INDIAN LITERATUE

A K. RAMANUJAN

A.K. Ramanujans Is There an Indian Way of Thinking is an enquiry

into whether there is an Indian way of thinking; and if so, how it is
different from the western way of thinking. Ramanujans stance is
that behind the apparent diversity, there is a unity in Indian thought
and that it is characterized by contradiction, hypocrisy,
inconsistency and context-sensitivity.
Ramanujan begins his essay by citing the example of his father, to
whom the essay is dedicated. His life was full of contradiction. He was
an educated Brahmin, and was highly religious. At the same time he
had a predilection for the secular philosophy of Bertrand Russell. He
was at once modern and traditional. He was both an astronomer and
an astrologer. Ramanujan says that such a contradiction is at the heart
of the Indian way of thinking. It is both exclusive and inclusive.
The western way of thinking is epitomized in the philosophical
speculations of Immanuel Kant. It is noted for its universalization and
generalization. On the contrary, the Indian philosophy has its roots in
Manu, whose world view is characterized by particularism and contextspecificity.
The Western way of thinking is based on data and objective facts,
whereas the Indian way of thinking is highly subjective.
A comparison of the Western and the Indian ways of thinking shows
that there are certain distinguishing traits for both. The first trait of
Indian thinking is its hypocrisy. Indians do not mean what they say and
they say different things at different times. Take the example of the
karma theory and the theory of reincarnation (the kernel of Indian
philosophy). The Hindus, the Buddhists and the Jainas subscribes to it.
The theory of karma says that the past life of a person determines his
present life. The theory of reincarnation shows a chain of cause and
consequences and an ethical responsibility for ones life.
But Sheryl Daniel has pointed that in many Tamil villages the terms
karma and talaividi are used indiscriminately. In fact both these
terms are contradictory in nature. Talaividi implies that ones fate is

inscribed on his head at the time of birth. It frees man from ethical
responsibility.
The second trait of Indian thought is that it does not distinguish
between self from non-self, interior from the exterior.
Naipaul calls
this a defect of vision.
The third trait of Indian thought is its inconsistency. Indian thought
does not use objective facts to arrive at universal truth. As a result
there is no unitary law for all Indians. As Hegel cryptically put it the
Indians would not say bravery is a virtue but rather he would say
bravery is a virtue for the brahmins.
The essence of Judeo-Christian ethics is Do not do unto others what
you do not want done unto you. This principle is applicable to all. But
in Manu, the righteousness of an action is dependent on who did what
to whom and when.
It is class-specific and context-specific; not
conduct-specific. In other words Indian philosophy is not universalistic,
but particularistic. For example the dharma of a man varies according
to his caste, class, gender and ashrama. People of different caste have
different dharma. The punishment for the dame offence also varies
from caste to caste.
Baudhayana points out that the aberrant practices of the Brahmins
varies from place to place. What is aberrant in the South is normal in
the North and vice versa.
The India literary texts also have a context to which it is embedded.
The Mhahbharata and the Ramayana open with episodes narrating the
circumstances under which they were composed. Within the text itself
one tale is the context for another tale. Every story seems to a replica
of the whole story. Yudhisthira gambling away his kingdom has its
parallel in the story of Nala and Damayanti.
Even Space and time, the universal contexts in the Kantian system, is
not uniform and neutral in Indian philosophy. In Indian thought houses
are not a mere place to live in, but something that can effect a change
in the dwellers fortune.
Time is also not a uniform unit. Certain time and certain days of the
week are auspicious and certain others are inauspicious (rahukala).
Even yugas have their characteristics. People are wicked in the
kaliyuga.
The dominant trait in the Indian thought is its contextsensitivity. It
may not be the ideal; the ideal seems to be context- free. But societies

have their underbellies. In predominantly context-free societies, one

can observe a counter-movement towards the context-sensitive. For
example Blake in a technocratic society declared To generalize is to be
an idiot and one law for the lion and the ox is oppression.
In the same way even though the dominant philosophical system in
India is context-sensitive, there are aspects which are context-free. For
example, if kama, artha and dharma are context-based, moksha is
context free. Brahmacharya, grahasthasrama, and vanprastha are
context-bound, but sannyasa is context-free.
In the realm of feeling bhavas, vibhavas and anubhavas are contextsensitive, but rasa is the generalized essence of all. To crown all we
have the great Hindu notion of bhakthi which defies all contextual
strictures.
Ramanujan does not make a value judgment on the western contextfree ethics and the Indian context-sensitive ethics. Both have their
strength and weakness.
His contention is that both these cultures, despite their complexity and
oscillation, have an essential frame of reference and bias.
Ramanujan concludes his essay by making a few pertinent comments
on modernization in India. The modern tendency is to move away from
the context-sensitive to the context-free system. Gandhijis watch has
replaced the almanac. Education and learning are no longer the
prerogative of the Brahmins. The Indian constitution has thrown to the
winds the special rights of the high castes. Everyone is now equal
before the law. Yet the modern educated Indians put computers and
other modern equipment to aayudhapooja.
Thus the modern context-free tendency becomes another context and
this is difficult to contain.

Analysis
In the FIRST SECTION of this essay, A.K. RAMANUJAN puts forth some questions and
tries answering them by emphasizing on specific aspects of the question.
He asks Is there an Indian way of thinking? The answer to this question is: there was an
Indian way of thinking but it does not exist now. The Indian way of thinking can be located in
the upper-caste, Brahmanical section of the society - in the Vedas and other religious texts, or
when one goes to the 'pundits'. However, since our thinking is still largely shaped as per the
Vedas, it would not be completely wrong to say that there still is an Indian way of thinking
that exists.

The second question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? He says that there has
always been the existence of Great Tradition and Little Tradition. In India, we celebrate
diversities and highlight these differences. Therefore, a single Indian way of thinking does
not exist.
The third question is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? India is nothing but a product of the
influences of external cultures, languages, religions and social evolutions - therefore, one
might say that what we see in India is nothing unique to India. However, India is capable of
adapting to the changes and accommodating these external influences into its culture...
The last question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? Ramanujan says that it is the
West that is capable of thought. The West is projected as materialistic and rational. In India,
logic is rationalized with religion and superstitions. In India, actions are projected, not the
thoughts behind those actions.
Thus in the 1st part of his essay, Ramanujan states how India is perceived differently at
different stages by different people and from different perspectives.
In the second part of the essay, the inconsistency between tradition and modernity is depicted
with an example from Ramanujan's personal experience. He gives the example of his father
to show how India can be ancient yet modern at the same time. For Ramanujan, consistency
means strict adherence to only one - either religion or science.
Ramanujan's father was a South Indian Brahman.

While he wore dhotis in traditional brahman style, he also wore English jackets over
his dhotis.

He wore tartan-patterned socks and leather shoes when he went to the university but
removed them before entering the inner quarters of the house.

He was a mathematician and an astronomer + a Sanskrit scholar and an expert

astrologer.

He had American and English mathematicians visiting him along with the local
pundits and astrologers.

While he read the Bhagvad Gita religiously every morning after taking a bath, he
would talk about Russell and Ingersoll also with the same amount of passion.

Ramanujan could not figure out such an inconsistency - his father appeared to neither think
nor care about any sort of consistency.
In the third part of the essay, Ramanujan interrogates the concept of inconsistency in a larger
context - and does not just limit it to his father. He talks of the concept of 'karma' and that of
'talaividi'. Karma implies the self's past as determining the present and future - it is an 'iron
chain' of cause and effect. Karmic philosophy is written. Talaividi or 'head writing' focuses on
destiny and it is a part of oral tradition.
The Western construction of the Orient (India) is that we are yet to develop the notion of
'data' or 'objective facts'. According to Sudhir Kakar, in the oriental world, there is no clear
difference between self and non-self - this brings about inconsistency. India is not influenced

by Newstonian thoughts according to Kissinger. In India, there is no concept of the universal.

The Indian way of thinking lacks universality; it is a traditional society constituting of
inconsistency and hypocrisy. Since the society is tradition in nature, the approach towards the
entire society is not secular. According to Zimmer, Indians can imagine a time in history
without man. West cannot do that as it is egoistic in nature.
While the west has universality, in India there are subjective positions. The understanding of
reality in India is always context-sensitive and not context-free. In India, even the perception
of truth is not a universal concept. In the West 'man shall not kill' is a universal statement but
in India, punishments are meted out owing to a person's social status. Even in the
Manusmriti, we find that moral codes need not be adhered to under all circumstances.
In the fourth part of the essay, Ramanujan examines how context-sensitivity is an important
part of Indian culture.
In India, all additions are in fact a subtraction from any universal law. Stories get their
context with reference to the frame in which they have been placed. Indian texts are
historically dateless, but their contexts, uses and efficacies are explicit Even when we look at
Ramayana and Mahabharata, we find that there are several episodes - each story is encased in
a meta-story. And within the text, one story is the context for another within it - the outerframe story as well as the inner sub-story provide relevant contexts for the other's existence.
Aristotle's theory of unity of time, place and action cannot be applied to our narratives.
The way we divide time in India is also very different from the way it is done in the West. We
have times that are auspicious, inauspicious (rahu kala), and the past and present seem to
merge together. Even our houses have moods (vastu shastra).
Indians are prone to blame their wrong-doings on fate, vaastu and it is not possible for us to
remove this context-sensitivity. It is latent in our society.
With modernity, we are widening our context in the way we want to rather than doing away
with all the traditional practises. It is as a result of this that the original context seems to be
lost.
Ramanujan says that all societies have context-sensitive behaviour and rules but the dominant
idea is always context-free. In the fifth part of the essay, he observes that socieities that are
context-free have movements which are context-specific in nature whereas in societies like
India, which are context-sensitive, there is a dream to be free of context - this gives rise to the
concept of 'rasa' in aesthetics, 'moksha' in the aims of life and 'sanyasa' in the end of lifestages.
In the last part of the essay, Ramanujan states how we have moved towards context-free
situations in India. He says that with modernization, there has been a movement from
context-sensitive to context-free at least in principle. Today, people can listen to any raga at
any time rather than strictly sticking to the time prescribed. The new thoughts and behaviours
borrowed from the West do not replace the old religious ideas. They get incorporated with the
existing tradition. In 'Ayudhapuja', even computers and type-writers are worshiped instead of
weapons. Therefore, no matter how hard we try to move to become a context-free society, the

result is that the context-free nature ends up becoming yet another context i.e. the 'modern'
context.