[Y-Indology] Scholarship or sensitivity?

[Guest guest]

Agreed.

Maybe the whole issue has nothing to do with religious sensitivity.

I am sorry I misspoke.

 

V. V. Raman

-

macgupta123

INDOLOGY

Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:18 PM

[Y-Indology] Re: Scholarship or sensitivity?

 

 

 

Dear Prof. Raman :

 

I will just take up one point because it perfectly illustrates

the crux of the issue.

 

> Personally, I am not interested in denying or challenging

> the phallus-interpretation of lingam worship, or other erotic

> significance which some may detect in Hindu symbols.

> That's their prerogative, and I will leave it to other specialists

> in the field to argue about that. But I am offended when

> professors who teach Hinduism don't point out that, no

> matter what its origins, the vast majority of Hindus today

> don't think of the lingam in those terms when they visit a

> Shiva temple.

 

1. Not pointing out that Hindus don' t think that way about

lingam is not a lack of sensitivity, but a lack of honesty,

because it is omitting a pertinent fact in the description.

 

2. Another pertinent fact that such Professors are leaving out

is that the foreskin of Jesus was a sacred relic for Christians

until recent time, was a major draw for pilgrims;

subject of theological debates, and even

used as a fertility charm by French royalty, etc.

Srinivasa Tilak, on indictraditions has nicely summarized

this.

 

Since teaching Hinduism to an American classroom is

to implicitly make comparisons with the prevailing religion,

not to mention this is not insensitivity, it is dishonesty,

because it is a fact pertinent to any comparison of

beliefs.

 

 

With regards,

-Arun

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

indology