CULTURAL BUDDHISM: responses, set-3
For theme-note and responses sets 1 and 2 kindly visit:www.bouddhayaanam.blogspot.com
Ph:09447262817
---------------
32. K. Satchidanandan:
Aren't we speaking of the spectral presence of the Buddhist world view- provided there is a consensus about it-or may be a Rancierean 'dissensus'? - in Kerala's recent history ? (esp Guru, Renaissance, Asan... upto some contemporary writers)
-------------------
33. P. P. Raveendran:
I was just watching the debate progress. I want to make a single point at this juncture. Let us make a vital distinction which many who have participated in this debate are aware of but few have cared to make explicit. This distinction is between Buddhism as a cultural practice of the past and its modern reconstructions that many sensitive individuals in Kerala and India are making in the present. It is true that as a cultural practice it was very influential in Kerala (many who have participated in this debate have drawn attention to its important dimensions), whose remains still linger in the cultural memory of the society here. Though the shape and character of these remains could also be (partly) a result of modern-day reconstructions, the symbolic - in the sense of suggesting an oppositional position - value of present day reconstructions are not to be lost sight of while talking about them. This implies that if such reconstructions are to be valuable, one will have to be wary of the concept being romanticized and Buddhism in the first sense being distorted "violently." (There certainly is the chance of some amount of distortion in such conceptual recycling any way.) Let us therefore be conscious of the fact that we are retrieving an important idea from the historical past and using Buddhism positively as an icon suggesting a set of positive values.
------------------
34. P. Madhu:
Is this discussion about Buddhist vs other cultural identities? Is it about good vs bad people of the past- by neatly packing people into neatly specified 'religious' identities?
Interestingly, Buddha is one among the pioneering philosopher/thinker/spiritual person doubted all sorts of identities & identity essentialisms!
As it is the case in argumentative traditions- most of the buddha argumentation did not start with buddha- nor remained only within 'buddhism' - all these arguments are highly porous- in & out- ideas are taken an given- it is even possible to see buddha as one among the most influential teachers (gurus) - who is trying to point out misrecognitions- various groups, individuals accepted or hybridized their own thinking... and there were people eclectically taking something leaving something... using some or other identities... collectively or individually ... all these.. are more flexible than rigid water tight exclusive religion induced culture...
Interestingly, Buddha is one among the pioneering philosopher/thinker/spiritual person doubted all sorts of identities & identity essentialisms!
As it is the case in argumentative traditions- most of the buddha argumentation did not start with buddha- nor remained only within 'buddhism' - all these arguments are highly porous- in & out- ideas are taken an given- it is even possible to see buddha as one among the most influential teachers (gurus) - who is trying to point out misrecognitions- various groups, individuals accepted or hybridized their own thinking... and there were people eclectically taking something leaving something... using some or other identities... collectively or individually ... all these.. are more flexible than rigid water tight exclusive religion induced culture...
It appears the term 'culture' is used to limit the discussions within the theme of 'identity politics' - what people reified with Buddhist or non-Buddhist identities did to each other over a course of time... The discussion may be interesting! But, it's very problem is that it becomes interesting because of its simplistic assumptions and has a tendency to place good vs bad and identify ourselves with the good! There will be judgemental tendencies-- which may not be true to real life or culture as it existed/exist! When good vs bad within 'identity' paradigms- is floated- the nature of discussion follows will only justify 'good'!... We will be 'begging the question' justifying the 'good'! ...
----------------------
35. E. P. Rajagopalan:
Dr, ajay sekhar argues well. linguistic archeology has to be used in such a way that it can question the tower of power, ajay.s note sheds new light on our agrarian economy. [The malayalam word 'ayyo"] ''അയ്യോ'' IS A LINGUISTIC RESIDUE . IT IS A SOUND INVOKING ''AYYAN'', A DRAVIDIAN TERM FOR THE BUDDHA. IT IS ALSO KNOWN THAT A GOOD NUMBER OF NAMBOODIRI FAMILIES PRACTICALLY BANNED THE USE OF ''അയ്യോ' IN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS.
------------------------
36. P. J. Cheriyan:
Since i am in field work, could read only a few responses. Many email discussions invoke the disquiet what Marx is said to have sighed wearily, Please keep off discussing politics in casinos.!
But it is interesting to see that a new sensitivity is emerging in Kerala on Buddhism. I think the way of life and thinking that buddhism and Jainism brought in could have laid the bedrock of our cultural and intellectual life. By our I mean the Tamilakam region in the 3rd c BCE to 5/6 th c period. I think those who are sensitive to Buddhism should have a critical re-reading of the Tamil classical texts. Probably the only history researcher of Kerala who was serious about this was Elamkulam KunjanPillai. All others who followed as historians or history researchers (none excluded) did everything to ensure that the Kerala Buddhist past erased for good. I do not think it was very deliberate - the nature of ideological dominance and the ensuing social tensions it brought in could be responsible for this. We had little option but to internalise the Brahamanic world view. It was so perfect that Kerala's Pre-history and History starts around the 9th century.! If you have any doubt please re-read the Kanappayur volumes published from Kunnamkulam. Our historical research unfortunately found it too much a burden to challenge him or those pre/early historic past he sketched for us. Though Elamkulam didn't heed to him there were none to follow him. Our historical discourses merrily celebrated the post 9th century history which ensured Buddhism, its rationality, way of life ( is it also the philosophy) is perfectly alien to us. How sad - our modernity, Marxism, post-modernism, feminism, the epistemological bla bla, the rationality of capital, the science in us prevented us from knowing our intellectual and cultural bedrock. The Brahmanical ideology deserve a hand shake ?
Well if you want to really know how we succumbed to this condition - re read Gangadharan mash response once again. But after every sentence add the question where do you have the evidence for this? Oh it was a disturbing response.
----------------------
37. J. Devika:
Now, Dr Cherian's response sounds quite strange to me. Is he implying that there has been no challenge to the Brahmin-centrism of Kerala history! Goodness, I think that is a peculiar kind of erasure! It is true that we have very few new ventures in ancient or medieval history that unearths fresh sources or re-reads older ones more critically, but that is not because there has been no critique. Maybe so among EMS fans but not for the rest of us. If there is little good grounded research, that's because of several reasons, including the abysmal state of history teaching and research in our universities, the general devaluation of history as a discipline, and a depoliticisation and exoticisation of our past in general which strives to make it saleable. And why shove the blame on all the critical perspectives which according to Dr Cherian is just 'epistemological blah-blah'? After all it is these perspectives that have brought some debate back into at least modern history? If they have been unable to produce a similar churning in ancient and medieval history, the reasons should be sought elsewhere, but especially in the power struggles between prominent historians specializing in these areas in Kerala!
I agree with Madhu's cautionary statement. Yes, it is important not to paint a black-and-white picture -- evil brahmins vs. angelic Buddhists. Historical analysis of Buddhist-Brahmin relations in other parts of south India where it lingered longer clearly indicates that such a binary is simply not tenable. In fact I think that some of the necessary steps we may have to take if we embark on reconstructing the history of Buddhism in Kerala are (1) study these other histories, from medieval Karnataka, AP and TN closely, (2) study the evolution of Buddhism in SL closely (3) see if we can study the history of militaristic communities in South east Asia
which entered into a 'contract' with a 'world religion' -- Nairs and
Brahminism in Kerala, the so-called warrior castes in SL with Buddhism, and the militaristic clans of Minangabau in present-day Malaysia. I would have pursued this had I been younger!
Nevertheless I feel that the present attempts to reclaim Buddhism in the present in Kerala deserve scholarly attention as explicitly political interventions in the present. Unless we are willing to engage in the rigorous research necessary to argue beyond binaries, we really have no right to be dismissive of them.
I agree with Madhu's cautionary statement. Yes, it is important not to paint a black-and-white picture -- evil brahmins vs. angelic Buddhists. Historical analysis of Buddhist-Brahmin relations in other parts of south India where it lingered longer clearly indicates that such a binary is simply not tenable. In fact I think that some of the necessary steps we may have to take if we embark on reconstructing the history of Buddhism in Kerala are (1) study these other histories, from medieval Karnataka, AP and TN closely, (2) study the evolution of Buddhism in SL closely (3) see if we can study the history of militaristic communities in South east Asia
which entered into a 'contract' with a 'world religion' -- Nairs and
Brahminism in Kerala, the so-called warrior castes in SL with Buddhism, and the militaristic clans of Minangabau in present-day Malaysia. I would have pursued this had I been younger!
Nevertheless I feel that the present attempts to reclaim Buddhism in the present in Kerala deserve scholarly attention as explicitly political interventions in the present. Unless we are willing to engage in the rigorous research necessary to argue beyond binaries, we really have no right to be dismissive of them.
-----------------------------
38. C. K. Raju:
Honestly, going through these discussions, I feel lucky not to have
been a student of history - not because of the specialists in the
field, but because of the challenge that the discipline poses to
ordinary layman thinking. I am still finding it difficult to come to
terms with most of the methods used for analysing the past - for that is what I was taught to be seen as history. I am bewildered at the prospects of how many possibilities a scholar would be suppressing in order to portray existence of some perspective. Equally distressing is the fact that not many established historians too point out such suppressed possibilities. Some patterns are picked up, some convenient meaning is provided and violated - a theory gets established. History appears to be surviving only because time-travel is considered impossible, which in turn brings in tremendous relief to the exercise of validation. Therefore, I believe that historical discourses too borrow heavily from mainstream religions - which have their basic tenets rooted in testimonials.
been a student of history - not because of the specialists in the
field, but because of the challenge that the discipline poses to
ordinary layman thinking. I am still finding it difficult to come to
terms with most of the methods used for analysing the past - for that is what I was taught to be seen as history. I am bewildered at the prospects of how many possibilities a scholar would be suppressing in order to portray existence of some perspective. Equally distressing is the fact that not many established historians too point out such suppressed possibilities. Some patterns are picked up, some convenient meaning is provided and violated - a theory gets established. History appears to be surviving only because time-travel is considered impossible, which in turn brings in tremendous relief to the exercise of validation. Therefore, I believe that historical discourses too borrow heavily from mainstream religions - which have their basic tenets rooted in testimonials.
--------------------
39. P. Madhu:
Let me respond to your concerns- though I am also a non-historian!
“Honestly, going through these discussions, I feel lucky not to have been a student of history”
History as a discipline has problems! It is more of a political project than academic one. It has yet to become academic. The understanding of time – especially social time is not yet properly approached. Hence there is problem. Politics of history even though assumed to be ‘liberative’ it has never been. People living in present- even if they work honestly- cannot do justice to past & its living world. What they maximum do is speak for some position in the present under the guise of the past. Since, no individual researcher can be matured enough to be understand the panoramic life-world & its complexity- all that is said and written will be too much inadequate. History is so much challenging, very close to impossibly challenging. People in the present use history to write their slogans! When history takes that route, it becomes worthless. To suspect the project of history, it becomes necessary to be a student of history! Even non historians should do it- because historians baffled with history is like being baffled with infinity! Before infinity, even the trained historian is nothing! That actually opens up others too to history, though- historians may not feel happy their monopoly challenged. Doctors, when they do harm- do it to single bodies- historians sometimes harm the social- & hence- they should not be believed without questioned even by ordinary laymen!
“: - not because of the specialists in the field, but because of the challenge that the discpline poses to ordinary layman thinking. I am still finding it difficult to come to terms with most of the methods used for analysing the past - for that is what I was taught to be seen as history.”
“The emperor has no cloth” adage is applicable to history as much as it is to economics!
“I am bewildered at the prospects of how many possibilities a scholar would be suppressing in order to portray existence of some perspective. Equally distressing is
the fact that not many established historians too point out such suppressed possibilities.”
the fact that not many established historians too point out such suppressed possibilities.”
Academics has to become more rigorous and truthful! Scholars should open up instead of closing down/ suppressing possibilities. How can a scholar become too sure about his/her perspective surprises any one looks at the debates in the field!
“Some patterns are picked up, some convenient meaning is provided and voila - a theory gets established.”
There are only claims! They are not established. Pre-matured claims are always made!
“History appears to be surviving only because time-travel is considered impossible, which in turn brings in tremendous relief to the exercise of validation.”
Even if we travel time that time will not be existing there- especially in the dogmatic form conceived by the historians”. Present is always with multiple possibilities. We will see only open ended present even if we time travel… co-temporality & its open endedness is the only time schema actually existing. The rest are fictions. Present is the summary of all the time existed. All that one may have to do is understand the present in its richness… all that exists as time is only “unbecoming” – Buddha said it- among the western scholars Bergson and Deleuze said it latter! The chunks of time imagined before unbecoming and after that is merely imagined! That imagination affects unbecoming! We are not our past (history) we are not our future- we are unbecoming now. Even the “we” is very much an ideological construct. What is presented before us as history is a time reconstructed based on the fossilled scares. These scares hardly represent the life that was! But, that is powerful enough to feel vengeful, ahistorically! Again, we have the construct of “future” that is ‘our’ desires, greed, projects – projected! They are not real live temporalities. Only the contemporanity is the live time. If we take Buddha seriously, he shares this understanding with us!
“ Therefore, I believe that historical discourses too borrow heavily from mainstream religions - which have their basic tenets rooted in testimonials.”
History & future are projections from the current! Nothing more. But it affects lives! That’s why history should not be historians business alone! The lay man should question it. Before the infinity- historian is not better equipped than lay man! But, historian may misuse the trust we have on them! Second, on contemporary world, we all should have a say. That is the only living time. As future takes more toll on lives than history- we have to be agile about how the ‘time makers’ make our time! Buddha rightly warned us to disbelieve the extended selves & extended essentialized times!
-------------------
40. C. R. Rajgopal:
i noticed in neelamperur pooram padayani in kutanad there is many evidence and icons connected with buddhisam.
-------------------------
41. T. S. Girishkumar:
I don't think that the Philosophy of Buddha/Buddhism has much to do either with paddy cultivation or Dalit politics. People can make attempts to make significance, but that shall not be Philosophy
----------------
42. U. Jayaprakash:
As Buddhism was felt to be a savior from the clutches of caste-system prevailed in our country especially for the down-trodden people. It was a wise option then available for them in the context of critical awareness emerged due to the British rule. It is heard that at a time the leaders of SNDP had thought of opting for Buddhism. As far as Kerala was concerned, Buddhist and Jain philosophy had been deeply rooted. Common men were ready to accept the teachings in their personal affairs. The author of CHILAPPATHI KARAM the Tamil classic, had abstained himself from the power by handing over it to his brother. It was motivated by Jain teachings.
-----------------------------
43. A. Kanthamani:
OK, culture includes religion plus ideology etc., (‘Buddhism does not denude religious Buddhism’). After few lines you have changed the tag Buddhism (you narrow it to ‘Buddhist thoughts’), ‘do not seem to follow a specific… religion’. Notice the contradiction. The lines above probably state the reason: there is a chance of considering Buddhism as superior (you mean ideologically?). Again, you say that Buddhism is ‘more than religious as well as theoretical’. You are obviously after or trying to be precise in your definition but it is no where manifested. Your question about Buddhism is phrased towards the end: ‘is it a theoretical or political imperative?’ You probably put religion in the brackets. Ooops! Let us now ask: why don’t we treat Buddhism which may include culture, religion as well as philosophy. Then why characterise it as ‘cultural’ rather than philosophical or religious. Where actually you allot a slot for one or other more than a ‘political’ or ‘theoretical’ it is religious in its base with a larger following with Buddha as the godhead? I hope I have reacted only for a clarification on my question with best demands for a working definition!
------------------------
44. P. K. Sasidharan:
When I said the English word Buddhism simply doesn't mean a specific religion, I meant to say that Buddhism cannot be represented a having a monolithic religious structure with a specific conception of theistic religion as in the case of other religions. The talk or representation of Buddhism entirely as religion seems to be a major source of confusion. Even if we talk about rituals and beliefs that have been carried by the followers of different sects of Buddhism that cannot be designated as religious in the sense of propitious actions addressed to some transcendental principles or entities. so the designation Buddhism as religion is likely to be a misnomer.
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment