Wendy Doniger and Interpretation of Hindu Mythology
Kṛṣṇa in the Mahābhārata
[Counters temporarily disabled]
[Part 1 | Part II]
[Digest
is still being compiled and edited, Introduction to be written – Sunthar]
This
extended debate pits traditionalist Hindus against American Indologists—with
various shades of opinion in-between—around the work and personality of Prof.
Wendy Doniger at the
Re: A petition for peace...the role
of the Internet 2
Lord Krishna’s
“messianic” crusade against evil....towards a Hindu perspective on violence. 3
Re: Lord
Krishna’s “messianic” crusade against evil....towards a Hindu perspective on
violence. 5
Wendy
Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on Gita and terrorism.. 6
RE: Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more
on Gita and terrorism.. 9
Re: Thanks for the Word files of your Meditations on the
Rigveda! 9
Re: [Abhinavagupta] Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology! 13
Re: Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu
mythology... 15
Participate in Doniger interview. 22
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology! 23
Studying others (by Frank Burch Brown) - American Indology
revisited (by Michael Witzel) 28
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology! 29
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology! 31
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology! 31
Please include a link to “Wendy Doniger and Interpretation
of Hindu Mythology” at svAbhinava. 39
Re: Please include a link to "Wendy Doniger and
Interpretation of Hindu Mythology" at svAbhinava 40
RE: Please include a link to "Wendy Doniger and
Interpretation of Hindu Mythology" at svAbhinava 40
Related threads at svAbhinava:
Rajiv Malhotra - What is the ‘political’ agenda behind American studies of South Asian Tantra?
Sitansu Sekhar Chakravarti - Consequentialism and the Gîtâ - a Response to Amartya Sen
Gautam Sen - Academic researchers versus Hindu civilization
Hermeneutics of Ganesha: Psychoanalysis,
Hindu Wisdom and Transgressive Sacrality (dialogue)
[Mukur is responding below to David Loy’s Petition for Peace and Frank B. Brown’s own thoughts on 9/11]
Subject:
Re: A petition for
peace...the role of the Internet
From: Mukur K.
Khisha
Sent:
To: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Dear
Sunthar,
Thanks
for endorsing copy of the mail to me. Though I am a practicing Buddhist,
personally I have my reservations about submitting to terrorism which is a
universal scourge. There can be no compromise with manifest evils. Appeasement
of the
“Whenever there is decay of righteousness
and there is resurgence of unrighteousness,
I incarnate myself.
For
the protection of the righteous, to destroy the evil-doers,
And to re-establish the order of Dharma,
I am born and reborn
Epoch after epoch (again and again.)”
>
>
Warm
regards to you & Elizabeth,
Mukur
Subject:
Lord Krishna’s
“messianic” crusade against evil....towards a Hindu perspective on violence
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Sent:
To: Mukur K. Khisha
Dear
Mukur,
Your
citation from the Bhagavad Gita strikes a deep personal chord: it was through
listening to Lord Krishna’s sermons through the mouth of eloquent preachers
from
It
is this incapacity to understand (much less appreciate...) the subtleties of
Hindu thought that has led Indologists, like Wendy Doniger (and, before her,
the Buddhist Marxist, D.D. Kosambi), to denounce Krishna before American
students (much to the outrage of Hindu members of the Liverpool Indology
mailing list). When I took my Australian brother-in-law so long ago in KL to
see the Tamil film, Karna,
that celebrates the loyalty, chivalry and generosity of this (3rd) Kaurava
general, he emerged from the cinema calling Krishna a “fink” for having so
cruelly and treacherously machinated the death of this undisputed hero. Yes, it’s difficult for a child of Abraham
(much less for a Buddhist...), to understand how even illiterate Tamils in
>
>
zânti,
Sunthar
Subject:
Re: Lord Krishna’s
“messianic” crusade against evil....towards a Hindu perspective on violence
From: Frank
Burch Brown
Sent:
To: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Sunthar,
As
I’ve just been reading and studying the Gita with my students in World
Religions, and as questions of violence and non-violence have naturally arisen,
we’ve tried to take multiple perspectives into account. I’m less familiar with the whole epic
context of the Gita, however, and your comments are helpful. The Gita remains one of my favorite
religious texts, but certainly not because its many internal tensions can
easily be resolved! But neither can the
tensions easily be resolved within any other religious text that matters
centrally to me, I must say. That is
part of their ongoing power, I think.
I’m
sorry that Wendy Doniger indulged in oversimplification, as you’ve previously
reported. She’s not known as a
philosopher of religion, of course. But
she is indeed celebrated as a translator and interpreter of Indian traditions
(as you know very well), so her insensitivity at this point is puzzling and
embarrassing.
Does
this odd outburst of cross-cultural judgment from such a scholar come from that
side of our academic life that often tolerates/encourages sweeping
generalizations and blanket condemnations when launched from a feminist or
Marxist perspective while insisting on infinite (over) refinements of analysis
in so many other ways? I’m in great
sympathy with many feminist critiques, and indeed with certain Marxist critiques
as well, and certainly I’ve seen sharp criticisms launched against biblical
ideologies from all sorts of standpoints.
But it sounds as though this one was ill-judged and inappropriate. I wish I could see at least the text of her
remarks, if there is such a text available.
I plan to
be out of town for a few days now.
Take
care--
Frank
Subject:
Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on
Gita and terrorism
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Sent:
To: Frank Burch Brown
Cc: Alf Hiltebeitel; Elizabeth
Visuvalingam; Mukur K. Khisha; Rajiv Malhotra
Dear
Frank,
Wendy
Doniger has been sharply criticized on various counts even by her American
colleagues. When I met in Paris long ago with an appreciative Paul Ricoeur to
discuss my hermeneutics of humor and the clown (thesis abstract and the
original transgressive sacrality paper), he visibly shook his head and frowned
(but stopped just short of making derogatory remarks) on the
(mis-)appropriation of his theological reflections in her Origins of Evil. Similarly, the Vedicist Michael Witzel has lambasted her for her
deficiency in Sanskrit, (mis-) translations and poor scholarship, so much so
that she once asked us with a hurt expression: “why does Witzel hate me so
much?” Madeleine Biardeau, the papess of French Indology, had only scorn for
Wendy and the latter’s supposed ‘structuralism’ (until she hurt herself
physically in the
When
first exposed to what perhaps still remains her classic, viz. Asceticism
and Eroticism in the Mythology of Shiva, I was both fascinated and horrified. It was only after my
discovery of tantricism, Abhinavagupta and (through
It
seems to me that her very exposure to (and excitement about!) so many mutually
incompatible models of interpretation actually has the paradoxical effect of
creating, at least on some occasions, the space for a more balanced judgment.
At a frankly feminist cross-cultural panel, at the 1991
Actually,
the Mahabharata itself denounces Krishna (I need to reread the details of the
passage): when a great sage (Uttanka), who was away on pilgrimage (or the like)
during this Hindu Armageddon, returns to discover too late what his Lord had
“engineered” he prepares to unleash his fury through a potent curse.
The
value of the Mahâbhârata is that it offers so many conflicting perspectives on
“righteousness” (dharma) even while positing, implicitly
or explicitly, that Krishna’s conduct, even when seemingly reprehensible or
incomprehensible, is ultimately divine (e.g., I’m not sure that an Indian
holocaust would have resulted in a theological impasse comparable to what
devout Jews have had to deal with...). For most Hindus,
So
the issue, as I see it, is not whether Wendy has misunderstood or even
caricatured
As
always,
Sunthar
Subject:
RE: Wendy Doniger and
the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on Gita and terrorism
From: Alf
Hiltebeitel
Sent:
To: Sunthar
Visuvalingam [Abhinava msg #1904 – order of thread
reversed]
Dear
Sunthar,
An interesting appreciation of Wendy. Good to see
you speaking out for unexpected rewards of listening, complexity, and kindness.
All good things indeed.
Alf
Subject:
Re: Thanks for the Word
files of your Meditations on the Rigveda!
From: Antonio de
Nicolás
Sent:
To: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Dear Sunthar,
I am glad you got Meditations. The format
varies and the adaptation to it has added a few spelling mistakes. You are
welcome.
I did receive the magazines and gave Pedro
permission to publish my articles.
Your article on transgression is very good and much
needed. I have been considering certain aspects of it for a long time. The
Ethics of transgression: the Western mind will not understand these ethics
unless you link them to the reality of dharma, the dhr that holds
together the moment and the choices of the moment. There are no a priori laws in dharma.
And second to the fact that ethics in dharma is the
ability to choose from among the present various options the best, always, by
habit...This is the Indic tradition. It cannot be compared to the Western
Ethics where decisions are based on “veridical”, universal laws with the
affirmations of the left brain and where there is no need to develop frontal
lobes, essential to decisions in complex situations. Keep up the good work and
let me know when the book is out.
Best
Antonio
Subject:
FW: Wendy
Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on Gita and terrorism
(= ‘contextual dharma’)
From: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Sent:
To: Antonio de
Nicholas
Dear
Antonio,
With regard to
the ‘situational’ or ‘contextual’ understanding of Dharma in traditional
Alf had chaired the transgressive sacrality
conference at
More in due course!
Sunthar
Subject:
Re:
Lord GaNeZa caught red-handed in Hugh Heffner’s
From: Laurie
Patton
Sent:
To: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Sunthar,
I must say you make a strong case for the open
interpretation of Ganesh as including sexual content—which is what Paul’s book
was also doing. I agree with your interpretation wholeheartedly, and
loved its sense of humor!
I am puzzled as to why you persist in assuming some
kind of “school” of Wendy’s “Orientalists”—there’s just no evidence for it, and
if anything, you yourself make the case stronger than any other folks do for
some intriguing perspectives on sexuality and
the family. Were
you being facetious in your message?
PS there are at least 20 death
threats in that petition. It’s now a document of
hate.
Laurie L. Patton
Professor of Early Indian Religions
Winship Distinguished Research Professor in the
Humanities and Chair,
Department of Religion
Subject:
FW: Wendy Doniger and the
interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on Gita and terrorism (= ‘contextual
dharma’)
From: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Sent:
To: Laurie
Patton
Laurie,
Thanks for responding to my
reflections on the GaNeza controversy that I hope to get back to
in due course, rather than with a couple of hasty generalizations that might
easily be misinterpreted in one direction or the other. I was being (more
than just) ‘facetious’ because I felt that some sympathetic (as opposed to
merely derisive) humor might nudge everyone towards looking at the issues
in other ways that might help defuse both the mounting hatred and the fear,
provide a breathing space at least.
Believe me, I am not at all happy with what’s
happening......on either side!
Sunthar
P.S. I’ve appended a thread regarding Wendy—again, forced out of me by
circumstances—your comments would be appreciated... [the ‘appended’
thread is the preceding one all the way up to Mukur’s original post – SV]
Subject:
Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more on Gita and terrorism (= ‘contextual dharma’)
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date:
The present article is in response to recent writings by Rajiv Malhotra
on RISA-L scholarship and Hinduism that appeared in Sulekha. It has been
written in my capacity as a Hindu living in the diaspora as well as a member
(albeit marginalized!) of RISA-L and is addressed to the readers and members of
Sulekha as well as those Indians and other scholars, researchers and sympathizers
of Hinduism who work with, alongside, and for disciplines that may come under
the rubric of Hindu studies as part of the larger discipline of Indology. More
particularly, it seeks to initiate a dialogue with the growing number of Hindus
in the diaspora whose professional field of research is not Hinduism or Hindu
Studies but who nevertheless have received training in the western academic
setting and are familiar with disciplinary methodologies of humanities and
social sciences. [...] Ideally, negotiations
would involve the following sequence: recognize the truthful and untruthful
elements in each side; put the truthful elements from each side together; form
a new side and adopt it while struggling with your opponent; continue revising
and refining the new position as the negotiations or fight continues; end the
struggle only when both sides agree to occupy the same side. Satyâgraha would
involve creation of small groups of dedicated Hindu scholars to study and
document instances of misrepresentation of Hindu values, practices, norms, etc.
Other groups will be needed to intensify and coordinate such activities as
letter writing, writing petitions and getting signatures and establishing
dialogue with the teaching faculties at the scholarly and university levels. [...] According to the ideals of Gandhian satyâgraha, if the
above steps fail, then launching of non-cooperation movement will be necessary,
which would include boycott, strike, peaceful disruption, blockade, and sit-in.
If these steps fail to produce a settlement (i.e. fair and accurate
representation of Hinduism and Hindus), then creation of a parallel entity to
replace the opponent’s facilities would be necessary. In the North American
context, this would mean setting up of independent Hindu schools and
universities....
Prof. Shrinivas Tilak, Taking Back Hindu Studies
(Sulekha,
I suggest we meet informally in the near future to discuss the feasibility
of such an endeavour. We could also analyze on that occasion the “tool box”
methodology advocated by Professor Wendy Doniger in her various studies of
Hinduism. Her 1980 article ‘Inside and outside the Mouth of God: The Boundary
Between Myth and Reality” in Daedalus Vol 109, no 2 (Spring): 93-125
would be a good starting point. “Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty in Retrospect” by
Kees Bolle (Religious Studies Review Vol 10, no 1 (Jan 1984): 20-26
provides a balanced critique of her methodology. I would recommend it to anyone
who is new to her writings. “Gender and Religion” is another area where current
interpretations need to be energetically contested. While Indologists are keen
and eager to contribute, finance and/or promote works such as “Women and the
Hindu Right” (edited by Tanika Sarkar and Urvashi Butalia; 1996 reprint), I am
not quite sure if they will accept a proposal by an undergraduate student to
write a term paper on a topic such as “The Marxist and Feminist Distortions of
Hindu Family Values.”
Shrinivas
Tilak, Critique
of Indology (Open RISA,
Dear Prof. Tilak,
I read your above Sulekha article, as soon as
it appeared, with much appreciation for your portrayal of the ‘Hindu
dilemma’—for the (mis-) representation of (the complexity of) Indian traditions
and sensibility (that often cuts across religious divides...) has preoccupied
me ever since the ‘culture shock’ of moving to India to study at the Sanskrit
and Benares Hindu Universities. Thank you for having penned your thoughts.
I would be grateful if you could share with us,
even if only from memory, a concise conceptual summary of Wendy’s
‘methodology’ as delineated in her and Bolle’s articles. I am particularly
interested in issues and dimensions that might contradict or have been left out
of my own assessment [above]. Readers should bear in mind that the [above] thread dates
back to 9/11 (01), before I launched the Abhinavagupta forum, and that my appraisal
of Wendy was then based on readings, impressions, discussions with mutual
colleagues, etc., dating back to more than a decade...
Best wishes,
Sunthar
P.S. The several participants of this electronic dialogue (samvâda) will surely
agree that their considered thoughts are of great public interest!
[rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (3rd June 04),
Subject:
Re: [Abhinavagupta] Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology!
From: Raja Mylvaganam
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #1905]
If Freud befuddled many of us by equating the
Oedipus myth (slaying the father to marry the mother) with everyman and woman
what are we to make of this determination of Hindu men to ‘slay’ the Mother
(Wendy Doniger). The former myth, it has been successfully argued, was a
misapplication of a kingship ritual by Freud. What myth are we acting out in
this relentless attack on Wendy Doniger?
Or is it possible that there are some latter day
entrants to the field of South Asian studies in the
I agree there have been excesses in the
interpretations using the psychoanalytical worldview. But the only decent
(scholarly) rebuttal by an Indian that I have read is the one by the
Vivekananda group to Kripal’s thesis. (If you are looking for work by Doniger
to critique try her book Hindu Myths published by
Penguin). The rest of the articles including those in Sulekha have been more
akin to going hunting with a shot-gun loaded with buckshot. The spray is wide
enough that it will hit something but every hunter will tell you that any game
killed in this manner is so full of lead that it is completely useless.
As for Srinivas Tilak’s suggestion that Hindus
should start their own private schools failing S. Kalyanaraman’s effort to
introduce the ‘correct’ Hinduism, good luck to you but you will not
succeed. Not because the
Wendy Doniger in her recent forward to the book by
White has clearly indicated that the battle has been joined. Who can blame
her given the extreme provocation that she has endured. But she has let
herself down by stooping to the level of the fanatics whose agenda and
authority is not clear. Fortunately, those who seek to corner the market
on Hinduism will suffer the same fate as the Hunte family who tried to do the
same with silver. The reason is quite simple. It takes many years of careful
attention to the nature of this nation of associations and paying one’s dues
before one is permitted entry. Incidentally African-Americans and Hispanics
have a hard time understanding what Indian immigrants have to complain about if
anything.
I expect that I have offended a few but I guess it
is the nature of this dia-logue. And you are right I am a LIBERAL and proud of
it!
Subject:
Re: Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...
From: Shrinivas Tilak
Date:
To: [Jnana (= Open Risa) msg #124]
Dear Prof. Tilak...I would be grateful if you could share with us, even if only from memory, a concise conceptual summary of Wendy’s ‘methodology’ as delineated in her and Bolle’s articles.
Reply: I must preface my response with a correction: since I never held a tenured teaching position, I should not be addressed as professor. Shrinivas or Dr Tilak will do.
Though it goes back two decades, I think Professor Bolle’s assessment of Professor Doniger’s writings is still valid and useful because the weaknesses he detected earlier seem to have amplified with the passage of time. After paying suitable compliments to her erudition etc., Bolle goes to the heart of the issue: Doniger’s methodological weakness. Among other things he lists (1) undue emphasis on Hindu mythology and fiction while lacking the philosophical vigour of Hinduism or Buddhism (One philosopher thought that The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology was ‘chaotic’ (p.24); (2) raising eclecticism to the level of virtue; (3) He finds troublesome Doniger’s introduction to Rigveda 10:28, a hymn featuring Indra: “A son of Indra gave a sacrifice and invited the gods; all but Indra came to it, for Indra was angry with the son’s pretensions to be another Indra.” Though the Freudian blueprint is discernible here, what bothers Bolle more is that “the reader is not permitted or invited to think along other lines than what traditional scholarship has done” (p.23). Bolle detects here an unhealthy tendency to ‘psychologize’ or ‘personalize’ Hindu documents and data she is scrutinizing. In support, he quotes the observation of an unnamed scholar, “She thinks she has psyched out the Indians” (p. 23). Overall, he finds Doniger’s methodology lacking in `openness’ (p.25) (see “Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty in Retrospect” In Religious Studies Review, vol. 10, no 1 (Jan 1984): 20-26.
I personally feel that there is much in Doniger’s writings that all Hindus need to carefully ponder and reflect upon. But there is much more that must be refuted. Take, for instance, her article “Inside and Outside the Mouth of God: The Boundary Between Myth and Reality” (Daedalus 109/2 (spring 1980): 93-125.
In this article Doniger is at pains to explain the porous nature of the boundary between myth/dream and reality in the Hindu tradition. This position is driven home through the creation of a number of myths.
Myths of the mouth of God (or Guru), for instance, (1) undermine one’s confidence in the reality of apparently real phenomena (on this side of the mouth of God); and (2) attempt to establish the reality of apparently mythic phenomena (on the other side of the mouth of God).
In support of this claim Doniger translates and analyzes three well known Hindu myths that depict the relative nature of appearance and reality: (1) Yashoda’s seeing the universe in the opened mouth of child Krishna; (2) Sage Markandeya’s realizing the ultimate reality after being swallowed and expelled from the mouth of Vishnu; and (3) Kacha’s going in and coming out of the mouth of his guru Shukra for learning the art and knowledge of attaining immortality.
One of Doniger’s conclusions is that “properly understood, such myths provide a conceptual system through which we may understand and construct universal reality” (p.120). The myths of the mouth of God provide, she claims, “a mirror image of conventional social [and cultural] evaluations of what is real and what is not real.” I have no problem with these assertions.
However, I part company with her as soon as the following statement appears:” We can best understand our own myths and those of other people by translating them into other myths.” Presumably, her “tool-box” methodology or approach guarantees “a means of translating reality, of establishing a vocabulary with which to understand what goes on in the heads of other people” (p.120).
I have no quibbles with Doniger’s metaphor of toolbox. Indeed, eclecticism, inclusivism, syncretism, and polytropy (the term coined by Michel Carrithers to refer to the dominant themes of fluidity and eclecticism of Indic religious life) constitute important and useful hermeneutical tools in the traditional Indian toolbox. Perfected by Yaska and Sayana (among others) they have served well the generations of Indians for understanding and relating to their thought universe.
But modern epistemology and exegesis have no use for these traditional tools. The toolbox of Doniger and other bricoleurs is filled with feminist theory, Jungian psychology, literary theory, psychoanalysis, structuralism and other fancy, high-powered tools. Perhaps a non-Hindu reader is able to understand the universal reality expressed in relevant Hindu myths using these approaches. But I doubt any average Hindu man or woman would. If you claim to understand the game of chess better and in a more original way, your claim must be so recognized and understood by those who know and play it.
Doniger’s “Pluralism and Intolerance in Hinduism” (Radical Pluralism and Truth: David Tracy and the Hermeneutics of Religion, edited by Werner Jeanrond and Jennifer L Rike, New York: Crossroads, 1991) is yet another article that Hindus must study carefully. Notwithstanding the infuriating title and some very irresponsible comments and remarks like “The fanatics among Hindus kill people (such as Muslims) (p.228),” the article does have redeeming features.
She begins by distinguishing between intellectual and sociological pluralism (p. 215) and recognizes the merits of ancient Hindu intellectual pluralism. She however laments that it did not lead to sociological pluralism. Since it is now available to the Western world, it must make the best use of it. “In fact,” she adds, “Ancient Indian religion is an idea whose time now has come” (p.233). Here I must interject a note of warning! Is it yet another instance of what Rajiv Malhotra has called and documented the phenomenon of U Turn?
Elsewhere she states, “Hindus and Buddhists in the
early period shared ideas so freely that it is impossible to say whether some
of the central tenets of each faith came from one or the other (just as Picasso
and Brasque worked so closely together that they sometimes signed one another’s
paintings”(p.232). I would add Jains and Sikhs to this list. Indeed, all
Indians need to take another look at their shared pluralistic heritage: both
intellectual and sociological.
[Shrinivas
Tilak]
Subject:
From: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Sent:
To: Shrinivas
Tilak
Dear Shrinivas,
Thank you very much for having taken the pains to
respond to my query regarding Wendy’s (lack of) methodology. Given the
uncertainty (not to say arbitrariness...) of our posts getting through to ‘Open
RISA’, I would invite you to continue these threads at our Abhinavagupta forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/
Shri Ashok Chowgule, Dr. Jakob de Roover, and others who had contributed
constructively are currently pursuing their exchanges there.
With best wishes,
Sunthar
Subject:
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Sent:
To: [Abhinava msg #1467]
Friends,
Would deeply appreciate guidance and references to
literature on the following queries: Are there references to the practice of vrata (vow,
ascetic discipline—e.g. kamaDha ‘penance’
Prakrit) in regions outside Bharat, say, in
>
[Kalyan’s full original post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/1467]
>
Kalyanaraman
Subject:
Why is there no Greek equivalent to
the notion of dharma?
maybe, because there were no brahmins to impose it on
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Fri Jan 23, 2004;
To: [Abhinava msg #1576]
Themis was one of the Titans, the children of Uranos and Gaia. In Homer,
Themis appears three times where her role, according to Timothy Gantz in “Early
Greek Myth,” is that of “imposing some kind of order or control over
gatherings....” Sometimes Themis is called the mother of the Moirai and the
Horai (Dike [Justice], Eirene [Peace], and Eunomia [Lawful Government]). Themis
was either first or second to deliver oracles at
Dike was the Greek goddess of justice. She was one of the Horai or
seasons and the daughter of Themis and Zeus. Dike had a valued place in Greek
literature. Passages from The Theoi Project describe her physically (with
a staff and balance): “If some god had been holding level the balance of Dike
(Justice).” - Greek Lyric IV Bacchylides Frag 5, and “[...] A beautiful woman
is punishing an ugly one, choking her with one hand and with the other striking
her with a staff. It is Dike (Justice) who thus treats Adikia (Injustice).”
–Pausanias 5.18.2 Dike is described as almost indistinguishable from Astraea
(Astraia) who is depicted with a torch, wings, and Zeus’ thunderbolts.
Iustitia or Justitia was the Roman personification of justice. She was a
virgin living among humans until the wrongdoings of mortals forced her to take
flight and become the constellation Virgo, according to the Adkinses in
“Dictionary of Roman Religion.” On a coin depicting Justitia from A.D. 22-23, there
is a regal woman wearing a diadem. In another, Justitia carries olive twig, patera,
and scepter.
The U.S. Supreme Court website explains some of the images of Lady
Justice that adorn
Lady Justice is a blend of Themis and Iustitia. The blindfold with which
Justice is now associated probably started in the 16th century. In some of the
Besides all the statues of Lady Justice, Themis, and Justitia in
courthouses across the
Dear Kalyan,
Shubha Pathak is writing her doctorate under Wendy
Doniger (she’s her teaching assistant) at the
She presented the 2nd chapter of her dissertation
in a talk entitled “Kuza and Lava versus Nala: When Poetic Rulers affirm or
interrogate Dharma in the Sanskrit Epics” (4th Dec 03), by translating the term
as “righteousness” of practices associated with varNa (caste), âzrama (station in
life), gender and society as a whole. It’s worth noting that this is how the
Bhagavad Gîtâ’s ‘situational ethics’ also defines ‘duty’ (as contrasted to
Kant’s ‘moral imperative’), as was very well demonstrated by Prof. Lakshmi
Kapani in her talk on this subject last summer in Paris at the International
College of Philosophy. The term “poetic rulers” derives from the fact that Lava
and Kuza, the sons of Lord Râma, also provide one of names for the
wandering bards (kuzîlava - zûdra status in
the Arthazâstra!) who spread the dharma by memorizing and reciting the epic. King
Nala, in the Mahâbharata sub-narrative, is also transformed into a
charioteer-bard (sûta), likewise an outcaste (apasada) because a product of mixed (brahmin/kSatriya)
marriage ‘going against the grain’ (pratiloma). This
relationship between royalty, bard and brahmin has been studied by Romila
Thapar, who gave a fascinating series of talks on the subject at the Collège de
France in summer 1989. She affirmed, for example, that kings whose ‘Aryan’
legitimacy was admitted tended to style themselves as ‘solar’ (sûrya-) descendants of Râma, whereas usurpers would
rather trace their genealogy to the ‘moon’ (candra-) lineage (vamzî) deriving from Lord KRSNa (and, by association,
all the irregularities of the MBh.)
In contrasting the two Hindu epics, Shubha dwelt at
some length on the imperial role of the Azva-medha (‘horse sacrifice’)
accomplished by Râma to consecrate his triumphant reign of virtue, whereas king
YudhiSThira undertakes the same more as an expiation for release from the
burden of all the preceding slaughter in the Mahâbhârata. Curiously
enough, several others present, both student and faculty (including Wendy
herself...), questioned how the Azvamedha could ever be understood as an
expiation. I was able to chip in, finally, that at the end of his period of
consecration (dîkSâ), the (would-be) emperor entered a pool of
water wherein he transferred all his evil onto a (deformed brahmin) scapegoat (jumbaka, in whom Kuiper saw the ritual model of the vidûSaka); thereupon the rest of community would also
plunge into the pool to wash away all their sins. Since this (avabhRtha) ritual is integral to the horse-sacrifice, it
does indeed constitute an expiation for all the slaughter entailed by the (now
successfully fulfilled) imperial ambitions. Wendy murmured in agreement as I
was concluding (this is certainly not the first time she has endorsed my
observations aloud in public...). I might add here that this holds true even
for the RâmâyaNa, where the virtuous and exemplary Râma is (implicitly)
expiating, not so much for his treacherous killing of the monkey-king Vâlin or
for his ‘heartless’ banishment of his ‘unchaste’ wife Sîtâ, but for having
slain RâvaNa. The jumbaka embodied
brahmanicide, and this demon-king was, after all, a brahmin (a brahma-râkSasa?)
Homer’s heroes, even the ‘good’ guys, also commit
atrocities (if you recall what Achilles did to Hector’s body...) and perform
sacrifices to propitiate the gods, expiate their misdeeds and in
(expectation of) triumph (as Agamemnon’s sacrifice of his own daughter
Iphigenia for victory over Troy). So how come they have no dharma— neither in the epics nor much later in classical
I’m not sure if I’ve addressed your question
(certainly not on vrata!)
but perhaps these incomplete thoughts might be food for further thought...
Regards,
Sunthar
P.S. I’ve copied Shubha on this post and, hopefully, you might hear from
her in due course...
Subject:
Participate in Doniger interview
From: Mary Hicks
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #1909]
You may be interested in participating in the featured interview with Dr. Wendy Doniger on a relatively new portal, swaveda:
http://www.swaveda.com/index.php
“Modern
Variants of Classical (Sanskrit) Hindu
Wendy Doniger’s research and teaching interests revolve around two basic areas, Hinduism and mythology. Her courses in mythology address themes in cross-cultural expanses; her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum that, in addition to mythology, considers literature, law, gender, and ecology.
Among the many books published under her name are: [as Wendy O’Flaherty] The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (Berkeley: University of California, 1976) and Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984) and [as Wendy Doniger] Splitting the Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press and University of London Press, 1999).
Dr. Doniger
will answer your questions about Hindu Myths. Questions will be accepted until
Subject:
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology!
From: Gautam Sen
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #1912]
Academic researchers versus Hindu civilization
“The Bhagavad Gita is not as nice a book as some Americans think.
Throughout the Mahabharata
...
(Wendy Doniger,
Indologist and Professor of History of Religions at the
This
discussion seeks to understand why Indian studies in the West (especially the
[Gautam’s full article was posted in June 2004 at svAbhinava and
is currently being discussed at Sulekha]
The
social and political churning that has been unfolding in contemporary
Author:
Gautam Sen
Subject:
Studying others, fbb
From: Frank Burch
Brown
Sent:
To: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
“This discussion seeks to understand why Indian studies in the West
(especially the
Dear Sunthar:
I noticed, when I was a Visiting Fellow at
I have read enough of the discussions that you’ve
been circulating to see the sources of some of the concern about Western
(including North American) studies of Asian religions and of
At the same time, as you might expect, I imagine we
are both aware of much scholarship from the West that reflects a great
affection, even love, for things Indian--a love that I myself share in many respects.
Yes, that can also fall into Orientalist traps, including idealization and the
like. But it grieves and troubles me to see Western studies of
For instance, in the past few months I’ve read
large portions of J. Fuller’s *The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society
in
Obviously a Western “religious studies” approach
does not always attempt to represent everything in exactly the manner that
insiders to a given tradition would find congenial or would fully affirm.
Christians have long noticed this aspect of the academic study of religion, even
when Christianity is taught or critiqued in “neutral” academic terms.
Christian traditionalists in particular strongly object to the way the Bible is
typically taught in Western secular universities, for instance.
For these and other reasons, I believe it is indeed
wise for religious groups to set up independent schools of religion in which
their own religious tradition can be taught in a way that is highly sympathetic
(even if not without critical awareness). I teach in a Christian
seminary, after all!
But there needs to be space, also, for academic
scholarship that is not committed automatically and in principle to the
viewpoint of a particular religious tradition, or of some religious outlook,
and that is not afraid to look into historical or other questions that most
religious traditions ignore. I myself don’t insist that Christianity be
taught or discussed by university scholars only in ways that traditional
Christians of various persuasions would affirm. For one thing, Christians
disagree strongly with other Christians! I do ask that the materials,
cultures, and people under discussion be treated with respect and that the
scholarly values dominating a given discussion not be treated as beyond
question, themselves.
Sometimes, needless to say, Western religious
scholars use techniques and approaches (e.g. Freudian or feminist) that are
quite different from ones most congenial to Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs--or to
Christians and Jews, for that matter. And sometimes, unfortunately, that is
done in a way that is presumptuous and unnecessarily offensive or that distorts
what is being studied.
The line of acceptably sympathetic interpretation
is not invariable and distinct, however. I just read parts of M. Whitney
Kelting, Singing to the Jinas: Jain Laywomen Mandal Singing and the Negotiations
of Jain Devotion (Oxford UP 2001). Before publishing her study, the
author shared openly her journals and writings with the Jain Laywomen whose
practices she was studying (practices in which she was an invited participant).
The Jain women apparently approved of her descriptions and
interpretations. But they might never say, themselves, everything that
she goes ahead and says about Jain men, for instance. Does that mean
those things should just never be said? I don’t think so.
As scholars of religions other than our own, do we
need to be silent if we can’t say something nice, or at least something
neutral? In many contexts, yes!
But there are settings in which criticism—including
mutal criticism—is called for. Rajiv. M. says many harshly critical things in
regard to Western Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, for instance, and there is
surely a place to raise such questions, and in both directions, though the tone
could well be made more inviting of dialogue.
Whereas Western scholars in university settings
generally resist criticizing the rituals and teachings of a given religious
traditions, in the name of academic neutrality, they tend to forget their
restraint when it comes to certain matters of social ethics (e.g. “caste”) or
matters of gender (e.g. “patriarchy”). The often tacit assumption seems
to be that people around the world ought to be in basic agreement on matters of
social ethics and justice, even if their rituals and religious beliefs per se
differ. Things are more complicated than that, aren’t they?
In any case, those in a position of political,
economic, or ideological dominance, it seems to me, have a different set of
responsibilities from those whose culture or people have been subjected to
considerable exploitation and oppression or suppression. Western scholars
have long been far too oblivious of that power difference and its
implications—whether in their more traditional attacks on “idolatry” or in the
more recent feminist attacks on the patriarchical patterns of Asian and African
religions (as well as Western)—or (perhaps ironically) when it comes to
attacking social structures perceived to be hierarchical and elitist. I’m not
suggesting that no questions be raised, ethically and religiously, but that
they be raised with awareness of different assumptions and contexts.
It may be a cliche to say, at this point, but it
nonetheless seems highly regrettable that people so easily fall into the habit
of comparing (and exaggerating) the worst features of the other side with the
best features of their own side.
Actually, though it may seem immodest, I still want
to commend some of the approaches to negotiating and transforming differences
that I spell out (in terms of aesthetics, initially) in my discussion of
“ecumenical taste.” That chapter, as you know, is found in my somewhat
mischievously entitled *Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste: Aesthetics in
Religious Life“ (Oxford UP, 2000). Many of the same challenges
that arise in differences over art and aesthetics also arise in the interaction
of different cultures and religions.
With all good
wishes,
Frank (Burch Brown)
Frederick Doyle Kershner Prof. of Religion and the Arts
Christian Theological Seminary
[response to Academic
researchers versus Hindu civilization (by Gautam Sen) - a psycho-social profile
of the American Indologist! (05 June 04)]
Subject:
Studying others (by Frank Burch Brown) - American Indology revisited (by Michael Witzel)
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sun
5.2.5
Americanization: ‘instant gratification’ and ‘enthusiastic’ study of texts and
traditions
These would include especially the fashionable, short of breath, quickly
‘exited’ [excited? - SV] and quickly changing, ‘enthusiastic’ attitudes that are propagated now. Nothing
against some enthusiasm in our studies! Or even some polemics and esprit (
This procedure is combined, at least in my field, with a lot of
rehashing of older, already forgotten positions from the last century, that are
now sold as something new. As Kant said, the amount of our knowledge remains
the same, just like the circle of light a lamp projects on a table: it is just
that the circle moves when you move the lamp.... In addition, foreign languages
are virtually unknown beyond some school Spanish and even less French;
exchanges with scholars beyond the oceans therefore do not exist unless they
are carried out in English. [...] As an example, I mention again from my own
experience, the concepts of friendship and giri, and the contrast they
form with the horrors of no lasting friendship and the lack of a feeling of
obligation, both of which are so typical for America (...), where, as one
Japanese friend correctly analyzed during a brief visit, ‘people are just superficially friendly’.
These are no stereotypes; I have often discussed this with foreign friends and
colleagues in
Classical Studies and Indology,
Prof. Michael Witzel,
Dear Frank,
As usual, your comments were very much
appreciated. Despite their blatant contradiction with the assessment of Gautam
Sen (who is admittedly not himself an Indologist and is still working on
his book), it seems to me that there is much that could be said to substantiate
either perspective. Until I’m able to find the time and occasion to take up
some of these issues more systematically, and in a manner beneficial to all
parties, I merely offer the above citation from Prof. Michael Witzel, who is
clearly speaking from long experience with colleagues and students (in Germany,
South Asia, Netherlands and the USA) on the quality of American Indology and
how it reflects the surrounding cultural dynamics...
all the best,
Sunthar
P.S. Is Gautam’s perceived “Indological hostility to
Subject:
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology!
From: Jack Hill
Date: Sun
To: [Abhinava msg #1917]
Just a few brief comments on the current discussion:
“The Bhagavad
Gita is not as nice a book as some Americans think. Throughout the Mahabharata ...
As is well known, the BG was a comparatively late (tantric?) insertion into the text of the Mahabharata tradition. The Mahabharata is filled with marvelous teaching stories—no doubt inserted piece by piece at various times over the centuries into the text as well. From what I feel is a tantric point of view, Arjuna’s battle in the Gita is an inner conflict, a struggle against all his familiar old friends and family members: attachments, aversions, desires, etc. So it’s pointless to argue that it “justifies war.”
The
Mahabharata story as a whole, though, is another matter. There, so far as I’m familiar with it,
I recall hearing an interview with Ram Das (Alpert) some years ago where he said that Daniel Berrigan (if memory serves correctly) infuriated him by telling him the BG was “the most immoral book ever written.” (Berrigan was a Catholic priest.) Westerners just don’t get it. Like the obsession with tantric sex, which has little to do with tantra. Once a seeker asked my guru, Swami Muktananda, in a public satsang to explain tantric sexual practices as part of yoga. Muktananda replied that he had never heard of any such thing -- preposterously, of course, since such a master of tantra would certainly be well aware of the left-handed path. But a guru is not an educator; he doesn’t explain things: every word he utters has only the aim of bringing the seeker closer to God. His reply, by the way, had that effect on me when I heard it, as it forever banished from my mind any curiosity I might have had toward the subject. (I should add that on another occasion, when Muktananda was asked about the Holocaust, he shocked most of his listeners by stating that, karmically, it had to happen—somewhat more difficult to accept, but surely in the true tradition of the Gita, IMHO.)
Educators
and scholars mostly have their own agenda, which often have little to do with the materials under
discussion, and I suspect that a certain fear of the mysterious and the irrational (may I be forgiven for suggesting “meta-rational” as a more accurate
term?) inhibits them in certain fatal ways. Once my wife (a German) was doing advance work in
I submit that the opposite would be true.
Just a comment about Ganesh: I suspect that some of the legendary material that purports to explain the origins of his characteristics is the result of what Robert Graves called misinterpretation of icons. (Example: an image of a nude man and woman exchanging the gift of a fruit—is it Paris and Helen, or Adam and Eve?) I don’t think anyone today can determine the truth of what is so long lost in the mists of time, and frankly I couldn’t care less. All that matters to me and my wife is that we love to offer our household Ganesh flowers and sweets and do puja to Him. Instead of trying to figure out how it works, dear scholars, just try it for yourselves and see what it does for you.
Submitted in love and respect... Shatrajit
Subject:
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology!
From: Gautam Sen
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #1918]
Thank
you. I am learning a lot about a field that is my outside area of expertise, but interests me deeply. I
hope I will have enough Sanskrit a year from now to profit more from the many knowledgeable people who
contribute to this and
other forums.
Gautam Sen
Subject:
RE: Wendy Doniger and Hindu mythology!
From: Jack Hill
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #1920]
Thank you. I am learning a lot about a field that is my outside area of expertise, but interests me deeply. I hope I will have enough Sanskrit a year from now to profit more from the many knowledgeable people who contribute to this and other forums. - Gautam Sen
My own
studies in Sanskrit have been limited to making an attempt to understand technical terms of
spirituality, especially Kashmir Shaivism, that have no exact—nor even nearly exact—counterpart in Western languages. Still, I believe I have
benefited greatly even from this small effort. For example, prakasha and vimarsha -- what a revealing concept! Oh, would that I had the time to make
a real study of this marvelous language.
==Shatrajit
Subject:
From: Vishal S. Agarwal
Date: Thu
To: [Abhinava msg #2448]
Shame on you, Cynthia Humes!
by
Posted on
http://www.sulekha.com/weblogs/weblogdesc.asp?cid=21259
As a
visitor from
Cynthia Humes’ so-called response was a disgrace! She was introduced by Rita Sherma as Rajiv’s dialogic partner (I am unsure what the word was but it meant partner.) However, there was nothing dialogical about her approach. Contrary to academic standards, Cynthia Humes did not say one word about Rajiv’s talk or his insightful thesis. She spent her entire talk doing personal anthropology and psychoanalysis on Rajiv and about Infinity Foundation.
If Humes had planned to criticize Infinity Foundation then they should have asked Rajiv to first give a talk on Infinity Foundation and then Humes could have responded to that talk critically. That would have been the academic procedure. But Humes simply ignored Rajiv’s talk, which he had sent to her in advance as per Rita Sherma’s procedures. Humes trivialized him by completely ignoring his scholarship.
Worse still, she accused Rajiv of giving money and forcing scholars to write in compliance with his own ideologies. But Humes failed to mention even one concrete example of this. How could an academic scholar have such disregard for empirical evidence?
In
fact, I can say from personal experience that I attended a successful conference in Delhi last year
on Indic religions that was sponsored
by Infinity Foundation in which there was far more diversity of voices than I saw at AAR.
There were more anti-Hindu left
wing voices than pro-Hindu. It was organized by CSDS in
Humes must provide evidence to support her charge or be honest enough to retract!
Some
white people simply cannot tolerate the sight of non whites becoming empowered. Humes should also do
an inquiry about how her own institution
and others including
Humes came across like an amateur and not in the same league as Rajiv intellectually. Maybe she was fighting this complex. Later someone whispered that she was Rita Sherma’s PhD advisor and hence Sherma could have done it as a favor to invite her. I have not verified these facts. If true, this would be evidence in support of the cartel theory of academic religious studies.
Rajiv made a strong comeback in later discussions but Rita Sherma gave him only 3 minutes to counter Humes 30 minutes of attacks.
Rajiv stated that just as scholars without initiation in the tantric tradition claim legitimacy in producing knowledge, so also Rajiv as outsider to the academy has the right to produce knowledge about religion. This powerful point was brought home in the minds of many Indians in the audience because they felt that his talk was a cut above all the rest on that panel.
One Indian named Neela in the audience spoke up bravely that there was western colonial hegemony still in this field. Dr. Melukota spoke up in very strong support for Rajiv. On a previous panel he gave a detailed example of how the Sanskrit word `bhaga’ has been distorted by scholars to make fun of Hindu texts. Rajiv used this to explain how power is being abused.
Humes failed to recognize Rajiv as one of the top public intellectuals for the Indian diaspora today. This is his well earned success because his articles are more popular than any other writers today. He must have worked hard at it. I have been reading them for 5 years now and the fan club is growing. Humes tried to dismiss Rajiv’s success as being bought with money. But nobody pays anything to the 10,000 to 20,000 Sulekha readers who read his articles. They read them despite being so long because they like them. Indian readers have spoken in his support, which makes the high brow Humes angry and she is trying to dismiss his legitimacy as a writer with important things to say.
Rajiv’s success is built on his intellect, his marketing savvy to build readership, and his courage to speak up. Humes made a thinly veiled threat of lawsuits against Rajiv.
Humes tried to analyze Rajiv as entrepreneur and philanthropist using simplistic text book quotes but she has no real experience either as entrepreneur or as philanthropist. Also it was based on many factual errors on what Rajiv is trying to do and her advice to him as if he should take her seriously.
It became clear that Cynthia Humes tried to score points with her academy by attacking Rajiv personally. Some persons in the hallway were saying that she is a Wendy’s Child and got her PhD under Wendy Doniger. This could not be confirmed.
But
it has backfired in my eyes. As I reflect further on this experience upon my return to
Humes’ behavior has removed all my remaining doubts about the importance of Rajiv Malhotra’s work.
I withhold my name for sake of personal security.
-------------------
VISHAL’S
COMMENTS: It may be recalled that Cynthia Humes was the lady who led the
hysterical attack and threats against MLBD when the publisher withdrew
Courtright’s filthy book on Ganesha last year. She wrote to me that she is
willing to discuss the book with me but after I wrote (with Kalavai Venkat) a
critique of the book, she shied away from any discussion (despite 3 reminders)
and said that she has no time. Also, I have been informed that it was not Mr
Melkote (as the article above states) but Dr B V K Shastry who presented the
paper on ‘bhaga’.
Subject:
From: Rajiv Malhotra
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #2449]
Since I am named in this thread, I should give my side. Some minute details in the posting cited by Vishal are inaccurate, but the sentiment of frustration expressed in it is justified, and its overall depiction of what happened is fair.
I have requested DANAM for a copy of the audio recording of my session so that I may quote accurately, but have not yet received it. After her ambush, Cynthia Humes let me have her paper for a brief moment, on which her response was typed, but quickly took it back, insisting that she will send me a copy which I have yet to receive. Therefore, what I say below is from recollection only.
First of all, I respect Humes and her right to
defend Doniger from whom she got her PhD in
I also understand Rita Sherma as panel chair ‘sucking up’ to Humes, from whom she received her own Phd, as this type of reciprocity is at the very heart of my argument about academic cartels. In other words, this is normal! (Andy Fort said in his talk something to the effect that Rajiv Malhotra has not supplied ‘proof of the cartel.’ So Andy, I hope you are tuned in here: THE VERY PANEL YOU WERE ON GIVES YOU DATA TO PONDER.)
I felt and expressed openly the following disappointment about the panel administration:
1) Several weeks before the event when I sent Rita my original talk’s slides, she suggested that I should change my talk which was about Geopolitics and Hinduism, so as to make it ‘constructive’. I replaced the original talk with an ENTIRELY NEW ONE, which is essentially the thesis of my latest Sulekha column on the Myth of Hindu Sameness. She also called me to suggest that from my new talk I should drop the name of one prominent scholar whom I was criticizing, as that would be counter to the spirit of constructive dialog. I instantly complied and my talk had NO names of any RISA scholar whatsoever, in the spirit of the panel chair’s request. However, she clearly failed to apply similar policies on Humes, whose ENTIRE talk was about me personally. I would have had no problem with an open discussion on geopolitics by BOTH sides, but why this sleigh of hand?
2) Given that Humes wanted to attack Infinity Foundation and me personally, the protocol of the academic process requires that FIRST I SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A TALK ON THE FOUNDATION AND MY WORK, AND THEN ANYONE COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE A REJOINDER. In other words, logic suggests that first you let someone present whatever he has to say and then criticize it all you want. But Humes’ attack was baseless and filled with false premises and assumptions - working backward from conclusions she wanted to reach. One of the hallmarks of the cartel is the use of FALSE PURVA-PAKSHA OF THE OPPONENT. This habit comes from the way native informants are not treated as equals. Whites gaze and non-whites are the ones gazed at. (Those non-whites who submit to this establishment can win various levels of white gazing privileges, i.e. join the sepoy army.)
3) If Humes did what she did regardless of Rita’s wishes, then Rita should have let Humes go first on the panel, and given me the chance to rejoinder in defense. (Humes talk was known to Rita in advance but not known to me.) The way they designed the ambush was to let me go first and speak on a serious thesis that was 100% free from RISA politics, and then to let Humes get 30 minutes to make her smart-ass remarks about me. After that, Rita gave me ‘3 minutes to respond.’ What a joke - 3 minutes to point out the tons of errors in Humes’ 30 minute prepared speech! The sequence should have been changed and this would have alleviated a part of the problem.
So it was a three-part ambush plan: (1) encouraging me to change my talk’s theme to be non-critical of RISA; (2) letting Humes go after me personally; (3) and fixing the sequence so as to prevent me from giving a full scale rejoinder to Humes (which I was quite capable of giving had they allotted time to me).
Hopefully, Rita won enough brownie points. But I am disappointed because over the past few years I praised her as a very solid Hindu scholar and have admired her innovative approaches to constructive scholarship. She has given me considerable input in my writings in the past, for which I shall remain grateful. I cannot really blame her for being practical minded in pusuing her ambitions. The system is the way it is and we can simply step back and reflect. They studied us well and know how to buy us off, where our vulnerabilities are, etc.
It was rumored that DANAM is being penetrated by
RISA going forward, so as to neutralize its independence. In exchange, DANAM
will enter the club as ‘legitimate,’ the same way as the Hindu-Christian Dialog
group at
This contrasts with Gandhi’s satyagraha strategy in which he refused to sell out to the empire of his time. Instead, he used their attacks against him to expose that the system was not conducting itself in a civilized manner while justifying its existence on bringing civilization to the natives. Ultimately, it was the public exposure of this duplicity (for which Gandhi paid a heavy price personally) that caused the empire to crumble. Once the natives stopped giving it credibility the empire had no power.
Similarly, these very scholars claim to promote human rights, objectivity in scholarship, their ‘love for Indian culture,’ avoidance of ad hominen attacks, and intellectual ‘freedom’. Yet they violate these very standards in their own conduct and work. This hypocrisy is what my first talk would have proven with HARD DATA/EXAMPLES, that I decided (under advice from Rita) to not present. The legitimacy of these scholars stands in question as they contradict their own professed norms. Hence they intensify their personal attacks against anyone who exposes this and who they fail to buy off.
One scholar visiting from
I am reminded of the thesis of Marimba Ani,
referenced in my Whiteness paper on Sulekha, i.e. that what the West calls
ethics is ‘rhetorical ethics’ only. Ani explains that their ethical theories
are like PR for others but not for themselves. (They have subconscious filters
to block off the ethics as lived reality.) How else could
Similarly, much of what the academy has proclaimed as ‘intellectual freedom’, ‘objectivity’, ‘fairness’, ‘respect for the culture being studied’, etc. is merely rhetorical. It is immaterial to them whether their peers follow these norms themselves, provided the peers have sufficient symbolic capital and soft power in the knowledge marketplace.
I hope the responses from Humes and Sherma will come in open forums such as this, where both sides have equal access to post their positions, and NOT IN CLOSED FORUMS OR THOSE CONTROLLED BY THEIR PEERS. If they respond in the tradition of secrecy or in forums where I cannot get EQUAL space to give my side, it would merely expose the hypocrisy of their rhetorical ethics.
Finally, I offer dialog in earnest, as I imagined Rita had planned which unfortunately did not materialize for whatever reasons. It is never too late to start fresh and see one another’s positions with an open mind. That is the spirit of dharma as represented in the very name of DANAM.
I have proposed DANAM to host DEBATES on specific
issues that are causing tension, and to moderate these debates to ensure equal
rights of free speech. Let us see if they accept this.
Regards,
Rajiv
Subject:
From: Rajiv Malhotra
Date:
To: [Abhinava msg #2450]
Compare the two divergent accounts of the tensions between Hindus and the academic scholars who claim to be ‘objectively’ studying Hinduism. One is a few weeks old by a Diaspora Hindu man named Narayanan Komeranth, and the other appeared TODAY in the powerful U of Chicago’s magazine where Wendy Doniger’s rules as Queen.
This is how a Hindu Diaspora man sees things in great detail, covering many facets of the complex situation very clearly: http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_040601.htm
This is how Doniger’s powerful PR machinery has hit again: http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml
(Someone pointed out that Vijay Prashad has positioned himself as the high profile Indian that the West can parade at interviews whenever a Desi [‘native’ Indian – SV] proxy is required, whereas to young Indian idealists he still claims to be against Imperialism!)
Finally, here
is Arvind Sharma’s take on the whole affair:
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol7No1/Hindus%20and%20Scholars.htm
Regards,
Rajiv
Subject:
Please include a link to “Wendy Doniger and Interpretation of Hindu Mythology” at svAbhinava
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sun
To: [Abhinava msg #2454]
Dear Amy [M. Braverman],
Rajiv
Malhotra has brought to our attention (below) your recent write-up on “The
interpretation of gods: Do leading religious scholars err in their analysis of
Hindu texts?” at the
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml
Since you’ve thought it fit to include
in your feature a hyperlink to a critique by Rajiv of ‘Wendyism’ at my
svAbhinava website, I would request you to substitute the existing link with
one to the parent frame-set (with numerous links) of “What is the ‘political’
agenda behind American studies of South Asian Tantra?” so that visitors may
also have the option of accessing an increasing number of related dialogues and
articles:
http://www.svabhinava.org/friends/RajivMalhotra/WendyWhite-frame.html
Moreover, not having had the privilege of
being interviewed for the feature (if I’m not mistaken, Rajiv would have
forwarded you my name and contact info...), I would also request you to add a
hyperlink within your feature to the debate around Wendy’s work that I’m
currently compiling:
“Wendy Doniger and Interpretation of Hindu Mythology:
http://www.svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/Dialogues/Gita-Wendy-terrorism-frame.htm
that attempts to replace her pronouncements on Lord Krishna,
hermeneutics of Indian representations, and influence in academia, within
the context of not just the current ‘Hindu versus WASP’ controversy but also
the ideological underpinnings of the War on Terror. My request might make more
sense if you consider that I had recommended Wendy to be a pre-publication
reviewer of my Ph.D. thesis (on humor!). I’m still compiling, editing and
reformatting the digest for easier access and greater intelligibility, but our
readers might appreciate the head-start....
With best wishes,
Sunthar
Subject:
Re: Please include a
link to "Wendy Doniger and Interpretation of Hindu Mythology" at
svAbhinava
From: Amy Braverman
Sent: Monday,
To: Sunthar
Visuvalingam
Dear Sunthar,
Thank you for writing. The original link has been
replaced with the one you provided. Because we're only linking to items
mentioned directly in the article, we won't be able to link to your discussion,
as you suggested.
Best,
Amy
Subject:
RE: Please include a link to "Wendy Doniger and Interpretation of Hindu Mythology" at svAbhinava
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date:
Dear Amy,
Thank you for having replaced the hyperlink to
Rajiv's critique of David White's book, for I think it's important that
visitors immediately realize that svAbhinava is not (just) another 'Hindutva'
site. Your reason for not adding the link to the debate around Wendy at
svAbhinava makes sense. However, I'm making that debate along with your own
feature available from links added to the head of Rajiv's review. If you don't
mind, I'm also appending this exchange to the end of Part I of that dialogue so
that readers may be reassured that we are in agreement regarding this.
Best wishes,
Sunthar
P.S. Given the circumstances, context, venue and nature of your
feature, I found it to be relatively balanced...those really interested in the
(if there is any one such...) 'truth' behind such controversial issues can
easily do their homework by following up on the various links provided.
[End of Part I]