<The accomplishments of German Indologists are clearly seminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important to understand the intellectual, cultural and historical circumstances that inevitably influenced what they wrote.>
I do not disagree with this. But this is true of some non-German Indologists too. Was Maxmueller as an Indologist German? He viewed Buddhism as a step towards Chrstianity. Macdonell did not pronounce so. But, as far as I know, he did not say against this view.  But Keith distinguished between our lord and their lord. I read these in student life and, hence, cannot cite from the authors..But I could not avoid the impression that chauvinism is universal,.not necessarily a German characteristic. Indian Indologists too often take to self-aggrandizement. But the trend seems to be on the wane since long. Deussen and Tucci were diifferent. So much so good.
Best
Dipak Bhattacharya
.
  

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:30 PM, George Hart <glhart@berkeley.edu> wrote:
I have not read the book, only about 15 pages from what Amazon lets us see.  It seems obvious to me that the book needs to be taken seriously.  If scholars disagree vehemently with its method and conclusions, I hope they will read it and write a review.  My own impression (based on just a few pages) is that the book helps give perspective to the “science” of Indology — how it developed, what social and historical forces guided it, and perhaps some assumptions of modern scholars that are problematic.  I remember spending a year poring over Geldner, Grassman, and Oldenberg and being very impressed by their scholarship.  The accomplishments of German Indologists are clearly seminal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important to understand the intellectual, cultural and historical circumstances that inevitably influenced what they wrote. George Hart

On Jun 12, 2015, at 8:42 AM, Herman Tull <hermantull@gmail.com> wrote:


My comment was written before I saw Reinhold's comment.  My original remark was less a matter of supporting ("acclamation") George Hart's remarks (which I do support), then it was a matter of drawing our attention to the fact that Americans have struggled with their academic heritage, and in particular, with the precise sense of "wissenschaftlich." 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Gruenendahl, Reinhold <gruenen@sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:

I hope this is not to suggest that the matter should be decided by acclamation. I merely asked Professor Hart to specify a point "that should be seriously considered by indologists". My interest does not go beyond that.

 

R.G.

 
 
 
Von: INDOLOGY [indology-bounces@list.indology.info]" im Auftrag von "Herman Tull [hermantull@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Juni 2015 16:59
An: Indology
Betreff: Re: [INDOLOGY] The so-called German Indology

I am reading the Adluri/Bagchee book right now; though not without its problems, I have to agree with George Hart's assessment.

But, I will also say, as a student of religion (my graduate department had the rather comprehensive and so, too, largely meaningless name, "Department of the History and Literature of Religions"), Americans have long struggled with the precise meaning of "wissenschaftlich."  The 19th century American world was a direct descendent of the German academy, but lacked its sophistication.  (Somewhere early in the JAOS I recall that the reason given for the turn to Oriental studies was to "keep up with the Joneses"--i.e., the Europeans; not much science there, I am afraid.)

cheers,

Herman Tull

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:27 AM, George Hart <glhart@berkeley.edu> wrote:
If you search the book at Amazon, you can read significant parts of it (“Look inside this book”). The authors are serious, well-read scholars and have put a colossal amount of work into their effort. The book strikes me as an important contribution whose ideas should be seriously considered by indologists. George Hart

On Jun 12, 2015, at 5:48 AM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 June 2015 at 14:15, Philipp Maas <philipp.a.maas@gmail.com> wrote:

 

In reading these lines, I get quite puzzled. Are historical-critical methods in general flawed, or only when practiced by Germans?



​Only when practised by Germans, as any Italian would certainly answer :-)

​
(This refers to a running joke between some of us British, German and Italian philologists here at the Vienna department.)

I suppose the Adluri & Bagchee book deserves a more serious response, but I'm not interested personally.  How did this get by the commissioning editor at OUP NY?

Best,
Dominik Wujastyk


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



--
Herman Tull
Princeton, NJ



--
Herman Tull
Princeton, NJ
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)