Systematic Philosophy Between The Empires

Here's a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's "Systematic Philosophy between the Empires," focusing on the provided text:

Core Argument: The Shift in Indian Philosophical Thought through Two "Epistemes"

Bronkhorst argues that the development of systematic philosophy in India, particularly in the period preceding and during the early centuries of the Common Era, can be understood through the lens of two distinct intellectual frameworks or "epistemes." These epistemes represent fundamental shifts in how thinkers approached reality, characterized by different preoccupations and presuppositions.

The First Episteme: Atomism and Momentariness

• Origin and Nature: This episteme appears to have originated within Buddhist philosophy, specifically in the Sarvāstivāda school. It is characterized by a belief in the atomistic nature of reality. This means that not only the material world but also processes and time itself can be broken down into indivisible, momentary constituents (dharmas). The interaction of these ultimate parts, governed by strict causality, explains all phenomena.
• Key Features:
  • Atomism: Reality consists of ultimate, indivisible parts (dharmas), which are not necessarily material atoms but can be mental states as well. Material atoms are seen as conglomerations of dharmas.
  • Momentariness: All that exists is momentary. Strictly speaking, only momentary dharmas exist.
  • Causality: Processes are explained by a unidirectional causal mechanism where each moment is determined by the immediately preceding one ("pushing" the next moment forward).
  • "Sarvam Asti": A unique belief of the Sarvāstivādins that past and future things exist, necessary to explain phenomena like observing one's own desire. This gave them their name.
  • Language and Reality: A close connection between language and reality is recognized. Composite objects, which don't truly exist in an atomistic sense, are perceived due to the existence of words for them.
• Spread Beyond Buddhism: This atomistic vision influenced other Buddhist schools and also extended to Brahmanical traditions, most notably Vaiśeṣika. Despite Vaiśeṣika's rejection of Sarvāstivāda's specific doctrines, it adopted a similar atomistic worldview, postulating ultimate constituents (atoms) and analyzing processes into momentary steps.
• Influence on Grammar: The first episteme also appears to have influenced the field of grammar, particularly in the work of Patañjali, who imposed a linear scheme on grammatical derivations that differed from his predecessor Pāṇini.
• Early Samkhya: Evidence suggests that early systematic Samkhya also exhibited features of this episteme, with its substances being seen as collections of qualities and its concept of tanmātras (subtle elements) potentially being understood as atomic.

The Second Episteme: Language, Reference, and the Problem of Production

• Nature and Transition: This episteme succeeds and, in some cases, supplants the first. Its defining characteristic is the conviction of a close and inseparable connection between language and reality, leading to profound ontological questions, particularly regarding statements about production or coming-into-being.
• The Core Problem: Statements like "the weaver weaves a cloth" pose a problem: if a cloth is being woven, it doesn't yet exist as a cloth. However, the word "cloth" must refer to something present. This tension between language and the described situation becomes a central philosophical concern.
• Key Solutions and Schools:
  • Śūnyavāda (Nāgārjuna): Realizing the contradictions in commonsense statements about production, Nāgārjuna concluded that in reality, nothing exists.
  • Satkāryavāda (Samkhya): Samkhya addressed the problem by proposing that the effect (cloth) pre-exists in the cause (thread). This led to an emphasis on the continuity of the material cause and an abandonment of earlier notions like substances being mere collections of qualities.
  • Sarvāstivāda: Their existing doctrine of the existence of past and future things provided a ready solution, similar in essence to satkāryavāda.
  • Ajātivāda: The view that no production can take place, found in texts like Gaudapada's Āgamaśāstra.
  • Asatkāryavāda (Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika): These schools offered a solution by proposing that words refer not only to individual things but also to universals that inhere in them. This allowed them to uphold commonsense reality while reconciling it with the problem of production.
  • Apohavāda (Dignāga): A Buddhist solution based on the idea that words do not directly denote but exclude other things, thus severing the strict correspondence principle.
  • Jainism: Adopted a variant of satkāryavāda, often expressed through its characteristic anekāntavāda (non-absolutism), to address the problem of production.
• Persistence of the First Episteme: Bronkhorst notes that the two epistemes were not always mutually exclusive. Many thinkers, particularly in Buddhist Abhidharma schools and Brahmanical Vaiśeṣika, retained elements of the first episteme (atomism, causality) while grappling with the problems of the second. This created difficulties, especially in explaining karmic retribution over long periods.
• Role of Debates: The text highlights the crucial role of philosophical debates, often organized at royal courts, in driving these philosophical developments. The need to defend one's position and critique opponents fostered intellectual exchange and the rapid spread of ideas across schools and traditions. This practice, potentially influenced by earlier traditions and foreign contact (e.g., Bactrian Greeks), was instrumental in the institutionalization and evolution of Indian philosophy.

Overall Significance

Bronkhorst's analysis provides a framework for understanding the interconnectedness of Indian philosophical schools and their evolution. By identifying these two overarching "epistemes," he demonstrates that seemingly disparate doctrines are often responses to shared intellectual challenges and presuppositions, shaped by the broader sociopolitical and cultural context of their time, particularly the custom of public debate. He moves away from viewing these schools in isolation and instead presents a narrative of dynamic intellectual engagement and transformation.