Musings on AK Ramanujan's 'Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?'

A.K. Ramanujan begins his essay Is there an Indian Way of Thinking? An Informal Essay by framing the question in four different ways, following Stanislavsky’s method for judging the potential of actors. A.K.Ramanujan wonders if there is an Indian way of thinking. Ramanujan says that the Indian way of thinking is highly context-oriented. While the Western world celebrates egalitarianism and universality, India continues to uphold its caste- oriented, ancient principles and beliefs that indicate diversity, rather than universality.

            India as a nation has always been adaptable to change. We have been able to successfully incorporate western ideas, beliefs, attire and customs with our very own traditional beliefs and attire. Ramanujan writes about his father, a South Indian Brahmin, who is an amalgamation of all the diverse cultures, beliefs and concepts that symbolise Indians’ ability to effectively integrate the best of other cultures without giving up Indian values and beliefs. He was a mathematician, astronomer, a Sanskrit scholar and an astrologer. When he entered his house he followed the Indian custom of leaving his shoes outside. But his attire was a blend of Indian and Western accessories. Ramanujan could not understand these glaring inconsistencies in his father’s personality. But his father did not bother about such inconsistencies.  

Ramanujan points out that though such inconsistencies have not bothered Indians, the English and what Ramanujan calls ‘modern’Indians have always been perturbed by what they consider to be contradictions in the Indian psyche. Ramanujan illustrates the inconsistency in Indian perception with the example of the use of the words karma and talaividi. He explains that both words have very different meanings, but they are often used interchangeably. Karma is a concept that is usually associated with Hindus, Indians, Buddhists and Jains. But it is a concept that Ramanujan did not find mentioned anywhere in the two thousand Kannada folk tales that had been collected by him and others and were written by Buddhists and Jains. Karma was a word that was commonly used in daily spoken language in most Indian villages. Ramanujan says that Sheryl Daniel has mentioned that both words karma and talaividi were used in her village in Tamil Nadu. Ramanujan explains that karma means one’s past actions determine one’s present situation and it is inescapable as well as inevitable. On the other hand talaividi is an arbitrary concept that means that one’s fate is written on one’s head at the time of birth and it is also inescapable and inevitable. Both are contradictory ideas but are frequently used, interchangeably by Indians.

Henry Kissinger, the American diplomat and politician believed that countries like India are not influenced by Newtonian principles. They are pre-Newtonian cultures. V.S.Naipaul quotes the eminent Indian psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar to explain that Indians do not have the concept of the inner and outer selves. As far as Indians are concerned, everything outside us is also deeply related and connected to us. Indians relate everything to themselves and as Kakar points out, “The Indian ‘ego’ is underdeveloped.” Ramanujan then quotes a passage from E.M.Foster’s A Passage to India where the character Mrs Moore comments on the intrusive nature of animals and insects in India. She muses that, “no Indian animal has any sense of an interior. Bats, rats, birds, insects will as soon rest inside the house as out…” Mrs Moore was shocked and taken aback by the invasive behaviour of animals and insects in India. But this is not surprising for Indians.

Ramanujan then refers to Indologists like Zimmer, the German philosopher and essayist who appreciate the lack of ego in the Indian psyche. Indians do not give undue importance to the place of man in the larger scheme of affairs. This is something that is difficult for the Westerners to do, because they are deeply egoistic in nature.

Ramanujan goes on to explain the differences between the Indian way of thinking and the Western way of thinking. Western philosophy is rooted in Immanuel Kant’s concept of universal truths and generalization. On the other hand Indian philosophy continues to be rooted in Manu’s caste- oriented, context specific principles. Every aspect of life in India is determined by the context in which an individual and a situation are located.

A.K.Ramanujan points out that even the concept of truth in India varies depending on the caste identity and the background of the individual. Manu has laid down the characteristic traits of each caste division. Hence bravery, which in Western context can be the quality of any individual who demonstrates it, becomes the characteristic quality of the Kshatriya caste in India. Judeo- Christian ethics emphasise upon the precept, “Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you.” But Manu’s concept varies greatly from Western beliefs. He put forth the principle that the righteousness of an action is dependent upon the caste of the individual. Actions and conduct of individuals in the Indian condition are deeply influenced by the particular caste to which they belong. Similarly, punishment for offences and crimes committed are also dictated and influenced by the caste identity of the offender. So the punishment prescribed for various castes varies according to their position in the social hierarchy of India.

Indian culture is more concerned with situations and their particular context-sensitive solutions. Indian systems of thought are very different from that of Hegel and Kant. Sheryl Daniel says that Indians carry a ‘tool-box of ideas’ and they use it without falling back on logic. Levi- Strauss, the French anthropologist says that ‘anything goes into their ‘bricolage’. Max Weber and Geertz have said that there are differences between ‘traditional’ and ‘rational’ religions. Geertz has explained that traditional religions focus on particular aspects and are ‘opportunistic’ in their outlook.

Ramanujan says that grammatical rules are both context- sensitive and context-free. Similarly, Indian culture prefers the context –sensitive cultural practices and tradition. The members of a particular caste (jathi), district, guild and family have their own particular dharma or laws as prescribed by Manu. According to Manu the people of different castes have different dharma.

Baudhayana has listed the various differences between the Brahmins of the southern and the northern part of India. Depending on the region to which they belong, their practices also vary. A.K.Ramanujan highlights the deeply context-sensitive nature of Indian society and its cultural traditions. He says that there are no discussions on beauty in its various forms as carried out by Plato in the ancient Greek texts. The Indian epics- the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are context oriented and both epics abound in stories within stories. One story forms the context of another story and supplements the meaning of the outer story.

Yudhisthira’s weakness for gambling was responsible for the exile of the Pandavas and he repents what he has done. A sage visits him and tells him the story of Nala and Damyanti. Yudhisthira realises that Nala’s story of gambling away his kingdom, his wife and his exile and then regaining everything, resembles his own life. He learns that his journey has only reached midway. The story within the story enhances the relevance and meaning of the larger story.

Ramanujan goes on to explain that Indian texts or grantha (derived from the knotted palm-leaf manuscripts) have been considered deficient in unity on the basis of their definition of unity. These texts blend stories, speeches, and poems to explain concepts and principles. According to Westerners, they lack Aristotelian unity. But Ramanujan asserts that they have coherence and this is the essential purpose of the Indian text.

Ramanujan then proceeds to explain the close confluence and blending of the interior landscape with the exterior landscape in Indian culture and literature as evident in the akam or love poetry. Nature and culture are not opposites as evinced by Levi- Strauss, rather man and nature are independent and yet sustain and stimulate each other. Ramanujan quotes literary critic Kenneth Burke’s terms that “Scene and agent are one; they are metonyms for one another.” Ramanujan explains the Tamil concept of ullurai or ‘inset’ or ‘inward speaking’ or ‘inscape’ which puts man in context and depicts him as being continuous with that context. A.K.Ramanujan talks about the container-contained nature of relationships between almost everything in India by giving the example of the caste- structure, wherein every caste is contained within the one above it in the social hierarchy. The Kshatriya caste is distinctly different from the Vaisya caste but it contains the Vaisya caste within it as does the Brahmana encompass the Kshatriya caste.

Ramanujan points out that space and time are universal in Western perspective, especially so for Kant. But as far as Indians are concerned, even space and time are not neutral. Even the soil of a village is said to play a role in moulding the nature and personality of its citizens as mentioned by E.V.Daniel. Human nature and personality is attributed to houses in India. Time itself is divided into auspicious and inauspicious periods as are entire epochs, like Kaliyuga which is considered to be a bad phase and signals the advent of everything bad. Even Indian classical music is dependent on time, place and mood. Musical instruments and the material that they are crafted out of influence the quality of the music created by it. Even the making of instruments is dictated by the caste hierarchy. There are rules that dictate as to which instrument can be made by which caste. The quality attributed to a particular jati influences the quality of the music produced by it.

Natural elements and human beings are closely connected in Indian culture and are mutually interdependent. Marriott states that Indians rather than being spiritual are materialists and are concerned about substantial things. Zimmerman highlights the fact that as far as traditional Indian medical texts are concerned the physiology of the body is given precedence, rather than the anatomy.

Ramanujan refutes Kissinger’s claim that Indians’ lack the ability to think in abstract terms. He refers to anthropologist Richard Shweder’s study of American and Oriya adults based on the phrases used by both groups to describe people. Where an American would describe an individual as good or bad an Indian would describe the person based on the particular situation. Alan Roland, the psychoanalyst says that for Indians, the family is an eternal context and the self is inseparable from the family. In America there is a teenage phase when one rebels against the family, and asserts the self in opposition to the family. Indians on the other hand, always situate themselves in the context of the family and Roland says that they communicate according to the context of the person and the situation, altering and adjusting their comments and views to match the situation. Indian culture is caste driven and there are certain rules, principles and practices that have been framed and act as unwritten laws that govern every aspect of life and behaviour in Indian society and culture. All streams of Indian philosophy like Hindu, Jain and Buddhist are context sensitive. The universal element does not figure in the Indian scheme of things or even if it does, its role is limited.

Ramanujan then points out the fact that the grammar of a language is the most context-sensitive system and most Indian texts are influenced by grammatical structures, rules and connotations. Ramanujan says that Frits Staal, the eminent Vedic scholar and philosopher has said that as Euclid is indispensable to European thought, so is Pannini to Indian grammar. The Indian epic of love, the Kamasutra provides details of the various permutations and combinations that facilitate and enhance the sexual experience of both genders. It talks of the different types of human bodies and character types and their inherent response to various emotions and scents.

Ramanujan points out that we interpret and perceive things according to the context we find ourselves in, for example, he quotes from the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad about the three DAs- Datta, Dayadhvam, and Damyata. Datta means kindness, Dayadhvam means compassion and Damyata means control. Each one of these principles was interpreted by the human beings, anti - gods and the gods as applicable to their respective weaknesses.

Traditionally, Western societies with their Protestant work ethic and egalitarian principles have been context-free. But there are counter-currents in every society. Every movement sets off a counter movement and both co-exist together at the same time in the same situation. Similarly, Indian society, which is highly context- sensitive is seeking to move into a context free situation. Ramanujan then points to the Indian concept of Bhakti which further cements his belief that we have context- free beliefs amidst the highly context-sensitive ideas and beliefs that define Indian culture. Bhakti movement rejects the context of gender, caste, class, age, custom and tradition.

Indian arts and sciences are not concerned about the contradictions between the unique and universal, between art and polity that drive and dominate Western thought and philosophy. Whatever has come to India from the West has been tailored to suit Indian contexts, systems and beliefs and integrated into the Indian way of life and thought.