Drishtantoist Articles

Drishtantoism: An Attempt Solving Bengalis Philosophical Ask

From the present century, we are busy in discussing the philosophy named Drishtantoism. I think, this is well thinking, a fitful philosophy for doing the Bengalis and others (who are only in difference from the view of culture) sound and strenght mentally. Already I have clearred its two principles : ‘Neither theist nor atheist, but religious’ and ‘Be good only for saving yourself and the world’. Depending on the two concepts I have given speech in second part of the continuous prose entitled ‘In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty’, have given note briefly in my blog ‘Drishtantoism’ designed http://www.dristantobad.fineartsbd.com. By feeling the two principles and the below speech who won’t count Drishtantoism as an ultramodern philosophy of Bengalis and say the renaissance movement of Bengalis have certainly started from the first decade of the century: ‘Drishtantoism, neither a blind exponent of modern and postmodern literatures nor an extreme opponent of them, wants to make the readers (or the society) argument-prone and freedom-loving. This philosophy takes importantly the positive-creative aspects of the mentioned two flows of literature criticizing their existing backwardness & darkwardness, and extremely supports the exposition of thing-based reality ignoring every intangibility and invisibility’. For the practice of philosophy of Bengalis is mainly present in practicing literature, I here have mentioned the matter of modern and postmodern literatures. However, in the article I will give speech briefly on Drishtantoism as a philosophy which, I think, is a real solving link of philosophical ask of Bengalis. The work will be done highlighting its difference among other philosophies which were advent and developed here.

Most ancient philosophy of Bengalis is lokayata, known as a philosophy of general people, was sewed by non-Aryan Bengalis, an anti-Veda and positivistic philosophy. Lokayata philosophers have given importance to visibility by thinking sense experience as only source of knowledge. They encouraged giving importance to sense-perception or perceivable matters and instigated to know having sensual happiness as the main purpose of human life when so-called religious men were working to grow illusion of having heaven in the mind of general men through showing precedent of Anumana (A Sanskrit figure based on guessing akin to prosopopoeia or vision), Agama (The esoteric scriptures of the Hindus) etc. Lokayata used to say that man doesn’t resist from eating fish though it has prickle and doesn’t resist from collecting rose though it has thorn, by opposing the doctrine: The world is full of happiness and sorrow, and portion of sorrow is larger than happiness. To explain the nature of happiness, Lokayata philosophers said: because of being uplifted by the power of knowledge and judgment than animals, the happiness that they enjoy is not desirable for men. So, to them, the happiness approved by knowledge is genuine. Is there any difference between Lokayata philosophy and Drishtantoism? If there are, how difference are there between them. Drishtantoism may be called a Lokayata philosophy, present form of ancient Lokayata philosophy. I think, having observed social reality ancient lokayata philosopher also must follow Drishtantoist principles, if they were alive now, and by giving importance to sense-perception they would not oppose any religious book. Or even they would not follow path of any religious book like Drishtantoists. Here I want to say that Drishtantoism doesn’t oppose traditional religion, and it doesn’t take side of it too. That is, it doesn’t teach man to be engaged in explaining the world by religion. The philosophy is of mental place, so it gives importance mental enjoyment except external happiness. Drishtantoists are also different from Charvaka who participated in opposing the spiritualism established by Veda and Upanishad after the advent of the Aryan in Bangladesh. Opposing spiritualists like Charvaka Drishtantoists don’t say that worldly happiness is desirable for men. Without judgment Charvaka did not receive any thought based on divine command. In this place, Drishtantoists don’t think it a matter of judgment. Again the Jaina philosophy had set a little response in Bengali area, which doesn’t believe in the existence of God and says that man has to have nirvana from the rebirth of soul. In this place, without admitting any existence of soul, Drishtantoism gives throne to mind. I want to say that Drishtantoists do not work for making one nation profitable goods (for example, because of being Arab goods mentally through Islamic Qur’an most of all Bengalis neglect their own culture and literature usually) for another nation by admitting immortal soul or reborn soul. I have mentioned in my free prose, In Drishtantoist Sight, Journey for Enjoying Poetic Beauty: “Drishtantoism has trust in mind except soul…To the philosophy; soul has been presented by some crafty person for their own interest. The philosophy, to understand mind, refers the consisted form of memory and imagination…But we can not say the thing animal formed by mind and body. According to it, if a thing has an active vivacity or animation, is to be considered as an animal. When the vivacity of an animal becomes inactive, it must be turned into / transferred to inanimate thing.” (Shonkhobash, edited by Moheen Reeyad, 2nd issue, August 2010). There are also remarkable difference between Buddhism and the philosophy. Soul is admitted in Buddhism, though most of all analyzer say that the philosophy neglects it. To Buddhism, soul is the continuous steam of mental process of our thoughts, happiness and sorrow, joy and delight etc. Besides, magnanimous Buddha said for rebirth. He said that ‘sinful’ man would have rebirth (about the word, ‘sinful’, here I want to mention that Drishtantoism directs man to judge one’s dishonest work by ethical scale. The word, ‘Sinful’ is based on traditional religion and is related to after-world. So the philosophy avoids the word). Uttering the massage, I want to say that Buddhism has given importance to soul. That is, soul is admitted indirectly in Buddhist philosophy. Soul–related idea of Buddhist philosophy is comparable to the thoughts of David Hume and William James. Hume would think that there is no immortal being to define soul; it is only aggression of some separated feelings or mental process. James would think so: soul is an inseparable series of feelings, as a conversant or enjoyer there is no being of soul. About soul, Drishtantoist position is above presented. But we consent to the speech of Buddha, offered on the change. He said in different way: there is no still and permanent thing on the world; all things are changeful in a continuous stream. After Buddha, Heraclites also said such type of word: one can not bathe in a river twice. Drishtantoists think so, all things of the world are naturally changeful, there is no break-up of the change; in one stage of change we have had that we have not had in another stage. But most characters or formal characteristics of the former lie in later. In the sphere, idea of novelty is not constant, is a contemporary matter. I have said in above mentioned prose: “The thing which is materially changeable, transformable and presentable is useful or important. This is true too. That is, importance of a thing depends on its changeableness or transformability.”

Drishtantoism is also different from Vaisnava philosophy which was developed with the help of Gitagovindam of the poet Jayadeva, the verses of Vidyapati and Chandidas and the scriptures Chaitanya Bhagavata, Chaitanya CharitamrtaChaitanya Mangala and the verses created by followers counting the massages of wisdom, devotion and humanism of hymnologist Chaitanyadev. Vaisnava philosophers believe that the three matters are present in the base of human being: knowledge, karma (worship) and love. To indicate ‘knowledge’ the philosophy considers having complete idea of the Absolute. As Divine knowledge is love-based, general men cannot touch the absolute being. Because, they have no the love-based divine knowledge.  Absolute being can only be touched by uncommon men who are devoted to divine love. According to Vaisnava philosophy, as Karma is the matter motivated by want, and the absolute being is free from want or sorrow, not by knowledge and Karma but by love and devotion limited men can perceive artistic form of unlimited Vagoban (God), can attain absolute divine love and feeling. ‘The form of Vagoban is existent in all things’—setting trust on the doctrine Vaisnavas opine that main duty of a man is practicing over-flooded love or world love. They don’t take the imaginary character, Krishna as an attributeless Brahma, and they know it as a Vagoban of devotees.

(…Continuous)

The article is being written by Shobuj Taposh

 

  1. April 6th, 2011
  2. March 9th, 2012
    Trackback from : moheenreeyadpic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: