Meluhhan, from how I read it, you're mistaken about what/whom Dhu is referring to with his statement: "Is this the latest indological trend: searching for symbolic portrayals within the tradition." He was talking about your choosing to misinterpret the excerpt from Kesava Kasmiri's commentary on the MBh as a symbolic interpretation (which choice is indeed very much in line with an indological trend. I'm glad Dhu also noticed this, as it means I haven't been imagining it). Dhu was not describing Kesava Kashmiri's statements.
I was actually going to try to say exactly what Dhu did, but I noticed he has beat me to it, and in two short lines too (vs probably 2 posts at least from me):
[quote name='dhu' date='01 March 2016 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1456838164' post='117958']
The above passage seems more of a commentary than a "symbolic interpretation" or should we say transsubstantiation. Is this the latest indological trend: searching for symbolic portrayals within the tradition.
[/quote](The transsubstantiation dig was a hoot, btw.)
In fact, I don't see any degree of symbolic interpretation in the line highlighted by Meluhhan. Merely explication, justification from shruti.
Anyway, traditional Hindus have always pointed to detail within detail in the itihAsas to explain what's going on at various levels (e.g. not just how various events or phrases in the text are foreshadowing later events/the climax, but double meanings like what action X/statement X against character Y means when character Y is actually a God that has manifested in the appearance of a human: what seem insignificant, earthly lines - when Y is assumed to be a mere human - end up having totally different and deeply knowing meanings when statement X is uttered knowing that Y is actually a God). Traditional Hindus explicating heathen texts (and the MBh and Ramayanam are heathen texts, not secular ones) always relate any features - especially tell-tale ones - back to their significance in the overall narrative**. That's because the itihAsas were never "mere" history. They're certainly not symbolic (at least, definitely not merely so). Both the reductions are indological, though the former is preferred by hardout IE-ists and the latter by new-agey indologicals. But neither is a crime evident in the paragraph of Kesava Kashmiri's commentary Meluhhan provided. His note is just commentary: useful, relevant.
** Even heathens of non-Hindu heathenisms do the same. For traditional Hindus, itihAsas (and parts of the puranas) are religio-history.
I was actually going to try to say exactly what Dhu did, but I noticed he has beat me to it, and in two short lines too (vs probably 2 posts at least from me):
[quote name='dhu' date='01 March 2016 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1456838164' post='117958']
The above passage seems more of a commentary than a "symbolic interpretation" or should we say transsubstantiation. Is this the latest indological trend: searching for symbolic portrayals within the tradition.
[/quote](The transsubstantiation dig was a hoot, btw.)
In fact, I don't see any degree of symbolic interpretation in the line highlighted by Meluhhan. Merely explication, justification from shruti.
Anyway, traditional Hindus have always pointed to detail within detail in the itihAsas to explain what's going on at various levels (e.g. not just how various events or phrases in the text are foreshadowing later events/the climax, but double meanings like what action X/statement X against character Y means when character Y is actually a God that has manifested in the appearance of a human: what seem insignificant, earthly lines - when Y is assumed to be a mere human - end up having totally different and deeply knowing meanings when statement X is uttered knowing that Y is actually a God). Traditional Hindus explicating heathen texts (and the MBh and Ramayanam are heathen texts, not secular ones) always relate any features - especially tell-tale ones - back to their significance in the overall narrative**. That's because the itihAsas were never "mere" history. They're certainly not symbolic (at least, definitely not merely so). Both the reductions are indological, though the former is preferred by hardout IE-ists and the latter by new-agey indologicals. But neither is a crime evident in the paragraph of Kesava Kashmiri's commentary Meluhhan provided. His note is just commentary: useful, relevant.
** Even heathens of non-Hindu heathenisms do the same. For traditional Hindus, itihAsas (and parts of the puranas) are religio-history.