Veda`s demise at NY Hinduja Ctr.

[witzel at HUSC3.HARVARD.EDU]

Dominik Wujastyk wrote on 2/25/96:

>  I do not really wish to become involved in a public discussion about 
what Prof. Witzel in Cambridge MA thinks his colleagues in New York ought 
to be doing.  I really see no point in the discussion at all. <   

Hmm, interesting. And I thought I was brief and clear. (I left out, for 
example, all of my background information about many not exactly ``nice`` 
happenings).

Some of us are philologists on this list, isn`t it: not what *I think*, 
but what the Columbia press release *said* that the colleagues belonging 
to the Columbia Hinduja Center (NB: in the Religion Department) or 
attached to it should be doing primarily...

> But since Prof. Witzel has used the INDOLOGY forum to mount a strong 
attack on certain other members, regarding an issue which I happen to 
know something about, I shall say a few words [...].<

Really, a strong attack on other members? I merely compared two sets of  
publicly available information...
Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi? (not that I consider myself  bovine, 
though!) -- I reminded you last time that Dr Wujastyk himself used to 
exhort his compatriots and the members of the list about undesirable 
developments in GB; so I do, finally,  about North America now.

It should be clear that Dr Wujastyk speaks about his knowledge of things 
in Great Britain, not the US. However, I was speaking, from Cambridge 
(in HM`s Mass. Bay Colony) about the Columbia Center (in Manhattan, Nieuw 
Amsterdam), not the one in the ``real Cambridge`` (United Kingdom).

>I have been personally involved in extensive negotiations with the 
Hinduja family concerning a similar endowment [...] (at the real 
Cambridge :-). [...] the Hinduja family has made it abundantly clear 
[...] to explore the Hindu religious and cultural tradition in the 
broadest sense.  <

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this statement. However, I was 
speaking about the Columbia Center, and while the name of the center may 
be  ``Indic Research`` Ctr., their goals are clearly described in the 
press anouncement quoted last time; see the Columbia gopher: at 
gopher.columbia.cc.clioplus. This announcement does NOT agree with what 
Dr. Wujastyk says about  the center at Cambridge, UK.

> At first they used the word "Veda" to characterise this tradition.  
This is the sense of the word that is commonly used outside academic 
circles, and especially in religious circles, from which they had 
presumably drawn the usage. <

Indologists know, I am sure, what ``Bed /Veedam``  mean in (north/south) 
India. I do not speculate on what the Hinduja family may or may not have 
thought, I quote. 

> When all we academic negotiators began talking about the samhitas 
[....]  it eventually became clear that this was not what the Hinduja 
family meant. <  

Again, I wasn`t there,in Britain, and I talk about the US center, and I 
quote.. See above!!

>  In order not to mislead academics like Prof. Witzel, they have 
permitted the names of the research centres to be changed from "vedic" to 
"indic." <

Fine, maybe, but at the same time the statement says: `` Special study 
will be devoted to the fundamental teachings of the Veda,[...], and the 
later Vedanta [...].``

> The Hinduja family have given every sign of being delighted with the 
activities of both the Columbia and the Cambridge centres.  It is their 
endowment and they therefore have every right to state their preferences 
about how it is used (within the limits set by the agreements with 
Universities, of course).  <

Certainly, and I am not privy to their thoughts. However, published 
announcement/agreement  is agreement is agreement. See above...

> The fact that these centres are not pursuing vedic philology in the 
academic sense is disappointing to vedic philologists, of course.  <

Not to me, personally; due to my more than 5 years continuous stay in 
Nepal and India I have unpublished/unstudied materials for three life 
times to work on and I do not need any $$$ to do so.
But US Indology students and younger colleagues may regret that the funds 
--- the first in the US this century in this particular field--- have 
been diverted to general religious studies, quite another field, with 
different aims/approaches/methods and one which is well represented in 
the US  at every other college.

> But the centres are  committed to fulfilling the aims of their 
founders, and that is exactly what they are doing.<

Is the NY one indeed ??

M. Witzel
Wales Prof. of Sanskrit
Harvard University