Epistemological Criticism to Contemporary
Indology
By Horacio Francisco Arganis Ph D. uie.edu.es
In the last hundred
years, the different branches of science, in almost all their expressions, have
make every effort to perfect its methods, techniques and instrumentation, with
the ideal of obtaining authentic, objective and real knowledge. However,
various discoveries have led to heated debates about the differences between
what is objective, scientific, proto-scientific, pseudoscientific and
anti-scientific knowledge. In fact, there are specific disciplines that seek to
explore these fields of knowledge, such as gnoselogy, etc. To the degree, that
the ontological questions have now been formulated, such as the degree of
imperfection of the experimental method, the formal logic, the real or symbolic
value of the numbers, the defects and illusions of sensory perception? Even if
there is an objective reality that can be studied by science, or if it is an
illusion from senses? These and other aspects have become of interest to
specialists in the philosophy of science.
Among
these branches are epistemology, (from the Greek πιστήμη --episteme, "knowledge", and λόγος (logos),
"theory") stands out. It is a branch of philosophy whose object of
study is limits and defects of scientific knowledge. Now it is revealing to be
aware that among the scholars of these disciplines there is a whole discourse
and debate with diverse opinions on the definition of what the sciences are.
But in an operational way, the more general definition will be adopted as systematic and articulated type of
knowledge that aims to formulate, through appropriate and rigorous languages,
the laws that govern the phenomena related to a certain sector of reality. (Océano 1995) Set of
objective facts and accessible to several observers, in addition to being based
on a criterion of truth, universality and a permanent correction, which leads
to the generation of more objective knowledge in the form of concrete,
quantitative observable facts and verifiable predictions referred to past,
present and future. Although other classifications exist, Rudolf Carnap
categorized them as formal sciences, natural sciences and social sciences.
The Social sciences,
also called sciences of culture or spirit, are all the disciplines that deal
with aspects of the human being - culture, art, spirituality and society, etc.
The method depends on each particular discipline, even though all try to share
objectivism and empiricism as a basis for verification. For example:
anthropology - political science - demography - economics - law - history -
psychology - sociology - human geography - social work, etc. This paper we will
be limited to presenting an epistemological analysis on a variation of these
branches, the Indology.
It
is relevant to mention that as a field of knowledge, the Indology is not
unified. In the present moment, there is a strong confrontation between the
experts, which has generated a series of divergent positions. Thus, the breadth
of opinions is diverse to establish a precise generalization. However,
tentatively researchers can be divided into three major schools:
A) Enthusiasts who
claim that all studies of Western indologists has been see as part of a Western
ethnocentric strategy of domination and suppression. That is a consequence of
the emergence of self-confidence, political, intellectual, national
self-assertion of Hindus.
B) Conservative
scholars, who viscerally reject any attempt to review to whoever proposes new
research that put their paradigm in question, and agglomerate them in the same
cell as group (a)
C) The specialists
who adopt a scientific, neutral, self-critical and objective attitude in search
of new discoveries and commit themselves to the facts and the revision, in the
hope of opening new horizons in the search for more discoveries that allow the
advance of knowledge.
The students in
categories (a) and (b) often attack each other with discordant and corrosive
discourses. At way to paint an abnormal and ridiculous picture of his
opponents. Without giving the slightest value to someone who questions them.
However, as Norvin Hein pointed out:
Ultimately, the
opponents need each other ... They (a) ... are the most attentive people in the
work of academics (b), with a scrutiny review of their writings, and how on the
other hand, the contribution of these scholars (a) is necessary for the (b),
although this makes them feel the most irritable. (Hein, 1992)
The specialists of
this field seek to explain India by the norms of positivist, western skepticism
under the various rubrics of languages / literatures / civilizations of South
Asia, anthropology, Hindu studies, History of India, etc.
The
Orientalism
Epistemology deals
with problems such as historical, psychological and sociological circumstances
that lead to the obtaining of a body of concepts about a certain field of
study, and the criteria by which it is justified or invalid. Among the
epistemological obstacles to be overcome in an objective approach are:
A) ethnocentrism,
which consists in the tendency to erect values and customs of the group in
which it has been educated as infallible rules of judgment and valuation, in
opposition to others Socio-cultural groups.
B) Stereotypes, these are unconfirmed
thoughts, which from childhood we have been molded or formed ourselves,
compared to other different ethnic groups.
So in reviewing the
socio-historical origins of Indology, we find that in 1757, British settlers
seized power. For this reason, the official studies of this culture were
carried out by the English scholars, whose contribution is very relevant, since
they were the initiators of this discipline, when the Royal Asian Society was
founded in 1783 by Sir William Jones, Charles Wilkins and Thomas Colebrook, who
are considered the Fathers of the school called Orientalism. Then another
successor was the eminent Horace H. Wilson, who obtained the Boden Chair in
Sanskrit in the University of Oxford in 1833. He also promoted a prize of two
hundred Sterling pounds, for who made the best academic rebuttal to the Hindu
religious system. For him, the Sanskrit sacred
texts were primitive spells of sorcery,
and the works of traditional history, the Purânas,
were frauds of an recent age, so he was hopeful: "To prove that they were
fallacies, by means of the sublime spear of the Christian truth. " These
ideas had a strong influence on scholars in other parts of the world. In this
essay, it is not intended to rewrite what has already been extensively
delineated by various scholars, concerning the problems that affected the
Orientalist intellectuals and their allies. For example, Max Müller, who openly
confessed the objectives of such research:
India cannot be
preserved neither governed with some profit for us without a good disposition
of the natives; and by all means we need that... The religion of Indians is a
decrepit religion and it does not have many years of existence left; however
our impatience to see it disappear cannot justify the use of violent and
disloyal means to accelerate its fall. (Müeller: 231)
For more information,
readers can consult several treatises that already exist — readers could review
those works in the conclusion—. Here it will be limited to show that the
cultural confrontation provoked:
A) The rejection of the antiquity of the works, accepted
by the traditional history, due to the epistemic obstacle affirmed by the
British John Bentley in 1825:
By his attempt to
uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, He (?) thereby
supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the
pretended sanction of antiquity, nay, his aim goes still deeper. For by same
means he endeavors to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundations
of our religion: for if we are believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he
would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all be a fable, or a fiction." (Bentley, 1825-1970: xxvii)
B).- From the beginning, a derivations hypothesis,
called Borrowing, was proclaimed, which preached that the predominant doctrine
of India, Vaisnavism or Krishnaism, which deal with the major epic works like Ramayana and especially Mahâbhârata and Purânas, was a derivative of Christendom (Rosen, 1989). Therefore, all the works that deal with the
subject had to be by consequence of post-Christian date.
C) .- Because the
composition of Judeo-Christian literature, is the work of many authors throughout
its history, as the Nation of Israel was formed from a semi-nomadic tribes,
until gradually pass to the monarchy. In the same way, hypothetical scenarios
were proposed that maintained that the literature that goes from the Vedas to
the Purânas, was realized in a
gradual compilation, through the centuries, to which they were interpolated
verses, etc. by different authors
D) Then they implanted the word Mythology, as Raymond
Schwab discovered, paraphrasing the Orientalists: "They (the Indians)
cannot understand that being our general religion for the earth, theirs will be
but pure fable and pure invention." (Jarocka, 1974: 82-83).
However, the context
that influenced the Orientalists shows us that part of their purpose was not to
investigate this cultural heritage objectively; but more well rather discredit,
to impose their religious belief and justify their political-economic
exploitation. This proves an acute burden of ethnocentrism motivated by
stereotypes.
Then, with the
advance of natural history as well as archaeological discoveries, they skewed a
little more the dating. That is to say, Borrowing speculation was discarded and
the exhumation of cities like Mohenjo Dharo and others, indicated that this
culture is not post-mosaic. Several assumptions were made. Among the most
prevalent is the Aryan invasion theory (AIT), which says that the Rig-Veda is
the oldest book, which has brought, along with the Sanskrit language, by
invasive white Arian tribes around 1500 BC. First, the advocates of this AIT
maintained that they arrived from Europe, after Iran, and not from the Caucasus.
From Rig Veda the other works was been compiled with the passage of the
centuries. The historicity was
recognized, assuming that the Mahâbhârata
War was around X a. C, when Krishna and the other characters lived, but in a
tribal stage. Then, the sage Vyasa and his successors the Vyasas, collected the
works by the V a.C., until arriving at the Purânas
of the V to the XIII d. C.
Review
of two main Theories
Now let's look at two
of the concepts that have given rise to passionate debates among enthusiasts of
modern schools:
1) The Indologist (b) proclaim the AIT. Although
undoubtedly the origin of such an Indo-European community in itself; is
something that in the present, is outside the scope of scientific knowledge. We
analyze some difficulties of this thesis. To begin, this is based on a mere
comparative linguistic interpretation of Sanskrit and other languages. However,
many scholars have pointed out that it is highly hypothetical, to which are
added H. Rowlinson and Stuart Piggot, the late clarified that "linguistic
research compared with the archaeological phenomenon has been a subject of
debate, with respect to that hypothesis." (Cit por Goswami S. d.1990). Professor of linguistics
Ward Goddenaugh wrote:
Definitely, chauvinism and racism entered the
historical European interpretation of Indo-European origin. Arbitrarily, these
scholars compiled data to prove that the Aryan ancestors came from Europe. (
Cit in Ibid.)
In addition, other experts like Albert B. Keith and Winifred Lehmann,
have explained the impossibility of the linguistic method to know the origin of
the Vedas along with the supposed Aryan invasion. Morrish Swadesh and Charles
Hockett, had discredited the validity of such an interpretation, which was
sustained in the invention of Colonial Indologist. In addition, Teresa E. Rohde
confessed:
There existed in India pre-arya an important civilization in the valley
of the Indus ... It is discussed the possibility that the Aryans have destroyed
it, although a large group of modern archaeologists does not consider that to
be so. However, the truth is still ignored. (Rohde,
1985: xvi).
That shows lacks of
solid, empirical evidence to back it. Because this is a presuppositions series
only, without verification, nor admit the possibility of a demonstration after
almost a hundred years of research. Here we confront a serious problem, since this
contradicts the principle of verifiability. According to the positivist
philosophy, any proposition that is improvable experimentally must be rejected
and meaningless, even if it is true. In addition, the tendency of the AIT ‘s
advocates to erect such formula, of express knowledge in unquestionable
truths, aside from critical revision and discussion, allows them to succumb to
another epistemological obstacle called dogmatism. Because the dogma corresponds to a
theological explanation, when we refer to religious dogma, which is valid
within this field, but not in the scientific method. Because scientific method,
is concludes in probable, approximate and not infallible and undisputed results,
which cannot replaced by others. At least corrected in the future.
2)
The school (b) defends with resistance that the Vedas, beginning with Rig Veda, began to wrote around 1400 B. C., and gradually, were formed the
Sama, Yajur and Atharva Veda later. Then with time, perhaps in
600 B. C., the Brahmanas and Upanisads arose. The first objection is such
a setting of dates, is the inheritance of the first Orientalists like Müeller,
who neither agreed between them. For example, Wilkins, a colleague very close
to Müeller, confessed:
But the date on which
they were composed is the object of ample conjecture. Colebroke deduced a
Vaidika calendar, concluding that they must have been written before the 19th
century B. C. Some are assigned a more recent date, others older. Doctor Haug
considers that the Vedic age extends from 2000 BC to 1200 B. C., although he
believes that some of the older texts could having been composed about 2400
years B. C. Max Müller gives as probable dates, from 1200 B. C. and the rest of
the year 600 B. C. to 200 B. C. (Wilkins, 1980).
In this respect
S. Piggot revealed:
Max Müller insisted
that these dates were only minimal dates, and later there was a kind of tacit
agreement (no doubt by the influence of the Mitanni-Aryan documents discovery around 1380 B.C. with the names of the gods mentioned
in the Rig Veda) to date the composition of the Rigveda between 1500 and 1400
BC. C. But without conclusive evidence. (Piggot.
1966: 214)
Therefore, the
adoption of a paradigm by agreement or convention, based on extrapolation, is
denoted. Because, even the so-called proof, which consists of dating Buddha in
VI a. C., has be discredited by Gokhale and other scholars.
Nb.
The author of this book was asked by
Dominid Wujastyk, director of the international forum Indological List on the
Internet, about the date of Buddha, which was confronted with the findings of
P. Ghokale and his response was very objective: So far, I'm afraid I could not
respond. "
Now, the conclusions
of other researchers, including those already mentioned, will be show, whose
findings suggest alternative dates to those of the Müllerian paradigm:
Pro-Aryo
invasionists
1) Max Muller was one of the first to reject the
paradigm: "Whether the Vedic hymns were composed in the 1000 or 1500 or
2000 or 3000 BC. C., there is no power on earth that will determine it.” (Müeller, 1899: 35;
Klostermaier, 1998) Similar
statements appear in two other texts of him. (Müeller, 1883: 21; Müeller, 1869: 163).
2) Haug considers that the Vedic Age extends from the
year 2000 to the 2400 a. C.
3) H. Glasenapp denotes in his review of the theses of P. Giles and J.
Hertel, an age of 2500 a. C. (Cit por Jarakca et alt 1974:43)
4) M. Winterniz arrived at a period from 2000 to 2500
a. C. suggesting that the Purânas
already existed that time.
5) Luis Renou holds the age of 2000 to 2500 a. C.
6) Colebrooke seems to deduce from a Vedic calendar,
which must have be written before the 2900th century BC.
7) Sen Gupta discovered that the eclipse described in
The Rig Veda observed by the sage Atri corresponds to the 26 of Julio of the
3928 a. C.
8) B. G. Tilak, by the references of the constellation
Orion of the Rig, concluded that they date from the 4000 a. C.
9) Bon. H. Jacobi, through the Hindu calendar and
comparing the astronomical references of the Brahmanas, discovered a dating of 4000 BC.
Anti-Aryan
invasionists
1) K. Elst argues that the formulations of the zodiac
observed in The Rig Veda, correspond to a time that goes from 2000 to 6000 B C.
2) D. Frawley points out that several Brâhmanas and the Atharva Veda Describe the vernal equinox in the Pleiades, and the
summer solstice at the beginning of Leo. These references correspond to 2500 a.
C.
3) F. E. Pargiter proposes that the Vedic age was about
3000 B C.
4) B. R. Ambedkar, holds a conclusion similar to 3000
B C.
5) N. S. Rajaram proposes, based on astronomical calculations,
an age 3000 to 10,000 B. C.
6) P. Gokhale
states: "The analysis of the astronomical references of Taiteriya Brahamana (3.5.15), when
Jupiter crossed the constellation Pashya date from 4650 B C. The Aitereya Bráhmana points to astronomical
data of 6000 B C.”
7) B. M. Sidharta establishes, from the astronomical
data and the excavations in Turkey, that the Vedic Era comes from 8000 B. C.,
as proto-agricultural culture. Another apparent finding favoring the antiquity
of this culture is the recent discovery in the Gulf of Cambay, near Dwaraka,
reported by the Department of Ocean Development of India in February 2002.
Studies conducted by two Institutes Have concluded that the carbon 14 analyzes
suggest an age of 5500 B. C. Which places them like the oldest culture of
India, surpassing those of Hindhu Valley like Harappa. The findings suggest an
age ranging from 2000 to 8000 B.C.
Nevertheless, the
conservative school (b) defends with passion and resistance müelleran dating and
does not admit any scientific discoveries that contradict it. Moreover, if
there is no evidence to support them, they are guilty of another epistemic failure,
authoritarianism. This is to accept as truth a statement because a person,
even, has said it specialized, that is not a product of research or has no
basis in experiments, field surveys, and even with these, is not an infallible
truth. The scientific method does not accept anything as proven by virtue of
someone's authority, or specialists. The history of science is written with the
exploits of men who questioned the claims and truths considered as apodictic,
even in the field of hard sciences. So, honest scholars like Moris Winternez
have confessed:
The
chronology of the History of Indian literature is terribly hidden in a real
darkness ... For every such attempt is limited to failure in the present state
of knowledge, and the use of hypothetical dating would only be a farce, which
does more harm than good. (Winternez, Cit por Goswami S.d.1990)
Epistemic
lagoons
So far, we have discussed what the most respectable
speculations are, but let us analyze other factors. In his remarkable work India and Europe. Wilhelm Halbfass
points out that
"...the
critical, historical and often reductive work of Western indologists has met
with a passionate rejection of conservative Hinduism and has been seen as part
of a Western strategy of domination and suppression." (Resnick,
2006: 199)
Now, the first
questions that arise are why is this discomfort provoked? Is it only a
perception of the believers of that culture or will it really fail of the
method, which, be visualized by independent scholars to debate? Well, with the
attempt to find the answer we will start by specifying what the objective study
is. Clearly, some researchers believe that whoever speaks objectively about
something actually speaks for that thing, since such a just and accurate
discourse represents the truth better than a "thing" is. In the
"natural sciences" rocks, rivers, and even reptiles barely speak for
themselves in the sense of scholarly discourse; the scientist speaks for them.
For example, ornithologists, to classify a bird as columbic, have to observe
that this - the object--, has characteristics of the family of pigeons; and if
so, its category is determined. Nevertheless, they cannot invent ambiguities
and labyrinths, and imagine that their beak is like rapacious, as another ornithologist
has surmised. Nor can they establish their classification based on the
speculations of many others, ignoring the method of direct observation on the
bird. Another very clear example of objectivity occurs in the ballistics of an
anti-aircraft missile. First, the exact position of the flying object x is
detected in the radar screen, then its velocity and direction are plotted and
based on a calculation on the velocity of the projectile and its ballistic
trajectory, the distance to be advanced is determined, so that intercept the
trajectory of the object and destroy it. However, if instead of relying on the
object, it has calculated only randomly with foundation in doubted
speculations, etc., the odds of hitting the target are almost nil. Now we apply
the following example of this factor of objectivity to history. If someone in
1998 asserts that he went to the USA, and that such country has spaceships, supersonic
aircraft, the liberty statue and skyscrapers, his statement is objective, and is
something that others can confirm at this time, being transported to USA. But,
suppose hypothetical scenery, had been passed 5,000 years, we are in 6010 year, but there was a nuclear war in
2000 year, and someone claim that in reality there was not USA, and the ruins
of skyscrapers were built by another culture , maybe Red Skins, and its
literature on spacecraft and aircraft, are mythology of unknown authors
attributed to fictional characters, “whose
felt the need to capture their dreams about a utopian country, the archetype of
the ideal world”; from them USA myth arose later. Such a statement is
impossible to verify, for how does our scholar know what happened 5000 years
ago? How can he go back into the past, see the needs of the minds of USA
historians, and return to the present to reveal his discovery? Only if he knew
the formula to be transposed to the past, or to possess a powerful paranormal
vision, otherwise, such a speculative leap is more miraculous than what he
claims to deny, and rejects the principle of objectivity and verification.
Now let us apply this
methodological rigor to the next type of propositions. In Marx's argument,
according to him, man in the past created God in his mind. Now, the basis of
his philosophy is empiricism or observation. Yet how did he go back and read
the mind of primitive man (which he never observed) and discovered that he
created God in his mind? S. Freud also succumbed to this type of imaginary
leaps, by claiming that certain sons of a clan ate their father, then felt the
need for fatherhood, and thus created the God Father. Moreover, others guessed
that in the past people dreamed of their dead relatives, and so invented the
concept of the eternal soul. In other words, they have the extrasensory power,
of not only see the past; but also to read the mind and dreams of the men of
the past. Other oracles of this nature has observed in C.F. Dupuis, who in his
"voyages" in past time, found the origin of all cults in the solar
myth. Furthermore, this slip is a common factor among Indologists in dealing
with historical data, even if those are accurate. By ethic, let us see, anonymous examples:
"According to
the inscription Aihole of Pulakesin II, 700 AD, the Battle of Bharata occurred
in 3102 BC, in which the Kali-yuga era began according to the astronomical
tradition represented by Aryabhata. Another school of Hindu astronomers and
historians represented by Vridda-Gaga, Varahamihira and Kalahana, puts the
battle in 2449 AD. . . We can, therefore, take the 1400 a.C as provisional date
for the battle (of Kuruksetra); and the event must have taken place between
that date and 1000 BC. "
Where is the
objectivity? In other words, their scores are blind shots in the air, so imagine
that this way calculate anti-aircraft ballistics? It can also be
observed that there is always relativism when dating characters or texts. For
example:
About the date of
Bhasa, some have pointed out V or VI B.C., but another said II to VI A. D.
Moreover, in 1993 another thought the V A.D. Although Dr. Kanjail confirmed that, he lived
II B. C. Some they date to the Visnu Purana for the V d.C.; Abegg Emil dates
this Purana to IV the V a.C. Many say that the Puranas are Christian era; Schwitser asserted that they are from
the 4th century BC. Nevertheless, Dr. A. Millares claims the dating of the Puranas in VIII or X B. C.
Thus, under a
rigorous observation, any independent reader may find that the treatises of the
Indologist are filled with such ambiguities, puzzles, relativisms as those
previously mentioned. In other words, they based more on speculative
imagination than on direct observation of historical data in themselves. In
fact, each Indologists makes his own dates in an arbitrary way. Besides, do not
believed that it is only an isolated case: on the contrary, this is a common
problem among scholars, except for rare occasions. Therefore, if these
epistemic slips don´t corrected, the following definition comes to mind:
The Sophists were
people of great dialectical ability. They could easily convince their audience
of each thesis, and then of their opposite. The word sophist used to designate
those who liked to play with the truth and had the habit of presenting falsity
with the appearance of truth ... Their own sophisms prohibited them from
supporting a particular thesis. In general, relativism was a prey to their
minds so the ambiguous, relative theses and the particular interpretation that
each one wanted to give him stood out. " (Gutierres Zaens, Raúl: 1986 34).
However, in order to
understand the real importance of sophistry in the field of Indology, it is
essential to compare not only his lectures, but to see the sophists as the
Greeks knew them. So the expert H. Glasenapp honestly confessed:
In the current state of our knowledge, the individual
investigator is obliged to base his opinion rather on personal conviction than
on argumentation ........, and should not sue for His is more valuable than for
others ..., since in no case is it treated with the certainty of an irrefutable
dogma. (Cit
por Ibid. Jarocka, 1974: 82-83).
Bioethical
failures
Methodologists in the
social sciences such like Felipe Pardinas have pointed out:
Science must be at
the service of the human community ... it can have value for science itself.
Research by research, because in the end it is beneficial for humans. I insist
the service to humanity is not the interests of a group or a social class exclusively.
(Pardinas, 1985: 20)
Currently, even for
scientific research purposes, in the First World countries there are laws that
criminalized the mistreatment of domestic and wild animals. These entail severe
judicial sanctions, such as deprivation of liberty, high bail payments, etc.
The same if you cut trees. There is a strong ethical commitment to safeguarding
endangered species, ecosystems, archaeological treasures and ethnic groups as a
world heritage. So here opens another field, which is worth bringing up. Since
in Nazi Germany, the scientists practiced atrocious investigations, it led the
scientific community to draft an Ethics code, incorporating standards, not only
for the practice of surgical medical practice; but covering the research and
for teaching activities. This discipline is call "Bioethics" and
since it applies to all living things that eventually is use for research. In
1947, the United Nations and its World Health Organization approved a new Ethics
Code in Geneva, where respect for the human dignity is fundamental.
Now, another
area of investigation of the discipline in question is the anthropological
phenomenon of the religions of India. However, it is good to keep in mind that
there is not much problem between different experimental data vs. faith, as
there is a simple conflict in the conceptions of the world, based on
ideological starting points. That is to say, the social sciences with which
Indology works start from a paradigm, more or less general, that in itself puts
in collision the social universes of the religious cosmogonies. In short, the
problem is not the application of the methodological rigor of the fields of
scientific knowledge, but rather, the preconception that social disciplines
demand, the approach of the spiritual reality of man in another position as
closed and extreme as fundamentalism; this is the skeptical-rational approach
or what is technically call methodological atheism. Because in terms of
axiomatic points of departure, as epistemologists such as Popper, Bachelar, and
other philosophers of science have shown, any method, even in the exact
sciences, operates without starting points without demonstration. Nevertheless,
the social sciences have a great methodological debt with thinkers whose social
universe had his point of departure were antagonism towards the phenomenon of
religion. Examples would be the influence of natural religion, deism,
historical materialism, social Darwinism, positivism in sociology, anthropology
and history, psychoanalysis and behaviorism in social psychology. Since apart
from Judeo-Christianity, without any remorse, although the historical basis was
been archaeologically demonstrated, the texts of the miraculous history of the
Hindu, Buddhist, etc., offered as mythology. The historicity of the great
religious figures is take into doubt and contradiction. They were reduce to
mere human beings, devoid of the miraculous sacredness that distinguishes them
from the ordinary men. In addition, that has given them meaning to their
identity and therefore the transcendence that has allowed them to survive and
guide the culture of nations, such as the case of Rama, Krishna, Buddha, etc.,
to convert them into mere primitive, tribal beings.
In the psychology area, the famous William James, note
that religious experience is interpreted within the parameter of medical
materialism as brain disorders, or lighter, in Freudian terms, that the poems
of mystics are expressions of a repressed homosexuality, or a recreation of his
sexual fantasy with the deity. In short, the specialist In History of Religion,
Thomas J. Hopkins states: "Many academic studies are like the saying: "
The operation was a success, but the patient died. “ (Hopkins, 1990: ix). This
type of hostile, caustic behavior can be observed frequently, almost as a rigid
norm, in all Indological studies. The most recent case is Dr. Wendy. Who uses
her academic credentials as head of the Mircea Eliade Chair in History of
Religions at Chicago University Divinity School. She had been obsessed in
translating, interpreting and comparing Indian cultural elements through the
Freudian view of sexual pathology in her books. However, not only the most
recalcitrant positivists as Mario Bunge, but several other philosophers of
science have been distinguished themselves by their position of including
psychoanalysis among pseudoscience. For in their concepts, they manifest the
inconsistency between theory and experience, stress the speculative character
of discourse.
Taking
the allegorical relationship of Hopkins, as a point of reference, is
interesting that when we speak of religion, we are touching the most intimate
parts of the human being. So much so, that this phenomenon, has marked in a
negative and positive way the Universal History. If I take the candy from a
child, he cry, but if we attack that religious part of the human being, we can
create wars, and unleash social forces. Because many people, thanks to their X
devotion, have been able to find a meaning in life, overcome vices, existential
problems that have diametrically transformed their existence. In fact,
thousands of people come to the sanctuaries to achieve health, economic,
psychological, and existential improvement. We can make quotations from
thousands of testimonies in all religions, miracles secured by their faithful,
who have helped in a tangible way their life. (Goswami, 1997: 55)
Still, what would
happen, if someone who left the drugs, which were destroying their marriage,
career and their social and physical life by prayed to Buddha, Krishna, Shiva,
and so on. Then someone, in name to be an "intellectual" in his
research, highlights as an absolute and unquestionable starting point, that
such things are myths, fiction, lies, and fraud. What is causing the improved
person? So, where is an ethics or bioethics code that governs these social
studies, not only in India; but also in religions in general?
Conclusion
Without doubt the first orientalists contributions
were very important because open the door to the scientific researcher and they
were the discipline’s fathers, independently of His missionary and colonial
agendas and the contemporary Indologists claim the past is over. However other scholars that take the trouble
of sociology and history of Indic Studies like Thomas Trautmann, Bernard S.
Cohen, and his works like History of the
Study of Indian and Culture (1968), etc., call the construction of the
colonial sociology of India, showing how is still largely the product of
colonialism and its effects. (Cohen 1990). David Lorenzewn’s also in his work Imperialism and Historiography of Ancient
India (1982). Other honest work in this line come from Edward Said, Orientalism, where conclude “all academic
knowledge about India and Egypt is somehow tinged and impressed with, violated
by, the gross political fact.” (Ibid ) A eco arose too with the work called Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament
by Carol Breckenridge and Peter van der Veer (1993), etc…
Concerning to Aryan
Invasion Theory, to day, some researchers change the word with “migration” and
others suggest both “migration-invasion”, others “from outside and inside or
both”? However, there are scholars, more Archeologists, like Jim Shafer that
demonstrates how:
The Indo-Aryan
concept never was subject to rigorous validation beyond the field of historical
linguistic. Linguistic reconstruction were used to interpret archeological
materials, which in turned were used to substantiate the original
reconstructions.
The Indo-Aryan
invasion as an academic concept in 18th -19th century in
Europe reflected the cultural milieu of that period… What was theory became
unquestioned fact that was used to interpreted and organize all subsequent
data.
Archeological
data not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into south
Asia any time in the pre- or proto-historic periods. Instead, it is possible to
document archeologically a series de changes reflecting indigenous cultural
developments from prehistoric to historic periods. (Shafer 1984:88).
We can quote other
examples that demonstrated the same, like Jonathan Mark Kenoyer:
There is in fact no
archeological or literary evidence of invasion during this period of Indus
civilization’s decline. Concurrent theories take into account main factors that
would have contributed to fragmentation of society, including the breakdown of
agricultural life, the migration of people following changes in rivers courses,
and the failure to maintain political and economic control over the vast
region.” (Kenoyer: 55)
Although undoubtedly
the origin of such one Indo-European community in itself is something that in
the present is outside the scope of scientific knowledge, the truth remain
ignored.
About the Müeller
model of Sruti Smriti vedic –puranic
literature dating, since 1500 BC to
later, we can quote scholars that disclosed how is groundless, The American
Sankristist W. D. Whitney wrote: “All
dates in India literary history are pint set up to be bowled again… For most
part is still the case” (Cit in Winterniz 1972; 27). Therefore, Moris Winterniz
appointed:
“It is remarkable, however, how strong the power of suggestion is even
in science. Max Müeller’s hypothetical and purely arbitrary determination of
the Vedic epochs, in the course of the years, received more and more dignity in
the character of a scientifically proven fact, without any new argument or
actual proof been added” (Idem).
Max Muller was one of
the first to reject the paradigm: "Whether the Vedic hymns were composed
in the 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC., there is no power on earth that will
determine it.” (Op cit)
The problem with
methodological parameters of the Indology is reduced to the one indicated by Howard J. Resnick ,
Sanskrit Ph D from Harvard:
...therefore the occasional practice of
commentators to force on it extraneous doctrines often renders the text obscure
where it is bright, esoteric where it is literal, and impersonal where it is
intensely personal...I should note at once that this principle does nor away
with intellectual response to the scriptures. Rather it is a call for sober
practices for understanding, in which we firsts struggle to comprehend a
scriptural message on its own terms, through careful study of its internal
structures of meaning… I have endeavoured to avoid, thereby, unfounded flights of poetic
inspiration and dubious constructions devised to legitimate tentative insights. (Resinick 1999: 21.)
Also the
Mathematician Researcher Richard L. Thompson appointed:
There are scholars
who believe that they can discover important parts of history by speculative
reconstructions. These arguments have had a great impact on the academic world.
These tend to be immediately credible to scholars. And are laid as the
foundations of an imposing school of thought Which cannot easily be challenged
or criticized by non-professionals, as a result, scholars from other fields
such as History, Religion, etc. Accept the conclusions of this school as a
subject of course, and modify their points of view In accordance with these
concepts ... The
main characteristic of these foundations is that they are composed almost
entirely of unsupported assumptions, biased interpretations, and imaginary
reconstructions. It is unfortunate, however, that after many scholars have
presented arguments of this type in learned treatises, and the arguments
accumulate to produce an imposing stratified deposit of apparently indisputable
authority. In this way, supposedly solid facts established by fossilization of
fanciful speculations whose original direction was determined by scholarly
prejudice. Ultimately, these facts are presented in elementary texts and
popular books, and accepted by faith by innocent people." (Thompson, 1991: 182-196)
Hence,
in the face of a rigorous observation, the discovery of a problem named by
Francis Bacon, cave idol or ildolus
specus. This refers to the prejudices due to the temperament, character and
personal tastes of each scholar. The researcher then be locked in his own
conceptual cave and deforms the reality of the phenomena of study. Precisely
this type of idolus-specus, applies
to racial prejudices, national and all such phobias, as those who dislike the
discoveries that question their paradigm, and so on. However, at present, the
first thing that is required when trying a solid approach in scientific
research is the suspension of all previous judgments, that is, the phenomenal
application of epoché. Which means to
temporarily forget any judgment, and proceed to the examination of the object
and thus discover the reality of such phenomenon of study.
Therefore, academic
institutions, such as the education departments along with legislative and
legal powers, should require the practice of ethics codes in such studies, as
is done in any field of scientific knowledge, where human beings are involved.
Words such as idols, myths, cults, sects and others that carry morbid
derogatory connotations, must be replaced by icons, hagiographies, etc., that
mark the impartiality and respect for the human-religious traditions that are
studied. Methodological atheism is antithetical to objectivism and
phenomenology, which be must applied in studies, always calculating the risk
and benefit of research, and holistic, multidisciplinary academic committees
that regulate the research under a code of bioethics must study this.
Otherwise, the Indology will take a leap from its proto-scientific state.
Bibligraphy
Arganis Juárez, H. F. (2004). Empirismo y Epistemología.
Desenmascarando a una religión secular. Ponencia en el Instituto
de Estudios Filosóficos AC. 19 de junio del 2004, en Saltillo Coah. para
editarse en el próximo núm. 5 de Crítica
Junio-diciembre 2006
Bentley, J. (1825). Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy. Osnabruck: Biblio Verlang.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=YcNXD0Q24KEC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false GS SEARCH
Goswami, S. d. (1990). Reading in Vedic Literature. The Tradition Speaks for Itself. Los
Angeles: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. (sse on line:
http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Vedic-Literature-Tradition-Speaks-ebook/dp/B00NB59PK2)
Goswami, T. K. (1997). Miracles: Does God Intervene in
Earthly Affairs? In: Reason &
Believe. Problem Solving in the Philosophy of Religion. USA: Pundit Press. p55.
Gutiérrez,
S. R. (1986). Historia de Doctrinas
Filosóficas. Esfinge México.
Hopkins, T. J. (1990). Foreword. In: Satsvarupa dasa
Goswami. Reading in Vedic Literature.
The Traditions Speaks for Itself. 3rd
Edition. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. pix.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=fzhnBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false GS SEARCH
James, W. (1902). Religión and Neurology. In: The Varieties
of Religious Experience. A Study in
Human Nature. Lecture 1. Universidad de Harvard.
Jarocka,
L. et al. (1974). El Rig Veda. Editorial Diana. p82-83
Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. (1998). Birth of Civilization.
Archeology 57 No. ! January/Febrery.
Klostermaier, K. (1998). Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and Revising Ancient Indian
History. Iskcon Comnunication Journal. 6 (1)
MLBD Newsletter. A Monthly
of Indilogical Bibliography. (2002).
Delhi: Montilal Banarsidass. XXIV (2). p8.
Müeller, F. M. (1869). Chips From A German Workshop. New York: Charles Scribner and
Company. Vol. I p163.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=LZQ4AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false GS SEARCH
Müeller, F. M. (1883). India: What Can it Teach Us? London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
p21
Müeller, M. (1899). The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy.
London: Longmans, Green. p35.
Müller,
M. (….). Mitología Comparada. S. A.
España: Edicomunicaciones. 9.
p231
Océano 1995.
Pardinas,
F. (1985). Metodología y técnicas de investigacion en Ciencias Sociales.
Siglo Veintiuno. 3ª Edic. Colombía.
https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=PDqKweTKbhUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false GS
SEARCH
Piggott, Stuart. Arqueología
de la India prehistórica hasta el año 1000 A. C. Editorial: Ed. Fondo de Cultura Económica. 1966.
Pounchepadass, Jacques, La India del siglo XX, Fondo de
Económica, Dasa, Hare Krishna, Vaisnavismo,
Estudio histórico y confrontación de la
doctrina esencial del Hinduismo. Libros Bhaktivedanta, 1997
Resnick,
H. J. Posturas extremistas que contaminan
los estudios de Religión. Conferencia en León, Guanajuato, 1-I-2006. http://www.howardjresnick.com/ VIEW ITEM. (2006).
Resnick, Howar Ph. D. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gîta, Starling an
Exploration in the meanings. Conference in the UCLA. Editade in the BTG.
(Part I, BTG, IXX p.21, y Part III, BTG, III.
(1999)
