Featured Post


From the very dawn of the comparative studies in the philosophy area, scholars have noted close parallelism between Indian and Greek philos...

Friday, February 6, 2015


From the very dawn of the comparative studies in the philosophy area, scholars have noted close parallelism between Indian and Greek philosophies, though Greek philosophy was born and flourished in the first millennium BCE and the dating of Indian philosophy, considering that its origin is in Upanishads[1], is much anterior. In the most conservative measures, we may assign 2000 BCE to the start of Upanishad period. Pre-Socratic philosophers and Greek Philosophy in general, shows much similarity with the Indian thought of first and second millennium BCE. Considering the gapin the geography and time period, scholar of 18th and 19th centrury argued that,though there is mauch similarity between Indian and early Greek philosophic ideas, it is quite accidental and there is no direct contact between the two philosophical systems. In his book, 'Early Greek Philosophy', famous scholar in Greek philosophy John Burnet have argued so,

“We do know, however, that the leading ideas of Orphicism were quite early. A number of thin gold plates with Orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered in Southern Italy; and though these are somewhat later in date than the period with which we are dealing, they belong to the time when Orphicism was a living creed and not a fantastic revival. What can be made out from them as to the doctrine has a startling resemblance to the beliefs which were prevalent in India about the same time, though it seems impossible that there should have been any actual contact between India and Greece at this date. The main purpose of the Orgia (sacraments) was to ‘purify’ the believer's soul, and so enable it to escape from the ‘wheel of birth’ and it was for the better attainment of this end that the Orphics were organized in communities.”

“…… In the first place, then, there can be no doubt that he (Pythagoras) really taught the doctrine of transmigration… among savages, this belief is commonly associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of food, and the Pythagorean rule is best known for its prescription of similar forms of abstinence…… There is a further consideration which tells strongly in the same direction. In India we have a precisely similar doctrine, and yet it is not possible to assume any actual borrowing of Indian ideas at this date. The only explanation which will account for the facts is that the two systems were independently evolved from the same primitive ideas. These are found in many parts of the world; but it seems to have been only in India and in Greece that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine.” 

John Burnet wrote this important book in the beginning of twentieth century. Now things have changed totally. Now, studies have proved that there were intercourse between India and Greece, with Persia as the medium [2]Also arguments for a common origin for both philosophical systems have also emerged, (Rigveda and Avesta: The final Evidence, Srikant G Talageri). Since Greeks have not agreed about a total borrowing of ideas from other nations, though they approve of partial borrowing, a common origin for both Indian and Greek thoughts should not take lightly.

Among the numerous parallels between Indian and Greek thought, this article concentrates only on the theory of Elements according to both systems. Theory of elements that aroused during the first millennium BCE in Pre-Socratic Greece has clear and rough parallels with the theory of elements, presented in the early Upanishads. Megastanes, who was the Greek ambassador of Chandragupta Maurya's court, have noted these similarities even in that early age. He writes,

“....... yet on many points their (Indians) opinions coincide with those of the Greeks, for like them they say that the world had a beginning, and is liable to destruction, and is in shape spherical, and that the Deity who made it, and who governs it, is diffused through all its parts. They hold that various first principles operate in the universe, and that water was the principle employed in the making of the world. In addition to the four elements there is a fifth agency, (Ether/Aakaasa) from which the heaven and the stars were produced. The earth is placed in the center of the universe. Concerning generation, and the nature of the soul, and many other subjects, they express views like those maintained by the Greeks. They wrap up their doctrines about immortality and future judgment, and kindred topics, in allegories, after the manner of Plato. Such are his statements regarding the Brachmanes.” (Citing from ‘Ancient India as described by Megasthanes and Arrian’.)

Any study on the Elements in Indian and Greek will yield immense parallels. Upanishads will be on one side, while Thales, Anaximenes, Heracles, Philolous,etc will be on the other side. (In addition, personal and impersonal things considered as the first born substance or primary element/principle of the world in Upanishads. Both of these elements of the Upanishadic thought have counterparts in Greek thought[3]).

Water as the first principle:-

Greek Version:-

Thales[4] of Miletus[5], the wisest among Greeks according to oracle of Delphi, taught that ‘water’ is the first principle and earth is on water.

“Thales says that the world is held up by water and rides on it like a ship, and that what we call an earthquake happens when the earth rocks because of the movements of water.[6]

Another fragment that relates Thales with water element is by Aristotle.

“… However they disagree about how many of such principles there are, and about what they are like. Thales, who was the founder of this kind of philosophy, says that water is the first principle (which is why he declared that the earth was on water)…[7]

Thales is considered as one among the ‘seven sages’[8] of Greece. Aristotle in his On the Soul says that Thales held the opinion that everything is divine[9], which is a major teaching of the Upanishads. Another doctrine of the Milesius School is Hylozoism, also has Indian parallel[10].

Indian Version:-

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad advocates that water was the source of all things.

“In the beginning, verily, the waters alone existed; from the waters was born Satya or Truth; Satya produced Brahman, Brahman gave birth to Prajapati, and from Prajapati were born the gods; these gods worship Satya alone.[11]

Same idea has repeated many times in other Upanishads also. Even much earlier in Rigveda, there is speculation about water as the first principle.

“Then was not non-existent or existent; there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?[12]

Aitareya Aranyaka, gives the five elements (earth, water, air, fire and ether) which were well known in later period.

Air as the first principle:

Greek Version:-

In Greek Philosophy, Pre-Socratic, Anaximenes speculates that Air is the underlying substance of things.

“Anaximenes of Miletus… shares his views that the underlying nature of things is single and infinite; however unlike Anaximender, Anaximenes’ underlying nature is not Boundless, but specific, since he says that it is Air, and claims that it is thanks to rarefaction and condensation that it manifests in different forms in different things. When dilated it becomes fire and when condensed it become first wind, then cloud and then… water, earth, stones, etc.[13]

He thought Air is the thing that gives life to human. Soul is also air.

“… Air is the first principle of things, since it is the source of everything and everything is dissolved back into it. He says, soul, which is air, hold us together…[14]

Not stopping here, he even attributes divinity to air (Prana?) and said gods were emerged from Air (like Brahman is the abode of Gods in Upanishads).

“Next came Anaximenes, who claimed that air was a god, which has been created, was infinitely huge, and was always in motion.[15]

“… He attributed all the causes of the things to infinite air, but he did not deny the existence of gods or have nothing to say about them; however he believed not that air was made by them, but that they emerged from air.[16]

Anaximenes also holds the views that earth is flat and it rides on air. In the same way Sun, the moon and the heavenly bodies ride on the air because of their flatness.

Indian Version:-

Chandogya Upanishad, one of the earliest Upanishad, mentions that Air is the first principle.

“… King Janasruti returned, but went back again to the Sage with the cows, the golden necklace, the chariot, as well as his beautiful daughter; whereupon, the sage Raikva seemed to be satisfied, and having lifted the beautiful daughter's face towards himself, said, ‘Verily, O Sudra, you are making me speak on account of this face' and then he imparted to the king the knowledge which he possessed, namely that he believed that the Air was the final absorbent of all things. ‘When fire is extinguished it goes to the air, when the sun sets it goes to the air, when the moon sets it goes to the air, when the waters dry up, they go to the air; thus verily is Air the final absorbent of all things whatsoever[17]".

The logical conclusion from such a position is that if air be the end of all things, it may also be regarded as the beginning of them. Upanishads clearly exhibits scientific ideas in the garbh of spirituality. As Upanishads are primarily a religious literature, not a scientific treatise, such spiritual-scientific intertwined topics are not strange, but natural.

In Rigveda, speculation about Air is available. There Air is considered as the friend of Water and as the vital force of Gods (like Anaximenes connects Air with Gods). Air has the inherent capacity to move as he wishes.

“Travelling on the paths of air's mid-region, no single day doth he take rest or slumber.
Holy and earliest-born, Friend of the waters, where did he spring and from what region came he? Germ of the world, the Deities' vital spirit, this God moves ever as his will inclines him.
His voice is heard, his shape is ever viewless. Let us adore this Wind with our oblation.[18]

Speculation about Air was very ancient in India and most of these speculative ideas (about air and others) may not descended to us vividly because of the inclusion of spirituality along with the experimental truths, while writing them down.

Fire as the first principle:-

Greek Version:-

Heraclitus is famous for his opinion that ‘none can step into a same river twice[19]. This idea is verily Pre-Buddhistic and got prominence in the teachings of Gautama, the Buddha. One of the fundamental Buddhist doctrines is that everything in this world is in a state of flux. There is no ‘being’ but only ‘becoming’. Buddhist rejects the Atman concept, in the experimental world level, because an eternal and unchanging Atman is not in accord with the Buddha’s teaching of the Flux. Even before Buddha, the belief in Flux may be extant in India.

In most of the fragments available about Heraclitus, fire occupies a major place.

“It is wise for those who listen not to me but to the principle to agree in principle that everything is fire.[20]

"It is wise for those who listen not to me but to the principle to agree in principle that everything is fire.”
“This world which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire.”
“The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea; and half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind.”
“All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for all things, even as wares for gold and gold for wares.”
“Fire lives in the death of earth, air lives in the death of fire, water lives in the death of air, and earth in the death of water.”
“Fire in its advance will judge and convict all things.” 

(-- Citing from Early Greek Philosophy, John Burnet.)

The application of the term ‘fire’ in many fragments is not ambiguous. Sometimes it is as a constituent of things or as a heavenly aspect… etc. He believes soul is fire and fire after condensation becomes water. He believed, like Indian tradition, in the cyclic destruction and creation of the world and also in after-life.

Indian version:-

The theory of fire as the origin of all things is not maintained very explicitly in the
Upanishads. But Kathopanishad tells that Fire, having entered the universe assumed all forms. It is almost equivalent to the Heraclitean formula that fire is exchanged for all things and all things for fire.

On the other hand, in the Chandogya Upanishad, we are told that fire was the first to evolve from the primeval Being, and that from fire came water, and from water the earth.

“Where can be the root of that apart from being in food? In this very way, O good-looking one, through food which is the sprout understand water as the root. O good looking one, through water which is the sprout, understand fire as the root. O good looking one, through fire which is the sprout, understand Existence as the root. O good-looking one, all these beings have Existence as their root. Existence is their abode. Existence is their place of merger.[21]

Heraclitean idea of the Way Up and the Way Down is inherent in the above hymn. In the above hymn food (earth) – water – fire - existence is the chronology. Then, at the time of the dissolution, the earth may be dissolved in water, the water in fire, and the fire in the Primeval Being.

And Heraclitus says,

“As it is condensed fire becomes moist, and then as it is further compressed it becomes water, and as water solidifies it turns into earth, this is the ‘road downward’. Then again earth dissolves and give rise to water, which is the source of everything else, since he attributes everything to the process of exhalation from the sea; this is the ‘road upward’."

Earth and Space:-

Earth as an element, is in Indian and Greek philosophies from very early age. Earth is the foundation upon which everything rest and so a deep philosophical insight is not required to assume Earth as a Primary element. In Greek, from the time of Hesiod, Earth is an element and Empedocles consider Earth as an Element along with other three elements.

I shall tell you of a double process. At one time it increased so as to be a single One out of Many; at another time it grew apart so as to be Many out of One—Fire and Water and Earth and the boundless height of Air, and also execrable Hate apart from these, of equal weight in all directions and Love in their midst, their equal in length and breadth.”
-- Ancilla to Pre-socratics philosophers, Kathleen Freeman.

In Mundaka Upanishad Earth is a primary element.  

Space as an element is added in Greek philosophy by Philolaus of Croton.

The bodies (physical Elements) of the Sphere are five: the Fire in the Sphere, and the Water, and Earth, and Air, and, fifth, the vehicle(?) of the Sphere"

Here Vehicle is often considered as 'Space'.

In Indian version Space is mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad by Pravahana Jaivali.

When Pravahana Jaivali was asked what was the final habitat of all things, he answered it was Space. ‘All these beings emerge from space and are finally absorbed in space; space is verily greater than any of these things; space is the final habitat’, [22]

I will attempt to show the similarity of thoughts of other Greek thinkers including Orpheus, Pythagoras, Parmenides, Empedocles, Plato and a few Neo Platonists like Plotinus, with the Indian thought and philosophy, in the coming days.

[1] In fact, Rigveda, Brahmana and Aranyaka – Vedic Literature - contains many philosophic speculations. In his landmark work ‘A history of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy’ Sri Benimadhav Barua lists all such theories. And as per Paul Deussen ‘The first and oldest philosophy of a people lies in their religion’.
[2] Thomas McEvilley in his voluminous work, ‘The shape of ancient thought: Comparative studies in Greek and Indian philosophies’, shows that many information flow channels have existed between India and Greece through Persia. Lack of information channels between India and Greece was the main stumbling block to posit a relation between the two great philosophical traditions. McEvilley’s book effectively nullifies that lacuna.
[3] Similarity in personal concepts is not discussed here. Readers are advised to go through the book mentioned above.
[4] Thales has Phoenician lineage. (Herodotus, Histories)
[5] Miletus had trade links with the Babylonian, Egyptian, Phoenicia, etc. I.e. Miletus is near information channels from neighboring ancient cultures. Through trade links it is easy to spread/arrive the ideas and doctrines, existing in the ‘other lands’.
[6] Seneca, Questions about Nature.
[7] Aristotle, Metaphysics. Another fragment about Thales-water connection is in his On the Heavens.
[8] Seven sages are a theme occurring in many ancient civilization mythologies and ethos, including India.
[9] “Some says that the universe is shot through with soul, which is perhaps why Thales too thought that all things were full of gods.” – Aristotle, On the Soul.
[10] Milesian school of philosophers is of the opinion that world was comes forth from an undifferentiated matter which is alive in certain sense. It is a Jainist doctrine too.
[11] Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V.5.1.
[12] Rig-Veda: 10.129.1
[13] Theophrastus/Simplicius on ‘Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics’.
[14] Aetius, Opinions.
[15] Cicero, On the nature of the Gods.
[16] Augustine, The city of Gods.
[17] Chandogya Upanishad. IV.3.1-2
[18] Rigveda: 10.168.3-4.
[19] “It is impossible to step into the same river twice…”, Plutarch, On the E at Delphi.
[20] Hippolytus, Refutation of all heresies.
[21] Chandogya Upanishad VI.8.4
[22] Chandogya Upanishad. I.9.1
[23] Ramachandra Dattatreya Ranade, A constructive survey of Upanishadic Philosophy.

Monday, February 2, 2015


Usually the three main qualities that the God supposed to have, as follows: Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent; i.e. Omni-triad. Most of the religions give all of these qualities to god. Now, it has become a must that god should have these three qualities; else god may not qualify to consider as the Supreme and Perfect Being.

There are three constructions centered on the Omni-triad premise. The second premise (omniscient) may be derived from the first premise (omnipresent). What exists everywhere must know everything present there. Virtually all knowledge should be available in It’s storehouse. Otherwise the omnipresence claim is meaningless. Thus which is omnipresent should be omniscient too.

The third premise, omnipotent, is derived from second premise, omniscient. It, which knows everything, and became omniscient, must be able to do any task practically. It must perform all actions. Else omniscience is waste. A mute and idle omniscient being! What is the use of it? So religions are adamant in their stand that God or Supreme Being has Omni-triad qualities.

But is it really possible for a supreme being to act? How a supreme and perfect being like god can have any quality, let alone the Omni-triad?

To begin with, a supreme being like god must also be a perfect one, in all respect. ‘It’ should not be under anything even by an inch. It is Perfect and so satisfied in all respect[1]. Then what will or can It ‘do’? Isn’t any action performed or performing by It, will reveal It’s imperfectness? Isn’t It’s any action can interpret as the evidence of It’s imperfectness?

Generally every action will have a purpose or aim which lies behind. It is such purposes or impulse that forces somebody to ‘act’. This purposes may also be an indication of the need or desires that the doer posses. Then if a perfect and supreme being acts, what can be the purpose before It? No need to think and enumerate the purposes that may count here. But just understand that whatever may be the purpose, an ‘acting Supreme Being’ has an aim which is ‘yet to achieve’. An unfulfilled aim lies in a Supreme Being, if It acts!

Is there anything wonderful or tricky in the last paragraph? Yes, there is. If a supreme and perfect being has an unfulfilled aim, to achieve which It acts, how can we call It as Supreme or Perfect? Every action by It will surely prove It’s imperfectness. In other words, an ‘acting god’ is imperfect, and so automatically becomes a non-god. Creation theory (i.e. god created the world) is impossible here. God can’t create the world because every creation is an action and every action (physical or mental) has a purpose. If a god has to fulfill something, and so unsatisfied, It will automatically become non-god. Or how can we call It as god?!

There are other counter arguments against the creation theory, too. If ‘something’ can originate from ‘nothing’, then ‘anything’ can originate from ‘nothing’. But this is contrary to our experience. Empirically ‘something’ is coming only from ‘something’ and this is as per causal laws. Nobody can create ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.

Thus creation theory is not defensible. The world, or that what is the substratum of the world, has no beginning. It always existed here. It still exists. It will exist in future too. It has no origination and so, no annihilation.

[1]  If It is not satisfied, then It is not perfect and thus not Supreme.