INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
As observed beforehand, the emergence and development of philosophy, its progress and stagnation, all depends upon the development of productive forces in the society, upon the development of men’s production struggle, class struggle and scientific experiments. Indian society passed through primitive communism and slavery and after stepping in the feudalism it became stagnant. The same social structure remained intact till the arrival of British colonialists. Thus our ancient society went through two transition periods—first, from primitive communism to slavery and second, from slavery to feudalism. During these transition periods, new productive forces and scientific developments led to the emergence of several philosophical trends in which we find debates on same fundamental questions which were raised in Greek philosophy too. Still, the specific course of the transition of Indian society provided some distinctions to it also.
Though struggle between different trends of philosophy continued even after the new productive forces came at a standstill, but due to the lack of material basis, an objective catalyst, it more and more departed from the objective world and ultimately renounced the world as myth— ‘Brahmsatyam Jaganmithya’ (Brahm is the only truth, the world is false). And after that the Philosophy discontinued the march itself—of course through many turns and curves, through quite an interesting course. During 1000 BC to 1000 AD, the march of Indian philosophy, too, is the march of questionnaire, “When there was neither sat (being) nor asat (non-being); there was neither sky, nor the greater sky (vyom) away from it; which had engulfed them? And where? And protected by whom? Whether there was water depthless?” (Rigveda, Nasadiya Sukta, 10/129) to “Only Brahm is truth, the world is false” (Shankaracharya, 788-820 AD). During this period, in the debates of Indian philosophers dealing with the primordium of matter and consciousness and their mutual relation, the seeds of all modern philosophical trends are quite evident.
Later on, during the religious reformist movements of 15th and 16th centuries, these philosophical questions raised their heads again, but the lack of objective basis of new productive forces kept the entrance to modern era of philosophy locked. Still the close relations with Arabs (especially with Arab currents of knowledge, science and Islam), the peasant revolts and lack of centralised state power influenced the Indian mind to a great extent causing the emergence of many new religious sects and cults. During the British rule, the impact of western philosophy, the awakening of national consciousness throughout the country, the birth of modern Industry and proletariatitre-mendous nationwide revolutionary upsurge and after the Great October Revolution, the entrance of Marxism-Leninism in India have provided new dimensions to the Indian philosophy.
Entire Indian philosophy can roughly be divided into two parts : 1. Vedic and 2. Non-Vedic. Again Vedic philosophy (i.e. branches of philosophy owing allegiance to Vedas) consists six currents : (i) Mimansa (Earlier), (ii) Vedanta (Upanishadas or Uttar-Mimansa), (iii) Nyaya, (iv) Vaisheshik, (v) Yoga and (vi) Samkhya. Non-Vedic philosophical school can roughly be divided into three parts : (i) Lokayata or Charvak’s materialist current, (ii) Jain’s non-absolutism, (anekantvad) and (iii) Buddhist philosophy (non-materialist, impermanencist denial of permanent soul-substance, — abhautikvad-anityavadi-anatmavadi). In all these nine currents, we find the genesis of dialectics and materialism, though in a scattered manner.
One of the greatest obstacle in studying Indian philosophy is the lack of written history, the lack of materials in black and white. Entire contents of all philosophical schools, whether Vedic, Lokayata on Buddhist, were memorised and transferred to the successors on hereditary basis and could be recorded in black and white only after a very long run. Furthermore, different schools wrote them in different forms providing a scope for a lot of confusion. Evidently, to distinguish the original text or to arrange them according to historical periods becomes a quite complicated job. Of course, Modern scholars of the subject have done some valuable work in this field, still the task of scientific evaluation of Indian philosophy is incomplete yet.
1. Mimansa : Mimansa is based on Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda, Atharvaveda) which were versified part by part during 1200 BC to 600 BC according to Max Muller and during 1500 BC to 600 BC according to Radhakrishnan. But the period of Jamini, the compiler of Mimansa sutras (about 3000 in number) is supposed to be sometime between 200 BC to 200 AD. Initial Vedic mantras were versified in the period when Aryan tribes were under patriarchal system and its transition to class society was taking place. But slave system was not yet established completely. Therefore these verses contain the glimpses of their vanishing collective life and praises of their ancestors. Dreams had naturally raised the question of soul before them. During their production struggle, they had already felt the unparalleled importance of natural forces — fire, water, air etc. Therefore, they composed mantras and hymns to please the ancestral soul and to control the forces of nature. Their ideas were not yet completely disconnected with the objective world. Rather the main objective of their rituals (Yajna, worshipping, hymns and witchcraft) was to improve their actual living conditions. But the gradual development of social conditions wiped out this primitive materialist outlook and it was replaced by idealist contents. Thus the entire compilation represents initial idealism with scattered traces of primitive materialism. That is why, after the later development of class society, these two mutually opposite aspects of Vedas divided into two. On the one hand, these compilations served as the basis for mysticism of Upanishad based Vedanta, the highest development of Vedic Idealism. On the other hand, the materialist traces developed ultimately into the materialist treatise of Samkhya, compiled by Kapil (400 BC).
When Jaimini versified Mimansa Sutras, the Aryan society was already divided into four Varnas, new productive forces had developed and class-exploitation had taken a cruel form. For Jamini, words of Vedas were enternal and self-emergent. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Vedic rituals. Though he was an atheist and had no faith in any supernatural mystic force inconceivable by sense-organs, and in this respect he was a materialist, still this dedication to Vedic rituals led him to magnification of words (Vedic) and rituals (considered as creator unseen force by his followers). Thus he himself negated his materialism. Jamini was unable to escape from the effects of the historical circumstances in which he had compiled his sutras, therefore, he deprived shudras of the right to participate in Vedic rituals. Again, when new horizons of development had been opened up by the development of new productive forces, the repetition of rituals in their old form were but gross misuse of productive forces and social wealth (such sacrifices on a large scale in Yajnas etc.). Therefore, by opposing efforts to develop mysticism of Vedas into Upanishadic idealism only to restore Vedic rituals, Jamini and his followers played more, reactionary role in society than the Vedantic idealists despite all their materialistic aspects.
Chief commentators (bhashyakars) of Mimansa sutras are Shabar swamy (400 AD), Kumaril Bhatt (555 AD) and Prabhakar (disciple of Kumaril).
2. Vedanta : (700 BC-100 BC) Though the initial compilers of Vedanta (the end part of Vedas, Upanishads) were not completely isolated of actual objective life and Vedic rituals, still the main philosophy of Vedanta is idealism. Only the two chief Upanishads viz, Chhandogya (700 BC) and Brihadaranyak (600 BC) are more important from the point of view of philosophy and these were versified before Buddha. The main philosophers of Upanishads are Pravahan Jaibali (700-650 BC), Gautam or Uddalak Aruni (650 BC), Yajnavalkya (650 BC), Satyakam Jabal (650 BC) etc. The objective basis of this idealism was slave system, emergence of a class free from actual labour, who could take a leap into ‘pure thinking’. Thus slaveowners served the class basis for this idealism. That is why, we notice the increasing role of Kshatriyas in Upanishads.
Nevertheless, this idealist system consists of many currents which can be divided into two parts : (a) Monists (Advaitvadi), who deny the existence of anything except the Almighty Brahm and (b) Dualists (Dvaitvadi), who inspite of accepting the primacy of Brahm, accept the existence of objective world. One of the chief advocates of the later current was Ramanuj.
Till then, intense class-division had already taken place in society. Therefore, they invented the theory of rebirth and put shudras in the category of dogs and boars. Thus the idealism of Upanishads served as the most nefarious ideological weapon of class exploitation.
The idealism of Upanishads touched its extreme in the monism of Shankaracharya, when the entire objective world was declared false.
3. Nyaya : Gautam (Akshpad) is supposed to be the compiler of Nyaya Sutra. The emergence of philosophy and struggle among its different currents as well as the philosophical debates followed by it led towards the birth of a new branch of knowledge—logic, which deals with the methods of discussion. In India, the initiation of logic as an independently branch of knowledge begins with Gautam’s Nyaya sutras. Gautam accepts the existence of objective world quite independent of mind and in this respect he is nearer to Vaisheshik. But the central theme of Gautam is theory of knowledge which contains the signs of materialist outlook and dialectical method. According to him, to acquire the knowledge of anything, five things are essential—(a) object (b) external implements (c) sense-organs (d) mind and (e) the person who wants to acquire knowledge.
4. Vaisheshik : Founder of this philosophical trend was kanad. He accepts the existence of objective world independently of mind and considers atoms as foundation of the universe. According to him, there are nine fundamental elements—soil, air, fire, water, space, time, dimension, soul and mind. Atoms, are eternal and immortal. Each and every object consists of some common elements and simultaneously some particular elements which differentiate that element with other elements. Due to this proposition of particularity of things, his philosophy is called Vaisheshik (particularist). He accepts that every effect is the product of some inherent cause existing within the matter, but in some cases he also accepts the existence of some unseen causes.
Evidently, Vaisheshik was a materialist philosophy with limitations corresponding with contemporary objective conditions. Due to these limitations, it includes some non-matters (like soul) in the list of fundamental elements. Similarly it also accepted the existence of unseen causes in some cases. Due to these weaknesses it paved the way for idealist distortions of its own materialist system.
5. Yoga : The Yoga-sutra by Patanjali is aimed basically at achieving the state of extreme bliss by controlling desires through physico-mental discipline and by separating soul-substance from the external world after gaining control over the former. It should be kept in mind that till this time, productive forces were not so developed that the philosophers could think on the level of entire society; therefore, they were searching for a way to attain supreme joy individually. Yoga was a result of that search. For atheists, Yoga itself was the goal. For idealists, Yoga was a medium through which one would feel oneness with Brahm and this state of oneness was the state of extreme joy.
Thus, its first current depicts the extreme passive form of materialism. This is escapist materialism, while the other current is the extreme escapist form of idealism. From the point of views, of health Yoga may contain some positive aspects, but from the point of view of philosophy, it is pure and simple escapism.
6. Samkhya : Kapil was the founder of Samkhya—the materialist system diametrically opposed to the idealism of Upanishads in Vedic school. In Samkhya there is no room for god and Brahm. Matter itself is the fundamental element. Still Kapil could not grasp the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness. Therefore, he does accept the independent existence of consciousness, of course, as a secondary and passive element.
Among other materialist philosophers, Upanishads describe one Sayugwa Raikva who considered air as the fundamental element. Among pre-Buddhist philosophers, Ajit Keshkambali is remarkable, who considered four basic elements — soil, water, fire and air.
Vedic philosophical Schools reflect the social life of Aryans— their class-divided society.
7. Lokayata : Among Non-Vedic philosophical currents, Charvak’s materialist current is the most popular and ancient. It is also called Lakayata. The name ‘Lokayata’ itself shows is popular form. All written materials on this philosophy have been destroyed. Hence, we know about this trend of philosophy only through the compositions of its opponents.
According to Lokayata, (a) There are four fundamental elements, viz. earth, water, fire and air. (b) The combination of these four elements in different proportions is responsible for the creation of all things, in the world, including even the consciousness. When betel, betel-nuts and lime are mixed we get scarlet colour, though none of these constituents bears scarlet colour. Similarly, the combination of earth, fire, water and air in a given proportion gives rise to consciousness, (c) Vedic rituals are nothing but cheating on the part of those who have neither intellect not physical strength, (d) Heaven, hell, rebirth etc. are all lies, (e) Lokayata accepts the existence of only those things which can be perceived. Perception is the only source of knowledge. Inference and testimony can not be relied upon.
It seems that reactionary classes, to defame this philosophy spread malicious propaganda against it and branded it as the philosophy which only advocates sensual pleasure seeking— “Yavatjivet sukhamjivet, rinamkritwa ghritam pibet.” However, by declaring that ‘perception is the only proof of existence’, Lokayata too restricted the sphere of knowledge.
The 6th century before Christ witnessed a turning point in Indian history. Slavery and Varna-system were almost completely established among Arayans inhabitating in northwest India but in eastern and southern parts of India non-Aryan races were still in their tribal stage and organised in Ganas (tribal republics). Even in newly established Aryan colonies in eastern India, they were in patriarchal tribal society or at most the slavery had just begun. Varna-sytem was still quite loose. In the meantime, widespread use of iron, exploring the great desposites of iron ore in the hills nearby Rajgir, navigation through Ganges, the development of trade etc. paved the way for development of productive forces and prepared the basis for feudalism. The Ganges-valley region of eastern India turned into the centre of development of new productive forces. Therefore it also became the birth place of new philosophical trends. Kuru-Panchal, where Vedas and Upanishads had emerged, no longer remained the centre of philosophy. Politically, this development expresed itself in new kingdoms like that of Magadha. The rulers of this kingdom were not the traditional kshatriyas but from among backward castes, even the shudras, e.g. Shishu Nag, Nanda dynasties. Jain and Buddha religions appeared in this objective condition. These religions adopted many ideals from infidel philosophers.
8. Vardhaman Mahavir (569-485 BC) was 24th and the last Tirthankar (the religious head of the sect) of Jains. He was opposed to Vedas and Vedic rituals, and was an atheist. However, he accepted the existence of soul. According to him, conscious and unconscious matter are the only two fundamental elements. These two are not created but eternal. Though they exist independently, yet they are inter related. In Jainist religion, out of the conscious matter holds primary position. According to Mahavir knowledge is relative and besides perception he also acknowledged inference and testimony in theory of knowledge. Our knowledge may be correct from one angle but wrong from another. A thing exists and simultaneously it does not. Through this dialectical method Mahavir carried forward the theory of knowledge to a position more advanced than one held by it in Lokayata. But in the name of relativism of knowledge, he became a victim of agnosticism when he said; “we can not get the total knowledge about matter. On the other hand, declaring that Thirthankars are “all-knowing” persons, he himself negated agnosticism and went to the other extreme, negating the theory of knowledge itself.
Jainists also stress on individual salvation. But they maintain that this salvation can not be obtained with the help of rituals, rather they demand right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. For right conduct they advocate five great exercitations — non-violence, truthfulness, not to take anything from anybody except what is lent to him, Brahmacharya (abstinence from sex) and Aparigraha. Out of these, non-violence is most important.
9. Gautain Buddha (563-483 BC) represented the highest development of dialectics in ancient India. Though dialectical device can be found in Upanishads, Vaisheshik, Lokayata and Jainist treatises too in a scattered manner, it is Buddhism which developed it to extreme. Buddha was atheist and he denied the existence of any permanent soul-substance, but was not a materialist either. He accepted the existence of soul, but maintained that it too undergoes changes and is not any permanent substance. He was opposed to Vedas and rituals. According to him, there are only four noble truths : (i) everything is suffering, (ii) Suffering has a cause, (iii) Suffering can be extinguished and (iv) there is a path leading to this extinction. According to him, the sole origin of suffering is thirst, and suffering can be extinguished if thirst is extinguished. To extinguish suffering he preached sacred eight-fold path : (i) right faith (ii) right resolve (iii) right speech (iv) right action (v) right effort (vii) right thought and (viii) right self-concentration. Right faith means denial of violence, not to commit theft, not practising libertinage and not telling a lie. Right resolve means non-injurious resolve, and right living means not to trade in arms, living beings, meat, liquors and poison.
Buddha’s dialectics had been expressed as pratitya-samutpada (the dependent origination of objects). The whole world is in a state of continuous motion; a process, consisting of destruction of one object and origination of the other in place of the former, is continuously going on. But for Buddha this continuous process of destruction and origination is not any un-isolated process, but, on the contrary, an isolated process, and in reality this motion is cyclic one. A soul-substance separate from body does exist, but it does not resemble the permanent soul-substance of Upanishads, rather exists as an isolated current, (each destruction) followed by an origination and it continues even after the death of the body. Therefore Buddha confirmed rebirth also. According to him, Salvation (nirvana) means extinction of thirst (trishna) and after this stage the soul gets released from the compulsion of taking rebirth, and thus the soul achieves salvation. In addition to it Buddha did not negate the objective world, but he applied his pratitya samutpad upon objective world and soul both.
Afterwards, Buddhists too got divided into two camps : (a) Heenyana and (b) Mahayana; and each of these sects again divided into two other groups. They are, respectively, Vaibhashikas and Sautantrikas, and Madhyamikan and Yogacharins. Followers of Heenyana were more realists, while those of Mahayana were mainly idealists.
Nagarjun, the main leader of Madhymikans, declared: “There is nothing permanent in this world, each and every thing is transitory”, and on this basis he negated the objective world itself. He proposed, “There is nothing but a great void,” that is why his system is called Voidism also. Contrary to him yogacharins (Asang, Vasubandhu, Dignag, Dharmkirti and Shantirakshit), despite attributing primacy to ideas, accept the existence of objective world. Their ideas about theory of knowledge are materialist.
Buddhist philosophy dominated in repercussion to old corrupt slave system, despite all its impotency, because from very beginning it opposed Varna-system. In the later days, therefore, Indian philosophy developed through the theoretical battles between Vedic and Buddhist schools. After the fall of Mauryas, the feudal lords and kings picked up Vedic school most suitable for their purpose, still Buddhism could maintain its superiority. But till Guptas, Vedic current made necessary theoretical preparations, while Buddhism got much more influenced by Nagarjun’s idealism, and gradually lost the support of the common folk. Therefore, when after Guptas, India got divided into numerous smaller statehoods again, Vedic school found a neat chance to overwhelm. Finally, Shankaracharya, to annihilate Buddhism with its own weapon, amalgamated Brahmvad of Upanishads with Voidism of Nagarjun, and reproduced Mayavad (the doctrine of illusion), which later served as the authoritative philosophy of the well-established, reactionary and stagnant Indian feudalism. This is why Shankaracharya, as well as all Advaitvadins are often called Buddhists in disguise.
