Gita 14.04 Dialogue requires methodological humility

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
thank you two people talking with each other is not dialogue in the Bhagavad Gita Krishna depicts an inspiring methodological humility that is vital for any fruitful dialogue in 18.3 Krishna states that so he says that people think that do shivat some people think that this is karma prahur manishinaha that karma all action should be given up because it is filled with false do shivat manishinaha these people are not ordinary people they are manishinaha they are thoughtful people and they postulate that actually so when we look at spiritual wisdom we often tend to see or when we look at the world in the eyes of spiritual wisdom we may be tempted to see it in terms of categories of black and white we may say that this philosophy is right that philosophy is wrong and often there is also a tendency to demonize someone who holds a view that is opposite to our view but such demonization is unhealthy undesirable and counterproductive we need to recognize that different people are coming from different backgrounds different forces have interacted have acted on them in various ways that’s how they have their particular take on things so people are as much people’s opinions are as much products of their conditions as products of their volitions volition is their choices their free will so we need to give due credit to that so here Krishna although he is he in the course of discussion comes down heavily and he says that actually to think that karma should be given up is wrong he he actually opposes that and yet he refers to the holders of this view as manishinah manishinah manishinah means those who are those who are controllers of their mind they are saying like this now at the very least these people are thinking about something beyond material bondage they are thinking that okay if we act in this world that will bind us therefore if we don’t act in this world that will save us from bondage the fact that they are not simply chasing for sense gratification the fact that they are looking for something higher in life the fact that they are focused on trying to channel their channel their intelligence for discerning what would be the best way to avoid material entanglement all these are points in their credit and all this needs to be acknowledged so taking it forward we also need to acknowledge that it is not easy for us as spiritual beings who are conditioned by particular situations to give up our own conceptions now when we interact with people whose views differ from ours we may interact simply with the position that they are wrong and we are right and if there is going to be any interaction the purpose of that interaction would be to prove their wrongness and our rightness but such interaction is actually very rarely fruitful because especially when understanding complex situations things are rarely in terms of black and white because things are rarely in terms of black and white so it’s not possible to literally speaking come up with clearer understanding of what happens and what doesn’t happen or what is actually the reality and how our opinions correspond with reality and how they don’t now philosophically especially when we are part of a tradition and a tradition is based on revelation then we often feel that there is that we are the possessors of what is the absolute truth and when we claim to be the possessors of the absolute truth then we often tend to become then we often may extol virtue, humility as a behavioral virtue but we may not at all exhibit it at an intellectual level because we may take positions that are completely absolutist and dogmatic this is what is told in our revealed text and this is what is right and this is not what is right or that is wrong, anything different from this is wrong however this is not the only way this is not the only way we need to function in order to be faithful to our tradition because every tradition has a central core which is unchanging and it has a periphery which keeps changing so now when this happens so that means adapting to the circumstance is also a central part of every tradition so for example if you consider the Indian tradition itself, traditionally the knowledge was given in Sanskrit today very few people know Sanskrit so adapting the language according to the mainstream language that is spoken by people that is essential without that there is no moving forward towards understanding anything constructive so therefore what we need very much is the opportunity to take things forward in a steady way recognizing that the interaction of timeless revelation with contemporary reality requires a methodological humility because we have to understand how to live certain scriptural teachings in context, cultural context that are very different from what they were originally what the context was when those texts were originally spoken to their original audiences this methodological humility it means that it’s not necessary that when we interact with people we have to necessarily give up that oh anybody can say anything and it’s alright, not like that or that whatever the contemporary culture says is true and what my tradition, what the tradition and its revelation says is is is not revealed, it’s all negotiable, it’s not like that but the methodological humility means that we understand that even if the tradition is given a revelation which is coming from non-human sources still we are human vessels and we are human channels for the revelation from a non-human source and that’s why our understanding of it may be limited and when we present one understanding as if as if it is the absolute understanding then that becomes a major problem. Now if we move forwards and consider that life is to be lived especially today in a multicultural world where where the religious and the social they intersect but they don’t coincide that means we may meet people whose religious practices are similar to ours but we may also meet people whose religious practices are different from ours and if we are to come together in negotiation then we will very much need a balance and that balance comes by methodological humility so yes my perspective is finite, it is limited it is human and others also can have valid things to say and I need to be open to understand what they are saying to acknowledge the validity of their concerns and then to appropriately present or represent what is appropriate, what is relevant what is uplifting for people ultimately if a tradition does not have methodological humility it does not understand the contemporary culture in which it is living it does not move forward towards recognizing the absoluteness of the revelation with the reality of the contemporary situation then it will become a museum piece it will soon become irrelevant for most people who are who know what the traditions inside mean in practical terms to those who are trying to live it in the world so for the harmonization of the revelation of the timeless revelation with the timely situation there has to be a methodological humility by which people can see things in their proper perspective and see what is central to the tradition, what is peripheral to the tradition and what is essential for people’s being lifted up and what is non-essential what will help the people, inspire the audience to take up the process by which they will be lifted up and what will alienate them, make it more difficult for them to take up the process for rising up all this will help us to be responsible representatives of the tradition who ensure the tradition continues to be relevant beyond its particular original historical context it continues to be relevant even beyond that context to the current time and in the future also