43

CHAPTER TWO

ENVIRONMENT- INDIAN

PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

44

CHAPTER TWO

ENVIRONMENT- INDIAN PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

The second chapter comprising of two sections relates to concept of Nature.

The first section is a discussion with reference to the concept of Nature from both

Vedic and non-Vedic Indian philosophical perspective. The second section

highlights the contemporary philosophers take on Nature.

CONCEPT OF NATURE

Indians never seem to have distinguished between Environment and Nature.

So whatever has to be said about Environment, the same can be applied to Nature.

Thus it becomes obligatory for us to treat the problem from Indian philosophical

perspective before drawing the environmental implications from it. Indian

speculative activity spread over thirty centuries and during this long period it has

taken several shifts in its standpoint which can be broadly classified as Vedic

which accept the Vedic authority and Non-Vedic which deny it.

THE VEDAS

Indian philosophy begins, if at all, such a beginning could be conceivable,

with Rgveda. Here man is aware of the fact that he is entirely dependent upon the

powerful forces of Nature. A sense of fear and respect is developed in him towards

them and starts deifying them. Though this belief appears to be naive, it was not

without any philosophical basis. It indicated that the visible world is not final and

45

pointed to some cause operating behind it. There is an attempt in Vedic man to

account for the observed facts. Nothing happens accidentally without any sentient

being operating behind it.

Moreover Nature is marked by an order which is called Rta. Vedic man was

also aware of the fact about the things in Nature happening in an ordered course

like “alternation of day and night”. This order implies an orderer who are gods.

Vedic gods are therefore described as “guardians of Rta” (gopa Rtasya). We have

a deity for every natural force. For instance, Saraswati stands for river bearing the

same name, Agni is the god of fire and Parjanya that of clouds. These deities are

classified under three groups namely gods of the sky (Mithra and Varuna), gods of

the mid air or Dyuloka (Indra and Varuna), and gods of the earth (Agni and Soma).

An important point to be noted here is that Rta not only implies natural

order but also moral order. The two meanings are not without any connection. The

implication is that if there is ethical order in this society, there will be order in

Nature. Vedic gods, especially Varuna is said to preserve both cosmic as well as

moral order. He fixes the cosmic laws which none can violate. Through his power,

the river flows into the ocean without over-filling it. No sin escapes from his

omniscient detection. His sight is so vigilant as the sun is described as his eye.

46

Thus early Vedic period is marked by some important features. Firstly, the

reality of Nature was never questioned. Secondly, Vedic man never had a closed

and a stultified outlook of Nature as exemplified in his classification of gods into

those of earth, mid-air and heaven. Even heaven constituted the part of Nature.

Thirdly, Vedic man had unitary outlook of Nature. Although gods were conceived

as many, the Nature they govern was looked upon as one33.

But this tendency to trace the natural forces to variety of gods gradually was

changed. Vedic man during the period of Brahmanas, tries to account for natural

occurrences to one God and thus belief in monotheism comes to prevail.

Monotheism is the belief in one God above other gods, a belief in a common

power working behind all forces of Nature. Different forces are said to be the

forms of one God. A Mantra says, “What is but one, wise call it by different names

as Agni, Yama and Matarishwa”34. This belief in one God is exemplified in the

concept of Prajapati. Shatatapatha Brahmana says, “There are 33 gods and

Prajapati is the 34th one”35.

Monotheism in this period assumes two forms. It accepts God over and

above the Nature. God controls the Nature from beyond. This is the transcendental

form of monotheism. In the second form of monotheism God is not over and above

33 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, New Delhi, 2000, p.44. 34 R.V. 1-164-46. 35 Sata-patha Brahmana, V, i.2.10 and 13.

47

Nature. He is in the Nature and He is Nature. In other words, God and Nature are

identified, the view which is called Pantheism in Western Philosophy. We can see

this pantheistic tendency in the concept of Aditi. Aditi (the Boundless) is here

identified with all gods, all men, with sky and air, and in fact with whatever has

been or whatever shall be36. Vedic man had a great faith in Nature to such an

extent that he exalted it to the altar of divinity. In fact the faith itself is deified and

we have a hymn37 addressed to faith which concludes with the prayer “Oh Faith,

make us faithful”.

UPANISHADAS

The tendency to trace the cause of the whole Nature to a single principle

becomes more manifest in the Upanishadic period. Nature has its origin in what is

designated as Brahman. In fact, the very etymology of the term signifies that

Nature has its source in Brahman. The term is derived from the root ‘Brh’ which

means ‘to burst forth’ or ‘to grow’. The principle which bursts itself forth

spontaneously into the whole nature is Brahman. The interesting feature is that this

unitary principle is regarded as consciousness and infinite. All objects in Nature

characterised by light are said to derive their shining nature from Brahman’s

consciousness. Natural effulgence is traced to spiritual effulgence38. The second

36 1- 89-10. 37 X-151. 38 Katha Up. 2-2-15.

48

interesting feature in Upanishads is that the Brahman is identified with soul. The

fusion of two concepts namely Brahman and Atman into one, constitute the

essence of Upanishadic teaching which is expressed in four great sayings namely

That thou art, I am Brahman39, This Atman is Brahman and Consciousness is

Brahman. Here the Nature includes not only material objects but also the spirit,

which have their substratum in Brahman. There is no break or lacuna between

Nature and Man on one hand and between either of them and Brahman on the

other. Here we see the oneness of all three entities namely God, soul and matter

being arrived at for the first time in the Upanishadic period. This doctrine of

absolute identity marks the most important feature in the history of whole

philosophical world. Thus Upanishads fuse three concepts into one Absolute

namely Brahman and denies only their aspects namely name and form responsible

for difference, as appearance. Ch.Up. gives a picture40 as to how Existence (sat)

becomes many. Firstly, tejas, ap and prithvi and other organic bodies including

those of human beings come into existence. In another section of the same

Upanishad, Brahman is described as ‘tajjalan’41. Here ‘tat’ means ‘that, ‘ja’ means

‘to originate’, ‘li’ means ‘reabsorbtion’ and ‘an’ means ‘to support’. That means

Brahman is said to originate, support and reabsorb the whole Nature and it is

identified with self. The philosophical intricacies of the problem as to the reality or

39 Br.Up.1-4-10. 40 6. 41 3.14.

49

unreality of manifold Nature need not detain us here. Suffice it to say that the

Nature is traced to an Ultimate Reality which is Existence, Consciousness and

Infinite.

Upanishads distinguish between inorganic and organic. The latter are abode

of souls and the former comprises five fundamental principles. Initially, only

‘water’ had been referred to. Ch.Up. goes to add earth and fire. Earth, water and

fire are said to emerge from Brahman in reverse order. These correspond

respectively to solid, liquid and gaseous stages of nature. In Tai.Up., air and ether

were added42. Each element has its own specific quality namely odour, flavour,

colour, temperature and sound. These elements are subtle in nature from which

gross elements come.

Each gross element has other four gross elements, but it gets the name from

the element predominating it. The mode of derivation of the gross is explained

only on the basis of Trivrtkarana43 i.e., with reference to only three elements

namely prthvi, ap, and teja. Vedanta extends it to Panchikarana44.

All organic bodies are made of gross elements. They are divided into four

classes namely Andaja, Jivaja and Udbhija45 and Svedaja46. Andaja are born from

42 Tai. Up. II.1. 43 Ch. Up. 4-2-3.4. 44 V.S. 2-4-22 Vedanta Sutra by Badrayana; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit.,p.65. 45 Ch. Up. 4-3-1.

50

eggs. Jivaja are born from germs. Udbhija burst forth from the soil. Svedaja are the

bodies born from sweat.

All these point to the fact that Upanishadic seers were aware of environment

being classified into two types namely organic and inorganic. They went still

deeper into the analysis of organic by calling it ‘Jiva’, which means ‘to breathe’.

That means whatever has life and is active is called Jiva. But this activity of life

has two phases namely biological and conscious. In the first one the activity is

unconscious as for instance breathing, which goes on even when the mind is

quiescent as in deep sleep. In the second phase, the activity is conscious involving

experience47. The principle of unconscious activity is called Prana and that of

conscious activity is called Manas. Thus every living being is conditioned by these

principles namely prana and manas. To these the Upanishads add one more namely

physical body. The physical body, prana and manas constitute the empirical home

for the soul. Manas carries its activity with the help of five sense organs namely

those of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste, and five motor organs namely those

of speech (vak), hand (pani), movement (pada), excretion (payu) and reproduction

(upastha). Both sensory and motor organs are controlled by manas. The relation of

46 Ait. Up. 5-3. 47 Prasna Upanisahd 4-9; Katha Upanishad 1-3-4.

51

mind to these two sets of organs is compared to that of brain to sensory and motor

nerves48.

The Upanishadic analysis of a living organism is quite interesting in that the

living organism is said to comprise five sheaths namely physical, vital and mental,

that of self-consciousness (vijnana) and that of bliss. The first three sheaths

characterise the level of animals. The fourth one characterises human level and the

last one spiritual level.

All crises are due to fragmentary perception of Ultimate Reality, which is

the result of one’s wrong identity with the five sheaths. This wrong identity leads

to stultified outlook of Reality. This stultified outlook in turn leads to a sense of

difference between man and environment. It is this sense of difference that is the

cause of all environmental crises. The crisis is due to the fact that each one regards

oneself as distinct from others and strives to guard or aggrandise oneself49. Isha

Upanishad says, “When unity is realised (ekatvamanu pashyati) and everything

becomes our very life – how can there be any delusion or sorrow then?”50 Thus

Upanishads offer a spiritual solution to the problem of environmental crises.

In other words all evil is traced to Ahamkara, the affirmation of degenerated ego,

which leads to tendency of not living in harmony with the rest of the world. The

48 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.68. 49 Ibid., p.73. 50 Isha Upanishad 7.

52

remedy is to establish an empathetic identity of oneself with outer nature,

otherselves and Brahman which is the substratum of the whole Nature.

BHAGAVAD GITA

Bhagavad Gita too offers an idealistic interpretation of the Nature, in that it

points to the existence of all-controlling God. By Prakrti or Nature, we mean the

principle that is subservient to God. It is two-fold viz Apara Prakrti and Para

Prakrti. Apara is the lower one which is insentient and Para is higher one which is

sentient. Thus the idea that the Nature is inclusive of both living and non-living

was already prevalent during that period.

In Indian philosophy, broadly there are two views about Nature. According

to the first view, Nature is inert, real, independent, not pointing to any divinity.

Charvaka and Samkhya come under this category. According to the second view,

Nature is a deceptive show – whether this deception has its source in ‘nothing’ as

in Buddhism or ‘Brahman’ as in Advaita Vedanta. From whatever standpoint we

look at the Nature, Nature is transitory according to this view.

Gita, however, looks at Nature from a very different angle. According to it,

Nature is neither independent nor deceptive as in contrast with the first two views.

It is real, inert, but it cannot be independent or transitory. Gita view of Nature is

very well presented in the doctrine of Vibhuti. The term Vibhuti is derived from

the root ‘vibhu’ which means the power of God. Nature is an instrument through

53

which the divine power manifests itself. But it is an incomplete manifestation of

God’s infinite glory. Only a part or a quarter (pada) of God’s infinite glory

constitutes Nature. However Nature is an integral part of the divine spirit. Within

Nature itself, whatever exhibits striking radiance is due to God’s immanent

presence in it.

CHARVAKA

Charvaka’s view of Nature is based on his epistemology that perception

alone determines the reality of a thing. On this ground, only the world composed of

four gross elements namely prthvi, ap, teja and vayu are real. Ether (akasha), subtle

elements (tanmatras), independent soul and God are unreal as the latter are

imperceptible. According to Charvaka, soul or consciousness is only an accidental

quality of matter and it does not have any independent existence. Consciousness

comes into existence with the combination of four elements in a particular way and

it disappears with the disintegration of the aggregate into four elements.

Consciousness is identified with bodily changes51 since it expresses itself in such

forms as expansion of eyes and horripilation of hairs.

The order in Nature is neither natural (svabhavada) nor accidental (yadrcha).

As such it does not point to any supernatural God. Water is cold and fire is hot

because it is in the nature of things. Nature is regarded as contributing to man’s

51 Salikanatha’s Prakarana panchika p.147; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.192.

54

pleasure either at the individual or at the collective level. It is said to be

instrumental to satisfying man’s hedonistic ends. Nature is thus meaningful in the

hedonistic or utilitarian context. There is no scope for Nature for Nature’s sake in

Charvaka system. According to Charvaka, man should make the best use of Nature

and enjoy himself as long as he lives. This is Charvaka’s stultified outlook of

Nature. His view is based upon the wrong notion that individual can live apart

from Nature. This is not correct.

BUDDHISM

Buddhistic emphasis is on evanescence of Nature. Buddha denies any self-

sustaining substance in Nature and accepts only attributes or sense data. What we

call Nature is only an aggregate of attributes with no permanent substance

underlining them. Buddha applies this theory to individual self also. According to

him, the self is an aggregate (samghata) of nama and rupa, representing

respectively the psychical (mind) and physical (body) factors. No permanent entity

is supposed to exist behind these two. The psychical phase of self again comprises

four factors namely vijnana (self -consciousness), Vedana (feeling), Samjna

(perception) and Samskara (mental disposition). Thus Nature comprising animate

and inanimate things exists only as aggregates and not as single permanent entity.

This theory is called nairatmya vada.

55

In the later period of Buddhism, it was further revised into another theory

called kshanabhanga vada. According to this theory, the whole Nature is

undergoing incessant change and what is at this moment ceases to be in the next

moment. Nothing continues to be the same for two moments. Everything is in a

state of flux (samtana) or a series (vithi). Buddhism in the highest ontological

sense does not accept Nature, but it accepts Nature–series with no unity underlying

it. This series is neither accidental as stated by Charvaka nor has its source in

supernatural element like God. The order in the series is natural. Even here, order

in the Nature-series depends upon certain external conditions. This theory is called

“the law of dependent origination” (pratitya samutpada). That means, the Nature

or environment has the inherent capacity to maintain its balance provided there

must be certain conditions. All imbalances are traced to distortions in the requisite

conditions.

Though at the outset Buddhistic theory of Nature seems to be negative, it has

its value from the empirical (samvriti) perspective. What Advaitin speaks of the

pluralistic Nature as vyaharika satya, Buddhists in the same way, speak of it as

samvriti satya. Thus all talk about environment becomes meaningful within the

empirical framework and not from ontological perspective.

56

JAINISM

While Buddhism denied a constant element in Nature, Jaina affirmed it.

Jaina attributes both change and indentify to Nature. Nature is regarded as having

birth (utpada), death (vyaya) and persistence (dhrauvya)52. To quote a scholar,

according to Jainism, “To suffer change and yet to endure is the privilege of

existence”53. That the same entity having opposite features namely change and

identity is to be accepted because our experience vouches for it54.

Nature comprises two classes of substances namely, jiva and ajiva. What

lives or what is animate is jiva. In short, jiva is nothing but self or soul. Ajiva is of

five types, namely pudgala (matter), kala, akasha, dharma and adharma. Except

pudgala, all other ajivas lack life. Matter (pudgala) which is eternal possesses

colour, taste, odour and touch55. Sound is not a quality of matter, but a mode of it

(pudgala parinama). Matter has two forms namely simple or atomic and compound

or skanda. In Indian thought, Jainas are probably the earliest to propound the

atomic theory. According to them, the whole world is a combination of atoms. All

atoms are alike. They do not have any qualities like colour, taste etc. These

qualities are developed in the course of the combination of atoms. Thus the five

52 Utpada-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktam sat-Umasvati: 5-29; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy,

Op.Cit.,p.160. 53 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.160. 54 Pratiyamane vastuni virodhasiddheh: Prameya-kamala-martanda, p.93; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian

Philosophy, Op.Cit.,p.161. 55 Sparsa-rasa-gandha-varnavantah pudgalah – Umasvati: Tattvarthadhiganam sutra, 5-23; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of

Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit.,p.160.

57

qualities are secondary to atoms and not the primary one. All things of experience

are made of these atoms. The variety in Nature is traced to different ways of

atomic combination .These atoms are believed to house souls and this is the Jaina

view of hylozoism, the theory that not only animals and plants, but also the

smallest particles are endowed with souls.

The Jaina belief in the existence of Jiva even in inanimate things has its

impact on its ethics. He lays a special emphasis on Ahimsa, which literally means

not only negative abstention from inflicting injury on other creatures in thought,

word and deed, but also rendering positive service to others. According to Jaina,

we shall be really injuring a person when we do not help him even if we can help

him56. That means Jainism does not ignore the social side in formulating its ethics.

Jaina prayer brings out clearly this tolerant side of its ethics, “Let there be rain in

every proper season. Let disease die and famine and theft be nowhere. Let the law

of Jaina give all happiness to all the living beings of the world”57.

Jaina believes in the inseparable relation between jiva and ajiva. According

to him, nothing is wholly independent and can be understood by itself. An old

Jaina stanza quoted by Gunaratna goes thus:

Eko bhavah sarvatha yena drstah

Sarve bhavah sarvatha tena drstah |

56 Outlines of Jainism by J. Jaini; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.167. 57 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.167.

58

Sarve bhavah sarvatha yena drstah

Eko bhavah sarvatha tena trstah ||58

That means he who knows one thing completely knows all things and that he

who knows all things knows anything completely. This reminds us of the

Upanishadic statement “ekam vijnanena sarvam vijnatum bhavati”59. Thus

there is an implied suggestion in the above verse that environmentalism is an

attempt to understanding universal through particulars and vice versa. To put the

same in Gita terminology, it is to see oneself in all and all in one self60. According

to Jaina, if we have to understand a thing, we have to relate it to all. In this sense,

Jaina view is not only pluralistic but also relativistic. A monistic tendency to

reduce the whole of the pluralistic physical world into one namely pudgala, all

jivas to one kind and Jaina emphasis on interdependency of these two gives a

beautiful dimension to Jaina concept of environmentalism.

NYAYA-VAISHESHIKA

Nyaya-Vaisheshika, a Vedic school traces the whole Nature to seven

categories which are interrelated with one another viz Dravya, Guna, Karma,

Samanya, Vishesha, Samavaya and Abhava. The first one is most important from

the environmental perspective. Dravyas are nine in number namely earth, water,

58 Quoted in M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit.,p.171. 59 Mundaka Upanishad 1-1-3. 60 Gita 6.29

59

fire, air, ether, time, space, self and mind. It is these Dravyas together with their

properties explain the whole Nature.

The first four dravyas are atomic in Nature. They are suprasensible, simple,

partless, indestructible, infinite in number and of infinitesimal size. They are

present in Akasha. Unlike in Jainism, atoms in Nyaya-Vaisheshika have qualitative

distinction. They are classified into prthvi atoms, Ap atoms etc.

All objects of Nature come into existence as a result of the combination of

atoms. The atoms are thus the material cause (upadana karana) of Nature. Atoms of

particular element give rise only to the products of that element. For instance, the

human body in the strict sense of the term, is a product of prithvi atoms only and

not of other elements. Two atoms of the same kind (say earth) come together and

the resulting binary compound are called Dvyanuka (dyad), which is also super

sensuous. Three such dyads combine to form Tryanuka (Triad). A Tryanuka is the

minimum visible object in the Nature (ex: dirt moving in the sun beam). These

triads further combine to form various objects of Nature. When objects are

produced from atoms, the qualities of the atoms are also produced. All objects are

produced anew. That means in the course of atomic combinations, new things are

added to that already existing. This view is called Arambha-vada, also called

Asatkarya-vada because it maintains that the effect once non-existent comes into

existence. Even after coming into existence, it cannot exist apart from the cause.

60

The destruction of the object means mere disjunction of the atoms constituting it.

The atoms are said to combine under the supervision of a supreme intelligence

namely God. While atoms are the material cause, God is the efficient cause of

Nature. Nature as an effect and characterised by an order points to a Supreme

power and intelligence namely God. Belief in God seems to be a later development

in the history of both the systems namely Nyaya and Vaisheshika. There seems to

be no reference to God in Kanada’s sutra and there is a casual mention of it in

Nyaya. Only Prasastapada and Vatsyayana who are the commentators recognise

God61.

As regards other Dravyas not much seems to be important from

environmental angle. Ether is subtle, partless and infinite, having sound as its

quality. Gross objects occupy space and time. Selves are many having

consciousness (jnana), desire (ichcta) and volition (yatna) as its adventitious

attributes. Mind is atomic, eternal and inert but unlike the first four substances it

does not give rise to any gross objects. Even self has its own manas which is an

instrument of knowing. The co-operation of manas is a necessary condition of all

knowledge whether it refers to external objects or internal states. Self and Nature

have their contact only by means of manas.

61 Nyaya Sutra Bhasya.4-1-21; Prasastapada bhashya. Pp.48-9; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy,

Op.Cit., p. 242.

61

Guna as category is a quality belonging to one or more dravyas. Thus they

are dependent upon dravyas for their existence, but can be known independently of

dravyas. Hence they are considered as independent category. All objects –

insentient or sentient- have their own qualities. Qualities are twenty-four in

number. Some of them are common to two or more substances. A few characterise

a particular substance. For instance odour belongs to earth, taste to water, colour to

fire, touch to air and sound to ether. They are called specific qualities (Vishesha

Guna).

Karma represents movement of the object from one place to another.

Samanya is a common feature present in two or more things of a group.

There is hierarchy among Samanya from the lower to greater like suklatva,

gunatva, ghatatva, prithvitva, dravyatva including more and more objects. The

highest Samanya is Satta or Being which includes the largest number of objects.

Vishesha is the category which differentiates two objects belonging to a

group. It explains the plurality of Nature and Vaisheshika being highly pluralistic

in Nature, gives greater importance to this category. Each object has its Vishesha

or speciality, which gives individuality to it. Nature comprises objects living and

non-living, all of them having a common universal namely Satta (Being). Satta

interrelates all objects both living and non-living and Vishesha gives uniqueness or

62

speciality to each object. This is the Vaisheshika way of explaining the unity and

diversity in Nature.

In order to explain unity in diversity of Nature, Vaisheshika yet feels

insufficiency in positing the two categories viz Samanya and Vishesha. He wants

to be specific in explaining the interrelationship among the objects of Nature. The

category which explains the interrelationship among the objects of Nature is what

is called Samavaya or inherence. Samavaya is the intimate relationship between

two objects which are distinct and yet are found together. In other words, the

relationship is unique in that one of the relata does not exist apart from the other,

and is found invariably associated with the other. Thus Samavaya is a necessary

relation, though this relation is one-sided. One is independent and the other is

dependent. Such objects having close relationship are called ayuta-siddha.

Samavaya is possible in five types of ayuta-siddha objects (1) substance and

quality (2) substance and motion (3) particular and universal (4) ultimate things

and particular (5) whole and parts (material cause and effect). The last category

namely abhava is not of much consequence for our purpose.

Even though Vaisheshika is pluralistic in Nature, we could find some

justification in its postulation of invariable relation between universal and

particular, implying that one cannot find any occasion of man and universe being

totally separate.

63

SAMKHYA

Coming to Samkhya, Samkhya traces the origin of Nature to Prakrti which is

inert and unchanging. Prakrti is said to be a complex of three gunas namely Sattva,

Rajas and Tamas. These gunas are constituents of Prakrti apart from which Prakrti

cannot be conceived to exist. Sattva represents what is light and bright (sattwam

laghu prakashakam), Tamas is what is coarse or heavy and Rajas represents

activity. The three gunas cannot be found in isolation in Nature. The triple

character of Prakrti explains the diversity in Nature.

The gunas are the substratum of change which can be both potential (latent)

as well as actual (manifest) level. The change at the potential level is said to be

homogenous (sajatiya or svarupa parinama). Here each guna produces its own

guna in the same proportion as the other two gunas do and thus, a state of

equilibrium (samasthiti or samyavastha) is maintained among the gunas. The

change at the actual level is heterogeneous (vijatiya or virupa parinama). Here, the

gunas tries to dominate among one another and this marks the beginning of the

creation. This domination is brought about by the proximity of Purusha which is

conscious and immutable. Thus Samkhya is dualistic in that it accepts two ultimate

realities namely Prakrti and Purusha. It must be noted that Purusha being inactive

and immutable, its co-operation is only in the form of its mere presence62. That

62 Samnidhimatrum : Sankhya pravacana sutra 1-96; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.273.

64

means mere presence of Purusha is enough for rendering creation possible. During

creation, Prakrti issues forth different evolutes like mahat, ahamkara, mind, five

sense organs, five motor organs, five subtle elements and five gross elements. The

five gross elements combine together in various proportions to give rise to this

composite world. According to Samkhya, Nature does not come into being afresh.

It was already there in its cause. Creation means the manifestation of what was

already latent. This theory is called Satkaryavada.

Like Charvaka, Samkhya also advocates naturalism. According to it,

whatever order or balance is there in Nature is made possible by Prakrti itself and

as such no divine intervention is needed. But there is one difference between

Charvaka and Samkhya. Though both deny the existence of God, Samkhya admits

Purusha as the ultimate reality which the other system does not. Charvaka is an out

and out a naturalist whereas according to Samkhya, creation needs atleast the

presence of Purusha. Secondly, like Charvaka, Samkhya also treats Nature as

having instrumental value. But here also, it differs from Charvaka in that it treats

Nature as instrumental to securing not only secular value (bhoga) but also spiritual

value (apavarga). Thirdly, while Charvaka’s concept of Prakrti is purely gross in

nature, Samkhya’s concept is purely subtle. Charvaka identifies Prakrti with four

gross elements which are perceptible, whereas according to Samkhya, Prakrti is

65

subtle and imperceptible, whose existence needs to be inferred. The four gross

elements are not Prakrti, but they are the evolutes of Prakrti.

In so far as the doctrine of identity in difference (bhedabheda vada) is

concerned, environmentalism becomes meaningful in the system. According to

Samkhya, Prakrti undergoes incessant change while retaining its identity.

According to it, Nature can maintain its balance by itself while undergoing change.

Any imbalance in Nature is due to external factors like man’s interference.

However, if the school gives undue importance to dualism between Nature

(Prakrti) and man (Purusha), environmentalism loses its significance because there

is no scope for the invariable relationship between Prakrti and Purusha. The radical

difference between Prakrti and Purusha in their features makes environmentalism

impossible in the system. Secondly, Samkhya treating Prakrti as dead matter denies

the scope for emotional relationship between man and Nature.

MIMAMSA

According to Mimamsaka, Nature has dravya as its stuff. This dravya

undergoes incessant change and at the same time retains its identity. All objects of

Nature are derived from the atoms of different magnitude. The variety in Nature is

traced to different ways of combination of atoms63. According to Mimamsaka,

63Vilaksana-svabhavatvat bhavanam- Parthasarathi Misra- Sastra-dipika, p.102 ; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian

Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.324.

66

Nature is eternal. It was never created and can never be destroyed64. The

peculiarity of the system is that like Samkhya, Mimamsaka also, although a Vedic

system denies the existence of God as creator, sustainer and destroyer of Nature.

But for the recognition of supernatural beings and Vedic authority, Mimamsaka

beats “every materialistic school of thought known to history”65. He is a pure

empiricist and accepts whatever is given to our experience.

There are two important points to be remembered in Mimamsaka’s treatment

of environmental ethics. Mimamsaka ethics is based on the recognition of social

nature of man. On the secular side, it judges conduct on the basis of the help man

renders to the society. For example Shabaraswamin in his Shastradipika says that

one has to provide water huts (prapa) for the benefits of others66. Secondly,

although Dharma is mainly ceremonial in nature, Mimamsaka, stresses the

importance of unexceptional ethics having environmental implications. For

instance, he forbids killing or injury to all beings (na himsyat sarva bhutani)67.

Thus ethics is treated as service to Nature inclusive of living and nonliving things.

Environmentalism implies service to one’s society which is inclusive of not only

human beings but also other creatures. In short, the Mimamsaka concept of

64 Na kadachit anidrishyam jagat - sloka vartika st.113; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit.,

p.323. 65M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.324 . 66 1-3-2. 67 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.327.

67

Dharma is significant in environmental context in that includes such social

activities as non-injury, providing secular benefits to the society.

ADVAITA

Advaita though regards Nature as mithya, differs from Buddhism in its

concept of Nature in two senses. While Buddhism denied or never spoke about the

permanency of reality that may appear as world, Advaita accepted a reality which

is called Brahman which appears as the world. According to Advaita appearance is

inconceivable in the absence of some positive ground (adhistana) on which it is

projected. We cannot deny anything without reference to some affirmation.

Absolute denial is inconceivable.

Secondly, Nature is not absolutely non-existent. It is different from eternal

existence and eternal non-existence. It is not eternally existent for two reasons

1) It undergoes incessant change and thus our thought about it also undergoes

incessant change.

2) It is characterized by plurality.

Thirdly, it is not eternally non-existent like barren woman’s son as it is given to

our experience and whatever is given to our experience cannot be set aside as

eternally non-existent. Advaita in this regard is as much realistic as any other

realistic school of philosophy.

68

Thus whenever Advaitin speaks of the world of maya or mithya, he does not

mean that it is eternally non-existent. He only means that Nature is existent only

provisionally. However environmentalism can be meaningful even in Advaitic

context if we look at the Nature as identical with Brahman and the Self. According

to Advaita it is not the Nature as such that is illusory, but it is name and form

responsible for difference that is illusory. The whole Nature has Brahman as its

stuff. Giving the example of waves and the ocean, Advaita goes to explain that the

constitution of the wave and that of ocean are identical. They are different only in

respect of form. In the same way, the whole Nature is the expression of the same

energy called Brahman. If Brahman expresses itself in the form of Nature, every

plant, every organism and every speck in Nature must be Brahman and this is the

significance of the Upanishadic statement “All this is Brahman”.

VISHISTADVATA

Vishistadvaita subscribes to Gita concept of Nature. According to it, Nature

or Prakrti is not illusory as in Advaita, but it is a part of Brahman. It is inseparably

related to and invariably dependent upon Brahman. Nature in its two fold aspects

of Chit and Achit is the body (Sharira) of God. That means it is sustained,

controlled and appropriated by God68. Thus Nature points to God in Ramanuja’s

philosophy and becomes meaningless without reference to divinity. The balance in

68 niyamena adheyatvam, niyamena vidheyatvam, niymena sesatvam – Sribhasya 2-1-9; M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of

Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit.,p.399.

69

Nature in its totality is maintained by God without whom it would have shattered

to pieces69. The view is quite different from that of Charvaka and Samkhya that

Nature maintains its balance on its own without divine interference. That means

according to Vishistadvaita environmental harmony is there, and this harmony is

traced to God and on the occasion of disharmony, God interferes to set in the

harmony in Nature again.

Vishistadvaita differs from Samkhyan concept of Prakrti in following

respects.

1) According to Samkhya Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas are not the qualities but the

constituents of Prakrti whereas according to Vishistadvaita they are the qualities

of Prakrti.

2) While Nature in Samkhya is infinite, in Vishistadvaita it is finite, limited by

Nityavibhuti above.

3) While Nature in Samkhya is independent of Pususha, in Vishistadvaita it is

dependent upon God.

According to Vishistadvaita Nature is of two types, Nature having all the

three gunas, and Nature comprising only Sattwa. The latter is called Nityavibhuti

or shuddha sattwa unalloyed by Rajas and Tamas. According to Vishistadvaita,

pure sattwa is a possibility which is yet another point which distinguishes it from

69 See Shankara’s commentary, Gita 15.13.

70

Samkhya according to which the three gunas cannot be found in isolation. Because

of the peculiar character, shuddha sattva in Vishistadvaita ceases to be inert (jiva).

As professor M. Hiriyanna remarks, “It is sublimated prakrti, a sort of supernature,

matter without mutability”70. It is the material out of which an ideal world is made.

DVAITA

According to Dvaita, Nature has its source in insentient Prakrti, one among

twenty substances accepted by it. Prakrti is the material cause of Nature. Sattwa,

rajas and tamas are not the constituents of Prakrti, as said by Samkhya. Nor are

they the qualities of Prakrti as said by Vishistadvaita. They are the first products of

Prakrti in the course of evolution. Nature is neither purely existent in the cause as

said by Samkhya, nor purely non-existent as said by Nyaya Vaisheshika before its

origin. According to Dvaita, it is both existent and non-existent. Hence the Dvaita

theory of causation is called Sadasatkaryavada. There is no contradiction in this

opposite predication namely ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ because they are not

affirmed from the same standpoint. A thing exists as the cause and not as the effect

before its creation, and it exists as the material cause as for instance thread in the

case of cloth. After creation it is existent as an effect (cloth) and non-existent as the

cause (thread). Similarly in unmanifest state Nature is existent as the cause

(Prakrti) and non-existent as the effect (manifold gross world). But in the manifest

70 M.Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, Op.Cit., p.404.

71

state it is non-existent as the cause (Prakrti) and becomes existent as the effect.

Prakrti depends upon God as the efficient cause to give rise to manifold universe.

That means God creates Nature not out of Himself, but from the primal stuff of

Prakrti. Thus He is only the efficient cause and not material cause of Nature.

Prakrti is the material out of which God creates the pluralistic Nature.

Manifoldness in Nature is traced to an important category called Vishesha

(specialty) which explains uniqueness of a thing and distinguishes it from another.

In short, Madhwa’s concept of Nature is also theistic. Nature is not independent of

God and it depends upon God for its existence (Satta), activity (Prakrti) and for its

being known (pramiti).

Though there is difference between Jiva and Nature, as far as their

relationship with God is concerned both of them belong to the same God. Hence

the seemingly radical difference between Nature and man is only relative and it can

never be absolute. Thus, the two entities have the common characteristic of being

dependent on the same entity God. It is in this background, environmentalism

gains significance in Dvaita philosophy. It is not the radical opposition between

man and Nature that Dvaita propounds. They are related in such a way as to be

connected through divine intervention. Though Madhwa seems to emphasize the

importance of difference in his doctrine Panchabheda, the whole Nature is

72

dependent upon God for its subsistence. According to him difference need not

necessarily imply independence.

In essence, we can summarise by stating that whatever be the difference in

philosophical justification given to the existence of Nature, more or less all schools

of Indian philosophy accord an ontological place to Nature. Forgetting all the

philosophical intricacies, we need to believe that there is environment whose purity

has to be maintained.

One can interpret environmentalism from different perceptions. While

attempting to trace the cause of natural forces, Vedas pass through three stages in

evolution namely Polytheism, Monotheism and Pantheism. Upanishads trace them

to unitary principle namely Brahman which is not different from Atman. Bhagavad

Gita regards Nature as the manifestation of God. Charvaka reduces Nature to four

gross elements which are inert in Nature. Buddhism views Nature as a series of

similar things. Jainism has hylozoistic perception of Nature according to which

every atom of Jiva is throbbing with life. Nyaya Vaisheshika has a pluralistic

approach towards Nature. Samkhya with all its radical dualism has unitary concept

of Nature. Mimamsaka like Jaina attribute both change and identity to Nature.

Advaita though denies ontological place for Prakrti, accords an empirical

value as does Buddhists. Visistadvaita and Dvaita have theistic approach towards

Nature. Environment can be indentified with Brahman as in Advaita, exclusive of

73

the name and form which are responsible for difference. It can be viewed as a part

of Brahman as in Visitadvaita. It can also be viewed as dependent upon Brahman

as in Dvaita. Thus the three schools interpret Nature in different ways but the

purport is almost same. In Advaita it is absolute identity whereas in Visistadvaita

and Dvaita it is inclusiveness.

To summarise we can state that the early concept of Nature can be classified

as atheistic and absolutistic. Under atheistic perspective come five philosophies

namely Charvaka, Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya and Mimamsa. Under absolutistic

perspective come Nyaya Vaisheshika and Vedanta. To further elaborate Vedic

Polytheism, Nyaya Vaisheshika, Bhagavad Gita, Vishistadvaita and Dvaita have a

theistic concept of Nature and ascertain that environment being material points to

God or gods whereas Upanishadic Monism and Advaita have a supertheistic

concept of Nature in the sense that one has to transcend the limitations of matter

viz name and form and thus realise one’s identity with the environment which is

sentient in Nature.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS ON NATURE:

Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) and

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), three great contemporary philosophers were deep

rooted in Indian philosophical thought and spirituality. They were visionaries,

Nature lovers, found God in Nature, believed in Atma/soul as the prime principal

74

of existence, had love for fellow human beings, accepted Oneness of Being and

had a profound faith in LIFE and LIVING. More importantly, they were

environment crusaders who in their own ways set examples on leading a Nature

friendly lifestyle to all of humanity.

They recognised in their own lifetimes that the Indian masses upon following

western mode of development would be facing grave environmental problems in

future. They knew implicitly where western civilization was leading to and how

easily India would get succumbed to it. All their misgivings have been sadly

realized with surmounting environmental hazards being faced all over the globe.

Except a few countries, the industrialized economic way of growth and

development has become the globally endorsed pattern.

They had different means of achieving their goals, being social activist and

leaders in their own ways and rights. All three had the essential elements of a

spiritually informed leader that of empathy, deep introspection, listening to the

inner voice, fearlessness and acceptance of complete responsibility71.

Environmental Wisdom can be derived from their preaching as they had a

considerable depth of understanding of the spiritual, political, social, economical,

cultural and ecological facets of humanity.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

71 Sudhir Kakar, Gandhi and Leadership, The week, 3.2.2013, Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd, Kochi Pp.60-61.

75

Born as Narendranath but known to the world as Swami Vivekananda,

Swamiji had adapted Vedantic philosophy by making it simpler and easier for

fellow citizens and the world over to follow and imbibe the teachings. The

essential truth proclaimed in the traditional Vedas was highlighted by showing four

yogic ways to understand one self and seek salvation.

Swamiji’s fundamental philosophical postulation is Advaita. The whole

manifestation or Universe is element of One Brahman. All is derived from this One

Brahman and everything is made up of the same elements. In Advaita, the world

represents the blend of both reality and unreality. Swamiji believed in the reality of

this world and not world being illusory or unreal72.

As regards the inexplicability of the world, a parallel drawn from the

philosophy of Swami Vivekananda is in identifying Maya with fact. According to

him, Maya is a fact and a fact is inexplicable in terms of why and how. One cannot

give a logical justification as to “why” of the things in the world and thus, one has

to accept them as they are given to our experience. Macrocosm and Microcosm is

understood to mean external nature and internal nature73.

72 Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda- Vol II, Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata, 2012,

p.138. 73 Swami Tapasyananda, The Four Yogas of SV – Condensed and Retold, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras, 1979,

Pp. 201-205.

76

Swamiji states that Prakrti (matter) and Purusha (spirit) are phenomena of

this world. He considered matter and spirit as not dual but matter being in a crude

form while the spirit is a fine form, both ultimately being the same. He recognised

the existence of two worlds; this world of phenomena or the universe i.e., external

world and the other being the world of essence or Brahman-Atman i.e., internal

world74.

For Swamiji, external and internal world or nature are not different, but One.

‘Nature’ means all that is, all that moves. To put it in Swamiji’s words, “The

external world is but the gross form of the internal or subtle”75. Thus we see that by

‘nature’, Swamiji illustrates three types of nature – outward nature being the

outside world or environment, inward nature being the ego and innermost nature

relating to the soul or Atma76. Only when man identifies with his true Self or

Atma, can he be connected to the environment and stop the atrocities happening to

Nature. Swamiji says that by controlling internal nature, we control everything; it

is true in a way, as in Nature there is no division called internal and external; they

74 V.B.Brodov, Indian Philosophy in Modern Times (English Translation), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1984,

p.213. 75 Swami Vivekananda, Selection from the complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Asharama,

Himalayas, 1990, Pp.67-68. 76 Rajani Rao U, Swami Vivekananda’s Concept of Nature, Prabuddha Bharata, July 2014 Issue, Vol. 119, No.7,

Pp.427-429.

77

being fictitious limitations that never existed77. In the present scenario, man is

ignorantly framing the limitations.

Swamiji’s Four Yogas can be applied through different modes to better the

environment through

1) Karma Yoga: Work

2) Bhakti Yoga: Love and Devotion

3) Raja Yoga: Control of Mind

4) Jnana Yoga: Knowledge

According to Swamiji, all four yogas help in renunciation or to achieve

vairagya or non-attachment to the world. The vairagya here has to be understood in

the sense of not getting attached to the sensuous pleasures felt by our sense organs.

It is only due to this kind of attachment towards Nature in the form of over

exploitation of the natural resources that globally as a whole, human and non

human existence is at peril.

In Karma Yoga, Swamiji mentions that man should remember that all work

that he does is for oneself and not for Nature as Nature can take care of itself.

Nature was in existence before man’s advent and will be in existence even without

man. Nature doesn’t require man’s assistance and it will act out according to its

77 Swami Vivekananda, Selection from the complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Op.Cit., Pp.67-68.

78

natural karmic laws78. In the environmental context, Swamiji’s words make sense

because the present environmental crisis is man’s own making. As his own

survival on this planet is at risk, he needs to take precautionary action by using

‘viveka’ or ‘discretion’ while utilising the natural resources.

Raja yoga can be used in understanding the internal world, and controlling

the mind and using discretion while making choices.

In Jnana Yoga, Swamiji makes a point that knowledge is not received from

the external natural world as knowledge pre-exists in man. In the same context, he

further states that knowledge is received only through experience and experiences

can be had only in the external world of phenomena. The external world merely

raises the veil over knowledge which firmly adjoins that taking care of the

environment is a foundational necessity for man79.

According to Swamiji, only when man has gained enough power to resist,

can non-resistance be helpful and be thought of as a virtue80. He was also against

man having a passive attitude towards life. In spite of being aware of the colossal

damage exerted upon the environment, this attitude is seen in majority of the

human race. Man behaves so because of his non-awareness of his own nature.

78 V.B.Brodov, Indian Philosophy in Modern Times (English Translation), Op.Cit., p.239. 79 Ibid., p.257. 80 Ibid., p.238.

79

These are different ways one can follow to reach the same destination.

Karma or work that is done should be towards achieving environmental stability

and continuing the efforts even if results are not apprehended and also avoiding

actions that harm the environment. Again, one must not be a silent spectator when

atrocities are happening to the environment and raise voice against it with the same

love and devotion that one uses in Bhakti Yoga. The science of Raja Yoga deals

with control of the mind and not be lured by sense pleasures of excessive

materialisation. Jnana or Knowledge needs to be used as a discretionary measure to

guide all of one’s actions towards maintaining the environmental balance.

Thus a total understanding of the four yogas from the environmental angle is

required in the present context, to meet exigency of the present times, and spread

his reframed famous clarion call to all human beings, “Arise! Awake! Stop the

atrocities happening to environment”!!

RABINDRANATH TAGORE

Rabindranath Tagore, the poet cum philosopher stands in a class apart. The

literary grace and the poetic beauty with which his writings have become popular

is the reason for a world-wide interest in him and his works81. There is a naive

simplicity in his writing which makes man introspect deeply about life.

81 S Radhakrishnan, The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore,

<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Rabindranath_Tagore>, accessed on 10.11.2014.

80

There are many facets to his personality. He is “an enlightener and

philosopher, poet and pose-writer, playwright and literary critic, historian and

publicist, educationist and artist, musician and composer, actor and producer”82 all

rolled into one. Nature, to Tagore, was not alien and inert, but something living

and kindred; with which he felt close companionship and harmony. The chasm

between “live and non-life”, “the human and the non-human”, is removed and is

replaced by a living communication between human and the natural. There is no

division between the external world of Nature and the world of spirit. Nature is the

external manifestation of the immanent divinity which is a principle common both

to the external world and in our inner being83.

Tagore’s philosophy is both Advaitic with respect to Absolutism but he

dismisses the concept of world being illusion and Vistadvaitic in nature. He was a

Vedantin drawing inspiration from Upanishads on the one hand and an advocate of

theism on the other hand84. He not only relates to the oneness of Reality but also

believes in the existence of GOD. For him, the reality was both dualistic and non-

dualistic in its character and one couldn’t question the logicality of his philosophy.

He did not articulate naturalism which reduces the human being to inert matter nor

does he accept the theory of panpsychism which exalts Nature or prakrti to the

82 V.B.Brodov, Indian Philosophy in Modern Times (English Translation), Op.Cit., p.339. 83 Prof. Bhupendra Nath, Rabindranath Tagore [His Mystico-Religious philosophy], Crown Publications, New

Delhi, 1985, Pp.39-40. 84 S Radhakrishnan, The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, Op.Cit.,

81

level of consciousness life force. In the scheme of reality, both are as much

important; Prakrti and Purusha and hence they are not radically opposite. This is

where he differs from Samkhya. Tagore’s philosophy resembles Visitadvaita in the

sense that there is a relation of identity in difference between Self and Matter. So,

they are neither same nor said to be different, hence we can say that Tagore was of

the view that environment and human being are inseparable, both of them should

be taken as a whole. Thus human being cannot do away with environment and

vice-versa. Both being interdependent, they depend on each other in order to

manifest one another. Self discovery for human being is possible only in the

context of existence of Prakrti, thus the whole of experience for human being

exists only in the external environment. For Tagore, Prakrti is not at all a

mechanical collection of inert atoms; as such the poetic flavour is seen in his use of

sentiments and emotions towards glorification of Nature.

Matter reflects its natural element where as human being reflects

supernatural element which is inclusive of natural element. Hence according to

Tagore, total suppression of desire and passion as suggested by traditional

philosophers is not possible. So pulverisation of all passions is an impossible task

for man, as man is invariably associated with Nature. Environment is in man

himself in a subtle form and appears outside in gross form. Hence man’s desires

need to be channelized in the proper way. But what is happening now is that man is

82

instead trying to control Nature thus losing his instinctive natural relationship with

environment. The purpose of human being is to realise his intimate relationship

with Nature otherwise he will always face some sort of contradiction to overcome

the sub natural situation. Man is now trying to do away with Nature which is a near

impossibility. He is devising ways and means to make other planets habitable,

without realizing that going away from earth-environment; one is caught in another

type of environment, or an environment in another form. The form changes, but

one cannot do away with environment.

Tagore’s works speaks volumes about his contribution to all fields of

knowledge and in all his works, he has over and over again stressed about Nature

being divine. Nobel awarded poem Gitanjali epitomes his being a lover of Nature

and natural beauty and seeing GOD not up above in the heavens but in the whole

of surrounding environment.

W.B.Yeats in his foreword to Gitanjali states that he admires Rabindranath’s

“completeness of life, who has not refused to live, but has spoken of life itself”,

and aptly puts that “we are not moved because of its (Gitanjali) strangeness, but

because we have met our own image”85. The eloquence with which Tagore has

written Gitanjali makes one spell bound and instils in us an eagerness to

understand the essence of it all. Many of the verses portray his longing for the

85 Rabindranath Tagore, Gitanjali, <http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/tagore/gitnjali.htm>, accessed on 05.07.2011.

83

Supreme One which he comprehends through association with Nature and

outpouring of the beauty of Nature in his poetic verses.

Tagore brings out the Oneness of all beings when he quips “the same stream

of life” is present in all things on earth. The poet using the phrase “allness of the

universe” subtly tries to convey the sweetness one feels when one gets attuned to

the Oneness of Universe86.

The beauty of Nature is such that blissfulness of ‘sleep’ is provided for all

beings to rest their tired bones. Planet earth presents itself as a picture of

perfection, yet man fails to realise this simplest of truth and goes about searching

for the missing star. The poet brings forth succinctly how Nature silently goes

about with its work “nourishing seeds into sprouts”, “buds into blossoms”,

“ripening flowers into fruitfulness” while we live on earth idling and reminiscing

about lost time. Thus, when we value patience all things get accomplished at the

perfect time87.

The poet nicely entwines GOD-creation-Harmony by penning that God can

be found in Nature that is all around us and is the creator of this beautiful creation

EARTH. God by creating this world joyfully has bound himself with us as well.

GOD in the form of Nature has given human being the greatest simplest gift that is

86 Ibid., Verses 69, 87. 87 Ibid., Verses 24, 76, 81-82.

84

needed by man such as sky, light, body, life, mind and enabling us to do away

from unwanted desires. GOD’s voice can be heard in the early chirping of birds

and feel it in the fresh blossoming flowers. We get all that we need from GOD

(Nature), similar to all rivers flowing back to the ocean and flowers being offered

to GOD, even everything that GOD has offered to us flows back to Him at the

end88. God’s love is communicated in various ways through the things in Nature

such as “golden light dancing upon the leaves”, “idle clouds sailing across the

sky”, “cool breeze one feels on the forehead”. He is the giver and taker rolled into

one89. The symbolic meaning of the above verses is that God is existent inside and

outside of human being.

The poet wondrously depicts the plight of man, his tryst with ego, caught in

whirlwind of wealth and power. Many facets of light (sunlight) bring joy to the

beholder. The benevolent feel of Nature is such that it touches us and makes us hop

in joy90.

His choice of words in the poem Gitanjali include “play of colours”,

“flowers painted in tints”, “music in leaves”, “waves…chorus of voices”, “honey

in cup of flowers”, “fruits secretly filled with sweet juice”, “summer breeze”, “

88 Tai. Up. 3.1. 89 Rabindranath Tagore, Gitanjali, Op.Cit., Verses 11,14,19,59,65,70. 90 Ibid., Verses 31,57,62.

85

pleasure streams from sky in morning light”. These phrases used by the poet aptly

describe Nature showing its love in her multifarious ways91.

Tagore portrays that children need not hesitate to play outside and one needs

to associate with “healthful dust of the earth”92. The present generation can be seen

lacking in this aspect as they are more prone to spending their time with electronic

devices. “He advocates life in Nature and in the open. For Rabindranath, the best

way to derive divine inspiration is to lose oneself in the contemplation of

Nature”93.

Tagore expresses his deepest feelings stating that he has had one joyous

union with Nature and he is ever happy to welcome death anytime as he had

cherished the life he has lived on this earth. The humility of the poet can be seen

when he un-egoistically gives up flaunting his great merits of being an outstanding

poet par excellence94.

Tagore’s Gitanjali depicts the wholeness and oneness of Nature that needs to

be imbibed by humans. The poems of Gitanjali are the offerings of the finite to the

infinite. Tagore states splendidly that faith in the universal soul and knowledge that

91 Compare Da.Re.Bendre’s Kannada poem “Mudala maneya muttina neerina”. 92 Rabindranath Tagore, Gitanjali, Op.Cit., Verse 8. 93 S Radhakrishnan, The Philosophy of Rabindranath Tagore, Op.Cit., 94 Rabindranath Tagore, Gitanjali, Op.Cit., Verses 96,102.

86

truth, power and beauty lie in simplicity and thus makes life transparent. If we

adopt the right attitude to Nature, we feel the pulse of spirit throbbing through it95.

Tagore recognises the objective existence of Nature and believes human

perceptions and logical thinking to be the source of its cognition. In his words, “I

believe that the vision of Paradise is to be seen in the sunlight and the green of the

earth, in the beauty of the human face and the wealth of human life”96.

MAHATMA GANDHI

Gandhi’s spiritual inclination held him in good stead throughout his life as he

preached only those principles that he applied first in his own life. He held in high

esteem the scriptural teachings of Bhagavad Gita and the religious teachings of

Jainism and Buddhism97.

Gandhi did not write any treatise on environment or started any environment

movement, but environmentalism can be traced out in his several quotes. He had

reverential attitude and love towards Nature and environment. His practical

approach towards need-based utilisation of resources is expressed in his statement,

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed”98.

He needs no inspiration for anything other than Nature, as he says, “She has never

95 Prthiwish Neogy (Ed.),Rabindranath Tagore on Art & Aesthetics, Orient Longmans, New Delhi, 1961,p.24. 96 V.B.Brodov, Indian Philosophy in Modern Times (English Translation), Op.Cit., Pp.346,349. 97 T N Khoshoo and John S Moolakkattu, Mahatma Gandhi and the environment, The Energy and Resources

Institute, New Delhi, 2012 p.3. 98 Ibid., p. 66.

87

failed me yet. She mystifies me, bewilders, sends me into ecstasies”99. According

to Gandhi the rock-bottom foundation for the technique of achieving the power of

nonviolence is belief in the essential oneness of all life100. His statement that man

has no power to create life, and therefore he has no right to destroy life101 testifies

to the necessity of conserving biodiversity. He speaks of possibility of testing and

applying the same set of virtues in real life as is testified to in his statement, “I

have tested the truth by experience, that primary virtues of mankind are possible of

cultivation102.

Gandhi believes in Advaita (nonduality), in the essential unity of man and, for

that matter, of all that lives103.Gandhi sees fundamental unity running through all

the diversity in Nature104. He sees orderliness or what Vedas call Rta in universe.

According to him, “There is an unalterable law governing everything and every

being that exists or lives. It is no blind law, for according to Gandhi, no blind law

can govern the conduct of living beings105. Gandhi in this regard is more a theist in

explaining the order of the universe, and is relating the argument called

teleological proof for God’s existence. According to him order implies an orderer.

The roots for sustainable development is implied in Gandhian remark, “A certain 99 Ibid., p. 46. 100 Poonam Kumaria, Nature and Man: Gandhian Concept of Deep Ecology,

<http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/environment.htm>, accessed on 4.9.2012. 101 T N Khoshoo and John S Moolakkattu, Mahatma Gandhi and the environment, Op.Cit., p.25. 102 The Doctrine of the Sword, <www.mkgandhi.org/swmgandhi/swmgandhi.htm>, accessed on 4.9.2012. 103 T N Khoshoo and John S Moolakkattu, Mahatma Gandhi and the environment, Op.Cit., p.5. 104 Ibid., p.45. 105 Ibid., p.46.

88

degree of physical harmony and comfort is necessary, but above a certain level, it

becomes a hindrance instead of help106. Gandhi’s answer to the question of whether

he visualised a Britain kind of lifestyle for India, was “It took Britain half the

resources of the planet to achieve their prosperity. How many planets will a

country like India require?”107 This shows his attitude towards unwarranted

industrialisation. Gandhi valued Nature not because it was needed or useful to man

but because it was created by God and thus its pristine nature had to be

maintained108.

Gandhi was intolerant about wasting resources and as a rule would write back

letters on the blank or reverse side of the postal letters and other reusable paper

received by him. He would make full utilization of the pencils till they became an

inch stub109. In his ashrama, he would take bath in the Sabarmati river by using

water sparingly though the whole of the river was available for use110. These habits

of Gandhi in the modern parlance would be seen as having conventional,

unprogressive and conservative attitude. But this frugal method of getting the

maximum benefit of all resources has its beginning in our ancients way of

following a need based culture commanding restriction and stern decree of wants

106 Ibid., p. 64. 107 Sudheendra Kulkarni, Music of the spinning wheel (Mahatma Gandhi’s manifesto for the INTERNET

AGE), Amaryllis, Manjul Publishing House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2012, Pp.267-268. 108 Poonam Kumaria, Nature and Man: Gandhian Concept of Deep Ecology, Op.Cit., 109 Sudheendra Kulkarni, Music of the spinning wheel (Mahatma Gandhi’s manifesto for the INTERNET

AGE), Op.Cit., Pp.268,271. 110 Pravin Sheth, The Eco-Gandhi and Ecological Movements,

<http://www.mkgandhi.org/evironment/environment.htm>, accessed on 04.09.2012.

89

when compared to the modern man’s want based culture of infinite and indefinite

multifarious longing for satisfaction of wants.

Gandhi, in his speech at Ashtanga Ayurveda Vidyalaya in Calcutta on 6-5-

1925, talking about Nature cure said, “…I belong…who believe in Nature doing

things for herself even for suffering humanity if we would but let Nature take her

course”111. Any social reformer has to be practical in his approach and whatever

Gandhi said had meaning as he was a pragmatic preacher.

Ela Gandhi112, the granddaughter of Gandhi has categorically stated that

Mahatma Gandhi lived a life of self sufficiency, a life of principles, and respected

all lives by realizing the interconnectedness of life. Worldview of

compartmentalizing everything in Nature needs to be overthrown as it barricaded

the “Oneness” concept and be replaced by Gandhi’s holistic worldview of man’s

life being inter wined with Nature. She appreciates the values learnt to come to her

rescue in this day and age of colossal environmental degradation.

Gandhiji believed in practicing Satya or truth and Ahimsa or non-violence in

body, speech and mind. His concept of non-violence was not only towards humans

and other creatures, but also had to be towards Nature in words, deeds and spirit.

Yoga sutra on Ahimsa says “Ahimsa prathisthayam thatsannidhau vaira

111 Gandhi’s Views on Environment- Five Elements of Nature,<http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/

gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_environment_5elementsnature.htm>, accessed on 05.01.2014. 112 Ela Gandhi, Let’s Join Forces,The week, 3.2.2013, Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd, Kochi, Pp.56-57.

90

thyagah”113, translating “In the proximity of one who is established in ahimsa,

creatures shed off their natural enmity”. So, if there is vibration of love, there is no

scope for negative hatred. This is ethical way of purifying the environment.

We need to tailor our lives to live in harmony with environment. Gandhi’s

mantra was to lead a life of simplicity and be attuned to Nature by living in

peaceful tranquillity with the environment. Re-inventing Gandhian principles and

using them as a guiding force for the younger generation is the need of the hour as

they would be the future caretakers of their respective environment.

113 Yogasutra 2.35.