Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Seminar’ Category

Jus Dicere’s One Day National Seminar

Theme: State and Individual: Revisiting Social Contract February 25th, 2018 (Sunday) | New Delhi |

Prizes Worth Rs. 50000/- ======================================================== Jus Dicere, is pleased to announce Jus Dicere’s One Day National Seminar on theme – State & Individual : Revisiting Social Contract. Seminar will take place on February 25, 2018 at New Delhi, India. Concept Note Since the beginning of human civilization, social contracts have helped structure how people and governments worked together. Societies are controlled by governments. This is the starting point for discussing social contract theory. Thinkers who believe in this theory argue that people benefit from living together in countries, kingdoms, or under other types of governmental oversight. Living in society, however, requires rules and laws. Societies are the result of compromises, and social contracts provide the framework for how people and governments interact. Individuals who live within a social structure gain protection from outsiders who may seek to harm them. In return, they must give up certain freedoms (like the ability to commit crimes without being punished), and they should contribute to making society stable, wealthy, and happy. It was to overcome the harsdhips and oppression on the sections of the society, that the man entered into two agreements which are: • “Pactum Unionis”; and • “Pactum Subjectionis”. By the first pact of unionis, people sought protection of their lives and property. As, a result of it a society was formed where people undertook to respect each other and live in peace and harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, people united together and pledged to obey an authority and surrendered the whole or part of their freedom and rights to an authority. The authority guaranteed everyone protection of life, property and to a certain extent liberty. Thus, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature and they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. Thus, the authority or the government or the sovereign or the state came into being because of the two agreements. Therefore, it is an important issue for Eminent Scholars, Academicians, Practitioners, Lawyers, Students and Experts of related faculty to come forward and contribute their scholarly work. The objective of the seminar is to identify the individual and state’s role in a society, while revisiting the social contract theory.

Call for Abstract

We seek proposals in form of abstracts from all Eminent Scholars, Academicians, Practitioners, Lawyers, Students and Experts to contribute in the seminar. Abstract should not merely address the issue but also conceptualise views and arguments of the author on current scenario. The abstract must expressly include the novelty and usefulness of the idea that the author wishes to put forth and must categorically mention the specific contribution of the article, beyond the existing available literature and the practical utility of his/her recommendations. We welcome submission which has direct linkage with the seminar’s central theme; author may choose any sub-theme which has linkage with the central theme. We appreciate participation from Eminent Scholars, Academicians, Practitioners, Lawyers, Students and Experts of other disciplines too. However, we welcome submission with philosophical reflection, but these submissions should be focused on India & not comparative.

How to Participate

If you wish to contribute, kindly submit us your Proposal cum Abstract of the Paper or Manuscript you would like to present at seminar on http://www.jusdicere.co.in/seminar (Or Click Here) at earliest, but not later than January 30, 2018. Conference will take place on February 25, 2018, at New Delhi. Awards

● Winner will be awarded with Cash Prize of 15000/- along with gift hamper.

● Runner-up will be awarded with Cash Prize of 10000/- along with gift hamper.

● The next 5 following papers in order of credibility will be awarded with Cash Coupon of 5000/- each from Jus Dicere.

● Best 20 papers will be selected for publication in peer reviewed publication with ISBN number.

Reach Us Kindly reach to Jus Dicere, with any query at Email – event@jusdicere.co.in Mobile – +91 9903854885 (Ms. Shiwani Agrawal)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

ICPR National Seminar on “Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita”

Details…. last date for receiving papers 31.01.2018

ICPR NATIONAL SEMINAR ON

“SRI RAMAKRISHNA KATHAMRITA”,

Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) has decided to organize a 3- day National Seminar on “Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita”. The seminar will be held at India International Centre, New Delhi. The tentative dates will be during 21-23 February, 2018.

Those interested are invited to present well researched learned papers on a suitable topic relating to the theme as indicated in the enclosed theme note and submit the same to the undersigned latest by 31 January, 2018.

Dr.Ranjan K. Ghosh (M) 9810395394; e-mail:<ranjanghosh14@gmail.com Director, National Seminar on “Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita”

THREE DAY NATIONAL SEMINAR ON

SRI RAMAKRISHNA KATHĀMŖITA (Theme Note)

Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita or The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is a recorded conversation of Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886 AD) – a spiritual Master of Bengal – with his disciples, devotees and visitors. Mahendranath Gupta, an intimate disciple of Sri Ramakrishna under the pseudonym of “M”, recorded in writing the Master’s day-to-day life along with his spiritual conversation with almost stenographic accuracy from February 1882 to April 1886, which is partially reminiscent of Socrates’ dialogue with his disciples, each of which conversations was recorded by their intimate disciples, namely, Mahendranath Gupta and Plato respectively. The contents of these conversations were deeply mystical in nature in the sense that these sayings described the inner spiritual experiences of Sri Ramakrishna. As a close disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, Mahendranath Gupta has brought out in his recording the thought-provoking deeper dimension of the simple and intimate

utterances of the great prophet in the light of ancient scriptures of India especially the Vedanta. He used to explain the difficult themes of ancient Sastras, particularly the Vedanta, in simple terms with the help of homely parables and illustrations to his audiences who were comprised of his contemporary stalwarts like Iswarchandra Vidyasagar, Keshab Chandra Sen, Girish Chandra Ghosh as well as his large number of disciples both literate and illiterate. The utterances of Sri Ramakrishna were in no way the product of his intellectual cognition as he himself was said to be illiterate; they were rooted in his direct spiritual experience..

Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings based as they are on the strength of his indubitable spiritual experiences and firm conviction were largely on metaphysical and religious issues like Brahman, God, self, world, Avatara or incarnation, religion, the end of human life and his views on these issues uniquely differed even from the Vedantins, like Sankara and Ramanuja, with whom he maintained a close proximity to them while expressing his views on the above-mentioned issues. Apart from his views on deep philosophical issues that are mentioned above, his instructions to his followers on various issues relating to their practical spiritual life are significantly relevant even today and deserve our reflection. He never seems to make any conscious effort to build the philosophical systems like those of Sankara and Ramanuja, but his views expressed in the layman’s terms point to the architecture of a school of philosophy which has been designated by later scholars as Neo-vedantism. Besides being deeply philosophic in his utterances his role as a public educator on spirituality and religion has come to be widely acclaimed all around.

It would be relevant to outline some of his salient views on core philosophical issues that are relevant even today and deserve our serious reflections.

(i) According to Sri Ramakrishna, Brahman and Śhakti or Kālī are non-different and are the same reality. The former is called Brahman when it is in its static being or in the state of inactivity and the latter is called God when it is in the state of its sportive creative activity. This implies that Brahman or the Absolute which is without form and Kali or God who is with form are the same identical reality in two different states and both are equally true. While in conversation with the writer of Sri Ramakrishna Kathāmrita, he said: “Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form”. Further, Brahman in its essential nature (svarupa) or immutable being (nitya-rūpa) is indeterminate and impersonal (nirguņa and nirvisesa), while in its sportive creative

activity (lila-rupa), it is personal God (saguna and savisesa) or the Divine Mother. And he also points out that we cannot conceive nitya-rupa apart from her lila-rūpa and vice versa, just as we cannot think of light apart from its relation to and different from darkness.

(ii) The Upanishadic dictum: “All this is Brahman” (“Sarvaṁ Khalvidaṁ Brahman”), for him, means that all are existen and are Brahman in different forms. Brahman as Śaktī, for him, has become the individual souls, the world and the twenty- four principles from Prakrti down to the physical elements. He says that “the earth and the heaven, the sun and the moon, the temple and the garden, the jar and the pot, the bed and the bedstead, man and woman, the young and the old, birds and beasts, in a word, all are verily so many forms and manifestations of the Divine Mother, all are Brahman and beam with the effulgence of the Divine cit or consciousness”.

(iii) For Sri Ramakrishna, Brahman, Atman and Bhagavān are different names of the same reality. He, who is jnani or the man of philosophic insight, aspires for Brahman; he who is yogin meditates for Atman and he who is bhakta or the humble man of devotion, warships Bhagavān. “Just as the same water of the ocean”, says Sri Ramakrishna, “is congealed into the form of ice by extreme cold and is dissolved into formless water by the heat of the sun, so reality takes on form and shape for the devotee but is formless for the jnani and the yogi. He who is Brahman is Atman, He is also Bhagavān”.

(iv)While talking to his devotees, he often used to say that God or the Divine Mother is like a wish-fulfilling tree (kalpataru). All sorts of people come to it and pray for all kind of things, good as well as bad, and each gets the thing or things desired by him. Sri Ramakrishna says: “As you seek so you receive; God is kalpataru; one receives from Him just what one wants from”. Thus, for Sri Ramakrishna, Reality is responsive to human interests and endeavours, to man’s efforts to realize the ends of his life.

(v) Sri Ramakrishna has a definite perspective to look at this world in which we live. For him, the world with all its wonderful objects is the sportive creative activity (lila) of Brahman, and not the play of māyā; it has real existence. Brahman as the Divine Mother is manifest in the world. So everything in the world – earth, plants, trees, birds, man – is a form of the Divine Mother and is therefore, real and conscious. But the world has only a reality that is relative to the sportive creative activity (lila) of Brahman; it has no permanence and eternal reality like Brahman. When the creative activity of Brahman ceases, there is no being, and no world at all. So also, in the state of Samadhi, the whole

world with all its objects and even the ego of man ceases to exist. Only Brahman in its pure, eternal and immutable being abides and shines as a self-luminous light. “Just as in a magical performance”, he says, “the magician is real and the magical show is unreal, so God alone is sat or real (in the sense of being eternal) and the world is a sat or unreal (in the sense of being non-eternal)”.

(vi) If one goes through his parables with a reflective mood, one would also find in him a view of the ego and the self expressed in laymen’s terms. Generally, “ego” is understood as the “I” which thinks of other things, strives for certain ends and becomes happy to get them, feels sorry to miss them. It is the knower (Jnātā), the doer (kartā) and the enjoyer and sufferer (bhoktā). But when we search for it, we fail to get something like this. What we always say is “my body”, “my mind” etc., and not “me”. “Just as when we peel off the skin of an onion, one after another”, says Sri Ramakrishna, “all goes out and nothing remains, so when we critically examine the ‘I’, we get none; what is left at last is pure consciousness, and that is the self”. Philosophically speaking, what we call the ego or “I” is like the body, mind, etc., an object of consciousness and not the abiding subject of consciousness to which they are all objects.

(vii) Sri Ramakrishna lived in an age in which the world was torn by conflicts of creeds and cultures, dogmas and doctrines and the relation between any two religious sects and communities was embittered by intolerance and contempt of each other. A study of his view on religion and its practice in his life indicates that it was a mission in his life to end these conflicts and bring about reconciliation. He not only cherished a definite view on religious matters but also practiced different religions, such as Islam, Buddhist, Christianity, under the guidance of the expert of that particular religion. Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings go a long way in resolving the conflicts of these religions if not to end them. For him, the different religions may differ in their creeds, doctrines, ways and means but these do not constitute the essence of religion. What constitutes the essence of religion is the direct experience of God. So far as this is concerned, Hindus, Muslims and Christians agree; they reach the same goal – God – by travelling different paths. So there is an essential unity of all these religions, only difference being that they call the same goal or reality by the different names of Bhagavān, Allah and God. According to him, even Buddha became the Buddha by meditating on that which was of the nature of bodho, that is, pure consciousness which is the same as God, though he could not express it by words.

Not only this. His realization that the essence of all religions is the experience of God enables him to find out a solution of the severe conflicts and clashes among the different sects of Hinduism, such as the conflict between the believers in the pure Atman and Brahman without form and quality and the worshippers of a Personal God with form and quality. He taught that all religions from crude image worship to contemplation of the pure, formless Brahman are true, and that they are all capable of leading their followers to the highest end of human life, that is, to realize God. “Just as a mother gives different food-stuffs to her different children to suit their different digestive powers, so God has made different religions to suit the different intellectual capacities of His children”. So Sri Ramakrishna says: “So many religions are so many paths”.

(viii) Sri Ramakrishna also cherished a view on the true end of human life. According to him, the true end of man’s life is to realize the divinity in him by its direct experience. To realize God, it is necessary to wash away the impurities of the mind. He says: “The mind is like a needle covered with mud, and God is like a magnet. The needle cannot be united with the magnet unless it is free from mud. Tear wash away the mud, which is nothing but lust, anger, greed, and other evil tendencies, and the inclination to worldly enjoyments as well. As soon as the mud is washed away, the magnet attracts the needle, that is to say, man realizes God”. Although Sri Ramakrishna says that the true end of man’s life is the realization of God, he does not ignore or despise the other ends of life, like kama or enjoyment, artha or wealth, and dharma or religious duties. He would advise some people to live the householder’s life, do his duties and have children, but always with his mind turned towards God. He says: “The tortoise moves about in the water. But you can guess where her thoughts are? There on the bank, where her eggs are lying. Do all your duties in the world, but keep your mind on God”. Further, he says: “First rub your hands with oil and then break open the jack-fruit; otherwise they will be smeared with its sticky milk. First secure the oil of divine love, and then set your hands to the duties of the world”.

Apart from the parables that are mentioned above in the context of analyzing his views on different topics, we may quote a few utterances of great significance:

(i) “There is nothing in mere scholarship. The object of study is to find means of knowing God and realizing Him. A holy man had a book. When asked what it contained,

he opened it and showed that on all the pages were written the words ‘Om Rāma’ , and nothing else”.

(ii) “The world is water and the mind is milk. If you pour milk into water they become one; you cannot find the pure milk any more. But turn the milk into curd and churn it into butter. Then, when that butter is placed in water, it will float. So, practice spiritual discipline in solitude and obtain the butter of knowledge and love. Even if you keep that butter in the water of the world the two will not mix. The butter will float”.

(iii) “God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole”.

(iv) “A frog had a rupee, which he kept in his hole. One day an elephant was going over the hole, and the frog, coming out in a fit of anger, raised his foot, as if to kick the elephant, and said, ‘How dare you walk over my head?’ Such is the pride that money begets!”

(v) “God cannot be realized if there is the slightest attachment to the things of the

world. A

thread cannot pass through the eye of a needle if the tiniest fiber sticks out”.

A few of the important topics/issues on which papers are invited are as follows:-

  1. Philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna and Sankara’s philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.
  2. Philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna and Ramanuja’s philosophy of Visistadvaita.
  3. Sri Ramakrishna on the concept of Maya as Lila (creative power) and the World.
  4. Sri Ramakrishna on Bramhan, Atman, and God.
  5. Sri Ramakrishna’s on the Theory of the Ego and the Self.
  6. Sri Ramakrishna’s conception of the World.
  7. Sri Ramakrishna and the doctrine of Brahman (the Absolute) as Impersonal (Nirguna), personal (Saguna) and beyond both.

8. Sri Ramakrishna on different revelations of Reality from different levels of Consciousness.

9. Sri Ramakrishna on the doctrine of Incarnation (Avatar) 10. Sri Ramakrishna on the unity and harmony of all religions.

LinK;click here

 

Read Full Post »

Dear Sir /Madam

It  gives us immense pleasure to  inform you that Dr. B.R Ambedkar Centre ,Panjab University Chandigarh  is  organizing National Seminar On the Topic “THE FUNCTIONING OF PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTIONS IN INDIA WITH EMPHASIS ON HER NORTH WEST REGION” in the Month Of January ,2018 .

Please find attached along with this mail the Details and Submission Guidelines for
the Article.

Thanks &warm Regards

Prof. Devinder singh

Download details:

-nationalseminar

Read Full Post »

ICSSR SPONSORED ONE DAY NATIONAL CONFERENCE BROCHURE
12 January, 2018.

Read Full Post »

ICPR NATIONAL SEMINAR ON

“SRI RAMAKRISHNA KATHAMRITA”,

Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) has decided to organize a 3- day National Seminar on “Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita”. The seminar will be held at India International Centre, New Delhi. The tentative dates will be during 21-23 February, 2018.

Those interested are invited to present well researched learned papers on a suitable topic relating to the theme as indicated in the enclosed theme note and submit the same to the undersigned latest by 31 January, 2018.

Dr.Ranjan K. Ghosh (M) 9810395394; e-mail:<ranjanghosh14@gmail.com Director, National Seminar on “Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita”

THREE DAY NATIONAL SEMINAR ON

SRI RAMAKRISHNA KATHĀMŖITA (Theme Note)

Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita or The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna is a recorded conversation of Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886 AD) – a spiritual Master of Bengal – with his disciples, devotees and visitors. Mahendranath Gupta, an intimate disciple of Sri Ramakrishna under the pseudonym of “M”, recorded in writing the Master’s day-to-day life along with his spiritual conversation with almost stenographic accuracy from February 1882 to April 1886, which is partially reminiscent of Socrates’ dialogue with his disciples, each of which conversations was recorded by their intimate disciples, namely, Mahendranath Gupta and Plato respectively. The contents of these conversations were deeply mystical in nature in the sense that these sayings described the inner spiritual experiences of Sri Ramakrishna. As a close disciple of Sri Ramakrishna, Mahendranath Gupta has brought out in his recording the thought-provoking deeper dimension of the simple and intimate

utterances of the great prophet in the light of ancient scriptures of India especially the Vedanta. He used to explain the difficult themes of ancient Sastras, particularly the Vedanta, in simple terms with the help of homely parables and illustrations to his audiences who were comprised of his contemporary stalwarts like Iswarchandra Vidyasagar, Keshab Chandra Sen, Girish Chandra Ghosh as well as his large number of disciples both literate and illiterate. The utterances of Sri Ramakrishna were in no way the product of his intellectual cognition as he himself was said to be illiterate; they were rooted in his direct spiritual experience..

Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings based as they are on the strength of his indubitable spiritual experiences and firm conviction were largely on metaphysical and religious issues like Brahman, God, self, world, Avatara or incarnation, religion, the end of human life and his views on these issues uniquely differed even from the Vedantins, like Sankara and Ramanuja, with whom he maintained a close proximity to them while expressing his views on the above-mentioned issues. Apart from his views on deep philosophical issues that are mentioned above, his instructions to his followers on various issues relating to their practical spiritual life are significantly relevant even today and deserve our reflection. He never seems to make any conscious effort to build the philosophical systems like those of Sankara and Ramanuja, but his views expressed in the layman’s terms point to the architecture of a school of philosophy which has been designated by later scholars as Neo-vedantism. Besides being deeply philosophic in his utterances his role as a public educator on spirituality and religion has come to be widely acclaimed all around.

It would be relevant to outline some of his salient views on core philosophical issues that are relevant even today and deserve our serious reflections.

(i) According to Sri Ramakrishna, Brahman and Śhakti or Kālī are non-different and are the same reality. The former is called Brahman when it is in its static being or in the state of inactivity and the latter is called God when it is in the state of its sportive creative activity. This implies that Brahman or the Absolute which is without form and Kali or God who is with form are the same identical reality in two different states and both are equally true. While in conversation with the writer of Sri Ramakrishna Kathāmrita, he said: “Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form”. Further, Brahman in its essential nature (svarupa) or immutable being (nitya-rūpa) is indeterminate and impersonal (nirguņa and nirvisesa), while in its sportive creative

activity (lila-rupa), it is personal God (saguna and savisesa) or the Divine Mother. And he also points out that we cannot conceive nitya-rupa apart from her lila-rūpa and vice versa, just as we cannot think of light apart from its relation to and different from darkness.

(ii) The Upanishadic dictum: “All this is Brahman” (“Sarvaṁ Khalvidaṁ Brahman”), for him, means that all are existen and are Brahman in different forms. Brahman as Śaktī, for him, has become the individual souls, the world and the twenty- four principles from Prakrti down to the physical elements. He says that “the earth and the heaven, the sun and the moon, the temple and the garden, the jar and the pot, the bed and the bedstead, man and woman, the young and the old, birds and beasts, in a word, all are verily so many forms and manifestations of the Divine Mother, all are Brahman and beam with the effulgence of the Divine cit or consciousness”.

(iii) For Sri Ramakrishna, Brahman, Atman and Bhagavān are different names of the same reality. He, who is jnani or the man of philosophic insight, aspires for Brahman; he who is yogin meditates for Atman and he who is bhakta or the humble man of devotion, warships Bhagavān. “Just as the same water of the ocean”, says Sri Ramakrishna, “is congealed into the form of ice by extreme cold and is dissolved into formless water by the heat of the sun, so reality takes on form and shape for the devotee but is formless for the jnani and the yogi. He who is Brahman is Atman, He is also Bhagavān”.

(iv)While talking to his devotees, he often used to say that God or the Divine Mother is like a wish-fulfilling tree (kalpataru). All sorts of people come to it and pray for all kind of things, good as well as bad, and each gets the thing or things desired by him. Sri Ramakrishna says: “As you seek so you receive; God is kalpataru; one receives from Him just what one wants from”. Thus, for Sri Ramakrishna, Reality is responsive to human interests and endeavours, to man’s efforts to realize the ends of his life.

(v) Sri Ramakrishna has a definite perspective to look at this world in which we live. For him, the world with all its wonderful objects is the sportive creative activity (lila) of Brahman, and not the play of māyā; it has real existence. Brahman as the Divine Mother is manifest in the world. So everything in the world – earth, plants, trees, birds, man – is a form of the Divine Mother and is therefore, real and conscious. But the world has only a reality that is relative to the sportive creative activity (lila) of Brahman; it has no permanence and eternal reality like Brahman. When the creative activity of Brahman ceases, there is no being, and no world at all. So also, in the state of Samadhi, the whole

world with all its objects and even the ego of man ceases to exist. Only Brahman in its pure, eternal and immutable being abides and shines as a self-luminous light. “Just as in a magical performance”, he says, “the magician is real and the magical show is unreal, so God alone is sat or real (in the sense of being eternal) and the world is a sat or unreal (in the sense of being non-eternal)”.

(vi) If one goes through his parables with a reflective mood, one would also find in him a view of the ego and the self expressed in laymen’s terms. Generally, “ego” is understood as the “I” which thinks of other things, strives for certain ends and becomes happy to get them, feels sorry to miss them. It is the knower (Jnātā), the doer (kartā) and the enjoyer and sufferer (bhoktā). But when we search for it, we fail to get something like this. What we always say is “my body”, “my mind” etc., and not “me”. “Just as when we peel off the skin of an onion, one after another”, says Sri Ramakrishna, “all goes out and nothing remains, so when we critically examine the ‘I’, we get none; what is left at last is pure consciousness, and that is the self”. Philosophically speaking, what we call the ego or “I” is like the body, mind, etc., an object of consciousness and not the abiding subject of consciousness to which they are all objects.

(vii) Sri Ramakrishna lived in an age in which the world was torn by conflicts of creeds and cultures, dogmas and doctrines and the relation between any two religious sects and communities was embittered by intolerance and contempt of each other. A study of his view on religion and its practice in his life indicates that it was a mission in his life to end these conflicts and bring about reconciliation. He not only cherished a definite view on religious matters but also practiced different religions, such as Islam, Buddhist, Christianity, under the guidance of the expert of that particular religion. Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings go a long way in resolving the conflicts of these religions if not to end them. For him, the different religions may differ in their creeds, doctrines, ways and means but these do not constitute the essence of religion. What constitutes the essence of religion is the direct experience of God. So far as this is concerned, Hindus, Muslims and Christians agree; they reach the same goal – God – by travelling different paths. So there is an essential unity of all these religions, only difference being that they call the same goal or reality by the different names of Bhagavān, Allah and God. According to him, even Buddha became the Buddha by meditating on that which was of the nature of bodho, that is, pure consciousness which is the same as God, though he could not express it by words.

Not only this. His realization that the essence of all religions is the experience of God enables him to find out a solution of the severe conflicts and clashes among the different sects of Hinduism, such as the conflict between the believers in the pure Atman and Brahman without form and quality and the worshippers of a Personal God with form and quality. He taught that all religions from crude image worship to contemplation of the pure, formless Brahman are true, and that they are all capable of leading their followers to the highest end of human life, that is, to realize God. “Just as a mother gives different food-stuffs to her different children to suit their different digestive powers, so God has made different religions to suit the different intellectual capacities of His children”. So Sri Ramakrishna says: “So many religions are so many paths”.

(viii) Sri Ramakrishna also cherished a view on the true end of human life. According to him, the true end of man’s life is to realize the divinity in him by its direct experience. To realize God, it is necessary to wash away the impurities of the mind. He says: “The mind is like a needle covered with mud, and God is like a magnet. The needle cannot be united with the magnet unless it is free from mud. Tear wash away the mud, which is nothing but lust, anger, greed, and other evil tendencies, and the inclination to worldly enjoyments as well. As soon as the mud is washed away, the magnet attracts the needle, that is to say, man realizes God”. Although Sri Ramakrishna says that the true end of man’s life is the realization of God, he does not ignore or despise the other ends of life, like kama or enjoyment, artha or wealth, and dharma or religious duties. He would advise some people to live the householder’s life, do his duties and have children, but always with his mind turned towards God. He says: “The tortoise moves about in the water. But you can guess where her thoughts are? There on the bank, where her eggs are lying. Do all your duties in the world, but keep your mind on God”. Further, he says: “First rub your hands with oil and then break open the jack-fruit; otherwise they will be smeared with its sticky milk. First secure the oil of divine love, and then set your hands to the duties of the world”.

Apart from the parables that are mentioned above in the context of analyzing his views on different topics, we may quote a few utterances of great significance:

(i) “There is nothing in mere scholarship. The object of study is to find means of knowing God and realizing Him. A holy man had a book. When asked what it contained,

he opened it and showed that on all the pages were written the words ‘Om Rāma’ , and nothing else”.

(ii) “The world is water and the mind is milk. If you pour milk into water they become one; you cannot find the pure milk any more. But turn the milk into curd and churn it into butter. Then, when that butter is placed in water, it will float. So, practice spiritual discipline in solitude and obtain the butter of knowledge and love. Even if you keep that butter in the water of the world the two will not mix. The butter will float”.

(iii) “God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole”.

(iv) “A frog had a rupee, which he kept in his hole. One day an elephant was going over the hole, and the frog, coming out in a fit of anger, raised his foot, as if to kick the elephant, and said, ‘How dare you walk over my head?’ Such is the pride that money begets!”

(v) “God cannot be realized if there is the slightest attachment to the things of the

world. A

thread cannot pass through the eye of a needle if the tiniest fiber sticks out”.

A few of the important topics/issues on which papers are invited are as follows:-

  1. Philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna and Sankara’s philosophy of Advaita Vedanta.
  2. Philosophy of Sri Ramakrishna and Ramanuja’s philosophy of Visistadvaita.
  3. Sri Ramakrishna on the concept of Maya as Lila (creative power) and the World.
  4. Sri Ramakrishna on Bramhan, Atman, and God.
  5. Sri Ramakrishna’s on the Theory of the Ego and the Self.
  6. Sri Ramakrishna’s conception of the World.
  7. Sri Ramakrishna and the doctrine of Brahman (the Absolute) as Impersonal (Nirguna), personal (Saguna) and beyond both.

8. Sri Ramakrishna on different revelations of Reality from different levels of Consciousness.

9. Sri Ramakrishna on the doctrine of Incarnation (Avatar) 10. Sri Ramakrishna on the unity and harmony of all religions.

Link:

http://icpr.in/ramakrishna_kathamrita_seminar.pdf

Read Full Post »

1

Contextualism in Contemporary Philosophy

Theme Note

Contextualist approach in Philosophy has been gaining momentum in recent years, especially in the fields of Logic, Epistemology, philosophy of language and Moral science. It is an interesting question why contextualism enjoys this privileged status in contemporary philosophical discussions: In Logic it might be due to the fact that contextualism promises a respectable approach to the closure principle, and in Epistemology it might be due to the fact that most people share the intuition that contextual factors are important when it comes to evaluating whether someone has knowledge. The fact that there emerged no consensus among epistemologists to resolve problems regarding knowledge analysis that arose during the post Gettier period gave an added impetus to contextualist solutions to the knowledge crisis. A third possibility would lie in that epistemologists already being tired of the ongoing debate on knowledge analysis were prepared to welcome any theory that departs from this As far as Moral field is concerned, that moral discourses need to be context sensitive has been approved as a norm since the beginning postmodern era. However, despite the enormous interest recorded on contextualism, there is a general feeling that contextualist solutions to philosophical analyses have certain inherent difficulties. Thus, while contextualism remains as the most fashionable and acceptable theory in epistemic circles, philosophers also have reservations in accounting contextualist elements in normative epistemology. This dual stand towards contextualism demands a careful study and attention of scholars to discern what is worthwhile, if any, in this theory.

The versions of contextualism that have received attention in the contemporary epistemological literature are the versions developed by De Rose, Cohen, Lewis and Williams. There are some commonalities ascribed to all these four versions: First, all of them express that truth conditions of knowledge attributing and knowledge denying sentences somehow involve contextual matters due to certain characteristics of knows. Second, they all claim to solve the sceptical paradox in a way better than the other contenders in the field. However, contextualist theories vary in respect of the different positions philosophers adopt with regard to the following: 1) whose context is relevant, and 2) what it is that changes in accordance with features of the context. With regard to the first issue Attributer Contextualists defend that the

2

relevant context is the context of the attributer of knowledge. Subject contextualists, on the other, have maintained that the context of the subject is what matters. Leading Attributer Contextualists Cohen and De Rose found their versions of contextualism in the semantic thesis; both argue that the term knows has a fixed character but a shifty content. However, they differ with regard to the nature of the indexical model for knows: for Cohen gradable terms like tall or flat are the models for knows, while for DeRose I and here function as the models for indexicals. The present seminar aims to move beyond generic contextualism and concentrate on the semantic mechanism essential for attributer contextualism, the mechanism that provide an account of the underlying linguistic factors responsible for the varying truth conditions that govern knowledge – attributing and knowledge – denying sentences.

Contextualism that functions as a semantic thesis attend to the word knows and related language rather than contextualism as a thesis responding to the traditional problems in epistemology. In order to explore the semantic implications to knowledge analysis we may take a closer look at the Attributor contextualism, a version of contextualism popular for supporting semantic thesis. It maintains that the truth value of a knowledge claim can vary across attributor contexts. To put it formally:

AC: For the very same S and p, at the very same time t, a sentence of the form ‘S Knows that p’ can be true relative to one speaker context and false relative to a different speaker context.

There is a charge that Contextualism as a position explained above is about knowledge attributions and denials of knowledge, and isn’t a theory about knowledge at all, hence it is not a piece of epistemology but of the philosophy of language. The question whether Contextualism is a part of epistemology or Philosophy of language remains as a major worry with regard to contextualism. The worry is that contextualism robs epistemology of its proper subject matter. If knows picks out different properties in different contexts, there could not be knowledge as such, instead we will be confined to knowledge language and their properties that vary according to changing contexts. In other words, if truth conditions of locutions such as ‘S knows that’ vary wildly across contexts, it would amount to epistemology losing its status as a discipline. To borrow the language of Greco, “… our

3

epistemological language (would) fail to pick out a class of phenomena that admits of theoretical study.” (John Greco: Philosophical Quarterly, P.423).

We may note that the above objector is not seeking to deny the importance of the Philosophy of language as such, but its importance in epistemology. This denial seems extremely rash; though contextualism / Invariantism is an issue in philosophy of language it has definite potential to be of profound importance to epistemology. As Keith De Rose points out, “It is essential to a credible epistemology as well as to a responsible account of the semantics of the relevant epistemologically important sentences, that what is proposed about knowledge and one’s claims about the semantics of know(s) work plausibly together across the rather inconsequential boundary between these two subfields of philosophy.” (Keith De Rose, The Case for Contextualism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, .2009, P. 19). The present seminar aims at analyzing this interplay between the concepts of language and knowledge, and also seeks to focus on the philosophy of language as applied to the epistemologically vital terms of knowledge.

The second worry is that contextualism robs knowledge claim of its objectivity. To be more specific, contextualism makes the truth of knowledge claims interest – depend in a way that steals them of their objectivity. A closer look at the problem would reveal that the issue at hand is raised against interest – dependent theories in general, theories maintaining that the truth value of knowledge claims depends on the interest and orientation of a person or a group. The opposite camp of interest independent theories rule out the possibility of truth value of knowledge claims varying in terms of the interest of people. The present project would address this problem, whether knowledge claims which are interest dependent threatens the subject matter of epistemology or the objectivity of knowledge claim.

Hypothetically it is proposed that even if the interest dependent truth conditions of knowledge claims vary across practical environments, the social function of those claims will severely restrict the ranges and kinds of variability that are allowed. Suppose that I need to know whether p, and that in a different context S announces, ‘I know that p’. In order for her to be a source for my knowledge I will have to assure myself that the standards by which S counts as knowing in whatever context she claims knowledge, are as high, or higher than my epistemic commitments. Also note that the information sharing function of our language puts pressure on the

4

standards for knowledge in an upward direction, in other words, the standards for knowledge cannot be so low as to make knowledge unusable. In fact the need for sharing knowledge across different practical environments creates pressure towards stability. Given the information – sharing function of our knowledge language, we can expect that the mechanisms by which explanatory salience are distributed will be largely stable across practical contexts. Therefore, we may reasonably presume that interest relativity, either in terms of attributor’s interest or in terms of subject’s interest, poses no threat to epistemology or its subject matter.

It is indeed disturbing for any epistemologist to assume that the truth values of knowledge claims are interest – dependent. It seems wrong to claim that S’s belief that the next plane will reach Chicago by 5 pm (basing her belief on a published schedule) is false so long as her life depends on it, but true when that is no longer the case. This worry let’s resolve it this way: Interest – dependent theories are not committed to the claim that interests can affect the truth value in just any way; on the other hand, such theories will restrict the ways in which interests affect the truth values of the epistemic claims. Here we need to make a distinction between perceived interests and actual interests. Also often it is misleadingly propagated that it is the interest of some individual alone that is taken into consideration. It is more plausible that the truth values of knowledge claims depend on the actual interests of some relevant group than that of an individual. The present project, it is anticipated would dive deep in to this problem seeking ways in which knowledge analysis can be made context sensitive while all through retaining the objectivity it has been holding.

Objectives of Conducting the Seminar:

1. Even as Contextualism receives attention of epistemologist’s globe wide, philosophers also have reservations in accepting contextualist solutions as they fear it would robe off its objectivity and normative status. The present project aims to examine the dubious dual stand maintained by philosophers on this matter.

2. To focus on the semantic mechanism essential for attributer contextualism, the mechanism that provide an account of the underlying linguistic mechanism responsible for the varying truth conditions that govern knowledge – attributing and knowledge – denying sentences.

5

  1. ToexaminethechargethatContextualismasapositionisaboutknowledge attributions and denials of knowledge, and hence it is not a piece of epistemology but of the philosophy of language.
  2. It aims at analyzing the interplay between the concepts of language and knowledge, and also seek to focus on the philosophy of language as applied to the epistemologically vital terms of knowledge.
  3. ThepresentSeminarprojectwouldalsoaddresswhetherknowledgeclaims that are interest dependent threatens the subject matter of epistemology.
  4. Seek ways in which knowledge analysis can be made context sensitive while retaining the objectivity it has been preserving.
  5. The project endeavours to extend the scope of research to Indian epistemology, especially Buddhist knowledge analysis to see the implications it carries for a contextualist approach.
  6. Revise the notion of Justification in terms of Contextualism.
  7. To examine the viability of contextualist solution to skepticism.

10.To determine the limits of Contextualism as an epistemic theory.

(b) Sub-titles or allied aspects of the theme/area in which papers from contributors will be invited

  1. Contextualism and the Linguistic Turn in Epistemology
  2. Epistemic Modals in Contexts
  3. Contextualism and Skeptical Paradox
  4. Semantics in Contextualism
  5. Contextualism and Indexicality
  6. Contextualism, Invariantism and Relevant Alternatives
  7. Varieties of Contextualism

6

  1. Challenges and Limits to Contextualism
  2. Contextualism in Ethics
  3. Contextualism in Logic

You are cordially invited to present a well-researched and well thought out paper. We appreciate analytic papers only and not descriptive ones. Selected papers will be presented after evaluation by competent experts. Kindly send your learned papers latest by 10th January, 2017 via email to sree_kala_nair@yahoo.com , chaaaavi@gmail.com in Hindi or English (Typed, doc format, English – Times New Roman fonts size 12, Hindi –Unicode or any other font, size 14-16 (in the case of any other fonts than Unicode please send font also). The venue of the seminar will be ICPR Academic Centre, Lucknow. Selected participant shall be provided free hospitality and travel as per ICPR rules.

Link:

http://icpr.in/contextualism_seminar_theme%20_note-1.pdf

Read Full Post »

CALL FOR PAPERS

National Seminar on Consumerism and Consumer Protection in the era of open markets in India

PG Govt College for Girls, Sector 11, Chandigarh

30th January. 2018

Themes and sub themes of the Seminar

In the light of the above concept note, A one day National Seminar is proposed in order to deliberate at length about the various issues relating to consumer rights, consumerist cultures and consumer grievances redressal mechanism, Experts and Participants will be encouraged to present papers, share their views and suggest strategies to deal with issues detailed below

a) Consumer Rights, Consumer awareness, Revisiting perceptions and definitions,

b) Social and psychological factors for rising consumerism, consumer behavior and consumer perception

c) Vulnerability of the consumer need and significance of Consumer Protection in market economy

d) Effectiveness of the consumer courts in redressal of grievances of customers

e) Role of NGOs in protection of consumer rights

f) Consumer protection and vulnerable sections of the society

g) Review of the existing mechanism of consumer protection in govt institutions

h) Responsibilities of the Corporate Sector in protection of Consumer Rights Consumer Movements in India, Consumer Culture in India,

i) Role of media in highlighting consumer affairs

j) Trace the history of consumer movements in India

k) Consumer rights as Human Rights

REGISTRATION FEE – Rs 500 (on the spot)

Last date for sending abstracts – 15 January 2018

Last date for sending full papers 25th January 2018

Email for sending abstracts, papers and other querries sociogcg11@gmail.com

Organising Secretary

Dr Manoj Kumar Department of Sociology,

PG Govt College for Girls, Sector 11,

Chandigarh

manojchandigarh@yahoo.co.in

9814704490

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »