Not again! We’ve gone over this ground already. Eli already raised these ‘misunderstandings’ of The Nay Science before. We comprehensively responded to him in “Theses on Indology.” But if Jan wishes to have it all explained again, here we go. Jan raises the following objections:

 

1. That we did not define German by race or nation or language. 

2. That we overlooked the commonality of German Indology with other countries. 

3. That we made a subset of German Indology stand in for the whole.

4. That we critique Indology because we stand for tradition. 

5. That we therefore stand outside a European tradition of critical inquiry.

6. And finally, that our work lacks the proper graces. 

 

The definition of German Indology in terms of allegiance to intellectual concerns and a methodological and institutional paradigm is wholly consistent within itself, and misunderstandings such as those voiced in points 2 and 3 only arise because scholars insist on the categories of nation, language, and ethnicity. Finally, we can continue to repeat tropes of “European = critical,” “Indian = traditional.” By now it is amply clear whose work is critical and who is desperately trying to protect traditional authority and privilege. Who is caricaturing whom here?

 

In order not to belabor the discussion, I have appended a list of our writings where further clarifications to Jan’s comments can be found. If there are new objections, Vishwa and I will be happy to respond to them. But let’s not self-defeatingly keep proposing ethnic or national definitions of “German” and stereotypes of “the critical European” vs. “the uncritical Indian.” It only confirms the point.

 

On “German Indology and National Socialism” see “Jews and Hindus in Indology,” 24, n. 95, 26, n. 105, 27, n. 106, and 69, n. 199. On “Andrew Nicholson” see “The Real Threat to the Humanities Today,” 1–16. On “Jürgen Hanneder” see “5 in 10—Interview with Joydeep Bagchee” and “Against Occidentalism: A Conversation with Alice Crary and Vishwa Adluri in The Nay Science.” On “caricature” see “Method and Racism in German Mahābhārata Studies,” 1–6. On “voluminous publication” see “Theses on Indology,” 9–10 (on Bronkhorst), 10 (on Hanneder), and 11–14 (on Witzel). On “the European critical method of textual study” see Philology and Criticism, 63–65, and 99–100 (on Bronkhorst), 45–157 (on Bigger), 169–314 (on Grünendahl), 269–70 (on Slaje), 270–71 (on Hinüber), 271–72 (on Fitzgerald), 272 (on Pollock), 320–36 (on Witzel), and 429–78 (on Brockington). On accepting “any traditionally proposed interpretation […] without much reflection” see ibid., 111–13 and 144–45 (on Austin), 21, 28–29, and 113–14 (on Fitzgerald), 270 (on Bronkhorst), 434–35 and 466, n. 118 (on Brockington), and the aforementioned pages in the Argument from Expertise again. See also “Paradigm Lost,” 215–49 and 53–54 (on Jezic), 265, n. 12 (on Brockington), 282, n. 91 (on Witzel, Brockington, Malinar, and Szczurek), and 286, n. 104 (on Jezic, Szczurek, and Fitzgerald). See also Adluri, comments on Philipp A. Maas, “Negotiating Efficiencies,” parts 1–2 and final response. On “a very precise methodic research strategy […] which goes back to earlier stages of European philosophy [philology?] and critical reflection” see Philology and Criticism, 319–20, 323–24, and 339–40. On “the art of ignoring” or “methodic ignorance” see “Jews and Hindus in Indology,” 66, n. 193 (on Stache-Rosen, Franco, Schechtelich, Grünendahl, and Slaje). See also The Nay Science, 426, n. 232 (on Slaje) and 444, n. 37 (on Steinkellner) and the OBO entry on German Indology (on Hanneder). See also Philology and Criticism, 432–33 and 435–49 (on Brockington’s ignorance of the concept of a Venn diagram). On “pure philological and linguistic research” see “Indology: The Origins of Racism in the Humanities” 7 (on F. Schlegel) and 8–14 and 17, n. 43 (on A. W. Schlegel). On “the research paradigm of philological and linguistic research” see Philology and Criticism, 326, nn. 7–8 (on Grünendahl), 326, nn. 9 (on Pollock and Jamison), and 327–28, nn. 17–18 (on Witzel). See also Adluri, review of Pollock, et al., eds., World Philology, 908–10 and Adluri, review of Malinar, The Bhagavadgītā, 102–105. On the “negativity” of “European critical methods” see Philology and Criticism, 93, n. 24 and 313, nn. 359–60. See also Bagchee’s forthcoming review of Rabault-Feuerhahn, Archives of Origins in the International Journal of Hindu Studies. On the “close relations” of German Indology with “European orientalism” see the OBO entry “European Constructions of Hinduism.”   

 

(Except for “European Constructions of Hinduism" all writings are available via Vishwa’s or my Academia page)

 

Dr. Joydeep Bagchee

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Academia.edu Homepage

The Nay Science

Argument and Design

Reading the Fifth Veda

When the Goddess Was a Woman

Transcultural Encounters between Germany and India

German Indology on OBO Hinduism

___________________

What, then, is Philosophy?
Philosophy is the supremely precious.

Plotinus, Enneads I.III.5

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:58 PM Jan E.M. Houben via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Dear Shyam Ranganathan, 

This is a legitimate question, which merits an adequate response. 

My "two cents": 

You may already have looked at the bibliographical article “German Indology” by Joydeep Bagchee (JB) (Oxford Bibliographies online: www.oxfordbibliographies.com under “German Indology” or:

www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0147.xml)

Since, as I pointed out elsewhere, “Indology was more or less since its beginnings, end 18th – beginning 19th century, mainly “European” in character with intensive cooperations between French, British and German specialists, and has thus not only been sharing Oriental dreams but also a Nazi-nightmare,” the focus on “German Indology” in JB’s article is itself problematic, especially because the author justifies it by invoking “a distinct history and traditions” for German Indology, and “unique concerns that set it apart from other forms of research into India” (“German Indology”, section “Introduction”). Given this and other peculiar premises, the article contains nevertheless useful bibliographic references and brief evaluations (from the author’s point of view) of relevant publications, especially – for your subject – in two sections of the article: “National Socialism” (topic: German Indology and National Socialism) and “German Responses to National Socialist Indology.” Another relevant section is “Orientalism Debate” which, in the view of the author (JB), as he expresses it in his evaluation of Halbfass’s India and Europe (1988), really starts with the publication of “Pollock 1993” (see above). It is hence regrettable but not entirely surprising that the collective volume Beyond Orientalism (1997) is regarded by JB as a work which “does not directly address the orientalist debate; it is really an overview of Halbfass’s work as a post-orientalist scholar.” In this section a reference is lacking to my review of this work which discusses and demonstrates how the work and in particular Halbfass’s dialogical contributions to it are indeed directly relevant to the “Orientalism Debate” (“Orientalism, its critique, and beyond: review article of Beyond Orientalism, ed. by K. Preisendanz and E. Franco, Amsterdam 1997” (15 [1998]: 16) IIAS-Newsletter : Newsletter of the International Institute for Asian Studies (Leiden), no. 15. 1998 : https://www.academia.edu/6169112). With regard to Halbfass’s unsurpassed India and Europe (1988), the author (JB) thinks that it “needs revision in light of newer discoveries” but fails to point out that several currently self-styled “new discoveries” need, in fact, also revision in the light of Halbfass’s monumental achievement in comparative philosophy which is exceptionally well-founded both in “Western” and in Indian philosophy.

I have in the meantime also updated my almost antique "conference report" (of the 29th DOT of the DMG in Leipzig, 1995) 

www.academia.edu/7378413

with two "Further Postscripts", the second of which containing a brief compte rendu of VA&JB's The Nay Science in which I address two "key-problems" that remain in this work, a heavy “stone in the pond” of Indology and Asian Studies, in spite of the large number of reviews and rejoinders that have already appeared, and propose two "keys" to solve them.   

With best regards, 

Jan Houben

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 18:26, Shyam Ranganathan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Dear all,

Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer that I don't know.

I recall that in India and Europe, Halbfass discusses the development of ideas associated with National Socialism by those who took an interest in India. I'm wondering if there is anything classic on this topic. I'm trying to reference, in passing, the racist reception of India in Europe (the friendliness to "Arya" or "Swastika" for instance) where India was treated as a kind of European prehistory, and I'm not sure what to point to. I'm happy to point to Halbfass, though I was wondering if there was something specifically on this topic (a paper or book).

Thanks,

Shyam

--

Shyam Ranganathan

Department of Philosophy

York Center for Asian Research
York University, Toronto

 

shyam-ranganathan.info 

 

Hinduism: 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

 

Full List, Publications

 

 

_______________________________________________
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)

--

Jan E.M. Houben

Directeur d'Études, Professor of South Asian History and Philology

Sources et histoire de la tradition sanskrite

École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE, PSL - Université Paris)

Sciences historiques et philologiques 

54, rue Saint-Jacques, CS 20525 – 75005 Paris

johannes.houben@ephe.sorbonne.fr

johannes.houben@ephe.psl.eu

https://ephe-sorbonne.academia.edu/JanEMHouben

_______________________________________________
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)