A WIDE CANVAS
STRANGERS TO OURSELVES
English education has been a great blessing to us. But it has been a mixed blessing. While the language has widened our mental horizons and provided a modern window to the world, the habits of thought engendered in its wake have also affected our thinking in unexpected ways and made us strangers to our own heritage and intellectual traditions.
England has been an extraordinary nation, and its language an unusual vehicle of extraordinary thinking power. Whatever revolutions the world has experienced in the last 4 centuries occurred first in thought or deed on the English soil, with few exceptions. Even revolutionary ideas such as those of the French Revolution or the German Romantic Revolution reached their perfection with their English expression. Even the Communist idea was born on its soil: Karl Marx, a German Jew, wrote his revolutionary theory sitting in the safety of some English library! But England had the practical sense not to experiment with every new idea on its own soil. Its innate conservatism allowed it to change or adapt slowly. While the French shouted Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, it could achieve none of it in the end; it is in England that we see all these principles followed in effect, to the extent humanly possible, though it is officially a 'limited costitutional monarchy'. How little correspondence is there between labels and substance!
All our modern ideas we have learned or adapted from English sources. English language has enabled us to mix with the world- but on its own terms and herein lies our problem.
We have acquired not just their language but the luggage of their habits of thinking. One or two illustrations will help us understand this.
Almost every one with modern , ie English, education believes that religion is opposed to science, that science has disproved religion and that there is some irreconcilable antagonism between the two. Science Vs. Religion is almost an article of faith to the modern mind.
Richard Dawkins- one of the staunchest advocates of the incompatibility of science and religion.
Richard Dawkins By Mike Cornwell from USA[CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.(http:://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa-2)
Yet how many of us have examined the origins of this idea, and examined whether it applies to Hinduism or other Indian religions?
Ancient civilizations like Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek and the still living ones like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism did not display any anti-science spirit. They encouraged all sorts of inventions and scientific techniques. It was only when Christianity linked everything to its theology and interpreted the Bible literally that it ran into science. Ideas such as the world was created in 4004 BC, that woman was created from the rib of man, its opposition to Evolution based on Creationism of the Bible, the earth-centred universe, etc were totally opposed to science and in the West, the phrase science Vs religion specifically refers to Science Vs Christianity.But even there, there have been many scientists/inventors who were men of faith: such as Newton,Galileo,Kepler,Descartes,Copernicus,Pascal,
Harvey,Max Planck,Faraday, etc.
Those who propose the science Vs religion theory assume that while science is based on reason, religion is based on faith; while science is objective, religion is subjective, etc. But deep thinkers on either side do not fall for any such simplistic cliche. Religion contains more than theology, and branches of science like particle physics are not entirely objective- there are areas which cannot be separated from 'consciousness'. Those scientists who deny the truth of religion deny the higher reaches of science too. Modern science started with investigation of matter and has found that there is no matter at all! Yet the 'science establishment' founds its empire on outdated ideas. Science has become scientism- one more system of belief. It is no more impartial investigation of Truth- it is pursuit of power through investigation of phenomena. Science may investigate brain, it still does not know what is mind. It does not know its own mind. Today, science reads like fiction- there is no need for 'science fiction'. Science has lost its ability to communicate with the common man- scientists write for each other; others need intermediaries to understand what they mean: science too needs a clergy to communicate!
Hinduism has never depended on or encouraged blind faith. If our people read the original sources like the Upanishads and the philosophical systems, they will be struck by the kind of inquiries and arguments. Our religion never says salvation depends on faith; we don't talk of salvation at all! We talk of Mukti-Moksha= Liberation which is based on Wisdom, Enlightenment, freedom from Ignorance, not belief on this or that idea. The very word Veda means "knowledge" . Our Upanishads say: Investigate and Know the truth for yourself. The Teacher is a guide to the method, not an instructor of dogma. It is true that in any society, most people are content with small things; they are satisfied with conventional religion; but that is not the whole of Religion. We Hindus have no problem with the scientific approach, or theories like evolution; in fact, the concept of Dasavatara may be interpreted or explained in terms of ideas of evolution! We only say that the same method of investigation does not suit all aspects of life. You can analyse blood in a lab; you cannot understand love there.
It is religions like Christianity which rely on dogma and revelation that deny freedom to people to investigate religion, or to propose theories which run counter to the official faith. Even in the last century, the Catholic church censored the writings of its scientist-philosopher--priest Teilhard de Chardin and did not allow him to publish his book 'The Phenomenon of Man' in his life time because it ran counter to their dogma. Hinduism has no organised church and no scientist is required to bow before dogma. The idea of opposition between science and religion is an entirely western notion, in the context of Christianity's theological ideas about creation, the position of earth, nature of God, etc and is entirely alien to the Hindu spirit and teaching.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 1881-1955.
"See page for author [CC By-SA 3.0 (http:://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -sa 3,0) via Wikimedia commons"
Today, opinion is divided on the scientific merit of his work, while in 2009, the church allowed people to study his works! Scientists like Dawkins totally discredit him as a scientist.We of course question Dawkins' qualifications to speak on religion!
The works of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and the writings of Dr. S.Radhakrishnan throw ample light on this issue of science and religion.
Another western attitude we have simply followed is the tendency to denigrate the Brahmin community, and equate it with priesthood. In Christianity, the priesthood has been very powerful. In Islam, there is no formal priesthood but the Ulema is a very powerful body. When they talk of the evils of priesthood, there is some truth in it. But with us, the position is different. As Ananda Wood says:
The brahmanical ideal was one of sacred knowledge.First and foremost,the brahmins were priests who cultivated a sacred knowledge of the divine.
But the brahmins were not quite like the Christian priests, who belong to some instituted church. Nor, like Jain or Buddhist monks, did they belong to monastic organizations. Brahmanical traditions did not centre primarily upon broadly organized institutions, but rather upon particular lineages of learning..
.In Sanskrit, such a lineage is called a 'parampara'...it represented the unwritten essence of knowledge...the part that requires a subtle and delicate communication from person to person....who had a tendency to stay centred upon their particular lineages, instead of forming more universal organizations....They did not band together politically, to form a centralised body like the Christian church.
Ananda Wood: Ways to Truth- A View of Hindu Tradition. Part1.
D.K.Printworld (P) Ltd, New Delhi, 2008. This is an excellent resource on Hindu tradition.
The church and its priesthood were powerful economically and politically- the Church owned more than half of all land in medieval Europe, and controlled kings and emperors. Brahmin priests lacked both political and economic power. They needed the protection of Kshatriya kings and financial support from the people for survival. As a class, they were never rich or prosperous in the material sense. And they did not monopolise all learning, either. In the Upanishads we read that they approached even Kshatriya kings for knowledge. In fact, in the Gita,taught by Krishna, who was a non-brahmin to Arjuna, another non-brahmin, Krishna says he imparted this divine wisdom to Vivasvan, Manu, Ikshvaku, etc all of whom were Kshatriya kings and this knowledge spread through their parampara! He talks of Janaka too as a Rajarshi who knew the Truth!
A monuscript illustration of the Kurukshetra war.
In the Katha Upanishad, Yama ( another Kshatriya) imparts wisdom to Nachiketas, a brahmin boy, and tells him that no brahmin had received this knowledge till then! Those who simply swallow western concoctions and theories and criticise brahmins must some times open their minds and eyes.Even today, brahmin priests lead a pathetic existence and it is entirely up to people to avail of their services.
Yama and Nachiketas.
No comments:
Post a Comment