Guest guest Posted September 5, 2004 Report Share Posted September 5, 2004 <When most South Asian historians/indologists begin their explanations, they already have certain assumptions that from the Western viewpoint are without evidence and hence untenable.> 1. It is important to not to characterize the post-European-Enlightenment approach as the <Western viewpoint> since there are numerous bona fide scholars in the Non-Western world who adopt this perspective also, and numerous sincere (mostly Biblically-inclined) scholars in the WEST who still follow traditional perspectives on a number of theological/historical issues. 2. There are two approaches to ancient (cultural/religious) history: The first is the matter-of-fact data-based, logic-consistent, approach where one tries to be as objective as possible, but where (subconsciously or with intended malice) self-serving factors could come into play. The second is the one where cultural, national, and hidden-agenda factors motivate the inquirer, even when one is honestly committed to objective analysis. 3. There are scholars, both in the West and in the Non-West, of both kinds. It is doubtful that the twain will ever meet. V. V. Raman September 5, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.