[Y-Indology] De-Essentializing the 'Eastern Wisdom'.

[Guest guest]

To Mr. Zydenbos:

 

You must understand the distinction between production and distribution of

ideas. That certain scholars over time produced philosophy books bringing in

a global perspective is NOT the 'beginning' I refer to. That's mere

production, and does not necessarily result in distribution. More

appropriate would be for you to cite a census of how many German colleges

teach as part of mainstream philosophy - NOT positioned as Indology - a

curriculum based on such a global perspective. A producer, especially

decades ago, does not have anything to do with what ideas are in

distribution today in the real world. Please enlighten us on: what percent

of faculty in philosophy departments are researching/teaching IP; what

percent of courses in philosophy departments are on IP; what percent of

papers in the mainstream philosophy journals (again not Indology journals)

are on IP. Admittedly, my findings are based on the top US universities, but

the results show less than 3% share, and in most cases practically ZERO.

 

I am not interested in what happened decades ago, nor in what some scholars

produced, but on what actually gets taught today. Evaluation of any centrism

involves looking at who controls the gates of the Khyber Pass of

distribution. Yours is a classical (flawed) ploy to evade an issue by

claiming that so-and-so already took care of it long ago, deflecting from

the ground reality.

 

This reminds me of the post by Pravrajika Vrajaprana: While Swami Tyagananda

made a sound rebuttal of Kali's Child, his work does not get the massive

academic distribution given to KC. A defender of KC would claim that the

rebuttal is already 'done' so as to discourage more, while in fact what

dominates the distribution pertaining to Ramakrishna is KC. When Kripal told

me that he was genuinely interested in both sides of the debate, I suggested

to him that he do another edition of KC in which Tyagananda's response would

be a chapter. He mumbled various excuses as to why he would not. Over the

years, the 'official' status of KC will become stronger, especially since

the rebuttal will fade into history. Nietzsche said it as follows: "The

reputation, name, and appearance, the usual measure and weight of a thing,

what it counts for -- originally almost always wrong and arbitrary -- grows

from generation unto generation, merely because people believe in it, until

it gradually grows to be a part of the thing and turns into its very body.

What at first was appearance becomes in the end, almost invariably, the

essence and is effective as such."

 

Today, Nietzsche might have said: 'It's the distribution, stupid.'

 

Rajiv Malhotra

The Infinity Foundation

53 White Oak Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

www.infinityfoundation.com

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, dmitrinet wrote:.

> Insisting on antiquity=validity> (this assumption is present in

Indian tradition -- am I wrong here?)> reduces credibility of those

insisting on it to nearly zero.> References to "wonderlust,

elitisism", etc. -- do the same.

 

On antiquity, I didn't assume that, did I? If it happens to be

'valid', so be it; there is a good chance that it was substantially

indigenous with traces left in early Avestan.

 

I am glad you agree about references to 'wanderlust, elitism' etc. I

hope Prof. Witzel is listening.

[Guest guest]

Lars Martin Fosse on Friday, May 11, 2001 9:54 AM: "The West does not need

help with its self-image. "Orientalism" has little or no market with the

general public. If anything, the problem here is Indian self-image."

 

COMMENT:

 

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this point. Lets not try to

dismiss this too fast, please. We are on to something. Said's 'Orientalism',

Inden's 'Essentialsim', and most of post-colonial studies, all point to the

obsession to develop the idea of "The West" based on this enterprise of

constructing the "Other". I agree that these have little 'market' in the

public, which means that this construction has already been done, and tucked

away in the basement of the subconscious. This also explains the trauma many

face when I try to excavate it out for them to confront. Its non-appearance

from view makes it the shadow side of the west's self-image. Hence, the

importance of the field called WESTOLOGY to do reverse anthropology and to

psychoanalyze the west by non-westerners.

 

Mehta's book that you referenced earlier explains how construction of

liberalism at home went hand in hand with the theory of colonialism abroad,

and in fact the same fellows (the Mill father-son team, for instance) were

at the center of both. Hegel's theories - still foundational as is evident

from the weight given to his works in philosophy departments today - were

built on his idea of 'essences' of various races and cultures and how each

was locked into history forever - naturally, with the west as having the

great essences. This is self-image construction by the west based upon a

specific theory of all "others".

 

CONTEMPORARY: I know personally many westerners who are deep into

Hinduism/Buddhism studies, whose personal lives follow an interesting

trajectory: First, they were social drop-outs/counter-culture (the

'hippies') - thrown out of the family will; anti-establishment; into drugs,

etc. Second, India gave them self-esteem, they 'find themselves', get great

respect by one and all in India's ashrams. Third, they build great respect

and knowledge for Indic traditions. While many happily remain rooted here,

several move on to stage four, which is to develop a big ego, to claim all

they learnt as 'original' discoveries and/or to repackage them into

Judeo-Christianity. This builds their self-image 'using' the Indic. They

also sell into the market of western secularists by repackaging the Indic

into 'western science', again to sell an enhanced self-image to those

westerners who see themselves as scientific - lots of seminars going on

these days to sell westerners a new self-image using the Indic. (It's called

the new age movement.) They also play into the other market, that of

Abrahamic religions, by repackaging the Indic as liberal Christianity,

post-Christianity, Judaism, etc. So all this is very much western self-image

marketing at various levels, in which the Indic is central. This is all

around us!

 

Basically, what is selected to get appropriated is de-contextualized from

Indic sources (as is now happening to Yoga) preparing it for assimilation,

and eventually re-contextualized as western. What is found reprehensible is

essentialized as Indic 'essence' - the caste, sati, cows, dowry, etc.,

sometimes exoticized to be patronizing. This is the simultaneous

appropriate-while-you-demonize strategy. It is the very basis of much

western self-image construction - a major untold story.

 

Regarding Indians' self-image, you are right: This Orientalism construction

got imposed/sold on Indians though an elaborate process starting with

Macaulay. This is why Sanskrit and its literature are seen as a big threat

by JNU-likes as it would question their pre-suppositions about who they are

based on what the Brits taught, and that was further layered under Soviet

economic theories. It would bring them face to face with their shadow side.

 

I AM TEMPORARILY SIGNING OFF - WILL BE AT PROF. WITZEL'S ROUNDTABLE THIS

WEEKEND - AND WILL GET BACK NEXT WEEK. I have more empirical data on how the

west is reconstructing its self-image using the Indic while erasing the

sources.

 

 

Rajiv Malhotra

The Infinity Foundation

53 White Oak Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

www.infinityfoundation.com