The Three Pillars of Skepticism in Classical India: Nāgārjuna, Jayarāśi, and Śrī Harṣa

by Ethan Mills

Beginning with the earliest strata of Indian philosophy, this book uncovers a distinct tradition of skepticism in Indian philosophy through a study of the "three pillars" of Indian skepticism near the beginning, middle, and end of the classical era: Nāgārjuna (c. 150-200 CE), Jayarāśi (c. 770-830 CE), and Śrī Harṣa (c. 1125-1180 CE).

Moving beyond the traditional school model of understanding the history of Indian philosophy, this book argues that the philosophical history of India contains a tradition of skepticism about philosophy represented most clearly by three figures coming from different schools but utilizing similar methods: Nāgārjuna, Jayarāśi, and Śrī Harṣa. This book argues that there is a category of skepticism often overlooked by philosophers today: skepticism about philosophy, varieties of which are found not only in classical India but also in the Western tradition in Pyrrhonian skepticism.

Skepticism about philosophy consists of intellectual therapies for those afflicted by the quest for dogmatic beliefs. The book begins with the roots of this type of skepticism in ancient India in the Ṛg Veda, Upaniṣads, and early Buddhist texts. Then there are two chapters on each of the three major figures: one chapter giving each philosopher's overall aims and methods and a second demonstrating how each philosopher applies these methods to specific philosophical issues. The conclusion shows how the history of Indian skepticism might help to answer philosophy's detractors today: while skeptics demonstrate that we should be modest about philosophy's ability to produce firm answers, philosophy nonetheless has other uses such as cultivating critical thinking skills and lessening dogmatism.

This book is situated within a larger project of expanding the history of philosophy. Just as the history of Western philosophy ought to inform contemporary philosophy, so should expanding the history of philosophy to include classical India illuminate understandings of philosophy today: its value, limits, and what it can do for us in the 21st century.

Genres: Philosophy, India

254 pages, Hardcover

Published September 15, 2018

Reviews

[withdrawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I may get back to this but, after attempting several times over the past year to review this excellent work, I shall append the author’s own cogent summation of the book and will add my own thoughts on why it works for me. I consider this to be the best book that I have encountered over the past year, and beyond. Read his thoughts and then, preferably, find the book. Here are Ethan Mill’s own thoughts:

https://academia.edu/resource/work/40...

Thanks for your patience.

[Moritz Ricotomo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very excited to read this book, but it ended up being a bit of a mixed bag for me. Anyone looking to read this should be aware that it primarily talks about skepticism about philosophy and *not* skepticism about metaphysics or epistemology as one might expect. I also think that anyone looking to read this should already be familiar with the work of Nagarjuna, Jayarasi, and Sri Harsa as the book doesn’t do a fantastic job introducing these thinkers and their ideas and instead focuses on interpreting them. The explanations given also felt somewhat lacking in clarity, for example the explanation of Jayarasi “non-establishment of difference argument” between perception and inference relies heavily on separating “cognition” and “apprehension” of objects without defining these. This chapter also relied heavily on readers prior knowledge of the epistemological theories of Dignaga and Dharmakirti and in general a wider knowledge of Indian and Buddhist philosophy was a prerequisite. The conclusion of the book also was a bit of a surprise as the author, in a very brief section, attempts to contextualize the Indian skeptical tradition highlighted with western, Asian and Islamic skeptical thinkers as well as relating it to other modern biological and philosophical theories. This was all very interesting but felt very rushed, surface level, and the conclusions were not apparent. Overall though it did introduce me to some interesting philosophers and made a compelling argument that they were skeptics about philosophy.

[r0b · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very impressive. Well researched, well written.