One globally attested phenomenon in history is the stark change in the nature of human thought between the Bronze and Iron Ages. While there was some limited “academic” literature in Bronze Age Mesopotamia and Egypt (arithmetic and geometry, astronomy, medicine), the pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself, the scientific temparament (i.e. moving away from “magical” explanations), and introspection upon this knowledge did not exist until the so-called Axial Age starting c. 800 BC.
The causes for this revolution ought to be a central topic for historical study, and India being the birthplace of these innovations is the most valuable context to study this in. This note is a look at the development of philosophy in India from the earliest times up to the canonization period (~1000—100 BC), with some very brief comments on later developments for completeness, and examines the reasons why philosophy took exactly the shape it did.
There appear to be three basic motivating roots of Indian philosophy:
One of the clearest picture of the origins of Indian philosophy, especially from the third root, is provided by Yāska (c. 700 BC), who divides those who exegeted the Vedas into seven categories: Nairukta (etymologists), Aitihāsika (historians), Naidana (mixture of etymology and history), Pārivrājaka (ascetics or philosophers), Dharmaśāstrika (moralists), Vaiyākaraṇa (grammarians). For a comprehensive source see [1] Yāska and Pāṇini by Sreenivas Rao.
1—2 motivated the composition of the Upaniṣads; 3 motivated the composition of the Brāhmaṇas. The Āraṇyakas were the bridge between the two.
These were not yet competing points of view: and it was often the same figures involved in the composition of both, e.g. Yājñavalkya composed the most important (and one of the earliest) texts of each genre: Br̥hadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. In fact, some texts fit into both genres, or formed a supplement to a text of another genre.
In this period there are no firmly-set views, as the goal of philosophy was not to be right but to win debates. Those who won debates were rewarded with wealth, honour and wives, while losers were humiliated, exiled or (in this early period) even killed.
Some common themes and vocabulary in Indian philosophy, which will be useful to know for the subsequent sections.
A classification I will use, that is idiosyncratic to me, but which reflects their historical development and common features, and I think are the best way to understand these schools without the colour given to them by commentators biased towards their own. Roughly: I use Brāhmaṇa and Śramaṇa as indicators of cultural clusters in early times, and Āstika and Nāstika as indicating whether they accept a metaphysics. Hence referred to as AB, AS, NB, NS.
| Brāhmaṇa | Śramaṇa | |
|---|---|---|
| Āstika | Sāṃkhya—Yoga Nyāya—Vaiśeṣika Mīmāṃsā—Vedānta |
Bauddha Jaina |
| Nāstika | Cārvāka | Ajñāna Ājīvika—Akriyā—Śāśvata |
While these are the schools generally listed of “Indian philosophy”, there was also parallel socio-political tradition that emerged in the same period, i.e. the Artha and Dharmasūtra literature, which contributed significantly to the philosophy of ethics. The earliest of this is the Kalpasūtra genre, consisting of the Gr̥hyasūtras (800—500 BC), the Dharmasūtras (600—200 BC) and the Śrautasūtras (800—200 BC). These scholars often organized into schools named after ancient sages, perhaps reflecting gotras, such as Manu, Gautama, Vasiṣṭha, Bhāradvaja, Parāśara, and most importantly: Br̥haspati. The school of Br̥haspati was, in particular, responsible for the foundation of the Artha tradition, later expounded by the giant Kautilya, and for their origination of the NB philosophy.
Summary of metaphysics: A* schools accept Jīva; N* reject it. Although only AB explicitly accept Ātman and Brahman, AS schools “functionally” have it in the form of rebirth and mokṣa respectively. On ascetism vs. ritual, *S reject ritual and embrace ascetism, NB rejects both, AB is divided: Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Vedānta have a syncretic view (emphasize “true understanding” of ritual), Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika say “Sir this is a Natural Philosophy”, Mīmāṃsā and socio-political traditions reject ascetism and embrace ritual.
Descriptions of AB (i.e. “Hindu”) schools. In some cases these were directly opposed to one another, but often they were seen as concentrating on different aspects of philosophy, and didn’t neatly translate into the disagreements different philosophers had with each other. Generally speaking: N-V codify the Hindus’ philosophy of Ānvīkṣikī (physical science and logic, though e.g. Kautilya uses this term to include S-Y), S-Y codify their metaphysics and M-V codify its philosophy of religion and language.
Descriptions of NS schools. Most of what we know of these schools come from the Buddhist Pāli Canon (Brahmajāla and Samaññaphala Suttas) and the Jain Agamas (Agama 2: Sūtrakr̥tāṅga), which were redacted from the 5th—1st century BC. Ājīvika is also described in Patañjali’s Mahābhāsya 3.96 from 180 BC. All of these schools’ founders were said to be contemporary to or slightly earlier Buddha and Mahavira, thus in the 6th century BC.
Descriptions of NB (Cārvāka). Positivism and either ethical egoism or utilitarianism; dating from the 6th century BC or earlier. A note on the names used for this school.
These names are identified with each other in several places in the available literature. Unlike the NS schools, Cārvāka is well-attested in both AB and AS literature, and remained prominent well into medieval times, as attested by the many rebuttals against it by the scholars of other schools. Some references to read more about this:
The following may be regarded as the “canonical texts” of the philosophical schools (except the NS schools, which seem to have been lost, perhaps due to persecution by Aśoka c. 250 BC).
Imperial patronage was a significant cause for canonization, especially the patronage of Hindu schools by Puṣyamitra Śuṅga (c. 180 BC) and perhaps also Candragupta Maurya (c. 320 BC), of Buddhism by Aśoka (c. 250 BC) and of Jainism by Khāravēḷa of Kaliṅga (c. 180 BC).
The theme of canonization extended beyond philosophy. Puṣyamitra Śuṅga’s reign alone was responsible for the compilation of much of “Hinduism” as we know it: the epics (Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa), the grammatical text Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali, the completion of the medical Suśruta and Caraka Saṃhitās (whose compilation had begun c. 600 BC). Patañjali himself was probably the royal priest of Puṣyamitra.
On the canon alone, one notes Hindu and Jain canons to have been more focused on rational enquiry and pure philosophy, whereas the Buddhist canon is more centered on the personality cult of Buddha, and having more “religious” elements to it. This gulf shrinks in the classical period as the schools begin to mix and influence one another — and also as Hindu philosophy absorbs the theistic influences of the Bhāgavata and Śaiva cults.
For the latter, I will point to the following book on the rise of Hindu theocentric sects :
This was the peak of their relative cultural foothold for the Buddhists in India, and the main growth in Indian philosophy in this period came from the development of their philosophy, in particular of the Mahāyāna school. I will describe these in another post with a bibliography of major Indian literature, as I do not think there is much else in detail to comment on it.
Hindu scholarship saw a revival in the late Gupta period (~5th cen) in science as well as philosophy. With regards to philosophy in particular, two trends of note emerge: (1) the growth of several reformations or sub-schools and (2) formal scholarship on pre-existing religious cults.
With regards to the first, the notable reformations are:
The logical expositions of the Mīmāṃsā school are also worthy of note for their contributions to the philosophy of language, e.g. Bhartr̥hari (5th cen), Prabhākara (6th cen), Kumārila Bhaṭṭa (c. 700). Also worth a mention are the epic compositions of Vidyāraṇya (the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha) and Vācaspati Miśra summarizing and comparing the works of various schools.
This is only a small sample of the scholars and works of this period; it’s a long period, and works from this period onward are much better preserved than in the previous periods, with vast numbers of even unimportant philosophical treatises still extant today. The Wikipedia pages on the respective darśanas provide more than a decent bibliography; for an in-depth exposition see:
Something I will note is the close link between these reformations and the growth of theocentric Hinduism as seen in the Purāṇas and in the Bhakti school: as before, the rationalization of religion is a motive for philosophy, and in this case the heavy emphasis on a personal God (Saguṇa Brahman) was the motive for the Vedānta reformations.
TL;DR: The causes of the axial age are religion and debate.
Having something to obsess about (religion) and a source of competition (debate) to improve via self-play produces great outcomes. This is something also observed in e.g. Europe in the years leading up to the Modern Revolutions (Enlightenment, Industrial and Scientific). For what it’s worth, this is also why I think questions about why Medieval Islamics or Chinese couldn’t produce the trio of revolutions despite having access to all the pre-requisite knowledge are fundamentally misguided: they were simply too authoritarian; lacked the competitive spirit that is not needed for incremental progress but necessary for revolution.