RE: politics in philosophical pursuit and relativism

["Sunil, Mogadati" <m.sunil@barco.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Mr. Venkatesh Nayak. I agree with
many of your points, including some of the corrections
you made in my presentation.

Firstly, I agree with you that we need not take
any great name or personality at face value,
whether it be Shankara or Augustine or Vivekananda
or Friedrich Nietzsche. All their views are open for
our scrutiny and evaluation.
I think it is questionable if it is possible to reduce the
debates, conversions caused by those like Shankara
to some political motivations. For one, the motivation
of establishing Advaita to be more plausible than other
competing views of his day is not necessarily exclusively
political in nature. Even if one grants the political motivation,
the philosophical system and various tenets he proposed
are still worthy of our consideration regardless of the
motivation of the person who proposed them. The same thing
applies to all other great philosophers and personalities.

Your relativistic position with regard to philosophical truth
is possible and even desirable in some issues. But I
do not think it is possible to be relativistic with regard to
all the philosophical and moral issues that confront us.
In fact you yourself condemned many philosophical
and moral perceptions of many organisations and groups
of the people. You certainly consider some viewpoints
to be better than other, otherwise it would not have been
possible for you to condemn anything (which you are doing
and many of which I agree). To suggest that a particular
worldview is the most plausible does not imply a claim
that other alternatives are completely worthless or false.
There are many things that an atheist, theist and a
monist agree upon in spite of their principal differences.

I agree with you that in spite philosophical conclusion
is that Brahman is Nirguna. The important tenet of Advaita
is that the individual Self is identical to Brahman. This being
the case, the evil deeds of some one like Hitler and the
good deeds of some one like Mother Theresa are accounted
for by 'avidya' or maya. This was what I meant in previous
posting with regard to the view of God (or Brahman) in Advaita.
Your are right that as per the Bible, it is possible for God
to execute judgement. While many Christians
would agree with the division of the Old testament as being
primarily the 'law', while the New testament as covenant
of 'Grace', many will not agree these two are incompatible
as you seem to suggest. An extended discussion of this may
not be relevant to this forum.

My final comment is in a lighter vein. You quoted the
Zen saying, "he who knows speaks not and
he who speaks knows not". But did the Zen master SPEAK
to tell this? He did speak to tell this, and if what
he said is true, it means that the Zen master knows not
(as per his own statement) because he spoke!!
Humour apart, my point is that even a relativist
is claiming that his position (of relativism) is the most
valid and there by implicitly countering relativism (which says
that we should not consider a particular worldview to be
most valid) itself in the process (like the Zen master is doing to himself).

Thanks,
Sunil.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	venkatesh nayak [SMTP:venkateshnayak@yahoo.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 07, 2000 8:55 PM
> To:	debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject:	proselytisation versus tolerance
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


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