Pour Comprendre La Philosophie Indienne

This article, "Pour Comprendre La Philosophie Indienne" by Johannes Bronkhorst, argues that understanding the development of Indian philosophy requires acknowledging the crucial role of rational debate and inter-school criticism.

The author begins by drawing a parallel with the debate in the history of natural sciences regarding the causes of historical change. While some emphasize objective discoveries, others, influenced by thinkers like Thomas S. Kuhn, highlight paradigm shifts driven by social and non-objective factors. Bronkhorst leans towards the latter, believing that factors beyond the purely social are involved in scientific development.

He then applies this framework to Indian philosophy, noting that unlike modern science, Indian philosophical opinions were often heavily influenced by social and religious affiliations (Brahmins with Brahmanical philosophies, Buddhists with Buddhist, etc.). However, he emphasizes that many Indian philosophical schools were intimately linked to exegetical traditions, claiming their doctrines derived from key figures like the Buddha or Jina, or from the interpretation of sacred texts like the Vedas. This reliance on interpretation and the internal logic of these traditions are key to understanding their development.

Bronkhorst points out that Indian philosophers were not "natural scientists" in the modern sense; they didn't systematically test their views against reality. This might suggest that Indian philosophy could be explained solely through sociological and historical factors, as it lacked the empirical grounding that drives scientific change.

However, he counters this by highlighting the agonistic aspect of Indian philosophy, similar to modern science. Indian thinkers constantly defended and attacked positions, systematizing their views and eliminating inconsistencies. This critical interaction between schools is a vital element in the development of these thought systems. He argues that many striking Indian philosophical positions were developed in response to intellectual challenges and perceived logical problems.

The article then delves into specific examples:

• Vaiśeṣika: Bronkhorst suggests that the Vaiśeṣika system was likely created in reaction to Buddhist philosophy, particularly the Sarvāstivāda school. Its core ideas, such as the possibility of a complete enumeration of all that exists and atomism, have parallels with Sarvāstivāda, but Vaiśeṣika offers a distinct philosophical framework, possibly as a counter-argument to Buddhist thought. He emphasizes that philosophical systems are not organic growths but the product of intellectual effort by individuals reacting to their intellectual environment.

• Mokṣopāya (part of Yogavāsiṣṭha): This text is presented as an example of a philosophy that attempted to be independent of tradition. Its author argued for the acceptance of treatises based on arguments (yukti) rather than solely on traditional authority. The core of its philosophy is subjective illusionism, asserting that the world is mere imagination and that nothing can be produced. This conclusion is drawn from an argument questioning the possibility of production from either existence or non-existence, a logic that underlies the "ajātivāda" (no production) position. This argument, Bronkhorst argues, is based on a presupposition about the correspondence between words and reality. The Mokṣopāya, like other Indian philosophical texts, seeks to resolve perceived logical contradictions.

Bronkhorst concludes that even when Indian philosophers attempted to break from tradition, their resulting philosophies reflected the intellectual challenges of their time. The desire to create coherent systems that could withstand criticism was a central driving force in their development. He suggests that a comprehensive history of Indian philosophy should consider both the solutions presented in texts and the underlying intellectual problems and challenges.

In essence, Bronkhorst argues that while social and religious factors are important, the internal logic of rational debate, the process of criticism and response between different schools, and the attempt to resolve intellectual problems are crucial for understanding the dynamic and evolving nature of Indian philosophy.