There is in fact, another factor that influences this interpretational bias. There is and old
dichotomy in the way in which Western and non-western ideas and scholarship are currently
comprehended, with a tendency to attribute a predominant role to religiosity in interpreting
the works of non-Western intellectuals who had secular interests along with strong religious
beliefs. It is, for example, not assumed that, say, Isaac Newton's scientific work must be
understood in primarily Christian terms ( even though he did have Christian beliefs), nor presumed
that his contributions to worldly knowledge must somehow be interpreted in the light
of his deep interest in mysticism ( important as mystical speculations evidently were to
Newton himself and even perhaps for some of the motivation for his efforts).
In contrast, when it comes to non-Western cultures, religious reductionism tends to exert
a gripping influence. For example, there is a widespread tendency to presume that none of the
general intellectual works of Buddhist scholars or of Tantric practitioners in India or China
could be 'properly understood' except in the special light of their religious beliefs and practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment