1. INTRODUCTION:

The physical world inhabited by races and nations, apart with socio-economic-cultural and geo-political uniqueness, is coming into proximity with deep intimacy that tends to evolve a world of common ideas and belief. Realization of this propinquity is more into the arena of science and scientific subjects with no exception to philosophical arena. The contribution Vedic Philosophy (Vedas and Upanishads) towards global thought is well known to those who have little acquaintance with it (Datt 1948). The root of this thought can be traced in the earliest literature of India, The Vedas (which goes back to at least 3000 years before Christ) followed by certain treaties written in prose and verse called ‘Upanishads’- philosophic thoughts of utterances of truths intuitively perceived or felt as unquestionably real carries great vigor and persuasiveness (as old as 500 BC to 700 BC) (Dasgupta 1922).

Dandekar (2000) has mentioned that the beginnings of all branches of knowledge are traditionally traced back to Vedic Sources. Dr. Radhakrishnan (1968) noted that “They are not original with me if they are not yours as much as mine, they are nothing or next to nothing”, said Watt Whiteman. The most unique and essential feature of The Vedas is ‘apauruseyatva’, which means made on behalf of it (Dandekar 2000). It implies that no human agency has been responsible for the creation of Veda.

Upanishad, one of the integral parts of Vedic philosophy describes the jnanakanda. However in the Muktikopanishad, however, only 108 are stated to have been identified. Adi Shankar provided detailed explanation to ten Upanishad only. The Upanishads, though remote in time from the humanity, are not remote in thought.

The Vedas being valuable, desirable and good in itself has its economic ethics which can be seen at par with the modern economic theories (Rao 1970). The doctrine of ‘purusharthas’- ‘dharma’, ‘artha’, ‘kaama’ and ‘moksha’- recognizes and substantiates the above facts. The famous verse of Mahabharata that proclaims as regard to these four ‘purusharthas’ that what is found here may be elsewhere but what is not here will not found elsewhere (cited in Balsubramania Iyer 1969).

2. PHILOSOPHY AND ECONOMICS INTERFACE:

The subject matter of philosophy is not universally unique (Berlin 2000). It is defined with reference to its purpose and answers questions of general importance for which no empirical or logical technique can provide solution (Berline and Jahanbegloo 1991). There is complete unambiquitous commonality between philosophy and economics. Both disciplines are not amenable to any monolithic definitions.

The positive commonality between economics and philosophy is well expressed by Keynes- the profounder of macroeconomics. In fact, for Keynes philosophy has appeared much before economics and philosophy of ends came before the philosophy of means (Skidelsky 1983). Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (2003) stressed that Sraffa’s economic contribution cannot in general be kept aloof from philosophical understanding particularly in altering and broadening the nature of enquiries in mainstream economics. According to Heilbroner (1980), the very root of modern economics goes back to philosophy and Great economic thinkers (Adam Smith, Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Henry George and John Menard Keynes) have been rightly acclaimed as worldly philosophers. Two recent books evaluating modern economics from the standpoint of philosophy of science (Hollis and Neil’s Rational Economic Man and Rosenberg’s Microeconomic laws) conclude that orthodox microeconomics rests on firm philosophical foundations (Gordon 1978).

In this pretext, an effort is made to discover how the Vedic philosophy (in this context the Upanishad Hymn), has been traced as the earliest literature that makes a clear, elaborate and transparent reflection of much discussed ‘Walrasian General Equilibrium’ concept in economics. The paper is divided into six sections: introduction followed by philosophy and economics interface, semantics of Isopanishad hymn, axiological exploration of Walrasian general equilibrium, conclusion and references. Since Upanishads are one of the components of Vedic philosophy the term Upanishad is used interchangeably with the term Veda.

3. SEMANTICS OF ISOPANISHAD HYMN:

The invocation hymn of Isopanishad starts with. This particular hymn (mantra) is the peace (shanti) hymn of Isopanishad (also known as Ishavasya Upanishad) which is part of the Sukla Yajurveda. The hymn mentioned in Sanskrit language and in English transliteration is as follows:

ऊँ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते ।

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

ūm̐ pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate |

pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate ||

Word Meaning:

ūm̐(ऊँ)- The complete whole

pūrṇam (पूर्णम)- perfectly complete

अदः (adaḥ)- That purnam, that is perfectly complete

इदः( idaḥ)- This phenomenal world

पूर्णात् (pūrṇāt)- from this all perfect

पूर्णम् (pūrṇam) Perfectly complete

ऊदच्यते (ūdacyate)- produced

पुर्णस्य (purṇasya)- of the complete whole

पूर्णम् (purṇam)- completely all

आदाय (ādāya)- having been taken away

ऎव (eva)- even

अवशिष्यते (avaśiṣyate)- is remaining

The word Om (ऊँ) indicates the complete whole. Everything that is observed and unobserved are symbolically represented by it so that is complete (pūrṇamadaḥ), this is complete (pūrṇamidaṃ), from this completeness (pūrṇāt) comes the completeness (pūrṇam ūdacyate). If completeness is taken away from completeness (pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya), only completeness remain (pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate). The hymn says that the supreme Godhead is perfect and complete. Because he is complete and perfect, all emanations from him such as this phenomenal world (Prakriti- manifestation of The Nature) are equipped with the completeness and perfection. Whatever is produced of the complete whole is also complete by itself. And because he is the complete (perfect), even though so many complete units emanate from him, he remains the complete balance. The complete whole has immense potencies, all of which are in complete as He is. This phenomenal world is manifested in such a way that it is completely adjusted to produce complete things necessary for the maintenance and subsistence of this universe. No extraneous effort by any other unit is required for its equilibrating mechanism. In short the system equilibrates itself automatically. This hymn is critically examined and interpreted in the context of general equilibrium analysis model outlined by Walras.

General Equilibrium Model:

In his PhD thesis, the concept of Equilibrium in Different Traditions: A Historical Investigation at Vrije Universiteit in (1993-1997), Bert Tieben has described economic equilibrium as puzzling in the sense that it is relative a young science with long tradition. As Hahn (1984) says wherever economics is used, equilibrium is a central organizing concept. It contributed in mathematization of economics and neoclassical general equilibrium is considered by many as one of the peak achievements and finds its application well beyond the domain of economics (Rosenberg 1992). Philosophers are puzzled by its explanatory roles (Hausman 1981; Rosenberg 1992). However, Blaug (1992) thought it having no application at all. The equilibrium concept is a major cause of controversy between different schools of thought (Lawson 2005). Equilibrium is also versatile concept (Machlup 1958). Traditionally equilibrium is seen as a balance of forces or as a state of rest or tendency towards such state. In mathematical economics equilibrium is a property of model makes no claims about economic reality but solves system of equations. Other considers it a metaphor of harmony or stability of economic order.

Equilibrium is one of the oldest ideas in the economy. Heraclitus of Ephesus (582-507 BC) suggested a circular flow of goods and money. Spiegel (1971) opined that Heraclitus philosophy is said to have inspired a self-regulatory system. Another modern equilibrium concept which has its root in Greek thought is general economic interdependence is found in the ideas of Xenophone, 430-354 BC. The modern formulation of the idea, the mathematical formulation of the general equilibrium is considered by many the crowning achievement in economic science. Schumpeter (1954) admiration for Walras’s general equilibrium has no new bounds. In his History of Economic Analysis, he called Walras’s work the “Magna Charta of economic theory” (p.242, p.968). The French writer Pierre de Boisguilbert (1646-1714) probably introduced the word ‘equilibrium’ into the economic literature (Spiegel 1975: 614). For him equilibrium signified the hand of the God who through his laws had endowed the economy with a sense of order (Perrot 1992) and Sir Dudley North (1641-1691), a British contemporary of Boisguilbert, is said to have been one of the first to use the equilibrium concept as an analytical construct (Letwin 1963). By nature being a scientist, Walras started enquiring about science and one of his answers is that pure science establishes fact, relations; applied science prescribes rules and conduct, pure natural sciences studying facts and relations that have their origin in the play of the ineluctable forces of nature.

As Stigler (1957) has rightly opined that no concept in economics or-else-where is ever defined. The evolution of the concepts is matter of contemplation. The concept of perfect market and uniqueness of equilibrium are no exception to it. Gross involvement of the mind and expressing the objective phenomena with magical play of words not only intensifies the appropriateness of explaining of the phenomena but also unearths the ground for further exploration and contemplation. Hayek (1945) appropriately argues that the economic problem of the society is not merely a problem of how to allocate the resources; it is rather a problem of utilization of knowledge not given to any one in its totality, for individuals know the relative importance of the ends for which they secure the best use of the resources. This has been obscured rather than illuminated by many of the refinement of economic theory. Paul Samuelson (1998, 16^th Edition) viewed that the mainstream economic doctrine, like a paleontologist, could date the ebb and flow of ideas that makes the 21st century economics and the discovery of general equilibrium also flows from the germ of ideas. Grillo (1976), in his paper explored that Walras did not intend to formulate theory for the sake of theory and strongly disagreed with Samuelson (1962). Walras was preoccupied with producing a scientific theory which can serve two objects: one, capable of explaining objective phenomena and secondly capable of enlightening and guiding economic policy. As outlined by Professor Jaffe Walras argued that the primary object of economists is to pursue and master purely scientific truth, for example, the value of a thing tend to increase as the quantity demanded increase or as quantity supplied decrease. There is a divergence of thought when Smithian and Walrasian economic system under perfect competition, the later strongly advocated the state interference as and when the circumstances warranted but under the normal condition the state should ensure proper functioning of the perfect competition whereas, the former views state interference, except to some extent, harmful for the society. Further Walras mentions that describing market organization with free competition is general equilibrium. Equilibrium is not a real state but rather an ideal. Only in free competition will the market transactions tend to a state of equilibrium and this is denominated as “normal state”. The laisseze Faire operation of the price mechanism in an environment of deregulated competitive markets where the agents are motivated by the self interest will produce not chaos, but coherence, in the sense of market clearing outcome. This conjecture has support from Katzener (1989) and Debreu (1989). According to Arrow and Hahn (1971) the desired actions of economic agents are mutually compatible and can all be carried out simultaneously. To make it plausible there is a vector of prices that induces agents to make mutually compatible decision.

According to Arrow and Debreu (1954), Walras formulated the state of economic system at any point of time as a solution of simultaneous equations representing the demand for goods by consumers, the supply of the goods by the producers and the equilibrium condition that supply and demand equal on every market. Under suitable assumptions of preferences of consumer and the production possibility of the producer the allocation of the resources in a competitive equilibrium is optimal in the sense of Pareto and every conversely every Pareto optimal allocation of resources can be realized by competitive equilibrium.

The different versions of GE are model of exchange in which the equilibrium implies establishment of stationary equilibrium prices where effective demand and supply of commodities are equal; production model of exchange in which the effective demand and supply of services are equal and stationary rice is observed in the service market. This view of equilibrium is synonymous with what Stigltz (1987) and Kirzner (1973, 1979) have implied. However, the Walrasian GE equilibrium is characterized by a historically advocated institution of ‘Laissez Faire’, where exchange process takes place without any institutional obstructions. The value of goods and services is determined by the unconditional exchange under the context of perfect competition.

Perfect Competition:

Free competition (Daal and Jolink 2006) as perceived by Walras is represented as a process of exchange in a setting of competition unhampered by institutional obstructions. The setting is characterized by: one, unconditional offer of demand for goods and services giving rise to exchange values in each product; two, full information of every participant in an unrestricted manner; three, high degree of organization with centralized transactions; four, full knowledge of the terms of trade; five, the exchange process taking place through the bidding system (tatonnement process) and the entire process taking place under static situation. With such presupposition Walras believed that the practical result is in conformity with the practical situation observed in the real world and free competition is an optimal situation which gives rise to the normative rules in practice. Hence free competition as advocated by Walras is opposed to the concept of Laissez Faire policy. Walras started with people’s decision- choices from multitude of possible alternatives. Assuming that people always decide, then they always chose the best among the collection of all possible alternatives. In this context, the word competition requires conceptual clarification.

As discussed in his paper, Mosca and Bradley (2013), the history of the concept ‘competition’ concerns one concept “perfect Competition” starting from Cournot via Professor Knight to Joan Robinson and Chamberlin. This paper mentions that Baron has admitted that if perfect competition is the ‘limit state’ then free competition is the real world observation and it allows obtaining the most efficient outcome. At end, this paper concluded that in the history of literature on perfect competition, Walras appears regularly, Pareto occasionally. But Baron (1896 as cited in the paper Mosca and Bradley (2013)) had contributed many things to the notion of perfect competition by distinguishing real (free) competition from ideal (perfect) competitions (The paper by Mosca and Bradley (2013) is an excellent paper that unearths the contribution of Baron and outlines the brief evolution of it).

In relation to comparison of the term perfect competition and invisible hand, Gavin Kennedy (2010) has critically examined and explored the discrepancy between the Adam Smith’s use of eighteenth century metaphor of ‘invisible hand’ in Wealth of Nations and that of Paul Samuelson’s Economics: An Introductory Analysis, 1948. As the literature (Kennedy 2010) shows that the mathematics of Smithian Concept of Invisible hand (though he did not invent it) is simply that “the whole is the sum of the parts” is long way from the modern mathematics of perfect competition, Pareto Optimality and general equilibrium. In late 19^th century the metaphor ‘invisible hand’ was used as a strongest argument for laissez faire (Onken 1874; Bonar 1893; Hirst 1904, Tobin 1922 and Arrow 1987). But Paul Samuelson (1948) has made this concept as a doctrine by linking the Smith’s metaphor to the perfect competition According to Stigler (1957) ‘competition’ generally connotes independent rivalry of two persons and there are no minimum requirements mentioned by anyone for competition. Perfect competition is the fundamental hypothesis of economics in the sense that perfect competition is postulated in nearly every argument as to economic equilibrium (Moore 1906). The term competition is the racing of one person against another, with special reference to bidding for the sale or purchase of anything. But when competition is made fundamental hypothesis in economic equilibrium it becomes more complex and it becomes a ‘blanket term’ to cover up many things.

4. THE AXIOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF WALRASIAN GE MODEL:

As vividly explained by M D Datt in his book the Six Ways of Knowing, the English word Knowledge (Pramaa in Sanskrit) is not same as jnaana. It stands for all kinds of cognition irrespective of the question of truthfulness or false hood. But Pramaa stands for the true cognition (Yathartha jnaana) as distinct from the false cognition (mithya jnaana). Hence, knowledge implies cognition attended with belief. Cognition turns out to be false if belief is withdrawn and cease to be knowledge. So knowledge stands for the cognition that is true and uncontradicted or unfalsified and is defined as a cognition having two fold characteristics of truth and novelty (abaadhitatva and yathaarthitatva). On this basis of definition of knowledge, the Vedic hymn (cited above) is considered to be a source of knowledge to the field of economics, especially how it infers a clear and exact meaning of what Walras has able to prove in his GE model. Despite its remoteness, without any doubt it is argued to be a source of knowledge and it is a solution in which all disciplines of human thought have been dissolved. The subsequent points are the basis of arguments on the hymn to show that its exactness of the idea that Walras’ GE model has proved. As far as truth is concerned the first word ‘OM’ of the hymn means the complete personality of the Godhead who is perfect. It is the symbolic expression of the complete manifestation of this universe that is perfect and complete. The Supreme personality is the Absolute truth. Since ‘He’ is complete and Absolute, all things (the physical, the material world and beyond) emanated from ‘Him’ is also perfect and complete and true. The existence of this physical and material world can be contradicted by none. Therefore, it satisfies the first condition of the ‘knowledge’.

With respect to novelty The Veda (including all Vedas and Upanishads) by its root word means to know. That is Veda is a source of knowledge and therefore considered as one of the ways of knowing (Datt 1948). The hymn has novelty in two senses- one, the wider application of the broader idea embodied in it to the various fields of knowledge including economics. It means the Vedic philosophy contains those thoughts where all the scientists, philosophers, social scientist do converge; and the second is its suitability to each and every discipline that is changing in every aspects. The manifestation of this physical and material world in different name and forms is completely guided by a central authority-The Supreme Personality, the God. The invisibility of the remote authority in controlling each and every units of the complete whole is felt through realization. This philosophy of automatic functioning of this ‘complete whole’ has been reflected in today’s scientific theories. It is perennial despite its antediluvian appearance. The novelty of the hymn is its similarity of approach to that of the Walrasian GE model advocates and its uniqueness of outcome which Walrasian GE has successfully proved. Being characterized by ‘truthfulness and novelty’, the features of Walrasian equilibrium are critically evaluated in the Hymans of Upanishad. The Walrasian GE system as outlined in the foregoing sections have the distinguishing features such as: capability of explaining the objective phenomena with scientific truth; people choose for achieving the best self-interest; theory of economic dependence and bidding up process under free environment; guiding economic policy for the welfare improvement of the society; coexistence of the private ownership with state prerogative in the land and other natural resources; system with interference as and when necessary; equilibrium is the outcome under the free competition institutional set up with stationary condition and equilibrium outcome is Pareto optimal.

Explaining Objective Phenomena:

Walras intended to formulate economic theory not for the sake of theory but for the sake of explaining the objective phenomena and guiding economic policy intended for improving the economic human welfare. In order to achieve it a state of free competition environment should be created and the economy should ensure it whenever and wherever the situation warrants it. The hymn also provides ample of information exactly same as reflected in the Walrasian GE model. The entire universe (considered as the system) is complete in every respect. The completeness is referred to as complete balance or a state of rest as perceived by Boisguilbert as mentioned by Speigel (1975). The hymn brings the truth that whatever is ever created by the supreme personality (observed and beyond human reach) in the form of manifested universe (system) functions in a state of balance automatically. Further, the sub division of the entire system into various small units also functions in a state of balance. Whatever way and in whichever form it operates the system is brought into automatic balance. Hence, the state of balance is attained both at individual and at aggregate level. This philosophy of the Vedic hymn is what Walras has brought in the form of Walrasian GE model.

Ability to Guide Policy for Economic Welfare:

The economy should create such an environment where all the participants will be able to achieve their self-interest. This particular type of free competition or perfect competition (as mentioned by Baron) will guarantee the attainment of equilibrium- the balance between the demand and supply. The close look at the Vedic hymn also strongly visualizes the attainment of a balance state of the entire system. This has provided a guiding principle that any system working in any form in any magnitude, if left free every individual unit guided by the motive of self-interest, would attain automatic balance be it an economic system, a political system or be it a system as a whole. This idea of automatic mechanism has been conceptualized as the free competition or perfect completion. Efficiency and optimality of the system is guaranteed under such system. This not only become the guiding principle for the future economic principles of perfect competition but also became the founding policy for setting up democratic institutions for efficient political activities. So no external interference in the functioning of the system is a guideline that became the founding stone of the orthodox classical economists.

Coexistence of Private and Public Ownership:

Walrasian GE model outlines that if land and other natural resources are left to the private ownership there will be no free competition and the attainment of GE would be an impossible under the assumptions as outlined by Walras. Under the state ownership of land and natural resources, the individual units acting upon their self-interest motive bring automatic equilibrium not only for themselves individually but also for the system as a whole. The beginning hymn of the Isopanishad also specifically and categorically mentions that everything animate or inanimate that is within the universe is owned and controlled by the Supreme Personality and everybody has been provided a quota according to his/ her own requirement. Whatever is available to him must be utilized to its best alternative uses. So the ownership belongs to the Supreme Personality (which may be seen as the state in the present time) and everyone, guided by the self interest tries to maximize the use of resource.

Theory of Interdependence:

A person living in the society is so specialized that he or she is unable to obtain all the necessities of life by providing them himself/ herself. Hence, dependence on each other for exchange of goods and services among the individuals in the society is inevitable. The first line of the hymn categorically proves this interdependence. It says that the controller (The Complete whole) of the manifestation is complete by himself. He is realized in complete form in terms of his physical and material manifestations. As He is complete whole, whatever is manifested and whatever is produced is also complete and perfect. Whatever is produced and manifested are complete in terms of the requirements of the individuals. The needs of one another are completed by means of dependence on each other. The idea of interdependence is also found in the ideas of Xenophone (430- 354 BC). This interdependence is also complete and perfect in the sense that there is no difference in the pre dependence and post dependence situation. The entire system (Universe) irrespective of the time remains complete and perfect. Thus, the process of dependence does not create any incompleteness, imperfection and imbalances of the system.

Institutional Set Up:

The second most important feature of the walrasian model is the underlying institutional set up in which the people act for taking decision that maximizes the self interest behavior of each and every individual. GE model assumes that the decision is undertaken in a free and competitive market environment. Perfect competition creates an environment of deregulated competitive market, where agents motivated and guided by self interest produce a market clearing outcome i.e. not chaos but coherence. Comparing this thought to the Vedic hymn it can be argued that the complete whole manifested in the form of physical and material world are also complete and perfect. Whatever is produced and emanated from it is also complete. This means that every smallest unit of the entire system is complete in itself. This completeness implies self- equilibrating and self balanced functioning of the units as well as the entire system. There is no extraneous effort either at individual or at the system level is necessary for maintaining and sustaining the ‘complete whole’. Since this ‘complete whole belongs to ‘Him’ and individuals take decision on choosing the best of all the available alternatives, each smallest unit tries to utilize the resources to its best possible use. The system as characterized by different form and different functioning and it is His ‘invisible hand’ brings completeness and perfection at individual unit level and at the system level as a whole. So everybody is left free to take the best decision at individual level that not only brings equilibrium at individual level but also equilibrium of the system as a whole. The equilibrium is here understood as balanced, complete and perfect system. Similar to the centralized decision making idea perceived by Walras, the Vedic hymn also infers that the entire system is operating under the guidance of centralized force (The Personality of the Godhead who is complete). As Walras argued that the GE under perfectly competitive market is based on the assumption that there is perfect information and zero profit, the Vedic hymn also presents same information in a philosophical way. Every individual of this material world is perfect and complete knowledge that each and every aspects of the physical world that one sees is created by the complete whole. So the misallocation and under utilization of the resources is direct denial of the supreme authority and the consequences will be reflected in terms of the scarcity of that particular resource. Therefore, everybody, by knowing this fact, acts and reacts in a way that leads to a complete mechanism always- a state of balance where everyone optimizes his desire. It is this opportunity cost of resource use brings everyone into a situation where all tries for optimum self- interest leading to maximum social welfare.

Equilibrium:

The most important feature of Walrasian GE model is the equilibrium and its implication. This implication is perfectly matched with the Vedic hymn mentioned. The exchange operation is represented by a bidding process similar to the procedure at stock exchange. The price adjustment through the bidding process brings final situation of supply equals demand- a mechanism called Tatonnement process by Walras. At equilibrium (both consumption and production model), there will be no flow of excess goods or excess services, no expansion of production and contraction. Hence position of rest or balance is maintained. Looking at the hymn, it is strongly argued that one finds the Walrasian concept of equilibrium rather in a wider sense. It says the supreme Godhead is complete and its completeness is manifested in the form of material world in which everyone is a part. Whatever is produced from the complete whole is also complete by itself. The system is complete in the sense that all the requirements are fulfilled within the system. One’s every requirement (including economic) does not exceed whatever is available. Thus every individual unit of the complete system also attains completeness. Further, the second line of the hymn says that whatever way and in how many ways is the entire system divided and fragmented, every unit will automatically comes into complete form with perfection. Therefore the entire system attains general equilibrium which Walras has proved mathematically. Since all the units are complete, it implies every individual (consumer and producer in economics sense) maximizes their objectives (utility maximization and Profit Maximization).

The second aspect of Walrasian equilibrium is Pareto Optimality. The condition of Pareto optimality is also self evident from the hymn. The hymn says that no extraneous effort is required for the maintenance and subsistence of the system (Universe) as it has its own mechanism of attaining to it. Since whatever way and whichever form the system operates always brings completeness and perfections, every individual in the system attain the position where any small extraneous effort will bring imbalance and imperfection to the system. This what the Upanishad conveys philosophically to economists. Thus when market attains equilibrium every individual of the market also in equilibrium and every individual tries his/her best to utilize the given resources in best possible manner so that everybody attains the optimum (perfection and completeness). Since individuals are the emanations from the whole, when the whole attains equilibrium, the individuals also attain equilibrium. Thus, the hymn has stong economic philosophy of Walrasian GE model that has been proved by Katzner (1989) and Debreau (1998) subsequently.

This Vedic hymn also expresses the idea of equilibrium that Hayek (1949), Hahn (1984), Lewin (1997) and Kirzner (1979) have argued. The Kirznerian concept of equilibrium states that equilibrium mechanism rules out entrepreneurial element rather it contains management element (efficient use of resources). Hence Kirzenerian equilibrium rules out undiscovered profit which leads to entrepreneurial innovation as advocated by Schumpeter (1934) and therefore economy attains to the equilibrium. This equilibrium does not allow growth and progress rather sustenance of the system in a balanced manner. The Vedic hymn also confirms this i.e. the system (complete universe) is complete and therefore, it would be contradictory to argue that the system has a tendency to diverge from the point of balance. More to this, it is also interesting fact that this hymn also confirms the Hayekian concept of equilibrium. Hayekian (1949) equilibrium admits entrepreneurial ability of the unexplored profit. As per the hymn as the system is complete and perfect, there is no time lag in innovations and its applications with equal spread to all. Therefore, any attempt to diverge from it will be a futile attempt and therefore equilibrium restoring state is the rule of the system. Since the complete whole is always in complete form and whatever independent small units are functioning separately are also complete. The stability of the completeness is proved. It means the stability condition of Walrasian GE model as proved by Saari (1996) and MacKenzie (1987) also evident in the hymn.

5. CONCLUSION:

The Walrasian General Equilibrium model as conceptualized by Walras has a long and deep rooted linkage even much more ancient than the ideas of the Greek Philosophers. The present paper has made a successful exploration of the concept of general equilibrium and its implication in Vedic philosophy (Upanishad hymn). The concept of General equilibrium explored in Vedic hymns has been examined and scrutinized on the basis of the inherent properties and assumptions of the Walrasian GE model. This is also evident from Gordon (1978); Heilbroner (1980); Skidelsky (1983); Sen (2003). The economics latent in the Vedic scriptures will not only widen the dimensions of economic thoughts but will also strengthen the existing knowledge-characterized by truthfulness and novelty. This is what Joseph Schumpeter (1954: 4) has exactly argued i.e. studying economists of past is pedagogically helpful. It will prompt new ideas and affords useful material on the method of scientific research in economics which is on the boundary line between natural and social economics.

6. REFERENCES:

1. Arrow, K (1987): Economic Theory and the Hypothesis of Rationality, in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, London

2. Arrow, K. J. and Gerad Debreu (1954): “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy,” Econometrica, Vol 22 No 3, pp 265-290.

3. Arrow, Kenneth. J and F. H. Hahn (1971): General Competitive Analysis, New York: North Holland.

4. Berlin, Isaiah (2000): The Power of Ideas, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

5. Berlin, Isaiah and Ranin Jahanbegloo (1991): Conversations with Isaiah Berlin, New York: Charles Scribener’s Sons.

6. Blaug, M (1992): The Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain, Second Edition, Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

7. Bonar, J (1893): Philosophy and Political Economy in Some of their Historical Relations, London: Sonnens.

8. Dall, Jan Van And Albert Jolink (2006): The Equilibrium Economics of Leon Walras, New York: Routledge.

9. Datt, Dhirendra Mohan (1948): “The Contribution on Modern Indian Philosophy to World Philisophy,” The Philosophical Review, Vol 57, No 6 November, pp 550-572.

10. Dandekar, R. N (2000): “Vedic Culture: A quick Review,” Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol 81, No (1/4), pp 1-13.

11. Dasgupta, Surendranath (eds) (1922): History of Indian Philosophy. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

12. Debreu, G (1998): Existence. In Elements of General Equilibrium Analysis, AP Kirman (ed.), pp. 10–37, Oxford: Blackwell.

13. Gordon, Scott (1978): “Should Economists Pay Attention to Philosophers?,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol 86, No (August 4), pp 717-728.

14. Grillo, Renato (1976): “The True Significance of Walras’ General Equilibrium Theory,” Revue Europeenne des Sciences Sociales. Vol T.14, No (37), pp 5-13.

15. Hahn, F.H (1984): Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

16. Hausman, D.M (1981): Capital, Interest and Prices: An Essay in the Philosophy of Science, New York: Columbia University Press.

17. Hayek, F.A (1945): “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review. Vol 35 No (4), pp 519–530.

18. Hayek, F.A (1949): “Economics and Knowledge,” In: F.A. Hayek (Ed.) Individualism and Economic Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Heilbroner, Robert.L (1980): The Worldly Philosophers: Lives, Times and Ideas of Great Economic Thinkers. New York: Simon and Schuster.

20. Hirst, F. W (1904): Adam Smith, London: Macmillan.

21. Iyear, Balasubramania K (1969): Hindu Ideals. Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay.

22. Katzner, DW (1989): The Walrasian Vision of the Microeconomy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

23. Kennedy, Gavin (2010): “Paul Samuelson and the Invention of the Modern Economics of the Invisible Hand,” History of Economic Ideas, Vol 18, No 3, pp 105-119.

24. Kirzner, I.M (1973): Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

25. Kirzner, I.M (1979): Perception, Opportunity and Proﬁt: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

26. Lawson, T (2005): “The (confused) State of Equilibrium Analysis in Modern Economics: An Explanation”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol 27, No 3, pp 423-444.

27. Lewin, P (1997): “Hayekian Equilibrium and Change”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 4, 245–266.

28. Letwin, William (1963): The Origins of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought 1660-1776, Westport, Conn.; Greenwood.

29. Machlup, F (1958): “Equilibrium and Disequilibrium: Misplaced Concreteness and Disguised Politics,” Economic Journal, Vol 68, No 3, pp 1-24.

30. McKenzie, L.W (eds) (1987): General Equilibrium. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, J Eatwell, M Milgate and P Newman London: Macmillan.

31. Moore, Henry. L (1906): “Paradoxes of Competition,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 20, No 2, pp 211-230.

32. Mosca, Mannela and Michael, E. Bradley (2013): “Perfect Competition According to Barone,” Papers in Political Economy. Vol 64, pp 9-44.

33. Onken, A (1874): Adam Smith in der Kulturgeschichte, Vienna, Faesy and Frick.

34. Perrot, Jean-Claude (1992): “Équilibre économique et déterminisme au XVIIIe siècle”, in Une Histoire Intellectuelle de l'Économie Politique; XVIIe-XVIIIe siècle, Paris; Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales: pp 237-255.

35. Radhakrishnan, S (1968): The Principal Upanishads Edited with Text, Translation and Notes, (2^nd Edition). London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

36. Rao, Nagaraja. P (1970): The Four Values in Indian Philosophy and Culture, Mysore: University Mysore.

37. Rosenberg, A (1992): Economics: Mathematical Politics or Science of Diminishing Returns, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

38. Saari, Donald G. (Eds) (1996), Election Relations and a Partial Ordering for Positional Voting,’ in: Schoﬁeld, Norman, Collective Decision-Making: Social Choice and Political Economiy. (Chapter 5, pp. 93–110). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

39. Samuelson, Paul, A (1962): “Economists and the History of Ideas,” The American Economic Review, Vol, 52, No 1, pp 1-18.

40. Samuelson, P. A (1948, 1998): Economics: An Introductory Analysis, 16^th Edition, 17 New York: McGraw-Hill.

41. Spiegel, H.W (1975): “A Note on the Equilibrium Concept in the History of Economics.” Économie Appliquée. Vol 28, pp 609-17.

42. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934): The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

43. Schumpeter, J.A (eds) (1954): History of Economic Analysis. by E. Boody Schumpeter, New York: Oxford University Press.

44. Sen, Amarty K (2003): “Sraffa, Wittigenstein and Gramsci.”, Journal of Economic Literature Vol XVI, pp 1240-53.

45. Skidelsky, Robert (1983): John Menard Keynes: Hope Betrayed, 1883-1920. New York, Viking.

46. Sigler, George. G (1957): “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol 65 No 1, pp 1-7

47. Stiglitz, J.E (1987): “The Causes and Consequences of the Dependence of Quality on Price.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol 25, pp 1–48.

48. Tobin J. (eds) (1992): The Invisible Hand in Modern Microeconomics in M. Fry Adam Smith's legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern Economics, London: Routledge.

Received on 04.10.2018 Modified on 12.11.2019

Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2019; 7(1):67-74.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2019.00004.2