Dialog between Science and Philosophy: a new event

The event, sponsored by the Indian council of Philosophical Research, Delhi,  is scheduled to be held as a Discussion meeting  in the Poornaprajna Institute of Scientific Research, Bangalore from 25th Oct to 27th October.

The event is an outgrowth  of the ongoing Dialog between Science and Philosophy started  nearly a decade back in Nava Nalanda Mahavihara ‘Nalanda’ Bihar (for the past Nalanda Dialogs, please visit this link).

This Bangalore Event is actually a part of a current  project  motivated by  the lessons of the Nalanda Dialogs — a project entitled “Dialog across Traditions – Modern science and traditional Indian insight about Reality”.

 

In this event the organisers will  try to engage Indian philosophers of different schools  in a Dialog with science, will try to get the philosophers response to questions pertaining to different areas of difficulties related to foundation of science issues. Sample questions are already being distributed among the  philosophers after locating them mainly in places of traditional importance like Mithila, Varanasi and places in South India .

The process of locating scholars interested to respond to the issues are still going on.

For almost all details related to this Project as well as many events prior to the October Dialog, check this link. This site is being regularly updated to help keep track of the prior events that will lead to the Bangalore Dialog. The organisers will really appreciate suggestions  from readers about Areas of Indian Philosophy which can be better extended to meet the epistemological criteria of modern science (particularly Physical science, since the organisers come themselves from Physics).

The Indian ever-doubting quest for Truth

At times, it almost seemed blasphemous to say the things we said when the eternal flute of the Divine itself called to us every moment to give up the vain, empty, dry world of the intellect and the greeting of the ‘Rādhe Rādhe’ which remained us of the ecstasy of divine love. But amidst these enticements and allurements what sustained us was the unbelievably long, hard-core tradition of the ever-seeking, ever-doubting sāttvika quest for the ultimate Truth by the buddhi in the Indian tradition, which has never been afraid of raising the most formidable pūrvapakṣas against one’s own position and attempting to answer them.

(Daya Krishna, Bhakti, while discussing the saṃvāda on bhakti he organised at Vrindavan)

Daya Krishna’s “Creative Encounters with Texts”

Daya Krishna was an Indian philosopher, a rationalist and iconoclast, who constantly tried to question and scrutinise acquired “truths”. The main place for such investigations was for him a saṃvāda ‘dialogue’. That’s why he also strived to organise structured saṃvāda inviting scholars from different traditions to debate about a specific problem. The minutes of such dialogues have been published in Saṃvāda and Bhakti.

शब्दविषये रसेल(Russell)मत: संस्कृतायां वाचि निरूपितः

पूर्वस्मिन् मासे, मृणालकौलमहोदयः संपूर्णानन्दविश्वविद्यालयस्य ३९-तमां संस्कृतां पत्रिकां मह्यं दत्तवान् (अतीव धान्यवादः, मृणाल!) ।
पात्रिकायां भारतीयपण््डितानां संस्कृतसंवादः रसेल(Russell)महोदयस्य शब्दस्वरूपविषयमते संक्षिप्तः । संवाद: शब्दस्य सत्यत्वमिथ्यत्वयोः, संज्ञार्थे, वाक्ये, संबनधे च वर्त्तते स्म ।
शब्दस्य सत्यत्वमिथ्यत्वविषये, अर्थो यदि बहिरवतिष्ठते, तदा वस्त्वेव— इति निरूपितम् (रसेलमहोदयः कदाचित् “नाईव् रीअालिस्ट” (naive realist) इति मह्यं प्रतिभाते, साध्यार्थोपेक्षात्) ।
व्याख्यानं विशुद्धं, रुचिकारं च, न केवलं रसेलमतं निदर्शितमपि तु संस्कृतविवादेष्वनुयोजितं च –इति कारणात् । उदाहरणमिव, चैत्रो वह्णिना क्षेत्रं सिञ्चतीति, अर्थोऽवस्तु, अपितु शब्दरूपः (proposition) अवज्ञेयः । शब्दरूपार्थयोः भेदेन मिथ्यावाक्यावगतिर् सुलभा । तद्विना तु, वह्निणा सिञ्चतीतिवाक्ये योग्यताभवात् वाक्यं किमवगच्छामः ? अनवगते च, केन प्रकारेण मिथ्येति वदेमः ? एवमेव, कथं नैयायोकाः मीमांसकाश्च शब्दनित्यत्वविषये चर्चां कर्तुं शक्नुवन्ति ? यदि शब्दोऽनित्य इतिवाक्यस्यार्थो वस्त्वेव, तर्हि कथं शब्दो नित्य इतिवाक्यमवगम्यते ? रसेलमतः एका एव गतिः इति विद्वांसः मन्यन्ते ।
तत्पश्चात् रसेलमतेन वाचस्पतिमिश्रस्य, शाब्दिकानाम् (इत्युक्ते वैयाकरणानामित्यहं मन्ये) अद्वैतवेदान्तिनां च मतानां भेदो स्फुटीकृतः । रसेलमते बहिरसतः अर्थाः बुद्धावपि नावतिष्टन्ते –इति भेदः । ते तु केवलं बुद्धिविषयाः ।

तत्रभवान् किं किं मन्यते ? रसेलमतं विना किं नैयायिकानां मीमांसकानां मिथः संवादः शक्यो वा न वा ? शक्ये च, कुत्र कुत्र रसेलमतमुपयोजनीयम् ?