General Characteristics of Indian Philosophy

General Characteristics of Indian   Philosophy:

Objective: Indian philosophy was misconstrued by Western philosophers and some of its Eastern critics also, as pessimistic, negative and substitute of Hindu religion. That’s why the main objective of writing this chapter is to remove the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy and to show it in new light by giving the right interpretation of its doctrines.

To refute the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy it is necessary to explain its metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. First of all, it is necessary to define and explain the very word ‘darshan’ itself, which is the Indian version of philosophy. It will dispel the darkness of ignorance , of its critics .

Introduction: The etymological meaning of philosophy  may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darsanam’. It is one through which reality is seen .It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization .The very word realization  is subjective which needs some objective reality ,to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. It is the Sanskrit version of the very word substance .In it, ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you  are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This Ultimate Reality is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic  of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges  with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification made knowledge inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of  knowledge.

This inwardness of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to it. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself. This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west .

Philosophers Look At Reality:

 Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself.  There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of, two types:

1.    Secular

2.    Spiritual

Secular theories are, of two  types :

1.    Physical

2.    Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

1.    Theistic

2.    Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual.

 Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both world. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

But, the surprising factor is this that the divisions of these two groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any theory may not be both physical and non physical. Further, any theory may not be both theistic and non theistic. Though, any division of secular may accept any division of spiritual and any division of spiritual may accept any division of secular. So, there may be four different combinations of both theories.

Any physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas,  Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers, mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind.  That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non - theistic theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories . It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

1-                Monistic

2-                Dualistic

3-                Non-dualistic

4-                Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of division. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.

Both, Indian and Western philosophy is on the same level qualitatively because of the sameness of the issue. But they differ, in response to these questions because location and time decides their answers.

Knowledge in Indian Context:

Inquisitiveness is inherent in all the species of the world though they differ on the level of the extent of knowledge acquired by them.

Further, man’s motive to acquire knowledge is relative to the culture of that period. Culture, also determines the idea of knowledge. Philosophy is essentially related to these two factors i. e. motive and idea.

A comperative study of both Indian and Western concepts will bring out the best of both .For Greek philosophers knowledge was simply for its own sake. Resultantly, it introduced pure science. But it turned into power for modern philosophy. Evolution of science, turned into a different direction due to this Baconian dictum of ‘knowledge is power.’ In comparison to Western approach, in Indian philosophy medicine and surgery served practical purposes whereas mathematics and astronomy was used for both practical and spiritual purposes through yagas and yajnas, respectively. Knowledge wasn’t power for ancient Indians. Further, knowledge didn’t have any intrinsic value for them. It was merely means to achieve the end. Of course, Charvaka is exception to this standpoint .

Though, the restricted sense of knowledge is in a sense similar to Baconan philosophy of knowledge which is power. For Indians, knowledge was power because of its being a way of life . That’s why it had its extrinsic value for them.

But, the reversal of the significance of the word power is necessary to interpret knowledge in its true sense. For Bacon, power was a means to gain control over nature whereas for Indians it was instrumental in subjugation of one’s own self to nature .This is the basis of Vedic philosophy. This interpretation of the word power shows the viewpoint of both Indian and Western philosophers, to the world. Their belief systems and attitudes show the sense in which they used the very word. For modern western philosophers, this universe was simply means to achieve their ends. Though, we find a certain era of vedic philosophy, being influenced by this view but it was rejected later on. It was the identification of human being with nature, which was accepted by them.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences.   Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in transcendental reality. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world. 

Hierarchy of values is the special feature of Indian philosophy which changes one’s view of life. Knowledge includes all kinds of values in the form of a way of life. A person with this value loaded knowledge can achieve the spiritual goal because it has been mentioned in Indian philosophy that ignorance is the cause of suffering. Knowledge changes the behavior of the agent. His behavior is different from the ignorant man. This view of Indian philosophy represents Socrates. Ironically, this view is missing in western philosophy.  In Greek philosophy, Socrates and his followers also behaved according to the moral rules but other Western thinkers are devoid of this virtue. They are not practicing philosophers but only rational thinkers. Philosophy is not the way of life in West. Bacon and Heidegger are merely thinkers. They can theorize philosophy, but cannot practice it. In India, value is an integral part of philosophy . It is not necessary in the west to be a moral person for a philosopher. Just opposite to it in India it is beyond imagination.

Thus, value and virtue being a part of religion, Indian philosophy was rendered as merely Hindu religion. Though, reality is this, that in India there is Hindu dharma which is cosmic, not religion. Religion is something different from the spirituality, which constitutes Indian philosophy. The same may be the case with Western philosophy because of those philosophers being either Christians or Jews. Philosophy in India is not Hindu centric but cosmic. The very word Veda means simply knowledge. It is neither Hindu knowledge nor Christian. Religion in India is the common man’s version of philosophy. In the West also there are philosophers who were religious leaders. For example, St Augustine, St. Aquinas were also religious leaders like Buddha and Mahavir. But western philosophy is never termed as Christian philosophy. In the strict sense of the term, neither Buddhist philosophy nor Jain philosophy may be called as religion. This condition gives scope for the assertion that if there may be Buddhist philosophy or Jain philosophy then why not Hindu philosophy? But to assert something like this will amount to reverse the whole process of development of Indian philosophy. It was Indian Philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma not the other way round.

Buddha and Jain religions are the practical aspects of Buddhist and Jain philosophy which proves its pragmatism. Hindu dharma originated from Indian philosophy. Spirituality is the hallmark of Indian philosophy and knowledge in Indian philosophy is spiritual power, instead of physical one.

 Apart from knowledge, spirituality can be discerned in the concept of reality and aesthetic values, also. Concept of reality, in Upanishads or Advaita are spiritual one because of its being neither worldly nor religious. Spiritual knowledge can be obtained only about spiritual object. Rasa is said as synonymous with Brahman realization which shows its aesthetic value. That’s why it is said that ‘raso vai sah’ (that indeed is rasa). Here that indicates ‘para Brahman’. Rasa, here signifies beauty. Metaphysical  elements of Indian Philosophy has been used to propound the concept of god, by religions.

There are two levels of knowledge in Indian philosophy: para vidya (higher knowledge) and apara vidya (lower level). First one is the authentic knowledge whereas second one doesn’t prove itself at the criterion of spiritual knowledge, according to the Upanishadic philosophy. Second one is called apara vidya which is related to the phenomenal world. Though, perception was included in the category of knowledge by all the schools except Mimamsa. Upamana, is also accepted as pramana. Even, theories  of error is also included in the category of knowledge. So, Indian philosophy doesn’t exclude apara vidya, as well.

The question of integration of spiritual life with worldly life is well responded by the tradition of purusarthas which prescribes the rules of artha and kama. In Indian philosophy worldly affairs aren’t included in spiritual values. These has been mentioned separately. According to it, artha must be earned and kama must be satisfied only in righteous way. Also, liberation is to be achieved according to the laws of dharma.

Philosophy and Life:

The aim of life in Indian philosophy is to get rid of miseries of life. It is meant to achieve happiness and get rid of sorrows of life. To achieve  eternal peace and happiness  is the goal of life.

Aim of life ascertains the value of Indian philosophy because it gives solution of the problem of human being. Contrary to it, Western philosophy doesn’t help in finding out the solution of the aim of human being. Trial made by existentialist thinkers didn’t bear much fruit and was proved redundant by analytical thinkers.

To get rid of sorrows of life and become happy is the ultimate aim of human being, according to Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy has been divided into two groups i.e. orthodox and heterodox on the basis of their acceptance and rejection of Vedic philosophy. But, both groups have the same goal of life i.e. happiness. Now, the question of their consent on this point is crucial. Further, how this aim of happiness is philosophical one, is another question?

Knowledge has economic value because of its being instrumental in the improvement of the life style. Knowledge is valuable since it changes the view of human being and makes them moral. Thus, this morality changes their world view also. This change of view which is ethical is philosophical as well.

Regarding second question i.e. the aim of life being happiness, all the schools of Indian philosophy are unanimous. It may be so that they differ on the nature of this happiness. Orthodox systems differ from heterodox systems. Even different doctrines of heterodox systems have different viewpoints. On this point, the view of Charvaka is totally different from all the other schools of Indian philosophy because it holds the view that worldly enjoyment must be the aim of life whereas nirvana is goal of Buddhist thinkers which implies the elimination of sorrows of life.

But since spirituality is the essence of life, therefore, worldly enjoyments may not be the sole aim of life. Because, it is not everlasting one. There are people who don’t bother about eternal happiness. People are quite aware of the phenomenal existence of the world. Both Indian and Greek philosophers aimed for eternity. But for Indian philosophers eternity implied elimination of misery, forever. This is the special characteristic of Indian philosophy that it targets the eternal peace and happiness.  This eternal happiness is called niravana or liberation or moksha in Indian philosophy. To achieve this goal, one has to renounce worldly enjoyments, which was ordinarily mentioned by the term vairagya. But , one  is not supposed to renounce happiness.            Knowledge and sense of detachment leads to liberation from miseries of life. This condition of renunciation was the reason behind the strong criticism of it as escapist and pessimistic. But in its true sense, it means only renunciation of greed and remaining satisfied with whatever is available .

Modern western philosophers found Indian philosophy as merely mythical and casuistical. It was mentioned as totally marred by Hindu religion. Apart from it, Marxists found it influenced by the customs and traditions of the society. Here, it is necessary to analyze the sense in which the word religion has been used. To mention religion in the sense of tribal religion is totally unjustified assessment of Indian philosophy. In fact, it wasn’t philosophy which was influenced by religious sects but the other way round.

Further, criticisms of those scholars who found it as philosophical system must be given due consideration. Rendering phenomenal world as impermanent, therefore, negligible, was the reason to term Indian philosophy as self-destructive and negative. But, this criticism may be refuted easily because Indian philosophy denies only the ‘ultimate’ existence of the physical world. It doesn’t serve our spiritual purpose but is necessary for our practical purposes. At the same time, this view of Indian philosophy about world having only relative existence is not unscientific. Also, if to render phenomenal world as relative is negative and self-destructive then the philosophy of Plato must be rejected on this ground. Further, something is termed as relative in reference to something which is Absolute. Both, relative and absolute are complementary to each other, not the contradictory one. Indian philosophy doesn’t negate this world in absolute sense. Further, refutation, followed by assertion is accepted in the field of science , also .

It is said that pessimism is the hallmark of Indian philosophy because it negates this world and life completely. The reason behind this, is misunderstanding. It is misinterpretation of the idea of renunciation. One is not supposed to escape from the world but from the misery of the world only. Further, it doesn’t negate happiness but only pleasure which is temporal. Happiness, translates in Sanskrit as moksha. Also pain always accompanies pleasure. According to Bentham also, happiness contains duration, intensity and purity. So, a philosopher who aims mokhsha as ultimate aim of life may not be said to be pessimistic. Even ideal state of moksha is conducive for happiness and well being.

Of course, renunciation of this world is an escapist approach . May it be so that rebirth is merely a figment of imagination of Indian philosophers. But, if it is possible to attain permanent happiness, even in this life then, how it may be said that this world is evil. This is an escapist approach to run away from this world. Besides critics, proponents of Indian philosophy also misunderstood the concept of moksha who resultantly rejected the external world as evil.

Feasibility of liberation is the  another question, raised by critics. It must be humanly possible. Devoid of both these conditions it will be rendered meaningless. But, even assumption of its feasibility will lead towards progress. Men will progress from lower to higher level. It will give benefit to the human society. Plato’s Utopia served the same purpose. Even being aware of its impossibility, people strive for it, because it will lead them in the right direction. In this sense, moksha benefits the human society.

Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of soul but modern Western philosophers rejected it. Though, immortality of soul was accepted by Christianity. Ironically enough, both Indian philosophy and Christianity have accepted the immorality of the soul. Though it is missing in western philosophy, which is the heartland of Christianity. It means Western philosophy was not influenced by its religion, though philosophy, of course, has its impact on religion.

Questions of the unit one:

Q.1- Show how the key terms ‘darshan’ and ‘tattva’ can be integrated into the etymological meaning of philosophy.

A. The etymological meaning of philosophy may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darshanam’. It is one through which reality is seen. It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization. The very word realization is subjective which needs some objective reality, to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. In it ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification leads to the knowledge, inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of knowledge.

This inwardess of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to knowledge. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself .This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west.

Thus, it may be asserted that integration of the two terms darshan and  tattva gives the etymological meaning of the term philosophy . 

Q. 2-How do you explain that ultimate reality is knowing reality ?

A.  Darshan in India is knowing reality. ‘Tattva’ is the ultimate reality which is known through ‘darshan’. This ultimate reality has epistemological basis as knowing reality. Apart from the epistemological basis it has metaphysical ground as well, in the form of the known object which is ultimate reality. The combination of these two factors, constitute darshan.

In the term tattva, the very word tva stands for the knower. In the process of knowledge this knower is identified with the known i. e. the ultimate reality. Due to this identification knowledge became inward in Indian philosophy and resultantly it outgrew the etymological meaning in its initial stage .The important corollary which was reached at , due to the identification of knower and known, has its philosophical significance. The epistemological subject of this knowledge involves with itself, value, which gives birth to axiology. Man’s identification with reality is, value oriented.

The meaning of the word ‘darshan’ is to ‘see’ or ‘realize’ something. This realization is the realization of reality. In the earlier stage, this distinction of reality and the knower was not distinct. Due to this inwardness of knowledge, human being could relate oneself to value. Identification of knower with known is the reason that philosophy in India is related to value and is value ,itself.     

Q.3- Explain briefly that the theories of reality can be understood from two different angels, that is, from spiritual and secular angels.

A. Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself.  There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of   two types:

1.    Secular

2.    Spiritual

Secular theories are  of two  types :

1.    Physical

2.    Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

1.    Theistic

2.    Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one, which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual. Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both worlds. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

But, the surprising factor is this that the divisions of these two groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any theory may not be both physical and non physical. Further, any theory may not be both theistic and non theistic. Though, any division of secular may accept any division of spiritual and any division of spiritual may accept any division of secular. So, there may be four different combinations of both theories.

Any physical theory may be either   theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance other than physical world. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas,  Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers , mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind.  That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both  physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non – physical  theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories. It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

1-                Monistic

2-                Dualistic

3-                Non-dualistic

4-                Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of divisions. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories of reality or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.                          

Q.4- Do you agree with some Indian schools that regard mind as sixth- sense?

A. Mind is considered as non – physical element in western philosophy But, in Indian philosophy mind can’t be used as non – physical element because some schools of Indian philosophy have accepted it as sixth organ. It has been accepted as an evolute of prakriti, by Samkhya philosophy. Therefore, it is physical element like other sense organs. Vaisheshika agrees with Samkhya on this point.

This realist view of Samkhya and Vaisheshika is totally different from the idealist view of Yogachara Vijnanavada school of Buddhism. Realist philosophers accept the independent existence of external world, whereas, idealist thinkers, consider external world as a derivative of mind. That’s why idealist thinkers don’t accept mind as something material.

Q.5- What do you understand by the belief that ‘knowledge is power’ in the Western and Indian context?

A. Bacon considered ‘knowledge as power’. The impact of this motto changed the direction of the evolution of science. But, in India, knowledge was a means to achieve practical and the spiritual aims. The performance of yagas and yajnas were prescribed for practical and spiritual purposes, respectively.

But, a different interpretation of knowledge rendered it as power, which was the medium of the way of life. That’s why, knowledge was extrinsic in Indian philosophy.

But the word ‘power’ was used in two different senses by both lndian and Western philosophers. For Bacon, power was a means to have control over nature, whereas in India, it was meant to subdue oneself to nature. This subjugation of oneself to nature is the central theme of Vedic philosophy.

This contrast between the East and West shows their attitude towards life and their belief systems. Modern Europe considered nature as a means to achieve their end. Though a certain phase of Vedic philosophy developed this type of thought but it was rejected later on. Contrary to it, ancient Indians considered nature as an integral part of themselves. They identified themselves with nature.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences.   Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in eternal happiness. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world. 

Q.6. Do you agree with the view that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual?

A. Hierarchy of values is the cornerstone on which the whole edifice of lndian philosophy is based. Knowledge is the means to achieve the spiritual goals. Contrary to it, in the West, it is not necessary to have knowledge. Indian philosophy is interpreted as synonymous with Hindu religion. This misinterpretation gave birth to another confusion which resulted in the identification of religion with spirituality.

It was lndian philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma, not the other way round. So, spirituality is the hallmark of lndian philosophy. That’s why knowledge is spiritual power in lndian philosophy .The nature of this spiritual power is not religious one.

There are two grades of knowledge in Indian philosophy .One is called as para vidhya (higher knowledge) and another is called apara vidhya (lower knowledge).Higher knowledge is the only category of knowledge  which comes within the realm of spiritual knowledge .

 Further, pleasure was never the aim of life, in Indian philosophy. Its aim was eternal happiness and elimination of miseries forever. It gave priority to spiritual goal over material one. Also, knowledge was never means for them to achieve economical or political agenda but it was instrumental in spiritual gain. Knowledge for them was only spiritual power. Indian philosophy always gives preference to absolute reality than to the relative one.

In India, knowledge is a way of life, which includes all sorts of values and it is necessary for any philosopher to acquire knowledge to achieve the spiritual goals. Even to achieve material goals like artha and kama, one needs to follow the tenets of dharma.

All the schools of Indian philosophy agree on the point of, happiness being the aim of life, barring Charvaka. To achieve this aim one is supposed to renounce the greed and remain contented with whatever is available through righteous means. This type of approach is called vairagya in Indian philosophy.

The ultimate aim of human being is to attain moksha which is the Sanskrit version of happiness. The concept of the immorality of the soul and rebirth is another important factor to prove this statement that philosophy in India is essentially spiritual.

Thus, on account of all these characteristics of Indian philosophy we may assert that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual.

 General Characteristics of Indian   Philosophy:

Objective: Indian philosophy was misconstrued by Western philosophers and some of its Eastern critics also, as pessimistic, negative and substitute of Hindu religion. That’s why the main objective of writing this chapter is to remove the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy and to show it in new light by giving the right interpretation of its doctrines.

To refute the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy it is necessary to explain its metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. First of all, it is necessary to define and explain the very word ‘darshan’ itself, which is the Indian version of philosophy. It will dispel the darkness of ignorance , of its critics .

Introduction: The etymological meaning of philosophy  may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darsanam’. It is one through which reality is seen .It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization .The very word realization  is subjective which needs some objective reality ,to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. It is the Sanskrit version of the very word substance .In it, ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you  are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This Ultimate Reality is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic  of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges  with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification made knowledge inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of  knowledge.

This inwardness of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to it. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself. This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west .

Philosophers Look At Reality:

 Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself.  There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of, two types:

1.    Secular

2.    Spiritual

Secular theories are, of two  types :

1.    Physical

2.    Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

1.    Theistic

2.    Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual.

 Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both world. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

But, the surprising factor is this that the divisions of these two groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any theory may not be both physical and non physical. Further, any theory may not be both theistic and non theistic. Though, any division of secular may accept any division of spiritual and any division of spiritual may accept any division of secular. So, there may be four different combinations of both theories.

Any physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas,  Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers, mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind.  That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non - theistic theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories . It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

1-                Monistic

2-                Dualistic

3-                Non-dualistic

4-                Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of division. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.

Both, Indian and Western philosophy is on the same level qualitatively because of the sameness of the issue. But they differ, in response to these questions because location and time decides their answers.

Knowledge in Indian Context:

Inquisitiveness is inherent in all the species of the world though they differ on the level of the extent of knowledge acquired by them.

Further, man’s motive to acquire knowledge is relative to the culture of that period. Culture, also determines the idea of knowledge. Philosophy is essentially related to these two factors i. e. motive and idea.

A comperative study of both Indian and Western concepts will bring out the best of both .For Greek philosophers knowledge was simply for its own sake. Resultantly, it introduced pure science. But it turned into power for modern philosophy. Evolution of science, turned into a different direction due to this Baconian dictum of ‘knowledge is power.’ In comparison to Western approach, in Indian philosophy medicine and surgery served practical purposes whereas mathematics and astronomy was used for both practical and spiritual purposes through yagas and yajnas, respectively. Knowledge wasn’t power for ancient Indians. Further, knowledge didn’t have any intrinsic value for them. It was merely means to achieve the end. Of course, Charvaka is exception to this standpoint .

Though, the restricted sense of knowledge is in a sense similar to Baconan philosophy of knowledge which is power. For Indians, knowledge was power because of its being a way of life . That’s why it had its extrinsic value for them.

But, the reversal of the significance of the word power is necessary to interpret knowledge in its true sense. For Bacon, power was a means to gain control over nature whereas for Indians it was instrumental in subjugation of one’s own self to nature .This is the basis of Vedic philosophy. This interpretation of the word power shows the viewpoint of both Indian and Western philosophers, to the world. Their belief systems and attitudes show the sense in which they used the very word. For modern western philosophers, this universe was simply means to achieve their ends. Though, we find a certain era of vedic philosophy, being influenced by this view but it was rejected later on. It was the identification of human being with nature, which was accepted by them.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences.   Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in transcendental reality. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world. 

Hierarchy of values is the special feature of Indian philosophy which changes one’s view of life. Knowledge includes all kinds of values in the form of a way of life. A person with this value loaded knowledge can achieve the spiritual goal because it has been mentioned in Indian philosophy that ignorance is the cause of suffering. Knowledge changes the behavior of the agent. His behavior is different from the ignorant man. This view of Indian philosophy represents Socrates. Ironically, this view is missing in western philosophy.  In Greek philosophy, Socrates and his followers also behaved according to the moral rules but other Western thinkers are devoid of this virtue. They are not practicing philosophers but only rational thinkers. Philosophy is not the way of life in West. Bacon and Heidegger are merely thinkers. They can theorize philosophy, but cannot practice it. In India, value is an integral part of philosophy . It is not necessary in the west to be a moral person for a philosopher. Just opposite to it in India it is beyond imagination.

Thus, value and virtue being a part of religion, Indian philosophy was rendered as merely Hindu religion. Though, reality is this, that in India there is Hindu dharma which is cosmic, not religion. Religion is something different from the spirituality, which constitutes Indian philosophy. The same may be the case with Western philosophy because of those philosophers being either Christians or Jews. Philosophy in India is not Hindu centric but cosmic. The very word Veda means simply knowledge. It is neither Hindu knowledge nor Christian. Religion in India is the common man’s version of philosophy. In the West also there are philosophers who were religious leaders. For example, St Augustine, St. Aquinas were also religious leaders like Buddha and Mahavir. But western philosophy is never termed as Christian philosophy. In the strict sense of the term, neither Buddhist philosophy nor Jain philosophy may be called as religion. This condition gives scope for the assertion that if there may be Buddhist philosophy or Jain philosophy then why not Hindu philosophy? But to assert something like this will amount to reverse the whole process of development of Indian philosophy. It was Indian Philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma not the other way round.

Buddha and Jain religions are the practical aspects of Buddhist and Jain philosophy which proves its pragmatism. Hindu dharma originated from Indian philosophy. Spirituality is the hallmark of Indian philosophy and knowledge in Indian philosophy is spiritual power, instead of physical one.

 Apart from knowledge, spirituality can be discerned in the concept of reality and aesthetic values, also. Concept of reality, in Upanishads or Advaita are spiritual one because of its being neither worldly nor religious. Spiritual knowledge can be obtained only about spiritual object. Rasa is said as synonymous with Brahman realization which shows its aesthetic value. That’s why it is said that ‘raso vai sah’ (that indeed is rasa). Here that indicates ‘para Brahman’. Rasa, here signifies beauty. Metaphysical  elements of Indian Philosophy has been used to propound the concept of god, by religions.

There are two levels of knowledge in Indian philosophy: para vidya (higher knowledge) and apara vidya (lower level). First one is the authentic knowledge whereas second one doesn’t prove itself at the criterion of spiritual knowledge, according to the Upanishadic philosophy. Second one is called apara vidya which is related to the phenomenal world. Though, perception was included in the category of knowledge by all the schools except Mimamsa. Upamana, is also accepted as pramana. Even, theories  of error is also included in the category of knowledge. So, Indian philosophy doesn’t exclude apara vidya, as well.

The question of integration of spiritual life with worldly life is well responded by the tradition of purusarthas which prescribes the rules of artha and kama. In Indian philosophy worldly affairs aren’t included in spiritual values. These has been mentioned separately. According to it, artha must be earned and kama must be satisfied only in righteous way. Also, liberation is to be achieved according to the laws of dharma.

Philosophy and Life:

The aim of life in Indian philosophy is to get rid of miseries of life. It is meant to achieve happiness and get rid of sorrows of life. To achieve  eternal peace and happiness  is the goal of life.

Aim of life ascertains the value of Indian philosophy because it gives solution of the problem of human being. Contrary to it, Western philosophy doesn’t help in finding out the solution of the aim of human being. Trial made by existentialist thinkers didn’t bear much fruit and was proved redundant by analytical thinkers.

To get rid of sorrows of life and become happy is the ultimate aim of human being, according to Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy has been divided into two groups i.e. orthodox and heterodox on the basis of their acceptance and rejection of Vedic philosophy. But, both groups have the same goal of life i.e. happiness. Now, the question of their consent on this point is crucial. Further, how this aim of happiness is philosophical one, is another question?

Knowledge has economic value because of its being instrumental in the improvement of the life style. Knowledge is valuable since it changes the view of human being and makes them moral. Thus, this morality changes their world view also. This change of view which is ethical is philosophical as well.

Regarding second question i.e. the aim of life being happiness, all the schools of Indian philosophy are unanimous. It may be so that they differ on the nature of this happiness. Orthodox systems differ from heterodox systems. Even different doctrines of heterodox systems have different viewpoints. On this point, the view of Charvaka is totally different from all the other schools of Indian philosophy because it holds the view that worldly enjoyment must be the aim of life whereas nirvana is goal of Buddhist thinkers which implies the elimination of sorrows of life.

But since spirituality is the essence of life, therefore, worldly enjoyments may not be the sole aim of life. Because, it is not everlasting one. There are people who don’t bother about eternal happiness. People are quite aware of the phenomenal existence of the world. Both Indian and Greek philosophers aimed for eternity. But for Indian philosophers eternity implied elimination of misery, forever. This is the special characteristic of Indian philosophy that it targets the eternal peace and happiness.  This eternal happiness is called niravana or liberation or moksha in Indian philosophy. To achieve this goal, one has to renounce worldly enjoyments, which was ordinarily mentioned by the term vairagya. But , one  is not supposed to renounce happiness.            Knowledge and sense of detachment leads to liberation from miseries of life. This condition of renunciation was the reason behind the strong criticism of it as escapist and pessimistic. But in its true sense, it means only renunciation of greed and remaining satisfied with whatever is available .

Modern western philosophers found Indian philosophy as merely mythical and casuistical. It was mentioned as totally marred by Hindu religion. Apart from it, Marxists found it influenced by the customs and traditions of the society. Here, it is necessary to analyze the sense in which the word religion has been used. To mention religion in the sense of tribal religion is totally unjustified assessment of Indian philosophy. In fact, it wasn’t philosophy which was influenced by religious sects but the other way round.

Further, criticisms of those scholars who found it as philosophical system must be given due consideration. Rendering phenomenal world as impermanent, therefore, negligible, was the reason to term Indian philosophy as self-destructive and negative. But, this criticism may be refuted easily because Indian philosophy denies only the ‘ultimate’ existence of the physical world. It doesn’t serve our spiritual purpose but is necessary for our practical purposes. At the same time, this view of Indian philosophy about world having only relative existence is not unscientific. Also, if to render phenomenal world as relative is negative and self-destructive then the philosophy of Plato must be rejected on this ground. Further, something is termed as relative in reference to something which is Absolute. Both, relative and absolute are complementary to each other, not the contradictory one. Indian philosophy doesn’t negate this world in absolute sense. Further, refutation, followed by assertion is accepted in the field of science , also .

It is said that pessimism is the hallmark of Indian philosophy because it negates this world and life completely. The reason behind this, is misunderstanding. It is misinterpretation of the idea of renunciation. One is not supposed to escape from the world but from the misery of the world only. Further, it doesn’t negate happiness but only pleasure which is temporal. Happiness, translates in Sanskrit as moksha. Also pain always accompanies pleasure. According to Bentham also, happiness contains duration, intensity and purity. So, a philosopher who aims mokhsha as ultimate aim of life may not be said to be pessimistic. Even ideal state of moksha is conducive for happiness and well being.

Of course, renunciation of this world is an escapist approach . May it be so that rebirth is merely a figment of imagination of Indian philosophers. But, if it is possible to attain permanent happiness, even in this life then, how it may be said that this world is evil. This is an escapist approach to run away from this world. Besides critics, proponents of Indian philosophy also misunderstood the concept of moksha who resultantly rejected the external world as evil.

Feasibility of liberation is the  another question, raised by critics. It must be humanly possible. Devoid of both these conditions it will be rendered meaningless. But, even assumption of its feasibility will lead towards progress. Men will progress from lower to higher level. It will give benefit to the human society. Plato’s Utopia served the same purpose. Even being aware of its impossibility, people strive for it, because it will lead them in the right direction. In this sense, moksha benefits the human society.

Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of soul but modern Western philosophers rejected it. Though, immortality of soul was accepted by Christianity. Ironically enough, both Indian philosophy and Christianity have accepted the immorality of the soul. Though it is missing in western philosophy, which is the heartland of Christianity. It means Western philosophy was not influenced by its religion, though philosophy, of course, has its impact on religion.

Questions of the unit one:

Q.1- Show how the key terms ‘darshan’ and ‘tattva’ can be integrated into the etymological meaning of philosophy.

A. The etymological meaning of philosophy may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darshanam’. It is one through which reality is seen. It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization. The very word realization is subjective which needs some objective reality, to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. In it ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification leads to the knowledge, inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of knowledge.

This inwardess of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to knowledge. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself .This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west.

Thus, it may be asserted that integration of the two terms darshan and  tattva gives the etymological meaning of the term philosophy . 

Q. 2-How do you explain that ultimate reality is knowing reality ?

A.  Darshan in India is knowing reality. ‘Tattva’ is the ultimate reality which is known through ‘darshan’. This ultimate reality has epistemological basis as knowing reality. Apart from the epistemological basis it has metaphysical ground as well, in the form of the known object which is ultimate reality. The combination of these two factors, constitute darshan.

In the term tattva, the very word tva stands for the knower. In the process of knowledge this knower is identified with the known i. e. the ultimate reality. Due to this identification knowledge became inward in Indian philosophy and resultantly it outgrew the etymological meaning in its initial stage .The important corollary which was reached at , due to the identification of knower and known, has its philosophical significance. The epistemological subject of this knowledge involves with itself, value, which gives birth to axiology. Man’s identification with reality is, value oriented.

The meaning of the word ‘darshan’ is to ‘see’ or ‘realize’ something. This realization is the realization of reality. In the earlier stage, this distinction of reality and the knower was not distinct. Due to this inwardness of knowledge, human being could relate oneself to value. Identification of knower with known is the reason that philosophy in India is related to value and is value ,itself.     

Q.3- Explain briefly that the theories of reality can be understood from two different angels, that is, from spiritual and secular angels.

A. Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself.  There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of   two types:

1.    Secular

2.    Spiritual

Secular theories are  of two  types :

1.    Physical

2.    Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

1.    Theistic

2.    Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one, which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual. Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both worlds. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

But, the surprising factor is this that the divisions of these two groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any theory may not be both physical and non physical. Further, any theory may not be both theistic and non theistic. Though, any division of secular may accept any division of spiritual and any division of spiritual may accept any division of secular. So, there may be four different combinations of both theories.

Any physical theory may be either   theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance other than physical world. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas,  Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers , mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind.  That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both  physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non – physical  theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories. It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

1-                Monistic

2-                Dualistic

3-                Non-dualistic

4-                Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of divisions. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories of reality or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.                          

Q.4- Do you agree with some Indian schools that regard mind as sixth- sense?

A. Mind is considered as non – physical element in western philosophy But, in Indian philosophy mind can’t be used as non – physical element because some schools of Indian philosophy have accepted it as sixth organ. It has been accepted as an evolute of prakriti, by Samkhya philosophy. Therefore, it is physical element like other sense organs. Vaisheshika agrees with Samkhya on this point.

This realist view of Samkhya and Vaisheshika is totally different from the idealist view of Yogachara Vijnanavada school of Buddhism. Realist philosophers accept the independent existence of external world, whereas, idealist thinkers, consider external world as a derivative of mind. That’s why idealist thinkers don’t accept mind as something material.

Q.5- What do you understand by the belief that ‘knowledge is power’ in the Western and Indian context?

A. Bacon considered ‘knowledge as power’. The impact of this motto changed the direction of the evolution of science. But, in India, knowledge was a means to achieve practical and the spiritual aims. The performance of yagas and yajnas were prescribed for practical and spiritual purposes, respectively.

But, a different interpretation of knowledge rendered it as power, which was the medium of the way of life. That’s why, knowledge was extrinsic in Indian philosophy.

But the word ‘power’ was used in two different senses by both lndian and Western philosophers. For Bacon, power was a means to have control over nature, whereas in India, it was meant to subdue oneself to nature. This subjugation of oneself to nature is the central theme of Vedic philosophy.

This contrast between the East and West shows their attitude towards life and their belief systems. Modern Europe considered nature as a means to achieve their end. Though a certain phase of Vedic philosophy developed this type of thought but it was rejected later on. Contrary to it, ancient Indians considered nature as an integral part of themselves. They identified themselves with nature.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences.   Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in eternal happiness. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world. 

Q.6. Do you agree with the view that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual?

A. Hierarchy of values is the cornerstone on which the whole edifice of lndian philosophy is based. Knowledge is the means to achieve the spiritual goals. Contrary to it, in the West, it is not necessary to have knowledge. Indian philosophy is interpreted as synonymous with Hindu religion. This misinterpretation gave birth to another confusion which resulted in the identification of religion with spirituality.

It was lndian philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma, not the other way round. So, spirituality is the hallmark of lndian philosophy. That’s why knowledge is spiritual power in lndian philosophy .The nature of this spiritual power is not religious one.

There are two grades of knowledge in Indian philosophy .One is called as para vidhya (higher knowledge) and another is called apara vidhya (lower knowledge).Higher knowledge is the only category of knowledge  which comes within the realm of spiritual knowledge .

 Further, pleasure was never the aim of life, in Indian philosophy. Its aim was eternal happiness and elimination of miseries forever. It gave priority to spiritual goal over material one. Also, knowledge was never means for them to achieve economical or political agenda but it was instrumental in spiritual gain. Knowledge for them was only spiritual power. Indian philosophy always gives preference to absolute reality than to the relative one.

In India, knowledge is a way of life, which includes all sorts of values and it is necessary for any philosopher to acquire knowledge to achieve the spiritual goals. Even to achieve material goals like artha and kama, one needs to follow the tenets of dharma.

All the schools of Indian philosophy agree on the point of, happiness being the aim of life, barring Charvaka. To achieve this aim one is supposed to renounce the greed and remain contented with whatever is available through righteous means. This type of approach is called vairagya in Indian philosophy.

The ultimate aim of human being is to attain moksha which is the Sanskrit version of happiness. The concept of the immorality of the soul and rebirth is another important factor to prove this statement that philosophy in India is essentially spiritual.

Thus, on account of all these characteristics of Indian philosophy we may assert that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual.