[Buddha-l] Re: Aama do.sa I

[Joy Vriens]

Dan,

>One of the lessons of cross-cultural studies is that all cultures -- while 
>sharing certain similarities -- are not the same, and that differences 
>emerge simply by shifting the influence of certain variables. One important 
>difference between Indian culture and European culture -- which needs to be 
>taken into consideration when projecting analogies back and forth -- is that 
>contrary to the totalitarian function exercised by the Catholic church (with 
>fluxuating success over the centuries), India has been, since vedic days, 
>pluralistic. No pope. A certain religious tradition may temporarily win 
>favor in some region, and may try to suppress opposing groups, but these 
>remain local and variable. That doesn't mean India should be imagined as an 
>idyllic ecumenical uptopia at all times and places, but it does mean that 
>the tendency in India was to have rival schools of thought settle or engage 
>their differences in the field of debate (an ethos to which CS 
>enthusiastically subscribes), rather than scouring every nook and cranny to 
>root out and exterminate heretics and deviants. 
> 
>This simple difference has profound repercussions throughout Indian culture. 
>One of the most undeveloped forms of philosophy in India, as compared to 
>Europe, Islamic and Chinese culture, is the virtual absence of "political" 
>philosophy (some exceptions such as Kautilya's Artha-sastra aside). Where 
>one does find political critique is, often satirically, in Sanskrit drama. 
>This probably reflects a pragmatic turn amongst Indian philosophers -- they 
>could openly and aggressively debate the most important and precious 
>components of their doctrines, with the king or ruler as moderator, without 
>the ruler suspecting sedition was afoot. Hence faith and obedience emerge as 
>major tools of social control theologically reinforced, while the Indian 
>consensus was that rational debate and epistemology (pramana, etc.) are the 
>sine qua non of any legitimate religious tradition. 

Yes, but still it was very much a struggle for power. When reading bits here and there I don't have the impression that each party put their arguments foreward and simply accepted the king's decision sticking to their arguments. If one party scored a point and got the king's support, the others would adopt/adapt the arguments of their opponents. Very much like in our time when one manufacturer has a succesful product, other manufacturers will follow and imitate it to share in its market success. So the arguments were a means to something else.    
 
>"If the only method of healing he put forward was the "scientific" one based 
>on pramana, then wouldn't that be considered as an implicit attack on the 
>people or entities to which healing power was attributed?" 
 
>Caraka-samhita attributes its own ultimate authorship (aka inspiration) to 
>Siva, so no conflict of interests. The opposition between science and 
>religion is largely a Western phenomenon, especially since science in the 
>15th-16th centuries overturned rather than confirmed church dogma. It was at 
>that point that faith was taken to be more important than knowledge (the 
>Church, up to that point, considered the two commensurate -- even current 
>catechisms still vestigially extol the value of logic and knowledge 
>alongside faith). Unfortunately, whatever else Luther rejected from the 
>Church, he turned faith into an even greater foundation, made it individual 
>instead of communal, and engendered the proliferation of alternate faith 
>communities, each thinking only its own faith was true or at least truer 
>than the others (prominent American evangelicals have said the Pope will go 
>to hell; the current pope has gently suggested more or less the same about 
>the evangelicals). Faith never played that kind of role in Indian 
>traditions, and it was always subordinate to knowledge, logical debate and 
>reasoning. 

And yet faith, a certain type of faith (that would need to be further defined, probably along the lines of surrender or trustful acceptance), has its importance. I am starting to think it is the major factor of the Chan-like approach of Gampopa and Zhang's Mahamudra and of early Chan. Ordinary mind is the Buddha. That theory can only be turned into practice through a certain form of faith. I can't see any other way. When reading some parts of Luther, I get the impression he definitely was onto something, but failed to communicate it and perhaps lost himself (in a pejorative sense) in his success. 
 
>One of my teachers, an Indian, when asked by a student what he would say if 
>he met Jesus, indicated he would ask a question: "Sir, what are your 
>arguments?" 

:-) On the other hand, what more arguments (e.g. for resurrection) would he need if he really did meet Jesus? ;-)

Joy