Hi Patick.
Read your comments and found them interesting and insightful. Let me run this past you though: I read this and found it fascinating for the vigor with which it opposed the hindutva viewpoint. And when I say opposed, I don't just mean in the adversarial sense (although that aspect was also present, and your analysis of it was clear and articulate). I mean opposed in the way the thumb opposes the forefinger�more like a point-by-point complementarity of positions. For example, I liked how systematic it was in dealing with so many aspects of the issue. Furthermore, I appreciated how clearly it addressed issues which aren't even up for questioning in the minds of substantial numbers of people. I couldn't help but notice, however, that my deepest responses to it came from the internal TM framework, even though I don't remember TM having been mentioned anywhere. I noticed the same thing in your response, I believe. Correct me if I am mistaken. This suggests to me that we both, on some level, equate our internal TM framework with the hindutva orientation on "Vedic Science", which further suggests to me that on some level we equate our internal TM framework with fundamentalism. This strikes me as interesting for two reasons. In the past, we have thought of our TM frame of reference in terms of its uniqueness. That is, we had the revived knowledge, which in effect was brand new and cutting edge despite its intrinsic "ancientness", to coin a word. Now we see its reflection in this phenomenon called Hindu fundamentalism, also represented by the hindutva movement, and the extent of "shared values" there is really quite striking. So much so that we can perform this effortless mental equivalence between hindutva and our TM framework pretty much without blinking an eye. Because this is turning into a bit of a ramble on my part, let me just stop right now and ask: Do you see the point I am rambling towards? What do you think? L B S --- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why Hindutva Loves "Science" > > > > Meera Nanda > > Interesting essay. Thanks to Vaj for posting it. > > Comments interleaved below. I admit at the outset that they betray my TM bias. > > Mark Meredith wrote: > > > > While I'm sure there are hindu fundies who are cynically using the > > guise of science to advance their religious-mythological dogma, I > > don't see why there can't be a legitimate attempt to expand science's > > reach into those more subjective or even superstitious areas in an > > attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. > > Nanda's bias from the outset is that Vedic traditions are nothing *but* > chaff. Instead > of arguing for a proper application of science to traditional myths, she is > content to > point out the dysfunctional appropriation of science by the god-men. She > doesn't say > how they do it, however; she's content to say simply that what they're doing > is wrong. > > > Mother India will be called upon to heal the wounds inflicted > > on the entire world by the "violence" of soul-less modern science. > > That would be a bad thing? Obviously she believes this is just the packaging > of an > empty promise. > > > We are heading toward a schizophrenic national culture in which the > > technological products of modern science will be eagerly embraced, but the > > secular culture which science was supposed to help create will be > > strenuously denied. > > Haven't we in the West demonstrated that a secular culture isn't something > that > people particularly desire? And since when was the purpose of science to > create a > secular culture? Again, her assumptions don't bode well for a reasoned > argument -- > or for one that appeals to the emotions of people in the middle. > > > Instead of a genuine secular culture, which denies the > > existence of gods in nature and the authority of god-men in culture, the > > intellectual Kshatriyas are intent on declaring the dharmic worldview, with > > its nature-gods and miracle-working gurus, to be the essence of a "higher" > > science and "authentic" secularism. > > I didn't think secularism denied the existence of gods; I thought it unfit to > deal with > those realms. I guess the rules are different in India. No wonder the god-men > are > fighting back -- secularism has been positioned as their enemy. > > > Symptoms of such schizophrenia are > > already evident: This Hindu modernity, incidentally, bears a frightening > > similarity with the reactionary modernism of Hitler's Germany, where high > > technology was allowed to mix with a highly romanticized dream of > > recreating > > an Aryan society. The Nazis, too, assumed that Germany could be both > > technologically advanced and remain true to its "Aryan soul". > > The obligatory parallel with Nazi Germany. It seems one can't have a > political > discussion without raising this specter. I suppose it's a good thing to get > it out of the > way. > > > If it > > is given the cultural authority as a superior way of knowing, modern > > science > > has the potential to demystify the hallowed truths of Hinduism itself > > This seems to be the rub in India: modern science needs to be "given cultural > authority" to be honored, but the bestowers of cultural authority are the > god-men > who stand to lose the most from science ascending. I guess I'm wondering, why > cannot science rise in status on its own merits, without having that > authority > bestowed by someone? > > > measurements and controlled tests are declared to be Western. Hindu > > sciences > > use "their own" methodology of meditation and direct realization. > > Here's another problem I have with Nanda's essay. She dismisses all > subjective means > of gaining knowledge. But it's not just Hindus and neo-Vedists who champion > subjective means of gaining knowledge. Rudulf Steiner did it, and it seems we > have > some people in this forum who will stand up for it. Instead of dismissing it, > wouldn't > an open-minded scientists design a method of investigating whether it's valid? > > > Hinduism has always protected itself form the new and the alien by turning > > it into an inferior aspect of itself, quietly metabolizing it until it is > > absorbed into the existing belief structure. ... Hindutva gets a good name > > for "openness" and "tolerance," while the end-result is as conservative as > > the Taliban could've hoped for. In the end, the old decides what parts of > > the new will be fitted where, and what parts will be unceremoniously thrown > > out. In the end, the old has always won in India. > > This graf echoes a theme that L B has championed -- that he who defines the > issue > controls the issue. Could it be that the Indian culture is so condescendingly > all- > embracing precisely because the Veda is so universal? > > > .... radical critics have claimed that non-Western, traditional ways of > > knowing are as scientific in their social context as modern science is in > > the Western context. > > I'd be interested in reading more about how traditional ways of knowing are > "scientific." > > > Astrology must the most rigorously falsified body of "knowledge" in the > > entire history of ideas). > > I'd be real interested in a review of the literature that falsifies > astrology. Any study I've > ever seen is comically superficial. And how do they explain the correlations > between > people's charts and their actual lives? > > Random thoughts on my part, I admit. But the big points I see are these: > > 1) People yearn for the mystical, so why not face that head-on, instead of > plump for > secularism that denies the mystical? > > 2) Have we totally invalidated subjective means of gaining knowedge, or is > there room > for study there? > > 3) The champions of Hindutva are conflating Veda and science to the > disadvantage of > science. Instead of fighting to keep them separate, could not the secularists > apply > science to the Veda in a way that, as Mark Meredith says above, separates the > wheat > from the chaff? Instead of saying it's all chaff? > > - Patrick Gillam To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
