Six systems of Indian philosophy. Atman is the highest "I", the absolute, which is aware of its existence

Introduction to six systems Indian philosophy.

V.Veretnov

Have you ever wondered?

Why, in Lately, more and more often, many of our people choose the eastern, and in particular the Indian way of searching for the meaning of life, getting rid of suffering and achieving bliss?

To what extent are such decisions justified and consciously made, and how do they fit in with the dominant Christian ones in our society: Orthodox, and recently rapidly growing with Protestant ideologies?

Who chooses which of the six systems of Indian philosophy: Vedanta, Purva Minansu, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, and why?

Is it possible to harmoniously unite Christian and Indian philosophical concepts achievements beyond consciousness within society, an individual?

Our people have been asking similar questions for many years and have not found exhaustive answers. Our small study is one of the attempts to advance on the path to the truth of its tireless seekers.

Some of the seekers would like to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual self-knowledge, others would like to combine spiritual and material-social prosperity.

In the philosophical and religious literature, coverage of the issues of the features of the six systems of Indian philosophy can be found both in the works of domestic scientists M. Ladoga, D. Andreev, N. Isaev, V. Lysenko, S. Burmirstrov, and foreign researchers M. Muller, S. Chatterjee, D. .Datta, including Indian scientists Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, A.Ch. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and many others.

At the same time, consideration and comparison of six systems of Indian philosophy and Christian approaches to achieving superconsciousness in the context of the questions we posed in the introduction are found in the unique works of the end XIX century by Mitrofan Ladoga and Max Muller.

One of the hypotheses of the increased interest in the six systems of Indian philosophy, both in our country and in the West, experts call the historical, cultural and demographic phenomenon of India. Domestic and Western philosophers note the fact that the development of philosophy in India for a long time occurred due to the lack of literature occurred mnemonically, i.e. sutras, upanishads, hymns, and other philosophical texts were retold in schools from teacher to student. This circumstance makes it difficult to reliably determine the age of each system of Indian philosophy.

In addition, many writers sacred books and commentaries to them, considered themselves just a link in the endless sequence of creation of each system that has come down to our days. Usually, talented students stayed and continued in the ashram (an analogue of hermit places common in our country, such as the Optina Hermitage) to explore themselves (spirit, soul, body, mind, mind, language, etc.), the surrounding nature, the highest deity - the Lord, generalizing then this knowledge was passed on to the students of their school. If Western philosophy was divided into idealism and materialism, theism and atheism in the traditional issues of creating the world, mechanisms of development, ways of knowing, then Indian philosophy developed mainly in line with the idealistic theistic tradition, which allowed religion and philosophy not to conflict, but rather develop together and support each other. In fairness, it must be said that Indian philosophy in various systems has resorted to the tools of materialists, such as the departure from monism and the use of dualism. On the other hand, for Indian philosophy there are common ideas for all six of its systems, which will be discussed below.

Indian philosophy since ancient times it has developed continuously, without sharp turns, similar to those experienced by Western philosophy, which often changed the direction of its development. Its oldest, and today considered holy, documents are contained in the Vedas (before 1500 BC). Almost all literature on Indian philosophy is written in the language of art connoisseurs and scholars - in Sanskrit. Since most of the changes in Indian philosophy were associated with commenting on the main, recognized authoritative texts, the old European philosophical scholars believed that Indian philosophy should be defined as the prehistory of philosophy, while in reality its development paralleled the development of Western philosophy, albeit in other forms. Like European philosophy before the 17th century, Indian philosophy also dealt mainly with religious problems, but it paid more attention to reflections on the knowledge of the transcendent. Since Hindus believe in the eternity of the cyclically renewed world process, they did not create a proper philosophy of history. Aesthetics and the doctrine of society and the state are their special, separate sciences. In its historical development, Indian philosophy falls into three periods:

1. Vedic period (1500-500 BC),

2. classical, or Brahmin-Buddhist (500 BC - 1000 AD) and

3. postclassical or Hindu period (since 1000).

Six systems of Indian philosophy and their authors

1. Mimansa ("explanation" of the Vedic text on sacrifices) deals with the explanation of the ritual, but in its methods can be attributed to atheistic pluralistic systems,

2. Vedanta (the completion of the Vedas) in the Brahma Sutra, based on the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, teaches about the emergence of the world from Brahma; individual souls through knowledge or love of God - bhakti - achieve salvation, achieve unity with God, without merging with him. Influenced by the idealism of late Buddhist philosophy, Shankara (about 800) gives the texts a new interpretation that regards the former teaching of real transformation Brahmas only as the lowest level of truth, as the appearance of truth; in fact, all diversity is an illusion (maya), individual souls are identical to the unchanging Brahma.

3. Sankhya (“reasonable weighing”, or “enumeration”) preaches atheistic pluralism: the first substance is only apparently connected with a kind of soul-spirit; overcoming this illusion guarantees liberation,

4. Yoga (tension, training) is the practice of contemplation; Samkhya serves as its theoretical basis, but it also recognizes a personal God.

5. Nyaya (rule, logic) - the doctrine of the forms of thinking, which developed a five-term syllogism.

6. The sixth system of philosophy -Vaisheshika , which sought to distinguish between everything that opposes us in the external and inner world. Vaisheshika developed the doctrine of categories and atomism; being theistic, she saw the liberation of man in the separation of the soul from everything material and turning it into an organ of thinking.

Each of these six systems has its founders. These philosophers are:

1. Badarayana, also called Vyasa Dvapayana or Krishna Dvapayana, the alleged author of the Brahma Sutras, also called the Uttara Mimansa Sutras or Vyasa Sutras.

4. Patanjali, also called Shesha or Panin, the author of the Yoga Sutras.

5. Kanada, also called Kanabhug, Kanabhakshaka or Uluk, author of the Vaisesika Sutras.

6. Gotama (Gautama), also called Akshapada, the author of the Nyaya Sutras.

Are common philosophical ideas Indian philosophy are like the common language of Sanskrit or the air, which was permeated by every thinking person who was fond of philosophy.

1. Metepsychosis-samsara

This is the best known of the general ideas about the transmigration of souls. Wherein human souls depending on the indicators of the karma of the balance of good and evil deeds, the soul moved either to a person of different mental and social status, or to an animal, or to a plant.

2. Soul Immortality

The immortality of the soul is such a common and accepted idea for the Hindu that

No arguments were required. With the exception of the followers of Brihaspati, who denied a future life, all other schools recognized the immortality and eternity of the soul.

3. Pessimism

It should be noted that this pessimism is different from our ideas about pessimism. It is still closer to realism, and the Indians' increased attention to the suffering that takes place in our lives and ways to eliminate them.

4. Karma

Belief in karma as a continuous activity of thought, word and deed has existed in all ages. All deeds - good and evil - must bear fruit - this is the position that no Hindu doubted.

5. Infallibility of the Vedas

6.Three Huns

The theory of the three Huns is known to all Indian philosophers as properties that give impulses to everything in nature. In more general sense they can be represented as the thesis of the antithesis and something else in between. In Sankhya philosophy, there are three kinds:

A) good behavior, called virtue

B) indifferent behavior - passion, anger, greed, gloating, violence, discontent, rudeness, manifested in changes in facial expression.

C) Madness, intoxication, idleness, nihilism, lust, impurity, called bad behavior.

In their philosophical research, the Indians saw the main goal of gaining bliss and getting rid of suffering through the comprehension of truth, true knowledge. They distinguished six types of comprehension of truth (pramas): perception, conclusion, revelation, comparison, assumption, non-existence.

The human structure studied by philosophers in six Indian philosophical systems is of interest. A person consists of several elements - body, soul, spirit, mind (mind) of society. Different systems give each element of a person different properties. In different systems, they play a certain role in internal and external relations. A prerequisite for highlighting the properties of one or another element is the recognition of a common spirit within us - purusha, a personal god - atman, the highest deity - brahman, nature - prakriti.

Many of our people are fond of esotericism, theosophy, some Indian spiritual practices, such as yoga, justifying their choice and then engaging in it with their psychophysiological sensations. An alternative to such an approach could be a theoretical study of the six systems of Indian philosophy and then more conscious choice and test them for yourself in practice.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the six systems of Indian philosophy have a powerful potential of true knowledge for solving urgent problems of a person, family, enterprise, society, state, ecology, which, unfortunately, is not realized and is not further developed by all interested researchers. In addition, a more detailed study of the six systems of Indian philosophy will allow us to form on their basis models for the harmonious unification of the interests of people of different religions, philosophical beliefs for the preservation of peace and the sustainable development of human civilization.

DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS

Thus, we have become acquainted with the important fact that all these ideas - metaphysical, cosmological and others - appeared in India in great abundance, without any system and represented a real chaos.

We must not assume that these ideas follow one another in chronological order. And here a more sure clue will be not Nacheinander, but Nebeneinander. It must be remembered that this ancient philosophy existed for a long time, not being fixed in written literature, that there was no control, no authority, no public opinion to protect it. Each settlement (ashram) was a separate world, often there were no simple means of communication, rivers or roads. It is amazing that despite all these conditions, we still find so much unity in numerous conjectures about the truth, we owe this, as they say, to the paramparas, that is, people who passed on the tradition and, finally, collected everything that could be saved.

It would be a mistake to think that there was a continuous development in the various meanings taken by such significant terms as prajapati, brahman, and even atman. It would be much more consistent with what we know about the mental life of India from the Brahmanas and Upanishads, to admit the existence of a large number of mental centers scattered throughout the country, in which there were influential advocates of one or another view. Then we will better understand how brahman, which at first denoted that which opens and grows, received the meaning of speech and prayer, as well as the meaning of creative power and the creator, and why atman meant not only breath, but also life, spirit, soul, essence and what I dare to express by the term I (das Selbst) of all things.

But if in the period of Brahmanas and Upanishads we have to make our way among religious and philosophical ideas, as through an impenetrable thicket of creeping plants, then as we approach the next period, characterized by persistent attempts at clear and systematic thinking, the path becomes easier.

We must not think that here, too, we will find the correct historical development in various philosophical systems. The sutras or aphorisms, which represent passages of six systems of philosophy quite separate from one another, cannot be considered the first attempts at a systematic exposition; they represent rather a summation of what has developed over many generations of isolated thinkers.

PRASTHANA-BHEDA

What the Brahmins themselves thought about this philosophical literature, we can learn even from such new writings as the Prasthana-bheda, from which I gave several extracts in the introduction to several of my articles on one of the systems of Indian philosophy as early as 1852 in the Journal of the German Society of Orientalists. . It must be said that the honor of discovering this treatise by Madhusudana Saraswati and indicating its meaning belongs to Colebrook himself. I myself got to know him through my old friend Triten, who prepared a critical edition of the treatise, but did not have time to publish it due to illness and death. It was printed earlier by Professor Weber in his Indische Studien of 1849, and I think it will not be useless to make some extracts from it here.

“Nyaya,” he writes, “is the logic taught by Gotama in his five adhyanas (lessons). Its object is to know the nature of the sixty padarthas through name, definition and investigation. These padarthas are very important or essential parts of the Nyaya philosophy; but it turned out to be completely inappropriate to translate the word padartha with the word category. It is not clear why such things as doubt, example, struggle, etc., can be called categories (praedicabilia); and it is not surprising that Ritter and others spoke of nyaya with disdain if such things were presented to them as categories of Indian logic.

“There is also the Vaisheshika philosophy taught by Canada. Its purpose is to establish the six padarthas by means of similarities and differences, namely:

1) dravya - essence;

2) guna - property;

3) karma - activity;

4) samanya - common to several objects. The highest samanya is comma or being;

5) vishesha - various or special, inherent in eternal atoms, etc.

6) samavaya - an inseparable connection, as between cause and effect, parts and the whole, etc.

To this can be added

7) abhava - negation.

This philosophy is also called nyaya.

These Vaisesika padarthas, at least the first five, can be called categories, for they represent everything that can serve as predicates of the objects of our experience or, with indian point vision, anything that can be a predicate higher meaning(artha) words (pada). Therefore, padartha, literally meaning "word," is used in Sanskrit in the sense of things in general or objects. It is possible to translate this word as "category" when applied to the five padarthas of Canada, but such a translation, which is dubious when applied to the sixth and seventh Vaisheshika padarthas, would be completely inappropriate in relation to Gotama's padarthas.

Madhusudana continues: “Mimamsa is also twofold, namely karma mimamsa (working, active philosophy) and shariraka mimamsa (philosophy of the embodied spirit). The karma mimamsa is expounded by the venerable Jaimini in twelve chapters.

The object of these twelve chapters is stated in brief and is so obscure that it can hardly be understood without reference to the original sutras. Dharma, the object of this philosophy, consists, as is clear from the explanations, of acts of duty, chiefly sacrificial. The second, third and fourth chapters deal with the differences and changes of dharma, its parts (or additional members, as opposed to the main act) and the main goal of each sacrificial act. In the seventh chapter, and more fully in the eighth, the indirect rules are treated. The ninth chapter treats of inferribles, adapting to some change or imitation of known sacrificial acts, recognized as typical or exemplary; and the tenth chapter deals with exceptions. The eleventh chapter deals with the incidental action, and the twelfth - the coordinated effect, that is, the cooperation of several acts to obtain one result is the subject of the eleventh chapter, and the twelfth deals with the accidental effect of an act performed with a different purpose.

"There is also a Samkarshanakanla composed of four chapters by Jaimini, and this, known as Devatakanda, belongs to the karma mimamsa, as it teaches the action or act of upasana (worship)."

Then follows the shariraka mimamsa, which consists of four chapters. Its subject is the elucidation of the unity of Brahman and Atman (I) and the exposition of the rules that teach the study of this unity through the study of the Vedas, ”etc. Vedanta, etc.

“It is pointed out in the first chapter that all the passages of the Vedanta agree, directly or indirectly, to the inner, indivisible, having no second (i.e., single) Brahman. The first section deals with those places in the Vedas in which there are clear indications of Brahman; in the second - places where there are indications that are unclear and refer to Brahman, since he is the object of worship; in the third, places where there are dark indications of Brahman and for the most part refer to him, since he is the subject of knowledge. Thus ends the consideration of the texts of the Vedanta, and in the fourth section such words as Avyakta, Aja and others are considered, in relation to which it can be doubted whether they refer to ideas accepted and sanctioned by the Samkhya philosophers, what are pradhana, prakriti, which in general - although completely wrong - they translate: nature, as independent of Brahman or Purusha.

Having thus established the agreement of all the texts of the Vedanta regarding the one, having no second Brahman, Vyasa (or Badarayan), fearing resistance through the arguments put forward by the recognized Smritis and various other systems, proceeds to refute them and tries to establish in the second chapter the incontrovertibility of his arguments. In the first section, he answers the objections raised by the Samkhya Yogi smritis, Canada and the followers of the Samkhya regarding the agreement of the Vedanta passages about Brahman, since any investigation must consist of two parts: establishing one's own teaching and refuting the teaching of opponents. In the third section (the first part) contradictions between the places of the Vedas related to the creation of elements and other objects are eliminated, and in the second part - contradictions related to individual souls. In the fourth section, all apparent contradictions between the places of the Vedas relating to the senses and to the objects of the senses are dealt with.

In the third chapter, the author studies the means of salvation, in the first section, having considered the transition to another world and the return from it (transmigration of souls), dispassion is considered. In the second section, the meaning of the word you is clarified, and after that, the meaning of the word is. In the third section a collection of words is given, if not representing a complete tautology, then all referring to the unqualified Brahman referred to in various Shakhas or branches of the Veda, and at the same time discusses the question of whether certain attributes can be accepted in their totality. attributed by other Shakhas in their teachings to qualified or unqualified Brahman. In the fourth section, the means of gaining knowledge of the unqualified Brahman are examined - both external means, such as sacrifice and the observance of the four positions in life, and internal ones, such as calmness, self-government and contemplation.

The fourth chapter deals with the study of the special reward or fruits of knowledge of the qualified or unqualified Brahman. The first section describes the salvation of a person in this life, freed from the influence of good or evil deeds and realized the unqualified Brahman through constant study of the Vedas, etc. The second section deals with the way of departing to another world of the dying. In the third - the further (northern) path of a person who died with full knowledge of the unqualified Brahman. The fourth section first describes the achievement of disembodied loneliness of a person who has known the unqualified Brahman, and then the arrival in the world of Brahman, promised to everyone who knows the qualified (that is, lower) Brahman.

This teaching (Vedanta) is undoubtedly the main of all teachings, all others are only additions to it, and therefore only one Vedanta is revered by all who yearn for liberation, and this is in accordance with the interpretation of the venerable Shankara - this is a mystery.

Thus we see that Madhusudana considered the philosophy of Vedanta, as interpreted by Shankara, if not the only true, then the best of all philosophies. He made an important distinction between the four systems: nyaya, vaisheshika, purva and uttara mimamsa on the one hand, and yoga and sankhya on the other. It is curious that so far little attention has been paid to this difference. According to Madhusudana, the philosophy of Gotama and Canada is simply smriti or dharmashastra, like the laws of Manu, even like Vyasa's Mahabharata or Valmiki's Ramayana. Of course, these systems of philosophy cannot be called smriti in the usual sense of dharmashastra; but since they are smrshpi (tradition) and not shruti (revelation), it can be said that they teach dharma, if not in the legal, then in the moral sense of the word. At any rate, it is clear that Samkhya and Yoga were considered to belong to a class different from that to which the two Mimamsas, even Nyaya and Vaisesika, and other recognized branches of knowledge belonged, which together were considered to be the eighteen branches of Traya (i.e., the Vedas). Although it is not easy to understand the real reason for this difference, it should not be overlooked.

“The Sankhya,” continues Madhusudana, “was expounded by the venerable Kapila in six adhyas. The first of these deals with the subjects to be discussed; in the second, the effects or products of pradhana (original matter); in the third, alienation from sensible objects; in the fourth - stories about people who have renounced passions, like Pinjala (IV, 11), an arrow maker, etc.; in the fifth, opposing opinions are refuted; in the sixth, a general summary is presented. the main task Sankhya philosophy is to teach the difference between prakriti and purusha.

This is followed by the yoga philosophy taught by the venerable Patanjali, which is divided into four parts. In the first part, contemplation that stops activity and distraction of the spirit are considered, and as a means to this, constant exercise and renunciation of passions; in the second, eight aids are considered that produce deep contemplation even in people whose thoughts are entertained, which are: restraint, observation, posture of the body, regulation of breathing, piety, contemplation and reflection (meditation); the third part deals with supernatural powers; in the fourth - about solitude, loneliness. The main task of this philosophy is to achieve concentration (concentration) by stopping all randomly coming thoughts.

This is followed by a brief account of the systems of groping/ and pancaratra and then a repetition of all the most interesting. Here Madhusudana says: “After understanding the various systems, it is clear that there are only three roads:

1. Aramba-vada, the theory of agglomeration of atoms.

2. Parinama vada, the theory of evolution.

3. Vivarta-vada, the theory of illusion.

The first theory asserts that the atoms (anu) of four kinds (atoms of earth, water, fire and air), becoming sequentially double, etc. atoms, created the world, the highest point of which was the egg of Brahman.

This first theory, that of the Tarkikas (Nyaya and Vaisheshika) and the followers of the Mimamsa, teaches that an effect that did not exist (the world) is produced by the activity of existing causes.

The second theory, that of the Sankhyas, Yogapatanjals and Pashupats (followers of Sankhya, Yogis and Pashupats), says that only pradhana, sometimes called prakriti (original matter), is composed of the gunas: sattva (good), rajas (moderate) and tamas (evil, evil), developed through the stages of mahat (perception) and ahankara (subjectivity) in the form of the world (subjective and objective). From this point of view, the world existed before real world, although in a subtle (invisible) form, and became apparent (manifested) through the activity of the cause.

The third theory, the theory of the Brahmavadins (Vedanta), says that the self-luminous and perfectly blissful Brahman, having no second, is mistakenly represented as the world through the power and strength of Maya, while the Vaishnavas (Ramanuja, etc.) maintain that the world is the real and true development of Brahman.

But in fact, all the munis who expounded these theories agree in their desire to prove the existence of a single supreme Lord without a second, leading to the theory of illusion (vivarta). These munis cannot be deceived, for they are omniscient, and various views were offered by them only to eliminate nihilistic theories, and because they were afraid that people, with their propensity for worldly objects, could not immediately know the true purpose of man.

But it will be all right if we understand that people, not understanding the real purpose of these munis, imagine that they propose something contrary to the Vedas and, accepting their opinions, become followers of them on their various paths.

Much of what is here translated from the Prasthana-bheda of Madhusudana - although this is only a general overview - is not clear, but later, when we consider separately by itself each of the six philosophical systems, it will become intelligible; nor is it entirely certain that Madhusudana's view of the development of Indian philosophy was correct. But in any case, he proves a certain freedom of thought, which we meet from time to time in other writers (for example, in Vijnanabhikshu), who are also inclined to the idea that behind the differences between Vedanta, Samkhya and Nyaya lies one and the same truth, although expressed in various ways, and that there may be many philosophies, the truth is one.

However marvelous as we may be at the insight of Madhusudana and others, it is our duty as a historian of philosophy to study the various ways in which different philosophers, in the light of revelation or in the light of their unfettered minds, have strove to discover the truth. The very multiplicity and difference of these paths is the main interest of the history of philosophy, and the fact that these six different philosophical systems have up to the present time maintained their position among the large number of philosophical theories proposed by the thinkers of India indicates that we must first evaluate them. characteristics before trying with Madhusudana to eliminate their distinctive features.

These philosophers are:

1. Badarayana, also called Vyasa Dvapayana or Krishna Dvapayana, supposed author of the Brahma Sutras, also called the Uttara Mimansa Sutras or Vyasa Sutras.

4. Patanjali, also called Shesha or Panin, the author of the Yoga Sutras.

5. Canada, also called Kanabhug, Kanabhakshaka or Uluk, the author of the Vaisesika Sutras.

6. Gotama (Gautama), also called Akshapada, the author of the Nyaya Sutras.

It is clear that the philosophers to whom the sutras are attributed cannot be considered the first to create Indian philosophy. These sutras often refer to other philosophers who must have existed before the time the sutras received their final form. The fact that some of the sutras adduce and refute the opinions of others cannot be explained without recognizing that the various schools of philosophy developed side by side during the period leading up to their final elaboration. Unfortunately, in such references we do not always find even the title of a book or the name of its author, and even more rarely a literal reproduction of the opinion of this author, his ipsissimu verba. When they refer to such things as purusha and prakriti (spirit and matter), we know that they refer to Samkhya; when they talk about anu (atoms), we know that these remarks point to vaisesika. But it by no means follows from this that they are referring to the Sankhya or Vaishe-shika Sutras exactly as we know them. Some of the sutras have been proven to be so new that the ancient philosophers could not quote them. For example, Gall proved that our Sankhya Sutras are not older than 1380 CE. e. and may even belong to a later time. Astonishing as such a discovery is, of course, nothing can be said against Gall's arguments, or against the evidence with which Professor Garbe supported his discovery; while simple alterations (rifaccimento) that replaced older sutras, which were probably already in the sixth century CE. e. were supplanted by the popular Samkhya Karikas and then forgotten. Such a late date for our Sankhya Sutras may seem incredible; but although I continue to be of the opinion that the style of the sutras arose during a period when writing for literary purposes was still in its infancy, yet we know that even at the present time there are scholars (pandits) who have no difficulty in imitating it. ancient style sutras The sutra period, dating back to the reign of Ashoka in the third century and to his council in 242 BC. e., includes not only the famous Panini Sutras, but is defined as the period of the greatest philosophical activity in India, caused, apparently, by a strong shock produced by the emergence of the Buddhist school of philosophy and subsequently the Buddhist religion.

Of great importance is the fact that of the technical names of the six systems of philosophy, only two occur in the classical Upanishads, namely, Samkhya and Yoga or Samkhya Yoga. Vedanta does not occur except in Shvetashvatara, Mundaka and in some of the later Upanishads. Mimamsa is found in the general meaning of research. Nyaya and Vaisheshika are completely absent; we do not find such words as hetuvidya or anvinshiki, nor the names of the alleged creators of the six systems, with the exception of the names of the founders of two mimams - Badarayana and Jaimini. The names of Patanjali and Canada are completely absent, and the names of Kapila and Gotama, although they occur, seem to refer to completely different personalities.

SIX SYSTEMS OF PHILOSOPHY

It cannot be supposed that the people whose names are mentioned as the names of the authors of these six philosophical systems were anything but the mere last publishers or editors of the sutras as we know them. If the third century BC e. seems to us too late a date for the introduction of writing in India for literary purposes, it must be remembered that not even inscriptions older than those of Ashoka have been found; and there is a great difference between inscriptions and literary works. Southern Buddhists claim that their sacred canon was written no earlier than the first century BC. BC, although it is known that they maintained close relations with their northern co-religionists, familiar with the letter. Therefore, during all this time, from 477 to 77 BC. e., various theories of the world, derived from Vedanta Samkhya or Yoga, even theories of Buddhist origin, could appear and be preserved in mnemonic form, in various ashrams. It is not surprising that a great deal of such literature, as handed down only as a memento, is irretrievably lost, and therefore we must not look upon what is left to us in the ancient darshans as the complete result of the philosophical activity of all India for so many centuries. We can only assert that philosophy in India originated during the period of the Brahmanas and the Upanishads, even during the period of some of the Vedic hymns, that the existence of the Upanishads - although not necessary in the form we know them - is recognized by the Buddhist canon and, finally, the name the suttas, as an integral part of this canon, must be later than the name of the older Brahmanical sutras, since during this time the meaning changed again; it meant no longer short, memorized sayings, but real speeches. Perhaps the original word sutra meant the text explained in the sermon, and only then long Buddhist sermons began to be called suttas as a result.

Brihaspati Sutras

That some of the philosophical sutras have been lost is proved by the example of the Brihaspati Sutras. It is claimed that these sutras expounded quite materialistic or sensualistic teachings (Lokayatikas or Charvakas), denying everything except what is given by the senses. Bhashkacharya refers to them in the Brahma Sutras (III, 3, 53) and gives us extracts from them, so they probably still existed at that time, although no records of them have yet been found in India. The same can be said about sutras such as the Vaikhanasa Sutras: perhaps these sutras are the same as the Vanaprastha and Bhikshu Sutras quoted by Panini (IV, 3, 110) and, apparently, intended for Brahmin mendicant monks, not for Buddhists. Here again we have to admit the sad truth that we have only pathetic fragments from the old pre-Buddhist literature, and even these fragments in some cases are only mere reproductions of lost originals, such as, for example, the Sankhya Sutras. We now know that such sutras could be reproduced at any time and we must not forget that even at the present time, with the general decline in the study of Sanskrit, there are still scholars in India who can imitate Kalidasa, not to mention such poems, like Mahabharata and Ramayana; - and so fortunately that few scholars can point out the difference between an original and an imitation. I recently received a Sanskrit treatise (sutras with commentaries) from the work of a living Indian scholar, a treatise that may have misled many of the European Sanskrit scholars. If it is possible now, if it was possible, as in the case of the Kapila Sutras, in the fourteenth century, then why couldn't the same thing have happened during the Indian renaissance and even earlier? In any case, we can be grateful for what has been preserved, and, moreover, in such a wonderful way, in our opinion; but we must not imagine that we have everything and that what we have has come down to us in its original form.

SOURCES

I must mention here at least some of the most important works, from which students of philosophy, and especially those who do not know the Sanskrit language, can obtain information about the six recognized systems of Indian philosophy. The titles of the most important of the original Sanskrit texts can be found in Colebrook's Miscellaneous Essays (vol. 11) and in the catalogs (published thereafter) of various collections of Sanskrit manuscripts in Europe and India.

About Badarayana's Vedanta Philosophy useful book(English translation of the text of the sutras and Shankara's commentary) Thibaut. - SBE., v. 34 and 38. From German books, we can recommend the translation (of the same work) of Deissen (1887); his "System of the Vedanta" (1883).

On the Sankhya system we have the sutras translated by Ballantyne in 1862-1865; Aphorisms of the Samkhya Philosophy of Kapila, with Explanatory Extracts from Commentaries (1852, 1865, 1885). In Germany there is the Sankhya Pravacana Bhashya (Vijnanabhikshu's commentary on the Samkhya Sutras), Garbe's translation (1889), and Aniruddha's commentary and the original portions of Mahadeva's commentary on the Sankhya Sutras (Garbe, 1892); The Moonlight of the Samkhya Truth (Sankhya-tattva-kaumudi) by Vachaspatimistra (translated by R. Garbe, 1892) is also a very useful book; Ishvarakrishna's Sankhya-karika, translated from the Sanskrit by Colebrook, and Gaudapada's bhashya (commentary), translated with explanation from Wilson's original commentary (Oxford, 1837), are also available for reference. In addition, the writings of John Davis (Hindu Philosophy. Samkhya Karika of Isuarakrishna, 1881), Richard Garbe (Samkhya-Philosophie nach den Quellen, 1894) are useful.

From the purva-mimamsa or simply mimamsa, concerned chiefly with the essence and authority of the Vedas and specifically with sacrificial and other duties, we have an edition of the original sutras with commentary by Shabaras-vami; but on English language there is no book from which this system can be studied except Professor Thibaut's translation of the Arthasangraha of Laugaksha Bhaskara, a summary of this philosophy, printed in the Benares Sanskrit series, no. 4.

The Vaisheshika philosophical system can be studied from the English translation of its sutras by Gough in Benares (1873); according to Roer's German translation (Zeitschrift der Deut. Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vols. 21 and 22) and according to my articles in the same Orientalist journal (1849).

The Nyaya Sutras of Gotama were translated, with the exception of the last book, by Ballantyne (Allahabad, 1850-1857).

The Yoga Sutras are found in the English translation of Rajendralal Mitra in the Bibliotheca Indica (Nos. 462, 478, 482, 491 and 492).

DATES OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL SUTRAS

If we take into account the position of philosophical thought in India, as depicted in the Brahmanas and Upanishads and then in the canonical books of the Buddhists, we will not be surprised that so far all attempts to date the six recognized philosophical systems and even their mutual relationship have been unsuccessful. It is true that Buddhism and Jainism are also philosophical systems and that it has been possible to determine their dates. But if we know anything about their time and their historical development, it is mainly due to the social and political significance that they received in the fifth, fourth and third centuries BC. e., and not at all by their philosophical position. We also know that there were many teachers, contemporaries of the Buddha, but they did not leave traces in the literature of India.

It should not be forgotten that although the time of the compilation of the Buddhist canon can be determined, the dates of many texts that we have and which are recognized as canonical are far from certain.

In the Buddhist chronicles, next to Gautama, the prince of the Shakya clan, other teachers are mentioned Gnatiputra (the founder of Jainism), Purana Kashyapa, Pakuda Kachchayana, Ajita Keshakambali, Samjaya Vairatti-putpa, Gozali-putra, Mascarin. And only one of them Gnatiputra, the nirgranth (gymnosophist), is known to history, since the society he founded, like the brotherhood founded by the Buddha, developed into a significant Jain sect. Another teacher, Gozali with a bamboo stick, who was originally an Ajivak and later a follower of Mahavira, also became the founder of a special sect, which has now disappeared. Gnatiputra (Natiputra) was older than the Buddha.

While it seems likely that the founders of the six systems of philosophy, but not the authors of the sutras we have, lived during the same period of religious and philosophical ferment in which the teachings of the Buddha first spread to India, it is not at all true that Buddhism presupposed the existence of any of these systems in their literary form. This is due to the obscurity of quotations, which are rarely given verbatim. In India, during the mnemonic period of literature, the contents of a book could change considerably, although the title remained the same. Even if in later times Bhartrihari (died 650 A.D.) referred to Mimamsa, Samkhya and Vaisesika darshans, we cannot conclude that he knew these darshans as we know them, although he could have known these philosophy after they have received a systematic form. Similarly, when he quotes the Nayayikas, it does not mean that he knew our Gotama Sutras, and we have no right to say that these Sutras existed at that time. This is possible, but not certain. Therefore, we must not place much confidence in quotations, or rather in allusions to other philosophical systems.

SANKHYA SUTRAS

The Sankhya Sutras, as we know them, are very sparing in references. They obviously refer to Vaisheshika and Nyaya when they examine the six categories of the first (V, 85) and the sixteen Padarthas of the second (V, 86). When they talk about anu (atoms), we know that they mean the philosophy of Vaisheshika, and once Vaisheshika is directly called by this name (1, 25). Sruti (revelation) is very often mentioned, which the Samkhya apparently neglects: once smriti is mentioned (tradition, V, 123); Vamadeva, whose name appears in both shruti and smriti, is mentioned as a person who has attained spiritual freedom. But among the philosophers we find mention only of Sanandana Acharya (VI, 69) and Panchashikha (V, 32; VI, 68); teachers (acaryas), as a general name, include Kapila himself as well as others.

VEDANTA SUTRAS

There are more references in the Vedanta Sutras, but they don't help us much for chronological purposes either.

Badarayana refers more or less clearly to the Buddhists, to the Jains (gianas), to the Pasupatas (pasupatas) and the Pancharatras (pankaratras), and tries to refute all of them. But he, however, never refers to any literary works; even when he refers to other philosophies, he seems deliberately to avoid mentioning the recognized names of their authors and even their technical terms. But still it is obvious that when he composed his sutras, he had in mind purva-mimamsa, yoga, sankhya and vaisheshika; of the Mimamsa authorities he refers directly to Jaimini, Badari, Udulomi, Asmarathya, Kasakritsya, Karsnajini and Atreya, as well as to Badarayana. Therefore, we will not be far from the truth if we attribute the formation of six philosophical systems to the period from Buddha (5th century) to Ashoka (3rd century), although we allow, especially with regard to Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga, a long preliminary development, ascending through the Upanishads and Brahmins to the hymns of the Rig Veda.

It is also difficult to determine the relative position of philosophical systems, since, as I have already explained, they mutually refer to each other. As for the relationship of Buddhism to the six orthodox systems, it seems to me that all we can say about it is that the schools of philosophy that taught very much like the six classical or orthodox systems are suggested by the Buddhist suttas. But this is not at all what some scholars believe, who claim that the Buddha or his disciples borrowed directly from the sutras. We know nothing of the Sankhya literature prior to the Sankhya-karika of the 6th century BC. n e. Even if we admit that the Tattva-samasa is an older work, how, having no parallel dates, can we prove the actual borrowings from the Buddha and his disciples in that old time?

In the Upanishads and Brahmins, despite their common mood, there is a significant lack of system and diversity of opinions defended by different teachers and different schools. Even in the hymns we find great independence and individuality of thought, sometimes apparently reaching to open skepticism and atheism.

We must bear all this in mind if we wish to have a correct idea of ​​the historical origin and growth of the six philosophies of India, as we are accustomed to call them. We have already seen that the Brahmins were not alone in philosophical discussions, and that the Kshatriyas also played a very active and eminent part in the development of such fundamental principles. philosophical concepts as the concept of atman, or self.

From this vacillating mass of philosophical and religious thoughts, which in India were the common property, real philosophical systems slowly emerged. Although we do not know in what form this took place, it is quite clear that those philosophical textbooks in the form of sutras that we have could not have been written at the time when writing for any practical purpose other than inscriptions on monuments and coins, was not yet known in India and in any case was not used, as far as we know, for literary purposes.

MNEMONIC LITERATURE

It is now generally recognized, I believe, that when writing becomes common, it is almost impossible that there should be no allusions to it in poetic and prose vernacular writings. Even at such a late time as the era of Shankara, written letters were called unreal (anrita) in comparison with the sounds they represent (Ved.-sutras, II, 1, 14). There is no mention of writing in hymns, brahmanas, or upanishads, and there are very few allusions to it in the sutras. The historical value of these allusions to writing found in the literature of the Buddhists depends, of course, on the date, which we can determine, not of the original authors, but of the authors of our texts. We must never forget that in India for many centuries there was a purely mnemonic literature, preserved until the period of the sutras and passed down from generation to generation according to a system fully described in the Pratisankyas. Why would this developed system be needed if manuscripts already existed at that time?

When the mnemonic literature - tradition (smriti) - was first written down, it was probably in a form similar to that of the sutras. At the same time, the dissatisfaction and clumsiness of the style of the sutras is understandable. The letters at that time were still monumental, since in India monumental writing preceded literary and assimilation of the alphabet. Written material in India was rare and the number of those who could read was very small. And at the same time, there was an old mnemonic literature, which had a certain time-honored character and was part of an ancient system of education that met all the needs and was not easy to replace. Naturally, a significant part of such mnemonic literature is lost if it is not written down in a timely manner. Often the name is preserved, survives, but the content itself is completely changed. Therefore, when in Buddhist texts we find mention of Sankhya, for example in the Visuddimagga (chap. XVII), it is impossible even to say whether at that time there was at least one work on Sankhya philosophy in the form of sutras. It is evident, at any rate, that there could not have been our Samkhya Sutras, and even the Samkhya Karikas, which seem to have replaced the ancient Sutras at the beginning of the sixth century, while our Sutras belong to the fourteenth.

It is possible, if not to prove, at any rate to make probable the position which is here recognized as the teaching of the Buddha as subsequent to the early development of philosophical ideas in their systematic and more or less technical form, by referring to the name of his mother - whether this name was real or it was given. her legend. She was called Maya or Mayadevi. Considering that for the Buddha the world was Maya (illusion), it seems more likely that this name was given to his mother. ancient tradition and that it was not given without a purpose. And if so, then it could only be after avidya (ignorance) in Vedanta and prakriti in Sankhya philosophy were replaced by the concept of mayi. It is known that in the old classical Upanishads the word Maya does not occur; it is also remarkable that it occurs in later Upanishads, more or less apocryphal. For example, in Shvetashvatara (I, 10) we read: “Mayam tu Prakritim vidyat” (Let him know that Prakriti is Maya or Maya is Prakriti). This seems to refer to the Samkhya system, in which prakriti plays the role of maya and blinds the purusha (spirit) until he turns away from her and she ceases to exist, at least for him. But in Samkhya or Vedanta, Maya in its technical meaning undoubtedly belongs to the secondary period, and therefore it can be argued that Maya, as the name of the mother of Buddha, could not find a place in Buddhist legend in the first period of Indian philosophy, represented by the ancient Upanishads and even in these sutras. two outstanding schools.

Undoubtedly, there were many philosophical mnemonic productions after the period of which the old Upanishads were representatives, and before the systematic establishment of the philosophical sutras; but all this philosophical production perished forever for us. We see this clearly in relation to the philosophy of Brihaspati.

PHILOSOPHY OF BRIHASPATHI

Brihaspati is undoubtedly a historically very obscure figure. He was called the author of two hymns of the Vedas (X, 71 and X, 72) and distinguished between Brihaspati Angirasa and Brihaspati Laukya (laukayatika?). His name is known in the same way as the name of one of the gods of the Vedas. In the Rig Veda (VIII, 96, 15) we read that Indra and his companion or ally Brihaspati defeated the godless people (adevihvisah). Then he was called as the author of the book of laws, decisively new and preserved to our time. Moreover, Brihaspati is the name of the planet Jupiter and the teacher (purohita) of the gods, so that Brihaspati-purohita became the recognized name of Indra, who has Brihaspati as his purohita. that is, the chief priest and assistant. Therefore, it seems strange that the same name, the name of the teacher of the gods, is given to the representative of the most unorthodox, atheistic and sensualistic philosophical system of India. Perhaps this can be explained by referring to the Drahmans and the Upanishads, in which Brihaspati is depicted teaching the demons his harmful doctrines, not for their benefit, but for their destruction. Thus in the Maitrayani Upanishad we read: “Brhaspati, having changed or assumed the form of Shukra, teaches this false knowledge for the safety of Indra and for the destruction of the asuras (demons). With the help of this knowledge, they proved that good is evil and evil is good, and they said that this new law, which overthrows the Vedas and other sacred books, should be studied (by asuras, demons). For this to be so, they said, let not a man (but only demons) study this false knowledge, for it is harmful; it is, so to speak, fruitless. His reward lasts only as long as the pleasure lasts, like a person who has lost his position (caste). Let him not be tempted by this false doctrine, for it is said:

1. These two knowledges are very divergent and opposite; one known as false knowledge, the other known as knowledge. I (Yama) believe that Nachiketa has a desire for knowledge and many pleasures do not tempt him.

2. He who knows both imperfect knowledge (ceremonies) and perfect knowledge (self-knowledge), conquers death through imperfect knowledge and attains immortality through perfect knowledge.

3. Those who clothe themselves in imperfect knowledge imagine that they alone are wise and learned; they wander around and around, deceived, like a blind man led by other blind people ”(7, 9).

“Gods and demons, wanting to know I (themselves), came to Brahman (to their father Brihaspati). Bowing before him, they said: “O blessed one, we desire to know, tell us!” After considering the case, he thought that these demons believe in a different atman (from themselves) and that therefore they are taught a completely different self. These erring (deceived) demons lean on this self, cling to it, destroying the true boat of salvation and praising untruth. The untrue they consider to be the truth, like those who are deceived by a conjurer. In fact, what is said in the Vedas is the truth. The wise rely on what is said in the Vedas. Therefore, let the Brahmin not study what is not in the Vedas, or such (that is, like the demons) will be the result.

This place is curious in many ways. First of all, there is a clear reference from one Upanishad to another, namely to Chandogya, in which this episode about Brihaspati giving false teaching to demons is described in more detail. Secondly, we see a change made, obviously, intentionally. In the Chandogya Upanishad, Prajapati himself gives the asuras a false knowledge of the atman, and in the Maitrayana Upanishad, Brihaspati takes his place. It is quite probable that Brihaspati was introduced in the later Upanishad instead of Prajapati, because it was considered improper for a supreme deity to deceive anyone, even demons. In Chandogya, demons who believed in the anyata (difference, dissimilarity) of the atman, that is, in the possibility that the atman resides in some place other than themselves, look for it in the reflection of the face in the pupil of the eyes, in a mirror or water. All this, however, refers to the visible body. Then Prajapati says that the atman is that which moves, full of pleasures, in sleep, and since this will also be only an individual person, he finally explains that the atman is that which is in deep sleep, without losing, however, its identities.

If Brihaspati is already introduced in the Upanishads with the aim of teaching false rather than orthodox opinions, then we may perhaps understand why his name is associated with sensationalistic positions and why he is finally made, albeit unjustifiably, responsible for these positions. That these propositions existed in ancient times is shown by some of the hymns in which, many years ago, I pointed out the curious traces of awakening skepticism. In later Sanskrit, barhaspatya (follower of Brihaspati) denoted the infidel in general. Among the works mentioned in Lalitavistara as studied by the Buddha is Barhaspatya, but it is not clear whether this work was written in sutras or in meters. In addition, it is known that Lalitavistara is too fragile a reed for a historian to rely on. But if we can trust Bhaskara's interpretation of the Brahma-sutras, then he seems to have known even at this later time some of the sutras attributed to Brihaspati, which expounded the teachings of the Charvakas, that is, unbelievers. But if such sutras did exist, we are not in a position to determine their date and say whether they preceded or followed other philosophical sutras. Panini knew the sutras, now lost, and some of them can no doubt be traced back to the time of the Buddha. He, quoting the Bhikshu Sutras and the Nata Sutras (IV, 3, 110), also mentions that the author of the first is Parasarya, and the second is Silalin. Since Parasarya is the name of Vyasa, the son of Parasara, it was believed that Panini under the name of Bhikshu-sutra means the Brahma-sutras attributed to Vyasa. This would place their date around the fifth century BC. e. and this is accepted by all who wish to attribute the greatest possible antiquity to the philosophical literature of India. But Parasarya would hardly have been chosen as a name for Vyasa; and although we do not hesitate to place the Vedanta teachings in the fifth century B.C.E. e. and even earlier, we cannot give the same place to the sutras on the basis of such insufficient evidence.

When we encounter the heretical teachings of Brihaspati elsewhere, they are expressed in verse, so that they are taken from the Karikas rather than from the Sutras. They are of particular interest to us, because they prove that India, which is generally considered the birthplace of spiritualism and idealism, was by no means devoid of sensationalist philosophers. Although it is difficult to say how old such theories were in India, it is certain that wherever we find consistent treatises on philosophy, sensationalistic teachings also appear.

Of course, the Brahmins also called the teachings of the Buddha skeptical and atheistic; charvaka, as well as nastika - names that were often given to Buddhists. But the teachings of Brihaspati, as far as we know them, went much further than Buddhism and, one might say, were hostile to all religious feeling, while the teaching of the Buddha was both religious and philosophical, although in India it is rather difficult to separate the philosophical from the religious.

Among the followers of Brihaspati, there are some provisions that seem to indicate the existence of other philosophical schools next to them. The Barhaspatyas speak as they usually do, inter pares; they differ from others as others differ from them. There are traces of opposition to the religion of the Vedas (Kautsa) in the hymns, in the brahmanas and in the sutras, and ignoring them would give us a completely false idea of ​​the religious and philosophical battles in ancient India. From the point of view of the Brahmins - and we know of no other point of view - the opposition represented by Brihaspati and others may seem insignificant, but the very name given to these heretics seems to indicate that their teachings were very widespread ( lokayatics). Another name (nastika) was given to them because they denied (said: no) everything except the indications of the senses, and in particular they denied the indications of the Vedas, which the Vedantists called pratiksha, that is, self-evident, like sensory perceptions.

Nastika - a name that is not applicable to simple heretics, but only to complete nihilists - are interesting for us from a historical point of view, since, arguing against other philosophies, they ipso facto, thereby proving the existence of orthodox philosophical systems before their time. The established schools of Indian philosophy could endure much; they were tolerant, as we shall see, even of obvious atheism, like that of the Samkhyas. But they felt hatred and contempt for the nastikas, and it is precisely for this reason and because of the feeling of strong disgust that they arouse that we cannot, I think, pass in complete silence their philosophical system, which existed side by side with the six Vedic or orthodox systems.

Madhava, in his Sarvadarshana-sangraha (extractions from all philosophical systems), begins with an account of the Nastika (or Charvaka) system. He considers this system to be the lowest of all, and yet he admits that it is impossible to ignore it in listing the philosophical forces of India. Charvaka is given by him as the name of Rakshasa, and this Rakshasa is recognized historical personality, to whom Brihaspati (Vachaspati) transmitted his teachings. The word charvaka has an obvious connection with the word charva, and Balasastrin, in the preface to his edition of Kashiki, gives it as a synonym for Buddha. He is portrayed as the teacher of the lokayata, that is, the world system, if only this word originally had such a meaning. A brief account of this system is given in the Prabodhachandrodaya (27, 18) in the following words: in which wealth and pleasure constitute the ideal of man, in which the elements think, the other world is denied, and death is the end of everything. The word lokayapsh occurs in Panini's Gana Ukthadi. It should be noted, however, that Hemacandra distinguishes varhaspatya (or nastika) from charvakas (or lokayats). though he does not indicate in what particular points they differ. Buddhists use the word lokayata to refer to philosophy in general. The assertion that the Lokayatics recognized only one promana, that is, one source of knowledge, namely sensory perception, clearly indicates that other philosophical systems already existed then. We will see that the Vaisheshika recognizes two sources of knowledge: perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumana); sankhya - three, adding to the previous two a reliable statement (aptavachya); nyaya - four, adding comparison (upamana); two mimams are six, adding conjecture, presumption (arthapatti) and negation (abhava). We will talk about all this further. Even ideas such as the idea of ​​four or five elements, which seems so natural to us, required some time to develop, as we see in the history of the Greek stoyceia, and yet this idea was apparently quite familiar to the Charvaks. Other systems recognized five elements: earth, water, fire, air and ether; and they recognized only four, releasing the ether, probably because it is invisible. In the Upanishads we find traces of an even older triad of elements. All this points to the philosophic activity of the Hindus from the earliest times, and portrays these Charvakas to us rather as denying what was more or less established before them than as having added their own new ideas to this old heritage.

The same is true for the soul. In India, not only philosophers, but every Aryan had a word for the soul and did not doubt that a person has something different from visible body. Only the Charvaks denied the soul. They argued that what we call the soul is not a thing in itself, but simply the same body. They claimed that they hear, see and feel the body, that it remembers and thinks, although they saw that this body rots and decomposes, as if it had never existed. It is clear that, holding such opinions, they came into conflict with religion even more than with philosophy. We do not know how they explained the development from the flesh of consciousness and mind; we only know that here they resorted to analogy, referring to the intoxicating power obtained by mixing individual ingredients that are not intoxicating in themselves, as an analogy for the development of soul and body.

And here we read the following:

“There are four elements:

earth, water, fire and air,

And only these four elements

mind is produced

like the intoxicating power of Kinua, etc.,

mixed together.

Since "I'm fat", "I'm thin" -

these attributes reside in the same subject

And since "fatness", etc., is inherent only in the body,

That alone is the soul, and nothing else.

And phrases like "my body"

have only a metaphorical meaning.

Thus, for them, the soul, apparently, meant the body - endowed with the attribute of the mind, and therefore was supposed to be destroyed along with the body. Holding this opinion, they must understandably see the highest goal of man in sensual pleasures and recognize pain as simply an inevitable concomitant of pleasure.

This verse is quoted:

"Pleasure that occurs in a person

from contact with sensible objects, Should not be valued as accompanied by suffering - such is the warning of fools: Fruits are rich in delicious grains - What person who understands his true interest will reject them because they are covered with husk and dust?

From all this we see that the Charvaka system - although its basic philosophical principles were developed - was practical rather than metaphysical in character, an outright teaching of utilitarianism and crude hedonism. It is very unfortunate that all the original books of these materialistic philosophers are lost, as they would probably allow us to look deeper into ancient history of Indian philosophy, than we can glimpse through the textbooks of the six darshans, on which we must mainly rely. The following verses, preserved by Madhava in his Extracts, are almost all that we know of from the teachings of Brihaspati and his followers.

“Fire is hot, water is cold, and air feels cold.

How such a distinction is made, we do not know.

because it must happen

from their own nature (svabhava)."

Brihaspati himself is credited with the following invective:

“There is no heaven, no liberation, and certainly no one in the other world; There are no acts of ashrams (stages of life) or castes producing reward,

Agnahotra, three Vedas, three wands (which were worn by ascetics) and smearing oneself with ashes - All this is a way of life arranged by the creator for people deprived of mind and courage. If the victim killed at jyotishtom goes to heaven, then why shouldn't his father, who was killed there by the sacrificer, also go there? If the sacrifice of sraddha pleases the dead beings, then giving viaticum to people wandering here on earth would be useless. If those who are in heaven take pleasure in offerings. Then why not give food to people here while they are up there? Let a man be happy while he lives; and after borrowing money, let him drink ghee, How can the body return when it has become dust? If the one who leaves the body goes to another world, Then why does he not return again, attracted by the love of his relatives? Therefore, funeral rites are prescribed by the Brahmins As a means of life; nothing else is known to anyone. The three compilers of the Vedas were stupid, rogues and demons. The words of the pandits are as incomprehensible as jarbhari, turphari. An indecent act (sacrifice of a horse) is performed by a queen, Proclaimed by rogues, as well as other things. Eating meat also prescribed by the demons."

These are, of course, strong expressions—as strong as any used by materialists, ancient or new. It is good that we know how old and how widespread this materialism is, because otherwise we would hardly understand the attempts made by the other side to counteract it by establishing the true sources or standards of knowledge (pramanas) and other basic truths recognized as essential for religion. as well as for philosophy. The concept of orthodoxy in India, however, is very different from the same concept in other countries. In India we find philosophers who denied the existence of a personal god (Ishvara) and yet are tolerated as orthodox so long as they accept the authority of the Vedas. It was this denial of the authority of the Vedas that made the Buddha immediately a heretic in the eyes of the Brahmins and forced him to found new religion or brotherhood, while the followers of the Samkhya, who in many important respects did not differ much from him, remained safe under the protection of orthodoxy. Some of the accusations leveled against the Brahmins by the Barhaspatyas are the same as those brought against them by the followers of the Buddha. Therefore, considering that on the vital question of the authority of the Vedas, the Samkhya agrees, albeit inconsistently, with orthodox Brahminism and differs from Buddhism, it would be much easier to prove that the Buddha borrowed his ideas from Brihaspati, and not from Kapila, the alleged founder of Samkhya. . If we are right in our opinion of the inorganic and rich development of philosophical ideas in ancient India, then the idea of ​​borrowing, so natural to us, seems completely out of place in India. A chaotic mass of conjectures about the truth was in the air, and there was no controlling authority, and even, as far as we know, there was no binding public opinion that could bring this chaos into any order. Therefore we have just as little right to say that the Buddha

Borrowed from Kapila, as well as to the statement that Kapila borrowed from the Buddha. No one will argue that the Hindus borrowed the idea of ​​shipbuilding from the Phoenicians or the construction of stupas from the Egyptians. In India we are in a world different from that to which we are accustomed in Greece, in Rome, or in modern Europe, and we do not need to immediately conclude that since the same opinions are found in Buddhism and in the philosophy of Kapila (in Samkhya), the first borrowed from the second, or, as some believe, the second from the first.

Although we can easily imagine what was the general spirit of the philosophy of the ancient Indian heretics, whether they were called Charvakas (barhaspatyas), we unfortunately know less about their teachings than about the teachings of other philosophical schools. These are only names for us, like the names of Yajnavalkya, Raikva and other ancient leaders of Indian thought, which are mentioned in the Upanishads and to which famous statements are attributed. We know some of the conclusions they came to, but we know next to nothing about the processes by which they arrived at them. From these statements we learn only that there must have been a considerable activity of philosophical thinking in India long before the time when an attempt was made to divide this thinking into six definite philosophical systems, or an attempt was made to write down these systems. Even when we are called famous people like Jaimini, Kapila, and others as authors of well-known systems of philosophy, we must not regard them as the original creators of philosophy in the sense that Plato and Aristotle were.

GENERAL PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS

It must be especially vigorously insisted that in India there was a large general fund of philosophical thought, which, like language, belonged to no one in particular, but was like the air that every living and thinking person breathed. Only in this way can we explain the fact that we find certain ideas in all or almost all systems of Indian philosophy - ideas that seem to be recognized as proven by all philosophers and do not belong, in particular, to any one school.

1. Metempsychosis-samsara

The best known of these ideas, belonging more to all India than to any of its philosophers, is that which is known as metempsychosis. This word is Greek, like metensomatosis, but has no literary authority in Greece. By appointment, it corresponds to the Sanskrit word samsara and is translated in German Seelenwanderung (transmigration of souls). For the Hindu, the idea that the souls of people after their death move into the bodies of animals or even plants is so obvious that it is not even subject to question. Among prominent writers (both ancient and modern) we never find attempts to prove or disprove this idea. Already in the period of the Upanishads we read about human souls reborn in the bodies of animals and plants. In Greece, a similar opinion was defended by Empedocles; and now there is still much dispute about whether he borrowed this idea from the Egyptians, as is commonly believed, or whether Pythagoras and his teacher Pherekides learned it in India. It seems to me that such an opinion is so natural that it could arise quite independently among different peoples. From Aryan races the Italian, Celtic, and Hyperborean or Scythian tribes maintained a belief in metempsychosis; traces of this belief have recently been discovered even among the uncivilized inhabitants of America, Africa and East Asia. In India, no doubt, this belief developed spontaneously, and if it was so in India, why not so in other countries, especially among peoples belonging to the same linguistic race? It must be remembered, however, that some systems, notably the Samkhya philosophy, do not recognize what we commonly understand as "transmigration of the soul." If we translate the word purusha of the Sankhya philosophy with the word "soul" instead of "I", then it is not purusha that migrates, but sukshmacharira (subtle, invisible body). The Self remains always untouchable, a simple contemplator, and its highest goal is to recognize that it is higher and separate from everything that comes from prakriti (nature).

2. Immortality of the soul

The immortality of the soul is an idea which was also the common heritage of all Indian philosophers. This idea was considered so proven that we would have looked in vain for any arguments in favor of it. Death for the Hindu was so limited to the body decomposing before our eyes that such an expression as "atmano mritatvam" (immortality I) is almost a tautology in the Sanskrit language. There is no doubt that the followers of Briha-spati denied a future life, but all other schools fear a future life, a prolonged metampsychosis, rather than doubt it; as for the final destruction of the true self, this seems to the Hindu to be a self-contradiction. Some scientists are so surprised at such an unshakable faith in the future and eternal life among the people of India that they try to trace it back to a belief that is supposedly common to all savages, who believe that a person after death leaves his spirit on earth, which can take the form of an animal body or even tree. This is a mere fantasy, and although, of course, it is impossible to refute it, it does not follow from this that it has a right to our consideration. And besides, why would the Aryans learn from savages when they themselves were also savages in their time and they had no need to forget the so-called wisdom of the savage, just as there was no need to forget the sutras from which they are supposed to have learned about this belief.

3. Pessimism

All Indian philosophers are accused of pessimism; in some cases such an accusation may be well founded, but not in all. The people, who borrowed their name of god from a word that in essence means only the existent, real (sat), could hardly recognize dry land as something that should not have existed. Indian philosophers by no means dwell forever on the misery of life. They don't always whine and protest against life as worthless. Their pessimism is of a different sort. They simply claim that they got their first philosophical reflection from the fact that there is suffering in the world. Obviously, they believe that in a perfect world suffering does not take place, that it is some kind of anomaly, in any case something that should be explained and, if possible, eliminated. Suffering, of course, appears to be an imperfection, and as such it may raise the question of why it exists and how it can be destroyed. And this is not the mood that we used to call pessimism; in Indian philosophy we do not find outcries against divine injustice, it in no way encourages suicide. Yes, according to the Hindus, it would be useless, since the same worries and the same questions await us in another life. Bearing in mind that the goal of Indian philosophy is to eliminate the suffering produced by ignorance and to achieve the highest happiness that comes from knowledge, we would be justified in calling this philosophy eudemonistic rather than pessimistic.

It is interesting, at any rate, to note the unanimity with which the major philosophical systems in India, and also some of her religious systems, start from the idea that the world is full of suffering and that this suffering must be explained and eliminated. This seems to have been one of the main impulses of philosophical thought in India, if not the main impulse. Starting with Jaimini, we cannot expect real philosophy from his purva mimamsa, which deals mainly with ritual matters, such as sacrifices, etc. But although these sacrifices are portrayed as a means to a certain kind of bliss and as a means of reducing or alleviating ordinary sorrows life, they do not provide the ultimate bliss to which all other philosophers aspire. Uttara-mimamsa and all other philosophies occupy a higher position. Badarayana teaches that the cause of all evil is avidya (ignorance) and that the goal of his philosophy is to eliminate this ignorance through knowledge (vidya) and thus reach the highest knowledge of Brahman, which is the highest bliss (Tait.-up., II, 11 ). The Samkhya philosophy, at least as we know it from the karikas and sutras, starts directly from the recognition of the existence of three kinds of suffering and recognizes as its highest goal the complete cessation of all suffering; and yoga philosophy, having shown the way to contemplation and self-concentration (samadhi), claims that this is the best means for avoiding all earthly disturbances (II, 2) and for finally achieving kaivalya (perfect freedom). Vaisheshika promises his followers the knowledge of the truth and through this the final cessation of suffering; even the philosophy of logic Gotama presents in its first sutra complete bliss (apavarga) as the highest reward, which is achieved by the complete destruction of all suffering through logic. That the religion of the Buddha has the same origin in the clear understanding of human suffering and its cause, and the same goal, the annihilation of duhkha (suffering), is too well known to need no further explanation; but at the same time, it should be remembered that other systems give the same name to the state they are striving for - nirvana or duhkhanta (the end of duhkha - suffering).

Therefore, Indian philosophy, which claims to be able to eliminate suffering, can hardly be called pessimistic in the usual sense of the word. Even physical suffering, although it cannot be eliminated, ceases to affect the soul when I am fully aware of my alienation from the body, and all mental suffering, which comes from worldly attachments, disappears when we are freed from the desires that cause these attachments. Since the cause of all suffering is in ourselves (in our deeds and thoughts), in this or a previous life, any protest against divine injustice immediately falls silent. We are what we have made ourselves, we suffer from what we have done, we reap what we have sown, and the sowing of goodness, although without any hope of a rich harvest, is recognized as the main goal of the philosopher here on earth.

Besides the conviction that all suffering can be eliminated by an insight into its nature and its origin, there are other ideas that we find in that rich treasury of ideas that opens up in India for every thinking person. These general ideas, of course, had different expressions in individual systems, but this should not confuse us, and with some reflection we discover their common source. Thus, when we look for the causes of suffering, all the philosophical systems of India give us the same answer, albeit under different names. Vedanta speaks of ignorance (avidya); sankhya - about aviveka (non-discrimination); nyaya about mithyajnana (complex knowledge), and all these various deviations from knowledge in general are depicted as bandhas - bonds broken by means of true knowledge given by various philosophical systems.

The next idea, apparently firmly rooted in the soul of the Hindu and therefore found expression in all philosophical systems, is belief in karma, deed, the continuous activity of thought, word and deed in all ages. “All deeds, good and evil, must and do bear fruit” - such is the position that no Hindu, either modern or living thousands of years before us, doubted.

The same eternity that is attributed to deeds and their effects is also attributed to the soul, with the difference that the deeds cease to operate when real freedom is achieved, but the soul remains even after achieving freedom, or final bliss. The idea of ​​the soul ever ending was so alien to the Hindu mind that there seemed to be no need for the proofs of immortality so common in European philosophy. Knowing the meaning of the word to be (being), the idea that being could become non-being seemed simply impossible to the Hindu mind. If being meant samsara or the world, however long it existed, then the Hindu philosophers never recognized it as real. It never existed, does not exist, and will never exist. Time, however long, is nothing to the Hindu philosopher. Counting a thousand years as one day did not satisfy him. He imagined the duration of time by means of bolder similes, such as that a man, once in a thousand years, passes his silk handkerchief over the range of the Himalayan mountains. In time, he will completely destroy (erase) these mountains; in this way the world, or samsara, of course ends, but even then eternity and the real remain far apart. In order to make it easier to understand this eternity, the popular idea of ​​prolai (destruction or absorption) of the whole world was invented. Based on the teachings of the Vedanta, at the end of each kalpa, the pralaya (destruction) of the universe occurs, and then Brahman is brought to its causal condition (karanavastha), containing both soul and matter in an undeveloped (avyakta) state. At the end of such a pair, Brahman creates or emits a new world from itself, matter becomes visible again, souls become active again and reincarnate, albeit with the highest enlightenment (vikasha) in accordance with their former merits or sins. Thus, Brahman receives his new karyavastha, that is, an active state that continues until the next kalpa. But all this applies only to the changing and unreal world. This is the world of karma, a temporary product of ignorance (avidya) or maya, it is not real reality. In Samkhya philosophy, these prolayas occur when the three gunas of prakriti (matter) are in balance, while creation is the result of an imbalance between them. That which is not affected by the cosmic illusion, or at least acts only temporarily, and which at any moment can again acquire its self-knowledge, that is, its self-existence and freedom from all conditions and bonds, is truly eternal.

According to the Vaisheshika school of thought, this process of creation and decay depends on atoms. If they separate, decomposition (pralaya) occurs; if there is movement in them and they unite, what we call creation takes place.

The idea of ​​the world being swallowed up at the end of a kalpa (zones) and reappearing in the next kalpa is not yet found in the old Upanishads; even the very concept of samsara is not found in them, therefore Professor Garbe is inclined to consider the idea of ​​prolaya to be newer, peculiar only to the philosophy of samkhya and borrowed from it by other systems. It is possible that this is so, but in the Bhagavad Gita (IX, 7) the idea of ​​pralayas (absorptions) and kalpas (periods), their end and beginning (kalpakshaya and kalpadau) is already quite familiar to poets. The nature of pralaya is so different for different poets and philosophers that it is much more likely that they all borrowed this idea from one common source, that is, from the folk faith of the people among whom they grew up, from whom they learned the language, and with it they learned the materials of their thinking. than that they invented the same theory in a slightly modified form each.

5. Infallibility of the Vedas

One more common element, which is assumed by all Indian philosophy, can be pointed out - the recognition of the highest authority and character of the revelation attributed to the Vedas. Such an idea was, of course, striking in antiquity, although it seems quite familiar to us today. It is believed that the Samkhya philosophy originally did not imply belief in the revealed properties of the Vedas, but here, of course, shruti is spoken of (Sutra, I, 5). As far as we know the Samkhya, it recognizes the authority of the Vedas, calling them shabda and referring to them on even unimportant matters. It should be noted that the difference between sruti and s.chrshpi (revelation and tradition), so familiar in the later stages of the development of philosophy, is not yet found in the old Upanishads.

6. Three Gunas

The theory of the three gunas, recognized as the original property of Samkhya philosophy in its non-scientific form, also seems to have been quite familiar to most Hindu philosophers. The impulse to everything in nature, the cause of all life and all diversity, is attributed to the three gunas. Guna means property; but we are expressly warned not to understand this word in philosophy in its usual sense of property, but rather in the sense of substance, so that the gunas are in fact the constituent elements of nature. In a more general sense, they are nothing but the thesis, antithesis and something in between - for example, cold, hot and neither cold nor hot; good, evil, and neither good nor evil; light, dark and neither light nor dark, etc. - in all parts of the physical and moral nature. The tension of these properties (struggle between them) produces activity and struggle; and equilibrium leads to temporary or final rest. This mutual tension is sometimes depicted as an inequality produced by the predominance of one of the three gunas; thus, for example, in the Maitrayana Upanishads (V, 2) we read: “This world in the beginning was tamas (darkness). This tamas stood in the Highest. Moved by the Supreme, he became unequal. In this form he was rajas (darkness). Rajas, moved, also became unequal, and this form is sattva (kindness, goodness). Sattva, moved, dispersed as a rasa (entity). Here, obviously, we have the recognized names of the three gunas; in the Maitrayana Upanishads, the influence of Samkhya is noticeable, and therefore it can be argued that her testimony is of little importance in proving the general acceptance of the theory of the gunas; anyway, they don't have more value than the testimony of the later Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita, where the three gunas are fully recognized.

Hello, dear readers! Welcome to the blog!

Philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important thing. This is another thread in a series of posts. on the basics of philosophy. In a previous article, we reviewed . As already mentioned, the science of philosophy arose simultaneously in different parts of the world - in Ancient Greece and in Ancient India and China around the 7th-6th centuries. BC. Often the philosophy of ancient India and Ancient China are considered together, as they are very connected and have had a great influence on each other. But still, I propose to consider the history of the philosophy of Ancient China in the next article.

Vedic period of Indian philosophy

The philosophy of ancient India was based on the texts contained in the Vedas, which were written in the most ancient language - Sanskrit. They consist of several collections written in the form of hymns. It is believed that the Vedas were compiled over a period of thousands of years. The Vedas were used for worship.

The first philosophical texts of India are the Upanishads (end of the 2nd millennium BC). The Upanishads are the interpretation of the Vedas.

Upanishads

The Upanishads formed the main Indian philosophical themes: the idea of ​​an infinite and one God, the doctrine of rebirth and karma. The One God is the incorporeal Brahman. Its manifestation - Atman - is the immortal, inner "I" of the world. The Atman is identical to the human soul. The goal of the human soul (the goal of the individual Atman) is to merge with the world Atman (the world soul). One who lives in recklessness and impurity will not be able to reach such a state and will enter the cycle of rebirths according to the combined result of his words, thoughts and deeds, according to the laws of karma.

The Upanishads are ancient Indian treatises of a philosophical and religious nature in philosophy. The oldest of them date back to the 8th century BC. The Upanishads reveal the main essence of the Vedas, which is why they are also called Vedanta.

In them, the Vedas have received the greatest development. The idea of ​​the connection of everything with everything, the theme of space and man, the search for connections, all this was reflected in them. The basis of everything that exists in them is the inexpressible Brahman, as a cosmic, impersonal principle and the basis of the whole world. Another central point is the idea of ​​the identity of man with Brahman, of karma as the law of action and samsara like a circle of suffering that a person needs to overcome.

Philosophical schools (systems) of ancient India

WITH 6th century BC the time of classical philosophical schools (systems) began. Distinguish orthodox schools(considered the Vedas the only source Revelations) and unorthodox schools(they did not recognize the Vedas as the only authoritative source of knowledge).

Jainism and Buddhism referred to as unorthodox schools. Yoga and Samkhya, Vaisheshika and Nyaya, Vedanta and Mimamsa These are the six orthodox schools. I listed them in pairs because they are pair friendly.

Unorthodox schools

Jainism

Jainism is based on the tradition of hermitage (6th century BC). The basis of this system is the personality and it consists of two principles - material and spiritual. Karma binds them together.

The idea of ​​the rebirth of souls and karma led the Jains to the idea that all life on Earth has a soul - plants, animals and insects. Jainism preaches such a life so as not to harm all life on Earth.

Buddhism

Buddhism arose in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. Its creator Gautama, a prince from India, who later received the name Buddha, which means awakened in translation. He developed the concept of the way to get rid of suffering. This should be the main goal of the life of a person who wants to get liberation and go beyond the limits of samsara, the cycle of suffering and pain.

To break out of the circle of suffering (to enter nirvana), one must observe 5 commandments (Wikipedia) and engage in meditation, which calms the mind and makes the mind of a person more clear and not subject to desires. The extinction of desires leads to liberation and deliverance from the cycle of suffering.

Orthodox schools

Vedanta

Vedanta has been one of the most influential schools of Indian philosophy. Exact time its appearance is not known, approximately - 2 c. BC e. The completion of the doctrine is attributed to the end of the 8th century AD. e. Vedanta is based on the interpretation of the Upanishads.

It is the basis of everything Brahman, which is one and infinite. The Atman of a person can cognize Brahman and then a person can become free.

Atman is the highest "I", the absolute, which is aware of its existence. Brahman is the cosmic, impersonal principle of everything that exists.

Mimansa

Mimamsa adjoins Vedanta and is a system that was engaged in explaining the rituals of the Vedas. The core was the idea of ​​duty, which was a sacrifice. The school reached its culmination in the 7th-8th centuries. It had an impact on strengthening the influence of Hinduism in India and reducing the importance of Buddhism.

Sankhya

This is the philosophy of dualism founded by Kapila. Two principles operate in the world: prakriti (matter) and purusha (spirit). According to her, the main basis of everything is matter. The goal of Samkhya philosophy is to divert spirit from matter. It was based on human experience and reflection.

Sankhya and Yoga are related. Sankhya is the theoretical basis for yoga. Yoga is a practical method for achieving liberation.

Yoga

Yoga. This system is based on practice. Only through practical exercises can a person achieve reunion with the divine principle. A lot of such yoga systems have been created, and they are still very famous all over the world. It is she who has become the most popular now in many countries, thanks to the complexes of physical exercises that make it possible to be healthy and not get sick.

Yoga differs from Samkhya in the belief that each person has a supreme personal Deity. With the help of asceticism, meditation, you can get rid of prakriti (from the material).

Nyaya

Nyaya was a teaching about various forms of thinking, about the rules for conducting a discussion. Therefore, its study was mandatory for everyone who was engaged in philosophizing. The problems of being in it were investigated through logical comprehension. The main goal of a person in this life is liberation.

Vaisheshika

Vaisheshika is a school related to the Nyaya school. According to this system, every thing is constantly changing, although there are elements in nature that are not subject to change - these are atoms. An important theme of the school is to classify the objects under consideration.

Vaisheshika is based on the objective knowability of the world. Adequate knowledge This is the main goal of systematic thinking.

Books on the Philosophy of Ancient India

From Sankhya to Vedanta. Indian philosophy: darshans, categories, history. Chattopadhyaya D (2003). The Calcutta University professor wrote this book specifically for Europeans who are just beginning to get acquainted with the philosophy of Ancient India.

Six systems of Indian philosophy. Müller Max (1995). The professor at Oxford University is an outstanding expert on Indian texts, he owns translations of the Upanishads and Buddhist texts. This book is referred to as a fundamental work on the philosophy and religion of India.

Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Chatterjee S. and Datta D (1954). The authors present the views of Indian philosophical schools briefly and in simple language.

Philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important thing. VIDEO.

Summary

I think the article Philosophy of Ancient India - briefly, the most important" become useful to you. Did you know:

• about the main origins of the philosophy of ancient India - the ancient texts of the Vedas and Upanishads;
• about the main classical schools of Indian philosophy - orthodox (yoga, sankhya, vaisheshika, nyaya, vedanta, mimamsa) and unorthodox (jainism and Buddhism);
• about the main feature of philosophy ancient east- about understanding the true purpose of a person and his place in the world (it was considered more important for a person to focus on the inner world than on the external circumstances of life).

I wish you all always a positive attitude for all your projects and plans!

An Introduction to the Six Systems of Indian Philosophy.

V.Veretnov

Have you ever wondered?
Why, lately, more and more often, many of our people choose the eastern, and in particular the Indian way of searching for the meaning of life, getting rid of suffering and achieving bliss?
To what extent are such decisions justified and consciously made, and how do they combine with the dominant Christian ones in our society: Orthodox, and recently rapidly growing with Protestant ideologies?
Who chooses which of the six systems of Indian philosophy: Vedanta, Purva Minansu, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, and why?
Is it possible to harmoniously unite Christian and Indian philosophical concepts of reaching beyond consciousness within society, an individual?

Our people have been asking similar questions for many years and have not found exhaustive answers. Our small study is one of the attempts to advance on the path to the truth of its tireless seekers.

Some of the seekers would like to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual self-knowledge, others would like to combine spiritual and material-social prosperity.

In the philosophical and religious literature, the coverage of the issues of the features of the six systems of Indian philosophy can be found both in the works of domestic scientists M. Ladoga, D. Andreev, N. Isaev, V. Lysenko, S. Burmirstrov, and foreign researchers M. Muller, S. Chatterjee , D. Datta, including Indian scientists Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, A.Ch. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and many others.
At the same time, consideration and comparison of six systems of Indian philosophy of Christian approaches to achieving superconsciousness in the context of the questions we posed in the introduction are found in the unique works of the late 19th century by Mitrofan Ladoga and Max Muller.
One of the hypotheses of the increased interest in the six systems of Indian philosophy, both in our country and in the West, experts call the historical, cultural and demographic phenomenon of India. Domestic and Western philosophers note the fact that the development of philosophy in India for a long time due to the lack of literature took place mnemonically, i.e. sutras, upanishads, hymns, and other philosophical texts were retold in schools from teacher to student. This circumstance makes it difficult to reliably determine the age of each system of Indian philosophy.
In addition, many authors of the texts of sacred books and commentaries on them considered themselves to be just a link in the endless sequence of creating each system that has come down to our days. Usually, talented students stayed and continued in the ashram (an analogue of hermit places common in our country, such as Optina Hermitage) to explore themselves (spirit, soul, body, mind, mind, language, etc.), the surrounding nature, the highest deity - the Lord, generalizing then this knowledge was passed on to the students of their school. If Western philosophy was divided into idealism and materialism, theism and atheism in the traditional issues of creating the world, mechanisms of development, ways of knowing, then Indian philosophy developed mainly in line with the idealistic theistic tradition, which allowed religion and philosophy not to conflict, but rather develop together and support each other. In fairness, it must be said that Indian philosophy in various systems has resorted to the tools of materialists, such as the departure from monism and the use of dualism. On the other hand, for Indian philosophy there are common ideas for all six of its systems, which will be discussed below.
Indian philosophy has developed continuously since ancient times, without sharp turns, similar to those experienced by Western philosophy, which often changed the direction of its development. Its oldest, and today considered holy, documents are contained in the Vedas (before 1500 BC). Almost all literature on Indian philosophy is written in the language of art connoisseurs and scientists - in Sanskrit. Since most of the changes in Indian philosophy were associated with commenting on the main, recognized authoritative texts, the old European philosophical scholars believed that Indian philosophy should be defined as the prehistory of philosophy, while in reality its development paralleled the development of Western philosophy, albeit in other forms. Like European philosophy before the 17th century, Indian philosophy also dealt primarily with religious problems, but it paid more attention to reflection on the knowledge of the transcendent. Since Hindus believe in the eternity of the cyclically renewed world process, they have not created a proper philosophy of history. Aesthetics and the doctrine of society and the state are their special, separate sciences. In its historical development, Indian philosophy falls into three periods:
1. Vedic period (1500-500 BC),
2. classical, or Brahmin-Buddhist (500 BC - 1000 AD) and
3. postclassical or Hindu period (since 1000).
Six systems of Indian philosophy and their authors

1. Mimamsa ("clarification" of the Vedic text on sacrifices) deals with the explanation of the ritual, but in its methods can be attributed to atheistic pluralistic systems,
2. Vedanta (the completion of the Vedas) in the Brahma Sutra, based on the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, teaches about the emergence of the world from Brahma; individual souls through knowledge or love of God - bhakti - achieve salvation, achieve unity with God, without merging with him. Under the influence of the idealism of late Buddhist philosophy, Shankara (about 800) gives the texts a new interpretation, which regards the former teaching about the real transformation of Brahma only as the lowest level of truth, as the appearance of truth; in fact, all diversity is an illusion (maya), individual souls are identical to the unchanging Brahma.
3. Sankhya (“reasonable weighing”, or “enumeration”) preaches atheistic pluralism: the first substance is only apparently connected with a kind of soul-spirit; overcoming this illusion guarantees liberation,
4. Yoga (tension, training) is the practice of contemplation; Samkhya serves as its theoretical basis, but it also recognizes a personal God.
5. Nyaya (rule, logic) - the doctrine of the forms of thinking, which developed a five-term syllogism.
6. The sixth system of philosophy - Vaisheshika, which sought to distinguish between everything that opposes us in the external and internal world. Vaisheshika developed the doctrine of categories and atomism; being theistic, she saw the liberation of man in the separation of the soul from everything material and its transformation into an organ of thought.
Each of these six systems has its founders. These philosophers are:
1. Badarayana, also called Vyasa Dvapayana or Krishna Dvapayana, the alleged author of the Brahma Sutras, also called the Uttara Mimansa Sutras or Vyasa Sutras.
2. Jaimini, author of the Purva Mimamsa Sutras.
3. Kapila, author of the Sankhya Sutras.
4. Patanjali, also called Shesha or Panin, the author of the Yoga Sutras.
5. Kanada, also called Kanabhug, Kanabhakshaka or Uluk, author of the Vaisesika Sutras.
6. Gotama (Gautama), also called Akshapada, the author of the Nyaya Sutras.
The general philosophical ideas of Indian philosophy are like common language Sanskrit or air, which was imbued with every thinking person who was fond of philosophy.
1. Metepsychosis-samsara
This is the best known of the general ideas about the transmigration of souls. At the same time, human souls, depending on the indicators of the karma of the balance of good and evil deeds, the soul moved either to a person of a different mental and social status, or into an animal, or into a plant.
2. Immortality of the soul
The immortality of the soul is such a common and accepted idea for the Hindu that
No arguments required. With the exception of the followers of Brihaspati, who denied a future life, all other schools recognized the immortality and eternity of the soul.
3. Pessimism
It should be noted that this pessimism is different from our ideas about pessimism. It is still closer to realism, and the Indians' increased attention to the suffering that takes place in our lives and ways to eliminate them.
4. Karma
Belief in karma as a continuous activity of thought, word and deed has existed in all ages. All deeds - good and evil - must bear fruit - this is the position that no Hindu doubted.
5. Infallibility of the Vedas
The authority of the Vedas as true knowledge for all Indian philosophers was of enduring importance. Two types of knowledge are represented in shruti and smriti (revelations and traditions).
6.Three Huns
The theory of the three Huns is known to all Indian philosophers as properties that give impulses to everything in nature. In a more general sense, they can be represented as thesis antithesis and something else in between. In Sankhya philosophy, there are three kinds:
A) good behavior, called virtue
B) indifferent behavior - passion, anger, greed, gloating, violence, discontent, rudeness, manifested in changes in facial expression.
C) Madness, intoxication, idleness, nihilism, lust, impurity, called bad behavior.
In their philosophical research, the Indians saw the main goal of gaining bliss and getting rid of suffering through the comprehension of truth, true knowledge. They distinguished six types of comprehension of truth (pramas): perception, conclusion, revelation, comparison, assumption, non-existence.
The human structure studied by philosophers in six Indian philosophical systems is of interest. A person consists of several elements - body, soul, spirit, mind (mind) of society. Different systems give each element of a person different properties. In different systems, they play a certain role in internal and external relations. A prerequisite for highlighting the properties of one or another element is the recognition of a common spirit within us - purusha, a personal god - atman, the highest deity - brahman, nature - prakriti.
Many of our people are fond of esotericism, theosophy, some Indian spiritual practices, such as yoga, justifying their choice and then engaging in it with their psychophysiological sensations. An alternative to such an approach could be a theoretical study of the six systems of Indian philosophy and then a more conscious choice and testing for oneself in practice.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the six systems of Indian philosophy have a powerful potential of true knowledge for solving urgent problems of a person, family, enterprise, society, state, ecology, which, unfortunately, is not realized and is not further developed by all interested researchers. In addition, a more detailed study of the six systems of Indian philosophy will allow us to form on their basis models for the harmonious unification of the interests of people of different religions, philosophical beliefs for the preservation of peace and the sustainable development of human civilization.

Literature:

1. A.Ch. Braktivedanta Swami Prabhupada "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" - 3rd Edition - M.: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust -2005 - 815s.
2. Max Muller Six systems of Indian philosophy - M.: Alma mater - 2009 - 431s.
3. Ladoga M. Superconsciousness and ways to achieve it - M.: Theology - 2001 - 834s.
4. Indian philosophy, six systems of Indian philosophy, wikipedia - access mode http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki