The ancient Indians recognized the world as experienced by sense organs to be composed of two fundamental principles: name and form.

Form refers to the seen objects and name refers to how humans describe what they see.


Having so analyzed the world, the Vedas then cultivate a sense of belonging and oneness with nature and the world.

A 3000 year old hymn proclaims thus

Eeshetva urjetvava
Vaayavah sthopaayavasthah
Devovah savita
Prarpayatu sreshta tamaya karmaNe

This can be roughly translated to:

For food thee, for strength thee!
Ye are winds, ye are approachers.
Let the god Savitr impel you to the most excellent offering.

–  Krishna Yajurveda, Taittiriya Samhita, 1.1


Human beings experience the world through the sense organs. This occurs both in the waking and the dream states.

One then assigns names and forms to the objects of the senses.

It can be safely said that names and forms account for all of human experience. Consciousness appears to be the common factor underlying this entire experience.

The final means of knowledge in ancient Indian philosophy is the experience of truth. “Enlightenment”, however one may define it, is said to be achieved via  Jivanmukti (liberation while one is alive).

Laconic versatility

One of the eminent philosophers and authors of the past century lived for most of his life as a teacher. Mysore Hiriyanna had an extraordinary grasp of Indian philosophy and literature.

He came out with works in English that clearly explain the ideas behind Indian philosophy. Owing to his erudition, although they were small in size, each of his works packed a real punch. His works on philosophy and aesthetics remain classics today.

In life, he was a man who lived his life in a disciplined way and was a man of a few words. He lived a simple life, a trait he shared with the rishis (sages) of the Indian tradition.


When it comes to understanding what appears as beautiful to humans, it seems that nature is a great reference.

Nature presents itself in amazing and extraordinary ways that are a delight to partake in.

Often, great art consists in presenting nature with minimal human intervention.


Ancient Indians had devoted their time and effort in a number of areas.

In the scholarly field, the three main areas were those of dharma, brahma (spirituality) and rasa (aesthetics).

Dharma relates to the worldly system of morality and laws. Brahma relates to the spiritual path by pursuing which one attains liberation. Rasa is the unique system of aesthetics that has influenced the elaborate systems of art.


Indian philosophy has had many schools. These are known as darshanas (viewpoints). There are various classifications of the schools. But they all appear somewhat arbitrary. The schools include:

  1. Samkhya (enumeration)
  2. Yoga
  3. Nyaya (logic)
  4. Vaishesika (atomism or pluralism)
  5. Purva Mimamsa (prior Vedic exegesis)
  6. Uttara Mimamsa (later Vedic exegesis), also known as Vedanta
  7. Bauddha (Buddhism)
  8. Jaina (Jainism)
  9. Charvaka (Materialism)

Historically, the Yoga and Samkhya schools influenced each other and can be seen to merge into one school. Similarly, the Nyaya and the Vaishesika schools influenced each other. The same goes for the Purva and Uttara Mimamsa schools.

Among these nine schools, Yoga and Vedanta accept the existence of an Ishvara (Deity). The others are ambivalent about the subject or explicitly deny such an existence.


Philosophy is seen to be most useful when it is practical and can be applied to everyday life.

It becomes confined to ivory towers when it is too focused on solving dry intellectual problems and on speculating.

Means of knowing

In establishing any ideas or understanding of the world, one needs to be clear about one’s starting premises and assumptions.

The Indian tradition of philosophy began as a way to a define a practical way of life.

The premises of this philosophy were classified based on what makes sense from a practical standpoint.

  • Direct perception (pratyaksha): this is accepted by all schools of thought
  • Inference, analogy (anumana, upamana): these are accepted by all schools of thought
  • Testimony (shabda): this consists of the Vedas. This is only accepted by the Vedanta and Purva Mimamsa schools. One cannot practically understand all there is to know in a limited time. Accepting the research and studies done by past generations is part of most fields of study. Newton said:

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

– Issac Newton

The ancient Roman philosophy

As one reads about the daily lives of ancient Romans, one runs across the two major schools of philosophy: stoicism and epicureanism. These schools, along with other smaller schools such as cynicism, contended for the minds of the citizens of the Roman Empire. However, these schools were not proselytizing by nature. Citizens were attracted to them per individual tastes and mindsets.

Alongside this, one observes that the intellectuals among the ancient Romans, such as Cicero, were not great believers in the pagan gods of the day. The attitude to religion overall was that of customary common practice, rather than having a prepackaged set of beliefs which had to be digested by each follower. It appears that it was mainly near the Eastern borders of the empire that people were more prone to pay obeisance to their potentates and thus, had a more servile attitude towards their gods.

Argue against yourself

Every time one does this, it is a great exercise: argue against yourself. To play the devil’s advocate against one’s own beliefs and convictions can on many occasions be an exhilarating and educational experience.

One of the key aspects of intellectual debate and growth is to treat opposing viewpoints with the respect they deserve. It is almost always the case that if you clearly and convincingly argue the opposing viewpoint before presenting your argument, your argument will come out the stronger for it. Many times, one finds opponents straw manning each other, which leads to friction and talking past one another, but not to much enlightenment or intelligent discourse.

From an Ancient Indian perspective, debates between opposing viewpoints fall into three categories: honest debate (vaada), bad debate (jalpa) and wrangling debate (vitanda). On the other hand, a harmonious dialogue or conversation is characterized as samvaada. Upon reading many of the Sanskrit texts of the various philosophical schools, one comes across a style of writing wherein the opposing viewpoint is presented first. Then, based on the various logical premises, one’s own argument is presented as clearly as possible to the best of one’s ability.

Below is a small essay written by me from such an opposing viewpoint.

Universal basic income is a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country receive a regular, unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, independent of any other income. I personally feel this concept is going to become essential going forward with the rise of automation, artificial intelligence and related technologies. In this essay, I am going to take the position of someone who believes that having a universal basic income is not a good idea.

Basic income, as a concept, is one that is inherently flawed. It claims to address the needs of supporting a population when automation and computers have taken away most jobs. However, it fails to do so and leads to unpleasant consequences for the country. In this essay I try to lay out some key arguments against this concept.

Tax burden increases

Firstly, it imposes a bigger burden on the tax payer. The tax burden on citizens today is already quite massive. Providing a basic income to citizens on top of the existing programs will require more taxation, which will likely be opposed by the public.

Incentive to work is lost

Having a universal basic income will take away the incentive for people to work. Today, many people are incentivized to work because they need to eat. Providing a universal basic income will take this reason away from people, thus causing massive lack of productivity and unemployment.

Having lost the incentive to work, people will become lazy. Fewer people will be interested in studying or researching. So, this could easily lead to a stoppage of scientific progress. Also, economic progress may be affected by universal basic income because people may no longer be interested in innovating by coming up with new products and services.

Personal identity is lost

Today, for many people, the income derived from their job forms a basic part of personal identity. So, people will struggle to replace this very basic part of their identity. This may affect a large swath of the population psychologically, leading to a public health crisis.

Unemployment increases

Ironically, it may allow computers and automation to take away more jobs, since companies will not need to pay workers anymore. Basically, having a basic income will take the pressure off businesses to provide employment to society. Thus, most businesses will opt to automate to the fullest extent possible. Also, even more jobs will be outsourced and offshoring will become more rampant.

Unrest among younger population

It will cause unrest among the youth of the country. The youth, who have will have lost the incentive to find a job, will look to other pursuits. It has been seen on many occasions throughout history that a young population with no interest in careers or jobs will turn to anti-social, violent behavior.

Challenge to existing programs

It will interfere with the existing social welfare programs. There are even some senseless suggestions from the proponents of basic income that it could replace the welfare system. People who are receiving social benefits will now need to be provided this additional benefit. This will interfere with the purpose of having a social safety net, which is to provide a cushion to citizens facing difficulties such as unemployment, poverty, old age and sickness. People losing jobs are provided unemployment benefits as a stopgap measure until they apply for or find new jobs. So, such people may be discouraged from looking for or finding new jobs, because of receiving a basic income from the government.

It will require enormous change to the way the government functions. Currently, many government agencies are in place to perform a number of tasks. Now, having to provide a basic income to people would mean that new departments will have to be formed in the government, leading to massive upheavals in government infrastructure and may cost the taxpayer dearly.