"Prof. Courtright's Pseudo-psychoanalytic Depiction of Shri
Ganesha - Authentic Scholarship or Bigotry?"**
by
Shree
S. Vinekar, MD, DLFAPA, DLFAACAP, MACPsych
Abstract
Prof. Courtright's use of psychoanalytic
theory is a veneer to his bigotry. The issue highlighted by the protesting
concerned citizens in the U.S., who are knowledgeable of Hindu culture, is not
an attack on Prof. Courtright's freedom of speech or academic freedom. The
Hindu scholars are neither oblivious to nor unable to accept academic freedom
as a lofty democratic principle. The crucial issue is disregard of scholarly
responsibility by Prof. Courtright in interpreting the arcane fields of Hindu
Philosophy and Mythology, as well as the inappropriate use of Applied
Psychoanalysis. The limitations of his knowledge of both of these subjects
makes his book on "Ganesa" comparable to the pseudoscientific
arguments, used in the disciplines of Humanities, to justify racism and
eugenics in the 1960's. Such fallacious “logic” was designed to gain academic
respectability but it is nothing but a vicious and demeaning attack on another
culture not unlike that is revealed in anti-Semitic literature and attitudes.
Such a ploy or subterfuge claiming new psychoanalytic insight is likely to
mislead and misinform other honest but gullible academicians in the U.S. Prof. Courtright has distracted them into
believing that his work published under the banner of Emory has authentic
scholastic merit. He would view any attack on his blatant "cross-cultural
vandalism" as an encroachment on his academic freedom. Such defense and
other arguments used by Prof. Courtright are nothing but smoke and mirrors. His
counteraccusations against his critics further demean and discredit the Hindu
scholars who have taken serious exception to the contents of his book. His
scholastic sounding exterior is a cover up for the deliberate and malicious
maligning of a respectable culture.
The defensive response of Prof. Courtright
is a gross misuse of the concept of academic freedom. It is clearly a form of
“anal sadistic” attack on another respectable society under the disguise of
authentic scholarship. In short, Prof. Courtright has ulterior motives in
attempting to publish his book from New Delhi, India. The considered action of
the Parliament of India taken against his book and the recall of his book by
its Indian publisher must not be viewed as a disregard of the democratic
principle of freedom of expression. Simply speaking, the liberty to act cannot
be translated as a freedom to urinate on the pole on which a national flag is
hoisted. These views are respectfully submitted for consideration by the Emory
University authorities that may have been unwittingly but sincerely and
tenaciously defending Prof. Courtright, previously losing sight of the
above-mentioned implications.
1. Do the principles of ‘freedom
of speech, academic freedom’ as related to the Skopes trial in the 1920s, as
well as some of the controversies at Emory University itself regarding academic
freedom apply to Prof. Courtright? - See Refs. 1, 2.
Let me first express my appreciation to Emory University officials for their willingness to understand diverse views. In the age of “global shrinking”, universities are not only open to international students but they are also expected to sincerely respect their students' cultural diversity as well as cultural sensitivities. Ethics in academia goes well beyond the respect for "freedom of speech" or "academic freedom." It also takes into account "academic integrity" and "depth of scholarship." In addition, there are other standards to judge the quality of the academic work. This theme of my presentation is elaborated below by drawing attention of the Emory authorities to the facts related to Prof. Courtright's book on "Ganesa" or more appropriately Shri Ganesha, (more on this later). Various perspectives will be examined. I will not accept the expectations laid down by Prof. Courtright that I should at all times quote him within his own context. It is the premise of the presenter that Emory and Prof. Courtright’s colleagues consider this work as a serious scholastic activity and its product. If so, then any obscenity in reference to sacred symbols or images revered in another ancient culture is not permissible by any standard of academic decency. It must be pointed out that Hindu culture has a continuity of some ten thousand plus years and is currently respected and honored all over the world.
I must respectfully submit that the issues
under discussion related to Prof. Courtright’s book and its contents do not
deserve to be elevated to the status of academic freedom or that of the Skopes
“Monkey” Trial. The famous trial or a
farce of the 1920s was to censure a teacher for giving “Darwinian” insights
into the origin of man to his students living in the Bible belt. Prof. Courtright does not need to be viewed
as giving new scientific Freudian insights into the origin of the image of Shri
Ganesha or adding to the body of scientific knowledge. Prof. Courtright need not defend himself as
being on trial by the fictitious “fundamentalist” Hindus equating them with
Fundamentalist Christians in the Bible belt.
Such exaltation of Prof. Courtright, besides being a distraction from
the main issue, will necessarily demean his critics as the “non-scientific”
regressive minds opposing progress in the field of psychoanalysis and/or
religion.
We
are not discussing here a creative fiction like "Indiana Jones," that
could be offensive to the Hindu culture; nor are we considering the
"psychoanalytic" meanings of fictional Disney characters or
children's story characters. Such fictional characters may be, in the folklore,
comparable to the mythical character of Shri Ganesha - the elephant
"god"- mostly depicted as a toddler or a curious character, riding a
mouse. There is a distinct difference in that Shri Ganesha is not just a “Winnie
the Pooh.” As will be illustrated soon, the resemblance of the form of Shri
Ganesha’s face to the head of the elephant is merely coincidental and almost
all Hindus know that worship of Ganesha is not “animal worship.”
Prof. Courtright has not been able to cross
this bridge for cross-cultural understanding. However, it is transparent that
Prof. Courtright's direct attack on Shri Ganesha, the image and idol of worship
of 800 million Hindus, is calculatedly designed to offend the culture. He is
ostensibly giving the impression of trying to study and translate the Hindu
idol of worship and mythology surrounding it for greater and deeper
understanding of his English-speaking readers. By announcing his circumspect attitude
that the image has more meanings than those that meet the eye, he delves into
sexual meanings that have no place in traditional texts related to Shri
Ganesha. He is deluding his readers and audience into believing that his depth
of scholarship has shown new "sexual meanings" for the image of the
"elephant-god" as it is popularly misconceived in the Western World.
He
may defend that these meanings exist in the Unconscious as discovered and
described by Sigmund Freud. He may also insist that he is free to assign these
meanings to any of the attributes of Shri Ganesha he chooses to focus on. He
will persuade his supporters to believe that he is simply exercising his right
of freedom of speech as well as his right of academic freedom. He will insist
that only the conservative Hindus will perceive maligning and malice in his
writing. He will argue that such perception is only in the eyes of the beholder
who reads excerpts from his book that are either misquoted or quoted out of
context. In making such claims he ignores the forest and focuses on the trees.
His views are grossly bizarre besides being mainly incongruent with the
emotional tone that the Hindu culture has developed around the image and idol
of Shri Ganesha.
The
mystique and mysteries of India and Hindu culture have long fascinated the
imagination of Western scholars for centuries. "Hindu culture” as well as
“psychoanalysis” has also long been the fodder of the Journalists and other
writers who want to write sensationalist articles that captivate their readers.
It is common to engage in so-called “creative” efforts to give one's own
meaning to anything these scholars choose to explain in their “own frame of
reference”. For example, it may be an
acceptable psychoanalytic interpretation to say that Winnie the Pooh's
excessive craving for honey is a creative depiction. Instead it may be
presented in psychoanalytic parlance as standing for his lingering nostalgia
for "oral" strivings and their satisfaction common to all children.
Prof.
Courtright could plagiarize or elaborate on such psychoanalytic
characterization simply to pervert it at next level by sexualizing it. He could
apply such reasoning to the understanding of Shri Ganesha, without full
comprehension of what the "modaka" (a special sweet pastry) in the
left hand of Shri Ganesha that symbolically stands for in spiritual parlance of
Yoga and Hinduism. However, he would be taking undue liberties in using the
words "oral sex" in reference to this symbol. He could have simply
referred to the "oral" phase of psychosexual development of all
infants and children. He could have focused on the evolutionary adaptive
"instinct" in all humans for sweets to provide ready energy, or the
evolutionary biological need to store "fat" in the abdominal wall,
etc., etc. Instead, Prof. Courtright takes a morbid flight into describing Shri
Ganesha as engaging in "oral sex." He does not reveal any primary
sources in the Hindu literature (Puranas or mythology) wherein there is a
mention or even a vague allusion to such perverted sexual practice on the part
of Shri Ganesha.
Even
the benign meaning of “fixation” at the oral stage of psychosexual development
does not apply to Ganesha in my opinion. It is beyond the bounds of academic
respectability, when someone like Prof. Courtright suggests that the highly
revered and deeply worshipped and loved "Hindu God" engages in
"Oral Sex." Such explicit aspersion on even a fictional character
like "Winnie the Pooh" would depict an abhorrent image in the Western
culture. To say that this loved character of children has perverted adult
genital sexuality, fixated at the oral stage leading to Pooh's alleged
homosexual practice of oral sex, would be an absurd “psychoanalytic”
formulation. Depicted as such, Pooh's character assassination will make him a
poor "role model" for children. Such crass "psychoanalytic"
interpretations using pornographic language will not be given the status of
"scholarly work" in any thoughtful institution of higher learning
except at Emory. It reveals lack of
scholarship of psychoanalytic theory. It is to be viewed as merely a deliberate
misapplication of the “psychoanalytic” theory to attack the author of the story
who created the character of Winnie the Pooh that is loved by most children in
the world. Besides all of the arguments leveled against Prof. Courtright’s views,
the most asinine one is for anyone interested in his pornographic depiction of
oral sex of “Ganesa” would be to ask how the elephant’s mouth tucked under his trunk
could make it anatomically possible for him to engage in oral sex with another
male organ that is not hanging like the mama elephant’s udders under her
abdomen. The Emory academic freedom defenders are not interested in raising
such anatomical questions for Professor Courtright to solve the anatomical
puzzle presented by him about elephant head performing oral sex on a human male.
This
illustration amply clarifies how even endearing and beloved character, Winnie
the Pooh, can be presented offensively in the Western culture to make it
abominable. Similarly, Prof. Courtright's "psychoanalytic"
interpretation of “Ganesa” is also an indication of a product of his sick mind
he displays. He reflects and reveals, in interpreting “Ganesa,” his morbid
fantasies springing from his own internalized perceptions, or projections of
his own internal representations (introjections) of the culture in which he has
grown up, whether with or without psychoanalytic sophistication. I hope he did
not learn these "facts" about oral sex at Emory! I must also make a bold statement
that the Western Indologists are mostly a "strange breed." Most of
them, unlike other academicians, intriguingly, show deep disdain, contempt, and
even hatred, towards the subject matter (India and Hindu heritage) they purport
to devote their entire life studying. In contrast, most authentic academicians show
love, fascination, and true curiosity for knowledge, or at least a desire to
add to the knowledge base, when studying an unfamiliar subject with due regard
to its complexities. It does not take a genius to draw the conclusion after
studying the writings of the Western Indologists that they are motivated to
depict Hinduism as "irrational", and “inferior” to their own religion
and culture. Although their own religion itself may be a gigantic superstition
resting upon MYTHS (which they insistingly call history), they would insist that Hinduism
is full of “superstitions.” Such efforts were highly rewarded during the
British colonial rule in India. The proselytizing motivation of many of the
Christians in the U.S. and the West has fueled and financed this breed of
Indologists in the Western world for the last few decades, if not for couple of
centuries.
Please
remember that we are discussing Prof. Courtright's work on Shri Ganesha which
is presented as a product of "scholarly academic activity engaged in at
Emory," a non-fictional scholarly pursuit expounding "facts"
about the "Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginning."
In
Indian culture, we have a conventional tradition to address respectable
individuals appropriately. For example,
it is customary to say "Pundit" Ravi Shankar and "Ustad" Allah
Rakkha and not simply "Ravi Shankar" and "Allah Rakkha."
Addressing even individuals without their titles is considered quite a
disrespectful practice. Addressing Shri Ganesha simply as “Ganesa” in the title
of the book reflects similar disrespect. The word "Lord" is without a
true equivalent in Sanskrit tradition and is a well known British English word
signifying the power and authority granted by the British monarchy/feudal
system. Of course, the usage, "Lord Jesus our Lord," is also an
English version of the Hebrew Bible translated via Spanish into English. The
word "Lord" is peculiarly British and has no traditional usage in
India other than that given to it by the colonial age translators of Hindu
texts, sometimes used for translating words like "Ishwara,"
"Prabhu," "Bhagawan," etc.
In Hindu tradition the respectful name for “Ganesa” would be "Shree
Ganesha" and not just plain disrespectful "Ganesa," if at all He
is to be recognized as "Lord" as intended by "Paul" or
"Courtright" (in contrast to Prof. Courtright). The subtle disdain as
well as a cultural disregard for the subject of his study is evident even in
the author's choice of the title for his book. This is stated to drive the point that Courtright is not cross-culturally as competent as he claims to be. His colleagues who are even more poorly informed, no wonder, give him the status of an authority on Hinduism.
The appropriate title for the book in
question then should have been "Shri Ganesha - Revered as Remover of
Obstacles, Lord of Beginning," if at all the word "Lord" were to
be retained by the author. This presenter presumes that Prof. Courtright has
translated the name “Vighneshwara” as “Lord of Obstacles.” The Hindus, on the
other hand, intuitively understand the figurative meaning of this name as
“Remover of Obstacles.” Taking into account the age of the religion, (originating 10 to 12 thousand years before the present,) not withstanding any bias towards the truths therein,
the seers like Vyasa, clearly attempted to simplify the profound philosophical
principles into more comprehensible stories.
Indeed, this has never been an easy task. For, how can one explain such concepts as
“Omniscience,” “Omnipresence,” “Omnipotence,” and even their respective
antitheses? Vyasa (known for his Vishalabuddhi) actually wrote the Puranas by his own admission for the
people of “dull intellect” (“Mandabuddhi”), meaning people that had only
concrete thinking abilities. Prof. Courtright heavily relies on Puranic
stories. These are in his view nothing but “myths,” while placing undue
emphasis on literal translations and mistranslations. In doing so, he takes
devious liberty to distort the stories just enough and embellishes them with
his own lewd meanings to transform them into a sort of soft pornography.
However, the Puranic stories were, in fact, devised for the greater purpose of
illustrating cosmic order and principles. These stories were not simply a
reflection of the human Unconscious mind. Such technique was expressly deliberately
used in order to teach or lead a mass of people to a higher sense of being.
These stories were designed to help people develop a relationship with
"God." But, how else could they best explain such a complex subject
to the masses, dealing with the individual consciousness being transformed into transcendental Universal or Cosmic consciousness?
It must be understood that these masses in
question were, most importantly, if not uneducated, at the very least not all very literate. Therefore, the seers had to break down the different aspects of
such complex a subject as the all-encompassing, ineffable, indescribable,
incomprehensible, indefinable concept of “GOD” into individual characteristics
and into entertaining stories that can be easily understood. The god of
knowledge, the god of destruction, goddess of wealth, god of wisdom, etc. are
just some examples of these simplifications of the different characteristics or
aspects of this idea of “Supreme Being.”
All pervading aspect of God depicted by
Vishnu, for example, has been translated as “penetrating,” and therefore,
Vishnu has been described by Western Indologists as a “phallic god.” This is the
very kind of defamation of Hindu “gods” that is a favorite activity of Western
Indologists for the last several decades, when in fact they are concentrating
on perverted language, or translational flaws rather than on the true meaning
of the Sanskrit words. It is partly a result of ignorance but mostly springing (with deliberate
effort) from a deep sense of irrational superiority about their own
“monotheistic” orientation. Such lack of understanding has led to debates about
whether Hinduism and Vedic culture is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic,
etc., when in fact it is completely misunderstood and ignored that none of
these definitions can even apply to Hinduism.
In
summary, Prof. Courtright is an epitome of Western Indologists’ attitudes and
biases, and he announces his ignorance of the subject matter or disdain for it
even as he chooses the title for his book. His book, therefore, can be judged
from its "proverbial" cover.
Such trash or near pornographic material should not have been allowed to
blemish Emory’s countenance in the first place, but every effort needs to be
made now to change the battered countenance of Emory. Prof. Courtright's book
on Shri Ganesha is nothing but “cross-cultural vandalism” disguised as
seriously conceived monogram with psychoanalytic elucidation. It is totally out
of "cultural context." Any university should not have given it recognition
without evaluating it to see if it contained true “knowledge” about Shri
Ganesha and Hindu mythology and its psychoanalytic exposition. Therefore,
nothing quoted from his book need be viewed as "out of context."
Furthermore, it does not behoove any writer producing such irrational garbage
to use his academic title when presenting himself as an author, or even to call
it an academic pursuit. Prof. Courtright does not stop at making an allegation
that Shri Ganesha performs oral sex but goes further to label him as a "eunuch" and literally uses the word “Hijra” to describe him with a connotation that He
is a male prostitute. The Emory authorities consider this a benign exercise of
academic freedom. None of them have the courage to dare take such liberties with
Islamic theology and get away with defending such behaviors on the grounds of "academic
freedom" by demeaning Islamism.
I must clarify, however, that I am here to
present my views in my private and personal capacity. I am a taxpayer in the U.S. for 36 years and
an U.S. citizen who is familiar with the provisions of the first amendment of
the U.S. constitution. My views are certainly based on my background as a practicing
psychiatrist and a child psychiatrist with academic background. However, I am
not offering my views as an expert witness or as a forensic psychiatrist. I am
not a novice to the concepts of the “freedom of speech” or “academic freedom,”
or "psychoanalytic interpretations." As a Member of the American
College of Psychiatrists, Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric
Association, Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Academy of the Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, Certified in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, and Forensic Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology, I am familiar with "Psychoanalytic Theory." As a Professor
of Psychiatry in historically the very first department of Psychiatry in the
U.S. to integrate “Behavioral Sciences” and to name itself “Department of
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,” I am also very sensitive to the issues of
academic freedom. It is not my intention
to use undignified and crass language deliberately. The near pornographic,
crass treatment of the subject matter by Prof. Courtright himself in his text
necessitates use of such language as one runs out of euphemisms. Therefore, I
will deliberately use forceful colloquial expressions to drive the points home.
As amply illustrated by his work, Prof. Courtright lacks the authentic knowledge of Hindu symbols, their culturally accepted meanings, as also, the appropriate use of psychoanalytic theory. He may have the freedom to express his own limited understanding or ignorance of Hinduism. He may even express his idiosyncratic views about the psychoanalytic interpretations to explain Shri Ganesha’s image and the mythology surrounding it. Yet, he and his friendly colleagues are out of line when they insist that they have a right to consider his book as authoritative. It is absurd to insist that it deserve the status of a textbook for students learning about Hinduism or even that of a “recommended reading” in any institution of higher learning. It should not have been quoted by responsible curators of respectable world-class museums in misleadingly describing what Shri Ganesha stands for. Emory may have to accept some responsibility for such unfortunate carry over of Courtright’s writings into the “world view” about “Ganesa.”
As amply illustrated by his work, Prof. Courtright lacks the authentic knowledge of Hindu symbols, their culturally accepted meanings, as also, the appropriate use of psychoanalytic theory. He may have the freedom to express his own limited understanding or ignorance of Hinduism. He may even express his idiosyncratic views about the psychoanalytic interpretations to explain Shri Ganesha’s image and the mythology surrounding it. Yet, he and his friendly colleagues are out of line when they insist that they have a right to consider his book as authoritative. It is absurd to insist that it deserve the status of a textbook for students learning about Hinduism or even that of a “recommended reading” in any institution of higher learning. It should not have been quoted by responsible curators of respectable world-class museums in misleadingly describing what Shri Ganesha stands for. Emory may have to accept some responsibility for such unfortunate carry over of Courtright’s writings into the “world view” about “Ganesa.”
I
truly believe personally that his book needs to be ignored as “academic garbage.”
Those who are ignorant of Hindu Vedic Philosophy, Hindu Culture, Hindu art of
iconography, and Tantric Mysticism may erroneously and undeservingly view it as
an authoritative text.
Yogic
Meditation is no longer viewed as some hocus-pocus in the 21st century as
exemplified by a special issue devoted to that subject by Time magazine (and
455 or more research articles on this subject in the scientific literature).
Joseph Campbell was fully aware of “OM” as signifying the concept of the
"ultimate absolute" but had not discovered that Shri Ganesha was an
iconographic representation of “OM,” a highly revered sacred symbol of the Hindu Vedic
culture. Besides, the "idol" is an entity like the
one recognized in psychoanalytic literature as "transitional object"
conceptualized by a British psychoanalyst, D.W. Winnicott. For Hindus, it
arouses very many tender, warm, feelings not unlike those that are aroused by
"mother" or "father" (primary love object) in any human
being. Prof. Courtright may have missed the boat, or if he did not, he took
undue liberties in denigrating the sacred symbol revered, worshipped, and loved by
eight hundred million Hindus. In his foolish moment of so-called “academic”
zeal, he has demonstrated sacrilegious attitude both deliberately and
consciously.
Prof.
Courtright has failed to understand what “OM” and “Shri Ganesha” stand
for. It is more than what the
"Cross, Mary and Jesus" stand for in theology of Christianism. “OM”
or Shri Ganesha for Hindus are more like the “Father in Heaven” for the
Christians or equivalent of and comparable to their “God.” Prof. Courtright's
writings are almost like a "juvenile" second grader deliberately calling bad names
addressed to another child’s mother, and claiming or asserting his first
amendment rights for freedom of speech. Moreover, with the prestigious academic
title provided him by Emory, he can also claim that his is a sincere scholarly
activity gaining respect of his Western colleagues. His Western academic
colleagues have not demonstrated intellectual honesty in evaluating his writings.
They have not used the same standards that they normally would use in
objectively evaluating such writings. These are standards related to depth of
authentic scholarship, including but not limited to the avoidance of deliberate
misrepresentation of the contents of the mythology presented. What is worse is
that because of the status granted to Prof. Courtright by Emory and Oxford
University Press, he has been flaunting himself as an academic authority on
Shri Ganesha. His book is full of inaccuracies, misleading and false
information, not unlike the Christian missionary efforts to denigrate Hinduism
under the disguise of Western scholarship.
If such act of deliberate gross misrepresentation is disguised as "academic
activity" with backing from prestigious universities of the West,
naturally it causes outrage in all educated Hindus. Such reaction is not
limited to just a small section of Hindus whom Emory publications try to bully
and demonize as “protectors of Hindutva.” Such counteraccusations cast on
honest critics and aggrieved and hurt culture is nothing but an indication of
unwillingness to open a dialogue. The counteraccusations further victimize the
victim. Besides, they are another smoke screen and stonewalling tactic.
We
are not surprised to find “the innocent” Prof. Courtright "wondering"
and "not knowing” what is so "objectionable" about his “purely
academic work” so well accepted by the “academic community of the West.” He is
too shrewd to not know what he is accused of while he feigns "innocence."
That is a common reaction even in a “common criminal” who is caught red handed.
One could point out that symbols similar to “OM” in other religions represented
by the “cross” or even the “prophets” of other religions can be subject of psychoanalytic
inquiry as to their psychological meanings. Such meanings of these symbols in
the unconscious, it may be argued, do have "sexual" connotations.
Anyone can easily formulate culturally discordant interpretations designed to
ignore the lofty, or noble, constructive, side of any religion. Anyone can
depict it as totally irrational and chaotic belief system or cognitive
experience similar to the dreams or symbols represented in the unconscious.
Such unwise and unadvised “academic” interpretations of religion by scholars of
repute in universities would be seen as outrageous.
I
will give examples of such reversed but unwise "cross-cultural
vandalism" that could easily be practiced through any department of
religion of any university. It is not to be questioned whether reputable
publication houses and media would widely publicize such views or not. Knowing
the historically lopsided practices of the Western publishers and media, such
views will, in my opinion, be assigned to obscurity just like what Prof. Courtright's
work should have truly deserved. I will avoid indulging in wild psychoanalytic
interpretations of other religions and their revered symbols and stay away from
depth psychology. ----For example, the “cross,” historically representing an
instrument of torture used to execute and slowly and painfully kill a human
being, can also be viewed as the mathematical symbol, “plus,” and it could be
hypothetically and blasphemously viewed by some as a representing an erect
phallus or symbol of copulation. Hypothetically, and even blasphemously some academics
may depict some unidentified “prophets” as proven “paranoid schizophrenics,”
with latent homosexual tendencies. Even worse, it may be hypothesized that some
of them showed pedophilic and polygamous tendencies. They could propose that
the “prophets” were suffering from a form of epilepsy (temporal lobe epilepsy)
with elaborate inter-ictal delusional systems. The ecstatic “religious
experiences” and “seeing and hearing God” were hallucinations resulting from
paroxysmal electrical activity in some specific locations of their temporal
lobes.
These
"delusional systems" predicated upon abnormal experiences were
offered as “religions,” full of myths, to the gullible innocent and primitive
uncivilized ancient desert populations, inducing paranoia about the “infidels”
or “non-believers.” Neither they nor their semi-illiterate followers in the deserts had the ability or
sophistication to comprehend the more advanced abstract philosophies and
cultures. They either did not have access to the scientific knowledge extant in
that age or they could not comprehend it because of their lack of cognitive
development. They had no knowledge of "object representation" in the
conscious or unconscious mind. They had no knowledge of how that could be used
to bring out the best and the noblest, the warmest and tender, nurturing, and
compassionate feelings and positive "affects." These affects in human
nature along with respect for all living beings can be aroused instead of fear,
guilt and shame as is routinely done in Abrahamic religions. These so called prophets of the desert land were too
primitive to understand such form of worship and ignorantly equated it with the most
primitive "idol worship" or "animal worship" of their
contemporary primitive neighbors who were simply moved by awe or fear.
Much
advanced knowledge and psychological sophistication existed in other parts of
the world for several millennia before these primitive desert “religions” originated
in the Middle East in a “paranoid and traumatizing” political atmosphere around
two to three thousand years ago. A question, therefore, can be raised as to
whether such inflammatory "academic writings" will be protected under
the first amendment rights and academic freedom by universities of
international repute. Will they view such writings as a benign legitimate
academic activity of the Departments of Religion protected by freedom of
expression to be endorsed by the Universities? Alternatively, will the
universities be willing to look at them as “cross-cultural vandalism” by the
“others” with vested interest or persons with personal stakes who do not
respect their revered religious symbols and idols as well as the sentiments of
the “majority?” Will Emory defend their faculty if he/she publishes such
sacrilegious material from a publishing house in Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or in Saudi
Arabia? Will Emory want to be implicated in such designed and calculated
mischief that is certain to invite the wrath of large sections of the world
population? This is the most serious egalitarian consideration for Emory
authorities.
Based
on such considerations, I submit that the issues related to Prof. Courtright’s
work need to be divested from the considerations related to the first amendment
and academic freedom. He is right in saying he is protected in the United
States by the dictum of freedom of speech and academic freedom. He is wrong in assuming such freedom can be
used for denigrating other advanced cultures that are difficult for him and
others in his relatively primitive culture to comprehend. He
is throwing his "autistic" aspersions on other well-accepted and
rational philosophies of the East without due effort to comprehend them or
without respecting the sentiments of eight hundred million Hindus. Instead of
publishing his psychoanalytic insights in Psychoanalytic Journals, he published
them for the lay public in India from New Delhi. Such act of inviting negative
reaction from a large section of the world population is an irrational,
arrogant, and narcissistic position, oblivious to its implications and as un-empathic
as all arrogant, narcissistic personalities hold.
It
would be equally irrational to pronounce a “fatwa” of death penalty on authors
who exercise academic freedom and freedom of speech as in the case of Salman
Rushdie. Salman Rushdie has playfulness, a sense of humor, literary talent and
great humanistic and liberal egalitarian approach, which are utterly lacking in
Prof. Courtright's writings. Besides, he lacks knowledge of the subject matter
he entertains. Both reactions, those which publicly castigate Prof. Courtright,
or which defend avidly his academic freedom are overkill. Such responses
elevate "poor judgment" in the academic pursuits to the status of
"martyrdom." Such histrionics and counter-histrionics on the part of
his accusers and his defenders exalts Prof. Courtright's status and gives him
undeserved notoriety. Focusing on such
issues related to the reactions and responses to his publication distracts
discussants from considering the main issue of his using his academic position
at Emory to indulge in maligning other non-Christian cultures and religions
with impunity. There has to be a more mature response in reaction to what may
be considered "an immature juvenile act" of the Emory professor.
2. Is there a difficulty for Hindus in
maintaining a charitable attitude towards the academic activities of the
Departments of Religion in the Universities?
Do Hindus appreciate interest in their culture and religion if Hindu
religion is taught as an academic subject in the Departments of Religion in the
Western Universities?
Will Emory scrutinize Prof. Courtright's
psychoanalytic interpretations as holding any water if reviewed by authentic
psychoanalytic scholars who are Hindus and who understand the cultural
significance of Shree Ganesha? I am raising this question to emphasize that Emory
or any of his academic supporters has not undertaken such objective inquiry in
the last 20 plus years. A sincere interest in teaching Hindu philosophy and
religion in the Universities will require faculty with necessary
qualifications. Departments of Religion should not just be mouthpieces of the
Christian missionaries given to irrationally disparaging and discrediting other religions as “not
respectable”, illogical, and non-scientific or inferior. Due respect for Hindu
culture will be most appreciated whether at Emory or at any other university if
Hindu religion is to be appropriately taught in their Departments of Religion.
3. Can there be a
fair-minded approach to teaching a religion in any University?
There are concerns about the manner in
which Hindu religion is being taught currently in public universities. Especially, if comparative religion and all
religions are taught by one religious group, one could question both the
academic fairness and authenticity of scholarship. In schools where there are a
large number of students and scholars, who have various different religious
backgrounds, it would be more honest to give a disclosure about the limitations
of Departments of Religion. A false pretense about the knowledge of religions
other than that of Christianism would be unethical in the absence of
qualified teachers. If second generation Indian American Hindu students, for
example, want to learn basics about Hindu “religion,” at Emory University, it
would be a shame if it is taught by academics who are both insensitive and
academically unprepared. That is not to
say that it would not be a shame if such anti-Hindu “professors” like Prof. Courtright
taught Hinduism to “non-Hindu” students.
4. Is psychoanalytic study
of any religion part of "applied psychoanalysis," and if so, what are
the minimum qualifications for those who venture into such academic activity?
Psychoanalysts
can explain a number of things in an individual's life but most Western
academics teaching religions other than Christianity using psychoanalytic
theory without authentic psychoanalytic training are involved merely in
demeaning another culture. They do not realize that images like those of Shri
Ganesha are simply Rorschach cards for them upon which they are projecting
their own conscious and unconscious fantasies.
Expression of such fantasies is perfectly acceptable within the
framework of any freedom. It does not add anything to the knowledge base to
express such fantasies under the disguise of “academic freedom.” Such activity
is nothing more than “intellectual masturbation.” Besides, sexualizing non-sexual neutral
images (and Freud very well knew that there were many such in the world
including his own “cigar”) titillates the authors and readers alike. Sexualized
material including pornography is a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S.
The commercial market value of Prof. Courtright’s book speaks for at least one
motivation that could have led to his writing the book in the manner in which
he has written it.
The
Western scholars engaged in such activity (in making a buck) certainly do not
have the same emotional nuances and meanings or affection attached to the
images that most Hindu academics would have. For Hindus, for example, the
meaning of the symbol “OM” or its representation in Shri Ganesha is non-sexual
and neutral. Not every dog lover or
animal lover must be considered, by even remote innuendoes, as expressing
his/her deep-seated “bestiality.” That kind
of logic borders on perversion or a thought disorder. An esteemed professor at
Emory University, like Prof. Courtright, has demonstrated such perverse logic
or a thought disorder. Such thought disorder is usually seen in “paranoid
schizophrenics.” Emory University has every right to protect his academic
freedom although any average prudent Hindu can see through such garbage and
recognize it as wearing only a flimsy academic garb. Even granting that he
could write such a book given his academic freedom, it must not be touted as an
authoritative representation of Hindu religion and its revered symbols in the
Western academic literature and museums.
There
is no evidence that Prof. Courtright has any formal psychoanalytic training,
and if he does have any training at all, he is a total embarrassment to the
Psychoanalytic Institute that trained him. Psychoanalytic study could be a
worthwhile effort if it is undertaken in good faith to improve the quality of
life of human beings. Psychoanalysis is a clinical science and has strong humanitarian
foundation. Prof. Courtright lacks such
orientation. His is a gross "caricature" of psychoanalytic point of
view. It would be more honest if someone has psychoanalytic training and
background, and in addition, has authentic knowledge of the culture before
venturing into an attempt to undertake a psychoanalytic study of another
culture. Even reputable academicians like Margaret Mead and John Money had
their shipwrecks when they manifested lack of honesty in their efforts to apply
psychoanalytic concepts to their subjects of investigation.
5. Is Prof. Courtright
instrumental in instigating a clash of cultures and possibly waking up the
sleeping Hindu population of India that has been tolerant of abuse for
centuries?
At
the turn of the 19th century, a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was “legally” thrown
out of a first class compartment of a train by railways authorities in the
British ruled South Africa. The
authorities were enforcing the extant laws and Gandhi was "legal" in
that he had legally purchased a first class ticket. This event was a momentous
historical insult inflicted upon a representative of a large country and its
population that was subjected to injustices by the British Empire with its
unjust laws and full military power. This insult had far reaching effects on
the British Empire as the history subsequently revealed. The Hindus could view
the insult inflicted on eight hundred million Hindus by Prof. Courtright at the
turn of the 20th Century as continuation of its disparagement by foreign
culture and religion. The American and other Western missionaries further
perpetuate such practice engaged in with a sense of authority by once
dominating British and their missionaries in Independent Indian Republic
imitating the British.
There
is a continued onslaught on the culture, idols, and ideals of the now politically independent
Hindus. There is perpetual interference in the internal affairs of Hindu
society and in the internal politics of India. The proselytizing organized
religions of the previous invaders of India have continued this activity under
the disguise of “religious freedom” long after their political domination was
brought to an end. These proselytizing religions misinterpret the
"religious tolerance" of the Hindus and "secular India" as
a license to inflict social breakdown in the host Hindu society. The systematic
destruction of a society and culture, by inflicting losses and humiliation,
which started centuries ago, is relentlessly progressing even 60 years after
the attainment of independence.
The
British and Islamic foreign rulers subjected the large Hindu population to
centuries of tyranny and abuse. One
cannot tell eight hundred million Hindus how they should protect their pride
and cultural integrity or deal with the likes of Prof. Courtright. Of course,
Prof. Courtright does not need to take their permission either every time he
opens his mouth or holds his pen. The principles of “freedom of speech”,
“academic freedom,” and “religious freedom” are appropriately respected in
certain jurisdictions. These concepts can be surreptitiously used to encroach
upon the rights and integrity of another large, ancient, and proud culture.
They are effective and laudable principles within the jurisdiction of Emory and
the U.S. but need to be tempered not only when dealing with anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic elements but the non- aggressive cultures also need to be treated with
respect if long term diplomatic relationship needs to be maintained with their
countries.
The
very fact that Prof. Courtright chose a publisher in India in 2001 for his book
originally published in England in 1985 speaks for the same “anal sadistic”
drives of the Christian missionaries and “Macaulay” (See Ref. 3). These tyrants
of the past and the present who are motivated proselytizers have had the same
denigrating and demeaning attitude manifested by Prof. Courtright. He believes that his "anal
sadistic" motivations will go unnoticed or unlabeled. The Hindu majority
in India may not recognize his anal sadism in psychoanalytic terms. The Hindus
could very well react vehemently to it at the emotional level. The sadist is
recognized at the emotional level whether he admits he is or not, whether he is
labeled as a sadist or not, or whether he claims innocence or not. What quacks like a duck and walks like a duck
is a duck.
The
first tactic of a proselytizer is to disillusion his subjects of conversion in
his/her own religion by presenting the subject’s religion as negative and
unacceptable to his reason. Prof. Courtright could be viewed as a vandal and a
cross-cultural “anal sadistic” proselytizer or their agent like all the others
who have inflicted untold insults and injuries on eight hundred million Hindus
in the past and present. He represents,
in exhibiting his bizarre “unconscious” to the world, blatant ignorance and
disdain of another respected culture. He shows utter nonchalance, arrogance, a
feeling of a power backed by the wealth and power of his supporting evangelical Christian
organizations, posing himself as the “Holier than Thou” innocent victim of the
criticism of the “irrational” Hindus. He
is continuing the legacy of “Lord Macaulay.” (See Ref. 3) His inflammatory book
is likely to soon trigger intense and widespread negative reactions towards all
proselytizing elements in India. It may become instrumental in triggering a
final mass movement in India for emancipation of the Hindus from all
proselytizing religions. Hindus have been subjugated and abused for 12
centuries by the proselytizing foreign religions of the world.
Anyone
who sees this larger picture described above can see through Prof. Courtright’s
games. He presents himself deceptively as an “innocent victim scholar” who
simply exercised his academic freedom and scholarly pursuit to “understand and
explain” interpret another ‘religion’ to the West. Emory may also take this
flagrant view into consideration before allowing its rubber-stamp to be used by
Prof. Courtright under the disguise of academic freedom to engage in
non-scholarly provocative sacrilegious activity with impunity. His publisher in
India has shown good sense without becoming pedantic about protecting his
freedom of speech and academic freedom in India. Without labeling him negatively, his
publisher in India has wisely recognized his mischief for what it is, and has
acted quietly and quite appropriately by recalling his book. His friends in the
U.S. are living in an ivory tower. Their support of Prof. Courtright needs to
be viewed as motivated by the same anal sadistic drives rather than their lofty
wish to protect the “freedoms” which undoubtedly are used inappropriately to demean
and insult other cultures. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s work to attain “true
freedom” is yet to be finished and merely gaining political freedom from the
British has not reestablished the freedom and pride of the Hindus, which is
trampled upon daily even since independence of India.
Emory
would not want to practice such unjust acts. People who continue to demean
Hindu culture in Independent India will be asked to put a stop to it. Eight
hundred million Hindus will not need permission or guidance from Prof.
Courtright or Emory as to how to view Emory University or Prof. Courtright’s
book. They know now how to act in response to it.
Whether
to allow the likes of Prof. Courtright to seek a safe haven in the public
universities in the U.S. is not a decision to be made by Hindus. Nevertheless,
Hindus, just like those who oppose anti-Semitic activity in the U.S., will henceforward
let their voice be known to oppose anti-Hindu activity. Hindus have taken
centuries of abuse and they will say enough is enough to Prof. Courtright and
to other proselytizing religious groups in India. The concept of religious
freedom and freedom of expression is corrupted by these elements to
systematically weaken a very proud society.
India,
inhabited primarily by Hindus for millennia, was known to have been
contributing 24% of the export of the entire world in 1755. It has been
impoverished by the foreign rule by stymieing and stifling its pride and
productivity bringing it down to 1.5% in 1945. (Recently published Harvard University
data). The once one of the richest nations of the world in 1755 has been
impoverished. Now the proselytizing religions supported by the foreign elements
are taking advantage of the very same socio-economic deprivation of the Hindu
population inflicted upon it by the very same foreign elements. Economic
deprivation is one of the most significant factors exploited by the
proselytizing organized religions in India. The Hindus are now aware of this
larger picture and will not stand anyone like Prof. Courtright intruding into
India to denigrate the "religion" practiced by its majority. Emory
needs to consider this picture before allowing Prof. Courtright to attach its
name to his misguided wrongheaded efforts in India. Emory may have been unaware
of such implications of Prof. Courtright’s book published from India. The eight
hundred million Hindus will therefore consider Prof. Courtright’s defense by
Emory unwise.
6. Summary:
Can Emory undo the damage done by Prof. Courtright? Does Emory have any responsibility or ethical
obligation to correct this matter as an issue within the purview of its Public
Relations or International Relations Department? Are there more fundamental
changes needed in the manner in which Prof. Courtright and the Department of Religion
are permitted to function in their dealings with other cultures and other
religions? --Various constructive suggestions are offered.
In
summary, the corrective measure is to re-earn the goodwill and friendship of
the large Hindu population of the world that is likely to look at Emory as a
potential institution for their higher learning. This painstaking open dialogue
with Emory will be an exercise in futility if it falls on deaf ears. Corrective
measures implemented by Emory will make this dialogue worthwhile. Emory has an
opportunity to set ethical standards for the Departments of Religion in private
and public universities in this country and perhaps for all universities in the
world. It can be a leader in ethical
cross-cultural global educational efforts in Departments of Comparative
Religions or Religious Studies.
Prof.
Courtright’s freedom of speech or academic freedom can still be protected if
his book is publicly recognized as specious, speculative, and full of
inaccuracies as pointed out by Hindu scholars.
Proactive steps to prevent such ineptness in the Department of Religion
by improving relationship and communication with Hindu scholars will be
desirable. Injecting authentic scholarship of Hinduism into the faculty of
Emory University will be a valuable long-term goal.
The
short-term goal is to prohibit Prof. Courtright from teaching Hinduism in any
academic setting. Every effort needs to be made to protect Emory from being
caught in a skunk fight with any organized religious groups whether they are
Christians or Hindus. Hindu philosophy is liberal. It honors true freedom of
speech in the pursuit of seeking truth and accepting true reality. Prof.
Courtright is not accused of blasphemy.
The "Courtright Case" needs to be put to sleep with dignity
and respect for offended culture in a diplomatic manner and not let it fester
or escalate any further. The best approach is to avoid inappropriate media
attention and not let sensationalism of any kind pervade the responsible
inquiry by the Emory authorities.
No
public castigation, humiliation, or disciplinary action against Prof.
Courtright is demanded or even suggested by this presenter. Prof. Courtright needs to be admonished not
to engage in any more mischievous activities that promulgate clashes of
cultures by engaging other religious cum political organizations, be they
academic or not, in his defense. In short, he needs to calm down his negative
activism. This is quintessential from the point of peaceful cross-cultural
communication and dialogue as well for world peace and harmony. His ignoble
work truly needs to be ignored, as it should have been in the first place.
Emory
has an obligation not to stoop down to his level. Emory now has the obligation
to correct his wrongs and redeem the mistakes by publishing appropriate
responses that place the matter in proper perspective. It needs to give “equal
time and place” as well as publicity and prominence to those that can expose
Prof. Courtright’s inaccuracies and offensive statements. For example, Emory could publish this article in their intramural newsletter so the students and other faculty can get a balanced picture.
A
sincere academic would have apologized to Hindus publicly after realizing he
had wronged them. The manner in which Prof. Courtright has conducted himself so
far indicates that such apologies are not likely forthcoming. If only he stops engaging in any further cross-cultural
vandalism against the Hindu culture while at Emory, after apologizing to eight
hundred million Hindus, Emory would be considered to have taken a step in the
right direction. If Emory permits such
nonsensical writings to pass as academic wisdom, Hindus of the world will
naturally have serious questions about the motivations of Emory authorities
also. His offensive writing reveals his own psychopathology and primary process
thinking of his own mind. In addition, it is his stubborn and adamant defense,
and his mustering the political support of his cohorts to inflame a clash of
cultures or civilizations that makes Prof. Courtright an objectionable character
of the 21st century.
Emory
has an absolute obligation to put a stop of such escalating negative religious-political
activity on the part of Prof. Courtright. His argument that his critics are
quoting him out of context is a lame argument. Emory may best insist that Prof.
Courtright give up any efforts to revive this book, and instead, figuratively,
bury it in the ignoble archives of history saving further embarrassment to
Emory. Prof. Courtright's work is not only an insult to Hindu culture and
"Applied Psychoanalysis," but it is also a disgrace to Emory. It
would be a noble gesture on the part of Emory to make whole the aggrieved
culture, which has no legal remedy in sight. Emory is in a position to do so by
accepting all of the above suggestions although Emory would understandably like
to treat Emory faculty judiciously with due respect and dignity. The key to
redressing these matters will be Prof. Courtright himself and his change of
heart. Even the Presidents and respected leaders in this country and many other
countries, and on very rare occasions even the Catholic Popes have apologized
publicly for their wrongdoing. Prof.
Courtright has many such role models to follow if he wants to mend the matter.
He can either create more conflicts or peacefully resolve a conflict, created
by no one but himself, befitting a Professor in the Department of Religion with
maturity expected of him.
Respectfully
submitted by Shreekumar S. Vinekar, M.D. (All rights reserved)
********************
References:
1.http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1996/September/ERsept.9/9_9_96first_person.html,
http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/11/14/3fb3f27f7c536,
2.and more importantly http://www.emory.edu/history/altizer.html
3.
It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of
the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a
historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The
Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.
His words were to this effect:
“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”
**
This essay is like a “Book Review” presented in a confidential meeting held by
Emory nearly 10 years ago. The author was invited to present his views. This
essay represents his own views. He does
not represent any organization with which he is affiliated. The author does not
accept any liability for any losses Prof. Courtright may suffer because of
expression of the views expressed in this article and other criticisms leveled
at him.
Errata:
Page 6: “shrewd not know” should read
“shrewd to not know”
Bibliography:
Courtright,
P.B. (2001). Gane’sa Lord of Obstacles,
Lord of Beginnings. Delhi, India. Published by Motilal Bansaridass Publishers,
and then withdrawn.
Nagera
H. (1990). Basic Psychoanalytic Concepts on Libido Theory. London, UK: Karnac
Books
Nagera
H. (1990). Basic Psychoanalytic Concepts on Metapsychology, Conflicts, Anxiety,
and Other subjects. London, UK: Karnac Books
Interested readers are referred to the article "Demystifying Shri Ganesha" on this blog.
Paul Courtright
- School: Emory University
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Department: Religion
Number of ratings 6 / Average Grade: N/ASubmit a correction
"I am support this book. Dr. Wendy wrote ForePlay, for my own book on how Ganesha was having sex with his mother. These Hindoo Terrorists have plastered the internet with pages describing me as a Child Pornographer, but I am in fact a Scholar and Leading Export in this field. My Dean is also called Phaullus and we want Academic Freedom to publish our books and sell them. In pur own Church, most priests have oral sex with the nuns and with the Choir, so what is so terrible about Wendy and I expressing our fantasies in our books?"
ReplyDeleteThis is Prof. Paul Courtright's message to President Obama in his response to a petition simply requesting an ethical code for authors claiming to be Scholars in Hindu Studies.
Note the English spelling and grammar of this so-called self-styled scholar who wants to peddle his fantasies as facts. He cannot see the difference between the perversions of lowly priests and nuns in Christian Churches and the facts of their well known perversions and his own perverted fantasies denigrating the sacred and pure revered by the Hindus. Thank their Christian God that the Christians do not revere their Priests and Nuns in their Churches as sacred and pure while they admittedly engage in such base perverted behaviors that Paul Phallus Courtright so very much admires.
This is what is meant by thought disorder of Prof. Paul Courtright. His is not scholarship but pure mudslinging under the disguise of self-claimed scholarship deserving academic freedom as a cover to operate under.
He does not care for ethics but simply wants to sell his "hot" "sexy" books under the auspices of
"Hindu Studies."
Please note Paul Phallus Courtright equates Shri Ganesha with the perverted oral sex engaging Catholic priests and nuns and members of their Church Choirs as if they too are deities for the Christians and are all revered while engaging in oral sex which with a far fetched illogical reasoning and a logical fallacy he claims Shri Ganesha routinely engaged in. What a creep that calls himself an "export" (Not expert) in Hinduism. Is that a Freudian slip? Is he exporting oral sex which is a million dollar game in his country a la Monica Lewinski and his oral sex culture in which Paul Phallus Courtright grew up and was trained in the seminaries where such practice was rampant?
ReplyDelete