- Quotes from the book by P. Adamson and J Ganeri: Classical Indian Philosophy: a History of Philosophy Without any Gaps. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume 5 (2020),
- Quotes from Yuriy Zavhorodniy´s review of the book “Classical Indian Philosophy" by P. Adamson and J Ganer in Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2 (2021),
- Quotes from other Ukrainian research papers in support of the methodology of the Eastern Philosophies Researchers Society,
- Books on the History of Indian Philosophy referred to by Yuriy Zavhorodniy.
(Editor of the Veda Science Magazine, B. Zeiger, June 2022)
P. Adamson and J Ganeri:
Classical Indian Philosophy: a History of Philosophy Without any Gaps.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume 5.(2020)
Chapter 1
“It is one’s self which one should see and hear, and on which one should reflect and concentrate. For by seeing and hearing one’s self, and by reflecting and concentrating on oneself, one gains the knowledge of this whole world.” In these lines of the Bṛhadar̄aṇyaka, or Great Forest Upaniṣhad, we are invited, even exhorted, to philosophize.
Our story will begin with the ancient wisdom of the Vedas, which were actually set down well before even our earliest period began. The Vedas contain passages that reward philosophical reflection. Such reflection began early on, with the Upanishads, beautiful and majestic works that comment on and extrapolate from the Vedic texts in the process articulating the unity of humanity, ritual, and cosmos.
There are four Vedic texts, also called saṃhitās, which form a substantial body of literature. The Upanishads forming one additional layer. A given Upaniṣad will be associated with a specific saṃhitā: In Sanskrit tradition by the way, the words “Veda” or “Vedic” are used to refer to all of this literature collectively.
The Ṛg-veda, which has ten books. refers to a kind of cosmology, which centers on the word puruṣha—It can mean simply “person,” but the Ṛg-veda characterizes puruṣha as “all that yet has been and all that is yet to be,” thus drawing a parallel between a single being and the whole cosmos. From puruṣa were extracted various species of animals as well as the four classes of humankind: The brahmin from his mouth, the Kshatriya from his two arms. from his thighs the Vaishya and from his two feet the Sudra.
The Veda has no author and the “seers” (rṣis) who expounded it simply transmitted the authoritative Veda, which existed before them and indeed has always existed. Again, we can see here how human agency is being sidelined to some extent, subordinated to the intrinsic value of the Veda, just as human agency is subordinated to ritual. The forefathers who passed on wisdom and also reliable practices to us may have been admirable and trustworthy, but they did not invent or compose the venerable teaching. The most a human can do is to serve as a conduit from the past to the future. He is never a conduit between the divine and the rest of humanity, like the prophets of the Hebrew Bible or Muhammad in Islam. This is because no such conduit is needed. The Veda has always been here, an eternal source of knowledge set down by neither God nor man.
Yuriy Zavhorodniy: Open access to the book of P. Adamson and J. Ganeri
We can't help but mention one important and pleasant circumstance. The electronic version of the book can be found publicly available online.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 page 81
Yuriy Zavhorodniy: Relevance of the book by P. Adamson and J. Ganeri
In Ukraine, if we do not take into account the journalistic publications of Yakov Novitsky “Essays on Indian Philosophy” (mid-nineteenth century), have never published review publications on the history of Indian philosophy. We hope that the experience of “Classical Indian Philosophy” will be taken into account by those who will sooner or later prepare such publications in our country.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021. page 81
We can't help but mention one important and pleasant circumstance. The electronic version of the book can be found publicly available online.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 page 81
Yuriy Zavhorodniy: Relevance of the book by P. Adamson and J. Ganeri
In Ukraine, if we do not take into account the journalistic publications of Yakov Novitsky “Essays on Indian Philosophy” (mid-nineteenth century), have never published review publications on the history of Indian philosophy. We hope that the experience of “Classical Indian Philosophy” will be taken into account by those who will sooner or later prepare such publications in our country.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021. page 81
Yuriy Zavhorodniy. On the term "classical"
At first glance, the title of the book may seem standard, ie one that does not raise questions. But is that so? It is worth stopping here and referring to the titles of well-known publications devoted to the history of Indian philosophy. It turns out that, starting from the origins of the academic study of Indian philosophy, for a long time there was not a single book dedicated to it, in the title of which the phrase "Indian philosophy" would contain the clarification "classical". This trend continues today, although in recent decades you can find essays on "Classical Indian Philosophy" Perhaps the title of the publication by P. Adamson and J. Ganeri reflects certain trends in world historical and philosophical indology of recent decades. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 p 69
Yuriy Zavhorodniy: Stages in the development of knowledge
The book contains a chronological table which consists of seven categories and covers the period from the origins of Indian philosophy until the 1970s, containing the name of the philosopher, his years of life and the names of key works. In the main part of the book instead, specific dates are extremely rare. Apparently, the authors deliberately made most of the chronological specifics in the summary table, so as not to distract the reader from the presentation of purely philosophical material. The authors note that the table is taken from the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy (2017), in which J. Gunnery was the editor. Given Ganeri's involvement in both editions, it is not entirely clear why the chronological table covers the entire period of Indian philosophy, and not the one present in the title of the book.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021. page 81
At first glance, the title of the book may seem standard, ie one that does not raise questions. But is that so? It is worth stopping here and referring to the titles of well-known publications devoted to the history of Indian philosophy. It turns out that, starting from the origins of the academic study of Indian philosophy, for a long time there was not a single book dedicated to it, in the title of which the phrase "Indian philosophy" would contain the clarification "classical". This trend continues today, although in recent decades you can find essays on "Classical Indian Philosophy" Perhaps the title of the publication by P. Adamson and J. Ganeri reflects certain trends in world historical and philosophical indology of recent decades. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 p 69
The content of the chapters, (including) also the preface, does not say what the authors mean by Indian classical philosophy. But there are other cases. In particular, the review encyclopedic article "Indian Philosophy", written by R. N. Smart (1927-2001) for the first edition of the multi-volume "Encyclopedia of Philosophy", offers a clear periodization of the history of Indian philosophy. The classical period refers to the period of the sutras, [Smart 1967: 155]. In the chronological table, the section "The Age of Sutra:" after "Origins" corresponds most fully to the second period of the Smart periodization and can claim to cover Indian classical philosophy.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 p 73
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021 p 73
Yuriy Zavhorodniy: Stages in the development of knowledge
The book contains a chronological table which consists of seven categories and covers the period from the origins of Indian philosophy until the 1970s, containing the name of the philosopher, his years of life and the names of key works. In the main part of the book instead, specific dates are extremely rare. Apparently, the authors deliberately made most of the chronological specifics in the summary table, so as not to distract the reader from the presentation of purely philosophical material. The authors note that the table is taken from the Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy (2017), in which J. Gunnery was the editor. Given Ganeri's involvement in both editions, it is not entirely clear why the chronological table covers the entire period of Indian philosophy, and not the one present in the title of the book.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021. page 81
History of Indian Philosophy
The book of Anderson and Ganeri (2020) reprints in full a table from J. Ganeri (ed.):The Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy, ‘Timeline: Indian Philosophy in a Hundred Thinkers’, pp. xix–xxviii (2017): The following table presents it in an extremely simplified form:
Yuriy Zavhorodniy. Culturological approache
The title of the first part of "Sources" sets the reader up to what it will be devoted to an important period in the history of Indian philosophy, the chronological boundaries of which, as well as the content, still remain open and debatable in historical and philosophical Indology. The available essays demonstrate a not-quite-expected approach to filling it with content, covering not only a fairly wide body of texts of various genres and thematic range of issues, but also the time interval. The texts in the first part are outside the classical Indian philosophy, they concern the origins of Indian philosophy, ie which texts are considered to be the first philosophical (or religious-philosophical, given the specifics of Indian traditional thought) and, most importantly, why? We could not find an unambiguous answer in the book. Although the authors do not name or explain which ancient Indian texts and why the countdown to ancient Indian philosophy began, and which criteria significantly expand the range of non-philosophical texts in the book, the material allows us to assume that the authors tend to culturological approach in the history of philosophy. Under the culturological approach in the history of philosophy, we understand the method proposed by Vilen Gorsky.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 74
Tatiana Tselik:
Vilen Gorsky as a methodologist of historical and philosophical
medieval studies in Ukraine
Sententiae, 2014, № 1 (XXX) 154 - 165
In present modern philosophical Ukrainian studies a special place in the process of institutionalization of Ukrainian philosophy's history is assigned to Professor VS Gorsky's scientific contribution, where the culturological approach plays an essential role. The last one allows: 1) to research exactly the sophian dimension distinguishing between “philosophic theory” and “philosophic wisdom”: 2) to analyze the historical and philosophical sphere of the philosophical dimension of culture as a history of values and both meaningful and vital ideals and ideas. 3) to eliminate the opposition of religio-theological and philosophical interpretation of the same texts. 4) to broaden a range of sources, including nonverbal ones, which are added into historical and philosophical analysis, (works of monumental painting and architecture) become a source of historical and philosophical analysis.
The culturological method we tested on Indian material when referring to the "Manava-dharma-shastra" [Zavgorodniy 2017]. Of course, the authors P. Adamson and J. Ganeri. were not familiar with V. Gorsky's publications. Therefore, their independent (and spontaneous?) attraction to the culturological approach in the history of Indian philosophy further testifies the effectiveness of the latter. Because they find philosophically significant ideas in non-philosophical texts and involve them in historical and philosophical presentation. In this case, the chronological and textual coverage of the book becomes unusually broad, as for generalized statements on the history of Indian philosophy, becomes clear and justified. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021,p 74
Involving the widest possible body of ancient Indian texts in historical and philosophical analysis is an extremely promising research intention, but it must be based on a correct and relevant methodology. This, in our opinion, is the culturological approach in the history of philosophy. It is he who legitimizes, for example, the appeal of the historian of philosophy to different types of texts: sacred, linguistic, epic, legal or medical, without turning them into philosophical. This allows to maintain the demarcation line between philosophical and non-philosophical texts and at the same time to enrich the historical and philosophical science by correct reference to texts from various spheres of human intellectual activity.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
The Mahabharata is exclusive and unique. Obviously, this opinion. deserve attention and revives the discussion about the source base of ancient Indian philosophy. The Mahabharata is one of the most important texts for the Authors because it has a built-in part called the Song of the Lord - Bhagavad Gita. If the status of a philosophical text is recognized exclusively by the Bhagavad Gita, as the author do, then it turns out that the philosopher in it is the Absolute, the Lord, because most of the words belong to Him, Kṛṣṇa. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 75
P. Adamson and J Ganeri:
Classical Indian Philosophy: a History of Philosophy Without any Gaps.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume 5.(2020)
Chapter 12 and 13
Mahabharata, which calls itself a “fifth Veda”, a Veda for everyone, makes a point of its own comprehensiveness, boasting “what is not here does not exist anywhere”. Embedded within the Mahabharata is a section called the Song of the Lord, or Bhagavad-Gita, which is among the greatest texts of ancient Indian philosophy.
The Gıta fits well into the rest of the Mahabharata. Kṛṣṇa’s divine role is to ensure that things unfold as they should. From his lofty vantage point, the future events in the narrative are already present. He knows that they will and indeed must occur. The teachings of the Gıt̄a, its emphasis on a divine plan and on such issues as sacrifice, make it seem like an Upanishad inserted into the epic of the Mahabharata.
The most obvious is a fundamental contrast between two principles, Prakriti and Puruṣa, which we might roughly translate as “nature” and “observer mind.” We can restate the doctrine of non-attached action in these terms. Like a tortoise pulling in its limbs, the renouncer “withdraws” from Prakriti, and focuses on his true self, which is his Puruṣa. The Gıt̄ā also contains more general descriptions of the way that the two principles interrelate. It says, “Prakṛti and puruṣa are both beginningless. Prakṛti is stated to be a cause inasmuch as it is the agency in the production of products, while puruṣa is stated to be a cause in that he experiences happiness and unhappiness” The Puruṣha is the true, purely observing, self and remains unchanging despite its connection with body, and via the body with the whole realm of nature and the natural aspects of the mental. So here we might see the Gıt̄ā reasserting the idea of an enduring self, some notion of which we already find in Upanishads.
The Gıt̄ā frequently talks about yoga as a path toward enlightenment, which suggests that the would-be sage needs to undergo training and spiritual discipline, rather than just learning about the contrast between nature and the self. Yoga thus becomes another word for the path of unattached action and the practitioner of yoga (the yogi) is synonymous with the true renouncer that Krishna is describing, better than those who merely embrace asceticism and refuse to engage in action.
Through the insight of Sāṃkhya, we can learn about Puruṣa the true self who transcends nature; through the practice of yoga, we can learn to see the world solely from the vantage point of this true self. Since actions and their consequences unfold in the world, in the realm of nature or Prakṛti, they cannot touch Puruusha.
In many ancient Indian texts (both philosophical and non-philosophical), wisdom and sage or sages are in the center of attention. Thus, there is a need to systematize the existing ideas about philosophy, wisdom and higher states of man in ancient India, to understand the existing terminology. Although obviously that from its origins Indian philosophy has been aimed at cultivating wisdom and the soteriological ideal. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
The book mentions the ancient wisdom of the Vedas and the Upanishads. It also mentions the not human origins of wisdom in the Charaka-Samhita, one of the oldest texts of Ayurveda, there it is stated that it conveys “wisdom first received from the gods, the mythical Ashwin”, the transforming nature of wisdom: “the wise become immortal" (quote from Ken Upanishad) ; wisdom can go hand in hand with liberation when it comes to the truth of the Vedas .In the above examples, the sage and wisdom is in the highest state that a person can achieve.Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 76
Buddha and Mahavira are not philosophers for us, but figures of a different ontological level or status in another form of interaction with the world, which turns out to be inherent in both divine beings and man. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
It is noteworthy that one of the first examples of the use of the term “wisdom” in the book occurs in connection with the reference to the work "What is ancient philosophy?” of the famous French historian of philosophy Pierre Ado (1922–2010), who understood ancient Greek philosophy as a “way of life” based on “spiritual exercises”. In this regard, the authors note: “As an athlete undertakes training or as a patient takes medication in the hope of restoring physical health, so a person in search of wisdom turns to philosophy, which aims at the health of the soul or self” Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 76
The bearers of wisdom are “philosophers who tried to crystallize their wisdom in the form of systematic treatises”.The state of the philosopher is not always equal to a sage, although the philosopher can be considered a sage. Obviously, in the latter case, the maximum possible status for a person is achieved, his highest goal, according to Indian opinion, and a person is released, going beyond the samsara world. The authors distinguish the status of the transcendent sage (the otherworldly sage), typologically close to the traditions of ancient China and Greece, among other intellectuals of ancient India.
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 76
It is noted (in the Upanishads and the Mahabharata) that a sage could be not only a man but also a woman Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
In addition to the concepts of “wisdom” and “sage”, the book also contains other related key concepts and expressions that help to better understand the direction of ancient Indian thought. These are, in particular: “thinker”, “seer”, “seer”, “path of wisdom and liberation”, “philosophy of path and purpose”. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
From all examples we get a kind of triad, which is characterized by hierarchy:
- wisdom (sage) ,
- philosophical knowledge (philosopher)
- other not philosophical, but also traditional knowledge (other intellectuals).
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 75
Yuriy Zavhorodniy. Relationship between philosophy and language
Paying attention to the issue of language in ancient Indian thought, the authors emphasize the significant achievements in the field of philosophy of language. More precisely, about Sanskrit, which, despite the linguistic diversity in India, has been and remains a key philosophical language in this country for several millennia. According to the authors of the book, due to the fact that in the Vedic era Sanskrit becomes the language of sacred texts and rituals, it falls within the professional competence of the Brahmans, embodying the power of the latter. Because sacred Sanskrit texts have long functioned orally and been preserved through memorization, the oral word has played a major role in Indian culture. As an example of the emphasis on the meaning of language in the Upanishads, the book mentions the Brigadaranya Upanishad where language appears separately from the other important human characteristics: mind and breath. Most of the orthodox ancient Indian schools in their textual basis will be based on a fundamental pair of texts: source sutras and the main commentary, bhashya. The authors return to this connection between Sanskrit and Indian philosophy more than once, in particular, rightly emphasizing the borrowing by philosophers of the conceptual and terminological apparatus of Sanskrit linguists. Obviously, the influence of Sanskrit grammars on the formation of Indian philosophy is still far from exhaustive study. And yet, we hope to see in the near future in essays on the history of Indian thought a separate conceptual section on the inclusion of Sanskrit grammatical experience of formalization in the Indian historical and philosophical process. Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, pp 78 – 80
The authors also draw attention in the book on the Buddhist Pali canon. It follows from the reviewed book that the Sanskrit sutras are undoubtedly considered to be the first philosophical texts, mean the first Hindu school-forming (root) texts. But the Buddhist and Jain canons also contain sutras(in Pali and Prakrit, respectively). In particular, if we talk about Buddhist sutras, then, for example, the Lotus Sutra is mentioned, and the Sutra explaining the hidden intention of [Buddha].
Sententiae, Volume XL, Issue 2, 2021, p 77
P. Adamson and J Ganeri:
Classical Indian Philosophy: a History of Philosophy Without any Gaps.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume 5, (2020)
Chapter 20 and 40
Our own tour through Indian traditions has revealed the stark opposition between, the Vedanta monism of consciousness and Buddhist skepticism regarding the self. (Chapter 40)
Can the clash between a Vedanta philosopher and a Buddhist critic really be resolved on the basis of commonly held assumptions? Or are they just talking past one another, using the same words in very different ways? Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra answers this question. He admits that people disagree about the qualities of Brahman but insists that we all have a common idea of it, which gives us only “partial” knowledge. As proof, Śankara offers an etymology of the word Brahman itself: “its very nature (svabhav̄a) is said to consist in what is eternal, pure and consciousness; bound up with the omniscient and the omnipotent. For the meanings such as ‘being eternal’ and ‘being pure’ are derived from semantic analysis of the word Brahman, these meanings following from the verbal root bṛh. Here we have another reminder of the importance of Sanskrit grammar for philosophers. It was commonly held that linguistic analysis (called vyutpatti or nirvacana) can explain why we use certain words for certain things. On the basis of its verbal root, the word dharma was claimed to mean “that which upholds.” Likewise, here, Śankara conjectures that the term brahman is derived from the verbal root bṛh, meaning “to grow.” This shows that brahman is in some way maximally great. It is, so to speak, all grown up. This might seem a rather flimsy response to the skeptic, but Śankara has a second and more formidable move to make, one that will again remind us of European philosophy. He argues that the paradox of inquiry poses no threat to an investigation about brahman, because this is a case where we have direct knowledge. As he says, “Every one knows of the existence of his own self, and does not think ‘I am not.’ If the existence of one’s own self were not perfectly well known, any one of us could think, ‘I am not.’
The parallel with European thinkers like Augustine and Descartes is almost too obvious to need emphasizing. But unlike Descartes, with his famous “I think, therefore I am,” Śankara does not use immediate knowledge of one’s own existence to refute global skepticism. He just wants to show that the inquiry into brahman promised at the beginning of the sūtra is indeed possible. He alludes to the Upaniṣadic statement, “You are that (tat tvam asi),” which he interprets as meaning “This self is brahman.” Since it cannot be doubted that there is a self, and since the self is brahman, neither can there be doubt concerning brahman. There is, in other words, something for us to investigate. But if we have immediate knowledge of the self, or brahman, why do we need to inquire into it? Because our intimate awareness of brahman does not include an understanding of its true nature. As Śankara observes, there are intense disagreements about the self, with the materialists and “common folk” assuming that the self is the body, the Buddhists thinking it is just the flow of our cognitions, the Nyāya thinking it is an agent and subject of experience distinct from the body, the Sāṃkhya agreeing that it differs from the body but denying that it is an agent, and so on. Our point and Śankara’s point, is that there is indeed plenty of dispute on this topic, and hence plenty of reason to engage in the philosophical investigation undertaken in the sūtra. (Chapter 20)
Can the clash between a Vedanta philosopher and a Buddhist critic really be resolved on the basis of commonly held assumptions? Or are they just talking past one another, using the same words in very different ways? Shankara’s commentary on the Brahma Sutra answers this question. He admits that people disagree about the qualities of Brahman but insists that we all have a common idea of it, which gives us only “partial” knowledge. As proof, Śankara offers an etymology of the word Brahman itself: “its very nature (svabhav̄a) is said to consist in what is eternal, pure and consciousness; bound up with the omniscient and the omnipotent. For the meanings such as ‘being eternal’ and ‘being pure’ are derived from semantic analysis of the word Brahman, these meanings following from the verbal root bṛh. Here we have another reminder of the importance of Sanskrit grammar for philosophers. It was commonly held that linguistic analysis (called vyutpatti or nirvacana) can explain why we use certain words for certain things. On the basis of its verbal root, the word dharma was claimed to mean “that which upholds.” Likewise, here, Śankara conjectures that the term brahman is derived from the verbal root bṛh, meaning “to grow.” This shows that brahman is in some way maximally great. It is, so to speak, all grown up. This might seem a rather flimsy response to the skeptic, but Śankara has a second and more formidable move to make, one that will again remind us of European philosophy. He argues that the paradox of inquiry poses no threat to an investigation about brahman, because this is a case where we have direct knowledge. As he says, “Every one knows of the existence of his own self, and does not think ‘I am not.’ If the existence of one’s own self were not perfectly well known, any one of us could think, ‘I am not.’
The parallel with European thinkers like Augustine and Descartes is almost too obvious to need emphasizing. But unlike Descartes, with his famous “I think, therefore I am,” Śankara does not use immediate knowledge of one’s own existence to refute global skepticism. He just wants to show that the inquiry into brahman promised at the beginning of the sūtra is indeed possible. He alludes to the Upaniṣadic statement, “You are that (tat tvam asi),” which he interprets as meaning “This self is brahman.” Since it cannot be doubted that there is a self, and since the self is brahman, neither can there be doubt concerning brahman. There is, in other words, something for us to investigate. But if we have immediate knowledge of the self, or brahman, why do we need to inquire into it? Because our intimate awareness of brahman does not include an understanding of its true nature. As Śankara observes, there are intense disagreements about the self, with the materialists and “common folk” assuming that the self is the body, the Buddhists thinking it is just the flow of our cognitions, the Nyāya thinking it is an agent and subject of experience distinct from the body, the Sāṃkhya agreeing that it differs from the body but denying that it is an agent, and so on. Our point and Śankara’s point, is that there is indeed plenty of dispute on this topic, and hence plenty of reason to engage in the philosophical investigation undertaken in the sūtra. (Chapter 20)
Yuriy Zavhorodniy. List of books on the History of Indian Philosophy
Bilimoria, P and Rayner, A (Ed.). (2018) History of Indian Philosophy. London and New York:Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666792
Chatterjee, S and Datta, D (1948) An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Colebrooke, HT (1837) On the Philosophy of the Hindu. In HT Colebrooke. Miscellaneous Essays (Vol. I, pp. 227-419). London: WH Allen.
Cowell, EB, and Gough, AE (Trans.) (2000) The Sarva-darśana-sangraha of Mādhavāchārya Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Dasgupta, S (1991) A History of Indian Philosophy(Vol. I). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Franco, E. (2013) On the Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy. In E. Franco (Ed.). Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy(pp. 1-34). Vienna: Verein “Sammulng de Nobili, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Indologie und Religionsforschung”, Institute for Sudanese, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies of the University of Vienna.
Frauwallner, EVM (1997) History of Indian Philosophy(Vol. 1). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
Ganeri, J. (2001) Philosophy in Classical India. The proper Work of Reason. London: Routledge.
Ganeri, J. (2013) Well-Ordered Science and Indian Epistemic Cultures: Toward a Polycentered History of Science,Isis, 104(2), 348-359.https://doi.org/10.1086/670953
Ganeri, J. (Ed.). (2017) The Oxford handbook of Indian Philosophy.Oxford, & New York: Oxford University Press
Gupta, B. (2012) An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Perspectives on Reality, Knowledge, and Freedom.New York, London: N Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97802038061280
Hadot, P (2002) What is Ancient Philosophy? Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press & Harvard.
Hiriyanna, M.(1994) Outlines of Indian Philosophy.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Krishna, D. (1991) Indian Philosophy. A Counter Perspective. Delhi, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Maas, Ph.D. A. (2013) A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy. In E. Franco (Ed.). Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy(pp. 53-90). Vienna: Verein “Sammlung de Nobili, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Indologie und Religionsforschung”, Institute for Sudanese, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies of the University of Vienna.
Mohanty, JN (2000) Classical Indian Philosophy.Lanham, Md Rowman & Littlefield.
Müller, FM (1899) The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy.New York: Longmans Green; L. and Bombay
Potter, KH (Ed.). (2019) Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies.http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ xencyclo.html
Radhakrishnan, S. (1948) Indian Philosophy(Vol. I). London: George Allen & Unwin.
Sarma, D. (2011) Classical Indian Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sharma, Ch. (2009) A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Smart, N. (1967). Indian Philosophy. In P. Edwards (Ed.),The Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Vol. 4, 155-169). New York: The Macmillan Company and Free Press, London: Collier-Macmillan Limited.
Warder, AK (1998) .A Course in Indian Philosophy.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
.