Caylao, Inna Marie S.

3PHL

Dhirendra Mohan Datta ‘s “The Contribution of Modern Indian Philosophy to World

Philosophy” is the fundamental reference and focus of this critique paper . It is wholly taken

from the 57th volume of the Philosophical Review and was published through the Duke

University Press. In this sense, the author’s focal point centralizes from the antiquity to the

modernization of Indian Philosophy respectively and how it substantially contributed to the

evolution of world philosophy explicitly in: epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics and analytic

psychology. Further, the author argues that the instigation of this contemporaneousness is the

formidable influence of the West in reshaping India’s antiquity. It is imperative to note, however,

India did not merely duplicate the West as it resolutely retained its own particularity throughout

the centuries that have passed. For this reason, the major purpose of this paper is to critically

scrutinize the author’s main arguments and opinion if it essentially provides a coherent, accurate,

and logical analysis. To begin with, the author started his inquiry into the philosophical

discussion of India by recalling its ancient background through the Vedas.

The Vedas promoted the supremacy of the doctrine of monotheistic idealism. This

doctrine upholds the existence of only one reality and this is known as the Brahma in the

Upanishad. Brahma , the absolute and ultimate Reality, is both immanent and transcendent; is not

only that out of which the world emanates and by which it is sustained, but is also that into which

the world dissolves. Brahma is at once Reality (sat), Consciousness (chit), Bliss (annanda).

Brahma is the Reality that underlies the self (atma) as well as the world. 1 The knowledge of the

distinction between atman and Brahma is the goal of Indian Philosophy as a means to attain final
1
Dhirendra Mohan Datta, “The Contribution of Modern Indian Philosophy to World Philosophy”, Philosophical
Review, 57(1948), 550-572 (p.551)

1
salvation. In addition, understanding of Brahma is also found in the Bhagavad-gita / Gita /

Divine Song, which is a religious classical source and which is universally regarded as one of the

basic scriptures and held in high esteem by philosophers, theists, and ethical teachers both of

ancient and modern times.2 The Gita tries to synthesize and reconcile all views and all paths. It

teaches that God, while transcending all, also manifests himself in all existence and in diverse

forms. There are different ways of realizing Him – through knowledge, through devotion, and

through action without attachment. Any of these can be chosen, according to one’s own fitness.

The duties of all stations are equally sacred. There should be no conflict among different faiths or

paths. There are natural divisions among men in accordance with their intrinsic qualities and

actions; their capacities and duties vary accordingly (and not according to hereditary castes). The

teachings of the Gita have, therefore, been an inspiration to modern Indian social and religious

reformers as well as to political leaders engaged in fighting artificial social inequalities,

harmonizing as they do the different religions and replacing quietism and inactivism by the ideal

of work without attachment.3

With this in mind, the philosophical schools of India have been divided into two major

groups based on their stance on Vedic teachings. They are the pro-Vedic and the anti-Vedic. The

former is completely in acquiescence to the authority and teachings of the Vedas and is

specifically consists of six systems of thought: Mimamsa, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaishesika and

Vedanta. Whereas, the latter dissented o the authority and teachings of Vedas and which is only

consists of three schools of thought: Charvaka, Jainism and Buddhism.

To briefly explain the six schools of the pro-Vedic group of Indian Philosophy, first on

the list is Mimamsa. Mimamsa is a philosophical justification of Vedic rituals. Equally important,
2 Ibid.,p.553
3 Ibid.

2
Sankhya propounds a dualistic metaphysic of souls and Nature and the possibility of the

liberation of the soul from its bondage to Nature by discrimination and detachment. Moreover,

Yoga, based on a similar metaphysic, goes deep into the psychology of attention and

concentration and lays down a practical path to liberation by the gradual concentration of

attention on the nature of the soul, aided by physical culture, moral discipline, and meditative

exercises. Lastly, Nyaya and Vaishesika propound a realistic pluralism, emphasizing particularly

a realistic epistemology with an acute logical analysis of language and the different processes of

thought, and developing an algebraic logical terminology for precision of statement.4

In contrast, the first of the anti-Vedic group is Jainism. Jainism speaks of the importance

of conquering one’s passion and desire and the belief in the view of realistic pluralism.

Subsequently, Buddhism emphasizes the importance of knowledge in the cessation of suffering.

Further, Buddhist philosophy is divided into four schools which may be referred to as those of

indeterminism, subjective idealism, naïve realism and critical realism. Finally, the Charvaka

school holds to an uncompromising theory of materialism and hedonism. 5

All in all, we could see that these two major divisions have been in partial contradiction

with each other. Nevertheless, the original and express motive of each system , except the

materialist, is practical. All of them show, in different ways, how philosophy can help man know

the cause of suffering and how knowledge can help him terminate suffering and attain perfect

peace. All of them, again, believe that true and effective knowledge cannot be attained by mere

study. Moral and physical discipline must accompany study, reasoning, intense concentration on,

and repeated meditation of, the philosophical truths so that every thought, speech, and action in

4 Ibid., pp. 553-554

5 Ibid.

3
life may reflect them. It is thus that the Indian systems are more than theoretical discussions;

they are ways of molding life in accordance with different perspectives.6

Presently, the philosophical inquiry gradually shifts to the modern Indian thought. Indian

philosophy, being the philosophy of the conquered pagans and also being mostly confined then

to original texts unintelligible to the foreign teachers, was naturally ignored or despised as to

crude to be studied at the modern seats of learning. Consequently, for about a century, Indians

studied with European teachers Greek, medieval, and modern European philosophy in all its

branches and aspects, and nothing of their own systems. Meanwhile with the discovery of

Sanskrit by Europe and the translation of the less technical philosophical literature, particularly

by German scholars like Max Miller, Indian philosophy rose a little in the estimation of the

British as well as of the Anglicized administrators of the universities; and it began to be

recognized in the universities during the first and the second decades of this century. 7 Facing two

long and mighty currents of thought, of the East and of the West, they find it an extremely

difficult task to make up their minds and contribute anything new through the understanding of

both and through removing doubts coming from two different directions. Unlike their Western

brethren Indians feel it their duty now to understand and assimilate the Eastern and the Western

before making any new contribution.8 But those few modern Indian thinkers who have at all

succeeded in making any new contribution have brought to their task a much wider knowledge

and a more catholic outlook than their Western colleagues, whose minds have been fed only on

one kind of fare. Their thoughts are based upon a comparative understanding of the Indian and

the Western and may, therefore, be regarded as attempts to show the different lines along which

6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., pp.556-557
8 Ibid.,

4
the two can be united. They are, therefore, already steps towards the evolution of a world

philosophy.9

In this line, the author provided specific well known philosophers who sophisticatedly

exhibited the amalgamation of Western influence and the basic gist of Indian philosophy as a

foundation to their own philosophical contention. This phenomenon of modernization, however,

is difficult at first as Indian philosophy was subjected to numerous discriminations of the West

because the foreigners were closed to the original unintelligible material texts and language of

India. Nonetheless, these problems did not hinder the modern Indian thinkers to elevate the

condition of Indian philosophy. Comparative study of Indian and Western philosophy has thus

become the main occupation of the more advanced Indian scholars. This is one of the reasons

why India’s original contribution has been so meager in present times. The other great reason is,

of course, the loss of confidence caused by long political subjugation. 10As aforementioned, the

succeeding paragraphs will sharply discuss the philosophy of modern Indian thinkers.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a well known philosopher in India maintains the point of view

of idealism in his philosophy. He reorientates the conceptions of the Absolute, God, and spirit in

the light of Plato, Hegel, emergent evolution, the Bergsonian conception of intuition, the

criticism of the conception of substance by scientific philosophers like Whitehead, and the

mysticism of the religious saints of different lands, like the Neoplatonists and the Sufis. 11 Though

his Absolute corresponds to the Brahma and Vedanta, he considers it dynamically as the spiritual

energy which evolves the world from nonbeing into being, from possibility to actuality, through
12
the successive emergent levels of matter, life consciousness, and self-consciousness. Further,

9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.,
11 Ibid., p.557
12 Ibid.

5
Radhakrishnan differentially seeks to build a firm religious stance by synthesizing both the

Western and Eastern classical traditions. Hence, he has been influential in modifying the West’s

discernment on Hinduism, India and generally, on the East.

In the same way, Sri Aurobindo’s exceptional contribution to human race is also the

unification of the Eastern and Western cultures. He transported the dynamic tradition of the West

particularly on the material and intellectual aspects of human life together with the spiritual and

philosophical directions flourished in the East in antiquity. As a matter of fact, as a political

worker he adopted the philosophy of the Gita, the philosophy of action without attachment and

with self-surrender technique for the uplift of human race. We may notice here a revival of the

ideal of Bodhisattva which rejects the thought of individual liberation and strives for the

liberation of all beings.13 In the first place, his central teaching revolves around the evolution of

human life to Divine life. In this light, his writings help us to reconcile the apparently existing

conflicts between the East and West and encourage us to create a fresh and wide-ranging

approach with ethical and spiritual justifications for the struggles of humanity.

Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya, another notable philosopher of the 20th century,

contributed to the metaphysical analogy of the world. His fundamental argument is instigated on

the question on how is it possible that the mind, life, or consciousness produces a seemingly

material universe. Bhattacharya, upon answering this question, apparently designated Kant’s

(Western thinker) abstruse metaphysical theories. For Bhattacharya, the question is connected

with maya (illusion) and therefore illicit. The adequate knowledge that we could see is the

knowledge that all things are illusion. Further, he distinguishes four grades of consciousness –

empirical thought, pure objective thought, spiritual thought, and transcendental thought (taking

13 Ibid., p.560-562

6
thought in the widest sense of “awareness”). When we deny an empirical object revealed by

sense-perception as being illusory, there arises the awareness of a pure or self-subsistent object

(which is before the mind, though not existing in space). The denial of even the pure object

leaves us with the self-enjoying awareness of the subject (spirit), and the denial of this last again

(e.g., in the self-effacement of the devotee before God) leaves us with the transcendental

awareness. The empirical objects come within the province of science, while the proper business

of philosophy is the analysis of the contents of the last three grades of consciousness. 14

Nevertheless, the work of constructing a synthetic view of the world is really not the business of

philosophy; such construction is a kind of poetic imagination and yields no knowledge.

Philosophy analyzes the contents which shine in pure thought – the self-subsistent object, the

enjoyed self, and the Absolute – seeks to understand their meanings and interrelate them in the

form of judgments.15 Indeed, we could see the influence of Kant and other Western moral

positivists in Bhattacharya’s philosophy.

Rabindranath Tagore, the famous poet of India, was also one of the foremost leaders of

Indian renascence in art, music, dance, and literature.16 Like the preceding modern his ideal was

the combination of Western science and practical efficiency with the spiritual heritage of the

East.17 As an idealist, Tagore believes that man should consciously realize the ultimate truth as a

means for his blissful liberation from the bondage of the world. Moreover, as a naturalist, he

contended that nature like a mother is a great teacher which is not unreceptive to man. Also, as a

humanist, man should act according to his given nature to love fellowmen to be able to

experience and realize God’s presence. In this light, the abovementioned ideas of Tagore reveal

14 Ibid., p.564
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., p.567
17 Ibid.,p.568

7
his pro-Vedic nature. As a vedantist, he believes in the existence of Brahma as the one and

ultimate Reality. Hence, he believes in the manifold manifestations of God both in matter and

spirit. This, however, should be tied with love and joy.

Following this line of argument, Mahatma Gandhi a 20 st century Indian thinker, is in total

agreement with Tagore. For him, “There is no wall of separation between means and end.” “The

bad means corrupt the end.” Violent means (in politics) will give violent swaraj (self-rule).18 As

a result, satya (truth), brahmacharya (self-control), and ahimsa (non-violence) are the three

guiding principles that led Gandhi to liberate his country from sovereign oppression and

dominance. In this sense, “God is truth,” (Satyam) as the Upanishad says. Love of God, therefore

demands love of truth in every sphere of life, and even in politics there should be no room for the

soul-killing art of falsehood and duplicity which thrive in the name of diplomacy. 19 For Gandhi,

Truth is best equated with God. By means of ascetical practice one will know the way to God.

Hence, God and Truth are alike. Gandhi’s assertion is that we should be true to others and to

ourselves for us to be with the Truth/God. Thus, it is a complete ascetic way of thinking as one is

ready to sacrifice his life to others. In this way, Truth is not merely an ideological concept but a

reality in life to live with. In simpler terms, it entails a great sacrifice to be true to one’s self, to

society, and to God.

Also, as political freedom was for him only a milestone on the journey of the individual

and the nation to spiritual perfection, he carried on his mission of love and service in course of

which he sacrificed his body, like Socrates and Christ, for the good of humanity. 20 Following this

18 Ibid., 569
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., pp.570

8
philosophy and ethics in life, every individual can bring about his own salvation, as well as that

of mankind. There should be no wall between private morality and public morality.21

Truly, Western dynamism, realism, and secularism have proved a corrective to Indian

thought, which degenerated during the past few centuries towards quietism, acomisn, and

defeatism. But even in her recovery from these undesirable tendencies India has not merely

copied the West, but has retained her basic peculiarities.22 On the whole, the fusion between

Eastern and Western cultures through the modern Indian philosophers made each one of us

fathom their essences and thus through its universality that it contributed to world philosophy.

Finally, after stating the short synopsis of the article the next objective of this paper is to

thoroughly critique its substantiality. The first step to critically review the piece is to know the

author’s expertise or credentials.

Dhirendra Mohan Datta, the author of “The Contribution of Modern Indian Philosophy to

World Philosophy” is a notable and reputable Philosophy professor of the Patna College in

Patna, India. With this in mind, as a professional man in the field of education, he has written

several philosophical books and articles: “The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi”, “The Chief

Currents of Contemporary Philosophy” and “The Six Ways of Knowing: A Critical Study of the

Vedanta Theory of Knowledge”. Hence, undoubtedly speaking, his expertise in Indian

philosophy was unambiguously shown in his discussions on the pro-Vedic and anti-Vedic major

groups and the philosophy of the modern Indian thinkers.

Pursuing this further, he appropriately executed methods to gather proofs or evidences as

we could explicitly see how he clearly and properly cited sources and made use of the primary

21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., p.571

9
and original texts of Indian philosophers as references to his arguments. These gathered

references, therefore are reliable, accurate and credible. In the same way, the author has been

successful in conversing with his reader as he utilized and interpreted these evidences in order

for the reader to be able to arrive with the same conclusion. By arriving at the same conclusion,

we could also see that he assuredly employed logical arguments for his article. On the other

hand, counter-arguments are also founded on reliable references with logical arguments. Also, it

is necessary to note that this article is subject to the demand of time pertaining to it being

outdated since it was published on November of 1948.

In final analysis, based on the abovementioned propositional assessments, I am generally

concurring on the author’s arguments and opinions. Basically, the author has been consistent

with his supporting arguments. Also, a detailed and concise information on the ancient

background of the different Indian schools of thought namely Mimamsa, Sankhya, Vedanta,

Vaishesika, Yoga, Nyaya, Jainism, Charvaka and Buddhism are comprehensively provided

without sacrificing the fundamental philosophical gist of each system. Similarly, the same

method was established by the author in providing evidences on the modern Indian thinkers.

Although the author did not discuss and elaborately explain the four ends of human life: artha,

kama, dharma and moksha which are fundamental in understanding the different schools of

thought in Indian philosophy, he painstakingly focus more on the different viewpoints of the

modern Indian thinkers such as S. Radhakrishnan, Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya, Sri

Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi.

Following this further, the article was coherently organized into parts starting from the

ancient to the modern times and the contributions of modern Indian philosophy have been

explicitly and implicitly revealed. Moreover, jargons have been moderately prevented as he made

10
a definite definition and translation (if it is in Sanskrit) to enable the reader to easily and

distinctly understand his main arguments. To prove this observation, certain examples were his

discussions about spiritual progress (according to Datta, it is the gradual process of the

realization of freedom of the subject from the object, empirical and pure, and lastly even from

subjectivity itself by the realization of the Absolute), Absolute (according to Datta, it reveals

itself either as Truth or as Freedom or as Beauty), satya (truth), ahimsa (non-violence), and

brahmacharya (self-control). On the other hand, with his discussion about satya (truth), he did

not mention that it has different interpretation in the West. ‘Truth’ is understood differently in

Asia from that of the Western mind. In the West, principles like ‘truth’ are categorical concepts.

In the East, in the contrary, principles are “forms of immersion in the different orders of self-
23
abandonment.” Gandhi immersed everything within a meaning flux, calling it the Truth. In

short, this piece of information in determining the distinctness of each perspective should not be

taken for granted to be able to avoid foreseeable confusions and misconceptions.

Apparently, the author evidently used the method of comparison and contrast in the

philosophy of the East and the West. As a result, a more complex understanding of the article has

been achieved. Correspondingly, he unselfishly provided particular suggested readings such as

Contemporary Indian Philosophy, The Proceedings of the Indian Philosophical Progress

(founded in 1925), and The Philosophical Quarterly to impart his readers additional details of

information on the indicated topic. Finally and most importantly, he avoided any predispositions

by stating the current and real situation of the relationship between the Eastern and Western

cultures.

23 Vincent Chittilappilly, Gandhi: The Model Ascetic, (2001: UST Publishing House, Manila)

11
 It is without a doubt that this article is a must read to all philosophy major students since

it will bestow a supplementary information on the inevitable changes that Indian philosophy has

been going through the ages as it develops and grows more profoundly. Also, a deep

appreciation on the efforts of the modern Indian thinkers will be recognized. Nonetheless, it is

imperative to note that without having a schema or a background understanding about Indian

philosophy one can have an arduous time grasping the veritable substance of the article.

12