Page 389 in Rajiv Malhotras 'Battle for Sanskrit'

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Dear friends,

I was shocked to find following opinion of Sheldon Pollock as referenced by Rajiv Malhotra.

Rajiv writes  - "Pollock is also incorrect in saying that the Anushtubh chhanda was invented by the Buddhist Jataka authors and then copied by Valmiki as the meter used in the Ramayana. However, this claim is debatable"

Note to Rajiv: No debate is necessary. Anushtubh is found in plenty in the Rigveda. Now, is Rigveda also post-buddhist as per Pollock?   Number of Anushtubh mantras in Rigveda is over 800. 

Rajiv asks in his book "Is Pollock too big to be criticized?' . I ask "is he big enough to be paid any attention?"

regards

 

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Can we have the reference details of where Prof. Pollock made this claim / inference and what substantiation did he provide for the claim?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Perhaps Sri Rajiv Malhitra will reply as he gets chance to see this mail.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Shrikant Jamadagni <

​​

shrik...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

--

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

  The reference given to this is:
Pollock 1986, Ramayana of Valmiki, Ayodhyakanda. Translated by Sheldon Pollock. Vol. II. Berkeley: University of California Press. Relevant parts attached.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Searching for the relevant pages from

 

Pollock 1986, Ramayana of Valmiki, Ayodhyakanda. Translated by Sheldon Pollock. Vol. II. Berkeley: University of California Press

 

if available online.

 

Could not find.

 

The arguments of Valmiki Ramayana text being post-Buddhist are old. (There is a thread on BVP in which error in this chronology and its root were discussed)

 

Which of the two: Jataka texts and Valmiki Ramayana text is older is a different question.

 

In any case, Mahabharata text and employment of Anushtub is not considered to be post-Buddhist by any study.

 

Even if the claim is not invention of Anushtub but employment of Anushtub is lead by Buddhists either in Jataka texts or elsewhere, the employment of Anushtub in Mahabharata stands a counter evidence.

 

But as on now, we can only wait for the actual words of the claim under question.   

[Rajiv Malhotra]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Shrikant Jamadagni <shrik...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Rajiv asks in his book "Is Pollock too big to be criticized?' . I ask "is he big enough to be paid any attention?"

​Rajiv: Yes he is big enough to get attention, because:

1. He is editor-in-chief of ​500 volumes to be translated under Murthy funding, which is 10 times what Max Mueller did. Was Max Mueller trivial? Was it wise (or arrogant) on the part of traditional sanskritists to have ignored him? What does hindsight teach us?
2. Had it not been for my intervention, he would already be starting the Sringeri chairs at Columbia described in my book's Introduction. After that chair (which would in effect become the official mouthpiece of Sringeri internationally), similar chairs were being planned in US Ivy leagues to represent other traditional mutts. Where would such a trajectory lead us - a complete hijacking of our tradition, or a complete sellout by those who feel the US Ivy Leagues are superior custodians?
3. Please dont fall prey to the same laziness that has plagued our traditional scholars for past few centuries, when they cited lofty reasons to fail to do purva paksha of top tier opponents.
4. Please read chapter 10 of my book that lists Pollock's power base in India and beyond. Do not trivialize your opponent. Invest in hard work to do more and more purva/uttara paksha.
5. The problem is not with Pollock. It is with our own scholars' combination of: incompetence, laziness, loftiness, or plain being sold out or hoping to be bought off one day.
   

thank you.

regards,

rajiv

 

[Rajiv Malhotra]

Please read my book's chapter 5 for my analysis of Pollock's Ramayana. References are provided there, and see especially end note 45. You must go into Pollock's latest tome, his 2006 work, "Language of the gods ..."

Some supporters I have are interested to fund a series of workshops to evaluate Pollock's work in detail and develop responses. KSU is among those who expressed interest to host it. I invite proposals from interested parties. It would be nice to have a central place that takes responsibility to do this and bring in experts by topic. Ramayana should certainly be one such topic. Rasa/kavya is another major topic. Broader topics alsoinclude:

• Vedic traditions and the allegation of human rights violations, caste oppression, gender inequality, etcc.
• allegations against shastras as a genre...
• Removal of the sacred from Sanskrit studies
• The theory of the aestheticization of power applied to the history of Sanskrit and its literature.
• Relationship between Buddhism and Vedic traditions (being considered mutually antagonistic).

I hope the experts here can help by providing leadership to create such a project. If interested, please write to me privately at: RajivMal...@gmail.com The sponsoring sources would like to start soon.

regards,

rajiv

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

   Pollock's 2005 edition is available on scribd:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/208090414

The relevant pages quoted in RM's book are 37-38 from the 1986 edition. Attaching the relevant portions. Forgive me for not attaching earlier.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

[Rajiv Malhotra]

Thanks. Please also read my chapter 5 and his 2006 "Language ..gods.." tome, as there his thesis is more developed and turned into a sweeping history of Sanskrit  and its literature.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 12:24:41 UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

Can we have the reference details of where Prof. Pollock made this claim / inference and what substantiation did he provide for the claim?

Apologies if I missed it, but I do not recall seeing the reference to Pollock's claim (as the original poster wrote) that the Anushtup metre was invented by Buddhists. Where has Pollock said this and what is his reason for this claim? 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Same here. I too have been waiting for the actual words where the claim is made and the context.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

In order to check whether there have been any misapprehensions, would it not be better if the full text of 

the 1985 paper and the lecture of 2012 of Sheldon Pollock be made available to the present (and prospective) signatories?

KSKannan

 

Dr. K.S.Kannan

Professor, 

Centre for Ancient History and Culture,

Jain University

319, 17th Cross, 25th Main,

6th Phase, J P Nagar, Bangalore - 560 078

(Ex-Director, Karnataka Samskrit University)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Prof. Birgit Kellner  shared the following link to the 2012 Heidelberg lecture on the Indology list:

 

http://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/sai-paper/

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Looking at the emotional aspects of some of the messages on another list , I thought I should share some dispassionate responses from which one can pick up a leaf or two:

 

First is the response from Prof. Dominik Wujastyk and the second is by the venerable young genius Sri Nityanandji both on the Indology forum.

 

1. Prof. Dominik Wujastyk :

I discovered yesterday that there exists a petition

<https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library>

launched by Prof. K. Ramasubramanian that asks for Prof. Sheldon Pollock to

be removed from his editorial leadership role with the Murty Library.

 

The argument against Pollock is based on the idea that, "he has deep

antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in

our civilization." The most prominent evidence given to support this

assertion is a quotation from a 2012 lecture that Prof. Pollock gave at the

South Asia Institute in Heidelberg, titled, "What is South Asian Knowledge

Good For?"  Prof. Ramasubramanian states that Prof. Pollock "echoes the

views of Macaulay and Max Weber that the shastras generated in India serve

no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express

themselves."  Unfortunately, Prof. Ramasubramanian has not correctly

understood these passages in Prof. Pollock's paper, nor the meaning of the

2012 lecture as a whole.

 

Prof. Pollock cites Macaulay and Weber as पूर्वपक्ष positions to his own,

opposite view.  Prof. Pollock presents Macaulay and Weber as examples of

the worst kind of misunderstanding of Indian wisdom.  He does this in order

to build his own argument that there is a deeper knowledge in India than

Macaualy or Weber realized, the knowledge that is the "South Asian

Knowledge" of his title.  This is the knowledge of the Indian शास्त्राणि,

the Indian knowledge systems that Prof. Pollock is defending.

 

Prof. Ramasubramanian then cites a passage in which Prof. Pollock says,

 

Are there any decision makers, as they refer to themselves, at universities

and foundations who would not agree that, in the cognitive sweepstakes of

human history, Western knowledge has won and South Asian knowledge has

lost?  ...That, accordingly, the South Asian knowledge South Asians

themselves have produced can no longer be held to have any significant

consequences for the future of the human species?

 

In this passage, Prof. Pollock is *criticising* the administrators of

western universities who do not give proper recognition and value to Indian

knowledge systems, and only view India as a place to make money or to make

practical applications of knowledge systems of the West.  Again, this is

the पूर्वपक्ष.  Prof. Pollock's central argument is that the special,

unique knowledge systems developed in India, mainly recorded in Sanskrit,

are of great value, and that this fact is not recognized by "universities

and foundations" who, like Macauley and Weber, think that Indian knowledge

systems have been superseded by Western ones.   Prof. Pollock's point of

view is that the शास्त्राणि , representing South Asian Knowledge, are

precious, worth studying, and still have much to offer modern cultural

life.  On pages six and seven of his lecture, he gives the examples of

व्याकरण and the theory of रस as forms of knowledge that were developed to a

uniquely high degree in early India, and that still have the power to

enrich thought today.  On the subsequent pages, he begins to make the even

more difficult argument for finding modern value in even more

internally-oriented Indian sciences such as मीमांसा, अलङ्कार  and

नाट्यशास्त्र.

 

The larger point of Prof. Pollock's article is that the institutions of

higher education in America and elsewhere have found it difficult over the

last fifty years or more to develop institutional structures to support the

study of *Indian* knowledge systems, and that the South Asia Institute in

Heidelberg is a model of success in allowing those who develop knowledge *about

*India to work in harmony alongside those who deepen their appreciation of

the knowledge that was developed *by *India.

 

It would be possible to make similar arguments for the other evidence

referred to by Prof. Ramasubramanian, e.g., Prof. Pollock's 1985 paper on

the character and importance of शास्त्राणि, of South Asian knowledge

systems.  In that paper, Prof. Pollock says that, "Classical Indian

civilization, however, offers what may be the most exquisite expression of

the centrality of rule-governance in human behavior" and that śāstra is "a

monumental, in some cases unparalleled, intellectual accomplishment in its

own right."  One could discuss this paper further.  But to cite it as an

example of a criticism of India is the opposite of the truth.

 

It is regrettable that Prof. Ramasubramanian has misunderstood Prof.

Pollock's views by 180 degrees.  Prof. Pollock is a champion for the same

values of Indian culture as Prof. Ramasubramanian.  That is why Prof.

Pollock devised and brought into being the Murty Classical Library.

 

Many people have signed Prof. Ramasubramanian's petition, presumably

without having read Prof. Pollock's work for themselves, or having failed

to undestand it.  The damage done by this misunderstanding is likely to

last a long time, and hamper the efforts of Prof. Pollock and others who

seek to bring the glory and subtlety of ancient Indian knowledge to the

attention of the modern world.

 

2. Sri Nityanandji:

 

It is the season of petitions and statements! Adding some more details
before my comments:

1) While the petition of change.org has been started by Prof. K
Ramasubramanian, as many as 131 Indian intellectuals apart from Prof. K
Ramasubramanian signed the original plea to Mr. Narayana Murthy and Mr.
Rohan Murthy. I do not know if it was covered in a mainstream media source,
the much less-known newsgram.com carried it:
http://www.newsgram.com/132-indian-academicians-call-for-removal-of-sheldon-pollock-as-general-editor-of-murthy-classical-library/
I personally know and have met with many scholars on the list: and some of
them are very well respected in India, in addition to being well-known.
Prof.  Ramasubramanian himself is a recipient of the Badarayan Vyas Samman.

2) Apart from the aspects highlighted in Dr. Wujastyk's email, two other
aspects which are very relevant to this petition: the letter by the
academicians mentions Mr. Rajiv Malhotra's *Battle of Sanskrit* as well as
Prof. Pollock's recent signing of the solidarity statement with the
“students, faculty, and staff of JNU”: the petition against Prof. Pollock
may well be a reaction to this. On the first aspect: Recently, Mr. Rajiv
Malhotra's book has been widely discussed in Indian universities of late.
Mr. Malhotra has been hosted by several Indian universities and institutes
(e.g. Karnataka Sanskrit University and TISS) for talks where he has
received both support and opposition, but more support than opposition as
far as I can say. On the second aspect, there was a discussion on the
*Bhāratīyavidvatpariṣat
*mailing list (Mr. Rajiv Malhotra recently joined this mailing list). The
thread was started by me, and I remarked in my short initial post “Before
the Indian courts decide, 455 academicians have already reached a
decision.” The discussion can be read here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bvparishat/cTgsJDKjA8I

My quick comments:
If it can be argued that the petition against Prof. Pollock is based on
‘misunderstanding’ or ‘wilful misconstrual’ (as members on this list have
described), then it can also be argued that the solidarity statement (to
which Prof. Pollock is a signatory) on the JNU issue is based on a ‘lack of
understanding’ of jurisprudence in India or ‘wilful misrepresentation’ of
facts. On jurisprudence: The Delhi Police has the documentary (video tapes)
and non-documentary (eye-witnesses) evidence, and the Indian courts will
examine the evidence and rule on the matter: then in what capacity does the
solidarity statement declare thrice that the police action on JNU was
‘illegal’. On misrepresentation, the solidarity statement misses that fact
that a large section of JNU students and teachers did support the police
action on JNU. This was also covered in the news:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/180-JNU-Teachers-Take-the-Sarkari-Side-Demand-Action-Against-Students/2016/02/16/article3280826.ece

As I see it, both petitions are rooted more in strong differences of
opinion/ideology than in misunderstanding or wilful
misconstrual/misrepresentation.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Shankarji Jha]

 Atra prasange Nityananda-vidvan-matam sopapattikamatah sarvathaa sveekaryamiti me matih. Sanatih, 

---

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:48 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Page 389 in Rajiv Malhotras 'Battle for Sanskrit'

 

Looking at the emotional aspects of some of the messages on another list , I thought I should share some dispassionate responses from which one can pick up a leaf or two:

 

First is the response from Prof. Dominik Wujastyk and the second is by the venerable young genius Sri Nityanandji both on the Indology forum.

 

1. Prof. Dominik Wujastyk :

I discovered yesterday that there exists a petition

<https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library>

Mr. N. R. Narayana Murthy and Mr. Rohan Narayan Murty: Removal of Prof. Sheldon Pollock as mentor and Chief Editor of Murty Classical Library www.change.org Dear Shri Narayana Murthy and Shri Rohan Murthy, We the undersigned would like to convey our deep appreciation for your good intentions and financial commitment to establish the Murty Classical Library of India, a landmark project to translate 500 volumes of traditional Indian literature into English. We...

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

I signed the petition yesterday.  I have not read all material written by Prof Pollock to 

make a determination what he really means.  But I did go through his translation of 

Valmiki several years ago.  This is where I was thoroughly disappointed.  It appeared

to me that his command of Sanskrit language was weak and his appreciation of poetry 

was almost zero.  He had made a joke of Valmik's elegance to some choppy text of 

arbitrary prose.  Upon questioning he told me that the translation was done by a 

"committee" and it went out of hand.  He said he had improved since etc.  I am of

the opinion that talent does not develop in time.

I am against anyone doing a translation of a text unless the person is a native of

the culture and has deep familiarity with the metaphors and the social context 

of the society that he or she wishes to contribute in.  I agree that India still lacks 

scholars with strong bilingual skills but the material must not be made into trash.  

I write on behalf of hundreds of thousands of us who live abroad and wish to educate 

our children on India with the aid of such translations.  The translations can become 

curriculum material for the college and high school students.   They could also be 

needed for the youth in India. Every effort must be done such that the translations 

preserve the beauty, grandeur, the society and the creativity of the original.

Upon further reading of Prof Pollock, he comes out as a political individual and not

a creative talent.  He is more concerned in finding conclusions than celebrating the

text at hand.  He goes into sweeping generalizations with some sketchy evidence

with a rush to make a conclusion. I did write to him about this and he did not respond 

to my last request. I gave up further reading since his writing was more argumentative 

than comprehensive.  After going through Rajiv's book, I have requested Prof Pollock 

to engage Rajiv in a debate that I have offered to moderate.

While Prof Pollock's political views might get cleared or clarified through further

discussion, his qualification to lead the effort of translating literary texts of Indian 

languages has bothered me.  I am of the opinion he is unfit and unsuitable for the 

translation project that he has accepted to lead. The Murty family must make an open 

advertisement and make explicit talent requirements for the project.  They must not

proceed on an abusive business venture.  The project as presented now is injurious 

to our children and must be strongly protested.  I thank Prof Ramasubramian to have 

initiated the effort.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

Boston

 

 

[K S Kannan]

>I am against anyone doing a translation of a text unless the person is a native of

>the culture and has deep familiarity with the metaphors and the social context 

>of the society that he or she wishes to contribute in.  

I am at one with you. 

You have called a spade a spade.

You have hit the nail on the head.

Pollock is not fit to hold a candle to Ingalls.

I am of the same wavelength with you when you say 

India still lacks scholars with strong bilingual skills.

KSKannan

[Bijoy Misra]

Somebody did post Prof. Pollock's 1985 paper on "shastra"..

Here is the first sentence in the abstract

"Shastra is one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of

Indian intellectual history in particular."

This is the problem of his style.  I am not sure if it is deliberate.  Certainly it is unscientific

and superficial.  He may have a audience somewhere.  I read today.  My daughter

might have gone through this "fact' in college.  

Some scholars in India might like to examine him more in case they think he has merit

on his essays.  His sweeping generalizations would be unacceptable to most immigrant

parents from India.   On the poetry and translation side, he must be substituted in respect 

of the authors of the great Indian literature. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namste,

The entire abstract of the paper "The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual Histor" by Sheldon Pollock

Journal of the American Oriental Society

Vol. 105, No. 3, Indological Studies Dedicated to Daniel H. H. Ingalls (Jul. - Sep., 1985), pp. 499-519

 is as follows :

Abstract

Śastra is one of the fundamental features and problems of Indian civilization in general and of Indian intellectual history in particular. But the idea and nature of śāstra in its own right have never been the object of sustained Indological scrutiny. This preliminary sketch of the problem of śāstra focuses on three connected questions: How does the tradition view the relationship of a given śāstra to its object; what are the implications of this view for the concept of cultural change; is there some traditional presupposition, or justification, for the previous two notions. The understanding of the relationship of śāstra ("theory") to prayoga ("practical activity") in Sanskritic culture is shown to be diametrically opposed to that usually found in the West. Theory is held always and necessarily to precede and govern practice; there is no dialectical interaction between them. Two important implications of this fundamental postulate are that all knowledge is pre-existent, and that progress can only be achieved by a regressive re-appropriation of the past. The eternality of the vedas, the śāstra par excellence, is one presupposition or justification for this assessment of śāstra. Its principal ideological effects are to naturalize and de-historicize cultural practices, two components in a larger discourse of power.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Bijoy Misra]

Sunilji,

Thank you for posting.  Here is the second part of the third sentence:

"How does the tradition view the relationship of a given śāstra to its object; what are the implications of this view for the concept of cultural change; is there some traditional presupposition, or justification, for the previous two notions."

There is an inbuilt assumption that the "shastra" is expected to create "cultural change" on the "tradition".

This assumption is based on another assumption that "political elements" like "the kings" or "the Brahmins" commission these texts to cause such influence.

Having made these assumptions, he would proceed to "prove" them through sketchy readings.

Analytic literature in Indology is in real poor state.  I am new to these readings, but these broad generalizations without enough qualifiers disturb me.

It is possible that it is a novice science, but we are in the twenty first century!  Objective statements are required.

I will read more, but the writings are loaded with unfounded assumptions.  The students in the field might have been seasoned with these, since it

has been active for decades.  Rather unfortunate!

Bijoy Misra

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Petition discussion should be a separate thread by itself - the one started by V. Subramanian.
RM

[Bijoy Misra]

I should have added this in my previous post.

All shastra as I see are "compilations" to "document" the existing

knowledge, empirical or scientific that was in practice at the given time.

They are not philosophical or political documents.  They have lived

because they have represented their sources properly, possibly through examination.

Hence there is no purport of any perceived "cultural change".

If any effect took place, they were all positive.  Bharatanatyam is still played today.

Shastra created संज्ञा for the concepts.  One can create new material,

but can't use the same संज्ञा for it.  New संज्ञा would develop.  

One can replace the deity or the logic, but can't use the same  संज्ञा.

The openness of early Indian thinkers amazes me!   

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

नमस्ते,

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 17:51:46 UTC+5:30, Bijoy wrote:
> Shastra created संज्ञा for the concepts.  One can create new material,
> but can't use the same संज्ञा for it.  New संज्ञा would develop.  
> One can replace the deity or the logic, but can't use the same  संज्ञा.
> The openness of early Indian thinkers amazes me!   

In my opinion this is a clear and accurate answer to the problem raised by Western Indology, and only needs elaboration with linguistic dressing.

In mathematical logic, for example, it has been shown that a consistent thought system through various types of REGRESSIONS (one is known as "homomorphism") keeps creating novel objects.

In this way, Hanumāna - for instance - belongs to the same consistency (ऋत) elaborated in the Vedic system, even though the proper name isn't mentioned there. This principle has been known and implemented by Indians for a long time (admittedly, during "ancient" enough epochs). This unity is even to this day being accessed, and kept alive, by Ascetics ("yeah, field work").

> The entire abstract of the paper "The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual Histor" by Sheldon Pollock

> ...Two important implications of this

> fundamental postulate are that all knowledge is pre-existent, and that

> progress can only be achieved by a REGRESSIVE re-appropriation of the

> past. The eternality of the vedas, the śāstra par excellence, is one
> presupposition or justification for this assessment of śāstra.

The irony here is the manner in which Pollock uses the word "regressive". He means "unprogressive" by it, but had he used the word in the sense I used, he would've corrected his own mistake.

India is a young nation today. But it has got a history, an ancient history, and a prehistory, too: any sweeping generalisation is therefore a hazard scholars should avoid at all cost.

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste Kalicharan Tuvi ji

Please permit me to make some specific observations, only to fine tuning to the good points brought up in your post below.

        Some technical and deep elaboration is needed, as the issues raised in these posts have deep down and distressing 'fissures and hemorrhages' located in the ' unarticulated assumed premise of current discourse. This pointer is primarily to address two issues of relevance Knowledge and Application of Word. The questions are : What is Samskrutham? How to understand Samskruth Word? For what purpose? Technically called ' Samskrutha (Veda)  Shabda lakshana' and 'Samskrutha Viniyoga' (many times pointed in earlier debates by my friends - Dr. N R Joshi and Dr. Yadu Moharir). This incidentally touches upon the pious suggestion of Bijoy Mishra ji <that Government should fund Shaastra -Research/Researchers>. :

       Before going for heavy stuff,  what is < Hanumāna> in the sentence < In this way, Hanumāna - for instance - belongs to the same consistency (ऋत) elaborated in the Vedic system, even though the proper name isn't mentioned there. This principle has been known and implemented by Indians for a long time (admittedly, during "ancient" enough epochs). This unity is even to this day being accessed, and kept alive, by Ascetics ("yeah, field work").> Did you mean < Anu-Maana> ? please clarify.

        This debate is important because , as you say < India is a young nation today. But it has got a history, an ancient history, and a prehistory, too: any sweeping generalisation is therefore a hazard scholars should avoid at all cost.  > And precisely for this reason, India cannot afford to have a distorted understanding of Shaastra- Kavya - Samskrutham and pass on the authority over this to ' outsiders'. Gita says (15.20)- iti guhyatamam sastram idam uktam mayanagha etad buddhva buddhiman syat krta-krtyas ca bharatha.

Now for the technical part.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your post responding to BM's post reads : Responding to BM's post reading  < Shastra created संज्ञा for the concepts.  One can create new material, > but can't use the same संज्ञा for it.  New संज्ञा would develop. > One can replace the deity or the logic, but can't use the same  संज्ञा. > The openness of early Indian thinkers amazes me!>

you point 

< In my opinion this is a clear and accurate answer to the problem raised by Western Indology, and only needs elaboration with linguistic dressing.>

BVK Sastry observation (on technicality of संज्ञा ): The issue is much more complex than needing a 'linguistic dressing'. Why? Samjnas are DNA of Shaastra-Language - Discourse. If Samjnaa is corrupted, the understanding of Shaastra gets corrupted and leads to digestion-distortion-digression. This is what the writings of Sheldon Pollok ' using distorted understanding of Samjnaa' has lead to.  Here is how traditional schools present the concept of 'Samjnaa' in a  Shaastra.

      Shaastra  is a logical and contextual presentation of 'Darshana ( = Vision)' of a ' Yogi/ Risihi'.  Shaastra is a Human composition and articulation  made in a context for a purpose. Shaastra  uses a technical language and discipline specific convention. The ' language of Vision is called 'Chandas'; The language of Shaastra is called ' Bhashaa'; The technical convention of Shaastra Vocabulary is called 'Paribhashaa'.   The totality of all this  is taught as part of Shaastra-studying methodology. The traditional word for this is  ' Shaastra -Paribhashaa'. 

      Shaastra-Paribhashaa technicality covers three ' linguistics propositions and positions'  that need to be used for valid decoding of the meaning of given Shaastra text ( or any text that claims to be a Shaastra status). This is way beyond the ' linguistic dressing' on the model of ' window dressing for shopping of products'.

  The 'three propositions and positions' needed for proper understanding of 'Shaastra - Samjnaa -Paribhashaa' are as follows: (a) Acceptance of  rules of decoding the given Samksruth Technical Vocabulary using the same principles and processes by which they were coined. (b) Acknowledging the Root source of Shaastra and Shaastra paribhashaa to Vedas as Sacred Spiritual texts of Vision (i.e. Acceptance of Integrity of Shaastra-Darshanas)  (c) Recognizing the unique yet intertwined harmony in approach and goal of Shaastra and Kavya :  position and proposition do not change the end goal and integrity of approach.

 

   All these criticalities of Shaastra-Kavya study are violated and badly substituted in Colonial writings, on which Sheldon Pollock draws upon to build the next level stories of understanding -propagating Shaastra -Kavya. 

       Shaastra paribhashaa is  a 'Technical Vocabulary of given discipline'. The technical word has discipline specific meaning. The technically defined meaning can (and in many cases does) carry a plurality of meanings and multivalent communications. Decoding Samjna  needs the help of two Vedanga Shaastras called - Vyakaranam and Nirukta. The pooled list of  'Samjnas' is placed in a document called  'paribhashaa-pada-kosha' = Technical Vocabulary of given Shaastra discipline. This is to be first studied and comprehended before taking up debates and discourses.

       At this point, the technical specific meaning of the word  goes beyond ' literal meaning' to the next level , far beyond the ' linguistic dressing' ( which a translator will use ; and take recourse to tools like Thesaurus !) In Samskrutham technically each word is unique; There is no exact equivalent ; There is no substitution plausible or suggested; More so in Shaastra works. This is the norm violated by post colonial writers in interpreting Shaastra through the lens of local languages and using dictionary of Monier Williams. Interest in study does not mean right to interpret bad ! Or self-positioning as authority on Shaastra-discipline, violating the Masters. The humbleness of Indian Shaastra traditionalists to be  'Backward compliant and repeat the words of old texts and re-assert the authority to Vedas is considered ' regressive' by scholars wedded to colonial thought process. This is the position embraced by Sheldon Pollock which hurts the traditional Shaastra study. The position that 'Sanskrit is dead' does not help to study the ' Live relevance of Shaastra and Kavya in Samskrutham'.

       For example, if one desires to study Vedanta, one must start the study from 'Vedanta-paribhashaa' before taking next 'progressive or regressive'  discourse step in commenting / translating Vedanta Shaastra. To discuss meemaamsaa Shaastra, one need  to go to 'meemaamsaa paribhashaa' ; To study Tarka, one goes to ' Tarka paribhashaa'. And so on. The ' paribhashaa' words may ( and are in many cases) drawn from Vedic resources, and given discipline specific meaning, without violating the primary ' Vision-Meaning and Purpose of the word'. Example: The word 'Prakruti' comes from 'Veda'; but when used across Vedanta, Meemaamsaa , Ayurveda, Samkhya, Vyakarana..Shaastras, the word carries different technical meanings. Tradition has a  special sacred discipline to explore ' Kama' ( Human Sexuality) also as a 'Shaastra) and Kavya works are aplenty on this theme . When Kama-Shastra is studied as ' Sexuality -Erotic's by removing the 'Shaastra nature of it, the associated  sacredness and its integrity with Higher concepts of Dharma and Moksha, the tradition gets misrepresented. This is the violation where Sheldon Pollock hurts.

      In this sense, the given 'paribhashaa word (संज्ञा word )' is using a 'Visioned word' for a  purpose; as a special technical word in the discipline. The technical word defined by the Shaastrakaara provides a sculpted perspective of the visioned word in that specific discipline; and may undergo a change / evolution over a period of Time ( as BM points out). A study of this is a part of understanding and doing research in Shaastra.  The traditional scholars use the summary statement reading < Samjnaa cha paribhashaa cha, vidhirniyama eva cha..> to explain the pedagogy and scope of Shaastra. Many western studies, including Pollock violates these set norms.

      Then how does one state the technical position of tradition to study Shaastra - Kavya -Samjnaa ? It starts from the 'Statement of Purpose and Method', technically called  'Anubandha Chatushtaya' coupled with 'Anvaya-Krama'. This covers the preliminary and vital issue of 'Adhikaara -Yogyataa' of Teacher and Taught. Many modern schools engaged in Shaastra studies, including lead names in Sanskrit studies  violates this norm set by tradition; using the shield of ' academic freedom' and ' relative position for comparative studies'. The issues of caste and religion, social justice over Spiritual  Welfare (Adhyatma) governs the selection for ' posts of power and profit' in employing institutions. Shaastra-Schoalrship becomes an issue of livelihood earning, which Is totally different from the original purpose of  ' Moksha'.   Thus, unless social relevance of ' Shaastra-Kavya -Samjna'  is  presented in a ' linguistically appropriate New Dress', it will not go  any further in research. Messed up writings in the name of Shaastra  cannot further the research in Shaastra -Kavya in any way !

      This ' position' and postulation' hurts many for their inner pride and lead to a long unwinding of defensive statements or  lamentation; for it is a factual bitter Truth. The bitterness is because of the failure to articulate and answer ' Why Samskruth Shaastra research ? How does it help deliver and steer global welfare beyond pushing a pride on achievement by past generations? Why are the current institutions failing to capture, articulate, deliver the Vision of Shaastra in current period ? for Global consumer ? Why Samskruth is not a driver in the field of World Language-Technologies, like English ?  It is in this part, Rajiv Malhotras battle for Sanskrit are commendable. They have raised significant questions that need to be answered by traditional schools as well as ' Faith-pride defenders' as well as those who < seek Government fund to support Shaastra research>.

Coming back to the main part of my response on < संज्ञा > 

  Traditional schools demand (a) Shaastra to be seen, positioned and studied as an integral part of Veda and (b) Shaastra-Vyakhyana to be subservient to Veda.

This is the core premise of 'Samskrutham- Sacredness -Spiritual nature (Adhyatmataa)' on which the ' Bharateeya Samskruti-Samskar-Identity is built and continuing'.

   Strategically if one destroys the integral relation of 'Samskruth and its Sacredness' , the net effect is ' injecting poison at the DNA level to distort the understanding of all that is built on 'Samskruth as the language of Shaastra and Kavya ∷ Veda -Vedanta-Yoga- Ramayana- Mahabharata-Purana- Tantra-Agama'.  This  point was  raised long ago by Colonial linguists; and they have postulated ' alternate position and postulate' to study Shaastra- Kavya' through the lens of 'Historical language modeling for Sacred Texts and languages of India'. The crux of this issue has not been addressed strongly, positively and conclusively. 

        This  'poorvapaksha ' of colonial scholar to traditional scholar' needs research and support. The question is:How is Samskruth Different from other languages of the World ? Why Hold Samskruth unique and sacred above every other language used by world religions - Hebrew, Arabic, Aramic,.. ? What is meant by Deva-Bhashaa ?  whose God/s ?

      The traditional Shaastra researcher /Defender has to answer this question on a different plank other than ' Faith -Belief' and put it to the 'Scientific touch stone'. It is here that Shaastra-Scholar Researcher needs support; and that is not coming forth from those ' Shaastra loving, Shaastra -proud, Communities who want their Root and continuing Identities to be anchored to Shaastra. Failing to invest and safeguard their own texts providing roots and identities, the ' job' is outsourced' beyond India ! to 'Scholars of Religion, History, National cultures and languages'. The outcome is the current battle front.

      According to traditional position, the ' Shaastra- researcher / discourses / translator has to acknowledge, accept and respect the integral connection of 'Shaastra' ( Logic) with 'Vedas'( = Vision, Sacredness, Yoga, Darshana). The Shaastra discourse and dialogue ( Poorvapaksha and Siddhanta) must work within the frame of ' Veda'. Even if it be a 'Charvaka of past' or '  Modern Charvaka'. The outcome of discourse needs to be validated by Yoga-Vijnana ( which is far above the current bio-and neuro sciences. The hot debate of Matter and Consciousness paradigm in Advanced theoretical physics needs to be reconciled to Gita-paradigm (Chapter 7- 'Bhoomiraponalo vayuh..   ) used in Shaastras; the understanding of ' Life (Prana and Ayush) in Shaastra needs to be validated by Bio- and Neuro scientists and Ayurveda-Shaastra researchers. This is where funding support for Shaastra -research is needed and Scholar-Champions of cause to investigate ' fundamental research issues in Shaastra'  beyond ' grant seeking to deliver a market product'.

  

Summing up, to Guard the right understanding of Samjnas, which are the DNA of Shaastra and Kavya-Language - Discourse, Support funding is needed.

Allowing Samjnaa-Corruption leads to speeding up of digestion-distortion-digression of Traditional Disciplines.

Regards

BVK Sastry

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

-----Original Message-----
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kalicharan Tuvij
Sent: Tuesday, 01 March, 2016 10:31 AM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Page 389 in Rajiv Malhotras 'Battle for Sanskrit'

--

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

प्रणाम ।

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

        Before going for heavy stuff,  what is < Hanumāna> in the sentence < In this way, Hanumāna - for instance - belongs to the same consistency (ऋत) elaborated in the Vedic system, even though the proper name isn't mentioned there. This principle has been known and implemented by Indians for a long time (admittedly, during "ancient" enough epochs). This unity is even to this day being accessed, and kept alive, by Ascetics ("yeah, field work").> Did you mean < Anu-Maana> ? please clarify.

I mean हनुमान only. I invoked an idea from Mathematics, namely "homomorphism" (for the current lack of any other common currency, my bad), which has the following meaning:

Suppose in a consistent system (called, "group") S there is a relation among three entities (among many belonging to that system):

a # b = c

Where, # is a relation belonging to the same system.

Now, when we say that another system T is homorphologically related, or "equivalent", to system S, it means that:

for every equation a # b = c belonging to system S, there is an equation in system T,

x § y = z

where, in some consistent way, x is related to a; y is related to b; z is related to c, and § is related to #.

This is how the original system S, by "regressing" upon itself through many homomorphisms, continues to create novel systems (such as T) that are nothing but creative solutions to domain specific challenges.

This is better understood through तंत्र विद्या, but as you know forums might not be the best place for it. Anyway, the whole edifice of modern science is based on this principle (i.e. on the narrow elaboration in Maths).

But the point I made is simple enough: it can be demonstrated that the innumerable Indic systems - all of them organically grown - are related to each other through a unity, which we can call the वेद itself (because it is perceived as the original system), though for all practical purposes any Indic system (say, शैव) is independent of any another Indic system (say, नाट्य शास्त्र, or even वेद). Moving through any of these worlds, mystically therefore, amounts to moving through any other world, including the वैदिक विश्व itself.

BVK Sastry observation (on technicality of संज्ञा ): The issue is much more complex than needing a 'linguistic dressing'. Why? Samjnas are DNA of Shaastra-Language - Discourse. If Samjnaa is corrupted, the understanding of Shaastra gets corrupted and leads to digestion-distortion-digression. This is what the writings of Sheldon Pollok ' using distorted understanding of Samjnaa' has lead to.  Here is how traditional schools present the concept of 'Samjnaa' in a  Shaastra.

a,b,c are संज्ञाs in system S, but morph into x,y,z respectively in system T. This is the fountainhead of creativity itself, yet as I discussed above - the underlying unity is not lost sight of. This is where BM's statement needed elaboration.

Pollock and others have exploited the false filters that Indians themselves have developed over the medieval ages. On my part, I can only admit of organic भक्ति traditions as being "traditions" in genuine sense. Brahmins were earmarked to be the gatekeepers of our heritage: their scholarly traditions (भाष्य, व्याकरण, so on) were merely the means by which they held on to the keys of the treasure.

Brahmins were not invested with special powers. But they were meant to be what Rsis meant them to be; the important point is, the work has been carried out. "What next" is the question.

Interest in study does not mean right to interpret bad ! Or self-positioning as authority on Shaastra-discipline, violating the Masters. The humbleness of Indian Shaastra traditionalists to be  'Backward compliant and repeat the words of old texts and re-assert the authority to Vedas is considered ' regressive' by scholars wedded to colonial thought process. This is the position embraced by Sheldon Pollock which hurts the traditional Shaastra study. The position that 'Sanskrit is dead' does not help to study the ' Live relevance of Shaastra and Kavya in Samskrutham'.

अधिकार is a naive idea here. Of course everyone is free to do anything they want to. We are also free now to do anything we want to, and in my view we should concern ourselves with this alone.

English being an Anglo language, Sheldon Pollock is prima facie OK in translating from Sanskrit to English. Who knows, It might be of some help to some of the deracinated Indians as well (which may still lead them to the source).

The deeper issues however are far from simple, and I've posted my further thoughts on Sri RM's thread (as per his request to post there).

 

I've gone through the rest of the reply carefully. I accept, and indeed learned, all of that wholeheartedly. Nothing possible to add there.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Rajiv,

I do not need any introduction to you, so please take my remarks objectively, in the spirit in which I offer them. As you know, a number of us here, professional academic scholars and amateurs alike, understand and sympathize/empathize with many elements of the larger picture that you are drawing. However, quite frankly, I think your point #2 below, about Sringeri Peetham and Columbia University, overstates the case quite a lot and significantly misleads many of your readers. I apologize for the usage of a couple of words with all caps in what follows; it is just an easy way to add emphasis. Also, please note that I am writing this in my capacity as a private individual. I am not an official spokesperson for either the Sringeri Peetham or the trust that runs its affiliate in the United States. Nevertheless, I am setting down my perspective on this forum, because it is not Sringeri's style to issue press statements and public responses, and I see a lot of public and private conversations that seem quite misinformed. 

The basic idea planned by the Sringeri Vidya Bharati Foundation (SVBF) in the USA was to endow a chair for Indian philosophy, named for Adi Sankara, in a suitable department at Columbia University. Prof. Pollock was involved in the discussions in his capacity as a Columbia faculty member who is a Sanskritist, because you cannot do Indian philosophy without Sanskrit knowledge. He was not going to be occupying that chair himself, nor could one of his own students have taken it up, simply because philology and linguistics are not philosophy. I confess that I was myself unaware of this particular nuance at one point of time, but the president of the SVBF trust was very open in sharing some of the details when I brought up my own concerns privately with him. In fact, I believe Sheldon Pollock would have been that much closer to emeritus status at Columbia, by the time this proposed chair in Indian philosophy would have been up and running. As far as I know, at the time you got involved with this, the discussions between the two parties were at a very early stage and not a single cent had exchanged hands. To assume that everything would have moved at lightning speed at Columbia and at other universities across the USA is to quite misunderstand the way in which the Sringeri Peetham actually operates and takes decisions. Indeed, the more typical scenario is that a lot of impatient people often criticize Sringeri for not acting quickly enough! Of course, if things had moved forward, Prof. Pollock would have been involved in selecting the occupant of the chair, but that is par for the course.

Anyway, the only people privy to all the details and the discussions between SVBF and Columbia University are the trustees of SVBF and the representatives of the university. Beyond a point, the specifics of what would have or would not have happened are matters of speculation for the rest of us. We can all take our educated guesses about the broad potential outcomes and you could perhaps respond to me that you know more about the actual details of SVBF's discussions with Columbia than I do, but at this point in time, it is all moot. Either because of your intervention or for some other reason, the said project has not moved forward. 

That said, let me confidently assert the following.

1. A chair endowed in an American university with donations from Sringeri followers in the United States would be NOWHERE even close to an "official mouthpiece of Sringeri internationally."

2. The Sringeri Peetham in India would *NEVER* hand over the right to speak on its behalf to any professor in a foreign university, or for that matter, in a modern Indian university. Believe me, an institution that has endured remarkably well, through all the ups and downs of Indian history, over the centuries that have seen many other traditional institutions get wiped out completely, knows well, how to preserve its tradition and how to choose the people who will preserve its tradition. The standards that are expected are extremely high and are not going to be diluted any time soon, least of all to favor some unknown future employee or a known current employee of a foreign university.

3. The Sringeri Sankaracharyas have always been and will always continue to be extremely choosy about delegating authority to people even among the community of pundits with traditional training, dedication and lifestyles. For this, they often get criticized nowadays for not being open enough and not adapting to the changing times in India, but the Sringeri tradition knows that you can't preserve things by being too open, so it takes this criticism in stride and doesn't play fast and loose with anything. A number of traditional pundits are on this forum and can attest to the truth of this statement.

4. The sword of being/becoming an official mouthpiece cuts both ways. On the other end, Columbia University would not have agreed to house a faculty member in an endowed chair to become a mouthpiece for an Indian religious organization, no matter how prestigious or ancient. The concept of academic freedom in the West would have stood insurmountably in the way, no matter how much you and I criticize the actual application of that concept. A number of university professors are also on this forum and can attest to the truth of this statement as well.

5. In summary, neither a very traditional Sankaracharya institution, perhaps the most traditional and conservative among them all, nor an American big name university would behave this way.

6. If what you fear would have come to happen (that the occupant of the proposed chair would have subtly/insidiously compromised or cut at the root of the Veda-Vedanta tradition represented and led by the Sringeri Peetham), then the Sankaracharyas and their followers would have found other ways to react. I can assert that with the greatest confidence as well.

7. As you say at the end, the real problem is not with Pollock, and I agree. As for problems among the tradition keepers, of incompetence, laziness, selling out or being bought, that is, again, NEVER going to happen with the Sankaracharyas of Sringeri, no matter what some people may assume or think or say today. People at the administrative level, with the authority to decide on and allocate the institution's resources, come and go. They have different operating styles and concerns, which again is par for the course, but if your concern was about the fundamentals of the Advaita Vedanta tradition, they will always endure at Sringeri, as in the past. A university professor at Columbia, who may or may not be beholden to Prof. Sheldon Pollock, is going to change nothing. 

With all that out of the way, let me raise a bigger question. How else are Hindus in the USA supposed to engage with academia if we do not talk, and constructively so, with university administrations and the professors involved? Does it have to be a situation where we from the East make our lives in the West, yet ensure that never the twain shall meet? Not all members of this forum may be aware of it, but another initiative by a different group on the opposite coast of the US has recently been shut down as well, at UC Irvine, where the monetary donation had already been made and the university has now found reason to return it. In this case, it has been because of fears from left leaning pressure groups that a chair at UC Irvine could become "an official mouthpiece" of a Hinduism that is becoming increasingly right-wing. I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of this position, but merely pointing out that this has happened at the other end of the United States.

In summary, it seems to me that those who want to protect our traditions are suspicious and fearful of what will happen if an American university chair were to become an official mouthpiece for a traditional Hindu institution (although I see zero chances of that happening). Those who want to protect American universities from "right-wing Hindu" takeover are also suspicious and fearful of what will happen if a university chair were to become an official mouthpiece that will speak for Hindus (although I see zero chances of that happening as well). I can't help but think that there is a significant amount of xenophobia operating at both ends of the spectrum.

Overall, from where I stand, the end result seems to be this. If Indians in the United States were to have had any chance of influencing how our numerous traditions as well as the India of today are studied and portrayed, from the halls of higher academia to the middle and elementary schools, there have been enormous setbacks within the last year. No constructive discussion, even at an initial stage, can happen in such an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, let alone an outcome that is conducive for a change for the better. And like it or not, if we can't or won't engage with academia in the West, fat chance of influencing and changing anything back in India. It is well and good to be critical of critical academic scholars, but my gut says that all this might well end up being a Pyrrhic victory with respect to the actual things that need to get accomplished.

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste Kalicharan Tuviji

 

1. Thanks for clarifying the word < I mean हनुमान only. I invoked an idea from Mathematics, namely "homomorphism"    >  as a special < संज्ञा   >  created by you.

 

2. As you have indicated < This is better understood through तंत्र विद्या, but as you know forums might not be the best place for it.   > .

    I agree. Rest of the interaction can be on off-forum mode.

 

3. Thanks for the words of appreciation < I've gone through the rest of the reply carefully. I accept, and indeed learned, all of that wholeheartedly. Nothing possible to add there.>.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kalicharan Tuvij
Sent: Wednesday, 02 March, 2016 8:57 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Page 389 in Rajiv Malhotras 'Battle for Sanskrit'

 

प्रणाम ।

--

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Thanks for clarifying the word < I mean हनुमान only. I invoked an idea from Mathematics, namely "homomorphism"    >  as a special < संज्ञा   >  created by you.

Yes a संज्ञा created, but in the विश्व of रामायण. In the आयण of राम . 

And that's how रामायण mirrors वेदा, yet is completely independent from it. 

 2. As you have indicated < This is better understood through तंत्र विद्या, but as you know forums might not be the best place for it.   > .

    I agree. Rest of the interaction can be on off-forum mode.

But if some truths cannot be transmitted to the other without replication by the other in the form of lived experience, then no doubt we are in a big trouble, because such experiences might take quite a while - if not never - to come by, in contrast to the immediate test-ability of teachings in material sciences and cultures.

All the talk of generating knowledge - even by catching hold of some or the other यजमान - will just remain that: talk. Third world countries remain third world because they are able to find ways of sinking - not creating - money, in wasteful vicious cycles.

Even दस्युजन have this dark wisdom: how to survive in world, by transacting (business, work, whatever) in दास modes, so they keep their heads down and give their masters their due. They don't fit into the character of the यजमान of यज्ञ, sacrifice.

How much यज्ञ is inside us? Let the scholar ask himself/ herself this before making a jump.

Eminent A says something, and eminent B says something and says "I don't know what you mean. And I am busy."

A and B, far from creating something, can't agree on what they are here for. Meanwhile it is all merry, and good money spent.

And why should Indians need translating anything at all into English? (out of "clerk zeal"?)

An average भारतीय doesn't need शास्त्र either: all he needs at the end of it is a capacity for तपस्या, whithout which he remains tortured like a tethered पशु. Currently no extant knowledge system anywhere in the world is designed for this objective.

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I shared two related posts from the Indology forum here.

 

Following is my post , on that forum, emerged during the same context:

 

In an earlier post of mine on Prof. Pollock's 2012 lecture, I said I would
make a separate post on deexoticization. Here it is:


1. Dealing with the classics of a community which has living practitioners
of various aspects of culture such as the religion contained in those
classics,  is different from dealing with the classics of a community which
no longer has living practitioners of the religion and other such aspects
in those classics. Availability of these living practitioners is both a
problem and an opportunity. Problem because the practitioners react/respond
to what has been said about what they live, in the study of the classics
that contain the aspects that they put in practice;  opportunity because
the student of the classics can take the help of study of the practice in
understanding the classics.

2. What Prof. Ingalls did to Sanskrit studies, in the form of exposing,
criticizing and countering the “monstrous” (-not my word-) Eurocentric
study of Sanskrit material, was very much similar to what cultural
relativists did to the study of various world cultures. He made
Sanskritists aware of the cultural sensitivity keeping in view the
sensibilities of the culture insiders.

Cultural relativists evaluate the validity of their study by taking back
their study to the studied people and testing it for cultural sensitivity.

3.  Deromanticization, i.e., undoing of the romanticized presentation of
the ‘positive’ of a culture studied need not necessarily be in the form of
the other extreme, the romanticized presentation of the ‘negative’ of the
studied culture.

When I go to fieldwork in Indian villages, the villagers keep asking me,
“Are you going to present the same old feudal time picture of our villages
that the movie guys present, a cruel landlord replacing the bullocks of a
cart with the agricultural laborers and whipping them to bleed and so on?”


It is heartening to see that there are still a very big number of Sanskrit
scholars in US, who still live the sensitivity encouraged by likes of
Prof. Ingalls. Though uneventful journeys do not get reported as
news, they are the ones passengers love!

Thanks and regards,

-N


 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[L Srinivas]

I would like to apologize in advance for not sharing the same love for the late Prof Ingalls.

It may be noted that the CIA and American Special Forces in Afghanistan have recognized cultural sensitivity as a strategic weapon especially as the numbers of their forces reduce.in the occupied country. It's not a new doctrine. The British knew it from their Imperial experience. The Americans learnt it during the World War II.

And oh incidentally, Ingalls did spend a few years in Kabul during World War II spying on Indian patriots who were trying to flee British Raj thru Central Asia on their way to Germany or Japan. He was an officer of the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA. The CIA itself was formed by an act of Congress only in 1947. Please refer to Ingalls's obituary in the Harvard Gazette or a book on the Great Game during the World War II. Of course as cover, he worked as an English teacher in a lycee in Kabul. It is said he was also working on his Ph D dissertation at this time.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/02/daniel-henry-holmes-ingalls/

Who says that Indologists dont learn from their field work?

Thanks and Regards,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​Sri Lakshmi Srinivas wrote:

It may be noted that the CIA and American Special Forces in Afghanistan have recognized cultural sensitivity as a strategic weapon especially as the numbers of their forces reduce.in the occupied country. It's not a new doctrine. The British knew it from their Imperial experience. The Americans learnt it during the World War II. And oh incidentally, Ingalls did spend a few years in Kabul during World War II spying on Indian patriots who were trying to flee British Raj thru Central Asia on their way to Germany or Japan. He was an officer of the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA. The CIA itself was formed by an act of Congress only in 1947.

My Reply: Thanks for selective quoting and twisting the story about Prof Ingalls​. Please stick to Prof. Pollock's references as that is the topic of discussion here on this thread. Please discuss only matter related to Sanskrit and indology here and not conspiracy theories

My answer to your statement is  is So what? Could you show any evidence from his work related Sanskrit where such a theory about him influenced his Sanskrit scholarship. This list is not meant Western scholarship bashing or to moot conspiracy theories. Thanks

I am quoting information about him from the quoted web page about Prof Ingalls.

Dan Ingalls was a cultured, polite, elegant host to friends, neighbors, and students. He was in close contact with colleagues in classical studies. In addition to the Society of Fellows, he was a member of the History of Religions and Philology Clubs that met for dinner and talks at members’ homes. He kept in contact with students and colleagues even after his retirement to Virginia and he would gather some twenty-five students for a Sanskrit reading salon in his apartment on Memorial Drive.

While Ingalls continued to write on Indian philosophy, his deep interest in poetry came increasingly to the fore. In 1964, he published a 460 page volume An Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry. Vidyakara’s Subhasitaratnakosa. (H.O.S. Volume 44), containing some 1,700 Sanskrit verses collected by a Buddhist monk around 1050 C.E. Ingalls’ great intuition for Sanskrit along with his magisterial command of English made this translation among the very best. It is still available in a paperback edition. His introductions, notes, and commentaries make the entire work a masterful and enduring contribution to Sanskrit literary studies. In the introduction, Ingalls sheds light on the development of Indian poetry and compares the impersonality of Sanskrit poetry with the predominantly personal poetry of the West. As the project came to a conclusion, Ingalls said that Vidyakara had furnished him with “the happiest hours of labor that I have yet known.”

In 1981 the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies joined the Center for the Study of World Religions in hosting a dinner for Ingalls to celebrate the recent publication of a Festschrift dedicated to him as “one of the great humanistic scholars of our time” and entitled Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Daniel H. H. Ingalls. Its preface emphasized his immense breadth of scholarship and the pioneering impact and lasting value of his two books, one for the study of logic and the other for literary studies. A flood of telegrams and letters of appreciation arrived from India, England, Japan, and many parts of the United States.

In 1990, after his retirement, Daniel Ingalls brought to conclusion his third major contribution to the Harvard Oriental Series, a joint undertaking with Jeffrey M. Masson and M.V. Patwardhan, The Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana with the Locana of Abhinavagupta, edited with an introduction by Ingalls himself (H.O.S. Volume 49). The book deals with the culmination of Indian poetics by the Kashmiri scholar Abhinavagupta in the 9th century C.E. In this, he makes one of the most influential texts and commentaries of Sanskrit aesthetics and literary theory available in English.

In addition to his three major books, he published some twenty-seven articles on Indological topics. After his retirement, Ingalls worked with his son, computer scientist Daniel H. H. Ingalls Jr., Harvard ‘66, on a computer-assisted analysis of the literary technique of the Mahabharata, and their first findings were published in 1985 in the Journal of South Asian Literature.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:24 AM, L Srinivas <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to apologize in advance for not sharing the same love for the late Prof Ingalls.

It may be noted that the CIA and American Special Forces in Afghanistan have recognized cultural sensitivity as a strategic weapon especially as the numbers of their forces reduce.in the occupied country. It's not a new doctrine. The British knew it from their Imperial experience. The Americans learnt it during the World War II.

And oh incidentally, Ingalls did spend a few years in Kabul during World War II spying on Indian patriots who were trying to flee British Raj thru Central Asia on their way to Germany or Japan. He was an officer of the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA. The CIA itself was formed by an act of Congress only in 1947. Please refer to Ingalls's obituary in the Harvard Gazette or a book on the Great Game during the World War II. Of course as cover, he worked as an English teacher in a lycee in Kabul. It is said he was also working on his Ph D dissertation at this time.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/02/daniel-henry-holmes-ingalls/

Who says that Indologists dont learn from their field work?

Thanks and Regards,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On Mar 3, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks for selective quoting and twisting the story about Prof Ingalls​. Please stick to Prof. Pollock's references as that is the topic of discussion here on this thread. Please discuss only matter[s] related to Sanskrit and indology here and not conspiracy theories<

I do not think that Shri L. Srinivas did any selective quoting and twisting. Nor do I think that he engaged in conspiracy theories. Ingalls should not be given so much credit  for sensitivity seems to be his point. (I do not agree with that point, for I do not see any sure connection between spying in Afghanistan and sensitivity to Sanskrit poetry or Indian culture, but if he feels that there is a connection, he has a right to say so. And, as I have already written above, he has, in my view, stated his point without any selective quoting or twisting.)

> Could you show any evidence from his work related Sanskrit where such a theory about him influenced his Sanskrit scholarship.<

This is a fair question and will serve to bring the discussion closer to the objectives of the BVP forum.

For contextually balanced understanding of the details given by Shri L. Srinivas, I should add this: When one’s country is in danger, people are forced to undertake work they would not normally undertake. Linguists like Leonard Bloomfield and Indologists like Norman Brown were employed to translate enemy messages, decode cables etc. This was because of their superior linguistic skills and abilities to understand unfamiliar cultures. If they had been forced into the duties of active soldiers, they might not have come back alive to mature as scholars. (Similar are the stories of Prof. Wilhelm Rau and Agehānanda Bhāratī (= Leopold Fisher), although they worked only as interpreters in the German counterparts of Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army. 

I met Ingalls regularly for four years (as a student as well as an occasional substitute teacher of his students), since he was my guide. I read Avestan and Old Persian with Richard Frye in two courses and later met him more than once in the meetings of the American Oriental Society. Neither ever mentioned to me that they had served in Afghanistan during a war! That was obviously not an important part of their lives in their view. 

What was great about them (as with some of my teachers like S.D. Joshi, K.S. Arjunwadkar, and A.G. Mangrulker in Pune) was that they never expressed displeasure when a student disagreed with them. They encouraged the students to think independently and did not hesitate to admit their own errors. 

I attach herewith a rather long review I wrote in Sanskrit of Ingalls’ translation of the Subhāṣita-ratna-kośa even before I met him. You will find his sensitivity to poetry mentioned even in that immature piece of mine. And he did not become angry with me, although I criticized him in certain areas.

[L Srinivas]

That an Indologist was a spy for his government and was spying on Indians is a fact, not a theory about him. Since when does a recital of a fact become  scholarship bashing or conspiracy theory? I am puzzled.

Lakshmi Srinivas

[L Srinivas]

Thank you, Prof Aklujkar.

> When one’s country is in danger, people are forced to undertake work they would not normally undertake.

 Except that when that country turns out to be mine or next to mine, I'd sit up and take notice. 

 I really dont need to produce any evidence for anything that may flow out of what I said. We notice that mathematicians dont find it that hard to pick up Panini or other forms of grammar, just as philologists dont find it that hard to become code breakers and such. There are some habits of thought and some kind of problem solving which are shared across certain disciplines. Likewise, what you learn in one field, you apply in the next. Nothing very surprising about it.

This may be tangential to poetic sensitivity. I am not going to shout from rooftops about how aesthetically pleasing are the  Harvard school's translations.  I may not be alone in this. Here I note the effort taken by George Hart to use a professional poet for his translations.

In the current environment among western scholars where any critique of an Indologist amounts to being 'Hindu fundamentalist', one does expect a somewhat more rational and balanced outlook among non western scholars. Perhaps one has no right to such expectation.

Thanks,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am just back in front of my system.

 

Thanks Vidwan L.Srinivas for the Harvard.edu link. I would not have known this aspect of the career of Prof. Ingalls without this.

 

Thanks Prof. Aklujkar, as always, you provided the timely guidance to view such matters.

 

My teachers and friends who studied with Prof. Ingalls never shared these aspects of his career with me.

 

Prof. George Hart was the first one to share his happiness offline with me for this post of mine. He shared his nostalgia of his student days with Prof. Ingalls and shared how he is able to understand the Indian anguish at the unnecessary interference by some of the Indologists in Indian politics. He also shared due to his living in India, he understands how offended Indians feel when their culture is looked down upon by the westerners.

 

Prof . Dominik Wujastyk thanked me offline for the 'stimulating comments' , though we had a long offline conversation on some aspects.

 

The same obituary on Harvard.edu website says:

 

Though a political conservative himself, Ingalls had a lifelong friendship with the Indian Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi, who became the text-editor for the Subhasitaratnakosa. Of Kosambi, Ingalls wrote, “I have never met a man with whom I disagreed on such basic questions, yet whose company I so constantly enjoyed.” 

 

Compare the clarity of stand in  “I have never met a man with whom I disagreed on such basic questions, yet whose company I so constantly enjoyed.” with the blind borrowing from Kosambi by some of the present Indologists who do this in the name of their own great efforts of 'deromanticizing' 'deexoticizing' Indology, though Kosambi himself has been relegated just into the position of  a pioneer of  the lineage of rigorous Marxist historiography which moved into more advanced stages by the later and the present Marxist historians.

 

Is it not a good idea to focus on the healthy side of Indology for a balance?

 

Thanks and regards, 

 

Nagaraj

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

I have a few points on the topic of Ingalls and his personal geopolitical involvements:

1. Such an issue is appropriate to discuss as part of interpreting the work of a scholar. Both Indian and western approaches to philology place emphasis on the "context" in which someone did his work. We bring in the context to interpret the words of an Indian voice in a text. The same relevance also applies to the context in which a western Indologist has worked. What filters have motivated a thinker to select certain things and ignore others? What assumptions did (s)he make consciously or unconsciously in doing the work? etc.
   
2. Western Indologists routinely bring in such political contexts of Indian thinkers when interpreting them. This is true for ancient and modern thinkers. The biographical background of an Indian is always studied with great interest.
3. Westerners do such personal "digging" about each other also, and many books are written that go into details of the "secret life" of important thinkers.
   
4. It is strange that some Indians have imposed self-censorship to be able to do this to westerners. This leads to idolatry of western Indologists. When westerners bring out such personal details about Indians, it is considered a favor to the Indian thinker for "making him seem more human" - as in the example of Sri Aurobindo's controversial biography (about his multiple live) that cause a stir. So why cant we say that bringing out such personal background/context of Ingalls "makes him more human"?
5. This reversing the gaze is important to do with respect and with rigor, free from emotions or sweeping judgments.
   

I personally know of meetings regularly held at the conferences of the American Academy of Religion (and other humanities disciplines) where important Indologists are invited to brief CIA/FBI. It is very well established that the whole "area studies" in the US was initiated by such US government agencies after the second world war, to monitor (and infiltrate) intellectual development in what was called "the third world". There is a lot written on this if you are interested. These contexts are not irrelevant in the works of scholars.

Most Western Indologists tend to have multiple lives, multiple contexts in which they play regarding their Indological work. You can find a variety of things the same person has said - both positive and negative. This confuses many Indians. There is also a frequent dichotomy between the private and public utterances. For instance, there are many private bhakts of Vedic systems (i.e. as true insiders) who do not show this aspect publicly in order to remain credible with their establishment. Conversely, there are those who privately have agendas to do social engineering, but who are publicly very positive and supportive of Indian traditions.

Coming back to Pollock: In my book, "The Battle For Sanskrit", both Ingalls and Pollock are mentioned. My approach is to use only their published writings to evaluate them. I do not rely on hearsay or speculations or what others have revealed. Ingalls comes out very firmly rooted in respecting Indian traditional contexts.

His ace student, Pollock, comes out quite differently. In fact this is where the Pollock era begins: Pollock deviates from Ingalls mandate that the sacredness of a text must not be compromised in its interpretation. Pollock explicitly asserts that the right philology must be "political philology". In fact, he scolds orientalists (Ingalls would belong in this category) who he feels have romanticized the Indian texts. He wants new scholars to be social-political activists in "exposing" the oppression, the social toxins contained in Sanskrit texts. When time permits in a few days I will cite numerous such evidence of Pollock's works.

The whole issue is about contexts: Who is to supply the context, the text itself, or the modern scholar armed with Marxism, feminism, postmodernism, subaltern theory, and so forth? Our scholars should not ignore this battlefront.

Regards,
Rajiv

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM, L Srinivas <lns2...@gmail.com> wrote:

That an Indologist was a spy for his government and was spying on Indians is a fact, not a theory about him. Since when does a recital of a fact become  scholarship bashing or conspiracy theory? I am puzzled.

​You still need to prove he was spy​

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I don't at all agree with the views of Rajiv Malhotras views either . These are misguided statements without an iota of truth. I donot believe in a spy theories unless you bring evidence.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

1. The reference to Ingalls was brought up by Nagaraj and not Srinivas.
2. Unquestioning praise of anyone is not a hallmark of scholarliness. If Ingalls was praised for something, it is fair that we hear about his other side. Hence one doesn't understand the overreaction.
3. The reference to Ingalls' spying activity is not a "conspiracy theory". It is there in cold print in his obituary.
4. Understanding the man many a time gives insights into the expediencies he would have encountered in his work. To negate such a possibility prima facie and giving him a carte blanche thinking that he would have been academically neutral is naive. This seems the crux of the matter even in the case of Pollock. And to this extent the input of Srinivas is valuable. We are discussing a field where academic neutrality may be claimed and still not be falsified. Does it bear repetition that humanities aren't exact sciences and that much of its research is agenda driven? All those who have worked in and on India need to be analyzed for their contributions and troubles they have caused. Let none be treated as holy.

svasti,
       JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                      shrivathsa.

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I don't want to enter into any prolonged debate I don't believe Prof Ingalls was a spy. I will not change my mind till evidences are given

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Bijoy Misra]

Personal life of people are probed when a person in power carries radical views

or makes extraordinary inventions.  Prof Ingalls was a fine gentleman and a 

thorough scholar.  I met him briefly and I was impressed. I think a person's

youth need not take scrutiny.  Prof Ingalls respected Sanskrit and India.  

So is not the case with many!

--

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Dear Shri Ajit ji. I did NOT claim any spy theory for Ingalls at all. Please read my post carefully.

On the broader issue of CIA role in Area Studies, this is well known.

For example, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_studies

Here is the history of this CIA program summarized by Nick Dirks, himself a prominent Indologist: http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-SpiesGlobal/133459/

Prakash Karat, CPM leader, launched a massive expose in his 1984 article published in "The Marxist" journal, which is available at: http://www.cpim.org/marxist/198402_marxist_vol_org_prakash.htm

CIA has active recruitment program on US campuses, open visits for interviews. Please see CIA web site for careers: https://www.cia.gov/careers/student-opportunities

There are several books on CIA infiltration into US academics, mostly written by leftist Americans. Yet, when it comes to Indians in Indology, this topic is kept off limits. It is fair game for western scholars to discuss but Indians are discouraged. This enable Indians to remain happily and peacefully in their silos.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I am still looking for evidence I don't consider news paper reports ,wiki reports and Marxists journals as any evidences.

Rajiv Malhotra says CIA has active recruitment program on US campuses, open visits for interviews. Please see CIA web site for careers: https://www.cia.gov/careers/student-opportunities

There are several books on CIA infiltration into US academics, mostly written by leftist Americans. Yet, when it comes to Indians in Indology, this topic is kept off limits. It is fair game for western scholars to discuss but Indians are discouraged. This enable Indians to remain happily and peacefully in their silos."

My Reply: This is not Sanskrit studies on which this list focuses. As I have said before this list is not meant to undermine Indologists and their contributions. Non India Western Indologists who are not members of this list.

[Bijoy Misra]

Rajiv,

These are international and political issues.  Again may not be to the charter of BVP.

Funding sources do shape people's opinion.  But we should look at the product and

evaluate in a scholarly manner as much we can.  This has been Prof Pollock's

problem. He is firm in believing that all creative work must have been engineered

through some royal support to create flattery. I differ on this with him strongly.

Many could do, but we must not generalize.

Bijoy     

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Bijoy wrote:  This has been Prof Pollock's problem. He is firm in believing that all creative work must have been engineered through some royal support to create flattery. I differ on this with him strongly.

Response: The main thesis of Pollock's 'Language of gods ...' relies upon this point.

• He cites dozens of examples to show that it was kings (and only the kings) who caused the spread of Sanskrit and its texts - he coins the term "Sanskrit Cosmopolis" to refer to this. The kings' royal patronage is what drove Sanskrit.
• Furthermore, this royal patronage was driven by the quest for power. His signature "Theory of the Aestheticization of Power" is an elaborate explanation of how royal power drove the spread of sanskrit and culture. I call this a sweeping and very original piece of work by him.
  
• Then he says that brahmins did this work in Sanskrit and kavya as per king's mandate. In return, they were made powerful because brahmins had this right exclusively. (This is where his earlier conclusions about Vedic social hierarchy of power is cited.)
• Bottom line: There is a brahmin-king nexus of power driving the history of Sanskrit and culture.

I reverse this logic to show that USA state (as the modern equivalent of the king) is involved in Indology. Can we call it the US "aestheticization of power"? Maybe Pollock would agree with my view, as it takes his theory and applies it in reverse.

Why is it within scholarly bounds to do what Pollock does, but considered unscholarly to respond by saying that American Orientalists are equally involved in the same thing - not all of them but many of them.

Would you consider Pollock's thesis as unscholarly because it drags in Indian politics? He is not only heavily bringing in ancient Indian politics, but also present day Indian politics - many articles on the past start by framing in terms of BJP/RSS-bashing. I am not interesting in defending or criticizing BJP/RSS. I merely wish to inform scholars that such writings are considered appropriate when done by Western Indologists.

What I seek is symmetry and parity in scholarship in both directions. Nothing more or less.

[L Srinivas]

Respectfully, I'm not clear why the burden of providing evidence is on me. I've cited Ingalls's obituary which is signed  by a set of academicians well known in their respective fields. They are drawn from the community of his students, peers or successors in the department. I see no reason to doubt their words in this regard. Nor do I see any protest from his children, grand children etc. I also looked in vain for a retraction from the Harvard Gazette itself. There was not any.

If you dont want to believe what's out there, that's clearly your prerogative. I understand that.

Thanks and Regards,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Rajiv Malhotra wrote:"What I seek is symmetry and parity in scholarship in both directions. Nothing more or less."

My Reply : Let me ask a question why do you need to decide? Scholars write what they feel are best in their judgement. There is no binding on any one to accept any one view. You are always welcome to have another view. During that process let your criticism be focused on scholarly content rather than on generalization. You talk so much about Pollock etc. I have not seen you write anything relating to Sanskrit by quoting and analyzing original texts. May I say you are relying too much on secondary literature.

​If Prof. Pollock is bringing politics then they are not discussed on this list​

[Bijoy Misra]

Rajiv,

You have done an excellent work in analyzing Prof Pollock and creating a scholarly evaluation.

But to interpret it further is a different task.  This is where I believe Prof Pollock is into 

political operation, as again evidenced by his various other statements.  My thinking

is that BVP should be left as a scholarly forum analyzing the merits of a product and

not of the individual's resources or pedigree.

Prof Pollock's political ideas are food for political discussion.  There are a lot of issues

with them.  I am wondering if BVP is the right forum.  I am only a member.  BVP lets

me express.  Sometimes similar mails in Indology list get suppressed.  So I think

Indology is a semi-political list.  We should keep BVP as a scholars' list if we can.,

Thank you.

Bijoy 

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

L Rinivas Wrote : Nor do I see any protest from his children, grand children etc. I also looked in vain for a retraction from the Harvard Gazette itself. There was not any.

Ajits View: Let me too respectfully submit my view. His children or grand children supporting or not supporting is no evidence to prove he is a spy.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Let me add this as Mod Note: Politics is not discussed on BVP List

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Ajit: "You talk so much about Pollock etc. I have not seen you write anything relating to Sanskrit by quoting and analyzing original texts. May I say you are relying too much on secondary literature."

Response: To do purva-paksha of Pollock one must quote him, which is what I do 100s of times in my book. Citing original Sanskrit texts would come under uttara-paksha. But first step is to understand what Pollock says - which is not an easy thing to do. Only then can someone develop uttara. We are still at step 1. Your view suggests you do not consider purva-paksha of Indology to be a fair subject here. That is fine but needs to be clarified - that this forum does not want to get involved in purva-paksha.

There are many reasons I find among some Indian scholars shying away from purva-paksha of Western Indology - fear of upsetting the power structure of Indology, inability to read the dense/convoluted English works of Indologists, over-confidence, under-confidence, etc.

Whatever these reasons may be, it would be nice for the forum moderators to clarify policy: Is purva-paksha of Western Indology allowed or off-limits? If it is allowed, then one must read the text being critiqued - which in Pollock's case is in English. One must cite it heavily and then analyze it, which is what I have done - more thoroughly than any other scholar I am aware of.

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:21 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't at all agree with the views of Rajiv Malhotras views either . These are misguided statements without an iota of truth. I donot believe in a spy theories unless you bring evidence.

Taking the second assertion first: Do read the obituary at Vbb􏰃2((􏰄Sea’VO􏰆dO􏰆R’SRc(UOhSbbS(ab􏰁􏰆g(+)􏰌)()+(RO􏰄WS􏰂􏰍VS􏰄􏰆g􏰍V􏰁􏰂􏰇Sa􏰍W􏰄UO􏰂􏰂a(   to which Sri L. Srinivas referred? One of the signatories to it is Prof. Richard Frye, who was with Ingalls in Kaburl and was a long-time colleague thereafter. What more evidence would you need?

Perhaps “spy” is too strong a word here. “informer,” “helper in translation,” “reporter” may be closer to the truth of what Ingalls, Frye, et al. did during the second world war (recall also that the USA was a late entrant in the war and had to do a lot of catch-up).

>I don't at all agree with the views of Rajiv Malhotras views either . These are misguided statements without an iota of truth.<

What is your evidence/argument for concluding that they are misguided or that every assertion/thought in them is untrue? An explanation may be beneficial to this list. 

a.a.

 

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On Mar 4, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me add this as Mod Note: Politics is not discussed on BVP List

Should we not discuss even that part/aspect of politics which affects the study, survival/preservation, or progress of Sanskrit studies or Indology? 

In my view, one of the main reasons why Sanskrit is in such a precarious position at present is the aloofness of traditional scholars from what is happening around them. They should have taken note (or should have been enabled to take note), on a large scale, of the changed circumstances, to analyze the changes, to propose strategies that took into account even the changing political conditions and to answer, even if partially, the fundamental question of where their traditional world view differed from the present dominant world view. The attached two papers may be helpful in this regard, especially the “piṇḍa-brahmāṇḍa” one. 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The word spy has derogatory connotations Some may have translated for CIA that does not make them spies. Iwould Prefer to Call Prof. Ingalls

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Sanskrit studies in India is not under the verge of extinction. Standards might have come down in a few area and we need to focus o those areas. It always to good to be focused on Sanskrit and Indology in India or criticize works of Western and Indian scholars in a way work is reviewed.  Part or aspect of JNU on which Prof. Pollock has given statements doesn't impact Sanskrit studies in India and is a political statement

I have already given my view about the petition on another thread.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

-

[rajivmalhotra2007]

ajit.gargeshwari wrote: "Let me add this as Mod Note: Politics is not discussed on BVP List"

This is an important policy statement. I hope it will be applied consistently. The following works of Pollock are based on political arguments, and I assume these works are not allowed to be discussed:

1. His theory of the aestheticization of power to explain the Sanskrit Cosmopolis as a political phenomenon.
2. His thesis in the paper "Deep Orientalism" that argues how Nazis used the social oppression rationalized in Sanskrit texts to shape their own case for genocide.
3. His theory of the death of sanskrit which focuses on the role of Hindu kings for this death.
4. His work on Ramayana (or a large part of it) which argues how the divine/demonic pair of constructs was developed to make kings assume divinity and project the demonic upon their political enemies; how this was deployed by Hindu kings to fight turkish invaders; and how BJP uses Ramayana to fight Muslims.

As long as the policy is consistently applied it should be ok.

Personally i feel this will perpetuate Indian traditional scholars remaining in comfortable silos, afraid to come out. But maybe the moderators have their reasons for this policy, which is their prerogative.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:30 PM, rajivmalhotra2007 <rajivmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

• His theory of the aestheticization of power to explain the Sanskrit Cosmopolis as a political phenomenon.
• His thesis in the paper "Deep Orientalism" that argues how Nazis used the social oppression rationalized in Sanskrit texts to shape their own case for genocide.
• His theory of the death of sanskrit which focuses on the role of Hindu kings for this death.

​The above points can be discussed. Are we going to make this list an anti Prof Pollock list is a choice left to members. Politics is not discussed on BVP​

[L Srinivas]

 But the words used in the obituary are 'watch for contacts', 'agents' and 'cover'.  These are all terms associated with the world of espionage. It doesn't say they translated for the OSS.

Thanks and Regards,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​I agree with this sentence of prof Aklujkar Sorry if I sounded different​

:

Perhaps “spy” is too strong a word here. “informer,” “helper in translation,” “reporter” may be closer to the truth of what Ingalls, Frye, et al. did during the second world war

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr Gargeshwari,

 

आप भी न, कभी कभी!

 

Prof. Aklujkar has already provided us a perspective with which we can handle such 'contradictions' in the facts we have on hand.

 

Prof. Bijoy Misra too added a similar balanced perspective about the different aspects of the same personality.

 

Reactions of Vidwan L Srinivas and others are quite understandable. I am also not comfortable with the new information I came to know about Prof. Ingalls.      

 

But some facts of life are such. We respect a person for a certain aspect of his/her life. But given our disposition, some other aspect of the same personality could be quite shocking. 

 

In some other thread we were discussing the issue of some scholars that we respect, like Jagannatha Pandita having allegiance to Moghul courts.

 

Ideally I would have liked Prof. Ingalls not to have worked for OSS, working under cover watching out for Indians. But alas, it is a fact that he did all this. I want this information not to affect my respect for him as an American Sankritist with sensitivity towards insider's perspective.

 

But for that I need not try to wish away those facts about him.

 

Can we move on without going round and round on this issue?

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Let me, as an amateur on this list of vidvAn-s, take a moment to firmly second what Prof. Aklujkar says. "... one of the main reasons why Sanskrit is in such a precarious position at present is the aloofness of traditional scholars from what is happening around them."

It is high time the community of Indian scholars looked outside their comfort zone. This forum itself may not be a place for discussing political angles, but there has got to be a place in our thinking for the impact of the political on that which is scholarly. Else, we sit around helpless, handing over our agency to those who would wrest it from us. 

The kUpa-maNDUka attitude should not prevail, while the ground is shifting and the groundwater is vanishing, making the kUpa run inexorably dry.

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Prof. Paturi,

In my mind, learning about the past of Prof. Ingalls with the OSS was nothing short of fascinating. It was a very different time, a very different world and I find nothing really wrong with it. To see that he completed his doctoral dissertation in parallel, while working undercover in Kabul, which was then lost and rewritten as a book, all this adds immense color to his distinguished career in Indology!

Indeed, it seems to me that this year spent under trying circumstances may have actually contributed towards the sensitivity that he displays in his writings on India. One doesn't have to suspect that he had malafide intentions towards the newly independent India that was gestating at the time.

Unfortunately, I cannot assert the same thing confidently about the intentions of some contemporary Indologists towards the 69 year old independent India! After all, doesn't much of the acrimony today really emanate from the unwarranted incursions of European and American Indologists into contemporary Indian public life, presuming that they know better than the judges in Indian courts and scholars in Indian educational institutions?!!

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

शुक्रवार, 4 मार्च 2016 को 8:36:00 पूर्व UTC-8 को, Ashok Aklujkar ने लिखा:

 
अहो पठितोऽधुना पिण्डब्रह्माण्डालेखः! पाण्डित्यस्य निजस्वरूपम् अक्ष्णोः पुरतस् स्पष्टं चित्रितम्। ऐतिहासिकताया गौणता, निशितव्रताचरणम्, शास्त्रसारस्मृतिचणतेत्य् अवश्यमस्माकं पण्डितपरम्परायाः गायत्रीमन्त्रपादत्रितयम्। तदिहास्मत्पुरतः स्पष्टं प्रतिपादितवते भवते धन्यतानमस्काराः। सपदि सम्भाजयाम्यधुनैव सृष्टे ऽधिभारताध्ययनवृन्दे ( https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/meta-indology )।

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

On the specific statement of Professor Aklujkar, continuing on this thread on < page 389 in Rajiv Malhotra’s Battle for Sanskrit>

 

And Professor Aklujkars post  addressing ‘ One of the main reasons’ -  <  why Sanskrit is in such a precarious position at present is the aloofness of traditional scholars from what is happening around them."> .

 

(    Note:  Please note that I am not making a sermon, beyond sharing what my teacher said in responding to this question and options I had to choose in shaping my life.)

 

I hope the view shared below  of  <  my teacher, a  traditional scholar>  and their  action-perception to respond on < what is happening around them>   in shaping social, personal and spiritual welfare for own families and society >  would be taken note of. It also may explain why many wards of traditional scholars end up as taking a different social profession like engineers, doctors and still are deeply  ‘committed to Dharma  in their heart’.

 

Sharing My < traditional teachers view on this issue> :   Samskrutha Scholars, especially ‘Vaidikas’ were pushed to a low-power- social minority status  since 17^th century, slowly and steadily  due to the failure of the 75% of Society constituted by Kshatirya –Vaishya –Shudras failing to do their Swa-Dharma and ‘ making Prajna-Vada /Prajnaa-Aparadha’ on Dharma. The social shifts (Yuga-Dharma) leading to the prioritization of ‘Artha’ (Consummation  of Position, Power and  Wealth for personal comfort and worldly bodily pleasures) by 75% of society needed a different icon in society which had to show the other side of ‘Social renunciation of Artha’ to guard and achieve the Higher goals of life. The net result was a split of the ‘ Paramartha-Purushartha Unified’ approach to Dharma practice to ‘ Isolated model of Dharma in house and A-Dharma in society’ model ! This is the legacy of 75% of society in non-brahmana-Varna  segment of India, in post 1700 A.D.

 

The path chosen by the ‘Vaidika –Shaastra kara – Brahmanas’ was called ‘ voluntary acceptance of poverty and failure of Vedic tradition to produce wealth and welfare for its practitioners = Worldly unwise, even though other –worldly wise. The drift of Dharma in 75% of society to ‘Mata (religion) approach in interpretation, ‘ Lowered quality and quantum in practice of Samskaras leading to ‘A-Dharma/Alpa Dharma’  was not possible to be regulated by the ‘Vaidika Brahmanas’. Maharashtra history –post Sambaji provides ample evidence to substantiate how ‘Punya-Pattana /Vidya che –Maher’ underwent mutation and transformation; the same way as Kashi and other major centers of Vedic studies went.

 

Such ‘Vaidikas’ social life was to be supported by the ‘ Guru-peetham and Mathas’ in society, which again went under the Control of  the combine of ( Raja /dawning to be a Kshatriya) King +  ( Trader masquerading as Arya-Vaishya) and rest of the society tracing their gene roots and lineage to Sri Krishna himself ( giving up his ideals of teaching!) . The corruption of  ‘Guru-peetham and Mathams lead to social and spiritual decay over three centuries as of now; and we are lamenting.  And still the ‘Vaidika Samskrit Scholars’ are to carry the social blame for social decadence.   

 

It is in this back drop, each ‘Vaidika Sanskrit Scholar’  is advised inside the family and tradition :  Choose your battle field. Make Right Choice (‘yathecchasi tatha Kuru’  after ‘ Vimrushya etat asheshena) after due deliberation.  Work in such a way that your own social and spiritual life remains balanced and enriched. Don’t be a social janitor .Dont invoke the ‘ authority of Avatar on yourself, unless you have done enough Tapas and blessings to wage the war’. Be a good soldier and servant of Dharma.Pass on the inheritance (moola dhanam) to the right persons without distortion. Enrich the traditional understanding , if you can through your own intellectual contributions and making Dharma relevant for ‘ Dhaaranaa of Prajaa = Making Dharma practice yield good life here and now’.   Perform ‘Swa-Karma’ depending upon what your ‘ Swa-Bhaava’ –‘Swa-Dharma’ provides.

 

If you choose and desire to be happy to guard the tradition, focus on Guarding the tradition . Do nothing to cause harm to it.

 

       What is ‘ Tradition’-? 

 

       Is it the  guarding of historical contextualized continuity of culture-practice outfit (Kama and Artha Dahrma)  , ending in making Culture a cult-practice

OR

       Is it providing an appropriate outfit for bringing out the ‘ Occult-Mystic Unified  Spiritual and Social Welfare ( Moksha Dharma-Karma /Brahma-Karma)’ to current and future community even if it means ‘ giving up ‘ worn out formats of  past cultural-practice outfits ( Vassamsi jeernaani yatha vihaya.. / Seemollanghana /Transcending but not violating Dharma, Reconstructing and not destroying the cultural continuity of practices, Make Dharma Tree to be a  fruit yielding one and not fuel-utility worth asset.)

 

What are the life style choices  that traditional scholars had because of such limited option   ?

 

A)      Teaching (Become a Guru /Acharya / upadhyaya) : A ‘Traditional Scholar – of Past in ‘Rajashraya/  /’  whose social life needs were taken care ‘ remained aloof from what was happening around them’ ‘ because their sole energy  attention was invested for two things (A-1)  ‘ Loka-Kalayana’   through Education with the goal of Shaping NEXT GENERATION SCHOALRS who can Guard  and Pass on the Tradition . Traditionally called ‘ Shihsya-Paramparaa’. This is absolute compassion and care for traditional continuity and connectivity across the past through present to the future.

 

The live examples of such continuity are still seen in Traditionally ‘Institutions’ which have not yielded to ‘Guru-Brand building and blessing corrupt politicians for pecuniary gains’.

 

Those traditional institutions and teachers who fell in to this trap have seen their bitter end after a short stint of ‘ meteoric burning brightness, highlighted in media’.

 

(A-2)  Become a Siddha –Yogi –Vaidya  -Purohita :All of who deliver Dharma-Welfare as Practicing Professionals to society :   Your goal is to delvier ‘ Loka Samgrahama/ Loka-Uddhara through Sva-Karma /Swa Dharma Practice’ serving as Present period ICONS /Mascots of Traditional Excellence – presented in dress code, life style, food habits, Ethics, and getting in to side-wings at the appropriate time ( as Vanaprastha / Sanyasa)   Or stepping forward to defend Dharma on battle field ( Like Bheeshma, Sri Krishna, Sayancharya) .

 

This is the essence of  Iconic ‘Nara-Naryana’ model of  traditional Yogi icon of ‘ Traditional scholar’, who have the capability for Yoga discourse on an academic platform or Yoga-strategic war on a political kurukshetra on international arena.  When they act and how they act for ‘ Dharma-Samsthapana +  Adharma Naasha’ is not an issue for public discourse.

 

What then is our  duty as ‘ Scholar who had the privilege of getting  a peek and partial access to the inheritance of  Veda-Vyasa Heritage called Indian traditional wisdom’ ?, In Sri Ramanuja’s words – (Asti me hasti shailagre pitru-paitamaham Dhanam…:: I have the ancestral wealth of my inheritance on the  peak of the mountain called ‘Hasti Shaila’ ( todays Melukote at Karnataka)’?   

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

[rniyengar]

Dear Dr.Shastry,

Your points are no doubt interesting. I have the following quickies:

1) The OR in your statement about 'tradition" has to be replaced by AND.

2) Hasti shaila id Kanchipuram. Melkote is Yadushaila. The verse is attributed to Vedanta Desika (naasti pitraarjitam kincit na mayaa kincidaarjitam| asti me.....||)

regards

RNI

[L Srinivas]

> In Sri Ramanuja’s words – (Asti me hasti shailagre pitru-paitamaham Dhanam…:: I have the ancestral wealth of my inheritance on the  peak of the mountain called ‘Hasti Shaila’ ( todays Melukote at Karnataka)’?  

The quote's actually from Vedanta Desika's vairāgyapañcakam: asti me hastiśailāgre vastu paitāmahaṃ dhanam  where hastiśaila refers to Varadarāja temple in Kanchipuram.

Thanks,

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

Thanks for the correction on  understanding < hastishailagre>.

 

Thanks for suggestion of replacement of ‘ OR’ by  ‘AND’.  With this, it almost becomes a  < Private engagement for Public (Loka /Sarve) Welfare ( Kalyanam).

 

In Post-Independent India,  With 75% of Varnas up and against the 25% ‘ Agra-Jama’-Varna segment  ; and 25%   ‘Agra-Janma’ Varna segment   suffering < A-Samghata  and Vishaada combined together > =  low-density  and High depression factor  to make any significant impact  through any action  < due to   globally scattered  population with Several models of non-agglutination, non coherent goal,  multiple foci and centers of action with differential priorities and preferences in resource investment and management>  , the suggestion for ‘AND’ makes more sense.   

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 29 February 2016 08:33:05 UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

Same here. I too have been waiting for the actual words where the claim is made and the context.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 25 February 2016 12:24:41 UTC+5:30, nagarajpaturi wrote:

Can we have the reference details of where Prof. Pollock made this claim / inference and what substantiation did he provide for the claim?

Apologies if I missed it, but I do not recall seeing the reference to Pollock's claim (as the original poster wrote) that the Anushtup metre was invented by Buddhists. Where has Pollock said this and what is his reason for this claim? 

--

Dear list

There have been many messages on this thread. Let me get back to a question on the original post which both Dr. Paturi and I asked. 

Where has Pollock said that Anushtup metre was invented by Buddhists?

Rajiv Ji, can you help with the precise reference?

Thanks, Nityanand