Wendy, Tantra, BJP, Indian Secularists ... (fwd)

[Guest guest]

>rajiv malhotra <rajiv.malhotra

>manthan (Manthan)

>Manthan <manthan

>[Manthan] Wendy, Tantra, BJP, Indian Secularists ... (fwd)

>Thu, 27 May 2004 01:49:37 +0000 (UTC)

>

>[==========================================]

>Manthan: Information Exchange Network for

>Ideological Empowerment of Hindus

>Sponsored By: http://www.voiceofdharma.com

>[==========================================]

>

>

>A new academic book that is sure to stir up controversy is “KISS OF THE

>YOGINI: "Tantric sex" in its South Asian context,” by David Gordon

>White.

>

>Wendy Doniger’s glorifying review of it (see:

>http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.aspx?story_id=2107312)

>demonstrates the “assembly-line process” by which “theories” get used to

>spin new “theories” by those enjoying power over distribution channels.

>(In this instance, my use of marketing metaphors will be tough to condemn

>because both White’s book and Wendy’s review of it use marketing

>metaphors.)

>

>White’s book’s core thesis is that tantra was intended as South Asian

>decadent sexuality, with NO spiritual purpose, and that this decadence was

>the result of sociological suffering of Indian subaltern (lower castes) in

>classical times.

>

>However, he offers no textual basis to prove this (and he is the one who

>should have the burden of proof, not his critics). Since his thesis on

>tantra claims to demolish centuries of writings by Kashmir Shaivites and

>other thinkers from within the tradition, he asserts (without proof) that

>scholars like Abhinavgupta did not know or did not want to know the “real”

>tantra which White claims to have uncovered in his book.

>

>So once again, the natives are not to be trusted in their own

>interpretations, including their eminent thinkers who have been studied by

>westerners for centuries. Bottom line: tantra has nothing to do with being

>a spiritual quest at all.

>

>Coming from one of Wendy’s Children, this is not a surprise, but it raises

>other issues. A Kashmir Shaivism and tantra scholar who finds this book

>“disgusting” in methodology, conclusion and demeaning tone, tells me

>privately that he does not believe that the pandits in India under whose

>feet White did his research since 20 years ago have any clue that this is

>how their firangi scholar (who once respected them with gifts and

>namaskars) has twisted their translations.

>

>My main purpose in writing this short piece is to focus on Wendy’s use of

>the book review for political purposes:

>

>1) Wendy simply gives the book the benefit of doubt without seriously

>challenging its presuppositions – not a surprise. Her review in

>prestigious journals facilitates the brand value and credibility of the

>book – that’s how the game is played. A new theory is born, namely,

>“tantra = sex only.” Period.

>

>2) It was “Hindu chauvinists,” Wendy and White claim, who repackaged

>tantra as spirituality. This was to make Hinduism look good. Victorian

>values of the colonialists get “blamed,” to make Wendy’s analysis appeal

>to Indian postcolonialist scholars. Furthermore, ideas that tantra as

>having a spiritual purpose was a fraudulent construction produced by

>“Hindu nationalists,” “fascists,” “right-wingers” and so forth, there

>would be a big market of gullible takers among Indian intellectuals who

>(i) have virtually no knowledge of Sanskrit or its texts to be able to

>inform themselves except via Westernized interpretations accessible in

>English, and (ii) resonate with the anti-Hindutva politics.

>

>3) White does #1 above, and Wendy takes it to #2. So what do we have

>here? Indians who continue to think of tantra as spiritual are to be seen

>as nationalists/right-wingers.

>

>4) Furthermore, Wendy cites Schweder’s popular new theory that native

>societies do not own their culture – again uncritically assumed by Wendy

>even thought this is unproven and simply one point of view in an undecided

>debate. She alleges that “Hindu diaspora” and other “Hindu right-wing

>chauvinists” have claimed exclusive rights of their culture’s

>interpretation, whereas Schweder tells us that they have no such ownership

>rights.

>

>5) The process unfolding here illustrates the assembly-line of knowledge

>production going through three “theories,” each unproven and arbitrarily

>selected out of the toolbox of pop-theories. Here are the three stages:

>(I) White constructs his thesis that tantra is sex-only and devoid of any

>spiritual purpose. (II) Wendy adds that Hindu right-wingers removed the

>sexuality in tantra and fabricated that “tantra = a spiritual process.”

>(III) Wendy then cites Schweder’s unproven political position to claim

>that this scholarship is being prevented by chauvinistic Hindus when in

>fact nobody has ownership claim over a native culture.

>

>6) Implication: Nobody can dare challenge the White/Wendy scholarship on

>the grounds of its lack of merit for fear that any challenger shall be a

>branded a BJP chauvinist. What a defense strategy, indeed! What a tragedy

>for the academy that it works!

>

>7) Per Z. Sardar, “the realities of [non-western cultures]...are for sale

>in the supermarket of postmodern nihilism.” What White does is akin to a

>product manager introducing a new product in the postmodern “bazaar of

>realities” (Sardar), and what Wendy does as follow-up is to cut-and-paste,

>reconfigure and produce yet another derivative “product”, i.e. that

>claiming tantra has spiritual purpose is a sign of being a BJP member. The

>choice our youth have is to face more Hindu shame or stop claiming Hindu

>identity.

>

>8) This merely strengthens my U-Turn Theory as yet another case study in

>my database. White makes the U-Turn for reasons that I have not uncovered.

>The stages may be summarized as follows.

>

>9) Stage 1 was when White studied tantra with great respect, along with

>many western followers of Swami Muktananda, using various Indian pandits.

>

>10) Stage 2 was by scholars repackaging it into some “generic”

>psycho-spiritual theories in the guise of helping Hinduism become more

>“universally accepted.”

>

>11) Stage 3 was a bifurcation between two streams: those who wanted to

>harvest tantra and claim it based on “western science” made careers by

>producing research in which the source tradition is hidden or downplayed.

>

>12) The other branch of scholars went directly to stage 4: that is

>White/Wendy’s product management of mockery of Hinduism, along with a

>whole army of scholars specializing in different aspects of mockery of

>Hinduism.

>

>13) Stage 5 is to neocolonize elitist Indians who only know English-based

>Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment “theories” and who eat out of the

>western institutions’ hands. (I shall defer going into my “pets, patients

>and children theory” of how these Indians may be segmented.) This is where

>the asymmetric power of western travel grants, visas, PhDs, jobs, and

>stamps of approval are the carrots to buy out armies of stage 5 Indians -

>who, ironically, like to see themselves as fighters on behalf of nativity

>against western imperialism!

>

>14) Product managers are of two kinds, negative and positive: In this

>example, White/Wendy are product managing the process of constantly

>burdening Indian culture’s symbols, traditions, rituals and leaders with

>negative associations. In parallel, other product managers (not mentioned

>here) facilitate the appropriation of Indic culture to embellish western

>cultural capital and soft power.

>

>This presents a political problem for Wendy’s Children vis-à-vis Tibetan

>Buddhism. After all, that tradition shares tantra with Hinduism, and

>tantra is at the very heart of advanced Tibetan Buddhism. Hinduism is vast

>beyond tantra, and would survive even in the worst case if Wendy’s

>Children were to succeed in delegitimizing tantric spirituality. But

>Tibetan Buddhism is heavily dependent upon tantra. The fight back from

>Buddhist scholars is yet to begin and could produce interesting fireworks.

>They know very well that if the core thesis against Hindu tantra becomes

>mainstream Buddhism would become vulnerable to similar attacks. Given

>Buddhism’s clout in the intellectual world, Wendy’s Children have been

>wise in focusing on the softer target of Hinduism.

>

>Furthermore, in light of the above, one may see why recent risa-l posts

>suggest that bhakti of Krishna and others should also be interpreted via

>the tantra lenses: It allows the scholars to superimpose “tantra = sex” on

>to all forms of bhakti, and be able to claim the prize for hammering yet

>another nail into Hinduism.

>

>Finally, let it be noted that the interpretation of tantra has been turned

>into a political issue by Wendy Doniger, whereas she is known to proclaim

>the status of being a victim of politics. The issues should have remained

>strictly matters of scholarship, with alternative views debated in open

>forums. Wendy has once again done a disservice to her academic credibility

>by using modern politics as her silver bullet to hit and as her fig leaf

>to cover.

>

>Regards,

>

>Rajiv Malhotra

>

>

>

>

>

>

>********************************************

>Manthan is a moderated, invitation-only list.

>Listadmin: owner-manthan

>********************************************

>

 

_______________

Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!

http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/