Has ancient Indian approach
predominantly metaphysical !!!!!– the scientific approach of ancient Indian system
While
most of the modern society brands ancient Indian approach which has been
primarily based on Hinduism as a religion or its off springs, the Buddhism and
Jainism, as the ones which are packed with meta physical approach and
explanations, the real approach has always been different. Every insight
related to any subject has been analyzed from different view points psychological,
logical, ethical, social and metaphysical by different scholars be it life
styles, medicine, psychology, sociology; even spirituality. No thought has been
blatantly accepted by everybody.
The
Samkhya school of philosophy describes two views on the theory of cause –
effect (Karana, the cause and Karya the effect) relationship; the baseline of
modern scientific approach. These views are
The pre-existence
of the effect in the cause (Satkaryavada). This theory maintains that karya (effect)
is real. It is present in the karana (cause) in a potential form,
even before its manifestation and an in-depth study of the cause Karana can
lead us to the understanding of Karya, the effect even before it comes into
existence. A theory that can be equated to generalization and universalizing of
the results of experimental studies. The only difference being this
relationship is understood more by observation and analyzing the happening in
an uncontrolled manner with out
bothering about internal external and extraneous variables.
There
are two different interpretations of satkaryavada – Prakriti -parinamavada and
Brahma-vivartavada. The Parinamavada suggests that the effect is the
real parinama (or transformation) of the cause. On the other hand,
the Brahma-vivartavada suggests that the effect is an apparent or
distorted appearance of the cause.
The non-existence
of the effect in the cause has been advocated by Asatkaryavada. This theory maintains that karya (effect)
is asat or unreal until it comes into being. Every effect, then, is a new
beginning and is not born out of cause, but from a previous effect thus trying
to establish the fact that every karya, by itself becomes the cause for the
subsequent effect or change and every happening is an effect-effect
relationship and not a cause effect relationship, just like a medicine being
developed as a potential supporter to
fight a disease, by itself becomes a
cause to damage quiet a few other human systems, which in-turn can lead to
other diseases.
The
ancient Indian system has also described the patterns of deductive reasoning.
Nyaya school of philosophy describes the principle of elimination that
separates what is not a causal condition from what is, viz., that if some
effect is observed without a cause, the
latter is not a causal condition of the former. This is a corollary of the
principle of co-presence (anvaya) that wherever there is the effect there is
one or more causal condition or the sum
total of causal conditions. While some causal conditions may not individually
lead to an effect, wherever there is the
sum total of causal conditions there is the effect (tat-sattve tat-sattā;)hat
could mean the sum total of causal conditions in the first occurrence and the
effect in the second occurrence, then we have the second version, or tat could
mean the effect in the perceived first occurrence and the causal condition or
the sum total of causal conditions in the one that is understood by probing
into to the reason thus becomes the perceived second occurrence.
The
other principle promoted by nyaya philosophy is inductive reasoning, the
principle of recognition that if some effect is observed not to come into being
when everything else is available except something a particular cause, the
latter is a causal condition of the former. This is a corollary of the
principle of co-absence (vyatireka) that wherever there is absence of a causal
condition there is absence of the effect (tat-asatte tat-asattā). In the view
of many Nyāya philosophers these two principles are not equivalent and one does
not necessarily follow from the other.
This
detailed description of the cause – effect relationship by itself is a
important proof of the utilization of scientific approach by ancient Indians in
their understanding of the happenings, changes and expressions of various
thoughts and ideas related to the same
One more
evidence to prove the scientific approach of the ancient Indian systems is that
the society or the scholars did not approve any new thought or ideologies
before it is scrutinized by intellectuals. The prime methodology adopted was
counterfactual reasoning or debate (TARKA) among eminent scholars to prove
their thoughts, insights, inventions or discoveries with proper evidences,
experiences and examples. Tarka has been describe to be of five kinds:
·
Self-dependence or trying to prove a concept
but exploring deeper and deeper in to it,
·
Mutual dependence or trying to prove the
cause-effect relationship
·
Circularity or trying to prove vicarious
cycle of one cause leading to the other which in turn becomes the cause for a
second event and this event becoming the cause for the repetition of the cycle.
For example a failure leading to the development of negative attitude and this
negative attitude becoming the cause for further failures
·
Infinite regress
·
Undesirable consequence where the first four
kinds are included in the last
Scripts
available show that there has been debates among various intellectuals to give
evidences and prove their insights.
Nothing has been accepted without establishing the credentials of the
person propagating a thought. Evidences for can be quoted is the life history
of Adi Shankara. In a debate with one of
the scholars when Adi Shankara was questioned about marital relationships, his
answers were not accepted since he did not have the experience of marital life.
But the story goes on to say that Adi Shankara learnt it by allowing his soul
to enter the body of a dead king, and after under going the experiences he
answered the questions.
Even if
its taken just as another story it can surely be taken as an evidence for the
system available in the ancient Indian culture. May be the perception of
metaphysical dominance can be attributed to the fact that only ancient Indian
system analyzed every issues from the metaphysical dimension when compared to
any other culture or systems and that is the reason it has evoked a great deal
of interest in the western scholars
One
simple difference in the ancient Indian approach was it tried to analyze every
thing in a wholistic way, the system in which one dimension has an
interconnectivity, interdependency and influence of the other. So these
scholars never tried to analyze and document it in a compartmentalized manner
and the mix-up of the meta physical aspects make look as just a subject with metaphysical
dominance with all other dimensions scoring very less importance. May be the
natural human tendencies to show interest in what is not perceived through
sense organs and left to fantasies and assumptions would also have played a
role in viewing ancient Indian views as
metaphysical dominant ones