In the old texts of philosophy at least in the Indian system, when a person or author wants to present a new idea and to canvas its validity or superiority over the existing ideas (called poorva Paksha), the first thing expected of him is to state what the earlier exponents stated.. and this had to be done with great precision.. and then present his own views and try as best as possible to justify the deviation and to establish the worth of his own arguments..In fact Shankara has followed this idea very faithfully.
And since one was expected to know what the opposition thought, he became an expert in what he believed in and also in what the opponents canvassed..
Just like a Hindu sage knowing about marxism and Karl Marx having a clear idea about the philosophy of Gita ( Such a broad mindset is welcome, but it was never present.. especially when the study of East and West together was taken up)
That would appear to be a very sound method of presentation.. In fact from the perspective of the history of philosophy in India, the mention of the earlier dissenting notes with source thereof have brought to light many texts and treatises, which had been already lost by efflux of time..
Here in social media, what happens is that anyone can simply quote something as "it is said" or it is heard etc.. He can also present his own ideas camouflaged as the ideas of some past author because nothing is either validated or provided with bibliographic references..
But we are helpless in that issue..
No comments:
Post a Comment