Indian philosophy consists of philosophical traditions of theIndian subcontinent. The philosophies are often called darśana, meaning "to see" or "looking at."[2][3] Ānvīkṣikī means “critical inquiry” or “investigation." Unlike darśana, ānvīkṣikī was used to refer to Indian philosophies by classical Indian philosophers, such asChanakya in theArthaśāstra.[3][4]
A traditional Hindu classification dividesāstika and nāstika schools of philosophy, depending on one of three alternate criteria: whether it believes theVedas as a valid source of knowledge; whether the school believes in the premises ofBrahman andAtman; and whether the school believes in afterlife andDevas.[5][6][7] (though there are exceptions to the latter two: Mimamsa and Samkhya respectively).
There are six major (āstika) schools ofVedic philosophy—Nyaya,Vaisheshika,Samkhya,Yoga,Mīmāṃsā andVedanta—and five major non-Vedic or heterodox (nāstika or sramanic) schools—Jain,Buddhist,Ajivika,Ajñana, andCharvaka. The āstika group embraces theVedas as an essential source of its foundations, while the nāstika group does not. However, there are other methods of classification;Vidyaranya for instance identifies sixteen schools of Indian philosophy by including those that belong to theŚaiva andRaseśvara traditions.[8][9]
Indian philosophies share many concepts such asdharma,karma,samsara,dukkha,renunciation,meditation, with almost all of them focusing on the ultimate goal of liberation of the individual fromdukkha andsamsara through diverse range of spiritual practices (moksha,nirvana).[14] While many sutra texts explicitly mention that the work leads to moksha, Indian philosophy is not exclusively concerned with moksha.[15]
They differ in their assumptions about the nature of existence as well as the specifics of the path to the ultimate liberation, resulting in numerous schools that disagreed with each other. Their ancient doctrines span the diverse range of philosophies found in other ancient cultures.[16]
Hindu philosophy has a diversity of traditions and numerous saints and scholars, such as Adi Shankara of Advaita Vedanta school.
Some of the earliest surviving Indian philosophical texts are theUpanishads of thelater Vedic period (1000–500 BCE), which are considered to preserve the ideas ofBrahmanism. Indian philosophical traditions are commonly grouped according to their relationship to the Vedas and the ideas contained in them. The origins ofJainism remain enigmatic, with scholarly consensus divided between pre-Vedic roots, parallel development alongside Vedic civilization or post-Vedic emergence. The historical presence of its 23rdTirthankara,Parshvanatha in the 8th-7th century BCE provides one of the earliest anchors of the tradition.[17] Despite the accepted historicity of Parshvanath, the historical claims such as the link between him and Mahavira, whether Mahavira renounced in the ascetic tradition of Parshvanatha, and other biographical details have led to different scholarly conclusions.[18] Doubts about Parshvanatha's historicity are also supported by the oldest Jain texts, which present Mahavira with sporadic mentions of ancient ascetics and teachers without specific names (such as sections 1.4.1 and 1.6.3 of theAcaranga Sutra).[19] Even the early archaeological finds, such as the statues and reliefs nearMathura, lackiconography such as lions and serpents.[20][21]Buddhism also originated at the end of theVedic period. These traditions drew upon already established Brahmanical concepts, states Wiltshire, to communicate their own distinct doctrines.[22]
Hindu philosophy classify Indian philosophical traditions as either orthodox (āstika) or heterodox (nāstika), depending on whether they accept the authority of theVedas and the theories ofbrahman andātman found therein.[5][6] Besides these, the "heterodox" schools that donot accept the authority of the Vedas include Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Charvaka.[23][24][25]
This orthodox-heterodox terminology is a scholarly construct found in later Indian sources (and in Western sources on Indian thought) and not all of these sources agree on which system should be considered "orthodox".[26][27] As such there are variousheresiological systems in Indian philosophy.[7] Some traditions see "orthodox" as a synonym for "theism" and "heterodox" as a synonym foratheism.[28] Other Hindu sources argue that certain systems of Shaivatantra should be considered heterodox due to its deviations from the Vedic tradition.[29]
One of the most common list of Hindu orthodox schools is the "six philosophies" (ṣaḍ-darśana), which are:[30]
Sāṃkhya (school of "Enumeration"), a philosophical tradition which regards the universe as consisting of two independent realities:puruṣa (the perceivingconsciousness) andprakṛti (perceived reality, including mind, perception,kleshas, andmatter) and which describes a soteriology based on this duality, in whichpurush is discerned and disentangled from the impurities ofprakriti. It has included atheistic authors as well as some theistic thinkers, and forms the basis of much of subsequent Indian philosophy.
Yoga, a school similar toSāṃkhya (or perhaps even a branch of it) which accepts a personal god and focuses on yogic practice.
Nyāya (the "Logic" school), a philosophy which focuses on logic and epistemology. It accepts four kinds ofPramā (valid presentation): (1) perception, (2) inference, (3) comparison or analogy, (4) word or testimony.[31]Nyāya defends a form of directrealism and a theory ofsubstances (dravya).
Vaiśeṣika (the school of "Characteristics"), closely related to theNyāya school, this tradition focused on the metaphysics of substance, and on defending a theory of atoms. UnlikeNyāya, they only accept two pramanas: perception and inference.
Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā (the school of "Prior Investigation" [of the Vedas]), a school which focuses on exegesis of the Vedas,philology and the interpretation ofVedic ritual.
Vedānta ("the end of the Vedas", also calledUttara Mīmāṃsā), focuses on interpreting the philosophy of theUpanishads, particularly the soteriological and metaphysical ideas relating to Atman and Brahman.
Sometimes these six are coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons:Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika,Sāṃkhya-Yoga, andMīmāṃsā-Vedānta. Each tradition also included different currents and sub-schools. For example, Vedānta was divided among the sub-schools ofAdvaita (non-dualism),Visishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism),Dvaita (dualism),Dvaitadvaita (dualistic non-dualism),Suddhadvaita (pure non-dualism), andAchintya Bheda Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference).
The doctrines of the Vedas and Upanishads were interpreted differently by these six schools, with varying degrees of overlap. They represent a "collection of philosophical views that share a textual connection", according toChadha 2015.[32] They also reflect a tolerance for a diversity of philosophical interpretations within Hinduism while sharing the same foundation.[33]
Hindu philosophers of the orthodox schools developed systems of epistemology (pramana) and investigated topics such as metaphysics, ethics, psychology (guṇa),hermeneutics, andsoteriology within the framework of the Vedic knowledge, while presenting a diverse collection of interpretations.[34][35][36][37] The commonly named six orthodox schools were the competing philosophical traditions of what has been called the "Hindu synthesis" ofclassical Hinduism.[38][39][40]
All these systems are not the only "orthodox" systems of philosophy, as numerous sub-schools developed throughout the history of Hindu thought. They are however the most well known Hindu philosophical traditions.
In addition to the six systems, the Hindu philosopherVidyāraṇya (ca. 1374–1380) also includes several further Hindu philosophical systems in hisSarva-darśana-saṃgraha (ACompendium of all the Philosophical Systems):[8]
Shaiva Siddhantha, a theistic and dualistic school of Shaivism, which is influenced by Samkhya, and expands the Samkhya system further.
Pratyabhijña (the school of "Recognition"), which defends an idealistic monism and part of theKashmir Shaivism tradition of Tantric Shaivism
Pāṇini Darśana, a tradition focusing on Sanskrit linguistics and grammar which also developed the theory ofsphoṭavāda underBhartṛhari, a theory which places speech and sound at the center of its metaphysics.
Raseśvara, analchemical school which advocated the use of mercury as a way to attain enlightenment.
IndianŚramaṇa tradition had one of its earliest known prominent exemplar asParshvanatha, the 23rdTirthankar in 9th century BCE.[43][44] It became prominent in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, and even more so during theMauryan period (c. 322–184 BCE).Jainism andBuddhism were especially influential. These traditions influenced all later forms of Indian philosophy who either adopted some of their ideas or reacted against them.[45]
Rishabhadeva, believed to have lived over a million years ago, is considered the founder of Jain religion in the present time cycle.
Jain philosophy is the oldest Indian philosophy that separates body (matter) from thesoul (consciousness) completely.[46] Each individual soul is inherently endowed with infinite knowledge and boundless bliss. However, since infinity its true nature has remained veiled due to ignorance, causing it to mistakenly identify with the physical body. This misidentification leads to suffering and the accumulation ofkarma. As karma accumulates, the soul becomes bound to the cycle of birth and rebirth, perpetuating a continuous journey of suffering and ignorance, until it ultimately attains liberation throughself-realization (atma-anubhuti).[47]Jainism lays down the path for the soul to realize its true nature by right faith and active awareness of the self(bhedvigyān) as an unchanging eternalgnāta (knower) anddrashtā (witness) distinct from its ignorant activities like thoughts, passions, etc.[48]
Jainism experienced a resurgence afterMahavira, the 24thTirthankara, revitalized and unified the ancient teachings of the Śramaṇic tradition, originally established by Rishabhadeva, the first Jain Tirthankara, millions of years prior.[49] Historians outside of the Jain tradition date Mahavira to the 6th century BCE, roughly contemporaneous with theBuddha.[17] This timeline would place the historicalParshvanatha approximately 250 years earlier, in the 9th century BCE.[44]
Jainism is a Śramaṇic religion and rejected the authority of the Vedas. However, like allIndian religions, it shares the core concepts such as karma, ethical living, rebirth, samsara and moksha. Jainism places strong emphasis onasceticism,ahimsa (non-violence) andanekantavada (relativity of viewpoints) as a means of spiritual liberation, ideas that influenced other Indian traditions.[50]
Jainism strongly upholds the individualistic nature of soul and personal responsibility for one's decisions; and that self-reliance and individual efforts alone are responsible for one's liberation. According to the Jain philosophy, the world (Saṃsāra) is full ofhiṃsā (violence). Therefore, one should direct all efforts towards the attainment ofRatnatraya, which are Samyak Darshan (right perception), Samyak Gnana (right knowledge) and Samyak Chàritra (right conduct), the key requisites to attain liberation.[51]
The Buddhist philosophy is based on the teachings of theBuddha.
Buddhist philosophy refers to several traditions which can be traced back to the teachings ofSiddhartha Gautama,the Buddha ("awakened one"). Buddhism is a Śramaṇa religion, but it contains novel ideas not found or accepted by other Śramaṇa religions, such as the Buddhist doctrine of not-self (anatta). Buddhist thought is also influenced by the thought of theUpanishads.[52]
Buddhism and Hinduism mutually influenced each other and shared many concepts, however it is now difficult to identify and describe these influences.[53] Buddhism rejected the Vedic concepts ofBrahman (ultimate reality) andAtman (soul, self) at the foundation of Hindu philosophies.[54][55][56][57]
Buddhism shares many philosophical views with other Indian systems, such as belief inkarma – a cause-and-effect relationship,samsara – ideas about cyclic afterlife and rebirth,dharma – ideas about ethics, duties and values,impermanence of all material things and of body, and possibility of spiritual liberation (nirvana ormoksha).[58][59] A major departure from Hindu and Jain philosophy is the Buddhist rejection of an eternal soul (atman) in favour ofanatta (non-Self).[55][60][61][62][63] After the death of the Buddha, several competing philosophical systems termedAbhidharma began to emerge as ways to systematize Buddhist philosophy.[64]
The main traditions of Buddhist philosophy in India (from 300 BCE to 1000 CE) can be divided into Mahayana schools and non-Mahayana schools (sometimes calledŚrāvakayāna schools,Nikaya Buddhism, "Mainstream" Buddhism orHinayana, "inferior" or "lesser" vehicle, a term used only in Mahayana to refer to non-Mahayana traditions).[65] The Mahayana schools accepted theMahayana sutras and studied the works of Mahayana philosophers likeNagarjuna. The non-Mahayana schools drew their philosophical doctrines from the Tripitaka and on the Abhidharma treatises.
Śrāvakayāna schools (non-Mahayana):
TheMahāsāṃghika ("Great Community") tradition (which included numerous sub-schools, all are now extinct). A key doctrine of this tradition was the supramundane and transcendent nature of the Buddha (lokottaravada).
Sautrāntika ("Those who uphold the sutras"), a tradition which did not see the northern Abhidharma as authoritative, and instead focused on the Buddhistsutras. They disagreed with the Vaibhāṣika on several key points, including their eternalistic theory of time, theirdirect realism and their realist theory ofnirvana.
Pudgalavāda ("Personalists"), which were known for their controversial theory of the "person" (pudgala) which is what undergoes rebirth and attain awakening. They are now extinct.
Vibhajyavāda ("The Analysts"), a widespread tradition which reached Kashmir, South India and Sri Lanka. A part of this school has survived into the modern era as the Southeast AsianTheravada tradition. Their orthodox positions can be found in theKathavatthu. They rejected the views of thePudgalavāda and of theVaibhāṣika among others.
A Japanese depiction ofNagarjuna, one of the greatest Buddhist philosophers and founder of Madhyamaka
TheMahāyāna ("Great Vehicle") movement (c. 1st century BCE onwards) included new ideas and scriptures (Mahayana sutras). These philosophical traditions differ significantly from other schools of Buddhism, and include metaphysical doctrines which are not accepted by the other Buddhist traditions. Mahayana thought focuses on the universal altruistic ideal of thebodhisattva, a being who is on the path toBuddhahood for the sake of all living beings. It also defends the doctrine that there are limitless number of Buddhas throughout limitless numbers of universes. These Indian traditions are the main source of modern Tibetan Buddhism and of modern East Asian Buddhism.
The main Indian Mahayana schools of philosophy are:
Madhyamaka ("Middle way" or "Centrism") founded byNagarjuna. Also known asŚūnyavāda (theemptiness doctrine) andNiḥsvabhāvavāda (the nosvabhāva doctrine), this tradition focuses on the idea that all phenomena are empty of any essence or substance (svabhāva).
Yogācāra ("Yoga-praxis"), an idealistic school which held that only consciousness exists, and thus was also known asVijñānavāda (the doctrine of consciousness).
Some scholars see theTathāgatagarbha ("Buddha womb/source") or "buddha-nature" texts as constituting a third "school" of Indian Mahāyāna thought.[66]
Vajrayāna (also known as Mantrayāna, Tantrayāna, Secret Mantra, andTantric Buddhism) is often placed in a separate category due to its uniquetantric theories and practices.
Many of these philosophies were brought to other regions, like Central Asia and China. After the disappearance of Buddhism from India, some of these philosophical traditions continued to develop in theTibetan Buddhist,East Asian Buddhist andTheravada Buddhist traditions.[67][68]
Monastic life has been a part of all Indian philosophy traditions. Mendicant caves of extinct Ājīvikas in Bihar.[69]
The philosophy of Ājīvika was founded byMakkhali Gosala, it was aŚramaṇa movement and a major rival ofearly Buddhism andJainism.[70] Ājīvikas were organised renunciates who formed discrete monastic communities prone to an ascetic and simple lifestyle.[71]
Original scriptures of the Ājīvika school of philosophy may once have existed, but these are currently unavailable and probably lost. Their theories are extracted from mentions of Ajivikas in the secondary sources of ancient Indian literature, particularly those of Jainism and Buddhism which polemically criticized the Ajivikas.[72] The Ājīvika school is known for itsNiyati doctrine of absolute determinism (fate), the premise that there is no free will, that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely preordained and a function of cosmic principles.[72][73] Ājīvika considered thekarma doctrine as a fallacy.[74] Ājīvikas were atheists[75] and rejected the authority of theVedas, but they believed that in every living being is anātman – a central premise of Hinduism and Jainism.[76][77]
Ajñana was one of the nāstika or "heterodox" schools of ancient Indian philosophy, and the ancient school of radical Indian skepticism. It was a Śramaṇa movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. Their ideas are recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They held that it was impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it was useless and disadvantageous for final salvation. They were sophists who specialised in refutation without propagating any positive doctrine of their own.
The etymology ofCharvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक) is uncertain. Bhattacharya quotes the grammarian Hemacandra, to the effect that the wordcārvāka is derived from the root carv, 'to chew' : "A Cārvāka chews the self (carvatyātmānaṃ cārvākaḥ). Hemacandra refers to his own grammatical work, Uṇādisūtra 37, which runs as follows: mavāka-śyāmāka-vārtāka-jyontāka-gūvāka-bhadrākādayaḥ. Each of these words ends with the āka suffix and is formed irregularly". This may also allude to the philosophy's hedonistic precepts of "eat, drink, and be merry".
Brihaspati is traditionally referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy, although some scholars dispute this.[85][86] During the Hindu reformation period in the first millennium BCE, whenBuddhism was established byGautama Buddha andJainism was re-organized byParshvanatha, the Charvaka philosophy was well documented and opposed by both religions.[87] Much of the primary literature of Charvaka, theBarhaspatya sutras, were lost either due to waning popularity or other unknown reasons.[88] Its teachings have been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in theshastras,sutras, and theIndian epic poetry as well as in the dialogues of Gautama Buddha and fromJain literature.[88][89] However, there is text that may belong to the Charvaka tradition, written by the skeptic philosopherJayarāśi Bhaṭṭa, known as the Tattvôpaplava-siṁha, that provides information about this school, albeit unorthodox.[90][91]
One of the widely studied principles of Charvaka philosophy was its rejection ofinference as a means to establish valid, universal knowledge, andmetaphysical truths.[92][93] In other words, the Charvaka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.[94]
The Indian traditions subscribed to diverse philosophies, significantly disagreeing with each other as well as orthodox Indian philosophy and its six schools ofHindu philosophy. The differences ranged from a belief that every individual has a soul (self, atman) to asserting that there is no soul,[55][60][61][62][95] from axiological merit in a frugal ascetic life to that of a hedonistic life, from a belief in rebirth to asserting that there is no rebirth.[96]
Acts of violence which are purposeful havekarmic consequences. Buddhism does not explicitly prohibit ordinary people (lay people) from eating meat[112] However, goods that contribute to or are a result of violence should not be traded.[113]
Affirmed in numerous Mahayana sutras
Strongest proponent of non-violence; Vegetarianism to avoid violence against animals[114]
Affirms as highest virtue, butJust War affirmed Vegetarianism encouraged, but choice left to the Hindu[115][116]
Affirms as highest virtue, butJust War affirmed Vegetarianism encouraged, but choice left to the Hindu[115][116]
Affirms as highest virtue, butJust War affirmed Vegetarianism encouraged, but choice left to the Hindu[115][116]
Affirms as highest virtue, butJust War affirmed Vegetarianism encouraged, but choice left to the Hindu[115][116]
TheBuddha of the early texts does not focus on metaphysical questions but on ethical and spiritual training and in some cases, he dismissescertain metaphysical questions as unhelpful and indeterminateAvyakta, which he recommends should be set aside. The development of systematic metaphysics arose after the Buddha's death with the rise of theAbhidharma traditions.[136]
TheArthashastra, attributed to theMauryan ministerChanakya, is one of the early Indian texts devoted topolitical philosophy. It is dated to 4th century BCE and discusses ideas of statecraft and economic policy. TheKural text, attributed toValluvar and dated to around 5th century CE, deals withahimsa and morality, extending them to political philosophy and love.[141]: 7–16 [142]: 156–168
Integral humanism was a set of concepts drafted by Upadhyaya as political program and adopted in 1965 as the official doctrine of the Jan Sangh.[citation needed]
Upadhyaya considered that it was of utmost importance for India to develop an indigenous economic model with a human being at center stage. This approach made this concept different fromSocialism andCapitalism. Integral Humanism was adopted as Jan Sangh's political doctrine and its new openness to other opposition forces made it possible for the Hindu nationalist movement to have an alliance in the early 1970s with the prominent GandhianSarvodaya movement going on under the leadership ofJ. P. Narayan. This was considered to be the first major public breakthrough for the Hindu nationalist movement.[citation needed]
In appreciation of subtlety and truth of the Indian philosophy,T. S. Eliot wrote that the great philosophers of India "make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys".[145][146]Arthur Schopenhauer used Indian philosophy to improve uponKantian thought. In the preface to his bookThe World As Will And Representation, Schopenhauer writes that one who "has also received and assimilated the sacred primitive Indian wisdom, then he is the best of all prepared to hear what I have to say to him."[147] The 19th-century American philosophical movementTranscendentalism was also influenced by Indian thought.[148][149]
^"Aside from nontheistic schools like theSamkhya, there have also been explicitly atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. One virulently anti-supernatural system is/was the so-called Charvaka school."[84]
^Freschi 2012: The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu.[130] Such a differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions.
^Freschi 2012: The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu.[130] Such a differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions.
^Freschi 2012: The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu.[130] Such a differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions.
^Freschi 2012: The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu.[130] Such a differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions.
^Scharfstein, Ben-Ami (1998).A comparative history of world philosophy: from the Upanishads to Kant. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 9–11.ISBN978-0-7914-3683-7.
^abAdamson, Peter; Ganeri, Jonardon (2020).Classical Indian philosophy: a history of philosophy without any gaps. Oxford New York (N.Y.): Oxford university press.ISBN978-0-19-885176-9.
^Kauṭalya; Olivelle, Patrick (2013).King, governance, and law in ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra: a new annotated translation. New York: Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-989182-5.
^Umakant P. Shah 1987, pp. 82–85, Quote: "Thus the list of twenty-four Tirthankaras was either already evolved or was in the process of being evolved in the age of the Mathura sculptures in the first three centuries of the Christian era.".
^Martin Wiltshire (1990), Ascetic Figures Before and in Early Buddhism, De Gruyter,ISBN978-3110098969, pp. 226–227
^Forinstance, the Atheist Society of India produces a monthly publicationsNastika Yuga, which it translates as 'The Age of Atheism'.Archived 18 April 2007 at theWayback Machine.
^Bhattacharyya, N. N. (1999), History of the Tantric Religion (Second Revised ed.), p. 174. New Delhi: Manohar, ISBN 81-7304-025-7
^Kesarcodi-Watson, Ian (1978). "Hindu Metaphysics and Its Philosophies: Śruti and Darsána".International Philosophical Quarterly.18 (4):413–432.doi:10.5840/ipq197818440.
^Sharma, Arvind (1990).A Hindu Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–2.ISBN978-1-349-20797-8.Archived from the original on 12 January 2020. Retrieved11 November 2018.The attitude towards the existence of God varies within the Hindu religious tradition. This may not be entirely unexpected given the tolerance for doctrinal diversity for which the tradition is known. Thus of the six orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy, only three address the question in some detail. These are the schools of thought known as Nyaya, Yoga and the theistic forms of Vedanta.
^Jurewicz, Joanna (2000), "Playing with Fire: The pratityasamutpada from the perspective of Vedic thought", Journal of the Pali Text Society, 26: 77–103.
^Neville, Robert Cummings (2004). "The Role of Concepts of God in Cross Cultural Comparative Theology". In Hackett, Jeremiah; Wallulis, Jerald (eds.).Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long. Springer. p. 257.doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-2074-2_15.ISBN978-1-4020-2073-5.[Buddhism's ontological hypotheses] that nothing in reality has its own-being and that all phenomena reduce to the relativities of pratitya samutpada. The Buddhist ontological hypothesese deny that there is any ontologically ultimate object such a God, Brahman, the Dao, or any transcendent creative source or principle.
^abcd"anatta".Encyclopædia Britannica.Archived from the original on 22 January 2021.[...] in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. [...] The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ('the self').
^Gombrich, Richard F. (2006).Theravāda Buddhism : a social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo. Routledge. p. 47.[...] Buddha's teaching that beings have no soul, no abiding essence. This 'no-soul doctrine' (anatta-vada) he expounded in his second sermon.
^Claus, Peter J.; Diamond, Sarah; Mills, Margaret Ann (2003)."Karma".South Asian Folklore: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 322–323.ISBN978-0-415-93919-5.Archived from the original on 3 July 2023. Retrieved18 October 2016.
^abcCollins, Steven (1994). "What Are Buddhists Doing When They Deny the Self?". In Reynolds, Frank; Tracy, David (eds.).Religion and Practical Reason. State Univ of New York Press. p. 64.ISBN978-0-7914-2217-5.Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence
^abcPlott, John C. (1993).Global History of Philosophy: Volume 1: The Axial Age. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 63.ISBN978-8120801585.The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism
^Loy, David (1982). "Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?".International Philosophical Quarterly.22 (1):65–74.doi:10.5840/ipq19822217.
^Brancaccio, Pia (2014). "Cave Architecture of India". In Selin, Helaine (ed.).Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. Springer. pp. 1–9.doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3934-5_9848-1.ISBN978-94-007-3934-5.
^Long, Jeffrey D. (2009).Jainism: An Introduction. Macmillan. p. 199.ISBN978-1-84511-625-5.
^Balcerowicz, Piotr (2016)."Jayarāśi". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.). Stanford University.Archived from the original on 8 July 2020. Retrieved8 July 2020.
^Werner, Karel (1995).Love Divine: Studies in Bhakti and Devotional Mysticism. Routledge. pp. 45–46.ISBN978-0-7007-0235-0.
^Cort, John (2001).Jains in the World : Religious Values and Ideology in India. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–68,86–90,100–112.ISBN978-0-19-513234-2.
^Clements, Richa Pauranik (2005). "Being a Witness: Cross-Examining the Notion of Self in Śaṅkara's Upadeśasāhasrī, Īśvarakṛṣṛa's Sāṃkhϒakārikā, and Patañjali's ϒogasūtra".Being a Witness: Cross-Examining the Notion of Self in Śaṅkara'sUpadeśasāhasrī, Īśvarakṛṣṛa'sSāṃkhyakārikā, and Patañjali'sYogasūtra. BRILL. pp. 76–78.doi:10.1163/9789047416333_005.ISBN9789047416333. InJacobsen 2008.
^abcdChapple, Christopher Key (1993).Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions. State University of New York Press. pp. 16–17.ISBN0-7914-1498-1.
^Keown, Damien (2004). "Prapañca".A Dictionary of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-860560-7.Term meaning 'proliferation', in the sense of the multiplication of erroneous concepts, ideas, and ideologies which obscure the true nature of reality
^Foulston, Lynn; Abbott, Stuart (2009).Hindu Goddesses : Beliefs and Practices. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 14–16.ISBN978-1-902210-43-8.
^Hacker, Paul (1978). "Eigentümlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras: Avidyā, Nāmarūpa, Māyā, Īśvara". In Schmithausen, Lambert (ed.).Kleine Schriften (in German). Weisbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. pp. 69–99,101–109.ISBN3-515-02692-4.
^Sharma, Dhirendra (1966). "Epistemological negative dialectics of Indian logic –abhāva versusanupalabdhi".Indo-Iranian Journal.9 (4):291–300.doi:10.1007/BF00190980 (inactive 12 July 2025).S2CID170600886.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
^Bartley, Christopher (2011).An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 46, 120.ISBN978-1-84706-449-3.
Freschi, Elisa (2012).Duty, Language and Exegesis in Prabhakara Mimamsa. Brill.ISBN978-90-04-22260-1.
Grimes, John A. (1996).A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English. Albany: State University of New York Press.ISBN978-0-7914-3067-5.
Jacobsen, Knut A., ed. (2008).Theory and Practice of Yoga : Essays in Honour of Gerald James Larson. Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-8120832329.
Jaini, Padmanabh S. (2001).Collected papers on Buddhist studies. Motilal Banarsidass Publications.ISBN9788120817760.
Perrett, Roy W., ed. (2000).Indian Philosophy : A Collection of Readings, Volume 3: Metaphysics. Garland.ISBN978-0-8153-3608-2.
Perrett, Roy W., ed. (2000).Indian Philosophy : A Collection of Readings, Volume 4: Philosophy of Religion. Garland.ISBN978-0-8153-3611-2.
Potter, Karl Harrington, ed. (2008).Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophers : Volume III: Advaita Vedānta up to Ṣaṃkara and His Pupils. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.ISBN978-8120803107.
)%2c_Parshvanatha%2c_Neminatha%2c_and_Mahavira)_LACMA_M.85.55_(3_of_4).jpg)
.jpeg)
