I think you misrepresented the argument to your Sanskritist friend. Your point about scholars saying things out of their element is good but unfortunately it does not apply in this case with Magee. This is his field.

You write:

“Again, my basic point is that these kind of generalizations, when often used to show how awesome Indian or “Vedic” culture is, are not useful, especially when one can get caught by those who know more than that expected of an intelligent non-specialist. I am really surprised that you wouldn’t see the merit in this, given the attempt of this site to be more progressive than most Gaudiya groups today.”

I do see the merit in this and have championed this point for decades. I just don’t think the specific point raised here is an example of the generalizations you are concerned with.

Aside from this I think that the video posted by Nitaisundara on the “left and right” is worth your time in terms of helping to form a well informed opinion on where the Bhagavata and essential Bhagavata’s stand. I found it quite interesting.

I appreciate the time you have taken in our discussion and the points you have raised.

One can argue that west was more free because of being free from revelation but that was a problem in itself.

One can say that the time period encompassing Sankara, Ramanuja and then Sri Chaitanya led to strict and tight compartmentalization into sects in India and every sect was very insulated to the extent that even exchange of food between members from one sect and other( saivite and vaisnavite) became impossible. In fact, it is still the case.

I think earlier Vedic times had more freedom with people with different traditions not so averse to dialogues with each other. And caste system, social norms became more and more constrained during the post-Buddhist period.

In logical analysis which is independent of revelation west has surpassed the east, only to realize that logical statements are tautologies and only when they are connected to empirical facts they are of value. V.S meanwhile had already stated that logic is inconclusive to establish the truth and saved a lot of energy for us!!

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I can’t really devote that much time to detailed discussions here, frankly (I am already violating my restricted-internet vrata of sorts, which I took up to save time in my life).

Perhaps we will be stuck at a standstill. No matter: Vaishnavas often live harmoniously in disagreement. “You say Rama, I say Krishna.”

I will say this–despite Mcgee’s qualifications, it is very common for very respected scholars to make dumb generalizations. Anthony Flew, for example, arguably the most influential philosopher of religion for much of the last century, claimed that philosophy, as concerned with argument, barely exists “east of Suez”. I can quote him, and cite his credentials, but since he was speaking outside of his competence, it would be foolish. And I would look foolish or at least uneducated for thinking he is right.

I am tempted to get back into your claim, Swamiji about the loose boundary between east and west in the ancient world, since I think it needs severe qualification and does not help your broad position at all. But it would likely generate unneeded verbiage, since I don’t think you are ready to give in on the basic point I am making.

Yesterday, I brought our discussion up to a friend of mine who is an expert Sanskritist and probably knows more of the history of Sanskritit literature than anyone I know of in the American Vaishnava community. He thought the idea that philosophy was somehow more free in India than the West to be deeply wrong.He said that from the Indian side, even literary theory is developed under the influence and hegemony (to use a tired cliche) of religious thought and thinkers.

Again, my basic point is that these kind of generalizations, when often used to show how awesome Indian or “Vedic” culture is, are not useful, especially when one can get caught by those who know more than that expected of an intelligent non-specialist. I am really surprised that you wouldn’t see the merit in this, given the attempt of this site to be more progressive than most Gaudiya groups today.

Your salutatary concern for the dangers of Western education is well noted. For this reason, though in the academy, I have personally stayed out of “Religious Studies” departments and kept away from the pernicious, vapid, post-modern thought which has colonized most “culture studies” depts, and that some people think sexy and useful. (Better to study Nagarjuna. He said it better and at least was concerned with liberation.)

At the same time, I think a far bigger problem for western Vaishnavas is a kind of inescapable group-think, which makes one think that if something disagrees with my guru, it must be wrong, and then engenders an argumentative strategy of ad-hominem attacks mixed with broad claims about history, etc. (I am not surreptitiously claiming that you are doing that here. But I think you would agree that this is fairly common.) I have only seen this not happen in a few, very rare cases, where the guru is deeply concerned not to let it happen. Otherwise, it seems a common result of mainly young people with little experience or education getting involved in a high-level bhakti culture and guru-centric environment.

Anyway, thanks for responding thoughtfully even though I disagree. I really can’t devote much energy to a new website, and don’t intend to check in for a while. So, if you want to continue the discussion, I likely will not respond. Take care.

Kuvogi has missed people like Canakya who have written on political theories and economic theories and have been praised in the West as well. There are about 7 dharma sastras that were developed Manu,Gautam, Atri etc. If you talk about extensive experimentation like done through science west was much ahead than the east. India materially and socially was in dark ages between 13th to 20th century with so much dogma and superstition ruling the roost.

Nyaya and Vasiseshika have a lot of logic and empiricism thrown it. I agree though that west invested much more time in logical study than the East, especially after Aquinas, but through that logic they eventually killed revelation.

http://harmonist.us/2009/06/are-gaudiyas-liberal-or-conservative/

At around 5.30 the basic premise of the speaker is outlined, what he calls the “five foundations of morality.” At 8.30 he begins to show the worldwide results of his study. Speaking from the theoretical angle that Advaita’s article does, the Bhagavata does seem to fall mostly in line with the liberals. The most disparate category, as kuyogi has pointed out, is likely to be the fourth: Authority/respect, (which he had called “tradition”) Nonetheless, I find support here of the Bhagavata “leaning left.”

Briefly, although Advaita’s article does not deal with it overtly, the very point of the article—that the Bhagavata extends the highest prospect without discrimination—could be seen as liberal-leaning in the first category, “Harm/cure,” in terms of being compassionate.

The second category, “Fairness/reciprocity” is the main point at hand. Again, the article is highlighting that the Bhagavata extends the highest prospect of spiritual attainment to everyone, regardless of material circumstance (gender, class, and nation are the examples given in the article). This “equal-opportunity” element is certainly more akin to the left than the right.

The third category, “ingroup/loyalty” is shown to be relatively unimportant in the aspects of the Bhagavata discussed in the article (as it is to liberals as well). Advaita writes that the Bhagavata “allows them [women] to discard these roles in the context of bhakti-yoga.”

The last category (the 4th having been mentioned earlier) is “Purity/sanctity.” While in the context of day-to-day bhakti sadhana this would be a prominent category, it is completely marginalized in relation to the over-arching theory and ultimate goal of Gaudiya Vedanta. Therefore, as the article points out, candalas are not barred from the heights of transcendence.

Within any extremely broad label such as liberal or conservative there is bound to be variety and simplification, but as a whole it seems to me that considering the Bhagavata as left-leaning in the context of the points raised in this article is quite appropriate.

Welcome to the site. Thanks for the stimulating food for thought.

Magee considers that Eastern philosophy was in some ways more profound than Western until the Kantian revolution. Therefore, he opines that from the early Christian philosophers (i.e. Aquinas), through the Copernican revolution, the Rationalists, Empiricists, French revolutionary philosophers, and beyond, Eastern philosophy holds its own and more.

It is not a point of contention that there have been profound philosophical thinkers in Christianity. In the East, Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava, etc. are all profoundly philosophical; nonetheless, we see a development of thought.

You say, “The contention that philosophy died or was weakened under religious influence thus seems patently false.” Magee isn’t saying that philosophy can’t flourish in a religious context but that some religious contexts are more conducive than others. He says, “philosophy has developed in a more consistently symbiotic relationship with religion in the East than the West.” He isn’t the only philosopher to say that Western philosophy went through a stage where it was little more than a handmaiden to religion, Richard Tarnas, Harvard graduate and best-selling author, said the same thing.

About your statement, “But frankly, I think it important to resist these kinds of cheap statements,” you might want to consider Professor Magee’s qualifications before you toss off his opinion as cheap. He received degrees in philosophy, politics, history, and economics at Oxford, did a fellowship in philosophy at Yale, was a Honorary Senior Research Fellow at London University, wrote several popular books on philosophy, and appeared on “Men of Ideas” and “The Great Philosophers.”

And finally, “These East vs. West claims tend to sound like ‘devotee patriotism’ and don’t help us look objective. They are also generally false, and tend to lead to the kind of overinflated claims and general lack of clear thinking that has so ruined discourse in the modern Gaudiya community.” I generally agree with you, but mostly these claims are very questionable and I don’t find this to be the case with the excerpt from Magee.

Magee’s point, who incidentally is not a devotee or follower of Eastern philosophy or by any means a naive religious fanatic, is that side-by-side with religion philosophy developed more readily in the East that in the West for a particular and significant period of time. Then things changed as reason gradually detached itself from religion in the West. The beginning of that detachment that saw reason start to flourish independently of religion in a way that constituted a paradigm shift, as I see it, is marked by Aquinas and his time thereabout. This does not mean that Aquinas was not a theologian, but that from his work onward independent of his own intentions reason found a foothold and gradually freed itself from religion, not of course without much enhancement of religious thought. So my point is not that the subordination phase ended with Aquinas and the rediscovery of Aristotle, but that it begins to end however slowly with him and his time. This is the period in Europe when the dominant religion of Christianity began to reconsider the role of human reason, and this in turn lead to an extent to Luther’s protest.

Anselm used reason to defend faith well enough, but I don’t believe that his contribution denotes anything remarkable when compared with the East, anything that demonstrates that the religious tradition of the West was inherently as philosophical as that of the East.

Some Greek philosophical influence may be there in John’s Gospel. I am not familiar with that the Bible. But I find myself doubting that it compares with the mix of Samkhya found in the Gita. With this you inadvertently invite the participants in this discussion to compare the measure of philosophy found in the Gita with that found in the Bible.

Please consider that, as Magee writes, Christianity requires only that one believe in a so-called historical event and in this sense Christianity is a history-based religion, whereas as Hinduism and Buddhism do not share this characteristic to anywhere near the same extent. Their defining characterisitc is believing in the validity of their philosophical or quasi philosophical positions. This gives them a character that is altogether more philosophical and less historical than Christianity. I agree with him on this.

I also think that in the name of intellectual integrity and sound scholarship young devotee students and scholars tend to give way more to Western academic influence than need be in order to appear sane and balanced. A Western education is often very Western, and the West has been for some time quite dismissive of the East. Thank God that is changing. And thank your for your comments!