Word As Weapon

[Guest guest]

Word As Weapon:

The Polemically Charged Use of Terminology in Euro-American Discourse

on Hinduism

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales

An Introduction: The Power of the Word

The inherent power of the word is a phenomenon that has been both

omnipresent and essential throughout the long histories of literature,

philosophy, religion and politics. The power of words has always

been recognized for both its potentially constructive, as well as its

devastatingly destructive, force. In the Vedic era, the potency of

sabda (or the divine word) was lauded for its soteriological,

liberating properties, as well as for its role as a means of epistemic

insight into the nature of the Absolute. The Word both liberated

and revealed - and both of these functions were accomplished via

mantra, sound frequencies precisely sequenced in such patterns as

to most optimally utilize the inherent sakti - or potency - of

sound vibration. The divine word in the form of mantra could

heal illness, relieve suffering and deliver freedom. Many millennia

later, we find similar parallels in the Biblical literature, in which the

Word is seen as being ontologically non-differentiated from the natura

esse, or essential nature, of God. "In the beginning was

the Word", the Gospel of John assures us, "and the Word was

with God, and the Word was God."

The converse side of the positive power of words is seen in the

destructive employment of words used, not to convey truth or to heal, but

to obscure and deconstruct reality. Whether we speak of the

sinister slogans of Joseph Goebbles or the propaganda ministries of

defunct Stalinist states, words have been used with pointed polemic

accuracy throughout the long history of human discourse. Words have

always been employed by one group of individuals to control and

delegitimize the political, social and philosophical freedoms of other

groups. Academia has, unfortunately, not been free from the use of

such ideologically charged - even if infinitely more subtle - polemic

terminology. Such biased and politically motivated scholarship has

led in the last few decades to the necessary creation of such fields as

African-American Studies, Women’s Studies and Holocaust Studies as new

academic institutions designed to balance previously perpetrated

intellectual injustices.

In the following, I will explore only a few of the more insidious terms

used specifically throughout the history of South Asian Studies that have

been traditionally used to denote various phenomena and features of the

Hindu religion. Such words have been used to obscure the factual

meaning of many philosophical, theological, social and ritual phenomena

found within the Hindu context. I will proceed by outlining 1) the

commonly accepted academic terms for these phenomena, 2) the proper

indigenous view of the actual nature of these phenomena, and 3) I will

offer several alternative terminological devices that will hopefully be

more accurate indicators of the full nature and extent of these

phenomena.

The Right to Self-Referential Terminology

The first two terms that we will examine are the terms usually used

to indicate the overarching spiritual/cultural matrix of traditional,

indigenous South Asian religion itself. These are the very terms

"Hindu/Hinduism" themselves. The term

"Hinduism" is not a term that is inherent to the religion

itself. Rather, the term was first coined by individuals who were

culturally and perspectivally extrinsic to the culture in order to

designate the ancient Vedic spiritual culture as a primarily geographic

and ethnic phenomenon. The terms "Hindu/Hinduism" are not

self-referential terms that the practitioners of the Vedic world-view

chose for themselves. These words are not attested to in any of the

ancient Vedic or Classical Sanskrit literatures, or even in the many

local dialects until the medieval era. It was not until the

19th century under the rule of the British

Raj that these dual terms even acquired legal significance on a national

scale in India.

The actual term that the Vedic tradition uses to refer to itself is

"Sanatana Dharma". While many non-Hindu academicians have

no doubt encountered this term before, not every South Asian Specialist

is necessarily as familiar with the full philosophical implications of

its meaning. Thus it is necessary to explicate the term’s full

meaning. The Sanskrit word "Sanatana" denotes that which

always is, that which has neither beginning nor end, that which is

eternal. The term ''Dharma", on the other hand, is a term that

can be properly rendered into the English language only with the greatest

of difficulty. This is the case because there is no one

corresponding English term that fully renders both the denotative and the

connotative meanings of the term with maximal sufficiency. The

denotative meaning of "Dharma" is an essential attribute of x

object - an attribute whose absence renders the object devoid of either

rational meaning or existential significance. To illustrate the

full meaning of this term: "it is the dharma of water

to be wet". Without the essential attribute of wetness, water

loses all meaning. Likewise, it is the dharma of fire to be

hot, etc. It is, however, when we come to the connotative meaning

of the term "Dharma" that we then leave the concerns of

Vaisesika categoriology behind and then enter the realm of the overtly

philosophical.

For, according to the tradition itself, the very empirical cosmos in

which we find ourselves currently situated also has its own inherent

dharma, its essential attributive nature. In this more

cosmological sense, the term dharma is designed to communicate the

view that there is an underlying structure of natural law that is

inherent in the very constitution of Being itself. Thus, if we

needed to render the entire term "Sanatana Dharma" into

English, we can cautiously translate it as "The Eternal Natural

Way". The term "Sanatana Dharma" more accurately

communicates the axiomatic metaphysical nature of this concept than do

the terms “Hindu/Hinduism”. Thus, when the terms

"Hindu/Hinduism" are repeatedly appealed to by both

Euro-American and Indian academicians, we fall very short from fully

communicating the metaphysical, ethical and ontological components of the

world-view of Sanatana Dharma. The former - i.e. Hinduism - is a

religious tradition, which finds itself currently tied to ethnic,

national and social concerns. The latter - Sanatana Dharma -

is a science of Being in a purely philosophical - and therefore highly

rational - sense.

The Misapplication of Western Theological Terms to Distinctly South

Asian Religious Phenomena

Having examined the problematic issues of a very broad misapplied

academic term, I will now briefly examine several more specific terms

that have been misemployed in the 200 year history of South Asian

Studies. The first of these more specific polemically charged words

is the term “idol”. This word has been repeatedly misused by

purported scholars of Hinduism - and again, by both Euro-American,

as well as Indian scholars - and it has been continuously and

unthinkingly used by even religious Hindus to this very day. At

least once a month I get notices from Hindu temples inviting me to “idol”

installations, pujas to the “idol”, etc.

Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Hindu practitioners, the term “idol”

is not a neutral term meant only to signify the objective reality of a

statue or some other focal point used as a means of meditation upon the

Divine, but it is a term that is historically devoid of any positive

connotations. First arising from a purely Christian/Islamic

religious and cultural context, the theologically derived terms

“Idol/Idolatry” were quite clearly designed to signify the misguided

worship of the graven images of fictitious gods. In the Old

Testament, idol worshippers are condemned to death. In the Koran,

the worshipers of idols are relegated to the category of the

demonic. The theological baggage attendant upon the word “idol” was

understandably imported into the nascent field of Indology by the

18th and

19th century European founders of modern

Vedic studies. Thus, over time, what originated as a purely

religious term specifically meant to designate a false practice and

erroneous theological view, progressed to being accepted as an academic

term meant to describe the practices and views of a “foreign”

religion. In turn, tragically, the greater Hindu community has

itself now thoroughly embraced this term as a legitimate word meant to

convey one of the most sacred and integral mechanisms of Hindu

worship. Unfortunately, when a Christian theologian, a Muslim

cleric or a colonialist-tempered scholar is using the term “idol”, they

are interpreting a specific religious phenomenon in a radically different

manner than is the typical Hindu worshipper.

For those scholars who have allowed themselves to develop a more

sophisticated and objective understanding of the phenomenon - that

is, one that arises from an indigenous and thus an insider

perspective - it becomes rather apparent that the practice that is

occurring via the process of archa-puja is something radically

distinct from the stereotyped image of idol worship that is painted by

rabidly iconoclastic ideologies. Followers of Sanatana Dharma are

not blindly worshipping false idols, but are using divine images whose

forms have been revealed via the non-mediated intuitive perception of the

Absolute experienced by the rsis. Moreover, such images are

used primarily as focal points designed as aids to meditative

awareness. Archa-puja is not a superstition, is not a

debasement of religion, is not fetishism, but is a tried and tested

soteriological device. This being the case, I urge both scholars of

Hindu Studies, as well as everyday practitioners of Sanatana Dharma, to

refrain from using the derogatory term “idol” and to instead use one of

the more culturally sensitive, and academically accurate terms that is

used by the tradition itself. Such terms include:

murti, archa, etc. Take your pick.

Misdefining Dharma as a Lie: Objective Scholarship or Bigoted

Polemic?

The next term that we will examine is the word “myth”. The

related terms "myth", "mythology",

"mythological", etc., have had an interesting history and a

very pointed polemic use in Euro-American discourse on Sanatana

Dharma. That the terms are rife with very negative

connotations is doubted by very few. The way the terms are used today

both within academia, as well as by the general public, is to denote

something which is untrue, false, a lie, "primitive" (i.e., not

Euro-American). Several months ago, during a visit to the dentist's

office, I saw a pamphlet on the table called "The Myths About

Sexually Transmitted Diseases". The ultimate question that needs to

be determined is: is it really of any scholarly necessity that such

powerfully negative terms also be associated with the sacred stories,

teachings and history of Sanatana Dharma?

Polemically speaking, one culture's "myth" is another culture's

sacred history...and visa versa. The academic field of the study of

"mythological" literature was founded by 18th century European

Classicists who took their misconceptions about their own Greco-Roman

pre-Christian religious and cultural heritage and attempted to then apply

these misconceptions to all contemporary non-Christian cultures -

including that of India. These founders of "mythology" studies

- including such individuals as Sir George Grey, Rudolph Otto and Karl

Kerenyi - were convinced, as is unarguably evident in their writings,

that the entire realm of religious story could be clearly demarcated into

two radically distinct camps:

1) "Myth", that is the "primitive" stories about

gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, magic and mysticism, etc. found

throughout all of the indigenous and non-Biblical cultures of the

world. Such stories are all considered to be certainly no more than

ignorant "pre-scientific" attempts by "primitive

peoples" (THEIR words, not mine) to come to terms with and explain

such frightening mysteries as natural weather phenonema. The study

of such mythologically ridden cultures was then relegated to the nascent

fields of anthropology, folk-lore and aesthetic studies.

2) The second category that religious stories were placed in was termed

"History", that is Biblical literature and all supposedly

factual accounts of events proceeding such literature to be found

throughout the history of Europe and the post-Columbian Americas.

In order to study these supposed historical facts, Euro-American scholars

employed a different battery of academic disciplines entirely, including

philosophical, ethical, literary, psychological, etc. The only

overlapping exception being the field of philology, which was employed to

research both the glorious history of Europe, as well as the primitive

utterings of the Rg Veda.

There is the wonderful saying that we have all encountered that assures

us that "history" is written by the victors. Consequently, the

stories of the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, Abraham, Moses, the Judges,

David, etc. are unquestioningly accepted by most European historians -

and interestingly by many Indian historians! - as being incontrovertible

and established fact. This, even though the evidence for these supposed

historical facts are in many cases no stronger, or even less so, than the

evidence supporting the historicity of the ancient stories of Sanatana

Dharma. What these Western scholars and their Westernized Indian

counterparts called the "mythical" Sarasvati River, for

example, was discovered to be a concrete geological fact in our century

by no less empirical evidence than satellite photography; Krishna's

"mythological" city of Dvaraka was, likewise, impertinently

discovered off the coast of Gujarat about two decades ago (anyone out

there have a crane?). Despite these geological facts, the Puranas,

Itihasas and traditional histories of India, unlike the Biblical

"myths", are relegated by modern Euro-American scholars to the

misty realm of "myth". Or more bluntly:

primitive fables.

If we would venture to speculate that what has brought this stark double

standard about has been nothing less than European racism and

intellectual colonialism, coupled with a strong element of Hindu

inferiority complex, we would not be far from the mark! The terms

"myth", "mythology", "mythological", etc.,

have been used as a powerful weapon for decades as a way of

delegitimizing the world-view of Sanatana Dharma, as well as the Hindu

and Indian way of life.

Whether such unscholarly use of these otherwise legitimate terms will be

allowed to continue as a weapon against the sacred stories of Vedic

culture, or whether the use of such terms will be relegated to the same

dust-bin of other such derogatory terms is up to both the greater

community of ethical scholars, as well as practitioners of Sanatana

Dharma. Such terms should be absolutely anathema to every sincere and

self-respecting scholar when speaking about the sacred stories of

Sanatana Dharma.

As a more positive alternative to these terms, I propose that South

Asianists who study the religions of South Asia approach their purported

object of research in a similar manner as do scholars who study many

other formally oppressed non-Christian cultures (such as those who study

Native American tribes). In these fields the religious

stories of the subjects under study are often referred to by the more

culturally sensitive term "Sacred Stories". We can later,

as informed scholars, debate over the actual meaning of these stories -

whether they are literal history (which in many cases they very clearly

are), or meant to be taken allegorically or metaphorically. Let us

all, in any case be in agreement that these Sacred Stories must never be

degraded again by terming them "myth".

The Depolemicizing of South Asian Studies

The perennial use of politically surcharged words to stifle the

aspirations of a people, to deflect the actual meaning of an action or

concept, and to otherwise keep a people subservient to the dominant

cultural mainstream is nothing new. Additionally, it is not new

that the very people who have been the victims of such propangandistic

terminology will inevitably come to adopt such terms in self-referential

ways. We have the case of the Ethiopian Jews who for hundreds of

years were termed “Falashas” - an incredibly derogatory term in the

Ethiopian language - by those who persecuted them. After hundreds

of years of such persecution, the Jews of Ethiopia even began to refer to

themselves as the "Falasha" community. Such instances of

the victims adopting the polemic terminology of their oppressors has been

witnessed repeatedly over the long course of human history - among

the Jews, Native Americans, European Pagans, and now among the so-called

Hindus.

Consequently, the use of inaccurate, and often consciously and

maliciously distorted, terminology has been a double-edged source of

oppressive discourse. The use of such terms has been made use of by

an intellectually lethargic tradition of South Asian scholars who view

the religion of Sanatana Dharma, not as the noble and vibrant living

tradition that it is, but as their own personal academic plaything.

On the other hand, followers of Sanatana Dharma have, in turn, blindly

accepted these non-indigenous and inaccurate terms and adopted them as

their own. Thus, while the bulk of the blame must placed squarely

on the shoulders of the oppressors, the victims too need to free

themselves of a colonialist-induced mentality of inferiority and

acceptance of their oppression. It is my fervent hope, and I know

it is the hope of the majority of ethical scholars of South Asian

religions, that we will soon witness the beginning of a new way of

viewing the nature, history and future of Sanatana Dharma.

Every revolution, however, begins with thoroughly grasping the power of

the word.

Copyright Frank Morales, 2002

This article can be forwarded only in unaltered form and with due

citation of author and source.

____________

Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales

fmorales (AT) dharmacentral (DOT) com

(608) 280-8375

Dharma Central:

www.dharmacentral.com