Pourquoi La Philosophie Existe T Elle En Inde

Here's a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's article "Pourquoi La Philosophie Existe-t-Elle En Inde?" (Why Does Philosophy Exist in India?), based on the provided text:

Core Argument:

The article argues that India possesses a distinct and independent tradition of rational investigation, characterized by systematic debate, critical inquiry, and the continuous improvement of philosophical systems. Bronkhorst contrasts this with China, where, he contends, such a tradition did not develop, despite China's significant technological advancements. He posits that India and ancient Greece are the only civilizations to have independently cultivated this tradition of rational investigation.

Key Characteristics of Rational Investigation:

Bronkhorst defines a tradition of rational investigation as encompassing:

1. A tradition of rational debate: Open and critical discussion of ideas.
2. Systematic efforts to improve one's own system: Thinkers are compelled to refine their theories in response to criticism.
3. No "no-go areas" for critical debate: No subject matter (e.g., tradition, revelation, intuition, religion) is considered fundamentally beyond the scope of rational examination.

The Unique Case of India and Greece:

• Western Misconception: Bronkhorst begins by addressing the common Western misconception that ancient India was solely about spirituality and not rational analysis. He asserts this is false, as India has a long history of rational debate and systematic attempts to understand the world.
• Comparison with China: He highlights that China, despite its technological prowess, did not develop a comparable tradition of rational investigation. A.C. Graham's work is cited, suggesting that Chinese rationality developed with school controversies but weakened over time. Chinese thinkers, unlike the Eleatics in Greece or Nāgārjuna in India, primarily used reason for paradoxical or sophistical discourse rather than for fundamental ontological claims. Buddhist logic (yin ming) introduced into China in the 7th century CE did not thrive broadly.
• The Greek Parallel: The development of rational investigation in ancient Greece is presented as a parallel to India. Geoffrey Lloyd's work is referenced, connecting the political situation of open debate about governance in Greece to the philosophical tendency to challenge deeply held assumptions about nature, gods, and the origins of the world. This suggests a link between political freedom and intellectual freedom.

How Did This Tradition Develop in India?

Bronkhorst investigates the origins and development of this tradition in India, focusing on:

• The problem of Karma: A central driver for philosophical development was the need to explain the mechanism of karma – how actions lead to results in future lives.
• Vaiseșika School's response: The Vaiseșika school exemplifies this. Initially, the concept of "adrsta" (the unseen) was used. Later, "merit" (dharma) and "demerit" (adharma) were conceived as qualities of the soul. Ultimately, the school introduced a creator God to guide the karmic retribution process, a move driven by rational considerations to explain teleology, not primarily by religious developments. This demonstrates a willingness to revise even core doctrines based on rational critique.
• Vasubandhu's Idealism: The Buddhist thinker Vasubandhu also grappled with karma, opting for idealism (mind-only) to make karmic retribution intelligible. This was a critical reflection, not solely based on meditative experience.
• The Influence of Hellenism: Bronkhorst proposes a significant hypothesis: the emergence of a rational investigation tradition in India might have been influenced by contact with the Hellenistic Greeks in the northwest of the subcontinent (around Gandhara).
  • The Sarvāstivāda school of Buddhism, located in this region, underwent a process of rationalization, developing new classifications (pañcavastuka) and refining its doctrines. This contrasts with the Theravada school, which did not experience the same level of rational systematization.
  • The presence of Greek kingdoms in the region, known for their patronage of philosophy and intellectual discussion, suggests a potential interaction. Archaeological finds and the "Questions of King Milinda" (Milindapanha) indicate that Greeks and Buddhists engaged in discussions.
  • While direct borrowing of Greek philosophical ideas into Indian thought is not proven, the method of rational debate and investigation may have been adopted by Indian thinkers, particularly Buddhists in the Northwest. This method compelled them to organize their intellectual and religious heritage in a more coherent and criti