talking of role models, here is what wendy doniger thinks of saffronites favorite role model: rajiv malhotra. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a334-2004apr9.html
doniger blames the internet campaigns. "malhotra's ignorant writings have stirred up more passionate emotions in internet subscribers who know even less than malhotra does, who do not read books at all," doniger wrote in an e-mail. "and these people have reacted with violence. i therefore hold him indirectly responsible."
dwarakanath rao (no relation to t.r.n. rao), a hindu psychoanalyst in ann arbor, mich., said doniger had written moving interpretations of hindu texts that made them accessible for the first time in north america.
"i just do not hear disrespect," he said. "i hear a woman who, frankly, is in love with india."
wrath over a hindu god u.s. scholars' writings inspire hatred in india by shankar vedantam washington post staff writer saturday, april 10, 2004; page a01
"folklore has it that elephants never forget, and paul courtright has reason to believe it. a professor of religion at emory university, he immersed himself in the story of ganesha, the beloved hindu god with the head of an elephant. detecting provocative oedipal overtones in ganesha's story -- and phallic symbolism in his trunk -- he wrote a book setting out his theories in 1985. .."
"..the recent controversy began not in new delhi but in new jersey.
in an essay posted on a web site called sulekha.com, new jersey entrepreneur rajiv malhotra argued that doniger and her students had eroticized and denigrated hinduism, which was part of the reason "the american mainstream misunderstands india so pathologically.
malhotra criticized in particular a book for which doniger had written the foreword -- courtright's "ganesa: lord of obstacles, lord of beginnings." the book drew psychoanalytic inferences about ganesha, also known as ganesa or ganpathi, the son of the hindu god shiva and his wife, parvati. "
that is an interesting (and plausible) explanation. can you extrapolate by giving an example of actual practise of hinduism and contrast it to the practise of an abrahamic / semite faith.
>>the reason i am so suspicious of your explanation about monotheism and actuality of caste is (not because i do not believe you) but it reminds me of muslims who explain that jihad is struggle, not the killing of the kafir.<<
pvohra, one of the distingusing features about the monotheists (abrahamists) is the empahsis that they place upon hypocrisy, that is, upon not doing what you say (or believe). while with hindus, we do not at all see such an emphasis. how many times in the bible and koran do we hear instigation against the hypocrite and this is suppose to be, for them, an ultimate censure of the individual. while for hindus, being called a hypocrite is no censure at all (maybe others can elaborate on why this is so). i just want to propose that maybe your feeling that hindus are being hypocritical is an abrahamist coloring of the hindu, who is in fact quite comfortable in his skin (for the hindu does not 'acknowledge??' a unilateral relationship between his thoughts (words) and the actuality of the world.
"a slight mistake, which could change your equation - bin laden advocated killing all nationals who were the enemy of islam, not just enemy nationals. so on one hand you have togadia who fumes (incites) against the im's and on the other hand you have a mercenary who actually coaches to kill people of any nationality or religion (including islam) and kills himself. does the equation change now as to who is worse, or is the smaller crime of a hindu worse than the bigger crime of a muslim ?"
yes, indeed the equation changes. by the way, sometimes i am facetious and u do not realize it. an example is the bin laden togadia comparison.
even without the information you provide, bin laden is a fucking pig...togadia is someone i disagree with. there is no scope of comparison.
i have been following your discussion with interest. zafar articulates better then i do. your point with regards to hinduism relate to its essence. you would therefore agree that the practise of hinduism is deviated many a time from its core.
so, when you talk about religion, are you talking about the core philosophy, or are you talking about its practise amongst its adherents. the reason i am so suspicious of your explanation about monotheism and actuality of caste is (not because i do not believe you) but it reminds me of muslims who explain that jihad is struggle, not the killing of the kafir.
see, i am not muslim, i do not care what jihad means, but i want the muslim giving the explanation to give it to mullah omar and bin laden, not to me. i do not care what jehad means unless it is affecting me.
similarly casteism, i do not believe it, or practise it. to me, it is irrelevant. however, we all know that it exists, and it does so on the basis of the religion as it is practised. therefore, any example or reasoning of casteism not being connected to hhinduism needs to be directed to those who practise it.
but i would like to see firther delineation on what really constitutes religion.
All Comments
1474beware of mad dog (arundhatiroy alias manjariv)>>
just read on some other thread on sulekha...
"wendy doniger loves india in same way as a pedophile loves an unsuspecting kid."
haha...
stats,
my response to your verbose post is, i consider you, as one of the people wendy is talking about.
best regards.
talking of role models, here is what wendy doniger thinks of saffronites favorite role model: rajiv malhotra.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a334-2004apr9.html
*****************************************************
doniger blames the internet campaigns. "malhotra's ignorant writings have stirred up more passionate emotions in internet subscribers who know even less than malhotra does, who do not read books at all," doniger wrote in an e-mail. "and these people have reacted with violence. i therefore hold him indirectly responsible."
dwarakanath rao (no relation to t.r.n. rao), a hindu psychoanalyst in ann arbor, mich., said doniger had written moving interpretations of hindu texts that made them accessible for the first time in north america.
"i just do not hear disrespect," he said. "i hear a woman who, frankly, is in love with india."
*****************************************************
wrt the w-p story , how come only some 'gopal , the hindu fanatic from singapore' was quoted ?
why not mehta jihadi - the hindu terrorist who threatened to do all sorts of unspeakable things to the female members of the risa gang ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/a334-2004apr9.html
wrath over a hindu god
u.s. scholars' writings inspire hatred in india
by shankar vedantam
washington post staff writer
saturday, april 10, 2004; page a01
"folklore has it that elephants never forget, and paul courtright has reason to believe it. a professor of religion at emory university, he immersed himself in the story of ganesha, the beloved hindu god with the head of an elephant. detecting provocative oedipal overtones in ganesha's story -- and phallic symbolism in his trunk -- he wrote a book setting out his theories in 1985. .."
"..the recent controversy began not in new delhi but in new jersey.
in an essay posted on a web site called sulekha.com, new jersey entrepreneur rajiv malhotra argued that doniger and her students had eroticized and denigrated hinduism, which was part of the reason "the american mainstream misunderstands india so pathologically.
malhotra criticized in particular a book for which doniger had written the foreword -- courtright's "ganesa: lord of obstacles, lord of beginnings." the book drew psychoanalytic inferences about ganesha, also known as ganesa or ganpathi, the son of the hindu god shiva and his wife, parvati. "
bhudev:
that is an interesting (and plausible) explanation. can you extrapolate by giving an example of actual practise of hinduism and contrast it to the practise of an abrahamic / semite faith.
>>the reason i am so suspicious of your explanation about monotheism and actuality of caste is (not because i do not believe you) but it reminds me of muslims who explain that jihad is struggle, not the killing of the kafir.<<
pvohra, one of the distingusing features about the monotheists (abrahamists) is the empahsis that they place upon hypocrisy, that is, upon not doing what you say (or believe). while with hindus, we do not at all see such an emphasis. how many times in the bible and koran do we hear instigation against the hypocrite and this is suppose to be, for them, an ultimate censure of the individual. while for hindus, being called a hypocrite is no censure at all (maybe others can elaborate on why this is so). i just want to propose that maybe your feeling that hindus are being hypocritical is an abrahamist coloring of the hindu, who is in fact quite comfortable in his skin (for the hindu does not 'acknowledge??' a unilateral relationship between his thoughts (words) and the actuality of the world.
thanks
krikku:
i am back :)
"a slight mistake, which could change your equation - bin laden advocated killing all nationals who were the enemy of islam, not just enemy nationals. so on one hand you have togadia who fumes (incites) against the im's and on the other hand you have a mercenary who actually coaches to kill people of any nationality or religion (including islam) and kills himself. does the equation change now as to who is worse, or is the smaller crime of a hindu worse than the bigger crime of a muslim ?"
yes, indeed the equation changes. by the way, sometimes i am facetious and u do not realize it. an example is the bin laden togadia comparison.
even without the information you provide, bin laden is a fucking pig...togadia is someone i disagree with. there is no scope of comparison.
i have been following your discussion with interest. zafar articulates better then i do.
your point with regards to hinduism relate to its essence. you would therefore agree that the practise of hinduism is deviated many a time from its core.
so, when you talk about religion, are you talking about the core philosophy, or are you talking about its practise amongst its adherents. the reason i am so suspicious of your explanation about monotheism and actuality of caste is (not because i do not believe you) but it reminds me of muslims who explain that jihad is struggle, not the killing of the kafir.
see, i am not muslim, i do not care what jihad means, but i want the muslim giving the explanation to give it to mullah omar and bin laden, not to me. i do not care what jehad means unless it is affecting me.
similarly casteism, i do not believe it, or practise it. to me, it is irrelevant. however, we all know that it exists, and it does so on the basis of the religion as it is practised. therefore, any example or reasoning of casteism not being connected to hhinduism needs to be directed to those who practise it.
but i would like to see firther delineation on what really constitutes religion.