PhD needs a reset

World over, the PhD program is in a crisis, and there are ample amount of articles written about why we need to rethink our PhD programs. For example: 

• The Paradox of Doctoral Training - the Node
• The Reimagined PhD: Navigating 21st Century Education
• PhD Crisis: Oversupply or Mismanagement of Talent?
• PhD Education: 2025 Expectations and Transformation

This is yet another post about this topic-- but one that is hopefully, in a very different direction. There are major issues that are debated about PhD education today-- including funding and the industry relevance of the research carried out. 

But very few observers, if any, are addressing the fundamental reason why a PhD study exists in the first place. 

A PhD is a degree in philosophy-- not in technology or science or engineering. One does not think in terms of a Computer Science PhD, Data Science PhD, Mathematics PhD, etc. It is just a PhD-- a thesis communicating the results of a philosophical inquiry. 

A philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality is by definition, interdisciplinary. There is nothing that is "out of syllabus" for a philosophical inquiry. 

And in my opinion, this disconnect with the core reason behind a PhD journey, is the biggest crisis we are facing today. At a time when there is an acute need for people with philosophy skills, not only are we discounting this important skill, but we also actively mock and lampoon philosophers with stereotypes of being impractical figureheads living in their own ivory towers. 

*~*~*~*~*~

Philosophy is a term that is greatly misunderstood today. I remember some years ago, when a former colleague came to meet me and I was mentioning that I was mentoring a "philosophy club" among our students. After this, we went to the cafeteria and we both ranted about the troubles we are facing in our respective lives, talked about politics, history and anything that caught our fancy. And then, just before we said goodbye, the former colleague said, "There, I guess this was one more session of your philosophy club?" 

I just smiled and nodded, not having the heart to tell him that what we just had was a ranting session-- not a session in serious philosophical inquiry. 

Similarly, several ideological schools-- that make up the different -isms are called philosophies, and the respective ideologues of each school are called philosophers. Philosophy is not a specific ideology. Someone who embodies a ideological structure and lives it and advocates it, is an ideologue-- not a philosopher. 

There is an episode in Big Bang Theory where two physicists who are PhD holders are having a philosophical debate about Quantum loop gravity, and String theory. And their disagreement ends up breaking the personal relationship they have been having. That is not a philosophical disagreement-- that is an ideological disagreement. The PhD holders there were not philosophers-- they were ideologues, pushing their respective ideologies. 

A number of such so-called philosophical debates are just ideological debates. From the viewpoint of philosophy, they are all ill-posed philosophical problems. 

Take for instance, the debate between skepticism and faith. A scientific mindset is supposed to be characterised by skepticism, and a religious mind is supposedly characterised by faith. But it is not hard to see that one who staunchly advocates skepticism is actually practising "faith in skepticism" and one who staunchly advocates faith, is actually practising skepticism about anything else other than their object of faith! 

Or for example, the debate between "evolution" and "intelligent design". The philosopher only asks the evolutionary theorist "Was the process of evolution designed-- or did it evolve from a meta-evolutionary system?" (Arguing that it was the product of a random chance does not cut it because we can still ask the question whether the mathematical properties of that randomly chosen mutation that lead to evolution of life-- was that a product of design?) Similarly, the philosopher asks the "intelligent design" ideologue "Who designed the designer?" 

*~*~*~*~*~

In the name of Science, today we only have different hermeneutic ideologies, each in a territorial battle with others for occupying mind space and bringing new converts into its fold. 

Each hermeneutic ideology is blindly pursuing its interests pushing away anything that comes in its path. Be it AI or Mars colonisation, or genetic engineering, or whatever else, each hermeneutic universe wants to be at the centre of what is termed as Science. 

In my professional life, I often get very hostile vibes from others when I criticise the way the term "agents" are used in current day Agentic AI. Almost as if, I have committed a religious blasphemy of some sort. The idea of agency has been studied for thousands of years, and in computing itself, it has been studied for at least 40 years now. And what is called an agent in an Agentic LLM today is just a very sophisticated service that can break down an instruction written in a very high-level language (natural language) and converts it into actionable elements. Pretty much a sophisticated compiler. An agent on the other hand, has to display some kind of subjective self-interest and free-willed intentions. 

The research ecosystem today resembles an ecosystem of different ideological schools with many "believers" affiliated to each school, and each of which, are vying for market share and mind share. 

What we don't have today, are genuinely disinterested philosophers who are characterised by vairagya and samadarshana, who are not aligned with any ideology, and who are not incentivised by any kind of prestige or recognition, and are solely driven by philosophia ($φιλοσοφία$), or the "love of wisdom."

*~*~*~*~*~

Recently, I was arguing that the goal of philosophy is not to find a solution to a problem, but to find an epistemological grounding that leads to the dissolution of the problem. 

At its core, philosophy is about questioning the "obvious" to uncover the underlying structures of reality, knowledge, and value. Rather than providing a fixed set of answers within a hermeneutic framework, philosophy questions how the existing state of affairs came about in the first place. It needs to ask how we can justify our beliefs, what constitutes a meaningful life, and how can we navigate the complexities of human existence. 

A PhD in that sense, is not about outputs (or what it produces), but about outcomes (how it transforms the people who go through this process). 

A good thesis may provide an answer to a long-standing open problem-- but a great thesis is one that opens up new ways of thinking and new possibilities, by questioning the fundamentals of what we have taken for granted. 

If there is any time in history where we desperately need strong philosophers, it is today. World over, we are in a bizarre state of affairs in just about every sphere of human activity-- be it in geopolitics, technology, climate, society, business, etc. Much of what we had taken for granted until the end of the 20th century are getting ripped apart by current developments. 

We can't even start to imagine a society where everyone is constantly under surveillance by law, where weapons are autonomous killing machines, where we depend on AI to run our lives, and where climate is getting increasingly intense. Yet, we are entering into this reality at a fast pace. 

We need philosophers who can ask deep questions and reach a mental state that lies beyond what is causing our current day problems, and get a sound understanding of where we are going. We need guidance from those who have seen the dissolution of these problems in their minds. 

And yet, the only questions we are asking our PhDs are about Nobel prizes, citations, awards, prestige, etc. 

We are literally facing an existential crisis, and we are only using simplistic carrot-and-stick approaches to drive our PhD programs! 

PhD needs a reset-- and we need to bring the Ph back into the PhD!  

Dwaita is not the same as Theism!

One of the most wonderful things that the Internet gave me is access to the lectures of Swami Sarvapriyananda, who made the core concepts of Vedanta accessible and understandable to today's generation. 

Growing up, I had always been interested in our core philosophies and was curious to learn more. I have lived most of my life with a vague sense of void-- some strange intuition that something important is missing from my life. However, our mainstream education not only never taught us any core knowledge from Indian thought, but often dismissed and mocked all Indian thought as primitive superstition. Indeed, the only people who seemed to possess this knowledge all seemed to be tightly affiliated to organised religion, and whenever I've tried to approach anyone to learn about Indian thought, all they seemed to be interested to teach me was about "submission" and "surrender". I do not know why we have attributed divinity (in the name of bhakti) to what is essentially slave training. For me, bhakti is about devotion and commitment-- and not submission and surrender. Both are very different. The latter requires blind faith and acceptance without questioning, while the former is about commitment and focus. One can verily be a bhakth of the path of inquiry and questioning. I remember sitting in a class about Upanishads several years ago while I was in college, and all that the speaker was talking about was-- what is the correct way in which we should worship. I had walked out of the class in frustration. 

Anyway, I am ranting. Let me come back to the main point of this post. 

One of the biggest value addition that Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures did, was to make Vedantic thought accessible to the inquiring mind, without passing judgments on our humility or any such thing. And indeed, after I started listening to his talks, the void that I had been feeling all these years, had suddenly begun to clear! 

Indian thought indeed is profound and wholly different from what we learn in our mainstream education. So much so that, I now see mainstream science as overtly mechanistic, focusing only on processes and unable to distinguish between why and how questions. In contrast, for more than 6000 years, Indian thought has been arguing and debating whether consciousness has any material cause. Most schools of thought have rejected any material cause to consciousness, giving us some enormously cool insights-- like the ontology of thing, nothing, and no-thing. 

Swami Sarvapriyananda subscribes to the Advaita philosophy, which argues that consciousness is all there is. The ultimate reality Brahman is the only entity that exists, which is featureless (nirguna) and formless (niraakara). The myriad of features and forms that we see in our existential reality (the Prakriti of Samkhya) is called Maya, which is essentially an "appearance" in Brahman. This is somewhat like how on a television that is showing a movie, all that exists is the screen. All the characters in the movie and its events are just appearances on the screen. The semantics of the movie has no bearing on the screen-- for instance, an explosion in the movie that blows up every entity nearby, does not affect the screen at all. By this definition, Maya is at a lower ontological reality with respect to Brahman, or our consciousness, which is the only reality. 

Advaita is indeed radical in its philosophy (not radical in the organised religion sense!) and offers a perspective on reality that is arguably unique only to Indian thought. It has greatly shaped our civilisation and culture. 

But Advaita still leaves out some questions. If Maya is an appearance, what causes this appearance in Brahman? What is the purpose of this appearance? Advaita also can lead to a sense of nihilism if we (in my opinion, wrongly) interpret the impermanence of Maya to mean that Maya is "unimportant" and its elements like morals, justice, ethics, etc. are not worth pursuing or upholding. Such questions had prompted me to argue in defence of Maya saying that we cannot dismiss existential reality that easily. 

Advaita is not without its detractors, and one of the biggest challenges for Advaita came from Madhwacharya, who was born more than 500 years after Adi Shankaracharya (who was the first to popularise Advaita into a movement). 

Swami Sarvapriyananda defines the Dwaita philosophy of Madhwacharya as dualistic (which is fine), and equates it with theism like Abrahamic religions. Theistic religions argue of a God as an entity separate from the material reality that we live in, and one who is the creator of the material reality. Theism requires its adherents to act within the commandments of God, and propound submission and surrender to God to achieve redemption. 

I had not found this argument convincing. Madhwacharya was an astute philosopher and makes very sharp arguments. It is very unlikely that after learning Advaita in depth and realising reality in a whole new perspective, a thinking mind would come back and argue for theism which is way too primitive in the way it approaches the ultimate question of reality! 

Today, my perspective again changed deeply after I came across this talk by Prof. Prathosh from IISc, who, apart from being a an expert in AI, is also deeply well versed in Dwaita philosophy. 

The core question that Dwaita addresses is whether the ultimate reality is featureless (nirguna) or has features (saguna). If the ultimate reality is featureless, then all features of existential reality, including questions of good and evil, or justice and injustice, are all meaningless. 

Dwaita basically argues that the ultimate reality is not "featureless", but "infinitely featured". It contains all features like knowledge, happiness, existence, etc. to an infinite extent. The limited existence that we live in, is brought about by the "filter" of existence that limits this infinitely featured reality into a finitely featured being. 

As an example, consider white light. This is not a light that has no colour-- indeed, white light has all colours. If we subject white light to one or more filters, we get coloured light, which is but a limitation of the white light. 

The sense in which we are "separate" from the divine in Dwaita philosophy is not that we are the "servant of God" as in theistic religions, but that our material existence entails that we possess these filters that limit the infinite reality into our finite existence. 

This approach to modelling existence removes the nihilism problem of Advaita! It is not that good and evil are both parts of Maya and hence unreal with respect to the ultimate reality of Brahman. It is that what is "good" is that which helps us transcend our existential filters and realise the infinite reality, while what is "bad" is that which adds more filters and limits our existence even more. 

The bhakti of Dwaita is not made of blind submission and surrender and irrational faith towards a divine entity. The bhakti of Dwaita is a path of devotion, focus and commitment, where we become aware of the filters that are limiting us and work towards transcending them. 

This is such great clarity! 

Thing, Nothing, and No-thing

In order to truly understand the core of Indian thought, it is important to understand the ontological difference between "Nothing" and "No-thing". 

The idea of a "no-thing" is unique to Indian worldview, and to the best of my knowledge, is found nowhere else in philosophies across the world. 

The "no-thing" refers to the core of our subjective experience, or pure awareness, or consciousness. To understand this better, we need to start with the notion of inquiry-- where, a subject or the inquirer is inquiring about an object, or the inquired. 

All entities that can be objects of inquiry, are "things" and the absence of a thing becomes "nothing". Conventional science today, regards everything as objects, and considers a subject or inquirer, to be just an object when viewed from the vantage point of some other subject. 

However, Indian thought argues that what we see about other inquirers are just some objective shell in which the real inquirer resides, and we can never see the real inquirer. We can only see others' body, and to some extent "see" (or infer) their thoughts, emotions, etc. None of these form the core of their subjective experience, or the inquirer. 

We can see that, we can become aware of our own bodies, thoughts, emotions, and even our sense of person or ego, in pretty much the same way that we become aware of some object outside of us. The philosopher Ashtavakra, describes succinctly thus: 

यथा प्रकाशयाम्येको देहमेनं तथा जगत् ।
अतो मम जगत्सर्वमथवा न च किञ्चन ॥ २ ॥ (Ashtavakra Gita 2.2) 

As I alone give light to (become aware of) this body, so I do to the world, As a result the whole world is mine, or alternatively, nothing is.

Whatever we consider to be the core of who we are-- like our mind, or intellect, or ego, etc.-- we can become aware of it.. meaning that there is an inquirer separate from all of these. Hence, our body, mind, intellect, emotions, ego, etc. are all objects to our subjective experience! They are all things! 

When our mind has several thoughts-- it has a lot of "things" in it, and when our mind is blank, it has "nothing" in it. But the fact that we can discern whether our mind is full of thoughts, or is it blank, means that there exists some other entity that is the core of our subjective experience, that is neither a "thing" nor is it "nothing". 

The property of the core of this subjective experience is that it can never be objectified. The core of our subjective experience is a "no-thing". It is not the absence of a thing-- it is an entity that can never be an object of inquiry. The moment we believe that we have located the core of our subjective experience, we can ask, "who" has located this, and realize that the inquirer is the one who is locating. 

Philosophers in ancient India-- more than 6000 years ago, had postulated that the core of our subjective experience, which is pure awareness, or consciousness, cannot be objectified in our or anybody else's experience. This means that consciousness exists as a separate entity in the universe, and is not something that is produced by material interactions. This kind of formulation is found in the most ancient philosophical schools of thought in India-- like Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, and Yoga. 

Modern science still struggles to understand this, and keeps arguing about what does it take for artificial intelligence (AI) to produce consciousness. 

About 3500 years ago, there was another great leap in our understanding of consciousness, which is now called Vedanta, and recorded in this vast body of literature, called the Upanishads. The Upanishads brought about one small change to our understanding of "no-things" in that, it argues that there is only one instance of "no-thing" in the entire universe! 

This can be illustrated quite easily. All non-physical objects have just one instance. There is just one instance of the number "5" for example. There may be several instances of 5-somethings-- like 5 cows, 5 fingers, etc. But the conceptual object 5 itself, is the same. 

This is illustrated by this joke, where a boy is sitting by the roadside and crying. When asked why he is crying, he says that his father gave him five rupees in his left hand, to buy some milk, and another 5 rupees in his right hand, to buy some vegetables. But, the boy says, he forgot and bought milk with the 5 rupees in his right hand, and vegetables with the 5 rupees in his left hand. And now, the boy cries, his father will be very upset with him! 

We can see that even though there were multiple instances of the currency, their value referred to just one conceptual object. 

The same argument is brought to the core of our subjective inquiry-- by noting that consciousness, even though it exists on its own, is not a physical entity. And because of that, there can be only one instance of it. 

Hence, according to the Upanishads, all of us have the very same core, that forms our subjective experience! We are all literally the same being! We may have different bodies, minds, intellects, egos, etc. but the core of all of us is literally the same no-thing! 

The Upanishads had such a huge impact on humanity that the author Evan Thompson writes in his book "Waking, Dreaming, Being", that: 

“The Upanishads is a watershed in the evolution of consciousness. Instead of being ethnocentric and dividing all global history between B.C. and A.D., we should really divide it between before Upanishads and after Upanishads—B.U. and A.U.—because the sophisticated psychology of consciousness in the Upanishads represents a quantum leap forward in human development.”

But for millennia before the Upanishads, Indian philosophers had postulated the existence of a "no-thing" that is still not realized or acknowledged in modern society. Our no-thing is the core of our subjective experience-- and it is also the source of our sense of agency, freewill, and autonomy. 

The introduction of no-thing into our ontological models, would be somewhat akin to the introduction of zero as a number in its own right into a number system. We know that the introduction of zero into a place-holder number system by Bhaskara, was a watershed event in our understanding of numbers and quantities. 

If we look at an OWL (Web Ontology Language) ontology today, at the root of this ontology lies an entity called "OWL: Thing". Every other class is a subclass of "OWL:Thing" and is considered a "thing". A pizza is a thing, and so is a person. A table is a thing, and so is a dog. 

But we can see that a person or a dog, are more than just things-- unlike a table or a pizza. They have a subjective experience in them, which means that their core is made of the "no-thing". It is because they have a no-thing, they can act on their own, decide on their own, be driven on their own, and their responses to physical stimuli cannot always be predicted by Newtonian models. 

All forms of oppression, territorial wars, colonialism, slavery, etc. can be attributed to the fallacy of treating other peoples as things, and oneself as inquirers with agency and desire-- or no-things. Even today, TV anchors urge the world to be more concerned about the war in Ukraine, because "it is not some war in Syria or Africa, but in Europe"-- meaning that, wars in Syria or Africa happen between "things" while a war in Europe involves real people. 

It is time we introduce "no-thing" as another root entity in our ontological models.

*~*~*~*~

This blog post is a compilation of my thoughts after watching this video: 

Logic, Invariance and Self

When we study logic, we first study the definition of a proposition or assertion: A statement that can be assigned a true or false value. For instance, a statement like "It is raining" is an assertion-- it could be either true that it is indeed raining, or false. But a sentence like, "Come here" is an imperative statement that is calling for an action, and not an assertion-- there is no truth or false value we can assign to it. 

Assertions can be strung together using several logical operators like "and", "or", "not", "if-then" and so on. Hence for instance if we have two assertions: "It is raining" and "Our basement is flooded", then a statement of the form: "If it is raining then our basement is flooded" is also an assertion. Verifying the truth or falsity of this assertion often proceeds by an attempt at falsification. For instance, if we observe that it is indeed raining, and our basement is not flooded, then we can say that the assertion is false. However, if it is raining and the basement is indeed flooded, it is not sufficient to deduce that the assertion is true. Maybe the basement is going to be flooded from an other source regardless of whether it is raining or not. Verifying the falsity of an assertion is easier, than verifying its truth. 

As we get more advanced in our study of logic, we often see the term "true", getting replaced by the term "holds". We don't say that an assertion is "true"-- rather we say that an assertion "holds" against multiple attempts at falsifying it.

The term "holds" represents a property of invariance-- indicating something that sustains or remains. Invariance is a weaker construct than truth-- and indeed truth is often defined as something that is eternally invariant, across time and observers. 

The term "dharma" that is characteristic of Indian thought-- comes from the root dhrt-- to mean something that "holds". The name for "Hinduism" in India is called "Sanatana dharma" where the term "Sanatana" means "eternal" or "universal." Hence, the "religion" of India can be seen as a quest for assertions that have eternal sustainability-- precisely what all scientific inquiry is about. 

In our mainstream education, we often learn of mathematical truths that have eternal invariance. For instance, every number can be written as a product of prime numbers, and the number of prime numbers are infinite. These assertions hold everywhere and always-- they were true during the time of dinosaurs and they are true today; they are true on Earth, Mars, or anywhere in the (physical) universe. 

While we spend most of our time searching for invariance in the objective universe outside us, Indian thought also has a lot of inquiry on what is invariant in our own subjective experiences. 

There is a story of the king Janaka (father of Sita and the king of Mithila), who was known to be a very good philosopher himself. He once had a dream in which, his kingdom is attacked and he loses his kingdom and is exiled. He goes into increasing desperation as he roams from place to place, searching for food and striving to survive. In this desperation, he cries out and wakes up, only to realise that it was all a dream. He wakes up to find himself back in his palace, with his servants tending to him, his family members concerned for him, and people treating him with deference. 

But the dream was so intense, that the king is not sure which was real. He asks the philosopher Ashtavakra as to which of his experience was real. Ashtavakra replies by asking, "When you were experiencing your dream, did you experience what you are experiencing now-- the comfort of the palace, the respect and deference from others, etc.?" to which, the king says no. And then Ashtavakra asks, "And now, are you experiencing the desperation, the desolation and helplessness that you experienced in your dream?" to which, the king says no again. 

And Ashtavakra replies, "Well then neither the experience of the dream nor the experience that you are having now in your waking state, are real. Both are bounded and temporary." 

The king is perplexed, "Neither of them are real?" Not even what we are experiencing now? What was real then?" 

Ashtavakra replies, "In your dream, were you-- the experiencer-- there, going through the intense experience?" To which, the king replies, "Yes, I was there." Ashtavakra goes on, "And now, are you here, feeling the experience of the palace and your waking universe?" To which, the king affirms that he is indeed here, experiencing all these now. 

"Hence," replies Ashtavakra, "you-- the subject, or inquirer-- is more real than your experiences. The inquirer remains invariant while objects of inquiry that create experiences in our minds keep changing." 

Understanding Shruti and Smriti

When studying Indian philosophy and culture, we come across two terms: Shruti and Smriti. 

Of course, most people who have studied about India in Western academia would have heard of Manu Smriti (although very few Indians themselves have heard of it-- I myself heard of Manu Smriti when I was living in Europe, and till date, haven't come across its original text). Manu Smriti is supposed to be a compilation of all forms of regressive thoughts and practices that are associated with Hinduism today, and it is often argued that even today Hindus are inexorably bound by the decrees and commandments of Manu Smriti. 

But what exactly are these Smritis?

The term Shruti means something that is heard or revealed. This is often construed to mean that the Shrutis represent knowledge that were orally passed from generation to generation, while Smritis were knowledge that were codified and recorded. This is not an accurate interpretation, as there are several Shrutis that are written down and organised into verses, etc. 

Another interpretation of these terms is that Shruti represents knowledge that were "revealed by God" while Smriti (which also means "to remember") represent knowledge that represent recorded facts or commentaries about something. 

This is more accurate-- but the term "revealed by God" is somewhat problematic, as it gives a connotation of an immutable commandment issued by some heavenly creature, that is not to be questioned. 

But it is easy to see that all the Shrutis have been subject to intense argumentation and debate (not wars or battles) over the years-- not something that one would do with divine commandments.  These debates have also lead to the development of several rules of argumentation and logic. 

In contrast to the dynamics between dogmatic religious schools, debates in ancient India were more like the debates we see among different schools of thought among researchers and philosophers today. 

All of these point to the fact that the "revelation" of Shrutis were not some form of divinely ordained commandments, but more of the nature of revelations obtained by researchers and philosophers, upon intense inquiry. 

In other words, Shrutis represent writings that contain original research, while Smritis contain writings that are of the form of reports, commentaries or encyclopaedic accounts that implement the NOR (No Original Research) principle. The Smritis however, were not Wikipedia articles which were jointly written by several authors, and hence did not necessarily implement an NPOV (Neutral Point of View) principle. In fact, rather than aiming for neutrality (which may never be achievable in practice), Indian society has aimed for plurality, where multiple world views coexist and often resulted in new emergent characteristics. 

The great debate

Indian civilisation is characterised by what might be called "the great debate" that continues to this day. This debate is very relevant to cutting edge science and philosophy today-- but much of science at least, is not looking in this direction. 

This post is a small attempt to introduce this great debate-- from my perspective. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~

Among the top-most scientists and philosophers today, a burning question that is hotly debated is about consciousness. How does consciousness and its complex constructs like identity, desire, morality, etc. develop from material reactions in the brain? 

This question gains even more significance today, with rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) taking over several aspects of our lives. If a human were to act recklessly or irresponsibly, we have several mechanisms to deal with it. We could appeal to their sense of empathy, humanity or conscience to reflect upon their actions; we could "shame" them into regretting their actions; and so on. But when an AI robot acts irresponsibly-- none of these options are available to us. Sure, a form of "shaming" is possible with negative reinforcements, but while this may bring about a behavioural change, it does not lead to self-reflection and a heightened sense of morality in the robot. 

More than 5000 years ago, Indian philosophers had hotly debated about this problem of consciousness, which had resulted in several schools of thought. The Charavakas held on to the currently held notion among scientists-- that consciousness is an emergent property of material interactions in our brains. Just like modern science, for the Charavakas, material reality is all there is. 

However, the Charavakas were just a small minority among the several other schools of thought in this regard. Most other schools of thought argued that consciousness is a "simpliciter" entity-- in that, it exists on its own, and is not derived from any form of material interactions. 

The Samkhya school of thought for instance, proposed a "dualism" model of reality. According to them, reality is made of two kinds of fundamental elements, called the Prakriti and the Purusha. Prakriti refers to material / physical reality and its causal interactions, while Purusha refers to the non-causal realm of reality of the consciousness. Purusha can be interpreted not just as consciousness, but all forms of information objects-- including numbers, concepts, etc. Information objects are not subject to time and space constraints like physical objects. While biological life may exist only on earth, and only since the last few million years, prime numbers for instance, exist everywhere, and have always existed. No physical law can affect the primality (or otherwise) of a number. 

Samkhya was one of the most widely taught subjects in ancient India, along with Vedanta. Buddha is said to have extensively studied Samkhya. 

According to the Samkhya model, there are an infinite numbers of Purusha-Prakriti pairs that make up reality. But, this infinitude of information objects creates several forms of confusion. If the concepts in my head are completely unconnected with the concepts in someone else's head, how is it we can understand one another? It also brings up other strange questions like whether the number 5 on planet Earth is the same number 5 on Mars? And so on. 

The philosophy of Vedanta, which are summarised in this vast body of text called the Upanishads, take another radical step in our understanding of consciousness. The Upanishads heralded such a radical change in human civilisation, that thousands of years later, the American philosopher William Irwing Thompson, who studied the Upanishads extensively, remarked that we ought to divide civilisational epochs as "Before Upanishads" and "After Upanishads" (BU and AU respectively), instead of the current BC and AD: 

“The Upanishads is a watershed in the evolution of consciousness. Instead of being ethnocentric and dividing all global history between B.C. and A.D., we should really divide it between before Upanishads and after Upanishads—B.U. and A.U.—because the sophisticated psychology of consciousness in the Upanishads represents a quantum leap forward in human development.” -- Excerpt from Evan Thompson, "Waking, Dreaming, Being"

The Upanishads argued that there is only one Purusha in the universe! Not only consciousness exists on its own in the universe-- there is only one instance of this universal consciousness! We are not independently conscious-- but we all reflect the same consciousness. 

To give an analogy, consider a set of bowls filled with water kept in the sun outside. Inside each bowl is a reflection of the sun, each of which may be bright enough to offer illumination. But the reflection of each of them is of the same sun up above! 

Similarly, our individualised consciousness is not our own, but our reflection of the universal consciousness. The universal consciousness is called chit, while the individual reflection is called the chidaabhasa. Sentience is defined as our ability to form an image of the universal consciousness. As an analogy, in the daylight, every object reflects light from the sun, but some surfaces like glass, water, etc. also form an image of the sun. Sentience is this ability to form an image of the universal consciousness. Of course, such images can be distorted, or incomplete-- but it is an image nevertheless.

The Vedantic model itself gave rise to several schools of thought-- including some contrarian schools, which rejected the core argument of a single universal consciousness. 

The Advaita or the non-dual school of thought, goes one step further into the Vedantic argument, to not only say that there is just one universal consciousness-- but also that the universal consciousness is all there is! Rather than considering consciousness as a creation of material reality, Advaita argues that material reality is a temporary appearance this universal consciousness! According to Advaita, material reality is basically the universal consciousness trying to look at itself-- somewhat like in the picture below. So, all of the universe-- all our wars, kingdoms, travails, adventures, etc. are essentially about the universal consciousness trying to look at itself from different angles! 

Some other schools of thought-- which are broadly called the Sramanics, of which, Buddhism and Jainism are most well known-- reject the core argument of Vedanta that there is one universal consciousness, and that as individuals, we just sport images of this one, sole consciousness. 

Vedantic thought is so old, that it has gone through multiple phases of degeneration and rejuvenation. During Buddha's time, the orthodox schools of thought had become so degenerate that philosophers and thought leaders spent most of their time trying to realise the oneness of their self with the universal consciousness, when there was rampant suffering all around them. Siddharta Gautama, who later came to be called as the Buddha, argued that it is futile to spend out lives trying to experiences this oneness of reality, when there is so much suffering all around. Instead, it is better to understand how suffering is manifested in our lives and how to remove it. He went on to further argue that the core of our existence is not the universal consciousness, but a void or shunyata. Everything is impermanent, and the core of the universe is just void or nothingness, he argued.

The Buddhists and the Vedantic philosophers are said to have had a thousand-year long debate, during which time, Buddhism spread beyond India to Afghanistan, China and much of south and east Asia. 

The arrival of Adi Shankaracharya around 1200 years ago, heralded a revival of Vedantic thought-- especially Advaita Vedanta. It was once again to become the most dominant worldview in Indian thought for about 700 years. Some very well known Advaita philosophers like Vidyaranya have written several introductory texts about this philosophy that are still taught today. 

But as before, in a few centuries after Shankaracharya, the focus on realising oneness of existence, had started to degenerate into a form of nihilism. When the material reality is considered unreal, with the only reality being the universal consciousness, which is the core of our own being, the motivation to address existential issues like suffering, defending against attacks, etc. is not all that strong. 

By the 12th century CE, foreign invaders had finally managed to enter India. (It is worthwhile to note that several great conquerors like the Greek king Alexander, or the Mongol Genghis Kahn, or the Roman empire, had never been able to conquer Indian kingdoms. While the Kushans are called an Indo-Greek empire, they were not a result of Greek invasion, and there is ample evidence that their kings like Kanishka, were of Indian origin than Greek). 

As foreign conquests started to make its way into India from the north, some kingmakers like Vidyaranya, helped build mighty kingdoms like the Vijayanagar Empire that withstood this onslaught. But a few centuries later, they too crumbled. 

Some philosophers like Madhwacharya, felt that this is due to a fatal flaw in the core of the dominant worldview at that time-- which was Advaita. As a major critic to Advaita philosophy, Madhwa came up with the dualistic Dvaita philosophy. The core of our self, is completely contained in our worldly existence, he argued. No matter how well a bowl of water makes an image of the sun, it can never be the sun itself! Similarly, no matter how well we reflect the universal consciousness, we can never be the universal consciousness itself. We are our limited bodies with our limited existence, and we had better focus on worldly issues that affect our survival. We can at best, practice bhakti or devoted service towards the supreme, in order to reflect the universal consciousness as best as possible. 

Madhwacharya's philosophy also fit in well with the Bhakti movement that was very popular at that time, that advocated devotion, submission and surrender to the divine, as a means for spiritual enlightenment. 

Despite all these philosophical efforts in redefining ourselves, history shows that Indian society succumbed greatly to foreign invasion, followed by colonisation by European powers. 

A few centuries later, during. the freedom struggle against the British, Vedantic thought once again saw a revival through the efforts of Swami Vivekananda. Vivekananda is known for his address in the Chicago Congress of Religions, and to have brought authentic Indian thought directly to the West. Until then, the population in the West were exposed to gross misrepresentations and exotic perversions of Indian thought (something which continues to this day). 

Swami Vivekananda criticised too much emphasis on bhakti, devotion and surrender. He argued that too much of an obsequious conduct may rob us of our sense of ownership and assertion of our rights. But he was also aware of the shortcomings of pure Advaita and the criticisms it had received. 

He formulated his own philosophy called Integral Advaita (which I have explained in detail in another post), that strives to bridge between the non-dual and dualist schools. Vivekananda defined religion as the manifestation of the divine that is already within us, not through renunciation, but through active engagement with society and by addressing its problems. 

*~*~*~*~*~*~

Philosophical debates from India are radically different from their counterparts in the West. Western philosophy and science mostly focuses on the object, and tries hard to remove the subject from the picture. While this gives us very useful constructs like stoicism, Socratic methods, Analytic philosophy, etc, it also brings us to the state where we are in today-- where we effortlessly build machines that can easily destroy us several times over, and struggle to understand human societies beyond their power dynamics. 

Indian philosophy and its debates are more relevant today, than ever before, as we stare at a future, where the lines between truth and falsity are getting blurred.

Our sheaths and states of being

In the Ramayana, once Hanuman asks Lord Rama to suggest some reading material for him to learn about the Vedas. In response, Rama suggests to him just one Upanishad-- the Mandukya Upanishad. It is one of the shortest and most dense of the Upanishads, that is said to go directly to its teachings (unlike other Upanishads that take longer routes like story-telling and examples). 

If you cannot understand the Mandukya, Lord Rama tells Hanuman, then here is a list of 108 bigger Upanishads for you to read. 

~*~*~*~*

The Mandukya talks about our "3+1" states of being which is one of the most fundamental states that define our existence. 

In order to understand this, let us first look into the five-sheaths or the Panchakosha model of us. Our existence is said to be defined in five sheaths or koshas, which are as described below. 

The Annamaya kosha or the gross body, refers to our physical bodies, which subsist on food. The Pranamaya kosha or the "subtle body" refers to all the processes happening in us like breathing, blood circulation, heart beats, digestion, etc. that keep us alive. The third sheath is the Manomaya kosha or the mind, that hosts our thoughts and emotions. The Vijnanamaya kosha or the intellect, forms the fourth sheath, which hosts to our conscious thoughts, knowledge, epistemology, wisdom, etc. 

Beyond these four sheaths is our core being, which is called the Anandamaya kosha or the sheath of bliss. This core sheath is sometimes also called our karana shareera or the "causal body". It is this core being that is said to have given rise to all the four sheaths of our existence. When we are conceived as a human, the first thing that is said to develop is our core being-- from which, all other sheaths emanate. 

Our core being is in turn said to be in "3+1" states of being. Why the 3+1 notation? The first three states of being are something that all of us experience. But the fourth (+1) state of being is much more subtle and requires a lot of practice to experience this state. 

The three states of being are respectively called: Jagrut or waking state, Swapna or dreaming state, and Shushukta or deep sleep state. In each state of being, our personality is so different that these personalities have separate names as well. 

The "person" that is dominant in our waking state is called Vaishnavara, and the "person" that is dominant in our dreaming state is called Taijasa, and in deep sleep, our dominant "person" is called Praajna. 

Vaishnavara is interested in transacting with the external world using logic, expression, conscious thoughts, emotion, etc. The Taijasa is interested in imagination, counterfactual reasoning, and in building alternate hypothetical scenarios. The Taijasa is available in the waking state too, but is dominated by the Vaishnavara. In dreaming state, the Taijasa is dominant and takes over the mind with its vivid imaginations, unconstrained by the physical reality of the Vaishnavara. 

The Praajna is interested in soothing and relaxing our our different sheaths. The Praajna is functional during waking and dreaming states as well, when we often instinctively relax and soothe ourselves. It is dominant in deep sleep where all sheaths are mostly shut down. A state of deep sleep does not represent absence of experience-- it represents an experience of absence! The Praajna is at work during our deep sleep, ensuring that we are well rested-- yet at the same time, listening to input channels like the ears, and waking us up if we hear a loud noise, for example. 

The above three states of being are something that we all experience daily. But, as the Mandukya says, the three states of being can in turn be queried by a fourth state, which is called Turiya (which literally means, "the fourth"). The Turiya is the state of pure awareness or consciousness, unhindered by our physical existence. 

The Turiya is said to be our core, liberated self, that is unhindered by time, space and causality. In this state of being, all the three earlier states, and the five sheaths can appear as objects in our experience-- thus showing us that we are not our body, life forces, mind, intellect or even our physical being. 

In the Turiya state, we can "speak with" each of our persons-- the Vaishnavara, Taijasa and Praajna and curate the way in which we experience our waking, dreaming and deep-sleep states!

The Mandukya itself does not propose any method for reaching the state of Turiya. But several other treatises address this question as to how to reach a state of pure awareness and inquire about and curate the entirety of our physical existence. 

Glimpses of the subject

“We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it.” --Erwin Schrodinger

~*~*~*~*~*

In the way Science is practiced today, and in Analytic Philosophy that underlies most scientific inquiry, the process of inquiry is predominantly objective. Much of scientific studies and Western philosophy (as practiced today) inquires about stuff that are "out there". Indeed, a study is considered scientific, only when the observer is separated from the system being observed, and the process of observation does not interfere with the functioning of the system. 

Recently, I was watching a lecture on Analytic Philosophy, in which the professor defined philosophical inquiry as comprising of three major dimensions-- "what is out there?", "how do I know?", and "what do I do?" The first dimension comprises of different hermeneutic schools and different conceptual models of reality. The second dimension addresses issues of knowledge, cognition, epistemology, and so on. The third dimension addresses issues like imperatives, norms, morality, ethics, rational choice, etc. 

In contrast to the above, one of the predominant questions addressed by Indian philosophical schools is "who am I?" Unlike Western thought that has predominantly focused on the object of inquiry , the focus in Indian schools has been predominantly on the subject or the inquirer. 

It is not that the inquirer does not feature in Western thought. But the depths to which the inquirer has been inquired, is much more in Indian thought. 

Most scientific models today require us to remove the inquirer from theories of reality. The inquirer needs to be a disinterested observer who does not interfere with the system being observed, and should not feature in the models of reality that is the outcome of the inquiry. 

Such a requirement was found to be inadequate when scientific inquiry was focused on the very small and the very large-- quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, respectively-- where it was seen that we cannot discount the observer in our models of reality. Similarly, in social sciences, there is often an argument that a dispassionate observer cannot understand underlying latent worldview and thoughts that drive observable patterns of behaviour of a population being observed, and a real sociological inquiry comes from a lived experience. It is only when we experience the pains, the joys, the insecurities, etc. of the population being observed, can we really understand why they act the way they do. 

~*~*~*~*~*

Why is an inquiry into the inquirer important? 

One of the biggest dreams of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers alike, has been to develop some form of "Grand Unified Theories" of reality. In Western thought, Albert Einstein, David Hilbert, and several others have attempted this immense feat, and have ultimately failed. 

But once we realise that the inquirer is part of reality too, we see that we can never have any form of objective grand unified theory of reality-- without a theory of the inquirer itself!

The inquirer is so fundamental to our experience when we are inquiring about the world out there, that we often completely forget that it exists, and that its existence itself is a mystery! For example, other than on planet Earth, we do not have any evidence of an inquirer or an inquiry happening in any other planet in our solar system or in the known universe! (Of course, notable exceptions are the various satellites, rovers and other gadgets in different parts of the universe that are "inquiring" on our behalf). 

Given that the inquirer is so unique an entity in the universe, it is but an imperative that any unified models of reality should necessarily also address and accommodate the inquirer into such models! 

Once we start inquiring into the inquirer, we see that the usual physical models of reality are inadequate to model the inquirer. The inquirer or the subject, is not only involved in observation of reality, but is also an active, autonomous agent of change! Constructs involving intention, free will, knowledge, belief, reason, morality, ethics, purpose, etc. are all attributed to the inquirer and not the inquired. We cannot meaningfully talk about the "intention" of planet Saturn for sporting rings, nor the "morality" of Jupiter wanting to be the biggest planet in our solar system. But such statements are meaningful when we are talking about subjects. 

~*~*~*~*~*

Indian philosophy has predominantly focused on characterising the inquirer rather than the inquired. There are several schools of thought and models about the inquirer-- each, a fascinating journey in itself. 

One of the major questions that is addressed by Indian thought is to "locate" the locus of of the inquirer. When we say that "I am the inquirer" the question then asks, "Who am I?" or where is the locus of this "I" or self? Does the "I" refer to our body? Our mind? Our "ego" (whatever it means)? Our genetic signature? Or is it somewhere else? 

The quest for the locus of "I" has been so elusive, that there are indeed several schools of thought (most notably, Buddhism) that assert that there is no entity called the self or "I" at all! But then, the concept of "I" is so centrally used in our conversations that it is hard to also accept that the core driver of our inquiry is just a void. 

There is a story about a scientist arguing with Sri Ramakrishna-- a well known 19th century Advaita philosopher-- saying that he has conducted several experiments involving both body and mind, and is convinced that there is no entity called "self" or "I" anywhere. To this, Sri Ramakrishna replied, "Who is convinced that there is no entity called self?" 

The 15th century Advaita philosopher Sage Vidyaranya wrote several books proposing different heuristics, to help the reader understand the problem of self. His treatise called the drg-drisyha viveka (or, the theory of the "seer" and the "seen") is based on the postulate that the subject cannot observe its own locus. Or, whatever that the subject can directly observe, cannot be the locus of the subject, since there is a locus that is doing the observing. For instance, our eyes can see everything else but itself. It can only see an image of itself in the mirror or in a photograph. But it cannot directly observe itself. Similarly, a finger cannot touch itself. 

While the eyes cannot "see" themselves, we can become "aware" of our eyes in our inquiry, and question about its state. For instance, we can become aware that our eyes are irritating, relaxed, dry, etc. In this case, the eyes become the observed, and the locus of our inquiry shifts somewhere deeper within us. Hence, if the eye can be the object of inquiry, it cannot be the locus of our subject. Thus, we can now ask, who is inquiring about the eye? If we say that it is our mind that inquires and it is because of our mind that we exist (according to Descartes who said "Cogito. Ergo, sum"), we can see that the mind itself can become an object of our inquiry! The popular field of "mindfulness" is all about observing our mind and our thoughts as they come and go. So if the mind is not the fundamental inquirer, then who is it that is observing the mind? 

The argument proceeds like that to reach a singularity. We can see that no matter what we think is our locus of inquiry that is part of our physical experience-- can easily become an object of our experience! We can observe our thoughts, our emotions, even our "ego" (we can inquire and understand ourselves as a person and our personality), we can inquire about our innate nature-- thus showing that none of this is the locus of our subject! 

The Samkhya school of philosophy which is more than 4000 years old, posits a "simpliciter" entity (a fundamental entity that exists on its own, and not derived from something else), called the "Purusha" that is termed the fundamental inquirer. Physical reality comprising of all objects that can be inquired about, is called Prakriti. One of the axioms of Purusha is that the Purusha cannot observe itself-- it can only "realise" itself, but never observe itself directly. It is the Purusha that is the source of all subjective constructs like free-will, intention, norms, etc. According to Samkhya, the universe is said to be made up of infinite numbers of Purusha objects and an infinite number of Prakriti objects. 

The infinite cardinality of Purusha objects are disputed by other philosophical schools, which point at certain contradictions that such a formulation creates. For instance, we discover "objective" mathematical truths independently, despite that mathematical processing is completely happening within our minds. Also, despite the large diversity in our population on earth, several linguists have noted remarkable similarities in which language is constructed across the world. This has given rise to theories like the "language instinct" that argues that our ability for language is not something that is imbibed-- but something that is innate! 

This brings us to one of the predominant models of Indian philosophy-- called as the Vedantic school-- which argues that there is only one Purusha or subject in the universe! It is this one same subject that is inquiring through a multitude of channels, which appear as different inquirers in physical reality. The locus of all our inquiry is the same, universal consciousness. The world is not just one family-- we are all the same person!

There is another story of Sri Ramakrishna in this regard. Once, someone asked Sri Ramakrishna on what is the basis of ethics on which we can build a theory of how to treat others. Conventionally, we use several bases like reflection (treat others like how you would like to be treated), virtue (uphold certain virtues in the way you treat others, etc.) But, Sri Ramakrishna had a very different answer. He said, "remember that there are no others"!

~*~*~*~*~*

Even in the Vedantic approach to understanding the subject, there are several sub-schools of thought-- primarily based on whether the core inquirer and the channel used for inquiry (our physical beings) are different or the same. I have written about this debate in other articles, and will not dwell upon this argument here. 

Integral Advaita of Swami Vivekananda

 In some of my previous posts addressing differences between dualism and non-dualism and the idea of Maya, I had been addressing what I believe, to be the core dilemma that has characterised Indian thought over millennia. 

One of the core characteristics of Indian philosophy based on the Vedas and Upanishads is that, unlike Western philosophy that focuses on objects and the universe external to the inquirer, the Upanishads start by focusing on the inquirer itself. This leads to some deep insights and theories about concepts like consciousness, awareness, and self. 

A primary contention of Indian schools of thought is the simpliciter nature of consciousness. That is, it argues that the core of what forms our consciousness, exists by itself-- and is not a consequence of material interactions. Hence, our consciousness does not "emerge" from our brain cells, but rather, our brain cells "tune in" to consciousness that already exists in the universe. In this sense, we never "invent" anything in our minds-- we only discover insights. 

The core debates of Indian thought, comes from trying to reconcile between material reality and the simpliciter consciousness. Material reality is considered as a "mould" through which, consciousness manifests and expresses itself in the material world. But, what is the source and basis of this material reality? 

The Samkhya school argues that material reality is as real and as simpliciter as consciousness. It argues that the universe is inherently a dualism-- comprising of two realms called Prakriti and Purusha corresponding to the material reality and consciousness. Prakriti functions on the basis of physical laws and causality, while Purusha uses Prakriti as a mould for its manifestation and expression. According to Samkhya, there are infinitely many instances of Prakriti and Purusha pairs. 

Other schools of thought, however, argue that an infinite number of Purusha instances leave major questions open-- for instance, what is the source of all these infinite instances, and is there one source or infinitely many sources for these infinite pairs, and so on. Based on such arguments, they contend that the Purusha (also variously called Brahman, Paramatma, Sakshi, or simply "that which is") is unitary. Hence, the universe is simply the one global consciousness, manifesting itself through potentially infinite instances of Prakriti. 

The unification of consciousness, still leaves open, the question of Prakriti or material reality. Is there just one material universe, or are we in a material multiverse? And what is the source of this universal duality? 

The non-dual schools of thought contend that all forms of duality simply leave open questions, and therefore, all the duality that we see-- including the duality of Prakriti and Purusha-- is only apparent duality. The universe is essentially just one, all permeating reality, which is the only entity there is. 

Material reality or Prakriti is argued as being created by this universal consciousness and not the other way around. The material reality we see, is called Maya (often incorrectly translated as "illusion"). Our material sense of self-- namely the ego (which is also called jiva) is manifested in Maya, and sees the multitude nature of material reality. But an awakened self-- the non-dualists argue-- realises that it is nothing but the only thing there is-- Brahman. The core idea of non-dual philosophy is captured by this statement: Brahma satyam, jagat mithyam, jiva Brahmaivanapara. (Brahman alone is real, the material reality is ephemeral, and the ego is none other than Brahman) 

The non-dual argument is the core philosophy of the Upanishads, which give several arguments to drive home this point. The non-dual argument also gave rise to several modes of inquiry that asks how does the existential self come to realise itself as Brahman? The concept of harmonising between our existential agent (ego) and the universal consciousness, is called Yoga. Several different pathways for Yoga are also proposed-- which include the paths of jnana (knowledge), bhakti (devotion), karma (action), shrama (effort), and so on. 

The idea of non-dual reality however, was criticised by several social reformers at different points in history, corresponding to times when the society built on such a philosophy had run its course and started to degenerate. One of the core criticisms of philosophers like Buddha and Mahavira from the second and third century BCE, and later philosophers like Madhwa from the 15th century CE, focused on the "dismissive" nature of non-duality towards issues of material reality. Human problems like suffering, injustice, disease, etc. were all part of Maya, and hence considered ephemeral (and therefore unimportant to address). 

But, it is important to note that none of the non-dualist philosophers themselves have ever argued that issues of material reality are unimportant. One of the most well known non-dualist Adi Shankara, from the 10th century CE, was known to be very dynamic in reviving Vedantic thought all over India and reforming society from degeneration in those days. Before his untimely death at the age of 34, he had already travelled across India on foot-- twice, and setup several centres of learning from Kashmir in the north, to Kanchi in the south. He had taken on several well-known philosophers from those days and defeated them in extensive debates, and urged them towards reforms. 

While the philosophers themselves were anything but apathetic towards material reality, the argument that all aspects of material reality are part of Maya, does not provide a strong implication to help understand how to address existential issues. 

Dualists like Madhwacharya, criticised the core philosophy of Jiva Brahmaivanapara (or the ego is none other than the Brahman), and instead argued that the jiva is completely contained within existential reality or Prakriti. It is too pretentious for our ego to believe that we are the entire universe-- all that our ego can do is to facilitate the universal consciousness to manifest through us, as best as possible. This line of argument, is also strongly entrenched in the Bhakti movement that advocated love, devotion, and surrender to the divine as a means of liberation. 

More modern philosophers like Swami Vivekananda who rose to prominence during the Indian freedom struggle against British colonial rule, have argued that too much of an emphasis on Bhakti, leading to a perennial sense of surrender and submission makes us too obsequious, and impedes our ability for ownership. Ownership of larger issues-- like the safety, welfare and well-being of our family, community and country, are important pre-requisite to help sustain all forms of philosophical inquiry-- be it non-dual or dual. 

Swami Vivekananda was a non-dual philosopher at his core. But he also combined his non-dual philosophy with several forms of social advocacy and reform-- including development of a scientific temper in the population, community welfare and service, focus on courage and bravery, development of patriotism, ownership and participation in issues relating to the country, and so on. Swami Vivekananda's social reforms have played critical roles in shaping the rise of post-colonial India. He had set up several institutions for both mainstream and spiritual education. He also played critical roles in the establishment of major scientific establishments like the Indian Institute of Science. 

Vivekananda's approach to non-dual Vedanta is now called "Integral Advaita" in that, it strives to integrate seemingly breakaway schools of philosophy back into the core non-dual approach that has characterised Indian thought since thousands of years. 

Here is a good introduction to Integral Advaita, by Swami Medhananda: 

Dvaitadvaita Samvada

One of the core topics of debate in Indian philosophy is on the nature of reality-- more specifically, the difference between reality and existence. 

It is fairly easy to see that existential reality-- be it the physical universe, or the world of concepts and ideas, is incomplete. No system of representation of existence can explain itself. Mathematicians and philosophers-- both in the East and the West, have discovered this limit in many different ways. 

In Indian thought, reality is thought to be something that pervades all of existence and beyond. It is called by different names-- Brahman, Paramatma, Purusha, etc. that represents the only entity there is, and that is eternal. Existential reality of names and forms and features, is ephemeral, and is described variously as such, with names like Maya, Prakriti, etc. 

When it comes to describing ourselves as well, distinctions are made between the core of our being called Atma or Sakshi (witness), and our existential sense of self, that is variously called Ahamkar or Jivatma (roughly corresponding to the notion of ego). The Ahamkar or the ego is our sense of self that we adopt in our daily lives. We describe ourselves as so-and-so, attribute several characteristics to ourselves, and project one or more persona, depicting how we want others to interpret us. But, as several philosophical schools argue, our true nature is not our ego. We can witness our ego in action as if it were an object external to us-- just as we can witness something that is happening outside, or some thought we are holding in our heads. When we are witnessing our ego-- who is it that is the observer? This observer needs to be necessarily beyond the ego, and definitely beyond our body or thoughts. This observer or witness (called Sakshi-- which means "witness" in Sanskrit) is posited as our true self. 

Because the Sakshi can witness anything that we imagine ourselves to be-- the true nature of our Sakshi is hence posited to be the very reality, which is the only thing there is. 

Our ego often identifies with several entities outside of itself-- in effect, saying "I am that". For instance, we may identify with our family, our gender, our ethnicity, out country, our profession, etc. where, we work for its interests, as if we are working for ourselves. We get personally hurt when our object of identity is criticised. 

But, even when our ego goes about identifying with some entity or the other, we can witness this elastic identity in action-- showing that we are not that which we identify with. 

So why is it our ego goes about identifying with things? When we can witness our ego and say that our true nature is the witness, why does the ego exist separately, and what is its role? 

Such questions have been at the core of the debates among philosophers of Vedanta-- especially the non-dualist (Advaita) philosophers, and several other schools of qualified non-dualist and dualist (Dvaita) philosophers. 

The non-dualist or Advaita philosophy, which is reiterated many times in the Upanishads, argues that our witness is in fact, Brahman, or the only entity there is. We are in fact, the universe, and that is the only thing there is. All existential elements, including our ego is no different from Brahman, as Brahman is the only entity there is. Existence is like the waves and surf in an ocean-- which seems to be constantly at flux, but which is nothing but the water that makes up the ocean. 

Our ego goes about identifying with a lot of entities outside of us, because it does not realise the true nature of its existence. It is like a bubble on the surface of water wanting to establish relationships with other bubbles on the surface, and maybe fight for territory or dominance or whatever. All the while, it is nothing but the water that makes it up, and all the relations it forms are necessarily ephemeral. Once the bubbles burst, they go back to being the water that they always were. 

The realised ego, Advaita argues, does not take existential equations too seriously. The bubble exists, and it has some fun time interacting with other bubbles, forming nice structures and patterns, knowing fully well that it is nothing but the water. The realised ego, Advaita argues performs its worldly activities in a "detached" fashion (nishkama karma), without getting deluded in worldly constructs, and all the while being aware of its true nature. 

*~*~*~*~*~*

However, several philosophers have broken away from this core philosophy of non-dualism, and of dismissing existence as something ephemeral and illusory (mithya). 

Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) for example, criticised Vedic philosophers of his time, of being indifferent to the human suffering around them, in their quest to realise their true nature. When there is so much suffering around us, should we not be doing something to mitigate it, he argued. 

Several other philosophical schools, broadly grouped as Sramanics, have a similar argument. They argue that the algebra of existence is not nihilistic. To say that we are born just to seek liberation from existence just begs the question as to why were we born in the first place-- they argue. 

A somewhat similar stance is also taken by the dualist (Dvaita) philosophers. Dualists argue that existence and reality are two separate entities, and indeed, the universe itself may be described by a dualism or an interplay between existence and reality. 

This is somewhat similar to the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang that depicts reality in terms of two symmetric forces called Yin and Yang, where the seeds of one emerges when the other force becomes dominant. Dvaita is similar but not exactly identical. Dualists agree with the core hypothesis of Advaita of the primacy of reality over existence. Existence cannot exist without the substrate of reality, but reality can remain without existence. (The bubble cannot be formed without water, but water can exist without bubbles). 

The point of departure of dvaita from non-dualism is the argument that, the dynamics of the bubbles that make up existence, is not arbitrary or nihilistic. Our ego acts autonomously, yet it is bound by the consequences of its actions. Notions like ethics, morality, accountability, etc. that pervade our existential universe-- are all important, dvaita argues. Existential constructs and boundaries are important, which impact what the ego can do. It is only when the ego acts and manifests itself in certain specific ways, does it get a glimpse of reality. 

The dvaita argument is also consistent with modern-day scientific inquiry. While scientists use a lot of structures and formal frameworks in their work, there is a realisation that formal frameworks are meant to communicate scientific breakthroughs rather than create such breakthroughs. As Albert Einstein once said: 

The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why.

Albert Einstein

Whether reality is dualist or non-dualist, the core contribution of Indian philosophy is the pervasive nature of reality, as exemplified in this Shanti mantra (source: https://www.templepurohit.com/mantras-slokas-stotras/shanti-mantra/om-purnamadah-purnamidam/): 

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning: 
Aum! That is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite alone.
Aum! Peace! Peace! Peace!

The debates on Maya

Indian philosophy-- regardless of which school of philosophy we are talking about-- distinguish between two forms of reality. The existential reality of names and forms, including information constructs like knowledge, belief, etc. form what we generally know as reality. This is called Prakriti in the Samkhya philosophy and Maya in different other schools of thought. 

But in addition to the existential reality in which we all dwell in, almost all schools of thought posit a deeper substratum that transcends all of existence and beyond. This "transcendental" reality, variously called Purusha, Brahman, or "that which is", etc. is postulated as the only entity there is. 

Most philosophical writings are about how to realise this transcendental reality as a fact, and not as a postulate or an assertion, or as a matter of faith or belief. There are several techniques and paradigms (called marga or pathways) that are proposed, that systematically take the inquirer from their current moorings in existential reality, to a state where they realise that all of existence is just "that which is." 

The jnana marga or the paradigm of knowledge takes the inquirer on a journey of logic and epistemology, to ultimately lead to a state where one realises that reality needs to necessarily lie beyond the system of logic and knowledge-- and that logic can only communicate truth, and not discover it. 

In addition to the paradigm of knowledge, there are several other paradigms that are proposed-- including karma (action), Yoga (the discipline of joining or harmonising), bhakti (devotion), etc. All of these paradigms have a core objective-- that of systematically taking the seeker from the existential realm, to realise the transcendental realm.

But in all these, there is a fundamental question that lies unanswered, which has been at the core of several breakaway philosophical schools. This is the question about existential reality or Maya itself. If the transcendental reality is all that there is, why then does existence exist at all? Just because existential reality of physics and knowledge is not complete, does it mean it is not important to study existence at all? 

This debate lies at the core of the vast body of literature that have argued about the non-dual and dual nature of reality. This can be broadly classified as the Advaita and Dvaita schools of thought. 

Advaita or non-dualism argues that Maya is just an illusion that obscures our realisation of the substratum. Maya is said to have two kinds of properties-- the avarana shakti or the property of veiling or occlusion, that prevents us from seeing reality as it is, and the vikshepa shakti or the property of projection, where the Maya of our minds project some properties onto reality based on our own experiences. 

To explain this, several analogies are provided. Imagine a pond at the base of which, is a precious, shining gem. We can see the gem when the water is clear, but when the water is muddy, it occludes the gem from our vision, and we may often mistake the gem for something else like a fish, or some creature. In order to see the gem for what it is, we need to clear the water from all the mud. Maya is like the muddiness of the water, that occludes our vision of the gem, and the muddiness in our minds, mistakes the gem for something else. 

In another argument, we are asked to think of a clay pot, made completely of clay. And then we are asked, is there anything to the pot other than clay? In the universe of the pot, the clay is all there is. The "potness" of the clay is ephemeral and is soon lost if the pot is broken-- but the clay remains, even when its "potness" is gone. 

However, the dualists or the Dvaita philosophers take exception to this. The "potness" or the idea of a pot is independent of the clay, they argue. To substantiate this, consider a fancy pot like in the picture below: 

The "potness" of this pot has specific characteristics-- there are two handles, there is a big mouth with a lid of a specific shape, etc. The "potness" of this pot existed in the mind of the pot maker, independent of the clay. The pot maker may well have manifested this same "potness"-- that is a pot with the same shape and characteristics-- using say, plastic, or metal. The existential reality of the idea of the pot existed independent of the substance that made the pot (which is the clay). 

According to the dualists, the Maya of the "potness" is not "occluding" our glimpse of the clay. We need not "remove" Maya or the "potness" to get a glimpse of the underlying reality (the clay). We need not "remove" a wave on the sea, to see the underlying water. And just because there is no other substance to the pot other than the clay, it does not mean that the "potness" or the idea of the pot is unimportant. If we want the clay to hold water or tea, we need to cast the clay in the form of a pot. 

Maya, according to the dualists, acts more like a mould that "casts" reality into different forms with different characteristics-- rather than as a "cloak" that occludes or covers reality with its illusion. 

Unravelling Indian thought: Dvaita and Advaita

One of the most recurring frustrations I have faced while growing up in my cultural network, has been the pervasive emphasis on faith and submission (bhakti as it is called), and de-emphasis on asking difficult questions or critical inquiry. We were told to "just do" what is told and that "one day, you will understand everything." 

In addition to this, there is also a pervasive sense of smug conviction and contempt towards those who ask questions or those who try to explain their thoughts. It is quite the norm in this network, for people to laugh at others behind their backs-- especially if the other person has opened up in the hopes of gaining clarity. An adolescent experiencing unfamiliar emotions of a heartbreak for instance, will be rewarded with laughter and stern judgment from immediate family, rather than validation of their emotions. It is quite common to see younger generation enjoy life, take risks and embrace failure when they alone-- but not in front of their families. 

How did these self-defeating cultural practices come about? It is fashionable to blame British colonial administration for the all pervasive "slave mentality" in our society today. But despite 70 years of independence, these self-defeating practices remain, and the fault lines are as strong as ever. 

Recently, I was listening to this talk by Swami Sarvapriyananda on the differences between Advaita and Dvaita philosophies. Some of the explanations he gave about these two philosophical schools, suddenly brought a lot of clarity. In this talk, he not only explains the philosophical differences, but also the methodologies used by the respective camps and the resultant cultures they created. 

Both Advaita Vedanta propounded by Adi Shankara in the 9th century CE, as well as the Dvaita Vedanta propounded by Madhvacharya in the 16th century CE, are commentaries on the Upanishadic texts called the Brahma Sutras. The Upanishads are one of the earliest and most comprehensive texts (which are themselves just a part of the Vedas), that address topics like consciousness and the nature of reality. The Upanishads comprises of several texts that were written over different time periods ranging from 4000 to 2500 years ago. The German philosopher Schopenhauer was known for his advocacy of the Upanishads, whose writings in turn, went on to influence a number of Western philosophers and scientists. The American philosopher William Irwin Thompson is said to have stated that the Upanishads have had such a profound influence on human thought, that we ought to divide historical eras into "Before Upanishads" and "After Upanishads" eras, rather than the current common era. 

As with all influential texts, their influence waxes and wanes over time. Starting from around the 3rd century BCE, by the 9th century CE, Vedic cultures in the Indian subcontinent had already fragmented into several schools-- the orthodox astikas like the Vaishnavas, the sceptics or the nastikas like the Caravakas, the empiricists or the Sramanics like Buddhists, Jains, etc. These times were also witness to vibrant debates between the different schools, and the development of an elaborate science of argumentation, called VadaVidya. 

In this context, came Adi Shankara from present-day Kerala, who wrote great commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, to develop a school of thought, called the Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta posits a "non-dual" nature of reality by saying that everything in this universe is just the only thing there is-- which is called the universal consciousness or Brahman. What we experience in the physical universe is called Maya, that "veils" our experience of Brahman-- while Maya is itself nothing but Brahman! The existential reality of physical names and forms created by Maya, can "reflect" the universal consciousness to different extents. Some "well polished" elements of existence can reflect Brahman much better than other not so well-polished elements. Yet, all the while, reality is just Brahman looking at itself-- somewhat like the illustration below. 

Advaita says that the only barrier to us realising this universal reality, is Avidya-- which is often translated as "ignorance," but more accurately means "delusion." It is when we are deluded by existence and its names and forms, and believe that to be real, we are occluded from the ultimate reality. Advaita also proposes several techniques by which, we can systematically detach ourselves from existential reality to experience ourselves as the entire universe-- which then again includes all of existence and all that we were attached to! The Advaitic technique first develops a mechanism for "Asangha" which means detachment from our thoughts, emotions, objects, etc, and ends with "Dvaitavarjita" or experience of oneness of everything including all the objects that we had detached from. The result of such a realisation in a human, Advaita says, is the emergence of Nishkama karma, or dispassionate actions without vested interests or desires. 

Advaita had a radical and profound influence on thinkers of those times-- much like quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity were to do in later times. Advaita inspired several innovations in different walks of life including science, administration, medicine and well-being, etc. Even today for instance, in our lab, we are inspired by Advaita for proposing new models of ethics in AI, and understanding sustainable development. 

*~*~*~*~*

By the time Madhvacharya was born in the 16th century CE in present day Karnataka, it was already 700 years since Adi Shankara, and Advaita still was still the most widely discussed and adopted philosophy! But much had changed in the socio-political reality of India by that time. 

The northern parts of India were reeling from immense bloodshed and genocides from foreign invaders. The biggest university in the world-- Nalanda-- had been completely destroyed. Countless cities and monuments were destroyed. People were killed by the hundreds of thousands in single days! The medieval genocide of Hindus remains one of the bloodiest eras in world history, that is still actively downplayed for various reasons. 

These times also saw the emergence of one more social movement called the Bhakti movement. Bhakti is a concept from Vedic thought, which means devotion or commitment to an idea. Bhakti is seen as a means of spiritual realisation, by enabling us to discover ourselves through our lifelong commitment to an idea. Bhakti movement in these times, that were practiced syncretically across multiple religions, went beyond advocating dispassionate commitment to an idea, to advocating passionate surrender and submission to the divine. 

Bhakti was also widely popular among administrators and thought leaders who sought to bring peace from bloodshed. Bhakti enables bringing about order in society, by enabling people to discover their favourite ideas, and commit themselves to realising themselves through their devotion, rather than give in to aggression over others. 

Advaita by itself does not promote bhakti-- nor does it reject it, either. Bhakti is a good thing to have, according to Advaita, but it would not be of any use, if it is practiced with Avidya. Advaita advocates for pursuit of knowledge and elimination of Avidya first, to become aware of one's true nature, and anything else, including bhakti, next. This quote below, explains Advaita's stance about bhakti and other orthodox cultures: 

Several thought leaders tried to combine bhakti with Advaita in different ways. For instance, Ramanujacharya in the 11th century CE, proposed a philosophy called Visishtadvaita, that proposed existence as a "distinguishable part of" reality-- much like the relationship between a finger and the rest of the body. Advaita simply says, "existence is reality" or reality is the only thing there is. 

Madhvacharya in the 16th century CE, takes an even more intense stance, and develops a philosophy called Dvaita-- which posits a duality, or a clear barrier (called bheda) between existence and reality, which can be breached only in certain specific ways. This is much like how a wall separates the inside and outside of a house, but can be breached through the door. 

One of the motivations for proposing this barrier was to bring the emphasis back on existential issues. When the northern parts of the country were reeling under immense bloodshed, thought leaders in the southern part still argued that existence is Maya or "illusion" or "unreal" and Brahman alone is real, and that all walls and barriers are meant to be broken. 

Madhvacharya argued that Maya and its barriers is as real as Brahman. The reality of Brahman does not negate the reality of Maya, and it is important to recognise the reality of Maya, he argued. Barriers are meant to protect what is inside-- and not exclude what is outside, he argued. He also argued however, that while Maya is very much real, its existence is dependent on Brahman (called paratantra). Maya cannot exist on its own. Hence its existence depends on its being able to find the door and breach the barrier between itself and Brahman through Bhakti and Sadhana (sustained effort). And in contrast to dispassionate action (Nishkama karma), Dvaita advocated Sakama karma or passionate action towards protecting and preserving boundaries, so that interaction with Brahman happens only through specific channels. 

Dvaita philosophy proposed the existence of five kinds of barriers (called panchabheda)-- between jiva and jagat (individual sentience and Brahman), jada and jagat (non-sentient existence and Brahman), jiva and jada, jiva and jiva; and jada and jada. 

Essentially, it argued that each barrier we see in existence is real, and there is a reason why it is there. If boundaries are not important, why then it argued, do we stay in walled houses, why then do we need clothes to cover ourselves? The individuality of each individual, and the existence of each object and concept, is real and significant, it argued. 

In this sense, Dvaita is somewhat similar to (but not the same as) Analytic Philosophy of the West, while Advaita is somewhat similar to (but not the same as) British Idealism from the 20th and 19th century CE, respectively. 

In order to drive home the reality of existence, Dvaita proponents developed methods that are in some ways similar to evangelical Christianity. For instance, it argued for faith first and knowledge next (bhakti tatho jnanam), quite in contrast to Advaita, which argued for knowledge first and Bhakti next. Proponents of Dvaita argued for Dvaita not just as a darshana (perspective) but as the only correct interpretation! 

This is very similar to how evangelical religions work. Except that Dvaita did not actively seek to proselytise and convert (or eliminate) "non-believers." It also had no notions of blasphemy or apostasy. Philosophical perspectives (darshanas) in ancient India thankfully were hardly ever pursued as violent ideologies. But even then, this intense stance taken by Dvaita (perhaps in response to the socio-political situation and increasing desperation of Hindus in those times), the culture that resulted from this philosophy seems to have become very acerbic in nature, with contempt, conviction, derision, scorn, smugness and a judgmental attitude occupying central positions in one's worldview. 

I know I am probably going to get a lot of contempt, scorn and derision for saying the above. But I think it is important to understand the underlying philosophy and not hold on to the methodologies adopted that were perhaps relevant in one time, but not anymore.