Western Culture – A Concise Religio-Philosophical History for the Non Westerner

The following are excerpts from the Book Neo-Vedanta and Modernity: Toward an Understanding Of The Ontology of Bliss in the Context of modernity by Prof. Bithika Mukerji. (Full book at http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/free_other.htm please beware that the document on this site, apparently transcribed from the original printed book, is riddled with Typos. My version below has been cleaned of typos, as far as possible. )

Among the many reasons to read this entire book, the most important one is that it puts in context the path of Vedanta as experienced/discoursed in the intellectual atmosphere of today’s Westernised post-technological age. The focus of this particular piece much smaller, it is just the part in Chapter 1, Section B.: Formative Factors Influencing Western Civilization.

This excerpt gives a highly condensed presentation of the Religio-Philosophical History of Western Culture. This is especially appropriate for the Non Westerner who is used to reading writings where all this is implied somehow in the background, but only serves as heavy baggage to be lifted before the Non-Westerner can get to the real ideas being discussed.

In my opinion, Prof. Bithika Mukherjee does a masterful job, as a Non-Westerner (a practicing Vedantin from the parampara of Ma Anandamayee, before she collected her Western laurels & achievements); in laying bare the overt & covert currents of dominant mainstream Western thought that form the structure of Western intellectual discourse today.

She connects the dots from Green Heroic/Natural ideas, to Plato, to Hebraic (Judeo Christian) assimilation of ideas of God creating Man, to Modern Enlightenment transpositions of the place of Man God & World by key philosophers like Kant & Hegel.

Here are the Excerpts. First with the preliminaries, then to the main body, the Section B which stands by itself as a ‘Mega-sutra’ for those interested in critical analysis of Western thought from a non-Western perspective.

Over to the Text:

PRELIMINARIES

From the Introduction: Prof. Bithika Mukerji taught philosophy at the Banaras Hindu University. She wrote the present book as a research work at McMaster University in Canada in 1973-77. She insists in it on the need not to reduce Vedanta to a rationalistic and intellectual ontology, but to see it fully as connected to Bliss and the spiritual experience per se. This is also the difference between the western philosophical approach and the Indian one. In fact, herself a Bengali, she was disciple of the great Bengali woman sage, Ma Anandamayi whom she met as far back as in the thirties. This name “Anandamayi” means "permeated with bliss", so it is not so astonishing that Bithika develops this subject in the present book. Her reflections on modernity are well documented and deep, they will stimulate a renewed point of view with the readers, both Westerners and Indians.

I

Introduction (More Excerpts)

It is said very often that Advaita philosophy reflects the general mood of the Indian people. Even when they do not intellectually subscribe to this school of thought, they are drawn into using its terminology as most expressive of all understanding regarding life in the world is formulated in the light of a dichotomy obtaining between what is merely pleasing (preyas) and what is good (śreyas).

……..

In the nineteenth century, India was brought very close to the Western world through the medium of English education which was welcomed by the leaders of society, Indian scholars were much influenced by the metaphysical speculations of the West, especially by Kant who seemed close to the philosophic position of Vedanta regarding Noumenon which lay behind the categories of thought.

…..

This book is devoted to the problem of the Westernization of Advaita Vedanta which, as neo-Vedanta, prevails as the philosophy of our own times in India. Neo-Vedanta seeks to give a realistic interpretation of Advaita and also to make it self-sufficient as a philosophy, without recourse to Scriptural texts. According to contemporary Indian thinkers, modernity can be appropriated easily to the universalism of Advaita. Without jettisoning the hard core of the tradition, Advaita could very well be re-stated in terms of modern demands for active participation in the ongoing concerns of the world.

…....….

The influence of Western education on Indian scholars has been profound.

….....

the neo-Vedantins have traversed a different path altogether in staying away from the central teaching of Advaita regarding the non-dual Brahman. It is a well known fact that attempts at re-interpreting the Upanishadic tradition in the light of modern Western thought have not resulted in any major contribution towards meaningful living in our contemporary world. In the following pages an assessment of these attempts is given with a view to clarifying the process of ‘modernization’ of Indian thought. The study of these exegeses suggests that the emerging scene is of Westernized thought rather than either modern or Indian.

….....

II

CHAPTER ONE The Framework for modernity: The Western Tradition

A. Modernisation and Westernisation…………

In this chapter, an attempt is made to enter into the concerns of Western philosophers who seek to bring home to us the implication of being obliged to live in the age of technology. In order to do so, we need to familiarize ourselves with the formative influences within the Western tradition which has culminated in the age of technology; only thus can we hope to realize what it means to be modern, or what Rene Guenon means when he writes:

…however far away the state of mind which has been specifically designed as ‘Modern’ may have spread,especially in recent years, and however strong may be the hold which it has taken and which it exercises ever more completely at least externally, over the whole world, this state of mind remains nevertheless purely Western in origin: in the West it had its birth, and the West was for a long time its exclusive domain.In the East its influence will never be any thingbut a Westernization.{Réné Guénon, Writings tr. and ed, by Lord Northbourne (London: Luzac and Company, Ltd., 1952), p. 15}.

It is necessary for us to understand the Western tradition in order to begin to see how integral science and technology are to its culture, and may be also understand the reason why the East remained untouched by this form of quest for knowledge. This survey of the Western tradition is necessarily brief and therefore very partial. However, it is hoped that the simplified nature of the presentation highlights the point of departure which should be studied carefully by those thinkers in the East, who are interested in comparative studies.

III

MAIN EXCERPT

B. Formative Factors Influencing Western Civilization:

The cradle of Western tradition is ancient Greece {Frederick s. j. Copleston, A History of philosophy, Vol. I, part I (New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1962), p. 29.} which brought forth great men of noble deeds and brilliant thought. The understanding this ancient society had of itself cannot be recorded as part of the history of the times. {Karl Loewith Meaning in History (The University Chicago Press, 1949), pp. 4-5.}

The ancient world had its own way of understanding the occurrences which commanded attention, such as events of great significance in the lives of heroic men. Their achievements were landmarks which served to inspire and encourage other men to emulation. Celebration of those deeds by recounting them in poetry and drama made them moral imponderables; imponderable, because nobility was closely allied to tragedy.

The mystique of ‘man'’s relationship with nature'’s inscrutable way’ was perpetuated in the recounting of the tales of antiquity. This ‘history’ is almost a re-living of the past and a continuation of the order of nature in human affairs. Nature, according to tradition, was good, and man, as the measure of all things, was a natural event, albeit the most exalted one. The inheritors of the Greek heritage agree that: Through and through, the ideal is unity. To make the individual at one with the state, thereal with the ideal, the inner with the outer, art with moral, finally to bring all phases of life under the empire of a single idea, which with Goethe, we may call, and we will, the good, the beautiful, or the whole -this was the aim, and, to a great extent, the achievement{ G. Lowes Dickinson The Greek View of life (New York: Collier Books, 1961), p. 155. }

The West has experienced many exhilarating moments of emancipation from its past, not the least among them is the overcoming of the religious mythology which had combined nature and man in a harmonious whole. Nature, as we now understand the word was ‘discovered’ by philosophers in ancient Greece. Nature was found not to be full of spirits and thus mysterious and inscrutable but rather, obedient to knowable and predictable laws. {The phrase ‘"discovery of nature"’ was used by F. M. Cornford, who explains it thus: “

The Ionian cosmogonists assume… that the whole universe is natural and potentially within the reach of knowledge as ordinary and rational as our knowledge that fire burns and water drowns. That is what I meant by the discovery of Nature….The Supernatural, as fashioned by mythology, simply disappears; all that really exists is natural.” Before and After Socrates (Cambridge: The University Press, 1964), p. 15.}

This was the beginning of that separation of man and nature which subsequently divided them completely into the two orders of the knower and the known and later of the maker and the made.

The other source of Western civilization is held to be Hebraism, specifically in the form of Christianity. According to Mathew Arnold, in some ways Hellenism and Hebraism were rival forces, ‘dividing the empire of the world between them.’ He writes that ‘between these two points of influence moves our world. {Mathew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, ed. J. Doyer Wilson (Cambridge: The University Press, 1935), p. 12}.They remained rivals because reason and faith were never quite reconciled in the history of succeeding generations. The advent of Christianity in the West changed the understanding of nature in relation to man. The dimension of historical consciousness replaced the idea of the manifestations of the natural order in recurring cycles. The ‘Christian reversal,’ as Hannah Arendt calls it, introduced a new quality of self-centeredness. ……….

in Christianity neither the world nor the recurring cycle of life is immortal, only the single living individual. It is the world which will pass away; men will live forever. {Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future (New York: The Viking Press, 1961), p. 52}.

Inevitably, perhaps, the eschatological dimension of life minimized the importance of nature. The emphasis was now on man, not only as the measure of all things but as one to whom in effect, is given the world to enjoy and also to inherit the Kingdom of God, {E. Troeltsh, Protestantism and progress (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), pp. 160-163}. The fast rise and spread of Western power strengthened the sense of destiny and an unquestioning faith in the goodness of Providence.

This new quality of self-centredness introduced by Christianity created a suitable atmosphere for questioning the workings of nature. Answers could be wrested from nature for the betterment of mankind. Quite paradoxically, therefore, it was Christianity which created a milieu for the conquest of nature although apparently it was opposed to the scientific spirit of inquiry into the working of nature.

The paradox may be explained if we consider, opposition came from reverence for dogma rather than for nature. The ancient philosophers who had asked the first questions and who had remained eclipsed by the Platonic tradition, now stood vindicated. It can be said further that the opposition between science and religion was resolved in a strange way by philosophy. It may be a simplification, but not entirely farfetched, to say that the two great philosophers, Kant and Hegel, mediated between science and religion in a fashion which has definitively affected the course of Western thought science their time.

The first major step in the coming of the Age of Reason could be said to be the refutation of the traditional proofs of God’s existence by Kant and the establishment of the supremacy of the moral law as the only object of reverence. According to Kant, man alone, amongst all other creatures, prescribes for himself a law of conduct which is good; it is good not only because it is obeyed out to reverence for the law itself, but because it is the only law which can act as a safeguard against the evil propensities inherent in the nature of man.

If man were devoid of reason, he would not be in conflict regarding the “ought”. If on the other hand he were purely a rational being, them the “ought” would resolve itself into the “must” of natural laws. Virtue lies in becoming so attuned to the command of moral law that obedience becomes akin to an upholding of the law in one’s behaviour. In other words, man’s disposition is to be changed by the moral law. This alone can make men worthy of happiness.

This law, it is true, commands without promise of reward, but it is unthinkable, indeed irrational, to suppose that virtue will not bring out a state of happiness, the union of virtue and happiness is the highest good envisaged by reason and the demand for this comes from the moral law itself. Nature is indifferent to this concomitance; therefore, the sole source of this happiness is God. In the worlds of Kant “…….It is morally necessary to assume the existence of God” {The Critique of practical Reason, Book ii Chapter ii, tr. by L. Beck (The Library of Liberal Arts, 1956), p. 130}.

Kant has here reversed the traditional relation between morality and religion. The result of this re-orientation of the argument for God’s existence has been far reaching in Western tradition. {“After Kant, the proud name of an ontology which presumed to give in a systematic doctrine, synthetic knowledge a priori of things in general, must give place to the modest name of a mere analysis of pure understanding.” Ernst Cassirer, Roussean, Kant and Goethe (New York: Harper Torch books. 1963), p. 95}.

E. L. Fackenheim writes that the peaceful co-existence of Reason and Revelation was upset by Kant’'s revolutionary theory. Moral autonomy is brought at a price. “This same act which appropriates the God-given moral law reduces its God-givenness to irrelevance”. {E. L. Fackenheim, “The Revealed Morality of Judaism and Modern Thought: A Confrontation with Kant.” Quest for past and future (London and Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), p. 215}.

In other words, in a world made vulnerable to secularity by scientific discoveries, Kant provided the clue to moral independence. By granting him a self-legislating will, he made possible the phenomenon of man, master of his own destiny and standing alone at the crossroads of history. Kant had upset the balance between Reason and Revelation. Hegel by combining them, in an unprecedented way finally ushered in that age of secularity, which has come to stay in Western tradition.

In the wonderful architectonic of Hegelian philosophy, the eschatological fulfillment of Christianity is transformed into the dialectical movement of the world-spirit, moving inevitably toward self-realization in the future. History itself is divinised and made to lead up to the historical situation in which Hegel found himself, and which, for him was the peak of cultural advancement.{Karl Loewith, from Hegel to Nietzsche, tr. David E. Green (New York: Doubleday &Co., Inc., 1967), pp.32-33}. “In this last stage of the history of the European spirit pure free will, is finally produced, which itself both wills, and knows what it wills,” writes Karl Loewith.{Ibid., p. 32}.

Hegel’s understanding of history is of the greatest importance because for almost one century it was he who set the tone for European philosophy either through his followers or his critics. In him was completed the substitution of Christianity by an overriding faith in the historical destiny of European man. History, therefore, was not entirely what has happened but what could be made to happen. This secularization of the religious vision of salvation, brought into vogue the many philosophies of history which supplanted Biblical faith.

Western civilization for centuries had been sustained by faith in the past; the message of charity towards all fellow man as we hope for mercy from God; and a hope for the future in which was promised salvation. For religion to be meaningful, a teleological setting was necessary. By conferring fluidity to the dimension of truth {H. H. Berger, Progressive and Conservative Man (Pittsburgh, Duquesne University Press, 1971), p. 34}, Hegel guaranteed that a quality of religiosity would pervade all theories of progress which became current since his time.

{Quoting Prof. Bury, Carl Becker writes: ‘…… however formulated, and with whatever apparatus of philosophic or scientific terminology defended, the doctrine (of progress) was in essence an emotional conviction, a species of religion-a religion which according to Prof. Bury, served as a substitute for the declining faith in the Christian doctrine of Salvation.’ Progress and Power (New York: Random House, 1965), p.7}.

The nineteenth century saw the dislodgement of religion from its pivotal role in human life, and an upsurge of confidence in progressive involvement in the life of the world. Man, for the first time, knew himself to be the creator and maker of the future. The material well being made possible by scientific discoveries and actualized by the Industrial Revolution was not unwelcome to the men of an age of expanding horizons. This manner of good life could be easily aligned to a life of obedience to the Divine Will because men saw themselves as the chosen liberators of the entire world.

According to Carl Becker: The long treasured vision of a Golden Age once identified with the creation of the world by capricious, inscrutable gods, and then transferred to the beatific life after death in the Heavenly City, is at last identified with the progressive amelioration of man’s earthly state by the application of his intelligence to the mastery of the outer world of things and to the conscious and rational direction of social activities. { Carl Becker, The Heavenly City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947), p. 85}.

The nineteenth century flew by on the wings of a great enthusiasm in the various fields of human enterprise. It is recognized as the Age of Progress; {The idea of Progress, first explicitly stated by Condorcet in the eighteenth century, viewed material well-being as essential to individual liberty and peace. “In the course of the nineteenth century, when men could see about them concrete evidence of advance in liberty and material goods, the idea of Progress became an accepted part of our value system.” {Melvin Kranzberg, “Technology and Human Values,” Virginia Quarterly Review, XL, No.4, 1964, p. 589}.

As the age when Utopia was felt to be within grasp; Herbert J. Mueller writes: “In our civilization the idea of progress led to a novel utopianism, the conviction that the ideal society was positively going to be established on earth {The Children of Frankenstein Bloomington and London, Indiana University Press, 1971), p. 369.} as the age of reason which set man free from the tyranny of religious dogma; and as the age of humanism, when for the first time man knew himself to be the measure of all things, not because he was given this position by nature or God but because he had discovered it for himself and had accepted the full responsibility of such an exalted state.

The dissipation of this self-reliance marks the advent of the present century.

The crucial fact of contemporary Western world is a loss of faith in the ideals which had guided previous generations. Christopher Dawson writes: Of all the changes that the twentieth century has brought, none goes deeper than the disappearance of that unquestioning faith in the future and the absolute value of our civilization which had been the dominant note of the nineteenth century. {Christopher Dawson, The Dynamics of World History (London: Sheed and Ward, 1957), p. 54.}

Those who seek to understand Nietzsche are not puzzled by the quick dissipation of the euphoric optimism of the nineteenth century. The inherent contradiction in holding together a belief in God as the supreme dispenser of Grace and an overriding confidence in one'’s will to conquer, had been foreseen clearly by Nietzsche. He knew that in due course the will to create would replace a ‘waiting upon’; that the divinising of history as the progressive destiny of mankind would lead to the jettisoning of God as irrelevant to this process. Just as the spreading wasteland swallows up definitive paths, so must the human will overcome that region of knowing which forms a part of receiving from the ‘Other’.

The philosopher who had given this power to human will, was of course, Immanuel Kant.

{Contrasting the placid outward life of Kant with “his world destroying thought”, the poet Heine wrote: “Of a truth, if the citizens of Konigsberg had had any inkling of the meaning of that thought, they would have shuddered before him as before an executioner.” {Quoted by E. W. F. Tomlin. The Western Philosophers (London: Hutchinson & Co., (Publishers) Ltd., 1968) p. 202.}

How recognizable, how familiar to us, is the man so beautifully portrayed in the Grundle-gung, who confronted even with Christ, turns away to consider the judgment of his own conscience and to hear the voice of his own reason… this man is with us still, free, independent, lonely, powerful, Rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so many novels and books of moral philosophy. {Iris Murdoch. The Sovereignity of Good (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979), p. 80.}.

The question which demands attention here is why should living in the twentieth century be an experience of alienation for Western man when paradoxically, he has all the means for increasing affluence and power, as well as a strongly institutionalized religion which can act as a unifying force for the entire Christian World?

As stated earlier, it is important for us to understand this question because we now are a part of Western civilization. An attempt to answer this question is made in the next Chapter.

[End Excerpt]

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (18)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-08-04 15:35:23

Dear Partha:

You have asked couple of questions:

1. Are both of you gentlemen talking about the same subject, which you call Neovedanta?

Ans:I hope so! Neo-Vedanta is by definition the Vedanta formulated by Sri Ramakrishna and then explained by Vivekananda in his complete works.

2. Pradip, are there not possibilities of interpretation of Sankara's Advaita, where the self is believed to be denied the enjoyment of the blissful object Parama, when it has to consider itself indistinguishable from the object of such enjoyment?

Ans: Nothing can be said when there is no distinction between subject and object!


[Professor Mukherji's thesis must be taken to be directed against any neovedantic school that denies the superiority of direct experience over intellectual attempts to understand the same. Starting from the first disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, monks of the RK order have been of great variety. They include saintly beings who like their mentor went deep into themselves in Atmic voyages and occasionally tried to speak about their experiences. They also include intellectuals who sought and found Vedantic overlaps with modern philosophies which enabled them to reach out to more people with the central tenets of the RK order which were maanava-seva-related. I am sure the RK order cannot be dismissed with the single label of neo-Vedanta.]

I am sure that Prof Mukherjee's object of attack is the teaching of Ramakrishna and the subsequent systematization by Vivekananda. This is clear from the following quote:

'In the nineteenth century, India was brought very close to the Western world through the medium of English education which was welcomed by the leaders of society, Indian scholars were much influenced by the metaphysical speculations of the West, especially by Kant who seemed close to the philosophic position
of Vedanta regarding Noumenon which lay behind the categories of thought.

?..

This book is devoted to the problem of the Westernization of Advaita Vedanta which, as neo-Vedanta, prevails as the philosophy of our own times in India. Neo-Vedanta seeks to give a realistic interpretation of Advaita and also to make it self-sufficient as a philosophy, without recourse to Scriptural texts.'

The expressions, nineteenth century , realistic interpretation of Advaita
and without recourse to Scriptural texts are all dead giveaways of Prof M's broadsides on Ramakrishna and Vivekananda's teachings. I will in my rebuttal explain more fully. I hope to show the glaring contradictions in Prof M's writings.

Regards

Pradip

• 
• +0
• 
• 

which school?
written by P. Desikan, 2008-08-04 14:44:45

Dear Karigar,
You have mentioned in your reply to one of my comments,
'Her key issue is of how the Ananda aspect of Brahman has been left high & dry in all Neo-Vedantic (i.e. Western-ized) discources of Vedanta, forcing it to become a mere 'Philosophy' where it's 'Soteriological' aspect(path) is virtually ignored.'

Pradip has rightly pointed out as well,
'It is a western assumption that technology is making fundamental changes in the very nature of Man, the future, concepts like free will etc. The fact that Neo-Vedanta rejects any such western notion falsifies the Professor's claim that Neo-Vedanta is westernizing Vedanta!'

Are both of you gentlemen talking about the same subject, which you call Neovedanta? Karigar,do you hold that the venerable Paramahamsa or whoever interpreted him to the rest of us did not believe in Ananda and had forgotten the holy saint's own experiences? Pradip, are there not possibilities of interpretation of Sankara's Advaita, where the self is believed to be denied the enjoyment of the blissful object Parama, when it has to consider itself indistinguishable from the object of such enjoyment?
Professor Mukherji's thesis must be taken to be directed against any neovedantic school that denies the superiority of direct experience over intellectual attempts to understand the same. Starting from the first disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, monks of the RK order have been of great variety. They include saintly beings who like their mentor went deep into themselves in Atmic voyages and occasionally tried to speak about their experiences. They also include intellectuals who sought and found Vedantic overlaps with modern philosophies which enabled them to reach out to more people with the central tenets of the RK order which were maanava-seva-related. I am sure the RK order cannot be dismissed with the single label of neo-Vedanta.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by karigar, 2008-08-04 14:32:28

GangP,

I'll wait for your rebuttal, & I'm hoping you will read the book and respond to it's thesis, rather than my excerpt here.

There are so many things she has said that I find it difficuly to compress& express in comments....(that's why she's what she is, ...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-08-04 13:10:49

Dear Karigar,

I will give my detailed reply in my rebuttal which I have started to write.

My attention was drawn to what you have written in your post:
'(b)Technological Societies that we increasingly live in are making fundamental changes in the very nature of Man, the future, concepts like free will, etc...and the Neo-Vedantic approach presumes pre & post industrial man are not much different in the choices they have due to the society they're immersed in.'

It is a western assumption that technology is making fundamental changes in the very nature of Man, the future, concepts like free will etc. The fact that Neo-Vedanta rejects any such western notion falsifies the Professor's claim that Neo-Vedanta is westernizing Vedanta!

Regards

Gangp

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by karigar, 2008-08-03 21:04:53

Dear GangP,

Thanks for the response. I look forward to your further reaction after you read some more of the book.

What I've gathered from the book (in toto) is that (a) Mainstream Indian Philosophers' attempt to get into 'Comparative Philosophy' mode vis a vis Western Philosophy leaves lot to be desired both in methodology, & in the (lack of) acceptance of this approach in the West. and..(b)Technological Societies that we increasingly live in are making fundamental changes in the very nature of Man, the future, concepts like free will, etc...and the Neo-Vedantic approach presumes pre & post industrial man are not much different in the choices they have due to the society they're immersed in.

As far as using the methods of RK Mission, etc, for actual life practice, I don't think the author takes issue with that. It is more how the 'neo-Vedantin' presents the content of Vedanta as a 'Philosophy' in the Western sense (shorn of the practice of Bliss realization) that seems to be the starting point of her criticism.

After all, the people who call themselves followers of a certain school (especially in the Indian context), are followers in the sense of life practice....being an RKM follower is qualitatively different from being a 'Hegelian' or Kantian' snce that pertains only to the intellectual content of the position...(one could say practical philosophy vs armchair philosophy....)

Just some thoughts...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by narensomu, 2008-08-01 23:22:52

Karigar/Partha
Apologies for the Mukherji/Banerji mix up.Mind sometimes can "see" or "read" what isn't there.

ps: The discussion looks like it is about to get more informative and interesting.
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-08-01 16:53:24

Dear Karigar,
Thank you for posting excerpts of this controversial text. I have not yet read it thoroughly but the following quote attracted my attention since I am a follower of Neo-Vedanta of Ramakrishna/Vivekananda:

'This book is devoted to the problem of the Westernization of Advaita Vedanta which, as neo-Vedanta, prevails as the philosophy of our own times in India. Neo-Vedanta seeks to give a realistic interpretation of Advaita and also to make it self-sufficient as a philosophy, without recourse to Scriptural texts. According to contemporary Indian thinkers, modernity can be appropriated easily to the universalism of Advaita. Without jettisoning the hard core of the tradition, Advaita could very well be re-stated in terms of modern demands for active participation in the ongoing concerns of the world.

…….

The influence of Western education on Indian scholars has been profound.

….....

the neo-Vedantins have traversed a different path altogether in staying away from the central teaching of Advaita regarding the non-dual Brahman. It is a well known fact that attempts at re-interpreting the Upanishadic tradition in the light of modern Western thought have not resulted in any major contribution towards meaningful living in our contemporary world. In the following pages an assessment of these attempts is given with a view to clarifying the process of ‘modernization’ of Indian thought. The study of these exegeses suggests that the emerging scene is of Westernized thought rather than either modern or Indian.'

This quote is a mixture of truth and untruth in a very profound sense. The good professor has failed to understand the essence of Neo-Vedanta.
I am thinking of posting a rebuttal of this false claim in a separate article.

Regards

Gangp

• 
• +0
• 
• 

exaltedness of Man
written by dwai, 2008-08-01 15:59:11

Is it really true?
If one is a Vedantin (Advaitin more appropriately), then doesn't the distinction between self and Brahman automatically need to be discarded (pratyaksha anumaanagamah pramaanani)?
Then can an Advaitin exalt him/herself?

What is Neo-Vedanta if it rejects the truth of Personal experience? Isn't Vedanta "NOT" an intellectual pursuit -- but something to be "felt" (psycho-somatically)?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Stone wall
written by dwai, 2008-08-01 15:52:14

I've engaged on and off with a group of philosophers who discuss primarily around Robert Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. Most of these are Westerners and the topic of experiential knowledge or understanding (of Vedantic knowledge) mostly fell on deaf ears/ran into stone walls.

Congrats to Karigar for bringing this gem into our midst. I hope to re-read the article and understand more (nice thing about what is happening on TMJ is that the discussions around the articles too shed a tremendous amount of light on subjects).

Best,

Dwai

• 
• +0
• 
• 

expose of hubris
written by karigar, 2008-07-30 11:29:36

A few more excerpts from the book could do it. I'll try soon...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

hubris.
written by P. Desikan, 2008-07-29 16:36:58

Of course we can.
And if you do not mind, may I ask you to do the expose, not for all such but these here stated by Mueller?
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by karigar, 2008-07-29 14:44:07

for the first time man knew himself to be the measure of all things, not because he was given this position by nature or God but because he had discovered it for himself and had accepted the full responsibility of such an exalted state.

It is also easy enough for us 'outsiders' to point out the inherent Hubris in philosophical statements like above (Kant/Hegel, etc...)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Bliss Management
written by karigar, 2008-07-29 14:38:16

'Are there any markers/symptoms seen anywhere that this loss of faith can really be reversed?

Author seems to think not, unless one really understands/experiences Brahman as Satchidananda. Her key issue is of how the Ananda aspect of Brahman has be left high & dry in all Neo-Vedantic (i.e. Western-ized) discources of Vedanta, forcing it to become a mere 'Philosophy' where it's 'Soteriological' aspect(path) is virtually ignored.

Somewhere (in the Foreword by another Prof) there are telling lines, like 'Western technology's pursuit of Ananda/Bliss has degenerated into a disembodied search for the orgasm'...

Seems to cut to the heart of the matter: Objectification of Bliss, towards 'Bliss Management' where this thirst can be economically & 'scientifically exploited & delivered to consumers...

[ TragiComic, this dystopic vision of the present... ]

• 
• +0
• 
• 

stop, look, reverse?
written by P. Desikan, 2008-07-29 13:54:30

and dear Karigar,
In your excerpt, there is a telling diagnosis by Mueller of the present state of western cultural development, which is rightly identified by Prof Mukerji as identical with all of 'modern'cultural development.
'In our civilization, the idea of progress led to a novel utopianism, the conviction that the ideal society was positively going to be established on earth as the age of reason which set man free from the tyranny of religious dogma; and as the age of humanism, when for the first time man knew himself to be the measure of all things, not because he was given this position by nature or God but because he had discovered it for himself and had accepted the full responsibility of such an exalted state. The dissipation of this self-reliance marks the advent of the present (20th?) century. The crucial fact of contemporary Western world is a loss of faith in the ideals which had guided previous generations.'

My question is, 'Are there any markers/symptoms seen anywhere that this loss of faith can really be reversed?
Regards. Partha.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Typos or not, here I come.
written by P. Desikan, 2008-07-29 13:33:26

Of course, dear Karigar.
Will read the good prof's book through.
Was scared of the script teeming with typos. But if the fare is good who is bothered about them? After all, I seem to be able to make quite a few when I blog a para or a page.
I shall bravely wade through the little imps for the promise you have offered.
Thanks and regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Quest in Vidya aranya
written by karigar, 2008-07-29 11:46:31

NS , Partha

Thanks for the responses. Hope more read & make use of this in their quests for knowledge.

This excerpt was very educative to me, so I thought I'd share. If you get a chance to read the whole book, Prof Mukerji ( yes NS, a 'mukhyopadhyini, not a Vandhyopadhyni, as Partha reminds shows her clean grasp of her thesis, also translating beautifully portions of Taittirya Upanishad, and an extended commentary on Brahma-jnaana by Vidyaranya also.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Vandya also
written by P. Desikan, 2008-07-29 10:47:36

Dear Karigar,
I am looking at two strokes of good luck.
I mean, for the m's of tmj.
One, Prof.Bithika Mukerji, who cold have stayed back in vedantic bliss, courtesy a great Guru of our times, decides to tell modernists, especially modern 'vedantins',
what they are bargaining for when opting for intellectual exercises inspired by evolved, modern western philosophy, instead of continuing to rely on personal experience of bliss.
Two, you find a beautiful part of the beautiful treatise telling us how exactly western religio-philosophic thought has been evoving all the while and like the good professor lay it out nicely for us on the table.
thank you Prof Mukerji and Thank you 'Prof' Karigar!
Narensomu finds this mukha upadhyayini to be a vandya upadhyayini as well and has called her Banerji.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by narensomu, 2008-07-29 06:06:22

Karigar
A very well analysed article.
Dr. Banerji says what she says as she grew up on the foundations Indic traditions and had the good fortune of having a suitable Guru.
Average Western or Westrenised minds cant understand some concepts as they have been indoctrinated...
These highlighted lines are very meaningful

nature in the aspect which she presented to a Greek philosopher of the fourth century before Christ is not easily reproduced to modern eyes. The associations of mythology and poetry have to be added and the unconscious influence of science has to be subtracted, before we can behold the heavens or the earth as they appeared to the Greek.”

Neo Vedantha sounds like many other neos.

Ayurveda minus Dhanvantri, Yoga minus Kundalini Shakthi...

Look forward to the second part. Exciting times in TMJ.
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment Preview