Fwd: Response to Patrick Olivelle's claim "Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities."

13 views
Skip to first unread message

विश्वासो वासुकेयः

unread,
Feb 27, 2024, 10:35:28 PM2/27/24
to meta-indology


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Acharya Veeranarayana Pandurangi <Unknown>
Date: Tuesday 27 February, 2024 at 4:36:40 pm UTC+5:30
Subject: Response to Patrick Olivelle's claim "Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities."
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <Unknown>, Indology <Unknown>


Hare Krishna. Namaskar to all of you.

Here is our partial response to Prof. Patrick Olivelle's news paper writeup "When did large Hindu temples come into being? Not before 500 AD" that appeared in "The Print" on 17 january.

Our response is not about when large hindu temples were constructed. It is well documented. But it is concerned with the sub heading to the writeup that read "Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities."
Patrick Olivelle wrote that "Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities." "They [Dharmashastras] viewed Temples with suspicion and disdain" so on and so forth.
It is a perfect example of deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Indian culture and textual tradition.

Prof. Olivelle is well read professor. He knows the facts (See his paper Temple in Sanskrit Legal Literature,” in the book Archaeology and Text: Temple in South Asia. ed. H. P. Ray [Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010], pp. 191–204.) He wrote about dharmashastras for his whole life. But wants to mislead the English educated Desi people.

This is a serious matter of concern.

I will write a detailed article on this issue.

Our response here, though I don't appreciate the title of the article given by the editorial of 'The Print'.

Original writeup of Olivelle is here. alongwith his rejoinder for Vijender Sharmas response.

--
आचार्य वीरनारायण एन्. के पाण्डुरङ्गी
Professor Veeranarayana N K Pandurangi
Professor of Vedanta and Indian Philosophies
Dean of Vedanta Faculty,
Karnataka Samskrit University, Pampa Mahakavi Road, Chamrajpet,
Bengaluru 560018

विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)

unread,
Feb 27, 2024, 10:38:41 PM2/27/24
to meta-indology
An earlier evaluation from 24th - 

rebuttal is ok; but doesn't contest Olivelle's main thesis (which was roughly stated in the headlines - "When did large Hindu temples come into being? Not before 500 AD"). The early dharmashAstra view was adduced only secondarily in support of this main statement. Overall, the tone (esp. in the summary) is more paranoid than warranted - in this context, Olievelle's response (appended there) is worth reading.

Reg. devAlaka-s, a more honest statement might be -

If devAlaka-s were viewed with mild scorn earlier, evolution of the dharmashAstra-s by means of commentaries and such effectively reversed it.

In contrast with the purely objective view of Olievelle (who's not a Pollock), the suspicion and paranoia ought to be directed at the notorious "Print" website ... but then they wouldn't print that!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "meta-indology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to meta-indolog...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/meta-indology/7252aebe-ab3d-413a-8326-4537b890908fn%40googlegroups.com.


--
--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages