Questions for Rajiv Malhotra and Other Hindutva Fellows
K. Loganathan
Questions for Rajiv Malhotra and Other Hindutva Fellows
Dr K.Loganathan, 18-8-14
Note: This is my response to the post by Mr Chaturvedi available at:;
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/akandabaratam/conversations/messages/68752
I was deeply hurt by the response of Rajv Malhotra, to the brilliant and brave views of Ms Ananya Vajpeyi. The following comment of Rajiv is so silly and prejudiced that I am really ashamed as a Hindu. U certainly loath to be the kind of Hindu that Rajiv Promotes, a bunch of Hindutva fanatics who do not understand at all what Hinduism is.
· // Most Indians get fooled because these sepoys can play both sides skilfully. Ananya looks like a sweet Indian girl who gets sympathy from the moron "uncle jis' and auntie ji's" at Indian gatherings."She is like our beti", is the type of sympathetic response the nexus wants to elicit in deploying such sepoys.They know the psychology of Indian morons.//
So except for fellows like Rajiv and the like the other Indian scholars are morons and Ms Vajpeyi plays to the tune of these morons! And hence she is also a moron by implications!
But what is that which irritates Rajiv and other Hindutva scholars?
The following views of Ms Vajpeyi appears to be the real reasons:
// Sanskrit must be taken back from the clutches of Hindu supremacists, bigots, believers in brahmin exclusivity, misogynists, Islamophobes and a variety of other wrong-headed characters on the right, whose colossal ambition to control India’s vast intellectual legacy is only matched by their abysmal ignorance of what it means and how it works//
I think Ms Vajpeyi is right and fellows like Rajiv and the like are not just irritated but
Deeply hurt and annoyed for the TRUTHS she is articulating.
And this shows that Rajiv and the Hindutva fellows are deeply prejudiced and have a false and misleading understanding of Hinduism. There is NO essence that can be called Hindutva except what Tirumular calls Udsayam, the UNIVERSAL dimensions of all religions!
Now I want to add number of points to what Ms Vajpeyi has said to further the move to FREE Sk language from the clutches of Brahmanists and Hindutva fellows to bring about the correct understanding of Hinduism including in the thinking of those Western scholars that Rajiv is so critical.
These Western scholars seem to ignorant of Tamil sacred literature and the fact that Tamil language is a continuation of Sumerian not only in language but also culture.
I shall state my views very briefly where I am willing to add details for those serious scholars who want to know the TRUTHS about Hinduism;
1.
The first point is that these Hindutva scholars(and also the Western scholars) are ignorant of the fact that Sk is a Dravidian language and not at all Indo-Aryan. This follows from the fact the Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and that Rigkirit and hence also Sk is a variant of this SumeruTamil and in that also a Dravidian language.
2.
As Ms Vajpeyi has noted almost all the essential literature in Sk ( Mahabharata, RamayaNa Bagavath Gita) and so forth promote actively and directly the evil and criminal VarNasra Dharma making all the Hindus subservient to Brahmins. Also the bulk of Sk literature is the writings of males and hence highly prejudiced in favot of the males.
3.
Now Hinduism as promoted by the Vedanta texts Dharma Sastras and so forth are Authoritarian- BramaaNa Vaatam, where the Vedas are the sole authority and whatever not sanctioned by the Vedas is not at all Hinduism.
Now I believe that the Tamil sacred literature is vastly different from such a picture of Hinduism that Sk literature promotes and which so irritates Ms vajpeyi and young and brilliant scholars like her
I suggest that in view of all these, we withdraw Sanskrit studies from the public domain and confine it to narrow scholarly crcles and instead of that promote at all Indian level the study of Tamil sacred literature particularly such classics like TirukkuRaL that promotes Samyatiitam, the Transcendance of all sectarian religions
Let me elaborate these views very briefly as follows;
4.
The Dravidian fellows have developed religious life as a collection of a number of Hermeneutic sciences and hence are FREE of any authorities like Vedas Agamas and so forth. So a person can lead a genuine religious life without any sanctions from the Brahmins and for that matter from any such gurus.
5.
Since the days of Tolkaappiyamn at least Tamil culture has developed many Hermeneutic Sciences called also the Utti Science and there are no authorities except the authority of TRUTHS. A truth does not have pramaNas like in Naiyayiika of the Brahmins. A TRUTH establishess itself as a truth from within itself. An encounter with a TRUTH compels an individual to submit himself to it without seeking any pramaNas.
6.
The Dravidian culture particularly the Tamil has promoted what is called samyatiitam, the Transcendance of all sectarian religions in order to be truly religious. Thus it would NOT deny the rights of a muslim to live Islam or a Christian to live his Christianity but will inform him that that is NOT the highest reaches of religious life, and only when he TRASCENDS his sectarian religious orientation that he will reach the highest metaphysical heights.
7.
TirukkuRal ( 200 AD) promotes Samayatiitam, the transcendence of all sectarian religions, Now Tirumantiram ( c. 700 D) maintains not only God is One and all the people are of the same human community(kulam) and hence are equal, also promotes what he calls Udsamayam, the religion of ALL religions. He understand Saivisn (and hence Hinduism) as not one of the so many sectarian religions but the UNIVERSAL religion that is present as the deepest substratem in ALL religions. Thus it does not develop any phobias against Islam Christianity Sikhism and so forth but rather promotes a Deeper Study of them so that people access the deepest layers in their own religion and in that become universal in outlook
These points are sufficient to conclude that;
Sanskrit studies should be demoted and withdrawn to a narrow band of scholars who keep alive the language and literature but instead the whole of India should promote the Darvidian culture in particular the Tamil as enshrined in such great classics as TirukuRaL Tirumantiram and so forth. Such a move will encourage the further development of many Hermeneutic Sciences and with that bring about a UNITY among people of different religions. The scientific temper is the FUTURE and Dravidian culture by its past achievements will further promote such a turn to metaphysical and hence religious life and with that contribute substantially for the unity and further cultural development of India. It may also become the role model for the rest of the world including the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East.
K. Loganathan
Dear Chaturvedi
Thank-you but you have misunderstood me and perhaps the fault is mine. So I shall repeat certain things so that the issues become clear and we can have a mutual understanding about what Hinduism is and the role Sk and Tamil literature in it.
Let me take the various points you have raised one by one.
The first is:
1.
// Unfortunately, the response I received was over generalized where every pro-Sanskrit scholar is termed as "Hindutva fellow" who make you "...really ashamed as a Hindu." You term Rajiv as "...deeply prejudiced and (who) have a false and misleading understanding of Hinduism..." and someone who promotes and is a part of "...a bunch of Hindutva fanatics who do not understand at all what Hinduism is." Through this kind of use of language and prejudice you become guilty of the same charges you have constructed against Rajiv. //
Well I am having in mind the following passage of Ms Valpeyi:
// Sanskrit must be taken back from the clutches of Hindu supremacists, bigots, believers in brahmin exclusivity, misogynists, Islamophobes and a variety of other wrong-headed characters on the right, whose colossal ambition to control India’s vast intellectual legacy is only matched by their abysmal ignorance of what it means and how it works.//
Since Rajiv implies that Ms Vajpeyi is a moron for following some moronjis, I concluded that Rajiv is against Ms Vajpeyi’s characterization of some Sanskrit scholars as Hindu Supremacists Islamphobias and so forth. This fits with our general understanding of Hundutva members and hence Rajiv who appears to be sympathetic implies by ut that he is also a kind of Hindutva fellow such as the above.
Well if this is wrong and Rajiv is not an Hindutva fellow then what kind of a Hindu is he for characterizing Ms Vajpeyi as a kind of moron for saying what she says above Is he under the impression that she is sepoy of the Western Indologists such Pollock Doniger and so forth and who are morons?
2: This becomes he second issue:
Now this raises the question about Rajiv’s main preoccupation- that of Western scholarship of Hinduism the categories they use to study Hinduism as such. You say’
//Although, I do see his frustrations (regarding most people's unwillingness to see the patterns of "Western Universalism" in civilizational discourses) coming out in a kind of language which you quoted in your response. Overall, Rajiv has fair viewpoint of Western and Indic (including Tamil) traditions. Your unfortunate and over generalized characterization of him as a "prejudiced Hindutva fellow" comes from the fact that he has chosen a pro-Indic stand which he brilliantly justifies in his scholarly works//
Now I may agree with Rajiv that Western
scholarship of Hinduism may not be fair and needs to be criticized. I have my own criticism of many Western
scholars. But Rajiv does not have a fair
view of Tamil or Dravidian languages and culture. He has not bothered to get acquainted
with
the roots of Tamil/Dravidian culture and how it is free from all those Hindutva
characterizations of Ms Vajpeyi. And it is in connection with that I mentioned
that Tamil is developed from Sumerian the Archaic Tamil and that Sk is a development out of this SumeruTamil
However the main point is that Tamil/Dravidian culture as distinct from Sanskritic culture such as that encountered by Ms Vajpey is not only egalitarian but also something that promotes what I call samayaatiitam the Transcendance of all sectarian religions and Udsamayam, Hinduism(Saivism) as the Universal religion in the depths of all religions.
Perhaps the Christians and Muslims may not agree with this but that is the greatest contribution of Hinduism coming from Dravidian/Tamil sources that is in fact widespread among the commoners throughout India
Is Rajiv as a scholar of Hinduism aware of these dimensions of Hinduism as developed and practiced by the Dravidian/Tamil folks?
I doubt very much for if he has then he would have countered Ms Vajpeyi by pointing out that what she says as above does not apply to Dravidan Hinduism
Now I come to the next point as expressed as follows:
3.
//I am deeply deeply saddened with the way you said that, "Sanskrit studies should be demoted and withdrawn to a narrow band of scholars who keep alive the language and literature..." and "...I suggest that in view of all these, we withdraw Sanskrit studies from the public domain and confine it to narrow scholarly c(i)rcles..." It is not only your prejudice (when you called to demote and relegate Sanskrit to dark corners) but also your extreme chauvinism when you asked that, "...India should (ONLY) promote the Darvidian culture in particular the Tamil as enshrined in such great classics as TirukuRaL Tirumantiram and so forth." It is clear that want to play along the Western categories of Aryan-Dravidian faultlines to satisfy your chauvinism, which, Rajiv is trying hard to eliminate and bring together the so called North and South. //
I am glad that you are deeply saddened by what I said about Sk. But then you can imagine how saddened a Tamil scholar like myself will be with almost a total neglect of Tamil in the civilization discourse of Hinduism where as a matter of fact Sumerian as Archaic Tamil and hence the base language of even Sk and where the Vedic culture itself is a branch development of SumeruTamil culture? This marginalization of Tamil is quite typical of North Indians as well as the Brahmins in general.
Yes I maintain that for some decades to come Tamil literature must be promoted and its hermeneutic scientific orientation absorbed by the Indians as a whole. Sk cannot do that for almost all major classics in Sk are infected with VarNrsrama Dharma and hence one cannot feel that we have in Sk literature a hermeneutic scientific approach to metaphysics such as we see in Tolkaappiyam TirukkuRal Tirumantiram Civanjana Botham and so forth
Now You appear to be the same as Rajiv for having deep seated phobias about the Western Scholarship of Hinduism. I have very little respect for them as they have not delved deep into the Dravidian sources of Hinduism and even if they had, have not unearthed the Hermeneutic Sciences so characteristic of Dravidian Hinduism So I do not play into the Western Indologits using their categories but just ignore them as quite irrelevant. They do not have a proper understanding of Dravidian Hinduism. Also they are not aware of SumeruTamil origins of Dravidian cultures including the religious.
Now as I have said I do not sunsbcribe to the Aryan-Dravidan dichotomy popularized by the Western scholars. And it is here that my Sumerian studies are relevant. If Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and Sk has Sumerian as its base language then Sk is also a Dravidian language. This means that it is possible that the family of languages called Indo-Aryan is vacuous- there are no languages in India of that category. This implies that almost all languages in Indian are Dravidian and hence the whole of India a nation of Dravidian speakers (though ethnically diverse).
I am sure this view goes against all Western scholars, So how can you of Rajiv say I play to their tune?
Well I stop here as it is getting late. But I will write another reply to-morrow to discuss the remaining points where I see a lot of agreements than disagreements,
Loga
Hello Mr. Loganathan,Thank you for your response. By the way, please use regular fonts in your replies since they are also capable of making any point you want and it is easy to read the mail through them.I was disappointed in your response to my post, because, all I could find was rhetorics in the response and no valuable contribution. The topic was specific about - a criticism by Ms. Ananya to Sanskrit in her article and about Rajiv's characterization of her being a leftist scholar nurtured in Western academia, who are presenting all Sanskrit and other Indic traditions in a misconstrued and generalized way. Unfortunately, both points were missing in your reply.You said, "...comment of Rajiv is so silly and prejudiced that I am really ashamed as a Hindu. U certainly loath to be the kind of Hindu that Rajiv Promotes, a bunch of Hindutva fanatics who do not understand at all what Hinduism is..."Rajiv has a civilizational point of view, according to which, the West maintains its dominance over the world (academic, economic and/or otherwise) through defining and deciding categories of discourses. As you may be able to understand that using the soft power is a very effective way to maintain the dominance over foreign cultures and had been historically used successfully. Although, these points should not be a part of our discussion here but I had to include them to answer your above comments.Unfortunately, the response I received was over generalized where every pro-Sanskrit scholar is termed as "Hindutva fellow" who make you "...really ashamed as a Hindu." You term Rajiv as "...deeply prejudiced and (who) have a false and misleading understanding of Hinduism..." and someone who promotes and is a part of "...a bunch of Hindutva fanatics who do not understand at all what Hinduism is." Through this kind of use of language and prejudice you become guilty of the same charges you have constructed against Rajiv. In my personal interactions with in Rajiv's Yahoo group I have never seen Rajiv supporting an anti-Tamil view (or any view which goes against any of the Indic traditions) or a view which I can term as strong "Hindutva," in fact, Rajiv opposes his characterization as a Hindutva or right wing by leftists through his writings.Although, I do see his frustrations (regarding most people's unwillingness to see the patterns of "Western Universalism" in civilizational discourses) coming out in a kind of language which you quoted in your response. Overall, Rajiv has fair viewpoint of Western and Indic (including Tamil) traditions. Your unfortunate and over generalized characterization of him as a "prejudiced Hindutva fellow" comes from the fact that he has chosen a pro-Indic stand which he brilliantly justifies in his scholarly works.I am deeply deeply saddened with the way you said that, "Sanskrit studies should be demoted and withdrawn to a narrow band of scholars who keep alive the language and literature..." and "...I suggest that in view of all these, we withdraw Sanskrit studies from the public domain and confine it to narrow scholarly c(i)rcles..." It is not only your prejudice (when you called to demote and relegate Sanskrit to dark corners) but also your extreme chauvinism when you asked that, "...India should (ONLY) promote the Darvidian culture in particular the Tamil as enshrined in such great classics as TirukuRaL Tirumantiram and so forth." It is clear that want to play along the Western categories of Aryan-Dravidian faultlines to satisfy your chauvinism, which, Rajiv is trying hard to eliminate and bring together the so called North and South. Tirumantiram is a great composition and compendium of Yogic liberation work and has universal appeal in it and is one of the most important literature to understand and develop Hinduism (the Shaivite philosophy). You blame people to be guilty of "Hindutva" but, in this mail, you have given me (and others) an impression of yours as a counterpart of such chauvinistic Hindutva yourself. This is really unfortunate because I know that you do have a much balanced and fair view of the world than that you have presented here.I would like add few further points here -
- You go way beyond the point here to discuss about Tamil-Sumerian connection. I would request you to stay on topic and to provide proper elaborate arguments which may prove the importance and connection of such diversions with the topic in hand (with proper references).
- You confuse Vedic texts' philosophical authority (which gives more of a sense of continuation that the so-called real authority on Hindu traditions) with contemporary social Hindutva ideology. And in your view, Ms. Ananya is also a victim of such confusion where you said that, "... (this) picture of Hinduism that Sk (Sanskrit) literature promotes and which so irritates Ms vajpeyi and young and brilliant scholars like her."
- You said that, "(t)he scientific temper is the FUTURE and Dravidian culture by its past achievements will further promote such a turn to metaphysical and hence religious life and with that contribute substantially for the unity and further cultural development of India." I would be most interested to see if you could develop a thesis which could replace the "Western version of Science" (although, science does not belong to one culture) which naturally carries Western ontological and epistemological categories to develop cosmological and metaphysical views.
Because, I firmly think that Indic/Tamil culture is conducive for scientific temper. In fact, I am working on my own thesis to further develop Indic school of logic like Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Jaina and Buddhist logic systems. I am also employing some other quite contrary traditions such as Vedanta and Carvaka etc to develop a most comprehensive template on which future Indian philosophy and academia could explain most modern scientific and Western Philosophical theories within the Indic categories. I am one person and can do so much and hence I would be very interested if you could develop similar thesis using Indic/Tamil categories.
- In one of your earlier mail (on the same topic but in response to someone else) you said that "Hindutva" people are not open for Depth Psychological analyses of Indian literatures. Personally, I would enjoy such analyses but you miss the point that such analysis of Indic traditions becomes a part of American academia and are used to define Hinduism and India with in Western philosophical categories to the world.
If you are wondering, what is the harm, then understand that such "digestion" or appropriation of one culture into the other reduces the complexity of the appropriated culture (in this case the Indic cultures). The appropriated Indic culture is being mapped out within the Western categories where all the important thoughts are digested/appropriated by the West in its framework and in time the Indic cultures (including Tamil, as you yourself agreed that "Western scholars seem to ignorant of Tamil sacred literature") will gradually cease to exist.
There is nothing wrong with the Western categories and its philosophies per se, in fact, they are brilliant and are required for the development of Humanity and its cultures but so are Indic (and other indigenous) cultures/philosophies required too. Hence, I would not support the mapping out of the world cultures/philosophies in order to homogenize them into the Western categories. Perhaps you should consider twice before examining the Tamil/Indic tradition and stories through Depth Psychological and categorizing part of this culture as Hermeneutics sciences. Any arbitrary support of one category over another does not make it a correct one.
With in Western philosophy, please also see Constructivist Epistemology and Nelson Goodman’s constructivism. I would also suggest you to go through "The Dance of Person and Place - One Interpretation of American Indian Philosophy" by Thomas M. Norton-Smith and "Being Different - An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism" by Rajiv Malhotra for better understanding of the subject.In order to have any further intelligent discussion please try to formulate a specific response addressing the points related to Ms. Ananya's Sanskrit criticism and Rajiv's characterization of her. And please use regular fonts to have any meaningful discussion.
Thanks again for your time,Regards,Dushyant Chaturvedi
__._,_.___
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3) .
__,_._,___
K. Loganathan
Dear Chaturvedi
Let me continue and now come to issues that we may agree though I feel that you (and Rajiv) do not have the mastery of Philosophical/scientific tradition available in Tamil literature and cultural traditions. But I don’t blame you, even Tamil scholars do not have a proper understanding of their own traditions.
You say:
4.
//You said that, "(t)he scientific temper is the
FUTURE and Dravidian culture by its past achievements will further promote such
a turn to metaphysical and hence religious life and with that contribute
substantially for the unity and further cultural development of India." I would be most interested to see if you could develop a
thesis which could replace the "Western version of Science"
(although, science does not belong to one culture) which naturally carries
Western ontological and epistemological categories to develop
cosmological and metaphysical views.
Because, I firmly think that Indic/Tamil culture is conducive for
scientific temper. In fact, I am working on my own thesis to further develop
Indic school of logic like Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Jaina and Buddhist logic
systems. I am also employing some other quite contrary traditions such
as Vedanta and Carvaka etc to develop a most comprehensive template on
which future Indian philosophy and academia could explain most modern
scientific and Western Philosophical theories within the Indic categories. I am
one person and can do so much and hence I would be very interested if you
could develop similar thesis using Indic/Tamil categories//
Yes Tamil literature at least from the days of Tolkaappiyam (if not even earlier) is basically Hermeneutic Scientific that was in Tamil even in the days of Tolkaappiyar’s Nuun NeRi , the way of texts where every object of study is taken as a TEXT with a duality of structure the Surface Structure and Deep Structure.
In such investigations there is a LOGIC that is called EraNaviyal in Tamil and which is not the same as Naiyayika of the Brhamins Buddhists and perhaps also the Jains.
The eeraNviyal of the Tamils is TRUTH seeking and recognizes no piramaNas as measures of truths. The Naiyaiyka notion of Brahma karaNam piramaaNam does not hold in the Hermeneutic Logic of the Tamils.
Truths require no piramaNas ( hence no Vedas Agamas and so forth) for it establishes itself from within itself. It is like a burning lamp- it establishes its presence from within itself, does not require another lighted lamp to reveal its presence.
Now if you read Tamil you can read a philosophical exposition of this in my book AziviluNmai. Please see:
https://sites.google.com/site/ulagansbooks/azivil-unmai-tamil-arum/e3-sutra-27
Now this kind of Logic, the Hermeneutic Logic is peculiar to the Tamil tradition and has no parallels even in the West.
Now the greatest application of this Hermeneutic Science where the Logic as EraNaviyal is available is Meykandar;s Civanjana Botham (13 th cent AD) and I have explained all in the introduction I wrote for my English translation and which is available at the following Webpage:
See:
https://sites.google.com/site/ulagansbooks/metaphysics-as-herm-science
It begins with these words:
//1.0 PHILOSOPHY AS METAPHYSICS AND
METAPHYSICS AS HERMENEUTIC SCIENCE
It will not be an
exaggeration to say that Meykandar’s Civajnaana BOtam,
a philosophic classic that emerged as the critique of the different idealistic
and positivistic schools of thought of the Buddhists and Vedanties, is the most
profound philosophic treatise that has emerged not only in the Indian soil but
also possibly in the whole world. It is genuinely a Metaphysica Universalis, a
philosophical statement of the most primordial in man and because of that the
most universal. It delineates and articulates what constitutes the existence of
every man, no matter to what culture, religion and nation he belongs to. It is
not an argument for Vedism, Buddhism, Agamism or any other cultural tradition
of a narrow kind. It is not a romantic going back to a previous, presumably a
glorious past and treating that as authoritative and justifying those beliefs
presumed to be it’s essence. On the contrary it is a
courageous venturing into the most fundamental in all men, an exercise in expounding
what makes human existence what it is in fact. It expounds TRUTHS that all
thinking men could agree upon provided they dare to tear themselves away from
the cultural, cultic, religious and philosophic prejudices that condition even
their philosophic quests. For anyone INCAPABLE of raising themselves to this
level of universality, of reasoning without FEAR solely in the pursuit of
TRUTH, this text will remain a closed book, forever incomprehensible as Meykandar
himself asserts in the preface. //
I see that here is where perhaps you Rajiv and other Indian scholars who are open to science as such ( not new to Indian Tradition) can work together and bring about a recovery of genuine Hinduism
Now let me come to the next and final point.
5,
//
There is nothing wrong with the Western categories and its philosophies per se,
in fact, they are brilliant and are required for the development of Humanity
and its cultures but so are Indic (and other indigenous)
cultures/philosophies required too. Hence, I would not support the mapping out
of the world cultures/philosophies in order to homogenize them into the Western
categories. Perhaps you should consider twice before examining the
Tamil/Indic tradition and stories through Depth Psychological and categorizing
part of this culture as Hermeneutics sciences.
Any arbitrary support of one category over another does not
make it a correct one. //
I don’t agree with the observation that there is nothing wrong with Western categories, This is very untrue and Western categories distort the notion TRUTH to aspects of positive sciences and refuses to recognize Science as MeyporuL kaaNpatu i.e every logical attempt to seek out TRUTH is a science.
As Dr Veerapaandiyan Dr Sivakumar and so forth observe, India philosophies and sciences are multi-dimensional. The West focuses exclusively on the Sensory Seeing( the poRiliyap paarvai) and refuses to acknowledge the deeper ways of SEEING such as Interpretive Seeing( nuuliyap paarvai) , Dream Seeing( nutaliyap paarvai) and so forth. They dismiss them as mystical etc
Truth experiences ( kuRaL: meuyuNarthal) are not exclusively sensory and instrumental and which are extensions of the sensory. There is the interpretive and other hgher forms of SEEING and hence a notion Science that is more inclusive and so forth.
The Western notion science as only the positive sciences is miserably inadequate and hence something that we cannot accept,
Also the Western philosophical and scientific traditions and because of the limitations as above cannot accommodate the Existential Meaning of Indic philosophies--- that Existence is meant for attaining Moksa.
There is no Moksa or anything similar to that in Western philosophies.
Similarly none of the Western philosophies( as far as I am aware) have developed the Fundamental Ontology such as that in Saiva Siddhanta, that Pati( BEING) selves(pasu) and Binding Fetters( pasam) are Anati: eternal and uncreated. In fact I am not aware of any Western articulation of Fundamental Ontology as such
I can go on and give more reasons why we have to reject the Western categories of both Science and Metaphysics and go the Indian/Dravidian way.
We may be a bit behind in the positive sciences related to technologies but NOT in the Human sciences ( or Hermeneutic Sciences). The Indian/Dravidian notion of Science is more inclusive – it can include the Western but the West cannot the Indian without becoming culturally Indian
Perhaps if you are agreed on these you me Rajiv and many others can work together and bring about a recovery of hermeneutic scientific foundations of Indic cultures and in that pave a way independent of the Western categories,
Loga
K. Loganathan
Dear Chaturvedi
Thank-you for your interesting responses. Perhaps there are more agreements than disagreements between Rajiv and myself, However I still feel that there are matters for mutual clarifications in which the North Indians and Weterners must be alerted to the enormous importance of the achievements of Tamils from Sumerian times for the growth of culture and civilization and the need to RECOVER these accomplishments of the Tamils and foreground it widely not only in the Indian consciousness but also the Western and the whole world.
I may sound a chauvinist a Tamil fanatic and so forth but certainly I am not. If at all I am a fanatic I am a fanatic of TRUTH who believes deeply in Satyam Eva Jayate( vaaymaiyee vellum)
With this prelude let me come to your observations below to which I will respond briefly,
//I would like to point out something which I had already said in my previous mail that Rajiv takes a civilizational stand (especially Indic traditions' stand) in order to oppose "Western Universalism" (and you must try to find out more about the importance of controlling the categories within any discourse to create desired perceptions of anything among masses; the same principle is also the crux of marketing theories which in modern civilizational discourses can be termed as "Western Universalism"). While he does that he tries to consolidate different traditions like Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Sanskrit, Tamil etc. in a hope to rediscover the pan-Indic cultural unity as a common thread, embedded in our diversity.
Now it is not at all unfair towards Tamil that, in order to accomplish this task he takes Sanskrit point of view (which he personally knows well) because he never dismisses Tamil or any other Indic tradition. I hope you see my simple argument that in the defence of a pan-Indic stand (which is, in fact, full of diversity) everyone will take one stand or another. Like you take a Tamil stand in defence of Hinduism (similarly, Rajiv takes more of a Sanskrit stand) but that does not mean that you are being unfair to Buddhist, Sanskrit or anyone else (although, you do actively oppose Sanskrit but we'll discuss that later//
Now I must mention here that ‘rediscovering the pan-Indian cultural unity” and opposing the Western Universalism, whatever it may be, rests on the main theme of all mankind viz, search for TRUTH as such. The notion of “MeyporuL kaaNpatu aRivu” (TirukuRaL) is the universal impulse of ALL human beings and hence the unifying theme of all Indic cultures and Western universalism and what not.
The basic question is : How has the West gone about it and how does it differ from Indic ( Chinese Middle Eastern and so forth)
Now it is here that Tamil language and culture can contribute immensely to alert the whole of mankind about the real essence of human beings, about what they are really searching for. Though there are some attemtpts in this direction in Sk literature as such, but it is marred by the fact the bulk of Sk literature is VarNa dharmic- you can never read any major classic in Sk without reading about the glories of VarNas and how respectful the ordinary people should be towards the Brahmins, the upholders of the Vedic tradition.
Now how can such a world view so deeply enshrined in Sk go along with the notion that MeyporuL kaaNpatu aRivu that the human essence of searching for TRUTH and that all human beings have this right as part of their very being?
This is my reason for promoting Tamil literature and culture over and above the Sanskrit
Is this chauvinistic? A fanatical view of a misguided Tamil scholar?
I don’t think so, If you read the Tamil classics you can see that all almost all of them expound a philosophy of human equality and are deeply critical of VarNas and so forth ( till recent times where now the jaties have corrupted even Tamil society and all because of Brahmanic varNas)
I can give very extensive evidences to show how Tamil literature and culture has focused upon Truth Seeking as the basics of human civilization as such ( from Sumerian times) and because of which they have developed the whole culture as a collection of a variety of Hermeneutic Sciences.
I just cite a Sutra from Tolkaappiyam (c 300 BC) where the essence of Hermeneutic Logic( EraNviyal) is outlined. The subsequent History of Tamil philosophical literature and culture if simply a footnote to this Sutra.
>>>
1601
பழிப்பில் சூத்திரம் பட்ட பண்பின்
கரப்பின்றி முடிவது காண்டிகை யாகும்
pazippil cuuttiram padda paNbin
karapinRi mudivatu kaaNdikai yaakum
The KaaNdikai type of Logical Demonstration applies to faultless sutras and
serves to establish what is stated beyond doubts and uncertainties.
Notes:
karappu: confusion , doubts, uncertainties all because of concealment of
meaning. The KandiKai must elucidate in such a way that there is no more this
concealment or hiddeness and hence it serves to UNCONCEAL or bring to
light the meaning of the sutras.
1602.
விட்டகல் வின்றி விரிவொடு பொருந்திச்
சுட்டிய சூத்திரம் முடித்தற் பொருட்டா
ஏது நடையினும் எடுத்துக்காட்டினும்
மேவாங்கு அமைந்த மெய்நெறித்து அதுவே
viddakal vinRi virivodu poruntic
cuddiya cuuttiram mudittaR poruddaa
eetu nadaiyum eduttuk kaaddinum
meevaangku amainta meyneRittu atuvee
For this purpose the Kandikai type of logical demonstration stays strictly with
the intend of the sutra but at the same expounding the TRUTH of the sutra and
for which purpose it brings the Etu(Reasons) and Eduttukkaaddu
(Arguments)
Notes:
These technical terms in Indian Logic occurs for the first time here in this
sutra. The word Etu is used very widely in all Indian treatises on Logic and is
possibly derive from Ta. etu: meaning Which? or What? . Since it is
the questions of this sort that leads to the seeking of REASONS, probably
the Tamil interrogative was modified to describe the reason itself.
The term " mey neRittu" is also very important. It shows that the
CONCERN of Sutras and demonstrations is TRUTH and not something else.
>>>
The central point is Tolkaappiyar emphasizing Mey NeRittu: the search is for TRUTHS and nothing else.
Whether Rajiv Chaturvedi Loga Wendy Doniger Einstetin Chomsky or Ms Vajpery- all are concerned with this Mey , TRUTH and Tamil culture is quite unique in that it has maintained this essence as part of its soul and has developed many Hermeneutic Sciences to further it, It has in that process brought even religious life into the fold of Hermeneutic Sciences.
Now in view of this shouldn’t I propose that India as a whole RECOGNIZE this and promote it instead of Sk literature and culture that has spoilt this essence by its insistence of VarNa Dharma?
I rest my case here and I hope the readers can judege for themselves and view my recommendatios in the proper light.
Loga
Hello again Mr. Loganathan,Thank you for clearing your position little more and now please allow me to respond to your good points. I'll start from your second point onwards and then address your first point in the end.Response to you second point -You said that, "(n)ow I may agree with Rajiv that Western scholarship of Hinduism may not be fair and needs to be criticized. I have my own criticism of many Western scholars." and then you added that, "(b)ut Rajiv does not have a fair view of Tamil or Dravidian languages and culture. He has not bothered to get acquainted with the roots of Tamil/Dravidian culture and how it is free from all those Hindutva characterizations of Ms Vajpeyi."I would like to point out something which I had already said in my previous mail that Rajiv takes a civilizational stand (especially Indic traditions' stand) in order to oppose "Western Universalism" (and you must try to find out more about the importance of controlling the categories within any discourse to create desired perceptions of anything among masses; the same principle is also the crux of marketing theories which in modern civilizational discourses can be termed as "Western Universalism"). While he does that he tries to consolidate different traditions like Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, Sanskrit, Tamil etc. in a hope to rediscover the pan-Indic cultural unity as a common thread, embedded in our diversity.Now it is not at all unfair towards Tamil that, in order to accomplish this task he takes Sanskrit point of view (which he personally knows well) because he never dismisses Tamil or any other Indic tradition. I hope you see my simple argument that in the defence of a pan-Indic stand (which is, in fact, full of diversity) everyone will take one stand or another. Like you take a Tamil stand in defence of Hinduism (similarly, Rajiv takes more of a Sanskrit stand) but that does not mean that you are being unfair to Buddhist, Sanskrit or anyone else (although, you do actively oppose Sanskrit but we'll discuss that later).But as I have already mentioned in my previous email that being only one person, he may not have much understanding of Tamil but I have never seen him taking anti (or condescending) stand towards Tamil or any other Indic tradition. The main idea is that everyone chose their own fort of expertise (and not expect one man to know everything) among various Indic traditions and defend the whole tradition against the Western Universalism from their perspective, while, maintaining our unity which is connected through a common cultural thread.I am not doing Rajiv's bidding for him here, but pointing out two important points to you -
- Rajiv's work of collectively opposing Western Universalism (from outside perspective) is one of the most important work. Because if Tamil and Sanskrit (and probably more others) have their own spaces in civilizational discourses it would allow the the growth of science and philosophy within Indian society in its own right. It would also add more unique perspectives to our modern scientific understanding of the universe.
- Your characterization of Rajiv as "Hindutva fellow" is factually wrong as I have argued and shown in my email.
Now, let's move to your next point -Response to your third point -
You said, "I am glad that you are deeply saddened by what I said about Sk." So my initial assessment was correct that you are looking for rhetorics (at least in part). We'll have no common ground and no understanding reached if you take a political stand of intentionally sabotaging the Indic traditions' cultural unity.You further added, "...the Vedic culture itself is a branch development of SumeruTamil culture..." As far as the Indian based (philosophical/scholarly and not necessarily chauvinistic) scholars are concerned they (including me) tend towards accepting the concept that later Vedic culture is a continuation of the Indus valley culture, though, I'll reserve my prerogative to express my views on the concept of Sumeru-Tamil connection. Simply because I don't know much about it, although, the concept could turn out to be quite interesting and in your email you should present references or links to the elaborated evidence and arguments by you and/or others regarding such connection. If, in fact, this can be shown that the Indus-South/Tamil-Vedic cultures were one entity then it will play in our favor (I intentionally don't use the word 'Dravid' to indicate South or Tamil for the reasons I'll clear later).You said, "(n)ow You appear to be the same as Rajiv for having deep seated phobias about the Western Scholarship of Hinduism." Legitimately criticizing something which you perceive to be wrong and unjust is not a phobia. Would you accept if I tell you that you have deep seated phobias for Sanskrit or Western Scholarship, because by your own admission you criticize both? I don't think that you would agree to my assessment, because you feel that some Sanskrit scholars and Hindutva people have appropriated and neglected the Tamil culture and Western scholarship have done the same. Hence, as I said - legitimately criticizing something which you perceive to be wrong and unjust is not a phobia - it is, rather, a strength.You have emphasized, "...I have said I do not subscribe to the Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy popularized by the Western scholars," I will take your word for it. You use the term 'Dravidian' to express and indicate many things like the Tamil culture, Indus valley culture, South India culture etc. I'll accept that the Indus valley culture is 'Southern' in its form and is in continuum with the Vedic culture, but, each word belongs to and carries a category within itself, and 'Dravidian' is never without its association with a separate notion of 'Aryan' and their associated dichotomy (and this, in fact, is even opposed to your own idea that Vedic culture is a continuation of Indus Valley culture). Why not have a novel word which is free of Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy and also encompases the whole meaning of your ideas?Response to your latest email -You said, "...I feel that you (and Rajiv) do not have the mastery of Philosophical/scientific tradition available in Tamil literature and cultural traditions."I agree that I (and perhaps also Rajiv) do not have in depth understanding of Tamil culture but I consider Tamil (and other Indic traditions) as my cultural heritage. I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot possibly know everything but we extend support in other forms, for example, supporting Indic traditions' cultural and historical unity. Western categories like Aryan-Dravidian dichotomy employed strategies like divide and conquer so that we keep engaging each other in opposition and are never able to put up a unified and effective response.As I said that if you keep with in yourself an irrational and unfair hostility towards everything (and everyone) Sanskrit (and this is also true vice-versa for the people on the so called Sanskrit side), then, we have no common ground and there'll be no "akandabaratam." Because no matter how much you wish Sanskrit (or Tamil) away, they are a part of Indic culture and will remain so.Response to you fourth point -Thank you for the excerpt from your book.Response to you fifth point -You said that, "I don't agree with the observation that there is nothing wrong with Western categories, This is very untrue and Western categories distort the notion TRUTH..." Although, this is not the focus of our discussion (the nature of Western Philosophy) but please allow me comment one sentence here, that, rather than untrue or truth distorting, I think Western philosophies are more like limited (like every other philosophy) to its categories and epistemology. A good theoretical explanation for this stand can be understood through the Jaina view of "Anekantvaad".Response to you first point -You said, "(s)ince Rajiv implies that Ms Vajpeyi is a moron for following some moronjis, I concluded that Rajiv is against Ms Vajpeyi’s characterization of some Sanskrit scholars as Hindu Supremacists Islamphobias and so forth."According to my impression of Rajiv, he does acknowledge that there are condescending (and sometimes even supremacists) view of some Sanskrit proponents and condemn them. And his strong opposition of Ms. Ananya is due to the fact that there is a nexus of academia-NGOs-political lobbyists-corporations which push the Western culture, values and categories as universal (true for everyone) and something which is on 'higher evolutionary pedestal.' When working in regard to India, such groups are inimical towards Sanskrit, Tamil (and any other indigenous system) as you have also observed to some degree.They create false dichotomies to push their above mentioned agenda of cultural domination (and it is also a time honored truth and a good strategy to dominate). The natives of any culture are historically and regularly used as instruments and sepoys (who can derive and receive sympathy from their native society) to infiltrate and perpetuate the Western agendas. These techniques are also used against other cultures and nations too like Chinese, Russians, Iran etc.In response, Chinese have successfully come up with their own such institution to push their cultural soft power, for example, The Confucius Institute. Who now proposes the ideas like, China is a 'Civilizational State' and not a 'Nation State' and that China is modernizing without being 'Westernizing'. The implication being that, one doesn't have to culturally and philosophically convert to the Western categories in order to be called as a modern state (Japan holds similar views).In the end, I also hope that if we all hold our own forts (i.e., our areas of expertise, like Tamil, Sanskrit etc.) and stay culturally connected (and not inimical towards each other) to legitimately critic Western Universalism, then as you said, we would be able work together to bring about the 'recovery of hermeneutic scientific foundations of Indic cultures' and also develop our philosophies further in light of modern scientific discoveries.
.
__,_._,___
K. Loganathan
Dear All,I concur with the following , and consider them highly significant.
" there is a nexus of academia-NGOs-political lobbyists-corporations which push the Western culture, values and categories as universal (true for everyone) and something which is on 'higher evolutionary pedestal.' When working in regard to India, such groups are inimical towards Sanskrit, Tamil (and any other indigenous system) as you have also observed to some degree. "
They create false dichotomies to push their above mentioned agenda of cultural domination (and it is also a time honored truth and a good strategy to dominate). The natives of any culture are historically and regularly used as instruments and sepoys (who can derive and receive sympathy from their native society) to infiltrate and perpetuate the Western agendas. These techniques are also used against other cultures and nations too like Chinese, Russians, Iran etc.
Also I am happy that this discussion is travelling more in scholarly direction. In view of the great credentials of the persons involved in the discussion, I consider it as a 'great begining' of the unity among the native scholars to free the Indian society from the mischievous western intellectual domination, and to rescue the country to progress without loosing the link with our heritage, while progressing towards modernizing without being 'Westernizing'.
S . A . VeerapandianOn Wednesday, 20 August 2014 7:33 AM, "Dushyant Chaturvedi ved...@gmail.com [akandabaratam]" <akanda...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hello again,As my closing comments, I would like to add few observations here -
- I already agree with the importance of Tamil and a need for its revival for the benefit of Indic culture as a whole.
- Intellectual Tamil revival is a responsibility of Tamil scholars (does not necessarily mean only the people of Tamil origin) who are well versed in its philosophical categories for the benefit of everyone. And they should not keep criticizing others simply for choosing other areas of intellectual pursuits.
- I have hinted the meaning of 'Western Universalism' amply clear in my emails, which is not a vague idea of simply seeking truth but is far more than that. For the sake of all indigenous cultures alike, one must try to conduct some research on the topic.
Thank you,Regards,Dushyant
.
__,_._,___