EPILOGUE ON DISCOURSES ON HINDU PHILOSOPHY SCHOOLS
(I-DISCOURSE BY N. R. SRINIVASN, MAY 2012)
Adi Sankaracharya while paying his obeisance to Lord Viswanatha in Varanasi during his whirlwind tour of India to propagate his newfound philosophy of Advaita offered his prayers to him as follows:
"Oh! Lord Viswanaatha! My first sin is that in spite of my knowing (while teaching others) that God is beyond mind and speech, I have tried to describe you through the several stotras (hymns) composed by me. This betrays lack of conformity between my thoughts and my word. Next, having convinced of the scriptural sayings that God pervades and permeates everything in the manifested universe, I have been preaching this truth to all. Nevertheless, I have come to Varanasi to have your darsan (viewing). This shows that my thoughts, words and deeds are at variance with one another. This is my second offence. Thirdly, I have a firm belief in the teaching of scriptures that the same Aatma (self) is imminent in all beings and there is no difference between the so-called Jeevaatman (individual soul) and the Paramaatman (Supreme Soul). While I have been proclaiming this Truth in all my discourses, I have now come to stand before you as if we two are separate and different from each other. This is my third lapse. Hence I pray that I may be absolved of all these three sins, of which I am guilty."
Evidently, he had lot of rethinking on his recent postulations, which served the need of the hour to fight the growing tendencies of atheism and Nehalism. He had not also given up the then traditional religious practices like Moorti Upaasana (iconic worship), Naama paaraayana (chanting names of the Lord) and Teertha-yaatra (pilgrimage). In fact, he regularized Shanmatas (Six traditions of worship of various deities) and Panchaanana Pooja (worship of five icons together). He did not live long to revise his earlier thoughts on Advaita Philosophy inspired by further studies of vast number of Upanishadas he had not touched upon. His first detailed commentary was on Vishnusahasranaama of Puranic origin. It was therefore left to other great scholars to make an in-depth study of various Upanishads for further review of the earlier thoughts. The later philosophers were all great scholars too from Advaita School. Commentaries from some of these great scholars are easily available to all in the widely understood English language. Some of the commentaries by recent profound scholars are still in Sanskrit language and therefore accessible to few well read Sanskrit scholars. It is a pity that at present study of Sanskrit has gone to the background.
The profound philosophy underlying Upanishad gives rise to several interpretations by Vedic scholars, which is mainly divided into Advaita (non-dualist), Dvaita (dualist) and Visishtaadvaita (non-dualist qualified).
The Upanishadic statements are enigmatic in character and they are spread out in various Upanishads. Schools of Philosophy strongly believe that all Upanishads are devoted the exposition of a single connected system of thought and have come out with their individual philosophy in the light of their understanding the meanings of these texts that have been expounded by them. The Upanishads abound in different kinds of statements that appear to be contradicting one another. There are mantras that declare that Brahman is Nirguna, pure Consciousness and Bliss. It expounds that Brahman is the only one (Tadekam), non-second Reality. At the same time in some other context various auspicious qualities are attributed to Brahman (Rudram) which has given birth to stotras like Vishnusahasranaama.
There are statements that expound that there is no duality whatsoever, but at the same time, other texts describe elaborately duality and the process of creation, dissolution and others. Knowledge of oneness of the Aatmann is declared as the means of liberation in many Upanishads. At the same time, Upaasana or meditation upon Brahman has been outlined as described in Mahaanaaraayana Upanishad. Therefore, we find in Upanishads duality texts as well as non-duality texts and there are statements affirming both oneness and differences.
The Monistic Advaita School gives all importance to the unity texts (like Aatmabodha) and explains that duality and others are to be sublated. The School of Advaita expounds the principle of Adhyaasa or super-imposition and explains the phenomenal world as false appearance (Maaya) due to Adhyaasa or super-imposition.
The Dvaita School gives primary importance to dualistic texts and explains away unity texts in a secondary manner. It is the same way as Jnaanamaarga (path of knowledge) and Bhaktimaarga (path of devotion)being stressed upon as means to Moksha. Bhedaabheda School gives equal importance to both the texts and expounds that he one, non-second reality Brahman itself has in reality become the Self and matter. The Dvaita School admits the reality fully of this universe of individual selves and matter and also Brahman and its perfections, and repudiates the views of oneness. This is appealing to many who follow Bhaktimaarga.
Ramnuja on the other hand nurtures the principles of body-soul relationships as propounded in Brihadaarnyaka Upanishad. Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad expounds Brahman is the inner controller (antaryaamin) of all entities. The creation of the universe is not directly through modification of Brahman into the form of universe but through his body. He expounds the reality of all the three entities and their differences also: 1) Easwara (Supreme Principle); 2) Chit (the soul or sentient); and 3) Achit (non-soul or non-sentient). According to him God alone exists and all else we see is God's attributes or manifestation. He stresses on Saranaagati or complete surrender to the Supreme Will.
How then are these apparently contradictory philosophies to be reconciled? Upanishad is like our beloved and merciful mother and a teacher of the highest caliber. As a clever mother offers her crying baby various fruits, sweets and other edibles to bring peace to it, the Upanishads make use of various methods to bring peace to souls suffering from various birth cycles. It is therefore left to the individuals to choose philosophy of their choice and seek solace.
Ancient
Western Philosophy and the Hindu Wisdom:
Does the ancient
western philosophy bear any resemblance to the Hindu thoughts of the
corresponding historical period? This is the question being discussed in this
article. Western philosophy is only 2600 years old, whereas all the major
Upanishads which form the fundamental corpus of Indian philosophy are still
older by at least 500 years, even by the most stringent and parsimonious
estimation by the most unfriendly scholars of the west.
Various
means of contact between the West and the East were already operative even
before 600 BC, the year of inception of Western philosophy. With the
establishment of the Achaemenes Empire under Persian rulers, the mutual contact
acquired a new dimension paving the way for exchange of thoughts and
perceptions about human life. As such, the question raised deserves careful
consideration by a detailed discussion.
What
is now known as western philosophy is generally classified into the following
six chronological periods namely,
- Classical Era – from 600 BC to 300 BC
- Hellenistic Era – from 300 BC to 1 BC
- Roman Era – from 1 AD to 500 AD
- Medieval Era – from 500 AD to 1500 AD
- Early Modern Era – from 1500 AD to 1800 AD
- Modern Era – from 1800 AD onwards.
Of
the above, for the sake of limiting our survey to the ancient Western
philosophy, we may remain concerned with the first two eras only, namely, the
Classical Era and the Hellenistic Era. Within this limitation too, we are
particularly concerned about the enquiry regarding the ultimate reality or the
Supreme Being.
The
timeline of classical Western philosophers starts with Thales (624 – 546 BC)
and ends almost with Euclid (325 – 265 BC), all being Greeks. It appears that
only Greeks had philosophy during this period in the west. The Hindus had
already finalized by that time a full-fledged philosophy dealing with the
secrets of existence and life and had also established an excellent system for
its propagation, even reaching down to the layman, through the medium of
literary compositions such as the epics, apart from the higher texts of purely
philosophical discussions. Until Socrates (470 – 399 BC) came up with his
dialectics for resolving contradictions in arguments and thereby arriving at
the truth, Athens had no place in what we now know as Western philosophy.
Mythology, oracles and sophists ruled the roost in Athens in the Pre-Socratic
period. Even Socrates believed in the Oracles of Delphi. All the Pre-Socratic
Western philosophers came from the Eastern Greek settlements in Ionia, an
ancient region of the central coastal Anatolia which is currently a territory
of Turkey. The name ‘Ionia’ finds mention in Hindu texts as ‘Yavana’, which
term, interestingly, is said to have been used by Hindus to indicate barbarian
people of the West. With no tradition to boast of, pertaining to intellectual
life of rational thinking and creative compilations, these people at that time
apparently deserved this epithet. There are references in Mahabharata regarding
the Yavana soldiers participating in the Kurukshetra war.
History
says that Ionia was under the rule of the Persians from 550 BC to 336 BC as
part of the Achaemenes Empire which comprised of western parts of India also.
This position in particular helped the Ionians to have access to the great
works of the Sages of India. Contacts with the already matured teachings of the
Vedas must have influenced the Ionian Greeks to tread a new path different from
the traditional Greek beliefs and religious practices and to formulate theories
about the ultimate reality, independent of mythology. It cannot be the other
way round, with the Greeks influencing the Vedic tradition, since the
perfection, extent and depth that the Hindu thoughts reached by that time
compared to the infancy seen in the West makes such a suggestion less than
tenable. Karl Jasper’s theory of Axial Age is only a myth in the light of the
above facts. Karl Jasper says that philosophy and new religious thoughts
evolved simultaneously in the East and the West during 800 BCE to 200 BCE, in
spite of having no mutual cultural or other contacts. His facts are wrong. As
explained above, mutual contacts with the west and the east already existed,
before the start of the so-called axial age. It is because of his western bias
that Jasper ignored this historical fact. Further, he conveniently forgot the
rule of the Persian Empire, simultaneously over the west and east, for a period
of two centuries that fall within his ‘axial age’. Moreover the Major
Upanishads were already revealed, when the western philosophy was yet to totter
as an infant. Veda Samhitas are still older. So, the theory of Axial Age is
only an undue favor showered on the westerners for satisfying their false
pride.
In
spite of their contacts with the great treasures of the Hindu philosophy, what
the Ionians could obtain was some fringes; that too, apparently through Persian
versions or simple translations. And they could not digest fully what they thus
obtained, because of the deflection their intellectual orientation had with
that of the Hindus at that time. This deficiency in comprehension reflects in
the teachings now presented as theirs. The matter undergoes further aggravation
with the fact that none of the writings of the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers
is available in full; everything said about them and to be theirs now,
including their life time, are only conjectures made upon surviving fragments
of such writings. This is in sharp contrast with the Hindu scriptures which
have been preserved almost intact from still older periods to the present day.
May be, the ancient Indians were poor in keeping a chronological record of
events in the name of history, but they keenly preserved their most valuable
treasures of intellectual and cultural outputs very safely.
Thales
of Miletus (Ionia) is considered as the first in the line of classical western
philosophers; according to Bertrand Russell, western philosophy starts with
him. Thales’ most famous contribution was his cosmological thesis that the
world had its origin from water. In this context we may recall the Upaniṣadic
teachings about the origin of the universe. Praśna (1.4) says that at first the
pair of Rayi and Prāṇa was created. Chāndogya follows up this by saying that
from this energy water came up first and from water, food is created (6.2.3
& 6.2.4). Bṛhadāraṇyaka also says that it is water that was first produced
(1.2.1). But, unlike Thales, it may be noted,
the Upaniṣads go deeper and hold that this energy was created from out
of SAT (Chāndogya 6.2.1 & 6.2.3). It is interesting to observe that Western
philosophy maintains all through its history this peculiar trait of not
searching for the ultimate and, if at all searching, not finding the search
successful. The West is seen to have squandered their temporal and intellectual
resources in arguing for or against the proposition that there exists a
personal god; or, on the other hand, in asserting or refuting that the ultimate
reality is matter. Their inquisitiveness has not so far matured enough to
acquire the higher truth of the unity of matter and spirit, the unity that is
Ātmā.
Contemporary
to Thales were Anaximander (610 – 546 BC) and Anaximenes (585 – 525 BC), both
belonging to Miletus of Ionia, like Thales. Of these, Anaximenes held air as
the primary substance of which all other things are made. This is in deviation
to what Thales said. It appears that Anaximenes went by the Prāṇa route
ignoring the Rayi that Thales upheld. On the other hand Anaximander was close
to the Upaniṣadic teaching. He said that the beginning or first principle was
an endless, unlimited primordial mass (the ape-iron), subject to neither old
age nor decay, that perpetually yielded fresh materials from which everything
we perceive is derived. According to him, the universe originated in the
separation of opposites in the primordial matter. All dying things are
returning to the element from which they came (ape-iron). This is only a
repetition of what is stated in Chāndogya 6.10.2, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.1.5;
Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.3 & Gīta 2.28, 9.4; and Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.18 and 9.7.
Chāndogya 6.10.2 says that whatever comes out from ‘SAT’, the pure existence
that was there in the beginning does
merge into it at the end. In 8.1.1, 8.1.3 and 8.1.5 Chāndogya say that Ātmā
encompasses everything that exists in this universe and also everything that is
yet to come into existence; that Ātmā does not grow old and cannot be
destroyed. Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.3 indicates that creation took place on separation
of opposites. Kaṭha 2.18 says that Ātmā is without birth or death; He has no
origin, no transformation and no decay. According to Gīta 2.28 the beginning as
well as the end of all beings is the Undifferentiated. Gīta 9.4 holds that
Ātmā, the ultimate principle of existence, pervades the entire universe whereas
9.7 says that in the beginning all beings originate from the ultimate principle
and in the end merge into it.
Following
Anaximenes comes Pythagoras (580 – 500 BC) of Samos in Ionia, who is said to
have visited India. Unfortunately, it seems that what he picked up from India
was only some obscurantist teachings that led him to believe in transmigration.
He set up an esoteric group of his followers in his home land, which pursued
ascetic practices.
In
contrast to this, Xenophanes of Colophon (570 – 480 BC), Ionia, who is known as
‘Feuerbach of Antiquity’ for his pooh-poohing of traditional Greek religious beliefs
of his time (as done later by Feuerbach (1804 – 1872 AD) against Christianity
in his famous work ‘Essence of Christianity’), taught that God has no human
form and that He is eternal, having no birth or death. He declared that God
does not intervene in human affairs. These ideas are identical with the
teachings contained in Gīta 2.20, 5.14, 5.15 & 10.8 and Kaṭha 2.18. In the
cited verses Gīta asserts that the ultimate principle is eternal and devoid of
birth and death; it does not perish even after the body is lost (2.20); it is
the origin of all beings and everything exists because of it only (10.8).
Neither does it create any Karma nor does it assign such Karma to any
particular person; everything happens according to the very nature of things
(5.14) into which it has already manifested. It does not recognize any Karma as
good or evil (5.15). (Kaṭha 2.18 is identical with Gīta 2.20).
Close
to Xenophanes comes Heraclitus of Ephesus, Ionia (535 – 475 BC) who is known as
the ‘weeping philosopher’. He is often quoted for his saying that the universe
is in a flux. He declared, “We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We
are and are not”, which, apart from indicating that this world is
ever-changing, also asserts that, underlying all such changes, there is
something not subject to change. This is exactly the opening mantra of Īśa (ईश) Upaniṣad, wherein
it is said that Īśa, the ultimate reality, pervades everything that exists in
this ever-changing world. Mantra 8 ibid clarifies that this Īśa is omnipresent
and self-existent.
Heraclitus
further mentioned about the unity of opposites, “An object is a harmony between
a building up and a tearing down”. In this connection particular mention is due
to Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.10.1 and 6.10.2, which say that everything in this
universe comes from and returns to SAT, which implies that phenomenal existence
is a process of ‘building up and tearing down’. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says in
1.4.3 that as a prelude to creation, Ātmā divided itself into two complementary
halves; therefore everything here exists to be like halves. For every such half
there must exist its complementary half. The universe is therefore said to
exist in opposites. Moreover, Gīta 2.28 says that everything emerges from and
finally dissolves into the undifferentiated, which indicates that phenomenal
existence is a process of ‘building up and tearing down’.
Heraclitus
had an equally famous contemporary, Parmenides of Elea, Ionia (515 – 450 BC). He
was the founder of the famous Eleatic School. The only source providing an
insight into his teachings is a few fragments of a poem ‘On Nature’ written by
him, wherein he declared that existence is necessarily eternal. “How could it
come into being? If it came into being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to
be in the future. Thus, is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be
heard of. Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more of
it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding together, nor less
of it, but everything is full of what is”, says in 8.20 of his poem. This is
verses 2.16, 2.20, 2.23 & 13.27 of Gīta retold. In 2.16 Gīta defines what
‘SAT’ (Reality) is. SAT is that which exists and never ceases to exist. That
means, reality is something that always exists; it never disappears; nor does
it come out from a state of non-existence (Gīta 2.20). Gīta 2.23 declares that
weapons cannot destroy it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it and wind
cannot dry it. Gīta 13.27 says that Ātmā evenly pervades in every being.
All these show that the vision of Parmenides about existence is only a
reflection of the already existing great Hindu teachings on the same subject.
Parmenides
further says in 8.55 of his poem, “They have assigned an opposite substance to
each, and marks distinct from one another. To the one they allot the fire of
heaven, light, thin, in every direction the same as itself, but not the same as
the other. The other is opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body.”
This also is something that we find in Gīta; Parmenides is simply writing on
the concept of Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña contained in chapter 13 of Gīta. In verse
13.26 it is stated that whatever exists in this universe is a product of the union
of Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña.
The
last of the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers was Anaxagoras (500 – 428 BC) of
Clazomenae, Ionia. He brought the Greek philosophy from Ionia to Athens.
According to his teachings ‘all things existed from the beginning, but in infinitesimally
small fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined’;
‘they existed in a confused and indistinguishable forms’. ‘Mind (Nous) arranged
the segregation of like from unlike. This peculiar thing, called Mind, a thing
of finer texture, stood pure and independent, alike in all its manifestations
and everywhere the same. This subtle agent, possessed of all knowledge and
power, is especially seen ruling in all the forms of life’. This is rather a
lesser version of Gīta 2.28, 9.4, 13.27, wherein the concepts of the
undifferentiated, the all-pervasive nature of the ultimate reality and the
uniform presence of that reality in all beings are discussed.
Now
we come to the legendary Socrates (470 – 399 BC) of Athens, whose most important
contribution to Western thought was his dialectical method of enquiry. He used
this method in arguments to bring out contradictions in propositions so as to
arrive at the truth. He did not author any book; whatever is known of him comes
to us from the words of others, particularly Plato, his famous disciple.
Socrates used to say, “I only know that I know nothing.” This is what we see in
mantra 2.2 of Kena, which, commenting on the secret nature of the ultimate
reality, says so: ‘I don’t think that it can be known easily; I don’t also
think that we don’t know or do know’.
According
to Socrates, if at all there is something real it is not the object of senses;
being graspable by the senses is not the criterion for anything to be real.
This idea of reality is only an echoing of the Upaniṣadic teachings (Kena 1.3,
1.4 & 1.5; Kaṭha 6.9 & 6.12; Muṇḍaka 3.1.8 Śvetāśvatara 4.17, 4.20),
all of which consistently hold that the ultimate reality is not graspable by
the senses. Socrates says, in Plato’s Republic, that people who take the
sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den
of evil and ignorance. This again is a reflection of Kaṭha 2.6, in which it is
declared that those who do not see anything beyond this sunlit world render themselves
to be felled by death again and again, the import being that they will never
see peace and happiness.
For
Socrates “Virtue is knowledge” and “Virtue is sufficient for happiness.” This
is only a paraphrasing of Gīta 4.33 & 4.38; Kaṭha 5.12; Śvetāśvatara 6.12
& 6.20. In Gīta 4.33 pursuit of knowledge is held in greater esteem than
that of material objects. Gīta 4.38 declares that nothing is sacred as
knowledge. Kaṭha 5.12 and Śvetāśvatara 6.12 & 6.20 say that there is no
lasting happiness without knowing the ultimate reality. Further, Socrates
believed that the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development
rather than the pursuit of material wealth. This belief was apparently derived
from Kaṭha 4.2, Muṇḍaka 1.2.7, 1.2.10 and Gīta verses 9.22 & 12.8. Kaṭha
4.2 states that only the immature people go after cravings for material
possessions; the wise, on the other hand, do not go after transient pleasures
as they know what real bliss is. Muṇḍaka 1.2.7 warns that those who pursue material
pleasure do really walk into total ruin. A similar caution is contained in
Muṇḍaka 1.2.10 wherein it is stated that those who consider material pursuit as
supreme are simply foolish, since material pleasures are not permanent and are
followed by sorrows. Gīta verses 9.22 & 12.8 say that those who are
committed to the pursuit of the ultimate reality are assured of a happy life.
In
several dialogues, Socrates floats the idea that knowledge is a matter of
recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study. Socrates is often
found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine
insight. According to Hindu scriptures, Ātmā, which is the ultimate cause of
all, is SAT-CHIT-ᾹNANDA. CHIT is pure consciousness and knowledge is its
manifestation. In human body Chitta is the center of all knowledge. Every being
is born with some basic knowledge necessary for running the body. Every piece
of knowledge said to be acquired by us is a build-up on this base. Among the
internal faculties, Manas processes the signals picked up by senses from the
outside objects, with reference to the stock of information already available
in the Chitta. Such signals are only raw materials and the processed
information constitutes the building blocks of the body of knowledge. With
these blocks the Manas builds up cognizable forms and ideas that fit into the
foundation existing in the Chitta at that point of time. It is thus we acquire
knowledge and enlarge our knowledge base in the Chitta. That means, in the
process of gaining knowledge what actually happens is not absorption as such
from external agents, but an internal building up that is compatible with the
existing foundation in the Chitta. In Chāndogya 7.18.1 teaches that one knows
by reflection only; there is no knowing without reflection. So, we find that
Socrates is only interpreting in his own way the teachings of Hindu scriptures
in this respect also.
In
Greek philosophical thoughts, Socrates was followed by his immediate disciples.
Antisthenes (445 – 365 BC) of Athens was an ardent disciple of Socrates, who,
abiding by the ethical teachings of his master, advocated an ascetic life to be
lived in accordance with virtue. Life for him was to be lived through virtuous
actions that liberate wise persons from errors; for, real and enduring
happiness lies in such a life. This had been better declared already in verses
2.55, 2.70, 3.28, 3.34, 3.35, 3.41, etc. of Gīta. Incidentally, Antisthenes is
regarded as the founder of Cynic philosophy because of these teachings. Western
scholars appear to possess wonderful expertise in the art of nomenclature.
Highlighting some aspects of a thing they brand the thing as belonging to a
particular group. In course of time the brand name loses its original meaning
and acquires new imports. This is what exactly happened to the word cynic. In
contrast to its initial implication, a cynic now represents a pessimist
skeptical of everything. However, Antisthenes was not a person belonging to the
brand of what the word ‘cynic’ now signifies. He only advocated simple living
as, according to him, virtue demanded it. He was also of the opinion that God
is only one, who resembles nothing on earth and therefore cannot be understood
from any representation. This is fully in line with his master’s teaching that
reality cannot be known through the senses, which we have already seen above to
be a repetition of Hindu teachings.
We
find another important disciple of Socrates in Aristippus (435 – 366 BC) of
Cyrene, a Greek colony in present-day Libya. To him the goal of life was to
seek pleasure by adapting circumstances to oneself and by maintaining proper
control over both adversity and prosperity. He lived a life of equal
disposition to pain and pleasure. Whether insulted wildly or praised grossly he
remained equally calm. Thus he was truly a Stitaprajña (person having a steady
intellect) as described in Gīta 2.56. And his life was a demonstration of the
teachings in verses 2.38, 2.45, 5.20, 5.21, etc. of Gīta, which exhort us to
desist from getting dejected at the face of adversities and elated too much at
fortunes.
The
most outstanding of the students of Socrates is undoubtedly Plato (427 – 347
BC) who, through own writings, propagated the teachings of his master for the
benefit of later generations. In Athens, he founded the ‘Academy’, which is the
first institution of higher learning in the western world. Nearly everything he
wrote was in the form of dialogues and nobody knows the exact order in which
they were written. The principal themes that we are concerned with in his
writings are (i) the reality and the
world of forms and (ii) the class structure of society.
Like
Socrates, Plato also is of the opinion that material world is not real. He
conceives an unchanging world of Forms (or Ideas) from which the ever-changing
material world is derived. Stanford Encyclopedias of Philosophy writes, “The
most fundamental distinction in Plato’s philosophy is between the many
observable objects that appear beautiful (good, just, unified, equal, big) and
the one object that is what beauty (goodness, justice, unity) really is, from
which those many beautiful (good, just, unified, equal, big) things receive
their names and their corresponding characteristics”. In other words, for every
aspect of material objects there exists a Form of its perfection; material
objects are only relative derivations of this Form. According to Plato there
exists an eternal world of such Forms and that is the real world. But he does
not explain where this world of Form comes from, where it is situated and how
it is sustained. In furthering his master’s teaching that the material world is
not the real one, he introduces the concept of Forms and then introduces a new
world of Forms. But his concept is not justified by any rational or plausible explanations.
He does not direct his thoughts to the origin, cause or sustenance of his
‘real’ world of Forms.
What
impact does he intend to make in human life with his concept? He does not give
any clue. He left the teachings of his great master on the wayside and
proceeded with his own immature conjectures. Socrates was most concerned about
a happy social life; so he said, ‘virtue is sufficient for happiness’. Plato
did not opt to brood over virtue, may be for fear of persecution by the
establishment as in the case of Socrates; nor did he pursue his master’s
concept of reality to its perfection. Instead, he remained contented with his
intellectual acrobatics in the ‘World of Forms’. This straying away from proper
enquiry into the cause of life and existence in this universe stayed with
western thought throughout, so that they failed in arriving at the ultimate
reality. Having started with Plato, this loss of direction was further
compounded by historical events such as the fall of Achaemenes Empire and the shifting
of the center of Greek philosophy from Ionia to Athens, which badly cut off
Greeks’ access to Hindu thoughts, presumably forever. Even otherwise, Plato
might not have been enthused by the Hindu teachings that Anaxagoras brought
from Ionia to Athens and flourished through the thoughts and practices of
Socrates, Antisthenes and all. Therefore, instead of appreciating their true
value and pursuing them to their full bloom, he opted to employ his speculative
skill in manipulating them for the purpose of arrogating their authorship to
himself. One more reason for his attitude might be his aversion to the hegemony
of the Achaemenes Empire over Greek settlements in Ionia, which distanced him
from accepting anything that came via that route. He failed to gauge the real
potential and depth of whatever fragments already received from the East. This
resulted in his leaving the line pursued by his teacher and embarking upon a
pursuit of his own, which unfortunately turned out to be a futile regimen of
intellectual exercises, as already mentioned.
Let
us now consider Plato’s theory on the class structure of society. According to
him society has a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite –
spirit – reason structure of the individual soul. The appetite, spirit and
reason stand for different parts of the body. The class that corresponds to the
“appetite” part of the soul is the Productive class representing the abdomen of
the body. They comprise of the manual laborers and include merchants
also. The spirit class is the Protective class representing the chest.
They constitute the warriors or guardians of the society. Into this class come
the brave, adventurous and strong people. The third class is the Governing
class corresponding to the reason part of the soul. They represent the head of
the body and consist of individuals who are ‘intelligent, rational,
self-controlled, in love with wisdom and therefore well suited to make
decisions for the community’. They are rulers of the society.
It
can be seen that Plato is simply repeating the class divisions of Hindu
scriptures with only one modification. He limits the classes to three as
against four in the scriptures. We will see the details of the Hindu divisions
– called Varṇa(s) in the scriptures – below. Plato’s restriction of the
classes into three is defective. He covered only the abdomen, chest and head of
the body, but ignored the legs. Without legs, the body is not complete. This
mutilation finds expression in his class division also. It is evident that the
merchants and agriculturists cannot be considered as mere manual laborers and
also that the other two classes would require manual helpers in the discharge
of their duties. Such helpers cannot be included in the ‘appetite’ class. This
vindicates the four-fold class division of the Hindus.
Divisions
of society into various categories or rather types have been there from ancient
times. Hindu scriptures prescribe four types of people (Varṇa) in society,
differentiated by the ‘colour’ of each individual. This ‘color’ does not
indicate the color of the skin, but the inherent inclination in choosing the
type of Karma for achieving one’s ends (4.13 of Gīta). Therefore, this
classification finds expression in one’s Karma that he opts when left with many
options. For this purpose, Karma(s) are divided into four categories,
respectively dealing with education and learning, security and protection, food
production and commerce, and finally, rendering manual assistance for the above
three categories (For details see Gīta 18.42, 43 & 44). A close look will
reveal that this is an “inner to outer” classification. Those who are naturally
concerned with the inner-most aspect of existence are termed as the Brāhmaṇa (ब्राह्मण) and those concerned
with the outer-most aspect as Śūdra (शूद्र). In between these two, come the Kṣatriya (क्षत्रिय) and the Vaiśya (वैश्य), according to each
one’s closeness to the inner or outer aspects. Kṣatriya comes next to Brāhmana
and Vaiśya comes before Shūdra.
The
society is a collective entity consisting of all these types. Each type is so
important that without it the society will not prosper. (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
1.4.11 to 1.4.14). Therefore, mutual respect and understanding and also joint
efforts by these four types are essential for the stability and progress of the
society. So, what is required is not antagonism among the types, but their
peaceful co-existence; for, nature’s diversity is not for contradiction or
antagonism, but for ensuring physical existence. The scriptures, on account of
their declaration that the whole universe emerged from and is possessed by a
single ever-existent entity, cannot think otherwise. They recognize the
diversity and at the same time go beyond it and see the unity that projects the
diversity.
Since
the said inherent inclination in choosing one’s Karma differs from person to
person, even belonging to the same family, the classification based on Karma
cannot be hereditary. For the same reason, caste has nothing to do with this
classification. Castes are innumerable, but types (Varṇa) are only four. There
is no scriptural instruction classifying the various castes into the four
Varṇas. Moreover, the scriptures do not limit the applicability of this
classification to any religious group; instead, they encompass the whole
mankind. Since the actual occupation that one is forced to take up for earning
a livelihood may not always coincide with his inherent inclination in choosing
Karma, his Varṇa cannot be determined by his occupation either. So, the
four-fold classification as per Hindu scriptures has nothing to do with caste
or occupation, though religious miscreants, born of ignorance, practice
discrimination in Varṇa structure and surreptitiously and dishonestly arrogate
to themselves, favored positions therein, on the basis of caste and heredity.
Beginning
with Plato, the Western speculative thinking took a decisive deviation from its
enquiry into the ultimate reality. It restricted its domain into mere
intellectual exchanges, often amounting to mutual refutations, without making
any valid advance to the knowledge of the Supreme Being. At times we see its
degradation into a debate between those who believe that God created everything
and those who hold that there is no creator and that whatever is here now,
always existed. These exercises are irrelevant to the pursuit of ultimate
reality and therefore they command only little interest from us. We are
therefore constrained to ignore such vagaries.
The
prime objective of philosophy is to show the way to sustained happiness. To
attain sustained happiness one should primarily know what he really consists
of. Then only he can figure out the right deed (Karma) that he should engage
himself with, so as to generate sustained happiness. So, a true philosophy
worth that name asserts the importance and essentiality of self-knowledge as
the only means to everlasting joy in life. All other speculative exercises
constitute a shear waste. This is the reason why Hindu philosophy is unique in
the history of speculative thinking.
Hinduism
is not a bunch of ancient mythological concoctions extraneous to rational
thought. It is true that just like any other ancient philosophy. Hinduism also
presents its thoughts with some mythological coating, rather than resorting to
outright deliverance, despite the fact that these thoughts are rational in
essence. Those with credulous or antagonistic dispositions take the coatings as
the essence and get themselves deceived. Hinduism is not a collection of myths,
superstitions, rituals, observances and expiations, as assumed by both the
types of people. Hindu scriptures, especially the Principal Upaniṣads and
Bhagavad Gīta, offer a rational philosophy concerning the ultimate cause of
existence of the universe and of life therein. Hinduism does not demand blind
faith for its acceptance, since it expresses itself through pure rational
thinking and coherence. It is also the most ancient rational philosophy of the
world and therefore ancestral to all such philosophies ever dawned in history.
Hinduism
does not consist in visiting temples, prostrating before idols, performing
rituals and begging for fulfillment of desires. It consists in visualizing and
realizing the unity existing among apparent diversities in the world. A Hindu
worth that name should therefore endeavor to practice equality among themselves
and also towards other religious identities. The more the Hindus practice
discrimination among themselves, the more they alienate their own fellow beings
by straying them away to other religious holds. India’s history is the prime
testimony to this simple fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment