0. Name important schools of Indian philosophies.

India’s philosophies, while sharing some principles in common (cf. q.#1 /infra/),
relate either to Vedic or to non-Vedic traditions. There are a total of nine such
philosophies—six Vedic, three non-Vedic—, also known as /darshana/’s (cf. q.#2
/infra/).

The six Vedic philosophies or /darshana/’s—also known as /shad darshana/’s, or

/astika/, i.e. “positive” schools that deal with the issues of /asti/, of
“existence”—, with their respective founders, are as follows :

1) Vedanta Philosophy : by Badarayana ;

2) Samkhya Darshana : by Kapila ;
3) Nyaya Philosophy : by Gautama ;
4) Vaisheshika Darshana : by Kanada ;
5) Yoga Darshana : by Patanjali ; as well as
6) Purva Mīmansa : by Jaimini and Uttara Mīmansa : by Maharshi Vyasa.

The last two traditions, known as /mīmansa/ philosophies (“investigations” or

“quests”), both the one known as /purva/ (“earlier”) and the /uttara/ one
(“later”), refer to two halves of Vedanta. Both are a means to understand the
Veda’s more thoroughly and accessibly :

⁃ The former deals with rites and other performative actions (/karma/)
that are to produce good consequences toward “liberation” from death and rebirth
(/moksha/, cf.q.#5 /infra/), i.e. toward the eternal, atemporal, both supra-
circular and supra-linear soul (cf. q.#5 /infra/).

⁃ The latter deals with the /Upanishad/‘s (cf. q.#4 /infra/). The
/Upanishad/‘s deal, in turn, with another means to liberation, to wit :
enlightenment or emancipation through knowledge (/jnana/).

The three non-Vedic /darshana/’s, the /nastik/ schools, are as follows :

1) Charvaka Darshana ;
2) Jain Philosophy ; and
3) Buddhist Philosophy.

Although all these traditional Indian philosophies differ, all share certain
features, which allow them to stand out from other philosophical traditions :

⁃ One such a feature is the holistic correspondence between micro- and

macrocosmos, the human individual and the whole world. Both humans and the
universe share a similar form and similar constituents.

⁃ All Indian philosophies, also, assign to rampant desire and to sheer

ignorance the origins of human sufferings. Conversely, the acquisition of
knowledge is seen in them as the path to the elimination of such sufferings. Being
emancipation from ignorance tantamount to the control of desires, such an
emancipation is, consequently, tantamount to the cure of all diseases.

⁃ Much as humanity replicates the structure and the substance of nature,

and vice-versa, traditional Indian philosophers posit that such an emancipatory
knowledge is universal. It would be accessible, furthermore, both as objective
reality and as introspective consciousness.

Human desire is the manifestation of ignorance inasmuch as it attach itself

individuality and to the transient cycles of life and death. Thus, acquisition of
knowledge would mean the dissipation of the veil that separates human consciousness
from its true home, universal and eternal, in the totality to which it truly
belongs. This veil, as said, is at the root of all human sufferings.

0. What is the word meaning of Darshana ?

It is obvious, in India, that such a holistic, or rather the fractal approach to

knowledge that the micro-macro correspondence entails, will tend to overcome the
epistemological dualism that, in the West, has given rise to philosophy and to
science. In India, epistemology tends to merge with ontology. Instead of
explanatory models stemming from technique—bodily prostheses that objectively
oppose humanity to the world—, India features technologies of the self ; of inner
consciousness ; of subjective universals ; of human divinity.

The meaning of /darshana/ stems from the word’s radical : d[e]rush[a], or “to
know”, “to understand”. The word meaning of /darshana/, however, is a means to
fundamentally internal insights : “truth or inner perception” or “inner vision”, or
sheer “enlightenment”.

0. Name four Veda’s.

These are the four Veda’s :

1) Rig Veda ;
2) Yajur Veda ;
3) Sama Veda ; and
4) Atharva Veda.

The Veda’s, as the oldest records of traditional knowledge in India, stress the
introspective features of its corresponding modes of thought. Human individuals,
as bodily, sensorial entities, are not seen as the only focus of inquiry, but their
emotions and thoughts are equally worthy to be under such a focus.

It is also worth noting the interconnections between philosophy and religion in

this context. The epistemological stress in Indian philosophy finds expression in
the identity between divinity and human consciousness, this identity being known as
Brahma, “cosmic consciousness”.

This religious identity explains another feature of traditional knowledge in

India ; to wit, the poetic style of Vedic writing. This is a testimony of the oral
and musical origins of such a tradition, much before it could acquire written form.

0. What is the goal of life as per stated in Upanishad’s ?

The Upanishad’s are an important component of Vedic literature. The latter,

basically, contains Mantra’s and Brahmana’s. Brahmana’s include the early
Upanishad’s. The Upanishad’s, in the whole world, are among the earliest texts on
religion and philosophy, if “philosophy” is taken in a broader sense (cf. q.#2
/supra/).

The Upanishad’s, in short, contain philosophical and inner mystic teachings,

including well-known sayings that are current in Vedanta, such as “thou art that”
(/tat vam asi/) and “I am Brahman” (/aham Brahmasmi/). These examples are both
holistic statements against—or rather toward the overcoming of—epistemological
dualism, i.e. the opposition between the subject and the object ; the one and the
many ; unity and diversity ; essence and appearance. Yet, their ontological tenure
notwithstanding, these statements pertain to method rather than to theory. Their
holistic monism discards epistemological dualism as mere ignorance. It
establishes, however, another kind of hierarchical dualism, one that inverts the
modern, scientific and philosophical, epistemological dualism which obtains in the
West. Indian dualism, as opposed to western dualism, is of a logically higher
order than the epistemological, western one, inasmuch as it sees all dualities as
illusions. The sole duality that still obtains fully, in traditional India, is the
ontological opposition between enlightenment (/jnana/, cf. q.#1 /supra/) and
ignorance (/avydia/), which inverts and radicalizes, vis-à-vis the West, the
epistemological opposition between unity and diversity.

The consequence, or goal, of the aforementioned process of enlightenment (/jnana/),

which merges with the goal of life itself, is known as /moksha/, or “release” (cf.
q.#5 /infra/). As the result of a fundamentally epistemological process, /moksha/
is tantamount to a method or to a technique. It is, nonetheless—inasmuch as a
monistic epistemology, in India, intertwines with a dualistic ontology—, tantamount
to an existential process. One’s own identity is at stake, in this quest for
knowledge. It is an inward journey, as previously said. This is why such a
knowledge is a goal in each one’s individual life, rather than to humanity as a
whole—as humanity is representable by scholars, politicians, priests, etc.

0. What is Moksha ?

/Moksha/‘s translation as “release” indicates primarily emancipation from

ignorance. /Moksha/, as a concept, is a particular way of understanding the
acquisition of knowledge, or the nature of knowledge itself. All that which is not
impermanent, i.e. which transcends birth, growth, and degeneration, is seen,
according to this concept, as being worthy of knowledge. Being permanent, in
India, where the existence of the immortal soul is a condition of possibility for
the cycles of death and rebirth, means to transcend not only linear time, but also
circular time. It means transcending the movement of time, as well as the desires
that reiteratively set it in motion. It means transcending bodily transience.

The concept of /moksha/ is the means through which Indian thought reestablishes
dualism, as a monistic dualism, by means of a triad, beyond the prevalence of an
intellectual subject. It sets a goal of “release”, or “liberation”, to the human,
individual soul, setting this soul apart not only from the body, but also from the
intellectual mind. The state of /moksha/ draws the human soul closer to emotions
than the body or the mind are. But, furthermore, soul-like emotions, through
/moksha/, unlike body-like or mind-like emotions, acquire an atemporal quality.

The concept of /moksha/, by reestablishing western dualism into a triad, also

avoids a mutual exclusiveness among its terms (in contrast, Aristotle, anticipating
Jesus Christ, would forbid ambiguity in his syllogisms : A = A, B = B ; therefore A
= not B, B = not A). The search for the liberation of the does not mean restraining
or neglecting the body or the intellect. On the contrary, it is a means for their
liberation, within their own limits, too.

0. Explain the concept of Triguna’s.

According to anthropologist C. Lévi-Strauss, in his /La Penseé Sauvage/ (1962.

Paris : Plon), categorization is a universal cognitive means to understanding the
world. Indian philosophy applies this principle with mathematical precision in
Ayurveda, featuring a threefold set of categories that classifies extant ones.
Those are the three /guna/‘s, or /triguna/‘s categories of /sattva/, /rajas/,
and /tamas/. These three categories follow a cosmogonic logic, from subtle to gross
; from purity to pollution ; from pleasure to pain, with the neutral mediation of
movement in between.

Indian traditional cosmogony, as the concept of /triguna/ illustrates it, follows

an order from non-manifest uniformity to complex differentiation, from unity to
diversity, a diversity that results from a qualifying permutation of those three
categories, the three /guna/‘s.
The three /guna/‘s, insofar as all of them relate to emotional aspects of the body,
both on a physical and on a mental level, are amenable to a moral qualification, to
wit :

1) /sattva/ : light, luminous, and joyous ;

2) /rajas/ : mobile, stimulating, and full of sorrow ; and
3) /tamas/ : ignorant, inactive, heavy, and dark.

0. Name the founders of Nyaya and Vaisheshika Darshana’s.

/Nyaya/ and /Vaisheshika/ are among the most popular Vedic /darshana/‘s. Both
share the same goal of achievement of /moksha/. Gautama is the founder of /Nyaya/,
whereas Kanada has given rise to /Vaisheshika/. These two schools differ, also, in
that one proceeds by analogy ; empirically sensorial assessment ; logical inference
; or reference to authority, whereas the other posits an atomic ontology within an
epistemological framework of universal categories.

0. What are the nine substances according to Vaisheshika philosophy ?

The doctrine of nine substances, or /dravya/‘s, in Vaisheshika philosophy (or

theory, if one consider such a philosophy to be a “philosophy” in the strict, Greek
sense of the word ; cf. q.#2 /supra/) is rather a cosmogonic doctrine than a
physical or chemical theory. It relates less to the measurable, tangible, visible
nature of the basic constituents of material reality than to a conceptual framework
within which relations and categorization among these constituents can be made up.
In an essentialist framework that a western linguistic context informs cf. again C.
Lévi-Strauss, /op. cit./), it would constitute rather a metaphorical language than
a literal language, more amenable to magic than to science (cf. the classical study
of British anthropologist James Frazer, /The Golden Bough/).

The /dravya/‘s, in grammatical terms, are rather attributes than substances, rather
adjectives than nouns, rather functions than things in themselves (a thing seen
as /Ding an sich/, in the terms of German philosopher Immanuel Kant). However,
these are attributes that play no secondary role in relation to the substances they
qualify. The /dravya/‘s are immanent attributes, adjectives, or functions, inasmuch
as there is no conceivable separation between them and the substances, nouns, or
things that they qualify.

Out of nine such substances, in Vaisheshika philosophy, five are cosmogonic in a

strict sense, i.e. in the sense that they comply with a linear framework of
cosmogonic time. The so-called “five great elements” (/pancha mahabhuta/‘s), in
other words, constitute five different stages of a cosmogonic order, of the story
of creation, in the following sequence :

1) ether ;
2) air ;
3) fire ;
4) water ; and
5) earth.

These elements, or substances, constitute a cosmogonic narrative inasmuch as their

order follows the logical sequence of creation, to wit :

1) ether is space, the condition of possibility for matter inasmuch as matter, from
a physical-scientific viewpoint, is coterminous with extension ;

2) air is movement, as the creation of space is a prerequisite for differentiation

out of homogeneity ; while such differentiation, in turn, is the condition of
possibility for time—for linearity within circularity, as generations and
degeneration inscribe themselves in continuous cycles ;

3) fire is an inevitable consequence of movement, as differentiation creates

contradiction, hence conflict, dissonance and resolution, as in Hegel’s idealist
dialectics ;

4) water is the necessary, complementary counterpart of fire, as fire, due to its

own nature, is bound to engender its contrary ; and

5) earth is the solidification of water, as water, being the diametrical opposite

of fire, stabilizes itself toward its own nature.

These “five great elements” aside, the extant four are rather too immaterial to be
called “substances” in a literal sense, were not the aforementioned elements also
rather attributive than substantial. These four extant elements are the following :

6) soul, which is actually twofold, containing classical, western epistemological

dualism in a monistic nutshell—the one and the many, unity and diversity (cf.
q.#4 /supra/). Vaisheshka philosophy phrases such a dualism as individual human
(/jiva/) and divine totality (/paramatma/). The former, in turn, is more strictly
dualistic inasmuch as it identifies itself with the intellectual mind, hence with
diversity. The latter, instead, is the touchstone of the third element of the triad
that opposed it to mind and body, such a /paramatma/ soul being the witness of both
mental ideas and bodily sensations, of mental and bodily emotions, of the knower of
the process of acquisition of knowledge ;

7) mind is the many within the many, inasmuch as, being the individual expression
of individual souls, it endows the divine, unitary soul with a connection with
multiple reality ;

8) time is the one within the one, inasmuch as it is the expression of the oneness,
the eternity, and the pervasiveness of the universal soul, while it engenders the
multiplicity that characterizes particular souls ; and

9) direction is the spatial counterpart of time. Much as time is translatable in

numerous graphic patterns (e.g. linear, circular, spiral, sinusoid), direction can
assume different forms (bidimensional, tridimensional, lines, curves, etc.)

0. How fundamental principles of yoga and Ayurveda sciences are similar?

The fundamental principles of yoga and Ayurveda are as similar as children who are
born from the same parents, on the same place, are. Both were born in India, from
Indian philosophy—inasmuch as one may call /darshana/ a “philosophy” (cf. q.# 2
/supra/). Their “familiar resemblance” traits, to use an expression of Austrian
philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, boil down to the following topics :

⁃ Holism : the correspondence between micro- and macrocosmos as the key

to understanding the relation between individual human beings and the whole
universe (cf. q.# 1 /supra/) is one such common principle. Both yoga and Ayurveda,
besides sharing this idea, regard each human individual as an integral entity who
surpasses the sum of its aspects (physical, mental, intellectual, emotional, and
spiritual). One cannot understand any of these aspects if taken apart from there
integration among each other, or if taken apart from its integration with the
universe (“thou art that” or “I am Brahma”, cf. q.#4 /supra/). It must be said,
characteristically vis-à-vis western philosophy, that such a monistic integration
happens on an epistemological level, much as such a monistic epistemology is
tantamount to non-subjectivistic, however subjective, introversion.
 ⁃ /Triguna/ and /Pancha Mahabhuta/ : Ayurveda and yoga owe to Sankhya
Darshana (cf. q.#1 /supra/) the /triguna/ doctrine (cf. q.#6 /supra/), as well as
the doctrine of the “five great elements” (cf. /pancha mahabhuta/, cf. q.#8 supra).
The doctrine of the /triguna/ (/sattva/, /tamas/, and /rajas/) establishes it as
the all-generative threefold classification that, immediately evolving from
creation, is both cosmogonic and ontogenic. The /triguna/ gives rise both to the
epistemological tools that make up human beings since from conception and to all
things in the universe, inasmuch as its all-pervading three categories generate the
“five great elements” themselves (ether, air, fire, water, and earth).

⁃ /Ashtanga/ : yoga and Ayurveda, being similar paths to knowledge, to

emancipation from ignorance, hence to health and, on a wider level, to “liberation”
(/moksha/, cf. q.#5 /supra/), share a historical structure divided into eight
branches, to wit, Ashtanga Yoga and Ashtanga Ayurveda.

⁃ Health : similarities between yoga and Ayurveda are found on the level
of nutritional prescriptions, as well as in prescriptions on the level of
lifestyle, and ethics. Both yoga and Ayurveda prescribe /asana/‘s, or meditative
postures (for Ayurveda, cf. Sushruta Samhita, the “treaty” of Sushruta, a disciple
of one of the main ayurvedic demiurges, Dhanvanthari). Both, also, advocate the
ideal of control over the sense organs and of the senses as such for the attainment
of health and of knowledge at large.

⁃ Treatment : yoga and Ayurveda are meant to treat both physical and
psychological conditions, with such similar methods as the use of herbs, food, and
the chanting of mantras. If Ayurveda stresses the use of herbal medicine for
bodily disorders, yoga advises the use of herbs for the purification of the mind.
Ayurveda owes to yoga, as a psychological or spiritual principle, the need to
increase the clear or /sattvic/ quality of mind, as well as the therapeutic use
of /pranayama/ breathing technique, both for psychological and for physical
disorders.

⁃ Purification : one of the foremost principles, both in yoga and

Ayurveda, for the attainment of good health is based on proper elimination of the
byproducts of digestion. The former bases its practices of /shuddhi kriya/‘s or
/shatkarma/‘s on this principle. The latter proposes the process of /panchakarma/
on the same grounds. Ayurveda and yoga may even combine their practices on a
single course of treatment, as when ayurvedic oleation and sudation precedes yogic
purification, according to the directions of the /Hatha Yoga Pradīpikā/—a 15th c.
b.C. compilation treaty—, which also prescribes daily ayurvedic practices such as
enemas and nasal medications.

⁃ Rejuvenation : when it comes to this topic, ethics becomes an important

feature that yogic and ayurvedic prescriptions are to share.

0. Explain Ashtanga yoga in brief.

Patanjali wrote, on the 2nd c. b.C., a classical treaty, the /Yoga Sutra/‘s, which
contains the description of the highest form of yoga, /Raja Yoga/, as an eightfold
path, /Ashtanga Yoga/. One may thus summarize these eight branches, also know as “,
whose name means limbs” or “portions” :

1) /Yama/ : five guidelines toward harmony of the individual within society, to wit
:

⁃ non-violence (/ahimsa/) ;
⁃ truthfulness (/satya/) ;
⁃ freedom from hoarding (/asteya/) ;
⁃ control of sexual energy (/brahmacharya/) ; and
 ⁃ abstinence from greed (/aparigraha/).

2) /Niyama/ : five principles for personal and spiritual discipline, to wit :

⁃ purity (/saucha/) ;
⁃ contentment (/santosha/) ;
⁃ self-discipline and purification (/tapas/) ;
⁃ self-observation through reflections on the scriptures (/svadhyaya/)
;and
⁃ devotion to God (/ishvarapranidhana/).

3) /Asana/ : yoga poses that prefigure the control of the senses and of the mind.

4) /Pranayama/ : breathing technique for controlling the practitioner’s own life

force and focus within.

5) /Pratyahara/ : method for withdrawal of the mind from the senses and from the
stimuli that come from them.

6) /Dharana/ : focus in the mind.

7) /Dhyana/ : meditation.

8) /Samadhi/ : unity of the mind with its object of meditation, which the
practitioner is to experience as of a spiritual nature.

0. How Charvaka Darshana is different from Vedic Darshana’s ?

Charvaka Darshana is a materialistic philosophy among the three non-Vedic

philosophies that are at the root of Ayurveda. These philosophies differ from the
six Vedic Darshana’s mentioned above (cf. q.#1) in that there is in them no
emphasis to spiritual values, but rather to the worldly ones of sensual pleasure
(/kama/) and wealth (/artha/).

The teacher of gods, Bruhaspati, is the originator of the Charvaka Darshana, also
known as Barhaspatya or Lokayata, meaning that it is easily understandable to the
common person. This philosophy differs from Vedic /darshana/‘s in that it does not
consider anything other than the physical body, neglecting the conceptual framework
of souls, sins, the theory of rebirth etc. Charvaka rejects the idea that there is
a transcendental power behind natural actions. It regards sensual qualities as
existing by themselves (/svabhava/). Charvaka is an essentialist philosophy, as it
regards phenomena in nature as things in themselves (/Ding an sich/, cf. q.#8
above).

Charvaka philosophy admits the validity of only one /pramana/ (“means of knowledge”
or “proof”), to wit, perception, rejecting not only verbal testimony but also
inference. It sustains that the evolution of the universe and all its activities
follow the laws of physics or of chemistry. Charvaka relies on perceivable
phenomena to explain reality, rather that on metaphysical laws that manifest the
action of invisible powers. It denies any controlling principle presiding over
nature, like God or Brahman.

Charvaka, as a materialistic philosophy, sustains that people should enjoy their

lives happily and with satisfaction, having as a guiding principle no more than an
ethical code of conduct.

0. How principles of Jain philosophy are used in Ayurveda?

Jain philosophy derives from Jainism, a very old, non-Vedic religion. Jainism
repudiates animal sacrifices, but does not rely on a supreme God. Jain philosophy
became more popular in the later Vedic period, as it was revived by Vardhamana
Mahavira (the great or enlightened one) in the 6th c. b.C.

There are two principle sects of Jainism, known as Shvetambaras and Digambaras.
Jains believe in the eternal and independent existence of spirit and matter, or the
animate and the inanimate, known as /jiva/ and /ajiva/.
One of the important practical prescriptions of Jainism is the vow of non-violence
(ahimsa), which applies to even the tiniest of insects.

Jain philosophy apply to Ayurveda by means of the so-called “law of uncertainty or

all probabilities” (/naikantavada/). This principles entails, in medical practices,
that many points or views on any subject are always possible from the standpoint of
diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Ayurveda accepts this law of probabilities.
One cannot definitely know all such factors. Hence, the medical approach should
always be amenable to modification. While examining the patient, the ayurvedic
physician has to consider many factors like /dosha/, /time/, /age/ etc.,
taking all of them into consideration vis-à-vis the constitution of the patient.
The etiology of disease, accordingly, among all causative factors, must also
include such indirect factors like previous deeds of the patient.

0. What are four noble truths mentioned by Lord Buddha ?

Gautama Buddha (Kapilavastu, 563 b.C.—Kusinara, 483 b.C), founder of Buddhism, has
dwelt upon the four “noble truths” (/arya satya/), positive and constructive
principles that also lie at the heart of Ayurveda :

1) Life is evil, painful and full of suffering ;

2) Ignorance is the source of all suffering ;
3) There are ways for ending the suffering or pain, among which the most important
is right knowledge, the foremost means for removing evils
4) Evil can be overcome, through the means indicated in 3).

0. According to Buddhistic philosophy, what are the ways to overcome

sufferings ?

The Buddha explained eight specific ways to overcome suffering :

1) Right perception and observation

2) Right thinking
3) Right conduct
4) Right knowledge
5) Right living
6) Right deeds
7) Right mindfulness
8) Right meditation or concentration

The most important methods, among the above, are right conduct (/shila/) ; right
knowledge (/prajna/) ; and right concentration (/samadhi/).