More on Kumkum Roy's Lecture...
In continuation with a post on Kumkum Roy's lecture that I had posted on the CCS course discussion livejounral community, Prathamesh T and I had a conversation. Here it is:
Dear All,
Prathamesh T and Sushumna Kannan had this conversation over chat this morning (on a shaky internet connection that demanded much patience) and would like to share it with all of you. Please do respond with more comments, clarifications etc. We hope to keep our conversation going and will be glad if others pitched in as well.
Warmly
Sushumna Kannan
Prathamesh T
Saturday Jan 17th 2009.
me: Hi!
prathamesh.t: hey
me: So tell me what would your reply have been like...
prathamesh.t: ok
I think, some of your objections have inherent assumptions
me: ok
prathamesh.t: like experience as a sole criterion for knowledge creation or rather obtaining knowledge.
Go on.
me: No, I don’t think I said it was the sole criterion. But when experience clashes with theorizing, then problems arise.
We might want to think then on the following lines:
1. If experience is not taken into account, then might there be a problem with the categories we are using to understand society?
prathamesh.t: how?
me: 2. If experience is not being explained then are we ready to take on that kind of theory, which involves much more than simply politically-driven conclusions
prathamesh.t: go on.
me: I have more but later...it might help if we kept the topic of Manusmriti or the writing of Indian history to draw concrete examples while we discuss...
prathamesh.t: or gurrukals scheme of ancient Indian knowledge production
me: For example, the fact that nobody and nobody in this country has ever bothered to read the Manusmriti before the British began to see it as an important text cannot be ignored...Claims that Indian history was based on this text become weak, to say the least
Are you there?
prathamesh.t: yes
I’m here.
was waiting for your statement
me: ok, sorry I am on a unstable internet connection
your turn now
prathamesh.t: question here is, what sources of history are you relying on to make this statement
me: I don’t have to rely on any sources to say that an existing explanation is baseless
prathamesh t: "among the law givers, I am manu.."
me: Law! The Manusmriti begins with students asking for knowledge of the highest kind...and that is not Law. Law was the very specific invention of the western world...
prathamesh.t: yes
but again, to make a statement that Manusmriti wasn’t an important text before the British came is based on a certain historical view
me: what historical view?
prathamesh.t: Not in a strict sense of the term
but how would you induce that Manusmriti was not an important text till the British came? You have to justify this statement
me: Nobody except very few people knew of this text even when the British began their search for the Indian Bible...Is that not proof enough? I think one has to simply read Lata Mani's book to get this clear
prathamesh.t: how do you claim that nobody except a few people knew of its existence?
OK. what’s the name of the book?
me: There are scholars who have researched on this topic for years and the administrative and other official records of the British in India show this....The Archives in the British Library show this very clearly...
prathamesh.t: the evidence that the ideas were not followed is quite evident from Mritchakattikam
me: Your turn, while I search the exact title of a book that might be useful in this regard.
prathamesh.t: OK. Coming back, but does that deny any historical information contained in Manusmriti. About the author, about the times it was written in, composed rather.
me: How do you know that the text represents historical information?
me: I did not get the point about Mricchakatika
prathamesh.t: in Mrichchakatika, the brahman was sentenced to death
which was forbidden as per Manusmriti
me: I would hesitate to quote from Mricchakatika to contend with another text like the Manusmriti
prathamesh.t: which is a clear indication of the fact that it didn’t influence the legal systems of the time even if it was an important text. OK. Why?
me: There are numerous sources (of very different kinds that I can quote) that defeat the claim made about Manusmriti. So the case is won right?
What then is your point about Mricchakatika...which is considered to be a play...
prathamesh.t: yajnavalkya for instance.
Nothing, it was just a remark to support you point about importance of Manusmriti
me: No wait, lets sort this out first...if you indeed thought that Mricchakatika disproves the claims made about Manusmriti or the Manusmriti itself, then why didn’t you question Kumkum Roy on that ground?
I am not saying that the Manusmriti is an important text.
prathamesh.t: I think it didn’t influence the legal systems
That’s my contention.
But at the same time, there are certain ideas that one can understand through Manusmriti, however obscure , it would have been at least about the inherent biases of the authors
me: So then why didn’t you object when Kumkum Roy called it the law book written by the brahmins and for the brahmins with the sole purpose of oppressing others?
What biases?
They seem like biases given your current idea of equality?
Is that not anachronism?
prathamesh.t: yes
Those are my assumptions
Yes
me: then you are responsible for your assumptions, the text is not
prathamesh.t: and I think, it would be far more anachronistic if I try to get rid of my idea of equality
or read a text, by attempting to displace myself from history
and here there is a denial of any universals
me: So what?
prathamesh.t: on your part
do you contend that the untouchables would have been content with the role in the society that was envisioned for them in Manusmriti?
me: I think yes
Memories of 'lower castes' even to this day show no hatred toward of the upper castes...there is only an assertion of difference from both sides.
prathamesh.t: that’s a clear denial of any human nature or even possibility of any attempt to understand the universals with respect to human psychology
me: That is your understanding of human nature and psychology....but that apart I don’t think there was oppression at all....those following practices different in relation to a certain community would be termed "other" and differences would be maintained.
The oppression theme was run again by European scholars
The precise Kannada term used to denote the practices of other communities even to this day is "itare" which simply means 'others'
One possible way to think about this is that the 'itare' were those who migrated or refused to go by the 'laws of nature' and were therefore requested to maintain difference, which they happily did...
your turn
prathamesh.t: there is no sufficient evidence to validate your statement
I can quote Nanak and Gyaneshwar to assert my statement
me: In any case there are very few verses in the Manusmriti that one can quote to claim that India was a patriarchal culture or a caste-ridden society...If we do not understand the initial statement begging for knowledge, we better not pretend we understand the other parts of the text...
hey, its your turn...
prathamesh.t: which initial statement?
of Manusmriti?
Mahabharata for instance
Draupadi scoffing at karma for instance
Duryodhana claiming that Karna cannot be low caste because he has broad shoulders
(a case of oversimplification of genetics)
or even Drona being accused of Kshatriya ambitions
me: You may call it that, but that maybe an emphasis on understanding particulars....
What’s the issue anyway?
prathamesh.t: the question here is
whether or not there existed an oppressive cast society
or whether or not Manusmriti was composed with the intent of oppression
me: That is a big question...maybe we should keep that for another chat
what we should tackle for now is the point about Manusmriti
prathamesh.t: ok
me: How do you know the intent of a text
When the beginning of a text says that it is about jnana...how can you read social life into it, or even if you did, are we capable of understanding of the kind required?
prathamesh.t: one sec
me: The Manusmriti says different things about both caste and women and people could read it as a text contradicting itself...
prathamesh.t: one of my friends who learnt Sanskrit under a traditionally schooled madwa contends that Manusmriti was an important text as asserted by his teacher
me: So, can we conclude for the time being that we do not know ho to read a text like the Manusmriti without heaping our categories on it, our assumptions etc
you there?
prathamesh.t: yes
me: we do not know how to read a text like the Manusmriti, do you agree?
prathamesh.t: one second
coming back
what does he mean by jnana?
validating existence of jnana would be validating the whole knowledge system itself
me: Many of our current Sanskrit scholars are influenced by colonial categories....Modernity has been such that they are forced to buy into these understandings
Alongside, they will also have ideas and experiences about god...why not take them seriously too?
Sorry I have not been receiving your replies in time...forgive me
You said you would quote Nanak and Gyaneshwar...My PhD is on the Bhakti movement, and I have much to say, so I suggest we keep this discussion for our next chat...is that ok?
prathamesh.t: ok
sure
me: Would not your quoting from Mahabharata be problematic?
prathamesh.t: why?
me: How does a kavya speak of the historical times?
Would that not amount to producing a textualized version of India?
prathamesh.t: you mean that no elements of existent social setup would creep into a kavya?
and its not just a kavya
but an itihaasa
me: The point is, I dont know how mush and what of the social crept into the Kavya
The Kavya was in any case written by Ganapati, the god himself....would you believe that to be itihaasa?
prathamesh.t: here, there is a problem of meta meta meta narration
me: To understand a text partially and use it how you want is simply wrong, is it not?
no, its not a problem with the text and its narration
prathamesh.t: nopes
me: its a problem with what you and I go to the text for....
prathamesh.t: the question about something being an itihaasa
posits it in a certain society and existence of certain social information but that would not mean that all information contained in the text about the society is equally valid
me: but why does the Mahabharata consist of itihaasa for you...which you see as history...you are seeing itihaasa as history are you not?
prathamesh.t: nopes
itihaasa need not exactly translate into history
me: So how we tell what part is about the social formation, do we tools to do that?
If we don’t, how can we make such tall claims about all of India's past?
prathamesh.t: and especially given the nature of dissemination of the text and the role it played there?
me: Forget dissemination of the text....if you cannot understand that Ganapati WROTE the text. Forget the role it played and any such fundas until you cannot fix the position of the meaning of the text
prathamesh.t: one assumes existence of certain universals here
me: assumption sigh!
prathamesh.t: that mythical characters are mythical
me: what’s so great about universals?
prathamesh.t: elephant headed gods are products of imagination
me: By assuming that universals exist, what if we misreading?
prathamesh.t: that danger exists
me: You are denying the experience of the enlightened people of India.
prathamesh.t: I agree, but would there be another way?
me: Yes.
prathamesh.t: they are denying my enlightened experience
me: Are you enlightened?
Have you walked on the path?
prathamesh.t: in my own way
me: For how long?
What is meditation?
forget your own way and such vague things
prathamesh.t: the question is if we take a relativistic stance
me: There are specific techniques to follow and there is nothing vague about enlightenment
No, first answer my questions
Implications can come later
prathamesh.t: which tradition?
buddhish?jaina?ajivika?advaita?
me: What happens if we take relativist stance is a later worry
prathamesh.t: madhwa?
me: Any of them
prathamesh.t: zen?tao?
me: any of them I said
prathamesh.t: yes
me: Have you walked on any one of them?
prathamesh.t: yes
buddhist
theravada tradition
me: and what is your experience? What techniques did you follow? For how long?
prathamesh.t: Vipassana
for about an year
me: What did you exactly do?
one year...hahaha, you thought you would get enlightened in one year?
prathamesh.t: but that’s beside the point
me: Buddha took 30 years...but you gave it one single year?
prathamesh.t: my questioning here is of existence of any sort of enlightenment which is based on personal experience. (I was never in it for enlightenment anyway)
me: and then you want to claim there is nothing to the enlightenment tradition of India?
Then, what is your claim
prathamesh.t: yes. That form of knowledge is not socially communicable
me: you don’t know about enlightenment then, and you are not qualified to deny it
prathamesh.t: how?
me: OK
Then why are not the Mahabharata etc that kind of knowledge.
That is, not socially communicable?
What do u mean how?
prathamesh.t: they were never intended to be? The text exists. Text in a loose sense.
me: So what?
prathamesh.t: the dissemination has been through social means
me: yes. Social means is not equal to representing sociality or society
Why and how did you make that jump throughout?
prathamesh.t: ok
me: so what? Tomorrow the dissemination will be through internet, so what?
OK, we need to pause here. Do you agree that we do not know yet how to read a text like the Manusmriti?
prathamesh.t: nopes
coming back to your point about enlightenment
me: NO, I need you to answer that question only
prathamesh.t: I think, we still can
me: we don’t have the time to go all over the place in a single chat
prathamesh.t: the problem is that if we assume that only way to understand Manusmriti if to begin reading it the traditional way
and understanding of traditional ideas
we are also validating traditional notions of jnana
which need not actually exist
me: excuse me!?
What’s wrong with validating traditional notions of jnana?
The point is, do we even understand them?
prathamesh.t: the question becomes a matter of epistemological stance here.
What does one mean by understanding?
me: no, not of stance
Of actually understanding it...
prathamesh.t: what do you mean by understanding here?
me: sigh...too big a question...we are wandering
prathamesh.t: in what sense of the term would one sense?
It’s important, since we are talking of reading of a text and whether or not we understand the text sufficiently enough to make a statement about it
me: do we have a theory of the text...can we render the text coherent in our reading etc.
And we have not been able to do that so far.
So, instead of accepting that we don’t know...we seem to be thinking of the implications of reading the text partially this way or that. The basic problem is: we do not understand the text. Do you agree with me on that?
prathamesh.t: my friend is peeping into the chat window
me: :)
prathamesh.t: he claims that all traditional scholars claim to have understood the text
he learnt it from some propah madhwa in sathya sai univ
anyway, if we leave that bit aside
me: like I said, traditional scholars are influenced to a great extent by the pressures of Oriental and modernist scholarship, we don’t have to believe them entirely. And if we do, would we also believe like they might, that there are gods?
prathamesh.t: I don’t subscribe to his notion. But coming back, the problem lies in what constitutes understanding here?
Reading a text. And syntactically reading it, might constitute understanding too
me: How can one be sure?
prathamesh.t: there is absence of any centre here. But by making assumptions of human psychology in space and time one can possibly derive historical information.
me: What if your understanding of human psychology changes tomorrow?
possibly....that’s a bad word to use to claim things about all of India's past
prathamesh.t: what if the world was invented 5 minutes back? And you are made to believe that there is a past? The point is that, one can never be sure in this regard.
me: Its not the same level of questioning. My question was one about categories, you are evading it.
prathamesh.t: certain categories can be broadly universal
me: you need to prove that. Without that, in humility all you can say is that you don’t understand the text
prathamesh.t: that’s a matter of empiric induction
me: why this obsession with universality, what problem does it solve...I think it is the begining of all problems
prathamesh.t: absence of it might be equally problematic. because that would deny any statement of any sort
me: in any case, to assume universality just so that you may produce a tentative reading that does not even fully explain or render a text coherent is no work of knowledge....
What’s the problem with denying any statement of any sort?
prathamesh.t: that’s just rhetoric on your part
are you taking a post modernist stance here?
me: it is at least better than producing wrong interpretation that renders a 5000 year old civilization into a non-sensical one, and causes hindrances for future researchers
me: if the impulse is to simply say something...then that is what is understood as a bad habit...that’s all
prathamesh.t: how did you arrive at this figure?
me: ...maybe just like you arrived at an understanding of Manusmriti with the help of universals and assumptions about human nature, even while human nature itself was thought about completely differently in the Indian traditions....! The last thing I want is for you to throw modernist history at me!
prathamesh.t: but then, can one accept existence of a pure space of historical past to which none of the modernist universals apply without making any assumptions?
go on
and isn’t there an inherent nationalistic assumption here?
prathamesh.t: you there?
hello
some connection problem here
me: yes, I am sorry
did u get what I wrote
prathamesh.t: I didn’t
last thing I got was about throwing modern history
me: Maybe all of the modernist histories assume things...But to say so is one thing and to assert that their assumptions are the truth or the only way out is another and nonsense. Maybe the traditional scholars you referred to will help us understand what the texts truly mean, one day...but then maybe not...If we are in the business of knowledge, then its our responsibility to understand the past on its own terms and to develop concepts and categories that render our past meaningful...
That’s what I wrote.
prathamesh.t: that’s true
me: you there?
prathamesh.t: but doing so, does not in any way imply a complete denial of applicability of notions developed in west to Indian texts
yes
me: hello?
prathamesh.t: because any attempt to anachronize ourselves more than the text would be a pure disaster
hello
me: hello?
prathamesh.t: and would result in a lot of imagination
you getting my messages
?
can we chat some other time later?
me: are you sure...if you have indeed tried any Buddhist techniques you would have realized that the last thing they want to have anything to do with, is imagination...
yes...but I want to post this much today on the livejournal thing and get it over with....shall we do that?
prathamesh.t: ok
I have to grab lunch
me: so I shall post this much now
I am leaving for a workshop and will be back in three days
prathamesh.t: ok
sure
ok
me: thanks for the time
prathamesh.t: sure
me: it was good talking to you
prathamesh.t: same here
me: bye :)
prathamesh.t: bye
prathamesh.t: I have to grab lunch in 5 mins
else the mess would shut at 1
me: oh!
bye
prathamesh.t: bye
Dear All,
Prathamesh T and Sushumna Kannan had this conversation over chat this morning (on a shaky internet connection that demanded much patience) and would like to share it with all of you. Please do respond with more comments, clarifications etc. We hope to keep our conversation going and will be glad if others pitched in as well.
Warmly
Sushumna Kannan
Prathamesh T
Saturday Jan 17th 2009.
me: Hi!
prathamesh.t: hey
me: So tell me what would your reply have been like...
prathamesh.t: ok
I think, some of your objections have inherent assumptions
me: ok
prathamesh.t: like experience as a sole criterion for knowledge creation or rather obtaining knowledge.
Go on.
me: No, I don’t think I said it was the sole criterion. But when experience clashes with theorizing, then problems arise.
We might want to think then on the following lines:
1. If experience is not taken into account, then might there be a problem with the categories we are using to understand society?
prathamesh.t: how?
me: 2. If experience is not being explained then are we ready to take on that kind of theory, which involves much more than simply politically-driven conclusions
prathamesh.t: go on.
me: I have more but later...it might help if we kept the topic of Manusmriti or the writing of Indian history to draw concrete examples while we discuss...
prathamesh.t: or gurrukals scheme of ancient Indian knowledge production
me: For example, the fact that nobody and nobody in this country has ever bothered to read the Manusmriti before the British began to see it as an important text cannot be ignored...Claims that Indian history was based on this text become weak, to say the least
Are you there?
prathamesh.t: yes
I’m here.
was waiting for your statement
me: ok, sorry I am on a unstable internet connection
your turn now
prathamesh.t: question here is, what sources of history are you relying on to make this statement
me: I don’t have to rely on any sources to say that an existing explanation is baseless
prathamesh t: "among the law givers, I am manu.."
me: Law! The Manusmriti begins with students asking for knowledge of the highest kind...and that is not Law. Law was the very specific invention of the western world...
prathamesh.t: yes
but again, to make a statement that Manusmriti wasn’t an important text before the British came is based on a certain historical view
me: what historical view?
prathamesh.t: Not in a strict sense of the term
but how would you induce that Manusmriti was not an important text till the British came? You have to justify this statement
me: Nobody except very few people knew of this text even when the British began their search for the Indian Bible...Is that not proof enough? I think one has to simply read Lata Mani's book to get this clear
prathamesh.t: how do you claim that nobody except a few people knew of its existence?
OK. what’s the name of the book?
me: There are scholars who have researched on this topic for years and the administrative and other official records of the British in India show this....The Archives in the British Library show this very clearly...
prathamesh.t: the evidence that the ideas were not followed is quite evident from Mritchakattikam
me: Your turn, while I search the exact title of a book that might be useful in this regard.
prathamesh.t: OK. Coming back, but does that deny any historical information contained in Manusmriti. About the author, about the times it was written in, composed rather.
me: How do you know that the text represents historical information?
me: I did not get the point about Mricchakatika
prathamesh.t: in Mrichchakatika, the brahman was sentenced to death
which was forbidden as per Manusmriti
me: I would hesitate to quote from Mricchakatika to contend with another text like the Manusmriti
prathamesh.t: which is a clear indication of the fact that it didn’t influence the legal systems of the time even if it was an important text. OK. Why?
me: There are numerous sources (of very different kinds that I can quote) that defeat the claim made about Manusmriti. So the case is won right?
What then is your point about Mricchakatika...which is considered to be a play...
prathamesh.t: yajnavalkya for instance.
Nothing, it was just a remark to support you point about importance of Manusmriti
me: No wait, lets sort this out first...if you indeed thought that Mricchakatika disproves the claims made about Manusmriti or the Manusmriti itself, then why didn’t you question Kumkum Roy on that ground?
I am not saying that the Manusmriti is an important text.
prathamesh.t: I think it didn’t influence the legal systems
That’s my contention.
But at the same time, there are certain ideas that one can understand through Manusmriti, however obscure , it would have been at least about the inherent biases of the authors
me: So then why didn’t you object when Kumkum Roy called it the law book written by the brahmins and for the brahmins with the sole purpose of oppressing others?
What biases?
They seem like biases given your current idea of equality?
Is that not anachronism?
prathamesh.t: yes
Those are my assumptions
Yes
me: then you are responsible for your assumptions, the text is not
prathamesh.t: and I think, it would be far more anachronistic if I try to get rid of my idea of equality
or read a text, by attempting to displace myself from history
and here there is a denial of any universals
me: So what?
prathamesh.t: on your part
do you contend that the untouchables would have been content with the role in the society that was envisioned for them in Manusmriti?
me: I think yes
Memories of 'lower castes' even to this day show no hatred toward of the upper castes...there is only an assertion of difference from both sides.
prathamesh.t: that’s a clear denial of any human nature or even possibility of any attempt to understand the universals with respect to human psychology
me: That is your understanding of human nature and psychology....but that apart I don’t think there was oppression at all....those following practices different in relation to a certain community would be termed "other" and differences would be maintained.
The oppression theme was run again by European scholars
The precise Kannada term used to denote the practices of other communities even to this day is "itare" which simply means 'others'
One possible way to think about this is that the 'itare' were those who migrated or refused to go by the 'laws of nature' and were therefore requested to maintain difference, which they happily did...
your turn
prathamesh.t: there is no sufficient evidence to validate your statement
I can quote Nanak and Gyaneshwar to assert my statement
me: In any case there are very few verses in the Manusmriti that one can quote to claim that India was a patriarchal culture or a caste-ridden society...If we do not understand the initial statement begging for knowledge, we better not pretend we understand the other parts of the text...
hey, its your turn...
prathamesh.t: which initial statement?
of Manusmriti?
Mahabharata for instance
Draupadi scoffing at karma for instance
Duryodhana claiming that Karna cannot be low caste because he has broad shoulders
(a case of oversimplification of genetics)
or even Drona being accused of Kshatriya ambitions
me: You may call it that, but that maybe an emphasis on understanding particulars....
What’s the issue anyway?
prathamesh.t: the question here is
whether or not there existed an oppressive cast society
or whether or not Manusmriti was composed with the intent of oppression
me: That is a big question...maybe we should keep that for another chat
what we should tackle for now is the point about Manusmriti
prathamesh.t: ok
me: How do you know the intent of a text
When the beginning of a text says that it is about jnana...how can you read social life into it, or even if you did, are we capable of understanding of the kind required?
prathamesh.t: one sec
me: The Manusmriti says different things about both caste and women and people could read it as a text contradicting itself...
prathamesh.t: one of my friends who learnt Sanskrit under a traditionally schooled madwa contends that Manusmriti was an important text as asserted by his teacher
me: So, can we conclude for the time being that we do not know ho to read a text like the Manusmriti without heaping our categories on it, our assumptions etc
you there?
prathamesh.t: yes
me: we do not know how to read a text like the Manusmriti, do you agree?
prathamesh.t: one second
coming back
what does he mean by jnana?
validating existence of jnana would be validating the whole knowledge system itself
me: Many of our current Sanskrit scholars are influenced by colonial categories....Modernity has been such that they are forced to buy into these understandings
Alongside, they will also have ideas and experiences about god...why not take them seriously too?
Sorry I have not been receiving your replies in time...forgive me
You said you would quote Nanak and Gyaneshwar...My PhD is on the Bhakti movement, and I have much to say, so I suggest we keep this discussion for our next chat...is that ok?
prathamesh.t: ok
sure
me: Would not your quoting from Mahabharata be problematic?
prathamesh.t: why?
me: How does a kavya speak of the historical times?
Would that not amount to producing a textualized version of India?
prathamesh.t: you mean that no elements of existent social setup would creep into a kavya?
and its not just a kavya
but an itihaasa
me: The point is, I dont know how mush and what of the social crept into the Kavya
The Kavya was in any case written by Ganapati, the god himself....would you believe that to be itihaasa?
prathamesh.t: here, there is a problem of meta meta meta narration
me: To understand a text partially and use it how you want is simply wrong, is it not?
no, its not a problem with the text and its narration
prathamesh.t: nopes
me: its a problem with what you and I go to the text for....
prathamesh.t: the question about something being an itihaasa
posits it in a certain society and existence of certain social information but that would not mean that all information contained in the text about the society is equally valid
me: but why does the Mahabharata consist of itihaasa for you...which you see as history...you are seeing itihaasa as history are you not?
prathamesh.t: nopes
itihaasa need not exactly translate into history
me: So how we tell what part is about the social formation, do we tools to do that?
If we don’t, how can we make such tall claims about all of India's past?
prathamesh.t: and especially given the nature of dissemination of the text and the role it played there?
me: Forget dissemination of the text....if you cannot understand that Ganapati WROTE the text. Forget the role it played and any such fundas until you cannot fix the position of the meaning of the text
prathamesh.t: one assumes existence of certain universals here
me: assumption sigh!
prathamesh.t: that mythical characters are mythical
me: what’s so great about universals?
prathamesh.t: elephant headed gods are products of imagination
me: By assuming that universals exist, what if we misreading?
prathamesh.t: that danger exists
me: You are denying the experience of the enlightened people of India.
prathamesh.t: I agree, but would there be another way?
me: Yes.
prathamesh.t: they are denying my enlightened experience
me: Are you enlightened?
Have you walked on the path?
prathamesh.t: in my own way
me: For how long?
What is meditation?
forget your own way and such vague things
prathamesh.t: the question is if we take a relativistic stance
me: There are specific techniques to follow and there is nothing vague about enlightenment
No, first answer my questions
Implications can come later
prathamesh.t: which tradition?
buddhish?jaina?ajivika?advaita?
me: What happens if we take relativist stance is a later worry
prathamesh.t: madhwa?
me: Any of them
prathamesh.t: zen?tao?
me: any of them I said
prathamesh.t: yes
me: Have you walked on any one of them?
prathamesh.t: yes
buddhist
theravada tradition
me: and what is your experience? What techniques did you follow? For how long?
prathamesh.t: Vipassana
for about an year
me: What did you exactly do?
one year...hahaha, you thought you would get enlightened in one year?
prathamesh.t: but that’s beside the point
me: Buddha took 30 years...but you gave it one single year?
prathamesh.t: my questioning here is of existence of any sort of enlightenment which is based on personal experience. (I was never in it for enlightenment anyway)
me: and then you want to claim there is nothing to the enlightenment tradition of India?
Then, what is your claim
prathamesh.t: yes. That form of knowledge is not socially communicable
me: you don’t know about enlightenment then, and you are not qualified to deny it
prathamesh.t: how?
me: OK
Then why are not the Mahabharata etc that kind of knowledge.
That is, not socially communicable?
What do u mean how?
prathamesh.t: they were never intended to be? The text exists. Text in a loose sense.
me: So what?
prathamesh.t: the dissemination has been through social means
me: yes. Social means is not equal to representing sociality or society
Why and how did you make that jump throughout?
prathamesh.t: ok
me: so what? Tomorrow the dissemination will be through internet, so what?
OK, we need to pause here. Do you agree that we do not know yet how to read a text like the Manusmriti?
prathamesh.t: nopes
coming back to your point about enlightenment
me: NO, I need you to answer that question only
prathamesh.t: I think, we still can
me: we don’t have the time to go all over the place in a single chat
prathamesh.t: the problem is that if we assume that only way to understand Manusmriti if to begin reading it the traditional way
and understanding of traditional ideas
we are also validating traditional notions of jnana
which need not actually exist
me: excuse me!?
What’s wrong with validating traditional notions of jnana?
The point is, do we even understand them?
prathamesh.t: the question becomes a matter of epistemological stance here.
What does one mean by understanding?
me: no, not of stance
Of actually understanding it...
prathamesh.t: what do you mean by understanding here?
me: sigh...too big a question...we are wandering
prathamesh.t: in what sense of the term would one sense?
It’s important, since we are talking of reading of a text and whether or not we understand the text sufficiently enough to make a statement about it
me: do we have a theory of the text...can we render the text coherent in our reading etc.
And we have not been able to do that so far.
So, instead of accepting that we don’t know...we seem to be thinking of the implications of reading the text partially this way or that. The basic problem is: we do not understand the text. Do you agree with me on that?
prathamesh.t: my friend is peeping into the chat window
me: :)
prathamesh.t: he claims that all traditional scholars claim to have understood the text
he learnt it from some propah madhwa in sathya sai univ
anyway, if we leave that bit aside
me: like I said, traditional scholars are influenced to a great extent by the pressures of Oriental and modernist scholarship, we don’t have to believe them entirely. And if we do, would we also believe like they might, that there are gods?
prathamesh.t: I don’t subscribe to his notion. But coming back, the problem lies in what constitutes understanding here?
Reading a text. And syntactically reading it, might constitute understanding too
me: How can one be sure?
prathamesh.t: there is absence of any centre here. But by making assumptions of human psychology in space and time one can possibly derive historical information.
me: What if your understanding of human psychology changes tomorrow?
possibly....that’s a bad word to use to claim things about all of India's past
prathamesh.t: what if the world was invented 5 minutes back? And you are made to believe that there is a past? The point is that, one can never be sure in this regard.
me: Its not the same level of questioning. My question was one about categories, you are evading it.
prathamesh.t: certain categories can be broadly universal
me: you need to prove that. Without that, in humility all you can say is that you don’t understand the text
prathamesh.t: that’s a matter of empiric induction
me: why this obsession with universality, what problem does it solve...I think it is the begining of all problems
prathamesh.t: absence of it might be equally problematic. because that would deny any statement of any sort
me: in any case, to assume universality just so that you may produce a tentative reading that does not even fully explain or render a text coherent is no work of knowledge....
What’s the problem with denying any statement of any sort?
prathamesh.t: that’s just rhetoric on your part
are you taking a post modernist stance here?
me: it is at least better than producing wrong interpretation that renders a 5000 year old civilization into a non-sensical one, and causes hindrances for future researchers
me: if the impulse is to simply say something...then that is what is understood as a bad habit...that’s all
prathamesh.t: how did you arrive at this figure?
me: ...maybe just like you arrived at an understanding of Manusmriti with the help of universals and assumptions about human nature, even while human nature itself was thought about completely differently in the Indian traditions....! The last thing I want is for you to throw modernist history at me!
prathamesh.t: but then, can one accept existence of a pure space of historical past to which none of the modernist universals apply without making any assumptions?
go on
and isn’t there an inherent nationalistic assumption here?
prathamesh.t: you there?
hello
some connection problem here
me: yes, I am sorry
did u get what I wrote
prathamesh.t: I didn’t
last thing I got was about throwing modern history
me: Maybe all of the modernist histories assume things...But to say so is one thing and to assert that their assumptions are the truth or the only way out is another and nonsense. Maybe the traditional scholars you referred to will help us understand what the texts truly mean, one day...but then maybe not...If we are in the business of knowledge, then its our responsibility to understand the past on its own terms and to develop concepts and categories that render our past meaningful...
That’s what I wrote.
prathamesh.t: that’s true
me: you there?
prathamesh.t: but doing so, does not in any way imply a complete denial of applicability of notions developed in west to Indian texts
yes
me: hello?
prathamesh.t: because any attempt to anachronize ourselves more than the text would be a pure disaster
hello
me: hello?
prathamesh.t: and would result in a lot of imagination
you getting my messages
?
can we chat some other time later?
me: are you sure...if you have indeed tried any Buddhist techniques you would have realized that the last thing they want to have anything to do with, is imagination...
yes...but I want to post this much today on the livejournal thing and get it over with....shall we do that?
prathamesh.t: ok
I have to grab lunch
me: so I shall post this much now
I am leaving for a workshop and will be back in three days
prathamesh.t: ok
sure
ok
me: thanks for the time
prathamesh.t: sure
me: it was good talking to you
prathamesh.t: same here
me: bye :)
prathamesh.t: bye
prathamesh.t: I have to grab lunch in 5 mins
else the mess would shut at 1
me: oh!
bye
prathamesh.t: bye
Comments