Ep : 2 | Introduction of Indian Philosophy from Vedas to Osho by Dr. Vikas Divyakirti

Hello and welcome to today's session. I was worried that none of you would show up today, but you guys showed up. You guys are really courageous. You are likely to receive the Param Vir Chakra while you are alive, as you have shown up for the second discussion or second class of philosophy. Although this usually does not happen, philosophy is a scary subject; people get scared.

The last video received good views on YouTube. I thought, as it was related to philosophy, it would only garner a few thousand views, but people saw this video in large numbers. Although it was the first video, and one sees one video in enthusiasm, the reality is understood in the second and third videos. So, with time, it will be understood. My purpose is not to garner maximum views of my videos, but the purpose is that whoever sees them gets a chance to understand our tradition.

I made a mistake in the last class. I had informed you that the total age of the universe is 450 crore years. Actually, that is the age of the Earth. The total age of the universe is around 1380 crore years, i.e., 13.8 billion years. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was formed 13.8 billion years ago, and Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, this is a fact correction. If that's what you remember, it is also possible that you might have forgotten this fact. But if you have not forgotten, then correct it.

Today, we will start our discussion with Indian philosophy. Why will we start with Indian philosophy? One way is of India. One way is of the West. And there is a general belief in India that those ways which are not Indian are Western. An interesting thing is that Indians consider Japan to be the West, while Japan is not the West. China also becomes West, Australia also becomes West. So, one way is to start with India. Another way is to start with the world, but most of the world's philosophy was written in Europe and America, so roughly Western philosophy meant the philosophy of Europe and America. However, apart from the philosophy of Europe and America, we should also understand about the philosophy of Japan and China. We will discuss about the philosophy of Japan and China in some other class.

Why should we start our discussion with Indian philosophy only? I have two or three reasons for the same. One reason is natural attachment. We are from India, so why should not we know about Indian philosophy, Indian history, Indian traditions first? The second reason is logical, i.e., if we look at the history of philosophy, then we come to know that philosophy in the world originated from India, and this fact is verified. It is a fact that philosophy was developed in India for the first time in the world. I had also mentioned this fact to you in our last class. Thales, the first philosopher of the entire West, was born in the 6th century BC, but in India, Mahavira was there, Gautam Buddha was there, and some people consider the origin of philosophy at least a thousand years before them, and some people consider it several thousand years before that. We had written the Vedas at least a thousand years ago and were in the process of writing the Upanishads. As our philosophy is the oldest, why not start our discussion with Indian philosophy?

You must have heard about Maithili Sharan Gupta, a noted poet. He is regarded as the National Poet of India. He has published several books. One of his best books is Bharat Bharati, and one section of this book deals with the glorious past of India. It highlights the areas in which India had achieved glory. It has a very famous line: "India gave knowledge and education to the world first of all. India gave knowledge and education, ethics, behavior, business, science to the world first of all." So, whenever I read this line, I feel like including philosophy in this line somehow, because he spoke of everything else but did not mention philosophy, while Indian philosophy is the best philosophy in the world. Hence, it must be included.

The third reason is very personal. Because of me, some people in my family became interested in reading philosophy. My elder brother, who lives in America, for the last 15-20 years, he also got interested in reading philosophy. So, I suggested my brother last year to read a book titled "Sophie's World." He read this book gladly. But a few days ago, he said, "My dear brother Vikas, everything else is fine. I was able to understand the whole Western philosophy with the help of this book, but I am unable to find such a book on Indian philosophy." What we read and from where we read should be easily available. So, I told him, "If you can trust me a little, I can start working on discussing about philosophy." Hence, I am starting today's discussion with Indian philosophy only. Many resources are available on Western philosophy, but we hardly find a complete book on Indian philosophy. So, we will try to understand Indian philosophy by discussing it for a few days. Thereafter, we will discuss about Western philosophy.

What does it mean to understand Indian philosophy? Today, we will focus on two things. Today, we will take up the introduction of Indian philosophy. So, two things can be noticed in here. Firstly, how did the entire Indian philosophy develop? What is its historical chronology or perspective? What is perspective? Our team has sent some comments and has informed me that there are some people who listen to Hindi but cannot read Hindi. So, write a little more in English on the board, then they will be able to understand more. So, dear friends, what is written in Devanagari is called Indian philosophy. Try to understand Indian philosophy.

Okay, first of all, we will discuss the historical perspective of Indian philosophy, starting with Vedas till Osho Rajneesh, for understanding how Indian philosophy developed, what happened and when, who contributed what. It will help you in developing an overall framework and a classification in your mind. What is the meaning of Indian philosophy? From where it begins and where it concludes. Then, we will discuss what is there in Indian philosophy. There are certain common features that usually are found in the philosophy of all philosophers, or at least in the philosophy of 80%, 90% of philosophers. It will help you in understanding the tendency or mood of Indian philosophy, generally how they used to perceive things.

If I ask you, which philosophy do you believe in? You probably won't be able to answer, as you don't exactly believe anyone. But it is quite surprising that the best philosophical beliefs are present in Indian philosophy. For instance, you don't know your philosophy, but you know that there is reincarnation after death. Most of you would think so. So, reincarnation is also a philosophy, isn't it? It is a philosophical concept. Almost all of you would agree that a substance known as soul exists within our body. It is either a substance or some other thing, but there is a soul. Now, this soul has also become a concept of philosophy, hasn't it? Where did this concept come from? You must have also heard that everything in the world happens with God's will. It is also the name of a philosophy; it is called Pantheism. It is definitely a philosophy. Sometimes, you must have hurt someone by mistake. Then you also think that you will bear its consequences. This is the sequence theory; it is also part of philosophy. You don't know what your philosophy is, but all day long, or at least 50 times, you talk about philosophy. You are all philosophers. You just don't know that you are philosophical. It happens. It's normal. We are all philosophers; it is inevitable. We cannot be non-philosophical even if we want to. It just happens that we don't know what our beliefs are and where they are coming from, what their roots are. We will try to understand these things today.

So, if we start by saying that what is the historical perspective of philosophy, or what is the history of Indian philosophy? Where did philosophy start in India? If I were to break it down into a few ages, to begin with, I can say that first of all, you can call the age of philosophy the Vedic age. I will not teach you very boring history; don't worry. We will study history only to the extent that we need to understand. We need not to go into much detail. What is the meaning of Vedic Age? One is the Vedas. Some people write Veda as Veda. Some write Vedas to make it plural. We will call it Vedas. You might have heard one more word: Upanishads. I am helpless as I was asked to write in Roman. I am not writing in Devanagari because there are many people who understand Hindi but they can't read Hindi. So, I am writing in Roman for such people.

You know that Vedas are very old compositions. Some say that they are 10,000 years old. Some say that Vedas were composed in 5000-6000 BC. It is also written in NCERT, etc. Till now, this period is final. Maybe tomorrow this period changes. But in historiography, till now, the concepts which are generally accepted assume that before 1500 BC or three hundred years before 1500 BC and two to three years later, Vedas were composed and created, later on compiled. We do not know who wrote the Vedas. It cannot be the creation of any one person. Vedas are very vast sources. Thousands of people living in the forests, doing penance, must have composed these mantras. Nyaya Philosophy holds that there is no God of the Vedas because this cannot be humane. Mimamsa Philosophy holds that the creation of the Vedas were not done by God. Vedas are Akritak. It means that no one has created Vedas; Vedas are natural. It is totally natural. Yes, it may be the case that some people have compiled the knowledge of the Vedas, but the knowledge of the Vedas, even God did not create Vedas, because Mimamsa Philosophy does not believe in God. So, how can it believe that God has created the Vedas? Nyaya Philosophy believes in God; it says God has created the Vedas, but we can believe it that many people wrote things down over the centuries. Later, these things were compiled. The person who collected the Vedas is known as Ved Vyas. I should also write something in Hindi, otherwise I will forget to write Hindi. Ved Vyas was a sage. Ved Vyas is considered a person of immense contribution. Although Swami Vivekananda had stated that Ved Vyas may not have been a single person; it must have been a group or a tradition, as how can one person write so much. Ved Vyas has compiled all the Vedas. Ved Vyas has composed eighteen Puranas. Ved Vyas has also composed the Mahabharata, which includes Bhagavad Gita. It is also believed that Ved Vyas was Sage Badrayana, who wrote the Brahmasutra or composed the Vedanta Sutras. Vedanta Sutras is the most basic book of Vedanta philosophy. Although there is debate on the fourth point, some believe that both Ved Vyas and Sage Badrayana were the same person.

There are four Vedas, i.e., Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda. There is not much philosophy in the Vedas. Vedas deal with the mantras with which Yagya, Havan, and worship are performed. Philosophical trends do not appear in the early part of the Vedas. That's why there are some confusions in the Vedas in the beginning, like God is one or many. As per Vedas, there are many Gods: Surya, Varuna, Indra, and many other gods. And this confusion is also visible: which God should I worship? A sentence, i.e., "Kasmai devaya havisha vidhem," occurs repeatedly in the Vedas. Then, what was the solution to this confusion? The solution was that all the paths are the same path. Rigveda states, "Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti." There is only one truth; it is just found in different ways. Agni matreshva mahu, agni kahu, yam kahu, matre swan kahu ya mahu kahun. There is only one truth. "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti." In these Vedas, you will find slight confusion because at that time, initial contemplating was being done, and it was not sure how should we interpret the universe.

There are four parts of each Veda. The first part is called Samhita, and the basic meaning of Samhita is mantras, mantras with which we recite worship. So, whenever you recite Vedic mantras, it pertains to Samhita. After Samhita comes Brahmana. Brahmana was later associated with a certain caste, but the basic meaning of Brahmana in the Vedas is that when worship is done, what will be its rules and regulations. Description of those laws is called Brahmana. It is believed that these persons later were called Brahmins. The third word or the third part is called Aranyaka. Aranya is a forest. Aranya means those who dwell in the forests, ascetics, etc. What are the rules of conduct for them? They were written in Aranyakas. And the most interesting thing is that the fourth part of the Vedas is called Upanishads. So, the Upanishads are not a separate thing. Upanishads are basically a part of the Vedas. There are many Upanishads. You must have heard that there are 108 Upanishads. About 10 to 12 major Upanishads are important. Brihadaranyaka is very important. Chandogya is very important. Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya are considered the two oldest Upanishads. What is the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad related to? Brihadaranyaka is linked to Yajurveda and falls under it. Chandogya Upanishads fall under Samaveda.

The Upanishads are the last part of the Vedas. That's why Upanishads are also called Vedanta. And Vedanta means the last part of the Vedas. The Upanishads are philosophical texts. Till that time, in this whole world, no one would have been able to think of such a deep philosophy as written in the Upanishads. In Vedantas, so you will have to understand that where the deepest point of philosophy is visible in the early stages of Indian philosophy, it is called Upanishadas. 10-12 Upanishads are very important, and in the Upanishads, all the concepts that you believe in today were already written. Whether soul exists or not. Somewhere in the Vedas, there is a slight confusion, but by the time the Upanishads came, it was established that there is a structure called Soul. Then, you must have heard the concept of Moksha, which is called Liberation. The concept of Liberation was made clear in the Upanishads. Somewhere, it mentions about heaven, but in the Indian tradition, Liberation is regarded as the highest standard. The same has become clear in the Upanishads. Then, you must have heard about a concept called rebirth, and almost everyone in India believes that one gets rebirth after one dies, and now what is being born is due to our previous births. This belief has been completely established in the Upanishads. Due to this, all these concepts, whether it is soul, liberation, or rebirth, and you must have heard one word, Brahma. There are many Gods in the Vedas, but it is difficult to answer: how is this a complete hierarchy order after all? Who is the supreme power under which all the smaller powers come? The Upanishads state that there is a supreme element that is Brahma. And when you proceed logically, then you have to agree that even Brahma is not Saguna; it is Nirguna. Nirguna means formless, whose characteristics cannot be described. You must have heard the word "neti neti." You na iti na iti. Paramatva is not even like that. The Paramatva is not even like that. Why does this happen? We will understand this concept later. This is just an introduction. We will discuss it in detail when we will take up this topic. Why does it have to be said like this? Why the Upanishads, while explaining Brahma, mention "neti," i.e., Brahma is not even like that, Brahma is not even like that? And why Shankaracharya, Adiguru Shankaracharya, has highlighted this point a lot? Why did it happen after many hundred years later? It is a matter of fact that in the Upanishads, almost all those philosophical beliefs are mentioned which we follow till today, especially those persons who follow Hinduism usually follow it till date.

This is the first phase of Indian philosophy. But what happened after that? It is said that when Vedic rituals increased too much, so a lot of people moved away from these things, and specifically the rituals based on animal sacrifice. A social protest started about the Yagyas because when the agrarian economy started, then some new developments took place in the agrarian economy. We will understand it. The second phase, and in the second phase, we will also discuss about the third phase. Two branches of Indian philosophy developed: Atheist Philosophy and Theistic Philosophy. You must have heard the words atheist and theist. Atheists are called heterodox, and theist is called orthodox. These words are popular, orthodox and heterodox in the Western world, and atheist and theist in the Indian tradition. Now, there are a total of nine philosophies in Indian philosophy, i.e., leave the Vedas, Upanishads. There are mainly nine philosophical texts: three are atheist, six are theist. But before knowing about atheist and theist, let us know their meanings. You usually must have heard in the movies about the difference between a theist and an atheist. If someone believes in God, then he is theist. If someone does not believe in God, then he is an atheist. And being an atheist is the same thing as being a Nastik. Atheism is to be an atheist. The interesting thing is that it does not mean the same in Indian philosophy; it doesn't make sense. Another meaning of atheism is that those who are in the other world, the other world means transcendental world, and transcendental means it has nothing to do with dental. Transcendental basically means world beyond our world. One who believes that there is nothing beyond this world, he is an atheist. Who believes that there is something important beyond this world, he holds some transcendental belief, and he is called a theist. In the classification of Indian philosophy, a theist doesn't have the same definition. So, what can be the third definition? There is a third definition written in the Vedas. The Vedas that were written, and the meaning of Vedas in this context also includes the Upanishads, because Upanishad is a part of Vedas and not a separate text. Some people believe that what is written in the Vedas is the ultimate truth, irrefutable truth, is the ultimate truth. We will accept it as the sole truth or testimony. It is called Shabd Pramaan in India, that if the statement is of an authentic person and is written in an authentic scripture, i.e., it is coming from an authentic source, so it is self-proved and it is an evidence. So, those who believe that the things written in the Vedas are evidence and proof are true in themselves, and it must not be doubted. One who believes in the Vedas is called a theist. And those who say that what is written in the Vedas may or may not be correct, and they will not take it for granted that if it is written in the Vedas, so it is true. So, they do not have such faith in the Vedas. They are called atheists. Bear in mind that as per the classification done in the Indian tradition, atheist means one who does not believe in the Vedas' proof and evidence. And the number of such philosophers is three. You've probably heard the name Charvak. Do you know him? There will be two or four such persons around you; it is easier to meet them. There is a philosophy called Jain philosophy. Jainism is a philosophy. Buddhism is another philosophy. Charvaka, Jain, and Buddhist. These three are the philosophies that do not accept the Vedas as evidence because they rose as a movement against the Vedic structure. And the theistic philosophies are six in number, but they work in groups of two. One group is Sankhya and Yoga. Sankhya Philosophy and Yoga Philosophy. This group belongs to the second age of development of Indian philosophy, i.e., atheistic philosophy. This group belongs to the second age. At this time, Charvak was written. You must have heard the name of sage Brihaspati, who was the creator of Charvaka philosophy, Guru Brihaspati. Charvaka Philosophy was born out of his creation. Why Charvaka Philosophy was created, there is a story about it. We will discuss it when we will read Charvak. You already know Jain philosophy. Lord Mahavir Jain is the propounder of Jain philosophy. Although he is not alone, he is the 24th Tirthankara. In the tradition of Tirthankaras, he is considered the last Tirthankara. Buddhist Philosophy was propounded by Gautam Buddha. You must have also heard that Jainism was divided into two sects due to Jain philosophy: Svetambara and Digambara. Buddhist tradition also got divided into major traditions, i.e., Hinayana and Mahayana. Another tradition was formed in 1956: Navayana. Hence, the three paths of the Buddhist tradition that emerged are Hinayana, Mahayana, and Navayana, propounded by Dr. Ambedkar in the 20th century in 1956. The same episode comes that took place in the second phase.

Now, the third phase is against the second phase, but which period? This period rediscovered the Vedas and Upanishads and reinstates them. This philosophy stands against Jainism, Buddhism, and Charvaka. And who are these people? These Vedic and Upanishadic are presenting new interpretations of literature. Their philosophy is not based entirely on the Vedas, but they consider Vedas as evidence. And all this is called theistic philosophy. And who is a theist? One who accepts the Vedas as evidence. Who is an atheist? "Nastiko Vedanindak." It is said in Manusmriti that an atheist is the one who criticizes the Vedas. There is a consensus in Bharat Darshan on this matter: that atheist means one who criticizes the Vedas. You must have heard the names of Sankhya and Yoga. These two philosophies are very close, that's why they are considered as one group of philosophy. Similarly, you must have heard about Nyaya and Vaisheshika and consider Vaisheshika as a joint venture of Nyaya. Assume that the two groups are working together. The first group will work on some part, and the second group will agree. The second group will work on some part, and the first group will agree. For example, Nyaya Philosophy worked more on epistemology. Vaisheshika worked on metaphysics, and both accepted each other, so that makes it one group. And the name of the third group of philosophy: Mimamsa and Vedanta. Mimamsa and Vedanta. If you combine these six philosophies together, then it is called Shat Darshan in Indian philosophy. What is the meaning of Shat in philosophy? Six. Combination of Philosophy, i.e., Shat Darshan. This Shat Darshan is called Hindu Darshan. If someone asks you, what is Hindu Philosophy? You must know what is Hindu Philosophy. Sankhya, Yoga, a group of six philosophies, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, Vedanta. The group of these six philosophies is called Sanatan Darshan. So, when someone says that I am Sanatani, so what is its basic meaning? He accepts the things said in these six philosophies as evidence and has faith in them. Hindu Philosophy, Sanatan Darshan, Shat Darshan are the same thing. It is a combination of six philosophies. It is a group. Where did these six philosophies come from? Things were said in the Vedas and in the Upanishads. Script was not developed at that time, so people used to remember things. When you remember, then you would like to write more, or would you like to write less? Less, as it will be easy to remember. So, what happened in this era? It is also called Sutra era. Formulas were written. What is a formula? It is a brief concept, and the whole thing will come in that. Like there are some sutras in the Upanishads called Mahavakyas. You must have heard that "Aham Brahmasmi." This is a very important formula of Vridaranyaka Upanishad. "I am the Brahma." You must have heard "Aham Brahmasmi" again. "Tatvamasi." It is a very important formula. It is written on the main gate of Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. "Tattvamasi." Tattva am asi, that is, you. These are called Mahavakyas. Now, these are the formulas. Many similar formulas were written in the third phase, and all these philosophies are called Sutras.

What is Sankhya philosophy? Kapil Muni composed the Sankhya Sutra. We have not found the Sankhya Sutra till date. We just hear and read about the Sankhya Sutra, but the Sankhya Sutra has not been found yet. There are many references about it. All the rest of the sutras have been written. Sankhya Sutra has not been found. Similarly, when Yoga came, Maharishi Patanjali wrote the Yoga Sutras. Patanjali is not the propounder of Yoga philosophy. Yoga Philosophy is very old, but who did the work of keeping putting all those things together in the form of a formula? Maharishi Patanjali. Similarly, Nyaya Philosophy was written by Akshpad Gautam. There are two Gautam Munis. One is Gautam Buddha. The other is Gautam Akshpad. One wrote the Nyaya Sutra. When the Vaisheshik Darshan happened, then Vaisheshika Sutra was written. You must have heard the name of Rishi Kanada. Rishi Kanada was the author of Vaisheshika Sutra. The formulas of Mimamsa were created by Rishi Jaimini. And it is the most important philosophy of Indian philosophy. If in today's day, India, a person, especially a Hindu, does not know what his philosophy is, so he should blindly say his philosophy is Vedanta philosophy, because of what he believes, 90 to 95% of the things are of Vedanta only. He just doesn't know what Vedanta is. The tradition of Vedanta philosophy. Acharya Badrayan wrote the formula of Vedanta philosophy. And what I was telling you, some people believe that Badrayan is also Ved Vyas. Few people believe in it, but one opinion is that Ved Vyas is Badrayan. Ved Vyas is another name of Badrayan. Now, how could one person have written so much? Compiled all the four Vedas, wrote 18 Puranas, Mahabharata including Gita, and after that, he also wrote Brahmasutra, the sutra of Vedanta. It is called Brahmasutra. Some people also call it Vedanta Sutra. Brahmasutras and Vedanta Sutras are one and the same thing. All the sutras of Vedanta Philosophy are present in this one book.

Now, what is the problem with the Sutras? Sutras are formulas, and understanding formulas is not an easy job. It is a daunting job. There is a long process to reach these formulas. Then it needs to be understood, and once it is understood, one enjoys it. But until it is understood, it remains a challenge. The fourth era of Indian philosophy starts from here. And what has happened in the fourth era? This is the era when Islam advented in India. Three hundred years before the advent of Islam and 400 years after the arrival of Islam can be considered as the fourth phase. Now, the seventh philosophy is not originating at this juncture. Neither is a fourth philosophy originating in atheist philosophy. Aajeev wrote at that time, but his philosophy is not deep. He does attempt at serious philosophy. What has happened in this fourth phase of Islam? Just prior to arrival or after the arrival of Islam, Vedanta philosophy's more interpretations were carried out. There is one concept, Sutras, i.e., formulas. There is another concept called Bhashya. Bhashya means interpretation in English. Interpretation means process of explaining a formula. Now, the sutras have been written, but if a common man reads the sutras, he does not understand anything. He is unable to understand what he is reading, so what to read? Then there were some people who started explaining it, wrote explanations. Those explanations in Hindi and Sanskrit are called Tika or Bhashya. What is the English word for both of these terms? Interpretation and Explanation. Now, if someone wants to explain Vedanta philosophy, then he has to study the three sources compulsorily. The meaning of Vedanta in the beginning was Upanishad. Now, Vedanta refers to these three sources. These three sources are called Prasthana Trayi. And Prasthana Trayi means the three books to begin with, with the help of which you can move forward. Prasthana means departure, and Trayi means a set of three things. Prasthana Trayi are the sources based on which you can follow the path of Vedanta. What's there in the Prasthana Trayi? The first thing it consists of is the Major Upanishads, about eight to ten Upanishads which have more value. Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Shvetashwar, Kathopanishad, Kenopanishad, Ish Upanishad. All these are considered the major Upanishads. The second source is the Gita. The philosophy in Gita is Vedanta, and the common Hindu of India believes the most in the philosophy written in Gita because there are several books in Hinduism. Jewish, Christianity, and Islam follow only one book. Some other religions also consider one book as their base. Guru Granth Sahib holds value in Sikhism. It consists of Vaanis, but there is only one scripture. There is one book in Zoroastrianism. But there are many books in Hinduism. But you must have noticed that when our Prime Minister goes abroad, what book does he present to the leader of that nation? He presents Gita because it is the most revered text in India, because Gita is written in an easy language, while the Upanishads were written in a difficult language. Gita explains philosophy in a simple language. And there is a third thing: Brahmasutra. Who wrote Brahmasutra? It seems that you forgot? Vedvyas, Badrayan. Badrayan is his main name. Ved Vyasa also says that Ved Vyas wrote the Gita. Ved Vyas may have written both the texts. Brahmasutras are written in the form of Sutras. The Gita is written in an easy form. Upanishads belong to the era of Vedic Sanskrit, so the language of Upanishads is a little difficult. The one who interprets by combining these three texts is a philosopher of Vedanta. Considering the same as Vedanta philosophy, we study it, and this is the fourth phase of philosophy, which I would like to say continued 300 to 400 years before the advent of Islam and it continued till years later. The most prominent interpretation of Vedanta at this time are two interpretations, and now some such names will come which you must have heard it somewhere. There is an interpretation called Advaita Vedanta. Have you ever heard about it? Advaita Vedanta has also been interpreted by many people, but the most prominent interpreter of Advaita Vedanta died at a young age of 32 years only. But before his death, he had created such questions that Indian philosophers are unable to find its solution till today. That person's name is Shankaracharya, or Shankar Acharya was added to his name as a mark of respect. So, Acharya Shankar, or Shankaracharya, or Adiguru Shankaracharya, is the same Shankaracharya who interpreted Advaita Vedanta. It is very difficult to compare Advaita Vedanta for its depth with any text. Although many things written in Advaita Vedanta were also said by a Mahayana philosopher called Nagarjuna. There is so much similarity that people say that Shankaracharya is a disguised Buddha, but remember, the real points of Buddhist Philosophy are in Hinayana, not in Mahayana. Mahayana itself is Buddha's another changed form of philosophy. But the philosophy of Nagarjuna is secondary nihilism. It seems secondary nihilism and Advaita Vedanta have almost identical visions. There is just a difference of words. Almost all the concepts are very similar. But whatever be the case, Shankaracharya's philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, is very famous. And you must have heard one word written in this text: Maya, Mithya. You must have heard that this world is a lie. First of all, Mithya does not mean only lie; it is a misunderstanding. Mithya means that which is not true nor lie; it is beyond truth and falsehood. What is Mithya? We will discuss it when we will take up the topic of Vedanta. But after reading Shankaracharya, it really seems that the world we live in is not real. He also stated that this world is neither real nor unreal. Whatever is different from real and unreal is Mithya. The whole world is a lie. And after reading Shankaracharya, one keeps trembling for an hour or two. Such are his thoughts. So, what we have understood is that the world is a lie. We are all different; we assume so, but we are not different. This is a confusion. We are souls; we consider ourselves to be living beings. But the most interesting thing is that which is Brahma is the truth. God is also not real. God and us and this world is real on a practical level. Like I told you, it's like a metaverse or a video game. Until you're into video games, it appears real, but as soon as you switch off the game, it becomes a lie. It's the world. As long as the world seems real, till then we are also real. The world is also real, God is also real. But as soon as you get out of this game, you will find that one and only one thing is real: that is Brahma. Everything else is a lie.

What is the problem now? If you love God enough and want to worship, so one condition of worshipping is that you should at least believe that you and God are two separate entities. I am one entity, and God is another entity. I love God; I want to worship God. But if someone tells you that you and God are not different at all, and you are also a Mithya, God is also a Mithya, so you will start feeling restless in worshipping God. You will start questioning yourself. That's why it is believed that Shankaracharya emphasized on the path of knowledge and he made the possibilities difficult for devotion. Shankaracharya's philosophy is such that it is difficult to be challenged, but he made the possibility of devotion difficult. And so, after two to three hundred years, a new tradition started, which is called Vaishnava Vedanta. This tradition originated from South India. Shankaracharya also comes from South India. It is quite interesting. These are all Acharyas. Almost all of them are coming from South India and are against Shankaracharya. Vaishnava means those who worship Vishnu. Who is the Vaishnav of modern times? Mahatma Gandhi is the Vaishnav of modern times. Which is his favorite hymn? "Vaishnav Jan To Tene Kahiye Pir Parai Jaane Re." He is Vaishnav who is Vishnu. And who are the incarnations of Vishnu? Ten incarnations, including Ram and Krishna. Ramakrishna is also included in this. Buddha is also accepted in this later. Vaishnava is one who has faith in Vishnu and his incarnations. Who is Brahma in Vedanta? So, the followers of Vaishnava Vedanta are those who wrote the texts of the Vaishnava tradition. They are called Pancharatra Agama. By adding Pancharatra Agama and the tradition of Vedanta, an interpretation was done that somehow the path of devotion should be opened. And one prominent name here is of Ramanuja Acharya. You must have heard about him. Recently, PM Modi unveiled Ramanuja Acharya's statue. Acharya Ramanuja is the first person who challenged Shankaracharya's philosophy, and his philosophy is called Vishishtadvaita. Have you ever heard this name? You guys must be upset that Sir will teach us too much today. So, just listen carefully. Just listen. The second person who came after Ramanujacharya is called Vallabhacharya. You must have heard his name too. He was active in the neighboring areas of Delhi like Agra, Mathura, Vrindavan, Faridabad. A city in Haryana called Ballabhgarh is named after him. Surdas was the devotee of Vallabhacharya, and Surdas met Vallabhacharya in Ballabhgarh, and even today, Ballabhgarh has great historical relevance. Ramanand was the disciple of Ramanujacharya, and Kabir Das was a disciple of Ramanand. You can understand that how a link is created in history. And Ramanand brought Bhakti from South to North India. And that's why Kabir Das said, and many people also say, "Bhakti Dravid upji, laye Ramanand." i.e., Bhakti originated in South India, and Ramanand introduced it in North India. Kabir has created the Sapt Dwip Nav Khand. After that, Kabir Das spread Bhakti all over the world, and the tradition of Bhakti begins from Ramanuja, and Ramanuja's disciple Ramananda introduced Bhakti in North India. The principle propounded by Vallabhacharya is called Shuddha Advaita. You will not discuss it now; just telling you the name so that you have an idea that what happened in the tradition of Indian Philosophy, when did it happen. Nimbarka is another name in this tradition, Nimbarka Acharya. He gave a philosophy called Dvaita Advaita. And then Madhvacharya, a very intense philosopher, came. He gave a philosophy of Dvaita. You will not be able to understand it now. Advaitaism is the philosophy of Shankaracharya. If you look carefully at the end of these three philosophies, then you will find Advaita in the end. Advaita will be seen in every one of these philosophers because these three philosophers are adding an explanation with Advaita. Ramanuja with Vishisht Advaita, Vallabh with Shuddha Advaita, Nimbarka with Dvaita Advaita. Advaita in philosophy means that the ultimate real power is one. And a second opinion which is fiercely opposed to the whole of Indian philosophy is Madhvacharya's Dvaita. That's why some people say that Shankaracharya's strong rebuttal was done by only Madhvacharya. Acharya Madhu did the same. Madhvacharya belongs to Karnataka. He is respected a lot in Karnataka. You must have heard the name of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a great devotee of Krishna, and he often used to become unconscious while worshiping Krishna. Then people say that Chaitanya is Mahaprabhu, as he used to become unconscious again and again while worshiping Krishna. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu also belongs to Vaishnava Vedanta. The name of his vision is Achintya, meaning which cannot be thought about. Achintya Dvaita Advaita or Achintya Bheda Bheda. They both mean the same thing in philosophy. These four to five terms must have seemed a bit difficult. So, get these terms out of your mind. I just wanted to inform you about the developments that took place in Indian Philosophy from the eighth century to the 14th to 15th century. The real purpose of all these philosophers was to establish the tradition of Bhakti somehow, and they succeeded in establishing the Bhakti tradition. Kabir Das is a prominent name of India's Bhakti movement. He was a disciple of Ramananda. Tulsidas also is one of the distant disciples of the tradition of Ramanuja. Surdas, who was a disciple of Vallabhacharya. All those Bhakti poets belong to the same tradition because they all worship Rama and Krishna and are the people who follow the Vaishnava tradition. Exactly at the time when Kabir Das was active, a new religion developed, a new philosophy developed in the 15th-16th century, i.e., Sikhism. And with which Acharya Sikhism is it related? Sikhism is it related with Guru Nanak, also known as Guru Nanak Dev. Tradition of Guru Nanak resembles the tradition of Kabir Das. That's why Guru Granth Sahib contains many verses of Kabir Das. Guru Nanak also considered God as Nirgun and formless. Guru Nanak also talks about "Ek Onkar," which is formless and Nirguna. He also talks about the Supreme power in Sikhism. Sikhism is a philosophical development of the medieval period, and at the same time, the fourth phase of Indian Philosophy ends. Philosophy books in general are written till Madhvacharya; they do not mention anything beyond him. But Indian Philosophy is Indian. Then why should Sikh Philosophy not be included in Indian Philosophy? If there is Jain philosophy, if there is Buddhist philosophy, then there should be Sikh Philosophy too. Whichever philosophy originated in India must be considered Indian philosophy. Born philosophies originated in other countries cannot be called Indian. But if a philosophy originates in India, then it is definitely Indian Philosophy.

Thereafter comes Renaissance. Renaissance is called Punarjagran in Hindi, or it can also be called Navjagran. You must have heard that Renaissance originated in India in the 19th century and 20th century. Why did it originate? It started at the end of the 18th century in a limited way, but when the 19th century started, Renaissance in India expanded. Why did it happen so? Renaissance happened in Italy in the 14th century, then religious reform movement started. Reformation started. A new religion was born. Its name is Protestant religion. It was a new form of Christianity. In Protestant religion, Christianity was interpreted in a new way as compared to Catholic. Keeping in mind the development of the world, almost the same was repeated in India. And what's happening in the 19th century? Christian missionaries have come in India. Christianity has become active, and the people of India were very upset that how do we establish ourselves against this new tradition, how to counter them, how to debate them. The tradition of debate existed in India earlier. Now, how should they start debates in the 19th century? And Christianity is challenging the caste system of India. It is saying that Indians have no religion as they are divided. There are Shaivas and Vaishnavas which are different from each other. All are different religions; how can Indians follow one religion? In response to this question, some people decided that Hinduism needs a facelift so that we can counter the West strongly. And the same concept was called Neo-Vedanta. Some people called it Neo-Hinduism, and these names were given by the Western philosophers. Paul Hacker, a scholar, used the word Vedanta for the first time as satire for criticizing Indian religion. He was upset that ever since Neo-Vedanta arose, since then the Hindus are not willing to convert to Christianity. Because the Hindus who were divided became united due to Neo-Vedanta. Neo-Vedanta indeed played a pivotal role. Neo-Vedanta started with Brahmo Samaj. Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Brahmo Samaj was the first person on whom Christianity also had a good influence. He adopted the beliefs of Hinduism, and the Christians have a church called Unitarian church. Raja Ram Mohan Roy adopted the principles of the Unitarian Church and formed a theory about his beliefs, and he started rejecting the evils of Indian and Hindu religion. You must have also heard the name Devendra Nath Tagore. Devendra Nath Tagore promoted this tradition, and then Keshavchandra Sen, who later became the most famous philosopher in this tradition in Bengal. The movement of these three people for the first time created an impression that all different sects of Hindus are not different but one Hindu religion. Then the evil practices in Hinduism which did not consider all persons as equal, talked about respecting all of them. It became united so that no one could find a reason to leave Hindu religion, and universalistic Hindu religion was established. The above three philosophers contributed this to India's philosophy.

Thereafter, a person named Narendranath Dutt, who for some time accepted this tradition, but after that, he left and became a follower of Ramakrishna Paramahansa, who was a priest in the Kali temple. It is a very famous story. Who is Narendranath? Swami Vivekananda's initial name was Narendranath. So, Narendranath went to meet Ramakrishna Paramahansa and knocked on the door. Such is the legend. Ramakrishna Paramahansa asked, "Who is at the door?" Narendranath said, "I have come here to know the same that who I am." Philosophers talk deep. They will not say like a layman that Narendra has come, or my name is Narendra. This is what a layman replies, but a philosopher always speaks deep. So, Narendranath stated that I have come to know who I am. Then they had a conversation, and then Ramakrishna Paramahansa made him his disciple, and thereafter he came to be known as Swami Vivekananda. He is the best person to read if you want to understand Vedanta and Hinduism. Swami Vivekananda is one of the most prominent icons of Vedanta. So, Vivekananda must be read to understand the concepts of Vedanta.

After this, many philosophers lived. You must have heard the name of Maharishi Arvind. This Arvind is the same who fought for freedom. He was very active under the name of Aurobindo Ghosh. Later, his mood became philosophical, and then he created philosophy which is called Integral Yoga, that is, Purna Yoga Darshan, Purna Advaita, or Purna Yoga. Then comes Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was also a philosopher, and the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi holds importance in Neo-Vedanta philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi was a supporter of both Neo-Vedanta and Vaishnava Vedanta. You have also heard the name of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan. The philosophy of Dr. Radhakrishnan is also the same to some extent, not completely. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, who composed Satyarth Prakash and established Arya Samaj, talks about the Vedas, but if you look closely, then many of his beliefs stand very close to Vedanta or at least Neo-Hinduism.

What is achieved by entire Neo-Vedanta? What is its basic purpose? Nationalism is the main product of Neo-Vedanta. Neo-Vedanta connects philosophy with nationalism. Otherwise, the effect of Shankaracharya was that many people in India used to consider this world as a lie, a meaningless thing. Now, if the world is meaningless, then why should one care about freedom or foreign rule? Why should one care about what is foreign and what is Indian? Britishers in India is also a myth; freedom is also a myth. Now, if it becomes someone's temperament, why would he fight for freedom? The first condition of fighting for something is that you must consider this world as real. You must agree with the objectives of nationalism and establishing Indian nationalism together, which is basically an idea like equality. Among Hindus who are underprivileged, such Hindus must also be brought on an equal footing, must be brought into the mainstream. All these notions were developed by Neo-Vedanta and Neo-Hinduism. Swami Vivekananda proved to be the most important person in Neo-Vedanta.

Now, you think that Indian philosophy ends at this juncture, or is there any scope of a new philosophy? I want to tell you that the sixth phase must be thought of. We can imagine that whether philosophy is found in India post-independence, and if it is found, then what is that philosophy. Iqbal's philosophy can be accepted as one of the philosophies propounded just before India's independence. However, Iqbal's philosophy will not fall in Neo-Vedanta or Neo-Hinduism, but it will fall in a universalistic kind of philosophy, which is a very important philosophy. But Iqbal's philosophy was created just before independence. As far as post-independence philosophy is concerned, three or four paths seem to be taking shape. One path is that of Dr. Ambedkar. Doctor Ambedkar deliberated upon many philosophies. He found that the caste in Hinduism is not likely to end soon. Neo-Vedanta also could not succeed in eliminating the caste system. So, Ambedkar finally decided to find a way out and read complete Marxism, studied all the religions, and rejected them all.

He read capitalism and rejected it. Once he became interested in Sikhism and later just. Two months before his death in 1956, he decided that he would convert to Buddhism, but he did not accept Buddhism in its original form. He neither adopted Hinayana nor Mahayana.

He didn't like supernaturalism at all because both Mahayana and Hinayana believe in Nirvana and Karma theory. He was also not interested in Karma theory. He was also not even interested in Nirvana, so then he decided to start a new form of Buddhism called Navyaan. He wrote books on Navyaan and he also adopted Navyaan. Many of his supporters also joined Navyaan. And since then, this tradition is also called Neo Buddhism or Navyana. This is a new tradition of the 20th century which makes Buddhist philosophy more grounded and realistic. It rejects the notions of the other world.

Ambedkar was inspired by some of the philosophies of a thinker named Ajit Keshkambli and was associated with the Charvak tradition. Ambedkar drew inspirations from Ajit Keshkambli and established Navayan. We will discuss Navyaan in some other class. If you are willing to hear my lecture again. Actually, philosophy is a bit boring subject and young people of your age who like Honey Singh are taught Navayan, then it is obvious that you will find philosophy a bit difficult. It is like at your age is of becoming Charvaka and you are forced to become a Jain. Or if Hinayani becomes Buddhist, then how will life be spent? It is a little difficult.

Apart from Dr. Ambedkar, you might have heard about J. Krishnamurthy. He was a very intense philosopher. You have also heard the name of Annie Besant. You will not be surprised if you know about her. But if you do not know about her, then you will be surprised that Annie Besant had adopted a child. Which society did Annie Besant belong to? Theosophical Society. It was a movement of England and some other countries, and the same was also being implemented in India. Annie Besant had brilliant ideas in her mind. One day she met a vibrant child, then she started teaching him and the people of his group. Then she had a dispute with her husband over the child, so she legally adopted that child. Then the child's parents also started fighting with Annie Besant. Ultimately, the child remained in Annie Besant’s custody. This vibrant child grew up and came to be known as Jiddu Krishnamurti, and he also spent a lot of time in America. He rejected all the old institutional religions and gave a new philosophy which is quite famous, especially in South India. He is very famous in South India.

Apart from these two, the person who holds a special place in the modern tradition of Indian philosophy with his arguments and is very difficult to debate. It is said about him that if you go in front of him, then just go quietly. If you ask a couple of questions, then you will return bleeding because as this man has read so much that he can debate on the Upanishad, Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Kabir. Any Indian poet. There is a religion called Tao in China. Lao Tzu is the founder of Tao. This person has even written a complete book on Lao Tzu. The name of this person is Rajneesh. He was interested in philosophy. He became a professor in Jabalpur's college, Mahakaushal. Later he resigned from his post and became completely philosophical and founded a city in the US called Rajneeshpuram. Later, some legal issues cropped up. He came back to India. During Janata Party’s government, Morarji was the Prime Minister, and there was a conflict between Morarji and Rajneesh. Then he finally established his own ashram in Pune after a long struggle and then he died.

The best thing about Osho is that he considers each and every question. Osho frees religion and spirituality, philosophy from various stereotypes, and his arguments are such that it is easy to negate it. He is a very logical person. There are many traditions of meditation in India. He started a new tradition called Dynamic Meditation. It means that you can also meditate while dancing. It is not necessary to sit in a fixed pose to meditate. Although sitting in a fixed pose is also a way of meditating, but meditation can be done even while dancing. I told you last time that you will not be able to dance after studying philosophy, then try to become Osho and try to establish a connection between dance and philosophy. There is no other way to do so.

Together all these people form Indian Philosophy. Although most of the latter philosophers are not referred to in Indian Philosophy, but I think they should also be referred to. If I have missed any philosopher, then do tell me, I will include him too. Are you not able to recall any such missing name? You're thinking that we didn't even know this, Sir has already told us about so many philosophers and a book. Do tell me if any philosopher which needs to be included in this discussion. You must be wondering why there is no female philosopher in India. It is not my fault. Our tradition is at fault for the absence of female philosophers.

If we talk about women philosophers, then philosophical women, scholar women have existed during the Upanishad period in the Indian tradition, and you must have heard the names of three or four of these female philosophers. You must have heard the name of Lopamudra. She was the wife of sage Agastya, and she is mentioned at places in the Upanishads. You must have heard the name of Maitreyi. Maitreyi is mentioned in Brihadaranyaka in the Upanishads. She was the wife of the Rishi Yajnavalkya, and she was a scholar. Developments in Brihadaranyaka Upanishads are visible through the discussion between them. Gargi was another scholar. She finds mention in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. There is another woman named Ghosha. She finds mention in the Upanishads. This is very sad that in the Indian tradition since the Upanishads, the participation of women in philosophy is negligible. I also cannot recall any more female philosophers. What could be the reason for this? I think that women's participation in social, economic, and political spheres is less, and it is less in philosophy too. Women's participation is less in science, in philosophy, in sociology, in politics, and every sphere of life. And the reason for this is the glass ceiling, the wall of glass that is not visible but does exist. So women were usually limited to household chores, hence they didn't get much scope. And the gap is so big that it is not easy to fill that gap. It is expected that women’s participation will increase in the new philosophies that will emerge now. Women’s participation is good in Western philosophy, like feminism. First women philosophers in the history of the world are traced in India only, as philosophy in the West has started from the 6th century BC, and Indian philosophers lived before that period. It is obvious that female philosophers existed in India, but the role of women in philosophy in India is low. We read literature, women’s participation is less in literature too. Meerabai is considered as a medieval philosopher, and Mahadevi considered as a modern philosopher, and there are eight to ten other modern female philosophers, but before that, there is only one medieval philosopher, i.e., Mirabai. It’s quite unfortunate.

Do you think a philosopher is missing in our discussion? Sir, a slogan was given to return to the Vedas, so since then this concept exists. Then how can we relate this to Neo Vedanta in nationalism and equality? My dear friend is saying that Dayanand Saraswati said that we should return to the Vedas. How can we link this to nationalism and social equality? Arya Samaj was founded on 10 basic rules, and if you compare Arya Samaj with other such establishments, then you will find that Arya Samaj emphasizes a lot on logic or logical argument and it completely rejects the caste system. And the rejection of the caste system itself means that Arya Samaj talked about equality. And Arya Samaj also emphasized on gender equality. Arya Samaj has taken a very progressive step regarding the education of girls. It did the same in the past as well, so there would be a number of factors that would look like social progressive plus nationalism. But the nationalism and Neo-Hinduism, Neo-Vedanta spoke of maintaining distance from Christianity and Islam. Arya Samaj preaches the same. Yes, the tradition of DAV (Dayanand Anglo Vedic) is that it will adopt the English tradition, Vedic tradition, and will do more developments in the world. So we can say that we have understood the whole development of Indian philosophy. Now let's understand a small aspect in the whole process of several thousand years of Indian philosophy. What are the common trends? What are those things which you usually find in Indian philosophy? And are those common trends witnessed in India only? Or the same philosophy appears somewhere outside India? So for the time being, keep in mind five to six words and their broad meaning. When we will discuss philosophy, then we will discuss it in detail.

You must have heard a word, theory of karma or karma theory. Are you aware of this term or not? Karma theory simply means that whatever you do will happen to you. What is happening now is happening in exchange for what someone has done in the past, and what will happen tomorrow will be in return for what one is doing today. This is known as Karma theory, theory of karma. Karma theory is mentioned in our Upanishads, and a very interesting thing is that all over India, there are 9 philosophies, and out of this, we were only leaving Charvaka. The other eight philosophies, including Buddhist, Jainism, atheistic philosophy, Sikhism, also completely follow the principle of karma. And a basic meaning of Karma theory is that karmas are of three types: Sanchita Karma, Prarabdha Karma, and Sanchayimaan. Karmas are classified in three ways. What does this mean? Our karma is piling up. A phase comes where we reap the benefits of our karmas. A group of karma, one reaps its benefits at one go. Prarabdha Karma is the one whose benefits are being reaped. At present, how your life is going is decided by your Prarabdha. That's why you must have heard elders saying that one’s Prarabdha is not right. What if one’s Prarabdha is not right? Prarabdha means our such karmas whose benefit one is reaping at the moment. Sanchit Karma means the accumulated karma whose benefit one will reap in the future, i.e., five years from now, what's going to happen to you will be decided by the Sanchit Karmas. Normally, the Sanchit Karmas performed in the previous life or at the beginning of this birth, as one has not yet reaped the benefit. If his Sanchit karmas, it gets accumulated. Those who started are destiny, and what were the pioneers five years ago, today were accumulated, now they are destined. And the deeds that you are doing now, doing in this life, whose fruits will come later. So these are present actions. What you are doing now, as the children are still sleeping in class. So when will you get its fruit? You will get it later. You will become a teacher in the next birth. I will be a student, then I will sleep sitting in class and teaching you will be stressful. Why is he sleeping? Everything has to be accounted for, keep in mind. Everything will count, so be careful what you're doing. His account will be equal.

And two rules of Karma theory are considered. One is gratitude: don't be like this, it means what has been done cannot be destroyed until it bears fruit. Your deeds cannot perish without giving you its fruit. This is called gratitude. And there is a non-working approach, which means what you didn't do, its fruit cannot come to you. So pay attention. Many people try to start the transfer system, debit, credit. Eg: I have done 10 good deeds, you believe 20 good deeds, I am falling short. I borrowed five from you and you entered your password in accounting. Now shift my five to six karma here, and my balance also got fixed. And together we both got salvation. And there is no such scope in Hinduism. In Buddhism, Bodhisattva is a concept in the Mahayana tradition. You have heard that Bodhisattva is a very famous word. Mahayana, in the concept of Bodhisattva Buddhism, believes change is a concept. Change means to shift your good deeds to others. It is not in the Hindu religion; you will have to suffer. So these are the two rules, understood its meaning that what has been done will not be destroyed. Not done, will not come. Tell me one more thing, a minute. There is such a system in Christianity. Jesus Christ, who is he? He is considered the son of God. Mind, Jesus Christ is not God; he is the son of God. A trinity word, heard the name of Trinity College. What is trinity? In Christianity, a group of three things: God the Father, God the Son (who is Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the son of God. Why? Because man is a sinner. Why is he a sinner? Will you ever explain in the same story? That's why he came to earth. See, brother, Jesus Christ, and who is the son of God, and some people crucify them, hanged on the cross. People should hang the son of God in the street and neighborhood. Is it such an easy task? If God wills, if you slap one, everyone will fall. Still hung. This is because Jesus Christ deliberately wanted this. This is what Christians believe. Why did you want it? It will be related to the theory of karma. Wanted that all the sins of men, I sacrifice myself. If you accept this principle of Christianity, what does it mean that the calculation of deeds is left and right? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there is such a belief in some philosophies and religions. In Mahayana Buddhism, while in Christianity, not in Hinduism. And it means that the accounts will be settled. And like I said, you're sleeping in class, so you will have to bear its consequences. It's a simple matter. What is your question, dear? Is it really possible to do karma? It is in your control to do karma. That’s a deep question. You have become a staunch student of philosophy. What a deep thought you have expressed. Coming back to your question, like was asking this question, is it in your control? As you decided that you will ask the question, you got up, took the mic, you asked the question. Was it in your control or someone is pushing you to do so? Sir, someone is getting it done. Sir, you taught in a good manner, therefore the question came into my mind. Fine, yes, but the question must have come into the mind of many people here, but you got up to ask the question. Who decided it? You are asking the right question. Keep in mind the two words: determinism and free will. This is the world's best and deepest debate of philosophy. Determinism is called Niyativaad in Hindi, and free will is called Sankalp Swatantrya or Swatantra Sankalp. Technically, what does Swatantra Sankalp mean? It really means that anything I do in this class, so actually I do that myself, or I am made to do it. Like I had discussed earlier, that there's a possibility that the world is a video game, and someone else is playing with us from behind. If someone is playing from behind, so whatever we're doing, we're not doing it ourselves; that's happening. Technically, if you go into deep logic, this one proves to be a stronger argument. If you will proceed on the path of pure logic, which means the question you asked was not asked by you; someone asked you to ask this question. No one knows who that someone is. But the problem is that this will not make the world work. Whereas determinism is a stronger view and a solid idea. It's hard to dismiss. We will discuss it some other day. But for the world to run properly, almost all religions of the world accept this idea. That is Sankalp Swatantra, means free will. We make decisions on our own will. We take steps of our own will. If you do not accept this policy, then you can't punish a criminal because he did not actually commit a crime because someone asked him to do so. You can't give a prize to someone for doing a good deed because he didn't; someone has got it done by him. But then all of us will become a puppet whose threads will be in someone else's hand. Accepting it would be very difficult. So the world runs on the principle of free will, which means you have asked the question yourself. But in philosophy, some people like Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer is a German philosopher of the 18th-19th century. He is the world’s biggest pessimist philosopher. This is called philosophical pessimism. He even said that the luckiest are the ones who weren't born. The second luckiest are the ones who died just after birth, and the most unfortunate are the ones who are bound to be alive, like me. He was so sad with the world, and he stated a sentence, and Albert Einstein quoted this sentence. The sentence is: "A man can do what he wants, but he can't wish what he wants." Who can't wish what to do? But you can do what comes in your mind. But what will come in your mind is not in your control. "Man can do what he will, but cannot will what he will." This is Schopenhauer’s statement. Albert Einstein also quoted this statement. So your question is deep. But for now, let's assume that what you're doing is being done by you. Life will be easier by accepting this fact. Otherwise, you will start thinking of becoming a monk. So the first thing we discussed here is the theory of Karma.

Hello sir, my name is Shyamveer. I want to ask a question related to the Indian philosophical tradition. There is the trinity philosophy, namely Charvaka, Jainism, Buddhism. For the atheists, Shat Philosophy exists. For the theists, and some people are also like me, who are apathetic. I cannot relate to either theism or atheism. After a certain age, when argumentative behavior developed in me, I veered slightly towards apathy and became agnostic. What does the Indian Philosophy tradition have in store for people like me? There is no such agnostic philosophy, but in the Upanishads, there are some statements that can be considered agnosticism. In the next session, we will discuss Charvaka. Then I would mention five-six other traditions. One of these traditions briefly discusses about agnosticism. But try to create one such philosophy, I will include your name as a philosopher in the next class. Sir, but when I was reading a little bit of Buddhism, I found that there are 10 avyaktanis in it. In Buddhism, when a question is asked whether there is a God or not, whether the soul exists or not, Buddha replies that he cannot answer this question. If I answer you, then you won’t be able to understand it. I am unable to understand agnosticism. Dear, your second statement, i.e., Buddha did not answer the question, is more important. Buddha is also called Avyakrit or Avyaktani. Avyaktani doesn't mean that Buddha does not know the answer to that question. Basically, he cannot answer that particular question in the language of grammar. So it is not a crisis of knowledge; it is a crisis of expression. Why it cannot be expressed? The answer is found in Buddhism. Nagarjuna answered this question in Madhyamika Shunyavada. He had given a great logic for the same. There is a term called Chatushkoti Nyay. It does not hint towards agnosticism; it gives the hint of a lack of expression. Today’s audience is quite interested in philosophy. You are asking deep questions. I was informed that extremely innocent people have come to attend this class, but our assumption turned out to be wrong. Let me discuss the rest three-four things after the Karma theory, then you can ask questions from me.

When the principle of Karma is accepted, then it became imperative for Upanishads and Indian tradition that one should believe in the soul because the principle of Karma suggests that one ought to bear the consequences of one’s karmas. Now the question arises that the consequences of karmas should be faced by whom? Suppose X slapped Y hardly, and he dies before he faces the consequence of his karma. And if one dies without facing the consequences of one’s karma, then Karma Theory states that karmas need to be settled. It's simple. And there are many having committed a lot of sins in life and do not go to jail before and die gracefully. Now others start to doubt: he was a bad man, he did not face the consequences of his karmas. We should have also done the same karmas. Therefore, karmas need to be settled. For this, the concept of soul was agreed upon. Seven out of 9 Indian philosophies believe in the soul. Two philosophies don't believe in the soul. One is Charvak, he always disagrees. And the second is Buddhist Philosophy. Buddha did not believe in the soul. Buddha believed in reincarnation. He believed in liberation instead of soul. It's a very different concept that exists in Indian Philosophy. So each philosophy has its own concept of soul, but more or less the concept of soul is the same in all Indian Philosophies, i.e., there is a substance inside the physical body called the soul. Charvakas do not believe in the concept of soul. How Charvak did so, we will discuss when we will discuss Charvaka, but he told a very interesting thing. Buddha stated that there is no thing called soul. Consciousness itself remains in a flow. Stream of consciousness is sufficient for the body. It is very interesting that Nyaya Vaisheshika and Mimansa believe that the soul is basically not conscious. It becomes conscious after a certain time. So there is no unanimity regarding the concept of soul. There is a lot of difference. Indian philosophy generally believes in the soul, and this soul is immortal. This soul is eternal; it does not die. And the concept of soul is clearly mentioned in the Gita: "Nainam chhindanti shastrani nainam dahati pavakah. Na chanam kledayantyapo na shoshayati marutah." The soul is eternal. It is permanent and cannot be cut by weapons, nor can water drown the soul, nor can the wind dry the soul. The soul is mentioned in the clearest terms in the Gita. So in general, the Indian tradition believes in the soul. Whenever we talk about the soul, believe that the soul exists. Apart from the Indian tradition, there are as many religions in the world. All those religions believe in the soul in some form or the other. Soul is called Rooh in Islam. Jews also believe in the soul. Christians also believe in the soul. But there is a difference of perception, and the concept of soul in India is slightly different. It is believed in India that the soul is eternal. In Semitic religions (Semitic means Judaism, Christianity, Islam), in these religions, the soul is not eternal. What is meant by not eternal? We will try to understand it with the help of a concept. These three religions are called theistic religions. Theism does not mean that I believe in God; it is a technical word. It refers to the religion or the philosophy in which God is the absolute power. God is so powerful in these three religions that it can even destroy the soul. As per these religions, the people who perform bad deeds go to hell. In hell, God, Allah, Yahweh (i.e., God of the Jews) can also destroy evil souls. But in the Indian tradition, the soul is eternal. It means that the soul cannot be destroyed. The concept of soul exists in all these three religions as well as Hinduism. One believes that soul can be destroyed, the other believes that soul is eternal. As per the three religions, the soul which finds a place in heaven becomes eternal. But the soul which finds a place in hell gets destroyed.

Now after the soul, there is a third concept called reincarnation, and almost all Indian Philosophies believe in it, except one, i.e., Charvak. As he denies every concept. Charvaka states that there is nothing beyond the world. All such concepts are baseless, and there is no soul, there is no God, there is no reincarnation. Karma principle is the main guiding force. All other concepts are useless. "Have fun, be cool. Pitwa pitwa punah pitwa, yavat patati bhutale." i.e., drink till you fall on the ground. This is Charvak’s most basic sentence. "Pitwa pitwa punah pitwa, yavat patati bhutale." You won’t be understanding it, I think so. Pitwa pitwa punah pitwa, yavat jab tak patiti gir pado bhutale zamin par. They are cool people, they don't care. Charvak’s philosophy is like the party should go on continuously. Every other philosophy, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, believe in the concept of reincarnation. How reincarnation takes place? So those who believe that there is a soul, then reincarnation also happens through the soul. Sankhya philosophy views the soul on a different level. Advaita Vedanta views the soul at a different level. They say that living beings reincarnate. They also agree at certain similar points. Buddhist Philosophy says that there is no soul. There is just a stream of consciousness. For instance, one lamp is burning, and if we light another lamp with its fire, then the entire fire does not get transferred. Fire is a process; it just transfers. The stream of consciousness that was flowing in a body, so the fire's really got transferred. Fire is a process, and the process shifted to another lamp. So stream of consciousness is flowing in a body. Now got disconnected from the other body. With this example, we will try to understand reincarnation. It is just a way of explaining things. But everyone believes in the concept of reincarnation. And reincarnation explains that if one is born in a poor household, then his karmas would have been bad in the previous life. It is linked to the Karma theory. If one is born in a rich household, then his karmas must have been good in the previous life. Even the caste system and the gender system can also be justified. And that's why some people allege that Karma Theory inhibits social change and it forces one person to remain in the same state forever and is a proponent of fatalism. For instance, a child is handicapped from birth, and if we say to him that he is handicapped in this birth due to the karmas of his previous life, it sounds strange. But one gets some satisfaction by knowing that why this bad thing happened to him. So it is sort of a good thing. All Indians believe in the karma theory, whether it harms or benefits them. Reincarnation links the Indian tradition. The concept of reincarnation does not exist in other religions, but there is a term in the Western tradition called resurrection. What is the word in Indian Philosophy? The word is rebirth or reincarnation. There is another word, i.e., metempsychosis. This too refers to rebirth. But the concept of resurrection is a little different. You must have read the Pythagoras theorem in mathematics. Pythagoras was a Western philosopher. Pythagoras was a staunch supporter of reincarnation. He used to claim that reincarnation happens. Plato and Socrates have quoted some examples in favor of reincarnation. Pythagoras was a staunch supporter of reincarnation. Christianity does not believe in reincarnation, and all these people lived before Christianity. They belong to BC, and Christianity came after Christ. After Christ, there was a person named G. Bruno in Italy. He was a scientist as well as a mathematician. He was also a philosopher and had many mystical experiences. He believed in Calvinism and claimed that the earth and the world is God in itself. Christianity does not accept this concept. Then G. Bruno said that reincarnation also happens. Christianity does not accept the concept of reincarnation either. Then he said that earth and the sun are not the only celestial bodies; many more such stars exist in the universe, and every single star is a sun in itself. Christianity disapproved his claims and imprisoned him for seven years. When he came out of the jail, again asked whether his mind is fine now or not. He said my thoughts were right at that time, also the same right now, only you are wrong. And then in 1600 AD, he was burnt alive at the crossroads in Rome. So among the people who martyred for the freedom of speech, or free speech, Socrates martyred for free speech. People respect him in that tradition. He claimed that rebirth is truth. Rebirth happens. Nowadays, some people in science have started claiming that rebirth is reality. If you want to look into science, then in psychology, there is a branch in psychiatry, parapsychology. This topic will be discussed in the class separately. You must have seen one name, a man named Professor Ian Stevenson. He carried research for 40 years at the University of Virginia. He wrote 12 books. One of the very famous books is "The Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation." Thousands of cases that children do claim that I remembered my previous birth. He studied thousands of such cases, tried to reject it in every way, but about 20 cases, he wrote, even after deep investigation, I can't prove anything else. I think it is a sign of rebirth. Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation suggests that reincarnation must be the reality. There must have been rebirth. Later he started enjoying the things. Then he wrote another book. Now he conducted a study that children who are born handicapped or have different marks on the body, whether born disabled, and the relation of body marks with the rebirth, and then wrote a book, "Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect," and tried to prove that if a baby has scars or has a disability, it is also related to previous birth. He wrote books after studying such cases, researched, and many people also did it. Some people hypnotically take you into past regression. These processes prove it. So a lot of debate is going on; nothing has been proved. A substantial amount of debate exists that there is a possibility that reincarnation is a reality. In the Indian tradition, almost everyone believes. Christian, Jewish also believe. Theoretically, reincarnation is not considered truth in Islam, but in Islam, some Sufis accepted. In the Jewish tradition, there is a word Gilgul, by the name of Gilgul. So Gilgul means something like rebirth. So let's look at some of the Jewish tradition. Hazrat Musa is considered the main proponent of Jews. Some people believe about him that he takes rebirth in every generation. You will also remember Jesus Christ when he was crucified, so on the third day he stood up again. This happened on Good Friday. Then on Easter day, he stood up. That is called resurrection. It means return to the same body. What does reincarnation mean? Pass into another life. Resurrection: resurrect, regain consciousness in the same body and stand up. And so in all these three religions, when someone dies, they bury him in the ground. What is the belief? That on the day of judgment, on Doomsday, consciousness will return to the same body, and these bodies will be alive again. So the philosophy of resurrection is prevalent in religions, but rebirth does not. That means people will take birth again and again. It's not like this. There is only one birth. In the same birth, when death occurs, the consciousness will come and make that body alive.

The fourth belief in India is that the world is full of sorrows. It is accepted uniformly in the Indian tradition, except Charvaka. Charvaka says, "Where is the sorrow? Have a drink." Then happiness is waiting for you. After that, drink and drink, you will find happiness in bulk. In fact, all the philosophers are saying that the world is full of sorrows. And if you've read about Buddha, the Buddha believed in Four Noble Truths. Four Noble Truths. When Buddha became a philosopher, remember that Buddha was a king before. He was a prince. He had all the pleasures of the world. It was written in his horoscope that this child will become a monk. His parents were under too much pressure. Every parent wants that our child should not be a monk. Our child must not be. So his father thought about a way out. So Shuddhodana was his father's name. He was a king of Shakya dynasty. He tried to keep his son happy. Tried all the tantrums. Provided every type of dish, happiness, and dessert. Given a good atmosphere, good people were around, and tied his knot with a girl. So his father searched the most beautiful girl of that time. Arranged a marriage for them. Her name was Yashodhara, thinking that he will be bound, will not become a monk. Later, Buddha realized after a time, after seeing those four scenes, what we say is that he saw a dead body, saw a sick, saw a beggar, the old man. He himself said that the world is meaningless. And then this age of 25 to 30 is considered very fatal. At this age, people become monks. He became a monk for the first time at the age of twenty-eight, and became a monk at the age of 28 or 29. By then, the son was already born, named Rahul, and went away quietly from there. Maithilisharan Gupta has written a very good book on this, Yashodhara. Someday I will tell you the story. It is written from a new perspective. So when the Buddha adhered that path, Buddha did penance again, and when he realized, it is called to attain ultimate knowledge. It was attained in Gaya under the Bodhi tree. Then he told the Four Noble Truths, meaning that there are four truths in the whole world. And the first truth is that the world is full of sorrows. Everything is sorrowful. Everything is full of suffering. This was the first truth. Hearing this, other people will feel like life is ruined. Life is full of sorrows. He said twice and emphasized that the world is full of sorrows, not like Homo sapiens, they are called sapiens. Sarva Dukham Dukham. So a follower of Charvak philosophy asked him, "What is sorrowful? Come in the evening, all the sorrows will be vanished. You will see happiness in the world only. Sorrows are not there." So Buddha said, "Happiness is more painful than sorrow. How?" So there are three problems with happiness. First, to get it, you have to suffer a lot. For an example, some of you are preparing for UPSC. You will get the happiness of collectorship. That's why you have to study for three to four years, and ultimately study is painful. Like it's sad to sit in class right now. So to get happiness, you have to suffer a lot. First thing. Whether you get happiness or not, there is always doubt. Suppose you have found happiness. After being happy, you always take stress to retain it. Then this sorrow remains. As those who are alone, what is their sorrow? That they are alone. Those who have partners, they have stress to stay together. People are filled with the sense of insecurity, especially those who have got better than themselves. They always feel that the other partner must not realize the truth and keep trying to be together with his or her. This is all the fear; it remains to everyone. And all the things you have, is not permanent. You can't hold them always. They won't last forever. Sometimes you will have to leave happiness. And the day happiness will leave from you, that day you will feel a lot of sorrow for the loss of happiness. For the retired IAS, the next day of retirement is sad for them. A day before that, even if he sneezes, ten people come. State governments go on alert that IAS has sneezed. If a secretary sneezes in Delhi, there is a ruckus in the state government that it has sneezed. Something is going to be happening from Delhi. Next day he is sneezing and coughing too. No one cares because now the power has gone out of his hand. The power has gone out of hands now; the power was in the chair, it is gone. This sadness becomes more fatal; it becomes depression at that time. So Buddha said that happiness is the sorrow of three levels: the sorrow of getting, the sorrow of handling, the sorrow of losing. This is full of sorrow, happiness is the power, three of sorrow. That's why everything in the universe is full of suffering. Everyone agrees on this in India except the Charvakas. And a follower of Sankhya philosophy even said that there are three types of sorrow: adhyatmika, adhibhautika, and adhidaivika (intra-organic, extra-organic, and the ones caused by supernatural agencies). Therefore, in Indian philosophy, one thing is that the world is sad. This world is bound. We are in bondage because of the karmic theory and because the world is full of sufferings. Well, some people say that Indian Philosophy is pessimistic. Just remember that we start with sadness, end with salvation or moksha, that is, free from suffering. So what is the fourth noble truth of Buddha? The path that leads to the end of suffering. And the path is the Eightfold Path. When we discuss Buddhism, then we will understand these names. See if someone is pessimistic or not. How it can be identified? At the initial level, or at the end level. At the end level, there is no despair in the end. Starting with the fact that yes, there is suffering in the world. Schopenhauer is the greatest of the true pessimists, what I mentioned about that from Germany. The people who never born is the best. Second best are those who died as soon as they were born. Who's the worst? We're all. Do not do anything after hearing all this at home. This is not a serious issue; someone may have said it casually after drinking. Don't take too much tension; don't give this thing too much value. Now, because the pain is more, so a concept for freedom from suffering exists in Indian philosophy of salvation. Moksha is called liberation/salvation in English. See, every religion says that there will be a real life after this life. So what is the best life in the Semitic religions? Is Swarg, that is called heaven. So what is the ultimate purpose of a Jew, Christian, or a Muslim? It is to go into heaven, and the heaven is God’s abode. Because the perception is that, Genesis… if you will read the Bible, the third part of Genesis says that Adam and Eve committed a sin when they were in heaven, in Jannat. They were in Garden of Eden. Eden Gardens does not mean Eden Garden of Calcutta. Eden Garden means Garden of Heaven. There they were roaming very happily. Some things were forbidden. They did one of the things. Why did they do it? So, it is written in Genesis that Eve provoked, so Adam did it. So the credit of the first sin basically given to a woman, that she provoked. They committed a mistake. God punished them and sent to earth as punishment. That's why primarily in this Christianity, secondarily Jews, Islamists believe that an original sin was committed due to which man and his generations are on the earth. Those who believe in this, they believe what is the purpose? Purpose is to go back there, return to the same heaven. In the Semitic religions, the other world is the purpose of life, going back to God in heaven. The concept of Moksha is different in India. There is no mention of heaven in India usually. In the beginning, in Mimamsa philosophy, at one place it is visible. Vaishnava Vedanta mentions Vaikunth Lok, which is like heaven. But the basic idea in India, except Charvak, everyone's thoughts are the same. Be it Buddhists, Jains, everyone's idea is the same. Some people called the term Moksha as Nirvana. Who says Nirvana? Tell me. Buddhists speak about Nirvana. Jains speak about Kaivalya. Nyaya Darshan calls it Apavarga. Mimansaks sometimes say it, Nih Shreyas. Shankaracharya somewhere called it liberation. Some people say liberation. The names are different, but they all mean the same thing: Moksha. And what is the meaning of Moksha? Some people believe that ending the suffering is Moksha. Some believe to attain supreme bliss is salvation or Moksha. What is the difference? We will understand like what Mahayana Buddhists believe, ecstasy. Hinayana believes that when sorrow ends, this is salvation. Nayayiks believes that the loss of consciousness is salvation, means there is no main consciousness in salvation. So there are variations. But what does it mean roughly? Roughly, it means to be free from the cycle of karma, to be free from karma bondage and reincarnation, from the cycle, from the flow, free from birth and death. Keep in mind that if you're alive, so that means there are past deeds whose account is being equalized. If you did good deeds, bad deeds, and at the time of death, the balance of karma remained, so there will be high chances of rebirth, and it will be seen according to deeds that in which species you can be sent as a rat, cat, rabbit, or anything. You can become human again, depends on how karma. And the day the balance of karma will be absolutely zero, then there will be no rebirth. And because life is sad, so to be free from this life is the bondage of karma, and to be free from the cycle of rebirth is Moksha. Therefore, Moksha is a permanent state. Once Moksha is attained, this does not happen that there is a two-year probation, after that we will see. This is not the job of UPSC, IAS. This is Moksha. It is also called salvation sometimes, but this is the real salvation. There is no probation, no training in this. Moksha means liberation, the matter is over. Human is become free from the cycle of born-death, all those troubles are over, free at once.

This is the fifth concept which is commonly seen in Indian philosophy. Let's just assume that the Indian Philosophy generally believes that the world is true. Charvak is also happy and said that, yes, you are right. Everyone said it right that the world is true. There are only three sects in India which believe that the world is not real. One of them is Advaita Vedanta. And in Mahayana Buddhism, two sects come. One is called secondary nihilism or Shunyavada, it's the same, and belongs to the person named Nagarjuna. And there is another called Yogachara Scientism, Asanga and Vasu brothers. Have you seen Nalanda? Nalanda University, all these people used to do research while staying at the Nalanda University. Together. So the place called Nalanda in Bihar has a great contribution, and that is Mahayana Buddhism. Nagarjuna used to be the principal there. The Asanga brothers used to be professors. Once upon a time, they lived together. When I went to see Nalanda for the first time, I read their names. I was horrified to see all those names. They used to sit together. So all these people together believe that this world is not real. It appears to be the world. It's a phenomenon. Phenomenon means that which appears but not reality. Everyone believes that the world is true. And usually, you have heard the word five Mahabhuta. Have you heard, Panchamahabhoot? Have you ever felt like it is for you? That among the Panchamahabhoot, is it not so? Bhoota means material, from material substance. So Charvak says that there are no five bhootas or materials. There are only four. Others believe that there are five Panchamahabhoot. These are Kshiti means soil, earth; Jal means water; Agni means fire; Gagan means sky; Sameer means wind. These are the five Mahabhootas. Charvak says that there is no sky. Everything else is fine. We can't even see the sky from here. So what is not visible, we will not believe. Their concept is that we will not believe what we do not see. So some people believe there are four Mahabhootas, some people believe that there are five Mahabhootas. Sankhya Darshana has used its three words. You must have heard that they are Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Nature is made up of all these three. Nature is expressed in the form of the world. We all have all three qualities. The person who is very calm, patient, and serious, interested in reading and writing, Sattva guna or qualities is more in him, although he has all three. The one who is always in energy, always excited to do the things and thinks for getting a govt car with red light, "If I get down here, everyone should salute me." So I go there, blah blah blah. If your senses are too much, so you are full of Rajas guna or quality, Rajasik in nature. And those who always keep sleeping, got up, ate, and went to sleep again, slept again. We had a friend. We used to say about him that Sanjay ji, when he gets tired of sleeping, they fall asleep. He was tired of sleeping. So what will you do now? Will go to sleep again. Such people are of Tamas Guna, Tamasic nature. Having heavy meal, heavy eating and sleeping. Light food, reading, writing, talking about serious things, to be humble is Satva Guna or Quality. To always be in hurry is Rajas quality, and always sleeping is Tamas quality. The nature is formed by the combination of these qualities. And this world has been created by nature only. But the point is that the world is accepted as the truth here. Lastly, religion and philosophy in India usually have a cooperative relationship. There is no relation of opposition. See that the nine philosophies, except Charvak, Jain Philosophy, Jainism, Buddhist Philosophy, Buddhism, Shat Darshan, Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma, every philosophy is linked to some religion. Later Sikh Philosophy, Sikhism. So in India, philosophy and religion have not much gap. Because ultimately, what is the purpose of both? Ultimately, the purpose of both is to free man from sorrows. This is not academic philosophy. This is a practical philosophy, applied philosophy. It deals more with the sorrows of life, whereas in the West, if you look at, there is not much similarity or cooperation between religion and philosophy. In Judaism, Islam, usually the philosophy has its roots in religion. But what is modern Western Philosophy, specifically in...

The Greek Philosophy. The gap between religion and Philosophy is very big. Hence, who killed Socrates? The religion killed him because he was rejecting the concept of religion. Who killed Bruno? The ardent follower of religion killed him because his views were not favorable as per the religion.

Some people are like this. There too, you must have heard the name of St. Augustine. You must have heard of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Must have heard of St. Elsems. These two or three people are considered to be the great thinkers of Christianity, and they have great respect in Philosophy. But generally, their academic philosophy is different, religion is different, and in our tradition, religion and philosophy usually go hand in hand and are very similar. This was a rough introduction to Indian philosophy. I hope you guys are not too bored. You must be feeling bored because your blossom smile is telling the truth itself. Before that, you all were not so active. Now it seems that you are advertising for a toothpaste. That means you got relief. If you have any questions, then ask, otherwise, let's conclude it.

Sir, my name is Tabassum. My question is that due to some principles, there was also a sense of discrimination and bigotry in the society. For example, if someone protested, he was killed. Or if we talk about the principle of Karma, if someone is suffering from leprosy, so the people of the society accept that his previous actions are giving bad results. So is this possible?

See, the thing whose link is from there, no one knows whether it is true or false. Someone suffered from leprosy. Whether it was the fruits of his deeds or not, no one can prove this. One can reject this also. It is a question of belief or disbelief. If you ask me, I would say that it is difficult to explain everything with the principle of Karma theory. Mahatma Gandhi did this once. In 1934, there was an earthquake in Bihar in the month of January. Thousands of people died. What else did Mahatma Gandhi say in that earthquake? He wrote an article in Harijan magazine and wrote that this earthquake is a result of the nineteen ninety-eight untouchability practiced by the upper caste Hindus. The karma is giving the result. Now, he must have said this with good intentions because he wanted to explain to the Hindu society that untouchability was a bad thing. So people made fun of it. Later, he wrote again that I have written thoughtfully, not written casually. But many questions arise on this. Karmic theory says if you will do any act, only you will get the fruits of the act, no one else can get the fruit. Many upper caste people also died. If it was the fruits only for people doing bad deeds, so why did the untouchables also die? When you think logically, you will find that many interpretations do not apply. My personal opinion is that we should not interpret every accident with the theory of Karma. Otherwise, a problem comes that we have to justify every bad thing in the society, and then it will be a little difficult to manage the society. So Karma theory says that if you do wrong deeds, you will definitely bear the result. But by following the theory as it is, there will be more trouble in implementing it. So it would be better to avoid it.

Hello sir, my name is Hemant. Sir, I want to ask that the universe was created, and every day we are getting better or getting worse. What is our destination? How far does this universe want to go?

You have asked a very dangerous question. He is saying that since the beginning of the universe, we are becoming better or worse can be answered, but no one knows where to go. We become bad or good. I think there are many points which will prove that we become good. We are more civilized than in ancient times, more prosperous. Technology is on our favor. We have become a more egalitarian society than before. Now women have started getting rights. Animal rights is also a point of discussion for the first time. So many things alike, and human rights also in focus everywhere. Many such things exist which prove that today's world is better than the earlier world. But there is also a threat of nuclear war. Chemical weapons are also being used. Pollution, tampering with nature has never been as much as it is today. Homo sapiens have made life difficult for other species. It never happened that much before. So the better we have become, the more we have become ugly. Both things are correct. And where to go? What is the purpose of this world? This question in itself has divided philosophy. Some people believe there is a purpose, some do not believe this. We are born by accident, die by accident. That's just life, some people believe. But believing like this brings disappointment, disinterest. So don't think so. You believe that God sent you for a special purpose and try to fulfill it. Believing this makes you happy. It is true or not, don't know, but the heart remains happy by accepting that.

Hello sir, I am Rajan Sharma. There is a saying that Socrates would have died long ago had there not been poison in that cup. Change this line. The first line is similar to the second. There was no poison in that cup, otherwise Socrates would have died.

Sir, my question is, what you have said, right now no big thinker is emerging in modern times. So they are not coming due to the danger of being killed in this era? The risk of getting killed is high these days. There's always a little bit of danger. But the best in Indian tradition is, but the best thing in Indian tradition is that the tradition of debate was very rich, which was also rich in Athens once upon a time. Once upon a time, though Socrates was murdered at the same time, but even then, you will find that the murders due to religious differences will generally be seen as negligible in Indian tradition. Philosophy can never develop in societies where there is no freedom of religious and philosophical discussions. Neither science can develop where there is more freedom of thought. There will be more development of Philosophy and science. And we are lucky in this that at least we have more scope. But it is worrying. There is a problem in many societies.

Good evening sir, my name is Tanu. So my question is that can we say that Indian Philosophy is elitist in nature? Some people believe. But if you look at the ancient, the Charvaka tradition emerged. Jain, Buddhist traditions emerged. They all emerged against that elitist religion only. Then the female philosophers in the Upanishad period, the presence of women is also challenging elitism only. It means what we see in modern times, Osho Rajneesh, Dr. Ambedkar is there. They also do not come from that elitist tradition. So yes, it is an allegation. Many say that in the Indian philosophical tradition, the role of the deprived class is not so much. The questions of the deprived classes are few, but the modern work has started on this in time. New trends are coming like this.

So let's conclude the session with this. Let me clear one more thing. Many people asked me in the comments for the recommendation of books to be read for Indian philosophy. I just opened the bookcase, took out some books from it, dusted off the book, and took it out, which I bought in 1998. Whenever I buy a book, I sign it. I write the date, the day when I buy. So the book I think is the easiest for Indian philosophy, even the simplest is not a very simple book in philosophy. However, the easiest book is "Bhartiya Darshan Ki Rooprekha" written by Professor Harendra Prasad Sinha, H. P. Sinha. If you want to read in English, "A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy" written by Chandradhar Sharma or C. D. Sharma. Both the books have been printed from Motilal Banarsidas Publications. Because this publication in the books of philosophy is considered very authentic. It was printed from there at that time. I do not know from where it is being published these days. But then this is also a question, why would you read? We will discuss here. If you are fond of reading, then I told you the names. You can read this handy book. If you want so after that, we start with Charwak and will proceed understanding many questions from there. Okay, thanks. See you soon, bye.