01-26-2006, 10:23 PM
A fascinating report from Jakob..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/2113
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->*Report on the Conference "Dharma and Ethics: The Indian Traditions at
the Dawn of the 21st Century" at Kuvempu University, Shimoga, India on
December, 12th and 13th, 2005*
[Organised by the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap,
Ghent University and Centre for the Study of Local Culture, Kuvempu
University.]
On the yahoo-board some time back, there were questions about the
conference we organised at Kuvempu University in December. The
recordings are not easily available and would not be very useful at
this point. However, the proceedings of the conference are interesting
in a different way and therefore we decided to write this report.
1. The aim of the conference was originally stated as follows: "The
conference aims to address the following questions: Can the Indian
traditions and their reflections on dharma offer a fruitful answer to
the present crisis of ethical theory? Do they possess the conceptual
resources to develop a viable alternative to both the conception of
moral norms and virtue theory? Are the reflections on dharma rich
enough to clarify the complexity of ethical life? Are they able to
capture those attitudes and actions which we appreciate as exemplars
of the ethical? These questions will not be addressed merely from the
perspective of the modern intellectuals, who are trained in western
philosophy and the human sciences. Several representatives from the
Indian traditions will be invited. Both scholars and swamijis will
participate in the conference. The goal is not to have the swamijis
give standard speeches about their particular tradition's perspective
on dharma. Rather, it is to create a genuine forum for discussion
between these representatives of the Indian traditions and the invited
scholars through an exchange ofâand debate onâreflections on the
questions of dharma and ethics. This is the route towards closing the
gap between the modern intellectual world and the Indian traditions at
the dawn of the 21st century." Five questions were offered to the
participants in the concept note sent to them:
"1. Is western ethical theory able to capture the notion of dharma and
its role in the Indian traditions?
2. Can an ethical theory be developed within the framework of the
Indian traditions, which can compete withâor complementâthe various
forms of western ethical theory?
3. How central is the happiness or well-being of the individual to the
Indian traditions and to the notion of dharma?
4. How is individual happiness reconciled with the welfare of the
community in the Indian traditions and in western ethical theory?
5. What is the role of experience or anubhava in the Indian traditions
and in western ethical theory?"
The first thing to note is that the conference showed how difficult it
will be to realise the aim of breaking down the wall between the
Indian traditions and the modern intellectuals. This made it an
important experience, which has taught us several lessons for the
future planning of our yearly conferences at Kuvempu University.
Though roughly chronological, the report will not reflect the full
proceedings of the conference, but rather focus on some of the
problems we encountered and the proposals for next year.
2. The first problem we faced was to have swamijis attend the
conference. Due to several organisational difficulties and a
disinterest on their part, it turned out to be impossible to convince
even a small number of them to come. In the end, only one swamiji of
the Ramakrishna Mission of Karnataka agreed to attend. The first
disappointment was the behaviour of this swamiji. In contrast to the
plan explained in the concept note, he came (very late) for the
inaugural session, gave a typical speech about the great spiritual
truths and the force of dharma and left, not to be seen again. Still,
he said he believed this kind of debate between scholars and swamijis
was very important. His own contribution was the claim that the
collected works of Vivekananda contain the solutions to all problems
about dharma and ethics in contemporary India and the world at large.
The swamiji's general attitude was one of preaching down to an
audience of laymen, who are ignorant of the great spiritual truths.
The truths in his speech were the ones you can read in any booklet on
Indian spirituality. If anything, the swamiji's contribution was a
perfect illustration of the wall between the Indian traditions and the
modern intellectuals, which the conference intended to break down.
This first disappointment led to the decision not to invite swamijis
for next year's conference. We will first have to initiate a careful
process of selection through personal visits and conversations. Only
then shall we be able to undertake a next attempt to have a debate
between scholars and swamijis.
3. The conference started with a provocative presentation by Balu and
me, which put forward some of the pressing questions about Indian
ethics in our time and intended to define the focus of debate for the
next two days. It took part of the argument of Balu's colonial
consciousness paper (the part already present in the Sulekha piece `On
Colonial Experience and the Indian Renaissance') and showed how the
current understanding of Indian ethics is limited to (a) the claim
that Indians are either morally corrupt or moral cretins, because the
Indian social structure is itself immoral or (b) the gratuitous
proclamation that dharma is great and Indian ethics is far superior to
its western counterpart. Generally, the reactions to the argument were
rather confusing: people believed that Balu and I had argued that most
Indians and the Indian social structure were indeed corrupt. The
confusion was cleared out in the end, but this is a problem we have
faced in India before: people have difficulties to distinguish between
the argument of a speaker or a writer and his analysis of what others
have said or written. Interestingly, one of the participants suggested
that this problem is related to the way Indians usually discuss.
4. The first session consisted of presentations by Valerian Rodrigues,
a JNU secularist, and Ashok Chowgule, the national vice-president of
the VHP. The session and the reactions to it showed two things: (a)
Whatever the topic, Indian academics have a tendency to reduce all
debates to the classical opposition between Hindutva and secularism.
(b) In reality, Valerian's account showed striking similarities with
Ashok's. Valerian advocated dharma as an Indianised version of John
Rawls's political liberalism; while Ashok contrasted Hindu tolerance
to the interference of Christian religious conversion and the social
tension it causes in India. Still, the conceptual structure of `Hindu
tolerance' and Rawlsian political liberalism turned out to be almost
identical. To us, this confirmed that secularism and Hindutva become
two faces of the same coin, when viewed from the perspective of our
research programme. However, the discussion after the paper
presentations soon lost its focus and ended up in irrelevant and
rather aggressive charges against Ashok Chowgule's position. It was
clear that in the future we will have to find ways of retaining the
focus on a limited number of questions and problems. This was even
more obvious when later participants presented their papers: most of
them simply ignored the concept note and its five questions. The
interventions by members of the audience made the situation even
worse. The discussion often meandered into vague and fruitless directions.
5. A highlight of the conference consisted of two presentations in
Kannada by Sanskrit pundits from Mysore and Melkote. They dutifully
followed the concept note and gave the perspective of the classical
Sanskrit tradition on its five questions. One paper revolved mostly
around what the Manusmrti had to say about dharma and ethics. Both
presentations showed that the world of Sanskrit scholarship is sealed
tight from the world of the modern human sciences. No attempt at
comparison was made and it was almost as though these questions had
been asked at the time of Manu. Still, the pundits' contributions were
fascinating in terms of the earnestness with which they addressed the
questions. At one point, the younger of the two pundits admitted that
he did not have a clue about the modern western concepts of `liberty',
`ethics', `duty', etc. He added that he was willing to make a
comparison if we could explain these modern concepts to him. In the
end, this has led to an agreement that he will continue his PhD
studies within the framework of our research programme. Without doubt,
this is one of the major achievements of this year's conference.
6. Perhaps the most striking and disturbing aspect of the conference
was that the intellectually exciting encounters came at the end of
both days, when the planned schedule had ended. A group of
participants had gathered outside to have a last cup of tea. On both
evenings, a focused discussion emerged between Balu and Valerian
Rodrigues, the JNU professor of political science. These two
one-on-one discussions made it very clear that the secularist
programme does not have any answers to the challenges of our research
programme. The first consisted of a discussion on the concept of human
rights and its (in)compatibility with the Indian traditions: Rodrigues
claimed that Ambedkar was right in suggesting Buddhism as the apt
socio-political framework for India, because it has its own indigenous
conception of human rights. Balu showed how Buddhism *cannot* have a
conception of human rights and is in fact incompatible with the rights
concept, because the absence of a self leads to the absence of a
rights-bearer. Without a rights-bearer, the notion of human rights
does not make sense. The second discussion revolved around Rawls's
theories of justice and political liberalism. Balu revealed a basic
inconsistency in the theories of justice of western political thought.
To all present, these debates were of much greater interest than the
discussions that had taken place inside the conference room. Because
only two persons were involved, a sustained argument and
counter-argument could be developed. No irrelevant digressions were
possible; no ideological disputes took over; the argument reached its
conclusion.
7. Conclusions: The conference format is not helpful for our purposes.
Therefore, we have decided to organise workshops with a limited number
of active participants next year. The participants will not include
any swamijis this time, for the reasons mentioned above. However, the
debate with the Sanskrit pundits should continue and be extended. All
participants will have to read the texts we will discussâthese will be
distributed well in advance. The plan is to have several kinds of
workshops: (a) One-on-one debates: Here, we will distribute a text by
one of the people present at the conference. He or she will first
explain the thesis and the argument. Then, an `opponent' will present
a counter-argument, which reveals and analyses some of the problems in
the text. A debate between the two follows, which will at a later
stage involve the other participants. (b) Analysis and discussion of a
few central texts in small groups, e.g. Ambedkar's Annihilation of
Caste; one of B. K. Matilal or J. N. Mohanty's articles; one of
Balu's pieces; etc. © Sustained debates among a small group
regarding a problem or question which has been communicated well in
advance. (d) A few public sessions where the results of the workshops
can be shared and discussed with a larger audience.
The main success of this conference was that almost all participants
expressed a desire to be part of similar initiatives in the future.
The Delhi intellectuals want to travel to Kuvempu University in larger
numbers next year, so as to defend their positions. Several people
suggested other potential participants from different parts of India.
In this way, a core group of serious participants can be formed
gradually, who will read the required texts and prepare for the
workshops. The plan is to make the Kuvempu University conference into
a yearly encounter of this group and to have a similar international
conference once every few years.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/2113
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->*Report on the Conference "Dharma and Ethics: The Indian Traditions at
the Dawn of the 21st Century" at Kuvempu University, Shimoga, India on
December, 12th and 13th, 2005*
[Organised by the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap,
Ghent University and Centre for the Study of Local Culture, Kuvempu
University.]
On the yahoo-board some time back, there were questions about the
conference we organised at Kuvempu University in December. The
recordings are not easily available and would not be very useful at
this point. However, the proceedings of the conference are interesting
in a different way and therefore we decided to write this report.
1. The aim of the conference was originally stated as follows: "The
conference aims to address the following questions: Can the Indian
traditions and their reflections on dharma offer a fruitful answer to
the present crisis of ethical theory? Do they possess the conceptual
resources to develop a viable alternative to both the conception of
moral norms and virtue theory? Are the reflections on dharma rich
enough to clarify the complexity of ethical life? Are they able to
capture those attitudes and actions which we appreciate as exemplars
of the ethical? These questions will not be addressed merely from the
perspective of the modern intellectuals, who are trained in western
philosophy and the human sciences. Several representatives from the
Indian traditions will be invited. Both scholars and swamijis will
participate in the conference. The goal is not to have the swamijis
give standard speeches about their particular tradition's perspective
on dharma. Rather, it is to create a genuine forum for discussion
between these representatives of the Indian traditions and the invited
scholars through an exchange ofâand debate onâreflections on the
questions of dharma and ethics. This is the route towards closing the
gap between the modern intellectual world and the Indian traditions at
the dawn of the 21st century." Five questions were offered to the
participants in the concept note sent to them:
"1. Is western ethical theory able to capture the notion of dharma and
its role in the Indian traditions?
2. Can an ethical theory be developed within the framework of the
Indian traditions, which can compete withâor complementâthe various
forms of western ethical theory?
3. How central is the happiness or well-being of the individual to the
Indian traditions and to the notion of dharma?
4. How is individual happiness reconciled with the welfare of the
community in the Indian traditions and in western ethical theory?
5. What is the role of experience or anubhava in the Indian traditions
and in western ethical theory?"
The first thing to note is that the conference showed how difficult it
will be to realise the aim of breaking down the wall between the
Indian traditions and the modern intellectuals. This made it an
important experience, which has taught us several lessons for the
future planning of our yearly conferences at Kuvempu University.
Though roughly chronological, the report will not reflect the full
proceedings of the conference, but rather focus on some of the
problems we encountered and the proposals for next year.
2. The first problem we faced was to have swamijis attend the
conference. Due to several organisational difficulties and a
disinterest on their part, it turned out to be impossible to convince
even a small number of them to come. In the end, only one swamiji of
the Ramakrishna Mission of Karnataka agreed to attend. The first
disappointment was the behaviour of this swamiji. In contrast to the
plan explained in the concept note, he came (very late) for the
inaugural session, gave a typical speech about the great spiritual
truths and the force of dharma and left, not to be seen again. Still,
he said he believed this kind of debate between scholars and swamijis
was very important. His own contribution was the claim that the
collected works of Vivekananda contain the solutions to all problems
about dharma and ethics in contemporary India and the world at large.
The swamiji's general attitude was one of preaching down to an
audience of laymen, who are ignorant of the great spiritual truths.
The truths in his speech were the ones you can read in any booklet on
Indian spirituality. If anything, the swamiji's contribution was a
perfect illustration of the wall between the Indian traditions and the
modern intellectuals, which the conference intended to break down.
This first disappointment led to the decision not to invite swamijis
for next year's conference. We will first have to initiate a careful
process of selection through personal visits and conversations. Only
then shall we be able to undertake a next attempt to have a debate
between scholars and swamijis.
3. The conference started with a provocative presentation by Balu and
me, which put forward some of the pressing questions about Indian
ethics in our time and intended to define the focus of debate for the
next two days. It took part of the argument of Balu's colonial
consciousness paper (the part already present in the Sulekha piece `On
Colonial Experience and the Indian Renaissance') and showed how the
current understanding of Indian ethics is limited to (a) the claim
that Indians are either morally corrupt or moral cretins, because the
Indian social structure is itself immoral or (b) the gratuitous
proclamation that dharma is great and Indian ethics is far superior to
its western counterpart. Generally, the reactions to the argument were
rather confusing: people believed that Balu and I had argued that most
Indians and the Indian social structure were indeed corrupt. The
confusion was cleared out in the end, but this is a problem we have
faced in India before: people have difficulties to distinguish between
the argument of a speaker or a writer and his analysis of what others
have said or written. Interestingly, one of the participants suggested
that this problem is related to the way Indians usually discuss.
4. The first session consisted of presentations by Valerian Rodrigues,
a JNU secularist, and Ashok Chowgule, the national vice-president of
the VHP. The session and the reactions to it showed two things: (a)
Whatever the topic, Indian academics have a tendency to reduce all
debates to the classical opposition between Hindutva and secularism.
(b) In reality, Valerian's account showed striking similarities with
Ashok's. Valerian advocated dharma as an Indianised version of John
Rawls's political liberalism; while Ashok contrasted Hindu tolerance
to the interference of Christian religious conversion and the social
tension it causes in India. Still, the conceptual structure of `Hindu
tolerance' and Rawlsian political liberalism turned out to be almost
identical. To us, this confirmed that secularism and Hindutva become
two faces of the same coin, when viewed from the perspective of our
research programme. However, the discussion after the paper
presentations soon lost its focus and ended up in irrelevant and
rather aggressive charges against Ashok Chowgule's position. It was
clear that in the future we will have to find ways of retaining the
focus on a limited number of questions and problems. This was even
more obvious when later participants presented their papers: most of
them simply ignored the concept note and its five questions. The
interventions by members of the audience made the situation even
worse. The discussion often meandered into vague and fruitless directions.
5. A highlight of the conference consisted of two presentations in
Kannada by Sanskrit pundits from Mysore and Melkote. They dutifully
followed the concept note and gave the perspective of the classical
Sanskrit tradition on its five questions. One paper revolved mostly
around what the Manusmrti had to say about dharma and ethics. Both
presentations showed that the world of Sanskrit scholarship is sealed
tight from the world of the modern human sciences. No attempt at
comparison was made and it was almost as though these questions had
been asked at the time of Manu. Still, the pundits' contributions were
fascinating in terms of the earnestness with which they addressed the
questions. At one point, the younger of the two pundits admitted that
he did not have a clue about the modern western concepts of `liberty',
`ethics', `duty', etc. He added that he was willing to make a
comparison if we could explain these modern concepts to him. In the
end, this has led to an agreement that he will continue his PhD
studies within the framework of our research programme. Without doubt,
this is one of the major achievements of this year's conference.
6. Perhaps the most striking and disturbing aspect of the conference
was that the intellectually exciting encounters came at the end of
both days, when the planned schedule had ended. A group of
participants had gathered outside to have a last cup of tea. On both
evenings, a focused discussion emerged between Balu and Valerian
Rodrigues, the JNU professor of political science. These two
one-on-one discussions made it very clear that the secularist
programme does not have any answers to the challenges of our research
programme. The first consisted of a discussion on the concept of human
rights and its (in)compatibility with the Indian traditions: Rodrigues
claimed that Ambedkar was right in suggesting Buddhism as the apt
socio-political framework for India, because it has its own indigenous
conception of human rights. Balu showed how Buddhism *cannot* have a
conception of human rights and is in fact incompatible with the rights
concept, because the absence of a self leads to the absence of a
rights-bearer. Without a rights-bearer, the notion of human rights
does not make sense. The second discussion revolved around Rawls's
theories of justice and political liberalism. Balu revealed a basic
inconsistency in the theories of justice of western political thought.
To all present, these debates were of much greater interest than the
discussions that had taken place inside the conference room. Because
only two persons were involved, a sustained argument and
counter-argument could be developed. No irrelevant digressions were
possible; no ideological disputes took over; the argument reached its
conclusion.
7. Conclusions: The conference format is not helpful for our purposes.
Therefore, we have decided to organise workshops with a limited number
of active participants next year. The participants will not include
any swamijis this time, for the reasons mentioned above. However, the
debate with the Sanskrit pundits should continue and be extended. All
participants will have to read the texts we will discussâthese will be
distributed well in advance. The plan is to have several kinds of
workshops: (a) One-on-one debates: Here, we will distribute a text by
one of the people present at the conference. He or she will first
explain the thesis and the argument. Then, an `opponent' will present
a counter-argument, which reveals and analyses some of the problems in
the text. A debate between the two follows, which will at a later
stage involve the other participants. (b) Analysis and discussion of a
few central texts in small groups, e.g. Ambedkar's Annihilation of
Caste; one of B. K. Matilal or J. N. Mohanty's articles; one of
Balu's pieces; etc. © Sustained debates among a small group
regarding a problem or question which has been communicated well in
advance. (d) A few public sessions where the results of the workshops
can be shared and discussed with a larger audience.
The main success of this conference was that almost all participants
expressed a desire to be part of similar initiatives in the future.
The Delhi intellectuals want to travel to Kuvempu University in larger
numbers next year, so as to defend their positions. Several people
suggested other potential participants from different parts of India.
In this way, a core group of serious participants can be formed
gradually, who will read the required texts and prepare for the
workshops. The plan is to make the Kuvempu University conference into
a yearly encounter of this group and to have a similar international
conference once every few years.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->