SV: "Bagger Vance" & Doniger on the Gita

[V.V. Raman]

Swaminathean Madhuresan asked:
<Is this "strongly worded rebuttal" available in this list or in the
cyberspace?
Reflections on the Bhagavad Gita>

(Response to Prof. Wendy Doniger: by Prof. V. V. Raman)

        Thinkers and scholars, historians and religious people from many
traditions and cultures have reflected and commented upon the Bhagavad Gita
which is one of most influential works in world literature. The work has not
only mythical and metaphysical dimensions, but also profound esoteric, ethical,
and philosophical components.
        The Gita is presented in the form of a dialogue between the intelligent
hero Arjuna and Krishna, a personage who is regarded in the Hindu tradition as
the embodiment of spiritual wisdom.
        The questions explored range from the doctrinal foundations of a major
religious tradition to subtle metaphysics about the ultimate nature of Reality.
        Superficially, the Gita urges the hesitant Arjuna to take up arms
against a sea of evil, and destroy the enemies. It is this aspect of the work
that prompted Professor Wendy Doniger to declare recently in a lecture that
"The Bhagavad Gita is not as nice a book as some Americans think. The
Complicity of God in the Destruction of the Human Race."
        This is a valid, if superficial perspective to take, and may be
expected from one who is ignorant of metaphysical subtleties, mythical
symbolism, and Hindu culture. But when it comes from a highly regarded scholar
of Indian studies associated with a prestigious university, one is somewhat
disappointed, not to say shocked. Surely, Wendy Doniger knows better than to
make such a simplistic statement to an audience which may not be well
acquainted with the complexities of the culture she is commenting upon. It
would be perfectly legitimate to present this (not highly original) critique of
Krishna in a scholarly symposium, or at least preface it by saying that hers is
a non-traditional approach to a work that has been generally praised by many
perceptive thinkers.
        As if to underscore her proclivity for provocative proclamations, she
went on to declare that "The Gita is a dishonest book," which, on any account
is not a very intelligent, not to say a plain stupid, thing to say about a book
that has enjoyed a pedestal of sanctity in the hearts and minds of millions of
people over many generations. Her justification for the judgment is even more
naove: "It justifies war: I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in 'good' wars." If
all she got out of the Gita was that the book justifies wars, then sadly, even
with all her expertise in archaic Sanskrit and in mythology, she seems to be in
dire need of a little basic education on the nature and content of religious
texts. I am sure Ms Doniger is aware of Moses sending spies into Canaan, of
Gibeah's trickery in war,  of Elisha praying to God to blind his enemies, etc.
which are reported in the Old Testament. From this to declare to a not very
well informed audience that the Old Testament is a dishonest book is not only
silly, if not sacrilege, but is irresponsible too; and certainly unbecoming of
a reputed scholar. But then, given Ms Doniger's obsessive interpretations of
Indian myths, we may be grateful she did not detect in the Gita any homophilic
relationship between Krishna and Arjuna.
        Bookish academics need to remember that when it comes to analyzing
works regarded as sacred by vast numbers of people, sound scholarship is like
the firmness of bones, while appreciation and sensitivity are like flesh and
blood. Without the latter, the former is merely an ugly skeleton: morbid and
monstrous, lifeless and lamentable. With the latter, scholarship becomes robust
and living. Ignoring this fact has led to many otherwise meaningful
commentaries.

[This is only part of my posting. I don't wish to put out the entire response
here. If anyone wishes, I will be happy send the remaining part in a personal
e-mail if you write to me.]

Best regards,
VVRaman