Overview

Nearly a century ago, some believed that Indian art constituted multiheaded monsters and horrendous sculpture with multi arms. An animated and well informed response came from Sri Aurobindo, A.K. Coomaraswamy and E.B. Havell. Not only was a corrective ensured in the comprehension of a complex multilayered culture, also it initiated a serious and in depth studies of the dimensions of the mythic image in many cultures where cosmogony and cosmology is encoded in the mythic narrative and the symbolic visual image. Eliade s work assumes importance as a pioneer of such studies, withstanding recent critiques of his work. As general editor of the Encyclopedia of Religions published in USA, he sought to place the diversity of religions, traditions both from within the context of the particular tradition but also in a comparative context. Against the background of this limited reference to the historiography of the interpenetrative domains of myth, artistic manifestation and studies on religion and the religious, one has been dismayed to find that certain scholars nearly five to eight decades later should confine themselves to the interpretation of the complex multilayering of the mythical , iconic, and symbolic image through a single perspective of a Freudian psycho-analytical approach applied to the exclusion of the others. Also there is a sense of bewilderment when one notes that rather outdated and almost passe theories of the psycho-analytical are being applied, when the discipline has taken in many more penetrative paths. The question then arises why some academics in some departments have chosen to undertake such studies with a single-minded pursuit of reading myth and symbol at particular level i.e. sexual. This exclusive preoccupation could have been overlooked or contested and a healthy discourse begun, had it not been for the fact that scholarship and cognitive tools are being used for purposes other than intellectual or scholastic. This brings up issues of organizational structures of empowerment of certain ideological positions, and the consequent potential of influencing young minds not exposed to alternate interpretations. Exclusion of such material from reading lists appears to be motivated by considerations other than purely academic. The space for intellectual enquiry shrinks verging on dogmatism of a particular view point. In turn such subtle or not so subtle strategies become the instruments of creating deep fissures in the socio-cultural fabric of a democratic country like USA with the rhetoric of upholding the values of multiculturalism. Doubts arise whether at the ground reality it is not a case (at least judging from this debate) of a deeply entrenched subscription to the validity of assessing all plurality through a single parameter of mono culture. The essays in the volume reignite a debate which has politico historical antecedents. They bring to fore the varied dimensions of comprehending world views , mythic narratives, visual imagery and socio-religious cultural movements at the level of comprehension of text, academia legitimatization and organizational mobilization. It is hoped that the volume will be read with serious interest and introspection. Both S.N. Balagangadhara and Arvind Sharma have broadly outlined these issues in their respective contributions. As a former member of the US academy although intermittently over a half century, I have been bewildered and nonplussed, at the turn of gaze and the narrowing of gaze, which seems to have taken place in the departments of religious studies. I hope that the infection will not spread to other disciplines where one has enjoyed utmost freedom in a participating in some of the most stimulating intellectual discourses. --Kapila Vatsyayan, Academic scholar and Rajya Sabha member

The religious landscape of America has changed --Kapil Kapur, Former Chair of Department of English, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi; Former Dean of School of Languages, Literature and Cultural Studies, JNU; Former Pro Vice Chancellor, JNU; Presently Chief Editor of Encyclopedia of PoeticsNearly a century ago, some believed that Indian art constituted multiheaded monsters and horrendous sculpture with multi arms. An animated and well informed response came from Sri Aurobindo, A.K. Coomaraswamy and E.B. Havell. Not only was a corrective ensured in the comprehension of a complex multilayered culture, also it initiated a serious and in depth studies of the dimensions of the mythic image in many cultures where cosmogony and cosmology is encoded in the mythic narrative and the symbolic visual image. Eliade s work assumes importance as a pioneer of such studies, withstanding recent critiques of his work. As general editor of the Encyclopedia of Religions published in USA, he sought to place the diversity of religions, traditions both from within the context of the particular tradition but also in a comparative context. Against the background of this limited reference to the historiography of the interpenetrative domains of myth, artistic manifestation and studies on religion and the religious, one has been dismayed to find that certain scholars nearly five to eight decades later should confine themselves to the interpretation of the complex multilayering of the mythical , iconic, and symbolic image through a single perspective of a Freudian psycho-analytical approach applied to the exclusion of the others. Also there is a sense of bewilderment when one notes that rather outdated and almost passe theories of the psycho-analytical are being applied, when the discipline has taken in many more penetrative paths. The question then arises why some academics in some departments have chosen to undertake such studies with a single-minded pursuit of reading myth and symbol at particular level i.e. sexual. This exclusive preoccupation could have been overlooked or contested and a healthy discourse begun, had it not been for the fact that scholarship and cognitive tools are being used for purposes other than intellectual or scholastic. This brings up issues of organizational structures of empowerment of certain ideological positions, and the consequent potential of influencing young minds not exposed to alternate interpretations. Exclusion of such material from reading lists appears to be motivated by considerations other than purely academic. The space for intellectual enquiry shrinks verging on dogmatism of a particular view point. In turn such subtle or not so subtle strategies become the instruments of creating deep fissures in the socio-cultural fabric of a democratic country like USA with the rhetoric of upholding the values of multiculturalism. Doubts arise whether at the ground reality it is not a case (at least judging from this debate) of a deeply entrenched subscription to the validity of assessing all plurality through a single parameter of mono culture. The essays in the volume reignite a debate which has politico historical antecedents. They bring to fore the varied dimensions of comprehending world views , mythic narratives, visual imagery and socio-religious cultural movements at the level of comprehension of text, academia legitimatization and organizational mobilization. It is hoped that the volume will be read with serious interest and introspection. Both S.N. Balagangadhara and Arvind Sharma have broadly outlined these issues in their respective contributions. As a former member of the US academy although intermittently over a half century, I have been bewildered and nonplussed, at the turn of gaze and the narrowing of gaze, which seems to have taken place in the departments of religious studies. I hope that the infection will not spread to other disciplines where one has enjoyed utmost freedom in a participating in some of the most stimulating intellectual discourses. --Kapila Vatsyayan, Academic scholar and Rajya Sabha memberThe religious landscape of America has changed radically over the last four or five decades, but many have not yet internalized the dimensions and the scope of the change. Throughout history the United States has been dominated by the influence of Christianity. At the same time, the Constitution of the United States has enabled a plurality of ways to flourish because of its strong stand for freedom of conscience. Hindus bring something unique to America a theology of religious pluralism in keeping with the ancient Rig Vedic saying 'Truth is one; the wise call it by many names.' We Hindus are fortunate to have had the opportunity to build Hindu Temples all over the United States. The Temple is a sacred place just as other places of worship such as Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques. Unfortunately, some Temples have been subjected to discrimination and undue interference from courts although there acts are much against the Constitution. Hindu forms of worship are ridiculed, derogated and even labelled as 'cults'. Hindu symbols and icons have been ridiculed and passages from Hindu scriptures are misquoted and misrepresented. Hindu Deities are subjected to mockery and temples vandalism. Tragically, it is not just right-wing evangelical groups that alone vilify Hinduism. The American academy has also played a key role by demonizing Hindu conceptions of the divine and Hindu religious figures, and by trivializing and denigrating revered Hindu symbols and icons. This is done often under the guise of (ethnocentric and non-reproducible) Freudian "analysis", besides outright misquoting of Hindu scriptures and fabrication of data. Thus rather than challenge the bigotry of some in the majority community, such scholarship has striven hard to reinforce and lend respectability to these prejudices, and ignored calls for open debate. It is truly commendable that several distinguished scholars in this book have carefully evaluated and documented the facts and have asked for open investigation of cases of hate and fabrication. As a Hindu-American, I am proud and grateful for the courageous call for openness and debate in this book. Both the academy and American pluralism stand to benefit from this book. --Dr. Uma Mysorekar, President of Hindu Temple, Flushing, New York