RE: Comments on the recent controversy
concerning the petition against Courtright’s book [Susantha G.]
Geopolitics of academia and the (controversy over the) ‘Lord of Obstacles’
- a song of Thanksgiving in honor of Liberty! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
[IndianCivilization] Dr. Ravi Kapur on the life of sadhus in Bharat [Kalyanaraman]
.... Fw: [IndianCivilization] Dr. Ravi Kapur on the life
of sadhus in Bharat [Loganathan]
Propitiating the
‘Lord of Obstacles’ (Vighna-Vin�yaka) - or what happens when the Fool dabbles in
psychoanalysis! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Obnoxious anti-Hindu comments in Walters Art Gallery booklet about Ganesha
sculpture [Kalyanaraman]
Is Ganesha a eunuch as opposed to the virile Bhairava? Like the Vedic
Agni, this ‘great brahmin’ (butcher!) seems capable of giving birth to his
parents! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Re: Is Ganesha a eunuch as opposed to the virile
Bhairava? Like the Vedic Agni, this ‘great brahmin’ (butcher!) seems capable of
giving birth to his parents! [Stuart Sovatsky]
Has the castrated Ganesha been reduced to the ‘crooked’ enjoyment oral sex
with his limp trunk? In-deed, for the psychoanalytic fantasies of an impotent
‘Indology’! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Do virile Hindu ‘heroes’ (n�yakas!) need a brahmin
‘eunuch’ to initiate us into the incomparable pleasures of ‘oral sex’? ask
Abhinavagupta! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Murti-s [images]
of Shivalinga and Ganesha [Kalyanaraman]
Re: Murti-s of Shivalinga and Ganesha [Ram Varmha]
Re: Murti-s of Shivalinga and Ganesha [Kalyanaraman]
Re: [akandabaratam] Re: Murti-s of S’ivalinga and
Ganes’a [Loganathan]
Musha, Mushika [Ram Varmha]
Re: Musha, Mushika [Kalyanaraman]
Why does the pot-bellied
Lord of Wisdom romp around on a teeny-wienie mouse? ask his thieving younger
brother, Mr. Subrahmanyam! [Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Psychoanalysis in
Its Death Throes: The Moral and Intellectual Legacy of a Pseudoscience?
[Sunthar V.]
Washington Post: Courtright [Mary Hicks]
My rejoinder: WASHINGTON POST
AND HINDUPHOBIA [Rajiv Malhotra]
Rajiv Malhotra’s rejoinder:
Washington Post and Hinduphobia [Sunthar
Visuvalingam]
Psychoanalysis, Hindu Wisdom and Transgressive Sacrality:
'Provincializing Europe' through the Hermeneutics of Ganesha?
[Sunthar Visuvalingam]
Subject: RE: Comments on the
recent controversy concerning the petition against Courtright’s book
From: Susantha Goonatilake
Sent:
I broadly agree with what Rajiv is saying. The
study fields that he mentions started about 25 years ago as a response to
western hegemonic thought. But they were picked up as mechanical tools by others
to do its opposite on
What you are saying about Indic Hindu studies is
worse in Buddhist studies. Buddhist studies in the 19th & 20th C
were an attempt to grasp what Buddhism was. It was a goof effort. During the
last 25 years there has been an anthropological turn in Buddhist studies and
instead of careful scholarship one has gross inventions and partial truths that
do not meet basic criteria of scholarship or test.
Nobody messes up like this with
Yours Truly,
Susantha Goonatilake
PhD
[response to Rajiv’s original post of
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003;
When Liberty Valance rode to town
The women folk would hide, they’d hide.
When Liberty Valance walked around
The men would step aside
Cause the point of a gun was the only law
That
When it came to shootin’ straight and fast,
He was mighty good.
From out of the East a stranger came,
A law book in his hand, a man.
The kind of a man the West would need
To tame a troubled land;
Cause the point of a gun was the only law
That
When the final showdown came at last
A law book was no good.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962 Western
‘black-and-white’ classic starring John Wayne).
The new century will be marked by several dramatic changes that
will leave their effect on knowledge, science and technology. One would be the
shift of the centers of gravity of the world in economic and political terms
away from its present Eurocentric moorings to
"Coming Intellectual Shifts to Asia: The Indic Possibilities,"
Susantha Goonatilake (Indic Colloquium, July 2002)
It’s a sad movie in many ways. Ford is closing the book on his
meditations on progress here. The black and white photography itself is rather
depressing -- most of the scenes, including all the important ones, seem to take
place at night, in the dark. And what do they show us? [...] the West began with Indians and buffalo, and the
only law was survival. Then the cattlemen moved in and took the land over and
the law was that of the hired gun. Now the West has been settled by hard-working
farmers and turns into a garden, once the power brokers are out of the way. But
it’s a wistful garden. The cactus roses have disappeared and been replaced by
turnips. And the rowdy, raucous, plain-speaking heroes and villains have been
replaced by pretentious blowhard politicians of the sort that Ransom Stoddard
(James Stewart) has become. [...] John Wayne is,
of course, the hero of the tale. You can tell because, in addition to his John
Wayneness, he wears the only black and white outfit in the cast [without the blue tie? - SV], which draws attention to his figure whenever it is
onscreen. [...] When he enters the political
meeting toward the end, banging open the swinging doors, staggering slightly,
bearded, shabby, his magnificent white hat replaced by a battered gray one,
slightly bleary, he looks and acts like a man who has been defeated but has not
yet died, putting up a brave front with nothing left behind to prop it up. He’s
not bad in this scene. For the most part, though, he plays John Wayne, the
resolute man of principle.
(John) "Ford’s Last Big one," Comment by Robert J.
Maxwell (
Dear Susantha,
I agree with
you that the controversy over GaNeza is just an episode, despite its significant
reverberations and repercussions, in a looming ‘confrontation of civilizations’
that has been very long in the making, dating back perhaps to even before the
modern colonial period. As far as ‘knowledge production’ in the West is
concerned, it is pertinent to note the manner in which (not just
institutionalized) ‘Orientalism’ has co-opted each new revolution, originally
subversive of its own civilizational matrix, so as to unleash its disaggregating
effects onto its Other:
�
Freud developed his psychoanalytic
theory gradually from insights derived from his firsthand attempts to help his
patients drawn mainly from the Viennese bourgeoisie; his non-licensed fan-club
makes a living by transforming other cultures into ‘patients’ in need of Western
‘medicine’.
�
Foucault’s entire ‘nihilist’
critique was directed at the power-knowledge nexus underlying modern
‘scientific’ discourse (to the point of initially embracing the Khomeini
revolution as a potential liberation...); his imitators rehearse the same
motions but to undermine traditional civilizations.
�
Nietzsche sought to destroy the
philosophical legacy of the Enlightenment and thus pave the way for a return to
the esoteric inspiration behind (pre-Socratic) Greek thought; the
neo-conservative ‘Straussians’ find therein the license to destroy all other
socio-religious orders.
�
Edward Sa�d attempted a ‘humanized’
deconstruction of Orientalist praxis; while he is labeled an intellectual
‘terrorist’ by ‘Western’ apologists, the privileged ‘subalternist radicals’ who
swear by him would write off (not just) Eastern self-identities themselves as
colonial constructions.
This is an ‘East-West debate’ that cannot be won by
mere argument however logical, well-researched and cogently presented: those who
‘call the shots’ won’t even condescend to grant your case a proper
hearing...until it becomes obvious that it is in their own vital interests to do
so!
I guess
that, like myself, Osama ben Laden has been watching too many John Wayne
movies—maybe we should urge Congress to pass a bill banning the
continuing export of such ‘sensitive’ Hollywood Westerns to impressionable
I really enjoyed listening (and talking) to you at Menla!
Sunthar
P.S. You can hear the ‘title song’ (didn’t feature in
the movie...) in MP3 format (on RealPlayer) here (under heading Making of Gene Pitney).
[rest of this thread at
Multiculturalism, caste, universalism and the survival of communal diversity: a
belated Indian Thanksgiving?]
[Sunthar’s attempt to mediate opposing positions of Kalyan and Loga on applicability of psychoanalysis to Ganesha]
Subject:
[IndianCivilization] Dr. Ravi Kapur on the life of sadhus in Bharat
From: S. Kalyanaraman
To: Abhinavagupta
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:00 AM [Abhinava msg #1389
– thread presented in reverse order]
I think psychoanalysis is a fraudulent pseudo-science. The likes of Cartwrights [Courtright - SV], Wendy Donigers, Kirpal Singhs [he’s a gypsy not a Sikh! - SV], Ravi Kapurs are not adding to the corpus of vidy� or knowledge. Many of these pundits are hoaxes trying to steal some headlines from the pseudo-secular press and taking a dig at Hindu Dharma by devious means and out to malign the sacredness with which a Hindu looks upon a Sadhu. Just knock off, Kapurs, don’t step on our toes.
NISTADS is headed by a
pseudo-secular.
Kalyan
Dr. Ravi Kapur on the Life of Sadhus in India [emphases below added by Sunthar]
Rajiv Malik
trained in
the National Institute of Advanced Studies,
Deputy Director of the same institute and before that the Professor and
Head, Department of Psychiatry at the prestigious National Institute of
Mental Health & Neurosciences. He is Fellow of the Royal College of
Psychiatrists, the Indian National Academy of Sciences and the
lecture entitled- “The making of a Sadhu: An enquiry into higher states of
mental health,” jointly organized by National Institute of Science,
Technology and Development Studies and India International Centre under the
series-DIMENSIONS of SCIENCE, on the evening of December 1, 2003.
The conference hall was packed with intellectuals, researchers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, media persons, former bureaucrats and diplomats,
>
>
[complete article at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/8675]
>
>
Said Dr. Kapur, “Many of the sadhus I met survived on a meagre diet of
cereals and fruits. They were mostly not bothered as to wherefrom their next
meal is going to come. When I asked this question to one of them, he told
me- ‘I challenge God not to give me food.’ “
According to Dr. Kapur total availability to the needy and sick,
cheerful temperament and high level of energy were some of the
qualities which were common to most of the sadhus he had met. They pursued
their goal—moksha with boundless energy.
Dr. Kapur said that in India the young people are told since
childhood that they should not waste their semen or tejas which is very
precious. “When I asked the sadhus, how they fulfill their desire for sex,
most of them told me that when they are immersed in meditation and bhakti,
the joy and ecstasy they experience gives them much more satisfaction than
they would get from any sexual indulgence. In fact sex was nothing
as compared to the ecstasy they experienced when they were in
communion with the God. To describe this feeling of ecstasy, they said
that they felt a flow of energy rushing from the back of their spine to the
top of their head.”
Talking about a sadhu who lived at a height of 15,000 feet without wearing
much clothes, Dr. Kapur said – “When I asked him how he coped with the
loneliness at such a height, his answer was, “I have ladoos [sweets] in both
my hands. When someone comes here, I feed him and feel absolutely blissful.
And when there is nobody here for six months, I am in total communion with
God and am again completely blissful. So both my hands are full of ladoos.”
“Almost all the sadhus I met, I asked if they possessed any special
powers. One of the sadhus to who I addressed this question responded by
saying- ‘Yes I have special powers. I can make very good rasam (a spicy
soup),’ “said Dr. Kapur.
During this two hour meeting, people listened to Dr. Kapur’s
lecture with rapt attention. An interesting question answer session also
followed after the lecture was delivered.
Subject: Fw:
[IndianCivilization] Dr. Ravi Kapur on the life of sadhus in Bharat
From: Dr. K. Loganathan
Date:
Dear Dr. Kalyan
You are totally mistaken about the relevance of Psychoanalysis for understanding Hinduism especially the Tantric developments. While Western psychoanalysis may be inadequate (certainly not fraudulent), it does not mean Psychoanalysis as a whole is irrelevant. What it means is that we need a new psychology such as Agamic Psychology I have developed and which is an improvement on Freud and Jung.
What we have to do is to bring out the psychoanalysis in the Indic traditions instead of shutting off every psychoanalytic way of studying the Indian traditions.
Loga
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003;
Much of the symbolism invested in the ‘consecration’ (d�kS�), as revealed by Heesterman, points to the d�kSita standing in the relationship of enemy, or at
least of rival, to himself as ‘sacrificer’ (yajam�na) before,
after and outside the duration of the d�kS�: [...] The hidden rivalry of the Vid�Saka with regard
to the hero would be simply because the former represents the d�kSita aspect of the latter as ‘sacrificer’ (yajam�na). [...]
This would also account for C�r�yana’s big (‘basket-like’) ears for the latter
is a womb-symbol (...). The source of the Vid�Saka’s ‘perversity’ is the same as that of his infantilism (...), and
though these two aspects may be distinguished in him through separate sets of
symbols and gestures, they sometimes converge to fuse inextricably as in the
appellation ‘wicked brat’ (duSTa-baTuka). The
infantile stage attained through the d�kS� thereby reopens
(at least theoretically) all those possibilities contrary to the alternatives
that the sacrificer has effectively chosen and crystallized in his normal
person, and to that extent the d�kSita will
necessarily appear as the enemy or rival of his normal self. But since the
rejuvenating d�kS� is undergone by the sacrificer for his own benefit, this rivalry is only an
element of a larger cooperation. As these two poles have been split in the
drama-sacrifice into the figures of the Vid�Saka and the hero (n�yaka), the former is seen to serve no purpose
whatsoever of his own but only selflessly furthers the legitimate life aims (puruS�rthas) of the hero and within this cooperation,
presented as an inseparable friendship, is comprised an element of opposition
that shows through as a perversity of will or bungling stupidity [14] (or a curious combination of both). The
infantilism of the Vid�Saka merely states that he is the undifferentiated substratum from which
is differentiated the organized but limited adult personality of the hero; his
perversity however (compare the psychoanalytic characterization of the child as
a ‘polymorphous pervert’) emphasizes
1) Through his rivalry, that he is
simultaneously the substratum of the villain’s personality (hence their hidden
affinities) or simply of the forces opposing the purpose of the hero, and
2) Through his transgressions, that he is
opposed to any kind of order including that inherent in the hero’s design.
Yet, paradoxically enough, if the hero’s purpose is
accomplished, this is only because he integrates within himself all that the
Vid�Saka represents, something that is expressed through his submission to the
contrariness of the latter, his unswerving attachment to him. (...). It is
through his Mitra-aspect that the VaruNa-Vid�Saka of the ritual preliminaries (p�rvaranga) would, in the play proper, have become the
chief resource of the hero (...). This identification of the Vid�Saka with the
d�kSita aspect of the (n�yaka) hero-sacrificer (yajam�na)
during his embryonic regression can be easily reconciled with his brahm�n (purohita)
identity proposed above, when we recognize that this splitting of roles has been
already dramatized in the agonistic pre-classical sacrifice in the [15] cooperative rivalry of the couple
sacrificer/brahm�n priest. Heesterman’s studies
reveal that the brahm�n-purohita not only assumed the scapegoat function (like
the jumbaka) in taking over the impurity and
evil of the d�kSita but was also, like the d�kSita, the rival of the sacrificer (...). It is the
psychological (rather ‘psychoanalytic’?) reality of the d�kSita being the rival other within the very self of
the sacrificer that is translated in the sacrificial drama into the brahm�n-rival. “The idea of the rebirth of the
sacrificer out of himself is not in opposition to the idea of rebirth out of br�hman sacrifice. The equation of the sacrificer with
the sacrifice is well established; Praj�pati, the first sacrificer, is at the
same time the sacrificial victim while he is also interchangeable with brahman. Moreover the king (…) is proclaimed a brahm�n as is also the common sacrificer in the d�kS�. In the legend (of Zunahzepa) the two aspects of
the ritual birth are expressed simultaneously. Thus we may view (...) the brahman as that part of the sacrificer’s own
personality from which he is reborn ‘out of himself’. For the
brahman
as half the self, half the body of the sacrificer, cf. Aitareya Br�hmaNa 7.26.4…in the ritual the king sacrificer
is born out of himself as brahman, on the other
side the brahman is the womb of the
king-sacrificer” (...). There are frequent
instances not only of the Vid�Saka attributing his own actions to the king or
the latter’s characteristics to himself (hence, a [16]
deliberate ‘confusion’ of the two roles) but also of his assimilation to the purohita. The theory behind this ‘confusion’ of roles
is best expressed in the hero Avim�raka’s glowing tribute to his Vid�Saka:
“Comic in (sportive) assemblies, a warrior in battle...undaunted before foes; my
heart’s great festival....but these word bubbles are enough! ‘Tis
my body in two divided.”
Sunthar V., “Introduction,”
to
Abhinavagupta’s Conception of Humor (1983)
Why is GaNeza, the ‘Lord of Obstacles’, also called
(often in the same breath as Vighna-) ‘Vin�yaka’? Of course, as lord (pati) of (Rudra-Ziva’s) (grotesque) hosts (gaNa), GaNapati may be said to be a ‘leader’ (n�yaka) of sorts. Perhaps, he also ‘leads’ (nayati from the root *n�-)
his devotees along the right path (and not just to success) in all their
undertakings. But why (the prefix) Vi-n�yaka? Simply, because he leads obstacles
‘away’ (vi- in the sense of separation) from us?
In Sanskrit, vi- often has an intensive sense,
thus vi-jaya (one of the 10 secret names of
Arjuna...) would be a superlative ‘victory’ (jaya). This might be associated with the notion of
variety (vividha), hence vi-marza (the key term in Abhinava’s theory of
knowledge) might be understood as being focusedly (self-) aware and from all
possible angles. However, vi- also has the
wholly contrary sense of privation (viN�): thus,
to be vyanga (vi
+ anga = ‘limb’) is to be disfigured (vi-kRta, like the de-formed vi-d�Saka). The Vid�Saka himself seems to be the
‘abuser’ or ‘reviler’ (*d�S-) par excellence (= vi-),
now with negative connotation. That this coincidence of praise/blame within a
‘polished’ Sanskrit particle reflects a structuring principle animating the
religious tradition is recognized in the epithet ‘great’ (mahat) applied to the clown of the theater: the mah�-br�hmaNa is both much more and much less than the
brahmin.
Freud’s theorizing on the role of repression (or
‘censorship’) within the individual psyche led him to speculate on the contrary
forces that might have been active in the emergence and early development of
language(s) as reflecting the ambivalence underlying the diverse orderings of
culture. What drew and held his attention was the fundamental ambiguity (vi-!) that would have been preserved in the semantics
of ‘primitive’ words and affixes, catering to the same psychic necessity that
has subsequently found expression in the intricate mechanisms of ‘wit’ (related
to Sanskrit ‘vid’ = to know), whereby the
‘infantile’ unconscious offers a verbal ‘bait’ to our internal (-ized) censor
thereby allowing a repressed thought, emotion or tendency not only to express
itself with impunity but even win over the vicarious participation of an adult
audience. If we now subsume the notion of the ‘unconscious’ within the dimension
of an esoteric knowledge that would be grounded in (super-) Consciousness (as
represented by the all-consuming appetite of the pot-bellied god), such ‘twisted
speech’ becomes the prerogative of the (ladoo-sharing) healer rather than of the patient.
Despite its materialist underpinnings and reductive tendency, Freud’s
‘psychopathology of everyday life’ reveals how all of human behavior is as
expressive as a forbidden language. Is it so surprising then that Jacques Lacan,
the therapeutic buffoon to whom psychoanalysis now owes so much of its prestige
among the ‘human’ sciences, had not only studied the linguistic insights of
(�nandavardhana and) Abhinavagupta but also cited the Indian theorists of
‘suggestion’ (dhvani) in support of his own
formulation that the ‘unconscious’ is structured like a crooked (snake?) tongue
(a dramaturgical text describes the Vid�Saka as ‘double-tongued’ dvi-jihva)?
Other Hindu deities—like the Vedic king of the
gods, Indra, or the Tamil war-god SubrahamaNya (Skanda)—have greater claims than
the pot-bellied elephant-trunked mouse-riding GaNeza to being a heroic ‘leader’
(n�yaka), but have never been honored with such
an exclusive title of ‘supreme leader’ (vi-n�yaka). Our one and only Vin�yaka may be fully
understood, it seems to me, only in juxtaposition and contrast to
the protagonist (n�yaka = ‘hero’) of the
Sanskrit theater, who is presided over by the royal Indra. The pot-bellied
(Mahodara) crooked-stick wielding Vid�Saka, who is likewise presided over by the
sacred syllable Omk�ra, is in fact the ‘anti-hero’ (German: Gegen-spieler) of the play. This (dramatic
transposition of the) vi-n�yaka ‘unwittingly’
creates obstacles in the path of the n�yaka but
thereby contributes willy-nilly to the eventual fulfillment of the latter’s
desire (typically his union with the heroine, n�yik�, who represents the whole kingdom). N�rada, the
trickster-sage, plays a similar role in Hindu mythology by provoking discord
among even the gods and goddesses (one text describes the Vid�Saka as a
‘quarrel-monger’ kalaha-priya) but, again, all’s
well that ends well. In a profound sense, then, the ‘Lord of Obstacles’ would
not just manifest the ‘crooked will’ of the ‘enemy within’ who keeps thwarting
the best-laid plans, but also embodies the ‘willingness’ of his sacrificing
worshippers (of us, n�yakas and n�yik�s!) to encompass and turn to advantage this
indefatigable ‘contrariness’ so as to achieve our larger purpose.
What other contemporary science is there that would
help us fathom, and in his own crooked way, this supreme embodiment of Hindu
wisdom?
Sunthar
P.S. I’m consolidating a listing of all
the recent posts around the GaNeza controversy at the Abhinava Forum-Index (see
keywords below).
P.P.S. How come the ‘ascetics’ [above] seem to draw all
their metaphors from food? ...just like the impoverished imagination of the
Vid�Saka!
[Rest of this thread
at
[Divinities:Ganesha;
Esotericism:Psychoanalysis; Politics:Orientalism]
Subject:
Obnoxious anti-Hindu comments in
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004;
Open Letter to Trustees of the Walters Art gallery,
I request devotees of Ganes’a worldwide, to contact and/or write to the Trustees of Water Art Galley museum authorities to withdraw their book about Asian Art and/or expunge the derogatory remarks made in the book which hurt the sentiments of Hindu worldwide:
“Asian Art in The Walters Art Gallery: A Selection,” by Hiram W. Woodward, Jr. Publisher: The Trustees of The Walters Art Gallery, 600 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201; Excerpts from Page 20:”Ganesa, is a son of the great god Siva, and many of his abilities are comic or absurd extensions of the lofty dichotomies of his father...Ganesa’s potbelly and his childlike love for sweets mock Siva’s practice of austerities, and his limp trunk will forever be a poor match for Siva’s erect phallus.”
It appears that, Hiram W. Woodword, the author and The Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, who are the publishers, are basing these obnoxious anti-Hindu comments on the ‘academic’ work of Prof.Courtright (Emory University) recently withdrawn from circulation by Motilal Banarsidass.
The Art Gallery trustees should be aware that Ganes’a is venerated not only in India but also in many other parts of the world. Ganes’a is a cultural icon, for example in Indonesia where Ganes’a adorns the 20000 rupiah currency note (the obverse of the note shows a classroom with children) and Ganes’a icon adorns the entrance of Bangkok Institute of Technology as a divinity of education, and in Thailand, Ganes’a is venerated in Buddha Dhamma.
Such derogatory comments about divinities, GaNeza
and Ziva, in a public museum hurt the sentiments of millions of Hindu worldwide
and damages the image of the
The Art Gallery should not only offer a public apology to all Hindu and all world citizens who venerate Ganes’a and S’iva, but also compensate for the damage caused by donating to the promotion of Hindu dharma.
Dr. S.
Kalyanaraman [email protected] Sarasvati Research Centre, Chennai, India 600015
4 January 2004
Walter Art Gallery 600 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD Phone: 410-547-9000. Gary Vikan is Museum Director.
http://www.artcom.com/museums/vs/sz/21201-51.htm
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004;
Courtright then quotes Edmund Leach, an anthropologist [165], in support of his interpretations, and continues (p.
111-112) –
“This combination of child-ascetic-eunuch in the symbolism of
Ganesa – each an explicit denial of adult male sexuality – appears to embody a
primal Indian male longing: to remain close to the mother and to do so in a way
that will both protect her and yet be acceptable to the father. This means that
the son must retain access to the mother but not attempt to possess her
sexually. As a child, a renouncer, or a eunuch, he can legitimately maintain
that precious but precarious intimacy with his mother because, although he is
male, he is more like her then he is like his father. This may explain why
Ganesa takes on these qualities through his own choice or why he willingly
accepts them as mutilations from others – even from Parvati herself – so long as
they will guarantee his continued proximity with her.”
The reader is also told that Ganesa represents “a primal Indian
male longing: to remain close to the mother and to do so in a way that will
protect her and yet be acceptable to the father. This means that the son must
retain access to mother but not attempt to possess her sexually.” [166]
Vishal Agrawal and Kalai
Venkat, “3.4 Ganesha as eunuch,” When The Cigar Becomes A Phallus-Part 2, Sulekha
Pachali Bhairava has the habit of leaving Pharping each morning
to bathe in the Ganga at Benaras and returning to Kathmandu in the form of a
handsome man. In this way, he seduces a young girl of the butcher caste (Nepali:
Kasai) [...] Before long, she too becomes curious and he finally agrees to
reveal himself provided she throws some grains of rice as soon as she sees his
real identity. She too forgets and flees as soon as she is confronted by her
grotesque lover. Bhairava pursues her through the night, but day starts to dawn
and he seeks to hide himself. He reaches a cremation ground and
wraps a bamboo mat around himself, such as the Newars use for their dead. This
one had in fact been used to bring a corpse to the cremation ghat. He has no time to disappear totally underground and the stone
venerated today is his buttock! Another version explains the close relationship
of the Kasai caste with the god Ganesha. The seduced butcher girl becomes
pregnant and her fear at the grotesque appearance of her lover provokes the
premature birth of the child, who is adopted by the Kasai. The child is none
other than Ganesha, who is venerated by the butchers of South Katmandu in the
form of a small bronze statue attached to a drum that they play during different
ceremonies. [p.23]
The Sthapita lights the homa
fire. Ganesha Purna Bahadur or Kasai, who that night incarnates Ganesha, son of
Pachali Bhairava and Ajima, starts to sacrifice the goats. He must sacrifice
them in his arms while the music is now played by the Kasai. With the animal in
his arms, he first cuts its jugular vein and then cuts off its head. [...] While
the Indian Ganesha has remained an auspicious and Brahmanical divinity, the
Newar Ganesha regularly and publicly receives blood sacrifices during the course
of their festivals. All the same, the fact that Ganesha is incarnated by a Kasai
finds some justification in Hindu mythology where the birth of the
elephant-trunked god is generally considered to be marked by impurity. As
revealed in their origin myth, it is the impurity of the Kasai -- the result of
his profession of bloodletting -- that gives him the right to kill the
sacrificial victim [p.38] Finally the Kasai musicians arrive accompanying
Ganesha, the son of Pachali Bhairava and Nay Ajima (Newari: Nay = Nepali: Kasai),
incarnated by Ganesha Purna Bahadur. Ganesha is also called by the name of Nay
Ajima, the concubine of Pachali Bhairava. Ajima is the general word, in Newari,
to indicate the feminine aspect of the divinity. The
The jumbaka had to be a brahmin, charged with evil,
and the king himself was reborn as a brahmin on receiving the diksha. The purity of the brahmin and the
impurity of Bhairava seem to form the two extremes of the dialectic of the
transgression that transforms the royal adept into a maha-brahmana (a brahmin par excellence). While the impurity
of the royal dikshita is expressed
through his identification with Bhairava as incarnated by the Malakar, his
“brahmin-hood” is rather represented by his supposed “son” the god Ganesha. The
true aspect of the “beautiful” Bhairava is as grotesque as that of the jumbaka, and he is as gluttonous as the sarva-bhakshaka (omnivorous) Ganesha. It is Bhairava himself who is
(re) born as Ganesha from the womb of Ajima, who would have the same role here
as the sacrificer’s wife in the Vedic paradigm. What is more, the violent
shaking of the jar at the precise moment of Ganesha’s arrival confirms that it
is Pachali Bhairava who also plays the role of the “mother” by giving birth to
himself. Finally — and despite the distribution of roles at the social level of
the festival — Bhairava, Ganesha and Ajima are a single symbolic entity derived
explicitly from an embryonic process. That is why Ganesha -- who himself has a
belly like a jar (kumbhodara, lambodara, mahodara, etc., the last being also the name of one Vidushaka) -- is
explicitly identified with his own mother (Nai) Ajima (cf. note 16). The crucial
point here is that, despite the absence of the purohita
and the practical effacement of the brahmins, as strictly defined, from this
Newar festival, the hold of Brahminism is exercised above all at the symbolical
level. The mythico-ritual universe mediated by the classical brahmin largely
surpasses both his social body and the insistence on purity that forms the basis
of the Hindu hierarchy. [p.56]
Sunthar and Elizabeth, A
paradigm of Hindu-Buddhist Relations: Pachali Bhairab of Kathmandu (1991)
How come the Newar Ganesha not only accepts meat
offerings but is also incarnated by a butcher entrusted with the task of killing
and decapitating the sacrificial animal? After all, the ‘orthodox’ Hindu
understanding of Ganesha derives him from the Vedic Brhaspati, who supervised
over the brahmanical sacrifice, the classical form of which admitted of no such
blood-letting (the z�mitr merely ‘pacified’ the
beast through suffocation). In fact, among the gods officiating at the divine
sacrifice, Brhaspati was the only one who could consume the ‘injured’ portion
sacred to Rudra.
So have these wily ‘North Indian’ brahmin
mafia taken (not just the Newars but also) our learned Dr. Loganathan ‘for a
(hermeneutic?) ride’ (as we say here in Al Capone’s city:-)?...only this time on
Ganesha’s (Dravidian?) mouse!
If you want to ‘psychoanalyze’ Ganesha, try taking
on first not just shamanic possession (�veza)
but also the mechanism of the Vedic sacrifice...
Sunthar
P.S. I’ve updated the online preview version of our paper
to include three new photos (printed book will have only black-and-white
illustrations): close-up of Pachali Bhairab jar, Bhairab standing on Bh�teshwara
stone, and Bhadrak�l� exchanging swords with king Birendra Bikram Shah. Though
the PDF file is huge (1.5MB), it has been optimized for the Web such that pages
are streamed down on demand and in the background.
[rest of this thread at
S. Kalyanaraman,
Obnoxious anti-Hindu comments in Walters Art Gallery booklet about Ganesha
sculpture (
Loganathan,
Re: Ko-m-�li = shamanic God-dancer = P�shupata ‘possessed’ by aTTa-h�sa =
Vid�shaka’s loud laughter on New Year’s eve? (Jan 1, 2003)]
Subject: Re: Is Ganesha a eunuch as opposed to the virile Bhairava? Like the Vedic Agni, this ‘great brahmin’ (butcher!) seems capable of giving birth to his parents!
From: Stuart Sovatsky
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004;
Swami Kripalvanad of Gujurat reports spontaneously severing the frenulum (tissue attaching the underside of the tongue to the mouth) with his LEFT THUMBNAIL as a manifestation of pranotth�na (“uplifted prana” as occurs during teenaged genital puberty and seen as the “glow of youth” and as the “glow of saints/yogis” who, in my terms, are manifesting a postgenital puberty of the spine—kundalini and pineal—the secretion of soma or hyper-melatonin, in modern terms) to facilitate khecari mudra (puberty of tongue-pineal.) He claimed spontaneously compelled severing of the frenulum with the left thumbnail is not uncommon in the advanced phase of kundalini yoga.
I have wondered if severing the frenulum might be related to severing the fifth head of Brahman. In any case, psychoanalysts would best be advised that Indic scriptures (tantric and otherwise) often point to developmental potentials of the body-mind that cannot be reduced to genital sexuality without severe distortion. Such “postgenital” maturational phenomena are seen in charismatic/Pentecostal/gospel/hesychastic/holy-roller Christian quivering, Quaker/Shaker quaking/shaking, uju kaya tumescent spine of Raja Yoga and Buddhist meditation, in Kaligari thxiasi num, Tibetan tumo, spontaneously arising tai chi, spinal throbbing Judaic davvening, in spinal undulating African, South American and Native American trance-dance, and in other bodily “manifestations of the spirit” worldwide.
The innocent, playful, clever Ganesa, with his ambiguously curling trunk and broken curved tusk seems an amalgam of all sorts of postgenital tumescences. As the son of Shiva, we should expect no less. And it is perhaps the innocence of it all that is most vulnerable to the psychoanalytic presumptiveness.
Stuart Sovatsky
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004;
“It is particularly difficult to know how to proceed from the
point at which the various myths in their variant versions are assembled in the
lush landscape of the Pauranic texts (the narrative level) to an interpretation
of these myths. We could start almost anywhere and work our way around,
examining each theme and metaphor until all the myths are accounted for in a
network or tapestry of meanings. My way out of this welter of possibilities is
to seek the elements in the myths that are most common and recurrent or most
striking in their uniqueness, to begin with these and thence be led to other
myths that shed light on the first ones. The most striking, and obvious,
recurrent element in the Ganesa cycle of myths is the elephant head. Hence our
analysis begins with an inquiry into elephant symbolism and mythology and its
relation to the Ganesa story. The elephant head in turn leads to the myths of
Ganesa’s birth, beheading, and the receiving of his elephant head, which in turn
leads to myths of his beheading. Beheading connects his mythology to the larger
metaphorical universe of sacrifice, dismemberment, initiation, and theogony.
Because it is Ganesa’s father who beheads him, the story is tied to the cycle of
Siva myths and to the issue of father-son relations. This opens up the
possibilities of psychoanalytic interpretations, centering on the Oedipal
complex...” [citation from Courtright - SV]
One wonders how Wendy’s children would interpret, using
psychoanalysis as a fa�ade, the episode of Parasurama beheading his mother
Renuka at his father’s behest. Would they argue that it reveals a possible
homosexual relationship between Sage Jamadagni and his son,
and suggest that the beheading symbolizes the removal of the unwanted mother?
Would he liken Renuka’s head to the sexual organ and equate her beheading with
genital mutilation?
Vishal Agrawal and Kalai
Venkat, “3.1 Opening Remarks,” When The Cigar Becomes A Phallus-Part 2, Sulekha
According to several versions of how Ganesa acquired his
elephant-head, his beheading is caused by a battle that starts at the threshold
of Parvati’s inner chambers. Courtright concurs with Robert Goldman and others
in interpreting this location in sexual terms,
“From the psycho-analytic perspective, the symbolism as the
location where the battle occurs is significant. It is the threshold to
Parvati’s bath and bedroom, symbol of her shrine, womb, and point of sexual
entry. It is the place simultaneously of union and separation. Ganesa the child
is coming out of the door at the moment Siva the husband is attempting to get
in. The doorway is not big enough for both of them at the same time; one must
prevail, and, of course, it is the father. The resolution, at lease initially,
must fall in his favor. The particular type of mutilation Siva inflicts on
Ganesa is also significant. As Robert Goldman points out in commenting on
Ganesa’s beheading, “This particular mode of displaced castration is a common
feature of Hindu legends. Beheading is, moreover, a regular symbol for
castration in dreams and fantasies” (pp. 371-372,; cf. Freud, pp. 366-369). In
traditional Indian yogic physiology, the head is the receptacle of both thought
and sexual potency or seed. In Tantric descriptions of the process of spiritual
liberation [moksa], the seed is drawn up from the sexual organs through
the various centers [cakra] along the spinal axis until it is released through
an aperture at the top of the head [brahmarandhra cakra or sahasrara
cakra] (cf. O’Flaherty 1980, pp. 17-61). In some versions of the myth where
Ganesa already has his elephantine form, the “displaced castration” takes place
on an even more obvious surrogate, the tusk. In separating Ganesa’s head/tusk
Siva, or one of his stand-ins, removes any potential threat of incest and
thereby leaves Ganesa sexually ambiguous... [...]
Relating the beheading of Ganesa to the brahmarandhra cakra
in such a contrived manner is also contradicted by direct data from Tantric
Hindu texts that are ignored by Courtright. These texts actually relate the
deity to the muulaadhaara cakra that is at the base of the spine, close
to the anus. The reason is quite transparent – Ganesa is the lord of the
threshold and, moreover, Hindu prayer ceremonies commence with invocations to
Ganesa. Likewise, in the initial stages of Yogic meditation, the focus is on
muulaadhaara cakra. The practitioner of Yoga in his initial stages tries to
‘awaken’ his
kundalini that is located in the muulaadhaara cakra. And things
become easier once this has happened, just as our tasks become easier if we
commence them with an invocation to Ganesa. The Rudrayaamala Tantra clearly
states that Ganesa’s elephant head with the curved trunk resembles the form of
the kundalini, which resides in the muulaadhaara cakra.
Vishal
Agrawal and Kalai Venkat, “3.2 Paul Courtright Invents a ‘Limp Phallus,” When The Cigar Becomes A Phallus-Part 2, Sulekha
What offends us regarding a genitalized (cover-photo of)
Ganesha or a Freudian interpretation of Indian icons is that they stick these
Beings who are manifesting these “other puberties” back into their favored
contexts and hermeneutics of genital puberty. Thus, the (postgenital) mysteries
of ardha-n�r�, �rdhva-retas, amrita, the mudr�s of
kundalin�, (and of course) ithyphallic Sivas or Ganeshas get masked and lost
once more behind the bold, yet false, confidence of Psychoanalytic “truth.”
Foucault saw this and fashioned his concept of ars erotica to be able to
view more accurately (culture-syntonically) such post-Freudian (postgenital?)
mysteries of body/soul and the traditions that map them.
Prof. Stuart
Sovatsky,
Celibacies, sexualities, Yogic eros (
The Brahman in
Hindu society conserves his Brahmanhood only through the observance of a
multitude of interdictions intended to maintain and accumulate his ritual
purity. Not only the other “great sins” (mah�p�taka) of incest, stealing a Brahman’s
gold, drinking wine and associating with such an offender, but any, even trivial
transgression, voluntary or involuntary, of the norms of ritual purity is
assimilated by the legal codes themselves to a “Brahmanicide.” Thus the
utilization of the left (impure) instead of the right (pure) hand during the
ritual procedures of eating, dropping of hair or finger-nails into one’s food,
splashing of saliva (Bhairava is sometimes described as “drooling-tongued” lalajjihva), intercourse with low-caste women, and so on,
are all productive of “Brahmanicide.” That the decapitation also symbolizes the
reversal of Brahmanical purity and the disguised valorization of ritual impurity
is confirmed by Bhairava’s execution of this transgressive act par excellence
with his left thumb-nail, a trivial detail otherwise unduly emphasized in the myth. If Bhairava
could have been so widely adopted with all his K�p�lika attributes by other
left-hand currents of Tantrism like the Kaulas and later N�ths, who however did
not imitate the K�p�lika model literally, this would be due to the wider
application of the Brahmanicide image to their own transgressive exploitation of
disgusting ritual impurities in order attain Bhairava-Consciousness. Bhairava’s
beheading of Brahm�’s fifth head is indeed symbolic of all manner of transgressions of the
norms of classical Brahmanism and it is in this sense that it is “symbolical for
the emergence of the Tantra-influenced period in Hinduism.”
Elizabeth Visuvalingam, “The ‘Supreme Penance’ of the Criminal K�p�lika-Bhairava,”
(1989)
Paul
Courtright’s limp phallus imagery is clearly derived from his own lack of
fertility as a scholar. He tends to see limp phalluses everywhere. In fact, the
limp phallus is a good symbol for the state of Indology in general. That is why
we are all obsessed with phalluses, limp or otherwise. Where would we be as a
field without our little limp phalluses?
Mihira2000 (impersonating Michael Witzel),
Re: [RISA-L] The scholar’s accountability (
Dear
Stuart,
How can beheading in the Indian context be reduced to an ‘Oedipal castration’
when the decapitated ‘victim’ can be not only the son (GaNeza), but also the
father (Brahm� by his son Bhairava), the mother (ReNuk� by her son Parazur�ma)
and even the decapitator herself (Cinna-mast�)? Even if Courtright’s
interpretation of GaNeza’s elephant-head were correct, what justification (other
than a, by now characteristic, scholarly myopia that is rooted in a self-serving
intellectual laziness...) is there for extending this ‘psychoanalytic’ insight
(?) to the psycho-sexual dynamics of the Hindu father-son relations without
first accounting for all these other figures of beheading within the tradition?
What the origin-myth of Bhairava clearly reveals is
that the fundamental meaning of decapitation is transgression. This is why the
decapitated brahmin head of ReNuk� is replaced in many variants by that of an
untouchable woman, and all this in a context of worship where she has been
raised to the pedestal of the Goddess. That such sacrificial beheading is
valorized in itself quite independently of any notion of punishment, revenge, or
interpersonal aggressivity, should be evident from the example of Cinnamast�,
who holds her self-decapitated head. The victim of the sacrifice is ultimately a
substitute for, and hence symbolically identical with, the sacrificer. Already
in Vedic mythology, the sage Dadhya�c is able to reveal the secret of the Soma
to Indra only through a horse’s head after he has been decapitated by the
latter. The motif of the severed head is central to the Vedic ideology, and the
tricky part is considered to be its restoration so as to make the sacrifice
whole again.
Castration in many ancient spiritual currents (such as the cult of Attis) was
often self-imposed (even by the priests) in order to curb the sexual impulse and
redirect its energies to the head. It’s thus perfectly logical for castration
here (the chopped off tusk leaving behind the ‘limp’ trunk) to symbolize a mode
of chastity. However, it is incredible that a disciple of Wendy (doesn’t she
re-read her own books before writing such glowing prefaces for her intellectual
offspring...?) could start on the premise of an opposition between the
‘celibate’ (son) Ganesha and the ‘virile’ (father) Shiva, when her own magnum
opus is entitled “asceticism and eroticism in the mythology of Shiva”! The
P�zupata ascetic who studiously avoided women is nevertheless typically depicted
in a perpetual ithyphallic state because of the obligatory lewdness (zRNg�raNa) he was obliged to exhibit (from a safe distance, of course!) in their
presence. It is this ‘horniness’ of the ‘eunuch’ GaNeza that is emphasized
through his remaining ‘single-tusk’ (eka-danta), a feature important enough to be
consecrated as one of his many names (or, like his illogical Hindu creators, was
Shiva too dumb not to have ‘castrated’ both his son’s phalluses?), itself
inherited from the (Indus?) ‘Unicorn’ (eka-zRnga).
GaNeza’s elephant-head is a sophisticated exegesis
of the sexual dimension of the transgressive d�kS�
(i.e., symbolic decapitation). The sexual energy that normally resides in
the instinctual center at the base of the spine (m�l�dh�ra)
has been transmuted into the cerebral matter as represented by the phallic trunk
limply suspended between the large ears. This is implicit even in the horse’s
head (check out, for example, the exegesis of the ‘equine fire’ in the Uttanka
episode of the Mah�bh�rata...). Biardeau (who has no love lost for
psychoanalysis...) in her entry on Ganesha for a French encyclopedia points to
sculpted representations where the tip of his trunk is resting on the vagina of
a goddess seated on his left thigh—what better evidence do we need of the sexual
connotations of his ‘sweetmeat’ (modaka)?
Indeed, it is the virile (but ascetic) husband Shiva who enters the womb-chamber
of his ‘wife’ to be reborn as the ‘brahminized’ son Ganesha—the classic
sacrificial scenario. From an internalized ‘tantric’ perspective, the adept does
indeed have a ‘sexualized’ perception of the world enjoyed as a modaka
(ask Abhinava!).
The distinctive feature of the Hindu GaNeza is that
he embodies in himself both the brahmanical and the tantric poles that we have
seen so diametrically opposed in Bhairava’s decapitation of his father Brahm�.
The K�p�lika ate all his food from the decapitated skull (-bowl), which amounts
to saying that that the sustenance that really kept him alive was the Soma being
generated in his own ‘brahmin’ head (David Lorenzen himself provides epigraphic
evidence of the affiliation of these Soma-Siddh�ntins to Vedic schools and as
having received the d�kS� but seems quite incapable of drawing the logical
conclusions...even after they have been pointed out to him). What GaNeza teaches
us—whether Anglo-brahmin, Dalit, Newar, Dravidian, or just plain ‘Hindu’—is that
his modakas are readily available to one and all
(not just to Vaidikas and K�p�likas).
Thanks,
as always, for your insightful input,
Sunthar
[rest of this thread at
Ganesha a eunuch opposed to virile Bhairava? ‘great brahmin’ (butcher!) gives
birth to his parents! (Jan 4, 2003)
Divinities:Ganesha; Politics:Orientalism; Esotericism:Psychoanalysis]
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004;
Courtright extends this weak chain of parallels to imagine the deity himself as eunuch-like,
“Like a eunuch, Ganesa has the power to bless and curse; that is, to place and remove obstacles. Although here there seem to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex, his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones. Ganesa’s broken tusk, his guardian’s staff and displaced head can be interpreted as symbols of castration. [...] [3.4 Ganesa as a Eunuch]
The Hindus fondly depict Sri Ganesa as devouring a sweetmeat called ‘modaka’. Courtright applies the ‘oral’ and ‘anal’ paradigms of Freudian ideology to interpret this in a sexualized manner,
“The perpetual son desiring to remain close to his mother and having an insatiable appetite for sweets evokes associations of oral eroticism. Denied the possibility of reaching the stage of full genital masculine power by the omnipotent force of the father, the son seeks gratification in some acceptable way. As long as he remains stuffed full he is content and benign, like a satisfied infant at its mother’s breast. If Ganesa should go hungry because of the devotee’s failure to feed and worship him first before all other gods, then his primordial hostility is aroused, to the detriment of all. Feeding Ganesa copious quantities of modakas, satisfying his oral/erotic desires, also keeps him from becoming genitally erotic like his father. ...Ganesa’s impatience for food suggests an anxiety, a hunger that is never completely fed no matter how many modakas he consumes. He is the child forever longing for the mother’s breast – that fountain of life-giving elixir he once enjoyed without distress in infancy but is now denied because of the father’s intrusion...Ganesa’s story is, in part, the story of maternal attachment, loss, and indirect but incomplete compensation. As a celibate child, and resembling the ambiguous figure of the eunuch, Ganesa is one whose masculinity remains partial, trimmed, and contained. Unable to take full possession of his mother in the face of his father’s beheading/castrating power, Ganesa lives a threshold existence – near but nor far enough -- seeking his own fulfillment in dutiful service to his parents and taking pleasure in an endless flow of sweetmeats from adoring devotees. He is the mythical expression of the male wish for maternal intimacy denied in real life in the course of growing up, a fantasy in which the defeats the son must suffer at the hands of the father are compensated indirectly by an orally erotic celibate proximity to the mother. [...]
While reading his book on Ganesa, the thought that kept repeating in our mind page after page was—”How could he have written this? Why did he do this?” [3.5 The Modaka as a ‘Toy’]
Vishal Agrawal and Kalai Venkat, When The Cigar Becomes A Phallus-Part 2, Sulekha
Courtright’s righteous indignation about academic freedom and
the support this has received from his academic peers, appear to arise from a
belief that his peers will not / cannot hold him to account on matters of
accuracy or evidence. The challenge to the accuracy of the book has again come
in a recent article by an outsider to the academic study of Hinduism. Courtright
can thus state with remarkable disdain for the voices of his sources “Although
there seem to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral
sex; his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted
as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise
ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones.” [emphasis
added by Sankrant]
In most academic disciplines, to come to such a definite conclusion, a scholar would have to marshal evidence, a fraud would have to manufacture evidence but in Academic Hinduism studies such efforts are, in Prof. Courtright’s estimation, overkill. Courtright may be credited with inventing one of the most ingenious devices in academic Hinduism studies—a field known for its ingenious devices—”The Courtright Twist”—whereby a respectable scholar can go from a hopeless “no evidence” to a tentative “may be interpreted” to “clear... overtones” all in the space of a single sentence.
Sankrant Sanu,
Courtright Twist And Academic Freedom, Sulekha (
Vid�shaka: “Oh friend! What is this love, this love that consumes you? Is it a man? a woman?” [a eunuch? - SV]
King: “Born of the mind, without cause, and ever intent on pleasure, the delicate way of affection: this is what is called Love.”
Vid�shaka: “Even then I do not understand.”
King: “Friend, he is the offspring of desire.”
Vid�shaka: “Then what one desires, one loves?”
King: “Exactly!”
Vid�shaka: ”I’ve understood it. Just like me desiring to eat food in the kitchen!”
The vid�shaka can understand sexual enjoyment (k�mopabhoga) only in terms of food; but there is indeed universally a correlation between sexual enjoyment and eating. [ad v�thyaNga #1 udgh�tyaka]
For this equivalence and that between an ‘omnivorous appetite’ (characterizing the vid�shaka as Agni) and incest (or sexual transgression), see citations from L�vi-Strauss. The vid�shaka is constantly making sexual innuendos in terms of food, especially his modakas. We give only some examples in passing. In Avim�raka, when the maid attempts to lure away the fool from the presence of the hero and heroine intent on love-making, he agrees to do so only if she promises him food. She then hands over all her ornaments and declares: “you have now become virtually a lover to me,” and drags him off the stage (...). To Avim�raka wholly engrossed in his infatuation with the heroine, he says: “You appear to be brooding over the same thoughts, day and night, like a Brahmin duped by an invitation to dinner” and compares his own food-deception to that of a sex-starved harlot (...). When the lovelorn heroine weeps, he attributes it to her “hunger” and urges to “hurry up with the food” insisting that he will be the first to sit at the table (...). The maid chides this perverse brahmin’s obsession with food (...) and Bhat rightly observes that “Nalinik� may think that the joke is inopportune; but it reveals the true Br�hmana, no doubt” (p.207). When Avim�raka proposes to lead him into the harem in Act IV (p.160), he thinks that his companion has suddenly become “hungry” (...) at which he is chided as a “fool” (vaidheya). When king Dushyanta turns to his vid�shaka (...) for consolation and advice in his consuming passion for the heroine, he replies: “What, in gobbling sweets (modaka)? Bless the moment!” (...). In the play Vikramorvash�yam itself he makes repeated equations of love with eating (...) and the examples could be easily multiplied.
That the humor (h�sya) with which such assimilations are accompanied in the plays is not the primary motivation can be inferred from the exploitation of the same motif not only in Ganesha, but even in such mythic episodes as Agni appearing as a gluttonous brahmin (br�hmaNo bahu-bhokt�smi) to consume the Kh�NDava forest (= modaka) in the Mah�bh�rata. The present example is funny only if the vid�shaka’s (alimentary) term of comparison is felt to be incongruous but in that case the requirement of the definition would not be fulfilled, for there would be no equivalence and a hidden significance based on it. Moreover, the king could hardly be said to have “clarified” the meaning of “love” to the fool. That an esoteric assimilation of sexual appetite to eating is really intended is confirmed from other numerous instances, like those cited above, from the plays themselves. We have in our example a clear instance of an esoteric equivalence that, in the context of the drama, is presentable only under the semblance of ‘humor’ h�sya (i.e., h�sy�bh�sa). [footnote #22]
Sunthar V., “Wit and Linguistic Ambiguity: the V�thyangas“ (chapter 10), PhD thesis (1983)
Another fundamental unsolved problem of the vid�shaka is the stereotyped over-insistence on his enormous appetite (constant obsession with food) and on his ‘sweetmeats’ (modakas) which, though invariably exploited for comic effects, are shared by him with Ganesha. It is suggested that this all-devouring appetite is due to the vid�shaka representing (the god of Fire) Agni (‑Consciousness) in his ‘all-devouring’ (sarva-bhakshaka) form and that the modakas represent the Soma (‘elixir of life’). This symbolism is organically linked to transgression as a means of bringing about an expansion or totalization of Consciousness and a rejuvenation of the psycho-physical system. This is why the Tantric divinity of transgression par excellence, namely Bhairava (mark his forms like Unmatta-, Ucchishta- which he shares with Ganesha) is also the symbol of the all-devouring Consciousness (bhairav�gni) in Kashmiri Shaivism. This seems to be a retention of the central Vedic theme of the hidden sinister forms of Agni and Soma (Bergaigne) which have been retained even in the epic mythology in Varuna’s realm in the netherworld (Kuiper). Caillois notes that “there are numerous reasons for thinking that the sexual act is constantly assimilated to a manifestation of voracity” (...) and not only is this observation amply supported by L�vi-Strauss’ findings but we find ample confirmation of it in the manner and contexts in which the vid�shaka alludes to his appetite (...). This fusion of sexual and alimentary (or even cooking and burning) images and motifs refers back ultimately to a complex of esoteric psycho-physical techniques exploiting the sexual experience, using it as a vehicle, for the expansion of Consciousness (vishv�tmat�), which leads to the juxtaposition of incestuous symbolism with that of ‘eating,’ ‘cooking,’ or ‘burning’ the world (the three processes being synonymous in this regard). Sometimes the motif of embryonic regression is also associated with the one of incest in this context (...), and elaborate riddle-mechanisms or figures of speech are exploited to bridge these various domains whose terms come together in a single mythical episode (...) to signify what is ultimately an inner lived experience (the incest, for example, may not be concretely realized as in the Kaula sacrifice (kula-y�ga); it is sufficient that the embryonic regression be relived as a mode of incest, hence of transgression). [...] The most condensed and pregnant formula expressing this lived experience of consuming the entire universe of sensory experience in the blazing fire of (the sexualized Bhairava-) Consciousness is found in Abhinava’s definition of the esoteric Trika technique of haTha-p�ka: ‘cooking or digesting (the world) by force.’ Tantr�loka III. Jayaratha’s commentary makes it clear that the ‘metaphors’ of both cooking and sexual union are intentional. That this technique has not been invented by the Trika can be inferred from the hymn to Agni devouring the Kh�ndava forest (vana = modaka = soma /amRta). For the assimilation of the five kinds of sensory impressions to ‘food’ (and energy), see Tantr�loka III 228-29; and for Consciousness (citi) as ‘fire’, see Kshemar�ja’s Pratyabhij��-Hrdayam (...) aphorism 14 and commentary. For Consciousness using the sex-experience as a vehicle for its expansion and totalization, see especially Abhinava, Par�trimshik�-Vivarana pp.45-52.
Sunthar V., “Vid�shaka as all-devouring,” The Semblance of Humor, PhD thesis (1983)
How could the most learned and highly refined Sanskrit playwrights have elevated this ‘transvestite’ brahmin, hopelessly stuck at the ‘pre-genital’ stage of ‘oral sex’, to the enviable position of the king’s counselor in all matters pertaining to love (k�ma-tantra-saciva)? In fact, a careful reading of the plays shows that this bungling Fool, despite all his protestations to the contrary, is a constant obstacle to the consummation of the amorous liaison between his inseparable friend, the hero, and the object of his overpowering desire. (And just how many of our wide-eyed Anglo-brahmin worshippers of the ‘Indian Shakespeare’ and ‘deconstructive’ Indological squinters have really done such a close reading of the actual ‘text’...?) After all, if we American ‘hard-core’ democrats were to take the unsquinting President Bill Clinton at his solemn televised word, Monica Lewinsky’s lollipops, however delectable, do not even make the grade to adult behavior: “I did not have sex with that girl” (period)!
The first thing to note above is that GaNeza’s insatiable appetite for modakas is not an ‘oral substitute’ for ‘real’ (genital) sex (whose inexhaustible mysteries are familiar only to ‘all-American’ Indologists who apparently write their learned treatises during the commercial breaks in the Howard Stern show) but simply the semiotic equivalent of sexual appetite in itself (regardless of its external mode of expression). So much so that the all-consuming hunger (gastric fire = libidinal energy) of the ‘great brahmin’ amounts to a burning desire that knows no (societal or moral) bounds. If we accept that it is the consecrated sacrificer, the ‘ascetic’ Shiva himself, who is (re-) born as the ‘son’ GaNeza in the process of uniting with his wife, their union must amount in a profound sense to ‘incest’ even when it is actually a most decent case of matrimonial wedlock. This is revealed in the underlying ritual framework of the Sanskrit drama: the Vid�Saka, who shares a single (symbolic) body with the (royal) hero, (is presided over by Omk�ra and) wields the present of Brahm� (what else? GaNeza’s ‘limp’ trunk disguised as a crooked stick!), whereas the heroine (n�yik�) is presided over by Sarasvat�, whose incestuous relationship is a—if not the—central mystery of the Br�hmaNa mythology. This ‘polymorphous clown’ represents not only the ‘great’ (mah�-) br�hman from which the sacrificer-hero is (re-) born, he also embodies the latter as the d�kSita who has regressed into an embryonic condition. Indeed, the entire entourage of the Indian court, even the lowliest maids (including all the interns:-), has always known the Vid�Saka for what he really is: a ‘perverse kid’ (duSTa-baTuka).
Is the ‘displacement’ of sexual activity to the mouth (and belly) no more than an infantile regression to a pre-genital stage of the adult libido? From the perspective of transgressive sacrality, such culturally-sanctioned ‘regression’ is not only the precondition for a ‘normal’ and healthy ‘adult’ sexuality, it is also the means to transcend human finitude by using the unleashed ‘libido’ as the vehicle for ‘universalizing’ one’s consciousness. The ‘metaphor’ of eating facilitates this merging of sexual ‘consumption’ and esoteric techniques within a supreme mode of enjoyment that is the prerogative of the unconditioned Consciousness. The brahmanical strategy consisted not just in checking the political self-aggrandizement of the king (-usurper) by making him subservient to a pre-established sacrificial schema, but in taming and harnessing his very sexuality—rendering it both chaste and transgressive—to transform his ego. What the Vid�Saka did for the king, GaNeza still does for us all!
Perhaps if Clinton, who unfortunately never enjoyed the good fortune of having a ‘great brahmin’ as his intimate presidential counselor :-(as opposed to just plain old Hillary...), continues his humble penitence (pr�yazcitta) through regular offerings of modakas to Lord GaNeza (with some encouragement from Chelsey?), he might before long be able to proclaim himself—swearing in all good conscience on his twisted trunk (= the vid�Saka’s kuTilaka)—a ‘perpetual celibate’ (i.e., a nitya-brahma-c�rin, just like our incorrigible Lord Krishna...;-)!
Enjoy!
Sunthar
[rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (
Divinities:Ganesha; Politics:Orientalism; Esotericism:Psychoanalysis]
[Kalyan’s response to comment on his petition to Walter’s Gallery provided occasion to scrutinize Ganesha’s mouse]
Subject: Murti-s
[images] of Shivalinga and Ganesha
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004;
I got a personal mail with the
following comments and questions. I
have also appended the response I sent.
[quote] I am a proud Hindu, and I would not
trade places with anyone.
Many stories in our history are debatable in today’s world because
of lack of the knowledge that was commonplace in ancient India but
has long been forgotten. Even if our history is discarded as mere
mythology by the western scholars, I assure everybody that we have
the Best ever ‘mythology’! I applaud your sensitive initiative
against insensitive comments by some misguided and
motivated ‘scholars’ of the Walter’s Art Gallery about the Lord
Ganesha and Lord God Shiva. But, please pardon my ignorance, is it
not true that Lord God Shiva has an erect phallus called Shiva
Lingam and his son Lord Ganesha has a potbelly satiated by his
penchant for ‘Laddus’ as well as a curious and limp looking
transplanted elephant trunk? When the Lord is not ashamed or
embarrassed about it, why should I? As long as we Hindus do not know
the real, implied, spiritual, symbolic, mystic, literary as well as
historic meanings of these things, we will continue to be utterly
short-changed, hopelessly under-armed, and absolutely weak and
incapable of countering these anti-Hindu attacks. Please enlighten
us. I am waiting! Nay, the majority of Hindus are waiting for an
explanation... I know because I have not gotten an answer yet even
after asking from many knowledgeable Hindus. Please help. [unquote]
------------------
My response:
Every trunk of every elephant is limp, that is the way trunks are
made. To read Freudian interpretations into this body part is a
fraud. It is insulting to make fun of anyone’s name or personality.
It is not cultured behavior.
Now, about the lingam. I request you read the encyclopedic set of 7
books on Sarasvat� just released and available through amazon.com
>
>
An image exactly like Ganeza is also found in
Sarasvati
civilization. The face and trunk of an elephant is ligatured with
the face of a tiger with a mane. I have provided proofs to explain
these as hieroglyphs in the context of metallurgical techniques of
the artisan guilds, vizvakarma of the civilization. Elephant is
ibha; trunk is s’un.d.a; tiger’s mane is c�l.a. All these
words
have homonyms: ib ‘iron’; zuNDa ‘furnace’; c�l.a
‘furnace’. So
the code of Sarasvati hieroglyphs has been summarily cracked for
over 4000 epigraphs with 400 signs and 100 pictographs.
Kalyanaraman
PS: More on the broken tusk and m�Sika v�hana as hieroglyphs later.
Subject: Re: Murti-s of Shivalinga and Ganesha
From: Ram Varmha
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:24 am
Dr. Kalyanaraman,
I fully agree with you on this. I too read Courtright’s Ganesa.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done by him and others like him and
now Ganesa has become the laughing stock in the Western world. That is a shame.
I find that in the West, a certain anti-Eastern
feeling, not tied in
with the Ganesa remarks, are slowly taking root. Number of temples are
being vandalized in the
than Senator Hillary Clinton about Mahathma Gandhi filling gas at the St
Louise gas station, though a stupid and meaningless slip-up, shows that
there is now an undercurrent tendency to berate and insult Eastern cultures.
Unfortunately, some of it is due to Indians as
well. The statues of
Ganesa, Nataraja, Krishna and others have become conversation pieces in
many homes in India. I remember, when we were young, our family never
displayed the images of Hindu gods in living rooms or as mantle pieces.
Now, in every Indian’s home you will find all these statues kept as art
work. This is also showing disrespect to the religion at large.
Furthermore, temple idols are stolen and sold on the black market to
underground buyers, at enormous profits. Temple jewellery are
periodically stolen and replaced with glass and base metal imitations.
>
>
Not having read your book, it is
difficult to fully understand what you
are stating here. Is the image just that of an elephant with the face of
a tiger with a mane, signifying some metallurgical terms and techniques,
or is this some how connected with the worship of Ganesa in the ISV?
Regards,
Ram
Subject: Re: Murti-s of
Shivalinga and Ganesha
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Date:
Sat Jan 10, 2004;
Not connected with the worship of
GaNeza in the civilization; there
ain’t no evidence for such worship.
The ligatured sculpture just signifies metallurgical terms and technique.
M�Sa, m�Sika is the v�hana of Ganeza; m�Sa means a
goldsmith’s ‘crucible’. The modaka-s held in his hand are the metal
ingots.
Subject: Re:
[akandabaratam] Re: Murti-s of S’ivalinga and Ganes’a
From: Dr. K. Loganathan
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004;
Dear Dr. Kalyan
I am not sure whether you are right in this etymological derivation. There
is a word in Su. ‘mus’ and ‘musen’ which is applied as a noun to
snake,
birds and so forth and as a verb to depart, move ahead and so forth. The
root meaning appears to be creatures with protruding faces and which shows
it is the archaic form Ta. musal, muyal (rabbit) and muujci,
mukam ( face)
and muukku : nose. This must be an ancient Tamil word for we find similar
words in Malay e.g. musang, a kind of small dear.
The words muucikam, muunjcuuRu (mouse) is obviously related to
this. This
muucikam as the vaakana of GaNesha may be an adaptation of the
very ancient snake.
There is a phrase in CaGkam Tamil: Mooci Kiiran and here I suspect the
meaning of Mooci to be a wanderer, the ascetic who wanders around having
relinquished domestic life, the tuRavi.
Loga
From: Ram Varmha
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004;
Dr. Kalyanaraman,
Interesting. I know, Musha
means a crucible.
I remember that the name MUSHIKA, rat, also relates to the name of a country
established by Parashurama after his victory over Karthavirya Arjuna. Also, I
had read that MUSHIKA, was a mysteriously missing city of Achaemenid India with
its legendary riches, and identified with MOHENJO-DARO, of the Indus-Valley.
Perhaps the city Mushika, meant the City of Crucibles!
Regards,
Ram
From: S. Kalyanaraman
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004;
Even the trunk, s’un.d.a
can be related to an ivory-worker, turner:
cundaka_ra turner (Pali); cuna_ro maker of wooden vessels (Ku.);
cuna_ro, cana_ro, cu~da_ro id. (N.)(CDIAL 4862). cunda
wood or ivory
work (Skt.); ivory worker (Pali); cundiba_ to do woodwork (Or.)
(CDIAL 4861).
sun.d.u to evaporate; sun.d.isu to make evaporate, reduce in
boiling
(Ka.); cun.d.u to be evaporated or dried up (Te.); s’un.t.h- to
become dry (Skt.)(DEDR 2662).
sun.d.a musk-rat (Ka.)(DEDR 2661)]. s’un.d.i-mu_s.ika_,
s’un.d.a-
mu_s.ika_ musk-rat (Skt.)
sun.d.alu, sun.d.il, sun.d.ila, son.d.alu,
son.d.ilu,
son.d.lu id.
(Ka.); dun.d.u face of a cow, beak (Ka.Coorg); dun.d.i snout, face
(insulting)(Kod..); sun.d.ilu, son.d.ilu elephant’s proboscis
(Tu.);
ton.d.amu id. (Te.); son.d.am elephant’s trunk (Nk.); ond.i_
id.
(Go.) sun.d.a elephant’s trunk (Or); su~_r. (Bi.Mth.H.); su~r.h
(Bhoj.); su_r.h (Mth.); su~_r.i id. (Aw.); su~_d. (H.);
sun.d.
(H.);
su~d.i (G.); son.d.a_, son.d.a (Pali); som.d.a_
(Pkt.); su~_d.i id.
(S.); so~d.
(M.); sond.aya, hond.aya (Si.)(CDIAL 12516).
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004;
mah�-deva-sutam guru-guha-nutam
m�ra-koTi-prak�zam z�ntam
maha-k�vya-n�Tak�di-priyam
m�Sika-v�hana_modaka-priyam
vasiSTha-v�madev�di-vandita-
mah�-gaNa-patim manas� smar�mi
O son of the great god (Ziva),
you receive the obeisance of (your brother) SubrahmaNya
(K�rttikeya),
you shine, (though ever) appeased, with the effulgence of a
million Cupids.
Great connoisseur of poetry, theater and what-not,
you [intrepid?] mouse-rider, who are ever fond of sweets,
O great leader of the divine hosts,
you who are saluted by VasiSTha, V�madeva and other Vedic
sages,
I recollect (and worship) thy form in my heart!
Muttuswamy Dikshitar, popular invocatory composition (for Carnatic music concerts) set in the r�ga N�Tam
The evening of the fourth day, the jar is brought from the
painters’ house to that of the Juju, who is said to have “stolen” the
jar. Having performed a ritual of welcome upon its arrival, the Juju later
leaves his home accompanied by the Karmacharya and an assistant who carries a
big red umbrella, a royal attribute of the Juju. This group heads towards the
Atko Narayana temple, the most important temple of Narayana in the southern part
of Kathmandu, standing to the south of the Kashthamandapa. At the precise moment
when the Indra pole is erected at Hanuman Dhoka, the Juju used to have a pole
raised inside the precincts of Atko Narayana, the same that would later be
raised at the entrance to the Pachali Bhairava pitha. [p.34] When the Juju
arrives at the pitha, the jar of Pachali Bhairava has already been put upon its
platform under the shelter. While the Juju was performing the ritual to Atko
Narayana and the kasi puja, the Jyapus remaining in his house had “stolen”
back the jar. On the platform there is therefore the Pachali Bhairava jar and,
on the left, the patra khola (small silver dish) that represents Ajima.
Following on the heels of the Juju, the porters throw the kasi brusquely on the
Vetala in human form. [p.36] According to Ganesha Purna Bahadur, the homa fire
is “stolen” by the Jyapu to be brought to the temple of Sikali at Khokana
near Patan. [p.38] It is the same sacrificial schema that underlies both the
renewal of the political power of the king and the accession of the Jyapu
children to their full communal rights. The theme of “stealing” is common
to the Jyapu and the Juju and even a Westerner like Gehrts Wagner was required
literally to steal a goat in order to complete his initiation into a
musicians’ guild in Bhaktapur. [p.54] Just as the sacrificer is bound by the
cords of Varuna, the statuettes of Indra, wound with strings, are placed during
the Indra Yatra in a prison-cage at the foot of poles, or on scaffolds so as to
represent Indra like a thief with outspread arms. [p.57]
Elizabeth Visuvalingam, “The
King and the Gardener: Pachali Bhairab of Kathmandu” (1989-2004)
The Vid�shaka was certainly not joking when he affirmed that he
had handed over the jewels to C�rudatta, for the brahmin thief, whose father had
mastered the four Vedas and never accepted any gifts, and who steals the deposit
only to restore it to Vasantasen� the very next morning, ultimately represents
the transgressive d�kSita-aspect of the brahmin
hero himself. He slithers about on the ground like a rejuvenated snake casting
off the slough from its worn-out body (III.9), and the night of the unconscious
hides the nefarious activities of the solitary Tantric adept, intent on bringing
the supreme disgrace to his family (para-gRha-d�SaNa-nizcitaikav�ra = “lone hero intent on
violating other households”), in her womb-like obscurity, just as a mother
blinded by love envelops her child in her embrace (III.10). The stealing of a
brahmin’s gold is indeed a major crime (mah�-p�taka)
equivalent to brahmanicide. The choice of a breach shaped like a “vase of
plenty” (p�rNa-kumbha), at a spot corroded by
the saline action of water daily sprayed at the sight of the sun and marked by a
dirt-heap piled up by mice, likewise assimilates the burglary to a uterine
regression (kumbh�, as in kumbha-d�s�, being a synonym for “prostitute”),
accomplished even without a female partner (III.12), and the aesthetically
unnecessary poisonous bite of the ‘phallic’ cobra at this juncture only serves
to suggest the accompanying initiatic death. His professional use of his
brahmanical thread as a measuring tape, a false key and so on, assimilates him
to the Vid�shaka who typically profanes his sacred thread, as in the
M�lavik�gnimitra
where he likewise ties up his finger with it after trance-like writhing and
quivering due to (supposed) serpent-bite (III.16). Having saluted the boy (kum�ra) K�rttikeya his patron divinity, this
transgressive spiritual “son of Skanda,” so “discriminating in the etiquette of
theft that he never robbed a brahmin of his wealth, gold set aside for
sacrificial purposes, or a child in his mother’s (or nurse’s) lap” (VI.6),
reclaims the golden Soma wrapped in the obliging Mah�br�hmana’s
“worn-out bathing-trunks,” the soaking embryonic covers returned by the maternal
courtesan only when she comes to unite with the brahmin hero.
“The Perverse Humor of the Infantile Vid�shaka” (Act III of the “Little Clay Cart” MRcchakaTik�)
m�Sa = rat,
mouse, crucible; muSaka = mouse
m�Saka = rat, mouse, thief, particular part of the face
m�Sik� = rat, mouse, thief, crucible, (spider, leech)
crucible = m�Sa, muS�,
m�S� (-karaNa =
‘melting in a crucible’), zil�tmik�,
muSka = testicle, scrotum, robust man, a mass, a thief, pudenda
muliebria (= “little mouse”)
Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, search on ‘crucible’ and
on ‘muSka’
Hello Kalyan,
If the myths insist that GaNeza was born of his
mother P�rvat�’s impurity, where is it to be found in his iconography....other
than as deposited in the scavenging rat? But why not then a black
dog, Bhairava’s preferred (eco-friendly) vehicle (well-known as an adept in
recycling its own waste...)? The untouchable dog would have been too obvious a
symbol of transgression, and certainly not amusing especially to (perpetual)
kids (like myself). Moreover, the thieving rat, like the (twice-born) snake
(that rejuvenates itself by sloughing off its own dead skin), has the ingrained
habit of scurrying away with a stuffed mouth into its hole (bila - check out what happened to the stolen
ear-rings in, once again, the Uttanka episode in the Mah�bh�rata). This is what
so well qualifies the mouse to represent the otherwise pure ‘brahmanical’ Lord
of Wisdom in his hidden dimension as the impure d�kSita
returning to the maternal womb. The ambivalence of the vehicle consists in its
being simultaneously that which is subdued (like the p�pa-puruSa upon whom Lord Ziva mercilessly treads as
he dances...) and the theriomorphic incarnation of the deity himself. Once while
savoring my regular samosas on the main street
leading into the Benares Hindu University, I was aghast to see a mouse nibbling
directly off the large tray on which they were displayed—when I protested, the
boy-seller was amazed that anyone could make such a fuss over a personal
visitation from the ever-hungry Ganesha! The Hindu bestiary, like that of the
Amerindians so painstakingly deciphered by L�vi-Strauss, is based on centuries
of careful observation of the appearance and behavior of these fascinating (both
wild and domestic) animals.
Often flaunted as the most ‘secular’ (prakaraNa) of Sanskrit plays, the “Little Clay Cart” is entirely modeled on the Vedic sacrifice for which it could well serve as a literary key. Though the role of the sacrificer here is assumed primarily by the brahmin C�rudatta, various aspects of his d�kS� are encoded into other characters in the play (such as the king �ryaka) with whom he is symbolically identified. It is in the brahmin thief Zarvilaka, particularly his burglary into C�rudatta’s home where the ‘sleep-walking’ clown insists that he take Vasantasen�’s vouchsafed gold (recall the Vid�Saka’s comparison of himself elsewhere with a sex-starved harlot?), that the embryonic dimension is especially elaborated. Under the protection of the ‘Patron Saint of Thieves’ (K�rttikeya!), he makes a breach shaped like a p�rNa-kumbha (GaNeza’s belly or the Pachali Bhairab jar?) at a spot already corroded by daily morning ‘ablutions’ and marked by the ‘dirt-heap’ of a rat, before he is able to access the ‘gold’ in the custody of the great brahmin. Recall that the Soma (and Agni) in the Rig-Veda always had to be ‘stolen’ even by the king of the gods, Indra, just as the latter is still pilloried like a thief every year in the Katmandu valley for trying to ‘steal’ the p�rij�ta flowers for the worship of his mother. There is always something ‘illegitimate’ about the ‘elixir of life’ for it can be accessed only through a mode of transgression. Such is always the case in Amerindian mythology where the (secret of) Fire and (the equivalent) Honey (or Maple Syrup) is also typically stolen.
While it is quite possible that Soma in the
Rig-Veda also represents electrum, it would be more true to say that both the soma-plant and the metal gold represent the internal
‘elixir of life’ (amRta), which is why the
symbolism has remained alive long after the loss of this northern plant and the
carting away abroad of treasures in the post-Hindu period of Indian history.
This also explains why the ‘crucible’ could also be the scrotum/testicle, for
the ‘base’ metal that is being transmuted into (what you claim are) ‘gold
ingots’ (modaka) are actually our ‘stem-cells’
being extracted of their life-giving essence. How else do you explain the
iconographic fact that GaNeza’s ‘abstinent’ mouse, unlike the ‘Hindu’ one that
was scrounging on my samosas, is typically
depicted looking up expectantly at his master’s savory mouth? For Abhinavagupta,
the overflowing of aesthetic sensibility within the heart of the connoisseur (sahRdaya) is rooted in the transmutation (as opposed
to the mere repression or even ‘sublimation’) of sexual energy, which is why
Lord GaNeza is not just so fond of food but ever hankering after the sublime
pleasures of art. Not only were our ancestors keen observers of animal behavior,
they also knew how to introduce ‘lawful irregularities’ into their iconographic
depiction so that even illiterate village-folk (from all that I see on these
lists, I can’t vouch for the erudite scientists and literati...) could
understand.
You might recall that I immediately greeted your
equation—long ago on the Indic Traditions list—of the womb (kuThi) with the furnace (and childbirth with the
extraction of metal) in the Indus ‘hieroglyphs’, very positively by pointing out
the Amerindian parallels. It would probably be closer to the truth to say that
these (no doubt precocious) metallurgists of Indus-Sarasvat� civilization were,
first and foremost, alchemists!
With best wishes for the sale
of your magnum opus,
Sunthar
P.S. Why would any self-respecting Hindu worship a
metallurgist before every undertaking not just with sweets but also jackfruits,
bananas and what-not...or have we been the victims of a colossal 5000 year-old
hoax perpetrated by the ‘Vedic’ (?) sages of the ‘Sarasvat�’ civilization?
[rest of this thread at Sunthar V.,
[Kevin McDonald’s review of Frederick Crew’s critique of psychoanalysis in the New York Review of Books]
Subject:
Psychoanalysis in Its Death Throes: The Moral and Intellectual Legacy of a
Pseudoscience?
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004;
Spare the rod and spoil the child...
Spare the Fraud and save the child?
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/CrewsFreud.htm
Sunthar
[See the Psychoanalysis thread for follow-up messages on this post]
Subject:
From: Mary Hicks
Date:
Please note the author blames Rajiv Malhotra for the entire ruckus. The article is riddled with errors - eg., Laine is being castigated "because Shivaji’s parents were estranged" - NOT! - Laine infers that Shivaji was illegitimate. The article is replete with desultory quotes from Wendy Doniger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A334-2004Apr9.html
washingtonpost.com
---------------------
Wrath Over a Hindu God -
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.
Nineteen years later, thanks to an Internet campaign, the world has rediscovered Courtright’s book. After a scathing posting on a popular Indian Web site, he has received threats from Hindu militants who want him dead.
"Gopal from
Other academics writing about Hinduism have encountered similar hostility, from tossed eggs to assaults to threats of extradition and prosecution in India.
The attacks against American scholars come as a powerful movement called Hindutva has gained political power in India, where most of the world’s 828 million Hindus live. Its proponents assert that Hindus have long been denigrated and that Western authors are imposing a Eurocentric world view on a culture they do not understand.
That argument resonates among many of the roughly 1.4 million Hindus in North America as well.
In November, Wendy Doniger, a University of Chicago professor of the history of religion who has written 20 books about India and Hinduism, had an egg flung at her by an angry Hindu when she was lecturing in London. It missed.
In January, a book about the Hindu king Shivaji by Macalester College religious studies professor James W. Laine provoked violent outbursts: One of Laine’s collaborators in India was assaulted, and a mob destroyed rare manuscripts at an institute in India where Laine had done research. The Indian edition was recalled, and India’s prime minister warned Laine not to "play with our national pride." Officials said they want to extradite the Minnesota author to stand trial for defamation, and the controversy has become a campaign issue in upcoming parliamentary elections.
Doniger, a 63-year-old scholar at the center of many controversies, is distressed to see her field come under the sway of what she regards as zealots.
"The argument," she said, "is being fueled by a fanatical nationalism and Hindutva, which says no one has the right to make a mistake, and no one who is not a Hindu has the right to speak about Hinduism at all." U.S. Cradle of Backlash
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.
According to Hindu scriptures, Parvati asked Ganesha to guard her privacy while she was bathing. Shiva, who had been absent, returned to find the boy blocking his way. A fight ensued, and Shiva beheaded Ganesha. When Parvati protested, Shiva repaired his hasty action by resuscitating the child and replacing the missing head with that of an elephant.
Courtright, drawing on the story of a conflict between a woman’s husband and son, suggested that Shiva had chosen an elephant’s head because the trunk represented a limp phallus. By contrast, he said, Shiva’s power is represented in idols by a linga, or an erect phallus.
In his posting, Malhotra quoted passages from Courtright’s book that offended him: "Although there seem to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesha explicitly performs oral sex, his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones."
Malhotra’s critique produced a swift and angry response from thousands of Hindus. An Atlanta group wrote to the president of Emory University asking that Courtright be fired.
"The implication," said Courtright "was this was a filthy book and I had no business teaching anything." He said the quotes had been taken out of context and ignored the uplifting lessons he had drawn from Ganesha’s story.
Salman Akhtar, an Indian American psychoanalyst, said the disagreement sprang from different worldviews. "Are religious stories facts or myths?" he asked. "Facts cannot be interpreted. Stories can be interpreted."
The book was withdrawn in India, where the local edition’s book jacket, which Courtright had neither seen nor approved, depicted Ganesha as a child -- in the nude.
"It was very painful reading," said T.R.N. Rao, a computer science professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who advises the university’s branch of the Hindu Student Council, a national group with Hindutva roots. "It makes Ganesha a eunuch . . . It was very vulgar."
Rao and the council started an Internet petition against the book. Seven thousand people signed within a week -- and among their comments were 60 threats of violence.
The petition was swiftly removed. "We condemn any threats to the author and the publisher," said Rao. "We wanted to get the book corrected and replaced. . . . We are not asking for banning the book. I am a professor and I know the value of academic freedom." Insider vs. Outsider
Courtright was not the first to find Oedipal overtones in the Ganesha story. But his book became a rallying point for devout Hindus in the United States who say the academic study of their religion is completely at odds with the way they experience their faith.
"For the past five years, our field has been in turmoil," said Arvind Sharma, a professor of comparative religion at McGill University in Montreal, who sides with the critics even as he disavows the violence. "There may be a Hindutva connection in what happened in India and the death threats and the person who threw the egg, but there also is a Hindu response."
Sharma was asked to write an essay on Hinduism for Microsoft’s Encarta encyclopedia to replace a previous essay written by Doniger. The switch came after a Hindu activist, a former Microsoft engineer named Sankrant Sanu, charged that Doniger’s article perpetuated misleading stereotypes and asked for a rewrite by an "insider."
"For pretty much all the religious traditions in America, most of the people studying it are insiders," said Sanu. "They are people who are believers. This is true for Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. This is not true for Hinduism."
In January, fresh controversy along the same lines erupted over a book by Macalester College’s Laine, "Shivaji: A Hindu King in Islamic India," which explored the life of a 17th-century icon of the Hindutva movement.
After Laine suggested in his book that Shivaji’s parents may have been estranged -- an assertion that upset Hindus who see them as nearly divine -- a history scholar in India who had collaborated with Laine was roughed up and smeared with tar by members of Shiv Sena, a Hindutva group. Another nationalist group called the Sambhaji Brigade stormed the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in the city of Pune, and destroyed priceless manuscripts. The reason? Laine had done research there .
"No one in Pune today will defend my book, not my friends, not my colleagues, because they are fearful," Laine said. "Oxford University Press pulled the book because they are fearful of physical violence. There will be a chilling effect on what topics you choose to do."
Many Indian scholars have rushed to the defense of the American authors. They say the controversy over the books is part of a larger pattern of political violence against scholars in India.
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." India Inc.
Malhotra said he began his campaign after visiting African American scholars at Princeton University, who told him that it had taken the civil rights movement before black scholars were allowed into schools to tell their own history.
Hindus were only following in the footsteps of blacks, Jews and the Irish, he said, likening his campaign to a consumer struggle: "It’s no different than Ralph Nader saying we need a consumer voice against General Motors."
Malhotra disavowed the violence -- he called the attackers "hooligans." He said he has campaigned against the Hindutva agenda and opposed the Internet petition against Courtright. "I know I am championed by the Hindu right but there is nothing I can do about that," he said.
Indeed, Malhotra’s critique seems to have less to do with religious nationalism than public relations. Doniger and other academics are "an inbred, incestuous group that control a vertically integrated industry," the former telecom entrepreneur said. Unlike other critics’ objections, Malhotra’s is not that outsiders have written about India -- he has himself encouraged many Americans to study India -- but that the books have harmed the image of what he calls "India Inc."
"In America," he said, "everything is negotiable -- you have to negotiate who you are and how they think of you." Previously, Malhotra waged a campaign against CNN for coverage that he charged was biased toward India’s rival, Pakistan. A foundation he has launched is dedicated to "upgrade the portrayal of India’s civilization in the American education system and media."
This approach does not go down well within the academy. "We are not in the business of marketing a nation state," said Vijay Prashad, an international studies scholar at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., in a recent Internet debate with Malhotra. "That is the job of the ambassador of India, not of a scholar."
McGill’s Sharma, a practicing Hindu, countered that the academy had never been neutral, objective ground. Trends in academia have always been governed by shifts in public opinion: "The recalibration of a power equation is an untidy process."
But if the controversies are only about influence, Doniger said, there was little use in discussing the merits of the various books, or her Encarta essay on Hinduism. "It does not matter whether the article published under my name was right or wrong," she said in an e-mail. "The only important thing about it was that I wrote it and someone named Sharma did not."
� 2004 The Washington Post Company
Subject: My rejoinder:
WASHINGTON POST AND HINDUPHOBIA
From: Rajiv Malhotra
Sent:
Many of you know of the Ganesha denigration and
general Hinduphobia by certain powerful scholars. Recently, Washington Post did
a front-page major story on this matter (quoting me heavily), but in a very
biased way that caters to the public relations machinery of the academic
establishment. My rejoinder that appeared today on Sulekha.com points out many
journalistic biases, the broader underlying forces that cause Hinduphobia, and
especially the nasty role being played by certain Indian writers who dish out
what the system rewards them to produce. Since it is a long article, it is best
to get a printer-friendly hard copy.
WASHINGTON POST AND HINDUPHOBIA:
http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305924
Regards,
Rajiv
Subject: Rajiv Malhotra’s rejoinder: Washington Post and Hinduphobia
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004;
A streamlined edited version of the
Ganesha controversy, as compiled from the various posts since June 2003 to the
Abhinava forum, will soon be available on the svAbhinava site...
Sunthar
[This post served to present my Introduction (above) to this entire thread]
Subject: Psychoanalysis, Hindu Wisdom and Transgressive
Sacrality: 'Provincializing
From: Sunthar Visuvalingam
Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:55 am [Abhinava
msg #1815]
We have an ancient Indian tradition of engaging the ‘other’
using a technique called purva-paksha. This means you must first study
the other’s viewpoint very seriously and become an expert in it. Only
then can you debate against it.
But today, I cannot find swamis who know the Western ‘other’
well enough to be able to do purva-paksha of Western thought. This is why
their followers are lost, confused about identity and unable to effectively
respond to the dominant culture. In the past in India, the ‘other’ would have
been Buddhist, Jaina, Nyaya, Mimamsika, Vedantin, etc., and each had to be
studied, but for today the ‘other’ is typically Western dominated culture that
must be studied.
To understand Western thought one must master its three main
branches: Christianity, Enlightenment, and Post-Enlightenment.
Most Hindu preachers admit that their education did not include any of these.
(Some do it as a matter of great pride.) So they lack a purva-paksha of
the ‘other’ that matters so much in today’s global culture. Hence, by the
methods of our own tradition, they are unqualified to be able to debate in the
mainstream, and they are the blind leading their followers – the result is
today’s catastrophes facing Hindus.
On the other hand, the West has invested serious resources to
study Indian culture and thought rather than ignoring it. RISA is merely one
example to prove my point. [...]
Today’s South Asian Studies replaces colonial Indology as the West’s
purva-paksha
of Indian thought and culture.
This means the West has extracted knowledge from Indic sources
and developed sophisticated positions about us. In many cases, the most
qualified scholar available in a university about some Indian text or tradition
is a Westerner. That most swamis and their followers do not even know this
state of affairs shows how out of touch they are with the world.
So rather than attacking me for my background, one might also
see in it a rare ability to do purva-paksha of the West from the Indian
perspective: I have invested most of my time since the mid 1990s to study all
three strains of Western thought from works of serious thinkers. Rather than
this being a handicap, it is what enables me to debate the ‘other’ with
authority and confidence.
Rajiv Malhotra,
The Westernized side of my Background (Sulekha, Posted on
The most informed, sustained and cogent critique of the
'Western' p�rva-pakSa from an Indian perspective
that I have studied to date is Provincializing Europe by Dipesh
Chakrabarty, here at the
As for the edited thread on the Ganesha controversy from the
Abhinavagupta forum archive, it has been compiled and is ready for posting.
Unfortunately, I have been unable to log in to the svAbhinava FTP site. Until
I'm able to get around this, I've forwarded (below) the draft of my
Introduction to this free-wheeling discussion of the "Hermeneutics of Ganesha:
Psychoanalysis, Hindu Wisdom and Transgressive Sacrality."
Enjoy!
Sunthar
[rest of this thread at Religious traditions, globalization and the Internet: problems in cross-cultural communication]
[My Introduction “The Hermeneutics of Ganesha” is now at the beginning of this thread]