This post contains a detailed summary of a
very interesting RMF debate and discussion in Sept-Oct 2012, between a
Western scholar (Karl-Stéphan),, Rajiv Malhotra, and RMF commentators. This thread is particularly important in light of the recent debate at AAR, Chicago in November 2012, where Rajiv Malhotra's book "Being Different' was criticized by Rambachan, Pennington (in undignified language), & co. Koenraad Elst has blogged about this, and Rajiv has himself written on this at depth in this forum. A section of current Western academics have invented an oxymoron "Neo-Hindu" line of attack that passes through Swami Vivekananda. This sample by KSB of Quebec, appears to be representative of this work stream (Science versus Sanskrit). He appears to be working at JNU, New Delhi. I wonder if there is any other country in the world where research is done with public funding to undermine the host nation and its cultural identity?
The abstract of KSB's article is introduced in Part-1. You can read the paper within the e-Group if still available.
Here is another overview of KSB's work in the public domain.
Here is the link to the original thread.
Here is the link to the followup thread.
We first present excerpts from Rajiv's initial response.
"
1. New age: The author, KSB,
relies mainly on new age sources, not serious scientists or serious
Indian philosophers. Capra's 1975 book is his main source. Though it was
indeed a best seller in pop circles, it was superficial in its content. ... but after him there has
been a more serious development that
KSB seems unaware of and must delve into – see item 3 below.
2. Indians import the new age version:
This is the serious mistake Indians made and continue to make: They
were so grateful to westerners' appreciation of their philosophy (like
Capra), that they did not do original work of their own, nor did they
critically examine and respond to western appropriations of Indian
ideas. In other words, Indians adopted the digested version of their own tradition
and felt proud of this. "We are legitimate because even some westerners
have praised our tradition," they love to say. I agree with Bouthillette's
assessment that his teachers of Sanskrit at JNU and various other
Indians in the "Vedic science" field are in awe of Capra. So he can
claim that he relied on such persons as the spokespersons for Indian
tradition. But I don't regard them as competent for this. The reason
becomes clear in the next item below.
3. Western appropriation:
I have researched the recent history of this new genre of philosophy of
science as it has become established in the west. This genre is now
becoming more mainstream, with heavy backing by major institutions. I
can't get into too much detail here, as this is the subject of my own
forthcoming books (unfortunately delayed a bit due to personal reasons).
I have been gathering materials on about 50 western thinkers involved
in this digestion (of science/philosophy) that has taken place over the
past 40 years, and the breadth and depth of my database keeps growing
faster than I can keep up. But just to illustrate:
a. Physics:
Henry Stapp was one of the pioneering western physicists (Lawrence
Livermore Labs) who wrote a major book on the philosophy of quantum
mechanics using Indian sources but without any acknowledgment. He
was heavily rewarded .... But here is the smoking gun:
A year prior to his book, he had spent many months with an ISKCON
philosopher to study the Gaudiya Vaishnav ontology in order to
understand quantum mechanics philosophically. He wrote a short book on
this that ISKCON published, in which he concludes that this system is
compatible with quantum mechanics. He had not said this of any other
philosophical system in the world. This was his holy grail that let him
integrate quantum mechanics with a philosophy that would satisfy
scientific rigor. Ironically, in his own subsequent major book for
serious western scientists, he did not even include his own earlier book on Gaudiya Vaishnav interpretation of quantum mechanics in the bibliography.
How amazing! ... All this happened alongside many other similar stories concerning many
other scientists like Penrose, Hamerhoff, Bohm, Schwartz, etc. They were
busy with similar speculations and digestions based on Indian
philosophy. None of them had direct access to Indian philosophy either as texts or as practitioners.
b. Life sciences: The other stream that flowed into this was the westerners who had learned a great deal experientially
from Indian gurus since the 1960s, and brought this into
mind-body-spirit healing paradigms – the precursors of Deepak Chopra.
Many of them took this into neuroscience and other life sciences. People
like Laberge, Sheldrake, Kabat-Zinn,etc. belong in this group. Here is the most exciting discovery I have recently run into:
One of the most important individuals who digested Indian stuff but
gets claimed as the western pioneer in the literature, is now very old
and has turned over his personal documents into an archive. ... The list of
contents in the files is quite astonishing: his correspondence with top
US research institutions, government funding agencies, and even Prince
Philips of UK, to convince them that he had gained knowledge of "eastern sources" which could revolutionize western science!!!
There are also files on his trips to India in the 1960s and 70s to
study Indian yogis and study with leading thinkers to understand the
traditions. ... Today the subject is being taught in colleges with 100% of the sources
referenced as western – going back to Plato, Jesus, Aristotle, etc. But when I get (and hopefully I will) copies of this archive in my hands, it will be worth a volume by itself. I have about 50 such cases with various levels of data, and I need assistants who want to help me.
4. Given
this digest-and-hide-the-source strategy on such a massive scale, no
reliable work on the topic at hand can be done based on what Sanskrit
scholars and scientists at JNU and other Indian institutions have to
say. I am sorry to make such a sweeping dismissal. But I travel a lot
and meet such persons frequently. They have bought into the version
that's digested by westerners and fed back to them.
5. So my own approach is to study the western digesters. They have in fact done a great job in many cases to interpret Indian traditions for modern times and added real value.
This is great. But they should not distort the history of ideas or
plagiarize just because the source is non-western and is in the
trusteeship of largely incompetent Indian leaders and experts. By tracing the history of their digestion, I can then reverse the process and reclaim the tradition. This work needs a lot of funding and top quality human resources. KSB
should study the digesters and through their writings he will gain a
new level of respect for Indian sources.....
6. His
reliance upon quacks like Meera Nanda is unfortunate. He should keep
politics out and study this as a topic of the history of science,
history of philosophy, etc. Nanda told me of her family problems which
caused her to become mentally disturbed and hence she turned against the
whole tradition. Now it's a career/business opportunity for her to sell
her hatred to westerners. This is explained in Breaking India. But there are too many holes in her positions. I have repeatedly invited her to live debate and she has not accepted.
7. KSB
cites Guenon, but probably does not know that Guenon was also heavily
appropriating India sources. This comes out in a book funded by Infinity
foundation that is being written by a French couple for the past 5
years...
8. Finally some comments on doxography,the lens through which Bouthillette sees classical Indian science:
a. He
cites a few modern Indian texts as doxographic and makes sweeping
conclusions from this. The authors he names are hardly important to the
tradition. Who cares what they wrote? It is simply irrelevant to
examining whether Sanskrit offers scientific knowledge or not.
b. Constant
reinterpretation by a tradition is a good thing and not a bad thing. To
be frozen in time would be the gold standard for history centric
systems. But dharma supports the endless modification of smriti which is
human knowledge. That is also how modern science works.Westerners like
to call this "progress". I find that many of his examples show progress
by Indian thinkers while he seems to think that the implication is
otherwise.
c. Bouthillette does not seem to appreciate the Indian notion of a spectrum of truths,
rather than one "objective" truth for every situation. Indian thought
does not find any problems with a spectrum of views on certain things,
and many works are organized to show how different perspectives can see
the same thing differently. I don't like collapsing this into the
Western category of "doxographic".
d. The writings of many of the Western digesters I am investigating show a doxographic style on their part.
9. I hope these points will be useful to Bouthillette
in his research. The sad thing is that I cannot easily send him to some
better Indian experts on the subject than he has interviewed.
10. I also hope the Hindus who read this get an insight into the dynamics of the kurukshetra of inter-civilizational discourse. That's whats going on here, so please don't be escapist, lofty, simplistic."
KSB's response:
"... I am looking for possible Journals for publication. Nevertheless, it served its purpose here in fostering this debate. This is why I shared it freely. Any use of it in further work should be made properly or avoided before contacting me. ... I will now go point by point, quoting first the "purvapaksha" than providing my
"uttarapaksha":
1. response:
... I pointed out myself that Capra is of New Age literature. I also outlined
how many Indian intellectual followed him, with ample proofs in bottom page note
and in the chapter on Capra. That more recent and relevant work has been done I
am also aware, especially outside of India. The literature that I reviewed, if
one examines my quoted sources, is older for some cases and recent for others,
and of Indian origin. Still, Capra's model is in most case quoted and often
copied.
2.response:
Indeed. It appears to me that the Indian intellectuals that we are referring to
here are simply unaware of what is the New Age movement (purpose and nature). ...
3. response:
I personally find this information of yours inspiring and would like to know the
name of the second author... or even help you out in your research in some ways
if you deem me fit for the task. Just like you, I believe that the subject
(science and philosophy) is becoming hot-soup in the West, judging by the amount
of popular works published by renowned scientists. One problem remains. Most
Westerners, especially in "scientific" fields, have little knowledge of Sanskrit
and of its original traditions of debate. What is more, their knowledge often
comes from second or third hand sources. This was also true for Schopenhauer and
the like who had access to limited sources but who are often quoted by Indian intellectuals....
But otherwise, this comment is a digression from the subject of my paper.
I do not feel there is anything I can add here. It is not directly related to the paper, but I understand the concerns and would be interested in knowing more.
4. response:
I tend to agree with you here as well. ..
I personally do not feel the need to "reverse" any process, as I am not immediately interested in claiming anything...Again, I come back to this; my issue for the moment is one of
methodology.
5. response:
On this point, it suffices for me to say that I do not rely on Miss Nanda but felt necessary to quote her since she wrote on the issue. This is simply being fare [sic]. In fact, I simply mentioned her book title and did not use her work...
6. response:
This comment comes as a surprise to me.
On page 10 of my paper, one can read:
...
Not only did I say this, but I quoted in bottom page note all the books that he wrote in relation to Indian thought.
In fact, anyone who reads Guénon, and since I am originally French speaking I read him in his own language, cannot fail to know that he was highly inspired by Indian thought and that he used it to promote his views. Guénon quoted many
Indian texts and never hided his debt to it. In all cases, I do not feel the need to defend him here, ...
It is a complete surprise for me to hear that you believe that the Perennialists did not acknowledge their debt to Indian thought, as most of them saw in the Vedanta the expression of ultimate truth. I look forward to hear about the Infinity Foundation book.
8. response:
..I do not decide what is to be kept or
rejected. History will do. I selected a few and analyzed their rhetoric (one sample only in this paper). I believe that they represent some popular opinions and some opinions also shared by academics. Some of these authors are indeed
teachers and academics. ..
I understand in one way: Sanskrit tradition does not need scientific approval.
It stands on its own. I agree.
I do not understand in another way: the whole debate here is that Sanskrit philosophical traditions could contribute to scientific knowledge in some ways. But how? So I do not understand why you say that it is irrelevant.
b. response:
In fact, in the paper, I do not take position on this. I simply mention the fact that there is continuity. I tend to agree with you about the "progress", although I would call it adaptation or "accommodation". My objective, in the paper, was simply to show that there is a possible continuity between ancient
doxographers and modern writers on philosophy and science. ...
c. response:
I do not find in my text anything that suggests this interpretation. doxography is a practical word used for a very precise type of philosophical literature. It is fully explained in the paper. However, if you were to find a better expression you are welcome to suggest it. I will take note of it.
....I am talking about a specific "genre" for which I provided classical examples that fit the definition.
d. response:
For this I am certain. I also noticed it. This is why I believe that we should understand better what is the nature and purpose of doxography and how to use this style properly, in a modern context, or not at all. ...
9.response:
I thank you very much for the time that you have taken in this exercise. It is very generous of you. I am curious as to why you believe that there are no other better Indian experts that I could interview....
10. response:
I wonder if this is what is at play here. I believe in cooperation and trust more than in suspicion. Although yes, being naive or simplistic serves no one."
Rajiv's first followup is quite brief and to the point:
1. Rajiv response: Pointing out that Capra is
new age is unimportant when he has used Capra and Capra's Indian fans as
his benchmark for Indian science. Since we both agree that Capra is new
age, why has he not sidestepped Capra after a brief mention and moved
on to more substantial thinkers.
2.
Rajiv response:
Many metro university folks in India, Sanskrit included, are products
of Western education including western approaches to sanskrit. WU has
indeed become exported very successfully to the Indian intellectuals
incl those who speak on behalf of Indian traditions. This is true of
academics, media, gurus, acharyas (the world trotting ones at least).
Provoking them to understand
difference and to reverse the gaze is not going to be easy - because it makes them squirm at their own foolish assumptions.
> "
But otherwise, this comment is a digression from the subject of my paper."
Rajiv response:
The final sentence is disappointing because it means he did not get my
point at all. My point is that rater than relying upon the Capra level
of writers, he ought to study the westerners who have digested Indian
traditions and made it into "western thought" while hiding their Indian
sources.
On the one hand he is looking for better sources than he used.
On the other hand he finds the digesters to be a diversion. THIS
ATTITUDE IS THE VERY REASON I AM WRITING ON DIGESTION. I want to show
that western scholars CANNOT ignore the Indian traditions that are now
prevalent in the form of "Western". For example,
virtually every
American textbook on Hinduism fails to mention yoga and meditation in
their treatment of Hinduism. It is simply assumed that these have become
digested and one need not bother explaining them as part of Hinduism.
So if you point this omission out, people like KSB will
consider that a digression.
If the subject of his paper if Indian
sources of science, he cannot do a legitimate treatment while ignoring
what has been and is currently being digested.
I will stop here.
Let others join the discussion also. The above points if taken
seriously are enough to call
the entire approach of the paper into
question. if the sources relied upon are straw men that serve one's
agenda, the results can be made into whatever one wants. While such
western scholarship is widespread and I dont think we can change it, my
purpose is to educate Hindus who tend to be ignorant and naive."
KSB's 2nd followup to Rajiv:
"Mr. Bouthillette's response:
Here I must mention again that my sole interest was to review Indian sources, as mentioned in the paper. If Indian writers on the subject are disliked by some,
for good or bad reasons, is irrelevant. ...Now, it happens that
most Indian sources were quoting Capra and this is why I spent some time discussing the validity of his work for scientific purposes.
The digression I was mentioning referred to the fact that my paper was limited in scope. It was dealing with a particular topic and a delimitated choice of sources. ... I am not to judge about "straw men" or "real Hindus". I have no agenda it could benefit to. But these writers were definitely Indian and my intention was to
examine what is being done in India by Indians, not elsewhere. Therefore, in this limited space, I reviewed and talked only about Indian writers of modern attempts to bridge science and philosophy. I see no problem there and no reason
to dismiss the whole paper on that ground."
Sumant's response:
Would appreciate it if Mr.Bouthillette could clarify what he means when he says people like Schopenhauer relied on "second-hand and thid-hand sources". What were these sources ? Are there reasons to discredit them ?....
Mr. Bouthillette's response:
What I mean here, for the case of Schopenhauer, is that he only had a badly translated copy of some Upanishads, coming from Persian sources and not Sanskrit. Also, in his time, scholarship on the issue was limited. So the chances of misunderstanding were high.
Mr. Balakrishnan's response:
5 references fom the EPW, 3 from Nanda. And none from the works of Western scientists like Schopenhauer, Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Einstein and Tesla. These men clearly saw something the Mr.Bouthillette didn't. Plus, the two works he
takes as examples to further his points are hardly considered the final authority on everything Hindu.
Mr. Bouthillette's response:
... Is there a "final authority on everything Hindu"?
You see,
my paper wanted simply to open a new way of reading/analyzing the discourse, in Indian ground, on science and philosophy. Therefore, I used Indian sources.
Mr. Balakrishnan's response:
These statements belie almost a paranoia on Mr. Bouthillette's part. Such fears for science as he expresses are more becoming of the Church and not Hinduism. Hinduism has never tried to "subordinate science". And what "complete sapping of the foundations of the Vedic worldview" is he talking about ? Can he be more specific about what aspects of the Vedic worldview are under the immediate
proven threat of science ? Doesn't the "integral unity" (to use Rajivji's phrase) of all of Nature, as espoused in the Vedas, albeit through the pervasiveness of divinity ("Ishavaasyam idam sarvam yatkinchjagatyam jagat") become more evident as one probes deeper into life, or farther into the cosmos ?
Mr. Bouthillette's response:
For the "complete sapping of the foundations of the Vedic worldview". This is open for debate and this was intended as such, this is why I have put a question mark. I was asking if some of these writers on the subject are trying to promote
a Vedic view out of a perceived treat. I did not answer the question. There is no paranoia in asking questions. Although I agree that other questions could also be asked and other openings made. In my view, this is not the strongest part of the paper and should be worked on further, maybe in a later piece of work, in a wider research. I was only providing what we call "openings" for further questions and angles of approach related to Jaffrelot's observations."
Mr. Balakrishnan's response:
And what about emiment physicists and neuroscientists who have benefited in their science after a study of the Vedic world view, the Gita etc. Mr. Bouthillette never quotes their works. And the reason for that ?
Mr. Bouthillette's response:
...This was not the purpose of this specific paper.
Mr. Balakrishnan's response:
As Rajivji has indicated, these statements of Mr. Bouthillette, indeed the tone he adopts throughout his paper, the two works he selects to make his case, the references he has used for his paper, his averment that those he has interacted with seem to be unware of the world beyond India etc. all point to a deliberate attempt on his part to choose his sources such that he can the see what he has pre-decided he wants to see. Creating strawmen, as Rajivji puts it....
KSB's response to Sumant:
Mr. Bouthillette's response:
I have selected a quantity of Indian sources for I wanted to examine what has been done IN INDIA. Now, if these sources are
disliked by some, this is
not relevant. They are written, they exist, they are many and many more will definitely come again... I also mentioned in a long bottom page note how the
same views are expressed in many seminars IN INDIA and therefore felt that it was relevant to analyse this phenomenon.
If this phenomenon is
disliked by some, again, it is simply normal and those who do not want to talk about or learn about such a phenomenon should avoid reading or discussing about it. But the accusation of blindness would rather fall upon
them.
I find it interesting that the paper creates such a reaction. It seems that it touches upon some sensibilities and for this reason I believe that it was a meaningful exercise and that these sensibilities should be examined further. ..."
KSB's responds to Sumant:
"
I would be interested in knowing what you consider to be "Hinduism" and what it is not, as it seems very dear to you who are posing as a defender of such an "ism". You talk about it as a single entity, almost as a person, and
I find your view fascinating.
... It is completely irrelevant to the purpose of my research, which was simply to analyse the rhetoric of the discourse found within Indian sources on philosophy and science. Ill-intentions, if there are any, are those that would try to portray this paper as something that it is not.
...
I hope that you understand my point better and do not doubt my honesty anymore"
Wadhwa adds to Sumant's point:
"
Remarks of Mr. Bouthillette about Arya Samaj movement "assimilating the other's practices to resist him more effectively" are
born out of his ignorance of the overall scope of Vedic knowledge and
the Vedic mission of Maharishi Dayananda. According to the Chhandogya
Upanishad Vedic studies comprise of natural science, physics, chemistry,
science of numbers, chronology, science of logic, science of polity,
grammar, etymology, sciences cognate to the Vedas(Vedang), botany,
zoology, anthropology, fine arts, science of war, science of
spirituality, etc.(Source: "On the Vedas - A Clue to understanding of
the Vedas" by Swami Vidyananda Saraswati, Formerly, Fellow Punjab
University, pub.by Vijaykumar Govind Ram Hasanand, New Delhi). ...."
Maria asks:
"Why does the author often mention "Western" Sciences, even in his
Abstract? Are these sciences not based on Indian maths? And are there
not scientists in the East who contributed substantially to modern
science? Or (tongue in cheek) does he refer to the fact that
"western" sciences started after the discovery that the earth is
round only some 500 years ago, and that they still try to catch up with
Indian sciences, which knew (mentioned in the Rg Veda) thousands of
years ago that the earth is round??
My overall impression of his thesis is that the author seems to be
somewhat apprehensive that Indian philosophies might indeed prevail and
prove superior. To pre-empt Indian academics from thinking this way, he
gives it a political tilt by assuming that the purpose is to "unite
and conquer" and that there is a link between the interest in science
and nationalism"
Sumant's 1st followup to KSB's responses:
"1) The scope of your current paper is narrow. You have stated as much
a few times in your responses, both to Rajivji's mails and to mine.
By
implication, the references you have picked up are such that they suit
the narrow confines of your current paper.
2) There seems to be a persistent need in your paper, and your responses, to want to see Vedanta in conflict with science. A need to see the villain Vedanta wanting to "subordinate science", lest science "completely saps the foundations of the Vedic worldview "....
I think 1) and 2) are related. A narrow scope can distort one's view of the whole and induce fears where none need exist.
As has been pointed out on a few occasions, most recently by Rohit,
Vedanta is not in conflict with science and does not fear science. It
has only helped scientists better understand manifest Nature by
providing insights that come from it's integral and harmonius
world-view. A view that ws born out of "embodied experience", as Rajivji
puts it, replicated by many different men and women through the ages,
and not by an unquestioning adherence to any dogma.
As regards your question on what I mean by Hinduism, I mean the
Upanishads and the
Gita. There are texts in the
puranas,
itihaas,
prakarna granthas etc. that elaborate on the world-view of the
prasthana traya, and are completely consistent with them, but I'll leave the definition at just that.
I hope that answers your question."
Anantha's comments:
"...2) ... note that Mr. Bouthillette seems to engage in the same method of "
classifying and discussing his opponent's view" that he alleges Jitatmananda and Sadananda to be engaged in.
Mr.Bouthillette says:
"I chose this example since the method of SadÄ nanda in
classifying and discussing his opponent's view is reflected in the Modern
Physics and VedÄ nta of Jitatmananda ..... (2) it mentions only what it needs of the
opponent's view in order to make its point; ... Although I am conscious that all of the ancient
doxographical literature cannot be narrowed down to a single example, I am
strictly interested here in highlighting a basic structural pattern of
argumentation that is common to most ancient doxographies and that seems to
have inspired modern attempts at comparing science and Indian philosophy."
To take on point
(2) in the above part -
...Sadananda's
Vedantasara
discusses Sankara's advaita world-view and technical details such as
the nature of maya, prajna, iswara etc. Out of more than
225 Sutras, there are only about 10 - 15 sutras that appear late in the
work meant to be "doxographical" in nature. It is almost as if Sadananda
Saraswati also included the representations of other darshanas
as a side note and in brief. Therefore, to consider this work
"doxographical" and to further extrapolate the nature of this work as "
basic structural pattern of
argumentation that is common to most ancient doxographies" is simply stretching it too far.
Mr.Bouthillette clearly himself "mentions only what he needs of the
opponent's view in order to make its point"
3) I also find
the following part of the article to be a product of either lazy research, simple misunderstanding or bad translation - "For example, the Sunyavadins are said
to have recourse to the following statement of the ChÄ ndogya Upaniâ"œad 6.2.1:
"asad-eva-idam-agra aasit" (in the beginning there was non-existence). It is
difficult to believe that a Buddhist proponent of Sunya would quote
the Vedas..."
Sadananda never claims the
Sunyavadins to be quoting this at all! He attributes a Vedic quotation
to every darshana believing the darshana to be in tune with the
particular quote. It is HIS opinion that the quote matches the darshana
and he never says it to be the opinion of the sunyavadins. Whether the
quote itself is relevant or not is up for discussion but
to say he claims the sunyavadins to be quoting form the Vedas is absolute fiction. Bouthillette is creating a straw man and lashing out at it.
4) Bouthillette's responses when challenged are equally disappointing. He pleads "
When one writes a paper, one chooses his scope."
He, however, offers no such magnanimity to Sadananda. He expects
Sadananda to handle everything to do with Bouddha, Charvaka mata etc. in
a literary work that is not even meant to be entirely "doxographical"
and he complains "
The stanzas defining the purvapakshas
are extremely brief. The opponent's view is reduced to a minimum, barely more
than one to three crucial words to which is added an illustrating example." Sadananda obviously assumes his audience to already be aware of the purvapakshas.
Bouthillette
continues to further mete out the same step-motherly treatment to
Jitatmananda too and calls the reproduced Paul Davies quote as "
an extreme simplification of Western scientific (and de facto intellectual) history".
If so, may we please know from him what his version of "Western scientific history" is?
5) He also says "
my paper is meant to be an introduction to a further, more elaborated, research". And yet, he finds it completely alright to inform his readers of his already extrapolated conclusions when he says this
alleged "pattern of argumentation" is "
common to most ancient doxographies".
Could you please show us your "more elaborated, research" before burdening your reader with your wild extrapolations, Mr.Bouthillette?
6) ...
7) I also find Mr. Bouthillette's "define Hinduism" challenge extremely amusing.
This is a game some people often like to play. Oh,
but
what is Dharma? Oh, but define Hinduism. I'm not saying Bouthillette is
playing this game here but he might inadvertently be doing so. ... Now, on that same front,
could he define"Western Science" for me?
8) Again, like I said at
the very beginning Bouthillette's entire premise is arguably weak.
Indian traditions have never been opposed to /
wary of science. The west suffered a great deal when the so called
modern science clashed against Christianity and the Islamic world is
still coming to terms with, again so called, modern science. No such
thing ever happened in India or will ever happen.
...
"
Surya adds:
"
Doctrinal purity is at the heat of
author's research. This is a serious concern at the philosophical level
but less so at the level of practitioners. Author's research life is driven by the core principle that systems whose doctrines are in conflict cannot coexist. Author's
central goal in his current research is to show that there are some
doctrines of science that are in conflict with the doctrines of Vedanta.
His long-term goal in research is to suggest that multiple philosphical
systems under Dharma or Hinduism are also in mutual conflict in core
doctrines. This is what he means when he says "What is Hinduism?". It
is not a question but a challenge.
Doxai
means opinions. Doxography then is an encyclopedia of opinions or
beliefs or philosophies etc., Author is focused on Indian Doxograhical
works, ie., works that cover multiple philosophical systems. Author has
a theory that Indian doxographers show a consistent motive to unite and
conquer even incompatible philosophies under one hierarchy. This
theory is his basis for questioning "What is Hinduism?". His interest in
approaching Rajivji stems from Rajivji's book Being Different where he
unites them under the Umbrella of Dharma.
Author
is alleging that scholars who compared philosophical systems in India
are biased in their methods and worked with the motive of achieving
Hindu unity. Author sees them avoid contentious dialogues, abstract away conflicting issues,
always have the final say, and finally always manage to claim unity.
Author's deep conviction is that, if one looks at doctrines of
different systems in Dharma, they cannot be conformed. This is what he
basically means when he asks "What is Dharma?" or "What is Hinduism?".
In case you did not notice, use of Sanskrit
words in his research is part of his grander effort in seeking
authentication from orthodoxy as he goes on to compare doctrines. Most
of his references will continue to be Western.
This misses the entire spirit of Being Different
which points out how plurality of ideas can and do coexist in India....
...
It is interesting that
Christianity started as one and broke into many denominations (some
count it over a thousand). Their doctrinal rigidity and history-centric
dogma combined with Aristotelian binary logic of excluded middle is the
reason behind the split. To them, the fate of Schrodinger's Cat in the
box cannot be uncertain.
Dharma has gone the other way and found a way to unite. The way Rajivji presents it, Dharma is an Umbrella rather than a hierarchy. It is similar to a statistical cluster.
While each of the philosophies in India have their own core rigid
doctrines, they are able to coexist because the "distances between these
points in the cluster" are close enough and reconcilable to
practitioners. ....
Author cannot understand or
accept self-organizing nature of Hinduism. Author thinks Doxographers
were the clever orchestrators who perpetrated this unity in diversity.
This too has been addressed in Being Different. Rajivji has
even proposed to the skeptics a simple challenge of bringing together
Islam and Christianity (Catholicism, for example, if you worry about
multiple denominations) under one Umbrella. Sorry. Will not work. You cannot cluster them under an Umbrella no matter what level of abstraction you choose. At their deepest core are the history-centric incompatibilities that can never be reconciled. "
Rajiv Malhotra has some generic comments. These are very important and very little is edited:
"The strategic objective of a growing segment of Western scholars, an
objective that is usually not stated explicitly, is to show that
classical Indian traditions lack coherence. The key word here is
COHERENCE.
Lacking coherence means there cannot be a legitimate civilization built
on such a foundation. This is achieved in many ways by many scholars,
including:
- "There is no such thing as Hinduism. This was a modern construction by Brahmins as part of nationalism against the British." This is a very common genre - starting with Brian Penington's book "Was Hinduism Invented?" ....
- In the name of "diversity of dharma", what many scholars are selling is the incoherence of dharma.
They do it in such a manner that many Hindus find it to be a
complement, failing to read between the lines. The goal is to emphasize
how one dharma system refutes another, how one caste fights another, how
one social organization commits violence against another. This internal
fragmentation is emphasized as endemic and inherent in dharma, not as
something caused by historical events that had nothing to do with
dharma.
- Those who demonstrate the unity of dharma are accused
of constructing homogeneity. Hence, they are totalitarian and this gets
conflated with modern social violence as something they cause.
My
purpose in starting this thread is to educate the folks at a level
deeper than what meets the eye. This particular western scholar might be
a small fry today, but his candidness in speaking out is revealing (and
hence useful in debate), whereas the more experienced ones are far more
sly and can (and do) fool our people. Even in dealing with this
scholar, I am told that the Sanskrit folks at JNU have no clue how to
respond intelligently. Some go bombastic and emotional - an instant
checkmate, and a bad example to students in class. Others join such
incoherence theories, seeing some weird glory in them. Yet others prefer
to tune out because they lack the skills of purva paksha of the West.
I
have been through numerous such encounters for 20 years or longer. BD's
strategy was designed based on those encounters. Even those westerners
who do lip service to the idea of reversing the gaze cannot tolerate it
beyond a point. (There are some exceptions I know.)
The reason is that in BD the West is shown to lack coherence.
It is a synthetic construct, the result of centuries of violence
against others and digestion of others. It also shows that digestion is
the process by which the west establishes its own coherence and
simultaneously dismantles the coherence of its prey. So the
civilizational discourse thus far has often been a war to establish
which side is coherent and which side is not. My thesis is seen as
outrageous and dangerous to Western Universalism. It has to be attacked.
Such attacks will come from some persons. But there
are also many other Westerners who agree with BD's approach and see it
as taking the debate further than ever before on Indian terms. On the
other hand, I constantly face Westernized Indian elites (including many
who are very Hindu in their personal lives) who debate me from the
Western camp. So stage-5 of the UTurn - in which WU gets re-exported
back to India and planted there as the gospel truth - has been very
successful.
Stay tuned. It is going to get more interesting....."
"... For that purpose I will come to the latest remarks of Mr. Malhotra and Rajesh A.
1) Deny Single Identity to the Other.
2) Exaggerate the Differences making them into Fault-lines.
3) Describe Other's Reaction to such Divisiveness as Predatory and Homogenizing!
Reply:
1) This is a kind of critical analysis that has been developed for classical studies (the field in which I started my formation) and for Biblical studies. I see nothing wrong in such a method, if ample proofs are there. Nonetheless I tend to find these discussions somehow dry and not immediately relevant to the
main discussions attributed to these "authors". I personally do not put too much importance on the exact authorship of the text and prefer to focus on the history of ideas rather than of people. If an idea has been accepted, formulated and distributed it becomes relevant to analyze it. ....
2) Here, I would balance the claim. Some people did exaggerate some differences, while others downplayed them. Dialectic can be useful in fostering a better understanding. By contrasting a doctrine with another, we might better value
their originality and specifics. But to reify these "differences" to an extreme would provide a wrong picture in many cases.
3) I am not sure what the exact claim here is, therefore I will not comment too much. I will simply use the opportunity to come back to my paper.
My point was exactly to show that the "the modern Indian interest in
unifying ancient philosophies and Western Sciences is the
continuation of a long process of
systematic attempts by Indian thinkers to
combine all the known authoritative systems of thought under a unified and coherent world view that not only safeguards the foundation of their age-old tradition, often at the cost of doctrinal aberration, but that promotes itself as superior to any other competing discourse."
....
Sanskrit tradition (a terminology that I prefer to "Hinduism" or "Dharma") is the longest living philosophical, religious, cultural, etc... human tradition.
-The Egyptians, Mayan, etc... are gone.
-The Chinese seem to have renounced their heritage.
-The Greco-Roman world is no more.
...
On the Indian philosophical landscape, many new ideas have emerged, sometimes competing with one another, sometimes in isolation. The debates have allowed all school to borrow from one another and to strengthen their views over thousands
of years (for some schools).
Now, the specific genre of "doxographical" literature, which is only one type of texts among many other, has contributed in organising and systematizing such a complex and diverse range of topics and schools. There is absolutely nothing
wrong in that.
As philosophical and polemical treatise, these texts tend to favor the particular school to which belong its author (the first one, Haribadra, was a Jain... there was Buddhists as well as Vedantins who also write similar texts, all favoring their own school, simply by being fair to their beliefs). From this kind of texts came the idea of the 6 darshanas and so on. This was an attempt at organising and assimilating ideas ...
Now, my point in my paper was to say that this kind of literature, which played an important role in the formation of the identity of each school, is being revived under the umbrella of the debate with science...
We could reuse the doxographical model of debate without the need to promote the particular school of the author (finding a way to be more neutral). As for doctrinal aberrations, they unavoidably happen any time new ideas are introduced
and assimilated, and it will continue to be so. But generations of thinkers, one after the other, will work in explaining away such difficulties. It seems to be the best way to maintain a tradition alive: not fixing it forever, but allowing changes and new ideas to be assimilated. It seems that this is what allowed the Sanskrit tradition to stay alive for so long and over a far reaching area.
Therefore, in my view again, we should study the ancient doxographical methods, learn from them, modernise them, and produce a mode of debate with a methodology and terminology consistent with ancient thought and relevant to the modern scientific discourse. What is more, it would be an original contribution of India, once more, to the advancement of knowledge.
I do not understand why this should be perceived as any kind of Western prejudice. it is certainly not a desire to prove that Science and Sanskrit culture can not be compatible. I believe in the exact opposite ...."
Kundan provides more feedback:
" I
agree with Karl-Stephen that Capra is a perennialist—he reduces the plurality
and diversity present among the “eastern” “spiritual” traditions to a mere
caricature which most modern pernnialists beginning with Huxley are prone
to do. Forget about the eastern traditions, even the Indian yogic
traditions show a tremendous diversity and plurality among themselves. But
this should not mean that these traditions do not show commonalities and
similarities in approach and methodology towards the pursuit of the “unknown.”
- On
this forum itself, I had once remarked that it is “difference anxiety from
below” which makes Indians seek the clutch of science to emphasize on the
modernity and advancement of Indian spiritual traditions. I had also
remarked that we need to free ourselves from this “difference anxiety.”
Having said the above, it does not once again mean that the Indian
spiritual traditions do not share some characteristic with science, in particular
pre-popperian science. For example, science, particularly at the time when
Swami Vivekananda, was lecturing emphasized on the “direct experience’ of
reality in order for that truth to be accepted within the canons of
science. Hacker, Halbfass, and later Rambachan wrote reams asserting that
this aspect of Vedanta was invented by Swami Vivekananda to make it
compatible with Science. It is the
greatest lie. “Pratyaksha pramana” and experience or “anubhava” of Vedantic
reality has been of supreme importance in this, like all other yogic
traditions of India.
I write the above to show that assertions of some of the “Neo-Hindus” as
Hacker likes to call them were not predominantly inspired due to nationalism
and nationalistic assertion but because of certain truths that the Indian
yogic tradition has held sacred since most certainly the Upanishads. [It is interesting to note that Rambachan and Pennington attacked BD at AAR a few weeks later in November 2012, and this discussion by Kundan is relevant to that debate in Chicago]
... Quoting
Nicholson, he says that “doxography
‘consists of texts that simply outline one system after the other in
separate chapters without explicit refutation of these systems.’” Now the
texts of Sankaracharya or Madhavacharya or Haribhadra Suri, of course,
engage in the “purva paksha” of their opponents by elaborating their doctrinal
assertions but they also go about refuting the assertions—and they do this
quite systematically. Because the aforementioned authors engage in systematic
refutation without selective representation of the views of the opponents,
they cannot be said to be engaging in doxography for doxography according to
the definition used by Karl-Stephen is about recording opponent’s views
but not about refuting them explicitly. Yet Karl-Stephen says “It is
possible to categorize this tradition of more or less polemical writings
under the genre of ‘doxography.’” This contradiction makes Karl-Stephen biased
in making Indian philosophical traditions doxographical. He is invested in
making the Indian philosophical system as such despite evidence to
contrary—evidence that he himself has mentioned.
- As far
as the unifying tendencies of the Hindus are concerned, this thread has
been alive in them since the time they discovered the concept of Self—one
Consciousness that has become the many. This unifying thread has been
present in the Gita as well, which is a synthesis of the yogic traditions
of the time, for instance Sankhya and yoga. Thus, this unifying thread
present in Hinduism is not seven hundred years old only as Karl-Stephen
says on page 12 but has a much earlier legacy. And may I add that the
attempt is not doxographical. Let me give you a concrete example. In the
modern times, Sri Aurobindo has unified many strands of Indian spiritual
traditions like Buddhism, different schools of Vedanta, different kinds of
yoga, Tantra etc. In the process, he has refuted the partial truths of
many different traditions from an integral perspective. Now anyone who is familiar
with these traditions would know that he has neither misrepresented them
nor caricatured them. A correct representation of the all the traditions
is very much there. It is time that Karl-Stephen begins to do some serious
reading of these texts and not base his knowledge on known Hindu-baiters
like Hacker in creating straw men and then beating them. Since yogis do
not operate in a strict duality of right/wrong and true/false (the transcendence
of binaries and mind that operates in such binaries) is an integral aspect
of the yogic traditions, particularly the ones that are rooted in Vedanta.
Therefore you will find that a refutation of a particular system does not
mean its complete negation. In most circumstances, the negation of a particular
view has lead to its assimilation—this is the “progress” of the Hindu
civilization. But I am sorry to say this advancement of knowledge is much
more than doxography. I recommend the writings of Sri Aurobindo to
Karl-Stephen. Once he is through with his voluminous writings, he himself
will get the “pramana” and know what I am talking about.
- Karl-Stephen
says, “The "Neo-Hindus",
in which we could add many more names, like Aurobindo or Nataraja Guru,
have been particularly influential in the promotion of a dialogue between
Indian philosophy and Western sciences. Their authority within the same
New Age circles that inspired Capra is also undeniable.” Karl-Stephen in
the above only exposes his ignorance of the writings of Sri Aurobindo....
- Karl-Stephen writes “Observing
how these modern philosophical writings share striking features with
ancient doxographical attempts, not only in regard to their style and
purpose but to the dynamic socio-religious environment in which they developed,
lead me to believe that a considerable portion of the current Indian trend
of comparative attempts that aim at unifying modern sciences and Indian
philosophies can be said to be a new manifestation, consciously or not, of
doxographical literature and, in parallel, one more attempt at promoting
Hindu unity.” Karl-Stephen seems to be in the line of authors who are
quite invested in showing how the unifying thread in Hinduism is a social
construct. This movement gained momentum through the writings of Hacker
(it has a much earlier antecedent in the colonial writings of Mill) who
tried to show that the assertions of “Neo-Hindus” (a term which actually
is an oxymoron because Hinduism has never been frozen in time to begin with)
came about in primarily response to European contact.
- Karl-Stephen is oblivious of
the doxographical methodology that he has used in making his contentions.
He is blatantly selective of the numerous Vedantic texts that are extant even
today—out of them he selects two that serve the polemical nature of his
arguments. Interestingly both these texts are so obscure that only a few
Indians would have even heard of them.
- Karl-Stephen’s
paper is agenda based. For centuries, the western historians have been
crying hoarse that the seeds of the evolution of western society lie in
Greek thought. After the renaissance, it is a common western assertion
that there has been a constant progress in philosophy and science of the
western world which has gone in certain stages. Regarding science, the “theory
of relativity” and quantum physics are considered to be superior and
inclusive of the Newtonian science—does Karl-Stephen remember the attack
that Thomas Kuhn faced when he suggested that science has not “progressed”
over the years but has “evolved” through revolutions and that there are
definite breaks in these revolutions which are not an outcome of a linear
evolutionary progress? ... Kuhn had to retract his words in his
subsequent publication. If Jitatmananda puts Vedanta as the engine of this
progress, he does not automatically become doxological. If he is
doxological, then the entire western world which has harped on the notion
of “progress” in the western academia is doxological. Jitatmananda has
merely added Vedanta to the western narrative.
- This
brings me again to the agenda-based scholarship of Karl-Stephen. Whether
he accepts it or not behind the garb of his objective scholarship, what is
bothering him is the assertion of an Indian making Vedanta lead the story
of western progress. It would be worthwhile at this stage for scholars to
actually investigate his ideological leanings.
"
KSB responds:
"Dear Mr. Singh, and the two others who wrote meaningful questions before,
I regret to be in such a lack of time.
...
Somehow i have the felling that doxography is understood as something "negative", which it is not. It is simply a specific literary genre. Which exists in the Western tradition as well and which can be very beneficial when understood properly.
A quick remark on the nature of doxography: it is not polemical per se, in the definition of Nicholson, but in my view it ends up being so, nonetheless. Here I should put more thought and research and it was meaningful to have this weakness pointed out by Mr. Singh.
As I said before, this paper is the reflexion of a work in progress. What can be seen as a biase from my part, which is highly possible since I have many failings, may in fact simply be a lack of knowledge in certain areas that I aiming at reviewing. so I thank you for any suggentions of specific readings.
All of your comments are welcome and I can only thank you for the time that you have taken in highlighting my ignorance on different issues.
...
Please forgive me for not being available so much in the last few days."
Kundan responds to KSB:
"In your subsequent emails to responses to your paper, you have been
defending that doxography is not negative....I do not understand how doxography is not
negative
when it is a selective representation of opponent's views and
an assertion of one's own without an explicit refutation of the
opponent's contention. Doxography, in such a situation, means a lack of
rigor and a lack of intellectual integrity.
By taking a couple of texts,
you have made a sweeping judgment on the rigor of Indian daarshanic (I
specifically do not call it philosophical here) tradition. I hope you
see how that is a problematic contention.
Based on what you have
written in the paper, it will be extremely difficult for you to defend
that there is nothing negative about doxography. In fact, your defense
of doxography seems to me an after-thought....
As
far as what is valuable in your paper is concerned, let me be very
candid in stating what I have found valuable: I am sure that you are
aware of this
trend in Euro-American trend in mainstream academia which
is highly invested in showing that "Hinduism" is a modern construct,
primarily having come out of a contact with the west. Swami Vivekananda
is a poster boy in such contentions. That he gave a unified vision of
Santana Dharma is also contended to be a
product of his nationalistic
aspirations, as a mark of resistance against the colonial masters. When
you site an obscure text of pre-European contact that has a unifying
thread of bringing many different daarshanic and philosophical
traditions of India under one umbrella (despite your inclinations
towards buying that Sanatana Dharma is a modern construct), you strike a
the very roots of the social-constructivist orientation of mainstream
academia towards "Hinduism."
In my eyes, your effort will be
laudable if you write a paper on the above issue. Otherwise we have seen
many scholars from the Euro-American world towing a very colonial line
against Hinduism ...
If
the trajectory of your scholarship does not change in the future, I can
completely visualize how your stay in India will be used to
compromising the spiritual traditions of India. I write the above not
because of nationalistic aspirations but because I do hold that the
Indian spiritual traditions (and for that matter "mysticism" in many
parts of the world, even where it has lived on the margins) has
something unique to contribute to humanity, ...."
KSB's response to Kundan:
"Doxography, again, is a specific kind of philosophical writings and should not be equated with the full "daarshanic" tradition. I hope to be able to study further what was the actual use of these texts. So far, my assumption is that it
was intended to teach its recipient ways of facing various opponents coming from different backgrounds. If it is so, it makes sense that the texts would not necessarily engage the in the purvapaksha's view but focus on the best answer to
provide on specific points.
This is what I mean by not negative "per se". The aim of the text defines its structure and method. Still, the whole of Indian tradition is not made only of doxographical writings. There are very few examples if one compares with the other kind of shastras available.
My point, in the paper, was to suggest that many modern Indian writings on science and philosophy are taking a similar shape as the ancient doxographies.
As for the obscurity of the VedaantaSaara, I cannot agree with you. It is a very well known text that is studied by many who begin their ways in the Vedaanta tradition. I was exposed to it myself at JNU. Also, within the debate on science and philosophy i have seen it mentioned by Indian authors.
Although it is not the best example of doxography, as it has been mentioned already and as I also said in the paper, I used it because I could reproduce within the limited space of my paper most of the argumentation and structure of the part of the text that is "doxographical" in nature, which is only chapter 3. ...The reason is that I feel that we could a few things from this. As mentioned in my paper:
- The impact of historical changes on Indian thought.
- A consistent terminology of debate that could serve as a basis for the
modern debate with science.
- A mode of debate that could be actualized to fit the needs of the
modern discussions on science and philosophy.
There is probably more, but these 3 points are in my view positive, since they can bring a better understanding of philosophical developments in India and in the meantime contribute to the quality of the modern debate.
Now, for your comments on:
""Hinduism" is a modern construct, primarily having come out of a contact with the west. »
Reply:
I already explained, in brief, what I perceive as a common thread within the Indian traditions. I wrote about the "experience" at the core (or origin) of the various schools and even of the Veda. On this, I think that I join your views on
mysticism and this is what I was suggesting when I wrote this previous comment.
Mysticism did not only exist in India. ...This being said,
the emphasis on "Hinduism" is a concern that I do not share. I feel that the word is very vague and when I hear it, especially in the mouth of Westerners, I never know what they are talking about. My problem with the term is therefore that it is too generic.
... This does not mean that I think that the unity of Indian tradition is a modern phenomenon. But the perception that the tradition (the people who hold it) has of itself is likely to have gone through various phases. I find this to be interesting.
As for nationalism, let me say a few words. I also come from a nationalistic background, as many around me in Quebec, family or friends, are supporters of the independence of Quebec in America. There is nothing wrong in having views
about the future of our people.
When these views shape our philosophical discussions, they should be pointed out so that what is being said is better understood. ...
...I am al sensitive to the issue.
For now, I am aiming at developing an approach that would not take sides either with what you are calling "colonialists" nor with "post-colonialists". In fact, I am not interested so much in politics, although I have to face it often in
dealing with Indian matters.
I am sorry, due to a limited time, I must stop here for now..."
Kundan's followup:
"Firstly, for the clarity of the readers, you are saying that
you have not made a sweeping judgment against the daarshanic tradition being
doxographic. Well! in such a case that should come out very clearly when you revise your
paper.
Secondly, all the texts that you have cited of
Shakaracharya, Madhvacharya, and Haribhadra Suri, if they are not doxological
in nature, then they should not be mentioned in the paper. If you are doing so,
you are committing an academic fraud and misleading the reader and the academic
community.
Thirdly, you would want to clearly explain what the
difference is between “Literature Review” and doxography. If doxography means
representing the view of one’s predecessors without explicitly refuting them,
then most of works in the current western academia are doxographical, given that
literature review happens to be a major component of thesis and dissertation
writing.
With regards to your following points, please see my
response below:
...
Your framework is thoroughly Euro-Americo centric and should
be seen as a colonial and invasive paradigm in the study of the Indian traditions.
Here are my reasons why:
The yogis who are considered as the revivers of the Indian
Sanatana Dharma tradition, like Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Ramana
Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, and Paramhans Yogananda, were not intellectuals who
advanced their philosophy through hair-splitting reason—that they have employed
reason to put their point of view is a different matter altogether. It is quite
clear from their own writings that they have enunciated “thoughts” from a state
which “transcends and integrates” reason, logic, and discursive mind. In other
words, their knowledge was a revealed knowledge.
The modern western metaphysics largely is stuck with reason
and privileges reason as the end-all-and-be-all of knowledge pursuit. It denies
states higher than reason. On the other hand, the Indian daarshanic and yogic
tradition have discussed threadbare the limitations of logic, reason, and discursive
mind (look up the Buddhist and Vedantic traditions and you will know what I am
talking about). Revealed knowledge has been given a much higher status than
knowledge approached from discursive standpoint. It also is considered more
sophisticated and closer to truth in the Indian scheme of things: the
Shruti/Smriti distinction as explained in BD.
From what I understand you are not someone who is following
the cosmological and metaphysical paradigm of the Indian daarshanic tradition.
On the other hand, you are looking at the development of the Indian thought
from a social constructivist point of view. The dominant and mainstream western
framework gives you the right to investigate the Indian systems using this
methodology; however we hold the right to criticize your methodology for what
it is: colonial, privileged, destructive, and invasive.
Secondly, the mainstream western scholars (I emphasize mainstream western scholars here
because there are western scholars living on the margins in the west, who do
not buy and are critical of the reason-centered paradigm of western academia)
are in the habit of clubbing intellectuals and yogis of modern India
under one category. From the traditional Indian perspective, it is mixing
apples and oranges. From the Indian cosmological world view, it is stupidity to
put Sri Aurobindo and Raja Ram Mohan Rai in one category. The only reason this
is allowed in mainstream academia is because of the privilege and destructive
dominance that it holds, continually denying the voice to the representatives
whose traditions are being ravaged, pillaged, dissected, and raped (In a
certain sense, we are like native Americans but we have become so colonized...).
With regards to your second point, the Indian tradition even
in the modern times has not pitted itself against science. The religion/science
problem is a western problem, rising in response to a particular historical
context. When you are forcing the debate in the Indian context, you are
bringing the western assumptions. You, and all other westernized Indians, are
seeing a problem where there is none.
There is a reason why it is so. The Indian yogis have seen
our cosmos as a graded system of consciousness, going from gross to subtle. Let
me just give you one example. Since you are familiar with Vedanta, you would
know that there are different levels of consciousness. You have the realms of
matter, of emotions, of mind (with its many sublevels like chitta, manas, and
Buddhi), of higher mind (ones that transcend logical and discursive mind—the
illumined and intuitive mind), and of ananda. Each higher level of
consciousness transcends and integrates the lower ones—for example the higher
mind transcends and integrates mind which mainly operates in binaries and discursive
thought. Mainstream science (despite quantum physics and theory of relativity)
operates from the level of mind—this is because it gives reason a privileged
position and operates in subject/object dichotomy. ...If we take it that one begins to have
an experiential taste of yogic science when one enters the higher mind, then
one can safely say that yogic science transcends and integrates mainstream
western science. Indian yogis, and people who understand their cosmological
paradigm well, therefore, do not have trouble in understanding that mainstream
science.....
...You, therefore, will find
yogis like Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo at times making a case with
science but are also clear in stating that mainstream science will not get into
a space where yogic science goes, until the former transcends its own
metaphysical assumptions.
The question then comes, “has Vedanta (and I am sure the
same allegation can made about Buddhism) devised this strategy to conquer
science in a recent socio-historical-political context?” The answer is a clear
no because the idea of a graded cosmology is as ancient as the Vedas and the
Upanishads. Given the final level of consciousness that was experienced in the
consciousness of the yogis, different system of yogic systems have come about ...
Despite many issues that have been raised regarding the
presence of “doxography” in the Vedantasaara, even if we say that the third
chapter of the text is doxological in nature, it is not doxology that helped
the Vedantins to unite different schools of thought but it was the idea of this
graded cosmos (most certainly not in a three dimension) that helped Sadananda
in the past and helped other yogis in modern India to embrace science without
feeling the need to reject science.
Therefore it was not the craftiness of the Brahmins in the
past or the nationalism of the Indians in the present that has helped them to
bring about the unifications of the past as well as the present.
...
If you will take my explanation in the above, you will see
that unification of modern science with Vedanta or for that matter with the
yogic world view
has not come out of politics but it has come from a long-held
truth perspective and cosmology. I want to say this to you: please walk your
talk. Why are you bringing matters into the level of politics where what was
involved was sheer quest of truth.
The people who revived a dying tradition
called Hinduism did it on the basis of years of spiritual practice and quest
for truth. If you cannot give them the respect that they deserve, at least
leave them alone. I think the Indians have become tired of the colonial and
invasive practices. The last statement is particularly written not to embarrass
you but to invite some self-inquiry. I
sincerely hope you will pay some attention to it. If you want to get into the
details of what I am saying here, I recommend to you “
DecolonizingMethodologies” by Linda Tuhiwai Smith. "
"
Dark Experiences in Western Mysticism vs. Blissful Experiences in Eastern Mysticism
Capra wrote about differences in Eastern and Western mystical experiences. Was he just making things up?
Mystic
experiences in the East are always experiences are bliss. People who
witnessed mystics in India speak for this. Reported mystical
experiences in the West were dark and painful, often empty with no
divine experiences. Could it be a struggle between the Christian
scriptural conditioning that does not allow direct experiences of the
divine and unconditioned mystical experiences?
....http://www.inplainsite.org/html/mysticism.html
Dark mystical experiences of Mother Theresa
In
a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet,
mother Theresa wrote "Jesus has a very special love for you," she
assured Van der Peet. "As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so
great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the
tongue moves but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I
let Him have free hand."
In the booktitled Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light,
consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her
confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the
spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The
letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested
that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for
the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God
whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian
Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist".
That
absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began
tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week
break in 1959 — never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public,
the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual
pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before
been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness"
and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and
at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven
and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her
inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a
mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders
whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart
was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an
adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'"
Says the Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America ... It will give a whole new
dimension to the way people understand her."
....
Dominican
Fr. Paul Murrary, meanwhile, argued that on the basis of Mother
Teresa's private writings, published only after her death, she now
ranks not only as a friend of the poor, but as one of the great mystics
of the Catholic tradition, with an interior life comparable in depth
and intensity to St. John of the Cross.
Those
private writings were collected as part of the beatification process,
and had previously been known only to a handful of spiritual directors
and church authorities. They spoke not only of mystical visions and
revelations in the 1940s, but an inner darkness stretching over most of
the rest of her life and which led her even to question the existence of
God.
We
now know that Mother Teresa's spiritual journey, Murray said, “was
not one long unbroken experience of bliss, with roses of consolation
strewn along the way.†Instead, she lived with a sense of bewildering rejection and even complete abandonment, as her
prayers were not heard and God remained silent.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/mother-teresa-mystic-and-apostle-ordinary
Dark mystical experiences of St, John of the Cross
Yet
when the sixteenth-century mystic John of the Cross identified a
similar phenomenon—this spiritual desolation called the "dark night of
the soul"—he insisted that it is an important spiritual discipline.
The dark night, said John, is a tortuous but fruitful path to
union with God. ....
Today few subscribe to John's view. Instead, we have taken his phrase "dark night of the soul" to describe a subjective experience of the loss of a sense of God's loving presence. Without understanding its place in St. John's larger theology, we are not always sure what to do with it. It seems a decidedly unpleasant episode, often associated with doubt.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2011/fall/historydarkness.html "
The original thread continues here.
Sandeep asks:
"In light of the dark Christian mystical experiences catalogued by Surya
below, does anyone know of any publications which have investigated
differences between mystical experiences recorded in Yogis and in
Christian mysticism ? (I have already asked Surya this question in
private)
Also, are there any works of Christian mysticism which are devoid of
references to the Church, the body of Jesus, the original sin, the
sacrament, etc ? To rephrase, I want to know which, if any, works of
Christian mysticism are closest to the Indian model. I have already
browsed the "
Cloud of Unknowing" and "
The Imitation of Christ"
and both do not fit the criteria because they contain references to
Jesus as the Son of God and what not. I suppose there might be early
(so-called) Christian-Neoplatonist saints whose works might be close to
Vedanta.
Rajiv's response:
I have established (for my uturn theory book
series) that
Neoplatonism (Plotinus based thought) is itself considered a
digestion of Hinduism. See the massive research book by McEvilley.
If
you really want to piss off a western chauvinist who is said to be well
grounded in Hellenistic "Western" thought, send him the following
quotation. Thomas McEvilley explains the current lack of acknowledgment
of Plotinus’ thought being similar to and potentially derived from
Indian thought:
“Translations of his work may have a churchy
kind of ring. The view of Plotinus as a kind of proto-Christian
theologian may express, at least in part, a dread of finding possible
Indian origins for the texts whose influence was to contribute to
shaping the thought of Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart,
and many later western thinkers. So it is not only that ‘to admit
oriental influences on [Plotinus] was tantamount to besmirching his good
name,’ but even more it would also besmirch that whole aspect of the
western tradition that flowed from him. If Plotinus had passed massive
Asian influence into the western tradition, there would be little point
to calling it western tradition.”
(“McEvilley, Thomas, The Shape of Ancient Thought, Allworth Press, New York, 2002. P. 550)."
Sandeep follows up:
"
... McEvilley
devotes much of his Neoplatonic exposition to presence of similarities
and does not prove any direct trail. I assume there is some clinching
evidence in the form of some archaeological artifact or ancient
manuscript, otherwise you are open to the same criticism that is leveled
at those like OCOY who claim Jesus had some Indian influence. You
could be asked : how and from whom did Plotinus learn Vedanta or
Buddhism ?Â
There are several authors like Porphyry, Clement of Alexandria,
Hippolytus around the 3rd century A.D. who mention the Indian
gymnosophists but did anyone actually travel to India to gain initiation
into Yoga? ....
...To
answer my own question, there is work being done in neurotheology and
depth psychology, which builds on the direction set by
William James in "Varieties of Religious experience". The keyword is "common core
hypothesis" which proposes that the essential cluster of mystical
experience is independent of religious context.
For neurotheology, see
Andrew Newberg
Ralph
Hood (1975) defined a
mysticism scale which can be used to compare
mystical experiences across religions. It measures measures eight
facets: Ego Loss, an experience of losing one’s self into a greater
unity; Timelessness/Spacelessness, a sense of being outside
spatiotemporal limitations; Unity, unifying vision of the world as one;
Inner Subjectivity, perception of inner awareness in all beings;
Positive Affect, blissful feelings that accompany mystical experience;
Sacredness, a sense of the holy; Noetic Quality, a cognitive advancement
in understanding the world; and Ineffability, the alleged
inexplicability of mystic experience."
Rajiv's comment:
Yes I am well aware of the burden of proof in making
claims that topple well-established positions, and I only publish what I
can defend. There are also different levels of certainty: from
plausible hypothesis, to one of a few likely scenarios: to most likely
scenario: established hard fact. Very, very history is based on the
final category. For instance, do you know that nobody has successfully
responded to a challenge made in recent years to prove that the man
named Euclid actually existed? Yet there is this Euclidean geometry. In
case of Plotinus, THERE IS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL PROOF THAT SUCH A MAN
EXISTED - IT IS SECONDARY REFERENCES ONLY. ... (On an unrelated but exciting development: Just this week I have
obtained scans of parts of a huge archive on a very prominent American's
Indian appropriations, which will be enough to write a whole volume
given his stature. ... I
consider this the biggest find of 2012 in my work. A young Indian
scholar deserves credit for discovering this and bringing it to my
attention. Lots of intense work with zero bragging on his part or
attempt to slip out of hard work or responsibility.
We do have such
heroes, no matter how few.)"
Surya responds to sandeep. For brevity, we only provide limited excerpts.
"
Dear Sandeep,
McEvilley
would not write such an elaborate work if he could simply establish the
claim with a clinching evidence in the form of an artifact or a
manuscript.
[The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus] What is known of Plotinus is known
through the Biographical writings "The Life of Plotinus"
of his disciple Porphyry. Plotinus was exceedingly reticent of his
personal history and nothing is known of Plotinus' early life. Plotinus
was born in Lycopolis, Egypt in 205 CE. He was likely from a
Hellenized Egyptian family. No one knows what he did during his first
28 years. Searching for a teacher of Philosophy, he came to Alexandria
when he was 28 years old. The next 10 years, he studies with a teacher
named Ammonius whose identity or background is not known. In 243 CE,
Plotinus decided to study Persian and Indian philosophy and to that end
attached himself to an expedition of the Emperor Gordian III to
Persia. The expedition was aborted with the assassination of Gordian by
his troops. Abandoning his plans to travel Easy, Plotinus set out to
develop his philosophies. Plotinus thought of
himself simply as a disciple of Plato. Between Plato and Plotinus,
there were several Greek scholars much of whose work was critical of
Plato. Plotinus was intimately familiar with all these works and set
out to defend Plato. Plotinus probably would have been deeply disturbed
to be characterized as the founder of something called "Neoplatonism".
Given this backdrop, it is no easy task to show connection between Indian thought and Plotinus. McEvilley
masterfully weaves together several pieces of minor evidences that
together offer a strong inductive argument. He spends considerable
effort showing the influence of Indian thought on Plato. In fact,
McEvilley builds the argument so slowly and methodically adding piece
after piece that it can frustrate the impatient reader.
There are several noteworthy paragraphs in his book where he brings out the essence of his inductive arguments.
Indian and Western philosophical approaches were very different:
McEvilley
shows how modern European philosophers missed the whole point as they
drifted away from commonalities of Indian and Greek thought , away from
what they said was speculative philosophy.
McEvilley clarifies: "No Indian philosophical system is merely
speculative. Each is a darsana, an insight into the real which is at
once a path to perfection and cessation of pain." McEvilley goes on to
quote an Eastern scholar that "Western philosophical traditions are
based merely on intellectual insight."
Greeks were similar in thought to Indians, not Europeans:
Even as McEvilley develops his book showing diffusion of people and
thought between India and Greece, one thing becomes clear. McEvilley is
neither slighting the Greeks nor Indians in the
process. Instead, he is building evidence to a more interesting claim
that he later makes:
"Greek Philosophy has, in effect, been forced into the mold of European
philosophy, when in fact it had a great deal more in common with its
contemporaneous Indian thought....""
KSB comments:
"One who reads the whole of McEvilley woul not fail to notice that he spoke of exchanges in both ways...
For example, he suggests that Nagarjuna woul have been influence by Greek philosophy, at least in his exposition method.
If that was true, the impact on Indian thought,
think of Shankaraacarya for example (who debated extensively on Budhist
doctrines), woul have been immense.
Are we dealing with "Eastern Digestion" of
"Western" material on the part of Indian thinkers?! Sounds impossible
doesn't it... Anyway, one could ask, what does it bring us to apply
these modern (but outdated) "East/West" concepts/myths
to Ancient societies who most probably did not entertain any of our
identity complexes/crisis. What is more, as the exchanges between
cultures are complexe, and this has been so for millenias, the East/West
divide is not only a simplistic reduction of reality,
but it is unpracticable. Where does the East ends? Any archeological
evidence of its foundation?
On another topic:
The avenues of exchanges in the ancient world
can hardly be traced through archeology, as ideas leave little trace on
the ground. They can be inferred by cross examination, comparative
studies, linguistics and so on.
One thing is certain, there were exhanges
happening on many levels, including in the level of ideas (culture,
religion, art, medicine and so on).
The possibility of finding asian influence
within Greek philosophy has nothing new (it is not a "scoop" and does
not rest solely on McEvilley's voluminous work) and is a stimulating
topic. I wonder about the need to label it "Digestion",
with the negative connotation that comes with the word....
A culture completly close on itself, without
any imput from the outside, especially if this culture is to claim any
significance in any domain, is unlikely. This holds true for Greece,
Persia, India, China and so on.
What is wrong with any culture engaging with new ideas from the outside?
....
There are changes happening in the mentalities
and leading institutions offer already interesting curriculum. Another
problem is, in America as well as in India or anywhere else, few
students see the necessity of knowing their cultural
heritage..."
Rajiv's response:
"This is silly. I met McEvilley and showed him otherwise and he
admitted it was speculation. He came to my house to get support to turn
his book into a documentary and i pointed out several errors including
his support for Aryan Invasion Theory. That said, certain parts he wrote
gave me great leads to follow through on my own later...]"
Sandeep responds to KSB [and Surya: see original thread]:
"
... n certain cases,
archaeology can prove or disprove textual evidence. For example, the
British archaeologist Flinders Petrie claimed to have found a grave with
Buddhist symbols in Dendereh, Egypt in the 1890s which would have
affirmed the Buddhist embassies sent by Ashoka to five Greek kingdoms
in the West, but his claim was debunked by other archaeologists as
being overly presumptuous. Similarly, the thatched roof houses which
were excavated in Capernaum validate Mark's account (Mark 2:1-12) of a
sick man who was lowered into the house of Jesus after removing the roof
but disproves Luke's account of tiles being removed given in Luke 5:19
(see Charlesworth, Historical Jesus Essential Guide, page 88). .."
KSB responds:
"....
In that sense, doxography could be redevelopped
to engage with new purvapakshas, like chrstianity, Islam, modern
philosophy, modern science, etc. In adapting ancient doxography, as I
stated before, we could maybe re-launch an era of
stimulating debate and not of white-wash oecumenism.
So, I am still not convinced about the use of
the word "Digestion" as I said, because of its essentially negative and
conspiracy-like connotations. Although I am intesrested in learning more
about what it aims at highlighting and in
looking at the different perspectives that it gives me..."
Rajiv responds:
"Rajiv: You can say this
about any problem in any domain just to dismiss it by labeling it a
conspiracy theory. You can dismiss the analysis of an epidemic like HIV,
or corruption, or green house effect, or over population, etc. - by
merely branding it a conspiracy theory. This style of response is a low
IQ response because it saves the person the need to understand a case on
its own merits when he can brand it and get rid of it. It is popular
because the other side gets scared and runs away, so such responses get
encouraged.
I dont care to even read further whatever else you
might have written, as your starting point is to ignore the facts and
arguments offered. Please note that when people here criticized your
thesis on the other thread, they did not do so by branding it a
conspiracy theory; instead they gave point by point responses to it..."
The last word in this discussion goes to Surya:
"Would you say that you are not convinced about the use of the word
"Syncretism" because it is essentially negative and its conspiracy-like
connotations?
That would be silly. Syncretism, Digestion, and Assimilation are words with definitions. How can definitions be conspiracies?
Syncretism is defined as the combining of different beliefs.
Syncretism happens in two different ways. One is by digestion where the identity of the source of beliefs is eventually wiped out. The other is by assimilation
where the identity of the source of combined systems is maintained but
sufficient commonalities are found to assimilate into a larger whole.
Syncretism
leads to incoherence when two distinct beliefs are integrated into a
single homogeneous belief but the integrated belief retains incompatible
parts from the beliefs it combines. Digestion and assimilation differ
in how they tackle incoherence.
Digestion
is inherently asymmetric - digester has control over the digestion
process. ..
Assimilation
finds common core as the unifying abstraction. Do we not see white
light as a coherent idea while realizing that it has constituent colored
light? Assimilation avoids incoherence by not integrating distinct
ideas into a homogeneous whole.
Hinduism
is the same. There is no conspiracy to unify beliefs. Dharma as a
broader category is the same. BD explains how Dharma as a coherent
category exists.
Abrahamic faiths as a category is the same.
BD. also explains history-centrism of Abrahamic religions, their separation of creator from creation, concept of ex nihilo
creation, need for prophet as a bridge for the unbridgeable gap between
man and God, obedience to God as the means to salvation etc., These
aspects of Abrahamic religions implies that they can never be
assimilated with Dharma.
BD
also explains how assimilation as a process is limited. Abrahamic
faiths have a common core that is too far, too separated from the
Dharmic core. Thus, Dharma cannot assimilate Abrahamic faiths.
Abrahamic faiths cannot assimilate Dharma.
Christian "scholarship" can digest but not assimilate Dharma. It is not a conspiracy but a requirement in the Bible.
Christian syncretism as digestion:
Digestion
is what happened to pagan religions that contributed, for example,
Christmas or Christmas tree or Easter. Identity of the digested pagan
religions is gone. Wiped out.
Christianity
as an exclusivist religion is clear about dire pronouncements to those
who seek to add or remove things from the Bible. It is unequivocally
stated in Revelation 22:18-19.
Revelation 22:18-19: "I
warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone
adds anything to these, God will give that person the plagues written
about in this book. And
if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will
take away that person’s share of the tree of life and of the holy
city, which are written about in this book."
Thus,
pagan beliefs are replaced with Christianized beliefs but practices are
retained. You can visit some of the Churches in India where Hindu
practices are used in Churches. Same thing happened to indigenous
practices in South America..... "
