Tuesday, October 04, 2011

K. Satchidanada Murty’s Approach to Indian Philosophy
Dr. P. Kesava Kumar

K. Satchidananda Murty(1924-2011) is a philosopher, rationalist, humanist, liberal and free thinkers of contemporary times. His contribution to philosophy is remarkable in general and his approach to Indian philosophy is in many ways significant in particular. He is critical about dominant brahminical constructions of Indian philosophy. At the same time, his approach has marked difference with alternative approaches of Indian philosophy. The alternative approaches represented by M. N. Roy and Debiprasad Chattopadhya are critical about Indian philosophy from a Marxist and Indian materialistic/humanistic view points. In mainstream philosophy these kinds of approaches are either ignored or marginalized, and some times maintained deliberate silence about these positions. Sachidananda Murty’s approach seems to be a still discussing point since it has a potential to mediate both brahminical and Marxist/materialistic approaches of Indian philosophy. He is the internal critic of dominant Indian philosophical tradition. He tries to retain the core of Indian philosophy. At the same time he is critical about distortions of Indian philosophy made by brahminical class. It reminds the anger of Sudra intellectual, who is a victim of caste system and hindu social order. In the dominant philosophical discourse, the scholars of elite are mostly maintained silence about the issue of caste. Sachidananda Murty made it a point to discuss about caste in his own way with the influence of anti Brahmin movement of Telugu society. His reading of Indian philosophy provides the counter discourse in Hinduism. In other words, we may call it as alternative Hinduism. He succeeded in this regard through his philosophical method. His philosophical approach is rationalistic, historical, humanistic and hermeneutic. His philosophical method and the alternative constructions of Indian philosophy is evident in his early writings Evolution of Indian Philosophy (1952), Hinduism and Its Development (1947) The Spirit of India (1965) and the later writing Philosophy in India(1985).

Murty’s Approach to Indian Philosophy
K. Satchidananda Murty observed that different conceptions of philosophy prevailed in India in different times and in some times found more than one conception simultaneously. He categorized these conceptions broadly into three: anviksiki, darsana and Luakika or popular philosophy. He prefers the first one: philosophy is rational, critical and illuminating review of the contents of theology, economics, and political science and also the right instrument and foundation of all action and duty, which helps one achieve intellectual balance and insight as well as linguistic clarity and behavioral competence.[1] He further believes that social and economic conditions and personality of a author plays a role in understanding philosophical ideas. In his own words, Not only is it necessary to study any theory in relation to the socio-economic structure in which it arises, but also it is necessary to pay attention to the character and personality of the man who puts it forth. [2] Interestingly, in also acknowledges that geographical conditions affect the thought.[3] Indian philosophy has evolved from a blending of heterogeneous stocks from time immemorial. In this he refutes the puritan/exclusive idea of Aryan culture and philosophy.
The philosophical ideas are presented ahistorically by dominant tradition. They gave more importance to principles than locating ideas in socio-cultural practices. But Murty is not only considering the evolution of ideas historically but also fascinated by historical method. The historical approach to ideas is evident in his writings on Indian philosophy.[4] His historical approach is different from Marxists’ economic reductionism, though he acknowledges Marxist approach in principle. In addition to social conditions, he believes that geographical conditions shape the ideas. He further considers the ones own psychological position and personality plays a role in presentation of ideas. As he maintains that under the influence of psychology, it attempted to briefly trace the development of philosophy in India in relation to socio-political conditions. It held that while, one hand, every thinker and philosophy are the products of their social milieu, and every man’s theories and beliefs are also influenced by his character, upbringing, personality and unconscious motives; on the other hand, thinking and knowledge influence and shape social organization and economic conditions. It also made it clear that psychological and sociological conditioning of thinking and knowledge, while not irrelevant to their validity, does not determine it. It considered a clear distinction between philosophy and religion as the necessary point of departure for a history of philosophy.[5] His historical approach to ideas has to an extent close to Hegelian method.
Murty is critical about dominant stereotype conceptions of philosophy and also the way philosophical ideas were presented to public. According to these histories, it was not possible to know when exactly the principal ‘systems’ began, how and under what influences they were originally formulated and through what successive stages they passed. Murty argues that no attempt has been made by our scholars to formulate a theory of philosophical development in India with an exception of M.N.Roy (Materialism), Chattopadhyayaya (Indian philosophy: A popular Introduction), Rahul Samkrutyayan (Darsan Digdarsan) , K Damodaran (Indian Thought : A critical Study) and Pundit Shuklaji (Indian Philosophy) His work Evolution of Philosophy in India places in this line of thought. These are the few works which adopted a non- stereotyped approach to the development of Indian philosophy, but which have not received much attention in Indian universities.[6]
It is observed that brahminical/ dominant writings on Indian philosophy have carried by certain myths and dogmas.[7] Indian philosophy is essentially spiritual one of the myths.The myth of Indian spirituality has been questioned by M.N.Roy and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya argued in favour of Indian materialism. They had demonstrated that religious and idealistic perspectives in early Indian philosophy were in fact a minority one, rather than being dominant tendency through their writings. They showed that the major schools of Indian philosophy – samkhya, Nyaya and Viseshika were all essentially materialistic philosophies as well as expressing, like early Budhism , an atheistic view point. They thus stressed that these philosophical writings, together with those associated with Lokayata- the philosophy of people- were in their critique of religious conceptions and ritual, and in their defence of the reality of material world, essentially characterized by secularism, a rationalistic logic and science.[8] The method adopted by these thinkers is rationalistic and scientific. Murty’s admiration for M.N. Roy could be seen in his early work, the Evolution of Indian Philosophy.
M.N. Roy (1887-1954) is one of the important contemporary Indian philosophers belonging to an alternative tradition against dominant tradition of Indian philosophy. He believes that no philosophical advancement is possible unless we get rid of orthodox religious ideas and theological dogmas. He is critical about the identification of philosophy with religion and theology. According to him faith in supernatural does not permit the search for the causes of natural phenomena in nature itself. Therefore rejection of orthodox religious ideas and theological dogmas is the condition for philosophy. The function of philosophy is to coordinate the entire body of scientific knowledge into a comprehensive theory of nature and life. While Roy opposed the glorification of India’s so-called spiritual heritage, he favored a rational and critical study of ancient Indian philosophy. He unequivocally rejected the religious mode of thinking and advocated a scientific outlook and a secular morality. He believed that science would ultimately liquidate religion. M .N. Roy was a strong supporter of materialist philosophy. According to Roy, strictly speaking, materialism is “the only philosophy possible”, because it represents the knowledge of nature as it really exists—knowledge acquired through the contemplation, observation and investigation of nature itself. According to him, “the long process of the development of naturalist, rationalist, skeptic, agnostic and materialist thought in ancient India found culmination in the Charvaka system of philosophy, which can be compared with Greek Epicureanism, and as such is to be appreciated as the positive outcome of the intellectual culture of India”. [9]
In his evolution of Indian philosophy Murty too consider philosophy as a rational and comprehensive understanding of nature. He finds Carvaka and early Sankhya as the only rational philosophical systems. In his later writings such as Development of Hinduism, the idea of spiritual democracy of Upanishads is central concept of Hinduism. In Indian Spirit, he evaluates Indian ethics and culture based on humanistic approach. On commenting on his earlier position taken up in Evolution of Indian Philosophy: Now, of course, I would neither be able to agree with a number of its presuppositions and conclusions, nor wholly endorse its approach, method and treatment of thinkers and systems.[10]
Indian social Reality and Caste
The dominant writings on Indian are debated about caste though it conditions the philosophical thinking and everyday life activities in India. Murty is sensitive to social reality in exploring the Indian philosophical traditions. He is critical about the brahminical exposition of Indian philosophy. Historically, we find three positions in connection to caste in academic writings. The traditionalists are strongly supports caste system in their writings. The scholars such as Ambedkar probed the Indian philosophy from a point of annihilation of caste. The social reformers and thinkers such as Gandhi are critically appreciates caste system. Strategically, they argue that core philosophy of Hinduism doesn’t have sanctity for the practice of untouchability. Murty on several occasions brings the role played by caste in the writings of Indian philosophy. Only in the theory of brahminical books we find brahmana supremacy, but that was a dream which never came true, except in the decadent days of india. From his historical observation, he concludes that it was not caste, but power and money-the princes and generals and the merchants- that ruled India.[11]
Murty maintains that early in the history of hindu social organization, the four castes were linked up with four recognizably distinct socio-economic functions in the then existing state of society. For some time at least environment and scrupulous care to train a child in conformity with his supposed svabhava compensated for degradation of the original spiritual ideal. In the end however, the hereditary principle alone triumphed and the caste system, which still survives in deliquescence, based on hereditary specialization, hierarchic organization and a mutual exclusion of castes through compulsory prohibition of interdining and intermarriages, came into vague. As he put forward a view that caste system that has been existing now for centuries in no way corresponds to the chaturvarna described by the scriptures; it is almost a caricature of the spiritual ideal which once inspired the classification of all men into four types, based on their qualities and work, as determined by their svabhavas.[12] He further argues that the power of the theory of brahminical supremacy to tame people was first discovered by the patrimonial Hindu kingdoms. Ultimately, he argues that Hinduism or its scriptures doesn’t have any role for the contemporary inhuman social practice of caste system. This may put in other words that Murty favours Hinduism that doesn’t have sanctity for oppressive and exploitative caste system.
Politics of Exclusion
As against the western dominance, the social elite of early twentieth century powerfully established their culture, religion, philosophy and history as a common tradition of India. They had not only established their subjective continuity with ‘glorious past’ by selective invocation, but also successfully marginalized other knowledge systems of Indian society. The knowledge production is in tune with the political interests of this group. Murty is critical about the canonization of Indian philosophy at academic level. This may be attributed to the institutionalization of Indian philosophy by Brahmin scholars. It is evident that these brahminacal writings are culturally and socially blind to certain styles of doing philosophy. [13]The dominant discourse of Indian philosophy revolves around the Sanskrit texts as the only source of Indian philosophy. But one may find the philosophical churning in the religious and philosophical texts of vernacular languages. As Murty says it is prejudice to think that only works written in Sanskrit, Pali, Ardha Magadhi or Prakrit should be considered as having philosophical value, or that only works which pertain to the six darsanas, the Buddhist schools, Jainism and Lokayata could be philosophical.[14] Murty’s approach to Indian philosophy demands us to take note of diverse philosophical ideas of nation that are even contemporary relevant. The notion of Indian philosophy has changed by his position. He has forcefully argues that the acemic world has to consider the importance of the philosophical ideas expressed in Dravidian, apabramsa and modern indo Aryan languages in writing the history of Indian philosophy. In fact these having permeated various religio-philosophical beliefs and practices continue to dominate them in their contemporary forms.[15] These are not treated as rigorous or hardcore philosophy, but so is not much of what is found in the famous books on Indian philosophy by S. N. Dasgupta and S. Radhakrishnan, or in the works of swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, mahatma Gandhi, Iqbal and others, which are studied as ‘contemporary philosophy’ in Indian universities.[16] Murty evaluated the collections on contemporary Indian philosophy from mid thirties to mid seventies. He finds four major collections in this regard, including his own collection titled current trends in contemporary Indian philosophy.[17] The first book on Contemporary Indian Philosophy was compiled by S. Radhakrishnan and J.H. Muirhead in the year 1936.’ This volume included thirteen essays of this time and further included eleven younger philosophers in the next volume in 1952.[18] K. Sachidananda Murthy commenting on the collection of Radhakrishnan, that there was not a single atheist or materialist among its twenty five contributors, all of them except seven were predominantly influenced by Adavaita Vedanta, and nineteen of them were idealists of some sort or other. In the subsequent collections on contemporary Indian philosophy, Margaret Chattejee and N.K.Devaraja’s collections, Murty observed that no materialist or Marxist find a place. His collection, current trends in contemporary Indian philosophy has marked difference with other writings on the subject, in its approach. Among its twenty-two contributors there are an economist trying to understand the philosophical task, four humanists, a Marxist, an empirical atheistic dualist. It has an essay by DD Kosambi , the Marxist scholar and an essay on M.N.Roy. There is no doubt that Sachidananda Murthy and K. Ramakrishna Rao edited a book, ‘Current Trends in Indian Philosophy’ (1972) is different from earlier works and they made an attempt to provide new vision in capturing contemporary trends of Indian philosophy. They believed that social and political circumstance as well as legal and other institutions will influence the origins, shaping and growth of ideas. This is the time of influencing the radical politics in telugu society. Moreover these thinkers belong to non-brahmin community. As they mentioned in their introduction, Philosophy in modern India is closely related to politics and social conditions and these latter have been shaped by the new material conditions of existence that arose in modern India. He identified the political situation in modern India and mentioned the about communists, socialists parallel to nationalist movement under the leadership of Gandhi. The post independent India under Nehru achieved some progress failed bring the revolution and new society. A ‘dichotomy between ideals and reality’ and a combination of radicalism in principle and conservativism in practice’ has been ‘woven into the fabric of Indian political life.’ [19]
Murty questions the very approach taken by academic scholars in recognizing /excluding and institutionalizing the contemporary Indian philosophers, same as the case with classical Indian philosophers. As he says, it is difficult to identify the criterion by which the inclusion and exclusion of thinkers was made in these books. For example, Narayana Guru, J. Krishnamurti, B.R. Ambedkar and some others are not in any way less important than many of those included in these six books, and some included deserved inclusion in more than one book.[20] We may see the continuation of this institutionalized approach from late seventies to recent times.[21]
In Evolution of Indian Philosophy (1952), one may find Murty’s approach to Indian philosophy in subtle way. He argues that it is necessary to see weather a system of philosophy is in harmony with known facts. Unfortunately no history of Indian philosophy proceeds in this way. Further he believes that criticism is a test for consistency of particular philosophical systems. In words of Murty, usually histories of Indian philosophy have ignored criticism. To interpret is not appreciate rationally. Criticism which tests the consistency of the logic of a particular system of philosophy is to appreciate it rationally. He considers that to approach a philosophical system critically, is to appreciate rationally. He argues that the entire Indian philosophy except that of Carvakas and early Samkhya consists of dogmas and that knowledge which is claimed to have been got in an extraordinary way and which is and will never be verifiable in the ordinary way. According to him, Carvakas and early Samkhya system are strictly qualified as philosophy in Indian philosophical systems. Except his we don’t have any Indian philosophy exclusively based on reason. As per his philosophical scheme, Purva Mimansa and yoga have no right be classed as systems of philosophy though ancient Hindus may have done so. He was even critical about Buddhism and Jainism for their emphasis of bodhi and kevala jnana. Purva Mimansa is scriptural exegesis of the ritual portion. In the earlier stages of intellectual development, systematic thought and belief overlap. The point of departure for a history of philosophy is the distinction between the two. No history of Indian philosophy has done this so far. He points out another defect with traditional approaches of history of Indian philosophy that they confuse religion with philosophy, though the two are not identified. He equate this way of approach with scholasticism of western thought. The characteristic of both scholasticism and Indian philosophy is to systematize and rationalize religious dogma. Further, Murty contends that none of the scientific advances impel the Indian philosophers to make some creative efforts towards new cosmologies. [22]
In Hinduism and Its Development (1947), one may find counter discourse within Hinduism rather negating the Hinduism. Murty provides new meaning for religion in general and Hinduism in particular. He attributes all progressive elements to Hinduism by assimilating the other. On one hand, he is critical about brahminical priestly class for monopolizing religion and making Hinduism as their profession and means of livelihood and for keeping emphasis on performance of ritual and contemplation of sacrifice. He is critical of this kind of Hinduism which becomes mechanical, external and formalistic. On the other hand, he argues Hinduism concerned for ultimate reality, which is manifested in different forms. Religion is viewed as righteous living, and is practice of dharma, which means the inner law of one’s own being. He evaluates Hinduism from a rationalistic and ethical point of view. He is critical of degenerated Hinduism, which upholds the caste inequalities. He considers the true spirit of Hinduism in Upanisads and Bhagvat Gita and finds its continuity in Buddhism. Upanisads are essentially movements which were intended to free the individual from the shackles of external authority and the bonds of excessive convention. Their goal is the merging of the individual consciousness in the universal consciousness. Murty identifies that the establishment of spiritual democracy was the ideal of Upanisads. But this idealistic approach of Upanisadas did not make them blind to the world. They did not preach the unreality and negation of this world. Murty considers the philosophy of Upanisads forms the bedrock of Hinduism. He further argues that idealism of Upanisadas materialized in Gautama Buddha. He considers that Bhagavad Gita and Budhism are the movements of the same spiritual re-emphasis and revival which took place as a reaction against ritualistic religion. Both Gita and Buddha laugh at the idea of supreme by birth; and both care very little for authority of the Vedas. The difference is that, Buddha asks us not to think of transcendental reality and spoil our brain, where as the gita asserts the existence of such reality.
As Buddha attacked superstition and priestcraft and condemned metaphysical web spinning and theological codifying. His appeal was logical and his emphasis was on ethics. Murty views that budha’s teaching was nothing but the popularization of Upanisadic ideal of spiritual democracy. The cardinal tenets preached by the Buddha are the same that have been preached by the upanisads; and Buddhism merely represents a revival of the Upanisadic spiritualism and as such constitutes a new development of Hinduism, suitable for that age. Murty finds no differences between Upanisadic and Buddhist teachings but also finds similarity in religious aspects too, i.e. the Gita and the Mahayana. Further, he makes an interesting note that probably Budha was the forerunner of not only Gandhi but also Marx, and is it too much to say that his doctrine represents a desirable synthesis of Gandhian Idealism and Marxian materialism? Murty views continuity of the Upanisadic wisdom in Sankara with regenerating the spirit of Hinduism at national level. As he explained Sankara was the first who awoke to the national unity of India and the religious unity of Hinduism. He saw around him diverse currents of thought troubling India and disintegrating its harmony. His mission was to synthesis these diverse currents and build up a unity of outlook out of that diversity. Sankara represents the recreation of the forgotten body of knowledge found in the Upanisads.
The undue emphasis on the spiritual made succeeding generations forget the material aspects of India’s culture. The emphasis of the Buddha on sangha and the emphasis of Gita on karma were forgotten. The west due to its exclusive emphasis on the material culture has neglected the spiritual. Totality consists of matter and spirit, the eternal and momentary. The blind rejection of the west by India would make India lifeless. On the other hand, a complete imitation of the west will make her lose her soul. Either way lies unnecessary danger. ..the spirit of the age is represented by the west. India has much to learn from it- its technology, scientific method and industrial advancement. But the west is also in need of learning much and its advances in technology will give little comfort it does not learn the deeper lessons of life from India.

The Spirit of India (1965) is as introduced by Murty is a humanistic approach to Indian culture. This book assumes that it is a philosophical task to understand a culture, and scrutinize, justify and criticize the ideas, attitudes and cosmologies implicit or explicit in it. It attempts to do this not only by positively indicating certain Indian notions to the nature of things and events, but also removing asambhavanas and viparitabhavanas regarding the Indian mentality, found mostly in some western writings. Some of such ideas are: Indians have no conception of history, no awareness of personal god, and no sense of human dignity. They are other worldly, fatalistic, passive and uninterested in the pleasure of the senses, material well being, and progress.


Satchidananda Murty is reconstructed Indian philosophy from the social context of Telugu society. As the Telugu society influenced by anti- brahnminical, Hetuvada (rationalist), Nastika (atheistic), Royist movement (humanistic) and communist movements, Murty too has influenced by these movements directly or indirectly. In this backdrop, his approach to Indian philosophy seems to be radical in his book Evolution of Indian philosophy, which is written in early 1950s.This book provides an alternative approach to Indian philosophy against dominant idealistic/brahminical/spiritual , in the line of Marxist/materialistic approaches of M.N.Roy and Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. He considers philosophical ideas are product of socio –economic conditions. He considers philosophy as rational criticism and evaluates philosophical ideas historically. In his later writings, we may find change in his philosophical position and the methodology in dealing Indian philosophy. In Evolution of Indian Philosophy, we find Sachidananda Murty as a radical critic of dominant constructions of Indian philosophy. In Hinduism and Its Development, he viewed the alternatives to dominant philosophy as integral to Hinduism through a method of assimilation. In The spirit of India, he defends the Indian philosophy against stereotype notions. It is observed that the tone of Murty differs in each of these texts. But he had an attempt to construct Indian philosophy rationalistic and humanistic way. Rather concluding that, he changed his position, we may say that he broadened the canvas of Indian philosophy and adopted new language to articulate his views on Indian philosophy. In Hinduism and Its Development, Murty adopted inclusive approach as he projected the Hinduism as assimilation of various philosophies at given historical times. In that sense even he included Buddhism as a continuation or part of Hinduism. In the Indian Spirit he took the defense Indian philosophy against the notions of western and traditional pundits of India. However, he was not totally deviated from the core assumptions about Indian philosophy. This changing position may observe in Development of Hinduism, Indian Spirit and consequent writings. Though he engaged with Hinduism, Vedas, advaita Vedanta as central to Indian philosophy against Indian materialism, we may find alternative reading of Vedanta from the social claims of non-brahmin. Murty had an advantage from changing his position from radical critic to internal critic of tradition in negotiating about Indian philosophy. His view on brahminical philosophy shares to an extent with non –brahmin thinkers such as Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudhary , Jyothibha Phule, Ramaswamy Periyar and Naryayana Guru than the thinkers inspired by Marxism. There is no doubt that his philosophical approach against dominant brahminical approached provided a ground for later political movements of the oppressed. But at the same time, we may find thinkers like Ambedkar, who took this argument further by critically evaluating Hinduism, reconstructed Indian philosophy on strong philosophical foundations.

End Notes

[1] Satchidananda Murty, K. Philosophy in India, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas and ICPR, 1985 p.VII
[2] Satchidananda Murty, K. Evolution of Indian philosophy, New Delhi: DK print world, 2007(revised ed.), p.23
[3] Ibid.p.30
[4] Satchidananda Murty, K. (Ed.) Readings in Indian HIstory, Politics and Philosophy, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1967. Murty’s interest in historical approach of philosophical ideas could be seen in this compilation.
[5] Ibid.49
[6] Satchidananda Murty, K Philosophy in India p.47
[7] Refer Myths of Indian philosophy by Dayakrishna, and Dogmas of Indian Philosophy by S.N. Dasgupta
[8] Brain Morris , Religion and Anthropology , A critical introduction, Cambridge university press, 2006 p.113
[9] Roy, M.N. Materialism, Delhi: Ajanta Publications, p.94
[10]Satchidananda Murty, K. Philosophy in India p. 99
[11] Satchidananda Murty, K. The Indian Spirit, Pp.14-15
[12] Ibid.Pp.196-197
[13] The prominent texts that informing the Indian philosophy are Surendranath Dasgupta’s ‘History of Indian Philosophy’ in five volumes, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s ‘History of Indian philosophy’ in two volumes, C. D. Sharma’s Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy’, Puligandla’s ‘Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy’, Jadunath Sinha’s Indian Philosophy, P. Nagaraja Rao’s Contemporary Indian philosophy, Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Hiriyanna’s Outlines of Indian Philosophy P. T. Raju’s ‘Structural Depths of Indian Philosophy’ J.N. Mohanty’s ‘Classical Indian Philosophy, An introductory text, Reason and Tradition in Indian Thought: An Essay on the nature of Indian philosophical thinking, and Dayakrishna’s ‘Indian Philosophy: A Counter Perspective’

[14] Ibid.91
[15] Murty argues Alvars and Nayanars 6th century bkati movement, saivasidhantins, sangam poets of tamil society, sahajiya and siddhas (Saraha) of 7th to 11 th century eastern bihar and northern bengal , vacanas of Allamprabhu and basava of 12th century and sarvajna(18th century) of Karnataka,, vemana and Potuluri veerabramendraswamy of Andhra , Mukundaraja, natha yogi(12th century), Chakradhara (13th century), Jnaneswara (13th century), Ramadas (17th century) Tukaram (17 th century ) of Maharastra., Lalla yogisvari (14th century ) Kashmir, kabir(15th century), Swami Ramananda of North India, Bhima Bhoi of Mahima Dharma of Orissa, are expressed their philosophical views in vernacular languages and these views are not considered in history of philosophy and demands for the inclusion.
[16] Ibid.p.91
[17] Themajor writings that are on contemporary Indian philosophy includes, 1.S.Radhakrishnan and J.H.Muirhead, 2. K.Sachidananda and K. Ramakrishna Rao, 3. Margaret Chatterjee 4. N.K.Devaraja,
[18] S.Radhakrishnan and J.H. Muirhead Contemporary Indian Philosophy (New York: Mac Millan , 1936,London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1952)

[19] Satchidananda Murty K, and K.Rama Krishna Rao, Current Trends in Contemporary Indian Philosophy, P.xii
[20] Ibid.p.101
[21] Raghuramaraju’s work on Indian philosophy (Debates in Indian Philosophy- Classical, Colonial and Contemporary, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006) is a recent one. This book even tries to read difference between Gandhi and V.D. Savarkar, but does not have place for Ambedkar. Further he is not considerate for materialistic and Marxist traditions of India.
[22] Satchidananda Murty, K. Evolution of Indian philosophy, New Delhi: DK print world, 2007(revised ed.),

No comments: