'Academic Pornography': The Fundamentalists Strike Back

[Guest guest]

A few days ago I posted something of a defense of Wendy Doniger (an

American scholar accused by Hindu fundamentalists of overly sexualizing

and sensationalizing Hindu scripture and beliefs in her work). In the

interest of fairness, then, I thought I'd share this very passionately

argued piece setting out the " fundamentalist " position on the issue. It

ran just this week in three parts (July 17, 19 and 20, 2007), in

Chennai's " News Today " newspaper.

 

As I said the other day, I have a real problem with any movement

to " silence " authors with whom a certain group disagrees. I think Rajiv

Malhotra, who is spearheading the " anti-Doniger " effort is something of

a Hindu Jerry Falwell -- an ignorant, disingenuous, intellectually

dishonest and a halo-donning hate-mongerer in the name of

religious " purity. "

 

On the other hand, I must admit that Doniger & Co. often play right

into Malhotra's hands. Their work often seems either intentionally

provocative or astonishingly insensitive to its subject. While I

personally do not doubt their sincerity, but they do seem oblivious to

the fact that their rarified speculations could reasonable be construed

as very hurtful and offensive attacks on the scripture and belief

systems of a great percentage of the human race.

 

Jeffrey Kripal is a prime example: His book " Kali's Child " was a

sincere academic dissertation -- but one presented (purposefully or

not) in the most insensitive, undiplomatic, and culturally oblivious

language imaginable. His 2003 jacket blurb for fellow Doniger-protegee

David White shows how careless and over-the-top his assertions and

conclusions can be: " White's brilliant meditations on the literal and

symbolic meanings of Kaula Sanskrit texts ... remind us once again that

South Asian Tantra is really all about sex, bodily fluids and all. "

 

I mean, come on. First, anyone with a passing understanding (never mind

practical experience) of Tantra can attaest that this is not the case

factually. And moreover, it's not even an accurate description of

White's book! Having read the book from cover to cover, I can

categorically state that this is *not* White's primary thesis, point or

conclusion. Kripal's blurb actually cheapens and trivilizes a wonderful

and careful work of scholarship -- and in so doing, he gives Malhotra

and his fundie legions exactly the sort of ammunition they're looking

for.

 

But as I mentioned the other day, if you disagree with Doniger (or

Kripal, or whomever) don't throw rotten eggs and issue death threats

and so on. Write a book rebutting them! That's the way ideas evolve.

Neither the narrowly puritan Hinduism of the fundamentalists nor the

overly sexualized Hinduism of the Donigers should rule the day. As the

Hindu academic Arvind Sharma notes, " If insiders and outsiders remain

insulated they develop illusions of intellectual sovereignty. Each is

required to call the other's bluff. "

 

Well, presto: Now the fundamentalist side now *has* produced its first

book, an academic symposium entitled, " Invading the Sacred: An Analysis

of Hinduism Studies in America, " edited by Krishnan Ramaswamy, et al.

Amazon link: <http://tinyurl.com/2ycf4o> -- and since I asked for it, I

guess I'd I'd better give it some airtime here at Shakti Sadhana.

 

The News Today article I'm citing is ostensibly a review of " Invading

the Sacred, " but it's really just a jumping-off point for a pro-fundie

rant by the well-known and profilic columnist V. Sundaram. With that

cautionary note and caveat in mind, here is a preview, followed by

links to the full, three-part article:

 

********************

 

THE DEFAMING OF HINDUISM

 

By V. Sundaram, Columnist, News Today

 

Till 1000 AD, India was a major civilizational and economic power.

After that date, India suffered centuries of decline and degradation.

After centuries of stagnation, the world is noticing a new resurgence

of India in the spheres of business, geo-politics and culture.

 

However, a powerful counterforce is operating within the American

academic circles which are systematically undermining core icons and

ideals of Indian culture and thought.

 

Let me give some examples in this context: Many scholars belonging to

this counterforce have disparaged the Bhagavad Gita as " a dishonest

book " ; declared Lord Ganesha's trunk " a limp phallus " ; classified

Goddess Devi as " the mother with a penis " and Lord Shiva as " a

notorious womanizer " who incites violence in India; declared

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa as " a pedophile who sexually molested the young

Swami Vivekananda. " [...]

 

This new book is the product of an intensive multi-year research

project. It seeks to uncover and to bring out into the open platform of

fearless and informed public debate about the subterranean networks

operating in America behind what the editors/authors of this book

describe brilliantly as " Hindophobioa. " This work describes the Indian

diaspora's challenges to such dubious and pornographic scholarship [...]

 

For more:

 

PART 1. http://newstodaynet.com/2007sud/jul07/170707.htm

 

PART 2. http://newstodaynet.com/2007sud/jul07/190707.htm

 

PART 3. http://newstodaynet.com/2007sud/jul07/200707.htm

[Guest guest]

Here's a more balanced review of " Invading the Sacred, " from

the " 113th Street " blog, along with a lively and thought-provoking

array of responses both for and against the book:

 

'INVADING THE SACRED' REVIEW

 

" [...]I've never met a professor who sought to defame or exoticize

Hinduism in any way. Every single one of them has sought to portray

Hinduism in a sensitive, accurate, non-exotic, and generally positive

light. I say generally positive because an entirely positive

portrayal is simply impossible. After all, plenty of Hindus criticize

aspects of the tradition. These Hindus should not be sidelined. My

experience is admittedly limited, but it includes Paul Courtright,

who has been singled out for attack in this [book] and elsewhere. I

have had issues with the representations of Hindu traditions by

particular professors, but I don't think any of them were ever acting

in a deliberately malicious way.

 

" [...] Don't get me wrong, very negative representations of Hindus,

Indian, and South Asians are extremely common in American society.

Much of teaching undergraduates about Hinduism involves trying to

make them aware of these pervasive biases and to dispel them.

 

" The confusion that I allude to [concerns the way in which 'Invading

the Sacred' presents] the Hindu side of the story. [it] uses 'we' as

though it is entirely clear who this 'we' is. Occasionally there are

direct contradictions. [it] criticizes Vijay Prashad for calling the

Bhagavad Gita an 'experiment in truth' that is therefore not divinely

revealed. Later, [it] attempts to define Hinduism and says that it

originated 'from experience, from realisation, and not from revealed

dogma.' Which is it? Is Hinduism revealed or does it stem

from 'experiments in truth?' And hasn't [the essayist] read Gandhi?

What exactly is wrong with calling the Gita an experiment in truth?

 

" I think what this gets down to is that there is not a single

Hinduism. There are many Hindu traditions that overlap and interact

in complex and interesting ways. To insist on a monovocal Hinduism

that speaks with a single 'we' is to insist on sidelining all but the

most powerful voices in the tradition. This is true for all

religions, not just Hinduism, but the irony is particularly strong

here. Hindus have often prided themselves for the diversity and

inclusivity of their religion. Why try to drown out the many

beautiful (and not-so-beautiful) voices that aren't convenient at the

moment? "

 

SOURCE: " One Hundred Thirteeth Street " blog, July 5, 2007

URL: http://113thstreet.net/?p=526

[Guest guest]

Hello Devi Bhakta.

 

Namaste.

 

> But as I mentioned the other day, if you disagree with Doniger (or

> Kripal, or whomever) don't throw rotten eggs and issue death threats

> and so on. Write a book rebutting them! That's the way ideas evolve.

 

Yes. I think you've expressed that very well.

 

> Neither the narrowly puritan Hinduism of the fundamentalists nor the

> overly sexualized Hinduism of the Donigers should rule the day.

 

Agreed.

 

From what I've read of the two authors, it seems to me that Jeffrey Kripal is a

more extreme

example of one-sidedly sexual theorizing than Wendy Doniger. His book _Kali's

Child_ is, I

think, intentionally provocative rather than merely insensitive.

 

Kripal's book does however draw our attention to the real cultural phenomenon of

_bowdlerization_. That is, the tendency of translators, when producing English

versions of Indian

texts, to leave out parts of the original texts that they (the translators)

seemingly find

embarrassing. I know that this really happens from my own study of Sanskrit

texts and their

translations, quite apart from the examples (involving Bengali texts) mentioned

by Kripal.

 

Bowdlerization has, of course, happened in other places besides India. The very

word comes

from the name of Dr Thomas Bowdler, editor of a work called _The Family

Shakespeare_, first

published 1818...

 

Thomas Bowdler represents one extreme of nineteenth century European thought,

and

Sigmund Freud represented another. Both extremes have played a part in the way

India's

spiritual culture has been presented and interpreted throughout the twentieth

century...

 

Will either rule the day in the twenty-first century? Like you, I hope not.

 

In the end, the Bowdlerizers actually draw attention to what they leave out.

 

And so do the Freudians...

 

Om Kalyai namah.

Colin of Ferment

http://home.pacific.net.au/~ferment/