Protect against external invasion of the sacred and purge internal puritanism
AMK
As some one who believes in pursuing true purity and purging false
puritanism, I offer my sincere congratulations and thanks on your work
entitled "Invading the Sacred", which I see as an important
contribution.
I am an Indian-American (born and raised in a South Indian Brahmin
background; establishing and settling in the USA). I consider myself a
practitioner-student of Hinduism with deep interests in pluralism, and
comparative spirituality, philosophy, and sacred eroticism.
I wish to clarify that, with regard to sacred eroticism and its
diverse representations in Indian culture, I reject any false
defensiveness or puritanism (by political organizations (e.g. Shiv
Sena) or religious groups or apologetic / defensive commentators who
attempt to marginalize or negate the existence of rich eroticism and
sensuality in certain aspects of Hinduism) . I also reject out of
context misuse of sacred eroticism and its representations in Hindu
traditions by "academic authorities" - whose works might be the result
of genuine misinterpretation or a more intentional attempt at
undermining these traditions. Imbalanced treatment of the subject
matter with aggrandizement of superficial eroticism and aberrations
practiced by some at some point in history, along with marginalization
of deeper and central aspects might suggest the latter intention.
There is nothing wrong with taking up a particular topic, even if
controversial or embarrassing to a particular faith or tradition and
publishing on it as long as it is done appropriately and contextually.
Taking the peripherals and portraying them as central and pan-
representational is an entirely different approach that must be
questioned.
With that rather elaborate background, I will elaborate on the point I
attempted to convey in the subject title. I will use the examples of
Ganesha and Shiva with reference to the controversies of Courtright
and Doniger.
Example 1: As Hindus who know about the Vedic and Pauranic aspects of
Ganesha / Ganapati, it is immediately clear to us that Coutright's
reference of Ganesha's trunk in relation to phallic iconography is
outright erroneous.
That being said, some of us might or might not know about the Tantric
aspects of Ganapati. In one of his rare compositions on Ganapati
(Ucchista Ganapatau in Raga Kasiramakriya), Muthuswamy Dikshitar (18th
century Carnatic music composer and scholar of the Vedas and Tantras,
much more than any of us ever will be) uses the following verse:
"...naari yoni mukhaaswaadane, nagna ramakriya modane..." We all know
that the word yoni is multifaceted with multiple context dependent
meanings. In this context Dikshithar probably qualified it as "naari
yoni" to mean female genitals and to avoid disambiguation with other
meanings of the yoni. This example has three-fold implications:
a) While I have not read the reference in question, Courtright's
reference to the trunk of Ganapati in a phallic context is blatantly
erroneous. Claims of psychoanalytic insight seem downright dubious.
The Walters museum in Baltimore quoting that as a major
"authoritative" descriptor of Ganesha is sad and discouraging. That is
something to be addressed and corrected in a sensible, steady and
unwavering manner.
b) Evangelists misusing "...such works to claim that Hinduism is a
“dirty, dignity destroying religion”..." is not surprising. That is
where we need to be prepared to defend and clarify without losing
composure or conviction. We need to be respectful of genuine debate
and careful of covert malignment.
c) The description of "...naari yoni mukhaaswaadane..." for Ganapati
has a physical/sensual interpretation and a metaphysical
interpretation. The physical-sensual interpretation literally
translates to female (naari) genital (yoni), face (mukha) aswadane
(appreciator). There is nothing to be apologetic or embarassed about
that, which is my assertion on rejection of false puritanism. There is
also a deeper metaphysical meaning which is beyond the scope of this
discussion. Multiple tiers of interpretation and levels of meaning are
integral to the Tantras (as well as the Vedas and Abrahamic
scriptures). If someone chooses to quote this description of Ganapati,
they should have a decent understanding of Ganapati in various
scriptural contexts, of the various dimensions of Tantra and of the
background of the original author (Muthuswami Dikshithar). Otherwise
it will be nothing more than superficial misunderstanding or
intentional misuse.
Example 2: The tile of Wendy Doniger's Book on Shiva is "Siva: The
Erotic Ascetic." This is a book that I actually own and have skimmed
through on more than one occasion. Before I knew as much as I do now
about the controversies surrounding Doniger's studies on Hinduism, I
was very much attracted to the title and the concept. It was very much
in line with my own evolving understanding of Shiva:
- the embodiment of duality becoming singularity,
- contradicting paradoxes merging into harmonious unity.
I have been learning through various traditional and modern sources
that Shiva is that embodiment of Brahman, who can be
- tranquil (Shivam) and terrifying (Raudram),
- protective (of good, of knowledge and of the current cycle of
existence) and destructive (of the bad, of ignorance, and of an
expiring cycle of existence to pave the way for creation of a fresh
new cycle)
- an ascetic and a householder (full of devotion, love and respect
towards his consort Parvati; caring of his family - Parvati, Ganesha
and Kumara)
Shiva is an ascetic (ash smeared body; meditation at Kailasa; with the
downtrodden; care for animals - Pashupati; Lord of self-sacrifice -
Thyagaraja - did not hesitate to swallow the cosmic poison to preserve
the rest of the world - saved only by Parvati stopped it at his
throat). But Shiva is also very erotic, passionate and sensual to his
consort (Nandi is described as having compiled the "Kama Shastra," -
an ancient text predating Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra - after listening to
Shiva and Shakti's dialogues on sexuality). With this background, I
thought the title of Doniger's book was spot on. I bought the book for
a scholarly and insightful review by a distinguished American Academic
Indologist, about the co-existence of bhoga and moksha, about sacred
sexuality, about the abstinence-indulgence paradigms as described in
the dakshina and vama margas of Tantra, all in the context of Shiva as
a deity in Tantric, Pauranic and Vedic traditions. Unfortunately I
found the contents to be no where as spot on as the clever title.
After skimming through the book, while my understanding of Shiva (the
deity who is indeed an erotic-ascetic, embodying the concept that
householders can also be spiritual aspirants if they find the right
balance) remained just as tranquil and centered as Nataraja's face and
body, my understanding of the book's contents and purpose ended up
just as befuddling as Nataraja's manifold hands moving in multiple
directions. There are a few areas where the book seems representative
of accurate details, but there are many more areas which seem rife
with misinterpretation and/or out of context literal translation. I
was unable to gauge if the contents were the result of genuine
misinterpretation or intentional malignment by overemphasis on
superficial eroticism.
In summary I would like to reiterate that those who choose to do it,
must work to correct genuine misunderstandings of various aspects of
Sanatana Dharma, defend with composure and sensibility against
external covert malignment, and promote steps to do away with internal
apologetism and false puritanism.
Finally I would like to acknowledge and add that there are many well
respected authors in the West who have contributed to genuine
scholarship of ancient Hindu traditions, and interestingly many of
them are outside of the structured format of Divinity Schools and
Universities in the US.
With best wishes,
Anoop
AMK
Could you please replace my previous post of February 7 with the one
below. The content is mostly the same. I added a few points and made a
few minor rearrangements. I understand that there is one message in
response to my previous post. I will attempt to respond to it
separately. Thank you. Anoop)
Dear Friends,
As some one who believes in pursuing true purity and purging false
puritanism, I offer my sincere congratulations and thanks on your work
entitled "Invading the Sacred", which I see as an important
contribution.
I am an Indian-American (born and raised in a South Indian Brahmin
background; establishing and settling in the USA). I consider myself a
practitioner-student of Hinduism with deep interests in pluralism, and
comparative spirituality, philosophy, and sacred eroticism.
I wish to clarify that, with regard to sacred eroticism and its
diverse representations in Indian culture, I reject any false
defensiveness or puritanism (by political organizations (e.g. Shiv
Sena) or religious groups or apologetic / defensive commentators who
attempt to marginalize or negate the existence of rich eroticism and
sensuality in certain aspects of Hinduism). I also reject out of
context misuse of sacred eroticism and its representations in Hindu
traditions by "academic authorities" - whose works might be the result
of genuine misinterpretation or a more intentional attempt at
undermining these traditions. Imbalanced treatment of the subject
matter with aggrandizement of superficial eroticism and aberrations
practiced by some at some point in history, along with marginalization
of deeper and central aspects might suggest the latter intention.
There is nothing wrong with taking up a particular topic, even if
controversial or embarrassing to a particular faith or tradition and
publishing on it as long as it is done accurately, appropriately and
contextually. Taking the peripherals and portraying them as central
and pan-representational is an entirely different approach that must
be questioned.
With that background, I will elaborate on the point I attempted to
convey in the subject title. I will use the examples of Ganesha and
Shiva with reference to the controversies of Courtright and Doniger.
Example 1: As Hindus who know about the Vedic and Pauranic aspects of
Ganesha / Ganapati, it is immediately clear to us that Coutright's
reference of Ganesha's trunk in relation to phallic iconography is
outright erroneous.
That being said, some of us might or might not know about the Tantric
aspects of Ganapati. In one of his rare compositions on Ganapati
(Ucchista Ganapatau in Raga Kasiramakriya), Muthuswamy Dikshitar (18th
century Carnatic music composer and scholar of the Vedas and Tantras,
much more than any of us ever will be) uses the following verse:
"...naari yoni mukhaaswaadane, nagna ramakriya modane..." We all know
that the word yoni is multifaceted with multiple context dependent
meanings. In this context Dikshithar probably qualified it as "naari
yoni" to specify female genitalia, for disambiguation with other
meanings of the yoni. This example has three-fold implications:
a) While I have not read the reference in question, Courtright's
reference to the trunk of Ganapati in a phallic context is blatantly
erroneous. Claims of psychoanalytic insight seem downright dubious.
The Walters museum in Baltimore quoting that as a major
"authoritative" descriptor of Ganesha is sad and discouraging. That is
something to be addressed and corrected in a sensible, steady and
unwavering manner. In a lighter vein, perhaps Courtright should be
courted to use Jungian instead of Freudian analysis in his studies.
b) Evangelists misusing "...such works to claim that Hinduism is a
“dirty, dignity destroying religion”..." is not surprising because
evangelism is just as far removed from the true teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth as Courtright's psychoanalysis is from . (If one chooses to
think of it from an Indian/Hindu perspective, Jesus was one of the
embodiments of God and [as interpreted independently by several
scholars such as Swami Vivekananda and Swami Sivananda] a
quintessential Raja Yogin. In situations like this, we need to be
prepared to defend and clarify without losing composure or conviction.
We need to be respectful of genuine debate and careful of covert
malignment.
c) The description of "...naari yoni mukhaaswaadane..." for Ganapati
has a physical/sensual interpretation and a metaphysical
interpretation (I believe Ucchista means 'that which resides above'
and could probably be interpreted as that which transcends). The
physical-sensual interpretation literally translates to female (naari)
genital (yoni), face (mukha) aswadane (appreciator). This is neither a
cause for apologetism or embarrassment, nor an exhortation for
excessive, out of place, portrayals of superficial eroticism, which is
my assertion on rejection of false puritanism. The deeper metaphysical
meaning is beyond the scope of this discussion. Multiple tiers of
interpretation and levels of meaning are quintessential to the Tantras
(and are also present in the Vedas, and other Dharmic and Abrahamic
scriptures). If someone chooses to quote this description of Ganapati,
they should have a decent understanding of Ganapati in various
scriptural contexts, of the various dimensions of Tantra and of the
background of the original author (Muthuswami Dikshithar). Otherwise
it will be nothing more than superficial misunderstanding or
intentional misuse.
Example 2: Wendy Doniger's Book, "Siva: The Erotic Ascetic." is one I
actually own and have skimmed through on more than one occasion.
Before I knew as much as I do now about the controversies surrounding
Doniger's studies on Hinduism, I was very much attracted to the title
and the concept. It was very much in line with my own evolving
understanding of Shiva:
- the embodiment of duality becoming singularity,
- contradicting paradoxes merging into harmonious unity.
I have been learning through various traditional and modern sources
that Shiva is that embodiment of Brahman, who can be
- tranquil (Shivam) and terrifying (Raudram),
- protective (of good, of knowledge and of the current cycle of
existence) and destructive (of the bad, of ignorance, and of an
expiring cycle of existence to pave the way for creation of a fresh
new cycle)
- an ascetic and a householder (full of devotion, love and respect
towards his consort Parvati; caring of his family - Parvati, Ganesha
and Kumara)
Shiva is an ascetic (ash smeared body; meditation at Kailasa; often in
the company and care of the downtrodden; Lord or protector of animals
- Pashupati; Lord of self-sacrifice - Thyagaraja - who did not
hesitate to swallow the cosmic poison to preserve the rest of the
world - who was saved only by Parvati who stopped it at his throat).
But Shiva is also very erotic, passionate and sensual to his consort
(Nandi is described as having compiled the "Kama Shastra," - an
ancient text predating Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra - after listening to
Shiva and Shakti's dialogues on sexuality). With this background, I
thought the title of Doniger's book was spot on. I bought the book for
a scholarly and insightful review by a distinguished American Academic
Indologist, about the co-existence of bhoga and moksha, about sacred
sexuality, about the abstinence-indulgence paradigms as described in
the dakshina and vama margas of Tantra, all in the context of Shiva as
a deity in Tantric, Pauranic and Vedic traditions. Unfortunately I
found the contents to be no where as spot on as the clever title.
After skimming through the book, while my understanding of Shiva (the
deity who is indeed an erotic-ascetic, embodying the concepts that
sensuality and spirituality need not be always mutually exclusive if
the correct approaches are realized, and that householders can also be
spiritual aspirants if they find the right balance) remained just as
tranquil and centered as Nataraja's face and body, my understanding of
the book's contents and purpose ended up just as befuddling as
Nataraja's manifold hands moving in multiple directions. There are a
few areas where the book seems representative of accurate details, but
there are many more areas which seem rife with misinterpretation and/
or out of context literal translation. From skimming, I was unable to
gauge if the contents were the result of genuine misinterpretation or
intentional malignment by overemphasis on superficial eroticism.
Perhaps a more thorough reading and analysis would clarify that.