Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 It is important to honor Srila Prabhupada for protecting us from " nirvishesha. " One of the outstanding characteristics of postmodernity is the elevation of the subject position, or the perspective of the beholder, over any other theoretical position. What this means is that something " is " whatever one wants it to be. At the level of society, postmodernity's influence on race relations has resulted in some rather odd (yet popular) reconfiguration of race definitions. One consequence has been that, for quite some time now, Asians, in American parlance, are not Asians but " white " : I first noticed this effect 10 years ago, at a party where a friend of mine commented that the guests were all white. I responded by mentioning about a dozen Asians; oh, she said, that's right, but you know what I mean. At a recent UCLA conference I attended, two speakers complained that everyone on the panel was white, without even realizing that one of the speakers was ethnically Chinese, and another was an Asian Indian with skin darker than that of many American blacks. Eugene Volokh, " How the Asians Became White, " 9 Apr. 1998, L.A. Times, 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm> (More from the same author at this location.) What is interesting is how the shift in terminology has moved from one of (biological ) race and distinct culture (language, religion, customs) to one of social utility, namely to designate the haves from the have-nots. We can call it veiled socialism, or perhaps veiled communism, since the objectives of these leftist ideologies is social equality at any cost. Nevertheless, it's the cavalier use of language that is of importance to us. When you can take not only language, and other things it represents--in this case the physiology, culture, and, for that matter, the good fortune of a number of arguably minority communities--and re-categorize them for the sake of achieving selfish political ends, then that is a symptom of the postmodern influence on public thought and shared values. " You are 'white' because we say your are 'white' (and because it works out well for us if we define you that way). " But notice that this radically subjective view rejects the validity of any higher authority or the possibility of any appeal to a higher authority. " You are whatever we say you are. " It's humanism--limited, of course, to a select few humans who get to decide who goes in which category. The devotee reader may be saying to himself, " So what? No one is 'white' or 'brown' or 'black', we're not the body, so leave me alone! " But this would be missing the point. What Srila Prabhupada broadly called " Mayavada-bhashya " is exactly this: being able to say what something is without appeal to anything higher than one's self or one's all-too-human interpretive community. It is the same thing, when one privileges one's one views and definitions over anything in the world, then that's Mayavada. That is true for the shastras, and it's analogical equivalent in the material world (the one we unfortunately live in) is enacted through the postmodern pigeonholing of others for the sake of selfish material gain. We should be worried about the postmodern ways of the modern world, the material equivalent of mayavada, because things out there in the world shape our approach to spiritual life as well. That's why we not only have to have theoretical knowledge but also put it into practice as well. Our ordinary dealings should be informed by our spiritual life, and our dealings in the world also affect our spiritual understanding and practice--at least for those of us who are not yet liberated from the influence of material nature. Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svamis, without perfect knowledge of Krishna, try to banish or kill Krishna when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gita. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gita is known as Mayavada-bhashya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gita from the Mayavadi point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead. Srila Prabhupada. Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Preface As shown in this statement, Mayavada too is a privileging, or elevation, of the subject position over that of scriptural authority. In this case, the scholars impose their own views on the views of Sri Krishna. They make Krishna's words say whatever they want His words to say, for whatever purpose they want. The same principle, the privileging of the subject position (which is arguably the essence of secular humanism) when directed at the poor residents of the material world results in a perversion of truth and justice perceivable even to common intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Dear Robb, Dandavat!!! Another interesting post. Please expand further. For example, what is the philosophical difference between the Sanskrit words nirvishesh AND shunya? Did you ever read this astute presentation *grin*: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Voidism (OK, back to non-humorous mode)- Thanks. Many people appreciate your posts. Its important. Please carry on... Y/bro Hrsi sacred-objects , " robb7thurston " <robb7thurston wrote: > > It is important to honor Srila Prabhupada for protecting us from " nirvishesha. " One of the outstanding characteristics of postmodernity is the elevation of the subject position, or the perspective of the beholder, over any other theoretical position. What this means is that something " is " whatever one wants it to be. At the level of society, postmodernity's influence on race relations has resulted in some rather odd (yet popular) reconfiguration of race definitions. One consequence has been that, for quite some time now, Asians, in American parlance, are not Asians but " white " : > > I first noticed this effect 10 years ago, at a party where a friend of mine commented that the guests were all white. I responded by mentioning about a dozen Asians; oh, she said, that's right, but you know what I mean. At a recent UCLA conference I attended, two speakers complained that everyone on the panel was white, without even realizing that one of the speakers was ethnically Chinese, and another was an Asian Indian with skin darker than that of many American blacks. > > Eugene Volokh, " How the Asians Became White, " 9 Apr. 1998, L.A. Times, 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm> > > (More from the same author at this location.) > > What is interesting is how the shift in terminology has moved from one of (biological ) race and distinct culture (language, religion, customs) to one of social utility, namely to designate the haves from the have-nots. We can call it veiled socialism, or perhaps veiled communism, since the objectives of these leftist ideologies is social equality at any cost. > > Nevertheless, it's the cavalier use of language that is of importance to us. When you can take not only language, and other things it represents--in this case the physiology, culture, and, for that matter, the good fortune of a number of arguably minority communities--and re-categorize them for the sake of achieving selfish political ends, then that is a symptom of the postmodern influence on public thought and shared values. " You are 'white' because we say your are 'white' (and because it works out well for us if we define you that way). " > > But notice that this radically subjective view rejects the validity of any higher authority or the possibility of any appeal to a higher authority. " You are whatever we say you are. " It's humanism--limited, of course, to a select few humans who get to decide who goes in which category. > > The devotee reader may be saying to himself, " So what? No one is 'white' or 'brown' or 'black', we're not the body, so leave me alone! " But this would be missing the point. What Srila Prabhupada broadly called " Mayavada-bhashya " is exactly this: being able to say what something is without appeal to anything higher than one's self or one's all-too-human interpretive community. It is the same thing, when one privileges one's one views and definitions over anything in the world, then that's Mayavada. That is true for the shastras, and it's analogical equivalent in the material world (the one we unfortunately live in) is enacted through the postmodern pigeonholing of others for the sake of selfish material gain. > > We should be worried about the postmodern ways of the modern world, the material equivalent of mayavada, because things out there in the world shape our approach to spiritual life as well. That's why we not only have to have theoretical knowledge but also put it into practice as well. Our ordinary dealings should be informed by our spiritual life, and our dealings in the world also affect our spiritual understanding and practice--at least for those of us who are not yet liberated from the influence of material nature. > > Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svamis, without perfect knowledge of Krishna, try to banish or kill Krishna when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gita. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gita is known as Mayavada-bhashya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gita from the Mayavadi point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead. > > Srila Prabhupada. Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Preface > > As shown in this statement, Mayavada too is a privileging, or elevation, of the subject position over that of scriptural authority. In this case, the scholars impose their own views on the views of Sri Krishna. They make Krishna's words say whatever they want His words to say, for whatever purpose they want. The same principle, the privileging of the subject position (which is arguably the essence of secular humanism) when directed at the poor residents of the material world results in a perversion of truth and justice perceivable even to common intelligence. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.