Introduction: Indian philosophy was misconstrued by Western philosophers and some of its Eastern critics also, as pessimistic, negative and substitute of Hindu religion. That’s why the main objective of writing this chapter is to remove the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy and to show it in new light by giving the right interpretation of its doctrines.

To refute the misconceptions regarding Indian philosophy it is necessary to explain its metaphysical, epistemology and ethics. First of all it necessary to define and explain the very word ‘darshan’ itself, which Indian version of philosophy. It will dispel the the darkness of ignorance  of its critics .

  

Philosophers Look At Reality:

Indian philosophy which is mainly pluralistic can be divided into two types:

1-secular

2-spiritual

As reality is that which exists on itself, there are various versions of reality given by indian philosophers.

 The seculer type of reality may be further divided into two types: physical and non-physical

In the same manner spiritual reality may be divided into two types:theistic or non-theistic. But this distinction is secular and spiritual

Isn’t watertight distinction.Any doctrine may be both secular and spiritual.

Further both secular and spiritual groups may be divided into two exclusive and exhaustive groups i.e. physical and non-physical and theistic and non-theistic respectively.

Though,these divisions of secular and spiritual theories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive but their combination with the divisions of other theory is possible. Any physical theory may be theistic or non-theistic and any non-physical theory may be also theistic or non-theistic.

Physical theorists assert the existence of independent physical world while nonphysical theorists accept the existence of non-physical substance other than physical world. Though the physical theory may be theistic one, it may accept parallel existence of physical world and god. Samkhya and Vaisheshika are the proponent of this type of theory but any theory may not be both physical and nonphysical at the same time. Further, it may not be both theistic and atheistic one

The concept of mind is considered as nonphysical in western philosophy whereas it is mentioned in indian philosophy as physical element. Samkhya,Advaita and Vaisheshika has accepted it as material one and as sixth-sense organ.

Realist philosophers accept the reality of the material world whereas idealist philosophers find it as a derivative of mind. The mind of idealist thinkers is not physical one and also it is not accepted as the sixth-sense. This theory of idealism has been propounded by Yogachara school of Buddhism.

Any non-theistic doctrine may be either atheistic or agnostic. So, any theistic doctrine may not be atheistic or agnostic. Further, any physical and non-theistic theory may be either atheistic or agnostic and any non-physical doctrine may be non-theistic and agnostic.

From the point of view of number of substances it has four main divisions which are as follows

1-                Monistic

2-                Dualistic

3-                Non-dualistic

4-                Pluralstic

According to monism reality is one, whereas according to dualism it is two. Pluralism asserts existence of many substances. Unique is the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which doesn’t mention any number but negates duality of it. It is significant because even the use of the word one will limit the existence of substance. Upanishads are monistic whereas Samkhya is dualistic and Vaisheshika is pluralistic.

Both Indian and Western philosophy is on the same level qualitatively because of the sameness of the issue. But they differ in response to these questions because location and time decides their answers.

Knowledge in Indian Context:

Inquisitiveness is inherent in all the species of the world though they differ on the level of the extent of knowledge acquired by them.

Further, man’s motive to acquire knowledge is relative to the culture of that period. Culture, also determines the idea of knowledge. Philosophy is essentially related to these two factors i. e. motive and idea.

For Greek philosophers knowledge was simply for its own sake. Resultantly, it introduced pure science. But it turned into power for modern philosophy. Evolution of science, turned into a different direction due to this Baconian dictum of ‘knowledge is power.’

In comparison to Western approach, in Indian philosophy medicine and surgery served practical purposes whereas mathematics and astronomy was used for both practical and spiritual purposes through yagas and yajnas, respectively.

In India, knowledge was meant for power instead of, for its own sake. It has extrinsic value of determining the way of life through knowledge. One changes his view of life and tries to conquer himself but instead of nature which was the aim of Baconian power, modern Western philosophy considered nature as a means for their end. But in Vedic philosophy it was an integral part of man, to be identified with.

Baconian ‘power’ served their economical and political purposes as well. But in India, it was instrumental in spiritual goal.       Though, Charvaka is exception to this approach just as Socrates and Spinoza are exceptions to Western approach.

This objective of spiritual purpose was misinterpreted as pessimistic and escapist. It was construed as denial of the world and worldly life. But the fact is this that it was merely given a secondary grade than spirit. It was not totally rejected as useless. Indian philosophy is not limited to this mundane world but it targets the extra mundane as well though it includes physical world for its practical purposes.

Hierarchy of values is the special feature of Indian philosophy which changes one’s view of life. A person with this value loaded knowledge can achieve the spiritual goal because it has been mentioned in Indian philosophy that ignorance is the cause of suffering. Knowledge changes the behaviour of the agent. He acts according to the norms of cosmic laws, i.e. rita. In Greek philosophy, Socrates and his followers also behaved according to the moral rules but other Western thinkers are devoid of this virtue. They are not practicing philosophers but only rational thinkers. Their philosophy is almost always based on mental speculation. Philosophy is not the way of life in West. Bacon and Heidegger are merely thinkers. They can theorize philosophy, but cannot practice it.

Thus, value and virtue being a part of religion Indian philosophy was rendered as merely Hindu religion. Though reality is this, that in India there is Hindu dharma which is cosmic not religion. Religion is something different from the spirituality which constitutes Indian philosophy. The same may be the case with Western philosophy because of those philosophers being either Christians or Jews. Philosophy in India is not Hindu centric but cosmic. The very word Veda means simply knowledge. It is neither Hindu knowledge nor Christian. Religion in India is the common man’s version of philosophy. In the West also there are philosophers who were religious leaders. For example, St Augustine, St. Aquinas were also religious leaders like Buddha and Mahavir.

Buddhism and Jainism are the practical aspects of Buddhist and Jain philosophy which proves its pragmatism. Hindu dharma originated from Indian philosophy.

Spirituality is the hallmark of Indian philosophy and knowledge in Indian philosophy is spiritual power, instead of physical one. Apart from knowledge, spirituality can be discerned in the concept of reality and aesthetic values also. Concept of Brahman in Upanishads or Advaita are spiritual one. Spiritual knowledge can be obtained only about spiritual object. Rasa is said as synonymous with Brahman realization which shows its aesthetic value. That’s why it is said that ‘raso vai sah’ (that indeed is rasa). Here that indicates ‘para Brahman’.

There are two levels of knowledge in Indian philosophy: higher and lower levels. First one is the authentic knowledge whereas second one doesn’t prove itself at the criterion of spiritual knowledge, according to the Upanishadic philosophy. First one is called apara vidhya which is related to the phenomenal world. Though this lower level of knowledge was included in the category of knowledge by all the schools except Mimamsa. Even theories of error is also included in the category of knowledge. So, Indian philosophy doesn’t exclude apara vidya, as well.

The question of integration of spiritual life with worldly life is well responed by the tradition of purusarthas which prescribes the rules of artha and kama. According to it, artha must be earned and kama must be satisfied only in righteous way. Also, liberation is to be achieved according to the laws of dharma.

Philosophy and Life:

The aim of life in Indian philosophy is to get rid of miseries of life. It may or may not be to achieve happiness but to get rid of sorrows of life and achieve peace is the goal of life.

Aim of life ascertains the value of Indian philosophy because it gives solution of this problem of human being. Contrary to it, Western philosophy doesn’t help in finding out the solution of the aim of human being.

To get rid of sorrows of life and become happy is the ultimate aim of human being, according to Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy has been divided into two groups i.e. orthodox and heterodox on the basis of their acceptance and rejection of Vedic philosophy. But, both groups have the same goal of life i.e. happiness. Now, the question of their consent on this point is crucial. Further, how this aim of happiness is philosophical one, is another question

Knowledge is valuable since it changes the view of human being and makes them moral this this morality changes their world view alsothis change of view which is ethical is philosophical as well

Regarding second question i.e. the aim of life being happiness, all the schools of Indian philosophy are unanimous. It may be so that they differ on the nature of this happiness. On this point, the view of Charvaka is totally different from all the other school of Indian philosophy because it holds the view that worldly enjoyment must be the aim of life.

But since spirituality is the essence of life, therefore, worldly enjoyments may not be the sole aim of life. Because it is not everlasting one. People are quite aware of the phenomenal existence of the world. This is the special characteristic of Indian philosophy that it  targets the eternal peace and happiness. Greek philosophers also aimed for eternal peace. To get rid of sorrows of life, forever, is the aim of Indian philosophy.

This eternal happiness is called niravana or liberation or moksha in Indian philosophy. To achieve this goal, one has to renounce worldly enjoyments. Knowledge and sense of detachment leads to liberation from miseries of life.

This idea of renunciation raised many objections due to being misconstrued by critics. In fact, renunciation in India is meant for worldly pleasure not happiness. But, being misconstrued, it was alleged that Indian philosophy is escapist and pessimistic. It is not meant to renounce the desires based on necessities but only greed has to be renounced. Being satisfied with what is required will make men happy. Greed leads to discontentment which gives birth to anger and frustration.

Vairagya can be had by acting as per the rules of cosmic order i.e. rita which will lead to cosmic existence that is the aim of life i.e. expansion of self. It is due to this misinterpretation of vairagya that whole Indian philosophy has been termed as pessimistic and escapist. It is not pleasure but happinesss which is the aim of life, according to Indian philosophy

Rendering phenomenal world as impermanent, therefore, negligible, was the reason to term Indian philosophy as self-destructive and negative. But, this criticism may be refuted easily because Indian philosophy denies only the ‘ultimate’ existence of the physical world. It doesn’t serve our spiritual purpose but is necessary for our practical purposes. At the same time, this view of Indian philosophy about world having only relative existence is not unscientific. Also, if to render phenomenal world as relative is negative and self-destructive then the philosophy of Plato must be rejected on this ground.Further, something is termed as relative in reference to something which is Absolute.

It is said that pessimism is the hallmark of Indian philosophy because it negates this world and life completely. The reason behind, is misconception. It is misinterpretation of the idea of renunciation. One is not supposed to escape from the world but from the misery of the world only. Further, it doesn’t negate happiness but only pleasure which is temporal. Happiness, translates in Sanskrit as moksha. Also pain always accompanies pleasure. According to Bentham also, happiness contains duration, intensity and purity. So, a philosopher which aims mokhsha as ultimate aim of life may not be said to be pessimistic.

Further, if it is possible to attain permanent happiness then how it may be said that this world is evil. Feasibility of liberation is the another question ,raised by critics. Assumption of feasibility will lead towards progress. Men will progress from lower to higher level.

Greek philosophers believed in the immortality of soul but modern Western philosophers rejected it. Though immortality of soul was accepted by Christianity. It means Western philosophy was not influenced by its religion, though philosophy of course has its impact on religion.