Philology Versus Misology

The vast majority of Western scholars, who call themselves Indologists, approach ancient Indian texts with a sense of skepticism and view them as objects to be exploited. Most scholars have attempted to understand Indian texts from a purely historical perspective. Their efforts at studying the text focus on answering questions such as when was the text written? Is there a single author or multiple authors? Can the original text before redactions and interpolations be reconstituted? Can the stages of interpolation be identified along with their underlying motivations? and so on.

This framework looks at the text through a lens of skepticism and views it as an object to be manipulated and dissected to create speculative historical narratives. It completely ignores the commentarial tradition which has studied the text from a philosophical perspective for more than a millennium and dismisses it as subjective and partial and a product of prejudice and superstition.

The efforts of these scholars are primarily motivated by an attempt to support and further their religious or other ideologies or to enhance their self-interest. [1] Their efforts have not resulted in any knowledge or findings that have contributed to the improvement of society or helped individuals lead more productive and happier lives. On the contrary, by placing trust in their unsound and highly speculative arguments, many individuals have developed a strong dislike for humankind and society or have become misanthropes.

Many Indians have placed their trust in Indologists because they were convinced by the Indologists’ argument that Indology’s method of studying ancient Indian texts is superior to the traditional method, being secular and based on reason. These Indians, who were not competent in crafting arguments, placed their trust in Indologists and Indology.

They felt betrayed by the Indologists when the Indologists concluded that their ancient texts do not contain any meaningful or worthy insights about life and are simply filled with “a mass of incongruencies, absurdities, and contradictions.”[2] As a result, these Indians lost faith in reason, concerning Indian texts, and began questioning the motivations of everyone, both the Indologists as well as those who have crafted effective and sound arguments against Indology.

As I will demonstrate, the Indians also developed a dislike of Indian texts and culture due to the manipulations and distortions of them by Indologists. Given this, can one reasonably conclude that these scholars are engaging in philology?

According to the ancient Greeks, philology is the study of ancient myths and tales to understand one’s true nature, specifically to understand whether one is mortal or immortal and his or her relationship to the divine.[3] Under this definition of philology, Western scholars’ study of ancient Indian texts would not qualify as philology.

To establish that Western scholars’ study of ancient Indian texts is not consistent with this definition of philology, I analyze their framework for studying Indian texts, their underlying motivations, and the highly disparate conclusions that their framework and motivations generated. My analysis is based on the review of three German Indologists, who are pioneers in the field of German Indology and whose work heavily influenced and shaped the work of later Indologists both in Germany and around the world.

Adolf Holtzmann Jr. was the “first Indologist to make reconstruction of the original”[4] texts the primary goal of his study of the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavadgītā. His approach to studying Indian texts was highly influenced by his zeal to prove that the epic traditions of the Greeks, the Germans, and the Indians were branches of a common heritage.[5] He saw the Kṣatriyas as members of a noble Indo-Germanic race and hypothesized that they were the subject of the original epic. He viewed Brahmins as contemptuous manipulators who were responsible for ruining the original Indo-Germanic epic through interpolations and redactions.[6] Driven by his ideology, he engaged in a violent reconstruction of the Mahābhārata and Bhagavadgītā.

Holtzmann posited a three-phased textual history of the Mahābhārata.[7] The three phases, according to Holtzmann, were: (1) Indo-Germanic oral tradition, (2) the Buddhist poetic composition, and (3) the Brahminic revision. Using this three-phase textual history hypothesis as a foundation, he fabricated a highly tendentious hypothesis of the Brahmanic takeover of the epic poem. Holtzmann argued that in the third phase of the textual history of the Mahābhārata, the Brahmins took over the epic through a series of redactions and revisions. Specifically, he argued that the Brahmins used these redactions and revisions to introduce new characters, orchestrate the preferential treatment of the Pāṇḍavas, and establish the social order of Brahminism as a timeless and axiomatic truth.

Holtzmann, however, does not articulate precisely what the Brahmins would have revised and redacted. The target of the Brahmanic revisions and redactions is not clear because Holtzmann has not given a consistent and clear description of the first phase. Not only does Holtzmann not clearly articulate the target (Buddhist poetic composition, Indo-Germanic epic tradition, or both) of the Brahmanical takeover, but he also does not provide a rational account of it.

Similarly, Holtzmann hypothesized that the Bhagavadgītā was a pantheistic poem based on the beliefs about courage, the necessity of battle, and the absurdity of the fear of death that Indo-German warriors held.[8] Based on this hypothesis, he concluded that the original Bhagavadgītā was a short work that ended with the second chapter of the Gītā. The first two chapters contained the main ideas of the original poem and subsequent chapters providing only an elaboration or addressing seeming contradictions. Holtzmann designated any elements of the Gītā that did not correspond to his hypothesis as revisions made by Brahmins to introduce theistic elements into the text. He specifically claimed that the identification of Kṛṣṇa with Brahman was a revision imposed upon the text by Brahmins.[9]

By applying this pseudo-historical-critical method to the Mahābhārata, Holtzmann also undertook a reconstruction of the epic in which he made the Pāṇḍavas the villains and the Kauravas the heroes (allegedly reverting the epic to its original state).[10] He had no interest in the epic as it actually existed, no appreciation for its philosophy, nor interest in its narrative. For him, the epic was simply an object that he could manipulate to corroborate his vision of German identity as secular, enlightened, and rational.

Holtzmann was essentially using the Mahābhārata as a foil for German history. Similarly, Holtzmann’s reconstruction of the Bhagavadgītā was not motivated by a genuine interest in the work, but rather his zeal to corroborate his vision of the early Germans as free-thinkers by arguing for an original pantheistic Bhagavadgītā.

Richard Karl Von Garbe and Hermann Jacobi, two other pioneers of Indology, accepted Holtzmann’s thesis of an original Gītā and employed a similar pseudo-historical-critical approach. However, they made superficial changes to arrive at more specific accounts of the original text and reached differing conclusions on whether the original was theistic, pantheistic, or both. Their efforts were motivated by their ideology and self-interest, namely making a name for themselves within German academia.

Garbe’s approach as well as that of Jacobi was heavily influenced by the pantheism debate that was raging in Europe during the nineteenth century. Protestants and Catholics alike viewed pantheism as irreligious and as affirming materialism and atheism. This gave rise to a huge divide between theism on one side and pantheism on the other. Many German philosophers and other scholars of the time including Kant, Hegel, and Schlegel were highly critical of pantheism. Schlegel, who had converted from Protestantism to Catholicism, viewed pantheism with great disdain.[11] He viewed it as a philosophy that flatters man’s arrogance and promotes his indolence and blamed it for promotion of superstition and indiscriminate materialism.[12]

Given the great theism versus pantheism debate in European society, German Indologists took a view that the theistic and pantheistic aspects of Hinduism are contradictory, and that the contradiction can only be resolved by adopting a historical comparison to determine which of these two was older. The older would be the original perspective of the Bhagavadgītā and latter would be a later interpolation.[13]

Garbe, who preceded Jacobi, accepted Adolf Holtzmann’s thesis that the theistic and pantheistic elements of the Gītā were contradictory and that the resolution of the contradiction by identifying the older of the two would lead to the identification of the original Gītā.[14] Although Garbe agreed with Holtzmann’s thesis of an original Gītā, he reached a different conclusion. Garbe argued that the Bhagavadgītā was originally a theistic text of the Bhāgavata religion, which was founded by Kṛṣṇa.

According to him, the text propounded a rational monotheistic religion promoting the performance of good deeds and rituals. It was only later, after the rise of the priesthood (i.e., the Brahmins), that pantheistic elements were added to the text, and salvation was redefined from eternal self-conscious existence of individual selves to a merger of the self into the pantheistic Brahman.

Jacobi, like Garbe, was influenced by Holtzmann’s thesis and believed in the concept of the original Bhagavadgītā and later interpolations. In his view, the original Bhagavadgītā consisted of chapter 1 and 23 verses from the rest of the chapters that related to the war.[15] The rest of the poem, which is didactic or philosophical, was a later addition.

The original poem centered on the war was related to two divine beings, namely Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa. The poem existed before the Mahābhārata and was incorporated into Mahābhārata. The pantheistic elements were later additions by redactors rather than the priesthood, but there was no conflict between the theistic and pantheistic elements for Jacobi as pantheism was simply attributing the material causality of the world to God. For him, both the theistic and pantheistic interpretations of the Bhagavadgītā were reconcilable with monotheism and the incarnation of God in the world.

The approaches adopted by Holtzmann, Garbe, and Jacobi to the study of the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavadgītā clearly demonstrate that they were not philologists as they had no interest in studying the texts from a philosophical perspective to gain knowledge about their true nature. Holtzmann’s objective was to use the Mahābhārata and Gītā to connect German culture to the epic traditions of India and Greece and to establish the German culture as free-thinking. Garbe and Jacobi, on the other hand, were primarily interested in using the Bhagavadgītā to support their respective viewpoints concerning the pantheism debate that was ongoing in Europe at the time.

All these scholars engaged in argumentation to negate and discredit the traditional understanding of these texts that a continuous commentarial tradition had established over millennia. In this respect, these scholars were not engaged in philology but rather misology.

A mature study of ancient texts and accounts does not engage in scientific demythologization. Such a study would respect the texts as meaningful and highlight or uncover profound philosophical concepts and principles contained within them. An immature study of ancient texts, such as that undertaken by these scholars, is mere technique or method and produces nothing of value to society. Not only do such efforts produce nothing of value, but they actually degrade society by turning those who place trust in the unsound and highly speculative theories of scholars into misanthropes.

Indians first lost faith in their texts and their traditions due to the repeated mockery of missionaries and Indologists. In the present, they have become aware of the problems with Indology, but they are no longer able to trust the tradition and so they have nowhere to turn to. They have thus become uprooted, turning to Western culture as the default either in the form of consumerism or Marxism (which is also a form of materialism), but are not able to pose questions of how to live, how to be ethical, the ultimate purpose of life, how to gain salvation, etc.

The post Philology Versus Misology appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Today, western Indologists shape and influence society’s views and perceptions about Hinduism and India, which are largely Hinduphobic. Hindu Studies as an academic discipline is of paramount importance to counter the negative perceptions and for promoting an insider to insider transmission of knowledge.

Today, western Indologists shape and influence society’s views and perceptions about Hinduism and India. The Indologists, who are outsiders (i.e., non-practitioners), view Hinduism and India through a western lens and largely portray both as regressive, primitive, and unworthy. In such an environment, Hindu Studies as an academic discipline is essential. Having Hindu Studies as an academic discipline will increase the insider (i.e., practitioner) to insider transmission of information to Hindus in America, India, and across the world. Furthermore, it will foster the building of a formidable and well-equipped movement to counter the negative portrayal of Hinduism and India in academia as well as media and begin the process of an insider to outsider transmission of knowledge. Lastly, Hindu Studies needs to become entrenched as an academic discipline to build an alternative paradigm about Hinduism and India that is based on the hermeneutics of ‘Shraddha’ and an insider’s experience.

Hindu Studies is of paramount importance for promoting an insider to insider transmission of knowledge. Negative portrayals of Hinduism and India permeate all sources of knowledge and information across the world. Negative portrayals are present in the academic setting where Indologists use the hermeneutics of suspicion, an analytical approach that is founded on distrust of insiders, to interpret important Hindu texts, Indian history and Hindu culture itself. The Indologists’ approach is focused on developing far-fetched interpretations that discredit insider viewpoints and portray proponents of those viewpoints as hegemons. The western Indologists’ perverse obsession with debasing everything sacred to insiders is illustrated by the title of Jeffrey Kripal’s book, Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna.

The media also analyzes all geopolitical events related to India or Hindus using the Marxian framework of the hermeneutics of suspicion, which classifies India or Hindus as the oppressor and the other involved parties as the oppressed. A good example of this phenomenon is the media’s admonishment of the Government of India for granting citizenship rights to non-Muslim refugees from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan through the recently passed Citizenship Amendment Act (“CAA”). Given the demographic data, which clearly illustrate that the non-Muslim populations of these countries have significantly decreased over time, and the well-documented evidence of acts of violence and intimidation against non-Muslims, any discerning follower of geopolitical events would have expected the media to chastise the governments of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. However, similar to the Indologists in the academic setting, the media chose to employ a far-fetched and baseless interpretation of the CAA to designate the law as being anti-Muslim and to demonize and reprimand India and Hindus. This is because the media evaluates all geopolitical events based on a fixed categorization of victims and victimizers. Hindus, whether they live in India or overseas, are viewed as far-right nationalists, non-pluralistic, anti-Muslim, etc. whereas Muslims are viewed as victims, oppressed, fearful, and so on. Similarly, India is designated the aggressor or oppressor, and Pakistan and Bangladesh are designated the oppressed or victims.

Given the dominance of the Indologists’ paradigm, even many insiders have adulterated their thinking and analytical framework by adopting western concepts and principles that are foreign to the insiders’ paradigm. The only way to remedy this problem is to have Hindu Studies as an academic discipline.

When more devoted Hindus educate themselves in Hindu Studies, then the negative portrayal of Hinduism and India in academia and media can be more effectively countered, and a process of an insider to outsider transmission of knowledge can begin.

Hindus have been under subjugation since the 10th century when the Islamic invasion and colonization of India began. Subsequently, the colonization and subjugation continued under the British. Unfortunately, the subjugation did not diminish after India gained independence but rather continued under the socialist governments led by members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, which has governed India for 40 years since independence. The patriotism and cultural pride of Hindus became subdued by this long period of subjugation.

With the election of a new Indian prime minister, who was not indoctrinated by the perspectives of western Indology, in 2014, Hindus’ pride in their ancient heritage and affinity for India was rekindled. As a result of this, many Hindus in India and across the world have become active on social media and other forums to combat the incessant debasing of their heritage and country of origin. However, although Hindus have regained the zeal to defend their heritage and motherland, there isn’t a critical mass of people with the requisite background knowledge and communication skills to effectively challenge the large volume of anti-Hindu and anti-India perspectives in media and academia.

As a result of the initiation and promotion of Hindu Studies as an academic discipline in the Hindu University of America, Center for Indic Studies and other institutions run by insiders, a greater number of Hindus will become better equipped with knowledge and communication skills to effectively engage the anti-Hindu and anti-India perspectives in the Media as well as Academia. Those Hindus who engage in a deep study in the area of Hindu Studies will be able to challenge these negative perspectives in academia. Those who engage in less rigorous study can focus on combating the detrimental perspectives in the Media. Once the number of Hindus with the appropriate knowledge and skills increases to a level that is more than enough to tackle these harmful perspectives, then some portion of them can start to focus on meaningful insider to outsider knowledge transmission.

The ultimate objective of having Hindu Studies as an academic discipline is to build an alternative paradigm about Hinduism and India. This alternative paradigm would be based on an insider’s experience and the hermeneutics of ‘Shraddha’, an approach that interprets Hindu texts, Indian history, and Hindu culture in a respectful manner. To accomplish this objective, a great deal of sacrifice and effort is needed, as it is very difficult to displace a dominant paradigm like Indology. Many scholars, who have challenged the paradigm of Indology by adopting the hermeneutics of ‘Shraddha’ framework, have been subject to personal attacks and labeled as Hindu fascists. Their experience, and those of others, who are likely to challenge Indology, will not be very dissimilar from the experience of Galileo, who challenged the Heliocentric Biblical view of the universe. Such a comparison is not at all an exaggeration.

Perspectives of Indology have achieved the status of “unassailable truth” such that any competing perspectives that are antithetical to Indology are deemed blasphemous and the promoters of those perspectives are ostracized or even worse severely defamed and reduced to the status of outcasts.

Hindu Studies as an academic discipline is critical to increasing an insider (i.e., practitioner) to insider transmission of information. It is also essential for countering the negative portrayal of both in academia and the media and beginning the process of an insider to outsider transmission of knowledge. Most importantly, it is a prerequisite for displacing Indology as the dominant paradigm for learning about Hinduism and India. I hope that this essay can serve as inspiration for passionate knowledge seekers who are willing to make the sacrifice necessary to mount a blasphemous challenge to the ‘received knowledge’ (i.e., Indology).

References

1. Paradigms and Methods in Hindu Studies (2019). Hindu University of America.
2. A New Paradigm in Hindu Studies (2019). Hindu University of America.
3. The Hermeneutic of Shraddha (2019). Hindu University of America.
4. Venkat, Nagarajan. “The Citizenship Amendment Bill-Unravelling the Media’s Criticism of India.” Medium.com. 15 December 2019. (Website)

The post Hindu Studies – A Worthy Challenger to Indology appeared first on Hindu University of America.

Metaphysical conceptions are slighted in our modern world while the scientific method is hailed as a panacea for all our ills. Science and Metaphysics approach reality from different perspectives and therefore they cannot be compared. I argue that Science and Metaphysical conceptions of reality are mutually exclusive theories of reality that co-exist and the choice of one or another is ultimately an individuals prerog

The term Science(1) is often used as a pejorative adjective to convince society about the superiority of a scientific conception of reality over a metaphysical one. The use of the term Science in this manner has become commonplace because it has not been effectively challenged. It is particularly sad to witness the acquiescence of many ardent adherents of Metaphysics to the false notion that their view of reality is mere faith and not worthy of the same respect or reverence as the scientific view of reality. The notion that a scientific conception of reality is superior to a metaphysical one is fallacious. Assumptions (i.e., beliefs) and value judgements are at the root of all theories, whether they are scientific or metaphysical; therefore, Science is not worthy of a higher status than Metaphysics. They both approach reality from different perspectives; consequently, they cannot be compared. In fact, one could reasonably argue that they constitute mutually exclusive systems for understanding the nature of reality. Lastly, Science is not prescriptive; it does not tell a person what he or she should do to minimise his or her misery or maximise his or her happiness, given the nature of reality. A metaphysical system, on the other hand, is prescriptive; it provides an algorithm that can be followed for a person to minimize his or her misery or maximize his or her happiness.

There is no rational basis for concluding that a scientific explanation of reality is superior to a metaphysical conception of reality. Originally, this credulous claim was supported by the argument that only scientific theories can be proved directly using unassailable empirical evidence. Revolutionary changes in scientific theories, however, established that scientific theories can never be conclusively proven based on empirical evidence. That is, one cannot say that a scientific theory can be proven using empirical evidence since there is a chance that it can be falsified by a competing theory in the future. For example, John Dalton’s atomic model, which hypothesized that atoms were indivisible and indestructible was later invalidated by Neils Bohr’s atomic model, which hypothesized that atoms can be further divided into subatomic particles, namely electrons, protons and neutrons.(2) To accommodate revolutionary changes in Science, the original supporting argument was modified to state that Science is superior because Scientific theories, unlike metaphysical theories, can be falsified directly by evidence. Like the previous supporting argument, this argument also failed to withstand scrutiny, as there is no direct connection between empirical evidence and any associated scientific theory. A scientific theory or hypothesis is always linked with a series of supporting premises. In the presence of supporting premises, any falsifying evidence or observations can only be viewed as falsifying at least one of the supporting assumptions and cannot be viewed as conclusively falsifying the scientific theory itself.(3) After the demise of the falsification argument, an effort was made to argue that scientific theories can be shown to be conditionally true in a probabilistic sense based on empirical evidence, whereas metaphysical theories cannot. This argument also fell apart, as there may be many ways to derive the conditional probability and there is no basis to argue that one way of deriving the conditional probability is correct.(4) All attempts to establish the supremacy of Science over Metaphysics have failed; consequently, one cannot make such a claim without making a value judgement that some form of intersubjective empirical verifiability is superior. Such a claim of supremacy would not be rooted in logic, but rather on faith or belief. (5)(Worrall, John 2002 pp.18-36)

Science and Metaphysics approach reality from different perspectives and therefore they cannot be compared. Most metaphysical systems of thought, such as the Indian Vedanta, define Being as Consciousness or the knowing Self, whereas Science does not accept the notion of Being. Science, or more specifically the materialist philosophy underlying it, views living things as computerised machines leading purposeless lives with no independent existence apart from the body. According to the materialist philosophy directing Science, body parts are simply replaceable components and living things can be manufactured through cloning and preserved indefinitely with periodic maintenance and repairs. Thoughts, feelings and experience are simply electrical signals of the brain and can be ignored in describing the nature of reality. Phenomena that are not consistent with the scientific theories are simply dismissed. For metaphysical systems of thought, on the other hand, life has meaning and a definite purpose. These systems are more holistic and give a great deal of importance to personal experience, emotions and unexplained phenomena in explaining reality. Therefore, Science and Metaphysical conceptions of reality are mutually exclusive theories of reality that co-exist and the choice of one or another is ultimately an individual’s prerogative. A person whose value judgement will not let him or her ignore personal experience, emotions and unexplained phenomena will choose a metaphysical system of thought that takes a holistic approach to the nature of reality. Alternatively, a person who ascribes greater importance to empirical verifiability and is not bothered by Science’s invalidation of personal experience, emotions and unexplained phenomena as valid sources of knowledge, will prefer Science to a Metaphysical system of thought.

Science is not prescriptive; it tries to describe the nature of reality but has nothing to say on how one should navigate his or her life given that nature of reality. More specifically, Science has no guidance to offer because we are all programmed machines. Programmed machines have no feelings, and, as a result, do not need any guidance on how to navigate reality. Richard Dawkins aptly highlights this by stating that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Metaphysical systems, which do not deny or dismiss the reality of personal experience, on the other hand, are mostly prescriptive; they provide processes that can be followed by a person to minimize his or her misery and/or maximise his or her happiness. Consequently, a deep-seated person, who cannot deny his or her personal experience or think of him or herself as a machine, will have no choice but to reject the scientific view of the nature of reality and adopt a metaphysical system of thought.

In conclusion, no reasonable or rational person can honestly argue that a scientific conception of the nature of reality is superior to metaphysical conceptions of the nature of reality. Such a person would have to acknowledge that assumptions (i.e. beliefs) and value judgements are at the root of all theories, whether they are scientific or metaphysical, and would have to submit to the fundamental axiom of logic that nothing is devoid of belief. Additionally, the person would also have to acknowledge that Science and Metaphysics approach reality from different perspectives; therefore, they cannot be compared. Lastly, the person will also have to acknowledge that Science has nothing to say on how one should navigate his or her life, given the scientific theory of reality; consequently, anyone, including many practicing scientists, that cannot deny personal experience or think of him or herself as a programmed machine, will have no choice but to reject the scientific view of the nature of reality and adopt a metaphysical system of thought.

About the Author

Venkat Nagarajan is a U.S.-based Economist and a current student of Hindu University of America. He is pursuing Orientation of Hindu Studies at HUA. He has a keen interest in Philosophy and Economics, and is interested in sharing his perspectives with readers through his writings. This article first appeared in Pragyata on Sept 11, 2019 and is reshared with author’s consent.

References / Footnotes

1. The term Science, as used in this article, collectively refers to all branches of Science and the materialistic philosophy underlying them.

2. Willams, Matt 2014, Universe Today, viewed on August 15, 2019, https://www.universetoday.com/38169/john-daltons-atomic-model.

3. This follows from the definition of a valid argument. An argument is valid if it is impossible for all its premises to be true and its conclusion false. Therefore, the presence of a false conclusion only implies that at least one of the assumptions is false and not that all the assumptions or the theory itself is false. In other words, a valid argument with a mixture of true and false premises and a false conclusion is still possible.

4. Classical probability assigns equal probability to all outcomes in an experiment. In a scenario where one can define an event in multiple ways, an experiment will result in different ways of computing the conditional probability associated with a scientific theory.

5. Worrall, John (2002) ‘Philosophy of Science: Classic Debates, Standard Problems, Future Prospects’, in Machamer, Peter and Silberstein, Michael (ed.) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science Massachusetts, USA:Blackwell, pp.18-36.

The post False Supremacy of Science appeared first on Hindu University of America.