It is concurrently ironic and hypocritical that the very same "Hindus" who champion "Hinduism" to be the only tolerant religion are also intolerant of academic and other publications that are incongruous with their imagined and reified vision of Hinduism, and especially with their homogenized version of the epic Rāmāyaṇa. The recent antagonism towards the late (and great) A. K. Ramanujan and his article on the varieties of the Rāmāyaṇa has led to the article being dropped from the syllabus at Delhi University, to vandalizing the offices of the History Department there, and now to Oxford University Press' shameful decision to discontinue publishing and selling any book that contains Ramanujan's essay. Though the perpetrators of these injustices deny allegations of censorship, I certainly know it when I see it.
It is equally ironic and hypocritical that the "Hindus" who champion this censorship also propound that "Hinduism" is a robust and muscular tradition that can win any battle against imagined enemies (historical or contemporary, real or otherwise) yet they must nonetheless censor anything or anybody that threatens their delusion.
But if one actually examines texts that are held to be "Hindu" one finds that "Hinduism" is much more resilient and tolerant than the behavior of the censors would lead one to believe. In fact there is a "Hindu" tradition that embraces texts that conflict with its fundamental doctrine. The Mādhva school of Vedānta, founded in the 13th century by Madhvācārya, thus considers mohaśāstras (confusing texts), which conflicted with Mādhva doctrine, to be canonical and an integral component of its system. In his Mahābhāratatātparyanirṇaya, a commentary on the Mahābhārata, Madhvācārya, states:
The śāstras [texts] whose meaning is confusing are made by the servants of Hari [i.e. Viṣṇu]. Because these [śāstras] have been described as unacceptable [they] guide the asuras(demons) to hell. As these texts are composed by Śiva etc. by the order of Viṣṇu...[1]
I [Viṣṇu] emit this confusion that will confuse people. You, Oh Rudra, Oh Strong Armed One, cause the confused śāstra to be composed. Show those false [śāstra], Oh Powerful One. Make [your] Self renowned and conceal me." This is stated in the words of the Vārāha Purāṇa and similarly in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.[2]
I do not, by the way, find Ramanujan's essay to be offensive.
Ramanujan is one among many whose work has been targeted by those who claim to speak for and defend "Hinduism." He is not the first whose work has been censored by publishers under the threat of violence and by reason of the claim that it hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community. If, however, one takes Madhvācārya to be representative of a particular kind of Hinduism then works such as his that are deemed offensive ought to be tolerated and accepted as mohaśāstras, and therefore canonical and certainly not censored. If readers found this blog to be offensive, for example, then it ought to be classified and embraced as a mohaśāstra!
To censor, then, would not be Hindu at all.
[1] mohārthāny anyaśāstrāṇi kṛtāny evājñayāhareḥ |
atasteṣūktam agrāhyam asurāṇāṃ tamogataḥ ||
yasmāt kṛtāni tānīha viṣṇunoktyaḥ śivādibhiḥ |
eṣāṃ yan na virodhi syāt tatroktaṃ tan na vāryate|| Mahābhāratatātparyanirṇaya (hereafter MBhTN), 1.34.
[2] eṣa mohaṃ sṛjāmyāśu yo janān mohyiṣyati |
tvaṃ ca rudra mahābāho mohaśāstrāṇi kāraya ||
atathyāṇi vitathyāṇi darśayasva mahābhuja |
prakāśaṃ kuru cātmānam aprakaśaṃ ca mām kuru ||
iti vārāhavacanaṃ brahmāṇḍoktaṃ tathāparam | MBhTN, 1.48-50.
Follow Deepak Sarma on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dsarma
Gadadhara Pandit Dasa: Why Suffering and Spirituality Go Hand-in-Hand
Ramanujan essay row: OUP denies 'censorship' - The Hindu
Oxford University Press under pressure over Ramanujan essay row
[Members] AK Ramanujan | Society for Advancing the History of ...
http://chronicle.com/article/Bowing-to-Criticism-Oxford-U/130081/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
McComas Taylor >
Mythology Wars: The Indian Diaspora, 'Wendy's Children' and the Struggle for the Hindu Past
Asian Studies Review [1035-7823] yr:2011 vol:35 iss:2 pg:149 -168
Abstract:
A schism has appeared between sections of the Indian diasporic community and members of the Western academy over the authority to present and interpret Hindu mythology. This paper tells the story of these "Mythology Wars". It focuses on critiques of Western scholarship by self-identified Hindu critics, primarily Rajiv Malhotra in his articles 'RISA Lila-1: Wendy's Child Syndrome' and 'RISA Lila-2: Limp Scholarship and Demonology' (Malhotra, 2002 and 2003). The primary foci of diasporic criticism are Wendy Doniger's writings, including The Hindus (2009), and three works by other scholars, Jeffrey Kripal ( Kali's Child, 1995), Sarah Caldwell ('The Blood-thirsty Tongue and the Self-feeding Breast', 1999) and Paul Courtright (Ganesa, 1985). There is no end in sight to the Mythology Wars. It is unlikely that critics in the diaspora will become less vigilant or less vocal. While members of the Western academy may become more circumspect and more sensitive to the potential strife they face, they are unlikely to impose any form of self-censorship. The defence of "academic freedom" has a long and deep history.
And it is a step forward. Other than an early series in the Journal of the AAR, "Who Speaks for Hinduism?" conflicting narratives have not occurred within academic publications, i.e., within academe itself. "Invading the Sacred" or "Wendy's Children" have occurred in the popular press and thus ignored.
I think a threshold moment of awakening is nearly upon us...
Quotes from the HAF Action Alert continue below:
"In the early moments of the RISA debate, an earnest minority of scholars courageously posted opinions that compelled their fellow intellectuals to understand the dimensions of the debate beyond the clear damage to the Hindu psyche—they realized the need to begin a meta analysis of what Dr. Courtright had elicited."
"Behold the audacity of Antonio de Nicolas, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at SUNY-Stony Brook (Stony Brook, New York, U.S.A), who resolutely declared, "A scholar who does not know how to present other cultures by their own criteria should not be allowed to teach those cultures. His freedom of speech is not guaranteed by his ignorance."
"Perhaps, most disturbing was the failure of the moderator of the RISA listserv, Deepak Sarma (Lecturer of Religious Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.), to prevent such outrages while censuring Dr. de Nicolas for voicing his support for Hindu sensibilities."
For readers of this blog, the following release from the Hindu American Foundation would serve to contextualize some of the discussion going on here... http://www.hafsite.org/index.php?q=issues/academia/action_alert_issue_summary
The issue is an academic endeavour by a Dr. Courtright ( to place Ganesha and Hinduism within the context of Freudian analysis... quotes below from the HAF Action Alert:
"Its (Ganesa's) trunk is the displaced phallus, a caricature of Siva's linga. It poses no threat because it is too large, flaccid, and in the wrong place to be useful for sexual purposes." (Page 121)
"He [Ganesa] remains celibate so as not to compete erotically with his father, a notorious womanizer, either incestuously for his mother or for any other woman for that matter." (Page 110)"
"So Ganesa takes on the attributes of his father but in an inverted form, with an exaggerated limp phallus-ascetic and benign- whereas Siva’s is "hard" (ur-dhvalinga), erotic and destructive." (Page 121)"
"Both in his behavior and iconographic form Ganesa resembles in some aspects, the figure of the eunuch...Ganesha is like eunuch guarding the women of the harem." (Page 111)"
"Although there seems to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex; his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones." (Page 111)
I think that you are confusing me with someone else.
I have worn, and will continue to wear black hats. I would not wear one, however, with feathers. In fact, I just purchased several new black hats.
I am unclear as to what "hat wearing" or "hat-with-little-black-feathers wearing" has to do with the issue of censorship and mohasastras.
Deepak,
In your articles, you have continuously harped on the diversity of Hinduism as if your critics do not celebrate the same. What you and your ilk do not understand is the fact that in most courses, the student population has zero or very little background in Hindu traditions. It makes zero pedagogical sense to start these classes on the note - "OK, you have taken a class on Hinduism. But let me tell you that Hinduism does not exist. It is just a modern construct. And its internal diversity makes it impossible to be even classified as a religion." The sentences within quotes are repeated ad-nauseum to us Hindus, nay, parroted by ignorant people posing as scholars. They reflect merely a lack of imagination or a lack of academic briliance or a lack of above average intelligence - and are just a toeing of the party-line you and your ilk.
The reader of these forums will recall that you have ridiculed the Sunday schools for teaching a fake version of Hinduism that is make believe because it does not capture a diversity. Now, I actually help run a Sunday school with 260 kids, and have taught in various other Sunday schools (in addition to teaching in elementary, middle and high schools, or addressing interfaith adult forums all over) for over six years. Perhaps, I have done like 250 or more lectures on Hinduism and India. We teach the Ramayana to grade II-III students. (contd...)
If you want to celebrate diversity, first practice what you preach on the RISA-L that you manage! Instead of protecting the old boys' club brigade, treat dissenters fairly. Krishna does not like mithyaachaaris, something that your Madhva Swamis will also tell you.
Remember that Purnaprajna Madhvacharya did not believe in an asat, or anirvachaniya or asat-sat Maya. And ironically, your own objects of criticism are in general, not sat, but a figment of your own imagination! Get out of your own Hinduphobia that has resulted in your congitive dissonance. Instead of relying upon leftist and hinduphobic tropes of Indologists, use your own prajna. Remember that 'abhayam' (the reverse of fear such as Hinduphobia) is the first of the 26 Daivi Sampadas in the Gita.
Vishal
If Ramanunjan had known of the Balmik community, he would never have said something he knew to be false viz. that Bhagvan Valmiki is not the divine author of Ramayana. This fact is so important in North India. Why should we South Indians who love and reverence our country and religion go and say something different just because of some passing political fad or infighting?
======
It is ironic that Dr. Sarma uses the self-critical capacity of Hinduism to advance his argument that Ramanujan should be embraced as mohashastra. Does it then follow that academics at DU will challenge in classroom discussion the 'untrue' aspects propounded by AK? Or even contextualize the debate?
Unfortunately, academic debate does not follow the purva-paksha found among various schools of Hinduism, nor does it acknowledge the legitimacy of criticism - however knowledgeable and detailed - from those outside of the ivory tower.
For example, in the case of the controversial book on Hinduism by Wendy Doninger, there is also someone else who offers a blow by blow account of the fallacies in the book... http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/thaah/
The book being dissected is "Hindus: An Alternative History"
Now people can see for themselves, compare and decide.
as a weapon against Hinduism, and argue that there is no normative Dharma or no
"highest common factor". Ipso fact, Hinduism is a 'myth'. This is the subtext of
Ramanujan's essay. And it is for this reason, it was prescribed by the leftist
faculty of Delhi University."
Vishal Agarwal, previously in this discussion
In Britain, the late Prof. Julia Leslie has written book on this topic.
Has any one else come up with a different solution to this problem? Neo-Vedanta of Sri Ramakrishna has a different solution to this problem. Neo-Vedanta says that spiritual aspirants have different inclinations and one size does not fit all.
Sri Ramakrishna says,"No one can say with finality that God is only 'this' and nothing else. He is formless and again He has forms. For the bhakta He assumes forms but He is formless for the jnani ...." The apparently incompatible Hindu scriptures are not incompatible at all but merely are records of two different types of experiences.
Neo-Vedanta also says that a bhakta can have the Advaita experience if he wants it but generally bhaktas do not want such an experience.
The Neo-Vedanta explanation raises the following question: don't bhaktas need the Advaita experience? I give below a particular conversation to give the answer:
Mahima:"I have a question to ask sir. A lover of God needs Nirvana some time or other, doesn't he?
Sri Ramakrishna:"It can't be said that bhaktas need Nirvana. According to some schools there is an eternal Krishna and there are His eternal devotees. Krishna is spirit embodied, and His abode is also spirit embodied. Krishna is eternal and His devotees are also eternal."
Only someone who has a superficial or no acquaitance with Nyaya & Upanishads will make kind of comments you make.
The fact is Madhva doesn't condemn Shankara and traditional Madhvas even hold Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu (though Bauddhas are condemned). The positions are much more nuanced -- for instance Bananje Govindacharya, a respected traditional scholar, insists "Dwaita" is a misnomer and the correct name for the philosophy is Tattvavada.
or not, the fact is that there is no credible proof that Valmiki's Ramayana
post-dates the Buddha. There is a complete absence of mention of Buddha or
Mahavira or their followers or of Nandas, Mauryas or Shungas and so on. There is
no mention of Pataliputra or Rajagriha. Rather, the latter's predecessor
Girivraja is mentioned. Even if there were additions to the text in subsequent
centuries, the data in the text itself is clear that it belongs to a much older
era. In a country of 1.2 billion people, you will find all sorts of interpretations
and retellings. The secularists and leftists like Ramanujan use this diversity
as a weapon against Hinduism, and argue that there is no normative Dharma or no
"highest common factor". Ipso fact, Hinduism is a 'myth'. This is the subtext of
Ramanujan's essay. And it is for this reason, it was prescribed by the leftist
faculty of Delhi University. Otherwise, there is not much merit in the essay. Asuras can read the Mohashastras but there is no need to prescribe it in the DU reading list when there are dozens of better things to chose from.
Those who defend the prescription of his essay at DU should show their respect for the same in RISA-L, where dissenting scholars are summarily expelled without a chance to defend themselves. The archives are similarly hidden from public view, so much for open-mindedness.