I wonder, if there is any metaphysical concept of sanity--let's
say that we would describe loosely as "crazy" some of the ideas
found in the Gita. It means that we understand what "sane" means, either
because it is obvious to us from our daily experience derived from
our life in today's "sane" world, or because there exists a metaphysical
objective idea of "sanity" and we are able to understand it through study.
At least, in the latter case, enough to be able to say,about insanity,
as with obscentiy, "I know what it is when I see it."
I assume that the first possibility can be ruled out, since it is
possible (at least for me) to almost isomorphically "map" the "insane"
features of yesteryear to equivalent "insane" features of today's world.
That leaves the metaphysical notion. We do have a fundamental idea of
natural justice, and we usually assume that it transcends time and space.
We conveniently conflate this notion with a metaphysical "sanity." I am
assuming that it is this concept of "sanity" that Sitaramayya garu had
in mind. Obviously, without a transcendantal, objective notion of sanity,
we could each be calling the other "insane" without any meaning.
My problem is that I fear the metaphysical, transcendental notion of sanity,
due to its implications. By definition, there can be only one such
thing, so it forces me into some sort of a conformist straitjacket.
This is not abstract speculation--Allan Bloom, Bill Bennett and
Pat Robertson are telling me that their Western-Christian-Capitalist
viewpoint is the definition of "sanity" and if I view it differently,
I am by implication "sick", i.e., "insane". It has also been said that
in the erstwhile Soviet Union, it was the practice to label as "insane"
people who questioned the political system.
If I am going to say that Vyasa (or equivalently, his times) are insane
by my standards, I have to show that (1) my standards for sanity are
not personal but more-or-less transcendent ones, and (2) all other
claimants to transcendence (e.g., the Bennett standards) are frauds.
If I don't, I would be opening the door to intellectual totalitarianism,
wily-nily.
Is such a risk worth taking? Maybe, if enough people are reading the Gita
primarily with the goal of reviving (assuming it is possible) some of
the archaic social ideas. I have read the Gita, there were parts that
I had serious problems with; especially having to do with "swadharmam",
"fourfold division" etc. There was also enough there that resonated
for me philosophically; I have left open the door to decide
whether the problematic part is reconcilable with the appealing part.
I have to believe that most people reading the Gita will read it in
a way similar to mine. Depending on their resources and interest, they
might pursue it further to look for philosophical coherence, despite the
concern about some of the outmoded ideas. It is hard
for me to believe that there will be too much serious focus on the
outmoded ideas themselves.
Bapa Rao
I will point to the current "culture wars" in America being
spearheaded by the likes of Allan Bloom, William Bennett, Pat Robertson,
Pat Buchanan et al. They too, have an implicit concept of "sanity"
that is very much idealized Western-Christian-Capitalist in nature; other
thought-systems are either beyond the pale or at best marginal. If I
am going to criticize Vyasa (or equivalently, his times) as being insane, I
have the responsibility to specify whether (to take one
easily-available candidate) my standard of sanity is