4 Indian Thought

The above verse from the Hindu sacred text the Rig Veda shows the early blossoms of critical inquiry on the subcontinent. Th author is not simply describing the creation of the universe as a story but actively questioning the very idea of whether it was created or not. Not only that, he is even questioning whether a creator exists or whether that creator knows about creation. This kind of questioning and challenging tradition led to a cascade of philosophical texts around 500 BCE. Numerous schools of thought emerged with their own ideas about reality and how to understand it. Some of these were absorbed into mainstream religion which evolved into what we now call Hinduism. So, there were six schools of orthodox or theistic inquiry and several heterodox schools that rivalled them (Doniger, 2014; Perrett, 2000).

Orthodox/Theistic Schools of Thought

These six schools of philosophy continued to engage with each other for two millennia as they evolved different ideas about reality. Nyaya or logic became an important component in all schools of thought. Indian ideas about knowledge accepted six means of knowledge (प्रमाण, Pramāṇa). These were Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (analogy), Śabda (authority or the testimony of experts), Arthāpatti (postulation from circumstances), and Anupalabdhi (non-perception). Of these, direct perception was thought to be both external (from the senses) and internal (cognition). For example, seeing something burning is direct observation. Inference would be an indirect method of knowledge (e.g., seeing smoke and inferring that something is burning). Upamana or Analogy would be where an example is given as a comparison (e.g., A zebra is an animal that looks almost like a cross between a horse and a donkey). Śabda means reliable authority which could be accepted scripture or experts. Arthapatti or Postulation means that you infer something from the context. For example, we can calculate the occurrence of eclipses based on the circumstances of where the sun, the moon and the earth were during past eclipses. Anupalabdhi or non-perception means deriving proof through non-perception of a thing (e.g., I don’t see fire so there must be nothing on fire). Of these six, the latter two were sometimes rejected by some scholars as inefficient means of knowledge (Flood, 1996).

Indian philosophers used numerous means of understanding the universe. For example, consider the following argument from the Vaisheshika school.

The atoms (or paramāṇus) in this case were not the atoms as we know them now. Indian philosophers thought these atoms were for the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. However, we see that they were deriving these conclusions from logical thinking and not scriptural authority.

Indian schools of logic developed a strong tradition of critical analysis in debating various issues. Indian jurisprudence, for example, used the concept of purva paksha (former argument) referred to the complaint, with other parts of a trial consisting of the pttara paksha (the response),[2] the kriyā (trial or investigation), and the nirnaya (decision). The same was true of critical arguments in Indian texts where the purva paksha shows that the author has a deep familiarity with the thesis which he or she is criticizing. Only then are you allowed to state your own position vis-à-vis the former thesis. Philosophers who exemplified this technique include Adi Shankara (sixth century CE), Udyotakara (Nyāyavārttika, 6th–7th century), Vācaspati Miśra (Tatparyatika, 9th century), Ramanujacharya (9th century), Udayanacharya (Tātparyaparishuddhi, 10th century), Jayanta Bhatta (Nyāyamanjari, 9th century), Madhvacharya (13th century), Visvanatha (Nyāyasūtravṛtti, 17th century), Rādhāmohana Gosvāmī (Nyāyasūtravivarana, 18th century), and Kumaran Asan (1873–1924).

Heterodox Schools of Thought

In addition to the six orthodox schools of thought, there were numerous schools that challenged them. These were often called Nastika or non-theistic schools.

The above table is a highly simplified description of rather complex ideas. However, it gives you a favour of the diversity of thought. They challenged traditions about the afterlife and the existence of gods. Take for example the following verse:

This statement by atheists in Ancient India would have been unthinkable in most of the ancient world. Indeed, it could get people killed in some parts of the world today! Even the teachers of these schools exhorted the need for critical thinking as can be seen in the following statement by the Buddha:

So, in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’   When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskilful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’ — then you should abandon them.

― The Buddha in The Kalama Sutta Translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Such reasoning and the advocacy for it was the hallmark of critical thinking in India and continued for centuries. It allowed philosophers to explore new ideas. For example, Aryabhata (a mathematician from 476–550 CE) challenged the idea of a flat earth and calculated its circumference. His ideas were extrapolated upon by later mathematicians such as Bhaskara I (c. 600 CE) and by Nilakantha Somayaji (1465 CE).