Changes

Upon this foundation of the Upanishads, principal systems of philosophy developed with systematic treatises being written in short pregnant half sentences called Sutras, which did not elaborate the subject, but were intended for those who had direct elaborate oral instructions on the subject.<ref name=":12" />

Upon this foundation of the Upanishads, principal systems of philosophy developed with systematic treatises being written in short pregnant half sentences called Sutras, which did not elaborate the subject, but were intended for those who had direct elaborate oral instructions on the subject.<ref name=":12" />

== Systematization of Darshanas ==

== Systematization of Darshanas ==

It can be seen that the spirit of philosophical enquiry, although had begun in the days of the earliest Upanishads, had continued even in circles other than those of the Upanishads. The Buddha and Jaina activities were also probably happening concurrently as no reference to them is seen in the Upanishads. Thus, it can be said that there were different forms of philosophical inquiry in spheres other than those of the Upanishads, of which we have but scanty records. In the assemblies of the sages and their pupils, the views of the heretical or heterodox thinkers were probably discussed and refuted. So it may have continued until some illustrious member of the assembly such as Gautama or Kanada collected the purport of these discussions on various topics and problems, filled up many of the missing links, classified and arranged these on the form of a system of philosophy and recorded it in '''Sutras (सूत्रम्)'''.<ref name=":12" /> Almost all shastras granthas are written in a certain writing format to enable efficient teaching and memorization. [[Shastra Shikshana Paddhati (शास्त्रशिक्षणपद्धतिः)|Shastra shikshana padhati]] includes one or a few of the following ways of textual structure   

It can be seen that the spirit of philosophical enquiry, although had begun in the days of the earliest Upanishads, had continued even in circles other than those of the Upanishads. The Buddha and Jaina activities were also probably happening concurrently as no reference to them is seen in the Upanishads. Thus, it can be said that there were different forms of philosophical inquiry in spheres other than those of the Upanishads, of which we have but scanty records. In the assemblies of the sages and their pupils, the views of the heretical or heterodox thinkers were probably discussed and refuted. So it may have continued until some illustrious member of the assembly such as Gautama or Kanada collected the purport of these discussions on various topics and problems, filled up many of the missing links, classified and arranged these in the form of a system of philosophy and recorded it in '''Sutras (सूत्रम्)'''.<ref name=":12" />  

 

Almost all shastras granthas are written in a certain writing format to enable efficient teaching and memorization. [[Shastra Shikshana Paddhati (शास्त्रशिक्षणपद्धतिः)|Shastra shikshana padhati]] includes one or a few of the following ways of textual structure   

# Sutras (सुत्रम्)   

# Sutras (सुत्रम्)   

# Bhashya (भाष्यम्)   

# Bhashya (भाष्यम्)   

# To criticize others where they diverge from a particular school.   

# To criticize others where they diverge from a particular school.   

# To defend and uphold the school to which they belonged by putting forth references, explanations and interpretations in the form of commentaries.   

# To defend and uphold the school to which they belonged by putting forth references, explanations and interpretations in the form of commentaries.   

Such was the high esteem and respect in which these writers of the Sutras were held by later day writers that whenever they had any new speculations to offer, these were reconciled with the doctrines of one or other of the existing systems, and put down as faithful interpretations of the system in the form of '''Commentaries (भाष्यम्)'''.<ref name=":12" /> Thus, the literature of each school of Philosophy consists of its own Sutra with commentaries and super-commentaries upon it, as also of certain independent treatises (prakarana) which expound the doctrine as a whole with a view to aid beginners, or discuss one or more aspects of it from the standpoint of the advanced student. The chief sign of systematization is seen in the analysis of the nature and function of knowledge or to the problems of what and how we know. A common feature of all the systems is that they involve, if they do not actually start with, an investigation of '''Pramanas (प्रमाणम्)'''. 

Such was the high esteem and respect in which these writers of the Sutras were held by later day writers that whenever they had any new speculations to offer, these were reconciled with the doctrines of one or other of the existing systems, and put down as faithful interpretations of the system in the form of '''Commentaries (भाष्यम्)'''.<ref name=":12" /> Thus, the literature of each school of Philosophy consists of its own Sutra with commentaries and super-commentaries upon it, as also of certain independent treatises (prakarana) which expound the doctrine as a whole with a view to aid beginners, or discuss one or more aspects of it from the standpoint of the advanced student.  

Pramana is defined as the proximate means to valid knowledge or prama (प्रमा). They are usually regarded as a help not only in acquiring new knowledge, but also in verifying what is already known, so that logic as conceived in Bharatavarsha, is a science both of proof and of discovery. A Pramana, like perception, may reveal the existence and nature of things not hitherto known. It may also be the means of verification, as when an object apprehended by the organ of sight is tested by means of touch or when a doubt arising in respect of something inferred is cleared by actual observation. There is much divergence of opinion among Indian thinkers concerning the number of pramanas accepted among the schools. The number of pramanas they accept range from one to six in general categorized under [[ShadPramanas (षड्प्रमाणाः)|Shad Pramanas (षड्प्रमाणाः)]].   

Such was the hold of these systems upon scholars that all the orthodox teachers belonged to one or the other of these schools since the foundation of the systems of philosophy. Their pupils were thus naturally brought up in accordance with the views of their teachers. All the independence of their thinking was limited and enchained by the faith of the school to which they were attached. Instead of seeing growth of free lance thinking and new theories, India brought forth schools of pupils who carried the traditional views of a particular school from generation to generation, who explained and defended them against the attacks of other rival schools, which they constantly attacked in order to establish the superiority of the system to which they adhere.<ref name=":12" />    

Such was the hold of these systems upon scholars that all the orthodox teachers belonged to one or the other of these schools since the foundation of the systems of philosophy. Their pupils were thus naturally brought up in accordance with the views of their teachers. All the independence of their thinking was limited and enchained by the faith of the school to which they were attached. Instead of seeing growth of free lance thinking and new theories, India brought forth schools of pupils who carried the traditional views of a particular school from generation to generation, who explained and defended them against the attacks of other rival schools, which they constantly attacked in order to establish the superiority of the system to which they adhere.<ref name=":12" /> For example, sutras of the Nyaya system of philosophy are attributed to Gautama, also called as Akshapada. The series of commentaries written by many adherents of this system, on these sutras, while conforming to the tradition yet showing novelty in thinking may be summarized as follows:   

For example, sutras of the Nyaya system of philosophy are attributed to Gautama, also called as Akshapada. The series of commentaries written by many adherents of this system, on these sutras, while conforming to the tradition yet showing novelty in thinking may be summarized as follows:<ref name=":12" />  

* Vatsyayana composed the earliest commentary on Gautama sutras, called as ''Vatsyayana Bhashya''. This was sharply criticized by Buddhist Dinnaga.   

* Vatsyayana composed the earliest commentary on Gautama sutras, called as ''Vatsyayana Bhashya''. This was sharply criticized by Buddhist Dinnaga.   

* Udyotakara wrote a commentary on this commentary called ''Bhashyavattika'', including the answers to Dinnaga's criticisms.   

* Udyotakara wrote a commentary on this commentary called ''Bhashyavattika'', including the answers to Dinnaga's criticisms.   

* Sankara Misra wrote another commentary on this called ''Nyaya-tatparyamandana''.   

* Sankara Misra wrote another commentary on this called ''Nyaya-tatparyamandana''.   

The names Vatsyayana, Vachaspati and Udayana are indeed very great, but even they contented themselves by writing commentaries on commentaries, and did not try to formulate any original system. The contributions of the successive commentators served to make each system more complete and stronger to enable it to hold its own successfully against the opposition and attacks of the rival schools. Hence no study of the Indian philosophy is adequate without the study of commentaries which had kept it living through the ages of history.<ref name=":12" />

The names Vatsyayana, Vachaspati and Udayana are indeed very great, but even they contented themselves by writing commentaries on commentaries, and did not try to formulate any original system. The contributions of the successive commentators served to make each system more complete and stronger to enable it to hold its own successfully against the opposition and attacks of the rival schools. Hence no study of the Indian philosophy is adequate without the study of commentaries which had kept it living through the ages of history.<ref name=":12" />

== Classification of Bharatiya Shastras ==

== Classification of Bharatiya Shastras ==

Traditionally Bharatiya shastras involving the theological concepts, creation, beliefs about the core concepts of Sanatana Dharma such as Moksha, JIva, Brahman, etc was divided into two classes based primarily on belief of the existence of a Supreme Being followed by the acceptance of the authority of Vedas:<ref name=":12">Dasgupta, Surendranath. (7th Reprint : 2012) A History of Indian Philosophy. Volume 1. New Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.</ref>

Traditionally Bharatiya shastras involving the theological concepts, creation, beliefs about the core concepts of Sanatana Dharma such as Moksha, JIva, Brahman, etc was divided into two classes based primarily on belief of the existence of a Supreme Being followed by the acceptance of the authority of Vedas:<ref name=":12">Dasgupta, Surendranath. (7th Reprint : 2012) A History of Indian Philosophy. Volume 1. New Delhi : Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.</ref>

#* The School of Idealism or Yogacharas

#* The School of Idealism or Yogacharas

#* The School of Nihilism or the Madhyamikas.

#* The School of Nihilism or the Madhyamikas.

The Nastika group assumes that reality is confined to what is given in common experience and is described as positivistic or empirical in nature. When the term Shad Darsanas is employed, it generally refers to the six Astika Darsanas. The scope of the present article is confined to the six Astika systems of Indian Darshanas which will be introduced in the following sections. All darshanas even though have different view points and ideologies, are completely in agreement regarding to some basic tenets.       

The Nastika group assumes that reality is confined to what is given in common experience and is described as positivistic or empirical in nature. When the term Shad Darsanas is employed, it generally refers to the six Astika Darsanas. The scope of the present article is confined to the six Astika systems of Indian Darshanas which will be introduced in the following sections. All darshanas even though have different view points and ideologies, are completely in agreement regarding to some basic tenets as discussed further on.       

== दर्शनानं सांम्यम् ॥ Fundamental Points of Agreement ==

== दर्शनानं सांम्यम् ॥ Fundamental Points of Agreement ==

The systems of philosophy in India were not stirred up merely by the speculative demands of the human mind which has a natural inclination for indulging in abstract thought, but by deep craving after the realization of the higher purpose of life.  It is to be noted that the postulates, aims and conditions for such a realization were found to be identical in all the conflicting systems that have evolved. It is remarkable that with the exception of the Charvaka materialists all the other systems agree on some fundamental points of importance, namely.  

The systems of philosophy in India were not stirred up merely by the speculative demands of the human mind which has a natural inclination for indulging in abstract thought, but by deep craving after the realization of the higher purpose of life.  It is to be noted that the postulates, aims and conditions for such a realization were found to be identical in all the conflicting systems that have evolved. It is remarkable that with the exception of the Charvaka materialists all the other systems agree on some fundamental points of importance, namely.  

=== आत्मसिद्धन्तः ॥ Atma Siddhanta ===

=== आत्मसिद्धन्तः ॥ Atma Siddhanta ===

All the Indian shastras except Buddhism admit the existence of a permanent entity variously called Atman, Purusha, Jiva or Soul. As to the exact nature of this soul there are indeed divergences of view.  

All the Indian shastras except Buddhism admit the existence of a permanent entity variously called Atman, Purusha, Jiva (which is being called as Soul, but is not an exact translation of Atma). As to the exact nature of this Atma there are indeed divergences of view.  

* Nyaya calls it absolutely quantityless and characterless, indeterminate unconscious entity.

* Nyaya calls it absolutely quantityless and characterless, indeterminate unconscious entity.

* Samkhya describes it as being of the nature of pure consciousness.

* Samkhya describes it as being of the nature of pure consciousness.