Bharatiya Darshano Ka Mul Adhar - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, focusing on the key arguments and concepts presented by Bansidhar Pandit:

Book Title: Bharatiya Darshano ka Mul Adhar (The Fundamental Basis of Indian Philosophies) Author: Bansidhar Pandit

This text, "The Fundamental Basis of Indian Philosophies," by Bansidhar Pandit, aims to redefine the classification and understanding of Indian philosophical systems. The author begins by dissecting the etymology of the word "Darshan" (philosophy) in Sanskrit, deriving it from the root "drish" (to see). He explains that "Darshan" encompasses both the process of inquiry and contemplation to determine the truth of reality and the conclusions reached through that process. Therefore, philosophy, in its broadest sense, includes both the logical arguments and the metaphysical tenets of different schools of thought.

Pandit asserts that the present observable world is considered eternal by all philosophies. He acknowledges that countless philosophies may have emerged and disappeared throughout history, and new ones may arise in the future. However, he focuses on the philosophies that are currently available or can be known through existing literature. These are broadly categorized into Indian and non-Indian (Western) philosophies.

Classification of Indian Philosophies:

The author then divides Indian philosophies into two primary categories: Vedic and Avedic.

Vedic Philosophies: These are the philosophies that originated and developed within the Vedic tradition and support it. The main Vedic schools identified are Sāṅkhya, Vedānta, Mīmāṃsā, Yoga, Nyāya, and Vaiśeṣika.
Avedic Philosophies: These are philosophies that have an independent tradition or are seen as contrary to the Vedic tradition. The primary Avedic philosophies mentioned are Jainism, Buddhism, and Cārvāka.

Pandit notes that while other minor classifications exist, he avoids them to prevent unnecessary complexity. He also briefly addresses the Bhagavad Gītā, considering it a significant spiritual and ethical discourse rather than a distinct philosophy, though he acknowledges its attempt to harmonize various Vedic philosophies through the concept of Karma Yoga.

Critique of the Āstika (Orthodox) and Nāstika (Heterodox) Classification:

A significant portion of the text is dedicated to critiquing the common division of Indian philosophies into Āstika (believers in Vedic authority) and Nāstika (non-believers in Vedic authority). Pandit argues that this classification is flawed and driven by sectarian bias:

Problem with "Nāstika": If "Nāstika" is defined as someone who denies rebirth, the afterlife, heaven, hell, and liberation, then Jainism and Buddhism would actually fall under the "Āstika" category because they uphold these concepts. Conversely, if "Nāstika" means denying an uncreated, eternal God as the creator of the world, then Vedic philosophies like Sāṅkhya and Mīmāṃsā would be classified as Nāstika, as they do not posit such a creator. This highlights the inconsistency of the Āstika/Nāstika label.
Sectarian Labeling: Pandit suggests that this naming convention likely arose from praise and criticism fueled by community-driven agendas, where followers labeled those who accepted their tradition as Āstika and those who differed as Nāstika. He points out that the term "Nāstika" is often used to mean "critic of the Vedas."
Proposed Solution: Therefore, Pandit advocates for the Vedic and Avedic classification as the more accurate and appropriate way to categorize Indian philosophies.

The Underlying Basis: Existentialism vs. Utilitarianism (Spiritualism vs. Materialism):

Pandit proposes that all Indian philosophies, whether Vedic or Avedic, are fundamentally rooted in one of two underlying principles:

Existentialism (Astitva-vāda): This approach focuses on understanding the nature of reality and the existence of various substances and their transformations. Questions like "What is the world?" and "How many substances exist?" fall under this category.
Utilitarianism (Upayogitā-vāda): This approach centers on questions of human suffering and well-being, focusing on principles that are beneficial for the welfare of humanity. Questions like "Why are beings unhappy?" and "How can they be happy?" are addressed here.

Pandit further equates Utilitarianism with Spiritualism (Ādhyātmik-vāda) and Existentialism with Materialism (Ādhibhautik-vāda). He clarifies that his definition of Spiritualism is not about attributing the creation or evolution of the universe to the soul, but rather to the principle of benefiting humanity. He disagrees with scholars who label Vedanta as spiritual and Cārvāka as material based on this distinction.

Based on his study of Indian philosophies, Pandit concludes that all Indian philosophies, including Vedic (Sāṅkhya, Vedānta, Mīmāṃsā, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika) and Avedic (Jain, Buddhist, Cārvāka), are fundamentally based on Utilitarianism (Upayogitā-vāda). He argues that no philosophical follower would accept that their philosophy did not contribute to the welfare of humanity, and this is because India has always been a religion-centric country.

The Concept of Lokakalyāṇa (Welfare of Humanity):

The term "Loka" in "Lokakalyāṇa" is understood as the "assembly of beings." Thus, Lokakalyāṇa means "the welfare of the assembly of beings."

Types of Beings: Philosophies acknowledge sentient and insentient beings, and some only the existence of visible beings. Visible beings are further divided into those with a collective-oriented life (e.g., humans, who depend on mutual goodwill and assistance) and those with an individual-oriented life (e.g., animals, birds, insects, which generally lack the same level of mutual support). Jainism's term "Tiryag" (transverse) for animals reflects this individualistic nature.
Universal Goal of Welfare: Pandit states that all Indian philosophers, according to their respective beliefs, aimed for the welfare of both visible and invisible beings. He finds no reason to doubt the welfare-oriented intentions of the founders of these philosophies, except perhaps for Cārvāka, about which he delves deeper.

Cārvāka Philosophy and Utilitarianism:

Pandit examines a verse often attributed to Cārvāka: "Shrutayo vibhinnā, smṛtayo vibhinnā, naiko munir yasya vacaḥ pramāṇam. Dharmasya tattvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyāṃ, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ." This verse suggests that since religious injunctions (Shrutis and Smritis) are contradictory and the pronouncements of sages are not universally agreed upon, the essence of dharma (duty) is hidden. Therefore, one should follow the path taken by great people.

Interpretation: Pandit interprets this to mean that dharma, as the path of duty for the welfare of humanity, should be unified. The contradictions in scriptures and teachings of various religious leaders make understanding dharma a complex riddle. Instead of getting entangled in these debates, one should decide their duty based on the conduct of virtuous individuals, whose lives are dedicated to the welfare of themselves and others.
Cārvāka's Approach: Pandit believes that the founder of Cārvāka was perhaps weary of harmful disagreements about dharma and advocated for abandoning discussions on unseen elements like rebirth, heaven, and hell. Instead, the focus should be on choosing a path of duty that serves the common good, which is less prone to dispute.
Critique of Cārvāka's Materialism: He refutes the common perception that Cārvāka's statement, "Live happily as long as you live, borrow and drink ghee. After the body turns to ashes, from where will it return?" signifies a purely materialistic outlook devoid of utilitarianism. He argues that Cārvāka's philosophy is not outside the realm of utilitarianism or spirituality.

Reconciling Cārvāka with Other Philosophies:

Pandit proposes that if the utilitarian aspect of Cārvāka is understood, its differences with other philosophies regarding the afterlife become less significant.

Shared Goal, Different Justification: While other philosophies encourage righteous action based on the belief in the afterlife, Cārvāka encourages the same actions for the sake of happiness in the present life.
Consequences of Actions: Pandit argues that even if one doesn't believe in the afterlife, good deeds lead to happiness in this life. If someone acts virtuously, their attainment of good results (even if not in a traditional afterlife) is not hindered. Similarly, even if one doesn't believe in hell, their sinful actions can still lead to negative consequences.
Motivation for Good Deeds: He emphasizes that the desire for happiness in the present life provides even greater motivation for good deeds than the belief in the afterlife. The interconnectedness of human life through goodwill and sympathy necessitates helping others.

Utilitarianism in Buddhism and Theism:

Buddhism: The Buddhist doctrine of impermanence (Kṣaṇikavāda) is seen as a utilitarian principle. The statement "The conceptualization of momentary existence in objects is for the negation of the self-sense" suggests that this doctrine was adopted to curb attachment, aversion, and delusion among beings.
Theism (Īśvarakartṛtvavāda): Similarly, accepting an eternal creator God can motivate people to improve their lives. This theistic belief was adopted on utilitarian grounds.

The Shift from Utilitarianism to Existentialism:

Pandit laments that many philosophies, initially rooted in utilitarianism, gradually shifted towards existentialism. The elements that were established for practical benefit began to be debated and scrutinized based on their existence alone. This led to an adversarial approach where philosophies focused on disproving others, neglecting their practical utility.

Sāṅkhya and Vedānta's Utilitarianism and Existentialist Underpinnings:

Sāṅkhya: Sāṅkhya posits two fundamental principles: Prakṛti (unconscious matter) and Puruṣa (conscious self), with Prakṛti being one and Puruṣa being many. Prakṛti, when associated with Puruṣa, transforms into intellect, ego, and other evolutes, forming the basis of creation or the world. Pandit critically analyzes Sāṅkhya's concept of evolution, pointing out the logical inconsistencies if Puruṣa is multiple and Prakṛti transforms into multiple intellects, egos, etc. He concludes that Sāṅkhya's "creation" or "world" primarily refers to the transformation of Prakṛti from intellect to the physical body in association with individual Puruṣas, excluding the five great elements.
Vedānta: Vedānta, while agreeing with Sāṅkhya's view that Prakṛti and Puruṣa are the basis for the physical body, posits a single ultimate reality, Parabrahma, from which Prakṛti (as Māyā or Avidya) and Puruṣa (as Jīvātmā) originate. Similar to Sāṅkhya, Pandit argues that Vedānta struggles to explain the origin of the five elements (Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether) from a single Parabrahma. He cites a verse from the Bhagavad Gītā (Chapter 13) to suggest that Vedānta views Ether, and by extension the other elements, as distinct and eternal substances separate from Parabrahma.
The "Incompleteness" Argument: Pandit addresses the potential criticism that if these philosophies don't explain the origin or independent existence of the five elements, they are incomplete. He counters by reiterating that if these philosophies are based on utilitarianism (focusing on what is beneficial for humanity), then the issue of explaining the origin of these elements or their independent existence becomes secondary. The five elements, not being directly useful for the description of human welfare in these philosophies, are therefore treated with "indifference" (upekhā-vṛtti).

Jainism's Dual Approach:

Finally, Pandit discusses Jainism. While also originating from utilitarianism, Jainism presents two distinct sets of principles:

Utilitarian Principles: The seven tattvas (principles) of Jīva, Ajīva, Āsrava, Bandha, Saṃvara, Nirjarā, and Mokṣa are based on utilitarianism, focusing on the soul, its bondage, the causes of bondage, cessation of bondage, and liberation.
Existentialist Principles: The six tattvas of Jīva, Pudgala, Dharma, Adharma, Ākāśa, and Kāla are based on existentialism, considering the existence of all substances in the universe without necessarily prioritizing their utility for human welfare.

In conclusion, Bansidhar Pandit's "The Fundamental Basis of Indian Philosophies" provides a thought-provoking reinterpretation of Indian philosophical systems, emphasizing their shared utilitarian foundation and critiquing traditional classifications. He advocates for a deeper understanding of the underlying motivations and practical aims of these diverse schools of thought.