RE: SV: [Y-Indology] an endless exchange

[Guest guest]

At 08:16 AM 05/04/2001 -0400, Rajiv Malhotra wrote:

Bi-polarizing an issue is an unfortunate

consequence of the

Marxist dialectic; as though there are only two possible and

mutually

opposing stands and that these are not fluid. Hindutva has also assumed

this

dialectic now.

This is an oversimplification of the sort you seem to be

against. Marxism does not hold the copyright to a "bi-polar"

perspective, you can trace it back a long way.

Hindu/Indian traditions are full of such bipolar classifications -and

they work in different areas. In a "philosophical" arena they

are astika-nAstika; in mythology/religion they are deva/asura. The war

between the devas and the asuras is a fundamental theme in Hindu

mythology and religion (DurgA kills MahISa; RAma kills RAvaNa; KRSNa

kills KaMsa as well as -indirectly- the DhArtarASTras, who are incarnated

demons; the devas battle the asuras for amRta, etc., etc.). And these

themes have frequently been applied to real-life, political

circumstances. So, for instance, in the words of Chattopadyyaya (p. 55),

writing about Muslim rulers, "The earth submerged by the

TuruSkas/Mlecchas is a regular motif, which is used to underline the

significance of its rescue" by Hindu kings. This brings us to

another important polarity, that of mleccha-nonmleccha.

>From the UpaniSads to the Epics to the PurANas, and into royal

declarations in medieval times, asura, rAkSasa, mleccha, etc. have served

to denote the "other."

The "us" versus "them" distinction is very clear in

the above polarities, as well as in dharma/dharmic-adharma/adharmic. That

is, of course, without even going back to the Rg Veda, and the

Indra-VRtra confrontation.

Then you have the following:

baddha-mukta

gRhastha-sannyAsin

mRtyu-amRta

tamas-jyotis

sat-asat

Take a look at BRhad AraNyaka UpaniSad 1.3.28, for a verse still used

today.

Yet it is often assumed that

everyone must be driven by some packaged

political ideology and/or ancient 'essence'.

Isn't this precisely what you are doing by implying that all

(or most) European scholars are Eurocentric, even if they are not aware

of it?

2. The involvement of the concerned

westerners has not in some cases gone

towards 'solving' problems, but rather (inadvertently) in creating

divisions

and schisms.

Part of human nature. Everyone, whether Western or

otherwise, can contribute to create divisions willingly or unwillingly,

there are all sorts of possible scenarios. The Indology list has

frequently been the recipient of attempts at portraying the disagreements

of some Western scholars with the ideas of some Indians as an imagined

East-West confrontation, where "they," in the West, are the bad

guys.

3. Indians likewise want to and

should be able to criticize western society.

They can and they do. You are a good example.

Indians have felt that in many

cases, western scholars accept criticism from

westerners but not so easily from Indians.

This is too much of a generalization. It has surely happened

to a larger or lesser degree at different times and places. But among

Indologists today it is mainly the ideas, not the nationality that is

criticized (and "Western" scholars also criticize each other's

ideas all the time). If the feeling you describe were based on current

reality, then the ideas of, say, Frawley, Elst and others would be widely

accepted in Western academic Indological circles, while only the ideas of

Indians would be criticized. That is not the case.

On the other hand, as you say, it is apparently becoming very common

today, among certain circles, for Indians to automatically distrust

Westerners, simply because they are Westerners.

So, where is the polarization coming from?

COMMENT FOR STEPHEN HODGE: I agree

that an unconscious prejudice of many

westerners is to regard one's own beliefs as logos while others' beliefs

are

relativized as mythos.

This is a common, conscious and/or unconscious prejudice of

almost any culture/tradition, Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern. See

above, concerning mlecchas, asuras, nAstikas, and followers of adharma,

in the case of India. You seem to give the "West" too much

credit for things that are pretty universal.

This leads to a common

social-anthropology method

of gathering data about current Indian society and then looking for

some

quotes in ancient texts to 'explain' it, as though the texts are

driving

today's behavior to the exclusion of all other social

processes.

Again, a generalization. You should provide concrete

examples. On the other hand, are you suggesting that reliance on ancient

texts is not important. Is it really "to the exclusion of all other

social processes," as you say? I would say it often gets combined

with your "other social processes." Besides, it is not merely a

matter of "looking for quotes in ancients texts," as you

dismissively put it, but of looking for traditional customs and value

systems handed down through, and reflected in texts. Would you deny, for

instance, the importance of the RAmAyaNa in establishing and illustrating

ideals of father-son, brother-brother, wife-husband, worshiper-god

relationships? And, what about the image of RAma as ideal ruler and of

rAmaRAjya/rAmrAj as the ideal form of government? Are all of these merely

a thing of the ancient past, with no current relevance? Wasn't the wide

popularity of the video version of the RAmAyaNa an important social

phenomenon in itself?

Given the

canonized nature of much of western civilization, could this be a

superimposition of the west's own mythos as methodology - the mythos

of

hermeneutics?

You seem to be saying that canonization and hermeneutics

(understood as the interpretation of religious texts) are a purely

"Western" phenomenon, as if textual authority were not very

important in Indian traditions. It definitely is. That is why entire

schools are born from varying interpretation of texts such as the

UpaniSads and the GItA, and that's why there is a vast commentarial

tradition. How important, for instance, would you say the BhAgavata

PurANa is for Bengali VaiSNavism? What would you say that referring to

the Vedas as apauruSeya is?

Here, again, you seem to want to credit the "West" for

practices that are widespread.

Finally, remember that "Western" scholars, as well as those

from everywhere else, fall into many different fields. Your comments seem

to essentialize "THE" Western scholar/person. Political

scientists are not the same as geographers, as engineers, as cultural

anthropologists, as sociologists, as computer scientists, as business

leaders, and as, yes, Indologists. And Indologists are certainly not the

same as politicians and government policy makers.

The reference for the quote above is:

Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. 1998. Representing the Other?: Sanskrit

Sources and the Muslims (Eighth to Fourteenth Centuries). New Delhi:

Manohar.

Best wishes,

Luis Gonzalez-Reimann

University of California, Berkeley