Wendy Doniger is a Syndrome
Wednesday, 25. November 2009 - 3:25 AM
Introduction
Wendy Doniger has bestowed a rather flippant interview in Outlook India on the eve of the release of her new book, The Hindus: An Alternative History. The title is sufficiently pompous, entirely faithful to Wendy Doniger’s career as an Indologist. Aditi Banerjee responded with a comprehensive rejoinder that yet again demonstrated Wendy’s credentials as an honest scholar of Indology. Aditi’s almost line-by-line dissection of the interview makes a good, although old observation: a scholarly work should stand or fall on its own merit, and using victimhood both as a means to deflect valid criticism as well as to artificially inflate the value of scholarship is in poor taste. However, Wendy Doniger or her scholarship is not quite the problem. It is a syndrome of which she is the contemporary, and loudest representative.
But it is truly amazing how Doniger manages to brand even serious and erudite scholars who criticize her work as fanatics, Hindutva agents, right-wingers and BJP members. This form of branding is, unless I’m mistaken, a tactic perfected by the Communists: recall Lenin’s famous technique of “sticking the convict badge” on his opponents. Of course, I don’t imply that Doniger is a Communist but the tactic is eerily familiar.
Indology was flawed from the start
Wendy Doniger’s credentials are pretty hoary–with numerous seminars and papers and books and publications in scholarly journals to her credit. As an Indology expert and scholar, she has peer-reviewed other scholarly work but has consistently shown intolerance towards criticism of her work by (mostly) Indian scholars. As Rajiv Malhotra and others have shown on several occasions, this phenomenon owes to an imbalance in the academic narrative and is fundamentally about power.
The element of power dates back to the founding days where entire departments of Indology, Sanskrit, and Oriental studies were liberally funded by the British colonial administration. They were liberally funded because British imperialism needed these Indologists to interpret the local customs and laws that in turn helped them shape policies to rule over the natives (sic). Indologists were naturally obliged to keep their masters happy. From the time of William Jones, who is justifiably called the father of (modern) Indology right up to the likes of Wendy Doniger and Michael Witzel, the research, narrative, and interpretation was, unsurprisingly, colonial in both colour and flavour–Eurocentric, if you will. It was not so much from a spirit of free and objective inquiry that research in Indology progressed but more to meet political and missionary ends. This trend continues today where new scholarly papers and books are written with an express intent to “reinterpret” or provide an “alternative interpretation” of Indian mythology, the Vedas, Puranas, symbolism, sages, Gods, and Goddesses.
It is therefore no coincidence–or any sinister cabal at work–that almost all of these scholarly works meet with such intense criticism by not just scholars but by practicing Hindus. The answer to that is found in Aurobindo’s caution: in his time, he said that these [scholars] lacked the background necessary to properly read this largely spiritual literature [Vedas]. Aurobindo spoke on the authority of the native Indian tradition, which prescribes the prerequisites to understand and interpret these texts. In general, anybody who wants to write any commentary or similar work, especially on the Vedas should at the minimum know these Vedangas (literally, the limbs of the Vedas) apart from knowing the Vedas themselves:
- Shiksha : phonetics and phonology (sandhi)
- Chandas : meter
- Vyakarana: grammar
- Nirukta: etymology
- Jyotisha: astrology and astronomy, dealing particularly with the auspicious days for performing sacrifices.
- Kalpa: ritual
Every single work that is considered as authoritative today by Hindus stem from this tradition–from the three major schools and other work by later scholars demonstrate adherence to these prerequisites. Works by scholars in British-ruled India like Ananda Coomaraswamy, M.Hiriyanna, P.V. Kane, and Ramana Maharshi (who largely spoke through silence and in the oral tradition) contain the same strand of fidelity to this tradition. These prerequisites is also known in general as Adhikari bheda, which simply means that a student should first successfully complete all the previous courses before attempting to sit for an Engineering exam.
This lack of knowledge of these prerequisites is a highly notable feature of Western Indology. Their claim of scholarship and/or expertise in Indology rests almost wholly on their knowledge of Sanskrit. But as we’ve seen above, mere knowledge of the language of Sanskrit isn’t enough. It sometimes leads to rather laughable results:
Having established this similarity between bird song and mantra, the theory then takes off with a life of its own. There are vedic rituals for making rain and curing illness and similarly birds sing for building nests or attracting females; there are rituals and bird songs for various occasions. Then it was also found that bird sing – believe it or not – just for pleasure. So Staal extends the theory to say that, similar to skiing, dancing and music, mantras and rituals too are done for pleasure.
Between Staal’s athirathram in 1975 and Wood’s in 2006, one was held in 1990 near Thrissur which I attended for a day. This athirathram, which was extensively covered in Malayalam newspapers, was highly respectful and the words I heard were not “playful” or “pleasurable.” I can understand singing for pleasure, but am yet to meet a priest who said, “it’s a weekend and raining outside, let’s do a ganapati homam for pleasure.” [Ed: A highly recommended reading]
Besides, there’s an entire cultural, philosophical, and spiritual heritage that cannot be understood merely in theory and bookish learning–it requires living the tradition. Even their knowledge of Sanskrit is suspect–for someone who holds sufficiently intimidating titles such as Mircea Eliade Distinguished Professor of the History of Religions, it is rather shameful to commit such blunders:
According to Doniger, the concept of a “sex-addict” is introduced into the Valmiki Ramayana by Lakshmana calling Dasaratha kama-sakta, which she defines as “hopelessly attached to lust.”
It is not clear where Doniger picks up the term ‘kama-sakta‘-the term does not appear upon a search of the text of the Valmiki Ramayana as given in the Titus online database, which is based on the following version of the text: G.H. Bhatt e.a., The Valmiki Ramayana, (Baroda 1960-1975), prepared by Muneo Tokunaga, March 12, 1993 (adaptations by John D. Smith, Cambridge, 1995.)…I will give the benefit of the doubt to Doniger and assume that the term kama-sakta has been used by Lakshmana to describe Dasaratha in the Valmiki-Ramayana. That in and of itself does not imply that Dasaratha was “hopelessly addicted to lust.” Kama-sakta simply means an attachment (sakta) to desire (kama). Kamadoes not itself necessarily refer to sexual desire, or even erotic or romantic desire. Dasaratha’s reluctance to allow Rama to serve as guard over Vishwamitra’s yajna, for example, or Lakshmana’s unwillingness to be parted from Rama, could equally be characterized as kama-sakta. To assume it to mean “attachment to lust” is another in a pattern of Doniger’s ex-cathedra translations in variance with traditional Sanskrit nirukta (etymology) for which she has been repudiated before.
[Aside: For a more detailed treatment of her Sanskrit knowledge, this is a good place to head to.]
Which is also what propels them to look for things in the most unlikely places. For instance, Doniger looks for information about temple architecture/temple-building in the Kama Sutra instead of the vast corpus of the Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa Agamas!
She makes a superfluous reference to the fact that the Kama Sutra does not discuss temple worship-one wonders why the Kama Sutra would be a relevant reference for discussion of temple construction…
Contribution of Western Indology
Whatever the faults of Max Mueller and similar folks, they couldn’t be accused of this kind of shoddy, unreasonable, and distorted scholarship. Continuing the observation on Sanskrit, it is amazing that most of these Western Indologists/Sanskrit experts and scholars have never written anything in Sanskrit despite their praises for the language’s beauty, structure, and mathematical precision. We’re talking a period of roughly 100 years at the least. On the contrary, a single generation of English education produced an enormous body of original English prose, poetry, scholarly work, and other non-fiction work entirely written by Indians in an astonishingly short period. The same explanation holds true for this dichotomy: politics and balance of power. At least Max Mueller honestly admitted his lack of command over Sanskrit.
I am surprised at your familiarity with Sanskrit. We [Europeans] have to read but never to write Sanskrit. To you it seems as easy as English or Latin to us… We can admire all the more because we cannot rival, and I certainly was filled with admiration when I read but a few pages of your Sundara Charita. [Max Mueller's letter to a Nepalese scholar and Sanskrit poet, Pandit Chavilal; undated but written probably around 1900.]
In terms of overall contribution, Western Indology has pathetic little to show when compared to Indian Indologists and scholars who not only studied the methodology but applied it effectively and accomplished far more. Even in a work like the Arthashastra, Shyama Sastri draws from an astonishing diversity of sources in his lengthy preface. In reality, today’s Western Indology is facing terminal, and irreversible decline. In the last three years, the Sanskrit Department at Cambridge University and the Berlin Institute of Indology, two of the oldest and prestigious Indology centers in the West have closed down. Other universities in Europe and the US share this fate: the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, once a respected leader in Oriental studies has cut down its Indology programs; the Sanskrit Department at Harvard, one of the oldest in the US is trimming its Sanskrit programs and has stopped its Summer program of teaching Sanskrit to foreign students. This partly explains why scholars like Wendy Doniger and Witzel are increasingly becoming aggressive. Majority of these universities no longer enjoy colonial funding, and the scholarship they produce is rarely seen outside their own academic circles.
Closing notes
In closing, Wendy Doniger is a classic illustration of what happens when somebody is confronted with a superior culture. The initial state of dumbfoundedness gives way to irrational hatred towards the thing that such a mind cannot comprehend. This was pretty much the reaction of Islam when it first set foot in India. Her incredible felicity for detecting only sex in everything that India has produced should qualify as the scholarly equivalent of the wonders of the world. Her refusal to engage her critics in debate and to tar them as fanatics and fundamentalists is the other side of the same coin. But she has been quite successful in creating an aura of trendiness around her books in the fashionable circles in urban India. Needless, secular magazines like Outlook lap her up with some glee because she has shown to be quite adept in the Art of Indian Secularism.
The fact that in an epic work of 24000 verses, which has stood the test of time, the only worthwhile thing she found was Rama and Sita’s sex life (as she imagines it) speaks eloquently about her own Alternate History.
25. November 2009 - 10:54 AM
Sandeep, Thanks for the post.
Indeed Witzel and have been found out in recent times. Infact NS Rajaram wrote a 4 part series on “fall of indology” in the VOI newsletter which also addressed lot of things that you have. Also there was one blog, I think by “Indian Realist” on the same subject 3-4 weeks back.
In a way all this globalisation and smaller world has helped even indian voices through NS Rajaram, Koenraad Elst, Arun Shourie, S.Gurumurthy, VOI publications and later bloggers like yourself and many others to get enough time and space for people to standup and take notice.
25. November 2009 - 11:09 AM
Good post Sandeep. Thanks
25. November 2009 - 4:47 PM
You see Sandeep you always find something in the panchatantra when confronted by oddities like dear Wendy. Of course we may take a Freudian approach to Wendy and we would all be right on target. But I prefer your analogy that what you envy and cannot have, you demean and diminish. Remember the good old tale about the fox and the grapes? Perhaps Wendy wishes she were on the pillars of Khajuraho, who knows?
25. November 2009 - 7:11 PM
“Perhaps Wendy wishes she were on the pillars of Khajuraho, who knows?”
- I’ve seen her picture. No chance of that happening!
25. November 2009 - 7:39 PM
Well Sandeep I disagree with you on some points. There are many books about India written by Indians which are also shoddy and of poor scholarship–which lack even the basic qualification for scholarship–I remember I had to do a paper once and was appalled at some of the Indian sources I had to read–. Let us say that there are good and bad scholars both in the current academic circles in the West and in India.
Just because Wendy writes odd books and the state of classical scholarship has decllined in the West, this should not be a cause for dismissing Western scholarship on the East. You can learn some things from Max Meuller, people like Julius Evola and such even though some of their views are discriminatory–an intelligent person’s views always will teach you something even if you don’t agree with everything they have to say.
It is just not scholarship about India which has gone wrong–a great deal of scholarship about the classical Greco-Roman world has also fallen prey to modern academic fads–you know the feminist interpretation, the Marxist interpretation, the Freudian interpretation and those who are always seeking to interpret everything in terms of colonial exploitation and so so on. Scholarship is also a reflection of the times–when Europe had high culture before the two world wars, Europeans produced beautiful works about other cultures–Its not only scholarship on India but classics in general seems to have declined. I know with regard to Greek and Latin I hardly read modern scholars such as Nussbaum–usually books in the fifties and before are reliable because people could write as they thought and were not constrained by political correctness to make their view points acceptable–
I think Wendy can simply be dismisssed as among those who try to interpret everything from the point of sexuality (Freud) and those who interpret everything in terms of materialism (Marx). Her scholarship reveals rather the state of culture in the Western world, for scholarship is also a reflection of the predisposition to think in a certain way of the times. Her book is just rambling and teaches you nothing but shows her own preoccupations….
25. November 2009 - 7:46 PM
And as much as I do not like books by authors such as Nussbaum Wendy and others, books written by some Indians are just as bad. In sum, its all a reflection of the decline of the state of culture both in the West and East…..
25. November 2009 - 11:01 PM
Hello Larisa
I have read lot of books by westerners on the subject of hinduism/india. they consciously or otherwise bring their own christian biases there. so i no longer read books by western author when it comes to hindu traditions.
Ati
26. November 2009 - 12:12 AM
@Radha Rajan
… or like vAlarundha nari (*)
(*) the fox that lost its tail
26. November 2009 - 1:04 AM
Larissa,
>>There are many books about India written by Indians which are also shoddy and of poor scholarship–which lack even the basic qualification for scholarship–I remember I had to do a paper once and was appalled at some of the Indian sources I had to read–. Let us say that there are good and bad scholars both in the current academic circles in the West and in India.
Sure. Poor scholarship/incompetence is universal, not restricted to any one country/culture, etc. I’m not sure what paper you had to do or what sources you had refer to…but someone must’ve recommended and/or you have just been unfortunate to read those sources. If you read my post, I’ve specifically mentioned lots of solid Indian scholars whose scholarship is beyond question. In case of those shoddy Indian scholars that you mention, my educated guess is that they are as divorced from the native tradition as the Western scholars I take exception to.
>>Just because Wendy writes odd books and the state of classical scholarship has decllined in the West, this should not be a cause for dismissing Western scholarship on the East.
I don’t think I’ve mentioned the overall sorry state of classical scholarship in the West. My point specifically was about Indian classical/spiritual/philosophical tradition by Western scholars. I suppose I have provided enough evidence to back my claims as to why I generally hold them in low esteem. Sure, there have been good, honest scholars but we’re talking about Indology as a discipline over a long period of over 150 years! The record of Western scholarship over that long a period is sorry.
>>. You can learn some things from Max Meuller, people like Julius Evola and such even though some of their views are discriminatory
Again, I’ve given due credit to Meuller’s scholarship as honest and borne out of genuine and backbreaking work. However, the test of the worth of scholarship is its endurance. Who even reads Max Mueller, despite his amazing 50 volumed SBE? On the contrary, almost all of the Indian scholars’ works I’ve quoted in my post still run into reprints.
On your note about Western scholarship about Greek, Latin, etc cultures, there’s a reason for that: they were “closer home” in the sense that that scholarship was more or less familiar to the West in terms of cultural proximity and involved none of the rigorous prerequisites that Indian scholarship demands. Another crucial difference is that to understand Vedic/Indian traditions accurately, one must actually LIVE it since Hinduism is a living, practicing tradition and a way of life as Vivekananda put it.
As for Wendy Doniger and her Freudian or whatever other obsessions, they’re simply a cover. She’s a dishonest scholar.
Thank you.
26. November 2009 - 4:14 AM
@Pale
In her current form, the pillars will collapse under the weight, but you must admit she was one h*t **** in her prime, check google images
26. November 2009 - 4:47 AM
@larissa,
“..You can learn some things from Max Meuller, people like Julius Evola and such even though some of their views are discriminatory..” – Yes. So far that has taught us more discrimination.
Please try to defend western scholarship in a forum that needs it. We have clearly understood Wendy Doniger so far. We really do not need another re-interpretation of western scholarships on East. Is it so difficult for Europeans to leave our religion and culture alone? None of our own people tried to speculate how virgin Mary became pregnant!!!
26. November 2009 - 6:19 AM
” that scholarship was more or less familiar to the West in terms of cultural proximity and involved none of the rigorous prerequisites that Indian scholarship demands.”
This is not wholly true. The West is also divorced from understanding its Greco-Roman heritage because it has adopted Christianity and measures all religious attitudes in terms of the Christian view point–. Many great Western classicists have made this observation.
I do not think Wendy is dishonest in that she writes about what she is interested in (namely subjects feminists are interested in and those who like to write “alternative” histories as the real history is not much to their liking)–she just exemplifies fads that are current today –I think she would distort the Greeks as much as the ancient Indians, if she were to write about them.
“Who even reads Max Mueller, despite his amazing 50 volumed SBE?”
Well just as who reads great Western classical scholars today? Today classics is in decline, whether it be in the West or East. How many people study the classics in Greek and Latin in the West? Education has come to mean acquiring practical skills to survive in the modern world.
If India were a strong nation and self sufficient, it would not need to care what Westerners think of it.
It is important for ideas to impact those in power, otherwise they do not exert much influence.
26. November 2009 - 6:49 AM
However, the test of the worth of scholarship is its endurance. Who even reads Max Mueller, despite his amazing 50 volumed SBE? On the contrary, almost all of the Indian scholars’ works I’ve quoted in my post still run into reprints.
Many serious scholars read him who want to learn about India. Just as people read Paul Deussen–although they are few. How many people do you think read Gibbon’s account of the decline of the Roman empire? The problem today I find is that ideas do not have much impact as the world is mostly controlled by the values of the mercantile sectors of society, and economic interests dominate everywhere. Now everywhere the ideal is to be “successful”–
26. November 2009 - 2:16 PM
Sandeep,
I’m copying the mail content which is in circulation for a cause, motives are quite sinister in nature, I wanted to bring this to your notice and your readers. If possible we should try to puncture their plans.
Mail content follows……
Souharda Raaga
A Sufi music evening with Mukhtiar Ali
Sufi and Folk singer from Rajasthan
6th December 2009
St Joseph’s Commerce College Auditorium
Brigade Road, Bangalore
Background
The demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu fundamentalists on
December 6, 1992 at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh exposed India’s ugly
communal, caste and majority politics. Dec 6th is remembered as a
black day as the destruction of the Babri Masjid was a symbolic
assault on the secular fabric of our society and failure of Indian
State’s machinery to protect the minorities.
What followed babri demolition was a series of outburst of communal
violence throughout India particularly in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Surath
and many parts of the country. The South India which was relatively
free of communalism and communal violence began to experience outburst
of communal violence too.
In Karnataka communal tensions centred around the issues of Bababudan
giri, a sufi shrine in Chikkamangalur, flag hoisting issue in Hubli,
attacks on churches, attacks on minority communities and women in
Mangalore and the recent Mysore communal riots are result of rightist
forces’ communal agenda.
In Karnataka attacks by rightist forces targeting Christians and
Muslims has raised to alarming levels in past one decade. We have also
seen that socio-cultural and educational spaces gradually come under
communal ideology.
Karnataka Komu Soudharda Vedike has been one of the prominent voices
against communalization of Karnataka. Vedike has just not been a space
for protest against communal forces but also a space to celebrate
values of secularism, love and harmony. We are organizing this program
to reiterate our commitment to our values of creating a harmonious
society.
What is happening on Dec 6th 2009?
On this December 6th Vedike is organizing Souharda Raaga, a sufi music
evening by Mukhthiyar Ali, Sufi, folk singer from Bikaner, Rajasthan.
His music is a blend of mysticism, classicism and folk idioms singing
Kabir, Mira, Rumi, Bulleh Shah and many other Sufi poets.
Celebrating values of love and harmony we feel is the best way to
protest politics of hatred and violence that rightist forces believes
in.
Join us for this program
This is a request to all of you to contribute to this event. Vedike is
a coalition of more than 150 organisations, intellectuals, writers,
artists etc and entirely a non funded group, it requests you to
financially contribute to make this event successful
Please send your contributions to:
Karnataka Komu Souharda Vedike
51, 29th cross, 9th main, Banashankari II Stage Bangalore -70.
Cheques/DD’s can be sent in the name of SOUHARDA RAAGA
26. November 2009 - 3:17 PM
Raghavendra,
Can we picket this place with banners etc? Or perhaps print and distribute pamphlets in the area?
Let me know. I’m in Bangalore.
26. November 2009 - 3:32 PM
Palahalli,
I was really angry with them for the fact that they will collecting money from innocents for such an event.
Print distribute and others things won’t work. But, since we know the targeted audiences (victims) are well fed software Engg, we can actually write a rebuttal to that junk mail and funnel it back through the same channel.
26. November 2009 - 3:53 PM
Ok, done.
26. November 2009 - 5:59 PM
Media as the Toxin-Spreading Agent.
A Story on the Anniversary of 26/11 »
no further comments
26. November 2009 - 9:33 PM
For one, I am very skeptical about scholars of lazy-arm-chair-professor variety, be they are from west or east to do research on indology. Only a spiritually(dharmically) awakened person can understand our scriptures to be able to produce any scholarly work. Aurobindo is one very fine example. Scholars like Wendy doesn’t even deserve any attention. It’s a pity that they get so much of attention and also make a living out it.
27. November 2009 - 8:52 AM
>>Only a spiritually(dharmically) awakened person can understand our scriptures to be able to produce any scholarly work.
While I don’t agree with the above, I do believe that only a scholar who can comprehend the intellectual dimension to Hinduism can do justice to an analysis of it. If he approaches Hinduism with the same anthropological perspective with which non-religious Christian/Jewish scholars view their faiths , he is likely to end up dishing out the Doniger kind of sexed up trash. (I googled images to check up on baddimaga’s claim of Wendy’s hotness in younger days, but all I got was kamasutra postures on Khajuraho temples).
Indic religions have highly developed intellectual traditions like Advaita. In contrast, Semitic faiths are very primitive in their outlook. Any theological sophistication these religions claim (Islam doesn’t claim any, in all fairness) is a recent addition, a response to the advancement of science and the spread of values like compassion. Sam Harris makes a telling point in a speech. He reads from the Ten Commandments — “thou shalt not make graven images” — and asks: ought this be among the ten most important things that god really wants you to know? Why not: “thou shalt not eat fatty foods?”
Doniger and gang are acutely conscious of the primitiveness of Semitic belief systems; they ascribe the same primitiveness to Indian faiths as well. They look at Indian religions through a kamasutra lens which gives them a kamasutra blindspot.
27. November 2009 - 10:38 PM
@ OT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/books/31conn.html?_r=1
now you do want a piece of that don’t you
while i certainly agree my talk is waaaay below the belt, but these people only deserve to be talked about in a language they can understand
28. November 2009 - 4:18 AM
Dont you guys think that the real damage to native cultures of Americas and Africa was done by this same infatuation for white skin and the sharp features of the pirates and buccaneers (called Europeans)
. who landed on their shores.
28. November 2009 - 8:06 PM
srigurubhyo namaha|
I was contacted by Penguin (publishing house) in the United states some five or sixe months ago and was given a copy of the book in question (Hindus – An alternative History) to review. The book, right from the outset is founded on a dry and prejudiced ‘outsiders’ view of sanAtana dharmA. Not 0nly is the lack of practise based knowledge of the subject evident all through, it relies a lot on self founded theories and on other such ‘empty’ books authored by similar academic authors. The parallels that she draws by examining the historic incidents and the culture/philosophy of the Hindus is grounded more in fantasy than in a credible analysis of the subject at hand. As with most other works of a similar nature, the lack of practise and as you rightly observe the lack of education in the vEdAngAs makes it a dry and dead work. To be honest I am still not finished reading the full book ( it is voluminous tripe) as there is nothing to grip the discerning reader.
30. November 2009 - 11:42 AM
“While I don’t agree with the above, I do believe that only a scholar who can comprehend the intellectual dimension to Hinduism can do justice to an analysis of it. If he approaches Hinduism with the same anthropological perspective with which non-religious Christian/Jewish scholars view their faiths , he is likely to end up dishing out the Doniger kind of sexed up trash. (I googled images to check up on baddimaga’s claim of Wendy’s hotness in younger days, but all I got was kamasutra postures on Khajuraho temples).
Indic religions have highly developed intellectual traditions like Advaita. In contrast, Semitic faiths are very primitive in their outlook…”
Well you can hardly expect someone from the Abrahamic faith (Doniger is Jewish) , especially the Jewish one to understand Hinduism. It would be as alien to them as Judiasm would be incomprehensible to HIndus.
You are right in that only a scholar who can understand the intellectual dimension of Hinduism can do justice to it–and the intellectual dimension would subsume the spiritual dimension. I think scholars like Paul Deussen do justice to it. The problem is not so much Doniger as the orientation of modern day scholarship which tries to interpret the classical world in terms of modern fads– It is interesting that those who generally have an adequate understanding of ancient Greece and Rome are able to properly understand, broadly speaking, the essence of HInduism as well. People like Alain de Benoist come to mind. Those who distort the former also tend to distort the latter.
As for Christianity, it was only by changing itself to adopt many Roman practices that Christianity was able to have the impact that it did…
30. November 2009 - 10:04 PM
Vikekananda praises the German Indologist Paul Deussen in the link below. One can learn from such scholars. But one does not learn much from Wendy’s book–just shows how modern scholarship has deteriorated—
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_4/writings_prose/on_dr_paul_deussen.htm
30. November 2009 - 10:25 PM
excellent, Sandeep
1. December 2009 - 3:05 AM
Sarvesh,
Thank you.
1. December 2009 - 4:05 PM
“Well you can hardly expect someone from the Abrahamic faith (Doniger is Jewish) , especially the Jewish one to understand Hinduism.”
She is not a Jew. She is a WASP bigot. Don’t be fooled. Very cleverly, her wikipedia entry has been edited and does not talk about her parents or early life at all, to hide the fact that she was born a Christian. She was born as Wendy O’Flaherty in New York City on November 20, 1940. She converted to judaism in her adulthood.
Martha Nussbaum is another Christian character pretending to be a Jew. Deciet is in the blood of church agents like these.
2. December 2009 - 6:58 AM
A good post.
few points-
>>>“anybody who wants to write any commentary or similar work, especially on the Vedas should at the minimum know these Vedangas (literally, the limbs of the Vedas) apart from knowing the Vedas themselves:
?Shiksha : phonetics and phonology (sandhi)
?Chandas : meter
?Vyakarana: grammar
?Nirukta: etymology
?Jyotisha: astrology and astronomy, dealing particularly with the auspicious days for performing sacrifices.
?Kalpa: ritual”
That would be like saying that for a tree to be, trunk, leaves, branches, roots and bark are minimum required.
But a tree is produced not by bringing all these together.
What is required for a tree to be is a seed and nurturing environment. The tree will develop over time.
The seed in this case is the seed of spiritual enquiry.
It is that which produced the vedas in the minds of the rishis.
It is that which will produce the vedas in the minds of any body else.
This is the reason knowledge of vedas are given only to a brahmana- one who seeks to realise brahma. Only a person on such pursuit can understand the meaning of vedas.
Mata Amritanandamayi presumably may not know sanskritam, let alone its grammar or any of the other requirements listed, but she may be able to understand the meaning of vedas better than somebody who has spend time only on developing those requirements.
Those requirements are secondary tools, not the primary motivator that helps understand vedas.
This is the difference in western approach and bharatiya darsanas.
The western mind is involved only with physical or objectifiable elements. But that alone does not produce life. Not even a Frankenstein. What is then done instead is projection of the embittered feelings of the western mind onto that hodgepodge.
This is what is seen in wendy’s works. It may be more appropriate to call it ‘western syndrome’.
It is this syndrome that causes western science to be lame. In fact it is blind as well, mostly.
>>>”today’s Western Indology is facing terminal, and irreversible decline.”
The purpose of western indology in the first place was to copy the large number of indian texts for exploitation by the colonial powers. Thus using indology the westerners achieved industrial and intellectual advancement during past many centuries. Having extracted almost all that they could, limited to the material sphere, the western mind is now ready to throw away the indigestibe spiritual core.
>>>”… a classic illustration of what happens when somebody is confronted with a superior culture. The initial state of dumbfoundedness gives way to irrational hatred towards the thing that such a mind cannot comprehend”
When exposed to the superior bharatiya samskriti, the western aggrandizing mind sought to exploit and extract from it material ‘deliverables’. This was done in a docile manner at first. Through trade. Later they used deceit to acquire military control over india. This was the path followed by both islamist arabs and the christian british. The initial state of mind was thus of greed which later turned into lust for power and subsequently, after enjoying power, to contempt towards bharatiya samskriti.
Incapable of comprehending the spiritual roots of the samskriti, the limited western mind is actually unable to realize what it is missing. Therefore it is not dumbfounded, instead, it is supremely overconfident of itself. Like an asura, drunk in its own power, it seeks further expansion in adharmic ways.
>>>”Her refusal to engage her critics in debate and to tar them as fanatics and fundamentalists is the other side of the same coin. But she has been quite successful in creating an aura of trendiness around her books in the fashionable circles in urban India”
The ’she’ here is a mere branch of the tree of western aggrandizement. That tree sprouts some indigenous branches as well, such as kancha illaiah, booker roy, rome-allah thappad, and in more nascent form, amartya sen, nandan nilkeni, the dhimmi regent and so on and on.
As for wendy’s claims of sanskrit knowledge, a fellow professor of her own alma mater Harward, Professor Michael Witless err…Witzel, described her sanskrit translations as ‘lacking common sense’, ‘unreliable’, ‘idiosyncratic’ and ‘a stream of unconnected George-Bush-like anacoluths’ !
further on this mandhara of modern times- http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/mandhara-and-apes/
dhanyavaad
2. December 2009 - 7:21 AM
A good post.
few points-
>>>“anybody who wants to write any commentary or similar work, especially on the Vedas should at the minimum know these Vedangas (literally, the limbs of the Vedas) apart from knowing the Vedas themselves:
-Shiksha : phonetics and phonology (sandhi)
-Chandas : meter
-Vyakarana: grammar
-Nirukta: etymology
-Jyotisha: astrology and astronomy, dealing particularly with the auspicious days for performing sacrifices.
-Kalpa: ritual”
That would be like saying that for a tree to be, trunk, leaves, branches, roots and bark are minimum required.
But a tree is produced not by bringing all these together.
What is required for a tree to be is a seed and nurturing environment. The tree will develop over time.
The seed in this case is the seed of spiritual enquiry.
It is that which produced the vedas in the minds of the rishis.
It is that which will produce the vedas in the minds of any body else.
This is the reason knowledge of vedas are given only to a brahmana- one who seeks to realise brahma. Only a person on such pursuit can understand the meaning of vedas.
Mata Amritanandamayi presumably may not know sanskritam, let alone its grammar or any of the other requirements listed, but she may be able to understand the meaning of vedas better than somebody who has spend time only on developing those requirements.
Those requirements are secondary tools, not the primary motivator that helps understand vedas.
This is the difference in western approach and bharatiya darsanas.
The western mind is involved only with physical or objectifiable elements. But that alone does not produce life. Not even a Frankenstein. What is then done instead is projection of the embittered feelings of the western mind onto that hodgepodge.
This is what is seen in wendy’s works. It may be more appropriate to call it ‘western syndrome’.
It is this syndrome that causes western science to be lame. In fact it is blind as well, mostly.
>>>”today’s Western Indology is facing terminal, and irreversible decline.”
The purpose of western indology in the first place was to copy the large number of indian texts for exploitation by the colonial powers. Thus using indology the westerners achieved industrial and intellectual advancement during past many centuries. Having extracted almost all that they could, limited to the material sphere, the western mind is now ready to throw away the indigestibe spiritual core.
>>>”… a classic illustration of what happens when somebody is confronted with a superior culture. The initial state of dumbfoundedness gives way to irrational hatred towards the thing that such a mind cannot comprehend”
When exposed to the superior bharatiya samskriti, the western aggrandizing mind sought to exploit and extract from it material ‘deliverables’. This was done in a docile manner at first. Through trade. Later they used deceit to acquire military control over india. This was the path followed by both islamist arabs and the christian british. The initial state of mind was thus of greed which later turned into lust for power and subsequently, after enjoying power, to contempt towards bharatiya samskriti.
Incapable of comprehending the spiritual roots of the samskriti, the limited western mind is actually unable to realize what it is missing. Therefore it is not dumbfounded, instead, it is supremely overconfident of itself. Like an asura, drunk in its own power, it seeks further expansion in adharmic ways.
>>>”Her refusal to engage her critics in debate and to tar them as fanatics and fundamentalists is the other side of the same coin. But she has been quite successful in creating an aura of trendiness around her books in the fashionable circles in urban India”
The ’she’ here is a mere branch of the tree of western aggrandizement. That tree sprouts some indigenous branches as well, such as kancha illaiah, booker roy, rome-allah thappad, and in more nascent form, amartya sen, nandan nilkeni, the dhimmi regent and so on and on.
As for wendy’s claims of sanskrit knowledge, a fellow professor of her own alma mater Harward, Professor Michael Witless err…Witzel, described her sanskrit translations as ‘lacking common sense’, ‘unreliable’, ‘idiosyncratic’ and ‘a stream of unconnected George-Bush-like anacoluths’ !
further on this mandhara of modern times- http://estheppan.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/mandhara-and-apes/
dhanyavaad
3. December 2009 - 5:47 AM
The western mind is involved only with physical or objectifiable elements. But that alone does not produce life. Not even a Frankenstein. What is then done instead is projection of the embittered feelings of the western mind onto that hodgepodge.
This is what is seen in wendy’s works. It may be more appropriate to call it ‘western syndrome’.
As much as I do not like Wendy’s books, I get even queasier upon reading absurd views such as this–”The western mind is involved only with physical or objectifiable elements…” How much of the Western world do you understand to make such blanket remarks?
From Wendy is extrapolated how the “Western mindset” sees things. No wonder no one takes such critiques seriously–
Another ludicrous statement:
“Incapable of comprehending the spiritual roots of the samskriti, the limited western mind is actually unable to realize what it is missing..”
I guess you are trying to say Incognito that Westerners are not as learned as you. But then judging from your ‘learning” that is not saying much.
3. December 2009 - 3:02 PM
Is it possible to launch a campaign to strip her off her scholarship? I am sure in the objective western world it should be possible, especially since there are material available to discredit her knowledge of indology. Isn’t the Institution that is hosting her responsible for retaining as the intellectual she claims to be?
3. December 2009 - 3:21 PM
@ larissa
“I guess you are trying to say Incognito that Westerners are not as learned as you. ” (I am not trying to answer for Incognito – he/she can defend his/her statements.)
What’s missing in the West that I have known thus far ( I live in Chicago and have lived in the US for last 10 years) is the deep desire for spiritual inquiry. Instead, it tries to “acquire knowledge” through objective means. Let me explain what I mean – You could read and understand Ramana Maharishi intellectually. Many Western scholars think at that point they have got it! But the truth is, nobody, not even Indians that have lived with him can understand him without going into the “Who am I” inquiry for many years. The emphasis is not on “intellectual acquisition”, but on “spiritual sadhana”. Spiritual Sadhana calls for living by the scriptural dictact without questioning their authority. Even in India, that tradition of spiritual sadhana is lost – people have become objective by following the West and started questioning the scriptures. Now, I am not saying – follow the scriptures blindly – on the contrary, in order to accomplish the goal of acquiring spiritual knowledge, one needs to understand science and “western” knowledge, as much as practice the scriptural recommendations for self-inquiry – with awareness – over a long period of time! it could take a life-time of sadhana to get it, it could even take life-times of sadhana to get it. That is why many spiritual sadhaks preferred to retire to forests or the Himalayas for such practice.
3. December 2009 - 8:04 PM
“What’s missing in the West that I have known thus far ( I live in Chicago and have lived in the US for last 10 years) is the deep desire for spiritual inquiry. ”
I dislike generalizations–. Some of my Western friends are far more “spiritual” than many Indians I encounter. Generalizations such as in the post I referred to are nonsensical.
4. December 2009 - 5:55 AM
“Spiritual Sadhana calls for living by the scriptural dictact …. “
Seen in the lives of Mata Amritanandamayi and Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, it is the strength of their devotion that gave them spiritual knowledge.
bharatiya parampara exemplifies different means to achieve spiritual realisation for people having diverse inclinations-
- Jnana marga or path of spiritual enquiry.
- Bhakti for the devotionally inclined.
- Yoga
- Karma marga of nishkama karma
Different strokes for different folks.
Common denominator- dharma.
@ ass
>>>”How much of the Western world do you understand to make such blanket remarks?”
If you found any hole in the blanket, talk about it.
>>>“From Wendy is extrapolated how the “Western mindset” sees things”
You got it ‘ulta’. as usual.
‘Western mindset’ is the mother. wendy, the child.
>>>“No wonder no one takes such critiques seriously”
so liarass is a ‘no one’.
>>>“I guess you are trying to say Incognito that Westerners are not as learned as you.”
nop. that western mind, seeking material acquisitions, is unable to appreciate spirituality, unable to understand wisdom.
wisdom, is not ‘learning’ or being ‘learned’.
western mind, in this context, is a mind perennially under western influence i.e., constantly occuppied with material thoughts. It is not a genetic feature. mostly an acquired one. as you are demonstrating.
namaste
4. December 2009 - 7:46 AM
“western mind, in this context, is a mind perennially under western influence i.e., constantly occuppied with material thoughts
You should go on reasoning like this and display to all how ignorant you are, no need for me to really comment. How many Westerners do you know to make such statements? Its as if saying all Indians are spiritually oriented and all practice yoga. I imagine you to be a boorish, unattractive, insecure person from your comments.
4. December 2009 - 8:29 AM
larissa,
There are exceptions but the majority fall under what Incognito has already described. 15 years of work life with “educated” Americans have already proved it for me.
> I imagine you to be a boorish, unattractive, insecure person from your comments.
“unattractive”!!??
This was uncalled for! I wonder why does this come up as an attribute for the western mind? How is this related!? May I wonder there is a bit of Wendy in everyone in the West? No wonder it is called a syndrome!
4. December 2009 - 10:18 AM
“As for Christianity, it was only by changing itself to adopt many Roman practices that Christianity was able to have the impact that it did…”
There used to be a JM Smith who would post in Shantanu’s blog. He had posted an interesting book and a web site. Here you go .
http://www.davidkertzer.com/books/kidnapping_of_edgardo_mortara.html
There are many books in this web site . See to your rhs of this web site. Then there is Avro Manhattans books. Just type in google, you will get all his books. e ones are there.
If you read carefully all these books, esp the books by Prof David Kertzer , one can conclude that WWar 2 was a moral victory for Jews. Here is an extract from the book of the web site cited. It makes interesting reading.
“Bologna, 1858: A police squad, acting on the orders of the Inquisitor, invades the home of a Jewish merchant, Momolo Mortara, wrenches his crying six-year-old son from his arms, and rushes him off in a carriage bound for Rome. His mother is so distraught that she collapses and has to be taken to a neighbor’s house, but her weeping can be heard across the city. With this terrifying scene–one that would haunt this family forever–David I. Kertzer begins his fascinating investigation of the dramatic kidnapping, and shows how this now obscure saga would eventually contribute to the collapse of the Church’s temporal power in Italy. As Edgardo’s parents desperately search for a way to get their son back, they learn why he–out of all their eight children–was taken. Years earlier, the family’s Catholic serving girl, fearful that the infant might die of an illness, had secretly baptized him (or so she claimed). Edgardo recovered, but when the story reached the Bologna Inquisitor, the result was his order for Edgardo to be seized and sent to a special monastery where Jews were converted into good Catholics. The Inquisitor’s justification for taking the child was based in Church teachings: No Christian child could be raised by Jewish parents. The case of Edgardo Mortara became an international cause célèbre. Although such kidnappings were not uncommon in Jewish communities across Europe, this time the political climate had changed. As news of the family’s plight spread to Britain, where the Rothschilds got involved, to France, where it mobilized Napoleon III, and even to America, public opinion turned against the Vatican. Refusing to return the child to his family, Pope Pius IX began to regard the boy as his own child. The fate of this one boy came to symbolize the entire revolutionary campaign of Mazzini and Garibaldi to end the dominance of the Catholic Church and establish a modern, secular Italian state. A riveting story which has been remarkably ignored by modern historians”
Interesting to know that secularism was defined in 1858 by Holyake and in the same year this happened in Italy , giving rise to the concept of a secular state.
Wendy just interprets mythology. The books cited above are all facts and true Judge for yourself , which is hand weaving & gas and what is ethical and moral.
4. December 2009 - 3:26 PM
You are welcome to make your own conclusions:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re/us_rel_conservative_bible;_ylt=Aq8U140X.9LHrIuxM_rLabWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpaGx2cHQ5BHBvcwMzNwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDYmxlc3NlZGFyZXRo
5. December 2009 - 8:00 PM
Kiran Pellad
“educated” Americans have already proved it for me. There are exceptions but the majority fall under what Incognito has already described. 15 years of work life with “educated” Americans have already proved it for me. ”
This is completely unwarrated. Some of the most intelligent people I have come across happen to be Americans.
I am sorry, but the educated “Indians” I have had to work with are no better. So cut the generalizations. There are also “exceptions” to the general run of Indians!
6. December 2009 - 7:14 AM
@larisaa,
As some shrewd guy observed, Americans as a group are very smart and coherent folks but many are dumb as individuals, on the other hand Indians may be smart as individuals but are definitely dumb as a collection. All those caste and sect cartels, associations are no exceptions. We eventually give in as a group, but never as an individual.
Psychologically this dangerous strange trait must have crept into our psyche due to severe competition for survival in all walks of life under occupational forces. Actually, competition from own people who were taking the sides of the occupational forces.
Or, may be this is just because of the food we eat, after all sub continent’s food is a just another amusing concoction of chemicals.
6. December 2009 - 10:18 AM
ass->>>“How many Westerners do you know to make such statements? Its as if saying all Indians are spiritually oriented and all practice yoga. ”
It is not about people. It is about mindset.
repeat from previous comment- western mind, in this context, is a mind perennially under western influence i.e., constantly occuppied with material thoughts. It is not a genetic feature. mostly an acquired one. as you are demonstrating.
Prachetas-“Americans as a group are very smart and coherent folks but many are dumb as individuals, on the other hand Indians may be smart as individuals but are definitely dumb as a collection”
Could be because of influence of church that shapes thinking in western societies (mullahs in muslim societies/ politburo among communists) wherein one God, one Book, one Prophet, (one philosophy in case of communists or atheists) demands suspension of independent thinking. This helps produce coherent group behaviour to achieve certain materialistic goals decided by the one church/mullah/politburo but actually prevents individuals from achieveing his/her true potential as recognized by bharatiya parampara- that of ‘realization’ or brahma jnana.
dhanyavaad
6. December 2009 - 7:45 PM
western mind, in this context, is a mind perennially under western influence i.e., constantly occuppied with material thoughts. It is not a genetic feature. mostly an acquired one. as you are demonstration
Incognito, have you ever lived in the West? Do you speak any European languages apart from English? Do you know any Greek, Latin or about the classical heritage of the West? Do you know about the great pilosophers and thinkers from the West? I don’t think so. When people start making generalizations about that which they have not studied, this is absolutely the worst.
Please was on about things which you “do” seem to know about—such as your illiterate guru you follow, I forget the name.
6. December 2009 - 7:46 PM
Incognito, have you ever lived in the West? Do you speak any European languages apart from English? Do you know any Greek, Latin or about the classical heritage of the West? Do you know about the great pilosophers and thinkers from the West? I don’t think so. When people start making generalizations about that which they have not studied, this is absolutely the worst.
Please was on about things which you “do” seem to know about—such as your illiterate guru you follow, I forget the name.
7. December 2009 - 12:32 AM
True Incognito, I think organized religion annihilates individuality and brings in military like regimentation and organization. Good that separation of state and religion after renaissance and reformation castrated one of the organized religions preventing it considerably from influencing day to day lives of men.
@larissa,
I think more than lack of good comparative metrics, laziness and lack of interest to research on such is the real reason behind a modern Indian’s stupid, admantine political correctness. Do we not accept that IITs are better than many other engineering colleges and likewise is it not a accepted fact that a degree from a esteemed university or a research publication in a famous conference is of superior quality. Do we compromise these kinds of things which affect our salaries, positions and status in our day to day lives ?. I have read few famous western philosophers and poets and at same time many Indian works. Its not racism or condescending attitude and its definitely not any generalization of things that you continuously keep complaining about , looking it from a pure objective sense, western works are like clumsy cobblers job in comparison to our master pieces. Use metrics like
- Complexity of matters discussed or presented,
- Clarity with which they were presented
- Number and Nature of similes provided to present complex topics
- Volume of work produced in one’s life time,
- Experiments done with language usage,
- Spirituality and useful content for everyday life,
I read portions of Telugu translation of Vyasa Bharata by Tikkana recently. I am sure that in a lifetime no one can produce such a sheer volume of poetry and prose like Tikkana. And this isn’t just about size, the experiments he did with the language, the clarity he maintained , the way he understood Vyasa’s heart and kept resonating it all through his translation makes all the modern day talk about Shakespeare and quality of his voluminous work, just a cruel joke. I aint saying somebody is low or barbaric. Just like how every scientific publication has its own unique merit and yet how few of them standout. They standout because of the institutions they have come out of, the facilities and privileges the authors have had and the wonderful guides and gurus who were paved the ways in right direction. So stop complaining about generalization and read works with objective mind.
As Incognito said, western mind cannot clearly understand few Indian concepts just like how a classical physics student just cant understand concepts of quantum physics. And the metrics westerners use to rate their works may be are a totally different set, but they have to specify them before commenting on our works else we only get analysis of wendy (vending) machine quality.
Finally considering similar metrics, Bertrand Russel and Sam Clemens do deserve a big applause.
7. December 2009 - 1:40 AM
Prachetas:
In his pravachanam, Sri Garikipati Narasimha Rao mentioned that Sri Vishvanatha Satyanarayana wrote “Veyi Padagalu”, one of the most complicated pieces of literary work ever produced with a few characters introduced every page or so (need to check the exact details), within a month. And that, while playing cards with his friends and in the meanwhile, dictating the story to his scribe.
Such was his dhaarana shakti.
8. December 2009 - 6:02 PM
western works are like clumsy cobblers job in comparison to our master pieces
Oh really? Did not realize that the parthenon was clumsy, the pantheon was clumsy or the statue of David was clumsy or the statues of Phidias were culmsy. Did not realize that Michealangelo was clumsy. What are you trying to say? Is your statement not absurd? How much of Western art anc architecture have you studied? How much of the Great philosophers of the West have you studied? Did not realize Plato was clumsy. Only a fool would call such things clumsy
There are master works in all creative cultures.
I fail to see why Indians are obsessed with “Westerners” “understanding” their culture. Does the “West” care if others understand it? No. So what if Wendy writes some stupid books, Indians should counter her with better books and so on….
“Bertrand Russel and Sam Clemens do deserve a big applause.”
If these are the only people you can come up with, then I’m afraid you have not read much. I dislike false chauvinism in anyone, whether it be Indians or Westerners.
9. December 2009 - 12:48 PM
@larisaa,
You complain of generalizations and look what you are doing ? . As I said its not racism or chauvinism but a objective way of looking at things that come from a framework called civilization. It is you who is taking it in subjective sense and feeling that I am belittling someone or something. Since modern day west likes to see everything in objective sense I was giving he example of looking art and literature in an objective sense like how we look at scientific and engineering works. If you go back to looking art, literature and culture in pure subjective sense, then this whole argument ceases to exist.
And what East obsession with West are you talking about ?. First of all, for Indians the concept of East & West is probably as old as East India company. The greeks, turks, africans, arabs were all from west but that didn’t bring in the concept of a thing called “west” into Indian psyche. On the other hand western people always had strong definition for what they called East. Most often they meant Indian subcontinent and China, Korea and Japan were included in later centuries (trade of silk, porcelain and opium).
I don’t think Indians ever had any strong opinions,fears or curiosities about western things except during the civil disobedience and freedom movements. Modern day Indians do ape west, I agree on that but are not really obsessed about understanding west. This unfortunate lack of interest in religious-socio-political realms decimated us, stole our narrative from us and made us look like idiotic morons. If we had invested in learning about them, at least half of what they had invested in learning about us, we would have definitely dissolved them into our culture and civilization. We were least bothered about understanding west and showing it its true place and we still are. I don’t put questions to westerner about why he eats beef , why he eats food with a fork, why they use tissue paper etc. We just accept and adjust or ape. It is they who ask why we wear a bindi on forehead, why cow is holy, why we take bath twice a day, why we are vegetarian etc etc. It has always been like that, we never questioned new traditions, practices as long as they werent really obstructing daily lives. On the other hand all visitors and invaders to India and East in general were working their a** off to understand everything about it.
what I said was in comparison to a huge temple’s stone canopy that stands on one pillar or a centuries old iron pillar that never rusts a cathedral with some paintings on its roof is clumsy, it may be a masterpiece in comparison to other temples, palaces in East but then you have to tell what you are comparing it with it before commenting on it. Just saying “You are stupid to say tha tDavid’s statue is clumsy” is not enough. Yes, I am stupid and I think statute of David is clumsy in comparison to sculptures of Hampi, Vijayanagara , yes I think cathedrals and pantheon in Europe are clumsy in comparison to temples in Madurai and Kanchipuram or Agkor Wat or pyramids of Eygpt. Give me some metrics like
- Scientific temperament of people involved in the process
- Complexity of the Structures
- Time it took to build he artifact
- Longevity and degree of effort needed for maintenance.
etc
so that I can really see that your candidates are better than mine. And even in literature, what I claimed was Shakespeare was a joke when compared to Tikkana using a certain set of criterion. I didn’t say that Shakespeare by himself was no good. And dont we see this in daily life, how do we rate research works and universities, how do we give awards, bonuses and grants.
As they say – Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with (provided the criterion for comaprision are defined)
10. December 2009 - 5:02 PM
Just saying “You are stupid to say tha tDavid’s statue is clumsy” is not enough. Yes, I am stupid and I think statute of David is clumsy in comparison to sculptures of Hampi, Vijayanagara , yes I think cathedrals and pantheon in Europe are clumsy in comparison to temples in Madurai and Kanchipuram or Agkor Wat or pyramids of Eygpt. Give me some metrics like
- Scientific temperament of people involved in the process
- Complexity of the Structures
- Time it took to build he artifact
- Longevity and degree of effort needed for maintenance.
etc
I am not even going to bother responding to such logic. I think you know very little about Western art and architecture judging from your comments. And your subjective/objective distinction is facile –but one only harms oneself when responds to people with such little learning. Western classical art (sculpture of the Greeks which remains as amazing after 2000 years, the classical architecture of the Greeks with the sublime mathematical proportions and harmony is simply amazing–) But I would never say other art such as Indian statues are “clumsy” in comparison to them. Reasoning on such a base level only displays the basest ignorance. An artwork is usually evaluated in the time in which it was produced.
“Shakespeare was a joke when compared to Tikkana using a certain set of criterion…”
There you go again. Most of the world has not heard of Tikkana. But Shakespeare is a household name (not to put Tikkana down or compare him to the former) and only ignorant people would even say he was a “joke” using any criteria. What facile logic you use. There is not use arguing with monominded people.
Evaluating art in terms of distinctions such as “clumsy”, subjective/ objective are the crudest evaluations one can come up with intellectually. You only display your gross ignorance when you write such things. It is a waste of effort to even try to answer someone at such a crude level.
Western art, architecture, literature and philosophy spans a 2500 year time, beginning from the Greeks– at least I would make an effort to study something before making crude generalizations.
19. December 2009 - 9:50 PM
The truth is doniger under all the intellectual camouflage is a very sexually frustrated woman.And by looking at her you can understand why..I was there at lecture in London where she was giving her ’sexual’ interpertation of the Ramayana and when suddenly she nearly got egged by someone in the audience.She really was shook up after that and then calmed down on her nonsense lecture..
20. December 2009 - 12:12 PM
@larissa,
Spit & run away attitude is not gonna help.
“Western art, architecture, literature and philosophy spans a 2500 year time, beginning from the Greeks”
The biggest number Greeks could ever think of was Myriad , a ten thousand. And you call that sublime ?. Shakespeare is common household name just because of English colonization which created a huge empire on which the sun never set, not because he was the greatest ever playwright to have walked on the earth. Everybody English medium student would obviously know romantic poets of Victorian era but why would everyone know about a Vietnamese poetess who handled romance much better ?. And what does everybody knowin
I stated clearly that it was the modern judeo-christian west that started looking cultures and civilizations in an objective way. Their whole theory falls apart and they lose hands down when we really start comparing things in a scientific way with defined set of metrics. They could get away with such silly objective analysis and propaganda because they were lucky enough to hang on to the political power in Eastern theaters for last 3 to 4 centuries.
” Evaluating art in terms of distinctions such as “clumsy”, subjective/ objective are the crudest evaluations one can come up with intellectually. ”
Well that is exactly what I have been saying all through. When you start comparing art objectively and claim superiority, you should make sure that you really are of superior quality OR you should have political & financial power to enforce & market the propaganda.
Modern western institutions have never encouraged its students of art & literature to start looking things subjectively, because, with such analysis you can never claim class or superiority and that was always detrimental for its political pursuits. Wendy, Witzel etc are products of these same institutions and their analysis and commentary on art & literature would be crude and weak. If they still want to continue the same old way then they should realize that their civilization & culture hasn’t got much to offer that could stand against East in an objective comparison and this often creates more frustration and anxiety that produces a syndrome that this post was talking. That was the crux of my argument all through.
“It is a waste of effort to even try to answer someone at such a crude level.”
Well I didn’t see any effort in your answers or arguments so far, you simply got away by labeling me as chauvinistic, crude etc. But, if you think that fine arts unlike sciences are to be approached in a subjective manner, then this whole argument was indeed a waste of time & effort.
20. December 2009 - 6:31 PM
” Evaluating art in terms of distinctions such as “clumsy”, subjective/ objective are the crudest evaluations one can come up with intellectually. ”
“Well that is exactly what I have been saying all through”
No thats not when it started. It started when you said Western art was “clumsy” in relation to Indian art. Then you go on to mention some Tamil guy no one has heard of and say he is greater than Shakespeare according to your point of view. No one has heard of your poet. What I have been saying is that its a waste of time answering ignorance.
And to say that Shakespeare is great simply because of English colonization displays the resentment and jealousy of the colonized. Lets leave his greatness out of colonization, for it speaks for itself and does not need you to justify it.
“The biggest number Greeks could ever think of was Myriad , a ten thousand. And you call that sublime ?. ”
I am sorry–ancient Greek was my area of study for 12 years. It is beneath my dignity to have to answer such ignorance. Get some knowledge of Western art and architecture before you start talking about subjects about which you know very little.
You do not answer me but just make yourself look ridiculous. And I should not have to answer such an ignorant person–debating only is meaningful when you debate with equals. thanks.
22. December 2009 - 12:18 PM
Well..this guy is into academia and thats why he puts in what I was saying in a very very mild tone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZTvHqM-_jE
“I am sorry–ancient Greek was my area of study for 12 years”..
funny logic…what if it was your area of study for 100s of years….wasnt helio-centric theory area of study for many people for many centuries ?.
Anyways..I dont want to disturb you more by telling truth which obviously hurts…..if you want to think of mere lime to be sublime, so be it.
22. December 2009 - 12:20 PM
i meant geo-centric theory.
24. December 2009 - 9:41 PM
Well you cannot discuss Sanskrit with those who do not know the language do you? Similarly those who cannot read a sentence of ancient Greek should limit their discussion to the subjects they do know–its a sign of a mediocre mind to wax on about topics which they know very little about.
“Anyways..I dont want to disturb you more by telling truth which obviously hurts”
What truth have you explained to me? Excuse me? Nothing. You have displayed your ignorance thats all. And the more you respond, it is ever more evident for all to see. As I said debate is impossible unless among equals–that is, both persons must have a mastery of the subject at hand otherwise its meaningless.
27. December 2009 - 6:44 AM
“wasnt helio-centric theory area of study for many people for many centuries ?. ”
No, it wasn’t. It has only been around for five centuries. By the way, it is the correct theory.
Are you sure you know what the heliocentric theory is ? (Of course, by your logic it isn’t important to know what it is in order to have an opinion on it.
)
27. December 2009 - 9:41 PM
“Western art, architecture, literature and philosophy spans a 2500 year time, beginning from the Greeks”
Ever heard of the dark ages?
28. December 2009 - 12:49 AM
“Ever heard of the dark ages?”
Ever examined the art and architecture of those times” Pick up a book on art history.
There was plenty of art in the dark ages–only the art was religious and the paintings were mostly iconic and dealt with religious themes –the religious paintings of the times are also masterpieces, despite the subject matter, it does not mean that some of the techniques used were not magnificent. Also in terms of architecture the greco-roman architecutre was put in the serivice of religious architecture, that is, churches. So there was plenty of art and architecture in the “dark ages” but art mostly had Christian themes, thats all.
28. December 2009 - 6:51 AM
>>>“There was plenty of art in the dark ages”
Thats like saying Ravana was a learned man.
Sure he was. Only that he used his learning for more harm than good. Which essentially made his learning worthless, infact harmful, both to himself and to his victims.
The so-called ‘art’ of those times, infact, most of the so called ‘western art’ are mere mediums or expressions of self-aggrandizement, indulgence of selfish interests and motives, made with the purpose of conveying grandeur, to intimidate, to convey superiority, to delude.
In much the same manner the movies and television serials of today are mere tools of propaganda, for fostering a consumerist culture that will help bring more profit to sponsors, who could be capitalist entrepreneurs or gramscian ideologists, however technically well crafted they may be.
It is this motive of using art to further ulterior interests that leads to the excessive focus on technical aspects or on ‘entertainment value’ or even ‘artistic freedom’, ignoring the sometimes detrimental effect on society, on human being, on ethics and values.
Thus art, whether of dark ages or contemporary, that is used to convey superiority, self-promotion, or to subtly plant subversive ideas favouring a particular group, deserves censure, not appreciation.
dhanyavaad
28. December 2009 - 3:14 PM
@larissa
My point was simple ad it said an objective comparison of Eastern art & aesthetics makes most western art look like an amateurs work and I have been giving many examples to support. I have also said that this approach of comparing art and literature is a western notion and is still alive in its institutions that produce likes of Wendy Doniger who do not know head from ail of what they are commenting on. You instead of building your argument on why Western art is of superior quality , are making just empty accusations and attributing illiteracy to me. May be you are a pure sentimental art student who refuses to delve into reason and behaves like he/she is devoid of any scientific temper.
All I said was analogous to this simple statement
“In most of the cases, a computer built by IBM is superior to that of one built by DELL, there may be few Dell computers which are really good designs” , I cant understand why you find it hard to accept it as a fact or at least build an argument to counter that.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at others and that’s what many western anthropologists, philologists, artists, writers etc have been doing all through. Nothing wrong with them as people, the problem is with the institutions. The title of this blog post is aptly named, they are producing syndromes and not students.East or West, if artists or their lobbyists just depend on political & financial power to claim superiority, their art will definitely face the judgment day.
28. December 2009 - 6:15 PM
Prachetas, Incognito:
I guess the time has come for Frau Larissa for understand–
1) Most (if not all) of commenters on this blog are Bharatiyas.
2) We have a right to have an opinion that our art and literature are the best in the world.
3) We also have a right to have an opinion against against anything western, though we may agree that its a completely unjustified bias.
4) We are prepared to lead our lives with our biases and prejudices and any amount of prodding, begging, entreating, etc will not make us open our preconditioned eyes to western art, literature, etc.
Yes, it is unfair, but then, Frau Larissa is also entitled to her own views, however biased they may be, which she is free to post on Minoan/Macedonian/Byzantine/Merovingian/Hohenzollern/etc blogs.
29. December 2009 - 4:14 PM
“Ever examined the art and architecture of those times”
How did it compare to ancient Roman and Greek art? Was it an advancement or regression? Why is the 1000-year period from 500 AD to 1500 AD called Europe’s Dark Ages if art and architecture were flowering?
29. December 2009 - 9:38 PM
I did not say it was an advancement–please do not try to teach me what I have been saying all along. Regression it might have been, but there was not an absence of art. For example, there are many impressive gothic cathedrals in France which served religious purposes–and the cathedrals are very impressive if you have ever set foot inside one. I myself prefer classical architecture–its harmony and form, but art changes according to the times, and it is in keeping with this that it is to be evaluated.
Anyway, every discussion boils down the the same theme for monominded people. It would be nice if people kept to the subject matter at hand. Moreover this side tracked when a commentator said that his Tamil poet was greater than Shakespeare and that Western art was clumsy in relation to Indian art–such broad statements are meaningless. Now for those who accuse “Westerners” of chauvinism–if this is not chauvinism I don’t know what is. I can appreciate the fact that such a statement is a king of defence mechanism, and that such an attitude is perhaps better than that which does not understand its own roots but blindly accepts all things Western without understanding them, however such ignorant comments are to be avoided if one wishes to be taken seriously, i.e. show that one is capable of thinking critically and has some intellectual maturity.
As for Western art under Christianity, much was borrowed from the Greco-Roman world, however one cannot say that there was no art–it was art in a different context. I myself am not greatly inspired by this art (in the sense of the world view underlying it), but in terms of techniques some of it is impressive.
30. December 2009 - 1:34 AM
@larissa,
It clearly shows that boiling inside with meaningless anger you haven’t been reading the replies thoroughly, first of all its not a Tamil poet, I was talking about Tikkana, a Telugu poet who translated Vyasa’s Mahabharata from Sanskrit into Telugu. I clearly gave a bunch of metrics which makes Shakespeare’s works look facile, rather clumsy. If you had felt painful for that, you should have built an argument saying that Shakespeare’s works also had those set of qualities or at least told me that he had to be analyzed in a different set of metrics, instead you start using cliches like nationalism, chauvinism, jingoism and ultimately attribute illiteracy and immaturity as a defense mechanism. It is you who have used blanket concepts to defend your outburst of reaction and actually digressed. I have been claiming from the very beginning that if you want to objective analysis, you should do what people do to rate scientific works and publications. I have been making the claim that Indian/ Eastern traditions have produced way better artifacts than their western counterparts in the domains of art & literature and they were so advanced that their western counterparts looked like amateurs. If today someone claims that US/ European universities produce way better scientific papers than their counterparts in Asia, I would either accept it as truth or build an argument to counter that, I wont get emotional and complain of American chauvinism, jingoism.
How you fail to grasp such a simple thing beats me, and it reminds me of what Krishna says in Gita
From Krodha (anger) you get mati-bhramsa (disillusioned) and from mati-bhramsa you get buddhi-naasho (evaporation of common sense) and from buddhi-nasho you get pranashyati (ruined).
30. December 2009 - 2:05 AM
Okay, it seems this argument has gotten out of hand. Larissa’s original comment is valid and Sandeep’s acknowledgement of that should have been the end of it.
What Sandeep has written about Doniger, I cannot disagree with. Doniger is a dishonest scholar. Also, Western understanding of “Indology” has been on the decline. Part of that can be attributed to India’s adoption of Western culture too. How many Indians are interested in the ancient traditions of India? They are more at home with Rock, jeans and Coca Cola. So the blame cannot entirely lie on Western scholars. But whatever be the cause and wherever the blame may fall, the overall argument still holds true that Western Indology is declining.
Larissa was right in her opinion of Doniger and since this was an article about Doniger, the debate should have ended there. She was also right that there are perhaps many Indian Indologists who are shoddy as well. But how did it morph into Greek/Roman architecture, dark ages &etc.? Larissa may be an expert in Greek studies but that is not relevant here. Attacking her for her views on those matters is not relevant either.
So all those of you mudslinging at each other, can we go back to the original topic about Wendy Doniger and her shoddy scholarship?
30. December 2009 - 2:56 PM
“Regression it might have been, but there was not an absence of art.”
Is this supposed to be an achievement of the West?
30. December 2009 - 8:28 PM
Looks like the W(M)D (*)saga continues unabated.
(*) Even Dubya needs acknowledgement.
30. December 2009 - 11:08 PM
@pracetas
One annoying Indian trait I often notice is moralizing when no one wants to hear it–I would’nt call Shakespeare mediocre nor would compare him to an Indian poet–these are people who create out of a different cultures and times, so its like comparing apples and oranges.
I am simply saying, don’t make ignorant comments when you do not seem to know much about the subject matter at hand–I would never make such absurd comments such as Western Art is superior to Indian art or Indian art is clumsy in relation to Western art–
Nothing wrong in being proud of regional literature and I am sure there are great Tamil or Telugu poets. All I am saying is that its best to keep silent when you only display ignorance. I have no interest in “defending” Western art–it needs no defense, but I get annoyed when people make meaningless statements and try to pass it on as intelligent or meaningful observations. Since you seem to be in the habit of moralizing here are two for you:
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.
Paul Valery
“The characteristic fact of the moment is that the mediocre soul, recognizing itself as mediocre, has the audacity to assert the right of mediocrity and impose it everywhere.”
Ortega y Gasset
Thanks
31. December 2009 - 1:13 AM
@larissa
Hmmmmm…..
“One annoying Indian trait I often notice is moralizing when no one wants to hear it” – This comes from a person who also stated that she did not like to generalize. Probably you changed your mind.
Comparing eastern and western culture is like to comparing apples to oranges. You can not view our culture the same way we are used to view it because you do not share our educational and socio-economic background. Same is applicable for us when we argue about your culture. Leftists keep talking about universality of cultural traits but such talks are generally politically inspired and lack logical depth. That is my personal opinion based on observation. Others may and probably would disagree with it.
Whenever anyone from west tries to write about India and it’s heritage/culture, their bias comes into play. These biases are instituted into their mind through their education and so-called glorious tradition (a tradition in looting and then destroying indigenous culture if I may opine). Not all of these people are dishonest, but mostly it is impossible for them to avoid the biases. The trend pretty much started with Max Muller whose reported first impression about Veda was “Vedas were worse than savage”. That sad trend continued with people like Witzel and Doniger. When someone here talked about “limited western mind”, they were not very far off the point. With the instituted biases western minds are indeed pretty limited when they talk about our culture, our philosophy or Chinese art or Zen philosophy or African traditions.
The end result is that most of the Hindus in today’s India believes in Aryan Migration Theory despite the fact that Saraswati’s existence is conveniently proven recently and recent archeological findings have raised questions about correctness of western theories about ancient India. It would probably take us another 4/5 decades to eliminate these wrong and derogatory theories.
Our tradition and common sense say that responding to insult with insult is not a great way to carry a discussion. However, I can not help but notice that western minds too had an annoying trait of sermonizing the world when the world really do not want to hear it.
31. December 2009 - 1:57 PM
@larisaa,
Very true, Indians have to get over this bad habit, for too long we have been moralizing to those who do not want to hear and worse,even to those who are severely challenged in understanding the meaning of morality. May be brute force annexation for colonization would have helped Indians better in moralizing everyone equally well, alas, their climate, civilization , political landscape and abundance of spices/gold prohibited them from trying it out.
Everyone knows who started comparative religion/comparative art departments in their universities and most of us know what they have done and continue to do in there all in the name of research. So don’t blame me for comparing art/religion/literature of various cultures. And whats wrong in comparing two poets of different cultures and saying one of them is far superior than other considering a given set of criterion ? after all..poetic genres are universal and you can definitely compare & rate them. There are no pride or shame issues involved here and I have repeatedly stressed that, it is you who are giving emotional twists to the debate whose crux was about the real standing of Eastern art in comparison to western art and how western institutions mostly produce mud slinging syndromes instead of objective analysts.
And coming to your quotes, they are neatly put but they aren’t universal truths and so wont serve for moralizing people even if they are ready to hear. Paul Valery who was a member of Academy of Sciences, , must have observed what was going on on daily basis at the academy during his life time and being a poet himself penned his frustration in a elegant way. In my opinion most of the great modern innovators, scientists in last 3 centuries have actually made discoveries many of which are actually anomalies and paradoxes, started out with metaphors as proofs and had created tonnes of verbiage not only for scientific purposes but also to proclaim prophecies, file patents and earn royalties, fame. The second quote talks about mediocrity but as I said, ‘mediocre’ is a relative term and you need two things for one to be mediocre.Nice try though.
31. December 2009 - 10:16 PM
“And whats wrong in comparing two poets of different cultures and saying one of them is far superior than other considering a given set of criterion ?”
Nothing. But you are the one who gets all agitated when Westerners make statements about how their “culture” is superior–now why does that get on your nerves while you say the same kinds of things in relation to Western culture? This is what I am trying to display. Double standards here. Westerners are not the only ones who are guilty of chauvinism. Indians also can make very laughable and ignorant statements. A case in point is you. So when you accuse others of something at least do not display the same yourself! It only makes one laughable.
31. December 2009 - 10:30 PM
Anyway, I have no interest in defending any culture–I just like to point out discrepancies in the arguments of people–its fun to do so!
This is a nice forum
Happy New Year everyone!
3. January 2010 - 1:24 PM
“Nothing. But you are the one who gets all agitated when Westerners make statements about how their “culture” is superior–now why does that get on your nerves while you say the same kinds of things in relation to Western culture? This is what I am trying to display. Double standards here.”
Larissa, if you are a Westerner, you must know that the fundie Christians like to call the West as their territory. They simply ignore the Greko-Romans, and state that everything about the West is “Christian”. We have Christian fruitcakes stating that America “was founded on Christian values” or “Judeo-Christian values”. These fundies (in America at least) are trying hard to teach Creationism in schools, reject Darwinism, reject the bloody history of the cult of Christianity, reject any and everything that is not in the bible. If the Indians are saying that they are against the “West”, they simply mean that they are against the propaganda of the church – that controls media houses across continents (in India Prannoy James Roy and NDTV) in order to preserve its image.
3. January 2010 - 2:42 PM
>>>-“We have Christian fruitcakes stating that America “was founded on Christian values” or “Judeo-Christian values”” – S
‘Judeo-Christian values’, ‘Greco-Roman culture’, ‘western civilization’
Oxymorons.
Jews were persecuted by Christians.
Greece was destroyed by Romans.
Native civilizations of Americas, Africa, Australia and Asia were destroyed by westerners.
Like a murdering thief calling his bloody loot the common property of himself and the mudered owner.
http://www.danielnpaul.com/ChristopherColumbus.html
4. January 2010 - 10:47 PM
S – Please explain;
1. If the West (meaning NA & Western Europe)is not Christian, what is it?
2. What about the proud Western Christians who do not ignore their Greco-Roman culture?
3. What other values was America founded upon?
4. What is wrong with American Christians teaching their children creationism in American schools? Btw, has the last word on Darwinism been said?
5. Rejecting of facts is not good. I agree.
6. Reaction and action against Church propaganda in Hindusthan is most welcome. I agree.
Incognito – Please clarify;
“Native civilizations of Americas, Africa, Australia and Asia were destroyed by westerners.”
- Wrt the native Americans, is it not a fact that there were tribal nations that went to war against each other and slaughtered each other to the last man? Taking your logic, will it then be correct to say there never was a native American civilization? Or that these are oxymorons?
5. January 2010 - 1:37 AM
Palahalli,
Here are few thoughts (well, it was irresistible):
1. When we say Christianism, we have to consider Catholicism and Protestantism. Most of America and Europe (at least western part) were not Catholics after dudes at the Vatican city began to sell the tickets to heaven. Based on my observation, they were not strictly protestants either. IMHO, most of Europe is affected with liberalism and on it’s way to become Islamist Eurabia. I am pretty convinced that keeping with the tradition, sooner or later they would invite Laden to marry a 9 year old daughter of liberal parents.
2. Every proud christian follows Greco-Roman culture. The entire Christmas thing used to be a re-engineered form of pagan winter solstice ritual, now-a-days it is a marketing oriented winter solstice ritual eagerly sought by retailers and cash-starved churches.
3. If America was founded on Christian values, then they would not have written “All men are born free and equal” (or something that conveys the same meaning) in their constitution. Off course the slave-keepers meant white male by the reference of “men” but that is not the point.
4. “Btw, has the last word on Darwinism been said?” – A huge library of books were written on this and the entire Darwinism thing has evolved to the point where even Darwinists has difficulty in recognizing it. On a serious note, because it is not equivalent to ten commandments but a scientific theory, nobody could say a last thing on it. Unfortunate I know, but science has a tendency to ignore any last words. As a great theory, it has made certain predictions that was well tested. Thus, it is worthy of teaching to School children.
“What is wrong with American Christians teaching their children creationism in American schools?” – Because, one should not teach false propaganda to their children. If there is nothing wrong with this, then by the same logic, what is wrong with muslim children learning about jihad in Madrasas?
5,6. can not agree more.
5. January 2010 - 9:55 AM
“What about the proud Western Christians who do not ignore their Greco-Roman culture?”
There is no such thing–they view Christianity as “teaching” the pagans something they lacked (they see the pagans as immoral idolators I guess like Hindus?)– just as Muslims see Islam as improving the original pre-Islamic cultures–this is the type of thinking common to all the desert religions–they view themselves as having the sole monopoly on the truth and others as deluded.
Every serious classical scholar of Greek is not that fond of Christianity–they look upon it as something that “happened”–it has become a part of the culture–so they can’t shake it off as the original pre-Christian world view was disrupted, and they must live with it as Christianity is a part of the culture and gives people a grounding in morals, gives the common man something, men cant live wihout some connection to the sacred whatever form it might be –but paganism survives in Western art, science, architecture and contemplative thought–indeed all the greatest moments occurred when Greek culture creeped back into the Christian culture. Christianity would not have been powerful had it not adopted certain Roman customs as regards the State and religion.
When people practice their faith in peace, that is fine–strict Christians are in a sense better than “liberals” in most ways–but then when they try to impose their beliefs on others they become intolerable. Proselytizing is part of the faith. I guess no one in their right minds would have anything against benign Christians who practice their faith and do not impose it on others.
5. January 2010 - 11:04 AM
1. My question remains unanswered.
2. If one reads Larissa and yourself and cuts out the chaff, the answer is in the affirmative – There can be proud Western Christians who not just do not ignore their ancient Greco-Roman culture but have imbibed it as part of their Western Christian traditions.
3. My question remains unanswered.
4. The *sun* is depicted with two eyes and a smily face in text books. That’s not false propaganda although some crazed fanatic “rationalists” love to view it as such. The debate on Darwinism is a bit like the debate about the existence of God. Great minds can be found on either side of these divides. I can agree with an “also teach” principle wrt Darwinism but to blind-side something American parents value for their children as “false propaganda” sounds like a DMKite argument to me. The analogy with Jihad is obviously preposterous.
5. January 2010 - 8:29 PM
Palahalli,
1. Today, a lot of west is actually slowly walking towards atheism. I watched religulous, a documentary made on religions by Bill Maher and according to him, thirty percent of American population is atheist. A lot of Europeans are also inclined towards atheism. But except some courageous atheists like Bill Maher, every other atheist dude is a liberal thus they do not have anything to say against islamo-fascism. Most of the American Southern states, Spanish, Portugese and some countries belonging to old communist bloc are hard-line Catholics and it is their donation to the evangelicals that is wrecking havoc in countries like India (it is interesting to note that they do not have any soul to save in Saudi Arabia). West has walked far from the strict religious teachings of Vatican based Christianity and IMHO, it is this freedom from those diabolical doctrines that finally enabled them to embrace scientific teachings and rationalism. What happened during Industrial revolution and colonialism is certainly not inspired by missionary motives. I do not care whether west embraces Christianity or not, as long as their money do not coerce us to accept their point of view. So, the straight answer to your question is, west is not strictly Christian or Jew. It is a mix and now-a-days there are some western Hindus too.
2. “….but have imbibed it as part of their Western Christian traditions.” – Yes, but they do not take pride in knowing that this was Greco-Roman culture. Hard-line Catholics believe the Vatican interpretation and what I wrote above is enough to get me lynched in rural places in states like Louisiana or Indiana. So proud Christians rarely care for Greco-Roman culture.
3. Ok, take a look here if that was all you wanted to know:
http://www.aforcemorepowerful.org/resources/docs/lesson1/core-values-of-american-constitutional-democracy.doc
This hardly agrees with Bible although I have doubts about how many of these values Americans actually demonstrate.
4. “The *sun* is depicted with two eyes and a smily face in text books. That’s not false propaganda …” – that is called over-simplification for the purpose of introducing budding minds to the world. Creationism is not over-simplification of Darwinism. The theory of evolution contains Darwinism as one of it’s pillars but there are several others who contributed to this theory. As I stated before, a scientific theory is great as long as it predicts things that can be tested well. From that angle Evolution as a theory stood test of time. Creationism does not even count as a theory.
As a practicing Hindu, my religion and tradition wanted me to keep my mind open to intelligence and logic. There are several things I do not agree to liberals but that does not mean I am going to agree to every bullshit missionaries managed to produce ever. As a practicing Hindu, I do not see any obligation to support creationism, it is supposed to get the ridicule and humiliation it deserves.
5. January 2010 - 9:47 PM
Palahalli, the two issues with creationism are that
1. its proponents want to teach that in a science class, and
2. their theory of creationism is only from the Bible, and not from different creation stories from different cultures around the globe.
If you want to teach creationism, what makes the Christianity and Bible’s creationism account so superior or more valid than, say, Hindu account, or the Egyptian account of the same? Why limit students to just the Bible’s account of it?
And I’ll second what Sid wrote:
“There are several things I do not agree to liberals but that does not mean I am going to agree to every bullshit missionaries managed to produce ever. As a practicing Hindu, I do not see any obligation to support creationism, it is supposed to get the ridicule and humiliation it deserves.”
6. January 2010 - 4:06 AM
” There can be proud Western Christians who not just do not ignore their ancient Greco-Roman culture but have imbibed it as part of their Western Christian traditions.”
However, if you notice, the Western Europe is living in a post-Christian age. I am not saying this is bad or good, but just stating how things are. It has nothing to do with people being “liberal” and hence anti-religion, but has to do with the fact that many intellegent people don’t see their religion as satisfactory for a variety of reasons. With the way the Church goes about things, I do not see religion making a great comeback in Western Europe or having the influence it did in the Middle Ages. I myself prefer decent Christians to most liberals out there. But if you notice these days the Church also makes concessions to all the social pressures in order to be popular–
But we are not debating Christianity in Europe or America, if I am not mistaken. I don’t see why HIndus have to be concerned with what religious direction the West takes–they have their own religion and culture they ought to preserve and protect.
6. January 2010 - 4:18 AM
Sid,
I find Bill Maher rude and obnoxious personally–the type that says anything to make a buck and appear as “brave” for offending people to make a TV show and have viewers. I cannot stand to watch such people–
6. January 2010 - 4:22 AM
Sid,
I find Bill Maher rude and obnoxious personally–the type that says anything to make a buck and appear as “brave” for offending people to make a TV show and have viewers. I cannot stand to watch such people–
And with regard to his ‘atheist” stance it is really nothing but inverted “fundamentalism”, there are merely two sides of the same coin–I am referring to “atheism” in the Western school and not in the Eastern sense as one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism.
6. January 2010 - 4:33 AM
sorry
<>
and <>
Would be nice if this site had an edit function for those who type fast….
6. January 2010 - 4:35 AM
I meant to say
“they are merely two sides of the same coin”
and “I am referring to atheism in the Western sense as a reaction to Christianity and not talking about “atheism” in the Eastern sense as one of the philosophical schools in Hinduism.”
6. January 2010 - 12:00 PM
Some frank comment.
It seems none of us Indians here have a thorough understanding of Western culture to argue about it.
6. January 2010 - 12:49 PM
Larissa,
Use notepad to type your comments, do your edits and then paste it here.
Just helpful hints. 
6. January 2010 - 1:50 PM
I think to agree with SB would be a truism – so I agree
I made some other simple points -
1. These pertained to the *West* being Christian. I think it would be correct to agree that it is so in light of there being no contrary identification wrt the West by the West. We cannot say the West is Atheist, Muslim, Hindu/pagan etc but Christian is closest to reality.
Let us not confuse this position with our dislike of the West’s exertions in Hindusthan.
2. There are Christians of all kinds, I suppose. Those who appreciate their traditional ancient moorings and those that view it with suspicion. That’s their problem. Sid, I would avoid speaking like that in those US states that would lynch me – for speaking like that.
3. The American founding addressed a Christian population that was addressed by Christian leaders. There is some information about George Washington not attending Church on Sundays. That hardly makes him a “Hindu”or an Atheist. I think it’s best to acknowledge there are all kinds of Christians with varying beliefs.
4. My point about “creationism” is entirely missed. I’m talking about American parents in the US choosing creationism over Darwinism. Frankly they would be correct not to care two hoots for what any Hindu thinks of what they should teach their children in their country.
Kaffir – It’s their country, their school system and their children. Who the hell are we?
6. January 2010 - 7:51 PM
larissa,
“I find Bill Maher rude and obnoxious personally…” – Then you have not seen some of the Fox commentators in action. They are insufferable. It is how news channels in USA work. The more outrageous you are, higher your ratings will be. Their system protect them from the consequences of their imbecility.
Bill Maher makes certain interesting points and although I am not an atheist I find his point-of-view interesting to note. In his documentary he raised certain questions on central dogmas of Abrahamic religions , these questions are very honest questions and in today’s world, very few in the world has the guts to ask them. His documentary is not as depressing as Geert Wilders’ Fitna, and it is watchable.
As long as he does not blow up few buildings or kill people in the name of atheism (or ask others), I have problems in viewing him as something close to “fundamentalist”. Please note that, Richard Dawkins and Osama Bin Laden are not the same type of people.
6. January 2010 - 8:25 PM
Palahalli,
1. No, west is a mix today. I can not find any reason to term west as christian. But then our point of view may be different. I think you would agree to me that a lot of people in this country are born Hindu and they do not understand the meaning of being Hindu. Counting such people as Hindus is counter-productive. These people would not move their rear end from their couch even if they see Hindus getting killed or Hindu temples getting looted. What is the use of calling these people as Hindus? Similarly, most Christians in Europe no longer care about what Vatican says. Only quiet a few do. Today, it is not possible for European society to respond to the Muslim aggression the same way they tried to respond during the time of crusades. That is the exact reason Vatican found a need to consolidate itself in the east and seek to replace our culture and heritage.
2. “Sid, I would avoid speaking like that in those US states that would lynch me – for speaking like that.” – Sandip’s blog is not among fifty states of USA, hence I am safe. But then truth stands on it’s own, not on my neck.
3. “That hardly makes him a “Hindu”or an Atheist.” – What makes you think that anybody in the world has three options – namely Christian, Hindu and atheist? Some of America’s founding fathers did not adhere to most Christian traditions, they were what they used to call deists. Thomas Jefferson even compiled a Bible from the vatican Bible by leaving the miracles performed by Jesus simply because he did not believe in them. But most of their constituency was Christians (protestants mostly) and the later phase migrating Europeans (Irish etc) are strictly Catholics and they changed the demographics significantly. My point is that USA and west today hardly subscribe to Christian worldview. If you ever talk to westerners on what the evangelicals are doing in India, most of them would actually disapprove of those actions. If you compare them to the reactions of Saudis in relation to Wahabbis, difference would be striking.
4. “I’m talking about American parents in the US choosing creationism over Darwinism.” – I really do not care. America’s basic education is far worse than even India’s.
“Frankly they would be correct not to care two hoots for what any Hindu thinks of what they should teach their children in their country.” – Darwinism stands on it’s own without any Hindu’s help ever. Education of American children hardly bothers me, what bothers me your “what is wrong” question about it. If reasonable people like you come up with those questions, sooner or later there will be a “secular” movement to dump theory of evolution in favor of creationism and our children would be taught that very Christian myth that it’s own creators could not find a place for in their own country. Even if Americans teach their children that Earth revolves around Sun, I do not have a problem.
6. January 2010 - 8:37 PM
=>
It’s their country, their school system and their children. Who the hell are we?
=>
Yes, I know that. But these points you mention are not the ones under discussion, and your above comment is a total ‘non sequitur’. Or are you going to limit your discussion of issues strictly based on geographical considerations now?
7. January 2010 - 1:59 AM
“Please note that, Richard Dawkins and Osama Bin Laden are not the same type of people.”
Richard Dawkins is a far more respectful and intelligent man than Maher. He does not need to have a T.V. show to make some $$, but argues his points in books that people with some intelligence read. Now whether you agree with him or not is a different matter. Lets leave it at that. Most of US T.V. except for the nature channels and somtimes the public television stations are not watchable. Which is why I got rid of cable a long time back. Good riddance and I have never regretted it.
7. January 2010 - 2:12 AM
“America’s basic education is far worse than even India’s.”
Palahalli you have to to be kidding me. You mean to say that India with a better basic educational system is behind America? If India’s basic education were so good why are there so many illiterates in India? India has never focused on basic education but just on elite institutions. Which is why a large portion of its population remains illiterate while a select few are capable of working on a space program. This is a legacy of Nerhu and will surely drag the country down if it is not rectified. Moreover, China provides much more quality basic education for its masses. Its true that many public schools in the US are failing and that there are problems with inner city schools but that does not mean that there are not sound schools. You are talking of the “cream of the crop” type schools in India, now those schools should be compared to US schools at a similar level. And there are plenty out there. Even some public schools which are based on admissions requiring entrance exams are excellent.
The facilities are all there in US schools, even in inner city ones–now why some students don’t make the best use of it is “cultural”–perhaps some parents don’t push their kids hard enough, but the facilities are all there. This is different from India where it is often difficult to gain access to proper books especially in rural areas and many facilities are non-existent.
7. January 2010 - 5:47 AM
=>
The facilities are all there in US schools, even in inner city ones–now why some students don’t make the best use of it is “cultural”–perhaps some parents don’t push their kids hard enough, but the facilities are all there.
=>
While I agree with your overall point regarding US schools, I have a few friends who work as teachers in public schools in the US, and they are always struggling to get basic resources for their students – either they buy them out of their own pocket, or have to rely on raising money through efforts like DonorsChoose etc. It could be a temporary issue because of cuts in school funding due to the economy, but the situation is not quite as rosy as you paint it, though it’s still quite good.
7. January 2010 - 6:08 AM
It could be a temporary issue because of cuts in school funding due to the economy, but the situation is not quite as rosy as you paint it, though it’s still quite good.
It could also be due to the fact that the in affluent areas, the people pay higher taxes and the schools are better equipped. You are right though– not all school districts are the same in terms of public schooling.
Its true in America, life is very hard for those that do not fall under a certain tax bracket, for an affluent country, I see the common man really struggle here to make ends meet. Also many people here don’t have extended family support like in Asia so that when they fall through the cracks (which is very easy to do in a society like this) they are pretty much on their own–But then again while poverty in India leads to hunger, in the US it leads to obesity (from the consumption of unhealthy foods).
7. January 2010 - 7:08 AM
larissa,
It is not Palahalli who wrote this. It is me. So I will answer this.
“You mean to say that India with a better basic educational system is behind America? If India’s basic education were so good why are there so many illiterates in India? India has never focused on basic education but just on elite institutions.” –
Please do not invent what I said, conclude. The existence of illiterates in India has nothing to do with quality of the education, but quantity of the educational institutes as well as the socio-economic condition that forces the children from poor families to work. In America, you probably can not imagine lack of funds due to which education can not be given, but that is the sad reality in all the nations that has been looted before. If India focused only on the elite education, there would not be only handful of IITs and IIMs, there would have been many more.
In fact, it is America that solely depends on it’s elite institutes. To verify this, look at the school drop outs in USA, look at how many American students join elite American universities after graduation, look at the percent of university degree holders among first generation Americans and then compare it to the percent of University degree holders among Americans born in America. In my experience, not a single clerk could compute 8.5% rebate on a 100$ expense in a grocery store in midwest without a computer. This is something that my eight year old nephew managed to do faster than the kid at the counter managed to key in into the computers. These were all college going kids doing summer jobs. This is the state of basic education in America for you.
“This is a legacy of Nerhu and will surely drag the country down if it is not rectified.” – Nehru’s legacy was much more damaging than this. But that is hardly the point. There are lots of men/women in my country who are college graduates and searching for the jobs. Creating more educated non-working persons is not exactly is our highest priority. Unless we really have the kind of occupation that require college graduates, I do not see a need of country-wide education that goes beyond simple arithmetic, reading newspaper and ability to sign. These abilities should be made mandatory.
There are very dangerous tendencies I have seen. People who traditionally owns land, refuses to work on the land after getting a college degree. This attitude needs to change. Those who have education believes that they are entitled to jobs and those lucky few who has government jobs believe that they are entitled to salary and promotion without good service. Rectifying this should be our highest priority. We certainly do not need another foreigner disconnected from the ground reality advising us how we should proceed. However, I do understand that your approach to this was well meaning.
“Its true that many public schools in the US are failing…” – I am amused. And I am not even a priest in the church !!!!
“You are talking of the “cream of the crop” type schools in India….” – No, consider this: my basic education was done in a school in rural Bengal. It was built using the villagers’ donation (a house with three rooms built using mud and roofed using straw). I even do not know what facilities they provide in “Cream of the corp” schools. When I said basic education I am using the perspective of the schools built using mud, straw and donation money. At least 10 students in my fifth standard (out of 30-something class if I remember correctly) could actually calculate 8.5/100 * 100. I do not need to mention that they used to do that without computers.
7. January 2010 - 7:27 AM
@larissa,
Coming to your point about Bill Maher (I am hardly his lawyer)
“……but argues his points in books that people with some intelligence read.” So your point is that, if someone is intelligent then he should rather write books than appear in TV?
“He does not need to have a T.V. show to make some $$…” – So he does not make $$ by writing books? Boy, I thought writing is an occupation.
Frankly, any day, I would choose Maher’s funny commentary than Dawkins’ hard-line atheism. I saw him on a documentary on Google video, then the way he bullied his opponent made me remember Burqa Dutt and Karan Thappar. Incidentally he was rebuking creationism, but I could not approve the bullying. His version of atheism is no different than the expansionist and conversion-ist doctrine that he seeks to eliminate. Time will tell us if this is another marxism/secualrism like intolerant movement or not. But so far west has never produced a movement that is tolerant of any opposing viewpoint.
BTW, much of Charbak’s philosophy is lost or molested with propaganda, but I am not sure whether that adheres to the atheist values Sam Haris or Dawkins come up with.
7. January 2010 - 3:44 PM
Wendy Doniger in her recent interview to Outlook magazine
claimed a few more false stories as part of Ramayana
either due to deliberate intention to throw some mud
on RAMAYANA of Valmiki or else due to her ignorance.
But if we read even a few chapters of her another book “Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism” it becomes much more clear to us that her vituperative attacks are based more on her filthy,corrupt,dishonest mind .
In her book “Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism” she wrote that
“Janaka saw a celestial nymh Menaka and was exited. He ejaculated his semen which fell on the grounds, and later Sita was born from the ground”
Actually it was much more worse than what I have written above.
Read in her own words
” “[Janaka:] ‘Now, one day when I was in the sacrificial grounds, I saw the ultimate celestial nymph, Menaka, flying through the sky, and this thought came to me: ‘If I should have a child in her, what a child that would be!’ As I was thinking in this way, my semen fell on the ground. And afterwards, as I was ploughing that field, there arose out of the earth, as first fruits, my daughter, who has celestial beauty and qualities, and can only be won by one whose bride price is his manliness. Since she arose from the surface of the earth, and was born from no womb, she is called Sita, the furrow.’ ”
She claimed this as part of RAMAYAN of Valmiki and careful, deligent reading of Valmiki Ramayana and all of its 24000 slokas , you will never find any mention of Menaka nor any other woman or ejaculation of semen by Janaka.
Janaka explained the birth of Sita , to the great Sage Vishwamitra in Balakanda in the
66th sarga -13th sloka
atha me kR^iSataH kSetram laa.ngalaat utthitaa mama || 1-66-13
kSetram shodhayataa labdhvaa naamnaa siitaa iti vishrutaa
When I (Janaka, father of Sita) was ploughing the ritual field then raised by the plough from the furrow is a baby girl… since she is gained while consecrating the ritual-field, she is named as Sita, and thus she is renowned…
As if this were not enough , Wendy caught hold of “manliness” and repeated it half a dozen times just in two paragraphs.
The realty is that there is no word of “manliness” as a creteria set for the prospective bridegroom for Sita.
what Janaka said is this :
“Sita’s is a non-uterine birth as she surfaced from the surface of the earth, but fostered as my own soul-born girl and I determined [to giver her in marriage to a bridegroom where his] boldness is the only bounty, [I receive in that marriage...] [1-66-14b, 15a]
bala kanada (1) , 66th chapter 14 &15 slokas (Valmiki Ramayana)
But somehow ,Wendy Doniger found the word “manliness” and repeated it several times that ” the price for the bride (Sita) is manliness”.
The word in the sloka is “veerya” the meaning of which she could not understand !!
“bhuu talaat utthitaa saa tu vyavardhata mama aatmajaa || 1-66-14
viirya shulkaa iti me kanyaa sthaapitaa iyam ayonijaa ”
Here “veerya” means a warrior , “shulka” means a gift and in the context , the gift is
for Sita’s father. There was a system of “Kanya shulka” where bridgroom family should give a bounty of jewellary to bride’s father.
In this context Janaka, father of Sita says that bridegroom’s warrior nature or “boldness” is in itself a “shulka” gift or bounty for himself .
But Wendy Doniger althrough paragraphs repeates “manliness as brides price (of Sita)”.
In her latest book , “The Hindus: An Alternative History” she translated , “kama” meaning as “hopless sex addict” and went on to theorise that Lord Sri Rama had a psychological fear that people might consider him also as sex addict because He (Rama) was very much attached to his wife Sita. And hence, she theorised that Rama used her (his own wife Sita !!!) and thrown her out (sent to forest) once his desires were fulfilled !!!
First of all she did not establish with her theory that “Dasharatha (Rama’s father and the king of Ayodhya) was considered as sex addict by people of Ayodhya except her allegation that Laxmana (Rama’s brother ) called his father “kama -asaktha” .
Laxmana never used kama-asaktha word to describe his father in Valmiki Ramayana but Wendy found such a word.
Then she also said Rama also said it, which is true. It is in Gorkahpur edition of Valmiki Ramyana ; it is there.
But because Rama chose to describe his father in the words of “Kama-asaktha” does it also mean that people would think that HE (Rama) was also a hopeless sex addict ? and that is just because Rama had a great love for his wife!! that too his only wife.
What this Wendy Doniger says is that Dasaratha had three wives, and he was under the control of his third wife, and that he listened to her and sent Rama to forest.
Now that Rama regrets his father’s sex addiction to his wife(according to Wendy) . So what all this means is that He (Rama) thought that he will also be considered as sex addict if he loves his only wife Sita and hence Rama had sent his wife Sita away to forest !!!!
Can anyone believe this?
First kama-asaktha means passionate person and not a sex addict or a hopeless sex addict.
Then next question is what people of Ayodhya ‘would have’ thought (for Rama’s love for his wife Sita )?
Rama and Sita were husband and wife for 13 years before they were sent to forest for 14 years where they lived together in all their privacy ,during which time he killed 14,000 rakshashas who were cannibals and who were also terrorizing Dandakaranya and south Indian parts.
He established a “rama-rajya” . The word rama-rajya is used even today and most popularly by Mahatma Gandhi.
Rama was a legend in all the villages and among all the mendicants, Sages in the forest.
How can he be considered as a hopeless sex addict by people perticulary when he was a defacto ruler and he was declared crown prince and a coronation was annouced
after he had been living with only one wife Sita , a legend herself, for 13 years by the time.
And then they lived together in the forest for 12 years during which he established “Rama-Rajya” by cleaning the forest areas of cannibals , rakshashas.
The rest of 2 years was well known , with the search for Sita and eventual killing of Ravana along with thousands of Rakshashas (demons) and burning of their city.
But Wendy Doniger was very much obsessed with sex.
She went on to write in her book “The Hindus: An Alternative History” that Ravana raped a woman called Rambha and that she with torn clothes and blood bleeding on her theighs (from her vagina) went to Brahma , the God of creation and Brahma cursed Ravana that if he rapes any woman again his head would split in to thousand pieces.
Wendy gave a false story.
Rambha the celestial nymph was not the cause, but it was the incidence of Punjika sthala which brought the curse on Ravana’s head.
The fact that these incidents took place much,much before Ramayana ever occured, was acknowledged by Wendy Doniger .
As if a wrong story was not enough, Wendy Doniger claims that this incidence was added to Ramayana later , (from Puranas) probably ,only to support the fact that Ravana did not force himself on Sita.
Uttara Khanda(later book) was a later addition by poet BhavaBhuti 2000 years ago, (1st cent A.D.) who was a poet in the court of King Yashovarman of Kannouj.
But the incidence of Punjikasthala and eventual curse on Ravana was first made clear in Yuddha Khanda (book of war )without which there is no Ramayana.
And it was not told by Valmiki directly to support any incidence. It was told by the character Ravana in full court in front of all of his ministers and advisors. This was when he was insulted by Rama in the battled field , and bruised ,huimiliated Ravana ,returns , recounts his curses from various women Punjika sthala, Vedavati and so on in a full court attendance.
The refererence to his curses , can not be removed without removing the entire court scene.
In any case, to define the nature of Ravana in regard to Sita do not hinge on this one sloka or this one curse or any other curse of Ravana
Wendy Doniger says “though this(curses) is not the reason why he (Ravana) did not force himself on Sita , either Ravana chose not to do it, or that Sita held a power over him” In otherwords Wendy did a psychoanalysis of Ravana !!! Instead she should have read Ramayana properly and asked someone when she did not understand sanskrit words. Outlook magazine called her a sanskrit scholar, when she did not write a single paper in Sanskrit.And her capacity to write in Sanskrit is highly doubtful.
Wendy Doniger “psychoanalysis ” of Ravana while trying to understand Ramayana is offcourse nonsense.
Whoever reads Valmiki Ramayan immediately notices Ravana’s intentions of adbducting Sita , except people like Wendy Doniger who do not want to or do not have an ability of ordinary reader.
In Arnya Khanda ( book of Forest) of Valmiki , the abduction of Sita takes place from her hermitage in the absence of Sita’s husband Rama and brither-in-law Laxmana.
The curse that, His (Ravana’s) head would split in to thousand pieces was hanging over him , because it happened much, much before Ramayana ever happened, as Wendy himself says.
Ravana’s rape of Punjikasthala and other women or girls were mentioned in great detail in Puranas along with incidence of his curse.
Punjikashtala was virgin daughter of God Varuna (rain god) and he complains to Lord Brahma the creator and also the great grand father of Ravana.
So the curse of Brahma was in Puranas and it was only remembered by Ravana during Yuddha Khanda (book 6) and then recounted in Uttara Khanda which was later added part of Ramayana and which (Uttara khanda) is considered as pure fiction by sanskrit scholars.
The important point is Ravana’s intentions when such a burden of Curse is over his head. He had indeed elaborately planned, the abduction of Sita with Maricha who became a Golden Deer at the point of sword by Ravana.
The intentions of Ravana were made amply clear when Ravana enters hermitage of Sita in the guise of a Brahmana asking for alms. In Valmiki Ramayana , he sits in the hermitage, eats dry fruits offered by Sita and talks all the while eulogising Sita and her beauty and her beutiful body parts.
Then he reveals himself as Ravana at which Sita gets furious and shouts at him to get out.
But Ravana speaks this sloka
“pa.nca daasyaH sahasraaNi sarva aabharaNa bhuuSitaaH |
siite paricariSyanti bhaaryaa bhavasi me yadi || 3-47-31″
which can also mean that Ravana, the devotee, is saying
panca sahasraaNi daasyaH = ‘five thousand servants…’ me ‘with me… together with me’ paricariSyasi yadi tava = ‘if we all render service to you…’ then you will be baaryaa; bha + aaryaa; bhaayaa= kaantyaa, aaryaa= puujyaa (worshipping) ‘by your splendour…’ bhavasi
Five thousand servants together with me serve you while you will be venerable Goddess Lakshmi by your own splendour ; while thousands are serving you. (if you come with me )
While the ordinary meaning is that “If you become my wife, 5000 servants will serve you along with my primary queen and other wives ”
So any one can say that where is at least
one sloka where there is only one meaning which shows that Ravana was treating Sita as Goddess ?
Sita challenges Ravana to touch her.
She says in this sloka (valmiki Ramayana):
tathaa aham dharma nityasya dharma patnii dR^iDha vrataa |
tvayaa sa.mpraSTum na shakyaa aham raakshasaadhama paapinaa || 3-56-19
The meaning is :
“I am the emobodyment of Dharma,solemnly pledged wife ,(of Rama)
you ,Ravana basely Demon, it is impossible for you even to touch me”
This sloka is spoken by Ravana immediately after landing in Lanka
in his great palace to Sita:
etau paadau mayaa snigdhau shirobhiH paripiiDitau || 3-55-35
prasaadam kuru me kSipram vashyo daaso aham asmi te |
“Let these two feet of yours be massaged by my ten heads, do me favour readily, for I am your subordinate and servant. [3-55-35b. 36a]”
All these slokas I have quoted and along with there are more in Aranya Khanda of Valmiki Ramayanma which tells the intentions of Ravana.
That Ravana considered Sita as Goddess Lakshmi was amply clear, his intentions of keeping in Lanka forever , so that he would get riches of all the world.
Hence it is that Rambha’s incident as Doniger puts it is NOT something on which
Ravana’s behaviour is dependant(to understand Ravana).
It also shows that Sita was not at dependant on the will and caprice of Ravana’s kindness .
At one point Sita says to Ravana in ( Sundara Khanda) that
“Ravana your words alone make you qualify for being burnt by me to ashes
but I do not burn for want of permission from my husband and also because I do not want to waste my tapas shakti (ascetic powers).”
These words Sita says when Ravana increases his time period by another 6 months for Sita to decide. ” If not” , Ravana says ” I will drag you to kitchen and cut you to pieces by my sword and order the cooks to make a breakfast for me”
But even this sloka has an eunendo and can also mean that
“If you do not agree to marry me, I would tell my cooks to cut me to pieces and throw me to eagles as a breakfast for them at the end of six more moths (already one and half year was over )
Wendy doniger obsession with sex incidents is what makes her write very stupid statements and theories. It makes us doubt , if at all, she had read entire Ramayna and if read , whether she had an ability to understand what she reads.
7. January 2010 - 6:08 PM
VENURAJA GOPAL BOWENPALLE,
I HAVE READ ALL YOUR REPLIES IN OUTLOOKINDIA. YOUR SCHOLARSHIP OF RAMAYANA IS FAR FAR SUPERIOR THAN WANDA DUNGEONGAR.
KEEPING IT UP VGB.
7. January 2010 - 6:15 PM
Your missing the point.
Some Hindus might not identify themselves as Hindus (“Indian” is more fashionable, you’ll agree) but the world looks at us as a Hindu country. They don’t say, “Look! That’s a Muslim/Christian/Secular country!”
It hardly matters how seriously “Christians” in the West and “Hindus” in Hindusthan take this image of their countries – foreigners do.
Christianity is not only the “Vatican”.
In fact, the Vatican is fast loosing credibility with Western Christians because of its kow-towing to Islam and its “outreach” in the non-West; that’s attracting ever more non-White immigration into the West. So, people are looking at self-preservation.
Mind-game : Is a Western nationalist the same as a Western Christian missionary on an out-reach in the non-West? The latter will probably never deny non-White immigration into the West.
Many Christians might find it difficult to agree but there is a direct linkage between the psyche behind Western Christian conversion missions and the immigrant *situation* in the West today.
So the game that’s left to play is that of reclamation or die. My observation tells me that the Christians and Hindus will fight Islam in the West and Hindusthan respectively – to survive.
2. Its not about the “truth” and that’s being debated even now. Its about tradition and culture that has flowed and grown and evolved in native societies. If what a Hindu says *sounds* strange to a Christian in Louisiana, the Hindu is liable to get the boot. The reverse is true also.
3. What’s the point your trying to make? If a Christian believes his Christianity is Christian – then that’s what it is. There are various kinds of Christians.
4. Really. I would let the Americans decide what they want to teach their children and Hindus focus on theirs. We are a very diverse people too. I don’t yet know how some Hindu tribes might react to their children being taught about their ancestors being apes. I hope you see the point.
Coming to Kaffir’s poser – There can be intellectual debates that are based on merits of each case. But my concern is that its of no use if it doesn’t connect with social reality. Intellectual “truths”(theories of evolution etc) that are still being debated cannot be thrust down the throats of a people who have traditionally opposed a particular side (Darwinism).
This is very much like how liberal Hindus and some Hindu nationalists rant and rave against caste and want to “abolish” it but Hindu masses happily live their caste traditions. Tell them to change their caste surnames and do away with their caste rituals and they will most likely lynch you too. Yes. Intellectually, some folks might even make a case for abolition of caste and or debate its merits. I just think such a debate is, divoced from reality, sterile.
Therefore I feel its better to debate issues within a social context.
7. January 2010 - 10:22 PM
=>
Intellectual “truths”(theories of evolution etc) that are still being debated cannot be thrust down the throats of a people who have traditionally opposed a particular side (Darwinism).
=>
Huh?? Come again?
First of all, you’re assuming that “people who have traditionally opposed a particular side” is a monolith and it applies to all Americans, and this fictional monolith’s stance is valid and has more credibility than the opposing side’s stance (though based on what?). Not true.
Second, “thrust down the throats of a people”?? Teaching theory of evolution is part of the science curriculum – it doesn’t mean that the theory is set in stone. How is that “thrusting down the throats of people”? Is teaching astrophysics in schools – where new discoveries are still being made and the theories revised – “thrusting down people’s throat”?
=>
This is very much like how liberal Hindus and some Hindu nationalists rant and rave against caste and want to “abolish” it but Hindu masses happily live their caste traditions.
=>
This is not at all like the example you give above. I don’t see any corollary between the two issues.
What you fail to acknowledge is the source of this creationism theory – Bible/Christianity. Most likely, these very same people who are pushing creationism in a science class, are the ones who sponsor Benny Hinn and other evangelists who come to India to harvest souls. Why would I want to support such people and their wacky ideas of teaching creationism in a science class? Just because I agree with some conservative ideas, and these people are also conservatives? Illogical!!
Perhaps you need to examine your stance and why you are so quick to support those who do not view you as an equal and want to “save your soul”. An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
7. January 2010 - 10:47 PM
Kaffir -
1. No. I’m not at all assuming a monolith. I don’t think schools in the US can continue to teach “creationism” if a majority of American parents are opposed to it.
2. To my mind, the “evolutionary” theories are opposed by Christian Americans because they negate the theory of Creationism. If I were to stand outside of it all as a Hindu, I would say bring both of these theories to the table.
3. “Bible/Christianity” – So? This is the US isn’t it? There are plenty of things we Hindus can do in Hindusthan to stop the Benny Hinn-like circuses – including making a strong “evolutionary” argument.
I’m merely argueing for native rights in their own lands. Non-natives have no moral right to subvert a native society and culture. I think if we appreciate this rule enough, we will be better able to defend ourselves and our own right to our way of life.
7. January 2010 - 11:03 PM
Palahalli,
1. I do not know how many outsiders actually see west as Christian. Westerners obviously do not. Culture and religions are separate paradigm. They do have a relation but they should be seen separately.
“Mind-game : Is a Western nationalist the same as a Western Christian missionary on an out-reach in the non-West?” – No, they are not. Main difference is nationalists are respectable figures in general (only exception is Hitler). It is tempting to assume what you have written, but the basis of nationalism has long shifted from religions to ethnicity/language/culture.
2. Truth is not subjective. What you are suggesting would put the entire idea of freedom of expression to hell.
3. America is not a Christian country. I think you are confusing between a nation and it’s majority. A christian country is something that declares Christianity (any type) to be the only acceptable religion or at least it accepts only Christians to be it’s desirable citizens. However, many of western nations are not so. Majority living in west are not Vatican or even Church oriented and thus they do not have a drive to identify themselves as Christian nation. Then, what is the point of calling West as explicitly Christian?
4. I think I made all the points I could make. Science and related education should be free from cultural and political concerns. It is the culture and politics that changes, truth does not. The central point of evolution is an established truth, it would not change if some “tribe”s can not accept the truth. If someone can not accept this, then it is his problem, not the community’s. The question is whether we are capable of accepting the truth without cultural concern or not. So far we have, so there is no point in beating around the bush here.
Oh, in case you noticed, calling yourself “Indian” is not fashion. Calling yourself “Secular” is an in-thing.
Also, in case you noticed, in the outside world, we are known as “Indian”s first and Hindu later. I can not resist the temptation to point out that both Hindu and India are derived from same word and same phonetic mistake.
8. January 2010 - 2:05 AM
Palahalli,
“I’m merely argueing for native rights in their own lands….” – How native are Americans (or Christians as you would like to put it) in North America? In Australia? In Africa?
Try to shift 10000 years back, how native are Indians in India or Chinese in China?
I find it interesting that you managed to give your argument totally a new color with a straight face.
1. Not all US schools teach creationism. Some schools do and that is where the protest is.
2. “…the “evolutionary” theories are opposed by Christian Americans because they negate the theory of Creationism.” – You are making it look like as if theory of evolution was invented as a reaction to creationism. Darwin never said that he went to the South Pacific Island because he did not like what Bible said. It is actually the other way round. As a Hindu, I would rather look at an established theory, find if there is any observed fact that contradicts it and if not, I will go with the theory. Where is the need to consider creationism?
3. Missionaries in India have not come here to make arguments with you or me. They have come here to find the future of Catholicism. Period. Irrespective of what you think of creationism, they are hell bent on raising hell here. I am not suggesting here to burn them alive, but we better prepare to put our house in order. We, the Hindus, are the biggest source of frustration for Islam-infected mad men or much maligned Catholicism. As the multi-billion dollar religious business consolidates itself, it would continue to attack us using whatever deception it can use including communism or secularism. Our only long term hope is that the inherent conflict between two conversion-ist doctrine have to face each other eventually and possibly weaken themselves. But we need to make sure that we do not become the soldiers for any of them.
8. January 2010 - 9:37 AM
Thank you very much Mr.Gajanan.
There are very few people who sincerely appreciate like you.
8. January 2010 - 6:32 PM
Also in India there is a lot to protect simply because there is a continuity in traditon even though the secular state tries to undermine it.
Unlike Western Europe, which is post-Christian and where the common man needs a deep scholarly understanding of Greco-Roman civilization to even imagine what religion can mean in a non-Christian context (I find the unfortunate result of Christianity to be that even the original Western civilizations, Greece and Rome, are viewed by a Christian prism and religion althgether), so it really takes a lot of scholarship and study for them to understand religion in a non-Christian context, in addition to their own Greco-Roman religious outlook. It is easy to see how Freudianism, Marxism and Socialism and Totalitarianism arise out of a reaction to the Christian doctrine–which essentially “separates” man from God, so a neurosis is already set in (in the sense that God is forever separate from man–a disjunct in the psychological sense)–the theories of Freud are merely sign of this neurosis–he uses Greek mythology to illustrate “the Odeipus” complex and other such things–but he is not correct here as the Freudian view arises only in a world where the thinking has become Christian, as a reaction to it–so he should have sought in Christian mythology the illustration for his theories and not in Greek myths. A Freudian outlook could never arise in the Greco-Roman standpoint or in the Hindu standpoint. This is what I am saying. But it arises when a civilization has become Christian in the sense of a “reaction”. In a similar way, “atheism” in the West is also a “reaction” and is different from what it is in the East.
A lot of Iranians I know tell me–Islam was not initially our religion, it was imposed on us by Arabs, who destroyed classical Persian civilization. We are Muslims because that is what we know now, as all else has been destroyed, if someone were to remove this religion by force, then we have no connection to the sacred. They are right. The case for Christianity is similar–although it was the Roman emperor who adopted it–I don’t think the Romans relalized that Christianity also uproots everything foreign to it–in the sense that all desert religions do– this is their hallmark–they are not “syncretic” like the dharmic religions or the Greco Roman religions. Now Christianity has been the religion of the West for a long time, yet the problem has become that religion has lost its hold on many in the West– what you see in the post-Christian world in the West is a “desacralization” and “mechanization” of all forms of existence– I doubt that religion will be a moving force in the West as it used to be in the Middle Ages –not saying this is good or bad but just how it appears to me. Since the West has but Christianity as its connection to the sacred, it is understandable when Putin firmly declared Russia to be Greek Orthodox– its a reaction as he does not want further dissolution. What else has Russia got in terms of tradition if not religion, as the old aristocracy was completely destroyed by communism? But with loss of religion, there is a loss of sanction for morals, you have only a secular “sanction” in the form of law–and this is not really satisfactory as people will try to subvert the law, there is no “higher” sanction for anything–and hence the nihilism and disenchantment you see in the West today. Some Christians seem to think the Church can again have the hold it once did–I wonder if this is the case.
Now in India the case is different from the West–a lot has been preserved of the original culture despite Islamic disruption of classical civilization in India, and more recent colonial rule which for all its evils did one good–end India’s intellectual isolation vis a vis the world. India was isloated from the world under many years of Islam when not a single univeristy was opened and as Hindus turned conservative to survive Islam-hence the backwardness today which is sought to be overcome-
Now since a lot has been preserved in India (although the secular state tries to quickly destroy this), the questions for conservatives and nationalists are different from the West (where there is the Greco-Roman civilization, the Christian one and the current post-Christian one with all the disruption these different forms entail on a culture)–It is unfortunate that Indians don’t relize that there is a cultural continuity which is worth preserving and that the secular state tries to undermine it. What is more disappointing is that they blindly follow the West when they don’t undertand it–giving up on their own traditional wisdom and adopting blindly something whose future they don’t understand, as the problems of the West are different from that of India in the cultural sense.
But then if you look at it, Hindus are not really in control in India these days–you find a mobocracy there.
8. January 2010 - 11:18 PM
@Larissa
“It is unfortunate that Indians don’t relize that there is a cultural continuity which is worth preserving and that the secular state tries to undermine it. ”
Very well said!!!
9. January 2010 - 5:31 AM
@larissa,
For the first time, I seem to agree with you. Your observation about west and it’s inability to cope up with a fast changing world with ideologies (Catholicism and Secularism) that are bankrupt of answers to the question that man asks about eternity yet filled with disastrous political consequences is something I can relate to well.
I second Sudarshan.
9. January 2010 - 7:36 PM
Well even secularism in India is a very bad second-hand copy.
When I get frustrated thinking of India–I realize that its pointless upsetting oneself over it as Hindus are’nt even in control there anymore, and democracy there resembles a mobocracy …
9. January 2010 - 8:40 PM
“Your observation about west and it’s inability to cope up with a fast changing world with ideologies (Catholicism and Secularism) that are bankrupt of answers to the question that man asks about eternity yet filled with disastrous political consequences is something I can relate to well.”
Why only the West. Take a look at the way India is headed where most new political experiments are a copy of what happens in the West with no real understanding of their implications…
My thinking is that the original Western civilizations (without the influence from the three Mid-East religions)–this is, the Greco-Roman one, was not incompatible with that of the Hindus and Buddhists. Look at the Hellenic-Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan–it was syncretic and very harmonious–but look at Afghanistan after the arrival of Islam–became a civilizational wasteland. This is something that Hindus don’t seem to realize.
Similarly, look at Kashmir before Islam–it produced art, learning, poetry, literature, philosophy (both Hindu and Buddhist)–look at it today? Does anything more need to be said? Does any trace of Hindu and Buddhist civilization remain in Kashmir valley?
What would have worked in India’s favor would have been a kind of Meijii type restoration that occurred in Japan (1867-8) when it modernized in response to external challenges while yet retained whatever culture it had–creating a harmonious transition to modernity. India got stuck with the naive idealism of people like Nehru.
Don’t say that “secularism” is the West’s problem–given that India copies unthinkingly most things–the problems of the West in a cultural sense will also become India’s problems, they have already become so when it comes to urban life.
9. January 2010 - 10:08 PM
I forgot–lets not post more on this Wendy section–it gives her way too much importance than she deserves–besides, as those posting here mostly find her book not worth reading, the discussion has veered off to touch on other topics anyway….
She’s just a fad in modern scholarship and would misrepresent if given a chance the Greeks as much as the Hindus, with her Freudian analysis and what not….
15. January 2010 - 3:43 AM
Doniger is a fad in modern scholarship? A 50-year fad, I guess!
“In closing, Wendy Doniger is a classic illustration of what happens when somebody is confronted with a superior culture. The initial state of dumbfoundedness gives way to irrational hatred towards the thing that such a mind cannot comprehend.”
A “superior culture”? Perhaps, but you’re arguing along lines of ideology as much as, if not more, than Doniger ever did. I read all of The Hindus and did not get the impression that she was especially sex-obsessed, but rather that she wanted to bring to light certain subaltern voices in some of the major epics.
“Tradition” is continually negotiated. Do you honestly think that the Hinduism of today always was? Do you think it has been unchanging?
You’re obviously working hard to defend your notion of “tradition”, whether it be against Western academics or the dreaded Islam… which is fine, but don’t pretend to be objective about it.
And please, please don’t act as if Wendy Doniger is some sort of hateful demon… though I don’t know her well, I took a class with her and she is extraordinarily kind, whether or not she may be wrong at times.
30. January 2010 - 11:20 PM
I agree with most of Sandeep’s comments and central thesis but for this: “… Wendy Doniger is a classic illustration of what happens when somebody is confronted with a superior culture.” I’m quite surprised how Sandeep can come up with this “superior culture” nonsense. You’ve lost me tight there, Sandeep!
I agree with Larissa about her “fad in modern scholarship” supposition. But I also winder if there is also a sociological trend that has brought down scholarship. Feminism, “social engineering” oriented policies have led to increasing numbers of women in academia. Women outnumber men in grad schools in the USA; increasingly, more husbands are becoming unemployable; boys get the shaft or less attention in primary/middle schools in the USA and so on. Associated with this is the rise of ambitious and opportunistic women who find paths or careers of least resistance. Call it niche areas that will fetch them huge dividends in the shortest time with least resistance. As a result, we have increasing mediocrity.
Don’t jump on me yet: the above trend is NOT because women are inferior. It’s because Orientalism is not not such a popular or fetching ($) subject and perhaps only the mediocre bottom feeders are left to choose it. Stoically speaking, in the larger sense, perhaps this is the way it was meant to be: women have been BS-ed for so long that it’s their turn to “come on top” any which way. (No, Wendy, don’t read anything into that expression; no pun intended at all)
25. February 2010 - 12:05 AM
Thanks. I had posted a link without knowing you had a post. I was infuriated reading the nonsense and started searching valmiki ramayana. She is clever never clearly gives which exact shloka she is referring. Thanks for the Aditi link. I am sleepless since I read about Ashwamedha. I am searching all over the place. I will appreciate a post on Ashwamedha/Naramedha/Purushamedha (Krishna Yajurveda Taittariya Samhita).
25. February 2010 - 1:09 PM
Jon
>>>”A 50-year fad, I guess!”
Progressives call themselves modern as well – and they seem to have been around for about a 100 years.
>>>”…rather that she wanted to bring to light certain subaltern voices in some of the major epics.”
…and have you ever read what Hindus have to say about themselves. In mainstream western academia Hindus represent one of the biggest subaltern groups themselves – voicesless and denied agency over discourse own their own culture and identity.
>>>”…tradition is continually negotiated”
Isnt that universalizing assumption. What if some people work hard keep parts of their tradition immutable. What if instead voicing of what the tradition means to them – only an outsiders views are presented and presented as truth. This is what is happening with Ms Doniger.
“..don’t pretend to be objective about it.”
Well people trying to protect what they perceive is thier tradition need to be politically correct about being objective about it – but someone outsider claiming spokesmanship of subalterns in Hindu society and culture are exempt from these otherwise stringent requirements of objectivity. Absolutely amazing.
“…she is extraordinarily kind”
Not long ago there was a mild mannered schoolmaster-ish chicken farmer named Himmler who tried to annihilate the entire Jewish race through his holocaust project. Point is personal appeal has nothing to do with entrenched ideological positions and biases.
26. February 2010 - 6:07 AM
Jon,
The question never was about bringing “subaltern voices”. Her scholarship is inherently dishonest. Read any of her books (I had the misfortune of reading a few chapters of “Erotic Shiva”, it is out there in Google Books) and many things she wrote are twisted mis-representation or just plain fabrication. What happens if I fabricate some dis-tasteful stuff about your life or character and then claim to introduce some “subaltern voices” in your life story, how are you going to feel about it?
“Do you honestly think that the Hinduism of today always was?” – Do you know when Hindusim came into existence? It is bad enough that we have been reduced to call ourselves Hindu (a term that Doniger’s ideological predecessors invented) instead of Dharmic. The traditions can change over time, how Shiva treated Parvati would not change over time.
Our cultural tradition contains good dose of erotic material as any self-confident well-developed culture can have without worries of moral policing. But her re-presentation is plain wrong. If she has the right to write whatever she wants, we have the right to protest her dishonesty.
The only people who comes to defend Wendy, are either her students or the people who do not know about “Hinduism”, but are fascinated with her erotically charged mis-representation that often finds a rhythm with their ’sexually-liberated’ opinion of how an ancient ‘pagan’, ’semi-civilised’ culture should be. Your argument of sub-altern voices is a great attempt at obfuscation. But that does not cut it. We are seriously unwilling to negotiate on Wendy’s trashy tradition.
26. February 2010 - 7:37 AM
@Jon
Its a new fad in the sense that the Freudian, Marxist, Feminist and other such interpretations try to subvert and as one good writer put it “discredit any concept of authority, of tradition, of race, or fatherland, and any form of idealism or heroism, while tending to highlight, at the same time, the lower and more materialistic aspect of human nature…”If anything, Wendy’s books show the obsessions and orientations of her own mind, shows that towards which it gravitates…
If women write such nonesense its better they not write at all…and this I say as a woman!
26. February 2010 - 7:53 AM
Also it is of interest that the “sexually-liberated” do not seem the understand the nature of the “erotic” in India– that even at its most sensual Indian literature is always informed by a sense of higher ideals in the background. Wendy just does not seem to grasp this fact.
But then again, one who grows up in a “repressed” sensuality as represented by the Abrahamic traditions can hardly grasp this nuance…
28. February 2010 - 12:43 AM
Jon, what is this fancy word “subaltern voices” that you mention, and how does it relate to India, Indian society and its history? Who appointed Wendy and other authors of her ilk in the US to speak on behalf of the “subaltern”? Is this some kind of messiah complex/white person’s burden, with the outer garb changed from Abrahamism to liberalism? Thanks.