Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?

A.K. Ramanujan:
● Poet, folklorist, translator
● Born in Mysore
● Wrote in both English and Kannada
● Hybridity and transculturation figure prominently in his works

Intro:
● Is there an Indian way of thinking - how is it different from western way
of thinking?
● Unity within the apparent diversity of Indian thought
● proposes a notion of “context-sensitive” thinking based in complex
situational understandings of identity that differed significantly from
Western thought and its emphasis on universal concepts and structures.

Summary of the essay:

(the section headings are mine own, the actual text uses roman numerals only)

Section I - various ways of asking the question

● talks about context-sensitive and context-free cultures. Indian thinking,
which is a product of the former, is influenced by morals and ethics that
are context-dependent, whereas the Western way of thinking is informed
by morals and ethics that are more absolute in nature and unaffected by
context.
● He starts by asking the question “Is there an Indian way of thinking” in
four different ways, emphasising a different word each time as well as
giving two answers to every question.
● Emphasis on “is”- questions the very existence of such a thing as an
Indian way of thinking.
○ (a) there was such a thing but not any more
○ (b) India never changes, so the Indian way of thinking still exists
● Emphasis in the second question is on “an” - whether Indian way of
thinking is unique and separate from that of other cultures.
○ The numerous communities in the nation divided by caste, class,
language etc have unique world views
○ While the above is true, there also exists “unity in diversity” and so
all Indian thought is the same.
● Emphasis on the word “Indian” - is this way of thinking unique to India?
○ Some argue that there is nothing inherently Indian about this way
of thinking and that it’s also found in other societies that have
reached a similar state of development
○ The Indian way influences everything that enters the country and
makes it its own.
● Emphasis on the word “thinking” - do Indians give importance to
thought at all?
○ West is materialistic and rational, in india matter is subordinate to
spirit, rational though to intuition
○ Some lament this while some celebrate this

Section II - astronomer and astrologer

● Ramanujan’s father was a man of contradictions - he was mathematician
and astronomer whilst also being a sanskrit scholar and expert astrologer.
● He was at once modern and traditional - he seemed not to care about
consistency and carried both scientific and spiritual practices together
● Such contradiction is at the heart of the Indian way of thinking. It is
both exclusive and inclusive
Section III - the Indian traits
● Modern Indians and Englishmen are dismayed and upset about this
inconsistency - this Inconsistent way of thinking and hypocrisy are traits
of the indian way of thinking
● Different meanings given by different communities to the work Karma
○ quintessentially linked to anything Indian or Hindu by the world
○ It sometimes refers to fate by villagers
○ Jains and Brahmins used it to mean ‘how one's past determines
their present’ - an ethic of responsibility
○ Some use it interchangeably with Talaividhi which means one's fate
inscribed at birth arbitrarily
● Some thinkers believe that this inconsistent way of thinking may belong
to an earlier stage of ‘cultural evolution’ and that Indians have not
developed the logic of Data and objective facts
○ Henry Kissinger - “Cultures that escaped the early impact of
newtonian thinking have retained essentially the pre-newtonian
view that the world is almost completely internal to the observer”
○ Saying that empirical reality has a different for meaning for the
“third world” countries as they never went through the process of
discovering it
● Sudhir Kakkar (psychoanalyst) -
○ The Indian ‘ego’ is underdeveloped; the world of magic and
animistic thinking lie close to the surface ; sot he grasp of reality is
‘relatively tenuous’
○ Closer to a certain stage in childhood where outside objects do not
have a separate, independent existence but were intimately related
to the self and its affective states
● This inability to distinguish between self and non-self is another Indian
trait - Naipaul calls this “a defect of vision”.
● While western philosophers like Kant try form a clear universality,
Indian philosophers like Manu have no clear notion of universality
○ Western philosophy may say all men should be honest
○ Manusmriti states that if a Kshyathriyan defames a brahmin he has
to pay 100, a Vysya for the same crime has to pay 200 and a Shudra
should suffer corporal punishment
● For most of western religion ( Judeo-Christianity) and philosophy
(Hobbes: “law of all men” Shaw: “do not do unto others what you would
not want done unto you” etc.) morals are universalised, laws are
applicable to everyone.
● To be moral, for Manu is to be particular - each Jati has its own rules and
ethics that cannot be universalised
○ West: Bravery is a virtue
○ Manusmriti (Hinduism) : Bravery is a virtue of the Kshatriyas
● 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.
● The western way of thinking is epitomised in the philosophical
speculations of Immanuel Kant. It is noted for its universalization and
generalisation - Indian philosophy has its roots in Manu, whose world
view is characterised by particularism and context-specificity.
● Sheryl Daniel : ‘tool box’ of ideas indians carry about from which they
use one or the other without much logic- anything goes into their
‘Bricolage’ (coined by Levi-strauss)
● Traditional religion - opportunistic Rational religion- abstract
Section IV -deep roots of context sensitivity in indian ways of thinking
● Borrow from linguistics to analyse
○ Two types of linguistic rules:
■ Context-free (eg. sentences must have subjects and predicates
in some relation to each other)
■ Context-sensitive (eg. the plural form of various words are
realised in different ways dog-s, match-es, child-ren)
● Cultures think in either of these two ways - in cultures like india’s context
sensitive is preferred
● What is considered the norm in one region of india is however taboo in
another eg. different customs and regulations in the south and north
indian brahmin communities
● There are several factors that should be taken into account when taking
an action : Asramadharma (conduct that is right for ones phase in life)
Svadharma, (conduct that is right for ones station, jati i.e. class or
Svabhava i.e. nature) Apadharma (conduct that is necessary in times of
distress or emergency) - there is not much left for universal or common
law i.e. Sadaranadharma
● No (pre-colonisation) Indian text comes without context
○ Works open with Phalasruthi that tells the reader/reciter/listener
what good will result from the act of reading/reciting/listening
○ The Ramayana and Mahabharata open with episodes that convey
under what circumstances they were composed - every story is
encased in a meta story
○ The outer story motivates the inner story- the inner story
illuminates the outer story eg. Yudhishtira is told the story of Nala
 while he is in the depths of despair having gambled away his
kingdom - Nala too similarly gambles away his kingdom but
regains all his glory in the end - the story thus motivates and gives
him hope.
○ In indian texts - not unity but coherence is the goal
○ Tamil and Sanskrit lyrics are all dramatic monologues and they
imply the whole ‘communication diagram’ : who said what to
whom, when, why, and who overhears it eg. “What his concubine
said about him (within earshot of his wife’s friends. When she heard
that the wife had said disparaging things about her)...” followed by
the poem
○ The poem’s lines give information about the genre (love poetry),
mood (infidelity, lovers quarrels), landscape (agricultural, mango
trees, pool, freshwater fish) etc.
○ To describe the exterior landscape is also to inscribe the interior
landscape
■ eg. the sharks into whose mouths mangoes fall from the trees
in the poem represent the man, who doesn’t have to work for
anything
○ they exist separately yet simulate one another
■ in tamil this figure is called Ullurai (inward speaking, inset,
inscape)
■ the signifier and signified belong in the same context
○ Hindu rituals hence can be seen as arbitrary symbols being elevated
to icons where the signifier is like what it signifies
■ The sacrificial horse is the signifier, the signified is the
universe - in sacrificing and partaking in it, one is partaking
of the universe itself ????
● We have a nature/culture continuum rather than opposition
● Stories are within stories - the microcosm is both within and like the
macrocosm (eg. the earlier eg of Nala’s story being told) - what is
contained, mirrors the container and paradoxically also contains it
● Such concentric patterns are seen throughout indian thought
○ Kshathriya is different from but includes Vysya ???
○ Many indian lists tend to be consecutive encompassments :
dharma-artha-kama are successive encompassments
● Even space and time aren’t universal, uniform or neutral - they have
properties, varying specific densities and affect those who dwell on them
○ Eg. the soil of a village influences their characters,houses have
mood and character
○ Time also has properties, some times are auspicious, others are
inauspicious (rahukala) - certain periods (yugas) cause maladies and
chaos (eg. Kaliyuga)
○ Arts have to obey time’s changing moods: Ragas have their own
prescribed time to be sung, instruments like the Vina have to be
made on auspicious days
● Hence even non material things like time, space, caste etc are substantial
(Dhatu) - the only difference is that some are subtle (Sukshma) while
others are gross (Sthula) - hence, contrary to belief Indians are not
spiritual, they are material minded - believers in substance
● Where critics like Kissinger are wrong is that this view has nothing to do
with the newtonian revolution, education or capacity for abstract thought
- Psychoanalyst Alan Roland suggests that indians carry their family
context everywhere they go and feel continuous with family- they have
no teen rebellious phase that helps them separate from the familial self
(with the exception of the urban families)
● This emphasis on context is related to the hindu concern with jati (class),
rasa (essence), guna (qualities and their material bases)
 ● Grammar is an important part of indian thought -Panini (important
grammarian, scholar)
○ even Kamasutra is the grammar of love - different body types and
character types follow different rules, different genders are genres
● In such a world, meaning is elicited by contexts by the nature and
substance of the listener
○ Lord Prajapathi speaks through the thunder “DA DA DA”
■ this is interpreted by the Devas, given to pleasure, as:
Damyata - control
■ Asuras, given to cruelty, interpret it as Dayadhvam -
compassion
■ Humans, given to greed, interpret it as Datta - give to others

Section V - exceptions to context-sensitivity in Indian culture

● All societies have certain context sensitive behaviour and rules, but the
dominant ideal may be context free or sensitive
● Egalitarian democracy and protestant christianity prefer universality -
any member is equal to and like any other - a man’s context (birth, caste,
race, gender, age, rank, place etc)
● In predominantly context free societies counter movements are context
sensitive - in traditional cultures like india, where context sensitivity rules
and binds, the dream is to be free of context
○ Moksha :unlike dharma, artha and kama, which depend on context,
moksha is the release from all relations
○ Sannyasa: brahmacharya (celibate studentship) is preparation for a
fully relational life, grihasthasrama (householder stage) is the full
realisation of it. Vanaprastha (retiring forest dweller stage) then
loosens those relations and in the end Sannyasa (renunciation)
cremates all of one’s past and present relations
 ○ Rasa : bhavas are context-roused sentiments, anubhavas are the
consequent expressions, but rasa is generalised, it is an essence
○ Sphota - meaning beyond sequence and time
○ Bhakti - denies the need for context, defies all context structures
● Blake in the 19thc said - “to generalise is to be an idiot”
○ ‘One law for the lion and the ox is oppression’
○ Counter thrust towards particularism in the west

Section VI- Conclusion

● Modernisation of india as a movement from the context sensitive to the
context free
○ Egalitarian availability of knowledge irrespective of caste
○ Indian Constitution made contexts of birth, caste, gender, creed
etc irrelevant - thus overthrowing Manu
● English is imposed upon the indian culture- it replaces sanskrit as the
language of laws, administration and science - it becomes part of the
Indian diglossia
● The new ways of thought and behaviour do not replace but live along
with the older ‘religious’ ways
○ They compartmentalise these interests
○ Eg. computers receive ayudhapuja
○ The modern, the context free, becomes another context
● Buddha:
○ Criticism of context sensitive culture: “When we see a man shot
with a poisoned arrow, we cannot afford to ask what caste he or his
enemy is”
○ Criticism of context free culture: a man while drowning finds a raft
and he reaches shore, he was so grateful that he decides to carry it
on his back for the rest of his life
- AVG :)