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