Indian Philosophy A Very Short IntroductionOxford牛津大学学科XX入门电子版 1

Indian Philosophy A Very Short Introduction Oxford牛津大学学科XX入门电子版 1 INDIANPHILOSOPHY AVery ShortIntroductionSue HamiltonOXFORDUNIVERSITY PRESSOXFORDUNIVERSITY PRESSGreatClarendon Street,Oxford OX26DPOxford University Press is a departmentof theUniversity of Oxford.It furtherstheUniversitys objectiveof excellencein research,scholarship,and educationby publishingworldwidein OxfordNew YorkAucklandBangkok BuenosAires CapeTown ChennaiDar esSalaam DelhiHong KongIstanbulKarachi KolkataKuala LumpurMadrid MelbourneMexico CityMumbai NairobiS?oPaulo ShanghaiTaipei TokyoTorontoOxford is a registeredtrade markofOxford University Pressin theUK and in certainothercountriesPublished in the UnitedStates byOxford UniversityPress Inc.,New York?Sue HamiltonxxThe moralrights of the authorhave been asserted Databaseright Oxford UniversityPress(maker)First publishedas anOxford UniversityPress paperback2000First publishedas aVeryShort IntroductionxxAll rightsreserved.No part of thispublication maybe reproduced,stored in a retrievalsystem,or transmitted,in anyform orby anymeans,without theprior permissioninwriting ofOxford UniversityPress,or asexpressly permittedby law,or undertermsagreed with the appropriatereprographics rightsorganizations.Enquiries concerningreproductionoutside thescope of the aboveshould besent to the RightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,at theaddress aboveYoumust notcirculate this book in any otherbinding orcover andyou mustimpose thissamecondition onany acquirerBritishLibrary Catalogingin PublicationData DataavailableLibrary of Congress Cataloguingin PublicationData Dataavailable ISBN0-19-285374-057910864Typeset byRefineCatch Ltd,Bungay,Suffolk Printedin GreatBritain byTJ InternationalLtd.,Padstow,CornwallContentsList ofillustrations ixList of mapsxPreface xiAnote onlanguages andpronunciation xv1Reason andBelief Richnessand diversityin Indian thought12The BrahmanicalBeginnings Sacrifice,cosmic speculation,oneness183Renouncing theHousehold The Buddhas MiddleWay344Issues andJustifications Language,grammar,and polemics575Categories andMethod Vai?eika andNyya706Things andNo-things Developmentsin Buddhistthought8471078118Postscript FromClassical Thoughtto theModern Day136Remended FurtherReading141Index147List ofillustrations1Ritual implementsused inVedic sacrificePhoto courtesty ofC.Minkowski212Vedic sacrificialritual PhotocourtestyofC.Minkowski223244Mohenjo-daro?MacQuitty InternationalCollection375Buddhist monk?Chris Lisle/Corbis446TheBuddhateaching?Ann&Bury Peerless467?ankaras UpadeaShasr?Bodleian Library,University ofOxford,MSSansk.d.152129-ix-Listofmaps1Mohenjo-Daro andHarappa362Sites associated with the Buddha43-x-PrefaceIndian philosophyin35,000words?Many would consider itimpossible!And it is certainthatof those who might be persuadedto attemptit,no twowould handleit in the sameway.My ownapproach to the diversityof the material forthe purposesof thisbook isexplained in Chapter1.In anycase,the primaryaims of a veryshort introductionare togivea flavour,to leadthe interestedreader into a largerand moreplex topicthan thebookcan coverprehensively,to makesuch atopic aessibleto thebeginner.Thesehave beenmy guidelines.I hopethat thisbook isalso thought-provoking,both inintroducingvery differentways ofthinking about the worldwe experience,and in thesense ofnudging those who areinterested towardsfurther investigationof thesubject.Tothis end,a listof remendedfurther readingis includedat the end of the book.When discussingphilosophical thoughtinanintroductory way,and workingfrom non-English texts,one has to dealwith twopractical problems:the needto usetechnicalterms associated with philosophicalissues,and howbest totranslate key words andtextualextracts.Technical termsI havetried tokeep to an absoluteminimum,butexplanatory textboxes have been givenwhere theirusage is important enoughto requirethebeginner toacquire familiaritywith them.It shouldin anycase beremembered thatthe terms themselvesare lessimportant thangaining anunderstanding of what they arereferring to.-xi-When ites totranslating,sometimes akeyword is nottranslatable into meaningfulEnglish,and in such casesI haveleft itin itsoriginal Sanskritor Pli.I wouldask thereadernot to be putoff by the unfamiliarityof thesewords.Most disciplinesand subjectareassuch asLatin,Greek,and workson othermajor linguisticor culturaltraditions,mathematics andphysics,and nowadaystechnology andputingrequire theaeptingand learningof a few keyterms thatinitially mightseem alien.In thisbook,thenumber ofuntranslated wordsis small,and ineach caseI thinkthe clearcontext in whichthey areused willhelp thereader understand them.When ites toquoting longerextracts fromprimary texts,a greaterproblem is howliterally oranslates them.Not only does faithfulnessto thegrammar andsyntax of theoriginal frequentlyresult inawkward andstilted English,and notonlydomany ponentwordssimply nothave ameaningful Englishequivalent:it isalso the case thatliteralnessoften failsto convey the pointof whatwas beingsaid.On balance,I thinkit ispreferableto attemptto transposeoriginal passagesintomeaningfulEnglish whereverpossible.Ihave thereforetried to use ordinaryEnglish incontemporary style,andin the interests ofclarity have not refrainedin somecases fromparaphrasing rather than moreformallytranslating.My purposeoverall has been toconveytheconceptual point(s)of theextractas clearlyas possible.If theywish to,readers mayconsult otherpublished translationsofthe textseither forparison orfor alternativetreatments of the material.In thisbookall translationsor paraphrasesare myown unlessotherwise stated.I wouldlike tothank GeorgeMiller ofOxfordUniversityPress for inviting meto writethisbook,and forhis gentleguidance andsuggestions.Thanks alsoto TracyMiller forinvaluableadvice during the editingprocess.And Iam particularlygrateful toKingsCollege,London for allowing meto takesabbatical leaveto writethisbookat a time whenallacademics areunder enormouspressure topublish quantitiesofprimary research.-xii-Very manythanks,too,to MurielAnderson,Cecilia Storr,and GayWatson forgenerouslygiving theirtime toread andment on the draftmanuscript.I aeptfull responsibilityforthe finalversion.To RichardGombrich,colleague andfriend,thank youfor untoldadvice,criticism andsupport,not justin respectof thisone project.And toClare Palmer,for solong awonderful soundingboard andexchanger ofideas andthoughts,page107isespecially foryou.-xiii-A Noteon Languagesand PronunciationTwo languagesused by the Indiantradition are referred toin thisbook,Sanskrit and Pli.As isexplainedinearly chapters,the traditionbegan whenpeople whocalled themselvesAryansmigrated fromcentral Eurasiainto thenorth ofIndia,by wayof what is nowPakistan,many hundredsof yearsBCE.The language in which they preservedtheir ritualpracticeswas Sanskrit,which ata laterdate wascodified into itsclassicalform byagrammarian calledPnini(see Chapter4).In thehistory oflanguages,Sanskrit isknownasold Indo-Aryan,and it is the languageinwhich mostIndian philosophicalmaterial waswritten.Over time,alongside classicalSanskrit,variant andmore vernacularforms of thelanguage emerged,now collectivelyknown asmiddle Indo-Aryanlanguages.One of theseis Pli,thelanguageinwhichmany of the earliestBuddhist textsare preserved.The closelinkbetween thelanguages isillustrated in the Sanskrit word dharma,which isdhamma inPli;nirvna beesnibbna(ornirvanain itsAnglicized form).Both SanskritandPli arephoic languagesbased on the samealphabet.This issomewhatlonger thanthe Romanalphabet with which weare familiar,and many of theextraletters arerepresented withwhat arecalleddiacritic marks:for exampleas wellas a;?,n,and nas wellas n;?and,and nas wellas s.Sometimes onefinds Englishworkstransposing,say,?into sh,because this ishow?sounds.Pronunciation ismoreaurate,however,if thediacritic marksare retained,so Ihave chosentousethe fullSanskritandPli alphabetin thisbook.-xv-Familiarizing oneselfwith thepronunciation canhelp in overing anyinitial feelingofstrangeness,so hereare somepronunciation guidelines.Practising onafewexamples canhelp in the familiarizationprocess,so trythe following:a,Vai?eika,?ankara,Sankara,Vi?iadvaita-vednta-xvi-Chapter1Reason andBelief Richnessand diversityinIndian thoughtIndia has along,rich,and diversetradition ofphilosophical thought,spanning sometwoand ahalf millenniaand enpassingseveral majorreligious traditions.Religion in thecontext of philosophy isparticularly significantbecause traditionallyin Indiait isbelievedthat therole ofphilosophizing,in thesense ofattempting to understand the nature ofwhatever it isone isfocusing on,is directlyassociated withones personaldestiny.Sophilosophy isseen notin termsofaprofessional intellectualpursuit that can beset asideattheendof theworking day,but as an attemptto understand the truenature of realityin termsof aninner orspiritual quest.One mightsay that what Westernerscall religionand philosophy arebined in India inpeoples attemptsto understand the meaningandstructure oflifein thebroadest sense.This isparable morewith theapproach ofSocratesthan withreligion asfaith inrevelation andphilosophy as an academicdiscipline.Thinking andBelievingThis pointabout the nature ofIndian philosophy is animportant oo graspat theoutset,so it is worthexploring itfurther.In theWest,certainly sincethe greatGermanphilosopher ImmanuelKant separatedGod fromwhat hethought couldbe learnedaboutthe nature of thingsby means of reasoning,there has beena clear divide between-1-philosophy and religion.Religion hasbeen seen as afield inwhichleaps of faithare notjustpermitted butsometimes required;primacy maybe givento whatcertain peoplestateto be thecasesimply because of whotheyare(that is to say,what theysay istaken as trueregardless ofwhether ornot it is demonstrably,or evenarguably,true);andvarying degreesofothernessare found,such asa transcendentGod,beings whosestatusand/or knowledgeis in some sense superhuman or supernatural,and/or various kinds ofsuperhumanorsupernaturalpower source(s).All oranyofsuch factorsarebelievedbyadherents of the differentreligious traditions,either unquestioninglyor withinaquestioning framework,and assuch thesepeople areknown asbelievers.A keypoint forbelievers is that theyalso believethat practisingtheir religionis directlylinkedwith theirdestiny.The detailsof thisrelationship vary.Some thinktheir liveshereand noware affectedby theirreligious beliefsand practices.Others thinkthe effectsareexperienced onlyafter death.Some believethat whathappens to them nowand/or afterdeathis broughtabout directlyby their own beliefsand practices,some that their destinyisentirely inthe handsof whatevertranscendent,superhumanly powerfulothertheybelieve in,and somethat it isabination of these two.However thedetails areunderstood,the existenceof thisrelationship betweenreligious beliefsand practicesandthe individuals destinyparticularly afterdeathis whyreligions arereferred to assoteriologies,orsystems ofsalvation.Religion assoteriology:from theGreek wordsoter meaningsaviour.In monusage,it is not necessaryforasystem tohold that there isan actualsaviourfigure forthe systemitself to be termeda soteriology.The keypoint is that thedestinyof thebelievers inquestion is thought to be directlyconnected with theirbeliefs and practices.-2-In contrastto this,since Kantthe disciplineof philosophyhasbeenprimarily concernedwith the investigationof whatcan beknown of the natureand structureof realitybymeans of rational argument alone.That isto say,whatever specifictopics philosophersconcernthemselves with,the waythey doit mustbe logicallywatertight:no leapsof faitharepermitted,no ones wordis privilegedover rationality,and nopartof the exerciseisanything otherthan a human intellectualendeavour.Furthermore,philosophizing,whateverit is about,is consideredpurely asan intellectualend in itself,and mayhave noeffect on onewhatsoever.Philosophy issimply notsoteriologicalindeed,that isanimportant aspect of whatdistinguishes itfrom religion.Two thingsare notableabout thisdividebetween religion andphilosophy.The firstis that,in spiteof theirdifferences,the twofields sharea numberof moninterests.Thesecond isthat evenintheWest the distinction between the twowas notalways soclearcut.The monalitylies inthe factthat bothreligion andphilosophy arefundamentallyconcerned with the nature of reality.As anexample,let usconsider areligion withthefollowing teachings:there isa beingthat itcalls God,that iswholly transcendentof thecosmosas we know it;God is the creator of all things;the createdrealm includeshumanbeings witheternal souls;ones behaviourhas aneffectonones afterlife.Even from thisminimal amountof informationwe knowthat aording to thisreligion,reality isprisedof twoabsolutely distinctkinds ofbeing(in thiscase,God,and not-God),andthat there cannot beanything else,because God is thecreatorofallthings.We alsoknowthat at least partof whatis not-Godisboth plural(all the individual souls)andeverlasting.Less abstractly,this lastpoint tellsus somethingimportant about the natureofhuman beings,in themselvesa partof realitythat might be prisedin anyof anumberof ways.And inaddition tothis,weknowthat somekind ofsystem ofcausationlinks presentbehaviour toan unknownfuture modeof existence.Even thoughthere aremany otheraspects of the nature of realityone-3-might be interested inknowing,and aboutwhichthe religion might also havesomethingto say,and despitethe generalityof thisexample,what wehave heredeals with two ofthekey issueswithwhichphilosophy isalso concerned:how realityis fundamentallyconstituted,and the nature of the human being.Another issueof monconcern toreligion andphilosophy ishow onearrives atknowingthe answersto suchkey questions.If,inthecase ofour hypotheticalreligion,the teachingisgiven bya superhumanbeing whosewordis aepted astrue bybelievers,then onesknowledge isacquired throughrevelation,or whatmightbecalledverbal testimony.Infact,we allrely onverbal testimonya greatdeal inour everydaylives.Those of us whohavenever travelledto Antarctica,for example,aept astrue theaount ofthose whohaveseen itthat it is wherethe mapslocate it.That childbirthis painfulisaepted bythose whohave notexperienced iton theword ofthosewhohave.And allofusregularlylearn ofall kinds of thingsonthebasis ofthe testimonyof newsreporters,teachers,writers,scientists,expert researchers,and soon.In everydaysituations,the informationacquiredinsuch a waycan,atleastin principle,be checked.What makesthe religioussituationdifferent isnot themeansof knowing,but thatthe topicsare notopen tobeingchecked.So theinformation givenby thereligious teachercan onlybe aeptedon trust,orbelieved.A philosopherwouldconsiderthis uncheckabilityunaeptable andwould notregardsuch informationabout the nature of reality as valid.Working onthe sametopics,aphilosopher wouldrely onlyon processesof knowingthat arerational orlogical.Thediscipline ofphilosophy thusspecifically concernsitself withwhat areknown as thelimitsof knowledge.That isto say,it seeksto establishthe criteriaaording towhich datacanand cannotlegitimately beunderstood tobe validknowledge.Theories ofknowledge(howwe know)arereferred toasepistemology.With regardto thesecond pointmentioned above,thattherewas notalways suchaclear-cut separationof whatis religiousand whatis-4-Of interestto bothreligion andphilosophyMetaphysics concernsthe natureof realityasa whole.It questionshow realityisfundamentally constituted,and thetypes andnatures of,and relationshipbetween,any constituentsthere maybe.The world/universe/cosmos,humanbeings,other beings,and causationare allimportant areasof interest.Epistemology(from theGreek episteme,meaningknowledge)is aboutmeans ofknowing.Common meansofknowinginclude logicalargument orreasoning,inference,testimony,perception.philosophical,the Western philosophical traditionbegan inpreChristian Greece,inamilieuand atatimewhen manywere seeking to knowmore aboutthe natureof reality.The aimandpurpose thenwas toachieve wisdomin thisrespect,and anyrelevant insightwasconceived ofin termsof beingwise:hence philosophylove ofwisdom.Philosophizing incorporatedno conceptof soteriologyas weunderstand it.But thevarioushypotheses aboutthenatureof realityput forwardbythegreat Greekphilosophersnevertheless coveredissues thatmightalsobe foundas partof religiousteachings.Theyconcerned themselveswiththenatureofthe worldand the humanbeing,and oftheimportance forthehumanbeing ofseeking tobee wise.This wasseenas the highestpossibleactivity forahumanbeing,which shouldbe aspiredto ifat allpossible.Suggestions were also made,notably bySocrates,as tohow onemight bihe questfor wisdom withliving anoptimally goodlife.After theGreeks,Western philosophyinthe Christian erawas formany centuriesdominatedby peoplewho werealso profoundlyreligious,and-5-who wereseeking tounderstand moreaboutGods world.Philosophers ofgreat originalinsightand influencesuch asAugustine,Anselm,Aquinas,Descartes,and Hegelwere allpractisingChristians,and soughtto resolverather thanseparate religiousandphilosophical issues.While theinterestsofthese greatthinkers wereextremelywideranging,one issuethat wasof particularconcern washow Godfitted intothestructure of reality.The existenceof Godas understoodbytheChristian traditionwastaken asaxiomatically trueasanarticle offaith,but attemptswerealsomade toestablishhis existenceby meansof rationalargument.In this way,faith would beinharmony,rather thanat odds,with reason.It wasalso argued,notably byDescartes,that thenatureof Godwas such that onemight safelyrely onhis assistanceinoveringthelimitations ofreasoning alone.Faith thusbined withreason inthe quest forunderstanding,and indeedextended thepossibilities ofunderstanding.Such philosopherswerewell awareofwhat they weredoing,but believedtheir approacha whollylegitimateone.The firstphilosopher intheChristianWest seriouslyto questionthe legitimacyofmixing faithand reasoninthequestforknowledge wasKant.Kant insistedthat what