- This article classifies Vidyas (knowledge domains) into four and classifies modern disciplines of learning under these categories plus gives benefits of this classification.
India, that is Bharat has been famous all the world over for the contributions she has made to the world’s wealth of learning and knowledge; but it remains to be shown that even in the field of higher learning, our ancients were not without their own ideas of domains of learning and its functional categorisation. Many a times, the world of learners curiously look and try to imbibe from ‘Vishwaguru’ the facets and nuances with which ancient masters had ‘sliced, diced and integrated’ the domains of higher learning/ knowledge.
For many centuries, the great saying/maxim of ‘Gurushukrabrhaspathibhyo
namah’ was wholeheartedly reverberated in Bharatiya traditions of learning. Literally the word meaning depicts that ‘Salutations to Guru, Shukra and Brhaspati’. Though, in essence it indicates beyond this simple notion and connects to the theoretical profoundness with which ancient schools of thought in higher learning were operated.
Starting with Manu-the founder of rules to the ‘welfare administrators who were guided by the disciples/propagators of both Brhaspati and Shukra’ as well as the great nation-builder, author and authority- revered Acharya Kautilya; the ancient schools represented their brand/streamline of higher learning which is referred as ‘Vidya’.
I have attempted
to classify below vidyas along with the implications/resultants. It shows the visionary
approach that was employed by these great masters. The current line of
academicians can apply this for their own understanding, possibly for further
extensions and usage.
The knowledge
domains were primarily classified into four by revered Acharya Kautilya which
includes a) the inquisitive domains like sankhya, yoga and lokayatam, b) Three
vedas with vedanga, c) Industry and business as Vaartha representing all
socio-economic transactions and d) Welfare administration and Justice
represented as Dandaneeti. Three major schools were identified and influencing
the higher learning, namely-Manu, Baarhaspatya and Shukra besides the fourth-all
integrative school of thought popularised and standardised by revered Acharya
Kautilya.
Classification of Vidyas (Knowledge domains)
|
Category
|
Ancient School of Thought
|
|
Manu
|
Baarhaspatya
|
Shukra
|
Kautilya
|
|
|
a) Anweshaki –
(Inquisitive
domains)
(Sankhyam,
Yoga and Lokayatam- Primal focus being Inquisitive refinement)
|
Part of Trayee
|
Not Recognised
|
Not Recognised
|
Emphasised
|
|
|
b) Trayee (Trifolded Vedas)
(Veda with six
vedanga- primal focus on blossoming Cosmic human and transcendental Roles)
|
Emphasised
|
Not Recognised
|
Not Recognised
|
Emphasised
|
|
|
c) Vaartha (Transactional)
(Agriculture,
Industry, Business and Animal husbandry)
|
Emphasised
|
Emphasised
|
Not Recognised
|
Emphasised
|
|
|
d) Dandaneeti
(Structural
Justice)
(Welfare
administration- Acquisition, protection, ascending growth and optimal
distribution of Wealth)
|
Emphasised
|
Emphasised
|
Emphasised
|
Emphasised
|
|
|
Functional Resultants
|
Codes, Rules, Procedures and their
applications.
|
Informative, recognisable and listed
ones.
|
Constructivist, conceptual and
perceptive.
|
Scientific, Judicious and Application
oriented.
|
|
|
Theoretical Implications
|
Invariably Prescriptive theories
|
Mostly Content Dominant theories
|
Mostly Context Dominant theories
|
Systems
theories
|
|
|
More visible in modern disciplines
like that of
|
Law, Linguistics, Public
Administration
|
Education, Agriculture, Industrial
Science, Business and Macro economics
|
Art and Culture, Management,
Medicine,
|
Civics and Politics, Governance,
Sociology, Media studies, inter and
trans disciplinary studies.
|
|
The followers of
Shukra and Brhaspati were more popular as it depicts the content and context
dominant theories of higher learning/vidya. In fact a healthy competition
visibly existed among the scholars and many took either side.
The emergence of ‘Arthasastra’ the magnum opus of revered Acharya Kautilya indicates and is still a shining example of the newer domains of systems learning and its multilateral applications. In point of exhaustiveness, it is doubtful if modern thinkers have created any work which can equal the Arthasastra.
Brhaspati or
Baarhaspatya School emphasise the transactional and welfare administration,
thereby promoting the fields like Agriculture, Industrial Science, Business,
Education and Macro Economics. The primal focus being the content of the
knowledge, this school of thought enrich the domains with more farsighted
theories in respective domains. In other words, modern faculties who want to
excel in the above listed domains should become more attentive in the
transactional and welfare aspects of those domains. This seems to be the
mandate for these identified domains.
Similarly Shukra
School primarily focus on the context, thereby promoting more applied aspects
for disciplines like medicine, management, arts and theater. Welfare
administration and structural/punitive Justice should be the mandate for these
domains of learning.
Disciplines like
Law, Linguistics and Public Administration should focus on prescriptive
theories thereby judiciously combining the ethics/rules, interactions and
welfare administration.
Revered Acharya Kautilya with his farsighted approach had proclaimed and displayed through ‘Arthasastra’, how to balance the aspirations, utilities and mandate of various domains of higher learning and to apply the same to the context envisaging ‘inter’ and ‘trans disciplinary’ studies. This makes his work ever dynamic, adaptable and transcending various time periods of civilisation.
Other supplementary benefits of this classification can be –
a) It is helpful in identifying and delineating the theoretical veracity of discipline concerned. Theories pertaining to Content, Context, Prescriptive or Systems can be identified with respect to the four context.
b) Discipline
specific advantages/ needs can be easily identified. Which kind of theories to
develop and which theories to be applied in a particular context, etc.
c) Enable/Enrich
interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary synchronization.
d) Academic
administrators and policy makers can benefit from this categorisation as it
gives broader framework with the required theoretical backing while defining
the discipline/field of learning.
e) Researchers
will be immensely benefitted by using this matrix as a prism to assess/identify
numerous research needs.
Bharatiya
traditions enable us to embrace the multicameral propensity of higher learning
naturally, thereby envisaging the scope of advanced learning judiciously linked
with the learning domains.
The need of the
hour is first to determine the degree of intertwining needed for a particular
modern discipline and then trying to expand the relevant/applicable theoretical
domains as identified above. This process will certainly boost the knowledge
domain with the relevant theoretical backing and the learners will be immensely
benefitted.
Furthermore when we employ all the four major categories of ‘vidya’, the resultant channelises itself to systems thinking which is more appropriate at this juncture for any institution of higher learning in India.
As an addendum,
this matrix can pave way for further insights to a variety of group of
stakeholders in higher education.
The researchers
and academicians can design the applications of a particular domain of
knowledge and strengthen the relevant theories, thereby contributing to the
core knowledge in that domain. The policy decision making of introducing or
reenergising various undergraduate and post graduate programs can also be
mapped with the backing of such group of theories and the need to incorporate
it into the society at large.
References
1. Brockbank, Anne, 1943-. (2007). Facilitating
reflective learning in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
2. Kauṭalya. (1951). Arthaśastra. Mysore: Printed
at Sri Raghuveer Print. Press.
3. Kauṭalya. (1992). The Arthashastra. New Delhi;
New York, N.Y., USA: Penguin Books India.
Author Dr.K.Subramanian is an Academician, Author and founder of Centre for Studies in Temple administration. He had obtained his PhD from Gandhigram University in the domain of Conflict Management.