P Preface
H.B.Acton defines tradition as a belief or practice that continues for several generations and that is not questioned by its adherents or thought by them to need justification, He does recognize that tradition does change but only slowly and gradually. One of the most flaring defects of this definition in that it fails to explain why and how a belief or a practice comes in vogue in the first place. Neither of the two is random; without linking it to the worldview, a worldview that makes culture and tradition organically linked, tradition remains an ambiguous concept. In the second place, it is true that tradition undergoes change. But is the change open-ended? Or, does not the cumulation of change over time make tradition other than what it basically is? In other words. there is the question of determining the boundary that separates tradition from, modernity. In what ways can the distinguishing features of both tradition and modernity be identified? Another aspect of this question relates to what many prestigious versions of the relationship between tradition and modernity identify as 'modernity of tradition' signifying the fact that there is, of course. the incorporation of the old in the new; but this does not have anything to do with fixed parameters either for tradition or modernity. It is a continuous process in which the new encorporates the old, to be sure: however, in this process, one modifies the other. This, agnin, raises the substantive question of whether tradition (or even modernity) must be understood chronologically or substantively (that is the growth over time and space of the inner essence of a belief or practice without violating its spirit). It is true that the arche or the arambhan of tradition lies in the past. But it is a living past that influences thought-ways and work-ways in the present. But, then, how does this relationship, in fact, work? It in a fact that tradition, as Derret underlines is that element in the present which represents (and re-presents) the past. If it is correct, then it implies that the present in never the past unchanged, at best the present is a lineally derived representative of the past. There is no doubt that to portray the present as the representation (re-presentation )of the past brings the element of continuity to the fore. However, what does this continuity mean? Does it mean that tradition, whatever it may substantively mean, is devoid of any criteria inherent in itself that can be employed in representing (re-presenting) tradition? If so, is the basis of representing (re-presenting) tradition merely utilitarian responding to certain needs of and situational exigencies in the present? If, on the other hand, tradition itself provides the criteria of its own representation (re-presentation) in the present how does this representation, in fact, work? It is true that the development of tradition over time is a continuous process. But what is also characteristic of development is the fact that, temporally speaking, as tradition develops, the new represents the old only dimly, on the one hand, and, spatially, the form which tradition assumes in different spatial contexts, becomes highly differentiated, on the other. But does this really mean that, as Heesterman insists. while tradition, especially in india, is fixed, its development is subject to change temporarily and spatially. That is to say, tradition stands above and is unimpaired by the present so as to be able to provide an immutable standard. Thus, while tradition in its original form is insulated from the relativizing impact of social practice, it is, in practice, governed by the relativizing exigencies of the present. As such, one of the fundamental sources of inconsistency lies in the fact that it is caught between the devil of everydayness and the deep sea of transcendence. Another source of inconsistency of tradition, Heesterman notes, is the fundamental inconsistency that is carried over into the texts themselves. And, lastly, speaking of the relationship between tradition and modernity. Bert Hoselitz avers that "Whoever wants progress must get rid of tradition". Similarly, Hannah Arendt tells of the tyrrany of tradition. As she says, "The end of tradition does not necessarily mean that traditional concepts have lost their power over the minds of men On the contrary, it sometimes seems that this power of well-worked out notions and categories becomes tyrranical as the tradition loses its living force and as the memory of its beginning recedes, it may even reveal its full coercive power only after its end has come and men no longer even rebel against it. This raises several questions. In the first place, are tradition and modernity opposed to each other? If they are, how can we differentiate between them and say that it is tradition as distinct from whatever modernity may be? In the second place, how relevant is tradition for meeting the problems and needs in modern times? The issue becomes more relevänt and pronounced in the Context of Indian society where modernity is a nascent phenomenon. It, hence, becomes important to understand Indian tradition in order to properly connect modernity with Indian society. This book addresses some of the issuce that acquaint the readers with some finer details of Indian tradition.
Hindu (हिंदू धर्म) (13443)
Tantra (तन्त्र) (1004)
Vedas (वेद) (714)
Ayurveda (आयुर्वेद) (2075)
Chaukhamba | चौखंबा (3189)
Jyotish (ज्योतिष) (1543)
Yoga (योग) (1157)
Ramayana (रामायण) (1336)
Gita Press (गीता प्रेस) (726)
Sahitya (साहित्य) (24544)
History (इतिहास) (8922)
Philosophy (दर्शन) (3591)
Santvani (सन्त वाणी) (2621)
Vedanta (वेदांत) (117)
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist