The article discusses the classifications of traditional sciences (vidyā, śāstra) in the Sanskrit texts of the Upanishads (Chāndogya and Muṇḍaka), in the Manusmṛti, Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, Lalitavistara, Vatsyayāna’s Kāmasūtra et al. N. Kanaeva demonstrates that the authors of these classifications were brāhmans whereas the non-brāhmanical systems of science classifications did not introduce anything new into them because they had inherited them along with the traditions of brāhmanical educational system. Brāhmanical classifications of systems of knowledge were built according to a pragmatic criterion as lists of types of knowledge employed in the social practices of the higher varṇas: brāhmans, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. In the Middle Ages another criterion for classification of sciences emerges — orientation to tradition (traditionalism) resulting in complicated lists combining theoretical and practical knowledge (“sciences” and “arts”).
Main issue of the article is the problem of knowledge classification in traditional Indian culture as it presents in authoritative sanskrit texts like Chāndogyopanishada, Mundakopanishada, Mānavadharmaśāstra, Arthaśāstra, Lalitavistara, Kāmasūtra and others. Author used some concepts of social epistemology and pointed out the relations between cognitive practice, educational practice and religious one.
The system of traditional sciences (vidyā, śāstra) and principia of their classification were created by brahmans. Non-brahmans did import here nothing, because they were opponents with brahmanical tradition in the whole. But Jainas and Buddhists were the successors of brahmans in educational sphere and brahmanical classifications of knowledge also. Two main criteria for knowledge classification in brahmanical tradition were pragmatic one and the presence on traditional lists of sciences.
The purpose of the article is systematization of the cognitive principles and norms of traditional knowledge, formed in India before epistemology and logic rose (up to the III century). The basis of the systematization is concept «paradigm». The paradigms of Indian traditional knowledge were the science of ritual (kalpa) and grammar (vyākaraṇa). Just two sciences determined the contents and the architecture of texts for all traditional Indian sciences (vidyās and śāstras) and philosophies (darśanas). Later the norms and forms of organization from two sciences were borrowed by Indian epistemological and logical theories. If we don’t know the way of the construction of the logical-epistemological theory (pramāṇa-vāda) we are not able to understand the authentic meanings of its conceptions.