Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay *
^ দেবপ্রসাদ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায় ^
View it @https://t.co/xf2qixZnSs
For English version, View it @ https://t.co/wzLGyAdtQm
Abstract
As there are several references to the Indian philosophical technicalities in (s)talker’s enunciation, he was eager to look at the archaeology of the discursive space called “Indian Philosophy”.
There are many problems, when we are talking about something called Indian Philosophy (IP). We forget, at the moment of speaking about it that
(a) “India” is a socio-political construct that was born out of (mainly) 19 C. Industrial as well as print capitalist imagination of nation state
(b) and that imagination was also appropriated by the different modes of colonialism.
(C) “Philosophy” is equated with the “darsana” as a part of political translation. Apart from their obvious similarities, there are also differences as Bankimchandra pointed out that “Philosophy” is sadhya (is to be mediated) and darsana is sadhaniya (ought to be mediated. Chattopadhyay, B. ,1879/1974:217-18)
(d) What are categorized under the umbrella of homogenized “lP” is a purely “good orient”-al project that excludes “other” non-Sanskritized way of thought and methods of proving truth. This had a precedence in Sayana Madhava’s “savrvadarsansamgraha (14th. C A.D.), which was taken, at the moment of constructing “IP” as an appropriate paradigm for setting up order of things.
(e) This order of things are approximated and appropriated by the western knowledge-base. Thus what is called as “IP” is also a derivative discourse.
(f) “vijnana” in the Indian tradition means “consciousness” (as translated by Dasgupta, 1936:86). Nothing was classified separately as “science’ in the so-called Indian tradition, though some elements of so-called “Indian culture” obviously may be categorized as “science” from the European point of view.
(g) What, as a whole, may be called and perceived as “lP of Science” today is merely a result of retrospective effect ( pratyavbhijna) , i.e. appropriating past knowledge by deploying today’s knowledge-base and techniques, which may be called “epistemological recurrence” following Bachelard.
(h) Due to this recurrence and appropriation by the western epistemology, the de-sign of modem “lP” has emerged as a result of “epistemological amalgamation”.
There are many problems, when we are talking about something called Indian Philosophy (IP). We forget, at the moment of speaking about it that
(a) “India” is a socio-political construct that was born out of (mainly) 19 C. Industrial as well as print capitalist imagination of nation state
(b) and that imagination was also appropriated by the different modes of colonialism.
(C) “Philosophy” is equated with the “darsana” as a part of political translation. Apart from their obvious similarities, there are also differences as Bankimchandra pointed out that “Philosophy” is sadhya (is to be mediated) and darsana is sadhaniya (ought to be mediated. Chattopadhyay, B. ,1879/1974:217-18)
(d) What are categorized under the umbrella of homogenized “lP” is a purely “good orient”-al project that excludes “other” non-Sanskritized way of thought and methods of proving truth. This had a precedence in Sayana Madhava’s “savrvadarsansamgraha (14th. C A.D.), which was taken, at the moment of constructing “IP” as an appropriate paradigm for setting up order of things.
(e) This order of things are approximated and appropriated by the western knowledge-base. Thus what is called as “IP” is also a derivative discourse.
(f) “vijnana” in the Indian tradition means “consciousness” (as translated by Dasgupta, 1936:86). Nothing was classified separately as “science’ in the so-called Indian tradition, though some elements of so-called “Indian culture” obviously may be categorized as “science” from the European point of view.
(g) What, as a whole, may be called and perceived as “lP of Science” today is merely a result of retrospective effect ( pratyavbhijna) , i.e. appropriating past knowledge by deploying today’s knowledge-base and techniques, which may be called “epistemological recurrence” following Bachelard.
(h) Due to this recurrence and appropriation by the western epistemology, the de-sign of modem “lP” has emerged as a result of “epistemological amalgamation”.
All these problems must be seriously explained and elaborated before going to venture into the realm of “IP of Science” as all these statements should be “proved” (i.e. need pramana) according to the need of “global”(?) Philosophy of science.
