General Characteristics of

UNIT 1 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF Indian Philosophy

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

Contents
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 Further 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 Indian context on very
different lines when compared with western thought;
 to project the essence of Indian thought.

1.1 INTRODUCTION
In Indian context, philosophy is taken to mean darshana or tattva. We shall
consider how the etymological meaning of ‘philosophy’ correlates itself with
darshana or tattva. ‘Drisyate anena iti darshanam’ - the one through which it is
seen. The word seen can be understood either literally or philosophically. Though
the difference is irrelevant, let us consider only the latter. To ‘see’ in philosophic
sense means to ‘realise’. Darsana, therefore, means to realise. Again, the verb
‘realise’ is a transitive verb. We always realise ‘something’ whenever we realise.
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 unfolds itself in due course. Before proceeding in
this direction, we should know what ‘tattva’ stands for.

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’.
5
Introduction to Indian What is important is to know what tat stands for in Indian thought. It means
Philosophy
reality or ‘ultimate’ reality. This is also what one division of philosophy, i.e.,
metaphysics talks about. The word ‘it’, which appears in the meaning of darshana
stands for tat, i.e., ultimate reality. Since darshana , is 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 darshana
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. So 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 regards arguments which give an
exposition of reality. First, we can begin with types of reality and this can be
done from two different angels.
Table 1:

Theories of Reality

Secular Spiritual

Physical Non-Physical Theistic Non-theistic

Table 2:

Theories of
Reality

Monistic Dualistic Non-Dualistic Pluralistic

Let us try to understand what Table 1 says. But before doing so, it is better to
answer the question; what is reality? Indeed, this is the most difficult question 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
6
mean that which is independent. This definition itself is hotly debated in General Characteristics of
Indian Philosophy
philosophical circles. If we take this as a working definition of reality, then we
find to our surprise that ancient Indians offered various answers resulting in
‘proliferation of an ocean of theories’, to use the phrase used by Feyerabend.
Contrary to widespread belief 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 such simple division. Surely,
some thinkers accepted only spiritual reality and on the contrary, some other
thinkers accepted only ‘secular’ reality. However, in many cases, these two
divisions crossed and the result is that in those cases we discover that reality has
two faces, secular and spiritual. An upshot of this conclusion is that thinkers in
India neglected neither this world nor the ‘other’ (if it exists). 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 get to know the meaning of these terms. A theory which regards the
independence of physical world is physical. Likewise, a theory which regards
the independence of any other substance than 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 Vaisesika illustrate the former, whereas charvaka 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 sixth organ. The Sankhya is one school which regards mind as an evolute
7
Introduction to Indian of prakriti. Hence, it is as much physical as any other sense organ. The Vaisheshika
Philosophy
is another school which has to be bracketed with the Samkhya 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 sixth
organ. The Yogachara, 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) there are two sub-divisions; atheistic and agnostic. (C) 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 some times 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 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 number, but only
negates dualism (if dualism is inadmissible, then pluralism is also inadmissible).
The Upanisads are monistic and The Vaisesika 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 majority of them did flourish at one time or the other.
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 elicit different answers from different minds at different times
and places. Always, spatio-temporal factor plays 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) Show how the key terms Darshana and Tattva can be integrated into
the etymological meaning of philosophy.
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................

8 ..............................................................................................................
 General Characteristics of
2) How do you explain that ultimate reality is knowing reality? Indian Philosophy

..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................

1.3 KNOWLEDGE IN INDIAN CONTEXT

Desire to know is not an extraordinary quality of man. This is an instinct which
can be discerned in any animal. However, differences lie elsewhere. The extent
of knowledge acquired or capable of being acquired varies from species to species.
This is one difference. Second, man’s motive to acquire knowledge and his
concept of knowledge differ from culture to culture. Previous statement, surely,
does not imply ranking of culture. It only shows that 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, post-renaissance age heralded the contrary principle
‘knowledge is power’. This dictum propagated by Bacon changed for ever 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 reason, neither purely
spiritual nor purely mundane, in order to perform yagas to meet practical ends
and yajnas to achieve spiritual gain. At any rate, ancient Indians never believed
in 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 Charvaka 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 Baconan philosophy of knowledge. Truly, Indians regarded knowledge as
power because for them knowledge (and thereby, philosophy) was a way of life
and this is the reason why for them knowledge was never intrinsic. But, then, it
is absolutely necessary to reverse the connotation of the word ‘power’. While
the Baconan ‘power’ was meant to experience control over nature, the Indian
‘power’ was supposed to be the instrument to subjugate ones 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 development of vedic thought, only to be denounced at later stage).
On the other hand, ancient Indian believed in identifying himself with nature. 9
Introduction to Indian We should carry further our analysis of Baconian ‘power’ vis-à-vis the Indian
Philosophy
‘power’. The repetition of what was said earlier is only to reinforce the critical
importance of consequences. Knowledge was not only ‘power’ but became a
powerful weapon for the westerners to address their economic and political
agenda. At no point of time did westerners look upon knowledge as a means to
achieve anything even remotely connected to spiritual goal. Just as the charvaka
is an exception in Indian context, Socrates and Spinoza can be regarded as
exceptions in western context. Indians, however, did not regard worldly pleasure
as ultimate. For them there was something more important and enduring and
therefore the conquest of nature never mattered. Precisely, this attitude has
generated 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 present 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; goes beyond it. This point becomes
clear in the third chapter.

Evidently, Indian tradition maintains a certain hierarchy of values unlike western

tradition. 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. It points to
the fact that ignorance or avidya is a hindrance to attain spiritual goal 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. It was not necessary that personal life of a
philosopher should match his philosophy, in the sense that a philosopher’s life
need not be a role model for lesser mortals to emulate. 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 inseparable, whereas in
the west it is not so. A philosopher, in the west, can be (not that there are) worse
than a hardened criminal. But in Indian context it is inconceivable.

This sort of emphasis upon values led to a hermeneutic blunder. Without batting
his eye lid the critic, just like protagonist, argued that in Indian philosophy was
never distinct from religion. Hence in India there was no philosophy at all worth
the name according to critics. That there was no religion in India (with the
exclusion of tribal religion) is a different story. 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 ‘committed’ Hindus. It is true that
a few philosophers in India became the heads of religious groups or sects (eg.
Ramanuj 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
10
Jainism is a religion in the strict sense of the term. At this point, a pertinent General Characteristics of
Indian Philosophy
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 Sanatana dharma – or
Hindu dharma as it is popularly known as – but it is the other way round.

Therefore, in sharp contrast to western tradition, Indian philosophy is essentially

spiritual. When it was said earlier that in India also knowledge is regarded as
power, what was meant was that knowledge was regarded as spiritual power;
spiritual which is totally non-religious in its nature.

It is an error to assume that spiritual overtones can be discerned only in knowledge.

The concept of reality and aesthetic values also are endowed with spirituality.
The Upanisadic 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 prama (object) also must be spiritual. ‘Raso vai sah’ (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; Para Vidya (higher knowledge) and Apara vidya (lower knowledge).
Since knowledge is spiritual, only the former is true knowledge, whereas the
latter is not knowledge at all in the strict sense of the term. Though the Upanisads
subscribe to this view, subsequent systems, (with the exception of Purva
Mimamsa) which are supposed to be commentaries on the Upanishads, regarded
perception, for example, as a way of knowledge. Upamana is another pramana.
Not only lower knowledge, but also erroneous knowledge was seriously
considered as species of knowledge (e.g., akhyati) by systems of philosophy.
Therefore even Apara Vidya retained its place.Does Indian philosophy integrate
spiritual life with worldly affairs? If the claim, that upholding of the former is
not tantamount to the rejection of the latter, then it does not. The truth is that the
former does not entail the latter. Therefore these two had to be fused and it was
achieved in a remarkable manner; purusartha scheme clarifies that only through
Dharma, i.e., righteous means, man should acquire artha (wealth) and satisfy
kama (any sensuous desire), the very same means to attain moksha (liberation).
The law of parsimony is very well adhered to as regards the questions of social
philosophy and moral philosophy.
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) Explain briefly that theories of reality can be understood from two
different angles, that is, from spiritual and secular angles.
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
11
Introduction to Indian
Philosophy 2) Do you agree with some Indian schools that regard mind as sixth organ?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................

1.4 PHILOSOPHY AND LIFE

Earlier, it was said that in India philosophy itself was regarded as a value and
also that value and human life are inextricably blended. What is the aim of life?
Against this backdrop, it is easy to discover solution to this quest in Indian
philosophy. 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. (It is a commonplace practice to regard them as vedic and non-vedic
schools though it is not very satisfactory to regard so). The dispute between
these two poles did not prevent them from embracing a common goal. 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. Answer 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 Jnani 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 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 constitutes happiness. Even within heterodox system the idea of
happiness differs. The Charvaka school maintains that happiness consists in
pleasure whereas the Buddhism asserts that happiness consists in nirvana if
happiness is to be construed as elimination of misery.

Earlier, it was mentioned that spirituality is the essence of Indian philosophy.

Against this background, let us analyse what happiness is. Neither this physical
12
world nor earthly pleasure is permanent. Nor are they ultimate. Hopefully, no General Characteristics of
Indian Philosophy
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 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 as moksha, nirvana, etc. In its ordinary sense vairagya means
renouncing happiness. But in real sense what has to be renounced is not happiness,
but pleasure. Vairagya in conjuction with knowledge leads to eternal happiness.
Hence in Indian context vairagya 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. Vairagya
should be construed as elimination of greed and inclusion of contentment in life.
This is the hidden meaning of vairagya. What happened, in course of time, was
that both dimensions were wrongly interpreted leading to the conclusion that
vairagya 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.

At this point, it is necessary to digress; In the twentieth century, westerners

believed that in India there was noting 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
afflicting Indian society. 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.

But the criticisms of those scholars, who admit that in ancient India there was
philosophic movement, merit our considerations. According to one criticism,
Indian thought prompted negative outlook and therefore, is self-destructive only
because it negates the reality of 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 noting 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

13
Introduction to Indian not final. If science can be ‘characterized as satisfying a negative requirement
Philosophy
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’. Precisely
this principle was upheld by Popper.

Second criticism is as follows; it 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. First, the desire to escape from misery was misconstrued as
the desire to escape from 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. Moksha is simply 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 practical standpoint any philosophy which regards moksha 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 moksha is
regarded as a possibility during the lifespan of an individual (this is what is
called jivanmukti), 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 moksha and it led to the cardinal mistake of treating
external world as evil.

One more objection can be raised to moksha. Is moksha a meaningful ideal? In

the first place moksha 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 moksha. Then it
remains an ideal. 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 moksha in this respect. Progress in right direction is
true progress. Therefore, knowing fully well that it is humanly impossible to
achieve a goal like moksha, man pursues moksha. Thereby man progresses from
lower level to higher level. This is a singular advantage of accepting something
like moksha as an ideal.

In the western tradition only Greeks believed in the immortality of soul. It became
totally alien to modern western philosophy, though it found favour with
Christianity. The paradox is that immortality of soul is a common theme to
Christianity and Indian philosophy, whereas it ought to have been a common to
western philosophy and Christianity because 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.

14
 General Characteristics of
Check Your Progress III Indian Philosophy

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit
1) What do you understand by the belief that ‘knowledge is power’ in the
Western and Indian context?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
2) Do you agree with the view that Indian philosophy is essentially
spiritual?
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................

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 Darshana or tattva. Indian outlook
is essentially different from western outlook. In terms of problems there is no
difference between Indian and western philosophical traditions. Indians perceived
knowledge as power in a different perspective. Bacon regarded knowledge as
the means to establish authority over external world. On the other hand, Indians
regarded knowledge as essential to establish control over ones 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 Charvaka, all other
systems of philosophy in India accepted liberation in one or the other sense.
Moksha, is one such ideal. Philosophy is independent of religion. However,
religion may or may not be independent of philosophy.

1.6 KEY WORDS

Yagas and Yajnas : Yagas amd Yajnas are sacared 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 vary dramatically between individuals,
even when judgments of fact are undisputed.
15
Introduction to Indian
Philosophy 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 Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta. Delhi:

Kant Publications, 1996.

Balasubramanian, R. The Metaphysics of the Spirit. New Delhi: Indian Council

of Philosophical Research, 1994.

Bagchi, Kalyan Kumar. “Ontological Argument and Ontology of Freedom”.

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research. Vol. X, No. 1 (September-
December, 1992).

Bharthakur, J.K. “A Journey Towards Essence of Mandukya Upanishad for a

Theory of Time”. Indian Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. XXV, No.1 (January,
1998).

—————————. “A Theory of Time”. Indian Philosophical Quarterly.

Vol. XXII, No.4 (October, 1995). Indian Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. XXIV,
No.2 (April, 1997)

Brown, Jason W. “Microgenesis and Budhism: The Concept of Momentariness”.

Philosophy East and West. Vol. 49, No.3 (July, 1999).

Chadha, Monima. “Perceptual Cognition: A Nyaya-Kantian Approach”.

Philosophy East and West. Vol.51, No.2 (April, 2001).

Hiriyanna, M. Outlines of Indian Philosophy. London: Unwin Publishers, 1973.

Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosophy. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Oxford University

Press, 1977.

Thachil, J. An Initiation to Indian Philosophy. Alwaye: Pontifical Institute of

Philosophy and Theology, 2000.

1.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress I
1) In Indian context philosophy is understood as ‘darsana’ -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 darsana stands for the ultimate reality and it
is a knowing reality thus involving both metaphysical and epistemological
component and satisfactorily explaining the description of darsana in Indian
context.

16
2) The word ‘darsana’ comes from the word tattva – the ultimate reality. This General Characteristics of
Indian Philosophy
ultimate reality is the knowing reality. It not only describes about
metaphysical component but also epistemological component. However,
the summation of both the components is necessary in describing darsana.
Epistemological component is very important, since it involves in 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 identified 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.
Check Your Progress II
1) Theories of realities can be understood in two different angles, that is, from
spiritual and secular angles. First of all, reality is defined as the ultimate
source of everything but that itself does not have any source. Feyerabend
comments that this sort of definition failed to recognize reality as neither
spiritual nor secular. However complex discipline like philosophy does not
allow such divisions. Obviously, we discover that reality has both spiritual
and secular face which are mutually exhaustive and totally exclusive, that
is, physical and non-physical. We arrive at four combinations. They are 1)
physical theistic, 2) physical non-theistic, 3) non-physical theistic, 4) non-
physical non-theistic. The theory which regards the independence of the
physical world is physical while the theory which regards the independence
of any other substance other than the physical world is non-physical.
2) In Indian context, some schools regard mind as sixth organ. Samkhya is one
school which regards mind as evolutes of prakrti. Hence, it is as much
physical as any other sense or another organ. Vaisesika is another school
which has to be bracketed with Samkhya 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 costumed as sixth
organ. Yogacara, a later Buddhistic school, is one system which subscribes
to idealism.

Check Your Progress III

1) In post-renaissance age Bacon propagated the famous dictum ‘knowledge
is power’. This principle changed for ever the very direction of the evolution
of science. But the ancient Indians never believed in this dictum. On the
contray, they performed yagas to meet practical ends and yajnas 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 Baconan ‘power’ was necessary to experience control
over nature, but the Indian ‘power’ was supposed to be the instrument to
subjugate ones 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
17
Introduction to Indian easily discerned when the belief-systems and attitudes of Indians and
Philosophy
Europeans are compared and contrasted.
2) Unlike western tradition, Indian tradition maintains a hierarchy of values.
In Indian context, spiritual goal in life can be achieved by the one who has
acquired knowledge. However this type of characteristics is absent in western
tradition. Many times Indian Philosophy was mistaken to be religion. This
confusion made many to identify religion with spirituality. Philosophy in
India did not originate from sanatana dharma – or Hindu dharma. Therefore,
in sharp contrast to western tradition, Indian philosophy is essentially
spiritual. When it was said earlier that in India also knowledge is regarded
as power, what was meant was that knowledge is spiritual power, spiritual
which is totally non-religious in its nature. Indian philosophy recognizes
knowledge at two levels; Para Vidya (higher knowledge) and apara vidya
(lower knowledge). Since knowledge is spiritual, only the former is true
knowledge; whereas the latter is not knowledge at all in the strict sense of
the term.

18