A History of Indian Philosophy Part 10

The contributions of the successive commentators served to make each system more and more complete in all its parts, and stronger and stronger to enable it to hold its own successfully against the opposition and attacks of the rival schools. A system in the sutras is weak and shapeless as a newborn babe, but if we take it along with its developments down to the beginning of the seventeenth century it appears as a fully developed man strong and harmonious in all its limbs. It is therefore not possible to write any history of successive philosophies of India, but it is necessity that each system should be studied and interpreted in all the growth it has acquired through the successive ages of history from its conflicts with the rival systems as one whole [Footnote ref 1]. In the history of Indian philosophy we have no place for systems which had their importance only so long as they lived and were then forgotten or remembered only as targets of criticism. Each system grew and developed by the untiring energy of its adherents through all the successive ages of history, and a history of this growth is a history of its conflicts. No study of any Indian system is therefore adequate unless it is taken throughout all the growth it attained by the work of its champions, the commentators whose selfless toil for it had kept it living through the ages of history.

__

[Footnote 1: In the case of some systems it is indeed possible to suggest one or two earlier phases of the system, but this principle cannot be carried all through, for the supplementary information and arguments given by the later commentators often appear as harmonious elaborations of the earlier writings and are very seldom in conflict with them.]

65

Growth of the Philosophic Literature.

It is difficult to say how the systems were originally formulated, and what were the influences that led to it. We know that a spirit of philosophic enquiry had already begun in the days of the earliest [email protected] The spirit of that enquiry was that the final essence or truth was the atman, that a search after it was our highest duty, and that until we are ultimately merged in it we can only feel this truth and remain uncontented with everything else and say that it is not the truth we want, it is not the truth we want (_neti neti_). Philosophical enquires were however continuing in circles other than those of the [email protected] Thus the Buddha who closely followed the early [email protected] period, spoke of and enumerated sixty-two kinds of heresies [Footnote ref 1], and these can hardly be traced in the [email protected] The Jaina activities were also probably going on contemporaneously but in the [email protected] no reference to these can be found. We may thus reasonably suppose that there were different forms of philosophic enquiry in spheres other than those of the [email protected] sages, of which we have but scanty records.

It seems probable that the Hindu systems of thought originated among the sages who though attached chiefly to the [email protected] circles used to take note of the discussions and views of the antagonistic and heretical philosophic circles. In the a.s.semblies of these sages and their pupils, the views of the heretical circles were probably discussed and refuted. So it continued probably for some time when some ill.u.s.trious member of the a.s.sembly such as Gautama or Kanada collected the purport of these discussions on various topics and problems, filled up many of the missing links, cla.s.sified and arranged these in the form of a system of philosophy and recorded it in sutras. These sutras were intended probably for people who had attended the elaborate oral discussions and thus could easily follow the meaning of the suggestive phrases contained in the aphorisms. The sutras thus contain sometimes allusions to the views of the rival schools and indicate the way in which they could be refuted. The commentators were possessed of the general drift of the different discussions alluded to and conveyed from generation to generation through an unbroken chain of succession of teachers and pupils. They were however free to supplement these traditionary explanations with their own

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Brahmajala-sutta, Digha_, 1. p. 12 ff.]

66

views or to modify and even suppress such of the traditionary views with which they did not agree or which they found it difficult to maintain. Brilliant oppositions from the opposing schools often made it necessary for them to offer solutions to new problems unthought of before, but put forward by some ill.u.s.trious adherent of a rival school. In order to reconcile these new solutions with the other parts of the system, the commentators never hesitated to offer such slight modifications of the doctrines as could harmonize them into a complete whole. These elaborations or modifications generally developed the traditionary system, but did not effect any serious change in the system as expounded by the older teachers, for the new exponents always bound themselves to the explanations of the older teachers and never contradicted them. They would only interpret them to suit their own ideas, or say new things only in those cases where the older teachers had remained silent.

It is not therefore possible to describe the growth of any system by treating the contributions of the individual commentators separately.

This would only mean unnecessary repet.i.tion. Except when there is a specially new development, the system is to be interpreted on the basis of the joint work of the commentators treating their contributions as forming one whole.

The fact that each system had to contend with other rival systems in order to hold its own has left its permanent mark upon all the philosophic literatures of India which are always written in the form of disputes, where the writer is supposed to be always faced with objections from rival schools to whatever he has got to say. At each step he supposes certain objections put forth against him which he answers, and points out the defects of the objector or shows that the objection itself is ill founded. It is thus through interminable byways of objections, counter-objections and their answers that the writer can wend his way to his destination. Most often the objections of the rival schools are referred to in so brief a manner that those only who know the views can catch them. To add to these difficulties the Sanskrit style of most of the commentaries is so condensed and different from literary Sanskrit, and aims so much at precision and brevity, leading to the use of technical words current in the diverse systems, that a study of these becomes often impossible without the aid of an expert preceptor; it is difficult therefore for all who are not widely read in all the different systems to follow any advanced

67

work of any particular system, as the deliberations of that particular system are expressed in such close interconnection with the views of other systems that these can hardly be understood without them. Each system of India has grown (at least in particular epochs) in relation to and in opposition to the growth of other systems of thought, and to be a thorough student of Indian philosophy one should study all the systems in their mutual opposition and relation from the earliest times to a period at which they ceased to grow and came to a stop--a purpose for which a work like the present one may only be regarded as forming a preliminary introduction.

Besides the sutras and their commentaries there are also independent treatises on the systems in verse called _karikas_, which try to summarize the important topics of any system in a succinct manner; the [email protected] karika_ may be mentioned as a work of this kind. In addition to these there were also long dissertations, commentaries, or general observations on any system written in verses called the varttikas; the _S'lokavarttika_, of k.u.marila or the _Varttika_ of Sures'vara may be mentioned as examples. All these of course had their commentaries to explain them. In addition to these there were also advanced treatises on the systems in prose in which the writers either nominally followed some selected sutras or proceeded independently of them. Of the former cla.s.s the _Nyayamanjari_ of Jayanta may be mentioned as an example and of the latter the _Pras'astapada [email protected]_, the _Advaitasiddhi_ of Madhusudana Sarasvati or the [email protected]_ of Dharmarajadhvarindra.

The more remarkable of these treatises were of a masterly nature in which the writers represented the systems they adhered to in a highly forcible and logical manner by dint of their own great mental powers and genius. These also had their commentaries to explain and elaborate them. The period of the growth of the philosophic literatures of India begins from about 500 B.C. (about the time of the Buddha) and practically ends in the later half of the seventeenth century, though even now some minor publications are seen to come out.

The Indian Systems of Philosophy.

The Hindus cla.s.sify the systems of philosophy into two cla.s.ses, namely, the _nastika_ and the _astika_. The nastika (_na asti_ "it is not") views are those which neither regard the Vedas as infallible

68

nor try to establish their own validity on their authority. These are princ.i.p.ally three in number, the Buddhist, Jaina and the Carvaka.

The astika-mata or orthodox schools are six in number, [email protected], Yoga, Vedanta, [email protected], Nyaya and [email protected], generally known as the six systems ([email protected]@ddars'ana_ [Footnote ref 1]).

The [email protected] is ascribed to a mythical Kapila, but the earliest works on the subject are probably now lost. The Yoga system is attributed to Patanjali and the original sutras are called the _Patanjala Yoga sutras_. The general metaphysical position of these two systems with regard to soul, nature, cosmology and the final goal is almost the same, and the difference lies in this that the Yoga system acknowledges a G.o.d (_is'vara_) as distinct from atman and lays much importance on certain mystical practices (commonly known as Yoga practices) for the achievement of liberation, whereas the [email protected] denies the existence of is'vara and thinks that sincere philosophic thought and culture are sufficient to produce the true conviction of the truth and thereby bring about liberation. It is probable that the system of [email protected] a.s.sociated with Kapila and the Yoga system a.s.sociated with Patanjali are but two divergent modifications of an original [email protected] school, of which we now get only references here and there. These systems therefore though generally counted as two should more properly be looked upon as two different schools of the same [email protected] system--one may be called the Kapila [email protected] and the other Patanjala [email protected]

The Purva [email protected] (from the root _man_ to think--rational conclusions) cannot properly be spoken of as a system of philosophy.

It is a systematized code of principles in accordance with which the Vedic texts are to be interpreted for purposes of sacrifices.

__

[Footnote 1: The word "_dars'ana_" in the sense of true philosophic knowledge has its earliest use in the [email protected] sutras_ of [email protected] (IX. ii. 13) which I consider as pre-Buddhistic. The Buddhist [email protected] (400 B.C.) called the heretical opinions "_ditthi_" ([email protected] from the same root [email protected]'_ from which dars'ana is formed). Haribhadra (fifth century A.D.) uses the word Dars'ana in the sense of systems of philosophy (_sarvadars'anavacyo' rtha@h--@[email protected]'anasamuccaya_ I.).

Ratnakirtti (end of the tenth century A.D.) uses the word also in the same sense ("_Yadi nama dars'ane dars'ane nanaprakaram [email protected] uktamasti._" [email protected]@[email protected]_ in _Six Buddhist Nyaya tracts_, p.20).

Madhava (1331 A.D.) calls his Compendium of all systems of philosophy, [email protected]@na_. The word "_mata_" (opinion or view) was also freely used in quoting the views of other systems. But there is no word to denote 'philosophers' in the technical sense. The Buddhists used to call those who held heretical views "_tairthika._" The words "siddha,"

"_jnanin_," etc. do not denote philosophers, in the modern sense, they are used rather in the sense of "seers" or "perfects."]

69

The Vedic texts were used as mantras (incantations) for sacrifices, and people often disputed as to the relation of words in a sentence or their mutual relative importance with reference to the general drift of the sentence. There were also differences of view with regard to the meaning of a sentence, the use to which it may be applied as a mantra, its relative importance or the exact nature of its connection with other similar sentences in a complex Vedic context. The [email protected] formulated some principles according to which one could arrive at rational and uniform solutions for all these difficulties. Preliminary to these its main objects, it indulges in speculations with regard to the external world, soul, perception, inference, the validity of the Vedas, or the like, for in order that a man might perform sacrifices with mantras, a definite order of the universe and its relation to man or the position and nature of the mantras of the Veda must be demonstrated and established. Though its interest in such abstract speculations is but secondary yet it briefly discusses these in order to prepare a rational ground for its doctrine of the mantras and their practical utility for man. It is only so far as there are these preliminary discussions in the [email protected] that it may be called a system of philosophy. Its principles and maxims for the interpretation of the import of words and sentences have a legal value even to this day. The sutras of [email protected] are attributed to Jaimini, and S'abara wrote a [email protected] upon it. The two great names in the history of [email protected] literature after Jaimini and S'abara are k.u.marila [email protected]@ta and his pupil Prabhakara, who criticized the opinions of his master so much, that the master used to call him guru (master) in sarcasm, and to this day his opinions pa.s.s as _guru-mata_, whereas the views of k.u.marila [email protected]@ta pa.s.s as [email protected]@ta-mata_ [Footnote ref 1]. It may not be out of place to mention here that Hindu Law ([email protected]_) accepts without any reservation the maxims and principles settled and formulated by the [email protected]

[email protected]_

[Footnote 1: There is a story that k.u.marila could not understand the meaning of a Sanskrit sentence "_Atra tunoktam tatrapinoktam iti paunaraktam_" (hence spoken twice). _Tunoktam_ phonetically admits of two combinations, _tu noktam_ (but not said) and _tunauktam_ (said by the particle _tu_) and _tatrapi noktam_ as _tatra api na uktam_ (not said also there) and _tatra apina uktam_ (said there by the particle _api_). Under the first interpretation the sentence would mean, "Not spoken here, not spoken there, it is thus spoken twice." This puzzled k.u.marila, when Prabhakara taking the second meaning pointed out to him that the meaning was "here it is indicated by _tu_ and there by _api,_ and so it is indicated twice." k.u.marila was so pleased that he called his pupil "Guru" (master) at this.]

70

The _Vedanta sutras_, also called Uttara [email protected], written by [email protected], otherwise known as the _Brahma-sutras_, form the original authoritative work of Vedanta. The word Vedanta means "end of the Veda," i.e. the [email protected], and the _Vedanta sutras_ are so called as they are but a summarized statement of the general views of the [email protected] This work is divided into four books or adhyayas and each adhyaya is divided into four padas or chapters.

The first four sutras of the work commonly known as [email protected]_ are (1) How to ask about Brahman, (2) From whom proceed birth and decay, (3) This is because from him the Vedas have come forth, (4) This is shown by the harmonious testimony of the [email protected]

The whole of the first chapter of the second book is devoted to justifying the position of the Vedanta against the attacks of the rival schools. The second chapter of the second book is busy in dealing blows at rival systems. All the other parts of the book are devoted to settling the disputed interpretations of a number of individual [email protected] texts. The really philosophical portion of the work is thus limited to the first four sutras and the first and second chapters of the second book. The other portions are like commentaries to the [email protected], which however contain many theological views of the system. The first commentary of the _Brahma-sutra_ was probably written by Baudhayana, which however is not available now. The earliest commentary that is now found is that of the great [email protected] His interpretations of the _Brahma-sutras_ together with all the commentaries and other works that follow his views are popularly known as Vedanta philosophy, though this philosophy ought more properly to be called Vis'uddhadvaitavada school of Vedanta philosophy (i.e. the Vedanta philosophy of the school of absolute monism). Variant forms of dualistic philosophy as represented by the [email protected]@navas, S'aivas, Ramayatas, etc., also claim to express the original purport of the Brahma sutras. We thus find that apostles of dualistic creeds such as Ramanuja, Vallabha, Madhva, [email protected]@tha, Baladeva, etc., have written independent commentaries on the _Brahma-sutra_ to show that the philosophy as elaborated by themselves is the view of the [email protected] and as summarized in the _Brahma-sutras_. These differed largely and often vehemently attacked [email protected]'s interpretations of the same sutras. These systems as expounded by them also pa.s.s by the name of Vedanta as these are also claimed to be the real interpretations intended by the Vedanta ([email protected])

71

and the _Vedanta sutras_. Of these the system of Ramanuja has great philosophical importance.

The _Nyaya sutras_ attributed to Gautama, called also [email protected], and the [email protected] sutras_ attributed to [email protected], called also Uluka, represent the same system for all practical purposes. They are in later times considered to differ only in a few points of minor importance. So far as the sutras are concerned the _Nyaya sutras_ lay particular stress on the cultivation of logic as an art, while the [email protected] sutras_ deal mostly with metaphysics and physics.

In addition to these six systems, the Tantras had also philosophies of their own, which however may generally be looked upon largely as modifications of the [email protected] and Vedanta systems, though their own contributions are also noteworthy.

Some fundamental Points of Agreement.

I. _The Karma Theory._

It is, however, remarkable that with the exception of the Carvaka materialists all the other systems agree on some fundamental points of importance. The systems of philosophy in India were not stirred up merely by the speculative demands of the human mind which has a natural inclination for indulging in abstract thought, but by a deep craving after the realization of the religious purpose of life. It is surprising to note that the postulates, aims and conditions for such a realization were found to be identical in all the conflicting systems. Whatever may be their differences of opinion in other matters, so far as the general postulates for the realization of the transcendent state, the _summum bonum_ of life, were concerned, all the systems were practically in thorough agreement. It may be worth while to note some of them at this stage.

First, the theory of Karma and rebirth. All the Indian systems agree in believing that whatever action is done by an individual leaves behind it some sort of potency which has the power to ordain for him joy or sorrow in the future according as it is good or bad. When the fruits of the actions are such that they cannot be enjoyed in the present life or in a human life, the individual has to take another birth as a man or any other being in order to suffer them.

The Vedic belief that the mantras uttered in the correct accent at the sacrifices with the proper observance of all ritualistic

72

details, exactly according to the directions without the slightest error even in the smallest trifle, had something like a magical virtue automatically to produce the desired object immediately or after a lapse of time, was probably the earliest form of the Karma doctrine. It postulates a semi-conscious belief that certain mystical actions can produce at a distant time certain effects without the ordinary process of the instrumentality of visible agents of ordinary cause and effect. When the sacrifice is performed, the action leaves such an unseen magical virtue, called the [email protected]@[email protected]_ (the unseen) or the _apurva_ (new), that by it the desired object will be achieved in a mysterious manner, for the _modus operandi_ of the _apurva_ is unknown. There is also the notion prevalent in the [email protected], as we have already noticed, that he who commits wicked deeds suffers in another world, whereas he who performs good deeds enjoys the highest material pleasures.

These were probably a.s.sociated with the conception of [email protected]_, the inviolable order of things. Thus these are probably the elements which built up the Karma theory which we find pretty well established but not emphasized in the [email protected], where it is said that according to good or bad actions men will have good or bad births.

To notice other relevant points in connection with the Karma doctrine as established in the astika systems we find that it was believed that the unseen ([email protected]@[email protected]_) potency of the action generally required some time before it could be fit for giving the doer the merited punishment or enjoyment. These would often acc.u.mulate and prepare the items of suffering and enjoyment for the doer in his next life. Only the fruits of those actions which are extremely wicked or particularly good could be reaped in this life. The nature of the next birth of a man is determined by the nature of pleasurable or painful experiences that have been made ready for him by his maturing actions of this life. If the experiences determined for him by his action are such that they are possible to be realized in the life of a goat, the man will die and be born as a goat. As there is no ultimate beginning in time of this world process, so there is no time at which any person first began his actions or experiences. Man has had an infinite number of past lives of the most varied nature, and the instincts of each kind of life exist dormant in the life of every individual, and thus whenever he has any particular birth as this or that animal or man,

73

the special instincts of that life (technically called _vasana_) come forth. In accordance with these vasanas the person pa.s.ses through the painful or pleasurable experiences as determined for him by his action. The length of life is also determined by the number and duration of experiences as preordained by the fructifying actions of his past life. When once certain actions become fit for giving certain experiences, these cannot be avoided, but those actions which have not matured are uprooted once for all if the person attains true knowledge as advocated by philosophy. But even such an emanc.i.p.ated (_mukta_) person has to pa.s.s through the pleasurable or painful experiences ordained for him by the actions just ripened for giving their fruits. There are four kinds of actions, white or virtuous (_s'ukla_), black or wicked ([email protected]@[email protected]_), white-black or partly virtuous and partly vicious ([email protected]@[email protected]_) as most of our actions are, neither black nor white ([email protected]