ancient western philosophy and the hindu wisdom

7/26/2019 Ancient Western Philosophy and the Hindu Wisdom

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ancient-western-philosophy-and-the-hindu-wisdom 1/16

Ancient Western Philosophy and

the Hindu Wisdom: A Bird’s-eye View

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 ma!or "panishads which form the fundamental corpus of #ndian

philosophy are still older by at least $00 years e%en by the most stringent

and parsimonious estimation by the most unfriendly scholars of the west.

&arious means of contact between the west and the east were already

operati%e e%en before 600 '( the year of inception of western philosophy.

With the establishment of the )chaemenid empire under *ersian rulers the

mutual contact acquired a new dimension pa%ing the way for e+change of

thoughts and perceptions about human life. )s such the question raised

deser%es careful consideration by a detailed discussion.

What is now ,nown as western philosophy is generally classified into the

following si+ chronological periods namely

-. (lassical ra / from 600 '( to 00 '(

2. Hellenistic ra / from 00 '( to - '(

. 1oman ra / from - )D to $00 )D

. 3edie%al ra / from $00 )D to -$00 )D

$. arly 3odern ra / from -$00 )D to -400 )D

6. 3odern ra / from -400 )D onwards.

5f the abo%e for the sa,e of limiting our sur%ey to the ancient western

philosophy we may remain concerned with the first two eras only namely

the (lassical ra and the Hellenistic ra. Within this limitation too we areparticularly concerned about the enquiry regarding the ultimate reality or the

upreme 'eing.



The timeline of classical western philosophers starts with Thales 762 / $6

'(8 and ends almost with uclid 72$ / 26$ '(8 all being 9ree,s. #t

appears that only 9ree,s had philosophy during this period in the west. The

Hindus had already finalised by that time a full:fledged philosophy dealing

with the secrets of e+istence and life and had also established an e+cellent

system for its propagation e%en reaching down to the layman through the

medium of literary compositions such as the epics apart from the higher

te+ts of purely philosophical discussions. "ntil ocrates 7;0 / << '(8

came up with his dialectics for resol%ing contradictions in arguments and

thereby arri%ing at the truth )thens had no place in what we now ,now as

western philosophy. 3ythology oracles and sophists ruled the roost in

)thens in the *re:ocratic period. %en ocrates belie%ed in the oracles ofDelphi. )ll the *re:ocratic western philosophers came from the eastern

9ree, settlements in #onia an ancient region of the central coastal )natolia

which is currently a territory of Tur,ey. The name =#onia> finds mention in

Hindu te+ts as =a%ana> which term interestingly is said to ha%e been used

by Hindus to indicate barbarian people of the west. With no tradition to

boast of pertaining to intellectual life of rational thin,ing and creati%e

compilations these people at that time apparently deser%ed this epithet.

There are references in 3ahabharata regarding the a%ana soldiersparticipating in the @uru,shetra war.

History says that #onia was under the rule of the *ersians from $$0 '( to

6 '( as part of the )chaemenid mpire which comprised of western parts

of #ndia also. This position in particular helped the #onians to ha%e access to

the great wor,s of the ages of #ndia. (ontacts with the already matured

teachings of the &edas must ha%e influenced the #onian 9ree,s to tread a

new path different from the traditional 9ree, beliefs and religious practicesand to formulate theories about the ultimate reality independent of

mythology. #t cannot be the other way round with the 9ree,s influencing

the &edic tradition since the perfection e+tent and depth that the Hindu

thoughts reached by that time compared to the infancy seen in the West

ma,es such a suggestion less than tenable. @arl Aasper>s theory of )+ial )ge



is only a myth in the light of the abo%e facts. @arl Aasper says that

philosophy and new religious thoughts e%ol%ed simultaneously in the ast

and the West during 400 '( to 200 '( in spite of ha%ing no mutual

cultural or other contacts. His facts are wrong. )s e+plained abo%e mutual

contacts with the west and the east already e+isted before the start of the

so:called a+ial age. #t is because of his western bias that Aasper ignored this

historical fact. Burther he con%eniently forgot the rule of the *ersian mpire

simultaneously o%er the west and east for a period of two centuries that fall

within his =a+ial age>. 3oreo%er the 3a!or "panishads were already re%ealed

when the western philosophy was yet to totter as an infant. &eda amhitas

are still older. o the theory of )+ial )ge is only an undue fa%our showered

on the westerners for satisfying their false pride.

#n spite of their contacts with the great treasures of the Hindu philosophy

what the #onians could obtain was some fringesC that too apparently

through *ersian %ersions or simple translations. )nd 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 aggra%ation with the fact that none of the writings of the*re:ocratic 9ree, philosophers is a%ailable in fullC e%erything said about

them and to be theirs now including their life time are only con!ectures

made upon sur%i%ing fragments of such writings. This is in sharp contrast

with the Hindu scriptures which ha%e been preser%ed almost intact from still

older periods to the present day. 3ay be the ancient #ndians were poor in

,eeping a chronological record of e%ents in the name of history but they

,eenly preser%ed their most %aluable treasures of intellectual and cultural

outputs %ery safely.

Thales of 3iletus 7#onia8 is considered as the first in the line of classical

western philosophersC according to 'ertrand 1ussell western philosophy

starts with him. Thales> most famous contribution was his cosmological

thesis that the world had its origin from water. #n this conte+t we may recall



the "paniṣ adic teachings about the origin of the uni%erse. *rana 7-.8 says

that at first the pair of 1ayi and *rEṇ a was created. (hEndogya follows up

this by saying that from this energy water came up first and from water

food is created 76.2. F 6.2.8. 'ṛ hadEraṇ ya,a also says that it is water that

was first produced 7-.2.-8. 'ut unli,e Thales it may be noted the

"paniṣ ads go deeper and hold that this energy was created from out of )T

7(hEndogya 6.2.- F 6.2.8. #t is interesting to obser%e 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 ha%e squandered their temporal and

intellectual resources in arguing for or against the proposition that there

e+ists a personal godC or on the other hand in asserting or refuting that theultimate reality is matter. Their inquisiti%eness has not so far matured

enough to acquire the higher truth of the unity of matter and spirit the unity

that is GtmE.

(ontemporary to Thales were )na+imander 76-0 / $6 '(8 and )na+imenes

7$4$ / $2$ '(8 both belonging to 3iletus of #onia li,e Thales. 5f these

)na+imenes held air as the primary substance of which all other things are

made. This is in de%iation to what Thales said. #t appears that )na+imeneswent by the *rEṇ a route ignoring the 1ayi that Thales upheld. 5n the other

hand )na+imander was close to the "paniṣ adic teaching. He said that the

beginning or first principle was an endless unlimited primordial mass 7the

apeiron8 sub!ect to neither old age nor decay that perpetually yielded fresh

materials from which e%erything we percei%e is deri%ed. )ccording to him

the uni%erse originated in the separation of opposites in the primordial

matter. )ll dying things are returning to the element from which they came

7apeiron8. This is only a repetition of what is stated in (hEndogya 6.-0.24.-.- 4.-. 4.-.$C 'ṛ hadEraṇ ya,a -.. F 9ta 2.24 <.C and @aṭ ha

"paniṣ ad 2.-4 and <.;. (hEndogya 6.-0.2 says that whate%er comes out

from =)T> the pure e+istence that was there in the beginning does merge

into it at the end. #n 4.-.- 4.-. and 4.-.$ (hEndogya say that GtmE

encompasses e%erything that e+ists in this uni%erse and also e%erything that



is yet to come into e+istenceC that GtmE does not grow old and cannot be

destroyed. 'ṛ hadEraṇ ya,a -.. indicates that creation too, place on

separation of opposites. @aṭ ha 2.-4 says that GtmE is without birth or deathC

He has no origin no transformation and no decay. )ccording to 9ta 2.24 the

beginning as well as the end of all beings is the "ndifferentiated. 9ta <.

holds that GtmE the ultimate principle of e+istence per%ades the entire

uni%erse whereas <.; says that in the beginning all beings originate from the

ultimate principle and in the end merge into it.

Bollowing )na+imenes comes *ythagoras 7$40 / $00 '(8 of amos in #onia

who is said to ha%e %isited #ndia. "nfortunately it seems that what he pic,ed

up from #ndia was only some obscurantist teachings that led him to belie%ein transmigration. He set up an esoteric group of his followers in his home

land which pursued ascetic practices.

#n contrast to this Ienophanes of (olophon 7$;0 / 40 '(8 #onia who is

,nown as =Beuerbach of )ntiquity> for his pooh:poohing of traditional 9ree,

religious beliefs of his time 7as done later by Beuerbach 7-40 / -4;2 )D8

against (hristianity in his famous wor, =ssence of (hristianity>8 taught that

9od has no human form and that He is eternal ha%ing no birth or death. Hedeclared that 9od does not inter%ene in human affairs. These ideas are

identical with the teachings contained in 9ta 2.20 $.- $.-$ F -0.4 and

@aṭ ha 2.-4. #n the cited %erses 9ta asserts that the ultimate principle is

eternal and de%oid of birth and deathC it does not perish e%en after the body

is lost 72.208C it is the origin of all beings and e%erything e+ists because of it

only 7-0.48. Jeither does it create any @arma nor does it assign such @arma

to any particular personC e%erything happens according to the %ery nature of

things 7$.-8 into which it has already manifested. #t does not recognise any@arma as good or e%il 7$.-$8. 7@aṭ ha 2.-4 is identical with 9ta 2.208.

(lose to Ienophanes comes Heraclitus of phesus #onia 7$$ / ;$ '(8

who is ,nown as the =weeping philosopher>. He is often quoted for his saying

that the uni%erse is in a flu+. He declared KWe both step and do not step in



the same ri%ers. We are and are notL which apart from indicating that this

world is e%er:changing also asserts that underlying all such changes there

is something not sub!ect to change. This is e+actly the opening mantra of Ma

7 ईश 8 "paniṣ ad wherein it is said that Ma the ultimate reality per%ades

e%erything that e+ists in this e%er:changing world. 3antra 4 ibid clarifies that

this Ma is omnipresent and self:e+istent.

Heraclitus further mentioned about the unity of opposites K)n ob!ect is a

harmony between a building up and a tearing downL. #n this connection

particular mention is due to (hEndogya "paniṣ ad 6.-0.- and 6.-0.2 which

say that e%erything in this uni%erse comes from and returns to )T which

implies that phenomenal e+istence is a process of =building up and tearingdown>. 'ṛ hadEraṇ ya,a "paniṣ ad says in -.. that as a prelude to creation

GtmE di%ided itself into two complementary hal%esC therefore e%erything

here e+ists to be li,e hal%es. Bor e%ery such half there must e+ist its

complementary half. The uni%erse is therefore said to e+ist in opposites.

3oreo%er 9ta 2.24 says that e%erything emerges from and finally dissol%es

into the undifferentiated which indicates that phenomenal e+istence is a

process of =building up and tearing down>.

Heraclitus had an equally famous contemporary *armenides of lea #onia

7$-$ / $0 '(8. He was the founder of the famous leatic chool. The only

source pro%iding an insight into his teachings is a few fragments of a poem

=5n Jature> written by him wherein he declared that e+istence is necessarily

eternal. KHow could it come into being? #f it came into being it is notC nor is

it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is becoming e+tinguished and

passing away not to be heard of. Jor is it di%isible since it is all ali,e and

there is no more of it in one place than in another to hinder it from holdingtogether nor less of it but e%erything is full of what isL says in 4.20 of his

poem. This is %erses 2.-6 2.20 2.2 F -.2; of 9ta retold. #n 2.-6 9ta

defines what =)T> 71eality8 is. )T is that which e+ists and ne%er ceases to

e+ist. That means reality is something that always e+istsC it ne%er

disappearsC nor does it come out from a state of non:e+istence 79ta 2.208.



9ta 2.2 declares that weapons cannot destroy it fire cannot burn it water

cannot wet it and wind cannot dry it. 9ta -.2; says that GtmE e%enly

per%ades in e%ery being. )ll these show that the %ision of *armenides about

e+istence is only a reflection of the already e+isting great Hindu teachings on

the same sub!ect.

*armenides further says in 4.$$ of his poem KThey ha%e assigned an

opposite substance to each and mar,s distinct from one another. To the one

they allot the fire of hea%en light thin in e%ery direction the same as itself

but not the same as the other. The other is opposite to it dar, night a

compact and hea%y body.L This also is something that we find in 9taC

*armenides is simply writing on the concept of @ṣ

etra and @ṣ

etra!Nacontained in chapter - of 9ta. #n %erse -.26 it is stated that whate%er

e+ists in this uni%erse is a product of the union of @ṣ etra and @ṣ etra!Na.

The last of the *re:ocratic 9ree, philosophers was )na+agoras 7$00 / 24

'(8 of (laOomenae #onia. He brought the 9ree, philosophy from #onia to

)thens. )ccording to his teachings =all things e+isted from the beginning but

in infinitesimally small fragments of themsel%es endless in number and

ine+tricably combined>C =they e+isted in a confused and indistinguishableform>. =3ind 7Jous8 arranged the segregation of li,e from unli,e. This

peculiar thing called 3ind a thing of finer te+ture stood pure and

independent ali,e in all its manifestations and e%erywhere the same. This

subtle agent possessed of all ,nowledge and power is especially seen ruling

in all the forms of life>. This is rather a lesser %ersion of 9ta 2.24 <.

-.2; wherein the concepts of the undifferentiated the all:per%asi%e nature

of the ultimate reality and the uniform presence of that reality in all beings

are discussed.

Jow we come to the legendary ocrates 7;0 / << '(8 of )thens 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 arri%e at the truth. He did not author any boo,C



whate%er is ,nown of him comes to us from the words of others particularly

*lato his famous disciple. ocrates used to say K# only ,now that # ,now

nothing.L This is what we see in mantra 2.2 of @ena which commenting on

the secret nature of the ultimate reality says soP =# don>t thin, that it can be

,nown easilyC # don>t also thin, that we don>t ,now or do ,now>.

)ccording to ocrates if at all there is something real it is not the ob!ect of

sensesC being graspable by the senses is not the criterion for anything to be

real. This idea of reality is only an echoing of the "paniṣ adic teachings 7@ena

-. -. F -.$C @aṭ ha 6.< F 6.-2C 3uṇ ḍ a,a .-.4 Q%etE%atara .-; .208

all of which consistently hold that the ultimate reality is not graspable by the

senses. ocrates says in *lato>s 1epublic that people who ta,e the sun:litworld of the senses to be good and real are li%ing pitifully in a den of e%il

and ignorance. This again is a reflection of @aṭ ha 2.6 in which it is declared

that those who do not see anything beyond this sunlit world render

themsel%es to be felled by death again and again the import being that they

will ne%er see peace and happiness.

Bor ocrates K&irtue is ,nowledgeL and K&irtue is sufficient for happiness.L

This is only a paraphrasing of 9ta . F .4C @aṭ ha $.-2C Q%etE%atara6.-2 F 6.20. #n 9ta . pursuit of ,nowledge is held in greater esteem

than that of material ob!ects. 9ta .4 declares that nothing is sacred as

,nowledge. @aṭ ha $.-2 and Q%etE%atara 6.-2 F 6.20 say that there is no

lasting happiness without ,nowing the ultimate reality. Burther ocrates

belie%ed that the best way for people to li%e was to focus on self:

de%elopment rather than the pursuit of material wealth. This belief was

apparently deri%ed from @aṭ ha .2 3uṇ ḍ a,a -.2.; -.2.-0 and 9ta %erses

<.22 F -2.4. @aṭ ha .2 states that only the immature people go aftercra%ings for material possessionsC the wise on the other hand do not go

after transient pleasures as they ,now what real bliss is. 3uṇ ḍ a,a -.2.;

warns that those who pursue material pleasure do really wal, into total ruin.

) similar caution is contained in 3uṇ ḍ a,a -.2.-0 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. 9ta

%erses <.22 F -2.4 say that those who are committed to the pursuit of the

ultimate reality are assured of a happy life.

#n se%eral dialogues ocrates floats the idea that ,nowledge is a matter of

recollection and not of learning obser%ation or study. ocrates is often

found arguing that ,nowledge is not empirical and that it comes from di%ine

insight. )ccording to Hindu scriptures GtmE which is the ultimate cause of

all is )T:(H#T:ᾹJ)JD). (H#T is pure consciousness and ,nowledge is its

manifestation. #n human body (hitta is the centre of all ,nowledge. %ery

being is born with some basic ,nowledge necessary for running the body.

%ery piece of ,nowledge said to be acquired by us is a build:up on thisbase. )mong the internal faculties 3anas processes the signals pic,ed up by

senses from the outside ob!ects with reference to the stoc, of information

already a%ailable in the (hitta. uch signals are only raw materials and the

processed information constitutes the building bloc,s of the body of

,nowledge. With these bloc,s the 3anas builds up cognisable forms and

ideas that fit into the foundation e+isting in the (hitta at that point of time.

#t is thus we acquire ,nowledge and enlarge our ,nowledge base in the

(hitta. That means in the process of gaining ,nowledge what actuallyhappens is not absorption as such from e+ternal agents but an internal

building up that is compatible with the e+isting foundation in the (hitta. #n

(hEndogya ;.-4.- teaches that one ,nows by reflection onlyC there is no

,nowing without reflection. o we find that ocrates is only interpreting in

his own way the teachings of Hindu scriptures in this respect also.

#n 9ree, philosophical thoughts ocrates was followed by his immediate

disciples. )ntisthenes 7$ / 6$ '(8 of )thens was an ardent disciple ofocrates who abiding by the ethical teachings of his master ad%ocated an

ascetic life to be li%ed in accordance with %irtue. Rife for him was to be li%ed

through %irtuous actions that liberate wise persons from errorsC for real and

enduring happiness lies in such a life. This had been better declared already

in %erses 2.$$ 2.;0 .24 . .$ .- etc. of 9ta. #ncidentally



)ntisthenes is regarded as the founder of (ynic philosophy because of these

teachings. Western scholars appear to possess wonderful e+pertise in the art

of nomenclature. Highlighting some aspects of a thing they brand the thing

as belonging to a particular group. #n course of time the brand name loses

its original meaning and acquires new imports. This is what e+actly

happened to the word cynic. #n contrast to its initial implication a cynic now

represents a pessimist sceptical of e%erything. Howe%er )ntisthenes was not

a person belonging to the brand of what the word =cynic> now signifies. He

only ad%ocated simple li%ing as according to him %irtue demanded it. He

was also of the opinion that 9od 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 ,nown throughthe senses which we ha%e already seen abo%e to be a repetition of Hindu

teachings.

We find another important disciple of ocrates in )ristippus 7$ / 66 '(8

of (yrene a 9ree, colony in present:day Ribya. To him the goal of life was to

see, pleasure by adapting circumstances to oneself and by maintaining

proper control o%er both ad%ersity and prosperity. He li%ed a life of equal

disposition to pain and pleasure. Whether insulted wildly or praised grosslyhe remained equally calm. Thus he was truly a titapra!Na 7person ha%ing a

steady intellect8 as described in 9ta 2.$6. )nd his life was a demonstration

of the teachings in %erses 2.4 2.$ $.20 $.2- etc. of 9ta which e+hort

us to desist from getting de!ected at the face of ad%ersities and elated too

much at fortunes.

The most outstanding of the students of ocrates is undoubtedly *lato 72;

/ ; '(8 who through own writings propagated the teachings of hismaster for the benefit of later generations. #n )thens he founded the

=)cademy> which is the first institution of higher learning in the western

world. Jearly e%erything he wrote was in the form of dialogues and nobody

,nows the e+act order in which they were written. The principal themes that



we are concerned with in his writings are 7i8 the reality and the world of

forms and 7ii8 the class structure of society.

Ri,e ocrates *lato also is of the opinion that material world is not real. He

concei%es an unchanging world of Borms 7or #deas8 from which the e%er:

changing material world is deri%ed. tanford ncyclopaedia of *hilosophy

writes KThe most fundamental distinction in *lato>s philosophy is between

the many obser%able ob!ects that appear beautiful 7good !ust unified

equal big8 and the one ob!ect that is what beauty 7goodness !ustice unity8

really is from which those many beautiful 7good !ust unified equal big8

things recei%e their names and their corresponding characteristicsL. #n other

words for e%ery aspect of material ob!ects there e+ists a Borm of itsperfectionC material ob!ects are only relati%e deri%ations of this Borm.

)ccording to *lato there e+ists an eternal world of such Borms and that is the

real world. 'ut he does not e+plain where this world of Borm comes from

where it is situated and how it is sustained. #n furthering his master>s

teaching that the material world is not the real one he introduces the

concept of Borms and then introduces a new world of Borms. 'ut his concept

is not !ustified by any rational or plausible e+planations. He does not direct

his thoughts to the origin cause or sustenance of his =real> world of Borms.

What impact does he intend to ma,e in human life with his concept? He does

not gi%e any clue. He left the teachings of his great master on the wayside

and proceeded with his own immature con!ectures. ocrates was most

concerned about a happy social lifeC so he said =%irtue is sufficient for

happiness>. *lato did not opt to brood o%er %irtue may be for fear of

persecution by the establishment as in the case of ocratesC nor did he

pursue his master>s concept of reality to its perfection. #nstead he remainedcontented with his intellectual acrobatics in the =World of Borms>. This

straying away from proper enquiry into the cause of life and e+istence in this

uni%erse stayed with western thought throughout so that they failed in

arri%ing at the ultimate reality. Ha%ing started with *lato this loss of

direction was further compounded by historical e%ents such as the fall of



)chaemenid mpire and the shifting of the centre of 9ree, philosophy from

#onia to )thens which badly cut off 9ree,s> access to Hindu thoughts

presumably for e%er. %en otherwise *lato might not ha%e been enthused by

the Hindu teachings that )na+agoras brought from #onia to )thens and

flourished through the thoughts and practices of ocrates )ntisthenes and

all. Therefore instead of appreciating their true %alue and pursuing them to

their full bloom he opted to employ his speculati%e s,ill in manipulating

them for the purpose of arrogating their authorship to himself. 5ne more

reason for his attitude might be his a%ersion to the hegemony of the

)chaemenid mpire o%er 9ree, settlements in #onia which distanced him

from accepting anything that came %ia that route. He failed to gauge the real

potential and depth of whate%er fragments already recei%ed from the ast.This resulted in his lea%ing the line pursued by his teacher and embar,ing

upon a pursuit of his own which unfortunately turned out to be a futile

regimen of intellectual e+ercises as already mentioned.

Ret us now consider *lato>s theory on the class structure of society.

)ccording to him society has a tripartite class structure corresponding to the

appetite / spirit / reason structure of the indi%idual soul. The appetite spirit

and reason stand for different parts of the body. The class that correspondsto the KappetiteL part of the soul is the *roducti%e class representing the

abdomen of the body. They comprise of the manual labourers and include

merchants also. The spirit class is the *rotecti%e class representing the

chest. They constitute the warriors or guardians of the society. #nto this class

come the bra%e ad%enturous and strong people. The third class is the

9o%erning class corresponding to the reason part of the soul. They represent

the head of the body and consist of indi%iduals who are =intelligent rational

self:controlled in lo%e with wisdom and therefore well suited to ma,edecisions for the community>. They are rulers of the society.

#t can be seen that *lato is simply repeating the class di%isions 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 di%isions /



called &arṇ a7s8 in the scriptures / below. *lato>s restriction of the classes

into three is defecti%e. He co%ered only the abdomen chest and head of the

body but ignored the legs. Without legs the body is not complete. This

mutilation finds e+pression in his class di%ision also. #t is e%ident that the

merchants and agriculturists cannot be considered as mere manual labourers

and also that the other two classes would require manual helpers in the

discharge of their duties. uch helpers cannot be included in the =appetite>

class. This %indicates the four:fold class di%ision of the Hindus.

Di%isions of society into %arious categories or rather types ha%e been there

from ancient times. Hindu scriptures prescribe four types of people 7&arṇ a8

in society differentiated by the =colour> of each indi%idual. This =colour> doesnot indicate the colour of the s,in but the inherent inclination in choosing

the type of @arma for achie%ing one>s ends 7.- of 9ta8. Therefore this

classification finds e+pression in one>s @arma that he opts when left with

many options. Bor this purpose @arma7s8 are di%ided into four categories

respecti%ely dealing with education and learning security and protection

food production and commerce and finally rendering manual assistance for

the abo%e three categories 7Bor details see 9ta -4.2 F 8. ) close

loo, will re%eal that this is an Kinner to outerL classification. Those who arenaturally concerned with the inner:most aspect of e+istence are termed as

the 'rEhmaṇ a 7 ब रहण 8 and those concerned with the outer:most aspect as

QSdra 7 श द र 8. #n between these two come the @ṣ atriya 7कत रय 8 and the

&aiya 7 वय 8 according to each one>s closeness to the inner or outer

aspects. @ṣ atriya comes ne+t to 'rEhmana and &aiya comes before hSdra.

The society is a collecti%e entity consisting of all these types. ach type is so

important that without it the society will not prosper. 7'ṛ hadEraṇ ya,a"paniṣ ad -..-- to -..-8. Therefore mutual respect and understanding

and also !oint efforts by these four types are essential for the stability and

progress of the society. o what is required is not antagonism among the

types but their peaceful co:e+istenceC for nature>s di%ersity is not for

contradiction or antagonism but for ensuring physical e+istence. The



scriptures on account of their declaration that the whole uni%erse emerged

from and is possessed by a single e%er:e+istent entity cannot thin,

otherwise. They recognise the di%ersity and at the same time go beyond it

and see the unity that pro!ects the di%ersity.

ince the said inherent inclination in choosing one>s @arma differs from

person to person e%en belonging to the same family the classification based

on @arma cannot be hereditary. Bor the same reason caste has nothing to

do with this classification. (astes are innumerable but types 7&arṇ a8 are

only four. There is no scriptural instruction classifying the %arious castes into

the four &arṇ as. 3oreo%er the scriptures do not limit the applicability of this

classification to any religious groupC instead they encompass the wholeman,ind. ince the actual occupation that one is forced to ta,e up for

earning a li%elihood may not always coincide with his inherent inclination in

choosing @arma his &arṇ a cannot be determined by his occupation either.

o the four:fold classification as per Hindu scriptures has nothing to do with

caste or occupation though religious miscreants born of ignorance practise

discrimination in &arṇ a structure and surreptitiously and dishonestly arrogate

to themsel%es fa%oured positions therein on the basis of caste and heredity.

'eginning with *lato the western speculati%e thin,ing too, a decisi%e

de%iation from its enquiry into the ultimate reality. #t restricted its domain

into mere intellectual e+changes often amounting to mutual refutations

without ma,ing any %alid ad%ance to the ,nowledge of the upreme 'eing.

)t times we see its degradation into a debate between those who belie%e

that 9od created e%erything and those who hold that there is no creator and

that whate%er is here now always e+isted. These e+ercises are irrele%ant to

the pursuit of ultimate reality and therefore they command only littleinterest from us. We are therefore constrained to ignore such %agaries.

The prime ob!ecti%e of philosophy is to show the way to sustained happiness.

To attain sustained happiness one should primarily ,now what he really

consists of. Then only he can figure out the right deed 7@arma8 that he



should engage himself with so as to generate sustained happiness. o a

true philosophy worth that name asserts the importance and essentiality of

self:,nowledge as the only means to e%erlasting !oy in life. )ll other

speculati%e e+ercises constitute a shear waste. This is the reason why Hindu

philosophy is unique in the history of speculati%e thin,ing.

Hinduism is not a bunch of ancient mythological concoctions e+traneous to

rational thought. #t is true that !ust li,e any other ancient philosophy

Hinduism also presents its thoughts with some mythological coating rather

than resorting to outright deli%erance despite the fact that these thoughts

are rational in essence. Those with credulous or antagonistic dispositions

ta,e the coatings as the essence and get themsel%es decei%ed. Hinduism isnot a collection of myths superstitions rituals obser%ances and e+piations

as assumed by both the types of people. Hindu scriptures especially the

*rincipal "paniṣ ads and 'haga%ad 9ta offer a rational philosophy

concerning the ultimate cause of e+istence of the uni%erse and of life

therein. Hinduism does not demand blind faith for its acceptance since it

e+presses itself through pure rational thin,ing and coherence. #t is also the

most ancient rational philosophy of the world and therefore ancestral to all

such philosophies e%er dawned in history.

Hinduism does not consist in %isiting temples prostrating before idols

performing rituals and begging for fulfilment of desires. #t consists in

%isualising and realising the unity e+isting among apparent di%ersities in the

world. ) Hindu worth that name should therefore endea%our to practise

equality among themsel%es and also towards other religious identities. The

more the Hindus practise discrimination among themsel%es the more they

alienate their own fellow beings by straying them away to other religiousholds. #ndia>s history is the prime testimony to this simple fact.

ancient western philosophy and the hindu wisdom

Documents