Ancient Western Philosophy and

the Hindu Wisdom: A Birds-eye

View

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 Upaniadic teachings about the origin of the universe. Prana (1.4) says
that at first the pair of Rayi and Pra 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). Bhadra
yaka also says that it is water that

was first produced (1.2.1). But, unlike Thales, it may be noted, the
Upaniads 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 Pra route ignoring the Rayi that Thales upheld. On the other
hand Anaximander was close to the Upaniadic 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; Bhadra
yaka 1.4.3 & Gta 2.28, 9.4; and Ka ha

Upaniad 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. Bhadra
yaka 1.4.3 indicates that creation took place on

separation of opposites. Kaha

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
Ka 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). (Ka 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
() Upaniad, 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 Upaniad 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. Bhadra
yaka Upaniad 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 Ketra and Ketraja
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 Ketra and Ketraja.
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 Upaniadic teachings (Kena
1.3, 1.4 & 1.5; Kaha
6.9 & 6.12; Mua
ka 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 Kaha
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; Ka 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. Kaha
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 Kaha
4.2, Mua
ka 1.2.7, 1.2.10 and Gta verses
9.22 & 12.8. Kaha
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. Mua
ka 1.2.7
warns that those who pursue material pleasure do really walk into total ruin.
A similar caution is contained in Mua
ka 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 everchanging material world is derived. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
writes, The most fundamental distinction in Platos 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 Vara(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 (Vara)
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 inner-most aspect of existence are termed as
the Brhmaa () and those concerned with the outer-most aspect as
dra ( ). In between these two, come the Katriya () and the
Vaiya ( ), according to each ones closeness to the inner or outer
aspects. Katriya 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. (Bhadra
yaka

Upaniad 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 (Vara) are
only four. There is no scriptural instruction classifying the various castes into
the four Varas. 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 Vara 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 Vara 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 Upaniads 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.