Indian-Philosophy-Gen-Intro-1.pdf

GENERAL INTRODUCTION HISTORY OF INDIAN THOUGHT AT the very outset, it should be emphasized that Indian philosophy has had an extremely long and complex development, much more complex than is usually realized, and probably a longer history of...

GENERAL INTRODUCTION HISTORY OF INDIAN THOUGHT AT the very outset, it should be emphasized that Indian philosophy has had an extremely long and complex development, much more complex than is usually realized, and probably a longer history of continuous development than any other philosophical tradition. While the historical perspective is undoubtedly of immense im­ portance in the study of such a tradition, it is impossible to present an exact historical survey of this development. Because of the Indians' lack of concern for chronology, many of the details of the chrono­ logical sequence of the writings either are lost or no record of them was kept. In a sense, the history of Indian philosophy can be written, if only in broadest outline, but no history of philosophy can be com­ plete without some acquaintance with the philosophers who were responsible for the doctrines and for the development of thought. However, so unhistorical, or perhaps so deeply-philosophical, was the nature of the ancient Indians that much more is known about the philosophies than about the philosophers. Relatively few of the great philosophers of ancient Indian thought are known to us and some of the most famous names to which history attributes certain philo­ sophical doctrines or systems are now admitted to be legendary. On the one hand, we are occasionally aware of the author of some doctrines but, as in the case of Indian materialism and some other movements, original texts are not available and the details of the systems are completely unknown. In broad outline, Indian philosophy may be said to have had four major periods of development up to the time of its serious decline about A.D. 1700. The Vedic Period is dimmed by obscurity, but it may be placed approximately between 2500 and 600 B.C. This is the period during which the Aryans, having come down into India from central Asia, settled their new homeland and gradually expanded  GENERAL INTRODUCTION and developed their Aryan culture and civilization. In the technical sense of the term, this can hardly be called a philosophical age. It is to be thought of as an age of groping, in which religion, philosophy, superstition, and thought were inextricably interrelated and yet in perpetual conflict. It is an age of philosophical development, how­ ever, and its culminating doctrines, those expounded in the major Upanisads, have determined the tone if not the precise pattern of the Indian philosophical development ever since. The literature of this period consists of the four Vedas (Rg Veda, Tajur Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda), each of which has four parts, known as Mantras, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads. The Mantras (hymns), especially the later ones in the Rg Veda, con­ stitute the actual beginning of Indian philosophy. By progressing from the not unusual polytheism of the early Vedas, through mono­ theism, to suggestions of monism, these poems and songs paved the way for the monistic tendencies of the Upanisads. The Brahmanas are chiefly religious documents, including ritualistic precepts and sacrificial duties. The Aranyakas and the Upanisads constitute the concluding parts of the Brahmanas, and in these philosophical prob­ lems are discussed. The Brahmanas provide the ritual to be observed by the householder, but when the householder has reached old age, he resorts to the forest and needs a substitute for the ritual he has known as a householder. The Aranyakas, which come between the Brahmanas and the Upanisads, supply this need by encouraging meditation for those who live in the forest. The Aranyakas form the transition link between the ritual of the Bramanas and the philosophy of the Upanisads. While the hymns are the creation of poets, the Brahmanas are the work of priests, and the Upanisads are the meditations of philosophers. The Upanisads, though in one sense a continuation of the Vedic religion, are in another sense a strong philosophical protest against the religion of the Brahmanas. It is in the Upanisads that the tendency to spiritual monism, which in one form or another characterizes much of Indian philosophy, was first established and where intuition rather than reason was first recog­ nized as the true guide to ultimate truth. The second period of philosophical development is the Epic Period, dated approximately from 500 or 600 B.C. to A.D. 200. This period is characterized by the indirect presentation of philosophical doctrines through the medium of nonsystematic and nontechnical literature, especially the great epics, the Rimayana and the Mahabharata. In  GENERAL INTRODUCTION addition, however, the period includes the rise and early development of Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism, and Vaisnavism. The Bhagavad-gita, which is a part of the Mahabharata, ranks as one of the three most authoritative texts in Indian philosophical literature. Furthermore, the beginnings of the orthodox schools of Indian philosophy also belong to this period. Most of the systems had their beginnings about the time of the rise of Buddhism, and developed side by side for centuries. The systematic works of the major schools were written later, but the origin of the doctrines of the several schools most probably occurred during the Epic Period. This was one of the most fertile periods of philosophy in India as well as in several other parts of the world—Greece, China, Persia, and elsewhere. A great amount of philosophical or semiphilosophical material was produced during the period, and it is very probable that our knowledge of the doctrines developed at that time merely scratches the surface of the wealth, depth, and variety of philosophical speculation that took place. It was during this period that such philosophies as skepticism, naturalism, materialism, etc., arose along with the other heterodox systems of Buddhism and Jainism and what were later to be known as the orthodox systems of Hinduism. It is out of this wealth of material that the later systems—the orthodox systems of Hinduism and the unorthodox systems of the Carvaka, Buddhism, and Jainism—were perforce brought into clearer perspective by the construction of systematic treatises. It was also during this period that many of the Dharmasastras, treatises on ethical and social philosophy, were compiled. These, like the rest of the philosophical texts of the period, are classed as smrtis, that is, traditional texts, as contrasted with the literature of the Vedic Period, which is known as sruti, revealed scriptures or authoritative texts. The Dharmasastras are systematic treatises concerning the conduct of life among the Aryans, describing their social organization and their ethical and religious functions and obligations. The third period is the Sutra Period, which is dated approximately from the early centuries of the Christian era. In this period the systematic treatises of the various schools were written and the systems took the basic form they were to preserve henceforth. The doctrines of each of the systems were presented in orderly, systematic, and logically developed sets of aphorisms, extremely brief, sometimes enigmatic, statements which, according to some interpretations, are merely reminders for the initiated to enable them to recall the details  GENERAL INTRODUCTION of philosophical systems to which they belonged and whose fuller doctrines were known only to those within the fold of the system. During this period the critical attitude in philosophy was distinctly developed along with the systematic, and the Sutras themselves con­ tain not only the positive developments of the systems but also keen and comprehensive polemics against opposing systems. Whereas during the preceding period philosophical thought and discussion had their origin, they were at that time carried on at the precritical level. In the Sutras, however, we have self-conscious thought and reflection and no longer merely constructive imagination and spon­ taneous insights. The six Hindu systems presented in sutra form during this period are the Nyaya or logical realism; the Vaisesika or realistic pluralism; the Samkhya or evolutionary dualism; the Yoga or disciplined medita­ tion; the Purva Mimamsa or earlier interpretative investigations of the Vedas, relating to conduct; and the Uttara Mimamsa or later investigations of the Vedas, relating to knowledge, also called Vedanta, the "end of the Vedas". The fourth period, the Scholastic Period, is that in which com­ mentaries were written upon the Sitras in order to explain them. Without elaboration and explanation the Sutras are almost unintel­ ligible. Not only were commentaries written upon the sutras, but also commentaries upon commentaries, and commentaries upon these, almost without limit. It is impossible to provide dates for this period with any great degree of certainty. It is dated generally from the Sutra Period to the seventeenth century. The literature of this period is primarily explanatory, but is also strongly and sometimes grossly polemical. There is a brood of "Schoolmen," noisy con­ troversialists, indulging in oversubtle theories and finespun arguments, who fought fiercely over details of philosophical doctrines and who were in constant philosophical conflict with representatives of other schools. Sometimes the commentaries are more confusing than enlightening. Instead of clear explanation and thought, one often finds mere words; instead of philosophy, logic-chopping. Obscurity of thought, subtlety of logic, and intolerance of opposition are marks of the worst types of commentators. The better types, however, are invaluable and are respected almost as much as the creators of the systems themselves. Samkara, for example, the writer of a famous commentary on the Sutra of the Vedanta system, is thought of more highly as a philosopher than is Badarayana, the seer who wrote the  GENERAL INTRODUCTION original Vedpnta Siitra (also called the Brahma Sutra). The Scholastic Period is one of explanation of the original Sutras, but, like any scholastic period, it has also produced quibbling and unphilosophical debates which are relatively worthless. On the other hand, it has brought forth some of the greatest of all Indian philosophers. Among these, in addition to Samkara, are Kumarila, Sridhara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vacaspati, Udayana, Bhaskara, Jayanta, Vijnanabhiksu, and Raghunatha. These great thinkers have been much more than commentators on ancient systems, although, in their modesty, they have claimed to be no more. In fact, however, they have been, to all intents and purposes, creators of their own systems. In the guise of commentators, they have elaborated points of view which, though capable of being related to the original system of which they are supposed to be commentaries, are new expositions rather than mere explanations. For example, the three major forms of Vedanta, those developed by Samkara, Ramanuja, and Madhva, are distinct and elaborate systems, although they all stem from the same Vedanta Sutra of Badarayana. This type of development is indicative of the unique way in which Indian philosophers have maintained their traditional respect for the past and their recognition of the value of authority in philosophy, but, without seeming to break this tradition, have also carried along the free development of thought as their insight and reason directed. While, in a sense, the Scholastic Period is still in progress, since interpretations of ancient ideas and systems are still being written, Indian philosophy lost its dynamic spirit about the sixteenth century when India became the victim of outside powers. First the Muslims and then the British assumed control of the country, not only physi­ cally but also in the realm of thought. The Muslims undermined Aryan culture and thought as far as possible, and the British, in their time, did as much as they could to belittle the thought of traditional India. For a long time, the English-educated Indians were apparently ashamed of their own philosophical tradition, and it became the mark of intelligence as well as expediency to be as European and as English in thought and in life as possible. While the coming of the British brought about a revival in education, the resulting revival of Indian thought was unintentional, to say the least. During this period indigenous reform movements like that of the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj took a leading part in India's philosophical and religious renaissance. More recently, especially since the nationalist  GENERAL INTRODUCTION movement began, and more especially since the re-establishment of India as a free and independent nation, the revival of Indian philo­ sophy as such and the consciousness of the greatness of India's philosophical past have been the most prominent developments in the field. During the twentieth century, the Indian mind has been' affected by the Western, but the Western mind has also been in­ fluenced by the Indian more than ever before, through the writings of contemporary poets, sages, and philosophers. To be sure, the revival of the Indian consciousness of the greatness of its own philo­ sophical past has tended in recent years to develop a nationalistic tone in philosophy as well as in politics. The resulting tendency of extremists to minimize or reject the revival and development of philosophy which was effected by the contact of Indians and Westerners has not been a healthy sign. We of today are able to see further than our predecessors, since we have climbed on their shoulders. Instead, therefore, of resting content with the foundations so nobly laid in the past, we must build in harmony with ancient endeavor as well as with contemporary thought. The future de­ velopment of Indian philosophy, if one may hazard a guess, will be in terms of a more synthetic approach to Indian and Western points of view. The Spirit of Indian Philosophy Indian philosophy, it has been noted, is extremely complex. Through the ages the Indian philosophical mind has probed deeply into many aspects of human experience and the external world. Although some methods, such as the experimental method of modern science, have been relatively less prominent than others, not only the problems of Indian philosophy but also the methods used and the conclusions reached in the pursuit of truth have certainly been as far-reaching in their extent, variety, and depth as those of other philosophical traditions. The six basic systems and the many sub­ systems of Hinduism, the four chief schools of Buddhism, the two schools of Jainism, and the materialism of the Carvaka are evidence enough of the diversity of views in Indian philosophy. The variety of the Indian perspective is unquestionable. Accordingly, it is very difficult to cite any specific doctrines or methods as characteristic of Indian philosophy as a whole and applicable to all the multitudinous systems and subsystems developed through nearly four millenniums of Indian philosophical speculation.  GENERAL INTRODUCTION Nevertheless, in certain respects there is what might be called a distinct spirit of Indian philosophy. This is exemplified by certain attitudes which are fairly characteristic of the Indian philosophical mind or which stand as points of view that have been emphasized characteristically by Indians in their philosophies. (1) The chief mark of Indian philosophy in general is its concen­ tration upon the spiritual. Both in life and in philosophy the spiritual motive is predominant in India. Except for the relatively minor materialistic school of the Carvaka and related doctrines, philosophy in India conceives man to be spiritual in nature, is interested primarily in his spiritual destiny, and relates him in one way or another to a universe which is also spiritual in essential character. Neither man nor the universe is looked upon as physical in essence, and material welfare is never recognized as the goal of human life, except by the Carvaka. Philosophy and religion are intimately related because philosophy itself is regarded as a spiritual adventure, and also because the motivation both in philosophy and in religion concerns the spiritual way of Ufe in the here-and-now and the eventual spiritual salvation of man in relation to the universe. Practically all of Indian philosophy, from its beginning in the Vedas to the present day, has striven to bring about a socio-spiritual reform in the country, and philosophical literature has taken many forms, mythological, popular, or technical, as the circumstances required, in order to promote such spiritual life. The problems of religion have always given depth and power and purpose to the Indian philosophical mind and spirit. (2) Another characteristic view of Indian philosophy is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy and life. This attitude of the practical application of philosophy to life is found in every school of Indian philosophy. While natural abundance and material pros­ perity paved the way for the rise of philosophical speculation, philo­ sophy has never been considered a mere intellectual exercise. The close relationship between theory and practice, doctrine and life, has always been outstanding in Indian thought. Every Indian system seeks the truth, not as academic "knowledge for its own sake," but to learn the truth which shall make men free. This is not, as it has been called, the modern pragmatic attitude. It is much larger and much deeper than that. It is not the view that truth is measured in terms of the practical, but rather that the truth is the only sound guide for practice, that truth alone has efficacy as a guide for man in his search for salvation. Every major system of Indian philosophy  GENERAL INTRODUCTION takes its beginning from the practical and tragic problems of life and searches for the truth in order to solve the problem of man's distress in the world in which he finds himself. There has been no teaching which remained a mere word of mouth or dogma of schools. Every doctrine has been turned into a passionate conviction, stirring the heart of man and quickening his breath, and completely transforming his personal nature. In India, philosophy is for life; it is to be lived. It is not enough to know the truth; the truth must be lived. The goal of the Indian is not to know the ultimate truth but to realize it, to become one with it. Another aspect of the intimate inseparability of theory and prac­ tice, philosophy and life, in Indian philosophy is to be found in the universally prevalent demand for moral purification as an imperative preliminary for the would-be student of philosophy or searcher after truth. Samkara's classic statement of this demand calls for a know­ ledge of the distinction between the eternal and the noneternal, that is, a questioning tendency in the inquirer; the subjugation of all desire for the fruits of action either in this life or in a hereafter, a renuncia­ tion of all petty desire, personal motive, and practical interest; tranquillity, self-control, renunciation, patience, peace of mind, and faith; and a desire for release (moksa) as the supreme goal of life. (3) Indian philosophy is characterized by the introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality. Philosophy is thought of as atmavidya, knowledge of the self. Philosophy can start either with the external world or with the internal world of man's inner nature, the self of man. In its pursuit of the truth, Indian philosophy has always been strongly dominated by concern with the inner life and self of man rather than the external world of physical nature. Physical science, though developed extensively in the Golden Age of Indian culture, was never considered the road to ultimate truth; truth is to be sought and found within. The subjective, then, rather than the objective, becomes the focus of interest in Indian philosophy, and, therefore, psychology and ethics are considered more important as aspects or branches of philosophy than the sciences which study physical nature. This is not to say that the Indian mind has not studied the physical world; in fact, on the contrary, India's achieve­ ments in the realm of positive science were at one time truly out­ standing, especially in the mathematical sciences such as algebra, astronomy, and geometry, and in the applications of these basic sciences to numerous phases of human activity. Zoology, botany,  GENERAL INTRODUCTION medicine, and related sciences have also been extremely prominent in Indian thought. Be this as it may, the Indian, from time im­ memorial, has felt that the inner spirit of man is the most significant clue to his reality and to that of the universe, more significant by far than the physical or the external. (4) This introspective interest is highly conducive to idealism, of course, and consequently most Indian philosophy is idealistic in one form or another. The tendency of Indian philosophy, especially Hinduism, has been in the direction of monistic idealism. Almost all Indian philosopny believes that reality is ultimately one and ultimately spiritual. Some systems have seemed to espouse dualism or pluralism, but even these have been deeply permeated by a strong monistic character. If we concentrate our attention upon the under­ lying spirit of Indian philosophy rather than its variety of opinions, we shall find that this spirit is embodied in the tendency to interpret life and reality in the way of monistic idealism. This rather unusual attitude is attributable to the nonrigidity of the Indian mind and to the fact that the attitude of monistic idealism is so plastic and dynamic that it takes many forms and expresses itself even in seemingly con­ flicting doctrines. These are not conflicting doctrines in fact, however, but merely different expressions of an underlying conviction which provides basic unity to, Indian philosophy as a whole. Materialism undoubtedly had its day in India, and, according to sporadic records and constant and determined efforts on the part of other systems to denounce it, the doctrine apparently enjoyed wide­ spread acceptance at one time. Nevertheless, materialism could not hold its own; its adherents have been few in number, and its positive influence has been negligible. Indian philosophy has not been oblivious to materialism; rather, it has known it, has overcome it, and has accepted idealism as the only tenable view, whatever specific form that idealism might take. (5) Indian philosophy makes unquestioned and extensive use of reason, but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate can be known. Reason, intellectual knowledge, is not enough. Reason is not useless or fallacious, but it is insufficient. To know reality one must have an actual experience of it. One does not merely know the truth in Indian philosophy; one realizes it. The word which most aptly describes philosophy in India is dariana, which comes from the verbal root drs, meaning "to see." "To see" is to have a direct intuitive experience of the object, or, rather, to realize  GENERAL INTRODUCTION it in the sense of becoming one with it. No complete knowledge is possible as long as there is the relationship of the subject on one hand and the object on the other. Later developments in Indian philo­ sophy, from the time of the beginning of the systems, have all depended in large part upon reason for the systematic formulation of doctrines and systems, for rational demonstration or justification, and in polemical conflicts of system against system. Nevertheless, all the systems, except the Carvaka, agree that there is a higher way of knowing reality, beyond the reach of reason, namely, the direct per­ ception or experience of the ultimate reality, which cannot be known by reason in any of its forms. Reason can demonstrate the truth, but reason cannot discover or reach the truth. While reason may be the method of philosophy in its more intellectualistic sense, intuition is the only method of comprehending the ultimate. Indian philosophy is thus characterized by an ultimate dependence upon intuition, along with the recognition of the efficacy of reason and intellect when applied in their limited capacity and with their proper function. (6) Anothercharacteristic of Indian philosophy, one which isclosely related to the preceding one, is its so-called acceptance of authority. Although the systems of Indian philosophy vary in the degree to which they are specifically related to the ancient sruti, not one of the systems—orthodox or unorthodox, except the Carvaka—openly stands in violation of the accepted intuitive insights of its ancient seers, whether it be the Hindu seers of the Upanisads, the intuitive experience of the Buddha, or the similarly intuitive wisdom of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, EIS we have it today. Indian philosophers have always been conscious of tradition and, as has been indicated before, the great systepi-builders of later periods claimed to be merely commentators, explaining the traditional wisdom of the past. While the specific doctrines of the past may be changed by interpretation, the general spirit and frequently the basic concepts are retained from age to age. Reverence for authority does not militate against progress, but it does lend a unity of spirit by providing a continuity of thought which has rendered philosophy especially significant in Indian life and solidly unified against any philosophical attitude contradicting its basic characteristics of spirituality, inwardness, intuition, and the strong belief that the truth is to be lived, not merely known. The charge of indulging in an exaggerated respect for authority may be legitimately leveled against some of Indian philosophy, but  GENERAL INTRODUCTION this respect for the past is rooted in the deep conviction that those who really know reality are those who have realized, the truth and that it is to them that we must turn ultimately, beyond all our power of reasoning, if we are to attain any comprehension of the truth which they saw and realized. As has been said, India has produced a great variety of philosophical doctrines and systems. This has been true despite universal reverence for and acceptance of the authority of the ancient seers as the true discoverers of wisdom. The variety of the systems, even in their basic conceptions, looked at in the light of the prevalent acceptance of authority, reveals the fact that this reverence has not made Indian philosophy a dogmatic religious creed, as is often alleged, but rather a single tone or trend of thought on basic issues. How completely free from traditional bias the systems are is seen, for example, by the fact that the original Samkhya says nothing about the possible existence of God, although it is emphatic in its doctrine of the theoretical undemonstrability of his existence; the Vaisesika and the Yoga, especially the latter, admit the existence of God, but do not consider him to be the creator of the universe; the Mimamsa speaks of God but denies his importance and efficacy in the moral ordering of the world. To emphasize the point further, reference should be made also to the early Buddhist systems, which reject God, and to the Carvakas, who deny God without qualification. (7) Finally, there is the over-all synthetic tradition which is essen­ tial to the spirit and method of Indian philosophy. This is as old as the Rg Veda, where the seers realized that true religion comprehends all religions, so that "God is one but men call him by many names." Indian philosophy is clearly characterized by the synthetic approach to the various aspects of experience and reality. Religion and philo­ sophy, knowledge and conduct, intuition and reason, man and nature, God and man, noumenon and phenomena, are all brought into harmony by the synthesizing tendency of the Indian mind. The Hindu is prone to believe even that all the six systems, as well as their varieties of subsystems, are in harmony with one another, in fact, that they complement one another in the total vision, which is one. As contrasted with Western philosophy, with its analytic ap­ proach to reality and experience, Indian philosophy is fundamentally synthetic. The basic texts of Indian philosophy treat not only one phase of experience and reality, but of the full content of the philo­ sophic sphere. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, religion, psycho­ logy, facts, and value are not cut off one from the other but are  GENERAL INTRODUCTION treated in their natural unity as aspects of one life and experience or of a single comprehensive reality. It is this synthetic vision of Indian philosophy which has made possible the intellectual and religious tolerance which has become so pronounced in Indian thought and in the Indian mind throughout the ages. Recent squabbles between religious communities, bred of new political factionalism, are not outgrowths of the Indian mind but, instead, are antagonistic to its unique genius for adaptability and tolerance, which takes all groups and all communities into its one truth and one life. In addition to these general characteristics of Indian philosophy from the intellectual or theoretical point of view, there is also a fundamental unity of perspective in the practical realm. This has several aspects. In the first place, there is the fact, mentioned earlier, that all philosophies in India—Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, and Carvaka —have a practical motivation, stemming from man's practical prob­ lems of life, his limitations and suffering, and culminating in every case except the Carvaka in a consideration of his ultimate liberation. In every case, including the Carvaka, the motivation is practical rather than theoretical, for the Carvaka is interested, not in theory for its own sake, but in living a life of pleasure since it believes the world is conducive to that type of life and justifies no other. The goal of life in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism is essentially the same. Moksa (liberation) is the ultimate objective for Hinduism and Jainism, and nirvafta is the goal in Buddhism. The precise meanings of libera­ tion vary among the different schools, even among those within the framework of Buddhism and Hinduism, but the essential meaning of both moksa and nirvana is emancipation or liberation from turmoil and suffering and freedom from rebirth. In some instances, the goal seems to be negative, consisting essentially of freedom from pain and freedom from rebirth, but in reality it is the positive achieve­ ment of a richer and fuller life and the attainment of infinite bliss. The spirit re-achieves its original purity, sometimes by becoming identical with the Absolute, sometimes by a life of communion with God, sometimes simply by the eternal existence of the pure spirit in its individuality, but in all cases free from the limitations and entangle­ ments of life. The several schools and systems of Indian philosophy are of one mind not only with reference to the goal of life, but also with reference to the good life on earth. The essential spirit of the philosophy of life  GENERAL INTRODUCTION of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism is that of non-attachment. This is an attitude of mind with which the individual fulfills his part in life and lives a "normal" everyday existence in company with his fellow men, without being entangled in or emotionally disturbed by the results of his actions. He attains a mental and spiritual superiority to worldly values and is never enslaved by them. This is not nega­ tivism or escapism, for one takes part in everyday activities in accordance with his place in society. However, it is living and acting without any sense of attachment to the things of this world and without any selfishness whatsoever. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, in all their branches, also accept the underlying doctrines of karma and rebirth. All of these schools believe that man must be morally and spiritually perfected before he can attain salvation. They also believe that justice is the law of the moral life exactly as cause-and-effect is the law of the natural world. What one sows one must reap. Sincejustice and moral and spiritual perfection are not achievable in one life, all these systems believe in rebirth, so as to provide the opportunity for moral progress and eventual perfection. Throughout Indian philosophy, from the earliest Vedas to the latest developments, the moral order of the universe has been an accepted doctrine of all Indian thinkers except the Carvakas. Karma and rebirth are the instrumentalities by which the moral order of the universe is worked out in the life of man. There is a further common element which unifies all schools of Hindu philosophy in the practical realm, although the heterodox schools, the Carvaka, Buddhism, and Jainism, do not conform to this pattern. The way of life accepted by all schools of Hinduism, regard­ less of metaphysical and epistemological variations, includes the fourfold division of society, the four stages of life, and the four basic values which man seeks. In Hinduism, society is divided into four groups (varjta, frequently translated as castes) determined generally according to occupational ability, namely, the priest-teacher (brah­ min),1 the king or political and military leader (ksatriya), the merchant (vaisya), and the laborer (sudra). The first three of these are called the twice-born, that is, they are religiously initiated Hindus, whereas the sMras are not so accepted. The lives of the twice-born are to consist of the four stages of the student (brahmacarin), the householder 1 Brahmin is used throughout this volume in preference to brdhmarui to designate this group because the latter term also refers to a group of early Indian texts, and thus may lead to confusion. Technically speaking, however, "brahmin" is not a correct Sanskrit term, although it is used rather widely.  GENERAL INTRODUCTION (grhastha), the forest-dweller (vanaprastha), and the wandering monk (sannyasin or sarhnyasin). In this social scheme, one does not enter the life of ascetism until after he has fulfilled his obligations to his fellow man as a student and as a householder, but in the later stages of life one is to concentrate more and more upon the spiritual and upon his search for liberation. The goals of life which are accepted by all Hindus are righteousness or obedience to the moral law (dharma), wealth or material welfare (artha), pleasure (k&rna), and emancipa­ tion (moksa). Dharma prevails throughout life, that is, neither pleasure nor wealth is to be obtained through violation of the rules of morality. Moksa is the ultimate goal to which all men should aspire. This social philosophy is accepted without question by all Hindus. It is presented in the literature of the Dharmasastras, but is not found in any elabora­ tion or with any philosophical justification in the basic technical philosophical texts. This common ideal life of all Hindus provides a spirit of unity to the social and moral life of the country, although Buddhists and Jainas, who are greatly in the minority, do not follow the same specific pattern of life. The Value of the Study of Indian Philosophy The study of Indian philosophy is important historically, philo­ sophically, and even politically. The Indian philosophical tradition is man's oldest as well as the longest continuous development of speculation about the nature of reality and man's place therein. It began with the ancient Vedas, which are probably the earliest docu­ ments of the human mind that have come down to us, and has continued age after age in progressive philosophical advance in the effort to understand life and reality. But it is not as a piece of antiquarian investigation that we of today should study Indian philosophy. Despite the tendency to respect and revere the greatness of the past, Indian thinkers of all ages have been deeply and pro­ foundly concerned with the ultimate truth which is timeless. Nor should we study Indian philosophy as a merely provincial or geo­ graphical approach to reality. Despite charges by some Western critics who would accuse Indian philosophy of neglecting scientific method, Indian thinkers have not been anti-empirical and have not neglected nature in their study of reality; nor, in their study of man, have they been excessively restricted to those characteristics which may be peculiar to man in India. India's concentrated study of the inner nature of man is, in the end, a study of man universal.  GENERAL INTRODUCTION The teachings of Indian philosophers from the days of the Vedas till today have been landmarks of human thought. Not all ideas and not all systems of Indian philosophy are deeply significant, but the heights and depths reached by Indian thinkers and seers are in­ dications and examples of the profound powers of the human mind. Indian thought is neither merely ancient speculation nor merely provincial Indian thinking. It is man's mind and soul at their best in philosophy and religion. Philosophically, the study of Indian philosophy is important in the search for the truth. Philosophy must include all insights and all experiences in its purview, and Indian philosophy has much to con­ tribute. The major problems of Indian philosophy are the problems faced by thinking man ever since he first began to speculate about life and reality, but Indian philosophy also has special problems, different emphases, unique approaches and methods, and unique solutions—all of which are India's contributions to the total picture of the truth which is the substance of philosophy. The need of philosophy today is for a world perspective which will include the philosophical insights of all the world's great traditions. The goal is not a single philosophy which would annihilate differences of per­ spective, but there must be agreement on basic perspectives and ultimate values. Sugh a world philosophy should certainly incor­ porate the spiritual insights of the seers of ancient India and of the thinkers who have guided the many centuries of Indian philosophical speculation. It is politically important, too, that Indian philosophy should be studied by the West. The current appeal for "one world" is too often thought of merely in the realm of politics. Political unity is impossible without philosophical understanding. Political insights, agreements, and differences are on the secondary level of man's thinking. Social and political conditions in the several areas of the world depend, in the final analysis, upon the philosophical and spiritual thought and ideals of the peoples of the world. It is to philosophy, then, that man must turn in his hope to bring the peoples of the world together in greater mutual understanding and in the intellectual and spiritual harmony without which a unified world will be impossible in any sphere, political or otherwise. The future of civilization depends upon the return of spiritual awareness to the hearts and minds of men. To this purpose the contribution of Indian philosophy, with its agelong spiritual emphasis, is inestimable and indispensable.