Philosophy of Ancient India: its features and forms. philosophy of india

The most ancient philosophical teachings are the teachings that arose in India 2-3 thousand years ago. The history of Indian philosophical thought begins with the Vedas (II millennium BC). The very word "Veda" means "knowledge", "knowledge". The Vedas are a vast complex of literary monuments. Their content, combined with a religious worldview, sets out philosophical thoughts, a presentation about the world, about a person and his moral life. Ancient Indian philosophy developed within certain systems or schools. These systems or schools can be divided into two large groups:

Most of them were orthodox and religious. These are the schools Vedanta, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika. However, some schools showed materialistic tendencies. The non-orthodox schools are Jainism, Buddhism and the Lokayat Charvaka school.

Vedanta . These are idealistic teachings. It was first systematically developed by Badarayan. Two different aspects can be noted in this teaching: 1) the soul and God are fundamentally different; 2) the soul and God are essentially one.

According to Vedanta, the soul bound to its body is not free. She craves sensual pleasures and experiences a long series of reincarnations. The victory over ignorance, which enslaves the soul, is achieved by the study of Vedanta. As a system of objective idealism, Vedanta leads to mysticism, to contemplation, to the renunciation of struggle and to the subordination of the philosophical teachings to religion.

Mimansa . A distinctive feature of the mimams is that it paid more attention to questions of the theory of knowledge and logic. Sense perception is considered by her as a special source of knowledge. Objects of perception are characterized as real and having various objective features. In addition to perception, the sources of knowledge are: logical inference, comparison, authoritative witnessing of sacred books and the recognition of certain unperceivable truths by postulates.

Sankhya . This is very ancient form philosophy in India. Founder of Sankhya Kapila (c. 7th century BC). The Samkhya doctrine assumes two principles: material and spiritual. To explain the world, Samkhya considers the concept of the material root cause of all things and phenomena, including phenomena and mental phenomena, to be the initial one. The first cause, being material, must at the same time be so all-pervading that even the most subtle creations, such as the mind, are possible.

Yogi system . In many ways, the yoga system was close to the Samkhya system. The word yoga means “concentration.” The sage Patanjali is considered the founder of yoga (presumably in the period of the 2nd century BC). In the system, faith in God is considered as an element of a theoretical worldview and as a condition for successful practical activity aimed at liberation from suffering. Among the paths that yoga recommends for liberation, part relates to the practice of asceticism, part to the principles of ethics based on compassion for all forms and kinds of life. The rules of yoga contain a number of rational, to a certain extent, experience-tested prescriptions related to respiratory hygiene, diet, etc.

Nyaya materialistic system . The sage Gotama is considered the founder of Nyaya. Nyaya philosophy is the doctrine of cognition, in particular logical inference. It is developed on the basis of the materialistic system of being. This theory is designed to serve a practical task: the liberation of man from all suffering. It considers the sources and methods of cognition, classifies the objects of cognition and reality itself.

Vaisheshika system . This is the most mature system of ancient Indian philosophy, recognizing the authority of the Vedas. Vaishek sees the goal of wisdom in the liberation of the human "I" from suffering and dependence. At the same time, the last cause of suffering is ignorance. The path to liberation lies through knowledge, i.e. through true understanding of reality. A prominent representative of unorthodox schools is the teaching Lokoyatnikov Charvaks , lokayata (lok - world, people) and charvaka (charvak - an intelligible word). The main ideas and position of the charvaks:

1. The world is material. Everything consists of four elements - fire, air, water, earth. Life came from matter.

2. Consciousness is a property inherent in the body. With the death of the body, consciousness also disappears. The doctrine of the transmigration of souls is meaningless.

3. In the elements, taken separately, there is no consciousness: it arises as a result of the combination of the four elements - fire, air, water and earth - in the human body. There is no soul separated from the body.

Philosophy Jainism arose as a result of the development of the ancient teachings of the sages. Jainism in its main part is an ethical teaching. It indicates the way of "liberation" of the soul from its submission to passions. The goal of Jain philosophy is "holiness", i.e. a special way of behavior by which said liberation is achieved. The source of wisdom in Jainism is not God, but special saints who have achieved strength and happiness on the basis of perfect knowledge and through the behavior arising from this knowledge. Buddhism. Buddhism originated in northeastern India in areas of pre-Bahmin culture. Buddhism quickly spread throughout India and reached its peak at the end of the 1st millennium BC - the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. Buddhism had a great influence on Hinduism, which was reborn from Brahmanism, but was supplanted by Hinduism by the 12th century AD. virtually disappeared from India. The main reason for this was the opposition of the ideas of Buddhism to the caste system consecrated by Brahmanism. At the same time, starting from the 3rd century BC, it covered Southeast and Central Asia and partly Central Asia and Siberia. Suffering and liberation are presented in Buddhism as different states of a single being: suffering is a state of being of the manifested, liberation is of the unmanifested. Both, being inseparable, appear, however, in early Buddhism as a psychological reality, in developed forms of Buddhism - as a cosmic reality.

In Buddhism, there is no concept of responsibility and guilt as something absolute, a reflection of this is the absence in Buddhism of a clear line between the ideals of religious and secular morality and, in particular, the softening or rejection of asceticism in its usual form. The moral ideal of Buddhism appears as absolute non-harm to others (ahinsa), resulting from general softness, kindness, and a sense of perfect satisfaction. In the intellectual sphere of Buddhism, the distinction between sensual and rational forms of cognition is eliminated and the practice of so-called contemplative reflection (meditation) is established, the result of which is the experience of the integrity of being (non-distinguishing between internal and external), complete self-absorption. The practice of contemplative reflection thus serves not so much as a means of knowing the world, but as one of the main means of transforming the psyche and psychophysiology of the individual. As a specific method of contemplative reflection, dhyanas, which have been called Buddhist yoga, are especially popular. The state of perfect satisfaction and self-deepening, absolute independence of inner being - the positive equivalent of extinguishing desires - is liberation, or nirvana.

The philosophy of Ancient India was formed in a society in which there was a caste division, and in my opinion this determines that in almost all currents of philosophy, a person must suffer and give up his blessings and his weaknesses in order to comprehend bliss - such an interpretation was beneficial to people in power and wealthy members of society; not without their influence, orthodox currents were created, which were based on the principles indicated in the Vedas. So Buddhism, which did not welcome caste division, the absence of guilt for misconduct, and asceticism, was gradually ousted from India, but took root outside the homeland. Now it is one of the world's religions.

The philosophy of Ancient India is the most ancient in time of its appearance. Back in the 15th century BC, the first writings of ancient Indians with philosophical and religious content appeared. In total, about 25 books of such philosophical and religious content were written. This whole complex of books was called - "Vedas". The Vedas are divided into four kinds, or four branches within themselves. The first part was called Samhita, the second part was called Brahmans (religious attitudes or rituals are expressed that believers must have in order to understand what Brahma is), the third part was called Aranyaki (a book or a set of books that expresses a person’s thoughts about the basic principles of his life, otherwise it is a book of solitudes that forest hermits had), the fourth Upanishad.

The sankhits reflect hymns, spells, calls of the ancient Indians addressed to heaven, to the universe, and so on. In the Samhitas there is a so-called song about Purusha (this is the first giant man which has members of the body, and these members of the body are surrounded in space, arm, leg, belly, head, they are reflected in the structure of the stars). And therefore the first Purusha has a thousand legs, a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, and resembles the structure of a person, and a person is the unity of the universe. The most important content of the years is set forth in the Upanishats. The word "upanishat" means to sit at the teacher's feet, but not just sit and sleep, but listen to his speech, learn something from him. In these Upanishats, there are about 35 small stories, they reflect the philosophical consciousness of the ancient Indian.

Their attitude to the spirit, to matter, movement, improvement is expressed. human personality etc. The main concepts in Indian philosophy are associated with the soul and spirit, spiritual energy. The main concept of Brahman is the universal spirit (the universal spirit is developed in nature in the likeness of energy), and another concept of Arhman is the individual spirit (in every living being). Archman, as it were, feeds, is saturated by him with Brahman. Such a concept as matter (Prakrite) is singled out. There is also a concept that is called both the breath of man and the breath of the world - Prana. In general, the ancient Indians expressed the entire universe in a certain scheme. The Indians expressed their understanding of the world approximately according to this scheme, in the center of the universe there was a god, who was called Brahma, he seemed to radiate energy around him. This Brahma radiated energy to 4 main parts of the world.

The first instrument was called Arkhman, and with it was the brahman (universal spirit). In another part of the world there was Purusha, in another part of the world there was Prama (the breath of the world), well, in the last part there was Aum (Om), in a different way it resembles a bell ringing. And all these parts were interconnected, both by direct connection and inverse. This whole scheme resembles, as it were, a spring gushing out of the earth. Now, if we have a spring spouting from underground, then water, falling on the ground, spreading along it to the sides, it again goes to the depth and again feeds this spring, and this spring, as it were, symbolizes the prime mover, the water cycle is formed in nature. Based on the knowledge of years and ideas, 6 philosophical schools and three religions arose in India. All these philosophical schools are interconnected. One can single out such schools as the Mimamsa school, another Vedanta school, the third Sathiya. In different schools, a bias is also placed on cognition, or on thinking, or vice versa, on sensory perception of the world. But there are no big differences between schools.

There is only one of the schools that differs from the rest of the schools, it is called the Charvaka-lakoyaka school, this is a materialistic school, the previous schools recognize Brahma, Arhma, recognize the transmigration of souls, the circulation of souls in nature, recognize the participation of man in this world and the dependence of man on this. But Charvaks say that there are no gods, that a person should perceive the world as it is. A person should be guided by matter, and not wait for happiness beyond the grave, but be happy already in this life, he strives for joy and pleasure in this world. Also of interest is the origin of Buddhism as a religion. However, Buddhism also has a philosophical meaning, the religion of the perfection of the human personality. And the meaning of Buddhism, which arose in the 6-5 centuries BC in the region of Tibet. And the meaning is that a person living in this world experiences suffering, and the cause of suffering is his own mistakes, a person is greedy, he has a thirst, an insatiable desire to possess things, to possess pleasures, to possess some positions in society, to surpass others. Buddhists believe that a person should be happy in this life if he gets rid of this thirst, the thirst for dominance over other people and calms down, for this he needs, first of all, to give up unnecessary desires and needs and gradually go the right way, and gradually go through 8 steps on this path.

The beginning of this path begins with correct views. This is what is most important for a person. The second step is correct determination, one must decide to give up the temptations of drunkenness, gluttony and other amusements. The third step is correct speech, that is, one must refrain from lying, rudeness, and so on. The fourth step is correct behavior, which means that you need to give up violence towards other people towards animals, give up robbery, self-indulgence, and so on. The fifth step is the right way of life, one must strive to live honestly. The sixth step is the right effort, that is, you need to give up everything harmful to constantly renew your inner self. The seventh step is correct thinking, it means you need to have priorities to give preference to the main spiritual in a person and push the bodily earthly things into the background. And the last stage means the correct concentration of a person on himself, the orientation of the personality on his inner life, unperturbed reflection, and this state is called nirvana, which means enlightenment, saturating oneself with spiritual light. And on the basis of such a philosophy, religion arose. Buddha is really alive, a person taught with his eyes what legends are about.

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY- the diversity of local characteristics in the context of the generic features of philosophy, which can be reconstructed on the basis of the texts of Indian culture, in the historical movement of traditionalist polyformism. The proposed method of defiling Indian philosophy is, despite its seeming formality, conceptual, because contains a number of presumptions that mark a certain methodological approach and cultural and chronological parametrization of the relevant material, which do not coincide with a number of others.

PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. The specification of the "scope" of the concept of Indian philosophy by "traditionalism" prevents the inclusion of those English-language texts of Indian thought of modern and recent times that are Westernized in character, as well as purely modernist writings in Indian languages, which are usually included in the broad history of Indian philosophy. "Traditionalist polymorphism" includes both the confessional ties of Indian philosophers - within Jainism , Buddhism , Hinduism , and forms and literary genres of philosophizing - in the form of a traditional dispute, as well as index texts such as abhidharmic matrices, basic texts (prose sutras, poetic karikas), commentaries and specialized treatises in ancient Indian (Sanskrit), Middle Indian (Pali, Prakrits) and partly New Indian languages.

The emphasis on “the ability to reconstruct” means that the “philosophical matter” of Indian culture is not given to us directly, but can be revealed by applying European parameters to Indian worldview texts that make up the unity of some generic features of “general philosophy”. The approach expressed here is incompatible with the currently widespread notion that we should not "impose" such a "too European" cultural universal as "philosophy" on foreign cultural material; but they must understand it on the basis of itself and "get used" to its inner fabric. In this article, this idea is considered as untenable both from a theoretical point of view, because, as you know, “the boundaries of my world are the boundaries of my language”, and from a practical point of view, because it denies Oriental studies as such, since such categories as “religion”, “literature ”, “mythology”, “politics” or “economics” are no less “too European” than “philosophy”.

Appeal to the "generic features" of philosophy means the assumption that, firstly, contrary to postmodernism, they exist and are identifiable, and secondly, the common idea of "Indian philosophy" as mystical, "psychotechnical", spiritual-practical and "continual", as the antipode of the European - theoretical, "professional", speculative and "conflict" - is recognized as untenable. From a theoretical point of view, because when “Indian philosophy” denies the generic features of European philosophy, there is doubt about the legitimacy of applying the very category “philosophy” to Indian material, from a factual point of view, because the material of those Indian texts that are unanimously recognized as philosophical contains, along with spiritual and practical attitudes (which are not absent in Western philosophy), areas of purely speculative discourse; controversy is not only inherent in Indian philosophy, but also constituted the main way of “philosophizing” in India, and the idea of philosophy as an exploratory-controversial activity was reflected even in Indian definitions of philosophy (see. Philosophy in India ).

Under the "generic features" of philosophy, universal for the West and the East in any historical periods and applicable to Indian philosophy as a "species", is meant (even taking into account the pluralism in the understanding of philosophy among European philosophers) the general unity of the characteristics of philosophy as a theoretical reflection, realized in such fundamental algorithms research activities, as criticism of a certain class of judgments and systematization of a certain class of concepts that are applied (and this is the difference between the philosophical and other types of rationality) to worldview problems that correspond to the main, established since antiquity, the objectivity of "logic", "physics" and "ethics" – studies of knowledge, being and the goals and values of human existence.

The “local characteristics” of the Indian philosophical mentality are those of its features that can be comprehended in the context of the generic features of philosophical rationality. This is, first of all, the original specific dialogism of Indian philosophy, which is expressed not only in the fact that each position of the Indian philosopher is an alternative to the position of a real or imaginary opponent, or that the main genre of the texts of Indian philosophy - commentary - is built on the polemical principle (the entire history of Indian philosophy is the history of "debatable club"), but also in the fact that the five-term Indian syllogism itself (see. Awayawa ) is, in contrast to the tripartite Aristotelian, dialogical, represents more persuasion than proof, and contains components of rhetorical speech in the form good example and application to the case under consideration in the face of the opponent, the audience and the arbitrator of the dispute (in the seven-term and ten-term Indian syllogisms, the "knots" of the discussion itself with the opponent are also explicated). Another specificity of Indian philosophy is the initial predominance of game analytics and a penchant for formalistic aestheticism: the methods of constructing classifications and definitions were no less important for the Indian philosopher than the classified and defined material itself (in a certain sense and more), and already starting from the first steps of the Indian philosophy in its arsenal is dominated by trilemmas, tetralemmas, antitetralemmas (see. Chatushkotika ), the development of which is far ahead of attempts to canonize "ordinary logic". The main specific paradigms of Indian philosophy include “cross-cutting” differentiations of the “manifested” and “unmanifested” levels of discourse objects (see. Vyakta-avyakta ), as well as the conventional and absolute levels of their very knowledge (cf. Vyavaharika Paramarthika ). Existence and non-existence, truth and delusion are, as a rule, multidimensional for the Indian philosopher, various “quantities” and “qualities” are found in them, which are the basis for constructing ontological and epistemological hierarchies and “pyramids”.

The lower limit of Indian philosophy corresponds to the initial stage of the functioning of the above generic features of philosophy in Indian culture, which is preceded by periods of not-yet-philosophy. About her upper bound(as well as about the Middle Ages) it is impossible to speak, since even at present in India the traditional methods, subjects and genres of texts of Indian philosophy (in Sanskrit and New Indian languages) are being reproduced, which should be clearly distinguished from modern Westernized philosophical literature.

PRE-PHILOSOPHICAL PERIOD (c. 10 - 6 - 5 centuries BC) - the period of formation of "building materials" for future philosophy. It is presented in the worldview concepts and constructions of individual hymns of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda, in the cosmogonic correlations of Brahman and Aranyak, in the dialogues of the Upanishads, where, along with the doctrine of karma , samsara and the “higher way”, “great sayings” are articulated: “I am Brahman », "That Atman is, truly, Brahman”, “That you are”, which were probably intended for the adept’s meditative interiorization of the secret truth transmitted to him about the incomprehensible unity of the spiritual centers of the individual and the universe, for “it is impossible to know the knower”, which is therefore determined through denials: “ not that, not that…” (cf. Veda ). Nevertheless, we still do not deal with the above generic features of philosophy - due to the lack of the very study of worldview judgments and concepts. When even in the most “philosophical” dialogue Rishi Uddalaka convinces his disciple-son Shvetaketu that in the beginning there was an existent and not a non-existent, he does not give any argument in favor of his position or against an alternative one, but tells the myth about the “self-multiplication” of an existent ( Chandogya Upanishad VI.2). The absence of research activity also determines the absence of philosophical objectivity itself, which cannot be formed before this activity (just as, by analogy with L. Wittgenstein, chess pieces do not appear before the invention chess game).

PREPHILOSOPHY. While the Brahmanist gnostics were thinking about the "bricks of the universe" and the possibilities of getting rid of samsara, the erudite priests in the 8th-5th centuries. BC. began to develop parallel scientific disciplines in the study of the sacred rite and the sacred language. This initial experience in the criticism of judgments - dialectics and systematization of concepts - analytics, as applied to the history of philosophy, can be conditionally designated as pre-philosophy. Gathering for their "tournaments", often organized by local rulers, they discussed private problems of ritual science and appealed to the audience and arbitrators, referring to a generally valid rational argument, often in a syllogistic form. The same scholars classified and hierarchized the elements and levels of speech, texts and sacrifices, sometimes even using the means of the metalanguage of their description. If the Indian "pre-philosophy" dealt with ideological topics without the means of rationality, then the "pre-philosophy" realized these means on non-ideological material.

THE INITIAL PERIOD of PHILOSOPHY in the proper sense - as the application of this toolkit to worldview problems - dates back to the time of the spiritual and cultural crisis of the middle. 1st millennium BC, the Shraman era of Indian civilization, so named because of the avalanche-like and almost synchronous appearance of many ascetic groups (Skt. śramana, Pali samañña - ascetic), each of which came up with its own program to achieve the highest good and most in opposition to the Brahmins. The causes of the Shraman "revolution" were both the crisis of the solemn ritual, and the new relationship between the Indo-Aryans and the non-Aryan substratum, and the beginning (relatively later) of urban civilization, but the main one was the emergence of intellectual pluralism beyond the boundaries of the debates of the priestly colleges. If the question is raised about what or who the gods of the Vedic hymns actually represent, and then about whether these hymns are significant outside of ritual action, then from here it is only a step to next question: are these actions themselves and actions as such necessary to achieve the highest good? It was this problem that divided the spiritual elite into "dissidents" and traditionalists, who had to turn to a generally valid argument in front of an audience of the entire Indian society.

THE PERIOD OF THE FORMATION OF SCHOOLS covers several historical eras at once (4th century BC - 2nd century AD). Its debatable background is determined by the great opposition of the directions of nastika and astika, which individually do not constitute any single formations, but are in the process of constant pluralization. After the first split in the Buddhist community, caused by a group mahisasaki and the main Buddhist schism of the 4th c. BC, which led to the division of the community into "reformers" mahasanghikas and "orthodox" sthaviravada , each of these formations gives many branches (in the historical and philosophical context, the most significant was the education in the 3rd century BC sarvastivada ). In the 4th–3rd centuries BC. the first split in the Jain community is outlined, associated with the name of the eighth "patriarch" of the Jains, Bhadraboku, and in the 1st century. AD, according to Jain legends, the schism of Shvetambaras and Digambaras takes shape. Among the Brahminist currents stands out Samkhya , the beginning of which dates back to the Sramana period; circumstantial evidence suggests initial stages vaisheshiki ,nyai ,mimams ,Vedanta.

THE CLASSICAL PERIOD of Indian philosophy (2nd–5th centuries) is the era of initial system building, which was realized in the formation of basic texts among the Jains, as well as in the schools of Buddhism and Brahmanism. In the 2nd century Jain "Tattvarthadhigama Sutra" , adopted by both the Shvetambaras and Digambaras, and the Vaisheshika Sutras, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. - Mimamsa and Kariki Sutras Madhyamikas , in the 3rd–4th centuries. - Nyaya and Vedanta sutras, in the 4th c. - the fundamental text of the yogachara "Madhyantavibhagasutra" by Asanga, in the 4th-5th centuries. – sutras yoga and Kariki Samkhya - the oldest philosophical tradition was able to present the basic text later than all the others. The value of the basic texts was to unify the heritage of the respective traditions and "record" their main doctrines, which were to be the subject of further exegesis. Significant events were the emergence within the Yogachara school of Buddhist logic and epistemology, the "sutras" of which was "Pramana-samucchaya" Dignaghi and the grammatical-Vedantic text "Vakyapadiya" Bhartrihari (5th century).

EARLY SCHOLASTIC PERIOD of Indian philosophy (5th-9th centuries) - the era of compiling normative comments on basic texts, as a result of which they become "complete" philosophical systems - darshans. Comments solve two main tasks - the interpretation of the content of basic texts and the construction of new philosophical doctrines on their basis. In a number of cases, treatises of the commentary type were compiled - as in Vaisheshika, where "Padart-hadharmasangraha" Prashastapada was tied to Vaisesika Sutras , but in fact it was an independent composition. Other notable treatises included seven writings by the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti. In the commentary polemic of everyone with everyone, the permanent discussion of the Nayyaikas and Buddhist logicians stands out; Mimansakas and Vedantists adopted a decisive attitude to oust Buddhism. The process of polarization was also revealed within individual systems. In the Madhyamika in the 6th-7th centuries. there was a division into Prasangika schools and svatantrika ; in mimams in the 7th c. schools Kumarils And prabhakars divided on almost all essential issues almost like different darshans; in Vedanta after commentary activity Shankara (7th–8th centuries) a school of absolute monism is formed advaita vedanta , which soon also divided into two "streams", and in the 9th century. the school of Bhaskara, opposing Advaita, is formed, who refused to consider the empirical world as the result of cosmic Ignorance.

THE PERIOD OF "HIGH SCHOLASTICS" (9th-15th centuries) was marked by the gradual "expulsion" of Buddhism from India and, accordingly, a serious narrowing of the circle of real participants in the Indian "discussion club", the appearance of philosophers-encyclopedists such as Vachaspati Mishra (9th century), who worked in the traditions of the five Brahmin systems, as well as the creation of syntheses such as nyaya vaisesiki and "new nyaya" Gangeshi Upadhyaya (13th century), whose achievements are compared with modern logic. Among the main new formations is the school Kashmir Shaivism (since the 9th century), as well as the schools of Vedanta that opposed Advaita: which grew out of the "limited monism" of Bhaskara bheda-abheda Nimbarki (11th century), visishta advaita Ramanuja (11th-12th centuries) and "dualistic" dvaita advaita Madhva (13th century). This period of Indian philosophy is characterized by pronounced syncretism (Vedantin schools willingly utilize the Samkhya models, Sankhya - the provisions and paradigms of Advaita Vedanta, etc.). This trend is deepening: suffice it to cite Vijnana Bhikshu (16th century), who tried to build a system of yoga-sankhya-vedanta, as an example. Original creativity turned out to be the lot of only a new Nyaya: Raghunath Shiromani (17th century) and his followers.

The main subjects of discussions of the Shraman period were: are the Atman and the world eternal? Does the universe have limits? Are soul and body one? Are human actions effective? Are there "unborn" beings? and is there a "perfect" after death?; optional: what are the causes of the individual's states of consciousness? how do they relate to knowledge and the Atman? etc. The problem fund of Indian philosophy of the era of early and "high" scholasticism has changed significantly in comparison with the Sramana one. It also emerges from the most popular subjects of discussion, but, in view of the fact that their circle has not only changed, but also expanded beyond recognition, it is advisable to confine ourselves here only to the main “general Indian” philosophical topics. Since Indian philosophy itself did not know the disciplinary structure of philosophical discourse, it is advisable to distribute these “general Indian” philosophical topics in the extremely wide parameters of the ancient division of philosophical objectivity into the areas of “logic”, “physics” and “ethics”.

"LOGIC" can be divided (as the ancient philosophers did) into logic in the proper sense and the theory of knowledge, adding semantic problems to them. 1. Discussions on logic are conveniently demonstrated by the example of a common Indian syllogism:

(1) The hill is on fire;

(2) Because it smokes;

(3) Anything that smokes is ignited, such as a brazier;

(4) But the hill is smoking;

(5) Therefore, it is inflammable.

If the Naiyaikas insisted that all members of this syllogism are necessary, then Buddhist logicians believed that they can be completely reduced to three: provisions (1), (2) and (3), or, in other words, (3), (4) and (5) are already quite sufficient for the conclusion. It is obvious that the opponents expressed different concepts of the very nature of syllogism: the first saw it as a means of persuasion, the second - of proof (an attempt to separate logic from rhetoric dates back precisely to the era of Dignaga). Further, darshanas also divided in the interpretation of the main mechanism of inference - point (3): the Vedantists believed that the "accompaniment" of a larger term to the middle ( vyapti ) can be substantiated by simple induction, realists-Nayayikas - by a real connection between two real "things", "smokyness" and "fieryness", nominalists-Buddhists - by the recognition of only some a priori relations, because "to smoke" and "to ignite" are in the relationship of effect and cause .

2. The main discussion field in the theory of knowledge was determined by "discrepancies" in connection with what sources of knowledge ( pramanas ) should be considered reliable and "atomic" - not reducible to others. Charvaka materialists recognized as such only sensory perception ( pratyaksha ), Buddhists and Vaisheshikas also added inference ( anumana ), Sankhyaiki and yogis - verbal evidence ( shabda ), nayyaki - comparison ( upamana ), the Mimansakas, and after them the Vedantists, also the assumption ( arthapatti ), non-perception (anupalabdhi), intuitive imagination ( pratibha ), legend (such as: “They say that a dakshini lives on a banyan tree”), correspondence (such as: “There are one hundred centimeters in one meter”), as well as gestures (as a way of non-verbal transmission of information). Each previous of the listed darshans criticized each subsequent one for introducing "superfluous" sources of knowledge, which are reducible to the main "components", and each subsequent one proved their irreducibility to others. The most convenient targets for critics turned out to be the extreme positions of the "minimalists"-charvaks and "maximalists"-mimansaks. The correlation of perceptual and discursive knowledge was also the subject of the all-India discussion: the Jains generally considered perception-inference to be a single cognitive process (distinguishing them only as its stages); yogachara Buddhists have created an impassable abyss between them, considering them to be genetically different and responsible for the knowledge of things-as-it-is and the activity of "constructive imagination"; The Naiyaiki and Mimansaki distinguished two stages of perception itself, at the first of which there is a pure reflection of the object, at the second, its introduction into the grid of generic characteristics, and so on. ( nirvikalpa-savikalpa ,pratyaksha ). On the problem of criteriaology, four "tetralemma" positions were identified. The Mimansakas (following them, the Sankhyaikas) believed that the truth and falsity of any cognitive act are self-reliant, and we comprehend the correctness and incorrectness of its results with an inner eye; Nayyikas, on the contrary, argued that we come to knowledge of both truth and falsity in an indirect way, through inference; intermediate positions were closer to Buddhists and Vedantists: the former believed that only falsity was self-reliant, the latter - that only truth.

Discussions on the interpretation of erroneous cognition are best illustrated by the classic example of a folded rope, which in the dark is mistaken for a snake. Buddhists saw here a case of an illusory identity of two things, Nayyikas and Vaisheshikas emphasized the moment of “revival” of a previously perceived image, the Prabhakara school - non-distinction between perception and memory, the Kumarila school - a false connection in the subject-predicate relation (“This is a snake”) of two real things. The Advaita Vedantists strongly criticized all the named participants in the discussion for their failure to answer the question. main question- how exactly the snake appears at least for a moment on the "place" of the rope - and stated that in this case it is not non-existent (because it actually appeared for a moment, causing that feeling of horror that a simple memory slip or false attribution) and non-existent (otherwise, in the next moment, a frightened person would not realize that she really does not exist), and therefore her being can be described as “indescribable”. It's obvious that we are talking about the transition from the epistemological aspect of the problem to the ontological one (the whole empirical world is neither dry nor non-existent).

3. The main semantic problem was the nature of the connection between the word and its referent. If the Naiyaikas and Vaisheshikas adhered to conventionalism, believing that the word "cow" is associated with the corresponding animal only due to human agreement, then the Mimansaki were convinced that they were also connected by "natural" ties, which are not conditional, but eternal. If they are eternal, then the beginnings connected by them are also eternal, including the words, which should be considered without beginning. The objections of their opponents that words are produced by the speaker were met by the Mimansaki with a counter-objection: they are not produced, but only manifested. This doctrine was supposed to substantiate another one (here the Vedantists were in solidarity with the Mimansakas) - the doctrine of the beginninglessness of the Vedas, which are infallible due to the absence of an Author and, especially, authors, which the Nayayaks and Vaisheshikas insisted on. Another problem: does the significativity of a sentence consist of the meanings of its constituent words, or does it contain something more than their sum? The Prabhakara school took the second position, the Kumarila school the first, and the Nayyikas took a compromise position.

"PHYSICS" of Indian philosophers includes a wide range of problems that could be conditionally (using the thematizations of the European philosophy of modern times) divided between ontology, anthropology, cosmology and theology.

1. Among the discussions on ontological problems - related to the fundamental characteristics and modes of being - stand out the debate on the existential status of universals, which were hardly less relevant for medieval Indian philosophy than for contemporary Western philosophy. Buddhists defended extremist nominalism, which denied not only the existence of universals outside of things, but their very identity - the classes of things were determined through the negation of their negations ( apoha-vada ); Prabhakara's school was close to conceptualism, believing that universals have a positive nature, but reduced them to the objective similarity of things; the Sankhyaiks admitted that universals exist before and after individual things, but denied their eternity; finally, the Nayyikas adhered to extremist realism, considering universals not only as beginningless and eternal, but as separate things, accessible to special forms of perception, along with a relation of inherence connecting them with empirical things. It is natural that the most heated discussions took place between the extreme "parties" of the Buddhists and the Nayyaiks.

Another problem was related to the ontological status of non-existence. The saying: "There is no pitcher on the table" was interpreted by the Buddhists as: "There is no presence of the pitcher," and by the Vaisheshikas as: "There is the absence of the pitcher." For the former, the non-existence of something is derived from the absence of perception of its possible signs, for the latter, non-existence is not only “contextual”, but also has an independent reality (because it becomes a separate category), and even “existential”, because it is possible to distinguish its varieties, which are usually four (cf. Abhava ). The problem of darkness was also typologically close: for the Nayyaiks it is only a negation of light, for the Vedantists it is a certain positive essence.

2. The main discussions in anthropology were connected with the existence, quantity and characteristics of the spiritual principle of the individual - Atman. The Charvaka materialists and almost all Buddhists denied it (the latter sometimes agreed to recognize it at the level of conventional truth); "Unorthodox" Vatsiputriya Buddhists accepted something like a pseudo-Atman ( pudgala ) to explain the law of retribution; Jains, Nayyikas, Vaisheshikas and Mimansakas considered him numerologically infinitely plural and active subject of knowledge and action; Sankhyaiki and yogis - with multiple and pure light, completely passive (for it all functions are performed by the mentality- antahkarana ); the Vedantins, with a single and pure consciousness. The Buddhists had discussions with the Brahminists (and with their own "heretics"), the Vedantists with both the "activists" and the Sankhyaikas, and the latter, in turn, tried to justify the impossibility of the Atman's unity by differences in the existence of individuals. The Brahminists also criticized the concept of the Jains, who considered the soul to be jiva proportionate to the body: they made it appear to them that such a soul should be "elastic", expanding in one incarnation to the size of an elephant and shrinking to a worm in another. Disagreements also concerned the composition of the human body: the Naiyaikas insisted that it consists only of the atoms of the earth, the Sankhyaiki insisted that all five primary elements are its causes.

3. Discussions on the explanation of the world were conducted mainly around the problem of the source of the universe and were directly related to theories of causality. Buddhists proposed to consider the world as a serial sequence of "point" events, defending the interpretation of the effect as the destruction of the cause ( asatkarya-vada ); The Naiyaikas, Vaisheshikas and, to some extent, the Mimansakas saw the sources of the world in atoms, which are “assembled” and “disconnected” by the action of factors external to them - in accordance with their doctrine of the effect as a new beginning in comparison with its causes, with which it is correlated as a whole with parts (arambhaka-vada); Sankhyaiki and yogis represented the universe as a manifestation of the primordial matter prakriti - they considered the effect to be a real transformation and the "revealing" of the cause ( parinama vada ); Finally, the Advaita Vedantists adhered to the view of the world as an illusory projection of the Absolute-Brahman created by the cosmic Illusion - the cause, in their opinion, is only apparently transformed into its “effects” ( vivarta vada ).

4. In connection with rational theology, several positions have been defined in Indian philosophy. Discussions were held primarily between those who recognized the existence of the Divine ( isvara vada ) - Naiyaikas, Vaisheshikas, Yogins, Vedantists, and those who denied it ( nirisvara vada ) - materialists, Jains, Buddhists, Sankhyaikas, Mimansakas. But even within the framework of “theism” (one can speak of theism here only in quotation marks, because Indian philosophy did not know anything like Christian creationism, with all the consequences of the absence of this concept), several models were distinguished: Ishvara - “first among equals” of spiritual principles as pure subjects, indifferent to the world (yoga); Ishvara is the architect of the world and the designer who organizes the creation of things from their “components” in accordance with the operation of the law of karma (vaisheshika and nyaya); Ishvara as a personification of the impersonal Absolute, carrying out design activities in the game ( lila ), with the assistance of the cosmic Illusion (Advaita Vedanta).

"ETICS" in the discussions of Indian philosophers was divided between ethical issues in the proper sense (the general obligatory nature of moral prescriptions and the motivation of a sense of obligation) and soteriology as a doctrine of the highest goal of human existence.

1. Among proper ethical issues the question of the imperativeness of the law of non-harm was discussed - ahimsa in connection with the moral legitimacy of the performance of ritual prescriptions, which suggested the possibility of its violation (in the case of certain sacrifices). Jains, Buddhists and Sankhyaikas considered the requirements of the law of Ahimsa unconditional and therefore denied the possibility of any justification for its violation even for "sacred purposes". The Mimansaks, on the contrary, insisted on the immutability of ritual prescriptions and believed that, since they should be seen as the very source dharma , then the violations of ahimsa committed by them should be considered quite legitimate. Another discussion took place already within the framework of the mimamsa itself: the school of Kumarila considered the promised fruits for this as the main motive for fulfilling ritual prescriptions, and the school of Prabhakara considered the desire to fulfill duty for the sake of duty itself and the special feeling of satisfaction that accompanies it.

2. In the all-Indian debate on the interpretation of the nature of "liberation" ( moksha ) the majority of votes were cast in favor of understanding liberation from suffering, samsara and karmic "connection" as a radical cessation of all emotionality and individual consciousness. Such a conclusion follows not only from the concept of nirvana as the “fading out” of all vitality in classical Buddhism, but also from the formulations of most Nyaya Vaisheshika philosophers, who sometimes compared the state of “deliverance” with the expiration of fire after the combustion of fuel, and from the concept of final elimination in Samkhya and yoga. , and from the Mimansak representations. This position was opposed by the interpretations of some Vishnuite and Shaivite schools (for example, the Pashupatas believed that in “liberation” the possession of the perfections of Shiva is achieved) and, most of all, by the Advaita Vedantists, in whom “liberation” is understood as an individual’s awareness of his identity with the Absolute, which is bliss (ananda). There were serious disputes between the opponents. Vatsyayana in "Nyaya-bhashye" substantiates the view that bliss should not be understood otherwise than the cessation of suffering, and if we consider that it means pleasure, then such a state should not differ in any way from samsaric, and the Vedantist Mandana Mishra substantiated the illegality of identifying the positive emotional state with no negatives. In the introduction to Sridhara's Nyaya-Kandali, the Vaisheshik argues that the argument for "bliss" based on the authority of the Upanishads is insufficient, for it is advisable to refer to these texts when we no longer have other sources of knowledge. However, the nayyaik that preceded Sridhara Bhasarvajna opposed the "negative" definition of moksha, insisting that in this state both consciousness and bliss should be found. On the other hand, the later Sankhyaikas solved the same problem in exactly the opposite way: happiness cannot be the goal of human existence, for it is inseparable from suffering.

Is individual consciousness preserved in "liberation"? The Sankhyaikas, Yogis and Vaisheshikas were in solidarity with the Vedantists, answering this question in the negative, but on different grounds. According to the Sankhyaikas, consciousness is the result of the connection of the spiritual subject with factors foreign to him, therefore, the liberated "pure subject" must already be outside of consciousness; according to the Vedantins, “liberation” is the merging of the individual with the Absolute, just as the space occupied by a pot, according to Shankara, merges with the space of a room after it is broken. They were opposed by "theistic" - both Vishnuite and Shaivite - currents, many of which positively considered the possibility of understanding the highest state as the co-presence and correspondence of "liberated" souls and the Divine, and partly by the Jains, in whom each "liberated" soul restores the originally inherent her qualities of omniscience and power.

Is it possible to hope for a complete "liberation" while still alive? Most of the Naiyaikas and Vaisheshikas believed that it comes only with the destruction of the bodily shell of one who has achieved true knowledge. However, Uddyotakara and the Sankhyaikas distinguished, as it were, the first “liberation” and the second: the preliminary one is feasible in the last incarnation of the one who has achieved knowledge, the final one after his physical death (Uddyotakara believed that at the first stage the residual “fruits” of the accumulated karma have not yet been exhausted) . The Vedantists, on the other hand, most consistently defended the ideal of "liberation in life": the mere presence of the body as the residual fruit of karmic seeds does not prevent the liberation of its bearer.

Three positions emerged in the debate about what are the correlative "proportions" of the fulfillment of ritual prescriptions and the discipline of knowledge as a means of achieving "liberation". Consistent non-conformists here were, in addition to the Jains and Buddhists, who deny the Brahmanistic ritual practice in principle, also the Sankhyaikas and yogis, who saw in it the conditions not so much of "liberation" as, on the contrary, "enslavement" in samsarism. Shankara, Mandana Mishra and other early Vedantists took an intermediate position: only knowledge is "liberating", but the correct fulfillment of ritual prescriptions "purifies" the adept on the way to the highest goal. Mimansaki as the ideologues of ritualism, as well as some Nayyikas, insisted more on the need for a "path of action". Accordingly, those who were more loyal to ritual practice did not insist that the condition of "liberation" was the severing of all ties with the world, while their opponents were partially more inclined to be rigorous in this matter, defending the "monastic" ideal.

Differences were related to whether the adept's own efforts were sufficient for the "liberation" or, in addition, the help of the Deity was also required. Complete "self-liberation" was advocated by the Jains, "orthodox" Buddhists, Sankhyaikas and Mimansakas. Mahayana Buddhists, yogis, Vaishnava and Shaivite schools, representatives of the "theistic Vedanta", as well as some Nayyikas (Bhasarvajna and his followers) to varying degrees accepted the need for help from the pantheon. Those who considered this help necessary were also divided into "radicals" and "moderates": the former, unlike the latter, did not consider any human efforts necessary at all, understanding "liberation" as a pure "gift". The discussions between the Vedantists and the Mimansakas were also on the problem: is it possible to "earn" the highest good at all by any effort? The Vedantists, in contrast to the Mimansakas, who believed that it is developed, in addition to knowledge, by the exact fulfillment of sacred precepts, believed, without rejecting the prescribed actions, that it is realized as spontaneously as a girl suddenly discovers that she has a long-forgotten golden necklace.

Literature:

1. Chatterjee S.,Datta D. Introduction to Indian Philosophy. M., 1955;

2. Radhakrishnan S. Indian Philosophy, vols. 1–2. M., 1956–57;

3. Shokhin V.K. Brahminist philosophy: the initial and early classical periods. M., 1994;

4. He is. The first philosophers of India. M., 1997;

5. Lysenko V.G.,Terentiev A. a.,Shokhin V.K. Early Buddhist philosophy. Philosophy of Jainism. M., 1994;

6. Deussen R. Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd I, Abt. 3. Lpz., 1920;

7. Dasgupta S. A History of Indian Philosophy, v. 1–5. Oxf., 1922–55;

8. Strauss O. Indian Philosophy. Munch., 1925;

9. Stcherbatsky Th. Buddhist Logic, v. 1–2. Leningrad, 1930–32;

10. Hirianna M. Outlines of Indian Philosophy. L., 1932;

11. Potter K. Presuppositions of India's Philosophies. Englewood Cliffs (NJ), 1963;

12. Warder A. Outline of Indian Philosophy. Delhi, 1971;

13. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, gen. ed. K.N.Potter. Delhi a. o., Princeton, v. 1, Bibliography, comp. by K. H. Potter, 1970, 1983, 1995;

14.v. 2, Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology. The Tradition of Nyāyavaiśeṣika up to Gañgeša, ed. by K.H.Potter, 1977;

15.v. 3, Advaita Vedanta up to Śaṃkara and His Pupils, ed. by K.H.Potter, 1981;

16.v. 4, Sāṃkhya: A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy, ed. by G. J. Larson and R. Sh. Bhattacharya, 1987;

17.v. 7, Abhidharma Buddhism To 150 A.D., ed. by K.H.Potter with R.E.Buswell, P.S.Jaini and N.R.Reat, 1996.

V.K. Shokhin

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY OF NEW AND MODERN TIMES. The formation and development of the Indian philosophy of modern times is usually associated with the name R.M. Roy , founder of the direction that dominated the philosophical life of India in the 19th century, later called neo-Vedantism. However, an opinion is expressed that the first theoretician of the Modern Age was the anonymous author of the religious and philosophical treatise "Mahanirvanatantra", written in Bengal, presumably between 1775 and 1785. The humanistic orientation and enlightening pathos of this treatise are combined with an active rejection of polytheism, the requirement of faith in a single personal God and orientation towards strictly spiritual veneration of it. Roy is believed to have been heavily influenced by the Mahanirvanatantra.

Roy, as well as his associates and followers in the 19th century. (D. Tagore, K. Ch. Sen, Dayananda Saraswati ,Vivekananda etc.) with all the differences in their views, they relied on Vedanta, although they considered it possible to combine its elements with elements of other darshans (most often Sankhya, Vaisheshika and Nyaya). Recognition of the deep unity of man and the world in the spiritual fundamental principle and the internal relationship of Brahman and the world form the basis of their ontological views. Orientation towards rational knowledge, proceeding in concepts, judgments and conclusions, and the requirement to limit the claim of the orthodox to the infallibility, uniqueness and exclusivity of Shruti (Vedic texts), while recognizing the "superintelligent" cognitive abilities of a person and his need for scripture, was the basis of their epistemological views . Worldview and worldview of theorists of the 19th century. determined to a large extent external factors due to the peculiarities of the colonial position of the country. They got acquainted with the teachings based on other worldview, theoretical-cognitive and logical-methodological principles. Neo-Vedantists did not create independent complete systems. The re-emphasis of the inherited mental material was centered around the problem of man, forming the best features of neo-Vedantism: a critical charge, a humanistic and moral principle, an appeal to reality. Vigorous activity in favor of social reforms, carried out in line with the reformation of Hinduism, was the most noticeable side of their activities. In the resulting for the 19th century. Vivekananda's teachings contain recognition of the need for both religious and social renewal, the transformation of social structures, the natural scientific development of the world and an equal dialogue with the Western world.

Processes comparable to the formation and development of neo-Vedantism, inseparable from the reformation of Hinduism, were also carried out within the framework of the Muslim tradition. In search of a theoretical basis for the "doctrine of self-help", Sid Ahmad Khan turned to Islam, emphasizing the need for a new reading of the Koran. Later, in the first half of the 20th century, the poet and thinker M.Iqbal developed the idea of a "perfect man" entirely on the principles of "reconstructed" Islam.

IN modern times The following thinkers and public and political figures of the 20th century can be called neo-Vedantists: M.K.Gandhi ,A. Ghosha ,R. Tagora , Ramana Maharshi, Kr.Bhattacharya ,Bh. Dasa ,S. Radhakrishnan. Their life paths and destinies sometimes differed quite significantly: Gandhi and Ghosh (until 1910) were politicians; Tagore - a famous poet and writer; Ramana Maharshi - a famous yogi; Das, Bhattacharya and Radhakrishnan connected their lives with universities, although not always and not completely closed within the framework of teaching. With all the difference in the initial ideas, the way they were exposed and the impact on the socio-political life of the country, the work of these thinkers depended on religious thinking, was supported by Vedanta, was marked by ethical pathos, inseparable from the ideas of universality and permeated with humanistic ideas. Gandhi proceeded from the position of the inseparability of religious and political and, having based his teaching on the thesis of the identification of religion with morality, substantiated the requirement of non-violent waging of the liberation struggle. Ghose, having experienced the experience of special mystical insights, created a complexly structured, all-encompassing system of “integral yoga”, which explains the process of involution of Nirguna Brahman, inseparable from the process of evolution, interpreted as the spiritualization of matter and the emergence of a “perfect” person capable of living forever. The pathos of life-affirmation, the joyful emotional and aesthetic perception of the world, the delight from the richness of life impressions are the essence of Tagore's reading of the Upanishads. Ramana Maharshi made the problem of understanding the relationship between subject and object central in his teaching, but, having come to the conclusion that introspection is the only way to comprehend one’s “I”, at the same time he considered active, socially oriented activity compatible with this kind of spiritual practice.

Formation of the so-called. "Academic philosophy" can be attributed to con. 19th century In educated in the middle. 19th century The three central universities taught not only classical darshans, but also Western philosophical systems. The approach to the teachings of the West was selective. In the last decades of the 19th century especially influential were the ideas of positivism J.Mill And G. Spencer , utilitarianism I.Bentama , intuitionism A. Bergson. Indian intellectuals were attracted by Bergson's perception of reality, consonant with their worldview, based solely on intuition, understood as the specific capabilities of the mind and not reducible either to sensory experience or to logical thinking. Systems were later enthusiastically received Hegel And Kant , for the Hegelian idea of the Absolute Spirit seemed to be comparable with the Vedantic understanding of Nirguna Brahman, and the Hegelian interpretation of the relationship between religion and philosophy was seen as compatible with the traditional understanding of religion as the "practice of philosophy" and philosophy as the "theory of religions." Kant's work aroused interest primarily in the doctrine of moral duty, in which they saw a certain affinity with the ideas of the mimamsa.

The work of Bhattacharya, Das and Radhakrishnan is a serious rethinking of Vedantic schemes and the desire to creatively synthesize the spiritual heritage of East and West in order to develop independent systems that can explain the fullness of the connections of the universe and the foundations of human being in the world. Various concepts were the main components of their systems: the concept of the Absolute as truth, value and reality (Bhattacharya); the ratio of the one and the many (Das); philosophical understanding of religion as a predominantly ethical phenomenon (Radhakrishnan). The ratio of the national heritage and the influence of Western systems also had various manifestations: Bhattacharya, in interpreting the essence of philosophy, relied on dar-shans and also attracted the ideas of Kant, neo-kantianism , logical positivism; Das tried to combine with Vedanta the ideas of Hegel and Fichte and to preserve the Vedantic conception of world cycles; Radhakrishnan, in interpreting the problems of cognition, relied not only on Vedanta, but also on Bergson's intuitionism.

In the 1950s–90s. a certain contribution to the development of philosophy (mainly, to understanding the problems of history as a process, incentives for the movement social life, social progress, philosophical problems of science and culture) were introduced by public and political figures (J. Nehru, J. P. Narayan, H. Kabir). In the writings of ashram members and various religious organizations primary attention is paid to Vedanta: it is interpreted then as a justification for mystical doctrines (“Society of Divine Life”); sometimes as the only adequate substantiation of the universal universal lofty moral ideals (“Mission of Ramakrishna”, “Brahma Kumari”); then as a spiritual discipline that has much in common with modern science, but surpasses generally valid empirical knowledge by the ability to "grasp" the hidden truth ("Ramakrishna's Mission", "Advaita Ashram", etc.). Yet from the 2nd floor. 20th century philosophical problems are developed mainly by representatives of academic circles, i.e. professional philosophers in universities and research centers.

Modern Indian philosophy cannot be reduced to any one system or direction. It is a pluralistic complex of diverse systems and teachings. We can talk about different models of theoretical thinking; orientation to the philosophical classics is preserved; obvious is the reassessment of the heritage, and the appeal to the methodological foundations of Western systems (analytical philosophy - N.K. Devaraja, B.K. Matilal, G. Mishra; phenomenology and existentialism - J.A. Mehta, J. Mohanty, R. Sinari; Marxism - S. Gupta, K. Damodaran, D. P. Chattopadhyaya (Art.)). The concepts of synthesis and comparative studies are widely used, when comparative philosophy is understood as an independent theory with its own methods, objects and goals of research (D.M. Datta, Devaraja, Mohanti, K.S. Murti, P.T. Raju, D.P. Chattopadhyaya Jr. The number of works devoted to the history and theory of the historical and philosophical process is growing every year (R. Balasubramania, S.P. Banerjee, Kalidas Bhattacharya, T.M.P. Mahadevan, K.S. Murthy, T.R. V. Murthy, R. Prasad, Raju, M. Chatterjee), as well as issues of socio-philosophical knowledge (P. Gregorius, Daya Krishna, K. S. Murthy, Chatterjee, Chattopadhyaya (Jr.). Annual sessions held since 1925 The All India Philosophical Congress promotes mutual rapprochement of scholars.The Indian Council for Philosophical Research (established in 1981) coordinates scientific work and identifies priority research areas.

Literature:

1. Kostyuchenko V.S. Classical Vedanta and Neo-Vedantism. M., 1983;

2. Litman A.D. Modern Indian Philosophy. M., 1985;

3. He is. Philosophy in independent India. Contradictions, problems, discussions. M., 1988;

4. Murty K.S. Philosophy in India. Traditions, Teaching and Research. Delhi, 1985.

O.V. Mezentseva

Since the topic of our article is the philosophy of Ancient India briefly, we will consider only the main points of this topic. However, you can get a general idea of the philosophy that was formed in the East and in particular in India.

The thinkers of ancient India treated truth as a multifaceted knowledge that cannot be expressed in full, fixing their gaze only on certain sides. That is why they believed that there are many ways to improve, choosing one of which, you can develop your personality and grow spiritually.

Any philosophical system of the East recognized the ultimate goal of man as his development and self-improvement. It is through one's own self-development that one could improve the world itself.

Indian philosophy is conventionally divided into 3 main periods:

Vedic (XV-V centuries BC);
Classical (V century BC-X century AD);
Hindu (since the 10th century AD).

The peculiarity of Indian philosophy is its continuous and smooth development, without sharp jumps in the views of thinkers and without drastic changes in ideas.

The most ancient texts related to the philosophy of ancient India are contained in the Vedas, which were written before the 15th century. BC e. The Vedas are “knowledge”, “knowledge”.

It was this knowledge that served as the beginning of ancient Indian philosophy, while further literature was essentially a commentary or a kind of interpretation of the Vedic texts.

Vedic literature is divided into 4 groups in historical sequence:

Samhitas.
Brahmins.
Aranyaki.
Upanishads.

Considering that the Samhitas are ancient texts, then it is they who are usually called the Vedas, and the Upanishads are free additions to the original source, but in a broad sense, all 4 groups are called the Vedas.

Samhitas are 4 collections of hymns:

Rigveda (the oldest of the Vedas, all subsequent ones rely on it);
Samave-da (Veda of tunes);
Yajurveda (Veda of sacrifice);
At-harvaveda (Veda of Spells).

The Vedas were presented as a revelation given to man by deities. The gods had the gift of omniscience and they passed on their knowledge (Vedas) to rishi poets. Rishis are not specific people, but the authors of hymns, peculiar characters.

In ancient Indian philosophy, there were two traditions (methods of knowledge):

Shruti (what is described above - the transfer of knowledge from the gods to the rishis);
Smriti ("remembering" literally).

Thus, the Vedas included two separate kinds of knowledge - sacred and the second - profane.

According to most scholars, the Vedas were formed during the formation of a class society. Ancient India was not characterized by a slave system, but class inequality was present.

It was this that led to the formation of four groups (varnas):

brahmins (priests);
kshatriyas (warriors representing the highest social stratum);
vaishyas (artisans, merchants, farmers);
Shudras (lowest social class).

All varnas differed both in rights and in their own way. social standing, and by responsibilities. It is this social organization that is reflected in the Vedas.

The earliest Veda is called the Rig Veda. It was divided into 10 mandalas (books). The hymns of the Rigveda are verses of praise to the gods, who were the forces of nature; and ritual verses, in which there were prayers and requests of people to the gods.

The hymns of the Rigveda are not just poetry, but the sacred attempt of the ancient Indians to know the truth of being. Space is everything and everything. Space and time are the unity of diachrony and synchrony. The law of the rotation of the Universe is Rita. The Universe develops synchronistically, and then a period of diachrony sets in, when Chaos replaces Cosmos.

From the Rig Veda we learn about such gods as Surya (the god of the sun), Savitr (the god of motivation), Mitra (the god of friendship), Pushan (the god of solar energy), Ushas (the goddess dawn), Agni (god of fire). This is a far from complete list of the gods and divine beings described in the Rig Veda. It is worth noting that none of them is dominant; all of them, to one degree or another, moved forward when there was a need for it. Thus, each divine being was represented as part of the universal spirit.

We examined what the philosophy of ancient India is briefly. It is the Vedas, and especially the first verses, that can make it possible to understand the history, religion (in particular), the psychology and aesthetics of the social life of India.

Indian civilization is one of the oldest in the world. It originated on the Hindustan Peninsula almost 6 thousand years ago. In an attempt to comprehend themselves, the world around them and their place in it, the ancient Indian philosophers began to take the first steps in the development of worldview teachings. This is how the philosophy of ancient India was born, which had a significant impact on the entire world culture.

general characteristics

Indian philosophy originates in the middle of the first millennium BC. e. Depending on the various sources of philosophical thought, ancient Indian philosophy is usually divided into three main stages:

Vedic - the period of orthodox philosophy of Hinduism (XV-VI centuries BC).
Epic - the period of creation of the famous epics "Mahabharata" and "Ramayana", which considered global problems philosophy of that time, entering the arena of Buddhism and Jainism (VI-II centuries BC).
Age of Sutras - a period of short philosophical treatises that describe individual problems (II century BC-VII century AD).

Since ancient times, Indian philosophy has developed continuously and naturally, without cardinal changes in ideas and points of view. All the main provisions are described in the Vedas dating back to the 15th century. BC e. Almost all the literature that followed the Vedas is associated with their interpretation. The Vedas were written in Sanskrit and included four parts: Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads.

Rice. 1. Vedas.

The main principles of the philosophy of ancient India include:

improvement inner peace person;
the desire to warn against mistakes that may cause suffering in the future;
sincere faith in the immutable moral structure of the universe;
perception of the Universe as a fertile field for moral deeds;
ignorance is the source of all human suffering, while knowledge is an indispensable condition for the salvation of everyone;
comprehension of knowledge through prolonged conscious immersion;
the subordination of weaknesses and passions to reason, which is the only way to salvation.

Philosophical schools of ancient India

In ancient India, philosophical schools were divided into two large groups: orthodox - those that developed on the basis of the teachings of the Vedas, and unorthodox.

Orthodox schools include: