Talk:Max Müller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

I have some doubts about the dates given to Max Müller's wife Georgina Adelaide (1794 - 1919). Did she really live for 125 years ??? The birth must be a typo 129.199.161.178

It would seem so - [1] EddEdmondson 17:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It isn't true. Someone copied it from said site...the letters are supposed to be from the Muller family, 1794 to 1919. I couldn't find a birthdate but this website says she died in 1916. Mike H 17:22, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Vilified 2 Additions by 58.165.201.69 3 RfC, outsider's comment: 4 Last try to get to an understanding 5 Ivanka Kovacevic quote

[edit] Vilified

"This led to the development of links with Indian intellectuals, notably the leaders of the Brahmo Samaj, and to syncretist attempts to unite Christian and Hindu traditions. Modern Indians have both praised and (largely) vilified these activities."

Why would anyone get vilified for that? The missing ingredient (here and in the article as a whole) is missionaries. He gets vilified by Indians nowadays for supporting missionary activities in India for most of his life, though he was solidly Hindu towards the end. (He only did it for the money anyway) See "Max Muller, A Lifelong Masquerade" by B.D.Bharti Prater 20:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Muller is often vilified for his sceptical/rationalist attitudes. You only have to look at some Hinducentric websites to see it. I don't know what you mean about Muller being 'solidly Hindu' towards the end, nor do you explain what it was that he is supposed to have 'done for the money'. He was an Oxford scholar. It was his job. He got paid. So what? You can tell from the evidence presented in the article that Muller was not considered to be a missionary, but was actually 'vilified', to repeat that word, by Christians for his pro-Hindu ideas: which is why he did not get the chair in Sanskrit. It's true that he lent some support to sympathetic missionary work. Why shouldn't he? I've read "Max Muller: A Lifelong Masquerade", and a more ridiculous, biassed and incoherent rant it is difficult to find. The author's animus is evident throughout. He makes no attempt to understand Muller in the context of his time and he attributes the worst motives to everything on the flimsiest of evidence. I remember reading his summaries of articles written by Muller and then going back to the texts, which bore no discernable relationship to the summaries. The book is a disgrace. Paul B 14.32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stick with my criticism of this article. Max Muller is a very controversial figure in the eyes of, say, 40.000.000 Indian people, and quite a few others. The article deliberately avoids all mention of this. In an attempt to appear fair and up-to-date, it mentions a very marginal critical view coming from the Brahmo Samaj. Prater 21:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that 40.000.000 Indian people have actually heard of Max Muller, let alone read any of his works. The article is about the real Max Muller, not some fantasy-figure created in the minds of people who have probably never read any of his books. Have you? Paul B 0042, 8 May, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additions by 58.165.201.69

58.165.201.69 has added the folowing passage, which after being deleted by me, is repeatedly being re-added by User:Shivraj Singh:

It is wrong to say that Müller's work contributed to the developing of interest in Aryan culture which set Indo-European ('Aryan') traditions in opposition to Semitic religions. In fact he himself was a product of an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race. Being in line with that he advocated the aryan invasion of India. He later retracted on it by showing a deep sadness as he realised that in India it was Aryan culture and not aryan race. He thought that the Old Testament, composed in 1500 BCE, was precursor to the Rigveda as the thoughts in Rig Veda were the product of a higher evolution of human mind. With this idea he proposed a chronology proposing that all Hindu sriptures were having lower antiquity than 1500 BCE. Thus unwittingly he distorted the chronology of Indian history.

This was a rewrite of the earlier passage:

Nevertheless Müller's work contributed to the developing interest in Aryan culture which set Indo-European ('Aryan') traditions in opposition to Semitic religions. He was deeply saddened by the fact that these later came to be expressed in racist terms. This was far from Müller's own intention. For Müller the discovery of common Indian and European ancestry was a powerful argument against racism.

The rewrite is problematic for the following reasons:

1. The opening sentence is made to say that Muller's theories did not contribute "to the developing of interest in Aryan culture", when clearly they did, as is acknowledged by absolutely everyone. Note that the original version actually points to the problems that were generated by this new scholarship (the Aryan v Semitic model).

2. It says he was "an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race". This is not wholly false, but it's very misleading. Racial theories were not prominent in the 1840s. Theories of cultural identity were, and Muller was essentially a product of German Romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy, which meshed well with the interest in the Upanishads at the time. Muller was never interested in biological race-theory. His ideas provide a link between Kantianism and Jungianism.

3. Muller never advocated an "Aryan invasion", he assumed an expansion of farmers from Bactria, which also involved on-off military conflicts. He never "retracted it". The writer is getting confused with Muller's retraction of the term "race" in connection with the Aryans. In his earlier writings he used the term, but that was when the term was roughly equivalent to modern expressions like "peoples" or "ethnicities". He rejected it when the term increasingly came to mean something like "sub-species".

4. He did not think that the OT was "composed c1500BC", or that the Rig Veda was "the product of a higher evolution of human mind". In fact he thought the RV was a complex mixture of primitive and highly sophisticated ideas. The idea that he proposed a post-1500 date because of the OT derives from a popular Hindutva claim that he was was trying to fit it into the post-flood Bible chronology. There is no evidence at all of this, and anyway Muller clearly stated that much earlier dates were possible.

So, in essence, these additions are a tissue of falsehood and fantasy. In many cases they even garble the mistaken arguments they are repeating. Paul B 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC, outsider's comment:

I agree with Paul Barlow that the disputed passage (as by Shivraj) is unencyclopedic and doesn't fit WP:NPOV. A sentence like "It is wrong to say ...", unsourced and unverifiable, goes against some very basic principles of how to write a Wikipedia article. Shivraj, please read WP:NPOV carefully before you go on editing this article again. Please do not just re-introduce this passage unchanged. If there is something you think needs to be included, give it a wording consistent with NPOV policies, and add a verifiable reference to a reputable source. Paul and Shivraj, both of you, it seems you have both been violating the three-revert rule quite a bit, so I'd suggest you both take a break for now. But thanks, Paul, for bringing this to the attention of RfC. For the moment, I am reverting to the earlier version. Lukas 10:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas,

This is indeed funny. Germans/Westerners defending Aryan Invasion theory as if it is gospel. Anyone providing counterpoints is either a hindu nationalist or a clueless wiki editor. Though people pushing the AIT, eventhough it is debunked in all forms and shape, have no agenda and are following NPOV.

AIT was proposed by Muller on behest of Britishers in India for cultural imperialism of India. There are no two ways about it. Here is an excerpt from British Broadcasting corporation (BBC). Question is why are these modern day aryan supremacist supporters clinging to the authenticity of this theory?

Every thing below this line is from BBC

"The Aryan Invasion Theory

One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of :India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of :Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Why is the theory no longer accepted?

The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier :evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian :history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest :times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer :thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory

The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:

• it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
• it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
• it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
• it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders
• it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith
• it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes
• it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system
• it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj
• it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier
• it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture"

EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE IS FROM BBC

Now I have provided evidence of Panini, Pythagorean thoerem, genetics and more on AIT talk page but the right winger aryan supremacists do not even read what is posted.

Shivraj Singh 18:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj, you haven't addressed the issue. The topic of this NPOV discussion is not whether Muller's theories were right. I personally have absolutely no opinion about that. The discussion is on whether you, Shivraj, can bring verifiable references showing that some reputable authority today believes that Muller's motives in developing his theory were shaped by racist prejudice. That's what's claimed as a fact in the paragraph you wanted to have inserted. And as long as you don't source it, it can't stay. It's that simple.

I reapeat my plea: please read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability, carefully.

By the way, the quote you give above actually claims the exact opposite: it says that Muller's theories were motivated by "archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence" available at the time.

(By the way, I don't know where in the above the quote ends and where your own comment starts. Please be more careful in quoting stuff.) Lukas 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, I have put quotation marks around the BBC article. I have given the link also. Please read it again. Majority Indians believe that Muller developed this theory on Britishers cue to subjugate the minds of Indians by portraying that all good things of India originated in the west and hence Indians were inferior to British/Aryans/Westerners. Also read Stephen Oppenheimers's book "real eve". See the archive on AIT talk page where genetic map of world is given and it is shown all DNA of europe was sourced from India which in turn was sourced from Africa. Paul has a head in the sand approach. He beleives his POV is correct and rest of other POVS are hindu nationalist POV. Shivraj Singh 18:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You again haven't addressed the issue. "Majority Indians believe that Muller developed this theory ... to subjugate the minds of Indians": Irrelevant. I asked you whether some reputed historian writes somewhere in the scholarly literature that Muller developed his theory for those reasons. Is it really so difficult to see the difference?

If you could cite such an historian, Indian or foreign, no matter, then the claims contained in the disputed paragraph might be worked in; but they could still not be let standing as a simple fact, in the way the paragraph was worded.

All the rest of what you write above, about Oppenheimer and DNA and whatnot, again concerns the question whether Muller was, in hindsight, factually right; not the question of why he wrote what he wrote at the time. Irrelevant to the question here. I repeat, is it really so difficult for you to understand the difference between these two questions? Lukas 11:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas,

Here are various links to historians/researchers who have delved into why AIT was proposed when it was proposed and why it stands completely debunked. If you say that all these people are not "serious historians" then I will have to conclude you are a firm beleiver in aryan supremacist muller.

stephen knapp from http://www.stephen-knapp.com/death_of_the_aryan_invasion_theory.htm: Death of the Aryan Invasion Theory. This booklet discusses and presents evidence of the real origins of the Aryans and Vedic civilization, and why the theory of an invasion of Aryans, a so-called tribe of Caucasian people from the north, was developed to denigrate the real culture of India. It establishes how there never was an Aryan invasion, how the Vedic texts present no evidence of such happening, how the Vedic Aryans were indigenous to India, and how the Vedic influence spread from India throughout the world. (23 pages)

Who is Stephen Knapp? A "writer, author, philosopher, spiritual practitioner, traveler, photographer, and lecturer" who has a web site [2]. This is not a peer-reviewed or otherwise reputable academic source. By the way, anybody who can quote with a straight face another author who claims that Sumerian, Phoenician and Aryan were one and the same language, is certainly not a serious researcher, I can vouch for that much. Discard this one. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC web site article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/

Who is the author? This is just an anonymous journalistic piece of colportage. And the relevant page, which you already quoted above, doesn't say what you claim it says. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

David Frawley's article at http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/frawley.htm

Who is David Frawley? Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Klaus Klostermaier's research at http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

Finally. This guy at least has some notability. Note that he doesn't clearly advocate the modern revisionist Indian account, he just compares it (though somewhat favourably) with the traditional European one. Now, question to you: where exactly does Klostermaier say something that we could use as a reference for the assertion: "In fact [Müller] himself was a product of an environment where the Germans and the european nations were considering themselves as belonging to the superior Aryan race."?

From Klaus: "Max Müller, in a letter to his wife wrote in 1886: 'The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.' " Shivraj Singh 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and what conclusions does Klostermüller draw from that quote? That Müller was motivated by racial suprematist ideology? No. His interpretation is a different one: He says that Müller and others were "motivated by Christian missionary considerations". Not the same thing. Shivraj, you really really need to try to understand that the purpose of this discussion is not to simply pile up anything and everything just because it may seem to you to make Müller look bad. Lukas 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, you are deliberately looking the "other way" when facts are staring at you. Are you trying to say Muller is talking as a missionary and not as aryan supremacist when he says "It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3 000 years.". These are the utterances of a person who firmly beleives in the superiority of his race because he wants to "uproot" the firm belief of millions of hindus (now billions) by telling them that there Vedas/Gita and there ancient centres of learning were created by aryans of europe/germany. Now tell me how your viewpoint is NPOV? Shivraj Singh 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about my viewpoing, and it's also not about whether any viewpoint is the correct one. It's about whether we can attribute a certain viewpoint to Klostermüller, so that we can use him as a reference for a certain claim. For the thousandth time: You claimed Klostermüller said that Müller was a racist; I showed you that Klostermüller does not say Müller was a racist. Get it, finally? Whether Müller in fact was a racist is an entirely different question. But this is getting frustraing, it's like talking to a wall, so I'm going to stop and not respond again. Lukas 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Feeling is mutual. I feel I am talking to an aryan wall who have only one agenda to make sure nothing bad about Muller or his AIT is published here on WP. Rational discussion is possible only when people talk without prejudice. But on WP prejudice runs deep and in general a westerner cannot be "wrong" and his motives will always be "respectable" and all others fall under nationalists and what not. Why is it so diffucult to see what Muller is saying reeks of superiority of his race? This is amazing obtrusenes. Shivraj Singh 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Next time you quote sources, please consider to prefer quality to quantity. It's not our business to wade through volumes of text in order to do your work for you. If you need a reference for an assertion you want included in the article, it's your task to point us exactly to the relevant bits. Lukas 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Klaus's References :

Feuerstein, George, Subhash Kak and David Frawley, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization, Quest Books: Wheaton, Ill. 1995

Frawley, David, The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India, New Delhi: Voice of India, 1994

Frawley, David, Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization, Passage Press: Salt Lake City, Utah, 1991

Kak, Subhash, The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1994

Kak, Subhash, 'Archaeoastronomy and literature', Current Science Vol. 73, No. 7 (October 10, 1997): Historical Notes, pp. 62-47

Mueller, Georgina, The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Muller, 2 vols. London: Longman, 1902

Rajaram, Navaratha S., 'The Puzzle of Origins: New Researches in History of Mathematics and Ancient Ecology', MANTHAN, Oct. 1994-March 1995, pp.150-71

Rajaram, N.S. and David Frawley, Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization, 2nd ed New Delhi: Voice of India, 1997

Seidenberg, A. 'The Geometry of the Vedic Rituals' Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar, Vol. II, ed. by Frits Staal, Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1983, pp. 95-126

Seidenberg, A. 'The Origin of Mathematics', Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 19, No.4 (1978), pp.301-42

Talageri, Shrikant G. The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism, New Delhi: Voice of India, 1993

Zabern, Philipp von, (ed.) Vergessene Städte am Indus: Frühe Kulturen in Pakistan vom 8 -2 Jahrtausend v.Chr. , Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, n.d. (c. 1984) (Contains important contributions by C. and J.-F. Jarrige, as well as by G. Quivron on Mehrgarh, R. Mughal, G. F. Dales and others on the Indus Civilisation). Shivraj Singh 17:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added a well known quotation from Müller on the subject of Aryan "race". Even though it's not really appropriate to this article I will for the last time attempt to explain why Oppenheimer is irrelevant to this whole issue, not just to Müller, who, of course, cannot be blamed for being ignorant of DNA evidence. Oppenheimer presents evidence to support the entirely uncontroversial, though far from proven, view that paleolithic peoples migrated from Africa to the Middle East and what is now South Asia, during the last Ice Age - a period when world geography was very different. From these warmer locations they migrated into Euope. This migration was in the stone age. The migration proposed by Müller was from Bactria/Central-Asia some 20.000 years - maybe 50.000 years - later, in the bronze age. Oppenheimer's model has no bearing on Müller's model at all. If you cannot understand this simple point, then we cannot have a productive discussion of the issues. Paul B 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul,

Let us start thinking for a change and perhaps things will be clearer. Let us go by what you said. 50k years ago people migrated from Africa to India. Some time later they moved to Europe from India. Note this group that moved from India to Europe has genetic markers which are identifiable today. Now this said group lived in europe for thousands of years and then it came back to India as part of AIT 2500 years ago. This group, before coming to India, when it was living in europe acquired some genetic mutations. None of these genetic mutations are present in majority of Indians. What does this mean? This means majority Indians have no genes from europeans: neither bactrian farmers or your aryan race. You are an aryan supremacist and there are no two ways about it. Shivraj Singh 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What "aryan race"? There is no such biological entity, as Max Müller himself said, as clearly as can be. That does not mean there was no migration. There are markers that have been assiociated with the migration model, see Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. But the existence or non existence of such markers is really neither here nor there. Do you think that Pakistan went Muslim because the "race" of the people changed?. However, this is not the page on which to discuss such issues. Paul B 01:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul here or nor there argument is for people not trained in genetics or who do not want to beleive evidence debunking there favorite theory. Pakistan went muslim because of the muslim religion. And here is an excerpt from Klaus Klostermaier's research, regarding your "linguists theory", at http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html

"When the affinity between many European languages and Sanskrit became a commonly accepted notion, scholars almost automatically concluded that the Sanskrit speaking ancestors of the present day Indians were to be found somewhere halfway between India and the Western borders of Europe-Northern Germany, Scandinavia, Southern Russia, the Pamir-from which they invaded the Punjab. (It is also worth noting that the early armchair scholars who conceived these grandiose migration theories, had no actual knowledge of the terrain their 'Aryan invaders' were supposed to have transversed, the passes they were supposed to have crossed, or the various climates they were believed to have been living in). Assuming that the Vedic Indians were semi-nomadic warriors and cattle-breeders, it fitted the picture, when Mohenjo Daro and Harappa were discovered, to also assume that these were the cities the Aryan invaders destroyed under the leadership of their god Indra, the 'city-destroyer', and that the dark-skinned indigenous people were the ones on whom they imposed their religion and their caste system." Shivraj Singh 18:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last try to get to an understanding

Shivraj, as Paul and I said, the Müller quote about the "uprooting" of Indian tradition can stay in, and some sentence about it too. But this quote does not show what the accompanying paragraph ("It is wrong to say...") states. It's about cultural superiority, that's simply not the same thing as racial superiority. And even if that quote proved what you think it proves, we could still not keep the paragraph as it stands. We can't state the claim that Müller had a racist background as a simple fact. Per WP:NPOV (read it, please please please!), such a claim has to be attributed to a reputable secondary source, and you haven't brought such a one forward. Please do not try to re-introduce that paragraph unchanged again, it is absolutely unacceptable. If you must, write something new that expresses what you want to express more precisely. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj

I agree with Paul B and Lukas on this matter, we wikipedians look for the facts not hearsay, It will be indeed much helpful if you provide with any reputable secondary source of proof that Max Muller had a racist background.

Satyameva Jayate - Truth Alone Triumphs

--Ganesh 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys are you even reading what is posted? Muller is ready to uproot 3000 year beliefs of Hindus to show them the superiority of his own Aryans. Why is this not a racist comment? Why is there a need for more proof? Shivraj Singh 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh excels in lunacy, sheer unambiguous lunacy. His tone, his rant, his muddled scholarship, his pathetic sense of nationalism evoke nothing less than contemptuous disregard. He should do himself the greatest favour by joining the revisionist wing of the BJP. [written by an anonymous author]

---

I find the context in which this quote regarding "uprooting" stands now very illuminating and I elaborate in the hope that Mr. Shivraj Singh might understand.

Müller distanced himself from [the dispute about value-judgement of pagan or undermining Christian religion], and remained within the Lutheran faith in which he had been brought up. He several times expressed the view that a "reformation" within Hinduism needed to occur comparable to the Christian Reformation. In his view, "if there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed.... Whenever we can trace back a religion to its first beginnings, we find it free from many blemishes that affected it in its later states". He used his links with the Brahmo Samaj in order to encourage such a reformation on the lines pioneered by Ram Mohan Roy.

In this context Müller wrote a letter to his wife, in reply to her concerns that he was undermining Christianity:

The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3000 years.[4]"

Being a Lutheran is significant as Lutherans understand their own faith as the result of an uprooting of the customs and belief-structures of the church of the pre-reformation era. Luther translated the Bible into common vernacular so that people might go back to the sources of their faith and re-discover the truth which had overgrown with obscuring ideas and customs. Hence, I conclude, that his point about "uprooting" was a realization that the true Hindu religion had to be re-discovered and for that many aspects of a popular cult had to be uprooted. I happen to agree that this is still one of the major difficulties in true interreligious dialogue. Gschadow 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivanka Kovacevic quote

Why do I revert the Ivanka Kovacevic quote Shivraj put in?

1. Kovacevic is not an expert; she is an entirely unnotable literary critic who once wrote a dissertation or something about English novels and now seems to be teaching Croatian literature somewhere.
2. The article cited isn't about Müller but about some other guy; for all we know, she might mention Müller only in a single sentence.
3. The article was written for a Yugoslavian journal in 1975, which means that it will clearly have its own anti-Western, anti-imperialist, Marxist agenda.
4. None of us has actually read the article, the only thing we have is the online abstract (which Shivraj copy-and-pasted verbatim from here: [3].) If you see the abstract in its context, it becomes pretty clear that Kovacevic's paper is probably little more than a POV rant in itself. (But of course, we don't know that.)

All in all, just another attempt at Shivraj to heap up anything and everything that he thinks makes Müller look bad, without regard to quality or relevance. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Er, putting aside the amusing but generally irrelevant discussion of racism (for the record, the most sophisticated folks I've run into from the subcontinent seem to be more interested in preserving the good old days of the Raj), what is really difficult in this tale is the repetitiveness. Some basic copy-editing may be in order? --djenner 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This tale? Could you be slightly less opaque? Ae you referring to this talk page or to the article itself? If the latter, what repetition do you have in mind? Paul B 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)