Pdf of the book is available for free
download here.
Editors’ Note:
In this chapter, Vishal Agarwal and Kalavai Venkat provide a
detailed review of Paul Courtright’s book, Ganesa, Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. Their analysis raises very troubling questions about
the quality and integrity of Courtright’s scholarship. Nevertheless,
Courtright, Doniger, and her followers, continue to evade these questions about
methodology by demonizing their critics.
Doniger has recently adopted an interesting new tactic to
silence criticism while simultaneously appealing to American liberals. She has
started comparing those who criticize her to fundamentalist Christians opposing
the teaching of Evolution in schools.
She casts herself in the role of Darwin, as a courageous ‘scientist’ being
attacked by obscurantists who are unwilling to deal with empirical evidence.
The allegation is that her critics are irrational. This charge is over and
above her prior allegations that her critics—along with their deities and
spiritual traditions—are violent and immoral.
To enlist liberal sympathies against the Indian–American
minority, Doniger disingenuously positions the debate as between scientific
reason, represented by her school, and unreason, represented by the Hindu diaspora.
Ironically, most Indian-Americans who have criticized Doniger’s scholarship
are scientists or professionals with considerable technical training, while
Doniger and her cohorts are typically trained in the humanities, and
questionably, at that. In addition, many critics within the Hindu diaspora have had
lifelong instruction in many Indian languages and in Sanskrit. They have, importantly, knowledge of multiple versions
of narratives based on regional differences, chronology, or schools of thought,
besides a culturally rooted understanding of texts.
In an interview with a local American newspaper, posted on
UChicago’s public relations website, Doniger engages in undisguised
us-versus-them branding and insinuation by misrepresenting her critics’
positions. The newspaper reported that Doniger:
sees some parallels with the debate in Kansas about how much teaching
on creationism should be allowed in the classroom. ‘This same fight is going on
in my field,’ Doniger says. ‘Not literally, of course, about Darwin and the
Hebrew Bible and Genesis, but whether the scholarly attitude of the events in
the history of Hinduism or the faith attitude to the history of the events in
the history of Hinduism is the one that should be taught in school. There’s a
very close parallel.’
The ‘fight going on in [Doniger’s] field ‘is not a battle
between modern scientific approaches, represented by RISA et al, versus a
tradition-bound obscurantist Hindu diaspora. It is a debate
between, on the one hand obscure, arbitrary approaches to Hindu Studies
based on Eurocentric paradigms and poor evidence, which make unverifiable
inferences about the meanings’ of the
events in the history of Hinduism’ versus an approach to Hindu Studies that
insists on rigorous training, accuracy in translation, independent peer-review
and cultural authenticity. The reader should judge for herself whether Doniger is justified
in calling her followers’ approach to Hinduism ‘scientific’, i.e. comparable
with Darwin or even ‘historically accurate’. On the one hand, Courtright’s book, carrying Doniger’s endorsement,
won a prestigious history prize. Courtright has also tacitly compared himself
to noted historians and chroniclers like De Tocqueville and Myrdal, even though
he is not trained as a professional historian. Courtright’s work was supposedly peer-reviewed by other Western
academic scholars prior to publication to ensure scientific rigor in the use of evidence and theory. On
the other hand, this chapter demonstrates the value of independent peer-review,
when the academic peer-review system is broken. The reader can judge for
herself whether Courtright’s book is, in fact, scholarly and evidence based; or
relies upon fabricated data, shoddy research and arbitrary theorizing—dressed
up with a scholarly gloss to disguise prejudice.
Introductory Remarks:
Background and Importance of Courtright’s Book
In the years 2003–2004, a fierce controversy involving Hindu-
Americans on one side and certain Indologists on the other, broke out over Paul
Courtright’s book on the Hindu deity Ganesha. The controversy gathered steam in
November 2003 when a chapter of the Hindu Students Council (HSC), at the
University of Louisiana, Lafayette, started an online petition criticizing the
book. The petition reproduced several passages regarding Lord Ganesha from
Courtright’s book that were deemed pornographic in nature. Within a matter of
days the petition successfully attracted almost 7000 signatures. Unfortunately some anonymous signatories took advantage
of the privacy that the Internet offered them and posted death threats to
Courtright on the petition. The HSC
members who started the petition immediately took if off the website before the
situation got out of control. Meanwhile Motilal Banarsidass, which had
published the Indian reprint of the book, withdrew it from circulation before
the controversy reached Indian shores. The publisher also apologized to the
protestors for hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus.
These two developments in turn raised a storm among a section of
scholars of South Asian Studies in the American academic community. They went on to denounce the publishers and protestors as
‘Hindu fundamentalists’ bent on damaging freedom of speech in American
Universities by intimidating the author of a ‘scholarly’, ‘sensitive’,
‘thoughtful’, ‘peer-reviewed’, and ‘excellent’ book.
Courtright’s book cannot be ignored and it is in fact a
prominent yet controversial Indological publication for several reasons
outlined below. First, the text bears a Foreword by none other than Wendy Doniger,
who currently acts as the reigning Czarina of Indological Studies in the United
States. She is a cult figure for a very
large number of her students, who have a profound influence on how India and Hinduism
are depicted at American Universities.
Even those who are not her students, nevertheless feel proud of their association with
her, such as Courtright. Second, the book has received a national award for its
presumed excellence.
Third, the dissension actually prompted Oxford University Press,
one of the most reputed academic printers in the world, to publish a 2003
reprint of the book in the West.
Fourth, its reprint in India was brought out by Motilal
Banarsidass, the largest publisher, exporter and distributor of Indological
books in the country. As a result, the book was also noticed and commented upon
in India. We will refer to some of these reviews in our own extensive comments
here.
Fifth, it appears that perverse descriptions of Ganesha from the
book have started to creep into mainstream society in the West. For instance, in a recent exhibit on the Hindu deity
Ganesha arranged by a museum in Baltimore, the book served as a seminal text
that was quoted in citations accompanying the displays.
Sixth, since the publication of the book, Paul B. Courtright has
been acknowledged as an authority on the subject of Ganesha. This is evident
from the way in which numerous other writers of books on the deity not just
acknowledge his help and guidance; they also often quote his text either approvingly or at least in a neutral
manner. Conversely, the list of people whom Courtright acknowledges in his book
for their help reads like a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ in the world of Hinduism
studies in the United States.
Seventh, the book is derived, at least in part, from the
author’s Ph.D. thesis and therefore should be considered a result of intensive research.
The thesis was completed in 1974, eleven years before the publication of the
book. It is reasonable to assume that the book therefore contains the fruits of
his intensive research as a doctoral student, and perhaps a lot of other
subsequent research in the eleven years thereafter. Moreover, the author has
published several journal articles on themes related to the subject matter of
his book.
Eighth, in the wake of this controversy, a number of
professional scholars of Hinduism Studies and in related fields have actually
gone on record with whole-hearted praise of the book. Such academic support not
just defends Courtright’s right to free speech; it actually praises his book
for its content and analyses.
Ninth, Courtright has done better professionally than most
scholars in Hinduism studies. He is currently a tenured professor and former co-chair
of the Department of Religion at Emory University; a feat attributable to the
accolades his book has drawn in the past.
Tenth, a cursory search on WorldCat and other electronic
catalogs shows that approximately 300 college and school libraries in North America
alone have a copy of his book on their shelves. This is a large number for any
Indological publication and attests to the widespread acclaim and popularity
that his text has attained in American academia, almost to the point of
canonization.
Finally, a sourcebook on Hinduism
and Psychoanalysis cites long extracts from his book to explain the father-son
relationship in the Hindu society! These citations actually constitute some of
the most obscene and offensive sections of the book. Obviously according to the
editors of this sourcebook,
Courtright’s psychoanalysis provides seminal understanding of family
relationships amongst Hindus!
Being such an important book also means that the controversy raises
many other issues besides the question of free speech and academic freedom. In
our review, we restrict ourselves to the issue of Paul Courtright’s misuse of
primary data from Hindu texts for developing his theses. (For more
on the methodology, please read page 194 and 195, chapter 17)
Psychoanalysis and Indology in the United States:
When the Cigar becomes a Phallus
Sigmund Freud had a lifelong relationship with cigars. He was
rarely photographed without one between his lips. It is said that he enjoyed as
many as twenty of them every day. When his friends suspected that he was
addicted to cigars, he argued that they were a very private aspect of his life
that should be insulated from psychoanalysis by others. This disagreement with
peers supposedly gave rise to a statement at times attributed to Freud,
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” The implication being that
people should not see something else in his cigar since it really was just a
cigar.
What we are referring to is the complete Freudianization of Indological parlance, or lingo, by a small band of academics.
The phenomenon has advanced to such
an extent that words and phrases like ‘castration’, ‘flaccid-penis’,
‘sexual-fantasy’, ‘erect penis’ and such have become a sort of lingua-franca
through which the intellectual intercourse of closely-related scholars achieves
effect in their academic publications.Wendy
Doniger, the doyenne of academic studies on Hinduism has summarized the weltanschauung of these scholars in the following words:
Aldous Huxley once said that an intellectual was someone who had
found something more interesting than sex; in Indology, an intellectual need
not make that choice at all.
Who wrote the Mahabharata?
The Foreword to Courtright’s book is written by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty
who, in her typical colloquial and superlative style, praises his book without
apparently adding anything substantial. Except
she does reveal undisclosed lore about the writing of the Hindu epic the Mahabharata,
“ . . . in which Ganesa dictates the epic to Vyasa” (Courtright, viii.)! Hindu
tradition, however, is unanimous in informing us that it was the Sage Vyasa who
dictated the epic to Ganesha rather than the other way around as Doniger
states. No, this is not a slip of the
tongue on Doniger’s part, unless it is some kind of a Freudian slip, because
she actually constructs a pseudo-psychology out of her erroneous version of the
tradition:
In Courtright’s defense, we must point out that he himself has
correctly referred to the tradition about the authorship of the Mahabharata in
his book (Courtright, pp.151–53).
Doniger herself perhaps did not read the book thoroughly even though she wrote
the ecstatic Foreword to it.
Lord Ganesha does not get to bask in the glory of his surprise,
albeit ephemeral, promotion from a scribe to the narrator of the epic. Courtright brings Ganesha down from the heavenly realms
to the earth and transforms him into something of a eunuch, an incestuous son, and
a homosexual. Had Ganesha indulged in the
ephemeral glory bestowed on him by Doniger then one must indeed pity his
naivety, because Doniger had earlier forewarned:
Ganesa has everything that is fascinating to anyone who is
interested in religion or India or both: charm, mystery, popularity, sexual problems, moral ambivalence, political importance, the works. [added emphasis]. (For more
on this, please read page 197, chapter 17)
Misuse of Textual Sources
Courtright attempts to base his study on the contents of Hindu
texts and then interprets them to derive a particular thesis. The two major classes
of texts he deals with are the Vedas and the Puranas. The Tantras and the
Upanishads are largely left out, except for a stand-alone translation of the Ganapati Atharvasirsa Upanishad in the appendix. In this section, we examine the
validity of Courtright’s use of Hindu texts in his study.
Dubious Vedic Textual References
In Chapter I, titled ‘The Making of a Deity,’ he explores the
evolution of Ganesha as a deity in the Hindu pantheon from a historical
perspective. He begins with the antecedents
of the deity in Vedic literature and proceeds to make dubious statements. For instance, while dismissing all Vedic references
as evidence that the worship of Ganesha was known when the Vedic texts were the
primary source of Hindu practice, he says:
A similar invocation in another Brahmanic text addresses ‘the
one with the twisted trunk [vakratunda]’ (Tà 10.1.5), also leaving it uncertain
whether it is Ganesa or Siva who is being addressed.
This is puzzling, because vakratunda is distinctly another name for
Ganesha. Moreover, the last portion of the mantra (called the Vighneshvaragayatri in the Hindu tradition) reads—tanno dantih pracodayaat (Taittiriya
Aranyaka 10.1.5), which is clearly a
reference to the tusk of Ganesha.
Courtright also mistakenly classifies the text as ‘Brahmanic’ or from the
Brahmanas, whereas in reality it is a mantra. Another obvious reason why this
mantra containing the word vakratunda refers to Ganesha and not to his father Shiva is
that the preceding mantra is in fact addressed to Mahadeva and Rudra (other
names of Shiva), and the mantra after the Vighneshvaragayatri is
addressed to Nandin, the mount or vehicle of Shiva. Thus from the words of the mantra and its context as
well, we should infer that this mantra is clearly addressed to the deity Ganesha and not to Lord Shiva. (For
more on this, please read page 198 and 199, chapter 17)
Finally, Courtright claims that ‘TB [Taittiriya Brahmana]10.15’ contains
the word dantin. This
reference by Courtright is problematic because Taittiriya Brahmana is divided into 3 books that are further divided
into smaller sections. Therefore, the citation of TB 10.15 does not make much
sense. The Vedic Word Concordance of Vishvabandhu also
does not indicate any occurrence of the word dantin in the
entire Taittiriya Brahmana. Courtright
attributes the textual reference to a publication of Louis Renou. After
referencing Renou’s article, however, we did not find any mention at all of the
Taittiriya Brahmana in it. The reference in Renou’s article is in fact
to
Maitrayani Samhita 2.9.1.
The presence of so many erroneous and apparently invented textual citations in
just one page of the book is simply unacceptable from an academic perspective.
Errors of Vedic citations are seen in other parts of the book as
well. For instance in Chapter II of his book, Courtright claims: “The association
of the thigh with the phallus in the Indian tradition dates from the Rig Veda (RV
8.4.1).” The mantra in question reads:
yadindra praagapaagudam nyag vaa uuyase nrbhih
simaa puruu nrshuuto asyaanave.asi prashardha
turvashe
Ralph Griffith’s translation reads—
Though Indra, thou are called by men
eastward and westward, north and south,
Thou chiefly art with Anava and Turvasa,
brave Champion! urged by Men to come.
There is no reference to the penis or thighs here. We therefore question
what Courtright was thinking. A majority of
references to Vedic texts by Courtright in Chapter I of his book and others in subsequent
chapters are either interpreted incorrectly, or they are non traceable. Thus we question if Courtright even had a first hand, or even a
reasonable second hand, knowledge of Vedic texts when he wrote his book.
Mythology of Ganesa and Abuse of Puranic Texts
Chapter II of the book, titled ‘Mythology of Ganesa,’ deals with
the different ways in which academics studying religion can approach the mythology
of the deity. Courtright lists five such levels,
of which Wendy Doniger is credited for explicating the first four while the
fifth is Courtright’s own contribution.
This particular chapter seems to focus on the first or ‘narrative’ level, in
which the story of the deity is stated in all its versions. Varying divergent
and convergent versions of the story of Ganesha are scattered throughout a
diverse set of Hindu texts belonging to different centuries. Courtright treats
these texts in a combined, holistic manner to explore the thematic, structural,
and interpretative dimensions of these myths. Courtright says that he has
treated all Puranic accounts as belonging to a single ongoing tradition in
order to paint his picture of Ganesha. We
believe that this is not a sound approach, because each of the Puranas catered to the needs of a particular Hindu sect and some
of them are known to display sectarian rhetoric against other sects and their
deities.
Winternitz presents a very relevant example to demonstrate this sectarian
bias, bordering on the absurd, as reflected in the Puranas regarding the
deities of a rival sect. (For more on this, please read page 201, chapter 17)
Read chapter 17 part 1 from page 190 to 201
Pdf of the book is available for free download here.
