Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton

Indian Philosophy

(A Very Short Introduction)

by Sue Hamilton

Preamble

Dr. Sue Hamilton is a reader in Buddhism at Kings College, London. She has published a number of works on Buddhism and early Indian Philosophy and this compact volume has a number of excellent reviews.

Having said that; Sue Hamilton’s book does concentrate on Buddhism and the philosophies that may be considered to be precursors of Buddhism. Other important Indian traditions, such as Jainism for example, have been completely ignored in this volume. Also ignored has been the Cấrvấka tradition which systemised a materialistic school of thought.

Most books in the “A Very Short Introduction” series seem to have excellent indexes. I found the index in Dr. Hamilton’s book less than satisfactory considering the large number of Indian philosophical terms that were new to me.

There is reference to an ancient book called the Rig Veda. Dr. Hamilton’s book states that a good translation from the original Sanskrit is that by Wendy Doniger. It is interesting to note that this lady, a highly respected academic in the West, is currently at the centre of a major religious and political controversy which has resulted in her book “The Hindus: An Alternative History”, published by Penguin, being withdrawn from sale in India. All remaining copies in India were recalled and pulped. She has been completely vilified by some sections of the Indian press. You may just be interested in getting your hands on a copy to see what all the fuss is about. Indian Hindu Nationalism seems to be a potent political force.

To my mind Indian Philosophy is difficult to organise and classify and seems more suited to the random abstract thinker than the concrete sequentialist. It is interesting that the early Europeans who made first contact with Hindus thought of the religion as a primitive, polytheistic, religion with many strange practices that were contrary to Christian traditions. However, those early western scholars who lived within the Hindu community and studied Sanskrit and the ancient writings had a greater understanding and respect for their philosophies.

I must confess that where I have found Dr Hamilton to be particularly obtuse and difficult to follow I have added some of my own thoughts based on information and experience gained in India.

Chapter 1

Reason and Belief

India has a long, rich and diverse tradition of philosophical thought. In ancient Greece there was a flowering of philosophical thought before the time of Christ. In a similar way it seems that there was also an early flowering of Indian Philosophy.

Religion and philosophical thought have close associations in India. In India philosophical thought, that is an attempt to understand the nature of whatever one is philosophising about, is believed to be directly linked to one’s own, personal, destiny.

Philosophy is not seen simply as an intellectual pursuit, divorced from the reality of day to day living, but as an attempt to understand the true nature of reality in terms of an inner, or spiritual, quest.

One might say that what Westerners call religion and philosophy are not distinctly separate disciplines in India. In India there is a merging of boundaries between the two in an attempt to understand the real meaning and structure of life, in its broadest sense.

Consider the terms “thinking” and “believing”. In the West, Immanuel Kant separated our “knowledge” of God from what we could know about nature by thought and reasoning. Since that time, in the West, there has been a clear distinction between what is believed through a “leap of faith” and what can be clearly proved through logical thought.

This distinction is not usually made in India. A key point for believers is that they also believe that practising their religion is directly linked with their destiny. The details of this relationship vary. Some believe that their lives here and now are affected by their religious beliefs and practices, and others believe that only their lives after death are affected. Yet others believe that some super human entity or “other”, which they believe in, will affect their destiny.

This is why religions are referred to as soteriologies, or systems of salvation. In Indian Philosophy it would seem that statements of belief are accepted as truths. In Western Philosophy, after Kant, only what can be known to be true as a result of rational argument can be taken to be true. That is anything a Western philosopher concerns himself with must be logically watertight, no leaps of faith are permitted. Philosophy is simply not soteriological; in Western philosophy this is what distinguishes it from religion. Consider the following points:

1.  Both philosophy and religion share a number of common interests and ask a number of similar “big” questions. Both are ultimately concerned with the nature of reality.

2.  In the past the difference between religion and philosophy was not always clear cut. (For example René Descartes did not question the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God and carried this belief into his philosophy.) Immanuel Kant, who first separated religion from “modern” Western Philosophy was, himself, a devout Christian.

3.  In Indian Philosophy the testimony of witnesses is considered as evidence. Many humans who have not experienced childbirth accept the testimony of those who have that it is painful. In a similar way the witness evidence of those who have had “supernatural” experiences may also be accepted in Indian Philosophy.

4.  The distinction between religion and philosophy would simply not have been understood in India until very recent times.

5.  It is a mistake to think of Indian philosophy as “mystical” or “magical” and Western philosophy as “logical”. Indian philosophy can be very logical and perceptive.

Insight of the Truth

Darśana (or Darshana)

Darśana literally means “view” in the sense that one is able to see something. It also means that one has a cognitive understanding of that something. What is implied in the word is that one has viewed or sighted some truth about reality.

The original teachers were referred to as ŗşis (or rishis) which means “seers”. The testimony of these seers is taken as having absolute validity.

Reorienting one’s cognitive facilities so that such insight is possible is the rationale underlying the practice of yoga, and the resulting insight is called “yogic perception”. This is one of the profound differences between the worldview in which Indian thought operates and the worldview of the West.

From the perspective of the Indian worldview the possibility of changing one’s cognitive perception is something to be regarded as systematically possible by means of regular, disciplinary, exercises. In India this skill is seen as similar to the skills needed to play a musical instrument. With continued practise and dedication one gains the required skills. There is nothing magical or mystical about either playing a musical instrument or applying yogic perception in order to obtain a clearer understanding of our human condition. Both are regarded as skills.

Karma and Rebirth

Karma and Rebirth are other characteristics of the Indian worldview. The word karma simply means “action”. Implicit in this term is that actions have consequences. The precise relationship between actions and their resulting consequences varies according to the particular religious tradition we are considering. The ritual actions involved were originally linked to the Brahmanical sacrificial tradition. What made the action right, or good, was its correctness. The values associated with such an understanding of karma are not moral ones. It was believed that by performing the “correct” actions at a sacrifice the correct, optimum, functioning of the cosmos would be maintained.

Around the 5th century BC, alongside this “traditional” understanding of “karma” it was also being taught by teachers that the “acting out” of duties, including, but not limited to, the sacrificial rituals, would have beneficial consequences for the individuals themselves, (and not just the cosmos in general). At this stage karma became to be associated with the idea of rebirth. It was believed that the consequences, positive or negative, of how one had performed one’s duties in this life might be experienced in any one of many future lives. The performing of one’s duties is a matter of correctness and not of morality.

There are other interpretations of the mechanics of karma. The Buddhists and the Jains, for example would have different interpretations of the meaning of “karma” but all were derived from the original Brahmanical tradition.

The idea of karma as a kind of “actions have consequences mechanics” is a fundamental part of the Indian world view. Admittedly different religious groups have a different interpretation of the idea but it is fundamental to Indian Philosophy. The action-consequences mechanism acts as a fuel for the continuity of rebirth. The specific conditions of rebirth are linked to the specifics of earlier actions.

Most Indian systems of thought emphasise the importance of obtaining release, or liberation, from karmic continuity. (For example release to Nirvana in Buddhism.) This is the main aim of philosophising and why philosophy is so closely related to religion. This also explains why each school of thought considered it so important to establish the coherence, validity and efficacy of its teachings.

Note that the word “karma” must not be confused with the similar word “kama” which means “sensual or sexual pleasure” as in the Kama Sutra, or Kamasutra.

Complexity and Variety; Choosing the Content

In the intellectual environment that evolved over time many competing world views were debated by the scholars of the day. In a slim volume like one of the “Very Short Introduction to….” series Dr. Hamilton considers it not possible to include all schools of thought. Instead she concentrates on what she considers to be the most influential schools of thought.

Dr. Hamilton also found it impossible to consider the step by step development of these major schools of philosophy in such a slim volume. Some schools of thought were based on the exegesis of texts called the Upanişads, (or Upanishads). As there was such a great deal of textual material there arose a great number of different approaches and emphasis which produced different, overall, interpretations. It is only really possible to describe the key features of the major branches of Indian Philosophy.

Dr. Hamilton is of the opinion that the label “Hindu” is anachronistic and one that she refuses to use. The word “Hindu” originally referred to the people who lived south of the river Indus, in what at one time was called “Hindustan”, the land of the Hindus. This label was used by westerners as a label that applied to a whole group of religions and philosophies that had been developed from the early Vedic sacrificial tradition.

Six classical darśanas, or views, are discussed in Dr. Hamilton’s book. These are called Nyấya, Vaiśeşika, Yoga, Sấmkhya, Mỉmấmsấ and Vedấnta.

Chapter 2

The Brahmanical Beginnings

Many works discussing Indian philosophical though start at about 500BC. At this time the Brahmanical tradition was well established in northern India by Brahmin priests. It is believed that an oral tradition predates this period by about 1000 years but the earliest records written in Sanskrit date from around this time. Also it is known that a number of different traditions originate from about this time of about 500BC.

The Brahmins of this time were descendents of people called Aryans, who came from central Eurasia and settled in north-west India many centuries earlier, bringing their practices and ideas with them. For a very long time they had a sacrificial, ritual-based religion, the sacred details of which were carefully memorised and preserved in ritual “manuals”. As writing was as yet unknown to them, different lineages of Brahmin priests, each of which contributed to the rituals, had responsibility for the oral preservation of the material relating to their particular ritual duties. They took this responsibility extremely seriously because the effectiveness of the sacrifice depended on the accuracy of the actions, chants and rituals involved. Memorisation techniques were highly developed and it is thought that a high degree of accuracy was achieved as details of the rituals were passed from father to son over many generations. These “ritual manuals” were called “Vedas”. The word “veda” means “knowledge”. It refers to the belief, well established by 500BC that the Brahmin priests “saw”, or “knew” the truth the Vedas contain. The manuals were at first passed on orally from father to son were later written in Sanskrit which ensured that the Vedas could not change and that the rituals could be performed accurately and the details could be maintained for posterity. The correct performance of each act was part of cosmic duty.

Although we would now consider this a religious activity the performance of Vedic sacrificial rituals was for this-worldly ends. The primary purpose of the sacrifice was to maintain the cosmos at is optimum level of status quo. The sacrifices were addressed to aspects of this natural order such as sun, rain, lightning, wind and so on as well as to abstract principles such as “contract” and “vow”.

Collectively the addressees of these sacrifices were referred to as devas. If the Sacrifice was performed well then the devas would reciprocate by performing their cosmic function. The cosmic order, later to be called dharma, would thus be maintained. In modern Hinduism dharma is translated as truth, law, duty or obligation. It is the correct way one person should be to another.