Introduction:
I am sharing both the original version by me and the one edited by OpenAI. Although AI has done a better job, I still feel that it missed out on the fine details that are more important to this article than a precise summary with authentic editing. This also highlights the difference between East/India and the West. In India, we give more importance to minute details in every part of life, whereas the West prioritizes mere information. One example suffices for this: In any scripture, when the author sings about a deity, temple, or tirtha, they provide intricate details about the deity, including the body, ornaments, etc. I have never read any Western literature or poetic scripture from the West, so I am unsure if such minute details are provided by the author. In fact, if one were to edit the entire Kambaramayana to include only the essential story events, even two-thirds of the epic would be cut. This could be due to the influence of Indian philosophy, which differs considerably from the West. As AI is more of a Western software, when it edits, it removes both minute details and, at times, even references from the original.
Original:
My Philosophy
This speaker gives a short but very good summary of his entire talk covering the history of philosophy for the past 2500 years. At the end, he asks one question: by whose philosophy am I most influenced, and what would be my philosophy?
I am not influenced by anyone as I have my own philosophy, though I am not a philosopher or want to consider or call myself a philosopher. Interestingly, in his final part talking about modern philosophers in the post-Renaissance period, there is only one mention of an Eastern philosopher, and that too from India, but a very controversial one, and I don’t even want to mention his name. Of course, there is one reference about Buddhist philosophy on pessimism.
We are both ‘rational’ and ‘emotional,’ and this emotion could be replaced with ‘experience.’ However, for me, ‘compassion’ should be the foundation for philosophy.
But I found one great Indian contribution to philosophy, though it is never considered a separate philosophy: bhakti. Here, bhakti need not be exclusive devotion to any God. Coming from the root ‘bhaj,’ which means ‘standing in personal relationship,’ that could be our personal relationship with anyone or anything—be it with our work, language, nation, parents, relatives, friends, etc. We are social animals. Our identity and existence depend upon others, beginning from our family. At the same time, we also contribute to that collective identity, again beginning from home. We are what we are because of what the society makes us; and society is what it is because of what we make it. In this process of ‘making’ and ‘remaking’ is our identity and existence.
But this bhakti is a unique Indian concept and contribution. I would go further and say that unless you are an Indian, you cannot understand this concept of bhakti. Though devotion is part of every other religion, its unique place particularly in Hinduism and, in general, also in the Indian mind [worldview].
But the most shocking point in this talk on philosophy is that not even one single woman philosopher is discussed. As we live in a male-dominated society almost around the world, there is every possibility of not including them or their contribution to philosophy. But without women, both life and philosophy remain incomplete. In fact, women, in one way, create philosophy, driving many men to think and talk about philosophy. But the major difference is that while men talk about philosophy, women practice it through their lives. Men talk philosophy, but women practice it. So they are the PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHERS, whereas men are talkative philosophers, though we consider women more talkative.
I wonder if the main reason that motivated or drove Socrates to become a philosopher could be his wife. We know all the famous stories told about his wife. The most popular one is this: one day, when he was sitting outside the house discussing philosophy with others, his wife poured water on him from the first floor of the house. When others were shocked, Socrates, with a smile, said, ‘Before this, it was thundering, and now it rains.’ That’s why he often wandered in the market and public places discussing philosophy and asking questions to people—not at home. In fact, his wife could be one reason he never wrote any of his thoughts, as he never would have found space for it in his home.
But in India, it is completely different. Like all other civilizations, although India has remained and still remains a male-dominated society, the role women have played in personal life, home, family, community, society, and the nation at large is unique. Though I don’t know much about Western and other Eastern worldviews, I think that in the ancient West, women were often treated as objects of pleasure, where masculine muscle power was in high demand to conquer the outside world. This naturally gave the impression that Western civilization is masculine and Indian civilization is feminine. In China, which is as old as Indian civilization, even today, women do not get any prominent role, starting from the home. I wonder if there are any Politburo members in the Communist Party who are women. The same is true for Japan and other South Asian societies. But India stands unique in this.
Take the example there would be no Ramayana or Mahabharata. Who is the main character who initiated and completed the Mahabharata, particularly the war? It is Panchali. She laughed when Duryodhana, visiting Indraprastha where the Pandavas built a palatial palace and invited their relatives for the inauguration, fell into a water pond that was covered with rangoli. There is even a Tamil proverb that says, ‘If a woman laughs [in public] and [a dried] tobacco leaf unfolds, they both lost their essence’ = pombala sirichha pochu; pohayila viricha pochu. When the Pandavas lost everything in the dice game, Panchali took a terrible vow that she would never tie her hair again, which Dushasana used to drag her from her chamber to the darbar, until she applied the blood of him. Her long, falling hair every day reminded the Pandavas of their plight. She also debates, rather argues, with Yudhishthira both in Vanaparva and post-war on several important topics. The same way Sita, though considered the epitome of womanhood, particularly a wife, still never hesitated to challenge Rama on crucial issues of taking her along with him in exile and the fire ordeal that he insists she should undergo. In fact, there is a Sitayana1 in which Sita is the main character and not Rama.
Ramayana would never have moved forward without women playing the central role, beginning from Manthara [Kuni in Tamil = hunchback], who, it is told, sought to take revenge on Rama when he teased her in his childhood by doing a prank with an arrow, keeping a mud ball on her hunchback. Begun by her, followed by Kaikeyi, Sita, Surpanakha, the entire narrative centers around them, where men play subordinate roles.
This is not only true with epics but in every Indian home; women are the foundation on which every home is constructed. Though we never come across one Western woman philosopher or none mentioned, at least there are a few known famous characters like Gargi in Janaka’s court, Maitreyi and Katyayani of Yajnavalkya, and Subhala, who had a great debate with Janaka, and many more. In fact, Yajnavalkya2 even rebukes his wife for asking many more philosophical questions as it will blow up her head. Maybe, though he was a very famous philosopher of his time, he was unable to answer her, and using his male domination, he tried to silence her.3
So for me, more than reason and emotion, it is compassion that is my philosophy. That motivates us to live as human beings [known as ‘Jeeva Karunyam in Tamil]. Considering the entire cosmogony with several Milky Ways with so many solar systems, an individual is nothing. At the same time, remaining a transcendental immanent being, I can create my own cosmos keeping myself as the center. So when you become arrogant and prideful, you are nothing in the cosmos, but when you feel depressed and down, then you are the master of your life. In both compassion—with oneself and towards others, including the entire creation—is my philosophy. And silence is the best technique to understand and implement in life than having any discussion, debate, and argument about philosophy.
I am not giving any systematic presentation about my philosophy—which again is the mark of true philosophy. As philosophy answers a confused mind, naturally, there won’t be a systematic answer to it, though one can try to present it in a systematic way as the speaker has done in this video.
Gurukulam
30-8-2024
1 A widely admired literary critic, poet, an erudite scholar and the chief authority of Indian English literature Iyengar recasts the Ramayana as quintessentially Sita’s story Sitayana: Epic of the Earth-born, ‘Sita’s saga sublime’.
IYENGAR’S SITAYANA: A RETELLING OF THE SAGA OF SITA
2 Yajnavalkya plays a central position in a debate hosted by King Janaka in Mithila, Videha, which is in the east of India, where Yajnavalkya defeats philosophers from all around the country.[14] The debate ended with Gargi, a female scholar and one of the nine gems of King Janaka’s court, clearly asserting Yajnavalkya as the most superior brahmin of them all.[15][16]
In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, a set of dialogues portrays Yajnavalkya as having two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani.[17] Maitreyi, as opposed to Katyayani, was more intrigued to gain spiritual knowledge.[16] Maitreyi was known as a brahmavadini, a discusser of Brahman.[18] Katyayani is merely described as “striprajna,” which translates to “woman-like knowledge;” this can be interpreted as one who is well-versed in traditionally females roles.[18] While Yajnavalkya and Katyayani lived in contented domesticity, Maitreyi studied metaphysics and engaged in theological dialogues with her husband in addition to “making self-inquiries of introspection.”[17][19] In contrast to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the epic Mahabharata states Maitreyi is a young beauty who is an Advaita scholar but never marries.[20]—accessed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajnavalkya, on 30-8-2024
3 The debate between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya is found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the principal Upanishads of Hindu philosophy. This dialogue occurs in the second chapter (Madhukanda), specifically in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4 and also repeated in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.5.
Context:
Yajnavalkya, a renowned sage, decides to renounce worldly life and distribute his wealth between his two wives, Maitreyi and Katyayani. When he informs Maitreyi about his decision, she raises a profound question: “If this whole earth, filled with wealth, were mine, would I be immortal through that?” Yajnavalkya responds that wealth cannot bring immortality.
This leads to a deep philosophical discussion about the nature of the self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). Maitreyi’s questioning and Yajnavalkya’s teachings in this debate are considered a significant exploration of the concepts of non-duality (Advaita) and the realization that the true self is beyond worldly attachments.
Key Points:
– Maitreyi’s inquiry challenges the notion of wealth and material possessions leading to ultimate fulfillment.
– Yajnavalkya teaches that the self is the essence of reality and that understanding and realizing this self is the path to immortality.
This debate is often cited in discussions of Indian philosophy, particularly in the context of the Upanishadic teachings on the nature of the self and the pursuit of spiritual knowledge over material gains.—from Open AI, Chatgbt, accessed on 30-8-2024, 6.35 pm.
My Philosophy Edited Version
Introduction:
I am sharing both my original version and the one edited by OpenAI. While the AI has certainly refined the text, I believe it misses out on the finer details that are crucial to this article. This difference also reflects the broader contrast between Eastern/Indian and Western perspectives. In India, we value intricate details in every aspect of life, whereas the West often prioritizes concise information. For example, in Indian scriptures, when an author describes a deity, temple, or tirtha, they include detailed accounts of the deity’s form, ornaments, and more. Although I haven’t extensively read Western literature or scriptures, I doubt they emphasize such minutiae. If someone were to edit the Kambaramayana by focusing solely on the main events, two-thirds of the epic would be omitted. This approach reflects the influence of Indian philosophy, which diverges significantly from Western thought. Since AI is inherently Western in design, its editing often removes not only these fine details but sometimes even important references from the original.
The speaker presents a concise yet insightful overview of the history of philosophy over the past 2,500 years. At the end of the talk, he poses a question: which philosophy influences me the most, and what is my own philosophy?
I don’t align with any specific philosopher, as I follow my own path. Despite not considering myself a philosopher, I find that compassion is at the heart of my philosophy. Interestingly, the speaker’s discussion of modern philosophers post-Renaissance mentions only one Eastern philosopher from India—a controversial figure whose name I choose not to mention. There’s also a brief reference to Buddhist pessimism.
Human beings are both rational and emotional, with emotions often linked to personal experiences. For me, compassion should be the foundation of philosophy.
One of India’s greatest philosophical contributions, though often overlooked, is bhakti. This concept isn’t limited to devotion to a deity; it’s about a personal connection with anything—be it our work, language, nation, family, or friends. As social beings, our identity and existence are shaped by and contribute to our society, starting from our homes. We are shaped by society, and society is shaped by us. This ongoing process of shaping and reshaping defines our identity and existence.
Bhakti is a uniquely Indian concept. I believe it’s something that can only be truly understood by those immersed in Indian culture. While devotion is part of many religions, bhakti holds a special place in Hinduism and in the broader Indian worldview.
The most surprising aspect of the talk on philosophy was the complete absence of women philosophers. In a male-dominated world, it’s common for women’s contributions to be overlooked. Yet, without women, both life and philosophy would be incomplete. Women, in many ways, create philosophy, inspiring men to think and discuss it. However, while men often talk about philosophy, women live it. Women are the practical philosophers, while men are often more talkative about it.
I wonder if Socrates’ motivation to become a philosopher was influenced by his wife. Stories about her, like the one where she poured water on him while he discussed philosophy outside, suggest that his domestic life played a role in shaping his philosophical pursuits. Perhaps his wife’s influence was a reason he never wrote down his thoughts—he might not have found the space for it at home.
India presents a distinctive case when compared to other civilizations. While it shares the common trait of being a historically male-dominated society, the role of women in personal life, home, family, community, society, and even the nation has been uniquely significant. Although my knowledge of Western and other Eastern worldviews is limited, I believe that in the ancient West, women were often seen primarily as objects of pleasure, with masculine strength prioritized for the conquest of the external world. This dynamic led to the perception of Western civilization as masculine and Indian civilization as feminine. In contrast, in China—a civilization as old as India’s—women have traditionally been excluded from prominent roles, beginning within the home. I wonder if there are any female members of the Politburo in the Communist Party today. Similarly, Japan and other South Asian societies share this pattern. Yet, India remains unique in its approach to gender roles.
In India, women have always been central to the creation of major epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata. Panchali, in particular, played a crucial role in the Mahabharata, especially in the war. Her actions and vows, including her refusal to tie her hair until Dusasan’s blood was applied to it, are pivotal to the narrative. Similarly, Sita, while representing ideal womanhood, still challenged Rama on key issues, such as her exile and the fire ordeal.
Women are foundational to both epics and everyday life in India. Despite the lack of recognition in Western philosophy, there are prominent female figures in Indian philosophy, like Gargi, Maitreyi, and Subhala, who engaged in significant debates. Yajnavalkya’s2 rebuke of Maitreyi’s philosophical questions reflects the challenges women faced, even from prominent philosophers.3
For me, compassion surpasses both reason and emotion as the core of my philosophy. It guides us to live as humane beings. In the vast cosmos, an individual may seem insignificant, but as a transcendental being, we can create our own cosmos centered on ourselves. When we are arrogant, we are mere specks in the universe; when we are down, we are the masters of our lives. Compassion—for oneself and for others, including all creation—is my guiding philosophy. Silence, rather than endless debate, is the best way to understand and implement philosophy in life.
I’m not presenting a systematic philosophy, which, ironically, reflects true philosophical thought. Philosophy answers a confused mind, and thus, may not have a systematic answer, even though one can attempt to present it systematically as the speaker did.
Gurukulam
30-8-2024
Notes: See at the end of the original.
Leave a Reply