There’s a new book out called Invading the Sacred that “analyzes the representation of Hinduism in American academia.” In an article in the Indian news magazine Outlook, Aditi Banerjee, one of the book’s editors, explains her reasons for being involved and summarizes the book’s argument.
The article is worth reading as a clear statement–well, as clear as is possible–of the moderate case being made by some Hindus against the academic study of Hinduism in the West. Less moderate critics have sent death threats, physically assaulted scholars, and advocated state censorship of academic works. Banerjee does none of these things, so I’ll allow her position to stand on its own without lumping her with unsavory elements who happen to share some of her views.
Such discretion is not something that Banerjee extends to the targets of her polemic. On the basis of three examples–torn out of their original contexts–she paints an extremely unflattering portrait of Hindu studies in the United States. Her portrait is false. Freudian analysis is not the central approach to the study of Hinduism in the US. It is, at best, a fringe approach. None of the scholars of Hindu traditions whom I know are, as far as I know, currently engaged in research projects that could be described as Freudian.
There’s not a direct line between scholarship and teaching. Research necessarily, and appropriately, focuses on the specific and the discordant. Teaching, particularly in an introductory undergraduate setting, involves trying, at least some of the time, to portray the big picture. Good teaching can help students to grasp the big picture but also to see its flaws. In the many classes on South Asian religion that I’ve taken and TAed for, 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 article 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.
Others may have had different experiences. If Banerjee was really presented with Jeffery Kripal’s book as academic truth in college then she was done a disservice. Part of good humanities teaching is to communicate how knowledge comes to be regarded as authoritative as well as to give students a glimpse of how scholarly knowledge production takes place. Teaching Kripal’s book without dealing with the controversy around it would be substandard pedagogy.
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 above enters into Banerjee’s argument when she attempts to present the Hindu side of the story. She uses ‘we’ as though it is entirely clear who this ‘we’ is. Occasionally there are direct contradictions. She criticizes Vijay Prashad for calling the Bhagavad Gita an “experiment in truth” that is therefore not divinely revealed. Later, she 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 she 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?
More ‘insiders’ are needed in the academic study of Hinduism. For a variety of reasons, not enough Hindus have pursued advanced degrees in religious studies. Religious studies is not a field in India, and the bright children of immigrants from India seem much more likely to take up professions such as law (ahem) and medicine. I don’t think active discrimination has played a role in the current state of affairs, but I’d be open to hearing evidence to the contrary. The general opacity of academic decision making leaves academia open to accusations of discrimination, often with good cause. But that’s another issue.
-
1
Pingback on Oct 28th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
[...] talking about books that one has not read. I seem to have done a passable job of it in my post on Invading the Sacred. Dozens of internautes (an unfortunate French neologism) seem to believe that my site is the [...]
9 July 2007 at 1:13 am
Some Reflections
On
Invading the sacred: An analysis of Hinduism Studies in America, edited by Krishnan Ramaswamy, Antonio de Nicolas, Aditi Banerjee, Rupa & Co. New Delhi, India. 2007.
Roots of the book
Like the multiplicity of the authors who have contributed to this volume, many factors have converged to create this book. These include a growing dissatisfaction with Western images of the non-West, the application of inappropriate methodology for understanding traditional worldviews, and the continued hegemony of the West even in matters that don’t concern it, such as what Hindus think about their puranas. Already in the first decades of the twentieth century, many Indian thinkers declared that Indic culture cannot be subjected to, much less analyzed through the blurred lens of Western rationality. Indeed it may be said more generally that scientific probing and cold rationality can never grasp the full significance of any living tradition.
But the primary catalyst for this book was Rajiv Malhotra, a thinker, scholar, idealist, and activist, besides having been a highly successful entrepreneur more than a decade ago. He is a thinker in that he reflects deeply on important issues, a scholar in that he is widely read in history and current cultural debates, an idealist in wanting to see a world where all cultures and civilizations receive equal and fair treatment; and an activist in that he has been participating in conferences, organizing meetings, giving lectures, writing provocative essays, and funding projects, all with one goal in mind: To correct what many people perceive as distortions and misrepresentations of the Hindu world and of Indic traditions in North America. In a single decade he has achieved more in this endeavor than many authors who are read and appreciated by countless people.
The book’s relevance and thesis
No matter how one reacts to it - and it is bound to touch large numbers of people, lay and scholarly - this book is likely to become a landmark in the history of India-related studies. It dissects a number of cases in which scholarly commentaries on aspects of Hindu thought, lore, and religion have been incorrect and offensive. It focuses primarily on the writings of six authors (of whom I will mention but three), and it argues that their callous misrepresentations are systemic to Eurocentric commentaries on other cultures.
The book is a strong and considered response to Western Freudian scholarship on Hinduism, which, the authors contend, has missed the mark altogether. Essentially the thesis is this: Obsessed by the Freudian approach to life and literature, some American scholars have transformed Puranic mythopoesie into pure pornography, examined a highly revered spiritual personage’s life in homo-erotic terms, and desecrated the lofty vision of a time-honored Hindu deity by reducing it to sexual allegory.
Aside from deliberately sinister analyses of scriptures, saints and symbols, the journalistic portrayal of Indic culture has generally been in terms of cows and castes, superstitions and satis, daughters-in-law and dowries, monkeys and masalas. A growing number of English-reading Hindus in the West are not willing to tolerate such selective sketches of a dynamic civilization to which they are heirs. Such writings have pushed many Hindus in America beyond what Eric Sharpe called the response threshold. Put differently, that’s when the target group says, “Enough is enough!”
The chapters in the book are by different authors, and most of them are inspired by the extensive writings of Rajiv Malhotra. They examine the questionable, and to Hindus also objectionable, theses based on gross psychoanalytic interpretations. The chapters are replete with examples of unwarranted extrapolations, distorted interpretations, and ridiculous caricatures. Such writings may be okay for Western specialists who examine Hinduism like entomologists dissecting bees and grasshoppers. But they are confusing and misleading, distorted and dangerous.
New framework and clumsy translations
With the awakening that has come about after European de-colonization of the world, non-Western intellectuals have begun to challenge Western scholars on their own terms. They are no longer constrained by the subservient posture which a hundred years of British colonialism had inflicted on the Hindu psyche. Yet, the historical rancor against the West inevitably lingers on in the pages of this book.
Viewed as grades from professors for reports submitted by students, the appraisal of the Western scholars who are probed in this book are pretty low. Considered as serious reactions of thoughtful people of the tradition, the chapters take on a punishing tone. The expertise or lack thereof in Sanskrit of Wendy Doniger, a scholar who has published extensively on the Vedas and the Puranas, is ridiculed with some devastating quotes from a leading Harvard authority on Sanskrit. One of these is to the effect that an erudite Sanskritist could “count 43 instances (in a hymn of 18 stanzas translated by Doniger) which are wrong or where others would easily disagree.”
Jeffrey Kripal, author of the now notorious Kali’s Child that received an award from the American Academy of Religion, is castigated for (among other things) his audacity to translate texts from Bengali, a language he had by no means mastered, in order to use them for his psychoanalytic evaluation of Sri Ramakrishna. We read of him (as judged by a renowned professor of psychology in Kolkata) that his “understanding of a mystic such as Ramakrishna is … a mishmash of psychoanalytic apples and oranges…”
Paul Courtright, a professor of Religious studies at Emory University, is severely taken to task not only for his callous indifference to millions of Hindus in publishing his obscene doctoral dissertation (which contains numerous Sanskrit errors) on the First God of Hindus, but also for his repeated misconstruing of the puranas on which much of his work on Ganesha is based. Referring Courtright’s libidinous interpretation of the staff used in the upanayanam ceremony, the authors write, “One would normally expect such interpretations from juveniles who have watched too many Hollywood movies. Not from an academic in an ‘award winning’ book.”
It may be unfortunate that the footnoted writings of some reputed scholars who have dedicated their professional careers to what they thought was serious studies of Hinduism have been mercilessly downgraded by scholars from within the Hindu tradition. But this was unavoidable. Sooner or later it had to come.
It must be emphasized that though here and there broad generalizations are made about Western views on Indian culture, this book is essentially about scholarly Freudian fantasies in the Hindu context. It details the history of these publications and the reactions of Hindus, as also the way American academia in this field handled those reactions. This was either by ignoring them or by ad hominem attacks on their critics. In this context, the book draws attention to media bias in mainstream American press, even in pieces written by Hindu journalists. It also reports that Hindu voices have sometimes been suppressed in the academy’s listserv. The broader theme of Eurocentrism is not of central concern here, though there are hints that the books cited represent the intrinsic urge of the West to look down upon the non-West. Indeed, that could well be the subject matter of another book.
Multiplicity of views among Hindus
I applaud this work for the thorough, systematic, and incisive critiques it has launched from Hindu perspectives on writings by people who have no empathy for the tradition about which they write profusely, basing themselves on book knowledge, a few field trips, and anthropological participation in Hindu festivities. But it should also be mentioned that not all Hindus share the views expressed in this volume. There are Hindu academics, both in India and abroad, who look upon some of these matters not very differently from how some Western scholars do. The person in charge of the American Academy of Religion’s listserv, who is said to be insensitive to Hindu perspectives, is a Hindu scholar. What this means is that there are vigorous intra-cultural debates on these issues, as there should be in any dynamic civilization. Unfortunately, those who speak for the tradition are sometimes caricatured as mindless fundamentalists wearing trousers instead of saffron robes, and skeptical non-traditionalists are sometimes looked upon as unwitting agents of the colonizers, pathetic victims of Thomas Babington Macaulay, by their respective ideological adversaries.
In any case, it is commendable that traditional Hindus by and large have not resorted to threats or violent behavior in their anger and frustration on reading some of the passages in the works analyzed here.
Possible impacts
This book could have three kinds of impact: From now on, many scholars, Hindu and non-Hindu, may become extremely cautious about what they publish on traditional Hindu themes. This could be viewed as a damper on freedom of expression, but also as an antidote to irresponsible commentaries. Another effect of the book could be that in the future there may be a decreasing number of non-Hindus who choose to pursue Hindu studies as a life-long commitment, because they may see this to be a rather risky profession. This may or may not be a loss for Hindu scholarship. Or thirdly, the whole field may be influenced in positive ways if outsiders take seriously the insights and perspectives that insiders provide.
Given that throughout the book there is little of anything positive in Western scholarship and attitudes, I am somewhat concerned that those unfamiliar with the openness of Western societies and the positive contributions of Western science and enlightenment, and are legitimately ill-disposed towards America at the present time for various other reasons might get the impression that every American harbors Hinduphobia, and that all American scholars are working in cahoots to denigrate Hinduism and Hindu culture. I am not persuaded that this is the case.
As a Hindu American I am as much concerned about the demonization of all Americans as of all Hindus. There is potential for such an impression despite the fact that the book explicitly limits itself to criticize one hermeneutics only, namely, Freudian psychoanalysis. However, while the book rightly exposes many intolerable aspects of Hindu studies in the U.S., it does not explicitly mention that there are also scholars in the United States who have genuine regard and respect for Hindu culture, religion, and civilization. In fact, some of them have contributed to this book. Others have embraced Hinduism themselves. Yet others are secular scholars who speak and write just as harshly about Christ and the Virgin Mary. It is also true that a Hindu woman was recently elected as President of the American Academy of Religion, Hindu scholars teach Hindu philosophy in American universities, one of them is Head of the Department of Religion in a Christian College in America, American universities host conferences on Hindu philosophy and Vedanta. The Metanexus Institute on Science and Religion elected a Hindu as their Senior Scholar prior to giving that honor in succeeding years to a Catholic theologian and a Jewish scholar. Many schools in America invite local Hindus to come and speak to their students about Hinduism, its worldviews, festivals, etc. There is a growing number of Interfaith Forums in the country where Hindus play important roles. Recently Hindu prayers were introduced in the American Senate.
There is no question but that courses on Hinduism taught in the United States could and should be vastly improved. This book is certain to contribute to that need. But it is also a fact that there are not many good textbooks for such courses written by competent Hindu scholars.
A note on the writing
Aside from the scholarly ammunition with which the fortress is stormed, every chapter in the book is written in exceptionally good English. The contents are cogently presented without being pedantic, the thesis is intelligently argued without being unduly offensive, the style is clear without being simplistic, and the language is elegant without being pompous. There are no awkward phrases or vernacularisms in the texts. English has certainly become yet another Indian language.
Concluding thoughts
This is, as I have noted earlier, undoubtedly an informative and provocative book, and it deserves to be read by all who are intellectually or emotionally affiliated to Hinduism. I hope that Western scholars will take due notice of it and don’t brush it off as the angry outburst of emotionally driven Hindus. It would be good if Indian scholars who may disagree with the contents or perspectives of the book also engage in healthy discussions on its basic thesis. This publication may be taken as an opportunity to enter into mutually respectful and productive dialogues and debates, which can only serve the greater cause of Hindu culture at this important juncture in our history.
The issues relating to the portrayal of Hinduism and the nature of Western scholarship on Hinduism will be gaining in importance in the coming years. All parties will be losers if the current state of inimical tension is allowed to fester and persist for long, and the diverging perspectives between insiders and outsiders are looked upon by both groups as classic conflicts between devas and asuras. The book diagnoses a serious problem, but now we must take the next step, which would be to explore effective ways to enhance the understanding of Hinduism, and elevate the quality of Hindu scholarship and the West and in India
My hope is that all the dust of divisive disagreements will settle down some day, and then scholars will write with empathy and respect for their subject, be critical when necessary without being biased or prejudiced, and will be honored and judged, not on the basis of their ethnicity or religious background, nationality or popular appeal, but for the significance, value, and validity of what they write. This book may well be the first step towards that goal.
Dr. V. V. Raman
Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities
Rochester Institute of Technology
July 7, 2007
11 July 2007 at 1:26 am
“There’s not a direct line between scholarship and teaching. Research necessarily, and appropriately, focuses on the specific and the discordant. Teaching, particularly in an introductory undergraduate setting, involves trying, at least some of the time, to portray the big picture. Good teaching can help students to grasp the big picture but also to see its flaws. In the many classes on South Asian religion that I’ve taken and TAed for, 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. ”
You seem to be making a blanket defence of all teaching by the above statements, not to mention an allusion that the “research” criticized by Aditi (& the book) is somehow not influential in creation ot Teaching course content.
Please attempt to refute the numerous well documented cases in the book (eg. Courtright’s “Phallic” Ganesha’s trunk; or Caldwell’s sexualizing of devi/”goddess”) and then we can see whether your claim above holds.
I agree with your statement-
“The general opacity of academic decision making leaves academia open to accusations of discrimination, often with good cause. But that’s another issue.”
But would like to remind you that that is basically central to the book’s thesis, that of these schloars’ refusal to engage in healthy debate.
Thanks
12 July 2007 at 8:51 am
Karigar, I was raised to have respect for teachers, so maybe my defense of teaching is too broad. Immediately after the section you quote, though, I admit that I am only describing my personal experience. If others have had different experiences, I’d like to hear more about that. There are certainly generally bad, insensitive, and even bigoted teachers out there. If we’re going to talk about teaching, though, we should talk about teaching. The task of a researcher is very different from the task of a teacher. There’s a relationship between the two, but it’s not as straightforward as Aditi Banerjee’s analysis implies.
I haven’t read either of the books you reference, so it’s a little difficult for me to refute them, which I think is indicative of the disconnect here. I’m an advanced PhD student in this field, and I have not read these books, so I can’t really understand someone could see them as central to the field and as representative of broader trends. Let me repeat myself: Freudian psychoanalysis is not a central methodology in the study of Hinduism in the United States.
At any rate, both these examples are fringe examples. As far as I know, Sarah Caldwell is not currently working in academia. Her book, which I haven’t read, seems to reflect trends in anthropology (not religious studies) that, unfortunately for her, aren’t so trendy any more. I had Sarah Caldwell as a teacher when she was a visiting professor at Harvard (not as glamorous a position as you may think). I did have some issues with her class, but these issues were not related to sexualizing, exoticizing, or defaming Hinduism.
Paul Courtright was also a teacher of mine, as an undergraduate at Emory. Even though he had written his Ganesha book many years previously (published in 1985!), he wasn’t yet controversial. His critics only quote a single short passage from the book without any attention to its broader context. The passage may be so atrocious as to be unacceptable, but if that is the case, why are supposed defenders of Hinduism plastering it all over the internet? I’m reminded of the Danish cartoon controversy, where extremist Islamicists distributed obscene cartoons that had never actually appeared in the Danish press (as though the originals weren’t bad enough) only to whip up sentiment. How cynical does one have to be to engage in such behavior? I’m not attributing such cynicism to those who have been angered by Courtright’s paragraph, but how is it fair to judge a senior scholar’s lifetime of work based only on a few words written many years ago?
Paul Courtright is, by the way, very willing to “engage in healthy debate” with his critics, but only with those critics who have actually read his book. I believe that he’s donating all future royalties to an organization that defends scholars threatened by repressive governments and such, so you can even buy the book without worrying about any money going into his own pockets.
I’m not going to take the time to reply to V.V. Rama’s “comment” because it was clearly not written as a comment to my original post. My spam filter actually tagged it as potential spam, so I suspect this essay can be found appended to other posts around the World Wide Web. I can’t really let the glowing praise of Rajiv Malhotra stand, though. I have taken the time to read much of his internet-published writings, and my opinion of him is not so positive. Maybe I’ll devote a post to Malhotra and his agenda sometime in the near future.
13 July 2007 at 2:08 pm
“With the awakening that has come about after European de-colonization of the world, non-Western intellectuals have begun to challenge Western scholars on their own terms.”
“Another effect of the book could be that in the future there may be a decreasing number of non-Hindus who choose to pursue Hindu studies as a life-long commitment, because they may see this to be a rather risky profession. This may or may not be a loss for Hindu scholarship.”
(both quotations are from the V.V. Rama post)
I am by no means versed enough in this line of thought to formulate a complete argument to support my general sense of distaste for the last sentence in the second statement, but I will convey that distaste as it stands (most generally)
To (snarkily) suggest that perhaps it is best for non-Hindus to refrain from even attempting to pursue understanding of the Hindu religion is an affront not exclusively to Western scholarship but to scholarship everywhere…or would it be acceptable for an eastern-born Buddhist to be a scholar of Hinduism, just not a westerner? If the answer to this is yes, then we must wonder if academic study itself is in truth a western concept. If this answer is no, and if it would likewise be unacceptable for a Buddhist to devote a lifetime to the study of Hinduism, then I suppose to be just we must also regard Hindus as incapable of studying religions other than their own. This of course is absurd. I seriously doubt you would suggest that a Hindu is so incapable of grasping western religion that there should be no Hindu scholars of western theology.
While I understand that colonialism and imperialistic behavior have often (an understatement, yes), historically, accompanied western dissection and devaluation of eastern culture and religion, there is nonetheless a significant contingent within the modern western study of religion that seeks to dispel the sort of ignorance that motivates that behavior.
An attitude that I will summarize as “You will never understand, so perhaps it is best that you don’t try,” leads only to alienation. In the interest of respecting and preserving the beauty of distinct cultures, the academic study of cultures not our own should of course exist with careful regard for boundaries on the other side of which lies the dangerous path to homogenization, but to entirely forgo an academic immersion in the scholarship of said cultures is to risk a much greater homogenization. If you ask for any body of knowledge to remain Other, it is pretty inevitably the case (unfortunate though this may be) that this body will be treated as humanity has been known to treat the impenetrable unknown. Western study of eastern values and religion, as long as it is not meant to be an appraisal, is in this day of rampant globalization the key to engendering in westerners an awareness that there in fact is a difference to be preserved. This is not to say that respect for something foreign should require a full understanding of it, but the sad fact is that, if we do not seek to understand (this goes for anyone) it becomes impossible to recognize that there’s even some difference to respect.
Maybe you would suggest that it is an insider’s place to address the academic curiosities of those outside Hinduism. Maybe you would say that if a non-western religion must be addressed at all in western terms that it must be done by a non-westerner. But if it is true that the westerner is impotently incapable of ever even remotely, through vigorous eastern education, moving beyond the limitations of the western lens, then it is also true that the non-westerner is impotent to sufficiently move, through western education, beyond his lens, to CONVEY eastern understanding to the westerner. That is, if these two factions you mention are really separated by a gulf so impassable in ONE direction, why should it then be passable in the other?
14 July 2007 at 5:16 pm
Cherie Braden,
“”To (snarkily) suggest that perhaps it is best for non-Hindus to refrain from even attempting to pursue understanding of the Hindu religion is an affront not exclusively to Western scholarship but to scholarship everywhere…or would it be acceptable for an eastern-born Buddhist to be a scholar of Hinduism, just not a westerner?”"
The answer to this, obviously, is NO. So the sentences following this part of your query are not discussed.
“”An attitude that I will summarize as “You will never understand, so perhaps it is best that you don’t try,” leads only to alienation. “”
Nobody says the words you have put within quotes. Of course, you can TRY and you can UNDERSTAND. Welcome home! But do not hurry into writing/teaching something you have not even tried to understand beyond your scope (as taught to you) of ‘understanding’ as this makes things either
(1) False
(2)Incomplete
(3) Unclear
and all these are detrimental to you / to us / to the others you influence.
“”This is not to say that respect for something foreign should require a full understanding of it, but the sad fact is that, if we do not seek to understand (this goes for anyone) it becomes impossible to recognize that there’s even some difference to respect.”"
Your understanding need not be full of the complete religion. But your scholarship of the area you study should be DEFINITELY FULL. Otherwise the above mentioned 3 follies would repeat.
There is one weakness which I find is rampant in the West (not that I negate evrything that is ‘West’ but for healthy discussion, I believe you ought to know this too): People fly to conclusions and are all the time over-excited about something new they have come across. They are in a hurry to be ‘Published authors’. This is probably for want of early fame and money. Sadly, in this particular subject of discussion, it went too far as these people were taken too seriously by those who didn’t know anything about the subject at all…The baking is so bad that the crust is all burnt black while the insides remain completely uncooked.
“”I seriously doubt you would suggest that a Hindu is so incapable of grasping western religion that there should be no Hindu scholars of western theology.”"
I am no scholar in Western theology but I am somewhat familiar with the Testaments so what would be the reaction if I were to say in my (let us assume that it becomes a widely read) book, “Having read the Bible in detail, I conclude - with obvious scientific authority - that Mary had a pre-marital relationship and could certainly not have been a virgin to bear a child. Jesus, therefore, was a ??? child.”
Not that such deviant thinking is going to help anybody, is it?
I do not know if you have read the book in discussion. I haven’t either but I have read the review and the cartoons published therein and I am crystal clear about what is being said/implied by the authors though I am not aware of the ’situational’ contexts they deal with in the US. Getting the book by post any time now and will be able to write in my comment more strongly after reading it.
17 July 2007 at 2:00 am
I completely agree with this sentiment.
But perhaps you must read what I wrote more carefully. I wasn’t suggesting this at all. I was reflecting on some of the possible impacts of this book. In my view, this could certainly be one effect of this book on at least some Westerners.
I like to think that this will not happen, but I can’t rule out that possibility.
Repeat: I am NOT recommending that Non-Hindus don’t study Hinduism academically, or anyone not study whatever it is. I am merely expressing a fear that this could be one result of this book.
Regards,
V. V. Raman
24 July 2007 at 8:00 am
I have not read the book “Invasion of the Sacred”. I will do so. However, from these comments I can make out what is being talked about.
Professor V.V.Raman’s note seems to be well balanced and thought provoking. While we should protest against slipshod remarks on Hindu ideas, we should appreciate that there are many western scholars and common people genuinely interested in knowing the intricacies of Hinduism which is complex in nature, we should agree. A healthy dialogue is necessary keeping aside our Hindu pride and emotionism.
MKV
31 July 2007 at 5:11 am
Riverine wrote:
“I am no scholar in Western theology but I am somewhat familiar with the Testaments so what would be the reaction if I were to say in my (let us assume that it becomes a widely read) book, ‘Having read the Bible in detail, I conclude - with obvious scientific authority - that Mary had a pre-marital relationship and could certainly not have been a virgin to bear a child. Jesus, therefore, was a ??? child.’ ”
Perhaps the reaction might be that all this has already been said…
Please have a look at the website
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0293VirginBirth.php#Pantheras
Regards
Colin of Ferment
2 August 2007 at 6:13 am
My impressions here:
http://riverine.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/its-and-my-impressions.htm
And my reaction here:
http://riverine.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/i-become-a-wendy-s-child-just-for-a-little-while.htm
3 August 2007 at 2:47 am
Dear James,
Please take a few minutes to read my thoughts on your review.
Regards,
Rudra
http://medhajournal.com/myblog/myblog/reviewing-a-review—invading-the-sacred.html
4 August 2007 at 5:45 am
I disagree that research does not influence teaching. If that were so then research would amount to an expensive hobby which society should not have to support. Evidence shows that research consensus plays out in the long term into whats taught. Profs prescribe each others’ writings including research. Also the book gives evidence of Courtright’s “research” book informing a major US museum’s display interpretations about Ganesha. Research has led US policymakers to reach conclusions about Indian caste, violence, etc. South Asian Studies borrows heavily various research conclusions reached by religious studies, and these South Asian scholars in turn inform policymaking, often directly as paid consultants. The web of knowledge flow is undeniable as has been the intention of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Pew, Templeton and other institutions who successfully influence the discourse.
4 August 2007 at 10:17 am
No one said that research doesn’t influence teaching. That would be an absurd statement that you would be right to disagree with. I said, “There’s not a direct line between scholarship and teaching.” My point is that you can’t determine what goes on in a classroom based on the research publications of a professor.
I haven’t responded to all these comments because I have better things to do than to spend all my time arguing on the internet. This does not mean (as implied by some linked posts above) that I’ve fallen to the superior force of these arguments. I advise all readers to re-look at my original arguments before deciding whether or not the comments are persuasive or even relevant.
In particular, I don’t think anyone has answered my objections that the examples cited are not representative of the study of Hinduism in the US academy.
Also, it seems that some commentators assume that I’m making a blanket defence of all Western (academic) representations of Hinduism or even of all Western scholarship. Let me assure you that I’m doing nothing of the sort. This assumption seems to stem from an us-against-them mentality that establishes Hindus in opposition to Western scholars and forces people to choose sides. I don’t think this mentality accurately reflects the situation nor do I think it is helpful as method of improving the situation.
6 August 2007 at 12:43 am
James,
You are discussing the article, not the book, as the posters here are. The subject of the book ITS is a set of writings on Hinduism that have emerged in the Western academy. In most cases the publication in question has come to the attention of some people (some of whom are Hindu) who have analysed and written about it. There are a few among these people such as Katz, Sharma, de Nicholas, and Balagangadhara, who are are academics, and others such as Ramprasad who have scholarly training. Others such as Sanu, Agarwal. Banerji and Ramaswamy are well read, self-taught, and have studied not only Hinduism but also the literature on the topic. The book is part of a larger academic discussion and may mark a turn in the collaboration among these scholars that has produced most of the articles that the book features. As you may know Balagangadhara is the (co?) chair of the Hinduism group at AAR. Whether or not the writings discussed in ITS are representative of Hinduism scholarship in the “West”, the writings are important enough to have drawn the attention of a number of your peers.
8 August 2007 at 9:51 pm
James,
That you have brought the topic to discussion in a public domain such as this should have been a pointer to the fact that many arguments are bound to happen. In my first post I was answering another comment and in the next one, I provided a link to what I had written just prior to and just after I had read a part of the book. Of course, it is not expected of you to answer each and every comment that is put forth here, though it is expected of you (being the proprietor of the site) to read them.
Anyway, the point I am coming to (which I think you missed out completely) is that there IS a DIRECT relationship to scholarship (of the kind discussed in ITS) and teaching. I am not sure if you went on to read the book or stopped with the introductory article by Aditi Banerjee, but the book goes to show, with all references and details, how things have been portrayed in the books that are prescribed for academic studies. Wendy Doniger - the prime target of attack in the book - for one, holds a high chair in Chicago University, is the consulting editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica of World Religions(M-W) and so on and so forth. Then how do you imply that there is no DIRECT relationship between scholarship and teaching? Doniger is the researcher-scholar and the teacher. Many of her students are researcher scholars to whose books students are guided during their study years.
PLUS, the book ITS, clearly points out the fact that dwelling on a SINGLE MINOR aspect of a religion while ignoring everything else is going to give a completely wrong picture of the religion. This seems to be the motive going by the many dozen books she and her ‘children’ have generated. Also, your experience with Courtright might heve been positive, yet the book has re-produced excerpts from his book on Ganesha which is rather false and disgusting to those brought up with very divine ideas of the God.
Let me put it this way for more clarity: It is easy to sell sex and it is appealing to all irrespective of their intellectual level. However, the damage it does to the religion in a foreign land is sad, very sad. Hindus have been the most tolerant people ever. Even today, the most critical of the rare instances of violence indulged in by some political groups have been Hindus themselves. This being the case, to do such great disservice - in the name of research and scholarship and teaching - to this nectarine religion is shameful, painful, sinful.
27 October 2007 at 10:54 pm
James, you ask “how is it fair to judge a senior scholar’s lifetime of work based only on a few words written many years ago?”
Paul courtright has now come out and clearly admitted that he erred in one case and made an interpretation where the scriptures were not categorical. In the latter case, he alluded to deriving support from other scriptures. Alas!, it has been shown that no such support really exists.
What is his response?
http://www.littleindia.com/news/135/ARTICLE/1914/2007-10-02.html
In his response, Courtright said: “The bottom line is that I wrote the book a quarter of a century ago. If I missed things that I should have noticed, or would notice now, is moot. I’m not in a position to re-write the book. I hope I’ve learned a few things about textual precision in my current work…. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. I acknowledge that. Scholars sometimes make errors. Beating up on an old book seems like a waste of everyone’s time.”
Then, why does Paul Courtright not offer to publish a corrected version of the book? After all, it is a “scholarly” work that other people make references to in their own research. Does it not behoove this scholar to fix an unscholarly error?