Relevance of Indian Philosophical Thought

The Indian subcontinent happens to be the home to one of the oldest human civilizations in the world. This civilization that thrived in this part of the world has passed on to us an enormous wealth of literature that deals not just with ethical and moral codes, but also with Philosophy and Science. One of the defining characteristics of the Indian Civilization was its approach to knowledge. While the Greeks would develop sciences for the sake of sciences or they would gain knowledge for the want of knowledge, Indians would have a different world view altogether. They would develop sciences both for the sake of spiritual as well as mundane reasons. In this they differed with post-Bacon Europe as well, who would develop sciences to subjugate nature and to master the same. In contrast to this Indians would emphasize mastering one’s own self, they would not think of subjugating nature, they would prefer subjugating their own desires. This difference seems to have come out from the very fact that Indians would identify their own selves with nature, being a part of it, while the Greeks in ancient times and Europeans in modern times would not feel the same. The latter would, in fact, think of man as the center of the Universe for whose needs and requirements was nature meant to serve. This differing world view also explains to some extent the modernization and the development of technology in the west. For the Westerners “Knowledge was Power”, power to conquer nature and to meet man’s own political and economic agenda. Indians would, however, say little about the present life, it would go beyond what was present to what could not be perceived, hence this world was not the ultimate truth for them, and hence conquering nature never mattered to them.

So, what was the need for gaining knowledge? What purpose did it serve? Indians would recognize knowledge in two forms or should I say two levels; Para Vidya (higher knowledge) and Apara Vidya (lower knowledge). For Indians, spiritual goals were a priority; hence it would only consider para vidhya to be the true knowledge, for it was this knowledge that would lead one towards the goal. Apara Vidya dealt with empirical sciences. The Hindus would not stop here, even the sacred knowledge which related to physical being and enjoyments is Apara Vidya, not even Vedas could be spared even they are considered lower knowledge for only the inner knowledge that pertains to the knowledge of the Imperishable (aksara) is the real knowledge – para vidya.

Should then we conclude like many others already have that Indian thought was essentially pessimistic, for it would negate and render irrelevant this world of ours and its affairs. Indian thought does argue that neither the physical world nor any earthly pleasure is permanent. At the same time, it recognizes the fact that the world is full of pleasure but accompanied by pain. The aim of life, in such a line of thought, necessarily remains moving from the “happiness accompanied with pain” to eternal happiness i.e. happiness without pain. This eternal happiness or being free from suffering and its root cause the “birth” may be achieved within this world. Hence, far from being pessimistic and entirely mystical, this world holds a very important place in Indian thought. Yes, spirituality is the essence of Indian Philosophy and so is it with Islam and other philosophical systems, but is that spiritual being possible without a phase in this life? Obviously not, how then can be this world be irrelevant and why then should we call Indian thought pessimistic? “Vairagya” is confused with renouncing happiness and earthly life, but this interpretation comes out of ignorance. In fact “vairagya” is a way to happiness – an eternal happiness. “Vairagya” then is separating oneself from pleasure, for pleasure is nothing but pain sugar-coated.

The pessimistic view of Indian Thought is also shattered by the corpus of scriptures called “smirits”. These texts are also known as “Dharma Shastra” for they essentially deal with the conduct of individuals in a society out of which discharging of social responsibility is of immense importance; this, in fact, is the subject matter of the entire Bhagvata Gita. Bhagvata Gita throughout its length reminds us of discharging our social responsibilities without which attaining “moksha” is impossible. In other words, Bhagvata Gita makes it clear that renouncing this world is renouncing obligations, and renouncing obligations is moving away from moksha. In fact, Bhagvata Gita describes “Karma Yoga” as discharging one’s duties with commitment and selflessness. This doctrine it calls “nishkarma karma” which essentially means that work has to be done without any yearning for receiving any fruits of the actions i.e the “Karma Phall”. The duty has to be done for the sake of the duty, not to fulfill any selfish desires. The famous Urdu phrase, “neki kar darya mey daal”, is a beautiful summation of this Vedic principle.

It was most probably because of this principle that personal and individual liberty would take the back seat while the stability and well-being of the society was to be a priority. Not just Hinduism, it is under this philosophy that most of the religious systems developed, I would say Islam and Hinduism, in particular, have this philosophical basis behind most of the laws. It is because of this particular viewpoint that some of the laws prescribed by the two faiths seem draconian or discriminatory. It is true that many of the laws these two religions prescribe can be seen as harsh and discriminatory, but the harshness and discrimination are directed towards individual liberties while the good of society is prioritized and upheld.

Hinduism, pretty much like Islam, in its initial stages of development became the driving forces of human development and development of sciences and enhancement of knowledge. In both the systems of life, knowledge was acquired and enhanced upon keeping in view the spiritual goal as compared to the current western reasons to address the economic and political agenda. Hence it can be seen that in both the traditions, many of the great scientists of the classical period were great theologians, jurists, and philosophers of their respective religions. The term “jyautisha” in ancient times was used to refer precisely to astronomy. This astronomy developed as a necessity than out of interest, nevertheless, it developed. The finest “jyotishis” were the finest astronomers.

We talked about Bhagvata Gita earlier, which is a part of Mahabharta, the epic story of a family feud that finally ended up in a war. Apart from the philosophical Bhagvata Gita, Mahabharata is home to Vidhura’s moral philosophy and Bheeshma’s political philosophy. Pretty much like Bhagvata Gita’s relevancy in today’s times, both these philosophies are relevant today. Vidhura explains actions to be falling in the category of “shreyas” (i.e. desirable) or “preyas” (i.e. pleasing). The desirable may or may not be pleasing, or in other words, as Vidhura would himself say it, being like medicine. On the other hand, what is pleasing may lead one to impending danger. For Vidhura justice is each person doing one’s own job, which Krishna later explains has to be without yearning for the fruit. And not doing one’s job and indulging in others’ jobs is nothing but ignorance. And this ignorance is explained by Upanishads to be nothing but “avidhya” which is the source of “ahamkara” or “ego”, and this “ego”, the Upanishads would argue, is the source of all evil.

Upanishads would go a step further in explaining to us how to dispel the evil and it has obviously to do with “ahamkara” and “avidhya”. If “avidhya” is removed, evil naturally loses its source. Upanishads beautifully describe how to do that in three simple steps:

1. Shravana: Listen! Listen does not necessarily refer to the act of listening as we know it. In a broader context it refers to acquiring knowledge.
2. Manana: Reflect! Once knowledge is acquired one is supposed to reflect on it, contemplate on it.
3. Nididhyasan: Concentrate! This refers to the concept of Dhyan, or concentrating to the extent that all other stray thoughts vanish.

This is the staircase to liberation i.e. moksha.

At another place, Bheeshma goes on to explain the “rajdharma”. “Rajdharma” according to Bheeshma is safeguarding the interests of the subjects of the state. It is very interesting that Bheeshma ignores the duties of citizens but goes to lengths in explaining the duties of the ruler. One can infer from this that Bheeshma was of the thought that the citizens are in essence the rulers while the rulers are just the guardians of the realm. Out of the thirty-six “gunas” (qualities) of the ideal ruler, four deserve a mention right here. The ideal ruler has to be veracious, proactive, univocal or straightforward, and finally caring or compassionate.

So how does Indian Philosophical thought do justice to both the worldly and the spiritual aspects of human life? This is beautifully done by putting forward the concept of “chaturvarga” or what is popularly called “purushartha”. Purusartha is the key necessary and sufficient for a fulfilling and happy life which would help man to satisfy his economic needs (artha) and his sensuous desire (kama), finally leading to liberation (moksha), all this through righteous means (dharma). This four-fold path is put in a single formula as “Dharma-Artha-Kama-Moksha”. It is this four-fold path that forms the basis of Hindu Ethics. The righteousness of one’s life consists in directing one’s passions or desires and possessions or wealth to the spiritual end. Thus the Indian Philosophical thought gives due place to both pleasure and wealth but leaving liberation from both as the ultimate goal.

Kamasutra, the second-century treatise on eroticism describes the goals in life and how to fulfill them. It goes on to say that time should be managed in such a way that one should be able to attend to all the aims of life in such a way that they support one other instead of being obstacles to each other. Thus Artha, Kama, and Moksha should not be seen in contradiction but in support of each other. One way prescribed is that in the youth one may attend to profitable aims (artha) such as learning, in the prime to pleasure (kama), and in the old age to dharma and moksha. While suggesting this Kamasutra and other dharma shastras make it clear that artha is more important and should precede kama, and dharma is more important and should precede both kama and artha, while Moksha is the ultimate aim of one’s life.

Thus both the external world and the internal world of a person are given importance. Manusmriti would, hence, divide activities into “Pravrtti” and “Nivrtti”. The first kind of activity in which one devotes one’s self to external action such as Artha and Kama leads to progress (abhyudaya), and the second kind of activity in which one restrains from external action and concentrates on internal liberation i.e. Morksha, leads to perfection (nihsreyasa).

In the end, I would like to inform the reader that though Indian Philosophy and Hinduism overlap to such proportions that a clear-cut distinction is not possible. However, it is to be understood that Indian Philosophy is to be considered “Hindu” as in the geographic and racial connotation of the term, as the formation of this philosophical thought took place in the Hindu lands and was done by the people who lived in these lands. On the other hand, Indian Philosophy is not at all “Hindu” if the religious connotation of the word is considered, for Hindu Religion or the Sanatan Dharma originated from Indian Philosophy while Indian Philosophy did not originate from the Hindu religion. That being said, the relevance of ancient Philosophical thoughts in general and Indian Philosophical thought in particular in these days and times is imminent.