schools or darśana-s

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Here on HDF we have multiple conversations on different subjects. All these ideas and thoughts coming together have some foundation,
some origin, yet we are not mindful or know them.

Some may say this is a hindu view, another may say this is an Indian view, and another sanātana dharma view.
There are many-many views that do not come to the surface here on HDF that we would not readily recognize. That is,
many schools we do not come in contact with. Let me offer the following just as a perspective.

A 6 school view
In various posts the 6 schools (saḍ darśana) of Indian thought have come up on many occasions. The schools are generally
divided as Orthodox and Unorthodox views: āstika or आस्तिक means there is or exists; nāstika or na+ astika नास्तिक or it is not so
and this word nāstika नास्तिक is not believing, or atheistical ( this does not suggest not believing in God, yet it needs to be defined, to set the stage)

How are these words applied? Āstika there exists , or a regard that the Veda-s as infallible, the final word, without doubt. Hence this is called Orthodox i.e. the Veda-s as the foundation of infallible truth; compare this to nāstika which does not regard the Veda-s as infallible or the final authority; Hence this view is considered Unorthodox.

The 6 referred to here are:

• śāṁkhya
• yoga
• vedānta
• mīmāṃsā
• nyāya
• vaiśeṣika

Add more views

Add to the saḍ darśana mentioned above the following:

• lokāyata school- materialism , the system of atheistical philosophy founded by cāravāka.
• jaina school - jaina is from jina or 'victorious'. Victory over one's self.
• bauddha view , relating or belonging to buddha. Three types madhyamika-s, yogācāra-s, sauytāntika-s, and vaibhāṣika-s
• for the mīmāṃsā mentioned above there are pūrva ( former , prior ) to that of uttara ( later , following , subsequent ) mimāṁsā. These are called prabhākara and kumārila
• vedānta of rāmānuja
• śaivism's multiple schools :
  • kaśmīr śaivism
  • śaiva sddhāna
  • Paśupāta śaivism
  • Vira śaivism
  • śiva advaita
  • siddha siddhāna
• some add pāṇini's work to this list ( the grammarian)

That said it is suggested and discussed that that there are 16 darśana-s of Indian philosophy. Mādhava-ji, we know as
madhvācārya ( 14th century) calls out 16 in his sarvadarśanasaṅgraha¹. And before him there was a work called sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹
from the school of śaṃkara ( 10th centry) called out about 13.

It also needs to be mentioned the extentions, the limbs or vedāṅga of the veda . These are not specifically ~schools~ but have great influence
on the knowlege and schools one may align to.

1. śikṣā - phonetics, sandhi rules ( joining) and phonology
2. vyākaraṇa -grammar
3. nirukta - etymology, word origins
4. kalpa - ritual/yajña (properly performed and to whom for what ends)
5. chandas - meter ( i.e. beat, count) for proper chanting; sāma ved as example
6. jyotiṣa - astrology and astronomy . The focus dealing with the auspicious days for performing sacrifices; also with one's birth,
   trends, life events, etc. Some call this the science of light.

We can see there are a wealth of schools. Some aligned to the ved, some not. Some are of the opinion there is no personal Lord,
others only the absolute level of Being, and others see both the personal lord and the Absolute.

You can see just by the quantity of views there are going to be differences. That is why IMHO it is reasonable to take time and consider
various schools, various opinions. It helps round out one's perspective and to get aquainted with this vast ocean of knowledge.

Yet why all these views? Any opinions on this?

praṇām

words

• sarvadarśanasaṅgraha = sarva+darśana+saṅ +graha ; sarva = all + darśana = view or ~ philosophy~ san = bestow , distribute, gain + graha = understanding or taking up
  So this is taking up and offering the understanding of all the various schools or philosophies
• sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹ = same as above yet siddha is used to suggest the perfections, what is gained, or the objective
  of the various schools.

[hrdayananda]

Namaste, yajvan!

Thank you for another excellent post on sanathana dharma!

Regarding the amount of diverging views/darshanas, I would like to share with you my personal opinion on this. To answer your question (why are there so many differing views?), we must first find out what the purpose of all these views is. What is the purpose of being an advaitin, or a christian, or even an atheist? Better yet, what is our purpose, as human beings and what are we seeking, at the deepest level?

I think that the purpose of all these views is to obtain happiness.

The materialist tries to obtain happiness by enjoying the material world.

The christian seeks a higher level of happiness, since he is of the opinion that earthly enjoyment is impermanent and he must strive to enter the Kindom of Heaven, after death, where he can enjoy eternal happiness.

The advaitin seeks the permanent happiness within, here and now, by realising his true Self.

But all of them are right. All these darshanas are correct. Not at an absolute level, but on a relative level. Materialism is right for a certain man, at his current level of evolution. Christianity is right for another one, Bhakti for some other one and Advaita for other people.

In the Tripura Rahasya, we see how Parashurama was first instructed to worship a deity (Tripura, actually a simbol of the three states of consciousness), and he did that for a lot of years, happily, until he realised what he is doing is actually in vain. Then, he came back to his guru, Dattatreya, which taught him a higher knowledge, seeing that Parashurama was ready, because he attained dettachment. As long as people are still attached to the world and do not yet see the impermanence of it, it is useless to teach them the highest truth, just as it is useless to try to teach a 3 year old the string theory of quantum physics. Therefore, your forefathers, the great Rshis, and some other great people of later times were wise enough to devise teachings suitable for any level of spiritual evolution. The child must first drink milk before he can chew. Likewise, the spiritual seeker must first drink the milk of devotion, surrendering to an external deity, thus paving the path to the higher way of non-duality. This is an example of how duality leads to non-duality, since the devotee gradually drops his ego, to become one with his deity, which is later on realised to be the very Self.

Please correct me if I am saying non-sense

[brahman]

Dear Yajvan,

IMHO, Whether it is Orthodox or Heterodox, Reality, ultimately, is one alone.

It could be visualized from various perspectives. It is similar to enjoying the beauty of a monument built with perfect architectural tastes, by viewing it from different angles. Each point of view gives a different picture of the beauty of the structure, where as the structure remain differenceless. The observer formulates an idea of the overall beauty of the monument with the help of various pictures available from various perspectives.
Though, certain specifics perceived in a particular vision may be relevant only as related to the particular perspective of the vision, none of these visions is meant to be treated as more important or true than another. All are equally important, as the beads in a garland.

mattaH parataraM nAnyatki~nchidasti dhana~njaya .
mayi sarvamidaM protaM sUtre maNigaNA iva ..

Oh Arjuna, There is nothing,
Higher or bigger than me,
For like the beads strung on a thread,
Everything else is strung on me. Srimad Gita 7\-7..


The non dual ultimate reality is to be intuitively perceived by the seeker as that which gives room for all such varying visions.

Love

[Eastern Mind]

Yet why all these views?

Vannakkam Yajvan: May I ask for more specificity on this question? Do you mean why did this (many views) come about? (historically?, geographically?) Or why did the one without a second (known by various names) 'create' so many schools?

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Vannakkam Yajvan: May I ask for more specificity on this question? Do you mean why did this (many views) come about? (historically?, geographically?) Or why did the one without a second (known by various names) 'create' so many schools?

Aum Namasivaya

Thank you all for your ideas on this matter...some excellent comments are made. Let me re-establish the question for EM to consider:

How is it that tad-ekam ( That One) one without a second, is viewed in so many different lights?


If we look at Reality there is a view of vyāvahātika� - the ordinary, the manifest. And we have the unmanifest, some call the transcendent, Supreme, nirguṇa brahman , or pāramārthika�.
Yet Reality = vyāvahātika + pāramārthika ( the manifest or the world of diversity + the transcendent).
Reality is the amalgamation of both, and even dividing them in to 2 causes some separateness in the mind.

Now it seems to me this is where all the schools come in. It is how they view these two levels:

• advaita - no separateness or not two - unity
• dvaita - separateness or 2 - diversity
• viśiṣṭādvaita - separate yet unity in diversity

Yet these schools are viewing the same Reality, but arrive at a different conclusion of how this Reality ~looks~.
That was the core of the question. Same Reality, different views - how so?
praṇām

words

• vyāvahātika = vya+ ava+ hātika = to cover + away + hari ( harika is 'like hari') and hari here is viṣṇu, the supreme. ( my translation only)
• pāramārthika - relating to the Supreme, truth , real , essential , true

[hrdayananda]

Same Reality, different views - how so?

Maybe they are different levels of seeing the same Reality, i.e.:

Level 0: Lokayata
Level 1: Vaisheshika
Level 2: Nyaya

etc.

Now we could argue about which one would represent the highest level of knowledge of that one Reality, or what the real order of all these views should be.

Or, of course, another possibility would be that only one of these is the true darshana, all others being only human constructs? Maybe someone has a different opinion. Very interesting subject raised here, yajvan. Thank you!

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Yajvan:

Different strokes for different folks! 99% is in alignment at the deeper levels, but even there there are subtle differences. But personally I'm too busy trying to remain calm to delve too far into such things so far over my head.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

EM writes,

99% is in alignment at the deeper levels, but even there there are subtle differences

I have a slightly different view on this matter. Let me offer it and see what you think.

The idea of 99% alignment at deeper levels may be true; that in Reality all differences do not exist, but that is the question at hand.
The various darśana's see the world differently and hence Reality different; for many schools there is no final Oneness.

The lokāyata school (some call cāravākya's) say only perception is a valid source of knowledge. Even the testamonly of others proves
to be unreliable. Hence if someone is telling them of this Reality they would say I must perceive it for myself. Yet our perception brings us
the world of things, diversity. Where will one find the undivided Supreme (initially) through the senses?

If we talk to the jaina school (jaina is from jina or 'victorious'. Victory over one's self) they reject the lokāyata school and they say even
perception will bring false knowledge.
The śāṁkhya school believes there are 2 ... puruṣa and prkṛti. Pending what school one views in vedānta , there can be 2 (dvatia) or 1
(advaita) view of Reality. What does dvaita that infer?

• When one reaches mokṣa (liberation or enlightenment) the experience of the jiva is similar to the Supreme but does not become
  identical to the Supreme.
• Other views like the offerings of ādi śaṃkara's of advaita vedānta ( some call śāntabrahmavāda) suggests, there is only one -
  there is no diversity. So the notion of 'idential' is part of the knowledge there.

There are more views and ideas I can share ( if interested) yet this helps me offer a POV of why there are so many views of Reality.
In my opinion there are multiple views of Reality because that has been the ultimate experience of the guru's and muni's of those schools.
That was their level of development, their experience.
In addition, these schools promote a way for the practitioner to to take advantage of that knowledge of their school that aligns
with their level of evolution or development. An example may help:
For someone steeped in ignorance perhaps the first place to begin their practice is with the lokāyata school. As one evolves,
they may reject this path as no longer valid; their personal experience does not align with the knowledge and move to another school of thinking.

This evolution of experience is very valid. One can unfold from the unity of ignorance, to unity in diversity, to the unity found in complete
liberation. These are the possibilities of the human condition.

praṇām

[hrdayananda]

It is said that Shankaracharya beat pretty much all the other schools (besides advaita) in debates. If that is true, then why did he bother to do that, if all the views are ok? Instead, he engaged in debates with the mimamsakas, buddhists, etc. Maybe the Vedas have been interpreted badly by some gurus/munis of the past, which gave rise to false schools? What do you think?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast� hrdayananda

There is no doubt that debates bring out more knowledge for the individual to ponder and appreciate. Some consider it a science , others an art. That does not infer that the questions, proposals, points of view were not riveting and to the point. The notion was/is to arrive at the truth. The truth should pervade facts offered on both sides.

We hear of some of the luminaries of wisdom i.e. ādi śaṅkara (some write śaṃkara) , yaj�avalkya, udayanācārya and the like, engaged in debates for the benefit of their śiyṣa's (students) and for the seeker of salvation to study.

The offering is the thoroughness of the conversation , tarka�, sharing of ideas and the useful exchange of views. What is quite profound about the ancients was the philosopher, muni, or debater was required to state the views of his opponent first before formulating and offering his POV. This was known as the prior view or pūrvapakṣa�. Then follows the conversation and debate and finally the conclusions (uttarapakṣa).

Debates could have lasted days as I understand it. Ādi śaṅkara's debate with maṇḍana miśra ( from the mīmāṃsā school) lasted for 15 days.

It is my opinion jāti meaning a futile objection without principles behind it, did not occur in these grand debates. The residual value of the debate showed the opponent where the weaknesses were in their views and allowed them to reconsider and ponder their ideas. Yet some, based upon the ~loss~ of the debate, became the śiyṣa of the ~winner~.

praṇām

words

• pūrvapakṣa - the first position ( some say objection ) to an assertion in any discussion; the prima facie view or argument in any question
• tarka - system or doctrine founded on speculation or reasoning , philosophical system; we find this in the nyāya system , but applicable also to any of the six darśana