From:
Sunthar (Yahoo!Mail) [[email protected]]
Sent:
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 3:19 PM
To:
Frank Burch Brown
Cc:
Alf Hiltebeitel; Elizabeth Visuvalingam; Mukur K. Khisha; Rajiv
Malhotra
Subject:
Wendy Doniger and the interpretation of Hindu mythology...more
on
Gita and terrorism
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
(http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9511&L=indology&P=R1031)
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 US and got to experience Wendy's kindness at first
hand). When Wendy learnt we had just visited Dum�zil in Paris, she was
genuinely surprised that we'd want to have anything to do with that "nasty
old" man - I don't recall the details of their bruising encounter, but it
wouldn't be difficult to guess... A trained psychoanalyst could just as easily
default her "wild analysis" of Hindu myth. When in 1990, I took the
ever so meek and self-effacing Indian scholar of Kashmir Shaivism, Navajivan
Rastogi, to listen to Wendy speaking to a packed audience at Harvard, I was
unable to restrain him from springing to his feet to challenge her
'methodology'...
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
Elizabeth) the 'anthropology' of Bhairava, that I recognized it to be a
treasure of Hindu motifs of transgressive sacrality. Notwithstanding the
dubious and distorting veneer of eclectic theorizing that she feels obliged to
slap on, Wendy's real forte is an intuitive 'free-association', which, I
believe, is how most 'uninitiated' Hindus, both illiterate and learned,
actually assimilate and elaborate their symbolic universe. Our own hermeneutics
of the Indian symbolic universe has sometimes been perceived in like manner by
scholars--both negatively (Rahul Peter Das) and positively (Heinrich von
Stietencron, who did the original analysis of the Bhairava's decapitation
myth)--who have been unable or unwilling to grapple with its (otherwise quite
explicit) presuppositions. Not only did Elizabeth send Wendy our constructive
critique of her decipherment of the Bhairava cycle, but I also proposed her
name as one of the SUNY Press pre-publication reviewers for my thesis. It
speaks to her humility that she thought it appropriate to pass on the
manuscript to someone she felt would be more competent (viz., Lee Siegel, who
was then working on his _Laughing Matters: India's Comic Tradition_). We were
also rather touched when she ran out of her house after us in the biting
Chicago winter of 1985 to return the money we had just paid her for her new
book.
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 AAR at Kansas City, a
young scholar known to us from Harvard delivered a very interesting talk, based
on indigenous manuscripts, on the sexual initiation of male disciples by female
gurus in the Buddhist tantric tradition. This was, however, packaged into a
'political' claim that such innate wisdom originally belonged to women and were
somehow usurped by 'patriarchal' men. With all due praise, I stood up from the
audience to object that in the corresponding Hindu esoteric traditions it was
clear that male gurus often chose women to initiate their own male disciples
because they were physiologically more adapted to certain modes of
transmission. To approach this phenomenon primarily through the male versus
female optic was to skew the more valuable human insights to be gained (and all
the more inexcusable as Elizabeth had given her the draft of "Union and
Unity in Hindu Tantrism" at Harvard...). Wendy, as the official
respondent, then publicly and explicitly endorsed my observations - not
something we'd expect of an "ideological" feminist! So much so that I
subsequently received a nasty personal letter from the scholar-friend for
having praised her in private to her husband while criticizing her in
public...apparently what was at stake was not feminism but careerism!
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. Krishna is actually inwardly so pleased at the latter's principled stand
that he subsequently sends the king of the gods to offer the sage water while
he is wandering in extreme thirst in the desert. The pure brahmin refuses what
was, in fact, the freely offered elixir of life simply because Indra had
disguised himself as a filthy untouchable (with urine dripping around the
flask?). You can see the consequences of this refusal today in the million
untouchable would-be converts to Buddhism (to the great discomfort of the Dalai
Lama...).
The
value of the Mahabharata 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, Krishna's actions
(including his youthful dalliances with the cow-herdesses) are to be understood
and contemplated rather than embraced as a model for imitation. Even otherwise,
the net result is that even the Hindu villager has (had?) a highly developed
sense for moral complexities that resists attempts to paint human situations
simply in terms of good versus evil (despite the seeming contrary message of
the R�m�yana...), even though he may be quick to pursue and vindicate his own
self-interest. (Sri Aurobindo, for example, makes a similar argument for the
ingrained *aesthetic* sense of the Indian in "The National Value of
Art.") How else to explain the survival over the millennia of so diverse a
civilization, encompassing the polyvalence of a myriad communities in perpetual
flux?
So
the issue, as I see it, is not whether Wendy has misunderstood or even
caricatured Krishna, but whether she would acknowledge a more insightful
interpretation when presented with one in a collegial and friendly manner. And
reading between the lines of my original missive (below), Hindus may be
likewise forgiven for having sworn, till now, by the simplified Song of
God--complex enough as it already is--instead of replacing it within the more
grisly, problematic, and paralyzingly ambivalent context of the Mahabharata.
The sustained attempt, in Rajiv Malhotra's regular column, to apply the Gita to
the current "war on terrorism" (http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=151415), is already facing
questions (well worth reading...) of such "epic" proportions from his
(over-?) literate Hindu diaspora readership. Rajiv, now a full-time
philanthropist, has been working with various educational institutions to
rectify and enhance the portrayal of Hinduism to American audiences - your
students might find his piece thought-provoking and even worth a fresh
discussion.
as
always,
Sunthar
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:55 PM
Subject:
Re: Lord Krishna's "messianic" crusade against evil....towards
a Hindu perspective on violence
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
----------------
From: Sunthar (Yahoo!Mail) [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 3:13 PM
To:�� Mukur K. Khisha
Subject:��� Lord Krishna's "messianic" crusade
against evil....towards a Hindu perspective on violence
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 India that this teenager in Kuala Lumpur (KL) became a self-conscious
"Hindu" (of sorts...). I too have my reservations about pacifism, and
one could persuasively argue that Gandhi's tactics of passive resistance worked
in India only because he was dealing with the English (as opposed to the Dutch,
Nazis, or Ben Laden). Also, the fact that we are a nation of individualists
probably makes it all the more incumbent that we rally, vocally, in a show of
unity against this serious threat to the roots of our diversity (judging by
subsequent reports in the press, I probably reacted hastily without having
really listened to the whole of Bush's speech to Congress...). Only when this
has been made abundantly clearly to ourselves and to others abroad, can we
afford the luxury of more complex, and fruitful, analyses of the forces arrayed
against each other:
Krishna's
admonishment to fight must be replaced in the context of the titanic struggle
of the Mah�bh�rata war that pits the white P�ndavas against the evil Kauravas -
had the model king, Arjuna, laid down his arms, the whole world would have
suffered oppression. However, a more careful reading of our national epic
offers a much deeper insight into the intricacies (and pitfalls...) of
"righteousness" (dharma). Despite their superior wisdom and ardent
desire for peace, the 2 most venerable and upright leaders, Bhishma and Drona,
have deliberately ranged themselves on the side of the Kauravas. There's no one
better versed in Dharma than Bhishma, for Krishna orders the future righteous
king to learn its secrets from the generalissimo dying slowly on the
battlefield. Even more baffling, at first sight, is that Krishna's own elite
troops (the Yadavas) are arrayed -- with deadly effect -- on the opposite side
against the smaller forces of his own prot�g� Arjuna. You might recall that
Krishna had offered Arjuna the choice between his army and his own person, and
he chose the latter as a mere charioteer, i.e., a committed *non-combatant*
(even when under extreme provocation, at times, to hurl his lethal discus against
Bhishma and others...). After the universal carnage, when the few remnants are
searching for survivors among the mangled bodies, a horrifying loud laughter is
heard which is clearly that of the trickster God. Did Lord Krishna intend to
re-establish Dharma by eliminating the war-mongers on both sides through a
fratricidal conflict? After all, he previously incarnated as Parashurama with
the explicit and successful intention of ridding the world of military men
(kshatriyas)!
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 Malaysia could hero-worship Karna all
the while acknowledging the superior wisdom and divinity of Krishna! Islam may
well disallow suicide (e.g., a suicide bomber who inadvertently escaped death
during a successful sabotage operation refused to kill himself because it was
no longer necessary), but Krishna lay down willingly so that an unwitting
hunter might pierce his heel with an arrow, his manner of atoning for his
inevitable sins.
>
>
sh�nti,
Sunthar
�-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent:
Friday, September 21, 2001 9:59 PM
Subject:
Re: A petition for peace...the role of the Internet
� Dear Sunthar,
������� Thanks for endorsing copy of the mail
to me. Though I am a practising 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 Munich type can only whet
the appetite of evil-doers. I tend to believe in the words of Krishna in the
Gita:
������������� ��������"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