Intro_to_Hindu_Philosophy

CLICK HERE to go to the alternate homepage

An Alternative Introduction to Hindu Philosophy

�� The first thing anyone hears about Indian Philosophy (the term applied to the philosophical systems that flourished in the Indian Subcontinent from around 12th century BC to the present age) is that it is too vast and complex to describe succinctly. Brevity definitely does not go well with Hindu Darshan (Philosophy).� In the first instance, it is very difficult to assign any particular dates/names to its numerous schools of thought. On top of that, religion and philosophy intertwine inexplicably to create an intricate pattern. However, it is still possible to create a comprehensible overview of Indian Philosophy. To this effect, I will first go on and describe the Pre-Vedic and Vedic era.

Pre-Vedic era

�� The Indian indigenous population comprised of pre-Aryans. Dravidians in the south were chiefly tribal, and hence had numerous gods/goddesses ascribed to their particular surrounding. Natural phenomenon/objects were ascribed supernatural/divine powers (Shakti). Ritualistic hymns and prayers were common to ceremonies, and supernatural explanations to natural phenomenon were prevalent. The Aryans did not assimilate with these southerners; in fact, it was only in the Gangetic plain that these cultures fully integrated to create an advanced civilization. Before the Vedas were compiled into four books at the advent of the 12th century, the society was largely inclined towards economic prosperity, and sciences flourished. The numeral zero, and hence its philosophical significance, is ascribed to Indian mathematicians. Regarding the metaphysical, a certain monotheistic idea of a Supreme God seems to have originated well before the Vedas were written. However, the idea had not jelled.

Vedic era (The age of the Aryans)

�� A single person did not write the Vedas. The four Vedas are not actually a bulk of work written in their entirety: in fact, they can be best termed as anthologies. Rg Veda, one of the four Vedas, is the oldest Indo-European literary and philosophical monument, and the dates of the collection of its hymns are unknown. The word Veda signifies wisdom. Consider the following chart on the Vedas:

The Vedas

�� Rg Veda�� Atharva Veda���� Yajur Veda�� Sama Veda

�� (Oldest Veda dealing�� (describes magical�� (deals with�� (refers to

�� with hymns)�� formulas, e.g. spells�� sacrificial/ritual�� melodies)

�� for healing, long life)�� formulas)

�� (Mahamrityunjaya)

�� The Vedas have been a huge inspiration for much of Indian philosophy. The oldest of the hymns in the Rg Veda have been dated as far back as 2500 BCE. The Vedic era can be said to have lasted during the times they were actually collected in the forms of anthologies until as far as the 17th century AD. The Vedic era can be subdivided into the Ancient (before 200 BCE) and the Classical (200 BCE to 17th century AD). The Ancient Indian philosophy dealt mainly with economics, cultural integration, an evolving idea of a monistic Supreme Being that arose from the Trinity, and its later days were marked by a growing sense of inward path towards salvation (freedom from the cycle of rebirth). Nevertheless, the Idea of henotheism can be attributed to the Classical age. Henotheism is the idea that one God takes many different forms. After this belief became widespread, chiefly because of the Upanishads, the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh seems to have been effectively considered as one Supreme Being. The idea of the Trinity is central to Hinduism, and it appears very confusing at the outset if one refers to the Vedas. The concept of Trinity was definitely not a concept of the Vedas, and seems to be rather pre-Aryan in its origin.

The Trinity

�� Vishnu���� Brahma�� Mahesh or Siva��

�� (The Protector)�� (The Creator)�� (The Destroyer)

�� Now it becomes very confusing to grasp the abstract theory of the Trinity because the three are said to be the manifestations of one Supreme Being (Ishwara). They are essentially the same Ishwara, yet they differ widely in their roles. This concept can be best understood by theorizing a rational explanation of its existence. The early (native) Indians seem to have deducted, through various observations of the natural world, the three aspects, or, lets say, the three major irrefutable/indubitable ideas, that governed each and every living being: they come (don?t know from where), live for a while(while they live, they are nurtured by the nature itself) and eventually pass away (don?t know where to). This seems to be one of the earliest epistemological-metaphysical deductions in the Indian Philosophy. Before the Vedic age, ritualistic religion prevailed. Almost every aspect of nature was associated with a supernatural Being. These Beings were thought of as Super-humans, quite similar to the Gods of the Ancient Greek or to that of the Norse mythologies. As philosophic thought became more advanced, more inward towards one?s self (Atman) and as they discovered that the three fundamental aspects of living beings are irrefutable, they became convinced that a certain Trinity works as the function of the entire Universe. The idea of a monotheistic God, or Ishwara (Supreme Being) was not, contrary to popular belief, around until the advent of the Vedic era. It was only later that the Trinity was annexed to the popular pro-Aryan Vedic beliefs and thus argued to be but three manifestations of the same Ishwara.

�� At this point, it is imperative to understand that Hinduism is a very absorbing religion/ cultural philosophy. I tend to think of Hinduism more as a cultural philosophy than as a religion. The reason is that it is very tolerant of newer ideas regarding God, Godhood and the paths to Godhood. It was only during the Classical period that Hinduism became distinctly a dogmatic religion, and detached itself from other Indian Philosophies. Furthermore, Hinduism is based more on culture rather than on scriptures: it is dynamic, and it moves along with time. Though the Vedas are authoritative in many aspects, they are not considered the Ultimate answers. In fact, had it not been for the Upanishads, the Vedas would have been inaccessible to even the learned and the wise. Another point to note is that after the Vedas were written down, much of the philosophical aspects of Hinduism became entangled in a world of dogmatic reverence.

�� Each Veda contains four sections: Samhita, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, exactly in the order given. Samhita is a collection of hymns, prayers, benediction, sacrificial formulas, and litanies. Brahmanas are prose treatises that discuss the significance of the former section. Aranyakas concerns with texts pertaining to forest life (Vana-Prastha) to be used by those seeking spiritual fulfillment away from material detachment. Upanishads, the concluding portions, literally translates into upa- near, ni- down, sad- to sit. It is an account of interaction between groups of pupils sitting near the teacher to learn from him the truth by which ignorance is destroyed.

�� Having said this much, I will now proceed to the different schools of thought that grew during the Classical period.

The Orthodox system:

�� The orthodox system comprised of Hinduism (or Vedic Knowledge). Mimamsa (some term it as PurvaMimamsa) is a metaphysical investigation of dharma (duty, righteousness) as it is stated in the Vedas. It discusses knowledge in metaphysical context. It also crudely deals with karma (effect of one?s actions that determine destiny in the next incarnation/birth). ?[It is an] Exegesis school?primarily concerned with questions of Vedic interpretation? states Britannica Encyclopedia. �Vaisesika (atomism) deals with things that is known and tries to interpret our everyday experiences with the help of sutras (aphorisms capturing philosophical principles). Visesa means particularity, and as thus, Vaisesika is also a system of metaphysics. For example, it classifies objects of experiences into two parts: those that possess real objective existence, and those that are the products of logical inference. Substance, quality, and activity fall in the former category while generality, particularity, and inherence fall in the latter. Nyaya(Logic) actually combines with Vaisesika to create a process that leads to conclusions. It critically examines the objects of knowledge with the science of right reasoning. Samkhya(analysis) is mostly popular for its theory of evolution in contemporary philosophy. It argues that the process of evolution occurs when there is a disturbance of equilibrium. This equilibrium occurs when the three elements gunas(constituents), viz. sattwa(potential consciousness), rajas(source of activity), and tamas(source that which resists rajas).Yoga, according to Patanjali, is a methodical effort to attain perfection, through the control of the different elements of human nature, physical and psychical. Yoga accepts Samkhyapsychology and metaphysics. The sixth orthodox school is Vedanta(literally translating as ?end of Vedas?)� and it deals with, as can be inferred from its name, philosophical speculations of the Upanishads. Advaita is Samkara?s Non-dualism, and he has argued, quite similarly like Descartes did, that although all objects of knowledge may be open to doubt, the doubter himself cannot be doubted. The existence of self, according to Samkara, cannot be proved because it is the basis of all other proofs. Advaita basically says that although the world is not ultimate reality, it is also not non-existent. The Ultimate reality (Brahman) transcends all forms and this Brahman is identical with one?s self (or Atman). Dvaita disagrees at this point and starts with the premise that God and the world exist separately from one?s self.

The non-orthodox (or heterodox) system:

�� Buddhism, Jainism, and Caravakaschool of thought make up the heterodox system of Indian philosophy. Buddhism echoes some of the thoughts of the Upanishads, but it is not about formulating a new scheme of metaphysics or ethics, contrary to the popular belief. Buddhism observes that there are Four Noble Truths, viz. that there is suffering, that the suffering has a cause, that the suffering can be surpassed, and that there is a path to accomplish it. As everything in this world is dependent upon one other, Buddhism postulates that nothing is ever permanent. One?s self is composite of perception, feeling, purposeful dispositions, intelligence and form. These forms change according to the law of Karma. On the other hand, the central features of Jainism are its realistic classification of being, its theory of knowledge and its ascetic ethics. Caravaka is a very interesting school in Indian philosophy in that it is quite old and unique because it does not embrace spiritualism. Caravaka maintains that only this world exists, and there is nothing beyond it. It is a school of skepticism, even logical fatalism. It is indifferent to religion, contradictory to other old schools. The school was developed by empiricists who believed in perception as the ultimate, and only, source of knowledge.

�� Let us now divide the schools according to the branches of Western philosophy.

Metaphysical:�� Advaita Vedanta, Mimamsa, Samkhya.

Epistemological:�� Nyaya and Vaisesika, Yogacara, Caravaka.

Ethical:�� (all of the orthodox and the heterodox schools) + The Epics

�� Now it seems that there is a lot of confusion when differentiating the specific Indian philosophies as whether ethical schools or not. The Ethics plays a major role in almost all of the schools of thought, and none of them is non-ethical. Ethics in Indian Philosophy is the way of life, is cultural rather than philosophical. Norms and values became accepted largely through the ethos of the characters in the Epics. The following chart will aid in understanding what these ethics are:

The Epics

�� The Mahabharata�� The Laws���� The Ramayana Kautilya's Artha

�� Of Manu�� Shastra

A widely read Epic story�� Four great aims�� probably fictionalized�� A treatise in

about chivalry, governance,�� of life.�� account of Aryans vs�� vvelfare� Economics

power-conflict, sibling�� natives relations. A�� and politics

rivalry and so on. The Bhagvad�� perfect gem for ethical��.

Gita, a religious classic in Ethics�� views regarding social/

rather than a philosophical �� family values.

treatise comes from this book.

�� These four works are collectively known as The Epics because they were written in the Epic period, i.e. during 6th century BCE. The Epics are still the main source of reference for ethics and ethical values in the Hindu society.

�� Regarding the sacrilegious cow in Hindu culture, many rational explanations have been given. However, rationalism does not go well with Indian Philosophy. In the ancient times, the cow was definitely a wealthy possession and thus economical advantage of owning cattle might have induced the Indians to prize the cow so much. Nevertheless, cow is not sacrilegious just because of this reason. If this were the only reason then almost any civilization should have ended up deifying cattle. Being a largely vegetarian society, the Indians depended largely on milk and milk products, and cows were effectively giving them life by providing protein-rich food. This life-giving, selfless act of a cow is compared with those of one?s mother. The docile animal thus gradually was recognized as something reverential. The selfless act of the cows, i.e. giving milk that can sustain human life, is considered to be a good Karma, something which only greatest of beings can have. Thus, cow is considered sacred, and even worshipped as a deity.�

�� Indian Philosophy is much different from Western Philosophy. At times, there have been attempts to rationalize the former in hopes of gaining some recognition from the latter. These attempts are ludicrous at best because when one tries to rationalize the things mentioned above in the essay, nothing will make sense. The Western Philosophy functions in a different way, and it would be disastrous to apply its values to Indian Philosophy. For example, the Trinity cannot be understood by rationalizing its concepts. Let us just try to do that. The Trinity is but a manifestation of One Supreme Being: irrational because it is paradoxical. If it is the same Being then why should it manifest in three different forms? Why the number three in the first instance? Cannot there be infinite manifestations that we might not know of? If the Trinity make up One, then it should follow that the One is divided into three parts and the Three are different from the One, i.e. the One does not manifest itself in other forms. If this is the case, then it seems quite stupid to differentiate the Trinity from one another. Similarly, if the One manifests itself in other forms as well, then it cannot be that the Trinity make up One. If the Trinity cannot make up one then they cannot be manifestation of the One, but a part of manifestations of the One. Thus, they should be independent of the One in a sense that they are lesser than One.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws