Vishal Agarwal, Kalavai Venkat & Krishnan Ramaswamy Respond

[Guest guest]

Comment

By Vishal Agarwal, Kalavai Venkat & Krishnan

Ramaswamy

 

As the Little India editorial investigative report has noted,

an extensive examination of the evidence revealed that all

four citations that Paul Courtright used to bolster specific

allegations about Hindu scriptures were found to be

spurious or misleading. This raises important questions

about the integrity of the current peer review process in

academic Hinduism studies. It also shows the value of

including in Hinduism studies as equals, scholars and critics

from the community who may not be " licensed " as

academics, but are very capable of doing valuable scholarly

and critical work. As the editorial report notes, it also argues

for a serious and public examination by impartial scholars of

the numerous other substantive issues raised about

Courtright's work by Agarwal and Venkat. [....]

 

In Ganesa, Courtright alleged that the Linga Purana

1.70.199 and the Bhagavata Purana 2.6.8 look upon human

beings as born of the divine rectum i.e. God's excrement.

The cited verses in the Linga Purana talk of how Brahma

successively created four classes of beings: devas, asuras,

pitrs and human beings in that order. Sequential Verses 212-

215 explicitly discuss the birth of Manava ( " human-beings " )

and Praja ( " people " ) from the mind of Brahma. The claim

about Bhagavata Purana was likewise spurious.

 

Confronted with the evidence, Courtright now finally admits

that he never had evidence about anal origins. But he has

not explained why he felt justified in suppressing the

explicit Linga Purana verses about human origins from the

mind of God.

 

Courtright claims that the Devibhagvatham records the

following: " [DakshaDaksa] made love to his daughter Sati

in the manner of a mere beast. This shameful action drove

her to burn her own body, that is, commit Sati... " .

 

There is no incestuous rape in that narrative. Courtright

responded claiming that Devi is the only specific female

mentioned in the narrative, and since Daksa is shown

indulging in a sexual intercourse, it could only have been

with her!

 

However, Daksa's wife is clearly mentioned. The Sanskrit

original uses the word " dampati " clearly implying Daksa

and his wife in his private chamber ( " nijamandire " ).

Sanskrit dictionaries such as V S Apte's, and the Cologne

Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, attest to the fact that " dampati " is

a married couple -- a compound word made of two parts:

jaaya (wife)+ pati (husband). Courtright's response claims

that no wife is mentioned in the Sanskrit original and

insinuates ulterior motives to the acclaimed scholar Ramtej

Pandeya for translating it as " 'Pati-Patni. " '!

 

In the absence of clear or plausible evidence [...] it was

incumbent on Courtright to look for a preponderance of

evidence from multiple primary sources. The story of Daksa

and Sati (or Devi) is narrated in numerous Hindu scriptures.

Everywhere, the invariants are the destruction of an arrogant

Daksa's Yajna by Siva, birth of the Devi in the home of

Daksa as his daughter Sati, her marriage to Siva against

Daksa's wishes and Daksa organizing a grand yajna in

which Siva is not invited (or is insulted). Finally, unable to

bear the insult of her husband, Sati immolates herself to

destroy her body born of Daksa. As listed in Little India's

editorial report, not one of the seven Puranas (Vayu, Siva,

Linga, Kurma, Bhagavata, Brahma and Matsya) and the

Ramayana consulted by us even suggest anything about a

rape. Otherwise, the Devibhagavata Purana or other Puranas

would have clearly stated defilement of her body by Daksa

as the cause of her self-immolation.

 

Yet Courtright [....] tries to bring in a story about two

entirely different characters and argues:

 

" Other versions of the stories of Daksa and Brahma's

seduction of Sandhya, stories told in succession in the Siva

Purana and other collections of narratives - sets a wider

context for the primal incest. "

 

The Puranas distinguish clearly between Daksa-Prajapati

(father of Sati), and the other Prajapati (Brahma) who lusted

after his daughter Sandhya. Later, Courtright claimed that in

the Siva Purana, the Brahma-Sandhya narrative precedes

and sets the context the for Daksa's objections to Siva.

Additionally, he claimed similarity of detail in the two

stories such as Siva beheading Brahma for raping Sandhya,

therefore Sati must have been raped too. In reality, Brahma

lusts after Sandhya (who is NOT not raped in the Siva

Purana as claimed by Courtright) and is censured in the

entire length and breadth of the Hindu sacred literature,

which discuss even troubling sexual topics bluntly. Had

Daksa really raped or lusted after Sati, the Puranas would

have censured him for that. Brahma is not Daksa (but his

father instead), and Sandhya is not Sati -- with both having

different individualities and lives. [....]

 

Finally, Courtright is quoted in the report as assertings that

the word " 'pasukarma " ' might well mean rape [...] or

" 'forcible-sex. " ' in the editorial. This conveniently

suppresses the Pasupata cultural context within which the

Daksa-Sati narratives first appear. Klaus Klostermaier

(1991) and Annemarie Marten (1998,) explain that the story

is essentially of Pasupata origin (pasu = humans, pasupati =

Shiva). In this system of philosophy, " 'pasukarm " a' is taken

as a technical term implying sexual intercourse, and other

acts such as liquor consumption, meat/fish eating, etc.

Courtright's interpretations are merely forced insertions.

 

What is most troubling (as noted in the editorial Little India

report) is that Courtright in Ganesa, by not laying out these

arguments, strained and contrary to the evidence as they

may be, misleads the reader by presenting the " rape " as an

established fact in a Puranic text. [....]

 

> , " msbauju " <msbauju@> wrote:

> >

> > Parsing the Sacred

> > Little India

> > Oct. 17, 2007

> > By: Achal Mehra

> > http://www.littleindia.com/news/135/ARTICLE/1914/2007-

> > 10-02.html

> > or

> > http://tinyurl.com/224t57

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Courtright is just another Ms. Catherine Mayo who preferred to delve into the

gutter as she herself came from it.

 

msbauju <msbauju wrote: Comment

By Vishal Agarwal, Kalavai Venkat & Krishnan

Ramaswamy

 

As the Little India editorial investigative report has noted,

an extensive examination of the evidence revealed that all

four citations that Paul Courtright used to bolster specific

allegations about Hindu scriptures were found to be

spurious or misleading. This raises important questions

about the integrity of the current peer review process in

academic Hinduism studies. It also shows the value of

including in Hinduism studies as equals, scholars and critics

from the community who may not be " licensed " as

academics, but are very capable of doing valuable scholarly

and critical work. As the editorial report notes, it also argues

for a serious and public examination by impartial scholars of

the numerous other substantive issues raised about

Courtright's work by Agarwal and Venkat. [....]

 

In Ganesa, Courtright alleged that the Linga Purana

1.70.199 and the Bhagavata Purana 2.6.8 look upon human

beings as born of the divine rectum i.e. God's excrement.

The cited verses in the Linga Purana talk of how Brahma

successively created four classes of beings: devas, asuras,

pitrs and human beings in that order. Sequential Verses 212-

215 explicitly discuss the birth of Manava ( " human-beings " )

and Praja ( " people " ) from the mind of Brahma. The claim

about Bhagavata Purana was likewise spurious.

 

Confronted with the evidence, Courtright now finally admits

that he never had evidence about anal origins. But he has

not explained why he felt justified in suppressing the

explicit Linga Purana verses about human origins from the

mind of God.

 

Courtright claims that the Devibhagvatham records the

following: " [DakshaDaksa] made love to his daughter Sati

in the manner of a mere beast. This shameful action drove

her to burn her own body, that is, commit Sati... " .

 

There is no incestuous rape in that narrative. Courtright

responded claiming that Devi is the only specific female

mentioned in the narrative, and since Daksa is shown

indulging in a sexual intercourse, it could only have been

with her!

 

However, Daksa's wife is clearly mentioned. The Sanskrit

original uses the word " dampati " clearly implying Daksa

and his wife in his private chamber ( " nijamandire " ).

Sanskrit dictionaries such as V S Apte's, and the Cologne

Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, attest to the fact that " dampati " is

a married couple -- a compound word made of two parts:

jaaya (wife)+ pati (husband). Courtright's response claims

that no wife is mentioned in the Sanskrit original and

insinuates ulterior motives to the acclaimed scholar Ramtej

Pandeya for translating it as " 'Pati-Patni. " '!

 

In the absence of clear or plausible evidence [...] it was

incumbent on Courtright to look for a preponderance of

evidence from multiple primary sources. The story of Daksa

and Sati (or Devi) is narrated in numerous Hindu scriptures.

Everywhere, the invariants are the destruction of an arrogant

Daksa's Yajna by Siva, birth of the Devi in the home of

Daksa as his daughter Sati, her marriage to Siva against

Daksa's wishes and Daksa organizing a grand yajna in

which Siva is not invited (or is insulted). Finally, unable to

bear the insult of her husband, Sati immolates herself to

destroy her body born of Daksa. As listed in Little India's

editorial report, not one of the seven Puranas (Vayu, Siva,

Linga, Kurma, Bhagavata, Brahma and Matsya) and the

Ramayana consulted by us even suggest anything about a

rape. Otherwise, the Devibhagavata Purana or other Puranas

would have clearly stated defilement of her body by Daksa

as the cause of her self-immolation.

 

Yet Courtright [....] tries to bring in a story about two

entirely different characters and argues:

 

" Other versions of the stories of Daksa and Brahma's

seduction of Sandhya, stories told in succession in the Siva

Purana and other collections of narratives - sets a wider

context for the primal incest. "

 

The Puranas distinguish clearly between Daksa-Prajapati

(father of Sati), and the other Prajapati (Brahma) who lusted

after his daughter Sandhya. Later, Courtright claimed that in

the Siva Purana, the Brahma-Sandhya narrative precedes

and sets the context the for Daksa's objections to Siva.

Additionally, he claimed similarity of detail in the two

stories such as Siva beheading Brahma for raping Sandhya,

therefore Sati must have been raped too. In reality, Brahma

lusts after Sandhya (who is NOT not raped in the Siva

Purana as claimed by Courtright) and is censured in the

entire length and breadth of the Hindu sacred literature,

which discuss even troubling sexual topics bluntly. Had

Daksa really raped or lusted after Sati, the Puranas would

have censured him for that. Brahma is not Daksa (but his

father instead), and Sandhya is not Sati -- with both having

different individualities and lives. [....]

 

Finally, Courtright is quoted in the report as assertings that

the word " 'pasukarma " ' might well mean rape [...] or

" 'forcible-sex. " ' in the editorial. This conveniently

suppresses the Pasupata cultural context within which the

Daksa-Sati narratives first appear. Klaus Klostermaier

(1991) and Annemarie Marten (1998,) explain that the story

is essentially of Pasupata origin (pasu = humans, pasupati =

Shiva). In this system of philosophy, " 'pasukarm " a' is taken

as a technical term implying sexual intercourse, and other

acts such as liquor consumption, meat/fish eating, etc.

Courtright's interpretations are merely forced insertions.

 

What is most troubling (as noted in the editorial Little India

report) is that Courtright in Ganesa, by not laying out these

arguments, strained and contrary to the evidence as they

may be, misleads the reader by presenting the " rape " as an

established fact in a Puranic text. [....]

 

> , " msbauju " <msbauju@> wrote:

> >

> > Parsing the Sacred

> > Little India

> > Oct. 17, 2007

> > By: Achal Mehra

> > http://www.littleindia.com/news/135/ARTICLE/1914/2007-

> > 10-02.html

> > or

> > http://tinyurl.com/224t57

> >

>