Indian philosophy differs significantly from Greek philosophy, which later became the foundation for European philosophies. In European or Greek philosophy, concepts are often presented as binary opposites: this or that, god or devil, salvation or damnation, hell or heaven. These antitheses form the core of their philosophical approach.
In contrast, Indian philosophy views good and bad as part of one system, or two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other; in fact, one is essential for the other to function. For instance, unless there is a devil, there is no need for God. Similarly, unless there is sickness, there is no need for a doctor or treatment.
We can extend this idea further: unless the first sin occurred, salvation wouldn’t be necessary. Without the fall, there would be no need for redemption. This leads to an important question: When comparing Stoic indifference and the balance promoted by Buddha, what is the balance we should keep in mind?
Stoic indifference suggests maintaining emotional detachment from external events, fostering inner tranquility regardless of external circumstances. This can sometimes lead to apathy or disengagement from the world around us. On the other hand, Buddha’s balanced approach advocates for equanimity, where one remains mindful and engaged with their surroundings while maintaining inner peace.
The balance we should strive for is one that allows us to acknowledge and engage with the dualities of life—good and bad, joy and sorrow—without becoming overwhelmed by them. It’s about finding harmony between detachment and involvement, maintaining inner tranquility while being actively present and compassionate in our interactions with the world. This balance encourages us to recognize the interconnectedness of all things and to respond with wisdom and compassion, rather than indifference or detachment.
Determining where to involve and where to withdraw is a very complicated issue in life. Keeping a balance is very difficult. Be it morality, charity, suffering, social justice, common justice, social upliftment, or any kind of social, moral, or ethical responsibility, striking that balance is a big challenge for us.
My personal approach to this is: when it involves your own personal loss, personal humiliation, or personal suffering, keep quiet and accept it. Maintain your tranquility and don’t retaliate. In such situations, silence is the best answer.
However, when it comes to common justice and the common good for all—if others’ safety, security, or justice are at stake—you cannot maintain a Stoic indifference. Instead, you must involve yourself in the best way possible to bring about justice, safety, protection, and human rights for everyone, whether at home, in public places, or in workplaces.
The best example I found is in the life of Muktinath. When people challenged him to demonstrate that he is God by coming down from the cross or displaying his power to prove his divinity, he remained silent. Even when Pilate asked, “What is truth?” he refused to comment. When his personal godhood or personal assimilation was questioned, he kept quiet.
However, when it involved others’ rights, social justice, and common justice, he never hesitated to take action. He took a whip and chased away the moneylenders from the temple, defending the right of the gentiles to stand in the outer courtyard and pray. Even in the story of the woman caught in adultery, whether true or not, he addressed her humiliation and defended her. He never hesitated to expose the hypocrisy of the religious authorities when it created problems for common people, whereas he refused to retaliate when he was personally attacked or judged.
This principle applies to charity as well. Don’t hold back; give liberally to others when they are in need. Similarly, when someone demands your coat, give them your inner garment as well. If someone compels you to go one mile, go the extra mile. And when it comes to forgiveness, forgive seventy times seven. All these examples illustrate the principle: when it involves my own personal loss or personal humiliation, the approach remains the same. However, if it affects others, beginning from home, I must consider their needs and rights. For example, in the name of charity, I cannot deprive my own family members of their rights, as the famous proverb says: Charity begins at home. Of course, exceptions exist, such as those who implemented their ideology at the cost of others, like Gandhiji, but not everyone can become Gandhiji or Muktinath.
Finally, one modern example, though it might be political, highlights this point well. In many European Western countries, the general principle is that if you are not with us, then you are against us. In contrast, Indian philosophy and political systems often follow a different approach. The principle is not to align with either side but to involve oneself where necessary and withdraw where needed. The non-alignment principle serves as a benchmark for both external and internal relations in this context. Keeping their national interest first, as every country creates its foreign policy, India does the same.
While Stoic philosophy on silence is important for maintaining tranquility, calm, and interpersonal harmony, it is crucial to balance this approach with Indian philosophy. Stoic silence can help in maintaining peace with oneself and others, but it should not lead to extreme detachment or indifference. Indian philosophy advocates for a balanced approach—being wise, shrewd, and strategic, while also maintaining innocence and integrity. This balanced approach helps navigate life’s complexities effectively.
Gurukulam
7-8-2024
Indian philosophy differs significantly from Greek philosophy, which later became the foundation for European philosophies. In European or Greek philosophy, concepts are often presented as binary opposites: this or that, god or devil, salvation or damnation, hell or heaven. These antitheses form the core of their philosophical approach.
In contrast, Indian philosophy views good and bad as part of one system, or two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other; in fact, one is essential for the other to function. For instance, unless there is a devil, there is no need for God. Similarly, unless there is sickness, there is no need for a doctor or treatment.
We can extend this idea further: unless the first sin occurred, salvation wouldn’t be necessary. Without the fall, there would be no need for redemption. This leads to an important question: When comparing Stoic indifference and the balance promoted by Buddha, what is the balance we should keep in mind?
Stoic indifference suggests maintaining emotional detachment from external events, fostering inner tranquility regardless of external circumstances. This can sometimes lead to apathy or disengagement from the world around us. On the other hand, Buddha’s balanced approach advocates for equanimity, where one remains mindful and engaged with their surroundings while maintaining inner peace.
The balance we should strive for is one that allows us to acknowledge and engage with the dualities of life—good and bad, joy and sorrow—without becoming overwhelmed by them. It’s about finding harmony between detachment and involvement, maintaining inner tranquility while being actively present and compassionate in our interactions with the world. This balance encourages us to recognize the interconnectedness of all things and to respond with wisdom and compassion, rather than indifference or detachment.
Determining where to involve and where to withdraw is a very complicated issue in life. Keeping a balance is very difficult. Be it morality, charity, suffering, social justice, common justice, social upliftment, or any kind of social, moral, or ethical responsibility, striking that balance is a big challenge for us.
My personal approach to this is: when it involves your own personal loss, personal humiliation, or personal suffering, keep quiet and accept it. Maintain your tranquility and don’t retaliate. In such situations, silence is the best answer.
However, when it comes to common justice and the common good for all—if others’ safety, security, or justice are at stake—you cannot maintain a Stoic indifference. Instead, you must involve yourself in the best way possible to bring about justice, safety, protection, and human rights for everyone, whether at home, in public places, or in workplaces.
The best example I found is in the life of Muktinath. When people challenged him to demonstrate that he is God by coming down from the cross or displaying his power to prove his divinity, he remained silent. Even when Pilate asked, “What is truth?” he refused to comment. When his personal godhood or personal assimilation was questioned, he kept quiet.
However, when it involved others’ rights, social justice, and common justice, he never hesitated to take action. He took a whip and chased away the moneylenders from the temple, defending the right of the gentiles to stand in the outer courtyard and pray. Even in the story of the woman caught in adultery, whether true or not, he addressed her humiliation and defended her. He never hesitated to expose the hypocrisy of the religious authorities when it created problems for common people, whereas he refused to retaliate when he was personally attacked or judged.
This principle applies to charity as well. Don’t hold back; give liberally to others when they are in need. Similarly, when someone demands your coat, give them your inner garment as well. If someone compels you to go one mile, go the extra mile. And when it comes to forgiveness, forgive seventy times seven. All these examples illustrate the principle: when it involves my own personal loss or personal humiliation, the approach remains the same. However, if it affects others, beginning from home, I must consider their needs and rights. For example, in the name of charity, I cannot deprive my own family members of their rights, as the famous proverb says: Charity begins at home. Of course, exceptions exist, such as those who implemented their ideology at the cost of others, like Gandhiji, but not everyone can become Gandhiji or Muktinath.
Finally, one modern example, though it might be political, highlights this point well. In many European Western countries, the general principle is that if you are not with us, then you are against us. In contrast, Indian philosophy and political systems often follow a different approach. The principle is not to align with either side but to involve oneself where necessary and withdraw where needed. The non-alignment principle serves as a benchmark for both external and internal relations in this context. Keeping their national interest first, as every country creates its foreign policy, India does the same.
While Stoic philosophy on silence is important for maintaining tranquility, calm, and interpersonal harmony, it is crucial to balance this approach with Indian philosophy. Stoic silence can help in maintaining peace with oneself and others, but it should not lead to extreme detachment or indifference. Indian philosophy advocates for a balanced approach—being wise, shrewd, and strategic, while also maintaining innocence and integrity. This balanced approach helps navigate life’s complexities effectively.
Gurukulam
7-8-2024
Leave a Reply