Drishti-sristivada, Srishtidrishtivada, and the Hermeneutics of Theatre

An interesting example of contradictory interpretations is borrowed by G.P. Deshpande [1] from Indian philosophy to evaluate the ambiguous nature of the play and its production.

"There are two texts by Shankaracharya: one is called Sarirakabhasya while the other bhasya is a commentary on Gaudapadakarika. There is a basic contradiction in both....drishti-srishtivada and sristidrishtivada.... These two terms represent the schools within which the Vedantins are divided. The problem is whether what you see defines reality (drishtisrishtivada) or whether what exists defines your vision (srishtidrishtivada).

"It is a typical theatre problem.... Suppose you take that text to be a srishti. Then the director looks at it in a particular way, and the actor looks at it in a particular way. When happens next is the case of drishtisrishtivada. The vision or the way the text is looked at ultimately decides its character. And that is why you have different productions of the same play, productions apparently using the same text but so different that they appear to be based on different texts."

Deshpande, from the Indian viewpoint, is exploring what Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) had philosophically deeply examined, the issue of pre-understanding and the fusion of horizons. Recent hermeneutics has strongly focused on trying to get at the author's intent and limit the text to just that. However, getting to the author's intent is a horizonal problem. Our understandings only fuse where our pre-understandings intersect. Yet, in a way, the text does have the ability to change one's pre-understanding as well; and so vice-versa.

Deshpande continues:

"But is it really the case of drishtisrishtivada? That, after all, it is the drishti that determines the srishti? Perhaps not quite. The srishti also made that drishti possible. There is always enough room in a given text to make it so..... The interrelationship between the text and play I am talking about can be related to the contradiction in Shankaracharya's to bhasyas, and the contradiction between the two vadas. Vendantins also could not come to terms with them. Drishti or srishti taking prominence remained an unresolved question."

To note is the fact that both the schools of interpretation look to the Vedas and Upanisads as their source of authority and, yet their interpretations are contradictory. Does this mean that the text itself is contradictory in nature? Or does it mean that one or both of the interpretations may be wrong? The aim of hermeneutics should be chiefly that: to guarantee the right interpretation of the text in its syntactical-grammatical-historical originality.

Glossary
bhasya. Commentary
Drishti. Sight
Srishti. Creation
Vada. Argument. Theory.
Gaudapadakarika. The statement of doctrine in verse form by Gaudapada, the teacher of Sankaracharya.

[1] G.P. Deshpande (b.1939), retired Professor of Chinese Studies at JNU.
Cit. Dialectics of Defeat, Calcutta: Seagull, 2006.

Placebo and the Philosophy of Mind and Matter in Drug Research

A placebo is a non-therapeutic substance administered under the camouflage of medication to deceive patients into believing that they are receiving medications; this done solely for psychological and not for physiological effects. Placebo may usually be used to compare its effects with the effects of other drugs in drug research. Let's take the case of an experiment that tries to establish whether a particular drug, say to treat weariness, is genuine or merely has the effects of a placebo. Suppose 20 candidates are chosen for this experiment. 10 are given the drug and the rest are put on a placebo while they are told that the placebo is a genuine medication. They need to make sure that the deception is well carried on for the success of the experiment. If both the groups make similar improvements after taking the treatments, the new drug seems to only function as a placebo in effect. The basic hypothesis of the placebo raises the question of mind over matter. Of course, this pushes...

3 Facts About Temptation

M...L...S 1. Temptation is MOMENTARY. It won't last forever. The devil tries to make it look as the final reality. But, it is not. It is just a test, and it'll be over; but, the question is whether you'll pass it. 2. Temptation is a Test of LOVE; and LOVE is an action. Love fulfills all the commandments. The two greatest are LOVE GOD with all your being and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR as yourself. But, love is not a feeling or emotion; it is an action. We need to LOVE Him more in the moment of temptation; it can only be possible when we focus on Him. 3. Temptation will make you STRONGER and PURER. It may stretch your muscle; but, not beyond your capacity; and then the HELPER, our TRAINER is there with us and knows what will make us stronger... Despite all this, let us never forget to pray: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one!"

The Light of Law Vs Light of Christ (John 8)

JOHN 8:1-12 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the mids...

Marbaniang, Domenic

Search This Blog