Turmoil & shantih

[Bjarte Kaldhol]

Dear listmembers,

As a new member on this list I am now reaching for the delete button
whenever I see certain names, as I suspect others are doing.

It appears to be difficult to V.V. Raman to understand that this is a list
with hundreds of participants who would like to discuss well-defined
problems meaningfully and dispassionately. I do not like to have my mailbox
littered with angry personal attacks, and it is not very polite to post
such attacks day after day. Quarrelsome people might "discuss" among
themselves, if they like. This has nothing to do with an (artificial)
distinction between endo and exo - it is simply a matter of politeness. By
being impolite and rude, Hindutva representatives cannot gain anything -
least of all understanding and sympathy. To remain "calm and collected in
the face of such outbursts" is unacceptable, and to defend rudeness in
order to attain "long-range greater good" (whatever that might be) is
unacceptable as well.

I believe we should listen to ancient Indian wisdom instead of defending
petty quarrel:

"Na:sti buddhir ayuktasya,
na ca:yuktasya bha:vana:,
na ca:bha:vayatah s´a:antir,
as´a:ntasya kutah sukham?"

Regards,
Bjarte Kaldhol,
Oslo


----------
> From: V.V. Raman <VVRSPS at RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU>
> To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Subject: Turmoil
> Date: 1. november 2000 15:22
>
> TURMOIL IN INDOLOGY
>
> 1. In recent years Indology has been undergoing certain major paradigm
shifts.
> One of them is that voices of representatives from the Hindu tradition
are
> becoming louder and louder. Some of these are reasoned and polite, others
> passionate and angry. In any case, it is important for serious
Indologists (Exo
> or Endo) to hear these voices, to listen to them carefully in some
instances,
> ignore them in other instances,  respond to them when appropriate, but
not to
> shut them off or make them exotic (beyond ear-shot).
>
> 2. I understand that this is an elite egroup, concerned primarily with
esoteric
> problems relating to linguistics, word origins, sources and
interpretations of
> ancient texts, scholarly dissertations, Bangladeshi Buddhists, multiple
> meanings of abstruse passages, distinctions between Saivism and
> Saivasiddhantam, etc., etc., in a detached, Exo-spirited mode. Perhaps
the vast
> majority of participants here would like it to remain this way.
>
> 3. However I would urge the powers that be and the membership to
reconsider
> this ivory-tower exclusivity for the following reasons:
> (a) Many of the angry participants who have spoken out here are deeply
> committed to (what they regard as) a fair appraisal, interpretation,
> understanding of their history and tradition.
> (b) Most of them are well acquainted (book-wise and emotionally) with
aspects
> of the subjects they (we) are commenting upon.
> (c) They too need to know/understand that not all <alien> Exo-Indologists
have
> sinister motives. It is only when they read some of the postings here
that they
> are likely to be convinced of this.
> (d) Exo-Indologists need to know why the Endo-voices expressed here are
> sometimes so angry and passionate. It is not by responding to them in
kind or
> by booting them out that Indology as a discipline will be enriched. If
> anything, I would invite them back and even ask more of them to join in
and
> speak out so that one may better understand why they feel so negatively
about
> Exo-Indology, why many of them they entertain unfavorable opinions
> (e) We need to reckon with this new tumultuous phase in Indology. We need
to
> strive to build bridges between the two camps, nor divide them up even
more as
> warring factions.
> (f) Exo-Indologists have to be more tolerant, more understanding, and
more
> sympathetic to the protesters because their (the protests') ancestors
were
> oppressed, treated as inferiors, and analyzed as if they were specimens
in a
> laboratory.
>
> 4. One of the prerogatives of Endo-Indologsts is that they can get pretty
> upset, angry, even vicious sometimes. It is incumbent upon
Exo-Indologists to
> remain calm and collected in the face of such outbursts, because there
are
> historical reasons for this. I recognize that there must be basic
netiquette
> norms. But, as with Gandhian Satyagraha or the March in Selma, there are
> momentous contexts when these have to be discounted in the interest of
> long-range greater good.
>
> V. V. Raman
> November 1, 2000