[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Conversions in a conservative society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Mr. Venkatesh Nayak that an understanding
of the political (or otherwise) context where a philosophy
originated would be helpful in understanding the philosophy.
>From his posting, I am also sure that Mr. Venkatesh Nayak
would agree that we should be careful to avoid the logical fallacy
of what is called the psycho genetic fallacy of rejecting /approving
a philosophy merely based on the intentions or the psychology
behind the origination of the philosophy. A classic example of this
fallacy can be seen when someone rejects the notion of God
by merely claiming that fear is the psychology behind such a notion.
This is a fallacy because even if some people believe in God
out of fear, this does not either prove or disprove the actual
existence of God.
The human mind is often humbled to consider as
true, what is most probable based on the knowledge available
in the day. We should avoid the extreme of claiming that
there is absolutely nothing we know to be true; And also we
should avoid the other extreme of claiming we know
everything for complete certainty. The assumption of a
impossibility to fly or of a flat earth was once held to be true
and based on the knowledge available now, we say it is false.
This means that it is possible that what we think to be true
may be wrong. But the fact that we are now 'know' them to
be false also means that given enough evidence it is
possible to reasonably conclude something to be true
and something to be false.
In spite of the epistemological difficulties, I still think reasoning
and logic are the best approach in the pursuit of truth. The 'experience'
and feeling have their legitimate place but not at the complete
expense of reason. Experience and reasoning should go together for
a reasonable pursuit of truth and avoiding harmful superstitions.
I find it interesting that there is a branch of Buddhism that says that
there is nothing to debate upon, as everything is Sunyata. While
I find it interesting, I do not agree if they say that they "have no
ideological position to offer". I think that the position that everything
is Sunyata is itself a ideological position and a debatable one
(other wise why would one write a book on that). If I meet one such
person, I would ask him why it is not necessary to debate or why
he thinks that everything is Sunyata, and that is sure to start a
lively debate.
I have a question for Mr. Venkatesh Nayak with regard to Hindutva
and conversions. He supports the idea of a matured religious and
philosophical dialogue. He agrees that no two worldviews are exactly
the same, (which means that there is a possibility for a person to
choose a particular worldview and has the freedom to change
his/her views if the person finds it necessary). Now, it is theoretically
possible that a Hindu may change his view to the worldviews of Buddhism,
Islam, Christianity etc. I would like to know what would be
Mr. Venkatesh Nayak's reaction if this happens excessively more and
more. Many Indian families are conservative and a change of worldview
of a person is like to cause some discomfort in the family, like an
inter-caste marriage would. I think, the hindutva's opposition to
conversions is
not due to forced conversions etc (which all of us oppose), rather
it is based on sensitivities such as this. I would like to hear some
remarks on this.
Sunil.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: venkatesh nayak [SMTP:venkateshnayak@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 1:00 PM
> To: debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject: to speak or not to speak
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please help make the Manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear all,
> Sunil has agreed with most of my views. I am happy! He
> has also pointed out some 'contradictions' in my
> position and I shall respond to them. Every ideology
> and philosophy comes into existence ins acertain
> historical context and in response to a certain
> political situation. I do not use the term 'politics'
> here in its narrower sense as in common parlance. It
> is used more in the sense of complex martix of
> activities, decisions and agenda to ensure the
> continuance of a power structure or its effective
> replacement. This may happen in any area of life and
> religion and spirituality are not alien to it. Nor are
> the supposedly neutral natural sciences where all
> research is objectively done. But what about the role
> of funding in determining what is researched and what
> is not? That is exclusively an area of politics in the
> world of academia. Therefore I continue to hold my
> opinion that all philosophical systems in India came
> into being in response to the socio-economic and
> politico-ideological situation of the day. Sankara is
> no exception nor is any other big name in the world of
> ideas and letters. But I agree that this does not mean
> that the value of philosophical contributions must be
> berated. That would be a puerile position to adopt.
> Yet a complete understanding of any philosophical
> system and its impact on society cannot be arrived at
> without an inquiry into the politics of the age in
> which it originated, flourished or went out of
> fashion. In that sense no philosophy can claim to
> present the truth for all ages to come. There will
> always be changes and further developments -
> evolutionary or revolutionary depending on the
> circumstances present- as long as an inquisitive and
> fertile human mind exists on this planet.
> Any criticism of any philosophy or ideological cum
> moral position can be made only with the benefit of
> the knowledge of the past. Such a criticism would not
> hold true for all time to come. EG: the ideas of
> geocentric universe and the alleged impossibility of
> anything heavier than air to fly were so popular once
> upon a time but they were all proved wrong. Knowledge
> develops on the basis of hitherto accumulated body of
> ideas and concepts rather than in a vacuum. Therefore
> an absolutely relativistic position is a stupid and
> impossible position to take as it will negate the very
> assertion it hopes to establish namely -'everything is
> relative'. This is nothing but an absolutist position
> in disguise which has dogged all philosophers since
> aeons. No religion or ideology is alien to it. However
> such a debate moves into the world of abstracts and
> does not do much good to understanding ground
> realities. Do we have the time to indulge in such
> semantic acrobatics or should we concentrate on the
> burning issues of the day? If we choose the latter
> then what is the minimalist or maximalist ideological
> position that we can take and what will be the
> criterion for the evaluation of such a position?
> In any context it must be said that the basic common
> good of the largest possible numbers within a given
> society is the determining criterion for any position
> to take. But this does not mean that the interests of
> those who reject such a position should be sacrificed
> at the altar of the majority point of view.
> Accommodation is what characterises the survival of a
> civilised society. The right of a person who holds an
> opposite point of view is sacrosanct as long as it
> does not follow a praxis characterised by violent
> actions to achieve desired goals. When a point of view
> generates more ill-will than goodwill it takes basic
> commonsense to recognise what has gone wrong. Then
> such a point of view must be fought tooth and nail
> regardless of the epistemological gymnastics that one
> may be tempted to indulge in. Therefore my ideas are
> motivated by a political agenda which is in tune with
> the criterion presented above. this is also very much
> part of the politics of the period that we are living
> in. these set of ideas are valid only as long as they
> serve the criterion that has been used. Take away the
> criterion, they remain nothing more than rhetorics.
> As for the Zen maxim, sunil has the right to rebut my
> stand but I must say that his interpretation of the
> maxim pays little regard for the original context in
> which it occurred. Yes of course the zen monk opened
> his mouth to verbalise the maxim and he did it with
> brevity and precision. I wonder what it sounded like
> in the medieval japanese as it will have the greatest
> impact when read in the original. What the master
> meant was that he did not approve of people explaining
> the nature of truth when it is not amenable to
> discursive thought. The truth is something that must
> be experienced in order to realise its profundity
> fully. Words are only representative of the experience
> and not the experience itself- in other words "the map
> is not the territory". The master was critical of
> those who beguiled the masses by saying that they knew
> the truth and it was such and such. You can only show
> a person the path to the truth. Seeing the truth and
> realising it is entirely in the disciples domain- not
> the guru's. The guru cannot see it for the disciple.
> the latter has to go the whole way himself. Sunil
> might find it intriguing to know that one branch of
> the Madhyamaka school of buddhism did not believe in
> any debate as there was nothing to debate about.
> Everything was sunyata. So they had no ideological
> position to offer. You will find this in the texts of
> Candrakirti, Dharmakirti and their predecessor
> Nagarjuna. However the later schools under the first
> two thouhgt it wise to speak out about sunyata to
> initiates as they needed a glimpse of the profundity
> of sunyata which is above all discursive thought
> before they embarked on their spiritual journey. The
> classic tetralemma about the existence of the Buddha
> or his teachings are a case in point. I will not go
> into the details here. But if the relativist argument
> were stretched to its absurd limits then knowledge of
> sunyata would have died with the first Buddha who
> realised it (by no means Siddhartha also known as
> Sakyamuni. he acknowledges that there were several
> Buddhas before him as will be after him). The
> necessity of making this knowledge available to others
> is also grounded in politics but one of compassion not
> hatred- the noble ideal that all sentient beings
> should have the benefit of the truth. Theirs was not a
> politics that goaded people into demolishing
> monuments, indulging in riots or burning a father and
> his children in their sleep.
> Therefore the stand of the zen monk is not
> self-contradictory. It is also a Koan whose truth is
> not amenable completely to the discursive mind but
> must be arrived at after careful and intense
> contemplation.
> When I used this Koan as an example it was in the
> context of criticising anyone that believes that his
> religion is better than the rest. If he knew his
> religion truly well and realised the truth he would
> not berate other religions which preach the same goal.
> The example fits the context accurately as intended. I
> hope this clarification answers the apparent
> contradictions that sunil perceives in my views.
> Jai Hind
> Venkatesh
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives: ../debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform. debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives: ../debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------