Doxographies - Why Six Darśanas Which Six
Doxographies - Why Six Darśanas Which Six
sense of (mere) view, theory, or speculation as distinguished from true insight samyagdarana
or tattvadarana. The combination and merger of these two meanings, or the interpretation of the
doxographic usage in the normative sense of right vision, realization, is a symptomatic innovation of
Neo-Hinduism.3
Among certain European and European-worldview-influenced scholars, Indian or Eastern
philosophy is held to be an oxymoron, mainly due to the preoccupation of the Indian systems with
liberation (and thus their practical motivations) and due to the inextricability of theology and tradition
from these systems. Philosophy, according to such scholars, is supposed to be pure and uncoupled to
theology and tradition, along the lines of what is found in the west. Halbfass suggests that in the Indian
context, the commitment to tradition is not a mere habitual continuation of past ways of thinking. It is
something actively asserted and pursued, something questioned, justified and rationalized. [The]
spirit of critical argumentation is also reflected in the idea of nvkik.4 Scholars such as Hermann
Jacobi proposed that this term nvkik, investigation through reasoning better captured the
association of the Indian systems with pure theory. However, nvkiks significance as an indicator
of rational and methodological attitudes and programs has been ambiguous and temporary. As far as its
overall historical role is concerned, it can hardly be considered an equivalent to philosophy.5
Both Halbfass and King argue that Indian philosophy does not reflect the European Enlightenment
split between religion and philosophy because there was no equivalent antagonism towards religion in
the culture. While darana or nvkik do not exactly correspond to European philosophy, this does
not imply the absence of concern with metaphysics, epistemology, ontology and linguistic analysis. In
fact there is found in these daranas a level of sophistication comparable to that found in European
thought and worthy of study.6
3
According to Qvarnstrm , Bhvavivekas MHK7 (fifth cent. CE) is not only the earliest
doxographical work which we possess, but also one of the most valuable sources for the study of the
history of Indian philosophy.8 There are moments when [Bhvaviveka] gives the impression of being
the Indian traditions earliest and most diligent collector of philosophical trivia.9 It covers six schools
(in addition to its own Madhyamaka philosophy), two of which are Buddhist:
1. rvakayna or Hnayna 4. Skhya
2. Yogcra
5. Vednta
3. Vaieika
6. Mms
The Tamil Buddhist verse epic by Cttanr/ttanr, Maimekhalai from around 500A.D. also lists
six systems:10
1. Lokyata
2. Buddhism
3. Skhya
4. Nyya
5. Vaieika
6. Mms
The Jaina Haribhadra Sri (end of eight century CE) in his adaranasamuccaya reinforces the
six schools idea and describes:11
1. Buddhists
2. Nyya
3. Skhya
4. Jaina
5. Vaieika
6. Mms
The Buddhists are represented by a single school and no mention is made of Yoga and Vednta, which
are presumably subsumed by Skhya and Mms respectively.
Other Jaina doxographies either typically indicate that they are a survey of six systems by
including the number six in their title, as Merutugas adarananiraya,12 or they claim to offer a
Madhyamaka-hdaya-krik.
Qvarnstrm (1989), p.15
9
Eckel, p.3.
10
von Glasenapp, p.140; Halbfass (1988), p.560, n.10,13.
11
adaranasamuccaya 3: bauddha naiyyika skhya jaina vaieika tath | jaiminya ca nmni
darannm amny aho ||
12
Halbfass (1988), pp.351-2.
3
8
4. Skhya
5. Yoga
6. Advaita Vednta
A closing chapter deals with vykaraa, grammar, and no mention is made of any Buddhist system whatsoever.
Halbfass says that the number six also serves as a guideline even when a greater number of
systems are actually treated.17 For example, the Sarvamatasagraha, written possibly by
Rghavnanda, sometime in the second millennium, not very old,18 is also aligned with Advaita
Vednta. At first, it considers the systems in two groups of three (before expanding them further):
Heterodox avaidka, nstika:
1. Buddhists
2. Jaina
3. Materialists
13
Both these doxographies further expand the heterodox schools to six by sub-dividing Buddhism
into four schools. The orthodox schools similarly are made to constitute six by further sub-dividing
Tarka into Nyya and Vaieika, Skhya into Kapilas Skhya and Ptajalis Yoga, and Mms
into Prva- and Uttara-mms.20
The Sarvasiddhntasagraha, falsely ascribed to akara21 also has a similar organization:
Avaidika systems
1. Lokyata
2. Jaina (arhata)
3. Mdhyamika
4. Yogcra
5. Sautrntika
6. Vaibhika
Vaidika systems
7. Vaieika
8. Mmms (Bhaa & Prabhkara)
9. Skhya
10. Ptajali Yoga
11. Mahbhrata (Vedavysa)
12. Vednta
Crvka
Buddhist
Jaina
Rmanujas Viitdvaita
Madhvas Dvaita
Nakulas Pupata
aiva
Pratyabhij (spanda or
trika Kmra aiva)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Rasevara aivism
Vaieika
Nyya
Jaiminya Mms
Pinya abddvaita/uddhdvaita
Skhya
Ptajala Yoga
kara Vednta
The systems are listed in hierarchical order, starting with the materialists and the other heterodox
systems. Notice how kara Vednta is listed as the final system, implying that it the culmination of all
the other systems.
20
21
Nstika, heterodox
o dhyakika:
1. Crvka
o Trkika
Kanikavdin:
2. Bauddha
Sydvdin:
3. Jaina
stika, orthodox
o Sagutmavdin
Trkika
Pracchanna
o Pracchanna-dvaita:
4. Rmnujya Viidvaita
o Spaa-dvaita:
5. Madhva Dvaita
Spaa
o Bhogasdhandavdin
Videhamuktivdin
tmabhedavdin
o Karmnapekevaravdin: 6. Nakula-Pupata
o Karmaspekevaravdin: 7. aiva
tmaikyavdin: 8. Pratyabhijdarin
Jvanmuktivdin 9. Rasevara
o Utpattisdhandavdin
abdnagkra: 10. Vaieika
abdgkra:
11. Naiyyika
rauta
Vkyrthavedin: 12. Mmsaka
Padarthavedin:
13. Vaiykaraa
o Nirgutmavdin
Trkika
Nirvara:
14. Skhya
Sevara:
15. Ptajala Yoga
rauta:
16. kara-Vednta
As mentioned in the beginning, nowadays it is customary to group the six orthodox vaidika, stika
schools as schools of Hindu philosophy, paired as follows:
1. Nyya, logic &
3. Skhya, dualistic discrimination &
5. Mms, Vedic exegesis &
2. Vaieika, atomism
4. Yoga, praxis based on the Skhya view
6. Vednta, based on the end of the Vedas,
the Upaniads.
There is an hierarchy implied in the ordering of these systems, with Vednta representing the apex in
soteriological efficacy.23
22
pp.xvi-xvii.
6
According to von Glasenapp, it is difficult to establish when it first came to be established that the
six daranas were all Hindu and Vedic. The expression darana-aka is first supported in fairly late
brahmanical works (Vetlapacavishat and Kulrnavatantra), according to the Petersburg dictionary.
Since Vcaspatimir had commented on the principal works of all these systems (with the exception of
Vaieika) by 850 C.E., the view that these systems constitute a closely related whole had at least one
supporter by then. In the eleventh century drama Prabodhacandrodaya by Kamira, one clearly
encounters the opinion that ultimate ends of the six daranas have a common foundation.24 By the
advaitin Rmabhadra Dkitas time (seventeenth or eighteenth century CE) this Hindu-centric view
seems fairly entrenched.
There is certainly a natural division between the nstika, heterodox and stika, orthodox systems.
Halbfass suggests that Buddhism in particular has been included, assimilated, superseded and at the
same time excluded and disregarded by Hindu thought.25 The omission of the heterodox systems from
the six daranas can thus be considered a reflection of this tendency to focus on Hindu daranas. The
neo-Hinduism movement, beginning with Rammohan Roy in the early nineteenth century can be
considered neo-Vednta,26 and thus inherits the inclusivist Vedic and Vedntic view which subsumes the
heterodox systems. For example, Vivekananda (1900) desired to return the Indian world to its pristine
purity based on its Vedic origins.27 He held Buddhism responsible for the degeneration of Hinduism
and at the same time used Buddhism to demonstrate the universal reach and inclusivist power of
23
Hinduism.28 It would only be natural that the exclusively orthodox adarana enumeration gets
reinforced by the proponents of neo-Hinduism.
In Buddhism too, we have the six heretical teachers whose arguments the Buddha refutes, for
example in the rmayaphala Stra:
1. Maskar Goliputra
2. Nirgrantha Jtiputra
3. Pra Kyapa
4. Ajita Keakambala
5. Kakuda Ktyyana
6. Sajay Vairaputra
The number six has played a role since ancient times in the enumeration of metaphysical systems.
There are the six vedgas, limbs of the Veda, grouped in pairs:29
Vedic sciences also occur in Kauilyas list of sciences in his Arthastra (I.1)30 (c. 400 BCE):
If one were to count the tray as three separate sciences, once again that brings the count to six.
(Interestingly however, the three sciences of the tray dont directly correspond to the vedgas unless
28
Ibid., p.235.
MW, s.v. vedaga.
30
Halbfass (1988), p.274: nvkik tray vrtt daanti ca-iti vidy.
31
This term has been considered equivalent to philosophy, as seen earlier in context of the discussion of what darana
means.
32
MW, s.v. traya
8
29
one differentiates either the chanting or reciting of the tray to involve the vykaraa and nirukta of the
vedgas).
Madhusdana Saraswati (early sixteenth century), in his Prasthnabheda, lists eighteen (six times
three!) traditional sciences, vidy:33
Earlier, Bhsarvaja (ca. 900 CE) had also proposed augmenting the list of fourteen vidys (above list
minus the upavedas) with medicine, vaidyastra and the aivasiddhnta sectarian tradition for a total of
sixteen.34 By counting astrastra, sthpatyaveda and ilpastra individually instead of collectively,
the list can be made to consist of eighteen members.
An somewhat similar, older list of seventeen vidys was enumerated in Chndogya Up. 7.1.2 (sixth
to fifth cent. BCE):35
1-4. the four Vedas,
5. itihsapurna, the corpus of histories and ancient tales,
5. pitrya, ancestral rites,
7. rsi, mathematics,
8. daivam, soothsaying,
9. nidhi, the art of locating treasures,
10. vkovkya, dialogue,
11. ekyana, monologues,36
12. devavidy, the science of the gods,
13. brahmavidy, the science of ritual,
33
Shastri (1963).
RV 1.23.15.
39
RV 1.164.6, 2.13.10, 6.47.3, 10.14.16, 10.128.5.
40
bhra, RV 3.56.2.
41
RV 1.164.12.
38
10
Haribhadra Sris adaranasamuccaya also treats Nyya and Vaieika separately, in addition to
the Buddhist and the Jaina systems. Further, Yoga and Vednta are often considered to be part of the
Skhya and Mms systems respectively, for example in Cttanrs Maimekhalai,
Haribhadras adaranasamuccaya and Jayanta Bhaas Nyyamajar.
2. Some doxographies such as Rghavnandas Sarvamatasagraha, Mdhava Sarasvats
Sarvadaranakaumud and pseudo-akaras Sarvasiddhntasagraha treat more than six systems,
first dividing them into heterodox and orthodox groups each containing three systems, and then
expanding each sub-group to six systems.
3. One notable exception to multiple-of-six rule is Mdhava-Vidyrayas Sarvadaranasagraha
which covers sixteen systems, treating Buddhism as a single system which is one of the usual three
heterodox systems. The usual six orthodox systems are also present, but besides Advaita Vednta,
the variants Viitdvaita, Dvaita and abddvaita are also covered. In addition four Saivite systems,
Pupata, aiva, Kmra and Rasevara are also included.
4. The authors of the doxographies are predominantly either Jain (Haribhadra, Merutuga) or Advaitin
(Mdhava-Vidyraya, Mdhava Sarasvati, pseudo-akara, Rmabhadra Dkita, Rghavnanda).
We have two Buddhist compilations, Bhvavivekas MHK and Cttanrs Maimekhalai in Tamil.43
Whereas the Jaina doxograhies do not follow any recognizable schema in their presentation of the
six systems, the Advaita Vednta doxographic texts are usually based upon a hierarchical
classification at whose apex stands the Vednta and at the nadir is either materialism
(Crvka/Lokyata) or, when only orthodox vaidika teachings are considered, the
42
RV 2.18.4.
There is also ntarakitas Tattvasagraha with a commentary, Pajik by Kamalala, both eight century CE.
Tattvasagraha is a series of 26 critiques of the realities, i.e. supposed ultimate realities, first causes, categories and the
like as variously conceived by practically all the schools of philosophy, leaving unscathed only conditioned origination as
understood by Ngrjuna, along with Dharmakrts epistemology. (Warder, p.205). This text contains a richness of
doxographic information (Halbfass, 1988, p.355).
11
43
12
the cases of the Bhsarvaja and Chndogya Upaniad lists of vidys). If one were to do the same for
enumerations of lists comprising four or five or seven members, one will probably come up with
equally large sets of data. In the context of the daranas, one can speculate that perhaps at an earlier
point, doxographers felt that covering six systems demonstrated a thoroughness, a certain breadth of
perspective and familiarity with other views. But why not five or seven instead, one cant say.
Perhaps doxographers could not resist a pun, intentionally taking advantage of the phonological
similarity between ad, six and sad, true. We do see treatments such as the Buddhist MHK, the
Sarvasiddhntapraveaka (by an anonymous Jain author) and Rmabhadra Dkitas
adaransiddhntasagraha that effectively deal with seven systems,51 and
Mdhava-Vidyrayas Sarvadaranasagraha treats sixteen if six is comprehensive, seven,
twelve or sixteen is even more so! Over time perhaps this recurrence of six systems in the
doxographical context takes on an aspect of historical convention, which isnt hurt by the
(coincidental?) fact that both the heterodox and the orthodox systems can be further expanded out to
six systems each.
Thus the adarana classification can be thought of as a convenient starting point into the study of
Indian philosophy, a picture painted as it were in very broad strokes. But one needs to be aware of its
limitations and to pay attention to what is being included, what isnt and why. One must not assume that
the stika adarana developed independent of the nstika systems or that Hindu equals Indian.52
To get a fuller picture, one has to fill in details pertaining to additional daranas and relate them to what
one started with. This, I suppose, is how books on Indian philosophy come to be written!
50
For example, I could have also looked at the lists of six items in the Buddhist sagti suttas, in the Bhagavad Gt, in
Puric literature, etc.
51
The seventh in MHK is Bhvavivekas own Madhyamaka system; in the Sarvasiddhntapraveaka, it is the Lokyata; and
in adaransiddhntasagraha, grammar or vykaraa.
52
King, p.33.
13
Works Cited
Agrawal, Madan Mohan (2002), The Sarva-Darana-Sagraha of Mdhavcrya with English
Translation, Transliteration and Indices. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.
Dasgupta, Surendranath (1922), A History of Indian Philosophy, v1-5. Reprinted 1997, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Eckel, Malcolm D. (1992), To See the Buddha: A Philosophers Quest for the Meaning of Emptiness.
Princeton University Press.
Gokhale, V. V. (1962), Masters of Buddhism adore the Brahman through Non-adoration (Bhavya
Madhyamakahdaya, III Indo-Iranian Journal 5:271-5.
Halbfass, Wilhelm (1988), India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Halbfass, Wilhelm (1991), Tradition and Reflection: Explorations in Indian Thought. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
King, Richard (1999), Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Washington
D.C: Georgetown University Press.
Monier-Williams, M. (1899), A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Olivelle, Patrick (1998), The Early Upaniads: Annotated Text and Translation. Oxford University
Press.
Qvarnstrm, Olle (1989), Hindu Philosophy in Buddhist Perspective: The Vedntatattvanicaya
Chapter of Bhavyas Madhyamakahdayakrik. (Lund Studies in African and Asian religions v.
4) Lund Plus Ultra.
astr, Goswm Dmodara ed. (1957), adaranasamuccaya by r Haribhadrasuri with the
Laghuvtti Commentary by r Maibhadra. Banaras: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
Shastri, Vishva Bandhu (1963), Rgveda-vaiyakarana-padasuci A Grammatical Word-index to Rgveda.
Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute.
von Glasenapp, Helmuth (1958), Die Philosophie der Inder: Eine Einfhrung in ihre Geschichte und
ihre Lehren. Stuttgart: Alfred Kroner Verlag.
Warder, A. K. (1998), A Course in Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
14