Indian Philosophy assignment Sem-1 (Diff. between orthodox and heterodox schools) PDF

Preview

Summary

Question: Discuss the difference between the orthodox and heterodox schools of thought in the Classical Indian Philosophy. Explain their common characteristics....

Description

Question: Discuss the difference between the orthodox and heterodox schools of thought in the Classical Indian Philosophy. Explain their common characteristics. Answer: 1. Introduction It is an accepted fact, that life, be it in the form of a human being, or in the form of lower beings (like animals, plants, etc.), is essentially a struggle for existence. But whereas man has the ability to reason (through his gift of intellect), and devise plans to ensure success, the same can’t be said for the lower beings, who seem to rely only on instinct, more or less blindly. Thus, it is this distinctly rational nature, which leads man (exclusively), on the pursuit of knowledge. Philosophy, in a nutshell, aims to quench this thirst. Etymologically, it comprises of two words‘Philos’ (loving) and ‘sophia’ (wisdom), when combined, meaning ‘love of wisdom’. It involves trying to know about things that are of immediate as well as of remote concern to man, and therefore, should be considered a necessity, rather than a mere luxury. As a whole, it deals with a wide array of questions (like, what is the nature of reality, how do we distinguish wrong from right, etc.) but the main focus remains, to find the truth. In Indian literature, this aim of philosophy is termed as ‘darsana’, meaning ‘the vision of truth’. Consequently, each school of thought within classical Indian philosophy, believes that a ‘direct realization’ of truth is possible, which is termed as ‘tattva-darsana’. This aspect of Indian philosophical schools is substantiated by their ‘synthetic outlook’ (as termed by thinkers like Sir B.N. Seal) due to their common tendency to look at every problem from all possible angles, be it metaphysical, epistemological or ethical (unlike their western counterparts who believe in specialization, instead).

2. Schools of Indian Philosophy When it comes to classification, the schools or systems of Indian philosophy seem to have been divided in a very traditional manner (most probably adopted by orthodox Hindu thinkers), into two parts: 1) Orthodox (astika) 2) Heterodox (nastika)

Before talking about the various schools of thought that fall within these broad categories, we must first understand the criteria behind the process. Forgoing the common interpretation of the terms ‘astika’ and ‘nastika’ in modern Indian languages (meaning theist, and atheist respectively), here, we refer to their usage in Sanskrit philosophical literature instead. The term ‘astika,’ in this context, has two meanings- ‘one who believes in the authority of the Vedas’ and, ‘one who believes in life after death’ (‘nastika’ means the opposite of these). However, we will only be using the former one of the two hereon. Based on this interpretation, out of the twelve major schools of thought prevalent in India, six chief systems belong to the first group (astika). These are- Mimamsa, Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, and Vaisesika, thus together known as ‘sad-darsana’. However, these are not the only orthodox schools, but rather only the chief ones (among others like the grammarian school, the medical school, etc.). On the other hand, are the heterodox systems, the chief three of which arethe Carvaka school, the Bauddhas, and the Jainas. They are called ‘nastika’ as they don’t believe in the authority of the Vedas. These assertions lead to an important question though- Why are the Vedas so significant? We know that they are considered as one of the earliest available records of Indian literature. Maybe that is why subsequent Indian thought, and a lot of philosophical speculations, came to be somehow based on the Vedas, either positively or negatively. Some Indian schools became essentially a continuation of the Vedic culture (like the Mimamsa and the Vedanta schools), while some schools accepted their authority just to show that their rationally established theories were in line with the conventionally accepted ones (like the Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, and Vaisesika schools). Parallelly, there were also some schools which arose mainly by opposing and rejecting the Vedic culture (like the Carvakas, the Bauddhas, and the Jainas). One thing is for sure though, that despite vastly differing in their views, Indian philosophical schools flourished together. In the process, they left behind a huge collection of philosophical literature due to their constant mutual criticism. In orthodox schools, apart from the Vedas and Upanisads, this gave rise to ‘sutra’ literature (which were supposed to be like ‘threads’ that systematize the teachings of the various Vedic works). Due to being brief in nature, the meaning of these ‘sutras’ remained unclear sometimes, and ‘Bhasyas’(commentaries) came to be the

solution. The history of the development of the heterodox doctrines also more or less followed in a similar manner (not starting from any ‘sutras’, however). Even though they had their opposing tendencies, there was a sort of harmony among the different schools conceived by the Indian thinkers. One reason could be that they all believed that it was necessary to discriminate the fitness of their followers, i.e. they understood the concept of ‘adhikara-bheda’ (natural rights) and that all persons were not fit for all things. Thus, it can be said that all Indian philosophical schools had a system of gradation among themselves, based on the differing qualifications and temperaments of their members. But even other than this, there exist many such points of similarity among these outwardly opposed schools of thought, which can be regarded as the common marks of Indian culture as a whole.

3. The Common Characteristics of the Indian Systems The various points of agreement between the classical Indian philosophical schools can be broadly viewed in terms of two aspects: I)

Moral and spiritual outlook

Even though they present a diversity of views, there seems to be a common discernible stamp of Indian culture shared among the various schools of thought, which can be described as the sense of unity in their moral and spiritual outlook, the chief factors of which are: a) Motive of being practical- As discussed before, all systems regard Philosophy as a necessity, not only for the mere satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, but also to be able to lead a more enlightened life based on far-sight, foresight, and insight. This practicality was the reason behind a custom of Indian writers, where they explained at the very beginning how their work served human ends, by terming it as ‘purusartha’. However, the presence of a practical motive didn’t narrow the scope of Indian philosophy to Ethics and Theology alone (as some critics believe), as even on theoretical grounds, such as Metaphysics and Epistemology, all Indian schools can hold their own against any system of the west.

b) Springing from spiritual disquiet- It is a fact that every Indian philosophical system, whether Pro-Vedic or not, always start speculating at the juncture of spiritual disquiet, i.e. at the sight of evils within the existing order of things. However, due to its quest of looking for the source and some means of overcoming these miseries of life, Indian philosophy has been labelled by some as being ‘pessimistic’. While it is true that most Indian systems are based on the acceptance of life as a series of blind impulses and unquenchable desires, no Indian school, however, ends with this picture of life as a tragedy, as there always lies a message of hope deep within. Thus, pessimism in Indian philosophy is only initial and not final, and also, its influence on life is more wholesome than merely thoughtless optimism. c) Belief in an eternal moral order- The viewpoint which saves the Indian mind from total despair and provides a sense of positivity, falls in line with William James’s concept of ‘spiritualism’, which according to him, “means the affirmation of an eternal moral order”, and which he also claims is “one of the deepest needs of our breast”. The idea of an eternal moral order has dominated the history of Indian philosophy (barring the exception of the Carvaka materialists) and has created a common atmosphere of faith, for all the Indian philosophical systems to co-exist in. The Rigveda called this inviolable order ‘Rta’, the Mimamsa school conceived it to be ‘Apurva’ (law guaranteeing future enjoyment of the fruits of rituals performed now), and the Nyaya-Vaisesika school termed it as ‘Adrsta’ (unseen force swaying objects and events in accordance with moral principles). Cumulatively, the general perception of this principle accepted by all systems (excluding the Carvakas), was in the form of ‘Karma’, which essentially showcased man to be the master of his own destiny, in the sense that whatever a person would be undergoing at any point of time would be a consequence of his/her own actions. This provided a cause for present suffering and an incentive to improve one’s actions to shape a better future. Thus, calling the law of Karma ‘deterministic’ would be a grave misrepresentation, as not only does it provide enough room for free will and personal endeavor (purusakara), it also believes fate (duiva) to be just the collective force of one’s own actions performed in past lives (purva-janma-krtam-karma), which can be overcome by efforts in this life.

d) Tendency to regard the universe as a moral stage- Quite connected with the concept of an eternal moral order (which has been agreed upon by all Indian philosophical schools, except the Carvakas) is the inclination to regard the universe as a moral stage, where each gets the dress and part that befits them, and are supposed to act well to deserve a better future. The body, the senses, that an individual is provided with, and the environment he/she grows up in, are all thus endowments of nature in accordance with the law of Karma. e) Belief that ignorance of reality is cause of bondage and that knowledge is necessary for liberation- Almost all the schools of classical Indian philosophy commonly refer to ‘bondage’ as the process of birth and rebirth and the consequent miseries which arise in this process for an individual. In a similar manner, these schools usually associate ‘liberation’ to be the stoppage of this cycle of pain, i.e. a state of perfection, which can even be realized within this life. But despite focusing on these features, chief Indian thinkers also accepted the fact that merely having theoretical knowledge won’t remove these imperfections at once. Instead, they advocated for two types of discipline to be followed, to make such understanding permanent and effective, namely, continued meditation on accepted truths and practical life of self-control. f) Understanding that continued meditation on truths learned is needed to remove deeprooted false beliefs- Followers of the various Indian schools of thought believed in common that philosophical truths established momentarily through arguments were not enough to dispel the deep-rooted wrong beliefs within us. To replace these beliefs by the correct ones, we have to go through the same tedious process by which these beliefs were established in the first place, but in a reverse manner. This requires a long intellectual concentration on the truth learned, without which these truths just cannot be established fully in one’s life. g) Requirement of self-control (samyama) to remove passions that obstruct concentration- In line with what Socrates believed, all Indian systems (except Carvaka) have this collective notion that right knowledge doesn’t always lead to right actions, due to the influence of blind animal impulses. Thus, these impulses have to be brought under one’s control so as to ensure that one’s actions are fully dictated by reason. Even while talking about types of impulses, there exists a sort of unanimity

among the Indian thinkers, who broadly classify it as likes/love (raga) and dislikes/hate (dvesa). They also agree that our ‘indriyas’ (i.e. the mind, the senses of sight, touch, smell, taste, sound, and the motor organs) have always been in the service of these impulses of love and hate, and thus have acquired bad habits, which we need to break. This can only be done through sustained practice and efforts in the right direction (abhyasa) which all Indian systems lay stress upon. However calling self-control a negative practice is a misinterpretation, not only does it keep a check on the lower self (blind impulses) and the ‘indriyas’, but it also seeks to employ them for a better purpose instead, as dictated by reason. This was seen in the most rigourous of philosophies, for example, the Yoga system propounded the concept of ‘yoganga’ (aids for attaining perfect concentration), which not only mentioned negative practices or don’ts (yamas), but also the good habits to be followed (niyamas). Similar teachings can be found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. h) Regarding liberation as the greatest good- All Indian systems, except the Carvakas, agree on the possibility of liberation, and also about it being the highest end of life. They slightly differ on what they exactly mean by liberation though, as some schools see it as a negative state of freedom from all suffering, however some schools envisioned it to be a positive state of complete bliss, instead.

II)

Space-time background

In addition to the unity in moral and spiritual outlook, the idea of the vastness of the space-time world also formed the common background of Indian philosophical thought, and thus influenced its metaphysical outlook as a whole. We know that new revelations by science, be it through astronomical means or through advancements in astrophysics, never fail to overwhelm our imagination. But one can also come across a similar feeling while reading various pieces of Indian philosophical literature (for example, the Puranas), especially in terms of the accounts of creation. One can easily spot the popular Indian conception of the world operating across the lines of the various schools of thought here as well, thus resulting in a confluence of sorts. In terms of describing the vastness of time, the Indian thinkers seem to be struggling just as much as the modern scientists, due to their inability to describe its functioning in a larger,

universal framework, with conventional human units of measurement. But what these thinkers do coordinate on is the visualization of time as being a beginning-less series, i.e. essentially cyclical in nature, with creation (srsti) and destruction (pralaya) being just two points along the circumference of this wheel of time, which keep moving. This interpretation explains why most Indian thinkers refer to the universe as ‘anadi’, and find questions about its first creation to be a waste of time, as it is clearly indeterminable.

With these ideas as the backdrop, we can now see why the various Indian philosophical schools kept emphasizing upon the transitory and insignificant nature of life and earthly possessions. Their general metaphysical outlook, regarding the present world as an outcome of the past one is also influenced by these common ideas. Besides setting their metaphysics on the search for the eternal, on the ethical and religious side the various schools of classical Indian philosophy also tried to take a wider and detached view of life, so as to prevent the minds of the masses from clinging to things of seemingly momentary value. Hence, we have explained the difference between the orthodox and heterodox systems, and summarized all the major common characteristics among the various schools of classical Indian philosophy....