1

Is Nature Really Important……?

In this paper I will show the necessity of having anthropocentric understanding
of nature or environment around us to identify the need to have ethical
understanding of our existence through metaphysical structure developed by
Indian philosophical school of Saṃkhya.
In the modern world today of twentieth century, in the age of science and
technology, human species is competing ‘against’ the nature. These efforts are
directed towards the controlling the natural resources and exploiting them in
return to the so called ‘development’ of human race (O'connor 1988). But this
very idea of taking over or taking control over the nature or environment is
problematic from Indian view point where they have subsistence perspective of
life where they have minimalist view point towards using resources and ensure
the minimal harm caused to the environment in the process of living in this world.
In the Vedic period, when society was heavily ritualistic and was sacrificing their
wealth into fire (Sharma 2005), it was wastage for many of the realist
philosophical schools1 in India who came up with their own philosophical
understanding of reality and ethical norms to deal with the problems of wastage
of wealth in form of sacrificing and replacing them with various other acts of
dāna where individual will give away his or her wealth to the other human and
not to burn in fire (Kalupahana 1976). These reactionary ideas of utility and
wastage to the Vaidic rituals stimulated the need to have a metaphysical structure
of the world. Where Saṃkhya school started asking questions about the nature of
reality.
Saṃkhya had the experiential analysis of the world based on perceptual
understanding of the reality. Which is supplemented by the inferential analysis of
the world. This very idea of introducing subjectivity in the process of defining
object of knowledge emphasizes on the role of philosopher otherwise it will be
just a system of dead thoughts (Chenchulakshmi 2005). For them rootless root of
all material in the universe is mula-Prakṛti. Mula-Prakṛti gives rise to production
of evolutes2 which are caused by various tatva. These evolutes are of basically
two types, one is the Prakṛti which is transformable, created and can create. On
the other hand, there are Vikṛti which are non-transformable which terminates the
process of creation (Larson 2001). When we think of these processes of
manifestation from one form to another, look around the environment or the
nature which is essentially creative and supporting the production of new life

1
Buddhism, Jainism, Saṃkhya, nyāya etc.
2
Chenchulakshmi uses word evolute to denote the mutated elements from mula-prakṛti due to mahat which
is the principle reason why this mutation takes place.

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:27 Oct 2016|Assignment-5

 2

forms which are internally dependent on each other; human species is playing the
role of vikṛti and intruding the process of transformation which is ultimately
causing the suffering for them.
Saṃkhya philosophy explicitly mentions that it is a suffering removal philosophy
which motivates them to do the analytical analysis of the world which will
basically help us to remove all the pain. As I understand from the whole theory
that is proposed by them is that major reason that we experience pain is due to
the fact modern human species in twentieth century think of themselves as
something fundamentally different from the nature which gives rise to the strong
experience of exclusion. The basic principle of existence starts with the idea that
we come from the nature and we dissolve in the nature. Even though having such
a strong connection between those elements of our environment we tend to take
these given factors for granted, which does not only make our life difficult but
results into damaging the structure of natural forces which are evolved over
period of time. This is where saṃkhya plays important role identifying the need
to have some observer. If there is some evolution where some elements are
manifested as evolutes, then there must be subject of knowledge who is
immutable (kūṭasthanitya), which is without a cause as mula-prakṛti
(Chenchulakshmi 2005).
With this fundamental structure of metaphysical understanding of the world and
our existence as human species, it starts unfolding the ethical role that one has
when it comes down to get rid of pain or suffering which has been the ultimate
desire by human species in Indian continent as in form of liberation. As we have
seen before, modern3 sense of ‘development’ in twentieth century does not have
any space for considering wastage or exploitation of nature in its main stream
structural planning of future. In the capitalist world economy where profits are
the driving force in making decisions for the masses, which is only possible
through exploitation of nature (O'connor 1988); saṃkhya creates that space for
realization that, only ways in which puruṣa can survive is through allowing nature
to produce and self-sustain to continue its reproduction for subject of knowledge
to have some object to know something about which essentially determine the
existential factors of its being. So ethically or morally only thing that can be
defined from view point of puruṣa is to ensure the eternity of prakṛti and making
sure vikṛti does not endanger the existence of human species.

3
In this essay I have used the word ‘modern’ interchangeably with western idea of development, where I
intend to point at biased growth without considering its repercussions.

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:27 Oct 2016|Assignment-5

 3

References
O'connor, James. "Capitalism, nature, socialism a theoretical introduction∗."
(1988): 11-38.
Larson, Gerald James. Classical Sāṃkhya: An interpretation of its history and
meaning. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2001.
Chenchulakshmi, Kolla. "The Concept of Pariṇāma in Indian Philosophy: A
Critical Study with Reference to Sāṁkhya-Yoga." (2005).
Sharma, A. K., and Balvir Talwar. "Corporate social responsibility: modern vis-
à-vis Vedic approach." Measuring Business Excellence 9, no. 1 (2005): 35-45.
Kalupahana, David J. Buddhist philosophy: A historical analysis. University of
Hawaii Press, 1976.

Words: 826

Abhijeet Kulkarni| Roll no. 163603001|TTIP|Date:27 Oct 2016|Assignment-5