Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A K. RAMANUJAN
inscribed on his head at the time of birth. It frees man from ethical
responsibility.
The second trait of Indian thought is that it does not distinguish
between self from non-self, interior from the exterior.
Naipaul calls
this a defect of vision.
The third trait of Indian thought is its inconsistency. Indian thought
does not use objective facts to arrive at universal truth. As a result
there is no unitary law for all Indians. As Hegel cryptically put it the
Indians would not say bravery is a virtue but rather he would say
bravery is a virtue for the brahmins.
The essence of Judeo-Christian ethics is Do not do unto others what
you do not want done unto you. This principle is applicable to all. But
in Manu, the righteousness of an action is dependent on who did what
to whom and when.
It is class-specific and context-specific; not
conduct-specific. In other words Indian philosophy is not universalistic,
but particularistic. For example the dharma of a man varies according
to his caste, class, gender and ashrama. People of different caste have
different dharma. The punishment for the dame offence also varies
from caste to caste.
Baudhayana points out that the aberrant practices of the Brahmins
varies from place to place. What is aberrant in the South is normal in
the North and vice versa.
The India literary texts also have a context to which it is embedded.
The Mhahbharata and the Ramayana open with episodes narrating the
circumstances under which they were composed. Within the text itself
one tale is the context for another tale. Every story seems to a replica
of the whole story. Yudhisthira gambling away his kingdom has its
parallel in the story of Nala and Damayanti.
Even Space and time, the universal contexts in the Kantian system, is
not uniform and neutral in Indian philosophy. In Indian thought houses
are not a mere place to live in, but something that can effect a change
in the dwellers fortune.
Time is also not a uniform unit. Certain time and certain days of the
week are auspicious and certain others are inauspicious (rahukala).
Even yugas have their characteristics. People are wicked in the
kaliyuga.
The dominant trait in the Indian thought is its contextsensitivity. It
may not be the ideal; the ideal seems to be context- free. But societies
Analysis
In the FIRST SECTION of this essay, A.K. RAMANUJAN puts forth some questions and
tries answering them by emphasizing on specific aspects of the question.
He asks Is there an Indian way of thinking? The answer to this question is: there was an
Indian way of thinking but it does not exist now. The Indian way of thinking can be located in
the upper-caste, Brahmanical section of the society - in the Vedas and other religious texts, or
when one goes to the 'pundits'. However, since our thinking is still largely shaped as per the
Vedas, it would not be completely wrong to say that there still is an Indian way of thinking
that exists.
The second question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? He says that there has
always been the existence of Great Tradition and Little Tradition. In India, we celebrate
diversities and highlight these differences. Therefore, a single Indian way of thinking does
not exist.
The third question is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? India is nothing but a product of the
influences of external cultures, languages, religions and social evolutions - therefore, one
might say that what we see in India is nothing unique to India. However, India is capable of
adapting to the changes and accommodating these external influences into its culture...
The last question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? Ramanujan says that it is the
West that is capable of thought. The West is projected as materialistic and rational. In India,
logic is rationalized with religion and superstitions. In India, actions are projected, not the
thoughts behind those actions.
Thus in the 1st part of his essay, Ramanujan states how India is perceived differently at
different stages by different people and from different perspectives.
In the second part of the essay, the inconsistency between tradition and modernity is depicted
with an example from Ramanujan's personal experience. He gives the example of his father
to show how India can be ancient yet modern at the same time. For Ramanujan, consistency
means strict adherence to only one - either religion or science.
Ramanujan's father was a South Indian Brahman.
While he wore dhotis in traditional brahman style, he also wore English jackets over
his dhotis.
He wore tartan-patterned socks and leather shoes when he went to the university but
removed them before entering the inner quarters of the house.
He had American and English mathematicians visiting him along with the local
pundits and astrologers.
While he read the Bhagvad Gita religiously every morning after taking a bath, he
would talk about Russell and Ingersoll also with the same amount of passion.
Ramanujan could not figure out such an inconsistency - his father appeared to neither think
nor care about any sort of consistency.
In the third part of the essay, Ramanujan interrogates the concept of inconsistency in a larger
context - and does not just limit it to his father. He talks of the concept of 'karma' and that of
'talaividi'. Karma implies the self's past as determining the present and future - it is an 'iron
chain' of cause and effect. Karmic philosophy is written. Talaividi or 'head writing' focuses on
destiny and it is a part of oral tradition.
The Western construction of the Orient (India) is that we are yet to develop the notion of
'data' or 'objective facts'. According to Sudhir Kakar, in the oriental world, there is no clear
difference between self and non-self - this brings about inconsistency. India is not influenced
result is that the context-free nature ends up becoming yet another context i.e. the 'modern'
context.