Living & Dead Systems

[Ferenc Ruzsa]

Dear Professor Hebbar,

My point was essentially aesthetic in nature - I feel that calling a
philosophy dead does not sound very encouraging. Something like outdated,
useless, rotten, stinking ...
Of course no sane person would think of changing some people's system of
beliefs or even practices above their heads. (But some insights,
understanding and interpretation might be respectfully offered.)
If some of the darzanas are more or less 'dead' as schools, but alive as
sources of possible inspiration - why not use a milder term, say 'dormant'
or 'historical' or whatever.

-----Part of the Original Message-----
>With  regard  to  modernization  of  the  dead  systems  like
>VaisheShika,  SAnkhya  etc.,  I  agree  with  Prof.  Ruzsa  that  it  is
>high  time  we  do  so.  Actually  Prof. Ninian  Smart  pointed  this
>out  long  ago  when  he  said  that  "Indian  philosophy  need  not
>Westernize  but  it  certainly  needs  to  modernize!"  But  then,  one
>would  have  to  modernize  Jain  metaphysics  as  well  which  is  very
>similar  to  that  of  the  VaisheShika.  You  will  meet  with  some
>STIFF  opposition  you  will  see  when  you  try  to  even  suggest
>that!  Any  meddling  with  the  teachings  of  the  Jinas  or  any
>VedAntic  systems,  you  will  soon  find  out  how  sacred  these  are
>to  their  followers.  With  systems  which  are  dead  one  can  do
>whatever  one  want  in  terms  of  modernization.  No  emotions
>aroused,  no  sacred  feathers  ruffled.  Not  so  with  the  living
>systems!  This  itself  will  prove  as  to  what  is  living  and  what
>is  dead!