6 ms·

Let me qualify that I'm an American Born Confused Desi (born of Hindu parents). I never quite understand why ANY Hindus should get upset when our religious/phil

Let me qualify that I'm an American Born Confused Desi (born of Hindu parents). I never quite understand why ANY Hindus should get upset when our religious/philosophical texts are scrutinized and contextualized. Of course, all interpretations are subjective. But if nothing else we should all embrace the notion that there is no such thing as a Hindu heretic or apostate. What matters (and has always mattered) is how we live and act. As such, I would emphasize that it is also important to keep an open respectful dialogue without alienating people from the discussion.

ubasu 12y ago
While such generic calls to decorum are always welcome, the specific issue here is that Doniger seems to be selectively and willfully misinterpreting the text to advance her own agenda. Most prominently, she declaims the Gita as a warlike-text, ignoring the clear context of the Mahabharata that war is inevitable in this situation when all attempts at a peaceful resolution have been rebuffed. (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8664662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8664662) One may adopt a position of Gandhian non-violence and say that war is not justified even in that context, thus disagreeing with the philosophy of the Mahabharata, and that is OK, but misrepresenting the text is not.
srean 12y ago
Upvoted your comment it was grayed out by downvotes at that time. You raise important questions and that gladdens my heart enormously. It is surprising how rare this is. Usually I see most fall for the Hindu supremacist narrative cloaked in various shades of PC (I say this as an athiest hindu, I am not religious and yes that is not a contradiction once you dig into hinduism). I understand why this happens, the expat generation wants to be in touch with their roots and want their kids to be aware of those roots. A perfectly noble emotion, but what happens is that groups with vested political interest barge in to make a make a killing out of this opportunity. A section of the Hindu right has been trying for years to churchify Hinduism, organize it into a centralized political power. Thankfully this has not happened but not for lack of concerted effort and resources. They are quite livid because the Muslim right got an upper hand over their own country, Pakistan, whereas they themselves got saddled with the moderates who dont want their country to be based on a religious identity. This grates at them continuously. I wont impose one view or the other about the nature of the religion and the discourse because I trust skeptical curiosity more than anything else. Be skeptical, be questioning you will find a fascinating story built around deep human thought originating almost from the birth of civilization, organization, politics and propaganda. I see Gita as propaganda and persuasion at its finest (I say this as respectful "I am wow'ed" acknowledgement, not as disparagement, it is a masterpiece): how to build a irrefutable logical system that makes people do your bidding out of their own volition. I am yet to see a more refined and subtle tool for mass control: dont question, just do what you are supposed to, but never for the pleasure of doing it. How is one supposed to know what I am supposed to do, there it goes vague. I know I am repeating myself but it is just a masterpiece and so cleverly and persuasively argued. Any form of central governance would love to have something like this. This is certainly not all that is there to Gita, it is a piece that deserves many reads and lots of reflection. For me, some parts resonate. If you do get a chance I will highly recommend reading Mahabharat and from as close to the source as possible. If you want an English text you cannot go wrong with Rajagopalachari's translation, the English is a tad dated but on purpose. He has a kids version but get the real deal. Where this epic looms over others (just in my opinion and taste) is that the story is so modern, the characters so realistically gray. There is absolutely no one character there who can claim moral high ground. Likewise, no one is really unmitigated evil, their actions (for the most part) are indeed sensible from their point of view, but their actions come to bite them all, be it Krishna too. [Contrast this with Rama of Ramayan. Rama could do no wrong, whatever he did it was just papered over but from a position of moral superiority. Burned his wife, no problem there is a reason, mutilated a woman who proposed to his brother no problem there is a reason...] Read Mahabharat first just as a fascinating story, without the religious and historic baggage. After that you can re-read it and you will find layers and layers of abstractions. One such interesting layer is that it is really a contest between two master schemers of the highest order: Shakuni (a member of the Afghan royal family, Kandahar to be precise, and an in-law of the Delhi based Kauravas) and Krishna. Shakuni wants to destroy the Kauravas from the inside (for due reasons), Krishna joins willingly from the outside but wants to protect the Pandavas perhaps to have influence over the Delhi based powerhouse. What would be much harder, and I am not there yet, is to read the sanskrit version. It is said that there is ample evidence that it has been written over years, accumulating new verses on the way (there is nothing controversial about this). This is based on the style of sanskrit in use, for example the verses that talk about Krishna's exploit (for example the Draupadi stripping incident and verses from Gita too) seem to be in much more modern sanskrit, rhyme, meter (relatively speaking) than the rest and many believe that these verses were included later. There is still a lot of Mahabharata that exist in a form that are called srutis (oral tradition: stories, ballads, folk songs, plays) that you wont find in the sanskrit sources.
- selimthegrim 12y ago
  Thank you so much for posting this. As a diaspora kid of expat Pakistanis it's like absolutely screaming into the wind arguing with people in the "old country" about the blasphemy law and being called a heretic and traitor. It makes it that much less lonely to know that people are doing something about the RSS pracharaks here as well. I had the distinct pleasure of once introducing myself in an RSS run Panun Kashmir meeting in Boston as a Pakistani - not an experience I'll be going for second helpings for.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tn13 12y ago
Well, I dont think most of Hindus are bothered about anyone scrutinizing the texts. In fact most of the Hindu texts themselves are scrutinization of other texts. For example Upanishads are debating Vedas and so on. The real problem occurs when certain people like Wendy start pretending to be experts spreading falsehood initially as her "subjective opinion" and later cross referenced as "scholarly analysis". For example Wendy's book "Hindus : An alternative history" is perfectly a find book if she would claim it to be her own understanding of Hindu texts and philosophies. When people in completely civil manner point out to the huge holes in her "scholarly work" she does not defend it but claims that right wingers are out for her head which is not simply true.
sandGorgon 12y ago
actually, there is no such thing as a "Hindu" per se. And it is here that Hinduism (as an overall politico-sociological concept) differs a lot from traditional christianity or islam. there is no singular book. South Indian "hindus" dont believe in a lot of texts that the north indian "hindus" do including the mahabharata. The interpretation of the vyas ramayana and the south indian Kamba Ramayanam are different. In general, the ramayana and the mahabharata are two epics, and thereby occupy a singificant mindshare in popular culture - so you can argue that it is pan-Indian. But if we veer away from them and go into other books, the differences are even more stark. I actually love this part of "hinduism" - the fact that there is no "one-true-way" has given rise to a whole bunch of fairly conflicting theology that is really interesting. For example, explaining Advaita non-dualism to a conventional "hindu" is really interesting - because the concepts of the Gita are thrown out of the window (a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller).
- srean 12y ago
  Spot on, and this is precisely what I find fascinating about it. Quoting from an old comment of mine: To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity,.. and that not believing in any form of god is perfectly acceptable. ... for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance. > a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller Not only that, you may completely ignore everything that is in the Gita and still be a Hindu. As long as your belief system is not in conflict with the Vedic philosophy you have a perfectly legit claim to be one. And this gives you enormous amounts of personal space to form your own set of rules and live by them. I am sure you would know but for the benfit of those unfamiliar with the details, the 'Bhakti' that the article talks about is very much a post Gita thing, had little to no role in Hinduism prior to it. This "one book" obsession is very much an Abrahamic response to try and map something unfamiliar to something familiar. I find it quite amusing.
RealGeek 12y ago
Most Hindus are very tolerant about religion. Unlike other religions, Hinduism actually teaches freedom and tolerance. It encourages you to question and interpret in your way. This is why there are many interpretations of Bhagvad Gita and Mahabharata. Most other religions are like "this is the only word of God, every other religion is satan, and questioning is blasphemy".
- vithlani 12y ago
  They are very tolerant about religion until the son introduces his non-Hindu girlfriend to the family. Somehow the tolerance seems to disappear.

ubasu 12y ago

While such generic calls to decorum are always welcome, the specific issue here is that Doniger seems to be selectively and willfully misinterpreting the text to advance her own agenda. Most prominently, she declaims the Gita as a warlike-text, ignoring the clear context of the Mahabharata that war is inevitable in this situation when all attempts at a peaceful resolution have been rebuffed. (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8664662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8664662) One may adopt a position of Gandhian non-violence and say that war is not justified even in that context, thus disagreeing with the philosophy of the Mahabharata, and that is OK, but misrepresenting the text is not.

srean 12y ago

Upvoted your comment it was grayed out by downvotes at that time. You raise important questions and that gladdens my heart enormously. It is surprising how rare this is. Usually I see most fall for the Hindu supremacist narrative cloaked in various shades of PC (I say this as an athiest hindu, I am not religious and yes that is not a contradiction once you dig into hinduism). I understand why this happens, the expat generation wants to be in touch with their roots and want their kids to be aware of those roots. A perfectly noble emotion, but what happens is that groups with vested political interest barge in to make a make a killing out of this opportunity. A section of the Hindu right has been trying for years to churchify Hinduism, organize it into a centralized political power. Thankfully this has not happened but not for lack of concerted effort and resources. They are quite livid because the Muslim right got an upper hand over their own country, Pakistan, whereas they themselves got saddled with the moderates who dont want their country to be based on a religious identity. This grates at them continuously. I wont impose one view or the other about the nature of the religion and the discourse because I trust skeptical curiosity more than anything else. Be skeptical, be questioning you will find a fascinating story built around deep human thought originating almost from the birth of civilization, organization, politics and propaganda. I see Gita as propaganda and persuasion at its finest (I say this as respectful "I am wow'ed" acknowledgement, not as disparagement, it is a masterpiece): how to build a irrefutable logical system that makes people do your bidding out of their own volition. I am yet to see a more refined and subtle tool for mass control: dont question, just do what you are supposed to, but never for the pleasure of doing it. How is one supposed to know what I am supposed to do, there it goes vague. I know I am repeating myself but it is just a masterpiece and so cleverly and persuasively argued. Any form of central governance would love to have something like this. This is certainly not all that is there to Gita, it is a piece that deserves many reads and lots of reflection. For me, some parts resonate. If you do get a chance I will highly recommend reading Mahabharat and from as close to the source as possible. If you want an English text you cannot go wrong with Rajagopalachari's translation, the English is a tad dated but on purpose. He has a kids version but get the real deal. Where this epic looms over others (just in my opinion and taste) is that the story is so modern, the characters so realistically gray. There is absolutely no one character there who can claim moral high ground. Likewise, no one is really unmitigated evil, their actions (for the most part) are indeed sensible from their point of view, but their actions come to bite them all, be it Krishna too. [Contrast this with Rama of Ramayan. Rama could do no wrong, whatever he did it was just papered over but from a position of moral superiority. Burned his wife, no problem there is a reason, mutilated a woman who proposed to his brother no problem there is a reason...] Read Mahabharat first just as a fascinating story, without the religious and historic baggage. After that you can re-read it and you will find layers and layers of abstractions. One such interesting layer is that it is really a contest between two master schemers of the highest order: Shakuni (a member of the Afghan royal family, Kandahar to be precise, and an in-law of the Delhi based Kauravas) and Krishna. Shakuni wants to destroy the Kauravas from the inside (for due reasons), Krishna joins willingly from the outside but wants to protect the Pandavas perhaps to have influence over the Delhi based powerhouse. What would be much harder, and I am not there yet, is to read the sanskrit version. It is said that there is ample evidence that it has been written over years, accumulating new verses on the way (there is nothing controversial about this). This is based on the style of sanskrit in use, for example the verses that talk about Krishna's exploit (for example the Draupadi stripping incident and verses from Gita too) seem to be in much more modern sanskrit, rhyme, meter (relatively speaking) than the rest and many believe that these verses were included later. There is still a lot of Mahabharata that exist in a form that are called srutis (oral tradition: stories, ballads, folk songs, plays) that you wont find in the sanskrit sources.

selimthegrim 12y ago
Thank you so much for posting this. As a diaspora kid of expat Pakistanis it's like absolutely screaming into the wind arguing with people in the "old country" about the blasphemy law and being called a heretic and traitor. It makes it that much less lonely to know that people are doing something about the RSS pracharaks here as well. I had the distinct pleasure of once introducing myself in an RSS run Panun Kashmir meeting in Boston as a Pakistani - not an experience I'll be going for second helpings for.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tn13 12y ago

Well, I dont think most of Hindus are bothered about anyone scrutinizing the texts. In fact most of the Hindu texts themselves are scrutinization of other texts. For example Upanishads are debating Vedas and so on. The real problem occurs when certain people like Wendy start pretending to be experts spreading falsehood initially as her "subjective opinion" and later cross referenced as "scholarly analysis". For example Wendy's book "Hindus : An alternative history" is perfectly a find book if she would claim it to be her own understanding of Hindu texts and philosophies. When people in completely civil manner point out to the huge holes in her "scholarly work" she does not defend it but claims that right wingers are out for her head which is not simply true.

sandGorgon 12y ago

actually, there is no such thing as a "Hindu" per se. And it is here that Hinduism (as an overall politico-sociological concept) differs a lot from traditional christianity or islam. there is no singular book. South Indian "hindus" dont believe in a lot of texts that the north indian "hindus" do including the mahabharata. The interpretation of the vyas ramayana and the south indian Kamba Ramayanam are different. In general, the ramayana and the mahabharata are two epics, and thereby occupy a singificant mindshare in popular culture - so you can argue that it is pan-Indian. But if we veer away from them and go into other books, the differences are even more stark. I actually love this part of "hinduism" - the fact that there is no "one-true-way" has given rise to a whole bunch of fairly conflicting theology that is really interesting. For example, explaining Advaita non-dualism to a conventional "hindu" is really interesting - because the concepts of the Gita are thrown out of the window (a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller).

srean 12y ago
Spot on, and this is precisely what I find fascinating about it. Quoting from an old comment of mine: To me striking things about its body of thought are its philosophical roots, the fact that they have been thinking deeply about such questions since antiquity,.. and that not believing in any form of god is perfectly acceptable. ... for people coming from an Abrahamic religion, its a difficult thing to grasp. Hinduism is not 'a religion' if one goes by the notion of a religion in Abarahamic religions. It is worse than trying to map git commands to subversion. Its a very different beast, it is a meta religion (or more accurately a diverse collection of a very large body of thought and introspection, originating from a geographical region and built over time, that visitors clubbed into a single pool because they werent sure what to make of it). It is more like a religion factory pattern for building your own religion that includes questions you should keep visiting in that process, and a more fundamental one, why at all (and when) should one even consider building one. It lays down thought processes, questions that one should consider and critique when one is forming ones own parameterized religion. People get confused whether they are talking about the polymorphic class or the object instance. > a lot of advaita scholars maintain that the original Gita was much smaller Not only that, you may completely ignore everything that is in the Gita and still be a Hindu. As long as your belief system is not in conflict with the Vedic philosophy you have a perfectly legit claim to be one. And this gives you enormous amounts of personal space to form your own set of rules and live by them. I am sure you would know but for the benfit of those unfamiliar with the details, the 'Bhakti' that the article talks about is very much a post Gita thing, had little to no role in Hinduism prior to it. This "one book" obsession is very much an Abrahamic response to try and map something unfamiliar to something familiar. I find it quite amusing.

RealGeek 12y ago

Most Hindus are very tolerant about religion. Unlike other religions, Hinduism actually teaches freedom and tolerance. It encourages you to question and interpret in your way. This is why there are many interpretations of Bhagvad Gita and Mahabharata. Most other religions are like "this is the only word of God, every other religion is satan, and questioning is blasphemy".

vithlani 12y ago
They are very tolerant about religion until the son introduces his non-Hindu girlfriend to the family. Somehow the tolerance seems to disappear.