In the history of Indian philosophy, there are several periods, the division into which is in itself quite arbitrary. Let us dwell first and foremost on the main ones, which laid the foundation for all Indian philosophy and constituted the philosophical classics of Indian thought and its entire culture, namely: Vedic and epic periods.
Philosophy of the Vedic period.
The main source of information about this period is an extensive complex of literary monuments, united by the common name Veda(literally “knowledge”, “knowledge”) and written in the ancient Indian language Sanskrit (the so-called Vedic Sanskrit).
The Vedas consist of four collections of hymns (samhitas), chants, magic spells, prayers, etc.: Rig Veda, Samaveda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda (or Atharvangirasa). Each of these collections (usually known as the Vedas proper) over time acquired various commentaries and additions of a ritual, magical, philosophical order - Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upanishads. The actual philosophical views of Ancient India were most fully reflected in the Upanishads.
All Vedic texts are considered sacred books, a divine revelation like the Bible, although in their main features they were probably formed by the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. Brahmins were considered the true experts and interpreters of the Vedas.
Philosophy of the Upanishads. Originally the Upanishads meant sitting around a teacher for the purpose of knowing the truth. Then this term came to mean secret teaching. The Upanishads develop the themes of the Vedas: the idea of the unity of all things, cosmological themes, the search for cause-and-effect relationships of phenomena, etc. For example, questions were posed such as: “Where is the sun at night?”, “Where do the stars disappear during the day?” etc. But unlike previous texts in the Upanishads, the main attention is paid not to the external, but to the internal side of being and phenomena. At the same time, the main attention is paid to man, his knowledge and, above all, moral improvement. “Who are we?”, “Where did we come from?”, “Where are we going?” - these are the characteristic questions of the Upanishads.
The fundamental principle of existence in the Upanishads is BRakhman- a universal, impersonal world soul, a spiritual principle from which the whole world arises with all its elements. This universality of the Brahman is achieved through his knowledge of himself. Brahman is identical and at the same time opposed atman- individual soul, subjective spiritual principle, “I”.
At the same time, Brahman and Atman are identical, the brahman in the individual realizes himself and thereby passes into the atman, becomes it. In turn, at the highest level of the intuitive “I”, when subject and object are fused together, atman merges with brahman. Thus, we have before us an example of dialectical thinking, in particular, the statement identities of opposites: brahman as the highest objective principle and atman as the subjective spiritual principle. The idea of the identity of brahman and atman, object and subject, world soul and individual soul also means the possibility of their mutual transition.
The doctrine of Brahman and Atman is the central point of the Upanishads, affirming the identity of the existence of an individual person with the universal essence of the world. Related to this is the doctrine of samsara(circle of life) and karma(law of retribution) in the Upanishads. In the teaching of samsara, human life is understood as a certain form of endless rebirth. And the future birth of an individual is determined by the law of karma. A person’s future is the result of those deeds and actions that a person performed in previous lives. And only one who has led a decent lifestyle can expect to be born in a future life as a representative of the highest varna (class): a brahmana (priest), kshatriya (warrior or government official) or vaishya (farmer, artisan or merchant) . Those who led an unrighteous lifestyle will in the future face the fate of a member of the lower varna - a shudra (commoner) or even worse: his atman may end up in the body of an animal.
Therefore, the most important task of man and the main category of the Upanishads is liberation (moksha) him from the “world of objects and passions”, constant moral improvement. This liberation is realized through the dissolution of atman in brahman, the knowledge of the identity of one’s individual soul with the world soul. Thus, in the philosophy of the Upanishads, every person is the “smith” of his own happiness, his entire fate depends on his own behavior.
As already mentioned, knowledge and self-knowledge is one of the most important themes and problems of the Upanishads. But we are not talking primarily about sensory or even rational knowledge. Genuine, most true knowledge consists in the deepest and most complete union and awareness of the identity of atman and brahman. And only those who are able to realize this identity are freed from the endless series of rebirths of samsara. The soul of such a person merges with the brahman and remains in him forever. At the same time, she is freed from the influence of karma. This is the highest goal and the truest path - "path of the gods" (devayana), unlike the usual way - “the ways of the fathers” (pitryana). Devayana is achieved through austerity and higher knowledge.
Thus, in the philosophy of the Upanishads, a person (unlike, for example, Christianity or Islam) is not considered in relation to other people or to humanity as a whole. And human life itself is thought of differently here. Man is not the “crown of creation” of God, nor is he the owner of one single life. His life is an endless chain of rebirths. But he has the opportunity to break the circle of samsara, get out of the chain of births and achieve the highest goal - liberation from being. Life, therefore, is seen as a long process of changing different lives and they must be lived in such a way as to ultimately leave samsara, that is, get rid of life.
Hence the meaning of ancient Indian philosophy, and the nature of the Indian worldview was different from that in the West. It was aimed not at changing the external conditions of existence - nature and society, but at self improvement. In other words, she was not extroverted, but introverted in nature.
In addition, the very term “philosophy” as philosophy, which arose within the framework of Western European culture, is of little use to designate the system of views and worldview of the thinkers of Ancient India. In this context, Hegel apparently was not far from the truth when he wrote that “philosophy in the proper sense begins in the West” 1 . Although it would be wrong, I think, to deny philosophy in general in the ancient Eastern cultural tradition. It’s just that here wisdom is associated primarily not with the substantiation of theoretical concepts aimed at searching for truth in an empirical or rational way, but with higher knowledge and self-knowledge through asceticism, direct comprehension of Brahman and individual identity with it. The path to truth is the path of moral improvement of a person, and not the path of theoretical knowledge.
The Upanishads had a huge influence on the further development of philosophical thought in India. Thus, the doctrine of samsara and karma becomes one of the fundamental ones for the subsequent development of all religious and philosophical trends in India. The Upanishads had a great impact, in particular, on the various philosophical systems of Hinduism and Buddhism. Their influence is also found in the views of such major thinkers as Rammohon Raya, Gandhi, Schopenhauer and others.
Philosophy of the epic period. The name “epic period” (from the word “epic”) is due to the fact that at this time “ Ramayana" And " Mahabharata” serve as a means of expressing the heroic and divine in human relationships. During this period, the ideas of the Upanishads were subjected to great criticism in " Bhagavad Gita"(one of the books of the Mahabharata).
This period in the development of Indian philosophy begins in the 6th century. BC e., when significant changes occur in Indian society: agricultural and handicraft production develops, social differentiation increases, the institution of tribal power loses its influence and the power of the monarchy increases. Along with this, changes are also taking place in the worldview of Indian society. In particular, criticism of Vedic Brahmanism is intensifying. Intuition gives way to research, religion to philosophy. Within philosophy itself, various, including opposing and warring schools and systems appear, which reflect the real contradictions of that time.
Heterodox schools in Indian philosophy. Among the many adherents of new views who rebelled against the authority of the Vedas, we should name, first of all, representatives of such systems as: carvaka(materialists), Jainism, Buddhism. All of them belong to unorthodox schools of Indian philosophy.
Charvaka is a materialistic doctrine in Ancient and Medieval India. A later version of a related philosophical concept - lokayats, with which it is sometimes generally identified. No works of this school have survived, and the source of knowledge about this teaching is the statements of representatives of other schools.
Charvaka denies the concept of brahman, atman, samsara and karma. The basis of all things here is matter in the form of four primary elements: earth, water, fire and air. Both life and consciousness are considered as derivatives of these material primary elements. Matter can think. Death is the end of everything. The name “lokayata” corresponds to the essence and content of this teaching - only this world, or loka, exists. That is why materialists are called lokayats. They are also called Charvakas, named after the founder of this theory - Charvaka.
The theory of knowledge also corresponds to the ontological essence of this teaching. Its basis is sensory perception peace. Only that which is known through direct perception is true. Therefore, there is no reason for the existence of another world, not perceived by the senses. No other world simply can exist. Therefore, religion is a stupid delusion. Faith in God and other world is, from the point of view of representatives of this school, a sign of feeblemindedness, weakness, and cowardice.
The ethical concept of the Charvakas is based on unlimited pleasure - hedonism(from Greek hedone - pleasure). Recognizing only such realities of life as suffering and pleasure within the framework of the sensory existence of the individual, this school considers wealth and pleasure to be the goals of human existence. The motto of the representatives of this school is to eat, drink and enjoy this life today, because death always comes to everyone. “While life is still yours, live joyfully: no one can escape piercing gaze of death". This theory, therefore, affirms selfishness and preaches earthly human desires. All moral standards, according to this teaching, are just human conventions that should not be paid attention to.
Assessing the philosophy of materialists, we can say that it has done a lot to criticize the old religion and philosophy, to debunk the authority of the Vedas, their untruth and inconsistency.
« Philosophy of Charvakas, - writes the largest modern philosopher of India S. Radhakrishnan, - represents a fanatical effort aimed at liberating the contemporary generation from the burden of the past that weighed on it. The elimination of dogmatism, which took place with the help of this philosophy, was necessary in order to make room for the constructive efforts of speculation." 1 .
At the same time, this philosophy was a one-sided worldview that denied the role of intellect and reason in knowledge. Therefore, from her point of view, it was impossible to explain where abstract, universal ideas and moral ideals come from. The result of this one-sidedness was nihilism, skepticism and subjectivism. Since the senses belong to an individual, therefore, everyone can have only their own truth. The result of this one-sidedness is their denial of higher moral goals and values.
However, despite these obvious and serious shortcomings, the Charvaka school laid the foundation for criticism of the Brahmanical trend in Indian philosophy, undermined the authority of the Vedas and had a significant influence on the further development of philosophical thought in India.
Jainism . Its founder is considered to be Mahavira Vardhamana (VI century BC). He also received the name Gina, which means Winner (meaning victory over the cycle of rebirth). At the center of this direction is the existence of the individual. The essence of personality, from the point of view of Jainism, is dualistic: spiritual (jiva) And material (ajiva). The link between jiva and ajiva is karma. However, karma itself is understood here, in contrast to the Upanishads, as a subtle matter, and not as a law of retribution. This combination of inanimate, gross matter with the soul through karma leads to the emergence of personality. And karma constantly accompanies the soul in an endless chain of rebirths.
The human soul is forced to wander, constantly being reborn, as long as it is connected with subtle matter. But right knowledge and asceticism can help her become free from the material world (ajiva). In this case, the soul moves to the higher sphere, where it constantly remains in pure spirituality. This is because the jiva exists in two forms of existence: imperfect and perfect. In the first case, it is in connection with matter and in a state suffering. In the second - jiva freed up from this connection she becomes free, capable of managing her own existence. In this case, she goes into a state of bliss - nirvana, the highest state of the soul when the ultimate goal is achieved.
According to this, Jainism recognizes two types of knowledge: imperfect based on experience and reason, and perfect, based on intuition and comprehending the truth through direct observation. The second is available only to those who have freed themselves from the dependence of the material world (ajiva). At the same time, Jainism recognizes the relativity of knowledge and the possibility of multiple points of view when considering a subject. His dialectical method is connected with this.
A characteristic feature of the philosophical and ethical concept of Jainism is its development of rules and norms of human behavior and the requirement of their strict observance. Ethical education of the individual is a decisive factor in the transition of the individual’s existence from an imperfect state to a perfect one. And although karma decides everything, ours real life, which is in our own power, can change the impact of the past. And with the help of excessive efforts we can avoid the effects of karma. Therefore, in the teachings of the Jains there is no absolute fatalism, as it may seem at first glance.
The correct life of a person is associated with ascetic behavior, which was practiced in India by many great saints who even gave themselves up to death. Only asceticism leads to the cessation of rebirths and to the liberation of the soul from samsara. Moreover, liberation is individual in nature. Everyone frees themselves. However, the ethics of Jainism, although egocentric, is far from egoistic in nature, as in the teachings of the Charvakas. Egoism and individualism presuppose the opposition of the individual to the social environment, the assertion of one’s own interests at the expense of other people. Meanwhile, the basic ethical principles of Jainism: detachment from worldly wealth, vanity, passions, respect for all living beings, etc. are little compatible with egoism and individualism.
It should be noted that the philosophy of Jainism retains its influence in India today.
Buddhism just like Jainism, it arose in the 6th century. BC e. Its founder is an Indian prince Siddhartha Gautama, who later received the name Buddha(awakened, enlightened), because after many years of hermitage and asceticism he achieved awakening, that is, he came to understand the correct path of life, rejecting extremes.
A characteristic feature of this teaching is its ethical and practical orientation, and the central question that interests him is existence of personality. Buddhism is based on the “Four Noble Truths”:
human existence from birth to death is inextricably linked with suffering;
there is a cause of suffering, which is the thirst for existence (the desire for life), leading through joys and passions to rebirth;
there is liberation from suffering, elimination of the causes of suffering, i.e. the elimination of this thirst for being;
exists path, leading to liberation from suffering, which rejects both a life devoted only to sensual pleasures and the path of asceticism and self-torture. This is precisely the Buddhist principle of the so-called middle path, which recommends avoiding extremes.
Liberation from suffering as the ultimate goal of a person’s existence is, first of all, the destruction of desires, or more precisely, the extinguishing of their passion. Connected with this is the most important concept of Buddhism in the moral sphere - the concept tolerance (tolerance) and relativity. According to her, the point is not in some generally binding moral precepts, but in not causing harm to others. That's what it is main principle personal behavior, which is based on a feeling of kindness and complete satisfaction.
Its concept is organically connected with the ethics of Buddhism knowledge. Cognition here is a necessary way and means of achieving the ultimate goal of a person’s existence. In Buddhism, the distinction between the sensory and rational forms of knowledge is eliminated and the practice of meditation(from lat. rneditatio - concentrated reflection) - in-depth mental concentration and detachment from external objects and internal experiences. The result of this is direct experience of the wholeness of being, complete self-absorption and self-satisfaction. A state of absolute freedom and independence of the inner being of the individual is achieved, which is precisely identical to the extinguishing of desires. It is liberation, or nirvana- a state of supreme bliss, the ultimate goal of a person’s aspirations and existence, characterized by detachment from life’s worries and desires. This does not mean the death of a person, but his exit from the cycle of rebirth, liberation from samsara and merging with the deity.
Practice meditation constitutes the essence of Buddhist insight into life. Like prayer in Christianity, meditation is the core of Buddhism. Its ultimate goal is enlightenment, or the state of nirvana. It should be borne in mind that in the Buddhist system the determining principle is the absolute autonomy of the individual, his independence from the environment. Buddhism views all human connections with the real world, including the social world, as negative and generally harmful to humans. Hence the need for liberation from imperfect real existence, from external objects and feelings. Related to this is the belief of most Buddhists that the passions that the human body generates and the anxiety associated with it must be overcome. The main way to do this is to achieve nirvana.
Thus, the philosophy of Buddhism, like Jainism, is egocentric and introvertive in nature.
Orthodox schools in ancient Indian philosophy In contrast to non-orthodox schools (Charvakas, Jainism, Buddhism), in the history of ancient Indian philosophy there were orthodox schools that did not deny the authority of the Vedas, but, on the contrary, relied on them. Let's consider the main philosophical ideas of these schools
Vedanta(the completion of the Vedas) is the most influential system, the most important philosophical basis of Hinduism. She recognizes Brahman as the absolute spiritual essence of the world. Individual souls (atmans) through knowledge or love of God achieve salvation by uniting with God. The way out of the cycle of birth (samsara) lies in considering everything that exists from the point of view of the highest truth; in the knowledge of the truth that the external world surrounding a person is an illusory world, and the true unchanging reality is brahman, with which atman is identified. The main way to achieve this true knowledge is compliance moral standards and meditation, which means intense meditation on the problems of the Vedas.
The help of the teacher plays an important role in this. Therefore, one of the requirements of Vedanta is the obedient following of the student to the teacher, constant reflection on the truths of Vedanta with the aim of direct and constant contemplation of the truth. Knowledge liberates the soul. Ignorance, on the contrary, enslaves her and increases her desire for sensual pleasures. The study of Vedanta is the main means of liberating the soul.
Mimamsa(reflection, study of the Vedic text on sacrifices). This system concerns the explanation of the ritual of the Vedas. The teaching of the Vedas here is closely associated with dharma - the idea of duty, the fulfillment of which involves, first of all, sacrifice. This fulfillment of one's duty leads to gradual redemption from karma and to liberation as the cessation of rebirth and suffering.
Samkhya(number, enumeration) - it is based not directly on the text of the Vedas, but on independent experience and reflection. In this regard, Samkhya differs from Vedanta and Mimamsa. The teaching of this school expresses the point of view according to which the first cause of the world is matter, nature (prakrita). Along with nature, the existence of absolute soul (purusha). It is thanks to its presence in all things that the things themselves exist. When prakriti and purusha unite, the initial principles of the world arise, both material (water, air, earth, etc.) and spiritual (intelligence, self-awareness, etc.).
Thus Samkhya is dualistic direction in the philosophy of Hinduism.
Yoga(tension, deep thought, contemplation). The philosophy of this school is aimed at practical psychological training. Her theoretical basis- Samkhya, although yoga also recognizes a personal god. A large place in this system is occupied by an explanation of the rules of mental training, the successive steps of which are: self-observation ( pit), mastery of breathing in certain positions (postures) of the body ( asana), isolation of feelings from external influences ( pratyahara), concentration of thought ( dharana), meditation ( dhyana), state of rejection ( samadhi). On last stage liberation of the soul from the body shell is achieved, the shackles of samsara and karma are broken. The ethical standards of yoga are associated with the formation of a highly moral personality.
Vaisesika. At an early stage of development, this system contains pronounced materialistic aspects. According to it, all things are constantly changing, but they also contain stable elements - spherical atoms. Atoms are eternal, not created by anyone and have many qualities (17 qualities of atoms). From them various animate and inanimate objects arise. Although the world consists of atoms, the driving force behind its development is God, who acts in accordance with the law of karma.
Nyaya(rule, logic) - the study of forms of thinking. In this system the main thing is to study metaphysical problems with the help logic. Nyaya starts from liberation as the ultimate goal of human life. According to representatives of this school, the conditions and methods of true knowledge as a means of achieving liberation can be determined with the help of logic and its laws. Liberation itself is understood as the cessation of the influence of negative factors of suffering.
The Bhagavad Gita, often simply called the Gita, is considered the most significant and famous book not only of the epic period, but of the entire history of India. It forms part of the sixth book of the Mahabharata. “Bhagavad Gita” translated means the song of Bhagavat, i.e. god Krishna, or divine song. It was written around the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. and expressed the need of the masses to replace the old religion of the Upanishads, with its meager abstractions and headed by an indefinite Absolute, with a less abstract and formal one.
The Bhagavad Gita, with its living personal god (Krishna), successfully completed this task and laid the foundation for a new direction of religious thought - Hinduism. It should be borne in mind that the philosophy of the Gita in no way denies, as has already been said, the authority of the Vedas, but, on the contrary, is significantly influenced by the Upanishads. Moreover, the very philosophical basis of the Gita is taken precisely from the Upanishads. The acceptability of the religious and philosophical basis of Hinduism for the broad masses determined the fact that by the beginning of the new era it had gained decisive influence in the ideological sphere of Indian society.
According to the Bhagavad Gita, the ever-changing natural, material reality is not the primary reality - prakriti. The primary, eternal and unchanging existence is the supreme Brahman. One should not be sad about death, for it is not extinction. Although the individual form of human existence may change, the essence of a person is not destroyed even after death, that is, the atman of a person remains unchanged, even if the body has become dust. In the spirit of the Upanishads, the Gita identifies two principles - Brahman And atman. Behind the mortal body is atman, behind the transitory objects of the world is brahman. These two principles are one and identical in nature. The main object of knowledge in the Bhagavad Gita is the supreme Brahman, who has neither beginning nor end. Having known it, a person becomes immortal.
In form, the Gita is a dialogue between the epic hero Arjuna and the god Krishna, who in the plot acts as the charioteer and mentor of Arjuna. The main meaning of the book is that Krishna embodies the highest divine principle of Hinduism, and the book itself is its philosophical basis. Unlike the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita pays more attention to moral issues and is distinguished by its emotional nature. The dialogue between Arjuna and the god Krishna takes place on the eve of the decisive battle, when the commander Arjuna is overcome by doubt as to whether he has the right to kill his relatives. He is thus in a situation where he must make a decisive moral choice. This choice, associated with understanding one’s place in the moral world, is the main question that faces the hero of the book and every person. The main problem that must be resolved is based on the awareness of the deep moral contradiction between a person’s practical duty and higher moral requirements.
Therefore, unlike the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita draws attention not to the external, ritual factors of achieving a moral world order (sacrifice), but to the internal moral freedom of the individual. To obtain it, sacrifices are not enough, thanks to which only rich people can gain the favor of the gods. Gaining inner freedom is achieved by renouncing external, sensual claims and temptations that await a person at every step. In this regard, the book develops the doctrine of yoga- one of the directions in Indian thought, which has developed a whole range of techniques, thanks to which a special state of spirit and mental balance is achieved. Although it should be borne in mind that the roots of yoga are very ancient, and yoga itself forms common element most ancient Indian systems. In the Bhagavad Gita, yoga acts as a method of mental education, allowing one to free oneself and purify oneself from all kinds of delusions and to cognize the true reality, the primary being - Brahman, the eternal spirit, which forms the basis of all things.
The main character of the Gita strives to find moral justification for his actions in the deepest foundations of the eternal spirit - brahmana. To achieve brahmana, an ascetic renunciation of everything transitory, egoistic aspirations, and sensual desires is required. But giving up this is the way to gain true freedom and achieve absolute value. Arjuna's true battlefield is the life of his own soul and it is necessary to defeat that which hinders its true development. He tries, without succumbing to temptations and subjugating passions, to conquer the true kingdom of man - true freedom. Achieving it is not an easy task. It requires asceticism, suffering and self-denial.
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY– a variety of local characteristics in the context of generic characteristics of philosophy, which can be reconstructed on the basis of texts of Indian culture, in the historical movement of traditionalist polyformism. The proposed method of defiling Indian philosophy is, despite its apparent formality, conceptual, because contains a number of presumptions that mark a certain methodological approach and cultural and chronological parameterization of the relevant material, which do not coincide with a number of others.
PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETING INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. The clarification of the “scope” of the concept of Indian philosophy by “traditionalism” prevents the inclusion in it of those English-language texts of Indian thought of modern and recent times that are Westernized in character, as well as purely modernist writings in Indian languages, which are usually included in the broad history of Indian philosophy. “Traditionalist polymorphism” includes both the confessional connections of Indian philosophers - within Jainism , Buddhism , Hinduism , both forms and literary genres philosophizing - in the form of a traditional debate, as well as index texts such as abhid-harmic matrices, basic texts (prose sutras, poetic karikas), commentaries and specialized treatises in ancient Indian (Sanskrit), central Indian (Pali, Prakrit) and partly modern Indian languages.
The emphasis on “the opportunity to reconstruct” means that “ philosophical matter"Indian culture is not given to us directly, but can be identified by applying European parameters to Indian ideological texts, which constitute the unity of certain generic characteristics" general philosophy" The approach expressed here is incompatible with the currently widespread idea that we should not “impose” such a “too European” cultural universal as “philosophy” on foreign cultural material; but we must understand it based on itself and “get used to” its inner fabric. In this article, this idea is considered untenable both from a theoretical point of view, because, as is known, “the boundaries of my world are the boundaries of my language,” and from a practical point of view, because it denies Orientalism as such, since categories such as “religion”, “literature” ", "mythology", "politics" or "economics" are no less "too European" than "philosophy".
Appeal to the “generic characteristics” of philosophy means the assumption that, firstly, contrary to postmodernism, they exist and are detectable; secondly, the common idea of “Indian philosophy” as mystical, “psychotechnical”, spiritual-practical and “continuum”, as the antipode of the European - theoretical, “professional”, speculative and “conflict” - is recognized as untenable. From a theoretical point of view, because when denying the generic features of European philosophy in “Indian philosophy,” doubt arises about the legitimacy of applying the category “philosophy” itself to Indian material; from a factual point of view, because the material of those Indian texts that are unanimously recognized as philosophical contains, along with spiritual and practical attitudes (not absent in Western philosophy), areas of purely speculative discourse; polemics are not only inherent in Indian philosophy, but also constituted the main way of “philosophizing” in India, and the idea of philosophy as a research-controversial activity was reflected even in Indian definitions of philosophy (see. Philosophy in India ).
The “generic characteristics” of philosophy, universal for the West and the East in any historical period and applicable to Indian philosophy as a “species”, mean (even taking into account the pluralism in the understanding of philosophy among European philosophers) the general unity of the characteristics of philosophy as a theoretical reflection realized in such fundamental algorithms of research activity as criticism of a certain class of judgments and systematization of a certain class of concepts that are applied (and this is the difference between philosophical and other types of rationality) to ideological problems corresponding to the basic, established since antiquity, subjects of “logic”, “physics” ” and “ethics” - studies of knowledge, being and the goals and values of human existence.
By “local characteristics” of the Indian philosophical mentality we mean those features that can be understood in the context of the generic characteristics of philosophical rationality. This is, first of all, the original specific dialogical nature of Indian philosophy, expressed not only in the fact that every position of an Indian philosopher is an alternative to the position of a real or imaginary opponent or that the main genre of texts of Indian philosophy - commentary - is built on a polemical principle (the entire history of Indian philosophy is the history of “discussive club"), but also in the fact that the five-term Indian syllogism itself (see. Avayava ) is, in contrast to the three-term Aristotelian, dialogical, represents persuasion rather than proof, and contains components of rhetorical speech in the form of a clear example and application to the case under consideration in the face of the opponent, the audience and the arbiter of the dispute (in the seven-term and ten-term Indian syllogisms, “nodes” are also explicated "the discussion itself with the opponent). Another specific feature of Indian philosophy is the initial predominance of game analytics and a penchant for formalistic aestheticism: the methods of constructing classifications and definitions were no less important for the Indian philosopher than the material being classified and defined (in a certain sense, and more), and already from the first steps of Indian philosophy in its arsenal is dominated by trilemmas, tetralemmas, antitetralemmas (see. Chatushkotika ), the development of which is far ahead of attempts to canonize “ordinary logic”. The main specific paradigms of Indian philosophy include the “end-to-end” differentiation of the “manifested” and “unmanifested” levels of objects of discourse (see. Vyakta-avyakta ), as well as the conventional and absolute levels of their knowledge itself (see. Vyavaharika-paramarthika ). For the Indian philosopher, being and non-being, truth and error are, as a rule, multidimensional; they reveal various “quantities” and “qualities”, which are the basis for the construction of ontological and epistemological hierarchies and “pyramids”.
The lower limit of Indian philosophy corresponds to the initial stage of functioning of the above generic characteristics of philosophy in Indian culture, which is preceded by periods of not-yet-philosophy. About her upper limit(as well as about the Middle Ages) cannot be said, since even today in India traditional methods, subjects and genres of texts of Indian philosophy (in Sanskrit and modern Indian languages) are being reproduced, which should be clearly distinguished from modern Westernized philosophical literature.
PRE-PHILOSOPHICAL PERIOD (c. 10th – 6th – 5th centuries BC) – the period of formation of “building materials” for future philosophy. It is presented in the ideological concepts and constructions of individual hymns of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda, in the cosmogonic correlations of Brahman and Aranyak, in the dialogues of the Upanishads, where, along with the doctrine of karma , samsara and the “higher path”, the “great sayings” are articulated: “I am Brahman », "That Atman is, truly, Brahman,” “That thou art,” intended, probably, for the meditative interiorization by the adept of the secret truth conveyed to him about the incomprehensible unity of the spiritual centers of the individual and the universe, for “one cannot know the knower,” which is therefore defined through negations: “ not this, not that..." (see Veda ). Nevertheless, we are not yet dealing with the above-mentioned generic features of philosophy - due to the absence of the study of ideological judgments and concepts itself. When, even in the most “philosophical” dialogue, Rishi Uddalaka convinces his disciple-son Svetaketu that in the beginning there was a being and not a non-being, he does not give any argument in favor of his position or against the alternative, but tells the myth of the “self-multiplying” of the existent ( Chhandogya Upanishad VI.2). The absence of research activity also determines the absence of philosophical objectivity itself, which cannot be formed before this activity (just as, according to L. Wittgenstein’s analogy, chess pieces do not appear until the invention of the chess game).
PRE-PHILOSOPHY. While the Brahmanistic Gnostics were thinking about the “building blocks of the universe” and the possibilities of getting rid of samsara, the erudite priests in the 8th–5th centuries. BC. began to develop parallel scientific disciplines in the study of sacred ritual and sacred language. This initial experience in the criticism of judgments - dialectics and systematization of concepts - analytics, as applied to the history of philosophy, can be conditionally designated as pre-philosophy. Gathering for their “tournaments,” often organized by local rulers, they discussed particular problems of ritual science and appealed to the audience and arbiters, turning to generally valid rational argumentation, often in syllogistic form. The same scholars classified and hierarchized the elements and levels of speech, texts and sacrifices, sometimes even using the means of metalanguage to describe them. If Indian “pre-philosophy” dealt with ideological themes without the means of rationality, then “pre-philosophy” implemented these means on non-ideological material.
THE INITIAL PERIOD OF PHILOSOPHY in the proper sense - as the application of this toolkit to ideological problems - dates back to the time of the spiritual and cultural crisis of the middle. 1st millennium BC, the Shraman era of Indian civilization, so named due to the avalanche-like and almost synchronous appearance of many ascetic groups (Sanskrit śramana, Pali samañña - ascetic), each of which came out with its own program for achieving the highest good and the majority - in opposition to the Brahmanists. The reasons for the Shramanic “revolution” were the crisis of the solemn ritual, and the new relationship between the Indo-Aryans and the non-Aryan substratum, and the beginning (relatively later) of urban civilization, but the main one was the expansion of intellectual pluralism beyond the boundaries of the debate of priestly colleges. If the question is raised about what or who the gods of the Vedic hymns actually personify, and then about whether these hymns are significant outside the ritual action, then from here it is only a step to the next question: are these actions and actions themselves necessary for achieving the greater good? It was this problem that divided the spiritual elite into “dissidents” and traditionalists, who had to turn to generally valid arguments in front of an audience of the entire Indian society.
THE PERIOD OF SCHOOL FORMATION covers several historical eras (4th century BC – 2nd century AD). Its discussion background is determined by the great opposition of the directions of nastika and astika, which separately do not constitute any single entities, but are in the process of constant pluralization. After the first split in the Buddhist community caused by the group Mahishasaki and the main Buddhist schism of the 4th century. BC, which led to the division of the community into “reformers” Mahasanghikas and "orthodox" sthaviravadas , each of these formations gives many branches (in the historical and philosophical context, the most significant was the formation in the 3rd century BC of the school Sarvastivadas ). In the 4th–3rd centuries. BC. the first split in the Jain community is planned, associated with the name of the eighth “patriarch” of the Jains, Bhadrabaku, and in the 1st century. AD, according to Jain legends, the schism of the Shvetambaras and Digambaras took shape. Among the Brahmanical movements stands out Samkhya , the beginning of which dates back to the Shraman period; indirect evidence suggests initial stages Vaisesikas ,nyai ,mimansas ,Vedanta.
CLASSICAL PERIOD of Indian philosophy (2nd–5th centuries) – the era of initial system-building, which was realized in the formation of basic texts among the Jains, as well as in the schools of Buddhism and Brahmanism. In the 2nd century. Jain style "Tattvarthadhigama Sutra" , accepted by both the Shvetambaras and Digambaras, and the Vaisesika sutras, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. – Mimamsa and Karika sutras Madhyamiki , in the 3rd–4th centuries. - Nyaya and Vedanta sutras, in the 4th century. - the fundamental text of the Yogacara “Madhyantavibhagasutra” by Asanga, in the 4th–5th centuries. – sutras yoga and Karika Samkhya - the oldest philosophical tradition was able to present the basic text later than all the others. The significance of the basic texts was to unify the heritage of the respective traditions and to “record” their basic doctrines, which were to form the subject of further exegesis. Significant events were the emergence within the framework of Yogacara of the school of Buddhist logic and epistemology, the “sutras” of which became “Pramana-samucchaya” Dignaghi and the grammatical-Vedantic text “Vakyapadia” Bhartrihari (5th century).
EARLY SCHOOLASTIC PERIOD of Indian philosophy (5th–9th centuries) – the era of compiling normative comments on basic texts, as a result of which they become “complete” philosophical systems – darshans. Commentaries solve two main tasks - interpretation of the content of basic texts and construction of new philosophical doctrines on their basis. In a number of cases, commentary-type treatises were compiled - as in Vaisheshika, where “Padart-hadharmasangraha” Prashastapadas was "attached" to Vaisheshika Sutram , but in fact it was an independent composition. Other famous treatises included the seven works of the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti. In the commentary polemics of everyone with everyone, the permanent discussion of Nayaikas and Buddhist logicians stands out; The Mimansakas and Vedantists took a decisive stance towards supplanting Buddhism. The process of polarization has also emerged within individual systems. In Madhyamika in the 6th–7th centuries. there was a division into the Prasangika and matchmaker ; in Mimamsa in the 7th century. schools Kumarils And Prabhakars divided on almost all significant issues almost like different darshans; in Vedanta after commentary activity Shankaras (7th–8th centuries) a school of absolute monism emerges Advaita Vedanta , which soon also splits into two “streams”, and in the 9th century. The school of Bhaskara, opposing Advaita, is formed, refusing to consider the empirical world the result of cosmic Ignorance.
THE PERIOD OF “HIGH SCHOOLASTICITY” (9th–15th centuries) was marked by the gradual “expulsion” of Buddhism from India and, accordingly, a serious narrowing of the circle of real participants in the Indian “discussion club”, the emergence of encyclopedist philosophers such as Vachaspati Mishra (9th century), who worked in the traditions of the five Brahmanical systems, as well as the creation of syntheses such as Nyaya-Vaisesika and "new nyaya" Gangeshi Upadhyaya (13th century), whose achievements are compared with modern logic. Among the main new formations is the school Kashmir Shaivism (from the 9th century), as well as the Vedanta schools that opposed Advaita: growing out of the “limited monism” of Bhaskara bheda-abheda Nimbarki (11th century), vishishta-advaita Ramanuja (11th–12th centuries) and “dualistic” dvaita-advaita Madhva (13th century). This period of Indian philosophy is characterized by pronounced syncretism (Vedanta schools willingly utilize Samkhya models, Samkhya - the provisions and paradigms of Advaita Vedanta, etc.). This trend is deepening: it is enough to cite the example of Vijnyan Bhiksha (16th century), who tried to build a system of yoga-Sankhya Vedanta. Original creativity turned out to be the lot of only the new nyaya: Raghunath Shiromani (17th century) and his followers.
The main subjects of discussion during the Shramana period were: are the Atman and the world eternal? Does the universe have boundaries? Are soul and body one? Are human actions effective? Are there “unborn” beings? and does the “perfect” exist after death?; optional: what are the causes of the individual’s states of consciousness? how do they relate to knowledge and the Atman? etc. The problematic fund of Indian philosophy of the era of early and “high” scholasticism has changed significantly in comparison with the Shramanian one. It also emerges from the most popular subjects of discussion, but, due to the fact that their circle has not only changed, but also expanded beyond recognition, it is advisable here to limit ourselves only to the main “all-Indian” philosophical topics. Since Indian philosophy itself did not know the disciplinary structure of philosophical discourse, it is advisable to distribute these “all-Indian” philosophical topics within the extremely broad parameters of the ancient division of philosophical subjectivity into the areas of “logic,” “physics,” and “ethics.”
“LOGIC” can be divided (as they did ancient philosophers) on logic in the proper sense and the theory of knowledge, adding to them semantic problematics. 1. Discussions on logic are conveniently illustrated by the example of a common Indian syllogism:
(1) The hill is on fire;
(2) Because it smokes;
(3) Anything that smokes is ignited, such as a brazier;
(4) But the hill is smoking;
(5) Therefore, it is ignited.
If the Nayaikas insisted that all the terms of this syllogism are necessary, then the Buddhist logicians believed that they could be completely reduced to three: propositions (1), (2) and (3), or, in other words, (3), (4) and (5) are already quite sufficient for inference. It is obvious that opponents expressed different concepts of the very nature of syllogism: the first saw it as a means of persuasion, the second - proof (the attempt to separate logic from rhetoric dates back precisely to the era of Dignaghi). Further, the darshans were divided in the interpretation of the main mechanism of inference - point (3): the Vedantis believed that the “accompanying” of the larger term with the middle ( vyapti ) can be justified by simple induction, Nayaika realists - by a real connection between two real “things”, “smokiness” and “fiery”, Buddhist nominalists - by the recognition of only some a priori relations, for “smoke” and “ignite” are in the relationship between effect and cause .
2. The main discussion field in the theory of knowledge was determined by “discrepancies” in connection with what sources of knowledge ( pramanas ) should be considered reliable and “atomic” - not reducible to others. Charvaka materialists recognized as such only sensory perception ( pratyaksha ), Buddhists and Vaisesikas also added inference ( anumana ), Samkhyaikas and Yogins - verbal testimony ( shabda ), nayaiki - comparison ( upamana ), The Mimaṇṣakas, and after them the Vedāntins also assumed ( arthapatti ), non-perception (anupalabdhi), intuitive imagination ( pratibha ), legend (such as: “They say that a dakshini lives on a banyan tree”), correspondence (such as: “There are one hundred centimeters in one meter”), and also gestures (as a way of non-verbal transmission of information). Each previous of the listed darshans criticized each subsequent one for the introduction of “extra” sources of knowledge that are reducible to the main “components,” and each subsequent one proved their irreducibility to others. The most convenient targets for critics were the extreme positions of the “minimalists”-charvakas and “maximalists”-mimansakas. The subject of the all-Indian discussion was the relationship between perceptual and discursive knowledge: Jains generally considered perception and inference to be a single cognitive process (distinguishing them only as its stages); Yogacara Buddhists created an impassable gap between them, considering them genetically different and responsible for the cognition of existence as it is and the activity of “constructive imagination”; The Nayaikas and Mimamsakas distinguished two stages of perception itself, in the first of which there is a pure reflection of the object, in the second - its introduction into the grid of generic characteristics, etc. ( nirvikalpa–savikalpa ,pratyaksha ). On the problem of criterionology, four “tetralemma” positions were identified. The Mimansakas (followed by the Samkhyaikas) believed that the truth and falsity of any cognitive act are self-authentic and we perceive with our inner eye the correctness and incorrectness of its results; Nayaikas, on the contrary, argued that we come to the knowledge of both truth and falsity in an indirect way, through inference; Buddhists and Vedantists were closer to intermediate positions: the former believed that only falsity is self-authentic, the latter - that only truth.
Discussions on the interpretation of erroneous cognition are best illustrated with the classic example of a folded rope that someone mistakes in the dark for a snake. Buddhists saw here a case of the illusory identity of two things, the Nayaikas and Vaisheshikas emphasized the moment of “revival” of a previously perceived image, the Prabhakara school - the non-differentiation of perception and memory, the Kumarila school - a false connection in the subject-predicate relationship (“This is a snake”) of two real things. Advaita Vedantists strongly criticized all the named participants in the discussion for their inability to answer the main question - how exactly does a snake find itself, even for a moment, in the “place” of a rope - and stated that it is in in this case not non-existent (for she really appeared for a moment, causing that feeling of horror that a simple lapse of memory or false attribution cannot cause) and non-existent (otherwise in the next moment the frightened person would not realize that she really does not exist) , and therefore her existence can be described as “indescribable.” Obviously, we are talking about a transition from the epistemological aspect of the problem to the ontological one (the entire empirical world is neither dry nor non-existent).
3. The main semantic problem was the nature of the connection between the word and its referent. If the Nayaikas and Vaisesikas adhered to conventionalism, believing that the word “cow” is associated with the corresponding animal only as a result of human agreement, then the Mimamsakas were convinced that they were connected by “natural” ties that were not conventional, but eternal. If they are eternal, then the principles they connect are also eternal, including words that should be considered beginningless. The Mimamsakas met the objections of their opponents that words are produced by the speaker with a counter-objection: they are not produced, but only manifested. This doctrine was supposed to substantiate another (here the Vedantists were in solidarity with the Mimamsakas) - the doctrine of the originlessness of the Vedas, which are infallible due to the absence of an Author, and especially of authors, which the Nayaikas and Vaisheshikas insisted on. Another problem: does the signification of a sentence consist of the meanings of its constituent words or does it contain something more than their sum? The Prabhakara school took the second position, the Kumarila school took the first position, and the Nayaikas took a compromise position.
“PHYSICS” of Indian philosophers includes a wide range of problems that could be conditionally (using the thematizations of European philosophy of the New Age) distributed between ontology, anthropology, cosmology and theology.
1. Among the discussions on ontological problems - related to the fundamental characteristics and modes of being - stand out the debate on the existential status of universals, which were hardly less relevant for medieval Indian philosophy than for contemporary Western philosophy. Buddhists defended extremist nominalism, which denied not only the existence of universals outside things, but also their very identity - classes of things were defined through the negation of their negations ( apoha-vada ); Prabhakara's school was close to conceptualism, believing that universals have a positive nature, but reduced them to the objective similarity of things; The Samkhyaiks admitted that universals exist before and after individual things, but denied their eternity; finally, the Nayaikas adhered to an extremist realism, considering universals not only to be beginningless and eternal, but to be separate things accessible to special forms of perception, along with a relation of inherence connecting them with empirical things. It is natural that the most heated discussions took place between the extreme “parties” of Buddhists and Nayaikas.
Another problem was related to the ontological status of non-existence. The statement: “There is no jug on the table” was interpreted by the Buddhists as: “There is no presence of the jug,” and by the Vaisesikas as: “There is the absence of the jug.” For the former, the non-existence of something is derived from the absence of perception of it possible signs, for the second, non-existence is not only “contextual”, but also has an independent reality (therefore it becomes a separate category), and even “existential”, because one can distinguish its varieties, which were usually numbered four (see. Abhava ). The problem of darkness was also typologically close: for Nayaikas it is only a negation of light, for Vedantins it is some positive essence.
2. The main discussions in anthropology were related to the existence, quantity and characteristics of the spiritual principle of the individual - Atman. The Charvaka materialists and almost all Buddhists denied it (the latter sometimes agreed to recognize it at the level of conventional truth); "heterodox" Vatsiputri Buddhists accepted something like a pseudo-Atman ( pudgala ) to explain the law of retribution; Jains, Nayaikas, Vaisesikas and Mimamsakas considered him numerologically infinitely multiple and active subject of knowledge and action; Sankhyaikas and yogis - multiple and pure light, completely passive (all functions are performed for it by the mentality- antahkarana ); Vedantists – with a single and pure consciousness. Buddhists debated with Brahmanists (and with their own “heretics”), Vedantists with both “activists” and Samkhyaikas, and the latter, in turn, tried to justify the impossibility of the unity of the Atman by differences in the existence of individuals. The Brahmanists also criticized the concept of the Jains, who considered the soul jiva proportionate to the body: they pointed out to them that such a soul must be “elastic”, expanding in one incarnation to the size of an elephant and shrinking to the size of a worm in another. Disagreements also concerned the composition of the human body: the Nayaikas insisted that it consists only of earth atoms, the Sankhyaikas - that all five primary elements are its causes.
3. Discussions on the explanation of the world were conducted primarily around the problem of the source of the universe and were directly related to theories of causality. Buddhists proposed to consider the world a serial sequence of “point” events, defending the interpretation of the effect as the destruction of the cause ( asatkarya-vada ); Nayaikas, Vaisesikas and partly Mimamsakas saw the sources of the world in atoms, which are “assembled” and “separated” by the action of factors external to them - in accordance with their doctrine of the effect as a new beginning in comparison with its causes, with which it correlates as a whole with parts (arambhaka-vada); Samkhyaikas and yogis represented the universe as a manifestation of primordial matter prakriti – they considered the effect to be a real transformation and “revelation” of the cause ( parinama-vada ); finally, Advaita Vedantists adhered to a view of the world as an illusory projection of the Absolute-Brahman created by cosmic Illusion - the cause, in their opinion, is only apparently transformed into its “effects” ( vivarta-vada ).
4. In connection with rational theology, several positions have been identified in Indian philosophy. Discussions were conducted primarily between those who recognized the existence of the Divine ( isvara-vada ) - Nayaikas, Vaisesikas, yogis, Vedantists, and those who denied it ( nirishvara-vada ) – materialists, Jains, Buddhists, Samkhyaikas, Mimansakas. But even within the framework of “theism” (theism can be spoken about here only in quotation marks, because Indian philosophy did not know anything like Christian creationism, with all the consequences of the absence of this concept), several models were distinguished: Ishvara - “first among equals” of spiritual principles as pure subjects, indifferent to the world (yoga); Ishvara is the architect of the world and the designer who organizes the creation of things from their “components” in accordance with the law of karma (Vaisheshika and Nyaya); Ishvara as the personification of the impersonal Absolute, carrying out design activities in the game ( Leela ), with the assistance of cosmic Illusion (Advaita Vedanta).
“ETHICS” was distributed in the discussions of Indian philosophers between ethical issues in the proper sense (the universality of moral precepts and the motivation of the sense of obligation) and soteriology as the doctrine of the highest goal of human existence.
1. Among the actual ethical problems, the issue of the imperativeness of the law of non-harm was discussed - ahimsa in connection with the moral legitimacy of performing ritual instructions, which implied the possibility of its violation (in the case of certain sacrifices). Jains, Buddhists and Samkhyaikas considered the requirements of the law of ahimsa to be unconditional and therefore denied the possibility of any justification for its violation, even for “sacred purposes.” The Mimansakas, on the contrary, insisted on the immutability of ritual prescriptions and believed that since they should be seen as the very source dharma , then the violations of ahimsa they commit should be considered completely legitimate. Another discussion was conducted within the framework of the mimansa itself: the Kumarila school considered the main motive for fulfilling ritual instructions to be the promised fruits for this, and the Prabhakara school considered the desire to fulfill duty for the sake of duty itself and the special feeling of satisfaction that accompanies it.
2. In the all-Indian debate on the interpretation of the nature of “liberation” ( moksha ) the majority of votes were cast in favor of understanding liberation from suffering, samsara and karmic “connectedness” as a radical cessation of all emotionality and individual consciousness. This conclusion follows not only from the concept of nirvana as the “extinguishing” of all vitality in classical Buddhism, but also from the formulations of most Nyaya Vaisheshika philosophers, who sometimes compared the state of “deliverance” with the drying up of fire after the combustion of fuel, and from the concept of final elimination in Samkhya and yoga , and from the ideas of the Mimamsakas. This position was opposed by the interpretations of some Vaishnava and Shaivite schools (thus, the Pashupatas believed that in “liberation” the possession of the perfections of Shiva is achieved) and, most of all, the Advaita Vedantists, who understand “liberation” as the individual’s awareness of his identity with the Absolute, which is bliss (ananda). There were serious disputes between opponents. Vatsyayana in "Nyaya-bhashye" substantiates the view that bliss should not be understood differently than the cessation of suffering, and if we consider that it means pleasure, then such a state should not differ in any way from samsara, and the Vedantist Mandana Mishra substantiated the illegality of identifying positive emotional state with no negative ones. In the introduction to Sridhara's Nyaya-kandali, the Vaisesika argues that arguing for "bliss" on the basis of the authority of the Upanishads is insufficient, since it is advisable to turn to these texts when we no longer have other sources of knowledge. However, the nayyaik who preceded Sridhara Bhasarvajna opposed the "negative" definition of moksha, insisting that both consciousness and bliss should be found in this state. But the later Samkhyaikas solved the same problem in exactly the opposite way: happiness cannot be the goal of human existence, because it is inseparable from suffering.
Is individual consciousness preserved in “liberation”? Sankhyaikas, yogis and Vaisesikas were in solidarity with the Vedantists, answering this question in the negative, but for various reasons. According to the Samkhyaikas, consciousness is the result of the union of the spiritual subject with factors foreign to it, therefore, the liberated “pure subject” must already be outside consciousness; according to the Vedantins, “liberation” is the merging of the individual with the Absolute, just as the space occupied by a pot, according to Shankara’s analogy, merges with the space of the room after it is broken. They were opposed by “theistic” - both Vaishnava and Shaivite - movements, many of which positively considered the possibility of understanding the higher state as the co-presence and correspondence of “liberated” souls and the Divine, and partly by Jains, in whom each “liberated” soul restores the originally inherent her qualities of omniscience and power.
Can we hope for complete “liberation” during our lifetime? Most Nayaikas and Vaisheshikas believed that it occurs only with the destruction of the bodily shell of the one who has achieved true knowledge. However, Uddyotakara and the Samkhyaikas distinguished, as it were, the first “liberation” and the second: the preliminary one is feasible in the last incarnation of the one who has achieved knowledge, the final one - after his physical death (Uddyotakara believed that at the first stage the residual “fruits” of accumulated karma have not yet been exhausted) . The Vedantists most consistently defended the ideal of “liberation during life”: the mere presence of a body as a residual fruit of karmic seeds does not prevent the liberation of its bearer.
Three positions also emerged in the debate about the relative “proportions” of fulfilling ritual prescriptions and the discipline of knowledge as a means of achieving “liberation.” Consistent nonconformists here were, in addition to Jains and Buddhists, who rejected Brahmanic ritual practice in principle, also Samkhyaikas and yogis, who saw in it conditions not so much for “liberation”, but, on the contrary, for “enslavement” in samsarism. Shankara, Mandana Mishra and other early Vedantists took an intermediate position: only knowledge is “liberating,” but the correct fulfillment of ritual instructions “purifies” the adept on the path to the highest goal. The Mimansakas, as ideologists of ritualism, as well as some Nayaikas, insisted to a greater extent on the need for a “path of action.” Accordingly, those who were more loyal to ritual practice did not insist that the condition for “liberation” was the severance of all ties with the world, while their opponents were partly more prone to rigorism in this matter, defending the “monastic” ideal.
The discrepancies were related to whether the adept's own efforts were sufficient for “liberation” or, in addition, the help of the Divine was also required. Complete “self-liberation” was advocated by Jains, “orthodox” Buddhists, Samkhyaikas and Mimansakas. Mahayana Buddhists, yogis, Vaishnava and Saivite schools, representatives of “theistic Vedanta,” as well as some Nayaikas (Bhasarvajna and his followers) to varying degrees accepted the need for help from the pantheon. Those who considered this help necessary were also divided into “radicals” and “moderates”: the former, unlike the latter, did not consider any human effort necessary at all, understanding “liberation” as a pure “gift”. Discussions between Vedantists and Mimamsakas were also conducted on the problem: is it even possible to “earn” the highest good through any effort? The Vedantists, in contrast to the Mimansakas, who believed that it is developed, in addition to knowledge, by the exact fulfillment of sacred instructions, believed, without rejecting the prescribed actions, that it is realized as spontaneously as a girl suddenly discovers that she has a long-forgotten gold necklace.
Literature:
1. Chatterjee S.,Datta D. Introduction to Indian Philosophy. M., 1955;
2. Radhakrishnan S. Indian Philosophy, vol. 1–2. M., 1956–57;
3. Shokhin V.K. Brahmanistic philosophy: initial and early classical periods. M., 1994;
4. It's him. The first philosophers of India. M., 1997;
5. Lysenko V.G.,Terentyev A. A.,Shokhin V.K. Early Buddhist philosophy. Philosophy of Jainism. M., 1994;
6. Deussen R. Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd I, Abt. 3. Lpz., 1920;
7. Dasgupta S. A History of Indian Philosophy, v. 1–5. Oxf., 1922–55;
8. Strauss O. Indische Philosophie. Münch., 1925;
9. Stcherbatsky Th. Buddhist Logic, v. 1–2. Leningrad, 1930–32;
10. Hiriyanna M. Outlines of Indian Philosophy. L., 1932;
11. Potter K. Presuppositions of India's Philosophies. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), 1963;
12. Warder A. Outline of Indian Philosophy. Delhi, 1971;
13. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, gen. ed. K.N.Potter. Delhi a. o., Princeton, v. 1, Bibliography, comp. by K.N.Potter, 1970, 1983, 1995;
14. v. 2, Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology. The Tradition of Nyāyavaiśeṣika up to Gañgeša, ed. by K.H.Potter, 1977;
15. v. 3, Advaita Vedanta up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, ed. by K.H.Potter, 1981;
16. v. 4, Sāṃkhya: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy, ed. by G.J.Larson and R.Sh.Bhattacharya, 1987;
17. v. 7, Abhidharma Buddhism To 150 A.D., ed. by K.H.Potter with R.E.Buswell, P.S.Jaini and N.R.Reat, 1996.
V.K. Shokhin
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY OF NEW AND CONTEMPORARY TIMES. The formation and development of Indian philosophy of modern times is usually associated with the name R.M. Roy , the founder of the trend that dominated in philosophical life India 19th century, later called neo-Vedantism. However, the opinion is expressed that the first theorist of the New Age was the nameless author of the religious and philosophical treatise “Mahanirvanatantra”, written in Bengal presumably between 1775 and 1785. The humanistic orientation and educational pathos of this treatise are combined with an active rejection of polytheism, the demand for faith in a single personal God and an orientation towards strictly spiritual veneration. It is believed that Roy was greatly influenced by the Mahanirvana Tantra.
Roy, as well as his like-minded people and followers in the 19th century. (D. Tagore, K. C. Sen, Dayananda Saraswati ,Vivekananda and others), despite all the differences in their views, relied on Vedanta, although they considered it possible to combine its elements with elements of other darshanas (most often Samkhya, Vaisheshika and Nyaya). Recognition of the deep unity of man and the world in the spiritual fundamental principle and the internal relationship between Brahman and the world form the basis of their ontological views. The focus on rational cognition, occurring in concepts, judgments and inferences, and the requirement to limit the claim of the orthodox to the infallibility, uniqueness and exclusivity of the shruti (Vedic texts) while recognizing the “super-rational” cognitive abilities of man and his need for sacred scripture lay at the basis of their epistemological views . Worldview and worldview of the theorists of the 19th century. was determined to a large extent external factors, due to the peculiarities of the colonial situation of the country. They became acquainted with teachings based on different worldview, theoretical-cognitive and logical-methodological principles. Neo-Vedantists did not create independent complete systems. The re-emphasis of the inherited mental material was centered around the problem of man, forming the best features of neo-Vedantism: a critical charge, a humanistic and moral principle, an appeal to reality. Active work in favor of social reforms, carried out in line with the reformation of Hinduism, was the most noticeable aspect of their activities. As a result, for the 19th century. Vivekananda's teachings contain recognition of the need for both religious and social renewal, transformation of social structures, natural-scientific exploration of the world and equal dialogue with the Western world.
Processes comparable to the formation and development of neo-Vedantism, inseparable from the reformation of Hinduism, were also carried out within the framework of the Muslim tradition. In search of a theoretical basis for the “teaching of self-help,” Sid Ahmad Khan turned to Islam, emphasizing the need for a new reading of the Koran. Later, in the first half of the 20th century, poet and thinker M.Iqbal developed the idea of the “perfect man” entirely on the principles of “reconstructed” Islam.
IN modern times The following thinkers and social and political figures of the 20th century can be called neo-Vedantists: M.K.Gandhi ,A. Ghosha ,R. Tagore , Raman Maharshi, Kr. Bhattacharya ,Bh.Dasa ,S. Radhakrishnan. Their life paths and their destinies sometimes differed quite significantly: Gandhi and Ghosh (until 1910) were politicians; Tagore - a famous poet and writer; Ramana Maharshi - a famous yogi; Das, Bhattacharya and Radhakrishnan connected their lives with universities, although not always and not in to the fullest were confined to the framework of teaching. Despite all the differences in the initial ideas, the way they were presented and the influence on the socio-political life of the country, the work of these thinkers depended on religious thinking, was based on Vedanta, was marked by ethical pathos, inseparable from the ideas of universality and permeated with humanistic ideas. Gandhi proceeded from the position of the inseparability of the religious and the political and, basing his teaching on the thesis of identifying religion with morality, substantiated the demand for non-violent conduct of the liberation struggle. Ghosh, having experienced special mystical insights, created a complexly structured, all-encompassing system of “integral yoga”, explaining the process of involution of Nirguna Brahman, inseparable from the process of evolution, interpreted as the spiritualization of matter and the emergence of a “perfect” person capable of living forever. The pathos of life affirmation, a joyful emotional and aesthetic perception of the world, delight in the wealth of life’s impressions is the essence of Tagore’s reading of the Upanishads. Ramana Maharshi made the problem of understanding the relationship between subject and object central to his teaching, but, having come to the conclusion that introspection is the only way to comprehend one’s “I,” he at the same time considered active, socially oriented activity compatible with this kind of spiritual practice.
Formation of the so-called "academic philosophy" can be attributed to con. 19th century In those educated in the middle. 19th century The three central universities taught not only classical dar-shanas, but also Western philosophical systems. The approach to Western teachings was selective. In the last decades of the 19th century. the ideas of positivism were especially influential J.Mill And G. Spencer , utilitarianism I. Bentham , intuitionism A. Bergson. Indian intellectuals were attracted by Bergson's perception of reality, which was in tune with their worldview, based solely on intuition, understood as the specific capabilities of the mind and not reducible to either sensory experience or logical thinking. The systems were later greeted with enthusiasm Hegel And Kant , for Hegel's idea of the Absolute Spirit seemed comparable to the Vedantic understanding of Nirguna Brahman, and Hegel's interpretation of the relationship between religion and philosophy seemed compatible with the traditional understanding of religion as the “practice of philosophy” and philosophy as the “theory of religions.” Kant's work aroused interest primarily because of his doctrine of moral duty, in which they saw a certain kinship with the ideas of Mimamsa.
The work of Bhattacharya, Das and Radhakrishnan represents a serious rethinking of Vedantic schemes and the desire to creatively synthesize the spiritual heritage of the East and West to develop independent systems capable of explaining the full extent of the connections of the universe and the foundations of man’s presence in the world. Different concepts were the main components of their systems: the concept of the Absolute as truth, value and reality (Bhattacharya); the relationship between the one and the many (Das); philosophical understanding of religion as a phenomenon of a predominantly ethical nature (Radhakrishnan). The relationship between national heritage and the influence of Western systems also had different manifestations: Bhattacharya, in interpreting the essence of philosophy, relied on dar-shans and also attracted the ideas of Kant, neo-Kantianism , logical positivism; Das tried to combine the ideas of Hegel and Fichte and preserve Vedantic ideas about world cycles; In his interpretation of the problems of knowledge, Radhakrishnan relied not only on Vedanta, but also on Bergson's intuitionism.
In the 1950s–90s. a certain contribution to the development of philosophy (mainly, to understanding the problems of history as a process, the incentives for the movement of social life, social progress, philosophical problems of science and culture) was made by socio-political figures (J. Nehru, J. P. Narayan, H. Kabir). In the works of members of ashrams and various religious organizations, primary attention is paid to Vedanta: it is interpreted as the substantiation of mystical doctrines (“Society of Divine Life”); then as the only adequate justification for universal human sublime moral ideals (“Ramakrishna Mission”, “Brahma Kumari”); then as a spiritual discipline that has much in common with modern science, but surpassing generally valid empirical knowledge by the ability to “grasp” the hidden truth (“Ramakrishna Mission”, “Advaita Ashram”, etc.). Still, from the 2nd floor. 20th century philosophical problems are developed mainly by representatives of academic circles, i.e. professional philosophers at universities and research centers.
Modern Indian philosophy cannot be reduced to any one system or direction. It is a pluralistic complex of various systems and teachings. We can talk about different models of theoretical thinking; the focus on philosophical classics is maintained; a revaluation of the heritage and an appeal to the methodological foundations of Western systems are obvious (analytical philosophy - N.K. Devaraja, B.K. Matilal, G. Mishra; phenomenology and existentialism - J.A. Mehta, J. Mohanty, R. Sinari; Marxism - S. Gupta, K. Damodaran, D. P. Chattopadhyaya (art.)). The concepts of synthesis and comparative studies are widely used, when comparative philosophy is understood as an independent theory with its own methods, objects and goals of research (D.M.Datta, Devaraja, Mohanty, K.S.Murthy, P.T.Raju, D.P. Chattopadhyaya (Jr.) The number of works devoted to the history and theory of the historical and philosophical process is growing every year (R. Balasubramaniya, S. P. Banerjee, Kalidas Bhattacharya, T. M. P. Mahadevan, K. S. Murthy, T. R .V.Murthy, R.Prasad, Raju, M.Chatterjee), as well as issues of social and philosophical knowledge (P.Gregorius, Daya Krishna, K.S.Murthy, Chatterjee, Chattopadhyaya (Jr.). Annual sessions held since 1925 The All-India Philosophical Congress promotes the mutual rapprochement of scientists.The Indian Council for Philosophical Research (established in 1981) coordinates scientific work and identifies priority areas of research.
Literature:
1. Kostyuchenko V.S. Classical Vedanta and neo-Vedantism. M., 1983;
2. Litman A.D. Modern Indian philosophy. M., 1985;
3. It's him. Philosophy in independent India. Contradictions, problems, discussions. M., 1988;
4. Murty K.S. Philosophy in India. Traditions, Teaching and Research. Delhi, 1985.
O.V.Mezentseva
Since the topic of our article is the philosophy of Ancient India briefly, we will consider only the main points of this topic. However, you can get a general idea of the philosophy that was formed in the East and in particular in India.
The thinkers of Ancient India treated truth as a multifaceted knowledge that cannot be expressed in full by focusing only on individual aspects. That is why they believed that there are many ways of improvement, by choosing one of which you can develop your personality and grow spiritually.
Any philosophical system of the East recognized the ultimate goal of man as his development and self-improvement. It is through one’s own self-development that one could improve the world itself.
Indian philosophy is conventionally divided into 3 main periods:
- Vedic (XV-V centuries BC);
- Classical (5th century BC - 10th century AD);
- Hindu (from the 10th century AD).
The peculiarity of Indian philosophy is its continuous and smooth development, without sharp leaps in the views of thinkers and without sharp changes in ideas.
The most ancient texts related to the philosophy of Ancient India are contained in the Vedas, which were written before the 15th century. BC e. The Vedas are “knowledge”, “knowledge”.
It was this knowledge that served as the beginning of ancient Indian philosophy, while subsequent literature was essentially a commentary or a kind of interpretation of Vedic texts.
Vedic literature is divided into 4 groups in historical sequence:
- Samhitas.
- Brahmins.
- Aranyaki.
- Upanishads.
Considering that the Samhitas are the oldest texts, they are usually called the Vedas, and the Upanishads are free additions to the original source, but in a broad sense, all 4 groups are called the Vedas.
Samhitas are 4 collections of hymns:
- Rigveda (the oldest of the Vedas, all subsequent ones rely on it);
- Samave-da (Veda of Chant);
- Yajurveda (Veda of Sacrifice);
- At-harvaveda (Veda of Spells).
The Vedas were presented as a revelation given to man by deities. The gods had the gift of all-vision and they passed on their knowledge (Vedas) to the Rishi poets. Rishi is not specific people, and the authors of the hymns are unique characters.
In ancient Indian philosophy there were two traditions (methods of knowledge):
- Shruti (what is described above - the transfer of knowledge from the gods to the rishis);
- Smriti (“remembering” literally).
Thus, the Vedas included two separate types of knowledge - sacred and second - profane.
According to most scholars, the Vedas were formed during the formation of class society. Ancient India was not characterized by a slave system, but class inequality was present.
It was this that led to the formation of four groups (varna):
- brahmins (priests);
- kshatriyas (warriors representing the highest social class);
- Vaishyas (artisans, traders, farmers);
- Shudras (lowest social class).
All varnas differed in rights, social status, and responsibilities. It is precisely this social organization that is reflected in the Vedas.
The earliest Veda is called the Rig Veda. It was divided into 10 mandalas (books). The hymns of the Rig Veda are verses of praise to the gods, who represented the forces of nature; and ritual poems, which included prayers and requests of people to the gods.
The hymns of the Rigveda are not just poetry, but a sacred attempt of the ancient Indians to understand the truth of existence. Space is everything and everyone. Space and time are the unity of diachrony and synchrony. The law of rotation of the Universe is Rita. The Universe develops synchronically, and then a period of diachrony begins when Chaos replaces Cosmos.
From the Rig Veda we learn about such gods as Surya (sun god), Savitr (motivator god), Mitra (god of friendship), Pushan (god of solar energy), Ushas (goddess of the dawn), Agni (god of fire). This is by no means a complete list of gods and divine beings described in the Rig Veda. It is worth noting that none of them is dominant; all of them, to one degree or another, came forward when there was a need for it. Thus, each divine being was represented as a part of the universal spirit.
We looked at what the philosophy of Ancient India is briefly. It is the Vedas, and especially the first verses, that can provide insight into history, religion (in particular), psychology and aesthetics public life India.
Philosophy was formed almost simultaneously in the middle of the first millennium BC. in three centers of ancient civilization at once: Ancient India, Ancient China and Ancient Greece. The first two cultures are united under the name of Eastern philosophy, and Ancient Greece is classified as Western philosophy.
According to German philosopher Jaspers, both philosophies originate in the axial time of history (about 500 BC), during the period of those spiritual events that occurred between 800 and 200 BC. BC. all the way from West to East. At this time, the decline of the mythological era begins, a worldview crisis occurs, the foundations of world religions are laid, the struggle of rational experience with myth arises, and the basic concepts and categories that we use to this day are developed.
As a result, there are many similarities between the philosophical views of the East and the West:
In both the East and the West, philosophy is born in the womb of mythology;
In both cases, the beginnings of philosophy were associated with the emergence of class societies and the state;
Both types of philosophy are addressed to universal human problems and values: the relationship between good and evil, beautiful and ugly, fair and unfair, the meaning of life, etc.;
Both there and there there are idealistic, materialistic teachings, as well as those that cannot be considered unambiguously materialistic or only idealistic.
However, in the East, the development of philosophical thought was carried out under the conditions of despotic states, and therefore its genesis differs from the Western one. These differences were noted, for example, in the famous essay by C. Jung “The Difference between Eastern and Western Thinking” (1939).
In general, Eastern philosophy: religious, mystical, spiritual-practical, low-system, intuitive, introverted - addressed to the inner world of a person, focused on his spiritual self-improvement. That is, Eastern philosophy is more characterized by self-knowledge rather than an attempt to develop universal methods of knowledge, as in Western philosophy.
Thus, the entire spiritual culture and philosophy of the civilizations of the East is based on an appeal to the existence of the individual, his self-awareness, self-deepening and self-improvement, which are carried out by withdrawing from the external, material world.
The history of ancient Indian philosophy is conventionally divided into two major periods:
Vedic period (approximately from the 10th to the 5th centuries BC);
Classical or Brahman - Buddhist (from the 5th century BC to the 10th century AD).
In the first, Vedic period, philosophical views did not yet exist separately from religious and mythological ones. The beginning of philosophical thinking in India was associated with Brahmanism, which was based on the Vedas (hereinafter other concepts translated from Sanskrit - “knowledge”) - the sacred books of the Brahmans (priests, priests). The most important of them are Rigveda(Veda of Hymns) and the Upanishads (from 800 BC) - a philosophical secret teaching that sets out the basic ideas of Brahmanism: the basis of the cosmos is the eternally existing - Brahman = the universal spiritual principle from which everything that exists has evolved, into including the individual soul - Atman, “I”, through which Brahman realizes itself.
It also develops a theory about the transmigration of souls, about the predetermination of life and fate by previous deeds - karma and the passionate desire to escape from the cycle of repeated births - samsara - thanks to asceticism and higher spiritual knowledge.
In general, the Upanishads had a great influence on the ancient Indian worldview, and the doctrine of samsara and karma becomes the starting point for all subsequent religious teachings, with the exception of materialistic ones.
In the second, classical period, in the context of intense religious and philosophical disputes, the main classical schools of Ancient India - darshans (lit. - vision, look) - were formed, and the first systematic presentations of Indian philosophy were sutras - collections of sayings and aphorisms.
Since the main criterion for classification is the attitude towards the Vedas, these schools are usually divided into two main movements:
Orthodox (based on the Vedas), which include Vedanta, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika.
Unorthodox schools in Indian philosophy. One of them, lokayata (from “loka” - “this world”), is close to the materialistic view. This school originated about 2500 years ago. The founder is considered to be the semi-legendary sage Brihaspati. A later variety of Lokayata is Charvaka.
According to this teaching, only the sensory world really exists, which is formed from a random combination of four eternal principles: earth, water, air and fire. These primary elements are active and spontaneous; they have an inherent creative power (svabha).
Human consciousness also arises from these principles with their certain combination. When a living body disintegrates into its original principles, consciousness also disappears. Therefore, the meaning of life is the striving for happiness, understood as pleasure.
In the VI century. BC. In India, two significant religious and philosophical systems arose - Buddhism and Jainism.
According to legend, Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama (625-543 BC), who received the name Buddha (awakened, enlightened). If Brahmanism taught that suffering is a punishment for the sins of past incarnations and that piety relieves suffering, then Buddhism began to assert that any life is suffering: whoever a person is, he is doomed to illness, old age, and death.
The only way to get rid of suffering is to completely get out of samsara, realizing the variability and illusory nature of individual existence and joining the four noble truths:
Life is suffering;
The cause of suffering is attachment to life, leading to the cycle of births;
It is necessary to get rid of this attachment;
One should adhere to the path of cutting off the root of suffering, the middle path, rejecting the extremes of both asceticism (complete self-denial) and hedonism (sensual pleasures). This is an eight-step program of spiritual elevation that allows you to overcome suffering and achieve nirvana (attenuation, extinction). Achieving nirvana, i.e. transcendental transition to complete dispassion and absolute detachment from external existence is very difficult and means a person’s victory over himself.
Jainism (founder - Mahavira Vardhamana, 6th century BC) has as its central problem the existence of the individual, which has two manifestations - spiritual (jiva) and material (ajiva). They are connected by karma - subtle matter that accompanies the soul in an endless chain of rebirths
As a result of good or bad deeds, more and more new ones “settle” on the original karma, burdening the soul. The law of karma cannot be propitiated by sacrifices to the gods, but it can be defeated. Gina is the one who defeated karma and approached perfection - moksha (nirvana).
To free yourself from karma during your lifetime, you need the path of monasticism, asceticism, long fasts, study of sacred texts and observance of the five vows prohibiting murder, theft, lying, adultery and possession of property. But the most important is the principle of ahimsa - non-harm to living beings.
Orthodox schools Indian philosophy. These schools represent the philosophical foundation of Hinduism, which began in the Upanishads, and became the property of the general public thanks to such an epic tale as the Mahabharata, written in the middle of the first millennium BC. As philosophical systems of Hinduism, these schools form 3 groups, united in pairs, because Mimamsa is close to Vedanta, Samkhya to yoga, and Nyaya to Vaisheshika.
Vedanta (the completion of the Vedas) continued the teaching about Brahman and atman - about the identity of a certain non-personal absolute - Brahman with the subject cognizing it - Atman, the individual soul.
The main way to comprehend the highest truth, and thereby to liberation from samsara, is adherence to moral standards and meditation (under the guidance of a teacher), which means intensive reflection on the problems of the Vedas.
Mimamsa (insight, investigation) focuses more on the ritual side of the Vedas, especially the proper execution of sacrifice. Therefore, the main thing for Mimamsa is the systematization, clarification and development of the rules of the Brahmanic ritual, as well as their justification by interpreting the instructions contained in this regard in the texts of the Vedas.
At the same time, knowledge of the Vedas is closely connected with the idea of duty, the fulfillment of which leads to gradual redemption from karma and the cessation of rebirth and suffering.
Sankhya(number, enumeration) - a teaching that is constructed as an analytical enumeration of the elements of the cosmos in their formation to the entire diversity of the world, which is considered as the result of the interaction of two principles - material, actively active (prakriti) and ideal, introspective (purusha). To act, the purusha needs prakriti.
A special place in the process of ascending materialization of consciousness (purusha) is occupied by jiva, i.e. a living being, an “I”, presupposing a connection with a certain body and therefore subject to the suffering that lies at the basis of all bodily existence. Hence the main ethical position of Sankhya: the path to liberation from suffering is knowledge, which has three sources (sensory perception, logical inference and knowledge of the texts of the Vedas) and leads to the independence of the purusha from prakriti, the self-sufficiency of the spirit, liberating from suffering.
Yoga, in essence, translates into practical practice the paths and methods of liberation from suffering outlined by Samkhya. Note: one should distinguish between yoga as one of the orthodox schools (starting with its founder - Patanjali, 2nd century BC), and yoga as a practical system of psychophysical methods spiritual development, which have been used since ancient times by all schools of Indian philosophy, with the exception of Charvaka and Mimamsa.
According to the school of yoga, a person - a yogi, who through active efforts and concentration has achieved liberation from the power of material existence, goes to the highest Purusha and is called Ishvara - Lord, Lord. This requires: ethical improvement; ascetic practice; system of psychotechnical exercises (8 steps of yoga).
Vaisheshika (discrimination, peculiarity) - the doctrine according to which the path to liberation lies through knowledge, i.e. through true comprehension of reality. Vaisheshika interprets reality in the spirit of atomistic materialism and realism, including elements of theism: the absolute divine Self, Ishvara, creates worlds from intangible atoms with the help of a special purposeful force. At the same time, atoms form not the material world, but dharma, i.e. moral law that governs the world.
Knowledge is the identification of a world system in which 7 types of reality are distinguished. Each of them has many forms. Thus, substance - the material carrier of qualities, actions and causes of everything complex, has 9 forms: 5 elemental elements - earth, water, fire, air, ether and 4 more elements - space, time, soul - atman, mind - manas (organ of coordination data of consciousness).
The Nyaya school (rule, reasoning, entry into the subject), in resolving ideological issues for the Vaisheshika, focuses its attention in achieving the goal of liberation and achieving supreme bliss on the study of the forms and methods of true knowledge, which can be determined through analytical research, i.e. using logic and its laws.
This school explored the sources of reliable knowledge and ways of distinguishing it from unreliable knowledge. The main goal of the Nyaya logical teaching was to formulate recommendations on the rules of inference, its structure, basis, classification of conclusions, logical errors, etc.
In general, we can talk about the unity of most schools of Indian philosophy in defining the highest goals and at the same time, the plurality of their pictures of the world.
The further development of Indian philosophy was associated with the development of commentaries on the sutras, discussions about the nature of logical universals, enlightenment in its religious form, and above all, in the form of Hinduism.
The philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important thing. This is another topic from a series of publications on the basics of philosophy. In the previous article we looked at. As already mentioned, the science of philosophy arose simultaneously in different ends world - in Ancient Greece and in Ancient India and China approximately in the 7-6 centuries. BC. Often the philosophies of Ancient India and Ancient China are considered together, since they are very related and had a great influence on each other. But still, I propose to consider the history of the philosophy of Ancient China in the next article.
The philosophy of Ancient India was based on the texts contained in the Vedas, which were written in ancient language- Sanskrit. They consist of several collections written in the form of hymns. It is believed that the Vedas were compiled over a period of thousands of years. The Vedas were used for religious service.
The first philosophical texts of India are the Upanishads (late 2nd millennium BC). The Upanishads are an interpretation of the Vedas.
Upanishads
The Upanishads formed the main Indian philosophical themes: the idea of an infinite and one God, the doctrine of rebirth and karma. The One God is the incorporeal Brahman. Its manifestation – Atman – is the immortal, inner “I” of the world. The Atman is identical to the human soul. The goal of the human soul (the goal of the individual Atman) is to merge with the world Atman (the world soul). Anyone who lives in recklessness and impurity will not be able to achieve such a state and will enter the cycle of rebirth according to the cumulative result of his words, thoughts and actions, according to the laws of karma.
In philosophy, the Upanishads are ancient Indian treatises of a philosophical and religious nature. The most ancient of them date back to the 8th century BC. The Upanishads reveal the main point Vedas, which is why they are also called “Vedanta”.
In them the Vedas received the greatest development. The idea of connecting everything with everything, the theme of space and man, the search for connections, all this was reflected in them. The basis of everything that exists in them is the inexpressible Brahman, as the cosmic, impersonal principle and basis of the whole world. Another central point is the idea of the identity of man with Brahman, of karma as the law of action and samsara, like a circle of suffering that a person needs to overcome.
Philosophical schools (systems) of Ancient India
WITH 6th century BC the time of classics has begun philosophical schools(systems). Distinguish orthodox schools(they considered the Vedas the only source of Revelation) and unorthodox schools(they did not recognize the Vedas as the only authoritative source of knowledge).
Jainism and Buddhism classified as heterodox schools. Yoga and Samkhya, Vaisheshika and Nyaya, Vedanta and Mimamsa- these are six orthodox schools. I listed them in pairs because they are pairwise friendly.
Unorthodox schools
Jainism
Jainism is based on the hermit tradition (6th century BC). The basis of this system is personality and it consists of two principles - material and spiritual. Karma binds them together.
The idea of rebirth of souls and karma led the Jains to the idea that all life on Earth has a soul - plants, animals and insects. Jainism preaches such a life as not to harm all life on Earth.
Buddhism
Buddhism arose in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. Its creator was Gautama, a prince from India, who later received the name Buddha, which means awakened one. He developed the concept of a way to get rid of suffering. This should be the main goal of life for a person who wants to gain liberation and go beyond samsara, the cycle of suffering and pain.
To break out of the circle of suffering (enter nirvana) you need to observe 5 Commandments (Wikipedia) and engage in meditation, which calms the mind and makes one's mind clearer and free from desires. The extinction of desires leads to liberation and deliverance from the cycle of suffering.
Orthodox schools
Vedanta
Vedanta was one of the most influential schools of Indian philosophy. The exact time of its appearance is not known, approximately - 2nd century. BC e. The completion of the teaching dates back to the end of the 8th century AD. e. Vedanta is based on the interpretation of the Upanishads.
In it the basis of everything is Brahman, which is one and infinite. The Atman of man can know Brahman and then man can become free.
Atman is the highest “I”, the absolute, which is aware of its existence. Brahman is the cosmic, impersonal beginning of everything that exists.
Mimamsa
Mimamsa is adjacent to Vedanta and is a system that explained the rituals of the Vedas. The core was considered the idea of duty, which represented the making of sacrifices. The school reached its culmination in the 7th-8th centuries. It had an impact on strengthening the influence of Hinduism in India and reducing the importance of Buddhism.
Samkhya
This is the philosophy of dualism founded by Kapila. There are two principles in the world: prakriti (matter) and purusha (spirit). According to it, the main basis of everything is matter. The goal of Samkhya philosophy is the abstraction of spirit from matter. It was based on human experience and reflection.
Sankhya and Yoga are connected. Samkhya is the theoretical basis for yoga. Yoga is a practical technique for achieving liberation.
Yoga
Yoga. This system is based on practice. Only through practical exercises can a person achieve reunification with the divine principle. A lot of such yoga systems have been created, and they are still very famous all over the world. It is she who has become the most popular now in many countries, thanks to the complexes physical exercise, which make it possible to be healthy and not get sick.
Yoga differs from Samkhya in the belief that every person has a supreme personal Deity. With the help of asceticism and meditation, you can free yourself from prakriti (material).
Nyaya
Nyaya was the doctrine of various forms thinking, about the rules of discussion. Therefore, its study was mandatory for everyone who was engaged in philosophizing. The problems of existence in it were explored through logical comprehension. Man's main goal in this life is liberation.
Vaisesika
Vaisheshika is a school related to the Nyaya school. According to this system, every thing is constantly changing, although there are elements in nature that are not subject to change - these are atoms. Important topic schools - classify the objects in question.
Vaisheshika is based on the objective cognizability of the world. Adequate cognition is the main goal of systematic thinking.
Books on the philosophy of Ancient India
From Samkhya to Vedanta. Indian philosophy: darshans, categories, history. Chattopadhyaya D (2003). A professor at Calcutta University wrote this book especially for Europeans who are just beginning to become acquainted with the philosophy of Ancient India.
Six systems of Indian philosophy. Muller Max (1995). The Oxford University professor is an outstanding expert on Indian texts; he has translated the Upanishads and Buddhist texts. This book is referred to as a fundamental work on the philosophy and religion of India.
Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Chatterjee S and Dutta D (1954). The authors present the views of Indian philosophical schools briefly and in simple language.
The philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important thing. VIDEO.
Summary
I think the article " Philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important thing" became useful for you. You learned:
- about the main sources of the philosophy of Ancient India - the ancient texts of the Vedas and Upanishads;
- about the main classical schools of Indian philosophy - orthodox (yoga, Samkhya, Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Vedanta, Mimamsa) and heterodox (Jainism and Buddhism);
- about the main feature of the philosophy of the Ancient East - about understanding the true purpose of man and his place in the world (focus on inner world than on the external circumstances of life).
I wish everyone always a positive attitude for all your projects and plans!
