"Prof. Courtright's Pseudo-psychoanalytic Depiction of Shri Ganesha - Authentic Scholarship or Bigotry?"**
by
Shree S. Vinekar, MD, DLFAPA, DLFAACAP, MACPsych
Abstract
Prof. Courtright's use of psychoanalytic theory is a veneer to his bigotry. The issue highlighted by the protesting concerned citizens in the U.S., who are knowledgeable of Hindu culture, is not an attack on Prof. Courtright's freedom of speech or academic freedom. The Hindu scholars are neither oblivious to nor unable to accept academic freedom as a lofty democratic principle. The crucial issue is disregard of scholarly responsibility by Prof. Courtright in interpreting the arcane fields of Hindu Philosophy and Mythology, as well as the inappropriate use of Applied Psychoanalysis. The limitations of his knowledge of both of these subjects makes his book on "Ganesa" comparable to the pseudoscientific arguments, used in the disciplines of Humanities, to justify racism and eugenics in the 1960's. Such fallacious “logic” was designed to gain academic respectability but it is nothing but a vicious and demeaning attack on another culture not unlike that is revealed in anti-Semitic literature and attitudes.
Such ploy or subterfuge is likely to mislead and misinform other honest but gullible academicians in the U.S. Prof. Courtright has distracted them into believing that his work published under the banner of Emory has authentic scholastic merit. He would view any attack on his blatant "cross-cultural vandalism" as an encroachment on his academic freedom. Such defense and other arguments used by Prof. Courtright are nothing but smoke and mirrors. His counteraccusations against his critics further demean and discredit the Hindu scholars who have taken serious exception to the contents of his book. His scholastic sounding exterior is a cover up for the deliberate and malicious maligning of a respectable culture.
The defensive response of Prof. Courtright is a gross misuse of the concept of academic freedom. It is clearly a form of “anal sadistic” attack on another respectable society under the disguise of authentic scholarship. In short, Prof. Courtright has ulterior motives in attempting to publish his book from New Delhi, India. The considered action of the Parliament of India taken against his book and the recall of his book by its Indian publisher must not be viewed as a disregard of the democratic principle of freedom of expression. Simply speaking, the liberty to act cannot be translated as a freedom to urinate on the pole on which a national flag is hoisted. These views are respectfully submitted for consideration by the Emory University authorities that may have been unwittingly but sincerely and tenaciously defending Prof. Courtright, previously losing sight of the above-mentioned implications.
1.
Do the principles of ‘freedom of speech, academic freedom’ as related to the Skopes trial in the 1920s, as well as some of the controversies at Emory University itself regarding academic freedom apply to Prof. Courtright? - See Refs. 1, 2.
Let me first express my appreciation to Emory University officials for their willingness to understand diverse views. In the age of “global shrinking”, universities are not only open to international students but they are also expected to sincerely respect their students' cultural diversity as well as cultural sensitivities. Ethics in academia goes well beyond the respect for "freedom of speech" or "academic freedom." It also takes into account "academic integrity" and "depth of scholarship." In addition, there are other standards to judge the quality of the academic work. This theme of my presentation is elaborated below by drawing attention of the Emory authorities to the facts related to Prof. Courtright's book on "Ganesa" or more appropriately Shri Ganesha, (more on this later). Various perspectives will be examined. I will not accept the expectations laid down by Prof. Courtright that I should at all times quote him within his own context. It is the premise of the presenter that Emory and Prof. Courtright’s colleagues consider this work as a serious scholastic activity and its product. If so, then any obscenity in reference to sacred symbols or images revered in another ancient culture is not permissible by any standard of academic decency. It must be pointed out that Hindu culture has a continuity of some ten thousand plus years and is currently respected and honored all over the world.
I must respectfully submit that the issues under discussion related to Prof. Courtright’s book and its contents do not deserve to be elevated to the status of academic freedom or that of the Skopes “Monkey” Trial. The famous trial or a farce of the 1920s was to censure a teacher for giving “Darwinian” insights into the origin of man to his students living in the Bible belt. Prof. Courtright does not need to be viewed as giving new scientific Freudian insights into the origin of the image of Shri Ganesha or adding to the body of scientific knowledge. Prof. Courtright need not defend himself as being on trial by the fictitious “fundamentalist” Hindus equating them with Fundamentalist Christians in the Bible belt. Such exaltation of Prof. Courtright, besides being a distraction from the main issue, will necessarily demean his critics as the “non-scientific” regressive minds opposing progress in the field of psychoanalysis and/or religion.
We are not discussing here a creative fiction like "Indiana Jones," that could be offensive to the Hindu culture; nor are we considering the "psychoanalytic" meanings of fictional Disney characters or children's story characters. Such fictional characters may be, in the folklore, comparable to the mythical character of Shri Ganesha - the elephant "god"- mostly depicted as a toddler or a curious character, riding a mouse. There is a distinct difference in that Shri Ganesha is not just a “Winnie the Pooh.” As will be illustrated soon, the resemblance of the form of Shri Ganesha’s face to the head of the elephant is merely coincidental and almost all Hindus know that worship of Ganesha is not “animal worship.”
Prof. Courtright has not been able to cross this bridge for cross-cultural understanding. However, it is transparent that Prof. Courtright's direct attack on Shri Ganesha, the image and idol of worship of 800 million Hindus, is calculatedly designed to offend the culture. He is ostensibly giving the impression of trying to study and translate the Hindu idol of worship and mythology surrounding it for greater and deeper understanding of his English-speaking readers. By announcing his circumspect attitude that the image has more meanings than those that meet the eye, he delves into sexual meanings that have no place in traditional texts related to Shri Ganesha. He is deluding his readers and audience into believing that his depth of scholarship has shown new "sexual meanings" for the image of the "elephant-god" as it is popularly misconceived in the Western World.
He may defend that these meanings exist in the Unconscious as discovered and described by Sigmund Freud. He may also insist that he is free to assign these meanings to any of the attributes of Shri Ganesha he chooses to focus on. He will persuade his supporters to believe that he is simply exercising his right of freedom of speech as well as his right of academic freedom. He will insist that only the conservative Hindus will perceive maligning and malice in his writing. He will argue that such perception is only in the eyes of the beholder who reads excerpts from his book that are either misquoted or quoted out of context. In making such claims he ignores the forest and focuses on the trees. His views are grossly bizarre besides being mainly incongruent with the emotional tone that the Hindu culture has developed around the image and idol of Shri Ganesha.
The mystique and mysteries of India and Hindu culture have long fascinated the imagination of Western scholars for centuries. "Hindu culture” as well as “psychoanalysis” has also long been the fodder of the Journalists and other writers who want to write sensationalist articles that captivate their readers. It is common to engage in so-called “creative” efforts to give one's own meaning to anything these scholars choose to explain in their “own frame of reference”. For example, it may be an acceptable psychoanalytic interpretation to say that Winnie the Pooh's excessive craving for honey is a creative depiction. Instead it may be presented in psychoanalytic parlance as standing for his lingering nostalgia for "oral" strivings and their satisfaction common to all children.
Prof. Courtright could plagiarize or elaborate on such psychoanalytic characterization dimply to pervert it at next level of sexualizing it. He could apply such reasoning to the understanding of Shri Ganesha, without full comprehension of what the "modaka" (a special sweet pastry) in the left hand of Shri Ganesha that symbolically stands for in spiritual parlance of Yoga and Hinduism. However, he would be taking undue liberties in using the words "oral sex" in reference to this symbol. He could have simply referred to the "oral" phase of psychosexual development of all infants and children. He could have focused on the evolutionary adaptive "instinct" in all humans for sweets to provide ready energy, or the evolutionary biological need to store "fat" in the abdominal wall, etc., etc. Instead, Prof. Courtright takes a morbid flight into describing Shri Ganesha as engaging in "oral sex." He does not reveal any primary sources in the Hindu literature (Puranas or mythology) wherein there is a mention or even a vague allusion to such perverted sexual practice on the part of Shri Ganesha.
Even the benign meaning of “fixation” at the oral stage of psychosexual development does not apply to Ganesha in my opinion. It is beyond the bounds of academic respectability, when someone like Prof. Courtright suggests that the highly revered and deeply worshipped and loved "Hindu God" engages in "Oral Sex." Such explicit aspersion on even a fictional character like "Winnie the Pooh" would depict an abhorrent image in the Western culture. To say that this loved character of children has perverted adult genital sexuality, fixated at the oral stage leading to Pooh's alleged homosexual practice of oral sex, would be an absurd “psychoanalytic” formulation. Depicted as such, Pooh's character assassination will make him a poor "role model" for children. Such crass "psychoanalytic" interpretations using pornographic language will not be given the status of "scholarly work" in any thoughtful institution of higher learning except at Emory. It reveals lack of scholarship of psychoanalytic theory. It is to be viewed as merely a deliberate misapplication of the “psychoanalytic” theory to attack the author of the story who created the character of Winnie the Pooh that is loved by most children in the world. Besides all of the arguments leveled against Prof. Courtright’s views, the most asinine one is for anyone interested in his pornographic depiction of oral sex of “Ganesa” to ask how the elephant’s mouth tucked under his trunk could make it anatomically possible for him to engage in oral sex with another male organ that is not hanging like the mama elephant’s udders under her abdomen. The Emory academic freedom defenders are not interested in raising such anatomical questions to Professor Courtyard to solve his anatomical puzzle.
This illustration amply clarifies how even endearing and beloved character, Winnie the Pooh, can be presented offensively in the Western culture to make it abominable. Similarly, Prof. Courtright's "psychoanalytic" interpretation of “Ganesa” is also an indication of a product of the sick mind he displays. He reflects and reveals, in interpreting “Ganesa,” his morbid fantasies springing from his own internalized perceptions, or projections of his own internal representations (introjections) of the culture in which he has grown up, whether with or without psychoanalytic sophistication. I hope he did not learn these "facts" at Emory! I must also make a bold statement that the Western Indologists are mostly a "strange breed." Most of them, unlike other academicians, intriguingly, show deep disdain, contempt, and even hatred, towards the subject matter (India and Hindu heritage) they purport to devote their life studying. In contrast, most authentic academicians show love, fascination, and true curiosity for knowledge, or at least a desire to add to the knowledge base, when studying an unfamiliar subject with due regard to its complexities. It does not take a genius to draw the conclusion after studying the writings of the Western Indologists that they are motivated to depict Hinduism as "irrational", and “inferior” to their own religion and culture. Although their own religion itself may be a gigantic superstition resting upon MYTHS (which they call history), they would insist that Hinduism is full of “superstitions.” Such efforts were highly rewarded during the British colonial rule in India. The proselytizing motivation of many of the Christians in the U.S. and the West has fueled and financed this breed of Indologists in the Western world for the last few decades if not for couple of centuries.
Please remember that we are discussing Prof. Courtright's work on Shri Ganesha which is presented as a product of "scholarly academic activity engaged in at Emory," a non-fictional scholarly pursuit expounding "facts" about the "Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginning."
In Indian culture, we have a conventional tradition to address respectable individuals appropriately. For example, it is customary to say "Pundit" Ravi Shankar and "Ustad" Allah Rakkha and not simply "Ravi Shankar" and "Allah Rakkha." Addressing even individuals without their titles is considered quite a disrespectful practice. Addressing Shri Ganesha simply as “Ganesa” in the title of the book reflects similar disrespect. The word "Lord" is without a true equivalent in Sanskrit tradition and is a well known British English word signifying the power and authority granted by the British monarchy/feudal system. Of course, the usage, "Lord Jesus our Lord," is also an English version of the Hebrew Bible translated via Spanish into English. The word "Lord" is peculiarly British and has no traditional usage in India other than that given to it by the colonial age translators of Hindu texts, sometimes used for translating words like "Ishwara," "Prabhu," "Bhagawan," etc. In Hindu tradition the respectful name for “Ganesa” would be "Shree Ganesha" and not just plain disrespectful "Ganesa," if at all He is to be recognized as "Lord" as intended by "Paul" or "Courtright" (in contrast to Prof. Courtright). The subtle disdain as well as a cultural disregard for the subject of his study is evident even in the author's choice of the title for his book.
The appropriate title for the book in question then should have been "Shri Ganesha - Revered as Remover of Obstacles, Lord of Beginning," if at all the word "Lord" were to be retained by the author. This presenter presumes that Prof. Courtright has translated the name “Vighneshwara” as “Lord of Obstacles.” The Hindus, on the other hand, intuitively understand the figurative meaning of this name as “Remover of Obstacles.” Taking into account the age of the religion, (10 to twelve thousand years,) not withstanding any bias towards the truths therein, the seers like Vyasa, clearly attempted to simplify the profound philosophical principles into more comprehensible stories. Indeed, this has never been an easy task. For, how can one explain such concepts as “Omniscience,” “Omnipresence,” “Omnipotence,” and even their respective antitheses? Vyasa (known for his Vishalabuddhi) actually wrote the Puranas by his own admission for the people of “dull intellect” (“Mandabuddhi”), meaning people that had only concrete thinking abilities. Prof. Courtright heavily relies on Puranic stories. These are in his view nothing but “myths,” while placing undue emphasis on literal translations and mistranslation. In doing so, he takes devious liberty to distort the stories just enough and embellishes them with his own lewd meanings to transform them into a sort of soft pornography. However, the Puranic stories were, in fact, devised for the greater purpose of illustrating cosmic order and principles. These stories were not simply a reflection of the human Unconscious mind. Such technique was expressly deliberately used in order to teach or lead a mass of people to a higher sense of being. These stories were designed to help people develop a relationship with "God." But, how else could they best explain such a complex subject to the masses?
It must be understood that these masses in question were, most importantly, if not uneducated, at the very least not all very literate. Therefore, the seers had to break down the different aspects of such complex a subject as the all-encompassing, ineffable, indescribable, incomprehensible, indefinable concept of “GOD” into individual characteristics and into entertaining stories that can be easily understood. The god of knowledge, the god of destruction, goddess of wealth, god of wisdom, etc. are just some examples of these simplifications of the different characteristics or aspects of this idea of “Supreme Being.”
All pervading aspect of God depicted by Vishnu, for example, has been translated as “penetrating,” and therefore, Vishnu has been described by such Indologists as a “phallic god.” This is the very kind of defamation of Hindu “gods” that is a favorite activity of Western Indologists for the last several decades, when in fact they are concentrating on perverted language, or translational flaws rather than on the true meaning of the Sanskrit words. It is partly a result of ignorance but mostly springing (deliberate effort) from a deep sense of irrational superiority about their own “monotheistic” orientation. Such lack of understanding has led to debates about whether Hinduism and Vedic culture is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, etc., when in fact it is completely misunderstood and ignored that none of these definitions can even apply to Hinduism.
In summary, Prof. Courtright is an epitome of Western Indologists’ attitudes and biases, and he announces his ignorance of the subject matter or disdain for it even as he chooses the title for his book. His book, therefore, can be judged from its "proverbial" cover. Such trash or near pornographic material should not have been allowed to blemish Emory’s countenance in the first place, but every effort needs to be made now to change the battered countenance of Emory. Prof. Courtright's book on Shri Ganesha is nothing but “cross-cultural vandalism” disguised as seriously conceived monogram with psychoanalytic elucidation. It is totally out of "cultural context." Any university should not have given it recognition without being evaluating it to see if it contained true “knowledge” about Shri Ganesha and Hindu mythology and its psychoanalytic exposition. Therefore, nothing quoted from his book need be viewed as "out of context." Furthermore, it does not behoove any writer producing such irrational garbage to use his academic title when presenting himself as an author, or even to call it an academic pursuit. Prof. Courtright does not stop at making an allegation that Shri Ganesha performs oral sex but goes further to label him as a eunuch and literally uses the word “Hijra” to describe him with a connotation that He is a male prostitute. The Emory authorities consider it a benign exercise of academic freedom. None of them have the courage dare take such liberties with Islamic theology and get away with by defending such behaviors as academic freedom.
I must clarify, however, that I am here to present my views in my private and personal capacity. I am a taxpayer in the U.S. for 36 years and an U.S. citizen who is familiar with the provisions of the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. My views are certainly based on my background as a practicing psychiatrist and a child psychiatrist with academic background. However, I am not offering my views as an expert witness or as a forensic psychiatrist. I am not a novice to the concepts of the “freedom of speech” or “academic freedom,” or "psychoanalytic interpretations." As a Member of the American College of Psychiatrists, Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Academy of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Certified in Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and Forensic Psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, I am familiar with "Psychoanalytic Theory." As a Professor of Psychiatry in historically the very first department of Psychiatry in the U.S. to integrate “Behavioral Sciences” and to name itself “Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,” I am also very sensitive to the issues of academic freedom. It is not my intention to use undignified and crass language deliberately. The near pornographic, crass treatment of the subject matter by Prof. Courtright himself in his text necessitates use of such language as one runs out of euphemisms. Therefore, I will deliberately use forceful colloquial expressions to drive the points home. As amply illustrated by his work, Prof. Courtright lacks the authentic knowledge of Hindu symbols, their culturally accepted meanings, as also, the appropriate use of psychoanalytic theory. He may have the freedom to express his own limited understanding or ignorance of Hinduism. He may even express his idiosyncratic views about the psychoanalytic interpretations to explain Shri Ganesha’s image and the mythology surrounding it. Yet, he and his friendly colleagues are out of line when they insist that they have a right to consider his book as authoritative. It is absurd to insist that it deserve the status of a textbook or even that of “recommended reading” in any institution of higher learning. It should not have been quoted by responsible curators of respectable world-class museums in misleadingly describing what Shri Ganesha stands for. Emory may have to accept some responsibility for such unfortunate carry over of Courtright’s writings into the “world view” about “Ganesa.”
I truly believe personally that his book needs to be ignored as “academic garbage.” Those who are ignorant of Hindu Vedic Philosophy, Hindu Culture, Hindu art of iconography, and Tantric Mysticism may erroneously and undeservingly view it as an authoritative text.
Yogic Meditation is no longer viewed as some hocus-pocus in the 21st century as exemplified by a special issue devoted to that subject by Time magazine (and 455 or more research articles on this subject in the scientific literature). Joseph Campbell was fully aware of “OM” as signifying the concept of the "ultimate absolute" but had not discovered that Shri Ganesha was an iconographic representation of “OM,” a highly revered symbol of the Hindu Vedic culture. The idol is an entity like the one recognized in psychoanalytic literature as "transitional object" conceptualized by a British psychoanalyst, D.W. Winnicott. For Hindus, it arouses very many tender, warm, feelings not unlike those that are aroused by "mother" or "father" (primary love object) in any human being. Prof. Courtright may have missed the boat, or if he did not, he took undue liberties in denigrating the symbol revered, worshipped, and loved by eight hundred million Hindus. In his foolish moment of so-called “academic” zeal, he has demonstrated sacrilegious attitude both deliberately and consciously.
Prof. Courtright has failed to understand what “OM” and “Shri Ganesha” stand for. It is more than what the "Cross, Mary and Jesus" stand for in theology of Christianism. “OM” or Shri Ganesha for Hindus are more like the “Father in Heaven” for the Christians or equivalent of and comparable to their “GOD.” Prof. Courtright's writings are almost like a "juvenile" deliberately calling bad names addressed to another child’s mother, and claiming or asserting his first amendment rights for freedom of speech. Moreover, with the prestigious academic title provided him by Emory, he can also claim that his is a sincere scholarly activity gaining respect of his Western colleagues. His Western academic colleagues have not demonstrated intellectual honesty in evaluating his writings. They have not used the same standards that they normally would use in objectively evaluating such writings. These are standards related to depth of authentic scholarship, including but not limited to the avoidance of deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the mythology presented. What is worse is that because of the status granted to Prof. Courtright by Emory and Oxford University Press, he has been flaunting himself as an academic authority on Shri Ganesha. His book is full of inaccuracies, misleading and false information, not unlike the Christian missionary efforts to denigrate Hinduism under the disguise of Western scholarship. If such act of deliberate gross misrepresentation is disguised as "academic activity" with backing from prestigious universities of the West, naturally it causes outrage in all educated Hindus. Such reaction is not limited to just a small section of Hindus whom Emory publications try to bully and demonize as “protectors of Hindutva.” Such counteraccusations cast on honest critics and aggrieved and hurt culture is nothing but an indication of unwillingness to open a dialogue. The counteraccusations further victimize the victim. Besides, they are another smoke screen and stonewalling tactic.
We are not surprised to find “the innocent” Prof. Courtright "wondering" and "not knowing” what is so "objectionable" about his “purely academic work” so well accepted by the “academic community of the West.” He is too shrewd to not know what he is accused of while he feigns "innocence." That is a common reaction even in a “common criminal” who is caught red handed. One could point out that symbols similar to “OM” in other religions represented by the “cross” or even the “prophets” of other religions can be subject of psychoanalytic inquiry as to their psychological meanings. Such meanings of these symbols in the unconscious, it may be argued, as denoting "sexual" connotations. Anyone can easily formulate culturally discordant interpretations designed to ignore the lofty, or noble, constructive, side of any religion. Anyone can depict it as totally irrational and chaotic belief system or cognitive experience similar to the dreams or symbols represented in the unconscious. Such unwise and unadvised “academic” interpretations of religion by scholars of repute in universities would be seen as outrageous.
I will give examples of such reversed but unwise "cross-cultural vandalism" that could easily be practiced through any department of religion of any university. It is not to be questioned whether reputable publication houses and media would widely publicize such views or not. Knowing the historically lopsided practices of the Western publishers and media, such views will, in my opinion, be assigned to obscurity just like what Prof. Courtright's work should have truly deserved. I will avoid indulging in wild psychoanalytic interpretations of other religions and their revered symbols and stay away from depth psychology. ----For example, the “cross,” historically representing an instrument of torture used to execute and slowly and painfully kill a human being, can also be viewed as the mathematical symbol, “plus,” and it could be hypothetically and blasphemously viewed by some as a representing an erect phallus or symbol of copulation. Hypothetically, and even blasphemously some academics may depict some unidentified “prophets” as proven “paranoid schizophrenics,” with latent homosexual tendencies. Even worse, it may be hypothesized that some of them showed pedophilic and polygamous tendencies. They could propose that the “prophets” were suffering from a form of epilepsy (temporal lobe epilepsy) with elaborate inter-ictal delusional systems. The ecstatic “religious experiences” and “seeing and hearing God” were hallucinations resulting from paroxysmal electrical activity in some specific locations of their temporal lobes.
These "delusional systems" predicated upon abnormal experiences were offered as “religions,” full of myths, to the gullible innocent and primitive uncivilized ancient desert populations, inducing paranoia about the “infidels” or “non-believers.” Neither they nor their followers had the ability or sophistication to comprehend the more advanced abstract philosophies and cultures. They either did not have access to the scientific knowledge extant in that age or they could not comprehend it because of their lack of cognitive development. They had no knowledge of "object representation" in the conscious or unconscious mind. They had no knowledge of how that could be used to bring out the best and the noblest, the warmest and tender, nurturing, and compassionate feelings and positive "affects." These affects in human nature along with respect for all living beings can be aroused instead of fear, guilt and shame as is routinely done in Abrahamic religions. They were too primitive to understand such form of worship and equated it with the most primitive "idol worship" or "animal worship" of their contemporary primitive neighbors who were simply moved by awe or fear.
Much advanced knowledge and psychological sophistication existed in other parts of the world for several millennia before these primitive “religions” originated in the Middle East in a “paranoid and traumatizing” political atmosphere around two to three thousand years ago. A question, therefore, can be raised as to whether such inflammatory "academic writings" will be protected under the first amendment rights and academic freedom by universities of international repute. Will they view such writings as a benign legitimate academic activity of the Departments of Religion protected by freedom of expression to be endorsed by the Universities? Alternatively, will the universities be willing to look at them as “cross-cultural vandalism” by the “others” with vested interest or persons with personal stakes who do not respect their revered religious symbols and idols as well as the sentiments of the “majority?” Will Emory defend their faculty if he/she publishes such sacrilegious material from a publishing house in Bethlehem, Jerusalem, or Saudi Arabia? Will Emory want to be implicated in such designed and calculated mischief that is certain to invite the wrath of large sections of the world population? This is the most serious egalitarian consideration for Emory authorities.
Based on such considerations, I submit that the issues related to Prof. Courtright’s work need to be divested from the considerations related to the first amendment and academic freedom. He is right in saying he is protected in the United States by the dictum of freedom of speech and academic freedom. He is wrong in assuming such freedom can be used for denigrating other advanced cultures that are difficult for him and others in his culture to comprehend. He is throwing his "autistic" aspersions on other well-accepted and rational philosophies of the East without due effort to comprehend them or without respecting the sentiments of eight hundred million Hindus. Instead of publishing his psychoanalytic insights in Psychoanalytic Journals, he published them for the lay public in India from New Delhi. Such act of inviting negative reaction from a large section of the world population is an irrational, arrogant, and narcissistic position as oblivious to its implications and as un-empathic as all arrogant, narcissistic personalities hold.
It would be equally irrational to pronounce a “fatwa” of death penalty on authors who exercise academic freedom and freedom of speech as in the case of Salman Rushdie. Salman Rushdie has playfulness, a sense of humor, literary talent and great humanistic and liberal egalitarian approach, which are utterly lacking in Prof. Courtright's writings. Besides, he lacks knowledge of the subject matter he entertains. Both reactions, those which publicly castigate Prof. Courtright, or which defend avidly his academic freedom are overkill. Such responses elevate "poor judgment" in the academic pursuits to the status of "martyrdom." Such histrionics and counter-histrionics on the part of his accusers and his defenders exalts Prof. Courtright's status and gives him undeserved notoriety. Focusing on such issues related to the reactions and responses to his publication distracts discussants from considering the main issue of his using his academic position at Emory to indulge in maligning other non-Christian cultures and religions with impunity. There has to be a more mature response in reaction to what may be considered "an immature juvenile act" of the Emory professor.
2. Is there a difficulty for Hindus in maintaining a charitable attitude towards the academic activities of the Departments of Religion in the Universities? Do Hindus appreciate interest in their culture and religion if Hindu religion is taught as an academic subject in the Departments of Religion in the Western Universities?
Will Emory scrutinize Prof. Courtright's psychoanalytic interpretations as holding any water if reviewed by authentic psychoanalytic scholars who are Hindus and who understand the cultural significance of Shree Ganesha? I am raising this question to emphasize that Emory or any of his academic supporters has not undertaken such objective inquiry in the last 20 plus years. A sincere interest in teaching Hindu philosophy and religion in the Universities will require faculty with necessary qualifications. Departments of Religion should not just be mouthpieces of the Christian missionaries given to disparage and discredit other religions as “not respectable”, irrational, and non-scientific or inferior. Due respect for Hindu culture will be most appreciated whether at Emory or at any other university if Hindu religion is to be taught in their Departments of Religion.
3. Can there be a fair-minded approach to teaching a religion in any University?
There are concerns about the manner in which Hindu religion is being taught currently in public universities. Especially, if comparative religion and all religions are taught by one religious group one could question both the academic fairness and authenticity of scholarship. In schools where there are a large number of students and scholars, who have various different religious backgrounds, it would be more honest to give a disclosure about the limitations of Departments of Religion. A false pretense about the knowledge of religions other than other than that of Christianism would be unethical in the absence of qualified teachers. If second generation Indian American Hindu students, for example, want to learn basics about Hindu “religion,” at Emory University, it would be a shame if it is taught by academics who are both insensitive and academically unprepared. That is not to say that it would not be a shame if such “professors” like Prof. Courtright taught Hinduism to “non-Hindu” students.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="3