Report of ICPR Sponsored Periodic LecturesDecember 16, 2015

The Department of Philosophy, Mathabhanga College, Mathabhanga has organized ICPR

Sponsored Periodical Lectures on 16th December, 2015.The College situated at the Indo-Bangladesh

boarder area in the District of Cooch Behar, West Bengal and thickly populated by S.C. community

people and also it is in the educationally backward region according to the UGC. Near about 300

students having philosophy subject, faculty members of other departments, Research Scholars,

Teachers from other Colleges and Schools have attended the lectures. Sri Rebati Mohan Roy, Teacher-

in-charge, Mathabhanga College, welcomed the speakers with bouquet. Dr.Jyotsna Saha, Head,

Department of Philosophy, introduced the eminent speakers Prof. Raghunath Ghosh and Dr.

Koushik Joardar. She pointed out that such kind of events is the need of the hour and students should

be given proper guidance and motivation in the concerned subject. Sri Pijush Kanti Das, Associate

Professor of English, presided over the inaugural session of the programme.

Dr. Koushik Joardar, Department of Philosophy, North Bengal University, Darjeeling, West

Bengal, delivered his lecture on the theme “Metaphysical Traditions from Plato to Kant”. He starts

with clarifying the nature of philosophy as it makes a particular philosopher understandable. One

1

among the four possible answers that can be given to this is given by Plato and Aristotle – it deals with

metaphysics which is supposed to be destroyed by Kant and analytic philosophers. Dr. Joardar opined

that Kant’s position regarding the impossibility of metaphysics needs to be reviewed. Both Hume and

Kant intended to establish metaphysics but not in the traditional way of establishing it as a science.

Thus Kant may be remembered in the history of philosophy for opening up a new metaphysics. In the

pre-Socratic era body was more important than soul. From Socrates and Plato soul gets its due

importance. Metaphysics became the study of being as mind can know. In the medieval period the

prime concern of the philosophers was to establish that God has created the world and the man.

Descartes has made a point of departure in this respect. He was very much concerned with human

mind.

Professor Raghunath Ghosh, Department of Philosophy, North Bengal University, Darjeeling, West

Bengal, delivered his lecture on the theme “Monism in Advaita Vedanta and Dualism of Samkhya”.

He said that in Indian Philosophy both monism and dualism have occupied a prominent position in

2

philosophical domain. The Advaitins believe that the whole world is covered by one consciousness. All

human beings have been originated from the Divine Being called Purusa. Divine Being is assumed to

have different limbs for performing different works of the world. Out of his head, arms, thighs and legs

he created Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. This division, however, does not imply any

inferiority or superiority of mankind. People are different because their fields of work are different.

According to Prof. Ghosh in our tradition inclusion is found not only among social beings, but in

nature and environment also. The Indians believe in a holistic approach regarding wellbeing and

development. This is possible only if there is a sense of oneness or unity among the diversity.

The Samkhya believes in dualism – Purusa and Prakrti. There is a dispute among the

spiritualists and materialists regarding the supremacy of matter (Prakrti) or spirit (Purusa). According

to Sri Aurobindo, what is called matter is nothing but non-manifested sat. This dynamic character of

matter is also propagated by the Carvakas before Sri Aurobindo. In the Vaisesika Philosophy it has

been accepted that the world is originated from the combination of atoms. For the Samkhyas when

three constituents of Prakrti - Sattva, Raja and Tama - are in the state of equilibrium there is no

creation. Creation starts when this equilibrium is disturbed due to overpowering of one constituent.

According to the Samkhyas, change occurs automatically in Prakrti due to its dynamic character.

3

In his Lecture Professor Ghosh concluded that both Advaita Vedanta and Samkhya are correct

in so far as their metaphysical and ontological presuppositions are concerned. Both the systems have

got their logic and justification in favour of their own conclusions.

This programme had an interactive session at the end and students, research scholars and

teachers discussed on various concepts of Indian and western epistemological and metaphysical

notions and got clarification.

4

At the end of the program Dr. Jyotsna Saha, Head, Department of Philosophy, Mathabhanga

College has expressed the vote of thanks and indicated that the ICPR sponsored Periodical Lecture

is a significant step to teach and familiarise basic themes of the subject through the experts of

reputation.

(Dr.Jyotsna Saha)

OrganizerMathabhanga College, Mathabhanga,Cooch Behar, West Bengal

Monism in Advaita Vedānta and Dualism of Sāmkhya

Raghunath Ghosh

I

In Indian Philosophy both monism and dualism have occupied a prominent position in philosophical domain.

The Advaitins believe that the whole world is covered by one consciousness. One who believes in such monistic attitude

can have a feeling of ‘enjoyment through renunciation’ (tyktana bhuňjīthāh) and refrain from all sorts of exploitation.

Social inclusion, friendliness, sacrifice for others, nationalism etc are possible if there is the sense of oneness. Social

exclusion as found in modern society in the name of castes like Brāhmaņa, Kşatriya, Vaiśya and Śūdra was not originally

in our tradition. In the Puruşasūkta of Rgveda we come across a Mantra where there is a mention of different castes

considering the noble work they perform. Though people belong to different castes like Brāhmaņa etc, they are not

treated as inferior or superior on the basis of their castes. In fact, it has been shown in the Mantra that all human beings

5

have been originated from the Divine Being called Puruşa. By virtue of being a Puruşa i.e. Divine Being he is assumed to

have different limbs for performing different works of the world. The Divine Being is supposed to do all works related to

brain i.e. teaching, learning etc. Out of his own head He has created a specific type of man who is entrusted with

teaching etc and they are called Brāhmaņas. The arms of the Divine Being gave birth to a section of man who is

entrusted with the work of fighting etc. with the enemies and hence they are called Kşatriyas. The thighs of the Divine

Being gave rise to Vaiśya who is meant for doing work depending on foot alone like agriculture, poultry and commerce

and hence they are Vaiśyas. The remaining vital part of the Diving Being generates a section of man capable of

performing the duties of a labour, who are called Śudras.

“Brāmaņo’sya mukhamāsīd vāhu rajanyo’bhavat/

Madhyam tadasya yad vaiśyasya

padbhyām śudrojāyata”//

From the above, it can be concluded that though in our tradition there was diversity or exclusion among men,

this was not based on inferiority or superiority of mankind. People are different because their fields of work are

different. As Brāhmaņa etc. come into being from the different sacred parts of the Divine Being, they are no more

inferior to each other, rather all the castes or varņa-s are equally superior by virtue of their origination from the Puruşa

or Divine Being. A Śudra originated from the leg of Puruşa is not to be considered as an inferior one, because the leg of

Divine Being is as sacred as His head. This idea has later been emphasised in the Śrīmadbhagavadgītā in the śloka ;

“Cāturvarņyam mayā sŗşţam guņa-karma-vibhāgaśah”.

That is why, the Vedic seers are found to pray for the well-being of the whole environment, but not for

mankind alone. It is prayed so that let cool breeze flow gently (‘madhu vātā ŗtāyate’), let the rivers flow gently without

creating flood (‘madhu kşaranti sindhavah’) , let cows give profound milk so that our children and adults get nutrious

food (‘madhvīrgāvo bhavantu’), let the soil become fertile capable of producing crops (‘mādhvirnah santvauşadhīh’), let

days, nights, dust of the earth and green trees become efficacious to the society (‘madhu naktamutoşaso madhumat

pārthivam rajah…madhumānno vanaspatih…’) . In our tradition inclusion is not found only among social beings, but in

nature and environment also, because the Indians believe in a holistic development. Such good results relating to

human welfare and wellbeing are possible if there is sense of oneness among the diversity.

II

The Samkhya system believes in dualism- Purusa and Prakrti. To them Prakrti is creative while Purusa is indifferent. Both are essential for the sake of creation though the role of Prakrti is more prominent closed to our modern Physics.

The present portion concentrates to the concept of matter in Indian tradition and its dynamic character. There is an eternal dispute between the spiritualists and materialists regarding supremacy of matter or spirit. The spiritualists emphasize that spirit is real while matter is unreal. The materialists demand that matter is real and spirit is unreal. Sri Aurobindo is of the opinion that both are correct. In fact, what is called matter is nothing but non-manifested sat –

6

element of the spirit called Saccidananda. Before this amalgamated theory some of the Indian thinkers believed and propagated the dynamic character of matter which can create, destroy and sustain the whole universe. Among these thinkers Carvakas are the fore-runners who are of the opinion that matter (bhūta) is of four types- earth (ksiti), water (ap), fire (teja ) and air (marut) which constitute human body. The consciousness has no separate existence apart from the amalgamation of the four just as red colour is manifested out of the amalgamation of lime, nut etc. That is why; a dead body is dissolved in the elements. From this it is proved that elements or bhūta-s have in-built power to create something.

In the Vaiśeşika Philosophy it has been accepted just like Quantum Physics that the world is originated through the combination of atoms which is called Paramāņukāraņatavāda as opposed to Brahmakāraņatāvāda admitted by the Advaita Vedantins. At the initial stage two atoms are conjoined resulting in formation of dyadic compound (dvyaņuka). Three dyadic compounds give rise to a triadic one called trasareņu and in this way a gross object is originated. A question arises how two atoms who are matters or unconscious become conjoined without any conscious force. To Samkhya the atoms have got energy of their own leading to their combination. Conjunction in case of creation and disjunction in case of dissolution occurs spontaneously due to having in-built power in an atom. Both are taken to be the sports of Nature possible through its auto-generated nature. Hence there is no need of admitting any other force or God-particle in the phenomenon of conjunction and disjunction of atoms. Hence no tension can be entertained among the physicists regarding the acceptance of some conscious principle. That a metallic object has got in-built power is evidenced from the following experiment. When a hot metal work from a blacksmith is found having yellow colour or orange colour, it is visible due to the visibility of the thermal radiation emitted by high temperature. Everything else is glowing with thermal radiation as well, but less brightly and at larger wave-lengths than the human eye can detect. When it is cold, such object looks perfectly black, because it absorbs all the lights that fall on it and emits none. Consequently, an ideal thermal emitter is known as a black body and the radiation it emits is called black body radiation.

When three constituents of Prakrti are in the state of equilibrium, there is no creation. If this equilibrium is disturbed due to overpowering of one constituent, creation starts. Change is the mark of existence as envisaged by the Buddhists –Yat sat tat kşaņikam and arthakriyākāritvalakşaņam sat. If Pradhāna is not transformed (vikāri), there is no change or creation. Change occurs automatically in Prakrti due to its dynamic character (svayamhū). Creation needs activity and motion among the guna-s. Without opposition which is possible through disturbance in equilibrium no creation is possible. That is why, thesis, anti-thesis and syntheses are taken as methods of creativity. (cp. ’sakal dvanda-birodha-majhe jagrata je bhalo’).

A.B.N.Seal has explained the three constituents -sattva, raja and tama as essence, energy and mass. The first is the cause of self-illumination and others’ illumination, second is the cause of action and the third is the cause of obstruction (bādhakasvarūpa). The illuminating character is transparent and useful in any disinterested pleasure. The third is a balancing factor capable of controlling others. These three cannot remain in a separate manner and hence they are called guņa-s or binding factors. In case of immovable matter tamas is patent, rajas is latent and sattva is sub-latent. In case of movable matter rajas is patent, tamas is latent sattva is sub-latent. An object may seem to be the cause of happiness, misery and infatuation to someone due to having three elements in Prakrti . It is just like a girl who creates happiness to someone whom she loves, becomes the cause of misery to some whom she left and becomes indifferent to someone whom she does not know. A girl becomes such due to different situation and difference of person. It is the nature of sandal to provide happiness, but it may not seem to be so if other factors are not favourable to it. It may become the cause of unhappiness if it is applied in the winter. A camel can enjoy thrones and hence it is the cause of happiness to it. But to other animal’s throne becomes the cause of unhappiness due to having different type of skin etc.

From the above it can be concluded that both the systems are correct in so far as the metaphysical and ontological presuppositions are concerned. Both the systems have got their logic and justification in favour of their own conclusions.

7

The Metaphysical Tradition from Plato to Kant

Koushik Joardar Any discussion in philosophy my heart with clarifying the question regarding the nature of philosophy, for it makes speakers position understandable. Four possible answers can be given to this: that it is synthesis of all the sciences (Herbert Spencer), it is study of basic principles of sciences (Russell, Alexander), that it is analysis of philosophical/scientific language (Logical Positivists lead by M. Schlick), and that metaphysics is a study of being (Plato, Aristotle). The view held by Plato and Aristotle reigned for almost two thousand years and supposed to be destroyed by Kant and analytics. Is that so?

Although the name “metaphysics” is associated with Aristotle, the study begins before him and even before Plato and Socrates. It starts from Thales. For Thales and pre-Socratics, body was more important than soul. They had a vague idea of soul but tried to explain it in terms of physical matter. From Socrates or Plato, mind or soul gets its due place. Metaphysics became a study of being as mind can know. An important thing to be noted is that, epistemology and metaphysics are related almost causally and I think in many occasions, if not all, metaphysics determines epistemology. The presupposition that drives all most all metaphysicians of the past is that knowledge must be necessary and universal.

In the medieval period, human reason became subordinate to that of God’s. God has created the world and the man and philosophy needs to serve this doctrine. It was Descartes who made human mind as point of departure. He is really the father of modernism. The empiricists like Locke and Berkeley could not really free themselves from Cartesian stand point. Hume supposed to raise the question regarding the possibility of universal and necessary knowledge and aroused from “dogmatic slumber”, Kant destroyed metaphysics altogether. However, the role of Hume and Kant needs to be reviewed. Both of them in fact intended to establish metaphysics on a stronger foundation and what they have succeeded is to show that metaphysics cannot be done in the traditional way. Metaphysics is possible but not as a science.

Metaphysics is not dead. The existentialists are engaged in descriptive metaphysics. Even Frege, the father of analytic philosopher, has a strong metaphysics of a third realm. Thus, Kant will not only be remembered for his claim that metaphysics is not possible as a science; he will be remembered for opening up new metaphysics as well.

Koushik Joardar, Associate Professor, University of north Bengal

8