Between Indology and Indian Philosophy (Article Review)

Wilhelm Halbfass, philosopher and Indologist, is a committed participant in the dialogue

between India and Europe, whose reflections on the Indian tradition and its Western perception
are accompanied by reflection on and critical examination of the Western tradition. In this
innovative combination of Indological research and philosophical-hermeneutical research in the
history of ideas, he demonstrates a purpose more ambitious and a scotpe wider than Edward
Said's who constructed the Western study of the so-called Orient as an attempt to deprive it of its
identity and sovereignty, and who perceived the pursuit of Oriental Studies in Western
universities to be an extension of a fundamentally political will to power and domination.
Without denying the domination of the dialogue between India and Europe by the West,
Halbfass goes beyond that to show a different way of approaching Indian thought; he strives to
establish the presuppositions and prerequisites that would make a true dialogue and mutual
understanding between Indian and Western intellectual cultures possible. 
Indology and Indian Philosophy:
Indology’s subject matter is entire country – its history, language, religion, culture and
civilization. Accordingly, it also includes study of Indian philosophies. Only non-European or
Oriental countries were made theme of such global disciplines. There is no comprehensive
unitary discipline about entire German culture.
Within the tradition of Indology, scholars have passed judgments on Indian philosophy. Is there
something that can be properly called ‘Indian philosophy’ or is Indian Philosophy creation of
neo-Hinduism?
Traditional Hinduism and Neo-Hinduism
"Traditional Hinduism" refers to those doctrines, schools, and traditions whose ideas or practices
are at least theoretically based on the Vedas, Puranas, Itihaasas (Mahabharata & Ramayana),
and/or other Smriti texts, and having origins prior to colonial period in India.
In this case, "Neo-Hinduism" refers to a newer version of Hinduism inaugurated by thinkers
within and following the colonial period, who have mixed traditional ideas and practices with
newer ideas borrowed from Western belief systems. While a traditional Hindu scholar will try to
establish his school's interpretations as representing the intended meaning of the scripture using
logic and polemics, a Neo-Hindu thinker accepts the subjectivity of his interpretation, and indeed
of all other interpretations, placing a greater premium on the subjective impressions of the
interpreter than on the objective intentions (if any) on the scripture.
If a cultures self understanding, is always as a rule, caught up in the process of historical
development in response to historically confronted challenges, the response of neo-Hinduism is
what it can be either minor deviation, overstatement or enthusiasm. If no cultural phenomenon,
religion including, remains tied to original formulations and the classical statements, then it is
not Hinduism alone that is guilty of evolving into ‘neo-form’. To the contrary such varieties of
response to the new challenges from the West were forthcoming demonstrates the silence of
Hinduism.
One of the accomplishments of neo-Hinduism is taken to have given new interpretations of the
traditional Hindu idea of ‘dharma’ and ‘darsana’. The former is taken to mean ‘religion’ and the
latter is construed as ‘philosophy’.
Darsana and Philosophy
In Sanskrit, the philosophy is referred to as  ‘darshana’.  The Sanskrit word ‘darshana’ has its
root in the word ‘drs’ that means ‘to see’, ‘to look’ or ‘to view’. “Seeing” or “viewing” the
reality and the facts of experience forms the basis of philosophy. Senses, mind and even
consciousness are involved in this ‘seeing’. “Seeing” also encompasses “contemplation”. Seeing
is not simply a sensory activity. ‘Seeing’ may primarily be a perceptual observation. But it may
also concern the conceptual knowledge or an intuitional flash.  Thus 'darshana' suggests vision.
In other words, ‘darshana’ is a whole view revealed to the inner self, what we term as the soul or
the spirit or the inner being.  Philosophy or ‘darshana’ is concerned with the vision of ‘truth and
reality’. In Sanskrit, the ‘philosophy’ is also referred to as ‘tatva’. The Sanskrit word ‘tatva’ is
concerned with ‘the nature of reality.’ In India, the philosophy is not restricted to the intellectual
pursuit. According to Indian view, the word 'philosophy'  is concerned with ‘the revelation of the
nature of reality'  or  ‘the vision of Ultimate Truth and Reality’.
The neo-Hindus started writing in English. So they should have English rendering of the Sanskrit
words. There is no major translation as Quine has said. Traditional Darsanas are philosophies. It
is only a myth of particular brand of historiography of philosophy that there was a root idea
underlying Western philosophy that all subsequent philosophies, science and technologies are
developments. There have been doubts, resolving doubts and puzzles. If one follows the
questionings made in darsanas, the argumentations and disputations that takes place between
schools, the crical spirit that pervades them, then one has to admit that they are philosophies and
they belong to same category and are different from scientific works, literary treatises and
religious scriptures. Thus Darsanas are philosophies. If neo-Hindus in their eagerness emphasize
the superiority of the darsanas, especially of Vedanta, ascribed as superior spiritual power then it
is exaggeration similar to Husserl’s claim that Transcendental phenomenology can save
European civilization from crisis.
Theory and Practice
According to Hegel Indians had not been able to raise their intuitions to concepts. According to
Heidegger philosophy was western in origin. Husserl did not want to ascribe philosophy to
Indians on the ground that their thinking was mythical-practical. The lesson has been to exclude
Indian Philosophy as a ‘pure theory’ as far as Greeks were concerned. Halbfass knew India
Philosophy more than Hegel, Heidegger and Husserl. According to him, the views of all three
were based on preconceptions and ignorance.
According to Halbfass, Greek thinking in the beginning was neither free from myth nor from
being mythical and practical. There is no paradigm for theoretical thinking, no particular way to
distinguish between theory and practice and to limit the philosophy to the theory. This will be
too restrictive, would not even include the concept of theory. Gradually, liberated from the
mythical practical, Indian thinking in the darsanas became theoretical, maintaining by way of
memory and also theoretically justifying, the practical goal of Moksa. Even Western Philosophy
need not be sundered from this practice.
History and Historicity
Mohanty points to the difference between history and historicity. Whereas history operates
according to a “Eurocentric law of identical temporality” and in some sense always already
written, historicity can never be written in that sense because it is a dynamic process of
negotiating the positions or perspectives that make writing history possible. These negotiations
can be contentious or conciliatory, but in either case they are made possible by the response
ability of subjectivity. And, the categories of subject, object and other perpetuated by traditional
notions of history are complicated by the analyses of historicity of the categories themselves.
Mohanty have argued that opening history to otherness requires more than writing alternative
histories of cultures or groups; it requires historicizing notions of identity and difference both in
the abstract and in their particular embodiments.
Historicism may have, in many ways liberating influence, but unless carefully thought through it
may provide a subtle way of justifying one’s deeply held prejudices. Mohanty argues that we
take ourselves seriously only when we go beyond ourselves, valuing not just the plurality of
differences among us but also the massive presence of Differences that our recent planetary
history has installed. This difference is what we see only through the lenses of our present
moment, our present struggles.
For one’s use of history can be selective, and one can fabricate a story, by clever selection and
juxtaposition, which would seem to have a moral. Therefore, there is a point in the postmodernist
rejection of a grand narrative and pluralization of histories.
Making an assertion is the least important part of doing philosophy; the really important thing is
to ground assertion. One can arrive at conclusion by historical, textual and ethnological research
not through priori claim. A culture may have sense of history without that sense being articulated
in the philosophies. One must distinguish between an awareness of history and recognition of
historicity of human existence. If we consider all this, some of the global assertions made by
philosophers, will seem to be poorly validated.
Europeanization of the Earth
The idea of Europeanization of Earth by Husserl would be worthless if the idea of Pure Theory
was not there in Western Philosophy and Science. According to Husserl ‘Europeanization is not
borrowing of Western science and technology, or European lifestyle, but accepting as the norm
of thinking, the idea of Pure Theory which defies the idea of Europe.
Europeanization may mean accepting and being transformed by that acceptance of European i.e.
western science and technology. Europeanization indicates trend of times. Its significance can
only be preserved if it takes together all other allied phenomena. It will only be possible to pass a
satisfactory judgment on the history of the mankind. Some of these phenomena’s are
i. Non-western origin of a large part of classical mathenatics;
ii. The development of science and technology in India and China.
iii. The contribution of the Middle-East to the material civilization of Europe after crusades.
iv. The influence of China on Europe.
v. The impact of Oriental religions and thoughts on the West
There is more give and take than a one way track, that western science and technology are not
western and thus Europeanization of Earth means transformation of the Europe itself.
Europeanization is not the result of the superior theoretical accomplishments of the west, but a
spin-off of the political domination and now of economic power.
Beyond the Occident and Orient
“Orient” and “occident” without capitalization refer to two of our cardinal directions, east and
west. Oriental means eastern thought and philosophy and the occidental means western thought
and philosophy. 
Oriental philosophies and modes of thought which were once regarded as inferior or mystical in
a bizarre sense, now becomes tolerated, or even accepted. But this is not to say however, that the
West has totally embraced the East. The shift in western philosophical sensibility of the last few
decades should be understood as a shift from a modernist, scientistic position to that which is
humanistic.
We must transcend the European, we must reach beyond the occident and orient.
Europeanization of mankind is a myth. Good philosophical thinking is always beyond the
Occident and Orient. Philosophy cannot be at relief with these mythical concepts of the Occident
and Orient which need to be deconstructed into infinite systems of differences. All great thinkers
transcend these differences. Indian Philosophy never understood such historicist terms. A
darsana is not regarded as cultural phenomena, but a science which asserts to give knowledge.
Consequently many familiar relativitistic positions do not show up in the Indian tradition. What
are relativized to epoch was the distribution of moral values.
Oriental and ancient values are ageless and timeless that shows us the path to right and true life.
We need to blend and balance both the oriental and occidental values and get the best of both the
worlds to make life more enriched, empowered and awakened.