The Indian Philosophical Approach

Though one thought leads to another, each usually related to

life's changing texture, and a logical movement of the human

mind is sometimes discernible, yet thoughts overlap and the new

and the old run side by side, irreconcilable and often 

contradicting each other. Even an individual's mind is a bundle of

contradictions and it is difficult to reconcile his action one with

another. A people, comprising all stages of cultural development,

represent in themselves and in their thoughts, beliefs, and activities,,

different ages of the past leading up to the present. Probably their

activities may conform more to the social and cultural pattern

of the present day, or else they would be stranded and isolated from

life's moving stream, but behind these activities lie primitive

beliefs and unreasoned convictions. It is astonishing to find in

countries industrially advanced, where every person automatically

uses or takes advantage of the latest modern discovery or device,

beliefs and set ideas which reason denies and intelligence cannot

accept. A politician may of course succeed in his business without

being a shining example of reason or intelligence. A lawyer may

be a brilliant advocate and jurist and yet be singularly ignorant

of other matters. Even a scientist, that typical representative of

the modern age, often forgets the method and outlook of science

when he goes out of his study or laboratory.

This is so even in regard to the problems that affect our daily

lives in their material aspects. In philosophy and metaphysics

the problems are more remote, less transient and less connected

with our day's routine. For most of us they are entirely beyond

our grasp unless we undergo a rigid discipline and training of

the mind. And yet all of us have some kind of philosophy of life,

conscious or unconscious, if not thought out then inherited or

accepted from others and considered as self-evident. Or we may

seek refuge from the perils of thought in faith in some religious

creed or dogma, or in national destiny, or in a vague and com-

forting humanitarianism. Often all these and others are present

together, though with little to connect them, and we develop split

personalities, each functioning in its separate compartment.

Probably there was more unity and harmony in the human

personality in the old days, though this was at a lower level than

to-day except for certain individuals who were obviously of a very

high type. During this long age of transition, through which 

humanity has been passing, we have managed to break up that unity,

but have not so far succeeded in finding another. We cling still to

the ways of dogmatic religion, adhere to outworn practices and

beliefs, and yet talk and presume to live in terms of the scientific

method. Perhaps science has been too narrow in its approach to

life and has ignored many vital aspects of it, and hence it could

not provide a suitable basis for a new unity and harmony. Perhaps

it is gradually broadening this basis now, and we shall achieve a

new harmony for the human personality on a much higher level

than the previous one. But the problem is a more difficult and

complex one now, for it has grown beyond the limits of the human

personality. It was perhaps easier to develop some kind of a 

harmonious personality in the restricted spheres of ancient and

medieval times. In that little world of town and village, with fixed

concepts of social organization and behaviour, the individual and

the group lived their self-contained lives, protected, as a rule,

from outer storms. To-day the sphere of even the individual has

grown world-wide, and different concepts of social organization

conflict with each other and behind them are different philosophies

of life. A strong wind arising somewhere creates a cyclone in one

place and an anti-cyclone in another. So if harmony is to be

achieved by the individual, it has to be supported by some kind

of social harmony throughout the world.

In India, far more so than elsewhere, the old concept of social

organization and the philosophy of life underlying it, have 

persisted, to some extent, to the present day. They could not have

done so unless they had some virtue which stabilized society and

made it conform to life's conditions. And they would not have

failed ultimately and become a drag and a hindrance, divorced

from life, if the evil in them had not overcome that virtue. But,

in any event, they cannot be considered to-day as isolated 

phenomena; they must be viewed in that world context and made to

harmonize with it.

'In India,' says Havell, 'religion is hardly a dogma, but a working

hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of

spiritual development and different conditions of life. A dogma

might continue to be believed in, isolated from life, but a working

hypothesis of human conduct must work and conform to life, or

it obstructs life. The very raison d'etre of such a hypothesis is its

workableness, its conformity to life, and its capacity to adapt itself

to changing conditions. So long as it can do so it serves its purpose

and performs its allotted function. When it goes off at a tangent

from the curve of life, loses contact with social needs, and the

distance between it and life grows, it loses all its vitality and

significance.

Metaphysical theories and speculations deal not with the ever-

changing stuff of life but with the permanent reality behind it,

if such exists. Hence they have a certain permanence which is

not affected by external changes. But, inevitably, they are the

products of the environment in which they grow and of the state

of development of the human minds that conceived them. If their

influence spreads they affect the general philosophy of life of a

people. In India, philosophy, though in its higher reaches confined

to the elect, has been more pervasive than elsewhere and has had

a strong influence in moulding the national outlook and in

developing a certain distinctive attitude of mind.

Buddhist philosophy played an important part in this process

and, during the medieval period, Islam left its impress upon the

national outlook, directly as well as indirectly, through the 

evolution of new sects which sought to bridge the gap between Hinduism

and the Islamic social and religious structure. But, in the main,

the dominating influence has been that of the six systems of Indian

philosophy, or darshanas, as they are called. Some of these systems

were themselves greatly affected by Buddhist thought. All of

them are considered orthodox and yet they vary in their approach

and their conclusions, though they have many common ideas.

There is polytheism, and theism with a personal God, and pure

monism, and a system which ignores God altogether and bases itself

on a theory of evolution. There is both idealism and realism.

The various facets of the complex and inclusive Indian mind are

shown in their unity and diversity. Max Miiller drew attention

to both these factors: ' . . . the more have I become impressed

with the truth... that there is behind the variety of the six systems

a common fund of what may be called national and popular

philosophy., .from which each thinker was allowed to draw for

his own purposes.'

There is a common presumption in all of them: that the 

universe is orderly and functions according to law, that there is a

mighty rhythm about it. Some such presumption becomes necessary,

for otherwise there could hardly be any system to explain it.

Though the law of causality, of cause and effect, functions, yet

there is a measure of freedom to the individual to shape his own

destiny. There is belief in rebirth and an emphasis on unselfish

love and disinterested activity. Logic and reason are relied upon

and used effectively for argument, but it is recognised that often

intuition is greater than either. The general argument proceeds

on a rational basis, in so far as reason can be applied to matters

often outside its scope. Professor Keith has pointed out that 'The

systems are indeed orthodox and admit the authority of the sacred

scriptures, but they attack the problems of existence with human

means, and scripture serves for all practical purposes but to lend

sanctity to results which are achieved not only without its aid, but

often in very dubious harmony with its tenets.'

Note: This extract is a part of chapter 5 'Through the Ages' of 'The Discovery of India' written by Jawahar Lal Nehru.