Dry scholar problem

Intro

  • So, the representation of Hindu traditions by dry scholars tends to be maddeningly flawed (whether in their textbooks, books or talks). Practitioners on the other hand are more reliable. But a *scholarly practitioner* is the best. This is the difference between शुष्क-पण्डितता and आर्द्रमना ऋषिः.
    • Analogies: How valuable (to insiders or outsiders) are books about making Indian music or dancing, if written by one who does not do either?
    • Some famous examples of scholar practitioners: Robert Thurman, M Hiriyanna, shatavadhanI gaNesh, Pandurang Vaman Kane, monastics and scholars associated with n traditional institutions in India and abroad, Dalai Lama.
    • Examples: [duties vs rights ??].
    • उक्तं खलु भगवत्पादशङ्करैः"सर्वशास्त्रवित् असम्प्रदायवित् मूर्खवदुपेक्षणीय" इति।
  • An analysis of western scholar practitioners in Hinduism: fewer scholars openly declare their hindu practice compared to buddhism [AC16].

Contrast with hindu system

  • Contrast with the Hindu system. Steven Hopkins on the nature of commentaries in the Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition: “In this tradition, (…) to comment on a text is not so much to dissect it into minute doctrinal particulars, but rather to re-experience it. Commentary here is a kind of imaginative participation, a “spiritual enjoyment” equal in the intensity of relish to the enjoyment of God in the root text.”
  • jIva-gosvAmin’s criterion in sarvasaMvAdiNI- “He has set a very high bar for one wishing to be ‘Hindu theologian’ in the contemporary context: He was well versed in śruti, smrti, vyākarana, kāvya, mimārsā, nyāya, pāñcarātra, and vedānta and its commentaries, and had a seasoned knowledge of the Bhāgavata, which is itself a massive scripture. That would be a curriculum hard for most to match. But more importantly, we can only suggest that he would say a Hindu theologian must be one with a God-given experience that allows them to understand the intention (tātparya) of scripture. For him this can only occur in and through a traditional educational process; he argues in his Bhaktisandarbha (208) that, ‘knowledge of scripture can manifest only by hearing from a śravana-guru (the teacher with whom one studies) and not otherwise’ (Dāsa and Martin 2006, p.680). This is a widely held belief among many who consider themselves in or representing a sampradāya.”

Academic points

  • “Wanting to appear smart/ score an academic point” types tend to miss the forest for the woods, and (many a time, unfortunately) tend to make others fall into the same pattern. In contrast, a practitioner keeps looking for the *heart* of the issue (in the way that affects/ affected practice and the truth). So, this petty desire to show how smart they are motivates the former, not a truly noble desire to attain a sense of Atma+abhyudaya.
  • “Rather they play a game similar to what Aristotle is said to have taught Alexander – eristics – something the Macedonian warrior is said to have enjoyed. In eristics you can successively take either side of an argument and argue for it being the correct one. Similarly, members of this cluster, who are particularly common in elite American academia, can take up a viewpoint and argue for it without really being interested in investigating the truth – seemingly it is an intellectual game for their high IQs. At the long end of history much of this cluster can be seen as making little lasting intellectual contribution beyond creating ferment in their times.” [MT]
  • This is compounded by the fashion of being deliberately irreverent in their scholarly rhetoric as a way of indicating membership with the mlecCha Indology system.
  • Example: The “ironic” twist to hammIra-kAvya YT16.

Desaffronization of texts

“tend to disregard the religious garb of such texts” (<– Of course, one wonders why someone who does not really care for Hindu religion or mysticism is in the business of examining Hindu texts. What might be the motivations?)

Limitations

  • This is not to deny that the labor of the dry-scholars is slightly useful to the scholarly practitioners.
  • Misconceptions arising from dry scholarship often need to be countered by similarly dry scholarship.
    • Analogy: You use a thorn to remove a thorn. But why go stepping into a field of thorns (if your intention is to seek a good representation of hindu traditions - say to guide your practice or to compose a textbook)?!! Of course, if your intention is something else, by all means, go find the thorns - just know that what you will find are mostly thorns.
    • Eg. Koenraad Elst’s counters to Eaton’s negationism on Islamic iconoclasm.