Guest guest Posted August 31, 2000 Report Share Posted August 31, 2000 >Venkat Nagarajan <Venkat.Nagarajan >Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:08:00 -0400 > > >It is unfortunate that individuals are using the term Vedanta in a >perfunctory manner. Vedanta is not a religion; the rationale for this >statement is appended below (I have just attached part of the introductory >from a paper I am working on.) I am posting this note because it pains me >to see individuals taking a perfunctory approach when discussing profound >matters. > >Vedanta, which is a holistic, systematic, and rational exposition on the >nature of reality, is highly idealistic. Both the description of the >ultimate reality and means to realising it are idealistic. Vedantins in the >past were the quintessential profound idealists (like Sri. Vedanta Desika.) >Even till about 30 years ago there were a few idealists living in the >dharambhumi (our great nation.) Nowadays the people of our nation, whether >they reside in the dharmabhumi or elsewhere, have lost their ideals. That >is, If one envisions an ordered array of classifications going from >quintessential profound idealist to quintessential pedestrian dilettante >(one who knows a little about many things but nothing of substance about >anything), in my opinion the vast majority of those, who claim to have some >link with vedanta are closer to or converging towards the classification of >quintessential pedestrian dilettante. I for one am very sad to see this >happening. > >Broadly speaking, science can be broken down into two components, mainly >the idealistic and the pragmatic. The idealistic component deals primarily >with matters beyond the realm of the sensory world, while the pragmatic >component deals exclusively with matters that are within the sensory world. > Idealistic science precedes pragmatic science in the sense that it is the >substratum for pragmatic science. More specifically, it is the idealistic >philosophy , underlying pragmatic science, which discusses the valid >sources of acquiring knowledge and outlines a theory about the nature of >reality based on the discussion, that gives pragmatic science direction and >purpose. Without a rational philosophical substratum, pragmatic science >would be without direction and purpose. > >It is natural for all sciences, whether they be idealistic or pragmatic, to >be coupled with an applied component. Theory and practice are mutually >dependent; theory without practice creates fruitless knowledge; practice >without theory, to give it a rational basis, becomes mere dogma. Keeping >in line with this view, we provide a brief characterization of idealistic >and pragmatic couplets in the next paragraph. > >Based on a thorough discussion on the valid sources of acquiring knowledge, >the theoretical component of idealistic philosophy outlines a rational >theory about the nature of reality. The pragmatic component of idealistic >science outlines the means to realize the reality expounded upon in the >theoretical component. Taking as given a theory on the nature of reality, >as propounded by idealistic science, pragmatic science proceeds to study >the sensory world. The theoretical component of pragmatic science >constructs theories about aspects of the physical world and related >phenomena. The applied component tests these theories; the tests either >confirm the theories or provide data for refinements. There are two key >differences between idealistic and pragmatic science; the first being that, >unlike the theories of pragmatic science, the theories of idealistic >science cannot be tested empirically. Second, while the theories of >idealistic science are fixed; the theories of pragmatic science constantly >evolve, due to new data generated by empirical testing. > >In the material presented so far, we have provided a brief outline of the >nature and structure of streams of thought in order to explicate the >difference between idealistic science and pragmatic science. Although the >discussion is terse , the notions presented are concrete and cannot be >disputed. Using this discussion as a basis, one can rationally argue that >the evolution of a society is contingent upon the idealistic couplet it >adopts. Moreover, given the fundamental axiom of logic, that you have to >accept something to establish something, it follows that there is no such >thing as a theory devoid of belief; the result being that, the acceptance >of an idealistic couplet will ultimately be based on conviction. > >There is a view among many individuals that a metaphysical conception of >reality is not scientific. This is mainly due to the fact that these >individuals are unable to differentiate between idealistic and pragmatic >science and, as a result; impose the precondition of empirical verification >on rational statements. This, however, is untenable. The application of >empirical verification would render most of modern mathematics irrational. >Moreover, since mathematics is the substratum of pragmatic science, the >eventual outcome would be rational science being founded on an irrational >basis. Hence, the condition of empirical verification is not applicable to >idealistic sciences; more specifically, it is feasible to have a rational >metaphysical conception of reality. > >Every rational, systematic, comprehensive idealistic philosophy has as its >substratum a detailed discussion on the valid sources of acquiring >knowledge. In this paper, we will outline the Vis'istAdvaitic discussion >on the valid sources of acquiring knowledge in a manner that explicates the >rationality, structure, and comprehensiveness of the discussion. We hope >the paper can serve as a catalyst for Vedic scholars and motivate them to >embark on the arduous endeavor of establishing Vis'istAdvaita in its >rightful place as a paradigm of idealistic thought upon which all else can >be based. > >Regards, >Venkat > > _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. It is unfortunate that individuals are using the term Vedanta in a perfunctory manner. Vedanta is not a religion; the rationale for this statement is appended below (I have just attached part of the introductory from a paper I am working on.) I am posting this note because it pains me to see individuals taking a perfunctory approach when discussing profound matters. Vedanta, which is a holistic, systematic, and rational exposition on the nature of reality, is highly idealistic. Both the description of the ultimate reality and means to realising it are idealistic. Vedantins in the past were the quintessential profound idealists (like Sri. Vedanta Desika.) Even till about 30 years ago there were a few idealists living in the dharambhumi (our great nation.) Nowadays the people of our nation, whether they reside in the dharmabhumi or elsewhere, have lost their ideals. That is, If one envisions an ordered array of classifications going from quintessential profound idealist to quintessential pedestrian dilettante (one who knows a little about many things but nothing of substance about anything), in my opinion the vast majority of those, who claim to have some link with vedanta are closer to or converging towards the classification of quintessential pedestrian dilettante. I for one am very sad to see this happening. Broadly speaking, science can be broken down into two components, mainly the idealistic and the pragmatic. The idealistic component deals primarily with matters beyond the realm of the sensory world, while the pragmatic component deals exclusively with matters that are within the sensory world. Idealistic science precedes pragmatic science in the sense that it is the substratum for pragmatic science. More specifically, it is the idealistic philosophy , underlying pragmatic science, which discusses the valid sources of acquiring knowledge and outlines a theory about the nature of reality based on the discussion, that gives pragmatic science direction and purpose. Without a rational philosophical substratum, pragmatic science would be without direction and purpose. It is natural for all sciences, whether they be idealistic or pragmatic, to be coupled with an applied component. Theory and practice are mutually dependent; theory without practice creates fruitless knowledge; practice without theory, to give it a rational basis, becomes mere dogma. Keeping in line with this view, we provide a brief characterization of idealistic and pragmatic couplets in the next paragraph. Based on a thorough discussion on the valid sources of acquiring knowledge, the theoretical component of idealistic philosophy outlines a rational theory about the nature of reality. The pragmatic component of idealistic science outlines the means to realize the reality expounded upon in the theoretical component. Taking as given a theory on the nature of reality, as propounded by idealistic science, pragmatic science proceeds to study the sensory world. The theoretical component of pragmatic science constructs theories about aspects of the physical world and related phenomena. The applied component tests these theories; the tests either confirm the theories or provide data for refinements. There are two key differences between idealistic and pragmatic science; the first being that, unlike the theories of pragmatic science, the theories of idealistic science cannot be tested empirically. Second, while the theories of idealistic science are fixed; the theories of pragmatic science constantly evolve, due to new data generated by empirical testing. In the material presented so far, we have provided a brief outline of the nature and structure of streams of thought in order to explicate the difference between idealistic science and pragmatic science. Although the discussion is terse , the notions presented are concrete and cannot be disputed. Using this discussion as a basis, one can rationally argue that the evolution of a society is contingent upon the idealistic couplet it adopts. Moreover, given the fundamental axiom of logic, that you have to accept something to establish something, it follows that there is no such thing as a theory devoid of belief; the result being that, the acceptance of an idealistic couplet will ultimately be based on conviction. There is a view among many individuals that a metaphysical conception of reality is not scientific. This is mainly due to the fact that these individuals are unable to differentiate between idealistic and pragmatic science and, as a result; impose the precondition of empirical verification on rational statements. This, however, is untenable. The application of empirical verification would render most of modern mathematics irrational. Moreover, since mathematics is the substratum of pragmatic science, the eventual outcome would be rational science being founded on an irrational basis. Hence, the condition of empirical verification is not applicable to idealistic sciences; more specifically, it is feasible to have a rational metaphysical conception of reality. Every rational, systematic, comprehensive idealistic philosophy has as its substratum a detailed discussion on the valid sources of acquiring knowledge. In this paper, we will outline the Vis'istAdvaitic discussion on the valid sources of acquiring knowledge in a manner that explicates the rationality, structure, and comprehensiveness of the discussion. We hope the paper can serve as a catalyst for Vedic scholars and motivate them to embark on the arduous endeavor of establishing Vis'istAdvaita in its rightful place as a paradigm of idealistic thought upon which all else can be based. Regards,Venkat >>> "Romesh Diwan" <diwanr (AT) rpi (DOT) edu> 08/03/00 11:18AM >>> Rajiv ji, Nameste. Thanks for a very thoughtful piece. More next and with kind regards. r >Economic power should be the top priority. But culture and heritage is a BIG >business, and one must respect it as an economic asset, as the following >examples show. > >Indians appreciate Indian cuisine; hence they popularized it, they own many >restaurants, and it is a multi-billion dollar INDUSTRY for Indians. But >Indians did not in the same manner respect yoga. Hence, while there are 10 >million Americans learning yoga and approximately 100,000 yoga teachers, 98% >OF ALL SUCH TEACHERS ARE AMERICANS. An average yoga teacher in California >earns $200,000 annually. This translates into another multi-billion dollar >industry, and one that is rapidly growing. But Indians, due to lack of >appreciation for their own tradition, 'gave it away'. > >The largest factor drawing tourists to UK today is the aura of the royal >family, which is entirely based on a subjective perception that has been >created based on heritage. The British justify often the royal family as an >economic asset based on this reasoning, i.e. it gives the country something >special, which translates into self-esteem and hence into money. France's >fashion, cosmetics, perfume, and art industries are among its major >industries, and these depend on the aura of French style, beauty and >culture. Recently, Indian women's success in beauty pageants is also being >turned into opportunities for Indian ayurvedic beauty products, fashions, >and other cultural exports. > >Until recent awakening stopped further exploitation, Indians gave away >herbal and biological know how. (California is experimenting growing >Kerala's spices; so in 10 years it could wipe out a major industry of >Kerela, for example.) The list of India's contributions to the world is very >long and there is little acknowledgment for it, much less compensation. It >is Indians who lost appreciation for their own heritage. > >The majority of the valuation of NASDAQ and the stock market in general, is >about know how and cultural assets, and not about physical assets. > >So the question is, how is Vedic heritage economically relevant to the >future? A people who are conditioned to believe that theirs is an inferior >civilization will not perform at the same level as those who have high >self-esteem. This is found true in many cultural contexts. Self-esteem is >therefore not something useless for future development. Many Indians I >worked with failed to reach their potential because they felt inferior in a >Western setting, especially in front of Westerners whose culture teaches >them tremendous self-confidence, and outright superiority over others. >Indians routinely invite Europeans to come over them as superiors even when >the individual Europeans concerned are no better. (This is what led to the >British Empire in the first place.) Indians today have confidence in their >IT skill, and that's why they can do well at it. The same confidence should >also be extended to other fields. This requires stopping the aping of the >West mentality, that Macaulay wanted to create and succeeded. > >This means upgrading the portrayal of India's heritage so that our own young >people are not under social pressure to abandon their identity. I >respectfully disagree with the last two postings that seem to imply that >Vedic studies are mainly about history and esoteric stuff, but of little >practical value. > >Rajiv > > > > >nick desai [ ndesai (AT) mindspring (DOT) com] >I agree. Study of Vedas has very little to do with current problems. >Population explosion, corruption, break down of law and order, caste system >are only few of the problems facing the nation. There won't be any >conversions if the low castes were given equal rights and treatment. At the >time of independence, India opted for secular state. Religion has no place >in politics and public debates. It is a private matter for individuals and >should be given very little importance, compared the other problems like >poverty, drinking water, housing and infrastructure. In future WAVES is >urged to keep out of politics of religion and concentrate on Vedas. Where in > >Vedas it says that we should put down other faiths? > > > Romesh Diwan, Professor of Economics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180 diwanr (AT) rpi (DOT) edu >>> "Romesh Diwan" <diwanr (AT) rpi (DOT) edu> 08/03/00 11:18AM >>> Rajiv ji, Nameste. Thanks for a very thoughtful piece. More next and with kind regards. r >Economic power should be the top priority. But culture and heritage is a BIG >business, and one must respect it as an economic asset, as the following >examples show. > >Indians appreciate Indian cuisine; hence they popularized it, they own many >restaurants, and it is a multi-billion dollar INDUSTRY for Indians. But >Indians did not in the same manner respect yoga. Hence, while there are 10 >million Americans learning yoga and approximately 100,000 yoga teachers, 98% >OF ALL SUCH TEACHERS ARE AMERICANS. An average yoga teacher in California >earns $200,000 annually. This translates into another multi-billion dollar >industry, and one that is rapidly growing. But Indians, due to lack of >appreciation for their own tradition, 'gave it away'. > >The largest factor drawing tourists to UK today is the aura of the royal >family, which is entirely based on a subjective perception that has been >created based on heritage. The British justify often the royal family as an >economic asset based on this reasoning, i.e. it gives the country something >special, which translates into self-esteem and hence into money. France's >fashion, cosmetics, perfume, and art industries are among its major >industries, and these depend on the aura of French style, beauty and >culture. Recently, Indian women's success in beauty pageants is also being >turned into opportunities for Indian ayurvedic beauty products, fashions, >and other cultural exports. > >Until recent awakening stopped further exploitation, Indians gave away >herbal and biological know how. (California is experimenting growing >Kerala's spices; so in 10 years it could wipe out a major industry of >Kerela, for example.) The list of India's contributions to the world is very >long and there is little acknowledgment for it, much less compensation. It >is Indians who lost appreciation for their own heritage. > >The majority of the valuation of NASDAQ and the stock market in general, is >about know how and cultural assets, and not about physical assets. > >So the question is, how is Vedic heritage economically relevant to the >future? A people who are conditioned to believe that theirs is an inferior >civilization will not perform at the same level as those who have high >self-esteem. This is found true in many cultural contexts. Self-esteem is >therefore not something useless for future development. Many Indians I >worked with failed to reach their potential because they felt inferior in a >Western setting, especially in front of Westerners whose culture teaches >them tremendous self-confidence, and outright superiority over others. >Indians routinely invite Europeans to come over them as superiors even when >the individual Europeans concerned are no better. (This is what led to the >British Empire in the first place.) Indians today have confidence in their >IT skill, and that's why they can do well at it. The same confidence should >also be extended to other fields. This requires stopping the aping of the >West mentality, that Macaulay wanted to create and succeeded. > >This means upgrading the portrayal of India's heritage so that our own young >people are not under social pressure to abandon their identity. I >respectfully disagree with the last two postings that seem to imply that >Vedic studies are mainly about history and esoteric stuff, but of little >practical value. > >Rajiv > > > > >nick desai [ ndesai (AT) mindspring (DOT) com] >I agree. Study of Vedas has very little to do with current problems. >Population explosion, corruption, break down of law and order, caste system >are only few of the problems facing the nation. There won't be any >conversions if the low castes were given equal rights and treatment. At the >time of independence, India opted for secular state. Religion has no place >in politics and public debates. It is a private matter for individuals and >should be given very little importance, compared the other problems like >poverty, drinking water, housing and infrastructure. In future WAVES is >urged to keep out of politics of religion and concentrate on Vedas. Where in > >Vedas it says that we should put down other faiths? > > > Romesh Diwan, Professor of Economics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180 diwanr (AT) rpi (DOT) edu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.