INDIAN LITERATUE

A. K. RAMANUJAN

A.K. Ramanujan’s “Is There an Indian Way of Thinking” is an enquiry into whether
there is an ‘Indian way of thinking’; and if so, how it is different from the western
way of thinking. Ramanujan’s stance is that behind the apparent diversity, there is a
unity in Indian thought and that it is characterized by contradiction, hypocrisy,
inconsistency and context-sensitivity.

Ramanujan begins his essay by citing the example of his father, to whom the essay is
dedicated. His life was full of contradiction. He was an educated Brahmin, and was
highly religious. At the same time he had a predilection for the secular philosophy of
Bertrand Russell. He was at once modern and traditional. He was both an astronomer
and an astrologer. Ramanujan says that such a contradiction is at the heart of the Indian
way of thinking. It is both exclusive and inclusive.

The western way of thinking is epitomized in the philosophical speculations of Immanuel

Kant. It is noted for its universalization and generalization. On the contrary, the Indian
philosophy has its roots in Manu, whose world view is characterized by particularism
and context-specificity.

The Western way of thinking is based on data and objective facts, whereas the Indian
way of thinking is highly subjective.

A comparison of the Western and the Indian ways of thinking shows that there are
certain distinguishing traits for both. The first trait of Indian thinking is its hypocrisy.
Indians do not mean what they say and they say different things at different times. Take
the example of the ‘karma’ theory and the theory of reincarnation (the kernel of Indian
philosophy). The Hindus, the Buddhists and the Jainas subscribes to it.

The theory of karma says that the past life of a person determines his present life. The
theory of reincarnation shows a chain of cause and consequences and an ethical
responsibility for one’s life.

But Sheryl Daniel has pointed that in many Tamil villages the terms ‘karma’ and
‘talaividi’ are used indiscriminately. In fact both these terms are contradictory in nature.
Talaividi implies that one’s fate is 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 context—sensitivity. It may not be the
ideal; the ideal seems to be context- free. But societies have their underbellies. In
predominantly context-free societies, one can observe a counter-movement towards
the context-sensitive. For example Blake in a technocratic society declared “To
generalize is to be an idiot” and one law for the lion and the ox is oppression.

In the same way even though the dominant philosophical system in India is context-
sensitive, there are aspects which are context-free. For example, if kama, artha and
dharma are context-based, moksha is context free. Brahmacharya, grahasthasrama, and
vanprastha are context-bound, but sannyasa is context-free.
In the realm of feeling bhavas, vibhavas and anubhavas are context-sensitive, but rasa is
the generalized essence of all. To crown all we have the great Hindu notion of ‘bhakthi’
which defies all contextual strictures.

Ramanujan does not make a value judgment on the western context-free ethics and the
Indian context-sensitive ethics. Both have their strength and weakness.

His contention is that both these cultures, despite their complexity and oscillation, have
an essential frame of reference and bias.

Ramanujan concludes his essay by making a few pertinent comments on modernization

in India. The modern tendency is to move away from the context-sensitive to the
context-free system. Gandhiji’s watch has replaced the almanac. Education and
learning are no longer the prerogative of the Brahmins. The Indian constitution has
thrown to the winds the special rights of the high castes. Everyone is now equal before
the law. Yet the modern educated Indians put computers and other modern equipment
to aayudhapooja.

Thus the modern context-free tendency becomes another context and this is difficult to
contain.