NOT THE MYSTERIOUS EAST: REASON AND ARGUMENT IN INDIAN THOUGHT

NOT THE MYSTERIOUS EAST: REASON AND ARGUMENT IN INDIAN THOUGHT

Western Perceptions of India and “the East”

It is common for Western people to downplay the importance of the mental/rational consciousness in traditional Indian thought. They tend to clearly distinguish feminine, intuitive, and emotional Eastern thinking from Western thinking, whose qualities are viewed as masculine and rational.

Edward Said, in Orientalism, viewed this Western construction as justifying the colonization of “the East.” On the other hand, many Western people sympathetic to Indian philosophy and practices perceive Indian thought positively, since they value knowledge of the heart, which provides transrational wisdom, as the highest level of consciousness. Mystical India is considered superior to the rational West.

We need to be careful not to uncritically assent to common generalizations about “the East” and Eastern philosophy that lead us astray. Indian civilization is significantly different from Chinese civilization, which includes Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. As a result, Indian philosophy has qualities that set it apart from the philosophical traditions within the Chinese sphere.

India and East Asia have very different religious outlooks. For instance, although Indian religions have been predominantly mythic like those of East Asia, they tend to have a more other-worldly orientation. Indian thought also gives universals far more value than particulars. This emphasis on the general leads to an Indian preference for abstractions. In contrast, East Asian thought pays more attention to concrete events, places, and people, often relying on similes and metaphors to bring ideas to life.

The vitality and influence of rational thought within Indian philosophy have been frequently downplayed or dismissed. India has been viewed as mired in mythic thinking until the coming of the British. This standpoint is accompanied by the notion that democracy, which relies on reason and argumentation, must be a British gift. However, the inadequacy of this perspective on Indian thought has been demonstrated by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (2005). It fails to account for the fact that in the great Indian religious epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, dialogues, debates, and alternative views abound.

King Ashoka

A Flourishing Custom of Reasoning and Argument

In fact, there is a long history of public reasoning in India, dating back to early Buddhist thinkers, who saw discussion as a means to achieve social progress. Councils were held that were open to the general public as a vehicle for settling disputes among those with divergent points of view. The most famous was convened during the reign of the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE to iron out differences in religious teachings and practices while also touching on social issues. Ashoka was a great proponent of public discussion who provided a code to ensure restraint and moderation in speech and to honor one’s opponents in the conduct of arguments. He also propagated a message of excellence in governance, including basic freedoms for all social groups, by distributing stone tablets throughout the land.

The use of reason and argument was not limited to men and members of the privileged classes. Sen gives evidence that long ago, although men did have a larger role in public discussion, women’s voices were not negligible. Even as far back as the Upanishads, women are present in some of the most impressive dialogues and ask probing questions. A revealing instance is in the Mahabharata, when Draupadi persuades her husband, King Yudishthira, to engage in battle with those who want to usurp his throne, despite his reluctance to kill. She hardly fits the stereotype of the passive woman.

Sen questions the assumption that rational discourse was only practiced by high-status members of the community. Argument was also a vehicle for relatively disadvantaged groups to make their case against Brahmin orthodoxy and the authority of the priestly caste. These were religious movements such as Buddhism and Jainism that initially rebelled against the hierarchical social order and asserted human equality. The Hindu epics also contain arguments against caste. In addition, the devotional movements of Hinduism (bhakti) and Islam (Sufism), popular during the Middle Ages, influenced the writings of mystical poets, often ordinary workers such as Kabir, Dadu, and Ravi-das, who were critical of artificial social divisions of caste and religious insularity.

A long tradition of tolerance and pluralism supported the development of secular attitudes, culminating in the arguments of the Muslim Emperor Akbar in the late sixteenth century for a state that did not favor any particular religion. He put his reasoned conclusions into practice by ending discriminatory practices against non-Muslims, encouraging Hindu culture, and giving high positions to Hindus. Sen sees continuity between such support of religious diversity and the twentieth-century promotion of secularism by leading figures such as Gandhi, Nehru, and Tagore. They were instrumental in creating a favorable climate for the creation of a secular Indian constitution and for official government policies in favor of multiculturalism. Modern Indian secularism has not been primarily a reflection of Western attitudes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi

The Backlash

Hindu nationalism is a backlash against policies encouraging diversity of thought and belief. The Indian government discriminates against Muslims and attempts to restrict expression. Such measures are often popular among less educated Hindus who resent the Western-oriented elite. However, the pushback against Hindu nationalism demonstrates that many people are not willing to renounce the long-standing Indian commitment to reasoned argument.

Hindu nationalism is anti-Western, but it mistakenly assumes that Indian and Western civilizations stand for opposing values and ways of thinking. Since it partially reflects anti-colonial attitudes and cultural pride, this standpoint is understandable. Hindu nationalists view Western influence as undermining India’s spiritual and ethical values, leading to civilizational decay. However, this attitude fails to recognize that late modernity, which India embraces, is responsible for burgeoning materialism and the decline of community. India and the West face a common challenge: integrating rational thought with spiritual wisdom.