What do you think?
Rate this book
Outlines Of Indian Philosophy
Reading books is a kind of enjoyment. Reading books is a good habit. We bring you a different kinds of books. You can carry this book where ever you want. It is easy to carry. It can be an ideal gift to yourself and to your loved ones. Care instruction keep away from fire.
420 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1932
16 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
About the author
Mysore Hiriyanna
20 books15 followersMysore Hiriyanna (1871–1950) was one of the foremost writers on Indian philosophy who lived in the last century. His prominent works include Indian Conception of Values, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Quest after Perfection and Art Experience. His books are held in hundreds of libraries, even outside India.
Professor M Hiriyanna was born in Mysore on May 7, 1871. Having obtained his M.A from the Madras Christian College, he joined as a librarian at the Mysore Oriental Library, (now, the Oriental Research Institute, Mysore) and at a later stage of his career he went on to become the curator of the institute. In an intervening period, he served as an Assistant Master and later as the Head Master at the Mysore Normal School.
He joined the newly established Mysore University as a lecturer in Sanskrit and was promoted as a professor of Sanskrit and Philosophy during 1918 - 1927. His works show clarity, precision and brevity.
Source: Wikipedia
Professor M Hiriyanna was born in Mysore on May 7, 1871. Having obtained his M.A from the Madras Christian College, he joined as a librarian at the Mysore Oriental Library, (now, the Oriental Research Institute, Mysore) and at a later stage of his career he went on to become the curator of the institute. In an intervening period, he served as an Assistant Master and later as the Head Master at the Mysore Normal School.
He joined the newly established Mysore University as a lecturer in Sanskrit and was promoted as a professor of Sanskrit and Philosophy during 1918 - 1927. His works show clarity, precision and brevity.
Source: Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 12, 2013
'Outlines of Indian Philosophy' is an interesting book about the past 3500 or 4000 years of evolution of Indian philosophy, comprising all branches in Hinduism, Buddism, Jainism. It is a must have book if one is interested to know the basics of Indian philosophy. Authors style of narration is simple and lucid.
August 28, 2025
Hiriyanna has some interesting ideas, particularly in how he understands two different strands of thought in the Upanishads. Also a great overview of the Purva-Mimamsa here, but I prefer C.D. Sharma on that. Not much to differentiate him from the other 20th century doxographers.
August 14, 2025
5/5 for a philosophy book that doesn't mention epistemological or ontological unnecessarily. Eschatological came up once and I promptly ignored it and moved on to the next sentence. For a book on philosophy I am super impressed that it's a page turner. M.Hiriyanna has used simple language to explain nuanced differences in the different schools of thought. I think he does a good job in making the logic easy to visualize. Even so, I cannot say I have truly internalized the subtleties of logic to no fault on the authors part. I was interested in knowing more about the chronology and evolution of different schools of Indian thought and for that, would absolutely recommend this book.
A comment before lengthy expositions - The meaning for any word is based on how it's used and understood by people. Not it's etymology or a stagnant definition. For eg, when I say I love the vibes of a coffee shop, I don't mean I can physically perceive pleasing vibrations. This is easily understood in todays parlance. If someone 1000 years from now heard us and assumed that we as a society were very in tune with vibes of places and people, it would be just what they call by something else then. I don't think the meaning of vibes should be correlated to perceiving vibrations. Likewise, when reading older texts, I do not assume todays meaning for words like karma, god, etc since each school defines these words for itself. And I don't dismiss it either as something otherworldly, just abstract, unless specifically used as otherworldly. Hopefully I understand the meaning through reading it in different contexts and trying to get at the underlying abstract concept. Lengthy expositions, here we come (mostly a reference to myself for future)
Buddhism:
The fact that Buddhism believes in karma shows influence of Upanishadic thought. But apart from Karma, buddhism doesn't seem to have a belief in the unknown/unperceived. "The whole tenor of early Upanishads is against a belief in a personal god. Buddha dismisses that conception altogether. In many (upanishad) statements the self is negatively conceived - as devoid of all attributes. Buddha eliminates the conception of self altogether". He believes the self is just the name for the aggregate. For eg - Chariot is the name for the aggregate of wheels, frame, horses, etc. All of these put together in a specific way is called chariot. Buddhism says "self" is similar. Nothing remains after death, there is no "self" that sustains. For instance when we say it thinks or it is white, "it" should be assumed as when we say it is raining. There is no it in that sense.
Adding time to this equation, the Buddhist doesn't believe the aggregate stays the same for 2 moments in time. It is constantly changing. The view that everything changes moment to moment is called "Ksanika vada" and that is how Buddhism is known in Hindu texts. It is a momentary disintegration of all things, so there is no permanent entity called the "self". For eg, if I am a series of Aarthi1, Aarthi2… for every time step, there is a disintegration and reforming of the entity in the series. Buddhism denies "self" or a "soul" that is permanent between the entities in this series. But does recognize that Aarthi1, Aarthi2.. series is different from You1, You2.. series. This is kind of a "fluid self" since the entities in one series cannot be exchanged with the entities in another series.
"the Buddhist has tacitly admitted a Self transcending the experience of the moment. In the very act of analyzing the self and dismissing it as but a series of momentary states, he is passing beyond those states and positing an enduring self which is able to view them together, for a series as such can never become aware of itself" (In the chariot eg, we know the boundaries of the chariot, I doubt there is anything in the chariot that knows it's own boundary or recognizes itself as a chariot)
It is fascinating that someone thought of the momentary disintegration of all things. It's so counter intuitive to regular life.
In many schools of philosophy, including early Christianity, the relationship between the abstract and specific come up multiple times. For eg, when we see a cup, we are seeing a specific cup - imagine a short white one. But the abstract notion of a cup is also known, as when we see a different cup later, maybe a taller blue one, we still recognize that "this is a cup". We have onlyyyy seen specific cups. Now the question becomes does an abstract cup exist or only these specific ones? And what does exist mean in this case? [I don't understand this]
Jainism:
Jainism is similar to Buddhism in that it is pessimistic (believes life is predominantly suffering), doesn't believe in a god and doesn't take Vedas as an axiom. Jains believe in a "Self", Buddhism does not. Jainism believes the self is agential and experiential. Buddhism believes there is action, but no agent. Curious that they both believe in karma when they don't take anything else as a given - Jainism believes in rebirth, souls staying constant. Buddhism believes in a "Rebirth" but in a very interesting way. Each moment is a rebirth since the aggregate changes every time step. But also rebirth at death is that of "character", since Buddhism doesn't believe in a soul or self.
So many questions relating to this - Why did they think anything transmigrates? What is not explained if this isn't an assumption? If character transmigrates in Buddhism, it could be a one is to many relationship, not necessarily one to one. Why do they assume it's like rebirth with one soul? Where is this "character" stored to be reborn?
In Buddhism, it feels like karma is the agent (an impersonal law acting on a person) until you detangle from Karma? In Jainism, Karma is conceived of as matter that is stuck to "you (the agent)", that you need to extricate yourself from it. You can stop new Karma from accumulating and once the old karma is experienced, you are free.
Jainism doesn't believe in a god, but believes in "godhead" - every liberated soul is divine. But if we mean by a god that created the world, it is atheistic. If god needs to create a world, it means he feels a want which is inconsistent with the necessary perfection of a supreme being. Theistic conceptions are anthropomorphic, bringing god to the level of man. Jainism looks upon man as potential to be god. Jainism, out of all the other traditions, believes in karma the most. There is no god that can "save" you from any of your karma. Nothing can intervene between your actions and the fruits they must bear.
I found this part of Jainism very cool - The most conspicuous doctrine of Jainism - is that reality is extremely indeterminate. In English this is called the doctrine of maybe. It signifies that the universe can be looked at from many different points of view and each view point yields a different conclusion. Reality is not expressed completely by any of them. Every proposition is hence strictly conditional - absolute confirmation and absolute negation are both erroneous. The doctrine indicates extreme caution and signifies an anxiety to avoid all dogma in defining nature of reality. An old stanza goes - he who knows one thing completely knows all things and he alone who knows all things knows anything completely. To understand one thing, we have to relate it to all. Hence the Jaina view is relativistic and pluralistic.
An open ended question from Jainism - Jiva and Ajiva are thought to be the 2 types of fundamental material present but no comments are made on whether they could be from the same principle. If they are entirely independent, what's mediating between them? Jainism elects to explain Karma as a form of matter (ajiva), and that it embeds in you (jiva), and your goal is to loosen yourself from this material. But if this is the case, then any karma can attach to any material body and a distinction between jivas vanishes. Then you are forced to deduce that there is one jiva principle and one ajiva principle that are so dynamic and interdependent, that it resolves in one entity? [don't understand this.] "The truth is that the primary aim of Jainism is the perfection of the soul rather than the interpretation of the universe. As a result we fail to find in it an ultimate solution of the metaphysical problem"
Things I haven't covered: I have expounded on 2 chapters in this book of 14 chapters. I haven't written on any of the orthodox or other schools of thought. Or how the entire academic community agrees on sources, inferences, etc. While I do seem to like understanding all of this, it might help me to remember - philosophy purifies none, peace alone does.
A comment before lengthy expositions - The meaning for any word is based on how it's used and understood by people. Not it's etymology or a stagnant definition. For eg, when I say I love the vibes of a coffee shop, I don't mean I can physically perceive pleasing vibrations. This is easily understood in todays parlance. If someone 1000 years from now heard us and assumed that we as a society were very in tune with vibes of places and people, it would be just what they call by something else then. I don't think the meaning of vibes should be correlated to perceiving vibrations. Likewise, when reading older texts, I do not assume todays meaning for words like karma, god, etc since each school defines these words for itself. And I don't dismiss it either as something otherworldly, just abstract, unless specifically used as otherworldly. Hopefully I understand the meaning through reading it in different contexts and trying to get at the underlying abstract concept. Lengthy expositions, here we come (mostly a reference to myself for future)
Buddhism:
The fact that Buddhism believes in karma shows influence of Upanishadic thought. But apart from Karma, buddhism doesn't seem to have a belief in the unknown/unperceived. "The whole tenor of early Upanishads is against a belief in a personal god. Buddha dismisses that conception altogether. In many (upanishad) statements the self is negatively conceived - as devoid of all attributes. Buddha eliminates the conception of self altogether". He believes the self is just the name for the aggregate. For eg - Chariot is the name for the aggregate of wheels, frame, horses, etc. All of these put together in a specific way is called chariot. Buddhism says "self" is similar. Nothing remains after death, there is no "self" that sustains. For instance when we say it thinks or it is white, "it" should be assumed as when we say it is raining. There is no it in that sense.
Adding time to this equation, the Buddhist doesn't believe the aggregate stays the same for 2 moments in time. It is constantly changing. The view that everything changes moment to moment is called "Ksanika vada" and that is how Buddhism is known in Hindu texts. It is a momentary disintegration of all things, so there is no permanent entity called the "self". For eg, if I am a series of Aarthi1, Aarthi2… for every time step, there is a disintegration and reforming of the entity in the series. Buddhism denies "self" or a "soul" that is permanent between the entities in this series. But does recognize that Aarthi1, Aarthi2.. series is different from You1, You2.. series. This is kind of a "fluid self" since the entities in one series cannot be exchanged with the entities in another series.
"the Buddhist has tacitly admitted a Self transcending the experience of the moment. In the very act of analyzing the self and dismissing it as but a series of momentary states, he is passing beyond those states and positing an enduring self which is able to view them together, for a series as such can never become aware of itself" (In the chariot eg, we know the boundaries of the chariot, I doubt there is anything in the chariot that knows it's own boundary or recognizes itself as a chariot)
It is fascinating that someone thought of the momentary disintegration of all things. It's so counter intuitive to regular life.
In many schools of philosophy, including early Christianity, the relationship between the abstract and specific come up multiple times. For eg, when we see a cup, we are seeing a specific cup - imagine a short white one. But the abstract notion of a cup is also known, as when we see a different cup later, maybe a taller blue one, we still recognize that "this is a cup". We have onlyyyy seen specific cups. Now the question becomes does an abstract cup exist or only these specific ones? And what does exist mean in this case? [I don't understand this]
Jainism:
Jainism is similar to Buddhism in that it is pessimistic (believes life is predominantly suffering), doesn't believe in a god and doesn't take Vedas as an axiom. Jains believe in a "Self", Buddhism does not. Jainism believes the self is agential and experiential. Buddhism believes there is action, but no agent. Curious that they both believe in karma when they don't take anything else as a given - Jainism believes in rebirth, souls staying constant. Buddhism believes in a "Rebirth" but in a very interesting way. Each moment is a rebirth since the aggregate changes every time step. But also rebirth at death is that of "character", since Buddhism doesn't believe in a soul or self.
So many questions relating to this - Why did they think anything transmigrates? What is not explained if this isn't an assumption? If character transmigrates in Buddhism, it could be a one is to many relationship, not necessarily one to one. Why do they assume it's like rebirth with one soul? Where is this "character" stored to be reborn?
In Buddhism, it feels like karma is the agent (an impersonal law acting on a person) until you detangle from Karma? In Jainism, Karma is conceived of as matter that is stuck to "you (the agent)", that you need to extricate yourself from it. You can stop new Karma from accumulating and once the old karma is experienced, you are free.
Jainism doesn't believe in a god, but believes in "godhead" - every liberated soul is divine. But if we mean by a god that created the world, it is atheistic. If god needs to create a world, it means he feels a want which is inconsistent with the necessary perfection of a supreme being. Theistic conceptions are anthropomorphic, bringing god to the level of man. Jainism looks upon man as potential to be god. Jainism, out of all the other traditions, believes in karma the most. There is no god that can "save" you from any of your karma. Nothing can intervene between your actions and the fruits they must bear.
I found this part of Jainism very cool - The most conspicuous doctrine of Jainism - is that reality is extremely indeterminate. In English this is called the doctrine of maybe. It signifies that the universe can be looked at from many different points of view and each view point yields a different conclusion. Reality is not expressed completely by any of them. Every proposition is hence strictly conditional - absolute confirmation and absolute negation are both erroneous. The doctrine indicates extreme caution and signifies an anxiety to avoid all dogma in defining nature of reality. An old stanza goes - he who knows one thing completely knows all things and he alone who knows all things knows anything completely. To understand one thing, we have to relate it to all. Hence the Jaina view is relativistic and pluralistic.
An open ended question from Jainism - Jiva and Ajiva are thought to be the 2 types of fundamental material present but no comments are made on whether they could be from the same principle. If they are entirely independent, what's mediating between them? Jainism elects to explain Karma as a form of matter (ajiva), and that it embeds in you (jiva), and your goal is to loosen yourself from this material. But if this is the case, then any karma can attach to any material body and a distinction between jivas vanishes. Then you are forced to deduce that there is one jiva principle and one ajiva principle that are so dynamic and interdependent, that it resolves in one entity? [don't understand this.] "The truth is that the primary aim of Jainism is the perfection of the soul rather than the interpretation of the universe. As a result we fail to find in it an ultimate solution of the metaphysical problem"
Things I haven't covered: I have expounded on 2 chapters in this book of 14 chapters. I haven't written on any of the orthodox or other schools of thought. Or how the entire academic community agrees on sources, inferences, etc. While I do seem to like understanding all of this, it might help me to remember - philosophy purifies none, peace alone does.
September 11, 2007
A fantastic introduction to the tradition of Indian philosophy, pre-Vedic to Vedanta. Hiriyanna's English is excellent, and while the scope of the book makes it slightly overwhelming to tackle, it is worth the effort for those interested in the ancient intellectual history of India.
June 7, 2013
A brilliant exposition of Indian philosophy. The author clearly sifts philosophy from history and stays with the former. The presentation of facts is neutral, but the author's own opinions are also clearly stated. A must for any student of philosophy.
September 1, 2013
a must read for all Hindu Philosophy enthusiast
November 13, 2013
An essential book for beginners on Indian philosophy. It gives a complete picture of the subject. You can go from one part to another smoothly and the effect would be like sitting in a class.
July 28, 2016
By far the best book on Indian Philosophy.
Read
October 4, 2023Hin
January 17, 2025
A great exposition of Indian Philosophy -- clear and lucid. Really enjoyed reading this book.
November 17, 2025
not for beginners, requires preexisting deep understanding on the subject
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews