your mail

[Girish Beeharry]

Hi, 

This is quite unconvincing. It is only your opinion; based on your 'deep 
sensitivity and empathy' for your subject. :-)

>Many, many Indian authors of the past disapproved strongly of such ideas
>about mantras and mantrasastra generally, viewing them as part of a
>sordid, impure, magical worldview.  I am talking now about philosophers,
>poets, and many other "establishment"  figures in Sanskrit literature. 

>What one tends to get at university -- in India or outside -- if one is
>doing a course in Sanskrit, is a selection of texts from the "great" 
>tradition of epics, upanisads, and kavya.  The commentators of this
>Sanskritic tradition, for example Govindaraja on the Ramayana, Kulluka on
>Manu, or Mallinatha on Kalidasa, do not generally use ideas about the
>mantric meaning of "ra" or other letters as part of their explanations for
>the meanings of the texts.  That is why university students and teachers
>don't think primarily in these terms either.  Because they are moulded by
>the tradition itself. 

Well, if you are closed to new ideas, which are not based on 'authority', then 
its pointless arguing about anything. As a physicist (former) you might 
remember that each time a new idea has been put forward in Physics, it has been
said to be 'crazy'! For instance Bohr asked Feynman whether he understood 
quantum mechanics when the latter was explaing his new approach for the first
time... :-)

>I'm afraid that claiming to be a "physicist" is -- to me personally --
>like a red rag to a bull.  To me it is an immediate disqualification for
>someone to have any opinion on anything meaningful.  (Okay, so I overstate
>the case a teeny weeny bit.  :-)  I went through an education as a
>physicist myself, and it was only long after it was over, and I had spent
>several years in the humanities, that I consider I actually began to
>understand anything about scholarship, history, or rigorous thought.  (You
>may notice that in the current statement about the aims of INDOLOGY, I
>cite a scientific background as a serious hindrance.) 

The mere fact of your using email/computers etc is a way of attesting to the 
'rigorous' thinking of physicists. It is all based on very serious thinking in
Quantum Mechanics.

>Anyone who has spent time studying the humanities seriously knows that the
>point of view you refer to is facile in the extreme.  It is precisely
>those who have been able to develop a deep sensitivity and empathy for
>their subject-matter who are most able to contribute meaningfully to the
>subject in their writings.  

Yes, but has it got anything to do with reality? How do you know that they are
right? Is it because they write well? Or they are 'distinguished' orientalists
from a 'prestigious' university? What 'experiments' can you do to convince a
reader that you actually know what you are writing about? 

Indology is not like Mathematics, where internal consistency is of primary
importance, but more like Physics. After all, both Indologists and physicists
are trying to 'grasp' reality (in the etymological sense), no?

I am apologetic for the low Indological content of my message! 

Bye,

Girish Beeharry