The Indian Focus

Vedic Theology

0 comments at May 16, 2015

Max Mueller (1823-1900)

There have been various interpretations of Vedic theology throughout history. But, one of the most original was suggested by Max Muller (1823-1900), an authority on the Sanskrit language and translator of several ancient scriptures, which helped him compare religions not only theologically but also linguistically. In his Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (1878), Max Muller considered Vedic religion to preliminarily involve mainly the worship of the Sky God or the Heavenly Father. He writes:

Five thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans, speaking as yet neither Sanskrit, Greek, nor Latin, called him Dyu patar, Heaven-father.

Four thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans who had travelled southward to the rivers of Penjab, called him Dyaush-pita, Heaven-father.

Three thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans on the shores of the Hellespont, called him Ζευς πατηρ [Zeus pater], Heaven-father.

Two thousand years ago, the Aryans of Italy looked up to that bright heaven above, hoc sublime candens, and called it Ju-pitar, Heaven-father.

And a thousand years ago the same Heaven-father and All-father was invoked in the dark forests of Germany by our own peculiar ancestors, the Teutonic Aryans, and his old name of Tiu or Zio was then heard perhaps for the last time.[1]

Muller thought that personification of natural elements turned to deification of these as deities, later on. For instance, He saw that the name Dyaus (Zeus or Jupiter, light-giver, a fitting name for the sky) was later replaced by various gods, who represented some of the principal activities of the sky, such as thunder, rain, storm, evening and morning, night, day, etc.[2] Thus, gradually there originated a pantheon of deities in the Vedas.

James Wheeler classified the more important Vedic deities as follows:

Rain.

Indra, god of the firmament

Varuna, god of the waters

Fire.

Agni, god of fire.

Surya, the sun.

Soma, or Chandra, the Moon.

Air.

Vayu, the god of wind.

Maruts, the breezes who attended upon Indra.

The God or judge of death, Yama

There are also various personifications to whom hymns are address, such as Earth, Sky, Food, Wine, Months, Seasons, Day, Night, and Dawn.[3] However, Surendranath Dasgupta was of the opinion that the gods of the Vedas were impersonal in nature, as their names Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), etc also indicated.[4] He classified the gods as terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial. Subodh Kapoor divides the Vedic gods into three groups: the gods of earth such as Agni and Soma; the gods of the atmosphere such as Indra and the Maruta; and, the gods of heaven such as Mitra and Varuna.[5] There seems to be a three-tier relationship between nature and the divine: earth-atmosphere-heaven.

However, there seems evidence that the various names considered now popularly as deities were not different gods but names of the One. For instance Rig Veda 1.164.46 states:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.[6]

The White Yajur Veda Book 32 also points to the oneness of God in the phrase “is That”. Thus, “Agni is That; the Sun is That; Vâyu and Chandramâs are That. The Bright is That; Brahma is That, those Waters, that Prajâpati. All twinklings of the eyelid sprang from Purusha, resplendent One. No one hath comprehended him above, across, or in the midst. There is no counterpart of him whose glory verily is great.” (WYV 32.1-3).[7] The word pratima translated as “counterpart” by Griffith can also be translated as “image”; thus, the verse seems to speak against the idolization of the deity. He is also called the Bright, Bodiless, Woundless, Sinewless, the Pure which evil hath not pierced, far-sighted, wise, encompassing, and self-existent (WYV 40.8). In the Upanishads, however, the Self itself is declared to be the only true reality. The Self as all is declared as having both form and also being formless (Brihadarayanka Upanishad 2.3.1). The “oneness” verses of the Vedas seem to fit well with the later non-dualistic interpretations of reality and as such could have been precursors of the doctrine, if not later interpolations. Yajur Veda 40 indubitably reflects the beginning of non-dualistic tendencies:

5 It moveth; it is motionless. It is far distant; it is near.

It is within This All; and it surrounds This All externally.

6 The man who in his Self beholds all creatures and all things that be, And in all beings sees his Self, thence doubts no longer, ponders not.

7 When, in the man who clearly knows, Self hath become all things that are, what wilderment, what grief is there in him who sees the One alone?

8 He hath attained unto the Bright, Bodiless, Woundless, Sinewless, the Pure which evil hath not pierced. Far-sighted, wise, encompassing, he self-existent hath prescribed aims, as propriety demands, unto the everlasting Years.

9 Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall Asambhûti's [the Uncreated’s] worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on Sambhûti [the Created] are intent.

10 One fruit, they say, from Sambhava [Possibility], another from Asambhava [Impossibility]. Thus from the sages have we heard who have declared this lore to us.

11 The man who knows Sambhûti [Creation] and Vinâsa [Annihilation] simultaneously, He, by Vinâsa [Annihilation] passing death, gains by Sambhûti [Creation] endless life.

17 The Real's face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light. The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I. OM! Heaven! Brahma![8]

Obviously, to know Creation and Dissolution at the same time means to transcend the phenomenal world of time, birth, death, and history and be eternal. The Veda aims at eternal life; but finds a possibility only in the inherent immortality of the Self.

Demonology

In Vedic literature, gods and demons seem to be equal in power, though demons became less powerful beings later on. According to Moncure Daniel Conway, demons in Indian literature were previously gods who became demonized later on. He compared this phenomenon with the demonization of deities in Zoroastrianism and suggests a possible political purpose behind the same; possibly, the politics of demonization began in Persia leading to the migration of some of these tribes, whose gods were demonized, into Asia.

The most powerful priesthood carried the day, and they used every ingenuity to degrade the gods of their opponents. Agathodemons were turned into kakodemons. The serpent, worshipped in many lands, might be adopted as the support of sleeping Vishnu in India, might be associated with the rainbow (‘the heavenly serpent’) in Persia, but elsewhere was cursed as the very genius of evil.

The operation of this force in the degradation of deities, is particularly revealed in the Sacred Books of Persia. In that country the great religions of the East would appear to have contended against each other with especial fury, and their struggles were probably instrumental in causing one or more of the early migrations into Western Europe. The great celestial war between Ormuzd and Ahriman—Light and Darkness—corresponded with a violent theological conflict, one result of which is that the word deva, meaning ‘deity’ to Brahmans, means ‘devil’ to Parsees.

The Zoroastrian conversion of deva (deus) into devil does not alone represent the work of this odium theologicum. In the early hymns of India the appellation asuras is given to the gods. Asura means a spirit. But in the process of time asura, like dæmon, came to have a sinister meaning: the gods were called suras, the demons asuras, and these were said to contend together. But in Persia the asuras—demonised in India—retained their divinity, and gave the name ahura to the supreme deity, Ormuzd (Ahura-mazda). On the other hand, as Mr. Muir supposes, Varenya, applied to evil spirits of darkness in the Zendavesta, is cognate with Varuna (Heaven); and the Vedic Indra, king of the gods—the Sun—is named in the Zoroastrian religion as one of the chief councillors of that Prince of Darkness.[9]

Samudra Manthan or The Churning of the Ocean

Max Muller considered Asura to be the “oldest name for the living gods” and connected it with the Zend Ahura.[10] Another theory looks at the Asuras as actually the original inhabitants of India that absorbed the Aryan influx and became the authors of the Rig Veda.[11] The theory of looking asuras as the dark-skinned people vanquished by the devas (“the shining ones”) is being discounted by scholars. Wash Edward Hale notes that Hiranyahasta (a term by which the asuras are described in the Rig Veda) "does not mean "dark-skinned." It means "having golden hands" and occurs once in the RV with asura-as an epithet of Savitr, the sun (RV.1.35.10).”[12] Also, according to C.N. Rao, the Asuras were the first gods of India.

There was a perpetual fight...during the course of which some of the Asuras seems to have called truce and agreed to occupy a subordinate and yet important position in the Aryan fold. Varuna, for instance, is an Asura and yet a god of the Aryans. How this came to pass may be accounted for by the fact that originally he was a powerful rival of Indra and passages can be quoted from the Rigveda to show that for some time they were each contending for the upper hand. But in course of time, Varuna contented himself with remaining in the Aryan fold by accepting sovereignty over the 'Antariksha' and administering the Rita or the Law.... Similarly with the Maruts, originally Asuras, but accepting a subordinate yet important position in teh hierarchy of the Aryan gods. It is remarkable that no Suras are mentioned in the Rigveda, but only Asuras and the word Suras is only a late formation on mistaken etymology. That is why also the Asuras are called the Purvadevatah.[13]

Rao’s view seems to accord with the theory that the Asuras went through a process of demonization, and were not yet demonized in the Rig Veda.

It is interesting to also note that Asura is in the beginning seen in connection with Surya (sun) and Savitar in the Rig Veda. In RV.1.35, both Savitar and Asura are called the golden-handed one, and while Savitar is the one who drives away sicknesses and bids the Sun to come and is the one who spreads the bright sky through darksome region, Asura is the one who drives away Rakshasas and Yatudhanas and is referred to as God who is present and is praised by hymns in the evening. Asura is also referred to as the gentle and kind Leader (RV 1.35.7; 1.35.10). In RV.3.29.14, Agni (Fire) is considered to have been brought to life from the Asura’s body. In RV.3.38.4 and 3.38.8, the Sun is referred to as Asura and Savitar. In 3.53.7, Angirases and Virupas are called Asura’s heroes, the Sons of Heaven. In 3.56.8, Asura’s heroes Savitar, Varuna, and Mitra are considered to rule over the three bright realms of the Sky, the Waters, and the Earth. In 4.53.1, Savitar is called the sapient Asura; also, in 5.49.2. In 5.63.3, Varuna and Mitra, the Lords of earth and heaven cause rain on earth by the power (maya) of Asura. In 5.63.4, Mitra-Varuna hide the Sun with cloud and flood of rain and water drops. In 7.6.1, Asura is called the “high imperial Ruler, the Manly One in whom the folk shall triumph… who is as strong as Indra” and is called “the Fort-destroyer.” In” 8.20.17 and 10.67.2, the Creator Dyaus is referred to as “the Asura”. In 8.42.1, Varuna is referred to as the Asura who the heavens, and measured out the broad earth's wide expanses. It is only in 10.138.3, that we first see Arya mentioned along with Asura. In this verse, Indra is said to have overthrown the forts of Pipru who was a conjuring Asura.

Evidence seems to support the theory of Asura-Ahura homogeneity. Also, it has been discovered that one Mitanni treaty does list the names of some of the Vedic gods like Varuna, Mithra, and Nasatya in an order similar to the Vedas. Excerpts from the 14^th century B.C. Hatti-Mitanni treaty give the names of the Vedic deities as follows: Mitrassil Arunassil, Indara Nasattiyanna (KBo I 3 Vo 24).[14] The order of the names looks the same as the order of pairs in Rig Veda 10.125.1 “Varuna and Mitra, Indra and Agni, and the Pair of Asvins”, i.e. the Nasatyas. KBo I 1 Vo 55-56 (of the Hatti-Mitanni treaty) has a slight change in the rendering: Mitrassil Uruwanassil, Indar Nasattiyanna leading to a conjecture that Uruwana, or Ruwana meaning “the one in charge of flowing waters,” is Varuna the creator of the water blocking monster Vritta that Indra is praised for killing.[15]

Asura as a divine class continues to feature in the Sama Veda where Indra is referred to as Asura in SV.6.2.12.2. However, in 6.3.5.2, Surya (Sun) is referred to as the slayer of “Dasyus, Asuras, and foes”, hinting possibly to the first demonizing instance of the class. In 9.3.7.3, Indra is referred to as the one who overthrew the great might of the Asura.

In Yajur Veda, we begin to see the casting off of Asura from the solar realm to the territory of the night. In 1.3.14 Agni is referred to as Rudra, the Asura of the mighty sky. However, by 1.5.1, we begin to see the first conflict between the gods and the Asuras in which the gods win. Agni (previously mentioned as an Asura) is seen as the one who runs away with the wealth that the gods deposited in him. In 1.5.9 we first find the statement that the day belongs to the gods and the night belongs to the Asuras, who entered night with the treasures of the gods. The gods, perceiving that “the night is Agni’s” begin praising Agni thinking he will restore to them their cattle, and Agni does deliver them their cattle from “night to day”. In 1.6.11 it is seen that the gods deceived the Asuras with the help of Agni. In 2.2.6, Agni has become associated with the gods, and the place of the gods is the Agni Vaishvarana, the year. From that place the gods drove away the Asuras. In 2.3.7, the gods are seen as defeated by the Asuras and as, having lost power and strength, made servants. However, Indra tries to pursue but cannot win and so he turns to Prajapati’s stipulated sacrifice by which he receives power and strength. Therefore, it is said that through the sacrifice and Agni, the gods defeated the Asuras. In 2.4.1, we find the first classification of sides. gods, men, and the Pitrs (fathers) on one side; Asuras, Rakshashas (giants), and Pishachas (cannibals) on the other. Thus, appears the first classification of the demonic triad in Vedic history.

In the White Yajur Veda 40.3, the Asuras are considered to inhabit the worlds that are enwrapt with blinding gloom. To them, when life on earth is done, depart the men who kill the Self.

Anthropology

Humans are referred to as mortals in the Vedas (SV.1.5.2). Men are Manu’s race (SV.2.2.8). Manu appointed Agni as the chief priest (RV.1.13.1; 1.14.11; SV.5.1.10). Agni, kindled by mortals is the immortal fire that mediates between the immortal gods and mortal men. Humans are divided into two groups: the law-abiders versus the Dasyus (or Dasas), the riteless, lawless ones (SV.3.1.3.2; 6.2.20.3). The Dasyus are said to be on the side with Asuras and foes (SV.6.3.5.2). After death, the soul departs to a place prepared by Yama, the god of death (RV.10.14.2). There is no talk of reincarnation yet during the Vedic period. Also, Yama is not the god of hell, but the god of the place where the fathers have gone.

Soteriology

The invocations in the Vedas usually call for blessings of rain, cattle, fruitfulness, and for defeat of the evil foes. In RV.1.24.14, we find a prayer to Varuna the Asura to lose the devotee of the bonds of sins. In RV.1.34.11, the Ashvins are invoked at the time of sacrifice to “make long our days of life, and wipe out all our sins: ward off our enemies; be with us evermore.” In 1.129.5, though used as a comparative for Indra, the concept of the Priest as one who drives all the sins of man away is found. In 2.28.9 and 5.85.8, Varuna is seen as the one who drives away all sins. In 7.86.5, there are two kinds of sins from which the devotee prays for deliverance: sins committed by the fathers and sins committed by self. In 10.105.8, the prayer is that Indra would grind off all sins and the observance is that he is not pleased with prayerless sacrifices.

Integral to the Vedic religion is the concept of Sacrifice (for which the Vedic hymns were mainly composed). Sacrifice is the means of obtaining blessings, protection, and ascendance to the realm of the gods. Food was offered to the gods through the sacrificial rite, and the sacrifice destroyed the evil spirits and rakshashas.

Some humans attained the life of spirits (RV.10.15.1). RV.10.15.14 talks of those who were consumed by fire and those not cremated, both of whom are invoked to be granted the world of spirits and their own body; suggesting that both cremation and burial were accepted in the Vedas. Shukla Yajur Veda 30.5 mentions hell as the place where murderers go. Atharva Veda 12.4.36 states that hell is reserved for anyone who doesn’t give a Cow to Brahmans when they ask for it.

[1] Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (London: Longmans, 1901), p.223

[2] Ibid, p.218

[3] Wheeler, The History of India…, pp.9,10

[4] Surendranath Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.1(Cambridge, 1922) , p.16 at Gutenberg.net

[5] Subodh Kapoor (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Vedic Philosophy, Vol. 8 (Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 2002), p.2280

[6] Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com

[7] The Texts of the White Yajurveda, tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1899], at sacred-texts.com

[8] The Texts of the White Yajurveda, tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1899], at sacred-texts.com. Parenthetical suggestions, mine.

[9] Moncure Daniel Conway, Demonology and Devil-lore (New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1879), pp.25,26 [Gutenberg.org]

[10] Max Muller, Lectures…, p.197

[11] Malati Shendge, “Obstacles to Identifying the Origins of India's History and Culture”.

[12] Wash Edward Hale, Asura in Early Vedic Religion (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986), p.19

[13] Chilukuri Narayana Rao, An Introduction to Dravidian Philology (Asian Educational Services, 1929), pp.37,38. Purvadevatah means “previous or older gods”

[14] Arnaud Fournet, “About the Mittanni-Aryan Gods”, Journal of the Indo-European Studies, Vol.38, No.1&2., 2010. Academia.edu

[15] Ibid

The Moral Basis of Indian Law

0 comments at October 03, 2014

Now, while the debate exists in the philosophy of law about the relationship between political laws and the moral law, attempts to base the laws on anything other than the moral law sooner face problems of justifiability. While it may be the case that reductionism of politics to ethics is not totally feasible, resort to anti reductionism is only self-defeating. And, then authority arguments that try to derive validity of laws from higher laws, which in return try to derive their validity from a much higher one (e.g. Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law), will have to strike ceiling at some point ( See Marmor, A. Philosophy of Law, Princeton, 2011). For instance, the judges under Hitler's regime could not be absolved upon the relativist presumption that they were only conforming to some law of a sovereign nation. The question of validity and justice could not be anchored in such "sovereign" authority alone.

However, this doesn't mean that authority doesn't count. In fact, authority does often prescribe laws in many cases, but the laws are only instrumental towards a much larger cause. Thus, we have law-givers such as Solon, Moses, and Manu. However, the validity of the prescriptions are based on a deeper intent. The intent or the spirit of the law is what matters. It also means that where laws fail to serve the intent, they must fade away and give place to the new.

Plato's elaborative study of justice as an ethical virtue in the analogically larger Republic is based on the same understanding that ethics and politics are inseparable. Similarly, his disciple Aristotle didn't see any reason to separate the both. In the Biblical tradition, the entire Mosaic Law was based on the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, which were the essence of the Law. Jesus pointed out that they all hung on the two Great Commandments: To love God absolutely and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Of course, Paul, later submitted that the Law was only a revealer and a restricter. It revealed human sinfulness and it was meant to restrict the lawless (it was given for the lawless). Jesus pointed out that certain laws (for instance, the law of divorce) were only permissive because of the hardness of human hearts, but didn't reflect the original intent of human creation.

Looking, now, into the Indian Constitution, one asks what is Indian Law based upon ultimately. The Preamble makes the democratic nature of the Republic clear. And, so it is the people's government for sure. But, the moral philosophy is indicated in words like "humanism" and "scientific temper", featured later on under Fundamental Duties. While the temper is scientific, the philosophical ground is humanism and its philosophy of man is condensed in the section called Fundamental Rights. The Law exists to ensure the protection of these fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Consequently, any law that is inconsistent with these rights is automatically annulled.

The Fundamental Rights are not prescriptions to the people but declarations of humanism. These declarations are prescriptive only to the laws, since the laws are expected to conform to them. Thus, they not only inform but also serve as reference points, as absolute foundation, for the laws. As such, we may refer to them, with regard to humanism, as the intent, or spirit of the laws; perhaps even as the Law of the laws since they serve as the measure of all laws.

But, how do we know that these declarations are true? Perhaps, it is similar to asking about the laws of logic, "How does one know whether they are true?" The answer is: by using them or trying not to use them. One cannot deny them, but then one cannot deny anything without using them. Similarly, one cannot deny the Fundamental Rights without himself losing the rights.

Atheism in India

0 comments at August 20, 2014

Atheism is disbelief in a personal God. It is not very popular in India, despite the various ploys of inroad it has attempted throughout history.

There are various kinds of atheisms in India. Some of these are dead, as far as systems are concerned; others live in compliant modes. For instance, charvaka atheism died away as a system, but yoga, samkhya, and Vedanta took accommodative modes.

The six heterodox schools (Charvaka, Jainism, and 4 schools of Buddhism) were labelled nastik or non-believing because they rejected the Vedas. However, these also have no place for the Supreme Personal God in their systems. Jainism considers a plurality of spirits to be eternal, and matter to be evil. Buddhism considers the human spirit as an aggregate of the 5 skandhas; in fact, it disbelieves the spirit as being real according to the doctrine of anatta.

Samkhya looks at Purusha and Prakriti as the eternal principles in a form of dualism. Vedanta regards the spirit as all that is and the one without an other (non-dualism); everything else is a delusion; thus, only the self eternally exists according to it. God, as the wholly other, doesn't exist.

However, neither the popular Hindu nor the tribal, following his various belief-systems, is willing to accept such atheistic doctrines. Thus, some sort of worship is vital in popular Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Of course, magic has made some inroads as well, quite contradictorily to the concept of theism (Theism can't allow any power apart from God nor able to supersede God, since God, by definition, is the Supreme One).

There are a few antisupernaturalists who regard science as the enemy of the concept of God and of creation. But, their impact doesn't seem to be as strong among the 4/14 Window group who have already formed faith before entering High School. We don't count godless lifestyles here. It is possible that one believes in the supernatural and still lives a godless life. The demons do - they believe in God and yet are godless.

We also don't mean that most Indians are monotheists. We only mean they are not atheists. Atheism is too tasteless for them; and quite impractical as far as philosophy of life is concerned. Atheism has no inspiring story to tell.

Civil Disobedience, Law, and Justice

0 comments at August 18, 2014

CIVIL OBEDIENCE obligatorily relates to Justice. Civil obedience is mandatory when the laws are just. However, civil obedience is not mandatory when laws are unjust. In fact, civil disobedience is obligatory when laws are unjust. The officers and judges during Hitler's reign might have argued that they were obeying their laws; however, since those laws were not just; therefore, they were guilty of crimes against humanity. Similarly, we find civil disobedience in the Bible when Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego refused to bow before the golden image (Dan. 3:14-16), when Daniel opened the windows and openly prayed in defiance to a law prohibiting the same (Daniel 6:10), and when the Apostles refused the authorities' command to stop preaching the Gospel.

But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Act 4:19-20 NIV)

The Formula:

Law+Justice+Obedience = Peace & Order
Law-Justice+Obedience = Crime & Destruction
Law+Justice+Disobedience = Anarchy
Law-Justice+Disobedience = Resistance

Evidently, the state of civil disobedience is a state of unrest and struggle. There can only be peace when the laws are just and people obey just laws. However, civil disobedience to unjust laws certainly signifies peace within the heart, where resolve submits to conscience. (Rom.2:15) When, from the fountain of a pure conscience, just actions follow, peace prevails within, and peace flows without.

Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. (Psa 119:165 NIV)

However, when the heart is allowed to be hardened in compliance to godless authority and laws, judgment comes (2Chr. 36:14-16).

Some Quotes

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt."
― Mahatma Gandhi

"Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies...Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke....Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing....Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent....Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention...Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation....Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but [are] branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force)...."
― Mahatma Gandhi

“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe. ”
― Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Raja-niti Vs Loka-niti (Sarvodaya's Quest for True Democracy)

0 comments at May 06, 2014

Raja-niti refers to the politics of party and power ("raja" means king and "raj" means rule). It is the common word used for "politics" in India. In contrast to it, the Sarvodaya philosophers, especially Vinoba Bhave, in the Gandhian line promoted what they called as "Loka-niti", i.e. the politics of people. For the Gandhians, centralization of power in any form (dictatorial or "democratical") is a threat to swaraj (self-rule).

"...any state, with separated and strongly developed organs of legislation, execution, and judiciary in well organised large societies, cripples the free-play of individual's faculties and curbs his initiative by enlarging the regions of state control. Progressively it attains the position only next to air in its all-pervading nature. No matter whether such government is an elected representative of its people or a dictatorially established one against the will of the people, it unfailingly produces the evils of centralization and hence necessitates its own eradication for the sake of real democracy.... When the modern centralised state threatens the liberty of individual, of which it professes to be the guardian, it becomes the symbol of violence and a tool of exploitation, and as such loses its right to existence. That is why, according to Vinoba "power must pass into the hands of the people at all levels. Government must continually recede into the background or wither away." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, p.102)

The philosophical basis of such a concept is a strong belief in goodness within man, in humanism, in the human spirit which is free, individualism, and a leaning towards communism. Of course, communism everywhere has only led away from "community-rule" to more dictatorial and totalitarian regimes - its tragedy. Indian thinkers may ascribe communism's failure to its fundamentalist anti-religious and its dialectical materialist understanding of people and politics. In contrast, "Sarvodaya" (well-being of all, which includes all living beings) begins from freedom of the spirit and rejects deterministic materialism. But, how does that justify Lokaniti?

"Sarvodaya exhorts the people to accept Lokaniti--the ethic of the people in social life--by eschewing Raja-niti. In his "Last Will and Testament" Gandhi had expressed a wish to transform the National Congress that stood "as a propaganda vehicle and parliamentary machine" into a Loka-Sevak-Sangh--an organisation for the service of the people. He believed that it would attain the democratic goal in India by the avoidance of "unhealthy competition with political parties and communal bodies." This remained merely an unfulfilled dream.... Vinoba's Land-gift and Village-gift movements have been conceived to fulfill Gandhi's dream of village-republics (Grama-Swaraja). Through this movement Vinoba hopes to bring political liberty along with the legislative and executive powers from Delhi to the small five hundred thousand villages of India. It can be achieved through the transformation of Raja-Niti into Loka-Niti.

"Loka-Niti in contrast with Raja-Niti strives to establish the real values of democracy. It is the respectable and equal position of every citizen that constitutes the core of democracy. His liberty irrespective of caste, class and sex, is the life-breath of its successful rule. It is the fact of 'humanity' and not the ability, either physical or intellectual, that guarantees the right to security in every sense of the term, under its domain. But the model of democracy has the other and even more valuable side, namely, that of obligations. Every conscientious citizen is alert in shouldering his responsibilities and abhors external compulsion of every kind. Loka-Niti acknowledges the fact that more the citizen become vigilant about the interest and rights of his neighbours, the less the need of a third intervening agency to set order in human relationships and the better for the mutual co-operation of citizens. Then no coercion need spoil the harmony of the corporate life. Naturally, wakeful self-reliance and willing service, instead of grim authoritarianism and the alluring power, will prove the advancement on democratic lines. For this Gandhi had warned--"Swaraj government will be a sorry affair if people look up to it for the regulation of every detail of life." He also detected the dangers of increased governmental power: "I look upon an increase in the power of the state with the greatest fear, because, although apparently doing odd by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress." It is for the same reason that Vinoba Bhave warns the people against reliance on State, time and again. The shower of help by government, animated by welfarism should be a cause of anxiety for a real democrat since it blunts the sharpness of critical consciousness and tightens the knot of external authority, thus working for 'illfare' of the people. To the Sarvodaya thinkers the remedy lies in self-control which alone ensures self-rule.... In the society of self-ruled individuals, needless to say, no electioneering and struggle for power with the whole paraphernalia of propaganda machinery and machiavellian machinations can find any place." (Indu Tikekar, Integral Revolution: An Analytical Study of Gandhian Thought, 1970, pp.100-102)

Loka-Niti tries to balance self-rule with community-rule in a way that a citizen can both be self-aware and neighborly-aware, and is able to "love his neighbor as himself". Citizens don't look to the state for welfare, but themselves practice welfare conscientiously, mutually, and liberally.

Of course, the quest doesn't end here, though the ideal looks certainly sublime. There are psychological questions regarding the individual human by himself and in society that the philosophy needs to address. There are theological questions as well, regarding God, world, sin, and salvation that need to be addressed. In any case, a political theory can't hang on thin air; it must address the issues relevant to the individual, rational, moral, social, and spiritual man.

Democracy Is Not Meant to Be Mobocracy

0 comments at January 20, 2014

Basically, there are two kinds of government or rules: the rule of people and the rule of law.

The rule of people is manifest in democracy (mobocracy) where majority rule or in dictatorship where the whim of a single man pilots the state. Obviously, the rule of law is preferred above the rule of the mob. - The Rule of Law Vs The Rule of People

Today, women protested against the Delhi Law Minister, Somnath Bharti's "raid" in the night hours against women being accused of running a drug and prostitution racket. The police didn't want to cooperate with Bharti since they stated that this was an illegal move. However, the idea of a "people's government" was hot on fire, and it seems Bharti was zealous to be sensitive to the complaints. The AAP justify Bharti's move by stating that since the police weren't responding to the local people's complaint, and usually crime flourishes under the patronage of the police, the Law Minister had to take a move. Of course, the police must answer why it hadn't properly responded if the complaints had been made. Investigations need to be fair. Of course, a letter from an Ugandan official seems to have come in that affirms drug and sex trafficking going on by duping African girls into it.

However, the more severe issue of concern is the breach of the existent law, made by the government itself out of public pressure;. To what extent can such breaches be justifiable? There are dangerous pits on this track.

Propaganda, caricaturing, and dehumanization have many times led to mob crimes. We must be careful to avoid these. If the rule is handed over to people (in majority), then the minority will soon become victims of rumor, dehumanization, ghettoisation, and mob crime. The goal of a law-abiding nation cannot be reached by breaching the law.

We must understand the dangers of giving into the demands of propaganda propelled, passion driven masses. We must not forget that Socrates was poisoned because the majority voted for his death, Jesus was crucified because the majority wanted Him to die and wanted Barabbas the murderer to be released. Justice should not be blindfolded by the demands of the people. This will only end up in another instance of hooliganism. If the law is evil, then let's get rational about correcting it first in a rational manner; why use brute force, especially against the defenseless? We must remember the sagacious warning of Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Is it Ethical for Kejriwal to Refuse Police Protection?

0 comments at January 19, 2014

Kejriwal is a bit theological when He brings his faith in God to issues of personal security.

But, what about the police concerns? Obviously, there is no atheistic prong of approach taken. Nobody seems to have hurled a skeptical or agnostic concern arguing that we don’t know if God exists and if He does whether He is interested enough in the affairs of mortal men. Not that India is not ripe for atheism; but, I think it has tried and abandoned atheism in the far distant past. We are a people, despite the various religious traditions, who believe in the Supreme God. In the past few decades we have also learnt to not mix organized religion with politics. When religion is politicized, religion is polluted, instantly. History stands as witness to this fact that where politics became custodian of a particular strand of religion, the religious spirit was violated. However, this doesn’t disallow politicians from being religious. It is better for a politician to be a believer in the God of mercy and justice than to fall prey to the merciless ethics of a Nietzschean universe (Nietzsche pronounced God as dead in the 19th century and painted hopes of the rise of a Superman who would be above ethics; Hitler’s desire to fulfill it is still a dark blot on the timeline of history, a disgrace to humanity). But, of course, a politician’s faith must not in anyway compromise the freedom of spirit in the right to faith – God Himself allows us that freedom; if not, humanity would be one soup of religion.. We’ve noted elsewhere (God and Politics in Secular India) that God and politics are not strangers; and, there is a way of speaking of God as being secularly involved in history (i.e. unecclesiastically: the New Testament supports the division of religion and state). Certainly, Kejriwal’s faith in God is strong. Is it fatalism? He will need to answer that. But, his actions are certainly too vociferously anti-fatalist: he believes that the future of India CAN BE CHANGED. Perhaps, his confidence in God is an affirmation of divine sovereignty. God is in control and nothing escapes His omniscient ordering of the world. He has publicly argued in the Parliament that nothing can harm him if it’s God’s will to keep him on earth and nothing can save him (not even the biggest legions of security) if it’s God’s will to take him away.

So, it’s not atheism or fatalism that the police is bothered about. Certainly, it’s their sense of duty and responsibility. They are meant to ensure the protection of the city; and, one important step in this order is to protect the head of the state. But, Kejriwal is revulsive to this idea. He doesn’t want to be seen as the head; he has repeatedly affirmed that it is the people of the nation who are the rulers. He hates the notion of a government ruling over the people. So, his argument is quite cogent. The police cannot aristocratize security – he doesn’t believe in the VIP culture, after all. But, shouldn’t security be prioritized? Is the security of the soldier in combat less important than the security of the leader? What would a doctor say about this (I mean an ethically responsible doctor, not the one sold to avarice)? If the lives of two humans are in danger, one a politician and the other a “common man”, and he has to prioritize, whose would he save first? Is it a matter of aristocrizing or prioritizing? But who decides the value of anybody’s life? To Kejriwal, the life of the common man is more important.

But, there is another hook. The police claim that they have received intelligence about threat to the life of Kejriwal and so are constrained to prioritize security. Kejriwal is not just skeptical about this; he is more pronounced about his convictions. Let’s quote a few lines from the Hindustan Times here:

Hours after reports emerged that terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM) was planning to abduct Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister refused to accept any form of security cover and said the Delhi Police were playing politics along with the central government.

“Is delhi police n central govt playing politics with my security? (sic)” Kejriwal tweeted. “Police officials met me in afternoon. Informed me abt threat. Asked me not to disclose it to media. Den dey themselves went and told media,” he sent out another tweet minutes later.
He said the police had themselves compromised his security. “By announcing this, haven’t police made me vulnerable. Now anyone can attack and it wud be said that Bhatkal’s men did it.”
Kejriwal, who had earlier turned down Z-category cover by the Ghaziabad Police, reiterated that he won’t accept any cover despite the IM threat. “I am not afraid of my life. As i said, i strongly believe in God. Will not take any security,” one of his tweets read.
Denying the Z-cover security earlier, Kejriwal had said, “I don’t need security, the aam aadmi (common man) needs security”. He stressed his demand for security to the ‘aam aadmi’ again on Sunday. “I wud urge police to stop playing politics. Rather than giving security to me, let them deploy these men for aam aadmi’s security,” he told his Twitter followers on Sunday.
Obviously, if it is true that the police have received such intelligence, then it becomes their responsibility to act in accordance to such intelligence. Certainly, if anything does happen to Kejriwal, the police will become answerable; and they must have the confidence to say that they had done everything that could be done to ensure protection. But, perhaps Kejriwal also wishes to say that if the innocent little ones in the city are not protected, if a young girl on the streets of Delhi is not protected, if the poor find no protection from the police, he doesn’t want their protection either. God is enough for him.

____________________________

FEW PERTINENT QUOTES ON POLITICS AND RELIGION BY DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it. This saying of Christ removes the Church from the sphere of politics and law. The Church is not to be a national community like the old Israel, but a community of believers without political or national ties. The old Israel had been both — the chosen people of God and a national community, and it was therefore his will that they should meet force with force. But with the Church it is different: it has abandoned political and national status, and therefore it must patiently endure aggression. Otherwise evil will be heaped upon evil. Only thus can fellowship be established and maintained.

By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy with his own coin, and preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence.

By his willingly renouncing self-defence, the Christian affirms his absolute adherence to Jesus, and his freedom from the tyranny of his own ego. The exclusiveness of this adherence is the only power which can overcome evil.

Jesus is no draughtsman of political blueprints, he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of non-violence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable men to obey that precept. And only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ’s victory as well as his sufferings.

The great masquerade of evil has played havoc with all our ethical concepts. For evil to appear disguised as light, charity, historical necessity or social justice is quite bewildering to anyone brought up on out traditional ethical concepts, while for the Christian who bases his life on the Bible, it merely confirms the fundamental wickedness of evil. The “reasonable” people’s failure is obvious. With the best intentions and a naive lack of realism, they think that with a little reason they can bend back into position the framework that has got out of joint. In their lack of vision they want to do justice to all sides, and so the conflicting forces wear them down with nothing achieved. Disappointed by the world’s unreasonableness, they see themselves condemned to ineffectiveness; they step aside in resignation or collapse before the stronger party.
Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.

Who stands fast? Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God — the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God. Where are these responsible people?

We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds: we have been drenched by many storms; we have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence; experience has made us suspicious of others and kept us from being truthful and open; intolerable conflicts have worn us down and even made us cynical. Are we still of any use? What we shall need is not geniuses, or cynics, or misanthropes, or clever tacticians, but plain, honest, straightforward men. Will our inward power of resistance be strong enough, and our honesty with ourselves remorseless enough, for us to find our way back to simplicity and straightforwardness?

There remains an experience of incomparable value. We have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcasts, the suspects, the maltreated — in short, from the perspective of those who suffer. Mere waiting and looking on is not Christian behavior. Christians are called to compassion and to action.

…there are three possible ways in which the church can act toward the state: the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its actions are legitimate and in accordance with its character as state, i.e., it can throw the state back on its responsibilities. Second, it can aid the victims of state action. The church has an unconditional obligation to the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to the Christian community. “Do good to all people.” In both these courses of action, the church serves the free state in its free way, and at times when laws are changed the church may in no way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.

Politics and Lies

0 comments at June 26, 2013

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18:38 KJV)

Since the Fall of man, man has resorted to the tools of violence and deception in order to rule man. While the use of arms for protection of justice can be justified, the use of deception is a symptom of the inherent human vileness. Religion, superstition, education, media, propaganda, disinformation, riots and a host of tools have been politically exploited to keep the masses under bait.

Hitler coined the term "Big Lie" for a propaganda technique that he himself used.

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." - Hitler, Mein Kampf

In brief, the principle states, as someone put it: "Tell a lie, speak it loudly, repeat it often, and the majority of the masses will believe you."

The masses lose out for the power of appeal. Sometimes it is the appeal of authority (someone who is well knowledgeable would know better, they think; but, fail to register that that same person could be deliberately lying or have been deceived himself). Sometimes, it is the appeal of the masses (the majority cannot be wrong, they think). Sometimes, it is the appeal of a famous personality or a celebrity (the appeal here would be more of a psychological nature, because one often tends to like what is liked by the person he/she adores).

In the olden times, lie was woven into religion through myths and legends that tried to establish the superiority of the royal family, the division of family lines, the inferiority of certain people, and taboos that protected power. In modern times, when science has destroyed many of the mythical grounds, there are other lying techniques ready at hand that deceive and delude men to support a political leader or party.

The Bible predicts that this is how the Antichrist, who will be an agent of the Devil, the Father of Lies, will come.

Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Th 2:9-12 KJV)

Modern Universities, Arts & Media, Politics, Markets, and Religion are all marching forward to the gate of deception that will soon happily welcome the Son of Perdition.

But, everyone who is of the truth hears the voice of the Lord; everyone who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God. (Joh 18:37; 3:21)

The Constitution

0 comments at January 26, 2013

After FREEDOM, the Constitution came and defined our:

1. FORM - The word "Constitution" itself speaks of form and identity. The Constitution declared the nature, form, and identity of the nation. It answered questions like "What is this nation?" "What is its form?" "Who is its citizen?" "Who are the officials?"
___________
From the Wikipedia
In India, Republic Day honours the date on which the Constitution of India came into force replacing the Government of India Act 1935 as the governing document of India on 26 January 1950.

The date of 26 January was chosen to honour the declaration of independence of 1930 at Lahore. The new Constitution of India, as drafted and approved by the Constituent Assembly of India, was mandated to take effect on January 26, 1950, to commemorate the 1930 declaration. On that day in 1950, India became a republic....

India achieved independence from British rule on 15 August 1947 following the Indian independence movement noted for largely peaceful nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience led by the Indian National Congress. The independence came through the Indian Independence Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6 c. 30), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that partitioned British India into the two new independent Dominions of the British Commonwealth (later Commonwealth of Nations): India and Pakistan.[2] India obtained its independence on 15 August 1947 as a constitutional monarchy with George VI as head of state and the Earl Mountbatten as governor-general. The country, though, did not yet have a permanent constitution; instead its laws were based on the modified colonial Government of India Act 1935. On 28 August 1947, the Drafting Committee was appointed to draft a permanent constitution, with Dr.B. R. Ambedkar as chairman. While India's Independence Day celebrates its freedom from British Rule, the Republic Day celebrates the coming into force of its constitution.

A draft constitution was prepared by the committee and submitted to the Assembly on 4 November 1947. The Assembly met, in sessions open to public, for 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the Constitution. After many deliberations and some modifications, the 308 members of the Assembly signed two hand-written copies of the document (one each in Hindi and English) on 24 January 1950. Two days later, it came into effect throughout the nation.
_____________

2. FUNCTION. The Constitution established the various functions of the State: of the governing officials as well as the citizens. As responsible citizens, we are called to abide by the rules of the Constitution of our nation.

Without the Constitution we were without a distinct form and function.

______________

BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS
Old Testament
The Israelites got FREEDOM from Egyptian slavery in Exodus 12; but it was only in Exodus 19 that they saw who they were as a Covenant People (Form) and what they were supposed to do (Function) - the Covenant Laws.

New TestamentThe Church also began with FREEDOM; but, Freedom is not an excuse for Lawlessness. We see a FORM emerge through the Book of Acts and the Epistles. The various FUNCTIONS of the members of the Body were pointed out. Commandments and observances were given.

The Republic Day reminds us of the importance of Constitution, first, within our own selves. Law-abiding begins within us. Law-abiding is the sign of a healthy soul; in which every element within our self is in its proper place and fulfills its proper role. If the Law is written in the book of our hearts, then Justice and Liberty will be innate to us.

Philosophical Roots of Law and Politics

0 comments at December 09, 2012

About four decades ago, the American theologian Harvey Cox, had already defined secularization as an inevitable process.[1] Almost a decade prior to that, Bryan Wilson, in his book Religion in Secular Society (1966) had considered it to be irreversible.[2] However, history has a different tale to say. The scepter of philosophy is hard to cast away. Somewhere or the other it holds its reins and pulls history on. In the 1920s a small group of scientists, mathematicians, sociologists, and economists, (not philosophers) had gathered together in Vienna to develop a unified philosophy that embraced science and attempted to destroy philosophy.[3] Their new philosophy came to be known as Logical Positivism. It, of course, suffered a natural death soon. But, what the empiricists then did not realize was that philosophy may be philosophically denied but not scientifically annihilated. In less than a decade, the world saw the angry reins of philosophies on the chariots of the nations as political philosophies collided, clashed, and combatted with weapons that science had produced to shock humanity with the Second World War. There had to be some other stronger ideology that had to deal with the issue of justice corrupted by corrupt philosophies such as Nazism that tried to base themselves on the evolutionary model provided by the scientific community. The Nuremberg Trial tried Judges who had committed the crime of obeying the unjust laws of their own regime. Some legal philosophy, and not science, had to decide the question of right or wrong during these trials. The definitions and directions were laid down in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.[4] The Trial, of course, was subject to much criticism; however, it did open a new chapter in legal history when it defined justice not merely as a domestic political affair but in relation to the notion of natural human rights; thus, the head of a state can’t just merely dictate any law under the pretense of positive lawmaking; he was accountable now to the international community. This also entailed individual responsibility of any person whosoever, irrespective of the laws prescribed by a particular nation. Thus, the ILC’s Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind declared in Article 2(1):[5]

A crime against the peace and security of mankind entails individual responsibility,

Article 3 continues:

An individual who is responsible for a crime against the peace and security of mankind shall be liable to punishment . . .

A deeper probe would question the basis of such a law that claimed superior and absolute status above all laws and demanded conformity to it. From the scientific perspective, didn’t the principle of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest look quite natural? In that sense, wasn’t Nazism quite close to nature? But, what science defined to be a principle of nature and what philosophy recognized to be just and right were two different things. The very reversal of the evolutionary natural principle is uplifted as the virtue of greatness: viz., benevolence and compassion. However, only a philosophically valid method can determine if a philosophical contention is tenable.

The above elaboration was essential as there is a tendency among educators to neglect the primary things altogether and focus on more tangible areas that cater tangible results only. However, the age long scheme cannot be broken so easily. The practical man can’t go on for long without the theoretical man; and, there certainly will come a point when the practical man will have to turn to the theoretical man. The British thinker G. K. Chesterton, over a century ago, had dedicated a whole chapter to this issue in his book What’s Wrong With the World (1910). He called it, “Wanted: An Unpractical Man”. One can’t talk of politics without considering the philosophical roots. Chesterton’s observation is appropriate:

Now our modern politics are full of a noisy forgetfulness; forgetfulness that the production of this happy and conscious life is after all the aim of all complexities and compromises. We talk of nothing but useful men and working institutions; that is, we only think of the chickens as things that will lay more eggs. Instead of seeking to breed our ideal bird, the eagle of Zeus or the Swan of Avon, or whatever we happen to want, we talk entirely in terms of the process and the embryo. The process itself, divorced from its divine object, becomes doubtful and even morbid; poison enters the embryo of everything; and our politics are rotten eggs.

[1] Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1975) p. 18.
[2] Néstor Da Costa, “Secularization and Sacralization,” http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/projects/summerinstitute/alumni.html, Accessed on November 27, 2012.
[3] Kelly James Clark (ed), Philosophers Who Believe (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.11
[4] Online Text available at Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp. Accessed on November 28, 2012.
[5] As cited by Christian Tomuschat, “The Legacy of Nuremberg”, Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), (Oxford University Press, 2006), p.841. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu. Accessed on 28 November 2012.

Drishti-sristivada, Srishtidrishtivada, and the Hermeneutics of Theatre

0 comments at September 18, 2012

An interesting example of contradictory interpretations is borrowed by G.P. Deshpande [1] from Indian philosophy to evaluate the ambiguous nature of the play and its production.

"There are two texts by Shankaracharya: one is called Sarirakabhasya while the other bhasya is a commentary on Gaudapadakarika. There is a basic contradiction in both....drishti-srishtivada and sristidrishtivada.... These two terms represent the schools within which the Vedantins are divided. The problem is whether what you see defines reality (drishtisrishtivada) or whether what exists defines your vision (srishtidrishtivada).

"It is a typical theatre problem.... Suppose you take that text to be a srishti. Then the director looks at it in a particular way, and the actor looks at it in a particular way. When happens next is the case of drishtisrishtivada. The vision or the way the text is looked at ultimately decides its character. And that is why you have different productions of the same play, productions apparently using the same text but so different that they appear to be based on different texts."

Deshpande, from the Indian viewpoint, is exploring what Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) had philosophically deeply examined, the issue of pre-understanding and the fusion of horizons. Recent hermeneutics has strongly focused on trying to get at the author's intent and limit the text to just that. However, getting to the author's intent is a horizonal problem. Our understandings only fuse where our pre-understandings intersect. Yet, in a way, the text does have the ability to change one's pre-understanding as well; and so vice-versa.

Deshpande continues:

"But is it really the case of drishtisrishtivada? That, after all, it is the drishti that determines the srishti? Perhaps not quite. The srishti also made that drishti possible. There is always enough room in a given text to make it so..... The interrelationship between the text and play I am talking about can be related to the contradiction in Shankaracharya's to bhasyas, and the contradiction between the two vadas. Vendantins also could not come to terms with them. Drishti or srishti taking prominence remained an unresolved question."

To note is the fact that both the schools of interpretation look to the Vedas and Upanisads as their source of authority and, yet their interpretations are contradictory. Does this mean that the text itself is contradictory in nature? Or does it mean that one or both of the interpretations may be wrong? The aim of hermeneutics should be chiefly that: to guarantee the right interpretation of the text in its syntactical-grammatical-historical originality.

Glossary
bhasya. Commentary
Drishti. Sight
Srishti. Creation
Vada. Argument. Theory.
Gaudapadakarika. The statement of doctrine in verse form by Gaudapada, the teacher of Sankaracharya.

[1] G.P. Deshpande (b.1939), retired Professor of Chinese Studies at JNU.
Cit. Dialectics of Defeat, Calcutta: Seagull, 2006.

Home