The curriculum of Indian Philosophy that we teach here in Divyadaan is largely what we have inherited from JDV, Pune, which means that it is largely Brahminical, even though the nastika darsanas such as Lokayata, Jainism and Buddhism are not absent. It is in Contemporary Indian Philosophy that people like Kabir, Tukaram, Phule and Ambedkar find a place.
This can be revised. The whole historical, cultural, social and economic context, for example, can be introduced. (This will certainly bring in the question - now so controverted by the efforts of revisionist historians - about the Aryans and Dravidians.) Chanakya Kautilya's Arthasastra and his politics will certainly have to be studied. Indian aesthetics. The non-written subaltern elements. A whole new endeavour. And of course the Laws of Manu and things. The puranas and the whole bhakti literature.
Perhaps also the strictly religious, which tends to be left out of 'Indian Philosophy', would need to be introduced. And by 'strictly religious' we should not assume 'Hindu' - keeping in mind the cauldron of religiosity that India used to be, with the Nandas and Guptas being Jains, Asoka clearly Buddhist, and so on. Away with monolithic history. Let the complexity be brought on.
Showing posts with label Indian thought. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indian thought. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Friday, 8 January 2010
Maritain and Indian Philosophy
I had known from Joaquim D'Souza that Maritain had taken a great interest in Indian philosophy, to the extent of encouraging Oliver Lacombe to specialize in Sanskrit and Indian Philosophy and come out with great books such as L'Absolu selon le Vedanta.
But I learnt something more yesterday: that Maritain had himself translated Georges Dandoy's An Essay in the Doctrine of the Unreality of the World in the Advaita (Calcutta, 1919). See L'ontologie du Vedanta, tr. J. Maritain (Paris, 1932).
But I learnt something more yesterday: that Maritain had himself translated Georges Dandoy's An Essay in the Doctrine of the Unreality of the World in the Advaita (Calcutta, 1919). See L'ontologie du Vedanta, tr. J. Maritain (Paris, 1932).
Friday, 23 January 2009
De Smet's Sankara studies
Strange: I didn't intend to, but I found myself drawn into beginning work on a second collection of De Smet's essays, with the tentative title, Forward Steps in Sankara Research: Essays by Richard De Smet, SJ.
There is, of course, the experience of working on the first collection. I had already drawn up a list of Sankara essays by De Smet, so I began by writing for permissions, which was, I think, the most delicate and difficult part of the previous work.
OUP has already replied, but they said they preferred dealing directly with the publishers. But MLBD can correspond with them only after I submit my MS to them - which will be another year at least?
The scanning has begun. Unfortunately, the new scanner is a very low level one, and the errors in the text are far more than the Provincial House scanner....
Whatever: the work has begun, and I am excited about it.
There is, of course, the experience of working on the first collection. I had already drawn up a list of Sankara essays by De Smet, so I began by writing for permissions, which was, I think, the most delicate and difficult part of the previous work.
OUP has already replied, but they said they preferred dealing directly with the publishers. But MLBD can correspond with them only after I submit my MS to them - which will be another year at least?
The scanning has begun. Unfortunately, the new scanner is a very low level one, and the errors in the text are far more than the Provincial House scanner....
Whatever: the work has begun, and I am excited about it.
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
De Smet, Brahman and Person
From one of my jottings:
"Where Zaehner stresses bhakti/love as culmination, De Smet strikes at the root: the Absolute Brahman of Sankara is itself personal! Cf. De Smet, "Indian Understanding of Man" (1970) 10-12.
God's love is the highest integrator. Zaehner.
Educated Indians familiar with Advaita often look down on the God of Christians as Isvara, the lower, qualified, saguna Brahman - see, for example, Radhakrishnan. De Smet: charitably (1) explains 'person'; (2) explains saguna/nirguna (through analogy).
Saturday, 17 January 2009
Retrieving good work
The last dot (hopefully) was put on the De Smet manuscript yesterday, feast of Blessed Jose Vaz. Wonderful day on which to finish this homage to De Smet, this great effort at retrieving - or is it generating? - the category of person from within Indian thought.
Monday I hope to send the manuscript to the publishers. Gratitude to the countless friends who have helped in one way or another.
And the possibility, of pursuing the work further: "'Retrieving good work': De Smet's generation of the category of 'person' in Indian thought." What would that involve? Apart from De Smet's own work, I guess also a study of Lonergan on person and subject, in order to understand the possibility of transposing the metaphysical category 'person' into an appropriate psychological category; and then using this psychological category to identify/confirm De Smet's own attempt. Indicating further work to be done by way research in Western/Indian thought.
And the question: to which functional specialty would all this belong? Interpretation, I think. But aren't categories generated seminally in dialectic, and with explicit commitment in foundations? True, but then this is the effort of one person to retrieve the work of another person. That effort might eventually lead to dialectic and foundations.
Monday I hope to send the manuscript to the publishers. Gratitude to the countless friends who have helped in one way or another.
And the possibility, of pursuing the work further: "'Retrieving good work': De Smet's generation of the category of 'person' in Indian thought." What would that involve? Apart from De Smet's own work, I guess also a study of Lonergan on person and subject, in order to understand the possibility of transposing the metaphysical category 'person' into an appropriate psychological category; and then using this psychological category to identify/confirm De Smet's own attempt. Indicating further work to be done by way research in Western/Indian thought.
And the question: to which functional specialty would all this belong? Interpretation, I think. But aren't categories generated seminally in dialectic, and with explicit commitment in foundations? True, but then this is the effort of one person to retrieve the work of another person. That effort might eventually lead to dialectic and foundations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
