January 9
Rajiv:
" Besides
discussing these points per se (after reading that chapter), I would like a
parallel "chapter two" thread started by someone. This must first
explain its major ideas - not whether you agree/disagree or your
"opinions", but first state what is it trying to convey."
Kundan: After
introducing the book, chapter two begins to delve in the important and core
differences in ways in which religion and dharma are respectively practiced in
the West and in India.
Following are some of the important aspects of this chapter in my view, though
I personally feel that every sentence of the chapter is not worth missing:
- History is extremely important in the practice of religion of Judeo-Christian traditions—in fact in all the three Abrahamic traditions but Islam is not the topic of discussion in this book. Rajiv ji has coined the term “history-centric” to characterize the Judeo-Christian traditions. Why history is important in these traditions is because the transcendental God interferes in human history through a revelation—the receptivity of human beings to understand the import of the revelation is not a necessity for the revelation to happen. According to Christianity because of the sin committed by Adam and Eve, their progeny has been born with original sin. It was only through the intervention of God through his son that a path to humans to expiate their original sin was opened up. This historical event is of colossal importance for Christians, and hence of historicity in their tradition (it is quite evident from the fact that even their time in BC/AD is defined around the birth of Jesus Christ). On the other hand, in the dharmic traditions, what is important is “adhyatma vidya” or what Rajiv ji calls “embodied knowing” where what matters are the realization of the principles and knowledge claims of sages, saints and luminaries and not their individual history. If at all history comes into the picture, it has a peripheral and not central importance. ....
- He distinguishes “itihasa” from history and refutes the conflation of myth with “itihasa.” Myth in the western world is always identified with a sense of unreality of truth. “Itihasa” is not history and it is not myth is what is clearly explained in the chapter. Then what is “itihasa?” Itihasa is past narrative which does not operate on a strict dichotomy of true/false occurrence. Itihasa transcends and integrates this dichotomy bringing with it the perspectival involvement of the narrator. The fact that an incident has happened is never denied by itihasa but then it gives the narrator a platform of creativity to play with. Indians should contest the depiction of Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas as myths.
- The last two sections, “How Embodied Knowing Works” and “how History-centrism Works” further crystallize the distinctions between two distinct ways of approaching the divine. ....
- The first person experience is of crucial important in “adhyatma vidya” traditions. What is of central importance is to experientially know the truth claims of one’s guru. This emphasis is across the board in dhramic traditions as evidenced in the teachings of say Sri Aurobindo, Krishnamurti or the Buddha. The inner being is the living laboratory in which yogis, rishis and munis experiment and know their truths. On the other hand, in the history-centric traditions, faith is of immense importance. Besides there is an inherent separation between son of God and his adherents. Therefore one can follow him but he/she can neither become like him nor have experiences similar to him because he being son of God is exclusive and there cannot be anyone like him (as in the case of Christianity)....
- Because of the characteristics of “History-centric” traditions and “Adhyatma Vidya” traditions as mentioned in (4) above, the latter was able to develop a sophisticated inner science because a) there wasn’t any dogma associated with replicating and verifying the results of the spiritual beings, and b) the spiritual figures themselves encouraged and invited his/her followers to verify and no the truths of their contentions first hand. Given that there is an openness and freedom to pursue the inner knowledge, various dharmic traditions developed many and inter-related techniques of purifying and perfecting the mind—this is primarily because the “adhyatma vidya” traditions hold that it is only in a quiet, purified, and still mind that the knowledge of divine happens. Given the openness which is present in the dharmic traditions, it is compatible with the tenets of modern science (My comment: I know that Rajiv ji has mentioned this in one of his emails that much before the Sanskrit texts began to be studied and translated in eighteenth century and nineteenth century India and Europe, the Jesuits began this process in 1500s itself. Could India have impacted the renaissance in anyway or form is a good hypothesis to have—this thread needs to be explored. Could there have been a connection between the father of modern science Francis Bacon and India is another thread that should not be dismissed as a distant imagination—we must pursue this as a realm of possibility till proven otherwise. India’s decline and Europe’s rise have coincided and that India may have impacted the transition of Europe beyond the transfer of material wealth is something that needs to be explored in great detail. I think we need to also explore extensively the travelogues of traders visiting Vijayanagara Empire and other parts of India in the 1500s and 1600s).
Given that God intervened
in human history through a prophet or son of God, the Judeo-Christian
traditions have not given the freedom to have identity or oneness with the divine.
At best one could have nearness to God in beatific vision. ... a special being can be sent by God but one cannot become a prophet
or a messiah through sadhana or yoga as happens in the “adhyatma vidya”
traditions. Thus, in the history centric traditions, one cannot take God or his
special beings to a laboratory of inner exploration. This has created the
fundamental split between science and religion. That religion had to face a
tough battle with science during renaissance, which it still continues to do so
in the present times...."
Surya posts:
"... One of the key concepts for understanding differences developed in chapter 2 is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human bottom-up potential independent of history (Dharmic traditions)
VersusGod makes top-down history (history-centric religions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... I have jotted down some key points BD makes on Dharmic traditions:
(1)
In Dharmic traditions, the only way of acquiring knowledge is by direct
experience or empirical testing. Just as external empirical data is
the basis for validating hypothesis in modern science, inner
experiential data is the basis for testing adhyatmic-vidya.
(2)
Acquiring inner experiential data is a personal endeavor. No one can
do this for the person. Endeavor requires active inner and outer
engagement. One cannot say, because so-and-so Guru has acquired the
knowledge, I can just read his works and acquire what he knew. Direct
personal experimentation is the only true way of knowing.
(3)
Throughout the ages, yogis have discovered and fine-tuned methods and
processes that are effective tools in helping the person in the
engagement. ..
(3a) An outcome of (3) is the importance of a lineage of Gurus and the tools that they developed or propagated.
(3b)
another outcome of (3) is that there is no "one way", "the only way",
or "the final way.". In other words, development and refinement of
tools is an evolutionary process...
(4)
Knowledge acquisition is a personal endeavor. It does not demand the
person to follow a blind dogma or belief. It encourages individuals to
critique their own beliefs and ideas. ...
(5)
Techniques for acquiring the knowledge through the body (including the
mind and senses) are abundant in Dharmic traditions. Core competence of
Dharmic traditions has been the ability to produce living spiritual
masters across the ages and regions..."
Vish comments on 'Itihasa':
"... Iti-hasa is not history (not any individual man/ womans, not the way school history books are written)
Iti-hasa is not myth (The word myth was the contribution of people like Joseph Campbell in our modern times teaching pop culture in the liberal and new-age environments of the Sarah Lawrence and Vassar type of schools).
Iti-hasa has connotations of "thus the narration" or "ITs story". The IT standing for Being, Spirit, Soul, a certain sacredness relation with the Cosmos, Ecology and Life, with the 'Principle' that upholds the human, coming to a vibration with the Dharma of each thing in creation- all the benefits and preservation to the human in evolution. You cannot speak of evolution without there being that Involution - an important point Rajiv has explained. The Hindu texts keep on asking "Who is it that is "Involved"?"
One has to walk humbly in the narration of the Iti-hasas, for they are indeed spellbinding;
one has to lose oneself in the narration as Rama explains to a fiery brother Lakshmana why for the sake of the welfare of everyone in his kingdom (he takes on the mantle to be its protector) he has to as an act of Dharma obey his father's
word implicitly: without any conflict of any kind.
(This is a Yoga being taught here together with the necessity of learning to "Honor thy Father and thy Mother")
One has to walk humbly through its great labyrinth to understand that in our giddiness to bestow words like 'Kubera' etc on anyone rich, how truly we dilute our thoughts and the name, not understanding that Kubera stands for one "who cares" and gives back bountifully. One has to sit with Rama and Sita and let the thoughts churn (the "Manthara") to understand the investment of sacredness in man and woman to preserve the Dharma of marriage. One must sit with Sitaji in her own gentle words in Chitrakuta as she urges Sri Rama to put his bows and arrows aside so as not to frighten the gentle animals when they come in their love. (Ah, but don't we have Disneyland to teach us the same these days and even better as Entertainment?)
Honestly, I wish every mother and father would spend some time with their children reading a passage here or there
with them, from these noble Iti-hasas. But then, the fathers and mothers would have needed that to be done by their own fathers and mothers and in their own times! ...."
Iti-hasa has connotations of "thus the narration" or "ITs story". The IT standing for Being, Spirit, Soul, a certain sacredness relation with the Cosmos, Ecology and Life, with the 'Principle' that upholds the human, coming to a vibration with the Dharma of each thing in creation- all the benefits and preservation to the human in evolution. You cannot speak of evolution without there being that Involution - an important point Rajiv has explained. The Hindu texts keep on asking "Who is it that is "Involved"?"
One has to walk humbly in the narration of the Iti-hasas, for they are indeed spellbinding;
one has to lose oneself in the narration as Rama explains to a fiery brother Lakshmana why for the sake of the welfare of everyone in his kingdom (he takes on the mantle to be its protector) he has to as an act of Dharma obey his father's
word implicitly: without any conflict of any kind.
(This is a Yoga being taught here together with the necessity of learning to "Honor thy Father and thy Mother")
One has to walk humbly through its great labyrinth to understand that in our giddiness to bestow words like 'Kubera' etc on anyone rich, how truly we dilute our thoughts and the name, not understanding that Kubera stands for one "who cares" and gives back bountifully. One has to sit with Rama and Sita and let the thoughts churn (the "Manthara") to understand the investment of sacredness in man and woman to preserve the Dharma of marriage. One must sit with Sitaji in her own gentle words in Chitrakuta as she urges Sri Rama to put his bows and arrows aside so as not to frighten the gentle animals when they come in their love. (Ah, but don't we have Disneyland to teach us the same these days and even better as Entertainment?)
Honestly, I wish every mother and father would spend some time with their children reading a passage here or there
with them, from these noble Iti-hasas. But then, the fathers and mothers would have needed that to be done by their own fathers and mothers and in their own times! ...."
Senthil asks:
"..
modern western science takes a position, that one should believe things
only if
they are proved.. this in my view is totally negative stance... it
always look for empirical evidence, that is perceptible within 5 senses
of
human body.. in view this negative attitude has a direct influence of
christianity, which denies any experience of god by others.. am i
correct
in my understanding?
Should we not review the western science too, which is influenced by
christianity?
Kundan responds:
Science
in the western world is a by-product of many influences. First is the medieval
milieu of Church, which had taken possession and control of all human
activities. No exploration worth the name was possible unless the Church
validated it. This carried on for about thousand years or so and there was a
revolt in the masses which led to renaissance. The second influence on science
is that of the philosophy of the Greeks—Plato, Aristotle, etc. Given that
science arose from the milieu of Judeo-Christian world, it can never be free of
its influence despite its insistence otherwise ....
However, I
think the Church knew that nearness to God could not be accessed through the
five senses. It already had a hating bias towards Reason. It was not because
they understood the limitation of Reason in divine pursuit but mainly because
the pagan Greeks privileged Reason; and because the Church considered the pagan
Greeks demoniac, it hated and demonized Reason. .... The
scientific world then disavowed Reason and began to specifically focus on the
realm of five senses. This movement was first described as Positivism and later
as Logical Positivism.
Now let us
come to discuss where Science and Church are two sides of the same coin. This
is regarding the issue of faith. The scientific community is no less dogmatic
than is/was Church regarding its issues of methodologies and its principles. .... It too operates on faith, which has been characterized as scientism. If
you want to study this issue in detail, I recommend to you two authors: Thomas
Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. Paul Feyerabend in “Against Method” is particularly
scathing in his attack on science for its Church like character. Thomas Kuhn in
“Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is mild but he almost says the same
thing. If you want to have a brief understanding of these issues (though I will
not recommend it, for I would encourage a detailed study of this issue) I refer
you to a paper that I had presented in 2002 at IIT,
Kharagpur. Rajiv ji’s Infinity Foundation was a sponsor of this conference and
had also sponsored my participation.
... One small clarification: Christianity does not
prohibit experience of God. One can have nearness to God in Christianity
(usually it is encouraged in an afterlife but you can have it in this life too
in a beatific experience). What it prohibits is union with either God or
becoming like his son, who has an exclusive and historical significance—these
two were heresies, which would cost one his/her life at stake.
Arun comments:
"Turning Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different effort into an attack on science is
needless and I think will be counterproductive.
On the substance of the post -
IMO, the methodology of science is completely separable from its historic roots. Yes, the subjects science considers interesting (i.e., that are funded for research, that researchers want to work on, etc.) are culture-specific. As a simple example, a vaccine for malaria is of far greater interest to Indian than to the US pharmaceutical companies.
We well know that not everything is scientific. E.g., there is the whole field of aesthetics, in the arts, music, dance, etc. These being non-scientific does not make them less valuable. So the inner experience does not lose value if we cannot demonstrate it to be scientific."
Rajiv's comment:
On the substance of the post -
IMO, the methodology of science is completely separable from its historic roots. Yes, the subjects science considers interesting (i.e., that are funded for research, that researchers want to work on, etc.) are culture-specific. As a simple example, a vaccine for malaria is of far greater interest to Indian than to the US pharmaceutical companies.
We well know that not everything is scientific. E.g., there is the whole field of aesthetics, in the arts, music, dance, etc. These being non-scientific does not make them less valuable. So the inner experience does not lose value if we cannot demonstrate it to be scientific."
Rajiv's comment:
I fully agree with Arun.
This "science = Eurocentrism" posture is the blindness of postcolonialists, because they have no clue of non-western paradigms of science. This is where Balagangadhara (whose work i respect) is misguided as he sees reason, science,
etc. as absent from dharma or antithetical to it.
BD takes the stand that: Order/Chaos are BOTH present and balanced in dharma (hence the samudra manthana motif on the cover) whereas Order must annihilate Chaos in Western thinking; rationality and direct inner experience are not
mutually contradictory in dharma because ordinary rationality is enhanced/expanded into what Sri Aurobindo refers to as the supramental state.
This notion that "mysticism vs rationality" are opposites was true of western mysticism, and BD explains in detail why dharmic mysticism differs from western mysticism.
Such common misrepresentations by Hindu experts of recent times have been turned into a weapon against dharma by people like Ken Wilber, who claim to supersede dharma because they depict it as "otherworldly, non-rational, not capable of advancement", etc... Many lofty otherworldly Indian experts have reinforced this and fed it."
This "science = Eurocentrism" posture is the blindness of postcolonialists, because they have no clue of non-western paradigms of science. This is where Balagangadhara (whose work i respect) is misguided as he sees reason, science,
etc. as absent from dharma or antithetical to it.
BD takes the stand that: Order/Chaos are BOTH present and balanced in dharma (hence the samudra manthana motif on the cover) whereas Order must annihilate Chaos in Western thinking; rationality and direct inner experience are not
mutually contradictory in dharma because ordinary rationality is enhanced/expanded into what Sri Aurobindo refers to as the supramental state.
This notion that "mysticism vs rationality" are opposites was true of western mysticism, and BD explains in detail why dharmic mysticism differs from western mysticism.
Such common misrepresentations by Hindu experts of recent times have been turned into a weapon against dharma by people like Ken Wilber, who claim to supersede dharma because they depict it as "otherworldly, non-rational, not capable of advancement", etc... Many lofty otherworldly Indian experts have reinforced this and fed it."
Kundan: I do not
think that what I wrote is an attack on science. It is a CRITIQUE of Science—its
methodologies, insistence on reason, objectivity etc. ...
May be the spirit of science is same with adhyatma vidya but
all its methodologies and philosophy (induction, deduction, falsifiablity, etc)
are not the same—replicability and verifiability yes but not induction,
deduction, and falsifiablity). Adhyatma Vidya transcends and integrates science
because whereas science comes from the realm of five senses and reason,
Adhyatma vidya comes from realms that are beyond these planes of senses and
mind—higher mind, intuitive mind, illumined mind, supramental mind, etc if we
take the terminology of Sri Aurobindo into account. And given that all the
planes of the consciousness beginning with matter to vital (the realm of
emotions and senses) to reason to supramental are seen as one continuum,
Adhyatma Vidya envelops and transcends science. This is also the reason why
science and “religion” have not been in conflict in India.
The Indians traditionally have been comfortable with using and exploring all
realms of human existence—senses, mind, and beyond. And that is the reason one
also had a fairly advanced science for its time till India was ransacked. This
is much in contradiction to the other worldly rant that one hears about Indians.
Given that colonization has foisted this science/religion
debate on us Indians, I recommend that we understand the philosophy of science
completely beginning with Francis Bacon. Then we can take up the writings of
Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Lakatos. There is one good book
that can give a quick review of the important issues involved in the writings
of the above philosophers of science. It is called “What is This Thing Called
Science?” by A. F. Chalmers.
Kundan shares his thoughts on difference between dharma and history-centric traditions in BD on the issue of authority:
The dharmic and the history-centric traditions widely differ
around the question of authority. In the dharmic traditions, it is divinely
embodied being, a rishi or a muni, who is considered to be the final authority
in spiritual/dharmic matters. A person who, through his yoga or spiritual
practice, has come in contact with the divine has the ultimate word in dharmic
matters. The spiritual knowledge is embodied in the being. Forget about any
organization, book, or collective having a superior status to this individual
if he/she can manifest yogic states and yogic knowledge, even scholar of the
shastras or any of the dharmic texts has much inferior status than the yogi. A
pandit or a brahmana has a subordinate status to that of a yogi. In the varna
classification also whereas a brahmana is a person who is guided by the sattva
guna, a yogi is one who is beyond the three gunas: therefore, he or she is
called "trigunatita." Traditional India
never inquires about the varna or
the jati of a yogi. Some of these rishis become gurus, and initiate some other
people as disciples so that he/she could guide them to path of self realization
or divinity. Guru in the Indian tradition is awarded a position superior to the
divine himself/herself/itself as is evident in the oft repeated sloka, "Gurur Brahmaa
Gurur Vishnu Gurur devo Maheshwarh; Gurur sakshaat param brahma, tasmai shri
guruve namah." Guru is above and beyond all-even the highest and the ultimate
Brahman has an inferior status to that of a guru.
The verses
34 and 35 of Vivekachudamani describes a guru in the following words: "the one
who has studied the sàstras, one who
does not have pàpa, who is not
affected by desires, who is a knower of Brahman with the mind resolved in the
knowledge of Brahman, who is calm like the fire that does not have any fuel,
who is an ocean of compassion without any reason, who is helpful friend to the
seeker who salute him with appreciation." Guru for a seeker is an ocean of
compassion who is a helpful friend. Guru within the Indian tradition is not a
power hungry individual who seeks subservience. On the contrary, he/she is the
remover of darkness within the hearts of individuals who seek him/her with
reverence and surrender. The Guru within the Indian tradition is not a martinet
who orders people around. On the contrary as the Upanishads show, he/she
engages in a dialogue to remove avidya from his/her disciples.
Given the
importance of Guru within the dharmic tradition, he/she has been a major target
of attack from the west. It is mainly because of two reasons: 1. the
institution of guru is a direct challenge to the organized, canonized, and
authoritarian Church (more on this below). 2. The highly individualistic
western culture-which also engenders a strong ego-is not really able to
understand the nuances and intricacies of one's relationship with one's guru.
The strong ego of a western person does not allow him/her to surrender to the
Guru, which further leads to a projection of authoritarian junk onto the
latter. The Guru, who within the Indian tradition is a compassionate helper and
friend, becomes an authoritarian martinet in the western imagination. The
individualistic ego does not understand that in the surrender to one's guru,
one finds the biggest spiritual treasure and an ultimate spiritual fulfillment....
Shastras, similarly are not meant to dogmatic texts that
have to be taken word for word. They are like guide books or "how to" books to
experience spiritual realities within the context of one's own being. One is
not to believe in them but use them as experiment manuals to verify and
replicate their contentions. The shastras are divided into various categories
like Shruti and smriti. Shrutis are revealed knowledge where as smriti are
created by humans. The shrutis contain the impersonal or "apaurusheya" spiritual
laws of the universe, which again are meant to be verified and replicated in
one's experience. The smritis are context dependent texts that give codes of
conduct based on time, person, and place. ....
Now how does authority in history-centric
traditions look
like as discussed in BD? In the history centric traditions, the mandate
is not
to find self-realization but to know the will of God, both for
individuals and
for societies. In Christianity, people cannot find union with God
because they
are born in sin, of which they could only be redeemed when God decided
to send
and sacrifice his only son-even the redemption does not guarantee a
union with
God but only nearness in afterlife. This was a unique historical event
that
cannot be repeated and cannot be verified. One could only have nearness
to God
in rapture after death but that is only after they have been saved and
have
taken Jesus as their only and unique saviour. As mentioned before
finding unity
with or claiming unity with Jesus was a heresy, which was overseen and
monitored by the Church. The Church is the final authority to see
whether one
is living in accordance with the Nicene Creed of Christianity. The
message that
was brought down by one-time Jesus is fixed and cannot be changed,
neither can
it be replicated and verified. The Church and the book become the fixed
cannons
of truth, the final truth, and final arbiter on all matters of religion.
Contrary
to the dharma traditions, a spiritual figure or a yogi is not the
ultimate word
on matters of dharma or divine or god. And if one's experiences led him
to contradict
that was the established truth of the Church, not Jesus, because the
Church
came into existence almost three hundred years after Jesus was put on
the
Cross, he/she could pay with his/he life as happened with Meister
Eckhart and
others.....
Given that the dharma traditions emphasize so
much on the direct
experience of spiritual truths, this has not gone down the throats of
Christian
scholars very well. Swami Vivekananda had made a lot of noise (and I am
not
being irreverent towards him when I put it as such) about this aspect of
Vedanta when he toured the US
and UK in order
to show the camaraderie of science and Vedanta. Apart from the charisma
that he
had, this aspect of Vedanta won him many followers. The Christian
scholars, in
particular some "big names" like Paul Hacker and Wilhelm Halbfass have
written
reams to show that Swami Vivekananda's camaraderie of Vedanta and
Science was
inspired by his study of western literature and philosophy of science in
Calcutta, and that he gave his own twist to the matter to make such a
claim.
When one begins to examine the dharmic texts before the advent of
English on
Indian soil, one can see it for oneself that the dharmic traditions have
always
emphasized a direct experience of spiritual truths. "
Bharath responds to Vish's comments on Itihasa:
"..
Your writings of Ramayana the iti-hasa (*It happened thus)* deeply touches me.
I would like to add that there is some small degree of overlap between History and Iti-hasa. i.e the events and happenings of Rama life and his Dharmic Way of life itself is bench mark for one to follow. He has shown practically by his life the Dharmic Way. It is a practical demonstration of the eternal truth in play in space time. Therefore, the historical narrative has its role to play in a society.
However, it can be said that the principles of the story is more important than the story itself and therefore, it is immaterial whether the the story itself is true and false. This is also correct. But if the Historical context is undermined the lofty and grand narrative of Valmiki Rishi who is considered to
have seen the entire story of Ramayana in a deep state of meditation looses its appeal in the hearts of the people.
However multiple narratives to suit the dharma of people as propounded by various gurus/rishis has taken place over time. In fact these Iti-hasas of rishis/gurus is deeply connected to Sampradayas too. Therefore, Sampradayas have a historical connection to Guru Parampara and invalidating the historicity
will be invalidating the sampradayas itself at an operation level of the family.However, I acknowledge that the very purpose of this samprdaya is to Transcend Historicity itself
In fact the Rishis view is that *"Omkara's Expansion is Gayathri Mantra, the Gayathri Mantra's Expansion is Purushasooktam of Vedas and Purusha sooktams Expansion is Ramayana Iti-hasa. Out of this the latter is in the story of Omkara in space time realm. Therefore, Iti-hasa has past proceeding story component in it and HIs-story is Rama's Story or more deeply Om-kars Story"
Contrast all this to the fixation in some time -space which is present in Judeo-Christian traditions"
I would like to add that there is some small degree of overlap between History and Iti-hasa. i.e the events and happenings of Rama life and his Dharmic Way of life itself is bench mark for one to follow. He has shown practically by his life the Dharmic Way. It is a practical demonstration of the eternal truth in play in space time. Therefore, the historical narrative has its role to play in a society.
However, it can be said that the principles of the story is more important than the story itself and therefore, it is immaterial whether the the story itself is true and false. This is also correct. But if the Historical context is undermined the lofty and grand narrative of Valmiki Rishi who is considered to
have seen the entire story of Ramayana in a deep state of meditation looses its appeal in the hearts of the people.
However multiple narratives to suit the dharma of people as propounded by various gurus/rishis has taken place over time. In fact these Iti-hasas of rishis/gurus is deeply connected to Sampradayas too. Therefore, Sampradayas have a historical connection to Guru Parampara and invalidating the historicity
will be invalidating the sampradayas itself at an operation level of the family.However, I acknowledge that the very purpose of this samprdaya is to Transcend Historicity itself
In fact the Rishis view is that *"Omkara's Expansion is Gayathri Mantra, the Gayathri Mantra's Expansion is Purushasooktam of Vedas and Purusha sooktams Expansion is Ramayana Iti-hasa. Out of this the latter is in the story of Omkara in space time realm. Therefore, Iti-hasa has past proceeding story component in it and HIs-story is Rama's Story or more deeply Om-kars Story"
Contrast all this to the fixation in some time -space which is present in Judeo-Christian traditions"
"I was going through all the videos of Rajiv and liked all of them. But during the discussion with UGC panel, he was supporting Ramanujan's theory of multiple Ramayans. (more than 300). ... Just, becoz we should allow various forms of narration of a story does not mean that we allow other religions and non dharmic people to modify the essence of our dharma.
Should we allow character assassinations like Sita ji being the actual wife of Ravan or Hanuman ji having relationships with Sita mata. Do we need to include such versions of Ramayan in our text and/or books or we should preserve the essence of Ramayan and accept modifications without destroying the essence.
Rajiv response:
Should we allow character assassinations like Sita ji being the actual wife of Ravan or Hanuman ji having relationships with Sita mata. Do we need to include such versions of Ramayan in our text and/or books or we should preserve the essence of Ramayan and accept modifications without destroying the essence.
Rajiv response:
I do NOT support any interpretations that are disrespectful as in the above examples. I DO support local adaptations across Asia that have existed for centuries that are extremely respectful.
For instance, when I owned a company in Indonesia in the 1990s, I visited there several times a year and studied the way Hinduism was present. One of their major sites is called the Monkey Forest. Their narrative is that the monkeys in this forest are descendents of Hanuman's army. How did they end up there? The answer given is that on Hanuman's way from Himalayas to Lanka some pieces of the mountain fell into the Ocean and became some of the Indonesian islands, and
these monkeys arrived as a result. That's a local adaptation that works for them.
Another example: In Thailand, major Buddhist temples have a statue of Ravana outside the gate. The interpretation given is that after Ravana died, he repented for his bad deeds, and asked for another chance to do good. So in his next birth he came to serve Rama who was born as Buddha. That is why Ravana sits outside the door of Buddha to protect him. A bad guy became good in his next life. There is also a town called Ayodhya in Thailand which according to local folk lore is the place we know to be in India.
When I accompanied Swami Dayananda Saraswati to Cambodia for the Hindu-Buddhist summit, there was an evening performance of Ramayana specifically for the
delegation. It had many such local adaptations.
The entire Asia (and even in remote parts of India) there are many such local adaptations. I did not find anything disrespectful in them, at least not the ones I saw.
So each specific interpretation must be examined and evaluated for the bhava and motives involved. You should not assume that the stupid Hinduphobia of M.F. Hussain is present in all these adaptations. BD cites A.K. Ramanuja but none of
the points made in those quotes have even a remote disrespect. But if he wrote other things that were disrespectful, of course we should demolish those. "
For instance, when I owned a company in Indonesia in the 1990s, I visited there several times a year and studied the way Hinduism was present. One of their major sites is called the Monkey Forest. Their narrative is that the monkeys in this forest are descendents of Hanuman's army. How did they end up there? The answer given is that on Hanuman's way from Himalayas to Lanka some pieces of the mountain fell into the Ocean and became some of the Indonesian islands, and
these monkeys arrived as a result. That's a local adaptation that works for them.
Another example: In Thailand, major Buddhist temples have a statue of Ravana outside the gate. The interpretation given is that after Ravana died, he repented for his bad deeds, and asked for another chance to do good. So in his next birth he came to serve Rama who was born as Buddha. That is why Ravana sits outside the door of Buddha to protect him. A bad guy became good in his next life. There is also a town called Ayodhya in Thailand which according to local folk lore is the place we know to be in India.
When I accompanied Swami Dayananda Saraswati to Cambodia for the Hindu-Buddhist summit, there was an evening performance of Ramayana specifically for the
delegation. It had many such local adaptations.
The entire Asia (and even in remote parts of India) there are many such local adaptations. I did not find anything disrespectful in them, at least not the ones I saw.
So each specific interpretation must be examined and evaluated for the bhava and motives involved. You should not assume that the stupid Hinduphobia of M.F. Hussain is present in all these adaptations. BD cites A.K. Ramanuja but none of
the points made in those quotes have even a remote disrespect. But if he wrote other things that were disrespectful, of course we should demolish those. "
Rajiv responds to another clarification on 'mutual respect':
Respect does NOT require that I must accept the other's faith as mine. I respect that it is HIS faith even though mine is different. So I can
respect someone even if I think his position is untrue. I am not threatened by
what he practices. He is at his own level of consciousness based on his past conditioning, from which he gets a certain worldview. I may know that to be
false but to force him to become like me would be wrong. So I respect him, even
though I dont practice what he does. His drishti differs due to his prarabdha.
So I will keep arguing and debating him, but that is not out of disrespect.
Please note that the "mutual" clause is critical in mutual respect. Would I also respect Hitler, bin laden, ravana, etc? No, because they do not respect others who differ, hence they fail the "mutual" clause..."
Please note that the "mutual" clause is critical in mutual respect. Would I also respect Hitler, bin laden, ravana, etc? No, because they do not respect others who differ, hence they fail the "mutual" clause..."
Ramanth responds to Rajiv's comment on 'mutual respect'
I may respect your right to believe your faith, but know that it is false and that you are ignorant of the true way to salvation. Hence though I respect you and your choice of belief, I feel that it is wrong for me to allow you to go in the wrong path, hence I should try and reform you. Essentially, I can respect
your faith as a legitimate human attempt to commune with the divine, but still recognize it as leading to hell for not accepting Jesus, hence all attempts at saving you through conversion [with force, deception or otherwise] are ultimately noble, just like a teacher or parent must sometimes use force or small temptations, on an erring child, though the child is respected and loved.
Rajiv's response:
The key point you must understand here is that in the Abrahamic religions God gives rules that apply to COLLECTIVE groups, not for individual moksha.
You are required to get others in line because its a group travel arrangement to heaven, hence the institutions serve as group travel agencies to secure a place for members. The membership concept runs deep. It is collective action on earth
(hence evangelism).
...
Christian Zionists are a good example: The second coming of Christ is waiting to happen because humans have not collectively acted as per the Book of Revelation:
according to that part of the bible, Christ will return ONLY after people have restored the original Kingdom of David, which includes among other things restoring the Temple of David where today stands a mosque - not an ordinary
mosque but the place where Mohammed went to paradise. All this is at the center for the fight in the Middle East, hence Christian Zionists (v. powerful in USA) support for Israel. This is due to history-centrism.
... Its like someone polluting the city water supply becomes my legitimate problem as well, because it effects my safety.
....
The result of collective versus individual paths is immense. In dharma, I can respect the other who is doing whats bad karma when the consequences are only to HIM, not me. Christians and Jews claim the mandate to spread the "law" universally, hence they CANNOT respect non compliance - it would be like you respecting someone who is inflicting criminal damage on you.
I can respect someone's right to do bad karma as part of the freedom of choice given to everyone, even though I know its has consequences - to HIM alone.
Note the reciprocal role of the "mutual" clause in my term "mutual respect". It means the man who is poisoning the city water supply is not entitled to my respect because he is not reciprocating by respecting others' safety."
Shankar shares:
On Purva Paksha challenges... Being Different is a wakeup call to those who have honest, serious commitment to revive and renew methods of articulating dialogue in Reversing the gaze. In order to intelligently Reverse the Gaze it is important to understand in depth the Purva-Paksha Siddhanta techniques used within Indian philosophy.
However today we have a structural problem in learning this traditional Advaita argumentative methods used in their Purva Paksha-Siddhanta discussions with Nyaya-Vaisheshika-Shoonya vaadins. The teaching systems that exist today more
often rely on contemporary self interpretations or modern commentaries rather than detailed purva-uttara mimamsa, the word-to-word analysis based on Sri Adi Shankara, Nagarjuna, Kumarila Bhatta, Bhartrihari and other Bhashya's. Due to
time and other agenda's Bhashya's are barely covered in teaching. The relevance of these analysis and understanding is mandatory to know how within Indian thought the gaze was reversed followed by that we can reverse the gaze with
west. The Sampradaya does exist in few Ashramas today but in our current philosophical study mindset - commonly there is a rush to take a position of Advaitin or otherwise, without first a thorough comparative philosophical study of the six schools of Indian thought which provides structure to logic-reasoning-argumentation methods, which will come to bear fruits no matter which final position is accepted.
Some of the traditional true-to-the Indian thought philosophers even today say that each text takes 3-4 years of serious-rigorous-study to even gain a glimpse of depth involved in the great logical texts/philosophy drastantas. There is lack of commitment to fully teach or learn in detail, the fundamental (various) means of knowledge, the vision of each of the schools of thought or chosen text in a structured manner before taking on the road of particular school of
thought. There is rush of completing the text/training and claiming an 'I know it all' conclusive position. The detail argumentation between the traditional Philosophical Giants of six schools provides us an abundance of 'structure to
articulate one's position' rather than taking conclusive position without substantive backup or intelligent argumentation.
For example in Mandukya Upanishad, Sri Adi Shankaaracharya exposes opponent logic-fallacies as half-baked logic (Ardha-Kukkuti Nyaya) which is keeping half
the hen for future eggs and half for cooking. This is the fallacy exhibited by plagiarists of Indian thought..."
January 12Christian Zionists are a good example: The second coming of Christ is waiting to happen because humans have not collectively acted as per the Book of Revelation:
according to that part of the bible, Christ will return ONLY after people have restored the original Kingdom of David, which includes among other things restoring the Temple of David where today stands a mosque - not an ordinary
mosque but the place where Mohammed went to paradise. All this is at the center for the fight in the Middle East, hence Christian Zionists (v. powerful in USA) support for Israel. This is due to history-centrism.
... Its like someone polluting the city water supply becomes my legitimate problem as well, because it effects my safety.
....
The result of collective versus individual paths is immense. In dharma, I can respect the other who is doing whats bad karma when the consequences are only to HIM, not me. Christians and Jews claim the mandate to spread the "law" universally, hence they CANNOT respect non compliance - it would be like you respecting someone who is inflicting criminal damage on you.
I can respect someone's right to do bad karma as part of the freedom of choice given to everyone, even though I know its has consequences - to HIM alone.
Note the reciprocal role of the "mutual" clause in my term "mutual respect". It means the man who is poisoning the city water supply is not entitled to my respect because he is not reciprocating by respecting others' safety."
Shankar shares:
On Purva Paksha challenges... Being Different is a wakeup call to those who have honest, serious commitment to revive and renew methods of articulating dialogue in Reversing the gaze. In order to intelligently Reverse the Gaze it is important to understand in depth the Purva-Paksha Siddhanta techniques used within Indian philosophy.
However today we have a structural problem in learning this traditional Advaita argumentative methods used in their Purva Paksha-Siddhanta discussions with Nyaya-Vaisheshika-Shoonya vaadins. The teaching systems that exist today more
often rely on contemporary self interpretations or modern commentaries rather than detailed purva-uttara mimamsa, the word-to-word analysis based on Sri Adi Shankara, Nagarjuna, Kumarila Bhatta, Bhartrihari and other Bhashya's. Due to
time and other agenda's Bhashya's are barely covered in teaching. The relevance of these analysis and understanding is mandatory to know how within Indian thought the gaze was reversed followed by that we can reverse the gaze with
west. The Sampradaya does exist in few Ashramas today but in our current philosophical study mindset - commonly there is a rush to take a position of Advaitin or otherwise, without first a thorough comparative philosophical study of the six schools of Indian thought which provides structure to logic-reasoning-argumentation methods, which will come to bear fruits no matter which final position is accepted.
Some of the traditional true-to-the Indian thought philosophers even today say that each text takes 3-4 years of serious-rigorous-study to even gain a glimpse of depth involved in the great logical texts/philosophy drastantas. There is lack of commitment to fully teach or learn in detail, the fundamental (various) means of knowledge, the vision of each of the schools of thought or chosen text in a structured manner before taking on the road of particular school of
thought. There is rush of completing the text/training and claiming an 'I know it all' conclusive position. The detail argumentation between the traditional Philosophical Giants of six schools provides us an abundance of 'structure to
articulate one's position' rather than taking conclusive position without substantive backup or intelligent argumentation.
For example in Mandukya Upanishad, Sri Adi Shankaaracharya exposes opponent logic-fallacies as half-baked logic (Ardha-Kukkuti Nyaya) which is keeping half
the hen for future eggs and half for cooking. This is the fallacy exhibited by plagiarists of Indian thought..."
January 12
No comments:
Post a Comment