18-Feb-2012, 05:21 AM
Context: http://nirmukta.com/2012/02/16/deconstru...worldview/
In arguing with Vedantic spiritualists, the main point to note, borrowing from Ranganath's article, is this, "[S]keptics are not dismissing the theories of the Vedanta. They are trying to question the claims of this school of ‘philosophic’ thought that their version of ‘truth’ or conception of the nature of reality is the real deal."
The real problem with the spiritualists of today is that they take the Upanishads too seriously- as a world view, and worse, as a guide to living. This adherence to Upanishads, in my opinion, and the unwillingness to look at it from a critical perspective is the *principal problem*.
Objectively speaking, Hardayal's suggestion to 'only read western philosophers such as Aristotle, Marx, etc.' is not a sound recommendation. If we seek to address the 'principal problem' that I've defined above, we should avoid citing opinions such as Hardayal's. Aristotle, Marx, etc. are quite irrelevant today, from a skeptical and critical perspective. We really should only look to study their philosophies as data points in the history of human thought.
Aristotle, Marx, Nietzsche, and Burke have all been the subjects of similar 'principal problems'. The church's retrograde views about science were steeped in a belief in Aristotle. The failure of communism is an indictment of the dogmas of Marx. Nietzsche had his turn in inspiring Nazism. Edmund Burke's views continue to be one of the main inspirations for the dogmas of political conservatism in the US and UK.
Vedantic literature is clearly among the sole sources (along with the writings of the Buddha, Mahavira, Carvaka, and the subsequent commentaries) of the history of India thought, just as Greek philosophers are of western thought. Consequently, Vedanta often becomes an issue of identity. Pre-independence nationalists who are presumably, the targets of criticism of Ambedkar and Hardayal, used Vedantic pride to consolidate the Hindu identity.
While criticizing the Upanishads, we should be sensitive to the fact that they are a source of pride to Indians. This pride, in my opinion, is what causes spiritualists such as H. A. to retreat deeper into their dogmatic shells when faced with views critical of the Upanishads. I do not condone such pride as it can lead to chauvinism. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge it exists, and factor it into our approach to criticizing Vedanta. Pride, though an unnecessary emotion, is to an extent justified in this case, given the literary merit and historiographic content of the Upanishads. The same cannot be said about explicitly theological works like the Bhagavadgeeta or the Bible.
Vedanta is just another data point in the study of the history of human thought. It is no guide to modern life, or to the understanding of the universe. The same can be said about most of Hardayal's western thinkers, considering that it does *not* include David Hume.
In arguing with Vedantic spiritualists, the main point to note, borrowing from Ranganath's article, is this, "[S]keptics are not dismissing the theories of the Vedanta. They are trying to question the claims of this school of ‘philosophic’ thought that their version of ‘truth’ or conception of the nature of reality is the real deal."
The real problem with the spiritualists of today is that they take the Upanishads too seriously- as a world view, and worse, as a guide to living. This adherence to Upanishads, in my opinion, and the unwillingness to look at it from a critical perspective is the *principal problem*.
Objectively speaking, Hardayal's suggestion to 'only read western philosophers such as Aristotle, Marx, etc.' is not a sound recommendation. If we seek to address the 'principal problem' that I've defined above, we should avoid citing opinions such as Hardayal's. Aristotle, Marx, etc. are quite irrelevant today, from a skeptical and critical perspective. We really should only look to study their philosophies as data points in the history of human thought.
Aristotle, Marx, Nietzsche, and Burke have all been the subjects of similar 'principal problems'. The church's retrograde views about science were steeped in a belief in Aristotle. The failure of communism is an indictment of the dogmas of Marx. Nietzsche had his turn in inspiring Nazism. Edmund Burke's views continue to be one of the main inspirations for the dogmas of political conservatism in the US and UK.
Vedantic literature is clearly among the sole sources (along with the writings of the Buddha, Mahavira, Carvaka, and the subsequent commentaries) of the history of India thought, just as Greek philosophers are of western thought. Consequently, Vedanta often becomes an issue of identity. Pre-independence nationalists who are presumably, the targets of criticism of Ambedkar and Hardayal, used Vedantic pride to consolidate the Hindu identity.
While criticizing the Upanishads, we should be sensitive to the fact that they are a source of pride to Indians. This pride, in my opinion, is what causes spiritualists such as H. A. to retreat deeper into their dogmatic shells when faced with views critical of the Upanishads. I do not condone such pride as it can lead to chauvinism. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge it exists, and factor it into our approach to criticizing Vedanta. Pride, though an unnecessary emotion, is to an extent justified in this case, given the literary merit and historiographic content of the Upanishads. The same cannot be said about explicitly theological works like the Bhagavadgeeta or the Bible.
Vedanta is just another data point in the study of the history of human thought. It is no guide to modern life, or to the understanding of the universe. The same can be said about most of Hardayal's western thinkers, considering that it does *not* include David Hume.