An abstract on 'Indian Philosophy'

I decided to dive deep into Indian Philosophy (as in Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain Philosophies). I must admit though, it's a handicap being an Indian and not being able to read Sanskrit and the vast literature works that our predecessors have left for us. I felt a little guilty for not knowing much about our country's intellectual heritage. Although I've read excerpts from various sources over the years, there was no coherent thread connecting the entire Indian Intellectual Culture and Philosophy. So I've given it some thought and decided to fill that ignorance with knowledge. So I did careful readings. I've dived deep into the literature and I have recorded my thoughts for you to peruse, I'm sure we can debate a lot of the material that I cover in this email. I've tried to write everything chronologically (as they developed through history). These are my thoughts written in an expository way for you to read, understand, and debate. I'm sure there are many errors that may have crept in, I would appreciate it if you can ignore them given the lengthy nature of this message. With that said, let's get started!

Now, anyone who reads Indian Philosophy with curiosity and interest quickly realises that the scope is quite broad and much of the core elements are highly spiritual in nature. It is an unfortunate result of poor education, low literacy rates, and scaled propaganda that something so spiritual has been over-simplified and used as a political medium for meeting the needs of a very minor elite in modern-day India. It is indeed quite ironic that our intellectual heritage has withstood the Persians, Mughals, French, and English only to be destroyed by our indifference and incompetence. Ray Bradbury was quite right when he said, "You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them." I'm no exception, I'm educating myself about our intellectual heritage after twenty-four years of being an Indian. I'm afraid, I don't know even what it means anymore. 

Turns out, Indian Philosophy tried to solve a very wide range of philosophical problems (ethics, epistemology, cosmology, logic, metaphysics, theology, and so on). Now given the fact that I'm living in the 21st century, I do not have any right to criticize a concept that made sense a millennia ago, so I'm going to gently put my thoughts wherever relevant. I won't be discussing any Purāṇas (which were primarily written for the entertainment of masses), they do have philosophical elements but that's not the purpose of this blog. A quick look at Indian history shows spiritual giants like Buddha, Vyasa, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Gandhi, and so on. Although the world has changed significantly from their times, the deepest existential problems that seem to plague man remained invariant. It is interesting to note that our philosophy includes heretics, sceptics, rationalists, materialists, unbelievers, hedonists, and freethinkers. Our intellectual life was so busy back then that, our philosophy extended to everything that mind could perceive and study, I'll talk more about this later in the blog.

I was a little surprised that our philosophies even studied the problems that one experiences in waking, dreaming, and dreamless sleeping states. Now, it is posited that there are many different forms and states of consciousness. In our wakeful state, we experience realistic, dualistic, and pluralistic conceptions of metaphysics. Studying dreaming states can only lead to highly subjective doctrines. Now, dreamless states are the most controversial - for almost every religion and philosophy has a version for what happens after we die. We will take a look at how our philosophy tries to answer these mental states and everything in it in a while. Our early sciences (astronomy and mathematics) were a result of our ancestors dissecting the nature of reality through philosophy. We had a nice run in the early history of science and mathematics. It is said that at one point in history, our sciences and metaphysics were so advanced that they almost equalled the most enlightened societies and cultures around the world. Today, they suck big time, our so-called alternative sciences are a complete disgrace. 

Our philosophy is highly synthetic and speculative in nature, whereas most of Western Philosophy is highly analytic. Science favours the analytic approach. No wonder, we completely lost the game. Our philosophy without a doubt tries to encompass the vast, impersonal view of the universe and our existence (with plenty of speculative thought). Western thought is more concerned with the pragmatist approach (most of them anyway) and its foundations start with the senses. At one point, both the eastern and western philosophies started with the goal of acquiring knowledge and understanding. One good look at western science shows the diversity and depth of their dedication. During Aristotle's times, Philosophers studied biology, physics, soul, ethics, and everything that one could imagine. Over time, so they learnt so much that, each topic of interest became a discipline in its own right. Today, western philosophers study obscure problems of linguistics, and topics that are so remote that they sound incomprehensible and gobbledygook to almost everyone who's not a professional philosopher. Unfortunately or fortunately, our philosophy did not take that route. It appears that much of the western world is in decline characterized by mindless consumption and lack of spiritual purpose (read Spengler's Decline of the West for more information on this). If anything, the peak of western thought is reflected in the philosophy of nihilism - that everything is meaningless and useless. Anyone who thinks deeply in terms of the analytic thought quickly realises that our life, values, goals, and everything are quite pointless and that we are simply blind apes whose thoughts and emotions are not fully under our own control. This is quite depressing and detrimental to mental health, even if it's true - something (fear, anxiety, a conviction...etc.) in us cannot fully accept it. 

Let's start with the self. How can we make sense of our existence with the ever-changing flux of reality? If our relative experience of existence is nothing more than a waking dream, then everything in it is part of it as well. Although there are many versions of solutions offered to explain away our existence and 'why', I don't think any of them do justice to the sheer absurdity of it all. So we can agree on the fact that most of our philosophical thought is concerned with the relative, and refrain from answering the questions with respect to the absolutes. But then one cannot help but wonder, how can we answer anything without some reference point (god or absolute self) or some foundation upon which to build everything else. Perhaps, the concept of Māyā (that which exists, but is constantly changing and thus is spiritually unreal) can answer this question. It is said that negative maya is responsible for the inner void that exists within every being and that getting rid of it could help one become pure. It is what separates from what one currently is and what one ought to be. So what should one even aim for? To transcend time and space? I do not like this vague definition of something as incomprehensible as our reality. Perhaps, I am using logic too much to dissect something as complicated as maya? I know enough to not delude myself into thinking that logic can explain everything. Logic is purely a result of our linguistic abilities, but if logic and language are pre-requisites for making sense of the so-called reality, wouldn't it also be safe to assume that everything that eludes these patterns is nothing more than a clever language gimmick designed to elude us? Perhaps, the shortcomings of language combined with the mysterious divine feeling that we sometimes experience lead to different delusional constructs. It is interesting to note that the concept of maya can also be used to discredit Indian Philosophy in its entirety. It is very likely that we are distorting reality with our language to suit our needs. Some of these distortions and interpretations have been quite useful (sciences) for improving the human condition, but can these distortions also elevate our spiritual needs? I'll try to answer that in the coming paragraphs. 

One way of defining god would be the perfect imaginable being by our intellect, a product of our desires combined with capacity for imagination. I mean, think about it, Almost all major gods (irrespective of religious origins) have some or all of the following characteristics: omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. If you think about it from a psychological point of view, they reflect our deepest desires. We start with our experiences, build up a version of a god, conceptualize the whole, and now we descend to view the details and how different parts fit together. This whole enterprise is flawed from the very moment an ape begins to ponder about questions that beyond its intellect. However, enough fiddling with superficial details, let's get to the crux of the topic. 

Of all four Vedas, I'll only be talking about Rig Veda. The rest (Yajur, Sama, and Atharva) are all ceremonial liturgy and are irrelevant to spiritual matters and philosophy. I'm sure you know (if you've opened any of them), that each contains Mantras, Brahmanas, and Upanishads. While the Mantras (hymns) are the creation of the poets, Brahmanas are the work of the priests, and the Upanishads the meditations of the philosophers. We are only concerned with Upanishads. Most of the so-called philosophical content of Rig Veda is unaided reason combined with the wonder and musings. It is a well-known fact that almost all philosophical insights had their roots in religion and mythology. The questions of existence, being, and everything find their expression in religions - although most of them are poorly answered. Naturally, most of the later philosophical speculations that are found in the Upanishads are heavily built on the religious extensions of the Vedic content. It's not just Indian thought, but every dominant thought system that prevails today evolved in a similar fashion. 

In Indian religious philosophy, there is monism, monotheism, and polytheism. One can say that Rig Veda is a man-made factory which produced way too many gods. The earliest vedic religion probably involved worship of nature (which can be inferred from the gods made in the images of natural forces) and these became so enmeshed with our imagination that we started assigning superpowers, and divinity status to their characters. Given the fact that we often assign our own will onto the physical world, and project our half-baked ideas onto everything we find in nature. In moments of deep religious feeling, when man is delivered from some imminent peril, or realises his utter dependence on the mighty forces of nature, he feels the reality of the presence of God. It is well-known that most of our Vedas were written by Aryans who descended from Persia. It is said that their affinity for Zoroastrianism and underlying ideas are clearly reflected in our earliest religious and philosophical literature. Anyone who studies how humans invent gods will quickly realise that the process is the same across many cultures, there is always a steady advance from the physical to the personal and from the personal to the divine. It applies for Agni, Indra, Dyaus, and so on. As Aristotle put it, "Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form, but with regard to their mode of life." Our thought and understanding were so primitive back then that, people looked at the sun and thought that the sun was looking after them. He is the life of " all that moveth and standeth." Surya (the deity) is all-seeing, the spy of the world. He rouses men to perform their activities, dispels darkness and gives light. Surya is rising, to pace both worlds, looking down on men, protector of all that travel or stay, beholding right and wrong among men. Surya becomes the creator of the world and its governor. Likewise, there are a dozen or so solar deities who epitomize some aspect of human behaviour, cosmic order, and so on. These conceptions and ideas worked for them back then, but in the light of accumulated knowledge ever since, I cannot understand why people still cling to these versions with some science projected on them to keep these flawed systems alive and attempt to make them appear legit. It's not just the sun, people talk about rockets, aerospace devices, medicine, nuclear weapons, and every other imaginary element found in Vedas and claim that Indians figured out everything but claim that much of it is lost through time, what a bunch of fucking nonsense. 

If you take a look at the gods talked about in Rig Veda ordered according to the number of hymns assigned to that particular god, it would look like something like this: Indra (warrior god), Agni (fire god), Varuna (water god), Vayu (air god), Surya (the sun god)...etc. Now, tell me do I want to take life advice from people who shout, "O Agni, bring hither Varuna to our offering. Bring Indra from the skies, the Maruts from the air"? I don't think so. Maybe there are people whose intellectual development is so stunted as to take advice from these texts, but I am going to pass up on this 'wonderful' opportunity. I'm also quite surprised at learning that a few of us prefer ayurvedic medicine over modern medicine. Most of our ayurvedic medical texts (Sushruta Samhita) also come from ancient texts of the same era as that of Vedic literature, either you don't really understand how modern medicine works or you've had really bad experiences with it. I know that modern medicine is not a cure-all for every problem and that it has its fair share of problems, but to prefer a poorly tested pseudoscientific cure with no proven track record is quite something.

In Vedic literature, there are frequent mentions of 'Soma' being used as an Intoxicant. There are plenty of sayings like "We have drunk the Soma, we have become immortal, we have entered into the light, we have known the gods." Historically, many people interpreted this in different ways - it could be Cannabis, Psilocybin, or some special blend made from roots of a psychoactive plant. There are many hymns associated with soma to a point where drinking soma has become ceremonial in nature. Now, all of us know that we see, hear, and experience weird stuff when intoxicated. I myself have experienced what we call spiritual vision, sudden illumination, deeper insight, and wider understanding when I was highly intoxicated at times. But once I became sober, I realised how deluded my thoughts really were. Perhaps, our religious texts are only good and entertaining in altered states of consciousness and unfit for sober reality. 

Like I mentioned before, almost all gods in our Hindu religious thought advanced from material to spiritual, and from physical to personal. Similarly, one can generate a god out of anything and conceive abstract qualities in him/her/it. Heraclitus once wrote, "What are men? Mortal gods. What are gods? Immortal men." Very funny if you think about it. Our later philosophical musings developed from such primitive conceptions of reality. Most of the gods and primitive ideas that I discussed above were developed in the Hymns (Mantras) of Rig Veda. Between the Hymns and the Upanishads, we find something called Atharva-Veda. I think this paragraph summarizes its contents well, "The hymns of the Rig Veda inextricably confused; the deities of an earlier era confounded, and again merged together in a pantheon now complete; the introduction of strange gods; recognition of a hell of torture; instead of many divinities, the one that represents all the gods and nature as well; incantations for evil purposes and charms for a worthy purpose; the formula of malediction to be directed against those 'whom I hate and who hate me'; magical verses to obtain children, to prolong life, to dispel evil magic, to guard against poison and other ills; the paralysing extreme of ritualistic reverence indicated . by the exaltation to the godhead of the 'remnant' of sacrifice; hymns to snakes, to diseases, to sleep, time, and the stars; curses on the 'priest plaguer such in general outline is the impression produced by a perusal of the Atharvan after that of the Rig Veda." Upon these shaky structures and rudimentary view of the universe, the philosophy of Upanishads was erected. It is sad but I have met many people who believe in many of the things I've mentioned above. 

Now that we have established some background information, let's get into The Upanishads. From what I gather, Upanishads do not aim for truth at all, rather it is an attempt at soothing the anxious and troubled human soul. Although, there is a sense of incompleteness and inconsistency when it comes to physical matters, spiritually it's a complete circle and there is a unified theory on metaphysics and cosmology. The thing with Upanishads is that they are so ambiguous and rich in content that different people have interpreted it differently to suit their needs and force their projects on it through the ages. Now, we judge everything all the time - based on our past experiences, knowledge, and our outlook. I have reviewed only the major ones and will be talking about Pre-Buddhist upanishads: Chandogya, Brhadaranyaka, Taittiriya, Aitereya, Kausitaki, Kena, Isa, and Mandukya

In Upanishads, unlike the early Vedic literature, there is a strong emphasis on monism (theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in a particular sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world), where they only recognize the one and only spirit - Almighty, infinite, eternal, incomprehensible, self-existent, the creator, preserver and destroyer of the world. It's said that every god that one reads about in the earlier Vedas is nothing but a manifestation of the ultimate infinite almighty Brahman. In our spiritual whole, both the visible infinite (objective) and the invisible infinite (subjective) are part of the same. It says that Brahman is everything. Without Brahman, Agni cannot burn a blade of grass, Vayu cannot blow a wisp of straw. Someone who takes these literally might say, I wouldn't be writing this email if it wasn't for Brahman secretly controlling my objective and subjective self. There is a story that goes something like this, in a congregation, a king asks his audience about whom they worship, each person answers with their own preference depending on their desires and suitability like sun, air, heaven, fire, and so on. To which the king says, "You are all worshipping only part of the truth." I totally agree, when it comes to seeing reality for what it is, we cannot help but categorize, classify, and break it down into chunks that our primitive brains can comprehend. It is said that discontent with the actual reality is a necessary precondition for every great spiritual rebirth and change. The only way one would even think of an escape from the everyday suffering is through discontent, in a sense, every philosophy started with pessimism and inquiry about the forces that cause it. The idea of samsara (cycle of death and rebirth to which life in the material world is bound) is neat and comforting but I'm not buying it. Self-conquest, Spiritual Perfection, and preparing one's soul for eternity all sound good in theory but when it comes to reality, our thoughts and emotions are fleeting and very hard to control. Upanishads say that true salvation is only achievable through religious life, and insights into the heart of the universe, It's debatable. It is possible that the answer lies in deep scientific thought and healthy humanist ideals. Then again, that would mean looking outward and not inward, which can again be the cause of great anxiety and misery. It also says, that spiritual life involves employing an identity of one's own soul with that of the great all-soul. So basically, one must try to find harmony in everything. It's actually pretty good advice. If one deeply contemplates how much of life would be free-up the moment one stops finding the errors with everything, and simply accept everything as it is. It also involves projecting our finite consciousness into just about everything (the infinite). We are told how divine nature sacrifices itself and how we live off its sacrifices, true. Make every action, every feeling and every thought an offering to God. Actually, I know a person who does just this (for a different god), I find him pretty dull, boring, and intolerant at times. I highly disagree with the assertion that one should do everything for god (even if he is infinite) because if you think about it, any such god should be impartial and amoral if someone/something really encompasses everything, any action that I do (good, bad, and terrible) should be reflected in that infinite set of possible actions. Do you understand what I mean? I do not understand how one can gain spiritual peace when there are clear standards defined for what constitutes a truly religious life, I mean, isn't everything about complete freedom and liberation? Strange, I hope you'll answer that after meditating upon it. The Mukunda Upanishad says: "Two kinds of knowledge must be known, the higher and the lower. The lower knowledge is that which the Sarna, Atharva Veda, Ceremonial, Grammar give...but the higher knowledge is that by which the indestructible Brahman is apprehended." I have spent my last few years reading, thinking, and pondering about various fields in Medicine, and I have gone pretty deep in some areas. If there is one thing I can say for certain, it is that our brains (the normal ones anyway) simply cannot comprehend the infinite. Hell, our brains can't even comprehend problems that have more than a few layers of complexity. How is a finite being (finite brain) supposed to understand the infinite whole? I don't think so. At best, one can only simply wonder at the mysterious feeling it evokes in their hearts and brains. In sober reality, I can only genuinely evince that mysterious feeling passively when I look at stars. However, one can actively think deeply about any topic to feel that mysterious and ephemeral feeling of being in presence of a rich reality. Even though I interest myself with knowledge on all fronts, I am primarily a scientist at heart. The perspective that one attains out of putting together the whole of our natural and mathematical sciences paints a far richer and interesting reality than any religion can possibly even dream of. In the words of Richard Dawkins, "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

In Kena Upanishad, Many questions along the lines of "At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth, at whose wish do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye or the ear?" are asked. Many alternatives such a mightier will, invisible causes, self-existent soul, and so on are explored in detail. We know for a fact that humans are animals, merely a sophisticated ape. You could similarly ask the same questions about bacteria? Although one can reduce the spiritual self to such simple life forms, I don't think it makes any sense when you think about how these problems change comparatively across the animal kingdom. Speculations about infinite existence, absolute truth, and pure delight are all good in theory but they are indelible marks of our primitive intelligence and thought systems. I do not know how one can completely surrender their intellectual faculties (if any) and critical thinking (spotting bs) to believe these imaginary fantasies of the human mind? I don't know, perhaps, my scientific inclinations in my early formative years (undergraduate) flavoured with highly logical positivist outlook has resulted in me completely refusing these fantasies. I do not know, I can only speculate. I hope you are not offended by my tone of the argument so far. If you are, I apologize.

In Chandogya Upanishad, there is a clear progressive development of self in four stages: the bodily self, the empirical self, the transcendental self, and the absolute self. In it, a true self is defined as "The self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must try to understand." It's funny because these are the same things humans "human". Take all that away, you have a dead brain and boring personality. In it, it also says "It is the person that sees, not the object seen." I think quantum mechanics can refute the previous statement easily. The true self is not the body which is exposed to all suffering and imperfections, which is a material phenomenon. The body is only an instrument used by consciousness, while consciousness is not the product of the body. Now, I do know about consciousness but this view actually agrees with the gene-centric view of life. Maybe consciousness is simply genes. In the words of Dawkins, “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." 

They say "Objects out of relation to a self are non-existent". If you think about it and you'd realise that there are many things that exist which have little to no relation with us. To be fully convinced of something that bold would require us to think that we are the centre of the universe, maybe that thought can give some people relief and peace, I highly disagree with it. If everything has a self, and everything is indeed part of the infinite brahman, it is possible that self might be convinced of being at the centre of the infinite. To understand what I mean by this, I highly recommend that you take a look at how reference points changes when dealing with infinite planes in geometry - you would be quite surprised at how easy it is to make anything centre in an infinite plane. Since we are the apes that are venturing out to understand the universe, it's a feel-good delusion to think about how everything only exists for us. Then again, if we are to judge our beliefs by their utility, then this belief is very useful at finding so-called meaning/purpose in the infinite. 

There is a lot of talk on how one should get to know the self without any external actions. I wonder, how can an isolated being without external action and feedback learn anything about the self at all? I mean, we are busy with feelings, desires, imaginations, and all that. Aren't they the very things that can actually help us define our self? The things we feel, desire, and imagine? Aren't they the very things that led us to philosophical thought and spiritual escapism at the same time as well? This is like a snake eating its own tail. One wouldn't exist without another. Makes no fucking sense, the saints who wrote these it appears have been drinking too much Soma. "To be free from everything is to be nothing." Maybe they are preaching complete brain death or something like that where the self is completely divorced from everything it knows, feels, and experiences. I understand this is the transcendent self where one elevates from empirical self, although there is no way of proving any of this. One can see the interesting appeal and complete harmony in the problem of existence. "I indeed am this whole universe." So in a sense, everything is conscious in this universal reality and shall persist even when there is nothing. There is a lot of analysis on states of sleep, wakeful and what-not, I must say it's all a little distasteful. The problem of understanding the self in Upanishads are given very detailed treatment (some flawed and some interesting).