Is there an Indian way of thinking?

In his informal essay titled “Is there an Indian way of thinking?”, A.K Ramanujan starts off by
exploring four possible interpretations of this central question using the Stanislavskian
exercise for actors which involves asking the question differently each time, emphasizing a
different keyword — “is”, “an”, “Indian” and “thinking”. He then illustrates the central
characteristic, “inconsistency” and the inherent hypocrisy of Indian thinking, through the
example of his father who is adept at Mathematics and Astronomy while simultaneously being
a Sanskrit scholar and Astrologer. How his father could resolve these distinct ways of thinking
astounded a young Ramanujan and inspires him to probe this question further.

He then proceeds to cite accounts of the work of various European scholars who have
described the peculiar Indian character to be inconsistent in logic, entirely missing the concept
of self and lacking in any understanding of universality. Having presented these external
views, Ramanujan, from his position as a linguist, goes on to forward a formulation to explain
cultural tendencies in terms of the context-sensitive and the context-free ways of thinking. He
also shares his observations about the counter movements in context-sensitive and context-free
cultures. He concludes by noting how India’s modernization can be viewed as a movement
from a context-sensitive to context-free culture of thought.

In the FIRST SECTION of this essay, A.K. RAMANUJAN puts forth some questions and
tries answering them by emphasizing on specific aspects of the question.
He asks Is there an Indian way of thinking? The answer to this question is: there was an
Indian way of thinking but it does not exist now. The Indian way of thinking can be located
in the upper-caste, Brahmanical section of the society - in the Vedas and other religious texts,
or when one goes to the 'pundits'. However, since our thinking is still largely shaped as per
the Vedas, it would not be completely wrong to say that there still is an Indian way of
thinking that exists.

The second question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? He says that there has
always been the existence of Great Tradition and Little Tradition. In India, we celebrate
diversities and highlight these differences. Therefore, a single Indian way of thinking does
not exist.

The third question is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? India is nothing but a product of the
influences of external cultures, languages, religions and social evolutions - therefore, one
might say that what we see in India is nothing unique to India. However, India is capable of
adapting to the changes and accommodating these external influences into its culture...
The last question he asks is: Is there an Indian way of thinking? Ramanujan says that it is the
West that is capable of thought. The West is projected as materialistic and rational. In India,
logic is rationalized with religion and superstitions. In India, actions are projected, not the
thoughts behind those actions.

Thus in the 1st part of his essay, Ramanujan states how India is perceived differently at
different stages by different people and from different perspectives.

In the second part of the essay, the inconsistency between tradition and modernity is depicted
with an example from Ramanujan's personal experience. He gives the example of his father
to show how India can be ancient yet modern at the same time. For Ramanujan, consistency
means strict adherence to only one - either religion or science.
Ramanujan's father was a South Indian Brahman.

 While he wore dhotis in traditional brahman style, he also wore English jackets over
his dhotis.
 He wore tartan-patterned socks and leather shoes when he went to the university but
removed them before entering the inner quarters of the house.
 He was a mathematician and an astronomer + a Sanskrit scholar and an expert
astrologer.
 He had American and English mathematicians visiting him along with the local
pundits and astrologers.
 While he read the Bhagvad Gita religiously every morning after taking a bath, he
would talk about Russell and Ingersoll also with the same amount of passion.
Ramanujan could not figure out such an inconsistency - his father appeared to neither think
nor care about any sort of consistency.

In the third part of the essay, Ramanujan interrogates the concept of inconsistency in a larger
context - and does not just limit it to his father. He talks of the concept of 'karma' and that of
'talaividi'. Karma implies the self's past as determining the present and future - it is an 'iron
chain' of cause and effect. Karmic philosophy is written. Talaividi or 'head writing' focuses
on destiny and it is a part of oral tradition.
The Western construction of the Orient (India) is that we are yet to develop the notion of
'data' or 'objective facts'. According to Sudhir Kakar, in the oriental world, there is no clear
difference between self and non-self - this brings about inconsistency. India is not influenced
by Newstonian thoughts according to Kissinger. In India, there is no concept of the universal.
The Indian way of thinking lacks universality; it is a traditional society constituting of
inconsistency and hypocrisy. Since the society is tradition in nature, the approach towards the
entire society is not secular. According to Zimmer, Indians can imagine a time in history
without man. West cannot do that as it is egoistic in nature.
While the west has universality, in India there are subjective positions. The understanding of
reality in India is always context-sensitive and not context-free. In India, even the perception
of truth is not a universal concept. In the West 'man shall not kill' is a universal statement but
in India, punishments are meted out owing to a person's social status. Even in the
Manusmriti, we find that moral codes need not be adhered to under all circumstances.

In the fourth part of the essay, Ramanujan examines how context-sensitivity is an important
part of Indian culture.
In India, all additions are in fact a subtraction from any universal law. Stories get their
context with reference to the frame in which they have been placed. Indian texts are
historically dateless, but their contexts, uses and efficacies are explicit Even when we look at
Ramayana and Mahabharata, we find that there are several episodes - each story is encased in
a meta-story. And within the text, one story is the context for another within it - the outer-
frame story as well as the inner sub-story provide relevant contexts for the other's existence.
Aristotle's theory of unity of time, place and action cannot be applied to our narratives.
The way we divide time in India is also very different from the way it is done in the West.
We have times that are auspicious, inauspicious (rahu kala), and the past and present seem to
merge together. Even our houses have moods (vastu shastra).
Indians are prone to blame their wrong-doings on fate, vaastu and it is not possible for us to
remove this context-sensitivity. It is latent in our society.
With modernity, we are widening our context in the way we want to rather than doing away
with all the traditional practises. It is as a result of this that the original context seems to be
lost.

Ramanujan says that all societies have context-sensitive behaviour and rules but the dominant
idea is always context-free. In the fifth part of the essay, he observes that socieities that are
context-free have movements which are context-specific in nature whereas in societies like
India, which are context-sensitive, there is a dream to be free of context - this gives rise to the
concept of 'rasa' in aesthetics, 'moksha' in the aims of life and 'sanyasa' in the end of life-
stages.

In the last part of the essay, Ramanujan states how we have moved towards context-free
situations in India. He says that with modernization, there has been a movement from
context-sensitive to context-free at least in principle. Today, people can listen to any raga at
any time rather than strictly sticking to the time prescribed. The new thoughts and behaviours
borrowed from the West do not replace the old religious ideas. They get incorporated with the
existing tradition. In 'Ayudhapuja', even computers and type-writers are worshiped instead of
weapons. Therefore, no matter how hard we try to move to become a context-free society, the
result is that the context-free nature ends up becoming yet another context i.e. the 'modern'
context.