Indian philosophy - more rational than spiritual

Indian philosophy - more rational than spiritual

Kshitiz Gaur

To visualize that philosophy stood still would be a fall into a great error, a fallacy, an invalid deduction, a wrong conclusion.  While talking about Indian philosophy, then it emerged from the beginning on a concrete ground of reasoning and logic. Philosophy is a static flowing process within society that shapes the concepts of every member.

Hindu philosophy had testing system to assess their doctrines and even their metaphysics and ethics were tested well before pronouncing in the mass. The dialectic method of Hindus provided the space for debates and every school was prepared to be challenged by opponent before they advance for footing. Every school had their method of reasoning and logic and they debated with opponent to prove their versions.

The method of reasoning and logic was common in these schools and they had not imposed any theory on society blowing loudly own their own. They made their theories open to be challenged by opponents so that they could debate on their method.  

If that was not the case in Hindu philosophies then Gautama and Mahaveera had the same fate as what faced by Socrates and Jesus in the west while opposing the prevailed concept of philosophies.

Now while talking about Hindus concept, the confusion arose when we mixed philosophy with mythologies. Indian philosophies and Upnishads is a one part and then mythologies and Puranas is another part of Hindu concepts and interestingly both the parts are drive from Vedas. And it was a chance that mythologies and Purnanas prevailed over philosophy and Upnishads making Hindu thoughts purely a showcase of spiritualism.

The first question which every Indian system of philosophy has settled is how we come to know a certain things. Three channels by which knowledge can reached, perception, inference and authorities. But the other part of Puranas and mythologies took authorities as the only source of knowledge.

Besides the disputing metaphysical theories of Hindus, there was a large part of epistemology in which Hindu thinkers, laboured great time to make the concepts of knowledge, reasoning and logic. They tried to make the language scientific so that the conceptions can be bettered and correspond the reality with perception.

 Let’s have some briefly enlighten of Hindu philosophies over the concept of knowledge but the basic matrix of every Hindu philosophy is life in accordance to true knowledge and the signature of epistemology lies in differentiation between, knowledge, wrong knowledge and ignorance.

Right Knowledge

Thinkers of Hindu region worked so hard on logical part that they made negation as the faculty to study the language which can better made people understand those concepts which are not possible to grasp in ordinarily senses.    

Ultimately, the matrix of Indian philosophy, almost, is to live in accordance to the right knowledge. This greater part studied the epistemological part, the nature of knowledge, source of knowledge, validity and falsity of knowledge was dealt greatly in Indian philosophies. They advanced their theories for people and for society in accordance with true knowledge.

One of the wonder of epistemological part of Indian soil is Apoha- Siddhi of Buddhism that not only describes the process of conception but also the faculties of consciousness. It proved the condition of consciousness in a momentary world, “May this be known as a difficult work on differentiation, its essence is that what is reflected in our mind- from- words- is not the self nature of the positive momentary thing. In the world, what so ever are not firm decays, because of not belong, maintained with effort but if firm, a thing lasts long” Apoha-siddhi.

Subject and object are knowledge

 Similarly another most important stream of Hindus philosophy is the Nayaya who developed a systematic logical and epistemological system. The system took that reality is only right knowledge and it also maintained that knowledge is both- subject and object, though both are different to each other. As the light of the lamp reveals the object and the Nayaya studied not only the nature of object which is revealed by the light but also the light which is revealing the nature of object. Nayaya accepted both valid and invalid knowledge and went thread bearing analyses to understand the nature of knowledge.

According to Nayaya valid knowledge is the right image of an object, it gives the right character of the object because it correspondent the object as it is. The knowledge should correspondent the reality. Nayaya made four types of sources of valid knowledge in which perception is purely cognition which comes out as the intercourse of sense with the object and have no name and well defined in shape or figure or colour, “Indriyathasannikarsotpanam Jananm avyapadeshyam avyabhichari vyavasayatmakam pratyaksam” Nayaya Sutra, I 1, 4.

The present in original and that include no divine flashes or vision. It is empirical process of gaining knowledge from objects. According to Nayaya there are two type of perception including determinate and indeterminate. The other source of knowledge in inference which is presupposing cognition, it is a logical device to infer something from the quality presupposed in mind.

This knowledge dwells from reasoning and Nayaya gave example of deductive logic like- The hill has fire, because it has smoke, where there is smoke there is fire, Therefore the hill has fire. The syllogism of Nayaya is different from Aristotle because it has five premises and the conclusion predetermined which concluded at the end.

Interestingly, Nayaya also described the fallacy with the false middle term drawing the conclusion valid. Nayaya explicitly described the importance of inferences and took it as a valid source of knowledge. Even comparison is accepted by the Nayaya as a valid source of knowledge. It defines as a relation between a word and its object, it is resemblance or similarity or likeness. Nayaya described it as that we speak a word cow and our mind compares the animal with four legs and important for milk production, a part of cattle. Just the word cow made us compare and identify the object and we create an image in our mind. Being orthodox, Nayaya at last also accepted the testimony as the valid source of knowledge. It is both written by an authority and spoken by the person of authority. The word which was spoken or written has its importance and words describe of define the state of mind which it had witnessed.

Knowledge is direct and immediate

Similarly, the Mimansa maintained that valid knowledge in realization (Anubhuti), which we experienced which is only direct and immediate. Mimansa too do not rely on memory as valid knowledge. Kurmila added that realization of an object should be free from defect. They called this knowledge as intrinsic. We cannot grasp the quality of the object but only experience it. This school advocated four evidence of valid knowledge and maintained that perception is the immediate and direct knowledge. They also maintained that inference is also an evidence of knowledge. Even comparison is the valid source of knowledge. The testimony is the highest form of evidence for valid knowledge as per this school And the Vedas is the final verdict of describing any truth. The Vedas describe the dharma, (literary essence here) described in Vedas which is above perception, inference or comparison. This school also added two more source of knowledge which is implication which is implied for unseen and presupposed in absence of perception or inference. Negation is also one of the sources of valid knowledge it is like deducing the truth from non-truth.

Knowledge removes ignorance

But Gaudapada while per founding the Vedanta concept the reality is pure consciousness and therefore the world in unreal and this concept was taken ahead even by Shanker in Vedanta and therefore knowledge of external world is not possible the cognition is only within self. Vedanta went ahead that “ultimate reality can neither be asserted nor denied by knowledge. Knowledge does nothing more than simply removing ignorance” Gita Bhasya II

The pure reality is termed as Brahman which is eternal and unchangeable. Removing ignorance that is coming out of this momentary world is the only right knowledge. Even intellect cannot grasp the reality of ultimate truth and inference cannot give the right perspective of truth.

Knowledge is mediate and immediate

Jainism that emerged different from the orthodox system of Hindus thinking also believed that knowledge is two types in which it has to be both immediate and mediate. There are two kind of source of valid knowledge in which one of them is things as it is which is evidentiary and knowledge of things. This system moved ahead with the seven categories of knowledge of things. These categories are called as essence of things and the things are taken as real. They believed in the matter, space, motion, rest and time.

Knowledge is dependent organized

One of the most important works on knowledge was taken up by the school of Buddhism in the theory of Pratityasamutpada the dependent origination. The reality is momentary and cannot be described because it depends on the different factors. The Shunyavad is a deduction method to realize the truth and attain the knowledge. To understand the real essence of the truth, the negation of other essences is made to reach the last essence to understand the reality. This school stated that attributes and qualities of a matter can be understood but we cannot know the real matter. This school went deep into comparing the nature of substance and its attribute and realizes that we can know the attribute or quality of a thing but never know the real thing.