Epilogue

Research record

Parallelism is not just about opposing the mainstream. In parallel, the text contains more method names than place names. It refers to the intellectual state where established knowledge is respectfully examined, neglected sources are discovered, the same critical criteria apply to both, and the conclusions themselves are open to revision. The first chapter of the text considered darsanas to be a self-conscious act of asking for reasons rather than a collection of answers. Even in the last chapter, this does not change. The difference is that now the detailed geography of the question has been looked at: science and reality, Indian philosophy and Mithila, Western philosophy and society, state and religion, modernity and the digital world, artificial intelligence and environment and history. This journey leads to a conclusion: the question is not only of doubt. it is also of responsibility. If I question authority, I will question the authority of my party. If you ask for proof of tradition, then so be it on the claim of modernity. If you look for silences in official histories, so do the fact-checks in Hashiya 's stories. Parallelism is the discipline of symmetric criticism. The text does not aim to make Mithila a new center of world philosophy. Such a claim would be against the polycentric spirit of parallel philosophy. Mithila is here a place of systematic recollection, a place of dialogue with the Upanishadic questions of jurisprudence, the logic and discipline of jurisprudence, the nuances of word and evidence, the traditions of scripture, the experiences of public life, and modern social questions. Mithali 's contribution may be a matter of pride but pride is not a substitute for proof. For this reason, acknowledging uncertainties in historical claims as uncertainties has been part of the text 's method of not writing down traditional stories as historical facts and not forcing modern concepts onto the past. Studies of Indian philosophy show that these Indian schools of thought are not uniform traditions. Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mīmāṃsā, Vedanta, Buddhism, Jainism, and the Lokayatas have serious disagreements on jñāna, ātman, Ishvara, matter, language, karma, moksha, and pramana. In this disagreement, intellectual life is not the weakness of Indian philosophy. The Upanishads teach questions. the discipline of just proof. the subtleties of Mīmāṃsā language and method. Buddhist philosophy. the critique of suffering and impermanence and self-imagination. the discipline of the Jain philosophical approach. the challenge of locative doubt. Parallel philosophies do not dissolve these in an artificial Indian belief system. The Greek question, medieval logic, modern rationalism-empiricism, Kant 's criticism, Hegel 's history-view, Marx 's structure-analysis, the individual responsibility of existentialism, the clarity of analytic philosophy, the exploration of pragmatism and the methodology of science-philosophy are all independent voices in parallel discourse. The purpose of the comparison is not to prove that an Indian philosopher had already stated modern Western theories or that all Western ideas are repetitions of Indian sources. Such a triumphalistic comparison destroys the historical distinctiveness of both traditions. Meaningful comparison occurs at the level of the problem, argument, and objection. Caste, class, gender, language, region, state, liberty, equality, justice and democracy are not merely subjects of sociology. Within these questions are the core philosophical questions of human value, rights and legality, responsibility and identity, and institutional propriety. Gandhi raises the ethical questions of non-violence and Swaraj, the relationship between means. Ambedkar brings out the inseparable relationship between caste, dignity, representation, constitutionality and liberty-equality-bondage. Parallel philosophy does not eliminate the differences between the two, but rather puts them into concrete moral testing.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

Wouldn 't such open-mindedness be without judgment? Observing introspection and pluralism may lead to the objection that parallel philosophies leave every question open-ended. If everyone is inventive, how can one make strong ethical decisions?

Uttarapakṣa

Openness and Moral Boundaries Are Simultaneously Possible Modification does not have to make everything uncertain. Some moral boundaries may be clear enough: birth is not a moral qualification. a person is not just a means. unnecessary suffering is not appropriate. the state is not the master of the citizen. religious freedom is also a freedom of conscience. majority is not proof of truth. technical competence is not a moral sanction. The application of these limitations may be controversial, but the controversy is not without moral ambiguities. The Final Conclusion Parallel philosophy is not an end in itself. If this text declares itself complete on its last page, it would violate its last aphorism. The future of philosophy lies not in closed systems, but in better questions, new evidence, more inclusive dialogue, and a more just life. In this sense, to be parallel is not to be marginalized. one is not enslaved to a single center in the search for truth. The combined exercise of freedom of question, the discipline of proof, the ethics of dignity, the critique of authority, the wisdom of pluralism, and the courage of introspection are the living embodiments of a parallel philosophy.

Section index

1. 72.1 Starting with a question not ending with a question
2. 72.2 Mithila: Not the Centre: The Methodological Basis
3. 72.3 The Plural of Indian Philosophy
4. 72.4 Western philosophy: Dialogue and not imitation
5. 72.5 Questions of Society Not an External Subject of Philosophy
6. 72.6 Religion: Both Respect and Criticism
7. 72.7 Modernity: The Duality of Science and Technology
8. 72.8 Detailed Ethics of Environment and Time
9. 72.9 Independent identification of parallel philosophies
10. 72.10 Crossing the Main Stream and Hashia
11. The Life Conduct of the 72.11 Philosophy

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Epilogue.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-72/