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
गत्वान्यमाक्रममाक्रम्यात्मानमुपसंहरति, एवमेवायमात्मेदं शरीरं निहत्य, अविद्यां
गमयित्वा, अन्यमाक्रममाक्रम्यात्मानमुपसंहरति)
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 इति; यथाकारी यथाचारी तथा भवति—साधुकारी साधुर्भवति, पापकारी
पापो भवति; पुण्यः पुण्येन कर्मणा भवति, पापः पापेन । अथो खल्वाहुः काममय एवायं पुरुष
इति; स यथाकामो भवति तत्क्रतुर्भवति, यत्क्रतुर्भवति
तत्कर्म कुरुते, यत्कर्म 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
विहाय, नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि | तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णा, न्यन्यानि
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. Udāhṛta
(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 )