Category: Religion

29th October 2010

The battle between reason and speculative belief in ancient India

I am working on a post to critically evaluate the so-called scientific advances of ancient India.

I chanced upon valuable information about ancient Indian science: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book SCIENCE AND SOCIETY IN ANCIENT INDIA (also here), published by Research India Publications, Calcutta 1977.

Chattopadhyaya was founder Chairman of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, and conducted extensive research on the alternative schools of ancient Indian philosophy of Lokayata, as well as history of science and scientific method in ancient India, especially his work on the ancient physicians, Caraka and Susruta. He also wrote "History of Science and Technology in Ancient India; The Beginnings". I need to find these books urgently. Please let me know of other books that could be useful in such analysis.

Below are a few extracts from a review article published in Social Scientist (Review: The Assault on Science in Ancient India, G. Ramakrishna, Social Scientist, Vol. 6, No. 11 (Jun., 1978), pp. 77-83). In the draft DOF, I've written extensively that I can't find evidence of critical thinking in mainstream Hinduism. That view is re-affirmed by this review.

EXTRACT FROM THE REVIEW

[In] ancient India … the scientists fought a grim and relentless battle in their own way to assert the simple truth that "knowledge is the child of time and experience and not of authority". This particularly so is the case of ancient Indian medicine which scoffed at wild speculation and unsubstantiated conclusions and advocated and practised a rational foolproof method for evaluating any claim concerning medicine.
One of the foremost texts embodying the results of centuries of patient observation and deduction from the point of view of the art of healing in ancient India is the Caraka Samhita. In no uncertain terms does this treatise stipulate that a discussion in the sphere of medical science should strictly be limited by factors relevant to that discipline and not be clouded or marred by extrinsic or irrelevant factors, no matter how powerful or fascinating the source of that factor be. [T]he norms of ritualistic and religious practice or of metaphysics cannot be blindly applied in matters of medical science. This position helped in raising science at once to the heights of rationalism in ancient India.
The attack which medical science had to face was in fact directed against every science which had no direct bearing on the brahminical rituals of the time. Most often, the rigours of such a process resulted in the compromise which science made with its virulent and diehard opponents.
Long before medieval Europe presented this dilemma to the Galileos and the Descartes, ancient Indian legal authorities forced the issue on their contemporary physicians. The happy part of the story is that by and large the physicians acquitted themselves creditably and sometimes even nobly. It is to their credit that they successfully broke the barriers of the obnoxious but unquestioned institution of caste division in society and reached the lowly and the meek with whatever succour they could provide.
[D]uring the age of the Yajurveda, the divine healers, namely the Asvins were ostracised from the company of the gods for no other reason than that they polluted themselves by practising medicine. The Asvins are celebrated as the most truthful and the wondrous in the Rigveda. They are physicians par excellence with a number of medical feats to their credit. But these very gods came to be censured in the Yajurveda, which set the tone for the hideous chorus of subsequent periods.
The priestly class which had stretched rituals to extraordinarily ridiculous limits happened to be the maker of these legal codes and as ordainers of the law, the chief lawmakers belonging to this class became ardent champions of an order of s:ciety in which their leisure and dividends were both protected along with the interests of the ruling class. The unfortunate physicians of ancient India attracted the attention of these lawmakers at a time when they were developing the science of medicine.
[T]he physicians were specially chosen for derision and contempt by the lawgivers.

A genuine and honest physician is bound to be catholic and thus in practice an opponent of caste-divided society. For him, the man with disease is the subject for treatment; obviously, he cuts across caste barriers, much to the annoyance of the lawgivers who are champions of the social pyramid with themselves at the top. As if this were not enough, the creed of the physicians calls into question the belief in the law of karma also. The persecution of physicians and other scientists in ancient India, therefore, is not something strange; it is a necessity for the leisured classes belonging to the top echelons of society.
The scientists were, however, not prepared to give in. [I]t is thanks to Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya that the rigours faced by ancient Indian scientists can now be better understood by us. [H]e has analysed the obstructions faced by science because of the "counter-ideology" spearheaded by the lawgivers.
The third chapter provides a … critical analysis of the crucial source-book in Indian medicine namely the Caraka Samhita. The remarkable thing about the methodology adopted by the ancient Indian physicians is that "discarding scripture orientation, they insist on the supreme importance of direct observation of natural phenomena and on the technique of rational processing of the empirical data. They go even to the extent of claiming that the truth of any conclusion thus arrived at is to be tested ultimately by the criterion of practice" (p 7).
The perceptive physician learns through observation and experience, and for him "the entire world is the teacher, as it is the foe of the fool" as the Caraka Samhita puts it (p 63). Those who hope to keep the body of man in a fit condition naturally believe that "without the knowledge of nature, the knowledge of man remains incomplete" (p 54); Nature amply testifies to these physicians the fact that "every thing in nature occurs according to some immutable laws, the body of which is usually called svabhava in Indian thought" (p 64).
Unmoved by the aweinspiring declamations of the stout metaphysicians,our ancient physicians coolly proceed with the assumption that "everything (in the discipline of medicine) is viewed as made of matter in five forms"; in other words, "from the medical viewpoint there can be nothing which is not made of matter" (p 66). Indirectly it is even admitted by them that consciousness is the product of matter when they say that "a substance is called conscious when it is endowed with the sense-organs" (p 72) and that the sense-organs are only the products of matter.
Grounded in near materialism as they are,they conceive knowledge including the knowledge of medicine, as something progressive and cumulative. Empiricism is their forte and that leads them to ever new questions concerning the nature of matter and the efficacy of certain forms of matter as drugs. They have no illusion that they have ultimate solutions to the questions but the urge to move on is irresistible in their case.
[T]he postulates of ancient Indian medicine are that the processes in nature follow some definite law, that these are knowable even if they are not already known, and that the knowledge of these laws gives man a certain power over nature (p 183).
[I]n the Caraka Samhita is recorded an emphatic view on the question: what brings about cure? The intrinsic efficacy of the drug administered to the patient or the "unseen hangovers of actions performed in past lives" (adrishta, as it is called)? The text says that "the action of a substance is determined exclusively by the substance itself and it is not influenced by anything else" (Karma na anyat apekshate) (p 154). …The repeated stress on the importance of the knowledge of the law of causation leaves us in no doubt that the ancient physicians were quite severe in their demands on the scientists' methodology and practice.
The Caraka Samhita unequivocally declares that chance successes do not enhance the prestige of medicine when it says that "any success attained without reasoning is as good as sheer accidental success" (vina tarkena ya siddhih yadriccha siddhireva sa) (p 201).
[T]he ancient Indian physicians … were dedicated to bringing succour to all, irrespective of caste distinctions. The priestly class could not put up with this broad-minded ness, perhaps. Moreover, it found no nobility in work, as all work was the special duty of the downgraded people. In any case, no brahmin could be allowed to stoop to such a mean level as to become a physician. The Upanishads which claim to teach "higher knowledge" (para vidya) as opposed to "lower knowledge" (or mundane knowledge; apara vidya) do not so much as condescend to mention even one physician; so contemptible are the physicians. The lawgivers, acting as the ideologues of the ruling class, stipulate that the practice of medicine must be restricted to the "base- born". Manu is absolutely emphatic about it. No less emphatic is another lawgiver, Vasishtha, who among other things says that he who makes his living by the practice of medicine cannot be called a brahmin (p 216).
There are a few pet myths concerning ancient Indian life that stand exploded in the course of Chattopadhyaya's vivisection of the medical literature of the past; but that is only incidental. Thus, for instance, he shows how not-withstanding the alleged reverence for the cow, the physicians prescribed beef as a nutrient. In fact, they even advocated the adoption of devious methods to administer certain kinds of food to the patients by passing them off as something else. Accordingly, for a physician it is not any gross transgression of traditional morality to give beef in the name of deer's flesh or fried worms in the name of intestines of fish to the patient so long as he is satisfied that the patient needs it. That is medical ethics stealing a march over traditional morality.

5th October 2010

When I was a Hindu

Since age 12, I have had many questions re: Hinduism, the religion to which I was born. I had many vigorous discussions and debates with elders who failed to respond sensibly to my questions. The key reason was that they had simply no idea of the scientific method or critical thinking.

I also read extensively (and continue to do so) on all aspects of Hinduism (and other religions). That didn't resolve issues for me.

Somewhere down the road (I forget when), therefore, I stopped calling myself Hindu and became a humanist. I first wrote against the conception of organised religion in the Caravan magazine in May, 1982.

I don't know what I am today. Definitely not a Hindu, particularly given what I see being done in the name of Hinduism. I prefer to see myself just an ordinary human.

Anyway, sometime at age 20 (or 21 – I don't know), I wrote the following which shows I thought of myself at least in some way as Hindu, then. Read the entire scanned text if you have time (I have no time to type it out).

"As a Hindu, I affirm the grand belief in the self – the belief in one's own personal quest, that was engendered by the great originators of this religion. We were not given (nor expected to follow) a closed and dead religion. Hinduism is intrinsically the most vital of all religions – each man is left free to choose for himself the right path – without tying himself up with any myths and other stories of dead men."

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

27th September 2010

Do I demand higher standards of tolerance from Muslims?

Given my penchant (a) to think for myself and not take others' words as the only basis for my opinions, and (b) to speak out what I think (always being work in progress), it is possible that I will be occasionally misunderstood. That is unavoidable. We cannot communicate perfectly with each other, nor understand each other perfectly.

That is yet another reason for advocating freedom of speech. Everyone should be able to speak out freely without fear of violent reprisal on account of other people's potential misunderstandings. There must be freedom to discuss, freedom to clarify and freedom to review one's opinions. These are the only tools at our disposal in search of the truth. Total openness and freedom.

Recently a Muslim friend (won't name him) found one of my statements in my recent Freedom First article on religious freedom exceptionable. Extracts from our correspondence are provided below, to clarify matters. I trust my friend will understand my perspectives better as a result, just I have understood his points better.

Correspondence from XX

Haven't really been a fan of TOI, but here's an article I found rather correct, particularly in the context of your write up on religious freedom. In fact, I have reservations on certain portions of your article, not least your insinuation that the Muslim community have themselves to blame for being discriminated against. Someone recently indicated that blaming the victim is a typical fascist argument, that has been used by everyone from Nazi supporter to white supremacists in South Africa and those who oposed the Civil rights movement in the US (the list goes on). I'll write in detail about this later: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/politically-incorrect/entry/two-years-on-mumbai-is-marginalizing-muslims

My response

Dear XX

I don't know which article of mine you are referring to. As far as I know I have never made any insinuation that would even remotely imply such an implication simply because I don't think on those lines.

Response from XX

I was referring to your article 'Religious Freedom in the Free society' in the latest edition of the newsletter. I was referring to this statement "Therefore, even after living in India for nearly a thousand years, Muslims do not always feel welcome – which is not to say that they have always helped their own cause." To me, it did insinuate that Muslims were (even partly) responsible for being discriminated against.

It's not merely the statement, but the general tone of the article towards Islam and 'Muslims' that I found a little demeaning. When you say that the 'level of religious freedom declined precipitously with the advent of Islam, you subsequently referred to Aurangzeb. However, Islam came to India centuries before Aurangzeb (or even Babur or Lodhi for that matter). The first mosque in India was built in Kerala in the 7th Century AD (Around the year 629), during the lifetime of the Prophet. Incidentally, this is probably exactly a thousand years before Aurangzeb.

To call Islam intolerant, and to term its instances of tolerance as 'relative' would run contrary to historical facts. Jewish persecution throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, starting even before the crusades, is well documented. In fact Jews were barred from owning property and forced to live in ghettos with limited rights till as late as the 19th century – there were no such compulsions under Islamic rule. Islamic nations all over the mediterranean, Spain, and North Africa were looked upon as examples of tolerance when compared to Europe (I'm writing from memory here – I can quote examples but don't really have the time now). Incidentally, Akbar held his dialogue among world religions (a regular occurrence in his court) at around the same time Europe was still persecuting its minorities.

This is of course not to say that Islam hasn't shown its intolerant side at all. However, the criticism and diatribe against Islam fundamentally comes from people who have limited knowledge of world history (and indeed, contemporary history – the holocaust, for instance). For a better understanding of Hindu Muslim relations before the advent of the British, I recommend you read 'The Last Mughal' by William Darlymple. It is a refreshing change from the propaganda that Hindu-Muslim relations were hostile during Mughal rule (At least, immediately preceding British rule)

I have reservations about references to 'Muslims' as a whole. I find it rather odd that references to Muslims (usually negative, sometimes pejorative) come easily to many writers and newspapers, while they would normally exercise caution when it comes to referring to say, fanatics from other religions ('Hindutva' or 'The Saffron brigade' but not 'Hindus'). For a Muslim reading it, the message really doesn't smack of inclusiveness – it's almost like referring to aliens.

I would like to reiterate that I have tremendous respect for your views, your integrity and honesty, and will continue to do so. I for one do have never doubted your commitment to religious freedom, but I do feel that subtle prejudice has managed to somehow creep into the article, probably inadvertently. My criticism (if you can call it that) here is probably because I expected much higher standards when it came to an article on Religious Freedom, free of prejudice in any manner.

My response:

Dear XX

Thanks for your extensive clarification. I can now see where you are coming from and that the matter is quite subtle. I must note at the outset that it is very hard to summarise one's views in a few words, thus often leaving scope for misinterpretation. However, once you've gone through the context in which I speak and write, misunderstanings can be minimised.

First of all, I'm sure you know that there is quite a difference between a statement such as this: "the Muslim community have themselves to blame for being discriminated against" and "which is not to say that they have always helped their own cause". The latter statement (mine) is more subtle and does not generalise to the entire Muslim community.

I agree with your notes on history. While I haven't read Darlymple (I generally don't read fiction), I've done a fair bit of reading and arrived at views which are expressed in chapter 8 of DOF (draft). Please do read it. In that chapter I have unambiguously shown that Islam was among the most tolerant religions in the medieval era. Also read my extensive discussion of Islam as a preserver of Greek thought, in an earlier chapter.

However, I rarely mince my words, being pretty much plain spoken. There is no doubt (as you agree: "this is of course not to say that Islam hasn't shown its intolerant side at all") that some elements of Islam have become extremely fanatic particularly over the past few decades, demanding that the world obey their dictates, or else they will kill. They might well have some rationalisations for this approach but if X commits a crime, then let a proper judicial process be followed to hold X to account. It makes no sense to kill Y for the alleged crime of X, or to short-circuit due process.

Thus, it is not just a few isolated madmen like Osama bin Laden but some Islamic leaders (like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who issued a fatwa against Salman Rusdhie) as well who have been extreme in their expressions. India's memories of extensive temple destructions still haunt quite a few people (Hinduism was not sheltered by the tolerance Islam gave to the people of the book), leading to extremist Hindu movements in retaliation. The partition was similarly precipitated not merely by extremists like Savarkar but by Muslim leaders as well. In DOF, therefore, I apportion the blame at the appropriate doorstep. None is spared, not Tilak, Gandhi, Nehru, Savarkar, or Jinnah. All of them could have done things differently to minimise the influence of religion on politics. They did not do as much as they could have done.

I have extensively praised Akbar in DOF, but decried people like Aurangzeb. I have no doubt whatsoever that the tolerant character typical of India was adversely impacted by at least some Islamic rulers who periodically used violent destruction of others' temples as a method to persuade. I do not believe I'm being inaccurate when I note that " 'level of religious freedom declined precipitously with the advent of Islam". That is the truth. I'm no one's friend, but the friend only of the truth. I have no intention of distorting history by suggesting that the entire Islam treated Hindus with particularly great tolerance. Yes, there were people like Akbar, and I deeply admire them, but as you might also be aware, Akbar was considered an outcaste by most chaste Muslims. His attempt to resolve differences amongst religions was abandoned the instant he died.

I will continue to speak the truth as I see it just like I have continued to criticise extremist Hindus, and the internecine violence within the Christian Church.

Only for Muslims who took their religious beliefs to the extreme (and continue to do so) is intended my qualifier: "which is not to say that they have always helped their own cause". I trust that is a reasonable depiction of the truth.

Extremist Hindus have been the subject of a significant share of my criticism over the years. It is intolerable that anyone would go about destroying buildings in modern India (Babri Masjid) or killing others on religious grounds. I have been a vocal critic of all Hindutva-motivated extremism and have NEVER condoned it. I'm comfortable with its charitable forms, but dead against its violent expression. Please read my blog post on the RSS, for instance.

In summary, as I've outlined in DOF, no religion can completely escape from the charge of intolerance. Currently Islam is displaying more intolerance, on average, than any other religon. That is a fact. Much of this extremism in India is motivated by extremist Saudi Islam, and I have written how and why this should be stopped. So also foreign influence by foreign Hindus (or others) must be stopped. Mixing of religion with politics is ALWAYS dangerous, even in the hands of Gandhi.

I therefore continue to oppose organised religion which has a tendency to become political or commercial: a corrupt power source without any internal checks and balances.

Yet most religions also display positive characteristics – which is why so many people are religious. There is this constant tension between extremists and the good people. Let's encourage the good people and pinpoint and ostracise extremists.

I always continue to look for opportunities to promote a better understanding of Hinduism (e.g. Vivekananda, Suddhananda), Islam (e.g. my promotion of a few articles from these blogs e.g this, or this on my Facebook profile), and Christianity (e.g in the same article you refer to – through citing sensible things that the Pope has said). But I also without fear or favour pin down all evil – whosoever is its source. I'm pretty even-handed in doling out praise and criticism.

I trust you'll agree that we ought to have the liberty to speak the truth as we see it.

I urge ALL religions to excommunicate those who misuse the tenets of their religion to harm innocents. I think Islam has a major challenge before it, as the author of this post has discussed. It is important for people like you to speak out at EVERY opportunity against those who kill innocents. Rehabilitating the image of Islam won't be easy, but it can't be done by being super-sensitive to criticism. Take the criticism on the chin and fight those against whom the criticism is addressed: being those who are intolerant, those who deny freedom of speech and other freedoms, those who, like Iranian leaders, use brutal punishments for minor crimes.

The image of Islam has taken a GREAT HIT over the past decade. I'm happy to work with people like you to rehabilitate the good Islam. But all evil that parades in the name of Islam must be blacklisted.

Regards

Sanjeev

17th September 2010

When Europe switched off the light of Islamic tolerance

I’ve just finished reading half of Rose Wilder Lane’s book, Discovery of Freedom, that I wrote about a few days ago. The book belied the high expectations I had of it, at least at the beginning. It started slowly, even erratically, and while otherwise well-written, was repetitive and uninspiring.

However, from somewhere in the middle, it has perked up and is, in patches, actually quite good.

Below an excellent section that describes what happened when free and tolerant Islamic Spain was torn down by fanatic Christians. Note how Spain suffered, and how deeply and quickly it was destroyed. This passage is a salutary lesson for India. I’ve snipped out unnecessary words/sentences from this extract to keep it short and crisp.

The decline of Spain after the violent destruction of tolerant Islam

The Moriscos were … driven from their homes and herded to the seacoast. Starving, dying of thirst, and robbed, beaten, murdered along the way, few of them lived to reach the African deserts. Not one was left alive in Spain.

All Spanish intellectuals burst into one great song of joy and hope. Now Spain was clean. Now every Spaniard was wholly obedient to Church and King. Alone of all European countries, Spain was now one united mass of loyal men, believing and acting as one being. Every thinker and poet in Spain celebrated in book and song this glorious event, this blessed time, the dawn of Spain’s Golden Age.

It was the end of Spain.

The loss of a million Moriscos was not so important. But hardly one was left who knew that men are free.

The Moriscos, with their secret thoughts, were gone.

And human energy in Spain simply ceased to work.

Great stretches of the Morisco’s fertile land, depopulated then, have never again been plowed. When Spaniards were hungry, they flocked to the cities, to The Church, to the King, who should feed them. As if fishermen should come to the cities, for fish.

Thirty years after the last knowledge of freedom was gone from Spain, the Government could not get even a dribble of taxes from provinces that once had filled the Royal treasury to overflowing, and outfitted in addition all the ships and thousands of men who sailed to the New World. In Seville, where two thousand looms had been working, barely three hundred moved. The whole civilized world had been buying Spanish gloves; now Spain produced no gloves.

Travelers report that monasteries were enlarging and multiplying everywhere; property was flowing to The Church; hordes of priests thronged the streets; villages were dwindling, fields poorly cultivated, the people were hungry. Protestant writers say that The Church was devouring Spain.

Madrid’s population declined from half a million to 200,000. In the middle of Spain’s second century, the 200,000 were starving, and the Governor of Castille with armed troops and executioners was scouring the countryside and seizing food from the peasants, to feed Madrid. Why did he not buy it? He could collect no more taxes.

Tax collectors were tearing down houses and selling the materials for anything they could get, to apply on the owner’s taxes. In some towns they demolished more than two-thirds of the houses. And where would they get taxes next year?

Villages were completely deserted. Villagers wandered in bands, looking for food. They died along the roadsides, all over Spain. The King slashed official salaries, even of the highest nobles, even of the Royal household; and slashed them again, two-thirds; and could not pay them. Unpaid soldiers left the frontiers unguarded and ravaged the country, for food.

For almost eight hundred years, human energy in Spain had produced such an abundance of food, comforts and luxuries as the world had never before imagined. After Granada fell, human energy continued to operate in Spain and through Spain upon the New World and Europe, for two more generations. The third generation no longer knew that men are free, and energy weakened in Spain. The fifth generation could no longer support the Government, and their children died of starvation.

In 1699, the British Minister to the Spanish Court could not buy bread in Madrid. Like everyone else, he had to ask the Government for bread. The Corregidor gave him an order for bread, and he was obliged to send men conspicuously armed with “long guns” two leagues from the city to get the bread and bring it back, for only armed men could protect bread in the streets of the capital of Spain.

Twenty thousand starving peasants came into Madrid that day, from the country where the plows were rotting in the weedy fields.

From that time, foreigners ruled the Spanish people. Spain’s Prime Ministers were French, Italian, Austrian; Irish soldiers propped up the Spanish monarchy. The ambassadors of Spain were not Spaniards.

When the French were losing the war that Americans know as the French and Indian wars, France slipped Louisiana to Spain—in order not to lose it at the peace conference. And the Lord High Admiral of Spain, who sailed into Lake Pontchartrain to take possession of this continent west of the Mississippi for the Spanish Crown—and who quelled rebellious New Orleans by hanging nineteen leading men from his yard-arm—was Admiral O’Reilly from Ireland.

Spain had practically ceased to exist.