INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

Nature And Scope of Indian Philosophy

Darshan Versus Philosophy

Introduction: Indian philosophy was misconstrued by Western philosophers and some of its Eastern critics also, as pessimistic, negative and substitute of Hindu religion. That’s why the main objective of writing this chapter is to remove the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy and to show it in new light by giving the right interpretation of its doctrines.

To refute the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy it is necessary to explain its metaphysical, epistemology and ethics. First of all it necessary to define and explain the very word ‘darshan’ itself, which Indian version of philosophy. It will dispel the the darkness of ignorance of its critics .

Philosophers Look At Reality:

Indian philosophy which is mainly pluralistic can be divided into two types:

1-secular

2-spiritual

As reality is that which exists on itself, there are various versions of reality given by indian philosophers.

The seculer type of reality may be further divided into two types: physical and non-physical

In the same manner spiritual reality may be divided into two types:theistic or non-theistic. But this distinction is secular and spiritual

Isn’t watertight distinction.Any doctrine may be both secular and spiritual.

Further both secular and spiritual groups may be divided into two exclusive and exhaustive groups i.e. physical and non-physical and theistic and non-theistic respectively.

Though,these divisions of secular and spiritual theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive but their combination with the divisions of other theory is possible. Any physical theory may be theistic or non-theistic and any non-physical theory may be also theistic or non-theistic.

The concept of mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in indian philosophy as physical element. Samkhya,Advaita and Vaisheshika has accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ.

Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as a derivative of mind. The mind of idealist thinkers is not physical one and also it is not accepted as the sixth-sense. This theory of idealism has been propounded by Yogachara school of Buddhism.

Any non-theistic doctrine may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, any physical and non-theistic theory may be either atheistic or agnostic and any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows

Monistic
Dualistic
Non-dualistic
Pluralstic

According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. It is significant because even the use of the word one will limit the existence of substance. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Both Indian and Western philosophy is on the same level qualitatively because of the sameness of the issue. But they differ in response to these questions because location and time decides their answers.

Knowledge in Indian Context:

Inquisitiveness is inherent in all the species of the world though they differ on the level of the extent of knowledge acquired by them.

Further, man’s motive to acquire knowledge is relative to the culture of that period. Culture, also determines the idea of knowledge. Philosophy is essentially related to these two factors i. e. motive and idea.

For Greek philosophers knowledge was simply for its own sake. Resultantly, it introduced pure science. But it turned into power for modern philosophy. Evolution of science, turned into a different direction due to this Baconian dictum of ‘knowledge is power.’

In comparison to Western approach, in Indian philosophy medicine and surgery served practical purposes whereas mathematics and astronomy was used for both practical and spiritual purposes through yagas and yajnas, respectively.

In India, knowledge was meant for power instead of, for its own sake. It has extrinsic value of determining the way of life through knowledge. One changes his view of life and tries to conquer himself but instead of nature which was the aim of Baconian power, modern Western philosophy considered nature as a means for their end. But in Vedic philosophy it was an integral part of man, to be identified with.

Baconian ‘power’ served their economical and political purposes as well. But in India, it was instrumental in spiritual goal. Though, Charvaka is exception to this approach just as Socrates and Spinoza are exceptions to Western approach.

This objective of spiritual purpose was misinterpreted as pessimistic and escapist. It was construed as denial of the world and worldly life. But the fact is this that it was merely given a secondary grade than spirit. It was not totally rejected as useless. Indian philosophy is not limited to this mundane world but it targets the extra mundane as well though it includes physical world for its practical purposes.

Hierarchy of values is the special feature of Indian philosophy which changes one’s view of life. A person with this value loaded knowledge can achieve the spiritual goal because it has been mentioned in Indian philosophy that ignorance is the cause of suffering. Knowledge changes the behaviour of the agent. He acts according to the norms of cosmic laws, i.e. rita. In Greek philosophy, Socrates and his followers also behaved according to the moral rules but other Western thinkers are devoid of this virtue. They are not practicing philosophers but only rational thinkers. Their philosophy is almost always based on mental speculation. Philosophy is not the way of life in West. Bacon and Heidegger are merely thinkers. They can theorize philosophy, but cannot practice it.

Thus, value and virtue being a part of religion Indian philosophy was rendered as merely Hindu religion. Though reality is this, that in India there is Hindu dharma which is cosmic not religion. Religion is something different from the spirituality which constitutes Indian philosophy. The same may be the case with Western philosophy because of those philosophers being either Christians or Jews. Philosophy in India is not Hindu centric but cosmic. The very word Veda means simply knowledge. It is neither Hindu knowledge nor Christian. Religion in India is the common man’s version of philosophy. In the West also there are philosophers who were religious leaders. For example, St Augustine, St. Aquinas were also religious leaders like Buddha and Mahavir.

Buddhism and Jainism are the practical aspects of Buddhist and Jain philosophy which proves its pragmatism. Hindu dharma originated from Indian philosophy.

Spirituality is the hallmark of Indian philosophy and knowledge in Indian philosophy is spiritual power, instead of physical one. Apart from knowledge, spirituality can be discerned in the concept of reality and aesthetic values also. Concept of Brahman in Upanishads or Advaita are spiritual one. Spiritual knowledge can be obtained only about spiritual object. Rasa is said as synonymous with Brahman realization which shows its aesthetic value. That’s why it is said that ‘raso vai sah’ (that indeed is rasa). Here that indicates ‘para Brahman’.

There are two levels of knowledge in Indian philosophy: higher and lower levels. First one is the authentic knowledge whereas second one doesn’t prove itself at the criterion of spiritual knowledge, according to the Upanishadic philosophy. First one is called apara vidhya which is related to the phenomenal world. Though this lower level of knowledge was included in the category of knowledge by all the schools except Mimamsa. Even theories of error is also included in the category of knowledge. So, Indian philosophy doesn’t exclude apara vidya, as well.

The question of integration of spiritual life with worldly life is well responed by the tradition of purusarthas which prescribes the rules of artha and kama. According to it, artha must be earned and kama must be satisfied only in righteous way. Also, liberation is to be achieved according to the laws of dharma.

Philosophy and Life:

The aim of life in Indian philosophy is to get rid of miseries of life. It may or may not be to achieve happiness but to get rid of sorrows of life and achieve peace is the goal of life.

Aim of life ascertains the value of Indian philosophy because it gives solution of this problem of human being. Contrary to it, Western philosophy doesn’t help in finding out the solution of the aim of human being.

To get rid of sorrows of life and become happy is the ultimate aim of human being, according to Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy has been divided into two groups i.e. orthodox and heterodox on the basis of their acceptance and rejection of Vedic philosophy. But, both groups have the same goal of life i.e. happiness. Now, the question of their consent on this point is crucial. Further, how this aim of happiness is philosophical one, is another question

Knowledge is valuable since it changes the view of human being and makes them moral this this morality changes their world view alsothis change of view which is ethical is philosophical as well

Regarding second question i.e. the aim of life being happiness, all the schools of Indian philosophy are unanimous. It may be so that they differ on the nature of this happiness. On this point, the view of Charvaka is totally different from all the other school of Indian philosophy because it holds the view that worldly enjoyment must be the aim of life.

But since spirituality is the essence of life, therefore, worldly enjoyments may not be the sole aim of life. Because it is not everlasting one. People are quite aware of the phenomenal existence of the world. This is the special characteristic of Indian philosophy that it targets the eternal peace and happiness. Greek philosophers also aimed for eternal peace. To get rid of sorrows of life, forever, is the aim of Indian philosophy.

This eternal happiness is called niravana or liberation or moksha in Indian philosophy. To achieve this goal, one has to renounce worldly enjoyments. Knowledge and sense of detachment leads to liberation from miseries of life.

This idea of renunciation raised many objections due to being misconstrued by critics. In fact, renunciation in India is meant for worldly pleasure not happiness. But, being misconstrued, it was alleged that Indian philosophy is escapist and pessimistic. It is not meant to renounce the desires based on necessities but only greed has to be renounced. Being satisfied with what is required will make men happy. Greed leads to discontentment which gives birth to anger and frustration.

Vairagya can be had by acting as per the rules of cosmic order i.e. rita which will lead to cosmic existence that is the aim of life i.e. expansion of self. It is due to this misinterpretation of vairagya that whole Indian philosophy has been termed as pessimistic and escapist. It is not pleasure but happinesss which is the aim of life, according to Indian philosophy

Rendering phenomenal world as impermanent, therefore, negligible, was the reason to term Indian philosophy as self-destructive and negative. But, this criticism may be refuted easily because Indian philosophy denies only the ‘ultimate’ existence of the physical world. It doesn’t serve our spiritual purpose but is necessary for our practical purposes. At the same time, this view of Indian philosophy about world having only relative existence is not unscientific. Also, if to render phenomenal world as relative is negative and self-destructive then the philosophy of Plato must be rejected on this ground.Further, something is termed as relative in reference to something which is Absolute.

It is said that pessimism is the hallmark of Indian philosophy because it negates this world and life completely. The reason behind, is misconception. It is misinterpretation of the idea of renunciation. One is not supposed to escape from the world but from the misery of the world only. Further, it doesn’t negate happiness but only pleasure which is temporal. Happiness, translates in Sanskrit as moksha. Also pain always accompanies pleasure. According to Bentham also, happiness contains duration, intensity and purity. So, a philosopher which aims mokhsha as ultimate aim of life may not be said to be pessimistic.

Further, if it is possible to attain permanent happiness then how it may be said that this world is evil. Feasibility of liberation is the another question ,raised by critics. Assumption of feasibility will lead towards progress. Men will progress from lower to higher level.

Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of soul but modern Western philosophers rejected it. Though immortality of soul was accepted by Christianity. It means Western philosophy was not influenced by its religion, though philosophy of course has its impact on religion.

General Characteristics of Indian Philosophy:

Objective: Indian philosophy was misconstrued by Western philosophers and some of its Eastern critics also, as pessimistic, negative and substitute of Hindu religion. That’s why the main objective of writing this chapter is to remove the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy and to show it in new light by giving the right interpretation of its doctrines.

To refute the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy it is necessary to explain its metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. First of all, it is necessary to define and explain the very word ‘darshan’ itself, which is the Indian version of philosophy. It will dispel the darkness of ignorance , of its critics .

Introduction: The etymological meaning of philosophy may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darsanam’. It is one through which reality is seen .It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization .The very word realization is subjective which needs some objective reality ,to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. It is the Sanskrit version of the very word substance .In it, ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This Ultimate Reality is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification made knowledge inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of knowledge.

This inwardness of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to it. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself. This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west .

Philosophers Look At Reality:

Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself. There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of, two types:

Secular
Spiritual

Secular theories are, of two types :

Physical
Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

Theistic
Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual.

Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both world. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

But, the surprising factor is this that the divisions of these two groups are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any theory may not be both physical and non physical. Further, any theory may not be both theistic and non theistic. Though, any division of secular may accept any division of spiritual and any division of spiritual may accept any division of secular. So, there may be four different combinations of both theories.

Any physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas, Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers, mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind. That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non - theistic theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories . It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

Monistic
Dualistic
Non-dualistic
Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of division. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.

Both, Indian and Western philosophy is on the same level qualitatively because of the sameness of the issue. But they differ, in response to these questions because location and time decides their answers.

Knowledge in Indian Context:

Inquisitiveness is inherent in all the species of the world though they differ on the level of the extent of knowledge acquired by them.

A comperative study of both Indian and Western concepts will bring out the best of both .For Greek philosophers knowledge was simply for its own sake. Resultantly, it introduced pure science. But it turned into power for modern philosophy. Evolution of science, turned into a different direction due to this Baconian dictum of ‘knowledge is power.’ In comparison to Western approach, in Indian philosophy medicine and surgery served practical purposes whereas mathematics and astronomy was used for both practical and spiritual purposes through yagas and yajnas, respectively. Knowledge wasn’t power for ancient Indians. Further, knowledge didn’t have any intrinsic value for them. It was merely means to achieve the end. Of course, Charvaka is exception to this standpoint .

Though, the restricted sense of knowledge is in a sense similar to Baconan philosophy of knowledge which is power. For Indians, knowledge was power because of its being a way of life . That’s why it had its extrinsic value for them.

But, the reversal of the significance of the word power is necessary to interpret knowledge in its true sense. For Bacon, power was a means to gain control over nature whereas for Indians it was instrumental in subjugation of one’s own self to nature .This is the basis of Vedic philosophy. This interpretation of the word power shows the viewpoint of both Indian and Western philosophers, to the world. Their belief systems and attitudes show the sense in which they used the very word. For modern western philosophers, this universe was simply means to achieve their ends. Though, we find a certain era of vedic philosophy, being influenced by this view but it was rejected later on. It was the identification of human being with nature, which was accepted by them.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences. Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in transcendental reality. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world.

Hierarchy of values is the special feature of Indian philosophy which changes one’s view of life. Knowledge includes all kinds of values in the form of a way of life. A person with this value loaded knowledge can achieve the spiritual goal because it has been mentioned in Indian philosophy that ignorance is the cause of suffering. Knowledge changes the behavior of the agent. His behavior is different from the ignorant man. This view of Indian philosophy represents Socrates. Ironically, this view is missing in western philosophy. In Greek philosophy, Socrates and his followers also behaved according to the moral rules but other Western thinkers are devoid of this virtue. They are not practicing philosophers but only rational thinkers. Philosophy is not the way of life in West. Bacon and Heidegger are merely thinkers. They can theorize philosophy, but cannot practice it. In India, value is an integral part of philosophy . It is not necessary in the west to be a moral person for a philosopher. Just opposite to it in India it is beyond imagination.

Thus, value and virtue being a part of religion, Indian philosophy was rendered as merely Hindu religion. Though, reality is this, that in India there is Hindu dharma which is cosmic, not religion. Religion is something different from the spirituality, which constitutes Indian philosophy. The same may be the case with Western philosophy because of those philosophers being either Christians or Jews. Philosophy in India is not Hindu centric but cosmic. The very word Veda means simply knowledge. It is neither Hindu knowledge nor Christian. Religion in India is the common man’s version of philosophy. In the West also there are philosophers who were religious leaders. For example, St Augustine, St. Aquinas were also religious leaders like Buddha and Mahavir. But western philosophy is never termed as Christian philosophy. In the strict sense of the term, neither Buddhist philosophy nor Jain philosophy may be called as religion. This condition gives scope for the assertion that if there may be Buddhist philosophy or Jain philosophy then why not Hindu philosophy? But to assert something like this will amount to reverse the whole process of development of Indian philosophy. It was Indian Philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma not the other way round.

Buddha and Jain religions are the practical aspects of Buddhist and Jain philosophy which proves its pragmatism. Hindu dharma originated from Indian philosophy. Spirituality is the hallmark of Indian philosophy and knowledge in Indian philosophy is spiritual power, instead of physical one.

Apart from knowledge, spirituality can be discerned in the concept of reality and aesthetic values, also. Concept of reality, in Upanishads or Advaita are spiritual one because of its being neither worldly nor religious. Spiritual knowledge can be obtained only about spiritual object. Rasa is said as synonymous with Brahman realization which shows its aesthetic value. That’s why it is said that ‘raso vai sah’ (that indeed is rasa). Here that indicates ‘para Brahman’. Rasa, here signifies beauty. Metaphysical elements of Indian Philosophy has been used to propound the concept of god, by religions.

There are two levels of knowledge in Indian philosophy: para vidya (higher knowledge) and apara vidya (lower level). First one is the authentic knowledge whereas second one doesn’t prove itself at the criterion of spiritual knowledge, according to the Upanishadic philosophy. Second one is called apara vidya which is related to the phenomenal world. Though, perception was included in the category of knowledge by all the schools except Mimamsa. Upamana, is also accepted as pramana. Even, theories of error is also included in the category of knowledge. So, Indian philosophy doesn’t exclude apara vidya, as well.

The question of integration of spiritual life with worldly life is well responded by the tradition of purusarthas which prescribes the rules of artha and kama. In Indian philosophy worldly affairs aren’t included in spiritual values. These has been mentioned separately. According to it, artha must be earned and kama must be satisfied only in righteous way. Also, liberation is to be achieved according to the laws of dharma.

Philosophy and Life:

The aim of life in Indian philosophy is to get rid of miseries of life. It is meant to achieve happiness and get rid of sorrows of life. To achieve eternal peace and happiness is the goal of life.

Aim of life ascertains the value of Indian philosophy because it gives solution of the problem of human being. Contrary to it, Western philosophy doesn’t help in finding out the solution of the aim of human being. Trial made by existentialist thinkers didn’t bear much fruit and was proved redundant by analytical thinkers.

Knowledge has economic value because of its being instrumental in the improvement of the life style. Knowledge is valuable since it changes the view of human being and makes them moral. Thus, this morality changes their world view also. This change of view which is ethical is philosophical as well.

Regarding second question i.e. the aim of life being happiness, all the schools of Indian philosophy are unanimous. It may be so that they differ on the nature of this happiness. Orthodox systems differ from heterodox systems. Even different doctrines of heterodox systems have different viewpoints. On this point, the view of Charvaka is totally different from all the other schools of Indian philosophy because it holds the view that worldly enjoyment must be the aim of life whereas nirvana is goal of Buddhist thinkers which implies the elimination of sorrows of life.

But since spirituality is the essence of life, therefore, worldly enjoyments may not be the sole aim of life. Because, it is not everlasting one. There are people who don’t bother about eternal happiness. People are quite aware of the phenomenal existence of the world. Both Indian and Greek philosophers aimed for eternity. But for Indian philosophers eternity implied elimination of misery, forever. This is the special characteristic of Indian philosophy that it targets the eternal peace and happiness. This eternal happiness is called niravana or liberation or moksha in Indian philosophy. To achieve this goal, one has to renounce worldly enjoyments, which was ordinarily mentioned by the term vairagya. But , one is not supposed to renounce happiness. Knowledge and sense of detachment leads to liberation from miseries of life. This condition of renunciation was the reason behind the strong criticism of it as escapist and pessimistic. But in its true sense, it means only renunciation of greed and remaining satisfied with whatever is available .

Modern western philosophers found Indian philosophy as merely mythical and casuistical. It was mentioned as totally marred by Hindu religion. Apart from it, Marxists found it influenced by the customs and traditions of the society. Here, it is necessary to analyze the sense in which the word religion has been used. To mention religion in the sense of tribal religion is totally unjustified assessment of Indian philosophy. In fact, it wasn’t philosophy which was influenced by religious sects but the other way round.

Further, criticisms of those scholars who found it as philosophical system must be given due consideration. Rendering phenomenal world as impermanent, therefore, negligible, was the reason to term Indian philosophy as self-destructive and negative. But, this criticism may be refuted easily because Indian philosophy denies only the ‘ultimate’ existence of the physical world. It doesn’t serve our spiritual purpose but is necessary for our practical purposes. At the same time, this view of Indian philosophy about world having only relative existence is not unscientific. Also, if to render phenomenal world as relative is negative and self-destructive then the philosophy of Plato must be rejected on this ground. Further, something is termed as relative in reference to something which is Absolute. Both, relative and absolute are complementary to each other, not the contradictory one. Indian philosophy doesn’t negate this world in absolute sense. Further, refutation, followed by assertion is accepted in the field of science , also .

It is said that pessimism is the hallmark of Indian philosophy because it negates this world and life completely. The reason behind this, is misunderstanding. It is misinterpretation of the idea of renunciation. One is not supposed to escape from the world but from the misery of the world only. Further, it doesn’t negate happiness but only pleasure which is temporal. Happiness, translates in Sanskrit as moksha. Also pain always accompanies pleasure. According to Bentham also, happiness contains duration, intensity and purity. So, a philosopher who aims mokhsha as ultimate aim of life may not be said to be pessimistic. Even ideal state of moksha is conducive for happiness and well being.

Of course, renunciation of this world is an escapist approach . May it be so that rebirth is merely a figment of imagination of Indian philosophers. But, if it is possible to attain permanent happiness, even in this life then, how it may be said that this world is evil. This is an escapist approach to run away from this world. Besides critics, proponents of Indian philosophy also misunderstood the concept of moksha who resultantly rejected the external world as evil.

Feasibility of liberation is the another question, raised by critics. It must be humanly possible. Devoid of both these conditions it will be rendered meaningless. But, even assumption of its feasibility will lead towards progress. Men will progress from lower to higher level. It will give benefit to the human society. Plato’s Utopia served the same purpose. Even being aware of its impossibility, people strive for it, because it will lead them in the right direction. In this sense, moksha benefits the human society.

Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of soul but modern Western philosophers rejected it. Though, immortality of soul was accepted by Christianity. Ironically enough, both Indian philosophy and Christianity have accepted the immorality of the soul. Though it is missing in western philosophy, which is the heartland of Christianity. It means Western philosophy was not influenced by its religion, though philosophy, of course, has its impact on religion.

Questions of the unit one:

Q.1- Show how the key terms ‘darshan’ and ‘tattva’ can be integrated into the etymological meaning of philosophy.

The etymological meaning of philosophy may be correlated with ‘darshan’ or ‘tattva’ which is the Indian version of philosophy. Darshan in India is defined as ‘drisyate anena iti darshanam’. It is one through which reality is seen. It gives us the guidelines following which one can realize the ultimate reality .This realization is the philosophical meaning of the word seen. In this sense, darshan is the instrument of realization. The very word realization is subjective which needs some objective reality, to be known . In this sense ‘knowing’ corresponds to realization.

Another synonymous word for knowledge is ‘tattva’ which is combination of two words ‘tat’ and ‘tva’. In it ‘tat’ means the reality, which is the object of knowledge in philosophy and ‘tva’ means ‘you’. Therefore, the combined meaning of the term ‘tattva’ is ‘you are that’.

In Indian philosophy ‘tat’ signifies the ‘Ultimate Reality’. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the subject matter of discussion of metaphysics. This ‘Ultimate Reality’ is the ‘it’ of the definition of darshan, which is realized. The counterpart of this metaphysical reality is the epistemological component, which is the knower of this object. The combination of these two aspects of darshan keeps it parallel with philosophy of the west.

The special characteristic of Indian philosophy is the identification of the knower with the known .Here object merges with the subject, in the process of realization . This process of identification leads to the knowledge, inward. In this sense it transcends the etymological meaning of knowledge.

This inwardess of knowledge gave an intrinsic value to knowledge. This value is the subject matter of axiology. So, apart from value being a component of philosophy, this identification made valuable to philosophy, itself .This value loaded aspect of Indian philosophy makes it distinct from philosophy of the west.

Thus, it may be asserted that integration of the two terms darshan and tattva gives the etymological meaning of the term philosophy .

2-How do you explain that ultimate reality is knowing reality ?
Darshan in India is knowing reality. ‘Tattva’ is the ultimate reality which is known through ‘darshan’. This ultimate reality has epistemological basis as knowing reality. Apart from the epistemological basis it has metaphysical ground as well, in the form of the known object which is ultimate reality. The combination of these two factors, constitute darshan.

In the term tattva, the very word tva stands for the knower. In the process of knowledge this knower is identified with the known i. e. the ultimate reality. Due to this identification knowledge became inward in Indian philosophy and resultantly it outgrew the etymological meaning in its initial stage .The important corollary which was reached at , due to the identification of knower and known, has its philosophical significance. The epistemological subject of this knowledge involves with itself, value, which gives birth to axiology. Man’s identification with reality is, value oriented.

The meaning of the word ‘darshan’ is to ‘see’ or ‘realize’ something. This realization is the realization of reality. In the earlier stage, this distinction of reality and the knower was not distinct. Due to this inwardness of knowledge, human being could relate oneself to value. Identification of knower with known is the reason that philosophy in India is related to value and is value ,itself.

Q.3- Explain briefly that the theories of reality can be understood from two different angels, that is, from spiritual and secular angels.

Reality is that which exists on itself. It is the source of everything but it doesn’t have any source of itself. There are various descriptions of reality given by Indian philosophers. Just opposite to general view, all Indian philosophers didn’t accept the spiritual aspect of reality. Even secular version of it was not accepted unanimously by all. There isn’t any scope for such a simple division for the complex nature of philosophy. Though, it is true that a particular group of philosophers accepted its spiritual version and another one accepted it in its secular form.

Theories of Reality are of two types:

Secular
Spiritual

Secular theories are of two types :

Physical
Non – Physical

Spiritual theories are of two types:

Theistic
Non – theistic

Of course, apart from these two categories there is a third one, which accepted both secular and spiritual versions of reality. Any theory may be both secular and spiritual. Conclusively, we may say that Indian philosophers gave importance to both worlds. This is an important factor to be taken into consideration.

Any physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Any non physical theory may be either theistic or non theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance other than physical world. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. It is not self – contradictory to accept the existence of both the physical world and god. Dvaita and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory. Whereas, Charvaka is merely physical theorist. But any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and non - theistic one. Mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in Indian philosophy as physical element. For Samkhya philosophers , mind is an evolute of prakriti. Samkhya and Vaisheshika have accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ. Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as derivative of mind. That’s why idealist philosophers don’t accept it as sixth organ.

So, it is obvious that both physical and non – physical theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Any non – physical theory may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, theistic on the one hand and atheistic and agnostic on the hand, are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, since atheistic and agnostic doctrines are different from each other therefore either any physical and non-theistic theory may be agnostic or any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic. Thus, we have six different theories. It may be subtle or gross difference.

Now, it is obvious that the division of Indian philosophy is complex one.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows:

Monistic
Dualistic
Non-dualistic
Pluralistic

Reality of substances is the criteria for such type of divisions. According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. It is easier to prove dualism or pluralism. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Now, integration of all the divisions, either on the basis of theories of reality or on the basis of number of substances, yields twenty four systems. Though, it is true that all of them didn’t play very major role in the development of Indian philosophy yet they had their contemporary importance.

Q.4- Do you agree with some Indian schools that regard mind as sixth- sense?

Mind is considered as non – physical element in western philosophy But, in Indian philosophy mind can’t be used as non – physical element because some schools of Indian philosophy have accepted it as sixth organ. It has been accepted as an evolute of prakriti, by Samkhya philosophy. Therefore, it is physical element like other sense organs. Vaisheshika agrees with Samkhya on this point.

This realist view of Samkhya and Vaisheshika is totally different from the idealist view of Yogachara Vijnanavada school of Buddhism. Realist philosophers accept the independent existence of external world, whereas, idealist thinkers, consider external world as a derivative of mind. That’s why idealist thinkers don’t accept mind as something material.

Q.5- What do you understand by the belief that ‘knowledge is power’ in the Western and Indian context?

Bacon considered ‘knowledge as power’. The impact of this motto changed the direction of the evolution of science. But, in India, knowledge was a means to achieve practical and the spiritual aims. The performance of yagas and yajnas were prescribed for practical and spiritual purposes, respectively.

But, a different interpretation of knowledge rendered it as power, which was the medium of the way of life. That’s why, knowledge was extrinsic in Indian philosophy.

But the word ‘power’ was used in two different senses by both lndian and Western philosophers. For Bacon, power was a means to have control over nature, whereas in India, it was meant to subdue oneself to nature. This subjugation of oneself to nature is the central theme of Vedic philosophy.

This contrast between the East and West shows their attitude towards life and their belief systems. Modern Europe considered nature as a means to achieve their end. Though a certain phase of Vedic philosophy developed this type of thought but it was rejected later on. Contrary to it, ancient Indians considered nature as an integral part of themselves. They identified themselves with nature.

Further analysis and comparison of both Baconian and Indian use of the word power is necessary to show the significance of its consequences. Knowledge, for western philosophers, was an arm to achieve their economical and political goals. But, never it was used to achieve any spiritual aim. Of course, a few exceptions like Socrates and Spinoza are found there also, as Charvaka is in India. Contrary to this view of the west, conquest of nature was not important for Indians. Instead of worldly enjoyment, they were interested in eternal happiness. This otherworldly persuit of Indian’s was misconstrued and they were declared as escapists and pessimistic. But this argument was denounced by Indian philosophers, due to being unreasonable. To mention something comperatively less important is not to negate it. The only intention of Indian philosophers was to mention the importance of the transcendental world.

Q.6. Do you agree with the view that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual?

Hierarchy of values is the cornerstone on which the whole edifice of lndian philosophy is based. Knowledge is the means to achieve the spiritual goals. Contrary to it, in the West, it is not necessary to have knowledge. Indian philosophy is interpreted as synonymous with Hindu religion. This misinterpretation gave birth to another confusion which resulted in the identification of religion with spirituality.

It was lndian philosophy which gave birth to Hindu dharma, not the other way round. So, spirituality is the hallmark of lndian philosophy. That’s why knowledge is spiritual power in lndian philosophy .The nature of this spiritual power is not religious one.

There are two grades of knowledge in Indian philosophy .One is called as para vidhya (higher knowledge) and another is called apara vidhya (lower knowledge).Higher knowledge is the only category of knowledge which comes within the realm of spiritual knowledge .

Further, pleasure was never the aim of life, in Indian philosophy. Its aim was eternal happiness and elimination of miseries forever. It gave priority to spiritual goal over material one. Also, knowledge was never means for them to achieve economical or political agenda but it was instrumental in spiritual gain. Knowledge for them was only spiritual power. Indian philosophy always gives preference to absolute reality than to the relative one.

In India, knowledge is a way of life, which includes all sorts of values and it is necessary for any philosopher to acquire knowledge to achieve the spiritual goals. Even to achieve material goals like artha and kama, one needs to follow the tenets of dharma.

All the schools of Indian philosophy agree on the point of, happiness being the aim of life, barring Charvaka. To achieve this aim one is supposed to renounce the greed and remain contented with whatever is available through righteous means. This type of approach is called vairagya in Indian philosophy.

The ultimate aim of human being is to attain moksha which is the Sanskrit version of happiness. The concept of the immorality of the soul and rebirth is another important factor to prove this statement that philosophy in India is essentially spiritual.

Thus, on account of all these characteristics of Indian philosophy we may assert that Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual.

Nature of Prakriti : The theory that causation means real transformation of the material cause leads to the concept of Prakriti as the root cause of the world of objects.All worldly effects are latent in this uncaused cause,because infinite regress has to be avoided.It is potentiality of nature, ‘the receptacle and nurse of all generation’.As the uncaused root cause,it is called Prakriti.

As the first principle of this universe,it is called Pradhana;as the nmanifested state of all effects,it is known as Avyakta;as the extremely subtle and imperceptible thing which is only inferred from its products,it is called Anumana;as the unintelligent and unconscious principle,it is called Jada;and as the ever-active unlimited power it is called Shakti.

The products are caused,dependent,relative,many and temporary as they are subject to birth and death or to production and destruction;but Prakriti is uncaused,independent,absolute,one and eternal,being beyond production and destruction.

The extreme subtleness of Prakriti makes it unmanifest and imperceptible;we infer its existence through its products.

Motion is inherent in it in the form of rajas.As the source of the inanimate world,it is unconscious.The entire world of objects is implicit in the bosom of Prakriti.Evolution is the explicit manifestation of this world of objects,while dissolution is the returning of this world to Prakriti.

Samkhya believes that consciousness cannot be regarded as the source of the inanimate world,as Vedanta and Mahayana believe,because an intelligent principle cannot transform itself into the unintelligent world.On the other hand the material atoms of the physical elements too cannot be regarded as the cause of this world,as Charvakas,Nyaya and Vaisheshika,Jainism and Hinayana Buddhism,and Mimamsa wrongly believe,because they cannot explain the subtle products of matter like intellect,mind and ego and further because the unity of the universe points to a single cause while the atoms are scattered and many.Unintelligent,unmanifest,uncaused,everactive,imperceptible,eternal and one Prakriti alone is the final source of this world of objects which is implicitly and potentially contained in its bosom

March 26, 2018

Vedic and Upanishadic World Views :

Rta – The Cosmic Order – The concept of rta ,as the expression of the law in activity or the law of becoming or transformation,is contained in the very root of the word : r. which means to move,to go.Hence rta is the mode whereby the unmanifest becomes the manifest transcendent

the actual,chaos the cosmos.

The Sanskrit word rta,admits a wide range of meanings,according to contexts:the cosmic harmony,the truth,the right or righteousness,the cosmic order or the ritual or rite that expresses the order.

Three fundamental aspects of the law of cosmic order are studied:

1.the law as it manifests in the universe and therefore nature,the cosmic aspect

2.the socio-ethical aspect which ,in the human context,can be translat-

ed as integrity-integration,truth at the human level being equivalent to

harmony at the universal level

3.the religio-sacrificial level which investigates the little understood

meaning of the one sacrifice with which the cosmic order is identified

-not only in the Vedic conception but in many of the religious traditions

of past ages.1

1- Miller,Jeanine, The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas , 2

Rta is ,indeed,the most fundamental principles discovered by

Vedic seers.It is the principle of dynamics inherent in the eternal

statis of the Ultimate Being.It is owing to the inherence of this

Principle that Eternal condescends to pass through the passage of

time so as to lead to emergence of the sequential.Thus,it forms

the bridge between the eternal statis and the universal dynamics

According to Professor S P Singh ,”Rta,indeed,is the path by

treading which sacrifice gets performed---- Rta serves as the path

by going along which sacrifice gets enriched so as to get elevated

from the human to the divine.Thus,sacrifice itself is not Rta but its

fabric gets transformed by passing along the path of Rta.”2

It is from this essential status of it in Absolute that not only Rta

makes its emergence so as to bring about the process of the

world but also leaves behind it the path on which the creatures of

the process may stage their travail so as to reach the grand destin

ation.

2. Singh,S P – Vedic Symbolism, p. 227

The Centrality of the Institution of Sacrifice :-

“Yajna – (the sacrifice) ,the worship ,the setting up of a communi-

cation between the within and the without and thereby the maki

ng ‘holy’,so that the expanding without may be worthy of the wit-

hin,may become a perfect mirror;hence the sacrifice in establishin

g a circuit of give and take,a balance,is harmony.”3

That which is given is in one sense a deprivation, sacrifice,yet it is a restoration creating a balance,for there can be no giving without a pre

Vious receiving or taking:the rite of sacrifice in its inner structure is Rta,

The eternal balance ,the universal order,the divine harmony.

In the famous hyme of the primeval sacrifice of Celestial Man- Arc

hetypal Man in His essential divinity called purusha sukta,the divine ess

ence is sacrificed that the many may be.Thus sacrifice doesn’t happen on the micro level only but on the macro level as well.

3-Miller,Jeanine – The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas,p. – 11

Mainly there are two types of yajnas:

1. Shraut

2. Smart

Yajnas propounded by shruti are called shraut and those propounded by smriti are called smart.Both have different injunctions.The main diff

erence between the two is – regarding the provision of the sacrifice of

animal.According to shraut provision,it is necessary to sacrifice an anim

al,but according to smart provision it is strictly prohibited.

Shraut yajnas: According to Aitereya Brahmana there are five types of yajnas –

1. Agnihotra

2. Dashpurnmas

3. Chturmas

4. Pashu

5. Soma

According to Gautama Sutra there are three types of yajnas:-

1.Pakyajna

2.Haviryajna

3.Soma yajna

There are seven types of divisions of all these three:

Pak yajna:

1.Aupasan hotra

2.Vaishva deva

3.Parvan

4.Ashataka

5.Masika shraddha

6.Shravana

7.Shulagava

Haviryajna:

1.Agnihotra

2.Dashpurnamaasa

3.Aagrayan

4.Chaturmaas

5.Niruddha pashubandh

6. Sravtamani

7.Pindapitri yajna

Soma Yajna:

1.Agnishtoma

2.Antyognishtoma

3.Ukathya

4.Shodashi

5.Bajpey

6.Atiratra

7.Aptoryam

Smart Yajnas: There is violence in shrauta yajnas.But it is strictly prohibited in smart yajnas.Sacrifice of animals is strictly prohibit

ed in smart yajnas.A few types of smart yajnas are these:

1.Rudrayag

2.Suryayag

3.Vishnuyag

4.Ganeshyag

5.Shaktiyag

6.Durgayag

7.Indrayag

8.Prajanyayag

9.GayatriMahayajna

10.Brahmayajna

Most of these can be performed within five,seven or eleven days.Some of these can be performed within nine days.

The main difference between shrauta and smart yajnas is there being sk

ama and nishkama.Shraut yajnas are mainly sakama but smart yajnas are nishkama.Being desireless,smart karmas yajnas are superior than sh

rauta yajnas.By desireless yajnas ,one can get rid of his sins.They get fr

uits without aspiring for it.By performing a desireless yajna,a person can take his twenty generations to devdham(heaven).

Darsh and Purnamaas Yajna:These yajnas are performed on either full

moons day or on amsvasya. In Purnamas yajna the performer has to giv

e, agni and Soma one-one oblations and in Darshyag he has to give Agni

and Indra one-one oblations.Darshyag can performed within day but purnayaag can be performed within two days.First day they to prepare fire.Next day the performer gives up meat,sleeps on floor and oath taki

ng ceremony takes place.After these initial ceremonies they can start yajna.Among the activities of yajna Samdheni mantra,oblation of ghee,

counting of rishis by the consumer,initiation of god are,main.

Chaturmas Yag: These yajnas are performed in the beginning of the sea

son.Vaishvadev is performed in vasant,Varun Pravaas in mansoon seaso

n and Saak Megha is performed in hemant season.In yajnas the oblations are given to Agni,Soma, Pushan and Savita etc. and they are

appeased.In each yajna, there is provision different type of sacrifice.In

Varun Pravaas,a sheep is sacrificed.

Somayag : The important part of this yag is Pashu yag in which on the first and last day a good is sacrificed to Soma.

Bajpeya Yag :It is performed in the winter season.It is over in seventeen days.In this yajna,the three horses of the consumer,are connected to hi

s chariot and in all these four more are connected.A formal race is perf

ormed and the consumer is declaired victorious.

Rajsuya Yag : This is Soma yag.In it,invocation of Indra and Varun are d

one.All persons closed to the king, gather there.Purohit performs the y

ajna and the king is declared victorious.

Ashvamedha Yajna: This is the most important among all.Kings perform this yajna for the development of their kingdom.A horse,which is black on the front side and white on the back and a trident sign on his forehe

ad is selected.It starts on the eighth or ninth day of Falguna month.The

Is bathed in the water,worn cloths and ornaments and worshipped.Afte

r all this,by covering him by a cloth,he is cut.Along with the horse other

animals are also sacrificed.Their blood is cooked and from that blood,fa

t is prepared.

Yajnas are considered as giver of all this worldly and other worldly bless

Ings.By being pleased with the oblation and sacrifice of the yajna,the de

vatas give the consumer desired fruit.

Concept of Rna – Duty / Obligation: There is concept of

Rna in the Vedic age.To get ridof all these three rnas was the duty of all

persons.The three rnas are:

1.Devrna

2.Pitrirna

3.Rshirna

A person can get rid of Devrna by pouring in oblation in yajna.To get rid of pitrirna,a person has to procreate,so that his species will grow and th

e ancesters will be appeased.Rshirna is the debt of guru’s and rshi’s.To get rid of this,one has to teach others,the teachings of the guru,so that

It will continue to exit.It shows that in the Vedic age much emphasis was given on sense of duty.

Shreyas and Preyas :’Both the shreyas (good) and preyas (plea

sant),approach the mortal man; the wise man examines them thorough ly and discriminates between the two; the wise man prefers the good to the pleasant,but the ignorant man chooses the pleasant for the sake

of this body through averice and attachment (for getting and keeping)4’

This verse from Kathopanisd gives in nutshell the theme of shreas and p

reyas.To realize the Self one has to control the sense-organs through hi

s mind and direct the mind to the supramental imperishable orders of transcendenta l experience ,by avoiding the distractions of the

hundred nerves that pervade through one’s brain and subject one to death.The wise man should restrain speech in his mind and mind in the

4.Kathopanishad – Valli – 2 ,Verse -2

intellect and intellect in the Great Self and the Great Self into the Peaceful Atman.5

The objects of senses are higher than the senses,the mind is higher than both and higher than mind is the Great Self.And finally higher tha

N the Great Self is the Unmanifest and beyond all is the Purusha.There

Is none higher than the Purusha.6

People take the easy way,they choose the’ preyas’,talking about their pet theories rather than choosing the ‘sreyas’,which involves discipline

Or even a kind of self analysis,to go beyond the surface orders of things

Those who follow the path of pleasure are bound by the cyclic processe

S of life,death and rebirth but those follow the yogic way of disciplined

Life and choose only worthy,merge into the transcendent Purusha (the

Immortality process).

5. Ibid ,Valli – 3 , verse - 13

6. Ibid , Valli – 3 , verse -10

The material objects being finite,they can never remain the same even

For a single moment and as such their combinations and patterns etern

Ally present a kaleidoscopic variety.With reference to this ever – chang

Ing pattern the thinking animal,man is called upon to make independen

T decision anew from moment to moment to ascertain his relationship

With the external.At each challenge two paths are open for us to follow

On one side we are temptingly beconed to playfully dance through a seemingly well-lit path of pleasant,but the path ultimately leads us to a

Dark cave of sorrow and endless death;and on the other side lies a quite uninviting path,ill-used ,winding and uphill but that which ultimat

Ely leads us to the sunlit pasture – lands and flowery – meadows of Eternal living and happiness.The latter path is called the path of good i.e. shreyas.

Atman – Self (and not – self) :

Waking State :In the waking state Purusha expresses itself throug

the letter A ,representing the waking experience,is wise of the outward through the different sense organs,enjoying the objects,it is called the

Vaishvanara,the universal Male,it is the first part of the integral Turiya.

Dream State : The dreame state ,on the other hand ,seems to be Considered a transition state between ‘this world’ as Brihadaranyaka te rms the waking state and the other world;the world of death,the next world where one retires in deep sleep.In the dream state Prana retires from the senses and the Purusha then constructs a’dream body’1 and

All things of the world;and so experiences plearues and pains.It seems

That impressions from this world are acted out as well as visions of the

Next world in this dreame state.Since Purusha is agent of this dream world there are no impressions remaining as in the waking state.Since the Purusha is agent of this dream world,there are no impressions rem

Aining as in the waking state.This view of the dream state is highly signi

Ficant in terms of modern thought for it seems that the Upanishadic Rs

Is have seen the transitory and subjective nature of the dream state.As is said in the Prashna,the mind is the enjoyer of dreams; it is as if all the

Senses were collected in manas where this transition world is constructed and experiences acted out purely subjectively within the

Prana kosha.The letter U, with its sound,represents the advancement and centrality of the subjective process of dream,where the individual

Enjoys the subjective process through the sense organs centrally orient

Ed.It is called Taijasa,the exquisite,the brilliant,the luminous mind ;it is the second part of the integral turiya.

Deep Sleep State : The letter M with its sound,represents the m

Easure and finality.It is nothing but the condition of profound sleep,the total ignorance,separated from the subjective- objective operations of

The waking consciousness and from the pure subjective processes of the dream.It is balancing or unification of the diverse consciousness into the indistinguishable mass consciousness (prajnana ghana) .It is ca

Lled the Prajna, the third part of the integral Turiya,O M.

Thus ,just as the dream state is a freeing of Purusha from the anna level,with its requirements of action binding the Purusha,into a level,of

Prana where it is self-creative of its objects,so the deep sleep state is a dropping the activity of prana and manas to a level to retire into its own nature of bliss and self- effulgence

Turiyavastha : The transcendent form of the self is in the fourth or turiya state,beyond the triadic experiential processes of waking,dream

And deep sleep.This transcendent ,fourth state ,which is conscious exite

Ntiality ,complexity and possibility is signified by a symbolical sound OM ,which is the soundless as transcending the apparent sounds signified by the three letters A U M.The letter A stands for the sound that governs the waking experience,where the sound is gross;a contrast

Is signified by the subtle sound U ,indicating the processes that that governs the dream-experiences.There is final sound in the apparent empirical sphere,which is not exactly a sound but balancing process,a kind of measurement,which is signified by the symbolical letter M ,repr

Esenting the processes that are of the deep-sleep.The detail of this typ

E of experiencial processes are in Mandukya, Mundaka and other Upan

Ishads,each clarifying its position differently with some novelties.The

Upanishads exceed both subjectivism and objectivism by a process beyond both.According to Yajnavalkya waking,dreaming and dream

less sleep are not His states but those only of the finite self.He is ev

er knowing,all comprehensive.In Him,all things and beings exit for ev

er and nothing perishes.

Brahman : The etymology of ‘Brahman’ goes back to a pre-Aryan pa

St according to Muller 7.Its origin has variously been assigned to ‘prayer

(Brh),’growth’ and ‘welfare’,or ‘force’ as manifested in nature. Deussen also assigns a primary meaning ‘prayer’.Muller himself carries the origi

n back to ‘word’ (Brh,Brhaspasti ),but he admits the meaning of ‘Brah

man’ to be prayer and secondarily to grow or break forth.8

Brahman is the Ultimate Reality,whether created or uncreated,person

al or impersonal.Brahman is the source, the underlying reality,as well as indefinable and unknowable.

Saguna and Nirguna Brahman :The Upanishadic philosophers describe

Brahman as having two aspects: Saguna and Nirguna.When Brahman becomes conditioned by the upadhi of Maya,it is called Saguna Brahman.Nirguna Brahman is devoid of all qualifying characteristics.Nir

guna Brahman is also called the Supreme Brahman(para-Brahman),while Saguna is called apara Brahman.

Saguna Brahman is called Ishvara because.He is all powerful,the Ruler of the entire universe.The seers say ,’that all created objects,and the all

powerful Maya as well as are under His control.Under His control the su

n,the moon and the planets perform their allotted functions.Because of

His power a moral order controls the universe as well as man’s life.

Immanent and Transcendent:Brahman without any external compulsion,assumes the upadhi of Maya and appears as the universe and its creator.Thus,He becomes immanent in the universe,from the relative standpoints.The immanent Brahman dwells in the universe.The Upanishadic passages describing the Immanent Brahman show a pantheistic trend of thought.Brahman has the universe.But He doesn’t exhaust Himself in the universe.Brahman in His own nature remains transcendent.

He is the source of all;and He is that from which all things originate and in which they finally disappear.As in the Chhandogya Upanishad,it is described as ‘Tajjalan’- as that (tat) from which the world arises ( ja)into

Which it returns (la) and by which it is supported and it lives (an).In the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahman is defined as that from which all these beings are born,by which they live,and into which they are reabsorbed.

He is the fountain of all blessed qualities and the consummation of such divine attributes as power strength,glory,knowledge and virility.

Efficient and Material Cause : The Upanishdic philosophers make it clear that Brahman is not only the operative cause of the universe,but also its material cause;i.e.,that the universe depends on Brahman not only for its energizing power but also for its very substance.Thus the Universe with all its diversity depends for its matter as its form on Him.The early cosmogonies always proceed by saying that Brahman(Atman) existed alone at the beginning and then created the world out of Himself.They do not recognize a second Principle existing side by side with the Creator and providing Him with the materials necessary for creation.Accordingly,they picture creation predominantly as an emanation rather than as a construction out of given elements.As a spider might come out with his thread,as small sparks come forth from fire,even so from his Soul come forth all vital energies (prana) all worlds,all gods all gods ,all beings.

Thus it is clear that the Brahman is the material cause as well as the efficient cause of the universe.So He is the essence of all things and everything of the world is dependent on Him.

Karma , Samsara and Moksha :

Brahman is not only perfect Being but also perfect Bliss.There is no gain greater than that of Brahman,no bliss

Or knoeledge better than the bliss or knowledge of it.The knowledge of Brahman is the summum bonum,param purusartha of life.

Mukti is derived from tha root ‘muc’ meaning ‘to let go’,’to discharge’,

‘to release’,it signifies in the first instance deliverance and release from pain and penalties of any kind.The concept of mukti has two sides:

1.A negative side viz. having got loose from or rid of

2.A positive side,general sense of expanded outlook,realization of God in man.It is realization of our own nature and not the acquisition of anything that we do not possess already.

To attain this goal ,the only thing important is to caste off the veil of ignorarance.Identification of self with body is the root cause of all miser

ies.In Moksha,man transcends this sense. Brahman within and Brahman outside is the same.The meeting point of these two is in man and the ultimate values of the one transcendental,real object of inquiry and realization is to be found in the innermost recess of the heart by restoring to moral,purity devotion and spiritual contemplation.Man becomes Brahman.

Types of Liberation : The final knowledge or Brahmakaravritti no doubt liberates the body-bound self into boundless Self –vision and consciousness of freedom

But this does not always coinside with the disappearance of the body.This is deliverance in life i.e. jivanmukti.Jivanmukta is liber

ated while yet in embodiment condition.Videhamukti is the final

release which is obtained after death.

The body continues to reap the fruit until it expires but no new actions are accumulated.Prarabdha karma does not literally come to an end only sancita and agami karmas are nullified and not prarabha.Prarabdh a karma is exhausted only by bhoga.Prarabdha karma is the life force w

hich is bound to work itself and is exhausted only after it has discharge

d its effect on living realiser.Self – realization can destroy sancita karma

But prarabdha karma which has already borne effects cannot be eliminated.The jnanin is free from any possibility of incurring new cir

cle of karma but he is living on fructifying karma.

The jivanmukta understands that he is neither body nor organ,he is neither manas nor buddhi nor prana as all these are material,how can a

conscious atman become material. Since his egoism is over,he is beyond prarabdha.Prarabddha karma is exhausted only by bhoga .

Jivanmukta will be a law unto himself.The code of ordinary morality ,nay even Veda will cease to bind him.He will rise above dharma and adharma alike because both lead to bondage and transmigration.He will not be affected by praise and blame.Morality is the condition of his existence as he is beyond sin.He resolves the multiplicity of the world into unity,reduces the duality of soul a non-soul mind and matter hich etc.into pure and simple essence i.e. consciousness.He is free from the bondage of transmigration.A jivanmukta is never attracted to the worldly allurements as his samskaras are destroyed. Theories of Creation:According to Shankara,the significance of the process of creation is in propounding the identity of Jiva and Brahman.That is why we don’t find any certain process of creation in the Vedas as well as in the Upanishads.The view of the universe,in the Taittiriya Upanishad is a development of cyclic process within cycles.The five-fold concentric processes or sheaths are : material,vital,mental,intellectual and blissful.Each process is a continuum,transcendentally projected (sheath) – having triadic expressions of emergence,sustenance and disappearance,from the existing,to a higher order,which also is triadic,in similar aspects,with a drive towards a transcendent higher order.The end- process of the apparent orders is to the Ananda – maya – kosha,which is finally grounded in a mystic way in the supremely transcendent process of the Brahman,or pure existentiality.

These transcendent experiential processes,from the basic order of materiality to the transcendent order of bliss-were revealed by Varun to his son Bhrigu,not directly,but only when he had performed austerities,in each stage of knowing the different orders of experiential processes,from the material order.First,Bhrigu was made to understand what is a food,which is an expression of the material order.It is like the seed from which everything is born,and being born,everything grows by food,and finally,on decease,becomes food for other creatures which feed upon it.Now there is a second,or an inner process,which is other than this basic process,which is provided by food.It is made of the vital staff called prana.The core process of the food is sustained by the vital process,so the vital process,in a subtle way,envelops the basic food-process.Beyond the vital process,there is the subtle mental process.The mental process is sustained by the supra-mental process of Vijnana and Vijnana again by the further process of Ananda or Blissful process.There is a limit indicated in the apparent order in Ananda but really it is supported by an unlimited transcendent process which is Brahman.The limitation of the apparent order does not suggest the limitation of the transcendental order.hence there are further deliberations on the transcendent background of Ananda.The transcendent Brahman,being finally inexplicable through our restricted understanding is described both as knowledge and ignorance.He became knoeledge and He became ignorance.He became Truth and He became falsehood.It is dual or two-dimentional process and possibility,with a transcendent core in the Unmanifest as a final control or force.

In Prashna Upanishad Pippalad says that the eternal father desired children,therefore,he put forth his energy and by the heat of his energy he produced twin creatures-Prana,the life who is male and rayi ,the matter,who is female.These,He said,shall make for me children of many natures.But in this decision,he did not totally exhaust Himself,He retained His integrality.

As in Prashna Upanishad the creative process here is a self-creative process.It is a comprehensive creative process, in four orders of the :

1.Ambhas,or the outer space beyond the heavens of the

2.Marici,or the rays of the sun or the sky,of the

3.Mara,or the ground of death or the earth,and of the

4.Apas or waters.

The creative control of the different spheres is through the ‘World-Guardians’,each having special functions.The whole process of creation is of a directed controlled activity,by an entrance into or by effecting a split through the eyes,through the mind,through the space,accounting for the emergence of the three orders of psychic-cosmic processes of waking,dreaming and deep sleep.In this process,was discerned a transcendent seeing (idam-dra);when shortened,it is Indra.