Talk:Luis González-Reimann

By Sachi Anjunkar

Luis González-Reimann (1948–2022) was a Professor of South Asian Studies at University of California, Berkeley until 2022^[1]. According to his university profile, he taught undergraduate courses on Hinduism, Mythology, and the Indian Epics.

He demonstrates a lack of understanding of ancient Indian traditions and the Rg Veda, leading to interpretations that fail to capture the depth and nuance of these foundational texts and cultural contexts.

In 2016, he signed a letter^[2]^[3] addressed to the State Board of Education, California Department of Education, dated May 17, 2016. The letter stated the following:

"There is no established connection between Hinduism and the Indus Civilization."
"It is inappropriate to remove mention of the connection of caste to Hinduism."

Publications related to India or Hindu Dharma[edit]

Journal Articles[edit]

González-Reimann, Luis. The Divinity of Rāma in the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki. Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 34, 2006, pp. 203-220. DOI: 10.1007/s10781-005-5018-4.
González-Reimann, Luis. Ending the Mahābhārata: Making a Lasting Impression. International Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 15, 2011, pp. 101-110. DOI: 10.1007/s11407-011-9100-0.
In this article on Mahabharata, the author focuses exclusively on the Yudhisthira. He fails to survey the extent of literature of traditional scholarship on Yudhisthira and Mahabharata and shares his opinions in this paper devoid of this context making it an expression of his personal opinion vs a scholarly article on a sacred text.
- He refers to a fictitious concept of "Brahmanical dharma" ^[4]^[5]^[6]
- Demonstrates a limited engagement with the nuances of Indic traditions in referring to "why a critical edition was needed for a proper study of the history of the epic." indicating that no proper study is possible without a critical edition. The need for critical editions is contested within traditional scholarship as the text is studied and valued in all of its redactions.
- Doesn't have any understanding of the dating of the chronology of ancient texts.
  - He claims that the Mahabharata text post-dates King Asoka" ^[7]
  - He believes that the Ramayana happened after the Mahabharata in chronological order ^[8]"
- He feels that his idealized image of Yudhisthira as King Dharma should have been reflected in the text instead of what was authored by Vyasa ^[9]
- He places emphasis on certain details that appear less relevant from a traditional perspective, perhaps to support his particular narrative ^[10]
- He seems to seek a simplified definition of Dharma, which may not align with the intricate and multifaceted nature of the text and complains when he finds that this isn't the case ^[11]
González-Reimann, Luis. The Fall of the Indigo Jackal: The Discourse of Division in Pūrṇabhadra's Pañcatantra. By McComas Taylor. Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 68, 2009. DOI: 10.1017/S002191180999146X.
González-Reimann, Luis, and Julian Woods. Destiny and Human Initiative in the Mahabharata. Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 61, 2002. DOI: 10.2307/3096516.
Rocher, Ludo, Luis Reimann, and González-Reimann, Luis. Tiempo cíclico y eras del mundo en la India. Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 115, 1995, p. 349. DOI: 10.2307/604717.

Book Chapters[edit]

González-Reimann, Luis. The Rāmāyaṇa and the Yugas. 2021. DOI: 10.1163/9789004438224_014.
González-Reimann, Luis. Time in the Mahābhārata and the Time of the Mahābhārata. 2019.
González-Reimann, Luis. The Mahābhārata and the Yugas. 2019.
González-Reimann, Luis. The Yugas: Their Importance in India and their Use by Western Intellectuals and Esoteric and New Age Writers. Religion Compass, vol. 8, 2014. DOI: 10.1111/rec3.12139.

References[edit]

↑ Luis González-Reimann University Profile accessed 17 May, 2024
↑ 5-17 Kamala Visweswaran South Asian Faculty Group
↑ 5-17 Prof. S. Shankar et al support letter
↑ "Also, the emphasis on Yudhisthira as a righteous king who upholds and protects the Brahmanical dharma is better understood ..."
↑ "Dharma itself the Brahmanical dharma was ..."
↑ "Yudhisthira that became the prototypical and ideal Brahmanical dharmic king"
↑ "Also, the emphasis on Yudhisthira as a righteous king who upholds and protects the Brahmanical dharma is better understood in the light of his very plausible role as a reaction to the figure of the historical King Asoka"
↑ "We know that ultimately it was not Yudhisthira that became the prototypical and ideal Brahmanical dharmic king. In time, this role would be taken up by Rama, the hero of the Ramayana
↑ "The ending verses of the epic were the ideal place for the redactor to make a final declaration in this regard and to impress upon the audience this idealized image of Yudhisthira as King Dharma, in contrast with the more pragmatic and realistic Yudhisthira that we find in the narrative.
↑ "It is also noteworthy that there is no mention here of Krsna’s crucial role in Yudhisthira’s lie to Drona as well as in other adharmic acts during the war such as the manner in which Bheema killed Duryodhana. After all, it was at Krsna’s urging—with his assertion that dharma could be ignored—that Yudhisthira went ahead with the infamous lie to Drona, despite his qualms about it.
↑ "That was intended for Duryodhana and his allies, who won the dice game by cheating, but if this rule were to be applied to Yudhisthira and his brothers—and to Krsna himself it would mean that they should also die, as they used deceit during the war. As we have seen, there are occasions in the text when behaving adharmically by telling lies and using deceit is apologetically explained as acceptable on the part of the Pandavas, but the situation is often ambiguous and there are contradictions."

[1] Luis González-Reimann University Profile accessed 17 May, 2024

[2] 5-17 Kamala Visweswaran South Asian Faculty Group

[3] 5-17 Prof. S. Shankar et al support letter

[4] "Also, the emphasis on Yudhisthira as a righteous king who upholds and protects the Brahmanical dharma is better understood ..."

[5] "Dharma itself the Brahmanical dharma was ..."

[6] "Yudhisthira that became the prototypical and ideal Brahmanical dharmic king"

[7] "Also, the emphasis on Yudhisthira as a righteous king who upholds and protects the Brahmanical dharma is better understood in the light of his very plausible role as a reaction to the figure of the historical King Asoka"

[8] "We know that ultimately it was not Yudhisthira that became the prototypical and ideal Brahmanical dharmic king. In time, this role would be taken up by Rama, the hero of the Ramayana

[9] "The ending verses of the epic were the ideal place for the redactor to make a final declaration in this regard and to impress upon the audience this idealized image of Yudhisthira as King Dharma, in contrast with the more pragmatic and realistic Yudhisthira that we find in the narrative.

[10] "It is also noteworthy that there is no mention here of Krsna’s crucial role in Yudhisthira’s lie to Drona as well as in other adharmic acts during the war such as the manner in which Bheema killed Duryodhana. After all, it was at Krsna’s urging—with his assertion that dharma could be ignored—that Yudhisthira went ahead with the infamous lie to Drona, despite his qualms about it.

[11] "That was intended for Duryodhana and his allies, who won the dice game by cheating, but if this rule were to be applied to Yudhisthira and his brothers—and to Krsna himself it would mean that they should also die, as they used deceit during the war. As we have seen, there are occasions in the text when behaving adharmically by telling lies and using deceit is apologetically explained as acceptable on the part of the Pandavas, but the situation is often ambiguous and there are contradictions."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]