Invading the Sacred

[Ramaswamy R. Iyer]

RRI/8 August 2010
INVADING THE SACRED: SOME QUERIES
Ramaswamy R. Iyer
I have just finished reading the book Invading the Sacred. Let me
encapsulate, for confirmation or correction, my understanding of some
of the main points emerging from the book.
(i) The work of Doniger and others of her school on Hinduism is open
to the following criticisms:
• poor scholarship, imprecise understanding of Sanskrit;
• imposition of an external and inapplicable western framework
(Freudian psychoanalysis, once very influential, now standing
discredited in the west, with even basic ideas such as the Oedipus
Complex being questioned), and the distortions resulting from this;
• gross misreadings and misinterpretations reflecting the authors’ own
cultural preconceptions or personal predispositions;
• in particular, a predilection for looking diligently for the erotic
elements and components in Hindu mythology and sacred books
(particularly the more extreme ones) without a proper understanding of
what they signify in Hindu tradition, and ignoring other philosophical
and religious strands and subtleties in Hinduism;
• inadequate understanding of the religion, culture and way of life of
the people concerned from their own perspective, a lack of respect for
them, and a continuing colonialism of a cultural/intellectual kind;
• reductionism, offering simple or simplistic interpretations of
complex matters such as tantra, and treating religious or mystical
experiences of saints as pathological phenomena;
• bogus history, ascribing some of the older rituals or practices with
a sexual content to ‘dalits’ and attributing symbolic interpretations
to the Brahmins;
• resulting from all this, a version of ‘Hinduism’ unrecognizable to
the Hindus, and un-validated by checking with the groups studied
(treated disrespectfully as ‘native informants’) or with Indian
scholars; and
• the teaching of that version, not as American interpretations open
to criticism, but as ‘Hinduism’ per se, distressing Hindu Americans in
general, and creating perplexities, discomfort and tensions in the
minds of young Hindu students.
(ii) The authors, and the academic community of which they are a part
(with a few honourable exceptions), are unreceptive to criticisms of
this kind, tend to close ranks, raise the bogey of ‘academic freedom’,
dismiss the criticisms as motivated, and treat them as evidence of the
association of the critics with ‘Hindu nationalist’ or ‘Hindutva’
groups in India. The reports of such protests in the American media
are also generally biased.
I find all this wholly persuasive, but may I add two points? First,
there have been respectful, sensitive writings about Hinduism by other
scholars. For instance, Diana Eck’s Encountering God: A Spiritual
Journey from Bozeman to Benares is a remarkable book. A devout
Christian, she finds holiness in the Padmanabhaswamy temple in
Tiruvananthapuram; and shows an understanding of the complexities of
the Kali figure that one cannot expect from Wendy Doniger or her
school. Again, the occasional references to Hinduism in Karen
Armstrong’s books ring true (though she has written more about Islam
and Buddhism). The important point here is that religion, whether of
one’s own culture or of a different one, needs to be approached (even
if one is a non-religious person) with a sensitivity to ‘holiness’ (to
use Diana Eck’s word) or to a sense of the transcendental (as Karen
Armstrong puts it). It seems to me that Wendy Doniger and perhaps some
of the others lack that sense or faculty; it is something akin to
colour-blindness.
There is no reference to Diana Eck’s or Karen Armstrong’s writings in
Invading the Sacred. There is also no reference to the writings of
Ananda Coomaraswamy, an authoritative interpreter of our sacred texts
and a trenchant critic of western civilization, alas, now largely
forgotten; or to the late Chaturvedi Badrinath’s Dharma, India and the
World Order.
Secondly, sexuality was for long repressed and unacknowledged in the
west, and once that tradition was weakened by Freud, Lawrence, Joyce,
and so on, the reverse of repression came in and it became fashionable
to talk compulsively about sex, and to find sexual explanations,
particularly unsavoury ones, for everything. This was a kind of
prurience, and it has not wholly disappeared. This partly explains the
persistent search for sexual interpretations. There is a debunking
tendency here (which Freud himself exemplified to some extent). This
is perhaps what we find in Wendy Doniger and others of her school.
There was no history of squeamishness relating to sex in ancient or
mediaeval India. (It came in later, during the colonial period: there
is a disconnect between the India of Kamasutra, Khajuraho and Konark,
and nineteenth century India.) If the Hindus of old wanted to talk
about or depict the male or female genitalia, or represent the sexual
act, they did so; they did not need to hide their meanings in symbols
such as Ganesha’s trunk. If they wanted to show Ganesha’s phallus,
erect or limp, they would have done so. For instance, when Indra
seduced a rishi’s wife, he was cursed quite explicitly to be covered
from head to foot with a thousand female organs; it was only later
that these were changed to look like eyes. Again, the sexual elements
in the Kali figure are clear enough; so too with tantric tankhas
(Buddhist ones). It is quite gratuitous to bring in Freudian
interpretations here. In looking for erotic explanations of a bizarre
kind, Doniger and others tell us more about themselves than about
Ganesha or Kali or Ramakrishna.
Incidentally, the controversy appears to have taken place in the US
several years ago. The book itself is now three years old. Have these
had any significant consequences? (The book was published in 2007 by
Rupa. Has there been an American publication?)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sourasenoi]

I just read Wendy Doniger's passage about "Niyoga" described in
Mahabharata. The way we as Hindus have read and understood the episode
of "Niyoga" birth of Pandu, Dhritrashtra and Vidura is in completely
asexual sense. The text as I have read says that there was no sexual
contact between Vyasa and the widows. They were impregnated by the
Yogic gaze of Vyasa.

But Wendy's interpretation suggests that Vyasa physically slept with
each one of them and further she descibes Veda Vyasa as "walking semen
bank".

See page 175 of the following book for reference:

From the margins of Hindu marriage: essays on gender, religion, and
culture By Lindsey Harlan, Paul B. Courtright

Another wilful omission is the suppression of the fact that in the act
of Niyoga described in Manu Smriti involves covering of the both male
and female bodies with Ghee so as to render it asexual and unerotic.

But Wendy's rendition of these passages has eliminated these subtle
nuances and made an asexual religious rite look sexual and adulterous.

Just sharing my outrage as a Hindu. This is a very sophisticated and
powerful attack on our religion and its response needs to be just as
sophisticated , patient but relentless. God bless Aseem Shukla. I
discovered him yesterday in a random search and I am already his fan.

Regards

N

On Aug 8, 4:02 am, "Ramaswamy R. Iyer" <ramaswamy.i...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------