Category Archives: Indian Philosophy

PROMPT: Change

Posted on by
Reply
Daily writing prompt
What is one thing you would change about yourself?
View all responses

I think about this in yogic terms. In the niyama of yoga there are two guiding ideas that – at first – seem contradictory. Santosha is contentment. Tapas is discipline. So, on one hand, Patanjali was suggesting one needs to accept what one is (santosha,) but, on the other hand, he was suggesting that one needs to keep the fire of self-development burning (tapas.) [Note: I realize there are different readings of these two concepts, these are the versions that have resonated with me.]

These two ideas did seem at odds until I realized that they answer different questions. Contentment is the answer to “Am I enough?” Tapas is the answer to “Can I be better?”

Long story short, I see wishes such as the desire to be six inches taller or to be a celebrity as a waste of time and mental energy. However, I see the need to be a healthier and more equanimous version of myself as an ever-present driver.

BOOK: “Understanding Eastern Philosophy” by Ray Billington

Posted on by
Reply
Understanding Eastern PhilosophyUnderstanding Eastern Philosophy by Ray Billington
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Publisher Site — Taylor & Francis

This book does a solid job for one that bites off so much in a single go. Eastern Philosophy is a large subject, and to try to outline the major premises of its varied systems and also compare them to Western / Abrahamic notions (when Western schools are sometimes no more different from Eastern schools than each side is within,) and to do so in under two-hundred pages is a daunting undertaking.

For the most part, I felt the book did a fine job of meeting its objective. A fair amount of selection and simplification is required. I will say the part describing karmic doctrine didn’t seem consistent with what I was taught and seems more in line with the early Western scholars who started writing about Eastern Philosophy but could not help but couch the subject in a Western / Abrahamic frame because it was what they knew and was invisible to them. I say this as one who is no big fan of Karmic philosophy, though for another reason (one which is also mentioned in this book.) I’ve always been told that the central idea is to do selfless acts in order to escape the karmic cycle. Billington, like others before him, states it as do “good deeds” and then he puts forth the critique that this won’t help because doing good for one’s own benefit is fraught with peril. My understanding from Sanskrit scholars is: first, Hindu philosophers were aware of this paradox from the beginning and that’s why the emphasis has always been on “selfless” acts; second, the Abrahamic bifurcation of all actions into good and evil is not so much a thing in Hindu thinking (most actions are inherently neither.) I should point out that there is a lot of internal conflict within these philosophies (e.g. differences between Buddhist and Hindu thoughts on Karma) and that Billington does elsewhere reflect on the differences between Eastern and Western thinking about good and evil.

The first two-thirds of the book is organized by schools of thought (beginning with the Indian ones and working toward Chinese / East Asian schools) and the last third deals with a series of fundamental philosophical questions.

If you want a quick outline of Eastern philosophical ideas, this book gives a good look at them, particularly if one is interested in a comparison to Western ideas. The book also spends a fair amount of time in discussion of what a religion is and how one differs from a philosophy.

View all my reviews

PROMPT: Principles

Posted on by
1

What principles define how you live?

Before traveling, empty my cup. Before returning home, empty my cup.

Collect experiences, not geegaws.

Wishing for the world to be some other way is a grand waste of time.

If there is a river flowing toward where I want to be, surrender to it.

See humor everywhere, especially in myself.

Be content with who I am at the moment, while struggling to be a better version in future editions.

Strive to find the non-adversarial path.

Keep looking until I see what is beautiful in all things and creatures.

Don’t attempt to construct anyone else’s list of principles to live by.

Feel the sensations that arise without letting the mind amplify them out of proportion.

Seek only simple pleasures, enjoy them fully, and then move on.

BOOKS: “Jñāna-Yoga: The Way of Knowledge” by Ramakrishna Puligandla

Posted on by
Reply
Jnana-Yoga--The Way of KnowledgeJnana-Yoga–The Way of Knowledge by Ramakrishna Puligandla
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Google Books Page

This is one of the most useful books I’ve read on the topic of Jñāna-yoga — the approach to yogic philosophy employed by the studious / inquisitive (in contrast to Bhakti-Yoga [the yoga of those for whom faith and devotion works] and Karma-Yoga [the yoga for those for whom a course of self-less action appeals.]) There are Jñāna-yogic Hindu sects and Buddhism — in general — can be thought of as a school of Jñāna-yoga. The author draws from the teachings of both, principally Sankara for Hindu thinking and Nagarjuna for the Buddhist approach.

A word of warning, the author is a scholarly philosopher, and so — while not as unreadable as many works of academic philosophy — it will be a slog for those who are not used to reading scholarly writing.

That said, Puligandla does a fine job of laying out what he views as the central tenets of Jñāna-yoga in a concise fashion and reviewing them at the end. This is not to say I would agree with all that he proposes, herein. In particular, his Chapter 3 conclusions about consciousness are insufficiently justified to be considered core principles of Jñāna-yoga (in my view.) Of course, the beauty of Jñāna-yoga is that it not only doesn’t insist upon coming to the same conclusions, it generates explanations as to how it’s perfectly possible / reasonable to come to different conclusions (see “The Principle of Superimposition,” herein.) Furthermore, since the author is reporting the ideas of Sankara and Nagarjuna, I can’t really hold these ideas against him.

If you’re interested in Jñāna-yoga, and can handle scholarly prose, I’d highly recommend this book.

View all my reviews

DAILY PHOTO: Sri Aurobindo Ashram of Bangalore

Posted on by
1

BOOKS: The Mind of Adi Shankaracharya by Y. Keshava Menon

Posted on by
Reply
The Mind of Adi ShankaracharyaThe Mind of Adi Shankaracharya by Y. Keshava Menon
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Amazon.in Page

This book does a good job of that at which the title hints, offering the reader insight into the philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya. Along the way, Menon presents clear descriptions of Indian philosophical concepts such as Maya, Avidya, Antahkarana, etc., and also compares and contrasts Shankaracharya’s philosophy with those of other philosophers (from both the East and West) as a means to clarify ideas that can be subtle and complex.

That said, what the book isn’t is an unbiased and objective look at Shankaracharya’s ideas. While Menon doesn’t go as far as to support the supernatural myths of Shankaracharya’s life (which are only discussed in the Appendix,) and he skirts that 800-pound gorilla of Hindu philosophic controversy, caste, he does present the philosophy as an advocate for Shankaracharya rather than as an indifferent scholar who merely wishes to deliver arguments and ideas while inviting thought among his readers.

While the book deals with epistemology, ethics, and various aspects of metaphysics, the biggest single subject is Self. I found the explanation of this topic to be fascinating. I had previously understood that among the major differences between Shankaracharya and Buddha was on this question. While I still find the Buddhist approach to Self (or, more properly, lack of Self — i.e. Anatta) to be the more compelling and parsimonious explanation, I feel that I was provided with about as clear an explanation of the Hindu (generally) and Shankaracharyan (specifically) views on Self as one could wish for.

I’d recommend this book. If you’ve come away from reading about subjects like “Maya” (Is it illusion? Is it NOT illusion?) this book can definitely help offer clarification, and (as books on philosophy go) it’s readable and not too jargon-laden. That said, if one is looking for a book that is not advocating a philosophy but, rather, objectively providing ideas and contrasting explanations, this book may bias your views.

View all my reviews