Author
– Shakuntala A. Singh Ph.D**
** Philosopher. Retired Principal and Head, Dept. of Philosophy, Joshi-Bedekar College, Thane, Maharashtra, India. Deputy Editor, Mens Sana Monographs
Paper presented at National Seminar on Indian Philosophy on 18th & 19th January, 2008.
Received: 5th December 2024.
Revised: 19th March 2025.
Accepted: 2nd April 2025.
Peer Reviewer : Anon
Between two extremes of thought about the Indian philosophies lie the vast majority of us. On the one extreme are the committed believers, who are convinced that whatever worthwhile had to be written or thought of in the Indian Philosophies has already been down by our ancients. All that we can do today is understand it in all its subtleties and clarify it for a larger audience. On the other extreme lie the members of the so-called rational scientific-analytical, and often atheist, group who are fundamentally antagonistic to such a reverence, which they believe, borders on dogma and religion. Somewhere in between the two, lie the vast majority of people working on the Indian Philosophies today, some more inclined to one side, some to the other. Fortunately or unfortunately, and most probably unfortunately, these people are caught in the cross-fire between the other two extremes. Part of their inclination towards one or the other side is guided by the fact that they are caught in this crossfire.
Extremes are extremes and therefore any significant systematic direction is hardly within their scope. They are either status-quoists or rank destabilizers, neither of which is conducive to a healthy, constructive growth. As always, therefore, it is the middle group of thinkers in philosophy, like the middleclass in Society, from which one should expect any constructively significant philosophizing to emerge.
Let us see what we mean by this middle group of philosophers and middle type of philosophizing. Broadly speaking, they have certain points of agreement:
i) There is something very significant in the Indian system of thought and method of philosophy as has been handed down to us. In other words, tradition has something very worthwhile to offer.
ii) At the same time, the tradition has many drawbacks too. And while a healthy respect for it is obligatory (may be even bordering on reverence for some), a blind believer’s attitude (a blind reverence) is certainly misplaced.
iii) It is possible to constructively reinterpret traditional Indian concepts and find their relevance to modern Indian philosophizing, as well as in the world-context, i.e. in the context of Indian thought’s contribution to Worldphilosophy. And it is possible to construct suitable paradigms of study for the modern Indian thinker based on these traditional concepts.
iv) This type of systematic and comprehensive work has not been carried out till now although it is the hope, the wish and the ambition of many. Mark the words systematic and comprehensive because unless a well-organized (systematic) and an exhaustive (comprehensive) amount of work is done in any particular school or system, it cannot be said that the particular school or system has been constructively re-interpreted for modern times. They can be considered attempts or pointers, but they cannot be given the status of a full and complete work.
v) Somewhere in the minds of all these middlegroup thinkers lies the wish, expressed or unexpressed, that this be done, and preferably in their own life-time. This is what generally motivates them to philosophize in and about the Indian Philosophies today.
Having now understood the background and the inclinations of our subject-group, we can lay down a reasonable prescription, which should help them actualize their aspirations. The remedy that comes to mind can be formulated in the form of the following three steps, interlinked and progressive:
a) The first task of an Indian philosopher today is to try and understand the Indian tradition as properly and as comprehensively as possible. By properly, we mean being true to traditional interpreters and being unprejudiced by the extremists’ view; and by comprehensive we mean a fairly exhaustive or in-depth study of primary and secondary texts. In sum, this amounts to Study of Tradition.
b) The second task is to try and attempt an interpretation of the tradition true to its spirit and methodology, guided neither by bhakti or devotion nor by iconoclasm. True to its spirit means understanding what the work means or says in its essentials, that is, grasping the essence or fundamental concepts of a particular work or system, and correlating it with the work of those who have understood it wholly or partly in this manner, as well as contrasting it with the work of those who have misunderstood it wholly or partly in this manner. True to the methodology means the methods to be utilized should be those accepted as a part of that tradition and not methods that may be part of another tradition, unless and until sufficient proof is first given that the method which is a part of another tradition is equally applicable to this tradition, and this proof finds reasonably wide acceptance. This, to summarise, means to Interpret the Tradition.
c) Having carried out the earlier two steps, in that order, and only after carrying them out, if one finds that one can depart from the tradition and/ or de-link oneself from it, or establish a new tradition, then and then alone does one have the privilege to carry out steps that establish a new school/system or sub-school/sub-system in modern Indian philosophy. What this means in essence is, unless you have first studied the tradition thoroughly, interpreted it to a significant degree, you cannot develop the ability to depart from it. In other words, those who wish to give insightful departures in the Indian Philosophies, that is, wish to achieve the third step have necessarily to pass through the first two. And if they have not, their work has to be judged accordingly.
This order cannot be reversed. And one can make this statement even to the extent of sounding dogmatic. Unless there is a systematic study of a subject, it cannot be interpreted, and unless it is constructively interpreted, one cannot constructively depart.
We are talking of constructive interpretation and constructive departure, mind you – destructive, destabilizing interpretations and departures are of course possible at any time. That, however, is neither the primary concern nor the fundamental motivating force in our middle-group philosophers. If at all there is any destruction or demolition, it is only to construct a more solid and tamper-proof edifice.
It is within the scope of most people doing serious middle-group Indian Philosophy today to take the first step, that is, to comprehensively study the tradition, and if possible write expository – explicative works based on them. It is also within the scope of may be a smaller group of middle-group thinkers, who have performed the first step, to progress to the second, which is to constructively reinterpret the tradition. They will fall in the illustrious lineage of the commentators of yore in the various schools/systems of Indian philosophical thought.
Now we come to the third group, the group, which wishes to depart from and/or establish a new tradition. Here let us be honest. Most contemporary Indian thinkers of some standing would like to make a mark. Which means, they would like to be considered as having set forth a significantly new trend in philosophizing, both by their peers and posterity. However, one must remember the old idiom, ‘Though the spirit be willing, the flesh is weak’. Such claims, if not preceded by the other two steps, are hardly likely to succeed.
It required centuries of explication and commentaries on Gautama’s Nyaya-sutra for a Gangesa to be born and significantly depart from the old Nyaya. Similarly, centuries elapsed between the original Upanisadic thinkers and the systematizers of Vedanta like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva.
Why are we in such a tearing hurry?
Let us give ourselves some time. Let us first lay down a solid, proper foundation. And, in the true Indian tradition, not desire for the fruits, for instant gratification. Who knows a new Gangesa or a new Sankara , may result that way?
Whether this is only a hope or a fantasy may be an arguable point. But to wish for a Gautama, a Gangesa or a Sankara to be born today without we laying down a proper ground-work for their birth is sheer day dreaming. And to wish for one such to emerge from one of us, again without the necessary steps enumerated above, should be even impossible to day dream.
The task of the Indian philosopher today is to voluntarily accept and patiently carry out these three steps, unmindful of the barbs and the exploding ammunition of the “extremists” around. For, this species of the human race exists as much in the philosophical sphere as the socio-political one.
If such can be the broad perspective of the majority of us, Indian philosophy should have as sound a present, and as secure a future, as it had a glorious past.
Acknowledgements
The Author acknowledges, with thanks, the organizers for inviting her to present the above paper.
Conflict of Interest
The Author is Deputy Editor, Mens Sana Monographs.