[Y-Indology] are canakya - Approaches to History

[Guest guest]

-

Ajaya Narayan Mali <tnmali

> In today's academia, most South Asian scholars will always fail to fulfill

the

> rigorous criteria in Western scholarship. And this is so mainly because

they do > not look at history the same way as Westerners do, especially if

they've been

> trained in the sub-continent.

 

I completely agree with you, that at such approach it can not turn out any

dialogue . But it not my fault.

However, your assumptions about " different approaches " are represented me

deeply erroneous. Certainly, cultures of the West and the East have set of

basic distinctions, but the modern science cannot be "national", "western"

or "eastern". The science (anyone) is international. Otherwise it loses the

sense. The history not only has the task to investigate distinctions,

features of historical and cultural development of this or that country,

making their clear for representatives of other cultures. It is called to

mark, also, the common for the different countries and cultures. The basis

for this purpose is the person, a human society. Otherwise - the historian

turns to the author of the collection of entertaining exotic stories which

are perceived as is, only as exotic, no more.

 

(I specially want to emphasize, that I have no intentions to enter

discussion on these problems, only mark my opinion.)

 

You are absolutely not right, speaking about " most South Asian scholars ".

Actually, they are simply more active. Very many Indian historians follow

"western approach", in your understanding. It is practically all

historiography of a history of India. Reduction of present "discussion" to

distinctions of "western" and "east" approaches look rather doubtfully and,

even, are insulting for those who in your opinion follows "east" approach. I

shall result any examples:

1. I asked the partner to specify precisely a place in Vayu where it is

spoken about his favourite hero Masuraksha three times. (ref. on the text) I

have not received any precise answer, only indications on inaccessible to me

(and to readers) articles. He has not answered on any one from my questions.

Thus we judge. For "east" approach typically disrespect for the partner on

discussion. The partner do not listen, his questions do not answer, being

limited to repeated recurrence of "constructions" without any arguments. The

supporter of "east" approach - only the preacher (it should be emphasized

especially). He does not want to convince the partner, for him there is no

logic of the proof. Meanwhile, in "discussion" it is usual, at least, two

participants.

2. "Puranic Chronology" is investigated for a long time, but anybody from

professionals never called to use it literally and noncritical. The partner

on "discussion" specifies: All the puranas... were unanimous in the 1500

years period between MBh war and coronation of Nanda. (re: Matsya, Vsnu). I

have closely overlooked the chapter in Vishnu where Nandas mentioned

(Wilson's edition IV.24.32 ). In the text of purana there is a phrase -

between the birth of Parikshit and crowning of Nandas has passed 1015. In

notes it is spoken, that three manuscripts of Vayu specify an interval in

1050, one manuscript on 1500, Bhagavata specifies 1115 and commentator of

Bhagavata - 1500. From Wilson's comments completely clearly, that in puranic

"chronology" is not present any unity This fact is known for a long time,

from publications of Pargiter.

Thus we judge: for "east" approach is characteristic negligence in the

analysis and transfer of the information (negligence and disrespect for

readers is present at all - not clear reductions, personal names from the

small letter, Varahamihira turns in Mihira, Antiquary in entiquerry) . All

experts perfectly know, that in puranic chronology are the set of

contradictions. But the reader simply deceive, giving out the opinion, the

construction, for the citation from a source.

3. At once the partner on discussion has admitted, that he was not engaged

in research of KA. How, not reading the text, not being engaged in research

of the text it is possible to judge about it - for me is not clear. And

recognizing that the partner has resulted a phrase … repeated saying in KA-"

iti canakya ', thus said canakya, … (CANAKYA is NEVER MENTIONED IN THE TEXT

КÐ, in KA we find only .iti KautilyaH... ) for me became completely clear,

that he did not read the text of Arthashastra (or read, but forgot), does

not understand it, and this text is completely indifferent for him. It is

visible, also, from the answer to my remark - whether he knows about the

major structural DISTINCTIONS of "Arthashastra" and "Nitishastras". Instead

of the answer - he has resulted names of various publications of texts, fine

known for me - but about it I did not ask him. Typically, also, that NEVER,

DESPITE OF my QUESTIONS, the partner on discussion did not refer to concrete

citations from texts (about the reference on purana - see n. 2)

Thus we judge: the supporter of "east" approach "debate" about the text (a

history, culture) badly knowing the text, not reading it. The main thing for

him - to state his judgement. To read the text (texts), to try to understand

contents - for him not necessarily.

 

Once again I want to repeat, that I think any discussion on the specified

problems senseless and I shall not continue it.

 

DL