Great article, it’s exciting to see people talking about why we don’t talk more about Indian philosophy.
One thing that relates to the idea of Vedanta being spiritual is that it’s idealist, so ultimately, knowing Brahman will involve darshan or perception. Academia will always be limited to “talking about” Brahman.
I’m also interested in philosophy of mind and can’t understand why Vedanta isn’t given more attention for its contributions to the study of consciousness. But it’s not only Vedanta, idealism in general is neglected and I wonder if it's because people think it requires abandoning naturalism. Eliminativism is a good example of an intellectual tradition uncompromising in its commitment to the practice of philosophy being “continuous with natural science”.
Thanks! Having written against physicalism, I've ended up getting to know a lot of dualists and idealists in philosophy of mind, and I notice they are much more likely to take an interest in the Indian tradition, especially Vedanta
This was very insightful—particularly the explanations about how (1) laziness explains lack of familiarity and (2) an outsized focus on science explains the lack of seriousness people ascribe to non-western philosophy. What a shame!
In college and my PhD, I pursued science because I believed understanding the scientific method would help me better understand the universe. It did! But even then, I knew science was only a piece of it. If I could’ve gotten a PhD in “understanding the universe,” any such curriculum would undoubtedly need the full spectrum of philosophy, anthropology, science, and more. But science is not the panacea.
Thanks so much! A degree programme in "understanding the universe" sounds extremely appealing. But I guess it would be pretty hard deciding what to cover and what to leave out
Exactly! Which is also why any “expert” should have a tablespoon of humility about basically everything (given the interdisciplinary nature of so much).
Indian Philosophy can be very helpful. The Vedic Rishis in particular saw something from afar known as the Supramental consciousness and the Supramental Manifestation on Earth, which describes the power of consciousness to mold the forms that matter takes directly - with no need for the use of any physical instrumentalities - creation by mere thought.
What the Rishis saw in Divine Vision, the Incarnation of God makes possible for each of us in the ‘Here and Now’ :
I think that the idea that Western institutions have the right, duty, and ability to equally encompass all intellectual traditions of humanity is in itself the height of cultural imperialism.
I like the idea of the university (Western or otherwise) as an institution for universal intellectual enquiry. But I agree that there may be a dubious kind of exceptionalism in the attitude that criticises Western institutions for falling short of universality. And it seems to me fairly that universities can have a special duty towards local traditions. E.g. maybe University of Lublin has a duty of stewardship to Lublin Thomism while the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics in Dharamsala has the same kind of duty towards Madhyamaka etc.
As you said in your article, western universities are institutions geared to produce a certain kind of knowledge. I am sure there is great work being done in Western universities on Indian philosophy (for the sake of example), but that will always be an etic exploration or museum-like preservation of that tradition and not emic participation in it. Certainly western philosophers can be inspired by different traditions, like European painters were inspired by African artifacts, but what they produced with that inspiration was still solidly part of the western artistic tradition.
McEvilly p. 177 quotes the eminent Indian Scholar T. V. R. Murti expressing the view that Western philosophical systems tend to be purely speculative, involving no spiritual discipline, while an Indian system is never merely speculative but is also “a path of perfection and cessation of pain.”
Okay, fine: why doesn't western philosophy engage with the church fathers? These completely open-ended questions, as if any tradition just has equal relevance in another, is just ridiculous. If they're so equivalent then why would it matter which one is being read? They're not equivalent, you just can't quantify it. To quite literally anybody who is whining about their favorite discipline not being included, make it relevant. Define the Plato of Indian or Chinese (it's confucius) philosophy. Engage them into relevant conversations and show where there may be some benefit. Why is random person on the street not living at your house? Whoever your housemates are, they must be human? Do you want to explain to everybody why there's a difference and why there's a process? This is wine socialism of philosophy. There's a whole history of Hinduism, Taoism etc being engaged in western philosophy. You'd be surprised it clung on pretty easily. Not everything is transient but certainly some things can be. You may want to cling to a Great Man theory of philosophy but there's something you need to make more relevant. Whining isn't an acceptable proposal. I have to read Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian religious stuff and do (especially early greek) architecture.
I think the issue is, dei taught you how to whine but despite all that, yall never succeeded in getting Hindu philosophy inside there. Probably because of cultural appropriation so don't whine to us.
Edit: Why isn't your article getting more traction? It's asking us why we aren't reading more Indian philosophy. What a sell!
The indian is too inward focused. It is closer to theology than to Greek philosophy. I don’t quite agree that is bias. The modern philosopher more concerned about external realities and mathematics
Thanks for the comment! My impression is that there is some really excellent academic work on Indian philosophy going on in India. And the Association for Logic and Religion has done some excellent work bringing together academics from India and other countries. No doubt there could be more though. I wonder if the situation of the general populace not knowing much Indian philosophy is so distinctive - I would guess that few in the West know much analytic philosophy apart from those who studied it in university.
The real problem is that nobody does ritual and everybody is a philosopher (myself included). Even worse, everybody claims to a “seeker” but no one will lay down their pride and follow a Guru (again, myself included).
That folks think there is a split between critical inquiry and ritual would be funny if it weren’t so saddening. The nature of inquiry was precisely in order to make sense of the long chain of ritual praxis handed down from father to son and guru to śișya.
Is there a dearth of the heritage of logic our forefathers bequeathed us? That may be so. But logic and reason were not ends unto themselves in the same way that they might be for some today.
Great article, it’s exciting to see people talking about why we don’t talk more about Indian philosophy.
One thing that relates to the idea of Vedanta being spiritual is that it’s idealist, so ultimately, knowing Brahman will involve darshan or perception. Academia will always be limited to “talking about” Brahman.
I’m also interested in philosophy of mind and can’t understand why Vedanta isn’t given more attention for its contributions to the study of consciousness. But it’s not only Vedanta, idealism in general is neglected and I wonder if it's because people think it requires abandoning naturalism. Eliminativism is a good example of an intellectual tradition uncompromising in its commitment to the practice of philosophy being “continuous with natural science”.
Thanks! Having written against physicalism, I've ended up getting to know a lot of dualists and idealists in philosophy of mind, and I notice they are much more likely to take an interest in the Indian tradition, especially Vedanta
Stephen Priest is my favourite Indian philosopher
Very insightful
This was very insightful—particularly the explanations about how (1) laziness explains lack of familiarity and (2) an outsized focus on science explains the lack of seriousness people ascribe to non-western philosophy. What a shame!
In college and my PhD, I pursued science because I believed understanding the scientific method would help me better understand the universe. It did! But even then, I knew science was only a piece of it. If I could’ve gotten a PhD in “understanding the universe,” any such curriculum would undoubtedly need the full spectrum of philosophy, anthropology, science, and more. But science is not the panacea.
Thanks so much! A degree programme in "understanding the universe" sounds extremely appealing. But I guess it would be pretty hard deciding what to cover and what to leave out
Exactly! Which is also why any “expert” should have a tablespoon of humility about basically everything (given the interdisciplinary nature of so much).
Indian Philosophy can be very helpful. The Vedic Rishis in particular saw something from afar known as the Supramental consciousness and the Supramental Manifestation on Earth, which describes the power of consciousness to mold the forms that matter takes directly - with no need for the use of any physical instrumentalities - creation by mere thought.
What the Rishis saw in Divine Vision, the Incarnation of God makes possible for each of us in the ‘Here and Now’ :
https://stevenberger.substack.com/p/how-to-live-in-a-post-digital-age?r=1nm0v2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I think that the idea that Western institutions have the right, duty, and ability to equally encompass all intellectual traditions of humanity is in itself the height of cultural imperialism.
I like the idea of the university (Western or otherwise) as an institution for universal intellectual enquiry. But I agree that there may be a dubious kind of exceptionalism in the attitude that criticises Western institutions for falling short of universality. And it seems to me fairly that universities can have a special duty towards local traditions. E.g. maybe University of Lublin has a duty of stewardship to Lublin Thomism while the Institute of Buddhist Dialectics in Dharamsala has the same kind of duty towards Madhyamaka etc.
As you said in your article, western universities are institutions geared to produce a certain kind of knowledge. I am sure there is great work being done in Western universities on Indian philosophy (for the sake of example), but that will always be an etic exploration or museum-like preservation of that tradition and not emic participation in it. Certainly western philosophers can be inspired by different traditions, like European painters were inspired by African artifacts, but what they produced with that inspiration was still solidly part of the western artistic tradition.
Dharma is a fundamental part of my identity and world view, morality beyond dualistic perception, the one expressing itself through the many. ❤️
McEvilly p. 177 quotes the eminent Indian Scholar T. V. R. Murti expressing the view that Western philosophical systems tend to be purely speculative, involving no spiritual discipline, while an Indian system is never merely speculative but is also “a path of perfection and cessation of pain.”
Okay, fine: why doesn't western philosophy engage with the church fathers? These completely open-ended questions, as if any tradition just has equal relevance in another, is just ridiculous. If they're so equivalent then why would it matter which one is being read? They're not equivalent, you just can't quantify it. To quite literally anybody who is whining about their favorite discipline not being included, make it relevant. Define the Plato of Indian or Chinese (it's confucius) philosophy. Engage them into relevant conversations and show where there may be some benefit. Why is random person on the street not living at your house? Whoever your housemates are, they must be human? Do you want to explain to everybody why there's a difference and why there's a process? This is wine socialism of philosophy. There's a whole history of Hinduism, Taoism etc being engaged in western philosophy. You'd be surprised it clung on pretty easily. Not everything is transient but certainly some things can be. You may want to cling to a Great Man theory of philosophy but there's something you need to make more relevant. Whining isn't an acceptable proposal. I have to read Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian religious stuff and do (especially early greek) architecture.
I think the issue is, dei taught you how to whine but despite all that, yall never succeeded in getting Hindu philosophy inside there. Probably because of cultural appropriation so don't whine to us.
Edit: Why isn't your article getting more traction? It's asking us why we aren't reading more Indian philosophy. What a sell!
Good question why don't we?
ai art 😢
The indian is too inward focused. It is closer to theology than to Greek philosophy. I don’t quite agree that is bias. The modern philosopher more concerned about external realities and mathematics
Thanks for the comment! My impression is that there is some really excellent academic work on Indian philosophy going on in India. And the Association for Logic and Religion has done some excellent work bringing together academics from India and other countries. No doubt there could be more though. I wonder if the situation of the general populace not knowing much Indian philosophy is so distinctive - I would guess that few in the West know much analytic philosophy apart from those who studied it in university.
The real problem is that nobody does ritual and everybody is a philosopher (myself included). Even worse, everybody claims to a “seeker” but no one will lay down their pride and follow a Guru (again, myself included).
That folks think there is a split between critical inquiry and ritual would be funny if it weren’t so saddening. The nature of inquiry was precisely in order to make sense of the long chain of ritual praxis handed down from father to son and guru to śișya.
Is there a dearth of the heritage of logic our forefathers bequeathed us? That may be so. But logic and reason were not ends unto themselves in the same way that they might be for some today.