Go to Chapter 17 part 2
Inventing an Incestuous Rape (Devibhagavata Purana 7.30)
Courtright narrates two tales in order to elaborate upon the
erotic power of the paarijaata (Coral Tree) flower. He cites the first from supposedly
related accounts in the Brahmavaivarta
Purana 3.20.41–62 and the Devibhagavata Purana (DBP) 9.403–23. In this tale, Sage Durvasa presents
a beautiful paarijaata flower, with the ability to make its possessor
powerful and wealthy, to Indra. The Sage says that the powers of the flower are
manifest only when it is placed on his head by its possessor with reverence.
When the Sage arrives, Indra is busy making love with a heavenly nymph named
Rambha. When the Sage leaves, Indra continues his lovemaking and throws the
flower on the head of Airavata, his elephant mount. According to Courtright, Airavata
immediately transforms into ‘a form of Vishnu’, abandons Indra and runs into
the forest, whereas Indra is completely deprived of his power and glory. When
the Durvasa learns that Indra has insulted and has defiled his holy gift to him,
the sage curses Indra and he loses all his powers.
Courtright then continues his analysis:
This story also concerns the rivalry between Indra and Siva, who
here takes the form of Durvasas. The
powers of the sage make short work of Indra’s wealth and sexual prowess. The
parijata flower is an emblem of riches and erotic power, one of the flowers
from the five coral trees that arose out of the churning of the ocean at the beginning
of the cosmic cycle. In another story the goddess gave this flower to Durvasas
who in turn gave it to Daksa, who became so aroused by the scent of the flower that he made love to his daughter
Sati ‘in the manner of a mere beast’. This shameful action drove her to burn
her body, that is, commit sati, and provoked Siva to such a rage that he
beheaded Daksa 7.30).
The author thus links the two stories through the supposed
common motif of the paarijaata flower.
However, when the relevant passages of the Devibhagavata Purana are
checked, there is no mention of the paarijaata flower at
all. Verse 7.30.28 of the text reads,
tatah prasannaa devesii nijakanthagataam srajam
bhramabhradamarasamsaktaam makarandamadaakulaam |
The verse merely means that pleased with the Muni, the Devi
gives him the fragrant garland that is on her neck, attracting clusters of bumblebees
with its fragrant juice (makaranda). Now the
word “makaranda” is typically used for the juice of the jasmine
flower, which is also very fragrant and attracts the bees, wasps, insects, and
bumblebees that can be seen in the gardens of India. No other verse in the chapter indicates that the paarijaata flowers
were in her garland, and so the artificial
linkage between the two stories by Courtright is brought about by an
unjustifiable insertion of ‘paarijaata’ flowers into the text by him. (For the story about Daksha’s incestuous behavior as
alleged by Courtright, please read page 216. Chapter 17)
Now, the Devibhagavata
Purana is a Shakta sectarian text
extolling the Devi primarily, and secondarily Shiva, her consort. It narrates
this entire episode in a distinctive manner. After Sage Durvasa receives the divine
garland from the Devi, he reverentially places it on his head and
proceeds to meet Daksha. In Daksha’s home the Sage offers his
homage and Daksha asks for the garland. Sage Durvasa, thinking that Daksha himself
is a devotee of the Devi, gives the garland to him. The text then says (Devibhagavata Purana 7.30.34cd–35ab):
grhiitaa sirasaa maalaa munina nijamandire
sthaapitaa sayanam yatra dampatyoratisundaram
(Receiving the garland given by the Sage on his head, in his own
chamber, Daksa then places it reverentially on the beautiful bed prepared for
the couple.)
It is very important to pay attention to the word ‘dampati’
in this verse because the word normally stands for husband and wife. It seems implausible that he would have placed the
garland on a bed meant for Sati and her husband Shiva, whose presence is not
even mentioned so far, although verse 23 does mention her betrothal with Shiva –
an incident that is clearly not contemporaneous with the yajna of
Daksha. It is more likely that it was the bed meant for Daksha and his wife, Sati’s
mother. There is no evidence in the text that the bed was meant to be shared by Daksha and his married daughter!
What happens then is very evil (verse 35cd),
pasukarmarato raatrau maalaagandhena moditah |
(Aroused by the fragrance of the garland, Daksa was engrossed in
animal-acts during the night.)
There is no hint what these bestial acts were, but it is
reasonable to conclude that Daksha engaged in sex, and perhaps other activities
such as imbibing liquor. The text certainly does not say that, “he made love
to his daughter Sati in the manner of a mere animal” as Courtright claims (Courtright, p.37).
But why is indulgence in sex by Daksha considered a pashukarma?
First, he has defiled the divine garland given by the Devi (and remember that
the Purana is a Shakta Purana, dedicated to the Devi) by allowing it to act as an
aphrodisiac. Second, he is in the midst of a yajna, during which the yajmaana
(sacrificer) and his wife are
to remain celibate. Sex during the period of a yajna defiles the rite. And the
third reason is clarified by the following verse (Devibhagavata Purana 7.30.36):
abhavatsa mahipaalastena paapena sankare
sive dveshamatirhaato devyaam satyaam tatha nrpa |
(O Great King! Owing to (or under the influence of) that sin (of
sexual intercourse), Daksa spoke evil of Shiva, and he was filled with an intense
enmity for Shiva as well as for his daughter Devi Sati.)
So we come to the standard narrative wherein Daksha speaks ill of
Shiva and is filled with hatred for him (and here also for Sati, who is but an
incarnation of the Devi).
The beginning verses of chapter 7.30 narrate how Daksha was a pious
king who had pleased Devi by intense austerities in the Himalayas. When the
Devi appears before him, he requested her to take birth in his family. The Devi
granted Daksha his wish, and she was born in his family as Sati. The Daksha, a
completely transformed man, insulted the same Devi he had worshipped in the
past. He became filled with enmity for Sati, who was not only his own daughter,
but also the incarnation of the Devi. Therefore Sati can no longer stay in the
body that is born of her sinful father Daksha. The text continues (Devibhagavata Purana 7.30.37):
rajanastenaaparaadhena tajjanyo deha eva ca
satyaa yogaagninaa dagdhah satidharmadidrksayaa |
(O King! Because of Daksa’s crime, Sati immolated her body, that
was generated from him (Daksa),with her yogic fire, so as to preserve the
dignity of the eternal dharma of devotion to her
husband.)
The crime of Daksha was that he had spoken ill of Shiva and that
he was filled with enmity towards him and his own daughter under the influence
of sin. The text then states that the shakti of Sati
returned to the Himalayas (7.30.38ab), the abode of Devi where Daksha had meditated and had her darsana in the
first place. The narrative continues in
the standard manner—Shiva was infuriated with the death of Sati and he
destroyed the yajna (7.43). Daksha was beheaded and his head was
replaced with that of a goat.
So what we see here is a variant of the standard theme in which Sati
commits suicide because she cannot bear the insult of her husband by her
father.And since the text is a Shakta text, it adds its own details that Daksha
had defiled the gift of Devi, and was filled with enmity towards her own
essence in his daughter Sati. The text certainly does not say:
“This shameful action [of Daksha’s incestuous rape of Sati—reviewers’ addition]
drove her to burn her body”. This
‘scholarly’ version is but Courtright’s own invention. The manner in which Courtright gives sexual kink to
Puranic passages reminds us of how his gurubandhu Jeffrey
Kripal had interpreted the Kathamrita
to make Ramakrishna Paramahamsa
into a homosexual pedophile. (For more
on Wendy Doniger’s mentorship and influence in Courtright’s work, please read
page 219, chapter 17)
The Remover of Obstacles or the Creator of
Obstacles?
Ganesha is also known as Vighneshvara that Courtright translates
as, ‘the Lord of obstacles’. The name
is generally understood to mean ‘remover of obstacles’ by lay Hindus. Hindu tradition itself, however, associates some
ambiguity with the name. In some Hindu texts, Ganesha is actually stated to be
the creator of obstacles. Courtright cites a version of the Skanda Purana (VII.1.38.1–34), according to which the heavens become crowded
with people when even sinners start attaining salvation by visiting the temple
of Somanatha. The gods then become alarmed and approach Shiva for a way out of
this quagmire. He is unable to help them and therefore Parvati creates Ganesha
out of the dirt of her body. She
remarks that Ganesha will place obstacles before (sinful or undeserving) men so
that they will get deluded, and will go to the hell instead of to Somanatha.
The notion that Ganesha creates obstacles without a just cause is
merely meant to demonstrate his power, as well as the fact that he does not
allow sinners to take short cuts to reach the heavens—this is what the above
story from the Skanda Purana also demonstrates. (For more on
this, please read page 220, chapter 17)
Courtright too is aware of Shiva Purana 2.4.15–18
in which Parvati declares that Ganesha shall receive the worship of all and remove
all obstacles. Yet, how could a deity, whose
morality Doniger has judged as ambivalent, and whose father Shiva is labeled by
Courtright as a notorious womanizer, be depicted in such an exalted manner?
Thus Ganesha is presented as the Lord of Obstacles, turning him into a
malevolent deity. Apart from adorning the cover
of Courtright’s book, this label is later used as a tool to psychoanalyze
Ganesha’s supposed sexual ambivalence. Courtright would portray Ganesha as a
jealous deity who inflicts severe punishments on those who dare ignore his
immanent manifestations.
In the course of this discussion, Courtright compares Ganesha to
St. Peter, who is the keeper of the gate to the heaven as per Biblical texts. The author is quick to point out one difference though:
Ganesha is comparable to the devious St. Peter of folklore, not to the sober
and austere St. Peter of the New Testament and early Christian hagiography. It
becomes imperative for Courtright to differentiate between folklore and
literature to present St. Peter in a positive light, but such scruples are dispensed with when it comes to using
unreliable anecdotes to taint the Hindu deity Ganesha.
Referring to the story of the Skanda Purana,
Courtright suggests that “the pattern of Ganesa’s ambivalent behavior at the
threshold links him with the actions of demons . . . ” This is a rather poor choice
of words, and an unfair demonizing of the deity. Hindus interpret the deity
predominantly as an embodiment of auspiciousness, benevolence and the like.218
He is invoked at the beginning of all endeavors, religious or secular, because
He is the remover of obstacles.
(For more on this, please read page 221, chapter 17)
The Puranas and Conspiracy Theories
Courtright revisits the theme of the problem of the Vedic
origins of Ganesha. It is true that there are not many unambiguous references
to Ganesha in the ancient Vedic texts, in contrast with the exalted manner in
which he is referred to in the texts of classical Hinduism, the Puranas. To explain this discrepancy, Courtright comes up
with a conspiracy theory. He argues
that the Puranas attempt to cover-up his demon ancestry and are uncomfortably
aware of the discrepancy between the malevolent, obstacle-creating powers of
Vinayaka and the positive, obstacle-removing actions of Ganesha. According to him, the Puranas seek to resolve this
contradiction by various mechanisms such as “clever use of false etymologies
for the name ‘Vinayaka’”.
Courtright says:
In one case, when Siva saw, much to his surprise, that Ganesa appeared
out of the mixture of his and Parvati’s sweat and bathwater, he exclaimed to
her, ‘A son has been born to you without [vinà] a husband [nàyakena];
therefore this son shall be named Vinàyaka’ (Vàm
P 28.71–72). This etymological sleight of hand obscures the association of Vinàyaka
with “those who lead astray” which is its etymologically prior meaning, and
connects it with another meaning of nàyaka as
leader or husband.
The Purana has really not indulged in any subterfuge because in the
second half of this very verse (28.72cd), Lord Shiva clearly says that Ganesha
will create thousands of obstacles for devatas and others (esha vighnasahasraani suradiinaam karishyati). The meaning of the word vinaayaka given by the Purana is definitely possible
grammatically, without any strain at all. The appropriate question pertaining
to historiography is whether the meaning ‘creator of obstacles’ for ‘vinaayaka’
was in vogue or the norm at the time the Vamana Purana was
compiled. If not, then we cannot accuse the author of the Purana with a
proverbial sleight of hand.
It may be noted that creation of such ad-hoc etymologies, mythologies,
and cosmologies is seen very frequently in Hindu texts such as the Brahmanas,
the Upanishads, and the Puranas, amongst other genres. These ad-hoc etymologies serve various purposes at
hand, such as providing impromptu explanations or justification for a ritual
act, or thematic completion of the narrative. One need not come up with conspiracy
theories, as Courtright has done, to describe this phenomenon.
Maternal Aggression of Parvati against
Ganesha—Dubious Passage of Varaha
Purana
Courtright writes:
The theme of maternal aggression in the myths of Ganesa is more veiled;
but it is there—as we have seen in the myth where Parvati curses Ganesa to be
ugly and as we shall see in the myth where she places him at the doorway to be
cut down to size by Siva . . .
We are not aware of any Puranic text where Parvati curses
Ganesha to be ugly. Courtright himself admits that this
story is not found in any printed edition of the Varaha Purana.
He, however, attributes the above text to a Christian missionary traveler to
India, and to an illinformed author writing from the first half of 1800s who
may have relied himself on the missionary’s work for this piece of information.
Who is older: Ganesha or Skanda?
Hindu tradition is not unanimous on who is the elder brother of
the two. Courtright, however, states that Ganesha is the younger brother in a
somewhat absolute manner.
The iconography is clear enough; Ganesa is a child, a baby. So he
remains, never growing into the full youthful stage of his elder brother Skanda
or the maturity of his father.
Later (p.123), he contradicts himself and states that in most areas,
Skanda is considered the younger brother.
So we see that even incorrect and inconsistent facts do not prevent Courtright
from inventing psychological analyses. The
point is that if a matter is not settled within the Hindu tradition itself,
then why does Courtright select one version alone to retrofit his preconceived
thesis?
Imaginary Blackie in the Matsya Purana
A recent review of his book makes the following additional
remarks, which we reproduce below for the benefit of the reader. Further while
dealing with the mythology he states, “Once in jest
Siva called Parvati ‘Blackie’ [Kali] because her skin looked black
like a serpent. She was offended . . . and so went away to practice asceticism
to obtain a golden skin. Viraka begged her to take him with her . . . But she told him to stay at Siva’s door . . . for Siva
is a notorious womanizer. The references given to the
passage quoted are Skp. 1.2.27–29; cf. Matsya P. 154.542–78. See also Kramrisch
1981, pp. 364–65; O’Flaherty 1975, pp. 252–61.
The reviewer then criticizes Courtright in the following words: The
MatsyaP. does not contain the word Kali or any word similar to
womanizer. The Skanda Purana has the word krsna for black complexioned one. Similarly what Parvati tells Viraka about Siva is gaurangilampato hyesah…1(2).28.8 ‘enamoured of woman of white complexion’)
(as is translated by Tagore), and not ‘a notorious womanizer’ as the author
says.
The Cigar Now Becomes a Phallus
The principal cause of the current controversy over Courtright’s
book is his abuse of Freudian theories to impart perverse sexual meanings to
the otherwise innocuous aspects of the narratives on the deity found in Hindu
texts. Courtright’s defense, however,
is that his detractors have
taken his quotes out of context. We find this explanation
disingenuous because even outside Chapter III, where most of these sexual interpretations
are found, one can find other instances where he has hinted at similar aspects.
The previous sections of our
review clearly demonstrate how Courtright has exaggerated and even has invented
sexuality in several Puranic passages.
We have seen in our brief review of the textual analysis in the book
how Courtright manages to kink the narratives of the Puranas by giving them
numerous sexual twists. Completely unrelated
projectiles, missiles, electric poles, water pipes, tree trunks,
elephant trunks, stone pillars, walking sticks, obelisks, spider legs and lotus
stems were reduced to ‘cigars’ (to put it facetiously). Now Courtright asks us
to see phalluses in all these ‘cigars’. Indeed, such a wide variety of choices
that we are given makes his text very ‘insightful’, ‘thoughtful’, ‘wonderful’,
‘scholarly’, ‘objective’, ‘nuanced’, ‘sensitive’, ‘sympathetic’ etc., to use
the buzz words of academic Hinduism studies. (For more on this, please read
page 225, chapter 17)
One wonders how Wendy’s Children would interpret, using psychoanalysis
as a façade, the episode of Parashurama beheading his mother Renuka at his
father’s behest. Would they argue that it reveals a possible homosexual
relationship between Sage Jamadagni233 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?
One may argue that Courtright is imposing Western
interpretations on an Indian deity and so there is bound to be some bias. Courtright argues, however, that his methodology is
‘universal’ or ‘objective’ in the following words.
The myth of Ganesa parallels aspects of human experience beyond the
restricted world of ritual initiation. It is a tale of family relations and
reflects the unconscious ambivalences of early forgotten childhood experience.
One need not be an ideological Freudian to see the fruitfulness of raising
psychoanalytical questions about a myth that involves such a violent and
complex account of father/son relations. The
extent to which the myth of Ganesa explores these relations and the
sensibilities that attend them, it reaches beyond its Indian context and takes
on universal meaning and appeal.
We invite the reader to read our extracts from Courtright’s psychoanalysis
and decide for him or herself whether there is anything worthwhile in this
perverse verbal-jugglery. It appears that to give a ‘universal meaning and
appeal’ to the persona of Ganesha, he started with his unflattering
introduction of his protagonist Ganesha, of whom he says: “He appears tainted,
trivial, perhaps even vulgar . . . In short Ganesa is too ordinary”. He wrote:
“Repulsion at the form of the deity with an elephant head and suspicion that
there may be more going on than meets the (Western) eye, is a good starting
point for our inquiry . . . ”
Ganesha’s mythology is also declared as: “an elaborate rationalization for an
invented deity”. Now that really sounds universally appealing and meaningful!
Courtright Invents a ‘Limp Phallus’—Misrepresenting
Vedanta and Tantra
Perhaps the most offensive statements made by Courtright relate
to his description of Ganesha’s trunk as a limp phallus. Let us reproduce them here,
for the information of our readers.
The elephant trunk, which perpetually hangs limp, and broken
tusk are reminiscent of Siva’s own phallic character, but as these phallic analogs
are either excessive or in the wrong place, they pose no threat to Siva’s power
and his erotic claims on Parvati.
That the tradition or the texts never attach any sexual
connotation to this legend doesn’t stop Courtright from thus trashing Ganesha.
(For
more on this, please read page 226, 227 and 228, chapter 17)
While we do not see any mask on Ganesha’s torso, we do get a hint
of peek-a-boo pornography in Courtright’s ‘analyses’. We would let the readers
decide if it is worth psychoanalyzing Courtright himself, based on his own
statements in the book.
Read chapter 17 part 3 from page 215 to 228
Go to Chapter 17 part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment