REPORT

ICPR Sponsored

Symposium cum Plenary Session

On

“Philosophizing India: Tasks and Prospects”

4-5 March 2016

Department of Philosophy

St. Joseph’s Capuchin Philosophical College,

The Friary, Kotagiri - 643 217

The Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India

Inaugural Session

On 4th March, 2016, Friday, at 9.30am, the ICPR sponsored Symposium cum Plenary session,

began with the introductory note by the comperes, Rajan and Jesunathan, the students of philosophy

in St. Joseph’s Capuchin Philosophical College. The prayer dance was performed by the students of

Devamatha College of Nursing at Kookulthurai in Kotagiri. Fr. Peter Durai, the Principal of St.

Joseph’s Capuchin Philosophical College and the Rector of the Friary rolled out the welcome mat

for all those who had gathered. Symbolizing the removal of the darkness of ignorance the

Ceremonial Lamp was lit by Fr. Arumainathan, The Patron of St. Joseph’s Philosophical College,

Dr. Lourdunathan, the keynote speaker from Arulanandar College, Madurai, Fr. Peter Durai, The

Principal, Fr. Anand Xavier, the Vice-principal, and Dr. John Peter Vallabadoss, the convener of the

Symposium. Fr. Arumainathan, the Patron of St. Joseph’s Capuchin Philosophical College,

delivered the inaugural address in which he stressed on the need for relishing our Indian

philosophical heritage and critically looking at what has been happening to our Indian society

today. The symposium on ‘Philosophizing India’ is to aim at presenting India as land of rich

philosophical systems and at philosophizing contemporary Indian context.

Key Note Address

The key note address was given by Dr. Lourdunathan, Associate Professor, Department of

Philosophy, Arulanandar College, Madurai. The key note address in nutshell is as follows;

Philosophizing India is not philosophy of India but India that continues philosophizing and this

philosophizing is not only a speculative activity but a sense making activity. Indian philosophy is

conceived as darsana which is a deliberation into thinking and searching activity (meporul

kambathu arivu). Philosophy is not singular but plural and so the manyness of philosophy is taken

into consideration. Philosophizing India has got four activities as follows; 1) Cognizing activity, 2)

Contextual activity, 3) Constructive activity, 4) Conversational activity. Philosophizing India goes

to a realm where it is rooted and also blooms out of its rootedness. Philosophizing India today must

have relational possibilities of finding the truth. Textuality of philosophy would not benefit if this

relational possibilities are not respected. As rationality must go beyond the realm of reason

‘Philosophizing India’ is ought to go beyond the texts and reach out to other roots. Dr. John Peter

Vallabadoss, the convener explained the dynamics of the symposium. He said that each paper

presentation would be for 20-30 minutes, followed by respondent’s comment and 10-15 minutes for

further discussion. After a brief break, first plenary session began.

Plenary Session 1

The first plenary session was chaired by Prof. Pushparajan, Former Head, and Centre for

philosophy, Religion and Humanistic Thought, Madurai Kamarajar University. The first paper on

‘Reflection on certain issues in Indian Philosophy” was presented by Prof. R. Gopalakrishnan,

Former Head, Department of Philosophy, University of Madras, Chennai. In his paper, he said that

man’s attempt to know himself from various perspectives and to annihilate suffering by knowing

the truth will bring liberation or Moksa. This is the aim of the Ancient Indian Thinkers in

philosophizing. In this approach, Indian philosophy lacks analytical method and it is unable to come

out of testimony. Consequently one should not think beyond the sacred texts and this is the reason

that Indian philosophy has not grown. Acceptation or rejection of the authority of scriptural texts is

what divides the schools of Indian darsanas, not the pramanas or the validity of the same. Vedas

and Upanishads also have the glimpses of truth. Atmavada by Brahminical traditions and

Ksanikavada by Buddhism and the reconciliation of the reality by Jaina are examples for glimpses

of truth in Indian school of thought. Ritualism is put in the second place and wisdom gains the

prime place in Indian philosophy. Intuitive experiences in the Vedas and Upanishads are not

supported by reason or logic. Philosophy in India is based on religion for its survival. So it is

difficult to divide the philosophical knowledge and religious philosophy of India. Buddhism,

Jainism and Carvaka came in opposition with the ritualism and superstitions existed in the then

religions. Philosophy of India: Is there anything as ‘Indianness’ in Indian philosophy? Can

philosophy in India be called philosophy proper? – are the questions posed. Indian philosophy had

heterogeneous connotations.

The comment for the paper was presented by respondent, Dr. V. Chandrasekar. Paper started with

the questions posed to Indian philosophy and the author’s answer to them. Any talk in India should

be spiritual to have much effect and that is why Indian philosophers of recent times (Ramakrishan

Paramahamsa, Vivekananda) taught the sacred texts according to needs of the time. Indian

philosophy is both for spiritual growth as well as the secular or temporal growth of a person. Indian

philosophy has been always loyal to traditions. Indian philosophy’s dependence on religions is

positive because religions have safeguarded the Indian philosophy and it is negative because Indian

philosophy is understood as purely religious and not as rational or logical. Indian Philosophy is

philosophy towards the Ultimate and the other. Seeing God in man is the ultimate attitude of Indian

philosophy.

Further discussion took place with open questions from the floor. What are the ways through which

the Indian schools of different thoughts can come together? Inter-religious dialogue – as Indian

philosophy is based on religions. Theoretical way to come together is Practical Vedanta that is

reinterpreting the Vedas in modern context like Vivekananda. Read, reflect and realize the sacred

Texts in a particular context. After the discussion there was a tea-break at 11.30am.

Plenary Session 2

For the second session also, Prof. Pushparajan, continued to be the chair person. Prof. Nessy

Kuriakose, Former head, Department of Philosophy, Kerala University presented the paper on

“Objective of Philosophical Inquiry and the Relevance of Methods in Philosophy.” She reiterated

that the nature of philosophy, subjective matter, methods in present context and the meaningfulness

of philosophy are explained in the paper. The questions that are asked in UNESCO are as follows;

how philosophy is to be done in the present Context? What are methods that are relevant to the

philosophy of today? What is the depth of philosophy today? And whether is it meaningful or not?

Philosophy is a search for knowledge and it is a journey not an end. The journey is more important

than the end. The perennial function of philosophy is that it engages with the topics that can never

be settled once and for all. (E.g. ethics - medical ethics, situational ethics, etc.). There is no answer

to the question of what is philosophy. We will know what philosophy is only by doing philosophy.

The method of philosophy is something different from other methods used by different sciences.

The characteristics of the method of philosophy are as follows; it is a questioning search, scientific,

rational pursuit and pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Knowledge is a means in other fields of

science but it is the end in philosophy. The successful method in philosophy does not serve any

other purpose but serves only its own purpose. Perceiving the ideas, neutralizing the preconceived

ideas by wonder and Descartes’s methodical doubt are some of those methods. Earlier, Philosopher

was an uninterested observer but today, they should be rather actor than spectators. They should not

be uninterested spectators but active participators. Anyhow, practical and qualitative method is a

good method for doing philosophy. Today, qualitative relevance of philosophy is emphasized by

pragmatic philosophers of America. Philosophy is a meaningful enterprise but a radical change is

needed in the affair of the ideological inquiry of philosophy. Ideal realm is not away from the

immanency but they are the outcome of imaginary aspirations born out of human sufferings on the

earth.

The paper was commented upon by Fr.Peter Durai, the Principal of host institution. Philosophy will

become irrelevant if it remains in the air without having recourse to human’s social, political,

religious and economical problems that exist in the world today. Any philosophical method must

help us to find some solutions to the existential problems and that is how philosophy becomes more

meaningful. No armchair philosophy would be relevant. We need a move from senses to the

sensibilities. As paucity of time demanded, there was very little chance for questions and discussion

on the paper. We moved to the third paper.

Dr. V.S. George Joseph, Former Director, Satyanilayam Research Institute, Chennai, presented his

paper on “The Tripple Dimensional (spiritual, psycho and somatic) Awareness of Yogic Living.”

Mind places a pivotal role in the holistic health of a human person. The harmony of spirit, body and

mind brings holistic health to a human. In Samkiya yoga conscious self and unconscious self are

united by the yogic practices which bring both inner health and physical health. This paper points

out the yogic living that was preached and practiced in Samkiayan philosophy of India. Purusa is

the self that is within which is pure consciousness. Purusa cannot be reduced to be prakriti and vice

versa. Bipolar experiences are part of every human person. Our linguistic expressions too show the

bipolar realities. Life lived in bipolar level is tiring and lifeless. Transcending these dichotomies

would help one to have the inner unity of body, mind and spirit. It’s a link between the matter and

the non-matter. Second sutra is bhuddhi /manas or the mind. Bringing an interface between these

distinctions one can have harmony in oneself. This indwelling presence is understood as lamp

which shows itself and others. Knowing the distinction between the spiritual and psycho-somatic

aspects of human person is the knowledge that one must seek. Pathanjali helps us to gain mastery

over the prakriti. The embodied self stops to exist when dismantle of these distinctions happen. We

have the potentials to be the saviors of our own selves.

The respondent was Fr. Thatheus, professor of ethics and Yoga at the host institute. This paper is

the amalgamation of both western and Indian philosophy. The Mind, body and spirit are termed as

Ganga, Yamuna and Saraswathi respectively in Tamil philosophy. The Three nati that are mano

sakti, prana sakti and kundalini sakti can also be compared with the mind, body and spirit

respectively. When these saktis are balanced a new energy is produced in the human person. Those

who are able to induce the Chittra Nati are those who have mastered over themselves. We are the

masters of ourselves to have inter-unity and balance within oneself. We can think for ourselves

whether it is possible for us today to have this union.

Discussion took place after the presentation and response. The mind within is subtle element and

spirit is also something invisible and how are we to identify them distinctively? Does Advaitic

oneness mean the balance of body, spirit and mind? How to judge the new age gurus’ movement

with regard to the unity of body, spirit and mind? Does the unity of three dimensions have any

relevance in the society today? All the above questions were raised by the floor and the paper

presenter answered to all of them. With that we broke for lunch at 1.15pm. At 2.30pm, we resumed

the session.

Plenary Session 3

For the afternoon session, the Chair Person was Prof. Lourdunathan, Department of Philosophy,

Arulanandar College, Madurai. Dr. Pushparajan, Former Head, Centre for Philosophy, Religion and

Humanist Thought, M.K. University, presented his paper on “Development: A Gandhian Critique”

The word ‘development’ was explained by the paper presenter from the existing situation of

cognizing activity, contesting activity, conversational activity and international context in contrast

with the developed countries and under developed countries. UNO announced ‘1960- 1970’ as the

decade of development which means aiding, granting loan and investing in the developing

countries, which led the developing countries to have economical dependence on the developed

nations. This also brought forth the economical, political and military influence of developed

nations on the under developing nations. The developed countries established themselves as

investors and intervened in the affairs of developing countries. So UNO announce ‘1970-1980’ as

the decade of development with social justice. Because, the so-called development had led to the

displacement of tribes who lived in union with the nature and this brought forth terrorism in

underdeveloped nations. The so-called development without social justice in the modern world has

done a lot of havocs like the displacement of thousands of people, a lot of ecological crisis, land

pollution, water pollution and air pollution. The sufferers of this development are only the poor and

not the rich. Foreseeing all these evil consequences, Gandhi held that Industrial society is

destructive and against nature. He said that the developed countries in the name of development

steal the natural sources of the third world countries. Mass production is not needed but production

by masses is what needed for our world. The exploitation of the developed nations on the

developing nations is condemned by Gandhi. The wants are projected as needs by ads today. To

solve this problem Gandhi gibes a constructive paradigm which is the simplicity of life, which is

voluntary reductions of wants and appropriate usage of industrial aspects by using only recyclable

natural sources. Gandhi’s approach to the protection of animals and nature has the resemblance of

Jaina ethics. Constructive proposals given by the author are as follows; Living in unity with nature

is the world view; We need to come in agreement to know the situation; We must be ready to

sacrifice our wants; Commitment to a change of life.

Commentator was Dr. Sagayam, an expert in Gandhian studies. The author has explained the

meaning of development in a broader sense. He has also has enumerated the damages of

development to the individuals, society and the nature of the developing countries. He has given

insights on the alternatives in terms of paradigm shift. The industrial and technological

developments have brought havocs to the humanity and we need to have responsible use of the

natural resources. There should be an ongoing conversion of the knowing the distinction between

wants and needs which leads to spiritual growth and which would save the lives of the poor and the

nature.

Discussion was open for the floor. Deep ecology does not support the recycling as it produces only

micro-level growth. To the question whether Gandhi is anthropocentric, the answer by the paper

presenter was that Gandhi should be studied in a comprehensive perspective and Gandhi was bio-

centric as well as anthropocentric. Gandhi whishes that the world in progressing level of growth

should only be careful about the evils of industrialization and not that the society should go back to

the bullock civilization. Modern Person who looks for the comforts and who increases the wants as

needs must become sensitive the poor and the abused nature.

The fifth paper on “Man, Society and polity in Classical Indian Thoughts; The Perspective of Daya

Krishna,” was presented by Dr. Vijay, Asst. Professor, Department of Philosophy, Govt College,

Trivandrum. The mission of philosophy is integration of all human aspects. Morality is that which

differentiates the human beings. Human beings as karma yogi can produce new actions even gods

or the beings of the nether world can not do so. What ought to be done and what ought not to be

done is the discriminative knowledge (Viveka) that a karma yogi should possess. This Viveka

teaches one about what is dharma and atharma. By viveka, a karma yogi can either enjoy or restrain

from pleasures. This paradox puts the human beings in confusion.

There is no other equivalent to the word Society by Daya Krishna but Jannapatha which means

socio political progress and this includes varna, Jati, etc., that are found in the sruti literature in

administration of a society. The society is legal and moral and the concept of karma bounds the

societies of India. Daya Krishna speaks of the necessity of varna saying that every society has

varnas. The examples are that the most of the ancient societies were shatiryan society, the world of

industrial societies are of visaiskyan society. Now can we find a society based on sutras (service to

society). Daya says that every society is sutra based. Service is the highest motive for Daya.

Dhanan and Karuna of Jesus and Buddha are classical example for sutra society. Moksha in

relation to polity based on varna and ahsrama tharma. Artha, kama and darma are emphasized more

than moksha. Diplomatic relationship exercised in Indian classical society. The king has to be

diplomatic (vigikishu). Prince marrying the daughter of the enemy is a kind diplomacy played in

Classical society.

Commentator, Prof. R. Gopalakrishnan responded to this paper saying, the earlier Daya was a

staunch critique of Indian philosophy but the later Daya is an admirer of Indian philosophy. The

author maintains that the loyalty to tradition but has not enumerated the means of it. Author could

have quoted some other authors to make his arguments stronger. The author calls the works of

sutras as service to society but the same notion is criticized by Ambedkar. Sutra based society is not

practical because it goes into the irrational system of Jati. New Paradigm should come up in Indian

philosophy in order to bring social and political changes. Reinterpreting the Vedas is a kind

escapism from the modern contextual necessities.

Dr. Rajeevan, Asst Professor, Thalleserry, Kerala, presented “Science, Technology and Human

Motivation: A Critical Indian Perspective.” The impact of technology on the individuals is more.

The motivation behind this paper is show the anxieties brought by technology and technological

growth in terms of possessiveness rather than enjoyment. Progress in terms of the happiness of

human person is degrading. In Indian wisdom, the motivations are 4 – artha, dharma, kama and

moktsa. Moksha is attained through the realization of the self and principles through the nature. The

subjectivity is given importance in the modern world today. The knowledge that we have is always

relative in world today. The human beings tried to prove universe in a single principle. Human

subjectivity is equal to the discovery of the principle of the universe. The new technologies are the

connecting factor. The technology is used to satisfy the human needs but it makes the human values

subservient. Instrumentalization is the important factor of the technology. Technology is not purely

the instrumental. The more one connects himself with the nature, the more he/she realizes the

individuality. The possessions of the things have to go beyond the things and it should not lead us

to the dissatisfaction. One can go beyond the possessiveness and know the fuller sense of oneself.

Dharma can help one to get rid of the technological things and know about the other. Technology

has to be used for the welfare of the oneself and the other.

The commentator, Dr. Irudhayaraj from Madurai, said: Due to the arrival of technological growth

the physical needs are met with but the social needs are not met. The author was trying to prove the

usage of the technological usage in his paper through the Einstein’s theory. Is technology

important? Or the value oriented life? The happiness is possible through the integration of the

nature. Holding on to the new technology how can one be useful to the other? Is it possible for us to

attain happiness without destroying the nature? Everything that we use today is highly

technological. In one way or the other, it is useful to the human society. How can the movement

towards the care for the nature and the other take place without the negativism?

To the query of the respondent and many other questions of the participants, clarifications were

given by the paper presenter. Through watching movies we are only the passive watchers. Instead

we can spend the time on reading a book. We have to actively engage ourselves in whatever we do.

This is the only possible way for reducing the degradation. Technology is a stage in the human life

and it has to satisfy the needs of the human needs. Everything depends of the self-satisfaction.

Technology is value-neutral. It is up to the individual to use the technology either positively or

negatively.

After the tea break, the plenary session 4 was held at 5.00 p.m. Prof. Gopalakrishnan, Former Head,

Dept. of philosophy, University of Madras, chaired the session. The paper on “Philosophizing from

the face of the other” was presented by Dr. Lourdunathan, Dept of Philosophy, Arulanandar

College, Madurai. Indian philosophy in tradition operates from the cognitive aspect of oneness. In

spite of diversity it is centering around one thing. It was always in centric in one way or the other as

mentioned below; 1) System centric – ‘being’ centered philosophy – around which whole

philosophical discussion is revolving. 2) Text centric – either in agreement with or in disagreement

with the sacred texts. 3) Axiological centric – moral, dharma centered. 4) Self-centric centeredness

– operating from concept of ‘self’ - not selfishness. 5) Epistemic Validity-Centric – truth remain on

the validity of the pramanas. The face of the other is identified in comparison with other. Birth of a

new way of philosophizing is needed. Philosophizing in India has to take another perspective of the

‘denied other’.

The Commentator, Prof. Pokker from Calicut gave his response to the paper. Dr. Lourdunathan has

done the paper in a Wittegensteinain way. A few lines of him explain a lot things. The center is

afraid of the child’s growth. But, a nut can be kept in the hand but when it grows it can never be

kept in the hand, it’s out of control. Bringing many more centers would bring the end of one

dominant center. Exploring the unexplored faces of the Indian philosophy is what needs to be done

today. Instead of correcting the image of ourselves in the mirror we must correct ourselves.

Whatever is marginalized, out of the boundary, outcast must become the center in the pursuit of the

philosophizing India. Discussion took place over the paper. How we handle the problem of

difference? It can be handled only by decentering. Annihilating the other is not possible. But,

philosophizing from the groundless ground is refuted by the author.

The next paper was on “The discourse of tribal philosophy in contemporary India: Some

reflections” by Dr. Sashinungla, Centre for Advanced Studies, Jodavpur university. The paper is of

descriptive type. What is tribal philosophy in India? – This question is also discussed in the paper.

Some areas in philosophy where tribal philosophy is discussed are brought to the light by the paper.

Tribal philosophy is not heterogeneous. The legitimacy of tribal philosophy and tribal culture is

underdeveloped. This is a preconceived idea. – 3 distinct, but interrelated views that can be

explored to debate on the impossibility of tribal philosophy. They are; Multilingualism argument,

Oral–Written interface argument, Argument from tribal vision of life, World view is also the aspect

of how the world should be. Universality is open for tribal philosophy even now. Every worldview

is challenged to bring forward a critical reinterpretation and appreciation of existing theories and

arguments from the vantage point of its own pre-understanding.

The Commentator was Dr. Lourdunathan. The author has tried to describe the way of

philosophizing the tribal philosophy. As there are no written texts available in the tribal philosophy

the legitimacy is questioned. Philosophy between the oral and written is different from each other.

The oral texts live for generations with its legitimacy but when they are written down the words are

illegitimated. The reality in tribal philosophy is ‘being in continuity’. It is performity in collectivity.

Tribal philosophy is also ethno philosophy.

Discussion was followed. We need not to legitimize the tribal philosophy in terms of other

philosophy because it has its own legitimacy. Difference between ethno philosophy and indigenous

philosophy must be maintained. Oral texts may change as it passes through the times of different

era and it may lead to distortion of the meaning. But the author answered when the oral texts are

written down somebody authorizes it leading to the limitation of it meaning. And, there is also

another possibility of distortion even when they are written down. If the ethnic cultures remain it

may lead the society to disparity. So the plurality of cultures must be appreciated with the

uniqueness of every culture.

A short paper on “Question of Identity in India: Caste, Race, Color and Body” was presented by Dr.

J.Chellappa, Nagercoil. India in the present era is going through great crisis. There are political,

social as well as ideological unrests. Race/Caste politics based on religious fanaticism and

fundamentalism is on the rise. Discrimination based on one’s birth or caste is still a reality even in

highly educated circles though media has been silent due to the influence of the bureaucracy. In a

generalized sense we can say all humans are racists. It’s true that, “although one may not have

racial intent, one’s action may nonetheless have racial consequence.” We are born in a particular

place, a particular caste/tribe or race, and speak a particular language. We are social animals. A

struggle for survival exists in all aspects of the human society. The quest for economic excess thus a

possibility to share surplus resources is inherent in all human communities. Caste system evolved in

the Indian subcontinent as a rigid system because of the racist and colour conscious attitudes. The

Indian synonym for the term caste is varna out of which comes another word jati, both gives the

idea of distinction and discrimination of humans based on the colour of the human body. The

members of one group are not allowed to intermarry or inter-dine with those of another group. Each

group has a caste-name and a fixed place in the hierarchy of castes graded one above the other. The

colour of the person puts his/her body in a definite place in the hierarchy of caste, race conflicts. In

the present era, skin colour, English-speaking ability, articulation skills, attire etc. Are some of the

markers of caste. Since many communities in modern India do not keep caste surnames along with

their names, identifying one’s caste becomes an inferential game based on the caste stereotype? One

can still go wrong in doing so, because across communities in India had all kinds of these markers.

If one is from an ‘upper caste’ community and still dark skinned, s/he is still considered ugly, not

because s/he is dark-skinned, but her dark-skin represents a lower caste identity. It is clear that,

“casteist cultures have constructed binary notions of opposites – positive and negative, inferior and

superior –in the vocabulary of the hegemonic upper caste ideology. Notions like ‘superior/inferior’

and ‘divine/profane’ robs the tribals and Dalits of their very humanness.” Discrimination based on

colour has not left even the animals in India, for example the cow and buffalo categorization;

protection and violence. Comment was given by Dr. Irudayaraj and short discussion was followed.

Thus came to an end the first day of the Symposium at 6.45 p.m.

The second day of symposium commenced at 9.00am with a prayer hymn. Plenary Session five was

chaired by Prof. Nessy, Former Head, Department of philosophy, Kerala University. The paper on

“Buddhist Philosophizing – Then and Now” was presented by Dr. Joy Alumkal, Carmel House,

Trivandrum. Philosophizing India: Tasks and Prospects must be looked at from three aspects for its

full grasp. They are ‘how it was’, ‘how it is now’ and ‘how it will turn to be in the future’.

Philosophizing from Buddhist point of view had 3 aspects; 1) Unilateral line of philosophizing India

– This aspect was proposed by Merging by Dr. Radakrishnan by merging Buddhism and Hinduism.

He upholds ‘unity in diversity’. He sees Buddhism an offshoot of Vedas. He projects Buddha as

maker of modern Hinduism. He also says that Buddha was the 9th avatara of Vishnu. 2) Multilateral

line of Philosophizing India: The second position we see about Indian Philosophy is that it is

multilateral in the way it is exposed in Sarva-Darsana-Saṁgraha of the Madhavāćārya or

contemporary authors like Chandradhar Sharma who speaks of an order beginning from crash

materialism through ethical and spiritual expositions to Absolutism of Advaita. 3) Bilateral line of

philosophizing India – Third position in understanding Indian philosophizing can be termed as

bilateral perspective. According to T.R.V. Murthi, philosophising happened twice in India – first in

Anātma and then in Ātma tradition or vice versa. Both influenced each other qualitatively. His main

argument is that all Indian systems except Buddhism begin from the Ātma tradition in its basic

Metaphysics. But Buddhist philosophy begins from an Anātma tradition started by Buddha. The

similarities and dissimilarities of Buddhism and Hinduism are as follows. Both Buddhism and

Hinduism try to realize a state of utter negation of the ego and the abolition of selfishness through

eight fold path and eight fold Limbs. Both these religions believe in Law of Karma as the Law of

the Universe and as the Arbiter of human destiny. Actually Advaita Vedānta which is the

philosophical culmination of Indian religious philosophy emphasises one thing that Buddhism

rejects totally as against rational foundation for building view of life. What Buddhism emphasises,

Advaita rejects as illusion.

The Commenter, Dr. V.S. George Joseph gave his response saying, Unilateral line is and agreeable

way of the aspect of philosophy. Hinduism and hindutva in extreme forms are not beneficial to the

society in any way. Indian philosophy must be able to say that anything good in the other is mine

anything bad in the other is not at all mine. The paper was so coherent and enlightening. It’s final

word that centralizing notion of Indian philosophy has to be changed into Nagarjuna’s dialectic

method which accepts that philosophizing is multidimensional. Discussion followed with several

questions from the floor. Is Buddha the avatara of Vishnu? Why is there division in the Buddhism

itself? Can you explain the Nagarjuna’s dialectical method in a detailed manner? The author

responded to the above mentioned questions and cleared the doubts of the participants.

Next paper on “Sree Narayana Guru and Philosophizing social reform,” was presented by Dr.

Pokker, Calicut University. Multicultural aspect of India was emphasized by the author. India is not

‘a’ cultural, religious, linguistic, etc., Sree Narayana guru is not known as Indian philosopher

because of the omission done in the aspect of imparting the philosophy of India. Changing the

world is the aim of philosopher. But, this aim is a partial. Changing oneself is the primary aim. Sree

Narayan guru was the one who practiced philosophy. His birth date or place is not know that means

that he was insignificant when he was born. He wanted to change the caste system by his

philosophical contribution. He took an ordinary stone and consecrated it himself by doing so he

challenged the Vedic act of consecration. This created some social effect in Kerala especially. The

privileges of Brahmins and the priority among the binaries are questioned by Sree Narayana Guru.

He gives importance to knowledge. A communicative ethical forum was created by guru, which

established a space for dialogue. He preached that humanness as the essence of humanness.

Humanness which is common for all, questions the inequalities among the humans. The fraternal

approach to the fellow humans is emphasized by guru. We come to realize ourselves in the society

by means of employing knowledge. We grow by the mirrors of family, parents, teachers and

society. Guru wanted the people to realize themselves diversity of cultures. Guru’s philosophy is

different from all advaitic philosophy because he respects the plurality and emphasized

brotherhood. He too promulgated the principle of unity in diversity. He wanted to practice a

philosophy which tries to know one another. E. V. R. Periyar and Ambedkar are similar to guru.

The history of philosophy has omitted some philosophers comfortably but the new era of Indian

philosophy should bring forward the marginalized the philosophers to the light.

Dr. Sashinungla gave her response to the paper. Philosophy of guru on Oneness is to be appreciated.

Practice of philosophy is clear to all of us. Teaching philosophy and practicing philosophy should

be one and the same. How to follow fellowship across the differences of the world remains a

question still answered partially. Paper was open for the floor. Guru was a successful social and

religious reformer in Kerala. When Gandhi met Guru, Gandhi was supporting the varna system by

showing the differences among the leaves of a branch. Guru who considered all human beings as

equal took all the leaves of the same branch and squeezed them. Then he showed to Gandhi and

said that the essence that came out of every leaf is one and the same. Why did he call the

consecrated stone as ezhava siva? Consecration itself is traditional act? – Its like a homeopathic

way in which a disease is used as a means to destroy another disease. Narayana Guru, Ambedkar,

Periyar they are all pointers to open up possibilities for coming together. How come that Kerala is

known for Orthodoxy and revolutionary changes? All the above questions were discussed well in

the forum.

After a heavy session with well researched papers and elaborate discussion, we broke for coffee.

Plenary Session six was chaired by Dr. Chellappa. A Paper on “Philosophizing eco-crisis - An

Advaitic Way,’ was presented by Dr. Radha Raghunathan, Chennai. Advatin outlook into eco-crisis

and advaitic solution to it are the main concerns of the paper. Advatic notion one implies that there

is no god without world and man. Everything we see or know of is Brahman, is in Brahman, arises

in Brahman, is sustained in Brahman and resolves in Brahman. The whole creation is a result of our

collective karma-s. Each individual’s experience is a result of his or her past karma-s. Then, the

next title of the article speaks of Some Traditional practices with cosmo-theandric vision. The paper

also enumerates the cultural practices of the Vedic people to preserve the nature, such as; 1.Ayyanar

kovil-s, 2. Women as keepers of seed-banks and 3. bio-diversity Agricultural practices. Tiruvalluvar

also makes note of the below mentions eco-problems in various couplets; Green-cover, Toxic

waste, Air–pollution, Pollution of Ground-water, Pollution of Water-bodies and Depletion of Aqua

and marine resources. The author give the below objectives as solutions for the eco-crisis; 1.

Natural resources and systems must be preserved and renewed. 2. Alternate resources must be

examined (alternate to cement and steel, etc.) 3. Access to resources (education, economic well-

being, nutrition, healthcare, energy without increasing global climate beyond co2, shelter, mobility)

4. Accountability (inclusive and fair approaches and transparency – e.g. RTI provides opportunity

to check proposals for new buildings; but transparency regarding violations in construction is

needed)

Above all, each community and the government must take efforts today to restore the eco-system.

The scriptures also point out the attitude one must cultivate in performing these five great sacrifices

which are our duty toward the nature. They are Deva-yajña (Sacrifice to the gods), Pitr-yajña

(Sacrifice to one’s fore-fathers), Brahmayajña (Sacrifice to scripture, seers and sages), Manushya-

yajña (Sacrifice to fellow human beings) and Bhūta-yajña (Sacrifice to other beings). Sustainability

as the capacity to endure can be built consciously with the Advaitic notion or Raimon Panikkar’s

‘Cosmo-Theodoric Vision’ of man’s one-ness with every being and object in creation. When there

is a conscious awareness of one-ness with everything in creation, that the entire creation is for us for

keeps and not to fritter, that we are only trustees of everything for generations to come and not

owners of anything here, then questions like how much to endure, how long to endure, etc. become

redundant. All that remain are responsibility and gratitude towards creation for our sustenance. And

Pañca Mahāyajña-s (the Five Great Sacrifices) become spontaneous discipline and expressions of

our responsibilities and gratitude respectively.

The paper was commented by Prof. Pushparajan. Theme is visible only in the beginning and the

end. It has to rather run through the whole article. The approach to the title can be this way; 1.

Problem, 2. The way the problem is viewed and 3. Solutions. There is no need to give an advaitic

way of response to eco-crisis as eco-crisis is common for all in the universe. Panikkar is of

Christian perspective and so saying that he is an Advaitin is disputable because the god that

Panikkar believes is a Trinitarian God. The divine, human and cosmos are only interdependent but

not one in advaitic sense.

Questions from the floor followed the response. Panikkar comes nearer to advaitic tradition but

author does not say Panikkar is advaitin. Have reverence towards the natural resources (e.g.

Handling the river). We debts to god and humans. Bothe should not be confused. Iyanar can be

equated with Brahman by an Advaitin.

Next paper on “Epistemic Shifts in Philosophizing,” by Dr. Premkumar, American College,

Maudrai. The multiple claims on the conception of knowledge in the history of philosophy are

basically centered on problematizing the concept of knowledge as an idea. The “problem” centric

approach to the philosophical study of knowledge gave rise to a conception of knowledge which is

foundational its nature. By foundational, it is meant that any system of epistemology, for its

legitimacy, must arrive at a conception of knowledge that rests on certain firm foundations. These

foundations are certainty, necessity, universality, objectivity, commensurability and accuracy in

mirroring the reality and these foundations are indubitable, intrinsically valid, intuitively certain and

known apriori. The foundationalist approach to knowledge has its origin in a confusion that

prevailed in the history of philosophy expressed in terms of causal conditions for the origin of

knowledge and the knowledge justification. Accordingly, modern philosophy is centered on solving

the problem of the conception of knowledge and in that process, philosophy as a discipline took the

form of epistemic centric philosophy. In other words, of all the issues, knowledge issues find

precedence in the subject matter of philosophy and subsequently other issues such as the concept of

reality, truth and morals are deduced out of our knowledge about the concept knowledge. To that

extent also, knowledge issues with reference to the theory of knowledge is considered foundational.

However this position on knowledge namely the foundational approach to knowledge is contested

by different quarters of philosophy in the contemporary time.

The multiple claims on the conception of knowledge in the history of philosophy are basically

centered on problematizing the concept of knowledge as an idea. The “problem” centric approach to

the philosophical study of knowledge gave rise to a conception of knowledge which is foundational

its nature. By foundational, it is meant that any system of epistemology, for its legitimacy, must

arrive at a conception of knowledge that rests on certain firm foundations. These foundations are

certainty, necessity, universality, objectivity, commensurability and accuracy in mirroring the

reality and these foundations are indubitable, intrinsically valid, intuitively certain and known

apriori. The foundationalist approach to knowledge has its origin in a confusion that prevailed in

the history of philosophy expressed in terms of causal conditions for the origin of knowledge and

the knowledge justification. Accordingly, modern philosophy is centered on solving the problem of

the conception of knowledge and in that process, philosophy as a discipline took the form of

epistemic centric philosophy. In other words, of all the issues, knowledge issues find precedence in

the subject matter of philosophy and subsequently other issues such as the concept of reality, truth

and morals are deduced out of our knowledge about the concept knowledge. To that extent also,

knowledge issues with reference to the theory of knowledge is considered foundational. However

this position on knowledge namely the foundational approach to knowledge is contested by

different quarters of philosophy in the contemporary time.

The multiple claims on the conception of knowledge in the history of philosophy are basically

centered on problematizing the concept of knowledge as an idea. The “problem” centric approach to

the philosophical study of knowledge gave rise to a conception of knowledge which is foundational

its nature. By foundational, it is meant that any system of epistemology, for its legitimacy, must

arrive at a conception of knowledge that rests on certain firm foundations. These foundations are

certainty, necessity, universality, objectivity, commensurability and accuracy in mirroring the

reality and these foundations are indubitable, intrinsically valid, intuitively certain and known

apriori. The foundationalist approach to knowledge has its origin in a confusion that prevailed in

the history of philosophy expressed in terms of causal conditions for the origin of knowledge and

the knowledge justification. Accordingly, modern philosophy is centered on solving the problem of

the conception of knowledge and in that process, philosophy as a discipline took the form of

epistemic centric philosophy. In other words, of all the issues, knowledge issues find precedence in

the subject matter of philosophy and subsequently other issues such as the concept of reality, truth

and morals are deduced out of our knowledge about the concept knowledge. To that extent also,

knowledge issues with reference to the theory of knowledge is considered foundational. However

this position on knowledge namely the foundational approach to knowledge is contested by

different quarters of philosophy in the contemporary time.

According to Quine, modernist epistemology is reductionist and atomistic in its approach.

Habermas’ conceptualization of knowledge can be specified only interms of a social context. He

took epistemology to the social realm. Rorty also takes the path of naturalism. When he claims that

knowledge can exists without commensuration, Rorty questions modernist epistemic authority. This

paper establishes that by looking beyond the positivist epistemic position, philosophical

engagement with knowledge issues in the contemporary times open up the newer possibilities of

arriving at suitable knowledge conception that could meet the needs of emerging trends in social

sciences. This paper draws the central inference that the boundary between philosophy of

knowledge and sociology of knowledge is increasingly merging and as a result philosophical

reflections are positioned in relation to social science derivations.

The Commentator was Dr. Rajeevan. The Commentator expressed that multiplicity of epistemic

approaches must be allowed and practiced in the field of philosophy. We must get ourselves out of

‘the one-true-knowledge’ realm and go for the ‘multiplicity of truth’ approached by various ways.

Floor was open for discussion. We must learn to ask what would be good? Rather than asking what

is good?

Another paper on “Philosophy of Human life in India: Body, Suffering, Death and Afterlife” was

shortly presented by Dr. Irudayaraj. Human beings born with and living in the body are the only

creatures here on earth to understand and make a reflection on their life in the body, before the

death of the body. More than what is reflected on life in the body, reflection on death and afterlife

has been occupying the human minds and number of writings and belief systems of different

traditions. Human predicament of life with pain and suffering has been focused very well. Human

thought dwelt on the cause of suffering and pointed out many sources of it. Life of suffering is

regarded to be a burden, a bondage which is to be liberated. Human beings are labelled as dying

creature, born on earth to die. As destined to die humans are forced to consider life as a process

towards death. Experiencing death and decay all around, humans viewed the world as place of

suffering and death, a vale of tears; life as bondage. The search for transcendence of the world of

suffering and bondage ended with hope for deliverance in and through life or after life. Conception

of ‘after-life’ found in many philosophies and religions speak of the human desire for transcendence

over the empirical existence of suffering and death. Myths, mystery cults, poetics, philosophical

ideas and religious beliefs consist of human desire for the ultimate quest for transcending the

phenomenon of birth and death. The paper had reflection on Suffering in the body, Death of the

body, After-Life with/without the body.

The lunch break was 1.15pm. Final plenary session was held at 2.15pm, with same Chair Person,

Dr. Chellappa, Founder-President , CAATS, Nagarcoil. The paper “Philosophizing in India vis-à-

vis quest for peace” was presented by Dr. V. Chanddrasekar, Dept of Philosophy, Vivekananda

College, Chennai. ‘What? Where? why? who? & how?’ – is one part of philosophizing India is

‘isms’ – idealism, samkiya (number),etc. Another part is four noble aims- artha, kama, dharma and

moktsha, among which artha and kama must be controlled by Dharma. The physical view is not

superior to another. A soldier is not superior to scientist, musician, etc. Buddha’s realization of God

must be shared with other. Yoga’s emphasis is on Karma. Man in conflict with himself and with the

other. This is what makes him to long for peace. Firstly peace can be attained by solving the

problem of conflict within oneself. Yoga gives solution to this through ahimsa of Yoga. The

Commentator was Dr. Joy Alumkal. Shanti mantra says that peace is not only India’s possession but

of every civilization. India; santi. Judaism; Shaloom. Chinese; pinhole. Peace should not be

understood as warlessness. Discussion followed.

Panel Discussion

As proposed by the delegates, the convener suggested having a panel of students for initial

discussion. Four undergraduate philosophy students and one post graduate student came forward for

the panel; Joseph raised, What is our contribution to the society out of these two days taking into

consideration the money that the Government has spent on us? We don’t have practice in the

classrooms and this symposium is a kind of workshop where one can come to know what the

meaning of philosophizing is. We need to know why at all we study philosophy and we must know

the ways and means to practice it. Philosophizing is very important and the result of it earned much

later. The task of the philosopher is to change the society. We need to know the theoretical part of it

primarily and then we must get in to action. Philosophizing is first of all an act. The action springs

from the mind. The actions originated from the thoughts. Symposium is meant to ignite the mind of

the youngsters.

Jesunathan said, we came to know more about the Indian culture. And the students of our college

can be allowed to present a paper and the students have to be encouraged to ask many more

questions. 5 observations: Gandhian perspective of ecology, the nature of philosophy. The

philosophy was controlled by centeredness and this clutch should be broken and philosophy has to

be free from all clutches. The keynotes address could have been in simple language. The philosophy

of Narayana guru was introduced. And the philosophies of the unknown philosophers should be

introduced in our own academic institutions. The objectives of the tribal philosophy in nutshell

were explained. Due to the pronunciation of the author we found it difficult to understand.

A. Raja had appreciation to all the paper presenters. We have gained knowledge in various fields of

philosophy by attending the symposium. The students can be given more time to ask questions and

have discussion with the paper presenters. They can be encouraged in this pursuit.

Thiyagarajan said, whether we have analyzed the prospects and the tasks of philosophizing India?

How can we grasp the nuances of the writings of the foreign writers? Has Indian philosophy a

beginning and what is the philosophy of India? We meddle with so many things and the western

philosophies follow a kind of method. The Indian philosophy is subjugated to something therefore

we have to liberate the Indian philosophy. The written tradition always survives. Therefore the

tribal philosophy has to be a written one. We always make a theory to solve the problems.

Philosophy is what we contribute.

Julius proposed, the paper presenters have transmitted the heritage of Indian philosophy in a little

deeper sense during these two days. The transmission of the Indian culture is perfectly done. In

transmitting the Indian Philosophy we should take care not to become our own system-centric. As

secularism is creeping in the whole of the world, is possible for India to develop a contemporary

philosophy that is religion-less. The marginalized philosophers of the Indian history must become

part of the syllabus in the teaching of Indian philosophy in our institutions. Everybody wrote the

philosophy of their own and why should not we have a philosophy of our own? The written script

means different for the context of the time.

Following the observations and questions raised by the student panelists, clarifications from the

designated Professors of the panel, who felt comfortable to sit on the floor instead of dais. The

observations of the students are wonderful and they have raised some fundamental issues. We do

have methods in the Indian philosophy. The Indian philosophy is not subordinated in any way to the

other. Three generations are there in the Indian philosophy and there all are not transmitted to all the

human beings. The constructive dialectic was more prevalent in the Indian philosophy. Through the

science we can bring about a region-less philosophy in India. Unifying the population through our

philosophy is very important. Concretizing is the problem itself is the solution for the entire

problem. If the problem is solved there is no meaning in our life. In tribal living, everything is a text

in itself not only the written words. We should never satisfy ourselves by finding any solutions. We

have been benefitted by the symposium sufficiently. We have a system to philosophize and a person

to philosophize. We have an inherent invitation to philosophizing. And it has its own methodology.

Indian philosophy is not only metaphysical nor epistemological and it is discovered that it is also

ethical. The new philosophy is always possible. If we have the right question, we will get the new

ideas and the right answers and we have to go on thinking about the new philosophies. The written

tradition is also incorruptible, and the oral and the written texts have to go hand in hand. The

question is not whether the oral text has to be written down or not but how can we preserve the

tribal tradition. The philosophy is in between the religions and the sciences. However we

understand the meaning of philosophy, it is much difficult to know exactly what it is. We cannot

preserve everything and anything whatever is said. What I cherish must be enjoyed by everyone.

Lead me from faults to truth and darkness to light and mortality to immortality.

The Valedictory Function was followed at 4.10pm. The Valedictory address was delivered by Prof.

Pokker, Senior ICPR National Fellow. Dismantling the polarities of teacher and student, religion

and philosophy is done through the theme of the symposium. India as a country that faces a lot of

problems will benefit from the topic called ‘philosophizing India’. In philosophy, critical and

imaginative thinking are important. Criticism is done in order to correct our own thinking. (e.g.

Russell criticizing Plato’s male-centered philosophy). Unless we criticize we will not be able to

philosophize in future. Nobody is a teacher of philosophy but only students of philosophy till the

end. Philosophy needs critical attitude at the same time, without enjoying the poetry and song we

should not simply ask what is poetry and song. This should not happen while criticizing a thought

of a philosopher. When we criticize somebody, it means that the particular person who is criticized

can be criticized and an improved self of the criticized person can be brought out for the existential

need in present and future situation. This is what is meant by criticism. India: Tasks and Prospects –

India is multicultural and plural in various aspects. So Indian thinking is never singular. Without

considering the plurality of India we will fail to understand Indian philosophy. Philosophizing India

should not mean hostility towards other but mean philosophizing from the face of the other. We

seek for ethics because we need justice. Today there is no boundary. Everybody uses Google,

Facebook, and Gmail etc. Philosophy should re-examine its relation to religion every now and then.

– if there is an issue we begin to think about it. Dr. Kobalaguru in his book, ‘back to mirror’

explains how Indian philosophy treats philosophy as experience in order to fulfill justice in society.

philosophy has a role in bringing justice to the society because every history has been dominated by

philosophy. Today, we have the role of correcting our own perspectives and that of the world by

taking the “risk” of criticizing. Let us hope for brotherhood, cordial relations, peace and all positive

effects by philosophizing. As Socrates, we should not hide the truth even though it includes risks.

Vote of Thanks was proposed by Fr. Anand Xavier, the Vice Principal. He thanked ICPR for

sponsoring the event with well qualified professors of philosophy, participants and students. On

behalf of the professors gathered in symposium, Prof. Nesy honored Dr. John Peter Vallabadoss, the

Convener, with a shawl, for effectively conducting the symposium.

Dr. John Peter thanked ICPR team for granting the permission and the subsidy for conducting the

symposium in St. Joseph’s Capuchin Philosophical College. He thanked all the paper presenters

who took the trouble to come to Kotagiri in order to share their knowledge and wisdom to the

younger students of philosophy. He then thanked the residential staffs of the college including the

principle, vice-principle and the community members. Last but not least, he thanked the students of

philosophy of St. Joseph’s College, for their full cooperation in arranging everything for the success

of the symposium and for their active participation and involvement in knowing the Indian

philosophy through this symposium.

Feed-back forms were distributed to the delegates and participants of the Symposium: The

following are the observations and criticisms of the delegates. Everybody said that the Inaugural

session, Keynote address, Logistics of the symposium, Variations of the themes chosen for the

sessions, Quality of paper presentations, Quality of Interactions, Quality of Responses and

commentaries, Seriousness of Deliberation and food & Accommodations were either Good or Very

Good or Excellent. Their suggestions and recommendations are; a) Try to question and answer one

by one, not just like asking all the questions and later the answers for all the questions. b) There

should be more time for interactions. C) Encourage the students to raise questions and present

papers in the symposium. D) Greater emphasis could have been given on Indian systems of

Philosophy. e) Attention could be given to those philosophers who are given a miss in the national

seminars. F) Christian and Islamic thoughts of India also could have presented by a few papers. G)

Will the topics of these two days have any effect on society or among us at least? H) Full thirty

minutes should be given for each presentation. I) There were one or two papers which did not

synchronize with the theme of the symposium. Care should be taken to ensure that the papers

synchronize with theme of the symposium. J) Either the number of papers should be reduced or the

dates of the symposium should be increased. The schedule was too hectic. K) A separate seminar

may be organized to motivate students for them and by them.