In Addition to: "Shaktism, only for Siddhis"; Westernization of Hinduism; Alienation; TANTRA

[Poeticus]

The following is an article by Mr. Nick (who is a writer/member for/of the Hindu American Foundation). The article, The Westernization of Hinduism and its Alienating Consequences, analyzes concerns of what he (who, BTW, is a half-White & half-Indian American of the Lokayata philosophy who self-identifies as a Hindu; just pointing it out to provide socio-cultural context) sees with "Western/Anglican Hinduism".

But first, something of interesting note, at least to me:

To the degree that such indoctrination was possible, is exactly what occurred in India. British values by and large were adopted by the new Indian elite, and even those who sought to “recover” their heritage did so after having been through Christian and British education. It is these thinkers, people like Ram Mohan Roy, Debendranath Tagore and indeed many of the Tagore family (though arguably not including Rabindranath Tagore), Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo Ghose, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Dayananda Saraswati, and the like, who consciously or unconsciously adopted English values and integrated Western and Hindu concepts. Different different thinkers represent this trend to different degrees, (with in my opinion Sri Aurbindo representing the lower extreme and Jawaharal Nehru representing the highest extreme) but it is difficult to find a Hindu thinker of this period with major national or international influence who was not steeped in British ideas.

In this group you’ll find those who critique common Hindu social customs, particularly caste. This itself is not unique, as Hindu leaders had done it for centuries prior to the British. But at this point, they began to talk about Hinduism as being “scientific,” and criticize folk Hindu practices as “superstitious” or “backwards,” all buzzwords adopted from British education and missionary texts. See if the following quote from Roy’s introduction to “The Moonduk Opunishud” (Mundak Upanishad) doesn’t sound like a Hindu who has borrowed some ideas, or at least some language from British missionaries:

“The public will, I hope, be assured that nothing but the natural inclination of the ignorant towards the worship of objects resembling their own nature, and to the external forms of rites palpable to their grosser senses, joined to the self-interested motives of their pretended guides, has rendered the generality of the Hindoo community (in defiance of their sacred books) devoted to idol-worship, the source of prejudice and superstition, and of the total destruction of moral principle, as countenancing criminal intercourse, suicide, female murder, and human sacrifice. Should my labours prove in any degree the means of diminishing the extent of those evils, I shall ever deem myself most amply rewarded.” (English Works of Rammohan Roy, Volume 1, Page 28.)

In the coming years, Roy’s intellectual heirs would elevate the Bhagavad Gita to the level of scriptural authority held by the Vedas and Upanishads (Shruti texts) where it remains today, despite it belonging to a class of texts with traditionally lower grade of authority (Smriti texts). Some scholars (for example Prem Saran in Tantra: Hedonism in Indian Culture, and Agehananda Bharati in “The Hindu Renaissance and its Apologetic Patterns&#8221 attribute this increase in stature to the “Pizza effect” in which the Western world takes interest of a product of Eastern culture, which then consequently gets popular in the East. It should be remembered that the Bhagavad Gita was one of the first Hindu texts to be translated into English, and was more popular in the West than other works of Hindu scripture. Indeed, Gandhi read it in England in English originally. (Very recent trends, counter to the original Westernization trend can also be attributed to the Pizza effect. The popularity of the Western interpretations of Tantra and Yoga in India are some such examples.)

A most poignant part of this informative article (which should rather be labelled as a scholarly essay and become part of a university's library database) is about Tantra. Comrade JayaB created a thread not too long ago about Shaktism and Tantra and why it gets negative press, especially by a few Hindu sects. While the thread had great potential, it went off course (and I believe I am to blame for such, indeed).

JayaB ... I believe the following from Mr. Nick's article will help you finally get an answer that is not only not speculation, but rather factual as to why Shaktism, and more specifically Tantra, got and/or still gets negative press:

The "Tantra Problem" #1:

Tantra must have been a shock to the Victorian sensibilities of the British as it was one of the first forms of Hinduism they encountered after setting up their capital in Bengal, the ancient heartland of Tantra. It clashed entirely with their conception of what a religion should be, insofar as it did not shy away from harsh polyphonus aesthetics, depictions of gore and destruction which appeared “demonic” to Christian eyes, and granted a religious function to drug usage, hedonistic enjoyment, and sexual pleasure.

The "Tantra Problem" #2:

Now is a good point as any to note that the sexuality and hedonism of Tantra does not entail the daily consumption of powerful drugs, nor the “free love” or movement sometimes associated with Western Neo-Tantra. Tantric sexual and ecstatic practices were done in specific ritual contexts intended to maximize the spiritual potential of these acts. While Tantra influenced societies do seem to exhibit more tolerance towards sexuality and hedonism, the “no holds barred” approach is limited to ritual contexts, and is not meant to be performed by all practitioners. However, this distinction was not, and is still not particularly important to the initial British observers of Tantric practices. Their negative response was predictable, and no doubt amplified by the fact that their primary local Hindu contacts were orthodox Vedic Brahmins.

These “right-hand-path” Brahmins not only had a constrained sexual morality oddly similar to that of the British, but also had been waging an intellectual battle against Tantrikas for centuries, not only for theological and aesthetic reasons but also because popular variants of Tantra tended to de-emphasize or even ritually violate caste, and had no use for Brahmin priests in their rituals. Francis Buchanan, a British civil servant in the 1800s (before intense Anglicization would have set in) reports that his Brahmin contacts in Bihar reported that one fourth of the population’s religion was “unworthy of the note of any sage.” He was referring to the more “base” forms of Tantric worship of Shakti deities which occurred on in culturally marginalized groups, and his statement illustrates both the sheer numerical popularity of Tantra during the period, and the trivializing demeanor with which it was treated by orthodox Brahmins.

There you have it. This is probably the best explanation as to the why.

Thoughts ? Agree ? Disagree ? Want to go bowling next Friday ? Maybe learn breakdancing or teach Poeticus skiing since he has always wanted to ski ?

 

[Sb1995]

Let's go bowling.

 

[Poeticus]

Let's go bowling.

I'm down. We should go half on a pizza pie as well. Perhaps watch a movie, afterward. Also, we should have a dance-off with JayaB's friends in France through Skype or something like that ... since it is impossible for them to travel thousands of miles from France to the States just to get schooled by our superior dance moves.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Poeticus skiing since he has always wanted to ski ?[/I]

You come and I can teach you how to ski

Also, we should have a dance-off with JayaB's friends in France through Skype or something like that ...

Humm... This will have to wait till I put something more decent on. I don't want anyone to see me in this epic dinosaur pajama


Ahem okay back to topic.

That's a very interesting read, seriously. What is astounding to me is that it is much the "fault' of western than the "fault" of eastern scholars. I find it really sad to have turned against their own most old traditions (Not talking about Shaktism, but rather of folk Hinduism)

Hindus themselves elevating Smrti at the rank of Sruti or even dismissing Sruti is almost unbelievable to me :areyoucra I mean, for specific sects I understand, for "general" Hinduism I'm like "owaaaaaat ?"

Was it only to "please the british" and appear "more civilized than those weird folk in their village" to the western world, or was there for those brahmin/sects a more personal agenda to enable their sect to have more importance ?


Let's not even get started about what is tantra in the west today

 

[Vinayaka]

Excellent, the entire article. But i do think the trend is reversing, especially from more and more articles exactly like this one.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Wonderful article Poeticus.

I may be mistaken, but i think I had mentioned something similar in Jaya's other thread. That British values and customs seeped into the Indian psyche and that was a major cause of Shaktism/Tantra being viewed as evil/demonic/or low. Of course, I should have known that it would have been the Indian elite (and possibly middle class?) who were the ones to really absorb British culture and demonize old traditions.

That being said, while it wasn't a major part of the article, I still think it is possible to adopt Hinduism (or any other eastern philosophy) and also still retain western values.

For example, with me, I would like to think what I practice (as non-sectarian and disorganized as it is right now) is somewhat "traditional". I don't mix Jesus or any other non-Dharmic figure into my practice; I'm currently learning the mantras, prayers, and shoklas; I follow a recognized philosophy in Vedanta (Vishishtadvaita); and I attend a temple with the local Indian community, where I am but one of 4 non-Indians who regularly attends.

However, I still have my western values from my upbringing. I love and am grateful for my western education; community is wonderful (and it wouldn't hurt people to be more involved with the community), but I also think it's good to also focus on the individual; I love western philosophy as much as eastern; and, as much as many hate this word, I am very much secular (at least in terms of keeping government and religion separated). The only western thing that I noticed decreasing in my life is materialism.

So yes, I think it is possible to be a devout and traditional Hindu while still being western, but I also agree that there is the present danger of the tradition being watered down, or completely losing it's identity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Excellent (your snippets - do not feel interested in reading the article). Agree fully. WOGs - Westernized Oriental Gentleman, condescending, doing a service to Hinduism. Two (Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati) ended up in breaking Hinduism (remember how Swami Agnivesh, the traitor, phoned Kapil Sibbal complaining about Anna Hazare; and the other by starting Brahmo Samaj which does not agree that they are Hindus). The other ended up being a Christian (Keshub Chandra Sen).

However, BhagawadGita also is God's word (at least for the theists. My case is different ). It is at par with the Vedas.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Very interesting article. It makes a lot of sense. Even today you can see a kind of disdain from higher caste Indians for those who do not speak "good enough" English. And those who are struggling to learn English do so knowing that it will open up career and social opportunities for them. It makes me a little sad. Not that they shouldn't learn English, but that they begin to view their own language (and culture) with such disdain.

I once was contacted by an Indian who wanted to do a language exchange (Hindi/English). He asked me why I would want to learn and I explained that my interests were social, religious and also just personal love of the language and culture.

He replied with something along the lines of, "I am not a big promoter of my language and culture...but I'll help you if you want."

Gee, don't act so excited. Needless to say, I politely declined his "help".

I think there is no avoiding cross-cultural influence. It's happened for millennia. There's a natural exchange and melding of ideas and I think that's not only a good thing, it's ideal.

I think what the article speaks to though, is that there is a difference between maintaining a few western aspects of one self and outright misrepresenting or slandering something you don't have a full understanding of.

But your average cultural exchange? American Hindus, European Hindus, African Hindus -they all had "non-Hindu" culturally unique traditions and thought processes before, and it's unrealistic to think they won't influence it to some degree. The trick is finding the core of Hinduism and looking for ways to fit it into your life or make slight changes to adapt.

Think of it this way. Marrying your sister or cousin 8 generations in a row is a great way to keep the power, wealth and similar ideas in the same family. It's also a great way to dilute your boodline so badly that everyone gets their own genetic door prize. (Hemophilia, Harelip, extra limps, blindness, deafness etc...)

Marrying outside the family (or mixing certain aspects of ones tradition by cross cultural influence) gives your family strength, not weakness, as long as you can work together to decide how the new side of the family fits in with the old.

:camp:

 

[Aupmanyav]

Very interesting article. It makes a lot of sense. Even today you can see a kind of disdain from higher caste Indians for those who do not speak "good enough" English. And those who are struggling to learn English do so knowing that it will open up career and social opportunities for them. It makes me a little sad.

The problem now is different in India. One can appear in the Administrative Exams (to be selected in the top-most administrative and police services. Some of the Pondichery people will select French) in any language (one person selected Arabic as his language). Some of these people are not good in English. Now, English has the best repository of information. These people will not be able to take advantage of that in full.

The result will be that India will be governed by people who are not well-informed. At the moment, we have an agitation going on which asks for removal of an 'aptitude test' since it is in English. So, are we going to select people for these important posts who do not have an aptitude for the kind of work they would be engaged in. One of the problems that Modi is facing. A balance is necessary.

 

[atanu]

The following is an article by Mr. Nick (who is a writer/member for/of the Hindu American Foundation). The article, The Westernization of Hinduism and its Alienating Consequences, analyzes concerns of what he (who, BTW, is a half-White & half-Indian American of the Lokayata philosophy who self-identifies as a Hindu; just pointing it out to provide socio-cultural context) sees with "Western/Anglican

Yes. It is a fantastic article. I liked every part of it. Hinduism truly requires a half Indian atheist as a chronicler. Such alone can put Rammohan, Gandhi, Dayanand Saraswati at their right places. :sarcastic He rightly comments that Gita was elevated by the english and Tantra demoted by the same english influence. I remember a Canadian Hindu opining the same a few years back.

To be fair, however, let me just point out two things:

1. Gita is part of prastanatrayi: upanishads, Gita, and Brahma Sutra, that all gurus of Hinduism have commented upon. Shankara did it much before the english influence. Hindu teachers of all schools from south, north, west and east have studied Gita in conjunction with the upanishads. Gita is a distilled compendium of most important Vedantic Shrutis and has no thought that contradicts Veda.

2. There is specific reference in Shruti to left hand path and the upanishadic sages point out that the right hand path as better and safer for attainment of moksha. Nevertheless, agamic Tantra teachings are held in high esteem by most Hindu schools.

 

[atanu]

Very interesting article. It makes a lot of sense. Even today you can see a kind of disdain from higher caste Indians for those who do not speak "good enough" English. And those who are struggling to learn English do so knowing that it will open up career and social opportunities for them. It makes me a little sad. Not that they shouldn't learn English, but that they begin to view their own language (and culture) with such disdain.

I once was contacted by an Indian who wanted to do a language exchange (Hindi/English). He asked me why I would want to learn and I explained that my interests were social, religious and also just personal love of the language and culture.

He replied with something along the lines of, "I am not a big promoter of my language and culture...but I'll help you if you want."

Gee, don't act so excited. Needless to say, I politely declined his "help".

Well. Can we equate this man with Gandhi, or Dayanand Saraswati, or Rammohan Roy?????

I think there is no avoiding cross-cultural influence. It's happened for millennia. There's a natural exchange and melding of ideas and I think that's not only a good thing, it's ideal.

I fully agree.

I think what the article speaks to though, is that there is a difference between maintaining a few western aspects of one self and outright misrepresenting or slandering something you don't have a full understanding of.

Must think more on this. Is this young atheist half Indian student a competent judge of works of Dayanand Saraswati or Rammohan Roy, both renown Vedic scholars? Or does he really know the status of Gita or is he venting his bias? There is no major Hindu guru (of pre British time) who had not written commentary on Gita. Further, what he can know of agamic tantra? Upanishads (shruti) have pronounced yoga as safer and surer. But, in an evolved Hindu mind, this kind Veda versus Tantra will not arise. Most teachers are adept in agamas and vedas equally.

 

[Poeticus]

I may be mistaken, but i think I had mentioned something similar in Jaya's other thread.

Make no mistake about it, you most certainly did. For which, I would like to apologize for prematurely answering that one specific post of yours with an answer that, after looking at it again in hindsight, had nothing to really do with what you were asking.

Yes. It is a fantastic article. I liked every part of it. Hinduism truly requires a half Indian atheist as a chronicler. Such alone can put Rammohan, Gandhi, Dayanand Saraswati at their right places. :sarcastic He rightly comments that Gita was elevated by the english and Tantra demoted by the same english influence. I remember a Canadian Hindu opining the same a few years back.

To be fair, however, let me just point out two things:

1. Gita is part of prastanatrayi: upanishads, Gita, and Brahma Sutra, that all gurus of Hinduism have commented upon. Shankara did it much before the english influence. Hindu teachers of all schools from south, north, west and east have studied Gita in conjunction with the upanishads. Gita is a distilled compendium of most important Vedantic Shrutis and has no thought that contradicts Veda.

2. There is specific reference in Shruti to left hand path and the upanishadic sages point out that the right hand path as better and safer for attainment of moksha. Nevertheless, agamic Tantra teachings are held in high esteem by most Hindu schools.

Fair enough, Atanu-ji.

 

[Maya3]

I didn't have time to read very carefully. But I liked what he said about sexuality

Sex is not celebrated as we see in Tantra, but is accepted as a normal and unremarkable part of life.

I can really relate to this and to how it gets misunderstood by "puritan" British and Americans.
I cannot tell you how many times I as a Swede has heard things like this:
"Oh in Sweden you are always naked right? You can just walk around naked wherever you want, and people have sex in public!"

Um..no.

Then (if it happens to be winter when these questions come up), they add, "Oh you must really like it now when it's cold. You must feel so at home!"

Yes, we Swedes LOVE when it's cold, in fact we run around naked having sex in the cold!!

The facts of these misconceptions are these:

First we don't think that sex is ugly, sinful or something to be ashamed of. Sex is normal so it's not a big deal.
Second, children are naked on the beach. We would NEVER think that a child has to hide their bodies. Children's bodies are NOT sexually attractive, something like that would not even cross our minds and thus kids don't have to hide themselves.
Third, yes it can get very cold in THE WINTER in the NORTH, and we have good clothes for it so we can actually go outside even if it's cold. But that does not mean that we like it!!

This might seem off topic, but it illustrates how a culture gets completely misrepresented because someone else who know nothing about it makes assumptions on it without understanding it's background.

Maya

 

[Chakra]

I didn't have time to read very carefully. But I liked what he said about sexuality

I can really relate to this and to how it gets misunderstood by "puritan" British and Americans.
I cannot tell you how many times I as a Swede has heard things like this:
"Oh in Sweden you are always naked right? You can just walk around naked wherever you want, and people have sex in public!"

Um..no.

Then (if it happens to be winter when these questions come up), they add, "Oh you must really like it now when it's cold. You must feel so at home!"

Yes, we Swedes LOVE when it's cold, in fact we run around naked having sex in the cold!!

The facts of these misconceptions are these:

First we don't think that sex is ugly, sinful or something to be ashamed of. Sex is normal so it's not a big deal.
Second, children are naked on the beach. We would NEVER think that a child has to hide their bodies. Children's bodies are NOT sexually attractive, something like that would not even cross our minds and thus kids don't have to hide themselves.
Third, yes it can get very cold in THE WINTER in the NORTH, and we have good clothes for it so we can actually go outside even if it's cold. But that does not mean that we like it!!

This might seem off topic, but it illustrates how a culture gets completely misrepresented because someone else who know nothing about it makes assumptions on it without understanding it's background.

Maya

I agree completely with the post above. People think that tantra is all about sex, when they fail to see that most traditions of Hinduism look down upon sex because of lust or love, as it falls into the realm of Samsara.
Regards

 

[Poeticus]

The following is the only reason (since I don't need any other reason) I want to tour the far-northern lands of countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland:

 

[Maya3]

The following is the only reason (since I don't need any other reason) I want to tour the far-northern lands of countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland:

It´s beautiful there. We are going tomorrow

Maya

 

[Chakra]

Hope you enjoy your trip, Maya-ji.

 

[Poeticus]

It´s beautiful there. We are going tomorrow

Maya

Is it true that there are miles and miles and miles of landscape literally covered in the fluffiest, whitest snow ? And yes, have a wonderful trip ! Jai Shri Ram.

 

[TatTvamAsi]

Had to log in just to post about this "article."

This author is peddling what is called the "Neo-Hinduism" thesis - that Hinduism as such has been a creation of a few Indian nationalists like Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Tilak et. al in the 19th century after heavy influence from the British and Christian "values" (lol). Before them, it was a mishmash of conflicting beliefs and practices and there was no real unity and that Hinduism itself is a misnomer.

This new form of attack on Hindu Dharma has been making waves in academic circles for a couple of decades now and has just started to percolate into the public consciousness.

Needless to say, this is highly inaccurate and extremely dangerous for Hindus.

The entire Neo-Hinduism thesis has been shattered by none other than Rajiv Malhotra in his latest work - Indra's Net (Home | Indra's Net).

I highly urge Lindus (aka Hindus in limbo) to read Indra's Net and get that 4th grade edumacation.

 

[Maya3]

Is it true that there are miles and miles and miles of landscape literally covered in the fluffiest, whitest snow ? And yes, have a wonderful trip ! Jai Shri Ram.

In the winter there might be, it depends on where, if it is rural enough.

Thank you

Thank you Axlyz


Maya