Existence of bias in research may not be totally eradicable. But awareness of such bias and that too self-awareness by the scholar himself is an efficacious corrective and check to that bias. Real research rests on such self-disciplines. Here is an example, which when read emboldens one's reliance on true research and its functioning towards knowledge. Mr Alex Watson is one such scholar, whose opinions make one think and rethink about the matter. In his remarkable book translating with a commentary Bhatta Ramakantha' work 'naresvaraparikshaprakasa', which is again an elaboration on the work 'naresvarapariksha' of Sadyojyoti, Mr Alex Watson writes the following words. (Bhatta Ramakantha, an early Saiva Siddhantist belongs to the later part of 10th century CE): "The fact that, in western scholars' encounter with Buddhism over the last two centuries, Buddhist authors have been interpreted as Hegelian, Heideggerian, Wittgensteinian, Platonic, Stoic, transcendental idealist, phenomenologist, and as akin to Husserl, Russell or Whitehead, indicates that, instead of letting the texts speak for themselves, we have a tendency to superimpose on them perspectives with which we are more familiar. This raises worrying questions about our ability to recognize what is unfamiliar as unfamiliar."
To my mind it looks but natural and creative also to read authors across times and cultures in parallel lights and in inter-textual interpretative understanding. But sometimes the comparison may become a noise rather than an enhancing music of mutual meditations. Perhaps to avoid such noisy mishaps Mr Alex Watson intends his note of caution.
Then what is the way out ? How to do remedial research which avoids such quagmires? He himself suggests a valid approach of sticking to the words intelligently.
"If we want the classical Indian traditions to reveal themselves, not our own preconceptions, and the voices of their thinkers to come across louder than our voices, our most powerful tool is philology. While we can never completely eliminate our own subjectivity, we can, as philologists, attempt to set it aside to some extent by sticking closely to an observation of the texts themselves, and, when interpreting, allowing our analysis to be guided by concepts and ideas derived from the text itself or other texts of the same general period and tradition."
Persons, who aim to be better and more better scholars cannot afford to pass over these words in haste.
***
To my mind it looks but natural and creative also to read authors across times and cultures in parallel lights and in inter-textual interpretative understanding. But sometimes the comparison may become a noise rather than an enhancing music of mutual meditations. Perhaps to avoid such noisy mishaps Mr Alex Watson intends his note of caution.
Then what is the way out ? How to do remedial research which avoids such quagmires? He himself suggests a valid approach of sticking to the words intelligently.
"If we want the classical Indian traditions to reveal themselves, not our own preconceptions, and the voices of their thinkers to come across louder than our voices, our most powerful tool is philology. While we can never completely eliminate our own subjectivity, we can, as philologists, attempt to set it aside to some extent by sticking closely to an observation of the texts themselves, and, when interpreting, allowing our analysis to be guided by concepts and ideas derived from the text itself or other texts of the same general period and tradition."
Persons, who aim to be better and more better scholars cannot afford to pass over these words in haste.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment