Philosophy in the South Asian Subcontinent: A Unity in Maladjustment :: Philosophical Globalization Essays

Philosophy in the South Asian Subcontinent: A Unity in Maladjustment ABSTRACT: Philosophy in the south Asian subcontinent differs from Western philosophy in the following three ways: (1) it is based upon religion; (2) love of tradition becomes an obstacle for philosophical development; and (3) authority is accepted as a source of knowledge. I argue that future philosophical development demands that the above three differences be removed. Furthermore, philosophers from the subcontinent must concentrate on contemporary issues. If I ask myself about the extent of the philosophical heritage, which I may claim to have inherited from the past, I shall find myself in a difficulty in finding a precise answer. If I look back for my heritage, beyond fifty years towards the past, I shall find that the past heritage to which I belong, incidentally coincides with that of the South Asian subcontinent. In the context of philosophy, that heritage is what we find mainly in the traditions of the Vedic philosophical schools (specially the Vedanta school), Buddhism and Jainism. These philosophical traditions are also considered as oriental philosophies. An orientalistic outlook in the context of these philosophical traditions may find it difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the past and the present status of these traditions. It is my intention to draw attention to the fact that, in the context of philosophy, our past heritage is in a sense an obstacle to our future progress; and to this extent, our heritage and our future are in a unity in maladjustment. I shall draw attention to some historical situations, and some claims of heritage based on these situations. It is claimed that, it is possible 'to trace the rise of philosophy to a period earlier than the Greeks...'. (1) This claim may lead to wonder whether Thales is the father of philosophy. In this context it is further claimed that: 'The first Greek thinker whom we can appropriately describe as a philosopher was Thales', and that 'When, however, we look at India of the sixth century B.C., we see a completely different picture. ... It was not a case of the dawn of philosophy as in Greece but what may be described as the full glow of philosophical day'. (2) What implications are meant to follow from such claims? Can we say that W. T. Stace is wrong in claiming that Thales is the father of philosophy? (3) Should one rather say that Thales is in fact the father of western philosophy only? Philosophy in the South Asian Subcontinent: A Unity in Maladjustment :: Philosophical Globalization Essays Philosophy in the South Asian Subcontinent: A Unity in Maladjustment ABSTRACT: Philosophy in the south Asian subcontinent differs from Western philosophy in the following three ways: (1) it is based upon religion; (2) love of tradition becomes an obstacle for philosophical development; and (3) authority is accepted as a source of knowledge. I argue that future philosophical development demands that the above three differences be removed. Furthermore, philosophers from the subcontinent must concentrate on contemporary issues. If I ask myself about the extent of the philosophical heritage, which I may claim to have inherited from the past, I shall find myself in a difficulty in finding a precise answer. If I look back for my heritage, beyond fifty years towards the past, I shall find that the past heritage to which I belong, incidentally coincides with that of the South Asian subcontinent. In the context of philosophy, that heritage is what we find mainly in the traditions of the Vedic philosophical schools (specially the Vedanta school), Buddhism and Jainism. These philosophical traditions are also considered as oriental philosophies. An orientalistic outlook in the context of these philosophical traditions may find it difficult to draw a line of demarcation between the past and the present status of these traditions. It is my intention to draw attention to the fact that, in the context of philosophy, our past heritage is in a sense an obstacle to our future progress; and to this extent, our heritage and our future are in a unity in maladjustment. I shall draw attention to some historical situations, and some claims of heritage based on these situations. It is claimed that, it is possible 'to trace the rise of philosophy to a period earlier than the Greeks...'. (1) This claim may lead to wonder whether Thales is the father of philosophy. In this context it is further claimed that: 'The first Greek thinker whom we can appropriately describe as a philosopher was Thales', and that 'When, however, we look at India of the sixth century B.C., we see a completely different picture. ... It was not a case of the dawn of philosophy as in Greece but what may be described as the full glow of philosophical day'. (2) What implications are meant to follow from such claims? Can we say that W. T. Stace is wrong in claiming that Thales is the father of philosophy? (3) Should one rather say that Thales is in fact the father of western philosophy only?