The New York Times recently ran a story about a mysterious gigantic swastika in Kyrgyzstan. The swastika in question is 600 feet across, at least 60 years old, and made out of fir trees:
Legend has it that German prisoners of war, pressed into forestry duty after World War II, duped their Soviet guards and planted rows of seedlings in the shape of the emblem Hitler had chosen as his own.
More than 20 years later, the trees rose tall enough to be visible from the village beneath. Only then did the swastika appear, a time-delayed act of defiance by vanquished soldiers marooned in a corner of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
For all the tidiness of legend, however, the tale is not quite true. [Link]
<
p>The article then goes on to present various explanations for the swastika, none of which quite click. A major reason why they don’t click is that the swastika in question obviously not a Nazi swastika (based on its orientation) but a Hindu/Parsi/Buddhist/Jain one:
The mystery’s persistence is in its way surprising, given that as a Nazi swastika the symbol is imperfect, whether by design or because of uneven terrain. Hitler’s swastika was tilted 45 degrees; the formation here is almost level. Moreover, the arms do not mimic the Third Reich’s symbol, but its mirror image — a swastika in reverse. [Link]
<
p>Left facing swastikas long predate the Nazis and are common in Asia. One explanation for the swastika is that it is in some way connected to Hinduism. The swastika is known as the “Eki Naryn swastika” and is located in a town of the same name. The phrase “Ek Narayan” means “One God.”
<
p>However, we don’t know it was Hindus for sure. It could be the Chinese:
[The left facing] swastika is often found on Chinese food packaging to signify that the product is vegetarian and can be consumed by strict Buddhists. It is often sewn into the collars of Chinese children’s clothing to protect them from evil spirits. [Link] [It is a well known fact that Chinese spirits are afraid of children of dyslexic Nazis– ed]
<
p>In Taiwan, the swastika is a generic symbol for temple:
On maps in the Taipei subway system a swastika symbol is employed to indicate a temple, parallel to a cross indicating a Christian church. [Link]
 |
|
Synbols on a Taipei subway map |
<
p>In fact, China’s first “red cross” society was the Red Swastika society, founded in 1922. [Both India and Sri Lanka tried to have the Red Swastika approved as an official part of the Red Cross society, but had to back down].
<
p>Wikipedia lists a very long list of cultures who use the Swastika as their symbol, none of which have anything to do with Nazis. In Asia, the symbol shows up first amongst Parsis and Hindus, spreading from there to Buddhists, and from Buddhists to the rest of East Asia:
The use of the swastika by the indigenous Bon faith of Tibet, as well as syncretic religions, such as Cao Dai of Vietnam and Falun Gong of China, is thought to be borrowed from Buddhism as well. [Link]
<
p>Not all the uses of the symbol can be explained by cultural diffusion, however. It arose on its own amongst Native Americans as well, most notably the Navajo and Hopi. Wikipedia conjectures:
The ubiquity of the swastika symbol is easily explained by it being a very simple symbol that will arise independently in any basketweaving society. The swastika is a repeating design, created by the edges of the reeds in a square basket-weave. [Link]
Coming back to the Eki Naryan swastika, I don’t think it’s a Nazi symbol at all. People with a hammer will see every problem as a nail, and former Soviets are likely to see every swastika as associated with the Nazis. Occam’s razor suggests that the symbol has more local roots than some Indiana Jones type story. Personally, my money is on stranded Buddhist time travellers who were trying to signal their spacecraft …
Cool post, and convincing. Why don’t you email the NYT author for a correction?
$ is the symbol for bank? That’s what’s really disturbing.
As for the (oft-repeated) argument, (“I donÂ’t think itÂ’s a Nazi symbol at all,” as you put it) my take is that you have to consider the meaning and cultural resonance of a term before deciding whether to stick to it. The swastika will never again have a normal life as a symbol. Yes, it might not be intended as a Nazi symbol, it might not actually denote that ideology, but the fact that it so strongly connotes it is enough to destroy any other power it has as an object. Part of the problem here is that the taint isn’t simply incidental. Graphic design and visual expression were an essential part of National Socialism. (Albert Speer’s role as chief architect used non-metaphorically was very important, and there’s nothing quite like it in modern democracies). Nazism had to be branded, and the obsesive use of the swastika was central to that brand-identity.
The easiest comparison to this is in naming. For example, “Adolf” and “Judas”, both perfectly good names, have limited popularity among the parents of newborns. Jude, maybe, Adolfo, possibly. But not Adolf, not Judas.
If you have a perfectly “normal” name that, either through a change in cultural context or language, gains a negative connotation, you have two options. You can either stick with the name, and deal with the negatives, or change the name and make your life easier.
Not everyone jumps off the sinking ship though. Professor Bimbo, Professor Fuck and Dr Wanker have all made the choice to remain with troubling monikers.
Mr. K – I don’t think it’s a Nazi symbol because it doesn’t look like the Nazi swastika. Instead, it looks like the ubiquitous Asian swastika – it faces left, and it’s level rather than being rotated 45 degrees. I doubt this tree pattern has its origins in Germany.
Oh, I understand that. I know, I know. That’s why I said it connotes, and that’s why I made the distinction with what it actually denotes. Show this left-facing, unrotated symbol to one hundred people (in any country but India), and ask them what it represents. Ninety-eight will say “Nazis.”
I think you’re being Eurocentric, Mr.K. I doubt anybody in China will think that way when they see a left-facing swastika. Since China and India are 40% of the world’s population, I think that acts as a counterweight.
Still, I’m not arguing that either Swastika is “clean” either – for example, I don’t think that a red swastika would have been a good symbol for a national “red cross” society.
As an aside, I’ve often thought the Canadian Philosopher “Charles Taylor” should change his name …
Heh heh.
This is a useful point, though. Adolph was a German name and is not not used by Germans. Fair enough. I don’t think that Nazi Swastikas should be used in the west. The question becomes, should left facing swastikas be restricted in the east?
An analogy would be if Hitler hadn’t been named Adolph but Ruwvee or Pungk. Would that mean that all the Ravis and Pengs in India and China should take different names? Do you think the Chinese should stop using the Swastika to denote vegetarianism and temples within China? I agree that it’s inadvisable for Hindu/ Buddhists / Jains / Parsis to put swastikas out side their temples in the west. But Hitler’s misuse of a different symbol shouldn’t undermine thousands of years of positive associations with the symbol in the East.
waiting for ban on xavier’s cross and muhammad’s crescent….
I’d like to add the Communist Hammer and Sickle to that list, please
Mr. K: That kind of leapt out at me, too, but then I realized the Taiwanese currency is…the Taiwanese dollar.
I just didn’t realize they used the same symbol and everything.
Also, the former Soviets would see every hammer with a sickle, nu?
Apropos of nothing, the origin of the $ symbol (with two upmarks instead of one) is the initials US, with the U superimposed over the S.
daycruz,
a hammer/sickle can be construed to be a cross/crescent under the eyes of an overzealous interpreter, like someone who might conflate the 45degree rotated, mirrored, symbols with each other.
LoOk for patternS, and thEy aRe everywhere. the important thing to keep in mind iS that you’RE probAbly just cherry-picking DaTa from tHe ambIent noiSe to discover the pattern.
Salil,
You are correct and the symbol for the Taiwan Dollar is $ or NT$
I’ve heard that Uday Hussein’s name was chosen by his dad Saddam because of his fascination with India.
Mr K is wrong in assuming that 90% will recognize it as nazi symbol. My family’s factory name had the word swastik and no one even bothered or questioned about it (until some one wanted to register a website for it)
Circus master,
I stand corrected.
Is it just me or that “Eki Naryan” sounds far too similar to “Ek hi Narayan” (One god Vishnu)
This is obviously something Borat has a hand in (Kyrgyzstan is next door to Kazakhstan)
To put a desi spin on it, Aurangazeb is an inadvisable name for a Muslim boy in India. No such issues in Pakistan though.
The deeply rooted negative connotations of the Swastika in the West are going to be very hard to erase despite its non-Nazi origins. Similar to the whole controversy about the use of Master-Slave in product descriptions. I wonder if they had electrical engineering text books edited to remove that “offensive” term.
Great opportunity to let the world know that Hinduism is monotheistic.
Does it matter? Lets not buy into the argument that monotheism is inherently superior. Statistics on celestial beings haven’t come in yet, so who knows.
I thought the more correct term for Hinduism was monistic polytheism i.e. one divine spirit manifesting itself through multiple deities.
Btw, the idea that monotheism is superior to anything died along with God a century or two ago.
One of the earliest swastikas found, at Harappa, from perhaps 2800 B.C. can be seen at http://www.harappa.com/indus4/315.html. It was a common ancient Indus seal and other motif.
Appropos of little, here is the Falun Gong Israeli site where the group tries to convince Israelis that the Swastika (Indian version) is a great thing!!
I am not sure about the monistic divine bit. There is a strong atheistic/semi-theistic tradition in Hinduism, influenced by (Theravada) Buddhism. But its still a nice definition, and I’ll concede the hindu concept of divine doesn’t translate too well into english.
Really? Look around. The reports are highly exaggerated 🙂 .
DQ:
Umm. I don’t think the monotheists got the memo.
Sakshi
No and yes. To me (and most people here), does it personally matter for my practice of religion or lack of it? I would guess no because your spirituality is your spirituality. What does it matter if someone comes and starts saying Hinduism means this or that?
But if you for some reason have to ascertain the truth of the statement “Hinduism is polytheistic”, then obviously, it is important.
But it is!! Just kidding. My friend related the story of a little Bay Area desi girl whose teacher wanted to know how many gods each student in her class believed in. When this girl said she believed in one, the teacher insisted that this is not the case and proceeded to “educate” the class that while most people believed in one god, Hindus like this girl believed in many gods. You can imagine what transpired between the students afterwards.
It’s not enough for me if it doesn’t matter to me whether Hinduism is mono/poly. It’s not enough if I can make that little girl understand that it doesn’t matter. I want that teacher not to put that girl in that kind of situation in the first place. She should be the one teaching the children that it’s not important and that there is nothing to be laughed at.
Making statements like “Hinduism is monotheistic” that challenge that teacher’s firm beliefs is a great place to get a discussion going on that fact that there is nothing particularly superior about mono and that people like this teacher needn’t be so smug.
More coming up….
obligatory,
Svastika with a super catchy tune you’ll be boping your head in rhythm to.
proof positive that Hitler symbology no longer instills fear.
OK, I’m still confused about this matter of the good swastika facing the opposite way to the bad swastika? I can understand the level vs 45-degree-tilt distinction just fine. But I’ve seen them facing either way, in more than one Southeast Asian country, and in India. So what’s the story?
I’ve always been under the impression that the Hindu swastika and the Nazi swastika, although some people might not like it, both face right – aka going clockwise. The 45 degree tilt is definitely a hallmark of the Nazi swastika, and the Hindu one is not rotated.
As far as I can tell, the only reason that people persist in believing that the Hindu swastika goes the other way (ie to the left), is because that was a notion that was started by Hindus who wished to disassociate from Nazis…. this is the conclusion I’ve come to based on anecdotal evidence; I’ve never searched for actual.
Anyone know anything about this?
Rukku, I have to admit I tend to agree with your suspicions.
Sakshi and Salil,
LOL.
Some people are always the last to get the memo. Or NEVER get the memo. You know, like Romans who worshipped Zeus and Hera well after Constantine turned Christian. Or the Flat Earth society. Or creationists.
Has anybody looked at the photo of this formation in the NYT? Looks like a pretty sad excuse for any kind of swastika or sauwastika. Couldn’t we also say that it looks like a Maltese cross missing some points, the greek letter xi with some extra stuff, or a tragically incomplete replica of the Great Vermont Corn Maze? Doesn’t swastikahood require four bent arms? Anybody remember the miraculous “cross” of steel girders found in the wreckage of the WTC? Looked a lot like a broken swastika to me. Give me Nazca lines over Nazi trees any day. The NYT should be ashamed of passing this off as news.
I’m no expert but ‘Monistic polytheism’, ‘atheism’ etc seem like descriptions created by Western thought for Hinduism. What on earth is ‘semi-theistic’?
Read here about the concept of ishtadeva.
I have never known a single Hindu who does not believe in one god who is above all the others. This god is taken as a way for the devotee to access/visualize God. Viashnavites choose Vishnu, Shaivites choose Shiva etc. I don’t see such a big difference between the lesser gods and the supernatural beings such as angels in Christianity. Does the presence of angels make Christianity polytheistic?
To quote a friend here – have you heard “Bhagwan jaane” or “Bhagwanen jaane”(plural) from Hindus?
Does the mere presence of a large number of possible ishtadevatas makd Hinduism polytheistic? By that description, ‘Monotheism’ would itself qualify as a polytheistic religion since different monotheists believe in different God’s.
The swastika is not commonly known in the south of India.
Have you ever been to a temple in south India?
Kurma,
Yeah, I’d like to know what ‘semi-theistic’ means as well. Wasn’t going to start on that one – you know how touchy people are about their demi-gods.
Regarding your point about monotheists being polytheists as well: A monotheist rejects all gods other than his god. He can’t also be a polytheist. If he accepts gods other than the one he worships, he is no longer a monotheist. These terms have to do with the relation of the worshipper to the divine, not with the various practices of worship within society as a whole.
Regarding the Hindus you know who all believe in one ‘god’ – do you mean by ‘god’ a disembodied, inchoate divine ‘essence’, or a big guy in the sky?? In my experience, all Hindus do believe in the former, but not the latter.
Lastly, Western terms for Hindu phenomena – such as monistic polytheism – are not invalid merely by virtue of being Western.
Kurma:
I have never known a single Hindu who does not believe in one god who is above all the others. This god is taken as a way for the devotee to access/visualize God. Viashnavites choose Vishnu, Shaivites choose Shiva etc.
Yeah this is the Neo-Vedantic postion.
There are two levels to Brahman, defined in many ways, but lets just call it the Absolute for simplicity.
Level 2: Saguna Brahman: literally Brahman with Gunas, or Brahman with qualities. Here the unqualified, unmediated Absolute is viewed dualistically as a result of mithya or illusion. The Neo-Vendantins allow for an aspirant to worship any chosen deity. In fact, some Neo-Vedantins add deities outside the traditional Hindu universe here as well: Jesus, Allah, Hallie Sellasie. It does not matter. It is personal, and its only penultimate anyway. Traditional Advaitins would have a problem with this.
Level 1: Nirguna Brahman. Literally Brahman without qualities. Here the Absolute is conceived as no different from one’s self. It is the only reality, we are it (or that thou art) as the victorian translations of the Upanishads would have it. The neo-Vedantins contend that we achieve this through anubhava, or spiritual experience. Sometimes, during a walk along the beach, as the waves rivet the shore, our sense of self disappears – Wordsworth called this becoming a “living soul.” Modern Vedantins like Ramana Maharshi believed this state can be achieved through meditation, or through worship where the object of worship becomes no different from the worshipper. others, like Vivekananda prescribe raja yoga.
Traditional Vedantins say that one can come to this realization through study of the Upanishads under a qualified guru only. It is not an “experience” because there is no experiencer, non-duality is the ontological reality. The sense of separation, also called avidya, is only notional. And by reading the Vedas with a virtuous disposition, fully understanding that life’s sensory pleasures and psychological pleasures (like fame and the esteem of peers) still leaves us with a sense of “lack” we approach the Vedas to “accomplish the accomplished.”
This is Neo-Vedanta and Advaita. there are also Hindus who would reject all this as out of hand, and contend that Vishnu or Shiva or Sakti or Krishna is Supreme, and that this unmediated Brahman and avidya business is crypto-Buddhism.
Then there are atheistic Carvaka/Lokayata Hindus (Amartya Sen for example) who reject all metaphysics as nonsense but still retain their Hindu identity.
And then there are some Hindu-identifying groups like some tribals who’d be like “wtf is all this mate” as they sacrifice a goat to Lord Muniswarar to reduce their karma 🙂
“A monotheist rejects all gods other than his god.” I thought it was that the monotheist doesn’t have to “reject” any “gods” because there are no “gods” to reject, other than than that “unknowable essence” which is the one god.
Tourette,
What monotheists consider their God to be an ‘unknowable essence’? Christianity, Islam, Judaism all have one God, and traditional worshippers do not recognize gods other than the one of their faith. Thus Christians and Muslims are known to have denigrated non-adherents as pagans, heathens, infidels etc. While some Christian philosophers, (Kierkegaard), might argue that God in his infiniteness cannot be known by man, who is trapped in the finite, I don’t know that any of these religions regularly refer to God as an ‘unknowable essence’.
While the tendency in both Christianity and Islam to proselytize may be partly explained by monotheism, I’d be interested in the views of anyone who knows something about Judaism as to why Jewish people have never proselytized – nor, generally, treated worshippers of other faiths as ‘fallen’ or doomed.
For similar reasons as the Parsis – the religion was tied to a particular people, a particular tribe. Neither Jews nor Parsis try to argue that their religions should be universally practiced.
And from what I know, orthodox Jews believe that one cannot convert into Judiasm at all. Their position is, either you were born into it or not.
What does “accept” mean? That s/he has no enmity towards worshipper of other gods? As you say, this has nothing to do with the matter at hand. We’re interested solely in the worshipper’s personal relationship with God.
It’s exactly for this “other gods” argument that I introduced angels earlier.
Oh, I’d be the last person to say that a point is valid or invalid based on who says it. I was trying to say that where they come (A Christian?Judaic understanding or monotheism) would greatly influence how they would name the Hindu phenomenon. They chose to call it a qualified polytheism. Another could have chosen to say something like many faceted monotheism or something like that. I’m just saying – don’t go by the name.
Thanks a lot for posting that wonderful comment desitude. I need to comment on that but I need to run to a meeting this very minute.
Regarding Jews.
Yes, although not proselytizers like muslims and christians, they do regard “idol worshippers” as mislead, if not doomed.
There are quite a few young Israeli jews in India. They come there after serving in their military coz India is relatively close to Israel and cheap to get too. Plus, all the ganja that’s available there doesn’t hurt either.
If you go to Pahar Ganj in New Delhi, just in front of the New Delhi train station, that entire main strip is FULL of these young Israelis and they shop signs are in hindi, hebrew and english. There are even a few falafel shops, some of them taught the locals how to make traditional middle-eastern food like babaganoush and falafel.
Anyway, in my experience, alot of these folks are NOT open to Hinduism and condemn it’s worship of what they call “idols”. Sometimes they are even unwilling to read books about Hinduism.
Recently a young Israeli man said he wanted to make me into a Jew. We were watching Discovery channel and he was condemning the tribal people they were showing on there who were supposedly worshipping “idols” – when all they were doing is dancing with masks on.
He was not influenced by proselytizing organizations, but he saw a need to rescue me from my pagan beliefs, that is for sure.
Regarding; “This is Neo-Vedanta and Advaita. there are also Hindus who would reject all this as out of hand, and contend that Vishnu or Shiva or Sakti or Krishna is Supreme, and that this unmediated Brahman and avidya business is crypto-Buddhism. “
The main shastra of the Krishna bhaktas is Srimad Bhagavatam wherein neo-vedanta and adwaita are regarded as rungs on the ladder of understanding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Hence they are not outright rejected, but they are seen for being part of the puzzle. Beyond advaita is DWAITA, wherein a personal form of Vishnu or Krishna is regarded as Supreme and the soul retains individuality in order to serve that Form of the Supreme eternally.
Sometimes souls have to pass through the advaitic stage in order to get to the dwaitic stage. As is evidenced in the life of Shuka – the narrator of the Srimad Bhagavatam.
Kurma,
Sikhism is a monotheistic religion too but we believe that there is only one God for all, regardless of whether the worshipper calls Him “Allah”, “Rama”, “Jehovah”, or “Waheguru” (or anything else). It’s the same God who hears all prayers, irrespective of the formal religious affiliation of the person concerned.
Our faith also teaches that, beyond a certain point, God is indeed an “unknowable essence” and that there are limits to the ability of humans to describe Him accurately or comprehensively.
Jai, Vaishnavas assert the exact same things you asserted above in #47.
I find it interesting how Sikhs refer to Govind and Ram and other names for the “vaishnava god” in the Guru Grantha Sahib. I think Guru Nanak had alot of interactions with vaishnavas during his time since his era was during the bhakti revival in India.
We don’t proseltyze because we’re too busy committing usury.
By this analysis, we shouldn’t be discussing Hinduism in English since it is invalid by being “Western”.