BE STILL...

 Oh my soul! Have you not heard? Do you not see? The Lord is in control. Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you disquieted within me? (Ps 42:5). Hope in god! BE STILL! That’s what our Lord said to his disciples. When they were excited and extremely happy after the ministry with miracles and wonders, the Lord said: “Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves and rest a while.” (Mk 6:31) He told them to BE STILL! When the same disciples were afraid of death by drowning in the sea he told the sea and the storm to be calm (Mk 4:39) and told the disciples once again BE STILL!  

Why do you try to take hold of his place in your life? Do you want to repeat the same mistake of Adam and Eve? Do not worry about knowing everything. BE STILL and you will know it better. Don’t you see the Lord who made you knows what is the best for you? He knows the right time for you to give you all you need.

Do you think of your free will? Yeah! It is a gift that you have received from God. But it can’t give you everything, rather offer it to God freely so that he can guide your free will to His will which is the best option for you! That would be the wise choice you can make with your free will. BE STILL! Let him take control or better He is in control, so don’t worry. In fact, only by BEing STILL you can find him better. The Lord was not in the wind, the Lord was not in the earthquake, the Lord was not in the fire but the Lord spoke in silence (1 Kings 19:11-13). Only in silence you can find Him and hear Him. For that silence you need to BE STILL! Learn to BE STILL you can find God’s will!

He repeats you once again: “BE STILL and know that I am God” 

(Ps 46:10)

Thank you my friend and sister Vicky Liok for the spark of the Lord which has ignited the fire of the Holy Spirit to write this reflection!

PATRIS CORDE and the Year of St. Joseph

On 8 December 1870 Blessed Pope Pius IX declared St. Joseph as the Patron of the Universal Church in his papal decree Quemadmodum Deus. This declaration also raised the feast of St. Joseph on March 19 to the rank of double of the first class, i.e., solemnity. This year marks the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of this remarkable event in the history of the Church. In honour of this memory, Pope Francis has written an apostolic letter entitled ‘Patris Corde’ (with the Father’s heart). To celebrate 150^th anniversary in a grand manner, the holy father has proclaimed a special ‘Year of St. Joseph’ beginning on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of 2020 until the same feast in 2021.

 In Patris Corde the Holy Father presents the foster father of Jesus Christ with the different attributes of a model father. In the gospels we find very few information about St. Joseph. In fact, there is no single mention of his words found in the four gospels. However, his heroic qualities are evident in the first four books of the New Testament. Yet, after, the Blessed Mother Mary, no saint is mentioned frequently in the papal magisterium than Joseph, her spouse. Pope Francis wants to continue this tradition with his personal reflection on the Patron of the Universal Church. We know that St. Joseph is honoured and reflected under many titles like Patron of workers, Guardian of the Redeemer and Patron of a happy death. The novelty that the Supreme Pontiff wants to highlight in his apostolic letter is the extraordinary figure of the father, so close to our human experience.

The Pope sheds light on seven aspects of the fatherly figure of Joseph. Firstly, he was a Beloved Father. The popular scriptural expression, “Go to Joseph” which is also attributed to the earthly father of Jesus, shows his amiability in embracing his role in the history of salvation. He was a Tender and Loving Father since he was one of the principal causes of the earthly wisdom and the physical strength of our Saviour. He was an Obedient Father as he was ever-ready to execute the plan of God in protecting the baby Jesus. Therefore he was also an Accepting Father. Pope expresses this quality as: “Joseph is certainly not passively resigned, but courageously and firmly proactive.” Thus he was also a Creatively Courageous Father. His fidelity was creative. We can learn from St. Joseph that in the face of difficulty, we can either give up and walk away, or somehow engage with it. At times, difficulties bring out resources we did not even think we had. Joseph was evidently a Working Father. Jesus was addressed as the son of carpenter who is an epitome of the dignity of work. At last he was a Father in the Shadows who was the earthly shadow of the Heavenly Father for Jesus Christ.

The aim of Patris Corde is to increase our love for this great saint, to encourage us to implore his intercession and to imitate his virtues and his zeal. Therefore let us pray with Pope Francis which he has written at the end of this apostolic letter:

“Hail, Guardian of the Redeemer,

Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

To you God entrusted his only Son; 

in you Mary placed her trust; 

with you Christ became man.

Blessed Joseph, to us too,
show yourself a father
and guide us in the path of life.
Obtain for us grace, mercy and courage,
and defend us from every evil.” Amen.

From ‘Individual’ to ‘Person’: The Call of Fratelli Tutti

 

The difference between the terms ‘Individual’ and ‘Person’ is the characteristics of relationship. An individual is a distinct being; an individual human being is one who separates him/herself from other people and possessing their own needs or goals, rights and responsibilities. On the other hand, a person is one who is always referred with his/her social relationship with others such as kinship, clan, culture and nation. Even in legal terms the word person denotes a group or organization. The newly written encyclical of the Holy Father, Fratelli Tutti (all brothers) is call to move on from being individual to being person to the whole universe without any borders and limits.

It is the third encyclical of Pope Francis followed by Lumen Fidei and Laudato si. The title and the place in which it is officially signed by the pope are significant. The title, Fratelli Tutti is taken from the book Admonitions of St. Francis of Assisi and the place chosen for the publication is the tomb of St. Francis at the Basilica of Assisi on 3 October, the eve of the feast of the saint of Assisi. In fact, the opening of the document lauds the essence of the fraternal love of St. Francis, who would call the sun, my brother, and the moon, my sister!

The document is composed of eight chapters. The first chapter presents the current situation of the world which lacks universal vision of fraternity. The second chapter taking the parable of the good Samaritan narrates the present scenario mentioned in the first chapter. The third chapter is a call to come out of one’s closed comfort zone to an open world. The fourth chapter shows the qualities of a heart that is open to the whole world beyond one’s own limits. The fifth chapter gives the action-plan for the ideas mentioned in the previous chapters especially entering into the political scenario which the Pope calls ‘a better kind of politics’, a politics of love. The sixth chapter is a vision for a new society of dialogue and friendship. The seventh chapter deals with some concrete issues in the society like wars, death penalty, social injustice and social forgiveness. The last chapter throws some light on the Christian identity amidst the different religions with their ups and downs for universal brotherhood and friendship just like the Pope signed a document on ‘Human Fraternity for world peace and living together’ with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Abu Dhabi on 4 February 2019. Another example that this encyclical shows in this regard is the father of our nation India, Mahatma Gandhi.

            The beauty of this encyclical is its practical proposals in the concrete situations like giving human dignity in the pandemic situation, the idea of the family of nations in the international politics, dialogue and friendship in society and, the unrestricted and public mission of the Church in the world.

In short, Pope Francis calls every Christian to move from individualistic attitude to an unlimited heart that can embrace the whole world just like Jesus.  He says, “Radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever” (Paragraph 105). In friendship and brotherhood there is no way for individualism. The best part of our baptism is that we are entering from our individuality into a great personhood of fellowship. Fratelli Tutti invites this personhood to be shared to the whole world irrespective of the differences through social friendship. Let us join the Pope in praying the last words of the encyclical: “May our hearts be open to all the peoples and nations of the earth. May we recognize the goodness and beauty that you have sown in each of us, and thus forge bonds of unit, common projects and shared dreams”. Amen

A Blessed in Blue Jeans: the newly beatified Carlo Acutis

     Two decades ago, a book named ‘Jesus in Blue Jeans’ was  famous for its practical guidance to the spiritualty of day-to-day living. Jesus is portrayed as the model for daily life. However, it would be more effective in seeing in the concrete lives of the persons than remaining in the level of ideas in books. In other words, people want to see the same Jesus in the persons in Blue Jeans. One such fine example of our era is the newly beatified Carlo Acutis. His life has been a real inspiration for so many young people especially in Italy.

            Carlo Acutis, the first son of an Italian parents who were living in England, was born in London on 3 May 1991. Later the family moved to Milan in Italy. He had a special love for Jesus in the eucharist right from his childhood. In fact, he received his first holy communion at the age of seven. Just like St. Dominic Savio he also created a friendship with Jesus and Blessed Mother Mary immediately after receiving Jesus in his heart for the first time. This was an important event in his saintly life.

            He was an ordinary boy with the youthful characters. He had passion for information technology, sports and so on. He had lot of friends and at the same time he gave first place to God. His spirituality was not very theoretical. It was very simple but profound. For example, in spite of his expertise and passion for technology he did no lock himself up in it. On the contrary, he used it for productive purpose and for the greater glory of God. He had visited the different places where the Eucharistic miracles had taken place and made a virtual museum of these miracles by making a website www.miracolieucaristici.org which continues to help so many people even today.

            Sanctity was his ultimate goal of life. His goal made him stand in a different way wherever he was like at school, in a restaurant with friends or in the football field. He had a kit to become saint which consists of: a great desire for holiness, Mass, Communion, daily Rosary, weekly confession, Bible reading and the willingness to give up anything for the good of the other. His life of testimony attracted not only his catholic friends but also Rajesh, a Hindu from India, who was working at the house of Carlo. Rajesh declared that the life of Carlo has transformed him to be Christian.

            Unfortunately, in October 2006, Carlo was diagnosed with type M3 fulminant leukaemia. Even at the moment of suffering he was ready to endure his pain for the Pope and the Church. On 12 October 2006, at the age of fifteen the beautiful soul departed. Two days before his death he asked to receive the anointing of the Sick and the Holy Eucharist. He knew few months back that this sickness would take him off the world which he declared with the emotional words, “I am destined to die.” Many people participated at his funeral mass especially the homeless who were helped by him.

            His favourite place on earth was Assisi, the beautiful village of St. Francis and so he desired to be buried there with his favourite Jeans and Sneakers. His holiness was realised soon and on 12 October 2012, the cause for his beatification and canonization was opened. Pope Francis declared him venerable, a stage before beatification, on 5 July 2018. Moreover, in his Apostolic Exhortation Christus Vivit, the Pope declared him to be an example for the youth across the world. On 6 April 2019 his mortal remains were moved to the ‘Sanctuary of the Renunciation’ in Assisi where many people pay homage to him. On 21 February Pope Francis approved a miraculous healing of a Brazilian boy who suffered from a congenital anomaly attributed to the intercession of Carlo. The holy boy was beatified on 10 October 2020. During his beatification the cardinal said that his life was luminous just like the bread of the Holy Eucharist. His life is the model way of living that Jesus gives in the gospel.

            “To always be close to Jesus: that’s my life plan” – these words of Carlo Acutis can be seen in his personal website www.carloacutis.com. Now in the person of Carlo Acutis ‘A Blessed in Blue Jeans’. Let us continue to pray that he may soon become ‘A Saint in Sneakers’ and let us take his example in being productive and progressive for the greater glory of God and His Church.

ADVERTISEMENTS: PROJECTION OF SHADOWS

Have you ever asked questions like these: Why is the one liter Aquafina water bottle sold for 20 rupees while the company is provided with the local water supply? Why do the brand names of some goods, like Rasna, remain the name of the item itself? Why the Hindu newspaper is sold for six rupees and Dhinakaran for just five rupees while the cost of printing is very high? When we analyse these questions we can find the thread that connects these beads of questions. Guess what? It is the advertisement.

Advertisement is an important form of communication. Practically, we cannot find any field without any advertisement. To give an interesting example, there is a regular TV programme by a gospel preacher who at the end of every episode gives an advertisement this way: “Like the five loaves of bread you can send your contribution of Rs. 50/-, 500/-, or 5000/- or like the two fish you can send Rs. 20/-, 200/- or 2000/-

Well, advertisement plays a crucial role in our living as it decides various traits of human living. From the perspective of the audience, the would-be consumers, advertising becomes a stimulus that plays with the emotions of the people in every walks of life. The advertisers make people comfortable by connecting their beliefs, actions, attitudes, etc. to the projected concepts of the company. They use ‘balance theory’. At first, they knock the consumer off the balance and they urge that the balance is restored when the consumer purchases the goods advertised. Some of the advertisements on toothpaste and cosmetics can be tangible evidence for this claim. The consumers become victims of these projections by falling prey to their ideologies. For example, in order to increase the production of the fairness cream, fair complexion is exalted and consequently, this ruffles a few feathers in the mindset of the men with dark complexion by giving them low self-esteem. Paying heed to the call to be Fair and Handsome, no man, I am sure, would have read about the ingredients and other details of the cosmetics but hurries in buying. Consuming soft beverages like Coke and Pepsi has become a fashion or an elite trend; but how many of the consumers know about the preservatives in such drinks which could be as harmful as pesticides!

The recent trend in India now is to look for herbal products; we find this craving expressed in the advertisements of health drinks to contraceptives. It is better to go for herbal products but do we have sufficient cognizance about the information given in the advertisement.

Every advertisement has a dual purpose: to give proper information to the public and to enhance the production. On the contrary, the former purpose is hidden and the latter interest is given importance in various instances. The true facts are hidden by the shadows of these projection of the advertisement. It is evident from many offer or attractive advertisements that always have *this symbol which hides so many information under the title – ‘conditions apply’.

To put it succinctly, the truth of the commodity is hidden under the shadows of the projection of the advertisements. It is the onus of every responsible citizen to move beyond these projected shadows created by the avalanche of advertisements and find the truth for the betterment of the society.

                        

Is not Knowledge a Virtue?

          The dawn of the Golden Period of the Western philosophy insisted much on knowledge in human life, to the extend saying that knowledge is virtue. Socrates was a prominent proponent of this proposition. According to him, every human being aims for satisfaction in life and knowledge of what constitutes such a life is for the achievement of it. This kind of life consists in the practice of the virtues which are the application of different kinds of the fundamental virtue of knowledge (of which the good for human is and how it is to be achieved). Thus Socrates concludes, “Virtue is Knowledge” as no one does wrong willingly.

          On the contrary, we find a seemingly tenable anti-thesis in this discussion. Knowledge cannot be a virtue rather it is the action that becomes a virtue. A good action, being done repetitively, becomes a habit and the habit, in turn, becomes a virtue. The argument moves further giving an example that it is not enough that a person knows how to be good rather he or she must perform good actions in order to be virtuous. Thus it is only the good action that becomes a virtue and not the mere knowledge of the good action.

          Now, the question is, what makes an action virtuous? Is it the action itself? Certainly not. An action itself can never be virtuous, if so, any action becomes a virtue. Rather, a virtuous action is determined by various factors.Some examples may throw light on this: helping the poor is a virtuous action; if this action is carried out for hidden motives like for gaining fame or to evade taxes, then this action cannot be accepted as a virtue; a business man who was regular in paying taxes, learns to cheat the government feels regret for his past loyalty to the government; thus his regularity in paying his excise is no more a virtue of loyalty. Hence we can conclude that the action cannot be a virtue in itself.

          The same question of what makes an action virtuous may gain a better clarity now. An action, to be virtuous, relies more on the intention of the action. The intention is shaped by the knowledge of the virtuous action. Therefore, the essence of a virtuous action is the knowledge of the virtue that corresponds to the action. In other words, this knowledge is expressed in action, in turn, as virtue. We can conclude saying that virtue is an a priori condition for the action and soit is not more of the realm of action but of the knowledge. “The virtuous person”, says Taittirīya Upaniṣad ii.9, “is not troubled by thoughts like these: Have I not done the right? Have I done the wrong?”Because the person does with all the dispositions acquired through the knowledge of the virtue, s/he becomes goodness and virtuous taking always right decisions and doing always the right! This is an obvious indication that knowledge is virtue. Thisperspective is more strengthened with the philosophy of Advaita Vedānta. That one identifies oneself with Brahman is the sole pre-condition to attain mokṣa, the Summum Bonumof human living, which is the virtue par excellence or the ultimate result of a virtuous life. It is the knowledge of this realization gives the supreme liberation. This is similar to the words of Jesus: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32)

          The above notion on knowledge takes knowledge beyond epistemic value and provides a way to perceive knowledge in the realm of ontology. Knowledge is not just the accumulation of information. It is the personalization of what one knows. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that we become of what we know i.e. to know is to become. Indian philosophy calls it as jñāna-niṣṭhā which etymologically means being-in-knowledge.If a virtuous action is the expression of one’s personalization, then can’t we call the root of any virtue, the knowledge a virtue? Is not knowledge a virtue?

Salient Question and Answers During the Defense

1. Is not Daya Krishna’s philosophy is the tyranny of relativism (since I have mentioned about the tyranny of reason in his critique to the traditional philosophy)?

My answer: Although Daya Krishna advocates relativism (according to him truth is essentially relative), he does not stop with relativism he also affirms that there is non-relative transcendence which alone gives meaning in one’s search for truth.

2. How can we affirm that Indian philosophy has ‘dialectic’ nature from its beginning while it is not the case in the Western philosophy like in the Dialogues  of Plato (for example, in Bhagavat Gita, it is only a one way advice)?

My answer: Daya Krishna also accepts this fact (as he mentions it as master-disciple syndrome) but he is also not convinced with the answers that Socrates gives in the Dialogues of Plato. Moreover, in spite of the fact that it is the Krishna (God) advises Arjuna in Gita, the latter is able to question him back or clarify his position which is an example for dialectics.

3. How can we accept the radical equality in dialogue (as I have mentioned that in saṃvāda, there is no privileged position in spite of one’s erudition or whatsoever)? Is it justifiable to equalize an uneducated person with the highly qualified person in a dialogue?

My answer: The mere fact that the uneducated person is able to raise a question which the other has not thought of is a sign for equality.

4. Do you accept any ways of knowing or arriving at truth besides rationality?

My answer: I put all the rest of the ways of knowing under the category of mystical experience like revelation, aesthetics, feelings, etc.

5. There was also a discussion about having dialogue with ISIS. I presented my view there that the possibility of having dialogue through a third party cannot be denied in this case in spite of the closeness of the group.

6. What is the difference between multiplicity of view points (pluralism) and relativism?

My answer: Pluralism is the facticity; it is a mere experience. Relativism is at the level of judgment. Pluralism expresses the plurality of the view points of truth whereas relativism denies the notion of truth or distorts the notion of truth.

7. For Daya Krishna, Subject matter of philosophy is ‘Problem’ and not the Reality’, how is it possible?

My answer: It is only the focus-shift in philosophizing. There is no pure problem as such. According to Daya Krishna it is the problem that makes the philosophy moving not reality as such.

Why don't we have Salesian Philosophers?

      It has been more than a century and a half that the society of St. Francis de Sales serving the world. The number of salesians worked for the betterment of the world is numerous in many fields of apostolate. Yet, one of the fields in which we, the sons of Don Bosco, have not shown much interest is the intellectual realm. For instance, there are various religious orders having prominent people in the field of philosophy. And so a simple question that came to my mind in this regard: Why there are no salesian philosophers? (I mean well-known philosophers). I received lot of ready-made answers for this simple question like: “that’s not our charism”, “basically we are youth workers”, “Don Bosco never wanted us to be walking encyclopaedias”, “we are not contemplatives to sit and reflect”. In addition, once a priest questioned about a salesian who is prominent in the realm philosophy all over the world: what is the youth work he does except taking class? It was also said jokingly that whenever there is a religious gathering for any purpose salesians are called neither for presenting papers nor prayers services but for family circles. It is also my opinion (which came to my mind during my masters in philosophy) that we hide ourselves in the name of family spirit from serious intellectual works.

     Is the identity of Salesians just having the guitar or a football at hand? Is serious study not our cup of tea? Of course, the guitar and football typical instruments that attract the youth. In fact, Don Bosco attracted so many youth with his music and games. However, it should be remembered that he was also a prolific writer. He has authored some books and prepared so many booklets and was also editor of the magazine 'the companion of youth'. 

     Now, how does the intellectual commitment also become our religious commitment or how do intellectual activities also become part of youth work too? I thank Fr. Sahaya Gnanaselvem SDB for giving the answer for this question. Our intellectual achievements can have a hold in the welfare of the youth especially to the problems of the youth. For example, the problems of gay marriage or abortion have been legally approved in some countries like the different states of USA. How is the government approval processed? Such proposals are discussed in the political forum and to validate their view they look for strong arguments from the intellectuals of the country. It is no wonder that the some states of the USA have approved gay marriage since most of the continental philosophers are non-believers and critical towards the religious norms. This can be applicable to India too in different cases. The legalized moral evils have roots in the intellectual works. It is kind of a fight or a game between the good and evil. Thus it is the duty of the youth works to eradicate these moral evils through our intellectual activities. We need to prepare ourselves to meet the challenges by updating ourselves intellectually; if not, we will be outdated in our arguments.

      Philosophers, according to Plato, should have a strong hand in political and legal arena. It is true even today as explained above. Why don’t we, youth works, take this task for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls?

Saṃvāda: What is it in Philosophy?

       Saṃvāda is an ancient notion in Indian Philosophy. It is delicate to give the exact translation of the word ‘saṃvāda’, especially to translate it into a different culture and tradition. Yet, the general rendering of saṃvāda in English is ‘dialogue’ or ‘conversation’. This ancient term is found in the Upaniṣads. As a matter of fact, most of the Upaniṣadic texts are in the form of a dialogue; between master and disciple, or between father and son. Furthermore, the term is explicitly used in the Bhagavat Gītā. In essence the whole of the Bhagavat Gītā is in dialogue form. The word “saṃvāda” is found three times in the Gitā. 

      The term saṃvāda is the combination of ‘saṃ’ and ‘vāda’. The former is a pre-verb which means agreement or conjunction. The Latin equivalent for saṃ is ‘cum’ and is also found in English words like con-versation and con-junction. The latter refers to discussion or debate. Hence, the term saṃvāda can be understood as ‘dialogue’, although the term has a deeper meaning. 

        It is a ‘me-other’ or ‘self-other’ encounter. ‘The other’ in saṃvāda is not a mere hearer or listener but a pūrva-pakṣin (an interlocutor in a dialogue). Encountering ‘the other’ highlights new, different, hidden-between-the-lines aspects of oneself. In other words, it leads to an encounter with one’s own ‘inner other’. Thus in saṃvāda by meeting ‘the other’ one meets oneself anew. At another instance, in the same vein, It can be interpreted  as dialogical encounter, open discussion and even biting debate. It is a live dialogue where pūrva-pakṣins and siddhāntins (who hold their view as final and conclusive) both question each other in a dialogue.  The real  Saṃvāda can bring out the manifold aspects of truth. Thus all our endevours of Life and Truth should be based on Samvada.

Books of Daya Krishna

1955 The Nature of Philosophy.
1959 Planning, Power and Welfare. 
1965 Considerations towards a Theory of Social Change. 
1969 Editor. Modern Logic: Its Relevance to Philosophy. Social Philosophy: Past and                            Future.
1973 Editor. Indian Education Today: Prospects and Perspectives.
1977 Editor, with A.M. Ghose and P.K. Srivastava. The Philosophy of Kalidas Bhattacharya.
1978 Editor, with A.M. Ghose. Contemporary Philosophical Problems: Some Classical Indian 
                Perspectives
1979 Political Development: A Critical Perspective. 
1980 Gyāna Mīmāmsā, In Hindi.
1987 Development Debate: Fred W. Riggs and Daya Krishna.
        India’s Intellectual Traditions. 
        Editor. Paschimi Darshan Ka Itihas, Vols. 1 and 2 in Hindi.
1989 The Arts of The Conceptual: Explorations in a Conceptual Maze over Three Decades.
1991 Indian Philosophy: A Counter Perspective. 
        Editor, with K.L. Sharma.  The Philosophy of J.N. Mohanty.
        Editor, with M.P. Rege, R.C. Dwivedi and Mukund Lath. Saṃvāda – A Dialogue Between                   Two Philosophical Traditions.
1996 The Problematic and Conceptual Structure of Classical Indian Thought about Man, Society                 and Polity.
1997 Indian Philosophy: A New Approach.
        Prolegomena to any Future Historiography of Culture and Civilizations.
1999 Editor, with K. Sachidananda Murty. History, Culture and Truth: Essays Presented to                           Professor D.P. Chattopadhyaya.
2000 Editor, with Mukund Lath and Francine E. Krishna. Bhakti: A Contemporary Discussion –                   Philosophical Explanations in the Indian Bhakti Tradition.
        New Perspectives in Indian Philosophy.
2001 Developments in Indian Philosophy from the Eighteenth Century Onwards: Classical and                    Western.
2004 Bhārtīya Dars’ana: Eka Nayī Dṛṣṭi.
        Editor. Discussion and Debate in Indian Philosophy: Vedānta, Mīmāmsā and Nyāya.
      Nyāya Sūtras: A New Commentary on an Old Text.
2012     Towards a Theory of Structural and Transcendental Illusions.
     Civilizations: Nostalgia and Utopia.
Forthcoming Editor. The Jaipur Edition of the Ṛgveda. 

Love of God and Love of Neighbour in Indian Philosophy

Love of God and Love of neighbour are the two aspects of the Greatest Commandments given by Jesus Christ. These commandments are not meant only for his followers but for all human beings as these two aspects love belong to all human beings. In this article, I have tried to look at these two commandments in view of two instances in the life of the Hindu deity, Kṛṣṇa in Indian Philosophy.

Daya Krishna (1924-2007), a contemporary Indian philosopher, in his article Did Gopīs Really Love Kṛṣṇa?enumerates two interesting aspects of love. He mentions two episodes from the life of the Hindu God Kṛṣṇa. The first one is from the epic Śrīmad Bhāgavata where Daya Krishna takes the episode of Krishna with the gopīs (the young women in Vṛndāvana where he spent his youthful days). The gopīs deeply fell in love with Kṛṣṇa. These gopīs are shown as ‘living’ eternally in the memory of those days they had passed with Kṛṣṇa even in his absence. However, Daya Krishna shows that, the same gopīs never made the slightest effort to seek him out and meet him once more or even try to find where he is or how he is. The message of the gopī episode in Śrīmad Bhāgavata is that the ideal of love is the loving state of consciousness which can only be cultivated through a constant remembrance and dwelling in the memory of those moments when a person spent with the loved one. It is clearly said in ŚrīmadBhāgavata: “When her lover is far away, a woman thinks of him more than when he is present before her.” (10.47.35) On the contrary, this gives the impression that in the realm of feelings the imagined world is more real than the real world. The gopīs preferred to live with the mere feeling of love than the so-called real love (in action). In other words, they loved the feeling of loving Kṛṣṇa than loving Kṛṣṇa as a person.

The second episode is from the Bhagavat Gita. The whole Gita is the dialogue between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna like the conversation between two friends. In this particular episode, Kṛṣṇa shows his viśvarūpa(the real form of Kṛṣṇa that contains the whole of the universe) to Arjuna. There Arjuna begs to be forgiven if he had said anything for fun or in jest or play, not knowing the real nature of Kṛṣṇa. But what is more disturbing for the Arjuna in this situation is that this ‘real’ reality, which is not possible to be seen through mortal eyes, is so frightening that Arjuna implores him to assume his previous form so that he can have normal feelings toward him as he had been with Kṛṣṇa just before the revelation. (XI. 44-46). Thus Arjuna preferred to the ordinary familiar form of Kṛṣṇa than the almighty form which is supposed to be the real form of Kṛṣna since the real form perturbed Arjuna. I would like to compare these two narrations with the Greatest Commandments given by Jesus Christ. Jesus reduces all the Jewish rules and regulations with two commandments namely: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” and “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” (Mt. 22: 37-39)

The first episode of Kṛṣṇa with the gopīs can be associated with the second Golden Commandment namely the ‘love for neighbour’. This command urges to love one’s neighbour as one’s ownself. There is no doubt that gopīs loved Kṛṣṇa. The problem with these women that Daya Krishna speaks of is that they only loved the feeling of loving Kṛṣṇa than the person of Kṛṣṇa himself. And so they stopped looking for him when he was absent from Vṛndāvana. On the contrary, the commandment given by Jesus calls for love in action i.e. to love the other as one’s ownself. In fact, Kṛṣṇa in his sermon to Arjuna emphasizes on the love in action with the duty conscience than in meditation. This aspect of love does not stop itself in the world of imagination but in the world of reality. Thus it is the real love for the other.

The second episode of Kṛṣṇa’s encounter with Arjuna can be associated with the first greatest commandment – the love of God. This commandment of love requires one to love God unconditionally; accepting God as the ultimate meaning of life. In other words, looking at everything from God’s perspective and doing His will at all time. On the contrary, in the Gita episode, we find when Kṛṣṇa manifests his godly cosmic form Arjuna could no longer accept his nature and begs him to come back to the normal form. This phenomenon takes place often in the present era. Human beings wish to restrict the form of God according to our own experience, taste, convenience, etc. than to accept the real manifestation of God. Only the wise have understood the real nature of God and they confess that they are ignorant this nature. The only valid means of knowing God, according to them, is the well-known neti-neti method in Indian philosophy i.e. we know only what God is not. Thus loving God without any restriction is equal to accepting God’s manifestation without any restriction. This is similar to giving oneself to God’s will by carrying out his commandments with no expectations which Gita calls as niṣkāma-karma i.e. action without the desire for its fruit.

These few paragraphs give us another way of looking at the greatest commandment of Jesus Christ in view of two narratives from Indian philosophy. The love of God is to prefer God’s will than one’s own in life and the love of neighbour is to love the other person than to love the feeling of loving the other.

Summary of the article - Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers by Anthony F. Beavers

One of the important questions that philosophy addressed down the centuries is about the moral ‘ought’ which asks the question why one needs to be good. Emmanuel Levinas found the answer in the level of the individual i.e. in the level of person to person contact. For him the question of moral ‘ought’ becomes before reason and it is necessary to have at least two people when we talk about ethics. He establishes the source of contact in the interpersonal realm as the ethical.

Although it may sound superfluous it has a deep meaning in philosophy as it responds to the rationalistic tradition of philosophy especially of Descartes. The latter thinks of the other as the object of the creation of the mind and denies the existence of the extra-mental reality. Levinas calls this act as the violence of ‘totalization’. It reduces the individuality, difference and autonomy of the Other. This act is unethical for Levinas.

The above mentioned violence is due to the exclusive importance to the rationality while edging sensibility out. Sensibility is a lived experience rather than being understood with concepts. Moreover, it is enjoyed by the subject after being nourished by the objects of sensibility (e.g. bread to eat). This also shows the distinction between the subject and the object of enjoyment. Consequently, in enjoyment, the, self comes up as the subject of its need. Thus Levinas appreciates the subjectivity on the level of sensibility than rationality. In addition, the subject can find the Other easily and more clearly through sensibility than in the realm of consciousness. Here the subject finds that the Other cannot be made part of the subject like any other things as the Other resists consumption.

Levinas acknowledges the power of transcendence of the Other beyond the categories of the thought of the subject. It is accepted by the epiphany of Face that talks to the subject, “I am not yours to be enjoyed: I am absolutely Other.” This is a surprise to the subject since the arrival of the Face depicts the vulnerability of the subject. The solitude of the subject is invaded by the Other.  The surprise makes the subject being caught off guard. It indicates more about the presence of the Other than the perception of the Other. The presence of the Other is beyond the control of the subject as it is demanded of the subject.

There are two important steps involved in this act namely proximity and substitution. Proximity is the immediate contact of the Other with the subject. It is a responsibility laid upon the subject with the new characteristic given to the subject. The new subjectivity shows that social subject is to be for-the-Other. Thus subjectivity is subjection to the Other i.e. the subject is subjected to the Other who intrudes its solitude and interrupts the egoistic enjoyment. It is a command given to the subject to live ethically with the Other. In other words, it makes the subject to stand in the place of the Other.

The standing in the place of the Other leads to the second step of substitution.  It is the state, according to Levinas, where the subject is held hostage by the Other. Substitution is the sign of being an Other-directed human person. This also makes clear that the subject belongs to itself and subject is not ‘another’ but itself (I am not another but me).

Substitution is to acknowledge oneself in the place of the Other not with the conceptual recognition but in the sense of finding oneself in the Other as a hostage for the Other. This process gives more meaning that the above mentioned subjection by the Other becomes subjection for the Other as St. Paul says, “I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some” (I Corinthians 9:22).  The mere desire to respond is already  responsiveness to the command of the Other.

Although the approach toward the Other as Levinas proposed gives more meaning for interpersonal relationship it was not well appreciated by some ethicists. A person responds to the Other because the person feels a personal need to do so in order to satisfy his/her need and this action has no true moral worth.

Levinas answers that the Other has a transcendence and the subject is already substituted for the Other. The subject is made to stand for the other, before freedom and reason in ethics. Consequently, there is an ethical responsibility with the Face-to-Face relationship. Thus responsibility is essential, primary and fundamental mode of subjectivity in ethical terms and precedes ontological and existential base. The mere node of subjective is knotted in ethics is the responsibility towards the Other. Responsibility is the link between the subject and the Other. This moral ‘ought’ is the acceptance of Other person as person which Levinas wants to emphasize in the history of philosophy. There is no true sociality away from ethics and vice versa. Furthermore, the meaning of Otherness is found in the responsibility given to me and not in the interpretation given by the subject.  Finally, any relation of the subject with the Other person gives the responsibility to the former. This is the source of the moral ‘ought’ in the philosophy of Levinas.

The End of Philosophy - The Only Solution of Postmodernism

 The following is the summary of the article:

Stanislaus Swamikannu. “A Postmodern Response to the Relativism Debate,” Divyadaan: Journal of Philosophy and Education 19, no.1-2 (2008): 193-211.

Self-questioning or self-criticism is considered to be hallmark of philosophy. However, this act itself could cause the recent phenomenon in philosophy called ‘end of philosophy’. On the one hand, philosophers who deem philosophy as natural kind take this phenomenon as a part of philosophical tradition where there is no complete rupture since the tradition remains. On the other hand, philosophers who consider it as a historical product regard it as a crisis and a failure. This article gives few salient notions of the end of philosophy incorporating both the views highlighting the postmodern philosophical approach.

            The end of philosophy can be spoken in terms of skepticism. This idea might have its origin in the ancient Greek philosophy itself. Against the platonic philosophy that was characterized by the desire for totalizing foundationalism, Pyrrhonian skepticism was raised. While platonic philosophy provided a link between contingent human reality and eternal divine realm, pyrrhonian skepticism showed that there is always a room for objections and difficulties in any philosophical position.

 The same procedure was repeated in the modern Western philosophy. The epistemology-centered philosophy was epitomized by Descartes, Kant and Husserl through the quest for indubitable foundation or the privileged starting point of reality. Richard Rorty says that it was the hidden agenda since Plato. According to Rorty, the whole epistemological activity is only the representation of the mind which acts as a mirror. He says that the modern Western philosophers were only trying to polish the mirror with various ideologies. These philosophers searched for a more scientific, rational and deeper position whereas Rorty trivialized the onus of philosopher as only to carry the philosophical enterprise to the future than to find the key to all the problems of philosophy. Taking inspiration from Dewey and James, he gives a pragmatic intent to philosophy that one can quit philosophy at any moment.

Another aspect of the end of philosophy is the paradigm shift from philosophy of consciousness to the philosophy of language; from transcendental subjectivity to grammatical structure which is known as the linguistic turn. It is farewell to the subject-centered philosophy and a departure from the idea of language as mere instrument. Rorty gives a different orientation to linguistic philosophy i.e. solving the philosophical problems by reforming the language or understanding the language we use.

In this major turn of the philosophy of language, there are three turns involved namely analytical philosophy, pragmatic turn and rhetoric turn.  Firstly, the analytical philosophy played a role in solving the problems of the ordinary sentences with the help of formal logic. It was held that by analyzing the structure of the language one can find the structure of the reality as language is regarded as the mirror of reality. But soon this revolution also faced a counter-revolution. There was a division between the Ideal Language philosophy (that became the constructing model for other types) and Ordinary Language philosophy (in common people’s language where there is no philosophical problem). The ideal language philosophy, according to Rorty, can only describe the logical behaviour of the linguistic expression and in practice it was not shown fruitful. Rorty concludes that analytical philosophy is only the beginning of the epistemological problems.

Secondly, the idea of the pragmatic turn was explained by Habermas. He explains the limitation of semanticism that concentrates only on analysis and neglected linguistic context, speech etc. and the structured semiotics where there is an over-emphasis on anonymous structure in language. In contrast to this view, Habermas suggests pragmatic turn in linguistic philosophy that aimed at weakening the logo-centric claim in Western metaphysical tradition. This weakening consists not in autonomous subject but in intersubjective communication towards mutual understanding. It is to bring language from the private sphere (private language) to public sphere (multi-contexts of use). It brings the neglected aspects of the linguistic tradition into the formal analysis.

Thirdly, the importance is given to rhetoric over logic. The philosophy of language in the West was based on logic than rhetoric. It is due to the importance given to the study of logic and mathematics. On the contrary, Derrida proposed rhetoric over logic in philosophy of language. This notion of Derrida makes every text as secondary as it implies no original meaning to it. According to him, formula and context are meaningful only in convention; one cannot exhaust the context and contexts are changeable. Consequently, there is no such distinction like original-imitation, literal-figural, real-metaphoric, true-false, and reality-appearance. Thus relativism is the only way in interpreting a text according to the different strands of the linguistic turn explained in this article. This relativism brings the end of philosophy and the end of metaphysical tradition of the West.