proselytisation versus tolerance

[venkatesh nayak <venkateshnayak@yahoo.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
I thank Sunil for responding to my argument. he has
been most civil in his expression of disagreement with
my views and I appreciate a well argued counterpoint.
this enriches the debate and makes all participants
feel that it was worth the trouble of composing mails
for a discussion list.  as long as venom is kept out
of such discussion lists, participation is always an
enriching experience.
However I beg to disagree with most of the points
raised by Sunil. A basic clarification first- the
exponent of dvaita philosophy was not named Madhava.
the correct spelling is 'Madhva'- also the name of the
vaishnavaite sect which he started that continues to
thrive even today in Karnataka and other parts of
south India. it is true that there are several
irreconciliable differences between dvaita and advaita
philosophical systems despite the attempts of
syncretists like Dr. Radhakrishnan who tried to
synthesise diverse Hindu philosophical systems of
ancient India and present it to the West.
the ideas of shankara and other philosophers that
india has produced must be seen in a specific
historical context and Sunil rightly says that
believers of a particular system will say that theirs
presents an alternative view. in this regard the
development of philosophical discourse closely follows
the pattern of the sciences. a hypothesis is
established to describe a certain phenomenon and
experiments under controlled conditions are undertaken
to establish the veracity or falsifiability of the
initial hypothesis. this is the public face of any
discourse.
No two systems will completely agree with each other.
However what is the means of checking the truth that
each system seeks to establish? most of the elaborate
explanations are the products of discursive thought
and therefore have a limited value in explaining the
truth. what lies beyond must be experienced and
verified in the alternate state of consciousness that
results from the methods approved by each system. when
this important aspect- namely 'verifiability' of the
truth presented by a philosophical system is subject
to human experience and not easily demonstrable to
others (not that i undervalue its importance) as an
everyday phenomenon the contestation between two
interacting philosophical systems takes place. Each
philosophical system backed by its praxis will claim
that it knows better.
despite the fact that sankara tried to interpret the
some of the Upanisadic tenets in a novel manner he was
still accused of being a Buddhist in disguise- a
'Pracchanna Bauddha' as his philosophical system had
very close resemblences to the sunyata philosophy
which he sought to criticise. Nowhere in his works did
he say that his was the best philosophy ever. if you
are referring to his digvijaya yatras around the
country then my point of view holds true. there was
politics involved- namely the re-establishment of the
superiority of the Hindu sanatana dharma being the
driving force behind this exercise. this has been the
bane of Hindu religion since the dawn of the Christian
era. Sankara must not be treated merely as a
philosopher but also as a missionary and in that his
activities howsoever justified invite the same
criticism that I have made which Sunil does not agree
with.  when you say that yours is the best system
compared to the rest then all is lost. if you turn to
the Upanisads and the Vedas and the much later Bhakti
literature it is said so often that names are
different and the paths are different but the goal
remains the same- namely the realisation of the
Supreme reality whether personified or not. A zen
saying sums up my view- "he who knows speaks not and
he who speaks knows not".
religion and spirituality are two faces of the same
coin- only the former more private than the latter.
the path charted by Sankara for realisation of the
Supreme cannot be trodden in public- it needs silence,
calm, discipline and dedicated effort. the ciritique
of Sankara came from both Ramanuja and Madhva who also
went around on digvijaya yatras as did their
disciples. so which of the three philosophies is
nearest to the truth? I have not read their
philosophies in the original yet and most of my
knowledge comes from secondary sources. I beg to
disagree with all those great names who said that they
have a better claim to establishing the nature of the
truth via their philosophical systems. the attitude is
wrong especially when in today's world we know that
every society worth its name and existence developed
its own eschatology. I agree mine is a strongly
relatavistic position . But we cannot agree with all
that people of yore said. the same attitude was the
driving force of all these philosophers- the
dissatisfaction with what existed in their times.
hence the efforts to break new ground. but they
committed the same folly when they claimed (if at all
they did) that theirs was the best philosophy. after
all tomorrow is another day and newer and more
developed thought systems would emerge from more
fertile minds in succeeding generations.
I completely disagree with Sunil's interpretation of
advaita's conception of God. I prefer to use the
original term 'Brahman' as it has a deeper meaning
than the term 'God'. Sankara's assumptions lead to the
conclusion that Brahman is Nirguna not saguna.
therefore he is devoid of all qualities that human
beings possess as a result of avidya and maya. the
concept of Saguna Brahman is developed by Ramanuja and
more fully by Madhva where the conclusion that Sunil
arrives at is more plausible. Nevertheless Brahman is
no less holy to them. However I do not think a
complete realisation of the tenets of any of these
three philosophical systems will be possible from a
mere academic reading and interpreting of the texts.
By no stretch of imagination can Saint Thomas Aquinas
be considered a truly holy man who understood the
truth. he was a man of the cloth who was a good
philosopher but he was party to Rome's persecution of
the heretics. Numerous dissenting voices have been
ruthlessly silenced using his words. Umberts Eco's
celebrated novel Name of the Rose is a good read for
those uninitiated into the history of the medieval
church. the early church fathers also proselytised in
their times during the infancy of the church. nothing
is wrong in it as long as you persuade someone to
consider your views. but it is sacrilege to say "your
religion does not know the truth but mine does and
therefore convert". Instead one should be like Swami
Vivekananda (who unfortunately has been co-opted by
the Chaddi brigade) who professed the view that all
religions spoke about the truth but differently.
Truths cannot be many. it is always one. the
interpretations are different. if this understanding
is the crux of any person's teachings I will consider
him or her a person of God or one who has seen the
truth. his sayings will be democratic discourse. he
does not have to tomtom the superiority of his belief
because he knows that he 'Knows'. when this
realisation dawns he or she will only want to share
that experience with others not negate another
religion because he or she did not reach the truth by
treading the path that the latter had charted out.
everybody else has a long way to go.
Sunil's understanding of God as represented in
Christianlty is again erroneous. if you take the Old
testament which is very much a part of the Bible -
though the contents belong to the times when Judaism
was prevalent - the conception of God is very
different from that of the New Testament.  The God of
Adam and Abraham is not a compassionate God. he says
so in one of the Biblical myths that he is a spiteful
and jealous God who will not tolerate neglect or
insubordination from his children. this is a highly
patriarchal conception of divinity. the whole paradigm
changes and gets engendered in the concepts or values
of love and compassion in Jesus's teachings. a new
interpretation is given to the divinity. Yet the New
Testament like the Old testament is at a loss to
explain why a true believer like Job is visited with
tribulations. The Bible merely says that it is not for
man to know the reasoning of God. he taketh what he
giveth. there is a sense of fatality about it which
the Church refuses to acknowledge. God is also a
punisher according to the traditional interpretation
of the Bible. A christian will not be received into
heaven on Judgement Day if he has not confessed and
been absolved of his sins. surely this means that God
can punish if the mortal deserves it.
This is against the viewpoint of the Hindu conception
of God. whatever ill that befalls man is ascribed to
bad karma and whatever that is good is also due to it.
But Bhakti philosophy believes that both are due to
the Grace of god and even tribulations that befall man
are a way in which the divine tests his devotee. I
have not come across any story where God in his
non-personified existence did a bad deed. Nor can he
prevent man from attaining salvation. one's papas are
not absolved by an external authority. Instead  man
has to work out ways of dissolving them and such ways
do exist. the entire business of karma acquires a new
understanding if viewed in the light of the latest
discoveries about neural networks and behaviour
patterns as well as genetics. this is not the forum
for such a discussion and I hesitate from starting
one.
Finally I agree with Sunil that dialogue does not
imply fear of other contradicting viewpoints nor does
it necessarily amount to trouble-making. It definitely
does amount to trouble making when after the
completion of a dialogue such as a contestation in a
'shastrartha' the winnwer proceeds along with his
disciples to the temples in the area of the vanquished
and installs the idols of his deity after breaking or
displacing that of his opponent. this is what happened
in the aaftremath of Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva and
after every successful philosopher who went on a
digvijaya.
it is that kind of proselytisation and one-upmanship
that I have criticised all along.
Jai Hind.
Venkat.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------