Freedom of conscience belongs to universal natural rights. It is defined as claim of the possibility to confess any religion or to confess no reli-gion at all, individually. Freedom of conscience has natural boundaries for its realization. First, this is a characteristic of the subject of religion, depending on age. Secondly, it is the abuse, which humiliates religious freedom and, thirdly, it is an incitement to a crime that leads beyond the boundaries of loyalty and annulation of rights. The boundaries of freedom of conscience are primarily manifested by the right of propagation of religious views and the right of ac-complishment of religious rites.

With the rise of human rights and international courts, the universal rights have become a lingua franca of legitimation theory, while remaining unfounded, and thus function in the role of an unfounded foundation, founding the other rights without themselves needing to be founded. The right to life in particular is reckoned as one of the most fundamental rights by, for example, ECtHR. This article addresses the foundations and fundamentality of the right founded on individual life itself. In the landmark euthanasia case Pretty v. UK (ECHR 2346/02) the right to life was interpreted as an inalienable right to persistence of the subject as opposed to her will to self-determination. This interpretation, we demonstrate that it necessitates a metaphysical distinction of the subject from the bodily individual, a distinction that rises in the classical philosophy simultaneously with the question of unfounded foundations. Examining the backgrounds of abstraction of subject in the simultaneous development of new foundations of science and law in classical philosophy, we aim to reveal the problems implied in this concept of subject and in the fundamental right based on it.

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to search for values and ethics embedded in the philosophy of the Gita, and to explore if these can be applied to management, to solve a contemporary problem, identified and defined as -- The Problem: Which philosophy, if any, is complete and adequate in itself to be applied in the areas of values and ethics to management, such that it can transform the individual (manager) and reform the society (organization), leading to economic prosperity? Approach - The approach is a conceptual one, where philosophy as historically, contemporarily and popularly applied to management in the form of applied values and ethics, is examined, arguing a case for the Gita, as a solution. Findings - The Gita is found to be a poorna philosophy which is complete and adequate in itself, passes the tests of Perenniality, Completeness, Adequacy and Practicality, and can be applied to management, using the values and ethics embedded in it, to solve the Problem, proposing the solution as -- The Solution: Conform (to the Gita) <> Transform (the Individual/Manager) <> Reform (the Society/Organization)

In this paper I attempt to uncover the concept of alienation in M. K. Gandhi’s seminal work, the Hind Swaraj. It is my contention that there is an implicit notion of alienation that informs the whole of Hind Swaraj, which is, to some extent, similar to the concept of alienation found in Karl Marx’s thought. The Gandhian and Marxian concepts seem to have affinity and seem to share the same critical, diagnostic spirit, since they are employed for the same purpose, namely as keys to understanding (and overcoming) the ills of modern civilization. However, as far as I know, although Gandhi and Marx have been compared in numerous books and papers, there have been no at­tempts to read the Hind Swaraj as presenting a Marxian-looking concept of alienation. So I propose to do that here. I would first delineate the Marxian concept of alienation (section 1). I would then try to make explicit the implicit Gandhian notion of alienation (section 2). I would then turn to comparing the two concepts (section 3). This comparative study would show that a Gandhian way to a non-alienated state is to make constant use of one’s “hands and feet” (a favourite phrase of Gandhi’s), whereas a Marxian way seems to regard the non-alienated state as something to be achieved once and for all.

Madhyamika School originated with the teacher Arya Nagarjuna in the 2nd century CE. A galaxy of thinkers such as Aryadeva (3rd century CE), Buddhapalita (5th century CE), Bhavaviveka (5th century CE), Candrakrits (6th century CE), and Santiveda (7th century CE) followed Arya Nagarjuna. The Madhyamika-karika, written by Arya Nagarjuna, is the masterpiece. It represents in a systematic way the philosophy of the Madhyamika school. It says that sunyata (the indescribable absolute) is the absolute. There is no difference between sansara and nirvana. Nagarjuna gives the fundamentals of his philosophy in a nutshell. He describes Paticca Samuppada by means of eight negatives: “There is neither origination, nor cessation; neither permanence nor impermanence; neither unity nor diversity; neither coming in nor going out in the law of Paticca Samuppada.” There is only non-origination which is equivalent to sunyata. Thus this paper is analyzing the theory of Paticca Samuppada from the point of view of Theravada Buddhism.

Evidently, while reading The Life Divine along with Sri Aurobindo’s other writings on yoga and several scriptures of Āgamic/Tantric origin, one may discern that there can be yet another more comprehensive universe of discourse—referring to the domain beyond mental level, signifying the higher aspects of the multidimensional vastness of real world—where mundane morality simply fails to retain its further utility. Moral injunctions are assignable only to the transitional stage of evolution i.e. humans as mental beings. Such injunctions do not apply to two spheres of evolution, viz. the infra-ethical and the supra-ethical. Ethics is applicable, exclusively to the world of human beings organizing their lives in the level of mind. Nevertheless, this world of mental beings signifies an intermediate transitional stage of evolution. There is a higher and fundamental dimension of reality—beyond the world of duality—wherein categories and dichotomy of ethics remain simply inappropriate. Such wonderful domain of existence transcends the status of moral being. Briefly, the present paper identifies and deals with the realms of inappositeness of moral codes and categories within the integral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo.

My motivation for writing this paper comes from a continuing concern with the role of yoga philosophy in our stress. In today’s world man has become restless. Competition is in every profession. Doctors, engineers, scientists, scholars, philosophers and all professionals have created manifold problems. They feel always stress. Science is a great panacea and curative agent for de-stressing therapies, but it has not found an appropriate remedy answer. In these cases, yoga helps to answering many of these questions related to the health of the human body and mind. Maharsi Patanjali was the founder of the most well-known body – mind harmonizing science of India. He stated that the term yoga implies the communion of the petty self with the higher universal self. Patanjali discloses secrets of bringing under control the divergent characteris­tics, variations and modifications vrittis of the mind. He describes eight steps of Yoga for total health & peace of mind and these are sanskrit yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana and samadhi. These eight steps include both the spiritual and physical aspects of curative therapy among human beings. These give us physical, psychological as well as mental benefits most importantly stress reduction. Hence in this conflict- ridden world of today, the philosophy and practice of yoga is one of the most effective relief techniques.

Though not a conscious philosopher, yet Sri Aurobindo’s contribution to world philosophy can hardly be over-estimated. His invaluable gift to posterity has been to show humankind the way to rise to higher levels of consciousness. For he was a Yogi who verified the Truth of the scriptures in the laboratory of his own soul, and upon it based his philosophy of dynamic, progressive spirituality. In the course of his Yoga he came to realize that Man, as he is today, is in a transitional phase. The journey of evolutionary man is from animality to Divinity and the final goal, the return to God. Man must be superseded by Superman, the next evolutionary emergent. In the Aurobindonian scheme, supermanhood is not an option, but a compulsion, satisfying a teleological necessity. My paper seeks to explore what this ‘supermanhood’ entails in terms of cosmic salvation and world transformation.

Many schools of Indian philosophy stress the importance of knowledge on the path to liberation, but what kind of knowledge is meant? Is it the kind of knowledge that can be had through philosophical thinking, through a path of intellectual inquiry? In this presentation I will sketch the position of Niścaldās (ca. 1791–1863), a late Advaita Vedāntin whose magnum opus, The Ocean of Inquiry, though not well known today, was once referred to by Vivekananda as having “more influence in India than any that has been written in any language within the last three centuries.” For Niścaldās, the central practice on the path to liberation is inquiry, an intellectual process of raising and removing doubts which, I argue, is closely related to the dialectical method (of pūrva-pakṣa and siddhānta) employed throughout Indian philos­ophy. The practice of inquiry presupposes a high level of moral and spiritual qualifications, but once these qualifications are met, philosophical thinking itself becomes, for Niścaldās, a spiritual practice. This practice is the chief means for bridging the gap between purely theoretical awareness and a deeper, liberating knowledge.

The law of karma is widely and popularly accepted in India. In the process of change and development of human potentiality of creativity, unfortunately man has reached a mental state of homo- fabricus, making and re-making false things as if they were real in order to deceive others. The law of karma has been stated prominently in Vedic literature, the Bhagavad Gita and in Indian traditional philosophical literature. According to this, no man can escape the consequences of his actions. To discuss it, which is relevant and important in the present conditions and circumstances, I would like to adopt the hermeneutic- phenomenological and holistic methodologies. The Bhagavad Gita is the quintessence of Vedic literature and Vyasa’s Mahabharata; there, Arjuna is taught by Srikrishna to perform his svadharma by fighting a battle. One has to perform one’s actions for the sake of duty in a detached and disinterested (anasakta) way without desiring the consequence (karma-phala), with love and devotion (bhakti), and integral fifth dimensional human reality. Beliefs in rebirth (punarjanma)-metempsychosis, and in the supreme Being (paramarthika satta) are the two implications of karma. In order to realise permanent peace, bliss and joy, man has to lead an alternative way of spiritual life of anasakta yoga.

The advancement of Science and Technology has attained so much height that the present age is rightly called the age of science and technology. But we have forgotten that the aim of science and technology is only the promotion of well-being and all round development of human life. Today the whole world faces a crucial problem of violent activities and we are under fear that if all these new research and technology attacks as a boomerang on society, there will be the possibility of destruction of human life. For Gandhi cooperation, inter-religious harmony and peace rather than conflict and struggle constitute the fundamental law of the universe. In modern times on the eve of twenty first century we have gained a lot of material progress, but we are not able to satisfy the human being in its real sense. The present society is facing the vary crisis of social integration. The civilization of mankind could be saved from destruction only through the means of non-violence. In order to establish social peace and order, the individual minds should be molded in such a way that there remains no room for communal hatred and social fragmentation. Therefore, approaching by the way of Gandhiji cannot be regarded only as an ethical or moral virtue but it is rather a growing demand of sustainable world.

As pointed out by Sidgwick, in his Methods of Ethics (I-9), the nature of moral value assumes two fundamentally different forms. These two views of morality are historically distinct. The priority of the Good was central to Greek ethics whereas modern ethics emphasized the Right rather than the Good. Corresponding to these two perspectives, we find in Western Ethics, Virtue Ethics and Duty Ethics are construed as opposed to each other and Gita Ethics is conventionally believed to be Duty Ethics expounding gospel of Duty. In my opinion, a fresh look is required rather than adopting the traditional one. Gita-Ethics can be construed on the lines of not only Duty Ethics but also Virtue Ethics. Bhagavadgita is known for its spirit of reconciliation: Action (Karma), Knowledge (Jnana), and Devotion (Bhakti); Renunciation (Nivrutti) and Activism (Pravrutti); Individual good (Moksa) and Social good (Lokasamgraha). So the paper attempts to show that the Gita Ethics can be depicted as virtue ethics.

In the Universe, there is a particular order. This order is known as ‘rta’. Since its very beginning, the order of a system prevails in the entire universe and cosmos. This cosmic order is known as ‘Mahan Rta’. Corresponding to this ‘Mahaman Rta’, there is an empirical order which is known as ‘Moral Rta’. To maintain the Mahan Rta it is imperative to follow and protect the ‘moral øta’. Out of all living beings on this earth, only human beings have consciousness and therefore there is a possibility that they only can violate the Mahan Rta. Rta the universal, all-pervading principle for maintaining the order in the society, nature and cosmos at large. It is also an ecological principle which sustains the balance and interrelationship of all life. Now the question is, what are the ways to follow this empirical order? Dharma is identified with rta. Rta is the natural order which reveals itself in and through the world and reveals itself as a moral law, governing and regulating the human conduct. Thus, violating this adharma which is sinful and results in destruction or chaos. Rta is also identified with Satya, Yajna etc.

Right from the beginning Vedas stand for essential monism. The existence of ‘That one in many and many in one’ forms the very core of Vedic thought. The sublime truth of the identity of the individual self with the absolute is established on the basis of firsthand experience of woman sage like Vak. This epoch making is truth is firmly established in the Chandogya Upanishad through the Mahavakya “Tat tvam asi” (“That thou art”) which is repeated eleven times by the sage Svetaketu . He explains the emergence of the whole visible universe from the invisible subtle essence and also establishes the all pervasiveness of this subtle essence. On the basis of essential oneness, interconnectedness of one with everything and everything with everything is established in the Upanishads and as a consequence it further establishes mutual dependency of everything on everything in the cosmos. Grounding on this metaphysical truth love, reverence and kindness was extended to all sentient and non sentient beings. Vedic ethics has been holistic in its approach to God man and nature.

What does the term ‘Perception’ denote in Epistemology? Is it a first hand, indubitable cognition as the hardcore epistemologists regard or is it very close to ‘interpretation’ or ‘perspective’ as poststructuralists like Michel Foucault regard? The philosophical analysis of perception tries to give an account of what it is to perceive something. It also tries to give an account of the nature of object of perceptual experience. Perception raises special problem if it is supposed that there is necessarily a gap between our perceptual experience and the objective world around us which we claim toknow. If perception is an entirely subjective matter, then there seem greater reasons for scepticism concerning our claims to know the so – called external world. But what exactly perception is like? It has to be said that the conceptual problem, viz. the problem of the nature of our concept of perception, is in a sense prior to the epistemological problem, viz. the problem of the relation between perception and the knowledge of the external world. There is a very wide tendency among philosophers to offer an analysis of perceptual experience which splits up perceptual experience into the awareness of some private data, i.e. into sensations, and the act of interpreting this data as objects or object – properties. Philosophers differ in opinion about the genuine nature of perception with regard to these two elements, viz sensation and judgement. Some assimilate perception to sensation. In their opinion, perception means pure sensation. In this, the object is only presented to the senses. This awareness of the object is the genuine perception. The interpretation of the data, which the knower does after being aware of the object, is not perception because that is done by another faculty, viz. intellect and not by the senses. This controversy is found in booth Indian and Western philosophical traditions. Naiyayikas, the bahyartha – vadins, i.e., the realists in Indian tradition are of the opinion that savikalpaka pratyaksa, i.e. determinate perception is the genuine perception. They are the supports of the commonsense view. According to them perception is the direct cognition of the things as they are, and only determinate perception can provide us the knowledge of the things as they are. They have accepted the doctrine of nirvikalpaka pratyaksa only as a logical requirement. As against this, the Buddhist philosophers Dinnaga and Dharmakirti opine that nirvikalpaka pratyaksa is the genuine perception and the so – called savikalpaka pratyaksa’ is a pseudo – perception. According to the Buddhists, the function of sense – perception is only to present the object to the senses. And that is done by nirvikalpaka pratyaksa. In determinates cognition, the object is known as associated with name, from, attributes etc., But the name, from, attributes are not known through sense – perception, they are the products of conceptual construction. The nature of the ‘purely given’ in sense – perception is devoid of all attributes and categories. Therefore, nirvikalpaka pratyaksa is the genuine perception, and the savikalpaka jnana is included in the inference in broader sense. Present paper proposes to discuss the ancient Indian debate regarding perception between the Buddhists and the Naiyayikas from the epistemological point of view. And the attempt will also be made to trace the roots of this debate in the respective paradigms of reality. It will be brought to light that here is essential reciprocity between the ‘Episteme’ and the ‘Real’. And this is not the invention of the contemporary philosophy; it was realized from the early times of philosophy.

The discussion about abhava or non-existence is an important as well as an interesting issue in Indian philosophy both from the logical and epis­temological points of view. The reality of non-existence cannot be denied. According to the Nyaya-Vaisesika thinkers an absence is as much an item of reality as any presence. It is to be noted that I shall discuss the problem of non-exis­tence from epistemological point of view. My discussion will centre round the question ‘how is abhava known?’ Both the Nyaya and the Bhatta Mimamsakas admit the reality of non-existence, but differ as to how abhava on non-existence is known. According to the Naiyayikas, abhava is known by sense-perception while according to the Bhattas abhava can never be known by perception but by a distinct pramana (source of knowledge) namely anupalabdhi or non-cognition. So the bone of contention between these two schools of philosophy is about the process of knowing non-existence. Both perception and non-cognition are essential for the knowledge of abhava. According to the Naiyayikas perception is the karana or special cause and non-cognition is the karana or cause, while according to the Bhatta Mimamsakas non-cognition is the karana or special cause and perception is the karana or cause for knowing non-existence. And for me the position of the Naiyayikas is better than that of the Bhatta Mimamsakas.

This paper is inspired by a small manuscript, Vyākaraṇakhaṇḍanam by Vacaspati Bhattacharya. Though my paper is absolutely based on works of Pāṇini’s Astadhyayi, Kātyāyana’s vṛtti and Patañjali Māhābhāṣya, culminating to the works of Nāgeśa and Bhartṛhari.In this paper I have attempted to show two ways of learning a language. First, one can adopt the grammar of a particular language and then can have the mastery of that language. Or one can live within the community of that language group and can acquire the mastery of that language. This latter view is supported by ancient Indian tradition of Trimuni---Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjalis who gave much importance to the lokavijñāna and lokavyavahāra. It is the popular usages that determine the rules, grammatical operation and syntactical-semantic relationship among the words. The two methods mentioned by Nāgeśa are Lakṣaṇaikacakṣuṣa, and Lakṣyaikacakṣuṣa. It has been concluded with Bhartṛhari that two methods are not separated from one another; they complement and supplement each other.

Corruption, which seems to thrive at all levels, is the single biggest threat to India’s ethical and economic health. There has been a steep rise in corruption in the recent past because pleasure has lopsidedly become ultimate end of human beings. Indian ethics and philosophical traditions prescribe four main ends of human life (Purushartha), namely enjoyment (Kama), wealth (Artha), Virtue (Dharma) and liberation (Moksha). The attainment of pleasurable objects is the steadfast end of human life because it is congenial to the body. As a means to enjoyment and livelihood, wealth is the second end of life. Without wealth, we cannot acquire objects nor can we have subsequent enjoyment. But in attainment of wealth and enjoyment we cannot be reckless. It is the duty of every individual to follow the laws which are imposed by society and state. Here comes virtue which is the third end of man as a social being. People have forgotten virtue and liberation in the mad run after wealth and enjoyment. This is the main aggravating factor of widespread corruption. This has to be avoided. We must adhere to our philosophical traditions. Some other factors of corruption and their possible remedies have also been delineated in this paper.

A believer, an atheist, an agnostic, a monist, a monotheist, a polytheist, an absolutist or even a hedonist can debate and discuss Spirituality. Is Spirituality a synonym for Religion and religious belief or does it spell different? Can one be spiritual and not be religious? Does being religious imply or presuppose the individual being spiritual? Is not Spirituality an antithesis for Materialism? Can one be spiritual and yet enjoy the sensual and phenomenal pleasures? Does it not imply that spirituality necessarily insists on austerity and does not allow people to be led by Artha and Käma? Are Dharma and Spirituality two names meaning the same concept and reality? Can Spirituality and business go together? Does the Indian concept of Puruñärthas lead one to holistic approach to life? These and many more questions lead us to the path of Truth, the very essence of Spirituality. Spirituality is not for the ascetic, the sage and the seer, and the old and the weak. It is the very substratum that keeps the nectar of life sustenance and evolution of the entire race and cosmos. It is the cornerstone of every business and industry. Let us understand what India has given to the world, through Spiritual teachings to make the ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakaà or a global village, a universal reality.

Although argumentation as a method was developed initially by the authors of the Nyaya school, one may claim that this was a general philosophic method acceptable also to other schools. There was a tacit agreement among the philosophers of ancient and classical India regarding the efficacy of the Nyaya method. The Nyaya method of philosophical argumentation known as katha, in fact was the result of an intellectual climate pervaded by public discussion, debates, arguments, and counter arguments. Katha consists of three types of debate: vada, jalpa and vitanda. The first kind corresponds to the friendly and congenial debate. Vada is usually to be held between the teacher and the students or between friendly philosophers where each participant is a seeker after truth. Jalpa is held between two rival parties, and the explicit goal here is victory. Vitanda, the third type is characterized by the lack of any attempt to prove the counter thesis. This paper makes an effort to establish Indian method of argumentation as a social veritisitc method.