Get Indian Philosophy essential facts below. View Videos or join the Indian Philosophy discussion. Add Indian Philosophy to your Like2do.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
The main schools of Indian philosophy were formalised chiefly between 1000 BCE to the early centuries of the Common Era. Competition and integration between the various schools was intense during their formative years, especially between 800 BCE and 200 CE. Some schools like Jainism, Buddhism, Yoga, ?aiva and Vedanta survived, but others, like Ajñana, Charvaka and ?j?vika did not.
Indian philosophies share many concepts such as dharma, karma, samsara, reincarnation, dukkha, renunciation, meditation, with almost all of them focussing on the ultimate goal of liberation of the individual through diverse range of spiritual practices (moksha, nirvana). They differ in their assumptions about the nature of existence as well as the specifics of the path to the ultimate liberation, resulting in numerous schools that disagreed with each other. Their ancient doctrines span the diverse range of philosophies found in other ancient cultures.
Hindu philosophy has a diversity of traditions and numerous saints and scholars, such as Adi Shankara of Advaita Vedanta school.
Many Hindu intellectual traditions were classified during the medieval period of Brahmanic-Sanskritic scholasticism into a standard list of six orthodox (Astika) schools (darshanas), the "Six Philosophies" (?a?-dar?ana), all of which accept the testimony of the Vedas.
Pini Dar?ana, the grammarian school (which clarifies the theory of Spho?a)
The systems mentioned here are not the only orthodox systems, they are the chief ones, and there are other orthodox schools. These systems, accept the authority of Vedas and are regarded as orthodox (astika) schools of Hindu philosophy; besides these, schools that do not accept the authority of the Vedas are heterodox (nastika) systems such as Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and C?rv?ka. This orthodox-heterodox terminology is a construct of Western languages, and lacks scholarly roots in Sanskrit. According to Andrew Nicholson, there have been various heresiological translations of ?stika and N?stika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but quite many are unsophisticated and flawed.
Several ?rama?ic movements have existed before the 6th century BCE, and these influenced both the ?stika and n?stika traditions of Indian philosophy. The ?rama?a movement gave rise to diverse range of heterodox beliefs, ranging from accepting or denying the concept of soul, atomism, antinomian ethics, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, fatalism to free will, idealization of extreme asceticism to that of family life, strict ahimsa (non-violence) and vegetarianism to permissibility of violence and meat-eating. Notable philosophies that arose from ?rama?ic movement were Jainism, early Buddhism, C?rv?ka, Ajñana and ?j?vika.
Ajñana was one of the n?stika or "heterodox" schools of ancient Indian philosophy, and the ancient school of radical Indian skepticism. It was a ?rama?a movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. They have been recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They held that it was impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it was useless and disadvantageous for final salvation. They were sophists who specialised in refutation without propagating any positive doctrine of their own.
Rishabhanatha, believed to have lived over a million years ago, is considered the founder of Jain philosophy.
Jain philosophy is the oldest Indian philosophy that separates body (matter) from the soul (consciousness) completely.Jainism was revived and re-established after Mahavira, the last and the 24th Tirthankara, synthesised and revived the philosophies and promulgations of the ancient ?rama?ic traditions laid down by the first Jain tirthankara Rishabhanatha millions of years ago. According to Dundas, outside of the Jain tradition, historians date the Mahavira as about contemporaneous with the Buddha in the 5th-century BC, and accordingly the historical Parshvanatha, based on the c. 250-year gap, is placed in 8th or 7th century BC.
Jainism is a ?rama?ic religion and rejected the authority of the Vedas. However, like all Indian religions, it shares the core concepts such as karma, ethical living, rebirth, samsara and moksha. Jainism places strong emphasis on asceticism, ahimsa (non-violence) and anekantavada (relativity of viewpoints) as a means of spiritual liberation, ideas that influenced other Indian traditions.
Jainism strongly upholds the individualistic nature of soul and personal responsibility for one's decisions; and that self-reliance and individual efforts alone are responsible for one's liberation. According to the Jain philosophy, the world (Sa?s?ra) is full of hi?s? (violence). Therefore, one should direct all his efforts in attainment of Ratnatraya, that are Samyak Darshan, Samyak Gnana, and Samyak Chàritra which are the key requisites to attain liberation.
The Buddhist philosophy is based on the teachings of the Buddha.
Buddhist philosophy is a system of thought which started with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, or "awakened one". Buddhism is founded on elements of the ?rama?a movement, which flowered in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, but its foundations contain novel ideas not found or accepted by other Sramana movements. Buddhism and Hinduism mutually influenced each other and shared many concepts, states Paul Williams, however it is now difficult to identify and describe these influences. Buddhism rejected the Vedic concepts of Brahman (ultimate reality) and Atman (soul, self) at the foundation of Hindu philosophies.
Buddhism shares many philosophical views with other Indian systems, such as belief in karma - a cause-and-effect relationship, samsara - ideas about cyclic afterlife and rebirth, dharma - ideas about ethics, duties and values, impermanence of all material things and of body, and possibility of spiritual liberation (nirvana or moksha). A major departure from Hindu and Jain philosophy is the Buddhist rejection of an eternal soul (atman) in favour of anatta (non-Self).
Monastic life has been a part of all Indian philosophy traditions. Mendicant caves of extinct ?j?vikas in Bihar.
Original scriptures of the ?j?vika school of philosophy may once have existed, but these are currently unavailable and probably lost. Their theories are extracted from mentions of Ajivikas in the secondary sources of ancient Indian literature, particularly those of Jainism and Buddhism which polemically criticized the Ajivikas. The ?j?vika school is known for its Niyati doctrine of absolute determinism (fate), the premise that there is no free will, that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely preordained and a function of cosmic principles. ?j?vika considered the karma doctrine as a fallacy. ?j?vikas were atheists and rejected the authority of the Vedas, but they believed that in every living being is an ?tman - a central premise of Hinduism and Jainism.
C?rv?ka or Lok?yata was a philosophy of scepticism and materialism, founded in the Mauryan period. They were extremely critical of other schools of philosophy of the time. C?rv?ka deemed Vedas to be tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology. Likewise they faulted Buddhists and Jains, mocking the concept of liberation, reincarnation and accumulation of merit or demerit through karma. They believed that, the viewpoint of relinquishing pleasure to avoid pain was the "reasoning of fools".
Comparison of Indian philosophies
The Indian traditions subscribed to diverse philosophies, significantly disagreeing with each other as well as orthodox Hinduism and its six schools of Hindu philosophy. The differences ranged from a belief that every individual has a soul (self, atman) to asserting that there is no soul, from axiological merit in a frugal ascetic life to that of a hedonistic life, from a belief in rebirth to asserting that there is no rebirth.
In appreciation of complexity of the Indian philosophy, T S Eliot wrote that the great philosophers of India "make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys".Arthur Schopenhauer used Indian philosophy to improve upon Kantian thought. In the preface to his book The World As Will And Representation, Schopenhauer writes that one who "has also received and assimilated the sacred primitive Indian wisdom, then he is the best of all prepared to hear what I have to say to him" The 19th century American philosophical movement Transcendentalism was also influenced by Indian thought
^Elisa Freschi (2012): The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu. (Note: This differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions.)
^John Bowker, Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, p. 259
^JN Mohanty (2001), Explorations in Philosophy, Vol 1 (Editor: Bina Gupta), Oxford University Press, page 107-108
^Oliver Leaman (2000), Eastern Philosophy: Key Readings, Routledge, ISBN978-0415173582, page 251; R Prasad (2009), A Historical-developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals, Concept Publishing, ISBN978-8180695957, pages 345-347
^Robert Neville (2004). Jeremiah Hackett, ed. Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long. Jerald Wallulis. Springer. p. 257. ISBN978-1-4020-2073-5., Quote: "[Buddhism's ontological hypotheses] that nothing in reality has its own-being and that all phenomena reduce to the relativities of pratitya samutpada. The Buddhist ontological hypothesese deny that there is any ontologically ultimate object such a God, Brahman, the Dao, or any transcendent creative source or principle."
^[a] Christmas Humphreys (2012). Exploring Buddhism. Routledge. pp. 42-43. ISBN978-1-136-22877-3. [b] Gombrich (2006), page 47, Quote: "(...) Buddha's teaching that beings have no soul, no abiding essence. This 'no-soul doctrine' (anatta-vada) he expounded in his second sermon."
^[a]Anatta, Encyclopædia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ("the self")."; [b] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anatt?, Sanskrit: an?tman, the opposed doctrine of ?tman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."; [c] John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any ?tman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism"; [d] Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now; [e] David Loy (1982), Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 65-74
^ ab[a] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anatt?, Sanskrit: an?tman, the opposed doctrine of ?tman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."; [b]KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, ISBN978-8120806191, pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards; [c]John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any ?tman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism"; [d]Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now; [e]Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)."
^Gananath Obeyesekere (2005), Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120826090, page 106
^Damien Keown (2013), Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0199663835, pages 32-46
^Haribhadras?ri (Translator: M Jain, 1989), Saddarsanasamuccaya, Asiatic Society, OCLC255495691
^Halbfass, Wilhelm (2000), Karma und Wiedergeburt im indischen Denken, Diederichs, München, ISBN978-3896313850
^Patrick Olivelle (2005), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Editor: Flood, Gavin), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN978-1405132510, pages 277-278
^Karel Werner (1995), Love Divine: Studies in Bhakti and Devotional Mysticism, Routledge, ISBN978-0700702350, pages 45-46
^John Cort, Jains in the World : Religious Values and Ideology in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN, pages 64-68, 86-90, 100-112
^Christian Novetzke (2007), Bhakti and Its Public, International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, page 255-272
^[a] Knut Jacobsen (2008), Theory and Practice of Yoga : 'Essays in Honour of Gerald James Larson, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120832329, pages 15-16, 76-78; [b] Lloyd Pflueger, Person Purity and Power in Yogasutra, in Theory and Practice of Yoga (Editor: Knut Jacobsen), Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120832329, pages 38-39
^[a] Karl Potter (2008), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. III, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120803107, pages 16-18, 220; [b] Basant Pradhan (2014), Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy, Springer Academic, ISBN978-3319091044, page 13 see A.4
^U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN978-0091233402, pages 75-78, 94-106
^U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN978-0091233402, pages 57-62, 109-111
^U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN978-0091233402, pages 34-43, 89-97, 109-110
^Christopher Chapple (1993), Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions, State University of New York Press, ISBN0-7914-1498-1, pages 16-17
^Karin Meyers (2013), Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy (Editors: Matthew R. Dasti, Edwin F. Bryant), Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0199922758, pages 41-61
^Howard Coward (2008), The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-0791473368, pages 103-114; Harold Coward (2003), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Macmillan Reference, see Karma, ISBN978-0028657042
^AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120812048, pages 237
^Damien Keown (2004), A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0198605607, Entry for Prapañca, Quote: "Term meaning 'proliferation', in the sense of the multiplication of erroneous concepts, ideas, and ideologies which obscure the true nature of reality".
^Lynn Foulston and Stuart Abbott (2009), Hindu Goddesses: Beliefs and Practices, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN978-1902210438, pages 14-16
^Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (1986), Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities, University of Chicago Press, ISBN978-0226618555, page 119
^Ramkrishna Bhattacharya (2011), Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata, Anthem, ISBN978-0857284334, page 216
^Padmanabh S. Jaini (2001). Collected papers on Buddhist studies. Motilal Banarsidass Publications. ISBN9788120817760.
^Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)."
^Mike Burley (2012), Classical Samkhya and Yoga - An Indian Metaphysics of Experience, Routledge, ISBN978-0415648875, page 39
^Paul Hacker (1978), Eigentumlichkeiten dr Lehre und Terminologie Sankara: Avidya, Namarupa, Maya, Isvara, in Kleine Schriften (Editor: L. Schmithausen), Franz Steiner Verlag, Weisbaden, pages 101-109 (in German), also pages 69-99
^ abcJohn A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-0791430675, page 238
^D Sharma (1966), Epistemological negative dialectics of Indian logic -- Abh?va versus Anupalabdhi, Indo-Iranian Journal, 9(4): 291-300
^MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2), pages 13-16
^Eliott Deutsche (2000), in Philosophy of Religion : Indian Philosophy Vol 4 (Editor: Roy Perrett), Routledge, ISBN978-0815336112, pages 245-248
^ abChristopher Bartley (2011), An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Bloomsbury Academic, ISBN978-1847064493, pages 46, 120
^Elisa Freschi (2012), Duty, Language and Exegesis in Prabhakara Mimamsa, BRILL, ISBN978-9004222601, page 62
^Catherine Cornille (2009), Criteria of Discernment in Interreligious Dialogue, Wipf & Stock, ISBN978-1606087848, pages 185-186
^AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120812048, pages 227
^Jerald Gort (1992), On Sharing Religious Experience: Possibilities of Interfaith Mutuality, Rodopi, ISBN978-0802805058, pages 209-210
^John Cort (2010), Framing the Jina: Narratives of Icons and Idols in Jain History, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0195385021, pages 80, 188
^Andrew Fort (1998), Jivanmukti in Transformation, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-0791439043
^Masao Abe and Steven Heine (1995), Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN978-0824817527, pages 105-106
^Chad Meister (2009), Introducing Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, ISBN978-0415403276, page 60; Quote: "In this chapter, we looked at religious metaphysics and saw two different ways of understanding Ultimate Reality. On the one hand, it can be understood as an absolute state of being. Within Hindu absolutism, for example, it is Brahman, the undifferentiated Absolute. Within Buddhist metaphysics, fundamental reality is Sunyata, or the Void."
^Christopher Key Chapple (2004), Jainism and Ecology: Nonviolence in the Web of Life, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120820456, page 20
^PT Raju (2006), Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge, ISBN978-1406732627, page 426 and Conclusion chapter part XII
^Roy W Perrett (Editor, 2000), Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, ISBN978-0815336082, page xvii; AC Das (1952), Brahman and M?y? in Advaita Metaphysics, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 2, No. 2, pages 144-154