Indology's Future?

[Bijoy Misra]

A good point, powerfully stated.
I can't agree more.

We have to study with passion, respect and
perceptive insight.  Politics and sentimentalism
have no role.  Unfortunately some of the
modern scholarship are on the border.

Prof raman also made some good points.
He should not just quit, but keep his
analysis expressed and respected.
Without openness, this list will degrade.

Best regards,

BM


On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Lambodara wrote:

> > Scholarship is about knowledge, not about respect or love.
> >
> > A scholar who knows his material (whether it be an aspect of the
> > geology of rock formations or of the traditions of Indian culture) is
> > a good scholar.
> >
> > One who does not is not.
> >
> > Whether either of them have any respect or love for that material has
> > no bearing upon the question.  A scholar may hate and despise his
> > subject with a passion, so long as he is knowledgeable about it.  He
> > may not do the converse and remain a scholar.
> >
> > I would have thought all this was implicitly understood.  It is
> > disturbing that the discussion here has descended to the level where
> > it needs to be stated.
>
> In whose opinion does this need to be stated, yours?  In my opinion, their
> are three types of scholars in this field, those who care, love, and immerse
> themselves in the power of this subject matter;  those who don't, but know
> their facts, and those who don't even know their facts.  In my experience,
> the only scholarship worth reading devolves from the first group.  There is
> a plethora of useless, tired, and boring scholarship in indology that arises
> from people who know their facts but have no love for their study.  It is
> the case in my opinion, that especially in the field of Indology, a certain
> love and extremist dedication is required to even work with in the material.
> There are/were many indologists who have not had any love of this culture,
> and their translations of texts are generally so wooden, non-heartfelt, and
> single layered that they are basically inaccurate.  Furthermore, their
> commentary on text is almost always entirely incorrect, as it fails to make
> the neccesary connection with cultural indicators and sensibilities in
> Indian culture.  The study of indology for me is not something i do out of
> interest in one dimensional fact, but rather based on entry into the most
> well developed, interesting, intellectually interesting, and spiritually
> powerful tradition in history.  You, Rohan, have no right to decide as an
> individual what makes a good scholar in indology, or anything else for that
> matter, and consensus would likely not support this position.
>
> reguards;
>
> Stephen J Brown
>