a fortunate exchange

[Guest guest]

> > Western Indology presumes a view of history of modernism

> > seen as European triumph.

>

> This is pure fantasy.

 

For those looking for a little Indological content on this list, the

"exchange" between M. Heidegger, J.L. Mehta and W. Halbfass on the

Europeanization of the earth. Its relevance prompted Halbfass to close

his *India and Europe* with some stimulating ideas. He writes:

 

"In a sense, Europe itself has been "superseded" and left behind by the

modern Westernized world. It is certainly no longer the master and

protagonist of the process of "Europeanization." The direction of this

process, the meaning of progress, the significance of science and

technology have become thoroughly questionable. The doubts and questions

which had already been raised by the Romantics, Schopenhauer and others

and which determined their interest in India have become much more urgent.

The search for alternatives now appears as a matter of life or death."

 

"Europe is turning turning towards those non-European traditions which

it tried to master, supersede, "understand" and "explain"; it tries to

enlist them as allies against developments initiated by itself. The West

is turning towards the East for new inspiration, or even for therapy.

....Can it retrieve and adopt for its own future what it once tried to

supersede and relegate to the past? ...Should we focus instead on what is

not appealing to modernity, and on dimensions of the tradition which have

been disavowed or disregarded by its modern advocates and "actualizers"?

Should we, can we abrogate an orientation which has come to dominate the

Westernized world as well as Europe itself?"

 

-------------------

 

I should point out that although one might discern a uniquely

European agent in this,

--might suspect that his "we" was not fully inclusive,

--might challenge the metaphors ("allies", "life and death", "therapy")

 

it is nevertheless true that Halbfass cites J.L. Mehta's response to

Heidegger at some length in closing his book. Mehta also finds a

place at several other places, and Halbfass again turned to Mehta

in the epilogue to *ON BEING AND WHAT THERE IS*. Halbfass certainly

recognized his own background, his intellectual heritage and the conflicts

and controversies tied to these. He does not assert, or even recognize, a

European triumph. Although we have no single spokesman for "Western

Indology" (and aren't trying to elect one), I'd like to think

that Halbfass' ideas are both representative yet also exemplary in the

types of questions they pose and elicit. Yet I'm wondering if his remarks

(particularly ch. 24, pp. 434-442, *INDIA AND EUROPE*) are, for

some, provocative or even alienating...?

 

Tim Cahill