Regarding the Upanishads.- Conflicting logic of tenured Indologists.

[Subrahmanya S.]

The posting by Madhav Deshpande indicates the
conflicting logic that "modern historically oriented" scholars
use in Indology.
>
>The traditional authors are not "historically" oriented
>as modern scholars are, and yet they are not just spiritually oriented.
>They are skilled philologists.
>In contrast with modern advocates of undifferentiated
>spirituality where anything goes, the Indian tradition
>itself had a healthy dose of scepticism about all these
>traditional authorities:
>
The skepticism should be applied to theories peddled by
modern "historically oriented" scholars as well.

Also, if the traditional scholars were not historically
oriented then their works also may not be historically
oriented!. So what good is it to use ONLY the
"historically oriented" method to understand such texts.
In essence you are admitting to using wrong units for
measuring and understanding the texts - that is a major flaw
in your method.

While I am all for honest historically oriented study
of India, what currently passes off as scholarship in
Indology is merely Europeanist ideology.

That is why Indology has had Aryan noses, Aryan languages and
now Witzel has 'managed' to find Aryan chariot panzers.
A process is now underway to changing Aryan and Indo-European
to mean more than just language.

While Indology has influenced Indian politics over the last
hundred years it has very little to do with actual
Indian history before colonisation and a lot more to
do with European politics and identity.

To understand Indology, one has to study European politics
and academia over the past 200 years.

Subrahmanya

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com