My answer is written from the viewpoint of a Westener, who has some background in Western philosophy and knows a bit about Hinduism, mostly from an academic context.
The well-known streams from Indian philosophy – Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa, Yoga, Vedanta - have in common the presupposition of the Vedas as authoritative shruti (astika). They are grouped into schools. Each school perpetuates its tradition by commenting the Vedas and often their own school precursors. The most well-known commentators of this kind are Shankara and Ramanuja from the Vedanta school. The schools often reject the Veda interpretation of the other schools.
This grouping into schools resembles the Western medieval organisations of theological schools (scholasticism) with their continued commentaries. This kind of Indian thinking can be compared to the so called “Christian Philosophy”. Its method is not philosophical in the strict sense of an open-ended thinking. Thinking is not primarily critical but affirmative. The goal is to interpret the given texts of an authoritative source and to defend the tradition of the own school.
After the period of the Upanishads we know from two countermovements against the Brahminical tradition, namely Jainism and Buddhism. Both movements do not presuppose the Vedas (nastika). But also the latter convictions like the six schools above acccept the concepts of Karma and Moksha as a matter of course. They consider release from the cycle of rebirth the highest goal for mankind.
The only school which released itself from all named presuppositions is the Charvaka school. The Charvakas brought fresh thoughts into the discussion like the value of observation or the questioning of theism. Probably one can compare their issues with issues of the Ionian philosophers of nature. And their emphasis on observation reminds one to the empiricism of David Hume.
All philosophical streams considered so far were active long before the investigations of modern science. Hence they could not include this broader horizon of knowledge, e.g. they could not draw conclusions from the results of current physics, psychology, biology or neurosicence. At best, their basis was precise observation of phenomena from every day life and adding some general speculations.
On the other hand, in Western philosophy we observe a strong impact of Newtonian physics to the philosophy of Kant and presently some joint work of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists. I do not know about similar developments in Indian philosophy. I am sceptical whether Indian philosophy fullfills the strict standards concerning definition, terminology and argumentation of e.g., Western analytical philosophy or Western philosophy of science. But I would like to learn which alternative standards are valid for Indian philosophy.
I found helpful the following secondary sources:
- Audi, Robert: The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 3rd edition, 2015. Keyword: Indian philosophy.
- Dasgupta, Surendranath: A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.1, 1922
- Ganeri, Jornadon: Philosophy in Classical India. 2009
Concerning the philosophical content of yin and yang you may compare from philosophy beta:
What do we learn about the sun when applying the yin and yang viewpoint?
and as an example:
Chinese Philosophy: the yin aspects of the sun
My personal opinion: Concerning terms like ki (japan) or brahman, atman (sanskrit) I often ask myself whether people in modern times use these terms as empty formulas. They project into these terms all what they consider fundamental, of high value and important. So one cannot fix a precise philosophical meaning of these terms.