The classic philosophy of religion is grounded in binary thinking that preserves a hierarchy of “culture” over “nature.” In general, the so-called “Western” traditions of philosophy tend to reconstruct and emphasize the relation of human beings or persons to four elements: earth, air, fire, and/or water (jointly, hierarchically, or by emphasizing one) and to nature. This tendency seems still to echo the culture vs. nature dualism, which was a by-product of the 16th and 17th European thinking, supported by reflections of thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau during the ‘Enlightenment’ period. Most philosophy textbooks agree that in this period, European thinkers began conceptualizing nature as something to be observed, analyzed, and studied. And this facilitated the concept of nature as an “other,” as something somewhat separate from us. Notably, more recent continental philosophers, like Lucy Irigaray, seem to depart from this dichotomy, which reverberated, for example, in the “metaphysics of presence.” As opposed to J. J. Derrida who still set “nature” in opposition to “culture”: nature stands for the original and the universal, whereas the culture that derives from the former stands for change, multiplicity, and difference.
In my paper, I emphasize the Indian counter-perspective, which also appeals to the elements, yet it provides a holistic understanding of the world. A variety of beings - persons, animals, plants, etc. are considered part of a bigger whole and consist of diverse components. For their naturalistic orientations, even the selves are constituents of the world inseparable from it.
I aim to draw on philosophies that oppose and do not support an anthropocentric perspective. Specifically, the naturalistic views are primarily expressed in the atomist positions of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas, the Early Buddhists, and the Jains, as well as in the Extreme Naturalism (svabhāvavāda) of the Materialists or the Cārvāka or Lokāyata tradition. After my brief presentation of their views regarding ‘nature,’ I will evaluate the 'naturalism' label used in the "Western" context to determine how inclusive it is of these philosophico-religious traditions.
Undoubtedly, the naturalistic traits of Indian traditions are crucial to explore further within the context of the philosophy of religion. However, philosophizing is not merely a theoretical activity devoid of practical implications. A notable example is the method of critical inquiry (ānvīkṣikī), which encompasses its central philosophical components; philosophical and ethical discourse significantly influenced the socio-political thought of the time, as demonstrated by the edicts of Aśok and the treatise Arthashastra. The later redactor explicitly enumerates the naturalistic orientation of critical inquiry, including the schools of Sāṃkhya, Yoga, and Lokāyata. Interestingly, during their early development, these traditions were predominantly atheistic in the broadest conventional sense and were not concerned with Brahminical (or Hindu) ideology. However, the directive to avoid causing harm to other beings (ahiṃsā) and other ethical prescriptions reflect the influence of Buddhist and Jain philosophy on their theories. I argue that in this early scholastic environment, ānvīkṣikī could refer to non-Vedic philosophical practices of argumentation and logical reasoning, including those employed by Buddhists and Jains.
The method of critical inquiry (ānvīkṣikī), or philosophical and ethical education, is clearly emphasized in the Arthaśāstra as the foundation for the continual normative training of the ruler, enabling him to apply this inquiry pattern in legal matters (dharma), which practically includes issuing ordinances on space planning and landscaping. Both Aśoka and Kauṭilya promote ecological sustainability through irrigation, water reservoirs, nature preserves, and animal sanctuaries, while also limiting deforestation. As we will see, their efforts do not support the prevalent ‘Western’ dichotomy between 'nature' and 'culture,' nor between 'nature' and 'technology.' Furthermore, the directive to avoid causing harm to other living beings underscores the Buddhist and Jain influences on the text. A holistic and organic perspective of the world, grounded in practical reasoning and principled action, fosters care for all beings (both sentient and non-sentient), which promotes overall well-being and contributes to collective success (artha).
Bibliography:
Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. 2011. Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata. London: Anthem Press.
Chatterjee, Amita. 2021. "Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/naturalism-india/>.
Frauwallner, Erich. 1984. History of Indian Philosophy, vol. 2. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Ganeri, Jonardon. 2012. The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness, and the First-Person Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halbfass, Wilhelm, 1990. “Darśana, Ānvīkṣikī, Philosophy”. In: India and Europe. An Essay in Understanding. Albany: SUNY Press.
Jacobi, Herman. 1884. Jaina Sūtras. Part I: The Ākārāṅga Sūtra. The Kalpa Sūtra. The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 22, and 1895. Part II: Uttarādhyayana Sūtra and Sūtra-kṛtāṅga, The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 45, Bombay-Oxford (reprint 1999. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).
Jakubczak, Marzenna. 2023. “Nature”. In: Ch. Robbiano, S. Flavel (eds.) Key Concepts in World Philosophies: a Toolkit for Philosophers. London: Bloomsbury.
Olivelle, Patrick. 2013. King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra. Arthashastra of Kautilya. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olivelle, Patrick. 2024. Ashoka. A Portrait of a Philosopher King, New Haven: Yale University Press.
The classic philosophy of religion is grounded in binary thinking that maintains a hierarchy of “culture” over “nature.” It reconstructs and highlights the relationship between human beings or persons to four elements: earth, air, fire, and/or water (collectively, hierarchically, or by emphasizing one) and nature. This tendency resonates with the culture vs. nature dualism, a by-product of 16th- and 17th-century European thought supported by the reflections of Hobbes and Rousseau during the Enlightenment period. Anglo-European thinkers still conceptualize “nature” as something to be observed, analyzed, and studied—an “other” distinct from us.
In my paper, I emphasize the Indian counter-perspective, which also appeals to the elements yet provides a holistic understanding of the world. A variety of beings - persons, animals, plants, etc. are considered part of a bigger whole and consist of diverse components. For naturalistic orientations, even the selves are constituents of the world inseparable from it.