Classical Indian Philosophial system



In the classical Indian Philosophial system, there are six Astik traditions based on Vedic scriptural authority;

1. Samkhya

2. Nyaya

3. Yoga

4. Vaiseshika

5. Mimmsa...

6. Vedanta



and three Nastik traditions:

1. Buddhist

2. Jainism

3. Charvaak



Now to the first system Samkhya: Sāmkhya is an enumerationist philosophy that is strongly dualist. Sāmkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities; Puruṣa (consciousness) and prakriti (phenomenal realm of matter). Jiva is that state in which puruṣa is bonded to prakriti through the glue of desire, and the end of this bondage is moksha.

Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). Samkhya does not describe what happens after moksha and does not mention anything about Ishwara or God.

Samkhya accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of God. Classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. Samkhya theorists argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever changing world and that God was only a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances. If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary



The Second System: Nyaya is specifically the school of logic somewhat like Aristotelian logic. The most important contribution made by the Nyaya to modern Hindu thought is its methodology to prove existence of God, based on the Vedas. This methodology is based on a system of logic that, subsequently, has been adopted by the majority of the other Indian schools, orthodox or not.

Its followers believed that obtaining valid knowledge was the only way to obtain release from suffering. They therefore took great pains to identify valid sources of knowledge and to distinguish these from mere false opinions. Nyaya is thus a form of epistemology in addition to logic. According to the Nyaya, there are exactly four sources of knowledge (pramāṇas): perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. Nyaya is probably the closest Indian equivalent to contemporary analytic philosophy.

Nine different arguments have been used in the system based on faith, shruti, pramaan, cause-effect logic etc. to prove the existence of creative God.

Not only have the Naiyayikas provided arguments to prove the existence of God, but they have also given an argument that such a God can only be one.

The Naiyayikas believe that the bondage of the world is due to false knowledge, which can be removed by constantly thinking of its opposite (pratipakshabhavana), namely, the true knowledge. So the opening aphorism of the Nyāya Sūtra states that only the true knowledge lead to salvation. But the Nyaya also maintains that the God's grace is essential for obtaining true knowledge.



Yoga, the third philosophical system is a problematic term as since 19th century, the term gets confused with various physical postures and breathing exercises mentioned in Hatha Yoga pradipika. Moreover, various methods of achieving moksha like karma yoga, gyan yoga, raja yoga, bhakti yoga etc. further confuse the picture. Moreover, there are Buddhist Yoga, Jainist Yoga, Christian Yoga, Tantra Yoga etc.

However, as one of the streams of philosophy, it is based on Yoga Sutras compiled by Patanjali. It is a form of meditation in which the mind is trained to be focused at one point. It aims at the calming of the mind using a succession of steps, culminating in samadhi. According to the samkhya-based Raja yoga-philosohy, this results in kaivalya, the recognition of the pure mind, and the subsequent liberation from rebirth.

Meditation on Om with bhava removes obstacles in sadhana and helps to attain samadhi. Avidya (ignorance), asmita (egoism), raga-dvesha (likes and dislikes), abhinivesha (clinging to mundane life) are the five kleshas or afflictions.

Samadhi is of two kinds:

• Savikalpa, samprajnata or sabija; and

• Nirvikalpa, asamprajnata or nirbija.

In savikalpa or sabija, there is triputi or the triad (knower, known and knowledge). In nirvikalpa samadhi, nirbija samadhi or asamprajnata samadhi there is no triad.

Hence, this system of philosophy does not deny the existence of a Creator God. But it can be saakar or nirvikaar.

In the last sutra, Patañjali says the soul reaches its end in liberation, enlightenment or kaivalya.

नापसंदनापसंद • • साझा करें



Vaisheshika, the fourth school: It espouses a form of atomism and postulates that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to a finite number of atoms. The Vaiseshika sutra proclaims the futility of life in the temporary world (maya) and proposes that an understanding of god can free an individual from Karma, following which liberation will ensue. Major ideas contained in the Vaisheshika Sutra are:

• There are nine classes of realities: four classes of atoms (earth, water, light and air), space (akasha), time (kāla), direction (dik), infinity of souls (Atman), mind (manas).

• Individual souls are eternal and pervade material body for a time.

• There are seven categories (padārtha) of experience — substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, inherence and non-existence.

Several traits of substances (dravya) are given as colour, taste, smell, touch, number, size, the separate, coupling and uncoupling, priority and posterity, comprehension, pleasure an pain, attraction and revulsion, and wishes. God is not mentioned in the sutra, but later commentators add it to complete the system. Incidentally, these sutras have also enumerated the three laws of motion as propounded by Newton.



Mimamsa, the fifth school: The Sanskrit word 'mimamsa means a ‘revered thought’. Purva-Mimamsa is also known as Karma Mimamsa since it deals with the Karmic actions of rituals and sacrifices. This system out rightly accept the Vedas as the eternal source of ‘revealed truth.’ It endorses the reality of the world as well as that of the individual souls. The soul is accepted as an eternal and infinite substance. Consciousness is an accidental attribute of the soul. The soul is distinct from the body, the senses and the mind.

The system supports the law of karma. Apart from accepting the heaven and the hell, the system supports the theory of liberation. The core tenets of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā are ritualism (orthopraxy), anti-asceticism and anti-mysticism. The central aim of the school is elucidation of the nature of dharma, understood as a set ritual obligations and prerogatives to be performed properly. Dharma as understood by Pūrva Mīmāṃsā can be loosely translated into English as "virtue", "morality" or "duty". Mīmāṃsā theorists decided that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there was no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there was no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mīmāṃsā argues that the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. To that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of Gods.



Vedanta is the most prominent and philosophically advanced of the orthodox schools and the term Vedanta may also be used to refer to Indian philosophy more generally. It literally translates to "the conclusion of Vedas," and originally referred to the Upanishads. It includes all philosophical traditions concerned with interpreting three basic texts: the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. It can be said that this school is the one most re-interpreted one in modern times by Swami Vivekanand, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, Mahatma Gandhi and others.

Even though there are many sub-schools of vedantic philosophy, all these schools share some common features,that can be called the vedantic core:

• Brahman is the supreme cause of the entire universe and is all pervading and eternal

• Actions are subordinate to knowledge or devotion. Actions are useful only for preparing the mind for knowledge or devotion; and once this is achieved, selfish actions and their rewards must be renounced.

• Bondage is subjection to Saṃsāra, the cycle of death and rebirth.

• Liberation is deliverance from this cycle.

Traditional Vedānta considers scriptural evidence, or shabda pramāna, as the most authentic means of knowledge, while perception, or pratyaksa, and logical inference, or anumana, are considered to be subordinate (but valid).

Vedanta rejects ritual in favor of renunciation, which makes Vedanta irreconcileable with Mimamsa.

In the Nastik schools of thought, let us first talk about the Charvaks: It is a system of Indian philosophy that assumes various forms of materialism, philosophical skepticism and religious indifference.

Charvaks denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, extracorporeal soul and rejected efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions. They also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena.

Charvaks thought that body was formed out of four elements (instead of five) and that consciousness was an outcome of the mixture of these elements. Therefore, they did not believe in an afterlife.

These philosophers believed that there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasure. Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, they thought that wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, they did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish.

They held truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem.

They rejected religious conceptions like afterlife, reincarnation, religious rites etc. They were extremely critical of the Vedas and thought that Vedas suffered from three faults - untruth, self-contradiction and tautology. To them, Vedas were just incoherent rhapsodies. They also held the belief that such texts were invented and made up by men and had no divine authority.

Shah Rukh Khan success

DEAR ALL

SHAHRUKH ROCKS; NOT ONLY FOR NIKKU BUT ALL OF US.

I HAVE SEEN AND LIKED MNIK.

BUT.....

Open letter to Mr. Shahrukh Khan- By: Bandyopadhyay Arindam

Dear Mr. Khan,

Your name is a household phenomenon in Indian and even beyond her borders.
Your fame has put you in the Newsweek "most powerful people list" recently.
However, as you may recall from your recent experience in New Jersey
Airport, real life is a little different - it does not always follow the
Path predicted by a scriptwriter or director.

Of late, we have been reading about your opinions and statements on matters
Beyond the celluloid world. Nothing is wrong in it. You live in a free,
Democratic country and are entirely entitled to your opinion. But as a
Common man, also from the same soil, I think I have the right too to raise
A few points that may not conform to your views of the real world.

I hope you will read it out.

When recently, the Pakistani players were not selected for the IPL, it was
Almost predictable that NDTV, the award-winning, mouthpiece of our Indian
Liberal media select you for your views and you certified that "It
(Pakistan) is a great neighbour to have. We (India and Pakistan) are great
Neighbours. They are good neighbours."

I have a few words to say about those statements.

One may recall your effort to clarify the Pakistani team captain, Shoaib
Malik's apology to the Muslims, living all over the world, for failing to
Win the final T20 match against India, likely much to the embarrassment of
A lot of Indian Muslims, as expressed by Shamin Bano, mother of the man of
The match, Irfan Pathan. What was more embarrassing was your effort to try
To defend Shoaib in a subsequent interview, "I don"t think he meant to
Segregate Muslims and Christians and Hindus and say this was a match
Between Islam and Hinduism. I don"t think that..."

I doubt whether Shoaib talked to you personally about his thought process
At that time. You did not really have to respond for somebody else but
Perhaps you could not resist the temptation to show your brotherhood and
Solidarity.

This reminds us again of Dr Ambedkar's observation that, "The brotherhood
Of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of
Muslims for Muslims only."

Partition of India was what Pakistan wanted and got. It was painful to
Millions but many more millions in present India have been spared. Since
Then Pakistan has offered us only hatred. It has imposed on us three major
Wars, the Kargil insurgency, the Kashmir conflict, the series of serial
Blasts, the routine violation of border ceasefires, attacks on the
Parliament House and the recent Mumbai 26/11 attack.

Did you have these in mind when you talked about them being good
Neighbours?

In another interview you had tried to explain the concept of Islamic Jihad.
"I think one needs to understand the meaning of jihad .. Ive understood the
Essence that jihad is not about killing other people; jihad is about
Killing the badness in you."

May be you understand jihad better and deeper than the superficial meaning
Of what we, the rest of the mortal mankind, overburdened and terrorized by
The inter-religious, intra-religious and sectarian violence that is
Plaguing the world in the name of Islam today, do. For we, the less
Educated, cannot really make a difference between Jihad and Qatl, between
Jihad by heart / soul, Jihad by pen and Jihad by sword or between lesser
And greater jihad.

We wonder, whatever its meaning may be, does it minimize the significance
Of the mindless killings that we see today in the name of Islam, across
Borders, all over the world? Does it change the nature of the killers
Whether you call them holy warriors, mujahidins, fedayeens or plane suicide
Bombers?

We agree with you that terrorism has no religion. But hopefully you will
Also agree with the people who perceive that most terrorist in the world
Today happen to believe in the scriptures of Islam. They actually believe
That they themselves are the true Islamists.

The so called "moderate" Islamist, perhaps does not want to contradict them
Or may be does not dare to speak out against them. You have probably not
Forgotten the FIR against you for listing Prophet Mohammed as one of the
Most unimpressive personalities in history, the threats from which you had
To skillfully wriggle out. Others who are not so fortunate, famous or
Flexible are suffering lifetime, as Tasleema Nasreen or Salman Rushdie
Would testify. For blasphemy in Islam is punishable with death, even for a
Believer.

Do I have to spell out the fate if it is a non-believer?

It is due to the inherent intolerance and exclusivity of Islam itself
Despite your effort to convince us that there is an Islam from Allah and
very unfortunately, there is an Islam from the Mullahs.

Here is an historical insight from writer Irfan Hussain, "The Muslim heroes
who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful
crimes..all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not
cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various
campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after
they were buried...Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their
homeland was an unmitigated disaster."

So why should the "non-believers" care to accept them? Why should the
majority of Indians like to welcome back such disasters again?

Since partition, India has come a long way in progress and development to
her current status and is projected as an economic superpower in coming
decades while Pakistan is perceived as a failed state on the verge of
disintegration.

What does India have to gain by offering neighbourly friendship to such a
hostile and failed state?

India has never been an invader and is not in conflict of any other Muslim
country. None of the wars and conflicts with Pakistan was instigated by
India. In the current geopolitical situation, one can argue for the Muslim
worlds grudge and anger against Israel or the west and USA but one fail to
fathom why India should also be at the receiving end and why Indians should
be the second largest group of people to die from terrorists attacks.
Indian majorities do not have anything to do with the Danish cartoon or the
death of Saddam Hussain; so why should they suffer from Islamic havoc on
those occasions.

In almost all occasions of terrorism, questions are raised about possible
role of Pakistan, its terror bases and its terrorist organizations, as
either directly or indirectly involved. Be it state sponsored (as recently
admitted by President Zardari) or by non-state actors, Pakistan or
Pakistani born are prime suspect in terrorist activities all over the
world. The ISI has been accused of playing a role in major terrorist
attacks including 9/11 in the USA, terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai Train
Bombings, London Bombings, Indian Parliament Attack, Varanasi bombings,
Hyderabad bombings, Mumbai terror attacks or the attack on the Indian
embassy in Kabul.

Do you believe these are marks of a good neighbour? Then what is the reason
for your preaching of love towards Pakistan?

Perhaps, as you said, because it is your ancestor's homeland, you have a
soft feeling for Pakistan and cannot see the difference. On the eve of
accepting an honorary doctorate from a British university, we heard you
say, "I really believe we are the same ..when you come away from India or
Pakistan you realize there is no Indian or Pakistani were all together. We
are - culturally, as human beings, as friends"

Which Pakistanis are you referring to?

The Pakistanis belonging to the land, admonished as the epicenter of global
terrorism, not just by India or USA but even by its friendly allies like
Iran or China.

Or is it the self-created, Talibanic Pakistan, who still imposes Jijya on
the non believers or finds pleasure in blowing up girl's schools..

Are you talking about its President class like the current Mr. Zardari,
vowed to wage a 1,000-year war with India or the late Mrs. Bhutto who
started Jihad in Kashmiri that lead to the exodus of Hindu minorities from
the Muslim majority state of India, as refugees in their own country?

Are you referring to Pakistanis loyal to the ISI and the military who train
their soldiers with only one objective, i.e. to fight Hindu India?

If your mind is concerned about the faceless mass of Pakistanis, does it
also include the dwindling minorities?

Or are you just concerned about the celebrities and the social elites?

It is true Mr. Khan that we belong to the same human species but it is hard
to stretch the similarities much further between "us" and "them".

We from the same original land of Bharat but we want to keep her intact,
they want to break it into thousand pieces.

Our ancestors happen to be the same. We acknowledge and adore the heritage
but they abhor and decimate whoever is available in an attempt to wipe out
the link.

We are culturally the same. We have created the culture over centuries what
they dream to destroy in moments.

Ours is a 10,000 year old civilization, theirs is a 62 years old country
undoing whole human civilization.

We extend our hands repeatedly to promote friendship and amity; they give
us ISI, Lashkar, Harkat, Kashmir, Kargil and 26/11 in exchange.

Do you think that the Indians nationals who died in all the above wars, the
Indian soldiers who lost their lives in cross-border ceasefire violations
or the Indian civilians who are killed by the ISI trained Islamic
terrorists and their affiliates, in all those serial blasts, all over the
country, willfully sacrificed their lives as a friendly neighbourhood
gesture?

Can you face the families of the victims of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus or
the martyrs of the Kargil war and try to explain to them that "They are
good neighbours. Let us love each other."

Can you explain why the two gunmen at Cama hospital, during the Mumbai
carnage, asked the man who gave them water, what his religion was, and shot
him dead when he said he was a Hindu?

If you cannot, then perhaps you understand why the majority of India does
not consider Pakistan as a good neighbour to have.

Perhaps you believe that the peaceful religious co-existence that you
created in your home (and we appreciate that) can be extended to the large
world outside. As you rightly said, we Indians trust and do accept
everybody but what you did fail to mention was that it is the Indic
tradition, essentially coming out of its pre-Islamic Hindu ethos.

If you think otherwise, show us a single Islamic country where the
non-believers enjoy the same equality as the believers. Since partition,
the Hindus left over in Pakistan and Bangladesh has suffered terribly.
Strictly Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, do not allow any other
religions to exist. Hindus working in the Gulf countries are not allowed to
practice their religion in public. Saudi Arabia insists that India sends
only a Muslim ambassador. Hindu Muslim unity by and large has generally
been a matter of Hindus trying to please or accommodate Muslims. One cannot
forget when Vajpayee was extending his hand for peace Musharraf was
planning the Kargil insurgency.

Let us remind you, your own statement "I am a Muslim in a country called
India .Weve never been made to feel this is a Hindu country."

Can you find me a Hindu in Pakistan who can reciprocate that sentiment?

Some years ago, another Mr. Khan, first name Feroze, from your fraternity
was banned from entering Pakistan for saying, "India is secular unlike
Pakistan".

That is the basic difference of the land of "Hindu" India from the Islamic
"pure land" of Pakistan.

So please do not ask us to love Pakistan.

Please do not lump the people of India and Pakistan together. We Indians
are proud to preserve our separate identity..

And please do not insult the land that gave you your life, name and fame,
by claiming that her worst enemy, who wants to break her into 1000 pieces,
is a great neighbour.

Otherwise it would be sad if somebody accuses you of putting your religion
ahead of your country.

Please give it a thought.

Regards,

Arindam Bandyopadhyay.

.
....wonder if this letter ever reached shahrukh at all..............