Reflections on Indian Thought

Reflections on Indian Thought

REFLECTIONS ON

INDIAN THOUGHT

Fourteen Essays

Anindita Niyogi Balslev

Cataloging in Publication Data—DK

[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. ]

Balslev, Anindita N., author.

Reflections on Indian thought : fourteen essays /

Anindita Niyogi Balslev.

pages cm

ISBN 9788124609996

1. Philosophy, Indic. 2. Religion and culture – India.

I. Title.

LCC B131.B35 2018 | DDC 181.4 23

ISBN 978-81-246-1248-4 (E-Book)

ISBN 978-81-246-0999-6 (HB)

First published in India in 2020

© Author

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.

Printed and published by:

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office : Vedaśrī, F-395, Sudarshan Park

(Metro Station : ESI Hospital) New Delhi - 110015

Phones : (011) 2545 3975, 2546 6019

e-mail : [email protected]

Web : www.dkprintworld.com

In loving memory of

my brother

Amitabha Niyogi

and our mother

Ramola Niyogi

Preface

P

hilosophical

traditions have inundated the Indian cultural soil so profusely through the millenia that it can be said without any hesitation that none can really aspire to understand India today without an adequate insight into the multiple facets of the history of Indian thought.

A careful reading of the fourteen essays in this book, it is hoped, would lead to a deeper appreciation of the profundity of Indian philosophical thinking on a range of topics and clarify some of the persistent confusions that are there in some quarters about the Indian conceptual world.

Records show that the importance of philosophical reflection as a cognitive enterprise was recognized in India from a very early time. In this connection, note that the ancient traditions of India — the Upaniṣadic, the Jaina and the Buddhist¹—taught Ātmavāda, Anekāntavāda and Anātmavāda, respectively. It is noteworthy that each of these three traditions is a matrix of systems and knows of internal divergences that gave rise to diverse schools of philosophy. However, it is significant that despite their differences, the schools within any given tradition — Upaniṣadic, Jaina or Buddhist — remain steadfastly loyal to the fundamental tenets of their own traditions.

Generally speaking, Indic traditions — despite their internal variations — hold in common notions of dharma, karma, punarjanma along with the thesis of anādi saṁsāra. All these are significant for their respective understanding of ethics and their longing for mokṣa/Freedom. However, there are notable differences in their metaphysical, epistemological and logical discourses that led to fascinating debates and illuminating discussions. All these make the Indian conceptual world to be an incredibly rich treasurehouse of ideas.

Although it is not possible to go into details here, it is worth noticing that pursuit of knowledge has been seen to be of paramount importance in the Indic context, not simply for the reason that knowledge is power but much more because it is held that knowledge alone can lead to Ultimate Freedom — diversely expressed in Sanskrit as mukti/mokṣa, kaivalya, nirvāṇa. These core ideas and attitudes are conspicuously pan-Indian. Thus, just to give one example, the Upaniṣadic tradition has from very early times made a distinction between two categories of knowledge — para- and apara-vidyā. The former denotes higher knowledge that leads to freedom whereas the latter includes all possible sciences: astronomy, mathematics, grammar, etymology so on and so forth. Again, one remarkable feature in the quest for Freedom is that the Indic traditions strongly recommend views that resist exclusivism. From time immemorial, the Upaniṣadic tradition, for example, has insisted on the idea that the Real is one; the sages call it by different names. The idea that there are many paths that can lead to that ultimate goal and any claim of exclusivity on behalf of any single tradition is a folly is commonplace in India. Similar insights can be obtained from the Jaina and Buddhist traditions as well. Hence, Indian soil has always cherished religious pluralism and has hosted adherents from all religious traditions of the world, including those who have been persecuted elsewhere.

This book, consisting of fourteen essays, deals with topics that are of central importance for an authentic understanding of the Indian culture where philosophical traditions play a conspicuously major role. Indeed, some of the themes discussed here have been topics for philosophical investigations across cultures and therefore these essays make the reader aware of the distinctive characteristics of Indian thought.

Based on arduous and painstaking research, sincere scholarship and rigorous critical thinking, attempt has been made here to familiarize the readers with the kind of queries (jijñāsā) that the Indian philosophers have struggled with over the centuries and how they arrived at definitive readings after prolonged reflections and debates. Evidently, in some cases there is obvious unanimity, while in other cases there are significant differences among the schools of Indian philosophy. All these have led to contending conceptual models with regard to a range of themes and sub-themes. It is exemplary that the deep existential concerns of some of these views do retain their full philosophical relevance to this day when the battle of ideas concerning such ultimate questions and concerns as those pertaining to the themes of time and consciousness still continues.

A few of these essays were made available to readers in an earlier collection, which is no longer in print. Moreover, this present collection contains several essays that were not part of any earlier compilation. Six of the fourteen essays included in this volume focus on various aspects of the central themes of time and consciousness, three deal with the ideas of kleśa (affliction), abhyāsa (habit) and karuṇā (compassion). Two of the remaining five, highlight the theme of religious diversity and the need for an authentic encounter of religions of the world, the other two are concerned with the question of values and rights of women as depicted in standard ancient discourse and the last, which is the first essay of this book, deals with the theme of core cultural self-image of India.

In today’s India one encounters not only a keen aspiration for modernity and change, but also an intense awareness about the importance of India’s ancient intellectual traditions that have nourished India’s self-understanding through the ages. It is hoped that the essays here will help in the direction of a proper appraisal of Indian thought in our time.

¹ Sikhism also stems from the Indian cultural soil but this tradition emerged in a much later phase of history and is not discussed in the essays of this volume.

Contents

Preface

1. Is There a Core Cultural Self-image of India?

2. Time and the Hindu Experience

3. Cosmos and Consciousness: Indian Perspectives

4. Time, Self and Consciousness: Some Conceptual Patterns in the Context of Indian Thought

5. The Enigma of I-Consciousness

6. On Exploration of Subjectivity in Advaita Vedānta

7. I-Consciousness in the Context of the No-self Doctrine of Buddhism: A Review of the Controversies

8. The Idea of Abhyāsa (Habit/Practice)

9. The Notion of Kleśa (Affliction) and Its Bearing on the Yoga Analysis of Mind

10. The Idea of Karuṇā (Compassion) in the Upaniṣadic and the Buddhist Tradition

11. Reflections on Women’s Rights and Cultural Norms

12. Women and Values in Traditional India: A Feminist Probe

13. Ramakrishna and the Question of the Plurality of Religions

14. Thoughts that Transform the Religious Mindscape: A Tribute to Swami Vivekananda

Index

1

Is There a Core Cultural

Self-image of India?

I

n the

face of the tumultuous changes that are taking place in India as elsewhere, the challenge before us is twofold: to recognize fully the specific kind of conceptual struggle at various levels of our collective life that we must engage in as well as to invent and implement institutional mechanisms that can adequately address the demands of our time. A fresh assessment of any given situation and a resolve to gear the changes in a definite direction almost always go hand in hand with re-construing the self and the other, especially by re-imagining the self not in sheer abstraction but in relation to the other on a collective front.

The topic of India has now become very trendy and every month we find new books turning up in the market, frequently describing India as a rising superpower, economically as an emerging giant, militarily as gradually getting on par with any advanced nuclear nation, etc. It is not surprising then that the new images of India that are being projected cannot but have bearing on the subtle and critical question about how we are to view ourselves and define our identity today in an intercultural context. Granting these images of prosperity, of political strength and the power of self-defence their due place of importance, especially when viewed in the light of India’s recent historical past, a major task before us seems to be able to envision the way all these images can be made subservient to and in harmony with what has been India’s own distinct self-image over the centuries. It is precisely in this context, the question that may arise is whether there is really a core cultural image of India cherished in the Indian cultural soil itself (i.e. self-image), which must still be deemed as worth perpetuating. Apparently that has been largely the view not only of lots of significant insiders but also of many coming from outside the geopolitical boundary of India. Indeed, there seems to be a self-image that we Indians have inherited from time immemorial and which has persisted through the vicissitudes of history even when other contending images have vied with each other to take its place. This image of Śāśvata Bhārat (eternal India), I will argue, is not an expression of any political prudence, not simply an accidental or a later national construal, nor is it crafted by any skilful statesmanship or diplomatic manoeuvre. In brief, this self-image cannot be said to be due to any kind of expediency. If this is to be at all labelled in any way, I am inclined to suggest that it is born of a meta-philosophical insight. Yet, its tantalizing presence seems to have repeatedly persuaded the Indian mind to pay homage to it and to seek to work it out meticulously in every sphere — societal, religious and political alike. As I will cite examples in support of this reading in course of this short chapter, referring to persons and epochs, let this not be taken as an easy way of simply throwing a few big names but as documentation for watching carefully how that profound self-understanding has been historically at work. Indeed, today, it calls for a greater awareness on our part to seize it in its fullness even on a purely conceptual plane to refresh our collective memories with a view to figuring out how best we could make use of this resource as we go about doing each our bit in this multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multilingual place that India is. Or, should we go even further and say that the ramification of this image is so deep that we can extend it to the entire globe for reflection?

Given the complexities of the contemporary situation, it is surely no facile task to seek to capture its deep significance with the view to nurture it on the collective plane, intending to translate the idea into action. However, that is not a good enough reason to shirk away from that responsibility and regard the task as dispensable. On the contrary, as we struggle to carve out a path through a chaotic and difficult global scenario, it seems more and more that the power of this image has by no means lost its relevance not only for the sake of building a stronger India but also because of the potentialities it has for promoting a more vigorous and flourishing human interrelationship wherever diversity ­in its many facades reigns. In what consists its power and why we must invent the institutional mechanisms to channelize its influence are some of the interconnected questions that we need to seek answers for by repeatedly engaging ourselves in open public conversations. It is noteworthy that more than anything else, this is a message that primarily seeks to bring about an attitudinal change towards the way we perceive ourselves as well as all those whom we call others, by resisting such interpretations of diversity as the ones that are proposed by the proponents of any form of radical cultural relativism.

Perhaps it can be argued that the self-image of a culture is itself a cultural construal even when we may never know the story of its making as it surely is so in this specific case. As it happens, we can at best go back to the documents belonging to a hoary past that recorded it as it were in an aphoristic style — as cited below — but which has nevertheless reverberated throughout this culture. In the unfolding of her cultural history, India as the land that stands for this meta-philosophical insight has known several articulations that are variously expressed in her diverse thought traditions. It is these oft-cited ancient articulations that hold the innermost self-image of a culture. Take, for example, the statement that is perhaps most often recapitulated: ekam sat viprāḥ bahudhā vadanti (Reality is one, the wise call it by different names). Many philosophies have been raised over the centuries to interpret the content, the insight encapsulated in this statement within the Indian conceptual world itself: Why is it One that is said to underlie all differences? If it is One, why then can it be expressed in various ways and is not simply to be repeated in a unique, monolithic fashion? Again, why are those — who call it by different names, instead of urging that it must always be called by the same name — said to be the wise, the learned? As one takes time to go through the story of reflections on each of these questions, one begins to perceive the constituent elements that are ingrained in the composition of that self-image and the impact it has on the culture as a whole. Obviously, I cannot attempt a summary of all these philosophical deliberations here. However, it may be briefly emphasized that among the attempts to explore the idea of Reality as one, there emerged a conspicuous understanding of oneness which in sophisticated philosophical jargon has been articulated as non-duality (Advaita).¹ Those acquainted with the philosophy of Advaita know that there are elaborate explanations of why it is said that no duality can be predicted of that Reality and why it is ultimately to be described as inexpressible, at best can be spoken of only in negative terms (netimukhe). Reflections show that this is not based on empirical observation, it is a transcendental notion.

This is why I am describing India’s self-image as being born of a meta-philosophical insight. This has great impact on the construal of the conception of identity — be that religious, national, etc. as cautiously advocated by some of the best minds of this tradition. Moreover, this self-perception provides conceptual support for the raison d’être of diversity in an astounding way, demonstrating emphatically why diversity cannot be viewed merely as a passing phase but is to be seen as integral to the empirical world, as something which is here to stay rightfully.

The interesting question then is, what is the task of philosophy with regard to these readings and how is that philosophical understanding supposed to actually impact a society? Records show that philosophy can only render the meta-philosophical insight transparent and tell us why any expression of that inexpressible non-duality must identify itself as being one among many such possible expressions. This is obligatory as well on the part of the tradition, which is bearer of this insight. Even as we think of this expression in terms of a tradition — cultural, national, religious, etc. — it remains equally mandatory on the part of that tradition to look upon itself as one among many.

Having said that, let us ask what is implied in that reading? All are free to follow the trajectory of their own respective tradition and conceive of their own identity accordingly. This leaves plenty of space for debates and differences but no room for monopoly or of any claim of exclusivity that often entails a depiction of the other tradition as false.

Given that some of the broad features of the Advaitic theoretical discourse are quite familiar to a significant number of people, its practical import does not seem to be always adequately appreciated and analysed. It grants that while every tradition has a right to have a distinct space, it is binding on its part to perceive itself as one among many such traditions and grant others the same. In other words, this is an attitude that not only validates diversity but also teaches us to respect it. Evidently, what Advaita is in theory, ahiṁsā is in practice.

Indeed, the subtle consequences of this reading in various contexts have not merely been exposed and amplified in the theoretical discourse, its actual impact — even if not entirely in its full-fledged form — can also be perceived in the unfolding of the cultural life of India. The fact that the Indian cultural soil has been particularly receptive of this view can seen in the very presence of the members of virtually all different religious traditions in India including those which have originated elsewhere. Its openness to the otherness of the other becomes also evident in offering home to the adherents of those traditions in her own cultural soil who have been severely persecuted in their own original homelands and resisted assimilation. Think of the presence of the Parsis — Zoroastrians — who have made India home since long and more recently that of the Tibetans — Buddhists. Thus, it is not a call for absorption into the mainstream tradition but rather openness to diversity that is demonstrated in these cases. It shows that religious or cultural pluralism is not simply supported by an abstract Advaitic discourse or is cherished merely as a theoretical idea but is a view that has greatly influenced attitudes and actual practice of the people. Indeed this is the core image of India — both historically and conceptually. Note in this connection that this is also why secularism in India could be understood in terms of sarvadharma samabhāva.²

However, as we all know, the continued success of such an enterprise in actual practice depends on all the diverse groups who have made their home in this cultural soil and to the extent that this self-image becomes their own as well. One can also think of extending this idea to a global multi-religious context and imagine the far-reaching consequences this will have when implemented. An open public discourse is needed for capturing the subtleties entailed in this self-image in order to overcome the fear of a loss of identity and perceive in it instead the best collective defence for the cause of diversity.

Basically this is an attitude that has not merely provided a mark of cultural identity or a specific image to India, it also enables us to recognize the counter-image that we must shun. We need to gradually explore in what sense this self-image has not only influenced socioreligious thinking but has also provided political visions and inspired social commitments as exemplified in the lives and actions of some of the greatest Indians and why it remains urgent to deal with that legacy today. From a perusal of relevant documents, it truly seems that no matter how notions of patriotism, nationalism in specific epochs were actually shaped differently, loyalty to this self-understanding was hardly betrayed by any of them.

However, prior to going deeper into this question in the Indian context, let us briefly take note of the way the basic outlooks come to play a crucial role in shaping the responses to diversity that eventually find expression in societal action planning or even in foreign policy-making enterprises. For this, let me refer to that all too well-known essay entittled, The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel Huntington. He observes that despite their differences, a German and an Italian village can be brought under a common European civilizational paradigm but:

Arabs, Chinese and Westerners . . . are not part of any broader cultural entity . . . they constitute civilizations. . . . For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations.

While examining closely this perception, one cannot help but notice that there is a sense of conceptual vacuum, the absence of an alternative philosophical standpoint that could have prompted a different way of looking at the global scenario where divergences and diversity do not necessarily provoke an attitude of antagonism towards the otherness of the other, even that there is no need to conceive of an universal civilization, especially if by that is meant a point where diversities get underplayed or dissolved.

To me, this only shows how badly we need cross-cultural conversation, be that for noticing the overlaps inspite of differences or for appreciating the fact that diversity is not only inevitable but is in many ways a formidable resource. Obviously, there seems to be an attitudinal bias somewhere that only an alternative philosophical approach can correct.

Today while sharing a technological civilization, we are crisscrossing the globe within a short span of time, messages are being conveyed within a matter of seconds and we are frequently hearing political slogans with regard to our living in an interdependent world or in a global village. Nevertheless, this can hardly be said to match that inspiring insight which originated so early in the cultural landscape of India as expressed in the idea of vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam (the