Back    All discussions

2012-11-20
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
I am a reader of Asian Philosophy, and also involved in research and study of 'Asian Philosophy', the ' Vedic Philosophy. In this course, what surprises me is the 'term used 'Indian Philosophy'. Vedic Philsophy is neither an Indian Philosophy nor Nepali Philosophy, nor Bengali. In South Asia, there are otther countries with traditions based on Vedas, Nepal is one of them. In Bangladesh, there are Hindus who believe in this tradition. There are people following traditions in Burma, Thailand, Malayasia, Indonesia, Sri-Lanka and also Tibet, and most recently in many countirs. Ancient South Asia was a nation called India. India is known to be so called after East India Company occupation. In South Asia, there were nations like 'Beidhe' where King Janak ruled.

I therefore express my reservation on word called 'Indian' philosophy. Something, which is recently developed may called Indian philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi's ahimsa theory can be Indian Philosophy. But How people can put Buddhism under rubric of 'Indian Philosophy'. I urge al intellectuals and philosophers to be fair and let a 'very old tradition and philosophy to survive with its own orginal name, the Veidic Philosophy, which is a philosophy of people who developed it not a nation.

I have my work in this regard called 'The Philosophy of Law: Oriental Perspective.
Yubaraj Sangroula,

2012-11-26
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
The problem regards the usage of "Indian philosophy" in general. Michel Angot has some interesting pages about it in his Introduction of his translation of the Nyāyabhāṣya (in French, unfortunately). However, the problem is that other labels are also problematic. I try to use "Sanskrit philosophy", but then time and again the term does not work because I want to include also authors who wrote in Prakrit and so on. "Indian" in this sense is only legitimate if conceived as geographically based (a philosophy produced in the Indian subcontinent, including today's Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.)

2013-01-11
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
It is true that Maharishi Vyas, the author of four vedas, though was born in this world, but as per the present context his birth place falls in India (somewhere in Uttar Pradesh state). So as Budha, Mahavir Jain and others. Therefore you might consider this point to re-examine if the birth place of any of these philosophers falls out of India in the present context.

2013-01-11
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
Reply to Elisa Freschi

Constraints in placing the ancient traditions in 'proper name might be difficulty', but the solution that you offer does not seem convincing too. When Vedas originated, neither there was something called India nor Nepal. How then can we put these traditions into a 'denomination of Indian philosophy'. With Vedic philosophy, descending down to modern era, several systems have been emerged. Some them are quite independent like Buddhism, for instance 'nyaya philosophy'. In my opinion they should treated with their own identity. Orthodox philosophy is a 'system' rooted in Vedic Philosophy', and are apt to be called individually with greater system of Vedic philosophy'. To go for territory, the 'South Asian Philosophy' is acceptable. Otherwise, the danger of it being divided into smaller territorial segments is obvious. People may choose to 'say Bengali philosophy' since certain part of it has been developed in Bengal, and 'Beisashika philosophy can be called Kerala Philosophy' as its exponent was from Kerala. Hence, the Vedic Philosophy or South Asian Philosophy would be commonly acceptable idea.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


2013-01-11
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
I try to address both of the two posts on this subject till now.

I agree that the term Indian is too chauvinistic in this context and make a suggestion that a better nomenclature would be the the study of these under the label 'Oriental Philosophy'.

This term (Oriental), could/should be read as referring to all countires in Asia and without any political incorrectness or correctness associated with the word just by virtue of its origin during colonial times.

2013-01-17
Is it logical or ethical to say Indian Philosophy to Vedic Philosophy
Reply to Ravi Singh
Many people take it for granted that 'somebody was born in India or not'. Please refer to history. The subcontinent today known as 'India' was in history a territory called 'bharatbarsa' which referred to 'a rich and powerful civilization' with abundance of wisdom.India is the 'term used first by Portuguese. The ancient bharatbarsa was ruled by several empires and they sometime represented sub-sects of 'Vedas-founded philosophy'. In that way, Buddha was not born in India, he was born in Kapilavastu, which is now in Nepal. Vyas was born in somewhere uttarpradash, which then Maghada empire. Maharshi Karnad was born in Kerala, which at times was included 'Kalingana' empire. This land has had many historic personalities. They are common of all people in South Asia. They do not belong to modern posr 1947 India, the name used by British Colonial regime. Therefore, no question of the ancient philosophy originated by countless wise people to dedicate to a word which is given by colonial rulers.This wise philosophy is developed by a civilization emerged in Sidhu bank. I think Philosophy does represent the 'true sense' of the philosophy which now exists in this part,