[INDOLOGY] Rgveda complete study material and reverse word index

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>From the latest response from Prof Pandurangi , it appears that he was
using the term in a geographical sense only something like 'from outside
India' .

But the point remains that studies of literatures , languages and cultures
have two distinct approaches: 1. From inside and/or sympathetic to the
tradition of living the literature, language , culture being studied. 2.
>From outside and/or not necessarily sympathetic to the tradition of living
the literature, language, culture being studied.

This applies to topics related to India too.

When we want to talk about such difference in approach of the scholar, just
the geographical location or origin of the scholar may not be a valid basis
for categorisation.



On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 4:51 AM Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 21:38, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The category 'western' as a label for a certain worldview , a certain
>> approach to understanding things has been used widely in the academic
>> studies world over.
>>
>
> I know, and it's a curse.
>
> In my view, it's impossible to use this category without rapidly
> descending into jingoistic language or implications. That's why I never use
> it.
>
> I find Madhav's contrasting terms, westernized-indian and
> indianized-westerner fun and thought-provoking.  What I draw from this is,
> again, that using "west" as a meaningful category to refer to something
> cultural is never going to help.  The term is useful for the
> clash-of-civilizations type of narrative, that has goals other than
> deepening understanding, but not for serious work by serious people.
>
> In my thinking and writing in recent years I say "European and North
> American" if I want to refer to ideas or people from Europe and N.
> America.  I make it specifically geographical, as Camillo too suggests.  To
> do otherwise is to essentialize harmfully, to be Toynbee redivivus, heaven
> forbid.
> Best,
> DW
>
> PS,
> Jack Goody, 2005
> <https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii36/articles/jack-goody-the-labyrinth-of-kinship>:
>
>
>> Following the lead of Malthus, many demographers, like other social
>> scientists, have drawn a sharp distinction between the European and
>> non-European family systems, particularly those of Asia. But it is often an
>> error to oppose the West and the Rest in a categorical manner, as large
>> numbers of anthropologists, sociologists and historians continue to do.
>> That leads to the kind of mistakes Malthus made about China. Comparable
>> errors have been made by anthropologists—Durkheim treating the Chinese as
>> exemplars of ‘primitive classification’, Dumont positing a decisive break
>> between a hierarchical India and a more egalitarian West, or Lévi-Strauss
>> bracketing early Chinese with Australian marriage systems.
>>
>> Such positions have done considerable harm to social and historical
>> studies.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20210427/3c7629e9/attachment.htm>