Maya in Śankara's Advaita Vedanta and Impediment to the Rise of Science in India

Maya is an important category in explaining the philosophy of Śankara (pronounced as Shankara). For him Maya is not pure illusion. It is a cross of the real and the unreal. It is neither existent nor non-existent nor both. It is not existent as the only one that exists is Brahman nor is it non-existent as it is responsible for the appearance of the Brahman as the world. It is called superimposition, like a shell being mistaken as silver. And when right knowledge arises this error vanishes. This relation between shell and silver is neither that of identity nor of difference nor of both. It is unique and is known as non-difference ( tadatmya). Thus, when right knowledge dawns, which is realisation of the oneness of jiva with the Paramatman, Maya vanishes. 

Śankara emphasizes the phenomenal point of view that the world is real as long as true knowledge does not dawn. It is not an illusion. It is a practical reality. In his book A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidas; 1983), Chandradhar Sharma writes, " He who imagines that Shankara's position means complete denial of this world, of this souls, of action, of philosophy, of religion and even of God, may know anything but Shankara Vedanta."

Just as it is said that Hegel is a born foe of Mysticism, Madhvacarya (b. 1197) may be said to be a born foe of Sankara. Madhva is the champion of dvaita (unqualified dualism) as much as Sankara is the champion of advaita (non-dualism). His hatred for Advaita is so great that he called Advaitins 'deceitful demons. For Madhva there is a real difference between God and the world; whereas for Sankara the difference is appearance, subjectively different, and not real as in the sense of being ontologically different.

In his book Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark quoted the very distinguished Joseph Needham, Oxford historian of Science, to conclude that the failure of the Chinese to develop science was due to their religion, to the inability of Chinese intellectuals to believe in the existence of laws of nature because the conception of a divine celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature never developed. Quoting Needham he continued, " The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being to naive for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it."  I believe it's not just the Taoist, the Advaita Vedantins as well would have scorned such an idea. Chandradhar Sharma noted, " Shankara... gave the final death-blow to Buddhistic philosophy", and after this we saw the rise of Advaita Vedanta into prominence among Indian religious scholars. And within Sankara's non-dualism there is no scope to recognize the 'lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature" because the concept of the difference between Creator and creation never fully developed.

I do think that Madhva's philosophy would provide a far better philosophical ground than Sankara's for science and moral philosophy to flourish in India. Christianity and Islam have such distinction between God and the world and would be equally fertile for scientific advancement. However, for the Hindus I believe the answer to human flourishing does not lie in Advaita Vedanta. Madhvacarya's Dvaita is perhaps a very viable alternative philosophy that needs further engagement.

One of My Favourite Hindi Film Songs

Should the Present Generation Ever Apologize for the Atrocities the Past Generation Committed?

It is not uncommon to hear some people say that the present generation is not responsible for the atrocities the past generation had committed, and therefore there is no reason why one should offer an apology. But is this argument really a valid one? I think it is not. Here is why I think so. 

Many Indians would take pride in the fact that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation,  had struggled for independence without using violence as his tool. If some people somewhere make false and denigrating remark about Gandhi, not only would these people protest because the content was false and denigrating but also because it is about someone who is close to their heart and mind. These people feel angry and insulted because they consider themselves to be sharing some kind of "solidarity" with Gandhiji. And when such false and insulting remarks are made, they feel angry because their leader with whom they share this sort of solidarity is insulted. And this sort of solidarity with people in the past who have achieved great things is common. People feel patriotic about telling their stories. The sense of patriotism surfaces in that person's heart  when such names are invoked because of this sort of solidarity.

It is also common to come across situation when we hear someone say, " I forgive my uncle for the way he took advantage of my widowed mother or sister or father". Or when someone say, "our family has forgiven their family for all the wrongdoing they have done in the past". When some people harmed my family members, I identify with them. The harm may not have anything to do with me at present, but because there is some sort of solidarity with my family members of the past, I identify myself with the event. If that solidarity with people of the past is not there, forgiveness does not make sense.

Thus, if we share some sort of solidarity with people of the past for which we feel patriotic or invoke forgiveness for their act or acts done unto them, we also must share in their guilt in some way. The fact that there is some sort of solidarity; some sort of 'shared narrative' between past and present is an essential component of a nation, a community and a family. And it is because of this sort of  relationship or solidarity that I think present generation do need to apologize wherever necessary for the atrocities the previous generation committed.

Can Christians Charge Interest?

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 says, "You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess."

For the Christians this could be understood as something which could be practised outside, but not inside, if not for what Jesus says in Luke 6:34-35, " If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

Since the OT permits Jews to charge interest from the foreigners, non-Jews, this explains why Jews were moneylenders in older times. Early Christians, however, following the teaching of Jesus generally did not endorse charging interest. Things changed centuries later as many Christians came to understand that charging interest was okay as long as exploitative interest rates would not be charged. But how much interest rate is exploitative? In Senapati district, 48% per annum is charged from loan given by Society; and 60% from those given by individuals. In emergency situation, it goes up to 120% to 180%  per annuam. I believe such interest rates are just too high, and they are exploitative in nature. I am not sure if charging interest rate is right or not, but even if it is right it should not go beyond 2.5% per month or 30% per annum, the rate set for the micro-finance companies in the country.

Can We Have Woman as a Deacon?

In the last chapter of the letter to the Romans, Paul sent his greetings to various people in Rome. As he was finishing his letter, he commended Phoebe who traveling to Rome and was probably carrying the letter to the Romans. Paul described Phoebe as a deaconess (Gk. diokonos) in Cenchreae, a port city of Corinth, and a person who has been a 'helper' (Gk. Prostatis; patron ) of many people. As a patron she would own the home in which the church met and hold position of honour too.

Paul also lists two fellow-apostles, Andronicus and Junia. And this Junia was a woman as her name indicates. Earliest commentator like John Chrysostom in 4^th century understood this person to be a woman. And tradition says that she was one of those 70 sent out Jesus Christ as found in Luke 10.

Paul also underlines two women, Euodia and Synthyche, in Phil 4:2-3 as true yokefellow. These women have loboured side by side with Paul like his male labourer Clement. Since Macedonia was historically more progressive in allowing women to take prominent religious roles, it would have been relatively easier for Paul's women colleagues to take such prominent role.

If women were allowed such prominent roles in the early church as recorded in the Bible, there is no reason why we should be closed to women's participation in the leadership role in our 21^st churches. Like those earlier days we should be willing to work side by side in His vineyard.

The Myth About 'Evil-Eye'

“Hraomai” as it is called in my Poumai Naga dialect can best be translated as 'evil-eye'. It is a common belief that if a person from such a family of 'evil-eye' casts a spell in the form of a compliment or something of that sort, the person upon whom the cast is spelled will fall sick. And in certain cases the so called victim (let me put it that way) would even die. One of my older brothers was considered to have been 'attacked' when he was 2 by a person with such 'accursed power' that he remained physically and mentally challenged even when he died at the age of 32. So if there is such a thing as 'evil-eye' I have strong reason to be angry with such people for bringing such hardship and suffering in the life of my parents and their children specially my brother who was the 'victim'.

I learnt that there is a slight variation between different communities about how 'evil-eye' works and how it is transmitted across generations. In the community I come from, it is believed that the 'power/curse' is transmitted from parents to children. And suppose a 'clean' person marries such 'unclean' people, then both of them eventually become 'unclean', and their children will also become 'unclean'. The implication of such belief is that 'clean' people avoid marrying such 'unclean' people. And eventually a kind of caste system prevails in the community. One group is considered clean and the other as unclean!

I have now come to believe that this story that some people possess power to cast spell on others is a myth. If a word or a speech can cast a spell that could make another person sick, how could that power be transmitted from the DNA of parents to the children's? But if it is transmitted from parents to children like sickle-cell anaemia or haemophilia is transmitted then how could it possibly give power to a person to cast a spell on another person? It does not make sense scientifically. Here someone would counter saying that it is the power of the evil spirit that make things possible. For the sake of argument let us grant that this is possible. But if it is the evil spirit that works then how could it possibly be transmitted from parents to children? The power of the evil spirit cannot be transmitted from parents' DNA to children's DNA. And if it is the power of the evil spirit, then how could the 'curse/power' infects those who confess and believe Jesus Christ as Lord and God? So the whole argument does not make sense. But if anyone invites the evil spirit and asks power from the evil one, then of course the issue is different! But as far as I know there is no one in the community who does that.

I believe the traditional story has been passed on from one generation to another. And even today the same story continues about those people about whom the story has been told. And because we typecast such people, we find allege incidents of such people having cast spell on someone. And in a close knit societies like ours where interaction between members of the community is extremely frequent such 'unclean' people interacting with other members is bound to happen, and when some sickness occurs we just attribute it to such 'unclean' people. And so this story continues in the neibourhood.

The story is passed on among the 'clean' people. But because telling the 'unclean' people in person that you are unclean will make the society unlivable, the story remains an open secret. There are stories: an 'unclean' people felt that strong urge to cast a spell on someone yet because he remained indoor the whole day he avoided harming anyone... but because the urge was so strong and he had to wrestle with the urge, the house was as if a tornado had just passed through; such 'unclean' people are able to see through the intestine and other organs of a person; such people, however, cannot cast spell on their enemy and they 'attack' only whom they don't hate, etc. Since these are all stories that cannot be verified because the 'unwritten law' prohibits one to openly discuss name or talk about such people, even if I consider them as myth I cannot prove such stories as unathentic nor could anyone prove the stories to be true. So if there is anyone out there who is a member of such family whom others consider them to be 'unclean', please write to me and provide comment about such stories. I shall not disclose names, but I wish to continue to write and discredit such stories as myths. My id is jeremiahduomai(at)gmail.com.

And those who are consider themselves clean, why do you believe that anyone could have such power to cast a spell? Comments from other communities would also be appreciated.

Does the Bible Endorse Homosexual Practice?

In the biblical narrative, after male and female were created, one of the things God told them was to multiply and increase in number. And so in the Bible, one of the purposes of marriage is procreation. Since two men or two women coming together in marriage will not necessarily result in procreation, homosexual partners coming together in marriage cannot remain true to what the Bible teaches. So there is one reason against homosexual practice for those people who consider Bible to be the final authority for their faith and conduct.

But how about just two homosexual partners coming together for mutual pleasure if homosexual marriage is against biblical teaching? Would the Bible be against such act? The Bible in the book of Romans consider sexual relations between males or between females to be unnatural. So what is natural sexual relation is one man and one woman within the context of marriage. The Bible did not say whether it was against  male/female prostitute practicing such sexual act or whether it was against casual homosexual conduct between two willing partners. It considers homosexual practice in general to be unnatural, and therefore goes against God's design. So again we have here another reason against homosexual practice. 

I don't believe that our conduct is driven by our gene. I don't believe that gay gene is there at all. But even if it is there, I don't believe that our behavior is determined by our gene, and the person is not responsible for his or her conduct. I do think that homosexual relationship is primarily a matter of choice. Humans just don't dance to the tune of DNA/gene, but it's the choice we make that is finally reflected in our conduct. As a Christian believer, therefore, I believe homosexual behavior is some conduct we cannot accept within the church. 

This does not mean I should hate them. Just as much as God loves all people, followers of Jesus must love all people.

Defect in Immanuel Kant's idea of Rights

There is a tendency to attribute so much of importance to Kant's contribution to the idea of universal human right. No doubt Kant did contribute to the idea of human right, but I do think there is an history that goes beyond Kant why the concept of universal human right so emerged. I shall, however, not delve into that part for now. Kant believes that every human person is worthy of respect. His idea of worth of a person is derived from the fact that we human are rational beings. 

Jeremy Bentham argued that pleasure and pain are our sovereign masters. And so in Bentham's moral philosophy, what ought to be done is governed by this preference for pleasure and our dislike for pain. Bentham thus considered the idea of natural right as 'nonsense upon stilts'. Kant disagreed. Kant argued that we like pleasure and dislike pain, yet we are also governed by reason.And this capacity to reason gives an individual that worth, and so the right. Kant's ground for right thus is grounded on individual's capacity to reason.

But is Kant's idea well grounded for human right? I don't think so. If an individual's worth is based on her rational faculty then those individual's whose minds are blank have to be considered as devoid of any worth. This would leave out children who are not yet able to think rationally think or those aged human persons whose mind is now vegetable or even those who are in coma. Kant did give so much of respect for a human person. He went to the extent of arguing that we are to treat human person as end in themselves, and never as a mean to some end. However, had he provided a more sturdy grounding for the worth of a human person that can include all human beings, his overall argument about the idea of right would have gained more coherency.