best-known is the Kama Sutra. Sexual
pleasure was seen as an established part
of human life, which did not have to be
hidden, and for which no excuses were
necessary. Kama(as both “desire” and
“sexual desire”) was one of the
purusharthas or aims of life. Satisfying
one’s desires was seen as a legitimate
goal and considered a good thing, inso-
far as the pursuit did not interfere with
other ends. The texts on erotics analyzed
and classified sexuality in terms of aes-
thetic experience, as well as a vehicle
for physical pleasure. For its sophisti-
cated practitioners, such well-defined
sexuality was intended to provide fulfill-
ment for both partners, and here the lit-
erature is unusual for giving women
equal desire and equal pleasure.
Error, Theories of
Indian philosophical schools give seri-
ous consideration to the questions of
how and why people make errors in
judgment. Although these schools may
cite seemingly mundane examples, such
as mistaking the silvery flash of a
seashell for a piece of silver, investigat-
ing judgment errors is ultimately rooted
in religious goals. Specifically, the reli-
gious goal is to gain true awareness of
the actual nature of things, and through
this to bring about final liberation of the
soul (moksha) from the karmic cycle of
reincarnation (samsara). Each school’s
answers to the question of truth and fal-
sity reveal fundamental differences
about the understanding each has of the
inherent nature of things, which have
clear implications for bondage and lib-
eration. Although the differing schools
disagree on the mechanics of “how” one
sees silver instead of a shell, there is gen-
eral agreement about why such a mis-
take takes place. This and other errors
are rooted in the karmic predispositions
stemming from avidya, most specifical-
ly the greed that prompts human beings
to look for items of value. Far more
explanation can be found in the individ-
ual entries, but in brief there are six
major theories of error.
In the Prabhakarabranch of the
Mimamsaschool, the theory is akhy-
atior “nondiscrimination,” in which
the source of error is the inability to
make sharp distinctions. The theory
in the Naiyayika school is any-
athakhyati, the “discrimination of
something else,” in which the mind
projects an erroneous perception
(pratyaksha) onto another object.
The Mimamsa philosopher Kumarila
explains error as viparitakhyati or
“contrary discrimination,” in which
the source of error is a bad assessment
of an object’s similarities and differ-
ences. The Samkhya school pro-
pounds the theory of sadasatkhyati,
or “discrimination of the unreal as the
real,” in which the source of error is
merely an extension of the original
error to distinguish between the two basic
realities, purushaand prakrti. Ramanuja,
founder of the Vishishthadvaita Vedanta
school, propounds the theory of satkhy-
ati, “discrimination of the real,” in which
one correctly perceives the silvery flash,
but makes an incorrect assumption
based on this. The final theory of anir-
vachaniyakhyatior “indescribable dis-
crimination,” is advanced by the
Advaita Vedantaschool; according to
this, one illusory perception is superim-
posed on another conventionally true
but ultimately illusory perception. For
further information see Bijayananda
Kar, The Theories of Error in Indian
Philosophy, 1978; and Karl H. Potter
(ed.), Presuppositions of India’s
Philosophies, 1972.Ethics
See dharma.Evil Eye
See nazar.Evolution
Fundamental doctrine of the Samkhya
school of Indian philosophy. The
Samkhya school uses a theory of evolu-
tion to explain the human perception ofEvolution