Far be it for me to mount a defence of the Gita, I find (Govind’s) Hegel’s discussion of Gita to be nonetheless lazy.
I want to point out an interesting and relevant discussion on dravya tyaga (which is, to borrow a term from Nietzsche, ‘genealogically’ relevant to certain ideas in the Gita mentioned in Govind’s review), initially in the context of Mimamsa but also containing illuminating ideas (illuminating also of the participants) on its notions in the Gita:
> Part II (Mimamsa), Chapter 1 (Pages 175 to 194) in Daya Krishna (ed) Discussion and Debate in Indian Philosophy, ICPR 2004
The discussion is initiated by Daya Krishna who sent a translated copy of an essay by Frits Staal on the interpretation of dravya tyaga in vedic rituals to a few Pandits. He published the exchange of letters between the Pandits and Staal. I want to specially point out Ramanuja Tatacharya’s - a well respected contemporary Nyayaika’s - commentary.
1 comment:
Far be it for me to mount a defence of the Gita, I find (Govind’s) Hegel’s discussion of Gita to be nonetheless lazy.
I want to point out an interesting and relevant discussion on dravya tyaga (which is, to borrow a term from Nietzsche, ‘genealogically’ relevant to certain ideas in the Gita mentioned in Govind’s review), initially in the context of Mimamsa but also containing illuminating ideas (illuminating also of the participants) on its notions in the Gita:
> Part II (Mimamsa), Chapter 1 (Pages 175 to 194) in Daya Krishna (ed) Discussion and Debate in Indian Philosophy, ICPR 2004
The discussion is initiated by Daya Krishna who sent a translated copy of an essay by Frits Staal on the interpretation of dravya tyaga in vedic rituals to a few Pandits. He published the exchange of letters between the Pandits and Staal. I want to specially point out Ramanuja Tatacharya’s - a well respected contemporary Nyayaika’s - commentary.
Post a Comment