Scholarship or sensitivity?

[Guest guest]

Scholarship or sensitivity?

 

<With all respect, Prof. Raman, the issue is not "sensitivity". The issue is

honest intellectual enquiry.>

 

I am well aware that Mr. Malhotra's essay deals primarily with the scholarly

deficiencies in the authors he has quoted.

 

It may not be a matter of sensitivity for many enlightened Hindus, but it is

very much so for me as a temple-going member of the tradition. I will leave it

to the more scholarly among us to focus only on technical blunders.

 

Personally, I am not interested in denying or challenging the

phallus-interpretation of lingam worship, or other erotic significance which

some may detect in Hindu symbols. That's their prerogative, and I will leave it

to other specialists in the field to argue about that. But I am offended when

professors who teach Hinduism don't point out that, no matter what its origins,

the vast majority of Hindus today don't think of the lingam in those terms when

they visit a Shiva temple.

 

This whole issue becomes relevant to me primarily in the context of educating

Non-Hindu and also a growing number of Hindu students in English-only

institutions. It is important to be factual and precise, for sure, but equally

to be sensitive when talking abut a living tradition. I am inclined to think

that a great many Hindus would be offended by Kripal's thesis and book - even

before reading it through - whether or not he had his translations right. I

certainly was.

 

I was making a general statement about attitudes and respectful commentaries,

not just about technical translations from Bengali or Sanskrit. This is the key

issue in many multicultural educational contexts today as well as in scholarly

exchanges.

 

And I do respect dispassionate Hindus like yourself who are only interested in

the chastity of scholarship, and can say: <Truth, however unpalatable, we will

learn to live with. Falsehood, never.>

I don't happen to be one of them.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

 

V. V. Raman

 

September 11, 2002

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Prof. Raman :

 

I will just take up one point because it perfectly illustrates

the crux of the issue.

 

> Personally, I am not interested in denying or challenging

> the phallus-interpretation of lingam worship, or other erotic

> significance which some may detect in Hindu symbols.

> That's their prerogative, and I will leave it to other specialists

> in the field to argue about that. But I am offended when

> professors who teach Hinduism don't point out that, no

> matter what its origins, the vast majority of Hindus today

> don't think of the lingam in those terms when they visit a

> Shiva temple.

 

1. Not pointing out that Hindus don' t think that way about

lingam is not a lack of sensitivity, but a lack of honesty,

because it is omitting a pertinent fact in the description.

 

2. Another pertinent fact that such Professors are leaving out

is that the foreskin of Jesus was a sacred relic for Christians

until recent time, was a major draw for pilgrims;

subject of theological debates, and even

used as a fertility charm by French royalty, etc.

Srinivasa Tilak, on indictraditions has nicely summarized

this.

 

Since teaching Hinduism to an American classroom is

to implicitly make comparisons with the prevailing religion,

not to mention this is not insensitivity, it is dishonesty,

because it is a fact pertinent to any comparison of

beliefs.

 

 

With regards,

-Arun