Sapiens and Sthitaprajna E-Book

Ashwini Mokashi

• Herausgeber: D.K. Printworld
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 340

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

About the Book
Sapiens and Sthitaprajna studies the concept of a wise person in the Stoic Seneca and in the Bhagavadgita. Although the Gita and Seneca’s writings were composed at least two centuries apart and a continent apart, they have much in common in recommending a well-lived life. This book describes how in both a wise person is endowed with both virtue and wisdom, is moral, makes right judgements and takes responsibility for actions. A wise and virtuous person always enjoys happiness, as happiness consists in knowing that one has done the right thing at the right time.
Both Seneca and the Gita demand intellectual rigour and wisdom for leading a virtuous and effective life. They provide guidelines for how to become and be wise. Both systems demand a sage to be emotionally sound and devoid of passions. This leads to mental peace and balance, and ultimately tranquillity and happiness. While surveying these similarities, this study also finds differences in their ways of application of these ideas. The metaphysics of the Gita obliges the sage to practise meditation, while the Stoics require a sage to be a rational person committed to analysing and intellectualizing any situation.
This comparative study will be of interest to students of both Ancient Western and Ancient Indian Philosophy. Practitioners of Stoicism and followers of the Gita should find the presence of closely-related ideas in a very different tradition of interest while perhaps finding somewhat different prescriptions a spur to action.
About the Author
Ashwini Mokashi was educated at the University of Pune and at King’s College, London. She taught Philosophy at Pune in Wadia and Ferguson colleges and as a guest lecturer at the University of Pune, she taught a comparative course in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit during 1993-95. She now lives in Princeton, New Jersey and works on her writings in philosophy as an independent research scholar. She has served two terms as President of the Princeton Research Forum. Her next project is a personal and philosophical account of a meditational community in Pune and Nimbal.

Leseprobe

Sapiens and Sthitaprajña

Sapiens and Sthitaprajña

A Comparative Study inSeneca’s Stoicism and the Bhagavadgītā

Ashwini Mokashi

Foreword

Sharad Deshpande

Prologue

Shivaji Sondhi

Cataloging in Publication Data — DK

[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. <[email protected]>]

Mokashi, Ashwini, 1968- author.

Sapiens and sthitaprajña : a comparative study in

Seneca’s stoicism and the Bhagavadgītā / Ashwini

Mokashi ; foreword, Sharad Deshpande ; prologue,

Shivaji Sondhi.

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 9788124609637 (hbd.)

1. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, approximately 4 bc –

65 ad — Criticism and interpretation. 2. Bhagavadgītā.

— Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Stoics. 4. Wisdom.

5. Philosophy, Ancient. 6. Hindu philosophy.

7. Philosophy, Comparative. I. Title.

LCC B528.M65 2019 | DDC 188 23

ISBN: 978-81-246-1055-8

First published in India in 2020

© Ashwini Mokashi

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, except brief quotations, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of the copyright holder, indicated above, and the publishers.

Printed and published by:

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.

Regd. Office: “Vedaśrī”, F-395, Sudarshan Park

(Metro Station: ESI Hospital), New Delhi - 110015

Phones: [phone], 2546 6019

e-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.dkprintworld.com

Dedicated to

My Spiritual Guru

Prof. R.D. Ranade

whose lifework and philosophical writings have provided

the torchlight and backbone for our existence,

even when I never got to meet him in person!

and

my late grandfather

Shankarrao B. Mokashi

who encouraged me and taught me philosophy

from as early as possible, and

left a deep impression on me of human values,

by following them himself and becoming my guru,

and an ideal of what a person can be.

Foreword

Amongst all living beings only humans have the concept of an ideal. An ideal is something which is to be looked up to, to aspire for and to pursue not for any reason, but for its intrinsic worth. What is that ideal the pursuit of which would make human life worth living and a human being an ideal human being? Is there any conceptual difference between the “good” and the “ideal”? Can there be an ideal human being ever, given his/her akratic nature, his/her tendency to act against reason, to succumb to temptation? How to survive and behave virtuously in the face of evil? Are the concepts of the good life and of an ideal human being culture-specific? Keeping these questions in mind Ashwini Mokashi initiates a rich cross-cultural probing of the notion of an ideal human or Sapiens as propounded by Seneca – one of the widely known Stoic philosophers of the fourth century bce – and the Sthitaprajña as propounded in the sacred text, the Bhagavadgītā, the authorship of which is attributed to Maharṣi Vyāsa, though in the epic text of Mahābhārata it is revealed by Lord Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa to Arjuna.

What is wisdom and who is a wise person are the two questions that lie at the heart of the notion of an ideal human being as it was conceived in the ancient Indian and Graeco-Roman traditions. The genesis of the concept of a wise person dates back to the Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato in the Western tradition and to the Upaniṣads in the Indian tradition. The Upaniṣads (like the Īśa and the Kaṭha) seek to establish the true nature of the indwelling Self. Thus, by implication one who knows the true nature of the indwelling Self (the Ātman) would be a wise person or an ideal human being in the Upaniṣadic context of the supreme ideal of self-realization. Unlike the metaphysical message of the Upaniṣads, the Bhagavadgītā contains practical advice given by Lord Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa to Arjuna who is facing a moral dilemma on the battlefield – whether to fight with kinsfolk who have now turned into enemies. So, in the Bhagavadgītā the question, “who is a wise person” or “who is an ideal human being” is raised in the context of knowing one’s duties, i.e. sva-dharma, especially in morally ambivalent situations. The resolution of conflicting duties requires a certain state of being. As an adjective the word sthitaprajña denotes this state of being as one of maintaining steady or unwavering (sthita) intelligence (prajñā) while resolving conflicting duties, and as a noun it refers to a person who possesses such unwavering intelligence which is reflected in his/her behaviour. But the sthitaprajña state of being cannot be episodic. It must be a stable disposition throughout all situations in one’s life. Such a state of being is cultivated through yoga, i.e. the practice of equanimity towards happiness and misery in life (samatvam), and non-attachment (anāsakti) towards the fruits of action. Equanimity (samatvam) and non-attachment (anāsakti) are at the core of two central notions of the Bhagavadgītā, viz. jñāna-yoga and karma-yoga. The Bhagavadgītā also characterizes sthitaprajña as samādhistha and yogastha, i.e. as one who pays equal attention to the positive and negative aspects of any course of action, remains equally detached from happiness and suffering, and as one who has internalized yoga, performs actions stemming from equanimity. Ashwini Mokashi’s elaboration of sthitaprajña, samādhistha and yogastha is useful for the general reader in understanding the Bhagavadgītā’s conception of an ideal human being.

The concept of Sapiens or ho Sophós first entered Graeco-Roman culture when the Delphic Oracle declared Socrates to be the wisest man amongst all because he lived a virtuous life. Latter-day Stoics codified Socratic values into an ethical system. This ethical system evolved round a cluster of ideas such as virtue (a̓reté) or excellence of any kind, the good life (eu̓daimonía) or human flourishing or prosperity, appropriate behaviour (kathēkonta), affinity, affiliation or endearment

(oi̓keiôsis) appetite or impulsive response (hormai), giving assent to the right judgement (katasýnthesis), a sense of detachment

(a̓pátheía) and purpose or goal (telos).

Ashwini Mokashi addresses these questions, namely, who is a Sapiens and how does one become a Sapiens in the framework of these extremely complex ideas. As per the most general and somewhat simplistic account a Sapiens is a virtuous person whose conduct is rational, who possesses the knowledge of good and bad and who does not suffer from the weakness of will (akrasia). She traces various formulations of the concept of Sapiens in the writings of early Stoics, Plato, Aristotle and Zeno, and compares them with Seneca’s formulation. A Sapiens, in all these formulations, is viewed under the threefold aspect of téchne (craft or art, or practice), epistēmē (knowledge) and phrónesis (wisdom). How these aspects are related to one another according to the ancient Greeks and what they meant by these terms are extremely important questions. In the history of Greek philosophy and ethical theory, one finds multiple answers with regards to the meanings of these terms and their relation with one another. Ashwini Mokashi builds on these multiple meanings of téchne, epistēmē and phrónesis, and how they are related to one another in the work of Plato, Aristotle and the early Stoics, while expounding Seneca’s views which are expressed as an informed commentary by an independent mind on the established Stoic ethical theory developed by Zeno, Aristo and Chrysippus. As Ashwini Mokashi observes, Stoic ethics in general and Seneca’s views in particular focus on virtue which is relevant to the three principal aspects of philosophy, viz. logic, physics and ethics. On this view a Sapiens is one who has achieved excellence in all these branches and has become an exemplar. However, a Sapiens as an exemplar has to emerge as a person who progressively tries to overcome residual tendencies to deviate from the Stoic ideals of virtue, endearment, impulsive response, detachment, etc. as mentioned above. This emphasis makes Seneca’s ethics action-oriented and his philosophy practice-oriented. Seneca’s focus is on training oneself in the cultivation of virtue in various situations rather than simply cogitating over what is virtue by trying to understand what a wise person would do. The process of becoming a Sapiens illustrates Seneca’s philosophical psychology involving a treatment of the emotions of anger and grief.

Every culture is unique in terms of its Weltanschauung. By bringing together the two ideals, the Sapiens and the Sthitaprajña, Ashwini Mokashi shows how they are embedded in their respective cultures having distinct world views, and to what extent these ideals are analogous. It is often said that Indian ethical theory is a type of virtue ethics which is akin to the virtue-oriented ethical theories of the ancient Greeks and Stoics as opposed to the rule-oriented obligation theories of the modern West. But beneath this surface similarity, there is a profound difference between the two ethical systems, since they are anchored in fundamentally different world views. The Indian world view takes mokṣa or nirvāṇa, i.e. liberation from bondage, as the ultimate goal of life; whereas for the Greeks it is eu̓daimonía, i.e. a life of happiness lived in accordance with virtue. Now, if Greek ethics is termed as virtue ethics because it seeks to answer questions like “what is the good life?” and “how should I live?” keeping virtue as the ultimate goal, then as suggested by some scholars, Indian ethics ought to be called “liberation ethics” since it takes liberation from bondage as the ultimate goal. Given this fundamental difference in the conception of the ultimate goal, how to justify the claim that Indian liberation ethics has affinities with the virtue ethics of the Greeks? The liberated state of existence (mokṣa or nirvāṇa) would ipso facto manifest virtue, and thereby be a value for Indian ethical theorists. But from the point of view of the Greeks, it would not. Hence the seeming similarities are to be seen in the context of this fundamental difference. Ashwini Mokashi traces these similarities in terms of three sets of connected concepts and issues. The first set consists of virtue, the choice of being virtuous, the choice of action, detachment and equanimity. The second set consists of wisdom, judgement and the schooling of a wise person. The third set of notions falls within the domain of psychology dealing with anger, passions and peace of mind, leading to happiness. Likewise, the differences between the Gītā’s ideal of Sthitaprajña and Seneca’s Sapiens are to be understood in terms of mokṣa, dharma, sva-dharma and the process of becoming a wise person. In this context knowing how these terms are understood within the Vedic and the Upaniṣadic tradition in general and in the text of Bhagavadgītā in particular becomes pertinent.

Considerations of mokṣa, dharma and the process of becoming a wise person or an ideal human being lead to a deeper inquiry into the complex relationship between mokṣa and dharma in the Vedic and the Upaniṣadic tradition. Historically speaking, the idea of mokṣa appears in the later Upaniṣads. In the Vedic literature dharma is understood as the cosmic rule of maintenance and the well-being of the world order or, in the human context, the highest goal of life. As far as mokṣa is concerned, though the epic texts consider it as beyond the discipline of dharma, yet the attainment of mokṣa is possible through similar means which are “needed to conform to dharma”. As Daniel H.H. Ingalls puts it, the Bhagavadgītā is the “culminating instance of this trend”.

Many Western scholars have argued that mokṣa and dharma are incompatible since the former has intrinsic value while the latter has only the instrumental value insofar as it is conducive to the attainment of mokṣa. This incompatibility is explained historically by pointing out that the idea of mokṣa (release from bondage) is later than the idea of dharma in the Vedic and early Indian literature. But apart from chronological considerations and apart from the fact that in due course mokṣa became the highest goal of life in the later literature; mokṣa and dharma are considered incompatible because whereas dharma is life affirming, mokṣa entails renunciation of life experiences in the empirical world. This incompatibility cannot be resolved unless it is recognized that dharma and mokṣa are different level concepts. From the mokṣa-centric point of view, dharma may have less value or no value. But dharma in itself is valuable in the empirical world because as such, no distinction can be made between what is valuable and what is not. But if this distinction was to be made, it is not by any other agency like the liberated soul like the Buddha or exemplars like Socrates, but the individual himself or herself has to make this distinction, he/she has to realize what the highest good is. The role of dharma in the process of becoming a wise person is precisely this, not to give moral precepts but to give ethical guidance to people, by making them see what is good according to their make-up and inclinations. This aspect of the process of becoming a wise person and the role of dharma in it is different from the Greek way of becoming a wise person. Whether the practice of dharma is a moral pursuit or whether it is prudence is a matter of further reflection.

By giving a rich descriptive account of two ancient traditions of theorizing on the summum bonum of life and the concept of the ideal human being, Ashwini Mokashi invites the reader to engage with philosophical issues involved in this cross-cultural exploration. This makes the book worth reading.

Sharad Deshpande

Former Tagore Fellow

Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla

Prologue

I came across the thesis of this book over two decades back when I first met the author and was immediately taken with it. The Indian half of it was mostly familiar. The Bhagavadgītā was the central Hindu text in the family in which I grew up. Its second chapter was the subject of a large number of scholarly expositions by the late and learned Swami Budhananda of the Ramakrishna Mission in Delhi to which we had all gone during my youth. The dramatic setting of the Gītā – on the very battlefield of Kurukṣetra which appeared to stand metaphorically for the theatre of all life – made Kr̥ṣṇa’s teaching to Arjuna unforgettable. Indeed it is surely no accident that modern Indians starting with the supremely distinguished Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak have found in the Gītā a better starting point for confronting the challenges of modern life than many other Hindu texts. Modern life demands a constant readjustment of focus – more on which below.

However the second half of the thesis – the concept of the Wise Person (Sapiens) in Seneca was entirely new to me. Listening to the author and like the author herself, I was struck by the strong parallels between the ideal of the sthitaprajña and the ideal of the Sapiens and marvelled that two geographically and temporally distant schools of thought had commended the same life of wisdom to their contemporaries. I was further struck by Seneca’s formulation of the path to wisdom as learning to separate emotions from “giving assent to them” which complemented the Hindu wisdom I was familiar with. In fact, that is the sort of language, I suspect, that appeals to physicists, it certainly appealed to this one.

Given my own enthusiastic response to the ideas discussed in this book, I am therefore delighted that they are seeing the light of day in published form and I hope that you, the reader, will find them just as interesting and worthy of incorporating into your Weltanschauung on matters historical, philosophical and perhaps personal. The book itself is a broad sketch of the connections and I am sure others will find it interesting to take a more detailed look at the comparison and will deepen, improve and correct it as needed. I am personally curious whether it is possible to trace any actual and relevant “transfer of knowledge” between India and the Greco-Roman world which were, after all, connected during this period.

On the last front it is perhaps worth noting that the period between the formulation of the ideas in this book and its appearance has been characterized by a massive intrusion of information technology into human affairs. We are now truly living in the information age but it is equally an age of mass distraction wherein untold “bits” compete constantly for our scarce attention and push our minds in competing directions. The public intellectual who has, in my judgement and that of many others, has perhaps showed the most insight into the unique challenges it brings to humans alive today is Yuval Noah Harari. Harari himself recommends meditation – he has been a practitioner of the Hindu–Buddhistic (perhaps Indic would be a better term) vipassanā technique for decades – which is discussed in the present book as the Hindu route to actually becoming a sthitaprajña. By contrast one might identify practitioners of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy as Seneca’s heirs – they are engaged in learning to give “assent to their emotions”. So these most ancient of schools of thought are urgently relevant today. At least as sources of technique but perhaps also as sources of aspiration – which generally makes technique easier to assimilate.

In any event, I should no longer stand between you and the book. I commend it most highly. Indeed, I was impressed enough with the ideas that I married the author.

8 March 2019Professor Shivaji Sondhi

Department of Physics

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ (USA)

Preface

This work began in the fall of 1992, when I envisioned comparing the Stoics with the Gītā given what I saw as their apparent similarities in thinking, their ways of addressing the social and societal challenges, and their goals of raising a morally sound community despite all the wars and chaos surrounding them. I worked on these ideas for many years, finally concluding the thesis in 2002. Then I took a long break from the academic studies, went to work in the corporate world, in other words went to the school of life – experienced various ups and downs of life – and realized how important these ideas and ideals are and yet how difficult it is to practice them, to implement them in our lives and to appreciate detachment (vairāgya).

Pursuit of wisdom, virtue and happiness is a lifelong goal and the process of attaining it is a worthwhile experience. This realization helped me become an improved person at each step of life, with each new challenge teaching me to return to the principles I had already learnt. The themes in the ancient texts continue to dominate the conversation, while the quest for happiness is pursued anew with each new generation. Nevertheless, the ancient wisdom has stood the test of time and it behooves us to apply these principles to modern situations.

When I revisited my old writings after a decade or more, I realized the academic work of the comparison between the Stoics and the Gītā is not just for the scholars of philosophy, but it has major implications for all. One can evaluate the current challenges in our global community in a cohesive way using these lenses.

A mere hundred years ago, people referred to philosophical and spiritual wisdom for answers to their daily dilemmas. Now in 2018, we are less clear about the purpose of life, about philosophizing an issue and rising over our challenges. Rather we are more into psycho-analysing issues with the modern tools of analytical psychology and as a result even our daily rhetoric is about whether our stress levels are within normal range or abnormal range, what mental disorders people may have and how to treat those, how to control the epidemic of emotional disorders in our schools, workplaces or families. There is a serious lack of in-person communication, a lack of parental authority and a lack of available grandparents or extended family members, who are interested in passing on the ancient wisdom to the new generation. Not to mention a lack of ideal seers, who can guide us in crisis.

At this point, this book attempts to fill that gap by providing some moral, philosophical or spiritual food for thought, so that the new generations can refer to our ancient seers from different parts of the globe and reach their own moral solutions. It is important to find our own paths in life and make principled decisions, understand the constraints of our situations and figure out an optimum solution. If we understand the principles of science and morality, then morally sound solutions will become clear to us. Our knowledge of science will help us understand how things essentially work and our knowledge of morality will help us understand how it ought to be done, clearing a path to attain peace and happiness at least at some optimal level.

In a global sense, the world is divided among those who are working members of a society and those who are not. Productive members of the society have very little time at their disposal to pursue development of virtues in their leisure. They have no leisure. Others do not have the confidence or the luxury of understanding how important it is to pursue the development of virtues. Hence other than looking towards a few ideals in the society – if any – most people are in search of ideals or seers that are not available readily. They look up to the world of celebrities, but celebrities are simply known for being famous and not for being the epitome of virtue or wisdom. We face this gap daily.

Very rarely do we ask, can we develop virtues and become self-reliant to find one’s own answers to challenges of life? What does it mean to develop such qualities and how does it lead to the pursuit of happiness? On the one hand, we are aware of our stress levels or anxiety levels, and we try to optimize benefits and minimize challenges of all kinds in conscious or subconscious ways. Sometimes it seems like a zero-sum game.

On the other hand, when we look at the teachings of Stoics and the Gītā, we realize that they try to bring us all to a higher plane by creating a positive thought wave, providing goals, showing a path to follow to reach those goals, creating a good ambience both inside in our psyches and outside in our knowledge base trying to create happier circumstances.

The central problem in all the ancient and modern cultures is how to behave, what is virtue and wisdom, and how to inculcate it in society, how to maintain discipline by using law and order, how to encourage people to become good, how to achieve happiness and well-being. The ancient societies tried to address some of these issues by asking people to turn into good ideal human beings who then will enable to create a good society sans criminal activity. The modern societies use force through law and order situations. The police force distinguishes people as good or bad based on their actions/records. Hence it is always important to stay on the good side of the law. Once your record is tainted, there is very little chance to convince others that you are still a good person. These challenges are faced by every new generation. This was true 2,000 years ago and it is true now. We can perhaps find some guidance in these teachings and try to use the ancient wisdom to work on the internal dynamic of an individual as well as a community of such individuals, which will create a better society.

This book puts two great texts together – Seneca and the Gītā in a dialogue on these questions. Their dialogue addresses their methods and tools, and discusses their solutions in attaining the goal of individual as well as societal well-being. Whether they succeed compared to each other is not the major point of concern. The concern is how do they succeed in their own spheres and whether together we can create some solutions for our global world that consider some of their strategies for achieving happiness, peace and well-being by creating virtue and wisdom pathways. Given what a global society we live in, where the ways of the East and ways of the West are seriously intertwined in the world, whether one lives in the US, Europe, India or any other country/continent, most urban areas experience some form of cultural mishmash.

There are still a few places in the world, such as villages or small cities, where cultural norms and bonds are very strong and so the expectations of behaviour are very clear. As a result, it is also very clear what misbehaviour is. In such cases, communication is straightforward, as all members have similar values and principles. Any wrong behaviour has a genesis of wrong thinking. Therefore, if the thinking is set straight, the behaviour is also controlled.

Now it is true that there is a lot of muddled thinking in the current times about deciphering right from wrong. It stretches from mundane matters of daily lives to criminal actions. For example, a simple act of how to address people can become very complicated – whether to call them he, she, s/he or they, if you are trying to do justice to various views on gender identity or gender fluidity. Likewise, puzzlement can arise while talking about criminal matters, whether an act of murder should be categorized as a terrorist act, a first-degree murder, a second-degree murder or a self-defence murder, a part of mass murder – these are all matters of deliberation. Nevertheless, one has some notion of how to deem a certain act as a criminal act, and when details of the matter can pose problems in understanding, then it leads to public debates in various mediums of discussion. There is confusion of all sorts and opinions of various kinds.

The ancient world was not that different in character. Perhaps it helped that it was a much smaller world, since different communities operated separately, and they had a complete power of jurisdiction in their local domain. Yet they dealt with similar problems, such as what is a war-death and what is a murder, who is being wise and who is just clever, who is working for a greater good of the mankind and who is working to fill his own pocket. Problems were simpler, but similar.

The background stories of Arjuna in the Gītā fighting the evil Kauravas and the story of Seneca fighting the evil Nero seem to correlate on the question of how to survive and behave virtuously in the face of evil. Arjuna was about to fight a war with his cousins, who denied him and his brothers their share of inheritance of the kingdom. After their father died, their uncle took over the kingdom to rule, until the young princes came of age. When the Pāṇḍavas (Arjuna and his four brothers) were educated and ready to rule their kingdom, they were denied their rights as princes by their evil cousins, who wanted to be the sole inheritors of the kingdom. At that point, the Pāṇḍavas decided to go to war for they believed it was the right thing to do, because (a) they were the original and rightful heirs of the kingdom, and (b) they were righteous kings and would rule better as opposed to their evil cousins who would ruin the society. The Pāṇḍavas envisioned that the choice was also between killing or being killed in the process of doing the right thing. Nevertheless, having formulated the question in terms of right and wrong (dharma and adharma), Arjuna still got into a state of confusion and turmoil, when he faced his cousins, gurus and grandfather in front of him – whom he would be required to kill to gain his rights. The idea of losing so many loved ones and the potential bloodshed made him recoil in horror. He lost all hope, energy and a will to fight, and could not imagine that the way to the righteous goal involved so much murder and mayhem. At that point, he asked Lord Kr̥ṣṇa, his charioteer for some guidance to seek a solution and understand what his dharma was, the right action that he should pursue.

In another time and place, Seneca faced a similar question while advising his countrymen to do the right thing and having to take the decision for himself of doing the right thing – which eventually resulted into a slow and torturous suicide along with his beloved wife. A young and talented Seneca was appointed as the “advisor to the Emperor”, a very enviable position of power in the Roman kingdom. Along with that distinction, he also established his mark as a philosopher by writing prolific literature in Stoicism and is one of the few Stoics whose work has survived through centuries. Seneca was second only to Nero in the social hierarchy. The Emperor Nero became one of the most hated figures of the ancient times. As a result, Seneca’s own existence became very precarious.

Given the war-ridden backgrounds of these two texts, it is very interesting that they taught similar principles of morality, while facing essentially similar challenges of how to face evil. Their advice is given to men of action, and sometimes also includes women and children. For example, Kr̥ṣṇa advises Draupadī, wife of the Pāṇḍavas, about how to treat the Kauravas, when they have insulted her to the core of her being. Seneca writes a book on how to console Marcia, a young mother who has lost her son and is grief-stricken.

While the distinction between men and women is neither highly elaborated, nor remarkably excluded, it is safe to say that the text addresses both the genders. In the Western scholarship, it is a great concern to address men and women with equal treatment while giving a preference to a female pronoun to make up for the injustices of the past. I have tried to observe those rules as much as possible, but sometimes the pronouns are used interchangeably without any intention of making a distinction in gender roles. The term sapiens is gender-neutral, while the term sthitaprajña can be used for females with an additional “a” at the end of the word. In India, ancient texts are still treated in their essence as they were meant to be read, so while protecting the sensitivities of my Indian readers, I do apologize for any confusion in the use of pronouns.

I hope readers will find this book food for thought and a spurt to action.

Princeton, NJ

Contents

Foreword– Sharad Deshpande

Prologue – Shivaji Sondhi

Preface

Acknowledgements

1. Introduction

Comparative Philosophy

Plan of Action

Chapter Layout

Stoicism

History of the Stoa and Its Development

Life of Seneca

Seneca’s Style of Writing

Influence of Stoicism and Seneca

Introduction to the Bhagavadgītā

Authorship of the Gītā

Teachings of the Gītā

Upaniṣads and the Gītā

The Gītā and the Six Darśanas

Style of the Gītā

Commentaries on the Gītā

2. Seneca’s Sapiens

Background of the Concept

Who is a Sapiens?

Characteristics of a Sapiens

Ethics in Action

Significance for Contemporary Life

How Does one Become a Sapiens?

Stoic Ethics: Focus on Virtue

Oi̓keiôsis

Detachment: Trait of Character

Theory of Indifferents

Different Aspects of Wisdom

Kathēkonta

Stoic Dialectics : Theory of Assent

Laws of Nature (Telos)

Theory of Impulse

Life of Contemplation and Philosophic Leisure

Seneca’s Treatment of Emotions

Discourse on Anger

Causes of Anger

Futility of Anger

Utility of Anger

Treatment of Anger

Discourse on Grief

Being in Pain Is Unnatural

Cure for Grief

Discourse on Death

Pythian Oracle: “Know Thyself!”

Living Life to The Fullest

Culmination of Stoic Ethics into Happiness

Harmony in Thought and Action

Seneca On Tranquillity

Virtue Is the Foundation for Happiness

Pleasure Vs Happiness

Philosophical Critique and Reflections

Indifference to Wealth and Accumulation of Wealth

Seneca’s Own Wealth Questioned

Pitfalls of The Concept of The Sapiens: Utopian and Elitist

On Theories Regarding Emotions

Falling in Love Not Allowed

Emotions Confused with Passions Simultaneously Denied

Contradictory Views on Anger

Platonic Idealism Reflected in Stoicism

3. Sthitaprajña : The Sage of the Gītā

Introduction

Description of Sthitaprajña

Various Terms Denoting the Sage: sthitaprajña

State of Wisdom

Genesis of the Concept in the Upaniṣads

Process of Becoming a Sthitaprajña

Simile of a Chariot from the Upaniṣads

Abandonment of Desires

Power of Mind

Resolute Buddhi

Discipline of Senses

Mokṣa (End Goal)

Mokṣa Achieved through Meditation

Brahman

Sādhanā: Pathway and Prerequisites of Meditation

Samādhi

Karma-yoga and Jñāna-yoga

Jñāna-Yoga

Karma-Yoga

Svadharma and Paradharma

No Conflict between Karma-Yoga and Jñāna-Yoga

Sthitaprajña: An Expert in Karma-yoga and Jñāna-Yoga

Acquisition of Virtue

Equanimity as a Virtue

Tranquillity as a Virtue

Non-Attachment as a Virtue

Promise of True Happiness

Śānti, Nirvāṇa and brāhmī-sthiti

Philosophical Critique and Reflections

Morality of Right Action

Gītā’s Perspective on The External World: Two Objections

Destruction of Intelligence because of Failure to Abide by Yoga

Renunciation Rejected by the Gītā

Concern for Oneself and Concern for the Other

Is Happiness a Feeling?

4. Philosophical Comparison between Seneca and the Gītā

Introduction

Social Background

Structure of Society and Description of Era

A Way of Life

Concepts Embedded in Broader Culture/Literature

Points of Agreement

Virtue

Being Virtuous

Choice of Action

Detachment

Equanimity

Wisdom

How to Make a Good Judgement

Wisdom vs Non-Wisdom

Schooling of a Wise Person

Wisdom and Poverty

Certifying a Person as a Sage

Understanding Psychology

Therapeutic Treatment of Anger

Passions Denied

Tranquillity as a Solution

Happiness as a Reward

Points of Disagreement

Metaphysical Differences

Touch of Divine in the Gītā

Idea of Transcendental Happiness

Summum Bonum: Mokṣa

Conceptual Differences

Description of Sages

Disparate Notions in Stoic Ethics

Differences in Ethical Concepts

Concept of Dharma

Difference in Processes of Becoming A Wise Person

Morality Combined with The Notion of Right Action

Seneca’s Treatment/Therapy of Emotions

Conclusion

5. Conclusion

Epilogue

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge help and support of those who have enriched my work as well as given me keener insights into philosophical issues. I am indebted to them for their input in various ways.

Thanks are due to the following institutions for their invaluable contribution during this period: King’s College, London for hosting me for a year in 1992 as a student; Philosophy Department of the University of Pune, where I was a PhD student (from 1993-96 and later a long-distance student from 1996 to 2002); Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi, for the Junior Research Fellowship grant, 1994 to 1996; Firestone Library and the Philosophy Department at the Princeton University (from 1996 to 2002) for allowing me access to research materials and for auditing courses in the Greek philosophy.

I would like to thank Prof. S.R. Talghatti from University of Pune for supervising my work, for his help, patience and encouragement; Prof. Sir Richard Sorabji for encouraging the idea of comparative research between Seneca and the Gītā and supervising my work on Seneca in the Fall of 1992 at King’s College, London; Prof. John Cooper at Princeton University and Prof. Robert Thurman at Columbia University for letting me audit their courses for philosophical exchanges.

I am much obliged to Mrs Madhuri Santanam Sondhi (Senior Fellow of ICPR), Prof. Robert Holmes (Professor of Philosophy at Rochester University) and Prof. Raphael Woolf (Professor of Philosophy at Kings College, London) for their valuable advice and feedback on the thesis.

I would like to thank Prof. David Sedley and late Prof. John Procope, both at the University of Cambridge, UK, late Prof. R. Sundara Rajan and late Prof. S.R. Barlingay at Pune for providing comments on some early drafts and ideas.

Thanks are in order to Prof. Saroja Bhate, former Head of Sanskrit Department in the University of Pune, for taking great interest in comparative Greek and Indian studies and for letting me run the course “Greek and Sanskrit: A Comparative Study” at the University of Pune during the years 1993 to 1995, to Prof. Sharad Deshpande at the University of Pune for teaching me the value of repeated corrections of a piece of writing, to Prof. Pradeep Gokhale at the University of Pune for reading the original Gītā with me.

I am much grateful to Prof. Sharad Deshpande, Prof. Michael Cook and Prof. Shivaji Sondhi for their kind words of encouragement and generous support in writing foreword, endorsement and prologue, respectively.

I would like to thank my many friends at King’s College, London, University of Pune and Princeton Research Forum for keeping me on my toes and challenging my ideas. Special thanks to Dr Karen Reeds, for being my book-editor and for being a wise friend and for believing that the book has a wider audience than just a few friends!

I would also like to thank D.K. Printworld’s Mr Susheel Mittal for publishing this book and encouraging an upcoming author. Without his support, the book would have remained only as a thesis. Thanks also to Mrs Madhu Chowdhury for independently helping me with the cover design, and Mr Harvindar Singh for computer graphics.

At a personal level, I would like to thank my late grand-parents, Mr S.B. Mokashi and Mrs Parvatibai Mokashi for providing me the connection to the spiritual pursuit of teachings of the Nimbal Sampradāya. Special thanks to my mother, late Mrs Usha Mokashi, for taking pride in my wanting to be a philosopher and for believing in me, thanks to my brother Mr Ajay Mokashi and my father Mr Arvind Mokashi for showing me the impracticality of being a philosopher, but encouraging my work all the same! I would like to thank my illustrated father-in-law late Prof. M.L. Sondhi, for pursuing what is meaningful in life and being a great role model; to my mother-in-law Mrs Madhuri Sondhi for many intellectual conversations over two decades and for insisting that she wants a copy of this book on her shelf!

Also heartfelt thanks to my beautiful family – my physicist husband Shivaji Sondhi for his intellectual fellowship and many wise suggestions, and my lovely daughters Ambika and Leelavati for their priceless presence in my life! Ambika was especially kind in going through a few chapters of my draft at the age of fifteen and I hope, so will Leelavati, when she turns fifteen.

All of you have shaped my views and my personality, so my thanks to all of you for giving me a chance to reflect.

1

Introduction

This book is a comparative work between ancient Western and Indian philosophy. It is a comparison of the concept of the “wise person”, as it appears in both the philosophies of Stoic Seneca and the Bhagavadgītā (Gītā). The wise person is referred to as the Sapiens in Seneca and as the Sthitaprajña in the Bhagavadgītā. Both texts were written sometime around the first century bce. The Gītā was written in Sanskrit and the Stoic texts of Seneca were written in Latin. The thesis makes several references to various Sanskrit, Latin and Greek concepts while explaining the terminology in detail. Both writings have had an impact on philosophical literatures of many languages, such as German, Marathi, Sanskrit and literature in English. The genesis of the concept of the wise person dates to the Greek philosophy of Socrates and Plato in the Western tradition; in the Indian tradition, it dates to the Upaniṣads. The writings of Seneca and the Gītā display many similar philosophical insights. The Sapiensand the Sthitaprajña clearly display a “family resemblance” in their internal structure as well as outward manifestation. In this book, we will subject the resemblance to closer scrutiny.

Comparative Philosophy

In general, comparing two similar ideas from distant cultures serves many purposes:

1. It gives one a chance to examine these ideas from two different perspectives.

2. It allows a re-examination of their successes and failures.

3. It focuses attention on their common elements and hence points to universal imperatives.

4. It brings two different lines of thoughts together in the mainstream of philosophical thinking, allowing one a greater field for experimentation with different ideas and schools of thought.

5. It underscores the consequences of a philosopher’s role in identifying and addressing ethical problems across periods and cultures.

In addition, comparing the idea of the wise person has the following advantages:

a. It allows us to see the possibility as to how some people can actualize their potential in ethical and moral terms, whereas most others focus on mundane pragmatic requirements.