“One of the more puzzling aspects of this whole affair is that Malhotra praises my work effusively while vilifying the work of my mentor and dissertation supervisor, Sheldon Pollock. Pollock is literally the first person I thank in the acknowledgements of Unifying Hinduism, and knowledgeable readers will see that it is chock-full of “Pollockian” ideas.”
– Andrew J Nicholson
(in the context of current debate on plagiarism – western plagiarism of Hindu original work, but also specific allegations about works of Rajiv Malhotra)
If Andrew Nicholson is puzzled by above, I can only imagine his reaction (or lack of it) if he realizes that:
(1) I always considered Dr. P V Vartak as my inspiration.
(2) In my first book, I not only disagree with his (Vartak) proposed dates for all pre-war and post-war events surrounding Mahabharata War, but also show them to be wrong…especially Bhishma Nirvana.
(3) In my second book, I show how proposal of Dr. Vartak is wrong (7300 BCE) for the timing of Ramayana, present my proposal for 12200 BCE, and dedicate the book to Dr. Vartak, because my work would not have been possible in the absence of his (Vartak) ‘Wastav Ramayana’.
In addition, if Andrew Nicholson had studied Shankara and his Advaita Vedanta, he would have also realized the following…
“In the field of thought, you have more often to refute the theories of those nearer to you than those more remote. Shankaracharya did not refute the atheists so much as he refuted Samkhyavada, which is closer to his theory. That is because what is close to us differs from us only in some small detail. Thus there is a greater probability of being misled. So the closest ideas have to be formulated and defended first. Later, it does become quite clear as to where the real point of difference is.”
– Acharya (Bharat Ratna) Vinoba Bhave
Link to original debate…