Glory of India's philosophic and scientific past and the need to revive it back

Our Glorious Philosophic and scientific heritage

तत्त्वविद्या (tattvavidyā – study of suchness / philosophy) has always been the foundation on which religion has flourished, particularly in the ancient time-tested civilizations of the Indian subcontinent viz. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc., just as pure science is the back bone of applied science (engineering).

The English term ‘philosophy’ is epistemologically derived from the Latin roots ‘philos - love’ & ‘sophia -wisdom”. In words, ‘philosophy’ means “love of wisdom”. Technically speaking, in Hinduism, philosophy, is generally categorized under the ज्ञान मार्ग (jñāna mārga – gnostic/wisdom path). The latter, in turn, is one among the चतुर् योग मार्ग (catur mārga – fourfold communion paths) viz. कर्म योग (karma yoga – communion through service), भक्ति योग (bhakti yoga – communion through devotion), ध्यान योग (dhyāna yoga – communion through meditation) & ज्ञान योग (jñāna yoga – communion through knowledge / wisdom). These are the four pillars of religion – all equally important and powerful. One is no way inferior to the other and based one’s aptitude and attitude, one can always choose one or more of these paths, in order to effectively accomplish his or her ultimate पुरुषार्थ (puruṣārtha – soul’s goal). In fact, the more the merrier as we would get a more holistic picture of reality. Again, please remember these four channels are not water tight compartments as deep diving in one will eventually lead to the other. Just as among the चतुर् पुरुषार्थ (catur puruṣārtha – fourfold life goals), धर्म (dharma – righteousness / law) serves as the foundational governing framework for righteously streamlining/prioritizing the intermediate goals of काम (kāma) & अर्थ (artha) towards मोक्ष (mokṣa) - the ultimate soteriological goal, ज्ञान योग (jñāna yoga – communion through knowledge / wisdom) helps effective use of other three मार्ग (mārga –paths). Please remember Knowledge is power.

Philosophical knowledge provides a very strong foundational platform for erecting the building blocks of one’s religious (spiritual) conviction. As in any building, the stronger its foundation, the stronger becomes stays the constructed structure. If the foundation is not strong, the building becomes weak and is more vulnerable to structural damage and collapse.  The same analogy applies to religious convictions as well. That is why, highest importance was always given to philosophy in time many tested religions.

Take Hinduism for example, it has got one of the richest corpus of philosophical wealth backing its sacred theological heritage - a very holistic framework spanning both deep as well as a wide spectrum of interdisciplinary domains of wisdom viz. metaphysics, psychology, mysticism, logic, syllogism, ontology, epistemology, cosmology, theology, soteriology, ethics, eschatology, hermeneutics, mathematics, astrology, astronomy, philology, etymology etc.  Again, from a theistic perspective, Indian philosophy seamlessly absorbs (encompasses) some aspects of atheism, agnosticism, monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, panentheism etc., into its all-embracing holistic framework.  Besides, unlike many of its occidental counterparts, Indian philosophical tradition aims to provide an optimum golden balance or harmony between all the three dimensions of spiritual wisdom viz. reason, अनुभव (anubhava – experience) & श्रद्धा (shraddhā - faith) wherein each of them mutually synergize to complement and supplement holistically.   

Moreover, unlike many other religions, it has always encouraged a healthy synergy of multiple interpretations and ideological schools of philosophies including a very diverse range of orthodox, heterodox and hybrid doctrinal point of views (PoVs) technically called दर्शन (darśana - perspective) including षट वैदीक दर्शन (ṣaṭa vaidīka darśana – six orthodox schools) viz.

·         पूर्व मीमांसा (pūrva mīmaṁsa), 

·         उत्तर मीमांसा (uttara mīmaṁsa), 

·         सांख्य (sāṁkhya), 

·         योग (yoga), 

·         वैषेशिक (vaiṣeśika) & 

·         न्याय (nyāya).

Alternatively, there are सर्व विध अन्त दर्शन (sarvavidha anta darśana – different kinds of final doctrines): वेदान्त (vedānta), सिद्धान्त (siddhānta), नादन्त (nādanta), कलान्त (kalānta), योगान्त (yogānta) & भोगान् (bhogānta) etc. Now, each of these schools in-turn have several sub-schools. For example, उत्तर मीमांसा (uttara mīmaṁsa) is again branching into various दान्त वाद (vedānta vāda) schools like

#	दर्शनस्य नाम (darśanasya nāma – name of philosophy)	प्रवार्तक परमाचार्य (pravārtaka paramācārya – primary foounding preceptor)
A	केवलाद्वैतदर्शन   (kevalādtvaita darśana – absolute nondualstc philosophy)	श्री आदिशंकराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṁkarācārya bhagavadpāda)
B	विशिष्टाद्वैत दर्शन (viśiṣṭādvaita darśana – qualified  nondualistic philosophy)	श्री रामानुजाचार्य (śrī rāmānujācārya)
C	द्वैत दर्शन  (dvaita darśana – dualsitic philosophy)	श्री मद्वचार्य (śrī madvacārya)
D	औपाधिक भेदाभेद दर्शन (aupādhika bhedābheda darśana – different yet non-different philosophy)	श्री भास्कराचार्य (śrī bhāskarācārya)
E	अचिन्त्य भेद अभेद  दर्शन (acintya bheda abheda darśana)	श्रील रूपा गोस्वामि (śrīla rūpā gosvāmi)
F	शुद्धाद्वैत दर्शन (śuddhādvaita darśana – pure nondualstic philosophy)	श्री वल्लभाचार्य (śrī vallabhācārya)
G	स्वभाविक द्वैताद्वैत दर्शन  (svabhāvika dvaitādvaita darśana –  dual yet nondualistic philosophy)	श्री निम्बार्काचार्य (śrī nimbārkācārya)

Similarly, we have various sub-schools within the सिद्धान्त वाद (siddhānta vāda) also, as indicated below:

·         शैव सिद्धान्त (śaiva siddhānta),

·         सिद्ध सिद्धान्त (siddha siddhānta),

·         शुद्ध सिद्धान्त (śuddha siddhānta), 

·         त्रिक सिद्धान्त (trika siddhānta) etc.

Now in some case, these doctrines further branch into sub-branches as well. Like the branching of केवलाद्वैत वाद (kevalādvaita vāda – doctrine of absolute non-dualism) itself into प्रतिबिम्ब वाद (pratibimba vāda – doctrine of  reflection), आभास वाद (ābhāsa vāda – doctrine of appearance) & अविच्छेद वाद (aviccheda vāda – doctrine of limitation) etc. Of course, even this is only an indicative and not an exhaustive list.

Even more interestingly, some of the schools are atheistic, and some are theistic, while some are even agnostic.  While these are mainstream philosophical schools, there are philosophical doctrines encapsulated within other scriptural texts including वैयाकरण (vyākaraṇa -grammar), आगम (āgama), पुराण /इतिहास (purāṇa / itihāsa – mythology / history), तन्त्र (tantra). Thus, you find that there is a very rich philosophical tradition serving as the foundational building blocks on which the religious frameworks have evolved. 

Take वेदान्त दर्शन (vedānta darśana) alone for example, it literally means “philosophy of final wisdom”. Yes, the philosophical doctrines in the प्रस्थानत्रयी (prasthānatrayī – important three) viz. उपनिषद् (upaniṣad), श्रीमद् भगवत् गीता (śrīmad bhagavat gītā) & ब्रह्म सूत्र (brahma sūtra) forms the crux or grand finale called “वेदान्त (vedānta - ultimate / final wisdom)”, as revealed in the sacred वेद श्रुति (veda śruti). Actually, वेदान्त शास्त्र (vedānta śāstra – vedantic scriptures) form the backbone for all the sub schools of उत्तर मीमांसा (uttara mīmāṁsā) including अद्वैत (advaita - non- dualism), द्वैत (dvaita - dualism), विशिष्टाद्वैत (viśiṣṭādvaita - qualified non-dualism) etc. which in turn are the basis for the main theological schools of Hinduism viz. स्मार्त (smārta), ब्रह्म (brahma), श्री वैष्णव (śrī vaiṣṇava) respectively.

Again, शैव सिद्धान्त (śaiva siddhānta), शिवाद्वैत (śivādvaita), त्रिक (trika), etc. forms the basis for various forms of शैव संप्रदाय (śaiva saṁpradāya), while तन्त्र (tantra) forms the basis for शाक्त संप्रदाय (śākta saṁpradāya) schools of theology.

In fact, just as from a theological perspective Hinduism’s erstwhile सनातन धर्म (sanātana dharma – eternal righteousness) which encompasses multiple varieties of deities viz. वेद देवत (veda devata – vedic deities), पुराण देवत (purāṇa devata – mythological deities), ग्राम देवत (grāma devata – village deities) etc. integrally consolidated broadly under षण्मत संप्रदाय (ṣaṇmata saṁpradāya – six fold theological traditions), all the varieties of philosophical traditions can broadly be grouped under the above mentioned schools. Again, all these seemingly different deities are always considered as सविकल्प उपकाश सगुण ब्रह्मन् (savikalpa upakāśa saguṇa brahman – differentiated aspect of qualified divinity), each manifesting relatively specific कल्याण गुण (kalyāṇa guṇa – auspicious characteristics) of the underlying absolute singularity - कैवल्य परब्रह्म (kaivalya parabrahma – absolute transcendent divinity). Similarly, all the seemingly contradictory philosophies are different perspectives of the infinitely multidimensional singularity. Hinduism very clearly recognizes that branches could always be many, yet holistically the tree is one. Different philosophies are different branches of the same tree. Similarly, in Buddhism also there are various branches viz.थेरवाद (theravāda), मध्यमक (madhyamaka), योगचार (yogacāra) and various sub branches.

Many eminent saint & scholars like व्यास महऋषि (vyāsa mahaṛṣi), श्री आदि शङ्करभगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarabhagavatpāda).  திருமூலர் (thirumUlar), வள்ளலார் (vaLLalaar), Theosophical society etc. at different periods in Indian history have made unparalleled contributions in re-establishing the cross-philosophical synthesis.

Relatively recently, திரு அருட்பிரகாச இராமலிங்க வள்ளலலார் (thiru arutpirakaasa iraamalinga vaLLalaar), who lived in the last century, originally established the சுத்த சன்மார்க சங் கங்கள் (suththa sanmaarga sangangaL – suddha sanmarga groups) to stay united, by setting aside all their ego clashes. The synthetic vision behind this establishment is very categorically stated by the saint himself as follows:

“எல்லா சமயங்களுக்கும் பொதுவாகிய அறிவு நூல் முடிப்பான நாங்காவது மார்கத்தை அனுஷ்டிக்கின்ற கூட்டம் என்று கொள்க”.

Here, the term அறிவுனூல் முடிப்பு (aRivunUl mudippu) corresponds to the state of ultimate (final) gnosis/wisdom obtained by synthesizing the षठान्त समरस / ஷடாந்த சமரசம்  (ṣaṭhānta samarasa/ shataantha samarasam – six edged harmony) between different philosophical schools viz.:

वेदान्त (vedānta), सिद्धान्त (siddhānta), भोगान्त (bhogānta), नादान्त (nādānta), योगान्त (yogānta) & कलान्त (kalānta). In his prose section the saint explains thus:

“ஷடாந்த சமரச சுத்த சிவ சன்மார்க்கம் என்பதில் ஷடாந்தம் என்பது யாது? வேதாந்தம், சித்தாந்தம்,போதாந்தம், நாதாந்தம், யோகாந்தம், கலாந்தம் ஆக ஆறு”.

Again, in his magnum opus திருவருட்பா (thiruvarutpaa) the saint sings thus,

நாதாந்த போதாந்த யோகாந்த வேதாந்த
நண்ணுறு கலாந்த முடனே
நவில்கின்ற சித்தாந்தமென்னுமா றந்தத்தின்

Moreover, almost every परमाचार्य (paramācārya – chief preceptor) including the likes of the noble श्री आदि शंकराचर्य (śrī ādi śaṁkarācarya), श्री मद्वाचार्य (śrīmadvācārya) or श्री रामानुजाचार्य (śrī rāmānujācārya) would not have indulged in detailed philosophical articulations and debating. They would not have spent their valuable time and energy in writing massive भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentaries) on the प्रस्थानत्रयी (prasthānatrayī – important three). In fact, following them, there are huge corpus of commentaries, commentary on commentaries etc. for each of these schools written by their next level revered disciples and subject matter experts. 

Take बाद्रायण ब्रह्म सूत्र (bādrayāṅa brahma sutra), alone for examples has detailed commentaries by almost all the leading वेदान्त परमाचार्य (vedānta paramācārya – chief preceptor)’s including श्री आदि शंकराचर्य (śrī ādi śaṁkarācarya), श्री मद्वाचार्य (śrī madvācārya) or श्री रामानुजाचार्य (śrī rāmānujācārya). Each of their commentaries were further commented by their disciples which in turn were commented by the next level disciples and so on.

Again, take श्री आदि शंकराचर्य (śrī ādi śaṁkarācarya) major commentary called शरीरक भाषय (śarīraka bhāṣya) was further expanded by श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र (śri vācaspati miśra) & श्री  पद्मपाद (śri padmapāda) independently wrote separate commentaries on the same titled भामति (bhāmati) & पच्ञपादिक (pañcapādika) respectively. श्री अमलानन्द (śri amalānanda) in turn wrote independent commentaries called वेदान्त कल्पतरु (vedānta kalpataru) & पच्ञपादिक दर्पण (pañcapādika darpaṇa) on भामति (bhāmati) & पच्ञपादिक (pañcapādika) respectively. The former was further commented by श्री अप्पय दीक्षित (śri appaya dIkṣita) in his परिमल (parimala) while the श्री प्रकाशात्मन् (śrī prakāśātman) wrote a विवरण(vivaraṇa-gloss) on पच्ञपादिक (pañcapādika) and so on goes the rich tradition of philosophical commentaries….
Let us take another similar example, In the case of न्याय दर्शन (nyāya darśana - philosophy of logic), its founding fatherश्री अक्षपाद / गौतम महऋषि (śrī akṣapāda / gautama mahaṛṣi) summarized its philosophy through his famous aphorism called न्याय सूत्र (nyāya sūtra), for which श्री वात्स्यायन (śrī vātsyāyana) wrote a famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) called न्याय भाष्य (nyāya bhāṣya - commentary on logic). This text was in turn commented by आचार्य श्री उद्योत्कार (ācārya śrī udyotkāra) in his न्याय वार्तिक (nyāya vārtika) which in turn was commented by श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र (śrī vācaspati miśra) through his famous न्याय वार्तिक तात्पर्य टीका (nyāya vārtika tātparya ṭīkā).  Again, न्याय वार्तिक तात्पर्य परशुद्दि (nyāya vārtika tātparya paraśuddi) was a commentary on the above by आचार्य श्री उदायन (ācārya śrī udāyana).     

The interesting aspect to note is that in these commentaries there is a highly professional standard विचार युक्ति (vicāra yukti – modes of deliberation) governed by the best practices laid down by the highly evolved principles in the तर्क शास्त्र (tarka śāstra – dialectic science) employing different ज्ञानवाद प्रमाण (jñānavāda pramāṇa - epistemological channels) of knowledge acquisitions viz. प्रत्यक्ष (pratyakṣa - perception), अनुमान (anumāna – inference), शब्द (śabda – authority / testimony)  etc. and generously supported by various explanation techniques viz. उपमा & व्यतिरेक (upamā & vyatireka – comparison & contrast),  उदाहरण / उपमान (udāharaṇa / upamāna – example / analogy) etc.  The even more beautiful point is that the debate is well articulated by documenting very detailed विवेचन परीक्षा (vivecana parīkṣā – critical examination) of his पक्ष (pakṣa – proposition) in terms of the पूर्व पक्ष (pūrva pakṣa – prior proposition) of the of वादिन् (vādin – accuser) with a logical खण्डन (khaṇḍana – refutation) of प्रतिवादिन् (prativādin – respondent) articulated in the form of a उत्तर पक्ष (uttara pakṣa – posterior proposition) and the final स्थापन (sthāpana – proof / establishment) of his सिद्धान्त (siddhānta - philosophy). Here the modus operandi of proving the point of view would typically involve a fair share of different युक्ति (yukti -techniques) of logical reasoning, based on the specific needs of the context in the grand narrative. These युक्ति (yukti -techniques) including prudent choices of one or more of  

o   विभङ (vibhaṅga - analysis) of the parts by segregating the whole (OR) 

o   संयोग (saṁyoga - synthesis) of the whole by aggregating the parts, on the one hand 

(AND)

o   अपवहन (apavahana – deduction) of the specific conclusion from general premises or 

o   उन्नयन (unnayana - induction) of generalized conclusions based on specific premises

 Moreover, philosophy was the back bone of not only religious and theological domains but was also the mother of scientific quest. In fact, historically speaking, philosophical quest has always been the common link between religion and science. Again, take Hinduism for example, science and spirituality were always (even now) two sides of the same coin – mathematics including geometry, cosmology, logic & syllogism, ontology, epistemology, biology, physiology, psychology, medicine, alchemy etc., were always an integral part of Hindu religious philosophy. न्याय दर्शन (nyāya darśana) for example deals at length with logic & syllogism, वैषेशिक (vaiṣeśika) with atomic physics, सांख्य (sāṁkhya) with ontology. Besides अद्वैत (advaita - non- dualism), for example, deals at concepts of relativistic physics – holographic black hole singularity etc. त्रिक (trika) with quantum loop gravity, super strings etc.; योग (yoga) with psychology, neuroscience etc., consciousness, physiology etc., so on goes the huge list of overlapping. In fact, these are only random example including but not limited to the following 

• Earth sciences: geology, soil mechanics
• Atomic Physics: अनु (anu - atam) and परमानु (paramanu - microparticle), molecular & nuclear physics, string /quantum loop  
• Chemistry: chemical compounds, alchemistry, biochemistry, metallurgy
• Physiology: Neuroscience, heredity/genetics, sympathetic spinal system, respiratory system, reproductive system, excretory system, vascular system  
• Engineering & technology: Kinetics / Mechanics, acoustics, architecture & building technology, Iron and steel, ship building, agriculture, transport, mining, irrigation  
• Acoustics: pitch, musicology, 
• Mathematics: Decimal number system, Boolean logic, Fibonacci, ruler measurements, geometry, algebra, arithmetic, infinity, zero, calculus, coordinate geometry, Vedic mathematics, trigonometry
• Astronomy: cosmology, Planetary systems, solar science, atmosphere, aeronautics, weather forecasts etc.
• Zoology: taxonomy of species, medicine, animal husbandry, dairy farming
• Botany: Plant taxonomy, herbal sciences, cryptogamy
• Medicine: Ayur Veda & Siddha Vaidya - Naturopathy, Surgery, general medicine, dentistry, pediatrics, psychiatry, rejenuvative medicine 
• Psychology: Yoga,   
• Occult / Esoteric sciences: Kundalini, Extra Sensory Perceptions, astrology  

Just as ancient Greek philosophical tradition of Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Euclid etc. formed the basis for today’s western modern science and mathematics, Indian philosophical tradition was the mother of many sciences. In fact, metaphysics was the mother of physics, astrology was the mother of astronomy. Again, in the recent decades, thanks to phenomenal advancements in relativistic and quantum physics, lots synergies between physics and philosophy is beginning to get recognized. Originally, in ancient religions tradition particularly in the Indian tradition including Hinduism, Jainism & Buddhism, for example, the disparity never existed in principle.

Dark Middle ages and its present avatar

While this has always been true for several centuries, yet in the recent decades, there has been gross neglect of studying and contemplating the philosophical wisdom underlying religious customs and traditions. In fact, I strongly feel that post-industrial revolution, there has been a gradual neglect researching on pure sciences like physics, chemistry etc., in general and almost a complete neglect of philosophical studies across the globe. 

 Particularly, if one goes through the history of modern science, it would clear that in last 500+ years, there has been an artificial dichotomy rather trichotomy created between religion, philosophy and science. In western medieval world, certain religious fundamentalists out of vested interest dogmatically created the first dichotomy between theology, science and philosophy…. They even went to extent of persecuting scientists and philosophers in the name of such religious fanaticism; while this was from the religious side, science also very soon started boycotting philosophy and religions as mere dogma. Thus, on the whole, it was a double edged self- damage… which continued for almost 300 years now…

In India for example, we are still predominantly following British designed curriculum not only in school education but also higher education including the Indian Administrative Services (IAS) etc. Tweaked anti Hindu versions of history is taught even today. Complete neglect of moral science, humanities and religious studies in school syllabus. We Indians, both individually as well as collectively have a constructive role in safeguarding and enriching Hindu spirituality by proactive social role participation in whatever capacity possible. Our ancient Hindu, Buddhist and Jain astronomy, astrology, sociology, economics metaphysics, ontology, mathematics etc., are so advanced many leading western universities across globe are researching for decades. But in Indian curriculum completely neglected. All we teach our kids is how to make money, manage money, multiply money etc. The main message we pass on to the next generation is: “educate yourself only for remunerative jobs”.

So, who is the real black sheep here? We are following many religious festivals and customs but we hardly try to explain its spiritual and scientific basis and reasons to the younger generation. Because of the failure in knowledge transition...the younger generation lose hold of its foundational wisdom and soon become viable for easy brainwashing...In the name of rationalism (பகுத்தறிவு). We have failed to inculcate பகத்து அறியும் spirituality. Earlier गुरुकुलं (gurukulaṁ) style of education focused precisely on such foundational spiritual education...We no longer are ready to invest time, money or energy in giving it to our kids.

Today, unfortunately almost all of us, irrespective of our caste or class is only trying to excel in क्षात्रिय (kṣātriya - politics), वैश्य (vaiśya – business / profession) and not ब्राह्मन वर्ण (brahmana varṇa – spiritual class). Ask any student (school, grad, post grad) his main purpose of education is to seek a good job etc. Please note that we are talking about वर्ण (varṇa – class) here and not जाति (jāti – caste /genus). 

Take Sanskrit for example, which although rightfully being the pride of India, yet is the most neglected subject, by almost all stakeholders in India – students, teachers/professors, schools and universities, parents, scholars, government etc.  Sanskrit has always been the pre-requisite for formal Vedic learning in the गुरुकुलं (gurukulaṁ) and every ब्राह्मन (brāhmana) as well as those belonging to other वर्ण (varṇa – class) also was supposed to be proficient in it and was integral to his learning. But how many of us, Indian’s are proficient in Sanskrit. Indians over the years have been so calculative that we would invest time in learning only those subjects which help us in building a remunerative career. We are not prepared to learn for knowledge sake. Even in the case of western sciences, there is a rat race only for MBBS, BE and CA courses and not for pure science – Physics, Chemistry etc.  However, In Europe, the demand for learning Sanskrit is growing year on year. Major universities across the globe are investing huge funds for learning Sanskrit as a language leverage the same in unraveling the sciences in our scriptures – in the domains of physics, mathematics, medicine, defense engineering etc.   

Again, in India, many of us, even those who claim to be very religious and pious, do not care to learn the fundamental philosophical postulates underlying their belief systems. How many of us even make an attempt to learn the प्रस्थानत्रयी (prasthānatrayī)- उपनिषद् (upaniṣad), भगवत् गीता (bhagavat gītā) & ब्रह्म सूत्र (brahma sūtra). Many of us proudly claim to belong to a specific मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya) viz. स्मार्त (smārta), श्री वैष्णव (śrī vaiṣṇava) or शैव संप्रदाय (śaiva saṁpradāya) but how many of us even make a sincere attempt to understand the underlying philosophy of अद्वैत (advaita - non dualism), द्वैत (dvaita - dualism), विशिष्टाद्वैत (viśiṣṭādvaita - qualified non dualism) or शैव सिद्धान्त (śaiva siddhānta).

Worse still, some of us even consider it as a waste of time or even foolish to spend energies in trying to understand or comprehend the philosophies explained in our scriptures; they feel just following the rituals, or performing meditation is always better than these intellectual gymnastics. The situation is very pathetic because, one group does not respect other group’s interpretations or view-points. Each group considers it has solely patented the copy rights of its philosophy. That is very unfortunate. To all these people, I would like to quote the fantastic explanation given by श्री अभिनवगुप्त (śrī abhinavagupta) - the revered saint multi-faceted scholar and परमाचार्य (paramācārya – chief preceptor) of the पराद्वैतवाद (parādvaitavāda – supreme nondualistic doctrine) of the कश्मीरि शैव शिद्धान्त दर्शन (kaśmīri śaiva śiddhānta darśana):

“इति चेद् अलम् ग्रन्थ धारन वाचन व्याख्यान विचारणादि मिथ्या यासेन। परित्याजय एवायं गुरुभरः। तूष्णीम् भाव शरणैरेव स्थेयम्। भगवद् इच्चैवोतारणीयमुत्तारयेत्॥ उच्यते - तदिच्चैवानुग्रहात्मा एवं विचारणायं पर्यवसाययति। न खलु पादप्रसारिकयैवसुखम् शयानयिर् भुज्ञानैश्च स्वयमविंऋशद्भिः स्वापेक्ष तीव्रतरादि पारमेश्वरानुग्रहोत्पन्नादिक सूक्षम तम विमर्श कुशल धिषणा परिशीलन पराङ मुखैर् वा स्थात्वयम् इति॥

(

iti ced— “alaṁ grantha-dhāraṇa-vācana-vyakhyāna-vicāranādi-mithyāyāsena. parityājya evāyaṁ guru-bhāraḥ. tūśṇīm-bhāva-śaraṇaireua stheyam. bhagavad-icchaivottāranīyamuttārayet." ucyate—“tadicchaivānugrahātmā evaṁ-vicāraṇāyāṁ paryava-sāyayati; na khalu pādaprasārikayaivasukhaṁ śayānair bhuṅjanaiśca svayamavimṛśadbhiḥ svāpekṣa-tīvra- tarādi-pārameśvarānugrahotpannādhika-sūkṣma-tama-vimarśa-kuśala- dhiṣaṇā-pariśīlana-parāṅ-mukhair vā sthātavyam, iti.

“If it is so, then what is the use of wrongly taken trouble in activities like collecting scriptures and works, reading them, explaining and discussing them, pondering on them, and so on? This heavy burden should be shaken off. Refuge should be taken in keeping silence. The will of the Lord shall itself carry ashore the person who is to be carried there.” The answer to this objection is this: “It is the same gracious will of the Lord which is leading us finally towards such contemplation (or sdstras). Therefore, it should not be our motto to eat merrily and sleep soundly with out-stretched legs, without either contemplating ourselves, or taking interest in discussions with worthy people who are blessed with such gracious activity of the Lord which is on a higher plane (than that working within us) and who have consequently developed a wisdom that is skilled in intricate thought.”

) - परात्रिशिकाविवरण (parātriśikāvivaraṇa) (126-127)

Unfortunately, many of us are so ignorant that we do not even know the underlying तत्त्वविद्या (tattvavidyā – philosophy) associated to the our chosen मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya – theological tradition). While many of us take pride in मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya – theological tradition), we do not bother to understand its core philosophical postulate. The compassionate परमाचार्य (paramācārya – chief preceptors) of almost all मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya – theological traditions) have taken so much pains in elaborately explaining and documenting the salient philosophical tenets of the respective मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya – theological tradition). Let’s be honest and ask ourselves. But how many of us bother to learn it.  How many of us who claim to be द्वैतिन् (dvaitin – dualist), विशिष्ठाद्वैतिन् (viśiṣṭādvaitin – qualified non dualist), अद्वैतिन् (advaitin – non dualist), शैव सिद्धान्तिन् (śaiva siddhāntin) etc., what exactly is meant by these philosophies. Some of us are so ignorant when it comes to identifying which of these दर्शन (darśana - philosophy) belongs to their respective faith. For example, get confused whether श्री वैष्णव संप्रदाय (śri vaiṣṇava saṁpradāya) preaches द्वैत (dvaita – dualism) or विशिष्ठाद्वैत (viśiṣṭādvaita – qualified nondualism) etc.

Even worse, many times, without even knowing our own philosophical doctrines we blindly ridicule or look down other schools. In fact, this ignorance is the principle root cause of religious intolerance at all levels. Even without understanding what अद्वैत (advaita - non dualism) preaches we blindly feel it is superior to say द्वैत (dvaita - dualism) or विशिष्टाद्वैत (viśiṣṭādvaita - qualified non dualism) and vice versa. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that all these philosophies are relativistic interpretation of the same scriptural texts viz. प्रस्थानत्रयी (prasthānatrayī) from different frames of references.

Conclusion

Past is past. At least going forward, let us not neglect philosophy and give it its due respects and as expressed in the following post, facilitate our kids and the future generations to come, to revive the lost glory of philosophy as a domain of knowledge.  Only if we understand the differentiating features of our respective school of philosophy, we can truly appreciate with conviction our मत संप्रदाय (mata saṁpradāya). This is step one. Only after understanding the differentiators correctly we can deep dive further and understand the underlying synergies with parallel schools. After all, these schools have same scriptural roots and they try to describe the same Divinity which is but One – Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Divinity. Well, the sacred ऋग् वेद मन्त्र (ṛg veda mantra) very categorically declares that 

एकम् सत् विप्र बहुत वदन्ति

(ekam sat vipra bahuta vadanti –

truth is one; sages call it variously).

In modern computer programmer’s jargon, it is referred as multiple dimensions (views) of the same fact table (document/model) -  technically called as document-view/model view architectural paradigm. The Indian philosophically tradition as dealt in depth on this subject. For example, in Jain philosophy, it is called as अनेक अन्त वाद (aneka anta vāda – doctrine of multiple endpoints). twin doctrines of अनेक अन्त वाद (aneka anta vāda – doctrine of multiple endpoints) & स्याद् वाद (syād vāda – doctrine of relative postulates) to mankind. Etymologically, the term is derived from अनेक (aneka - ‘multiple’), अन्त (anta - ‘final’ / ‘conclusion’) & वाद (vāda - ‘doctrine’). Thus, the doctrine reiterates that varieties of spiritual conclusions are equally probably, true and valid. In fact, according to this school, from an epistemological perspective, each of these दरशन (darśana -philosophy) is a kind of स्याद (syād –predication or probability event) that one may or may not experience as part of their spiritual journey. The term स्याद् (syād) literally means “may be” or “perhaps”. Moreover, every such experience is only a नय (naya – relative aspect) of truth or a specific viewpoint of reality which can be interpreted under the following scenarios as postulated by the revered Jain monk आचार्य बद्रबहुर (ācārya badrabahur), in his conceptual framework called सप्तभन्गिनय (saptabhanginaya – seven dimensional aspects)

• स्याद् अस्ति (syād asti – May be it is)
• स्याद् नास्ति (syād nāsti – May be it is not)
• स्याद् अस्ति नास्ति (syād asti nāsti – May be it is and it is not)
• स्याद् अस्ति अवक्तव्यः (syād asti avaktavyaḥ - May be it is but not determinable)
• स्याद् अवक्तव्यः (syād avaktavyaḥ - May be it is not determinable)
• स्याद् नास्ति अवक्तव्यः (syād nāsti avaktavyaḥ - May be it is not and not determinable)
• स्याद् अस्ति नास्ति अवक्तव्यः (syād asti nāsti avaktavyaḥ - May be it is, it is not, and is indeterminate)

I would like to refer here the following verses of the आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द (ācārya kundakunda) concisely explaining the whole concept of अनेकान्त वाद (anekāntavāda) in a nutshell.

द्रव्यार्थिकेन सर्वम् ध्रव्यम् तत् पर्व्यायातिह्केन पुनः।
भवति चान्यद् अन्यत् तत्काले तन् मयात्वत्॥
स्याद् अस्ति नास्ति उभयम् अव्यक्तव्यम् पुनश् च तत् त्रितयम्।
द्रव्यम् खलु सप्त बन्घम् आधेशवाशेन सम्भवति॥
(dravyārthikena sarvam dhravyam tat parvyāyātihkena punaḥ|
bhavati cānyad anyat tatkāle tan mayātvat||
syād asti nāsti ubhayam avyaktavyam punaś ca tat tritayam|
dravyam khalu sapta bangham ādheśavāśena sambhavati||)
(All objects are fundamentally the same in the absolute but are different from the relative viewpoints influenced by the individual observer’s mindset. Each of these relative interpretations can be classified under the following seven probability events – may be it is, may be not, may be both (is and is not), may be indefinable (as is or is not) , may be it is but yet indefinable, may be indefinable because it is not, may be both and yet indefinable.)
- प्रवचन सार (pravacana sāra)

Before concluding I would like to reflect the following words of the eminent mathematician, philosopher and thinker Bertrand Russell, “Philosophy and history all make us aware of the great collective achievements of mankind. It would be well if every civilized human being had a sense of these achievements and a realization of the possibility of greater things to come, with the indifference which must result as regards the petty squabbles upon which the passions of individuals and nations are wastefully squandered. Philosophy should make us know the ends of life, and the elements in life that have value on their own account. However, our freedom may be limited in the causal sphere, we need admit no limitations to our freedom in the sphere of values: what we judge good on its own account we may continue to judge good, without regard to anything but our own feeling. Philosophy cannot itself determine the ends of life, but it can free us from the tyranny of prejudice and from distortions due to a narrow view. Love, beauty, knowledge, and joy of life: these things retain their luster however wide our purview. And if philosophy can help us to feel the value of these things, it will have played its part in man’s collective work of bringing light into a world of darkness”