to speak or not to speak

[venkatesh nayak <venkateshnayak@yahoo.com>]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
Sunil has agreed with most of my views. I am happy! He
has also pointed out some ‘contradictions’ in my
position and I shall respond to them. Every ideology
and philosophy comes into existence ins acertain
historical context and in response to a certain
political situation. I do not use the term ‘politics’
here in its narrower sense as in common parlance. It
is used more in the sense of complex martix of
activities, decisions and agenda to ensure the
continuance of a power structure or its effective
replacement. This may happen in any area of life and
religion and spirituality are not alien to it. Nor are
the supposedly neutral natural sciences where all
research is objectively done. But what about the role
of funding in determining what is researched and what
is not? That is exclusively an area of politics in the
world of academia. Therefore I continue to hold my
opinion that all philosophical systems in India came
into being in response to the socio-economic and
politico-ideological situation of the day. Sankara is
no exception nor is any other big name in the world of
ideas and letters. But I agree that this does not mean
that the value of philosophical contributions must be
berated. That would be a puerile position to adopt.
Yet a complete understanding of any philosophical
system and its impact on society cannot be arrived at
without an inquiry into the politics of the age in
which it originated, flourished or went out of
fashion. In that sense no philosophy can claim to
present the truth for all ages to come. There will
always be changes and further developments –
evolutionary or revolutionary depending on the
circumstances present- as long as an inquisitive and
fertile human mind exists on this planet.
Any criticism of any philosophy or ideological cum
moral position can be made only with the benefit of
the knowledge of the past. Such a criticism would not
hold true for all time to come. EG: the ideas of
geocentric universe and the alleged impossibility of
anything heavier than air to fly were so popular once
upon a time but they were all proved wrong. Knowledge
develops on the basis of hitherto accumulated body of
ideas and concepts rather than in a vacuum. Therefore
an absolutely relativistic position is a stupid and
impossible position to take as it will negate the very
assertion it hopes to establish namely -‘everything is
relative’. This is nothing but an absolutist position
in disguise which has dogged all philosophers since
aeons. No religion or ideology is alien to it. However
such a debate moves into the world of abstracts and
does not do much good to understanding ground
realities. Do we have the time to indulge in such
semantic acrobatics or should we concentrate on the
burning issues of the day? If we choose the latter
then what is the minimalist or maximalist ideological
position that we can take and what will be the
criterion for the evaluation of such a position?
In any context it must be said that the basic common
good of the largest possible numbers within a given
society is the determining criterion for any position
to take. But this does not mean that the interests of
those who reject such a position should be sacrificed
at the altar of the majority point of view.
Accommodation is what characterises the survival of a
civilised society. The right of a person who holds an
opposite point of view is sacrosanct as long as it
does not follow a praxis characterised by violent
actions to achieve desired goals. When a point of view
generates more ill-will than goodwill it takes basic
commonsense to recognise what has gone wrong. Then
such a point of view must be fought tooth and nail
regardless of the epistemological gymnastics that one
may be tempted to indulge in. Therefore my ideas are
motivated by a political agenda which is in tune with
the criterion presented above. this is also very much
part of the politics of the period that we are living
in. these set of ideas are valid only as long as they
serve the criterion that has been used. Take away the
criterion, they remain nothing more than rhetorics.
As for the Zen maxim, sunil has the right to rebut my
stand but I must say that his interpretation of the
maxim pays little regard for the original context in
which it occurred. Yes of course the zen monk opened
his mouth to verbalise the maxim and he did it with
brevity and precision. I wonder what it sounded like
in the medieval japanese as it will have the greatest
impact when read in the original. What the master
meant was that he did not approve of people explaining
the nature of truth when it is not amenable to
discursive thought. The truth is something that must
be experienced in order to realise its profundity
fully. Words are only representative of the experience
and not the experience itself- in other words “the map
is not the territory”. The master was critical of
those who beguiled the masses by saying that they knew
the truth and it was such and such. You can only show
a person the path to the truth. Seeing the truth and
realising it is entirely in the disciples domain- not
the guru’s. The guru cannot see it for the disciple.
the latter has to go the whole way himself. Sunil
might find it intriguing to know that one branch of
the Madhyamaka school of buddhism did not believe in
any debate as there was nothing to debate about.
Everything was sunyata. So they had no ideological
position to offer. You will find this in the texts of
Candrakirti, Dharmakirti and their predecessor
Nagarjuna. However the later schools under the first
two thouhgt it wise to speak out about sunyata to
initiates as they needed a glimpse of the profundity
of sunyata which is above all discursive thought
before they embarked on their spiritual journey. The
classic tetralemma about the existence of the Buddha
or his teachings are a case in point. I will not go
into the details here. But if the relativist argument
were stretched to its absurd limits then knowledge of
sunyata would have died with the first Buddha who
realised it (by no means Siddhartha also known as
Sakyamuni. he acknowledges that there were several
Buddhas before him as will be after him). The
necessity of making this knowledge available to others
is also grounded in politics but one of compassion not
hatred- the noble ideal that all sentient beings
should have the benefit of the truth. Theirs was not a
politics that goaded people into demolishing
monuments, indulging in riots or burning a father and
his children in their sleep.
Therefore the stand of the zen monk is not
self-contradictory. It is also a Koan whose truth is
not amenable completely to the discursive mind but
must be arrived at after careful and intense
contemplation.
When I used this Koan as an example it was in the
context of criticising anyone that believes that his
religion is better than the rest. If he knew his
religion truly well and realised the truth he would
not berate other religions which preach the same goal.
The example fits the context accurately as intended. I
hope this clarification answers the apparent
contradictions that sunil perceives in my views.
Jai Hind
Venkatesh



__________________________________________________
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------