concur
on one issue, i.e., the aim of life. The dispute between these two poles did
not prevent them from embracing a common goal-misery to happiness.
2. This criticism draws support from two sources of error shows the degree of
misunderstanding. First, the desire to escape from misery was misconstrued
as the desire to escape from the external world. Second, it discourages
earthly pleasure. Let us consider the second source first. Negation of earthly
pleasure is not tantamount to the negation of happiness because pleasure and
happiness are, evidently, different. Moks̩ a is simply the Sanskrit version of
happiness. Pleasure is not only momentary but also is not pure in the sense
that pleasure always comes with pain. If we consider Bentham’s criteria,
then these criteria satisfy not pleasure but happiness. Duration, intensity
and purity do not, in reality, characterize pleasure but happiness. Perhaps
proximity alone satisfies pleasure. If so, even from a practical standpoint
any philosophy which regards moks̩ a as ideal ceases to be pessimistic.
Now let us turn to the first source. Desire to escape from this world describes
the mindset of an escapist. There are references to rebirth. Rebirth may
only be a myth and something beyond verification. But when attainment of
moks̩ a is regarded as a possibility during the lifespan of an individual (this
is what is called jīvanmukti), there is no reason to regard the external world
as an evil. It is, however, true that not only critics, but also the votaries of
Indian philosophy misunderstood the concept of moks̩ a and it led to the
cardinal mistake of treating external world as evil.

28