How Ancient Indian Thought Shaped Plato & Aristotle

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while setting the goal of making India a developed nation, stated that history provides a time period in the life of any nation when it can accelerate its journey of progress. The 25 years leading up to 2047 represent such a precious period for India. This is a defining era in India's history when the country is poised to take a great leap forward. During this period, it is not just about achieving new heights but also about reclaiming what has been lost. Additionally, it is about asserting what rightfully belongs to India but has been forgotten so that the nation receives its due respect.

The time that India had been waiting for is here, and so is the vital energy that has, from time to time, safeguarded the nation. The Prime Minister emphasized that while many great civilizations have perished, the soil of India holds a unique consciousness and life force that has preserved this nation from time immemorial until today.

Due to the education system imposed during the British era, India's state over the past 190 years has deteriorated to the extent that it not only forgot the brilliance of its own knowledge but also, when that very light—having illuminated other civilizations—returned to India, it was considered superior simply because it came from the West. The young generation of India has forgotten that the very knowledge systems they praise in the Western world once drew their radiance from the vast intellectual wealth of India. Yet, in their blind admiration, they commit the grave sin of deeming their motherland backward.

 


One of the ancient thinkers of the West who gave shape to Western political thought, Plato, in his Theory of Forms, posits that the physical world is a mere shadow of a true, eternal realm of perfect, unchanging entities called Forms, which are the true objects of knowledge and the source of reality. This is similar to the Advaita Vedanta concept of Brahman (ultimate reality) and Maya (illusion) in Hinduism.

The Upanishads also discuss this concept. Chandogya Upanishad (6.1.4) states: "All this is Brahman" (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma). In The Republic, Plato describes prisoners in a cave who mistake shadows for reality. This closely resembles the Indian concept of Maya (often translated as illusion, though imperfectly, as an illusion is temporary, whereas Maya always remains), where individuals perceive a false reality due to ignorance (Avidya).

In his dialogues Phaedo and Timaeus, Plato discusses the concept of the soul's rebirth and its connection to past actions, suggesting that a soul's future lives are influenced by its behavior in previous lives. Influenced by Pythagorean and Orphic ideas, Plato believed in the immortality of the soul and the concept of reincarnation, where souls are reborn into different bodies based on their actions and character.

A similar idea is found in Rig Veda 10.16.3:

"O Agni, lead the departed soul on the righteous path so that it can attain a better existence."

(सूर्यं॒ चक्षु॑र्गच्छतु॒ वात॑मा॒त्मा द्यां च॑ गच्छ पृथि॒वीं च॒ धर्म॑णा । अ॒पो वा॑ गच्छ॒ यदि॒ तत्र॑ ते हि॒तमोष॑धीषु॒ प्रति॑ तिष्ठा॒ शरी॑रैः)

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.3 : “Just as a caterpillar moves from one leaf to another, the soul moves from one body to another” (तद्यथा तृणजलायुका तृणस्यान्तं गत्वान्यमाक्रममाक्रम्यात्मानमुपसंहरतिएवमेवायमात्मेदं शरीरं निहत्यअविद्यां गमयित्वाअन्यमाक्रममाक्रम्यात्मानमुपसंहरति) 

Also, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5 : “As a person acts, so he becomes in life. Those who do good become good; those who do evil become evil. By pure actions one becomes pure; by evil actions one becomes evil.” (स वा अयमात्मा ब्रह्म विज्ञानमयो मनोमयः प्राणमयश्चक्शुर्मयः श्रोत्रमयः पृथिवीमय आपोमयो वायुमय आकाशमयस्तेजोमयोऽतेजोमयः काममयोऽकाममयः क्रोधमयोऽक्रोधमयो धर्ममयोऽधर्ममयः सर्वमयस्तद्यदेतदिदंमयोऽदोमय इतियथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवति—साधुकारी साधुर्भवतिपापकारी पापो भवतिपुण्यः पुण्येन कर्मणा भवतिपापः पापेन । अथो खल्वाहुः काममय एवायं पुरुष इतिस यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवतियत्क्रतुर्भवति तत्कर्म कुरुतेयत्कर्म कुरुते तदभिसंपद्यते )

Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 : “Those whose conduct has been good will attain a good birth, such as that of a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya. But those whose conduct has been evil will attain an evil birth, such as that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste”. (तद्य इह रमणीयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते रमणीयां योनिमापद्येरन्ब्राह्मणयोनिं वा क्षत्रिययोनिं वा वैश्ययोनिं वाथ य इह कपूयचरणा अभ्याशो ह यत्ते कपूयां योनिमापद्येरञ्श्वयोनिं वा सूकरयोनिं वा चण्डालयोनिं वा

And most important Bhagavad Gita 2.22 : "Just as a person discards old clothes and wears new ones, so does the soul discard an old body and enter a new one."

(वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहायनवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि | तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णान्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही)

Plato’s ideal Philosopher-King, as described in The Republic, closely resembles the concept of Rajdharma found in Hindu texts. The qualities that a king should possess, as outlined in ancient Indian scriptures, are almost identical to what Plato envisions. Plato is not presenting an entirely new idea; rather, he is articulating in his own words what has been taught for centuries.

When we talk about Aristotle (384–322 BCE) (a towering figure in Western philosophy, was a student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. His contributions spanned multiple disciplines, including logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, biology, and rhetoric, making him one of the most influential thinkers in Western history) there are many connections how he was directly or indirectly influenced by Indian thought.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) in his work “The World as Will and Representation”, discussed the similarities between Indian and Western logic, referencing the observations of the Indologist William Jones (1746–1794).

William Jones, in his 11th discourse, makes a striking claim about the connection between Indian and Greek logic:

“Here I cannot refrain from introducing a singular tradition, which prevailed, according to the well-informed author of the Dabistan, in the Panjab and in several Persian provinces, that ‘among other Indian curiosities, which Callisthenes transmitted to his uncle, was a technical system of logic, which the Brahmins had communicated to the inquisitive Greek,’ and which the Mohammedan writer supposes to have been the groundwork of the famous Aristotelian method. If this be true, it is one of the most interesting facts that I have met with in Asia; and if it be false, it is very extraordinary that such a story should have been fabricated either by the candid Mohsani Fani or by the simple Parsi Pundits, with whom he had conversed. But, not having had leisure to study the Nyāya Sūtras, I can only assure you that I have frequently seen perfect syllogisms in the philosophical writings of the Brahmins and have often heard them used in their verbal controversies…”

 

This account references Callisthenes (c. 370–327 BCE), a relative of Aristotle and the court historian of Alexander the Great. Callisthenes, who was part of Alexander’s campaign, is believed to have transmitted knowledge from the East back to Greece. Historical records confirm that he brought Babylonian astronomical texts to Greece, which lends credibility to the claim that he may have also introduced elements of Indian logic.

 

Further supporting this link is the Dabistan-i-Madhahib (School of Sects), a 17th-century Persian text by Mohsani Fani, a Kashmiri scholar (1615–1670). This text explicitly acknowledges the transmission of Indian logic (Tarka Shastra) to Greece. It mentions that Aristotle (referred to as Imam Arastu) studied an old Indian treatise on logic and restructured it into what became known in the Greek world. Additionally, Persian accounts claim that Alexander the Great ordered the translation of Indian sciences, including logic, into Greek.

 

These references suggest that Indian logical traditions, particularly the Nyāya system, may have influenced Aristotelian logic. The five-step reasoning method of Nyāya (Anumana) bears strong similarities to Aristotle’s syllogism, reinforcing the idea of cross-cultural intellectual exchanges between India and Greece.

 

The intellectual exchanges between India and Greece likely predate Aristotle, as evidenced by the travels of Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE), a pre-Socratic philosopher known for his atomic theory. According to Diogenes Laertius in Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, Democritus is said to have traveled extensively, learning geometry from Egyptian priests, studying with the Chaldaeans in Persia, and possibly even engaging with the Gymnosophists (Indian ascetics and philosophers). Given Democritus’ reputation as an enthusiastic and well-funded traveler, a visit to India is not implausible. This suggests that Greek thinkers may have encountered Indian philosophical and logical traditions well before Aristotle. The later accounts of Callisthenes bringing Indian logic to Greece under Alexander the Great only acknowledge that India had already developed a fully mature system of reasoning before Aristotle’s time. However, rather than direct borrowing, the similarities between Indian and Greek logic point to an intellectual environment where ideas on logic, metaphysics, and reasoning were exchanged across civilizations. This further strengthens the argument that Indian logic was an independent, sophisticated tradition that may have indirectly influenced Greek thought.

 Aristotle’s syllogism consists of:

1.      Major Premise – A general statement

2.      Minor Premise – A specific statement

3.      Conclusion – A logical inference from the premises

This deductive reasoning ensures that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Similarly, the Nyāya school, founded by Gautama, developed a five-step inferential method called Anumāna (inference), which consists of:

1.      Pratijñā (Proposition) – The statement to be proved

2.      Hetu (Reason) – The reason for the claim

3.      Udāhta (Example) – A supporting example (often based on perception)

4.      Upanaya (Application) – Applying the example to the case

5.      Nigamana (Conclusion) – The final inference

Comparative Analysis:

  • Logical Structure: Both systems use premises to derive a conclusion.
  • Cause-and-Effect Reasoning: Aristotle’s major premise (universal statement) is similar to Nyaya’s udahrta (example-based rule).
  • Use of Generalization: Nyaya’s use of analogy (e.g., where there is smoke, there is fire) resembles Aristotle’s categorical logic.
  • Validity-Based Reasoning: Both systems emphasize the necessity of valid premises to reach correct conclusions.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics emphasizes virtue and moral character, concepts that closely parallel Hindu Dharma. Just as Aristotle discusses Eudaimonia (human flourishing) as the ultimate goal of life, Indian philosophy highlights Moksha (liberation) as the highest purpose.

Aristotle also describes four causes—Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final—which align with Sankhya philosophy’s concepts of Prakriti (nature) and Purusha (consciousness) as fundamental principles of existence. Additionally, Aristotle’s structured classification of beings and elements is similar to the Vaisesika school’s atomic theory. Ancient Indian thinkers, such as Kanada (6th century BCE), formulated atomic concepts long before Greek Atomism emerged.

 

 (Hindi version will be available in few days. Also More content can be added )