Meaning of the Term

Sarva-Darśana is composed of the Sanskrit words sarva and darśana. Sarva means “everything”, “all” or “the whole”. Darśana derives from the Sanskrit root √dṛś – “to see”, “to behold” – and initially denotes seeing, vision or a particular viewpoint. In a philosophical context, darśana can also denote a teaching, a philosophical position or a philosophical system.

Sarva-Darśana can therefore be rendered, in an approximately literal sense, as “All-Vision” or “Vision of the Whole”, and in a philosophical sense as “all viewpoints” or “all teachings”.

Sarva-Darśana-Saṅgraha

The Sarva-Darśana-Saṅgraha – literally a “compilation” (saṅgraha) of the various, or “all” (sarva), philosophical viewpoints (darśanas) – is a work of the 14th century CE traditionally attributed to Mādhavācārya*. It treats a number of important philosophical schools of its time and presents them one after another in their respective basic positions and modes of argumentation.

The title of the work thus also provides a historical point of reference for the name Sarva-Darśana: the attempt not to reduce different philosophical voices to a single perspective, but first to take them seriously as systems in their own right.

Philosophical Approach

In a similar, though considerably broader, sense, Sarva-Darśana is devoted to different philosophical traditions. These include the philosophies of the Veda-Kultur, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain systems, as well as the philosophical traditions of ancient Greece and selected positions in early modern and modern philosophy.

The point of departure is transcultural-philosophical. Philosophical questions are not treated from the outset within the boundaries of a single culture, religion or academic tradition. Different traditions of thought are allowed to enter into dialogue without one of them automatically being made the measure of all the others.

At the same time, the approach is scholarly and source-based. Philosophical statements do not exist in a vacuum. Context is decisive: statements must be situated historically, culturally, socially and institutionally. The decisive question is therefore not only what is said, but also who says something, when, where, under what conditions and with what intention.

The principle is: sources before opinions. Primary texts and historical material form the point of departure; scholarship interprets and contextualises these sources. Traditional narratives are sources as well. They are neither uncritically accepted as historical facts nor prematurely dismissed as “mere myths”. Their formation, transmission and function can themselves be philosophically and historically illuminating.

Likewise, a scholar’s cultural background does not determine the quality of their work. Good scholarship is not bound to origin. At the same time, the colonial history of Indology in particular calls for heightened methodological self-reflection when European scholars describe and interpret Indian traditions.

Sarva-Darśana therefore seeks no universal explanation that reduces all traditions to a single scheme, and no single binding master narrative. Different voices, schools and interpretations are to be taken seriously in their own internal logic and compared with one another.

For me, this is where historian and philosopher meet: the historical question of context, sources and development together with the philosophical question of arguments, concepts, truth and internal consistency.

* Mādhavācārya is not to be confused with Madhva, the founder of Dvaita-Vedānta. The frequently encountered identification of the author of the Sarva-Darśana-Saṅgraha with Vidyāraṇya, the Jagadguru of the Śṛṅgeri Śāradā Pīṭha in the late 14th century, is traditionally widespread but historically not uncontested.