Features of Indian philosophy. The origin and development of a special cultural phenomenon called “philosophy” in Ancient Greece is closely connected with Vedic literature in India. “Vedas” (literally: “knowledge”) in India were collections of texts related to sacrifices, which had the status of sacred knowledge and included all the ideas of the ancient Indians about the world of gods and the world of people. Initially, there were three Vedas – “Rig Veda” – the Veda of hymns-rich, “Sama Veda” – the Veda of chants-samanas and “Yajdur Veda” – the Veda of sacrificial formulas-yajusas; later, “Atharva Veda” – the Veda of magic spells-atharvans was added to them. The corpus of Vedic literature was formed by the first half of the 1st millennium BC, although the process of formation of the texts of the Vedas was very lengthy.
The specificity of the Indian philosophical tradition at the stage of its emergence was that, firstly, the creators and bearers of knowledge were representatives of the highest social class – the Brahmin priests. They possessed the sacred knowledge of the Vedas and taught it to representatives of the other two classes – varnas (varna – literally “color”): kshatriyas-warriors, vaishyas-traders and farmers. These three varnas were called “twice-born” (the “second birth” meant training), in contrast to the fourth varna – “single-born” shudras-servants who did not have access to knowledge. Secondly, unlike other regions (for example, China and Greece), where the emergence of philosophy actually coincided with the beginning of theoretical activity in general, Indian philosophy (anvikshiki) turned out to be the completion and highest achievement of this activity. Thirdly, philosophical thought in ancient India appeared as a consequence and result of Brahmanic ritualistic disputes held at courts and under the patronage of local rulers. Fourthly, ancient Indian philosophy arose thanks to the development of logic, rhetoric and the art of argumentation. And finally, fifthly, Indian philosophical thought developed on the basis of not only the concepts and ideas of the Indo-Aryan tribes who came to the Hindustan Peninsula in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC and laid the foundations of Indian civilization, but also the ideas of the local peoples who inhabited India before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans.
The origin of argumentation. The main themes and concepts of the philosophy of Ancient India were partly already contained in the Vedic literature (especially in its later part – the Upanishads), where questions were posed about the beginning of the universe and about knowledge. However, the Upanishads, narrating about the structure of the world, answered the question “What is known?” The attempt to answer the question “How is it known?” was associated with the late Vedic (8th-6th centuries BC) disputes of the Brahmins in the assemblies of arbitrators (parishads).
Initially, the discussions between the various Brahmanic schools were ritualistic in nature, since the topic of debate was the question of when and how to properly perform sacrifices to the gods of the Vedic pantheon and the spirits of ancestors. The art of argumentation was manifested in the ability to substantiate a particular position and draw the necessary conclusion. The initial focus of Indian rhetoric and logic on the opponent and the audience would later be reflected in texts of a purely philosophical nature – sutras and commentaries on sutras, which would often be built on the dialogic principle. The appearance of philosophy as such on the historical arena of India occurred in the era of wandering ascetic teachers who defended their own views on the structure of the world in opposition to traditional Brahmanic ideas.
Shraman era
Shramanas. From the debates on the topics of how to fast before a sacrifice to the gods or how to name a god in a ritual, it was only a short step to the question: “Is the ritual itself effective?” – and from the discussion of this problem it was not far to the radical doubt: “Do the gods to whom sacrifices are made exist?” The natural development of the Brahman schools themselves led to the fact that at the turn of the 6th/5th – 5th/4th centuries BC, thinkers and teachers appeared who put forward fundamentally different (in relation to traditional) theories and doctrines. These opponents of the Brahmans were called “shramanas” (in Sanskrit), and the era of the ferment of minds and the emergence of new philosophical and religious movements was called shramanic. The shramanas were an extremely heterogeneous group of wandering ascetics who, in disputes with each other and with traditionalist Brahmans, defended their own teachings and views. But, despite the significant diversity of opinions and positions, the Shramanas teachers were united by the fact that they all denied, firstly, the Vedic sacrifices; secondly, the authority of the Vedas as sacred knowledge and, thirdly, the traditional Brahmanic teaching on the existence of an eternal individual soul – atman, understood as a product of the highest creative spiritual essence – Brahman. In addition, all the Shramanas came from non-Brahmanic varnas (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras).
The main range of problems that were at the center of the discussions of these wandering teachers included questions about what this world is, whether another world exists, whether a person is responsible for his actions, whether asceticism makes sense, etc. Within the framework of these discussions, the idea of the world as a cycle of reincarnations (samsara) of the soul and the law of moral retribution (karma), determining the chain of reincarnations of living beings, was finally formed. These ideas were then widely disseminated throughout Indian philosophy.
Ajita Kesakambala. One of the sramanas was Ajita Kesakambala, the essence of whose views was the assertion that “man consists of four great elements. When the time comes, [his] earth returns to the body of earth, water to the body of water, fire to the body of fire, wind to the body of wind, and the senses to space… Those who talk about the existence [of this world or another] are empty talkers and liars. The foolish and the clever [equally] perish and disappear with the destruction of the body and do not exist after death” (10: 272). In essence, all that a person has is his perishable bodily shell. Therefore, it is pointless to make sacrifices to the gods, because they do not exist. But in exactly the same way, from Ajita’s point of view, it was pointless to do good deeds, since there is no reward for good deeds, as well as punishment for bad ones. Thus, the ideas advocated by Ajita Kesakambala represent the Indian version of materialism.
Pakudha Kachchana. Similar to the teachings of Kesakambala in their radicalism were the views of another ascetic, Pakudha Kachchana, who taught: “There are seven principles, [not] made by anyone… This is the principle of the earth, the principle of water, the principle of fire, the principle of wind, joy, suffering and the animating principle – the seventh… They do not move, do not change, do not collide with each other, are not the causes of joy, suffering for each other… Therefore, no one kills or forces anyone to kill [another]… And even if someone splits [someone else’s] skull with a sharp sword, he will not take his life, for the blow of the sword will pass only through the “boundaries” of [these] principles” (10: 273). If the main thesis of Ajita was: “what is the soul, so is the body”, then Pakudha defends the opposite statement: “the body and the soul are completely different”. Since the killing of a living being is only the destruction of the physical shell, it cannot cause any harm to the soul. And therefore, within the framework of the Pakudha teaching, there is also no basis for distinguishing between good and bad deeds and, consequently, there is no retribution for either the former or the latter.
Sanjaya Belatthiputta. This wandering teacher, who earned the characterization of a “slippery eel” from his Buddhist opponents for avoiding a clear formulation of his own teaching, occupied the most extreme position among the sramanas ascetics, since he did not defend any views: “If you ask me: “Is there another world?” – then if I believed that another world exists, I would answer you that it does. But this is not my judgment. I do not believe that things are this way, that they are different, that they are not so, that they are not not so” (10: 275). Sanjaya similarly answers questions about the non-existence of another world, the results of good and bad deeds. In Sanjaya’s reasoning, the tetralemma (catushkotika) appears in a negative form, which will subsequently be actively used by Buddhist philosophers and logicians. The tetralemma formulates four possibilities: existence, non-existence, both, and neither one nor the other.
Ajivikas.
While the previous teachers did not leave behind any significant followers, Makkhali Gosala, the main figure of the Ajivikas (Ajiva – literally: “unusual way of life”), was the founder of an entire school, which after the death of its leader existed in India until the Middle Ages and had a significant number of supporters for some time. The school received its name for the extravagant appearance and way of life that the Ajivikas led: they wandered completely naked, were fond of practices associated with the acquisition of supernatural powers, etc.
The essence of the position defended by Makkhali Gosala was that the world is ruled by universal necessity (niyati), to which all living beings and inanimate objects, the number of which is measured, are subject. Necessity predetermines everything that happens in the beginningless and infinite universe. It is like a thrown skein of yarn that must unwind to the end. Pleasures and sufferings are measured out, they can neither be prolonged nor avoided. The world as a whole develops according to its own laws, all parts of the universe participate in this unfolding, being unable to somehow influence this process. Ajivikas, led by Makkhali Gosala, recognized the existence of an individual soul, the law of retribution (karma) and the doctrine of the cycle of births and deaths (samsara) of the soul in accordance with karma. But Makkhali believed that a person is not able to change karma and influence current events. Over time, in Ajivikism, the idea of universal necessity comes closer to the idea of karma, and representatives of this school emphasize the knowability of fate, becoming interested in astrology and predictions.
Heterodox Schools of Indian Philosophy
Jainism
Mahavira Vardhamana. The founder of the Jain tradition is considered to be Jina Mahavira Vardhamana, who was born into a Kshatriya family near Vaishali, in northern Bihar. Vardhamana (literally “growing”, “prosperous”) led the life of a householder for thirty years, and then became an ascetic and wandered around India for 12 years, subjecting himself to various deprivations and self-torture. According to legend, in 557 BCE, Vardhamana achieved omniscience on the banks of the Rijupalika River and became known as Jina (“Conqueror”) and Mahavira (“Great Hero”). Mahavira devoted the rest of his life to preaching his teachings. Jina died at the age of 72 in the city of Pava, near Rajagriha in 527 BCE. The Jain tradition holds that Mahavira Vardhamana was the 24th savior of the world and the herald of the Jain teachings – a tirthankara (lit. “crossing/ford maker”), having accepted the teachings of the 23rd tirthankara Parshva, whose followers were Mahavira’s parents.
Digambaras and Shvetambaras. According to legend, even during Mahavira’s lifetime, disagreements arose in the community, which led to a split after his death, which was finally formed by the 1st-2nd centuries CE. The Jains were divided into Digambaras (literally: “clothed with space/cardinal directions”) and Shvetambaras (literally: “clothed in white”). These names record one of the disagreements between the directions: Digambaras believe that monks should walk naked, while Shvetambaras insist that monks wear white robes. In addition, Digambaras believe that a woman cannot achieve liberation from karmic dependence, and they disagree with Shvetambaras on a number of issues of theory and practice of religious life, and also do not recognize the authenticity of Shvetambara canonical literature.
Canon. The Svetambara collection of canonical texts (agamas), written in the Middle Indian language Ardhamagadhi, includes: 12 angas (“primary members”), devoted to various theoretical and practical issues, among which the most famous are the Acaranga Sutra, a treatise on the rules of conduct, and Sutrakritanga, a distinction between true and false teachings; 12 upangas (“secondary members”); 10 prakirna (“scattered passages”); 6 cheda sutras (disciplinary texts), 4 mula sutras (“fundamental sutras”), of which the most important is the Uttaradhyayana Sutra, a kind of anthology of legends and instructions; and two treatises, the Nandi Sutra and Anuyogadvara, a kind of encyclopedia of knowledge for Jain monks. The Digambara canon (called the “four Vedas” in this tradition) includes: 1) Prathama-anuyoga – texts on “world history”; 2) Karana-anuyoga – cosmological works; 3) Dravya-anuyoga – religious and philosophical treatises; 4) Charana-anuyoga – texts on ethics and ritual.
Substance.
In Jainism, substance (dravya) is understood as the basis of all that exists, that which “underlies” everything as a foundation, without which no existence is possible. The characteristics of a substance that help explain the diversity of the world are attributes (guna), or the inherent properties of a substance, and modes (paryaya), or the manifestations/ways of existence of a substance. The difference between attributes and modes is as follows: an attribute is something that is rooted in a substance and is inherent in it by nature; a substance cannot lose its basic attributes or acquire new ones; whereas a mode is an external manifestation of an essence that is subject to change, so certain modes of a substance can appear and disappear. In Jain philosophy, everything that exists is a manifestation of six substances — the soul (jiva) and five types of non-soul (ajiva).
Soul. In Jainism, “jiva” is understood as an incorporeal, indestructible, active entity, the main attribute of which is consciousness (chetana) and its direction (upayoga), which appears in two forms: knowledge (jnana) and vision (darshana). By its nature, every soul has four limitless properties: correct knowledge, correct vision, correct strength and correct behavior. There are many souls, and they inhabit the entire world. The degree of animation of everything that exists depends on the number of pranas – special psychophysical factors of every soul. Jain thinkers count 4 types of such pranas – strength, breath, life, feelings. The number of feelings in the soul can be from one (like water, fire, earth and air) to five (like a person or god). Jiva is also characterized by the presence of a special color (black, dark blue, gray-blue, yellow, pink and white) and such a property as proportionality to the body it occupies. The last position distinguishes the Jain philosophical doctrine from other Indian teachings. The essence of this thesis is that the soul, being life itself, fills and permeates the entire body that it occupies in a given incarnation. From this statement one could conclude that the jiva has the ability to increase and decrease when moving from one body to another, or even disappear completely, which contradicts the very teaching of Mahavira. Jain authors illustrate this attribute of the soul with an example of a piece of cloth that remains what it is, regardless of whether it is folded or unfolded. Probably, this position, as well as the attribution of “color” to the soul, are an echo of local beliefs inherited by the Jain doctrine from the autochthonous tribes that inhabited India before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans.
In addition to the listed attributes, the jiva has various modes, modes of manifestation, which are determined by the ability of the soul to move from one level of existence to another, from one body to another. Jivas with one sense are incarnated in water, fire, etc.; those with two senses are incarnated in the body of a worm, three senses are in the body of an ant, and four senses are in the body of a bee. Higher jivas, with five senses, can incarnate in the body of a man, a god, an animal, or an inhabitant of hell. The destiny of the soul is determined by the degree of its dependence, connection with the non-soul.
No-soul. In Jain philosophy, no-soul (ajiva) includes matter (pudgala), the conditions of motion (dharma) and rest (adharma), space (akasha) and time (kala). The four substances of no-soul (except time) and the soul are considered in Jainism to be “extended substances” (astikaya). Matter is defined as the substance that constructs the entire visible and invisible world. Pudgala consists of eternal and indivisible units, primary atoms, which are endowed with one taste, color, smell, two types of touch, but are devoid of sound. Due to the properties of “stickiness” and “dryness” found in the smallest particles of matter, atoms form various types of gross and subtle combinations, which are the basis of objects perceived by the senses.
A special feature of the Jain doctrine is the position that along with the gross matter of which the objects of the external world are composed, there is also a special type of material substance, which is a subtle substance that is not perceived by the senses. This type of matter is called karma. It is this that determines the conditions and circumstances of the incarnation of the soul. Karmic matter is of eight main types: obscuring knowledge, obscuring vision, generating feelings, misleading, determining the duration of life, forming the body, determining the family and obscuring strength. These types, in turn, are divided into many subtypes. In addition, karma can be considered virtuous (punya), representing the good merits of the soul, and vicious (papa), expressed in bad inclinations and actions.
The category of time is the most problematic in Jain (and world) philosophy. In Jainism, time is what causes changes in substances. It is devoid of any attributes except the ability to change itself and change other substances. The smallest unit of measurement, the “atoms” of time, is an instant, from which minutes, hours, years, etc. are formed. Shvetambara philosophers, unlike Digambara, do not consider time to be a substance, since in the Jain tradition only an entity with an unchanging nature can act as such, while time is changeable by its very nature. In order to somehow solve this problem, Digambara introduce two types of time: relative and absolute. The first is understood as the time of everyday existence, changing duration (time in the proper sense of the word), and the second is time as a substance, eternity. However, Digambara thinkers were unable to completely resolve this dilemma, since eternity is not time.
Space is a substance that provides a place for other substances. The smallest unit of measurement is a point in space. All substances (including the soul embodied in the body) occupy certain points in space, of which there can be an infinite number. Only time occupies one point in space, equal to an instant. In essence, the primary units of space and time are related to each other: an instant is the interval from one point in space to another, i.e., the time it takes for an atom the size of a point to traverse a space the size of a point.
The existence of space as a container for all other substances does not in itself explain the possibility of motion and rest in the world. Movement and staying in place are manifestations of two interconnected substances – the conditions of movement and the conditions of rest. Just as water allows fish to move in water, and the earth allows moving objects to stay in one place, so the conditions of movement and rest contribute to movement and rest, respectively.
Cognition. The Jain doctrine of knowledge consists of the doctrine of reliable sources (pramana) of knowledge and the theory of “non-one-sidedness” (anekantavada). In the most general form, knowledge is characterized by Jain thinkers as immediate, direct, i.e. obtained without the mediation of the sense organs, and mediated, or indirect. From the point of view of the Jain doctrine, knowledge can be obtained through: 1) sensory perception and logical inference (mati); 2) study of sacred Jain scriptures or from the words of a teacher (shruti); 3) clairvoyance (avadhi), i.e. knowledge of events and phenomena occurring in other places; 4) telepathy (manah-paryaya), i.e. reading other people’s thoughts at a distance; and 5) omniscience (kevala jnana). The first three can be both true and false; the last two are only true.
The fundamental principle of the Jain theory of knowledge is the position on the impossibility of a full and adequate expression of our knowledge about any object or phenomenon of external reality within the framework of one approach or one point of view. In cognition, it is necessary to focus on the multidimensionality of reality and take into account many points of view, since reality itself is “not one-sided” (anekanta). This doctrine includes two sections: the doctrine of points of view (nayavada) and the doctrine of “in some way” (syadvada). The first teaches the possibility of considering any object from seven points of view:
1) Naigamya – is understood in Jain philosophy in two ways: either as a goal-oriented, “teleological”, or as an approach that takes into account the general and specific properties of the object under consideration;
2) samgraha – general;
3) vyavahara – ordinary, popular;
4) Rijusutra – spatio-temporal;
5) shabda – contextual;
6) samabhirudha – etymological and
7) evambhuta – fixes only one meaning of the root in relation to a given object.
However, many Jain thinkers often used only two points of view (apparently under the influence of Buddhist philosophy): the genuine, pure, real (nishchaya, shuddha, bhutartha naya) and the ordinary, impure, unreal (vyavahara, ashuddha, abhutartha naya). The genuine understanding consists in explaining the nature of reality in its absolute purity, unaffected by any surrounding circumstances. The ordinary point of view describes the manifestations of the substance in its external manifestations and represents a popular exposition of the ultimate truths for the bulk of the adepts.
Jain syadvada (syad – literally: “possibly”, “in some way”) consists of describing any object from seven positions: 1) “in some way exists”, 2) “in some way does not exist”, 3) “in some way exists and does not exist”, 4) “in some way indescribable”, 5) “in some way exists and is indescribable”, 6) “in some way does not exist and is indescribable”, 7) “in some way exists, does not exist and is indescribable”.
The Path of Liberation. The entire Jain doctrine in its condensed form is expressed in the “three pearls” (triratna): right knowledge, right vision and right conduct. The first consists of knowledge of the teachings of Mahavira, the second – in faith and vision of the world as described by the tirthankaras, and the third – behavior in accordance with the precepts of Jain ethics. The “three pearls” make up the Path of Liberation, the main goal of which is the liberation (moksha) of the soul from karma. This Path includes several stages, the main ones being: 1) stopping (samvara) the influx of karma into the soul and the destruction (nirjara) of the accumulated karmic matter.
To stop the influx of karma, it is necessary to accept and practice, firstly, the “five great vows” (non-violence, non-stealing, truthfulness, non-attachment and chastity); secondly, caution in eating, walking, speaking, accepting things, etc.; thirdly, threefold control (over the body, speech and mind); fourthly, the highest degree of the ten virtues (meekness, humility, steadfastness, purity, truthfulness, self-restraint, asceticism, renunciation of the body, detachment, chastity); fifthly, reflection on the transience and impurity of this world, the need to achieve liberation, the distinction between soul and non-soul, etc.; sixthly, self-control and, seventh, solitude for meditation. Destruction of karma involves all of the above, as well as various types of ascetic practice (refusal of delicacies, tasty food, restriction in food, etc.). Through strict asceticism, the jiva can become a liberated soul, a siddha (lit.: “attained”), and never incarnate again. Liberation in Jainism is considered a natural state of the soul, in which the jiva fully manifests his pure consciousness and abides in the eternal bliss of omniscience.
Buddhism
The founder of Buddhism is Siddhartha, who came from the Kshatriya clan of Gautama of the Shakya tribe and was known as “Buddha”. According to legend, Siddhartha’s father was told that if the newborn baby lived the ordinary life of a householder, then in time he would become a universal ruler, and if he went to wander from home into homelessness, he would achieve enlightenment. And the father, so that his son would not have the idea of wandering, protected Siddhartha from seeing misfortunes and suffering. But one day, going to the park, the young man met an old man, a sick man, a cart with a dead body and a wandering ascetic. Shocked by what he saw, Siddhartha renounced the life of a householder and went wandering. For several years, Shrama Gautama studied various types of ascetic practice under the guidance of forest hermits, until he realized that in this way he would not achieve the desired enlightenment. He realized that the truth lies between the world of sensual pleasures and severe asceticism. Then, not far from the city of Varanasi, as a result of meditative concentration, he achieved enlightenment (bodhi) and henceforth became Buddha (lit.: “awakened, enlightened”). Buddha went to the city of Varanasi, where he delivered his first sermon on the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path. Over time, Buddha had disciples who laid the foundation for the Buddhist community. Buddha died at the age of 80, surrounded by disciples.
The Pali Canon. In the first centuries of our era (according to tradition, during the reign of the Sri Lankan king Vattagamani, 80 BCE), a corpus of texts was compiled in the Middle Indian language Pali, called the Tipitaka (literally: “Three Baskets”) in Pali, or the Tripitaka in Sanskrit, which expounded the teachings of the Buddha. The Pali Canon consists of three sections: 1) the Vinaya Pitaka, a “basket” of disciplinary texts devoted to explaining the rules of conduct for monks and nuns and admission to the Buddhist community; 2) the Sutta Pitaka, a “basket of sayings”, which is a collection of teachings attributed to the Buddha himself; 3) the Abhidhamma Pitaka, a “basket” of philosophical texts.
Modern Buddhologists believe that the Pali Canon is a collection of heterogeneous texts both in terms of content (since it reflects the ideas of various Buddhist schools and movements, including later ones) and in terms of the time of codification of the works (since the process of written recording was lengthy). Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Tipitaka also contains early Buddhist ideas that go back to the ideas of the Buddha himself.
The Four Noble Truths. The first sermon in Varanasi, with which Buddha began his preaching activity, contained an exposition of the “four noble truths”, the first of which states: everything is suffering (dukkha). Suffering is not only birth, death, illness, misfortune, but also life as such, since all changes and events in it, even if they themselves are not considered directly suffering, somehow lead to it. The second truth reveals the cause of suffering – this is the threefold thirst (tanha) for pleasure, life and death. The third truth asserts the possibility of ending suffering, and the fourth speaks of the path to ending suffering, which is the “eightfold noble path”: correct vision, thought, speech, action, lifestyle, effort, attention and concentration.
“The Wheel of Being”. The world perceived by man is a “wheel of being” full of suffering (dukkha), impermanent (anicca) and devoid of spiritual substance (anatta), or the chain of interdependent origination (paticca-samuppada), consisting of 12 links (nidana): ignorance, karmic influence, consciousness, name-form, six organs of perception, contact with the external world, sensation, thirst, attachment, becoming, birth, old age-death. Since early Buddhism denies the existence of any eternal substances, the explanation of the circle of births and deaths (samsara) is given through the concept of “dharma” or “dharma-particle”. In all Indian philosophical and religious thought, the term “dharma” means “virtue”, “duty”, “law”, “teaching”, “religion”: The entire range of meanings of this word listed above is also present in Buddhist philosophy, but along with this, “dharma” also denotes special psychophysical particles of being, of which the entire world, including man, consists. Dharmas are not atoms of matter, but rather act as peculiar “quanta” of existence, carrying certain information. It is dharmas that create the entire visible and invisible world. However, these particles exist only for a moment, flaring up and dying out, like sparks of fire, but since man is not able to perceive such a short period of time, all objects of the world seem to him integral and unchanging for some time. Subsequently, various Buddhist schools counted different numbers of basic types of dharmas – 75, 80, 100, etc., up to many tens and hundreds of thousands. The improper existence of these dharmas, the manifestation of their action, is the ordinary world, subject to the law of interdependent origination. The goal of human existence was to achieve enlightenment and go into nirvana (lit.: “extinction, extinguishing”), which was initially understood only as the extinction of passions, the calming of dharmas, bringing them into proper existence. The one who achieved this state was called an arhat (lit.: “worthy [of nirvana]”).
Schools in early Buddhism. By the 2nd – 1st centuries BCE, many schools and sub-schools (according to the Buddhist tradition – 18) arose in Buddhism, which repeatedly split up, and subsequently merged with more powerful schools or disappeared. Most of these schools had their own corpus of canonical texts, some of which later entered in one form or another (and along with the texts, the corresponding ideas and concepts penetrated) into the Pali Canon.
Initially, there were apparently two major schools – Sthavira Vaida (lit.: “teaching of the elders”) and Mahasanghika (lit.: “great community”), which included many sects and schools. The teaching of Sthavira Vaida was quite simple: Buddha was presented as a real person, endowed with both ordinary and superhuman qualities. He called for abstinence from all forms of evil and accumulation of good merits. Understanding the proclaimed “4 noble truths” and the law of interdependent origination can explain everything that happens indirectly, through the interrelation of past and future actions, i.e. karmic influences. All objects of this world are not eternal, suffer and are deprived of atman.
Within the framework of Sthaviravada there was the Pudgalavada school (lit.: “the doctrine of the individual”). Having realized the main theoretical difficulty – the impossibility of explaining the wandering of man along the “wheel of being” without the assumption of a bearer of past karmic influences – the supporters of this school introduced the concept of pudgala, which they understood as a set of five types of dharmas: corporeality (rupa), sensations (vedana), ideas (samjna), aspirations, or past karmic influences (samskara) and consciousness (vijnana). This doctrine of the “bearer” bearing the “burden” of dharmas was also reflected in the Pali Canon, which included the sutra on the “bearer of the burden”.
The main innovations of the second direction, the Mahasanghika school, were more doctrinal than strictly philosophical in nature. The Mahasanghikas came up with 5 theses on the imperfection of an arhat, who: 1) can commit a sin under unconscious temptation; 2) may not know that he is an arhat; 3) may have doubts about doctrinal issues; and 4) it is impossible to achieve arhatship without a teacher; 5) enlightenment (bodhi) can begin with the cry “how sad!” One of the schools of the Mahasanghika direction taught about the unearthly, supra-mundane nature of the Buddha and the existence of special pure “lands” of the Buddha, thereby laying the foundation for the veneration of the Buddha as a supernatural being.
Despite the fact that all these statements had to do not so much with philosophy as with the religious doctrine of Buddhism, they nevertheless significantly influenced the formation and further development of Buddhist philosophical schools.
Mahayana and Theravada. In the 1st-4th centuries CE, significant changes took place in Buddhism associated with the emergence of fundamentally new ideas. These innovations of a philosophical and religious nature were reflected in the Prajna-paramita sutras, i.e. sutras whose titles included the phrase “prajna-paramita” (lit.: “crossing to the highest wisdom”, or “perfection [leading] to the highest wisdom”). The novelty of the ideas of these works was as follows: 1) the dharmas that make up the personality and the external world do not have an independent essence; the very idea of something self-existent is the source of all delusions and the cause of samsara; 2) the presence of living beings in samsara is illusory, i.e. all living beings are in reality Buddha and initially abide in nirvana; 3) this knowledge is comprehended by a bodhisattva (lit.: “enlightened being”, or “being [striving for] enlightenment”), although he realizes from the point of view of absolute truth that there is no one and nothing to save from, nevertheless, at the level of relative truth, he saves living beings; 4) Buddha is understood as a synonym for true reality as it is; 5) true reality is in principle not accessible to linguistic expression; 6) true reality is comprehended thanks to yogic intuition, contemplation, which is prajna-paramita.
These provisions and the ideal of the bodhisattva (a being who vows not to enter final nirvana as long as there is at least one living being in samsara) formed the basis for the direction that received the self-name “Mahayana” (lit.: “Great Path” or “Great Vehicle”). In this way, representatives of this branch of Buddhism distanced themselves from those who did not accept the ideas expressed in the Prajna-paramita sutras, and whom the supporters of Mahayana called by the abusive phrase – “Hinayanists”, “followers of Hinayana” (lit.: “Low Path” or “Small Vehicle”). The latter called themselves representatives of Theravada (Sanskrit – Sthaviravada), i.e. “the teachings of the elders”, claiming that they preserved the teachings of Buddha and his closest disciples uncorrupted, pure and inviolable. The fundamental differences concerned the possibility of achieving enlightenment and nirvana, as well as the interpretation of the nature of Buddha: 1) the representatives of Mahayana proclaimed the possibility of salvation for everyone (monks and laymen, men and women – all living beings potentially possess the nature of Buddha), thus affirming the “Great”, i.e. wide, path of salvation, while their opponents insisted on the possibility of achieving nirvana only for monks, narrowing the path for a select few; 2) Mahayana adepts considered Buddha a supra-mundane reality, a deity to whom one can and should offer prayers for help in the matter of salvation, while the “Hinayanists” viewed Buddha only as a historical, entirely human personality, devoid of any supernatural qualities. Within the framework of both directions, in addition to purely doctrinal differences, proper philosophical schools were formed, defending different theoretical positions and views.
Madhyamika. The Prajna-paramita sutras were the ideological basis, first of all, of the Mahayana Madhyamika school (lit.: “middle way”), the legendary founder of which was considered to be Nagarjuna and to whom in Buddhism is attributed not only the authorship of the Prajna-paramita sutras, but also of a huge number of the most diverse works: from purely philosophical to alchemical treatises. The texts attributed to Nagarjuna were created in the 2nd – 4th centuries CE. The main philosophical work is “Mula-madhyamika-karika” (lit.: “Root stanzas on the middle way”). This school received its name for its attempt to defend the middle (madhyama), the “middle way” at the level of philosophical constructs and to walk in the middle, between the extreme denial and affirmation of everything that exists.
Nagarjuna, analyzing all the concepts by which reality is described, came to the conclusion that it is impossible to describe either the external world or the data of consciousness consistently. The world is not completely real, for if the world were real, no changes could occur in it. Improvement and enlightenment in the world are possible only if the world itself is mobile and is in a state of constant formation. Everything that exists (including consciousness) is a chain of interconnected dharmas. Nothing exists by itself. Everything depends on something else. Therefore, the world is a complex of relationships behind which there is no self-existent reality. In other words, samsara is an illusory being, possessing only a relative, conditional existence. If Nagarjuna recognizes the dharmas that make up the world and consciousness of an individual as devoid of independent being and essence, then he considers only emptiness (shunya) to be the only true reality, which in madhyamika is simultaneously a synonym for nirvana, true being. But nothing can be said about this supreme reality in principle, since all words are signs of only samsaric existence. Reality can be indicated by the word “shunya”, but it cannot be described.
Such philosophical radicalism does not lead Nagarjuna to the destruction of religious doctrine, since his reasoning expresses the truth of the highest meaning (paramartha satya), while from the ordinary point of view (samvritti satya) he recognizes, albeit illusory and inauthentic, the existence of the world, and along with it the need for moral improvement through religious practice. If at the level of the highest truth Buddha, nirvana, shunya act as synonyms indicating the existence of a genuine reality in contrast to the illusory reality of the samsaric world, then within the framework of the ordinary approach Buddha is a being capable of having a body, and more than one.
Vijnanavada. The second Mahayana school was Vijnanavada (lit.: “the doctrine of consciousness”), or Yogacara (lit.: “the practice of yoga”). The first name of the school reflects its basic postulate: “only consciousness (vijnana) really exists.” If Madhyamika denied the real existence of both the external world and consciousness, then Vijnanavada, agreeing with the first statement, did not share the second. Since cognition of the world is carried out with the help of ideas and representations, it is impossible to prove that the world represented by images in consciousness actually exists. There is no need to admit the real existence of the world: even if it exists, its existence does not add anything to our knowledge of it. We draw all ideas from our consciousness, which alone is real. Ideas and images exist in consciousness in the form of “seeds” (bija), which “ripen” over time, giving rise to ideas. These “seed” ideas are stored in the treasury consciousness (alaya-vijnana), which is a kind of information reservoir, a repository of all possible ideas. Consciousness, directed outward by some beginningless predisposition, projects these ideas, thereby generating various illusory ideas about the real existence of the world and objects. The basis of such a direction is the thirst for possession. To achieve liberation, one must make a “turn at the very foundation”, i.e. reorient consciousness from being directed outward to being directed at itself. This is achieved through yogic meditative practices, and this is why the school received its second name – yogachara. The highest state, going beyond all opposites, the yogacharins called “suchness” (tathata). Nirvana is the purification of the mind, its restoration to its original or radiant transparency. When, through correct reflection, the adept is freed from all prejudices, knowledge arises in him which is free from illusions that take the form of objects. It is this kind of knowledge that is called in the Vijnanavada school the sublime elevation or liberation.
Vaibhashika
This Theravada school is the heir to the teachings of the earlier Sarvastivada tradition (lit.: “the teaching of “everything exists””), the basic thesis of which was the assertion that all dharmas exist in reality. In other words, the world of external objects exists in reality, just like consciousness. Vaibhashika received its name due to the fact that representatives of this school recognized only the Abhidhamma, the third part of the Pali Canon, and its commentary (Vibhasha) as authentic and consistent with the teachings of the Buddha. The teachings of Vaibhashika itself are set out in the compendium “Abhidharmakosha” (lit.: “Encyclopedia of Abhidharma”) by the Buddhist author Vasubandhu (IV – V centuries CE).
In their proof of the existence of the world, the Vaibhashikas appealed to experience, which produces indisputable evidence about the nature of things. By experience they meant knowledge gained through direct contact with an object. The world is open to perception. It is wrong to think that there is no perception of the external world, since without perception there can be no inference. To speak of an inference that is absolutely independent of any perceived objects is contrary to common sense. By inference one can learn that external objects exist everywhere, but, as a rule, their existence is indicated by perception. Perceived objects exist, but for a very short time, like a flash of lightning. Atoms immediately disintegrate, and their aggregates exist for a short time. The Vaibhashikas believed that the permanent entities are not transient phenomena, but the elements that underlie them, i.e., dharmas, and they presented a detailed classification of the types of dharmas. According to the teaching of this school, Buddha is an ordinary man who, after attaining enlightenment (bodhi) and passing into final nirvana through death, ceased to exist. The only divine element in Buddha was his intuitive knowledge of truth, which he achieved without the help of others.
Sautrantika
This school is the latest of all the Sthaviravada. Its representatives recognized as authentic only the second part of the Pali Canon, the Sutta Pitaka, which contains Abhidharma, Buddhist philosophy. The texts included in the “basket” of the same name do not correspond to the teachings of Buddha. Of the Sautrantikas, the most famous is Yasomitra (8th century CE), the author of a commentary on Vasubandhu’s “Abhidharmakosha”.
The Sautrāntikas, like the Vaibhāṣikas, admit the real existence of the world, but with one modification—we have no direct perception of this world. We have representations contained in our minds, with the help of which we infer the existence of an external world. External objects must necessarily exist, for without them there can be no perception. The arguments put forward to prove the reality of the external world are as follows: 1) consciousness must have some object, since it reveals itself in duality; if the object were only a form of consciousness, it would have to manifest itself as such, and not as an external object; 2) consciousness itself is one, and if it alone existed, the world would be one, but we see that it is diverse; 3) the external world does not arise by our will, therefore, in order to explain the dependent nature of sense perception, we must admit the reality of a world capable of giving rise to sound, taste, smell, touch, color, pleasure and pain. Therefore, this world is external to consciousness. Claiming that there can be no perception of external objects without the objects themselves, the Sautrantikas declared that these external objects are momentary. All things are momentary. The idea of the permanence of objects arises due to the fact that their forms penetrate the mind one after another. The illusion of simultaneity is caused by the rapidity of the change of impressions, just as the rotation of a burning brand forms a circle. Vajrayana. Around the 4th-5th centuries CE, a special direction in Buddhism began to form, which received the name Vajrayana (literally, “Diamond Chariot”), or Tantric Buddhism. The difference between this direction and Mahayana and Theravada was not in new philosophical views (the theory was taken from both Mahayana authors and Vasubandhu), but in the methods of achieving enlightenment. The main advantage of Vajrayana from the point of view of its teachers was the effectiveness of its path, allowing the adept to achieve enlightenment in one lifetime. The main methods of Vajrayana can be reduced to the performance of special rituals with complex symbolic meaning, to the practice of reciting short phrases with symbolic meaning – mantras, the technique of visualization (mental reproduction of images) of various deities and contemplation of special symbolic pictures-icons – mandalas. The practice of reading mantras was so important in Vajrayana that the adepts themselves often called it Mantrayana (lit.: “Path of mantras”), as opposed to the classical Buddhist Sutrayana (lit.: “Path of sutras”), i.e. Mahayana and Theravada.
Lokayata-charvaka
The founder of this unorthodox school of Indian philosophy was considered to be a sage named Brihaspati. The word “Lokayata” itself means “spread throughout the world”. The second name (charvaka), according to one Jain commentator, comes from the Sanskrit verb “charv” – “to chew, to swallow”, since this school “swallowed” such concepts as vice, God, dharma, etc. No works of representatives and supporters of Lokayata have reached our time, and the teachings of the school are known only from the expositions of its doctrine in the treatises of thinkers of other traditions. Lokayata is an Indian version of materialism and in its theoretical principles is close to the teachings of the shramana Ajit Kesakambala.
The world. The entire universe consists of combinations of four great elements (mahabhuta): earth, air, fire, water, which are active by nature. “And it is from these four elements that consciousness arises, just as intoxicating power arises from the mixing of quince and other [substances]” (1: 584). However, the elements themselves are unconscious; consciousness arises only when they are combined in a certain way. With the destruction of the body, consciousness also disappears. Therefore, for the Charvakas, it is obvious that there is no eternal soul: “When the body turns to dust, can it be reborn again? If that which leaves the body goes to another world, why does it not return again, drawn by love for its loved ones?” (1, 590). If the soul does not exist, then all sacrifices are meaningless. The Charvakas called the Brahmin priests rogues and swindlers, and the Vedas – “the foolish chatter of deceivers” (1: 585). The supporters of this school considered sensory perception to be the only reliable source of knowledge.
Ethics. “Lokayata believes that there is no God, no liberation, no dharma, no non-dharma, and there is no reward for either virtuous or vicious behavior” (1: 569). The Charvakas saw the only meaning of life in happiness, which they understood as enjoyment. However, there is evidence that not all representatives of this trend were supporters of gross sensual pleasures, since Charvakas were divided into “subtle” and “gross”. Nevertheless, the general ethical attitude of Lokayata is the desire to enjoy earthly life, since man is not given any other.
Orthodox Schools of Indian Philosophy
In the history of Indian philosophy, the schools that accepted the Vedas as the source of reliable knowledge were called orthodox or classical. These philosophical schools had the general name of “darsana” (lit.: “vision, sight”). In the heterodox schools (i.e. Buddhism, Jainism) the term “darsana” was used in its basic meaning: in Jainism, the word denoted one of the “three pearls” – correct vision, or faith; in Buddhism, it was also used in the meaning of “vision”.
The first person to use the term “darsana” to denote philosophical schools was the medieval Jain thinker Haribhadra (8th century) in his treatise “Shad-darsana-samuccaya” (literally: “Exposition [of the teachings] of the six darsanas”): “Buddhism, Nyaya, Sankhya, Jainism, Vaisheshika and the teaching of Jainimi (Mimamsa) – these are truly the names of [these six] philosophies” (1: 551). However, subsequently the classical list of darsanas changed and began to include only orthodox teachings: Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimamsa. Historically, these philosophical schools constituted three groups of paired teachings, since each school in the pair complemented the doctrine of the other in one aspect or another. The name of the school reflected the specifics of its ideas. The period of origin and structural design of darshans falls approximately on the 2nd-5th centuries CE. The process of formation and development of philosophical views in all schools was similar: initially, a basic text of sutras (or karikas) was formed, expressing the main ideas in a short, laconic form and having the name of the school itself. Then a commentary was written to this text, then a subcommentary (i.e. a commentary on the commentary). Subsequently, philosophical creativity within the school continued in the form of commentary on various commentaries or on the primary sutras themselves.
Nyaya
The main sources of early Nyaya philosophy are the text “Nyaya Sutra” (3rd – 4th centuries), attributed to the legendary founder of the school Gotama, or Akshapada, and the commentary (bhashya) of Vatsyayana (4th – 5th centuries). The name of the school is translated as “method”, “way”, “proof”, “logic”, which testifies to the main problems of Nyaya. It was within the framework of this school that the classical Indian five-member syllogism was formulated.
Cognition. The main philosophical “plot” developed in the Nyaya Sutras is devoted to the topic of cognition – what and how is cognized. The sutras consistently examine 16 basic categories of Nyaya, of which the first 10 categories describe the methods of obtaining true knowledge, the rest relate to tricks in debate. The main sources of reliable knowledge in Nyaya were intuition-perception (pratyaksha), logical inference (anumana), analogy (upamana) and authoritative testimony (shabda). The first source of knowledge is the most important. This is direct cognition. Objects of the external world come into contact with the senses and generate corresponding knowledge. Knowledge obtained through perception may not always be verbally formulated.
The logical conclusion is expressed in a five-member syllogism, which reflects the connection of a feature (linga) with a certain object. The inference demonstrates how this feature, the middle term, connects the major term (sadhya) with the minor (paksha). The syllogism consists of: 1) the thesis (pratijna) – “there is fire on the mountain”; 2) the argument (hetu) – “because there is smoke on the mountain”; 3) the justification of the argument (udaharana) – “where there is smoke, there is fire”; 4) application to the given case (upanaya) – “and this is on the mountain”; and 5) the conclusion (nigama) – “therefore, there is fire on the mountain.”
According to the logic of the Nyaya school, inference can be from effect to cause, from cause to effect, and from the invariably accompanying to the accompanying. Nyaya philosophers, as well as the thinkers of the related Vaisheshika, believed that effects are separate from causes and are not inherent in them. Effect and cause represent different entities and cannot be connected, since this would reduce one substance to another. This interpretation of cause-and-effect relationships was called the “teaching of the non-existence of effect [in cause]” (asatkaryavada). Representatives of this darshana called comparison a means by which knowledge of a thing is acquired based on its similarity to a previously known thing. To justify the comparison, it is necessary, firstly, to be familiar with the object of knowledge and, secondly, to perceive the similarity. Thus, for example, having seen a wild animal similar to a domestic cow (gavaya), the conclusion is made that this animal is gavaya, i.e. a cow. The authoritative evidence in knowledge is primarily the evidence of the Vedas. In knowledge, much is not directly observable and is learned from the reports of other people, tradition and revelations of sacred books. The Vedas convey reliable knowledge, since they are the sayings of sages and prophets who clearly saw and directly comprehended eternal truths. The thinkers of the Nyaya school considered success in actions to be the criterion of truth.
Along with the body, feelings, objects of the senses, etc., the Naiyaikas also included among the objects of correct knowledge a spiritual substance (atman), the existence of which they proved with the help of the following arguments: 1) the consistency and continuity of an individual’s experience testifies to the presence of an eternal substance, distinct from the changing body; 2) the self-evident nature of the concepts of virtue (dharma) and vice (adharma) loses its meaning with the identity of the soul and the perishable body; 3) a bearer of these qualities is necessary for consciousness and memory, since they are not found in any part of the body; 4) it is impossible to explain all these properties through a chain of momentary states of the psyche, as the Buddhists do. In a similar way, the Nyaya philosophers tried to prove the existence of God.
Liberation. It is God who, by bestowing mercy on the believer, helps a person to attain liberation (moksha). The means for attaining such a state is the highest knowledge, which frees the soul from all attachments to the external world, its own body shell and even to the mind. In the state of liberation there is no suffering, just as there is no bliss. The philosophers of this school believed that moksha is an unconscious state.
Vaisheshika
Traditionally, the founder of the school was considered to be the sage Kanada, or Uluka. The composition of the Vaisheshika Sutras (1st-2nd centuries) was attributed to him. The orthodox interpretation of this text was presented by the basic commentary of Prashastapada (6th century) “Padartha-sangraha” (lit.: “Collection of categories”). The name of this darshana contains a concept that has become a kind of “calling card” of the school – vishesha (lit. “peculiarity”, “difference”, “specificity”).
Categories. Six basic categories (padartha) — substance (dravya), quality (guna), action (karma), community (samanya), peculiarity (visesha) and inherence (samavaya) — formed the conceptual framework of the philosophical system of the school, within the framework of which its thinkers presented a detailed picture of the universe and developed a detailed theory of atomism. Vaisheshika understood substance as a substrate, a carrier of various qualities, producing or undergoing a particular action. There are nine such substances in this darshan: “earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, mind” (1, 565). Substance can be material and immaterial. The first includes the five great elements (mahabhuta): earth, water, fire, air and ether (akasha) — a special element representing an eternal all-pervading reality. If the ether is continuous, then the other elements are discontinuous, since they consist of the smallest supersensible particles – atoms (anu). The atoms of each element differ from each other in their qualities, i.e. they possess the notorious vishesha corresponding to one or another element. In other words, the atoms of the earth have “earthiness”, the atoms of water – “wateriness”, etc. In this way, the Vaisheshika philosophers resolved the problem of the diversity of the external world. Atoms are subject to a single world principle, or law (dharma). Since atoms are beyond sensory perception, their existence is proven by logical inference, the system of which the Vaisheshikas borrowed from the Nyaya school. The mind (manas), like the soul, is an immaterial substance, has the abilities of feeling, cognition and will. The soul (atman) is understood as a multitude of individual souls and the supreme soul.
Another approach to the interpretation of substance in Vaisheshika distinguishes being (bhava) and non-being (abhava). It is noteworthy that the philosophers of this school considered non-being to be a substance and distinguished several types of non-being: relative (absence of one in another) and absolute (difference of one from another). The latter can be considered as non-being before emergence, non-being after destruction and absence of connection between two things.
Qualities are the properties of a substance at rest. There are 25 of them: touch, taste, color, etc. Bodily and discontinuous substances (earth, water, fire, air, and mind) have the capacity for action, which is of five kinds: “elevation, depression, contraction, expansion, and general motion” (1: 566). Community is the eternal essence that resides in individual things. Particularity is what distinguishes one substance from another. Inherence is “that relation between two inseparably connected things which forms the basis for the knowledge that one of them is the support and the other the supported” (1: 566).
The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools complemented each other: if the first developed a detailed system of argumentation and debate, the second was engaged in creating a holistic and consistent picture of the world order. Subsequently, these two darshanas merged into the syncretic system of Nyaya-Vaisheshika.
Sankhya
This darshana is one of the earliest philosophical traditions in India. Some of its ideas and concepts are found in Vedic, epic and legislative literature. The legendary founder of the school is considered to be Kapila, the author of the “Sankhya Sutras” that have not reached our time. The classical teaching of darshana is presented in the work “Sankhya Karika” by Ishvara Krishna (5th century), which played the role of a basic text in the tradition: it was on this treatise that subsequent thinkers wrote their comments. The originality of the philosophical doctrine of Sankhya was that its thinkers tried to calculate all the categories with the help of which it is possible to describe the universe. This interest is expressed in the name: “sankhya” means “count”, “enumeration”.
Dualism. The teaching of classical Sankhya is a philosophical dualism, since the basis of all theoretical constructions is the idea of a dual beginning of the world. The first beginning is Prakriti, or Pradhana. This is the eternal, unmanifested primordial matter, initially possessing three qualities (guna): “sattva, rajas and tamas – thus one should know the three qualities. They have the following signs as their consequence: calm, pleasure, suffering” (1: 561). Sattva is associated with harmony, peace and personifies light, rajas denotes passion, desire and rage, and tamas is related to ignorance, inaction, darkness and gloom. Prakriti is an active unconscious beginning. The interaction of qualities explains the diversity of the world. Primordial matter and its products are not self-manifesting and for their manifestation need the light of another beginning – Purusha. Purusha in Sankhya is understood as a spiritual inactive substance, representing eternal consciousness. Purusha has no qualities. But he “tasts the fruit”, i.e. enjoys objects not perceived by him.
Manifestation of the world. The process of interaction between Prakriti and Purusha leads to the manifestation of the mind (buddhi), also called the Great (mahat). The function of the mind is to discover and differentiate between oneself and others. The mind generates self-consciousness (ahamkara), which gives the feeling of “I” and “mine”. If the quality of tamas dominates in self-consciousness, then from ahamkara appear 5 subtle entities of the five elements (tanmatra), which are not perceived by the senses, and then the tanmatras produce the gross elements themselves. If sattva prevails in self-consciousness, then ahamkara generates sixteen categories: 5 organs of perception (hearing, sight, etc.), 5 organs of action (eye, ear, etc.), 5 tanmatras and the mind (manas). Thus, the grid of the main categories of the philosophical system of Sankhya consists of 25 concepts that describe the relationship between Prakriti and Purusha both at the level of the Universe and at the level of an individual. The connection between the primordial matter and the spirit is the same as between the blind and the lame: Purusha, due to his inability to act, is drawn into Prakriti’s activity, while remaining completely untouched by it.
Cognition. The cognitive “apparatus” in Sankhya consists of reason, self-awareness, mind and senses. By means of these means, an object is perceived by the cognizing subject. When an object affects the senses, the mind processes the impressions, forming a perception. Then, self-awareness correlates it with itself, and the mind gives a holistic idea of the object. The mind, distributed throughout the body, retains the impressions and inclinations of lived lives, which manifest themselves under appropriate conditions. Sankhya recognizes three sources of reliable knowledge: perception, inference and authoritative testimony. The criterion of the truth of knowledge obtained with the help of these means is its applicability in practice. In the interpretation of cause-and-effect relationships, the philosophers of this school advocated the theory of the pre-existence of the effect in the cause (satkarya-vada), opposing their views to Vaisheshika and Nyaya.
Liberation. Liberation (moksha) in Sankhya, as in the vast majority of schools, was understood as the complete cessation of all suffering. In other words, the task of the adept is to free Purusha from the influence of Prakriti, and this process unfolds both on the cosmic and personal levels. The reason for the soul’s stay in samsara is ignorance, identification with the body shell. Therefore, the main means for achieving moksha, Sankhya philosophers considered true knowledge, which consists in understanding the difference between spirit and matter. Liberation can be achieved during life. Classical Sankhya was a non-theistic system, since it did not recognize the idea of God. If Sankhya develops a scheme of world development, describing the interaction of two opposing principles, then yoga, related to Sankhya, shows how to free one principle from the influence of another.
Yoga
The emergence of yoga as a philosophical system is associated with the name of Patanjali. This legendary sage was credited with the authorship of the Yoga Sutras (2nd century), on the text of which an orthodox commentary was written by Vyasa (3rd-4th centuries). Literally, “yoga” means “connection”, “union”, which explains the technical side of yoga, the task of which is to connect all human abilities, direct them in the right direction in order to achieve freedom of the spirit from the body shell. This darshana borrowed the entire philosophical picture of the universe from its theoretically related Sankhya. The contribution of yoga itself was a detailed development of the path to liberation of the soul from the material world. But if Sankhya was a non-theistic doctrine, then Yoga was often called theistic Sankhya, since it recognized God (Ishvara). It was precisely the closeness of the philosophical teachings of both darshanas that gave the Jain thinker Haribhadra the basis to exclude yoga from the list of six darshanas.
The Path of Liberation. The central theme of the Yoga Sutras is the description of how to free the consciousness (chitta) from the influence of matter with its qualities: sattva, rajas and tamas. To cleanse the consciousness of false ideas, it is necessary to consistently go through eight steps: first, yama – abstinence from the five vices (violence, lying, stealing, unchastity and attachment); second, niyama – the acquisition of good habits and skills of the body (a system of bodily purification through ablution with water) and soul (reflection on God, recitation of his name, cultivation of good feelings); third, asana – the practice of certain postures during meditation; fourth, pranayama – regulation of breathing; fifth, pratyahara – the ability to distract oneself from the senses and the entire external world; sixth, dharana – keeping the mind on one object; seventh, dhyana – contemplation of the chosen object of reflection, meditation as such; and eighth, samadhi – the highest concentration of consciousness, the final stage of yogic exercises. God (Ishvara) helps a person to achieve such a level of mental development. The representatives of this darshana correctly noted a certain theoretical difficulty among the Sankhyayikas in explaining why the passive by nature Purusha is drawn into activity by the primordial matter. From the point of view of yoga, such a union is possible thanks to God. The interaction of the physical and spiritual substances at the individual level is regulated by the ratio of virtue and vice (adrishta) in a person.
Cognition. Yoga, following Samkhya, recognized perception, inference, and authoritative testimony as means of cognition. However, its representatives believed that these pramanas do not provide absolutely reliable knowledge (as the Samkhyayikas claimed). True knowledge is provided only by yogic practice.
Mimamsa
This darshana, in addition to the name “mimamsa” (literally: “research”, “study”) has another, clarifying name – “purva-mimamsa”, i.e. “early mimamsa” in contrast to the subsequent, or higher (uttara), mimamsa, which was understood as another orthodox school – Vedanta. The traditional founder of mimamsa was considered to be the mythical Jaimini, the author of the “Mimamsa Sutras” (2nd century BC – 2nd century AD). The classic commentary on the sutras of Jaimini was the text of Shabara (4th-5th centuries). Initially, mimamsa was formed as a rather narrow technical area of interpretation of the Vedas. The problems under discussion acquired their actual philosophical coloring in the process of confrontation between the Mimamsa and other Brahmanical schools.
The world. The picture of the world order in Mimamsa is similar to a similar description in the Vaisheshika school: bodies consist of eternal atoms of the four great elements and reside in the fifth – continuous ether, in space and time. The universe is governed by the impersonal law of karma. In addition to bodies, there are many individual eternal souls that reincarnate in accordance with their deeds. But unlike the Vaisheshikas, the Mimamsa did not recognize the supreme soul and even more – they denied the existence of God the creator. The peculiarity of the doctrine of this darshana was that, considering every word of the Vedas absolutely and always true, the followers of Jaimini saw in the Vedic gods only an “appendix” to the ritual.
Dharma. According to Mimamsa, the purpose of human life is to observe the fundamental moral law – dharma. However, man cannot comprehend dharma by his own efforts. But there is a tradition, an authoritative testimony of the Vedas, which embodies the eternal, immutable truth, independent of time and place. The Vedas themselves were considered eternal by the Mimamsa. The arguments given by the philosophers of this darshana consisted, firstly, in a reference to the non-creation of the Vedas by people (since in tradition the Vedas are not attributed to anyone); and secondly, in the position on the eternity of sound. The first argument is understandable and can be valid only in the context of Indian culture, where works were always attributed to some (even legendary or mythical) author. The second argument refers to the teaching of the Mimamsa themselves on the relationship of the word to the object it denotes. The main position of this theory is the assertion of a non-random and inseparable connection between the word and the object. People think that they have agreed to call a cow a “cow”, whereas in fact the connection between the two does not depend on the human mind. This connection exists necessarily. The result of all these arguments was the statement that the sounds that make up the Vedas are eternal. That is why the Mimamsakas derived dharma from the Vedas: “dharma is that which has as its sign the injunction of the Vedas” (1: 567). The Vedas teach that human dharma consists in participating in and performing sacrifices. The ritual is important in itself, and the sacrifice made in it is valuable in itself. Sacrifices are made not to gain the favor of the gods, but to obtain a certain “fruit”. This “fruit” is a mysterious miraculous power called “apurva” (lit.: “not former”, “not the first”). At the beginning of the ritual it is absent, but it does not come from anywhere from the outside, but “grows” from the depths of the sacrifice. Apurva arises gradually, and its accumulation throughout life, considered (according to the Vedic tradition) as a long sacrifice, is the main benefit (nihshreyasa) of human life. It is this that leads to the attainment of the bliss of the soul. Although sacrifices are made to the gods, the role of the latter in the Mimamsa teaching is extremely insignificant: the gods play an “auxiliary” role in the ritual, the main purpose of which is the emergence of apurva.
Cognition. Initially, the Mimamsakas recognized three sources of reliable knowledge (pramana): perception, inference, and authoritative testimony. The latter was considered by some Mimamsakas only as the word of the Vedas, and by others as any verbal reliable testimony. Later, analogy, assumption, and absence were added to the three pramanas, which implied that “a person knows not through perception and inference, but from the very fact of non-perception in a given place” (1: 568).
Vedanta
The Vedanta school (lit.: “completion of the Vedas”) is the pinnacle of Brahmanical philosophical thought. Within the framework of this darshana, the philosophical teaching, the origins of which were contained in the Vedas and their most philosophical part – the Upanishads (lit.: “sitting near [the teacher’s feet]”), was finally formed. Since Vedanta, on the one hand, continued the tradition of the Vedas, and on the other, raised this tradition to a fundamentally new theoretical level, giving a philosophical interpretation to the basic categories (atman, Brahman, etc.), this school had another name – “uttara mimansa” (lit.: “highest mimansa”). The founder of this darshana was considered to be Badarayana, the author of the short “Vedanta Sutras” (between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century). The commentary tradition of Vedanta, in turn, gave rise to several philosophical schools within the darshana itself.
Advaita Vedanta. The founder of Advaita Vedanta (lit.: “non-dual Vedanta”) was Shankara (8th-9th centuries), who wrote several commentaries on the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutras and other texts of Brahmanic literature, as well as a number of independent works. Shankara’s main thesis was the assertion of the non-duality of reality. According to his teaching, there is a reality that is self-evident, directly perceived and reliable – this is the reality of the Self: “I am devoid of properties, inactive, eternal, unwavering, unstained, unchangeable, devoid of external appearance, always free, pure” (1: 579). The idea of the Self precedes everything, including the flow of consciousness. I am a spiritual entity, a soul (atman), whose nature is consciousness. It is the atman that illuminates all cognitive faculties, just as a lamp illuminates a vessel and other objects. It also illuminates itself. The nature of the atman is identical to the nature of the highest spiritual principle – Brahman. “Eternal, pure, free, one, indivisible, blissful, non-dual, real, knowing, infinite – such is the highest Brahman, such is truly the Self” (1: 579). This is a description of the highest reality, Brahman, as possessing qualities (saguna brahman) and manifesting itself as God (Ishvara). This is how the tradition of the Vedas presents it. The latter, being a manifestation of the mind of Brahman, have an eternal, imperishable meaning. But the Vedas as a collection of words, letters, sentences (the Vedas as texts) began to exist at the creation of the world by Ishvara and will cease to exist with the destruction of the Universe.
The true nature of the ultimate reality, however, is indescribable. From this point of view, Brahman appears as devoid of all attributes and qualities (nirguna brahman). All that can be said about the true nature of the ultimate reality is “neither this nor that” (neti-neti). Brahman is beyond all empirical knowledge and therefore anything can be said about it only by discarding all characteristics. If Shankara interprets Brahman as the only true reality, then the world in his doctrine appears in relation to this reality as an illusion (maya) of Brahman, or its play (lila). The world is like a dream and does not exist independently of the dreamer. The basis of accepting the world as independently existing is ignorance (avidya), which is also the cause of the false assertion of the existence of individual souls. Thus, Advaita denies any independent existence of any reality other than Brahman.
Vishishtadvaita. Another Vedanta philosopher, Ramanuja (11th-12th centuries), presented a slightly different interpretation of the relationship between the world and Brahman, which was called vishishtadvaita (literally: “limited non-duality”). Ramanuja drew attention to the fact that Shankara’s highest reality cannot be comprehended by any means of knowledge: neither by perception, nor by inference, nor even by the Vedas. The advaita approach undermines not only the philosophical understanding of primary being, but also religious life with its experience of direct perception and worship of God. For Ramanuja, Brahman is, above all, the highest individuality, which is described in the Vedic tradition using the qualities of being (sat), consciousness (chitta), and bliss (ananda). The most significant attributes of God are compassion, love, power, and knowledge. The Supreme Reality, Brahman, also acts as the God-keeper of the universe – Vishnu. The whole world and everything in it are originally contained in God. The world and God relate to each other as a part to the whole. Vishnu creates the world not illusorily (as in Shankara), but in reality, and rules the world like a king rules over his kingdom. The gap between the master (Vishnu) and the servant (the individual soul) can be overcome only through the devotion (bhakti) of the soul to God and the grace of God. Thus, for Ramanuja, the world and individual souls, being the creation of Vishnu, nevertheless have a relatively independent reality.
Dvaita Vedanta. Madhva (13th century) formulated the doctrine of the complete difference between the world and Brahman, which was called “Dvaita Vedanta” (lit. “dual Vedanta”). In this version of Vedanta, Brahman is also understood as the highest reality, whose attributes are absolute. But there are 5 eternal differences between: 1) Vishnu (Ishvara) and individual souls; 2) Ishvara and inanimate objects; 3) souls and objects; 4) different souls; 5) different objects. These differences really exist, and only the will of God can overcome them.
Within the Vedanta, several other solutions to this problem emerged. Thus, Nimbarka (14th century) taught that Brahman, the world, and souls are neither absolutely different nor absolutely identical to each other. Later, Vallabha (15th century) attempted to return to Shankara’s ideas, presenting a version of shuddha-advaita (literally: “pure non-duality”), arguing that the world is real and represents a subtle form of Brahman, and the soul is a part of it.
“Bhagavad Gita”
The work called “Bhagavad Gita” (literally “Song of the Bhagavata”, or “Divine Song”) is part of the sixth book of the ancient Indian epic “Mahabharata”, dedicated to the story of the confrontation between two related clans – the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The action in the “Bhagavad Gita” begins with a description of how, before the decisive battle between the clans, the best warrior of the Pandavas, Arjuna, refuses to participate in the fratricidal battle and turns to his charioteer Krishna for advice. In his instructions to Arjuna, Krishna sets forth the doctrine of the nature of Brahman and the paths of piety.
Karma Yoga. The first path of the pious soul is the path of disinterested action (karma yoga), the basic idea of which is to act according to one’s duty (dharma), without caring about the results (both good and bad) of one’s actions. Proper conduct is to observe one’s dharma without any attachment to the fruits of action. Therefore, Krishna instructs, Arjuna should enter the battle and not think of killing his cousins, the Kauravas. Firstly, Arjuna is a warrior, and it is the duty of a warrior to participate in the battle to restore justice on earth, trampled upon by the Kauravas. Secondly, by killing enemies and their supporters, Arjuna does not actually harm their souls, for only the bodily shell is destroyed, and the unborn atman never dies. All that exists, says Krishna, is a form of manifestation of Brahman. Before Arjuna’s mind’s eye, Krishna unfolds the entire picture of the universe, in which Krishna himself appears as the incarnation, or descent (avatar) of the supreme reality. Thus, Krishna, being God, descends into the world of people to restore universal dharma and explain the teachings about the paths of true piety.
Jnana Yoga. In addition to the path of due or disinterested action, there is the path of knowledge (jnana yoga), which is expressed in the knowledge of the nature of the highest reality. This is not intellectual, logical-discursive, but yogic knowledge, which allows one to see through all the diversity of the world to a single, imperishable essence and to perceive all the multiplicity of beings and objects as different forms and manifestations of God. The yogi offers this knowledge of the unity of all that exists to Brahman as a sacrifice. It is this sacrifice that is genuine.
Bhakti Yoga. Another type of piety is the path of personal worship, or devotion (bhakti yoga) of the adept to his God-Krishna. Having known Brahman, the yogi completely surrenders himself to God. He who loves Krishna in this life will be with him in the next life. He who remembers God and repeats his name incessantly will unite with Krishna after death.
The Bhagavad Gita was commented on by Shankara, Ramanuja and other Vedanta thinkers. This authoritative work for the Hindu tradition traces the teachings of Sankhya, Yoga about Prakriti and Purusha, about the qualities of the primary matter. There is no doubt that the authors of this work were familiar with Buddhism. The idea of all-consuming love for God (bhakti) formed the basis of an entire religious movement – Bhagavatism.