What Makes Indian Philosophy Different From Its Western Counterpart?

Many will agree that philosophy is rarely a general topic of discussion in India for the educated layman. Most of the universities in India do not even have a department of philosophy as an academic discipline. Rarely, when it happens to be a point of discussion, philosophy as a subject matter in India is generally confused with theology, religion and spirituality.

When it comes to Indian philosophy (sometimes read wrongly as Hindu philosophy), the common sense view of a layman is distorted. There is a general understanding that Indian philosophy is a unified body of knowledge, and all the discourses on it are an expatiation of a monolithic narrative of an esoteric truth that stands in direct conflict with other philosophies.

Further, it is also held as a general opinion that Indian philosophy is a repository of spiritual insights that no other world view possesses – a view that has gained a more aggressive voice under the present political regime.

Recently, a chance encounter with a friend led to a conversation on philosophy – a subject that I taught and wrote about, both out of passion and profession.

His idea of philosophy was closely linked to religion and spirituality, and he had, it appears from the conversation, a glorified sense of anything Indian including philosophy (though, from my conversation with him, I gathered that he had no idea of what is Indian philosophy beyond showering eulogies on what he considered to be a ‘pure’ Indian philosophical tradition).

When I told him that my research was on philosophy of science from the Western analytic tradition, his immediate response was whether I accept Western philosophy at the cost of rejecting Indian philosophy. This idea of acceptance and rejection, perhaps, presupposes Western philosophy and Indian Philosophy as two mutually exclusive and conflicting thought patterns (where one has to be accepted and other rejected on the grounds of truth).

It further implies that if one carries forward his study in one, this automatically implies that the other is rejected. This, to me, seemed a bit surprising – surprising because to think in terms of acceptance and rejection, in such a naïve manner, is untenable and inappropriate, as far as the subject matter of philosophy is concerned. My explanation that this is an ill-conceived understanding did not convince him.

Philosophy as Darshana

Raghavan Srinivasan’s book Quick and Concise: Indian Philosophy (Hachette India, 2024) gives an overview of Indian philosophy that best addresses the misconceptions and wrong notions of many, like that of my friend, have on this subject. It is a basic and popular exposition of Indian philosophical traditions addressed to the layman.

It would be interesting to begin with a more general question of how philosophers themselves have reflected on the concerns of philosophy. Etymologically, the word philosophy is derived from Greek words philia (love) and Sophia (wisdom) which means ‘love of wisdom’ (Srinivasan renders it as ‘love of knowledge’).

Pythagoras was supposed to have coined this word. When asked who he was by Leon, the tyrant of Philius, he replied humbly that he was a lover of wisdom, preferring the term philosopher to the expression sage or a man of wisdom (There are different versions of this story).

The etymology, by itself, does not capture what the discipline of philosophy is about unless one has an understanding of what constitutes this wisdom? This is an open question as far as philosophy is concerned because, from the time of Greek thought, philosophy has expanded its compass to accommodate different kinds of approaches on a diverse range of issues of social, moral and political concern as well as of the natural world.

When deliberating on these concerns, sometimes the word philosophy has been and is used in a most elastic way, and this point has been well articulated in a very lucidly written introductory philosophical text Living Issues in Philosophy by Harold Titus and others. They introduce the meaning of philosophy by distinguishing its informal and the formal sense.

The informal sense of “having” a philosophy, according to the authors, is a “set of views or beliefs about the life and the universe, which are often held uncritically” that refers to a certain attitude towards ideas and issues of a very general nature.

These ideas include, among others, purpose of life, meaning of life, goals of living and mysteries of life and death and god. A general reflection on these ideas coupled with ones attitude towards such ideas is referred to as philosophy. Such a broad view, as the authors rightly note, is “vague, confused and superficial”. There are occasions when the Srinivasan slips into this mode of understanding philosophy in the informal sense.

The book’s wide-ranging introduction to Indian philosophy attempts to present a bird’s eye view of the vast canvas of Indian philosophical thought.

As the author notes, “a distinctive feature of Indian Philosophy” in broad terms is its quest for truth. The method of its discourse is a “dialectical process”, engaging with the opponent’s viewpoint (poorvapaksha), challenging their position (khandana) and finally presenting an argument for their own position (uttarapaksha or siddhanta).

Srinivasan begins his exposition with the traditional Indian equivalent of the word ‘philosophy’ – darshana. This word’s derivation is from Sanskrit root drsh, which means ‘to see’. The word darshana conveys the idea that this body of literature has as its aim a “profound ‘view’ or ‘vision’ that transcends mere intellectual contemplation”, as the author states.

The transcending of intellectual contemplation means that emphasis is on direct realisation of truth that leads to liberation or salvation. This soteriological (i.e. concerns of salvation and liberation referred to by terms like moksha and mukti) aspect of Indian philosophy is captured by the word darshana that distinguishes it from the purely theoretical and analytic enterprise of Western philosophy.  

This gives rise to two questions:  Whether Indian philosophy is confined to soteriological concerns? and did Indian philosophers’ focus on soteriological concerns elude them from engaging in philosophical enterprise purely as a theoretical exercise or as ‘love of wisdom?’

Further, the author notes, and rightly so, that in contrast to the categorisation of modern Western philosophy into branches of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics etc. the approach of Indian philosophy is to intertwine “these areas of enquiry”. Perhaps, this contrast reflects the practical and soteriological concerns of darshanic tradition as against the theoretical exercise of Western philosophy.

It is this intertwining that makes Indian philosophy as darshana. In modern expositions of darshanas in English they are treated as systems of philosophical thought that emerged in the age just before the Common Era. Each system developed as a closed siddhanta by interacting with the other systems with thinkers claiming to be adherents of the system adding their own arguments and refining the earlier ones.

Indian philosophical systems

There are six orthodox darshanas (systems) of Indian thought (known as astika) and three heterodox systems (nastika). The six orthodox schools are the Saankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. The nastika schools do not accept the authority of the Vedas and the astika schools accept it.

The difference in astika or nastika, in Indian Philosophy, lies on the issue of whether one accepts the authority of the Vedas or not. These words do not stand for theistic or atheistic as it has come to be understood in general usage. This confusion is usage can be seen at some places of this book.

Each of these philosophical systems can be traced to source-books written in the form of cryptic formulas called sutras. There were commentaries on these source books and further commentaries on commentaries, each one challenging (khandana) the other position (poorvapaksha) and establishing its own system (siddhanta).

It is in this kind of a “dialectical process” that philosophy developed in Indian tradition. All these aspects have been dealt with in this short discourse on Indian philosophy revealing the different argumentative facets in establishing its own epistemology, metaphysics and logic, which, as the author rightly asserts, are ”intertwined”.

For example, in describing the Saankhya darshana or system the author provides the sources of knowledge (the epistemological aspect) and proceeds to analyse them. The Saankhya metaphysics postulates two ultimate realities, the purusha and the prakriti. The creation of this world is presented as an evolution from prakriti – it being the first cause.

Saankhya metaphysics in this manner rests on a theory of causation. Traditionally, the Saankhya and the Yoga have been treated as twin systems, where Yoga is considered a practical system with its own set of practices for liberation from sorrow. The Yoga darshana introduces the concept of god whereas the Saankhya is an atheistic system.

The reader can see the “intertwining” of different topical aspects of philosophy, as mentioned by the author in the first chapter, present in the description of different classical systems (darshanas) in subsequent chapters.

In a space of sixteen chapters the book covers the entire gamut of Indian thought, devoting four chapters for the six orthodox systems of thought or darshanas (what some would consider as the core of Indian philosophical thought).

In his brief delineation of the Vedanta system (another orthodox darshana) the author presents a gist of the different schools of Vedanta (the Advaita of Shankara, Vishishtadvaita of Ramanuja and Dvaita of Madavacharya) crisply.

The nature of Brahman (The Absolute, and not to be confused with Brahmin caste), a central concept of Vedanta, has been well elucidated with adequate coverage being given to the nature of illusion in Advaita. There are a good number of box illustrations in this chapter on Vedanta that explains certain central tenets of Vedanta for the general reader.

Beginnings of Indian philosophy

Before his exposition of the systems of Indian philosophy, Srinivasan traces the beginnings of Indian philosophy from the pre-Vedic Harappan civilisation. It is followed by the Vedic period whose civilisation was pastoral. In the chapter on the Vedas the author gives a short account of how the Vedic society was organised and the lifestyle of the people.

Rig Veda is the oldest of the four Vedas (Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the other three Vedas) and its verses speculate about the origin and creation of the world. According to the author there is a philosophical aspect that is revealed in the creation process.  In the process of imagining these categories like Purusha (supreme being), individual gods, soul etc. these become part of its metaphysics.

The next chapter (chapter four) titled The Early Upanishads: Path to Knowledge and Salvation begins with the statement: “The four Vedas constitute the Samhita, sacred commandments handed over from the above”.

A lay reader, without any exposure to Vedic literature, may understand it as follows: Samhita is something that is constituted by the Vedas and, further, that it is some sort of a commandment. Samhita is actually the mantra (formulaic verses) portion of the Vedas. Etymologically it means put together and arranged (Sam + hita), where the verses (mantras) are collected, arranged and put together. It is to be noted that though the term Veda is used to refer to only the Samhitas, the later conception of Veda also included other parts like the Brahmanas (sacrificial texts), the Arnyakas (forest treatises) and the Upanishads (see p.6-7 here).

However, this chapter does give a glimpse of the subject matter of these different parts of the Vedas, which follow the Samhita portion. An explanation of the key concept of Upanishads, Brahman (not to be confused with caste Brahmin) is given in a box.

The relation between Atman and Brahman, which is the theme of the Upanishads, has been elucidated succinctly. The different schools like Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, and Bhedabheda have been mentioned noting that these schools interpret this relationship in different ways giving rise to different schools of Vedanta.

To the layperson such “pluralism of views” of even a single subject matter of Upanishads dispels the idea that Indian Philosophy is one monolithic view of truth. On this, the author notes, and this is significant for the lay reader, that “the schools of thought that accept Vedic authority are considered the foundation of Hinduism despite their different world views”. However, as he clearly states the aim of the Upanishad texts was the liberation of the individual soul.

The author then brings the heterodox schools as a response to the orthodoxy of the Brahmin-dominated and ritual-focused tradition of the Vedas. Beginning with the Ajivikas he devotes a chapter to Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka or Lokayata (the materialist school).

A chapter on Ajivikas introduces the readers to this heterodox school of thought. It gives a brief historical background against which this school of thought arose. Ajivikas being determinists believed that niyati (fate) controlled everything in this universe. Important leaders of this movement like Purana Kassappa and Makkhali Gosala have been covered with appropriate box illustrations in the chapter.

A separate chapter devoted to Ajivikas is welcome in a short introductory work of this kind as it informs the readers of the existence of this heterodox school which did have significant impact on lives of people even in the southern part of India.

The heterodox school of Ajivika was followed by chapters on Buddhism and Jainism. Introductory books on Indian philosophy generally distinguish between early Buddhism and later Buddhism. The early Buddhism is focused on the ethico-religious teachings of Buddha as he was not interested in abstract metaphysical speculation.

Both the early and later Buddhism is here presented in a single chapter. Srinivasan presents concise and coherent summaries of important doctrines of Buddha beginning with the four noble truths (arya satya) and connecting it to the doctrine of dependent origination (pratitya-samutpada), to the theory of twelve causes (dvadasa-nidana) of earthly misery and to the radical idea of the theory of impermanence.

His presentation of the main teachings of early Buddhism ends with the concept of Karma, Nirvana and the non-eternality of the soul. The later Buddhism has many schools, which can be considered as philosophy proper, has “indulged in metaphysical speculation”. Here the author looks into philosophies of two of the important schools: the Madhymaka and Vijnanavada schools.

Informal Darshanas

After the exposition of the systems of Indian philosophy, the discussion of the remaining four chapters treats diverse areas of thought that prevailed during the ancient and medieval period. Srinivasan refers to Bhagavat Gita as a “sacred Hindu scripture” and outlines the idea of jnana (knowledge) Karma (action) and bhakti (devotion) as the key features of the Bhagavat Gita and also the idea of duty being so central to Krishna-Arjuna dialogue. He also provides the essence of the different interpretations given by Shankara and Ramanuja.

Srinivasan then proceeds in the next chapter to give an account of the Tantra. Apart from the heterodox schools which were non-Vedic systems of thought, Tantra was another non-Vedic practice that prevailed as part of Indian culture.

The basic characteristics of Tantric beliefs and practices can be traced to agriculture and is associated with the female principle, prakriti. The author brings the influence of Tantra on the cult of Shakti and worship of the female goddess and traces similarities between Saankhya and Tantra.

Though the author ends the chapter with the observation that the Saankhya system gave a “philosophical underpinning” to Tantrism, the connection between the two, as enunciated in this chapter, only seems to hinge on the common metaphysical idea of prakriti.

After the chapter on Tantra, Ayurveda (the science of life), a school of Indian medicine, is taken up for discussion. The two most important texts of Ayurveda, the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta Samhita, have at length covered primarily on the topic of human body, treatment of diseases, diet, hygiene and all the theoretical aspects connected with physical and mental well-being.

Ayurveda is also associated, in a special way, with Atharvaveda. How can the subject matter of this medical school be a part of a philosophy book? The point of taking up this school for discussion is because of its close connection with the philosophical schools of Saankhya, Yoga and Nyaya-Vaisheshika; and also the school’s own little contribution on the epistemological matters and logical reasoning by discussing on how to conduct a debate (specifically, something the physicians have to know). In his short exposition of this school in the chapter, the author delves into these topics of philosophical interest.

However, one shortcoming is that the content of this chapter has a collection of bits and pieces of information from Surendranath Dasgupta’s History of Indian Philosophy, Vol 2.

As a result some readers may not find a philosophical relevance of this chapter. This lack of philosophical relevance is again revealed in p.168, where the author suddenly introduces the point of chronology between Charaka Samhita and Saankhya Karika by appealing to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya’s work on Lokayata.

The final chapter is titled The Bhakti Movement: Love and Devotion. According to the author most of the texts of the Sangam period exhibited various philosophical ideas. A general account of Sangam poetry is given and also the epics written in the late or post-Sangam period. It is not clear what exactly the philosophical ideas in the texts are – those that are mentioned in this chapter.

It appears that the author is using the informal sense of philosophy when he claims that “the texts reflected the philosophy and ethics of the prevailing society very well”. More than philosophy this chapter gives a brief background of some literary and devotional movement.

It mentions how various literary texts of this movement focused on the ethical and moral principles. He then presents a very short account of the devotional movement in the Tamil region referring to the works of Vaishnavite Alwars and Saivite Nayanars.

A critical assessment

A survey of Indian philosophy and a quick and concise guide to it is a tall order. The author makes a commendable attempt to present a diverse stream of philosophical ideas of India’s past for the nonspecialist reader. The question of how far he has been successful in his attempt to present a coherent and popular exposition of Indian philosophy is for the readers to judge.

In some of the chapters, the author provides historical information culled from a number of other books (of course, he has not given the references to these specific bits of information). For instance, in presenting chapters two, three and four, he seems to focus on bits and pieces of historical information, rather than philosophical thinking of that age, culled from Upinder Singh’s A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India and Surendranath Dasgupta’s A History of Indian Philosophy (Vol 1). Chapter fifteen on Ayurveda also carries a similar demerit, as mentioned earlier.

Though these books are part of the reading list given there are no specific references to the points he has made. Citing the source for that specific information would have enabled the reader to get into greater detail on a particular topic.

This also makes the book feel sketchy at quite a few places. The nonspecialist reader may find a slight lack of continuity and coherence in the presentation of the subject matter.

When writing a book on Indian philosophy one has to refer to many Sanskrit terms. It would have been better if the author had adopted some standard of transliterating scheme (IAST) for spelling Sanskrit words with a pronunciation guide. This would have been useful for the readers.