Philosophy: India’s forgotten tradition, and why it should be revived.

Philosophy: India’s forgotten tradition, and why it should be revived.

Introduction:

What does one think of upon hearing the word “Philosophy”? Perhaps one’s thoughts may sway towards a group of old bearded scholars in ancient Greece debating political issues in a massive hallway. Perhaps Socrates being a nuisance at the local agora. We may even turn to the imposing figure of a roman statesman like Cicero, or everyone’s favourite performative rebel, Friedrich Nietchze. Rarely does one’s mind turn, however, to India. This is quite perplexing when indeed Ancient India was host to a wide range of philosophical schools of thought. Even more odd is the fact that such a rich tradition rarely, and even if so only superficially affects discourse on Indian culture, politics and law. The lack of a historical equivalent of an enlightenment period for India means that modern syllabus for most of philosophy related academia is governed by the Occident. Even worse, is the fact that philosophy education in general is not encouraged. This is something that needs to be changed. This article shall now explore some of the most bizarre and fascinating ideas that have come from this land and the implications that come with them.

Fig. Plato and Aristotle(A stereotypical idea of Philosophy).

India’s arguably most well known ideas come in the form of political theory, so it makes sense to start there.

Political Theory in Ancient India.

A text you may have heard of is the Arthashastra written by Kautilya.

The Arthashastra.

Any discussion of Indian political thought is incomplete without mention of this work.It needs no introduction.It is seen by people all over the world as a guide not just to statecraft, but to administrative activity as a whole. It rivals such works as “The Art of War” in terms of popularity. It may be the sole reason for the success of so many business enterprises. Its legacy leaps past the decaying age of monarchy and lands firmly in our modern capitalistic society. The text covers a wide range of topics from including the state, effective kingship, revenue sources, divisions of the government, law etc.The text places a heavy focus on economics .In The introduction of his translation of the Arthashastra,L.N Rangaragan writes,

“As Kautilya says in the concluding section of his book:” The scource of a man’s livelihood is his wealth.’ He then draws the corollary that the wealth of a nation is both the territory of the state and it’s inhabitants who follow a variety of occupations. The state or government has a crucial to play role in maintaining the material well being of the nation and its people. Therefore an important part of the Arthashastra is the ‘science of economics.’”(Rangarajan)

Attention to aspects of administration such as Economics, made the Arthashastra stand out amongst contemporary political treatises.

Fig. Kautilya

However, in philosophy we aren’t just interested in ideas, but also how they come about. Have you ever pondered on the conditions and ideas that would have given rise to such a text?

Indians spent a lot of time pondering the necessity for the very concept of kingship.

The traditional schools of thought posited that the original state of nature was one of peace and bliss. People lived in accordance with ethical doctrine, without the necessity of any governing force. However this phase would inevitably come to an end. It would fade, and lead to a time where the strong take control of the weak. (Krishna  26-27).

This concept was expressed through the idea of Arajaka.

Arajaka.

Arajaka was the Indian idea of Anarchy. It was considered the most undesirable state. On topic of Arajaka K.B Krishna writes,

“The wicked rob the weak and the innocent of their wealth, and themselves also suffer in turn. Women are forced to give up their chastity. The atmosphere is pervaded by an all around darkness. Like fishes in a small pool of water, and birds in thee toil of hunters, people injure and kill one another”.(28)

The analogy of the fish is taken quite seriously as Arajaka in literature is often presented allegorically in the form of “Matsyanyaya”. Literally meaning “logic of the fish”, it is meant to present the image of a big fish consuming a smaller fish.

A king is seen as one who is to protect society from such an undesirable state, and is often imbued with a divine authority. This divine authority is exemplified in certain texts called Dharmashastras. These texts contain the subject of statecraft but are more concerned with the rights and duties of kings. They are brief on actual administrative advice and are of a mostly  religious nature(Britannica  1).

A reasonable guess would be that such a fear of anarchy and lack of any guide on kingship would naturally lead to the creation of administrative manuals. Chief among such manuals was Kautilya’s Arthashastra.

However, Indian thinking wasn’t limited to political ideas. Ancient India was home to a vast range of philosophical schools of thought, that dealt with a host of abstract beliefs and concepts. In philosophy circles you may hear terms such as “Stoicism”, “Nihilism” and “Realism”. These are the Indian equivalents to those ideas.

Fig. Vedic Scripture(Central texts to Ancient Indian Philosophy).

Schools of thought:

The most well known ancient Indian doctrines are the six orthodox hindu schools of thought. Namely Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedantha schools. Samkhya and Yoga are argued to be different schools of one system. Vaisheshika and Nyaya were also mixed up into one system in later times (DasGupta  7). In addition to these are the well known, Buddhist and Jain schools of thought. Ancient Indian thought however was not limited to these systems. We shall now more closely  examine some philosophical ideas to have come out of ancient India.

Ajivikaism

 Along with the allegedly heretical sects of Buddhism and Jainsim there existed a  sect known as the Ajivikas. The leader, or the most prominent thinker of this was a man known as Makkhali Gosala. He was probably a former disciple of the legendary jain saint Mahavira(DasGupta 79) .It was one of many sects that while not denying immortality of the soul or th existence of  gods, did not accept the popular interpretation of vedic doctrine. The core belief of the Ajivika doctrine was in  a universal principle known as “Niyati”. Niyati dictates everything that has happened and will happen in the universe. This includes human interaction(Basham  3).

The logical implication of such a belief system is the lack of free will and human agency. Some would feel inclined to draw parallels to the idea of causal  determinism which guides most modern discourse on the hard sciences. Such an   idea posits that everything that has and will have happened in the universe is  causally inevitable(Britannica  par.1).Indeed the philosophies mirror each other.  However, what sets the Ajivika system apart is it’s more monistic tendency to claim that a single element such as Niyati underlies all of reality.

Fig.(The Ajivikas might have viewed the world as a vast cosmic ocean, and attributed humans with minimal agency to create change)

CHARVAKA LOKAYATA

The Charvaka philosophy is an interesting case as we have no surviving literature regarding it, from any of its followers. Most of the information we have about this school of thought comes from the writings of contemporaries from other schools. It is notable that it stands out despite that. (Chattopadhyaya  6).The philosophy of the Charvakas was a materialistic one. They vehemently  rejected Vedic authority and the concept of an afterlife. Life is simply a product of matter .They believed that life was best served in pursuit only of enjoyment. The other schools viewed this doctrine with much contempt(Dasgupta  79). This is all of course conjecture, as we have no surviving record of its literature, or any idea if such literature existed. An interesting point of note is that the charvakas aside from being materialistic also believed that pleasure seeking was the purpose of life. Such a belief does not necessarily flow from a materialistic/atheistic worldview. One can still value things other than pleasure even if one believes only in the material. Hence, it can be said that the charvakas had two principle beliefs. Materialism and pleasure seeking. To paint a picture, a modern day equivalent of a Lokayata may simply spend his\her time on netflix or the local pub dancing the weekend away. To them no one is watching, so you may hear them say “Let’s Just have a good time”.

Fig. ( Charvakas would have spent their time in pursuit of material pleasure such as food and drink)

Buddhism.

 Being one of the largest religions in the world, Buddhism is quite well known. Over time, this religion has grown to encompass multiple denominations, sects and belief systems. However to keep things simple, and not to sway too much into metaphysics, we will focus on Siddhartha Gautama himself. The primary belief of the Buddha was that life itself is a constant state of suffering. To most, this may be off putting  as it seems  pessimistic. However, in my opinion, there is an upside to adopting such a principle. If you accept that life is inherently unfair, even the smallest joys can lead to The utmost of happiness. Thus, making the individual more wholesome. From that central belief flowed the idea that desire is the root of all suffering. Perplexing? Consider your desire for a piece of chocolate.  Now, that desire leads to  suffering unless satisfied by consuming chocolate. However, that is bad for your health. Now consider a state where you lack desire. In this state you don’t suffer from not consuming the chocolate and your health isn’t damaged. It seemed evident to the Buddha for this reason that desire is the root of evil.

Fig Siddhartha Gautama

Conclusion.

As we have explored, India has a lot to offer in the field of philosophy. This is something that must be acknowledged by our education system, and some of this vast subject matter should slowly be inculcated into Indian syllabi. Maybe students can start considering a choice in philosophy as a bachelor’s degree. A greater degree of abstract thought would better serve our discourses on Science, Politics, Law making, Economics and much more. Especially, when said abstract thought produced wonders in the past.

Works Cited

Rangarajan L.N,  “Kautilya the Arthashastra”,  1992.

Krishna, K.B  “Theories of Kingship in Ancient India”,

1932, pp.26-27,  pp.28

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Dharma-shastra”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Oct. 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dharma-shastra. Accessed 27 January 2025.  par.1

Dasgupta,  Surendra  “A History of Indian Philosophy”,  vol 1, 

1951,  pp.7, pp.79.

Basham, A.L  “History and Doctrines of The Ajivikas”,

1951,  pp.3

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Ajivika”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Jun. 2013, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ajivika. Accessed 26 January 2025.  par.1

Chattopadhyaya,  Debiprasasd   “Lokayata: A study in ancient indian Materialism”,

1959,  pp.1,  pp.6