Why Bash Hinduism?

Lets get first thing clear - the Ramayana was written by men therefore its men's perspective of right and wrong

Second- Rama had left his kingdom for 14 years with Bharat at the helm could he not relinquish the kingdom back to his brothers and go back to the forest with his wife?

Third- one accusation from a stranger and he left his wife who had been with for 14 long years?

Fourth- anyway of validating that she was happy with the decision? If she was she would have told him that she carrying his unborn. He didn't even know that she was pregnant

Fifth - in this day and age its seems you want us Hindus to leave our common sense behind and pay blind adherence to ancient interpretations of our gods without putting them to the test of progressive thinking. Thankfully such is not the case or else we would be no different from the Islamic extremists.

Dharma and Artha both demanded that Ram proved Sita to be true. She had been a true wife and thus performed her dharma and by walking through fire the truth (Artha) of her purity was stated and yet he packed her off.

Sixth-This isnt about Westernisation - its a sad commentary about the way Hindu women were treated in the past.

Thankfully present day Hindu women can fight for their rights and for their families. They may get 'dumped' by men but they will go with their lives. Sita BTW did not go back to Rama instead she immersed herself in the Earth.


In other words she sent the message that she would rather die than be with a man who could not stand up for his wife.

I am a proud Hindu and Hinduism isn't so weak that a little debate would degrade it. Its an all encompassing religion that thrives on debate, different viewpoints and retrospection.

You sound like a Mullah waving a fatwa.

Lastly she is not the first to do Ramayana from Sita's point of view there is a well known Orissa version of Ramayana.

Then Menaka Thakkar has choreographed the Ramayana from Sita's point of view called Sitayana.

Molla Ramayana is from Sita's point of view.

I could go on.

I applaud the cartoonist. Its her interpretation of the Ramayana as there have been so many since ancient times.

So get a grip and stop giving us Hindus a bad name.

Abhishek: "I am proud to be a Hindu and I believe that much of the symbolism is lost on the mere mortals. They neither have the depth of understanding nor the aptitude to gauge the timeless classics"

You refer to mere mortals as "they". I had no idea we had immortal Hindu police as authors on Desicritics.

"Hinduism in all it's glory is all encompassing."

Hmm, and yet your article seems to suggest that Hinduism leaves out quite a few of us including mere mortals (which I believe is most of us), demented morons and of course the lowly pseudo intellectuals who seem to have not made it upto your standards. According to your views Hinduism has also chosen not to let people use their own intelligence to interpret the symbolism and instead would have us rely on immortals such as you for our analysis. Interesting.

You say: "One has to realize that the Hindu way of life has been the ultimate."

Abhishek, sadly, the one distinguishing aspect that defines the religion you so vehemently and fervently protect by denouncing a 'cartoon review', is tolerance. Where is yours?

Your entire post is teeming with intolerance of other people's views and with bigotry. You express surprise that the editorial policy allowed the cartoon review while personally I am appalled that in the present day and age we have an author who makes repeated references to the "white man" like he were talking about Satan or Bigfoot!!

You also say "If Lord Ram left Sita Mata, he had larger interests (and duties) of statehood before his personal choices. He was not happy about the decision that he took."

Sorry Abhishek, the rest of us haven't had the pleasure of personal interactions with Lord Ram to decipher his state of mind and the emotional implications of his decision. We trust our own very limited intellect. You are at an advantage because aparently you are the only one who really gets it.

Alas, we the mere mortals will never make it to the supreme religious awakening you seem to have achieved!!! We can only envy the halo around your head and then dedicate our own unripe and sinful senses to a cartoon film that has roused your wrath, O Protector of Hinduism!!

I think Abhishek is not incorrect that the symbolism of the Ramayana is lost on most people. In particular, those that have little or no knowledge of hindu metaphysics, cosmoslogy, philosophy, theology, literature simply cannot hope to understand the Ramayana in its completeness.

Actually, why even go to the level of abstract symbolism when people don't even get the basics right? Item#2 pasted below from Bihari's comment should suffice to make my point.

"Second- Rama had left his kingdom for 14 years with Bharat at the helm could he not relinquish the kingdom back to his brothers and go back to the forest with his wife?"

Bihari appears incapable of getting the basic point that Rama's avatar is "maryada purushottam", the etymology of which breaks down as follows

Maryada: continuance in the right way , social propriety of conduct; staying within boundaries
PuraSa: man, soul
Uttama: best, ideal, top

(A quick aside: Amrita Rajan has imperfectly translated maryada purushottam as the "perfect man". In Hinduism, there is no concept of perfection in duality, something achievable only in the unassailable singularity of moksha. No Hindu in her right mind can possibly translate maryada purushottam as the "perfect man". At least not with a straight face.)

Rama's actions set the gold standard for propriety of conduct and right action within existing socio-cultural boundaries. Rama's thing was to maintain societal rules, not to break them. It is therefore facile to suggest that Rama could have given up his kingdom and returned to the jungle i.e. break boundaries for selfish, egotistical "love".

Rama is meant to teach us how the ultimate marayada purushottam man thinks, acts behaves. He is not some cardboard harlequin-esque romeo devised to tittilate the secret longings of teenage girls.

Abhishek,

Please learn to tolerate.

One aritcle, or even thousand articles can never denounce Hinduism. It is not a religon, it is way of life. Imo a life falls short to explore the whole of Hindu Philosophy (along with it's reform movements; jainism, buddhism, bhakti, ramkrishna mission, arya samaj, sikhism, satyagraha, etc)

The key elements of the whole hindu philosophy is: Tolerance, Non-Violence and Equality.

So i hope next time you take those key notes from the relegion you follow, and such aritcle(s) won't bother you.

Aditi wrote: According to your views Hinduism has also chosen not to let people use their own intelligence to interpret the symbolism and instead would have us rely on immortals such as you for our analysis. Interesting.

Hinduism does allow individuals to interpret texts and symbols in their own unique way and this is why we have numerous versions of the Ramayana. However, Hinduism also teaches us not to cling stubbornly and chauvinistically to our own personal interpretations just because we own them. Rather, we must be always be open and receptive to those who may have more knowledge/ understanding/ experience than we do.

All the versions of ramayana, sitayana and all other permutations (lakshmana.., ravana.., hanumana..sugreeva-yana) are valid for the people who wrote them. Does not mean that all versions are valid for all people for the simple reason that there could be mistakes, flaws, errors in logic etc which the author may have overlooked.

To claim a wider validity, an author would need to engage with others just as knowledgeable or more experienced than herself. This is the "argumentative" Indian way, noted even by people such as Amartya Sen.

@Aditi, Thanks for the halo on my head! I am still wondering where this came from!

One of the characteristics of the "demented morons" is semantics. They would engage in mindless debates and twist and contort words to put their points all the while confusing the issue.

My outburst was against the write up which in my opinion was eulogising the symbolism inherent. There can be an endless debate about "right" and "wrong" without being conclusive.

Anyone could come over and have the gall to insult your heritage and you listen to it in the name of tolerance? Where do you get this idea from?

The word "fundamentalism" is flawed and we tend to use it without really understanding what it means. Could anyone tell me the etyomology? Or the meaning of the word "secular"?

I would whole heartedly agree with Sanjay. Instead of wrapping up the blog entry with contorted twisted ideas, I made the whole issue very direct.

The "real Bhagwad Gita" was perhaps known to Krishna alone. Or the meaning that he chose to attach to his teachings to Arjuna. It has been interpreted by "mortals" where in they have attached their own interpretations as to how they understood the issue.

Similarly, it was 16th century interpretation of Ramayana by Tulsidas that is currently in vogue now. 16th century, if your memory serves right, was ruled over by the Muslim kings and they sought to interpret the code of Manu rather seriously. It was the dark period of Hinduism when the Brahamanical hold got strong. It was in those times when women were subjugated.

Women have always been given a higher status than men in the scheme of things as symbols of fertility. Women power has been worshipped in form of "devis".

Tulsidas gave a concrete form to an epic which was basically a "hearsay"- much of the probable actual events were made to reflect the socio-political cultural influences of those times. It is not possible to know the truth, I have only defended my implicit faith in what I believe is true.

@Ishan. I object to people who try to stomp on my beliefs in the name of tolerance. This is an emasculating idea indeed.

What people practise is not Hinduism by it's mindless rituals. Hinduism is way of life by integrating with the nature. It is Dharma.

Much of the interpretation is handed over from the Brits. They made sure that they ingrain the deep sense of inferiorty complex by repeatedly stressing on the fact that our culture and heritage was nuts as compared to them. The after effects are there to see on the blogosphere where it becomes "progressive thinking" to hail bashing of Ramayana or it's various interpretations. It is the bullshitting of the so called "artistic culture" who neither have the depth of understanding nor ability to grasp the nuances. All goes on in the name of "debates"!

Symbolism ideally should be left alone. It makes no sense to devote time and patience criticize Hinduism. Try doing that for Islam and Christianity. You would not do it because it would mean a certain death or legthy legal battles. Why pick up on Hinduism alone?

Kudos Abhishek! I can understand why you wanted to avoid unnecessary detail but I think it is still useful to point out errors as I see them, based on my limited understanding. Here is yet another from Bihari:

Third- one accusation from a stranger and he left his wife who had been with for 14 long years?

The significance of the fact that the accusation came from an unknown person can best be appreciated by recognizing that the so-called "stranger" was both a citizen and subject. Just because a ruler does not know every citizen by her first name does not make the latter less of a citizen. Not quite a simplistic case of my wife vs a stranger, this is where Rama's maryada as a leader clashed with that of a husband.

Rama's decision is certainly open to other interpretations but it is also an unambiguous example of a political leader who is so attuned to the maryada of a leader - the well being of citizens - that the gripe of a single citizen leads to a supreme personal sacrifice. This is Rama at the leading edge of maryada purushottam behaviour.

I agree with you Abhishek about respecting Hinduism for what it really is, much more deeper in meaning than any of us can really understand or have tried to understand.

I also personally do not appreciate anyone who criticizes the religion or its texts without making an attempt to fathom the wisdom behind it.

But my views are solely personal, as I am sure yours is too and what I understand from your article is that you are not picking on anyone for their personal beliefs, but trying to keep the religion away from the smearing it usually goes through because of someone's inability to comprehend its true meaning.

And if this is what you have tried to do with your article, I appreciate your views and support every word you have written.

I dont think religion is open for discussion because each one of us believes in some part of religion which may seem bizarre to someone else.

Why dont we just try to respect all our beliefs, without resorting to criticism or at the other end deifying any of it.

Why is 'religion not open for discussion'? If one can't defend it, why preach it?

There are no shibboleths in the world, or there shouldn't be.

Lol when the Muslim cartoons came out the Hindus were the first to tell them to shut up and be tolerate and I see Hindus saying that Hinduism should be respected blah blah blah....

Of course Rama was a Marya purushottam but his acts went against Dharma and Aartha which were higher than maintaining his personal Maaryada.

He should have stepped down but a wife made of gold is easier to make than to give up an entire kingdom.

Women were second class citizens at the time, no different from slaves in their status. Of course it was easy for him to discard Sita.Lets not make any bones about it and dress it up with man made terms of what Marya was supposed to be.

Incidentally it is this concept of Maaryada and izzat that continues to plague Indian society where rape victims are treated as sub humans and female virginity is an expected must where as men can sow their oats hither and sunder.

Why is it so difficult to some conservative Hindus to deal with the fact that their gods can have clay feet?

You expect the Muslims to be able to take criticism about their religion the Prophet but if some one debates about Hinduism you jump as much as they did.

Get some perspective will you people?

religion not open for discussion? this implies that each of us are born with a perfect innate understanding of god and each of us have already reached enlightenment. How absurd! All religions and philosophies teach that the true way to enlightenment is to question what you are told. Only then after proper examination can you really be sure. You must test your faith. Judaism devotes whole schools to the argument of what is meant by the holy text, and this is considered to be the most holy of all endeavors.

Abishek, your indictment of Amrita flies in the face of Hinduism at it's core. Hinduism provides each of us with the ability to reach enlightenment in our own way, which is certainly not for the other to judge. Standing in judgement and implicating that everyone else has it wrong and you have it right is simply... unHindu!

Also you seemed to have confused things, where you have some theorem:
all good = Hindu
all bad = others

No bad could exist in Hinduism. How is this so? The Mahabharata is full of tales of deception and strife and problems, because it depicts society and it's real problems. The Gods themselves fight because one does not agree with the actions of the other.

It's just bizarre that you think you've reached enlightenment while all others are mired in stupidity. Why haven't I heard of you before? Surely we should touching your feet in humility.

ss, of course there are people who have a tough time dealing with feminists being at odds with Sita's fate. They can't deal with women questioning male authority over what is morally acceptable and what is not. They call it Western influence and I call it breath of fresh air.

If it wasn't for people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Dayananda Saraswati we women would still be sitting behind purdah.

Incidentally there was an episode of Ahalya and Gautuma in Ramayana where Rama reunited the couple .

It clearly shows ambiguity in the Ramayana. A rishi is expected to forgive his wife seduced unwittingly by a God but Rama forsook his own wife who had proven her innocence.

Abhishek - well, thanks for proving my point so quickly and in such spectacular fashion. Bihari, Aditi,Dee and smallsquirrel have pretty much summed up my position, but I have one simple question for you:

How does Nina Paley's work "denigrate" hinduism? Your entire rant stems from that one point and I would like you to explain that to me.

Abhishek: I took some time and read a few of your other articles and I must confess I found the tone, the logic and the flow of thoughts in all those other ones very different (a lot better) than in this one. In fact I liked some of your other articles.

So let me cut out the sarcasm I applied in my earlier comment and tell you honestly why I made the 'halo' comment. This entire post has a certain pedantic/ condescending tone to it....it sounds like you understand Hindutva/ Ramayan better than others and you have this deeper, better understanding of the religion that we (mere mortals) don't have. I read Amrita's post and if she would've suggested something that was insulting towards the religion I would've then understood your stance but she hasn't! I read it twice and I didn't find anything objectionable.

Ramayan, in addition to being a Hindu epic is also an important literary contribution to Sanskrit poetry. Poetry in all forms has always been open to interpretation. Do you know how many versions of the Ramayan exist? In fact there is a historic version in the Malay language where Laxman is the hero not Ram (its called Hikayat Seri Rama). So will we now go into history and try to alter that because it does not fit our perception of the religion?

Let me ask you this: the Ramayan itself has undergone numerous transitions through the years. Various poets, literary figures and other regional and civilizational influences have modified the text of the epic. So how can we hold one person who chose to interpret it based on their sensibility and claim that they are "insulting" the religion? The interpretation is in no way demeaning or villifying to our religion. If it was mocking beliefs or dismissing other people's convictions I would've been outraged too, but its not! It is just a different take on a tale that has been meant for us to learn from.

My first impression upon reading your post was that you were angry about something else related to religion and Amrita's post just happened to be in the way. You say that your outburst was against the write up which in your opinion was eulogising the symbolism inherent. But symbolism is supposed to be open to interpretation isn't it?

And then there is the title of your article "Why Bash Hinduism?". Who bashed Hinduism?

Now for this whole entire post, I have just one question to you: name me an interpretation or suggestion made in Amrita's post or Nina Paley's Sitayana and tell me how it insulted your religious belief. This I ask, only out of curiosity. You can choose not to do it. I just want to know what was un-Hindu/ insulting/ "stomping on your belief" about her post. The curiosity is killing me.

Thanks

One must accept the fact that one can be questioned on the assertions that are made in the public. I would call this as a healthy debate because it allows me to gain a deeper understanding in something that I truly hold to be true. And I am willing to stick on to my views and my write up.

Most of the questions arise because of deficient understanding of the issue. One cannot ever know all and that is the spirit of enquiry that sustains "intellectual capital". With this brief introduction, I have nowhere asserted that my insight is better than the "ordinary mortals". And I find it indeed amusing that this post is seeing a resurgence of "latent feminism". Point taken madam! I am as feminist as you are and in a "true blue Hindu way" hold this belief that women are far better than men in many ways. Though this is not the topic of discussion here.

The sum of the beliefs is held to be true if a majority of people hold that view point. I am nowhere concerned with the various interpretations of Ramayana and yes Aditi, I am aware of the various translations. I did not in any way suggest that we alter the course of history either.

First and foremost. Hinduism isn't "religion" as religion you know of. It is Sanatana Dharma (Eternal or Universal Righteousness). Indeed the word Hindu is a corruption of the word for Persian which meant "the people living beyond the river Indus". For all the feminists here, in Hinduism, the divine can be conceived as a feminine form. Hence the worship of woman as a symbol of "fertility".

The supreme can be worshipped in many forms is a unique aspect of Hinduism. Anything that was the nurturer and giver of life was "worhsipped" in the sense that it was held sacred. Cows are held sacred. Indeed, Cow dung has been used in "havans" because of it's "sacred" value. Inherent symbolism all the way. Every single facet of our lives as "sanatana dharma".

It's pointless to debate the symbolism and as I mentioned earlier, my objection was only to the "interpretation" of a symbol.

There is a thin line of the distinction here. I criticise the rituals associated. They are useless crap and have been propagated by the Brahmins of yore. It was against these Brahmins that Shankracharya, Nanak and others arose. 18th Century saw the rise of Swami Vivekananda who questioned the very basis of these rituals and established his own order.

If I question your interpretation of symbolism it isn't "un Hindu"! I hold the symbolism in high esteem because these symbols are beyond any explaination for the rational mind. And you learn to believe them unquestioningly. Why does Sun rise in the east and not otherwise? Why not any other direction? Why do you love your parents? Why do you hold them important? Why the bond that holds you all together as a family? Any reasoning? You just believe it.

Question the crap that Hinduism is riddled with. And I very clearly mentioned about the individuals and the "political parties" that jump to the gun proclaiming about being the "saviours of the faith". They are as useless as the pond scum. But I would use political means to spread awareness and not to lie down on my back just because someone finds it amusing that I worship a "monkey God". I hope the differentiation is apparent.

Well, this post just shows how intolerant we have become when it comes to the question of religion.

>> Indian marriages have always stressed on this fact that decisions taken in the larger interest of the society are mutually beneficial because it was Hindu way of giving. The society came much before your own personal interests

Like Sati was such a holy ritual once upon a time? Wasn't society so nice those days?
Ask a Widowed woman of this day and she'll tell you what society has done to her. "Society" is the biggest illusion that we have forced upon ourselves, and religion is only fuelling the farce.

The same people who felt the ban on Da Vinci Code movie by the Christian institutions was baseless because it was just a work of fiction, are unable to bear it when MF Hussain drew pictures of hindu gods in the nude. So it's bad to portray gods in the nude, huh? Have you been to Khajuraho?

abishek... you still have not answered the burning question.

Moreover, I would posit this... there is little value in questioning the "crap". Real value lies in examination of one's core values, the things we take for granted, the absolutes... this is the very center of knowing and loving God. Because I worship God in a glass of water or a cow.. this comes from a true examination of beliefs.

You say you did not assert that your interpretation are better than anyone else's, but your tone is condescending and preachy. Clearly you think yours is the only way to go. You ran all over Aditi, and you still cannot say why! You called her a pseudo-intellectual for a reason I cannot even place.

oops. hee... I meant Amrita and not Aditi :)

Bihari writes: Of course Rama was a Marya purushottam but his acts went against Dharma and Aartha which were higher than maintaining his personal Maaryada.

Another fundamental error. Dharma is always contextual and there is no single, overarching "dharma" that trumps everything else. There is a dharma attached to each of the roles that Rama plays - as a son, a kshatriya, a ruler, a brother, a friend, a husband - and he showed us how to balance each of these often competing dharmas while staying within the maryaada of each.

He should have stepped down but a wife made of gold is easier to make than to give up an entire kingdom.

Rama never re-married and lived the same - or worse - quality of life that Sita was living in the ashram. In effect, he gave up all the benefits / privileges/ pleasures of rulership without compromising his duties and responsibilities towards his kingdom.

Women were second class citizens at the time, no different from slaves in their status. Of course it was easy for him to discard Sita. Lets not make any bones about it and dress it up h man made terms of what Marya was supposed to be.

If Ram really wanted to discard Sita, he would have left her with raavan and never fought a war to get her back. This argument falls very quickly. And if women really were such slaves, then this must be first time in history that a king exiles his own son on the request of a "slave". We should all be such slaves!

@ Aaman:

I think religion and beliefs dont exist in the realm where things can be explained in black and white, and anything in the metaphysical realm needs you to believe in it before it can be explained.

I dont want anyone else to believe in what I believe in, thats perfectly fine with me, I dont want to preach. However I also dont want anyone to criticize what I believe in, because I dont criticize their beliefs. I respect them for what they are.

For all our attempts to rationalize religion, there exists this tiny part in all of us that believes in something that cannot be explained to others, even the most atheists of people have their beliefs ( which is not to believe in God)

Is it too much to ask to keep that personal space personal without getting trampled on?

..which is coming to the point, then how do we ensure all of us get to know the truth about religion?

The answer to that is even more trickier, because we try to learn from people who never made an attempt to really understand the meanings for what they actually stand for. So while their transliterations might sound profound, it may be far removed from the truth.

Which gives all of us enough ammo with our half-baked knowledge to go around spewing kudos or otherwise about something that we had ought to keep to ourselves and try to build upon.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

and that it would take a complete lifetime to actually comprehend what most religions really mean, so we'd rather be wiser investing our resources in learning rather than debating when you dont even know how much the others know, and you dont know the intent of the people in the debate.

Some people get a kick out of trashing everything, so while their logic might be to bring out hidden but unexplained truths about religion, what they dont understand is many things in religion are open to interpretation, and unless you reverse engineer the entire code, working with just one piece of it will stand out like a sore thumb, or the half baked ammo as i mentioned earlier.

You want a debate, get to know it first and then have a debate with someone else who knows that much.

Or else its just a waste of time.

Abhishek - that's all very interesting and I'm glad for you that you're progressing so well in your quest for whatever it is that you're seeking, but you still havent answered my question.

How did I or Nina Paley bash Hinduism?

You've written a couple of thousand words so far on this post and its board, all of which has nothing to do with what I wrote. What gives?

Swami Dayananda said, "I accept as Dharma whatever is in full conformity with impartial justice, truthfulness and the like; that which is not opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas. Whatever is not free from partiality and is unjust, partaking of untruth and the like, and opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas - that I hold as adharma."

By that definition Sita was not given justice. Sanjay if Rama considered it okay for Gautuma to accept his sullied wife why was Sita then discarded?

Dashratha had made an oath to his wife and he had to fulfill it. It wasn't a whim but a promise and fulfilling one's promises or oath is part of Dharma.

ss, of course there are people who have a tough time dealing with feminists being at odds with Sita's fate. They can't deal with women questioning male authority over what is morally acceptable and what is not. They call it Western influence and I call it breath of fresh air.

Indian feminists like Madhu Kishwar have already engaged extensively with this topic and her essay "Yes to Sita, no to Ram" is probably a self-defining one for how modern Indian women feel about the Rama-Sita issue. This same essay is also posted on Paley's website and she would have known that the overwhelming majority of the Rama critiques originate from within the hindu world (from extreme Ram bhakts like Athavale) and there is no need for "fresh air" from outside.

I have minor quibbles with some parts of Kishwar's essay but agree with her on substance. My major issue has to with the almost complete absence of philosophical/ cosmological relevance that often help to reconcile seeming contradictions.

Even i have got pissed off with Rama banishing Sita and Yudhisthtra betting his wife "Draupadi" for his leisure.I have argued endless times with my grandmother who had supposedly attended a vedic school in her childhood about the injustic inflicted upon Sita and Draupadi.But i only understood it when i was studying in Chinmaya Vidyalaya.Aswami used to come every saturday for giving us lessons in hinduism.He told us that Ramayana and Mahabharatha wre written so that men wont commit the same mistakes as Rama and Yudhishtra and even Krishna.Think about the injustics inflicted on Karna even duryodhana(many learned ppl says that duryodhana was a much better person than Yudhishtra and the only bad thing in Duryodhana was his anger and arrogance).
At the end of Ramayana and Mahabhartha ,Krishna is cursed by Duryodhana's mother,yudhishtra goes to hell(for a brief period) and Rama drowns in grief and repentence on what he did to Sita.
So as you can see its from only mistakes man can learn.
If you show only goodness and righteousness ,how will man be able to diffrentiate b/w good and bad?
Ramayana and Mahabhartha was written for the very purpose of showing good and bad and the thin line whihc separates them.
But very few ppl can understand them.Ramayana and esp Mahabharatha is deep you cant just translate it ,you have to delve in deep like Chinmayananda, parnamhamsa,vivekananda etc.Having said that Mahabharatha and Ramyana are not the only books we should follow ,we are free to choose any of the thousands of scriptures written by great gurus in the last 5 millienias.
I personally am trying to follow Sankaracharya's advitha(i am pretty much ignorant in this stuff but thanks to a few ppl am able to understand them).Criticizing any good thing is easy,cos only fools criticize.Try to understand it that is what takes effort the afct is that most of us are not ready to sweat it out to understand it.Majority of the ppl criticizing hinduism is having onlu half baked borrowed knowledge omn Hinduism.If a religion sorry i like to call it a way of life like the great vivekananda has surivived for so long there must be something very special about it right?The same "way of life" spwaned world's greatest minds in it universities
like Nalanda
Taxaxila
Kerala school of mathematics etc.
Hindusim is is polytheistic cos its tolerant or i must say it was tolerant to new ideas.
Once it stop assimliating new ideas and became rigid its downfall started.
Pdeuso intellectual and extremely superstitious fundamentalists are two sides of a coin both are destructive forces.
Hari om tasat.

Rama and krishna wre just mortals remember that.Even you who are bashing ramayana will do the same thing if your spouse spends even a single night with a stranger And its not wrong we feel jealousy and sadness on betrayal cos of love.
Rama comitted that mistake of not trusting Sita ,see to it that you dont do the same thing in a similiar situation.

pramod, thats where trust comes in and taking a spouse's word that nothing happened:)

It is one thing to remember the colonial era and how it shaped/shapes our world today; it's completely another to thrust the onus of more than 200 years of institutional racism on a single artist merely because she is white and she has dared to tackle one of our holy cows.

@ Amrita. This is the tacit "agreement" with Nina Paley that caused my heckles. While you were trying to express the issue in a fairly balanced manner, this paragraph tends to give away. Each one is welcome and entitled to his/ her opinion. There is no issue on that. However, in my opinion, your write up was based on flawed understanding of the symbolism that majority of us hold dear. This is something that I reacted to and the result is for you to see. I must repeat that there is nothing personal against you.

Much of the outburst was caused because of the sorry state of affairs that I have been reading. We have become a nation of wimps and increasingly, the debates are moving towards being shrill and without any substance. My political affiliations too have a major role in shaping up the response.

@ss The theorem does hold true about Hinduism being good and everything else bad. You may not agree but being a Hindu reminds of the greatness of my culture and the heights that India achieved way before the "light of dawn" centred on the dark ages elsewhere. We have been described as "pagans" but in the inherent polytheism is a rich treasure trove of knowledge that is difficult to describe in a few words. Name ANY "religion" that has attained the heights of intellectual discourse.

Mahabharata and Ramayana took placed in two different "yugas" and you cannot compare them for God's sake.

Similarly, I stand alone for the Sanatana Dharma and not for the rituals or the "hinduism" that you know of.

I'd agree with you ss that one needs to question what we are told. However, the spirit of enquiry needs to be tempered with time and place of enquiry. You cannot view the events that happened in past from the implicit understanding of today. How would our legal system react to a man deserting his wife? The answer comes in consonance with the present realities and not of the ages gone by.

Finally, good and bad are subjective. Yet this too has to be seen in the framework of what the society accepts because you and me are an inherent part of it.

Unfortunately, the debate has veered off course and it's plain simple semantics. I mentioned it before that it is the easiest way to confuse an issue. Whatever Ram did to Sita was appropriate given those times and ages. I am not even sure whether it really happened! Thousands of years later a looney white woman challanges our heritage in the name of questioning it. She even has the gall to represent the Devis in various forms by representing them in "cartoonish" characters. Just check out her website on Amritas outgoing links.

In the end, we're all monkeys

Abishek, while it's easy to understand where you're coming from, I'm not sure who you are talking to: you start off with pseudo intellectuals here on Desicritics and then graduate to indicting an entire "nation of half wit people and educated duds". I wonder which half of the nation you belong? By "educated duds," do you mean those not brainwashed like you? Or those who don't know the role religious myths play in inculcating certain viewpoints?

Long before "westernized" scrutiny of religious beliefs, Indian culture had a very sophisticated sense of inquiry and critique of everything religious. Hence the openness to other viewpoints. Blaming such scrutiny on modern western culture ignores this important history of Indian culture. I suppose "educated duds" wouldn't know it.

i think hinduism and what it stands for at the core is not so fragile that we need to protect it.

that it survived, jainism, budhism, islam, christianity and many more shows that it does not need mortals like us to protect it. it integrated new thoughts, contenting at that into itself. that's how it cd survive. not by being rigid.

it does not need protection. what needs protection is people's egos.

and about hurt feelings, here is my take.

like some sufi preacher who was going along with his disciples, he found a young guy who abused his mother. the preacher seems to have laughed it off.

his disciples were upset that the preacher laughed off. he seemed to have said the guy does not even know how to abuse - if he abused my mother when i was young i'd have been hurt, if he abused my sister as i was growing up i'd have been hurt, if he abused my wife when i was young i'd have been hurt. if he abused my daughter when i grew older i'd have been hurt. now that i am old and he abuses my mother how does it matter. he is 'ignorant', let him be. (it beats me as why men should be offended when some one abuses the women in their lives!)

yes, we cannot protect our hinduism if it is not open to question, open to interpretation, open to change.

if not i guess it will die a natural death. and no blog righeteous anger can save it.

if i am a non brahmin, and bhagavadgita through krishna tells me that chaaturvarnam maya sristham i'd rather denounce that type of hinduism. if we say that was contextual for the time and it is irrelevant now and indignifying today and probably re-write it probably yes i'd accept the wisdom of bhagawadgita. there are many wonderful insights which bhagawadgita offers. there is also rubbish, from my point of view and my current state and the current times.

if dharma does not change according to kala then it is not dharma. that also is from hinduism.

cheers.

Hinduism ? surely you mean Brahmanism.....or are you actually singing the virtues of paganism..woman-worship,the divine feminine ? count me in :)

Abhishek - thank you for finally responding to my question. However, your reply has just confirmed my belief that you basically piggybacked on my post to rant about things that have obviously been pressing on your mind for some time and have very little to do with my post itself.

It's all very well to say at this point that its not personal and you were responding to one solitary paragraph in my post - I beg to differ.

Since symbolism is your big bug bear, you should appreciate better than anybody else the complete and utter dishonesty of your actions.

Let's deconstruct what I said vs. what you said:

I said, Nina Paley as a white American woman shouldn't be made the focus of all our feelings re: colonialism merely because she's working on a central character from the Ramayana.

To which you said:
1. present modern history is a distorted version of the JNU nuts and the leftists
This is your opinion and has nothing to do with what I wrote or Nina Paley's work.

2.Having systematically destroyed the fabric of lives in those places where the British ruled, they gave us a permanent sense of inferiority complex ingrained in our texts and sense of history which is deplorable.
Again, not only is this your opinion and have nothing whatsoever to do with my post, it also makes an astounding leap of logic in which you seem to suggest "leftists and JNU nuts" had some sort of special power under the British.

3. Unfortunately, most of these "bloggers" have not been able to go beyond the routine and instead focus on ideas that seem to be floating around in the name of "secularism".
Well, your paranoid trifecta of "JNU nuts", "Leftists" and "blogger" is complete. Are you trying to say that as a blogger I am a "JNU nut" and "Leftist"? Prove it. The voices in your head don't count.

4. A product of the present times and the education system would only adhere to those ideas which they have been brainwashed with.
Nina Paley went to school in India? Or are you talking about me? So where did you go to school, Abhishek? Mars?

5. A white man's words seem to hold more weight that your scriptures! What an irony! It isn't about a white man trying to "tackle one of our holy cows".
Your entire life seems to be a reaction to the white man but here's some news for you: this is a white woman. And she doesnt have anything to say about my scriptures. She's animating the life of one of the central figures in my scriptures.

6. It only serves to betray the author's own sense of understanding of her culture and inferiority complex- finding acceptance with such awful ideas of insult to our symbolism.
Yeah, I see how this isn't personal at all. And please, do tell me what is this symbolism that she's insulted? You've gone on and on about it but you're still to spell it out in so many words. Go on, tell me. And while you're at it, learn what the word "symbolism" means - the meaning the rest of us poor Indians learnt when we were in school getting brainwashed.

7. A nation of dead people, intellectually and spiritually, blogs about such "issues" where one seems to find these reprehensible ideas as "classy" and "trendy".
Ooooh, you're so much better than us, Abhishek! Especially now that you've gone to such pains to tell us so. Yeah, I'm just going to take your word for it since you're so enlightened and everything.

And that's just one paragraph of the most trite rubbish I ever heard! In short, nothing you wrote had anything to do with me. You had a box all ready and I was the first target your eyes fell upon.

Yup, you're just brimming over with intellectual honesty.

oh now I remember Nina Paley,apparently she was having a torrid time over at the sepiamutiny blog ,she posts there regularly,I think Amrita is just rehashing the same stuff,I might be wrong though since I never bothered to read what the fuss was all about

The worst hindu critics i have come across in Gail omvedt and Amrita thapar.Eventhough Ms gail omvedt doesnt uunderstand a word of sanskrit(the toughest language in this world--its full of Dwaiyardhas)she still naive enough to trash our Vedas and its collective knowledge.Even Einstein has said that Advita is the most profound philosophy abt god.
Hindusim encourages debate but not lies.
Many of the hindu bashers think that english education have made them invincible and super intelligent.I must say that these self proclaimed intellectuals are bufoons of the first order.In future these buffons will be discarded to anonymity while Hinduism would still be there flourishing.
Remember hinduism was almost extinct before Sankarachrya' bharat pariyatan.Sankaracharya's Advaitha brought back hinduism to the limelight.Hinduism always had such great leaders in all periods.Hinduism spawns "real"intellectuals
and great thinkers.
Even great thinnkers like Aldous huxley and his brother Julian Huxely have praised and studied hinduism.Scinetists like Schroedinger and Max planck.You might notice maya is nothing but Schroedinger's equation of uncertainity of position of electrons around and atom's nucleous.
So let the dogs bark .camel passes on.
It would take something more to destroy this great
"sanathana Dharma".

[EDITED]

Anyway hinduism never preached "earth as the centre of the universe"
or Earth is flat"
or did witch hunt"
never persecuted great thinkers like "copernicus"
or" leonardo Da vinci".
Also hinduism never said that whole of the human race came from 2 persons.
Afterall you cant call a culture which had given this world
1,numerical system
2.Algebra
3.Zero
4.Calculus(calculus existed in kerala almost a 1000 yrs before newton or lebenitz)
5.Astronomy
6.world's oldest and biggest universities.
7 .greats like Patanjali,Buddha,Sankarachrya,bhaskara and Aryabhatta.

The only camel i see here is you Mr Kela,so cut the crap have some iddly vada with hot Sambar and go to sleep.
I

btw if the iddly sambar is from Woodlands Hotel in kochi i am in

Kela dont start trolling when you havent got any counter arguments.
You think tht being anti indian and anti hindu will let you into White madam and sahibs good books.But sorry mate there are still lots of fhindus i mean millions who are proud of their relgion and have got enough self esteem and self confidence in them to call themselves a "indian" and a "hindu".

Keala i know that you are mallu ,so if you want to see greatness of hindusim just go to a place called Malakkara in Patnamthitta district.There you will find Atmananda ashram.In the sitting room you will notice 3 giant potraits
1.Julian huxley with Guru
2.Sarvepaali Radhakrishan 2 nd indian president
These people wre the smartest of their generation they cant be wrong abt hindusim
Or Mr kela you think you are above these men,if thts the case then i cant help you.

I wouldnt recommend Woodlands.. Bimbis and CBH is better.

:)

Just to intervene here, I am not the Sanjay who is posting above in this thread. I am an atheist, and not religious.

That being said however, my understanding is that the part where Sita has to undergo a trial by fire is not necessarily considered canon, as far as the Ramayana is concerned. This is supposed to be part of the Lav-Kash Kanda, which is not universally accepted by all Hindus.

As you know, there are many different re-tellings of the Ramayana. Just browse through the comicbooks, and those alone offer a myriad of differing versions.

As far as Sita being buxom, I don't think that's a bad thing. I like buxom. Buxom is good. Ram is drawn with broad shoulders, in the classic macho hero style, and that's cute too. Likewise, Hanuman has muscles like King Kong, etc, and I think that's a cute stylization as well.

I'm a big fan of animation, and I was one of the first to discover Nina Paley's cartoons online years ago, and distributed them far and wide across the net.

I'm the Sanjay who finds the socialist drivel here on DesiCoconuts.com to be more of the same tired, worn-out rhetoric that has only brainwashed Indians into mental stupor.

But maybe Amrita can invite Nina to do a similar cartoon on the Prophet Mohammad, and see what happens. I'm sure Nina will sensibly decline, for obvious reasons. Nor would Amrita even consider asking her, for equally obvious reasons.

Remember kids, ethnically selective liberalism isn't liberalism at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d74zxZAs1m8

Enjoy.

Amrita, donot confuse the issue :) You have proven your view point and now that it's degenerating into a game of ego :)

I'd agree with the comment above. Let Nina Palley find parallels with the women who routinely get dumped and I would be thrilled indeed to see parallels from other religions too. All I know is that you'd be burnt on the stake for all that is worth it :)

Abhishek - do not confuse the issue? Excuse me, you just used my name to mouth off about some stuff that has nothing to do with me and you have the guts to ask me not to "confuse the issue"?

Sanjay - I'm neither the spokesperson for Nina Paley and neither does her work have anything to do with socialism or Desicritics apart from the fact that this site published my review of her work
I don't know what you're trying to prove by introducing yourself as an atheist or a fan of her work when all you're trying to do is make an extremely fallacious parallel between her work and that of the Danish cartoonists. What is even more repellent is that you (and let's not forget, the devoutly Hindu author of this drivel) seem to be very angry that nobody classifies Hindus with the kind of extremist scum that put a price on those cartoonists.
Abhishek started this rant by talking about pseudo-intellectuals: well, take a look in the mirror, both of you.

Amrita, maaf kardo:) Raat gayee baat gayee;)

Amrita, maaf kardo:) Raat gayee baat gayee;)

Amrita,
For some of us Relgion is a is serious business and we respect it and the gods like our parents.So we would be offended if somebody ridicule our gods and beliefs
Some "White Trash" like Gail Omvedt,Prof Witzel etc
take great interest in abusing hindu values and texts.

Gail omvedt,Witzel,MF Hussain or the above mentioned author who made cartoons on hindu gods are brave enough to do the same to Christians or muslims?
Freedom of speech doesnt give you the right to hurt others feelings.

I have specifically mentioned above that world's greatest minds respected Vedas,upanishads and hinduism.

Hindusim is in reality believes in One god.
ie why we have "nirguna prabhu" and "mara prabhu".
One god which is" abstract".We have countless no of gods i wouldnt say god but"states"/"sthithis"(of one god) for the covienience of worshippers .You are free to worship god(which is abstract) in the form or shape you like and that show the flexibility of this great "sanathana dharma".
Those who are criticizing hinduism just try to understand atleast the first adhyaya of "Bhagwath gita"--dhamra kshetre kurukshetre ".Plz dont start basing something you dont understand,it will noly show how your thickheadedness .

My Question: Why did Rama leave Sita on objection from a Dhobi?What was the justice he was trying to give to the dhobin who had come to Rama to beg for justice. How did Sita's exile give justice to that dhobin?

I have my understanding of above questions. But I would like others to enlighten me about it with their views/opinions before I put them on board.

Thx...

Dee - if you say so :)

Well, I know you to be a gracious lady:)

Amrita - in your description of Nina Paley, you say: "Your entire life seems to be a reaction to the white man but here's some news for you: this is a white woman. And she doesnt have anything to say about my scriptures. She's animating the life of one of the central figures in my scriptures."

So white women are no longer complicit with colonial politics? Or indeed postcolonial appropriation of discourse? Or for that matter neo-imperialist agendas? Or is this some sort of idealised "universal sisterhood" viewpoint?

I do find the representations (including animation) of Indian mythologies by Western artists very problematic, be they male or female.

Not only do they include the historical baggage of orientalising and essentialising the overt characteristics, they also proceed from a primarily binary view of the world (Semitic/Hellenic/Nordic) that is incompatible with the polymorphous "Hindu" view. The end result is that not only philosophies and narratives but also symbols are distorted and reduced. This may not be intentional but unfortunately is the case.

Echoing something that Salman Rushdie pointed out in his critique of the Far Pavilions many years ago, I would not have a problem with these Western representations if the images and narratives were countered by autoctonous images with equal frequency and power. However the reality is that while Indians do make the images and narratives that are equally or more powerful, they are rejected by the West in favour of the Nina Paley variety of essentialised, orientalised versions with all the colonial baggage of the past.

I do not agree with the way Abhishek has framed his argument, yet I understand and agree with the sentiment.

An aside: Btw, as Hindus we don't have "scriptures" - which assumes a solitary textual version as the "authentic" or truthful one. Terming Hindu texts, narratives, ideas as "scriptures" is to apply Semitic, binary, textually limited version to a far more complex and diverse worldview. It leads one unwittingly into a theological/philosophical/linguistic trap. It also ignores the idea of shruti (heard) that was the first medium of transferring texts (and devalued by Western/Macauley Indian colonial thinkers!).

Finally, are we talking Ramayana here as Paley's basis or the Ram charit manas? And which version of the Ramayana is she using? I bet she will pick the least complex, most populist, and most easily orientalised version!

Anamika

wow!!! Kya response hain. :-)

I wish we Indians stop being so obssessed for or against goras in general. At the end of the day we will have to fix our country's myriad problems by finding solutions rather than whining and crying and criticising about it everyday.

I was also wondering if we could profile writers on the basis of the school board they appeared in. Are we likely to see more India whiners from the ICSE boards (missionary schools) or that the CBSEs/ State board kids are equally likely to be whining about India. The second profiling cut would be the background of the individual as well. We are likely to see upper class (non-business) to be more likely to be whining about everything Indian.

What I find problematic is the notion that NO westerner could ever understand Indian ideologies, while it's clear that the same people who make such sweeping generalizations feel they totally and completely understand the west. How is that possible?

I'd second to what Anamika says. She may not agree with my tone of write up (written in total disgust) against the pseudo bloggers (whoever they are).

It still beats the logical conclusion that you wish to reach. Merely by silencing the "war of words" with their contortions, it doesnot brush away the issue.

Nina Palley, her interpretations and your write up clearly amounts to "blasphemy"- just the word that you don't associate with Hinduism. All in the name of tolerance. Tolerance is a word for the meek.

I have never claimed and I shall never claim that I am the "protector" of the "religion". It is not possible. But what is possible is the defence of the holy symbolism that I have mentioned above. Even if it raises the heckles of the people around. For once, the write up, even though "balanced", is jaundiced about the Hindu view point.

It is a syndrome and a "mental disease"- blogging community is full of so called "secular" idiots brimming around who jump around to the defence solely because they have been reading about the whole thing in the media. I nearly went through a trial myself before I realised that whatever is made to appear look like, it isn't so.

There are few people who stick out like sore thumbs but someone has to provide a counter view point. There is no other way to describe a stick as a stick and a pseudo intellectual as a pseudo intellectual!

Any other place and any other time, Palley would have been served a fatwa and she would have been hiding and scampering for cover. In similar vein, M F Husain finds it safe to run away from India despite being declared as a proclaimed offender by painting Hindu Gods in the nude.

Palley has intentionally distorted the figurines on her website with representations varying from weird and absurd to downright offensive.

Amrita, you may not find them offensive. But then, our conditioning has never been like that.

Abhishek, thats the point no sane Hindus will put the fatwa on the Cartoonist. You have just proven Amrita's point. Our faith isn't so weak that it can't withstand some different interpretation even if its from a supposedly 'ignorant' Westerner.

BTW we have our own naked gods that we appreciate in the Khajuraho and Konak. Maybe you would like to do a Taliban demolition there since they also probably offend your sensibilities.

small squiirel wrote: What I find problematic is the notion that NO westerner could ever understand Indian ideologies, while it's clear that the same people who make such sweeping generalizations feel they totally and completely understand the west. How is that possible?

The issue is not about goras or green martians, it is about depth of knowledge of the complete range of Indian philosophy, theological/ secular literature, epistemiology etc. Just because one happens to have indian heritage, brown skin and black hair does *not* make you automatically knowledgeable about Indian culture.

To learn just one of the hindu philosophical systems, its variations, extensions, recensions and commentaries takes almost 12 years to master if done in the traditional manner. Dr Karl Popper at University of Washington has been working on an producing an Encyclopedia of Hindu Philosophy since the 1970s. Over 30 volumes, each 1000 pages, is barely enough to capture even a summary of all the available literature. I know firsthand because I happen to own the first 14 volumes. This remains a work in process.

Just as one cannot hope to understand the complete depth of western culture without deep knowledge of western philosophy, literature, theology, epistemiology etc., one cannot do that with Indian culture either. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Anamika - you missed two very important points in your eagerness:
One, in my post I very clearly said that what I object to is the attempt to thrust the onus of centuries of institutional racism on one artist merely because she is white.

Second, those lines were written to Abhishek who accused me of taking "the white man's" word about my scriptures.

This is precisely why I'm so disgusted by Abhishek's behavior. Under the guise of righteousness, he's chosen to put words in my mouth and given me a stance that I do not believe in for no other reason than that I was the first person his eye fell upon.

And now here you are, putting your interpretation on words I penned in response to his ridiculous attack. In effect I'm defending myself from Abhishek's diseased imagination.

to continue, if you have questions about Paley's ideas about the Ramayana, I suggest you click a few of the links in my article and then get back to me. She makes her own case much better than I can ever do.

sanjay... I was just trying to make a point. I think you got it partially. But it's not all in books.. it is about living in that culture and all the things about cultural understanding that go with being immersed in it and having it in your blood. You can get most of the way there if you try.. but you can never really understand in the same way.

Which is why I get pissed when people think they understand westerners completely while telling me they cannot POSSIBLY get a thing about their culture.

Dat's all I meant.

And Abhishek.. you are no less extreme then the people you rail against. and I am starting to believe no less pseudo. when you get off your high horse, let us all know.

Chandra - "profiling", how very nice and progressive of you.

Abhishek - your response to Paley's work is your opinion of it. By your own admission, your entire rant was based around one paragraph and your own paranoid imagination. Please don't try to sidle out of it by jumping on the doubtful justification provided by other posters.

Face it - you made extremely personal attacks, misrepresented my words, and are now trying to justify it. Don't even try and talk about things you don't understand.

Pramod - please read my post instead of taking Abhishek's interpretation as the definitive one and then tell me what your problem is.

People like you and Abhishek, I think, don't have anything to say on that board because you can recognize yourselves as the kind of racist bigots I was writing about.

Sorry, but you're not going to make me apologize about NOT being a racist or a bigot.

Deepti wrote: Swami Dayananda said, "I accept as Dharma whatever is in full conformity with impartial justice, truthfulness and the like; that which is not opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas. Whatever is not free from partiality and is unjust, partaking of untruth and the like, and opposed to the teachings of God as embodied in the Vedas - that I hold as adharma." By that definition Sita was not given justice. Sanjay if Rama considered it okay for Gautuma to accept his sullied wife why was Sita then discarded?

The vast majority of people feel very strongly that what Rama did to Sita was a great tragedy. Whether or not this is adharmic is another issue altogether. Was this the ultimate positive example of Raj dharm? or the ultimate negative of Rama's dharma as a husband? or, can we even say that some "higher" human dharma was flouted?

The story of gautama/ ahilya is very clearly an allegorical aside and it stands apart from the main temporal flow of the Ramayana. It is meant to convey some learning which is not of relevance to the story, imo. In any case, there are at least two versions of the story and it perhaps merits a discussion on its own.

Dashratha had made an oath to his wife and he had to fulfill it. It wasn't a whim but a promise and fulfilling one's promises or oath is part of Dharma.

Even the name Dashratha breaks down into Dasha = ten and ratha= chariot indicating a person who is controlled by his ten indriyaas or senses. These are people given to extremes of emotions and therefore there is plenty of evidence pointing to Dashratha having made the oath on a whim. Regardless, I do agree that coming good on the oath was part of Dashratha's kuladharm but he was still totally dependent on Rama coming through on his dharm as a son. I'm not sure that Rama had made any such comparable oath to Sita.

I can't believe that Hinduism cannot survive a few cartoons and paintings. I think people get bent out of shape because the intent of such disregard is not for Hinduism but the people who follow it. The artist is skewering the people. Get it. Get on with your life, ignore them. Hinduism will be fine, no thanks for bringing religion to fight your fragile egos.

KD - actually, she isnt even skewering the people. That's again the chip on Abhishek's shoulder.

smallsqurrel: Living in a culture like India's at best exposes you to a sub-culture but it doesn't provide context and reason. For example, if you were to live with the aghoris in India, you will find out "all about living" in that sub-culture, their practice of living in cremation grounds, begging from a bowl made out of human skull, even eating the flesh from dead human bodies etc.

It does not tell you why the aghoris are allowed to live & practice right in the middle of Benaras; on what basis do they consider themselves shiva worshippers and what is it in hindu philosophy that legitimizes this claim; and why the more conventional shiva worshippers have not run them out of town yet.

One thing is for sure, the aghori contribution to society cannot be denied - aghori saints have been a source of inspiration for many "ordinary" hindus, who have opened a hospital for leprosy patients, fought the abuses of the dowry system, helped to simplify wedding ceremonies and work for education of the poor.

sanjay.. .right. I never said it was all experience, I said it wasn't all in the books...

what I am saying is that some people in these forums use big words and have read big texts and what have you... they think they know everything. yet everyone else is a psuedo-intellectual. it's tiresome.

Sanjay - what you said is equally true about America. From the outside it may look like an ocean of white with a few islands of black but when you get closer there's a lot more going on.

Sanjay - this one - write for Desicritics - mail me.

Amrita, I could just hug you. thanks for saying what I was getting damned sick and tired of trying to not just blurt out. :)

SS - it needed to be said. But it's an argument neither of us will ever win: you, because they'll say you're just an American what do you know? Me, because ten people are probably already planning new ways to call me whitey's stooge for not being an out and out chauvinist like the oh-so-intellectual author of this crap.

true enough, true enough.
well we can just go back to being shrinking violets, then... aiyo....

Amrita: yes, I agree and the real question is what is going on in America and how does it differ from India. What are the overlaps and points of departure between whiteness as a cultural dynamic in america and the corresponding hinduness in India?

Today, these are not academic questions because I think globalization is not only flattening the earth in economic terms, it is also doing so in the socio-cultural arena. In other words, economic flattening is slowly but surely neutralizing comparative economic advantages between nations/ regions, making it less likely for some people to migrate for economic reasons. Maybe this is too much Maslow but I think there will be a class of migrants who will migrate not for economic reasons but for reasons of culture. All others equal.

The point is that it is not enough to say "a lot more is going on". We need to understand what is going on and how.

Amrita, you point out: "what I object to is the attempt to thrust the onus of centuries of institutional racism on one artist merely because she is white."

Well sorry for the reality check but the imbalances of power in the world today as well as the past 500 years of history of appropriation of cultural knowledge, traditions and representations of non-white cultures while suppressing autoctonous articulations of the same means that NO white artist is entirely free of complicity in that enterprise.

Nina Paley is free to create her art supposedly based on Indian mythologies/characters, just as Picasso was free to be "inspired" by African art. The difference between the two (other than quality) is that the nonwhite world is no longer willing to remain silent about the appropriation (cultural robbery as some African and Australian Aborigine artists will tell you), or indeed accepting of the appropriated and regurgitated representations. A look at her own words reveals definite hubris and a sense of entitlement that allows her to execute the appropriation without any acceptance or tolerance of protest from the "natives."

SS - I don't think living for a few years in a specific part of India would equip anyone to generalise on 5000 years of Indian culture. I have Jewish friends, and for a while a Jewish partner, and studied Hebrew and Talmudic philosophy. But that does not make me an "expert" on Jewish culture(s). If anything, it taught me to be more careful about intervening in/about/on Jewish cultural production.

Moreover, "speaking" for ANY marginalised people by a member of the dominant culture is an appropriation and abuse of power, no matter how well intentioned.

Amrita wrote: SS - it needed to be said. But it's an argument neither of us will ever win: you, because they'll say you're just an American what do you know? Me, because ten people are probably already planning new ways to call me whitey's stooge for not being an out and out chauvinist like the oh-so-intellectual author of this crap.

It is not immediately clear to me who is the intended target of this particular personal attack but it is only ethical that the attack be open. Besides, I believe "whitey" does not approve of shooting people in the back.

My personal view is that you are quite free to adopt any culture you want - whiteness, sub-sahara african or plutonian. Just be open & honest enough to admit which frame of reference you are using when you critique something that you know will raise people's hackles.

A bit of unsolicited advice to even the score on this count: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Sanjay in response to Comment62- the only oath that Rama made to Sita was the same oath we make to our spouses when we marry - to protect and stand by each other no matter what.

I will be reading up more to understand the Epic better. Thanks for the discussion it was a pleasure conversing with you.

Deepti: the only oath that Rama made to Sita was the same oath we make to our spouses when we marry - to protect and stand by each other no matter what.

If we go down this path, then all modern separations and divorces have to be classified "adharmic" because these also represent breaking of that oath. Regardless of reasons or who is at fault. I don't believe you want to go there.

Thanks for the discussion it was a pleasure conversing with you.

Likewise.

Amrita, nowhere I called you a whitey's stooge. I only objected to your understanding and "euologising" Palley without being able to grip the issue in real terms.

A pseudo secular or a pseudo intellectual is one who comments on, or is knowledgeable of, disciplines outside his or her own field of study is not a pseudointellectual, as long as he or she is intellectually honest and does not misrepresent his or her own background and understanding of the subject. Your article did not sound like one that you are speaking from a position of authority. I reacted in a manner because the write up focussed on someone who has the gall to hurt my sensibilities.

It further heckled me because there have been scores of write ups by various authors on seperate issues; partly being motivated by "concern" for the underdog and partly "motivated" by the corrupt media.

I being an Indian, does not qualify me to be an expert on the Indian culture. Likewise you seem to have no domain specific specialisation on the said issue. But then, this isn't the topic of discussion here.

I am not riding high on my horse and neither I am keen on berating anyone. I reacted to your write up strongly because of high visibility on Desicritics and that it would be interpreted by scores of readers as nearly the Gospel truth.

Unfortunately, I had to stick out like a sore thumb and there was no other apt description of your write up.

For obvious reasons, without cluttering up the write up, there are people who write about internal security issues, economics, education et al without being really knowledgeable. Blogging can be a good past time but all I am asking is to do some degree of research and provide the interpretation from all possible angles.

Palley would persist with her movie, nonetheless. You would not stop writing. But then why only Hiduism?

I have already mentioned earlier on and doing it again. It is NOT a religion that it is "under danger". It is Dharma. And being universal in appeal, it cannot ever go out of sync. It would perhaps be rediscovered in various other facets in times to come.

Khajuraho was a product of decadent times when Hindu kings fought and indulged in merriment. It was those internal divisions that made it easier for others to invade us.

As for the Brits and the White man influencing the culture, there is a lot that can be said about it. Anamika has said in so many words. A product of the "modern education system" is as disenchanted from the culture as someone from outside. It is not to say that I am not one. Luckily, my parents realised the value of incomplete education and made sure to supplement in the right areas.

For me, it has been a journey and discovery of all sorts in the recent years. There has been a degree of political awakening and it motivates me to stick out and challange the notions floating around.

Sanjay: I believe you are referring to 'abandonment' not divorce. By sending away his wife without evaluating her guilt/ innocence and by violating her trust, Rama may have done his duty as a king but as a husband and a father he fell short. A divorce requires both parties to either be mutually consenting towards the decision or give the court enough evidence to decide on why to grant the decree. In Sita's case not only did she not have a choice in the matter, she didn't file for alimony or child support as would've happened now :)

On a serious note, personally, I have always admired Hinduism for the deities who have very human flaws that we can learn from thus making them identifiable. By deeming something infallible, supernatural or difficult to understand we only make religion and the lessons from our spiritual teachings inaccessible for people.

Having read a few of the comments above, I am starting to get the feeling that some people seem to have mistaken verbose for lucid and complex for profound.

When people