ENDO-EXO

[V.V. Raman]

1. One of the participants compassionately (condescendingly?) stated I had
"difficulty in understanding" what was going on here. So I decided not to
pursue the endo-exo idea any further with this group. My initial posting,
however,  was not because I have difficulty understanding the goals of this
group, but because I understood it well, I respect it, I am impressed by it,
and I applaud it. I also believe that exchanges like this contribute immensely
not only to a deeper understanding, but also to a wider propagation of
technical matters in Indology.

2. However, I felt it was missing an important element/dimension, now almost
unavoidable, of the whole field of Indology. I will admit I had not read all
the previous unpleasant exchanges which led to the final rupture, but more of
it and in more vehement formats, are yet to come in other arenas.

3. Though I have no desire to change the rules and focus of this group since
the Exo-Endo notion has been raised again (by Jon), let me clarify it further.

4. I have explored this idea in other contexts as well (as Jon suggests),
especially in debates on Science and Religion. It could be extended to
discussions on Islam, Christianity, the predicament of Amerindians, or even to
any national history.
The crucial point here is simply this:

5. In contexts where culture, religion, self-respect, emotions are involved,
the cold, detached, objective,  factual, scientific explanations,
interpretations, conclusions are bound to be partial, one-sided, incomplete,
unsatisfactory, even provocative and anger-producing sometimes. That is why, as
we all know,  the history of Napoleonic wars authored by an Englishman is
likely to be different from one by a Frenchman, etc.

6. Science is most successful and much easier to handle because by and large
its subject matter does not impinge on our egos and self-respect. It deals with
facts and explanations, rather than practices and interpretations. Even here,
the Copernican treatise and Darwinian Evolution generated controversy, because
they had (have) an impact on how we see ourselves.

7. I feel that non-Hindu Indologists (a) must contend with the fact that there
exist these two modes of Indology; (b) must not ignore the fact that in recent
years the Endo-mode has been gaining more and more strength (and not just
within India); and (c) must not underestimate the power and sweep of the
Endo-mode and its practitioners. If Indologists think that interpreting
Sanskrit terms and concepts is not any different from deciphering the Rosetta
Stone, I will have to say they are losing touch with reality. Their
indifference to current developments would not be unlike what  naughty Nero was
doing when something very hot was going on in Rome.

8. All I was trying to say was that the best way to deal with unreasonable,
over-excited, irate comments is to ignore them, and learn from them if
possible, but it may not be very wise to shut them up, especially when they
come from the very tradition we are trying to study and understand.

With best regards,
V. V. Raman
November 2, 2000