Ancient and Medieval achievements of the Indians

Joshua A said:

4.3 Philosophical method

In the Upanishads we begin to see the emergence of a methodical and rational way of thinking, but not independent of traditional Vedic religion . This happens through a tripartite system of learning, comprising

1. Listening(Sharvana)
2. Contemplation(Manana)
3. Meditation(Nidhyasana)

As part of the tradition the student listens to discourses imparted by his teacher(guru) these discourses are contained with the Upanishads, explaining one of the etymological derivations of the word “Upanishad” to sit near and close to the guru as he imparts the discourse. This stage is the most crucial, because the student must have correctly listened to the information and correctly received it. Then, after the discourse has been given, the student contemplates on the meaning of the discourse, raises questions about it and clears their doubts with the teacher. Finally, the student goes away and meditates on the discourse to understand through experience what the discourse means. This was the earliest system of education in the world(covered in section 2)

The Upanishads represent a pre-systematic stage in Indian philosophy, similar to Presocratic philosophy in Western philosophy. Most of its lessons are told in the form of allegories, metaphors and symbolism very much keeping in with the temper of the Vedas. Although one must remember the Upanishads are not rational or scientific texts, they are closer to poetry, of a religious nature. In this sense the Upanishads are as much Hindu theology as they are philosophy, because they are scriptures at the same time which give moral lessons and preach about God and supernatural things. However, we do find the semblance of attempts to prove philosophical propositions in some of the Upanishads centuries before(SC) Parmenides and Plato.

The argument for the existence of an invisible unmanifest substance

In the Chandogya Upanishad a dialogue is presented between the sage Uddalaka and his son Shvetaketu. His son has just graduated from his Vedic studies at the age of 24 and is returning learned scholars. Uddalaka noticing his conceitedness, challenges him thus:

1.His father said to him: 'Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?'

2.'What is that instruction, Sir?' he asked.
He now presents several arguments to prove that there is an invisible being:

3.'Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Nyagrodha tree.'
'Here is one, Sir.' Break it.'
'It is broken, Sir.'
'What do you see there?'
'These seeds, almost infinitesimal.'
'Break one of them.'
'It is broken, Sir.'
'What do you see there?'
'Not anything, Sir.'

4. The father said: 'My son, that subtle essence which you do not perceive there, of that very essence this great Nyagrodha tree exists.

5.'Believe it, my son. That which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, OSvetaketu, art it.'

6.'Place this salt in water, and then wait on me in the morning.'
The son did as he was commanded.
The father said to him: 'Bring me the salt, which you placed in the water last night.' The son having looked for it, found it not, for, of course, it was melted.

7. The father said: 'Taste it from the surface of the water. How is it?'
The son replied: 'It is salt.'
'Taste it from the middle. How is it?'
The son replied: 'It is salt.'
'Taste it from the bottom. How is it?'
The son replied 'It is salt.'
The father said Throw it away 1 and then wait on me.'
He did so; but salt exists for ever.
Then the father said: 'Here also, in this body, forsooth, you do not perceive the True (Sat), my son; but there indeed it is.

8. 'That which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, O Svetaketu, art it.'

Chandogya Upanishad VI, 12

​

The argument gives empirical examples of things which are real, but we cannot perceive them with our senses. When matter is broken down into infinitesimal parts, we no longer can perceive them, but obviously they are there, because it the collations of them which make up matter. This is later developed by the Vaiseshika darsana into the theory of atoms. However, the Upanishads is not presenting an atomic philosophy here, it is saying that there is an ultimate singular substance to which everything is reducible, the absolute being, which we cannot see. It pervades everything just as salt pervades salt-water, though we cannot see it, we feel its presence everywhere in existence. This great being of the Upanishad is consciousness, because everything being a name and form is reducible to it.

The argument for the invisible entity(soul) self via which livings things are living:

In the same dialogue above an argument is given for why we should infer that there is living entity present in living things, and when that living entity is not present, that living thing dies.

1. If some one were to strike at the root of this large tree here, it would bleed, but live. If he were to strike at its stem, it would bleed, but live. If he were to strike at its top, it would bleed, but live.Pervaded by the living Self that tree stands firm, drinking in its nourishment and rejoicing;

2. 'But if the life (the living Self) leaves one of its branches, that branch withers; if it leaves a second, that branch withers; if it leaves a third, that branch withers. If it leaves the whole tree, the whole tree withers 1. In exactly the same manner, my son, know this.' Thus he spoke:

3. 'This (body) indeed withers and dies when the living Self has left it; the living Self dies not.
'That which is that subtile essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou, Svetaketu, art it.'​

The arguments for why the body and mind are not the self

In the Chandogya Upanishad a dialogue is presented between the creator(Prajapati) and the chief of the gods Indra, and the chief of the demons Virochana. In this dialogue a deductive argument is adduced for why the Self is not the body and mind, by beginning with a definition of the self, then after giving the definition of the self, Prajapati proceeds to make statement of what the Self is, Virochana accepts the first statement and does not realize the fallacy, whereas Indra discriminates correctly and keeps coming back for further instruction.

1. Pragâpati said: 'The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.'

2. The Devas (gods) and Asuras (demons) both heard these words, and said: 'Well, let us search for that Self by which, if one has searched it out, all worlds and all desires are obtained.'
Thus saying Indra went from the Devas, Virokana from the Asuras, and both, without having communicated with each other, approached Pragâpati,
holding fuel in their hands, as is the custom for pupils approaching their master.

3. They dwelt there as pupils for thirty-two years. Then Pragâpati asked them: 'For what purpose have you both dwelt here?'
They replied: 'A saying of yours is being repeated, viz. "the Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires." Now we both have dwelt here because we wish for that Self.'
Pragâpati said to them: 'The person that is seen in the eye , that is the Self. This is what I have said. This is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'

4.They asked: 'Sir, he who is perceived in the water, and he who is perceived in a mirror, who is he?'
He replied: 'He himself indeed is seen in all these .'

5. 'Look at your Self in a pan of water, and whatever you do not understand of your Self , come and tell me.'
They looked in the water-pan. Then Pragâpati said to them: 'What do you see?'
They said: 'We both see the self thus altogether, a picture even to the very hairs and nails.'

6. Pragâpati said to them: 'After you have adorned yourselves, have put on your best clothes and cleaned yourselves, look again into the water-pan.
They, after having adorned themselves, having put on their best clothes and cleaned themselves, looked into the water-pan.
Pragâpati said: 'What do you see?'

7. They said: 'Just as we are, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean, thus we are both there, Sir, well adorned, with our best clothes and clean.'
Pragâpati said: 'That is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'
Then both went away satisfied in their hearts.

8. And Pragâpati, looking after them, said: 'They both go away without having perceived and without having known the Self, and whoever of these two , whether Devas or Asuras, will follow this doctrine (upanishad), will perish.'
Now Virokana, satisfied in his heart, went to the Asuras and preached that doctrine to them, that the self (the body) alone is to be worshipped, that the
self (the body) alone is to be served, and that he who worships the self and serves the self, gains both worlds, this and the next.

9. Therefore they call even now a man who does not give alms here, who has no faith, and offers no sacrifices, an Âsura, for this is the doctrine (upanishad) of the Asuras. They deck out the body of the dead with perfumes, flowers, and fine raiment by way of ornament, and think they will thus conquer that world .
Here can see a criticism of the doctrine of materialism, likening it to a demonic and ignorant philosophy mistaking the body for the self and gratifying only the needs of the body.

10. But Indra, before he had returned to the Devas, saw this difficulty. As this self (the shadow in the water) is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame , crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).

11. Taking fuel in his hand he came again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him: 'Maghavat (Indra), as you went away with Virokana, satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?'
He said: 'Sir, as this self (the shadow) is well adorned, when the body is well adorned, well dressed, when the body is well dressed, well cleaned, if the body is well cleaned, that self will also be blind, if the body is blind, lame, if the body is lame, crippled, if the body is crippled, and will perish in fact as soon as the body perishes. Therefore I see no good in this (doctrine).'

12. 'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.'
He lived with him another thirty-two years, and then Pragâpati said:

13. 'He who moves about happy in dreams, he is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'
Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. Although it is true that that self is not blind, even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),

14. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him .
He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.
Taking fuel in his hands, he went again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him: 'Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?'

15. He said: 'Sir, although it is true that that self is not blind even if the body is blind, nor lame, if the body is lame, though it is true that that self is not rendered faulty by the faults of it (the body),

16. Nor struck when it (the body) is struck, nor lamed when it is lamed, yet it is as if they struck him (the self) in dreams, as if they chased him. He becomes even conscious, as it were, of pain, and sheds tears. Therefore I see no good in this.'
'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you. Live with me another thirty-two years.'
He lived with him another thirty-two years. Then Pragâpati said:

17. 'When a man being asleep, reposing, and at perfect rest , sees no dreams, that is the Self, this is the immortal, the fearless, this is Brahman.'
Then Indra went away satisfied in his heart. But before he had returned to the Devas, he saw this difficulty. In truth he thus does not know himself (his self) that he is I, nor does he know anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this.

18. Taking fuel in his hand he went again as a pupil to Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him: 'Maghavat, as you went away satisfied in your heart, for what purpose did you come back?'
He said: 'Sir, in that way he does not know himself (his self) that he is I, nor does he know anything that exists. He is gone to utter annihilation. I see no good in this!

19. 'So it is indeed, Maghavat,' replied Pragâpati; 'but I shall explain him (the true Self) further to you, and nothing more than this . Live here other five years.'
He lived there other five years. This made in all one hundred and one years, and therefore it is said that Indra Maghavat lived one hundred and one years as a pupil with Pragâpati. Pragâpati said to him:

20. 'Maghavat, this body is mortal and always held by death. It is the abode of that Self which is immortal and without body . When in the body (by thinking this body is I and I am this body) the Self is held by pleasure and pain. So long as he is in the body, he cannot get free from pleasure and pain. But when he is free of the body (when he knows himself different from the body), then neither pleasure nor pain touches him .

21. 'The wind is without body, the cloud, lightning, and thunder are without body (without hands, feet, &c.) Now as these, arising from this heavenly ether (space), appear in their own form, as soon as they have approached the highest light,

22. 'Thus does that serene being, arising from this body, appear in its own form, as soon as it has approached the highest light (the knowledge of Self He (in that state) is the highest person (uttama pûrusha). He moves about there laughing (or eating), playing, and rejoicing (in his mind), be it with women, carriages, or relatives, never minding that body into which he was born
'Like as a horse attached to a cart, so is the spirit (prâna, pragñâtman) attached to this body.
'Now where the sight has entered into the void (the open space, the black pupil of the eye), there is the person of the eye, the eye itself is the instrument of seeing. He who knows, let me smell this, he is the Self, the nose is the instrument of smelling. He who knows, let me say this, he is the Self, the tongue is the instrument of saying. He who knows, let me hear this, he is the Self, the ear is the instrument of hearing.

23. 'He who knows, let me think this, he is the Self, the mind is his divine eye . He, the Self, seeing these pleasures (which to others are hidden like a buried treasure of gold) through his divine eye, i. e. the mind, rejoices.
'The Devas who are in the world of Brahman meditate on that Self (as taught by Pragâpati to Indra, and by Indra to the Devas). Therefore all worlds belong to them, and all desires. He who knows that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.' Thus said Pragâpati, yea, thus said Pragâpati.

Chandogya Upanishad VIII, 7

​

The argument can be summarized as follows

1. 'The Self is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, without desire etc
2. The waking self/body is not free from sin, old age, death, grief, hunger and thirst and desire
3. Therefore the body is not the Self
4. The dream self/mind(jiva, meaning individual soul) though free from the defects of the body(old age, death, blindness) is not free of grief and desire
5. Therefore the dream self is not the Self
6. The sleep-self/unmanifest though has neither sin, old age, death, grief, hunger and thirst, yet it is unconscious and is from this unconscious from which come sin, old age, death, grief, hunger and thirst.
7. Therefore the sleep self is not the Self

The Self is the common denominator present in the waking, dreaming and sleeping state, the one that is aware of the body and its changes, the mind and its changes and aware of the coming in and out of sleep. The body, mind and matter all cannot be the Self, nor can a combination of them be the Self, because they are

1. Objects of the self’s awareness
2. Changing

The Self is the exact opposite, the awareness within which they take place and unchanging, by which the changes in the body, mind and matter are known. This philosophy is known as the Samkhya(analysis), the philosophy of discrimination between the Self and not Self. Arguably, Samkhya is what characterizes all Indian philosophical thought and it out of which Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism have originated. It the core of the Mahabhatrata and the Gita. It is also the master philosophy behind Yoga and Tantra. It is also forms the core theoretical concepts of Ayurveda. It is also the core of Indian concepts karma and reincarnation. Later, the Samkhya we find in the Upanishads, is developed into a rigorous Darsana of the same name, defining two fundamental and technical concepts in Indian thought: Purusha and Prakriti.

Conclusion

We have seen when, where and how the Indian philosophical tradition started, having its beginning in the sacrificial religion of the Vedas in 1500BCE(SC), with the philosophical speculations of the later Vedic people attempting to see greater meaning in their sacrificial rituals, leading to envisioning the whole universe itself as a great sacrifice of the primordial person(purusha), whose substance makes up all the world. They saw the universe as being a cosmic organism, and like all organisms, having an origin in a cosmic womb. Like any organism, the universe was seen to be organic, self-regulating and having purpose. Similarly, having been born, its death was also conceived (mahapralya) The birth, life and death of the universe was later personified in the Hindu trinity of Brahma(creative aspect) Vishnu(preserver aspect) and Shiva(destructive aspect)
The greatest discovery of the Vedic people was that everything within the universe is just a microcosm of the universe, a whole like the universe is a whole, organic, self-regulating and purposeful. This naturally lends to ecological and organic vision of reality, where all beings are part and parcel of the same divine ONE and hence the spirit of universal humanism. Still, greater was the realization of the Vedic people that we(humans) can know the entire universe just by knowing ourselves – and yet still even greater the realization that the universe was one consciousness playing out in diverse forms, and we are that.

Now, having shown that the birth of philosophy took place in India first in the Vedic tradition, in the next section will see how Indian philosophy evolved and then gave birth to the first science in the world too in the Sutra period of Indian history when the Darsanas arose. I have been looking forward to doing this section as I am as lover of science, and it is the love of science that actually brought me to Indian philosophy in the first place.

References

1.Three philosophical traditions
2.The Vedas
3.rita (Hinduism) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
4.http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/vishnu/nasadiya.pdf
5.Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda) « Deepesh' Blog
6.The Nasadiya Sukta | Philosophy Blog on Speakingtree.in
7.The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01) Index

Click to expand...

Scholars disagree about the exact dates of the composition of the Upanishads. Different researchers have provided different dates for the Vedic and Upanashic eras. Some authors believe the oldest of these, the Brihadaranyaka, Jaiminiya Upanisadbrahmana and the Chandogya Upanishads, were composed during the pre-Buddhist era of India,[6][7][note 10] while the Taittiriya, Aitareya and Kausitaki, which show Buddhist influence, must have been composed after the 5th century BCE.[7] The remainder of the mukhya Upanishads are dated to the last few centuries BCE.

Click to expand...

Jinit said:

Can anybody tell me why is it important to prove Indian philosophical tradition older than all the others to essentially show the Indian philosophy as an achievements of Indians?

Click to expand...

Joshua A said:

I guess it is just a matter of pride, which I think Indian people severely lack. Europe take great pride in being the first to certain things, like for example they claim to be the first to have done philosophy, science, art.

Click to expand...

Joshua A said:

However, the beginning of philosophy is traced to 600BCE in Greece beginning with Thales.

Click to expand...

Edgewaters said:

Near Eastern influences in the early history are almost universally acknowledged.

Click to expand...

Joshua A said:

As an addendum to my recently completed section on Indian philosophy, I decided to add a section on the influence of Indian philosophy on other philosophical traditions. The influence of Indian philosophy on the Western tradition is very significant and it is found significantly in the Pre-Soctatic , Platonic, Hellenic and Modern period. Western philosophy is conventionally divided into four major periods: Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary, which in are turn are subdivided as:

Ancient(600BCE to 500AD)

1. Presocratics(600BCE-500BCE)
2. Classical/Platonic(500BCE-300BCE)
3. Hellenic(300BCE-100CE)
4. Early Roman and Christian thinkers(100CE to 500CE)

Medieval(500CE-1500CE)

5.Early medieval(500-1050CE)
6. Scholastic (1050AD-1350CE)

7.Renaissance(1350-1650CE)

8.Modern(1650-1900CE)

9.Contemporary(1900CE-present)

The influence of Indian philosophy on the Western tradition is seldom acknowledged, treating it either as a minor influence or a negligible influence, not even worth mentioning.(Indeed, how many of you when studying history were told about Indian influences on the history of philosophy and science?) I think this is born out of Eurocentric representations of history or Orientialism as Said termed it, in order to construct the history of Western philosophy as being purely Western, so that the West remains the West and the East remains the East. However, the truth is the influence is very very significant and it becomes obvious to anybody who studies the history of world philosophy. Historians generally acknowledge some Indian influences on Hellenic and modern philosophy, because then India and the West were in direct contact. The first corridor of philosophical exchange was opened by Alexander’s invasions into India in 300BCE. Indian philosophers were sought after by the Greeks and held in high esteem, and many Greek philosophers traveled to India. Many Hellenic philosophical traditions, such as Neo-platonists, Skeptics, Stoics, Epicureans, NeoPythagoreans were almost completely derived from Indian philosophy.

The second exchange happened during the modern age, when gradually Indian ideas started to travel into Europe during the Renaissance and early modern age, through translations of important Indian texts like mathematical, medical, botanical texts, the most visible of these transmissions is the Indian decimal system. By 1800AD, most of India’s philosophical and scientific texts were available and known in Europe. Many scientific and philosophical discoveries made in the modern age are indebted to the Indians, though we do not learn about this at school. This includes modern mathematics, linguistics, logic, psychology, medicine and metallurgy.

Indian influence on Presocratics

Although modern historians begrudgingly acknowledge some Indian influences on Western philosophy and science post Alexander, accepting Indian influence Pre-Alexander on Platonic and as far back as Presocratic is highly controversial. This has lead to the scholarly lazy consensus that Indian philosophy and Greek philosophy are independent traditions (although ironically, they claim Indian logic and astronomy is influenced by the Greeks!) There is some reason though for this, because prior to Alexander the Greeks had no direct contact with the Indians, little was written about India and the Greeks had a very poor understanding of Indian geography. Therefore, it is ruled that it is impossible for Indians influence on Greek philosophy prior to Alexander. However, this is a false dilemma. While there may not have been direct contact between the Indians and the Greeks, there certainly would have been indirect contact between the Indians the Greeks via the Persians around 600BCE. It is now a well known fact in scholarship that Indian and Greek scholars were both present in Darius's court. Also from 600-500BCE Indian philosophy was taught formally in Indian universities such as Taxshashilla(modern day Afghanistan) This was then the only university in the world and famous, so it would have been certainly known to the Persians, and hence the Greeks.

Do we have reason to suspect an Indian influence on Presocratic and Platonic/classical Greek philosophy? I will show through the following arguments influence is very likely, if not certain:

1. Philosophy appears in Greece in 600BCE suddenly and mysteriously without any precedents, and it is widely acknowledged in scholarship there were foreign influence on the Greeks and the Greeks travelled to the East, but which Eastern foreign influences?

2. It appears at same time as the Orphic religion which also appears suddenly and mysteriously, and has nothing in common with the traditional religions in Greece, yet has near identical doctrines to Indian religions

3. The philosophical theories and ideas are too similar to even older Indian philosophical theories and ideas for it to be considered a coincidence

4. The Indian tradition is almost 1000 years older and by 600BCE the traditional starting point of Greek philosophy, it has already reached maturity. It is being taught formally in universities in India. The Indian tradition is more advanced and sophisticated than its Greek counterpart, suggesting an osmosis of knowledge diffusing from India into Greece, with India as the superior source and Greece as the inferior source.

5. The Greeks were in contact with the Indians via the Persians. There are Greek accounts of contacts with Indian philosophers as early as Pythagoras, and even with Socrates.

Let us consider each fact one by one

1. The first philosopher in Greek history is Thales and very little is known about Thales, Thales was one of the legendary 7 sages that found Greek civilization.(1) A similar myth appears in India. The founders of Indian civilization are the 7 Risis or 7 sages(2) Isn't that a bit too much of a coincidence? Thales believed that the primordial substance of life and the universe was a divine substance of water, out of which was fashioned all the forms. As we see saw in section 4.1, the Indians also had a belief that everything was born out of a divine water of which all forms were created. The primeval waters are first described in the Nasadiya Sukta in book 10 of the Rig Veda.

2. The Orphic religion is a mysterious set of religions that appeared in Greece in 600BCE in parallel to the popular and older Greek religions at the time, ironically the same time as the Presoctatics. The Orphic reigions influence has been noted very strongly on many Presocratic philosophers such as Pythagoras and Plato. The doctrines of the Orphic religion were3, 4, 5)

* A belief in the soul being immortal, transmigrating from birth to birth from plants, animals and humans
* a belief in a constant wheel of rebirth and the aim of life is to be released from this rebirth
*A belief in non-violence towards all living things and the practice of vegetarianism
* A belief that man’s purpose is to become God
* A belief in union with God/s and a set of acestietic practices
* A belief that creation has proceeded from a cosmic egg, depicted as an egg with a snake wrapped around it(orphic egg)
* Founded upon sacred writings containing hymns worshiping the gods​

One of the Orphic hymns dedicated to the God Dionysus, sounds like a hymn to Shiva/Rudra from the Rig Veda3)

I call upon loud-roaring and revelling Dionysus,
primeval, double-natured, thrice-born, Bacchic lord,
wild, ineffable, secretive, two-horned and two-shaped.
Ivy-covered, bull-faced, warlike, howling, pure,
You take raw flesh, you have feasts, wrapt in foliage, decked with grape clusters.
Resourceful Eubouleus, immortal god sired by Zeus
When he mated with Persephone in unspeakable union.
Hearken to my voice, O blessed one,
and with your fair-girdled nymphs breathe on me in a spirit of perfect agape.​

Shiva/Rudra is described as the howler, destructive, intoxicated, the father of the storm gods, bull-faced, two horned.

There is no other part of the world where all these beliefs were found except in India. Even today the signature beliefs of Indic religions is a belief in a wheel or rebirth, transmigration of souls from animals, plants and humans, non-violence, and moksha(liberation) These beliefs come from the Samkhya philosophy of India, which is the common philosophy of Indic religions Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Some of the tenets of this philosophy are

1. The soul is immortal
2. The five elements forming matter
3. Matter entangles/imprisons the soul
4. The soul transmigrates and evolves from life time life time, starting in the mineral kingdom, then vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom and then human
5. The means to release from the cycle of transmigration is through knowledge and acetic practices to withdraw the soul from matter
6. Creation has evolved and proceeded from a cosmic egg​

The Samkhya philosophy is the oldest philosophy in the Indic tradition and characterizes Indic thought. The fact that it is found in 600BCE appearing out of nowhere in Greece highly suggests an Indian fertilization of Greece in 600BCE. This has been noted by several scholars, including the first and most famous European scholar on Samkhya Richard Garbe, who said that it was doubtless that there was a great Samkhya influence on the doctrines of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Epicurus. Even Max Muller, argued that Pythagoras must have traveled as far as India, or was in contact with Indians via the Persians. He received his mathematical theorem from the Sulba Sutras. And it is said that he received the ideas of the science of music, the importance of the numbers, and the existence of the fifth element from Samkhya. His religious beliefs were all decidedly Indian: non-violence, vegetarianism, avoiding eating certain beans and considering it a sin to spit at fire. Most recently the critically acclaimed scholar Thomas Mcveilly has shown from his decades of painstreaking research the very obvious Indic origins of Greek philosophy.(7)

3. The philosophical theories of the Greeks are too similar to older Indian ones making it unlikely that they have independent origin

Platonic philosophy

As convincingly shown by N Kazanas, a Greek and Sanskrit scholar, the similarities between Platonic philosophy and the Upanishads are too significant to dismiss8)

As we see in the Upanishadic philosophy that there is a divine Self within us which is immortal, which transmigrates from birth to birth, and the only means via which is can be released is to seek self-knowledge(philosophy) and practice of virtue. By knowing this great self everything will be known. The Upanishads very much belabour this point over and over again. More or less the exact same ideas appear in Plato’s works, and Plato very much like the earlier Upanishadic sages tried to prove the existence of this immortal soul and its pre-existence. In fact, the very definition of philosophy that Plato gave was the quest to know ones self and realize the Self.

He is made by Plato to say in the dialogue Phaidros (229E) “It seems to me ludicrous to study things external when I don’t know my own self”. So in the Socratic-Platonic teaching philosophia entailed Self-knowledge.This particular aspect is not entirely new. Some of the pre-Socratic philosophers also refer to self-knowledge. Herakleitos, this enigmatic aristocrat who lived in Ephesus about 100
years before Socrates, says in one of the extant fragments “I sought to know myself” edizeasazmean emautozn. This quest for self-knowledge is central to Greek thought and is encapsulated in the ancient dictum, ascribed to Chilon and Thales and others of the Seven Sages and, of course, to the Delphic Oracle, “Know thyself” gnoaZthi s’autozn; the
origin of this tradition is lost in the mists of Greek prehistory (Betz 1970)

Phaidros 230A: here Socrates states, “I cannot yet say according to the Delphic
inscription that I know myself; so it seems to me ludicrous, when I do not yet know this,
to study irrelevant things... I investigate not these things [=physics, etc] but myself to
know whether I am a monstrous, complicated creature... or a simpler being by nature
partaking of a divine and undeluded character”. In an earlier dialogue, it was said that
Self-knowledge is the “science of sciences” (Charmideas 169D-E).​

This fits near perfectly with the definition of philosophy as Atmajnana, literally meaning knowledge of the self, which the Upanishad call paravidya(highest science). It fits with the methods of the Upanishads using Jnana, meaning self-inquiry and meditation to turn inwards. It fits the goals of such actions the realization of an unchanging and ultimate being. Plato’s works may as well just be another Upanishad.

The metaphor of the chariot for the soul

Again does it not strike you as too much of a coincidence that both Plato-Socrates and Upanishads would describe the soul using the metaphor of a chariot:

Here is Plato:
“Let us liken the soul to a pair of winged horses and a driver. The horses and drivers of the gods are noble and good but those of other beings are mixed. Among us humans, the charioteer drives a pair: one of the horses is noble and good but the other is of opposite breed and character. So in our case the driving is of necessity troublesome and difficult... The soul looks after all that is inanimate and roams round heaven... When it is perfect and fully winged it rises up and governs the whole world. But a soul that has lost its wing carries on only until it gets hold of something solid and then settles down taking on an earthly body... The whole now, soul and body fused, is called a living being with the epithet “mortal” (Phaidros 246 A-C).
A little later (253D ff) Plato gives additional features. The horse on the right is upright, clean and white, loves honour, temperance and modesty; a companion of true glory, obeying only reason (logos), it needs no whip. The one on the left is dark-hued, crooked and heavy; it is a companion of insolence and arrogance and only just obeys the whip.Ultimately however, the state of the soul is determined by the condition of the charioteer
as well as by the condition of the horses, whether they have wings or not and whether superiority in strength is with the white horse which obeys reason or the dark one of unreason. The charioteer may be strong or weak according to his education and experience (Phaidros 253D-254E).​

Although the details of Plato's chariot metaphor are not exactly the same in the Upanishads, the general features are the same. The body-mind-soul Is described as a composite, with the body as the chariot, the horses as the senses, the mind as the charioteer controlling the senses, and the soul as the passenger on board the chariot. The condition of the soul is determined by who the charioteer is. In the Bhagvad Gita this same metaphor is beautifully presented with Krishna the supreme God himself being the charioteer of Arjuna, and guiding him to wisdom.

The chariot metaphor for the soul is first presented in much greater detail than Plato in the Katha Upanishad:

3. 'Know the Self to be sitting in the chariot, the body to be the chariot, the intellect (buddhi) the charioteer, and the mind the reins 3.'
4. 'The senses they call the horses, the objects of the senses their roads. When he (the Highest Self) is in union with the body, the senses, and the mind, then wise people call him the Enjoyer.'
5. 'He who has no understanding and whose mind (the reins) is never firmly held, his senses (horses) are unmanageable, like vicious horses of a charioteer.'
6. 'But he who has understanding and whose mind is always firmly held, his senses are under control, like good horses of a charioteer.'
7. 'He who has no understanding, who is unmindful and always impure, never reaches that place, but enters into the round of births.'
8. 'But he who has understanding, who is mindful and always pure, reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again.'
9. 'But he who has understanding for his charioteer, and who holds the reins of the mind, he reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu.'​

There are several more similarities, please read his article for more.

4.The fact is very clear, for every presocratic and classical philosophical theory and idea there is an older Indian analogue. However, they are not equal and equivalent, in all instances the Indian analogue is superior in its detail and development, which should be expected if there was only an indirect contact between the Greeks and the Indians prior to Alexander.

The five elements in Pythagoras vs the five elements in Samkhya

Pythagoras:

The five elements are literally considered as substances earth, fire, air water and ether. There is confusion over which of these substances are the ultimate substance in Presocratic thought, with the eventual concensus being that everything is a composite of all four elements. They are understood in terms of their properties fire as hot, earth as cold, air as light and respectively given a position earth is heavy so it falls, fire rises. When understood literally as an ontological theory the five elements are obviously a wrong classification of the world, things are not literally made of fire, earth and water.

Samkhya:

The Samkhya five elements is derived from an epistemological theory. The five elements are seen as basic sensory elements which make up our empirical world, each element being received by one of five senses. These are arranged into sets:

Earth: Smell: Nose
Water: taste: tongue
Light: colour: Eyes
Wind: touch: skin
Ether: Sound: Ears

The Samkhya further understood that they are not literally substances, but are made out of basic sensory elements which make them up(tanmatras)
Another idea not present in the Greek version but present in the Samkhya is that these elements evolve from one another. First there is sound(waves) then wind(forces) then light(energy) then water(subatomic particles) and then earth(atoms) The basic understanding which is prevalent in Indic thought that all matter and forms proceed from sound vibrations is not present in Greek thought.

Democritus theory of atoms vs Vaiseshika theory of atoms

I will cover atomic sciences of the Indians as part of the next section, but it needs to be said the Democritus theory of atoms is almost laughable in comparison to the vastly superior and scientific Vaiseshika one which considers atoms to be infinitesimal points that combine through chemical reactions in binary or teritary pairs. On the other hand, Democritus tells us atoms are made out of different shapes, some have hooks, some have eyes

The philosophy of the Self in Plato vs the philosophy of Self in the Upanishads

The definition of the self in Platonic thought is dualistic, the self is literally a composite entity containing a rational and irrational aspect, transmigrating from birth to birth. It is distinct from the body and it is distinct from the world. The aim of philosophy is to purify this self from the dross/impurities to reveal its pure nature. The metaphor of the soul being imprisoned by the body is used by Plato.

In the Upanshadic thought the Platonic Self corresponds to the jiva(individual self) which is a false self, a physical mental complex comprising of intellect, ego and mind. It transmigrates from birth to birth taking on different bodies as per its karma. Although the jiva is distinct from the body, it is made of the same substance that makes up the body, only a finer grade of it. It is affected by the food we eat and by the environment. It is not conscious, but only has reflected consciousness. It is born at the beginning of creation and is destroyed at the end of creation.(For this reason there is no mind-body problem in Indian philosophy)

The real Self in the Upanishads is non-dualistic, not a composite entity, is not born, does not die, does not transmigrate. It is only a witness, the unchanging eternal consciousness which is behind the false self. It is identical to the cosmic self Brahman. The aim of philosophy is to correctly discriminate the false self(not self) or body-mind complex from the real self(pure consciousness)

We can see Socrates-Plato had no idea of this non-dual self, nor was any link made between the individual self and the cosmic self. We also see contradictions that the Self is considered to have an eternal and unchanging aspect, yet it is considered t be created at the same time. A non-dual self does not appear in Greek thought until the Neoplatonists and Gnostics. This becomes explicable if Socrates-Plato only had indirect contact with Indians, whereas the Neoplatonists had direct contact. Overall, Socratic philosophy lacks the idea of a great oneness or universal being from which mind and bodies have come from leaving a gap in explaining the link between the soul, body and cosmos. This gap is not filled till Plotinus.

The fact that we consistently find that the Greek counterpart is always lesser refined and developed than its Indian counterpart is consistent with the theory that Greece was only in indirect contact with the Indians. Indian ideas must have traveled into and fertilized Greece via Greco-Persian contact, seeding the Orphic religions and stimulating a philosophical revolution in Greece, spawning the Presocratics and culminating with Platonic thought. Thus we can say that the Greek philosophical tradition, though was begetted by the Indian philosophical tradition, took on its own trajectory with incomplete ideas.

5. The most clinching evidence for the contact between Presocratic philosophers and Indian comes from early Greco-Roman historians themselves, who have records of the travels of Greek philosophers to India and of Indian philosophers being present in India teaching Greeks.
It is a well-known fact in scholarship that Greek philosophers all made it a point to travel to the East in search of higher wisdom, thus foreign influences for their ideas is already acknowledged. They visited Egypt, Babylon and Persia, but for some strange reason historians stop short of mentioning India as one of those destinations. This is ironic, considering the fact there are blatant records describing visits to India and contact with Indian Brahmins.

Alexander Polyhistor(100CE) Apuleius(200CE) Philostratus(200BCE) all state that Pythagoras learned his philosophy from the Indian Brahmins.(9) Eusbius(300AD) quoting Arisogenes Aristotle student, records an anecdote of Socrates meeting an Indian Brahmin in the Agora(market place) When the Brahmin asked Socrates what he was doing, Socrates told him he was questioning people to understand man. The Brahmin laughed and said how can you understand man without first understanding God? Diogenes Laeritus also records contacts with India and a visit of Democritus to India.(10)

The evidence is highly significant, that most scholars have admitted there was an Indian influence on Pythagoras, and that he probably traveled to India. This includes

Richard Garb, the first and most famous European scholar of Samkhya philosophy:
Colebrooke, the first European translator of Hindu philosophical systems
Sir William Jones, the founder of PIE and comparative linguistics

Professor H. G. Rawlinson writes:

" It is more likely that Pythagoras was influenced by India than by Egypt. Almost all the theories, religions, philosophical and mathematical taught by the Pythagoreans, were known in India in the sixth century B.C., and the Pythagoreans, like the Jains and the Buddhists, refrained from the destruction of life and eating meat and regarded certain vegetables such as beans as taboo" "It seems that the so-called Pythagorean theorem of the quadrature of the hypotenuse was already known to the Indians in the older Vedic times, and thus before Pythagoras (ibid). (Legacy of India 1937, p. 5).

Professor Maurice Winternitz writes "As regards Pythagoras, it seems to me very probable that he became acquainted with Indian doctrines in Persia." (Visvabharati Quarterly Feb. 1937, p. 8).

It is also the view of Sir William Jones (Works, iii. 236), Colebrooke (Miscellaneous Essays, i. 436 ff.). Schroeder (Pythagoras und die Inder), Garbe (Philosophy of Ancient India, pp. 39 ff), Hopkins (Religions of India, p. 559 and 560) and Macdonell (Sanskrit Literature, p. 422).​

The preponderance of evidence is too great to deny the Indic origins of Presocratic and Classical Greek philosophy.

Indian influence on Hellenic philosophy

At stage it becomes impossible to deny Indian influences on Greek philosophy, because in this period there were Indo-Greek kingdoms and great philosophical exchange happening between both cultures directly. In this period we see the emergence of many new philosophical movements in Greece like the Skeptics, Epicureans, Stoics, Gnostics, Neo-Platonists with very obvious Indian influences. In this period we also see records of regular visits of delegations of Indian philosophers to Greece and Greek philosophers to India to seek Indian knowledge. Plotinus was a fan of Indian philosophy, he is said to fought in the Persian wars just so he could occasion a visit to India. Another tradition says that he did in fact visit India or attempt a visit.(op.cit) Plotinus fills in the gaps to unify Plato’s philosophy using the Upanishadic philosophy of levels of descent from the ONE, linking the soul with the cosmic soul. This is clear to see if you compare Plotinus side by side with Vedanta(11)

Plotinus: The ultimate realty is the one supreme being, which is beyond opposites, descriptions and without attributes and is beyond the reach of rational inquiry. This supreme being is the supreme goodness, blessed one and the source of pure love and spirit i.e., it is God.

Vedanta This corresponds to Nirguna Brahman, literally God without attributes. Nirguna Brahman is also beyond the reach of rational inquiry, beyond opposites and beyond description. It is Satchitananda, truth, consciousness and bliss.

Plotinus: From the One emanates the Nous, an image of God. The nous is a perfect image of God(but distinct from it in fact we can name it as separation from God) It is creation and corresponds to the undifferentiated cosmic intelligence out of which both matter and mind emanate from. The nous, also known as the demiurge, is the energy of God which produces this creation and turns the ONE into the many. Nous is the highest height reason can reach.

Vedanta: This corresponds to Sadguna Brahman, God with form. This is also a perfect image of God(but distinct from it because we can name it as separate) It is creation and corresponds to Mahat/Buddh, pure intellect of which both matter and mind emanate. It is called Maya, the energy of God which transforms the ONE into the many. Sadguna Brahman is attainable through worship, reasoning and action(respectively, bhakti, jnana and karma yoga)

Plotinus: The Nous then then emanates the soul principle, which creates bifurcates into a world soul which in inanimate, indivisible and all-pervading spirit behind motionless matter and a phenomenal world which is animate and living. Overall, in this cosmological scheme the ONE is at the beginning; the world-soul in between and the phenomenal world at the last stage.

Vedanta: This corresponds to the Samkhya cosmological scheme which is much comprehensive and detailed. The Mahat/Buddhi produces Ahamkara(I-maker/ego) which splits up the space of the cosmic intelligence into two divisions: Subjective and objective. In the subjective division evolves animate matter mind, 5 sense organs, 5 motor organs. In the objective division evolves inanimate matter 5 subtle elements and 5 physical elements. In the cosmological order The ONE Brahman is at the beginning, then follows Mahat/Buddhi and finally the physical world.

Plotinus does not explain why Nous splits into two aspects animate and inanimatter. This is explained by the Samkhya(covered in section 5)

Plotinus: We really are that ONE, God, but we have forgotten our true nature because of our attachment to the world of matter or change. This world of matter is an inferior copy of the true ideal world. It is only through contemplation, virtues and self-purification can we reverse this process, by aspiring to attain likeliness with God, we can eventually become God.

Vedanta: We really are Brahman, that God, but due to ignorance (avidya) produced by God’s energy Maya we have forgotten that we are that. We have become misidentified with the phenomenal world of matter and entangled into its snare. It is due to this that we are repeatedly embodied in this world, transmigrating from birth to birth, driven by our desires. It is only through an intense spiritual training of contemplation (Jnana) and purification can we reverse this process, and realize our absolute true self. Then we merge into God.

Unless one is blind, one can clearly see Plotinus's philosophy is Advaita Vedanta. Most of it is a copy paste of Advaita, but it is still not as detailed as its superior Indian counterpart. While Plotinus gets lost in mystical terminology and ad-hoc explanations, Advaita Vedanta on the other is a very technical, comprehensive and coherent worldview. What does it have to do with Platonism? Well, it is called Neoplatonism for a reason, because though it works with Platonic concepts, it reworks its ideas considerably reconciling Plato’s theories with Aristotle theories and tying up the loose ends in Plato theories. As I argued earlier, Plato’s knowledge is incomplete because he was only indirectly in contact with the Indians. Plotinous knowledge is more complete, because of a direct contact with the Indians.


I just want to point out how reluctant historians are to admit Indian influences on Greeks even when they are as obvious as this. Although historians admit Indian influences, they mention it as a minor influence, and also try to look for Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian even Chinese influences, when you do not find anything close to similar anywhere but India. In fact we should give this attitude a name, ANYWHERE BUT INDIA.

Skeptics, Epicureans and Stoics

The Skeptics, which then spawned the Epicureans and Stoics were founded by contact with the Yoga philosophers and significantly influenced by them, known to the Greeks as the Gymnophists, the naked philosophers. This is sometimes taken to refer to only the Jain philosophers, but rather it was a generic term for all yogis of India, of which the Jains was one class. Various classes were recognized by the Greeks. The first recorded contact with the Gymnophists is contained in the anecdotes of Alexander meeting with the Gymnophists.


Pyrrho the founder of the skeptics school accompanied Alexander on his expeditions to India, and spent time with the Gymnophists, learning from them their philosophy. This account is recorded in several chronciles: in Strabo’s Geography, Plutarch’s Life of Alexander and Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander(11)

Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great’s army to India and while he was there he encountered the gymnosophists, or naked philosophers. These naked philosophers, probably Jain monks, taught a doctrine of total indifference to bodily concerns. These monks disregarded their body and would meditate naked all day in the blazing sunshine. Onesicritus, a disciple of Diogenes the Cynic, was also on this trip and he visited the gymnosophists. He saw them on the hot sand, motionless, devoted to endurance. Onesicritus said the sand was so hot that no one could endure walking on it with bare feet. Nevertheless, these naked monks stood or laid motionless on the sand for the whole day.[4] Their primary teaching was that a person ought to remove pleasure and pain from the soul.[5]
One of these monks, Calanus, made a very strong impression on the Greeks. For Alexander the Great wanted some of these Indians monks to travel with him so that he could talk with them. Most of the monks refused, saying that Alexander had nothing that he could offer them.[6] Nevertheless, one monk, Calanus, decided to travel with Alexander the Great and his army. Interestingly, Calanus was teased by the other monks for “specially lacking self-control; they reproached Calanus because he deserted the happiness to be found with them and served a master other than God.”[7]
While he was traveling with Alexander’s army, Calanus realized that he had an incurable stomach ailment and rather than be an invalid, he decided to kill himself.[8] Alexander and the Greeks tried to dissuade him, but Calanus was determined to commit suicide. A big funeral pyre was built and Calanus climbed on it amongst much fanfare in the Greek camp.[9] As he set himself on fire and burnt to death, Calanus was totally imperturbable; the seemingly unbearable pain did not phase him at all.[10] The Greeks were amazed at this total self-control; they were “astonished to see that Calanus did not move any part of his body in the flames.”[11] This showed them how strong and invincible human resolution really was.[12]
Pyrrho saw Calanus burning and was struck by the monk being burnt alive with total imperturbability. To Pyrrho, this demonstrated that external events are not intrinsically painful as the sage can neutralize even the worst suffering. This was proof to Pyrrho that if you were mentally strong enough, nothing external could affect you and thus it was indeed possible for a sage to be totally impervious to pain.[13] Pyrrho saw in this a living demonstration that the sage can be happy even in the midst of the worst torment.[14]​

His biographer Diogenes reveals that his philosophy was derived from the Gymnophists and had profoundly affected his life after visiting India. His central philosophy that the sage was imperturbable even when tortured, that the quietening of the mind leads to supreme contentment and happiness and that all judgements should be suspended is attributed to the philosophy of the Gymnophists. These are of course are all recognizably Yogic ideas, the notion of a imperturbable sage is the exact equivalent to the Muni]/i] of the Bhagvad Gita who is described as Stitha Prajnana(stable consciousness) who retains his equanimity and contentedness equally in pain and pleasure, profit and loss. The Gita uses the metaphor of a stable mountain or a non flickering flame in storm. The quietening of the mind is the literal definition given in the Yoga Sutras for what Yoga is, “Yoga is the stilling/quietening of the activities of the mind” – YS 1.2) It is also found in the Buddhist notion of Nirvana of a state of total quiet.

Since Prior to Pyrro visit to India, no other precursor can be seen in Greece for his philosophy, thus we can say quite confidently his philosophy is fully derived from Yoga. More specifically, Jain influences can strongly be seen on Pyrro. There are major similarities in his views with the Jains

Conclusion

What really surprises me is just how much kinship there is between the Indian philosophers and the Greek philosophers and such early and constant contact, as well as the scope of the contact.There is none of this contempt for Indian philosophers or looking down on them as irrational/mystical/unscientific as we find in European historians. In fact the Greeks are just as “irrational” believe in gods, soul, reincarnation and are just as spiritually motivated as the Indians are in finding the ultimate truth, enlightenment and release from rebirth.

We begin to see the Modern European reconstruction of the history of philosophy is a superstition, a myth. The Greeks were not proto-scientific and materialists rationalists and the Indians were not world-denying, mystical, irrational spiritualists. Finally, we can clearly see the Greek philosophical tradition was not an independent philosophical tradition, but was constantly fertilized, guided and inspired by the Indian philosophical tradition. The direction of knowledge transmission seems to have been almost exclusively from India to Greece, rather than Greece to India.

Yet, let me expose some double standards historians use. Despite how overwhelming the evidence of Indian influence on Greeks is, historians still consider it inconclusive, yet if they can show anything which is vaguely similar to something which is Greek which is prior to their dates for the Indian counterpart, then they conclude the Greeks influenced the Indians. For example Indian logic, which is recorded in the Nyaya Sutras is dated to 200AD, a few centuries after Aristotle, thus they conclude the Indians were influenced by Aristotle. But the original dates given for Indian logic were 600BCE, because its founder Gotama is mentioned in the Mahabhartata. The study of logic Anivikshi is mentioned in the Mahabharta and is attributed to Gotama. It described in the Vaiseshika sutras(200BCE) the Arthshastra(400-300BCE) and it is found applied in the medical texts(600BCE) Later, out of random this late date for 200AD was given and it was denied the Gotama who is the founder of logic school mentioned in Mahabharata is the same Gotama of the Nyaya sutras. (Nope, because the founder of each school is also the founder of its text) But, even if for the sake of argument we accept Gotama was 200AD, there is no similarity between Aristotlian logic and Indian logic. Aristotelian logic is deductive and based on mathematics, Indian logic is inductive and based on epistemology. Moreover, there are no records either of the Greeks saying they taught Indians logic or Indians saying they learned logic from the Greeks. So despite the evidence against claiming this influence, Historians do not hesitate to declare it.

If I have not made the hypocrisy clear enough, let me summarize it like this:

Near identical Indian ideas and doctrines appear in Greece suddenly
Indian ideas are older and part of a very ancient tradition going back almost 1000 years more
There are Greek records of Greek philosophers travelling to India
and learning from the Indians, or Indians travelling to Greece teaching
the Greeks

Verdict: Independent development, or the Greeks learned it from Egyptians and Babylonians

Vaguely similar Greek ideas appear in India
The Greek ideas are dated a little older
There are no Greek records of Indians coming to
Greece to learn from the Greeks or Greeks going into
India to teach Indians

Verdict: Greeks influenced the Indians

References

1. Seven sages
2. Saptarishi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy
4. on www.jainsamaj.org ( Jainism, Ahimsa News, Religion, Non-Violence, Culture, Vegetarianism, Meditation, India. )
5. An Introduction to the History of Psychology - B. R. Hergenhahn - Google Books
6. Dionysian Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7. Samkhya influence on Greek philosophy
8. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/philosophy/PU.pdf
9. Toward a Global Science: Mining Civilizational Knowledge - Susantha Goonatilake - Google Books
10. Neoplatonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
11. Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy - Google Books
12. Indian Influence on Greeks | Joseph Waligore

Click to expand...

Joshua A said:

Yes, but it is not acknowledged in any history of philosophy text books. It is as Mcvelly says "actively suppressed"

In the early presocratic phase travels to India may well have happened, but there are other more simple explanations. Indian colonies existed in various parts of the world, in Persia and even in Egypt, so Pythagoras could have been indirectly in contact with the Indians. The reason I favour the indirect contact hypothesis is because the similar Greek philosophies we see from India in the Presocratic phase, such as the 5 elements theory is not as developed as its its Indian Samkhya counterpart. Also, more prolific Indian philosophies like Yoga are nowhere to be seen until the Hellenic phase, when there was direct contact.

Regarding Indian astronomy, to be honest I would like to see the evidence that Indians learned astronomy from the Greeks. I know that Greek and Roman astronomical books were translated and available in India, but what evidence is there that they influenced the Surya Siddhanta system? There is an even older tradition of astronomy in India going back to the Vedic age and Aryabhatta'a astronomy has nothing in common with the Greeks.

Click to expand...

Joshua A said:

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not represent the standard text book on history of philosophy or science. In a standard textbook on the history of philosophy or science, you will scarcely find the mention of India. You can put my statement to the test, go into your local library or local book store and look through any standard book on history of philosophy and history of science(including recently published), go to the index of the book and look for the word "India" and find just how many pages in that book mentions India. Alternatively pick up a standard book on introduction to Greek philosophy and do the same test. My prediction is you will scarcely find any significant mention.

Indians should not be taking this lightly, that is all I am saying.

As regards to where philosophy originates. It is definitely not impossible to locate that. There is no evidence to show the Egyptians and Babylonians had philosophy, and if there is, please show me the Egyptian or Babylonian equivalent of the Upanishads, the Bhagvad Gita and sutras. If we go by the evidence, there should be no hesitation to say philosophy begins in India. However, if you are going to claim it begins elsewhere, then you need to show evidence of it. Another guy earlier claimed the 5 elements theory came from Mesopotamia, I asked him to show me the evidence for his claim, he's not responded since

A book mentioning laws is no more philosophy than the ten commandments in the bible. Philosophy is speculative thought and inquiry into the mysteries of nature and life, and the very earliest speculative thought anywhere in the world is found in the Rig Veda in the Nasadiya and Purusha Suktam. However, philosophy proper does not appear until the Upanishds.

I am very open to your suggestion that there may have been even earlier traditions of Philosophy in Egypt, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, but I will only believe it when you show me the evidence.

Click to expand...

The Maxims of Ptahhotep or Instruction of Ptahhotep is an ancient literary work attributed to Ptahhotep, a vizier under King Isesi of the Egyptian Fifth Dynasty (ca. 2414-2375 BC)

Click to expand...

There are authors who date the philosophical maxims of Ptahhotep before the 25th century. For instance, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Will Durant dates these writings as early as 2880 BCE within The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental History. Durant claims that Ptahhotep could be considered the very first philosopher in virtue of having the earliest and surviving fragments of moral philosophy (i.e., "The Maxims of Ptah-Hotep").[19][20] Ptahhotep's grandson, Ptahhotep Tshefi, is traditionally credited with being the author of the collection of wise sayings known as The Maxims of Ptahhotep,[21] whose opening lines attribute authorship to the vizier Ptahhotep: Instruction of the Mayor of the city, the Vizier Ptahhotep, under the Majesty of King Isesi.

Click to expand...

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language

Click to expand...