The Discover India Podcast by Professor Pankaj Jain: Bhārat Darśan

Jain Philosophy, Cosmology, Ethics: A Webinar for JNU

Philosophical concepts are influential in the theories and methods of studying world religions. Even though anthropology and religious studies now encompass communities and cultures worldwide, the theories and methods used to study world religions and cultures continue to be rooted in Western philosophies. For instance, one of the most widely used textbooks used in introductory courses on religious studies introduces major theoreticians such as Edward Burnett Tylor, James Frazer, Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Mircea Eliade, William James, E. E. Evans-Pritchard, and Clifford Geertz. Their theories are based on Western philosophy. In contrast, in Indic philosophical systems, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism, one of the common views on reality is that the world, both within oneself and outside, is a flow with nothing permanent, both the observer and the observed undergoing constant transformation. This volume is based on innovative ideas from different Indic philosophies and how they can enrich the theory and methods in religious studies.

Join us for a captivating India Centre webinar with Prof. Lisa Trivedi, Christian A. Johnson Excellence in Teaching Professor of History, Hamilton College, New York. She will explore a 1937 photographic series, commissioned by the Jyoti Sangh to capture women at work in Ahmedabad. Discover the narrative behind the historical lens captured through the lens of Pranlal K. Patel, an early Indian photographer. Prof. Trivedi will draw from critical theories of photography to show how a reading of these photos sheds light on the past but also has the potential to open new subjects relevant to contemporary India. Brace yourself for an illuminating journey as this webinar transcends traditional boundaries, emphasizing the intersection of ethics with history and photography.

Raising Kids in America: Sharing my Parenting Experiences in the USA

Webinar by Prof Pankaj Jain & Dr Erin Lothes: Dharma, Catholicism, and Ecology

Bhopal Beyond the Gas Tragedy and the Railway Men… #railwaymen #bhopal #bhopalcity #shorts

Philological & Philosophical Analysis of Japanese Zen Gardens: Zen = Chan (Chinese) = Dhyan (Sanskrit)

Visit https://www.youtube.com/@ProfPankajJain for the much-awaited episode one of Naturally Musical - a venture Professor Pankaj Jain and Shri Manoj Govindraj have undertaken to share the often simple yet layered thoughts behind eco-friendly songs in Indian films🎵

The study of India took place in Europe and America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries under the term Orientalism, `the study of the East' which sets the East, the Orient, as opposed to the West, the Occident. Scholars in the discipline of Orientalism and in the fields that have replaced the directionally biased term with neutral ones, such as Indology and South Asian Studies in contemporary scholarship, have been accused of being outsiders who bear attitudes that subjugate Indian knowledge and culture to European knowledge and culture. Conversely, recent scholarship that purports to represent Indian knowledge from the inside has been accused of chauvinism and religious fundamentalism. The present investigation demonstrates that much recent scholarship that purports to be liberated from Orientalist attitudes, in fact, is guilty of insidious Orientalism that subjugates Indian knowledge to theoretical cultural anthropology by devaluing any investigation that is not set within that limited theoretical framework. Although cultural anthropologists engaged in subaltern studies claim to be rescuing India from Orientalism, they undermine Indian knowledge to a new extreme by drawing scholarship away from substantial issues to the theoretical framework of cultural anthropology. Those who purport to represent Indian knowledge from the inside are likewise unknowingly co-opted into this new Orientalism by allowing the themes of their research to be determined by the cultural anthropological framework. The recent dominant scholarship of arguing that certain scientific conclusions ought to be dismissed because the scientists who argued for them were orientalists on the one hand or were Hindu fundamentalists on the other all reveals itself, regardless of which way it claims to be socio-political banter devoid of any scientific value. Irrespective of the motives of the scholars, scientific conclusions should be established or dismissed on the grounds of fundamental research, incontrovertible data, and persuasive arguments, not based on accusations of purported bias.

The study of India took place in Europe and America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries under the term orientalism, `the study of the East,' which sets the East, the Orient, as opposed to the West, the Occident. Scholars in the discipline of orientalism and in the fields that have replaced the directionally biased term with neutral ones, such as Indology and South Asian Studies in contemporary scholarship, have been accused of being outsiders who bear attitudes that subjugate Indian knowledge and culture to European learning and culture. Conversely, recent scholarship that purports to represent Indian knowledge from the inside has been accused of chauvinism and religious fundamentalism. The present investigation demonstrates that much recent scholarship that purports to be liberated from orientalist attitudes is guilty of insidious orientalism that subjugates Indian knowledge to theoretical cultural anthropology by devaluing any investigation that is not set within that limited theoretical framework. Although cultural anthropologists engaged in subaltern studies claim to be rescuing India from orientalism, they undermine Indian knowledge to a new extreme by drawing scholarship away from substantial issues to the theoretical framework of cultural anthropology itself. Those who purport to represent Indian knowledge from the inside are likewise unknowingly co-opted into this new orientalism by allowing the themes of their research to be determined by the cultural anthropological framework. The recent dominant scholarship of arguing that certain scientific conclusions ought to be dismissed because the scientists who argued for them were orientalists on the one hand or were Hindu fundamentalists on the other all reveals itself, regardless of which way it claims to be socio-political banter devoid of any scientific value. Irrespective of the motives of the scholars, scientific conclusions should be established or dismissed on the grounds of fundamental research, indisputable data, and persuasive arguments, not based on accusations of purported bias.