Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
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political controversy which has resulted in her book “The Hindus: An Alternative History”, published by Penguin, being withdrawn from sale in India.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.
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.
JRM March 2014
Page 1 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
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.
JRM March 2014
Page 2 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
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 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 5 th 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.
JRM March 2014
Page 3 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
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.
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.
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, ritualbased 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
JRM March 2014
Page 4 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton 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.
[In practice, the sacrifice involved burning a handful of cereal such as rice in the sacred fire with the appropriate rituals and chants. The sacred fire is quite small and on a low hearth. The rituals have changed little over several thousands of years. Hindu temples are smaller than expected as they are for individual devotions rather than communal worship.
The devotee prays as the priest performs the sacrifice for him or her. It is a fascinating process to watch and hear. JRM]
The ancient speculation about how the world/universe began is remarkable in its sophistication. This translation of the Creation Hymn from Wendy Doniger’s translation of the original Sanskrit gives a flavour of the thinking in India. This hymn possibly dates from 1500BC or even earlier!
There was neither non-existence nor existence then: there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
Was there water, bottomlessly deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat…..
JRM March 2014
Page 5 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
Who really knows? Who will proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is the creation? The devas came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen – perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not – the one who knows looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows – or perhaps he does not know.
(The Creation Hymn, Rig Veda 10.129 )
This ancient speculation is remarkable in its speculation and profundity and suggests a considerable degree of analytical thinking on the part of the ritualists about the nature of what they were doing. Although the rituals were precisely codified it is possible that ongoing questioning contributed to ideas and religious practice being embraced by the Brahmanical tradition. The Vedic texts record that some began to go on retreats to contemplate the nature of the sacrifice in more depth. Eventually some came to believe that the practice could be “internalised” and practiced by means of concentration and visualisation techniques. The development of this trend is recorded in books of the Vedic corpus of material known as Brahmanas and
Aranyakas but it is in the Upanishads that teachings are found that may be considered to represent the culmination of these trends.
As I understand it; the Canon of Vedic writing developed more or less as follows:
The original Vedic Sacrificial Rituals oral tradition;
Circa 2000 to
1500BC
The original tradition develops into four strands
Rig Veda Sama Veda Yajur Veda Atharva
Veda
Written in
Sanskrit and some ideas developed;
Circa 800 –
500BC
The appendices called the
Brahmanas
Kausitaki
(Ritual branch)
Chandogya
Kena
Aranyakas
(Gnostic branch)
Tattiriya
Brhadaranyaka
Katha
Mundaka
Prasna
Upanishads are
500BC later added. Circa
Isa
Svetasvatara
For an individual Hindu the most important thing to aspire to is gaining insight into the nature of one’s “essential self” or soul. This is called ấtman in Sanskrit. The
Upanishads teach that self and cosmos are one; repeatedly stating that one’s ấtman is inseparable from all that there is. Gaining experiential insight into this identity is to be aspired to because such knowledge effects one’s release, (mokşa in Sanskrit), from continued rebirth. This teaching introduces the idea of salvation into the
Brahmanical tradition for the first time. While sacrificial rituals are continued to the present day, the experience of mokşa was quickly established as the supreme goal of human existence. It was seen in the positive sense that this knowledge enabled one to escape from the treadmill of continued rebirth and experience immortality.
JRM March 2014
Page 6 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
The teaching that the self and the cosmos are identical is common speculation about the nature of the cosmos that appears in writings. In early writings the universe is referred to by the name Brahman. This is equivalent to an impersonal absolute that might be called Oneness or Being.
An important passage in which a father is instructing his son, states:
In the beginning, this world was just Being – one only, without a second. It is true some people say, “In the beginning this world was just non-existence – one only, without a second; and from that non-existence Being emerged.” But how could that possibly be the case? How could Being come from non-existence? On the contrary, in the beginning, this world was just Being – one only, without a second .
(Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1-2)
This is a doctrine of monism. A belief that there is just one thing and that there is nothing that is not that thing. The focus on the identity of the inner self and cosmos suggests that the teachings contained in the Upanishads might be seen as a culmination of the internalisation of the sacrifice. The Upanishads also uphold the tradition of the sacrificial ritual and suggest that at no point should the rituals be abandoned. Both the original sacrificial tradition and the teachings of the
Upanishads continued side by side within the Brahmanical tradition.
There was a possible conflict, or potential for divisiveness, between the two positions. The original tradition focused in the this-worldly concerns while the later teachings of the Upanishads tend to focus on the nature and destiny of the person.
It also seems from the later teaching that the obtaining of esoteric knowledge is considered to be superior to the significance and purpose of performing ritual actions. Finally it would appear that each of the two emphases depends on a different view of the nature of reality. The original Vedic tradition assumes the reality of the plural world while the Upanishads suggest that it is knowledge of the greater reality of the underlying oneness of the world that leads to the greater goal of immortality.
There is really no diversity here. He goes from death to death who perceives diversity here. One must see it as just one……..by knowing that very one, a wise Brahmin can obtain insight for himself.
In the early decades of the 5 th
(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19)
century BC these two approaches seemed to live side by side, neither approach vying for supremacy but new developments were to cause changes. Other teachers sought to reconcile the two traditions.
The lifetime of the Buddha was from about 485BC to 405BC.
As one might imagine, not everyone was happy that both religious power and social organisation was guarded by the elitist Brahmins with an unchanging rigidity. Some
JRM March 2014
Page 7 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton found that living within these fixed structures oppressive and looked for change.
These people, collectively, were known as renouncers. They rejected everything to do with the authority and prescriptive norms of the Brahmin priests. This is the polar opposite of the “householder” status as prescribed by the traditional Brahmanical tradition.
Householders had a duty not just to sacrifice but also to be economically productive and sexually reproductive, within group lineages which excluded those not of the same status of ritual purity. (i.e. one should not marry outside one’s own caste.)
Renouncers tended to be peripatetic, poor and celibate. Many also practiced severe austerities and subjected themselves to extremes of temperature, hunger and thirst, painful body distortions and various other kinds of self-denial in an attempt to obtain greater spiritual insight by focusing the mind in non-normative ways. Many were mainly concerned about the nature of self.
Many renouncers were believed to have considered the nature of self. The plethora of questions on selfhood is summarised in an early Buddhist text as follows:
Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I exist in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future? How am I now? Am I not, now? What am I? How am I? Where is this being come from? Where will this being go? I have self. I have no self. I perceive myself by means of myself. I perceive no self by means of my self. I perceive myself by means of no self. This self of mine which speaks and feels, that experiences the consequences of good and bad actions now here and now there, this self is permanents, stable, eternal, unchanging, the same always.
(Majjhima Nikaya I 8)
There was so much speculation about both the self and the world that all possibilities came to be subsumed in a formula in Buddhist texts.
Is the world eternal or not? Is the world finite or not? Is the self different from the body or not? On achieving liberation from rebirth, does one exist or not exist, exist and not exist, neither exist nor not exist?
(Samyutta Nikaya II 223)
Personally, I am not sure how much sense this statement makes but, apparently,
Buddhists believe it to be very important.
Some key facts:
 Born around 485BC


Named Siddartha Gotama (There are various spellings in English)
Born in Kapilavatthu in what is now Nepal
 The word “Buddha” literally means awake. The name alludes to the fact that his followers believe that he was the first to have insight, (or rather three
JRM March 2014
Page 8 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton insights), the nature of which was significant. His enlightenment was considered analogous to waking up after being asleep.
 His family were well-to-do.
 He left home in his early thirties in order to seek an answer to questions
 concerning the existential nature of the human condition.
He sought out others and listened to their views. He spent years listening to
 others and testing their theories by following their examples in various kinds of practices.
 Eventually he developed his own techniques to gain the deeper insight he sought. These involved a penetrative sort of meditation.
He was later to teach the meditation techniques he developed and pass on the nature of knowledge he had gained by insight to his disciples.
Buddha claimed he had three insights, which together gave him understanding of how and why human existence is as it is. He also claimed that through these insights he had obtained release from bondage to continuity. (i.e. Nirvana)
First he was able to see his previous lives and the way in which each had influenced the quality and conditions of subsequent lives; that is he could see his own rebirth history.
Second he saw the way other beings were born and reborn, again according to the conditioning effects of actions in previous lives. The Buddha’s acceptance and teaching of rebirth and karma were thus not based on his adoption of features of a prevailing worldview; rather they were based on his own experience.
The third insight was how to uproot from his psycho-conceptual framework those factors which he could see most deeply bound him to world continuity; appetitive desires. These included the desire for continued existence, ignorance of the true nature of reality and the holding of opinionated “views”.
One important aspect of the Buddha’s teaching is “The Four Noble Truths”.
The Four Noble Truths
1.
Human existence is intrinsically characterised by dukkha.
2.
Dukkha arises because of appetitive cravings and desires. (negative and positive)
3.
There can be a cessation of dukkha, known as nirvana.
4.
Nirvava is achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path.
Nirvana means “blowing out”, and refers to the cessation of the fuel of continuity.
Dependent origination is, according to Dr Hamilton, a profoundly radical metaphysical teaching. It is not stating that nothing exists, but that the manner in which all things occur is different from either existence, which implies independence, or non-existence, which implies denial of occurrence. The point of the Buddha’s teaching is that it takes the “middle way” between existence and non-existence, existence-and-non-existence and neither-existence-nor-non-existence. This logic defying formula is designed to include and reject all possible permutations of metaphysical positions taken by others.
JRM March 2014
Page 9 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
What I teach is dependent origination, that all knowable things are dependently originated; this is the way things are, the regularity of things.
(Samyutta Nikaya II 25)
When this is, that is;
This occurring, that occurs;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases
(Majjhima Nikaya III 63)
The formulaic structure of these teachings probably reflects the fact that they were not written down until about 40BC and were preserved in an oral, mnemonic, form until that time.
The Buddha’s Middle Way
The Buddha said that what he taught was “The Middle Way”. This had the following characteristics.
1.
The Buddhist monastic community functioned in a manner between two extremes of fully upholding the normal social structure and rejecting it.
Members lived apart from society, but were interdependent with the laity.
2.
The daily regime of a Buddhist monk is between that of the sensory indulgence associated with family life and the severe self-inflicted austerity
3.
endured by the renouncers. Monks were celibate but all other needs were met in order to maintain a healthy well-being.
The metaphysics of dependent origination took a middle way between all possible permutations of the ontological theories offered by others.
From the Nature of Being to the Nature of Experience
The Buddha was well aware that we experience our surroundings indirectly. We can not be sure that what we see, hear, touch, taste or smell is truly reality. What we perceive as reality may be very different from what reality actually is. The Buddha included a “sixth sense” relating to non-sensory mental activity. This is recognised in Buddhism and other Indian schools of thought.
Language, grammar, and polemics
At this point I feel sure that many readers of Dr Hamilton’s book will be losing the will to live. However I shall attempt to continue as succinctly as possible.
The Threat to the Brahmins
In a nutshell; the Brahmin priests had been top dogs in Indian society for many hundreds of years. A cynic might say that they used their religion to help to maintain a stable structured society with themselves at the pinnacle of that society.
This was a society in which it was almost impossible for an individual born into a lower caste to improve their lot. This order was accepted as natural. The nature of their religion is such that for hundreds of years no criticism was made, and if it was it was not taken seriously. When the renouncers come along with radically new ideas,
JRM March 2014
Page 10 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton and significant proportions of the population were persuaded by new these new ideas then the old order was threatened. The teachings of the Buddha were particularly effective in undermining the order forged by the Brahmins.
The Lines of Defence
For the Brahmin priests the defence of the status quo took two lines:
1.
They reinforced and protected the existing social hierarchy based on the
ritual purity of its participants. Ritual purity was essential for the future of the Veda. Evidence for this social reinforcement is seen in some of the written treatises of the time. These detailed, in minute detail, for each member of society in terms of their place in society their roles, duties, rights, aims, potential and so on. Thus was fixed the social structure and the rigid caste system.
2.
The second line of defence was to preserve, and defend to the full extent, the material relating to the performance of the ritual. Specialisms were developed known as vedangas, (the limbs of the Veda), of which there were six. For example phonetics was concerned with the correct pronunciation of the sounds uttered in the ritual. Metrics was the classification of the metres of the various hymns or formulas of the sacrifice. Grammar was the establishing of the relations between component parts of sentences, etc.
Astronomy established the most auspicious day and time for performing rituals.
The counter-attack made by the Brahmins must have been very effective in the long term. Buddhism, which originated in India, is now very much a minority religion in that country. Hinduism, in all its various guises, is by far the most popular faith claiming to be the belief of some 74% of the population. Although India claims to be a secular state, Hinduism is supported by extremely powerful vested interests in both the political and economic spheres. In practice it is almost impossible to criticise effectively Hindu philosophy or theology. India has a constitution that safeguards human rights, in law and in theory, but it appears to adhere rigidly to the caste system in practice.
Language and reality
What we think, and therefore what we believe to be true, depends on language.
Words are the vehicles of our thoughts. Some great grammarians studied the use of language and proposed rules to make language clearer. A clear and precise language leads to clear and precise thinking. In the 4 th Century BC the grammarian
Panini wrote a book of eight chapters containing 4,000 rules which is still highly respected to this day. The effects of such scholars have resulted in the fact that, as a language, Sanskrit is effectively closed. It has not continued to evolve as have more modern languages. It has become fossilised like ancient, classical, Greek.
Dr Hamilton then continues to describe how other famous Hindu scholars of this era continued to formalise the ritual and social structures.
JRM March 2014
Page 11 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
Vaisesika Thought: the Categories of the Cosmos
One of the first systems of thought to emerge from the early milieu of deciding “what to look at” was that of Kanada, as recorded in his Vaisesika Sutra written during the second century BC. He was mainly concerned with understanding dharma; the correct functioning of the cosmos. To Kanada dharma was supreme.
We shall now consider the nature of dharma.
It is from dharma that the highest and supreme good is achieved.
The Veda has its authority because of its concern with dharma.
(Vaisesika Sutra 1 – 3 )
The Vaisesika Sutra represents a system of pluralistic realism; the independent reality of each of the objects of the world about us and separate from ourselves and the classification of these objects, or entities. This system is closely related to the
Nyaya system of thought, a system proposed by a man called Gotoma in about the
3 rd century AD. Combined together they have made a major contribution to Indian thought.
Substance and Quality
There follows a description of how Brahmin scholars of ancient times perceived the nature of matter. Some of the similarities to Aristotle’s four elements of earth, air, fire and water are quite striking. It would seem that the Indian scholars of that time had given such issues very serious thought. They were of the opinion that knowledge gained in this way would help the ultimate destiny of believers by contributing to the liberation from rebirth. These scholars also believed that they could prove that the atman, one’s essential self or soul, really existed.
Just as the original Vedic sacrificial tradition spawned a variety of related interpretations so also did Buddhist thought evolve into different “schools”.
Texts refer to some 18 schools, or so, that existed during the 800 years since the
Buddha’s death. Many of these have long since faded, due to a variety of reasons. A short summary of schools and texts in Buddhism is given below.
 Theravada Buddhism is the only early school of Buddhism to survive to the present day. There were at least four other major schools two of which were
 the Savastivada and Sautrantikas Schools.
Canonical texts in Buddhism are of three kinds:
Suttas or Sutras
Vibaya
Abhidharma
These are doctrinal treatises
These are monastic disciplinary codes
Scholastic interpretations of teachings. The
Abhidharmas known relate to the Theravada and
Savastivada schools.
 Those of the Sautrantikas school specifically adhere only to sutra texts and reject the scholastic approach of other schools.
JRM March 2014
Page 12 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
 The Abhidharma tradition was concerned with dharma and had two main approaches. Firstly they were concerned with the understanding and definitive interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings which could be cryptic or ambiguous.
Secondly they investigated the nature of reality in terms of “dharmas”.
Buddhism declined in India, its country of origin for several reasons. At about 300BC it was the official state religion of India and its monastic communities were heavily endowed. Buddhist thought played a major role in the social and political life of
India at that time. Many of these ideas were conveyed to other countries where
Buddhism still thrives. It is not known for certain why Buddhism died out in India but the decline was certainly accelerated by the invasion of the Muslims from the 8 th century AD onwards.
Yoga Harmony and Control
From the very early stages of the Indian tradition (of philosophy), people were practising various kinds of mental exercises, or meditative disciplines, often known by the generic name of “yoga”. There is no doubt that these practices were developed and refined over time. The word “yoga” is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root “yuj” meaning “to yoke” in the sense of binding one thing to another.
The point for many lay in binding, merging or joining together either the self/soul
(atman) with the universal essence, or in theistic systems of the soul and God. The darsana of classical Yoga is presented in texts known as the Yoga Sutras.
The Purpose of Classical Yoga
The Yoga Sutras open by stating their aim:
Now the explanation of yoga; yoga is the cessation of the activities of mind.
(Yoga Sutra 1.1-2)
What this means is that the activities of the mind are many and various but mainly self centred. Yoga claims that we should focus our mind, single pointedly, practising outward-lookingness. We should not be selfish but should instead concentrate on benevolence towards others, right breathing and mental steadiness. By becoming less aware of “self” we become more aware of others and “the cosmos”. This aspect of Yoga is termed as “discrimination”. If we are not distracted by self we are able to
“discriminate” aspects of the world around us.
As health has both physical and mental aspects it follows that adherents of Classical
Yoga claim both physical and mental benefits.
Isvara (Iswar) – The “Lord” – in Classical Yoga
In the Yoga Sutra we are told that the goal of discrimination can also be obtained by
“devotion to the Lord (Isvara)”. Isvara is said to be all knowing, and the teacher of ancient sages. Exactly what is meant in the ancient texts has been discussed many times by many experts but some scholars maintain that classical Yoga has a theistic aspect.
JRM March 2014
Page 13 of 14

Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton
From the 4 th century BC onwards orthodox Brahmanical thinkers continued the traditions of the Vedic corpus of material. It was not until the 5 th century AD that a significantly new and grammatical approach was put forward. It was still later that the important traditions of Mimamsa and Vedanta were established.
In the 5 th century AD the grammarian Bhartrhari put forward the radical idea that the understanding of the relationship between the classical language of Sanskrit and reality is not just a way of defending the validity of the Veda, and the world it represented, but was also a way of gaining liberating insight. The analysis of the grammar in a sentence gave a truer understanding of the knowledge it contained and hence a truer knowledge of the nature of reality.
Mimamsa – The Philosophy of the Ritual
For Mimamsa thinkers the main point of their enterprise was the proper understanding of the nature of the ritual, in particular the injunctions of the sacrifice.
In essence the ritual was a means of maintaining Dharma – how things should be.
This was the fundamental rationale of the sacrificial injunctions. The injunctions themselves, being contained in texts representing eternal Truth, were seen to be self validating.
Later studies tend to clarify traditional thinking firstly on the nature of what there is.
The Mimamsakas developed a detailed epistemological theory that was effective in answering unanswered questions about the reality and nature of the world. They also discussed the apparent disparity between the perceived plurality of the world and the type of monism proclaimed by the Vedic texts.
Hinduism's tolerance to variations in belief and its broad range of traditions make it difficult to define as a religion according to traditional Western conceptions. I have been told that it is possible to be both a Hindu and an atheist. I have also been told that it is possible to be both a Hindu and a Christian.
Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama
or
Gotama), who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one".
In modern times there has been a clear dichotomy between philosophy and religion in the West. Because of this we tend to look at Indian Philosophy through modern,
Western, eyes. In Indian philosophy this dichotomy is either absent or less important, but, this does not mean that Indian Philosophy is inferior to that of the
West. On the contrary, Indian philosophers have left a legacy from which the West may have much to learn. A greater understanding of Indian philosophy may well lead to a greater understanding of Western philosophy.
JRM March 2014
Page 14 of 14