Frits Staal’s Bird Watching
Sunday, 8. February 2009 - 9:16 PM
Introduction
JK concludes his excellent post with some serious humour:
So I am not sure if this research is of the Ganesha phallus quality. If you have seen any paper or book by anyone else, please leave a comment. [Ed: hyperlink in original stripped out]
I read Frits Staal’s modestly-sized scholarly paper [link thanks: JK] on Mantras over three days. I’m posting this after fully recovering from the traumatic experience. His paper doesn’t meet the Ganesha phallus standard simply because there’s nothing there which qualifies for any standard. And I think the whole business of research methodology, footnoting, references, and quoting is a fake charade. I have often held that commonsense is inversely proportional to your academic qualification. As we shall see, Frits Staal exemplifies this really well.
Mantras as Meaningless Sounds
Mantras are sacred to Hindus. What first comes to mind when we speak about Mantras? A sense of loftiness accompanied by a kind of sanctity. Even a Hindu not well-versed with the nuances of Mantra intuitively senses that something “divine” or “other-worldly” is associated with every Mantra. In a very crude sense, a Mantra is to some people, a cost-benefit equation: you chant the Gayatri Mantra for spiritual upliftment, the Maha Mrityunajaya to ward off the fear of death, the Surya Mantras for health, and so on. Why, you chant just the “primordial sound(sic),” “OM” to get yet another benefit. Whether these benefits really accrue or or not is not the point. What is immediately discernible is that every mantra is associated with some God or principle. In other words, it has a very specific meaning.
This was the generally-accepted, received wisdom for a few thousand years. Yet there is a time in every received wisdom’s education when there arrives a scholar extraordinarie who turns the received wisdom on its head (with due apologies to Emerson). Frits Staal is this scholar extraordinaire who
… [argues] that in Vedic ritual, as in mantra recitation, the function of language is phonetic and syntactic, not semantic. This implies that neither ritual, nor mantras, should be regarded as a kind of language; for the primary semantic distinction, that between meaningful and meaningless, which is basic to language in all its uses, is absent from ritual and mantras. I also drew a further conclusion: syntax in language has a ritual origin, and language developed from syntactic structures to which meanings were added subsequently…
If you’ve managed to actually understand this at the first reading, I bow down to you in reverence. Either that or you are Frits Staal himself. However, it is a tribute to JK’s indomitable spirit, which shattered Staal’s maze, so I’ll simply borrow his pithy summation:
Analyzing the sounds he came to the conclusion that mantras could belong to a pre-language era since:
- Mantras are language independent: Anything in language can be translated whereas mantras remain the same in all languages.
- Mantras, even though they seem to be in a language like Sanskrit, are not used for their meaning.
- Mantras follow patterns, like refrain, which is not seen in language.
JK’s summary perfectly nails the exact problem with Western Indology scholarship. This school of scholarship looks in the most unlikeliest places to find something that doesn’t exist there and then concludes: see, I told you, it isn’t there! In a paper devoted to studying Mantras, why is Staal bothered about whether they existed in the pre-language era? But as we see, this serves a point: to prove that Mantras are basically a string of sounds mindlessly repeated just for the kicks and therefore meaningless. It becomes very easy to reach this conclusion if you “prove” that Mantras belonged to the pre-language age: when bark-covered humans roamed around the earth emitting meaningless sounds called Mantras. Staal’s boundless genius shows the way. Back to JK:
The clincher for the pre-language theory came when the sound patterns were analyzed to find the nearest equivalent in nature…It was split into patterns… comparing it to bird songs, it was found that the patterns were similar and such patterns were not found any where else….by comparing the patterns of mantras and certain birds, it is possible to find which birds influenced the mantras. There is research which found patterns in the composition of Igor Stravinsky and a bird usually found in the region where he worked…. Thus some of the mantra sounds were found to be inspired by the songs of Blyth’s Reed Warbler and Whitethroat – two birds which migrate to India.
There are examples of bird-human interaction in Vedas and Upanishads. Some vedic chools have been named after birds — like kausika after the owl or taittiriya after the partridge. D. D. Kosambi believed that Vedic clans were totemic. Then there is the story of Satyakama Jabala..
Staal’s paper requires dissection at multiple levels. We can safely start at language.
Mantra and Language
One of the ways of defining language is to call it an ordered reptition of sounds. Over time, the human brain assigns some form, order, and structure to this repetition. Further, these sounds are associated with certain objects and experiences. In another dimension, the human brain has an “idea” that needs to be expressed through sound. Hence the word “meaning.” Thus, while objects and ideas can be expressed in exact terms, we don’t have this exactitude in expressing experiences. For instance, what prevents us from taking “hot” to mean “cold?” Or why is “scald” similar to “burn” yet different from it in exact meaning? From this, it is clear that all meanings are conventions, not mathematical certainties. Meanings are what humans assign to sounds. The only differentiator between why “human sounds” have meaning and animal and bird sounds don’t have meaning is the brain. If you were an animal/bird, wouldn’t you be amused/puzzled at the strange sounds the two-legged humans make? Thankfully, there’s no animal or bird named Frits Staal.
Even in the realm of human languages, doesn’t our experience with hearing foreign languages validate my aforementioned point? Why do other languages than our native tongues sound to us like meaningless sounds? Language-based jokes are routine in popular culture simply because we don’t speak those tongues and thus find them funny. In other words, we don’t understand them. Music is supposed to be universal yet, at a level we actually comprehend music. Why can’t I figure out the lyrics of Michael Jackson’s songs despite my sincere attempts to understand them–this, despite knowing English?
There’s sufficient evidence here for me to reach Staal’s conclusion: Greek/Roman/Italian/English/French/German/Spanish/Mandarin/ sounds belong to a pre-language era and are thus meaningless strings of sounds. We clearly see that the “pre-language era” is a shrewd excuse to push Staal’s ill-understood concoction about Mantras.
Frits Staal’s comparitive analysis of the “sounds(sic)” of Mantras and bird sounds is amusing to say the least. But why stop at birds? Why didn’t he do the AA/BB/BE/AB kind of analysis with the sound of buffaloes or dogs? I’m sure his unmitigated genius would’ve unearthed some more synthetic pearls between these animal sounds and Mantra sounds. After all, he quotes the story of Satyakama Jabali. Which brings us to the Mantra schools derived from bird names. Staal commits the classic blunder, which is one of the defining traits of Western Indology scholars: taking symbolism literally. As he says in the essay, Indian sages were always “eager to gain knowledge and insight from birds.” Indian sages were so closely harmonious with nature in a way that is unfathomable today. Because they gained insights from birds doesn’t automatically mean that they began uttering sounds like birds, which they called Mantras. This is what Staal’s hypothesis amounts to. The Mantra schools named after birds is also a way of the sages showing their gratitude to these birds.
What is Mantra?
The word “Mantra” is derived as
Mananaat Traayate Iti Mantrah |
That which protects/uplifts by constant reflection upon it.
In other words, reflection upon its meaning. This singular derivation shows the meaninglessness of Frits Staal’s elaborate exertions trying to prove that Mantras are meaningless. While we are on this, what meaning does he make of meanings?
Interestingly, Staal uses a verse from Jaimintya Gramageyagana to show his prowess in detecting patterns. I’ll make it easier for him with a verse from Bhrigu Valli.
Haaa vuuu haaa vuuu haaa vuuu|
Ahamannamahamannamahamannam||
Ahamannaadohamannaadah|
Ahaggg slokakrta hagggssloka krta hagggssloka krt||
Plenty of patterns here and sounds equally meaningless. And they are in Sanskrit. And I know their meaning. But this is another example of Classic Western Indology Scholarship Mistake #2: Confounding Vedic Sanskrit with “mainstream” or secular Sanskrit. Using the latter to expound the meaning of Vedic verses is the way of the Ignorant.
Every mantra is typically composed in a specific metre, rhyme and follows a set pattern of alphabetical arrangement. You cannot interchange or change a single alphabet or word without distorting or destroying the original meaning. What does this say about Staal’s remark that Mantras are language-independent, meaningless, and the fact that they don’t have poetic devices like refrains? If this is the case, why doesn’t Staal compose a Mantra in English or any other language he knows well? Better still, he can compose them in “no language.” If it sounds nonsensical, it is what his paper propounds–language-independent sound. The fact that he hasn’t done so is proof enough that his theory is just that: a theory spun well-enough to get a PHD.
On the other hand, no other language has such evolved theories of sound and meaning as Sanskrit. The fact that a whole load of Sanskrit poetry lays down these theories in layman terms is yet another hallmark of its genius. Look at how Kalidasa hands us the distilled version of sound theory in this verse:
Vaagarthaviva Sampruktau Vaagartha Pratipattaye|
Jagatah Pitarau Vande Parvati Parameshwarau||Just like a word and its meaning are inseparable
I bow to the Shiva and Parvati, the parents of this world.
JK also shows us a side-effect of Staal’s baseless speculation.
Wood then shows the 2006 athirathram – a 12 day vedic ceremony – and mentions that certain sounds recited in this ceremony takes years to learn but have no meaning. When brahmins were asked for meaning, they did not know. They simply knew that it was handed down.
I’ve seen Wood’s documentary. It isn’t worth commenting except that he is a layman version of Staal. Wood is just another Westerner thoroughly enchanted with the “exotic” India but can never understand it. If Staal–for all Indology scholarship–is compelled to display his ignorance about something as simple as Mantras, which Indians understand intuitively, I can only pity Wood. Also, he asked the wrong Brahmins.
Conclusion
Staal’s paper again reaffirms my conclusive faith in the utter uselessness of Western Indological scholarship. His bird-sound-comparison is fundamentally flawed because he bases his thesis on disciplines unrelated to Indology like ornithology. Unlike Semitic faiths, genuine Indological scholarship is only possible if you live Hinduism. Textual reading will get you professorships, not insights. Worse, as in Staal’s case, they lead to ill-understood speculations and even worse, perversions like Wendy’s Children have unleashed on the world.
As an observant commenter on JK’s blog notes:
…people who are not from the system better not attempt to interpret the hymns..
This is a caution not a prohibition because Hinduism is an experiential religion. Unless you are rooted in its experience and tradition, you’re bound to produce the meandering mass of misunderstanding that is Staal’s paper. Secondly, Staal’s paper is not in English…err…its cryptic style of writing refuses comprehension, which is a reflection of the disarray in the author’s own mind. Only a handful of scholars like David Frawley and Elst have taken the pain to get to the roots of understanding Sanatana Dharma. Note the difference in clarity between these scholars and Staal.
The reason why Staal and his ilk fail so miserably is their approach to studying Hinduism. It is a mercenary approach, which hardly works. The spirit of Sanatana Dharma is one of opening up: opening up our entire being to understand it. Here’s a hint why Staal is not Frawley.
Recall how Valmiki wrote Ramayana. When he saw the birds killed so cruelly, he let out this heart-rending verse.
mA niShAda pratiShThA.n tvamagamaH shAshvatI.n samAH |
yatkrauJNchamithunAdekamavadhIH kAmamohitam.h ||Oh Cruel hunter, may you suffer terribly for killing two birds in love with each other. (Ed: My crude translation)
This was the seed-verse of the Ramayana, born out of limitless compassion, and an intimate feeling of oneness with the entire cosmos. Which is why India was able to produce a Ramayana while the West had to content itself with writing (mostly meaningless) tomes on it.
Valmiki’s bird-watching led to the Ramayana while Frits Staal’s bird-watching led to clueless conjecturing.
Tags: About Mantras, Commentary, 2nd Rate Western Scholarship, Clueless Indology Scholarship, Confused Frits Staal, Frits Staal, Hindu Philosophy, Hinduism, How Old are our Mantras, Indian Philosophy, Indian Society, JK’s Post about Mantras, Misinterpreting Mantras, Santana Dharma, Varnam, West Can’t Understand India, Wood is also Clueless
8. February 2009 - 10:00 PM
Very well written Sandeep.
9. February 2009 - 3:11 AM
Sandy,
Isn’t there a POV in Sanskrit tradition that there is no place for rhetoric because the acme of scholarship is the ability to frame and find a unique set of words that are so specific to the context that no misunderstanding is possible?
9. February 2009 - 9:43 AM
Perhaps, Staal should look into “Hora Shastra” and guess the longevity of his thesis! or may be he would consider “hora” itself as a meaningless word
9. February 2009 - 2:13 PM
Sandeep,
A very well written post!
Regards,
9. February 2009 - 4:32 PM
well written! similarly care to analyse wendy doniger’s piece of sh!t in the times of india, this sunday ?
link:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOI&BaseHref=TOIM/2009/02/08&PageLabel=17&EntityId=Ar01702&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
9. February 2009 - 6:39 PM
Excellent article Sandeep.
Also in addition to exposing such lowly western scholarship, the need of the hour is for half-baked, yet interested people like me to understand what all these rituals exactly meant, and what kind of people exactly wrote the mantras.
That would make Indology not just a reactive topic full of rebuttals and exposes, but something for everyone to learn and know about our ancestors.
9. February 2009 - 8:51 PM
Excellent article Sandeep.
10. February 2009 - 12:47 AM
I didn’t get around to reading the complete post. I kept going around in circles trying to figure out why mantras have been likened to a cost-benefit equation. Appears flimsy.
10. February 2009 - 1:44 PM
Sandeep,
Can you,if possible,give the meaning of the verse from Bhriguvalli. this verse i have heard it chanted many times(ahamannam).I am particularly interested in “Haaa Vuuu”.
The Kanchi Periyava (Sri Chandrashekharendra Saraswathi Swaminah) had once remarked that not every mantra in the vedic corpus has profound meaning.It is the shraddha and tapas of the reciter that gives the potency to these ‘ordinary’mantras.
Jnanis aver that ultimately that it is Iswara who ensures the Law of Karma.
Is it also not a fact that the Upanishads are the Jnana Kaandah.And it is not easy to follow the karma Kaandah in this age.This is no excuse for wanton behaviour.And souls punctilious in their Nitya Karmaanushtana are found even today.
Is it also not a fact that the Veda has many Kaamya Yagnas,which are not obligatory?
Also the riks have multiple meanings from the view point of yagya or allegory or philosophy.Sri Sayana the greatest authority of the current epoch is quoted as accepting multiple interpretations.
That Sri Krishna and the Guru (-The Supreme in different forms) have shown the Light to us.
Just my 2 paise.
Anon Coward,
The cost is discipline,regular routine,faith,concentration,shaucha not very easy for lesser mortals.The benefits are obvious.The basic principle is we recite with faith and the Devata rewards us.
10. February 2009 - 7:36 PM
Warning
himmi discourse ahead
It is not beyond imagination that the Vedic poets were sometimes carried away by their rhetoric,prosody and the wonderful language which was the gift of the Gods.
The Vedic seers saw ‘Vac’ as Divine,not something to be abused by human beings.It was a gift not to be wasted or abused or frittered away.Speech was exalted.
Chatvari vakparimata padani taani vidurbrahmana ye manishinaha
Guhyaa Threeni Nihita Nengyanthi Turiyam Vaacho Manushyaa Vadanthi-Rig Veda I.164.45
(Four are the definite grades of speech.The brahmanaas who are wise know them.Three are deposited in secret and are motionless.Men speak the fourth grade of Speech)A Jnani decribes this as: Vayu arising from the muladhara ascends through the navel,heart and throat to produce audible sound.This was the level of understanding.I have not able to give the sanskrit script.It also indicates for a dhimmi like me,how much the seers valued this Divine Gift.
White christists envious of our tradition which predates the Greek Logos have ridiculed us as word worshippers.Ofcourse,they conveniently forget the Biblical reverence to the Word at the begining of Genesis.
The study of Sanskrit language by whites was the begining of modern phonetics.Unlike English or Greek,Samskritam has a perfect phonetic base.The white christists could not tolerate the truth about ancient indian achievements in grammar,logic and mathematics.Over and beyond that,Sanatana Dharma was imbued in Upaasana,Bhakti and Atma Vichara.
This is is the background for the “research” of these rascals.
Notwithstanding at all this,there might have been some exaggerated reverence to the power of mantras/rituals in the Later Vedic Age. We hear of a rig vedic poet comparing the recital of vedas to the croaking of a frog,showing how how free spirited these seers were.
I read with rage how the Witzel decribes the Shikshavalli of Taitriya Upanishas(containing Satyam Vada,Dharmam Chara,Maatru Devo Bhava,Svaadhyaya Pravachanaabyam Pramaditavyam) as a manual of proper behaviour.This which would seem to us as the heart of the Brahminic code of righteous conduct and the essence of Guru-Shishya relationship is seen as a manual of etiquette.
10. February 2009 - 9:19 PM
Na Pramaditatavyam.
11. February 2009 - 4:41 AM
Sandeep, great post. I could make sense of most of what you have written and some of what Staal has written, but had one question. What you do you mean when you say vedic version of Sanskrit and mainstream ’secular’ version of sanskrit? What’s the context?
2. July 2009 - 5:02 PM
What is controvertial about saying that syntax is something different from meaning? Some languages follow a subject-verb-object pattern, like many western languages; others a subject-object-verb pattern. One would be hard presssed to identify this as some sort of meaning determined difference; all Staal is saying is that there is a syntactical element to mantras, aside from both any meaning they may possess and the syntax of the language they are expressed in. It is this structure that is ‘meaningless’, though it may be used to convey meaning.
2. July 2009 - 9:22 PM
It is this structure that is ‘meaningless’, though it may be used to convey meaning.
I guess you do not realize how ridiculous your statement is.
The billions of cells in my body are “meaningless” although they make up a person who is singular.
While is why I dislike linguistics a la Chomsky–might be useful for getting computers to talk and such but does very little in understaning cultures and history. It is a shame that historical linguistics which studies a language in its cultural context is dying out–
2. July 2009 - 9:29 PM
I think it is just merely another form of “reductionism” which has become fashionable these days–. Just like when you read Nussbaum and Doniger (writing about India which they do not understand) they cannot writing without giving “Freudian” examples to fit their pathetic constructs. I read Doniger’s recent book on Indian history and was disgusted–what has Indology come to these days!
2. July 2009 - 9:51 PM
Which is why India was able to produce a Ramayana while the West had to content itself with writing (mostly meaningless) tomes on it.
That’s right. Literary criticism is the most meaningless form of study…unless the study of literature teaches you something and enables you to create something…But culture everywhere is stagnant these days–and times of cultural decay is when literary criticism flourishes, intead of the culture creating something out of itself….
3. July 2009 - 7:46 AM
Iarissa,
Words have meaning, but what does the letter ‘a’ (or any other letter) ‘mean’?
This is not reductionism. Written words are composed of letters, but no-one is claiming that words are nothing but collections of letters (to continue this analogy); only that not everything about words has to do with meaning.
As Chomsky has said, there is a tendency to label anything mysterious or ill-understood about language (or about anything else, as I can see from your post) as having to do with meaning.
7. July 2009 - 4:38 AM
Your criticism of western indological scholarship has completely resonated with me.
Once I corresponded with Witzel and I got the same feeling.
In the name of rational/ critical thinking, Witzel and other indologists , literally, downlook upon fellow indians.
But at the same time I feel that the one who oppose these western indologist are too superstitious.( David Frawley et al)
I am in search of such a breed of indologist who are rational and at the same time have affection for hinduism, who have tried to understand hinduism from inside.( say by practising meditation, yoga or other aspects, by learning from some living guru.)
I have not found many in these category.
I just like one name : Saligrama Krishna Ramachandra Rao.
he was professor at NIMHANS, he has written many books, on hindu tradition.
If anybody knows any other names who are in the same league, please let me know.
My email address is npk107 at gmail dot com
My search is similar to one mentioned in earlier post.
I am quoting the words from previous post
“the need of the hour is for half-baked, yet interested people like me to understand what all these rituals exactly meant, and what kind of people exactly wrote the mantras.
That would make Indology not just a reactive topic full of rebuttals and exposes, but something for everyone to learn and know about our ancestors.”
7. July 2009 - 7:38 PM
As Chomsky has said, there is a tendency to label anything mysterious or ill-understood about language (or about anything else, as I can see from your post) as having to do with meaning.
I find Chomsky’s linguistics useful for understanding the structure of language–such research can be helpful in getting computers to talk one day.
However, this does not teach you about the cultural context of a langauge. Yes the physicist can laugh at literature–and think all sciences can be reduced to physics…but that does not mean that literature, art can be similarly reduced and explained away by science. And this does not mean that one is in favor of obscurantism and believing in the sense in which the Christian “believes” in a revealed truth. I am simply saying that each discipline has its limits and that while I have read Chomsky, reading him has helped very little in understanding the civilization of the Greeks or Indians–learning Sanskirt and Greek and studying literature associated with these languages will help you do that.
7. July 2009 - 7:39 PM
Which is why it is sad that historical linguistics is not much in fashion these days…
11. July 2009 - 9:22 PM
But then how does one explain that Panini’s work revived the study of linguistics in the West? In other words, it has been found that the relevance of Panini is not limited to Sanskrit, the language in which he wrote and was concerned with.
So if reading Panini can throw light on, say, English, why can’t reading Chomsky throw light on Sanskrit or Greek?
11. July 2009 - 9:48 PM
You above comment shows how little you understand the distinction–no one is saying that Chomsky has not contributed to linguistics. But reading Chomsky will not help you appreciate the Ramayana. There is no debate on this point: reading Panini helps you understand Sanskrit grammar. Most of what Chomsky deals with is understanding the structure of languages mostly taken in abstraction from its cultural setting–. Understanding Indian civilization requires reading its literature and philosophy–not what some linguist has to say about the structure of language in general. It is a matter of what your interests are: I found most of Chomsky uninteresting and did not learn much from him: maybe if you are into computers you might find it interesting…There is no debate concerning this matter–reading Wittgenstien will also not help me understand Indian civilization, although he too has written on language and logic. So we are debating issues that are not debatable. Reading Homer and what someone has to say about linguistics are two different things. Depends on what your interests are and I find reading such works by Staal useless…guess some PHD candidates keep busy writing stuff no one cares to read or stuff that does not contribute to anything…
12. July 2009 - 9:48 AM
Iarissa,
You are putting words in my mouth – I never said that reading Chomsky would help one understand the Ramayana or anything like that. To get back to my original reason for posting here (I was trying to defend Frits Staal’s views from what struck me as some rather reactionary criticism), Staal is simply arguing for the existence of cultural universals, specifically in the area of ritual, much like Chomsky argued for linguistic universals that he claimed were revealed by deep structure grammar. My point in bringing up Panini was to point out that if it is acceptable to adapt the works of an ancient Sanskrit grammarian to modern non-indic languages, then why not derive some equally general insights from Vedic ritual? The reason Staal focuses on Vedic ritual and not something else is because:
1.He is familiar with it.
2.Vedic rituals are among the most complex and elaborate in the world
3.There exists a huge body of reflexive work in Sanskrit on the meaning and structure of ritual (in the Brahmanas, and so on)
And Staal even claims that his ideas were anticipated in this material: According to him (in ‘Discovering the Vedas’) one ‘Kautsa’ possibly from around the middle Upanisadic period, claimed that mantras were meaningless and were unlike the statements of ordinary language. As Staal says, this should not be interpreted as scepticism or positivism, but simply an attempt to place mantras in their proper context, as a part of the special activity of ritual, just as language is for meaning.
As you say, I suppose it depends on where one’s interests lie. If one is more interested in the specifics of Indian culture than what you call ‘abstractions’, then I suppose that Staal would not be the first author to read; but then just possibly there were Indian writers themselves who were also interested in such abstractions. Unfortunately, like a lot of ancient writers (including the Greeks and Chinese) they probably knew little and cared less about cultures outside their own; it wasn’t until the Stoics in the Greek world and perhaps the Buddhists of Asoka’s era that one finds explicit cosmopolitan interests. But such interests can also exist implicitly, I would claim.
12. July 2009 - 8:29 PM
Well I think that it is a matter of religion having a living meaning. I have also studied some logic and a bit of linguistics, but as the author of this blog says, reciting mantras is someting much more than what Staal speaks of when it comes to being a part of a living religion… The entire religious experience cannot be disssected away like this. Even if mantras cannot be analyzed away, they have meaning for the people that recite it…Perhaps some people do not feel the sanctity when they are not a part of the living culture…
I also find much Indological scholarship very dissappointing. You can learn some things such as relative dates of compositions, some historical facts but you always feel that something is lacking when you read it–and I think part of it has to do with the fact that those writing are not a part of the culture. For instance, when you read Wendy Doniger her writings strikes you as the product of a very superficial understanding of India…
There is some Indological scholarship that is very uselful such as the compilation of dictionaries, preservation of texts, and understanding the culture out of which a certain works came forth. But I gain very little from the kind of analysis presented by Staal–Just as I gain nothing from reading Wendy Doniger…
There does not have to be a contradiction between taking part in religious activity and one’s actual understanding or even skepticism towards a religion. For instance, Julius Caesar was an atheist but also performed functions as the priest of Jupiter. This is they way it is for Hindus. Even though Hindus might not understand everything about their religion from a historical point of view, they are still a part of a continuous living religion. This is very different from Western civilization that does not have a continuity from Greco-Roman times in the way HIndu culture has. Westerners are cut off from ritual, and do not understand it.
12. July 2009 - 8:36 PM
Read William James–The Varieties of Religious Experience…It is just about that which is missing in Stahl and those who dissect texts which have to do with religious experience without understanding them. I am all for understanding and against obscurantism, however some kinds of scholarship is not very meaningful not do they provide any useful use.
12. July 2009 - 10:52 PM
but then just possibly there were Indian writers themselves who were also interested in such abstractions. Unfortunately, like a lot of ancient writers (including the Greeks and Chinese) they probably knew little and cared less about cultures outside their own; it wasn’t until the Stoics in the Greek world and perhaps the Buddhists of Asoka’s era that one finds explicit cosmopolitan interests. But such interests can also exist implicitly, I would claim.
It is not a question of being critical of ones cultural traditions, many Hindus are– mcuh more so than you happen to think–its just that this kind of analysis is mostly meaningless–does not seem to benefit either scholarship or the readers. What you do not undersstand is that a Hindu regardless of the intellectual attitude towards the religion will enjoy reciting the mantras and performing activities as a part of his larger community–he is a part of a living religion–also it might be uplifting for him in a way that someone outside the religion might not understand.
I think the questions you bring forth are dealt with by William James in the “Varieties of Religious Experience.” He writes from a Christian perspective but understands that religion encompasses something larger than Christianity. Such a book, I learned something from–but what do you learn from Staal?
12. July 2009 - 11:35 PM
One thing I disagree with Sandeep is that just because a scholar is “sympathetic” towards Hindus, does not mean that they are high calibre people. I am willing to listen to someone even if he is anti-HIndu, provided that he has something worthwhile for me to learn. I read and form a judgment.
I have come across countless of these Hippee type foreigners who profess to understand and teach Hinduism, I think they do a far greater disservice. I would rather learn from someone who is not nice to HIndus, given they have something meaningful to say. Everything in Hinduism is made by these hippee new age types into some kind of hocus-pocus new age sutff which is supposed to be at oddds with clear thinking, with the result that Hindusim get placed on par with all they new age nonsense going around…
Hinduism allows for different levels of understanding. I am not going to get angry with my father in law for making a big deal of a guru, whose spirituality is suspect for me. That is his understanding. However, I expect much more from people of higher intellect.
The fact that Sanskrit is a highly organized, systematic language shows that at some time our forefathers were capable of clear thinking…One hopes HIndus return to that level of discipline and scarifice which is required to produce anyting great.
18. July 2009 - 7:12 PM
Regarding the article writeen by Doniger that someone as posted above, I cannot but laugh–I mean some hooligans who beat up womean are the product of a puritan strain in Hinduism? Wow! So what are the thieves that rob someone’s home? What strain of Hinduism do they issue from. A classic case of an armchair academic making connections where none exist!
As for the warnings about women written in those texts, they are correct. Marry a marry a stupid woman and the kinds turn out stupid as well. This is common sense.
18. July 2009 - 7:13 PM
Regarding the article writeen by Doniger that someone as posted above, I cannot but laugh–I mean some hooligans who beat up womean are the product of a puritan strain in Hinduism? Wow! So what are the thieves that rob someone’s home? What strain of Hinduism do they issue from? A classic case of an armchair academic making connections where none exist!
As for the warnings about women written in those texts, they are correct. Marry a marry a stupid woman and the kinds turn out stupid as well. This is common sense.
18. July 2009 - 7:17 PM
Regarding the article written by Doniger that someone as posted above, I cannot but laugh–I mean some hooligans who beat up womean are the product of a puritan strain in Hinduism? Wow! So what are the thieves that rob someone’s home? What strain of Hinduism do they issue from? A classic case of an armchair academic making connections where none exist!
As for the warnings about women written in those texts, they are correct. Marry a marry a stupid woman and the children turn out stupid as well. This is common sense…
18. July 2009 - 7:29 PM
In response to Wendy’s article, there are many funny instances of warnings about women in the texts as well which are psychologically very poignant–you need not only take such morbid examples. Usually when someone is perfroming severe “tapasya”–i.e. gaining knowledge which makes a man god-like, Indra becomes jealous and what does he do to break the “tapasya”?…Place an apsara in front of the one perfroming “tapasya”.
19. July 2009 - 12:58 AM
Re: Doniger’s article someone put up on a comment above
Hindu society was no worse than that of ancient Greece when it came to women. But why these scholars like to single out only Hindus, is something I cannot understand. Even a hooligan act is supposed to arise from a puritan strain in Hinduism–This is why such scholars are not taken seriously perhaps.
All ancient societies that produced great civilizations were male dominated. So? What’s the point of dwelling on it? The times are now different and women have access to education, although much remains to be done to make all women beneficiaries of equal rights. The classical heritage of the Western world was also male dominated and did not accord much power to women. Greeks also had very mysogynist views of women: one just has to read Simonides on the different temper and character of women. So if some Greek hooligans were to beat up women, what would westerners say if some academic were to write articles that the hooligans are followers of a strain of thought that stems from Simonides? How ridiculous that would be. But it does not appear ridiculous when Hindus are analyzed that way? How come?
19. July 2009 - 7:25 AM
Larissa, what do you feel about “equality of the sexes”. Are men and women “equal”?
19. July 2009 - 7:51 AM
I believe that men and women are different but that women should have equal opportunity for education and work (that kind of work in which they can perform as well as men).
And in general I do not believe all men are created equal (there will always be differences in natural abilities and differences owing to upbringing), but that a just society would aim to provide equality of opportunity for all.
19. July 2009 - 8:24 AM
I would agree. But such decisions must be left to society’s institutions and should not be legislated upon and enforced, which is normally the case with liberal establishments.
19. July 2009 - 8:32 PM
But such decisions must be left to society’s institutions and should not be legislated upon and enforced
No. The law has to step in in certain cases. For instance, in banning polygamy (which is still practiced by certain peoples), to make discrimination on basis of caste illegal, and to eradicate the concept of “untouchability” (go to places like Bihar and UP), to eradicate child marriages and so on. It is not so much the “laws” that are a problem in India but the fact that everyone is not made to obey them–and when the “laws” exempt certain peoples from its orbit, then that is when people begin to question their fairness…Which is why you have conservative parties in India aiming for a uniform civil code–no exceptions to the law–the conservative party should stick to this concept–questions about India’s history I find are largely extraneous details and need not be made political issues…
20. July 2009 - 12:55 PM
Larissa – How can the State legislate any law that the society rejects? If the State still legislates and enforces such laws, it will have to be under a dictatorship. Such force only perverts society further.
As for the UCC, I wonder why such conservatives have yet to draw up a prototype. Is it because this must go against their ideological grain? That’s my conclusion.
20. July 2009 - 9:10 PM
How can the State legislate any law that the society rejects?
I am sorry but there are certain things that need to be legislated even when society rejects it–For example, civil rights for black people was made difficult by society but enforced by the supreme court in the U.S. Government cannot control human nature and people will still discriminate in the social sphere –but the job of government is to make sure such things do not happen at school or at the work place. Affirmative action has outlived its usefulness in the US it seems to me–In India it is sad that they copy affirmative action as a handy solution to the problems but cannot conceive of providing equality of opportunity which is a far greater task–
The problem in India is not so much the laws that are legislated are not good or against society, but they are not applied to everyone, across all spetrum of society. And India will never be a real democracy until that happens. You don’t need a dictator for this, just a strong central government that is not corrupt.
20. July 2009 - 11:06 PM
Larissa, I think abnormal situations sometimes demand abnormal “correctives” and then these really do not work. And then it’s time to get real. The question being -
So, blacks and whites are happy now? Blacks feel “equal” to Whites now?
What do you mean by “equality of opportunity”? Proportionate employment? Or affirmative employment? Or hounding employers because *it seemed* they did not hire the “right color” enough?
What laws in India are you referring to?
Let’s get specific now.
Btw, I am a supporter of Dalit reservations in India. I’ll also say why. Because they are our own. They are Hindus who got left behind.
21. July 2009 - 2:21 AM
“So, blacks and whites are happy now? Blacks feel “equal” to Whites now?”
Well America provides for equality of opportunity. Whether blacks feel equal as “whites” is not a question I can answer, but it was because there was civil rights that all immigrants in America are treated fairly today.
I do not believe in affirmative action for anyone–It destroys merit and backfires ultimately.
Affirmative action in India seems to be a way for the government to continue to do do nothing substantial and maintain the status quo i.e. an excuse for laziness not to build more universities and schools…
21. July 2009 - 2:26 AM
By equality of opportunity I mean a system based on merit–and financial help for studies if you are at the bottom of the economic ladder…
24. October 2009 - 5:26 AM
An excellent post on the second rate western indology. A guy calling himself ‘agniveer’ also does good work in exposing such filth. Western indologists , as you have rightly indicated do not seem to understand Indian symbolism(because of their limited conditioned thinking and background). They interpreted many symbols and metaphorical renderings in a literal way and blundered by saying that the cow was slaughtered in vedic times, whereas i read an excellent translation in the Indian spirit and each of these instances in Rig vedam is a misinterpretation. Similarly the aryan invasion theory and reducing the history of India to 3000 years etc are the figment of their imagination.
Keep up your good work.