“CASTE”
THEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND MODERN PERSPECTIVE
(Part III)
(For Part II see posting of 04 11 2009)
by
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
Edited and partially modified by Shree Vinekar, M.D.
The institution of “caste” (more precisely “varNa”) is the most explosive subject of discussion for “Hindus”. Among the modern Hindu religious leaders, there had been profound ambiguity in expounding the caste system, often leading to defensive posture, especially when challenged by Western critics. I shall presently outline their dilemma in this article. The word “caste”, most people do
not realize is not indigenous to India, nor what it stands for. It is derived from the word “caste” in Portuguese. The medieval Portugal along with the rest of the Europe and the British Isles was practicing “serfdom” (a lesser form of slavery but discrimination of a large population indeed very much based on birth, to be considered a lower class, lower than the nobility and commoners) for several centuries, nearly two millennia, during this era.
I. THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR CASTE
Theological basis of Varna was presumably based on the Purusha Sukta of Rigveda . The “gods” sacrificed HiraNyagarbha in a Yajnya and the creation came forth from His body. (A nearly parallel version of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe). The Purusha is described as “infinite, formless, without any differentiated qualities, ananta, niraakara, nirguNa” yet, anthropomorphizing “HIM”, the mantra 13 says
Braahmano yasya mukhaasit
Baahoo raajanyah kritaah
Ooroo tadasya yad vaishyaah
Paadaabhyaam shoodro ajaayata
Meaning, as popularly translated in concrete literal terms: Brahmins came from his face, raajaas (kshatriyaas) from his arms, Vaishyaas (merchants including other entrepreneurs) from his thighs and finally the servant class, Shudras, from his feet.
This Vedic authority was accepted unchallenged in concrete terms by orthodox Hindus throughout history. Brahmins pursued intellectual enterprise, Kshatriyas warfare and they became rulers; whereas Vaishyas agriculture and trade, and the rest were a servant class. While some argue this was a flexible system moving from one “caste” to another, there is absolutely no evidence for that conjecture either from tradition or from history with only a few exceptions. However, there was harmonious relation in this division almost until modern times. Occasional challenge to the Brahmin supremacy came from the next highest caste, the warriors. A Vaishya on the other hand cared less for Brahminical scriptures and was perfectly happy with his profits from trade. Shudras accepted their position and gradually acquired agriculture, thus the bulk of Indians even at present are farmers. Earlier we have analyzed how the caste sectarianism evolved into political struggle undermining secular democracy that has been tearing apart the Hindu Society (see www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com of 04-24-2009. This article is considered the Part I of this topic). Here in “Part II” we shall examine the scriptural authority for the classification.
More precise definition of caste system took place in Hindu society by Sutra period, perfecting sociological structure dictated by codified laws. Sutra period was the time when orthodox Hinduism faced Buddhist challenge (600 BCE to 300 CE). Ancient Hindus were ruled by the laws dictated in later years by Smrutis, the social and religious laws. These codes changed with times and, therefore, there arose in time many Smrutis, like Parashara Smruti, Yajnavalkya Smruti, Devala Smruti and Manu Smruti. Whereas Smruti governed the contemporary, religious, political and personal life, whenever there was a conflict between Smruti and Shruti, the latter embodied in Vedas and Vedangas, prevailed (akin to constitutional law or preamble to the constitution in modern times) which was considered superior to legislative action, giving flexibility in application of the laws. Thus many practices in Parashara Smruti became outdated and abandoned as unfit for later ages (Kalivarjya).
In the matter of caste, its preservation was by strict rules for occupations or professions to be practiced and informally enforced by the laws for marriage. Although, eight forms of marriage were recognized, marriage was strictly restricted within the same caste. If ever transgression occurred, downward union of a man with lower caste woman was tolerated (Anuloma marriage) and man’s marriage with women higher up the gradient (Pratiloma marriage) was prohibited. Keechaka in Mahabharata was a case in point. He was described as the son of a Brahmin woman and Kshatriya father and hence was assigned the status of a Vaishya (3rd level). Vyasa and Vasishta were born of lower caste women, but their fathers were Brahmins and thus of anuloma descent.
Historically, there appears to be conflicts between top two higher castes. Legendary Parashurama enraged by the killing of his father, killed every Kshatriya king, conquering most part of the earth which he gave to Kashyapa prajapati, from whom the earthly princes re-acquired their kingdom and thus the kings of this earth derived their kingdoms by gift, and therefore, were forever obliged to heed the Brahmin and respect his counsel. However, Kshatriyas maintained near equality in spiritual learning and creativity. In this regard, Vivekananda makes a point that Upanishads were largely written by Kshatriyas whereas Bramhanikas were written by Bramhin Rishis.
Most egregious code written that brought infamy to Manusmriti is the role assigned to women and Shudras in Society as though they are compelled to live by this code. Manusmriti lV: 413 states Shudras should serve the Brahmin first and others, if only they do not find employment with a Brahmin. Serving a Brahmin with reverence and submissiveness elevates him to a higher level in the next life- not so when he serves others!
In the education of these classes, the distinction was maintained by Manu. A Brahmin boy had initiation into studies by upanayanam at age five, Kshatriya at age eleven and Vaishya at 12. There were slight variations in different traditions with the order being maintained. There was recognizable uniform; Brahmin carrying a danda to the length of the top of his head. Kshatriya to the level of forehead and Vaishya to the level of his nose. Brahmin was initiated with Gaayatri of Vishwamitra, Kshaktriya with Trishtub attributed to Hiranyastupa, Vaishya with Jagatti of Vamadeva. Their sacred threads were also different. Recognizable differences between these classes were maintained in the materials of girdle, upper cloth, lower cloth and their colors (mekhala, ajina and vasa). Caste was thus maintained by creating separate identity from the very childhood.
Professionally, Brahmins followed intellectual pursuits commanding highest respect, Kshatriyas were warriors and rulers, Vaishyas were in pursuit of trade and agriculture. Shudras were relegated to servant class who were forbidden in trading with the exception of selling only what they make, as for instance, a potter could sell pots and then only pots. They should serve the Brahmin first, and if employment was not available, he could serve Kshaktriya, and Vaishya last. Needless to say this division of labor was long gone as we know. The bulk of Indian population is farmers and not Vaishyas anymore. Nevertheless, the divisions of the castes persisted to modern times.
Even though Shudras were servant class, there was no slavery in ancient India in contrast to the ancient Western world. Sutrakaras were both liberal and conservative. The treatment of Shudras was more generous by Bhodayana than Aapastambhaa. Chariot makers (Rathikaras) were given Upanayana initiation by Bhodayana, considering them as the progeny of Vaishya and Shudra, whereas Aapastamhaa admitted no exceptions. Initiation into Vedic education was limited to the upper three castes, perhaps leading to wide spread illiteracy among Shudras which is the bulk of the population of India now. Treatment of Shudras, untouchables (chandalas) and women under Manu’s law had been the issue of contention for religious scholars and sociologists. So although much highly touted as an available option in ancient times to indivuduals of using the covenant of “guna-karma-vibhagashah” meaning one’s true nature and chosen occupation is to determine his/her caste, there is no historical evidence that such was a
prevalent practice.
BREAKDOWN OF CASTE SYSTEM
The caste system of ancient times broke down with the invasion of northern tribes and internally by the social reform and challenges from Buddhists. Buddhist Aaramas and educational centers with the same curriculum as traditional brahminical disciplines with the exception of jyothishka (astrology), unlike single teacher gurukulas, transformed the landscape of India allowing wide spread education regardless of the caste. Over the centuries (mainly during the second millennium) there were many reformers who challenged caste system and finally, the only character left of caste was marriage within the same caste – endogamous marriage. Semblance of caste functions remained with few sections of Brahmins if not all, who were keeping alive the traditions of Vedic learning, observing ancient culture and following intellectual pursuits. Other segments of the Brahmin society, who were not engaged in administering sacraments, because of the head start in intellectual pursuits, became scholars both during Muslim and British rule and materially prospered relative to other communities. These scholars migrated to many parts of the world outside India as teachers. While Vaishyas mainly practiced trading, agriculture became the vocation of the rest of the masses. In some states, as in Andhra, Kshatriya community, if ever existed, nearly or totally disappeared. A few called Rajus are a small community which was brought from Bihar, along with others, by Shatavahanaas at the time of expansion of their empire.
Finally without any other meaning left in the domain of social order and occupational hierarchy, caste tribally divided India. Is there any justification in modern India for this system to exist? Answers to this question come in different shades. One superb achievement of caste system, however, was in segregating the incoming foreign elements into their own respective castes and to protect the purity of mainstream Hindu society from cultural and ethnic hybridization. This was before the paradigm for the departments of Immigration and Naturalization existed. India provided “amnesty” to many refugees and invaders and absorbed them in the society and enriched itself socioeconomically without disrupting its own social infrastructure. This was an ingenuous way of creating a melting pot, or rather a salad, that permitted diversity while maintaining separate identities but gave the larger cultural identity to all as “Hindu,” to both indigenous and immigrant populations.
We shall consider various defenses of the system by Hindu leaders. There are protagonists of the system who argue that there is “no such problem as caste”. It is the western educated mindset that discovers any such problem. The Hindu society is perfectly in harmony with the caste division as it only represents division of labor, and the institution is very healthy at best. Also, the inbreeding in each caste is a natural phenomenon, as lawyers’ sons tend to be lawyers and plumbers’ sons tend to be plumbers. There was no concerted effort to keep them segregated, they argue. Vivekananda gives an example, poor Brahmin is respected by rich Vaishya unlike in a Western class ridden society. While Vivekananda was not defending against Western criticism, he sees the problem differently. When a great person is elevated to higher caste by his qualities, the lower community is deprived of his/her presence among them. Conversely, the worst elements in the higher caste are dumped into lower castes resulting in further deterioration of their newly acquired caste, causing a ghettoing effect (italics mine). The mentally ill and incapacitated drifted downward in the lower socioeconomic classes. Division of labor argument is still most popular among the defenders of caste system. Swami Vivekananda when once asked about reforming caste system, himself a former Bramho, reportedly said that there were two sub-castes of Kayasthas in Bengal and asked them to try to unite them first! He wanted to stay out of the debate. In this respect, it is interesting to note that RSS which is open to all castes and is egalitarian in its philosophy has had no impact in reforming the caste system among the Swayamsevaks in Hindu community. Swayamsevaks are not able to reject their caste and most belong to one and privately carry the identity in their personal life, though not in the social context of the Sangha where there is ostensibly no discrimination on the basis of caste. This in itself is a significant progress which impressed Mahatma Gandhi and Jayaprakash Narayan when they visited RSS camps.
Presented with the problem of defending caste to the Western Audience, some leaders attempt to skirt it cleverly. Thus Prabhupada , the Founder of Hare Krishna Movement, translating Gita (first chapter) defines caste as family (Kula). Accepting this definition Lord Rama belongs to ”Raghukula” (Raghukulaanvaya Ratnadeepam) ( as if not a Kshatria!) Mahatma Gandhi totally avoided the question and concerned with the problem of untouchability, which was steadfastly defended by all Shankaracharyas until its defense was outlawed. Gandhi saw more of a political problem with untouchable leaders, Jogendranath Mandal and Ambedkar who began opposing Congress. On the other hand, Jawaharlal Nehru, a self-proclaimed agnostic and not much for the preservation of even an iota of Hindu identity, saw that without caste there was no structure for Hindu society and that dismantling caste would create chaos without replacing it with something for social identity, although he recognized the caste must go eventually. He had no idea what it should be that replaces it and what should be done to make it go away! He, however, vigorously defends the system against the Western critics saying that it is a natural institution not specifically designed to discriminate and enslave certain class. According to him, it is, in fact, one of the three pillars of Hindu society. Thus caste can be understood as grouping of people with common culture, subculture, language and dialects, food habits, customs, and even sampradayas meaning religious beliefs, like flowers with different fragrance and colors in a garden, if Hindu society is viewed as a garden.
Argument that there was a long standing harmony and acceptance of inferior social position by lower caste Hindus, which is characterized as division of labor is weak at the outset. Simply that there was no uprising by a permanent underclass does not justify the morality of the system. After all the slaves had full employment and many instances might have been treated generously by their masters, but that could not justify slavery (Dinesh D’Souza sees it differently). They, indeed, sang, danced, fell in love, raised families and accepted their condition as divine ordinance. This was true for the slaves, serfs, and all “lower” classes in the West as also in the East. The concept of social revolution and rebellion could not be viable with limited communication and unwieldy distances between scattered communities. . The communists and the Islamists also have failed in evolving classless societies although philosophically they and even the early Vedic philosophies and the Western democracies all recognized in principle that “all men were created equal.”
CASTE AND GENETICS
The protagonists of caste argue that the system as originally conceived was perfectly justified, but only that it became misconstrued. They tend to provide scriptural basis for it and argue caste or “varna” for a better word was a flexible system, which lost its vitality. However flexible, there are genetic differences among these groups, and therefore, the classification is still justified if only we can modify it to fit it in the modern times. This is an apologist view. There is a second group that denies that there is any such problem like caste problem, and therefore, the discussion is irrelevant. The third group, like Shankaracharyas, currently silenced by law and public opinion, advocate no change in the system, believing in the inerrancy of the scriptures. Various degrees of ambivalence can be found in the modern Hindu philosophers on this subject.
Oft quoted verse Chaturvarnam mayaa sristam gunakarma vibhagashah (Bhagavat Gita Ch 4: verse) says that Shri Krishna himself created four castes or Varnas differentiated by personal qualities and duties. This verse was commented on by various authors variously which illustrates the ambivalence on the subject of caste. Literally, the birth into a caste is ordained by “God” with no election possible for moving across the castes.
S. Radhakrishnan had varying positions on this subject at various times and places. He believed that the heredity determines the qualities of people and hence caste division and endogamy was justifiable. (Lectures at Oxford 1926). To illustrate this point he gives an example of one Civil War American soldier who, after wild romantic adventures, fell for an imbecile and married her. The subsequent six generations of this union yielded a total of 143 children all of whom were either, dullards or criminals like their mother. This soldier later married a good Quaker girl whose six generations produced professionals, judges, and governors. He was talking like an amateur geneticist long before this view of heredity was debated and trashed by professional geneticists. While commenting on the verse quoted above, he holds more benign opinion that castes of present day had nothing in common with the Varnas of antiquity, since Varnasankara took place during the times of Mahaabhaarata and the face of the Hindu society is completely changed in this domain. If we accept that view there is no point in discussing this subject further. The fear of Varnasankara was utmost in the mind of Arjuna, described in five verses of Gita in the first chapter. His fears came true and Varnaashrama indeed disappeared.
Radhakrishnan then reversed his position while commenting on the phrase swadharma nidhanam shreyam (Gita Ch. 18 verses 41 and 47). While all caste should be treated equally, he holds that, “equal opportunity” does not entail “identical opportunity”, a fine distinction indeed! In support of keeping the castes separate he quotes Herald Heard (Man and Master 1942) who admires Hindus for four fold division of society and deplores that “we pay more attention to breeding horses than men” and need no further scriptural support! By quoting a “eugenics” oriented racist view of a “white man,” S. Radhakrishnan identifies with him and
endorses it forgetting his “swadharma” !!! Radhakrishnan maintains that Hindus were liberal and flexible in matters of caste and gives the examples of Vasishta, a son of a low class woman and Vyasa a son of a fisher woman . But, their fathers were Brahmins; the concept ( erroneously) that genetic endowment comes from man who provides the “seed” and the woman the “soil” and nourishment is outdated and unscientific! This is pointed out to illustrate how even great thinkers
among the Hindus were bamboozled in dealing with the institution of caste and
forming clear cut ideas about retaining the system versus adopting a social reform
to abandon it.
Prabhupaada takes a very sanguine view of the phrase Guna and karma on the commentary on the verse of Gita (Ch. 4 vs 13) and says that a Brahmin who behaves like a Shudra is Shudra indeed, although born in a Brahmin family. He curiously does not deal with converse situations where Shudra has the qualities of a Brahmin. However, if we treat each other as equals it has no bearing on the social structure. On commenting on the phrase Swadharma nidhanam sheyam, he maintains that a merchant (Vaishya) can lie about his business, since it is his dharma! Lying is defended by the phrase sadoshamapi (meaning even though it is wrongful). Although Prabhupaada may be referring to the situational ethics of concealing the cost and the profit margin, I wonder whether this may also apply to tax evasion. Here again one sees another great thinker or commentator getting stumped on these complex issues of caste and swadharma.
On this subject of swadharma to be followed despite imperfections, Aurobindo takes the position that all should spiritually advance to the level of a Brahmin and thus function to elevate themselves. The problem with this interpretation is that, if perfection is thus achieved, the phrase sadoshamapi (despite imperfections) in the verse loses its significance. This would not shed any light on the social organization of caste again. In modern language this truly endorses being true to one’s nature and trying to be as authentic as one can be rather than carry affectations and deceptive fake façades. “Be real!!” However, great thinker after thinker, great interpreter after interpreter of Hinduism seems to find this area of Hinduism quite slippery and seems to slide and lose his/her balance.
People are born in specific castes ordained by god is evident in Gita where Vaishyas and Shudras (and women) have lower birth — papayonah (Gita Ch. 9-32), “the worst of the humanity are thrown into inferior wombs by God (Ch. 16: 19 and 20).” The literal translation would mean the Shudras and women are born from a sinful (if papa is translated as sin) vaginal birth. This view is further supported by Ithaca’s and Purina’s. For instance, Yudhisthira in answer to one of the questions of Nahusha, who was in the form of a snake and who bound and immobilized his brothers, says a good Shudra can only become Sat-Shudra not a Brahmin, because that would upset the social organization (Mahabharata Adiparva).
There is a well known story of Satyakama Jabala in Chandogyopanishad. Jabala goes to his teacher Gautama and reveals what his mother told him about his birth that she served many men in her life and that she would not know to whom he was born. The teacher impressed with his truthfulness and honesty admits him as a student. Shankara commenting on this episode insists that, certainly, he should be of Brahmin descent and goes one step further by commenting that his mother in her devotion to serving her master forgot to ask him of his caste, but he was indeed a Brahmin! His hypothesis that qualities of character are determined at birth (and are genetically determined and honesty is limited genetically to the Brahmin caste is a preposterous position taken by a Hindu religious leader) as those of Satyakama is consistent with the overall message of Chandogyopanishad. Most modern educated individuals will recognize that Shankaracharya was hard pressed and was only human to use extreme rationalization full of fallacies.
It is the opinion of this author that the irrationalities from modern scientific and genetics viewpoint in the position adopted by the Hindu scriptures are clear. We shall accept or reject the validity and necessity for the caste system on its own merit and any other approach defending it is disingenuous or an apology for an indefensible position.
What does future hold for the traditional caste? With greater social mobility, economic development and emigration to the West the Hindu society will change in the coming years despite the resistance from the reactionary ruling political and feudal forces. This is the subject of hope for the third part of this article.
THE END
Stay tuned on www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com for Part IV
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
FAILED AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN INDIA, ARE LIKES OF WENDY DONIGER RESPONSIBLE?
Failure of American Diplomatic Strategies
Traced to Distorted Histories
by the Likes of Wendy Doniger
(An Indian Perspective)
Dr. Pramod V. Pathak
The biased history of Asia, South Asia and in particular of India, as written by the likes of Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright and James Laine has made the American policy makers take distorted view of the region. The U.S. foreign policy stalwarts have committed mistakes on several occasions. Decades ago, they denied India access to a super computer. India’s “super computer boy,” Dr. Vijay Bhatkar, built it with the help of his colleagues without turning to the U.S. During the recent visit of the American President, Mr. Obama, in Nov. 2010, American policy makers and U.S. Foreign Service administrators again committed a number of blunders and botched the whole trip for President Obama. A person at the presidential level has to depend on the group of policy makers and get briefed in order to actually deliver speeches outlining and reflecting policy of the nation. In their task of backing up President Obama, the American bureaucracy has utterly failed and failed him too.
In the first place they asked for personal identities of the Chief Minister and Dy. Chief Minister of the Maharashtra State in Mumbai in their own home state. CM Ashok Chavan was like a dog lay biting dust at that time on account of Adarsh building scam at that time. He got a chance to show his one man upmanship by denying meeting. The consulate had to tender apologies to him. This was a fiasco for the U.S. Consulate. It is besides the point that both the Chief and Dy. Chief Ministers were axed just a few minutes after Obama left India. Earlier Americans had Indian Central Minister George Fernandes undress at their customs counter on the American soil and made ex-President of India Abdul Kalam to undergo personal screening without following diplomatic protocol. American consulate had the privilege to take a firm stand to ask for their credentials instead of treating them like ordinary citizens. No diplomats of such stature on planned diplomatic visits are processed through the Security in such manner at the port of entry.
The front line of the national economic daily, The Economic Times dated 4th Nov. read, “After drubbing at home, Obama won’t bring Diwali gifts for India”. It pointed to the mood of the nation. Under such circumstances letting retinue of more than three hundred business people to accompany the President was a great mistake. We anticipated that these people had come to India to squeeze our businesses and Industrialists, open up countrywide Malls and deprive the millions of middle level self employed Indian population and retailers of their jobs. Mr. President was out to purchase 50,000 jobs for Americans at our cost. At the end when the deals were finalized, these amounted to paltry $10 billion i.e. Rs 50000 Cr (The Times of India Dated 7th Nov. 2010). USA is reported to be spending around $1 billion/day on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These days, antisocial Indian scamsters like Central Telecom Minister Raja, Suresh Kalamadi or erstwhile Chief Minister Madhu Koda indulge in petty corruption of that order. They could have bought what President Obama had to sell in one hour. Deals comprised mostly of the defense items. That means Americans will supply defense items free to Pakistan by way of unconditional aid of $1 billion for 7 years to wage proxy war on India and sell the same items to India at an added cost to subsidize their aid to Pakistan!! Most Indians would hate it. Then Obama showed meanness by not mentioning Pakistan in his address while occupying the suite in Hotel Taj where the Pakistan originated gory attack took place on 26/11. It created uproar in the Indian media. It was the biggest lapse on Obama’s part. Then he was grilled by anybody and everybody in public hearing. He had to back track on many occasions. Who was the American policy maker advising Obama to omit Pakistan from his Mumbai address? Was he brought up on the staple food of history written by likes of Wendy?
When in Delhi, Obama infuriated our most balanced, savvy and soft spoken Prime Minster Dr. Manmohan Singh to publicly chide Obama by saying, “We are not afraid of the K-word. - - - Indians are not in the business of stealing jobs. The outsourcing industry, I believe India has helped improve the productive capacity and productivity of American Industries” (The Times of India Dated 9th Nov. 2010). Is President Obama such an inept and immature politician to let such things happen? Or, was he briefed by inept officials?
Last, but not the least, was Obama’s visit to Humayun’s tomb. Who was Humayun? Son of an invader Babar; a failed prince; he took asylum in Iran for more than a decade and then he came back to India to acquire a small kingdom. His illustrious son Akbar made it into the Mughal Empire, but to be despised by hardcore Indian Muslims for being secular and honoring other religions of the day. Keeping in tune with the aspiration of emerging India, the American policy makers could have arranged his visit to the newly inaugurated magnificent Swaminarayan Temple – Aksharadhaam. It has become the new pride of India. Thus the Americans could have conveyed a message of appreciation to the majority people of India. Instead the American Administration preferred to bow to the wishes of the ruling Congress Govt. This UPA government has been pampering the Muslim minority at the cost of national interests. Did UPA Government suggest Obama to visit Humayun’s tomb? It no way does it come close to either Taj Mahal or Swaminarayan Temple in architectural grandeur.
Can USA ever make Pakistan a stable country where Punjabi Muslims are killing and persecuting Baluchis, Mohajirs and Sindhis, all their Muslim brothers? Can Punjabi Pakistan army, ISI, and Punjabi Mullahcrasy in Pakistan ever accept Kaffir (Non-believer) Governments, whether in India or in USA? Can USA ever achieve peace in Afghanistan or capture Osama bin Laden without dismembering Pakistan in four independent States of Punjab, Pakhtunistan, Sindh and Baluchistan? Can Americans prevent burning and destruction of fuel tankers and aid convoys sent to the forces deployed in Afghanistan without safe passage through Bolan Pass in independent Baluchistan? Century ago the British Army used it successfully. American policy makers refuse to learn from the past experiences of their “52nd” client state, UK. On the other hand, Obama advises us Indians that stable Pakistan is the need of India!!!! It has sent India a wrong signal. What are the Americans interested in? In helping India or aiding China and Pakistan?
Since WW II, Americans have not won a single war, be it in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or now in Afghanistan. It is a failure of generations of American policy makers who must have read half-baked, falsifying histories of Indian subcontinent written by likes of Wendy Doniger, James Laine and Paul Courtright. God help America to come out of the morass by wising up to a correct understanding of the Indian and Asian affairs. It will mean that the American scholars will have to keep aside their age-old biases to write good history books giving accurate and unbiased information. Such knowledge will go a long way to not give room to wrong-headed foreign policy in South Asian Continent.
Traced to Distorted Histories
by the Likes of Wendy Doniger
(An Indian Perspective)
Dr. Pramod V. Pathak
The biased history of Asia, South Asia and in particular of India, as written by the likes of Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright and James Laine has made the American policy makers take distorted view of the region. The U.S. foreign policy stalwarts have committed mistakes on several occasions. Decades ago, they denied India access to a super computer. India’s “super computer boy,” Dr. Vijay Bhatkar, built it with the help of his colleagues without turning to the U.S. During the recent visit of the American President, Mr. Obama, in Nov. 2010, American policy makers and U.S. Foreign Service administrators again committed a number of blunders and botched the whole trip for President Obama. A person at the presidential level has to depend on the group of policy makers and get briefed in order to actually deliver speeches outlining and reflecting policy of the nation. In their task of backing up President Obama, the American bureaucracy has utterly failed and failed him too.
In the first place they asked for personal identities of the Chief Minister and Dy. Chief Minister of the Maharashtra State in Mumbai in their own home state. CM Ashok Chavan was like a dog lay biting dust at that time on account of Adarsh building scam at that time. He got a chance to show his one man upmanship by denying meeting. The consulate had to tender apologies to him. This was a fiasco for the U.S. Consulate. It is besides the point that both the Chief and Dy. Chief Ministers were axed just a few minutes after Obama left India. Earlier Americans had Indian Central Minister George Fernandes undress at their customs counter on the American soil and made ex-President of India Abdul Kalam to undergo personal screening without following diplomatic protocol. American consulate had the privilege to take a firm stand to ask for their credentials instead of treating them like ordinary citizens. No diplomats of such stature on planned diplomatic visits are processed through the Security in such manner at the port of entry.
The front line of the national economic daily, The Economic Times dated 4th Nov. read, “After drubbing at home, Obama won’t bring Diwali gifts for India”. It pointed to the mood of the nation. Under such circumstances letting retinue of more than three hundred business people to accompany the President was a great mistake. We anticipated that these people had come to India to squeeze our businesses and Industrialists, open up countrywide Malls and deprive the millions of middle level self employed Indian population and retailers of their jobs. Mr. President was out to purchase 50,000 jobs for Americans at our cost. At the end when the deals were finalized, these amounted to paltry $10 billion i.e. Rs 50000 Cr (The Times of India Dated 7th Nov. 2010). USA is reported to be spending around $1 billion/day on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These days, antisocial Indian scamsters like Central Telecom Minister Raja, Suresh Kalamadi or erstwhile Chief Minister Madhu Koda indulge in petty corruption of that order. They could have bought what President Obama had to sell in one hour. Deals comprised mostly of the defense items. That means Americans will supply defense items free to Pakistan by way of unconditional aid of $1 billion for 7 years to wage proxy war on India and sell the same items to India at an added cost to subsidize their aid to Pakistan!! Most Indians would hate it. Then Obama showed meanness by not mentioning Pakistan in his address while occupying the suite in Hotel Taj where the Pakistan originated gory attack took place on 26/11. It created uproar in the Indian media. It was the biggest lapse on Obama’s part. Then he was grilled by anybody and everybody in public hearing. He had to back track on many occasions. Who was the American policy maker advising Obama to omit Pakistan from his Mumbai address? Was he brought up on the staple food of history written by likes of Wendy?
When in Delhi, Obama infuriated our most balanced, savvy and soft spoken Prime Minster Dr. Manmohan Singh to publicly chide Obama by saying, “We are not afraid of the K-word. - - - Indians are not in the business of stealing jobs. The outsourcing industry, I believe India has helped improve the productive capacity and productivity of American Industries” (The Times of India Dated 9th Nov. 2010). Is President Obama such an inept and immature politician to let such things happen? Or, was he briefed by inept officials?
Last, but not the least, was Obama’s visit to Humayun’s tomb. Who was Humayun? Son of an invader Babar; a failed prince; he took asylum in Iran for more than a decade and then he came back to India to acquire a small kingdom. His illustrious son Akbar made it into the Mughal Empire, but to be despised by hardcore Indian Muslims for being secular and honoring other religions of the day. Keeping in tune with the aspiration of emerging India, the American policy makers could have arranged his visit to the newly inaugurated magnificent Swaminarayan Temple – Aksharadhaam. It has become the new pride of India. Thus the Americans could have conveyed a message of appreciation to the majority people of India. Instead the American Administration preferred to bow to the wishes of the ruling Congress Govt. This UPA government has been pampering the Muslim minority at the cost of national interests. Did UPA Government suggest Obama to visit Humayun’s tomb? It no way does it come close to either Taj Mahal or Swaminarayan Temple in architectural grandeur.
Can USA ever make Pakistan a stable country where Punjabi Muslims are killing and persecuting Baluchis, Mohajirs and Sindhis, all their Muslim brothers? Can Punjabi Pakistan army, ISI, and Punjabi Mullahcrasy in Pakistan ever accept Kaffir (Non-believer) Governments, whether in India or in USA? Can USA ever achieve peace in Afghanistan or capture Osama bin Laden without dismembering Pakistan in four independent States of Punjab, Pakhtunistan, Sindh and Baluchistan? Can Americans prevent burning and destruction of fuel tankers and aid convoys sent to the forces deployed in Afghanistan without safe passage through Bolan Pass in independent Baluchistan? Century ago the British Army used it successfully. American policy makers refuse to learn from the past experiences of their “52nd” client state, UK. On the other hand, Obama advises us Indians that stable Pakistan is the need of India!!!! It has sent India a wrong signal. What are the Americans interested in? In helping India or aiding China and Pakistan?
Since WW II, Americans have not won a single war, be it in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or now in Afghanistan. It is a failure of generations of American policy makers who must have read half-baked, falsifying histories of Indian subcontinent written by likes of Wendy Doniger, James Laine and Paul Courtright. God help America to come out of the morass by wising up to a correct understanding of the Indian and Asian affairs. It will mean that the American scholars will have to keep aside their age-old biases to write good history books giving accurate and unbiased information. Such knowledge will go a long way to not give room to wrong-headed foreign policy in South Asian Continent.
Monday, November 15, 2010
A RESPONSE TO "ELEVATING THE SACRED"
A RESPONSE TO "ELEVATING THE SACRED"
Professor Paul Courtright’s Porno to Emory Journey
“From Academic Freedom to Intellectual Crap”
by
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
Academic discussion in the article, “Elevating the Sacred,” by Paul Courtright in the recent issue of www.littleindia.com is a cover-up for the truly distorted depiction of Ganesha by him in his 1985 book and its revised editions. There may be many authentic myths and academic treatments of such myths in his book on issues directly derived from the Puranas which he uses to distract his readers in this cover-up. However, Courtright cannot demonstrate a single reference to a "limp phallus," "oral sex performed by Ganesha," or a reference anywhere in the Puranic texts describing "Ganesha as a eunuch or a Hijra." These are Paul Courtright's own original mischievous creations from his own Unconscious or from the internalized crass culture in which he grew up. These and other pornographic demeaning characterizations of Ganesha are non-existent in the Indian Unconscious, Puranas, or any authentic Indian literature. His relying on “peer review” and “awards” only indicates that he is a fair-haired child of the proselytizing empire-building group of Western “Indologists” who cannot see through his “phallic” “fraud” just like the dean of Emory University who helps him hide behind his academic freedom to dole out pornographic junk.
The hackneyed “psychoanalysis 101” explanation that any provocation and protest by a reader is a proof of the accuracy of the interpreter's interpretations being right on the mark is also a fallacy. A lay reader will not be able to detect this. Sometimes that is the case only when an analyst is analyzing an analysand. Courtright glibly uses such fallacies to delude his naïve Indian and especially his Western readers in believing that he has discovered some Universal truths about the “Hindu Unconscious” (also a myth created by Courtright) that are hard to swallow for the “fanatic Hindus” without protesting. He takes a one-man up-man-ship role to treat all Hindus as if he is their psychoanalyst. Courtright will continue to present himself in his psychotic grandiosity as a “genius” to naïve Indian psychoanalysts that have not read his book or who do not have the cultural background to understand Ganesha. The readers of Courtright need to be alerted to such gimmicks he repeatedly uses when trying to defend himself.
In this recent article on www.littleindia.com he gives a condescending lesson to Indians on how academic discussions need to be conducted in the spirit of academic freedom so very valued in Universities as against in “Ashrams.” Paul Courtright conveniently fails to reveal examples of his blatant "desecration of the sacred" cited above and wants Hindu readers to become “sophisticated enough” to swallow his crap. By choosing the title "Elevating the Sacred" for his article he is still engaged in arrogant defense of his demeaning characterization of Ganesha, creating an illusion that his book was actually written with reverence. That is the blatant falsehood he wants to perpetuate while giving the impression that he is focusing on a litany of alleged “falsehoods” upheld by his critics.
With his full knowledge that only few in India can access his original book, he is again trying to pull a fast one on the Indian readers. He creates an illusion that his critics are lesser academics and that they are simply angry "Hindu fanatics." He conveniently dilutes and hides his own noxious excreta that have emerged from his own anus and not from “the anus of any Brahma described in any of the Puranas." He seems to be obsessed with such irrationalities he finds in the Puranas without understanding the context. He would like the readers believe that the Puranas are themselves pornographic and not his translations or his treatment of them. If the language used in this critique is offensive to any readers they need to understand that Paul Courtright is not a novice to anal sadistic use of language under the disguise of academic sophistication.
Paul needs to examine his own Unconscious to recognize his obsession with “Phallus.” “Paul” is actually a shortened version of “Paulus” which is pronounced in the Middle East exactly as “Phaullus” connected in his Unconscious with the word “Phallus” by association of sound. Paul Courtright needs to be awarded a new title for his pornographic psychoanalytic discoveries. It would be nothing less than “Paul Limp Phallus Courtright –Lord of Porno.”
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_040601.htm
http://jitnasa.india-forum.com/
Professor Paul Courtright’s Porno to Emory Journey
“From Academic Freedom to Intellectual Crap”
by
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
Academic discussion in the article, “Elevating the Sacred,” by Paul Courtright in the recent issue of www.littleindia.com is a cover-up for the truly distorted depiction of Ganesha by him in his 1985 book and its revised editions. There may be many authentic myths and academic treatments of such myths in his book on issues directly derived from the Puranas which he uses to distract his readers in this cover-up. However, Courtright cannot demonstrate a single reference to a "limp phallus," "oral sex performed by Ganesha," or a reference anywhere in the Puranic texts describing "Ganesha as a eunuch or a Hijra." These are Paul Courtright's own original mischievous creations from his own Unconscious or from the internalized crass culture in which he grew up. These and other pornographic demeaning characterizations of Ganesha are non-existent in the Indian Unconscious, Puranas, or any authentic Indian literature. His relying on “peer review” and “awards” only indicates that he is a fair-haired child of the proselytizing empire-building group of Western “Indologists” who cannot see through his “phallic” “fraud” just like the dean of Emory University who helps him hide behind his academic freedom to dole out pornographic junk.
The hackneyed “psychoanalysis 101” explanation that any provocation and protest by a reader is a proof of the accuracy of the interpreter's interpretations being right on the mark is also a fallacy. A lay reader will not be able to detect this. Sometimes that is the case only when an analyst is analyzing an analysand. Courtright glibly uses such fallacies to delude his naïve Indian and especially his Western readers in believing that he has discovered some Universal truths about the “Hindu Unconscious” (also a myth created by Courtright) that are hard to swallow for the “fanatic Hindus” without protesting. He takes a one-man up-man-ship role to treat all Hindus as if he is their psychoanalyst. Courtright will continue to present himself in his psychotic grandiosity as a “genius” to naïve Indian psychoanalysts that have not read his book or who do not have the cultural background to understand Ganesha. The readers of Courtright need to be alerted to such gimmicks he repeatedly uses when trying to defend himself.
In this recent article on www.littleindia.com he gives a condescending lesson to Indians on how academic discussions need to be conducted in the spirit of academic freedom so very valued in Universities as against in “Ashrams.” Paul Courtright conveniently fails to reveal examples of his blatant "desecration of the sacred" cited above and wants Hindu readers to become “sophisticated enough” to swallow his crap. By choosing the title "Elevating the Sacred" for his article he is still engaged in arrogant defense of his demeaning characterization of Ganesha, creating an illusion that his book was actually written with reverence. That is the blatant falsehood he wants to perpetuate while giving the impression that he is focusing on a litany of alleged “falsehoods” upheld by his critics.
With his full knowledge that only few in India can access his original book, he is again trying to pull a fast one on the Indian readers. He creates an illusion that his critics are lesser academics and that they are simply angry "Hindu fanatics." He conveniently dilutes and hides his own noxious excreta that have emerged from his own anus and not from “the anus of any Brahma described in any of the Puranas." He seems to be obsessed with such irrationalities he finds in the Puranas without understanding the context. He would like the readers believe that the Puranas are themselves pornographic and not his translations or his treatment of them. If the language used in this critique is offensive to any readers they need to understand that Paul Courtright is not a novice to anal sadistic use of language under the disguise of academic sophistication.
Paul needs to examine his own Unconscious to recognize his obsession with “Phallus.” “Paul” is actually a shortened version of “Paulus” which is pronounced in the Middle East exactly as “Phaullus” connected in his Unconscious with the word “Phallus” by association of sound. Paul Courtright needs to be awarded a new title for his pornographic psychoanalytic discoveries. It would be nothing less than “Paul Limp Phallus Courtright –Lord of Porno.”
http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_040601.htm
http://jitnasa.india-forum.com/
Friday, November 5, 2010
APPLIED PSYCHOANALYSIS & WESTERN INDOLOGISTS
WINDBAG WENDY DONIGER,PHALLIC FLATUS PAUL COURTRIGHT, & JEFFREY KRIPAL SHERLOCK HOLMES OF HOMOSEXUALITY INVESTIGATING A DEAD HINDU SAINT
HOW IS PSYCHOANALYSIS CONVERTED INTO EQUINE ELIMINATION BY WESTERN INDOLOGISTS?
WHY ARE THE LIKES OF WENDY DONIGER,PAUL COURTRIGHT, AND JEFFREY KRIPAL CONSIDERED FAKE?
by
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
There is a branch of psychoanalysis that is termed Applied Psychoanalysis.
Freud himself contributed to it by writing his extra-clinical literary
works that have become quite famous.
Many other famous psychoanalysts like Erik Erikson and his protégé
Sudhir Kakar have also taken liberty to exercise their talents in
this domain.
Common sense dictates that although this field is remotely connected
to the therapeutic aspects of psychoanalysis, only those who have the
authentic training and qualifications as psychoanalysts can truly delve
into this domain with some competence. For example, an "Applied Mathematician"
is necessarily an authentic "Mathematician" first.
In contrast to mathematics, psychoanalysis is viewed as only
a school of thought despite its practical value in the field of
psychology and psychiatry. Needless to say, over the years it has lost
its pride of place as a scientific discipline though efforts were made
to promote it as such.
Psychoanalysis has its legitimate uses but it is rarely used by
well trained reputable psychoanalysts themselves to analyze any
religion, highly revered spiritual leaders or religious mythology
in spite of earlier attempts by Freud himself. If they do so, their
training as psychoanalysts is quite transparent in the empathy for
the subject of their analysis and their respect for other human beings
in contrast to the wild analysis undertaken by the Western Indologists
most of whom are members of the faculty of Religious Studies departments
or their variations such as Departments of Sanskrit, or South Asian Studies,
etc.
Religion is viewed by psychoanalysis as a collective neurosis and this
concept is applicable to all religions. The practices of all religions
have a close connection with mainly the Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis.
One needs to have clinical training and experience to understand in depth
these collective neuroses and alleged neurosis in a living or deceased
individual spiritual leader.
The perversion of the Western Indologists in pretending to be applied
psychoanalysts can be viewed as resulting from 1) fundamentally a lack
of training as psychoanalysts, 2) a conscious or unconscious desire to
denigrate a religion foreign to them with no empathy for the practitioners
and their sentiments, and 3) their urge to use a “wild analysis” with projection of their own Unconscious upon the phenomena of Hindu religion (Devatas and Hindu scriptures, Hindu mythology, or Hindu Spiritual figures, etc.).
They lack the knowledge of Indian languages and nuances of certain words and
also lack thorough knowledge of Sanskrit at an advanced level, and culturally accepted meanings in the rich spiritual traditions of Hinduism, and therefore,
the entire field of "Hinduism" becomes as ambiguous to them as a Rorschach card
of the famous “Ink Blot Test.” What they project on Hinduism and Hindus
can be easily recognized as equine elimination springing from their
own past, their negative biases, and of course, their cultural background
and their own Unconscious. Such material is disguised as a product of
scholarship praised by their Western peers who lack the ability to
distinguish scholarly professional psychoanalytic interpretations
from subterfuge.
American Academy of Religion has no standing as a group of
psychoanalytic scholars. Most of the members of this academy
are themselves the sufferers of the collective or societal neuroses
as viewed and defined by Psychoanalysis. Therefore, they cannot be
objective in this matter of analysing their own or others'
religions or religion based mythology until they themsleves go
through a thorough and nearly complete analysis. In the event they
do so, if their analysis is successful, it is doubtful they will
will engage in such alloplastic activity of denigratingly analysing
others' religion or any longer remain active members of such academy
of a group of "neurotics" suffering from a collective neurosis as viewed by
psychoanalysts.
Simply speaking, it should be evident to astute readers bynow that the
academics in the departments of Religious Studies or Schools of
Divinity and those others who truly study and practice Psychoanalysis
mix as poorly as oil and water. In other words, trained psychoanalysts
may be competent in analysing religion related matters, but
scholars of religious studies with background in humanities are
hardly qualified to competently apply psychoanalytic concepts in any
human endeavour. They cannot be considered unbiased neutral observers.
Many erudite scholars in the West as well as the East have questioned
whether psychoanalysis has the right to interfere into fields that have
nothing to do with its specific realm of interest. Having recognized the controversy, however, it is quite apparent that many Western Indologists
thrive in the publication business by producing books designed to
sensationalize the field of comparative religion by depicting Hindu religion
as mostly pervert. They have meticulously avoided extensive scholarly review
and examination of their “applied psychoanalytic” works by authentic, well
trained psychoanalysts (except for giving a few small Publisher’s blips by
Sudhir Kakar, used as a marketing tool).
These Western scholars like Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright,and Jeffrey Kripal,
etc., claiming to be Freudians are quite timid when it comes to exercising
their talents in interpreting Christianity, Islam, and Judaism using
the same methods they use in depicting "Hinduism." They avoid applying
boldly these wild and shoddy methods of their amateur psychoanalytic
interpretations to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in stark contrast to their foolhardiness in dealing with Hinduism and Hindus. Reasons for this are obvious
to all who are in touch with the current sociopolitical climate.
Besides, it does not require a scholar to detect the mocking and deriding
tone of these so called scholars who pose as objectively analysing other's
culture. Their use of highfloating academic scholarship cannot conceal the
mockery they make of other's cultures that is transparent to anyone. Most of
their Western readers giggle as they read their books and are quite amused and
take delight in the negative depiction of other's religions. Such mockery is
hardly limited to the fast and loose interpretations of the sexual or erotic symbolisms. The outrage of the Hindus in reaction to their works is erroneously dubbed with the same old hackneyed "explaining away" as their "resistance to accept the Unconsious sexuality" in the religious symbolism and mythology. Although such may be an apt observation occasionally, it is the bulldozing overpowering demeaning mockery of other's religious sentiments by berating their heroes, ego-ideals,spiritual and even their political leaders, and social customs, etc., that leads to the angy reactions to these authors' works. Psychonalysis is only a smokescreen used to divert the attention from the main agenda of these academics to engage others in polemics that are quite tangential to the main issue of mockery of everything others hold dear. That is hardly an admirable trait of a gentleman (lady) and a scholar in any culture.
There is no such demeaning treatment of any other religion besides Hiduism
by this cadre of American professors of religious studies, most of whom are
trained by Wendy Doniger. Ridiculing others under the banner of academic
freedom and freedom of speech has become their favorite sport.
No Hindu would object to their writings if they were truly academic,
dignified and authentic scholarly acitivities sans the ridicule.
This leads to a natural conclusion that, unqualified as they are, they all
are using applied psychoanalysis as a sham and not truly as a scholarly tool
to elucidate and develop any deeper understanding of Hindu religion. In fact, instead of "edification" their works are a form of abuse perpetrated by throwing aspersions at a foreign religion that they have failed to fully comprehend
in spite of their alleged claim to (fake) scholarship and authority on Hinduism
in the Western academia. Some of them have vast information about India and Hindu
sriptures and mythology but they utterly lack understanding of the Dharmic traditions and the symbolic meanings. Unfortunately, vast majority of Hindus themselves are also many a time quite ill-informed in this area.
Since their readership is mostly ignorant of psychoanalytic and applied psychoanalytic methods, as well as their subject of analysis (namely, Hinduism), they have been successful in perpetrating a perpetual grand scale fraud on their fans and their readership in the last twenty-five to thirty years. Their publishers are seduced, deceived, and corrupted by the demand for such pervert and often virtually pornographic material disguised as a product of "superior scholarship"
of renowned academicians. On closer examinations their works are often found to be lacking in academic integrity. (see other articles on this blog)
Besides that, these so called Indologists have a political agenda and are
generally clever to detect cleavages in the Hindu and Indian society to find a following and support. They also find some wellknown or not-so-wellknown individuals, with Hindu sounding names, as their admirers to market their books. Their publishers are knowingly or unknowlingly accessories to such fraud.
Academic freedom and freedom of speech are well known laxatives that facilitate
such equine elimination. It is seemingly becoming so very fragrant to the
publishers like Penguin Inc. and their Western readers now-a-days. There can
also be a large demand among Hindus as well as non-Hindus in one billion
population of India that can provide a market-share for such rubbish. Those
familiar with the political events in India can easily recognize why such Western Indologists will be welcomed by some Indians.
The reputable institutions of higher education like University of Chicago,
Harvard, Emory, and Rice in the U.S. are expected to scrutinize "research" undertaken by their faculty even in the Social Sciences through their respective IRB's to make sure that the human subject rights are protected especially when a single community is chosen for its subject. Any observations made need to be verified with consensual validation before any theory is built to interpet these observations through any research. Conclusions reached by analyzing some spurious observations that negatively affect the vulnerable community need to be scrutinized by the respective IRBs as invalid and ill-motivated products of faulty scholarchip. Most IRB's would not permit deception of the community or human subjects under the name of social science research. Non-disclosure of intent of research to the subjects or community as some of these researchers have engaged in during their stay in India mingling with trusting innocent people who had no idea as to how the stories shared by them would be totally distorted to suit the deviant mentality of the researchers would be totally unacceptable to the IRBs. The researchers will be held to the standards of utmost integrity in making accurate observations that can be universally consensually validated and not just by their equally ill-informed peers. Imaginary or distorted "facts" and inferences and conclusions based on such "facts" would not be permitted to pass as "scientific" psychoanalytic research especially when such is deletarious to the members of the community and the community at large that is being studied for "research." It is amazing that the IRB's of these reputable Universities have not taken notice of such harm brought
to a single community by their unethical Indologists who call
themselves "researchers."
The question now is: Does it behoove the American Academy of Religion to
have members engage in such unethical damaging activity of sham scholarship and "spurious research" when the national trend is to respect diversity and promote deeper understanding among people with different cultures and religions?
HOW IS PSYCHOANALYSIS CONVERTED INTO EQUINE ELIMINATION BY WESTERN INDOLOGISTS?
WHY ARE THE LIKES OF WENDY DONIGER,PAUL COURTRIGHT, AND JEFFREY KRIPAL CONSIDERED FAKE?
by
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
There is a branch of psychoanalysis that is termed Applied Psychoanalysis.
Freud himself contributed to it by writing his extra-clinical literary
works that have become quite famous.
Many other famous psychoanalysts like Erik Erikson and his protégé
Sudhir Kakar have also taken liberty to exercise their talents in
this domain.
Common sense dictates that although this field is remotely connected
to the therapeutic aspects of psychoanalysis, only those who have the
authentic training and qualifications as psychoanalysts can truly delve
into this domain with some competence. For example, an "Applied Mathematician"
is necessarily an authentic "Mathematician" first.
In contrast to mathematics, psychoanalysis is viewed as only
a school of thought despite its practical value in the field of
psychology and psychiatry. Needless to say, over the years it has lost
its pride of place as a scientific discipline though efforts were made
to promote it as such.
Psychoanalysis has its legitimate uses but it is rarely used by
well trained reputable psychoanalysts themselves to analyze any
religion, highly revered spiritual leaders or religious mythology
in spite of earlier attempts by Freud himself. If they do so, their
training as psychoanalysts is quite transparent in the empathy for
the subject of their analysis and their respect for other human beings
in contrast to the wild analysis undertaken by the Western Indologists
most of whom are members of the faculty of Religious Studies departments
or their variations such as Departments of Sanskrit, or South Asian Studies,
etc.
Religion is viewed by psychoanalysis as a collective neurosis and this
concept is applicable to all religions. The practices of all religions
have a close connection with mainly the Obsessive Compulsive Neurosis.
One needs to have clinical training and experience to understand in depth
these collective neuroses and alleged neurosis in a living or deceased
individual spiritual leader.
The perversion of the Western Indologists in pretending to be applied
psychoanalysts can be viewed as resulting from 1) fundamentally a lack
of training as psychoanalysts, 2) a conscious or unconscious desire to
denigrate a religion foreign to them with no empathy for the practitioners
and their sentiments, and 3) their urge to use a “wild analysis” with projection of their own Unconscious upon the phenomena of Hindu religion (Devatas and Hindu scriptures, Hindu mythology, or Hindu Spiritual figures, etc.).
They lack the knowledge of Indian languages and nuances of certain words and
also lack thorough knowledge of Sanskrit at an advanced level, and culturally accepted meanings in the rich spiritual traditions of Hinduism, and therefore,
the entire field of "Hinduism" becomes as ambiguous to them as a Rorschach card
of the famous “Ink Blot Test.” What they project on Hinduism and Hindus
can be easily recognized as equine elimination springing from their
own past, their negative biases, and of course, their cultural background
and their own Unconscious. Such material is disguised as a product of
scholarship praised by their Western peers who lack the ability to
distinguish scholarly professional psychoanalytic interpretations
from subterfuge.
American Academy of Religion has no standing as a group of
psychoanalytic scholars. Most of the members of this academy
are themselves the sufferers of the collective or societal neuroses
as viewed and defined by Psychoanalysis. Therefore, they cannot be
objective in this matter of analysing their own or others'
religions or religion based mythology until they themsleves go
through a thorough and nearly complete analysis. In the event they
do so, if their analysis is successful, it is doubtful they will
will engage in such alloplastic activity of denigratingly analysing
others' religion or any longer remain active members of such academy
of a group of "neurotics" suffering from a collective neurosis as viewed by
psychoanalysts.
Simply speaking, it should be evident to astute readers bynow that the
academics in the departments of Religious Studies or Schools of
Divinity and those others who truly study and practice Psychoanalysis
mix as poorly as oil and water. In other words, trained psychoanalysts
may be competent in analysing religion related matters, but
scholars of religious studies with background in humanities are
hardly qualified to competently apply psychoanalytic concepts in any
human endeavour. They cannot be considered unbiased neutral observers.
Many erudite scholars in the West as well as the East have questioned
whether psychoanalysis has the right to interfere into fields that have
nothing to do with its specific realm of interest. Having recognized the controversy, however, it is quite apparent that many Western Indologists
thrive in the publication business by producing books designed to
sensationalize the field of comparative religion by depicting Hindu religion
as mostly pervert. They have meticulously avoided extensive scholarly review
and examination of their “applied psychoanalytic” works by authentic, well
trained psychoanalysts (except for giving a few small Publisher’s blips by
Sudhir Kakar, used as a marketing tool).
These Western scholars like Wendy Doniger, Paul Courtright,and Jeffrey Kripal,
etc., claiming to be Freudians are quite timid when it comes to exercising
their talents in interpreting Christianity, Islam, and Judaism using
the same methods they use in depicting "Hinduism." They avoid applying
boldly these wild and shoddy methods of their amateur psychoanalytic
interpretations to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in stark contrast to their foolhardiness in dealing with Hinduism and Hindus. Reasons for this are obvious
to all who are in touch with the current sociopolitical climate.
Besides, it does not require a scholar to detect the mocking and deriding
tone of these so called scholars who pose as objectively analysing other's
culture. Their use of highfloating academic scholarship cannot conceal the
mockery they make of other's cultures that is transparent to anyone. Most of
their Western readers giggle as they read their books and are quite amused and
take delight in the negative depiction of other's religions. Such mockery is
hardly limited to the fast and loose interpretations of the sexual or erotic symbolisms. The outrage of the Hindus in reaction to their works is erroneously dubbed with the same old hackneyed "explaining away" as their "resistance to accept the Unconsious sexuality" in the religious symbolism and mythology. Although such may be an apt observation occasionally, it is the bulldozing overpowering demeaning mockery of other's religious sentiments by berating their heroes, ego-ideals,spiritual and even their political leaders, and social customs, etc., that leads to the angy reactions to these authors' works. Psychonalysis is only a smokescreen used to divert the attention from the main agenda of these academics to engage others in polemics that are quite tangential to the main issue of mockery of everything others hold dear. That is hardly an admirable trait of a gentleman (lady) and a scholar in any culture.
There is no such demeaning treatment of any other religion besides Hiduism
by this cadre of American professors of religious studies, most of whom are
trained by Wendy Doniger. Ridiculing others under the banner of academic
freedom and freedom of speech has become their favorite sport.
No Hindu would object to their writings if they were truly academic,
dignified and authentic scholarly acitivities sans the ridicule.
This leads to a natural conclusion that, unqualified as they are, they all
are using applied psychoanalysis as a sham and not truly as a scholarly tool
to elucidate and develop any deeper understanding of Hindu religion. In fact, instead of "edification" their works are a form of abuse perpetrated by throwing aspersions at a foreign religion that they have failed to fully comprehend
in spite of their alleged claim to (fake) scholarship and authority on Hinduism
in the Western academia. Some of them have vast information about India and Hindu
sriptures and mythology but they utterly lack understanding of the Dharmic traditions and the symbolic meanings. Unfortunately, vast majority of Hindus themselves are also many a time quite ill-informed in this area.
Since their readership is mostly ignorant of psychoanalytic and applied psychoanalytic methods, as well as their subject of analysis (namely, Hinduism), they have been successful in perpetrating a perpetual grand scale fraud on their fans and their readership in the last twenty-five to thirty years. Their publishers are seduced, deceived, and corrupted by the demand for such pervert and often virtually pornographic material disguised as a product of "superior scholarship"
of renowned academicians. On closer examinations their works are often found to be lacking in academic integrity. (see other articles on this blog)
Besides that, these so called Indologists have a political agenda and are
generally clever to detect cleavages in the Hindu and Indian society to find a following and support. They also find some wellknown or not-so-wellknown individuals, with Hindu sounding names, as their admirers to market their books. Their publishers are knowingly or unknowlingly accessories to such fraud.
Academic freedom and freedom of speech are well known laxatives that facilitate
such equine elimination. It is seemingly becoming so very fragrant to the
publishers like Penguin Inc. and their Western readers now-a-days. There can
also be a large demand among Hindus as well as non-Hindus in one billion
population of India that can provide a market-share for such rubbish. Those
familiar with the political events in India can easily recognize why such Western Indologists will be welcomed by some Indians.
The reputable institutions of higher education like University of Chicago,
Harvard, Emory, and Rice in the U.S. are expected to scrutinize "research" undertaken by their faculty even in the Social Sciences through their respective IRB's to make sure that the human subject rights are protected especially when a single community is chosen for its subject. Any observations made need to be verified with consensual validation before any theory is built to interpet these observations through any research. Conclusions reached by analyzing some spurious observations that negatively affect the vulnerable community need to be scrutinized by the respective IRBs as invalid and ill-motivated products of faulty scholarchip. Most IRB's would not permit deception of the community or human subjects under the name of social science research. Non-disclosure of intent of research to the subjects or community as some of these researchers have engaged in during their stay in India mingling with trusting innocent people who had no idea as to how the stories shared by them would be totally distorted to suit the deviant mentality of the researchers would be totally unacceptable to the IRBs. The researchers will be held to the standards of utmost integrity in making accurate observations that can be universally consensually validated and not just by their equally ill-informed peers. Imaginary or distorted "facts" and inferences and conclusions based on such "facts" would not be permitted to pass as "scientific" psychoanalytic research especially when such is deletarious to the members of the community and the community at large that is being studied for "research." It is amazing that the IRB's of these reputable Universities have not taken notice of such harm brought
to a single community by their unethical Indologists who call
themselves "researchers."
The question now is: Does it behoove the American Academy of Religion to
have members engage in such unethical damaging activity of sham scholarship and "spurious research" when the national trend is to respect diversity and promote deeper understanding among people with different cultures and religions?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
EDUCATED GULLIBLE HINDUS GOING BACKWARD
HINDU YAJNYA & YAAGA DEBATE
REVIVING YAJNYAS IN MODERN AGE – DO WE NEED THEM? OR IS IT A SCAM?
by
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
Hindus are subject to a variety of scams in recent years, -for example, expensive yoga workshops are some 50 Billion Dollar enterprise. Of late, Yajnyas or Yaagas are recent addition to the scam. As the Indian population in the West is increasingly prosperous, these scams have spread to offshore from India. We like to examine the Yaagas promoted in the U.S. I received recently from Atlanta Temple an announcement of Koti (crore) Kunkum Archana for Lakshmi, spanning several days, a yajnya that was budgeted for several hundred thousand dollars. Similarly there were two Yajnyas in New Jersey recently, with the participation of at least 100 priests, one of which was conducted by Jeer Swami.
While I do not know the format of New Jersey show, I received as donor detailed format of a third Yajnya in Atlanta, which was an offering to Lakshmi by incantation of Shree Sukta. Yaaga “fire” (Agni) would carry the message to Lakshmi. The implication is that this ritual is more effective than prayer offered to Lakshmi individually or in groups as we do in temples ; and every day by women at dusk after lighting the lamp (in India) and praise Lakshmi as lokaika deepankuram or of Varalakshmi Vratam, a special ritual annually performed by many devoted Hindu women. In addition to priests in this country, the New Jersey folks have imported a few from India from different groups including a few from Jeer Swami’s sect, not to deny the slot in the show, a politically wise move.
REVIVAL OF YAJNYAS IS A SCAM
Yajnyaas are antiquated practices in Hinduism for several centuries. They were performed by Hindus in Vedic times when there were no temples. Occasionally the ritual was performed by Vedic scholars in some towns as in my native village which I witnessed several years ago. Usually they are somayaajis, custodians of Vedic tradition. Yajnya starts with a simple hole (a pit) in the ground, with bricks arranged around it and fire generated by rubbing two pieces of wood as the Man initially made the fire at the dawn of human civilization. The ritual proceeds with chanting of Vedic Mantras for several days.
There were several types of Yajnyaas, Ashwamedha where a horse was sacrificed, even Naramedha where a human being was sacrificed which appeared to have been abandoned later (many centuries or millennia ago.) However, V.S. Naipaul mentions that Naramedha was practiced in Vijay Nagara Empire, usually before the start of military campaign. Goutama Buddha spent his life time opposing the animal sacrifice in Yajnyas. In response to Muslim challenge to idolatry by Hindus, Swami Dayaananda Saraswati started Arya Samaaj and revived Yajnyaas in a modern form, but as a substitute to Image worship. The implication is that mental worship (maanasica puja) without a statue is superior. . The practice of Yajnya still prevailed in the courts of Hindu kings, who alone could afford the expensive ritual.The King Chintamala continued yajnyaas at the same time as the Great Buddhist Nagaarjuna was in his court attracting worldwide attention. It was a matter of prestige for the king to perform them.
Bhagavad Gita makes reference to such vain glorious people (Aadhyo abhijanavanosmi, konyosti mayaa sadruSa yaskshye dasyaami, etc.) meaning that “I am from a great family, I perform Yajnyaas and give great gifts, who is equal to me," so they say (paraphrased). Such people go to “hell—a foul hell.” The pattern is similar to the boastful people who brag that they have given Million Dollar crown for God Balaji! One yaaga called Satra yaaga used to be performed for 360 days! Priest used to perform Jyotistoma yaaga for the defeat and death of the enemy before the king went on military adventures.
Fortunately that was all in the very remote past.
With the influence of Buddhism and Jainism (circa 500 BCE), the Yajnyas became outdated. When the new tribes from Central Asia settled in Rajasthan, according to Vivekananda, the priests anointed them as Kshatriyas (Khatris) and revived the Yajnyas.
THEOLOGY OF YAJNYAS
According to the “shaastra” definition of Yajnya, only Brahmins, Vaishyaas and Kshatriyaas are allowed to perform Yajnya, Shudraas are forbidden. There are five Yajnyaas, listed as Panch Mahaa Yajnyaas to be performed by them. Agnihotra, Pitru, Deva, Rishi and Bhuta yajnyaas. Aitareya Brahmana says a man is born with three debts, “Pitru, Rishi, and Deva” (riNas). There are demigods “up there” (not very dissimilar concept than the ‘father in heaven’ but instead of one there may be many) and by doing yajnya offering they will be pleased and provide for your needs. (Oral Roberts in Tulsa, Oklahoma, burns the letters by the devotees on the top floor of his towering building to send the prayers and devotee’s wishes directly to Him in the smoke.) (So though this concept is age old and is still extant even in the U.S.) Early “Aryans” seemed to be patriarchal and ignored Matru Yajnya for mothers, reminding us of the current Islamic terrorists who believe in 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven if they die of Jihad. Which heaven do their mothers, sisters, and women they loved go to? Of course, they are too violent even to sport such questions with a sense of humor.
References to karma kaanda in Gita:Contrary to the central message of Gita, some of the Vedic ritualistic message crept into Gita, for example,
Devaan Bhaavayataanena te devaah bhaavayantuvah /parasparam bhaava yantahshreyh paramaapyadha. Gita 111 ,11) ‘You worship gods and they in turn are pleased to help you in a mutual stance’.
There is this give and take between these demigods and humans! As the concept of one God, “Ishwara,” developed the importance of these rituals diminished. If the grace of “One God” (Ishwara) is bestowed on us we need not worship these demi gods.
Some of the verses in Bhagavad Gita represent denouncement of the primitive Karma Kanda of Vedas and some perhaps later additions which are difficult to reconcile with the central theme of Gitopanishad. For instance the verse that says:
Annaat Bhavanti Bhootani……Parjanyaat Annasambhavah Yajnyaat Bhavati Parjanyo ( GIta 1V, 14): That rain comes only as the priests perform Yaaga is patently absurd and defies common sense. (Here we must note that the words, Agni and Yajnya, are likely to have cosmological meanings related to transformations which are perpetual in the Universe, and therefore, transforation from ocean water to clouds, and from the clouds to rain, is in itself a yajnya in the Universe which does not require mediation by any priest). Worshiping demigods did not come from Upanishads which are the source for Gita but from the notorious Manu to whom the origin of this quote was attributed. According to Manu the shudras -the fourth ranking caste- is forbidden from performing Yajnaas. Manu’s treatise “Manusmriti” was seen to be discarded by many modern Hindu reformists in the 19th and 20th Century. Some secularists even burnt the book in the public. (See the article on theoretical basis of caste by this author in www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com)
Essence of Gita is totally opposed to the Vedic ritual of karma kaanda is well illustrated. For example:
Yaam imaam pushpitam vaachyam pravadant yavipaschitah
Vedvaadarataah Paartha nanyadasti iti vaadinah, (Gita, 2: 42 also verse 44, 45 and 46) “The ignorant souls, the Veda adherents speak in flowering words. They argue there is nothing greater (than Vedic Karma kandaas).”
Also, Bhogaiswarya prasaktaanaam taya-apahritachetasaam…..vyavasaayatmika buddhihi samaadhau na vidheyate. Misguided people (apahrita chetasaam) follow the practice of Vedic rituals for heavenly pleasures. Lord Krishna admonishes not to follow this path. Also,
“Traigunya vishayaa vedaah, Nistraigunya bhavaarjuna.” Vedas are of materialistic concern,. “Arjuna, you should go beyond materialist concerns” (become trigunaateeta). Why is there a need for Vedic rituals for a person who has achieved the state of Brahman. (Yavaanardha udapaane samplodake thavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmane vijaanataah ) Vedas are just only as useful as small wells of waters when knowledge of Brahman is comparable to large flood allover: where is the need for small puddles?
Lord Krishna admonishes not to be distracted by diverse ways of conflicting scripture (shruti vipratipanna) since the message of Gita is straight forward. He advocates (Jnyanaagni dagdha karmanaam). Sacrifice all the karmas in the fire of knowledge and intellect; further reinforces that he is showing the way by saying:
Aham Kraturaham, Yajnyah swadharmaaham –aushadam, mantroham eva aajyam ahamagnir aham hutam. I am the source, means, and goal of Yajnya. Final summation of Gita is in the shloka: ‘Sarvadharmaan parityajya Maamekam sharanam vraja /aham twaam sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah.’ “Abandon all the dharmas (meaning dharmic rituals like aahnikas). Take refuge only in me, I will free you from all sins and do not grieve.” Raamaanujaachaarya regarded this as final message in Gita (charana shloka) and nothing need be said after this.
With this clear message on karma kaanda, how did the Gita commentators reconcile this with performing Yajnyaas? Simply they didn’t. Either they ignored the subject or in other words trashed it out. Here are a few examples.
Radhakrishnan calls it Vedic Cult, which he referred to in his other works as primitive.
Aurobindo Ghosh dismissed them as obsolete.
Bhakti Vedaanta Prabhupaada called for different interpretation of yajnya as Naama Yajnya or Sankirtana Yajnya. Here is another attempt to redefine Yajnya without abnegating the scriptures.
Kashmiri Shaivite scholar Abhinava Gupta (Gitaartha Sangraha) interpreted Devaas as Indriyaas (sense organs) and they should be satisfied following Kashmiri Shiva tantra. In short there is no merit in advocating worship of several Gods through Yajnyaas, especially when Lord Krishna says that he is the source, means, and enjoyer of all yajnyas! {Also see interpretation of the word "deva" in another article on this blog: Instant Ramayana and Mahabharata (Part II)}
Hinduism outpaced Vedic culture of Yaagas at one level and Shakti puja in her terrible form later at another level and was superseded by Upanishadic thoughts. Yajnyaas were replaced by Aagama shaastras, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakti tantra and Buddhist Aagamas. But old habits rarely die. Ritwiks still practiced into the modern times occasionally, if they find someone to sponsor them. In my village in Andhra, Somayajee performed a few times Yajnya which I had occasion to witness. The animal sacrifice (Jantu bali) was horrific. The goat or ram was choked by closing all outlets (nava randhras) and the diaphragm removed and fried on a bush for prasaadam. It was a yajnya for bringing rain! Of course, it did rain –seasonally!
The animal sacrifice is elaborate in Yajnyaas, but essentially not much different in folk practice of offering buffalo heads to village deity, with this difference; the ax wielding man would cut the head with one blow, a more act of killing an animal... Aarya samaaj of Dayaananda Saraswati has done great service in stopping this barbaric practice. The latest version is the Yajnya without Bhuta Bali (animal sacrifice); but the theme is the same of offering services to demigods, or any God abnegating the Agamas. The priest is telling he would perform this rite at an enormous cost in place of temple worship or other forms of worship. Prahlaada enumerated nine forms of divine worship (Nava vidha Bhakti)none through yaagas. Bhakti is no use to the yaagic and yaagnic priests. The ritual overrides other forms of worship. Hence it is so primitive and antiquated.
What is wrong in reviving the Vedic cults?
First of all, people are told to believe that God is directly accessible only to the priest by chanting the Sanskrit mantras and that this form of worship is superior to daily worship in temples. Since most, including Brahmins have no access to the process; the priest is an Intermediate between God and disciple or devotee. You beget grace of God through the mediation of the priest- very similar to medieval papal selling of certificates to heaven. Secondly, the Shudraas, who are bulk of Hindu population, are disqualified in partaking in the process. They give the money to the priests; that is the extent of their participation. Thirdly, they revive the fundamentalism of primitive worship of throwing everything in fire at an enormous expense- engaging hundreds priest, stationed and supported for weeks, sapping the much needed resources collected for the temples and other Hindu cultural activities. It only enforces the priestly tyranny as in the old Catholic Church. This is the height of priestly superiority and deception of the gullible Hindus, other non-priest Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike.
While retaining the concept of sacrifice as central to Yajnya, later scholars try to differentiate offering of material (dravya Yajnya) from offering of respect by other means like acquisition of knowledge as Jnyana yajnya (here again the meaning of “yajnya” becomes clear as related to transformation by acquiring knowledge). Even simple offering of respect is a sacrifice as in offering to departed parents by chanting “shraddhaam juhomi”, I offer my respect. The genius of Hindutva is to reconcile various traditions without undue discard, harmonizing of different traditions without sacrificing centrality of Hindu culture.
Hinduism is a living progressive tradition called a "religion," if at all it fits the definition of religion as understood in the West. Starting with offerings to Indra through Yajnya, the concept that one God and only one God need be worshipped has been developed. Of course, there is always question of the nature of that one God. Hinduism is such an evolving "religion," even in Vedic literature by the time we come to eighth mandala, the existence of Indra was questioned. Bhagavad Puraana presented how Giridhari Krishna ridiculed Indra. By Bhakti and Yoga movements, Hinduism became YOGA PRADHAANA from YAJNYA PRADHAANA, emphasis being laid on Bhakti yoga, Jnyana yoga and Karma Yoga. To reconcile with the concept of Yajnya, jnyaana yajnya gained importance.
Let us examine the Yajnya of Jeer Swami in this light. Jeer Swami was famously known to have demanded that the Vikhanasa priests in Tirupati temple be replaced by the ones from his sect Pancharatna Aagama Vaishnavaas, obviously an extreme sectarian demand. Now he wanted to do Yajnya for the World Peace, a noble venture in the U.S. He should remember charity begins at home. But, there is something lacking in the universality of his followers. The priests he brought with him would not eat food cooked by non-Brahmins or Shudras; they demanded that they should be served food cooked only by Brahmins, a slap on the face of all shudraas or non-Brahmins who financed his venture. It is also an insult to the non-Brahmins who have donated to the temple which is organizing or allowing the ritual of yajnya to be performed in the temple created with the funds raised from non-Brahmins also. It is sad that these people have forgotten that Raamaanujaachaarya raised the “Panchamas” (untouchable) to the position of Alvars. Besides, as there is no test, - much less a DNA test, to determine them to be Brahmins in the U.S., caste is a self certification in the U.S. as also in India; we take their word for it. This form of “untouchability” ( the belief that the shudra defiles the sanctity of food by merely touching the cooking vessel!) is incomprehensible and a complete reversal of progress recently achieved even in S.V Temple at Tirupati in India where Panchamas (formerly untouchable caste or even casteless people) are inducted into priesthood by training them in Aagamas, the liturgical services. Such retrogression in the face of progressive social reforms in Jeer swami’s own alma mater, so to say, and bringing such untouchability among the Hindus in the U.S. is most definitely deplorable in the 21st Century.
In a temple in Oklahoma, one of the followers of Jeer swami once proclaimed that smoke from the offerings in the homa or yajnya goes directly to heaven as well as the entire chanting is also heard there and the devotees should chant louder. He was not abashed that he was talking to predominantly an audience of scientists (engineers and physicians) while he was implying that the noise breaks the atmospheric sound barriers and smoke penetrates the stratosphere! The offerings in yajnya are the materials consumed by Agni, and therefore, supposed to go to Gods, but not the waste products like smoke. Their "mentor and Guru" is not very far behind them in mixing science with fictional theology. On another occasion the same sophisticated audience was told by Jeer Swami that every cell in the body has Atman along with DNA and when a person dies, Atman leaves the body along with DNA from every cell. Not really. The hair follicles are active, growing the hair on the skin for some time after autopsy. No one asked about what happens to the DNA in heart used for transplants in heart transplant cases. Does recipient of another person’s heart has two separate Atmas? We give these people, who come from India to preach, our precious dollars but more importantly give them international prestige to market themselves in India as the "America returned world leaders of Hindutva". Instead there is a better way to serve the Hindus. Our temples probably have much to learn from the Christian Churches in their concepts and practices of "service" or "seva" of the community, the infirm, sick, aged, and children, orphans and the poor. Promoting Yajnyas and Yagaas by such "orthodox" priests in the U.S. will hold the temple authorities accountable to the rational donors who do not endorse such
discriminatory and insulting practices towards the sections of their donors and members of their community on the basis of their caste.
Hindus should spend more time and resources teaching and learning basic Sanskrit-that is all it takes, basic skills, to understand the mantras and shlokas to follow the rituals, instead of listening to some gibberish uttered by the priests for hours. When the ritwiks chant Vedic verses, the verses are usually beyond the comprehension of these priests themselves. As Jesus Mendelssohn, the great German Jewish philosopher once said, referring to unintelligible Hebrew incantations of his time, that one word uttered with comprehension of its meaning is better than thousand words which make no sense; in fact, it was Buddha who said this long before him, when he began preaching in Prakrit. Reading and memorizing and listening to Vedas without understanding are a hopeless burden. As the great Vedic commentator Saayanaachaarya wrote, such an effort to memorize and chant Vedas is like a donkey carrying the sandalwood; it only knows the weight but not its fragrance. So Hindus, of all ages, should make a serious effort to learn basic Sanskrit. For learning there is no age limit, as it is said “ajaraamaraat praajnyah vidyaam- aradhanata chintayet.” For wise, learning never ceases throughout life. Lifelong learning habits applied to learn Sanskrit will reduce the need for reliance on poorly trained and poorly educated “priests.” They are usually not Sanskrit pundits but have only memorized the chantings without learning their meaning even after 7 to 10 years of training (pathaantara) and must not be compared to PH.D.'s.or other erudite scholars. They have a pride of place in India but for the educated and enlightened population in the U.S. to be taken advantage of by such priests with some Hindus furthermore fearing that they will give shaapas to their critics if they are displeased is definitely adhering to superstition, going backward in our maturational process as Hindus.
In this context it is apt to recall the words of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:
“After a long winter of some centuries we are today in one of the creative periods of Hinduism.
There is much wood that is dead and diseased that has to be cleared away. The leaders of Hindu thought and practice are convinced that the times require, not surrendering the basic principles of Hinduism, but a restatement of them with special reference to the needs of more complex and mobile social order.”
Why didn’t Radhakrishnan elaborate on the dead and diseased wood of Hindutva? He was a politician and it was not politically correct to spell out the details. He thus left to us to discern, debate and decide and to wage the unpleasant battle, as it happened throughout history to reorganize and reorder the Hindu society not only in its diverse religious traditions, but also to enrich Hindu way of life to create a distinctive national character compositely called Hindutva, which in turn leads to harmonizing of diverse traditions into vibrant social organism called Hindu Society. It is incumbent on all Hindus to stop internal deterioration while spiritedly fighting external threats of proselytizing forces and the threats of dispirited anti-Hindu Hindus and the other hinduphobics. Educated and well informed Hindus in the U.S. have an obligation to enlighten the gullible among them so that their blind faith is not taken advantage of by misguided, or worse still, most likely sociopathic “priests” from India, and sinister yogis, fake Sanyaasis, and yagnics. Hindus can reform themselves and need to do so continuously and not just remain reactively defensive about criticism from outside their fold. There is a vast difference between well meaning sincere faith (Shraddhaa) and blind faith (Andha Shraddhaa)used to exploit people and who else but the educated Hindus are to be discrete in this domain? The temples supported by "secular" Hindus, that do not foster discrimination based on caste, even have more responsibility to delineate this difference and to discourage petty parochialism,
cults, "untouchability", and primitive superstition manifested recently in the U.S. in reviving Yajnyas and Yaagas.
** The author sincerely invites critique of this article. Please send comments to
seshachalamd@gmail.com
** The author sincerely invites critique of this article. Please send comments to
seshachalamd@gmail.com
Comments on:
Educated Gullible Hindus Going Backward: REVIVING YAJNYAS IN MODERN AGE – DO WE NEED THEM? OR IS IT A SCAM?
by Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
I was sent this posting by a friend, with a specific request to comment on a recent pooja at the Hindu Temple of Atlanta. I am a trustee of the temple and its immediate past president. My comments are based on my personal observation and are not the position of the temple. An officer of the temple may or may not choose to reply to the author’s statements.
I am saddened by the use of the word “scam” by the author, without any basis and implicating a respected institution like the Hindu Temple of Atlanta by name. I do not know the basis of the statements he made in regards to the temple and I do not know what the qualifications, knowledge, or scholarship of the author are that will give him the credibility to speak on behalf of the Hindu community. His long article that has many things thrown together under the headline that included the word “scam” is a disservice to Hindus worldwide, since this posting is searchable by any search engine.
I will comment on the author’s statement about yagnyas, yaagas and poojas being “scams” and will describe the process of decision making at our temple. I will not comment on the many other statements the author made on several other topics.
The word Scam conveys at least two things: deception and fraud.
Some current and recent examples of scams:
--Emails announcing that some one has won millions and tricking the gullible person into parting with money or personal financial information.
--The defrauding of investors by Bernie Madoff.
Examples of popular beliefs that are known to be untrue:
--The idea of Santa Claus and his marketing to children (and adults) for brisk christmas sales. The national economy is dependent on it! ? Scam
Examples of people making decisions, that are not financially smart:
--Bottled water (which is repeatedly shown to be no better than tap water)
--Buying a Lexus, when it is really a Camry, with some upgrades.
? Are these scams.
The author mentions his decision to donate money to an event (“I received as donor detailed format of a third Yajnya in Atlanta, which was an offering to Lakshmi by incantation of Shree Sukta. Yaaga “fire” (Agni) would carry the message to Lakshmi. The implication is that this ritual is more effective than prayer offered to Lakshmi individually or in groups as we do in temples…”)
He (the author) made a decision to purchase a service, presumably he believed in the validity of the yagnya. It will be similar to buying a Lexus, instead of a Camry. But that is his choice. There is no deceit and fraud, and therefore, no scam.
Koti Kumkumarchana at the Hindu Temple of Atlanta:
The Hindu Temple of Atlanta has been serving the religious and spiritual needs of the community for over 25 years. Hindus, regardless of their caste, constitute the congregation, and are welcome at the temple. Administrative decisions are made by a duly elected executive committee, with an oversight provided by the board of trustees.
I was the Vice-President of the temple in 2006, when the proposal for Koti Kumkuma Archana was first presented to me by a group of devotees and trustees of the temple. A respected priest, who is very knowledgeable in the procedure and the work involved and who was visiting our temple at that time, met with me separately and gave me details of what is involved. I gave that information to the then president and again reviewed the proposal during my presidency. Due to the costs, logistics and the manpower needs, as well as other priorties during my term, I did not pursue the project.
When my successor executive committee took office, the proposal was again presented to the president. She discussed the issue with her pooja committee, several devotees and trustees and presented the proposal to the full executive committee. A draft budget was preprared and the executive committee voted on the proposal and approved it. It then went to the Board of Trustees, where the issue was fully discussed and after considerable debate and deliberations, the board of trustees approved the project, with guidelines for budget and fund raising in place to support the event. Then, the president, the chair of the pooja committee and other core group members worked for nine months so that the 100 day event could be successfully completed.
The Hindu Temple of Atlanta is an organization supported by voluntary contributions. There is no annual membership fee. No one is required to pay any money to visit the temple and have a Darshan or participate in any event organized by the temple. Thousands of devotees attended the 100 day event without making any financial contribution towards this event. They all appreciated the dedication of the volunteers and understood the knowledge and scholarship of the visiting priests. The trustees and executive committee members who organized the event donated the bulk of funds needed for this undertaking. There was no personal gain to any of them.
The guest priests who came from India are individuals who spent more than a decade or so of their lives ( 7-12 years) learning the Vedas, the liturgy and ritual of the religion and its observance both at home and at a public place like the temple. They made sacrifices to become good at what they do. One may not agree with what they have learnt or say, but nonetheless they are scholars in their chosen field of knowledge, much like a person who earns a Ph.D in a rare field such as Mayan civilizatiion or becomes a Latin scholar. These priests and that PhD are not rich but certainly they are not frauds.
I now return to the premise of the author that revival of Yagnya is a scam.
I do not see how one can intelligently come to that conclusion or make a public statement using the example of the Hindu Temple of Atlanta or any similar institution. Every person has the freedom to believe in what he or she chooses and spend money however he or she chooses.
Hinduism, like all religions, has its dark spots and it is ostracized for its faults more than any other faith and not given credit for what is rightfully its contribution to world knowledge and tradition. Yoga is a good example of such an attempt. In such a hostile environment, it is the responsibility of those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of Hindus, to be very careful about what they say.
I hope that this will be posted as a reply to the blog, so that readers will have an opportunity to read a counter point.
P. Ravi Sarma, MD
Atlanta, GA
A response to Ravi Sarma, M.D.’s critique of Dr. Seshachalam Dutta’s article
By
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
A few material corrections of the critic should be addressed at the outset...
1) I did not donate to the yajnya but only to the temple last year
2) I did not include puja along with Yajnya.
3) I do not speak for Hindu community, but only for myself.
Once we clear these errors, I would not question Dr. Ravi Sarma’s ‘qualifications, knowledge and scholarship’: in so doing we will reduce the debate to undignified ad hominem argument, unfit for civil discourse.
Dr. Sarma’s main contention is the use of the word scam to describe the revival of expensive and grand scale yajnyas. Scam is indeed a fraud, deceit, misleading action or a gimmick, which can be illegal and punishable by law. In matters of religious or faith based activities, fraud escapes the law for example, to sell tickets to Moon, knowing full well that the travel cannot be delivered, is a fraud and the seller may go to jail. Selling tickets to Heaven, it is also a fraud, never-the-less, not punishable by law; although, the seller may go to Hell!! Evangelists do that all the time, but the Ritviks seem to have a taken a leaf out of them. My observation of the Hindu priests is generalization, not pertaining only specifically to those who came to Atlanta. My question is: Irrespective of their unproven but presumed scholarship, can they be allowed to practice untouchability in this country? Even that, in temples that have collected money from non-Brahmins donors also?
The critic’s defense of Yoga merchants is puzzling. Here, he, as an M.D., is eminently qualified to make a judgment. Swami Nityananda , Baba Ramdev and even other less prominent Yoga publicists promise to cure cancer and diabetes (cure—not control!), among other illnesses, through yoga! I wish Indian Physicians have the courage to stop this nonsense. Even AAPI should expose these quacks. Unfortunately, on the contrary, AAPI went on the limb by hosting the ignoble Nityananda at their Dallas conference giving him an undue prominence as a “healer” recognized by AAPI.
.
REVIVING YAJNYAS IN MODERN AGE – DO WE NEED THEM? OR IS IT A SCAM?
by
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
Hindus are subject to a variety of scams in recent years, -for example, expensive yoga workshops are some 50 Billion Dollar enterprise. Of late, Yajnyas or Yaagas are recent addition to the scam. As the Indian population in the West is increasingly prosperous, these scams have spread to offshore from India. We like to examine the Yaagas promoted in the U.S. I received recently from Atlanta Temple an announcement of Koti (crore) Kunkum Archana for Lakshmi, spanning several days, a yajnya that was budgeted for several hundred thousand dollars. Similarly there were two Yajnyas in New Jersey recently, with the participation of at least 100 priests, one of which was conducted by Jeer Swami.
While I do not know the format of New Jersey show, I received as donor detailed format of a third Yajnya in Atlanta, which was an offering to Lakshmi by incantation of Shree Sukta. Yaaga “fire” (Agni) would carry the message to Lakshmi. The implication is that this ritual is more effective than prayer offered to Lakshmi individually or in groups as we do in temples ; and every day by women at dusk after lighting the lamp (in India) and praise Lakshmi as lokaika deepankuram or of Varalakshmi Vratam, a special ritual annually performed by many devoted Hindu women. In addition to priests in this country, the New Jersey folks have imported a few from India from different groups including a few from Jeer Swami’s sect, not to deny the slot in the show, a politically wise move.
REVIVAL OF YAJNYAS IS A SCAM
Yajnyaas are antiquated practices in Hinduism for several centuries. They were performed by Hindus in Vedic times when there were no temples. Occasionally the ritual was performed by Vedic scholars in some towns as in my native village which I witnessed several years ago. Usually they are somayaajis, custodians of Vedic tradition. Yajnya starts with a simple hole (a pit) in the ground, with bricks arranged around it and fire generated by rubbing two pieces of wood as the Man initially made the fire at the dawn of human civilization. The ritual proceeds with chanting of Vedic Mantras for several days.
There were several types of Yajnyaas, Ashwamedha where a horse was sacrificed, even Naramedha where a human being was sacrificed which appeared to have been abandoned later (many centuries or millennia ago.) However, V.S. Naipaul mentions that Naramedha was practiced in Vijay Nagara Empire, usually before the start of military campaign. Goutama Buddha spent his life time opposing the animal sacrifice in Yajnyas. In response to Muslim challenge to idolatry by Hindus, Swami Dayaananda Saraswati started Arya Samaaj and revived Yajnyaas in a modern form, but as a substitute to Image worship. The implication is that mental worship (maanasica puja) without a statue is superior. . The practice of Yajnya still prevailed in the courts of Hindu kings, who alone could afford the expensive ritual.The King Chintamala continued yajnyaas at the same time as the Great Buddhist Nagaarjuna was in his court attracting worldwide attention. It was a matter of prestige for the king to perform them.
Bhagavad Gita makes reference to such vain glorious people (Aadhyo abhijanavanosmi, konyosti mayaa sadruSa yaskshye dasyaami, etc.) meaning that “I am from a great family, I perform Yajnyaas and give great gifts, who is equal to me," so they say (paraphrased). Such people go to “hell—a foul hell.” The pattern is similar to the boastful people who brag that they have given Million Dollar crown for God Balaji! One yaaga called Satra yaaga used to be performed for 360 days! Priest used to perform Jyotistoma yaaga for the defeat and death of the enemy before the king went on military adventures.
Fortunately that was all in the very remote past.
With the influence of Buddhism and Jainism (circa 500 BCE), the Yajnyas became outdated. When the new tribes from Central Asia settled in Rajasthan, according to Vivekananda, the priests anointed them as Kshatriyas (Khatris) and revived the Yajnyas.
THEOLOGY OF YAJNYAS
According to the “shaastra” definition of Yajnya, only Brahmins, Vaishyaas and Kshatriyaas are allowed to perform Yajnya, Shudraas are forbidden. There are five Yajnyaas, listed as Panch Mahaa Yajnyaas to be performed by them. Agnihotra, Pitru, Deva, Rishi and Bhuta yajnyaas. Aitareya Brahmana says a man is born with three debts, “Pitru, Rishi, and Deva” (riNas). There are demigods “up there” (not very dissimilar concept than the ‘father in heaven’ but instead of one there may be many) and by doing yajnya offering they will be pleased and provide for your needs. (Oral Roberts in Tulsa, Oklahoma, burns the letters by the devotees on the top floor of his towering building to send the prayers and devotee’s wishes directly to Him in the smoke.) (So though this concept is age old and is still extant even in the U.S.) Early “Aryans” seemed to be patriarchal and ignored Matru Yajnya for mothers, reminding us of the current Islamic terrorists who believe in 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven if they die of Jihad. Which heaven do their mothers, sisters, and women they loved go to? Of course, they are too violent even to sport such questions with a sense of humor.
References to karma kaanda in Gita:Contrary to the central message of Gita, some of the Vedic ritualistic message crept into Gita, for example,
Devaan Bhaavayataanena te devaah bhaavayantuvah /parasparam bhaava yantahshreyh paramaapyadha. Gita 111 ,11) ‘You worship gods and they in turn are pleased to help you in a mutual stance’.
There is this give and take between these demigods and humans! As the concept of one God, “Ishwara,” developed the importance of these rituals diminished. If the grace of “One God” (Ishwara) is bestowed on us we need not worship these demi gods.
Some of the verses in Bhagavad Gita represent denouncement of the primitive Karma Kanda of Vedas and some perhaps later additions which are difficult to reconcile with the central theme of Gitopanishad. For instance the verse that says:
Annaat Bhavanti Bhootani……Parjanyaat Annasambhavah Yajnyaat Bhavati Parjanyo ( GIta 1V, 14): That rain comes only as the priests perform Yaaga is patently absurd and defies common sense. (Here we must note that the words, Agni and Yajnya, are likely to have cosmological meanings related to transformations which are perpetual in the Universe, and therefore, transforation from ocean water to clouds, and from the clouds to rain, is in itself a yajnya in the Universe which does not require mediation by any priest). Worshiping demigods did not come from Upanishads which are the source for Gita but from the notorious Manu to whom the origin of this quote was attributed. According to Manu the shudras -the fourth ranking caste- is forbidden from performing Yajnaas. Manu’s treatise “Manusmriti” was seen to be discarded by many modern Hindu reformists in the 19th and 20th Century. Some secularists even burnt the book in the public. (See the article on theoretical basis of caste by this author in www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com)
Essence of Gita is totally opposed to the Vedic ritual of karma kaanda is well illustrated. For example:
Yaam imaam pushpitam vaachyam pravadant yavipaschitah
Vedvaadarataah Paartha nanyadasti iti vaadinah, (Gita, 2: 42 also verse 44, 45 and 46) “The ignorant souls, the Veda adherents speak in flowering words. They argue there is nothing greater (than Vedic Karma kandaas).”
Also, Bhogaiswarya prasaktaanaam taya-apahritachetasaam…..vyavasaayatmika buddhihi samaadhau na vidheyate. Misguided people (apahrita chetasaam) follow the practice of Vedic rituals for heavenly pleasures. Lord Krishna admonishes not to follow this path. Also,
“Traigunya vishayaa vedaah, Nistraigunya bhavaarjuna.” Vedas are of materialistic concern,. “Arjuna, you should go beyond materialist concerns” (become trigunaateeta). Why is there a need for Vedic rituals for a person who has achieved the state of Brahman. (Yavaanardha udapaane samplodake thavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmane vijaanataah ) Vedas are just only as useful as small wells of waters when knowledge of Brahman is comparable to large flood allover: where is the need for small puddles?
Lord Krishna admonishes not to be distracted by diverse ways of conflicting scripture (shruti vipratipanna) since the message of Gita is straight forward. He advocates (Jnyanaagni dagdha karmanaam). Sacrifice all the karmas in the fire of knowledge and intellect; further reinforces that he is showing the way by saying:
Aham Kraturaham, Yajnyah swadharmaaham –aushadam, mantroham eva aajyam ahamagnir aham hutam. I am the source, means, and goal of Yajnya. Final summation of Gita is in the shloka: ‘Sarvadharmaan parityajya Maamekam sharanam vraja /aham twaam sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah.’ “Abandon all the dharmas (meaning dharmic rituals like aahnikas). Take refuge only in me, I will free you from all sins and do not grieve.” Raamaanujaachaarya regarded this as final message in Gita (charana shloka) and nothing need be said after this.
With this clear message on karma kaanda, how did the Gita commentators reconcile this with performing Yajnyaas? Simply they didn’t. Either they ignored the subject or in other words trashed it out. Here are a few examples.
Radhakrishnan calls it Vedic Cult, which he referred to in his other works as primitive.
Aurobindo Ghosh dismissed them as obsolete.
Bhakti Vedaanta Prabhupaada called for different interpretation of yajnya as Naama Yajnya or Sankirtana Yajnya. Here is another attempt to redefine Yajnya without abnegating the scriptures.
Kashmiri Shaivite scholar Abhinava Gupta (Gitaartha Sangraha) interpreted Devaas as Indriyaas (sense organs) and they should be satisfied following Kashmiri Shiva tantra. In short there is no merit in advocating worship of several Gods through Yajnyaas, especially when Lord Krishna says that he is the source, means, and enjoyer of all yajnyas! {Also see interpretation of the word "deva" in another article on this blog: Instant Ramayana and Mahabharata (Part II)}
Hinduism outpaced Vedic culture of Yaagas at one level and Shakti puja in her terrible form later at another level and was superseded by Upanishadic thoughts. Yajnyaas were replaced by Aagama shaastras, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakti tantra and Buddhist Aagamas. But old habits rarely die. Ritwiks still practiced into the modern times occasionally, if they find someone to sponsor them. In my village in Andhra, Somayajee performed a few times Yajnya which I had occasion to witness. The animal sacrifice (Jantu bali) was horrific. The goat or ram was choked by closing all outlets (nava randhras) and the diaphragm removed and fried on a bush for prasaadam. It was a yajnya for bringing rain! Of course, it did rain –seasonally!
The animal sacrifice is elaborate in Yajnyaas, but essentially not much different in folk practice of offering buffalo heads to village deity, with this difference; the ax wielding man would cut the head with one blow, a more act of killing an animal... Aarya samaaj of Dayaananda Saraswati has done great service in stopping this barbaric practice. The latest version is the Yajnya without Bhuta Bali (animal sacrifice); but the theme is the same of offering services to demigods, or any God abnegating the Agamas. The priest is telling he would perform this rite at an enormous cost in place of temple worship or other forms of worship. Prahlaada enumerated nine forms of divine worship (Nava vidha Bhakti)none through yaagas. Bhakti is no use to the yaagic and yaagnic priests. The ritual overrides other forms of worship. Hence it is so primitive and antiquated.
What is wrong in reviving the Vedic cults?
First of all, people are told to believe that God is directly accessible only to the priest by chanting the Sanskrit mantras and that this form of worship is superior to daily worship in temples. Since most, including Brahmins have no access to the process; the priest is an Intermediate between God and disciple or devotee. You beget grace of God through the mediation of the priest- very similar to medieval papal selling of certificates to heaven. Secondly, the Shudraas, who are bulk of Hindu population, are disqualified in partaking in the process. They give the money to the priests; that is the extent of their participation. Thirdly, they revive the fundamentalism of primitive worship of throwing everything in fire at an enormous expense- engaging hundreds priest, stationed and supported for weeks, sapping the much needed resources collected for the temples and other Hindu cultural activities. It only enforces the priestly tyranny as in the old Catholic Church. This is the height of priestly superiority and deception of the gullible Hindus, other non-priest Brahmins and non-Brahmins alike.
While retaining the concept of sacrifice as central to Yajnya, later scholars try to differentiate offering of material (dravya Yajnya) from offering of respect by other means like acquisition of knowledge as Jnyana yajnya (here again the meaning of “yajnya” becomes clear as related to transformation by acquiring knowledge). Even simple offering of respect is a sacrifice as in offering to departed parents by chanting “shraddhaam juhomi”, I offer my respect. The genius of Hindutva is to reconcile various traditions without undue discard, harmonizing of different traditions without sacrificing centrality of Hindu culture.
Hinduism is a living progressive tradition called a "religion," if at all it fits the definition of religion as understood in the West. Starting with offerings to Indra through Yajnya, the concept that one God and only one God need be worshipped has been developed. Of course, there is always question of the nature of that one God. Hinduism is such an evolving "religion," even in Vedic literature by the time we come to eighth mandala, the existence of Indra was questioned. Bhagavad Puraana presented how Giridhari Krishna ridiculed Indra. By Bhakti and Yoga movements, Hinduism became YOGA PRADHAANA from YAJNYA PRADHAANA, emphasis being laid on Bhakti yoga, Jnyana yoga and Karma Yoga. To reconcile with the concept of Yajnya, jnyaana yajnya gained importance.
Let us examine the Yajnya of Jeer Swami in this light. Jeer Swami was famously known to have demanded that the Vikhanasa priests in Tirupati temple be replaced by the ones from his sect Pancharatna Aagama Vaishnavaas, obviously an extreme sectarian demand. Now he wanted to do Yajnya for the World Peace, a noble venture in the U.S. He should remember charity begins at home. But, there is something lacking in the universality of his followers. The priests he brought with him would not eat food cooked by non-Brahmins or Shudras; they demanded that they should be served food cooked only by Brahmins, a slap on the face of all shudraas or non-Brahmins who financed his venture. It is also an insult to the non-Brahmins who have donated to the temple which is organizing or allowing the ritual of yajnya to be performed in the temple created with the funds raised from non-Brahmins also. It is sad that these people have forgotten that Raamaanujaachaarya raised the “Panchamas” (untouchable) to the position of Alvars. Besides, as there is no test, - much less a DNA test, to determine them to be Brahmins in the U.S., caste is a self certification in the U.S. as also in India; we take their word for it. This form of “untouchability” ( the belief that the shudra defiles the sanctity of food by merely touching the cooking vessel!) is incomprehensible and a complete reversal of progress recently achieved even in S.V Temple at Tirupati in India where Panchamas (formerly untouchable caste or even casteless people) are inducted into priesthood by training them in Aagamas, the liturgical services. Such retrogression in the face of progressive social reforms in Jeer swami’s own alma mater, so to say, and bringing such untouchability among the Hindus in the U.S. is most definitely deplorable in the 21st Century.
In a temple in Oklahoma, one of the followers of Jeer swami once proclaimed that smoke from the offerings in the homa or yajnya goes directly to heaven as well as the entire chanting is also heard there and the devotees should chant louder. He was not abashed that he was talking to predominantly an audience of scientists (engineers and physicians) while he was implying that the noise breaks the atmospheric sound barriers and smoke penetrates the stratosphere! The offerings in yajnya are the materials consumed by Agni, and therefore, supposed to go to Gods, but not the waste products like smoke. Their "mentor and Guru" is not very far behind them in mixing science with fictional theology. On another occasion the same sophisticated audience was told by Jeer Swami that every cell in the body has Atman along with DNA and when a person dies, Atman leaves the body along with DNA from every cell. Not really. The hair follicles are active, growing the hair on the skin for some time after autopsy. No one asked about what happens to the DNA in heart used for transplants in heart transplant cases. Does recipient of another person’s heart has two separate Atmas? We give these people, who come from India to preach, our precious dollars but more importantly give them international prestige to market themselves in India as the "America returned world leaders of Hindutva". Instead there is a better way to serve the Hindus. Our temples probably have much to learn from the Christian Churches in their concepts and practices of "service" or "seva" of the community, the infirm, sick, aged, and children, orphans and the poor. Promoting Yajnyas and Yagaas by such "orthodox" priests in the U.S. will hold the temple authorities accountable to the rational donors who do not endorse such
discriminatory and insulting practices towards the sections of their donors and members of their community on the basis of their caste.
Hindus should spend more time and resources teaching and learning basic Sanskrit-that is all it takes, basic skills, to understand the mantras and shlokas to follow the rituals, instead of listening to some gibberish uttered by the priests for hours. When the ritwiks chant Vedic verses, the verses are usually beyond the comprehension of these priests themselves. As Jesus Mendelssohn, the great German Jewish philosopher once said, referring to unintelligible Hebrew incantations of his time, that one word uttered with comprehension of its meaning is better than thousand words which make no sense; in fact, it was Buddha who said this long before him, when he began preaching in Prakrit. Reading and memorizing and listening to Vedas without understanding are a hopeless burden. As the great Vedic commentator Saayanaachaarya wrote, such an effort to memorize and chant Vedas is like a donkey carrying the sandalwood; it only knows the weight but not its fragrance. So Hindus, of all ages, should make a serious effort to learn basic Sanskrit. For learning there is no age limit, as it is said “ajaraamaraat praajnyah vidyaam- aradhanata chintayet.” For wise, learning never ceases throughout life. Lifelong learning habits applied to learn Sanskrit will reduce the need for reliance on poorly trained and poorly educated “priests.” They are usually not Sanskrit pundits but have only memorized the chantings without learning their meaning even after 7 to 10 years of training (pathaantara) and must not be compared to PH.D.'s.or other erudite scholars. They have a pride of place in India but for the educated and enlightened population in the U.S. to be taken advantage of by such priests with some Hindus furthermore fearing that they will give shaapas to their critics if they are displeased is definitely adhering to superstition, going backward in our maturational process as Hindus.
In this context it is apt to recall the words of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:
“After a long winter of some centuries we are today in one of the creative periods of Hinduism.
There is much wood that is dead and diseased that has to be cleared away. The leaders of Hindu thought and practice are convinced that the times require, not surrendering the basic principles of Hinduism, but a restatement of them with special reference to the needs of more complex and mobile social order.”
Why didn’t Radhakrishnan elaborate on the dead and diseased wood of Hindutva? He was a politician and it was not politically correct to spell out the details. He thus left to us to discern, debate and decide and to wage the unpleasant battle, as it happened throughout history to reorganize and reorder the Hindu society not only in its diverse religious traditions, but also to enrich Hindu way of life to create a distinctive national character compositely called Hindutva, which in turn leads to harmonizing of diverse traditions into vibrant social organism called Hindu Society. It is incumbent on all Hindus to stop internal deterioration while spiritedly fighting external threats of proselytizing forces and the threats of dispirited anti-Hindu Hindus and the other hinduphobics. Educated and well informed Hindus in the U.S. have an obligation to enlighten the gullible among them so that their blind faith is not taken advantage of by misguided, or worse still, most likely sociopathic “priests” from India, and sinister yogis, fake Sanyaasis, and yagnics. Hindus can reform themselves and need to do so continuously and not just remain reactively defensive about criticism from outside their fold. There is a vast difference between well meaning sincere faith (Shraddhaa) and blind faith (Andha Shraddhaa)used to exploit people and who else but the educated Hindus are to be discrete in this domain? The temples supported by "secular" Hindus, that do not foster discrimination based on caste, even have more responsibility to delineate this difference and to discourage petty parochialism,
cults, "untouchability", and primitive superstition manifested recently in the U.S. in reviving Yajnyas and Yaagas.
** The author sincerely invites critique of this article. Please send comments to
seshachalamd@gmail.com
** The author sincerely invites critique of this article. Please send comments to
seshachalamd@gmail.com
Comments on:
Educated Gullible Hindus Going Backward: REVIVING YAJNYAS IN MODERN AGE – DO WE NEED THEM? OR IS IT A SCAM?
by Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
I was sent this posting by a friend, with a specific request to comment on a recent pooja at the Hindu Temple of Atlanta. I am a trustee of the temple and its immediate past president. My comments are based on my personal observation and are not the position of the temple. An officer of the temple may or may not choose to reply to the author’s statements.
I am saddened by the use of the word “scam” by the author, without any basis and implicating a respected institution like the Hindu Temple of Atlanta by name. I do not know the basis of the statements he made in regards to the temple and I do not know what the qualifications, knowledge, or scholarship of the author are that will give him the credibility to speak on behalf of the Hindu community. His long article that has many things thrown together under the headline that included the word “scam” is a disservice to Hindus worldwide, since this posting is searchable by any search engine.
I will comment on the author’s statement about yagnyas, yaagas and poojas being “scams” and will describe the process of decision making at our temple. I will not comment on the many other statements the author made on several other topics.
The word Scam conveys at least two things: deception and fraud.
Some current and recent examples of scams:
--Emails announcing that some one has won millions and tricking the gullible person into parting with money or personal financial information.
--The defrauding of investors by Bernie Madoff.
Examples of popular beliefs that are known to be untrue:
--The idea of Santa Claus and his marketing to children (and adults) for brisk christmas sales. The national economy is dependent on it! ? Scam
Examples of people making decisions, that are not financially smart:
--Bottled water (which is repeatedly shown to be no better than tap water)
--Buying a Lexus, when it is really a Camry, with some upgrades.
? Are these scams.
The author mentions his decision to donate money to an event (“I received as donor detailed format of a third Yajnya in Atlanta, which was an offering to Lakshmi by incantation of Shree Sukta. Yaaga “fire” (Agni) would carry the message to Lakshmi. The implication is that this ritual is more effective than prayer offered to Lakshmi individually or in groups as we do in temples…”)
He (the author) made a decision to purchase a service, presumably he believed in the validity of the yagnya. It will be similar to buying a Lexus, instead of a Camry. But that is his choice. There is no deceit and fraud, and therefore, no scam.
Koti Kumkumarchana at the Hindu Temple of Atlanta:
The Hindu Temple of Atlanta has been serving the religious and spiritual needs of the community for over 25 years. Hindus, regardless of their caste, constitute the congregation, and are welcome at the temple. Administrative decisions are made by a duly elected executive committee, with an oversight provided by the board of trustees.
I was the Vice-President of the temple in 2006, when the proposal for Koti Kumkuma Archana was first presented to me by a group of devotees and trustees of the temple. A respected priest, who is very knowledgeable in the procedure and the work involved and who was visiting our temple at that time, met with me separately and gave me details of what is involved. I gave that information to the then president and again reviewed the proposal during my presidency. Due to the costs, logistics and the manpower needs, as well as other priorties during my term, I did not pursue the project.
When my successor executive committee took office, the proposal was again presented to the president. She discussed the issue with her pooja committee, several devotees and trustees and presented the proposal to the full executive committee. A draft budget was preprared and the executive committee voted on the proposal and approved it. It then went to the Board of Trustees, where the issue was fully discussed and after considerable debate and deliberations, the board of trustees approved the project, with guidelines for budget and fund raising in place to support the event. Then, the president, the chair of the pooja committee and other core group members worked for nine months so that the 100 day event could be successfully completed.
The Hindu Temple of Atlanta is an organization supported by voluntary contributions. There is no annual membership fee. No one is required to pay any money to visit the temple and have a Darshan or participate in any event organized by the temple. Thousands of devotees attended the 100 day event without making any financial contribution towards this event. They all appreciated the dedication of the volunteers and understood the knowledge and scholarship of the visiting priests. The trustees and executive committee members who organized the event donated the bulk of funds needed for this undertaking. There was no personal gain to any of them.
The guest priests who came from India are individuals who spent more than a decade or so of their lives ( 7-12 years) learning the Vedas, the liturgy and ritual of the religion and its observance both at home and at a public place like the temple. They made sacrifices to become good at what they do. One may not agree with what they have learnt or say, but nonetheless they are scholars in their chosen field of knowledge, much like a person who earns a Ph.D in a rare field such as Mayan civilizatiion or becomes a Latin scholar. These priests and that PhD are not rich but certainly they are not frauds.
I now return to the premise of the author that revival of Yagnya is a scam.
I do not see how one can intelligently come to that conclusion or make a public statement using the example of the Hindu Temple of Atlanta or any similar institution. Every person has the freedom to believe in what he or she chooses and spend money however he or she chooses.
Hinduism, like all religions, has its dark spots and it is ostracized for its faults more than any other faith and not given credit for what is rightfully its contribution to world knowledge and tradition. Yoga is a good example of such an attempt. In such a hostile environment, it is the responsibility of those who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of Hindus, to be very careful about what they say.
I hope that this will be posted as a reply to the blog, so that readers will have an opportunity to read a counter point.
P. Ravi Sarma, MD
Atlanta, GA
A response to Ravi Sarma, M.D.’s critique of Dr. Seshachalam Dutta’s article
By
Dr. Seshachalam Dutta
A few material corrections of the critic should be addressed at the outset...
1) I did not donate to the yajnya but only to the temple last year
2) I did not include puja along with Yajnya.
3) I do not speak for Hindu community, but only for myself.
Once we clear these errors, I would not question Dr. Ravi Sarma’s ‘qualifications, knowledge and scholarship’: in so doing we will reduce the debate to undignified ad hominem argument, unfit for civil discourse.
Dr. Sarma’s main contention is the use of the word scam to describe the revival of expensive and grand scale yajnyas. Scam is indeed a fraud, deceit, misleading action or a gimmick, which can be illegal and punishable by law. In matters of religious or faith based activities, fraud escapes the law for example, to sell tickets to Moon, knowing full well that the travel cannot be delivered, is a fraud and the seller may go to jail. Selling tickets to Heaven, it is also a fraud, never-the-less, not punishable by law; although, the seller may go to Hell!! Evangelists do that all the time, but the Ritviks seem to have a taken a leaf out of them. My observation of the Hindu priests is generalization, not pertaining only specifically to those who came to Atlanta. My question is: Irrespective of their unproven but presumed scholarship, can they be allowed to practice untouchability in this country? Even that, in temples that have collected money from non-Brahmins donors also?
The critic’s defense of Yoga merchants is puzzling. Here, he, as an M.D., is eminently qualified to make a judgment. Swami Nityananda , Baba Ramdev and even other less prominent Yoga publicists promise to cure cancer and diabetes (cure—not control!), among other illnesses, through yoga! I wish Indian Physicians have the courage to stop this nonsense. Even AAPI should expose these quacks. Unfortunately, on the contrary, AAPI went on the limb by hosting the ignoble Nityananda at their Dallas conference giving him an undue prominence as a “healer” recognized by AAPI.
.
Friday, August 20, 2010
WENDY DONIGER & MICHAEL WITZEL BIRDS OF SIMILAR FEATHERS?
OPEN LETTER TO THE PROVOST OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
(PLEASE SEE JUNE, JULY & AUGUST 2010 POSTINGS ON THIS TOPIC)
(FOR CULTURALLY ACCEPTED MEANINGS SEE FEB. 2010 "INSTANT RAMAYANA & MAHABHARATA PART
I & II)
(RECOMMENDED READING : "WENDY DONIGER'S UNCONSCIOUS EXHIBITIONISM" NOV. 2009)
See the presentation made by Prof. Angela Marcantonio in Salem, USA in July 2010. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50783410/Questioning-Verners-Law-in-IE-Theory
ppt slides presented on July 28, 2010 at a Symposium on Indo-European Linguistics
WHEN? Wednesday, July 28th, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM
WHERE?: Salem State College, Central Campus, Building One, Room # 225
WHO?: Professor Angela Marcantonio, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, dpt. of Linguistics; P. A. Moro, 00195 Rome
IE edifice crumbles.
Indo-European Theory (IET) becomes a myth. So does Aryan Invasion (variants: Migration/'Trickle-in/Tourist) Theory (AIT) become a myth. Emeneau called AIT the linguistic doctrine. The doctrine is in death-throes now.
Open Letter to the Provost of Harvard
30/01/2008 06:37:12
by
Shree Vinekar
This letter was mailed on Martin Luther King Day in 2007. No response was received from Harvard. Now this is an open letter to the Provost of Harvard published on October 2nd, 2007 on the Gandhi Jayanti Day to be recognized by the UN as the International Peace Day. Persecution by pen of any group is a form of violence that needs to be exposed and curtailed. Harvard needs to take a lead in this effort.
January 15, 2007
To: Dr. Steven Hyman, M.D.
Provost, Harvard University
Re: A Harvard University Professor indulging in slander, violating academic, ethical standards, and probably core values of Harvard.
Dear Dr. Hyman:
I trust you will graciously, and with an open mind, accept this letter as a serious appeal to you whom I view as a highly respected leader and authority figure within the U.S. medical, scientific, and academic communities. I turn to you expecting your sense of justice and fairness to offer some redress or reassurance for not continuing to perpetrate what I see as an insult to the Hindu American Community in the U.S. by someone representing Harvard University. Due to recent communications from Harvard University that call into question the sensibilities, sensitivity, and good judgment that is so required and, moreover expected, from one of the world's most prestigious leading universities, I feel it necessary to approach you with this sincere appeal. My intention, regarding these communications which most Hindu Americans have deemed as "offensive “to our basic identity, beliefs, and ways, is to be able to openly and intelligently discuss with you the importance and value of recognizing, accepting, respecting, and promoting diversity of cultures, names, and scientific views, as well as the simple preservation of the dignity of peoples with different backgrounds and customs and maintaining civility in any dialogues with minority communities (recognized as such legally or not). I am afraid such anti-Hindu propaganda and undignified dialogue as promulgated by a Harvard professor, Michael Witzel, for so many years now may have the potential to lay down the seeds for future persecution of our Hindu community. That is a serious concern. In view of improving relationship between India and the U.S. begun with the previous administrations in both countries, such aspersions thrown at 80% of the Indians in India and the majority of U.S. immigrants from India is not a tactic to win friends here in U.S. nor in India, if he is representing the official views of Harvard and its political bias towards the Hindu Americans and their culture. Professor Witzel will deny that all activities in question can be interpreted as anti-Hindu and demeaning towards the Hindu Americans and portray all accusations as originating only from the abominable “Hindutvavaadins,” and therefore, to be summarily dismissed outright or not to be considered credible. You may judge for yourself or appoint a neutral committee to review his “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” defense and to closely examine and verify for yourself if the allegations hold any water. Even a cursory glimpse at his web-site will impress anyone that there is no civility in the dialogues posted on this web-site. The garrulousness mixed with scholastic sprinkles on this website is quite impressive and raises questions regarding the sobriety of the writers. One wonders if these are fantasizing Harvard scholars or drunken sailors though the expletives therein are only a little short of profanity. An example of exemplary (!) English language used by Witzel who criticizes the grammar and spellings in the private e-mails of Hindu scholars which he seems to access unethically: "Indo-Aryan speaking pastoralist group, out of Afghanistan and Central Asia (~~ BMAC area), can have been very small."Similar garrulousness was evident in his recent discussion about the etymology of "Chamundi" which he was not able to fathom. It was interesting and intriguing that he saw the word "charma and chamadi" as related to this word revealing his unconscious morbid preoccupation with skin color and racist views based upon the color of the skin. In reality there is no relationship at all and with all his profound scholarship he could not present a correct etymology. However, by associating a sacred image of the Hindus with an array of morbid and bizarre words he showed utter disrespect for the sentiments of the Hindus. All this on the website supported by Harvard and using it on the Harvard company time!!
One would hope that, as was common in the "good old days," it is no longer appropriate, nor acceptable to express anti-Semitic, anti-African American, anti-native American, anti-Hispanic, anti-women, anti-ethnic, anti-Hindu, or any anti-minority disparaging views or pejorative slurs; and, one would also hope that such behavior would be especially looked down upon if heard voiced from the Harvard podium as is the case being brought to issue herein. The defense of freedom of speech or academic freedom was probably not sufficient to absolve even the recent President of Harvard. The same Twenty-first Century high standards for social equality and protecting the minorities from being maligned by the Harvard faculty may please be applied when considering the issues presented herein.
However, this being said, and before reading further into the following appeal, please understand that this is in no way an attack on the academic freedom afforded to Witzel or the Harvard faculty as a whole. Academic freedom we do understand and respect as educated Hindus. Moreover, please note that I am writing this letter to you in my personal capacity as a colleague of yours with no explicit affiliation with any University or organization revealed; that my views are my own as an individual, entirely, and need to stand on their own lest they be considered a “parroting for any other persons’ or groups’.” I have deeply contemplated on the issues and have spent long hours debating whether to ignore the matter, as you and I normally may be tempted to do, or to click the "send" button on my e-mail after composing this letter. Truly, at a very personal and professional level I am embarrassed for myself to have to say anything openly or in private about the internal affairs of Harvard, in general, as it is not my place to do so and also to confront Witzel in particular. I am sure you will be equally embarrassed for Harvard after reviewing the matter covered in this letter. I would very much prefer to ignore an atypical Harvard faculty member like Witzel, to disregard him as an eccentric, and to go on with my personal and professional business and not have to write to the provost of Harvard University an embarrassing letter for all parties concerned. I am always afraid that many including you might think lowly of me for participating in registering a grievance against the Professor of Sanskrit who will deny all allegations leveled as untrue and further ridicule the efforts to get him to be civil instead of his projecting a very arrogant image of Harvard’s bigotry on his web-site. He is misusing his web-site by demeaning not only scholars he disagrees with but also uses cheap aggressive tactics in his "industrial espionage" and in his personal attack on his website on those with whose views he disagrees, whose e-mails he unethically accesses, and intercepts without their permission attacking them preemptively in most vicious terms on his web-site open to public view. It is certainly acceptable to have an academic dialogue or debate in his field of expertise but to slander and demean those with whose views he disagrees is not quite appropriate or expected for a Harvard professor in my humble opinion. Even granting the possibility as claimed by him in most paranoid manner, his Hindu critics may be all Hindustan espousing ignorant rascals but what is quite intriguing is that he is preoccupied for years with verbally battling them. Why he is in such agitated state for years is quite incomprehensible if these people are not legitimate scholars and have nothing substantial to contribute to the history and culture of India upon close scrutiny? They are not even presenting their views in the same august academic media or forum that Witzel has easy access to. Why does he use his valuable Harvard’s company time and energy to lash and bash these inconsequential people? I too fully expect to be publicly castigated and castrated on his weird web-site for simply expressing a contentious view and this is his tactic to intimidate and silence his critics or those who present views in variance with his.
However, in the end, and after all my internal debate, it is my people, the NRI Hindus, that Witzel publicly calls "Hiina," an acronym standing for lowly ones (pun on "the lowly ones" in Sanskrit) Hindu Immigrants in North America, and dubs them as "non-returning immigrants" who do not want to truly ?educate? their children according to his publicized letter to the California Board of Education. I am an NRI (Non Resident Indian as termed internally by the Indian Citizens) who is a U. S. Citizen and has had the good fortune of relating with many on the faculty of Harvard, including “R B,” (Professor of Psychopharmacology) whom I found to be pristinely unprejudiced gentlemen. I have taken pains to educate my children, one from Princeton majoring in Molecular Biology and later to become a highly trained research Chemical Engineer for EXXON and the other a graduate of a reputable business college later enrolled in a Master’s program at another reputable University. Both, on their own, have generously equipped themselves with sufficient exposure to subjects taught in the Liberal Arts departments voluntarily. There are couples of million or at least more than a million Hindu American men and women in the United States that are quietly giving the best of all round education in the American universities as they can to their children. Yet, this professor of Sanskrit language at Harvard is stepping publicly on the pride of Hindu Americans by making such public pejorative statements about their ethnic customs with a peculiar irrational arrogance probably displacing his racist or anti-Semitic antipathy onto the Hindu immigrants in the U.S. I feel, therefore, obligated to thwart his public assault on a peaceful, productive, hard-working educated Hindu community in the U.S. While he is entitled to his views, his activism under the banner of Harvard to impose his anachronistic views on the educators in California is deplorable. He has even openly criticized Hindus for cremating their deceased relatives and attributed the increase in the numbers of crematoria in the U.S. to the influx of Hindu immigrants. Such crass public demeaning statements regarding how any culture treats the last remains are deeply hurtful and neither accurate as to the preferred other modes as being superior nor are most of the crematoria built in this country with Hindus in mind. Such insensitive statements must be considered as reflecting only ethnic hatred and disdain on the part of Witzel. How else would any sensible individual interpret his comment other than that it springs from an anti-Hindu attitude? Does Harvard have a policy against cremation of deceased relatives? Does this Hindu sacred custom adopted even by many educated Americans threaten the environment?
I am appalled to see an official communication again by this Harvard Professor in an official research news-letter affiliated with and possibly financed by Harvard and also possibly generated on Harvard’s ?company time.? The following throws more light on a communication you have already received from Dr. Srinivas Kalyanaraman along with the supporting copies of relevant excerpts from the Internet publications by Witzel. I am not appending again the relevant messages referred to, but that the readers can judge for themselves on how "Anti-Hindu Hate" (clearly and logically surmised from even a superficial look at Wetzel’s communications on the official Harvard supported web-sites:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/5854)
can drive a Harvard academic, Prof. Michael Witzel, to go berserk with his posting on an anti-Hindu hate yahoo group called the “Indo-Eurasian Research” news-letter screaming “No Aryan Invasion says Brahmin (sic) geneticist” and later in the same message to label Gyaneshwer, the geneticist student of Human Evolutionary Biology working with Prof. Toomas Kivisild, “a parrot of “Hindutva” belief.”
In addition to Witzel’s unethical eavesdropping of a private and confidential communication intended for a private list-serve, by obviously planting his "industrial espionage perpetrator" or encouraging an unfaithful receiver of messages who has obviously leaked the contents to Witzel, Witzel has interpreted the private e-mail by a young budding Indian author of a scientific article sent by him to his small group of friends as an evidence to impute ignoble motivation and lack of objectivity of the author whom Witzel uncharitably describes in the most pejorative and hateful manner attacking the etymology of his first and last name. Such stooping low with disdain and vicious sarcasm with a voyeuristic peeping Tom tactics is not becoming for a Harvard" Professor. The contents of Witzel's comments not only attack the writer of the private e-mail but also unethically makes public on the Internet on the “Indo-Eurasian Research” Website a private letter by the Indian author not meant to be published on the Internet without the consent and knowledge of a private communicator on a private list-serve. What Witzel has published was not intended for public view in the first place and was not at all directed to him nor did it in any fashion personally quote or mention Witzel in it. The letter only stated Gyaneshwer’s personal opinion, something to the effect, that the cited scientific research in population genetics debunked the AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory (which Witzel privately and publicly espouses and defends as a sergeant in arms, but, as you know, there are many in this world who adhere to this theory, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it was not at all a comment intended to offend Witzel exclusively or even to offend others who espouse this theory. It was also a personal communication not meant for Witzel’s or his supporters’ eyes.) The comment was directed towards the theory and not toward its proponents. So big deal! A young graduate student from India also has his academic freedom to express his views, right or wrong, in a private e-mail to his circle of friends. He did not express these views in his scientific publication for public view. It was none of “mature” and “erudite” Witzel’s business to sneakily obtain a copy of this e-mail by breaking into the graduate student’ mail-box or the mailbox of a private list-serve and to bash publicly on the web-site its young “enthusiastic” naive Indian “Hindu” writer. What is Witzel’s motivation to intercept and attack communications not addressed to him or those that are addressed to you or others? One has to wonder why he feels so vulnerable. Strictly speaking this Professor is violating the Internet etiquettes. If he engaged in such behavior with U.S. mail he would be facing federal criminal charges.
The controversy in his field aside, -(and I am not even sure AIT belongs in the domain of a Department of Sanskrit, or Sanskrit literature, which is so rich and pleasing with extensive archives of history, yet it does not discuss this topic in any Sanskrit texts)-, to attack a writer for minor spelling errors in an e-mail (see supporting copies of e-mails), which are so very common and even quite intentional at times, to save time in sending e-mails, reflects Witzel’s narrow-mindedness as well as immaturity. The academic freedom is a usual defense of the likes of Witzel and that may be a debatable argument in itself. Claiming to be a professor of Sanskrit and questioning a thesis of a scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal without any expertise in the discipline is not an “academic freedom” befitting a Harvard professor especially if he has not turned to other Harvard faculty in the departments of Molecular Biology and Genetics for their considered scholarly expert opinion on this specific matter. Even granting that he has such knowledge and authority as reflected by the reverence with which the members of his mutual admiration society seem to respond to him at Harvard, his personal attack on the ethnic and cultural background, attacking the first and last name of the author and his presumed caste, correctly or not, is not in good taste to say the least. If Indo-Eurasian Research Group newsletter is not an official organ of Harvard University, Witzel’s comments can be viewed as a product of a gossip mill and a Harvard professor has a right to blurt out his vicious racist views or anti-Hindu views in private to his likeminded colleagues but not under the banner of Harvard University in a research news on the Internet where his academic integrity needs to be valued foremost. Please be advised the first names and last names of people in any culture do not bestow any authority to an individual by any stretch of imagination. It would be ridiculous for a Harvard Professor to attack an individual with the last name “Pope” if he is an author of a scientific article the Professor disagrees with by accusing the author of “pontificating like Pope.” Similarly, it would be unwise to attack any author of a scientific article with the first name “Solomon” accusing him as claiming to be a “wise man.” It is this type of fallacy seen in the puerile sarcasm of Witzel’s racist communication that is appalling when he calls Gyaneshwer a “Lord of Knowledge” because of his first name, and because of his last name Chaubey, purportedly accuses the author of a scientific article to be identifying himself as the “reciter of four Vedas.” Such second grader stuff or smartass sarcasm is not only directed towards the specific graduate student but by implication quite derogatory and humiliating for the entire Hindu culture which chooses such revered names for their children and as last names for their families. Presuming that Witzel is not a stand-up-comedian for Harvard on the Internet, this is as illogical perhaps as accusing any individual named Michael to be claiming to be St. Michael the Archangel and further pejoratively labeling him as a dogmatic medieval anti-science “Catholic” parroting the tune of the Vatican. (“Cheers!”). This is the type of immature logic Michael Witzel, a Professor of Sanskrit, representing Harvard University demonstrates when he shows his smarts in “correctly” pinning down the “caste” of this graduate student as a “Brahmin” from North India or Uttar Pradesh. This is said here just to make a point to illustrate Witzel’s unconventional thinking bordering on a thought disorder springing from his underlying racist attitude and is neither intended to make fun of Witzel’s first name nor is it a reflection of any knowledge or presumption that Witzel is a Catholic. For all we know he may very well be an anti-catholic Lutheran. Certainly no comments herein are made to belittle Catholic or any religious community.
It is clear that Witzel has engaged in slander. This is violation of every academic and ethical standard which I hope Harvard University has some mechanisms in place to enforce. It is sick that an academic should be trying to find out if a person who writes a scientific article is a "Brahmin or not," instead of trying to understand what the article tries to communicate in a scientific discipline. Maybe, Witzel knows a lot about identifying a Brahmin by looking at the names and last names. Maybe, Witzel also knows everything that needs to be known in Human Evolutionary Biology.
Witzel has consistently tended to use the word, "hindutva" as a term of abuse, somehow implying lack of objectivity in anyone he tags as reflecting “hindutva,” at the drop of a whimsical hat. In fact, hindutva simply means “being Hindu” or possessing Hindu qualities or “Hinduness”, “-tva” being a Sanskrit suffix for “ness” as in the word, “tat-tva” (philosophical essence, phenomenon, lit. “Itness.”) I am surprised that a Harvard Professor who claims to be in the Department of Sanskrit does not know these basic Sanskrit semantics and etymology. He is reflecting his political biases rather than good knowledge of Sanskrit when he shows he is over-identified with the thesis he feels he is propounding by vehemently attacking anyone that presents views or evidence conflicting with his views. Julian Huxley had to defend Charles Darwin in England when similar irrational vehemence was demonstrated by the religious zealots opposing the Theory of Evolution. However, in this case, unfortunately, it is “Harvard” represented by Witzel that is behaving like the “anti-evolution” creationism propounding non-scientifically oriented Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Church. Such hateful dialogue in an official organ of Harvard University may not be appropriate in this scientific era and especially in the twenty-first century.
Witzel of Harvard University has sunk to very low depths even by the low standards of Harvard Hindu-hate groups. See
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopIER/petition.html
Is it Harvard University academic ethics to accuse a scholar of being a “racist” or (biased) Brahmin when the issue should be deliberated without any discrimination based on caste (assuming that Brahmin is a caste) or creed or race? Gyaneshwer who posted the message on Hindu civilization yahoo group about his article which appeared in “BioEssays” has stated that he is a student of Human Evolutionary Biology working with Prof. Toomas Kivisild in Estonia and his work is the genetic study of South Asian population. That he is an unbiased scholar is clear from his earlier postings when he contested a questionable study related to making a claim, “study shows Brahmin genes different”. That is, Gyaneshwer did NOT agree with the newspaper article which reported such a finding that the Brahmins were genetically more closely related to the Europeans implying some false superiority. Even if Witzel knew as much about the Indians in India as he knows the background of the Hungarians he would not be accepted as an authority on Indology just because of his knowledge of Sanskrit and possibly so-called Indo-European languages. Study of languages in itself does not make a linguist a scientist, or an expert in South Asian history, culture, economics, and cultural politics.
And, now Witzel is trying to impute motives and casting aspersions on the objectivity of the scholar whose contributions (together with three other co-authors) have been accepted in journals related to the geneticist student’s field of study.
Is it too much to expect Witzel to apologize to Gyaneshwer for casting aspersions in his Indo-Eurasian Research newsletter accessible on the Internet to public all over the world and by implication, also on the co-authors of Gyaneshwer?
Why is Witzel so pathetically clinging to his pet (petty) theory of “Aryan” Influx into India? Is he so intolerant that he cannot face a contrary view or questioning of his pet views?
In fact, the study referred to by Gyaneshwer has three other co-authors (including Prof. Kivisild): Gyaneshwer Chaubey 1 *, Mait Metspalu 1, Toomas Kivisild 1 2, Richard Villems 1, 1 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia
2 Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies, The Henry Wellcome Building, University of Cambridge, UK
So, would Witzel also scream claiming that Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, and Toomas Kivisild are also “Brahmin geneticists” All of these including Oppenheimer should be “Brahmin geneticists” in Witzel’s books or according to St. Michael the Archangel!
There should be some limits to a Professor’s freedom to slander and certainly, some academic ethics which should be enforced on pseudo-scholars like Witzel occupying chairs at a prestigious university like Harvard University purporting to be a Sanskritist but dabbling heavily instead in the South Asian Politics or Indian population genetics, etc., without any formal training in South Asian Studies or scientific background. Witzel seems purely motivated to be a political activist for the left-wing secular, pseudo-secular, socialistic and communist groups in India, or a mouthpiece for other financial supporters of his whom for all we know could be from Saudi Arabia or Christian missionary groups who harbor deep antipathy towards Hindus. It is also possible that funding is more easily available to him if he upholds the myth of Aryan superiority. And, of course, ironically he is adhering to the Eurocentric views on the history, languages, and culture of India with an assertion that a small group of nomadic Eurasians as providing a sweeping sea-wave cultural change hypothetically instigated by these “non-invading” “immigrants,” (which is a refinement from invasion to migration theory,) essentially viewing these Eurasian nomads as possessing superior “genes”, “knowledge,” and “culture” not to mention superior horses, superior arms, and military skills who came from Central Asia or preferably Europe as bringing with them Indo-European languages and Sanskrit to ancient India along with any values or positive characteristics presently identified in the ancient Indian or Hindu culture and civilization. Witzel has invested in learning Sanskrit in Germany presuming that he has higher expertise in Sanskrit than any other Indian who may have learned Sanskrit in India. He, as a simple foreign Sanskritist untrained in cultural history, archeology, or population genetics of India, is merely parroting an antiquated Eurocentric racist view of the existence of a mythical “Aryan” race with racial superiority that drove Adolph Hitler and many others to the detriment of large sections of so-called non-Aryan populations in the mid-twentieth Century. Identification with the so-called mythical superior “Aryan race” has ugly history. Projecting this type of racist image wearing the Harvard University badge is highly inappropriate. Harvard University has a moral obligation not to promote such racist views under its banner regardless of Witzel's funding sources that might fund him only if he maintains the status quo in the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) euphemistically renamed by him as Aryan Influx Theory (AIT) or Aryan Immigration or Migration Theory. Objectively speaking the West had never learned about the word “Arya” until the British and the Germans discovered it in the seventeenth and eighteenth century from Sanskrit literature in India and conveniently mistranslated and misinterpreted it. The word “Arya” (or any of its derivatives) denoting any superior race is not found in any European language prior to the European rediscovery of India. It simply means “honorable” and has no racial connotations in Sanskrit. The science of biology has not recognized any Aryan race using that specific terminology. Your background, I hope, as a scientist and once the Director of NIMH may help Harvard to begin more dignified, balanced, scientific, peaceful civil dialogues in this area rather than the acrimonious low level verbal attacks on the scholars presenting contrary evidence and views as demonstrated by the Witzel group that claims to be the Indo-Eurasian Research group “know-alls.”
“Don’t sweat the small stuff” is what you and I would tell our patients. Please be assured, however, that when a Harvard Professor throws his weight around with the California (Public School) Board of Education without regard for the psychological damage resulting for thousands of Hindu immigrant school children of tax-paying Hindu parents eroding their self-esteem through ridiculous and ridiculing presentation of the subject matter and humiliating treatment in the classroom under the disguise of education, zealously endorsed by Witzel, it is not at all “small stuff” for the victims of his hate-mongering. The tax-paying Hindu parents have a full knowledge of their background and culture as well as their religion and have a right to insist that bigoted zealots with ulterior political motives camouflaged as academic interests not impose their distorted views of their complex religion (“Dharma”: there is no English equivalent for this term and religion is not a correct word) and history on their children subjecting them to humiliation.
The bottom line is, Dr. Hyman, I want to bring to your attention that a respected Harvard professor, and scholar is systematically antagonizing a large population of India and Hindu Americans, irrationally poisoning the minds of educators in this country. Regardless of aspersions he throws at those who criticize him, his moral and ethical stance as well as his standing as an interpreter of Hindu religion and history is highly dubious. Since he is given to make fun (pun) on other people's names those of us who know Sanskrit may rename him “Wisha-shaila” instead of Witzel. The name stands for a Mountain of Poison, (spreading poison), riding on the coat tail of Harvard. On this Martin Luther King Day, celebrating the civil liberty and respect for minorities (legally recognized or not) in this country, I hope you will agree it is especially appropriate to bring these issues to the table.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your opening this matter for discussion in order to adequately address the concerns of Hindu American Community. The community will have a right to seek redress from Harvard if such behaviors like those of Witzel continue from a Harvard podium under the provisions or excuse of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
Yours sincerely,
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
(PLEASE SEE JUNE, JULY & AUGUST 2010 POSTINGS ON THIS TOPIC)
(FOR CULTURALLY ACCEPTED MEANINGS SEE FEB. 2010 "INSTANT RAMAYANA & MAHABHARATA PART
I & II)
(RECOMMENDED READING : "WENDY DONIGER'S UNCONSCIOUS EXHIBITIONISM" NOV. 2009)
See the presentation made by Prof. Angela Marcantonio in Salem, USA in July 2010. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50783410/Questioning-Verners-Law-in-IE-Theory
ppt slides presented on July 28, 2010 at a Symposium on Indo-European Linguistics
WHEN? Wednesday, July 28th, 11:00 AM-12:00 PM
WHERE?: Salem State College, Central Campus, Building One, Room # 225
WHO?: Professor Angela Marcantonio, University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, dpt. of Linguistics; P. A. Moro, 00195 Rome
IE edifice crumbles.
Indo-European Theory (IET) becomes a myth. So does Aryan Invasion (variants: Migration/'Trickle-in/Tourist) Theory (AIT) become a myth. Emeneau called AIT the linguistic doctrine. The doctrine is in death-throes now.
Open Letter to the Provost of Harvard
30/01/2008 06:37:12
by
Shree Vinekar
This letter was mailed on Martin Luther King Day in 2007. No response was received from Harvard. Now this is an open letter to the Provost of Harvard published on October 2nd, 2007 on the Gandhi Jayanti Day to be recognized by the UN as the International Peace Day. Persecution by pen of any group is a form of violence that needs to be exposed and curtailed. Harvard needs to take a lead in this effort.
January 15, 2007
To: Dr. Steven Hyman, M.D.
Provost, Harvard University
Re: A Harvard University Professor indulging in slander, violating academic, ethical standards, and probably core values of Harvard.
Dear Dr. Hyman:
I trust you will graciously, and with an open mind, accept this letter as a serious appeal to you whom I view as a highly respected leader and authority figure within the U.S. medical, scientific, and academic communities. I turn to you expecting your sense of justice and fairness to offer some redress or reassurance for not continuing to perpetrate what I see as an insult to the Hindu American Community in the U.S. by someone representing Harvard University. Due to recent communications from Harvard University that call into question the sensibilities, sensitivity, and good judgment that is so required and, moreover expected, from one of the world's most prestigious leading universities, I feel it necessary to approach you with this sincere appeal. My intention, regarding these communications which most Hindu Americans have deemed as "offensive “to our basic identity, beliefs, and ways, is to be able to openly and intelligently discuss with you the importance and value of recognizing, accepting, respecting, and promoting diversity of cultures, names, and scientific views, as well as the simple preservation of the dignity of peoples with different backgrounds and customs and maintaining civility in any dialogues with minority communities (recognized as such legally or not). I am afraid such anti-Hindu propaganda and undignified dialogue as promulgated by a Harvard professor, Michael Witzel, for so many years now may have the potential to lay down the seeds for future persecution of our Hindu community. That is a serious concern. In view of improving relationship between India and the U.S. begun with the previous administrations in both countries, such aspersions thrown at 80% of the Indians in India and the majority of U.S. immigrants from India is not a tactic to win friends here in U.S. nor in India, if he is representing the official views of Harvard and its political bias towards the Hindu Americans and their culture. Professor Witzel will deny that all activities in question can be interpreted as anti-Hindu and demeaning towards the Hindu Americans and portray all accusations as originating only from the abominable “Hindutvavaadins,” and therefore, to be summarily dismissed outright or not to be considered credible. You may judge for yourself or appoint a neutral committee to review his “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom” defense and to closely examine and verify for yourself if the allegations hold any water. Even a cursory glimpse at his web-site will impress anyone that there is no civility in the dialogues posted on this web-site. The garrulousness mixed with scholastic sprinkles on this website is quite impressive and raises questions regarding the sobriety of the writers. One wonders if these are fantasizing Harvard scholars or drunken sailors though the expletives therein are only a little short of profanity. An example of exemplary (!) English language used by Witzel who criticizes the grammar and spellings in the private e-mails of Hindu scholars which he seems to access unethically: "Indo-Aryan speaking pastoralist group, out of Afghanistan and Central Asia (~~ BMAC area), can have been very small."Similar garrulousness was evident in his recent discussion about the etymology of "Chamundi" which he was not able to fathom. It was interesting and intriguing that he saw the word "charma and chamadi" as related to this word revealing his unconscious morbid preoccupation with skin color and racist views based upon the color of the skin. In reality there is no relationship at all and with all his profound scholarship he could not present a correct etymology. However, by associating a sacred image of the Hindus with an array of morbid and bizarre words he showed utter disrespect for the sentiments of the Hindus. All this on the website supported by Harvard and using it on the Harvard company time!!
One would hope that, as was common in the "good old days," it is no longer appropriate, nor acceptable to express anti-Semitic, anti-African American, anti-native American, anti-Hispanic, anti-women, anti-ethnic, anti-Hindu, or any anti-minority disparaging views or pejorative slurs; and, one would also hope that such behavior would be especially looked down upon if heard voiced from the Harvard podium as is the case being brought to issue herein. The defense of freedom of speech or academic freedom was probably not sufficient to absolve even the recent President of Harvard. The same Twenty-first Century high standards for social equality and protecting the minorities from being maligned by the Harvard faculty may please be applied when considering the issues presented herein.
However, this being said, and before reading further into the following appeal, please understand that this is in no way an attack on the academic freedom afforded to Witzel or the Harvard faculty as a whole. Academic freedom we do understand and respect as educated Hindus. Moreover, please note that I am writing this letter to you in my personal capacity as a colleague of yours with no explicit affiliation with any University or organization revealed; that my views are my own as an individual, entirely, and need to stand on their own lest they be considered a “parroting for any other persons’ or groups’.” I have deeply contemplated on the issues and have spent long hours debating whether to ignore the matter, as you and I normally may be tempted to do, or to click the "send" button on my e-mail after composing this letter. Truly, at a very personal and professional level I am embarrassed for myself to have to say anything openly or in private about the internal affairs of Harvard, in general, as it is not my place to do so and also to confront Witzel in particular. I am sure you will be equally embarrassed for Harvard after reviewing the matter covered in this letter. I would very much prefer to ignore an atypical Harvard faculty member like Witzel, to disregard him as an eccentric, and to go on with my personal and professional business and not have to write to the provost of Harvard University an embarrassing letter for all parties concerned. I am always afraid that many including you might think lowly of me for participating in registering a grievance against the Professor of Sanskrit who will deny all allegations leveled as untrue and further ridicule the efforts to get him to be civil instead of his projecting a very arrogant image of Harvard’s bigotry on his web-site. He is misusing his web-site by demeaning not only scholars he disagrees with but also uses cheap aggressive tactics in his "industrial espionage" and in his personal attack on his website on those with whose views he disagrees, whose e-mails he unethically accesses, and intercepts without their permission attacking them preemptively in most vicious terms on his web-site open to public view. It is certainly acceptable to have an academic dialogue or debate in his field of expertise but to slander and demean those with whose views he disagrees is not quite appropriate or expected for a Harvard professor in my humble opinion. Even granting the possibility as claimed by him in most paranoid manner, his Hindu critics may be all Hindustan espousing ignorant rascals but what is quite intriguing is that he is preoccupied for years with verbally battling them. Why he is in such agitated state for years is quite incomprehensible if these people are not legitimate scholars and have nothing substantial to contribute to the history and culture of India upon close scrutiny? They are not even presenting their views in the same august academic media or forum that Witzel has easy access to. Why does he use his valuable Harvard’s company time and energy to lash and bash these inconsequential people? I too fully expect to be publicly castigated and castrated on his weird web-site for simply expressing a contentious view and this is his tactic to intimidate and silence his critics or those who present views in variance with his.
However, in the end, and after all my internal debate, it is my people, the NRI Hindus, that Witzel publicly calls "Hiina," an acronym standing for lowly ones (pun on "the lowly ones" in Sanskrit) Hindu Immigrants in North America, and dubs them as "non-returning immigrants" who do not want to truly ?educate? their children according to his publicized letter to the California Board of Education. I am an NRI (Non Resident Indian as termed internally by the Indian Citizens) who is a U. S. Citizen and has had the good fortune of relating with many on the faculty of Harvard, including “R B,” (Professor of Psychopharmacology) whom I found to be pristinely unprejudiced gentlemen. I have taken pains to educate my children, one from Princeton majoring in Molecular Biology and later to become a highly trained research Chemical Engineer for EXXON and the other a graduate of a reputable business college later enrolled in a Master’s program at another reputable University. Both, on their own, have generously equipped themselves with sufficient exposure to subjects taught in the Liberal Arts departments voluntarily. There are couples of million or at least more than a million Hindu American men and women in the United States that are quietly giving the best of all round education in the American universities as they can to their children. Yet, this professor of Sanskrit language at Harvard is stepping publicly on the pride of Hindu Americans by making such public pejorative statements about their ethnic customs with a peculiar irrational arrogance probably displacing his racist or anti-Semitic antipathy onto the Hindu immigrants in the U.S. I feel, therefore, obligated to thwart his public assault on a peaceful, productive, hard-working educated Hindu community in the U.S. While he is entitled to his views, his activism under the banner of Harvard to impose his anachronistic views on the educators in California is deplorable. He has even openly criticized Hindus for cremating their deceased relatives and attributed the increase in the numbers of crematoria in the U.S. to the influx of Hindu immigrants. Such crass public demeaning statements regarding how any culture treats the last remains are deeply hurtful and neither accurate as to the preferred other modes as being superior nor are most of the crematoria built in this country with Hindus in mind. Such insensitive statements must be considered as reflecting only ethnic hatred and disdain on the part of Witzel. How else would any sensible individual interpret his comment other than that it springs from an anti-Hindu attitude? Does Harvard have a policy against cremation of deceased relatives? Does this Hindu sacred custom adopted even by many educated Americans threaten the environment?
I am appalled to see an official communication again by this Harvard Professor in an official research news-letter affiliated with and possibly financed by Harvard and also possibly generated on Harvard’s ?company time.? The following throws more light on a communication you have already received from Dr. Srinivas Kalyanaraman along with the supporting copies of relevant excerpts from the Internet publications by Witzel. I am not appending again the relevant messages referred to, but that the readers can judge for themselves on how "Anti-Hindu Hate" (clearly and logically surmised from even a superficial look at Wetzel’s communications on the official Harvard supported web-sites:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/5854)
can drive a Harvard academic, Prof. Michael Witzel, to go berserk with his posting on an anti-Hindu hate yahoo group called the “Indo-Eurasian Research” news-letter screaming “No Aryan Invasion says Brahmin (sic) geneticist” and later in the same message to label Gyaneshwer, the geneticist student of Human Evolutionary Biology working with Prof. Toomas Kivisild, “a parrot of “Hindutva” belief.”
In addition to Witzel’s unethical eavesdropping of a private and confidential communication intended for a private list-serve, by obviously planting his "industrial espionage perpetrator" or encouraging an unfaithful receiver of messages who has obviously leaked the contents to Witzel, Witzel has interpreted the private e-mail by a young budding Indian author of a scientific article sent by him to his small group of friends as an evidence to impute ignoble motivation and lack of objectivity of the author whom Witzel uncharitably describes in the most pejorative and hateful manner attacking the etymology of his first and last name. Such stooping low with disdain and vicious sarcasm with a voyeuristic peeping Tom tactics is not becoming for a Harvard" Professor. The contents of Witzel's comments not only attack the writer of the private e-mail but also unethically makes public on the Internet on the “Indo-Eurasian Research” Website a private letter by the Indian author not meant to be published on the Internet without the consent and knowledge of a private communicator on a private list-serve. What Witzel has published was not intended for public view in the first place and was not at all directed to him nor did it in any fashion personally quote or mention Witzel in it. The letter only stated Gyaneshwer’s personal opinion, something to the effect, that the cited scientific research in population genetics debunked the AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory (which Witzel privately and publicly espouses and defends as a sergeant in arms, but, as you know, there are many in this world who adhere to this theory, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it was not at all a comment intended to offend Witzel exclusively or even to offend others who espouse this theory. It was also a personal communication not meant for Witzel’s or his supporters’ eyes.) The comment was directed towards the theory and not toward its proponents. So big deal! A young graduate student from India also has his academic freedom to express his views, right or wrong, in a private e-mail to his circle of friends. He did not express these views in his scientific publication for public view. It was none of “mature” and “erudite” Witzel’s business to sneakily obtain a copy of this e-mail by breaking into the graduate student’ mail-box or the mailbox of a private list-serve and to bash publicly on the web-site its young “enthusiastic” naive Indian “Hindu” writer. What is Witzel’s motivation to intercept and attack communications not addressed to him or those that are addressed to you or others? One has to wonder why he feels so vulnerable. Strictly speaking this Professor is violating the Internet etiquettes. If he engaged in such behavior with U.S. mail he would be facing federal criminal charges.
The controversy in his field aside, -(and I am not even sure AIT belongs in the domain of a Department of Sanskrit, or Sanskrit literature, which is so rich and pleasing with extensive archives of history, yet it does not discuss this topic in any Sanskrit texts)-, to attack a writer for minor spelling errors in an e-mail (see supporting copies of e-mails), which are so very common and even quite intentional at times, to save time in sending e-mails, reflects Witzel’s narrow-mindedness as well as immaturity. The academic freedom is a usual defense of the likes of Witzel and that may be a debatable argument in itself. Claiming to be a professor of Sanskrit and questioning a thesis of a scientific article published in a reputable scientific journal without any expertise in the discipline is not an “academic freedom” befitting a Harvard professor especially if he has not turned to other Harvard faculty in the departments of Molecular Biology and Genetics for their considered scholarly expert opinion on this specific matter. Even granting that he has such knowledge and authority as reflected by the reverence with which the members of his mutual admiration society seem to respond to him at Harvard, his personal attack on the ethnic and cultural background, attacking the first and last name of the author and his presumed caste, correctly or not, is not in good taste to say the least. If Indo-Eurasian Research Group newsletter is not an official organ of Harvard University, Witzel’s comments can be viewed as a product of a gossip mill and a Harvard professor has a right to blurt out his vicious racist views or anti-Hindu views in private to his likeminded colleagues but not under the banner of Harvard University in a research news on the Internet where his academic integrity needs to be valued foremost. Please be advised the first names and last names of people in any culture do not bestow any authority to an individual by any stretch of imagination. It would be ridiculous for a Harvard Professor to attack an individual with the last name “Pope” if he is an author of a scientific article the Professor disagrees with by accusing the author of “pontificating like Pope.” Similarly, it would be unwise to attack any author of a scientific article with the first name “Solomon” accusing him as claiming to be a “wise man.” It is this type of fallacy seen in the puerile sarcasm of Witzel’s racist communication that is appalling when he calls Gyaneshwer a “Lord of Knowledge” because of his first name, and because of his last name Chaubey, purportedly accuses the author of a scientific article to be identifying himself as the “reciter of four Vedas.” Such second grader stuff or smartass sarcasm is not only directed towards the specific graduate student but by implication quite derogatory and humiliating for the entire Hindu culture which chooses such revered names for their children and as last names for their families. Presuming that Witzel is not a stand-up-comedian for Harvard on the Internet, this is as illogical perhaps as accusing any individual named Michael to be claiming to be St. Michael the Archangel and further pejoratively labeling him as a dogmatic medieval anti-science “Catholic” parroting the tune of the Vatican. (“Cheers!”). This is the type of immature logic Michael Witzel, a Professor of Sanskrit, representing Harvard University demonstrates when he shows his smarts in “correctly” pinning down the “caste” of this graduate student as a “Brahmin” from North India or Uttar Pradesh. This is said here just to make a point to illustrate Witzel’s unconventional thinking bordering on a thought disorder springing from his underlying racist attitude and is neither intended to make fun of Witzel’s first name nor is it a reflection of any knowledge or presumption that Witzel is a Catholic. For all we know he may very well be an anti-catholic Lutheran. Certainly no comments herein are made to belittle Catholic or any religious community.
It is clear that Witzel has engaged in slander. This is violation of every academic and ethical standard which I hope Harvard University has some mechanisms in place to enforce. It is sick that an academic should be trying to find out if a person who writes a scientific article is a "Brahmin or not," instead of trying to understand what the article tries to communicate in a scientific discipline. Maybe, Witzel knows a lot about identifying a Brahmin by looking at the names and last names. Maybe, Witzel also knows everything that needs to be known in Human Evolutionary Biology.
Witzel has consistently tended to use the word, "hindutva" as a term of abuse, somehow implying lack of objectivity in anyone he tags as reflecting “hindutva,” at the drop of a whimsical hat. In fact, hindutva simply means “being Hindu” or possessing Hindu qualities or “Hinduness”, “-tva” being a Sanskrit suffix for “ness” as in the word, “tat-tva” (philosophical essence, phenomenon, lit. “Itness.”) I am surprised that a Harvard Professor who claims to be in the Department of Sanskrit does not know these basic Sanskrit semantics and etymology. He is reflecting his political biases rather than good knowledge of Sanskrit when he shows he is over-identified with the thesis he feels he is propounding by vehemently attacking anyone that presents views or evidence conflicting with his views. Julian Huxley had to defend Charles Darwin in England when similar irrational vehemence was demonstrated by the religious zealots opposing the Theory of Evolution. However, in this case, unfortunately, it is “Harvard” represented by Witzel that is behaving like the “anti-evolution” creationism propounding non-scientifically oriented Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Church. Such hateful dialogue in an official organ of Harvard University may not be appropriate in this scientific era and especially in the twenty-first century.
Witzel of Harvard University has sunk to very low depths even by the low standards of Harvard Hindu-hate groups. See
http://www.petitiononline.com/stopIER/petition.html
Is it Harvard University academic ethics to accuse a scholar of being a “racist” or (biased) Brahmin when the issue should be deliberated without any discrimination based on caste (assuming that Brahmin is a caste) or creed or race? Gyaneshwer who posted the message on Hindu civilization yahoo group about his article which appeared in “BioEssays” has stated that he is a student of Human Evolutionary Biology working with Prof. Toomas Kivisild in Estonia and his work is the genetic study of South Asian population. That he is an unbiased scholar is clear from his earlier postings when he contested a questionable study related to making a claim, “study shows Brahmin genes different”. That is, Gyaneshwer did NOT agree with the newspaper article which reported such a finding that the Brahmins were genetically more closely related to the Europeans implying some false superiority. Even if Witzel knew as much about the Indians in India as he knows the background of the Hungarians he would not be accepted as an authority on Indology just because of his knowledge of Sanskrit and possibly so-called Indo-European languages. Study of languages in itself does not make a linguist a scientist, or an expert in South Asian history, culture, economics, and cultural politics.
And, now Witzel is trying to impute motives and casting aspersions on the objectivity of the scholar whose contributions (together with three other co-authors) have been accepted in journals related to the geneticist student’s field of study.
Is it too much to expect Witzel to apologize to Gyaneshwer for casting aspersions in his Indo-Eurasian Research newsletter accessible on the Internet to public all over the world and by implication, also on the co-authors of Gyaneshwer?
Why is Witzel so pathetically clinging to his pet (petty) theory of “Aryan” Influx into India? Is he so intolerant that he cannot face a contrary view or questioning of his pet views?
In fact, the study referred to by Gyaneshwer has three other co-authors (including Prof. Kivisild): Gyaneshwer Chaubey 1 *, Mait Metspalu 1, Toomas Kivisild 1 2, Richard Villems 1, 1 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia
2 Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies, The Henry Wellcome Building, University of Cambridge, UK
So, would Witzel also scream claiming that Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, and Toomas Kivisild are also “Brahmin geneticists” All of these including Oppenheimer should be “Brahmin geneticists” in Witzel’s books or according to St. Michael the Archangel!
There should be some limits to a Professor’s freedom to slander and certainly, some academic ethics which should be enforced on pseudo-scholars like Witzel occupying chairs at a prestigious university like Harvard University purporting to be a Sanskritist but dabbling heavily instead in the South Asian Politics or Indian population genetics, etc., without any formal training in South Asian Studies or scientific background. Witzel seems purely motivated to be a political activist for the left-wing secular, pseudo-secular, socialistic and communist groups in India, or a mouthpiece for other financial supporters of his whom for all we know could be from Saudi Arabia or Christian missionary groups who harbor deep antipathy towards Hindus. It is also possible that funding is more easily available to him if he upholds the myth of Aryan superiority. And, of course, ironically he is adhering to the Eurocentric views on the history, languages, and culture of India with an assertion that a small group of nomadic Eurasians as providing a sweeping sea-wave cultural change hypothetically instigated by these “non-invading” “immigrants,” (which is a refinement from invasion to migration theory,) essentially viewing these Eurasian nomads as possessing superior “genes”, “knowledge,” and “culture” not to mention superior horses, superior arms, and military skills who came from Central Asia or preferably Europe as bringing with them Indo-European languages and Sanskrit to ancient India along with any values or positive characteristics presently identified in the ancient Indian or Hindu culture and civilization. Witzel has invested in learning Sanskrit in Germany presuming that he has higher expertise in Sanskrit than any other Indian who may have learned Sanskrit in India. He, as a simple foreign Sanskritist untrained in cultural history, archeology, or population genetics of India, is merely parroting an antiquated Eurocentric racist view of the existence of a mythical “Aryan” race with racial superiority that drove Adolph Hitler and many others to the detriment of large sections of so-called non-Aryan populations in the mid-twentieth Century. Identification with the so-called mythical superior “Aryan race” has ugly history. Projecting this type of racist image wearing the Harvard University badge is highly inappropriate. Harvard University has a moral obligation not to promote such racist views under its banner regardless of Witzel's funding sources that might fund him only if he maintains the status quo in the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) euphemistically renamed by him as Aryan Influx Theory (AIT) or Aryan Immigration or Migration Theory. Objectively speaking the West had never learned about the word “Arya” until the British and the Germans discovered it in the seventeenth and eighteenth century from Sanskrit literature in India and conveniently mistranslated and misinterpreted it. The word “Arya” (or any of its derivatives) denoting any superior race is not found in any European language prior to the European rediscovery of India. It simply means “honorable” and has no racial connotations in Sanskrit. The science of biology has not recognized any Aryan race using that specific terminology. Your background, I hope, as a scientist and once the Director of NIMH may help Harvard to begin more dignified, balanced, scientific, peaceful civil dialogues in this area rather than the acrimonious low level verbal attacks on the scholars presenting contrary evidence and views as demonstrated by the Witzel group that claims to be the Indo-Eurasian Research group “know-alls.”
“Don’t sweat the small stuff” is what you and I would tell our patients. Please be assured, however, that when a Harvard Professor throws his weight around with the California (Public School) Board of Education without regard for the psychological damage resulting for thousands of Hindu immigrant school children of tax-paying Hindu parents eroding their self-esteem through ridiculous and ridiculing presentation of the subject matter and humiliating treatment in the classroom under the disguise of education, zealously endorsed by Witzel, it is not at all “small stuff” for the victims of his hate-mongering. The tax-paying Hindu parents have a full knowledge of their background and culture as well as their religion and have a right to insist that bigoted zealots with ulterior political motives camouflaged as academic interests not impose their distorted views of their complex religion (“Dharma”: there is no English equivalent for this term and religion is not a correct word) and history on their children subjecting them to humiliation.
The bottom line is, Dr. Hyman, I want to bring to your attention that a respected Harvard professor, and scholar is systematically antagonizing a large population of India and Hindu Americans, irrationally poisoning the minds of educators in this country. Regardless of aspersions he throws at those who criticize him, his moral and ethical stance as well as his standing as an interpreter of Hindu religion and history is highly dubious. Since he is given to make fun (pun) on other people's names those of us who know Sanskrit may rename him “Wisha-shaila” instead of Witzel. The name stands for a Mountain of Poison, (spreading poison), riding on the coat tail of Harvard. On this Martin Luther King Day, celebrating the civil liberty and respect for minorities (legally recognized or not) in this country, I hope you will agree it is especially appropriate to bring these issues to the table.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your opening this matter for discussion in order to adequately address the concerns of Hindu American Community. The community will have a right to seek redress from Harvard if such behaviors like those of Witzel continue from a Harvard podium under the provisions or excuse of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
Yours sincerely,
Shree Vinekar, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)