FROM -- tradgdm@gmail.com
I have to say, Hindu scholars never cared to read Christian theologians and refute them on really deep philosophical grounds. Refutation and criticism is starting happening in other levels, but not philosophical. Of course, deep philosophical criticism is not the most urgent at the moment, as there are many other pressing issues and much more short-term effective approaches.
But, let us be honest here: how many Indian gurus have read and could criticize the theories of Christian, Muslim and Jewish philosophers like Philo? Dionysius the Areopagite? Avicenna? Maimonides? Averroes? Boetius? Thomas Aquinas? Scotus Erigena? Augustine? Duns Scotus? Gregory Palamas? They simply ignore or discard these authorities as non-existent or as merely "dogmatic" ignoramuses, mimicking Enlightenment or post-Christian dishonest disdain for those religious philosophers.
Now, scholastic thinkers like Aquinas would engage Muslims refuting their views on very logical and philosophical grounds (not dogmatic). Just an example: Aquinas wrote a book refuting the view of Muslim philosophers of the "single" active intellect (know as buddhi in India) for the whole humanity, as this would harm the doctrine of individual damnation and judgement.
Also Philophonus engaged so called pagan philosophers on the "creation of the world" having a beginning in time or being eternal (Hindus would have a say on this one, as all Hindu schools defend it is eternal). So, there is a distinct Christian philosophy which has never been engaged by Easterners.
And that is not dead. Just think of Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain who was deeply immersed and influenced by this medieval Christian thought and was one of the big names behind the philosophy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose effects on concepts of personhood, individuality, dignity are very influent today. When people talk about Human Rights, they are absorbing Aquinas anthropology, without knowing it.
I am aware Swami Krishnananda made a book commenting Western Philosophy. It is not a very profound criticism (his views on the Platonic theory of forms is very simple-minded), and he surprisingly skips more than thirteen centuries of Medieval philosophy! From Plotinus he moves to Descartes! Absolute silence in-between on Christian, Muslims and Jewish philosophers. Now, In the Vatican these days they do read Shankaracharya or Ramanujacharya and have even departments for that.
When you read the philosophical discussions between Naiyayikas and Baudhas, they used to read and make very clear references to each others works, stablishing a common ground. Naiyayikas would not use shabda-pramana against Buddhists. It was a beautiful philosophical war, maybe one of the most intense dialectical interactions in the world philosophy ever.
I am interested in those subjects, but to be brutally honest, I don't have myself qualification or the sadhana to move into such deep philosophical grounds at the moment. But who knows in 20 years or something? If it is still necessary/possible by then and nobody more competent does it first.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें