Differences between Schopenhauer and Indian philosophy

When Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) studied Indian or Hindu philosophy, he didn’t restrict himself to the foundational texts. He read the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita but those lack the subtle interpretations made by Hindu thinkers across the centuries. Schopenhauer adopted early in his career some Hindu tenets and conveyed them, in his own words, in his book “The world as will and representation” first published in 1818. For instance, Schopenhauer wrote that the pursuit of short- term pleasure leads to disillusionment, because the hunger for additional pleasures cannot be stilled. It’s going to lead to more cravings, desires, and frustration. This Hindu insight perfectly matches Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”); unless you adopt countermeasures for minimising the negative influence of the will, you are going to be driven into self-destruction. From classical Hindu wisdom, Schopenhauer subscribed to the need of enlightenment. To people who want to escape or at least minimise the painful influence of the will, Schopenhauer recommended the cultivation of self-awareness. The first step towards solving problems or surmounting any obstacles is to acknowledge its existence. Enlightenment is not automatic, neither in Hindu philosophy nor in Schopenhauer. It is going to require in all cases a full reassessment of events, constraints, and worldly attachments. All students of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita grow to find self-reliance in the stillness of their minds. The process is arduous and demanding, but one’s peace of mind depends on philosophical enlightenment. Schopenhauer deepened himself in the process by studying the works of Adi Shankara, a Hindu philosopher who lived in the eighth and ninth centuries of our era. Shankara wrote very extensive commentaries to the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and came up with subtle interpretations. For Shankara, the individual soul or “Atman” constitutes a higher reality that each person must build for himself. People who fail to build their “Atman” are going to fall prey to stress, anxiety and discouragement when confronted with the world’s chaos. Schopenhauer adopted Shankara’s emphasis on self-growth, that is, on the cultivation of a personal “Atman.” If you fail to do that, the will is going to control your life and prompt you to make harmful decisions, argued Schopenhauer. Nonetheless, there is a crucial difference between Shankara and Schopenhauer. The former was driven by religious thought and his emphasis on the “Atman” led him to view the external world as delusion. Schopenhauer aimed at philosophical accuracy and viewed the “Atman” as a complement to perception, not as an enemy. I am against using words such as “delusion” or “mirage” when translating Schopenhauer’s definition of the external world. It’s far more accurate to employ the word “distorted.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/differences-between-schopenhauer-and-indian-philosophy/