What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction To Indian Philosophy
Major new text, guide to Indian philosophy. balanced, covers most issues. by two leading Indian philosophers
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1968
180 people are currently reading
914 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
August 15, 2017
India has spawned a number of philosophical systems over the centuries. Chatterjee and Datta provide an overview of Indian philosophy by comparing and contrasting nine major schools of Indian philosophy—the six orthodox schools plus three well-known heterodox schools. The dividing line between orthodox and unorthodox hinges upon whether a philosophy accepts the Vedas as sources of authority.
After an introductory chapter that lays out the concepts that will be needed throughout the remainder of the book as well as providing brief sketches of nine philosophical schools, the remainder of the book is a one chapter per school examination of metaphysics, ethics, theology, epistemology, etc. The authors first consider the heterodox schools: i.e. Carvaka (a materialist /atheist approach), Jain (one of the major Indian religions), and Buddhist. After examining the heterodox approaches, Chatterjee and Datta take on the orthodox schools in the following order: Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga (which you may not have realized was a philosophical system), Mimamsa, and Vedanta.
There are a number of questions that recur as the authors compare these schools to each other. A major point of consideration is presence or absence of belief in a god, and—for those systems that believe in a God or gods—what is the role of said deity. It might seem that all the orthodox systems would be theistic, but this isn’t the case (e.g. Sankhya.) Another key question is how one can know something, i.e. what is acceptable authority—can one only trust one’s own senses or can one trust everything but one’s own senses? Then there is the matter of ethics and how each system regards ethical behavior. Of course, there are some elements that are unique to a given system, and so it’s not entirely a matter of comparison and contrast.
There are no graphics in the book and the ancillary material is limited to footnotes, a select bibliography, and prefaces to the various editions of the book. Note: I read the 2007 / 7th Edition of the book.
I won’t say this book isn’t dry. It’s a philosophy textbook, after all. However, it does provide a solid overview of the topic and seems to take great efforts to be unbiased (to the extent of sometimes not challenging philosophical ideas that are patently unsound in favor of reporting what advocates of the tradition propose.)
I’d recommend this book for anyone who’s looking for an overview of Indian philosophy.
After an introductory chapter that lays out the concepts that will be needed throughout the remainder of the book as well as providing brief sketches of nine philosophical schools, the remainder of the book is a one chapter per school examination of metaphysics, ethics, theology, epistemology, etc. The authors first consider the heterodox schools: i.e. Carvaka (a materialist /atheist approach), Jain (one of the major Indian religions), and Buddhist. After examining the heterodox approaches, Chatterjee and Datta take on the orthodox schools in the following order: Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga (which you may not have realized was a philosophical system), Mimamsa, and Vedanta.
There are a number of questions that recur as the authors compare these schools to each other. A major point of consideration is presence or absence of belief in a god, and—for those systems that believe in a God or gods—what is the role of said deity. It might seem that all the orthodox systems would be theistic, but this isn’t the case (e.g. Sankhya.) Another key question is how one can know something, i.e. what is acceptable authority—can one only trust one’s own senses or can one trust everything but one’s own senses? Then there is the matter of ethics and how each system regards ethical behavior. Of course, there are some elements that are unique to a given system, and so it’s not entirely a matter of comparison and contrast.
There are no graphics in the book and the ancillary material is limited to footnotes, a select bibliography, and prefaces to the various editions of the book. Note: I read the 2007 / 7th Edition of the book.
I won’t say this book isn’t dry. It’s a philosophy textbook, after all. However, it does provide a solid overview of the topic and seems to take great efforts to be unbiased (to the extent of sometimes not challenging philosophical ideas that are patently unsound in favor of reporting what advocates of the tradition propose.)
I’d recommend this book for anyone who’s looking for an overview of Indian philosophy.
August 30, 2024
Edit 2 (30.08.2024): There is a useful distinction between Indian philosophy and Western philosophy and other general fields of philosophy (such as metaphysics, aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, etc.). Researchers can focus on a particular school of thought (Nyaya or British empiricism) or a particular thinker (Adishankara or Friedrich Nietzsche) in Indian philosophy or Western philosophy. This practice is interesting for historical reasons. Researchers can also focus on particular problems in philosophy (such as the problem of evil or the problem of defining what is beautiful) and use concepts from Indian philosophy and Western philosophy to solve their research problems. This practice is interesting for philosophical reasons. Or, people can ignore both Indian and Western philosophy and their concepts and focus on solving current research problems in academic philosophy using the newly developed concepts. These new concepts cannot be divided usefully into Indian or Western. Every researcher in the world borrows from each other. This is what's happening nowadays mostly. Academic philosophy has ventured into different directions and researchers rarely focus on old schools of thought, Indian or Western. I myself am working on problems in philosophy of science.
Edit 1 (24.5.2020): I no longer subscribe to most of the views that I described here. I am now continuing my research in metaphysics and epistemology. There is no useful distinction between western philosophy and Indian philosophy anymore. It's just that various schools of thought (both within so-called Indian and western philosophies) offer various kinds of answers to the questions posed in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. Nevertheless, I still believe that what common people (non-academicians) usually think of as Indian philosophy is total bogus.
Original Review (circa late 2016 or early 2017):
All the schools of Indian philosophy (except Charvaka-materialists) believed in Karma, Bondage and Self-liberation. If one went on to find the reason behind this, one would find that the age-old Indian thinkers had to somehow explain the reality that they found themselves in without science and its tools. Fortunately for them, they found their recourse in Self-liberation.
By declaring that this world was not the primary one and that there was a form of 'higher existence' beyond this existence, they easily convinced the commoners that they needed to be 'good' in order to enter the portal to this higher existence. Thus the problem of morality was solved.
Their next problem was the unequal suffering and evil that was prevalent in their world. For that, they came up with a cunning concept called 'Karma'. They convinced the sufferers that they suffered because of the sins that they had committed in their past lives. And in order to escape from this bondage, they had to destroy their Karma. How could they do that? By renouncing all the desires and passions and becoming a monk. Yes, they had to continuously contemplate on the 'higher existence' or 'eternity' or 'God' or 'Supreme Reality' or 'thingamajig'. They had to accept that this life was vulgar and that unless they renounced their lives, they would be born again and again in this world of sorrow and suffering. Thus, the problem of suffering and evil was also solved.
All was going well. Suddenly, a commoner stood up and asked them how could one who was being brought into existence for the first time (first birth of a 'soul') have Karma? The thinkers replied again craftily that the universe was a 'BEGINNINGLESS SERIES OF ENDLESS CREATION AND ANNIHILATION'. So, one always HAD Karma. One had to contemplate in order to lose it. The commoner, who was not really intelligent enough to question the paradoxical quality of this assumption, accepted it without doubt and revered the thinkers for their intelligence.
Thus, everybody believed in Self-liberation and everybody renounced their lives. They began contemplating on this Self-liberation DISINTERESTEDLY and then became liberated. The liberated souls in turn helped their fellow humans to liberate themselves. Within a decade, all the humans in the planet became self-liberated. All their 'souls' were eternally 'blissful' or at least, devoid of misery and suffering. Now, since they were liberated, they did not indulge in 'worldly acts' and hence did not procreate.
Within a century, the human species became extinct.
End of story.
This was what would have happened if everybody had followed the concept of Self-liberation. Now, as an 'unliberated' human being, I cannot really comment on whether our extinction is good or bad for us since, according to the Indian philosophers, the liberated self is more important.
Also, I too find the 'beginningless series of endless creation and annihilation' concept of our universe paradoxical. So, I find the concept of Karma paradoxical too.
As to the metaphysical assumptions and arguments that pervade most of Indian philosophy, I can only say that it is full of mere sophistry. But who knows? Maybe they are right! But I like to follow Wittgenstein's advice here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
I have one question here, though: What if the thinkers had deluded themselves into believing that Self-liberation was the ultimate goal and then in turn deluded themselves that they were really liberated and hence were blissful? After all, they were required to chant continuously, "I am not this self... I am God... I am Brahman..." A psychologist would not deny such a possibility.
By the way, the only thing that I liked in Indian philosophy is their contribution to Epistemology. The thinkers were very advanced in this field compared to the Western ones. But, unfortunately (or fortunately?), Western philosophy has now overcome Indian philosophy in Epistemology too, with the advent of Analytic philosophy.
Now that the existentialist, postmodern, post-postmodern philosophies are against metaphysical speculations (and they are right to do so!) and that this Meta-modern, scientific world is beyond the outdated and paradoxical concepts like Karma, Self-liberation, etc., I will be safe in assuming this:
Indian philosophy is practically dead. There's no use in resurrecting it.
Edit 1 (24.5.2020): I no longer subscribe to most of the views that I described here. I am now continuing my research in metaphysics and epistemology. There is no useful distinction between western philosophy and Indian philosophy anymore. It's just that various schools of thought (both within so-called Indian and western philosophies) offer various kinds of answers to the questions posed in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. Nevertheless, I still believe that what common people (non-academicians) usually think of as Indian philosophy is total bogus.
Original Review (circa late 2016 or early 2017):
All the schools of Indian philosophy (except Charvaka-materialists) believed in Karma, Bondage and Self-liberation. If one went on to find the reason behind this, one would find that the age-old Indian thinkers had to somehow explain the reality that they found themselves in without science and its tools. Fortunately for them, they found their recourse in Self-liberation.
By declaring that this world was not the primary one and that there was a form of 'higher existence' beyond this existence, they easily convinced the commoners that they needed to be 'good' in order to enter the portal to this higher existence. Thus the problem of morality was solved.
Their next problem was the unequal suffering and evil that was prevalent in their world. For that, they came up with a cunning concept called 'Karma'. They convinced the sufferers that they suffered because of the sins that they had committed in their past lives. And in order to escape from this bondage, they had to destroy their Karma. How could they do that? By renouncing all the desires and passions and becoming a monk. Yes, they had to continuously contemplate on the 'higher existence' or 'eternity' or 'God' or 'Supreme Reality' or 'thingamajig'. They had to accept that this life was vulgar and that unless they renounced their lives, they would be born again and again in this world of sorrow and suffering. Thus, the problem of suffering and evil was also solved.
All was going well. Suddenly, a commoner stood up and asked them how could one who was being brought into existence for the first time (first birth of a 'soul') have Karma? The thinkers replied again craftily that the universe was a 'BEGINNINGLESS SERIES OF ENDLESS CREATION AND ANNIHILATION'. So, one always HAD Karma. One had to contemplate in order to lose it. The commoner, who was not really intelligent enough to question the paradoxical quality of this assumption, accepted it without doubt and revered the thinkers for their intelligence.
Thus, everybody believed in Self-liberation and everybody renounced their lives. They began contemplating on this Self-liberation DISINTERESTEDLY and then became liberated. The liberated souls in turn helped their fellow humans to liberate themselves. Within a decade, all the humans in the planet became self-liberated. All their 'souls' were eternally 'blissful' or at least, devoid of misery and suffering. Now, since they were liberated, they did not indulge in 'worldly acts' and hence did not procreate.
Within a century, the human species became extinct.
End of story.
This was what would have happened if everybody had followed the concept of Self-liberation. Now, as an 'unliberated' human being, I cannot really comment on whether our extinction is good or bad for us since, according to the Indian philosophers, the liberated self is more important.
Also, I too find the 'beginningless series of endless creation and annihilation' concept of our universe paradoxical. So, I find the concept of Karma paradoxical too.
As to the metaphysical assumptions and arguments that pervade most of Indian philosophy, I can only say that it is full of mere sophistry. But who knows? Maybe they are right! But I like to follow Wittgenstein's advice here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
I have one question here, though: What if the thinkers had deluded themselves into believing that Self-liberation was the ultimate goal and then in turn deluded themselves that they were really liberated and hence were blissful? After all, they were required to chant continuously, "I am not this self... I am God... I am Brahman..." A psychologist would not deny such a possibility.
By the way, the only thing that I liked in Indian philosophy is their contribution to Epistemology. The thinkers were very advanced in this field compared to the Western ones. But, unfortunately (or fortunately?), Western philosophy has now overcome Indian philosophy in Epistemology too, with the advent of Analytic philosophy.
Now that the existentialist, postmodern, post-postmodern philosophies are against metaphysical speculations (and they are right to do so!) and that this Meta-modern, scientific world is beyond the outdated and paradoxical concepts like Karma, Self-liberation, etc., I will be safe in assuming this:
Indian philosophy is practically dead. There's no use in resurrecting it.
May 1, 2023
Getting into Indian Philosophy is a very complex task. A majority of the world’s population practices the three religions stemming from the Abrahamic “tree� of thought for better words. While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are very different, they have many similarities. A few examples of these similarities would be that there is only one supreme, almighty powerful God. Or, that their religion is the absolute truth. Another would be, that there is evil in the world and that religion and God are purity and righteousness.
In some senses, a characteristic trait of the Abrahamic “tree� of thought is that it is very black and white. Indian philosophy is very much only shades of grey. India is a vast land, where many have searched for truth, liberation, and freedom across the past few millennia. Seeking the answers to what all ways of life do.
If we are to untangle Indian philosophy properly and not call everything Hinduism. We come out with 9 different schools of thought. They are Charvaka, Jainism, Buddhism, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and probably the most important Vedanta.
These schools do not encompass all of the beliefs and faiths practiced in India, but for the purposes of this book, giving the reader a theoretical overview and introduction to these systems. This is excellent. A little too dry for my taste but excellent neither less.
In some senses, a characteristic trait of the Abrahamic “tree� of thought is that it is very black and white. Indian philosophy is very much only shades of grey. India is a vast land, where many have searched for truth, liberation, and freedom across the past few millennia. Seeking the answers to what all ways of life do.
If we are to untangle Indian philosophy properly and not call everything Hinduism. We come out with 9 different schools of thought. They are Charvaka, Jainism, Buddhism, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and probably the most important Vedanta.
These schools do not encompass all of the beliefs and faiths practiced in India, but for the purposes of this book, giving the reader a theoretical overview and introduction to these systems. This is excellent. A little too dry for my taste but excellent neither less.
May 22, 2022
Can much be said about this everlasting classic?
Philosophy in the Indian tradition was not merely an intellectual sumptuousness, a purely conceptual hair splitting, a mere attempt to win an argument, or defeating an adversary, although all these excesses characterized many works of Indian philosophy.
Underlying these excesses, there was an awareness of a thorough process of thinking towards a distant goal on the horizon for the individual person or for humankind as a whole.
These darśanas had a certain acceptance of the relations between the theoretical and the spiritual, and a certain conception of being from within the bounds of a tradition.
Indian philosophy denotes the philosophical conjectures of all Indian thinkers, ancient or modern, Hindus or non-Hindus, theists or atheists.
'Indian philosophy' is believed by some to be identical with 'Hindu philosophy'. This would be true only if the word 'Hindu' were taken in the geographical sense of 'Indian'. But if 'Hindu' means the followers of a particular religious faith known as Hinduism, the supposition would be wrong and misleading.
Even in the ancient writings of the orthodox Hindu philosophers, like the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha of Mādhavācārya which tries to present in one place the views of all (sarva) schools of philosophy, we find in the list of philosophies (darśanas) the views of atheists and materialists like the Cārvākas, and unorthodox thinkers like the Bauddhas and the Jainas, along with those of the orthodox Hindu thinkers.
Indian philosophy is marked, in this respect, by a striking breadth of outlook which only testifies to its unflinching devotion to the search for truth.
Indian philosophy is prosperous and multicoloured. It is a comprehensive embroidery and cannot be identified with one of its strands. Therefore, any simplification is an oversimplification. The problem is further compounded when we comprehend that in the Indian tradition there is no term in line with the Western term “philosophy.�
The term “darśana� used in the Indian tradition for “philosophy� is a rough approximation and lends itself to a variety of meanings not connoted by its Western counterpart. “Darśana,� derived from the Sanskrit root “dṛ�,� means “to see� or a “way of seeing.� “Seeing� as the end result of darśana is “seeing within”—the Indian seer sees the truth and makes it a part of his understanding.
“Seeing within� should not, of course, be understood in a subjectivist sense; it signifies “seeing� or “insight� using the intellectual means with, the help of which insight is gained. Indian philosophy is not merely a search for knowledge of the definitive reality but also a critical analysis of the data provided by perception.
Leaving aside darśana, another term used to describe Indian philosophy is “ānvīkśikī,� which has been defined as “a critical examination of the data provided by perception and scripture.�
Inference is called nyāya because it consists in significantly analyzing the data formerly received by perception as well as by the authority derived from the foundational texts (Vedas).
In case of a conflict between two, the testimony of the foundational texts was probed into, analyzed, in order to determine how far it could be reconciled with the canons of logical reasoning.
Though there were many different schools and their views differed sometimes very widely, yet each school took care to learn the views of all the others and did not come to any conclusion before considering thoroughly what others had to say and how their points of view could be met.
This spirit led to the formation of a method of philosophical argument. A philosopher had first to state the views of his opponent's case which came to be known as the prior view (pūrvapakṣa).
Then followed the refutation (khaṇḍana) of this view�
Last of all came the statement and proof of the philosopher's own position, which, for that reason, was known as the resulting view (uttarapakṣa) or the conclusion (siddhānta)�.
There are two basic points which are to be borne in mind �
a) Each darśana has a pramāṇa theory. The technical word “pramāṇa� has been variously translated as “proofs,� “means of acquiring knowledge,� “means of true or valid cognition,� or even “ways of knowing.� The Indian materialists admit perception to be the only means, the Buddhists accept perception and inference, the Nyāya admits four by adding upamāna (comparison) and śabda (verbal testimony) to the Buddhist two, and Advaita Vedānta accepts six and adds arthāpatti (postulation) and anupalabdhi to the Nyāya list.
b) In the Western epistemologies, e.g., in Kant, there is a continuing tension between the causal question of how cognition comes into being and the logical question of its validity, a tension not found in Indian epistemologies. The pramāṇas are both instruments by which cognitions arise, as well as the ways of mitigating a cognitive claim.
This discussion could go on and on and on ………�.
Read this archetypal tome to know more.
Philosophy in the Indian tradition was not merely an intellectual sumptuousness, a purely conceptual hair splitting, a mere attempt to win an argument, or defeating an adversary, although all these excesses characterized many works of Indian philosophy.
Underlying these excesses, there was an awareness of a thorough process of thinking towards a distant goal on the horizon for the individual person or for humankind as a whole.
These darśanas had a certain acceptance of the relations between the theoretical and the spiritual, and a certain conception of being from within the bounds of a tradition.
Indian philosophy denotes the philosophical conjectures of all Indian thinkers, ancient or modern, Hindus or non-Hindus, theists or atheists.
'Indian philosophy' is believed by some to be identical with 'Hindu philosophy'. This would be true only if the word 'Hindu' were taken in the geographical sense of 'Indian'. But if 'Hindu' means the followers of a particular religious faith known as Hinduism, the supposition would be wrong and misleading.
Even in the ancient writings of the orthodox Hindu philosophers, like the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha of Mādhavācārya which tries to present in one place the views of all (sarva) schools of philosophy, we find in the list of philosophies (darśanas) the views of atheists and materialists like the Cārvākas, and unorthodox thinkers like the Bauddhas and the Jainas, along with those of the orthodox Hindu thinkers.
Indian philosophy is marked, in this respect, by a striking breadth of outlook which only testifies to its unflinching devotion to the search for truth.
Indian philosophy is prosperous and multicoloured. It is a comprehensive embroidery and cannot be identified with one of its strands. Therefore, any simplification is an oversimplification. The problem is further compounded when we comprehend that in the Indian tradition there is no term in line with the Western term “philosophy.�
The term “darśana� used in the Indian tradition for “philosophy� is a rough approximation and lends itself to a variety of meanings not connoted by its Western counterpart. “Darśana,� derived from the Sanskrit root “dṛ�,� means “to see� or a “way of seeing.� “Seeing� as the end result of darśana is “seeing within”—the Indian seer sees the truth and makes it a part of his understanding.
“Seeing within� should not, of course, be understood in a subjectivist sense; it signifies “seeing� or “insight� using the intellectual means with, the help of which insight is gained. Indian philosophy is not merely a search for knowledge of the definitive reality but also a critical analysis of the data provided by perception.
Leaving aside darśana, another term used to describe Indian philosophy is “ānvīkśikī,� which has been defined as “a critical examination of the data provided by perception and scripture.�
Inference is called nyāya because it consists in significantly analyzing the data formerly received by perception as well as by the authority derived from the foundational texts (Vedas).
In case of a conflict between two, the testimony of the foundational texts was probed into, analyzed, in order to determine how far it could be reconciled with the canons of logical reasoning.
Though there were many different schools and their views differed sometimes very widely, yet each school took care to learn the views of all the others and did not come to any conclusion before considering thoroughly what others had to say and how their points of view could be met.
This spirit led to the formation of a method of philosophical argument. A philosopher had first to state the views of his opponent's case which came to be known as the prior view (pūrvapakṣa).
Then followed the refutation (khaṇḍana) of this view�
Last of all came the statement and proof of the philosopher's own position, which, for that reason, was known as the resulting view (uttarapakṣa) or the conclusion (siddhānta)�.
There are two basic points which are to be borne in mind �
a) Each darśana has a pramāṇa theory. The technical word “pramāṇa� has been variously translated as “proofs,� “means of acquiring knowledge,� “means of true or valid cognition,� or even “ways of knowing.� The Indian materialists admit perception to be the only means, the Buddhists accept perception and inference, the Nyāya admits four by adding upamāna (comparison) and śabda (verbal testimony) to the Buddhist two, and Advaita Vedānta accepts six and adds arthāpatti (postulation) and anupalabdhi to the Nyāya list.
b) In the Western epistemologies, e.g., in Kant, there is a continuing tension between the causal question of how cognition comes into being and the logical question of its validity, a tension not found in Indian epistemologies. The pramāṇas are both instruments by which cognitions arise, as well as the ways of mitigating a cognitive claim.
This discussion could go on and on and on ………�.
Read this archetypal tome to know more.
June 22, 2020
The book discusses all the Indian Schools of thoughts � Carvaka ,Jaina ,Budha ,Nyaya , Vaisesika ,Sankhya ,Yoga ,Mimamsa and Vedanta.
Sankhya School is considered the oldest (7-8 Century BC) whereas the Vedanta is considered the latest (10-15 Century AD) and the epitome of Indian philosophy. Carvaka is the only atheist and hedonistic sect, quite similar to the Greek Epicureanism.
Some common characteristics of these schools (except Carvaka)-
� Pessimistic in outlook. The authors, however, tried to make it look like an optimistic self help book. That’s really pity.
� Life is pain and knowledge is the only tool for liberation. Virtue comes from knowledge, and Morality and knowledge are inseparable. It mirrors Greek philosophy as Socrates also said, “Virtue is knowledge and Vice is ignorance�. It seems that Indian philosophy with their Greek contemporaries were on the right track prior to the arrival of the big states. Inception of big states with their organized religions changed things for the worse. Monotheism in west and ritual based Hinduism in India replaced curiosity with unquestionable faith and knowledge with God as the only source of morality.
� Where knowledge liberates, ignorance makes us miserable.
There are three kinds of pain / Dukha mentioned in Sankhya Philosophy�
1) Bhoutik Dukha� Pain caused by unfulfilled material needs.
2) Daivik Dukha � Pain caused by unforeseen events or accidents.
3) Adhyatmik Dukha � Life itself is pain.
Most people live through their entire life earnestly trying to avoid first two kinds of pains. Few people are able to realize that the actual source of pain is the life itself, ie, “Adhyatmik Dukha�. Realization of this eternal truth itself is liberating. So, awareness or knowledge of the reality is vital to alleviate suffering.
� The liberated soul will be freed from the embodied enslavement and from the endless cycles of life. No more afterlife, no more pain.
As far as the book is concerned, its not bad. Would have been much better if it were free from narrow religious outlook and some anti science views. The flaws can be ignored considering it was written a long time back, in the 60's i think.
Sankhya School is considered the oldest (7-8 Century BC) whereas the Vedanta is considered the latest (10-15 Century AD) and the epitome of Indian philosophy. Carvaka is the only atheist and hedonistic sect, quite similar to the Greek Epicureanism.
Some common characteristics of these schools (except Carvaka)-
� Pessimistic in outlook. The authors, however, tried to make it look like an optimistic self help book. That’s really pity.
� Life is pain and knowledge is the only tool for liberation. Virtue comes from knowledge, and Morality and knowledge are inseparable. It mirrors Greek philosophy as Socrates also said, “Virtue is knowledge and Vice is ignorance�. It seems that Indian philosophy with their Greek contemporaries were on the right track prior to the arrival of the big states. Inception of big states with their organized religions changed things for the worse. Monotheism in west and ritual based Hinduism in India replaced curiosity with unquestionable faith and knowledge with God as the only source of morality.
� Where knowledge liberates, ignorance makes us miserable.
There are three kinds of pain / Dukha mentioned in Sankhya Philosophy�
1) Bhoutik Dukha� Pain caused by unfulfilled material needs.
2) Daivik Dukha � Pain caused by unforeseen events or accidents.
3) Adhyatmik Dukha � Life itself is pain.
Most people live through their entire life earnestly trying to avoid first two kinds of pains. Few people are able to realize that the actual source of pain is the life itself, ie, “Adhyatmik Dukha�. Realization of this eternal truth itself is liberating. So, awareness or knowledge of the reality is vital to alleviate suffering.
� The liberated soul will be freed from the embodied enslavement and from the endless cycles of life. No more afterlife, no more pain.
As far as the book is concerned, its not bad. Would have been much better if it were free from narrow religious outlook and some anti science views. The flaws can be ignored considering it was written a long time back, in the 60's i think.
Read
March 4, 2025A fairly straightforward Indian Philosophy 101 book. Slightly outdated, yes, but still holds its own I think. The authors' research interests really shine through to the detriment of the whole project, however: the chapters on Nyaya and Shankara are unnecessarily long. Charvaka and Buddhism are, in comparison, not treated all that well. It also does not discuss any other Vedantins beyond Shankara and Ramanuja. It's about time that Indian Philosophy 101 books discussed not just Madhva and Chaitanya, but also Vivekananda and Aurobindo. Reading this book alone, one would get the impression that there hasn't been any development in Indian philosophy in the last ~800 years, which is just plain wrong.
November 13, 2020
The book briefly introduces the general idea of Philosophy, its need and meaning in its broadest sense. It speaks about the origins and development of the schools of Indian philosophy and briefly compares them to Western philosophy. It touches upon 9 Indian schools of philosophy - providing information about the origin, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and views on religion and God for each of these schools. Certainly not an easy read for a novice but with some patience it will provide a good stepping stone in terms of vocabulary and frameworks to read and appreciate other works of philosophy.
November 21, 2017
This book is a rather comprehensive introduction to various schools of Indian philosophies - from sects of Hinduism, to Jainism, Buddhism, etc. I found the approach of introducing the schools of thought first before delving deeper into each one clear and easy to read. I only read the bits I was interested in, but the book overall provides a decent bird eye's view on Indian philosophy. I'll come back to this one for reference later.
October 11, 2024
Finally done with the book. It took longer than expected with all the distractions .
Charvakas materialism
Jaina concept of jiva within everything and anekantvad
Buddhist chanikwad (temporariness) with its high emphasis or karta karand vaad.
The nyaya vaisheshika sankhya and yoga world of its own.
The ritualism of mimansa and finally ,
Vedantas advaita vaad of sankaracharya and vishishtadvait of ramanuja.
Muaah.
I believe in all of them while refusing to follow what they asks its followers to do to remove all obstacles/avidya/karma that bind their soul from liberation, bcoz thats where they go wrong. (Or some of them)
There are various different aspects of these philosophies which if joined together provide a good dialectical base for understanding the real world objectively.
Even the concept of soul/God/Jiv can be understood in the concepts of matter nd consciousness
The vedanta philosophy impressed me the most with its advaita. It almost imparts consciousness in matter itself.
A good book.
Charvakas materialism
Jaina concept of jiva within everything and anekantvad
Buddhist chanikwad (temporariness) with its high emphasis or karta karand vaad.
The nyaya vaisheshika sankhya and yoga world of its own.
The ritualism of mimansa and finally ,
Vedantas advaita vaad of sankaracharya and vishishtadvait of ramanuja.
Muaah.
I believe in all of them while refusing to follow what they asks its followers to do to remove all obstacles/avidya/karma that bind their soul from liberation, bcoz thats where they go wrong. (Or some of them)
There are various different aspects of these philosophies which if joined together provide a good dialectical base for understanding the real world objectively.
Even the concept of soul/God/Jiv can be understood in the concepts of matter nd consciousness
The vedanta philosophy impressed me the most with its advaita. It almost imparts consciousness in matter itself.
A good book.
June 10, 2024
Definitely a good way to get an basic introduction into different indian philosophical systems(I wouldn't call just philosophy though from dharmic perspective). However this book is not really for beginners, because it was written like a text book, jumping here and there kills the flow of reading. Maybe books written in comparison to western philosophical system do great injustice to the dharmic thought process. Maybe i will reread it again in future with better understanding of all philosophical system
January 16, 2019
A detailed account of all the major Indian school of thoughts. I enjoyed it.
March 7, 2017
This book gives a general outline of Indian Philosophy. But, I think someone has to work on translating to English audience, technical terms. It seemed to me that, most of the Indian philosophical schools are writing about Karma, Liberation from it. They seem to have various schools writing in reaction to it. If you want to get a general outline, I would recommend this book.
March 30, 2015
Краткий, но хороший обзор основных систем индийской философии.
April 28, 2025
I picked this book up as an entry point into Indian Philosophy, little did I know it would become my exit point too. No fault of the authors though, they have presented philosophical theories more or less objectively and without much personal commentary.
After going through 400 pages of insipid text I have few things to say:
1. Philosophy (Indian as well as Western) should stick to Ethics only. As soon as philosophers enter the arena of epistemology or metaphysics they are lost and they make the reader lost too with their unending sentences in esoteric language by the end of which the reader gets reduced to a bobbing head. It is not their fault though, these are difficult pursuits, maybe even impossible. Reasoning is philosophers� forte, when limits of reason are reached, an honest men accept it, others use creative writing. Here I must give credit to Buddha, desisted from speculating on topics like afterlife and creation of world etc. Early Buddhist philosophy focus chiefly on moral conduct and good life.
2. On Metaphysics: The more detailed an explanation is the more bullshit it packs.
3. Jaina philosophy has a unique concept that I really liked called ‘Syaadvaad� or the ‘Jaina Theory of Judgement�. It is the view that every ordinary judgement (passed by imperfect mind like ours) holds good only of the particular aspect of the object judged and of the point of view from which the judgment is passed. Jainas insit that every judgement should be qualified by some workd like ‘syaat� meaning somehow or maybe. I really hope they used that while Digambaras wrote that “a saint who has obtained perfect knowledge needs no food, and women cannot obtain liberation without being born once more as men� (a view not accepted by Swetambaras).
4. There are multiple references in the book to atoms, which can be understood to some extent as idea of atoms was developed early on in a rudimentary fashion, but I also came across a reference to quantum physics! Philosophers (and people in general) should stop comparing theories arrived through imaginative leaps with hard scientific facts proven with elaborate experiments. Just because the ancient texts used vague jargon which can mean multiple things doesn’t justify attaching scientific findings in support of religious beliefs or mysticism.
5. I had the wrong notion that Indian Philosophy is all about religion and all of it is mostly there to support religion. It’s a common mistake with such religiously charged history and culture in our country where people are united and divided along religious lines. Ironically, out of 9 major schools of Indian Philosophy, 5 don’t even believe in God (at least not in the popular sense of the God). Charvaka, Budhhas, and Jainas are atheists pure and simple. Shankhya and Mimamsa also do not believe in God as the creator of the world. Mimansa in fact is the most curious case as it goes believes in Vedas and goes into intricate reasoning to support vedic rituals but rejects God as the ultimate creator on the grounds that it will belittle the authority of Vedas because then it would mean God created Vedas. Also, Shankaracharya, founder of Vedanta, doesn’t believe in traditional anthropomorphic God.
6. Shankaracharya’s Vedanta philosophy probably has the most solid logical foundation out of all the Indian philosophical schools, but the idea is so subtle (and sometimes vague) that it all appears to be a dream sequence or living in the Matrix. Interestingly, though acknowledging Vedic authority, Shankaracharya counters vedic rituals and sacrifice stating that with these sacrifices one cannot achieve the highest goal of immortality (taken in the sense of liberation). Mundaka says that these sacrifices are like weak rafts which cannot cross the sea and fools that take these as superior means, suffer again the pangs of old age and death.
7. The things common to almost all the schools of Indian Philosophy are namely two: Theory of Moksha/Liberation (Life is pain/illusion and highest goal is freedom from pain/illusion) and Theory of Karma (Do good reap moksha). Every school has a its own idea of the liberated state and offers a different path to liberation, but concept of Karma is almost always there in some way, which even if wrong is a good philosophy to live by.
In conclusion, it was a read worth its while. Boring and repetitive at times but perspective-giving nonetheless.
After going through 400 pages of insipid text I have few things to say:
1. Philosophy (Indian as well as Western) should stick to Ethics only. As soon as philosophers enter the arena of epistemology or metaphysics they are lost and they make the reader lost too with their unending sentences in esoteric language by the end of which the reader gets reduced to a bobbing head. It is not their fault though, these are difficult pursuits, maybe even impossible. Reasoning is philosophers� forte, when limits of reason are reached, an honest men accept it, others use creative writing. Here I must give credit to Buddha, desisted from speculating on topics like afterlife and creation of world etc. Early Buddhist philosophy focus chiefly on moral conduct and good life.
2. On Metaphysics: The more detailed an explanation is the more bullshit it packs.
3. Jaina philosophy has a unique concept that I really liked called ‘Syaadvaad� or the ‘Jaina Theory of Judgement�. It is the view that every ordinary judgement (passed by imperfect mind like ours) holds good only of the particular aspect of the object judged and of the point of view from which the judgment is passed. Jainas insit that every judgement should be qualified by some workd like ‘syaat� meaning somehow or maybe. I really hope they used that while Digambaras wrote that “a saint who has obtained perfect knowledge needs no food, and women cannot obtain liberation without being born once more as men� (a view not accepted by Swetambaras).
4. There are multiple references in the book to atoms, which can be understood to some extent as idea of atoms was developed early on in a rudimentary fashion, but I also came across a reference to quantum physics! Philosophers (and people in general) should stop comparing theories arrived through imaginative leaps with hard scientific facts proven with elaborate experiments. Just because the ancient texts used vague jargon which can mean multiple things doesn’t justify attaching scientific findings in support of religious beliefs or mysticism.
5. I had the wrong notion that Indian Philosophy is all about religion and all of it is mostly there to support religion. It’s a common mistake with such religiously charged history and culture in our country where people are united and divided along religious lines. Ironically, out of 9 major schools of Indian Philosophy, 5 don’t even believe in God (at least not in the popular sense of the God). Charvaka, Budhhas, and Jainas are atheists pure and simple. Shankhya and Mimamsa also do not believe in God as the creator of the world. Mimansa in fact is the most curious case as it goes believes in Vedas and goes into intricate reasoning to support vedic rituals but rejects God as the ultimate creator on the grounds that it will belittle the authority of Vedas because then it would mean God created Vedas. Also, Shankaracharya, founder of Vedanta, doesn’t believe in traditional anthropomorphic God.
6. Shankaracharya’s Vedanta philosophy probably has the most solid logical foundation out of all the Indian philosophical schools, but the idea is so subtle (and sometimes vague) that it all appears to be a dream sequence or living in the Matrix. Interestingly, though acknowledging Vedic authority, Shankaracharya counters vedic rituals and sacrifice stating that with these sacrifices one cannot achieve the highest goal of immortality (taken in the sense of liberation). Mundaka says that these sacrifices are like weak rafts which cannot cross the sea and fools that take these as superior means, suffer again the pangs of old age and death.
7. The things common to almost all the schools of Indian Philosophy are namely two: Theory of Moksha/Liberation (Life is pain/illusion and highest goal is freedom from pain/illusion) and Theory of Karma (Do good reap moksha). Every school has a its own idea of the liberated state and offers a different path to liberation, but concept of Karma is almost always there in some way, which even if wrong is a good philosophy to live by.
In conclusion, it was a read worth its while. Boring and repetitive at times but perspective-giving nonetheless.
April 29, 2021
Having read a few works on Buddhism and Buddhist ideas, I decided to explore Indian philosophy in general, and opted for this book as my introduction to the philosophical systems developed in the Indian subcontinent. As an introductory text, this work seems to be comprehensive and relatively easy to read, covering both orthodox and unorthodox philosophical systems (the distinction being whether a system considers the Vedas as a source of authority or not). By reading this work you will get a high-level view of ideas that might be classified as Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain as well as more granular investigations within each system � such as their epistemology, whether or not they maintain a belief in God, the metaphysics and ethics within the systems, and so on.
Contents of the text aside, I would also wish to comment on my personal experience of reading this book. I read this text from Pakistan, a country that obsessively seeks to build an identity that is ‘not Indian�, and where the anti-establishment / minority contrarian view strives to do the exact opposite � that is highlight the ‘Indian-ness� of our identities. Naturally, I too have sympathized mostly with the contrarian crowd, however, after reading this work it becomes pretty starkly clear how the intellectual and socio-political traditions rooted in Islam are very ‘Western� and very distinct from the intellectual traditions presented here. This is not a new idea, Ian Morris in ‘Why the West Rules for Now� also seems to make a similar aggregation, clubbing the lands under Islam as a part of the West, although his aggregation was for socio political reasons.
A large chunk of Islamic philosophy, if not most of it, mirrors Ancient Greek Philosophy, Roman Philosophies and Christian Philosophies, etc. The focus of these philosophical systems, especially Christian and Islamic, have primarily concerned themselves with metaphysics and in cases where an epistemology is built, it is built using metaphysics or insinuations about Man’s relation with God as the guiding vector towards the development of the epistemology.
Indian Philosophies, I discovered, are very different. Not only do they investigate questions related to the philosophy of the mind, of consciousness, of epistemology and ethics, they seem to do so alongside the development of metaphysics. Not only do there seem to be more systems of investigation (or philosophies), they also do not necessarily need the metaphysical belief systems to underpin the system. Furthermore, (and this was not detailed to the required depth in this work, I feel) they also connect the systems of information to experience, awareness and meditative practices, allowing for the adoption of a philosophical system to guide a way of life without necessarily being prescriptive or dogmatic as the Abrahmic faiths tend to do (such as by providing a shariah, etc.).
Aldous Huxley may find convergence between Eastern and Western ideas in the Perennial Philosophy, but he had to select the more outlandish, outlier and extremely unorthodox sets of belief systems in the Western traditions to compare with the more mainstream Eastern / Indian systems. The core of the two, in my opinion, have very little similarity. And it is for this reason that works like these should be read in my country, especially by people who scoff at our government and society’s attempts to paint Pakistanis (or Muslims) as different from Indians/practitioners of dharmic traditions. While the moral and ethical thing to do is to continue challenging the state’s propaganda, knowing the fundamental differences between the intellectual traditions and value systems is important as well.
Rating: 4 of 5 stars (taking one off for the somewhat dry writing)
Contents of the text aside, I would also wish to comment on my personal experience of reading this book. I read this text from Pakistan, a country that obsessively seeks to build an identity that is ‘not Indian�, and where the anti-establishment / minority contrarian view strives to do the exact opposite � that is highlight the ‘Indian-ness� of our identities. Naturally, I too have sympathized mostly with the contrarian crowd, however, after reading this work it becomes pretty starkly clear how the intellectual and socio-political traditions rooted in Islam are very ‘Western� and very distinct from the intellectual traditions presented here. This is not a new idea, Ian Morris in ‘Why the West Rules for Now� also seems to make a similar aggregation, clubbing the lands under Islam as a part of the West, although his aggregation was for socio political reasons.
A large chunk of Islamic philosophy, if not most of it, mirrors Ancient Greek Philosophy, Roman Philosophies and Christian Philosophies, etc. The focus of these philosophical systems, especially Christian and Islamic, have primarily concerned themselves with metaphysics and in cases where an epistemology is built, it is built using metaphysics or insinuations about Man’s relation with God as the guiding vector towards the development of the epistemology.
Indian Philosophies, I discovered, are very different. Not only do they investigate questions related to the philosophy of the mind, of consciousness, of epistemology and ethics, they seem to do so alongside the development of metaphysics. Not only do there seem to be more systems of investigation (or philosophies), they also do not necessarily need the metaphysical belief systems to underpin the system. Furthermore, (and this was not detailed to the required depth in this work, I feel) they also connect the systems of information to experience, awareness and meditative practices, allowing for the adoption of a philosophical system to guide a way of life without necessarily being prescriptive or dogmatic as the Abrahmic faiths tend to do (such as by providing a shariah, etc.).
Aldous Huxley may find convergence between Eastern and Western ideas in the Perennial Philosophy, but he had to select the more outlandish, outlier and extremely unorthodox sets of belief systems in the Western traditions to compare with the more mainstream Eastern / Indian systems. The core of the two, in my opinion, have very little similarity. And it is for this reason that works like these should be read in my country, especially by people who scoff at our government and society’s attempts to paint Pakistanis (or Muslims) as different from Indians/practitioners of dharmic traditions. While the moral and ethical thing to do is to continue challenging the state’s propaganda, knowing the fundamental differences between the intellectual traditions and value systems is important as well.
Rating: 4 of 5 stars (taking one off for the somewhat dry writing)
January 2, 2024
"Indian philosophy is pessimistic in the sense that it works under a sense of discomfort and disquiet at the existing order of things. It discovers and strongly asserts that life, as it is being thoughtlessly led, is a mere sport of blind impulses and unquenchable desires; it inevitably ends in and prolongs misery. But no Indian system stops with this picture of life as a tragedy. It perhaps possesses more than a literary significance that even an ancient Indian drama rarely ends as a tragedy. If Indian philosophy points relentlessly to the miseries that we suffer through short-sightedness, it also discovers a message of hope."
This is a gorgeous, gorgeous book. It makes Indian philosophy very accessible to it's reader. I read this for a class, but I am glad I can freely recommend this to basically anyone because of the ease with which it puts forward core Indian philosophical ideas.
Many have a fixed idea about what Indian philosophy is like. The first thing that usually comes to mind is an earnest guru sitting under a tree and meditating seriously. The stereotypical view of Indian philosophy isn't completely untrue, but it is a very minute part of the whole, dynamic and profound system.
I am glad I read this, not only because I got in touch with my cultural philosophical ideas, but because I was genuinely astonished and awed by the wisdom and philosophical thought that is embedded deep in Indian philosophy.
"As philosophy aims at the knowledge of truth, it is termed in Indian literature, 'the vision Every Indian school holds, in its own way, that there can be a direct realization of truth (tattvadarśana). A man of realization becomes free; one who lacks it is entangled in the world.' "
March 5, 2022
A useful introduction to Indian philosophy that covers each major school, but is too technically focused on philosophy solely as a subject for an introduction for those not in India's sphere of influence. WHY are all these schools different and what is the basis in their difference? Although we are told in summary how they differ philosophically, we are given no good general view of the why and so I found it hard to care. If we were given a summary of the religious, historical, and cultural basis of much of these schools of thoughts and why such differences would arise, it would go a long way in introducing a more personable element in understanding each school. Why would Buddhists and Jainists reject Vedic scripture? What is even contained in Vedic scripture that is worth or not worth rejecting? What does this rejection mean on a deeper level?
One of my least favorite parts about many philosophy books is lack of context. In Chinese philosophy it is basically required to know history to understand the books. In Greek philosophy, western writers like to claim they are universal and serve them to you contextless, but learning context makes everything much more interesting. Understanding how important loyalty to your city-state is in Greece and how Athenian Plato spends his time praising a Spartan-like city-state in The Republic breathes new dimension to Plato as an author and how he may have been viewed by his own people, not just the reader.
A good explanation of Vedic religion and Indian history in the introduction and a small section giving context in their chapter would have helped this book a ton. Philosophical checklists on what a school believes and doesn't believe need more narrative to be personable.
One of my least favorite parts about many philosophy books is lack of context. In Chinese philosophy it is basically required to know history to understand the books. In Greek philosophy, western writers like to claim they are universal and serve them to you contextless, but learning context makes everything much more interesting. Understanding how important loyalty to your city-state is in Greece and how Athenian Plato spends his time praising a Spartan-like city-state in The Republic breathes new dimension to Plato as an author and how he may have been viewed by his own people, not just the reader.
A good explanation of Vedic religion and Indian history in the introduction and a small section giving context in their chapter would have helped this book a ton. Philosophical checklists on what a school believes and doesn't believe need more narrative to be personable.
May 18, 2021
The book sketches up the six orthodox schools and three heterodox schools of Indian Philosophy. The orthodox schools, named so due to their belief in infallibility of Vedas are - Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva-Mimamsa and Uttar-Mimasa or Vedanta. The heterodox schools discussed are Charvak, Buddhist and Jain. Throughout the book, the different strands of thoughts within these systems are also included. For example, the four schools - Vijnana-vadin, Sarvasti-vadin - Sautantrika, Vaibhashika and Shunya-vadi in Buddhism. In Mimamsa, the difference in opinions of Bhatta and Prabhakar school are well laid out.
The overall description is simple, though, it does notches things up at certain points, which I found enjoyable. The logic and syllogisms laid out are well-written, often using examples like smoke-fire and snake-rope. The description of the thought-process behind Advaita is very lucid, and makes one take pride in such a holistic philosophy on Monism.
This book should be a must read for anyone who wants to see India, beyond its anarchy.
The overall description is simple, though, it does notches things up at certain points, which I found enjoyable. The logic and syllogisms laid out are well-written, often using examples like smoke-fire and snake-rope. The description of the thought-process behind Advaita is very lucid, and makes one take pride in such a holistic philosophy on Monism.
This book should be a must read for anyone who wants to see India, beyond its anarchy.
August 11, 2018
It was 3.5 for me. A comprehensive introduction to schools of philosophy in Indian tradition and a throw comparison of these with equally good description of differences among all is found. Giving appropriate emphasis on Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and Vedanta, it also goes to examine Carvaka,Jain and Buddhist schools.This books provides an overall sight of Indian philosophy and a good recommendation for all those who are interested in it.
Read
June 17, 2020I have no idea why this book would be listed in teen books. I can't imagine there are a lot of teenagers wanting to read the required reading from an Indian philosophies class level 100. I finally had to give up on it. I am not in school anymore and without even discussion or anything else it just dragged on and on and on. I'm not going to rate it because that is unfair to the book and author but it was unfair to the reader to list it under teen books audible.
April 19, 2022
The book gives a good brief about the schools of philosophy. It's structured more like an academic read, pointing out the differences between them more than their evolution kr context.
Couldn't manage to read it in flow, had many patches as a lot of stuff overlaps. Would love to revisit this sometime later with better understanding though
Couldn't manage to read it in flow, had many patches as a lot of stuff overlaps. Would love to revisit this sometime later with better understanding though
December 30, 2022
A deep insight into Indian philosophy. Even people with non philosophy background can read it to quench their spirit thirst. Indian philosophy is so vast and whole, but this book has covered it all in a very beautiful manner.
January 14, 2019
Book review here :-
September 12, 2019
Easy read, comprehensive and gives a short summary about every Indian school of thought. Good for beginners.
October 28, 2020
Being an academic book, as expected it's very neutral in tone and no bias was evident.
December 26, 2020
Contains nice short intro to Buddhism
May 26, 2023
Great for beginners!
July 12, 2023
Don’t get into it thinking it is a novel. It is a textbook!
March 31, 2024
Very good, easy to grasp key concepts in each area. Not a specialist text, but it was what I was looking for.
April 16, 2024
The descriptions of the philosophical arguments were quite terse and they were not fully fledged. I understand that it's only an introduction, but it should have been more descriptive.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.