SV: [Y-Indology] Ganesh

[Guest guest]

V.V.Raman wrote:

 

> 4. Personally I think it is possible to analyze and

> understand a culture/religion which is not one's own with a

> degree of sensitivity and sympathy without necessarily

> accepting all its tenets and practices as perfect or beyond question.

 

This is certainly true, and most serious academics try to do so. There

are, however, some problems that won't go away, even if scholars try to

be sensitive. For instance, there is no doubt that Shiva's linga is a

phallos - this is verifiable in various ways. Yet, most Hindus do not

think about the linga as a phallos, they see it as a cosmic symbol, and

some might be shocked if the origin of the symbol was pointed out. It is

a well-know fact that sensibilities change with time, and the people who

once introduced the linga as a religious symbol did not think of it as

something shocking or bad, to the contrary. So how should a modern

scholar react if a Hindu (of whatever persuasion) felt shocked when

somebody pointed to the background for Shiva's linga? Should we shut up

or look politely the other way? I don't believe in provocation for the

sake of provocation, and I don't quite see the point in proffering

"shocking" theories when they are not underpinned by very solid

arguments, given the multicultural situation we have today. There are

more than enough people on all sides looking for a fight, so if we are

to fight, it should be something worth fighting over. E.g. women's

rights, human rights and such stuff. But on the other hand, we can't

just deny reality because somebody feels hurt. This is difficult

territory. Courtright wrote his book when the territory was easy, he can

hardly be blamed for being insensitive, since the people who might feel

shocked were hardly expected to read is book. If he had written it

today, the situation would have been more complicated.

 

I haven't read Courtright's book on Ganesa and can't pass judgement on

the academic validity of his claims. My gut level reaction to the limp

phallos theory is that he may have read too much Freud. But then I am

sceptical of the use of psychology in the study of religion. A

collective consciousness is not quite the same thing as an individual

consciousness. There is, in other words, space for argument here. It

would have been better if de Nicolas and his friends, whoever they are,

had argued instead on embarking upon a condemnation crusade.

 

All the best,

 

Lars Martin

 

 

Dr.art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo - Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19 Fax: +47 850 21 250

Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

E-mail: lmfosse

DO NOT OPEN UNEXPECTED ATTACHMENTS.

MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS BEING ABUSED BY

MALICIOUS OPERATORS.