Dear all,
Like many of us, I share a sense of outrage and frustration over the obnoxious treatment of scholars in our field who represent and relate information about traditions and histories that are inconvenient to some group’s dominant narrative. And while clearly how audience members treat panelists, and how we treat each other is a moral and political issue, after working on the systematic disappearance of Indian moral philosophy in the literature for twenty years now, I think that the problem that gives rise to problems in scholarship (in print and at conferences) isn’t at base a moral or political problem: it’s a function of a bad account of thought and understanding that is ubiquitous.
This is the linguistic account of thought: accordingly thought is the meaning of what you say. It leads to a host of problems, some logical, others political. The main problem with this approach to thought is that it conflates how you see the world (encoded in your idiolect) with the thinkable rendering disagreement unintelligible. Those who do not share your vantage are thereby treated either as people to be converted, silenced or wiped out---not to be understood. It creates a fragile ego that can’t tolerate or contemplate disagreement.
I wasn't at this specific session of the WSC, but what Dr. Vajpeyi describes in her article fits the linguistic account of thought. In this case, the audience will conflate the thinkable with their outlook encoded in their idiolect. Not only will they not be able to countenance a divergence in perspectives, they will insist on their own idiolect (insisting for instance on "harijan" instead of "dalit"; insisting on their perspective instead of accepting a divergence and disagreement in perspectives between themselves and the panelists). Dr. Vajpeyi in her article also reports that “Sanskrit professors at leading universities [were] making absurd claims, for example that caste is unrelated to birth; that Hindu society is inherently gender-blind; or that if the term “varna” does not occur, there is no discrimination.” This too only makes sense if the outlooks of these individuals (the way they would rather view the world) is conflated with the thinkable, and this is a curse of the linguistic account of thought---that one's idiolectical world view is conflated with thought.
The reason this account
of thought is ubiquitous is that it is imperious and is there by
transmitted via imperialism and colonialism. It is also ancient, traceable
to the Greek idea of logos,
which marries the idea of thought, language and reason. It is
the kernel of the West.
It sometimes seems like lupus: the disease with a thousand faces
for two reasons. First it has a historical root in European
thought and we can trace its transmission from Europe towards
the east, but what it does is it empowers a colonized
perspective as the content of thought, and then it seems to be
quite separate from its European origins: it self-effaces behind
the local, non-European perspective creating a novel,
constructed identity that would have been unthinkable in the
absence of this history of imperialism. How it expresses itself
depends on the world view of the adherent. I argue in my work
that it is ubiquitous in the literature, forming the basis of
what I call “Orthodox Indology”: this leads to the scrubbing of
Indian moral theorizing that disagrees with dominant Eurocentric
values and perspectives. When we look at specific
cases where people are having trouble communicating,
understanding or there is hostility, it seems that the problem
is the particular world view of the participants. Hence, much
energy is given to berating those who don’t share one’s world
view in this orientation (secular scholars point a finger at the
Hindu right for intolerance, the Hindu right points a finger at
secular scholars for being anti-Hindu…). But the deeper problem
is the conflation of one’s world view with thought. Failing an
explicit criticism of this paradigm, interlocutors---and
audience members of scholarly panels---will show up expecting to
hear their world view articulated and will react with
disappointment and the negative emotions that come in tow with a
fragile ego when they are confronted with an alternate
perspective. As I note in my
work, this conflation of thought with belief is not only
politically problematic, it goes against basic expectations of
formal logic, where the validity of an inference comes apart
from the truth of what is claimed. If we buy the linguistic
account of thought, and we thereby conflate thought and belief
(how we see things, what we take to be true), we are committed
to irrationality for we can only ever evaluate something as
reasonable if we think it's true.
Ranganathan, Shyam.
2018. 'Subcontinent Dharma, the Global Alt-Right, and the
Philosophy of Thought.' In Hinduism a Contemporary
Philosophical Investigation, 112-137. London: Routledge.
The alternate model
that helps us respect the dictates of formal logic while
allowing us to communicate in a diverse world constituted by a
diversity of perspectives takes a page out of Patañjali’s
yoga. This unlocks the philosophical diversity of various
traditions, especially those studied under the shadow of
colonialism, and undermines hegemonic narratives of
diversity. Whereas the linguistic model of thought expects
agreement as the condition of thinking, the alternative yoga
inspired model expects a diversity of perspectives and
disagreement as the condition of thinking and understanding.
But thought on this account is not linguistic-relative: its
relative to disciplines. And hence an Indology that proceeded
along these lines couldn't treat the study of Sanskrit or
Indian languages as central to the study of India's
intellectual history. The idea that philology and the study
of Indian languages is central to the study of India is the West.
On the yoga inspired model, we would have to treat our
historical subjects as peers: philologists would hence study
philologists, philosophers would study philosophers,
historians would study historians. Disciplinary parity
between reader and author, audience and speaker, on this
account, is essential to participate in joint activities of
disagreement and research. Failing such parity, there is no
way to coordinate the disagreement as triangulating on objects
of research from differing perspectives.
This chapter also makes
special reference to the controversy surrounding Prof. Doniger,
which bears similarities with this case.
Best wishes,
Shyam
Shyam Ranganathan
Department of PhilosophyHinduism: A Contemporary Philosophical Investigation
The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics
Patañjali`s Yoga Sūtras (Translation, Edition and Commentary)
Translating Evaluative Discourse: The Semantics of Thick and Thin Concepts
Dear listfolk,
As an outsider to this WSC controversy, I was a bit surprised that after Prof. Sathaye's apologies, the battering against him continues, repeatedly. I had thought the moderator would intervene at this point to keep the animus on this forum within reasonable limits. Now, even the Pollock controversy is being reopened. Suit yourselves, but in that case, it is about time to get properly informed about the real reason why Hindus (most of them not "Hindutva") felt the need to stand up. For a forum of India-watchers, it is strange that so many people seem satisfied with a less than accurate account.
The immediate reason for many Hindus to feel slighted at the selection of Sheldon Pollock for getting the Hindu heritage in his care, was his "deep antipathy" against not just "Hindutva", but against Hinduism as such and esp. against Sanskrit. This is not something they make up: Pollock's own words are quoted to this effect. In particular, he calls Sanskrit the source and cause of Nazism and the Holocaust,-- the most hostile position against Sanskrit anyone can possibly take. In contemporary Western culture, it is the single worst allegation you can make. In fact, it makes me wonder why you people are still on this forum focused on an apparently distasteful and evil subject like Sanskrit.
Here is the whole story:
Hindus make serious mistakes in the way they stand up for themselves. But they are entirely justified in not taking it lying down. Friends would help them do it better.
Kind regards,
Dr. Koenraad Elst, Orientalist
Van: "Indology" <indology@list.indology.info>
Aan: vajpeyi@csds.in
Cc: "Indology" <indology@list.indology.info>
Verzonden: Zondag 26 augustus 2018 12:41:01
Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] Regarding Further Clarifications on the WSC Forum
„The mountain is certainly hard to move ...“, but sometimes solving a seemingly difficult problem can be easier achieved than the crushing of a flower, to apply a maxim from the Mokṣopāya by analogy.
Getting down to the root of the trouble leads one directly to the overt Hindu-nationalist turn of the IASS, mirrored, e.g., in the witch-hunt with Pollock as a victim in 2016. What followed was predictable. On 1 March 2016, I had posted the below message to this list:
„it might be of some relevance to the community of Indologists that among the prominent signatories of the Pollock removal petition Prof. V. Kutumba Sastry ranks fifth on top of the list:
That Prof. Kutumba Sastry signed this petition in his capacity of the „President, International Association of Sanskrit Studies” (IASS), has meanwhile attracted the attention of also the media, who specifically single out his name and function:
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html
In terms of Indological research, it is perhaps of no little significance that the President of the IASS - a leading organization carrying “International” as part of their name and arranging the "World Sanskrit Conference" on a regular basis - publicly supports the text of the debated petition in full and demands, among others, “Make in India” ethics and “Swadeshi Indology” in contexts of research and academic publications guidelines. Trying to be “international” and “swadeshi” at the same time clearly equals a contradiction in terms.
The IASS ought to state their position in this matter by clarifying if, in promoting nationalist ideas of Indological research, their president is acting on their behalf:
http://www.sanskritassociation.org/board-members.php.”
In the absence of an acceptable reply, the Indological Branch in the German Oriental Society (DMG) decided to quit the IASS, as explained in minute detail by their present spokesman Dr Steiner in one of his previous posts.
A feasible way to safeguarding future WSC’s from the negative impact of an ever increasing Hindu nationalist influx would be to unbundle the WSC from the IASS. An independently organised WSC will regain and control their autonomy. On the other hand, bereft of the WSC the IASS lose their "International" aspect and with it the justification of bearing an “I” in their name. The logically following gradual transformation into a “National Association of Sanskrit Studies” (NASS) would in every respect be no less deserved then befitting.
The little effort required on the part of serious scholars interested in Sanskrit research free of Hindu nationalist ideology consists in cancelling their membership in the IASS with immediate effect. This and only this will make them think.
An unfailing measure of this kind has been proposed by Dr Steiner in the form of a private communication, from which to quote I have been authorised:
“The WSC is perceived as the biggest international conference on Sanskrit Studies ("The World Sanskrit Conference is the premier international forum for professional researchers and educators of the Sanskrit language and its literatures, and of the history, religion, and cultures of premodern South Asia." Source: "Main Conference Website" of the 17th WSC, Vancouver). In a way, it is probably the most visible symbol of these studies at present. The bond between these conferences is the "IASS, as the notional sponsor of the different WSC meetings" (Dominik Wujastyk). There may be further links between these meetings. Rajiv
Malhotra was the keynote speaker of the WSC in Bangkok in 2015, personally invited by the president of the IASS. In the run-up to the following WSC in Vancouver, it was heard that the local organizers wanted to make it better, and I am sure that they succeeded in doing so.
My point is that the individual WSCes are not insulated entities that have nothing to do with each other. It is decisive, that they are not perceived that way, regardless of their actual "ontological" status.
Moreover, the WSC is the (only) flagship of the IASS. The relationship of the IASS to the anti-academic ideology of a "Swadeshi Indology" is still to be clarified, despite our demand (already in 2016) for taking up position here. Any potential organizing committee of a WSC is expected to account to oneself for the question whether they think it acceptable under these circumstances to organize a conference under the auspices of the IASS. One way to react [...] is to clearly disassociate oneself from this present-day IASS and to name our reasons for this decision. We do not need the IASS to organize an international Sanskrit conference.”
Warm wishes, and kind regards,
Walter Slaje
-----------------------------
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Slaje
Hermann-Löns-Str. 1
D-99425 Weimar
Deutschland
Ego ex animi mei sententia spondeo ac polliceor
studia humanitatis impigro labore culturum et provecturum
non sordidi lucri causa nec ad vanam captandam gloriam,
sed quo magis veritas propagetur et lux eius, qua salus
humani generis continetur, clarius effulgeat.
Vindobonae, die XXI. mensis Novembris MCMLXXXIII.
_______________________________________________
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)