Ancient Western Philosophy and the Hindu Wisdom

A birds-eye view.
(S.Karthikeyan; karthiksreedhar@gmail.com)

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 major Upanishads
which form the fundamental corpus of Indian philosophy are still older by at least 500
years, even by the most stringent and parsimonious estimation by the most unfriendly
scholars of the west. Various means of contact between the west and the east were
already operative even before 600 BC, the year of inception of western philosophy. With
the establishment of the Achaemenid empire under Persian rulers, the mutual contact
acquired a new dimension paving the way for exchange of thoughts and perceptions
about human life. As such, the question raised deserves careful consideration by a
detailed discussion.
What is now known as western philosophy is generally classified into the following
six chronological periods namely,
1. Classical Era from 600 BC to 300 BC
2. Hellenistic Era from 300 BC to 1 BC
3. Roman Era from 1 AD to 500 AD
4. Medieval Era from 500 AD to 1500 AD
5. Early Modern Era from 1500 AD to 1800 AD
6. Modern Era from 1800 AD onwards.
Of the above, for the sake of limiting our survey to the ancient western
philosophy, we may remain concerned with the first two eras only, namely, the Classical
Era and the Hellenistic Era. Within this limitation too, we are particularly concerned
about the enquiry regarding the ultimate reality or the Supreme Being.
The timeline of classical western philosophers starts with Thales (624 546 BC)
and ends almost with Euclid (325 265 BC), all being Greeks. It appears that only
Greeks 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 existence and life and
had also established an excellent system for its propagation, even reaching down to the
layman, through the medium of literary compositions such as the epics, apart from the
higher texts of purely philosophical discussions. Until Socrates (470 399 BC) came up

with his dialectics for resolving contradictions in arguments and thereby arriving at the
truth, Athens had no place in what we now know as western philosophy. Mythology,
oracles and sophists ruled the roost in Athens in the Pre-Socratic period. Even Socrates
believed in the oracles of Delphi. All the Pre-Socratic western philosophers came from
the eastern Greek settlements in Ionia, an ancient region of the central coastal Anatolia
which is currently a territory of Turkey. The name Ionia finds mention in Hindu texts as
Yavana, which term, interestingly, is said to have been used by Hindus to indicate
barbarian people of the west. With no tradition to boast of, pertaining to intellectual life
of rational thinking and creative compilations, these people at that time apparently
deserved this epithet. There are references in Mahabharata regarding the Yavana
soldiers participating in the Kurukshetra war.
History says that Ionia was under the rule of the Persians from 550 BC to 336 BC
as part of the Achaemenid Empire which comprised of western parts of India also. This
position in particular helped the Ionians to have access to the great works of the Sages
of India. Contacts with the already matured teachings of the Vedas must have
influenced the Ionian Greeks to tread a new path different from the traditional Greek
beliefs and religious practices and to formulate theories about the ultimate reality,
independent of mythology. It cannot be the other way round, with the Greeks influencing
the Vedic tradition, since the perfection, extent and depth that the Hindu thoughts
reached by that time compared to the infancy seen in the West makes such a
suggestion less than tenable. Karl Jaspers theory of Axial Age is only a myth in the light
of the above facts. Karl Jasper says that philosophy and new religious thoughts evolved
simultaneously in the East and the West during 800 BCE to 200 BCE, in spite of having
no mutual cultural or other contacts. His facts are wrong. As explained above, mutual
contacts with the west and the east already existed, before the start of the so-called
axial age. It is because of his western bias that Jasper ignored this historical fact.
Further, he conveniently forgot the rule of the Persian Empire, simultaneously over the
west and east, for a period of two centuries that fall within his axial age. Moreover the
Major Upanishads were already revealed, when the western philosophy was yet to totter
as an infant. Veda Samhitas are still older. So, the theory of Axial Age is only an undue
favour showered on the westerners for satisfying their false pride.

In spite of their contacts with the great treasures of the Hindu philosophy, what
the Ionians could obtain was some fringes; that too, apparently through Persian
versions or simple translations. And 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 aggravation with the fact that none of the writings
of the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers is available in full; everything said about them
and to be theirs now, including their life time, are only conjectures made upon surviving
fragments of such writings. This is in sharp contrast with the Hindu scriptures which
have been preserved almost intact from still older periods to the present day. May be,
the ancient Indians were poor in keeping a chronological record of events in the name
of history, but they keenly preserved their most valuable treasures of intellectual and
cultural outputs very safely.
Thales of Miletus (Ionia) is considered as the first in the line of classical western
philosophers; according to Bertrand Russell, western philosophy starts with him. Thales'
most famous contribution was his cosmological thesis that the world had its origin from
water. In this context we may recall the Upanis a
dic teachings about the origin of the
universe. Prana (1.4) says that at first the pair of Rayi and Prn a was created.
Chndogya follows up this by saying that from this energy water came up first and from
water, food is created (6.2.3 & 6.2.4). Br h
adranyakaalso says that it is water that was
first produced (1.2.1). But, unlike Thales, it may be noted, the Upanis a
ds go deeper and
hold that this energy was created from out of SAT (Chndogya 6.2.1 & 6.2.3). It is
interesting to observe 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 have squandered their temporal and intellectual
resources in arguing for or against the proposition that there exists a personal god; or,
on the other hand, in asserting or refuting that the ultimate reality is matter. Their
inquisitiveness has not so far matured enough to acquire the higher truth of the unity of
matter and spirit, the unity that is tm.

Contemporary to Thales were Anaximander (610 546 BC) and Anaximenes

(585 525 BC), both belonging to Miletus of Ionia, like Thales. Of these, Anaximenes
held air as the primary substance of which all other things are made. This is in deviation
to what Thales said. It appears that Anaximenes went by the Prn a
route ignoring the
Rayi that Thales upheld. On the other hand Anaximander was close to the Upanis adic
teaching. He said that the beginning or first principle was an endless, unlimited
primordial mass (the apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, that perpetually
yielded fresh materials from which everything we perceive is derived. According to him,
the universe originated in the separation of opposites in the primordial matter. All dying
things are returning to the element from which they came (apeiron). This is only a
repetition of what is stated in Chndogya 6.10.2, 8.1.1, 8.1.3, 8.1.5; Br h
adranyaka
1.4.3 & Gta 2.28, 9.4; and Kat ha Upanisad 2.18 and 9.7. Chndogya 6.10.2 says that
whatever comes out from SAT, the pure existence that was there in the beginning,
does merge into it at the end. In 8.1.1, 8.1.3 and 8.1.5 Chndogya say that tm
encompasses everything that exists in this universe and also everything that is yet to
come into existence; that tm does not grow old and cannot be destroyed.
Br h
adranyaka 1.4.3 indicates that creation took place on separation of opposites.
Kat ha 2.18 says that tm is without birth or death; He has no origin, no transformation
and no decay. According to Gta 2.28 the beginning as well as the end of all beings is
the Undifferentiated. Gta 9.4 holds that tm, the ultimate principle of existence,
pervades the entire universe whereas 9.7 says that in the beginning all beings originate
from the ultimate principle and in the end merge into it.
Following Anaximenes comes Pythagoras (580 500 BC) of Samos in Ionia, who
is said to have visited India. Unfortunately, it seems that what he picked up from India
was only some obscurantist teachings that led him to believe in transmigration. He set
up an esoteric group of his followers in his home land, which pursued ascetic practices.
In contrast to this, Xenophanes of Colophon (570 480 BC), Ionia, who is known
as Feuerbach of Antiquity for his pooh-poohing of traditional Greek religious beliefs of
his time (as done later by Feuerbach (1804 1872 AD) against Christianity in his
famous work Essence of Christianity), taught that God has no human form and that He

is eternal, having no birth or death. He declared that God does not intervene in human
affairs. These ideas are identical with the teachings contained in Gta 2.20, 5.14, 5.15 &
10.8 and Kat ha 2.18. In the cited verses Gta asserts that the ultimate principle is
eternal and devoid of birth and death; it does not perish even after the body is lost
(2.20); it is the origin of all beings and everything exists because of it only (10.8).
Neither does it create any Karma nor does it assign such Karma to any particular
person; everything happens according to the very nature of things (5.14) into which it
has already manifested. It does not recognise any Karma as good or evil (5.15). (Kat ha
2.18 is identical with Gta 2.20).
Close to Xenophanes comes Heraclitus of Ephesus, Ionia (535 475 BC) who is
known as the weeping philosopher. He is often quoted for his saying that the universe
is in a flux. He declared, "We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and
are not", which, apart from indicating that this world is ever-changing, also asserts that,
underlying all such changes, there is something not subject to change. This is exactly
the opening mantra of a () Upanisad, wherein it is said that a, the ultimate reality,
pervades everything that exists in this ever-changing world. Mantra 8 ibid clarifies that
this a is omnipresent and self-existent.
Heraclitus further mentioned about the unity of opposites, An object is a
harmony between a building up and a tearing down. In this connection particular
mention is due to Chndogya Upanisad 6.10.1 and 6.10.2, which say that everything
in this universe comes from and returns to SAT, which implies that phenomenal
existence is a process of building up and tearing down. Br hadranyaka Upanisad
says in 1.4.3 that as a prelude to creation, tm divided itself into two complementary
halves; therefore everything here exists to be like halves. For every such half there must
exist its complementary half. The universe is therefore said to exist in opposites.
Moreover, Gta 2.28 says that everything emerges from and finally dissolves into the
undifferentiated, which indicates that phenomenal existence is a process of building up
and tearing down.
Heraclitus had an equally famous contemporary, Parmenides of Elea, Ionia (515
450 BC). He was the founder of the famous Eleatic School. The only source providing

an insight into his teachings is a few fragments of a poem On Nature written by him,
wherein he declared that existence is necessarily eternal. How could it come into
being? If it came into being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus, is
becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of. Nor is it divisible, since it
is all alike, and there is no more of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from
holding together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is, says in 8.20 of his poem.
This is verses 2.16, 2.20, 2.23 & 13.27 of Gta retold. In 2.16 Gta defines what SAT
(Reality) is. SAT is that which exists and never ceases to exist. That means, reality is
something that always exists; it never disappears; nor does it come out from a state of
non-existence (Gta 2.20). Gta 2.23 declares that weapons cannot destroy it, fire
cannot burn it, water cannot wet it and wind cannot dry it. Gta 13.27 says that tm
evenly pervades in every being. All these show that the vision of Parmenides about
existence is only a reflection of the already existing great Hindu teachings on the same
subject.
Parmenides further says in 8.55 of his poem, They have assigned an opposite
substance to each, and marks distinct from one another. To the one they allot the fire of
heaven, light, thin, in every direction the same as itself, but not the same as the other.
The other is opposite to it, dark night, a compact and heavy body. This also is
something that we find in Gta; Parmenides is simply writing on the concept of Ks etra
and Ksetraja contained in chapter 13 of Gta. In verse 13.26 it is stated that whatever
exists in this universe is a product of the union of Ks etra and Ksetraja.
The last of the Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers was Anaxagoras (500 428 BC)
of Clazomenae, Ionia. He brought the Greek philosophy from Ionia to Athens. According
to his teachings all things existed from the beginning, but in infinitesimally small
fragments of themselves, endless in number and inextricably combined; they existed in
a confused and indistinguishable form. Mind (Nous) arranged the segregation of like
from unlike. This peculiar thing, called Mind, a thing of finer texture, stood pure and
independent, alike in all its manifestations and everywhere the same. This subtle agent,
possessed of all knowledge and power, is especially seen ruling in all the forms of life.
This is rather a lesser version of Gta 2.28, 9.4, 13.27, wherein the concepts of the

undifferentiated, the all-pervasive nature of the ultimate reality and the uniform presence
of that reality in all beings are discussed.
Now we come to the legendary Socrates (470 399 BC) of Athens, 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 arrive at
the truth. He did not author any book; whatever is known of him comes to us from the
words of others, particularly Plato, his famous disciple. Socrates used to say, I only
know that I know nothing. This is what we see in mantra 2.2 of Kena, which,
commenting on the secret nature of the ultimate reality, says so: I dont think that it can
be known easily; I dont also think that we dont know or do know.
According to Socrates, if at all there is something real it is not the object of
senses; being graspable by the senses is not the criterion for anything to be real. This
idea of reality is only an echoing of the Upanis adic teachings (Kena 1.3, 1.4 & 1.5;
Kat ha 6.9 & 6.12; Mund aka 3.1.8 vetvatara 4.17, 4.20), all of which consistently
hold that the ultimate reality is not graspable by the senses. Socrates says, in Platos
Republic, that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are
living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. This again is a reflection of Kat ha 2.6, in
which it is declared that those who do not see anything beyond this sunlit world render
themselves to be felled by death again and again, the import being that they will never
see peace and happiness.
For Socrates Virtue is knowledge and Virtue is sufficient for happiness. This is
only a paraphrasing of Gta 4.33 & 4.38; Kat ha 5.12; vetvatara 6.12 & 6.20. In Gta
4.33 pursuit of knowledge is held in greater esteem than that of material objects. Gta
4.38 declares that nothing is sacred as knowledge. Kat ha 5.12 and vetvatara 6.12
& 6.20 say that there is no lasting happiness without knowing the ultimate reality.
Further, Socrates believed that the best way for people to live was to focus on selfdevelopment rather than the pursuit of material wealth. This belief was apparently
derived from Kat ha 4.2, Mund aka 1.2.7, 1.2.10 and Gta verses 9.22 & 12.8. Kat ha 4.2
states that only the immature people go after cravings for material possessions; the
wise, on the other hand, do not go after transient pleasures as they know what real bliss

is. Mund aka 1.2.7 warns that those who pursue material pleasure do really walk into
total ruin. A similar caution is contained in Mund aka 1.2.10 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. Gta verses 9.22 & 12.8 say
that those who are committed to the pursuit of the ultimate reality are assured of a
happy life.
In several dialogues, Socrates floats the idea that knowledge is a matter of
recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study. Socrates is often found arguing
that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight. According to
Hindu scriptures, tm, which is the ultimate cause of all, is SAT-CHIT-NANDA. CHIT
is pure consciousness and knowledge is its manifestation. In human body Chitta is the
centre of all knowledge. Every being is born with some basic knowledge necessary for
running the body. Every piece of knowledge said to be acquired by us is a build-up on
this base. Among the internal faculties, Manas processes the signals picked up by
senses from the outside objects, with reference to the stock of information already
available in the Chitta. Such signals are only raw materials and the processed
information constitutes the building blocks of the body of knowledge. With these blocks
the Manas builds up cognisable forms and ideas that fit into the foundation existing in
the Chitta at that point of time. It is thus we acquire knowledge and enlarge our
knowledge base in the Chitta. That means, in the process of gaining knowledge what
actually happens is not absorption as such from external agents, but an internal building
up that is compatible with the existing foundation in the Chitta. In Chndogya 7.18.1
teaches that one knows by reflection only; there is no knowing without reflection. So, we
find that Socrates is only interpreting in his own way the teachings of Hindu scriptures in
this respect also.
In Greek philosophical thoughts, Socrates was followed by his immediate
disciples. Antisthenes (445 365 BC) of Athens was an ardent disciple of Socrates,
who, abiding by the ethical teachings of his master, advocated an ascetic life to be lived
in accordance with virtue. Life for him was to be lived through virtuous actions that
liberate wise persons from errors; for, real and enduring happiness lies in such a life.

This had been better declared already in verses 2.55, 2.70, 3.28, 3.34, 3.35, 3.41, etc.
of Gta. Incidentally, Antisthenes is regarded as the founder of Cynic philosophy
because of these teachings. Western scholars appear to possess wonderful expertise in
the art of nomenclature. Highlighting some aspects of a thing they brand the thing as
belonging to a particular group. In course of time the brand name loses its original
meaning and acquires new imports. This is what exactly happened to the word cynic. In
contrast to its initial implication, a cynic now represents a pessimist sceptical of
everything. However, Antisthenes was not a person belonging to the brand of what the
word cynic now signifies. He only advocated simple living as, according to him, virtue
demanded it. He was also of the opinion that God is only one, who resembles nothing
on earth and therefore cannot be understood from any representation. This is fully in
line with his masters teaching that reality cannot be known through the senses, which
we have already seen above to be a repetition of Hindu teachings.
We find another important disciple of Socrates in Aristippus (435 366 BC) of
Cyrene, a Greek colony in present-day Libya. To him the goal of life was to seek
pleasure by adapting circumstances to oneself and by maintaining proper control over
both adversity and prosperity. He lived a life of equal disposition to pain and pleasure.
Whether insulted wildly or praised grossly he remained equally calm. Thus he was truly
a Stitapraja (person having a steady intellect) as described in Gta 2.56. And his life
was a demonstration of the teachings in verses 2.38, 2.45, 5.20, 5.21, etc. of Gta,
which exhort us to desist from getting dejected at the face of adversities and elated too
much at fortunes.
The most outstanding of the students of Socrates is undoubtedly Plato (427
347 BC) who, through own writings, propagated the teachings of his master for the
benefit of later generations. In Athens, he founded the Academy, which is the first
institution of higher learning in the western world. Nearly everything he wrote was in the
form of dialogues and nobody knows the exact order in which they were written. The
principal themes that we are concerned with in his writings are (i) the reality and the
world of forms and (ii) the class structure of society.

Like Socrates, Plato also is of the opinion that material world is not real. He
conceives an unchanging world of Forms (or Ideas) from which the ever-changing
material world is derived. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy writes, The most
fundamental distinction in Plato's philosophy is between the many observable objects
that appear beautiful (good, just, unified, equal, big) and the one object that is what
beauty (goodness, justice, unity) really is, from which those many beautiful (good, just,
unified, equal, big) things receive their names and their corresponding characteristics.
In other words, for every aspect of material objects there exists a Form of its perfection;
material objects are only relative derivations of this Form. According to Plato there
exists an eternal world of such Forms and that is the real world. But he does not explain
where this world of Form comes from, where it is situated and how it is sustained. In
furthering his masters teaching that the material world is not the real one, he introduces
the concept of Forms and then introduces a new world of Forms. But his concept is not
justified by any rational or plausible explanations. He does not direct his thoughts to the
origin, cause or sustenance of his real world of Forms.
What impact does he intend to make in human life with his concept? He does not
give any clue. He left the teachings of his great master on the wayside and proceeded
with his own immature conjectures. Socrates was most concerned about a happy social
life; so he said, virtue is sufficient for happiness. Plato did not opt to brood over virtue,
may be for fear of persecution by the establishment as in the case of Socrates; nor did
he pursue his masters concept of reality to its perfection. Instead, he remained
contented with his intellectual acrobatics in the World of Forms. This straying away
from proper enquiry into the cause of life and existence in this universe stayed with
western thought throughout, so that they failed in arriving at the ultimate reality. Having
started with Plato, this loss of direction was further compounded by historical events
such as the fall of Achaemenid Empire and the shifting of the centre of Greek
philosophy from Ionia to Athens, which badly cut off Greeks access to Hindu thoughts,
presumably for ever. Even otherwise, Plato might not have been enthused by the Hindu
teachings that Anaxagoras brought from Ionia to Athens and flourished through the
thoughts and practices of Socrates, Antisthenes and all. Therefore, instead of
appreciating their true value and pursuing them to their full bloom, he opted to employ

his speculative skill in manipulating them for the purpose of arrogating their authorship
to himself. One more reason for his attitude might be his aversion to the hegemony of
the Achaemenid Empire over Greek settlements in Ionia, which distanced him from
accepting anything that came via that route. He failed to gauge the real potential and
depth of whatever fragments already received from the East. This resulted in his leaving
the line pursued by his teacher and embarking upon a pursuit of his own, which
unfortunately turned out to be a futile regimen of intellectual exercises, as already
mentioned.
Let us now consider Platos theory on the class structure of society. According to
him society has a tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite - spirit - reason
structure of the individual soul. The appetite, spirit and reason stand for different parts of
the body. The class that corresponds to the "appetite" part of the soul is the Productive
class representing the abdomen of the body. They comprise of the manual labourers
and include merchants also. The spirit class is the Protective class representing the
chest. They constitute the warriors or guardians of the society. Into this class come the
brave, adventurous and strong people. The third class is the Governing class
corresponding to the reason part of the soul. They represent the head of the body and
consist of individuals who are intelligent, rational, self-controlled, in love with wisdom
and therefore well suited to make decisions for the community. They are rulers of the
society.
It can be seen that Plato is simply repeating the class divisions 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 divisions called Varn a
(s) in the
scriptures below. Platos restriction of the classes into three is defective. He covered
only the abdomen, chest and head of the body, but ignored the legs. Without legs, the
body is not complete. This mutilation finds expression in his class division also. It is
evident 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. Such helpers cannot be included in the appetite class. This
vindicates the four-fold class division of the Hindus.

Divisions of society into various categories or rather types have been there from
ancient times. Hindu scriptures prescribe four types of people (Varn a) in society,
differentiated by the colour of each individual. This colour does not indicate the colour
of the skin, but the inherent inclination in choosing the type of Karma for achieving ones
ends (4.13 of Gta). Therefore, this classification finds expression in ones Karma that
he opts when left with many options. For this purpose, Karma(s) are divided into four
categories, respectively dealing with education and learning, security and protection,
food production and commerce, and finally, rendering manual assistance for the above
three categories (For details see Gta 18.42, 43 & 44). A close look will reveal that this is
an inner to outer classification. Those who are naturally concerned with the innermost aspect of existence are termed as the Brhmana () and those concerned with
the outer-most aspect as dra ( ). In between these two, come the Ks atriya ()
and the Vaiya (), according to each ones closeness to the inner or outer aspects.
Ksatriya comes next to Brhmana and Vaiya comes before Shdra.
The society is a collective entity consisting of all these types. Each type is so
important that without it the society will not prosper. (Br hadranyaka Upanisad 1.4.11
to 1.4.14). Therefore, mutual respect and understanding and also joint efforts by these
four types are essential for the stability and progress of the society. So, what is required
is not antagonism among the types, but their peaceful co-existence; for, natures
diversity is not for contradiction or antagonism, but for ensuring physical existence. The
scriptures, on account of their declaration that the whole universe emerged from and is
possessed by a single ever-existent entity, cannot think otherwise. They recognise the
diversity and at the same time go beyond it and see the unity that projects the diversity.
Since the said inherent inclination in choosing ones Karma differs from person to
person, even belonging to the same family, the classification based on Karma cannot be
hereditary. For the same reason, caste has nothing to do with this classification. Castes
are innumerable, but types (Varna) are only four. There is no scriptural instruction
classifying the various castes into the four Varnas. Moreover, the scriptures do not limit
the applicability of this classification to any religious group; instead, they encompass the
whole mankind. Since the actual occupation that one is forced to take up for earning a

livelihood may not always coincide with his inherent inclination in choosing Karma, his
Varna cannot be determined by his occupation either. So, 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 Varna structure and
surreptitiously and dishonestly arrogate to themselves, favoured positions therein, on
the basis of caste and heredity.
Beginning with Plato, the western speculative thinking took a decisive deviation
from its enquiry into the ultimate reality. It restricted its domain into mere intellectual
exchanges, often amounting to mutual refutations, without making any valid advance to
the knowledge of the Supreme Being. At times we see its degradation into a debate
between those who believe that God created everything and those who hold that there
is no creator and that whatever is here now, always existed. These exercises are
irrelevant to the pursuit of ultimate reality and therefore they command only little interest
from us. We are therefore constrained to ignore such vagaries.
The prime objective of philosophy is to show the way to sustained happiness. To
attain sustained happiness one should primarily know what he really consists of. Then
only he can figure out the right deed (Karma) that he should engage himself with, so as
to generate sustained happiness. So, a true philosophy worth that name asserts the
importance and essentiality of self-knowledge as the only means to everlasting joy in
life. All other speculative exercises constitute a shear waste. This is the reason why
Hindu philosophy is unique in the history of speculative thinking.
Hinduism is not a bunch of ancient mythological concoctions extraneous to
rational thought. It is true that just like any other ancient philosophy, Hinduism also
presents its thoughts with some mythological coating, rather than resorting to outright
deliverance, despite the fact that these thoughts are rational in essence. Those with
credulous or antagonistic dispositions take the coatings as the essence and get
themselves deceived. Hinduism is not a collection of myths, superstitions, rituals,
observances and expiations, as assumed by both the types of people. Hindu scriptures,
especially the Principal Upanis ads and Bhagavad Gta, offer a rational philosophy
concerning the ultimate cause of existence of the universe and of life therein. Hinduism

does not demand blind faith for its acceptance, since it expresses itself through pure
rational thinking and coherence. It is also the most ancient rational philosophy of the
world and therefore ancestral to all such philosophies ever dawned in history.
Hinduism does not consist in visiting temples, prostrating before idols, performing
rituals and begging for fulfilment of desires. It consists in visualising and realising the
unity existing among apparent diversities in the world. A Hindu worth that name should
therefore endeavour to practise equality among themselves and also towards other
religious identities. The more the Hindus practise discrimination among themselves, the
more they alienate their own fellow beings by straying them away to other religious
holds. Indias history is the prime testimony to this simple fact.
(S.Karthikeyan; karthiksreedhar@gmail.com)

**************************************************