CIVILIZATION IN TERMS OF GROUPING
Civilization is basically a vital kind of grouping. Without civilizations, the world as we know it would not be. Civilizations have different qualities than regular groups of people such as nomads. For example, a civilization develops surpluses of things which helps the people be a stable community. These surpluses also create the construction and growth of cities and helps develop secure, formal states. Government is also present in civilizations. One very important part of a civilization is an advanced writing method. A civilization can only be complete with all of these factors, or it will just fall apart. Nomads are nowhere close to being a civilization even though sometimes groups of nomads have good technology. Nomads travel around all the time following food. A civilization is a stationary place with agriculture. This means that the community of people occupying this civilization does not have to go running around scrounging for food. Nomads are just a small group of people without cities, sometimes without writing, no organizations, and their technology is lacking. Civilizations have the one-up on nomads without a doubt. If everyone was just a bunch of nomads, the world would not be organized, and cultures would not be as complex and great as they are today. Nomads are just a bunch of underdeveloped, not modern, and sometimes barbaric people. The Greeks and the Romans both thought of themselves as a civilization separate from everyone else. The Greeks believed that anyone who could not speak Greek were barbarians meaning "those who cannot speak Greek." Anyone that could not speak Greek were only speaking "gibberish" to the Greeks so they separated themselves from others making themselves their own civilization.
Comparing and contrasting the theory of liberation in the Sankhya school of philosophy and the Yoga school of philosophy.
Both the Sankhya school of philosophy and the Yoga school of philosophy have been credited with having similar views on their metaphysics, their theory of knowledge, their theory of liberation etc. Thus these two schools have often been addressed together as the Sankhya-Yogas. Even though both these schools have similar views on the theory of liberation, there are still a few differences that separate these two schools in that area. In this essay, I will attempt to compare and contrast the views of these two schools on liberation in order to find out and properly frame the similarities and the differences that exist. I would also be taking into account the views put forth by Satishchandra Chatterjee and Dhereendramohan Datta, Andrew Nicholson, and Christopher Bartley and their relevant texts. For both the Sankhya and the Yoga school of philosophy, liberation can only be achieved by the cessation of all pain and suffering. Liberation can be compared to detachment, which is said to be “self-mastery on the part of one who no longer thirsts for perceptible objects or any of the transitory goals promised by the Scriptures.” (Bartley 2011, p. 88) According to the Sankhya philosophy, we are victims to three kind of pain- adhyatmika, adhibhautika, and adhidaivika. Adhyatmika is due to intra-organic causes such as bodily disorders and mental affections. Adhibhautika is the pain that is caused by nature such as men, animals etc. Adhidaivika is the pain that is caused by extra-organic supernatural causes such as ghosts and demons. On the other hand, for the Yoga philosophy, “ So long as the mind or the intellect of a man is impure and unsettled, he cannot properly understand anything of philosophy and religion. ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 337). Thus for the Sankhya, the cause of the pain can arise from both the body and mind while for the Yogas, pain can only arise from the mind. Both the Sankhyas and the Yogas agree that for attaining moksha or liberation the separation of the self from the body is needed and a clear distinction is needed to be made between self and the body, intellect and the mind. This argument is supported by Datta and Chatterjee, who informs us that “ It holds, like the Sankhya and some other Indian systems, that liberation is to be attained through the direct knowledge of the self’s distinction from the physical world including our body, mind and the ego ( vivekajnana). ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p.337) According to the Sankhyas, the reason that we have to suffer pain is that we do not have the right knowledge of reality and that every reality has a plurality of selves. The self is an “ intelligent principle which does not pose any quality or activity but is a pure consciousness free form the limitations of space, time and causality.” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 324) Even the Yoga’s share a similar view of the self as even they think that it is above the physical reality with its spatio-temporal and its cause-effect order. A claim that is put forth by Andrew Nicholson is that the followers of the Sankhya philosophy will have to endure the long duration of jivanmukti, while Yoga philosophers, on the other hand, will not have to endure it and can just bypass it. He has claimed that “The path of knowledge ( jñāna ), oﬀered by the Sāmkhya and Vedānta systems, can lead to meditation with objects and can be eﬃcacious for enlightenment. But the follower of Sāmkhya or Vedānta will have to endure the state of jīvanmukti, as suggested by BS 4.1.15 and Ch. Up. 6.14.2. However, Vis ˙. Pu. 6.7.35 suggests that Yoga can cause immediate release, destroying prārabdha acts and bypassing jīvanmukti altogether. Yoga, according to Vijñānabhiks ˙ u, is the fast track to complete liberation. Although Sāmkhya, Vedānta, and Yoga can all lead to liberation, Yoga is the best of the three solely in terms of its eﬃciency.” ( Nicholson 2010, p. 116) While Nicholson claims that Yoga is the most efficient way to attaining liberation, Datta and Chatterjee have an opposing view as they claim that “ It requires a long and arduous endeavor to maintain oneself in the state of samadhi and destroy the effects of the different kinds of karma, past, and present. For this, it is necessary to practice yoga with care and devotion for a sufficiently long time” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 347). Thus for them, it will take years to attain liberation. Thus we can see that the theory of liberation itself has contradicting views in Indian philosophy. Thus, as a conclusion, we can say that the Sankhya lays greater stress on discriminative knowledge as the means of attaining liberation while on the other hand, the Yoga lays greater stress on practical methods for self-purification and concentration in order to attain moksa. REFERENCES- Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. University of Calcutta: Calcutta Bartley, Christopher. 2011. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group: London Nicholson, J. Andrew. 2010. Unifying Hinduism. Colombia University Press: New York.
Vaisesika school and Sankhya school
In Indian philosophy, both the Vaisesika school and the Sankhya school have their own concepts of Guna. In this essay, we will compare and contrast these concepts in order to find the similarities and the differences that exist. According to the Vaisesikas, “ A quality or guna is defined as that which exists in a substance and has no quality or activity in itself” ( Chatterjee and Data 1948, p.265). They recognize 24 different types of gunas or qualities such as color, taste, smell, touch etc.. On the other hand, according to the Sankhya school, guna here means “ a constituent element of the component and not an attribute or quality.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299). They only recognize 3 kinds of gunas- sattva, rajas and tamas. The reason why they are called gunas is “ either their being subservient to the ends of the purusa which is other than themselves, or their being intertwined like the three strands of a rope which binds the soul to the world.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p.299) The Sankhya recognize two kinds of ultimate realities- spirit and matter ( purusa and Prakriti). Prakriti is constituted by the three gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas. Thus we can say that that “ by the gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas we are to understand the elements of the ultimate substance called Prakriti.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299). One of the differences between these two concepts of gunas is that in the Vaisesika school, guna cannot have a quality in itself, while in the Sankhya school, each of the three gunas has qualities of their own. As qualities or gunas can only exist within a substance, according to the Vaisesikas, and as the Sankhya believe that qualities exist in the three gunas, we can say that from the view of the Vaisesika, the three gunas in the Sankhya school would be considered as substance. As things do not possess guna, it merely signifies the manner in which a substance reacts. Also, for the Vaisesikas, “ a quality is an unmoving or motionless property of things” (Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p.266). Guna for them can also be said as passive and inactive. This is different from the Sankhya as another characteristic of the gunas for them is that they are constantly changing and are always in a state of flux and thus do not remain stagnant. Although the three gunas keep changing, sattva guna and tamas guna are inactive and motionless in themselves. It is only through rajas guna that both sattva guna and tamas guna are able to perform their actions. Another characteristic of the triguna ( sattva guna, rajas guna, tamas guna) is that all three of them co-exists and cooperate amongst themselves in order to produce objects to the world. All the three gunas always go together and thus cannot be separated. None of them can produce objects without the help of the other two gunas. Another fact that needs to be mentioned is that all of the three gunas posses qualities that are different from the other. For example, the oil, the wick, and the flame are all important components for a candle to function. In this case, the wick, the oil, and the flame can be considered to be the different qualities of the gunas and yet they still come together to produce objects ( the candle). On the other hand, this kind of cooperation and cohesion does not exist amongst the gunas as they do not need to depend on another guna or quality to perform their functions but they still need a substance as they cannot exist on its own. For example- if I say ‘ that car is near’, then I am implying the quality of nearness or aparatava and thus don’t need any other qualities like taste or rasa. Another difference is that in the Sankhya philosophy, “ the gunas are not perceived by us. They are inferred from the objects from the world which are their effects.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299). We can say this as we know the nature of the guna from the nature of their products as there is a relationship between the cause and the effect. This is different from the gunas under the Vaisesika there are some qualities such as sparsa or touch, and sabda or sound that can be perceived and not necessarily inferred. REFERENCES- Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. University of Calcutta: Calcutta.
Finding contradictions to the Sankhya theory of causation.
The theory of causation states that a cause is the invariable and the unconditional antecedent of an effect. Conversely, an effect is the invariable and unconditional consequent of a cause. A popular notion among various philosophical schools such as the Bauddhas and the Nyaya- Vaisesikas is that an effect cannot exist in its cause prior to its production, which is also known as Asatkarya-vada. According to Satishchandra and Chatterjee, “ The Sankhya Metaphysics, especially its doctrine of Prakriti, rests mainly on its theory of causation which is known as Sakarya- vada.”( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 293). Sakarya- vada is exactly opposite to asatkarya- vada as it states that “future products pre-exist in a potential state in their underlying, substrate causes (upādāna-kāran .a) prior to their actualization or manifestation (abhivyakti) as entities identifiable by their specific names and forms.”( Bartley 2011, p. 85) In this essay, I will attempt to find contradictions to the theory of Sakarya-vada by using examples and also by putting forth some arguments made by the Nyaya-Vaisesika school. If we take the example of the mould of clay which could be turned into a pot, then according to the theory of Sakarya-vada the pot would already pre-exist in the mould of clay. A contradiction to this would be that even though the pot would be produced from the clay, it would not have the same functions as the pot. The functions of a pot, i.e, to either store water or grain, would not be applicable to the mould of clay in its existing form as it will neither be able to store either water or grain unless it is transformed into a pot by the potter. It should be clarified that even though the potter himself could be regarded as the cause for the production of the pot, he will be a different cause than that of the mould of clay. The potter would be regarded as the efficient cause as compared to the mould of clay, which would be the material cause, because “ the activity of efficient causes, like the potter and his tools, is necessary to manifest the effect, pot, which exists implicitly in the clay” (Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p.294) It is a fact that clothes are made of threads. So, the cloth would be the effect, the threads would be the material cause and the weaver would be the efficient cause. According to the Sankhya philosophers, the cloth itself would pre-exist in the threads. But it is unclear on how a cloth, which is a single material thing, would pre-exist in hundreds or even thousands of threads. Does the cloth exist equally in each and every one of these threads or is the equality uneven? If one thread is removed from the cloth after its production, will the cloth still be considered as a cloth even if a part of its material cause is removed? Thus the second contradiction is that of the difference in the quantity of the effect and of the material cause. Another addition to this point could be that “The whole entity cannot exist without the parts, but the parts can exist without the whole” ( Bartley 2011, p. 85) Another contradiction that could arise out of the theory of Satkarya-vada is that if the effect exists in the cause, then it will not be possible for us to identify them as two separate actions and that would result in it being that the effect is indistinguishable from the cause. Even if we consider the cause and the effect to be the same, we would also then have to agree that the functions of these two will also be the same, which from the first argument we can see is not possible. Also, if the effect already exists in the cause, then it would be illogical for us to accept that it was caused or produced in any way in the first place. In a summary of the two arguments, we can say that for the Sankhya school, the theory of causation is that the effect pre-exists in the cause and for the other schools such as the Nyaya-Vaisesikas, the effect cannot pre-exist in the cause. As we have seen through the entire essay, the theory of causation of the Nyaya-Vaisesika school is more applicable to Indian philosophy. REFERENCES Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. University of Calcutta: Calcutta Bartley, Christopher.2011. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group: London.
An attempt the refute the theory of Satkarya-vada put forth by the Sankhya school of philosophy
The theory of causation is regarded as one of the metaphysical problems in Indian philosophy. The theory of causation states a universal relationship between a cause and an effect. A cause can be defined as “as the invariable and unconditional antecedent of an effect. Conversely, an effect is the invariable and the unconditional consequent of the cause.”( Datta and Chaterjee 1948, p. 218). Although the theory of causation may share some resemblance to the theory of karma, in this essay we will be mainly focusing on physical occurrences and not moral occurrences. Like any major theory in Indian philosophy, even the theory of causation has been the object of discussion amongst the various schools of Indian philosophy. For some schools such as the Nyaya- Vaisesikas and the Bauddhas, the effect cannot pre-exist in the cause prior to its production, with this theory also being commonly being referred to as the theory of asatkarya-vada. On the other hand, some schools such as the Sankhya school believe that “ future products pre-exists in a potential state in their underlying, substrate causes ( upandana- karan) prior to their actualization or manifestation ( abhivyakti) as entities identifiable by their specific names and forms”( Bartley 2011, p.85 ). This theory is also known as Sakarya-vada. In this essay, we will formulate an argument by refuting the theory of satkarya-vada put forth by the Sankhya school of philosophy in an attempt to show why it should not be applicable to Indian philosophy as a whole. The essay will start with a brief introduction of the theory of satkarya-vada in order to get a foundation and then we will proceed to form some arguments in contradiction to the theory of satkarya-vada. As previously mentioned satkarya-vada states that the effect pre-exists within the cause itself. The Sankhya school provides many arguments in far of his theory. One of them is that if the effect was indeed non-existent in the cause, then no amount of force on the part of an agent would make it come into existence. Another argument provided by them is “if the effect is really non-existent in the cause, then we have to say that when it is produced, the non-existent comes into existence, i.e, something comes out of nothing, which is absurd.” ( Datta and Chaterjee 1948, p. 295). The theory of satkarya-vada also has two conceptions, parinama-vada, and vivarta-vada. According to parinama-vada, after an effect is produced, a real transformation takes place from the cause into the effect, such as pot from clay. According to vivarta-vada, the changing of the effect from the cause is merely apparent and not permanent, for example, the snake and the rope. The theory of satkarya- vada, while being an important doctrine for the Sankhya school, has many loopholes that can be used against them by their opponents. If we take the example of a mold of clay being the material cause and the pot is the effect, then according to the satkarya-vada theory, the pot should pre-exist in the mould itself. However, if the pot really exists in the mould of clay prior to its production, then it should serve the same purpose as a pot does. The functions of a pot, i.e, to either store water or grain, would not be applicable to the mould of clay in its existing form as it will neither be able to store water or grain unless it is transformed. It is important to note here that even though the potter could be regarded as the cause for the production of the pot, he will be a cause that is different as compared to a mould of clay. The potter would be regarded as the efficient cause as compared to the mould of clay, which would be the material cause, because “the activity of the efficient causes, like the potter and his tools, is necessary to manifest the effect, pot, which exists implicitly in the clay” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 294) Also the function of the cause is different from the function of the effect. If we take the example of a cloth being created from threads, the function of the thread is different from that of the cloth. The function of the thread is it being turned into a cloth, while the function of the cloth is for covering things. These functions cannot be reversed and thus this proves that both the cause and the effect cannot exist in the same substance. It is well known that any piece of cloth comprises of threads. Thus over here the effect is the cloth and the material cause are the threads. Even though the cloth and the threads have an inherent relationship, it is unclear on how a cloth, which is a single material thing, would pre-exist in hundreds or even thousands of threads. Christopher Bartley states that “ the whole entity cannot exist without the parts, but the parts can exist without the whole” ( Bartely 2011, p.85) Thus with the above statement some new questions arise such as if a few threads are removed from the cloth after its production, will the cloth still be considered as a ‘ whole’ cloth even after a part of its material cause is removed from itself? Thus over here the notion of quantity is concerned here. The Sankhya philosophers claim that “thread and cloth are not two different entities differing from each other in essence also because there is no ‘conjunction’ and ‘separation’ between them” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.40) here the claim is being made that both the thread and the cloth cannot be separated as they are the same entity existing in the same cause. If this is to be true, then won't the production of one entity result in the destruction of the other? For example, if a cloth is being torn and thus being reduced to just threads, then that would result in the creation of a new entity ( threads) and at the same time the destruction of another entity ( cloth) as we can see from the example above, separation is indeed possible as the process of causation will have self-contradictory actions, which is the destruction of the cloths and the production of the threads, or even destruction of the threads and the production of the cloth. It is established that “according to Sankhya philosophers, an effect is already existent in its material cause and when it is supposed to be produced, it is only manifested” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.43) This statement also raises some questions as when they say that the effect is only manifested, did this entire manifestation of the effect exist before the operation of the cause, or did it not exist? As previously mentioned at the start of the essay, the Sankhya school do not accept the theory of asatkarya-vada because, as they understood it, the theory talks about something non-existent coming into existence, which for them would be absurd. Now keeping the above question in mind, if the Sankhya philosophers accept the latter part of the question, that is if the effect did not exist before its manifestation, then they literally disprove their own theory as it would mean something being created out of nothing. On the other hand, if they accept the former part of the question, that the effect did exist prior to its manifestation, then what is the use of the causal operation taking place, as there is no necessity of the entire process taking place if the effect already exists. Also, if the effect really exists in the cause, then it will not be possible for us to identify them as two separate entities and that would result in it being that the effect is indistinguishable from the cause. Even if we consider the cause and the effect to be within the same substance, the functions of these two would still be different, as discussed earlier in the essay. If we were to accept the theory of satkarya-vada, then it could not be known to come under the theory of causation itself. That is because the theory of causation states that it is a relation between a cause and an effect. As the cause is different from the effect, the theory of causation is stating that causation is a relationship between two different entities, which according to satkarya-vada, they are not. Thus the terms cause and effect will have no meaning as it would then be illogical for us to accept that it was caused or produced in any way in the first place. One of the questions that have been posed by one of the philosophers is “if even before the operation of the cause the cloth is existent in the threads, why is it that it is not seen even though all the conditions required for its perception ( i.e, the organs of vision and light etc. ) are present and there is a desire to see it.” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.243). The counter-argument for this made by the Sankhya philosopher could be that it is due to the non-manifestation of the effect. That as the effect is not yet manifested in its physical form, it cannot yet be perceived. But, if they mean that it is non-manifested and that it does not yet have a physical form, then that would mean that they are talking about the existence of a non-perceptible object that is capable of performing an action. If they are agreeing to this then they are also accepting the theory of asatkarya-vada and at the same time refuting their theory of satkarya-vada as they are then claiming that the object was non-existing in the beginning but later started to exist, which means the creation of something out of nothing, which according to the Sankhya philosophers, cannot happen. To prove the theory of satkarya-vada, the Sankhya philosophers have also claimed that “ there is an invariable relation between a material cause and an effect. A material cause can only produce that effect with which it is causally related. It cannot produce an effect which is in no way related to it. But it cannot be related to what does not exist. hence the effect must exist in the material cause before it is actually produced.” ( Datta and Chatterjee 1948, p. 294) This statement can be refuted as according to the Sankhya philosophy, everything around us, including physical objects, is everywhere. The above statement is supported by Jayanta, who claims that “ the rule of taking a particular material for a particular effect ( upadana-niyama) will not be tenable because, according to Sankhya, everything is everywhere.” ( Bhartiya 1973, p.253) Thus if we apply the above statement into reality, the entire world will go into chaos. For example, we will be able to get blood, not only from bodies but from rocks as well, because everything is available everywhere. Also, precious metals such as silver or gold will have its value reduced, as it will now be available everywhere. The last contradiction we will look at is the structure of the effect prior to its manifestation and the structure of the cause. If we take the example of a seed, which has the potential to turn into a huge tree, then how can you explain the existence of an approximate hundred foot tree pre-existing inside of a seed that could easily hold in your hand. What also matters here is the weight of both these entities. One cannot expect to believe that a tree weighing hundreds of kilos pre-existed in a seed weighing only a few grams. Thus the problem of form and weight arises here. At the start of the essay, our objective was to refute the theory of satkarya-vada that was put forth by the Sankhya school of philosophy. By taking some arguments put forth by the Nyaya school of philosophy against the satkarya-vada theory and analyzing them in a different way, and forming some new objections, we have refuted the theory of satkarya-vada. Thus, the theory of satkarya-vada that was put forth by the Sankhy philosophers, should not be applicable to Indian philosophy. BIBLIOGRAPHY- Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Bartely, Christopher. 2011. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group Bhartiya, Mahesh Chandra. 1973. Causation in Indian Philosophy. Ghaziabad (U.P): Vimal Prakashan
The concept of Karma
One of the most prominent theories in Indian philosophy is the theory of karma which states that “all actions have consequences which will affect the doer of the action at some future time”(Reichenbach 1988, p. 399). In other terms, the theory could be explained as, if we have done good deeds in our previous life then we will have good things happen to us in this life and if we did bad deeds in our previous life then we will face the consequences of those acts in this life. Thus the cause and effect relationship is very important here. This theory is still quite vague and thus might be open to some critiques. In this essay, I will attempt to point out and elaborate on some contradictions against the theory of karma. One of the arguments against the theory of karma could be that how do we know if we had a previous life or not, and even if we did, it is impossible to remember the actions done in our previous life. So, how can we be punished for something we do not remember doing? This argument is supported by Whitley R. P. Kaufman, who states that “ the fact that the sufferer can never know just what crime he is being punished for at a given time, that the system of meeting out punishments is so random and unpredictable, constitutes a violation of a basic principle of justice.” ( Kaufman 2005, p. 20). If we agree that the concept of previous lives does exist, the theory of karma can be in some ways be compared to the idea of fatalism. Due to the fact that our present life has been influenced by our past actions ( according to the karma theory), we can consider our future to be also pre-determined, the latter part which can be associated with the concept of fatalism. For example, if I were to get full marks on this assignment, will it be because of my own merit and hard work, or will it be because I have done good deeds in my previous life and I am thus being rewarded for them in this life? The idea of morality also plays an important part when it comes to rebirth. The past life also affects our birth in this life. Thus, “someone who does evil will inherit in the next life not only lowly circumstances but also a wicked, malevolent disposition; those who have a good disposition owe it to their good deeds in previous lives” ( Kaufman 2005, p. 26). This will not only affect our present life but also our future lives as, “Past evil will generate present evil, and present evil will in turn cause equivalent future evil. There is no escape from the process.” ( Kaufman 2005, p.26 ) It is also possible that the person may be born in a low-class family in a bad neighborhood. Thus, his upbringing may get affected and because of that his ability to do good deeds will also diminish. This will then keep getting repeated and every time the person is reborn he would suffer the consequence of his misdeeds. Throughout this essay, we have established that karma follows the idea of rebirth and that our past actions will affect our present. But there are still some questions that ponder regarding the theory such as who was the original sufferer or the first person to suffer the consequence of his previous life? and what was the first wrong that was done? Those who defend this theory “claim that the process is simply beginningless (anadi), that the karmic process extends back infinitely in time.”( Kaufman 2005, p.22) This, in turn, causes more confusion as “denial of a beginning to the process sidesteps the question of divine responsibility for the beginning of evil in the world.” ( Kaufman 2005, p.22) When we speak of the divine, we refer to God or some spiritual entity. So why can’t he be held responsible for the misdeeds of his own creations? BIBLIOGRAPHY:- Reichenbach, Bruce R. 1988. “ The Law of Karma and the Principle of Causation”. Philosophy East and West (38): 399-410 Kaufman, Whitley R.P. 2005. “ Karma, Rebirth, and the Problem of Evil”. Philosophy East and West ( 55) : 15-32
In this essay, we will take the concept of liberation under Nyaya Philosophy and compare it with the understanding of liberation under some different schools. Nyaya philosophy is one of the schools that come under the Indian schools of Philosophy. It is mainly concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and also the means or the ways of acquiring a true knowledge of reality. Like many of the other schools, it has its own theory of attaining moksa or liberation for the individual self. In the case of Nyaya philosophy, “To attain liberation one must acquire a true knowledge of the self and all objects of experience.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 239). For the Naiyayikas, liberation is only possible when they are in a complete state of negation, of all pain and suffering. As our body has a physical presence and has sense organs, it is exposed to objects that are unpleasant and undesirable. Thus liberation can only be attained when the soul is separated from the body which can only happen after death. God also plays a very important part in attaining liberation as “According to the Naiyayikas, the individual self can attain true knowledge of realities and, through it, the state of liberation only by the grace of God.” (Chatterjee and Datta, p. 240). Jaina philosophy also has its own theory of liberation, which can only happen with the “complete dissociation of the soul from the matter.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 118). This can only be done by stopping the influx of matter into the soul as well as removing all the matter that has mingled with the soul. Like Nyaya philosophy, Jainas also stress on the necessity of right knowledge as it can remove ignorance, which is deemed to be the cause of all the unwanted passions that lead to the influx of matter such as greed, infatuation etc. Unlike the Naiyayikas, who can only attain liberation after death, the Jainas believe that liberation can be attained in this lifetime by studying the teachings of individuals who have already attained liberation. The individual must also have faith in these teachings and must also have the right conduct in order to stop the influx of new karma and the eradication of bad karma. Thus, “The path to liberation lies through right faith, knowledge, and conduct. Liberation is the joint effect of these three.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p.120). Another difference between Nyaya philosophy and Jaina philosophy is that for the Naiyayikas, God plays a key role in the process for liberation while on the other hand, the Jainas don’t believe in God at all. Sankhya philosophy is similar to Nyaya philosophy in many ways as “Like the Nyaya-Vaisesika system, the Sankhya aims at knowledge of reality for the practical purpose of putting an end to all pain and suffering” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 292). Even the theory of liberation under Sankhya philosophy is similar to that of Nyaya philosophy as “In the Sankhya system, liberation ( Mukti), is just the absolute and complete cessation of all pain without a possibility of return.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 323). The only way to get rid of pain forever is only possible through the knowledge of reality. Same as in the Nyaya philosophy, even in Sankhya philosophy liberation can only be attained only after the emancipation of the soul from the body. Although the role of God for liberation is given in Nyaya philosophy, the existence of God in Sankhya Philosophy is open to interpretations. Instead of God, the Sankhya recognizes two ultimate realities which are spirit (purusha) and matter (prakrti). The last school in this essay are the Carvakas. They are materialistic beings and they do not believe in a soul. Thus the Nyaya theory of liberation does not apply to them as they don’t believe in a soul and thus don’t believe in life after death. They also refuse the idea of having liberation in this life as they think they both pleasure and pain are bound by the body and that you can only minimize the pain. Their concept of liberation is to “attain the maximum amount of pleasure in this life, avoiding pain as far as possible.” (Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 75). They also do not believe in the existence of God. Thus we can see that each school has their own version of what liberation is. Even though there are variations between them, most of them call for the end of suffering, either in this life or after death. BIBLIOGRAPHY:- Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction To Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta
In ancient times only two cultures were very fertile in Philosophy – the Greek and Indian. While Greek Philosophers, like, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were laying the foundations for Western philosophy in Greece. India’s geniuses produced treatises in linguistics, mathematics, logic, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine. Unlike western philosophy, where each Philosopher’s views, responses and comments were recorded by their disciples, and are chronologically available, the ancient Indian philosophy is represented in a mass of texts for which the authors and dates of composition are mostly unknown. Chief among these texts are the Vedas, written from perhaps 1500-1000 B.C., the oldest religious texts in the world. They mainly consist of hymns in praise of nature gods and instructions for rituals. The last of the works among the Vedas, called the Upanishads, were written after 700 B.C. and are on occasion more philosophical. Also, “( The main philosophical themes that the Upaniṣads explore are the nature of the Absolute (Brahman) as the ground of being and the importance of knowledge of Brahman as the key to liberation”( p.12, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Roy W Perret)These Indian scriptures laid the foundation for most of India’s philosophical schools. Ancient Indian Philosophy is classified into six Darshanas, or views, or systems. They are Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Vedanta. Indians also distinguish two classes of Indian philosophies: astika and nastika. The astika systems respect the Vedas to some degree. The nastika systems reject Vedic thought. They are: Jainism, Buddhism, and Lokayata or Carvakas. In the West, philosophical schools tended to rise and fall, one after the other. But in India all these systems have competed for adherence beside each other for centuries. Astika (Vedic/ Orthodox) Systems Except for differences in fundamental thinking and rituals, all these systems agreed about karma(action), the good and evil actions of karma, reincarnation, the transient nature of human life andthe doctrine of samsara - that today’s humans have passed from birth to birth from eternity. The goal of these systems was moksha (or mukti): liberation from the endless cycle of birth and rebirth, and therefore liberation from all suffering. All Darshanas agreed on the existence of a permanent soul (atman). In most systems, it is a kind of purification of the soul that lead to moksha, though what this means varies from system to system.The ancient Indians did not see philosophy as a disinterested investigation of the nature of reality. Rather, philosophy was a practical matter, useful for daily life and in shaping one’s destiny. Nastika (Heterodox) Systems Atheists and materialists were apparently common in ancient India, for the Hindu scriptures found it necessary to respond to the arguments of non-believers on many occasions. The nastika systems of Lokayata held that perception is the only valid source of knowledge, and all other sources, like testimony and inference are unreliable. Perception revealed only the material world, all rituals were useless, and scriptures contained no special insight. Thus, the only purpose of life was to enjoy pleasure and avoid pain. Jainism, however, accepted perception, inference (assuming that correct reasoning is being followed), and testimony, when it came from a reliable authority. The Jain doctrine holds that there are souls in everything. Unfortunately, the desires of souls attract tiny bits of matter that weigh them down. Only by removing its desires can a soul free itself from the bondage of matter and achieve happiness. There are three things can free a soul from its desires - faith in the teachings of Jain saints, right understanding of these teachings, and right conduct. Buddhism philosophy propagates that the best way to know something is through personal experience. Suffering lies at the core of this philosophy. If it is understood that worldly desires cause suffering, then one should abstain from these desires and through its liberation, attain nirvana - a perfect peace of mind free from desire, the end of identity due to a realized oneness with the world, perfect bliss and highest spiritual attainment. Conclusion In ancient India, there was a continuing tension between the “activism (pravṛtti), exemplified in the early Vedic ritualistic tradition, and quietism (nivṛtti), exemplified in the later Upaniṣadic renunciant tradition.”( p.13, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Roy W Perret While the earlier Vedic literature emphasized the ideal householder committed to “Dharma”, the later idiolised the renunciant in pursuit of “Moksha”. At the same time, rival anti-Vedic philosophies like Jainism and Buddhism emphasised the path of ascetism.