3 ms·

> To me the problem seems more that Rajiv Malhotra either doesn't understand what "translation" is supposed to mean, or pretends not to. How? Quote exactly wha

> To me the problem seems more that Rajiv Malhotra either doesn't understand what "translation" is supposed to mean, or pretends not to. How? Quote exactly what Rajiv Malhotra said that makes you believe this? > The outsider-insider line doesn't stop at the boundaries of India (contemporary or historical, real or imaginary). It stops at every individual, and even there it's better to say at an individual as they are at a precise moment in their life when they know a certain set of things and hold a certain set of beliefs. I don't see any problem here. Rajiv says literally what you just said. That the outsider-insider line doesn't stop at boundaries of India. He himself says that there are many whites who are "insiders" while many brown Indian Hindus who are "outsiders". If you asked me 15 years ago if I considered myself an insider or an outsider, I would very much classify myself as an outsider for not knowing much about Vedanta. So yes, "individual as they are at a precise moment in their life when they known a certain set of things and hold a certain set of beliefs" is what Rajiv says and I agree with. So we are in agreement here. What is the issue exactly? Because I sense that you probably haven't grokked what Rajiv said. Rajiv, you and I are on the same page as far as this is concerned.

kranner 4y ago
Please don’t add edits to your comments without marking them after someone has already responded. It is considered poor etiquette. My problem is that Rajiv doesn’t get to decide whether someone is an insider or an outsider. The moment someone disagrees with you, you simply say they are ignorant. Which is exactly what Tyler Williams said in one of the videos you linked to. You can’t discredit someone based solely on where they’re from, or whether or not they are an insider in your personal opinion. I think I’ve said all I wanted to say on this topic.
- KrishnaShripad 4y ago
  > Rajiv doesn’t get to decide whether someone is an insider or an outsider Rajiv is not deciding. It is Sanatan Dharma itself deciding. How do I say that? It is because we have a set of rules when it comes to expounding a Philosophy or even an argument. Without following those rules, you cannot be called a Scholar nor can your school of thought (however valid it maybe) be accepted. So what are these rules? The rules are defined as such: 1. If you are writing a translation for a scripture, you should be either a part of an established School of Vedanta or at least quote the School of Vedanta you are referring to in your translations. For example, the Gita Press is known for being aligned with Advaitic School of Vedanta. So the translation of Bhagavad Gita by the Gita Press is in line with Advaitic concepts. Prabhupada's translation of Bhagavad Gita (famously known as "Bhagavad Gita as it is") is in line with the Philosophy of "Achintya Bheda Abheda": an established sub-school of Vedanta. "Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya" written by Madhvacharya is part of the Tattvavada School of Vedanta. What is the School of Vedanta that Wendy Doniger or Sheldon Pollock adhere to? 2. If you are not a part of an established School of Vedanta, and you have your own interpretations, you should at least found a School of Vedanta by debating with luminaries from opposite Schools of Vedanta (called the Poorva Paksha). They have to be convinced that your translation also holds value and should be accommodated into the umbrella of Vedanta schools. This is how it has always been traditionally done since the past thousands of years. It is the official form of "Peer Review" which is carried out by Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Varanasi where experts from all Schools of Vedanta gather and cross-question your knowledge of the Vedic scriptures and the logic behind your interpretations. If they find it sound (even if it completely contradicts their own philosophy), they'll accord you with the title of Jagadguru as you have founded a completely new way of interpreting the Vedic scriptures. That's the spirit with which the Vidvat Parishat functions and has been doing so for thousands of years. But before you even get to this point, you will have to write translations and commentaries for the Prasthanatrayi [1]. Without this, you won't even be qualified to debate. If you are doing neither then you will not be taken seriously and your work will always be relegated to the "outsider" category. So it is wrong to claim that Rajiv is getting to decide whether someone is an insider or outsider. He is just making the common masses aware of what is an insider and what is an outsider based on the definition as laid out by Sanatan Dharma itself. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasthanatrayi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasthanatrayi
- KrishnaShripad 4y ago
  > Please don’t add edits to your comments without marking them after someone has already responded. It is considered poor etiquette. I typically don't expect instant responses in Hacker News. You are responding within minutes of me posting so I am assuming you have a bot running that notifies you of a reply to your comment.

kranner 4y ago

Please don’t add edits to your comments without marking them after someone has already responded. It is considered poor etiquette. My problem is that Rajiv doesn’t get to decide whether someone is an insider or an outsider. The moment someone disagrees with you, you simply say they are ignorant. Which is exactly what Tyler Williams said in one of the videos you linked to. You can’t discredit someone based solely on where they’re from, or whether or not they are an insider in your personal opinion. I think I’ve said all I wanted to say on this topic.

KrishnaShripad 4y ago
> Rajiv doesn’t get to decide whether someone is an insider or an outsider Rajiv is not deciding. It is Sanatan Dharma itself deciding. How do I say that? It is because we have a set of rules when it comes to expounding a Philosophy or even an argument. Without following those rules, you cannot be called a Scholar nor can your school of thought (however valid it maybe) be accepted. So what are these rules? The rules are defined as such: 1. If you are writing a translation for a scripture, you should be either a part of an established School of Vedanta or at least quote the School of Vedanta you are referring to in your translations. For example, the Gita Press is known for being aligned with Advaitic School of Vedanta. So the translation of Bhagavad Gita by the Gita Press is in line with Advaitic concepts. Prabhupada's translation of Bhagavad Gita (famously known as "Bhagavad Gita as it is") is in line with the Philosophy of "Achintya Bheda Abheda": an established sub-school of Vedanta. "Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya" written by Madhvacharya is part of the Tattvavada School of Vedanta. What is the School of Vedanta that Wendy Doniger or Sheldon Pollock adhere to? 2. If you are not a part of an established School of Vedanta, and you have your own interpretations, you should at least found a School of Vedanta by debating with luminaries from opposite Schools of Vedanta (called the Poorva Paksha). They have to be convinced that your translation also holds value and should be accommodated into the umbrella of Vedanta schools. This is how it has always been traditionally done since the past thousands of years. It is the official form of "Peer Review" which is carried out by Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Varanasi where experts from all Schools of Vedanta gather and cross-question your knowledge of the Vedic scriptures and the logic behind your interpretations. If they find it sound (even if it completely contradicts their own philosophy), they'll accord you with the title of Jagadguru as you have founded a completely new way of interpreting the Vedic scriptures. That's the spirit with which the Vidvat Parishat functions and has been doing so for thousands of years. But before you even get to this point, you will have to write translations and commentaries for the Prasthanatrayi [1]. Without this, you won't even be qualified to debate. If you are doing neither then you will not be taken seriously and your work will always be relegated to the "outsider" category. So it is wrong to claim that Rajiv is getting to decide whether someone is an insider or outsider. He is just making the common masses aware of what is an insider and what is an outsider based on the definition as laid out by Sanatan Dharma itself. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasthanatrayi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasthanatrayi
KrishnaShripad 4y ago
> Please don’t add edits to your comments without marking them after someone has already responded. It is considered poor etiquette. I typically don't expect instant responses in Hacker News. You are responding within minutes of me posting so I am assuming you have a bot running that notifies you of a reply to your comment.