Kei Kataoka 2007 Was Bhatta Jayanta a Paippaladin? The Atharvaveda and its Paippaladasakha. Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition. Ed. A. Griffiths & A. Schmiedchen. (Indologica Halensis) Aachen: Shaker Verlag. 313-327.
Title: The Heart of the One of Great Wrath (mahāraudra-nāma-hrdaya): A dhāraṇī Inscribed on a Lead-Bronze Foil Unearthed near Borobudur
Date/Time: Feb. 24 (Mon.) 15:00--16:30 Place: Seminar Room 2, 2nd Floor, the Faculty of Letters Bldg., Yoshida Main Campus, Kyoto Univ.
グリフィス博士のＥＦＥＯでの紹介文： Having been trained in Indology (with a focus on Sanskrit) at the University of Leiden and at Harvard, Arlo Griffiths began his academic career with a doctoral fellowship from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research that allowed him to pursue research in Vedic philology. His research focused on the Paippalāda tradition of the Atharvaveda, still alive in Orissa (India) to this day. In the field, he learned the (Indo-Aryan) Oriya language, and started being interested in non-brahmanicak traditions. In the margin of his doctoral research, he was able to do some work in the domain of descriptive linguistics of the tribal languages of the region, particularly those belonging to the so-called 'Munda' branch of the Austroasiatic family. While still remaining active as Indologist with a specialty in Vedic studies, the focus of his recherch gradually shifted to Southeast Asia, first and foremost the epigraphical documents in Sanskrit and in vernacular languages, both Austroasiatic and Austronesian (Old Khmer, Old Cham, Old Javanese). His research priority is the publication of so far unstudied manuscripts and epigraphical documents, in the form of critical editions, and their exploitation from the historical point of view.
Having obtained the doctorate at Leiden University in 2004, Arlo Griffiths was immediately appointed lecturer in Indian Religions at the University of Groningen. The next year, in 2005, he returned to Leiden, having been appointed to the Chair of Sanskrit. He joined the EFEO in 2008, and has been posted at his branch in Jakarta since January 2009.
On the third day Prof. Shimazono talked on the arguments between Karaki Junzo and Taketani Mitsuo.
Scientists often presuppose that science is free from value.
Science itself is never bad. Only its application is wrong.
For example, nuclear science itself is not bad; only its application to wars is wrong.
So science itself is not responsible for disasters which may happen.
Scientists should pursue the truth, which is free from any value.
Technology itself is never bad. What matters is how to use it. It is human beings that are responsible for the result.
But is the modern science, represented by those on genom, etc, value-free?
Karaki severely criticizes the view that science is value-free.
The argument is similar to Kumarila's argument on ritual killings.
Traditional brahmins argue that the Syena sacrifice, although it is a black magic by which one curses one's enemy to death, is not bad by itself. Only its resultant effect, i.e. causing the death of the enemy, is ethically bad. The sacrifice is a cause and killing is an effect. The former is value-free, whereas the latter is ethically bad.
In other words, the Syena sacrifice, a kind of technology, is not bad. It is the person who is responsible for the result. The Vedas, which teach us the technology, are not responsible. The Vedas tell us the truth. They tell us the fact, but they do not tell us to do the sacrifice. Sein and Sollen are different.
Or, Kumarila says, brahmins can accept that the Vedas command us to do it. But what they tell us to do is not killing, but only its cause, the sacrifice. Remember that the sacrifice and its result are diffferent. The Vedas tell us good things, including the Syena sacrifice.
Brahmanical logic may not appeal to our modern minds. We may think that what they try to do is just to protect the Vedas' authoritativeness. They have a clear motivation for protecting the Vedas, which distorts the arguements.
But in fact the logic of protecting the modern science of which effects are catastrophic is the same.
Vedas tell us the black magic of which effect is killing, i.e. himsa. Scientists tell us the technology of which effect is a catastrophy, mass killing or huge suffering.
What is the difference? When protecting the authoritativeness of the modern science we do use the same logic that the traditional brahmins developed 1500 years ago in India. If the Vedas are considered bad, similarly the modern science is to be considered bad. If we think that the modern science is value-free or even good, similarly the Vedas are to be considered value-free or good.
Perhaps the Vedas are less evil than the modern science. Killing one's enemy leads the sacrificer to the hell only once. Furthermore, clever brahmins provide with a remedy sacrifice, prayascitta, by which the sacrificer can be rescued from the sin. In the case of the nuclear science, however, the danger of radiation last for one lak years which amount to many lives. Furthermore, we have no remedy for the catastrophic result which is not predictable, as we witnessed in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Fukushima.
Prof. Shimazono asked students of the following question.
"If one criticizes the nuclear power, why does one not criticize the car, too?"
The answer is, of course, not easy.
1. We need both.
2. One is bad, but the other is not so bad. It is a matter of degree.
3. Both are bad. We do not need both of them.
Suppose that one selects the answer 2:
If the nuclear power is bad and is to be abolished because of X, the reason X may similarly apply to the car.
What is the difference because of which one can say that we need only the car?
For example, if one says that the nuclear power is bad because it kills or afflicts many people, the reason "because it kills or afflicts many" also apply to the car. (Furthermore, this view presupposes the idea that whatever gives a pain is bad. But this is not always the case, as Kumarila points out.)
Gandhi would definitely say that we need neither.
The modern idea of development is simply wrong and misguided.
Ultimately the issue is related to our view of value: what is life, how to live, and what is more important than the other.
Prof. Shimazono, one of the most famous scholars of religious studies in Japan, then presented various statements by religious organizations made after Fukushima.
The key word is "honest poverty" in Christianity and "less desire, be satisfied with the given" in (Japanese) Buddhism.
Lao Tzu taught less desire.
Dogen enumerated, among eight moral precepts, less desire and being satisfied with the given at the head.
Many religious groups, if they are not too radical or too strange, refer to our want and desire.
Fukushima is not just an issue of politics and economy, but also of religion and moral.
Prof. Shimazono summarized the policy of government agencies of health administration related to Fukushima into three: first they do not investigate; even when they investigate, they do not disclose their collected information; even when they disclose it, they do not help people.
So the three things are necessary:
1. jijñāsā (investigation)
2. pramāṇa (collect knowledge/information)
3. pravṛtti (action)
The Buddha's four epithets tell us the importance of compassion, the basis of the rest, which is totally missing in government agencies.
Four-day intensive lectures by Prof. Susumu Shimazono (Prof. Emeritus, Tokyo Uni.) at Faculty of Letters, Kyushu University. (Organized by Dep. of Religious Studies)
On the first day he gave us a general survey of the views by related scientists and other scholars before and after Fukushima 3.11.
How the discourse of "safety" and "easiness/fearlessness" was developed, etc.
Some scientists, without scientific basis, but with the political need, emphasizes the importance of "soothing" and "providing relief".
A feeling of security (abhaya), however, is already beyond the domain of science. What scientists first should do is to provide the correct information and knowledge of risk and merit. Then people individually judge what to do after assent.
About 15 students participated (mainly BA), sitting in a small seminar room of the Religious department.
In the end it seems that the Mimamsa principle (Jaiminisutra 1.3.4: hetudarśanāt) that the statement by a person of evil motivation is not reliable is true.
Many scientists are not reliable speakers, as we know well after 3.11, because they have some sort of evil motivation, ultimately greed for money. It is a simple fact that many people, scientists or not, crowd around money. But unfortunately the academic system of these days is constructed so that scientists have no other choice than to crowd around money. (Otherwise they cannot buy anything for experiment.)
It is also evident that some people do not want to listen to the inconvenient truth. And some scientists tell lies so that people do not get "unnecessarily" nervous. But being nervous is necessary if the fear is true.
Truth is truth. It is there. It will be revealed in the end despite of the effort of concealment.
Kumarila says in SV codana 93cd--94ab:
dveṣād asammatatvād vā na ca syād apramāṇatā// na cātmecchābhyanujñābhyāṃ prāmāṇyam avakalpate/
And [generally speaking] invalidity can be [concluded] neither by reason of hatred nor non-acceptance; and validity can be concluded neither on the grounds of [your] own desire nor acceptance.
One cannot make it false even though one does not want it. One cannot make it true even though one wants it. One should first face the truth. One should not turn one's face away from the truth.