In a proper Hindu spiritual life you must wake up long before dawn each morning and perform several hours of austerities to center yourself before you engage the tawdry goings-on of the material world. Well this morning I woke up before dawn and contemplated mystical concerns to do with Lords Vishnu and Shiva, as made manifest in my life by the writing of one Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that tipster AfroDesiAc brought to our attention yesterday.
And I feel much wiser for the effort. Consider these insights:
As Democrats change the drapes on Capitol Hill and relegate Republicans to minority status, both parties would do well to look to the ancient East for advice on how opposites should — and should not — work together.
In Hinduism, two of the main gods are Shiva the destroyer and Vishnu the preserver. They are not enemies but partners in the governance of the world, and Shiva’s “destruction” is really change, as in the change of seasons or of generations. Another Eastern tradition, the Manichean religion of ancient Persia, holds that the forces of good and evil eternally battle for control of the universe, and we humans get hurt in the process.
Which of these two models is most appropriate for our two-party system? It ought to be Hinduism.
Oh no! It’s the Ancient East again! I will let you read for yourself the full development of this argument — the article, by the way, is entitled “The Spirit of Dharmacracy” — but I ask that you consider whether, in your participation in American political and cultural life, you speak for Shiva or Vishnu:
Robert F. Kennedy spoke for Shiva when he said, “I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?'” … The conservative philosopher Irving Kristol spoke for Vishnu when he said, “Institutions which have existed over a long period of time have Â… a collective wisdom incarnate in them …”
If I want to see Professor Haidt confronted by a frothing-mad female superhero waving instruments of destruction in her numerous arms and hissing at him with a pitch-black tongue, does that mean I speak for Ma Kali? The professor inquires:
How can we make our two-party system more beneficial for the nation? What can we do to become more “Hindu?”
(Insert joke about fistfights in the Lok Sabha here.)
But wait! There’s science behind all this:
In my research on the role that emotions play in morality, I have found that acts of virtue, nobility and honor create feelings of moral elevation in those who witness them.
Alert the IgNobel committee! This is some (sacred) bullshit.
Yeah, we’re all deeply spiritual Easterners who live our lives in every way according to the most basic principles of Shiva vs. Vishnu. Amen. Reminds me of the time at a journalistic/academic conference I heard a woman very seriously talk about how “hindu” thought is not linear but instead takes the “mandala” as its model, and that’s one of the reasons Indians make such good computer programmers. I swear.
Left Orientalism is just as bad as Right Orientalism, sometimes…more annoying because it’s well-meant. If I hear one more American talk about “Eastern religion” I will scream. Goddamn hippies.
By your command. But maybe that’s just an example of macacacracy.
Oh man, this should prove quite amusing. I bet Denny Hastert turns out to be Kumbhakarna
Robert F. Kennedy spoke for Shiva when he said, “I dream things that never were and say ‘why not?’”
Err, wouldn’t “spoke for Brahma” be more appropriate there? If you want some Shiva-action, try Grover Norquist: “My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
I’ll raise your Norquist with a Pat Robertson zingfest:
MUAHAHAHAHAHA FIRST WE WILL TAKE YOUR SPIRITUALITY, THEN YOUR WOMEN!
Clearly, to the modern (broken) two-party system we have currently in the US, libertarians are Kali.
Having said that, I’ll now don my fireproof underpants and get ready to be flamed.
I keep thinking that Mr. Robertson (#5) will eventually reach the point where he can’t possibly say anything more offensive or ridiculous, but then he keeps talking.
but, i would like to quote jack nicholson(frank costello) from the departed :
i say, who needs shiva, vishnu etc.. – long live narada the ultimate libertarian.
i side with your frustration siddhartha but opening your post on this point of misinformation taints the effectiveness of your post imo. historically, brahmins did wake up early in the morning to bathe, do japa, meditate, chant, etc which may have amounted to a few hours. over time this has boiled down (modernized?) to a much shorter ritual which allows for one to lead a “proper” Hindu spiritual lifestyle.
SP wrote:
this suggests that americans are not entitled to speak on religions from asia at all, which is ridiculous in my opinion. not everyone taking an interest in religions of asia is a “goddamn hippie” and to collectively lump them together like that is to be no better than those we regularly chastise on this blog for exhibiting ignorance about anything south asian. i had an excellent professor in college that many would have considered a hippie by examining her background in a glance. she went to india to learn more about hinduism for several years in her 20s, but as it turns out did so well before it was trendy in the late 60’s and early 70’s. she actually learned sanskrit and is considered a scholar on many original hindu texts. i know as a student of hers, i’m much more informed and less ignorant about religions of asia having taking her class, a class taught by an “american talk(ing) about ‘eastern religion’.”
Great comment absolutgcs! If Americans are not qualified to speak of Eastern Religions, someone should let Benjamin Hoff, Robert Pirsig, and Philip Kapleau, amongst others.
Argh, forgot a word…
Great comment absolutgcs! If Americans are not qualified to speak of Eastern Religions, someone should let Benjamin Hoff, Robert Pirsig, and Philip Kapleau, amongst others know.
I think it’s interesting how Hinduism and spirituality is being bastardized in every which way. Yesterday I shot down the name “Karma” at a brainstorming meeting for a lipstick color. My whole argument was ‘What if the lipstick doesn’t perform, what kind of message are you sending to the woman wearing it? Your karma makes you look like shit and that’s what you deserve?’
HOLY I’ve never seen this before…this is so mass email worthy.
As a Tam-Bram I have to disagree with you on this one. Many prayers have been either been skipped or have been forgotten. The number of times a mantra had to be chanted changed over the course of time and randomly at that. The prayers have lost their original intent and are now modified to fit around one’s lifestyle and schedule.
The fact that everyone (well atleast those who “follow” their religion) takes upto the shorter version of the prayers does not make it proper.
that depends on your perspective. you’re suggesting that religion isn’t capable of evolving. i think the history of hinduism (among other world religions) suggests otherwise.
disclaimer: i’m a madhva brahmin so i’m not speaking from a spectator’s perspective.
Yes, but what about the ones who went to India after it became trendy?
There are some highly skilled Western scholars of Eastern religions who teach at universities, research Eastern faiths, and make their careers on the weight of their expertise. There are a few other people, including honest converts to the faiths, to whom I would willingly concede on theological issues. But there are lots of others whose knowledge of Dharmic faiths comes more from the Simpsons or some random New Age website.
I’d say the guy arguing that “RFK is Shiva” is probably one of the latter.
i’m not suggesting that there aren’t ignorant people out there making stupid analaogies/similes. of course there are. i’m just taking issue with SP’s blanket statement that doesn’t allow for the scholars you concede exist.
Women already taken… this indian chick married herself off to a Northern Wisconsin whitey.
So it begins!
If a religion evolves in all facets, it is one thing, but for one to pick an choose the pieces is just not right.
I can give you a few examples. Take the example of the Aarathi/aaraatrikam (The ceremony performed in the worship of an idol by moving a lighted lamp or camphor circularly round the idol), scientifically the lack of any outside (or artificial) light made it impossible for the devotees to see the idol, hence the camphor. The tradition is still carried out. Why has this process not evolved ?
The evolution you are talking about can be traced back to laziness and the absence of authority, which IMHO is not the right way for a religion to evolve.
Dear Sid, I’ve been following your comments on Sepia and have finally decided to stop being a lurker to profess something: I have a major crush on you. I think you’re, like, the ideal guy. Funny, smart as hell, complex but not complicated. Your deconstruction of various issues affecting brown people is always on target. And by the looks of your photo, you are cute as well! Just had to put myself out there. Thanks for letting me gush. With much love, your secret admirer…
Get in the back of the line woman! Alas Siddhartha is taken sniff
I bet Denny Hastert turns out to be Kumbhakarna
/chokes on soda, narrowly avoiding ruining blouse.
Oh god, we could have so much fun with this game. . .especially if we stick to people like Khumbakarna.
Um seriously, what painful writing. However, lurking in there, dying, like a tiny spark that’s being suffocated by mountains of ash, is the glimmer of small small bit of a point. Dichotomy gets a lot of air time as a thought process. I find it useless to try and trace its roots to this or that religious philosophy (or lack of roots in another). Harmonizing and synthesis gets slightly less air time as a thought process. We’re much better at dissecting concepts then we are at blending them. We’re much better at sorting and classifying things then we are mashing them up. So yeah, I’m all for combining things more and separating them out less.
But you know, with some style. Not like this.
exoticizing aside, and that was some simplistic exoticizing bs, the column was a complete waste of space. why didn’t he just quote john lennon and yoko ono to tell the opposing factions to give peace a chance? it makes me think that he used his ridiculous analysis of hinduism to simply get some space in the la times for a very basic message, a message that is ridiculous to even contemplate.
gotta love la with their yogi priest worshipping bs!
i must admit tho, that the new nars color “hindu” is my favorite of the year. 😉
He didn’t say “RFK is Shiva”, he said RFK speaks for Shiva, there is a difference in that! I think the article had a good point though I don’t know if Shiva is to Liberals as Vishnu is to Conservatives. But it was close enough to make a good point.
Scholars of Hinduism are plentiful in the US – I know several who are more knowledgeable than I could hope to be – I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about morons like the guy who wrote this BS article and the dozens of spent-a-summer-backpacking-in-Nepal dilettantes who talk about “eastern religion” with a broad brush. What separates scholars from the stupid Left Orientalists and hippies is that the latter aren’t particularly interested in the eastern religion du moment for itself, but want a cherrypicked, decontextualised version of religion for the primary purpose of addressing their particular social and philosophical needs and angst as Americans at a particular point in history.
the desi nole and absolut gcs: are you saying that sandhyavandanam is the “shortened” version of things and that it has actually been shortened over time? or are you referring to other morning/dusk rituals in addition to sandhyavandanam? i’m female, i have no idea about these things — just curious.
Milli:
Everything (Sandhyavandhanam and other rituals (even weddings)) have been shortened. It’s like getting married in Vegas (do not get me started on that one).
You seem to be taking the article way too seriously! Its just a harmless analogy. Don’t see how it is hurting anyone or their images (assuming that’s the reason for your outrage)!
Re #20: [blush] thank you.
On reason, emotion and (sacred) bullshit:
The obsession with cutthroat reasoning as opposed to the wisdom to accept that we are all human beings – real people with our everyday emotions, our rooted pasts, and the critical incidents in our own lives – is not a new phenomenon. The early enlightenment thinkers championed reason as a means to establish a system of ethics, government and logic, and to obtain a so-called ‘objective’ truth about the world around us. The theories have got a life of their own in some parts of the world. Robert Merton called it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The laws of logic derived from the enlightenment gave short shrift to psychology. That was a silly thing to do. Logic is related to the structure of concepts and, therefore, has an overlap with psychology. The laws of logic prescribe how reasoning ought to take place, not how it actually happens. Research in psychology is descriptive, and empirical research has explained how phenomena actually happen, not how abstract reasoning ought to function. And yes, with the help of modern science, we have evidence today that emotions and biology – oh as if that’s something new – indeed matter. Obsessed with the software, there’s no point ignoring the hardware. Larry Summers’s comments may be politically incorrect, but only politically. His observations may have scientific validity as well. But then, that’s not right in the eyes of others. Reason’s pretense is indeed baffling.
Interestingly, since its early days, economics had embraced the idea that emotions drive behavior. Adam Smith in his book A Theory of Moral Sentiments noted: ‘Our first perceptions of right and wrong cannot be the object of reason, but of immediate sense and feeling Â… reason cannot render any particular object either agreeable or disagreeable to the mind for its own sakeÂ’. Hmm, Adam Smith!! … may be it is not sacred bullshit anymore.
Smith was not alone. Alfred Marshall had written at length on habits and customs. In his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes had written at length on animal spirits in human nature that propel action. David Hume – from whom we know the three cardinal criteria to establish causality – had said “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions”.
[I think, one reason why Buddhism could not usurp Hinduism is because Hinduism could fathom the importance of emotions and biology and did not pretend everything is abstract reason. In Hinduism the worshiper gives his/her thoughts shape – they have that freedom. No organization tells Hindus what God should look like. And Shiva and Vishnu – and the ideas of destruction and conservation – continue to live for thousands of years. Zeus and Apollo are long dead.]
People pretend to use reason, but what they actually do is they craft reason around their feelings. That gives them legitimacy. Haidt shouldn’t have written in such a gullible manner. That gives more ammunition in the hands of the Houyhnhnms.
What Professor Haidt is saying is a phenomenon called the double hermeneutic. The basic idea is this: unlike the physical sciences (where the atoms of carbon cannot read the research reports and change themselves before the next experiment), in the social sciences, human beings can know what they are capable of. That acquired knowledge, in turn, affect their behavior.
Now, if Siddartha’s disgust stems from Haidt’s not-intended portrayal of India as a land of mysticism, then that’s a different conversation.
frankly.. other than the play on words “dharmacracy” I dont see what is so offensive or ignorant about this piece shiva and vishnu are metaphorical devices..
you could do a lot worse than read jon’s book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028012/qid=1135307500
jon will be quite amused I suspect by this post
Now that you mention Jon’s book on happiness, let me quote from God of Small Things:
“I was happy,” Ammu said, and realized that she had been. “If you’re happy in a dream, Ammu, does that count?” Estha asked. “Does what count?” “The happiness– does it count?” She knew exactly what he meant, her son with his spoiled puff.
Because the truth is, that only what counts counts.
Indeed, in some ‘sciences’, only what counts counts. See Steven Levitt (author of freakonomics) getting nailed by Colbert. 🙂
I haven’t read Jon’s book. I will be eager to see how it is different from CsÃkszentmihályi’s book.
“I can give you a few examples. Take the example of the Aarathi/aaraatrikam (The ceremony performed in the worship of an idol by moving a lighted lamp or camphor circularly round the idol)scientifically the lack of any outside (or artificial) light made it impossible for the devotees to see the idol, hence the camphor.”
There is a deeper meaning to harathi, if it was purely for practical seeing purposes, why would we touch our hands over the flame? Whatever its practical origins (IF that was where it came from), it was symbolic of having darshan, when seeing the moolavar, and then placing your hand over the flames as a symbolic gesture of the acceptance of darshan in your daily life. I’ve heard others say it is symbolic of jnana/atman/brahman etc. and that placing your hand over the flame and then over your eyes is a reminder of bringing that realization into your own life…Anyways, regardless of its origins, point being that it survives because there is definitely a significance to it, whether it was added in or was there from the beginning.
Usually that’s how it works, what surives has some meaning to it, and what loses its meaning or relevance often doesn’t. The Upanishads which are the building blocks of modern hinduism, more or less threw out the idea of lengthy arcance rituals being a necessity. Brahmins back then tried to force them on everyone else in order to uphold their own privilege as guardians of sacred ritual. If you can justify the cutting out of things that don’t make sense or modifying them based on your understanding of scripture, I don’t see how that makes you “lazy”. Hinduism itself resulted from a giant “pick and choose” throughout history. If you think hinduism is not a proper religion for evolving in that manner, then no one’s forcing you to follow it. But its pretty arrogant of you to assume that the only reason certain rituals are adapted or modified arise solely on the basis of being “lazy” or ignorant or what have you.
It’s contempt I feel more than outrage – and the reason people are taking this guy seriously is that he’s using his academic title and background and a platform in a very respected newspaper to spout some rather misguided and misleading ideas about “Hinduism” and politics.
desichick wrote:
I just thought this was worth repeating. Well said! You explained the history/meaning of aarathi as I know it before I could get to it. Thanks!
No, let’s not. Anyone who’s read that book knows that it is NOT in favour of crazy Orientalist bullshit.
They don’t need to look as far as the ancient East, they just need to look for a little bit of common sense, which everyday, ordinary Americans possess.
Except for Barack, of course. He’s PERFECT 🙂
“misguided and misleading ideas about “Hinduism”
Maybe I’m not learned enough, but what exactly were the misleading ideas about hinduism? If u drop the idea of Shiva and Vishnu as “God” then from a metaphorical standpoint, I’m not seeing anything misguided there. Can someone please explain to me why this is offensive?
If u completely disagree with the gist of his argument, that’s one thing. but i don’t think this is a case of “orientalism” at all. Does he say all hindus believe x or constantly ponder y? Or that all people should start meditating and doing yoga? Or worshipping Shiva and Vishnu will solve our problems?
No has the right to exclusive use of metaphors. The complaining from these posts reminds of Hindu students who get pissed off when a white lecturer, who often has spent much of their life learning about the various philosophoes and traditions, teaches a class on hinduism and doesn’t explain it “correctly.”
Let’s be honest, is this really a matter of leftist orientalism, or are insecure brown people just upset that a white man had the audacity to write this article?
What’s misguided and misleading about this (and this is fairly obvious, I should have thought) is that it picks one element of a fairly broad Hindu cosmology,ignores a pretty diverse set of schools of Hindu thought that have widely varying implications for political philosophy, and sets it forward as “Hinduism” – why should the preserver-destroyer distinction be more “Hindu” than, say, the political philosophy of the Gita or the epics? He also extrapolates from a philosophical opposition (which is arguably not even distinctively Hindu, but is found in most phil/religious traditions) to a particular political context in a rather clumsy way, and implies that “hindu politics” is defined by an idealized, pared-down complementarity of destruction-preservation (which neatly dovetails into the American liberal/conservative dichotomy) and takes this basic principle and essentializes it to imply that Hindus are less combative politically because of it. He seems more concerned with the idealized “classical” vision of Hinduism than with the reality of it in the political process, either in India or in Nepal. That’s what orientalists do, use “classical” or scriptural sources to essentialize a culture and assume it is governed wholly by these essential principles. I can’t take that seriously at all.
What’s annoying about this guy’s writing on this issue is not that he’s a white man (I have little use for authenticity/identity politics so popular in the US), but that he’s feeding a particularly silly, superficial understanding of Hinduism with little basis in reality, and he can get away with it because his audience presumably knows little about the actual political mobilizations of Hinduism. The message that this conveys is that whatever the Western market wants to find in Hinduism = “hinduism,” and yet he doesn’t say “here are the lessons I take for politics from these Hindu principles” – no, he authoritatively says this is “Hindu” politics, as if he can speak for the entirety of Hinduism from his Cliff Notes reading of its godhead.
“What’s misguided and misleading about this (and this is fairly obvious, I should have thought) is that it picks one element of a fairly broad Hindu cosmology,ignores a pretty diverse set of schools of Hindu thought that have widely varying implications for political philosophy, and sets it forward as “Hinduism” – why should the preserver-destroyer distinction be more “Hindu” than, say, the political philosophy of the Gita or the epics?”
Ok, first off, this isn’t some “minor” element of modern/popular Hinduism. The concepts of the trimurti and the simultaneous creation, destruction, and preservation are common throughout different Hindu schools of thought-which major Hindu schools of thought have no concept of this? Or are you going to invoke the Lokayatas now?
And this is the part that I find particularly amusing, how does this conflict with the Gita or the epics? Or are you now suggesting that hindus are mistaken for believing in the trimurti and the Gita? In fact, the idea of creation, preservation and destruction as something ongoing is fairly evident in the Mahabharatam especially when read alongside the Gita. Are you even familiar with any of the epics?
“He also extrapolates from a philosophical opposition (which is arguably not even distinctively Hindu, but is found in most phil/religious traditions) to a particular political context in a rather clumsy way,
I disagree. Which religious tradition emphasizes the idea of transience and the simultaneous need for order more than various hindu schools? And the idea of using Vishnu as a metaphor for preserving our current institutions and Shiva as destroying, recreating them isn’t so out of whack with exclusivist Vaishnavite and Shaivite schools of thought, particularly those originating in the southern India. Both schools do retain the idea of preservation/destruction/creation, they emphasize different aspects. To me, its not just a matter of convienience that Vaishnavites, hold the ramayana so dear, when it celebrates the preservation of “good” institutions in the world-the upholding of dharma if you will, and Shaivites are perpetually obsessed with the idea of change, transcience and the idea of creation/preservation/destruction with their vibhuti and Nataraja.
“implies that “hindu politics” is defined by an idealized, pared-down complementarity of destruction-preservation (which neatly dovetails into the American liberal/conservative dichotomy) and takes this basic principle and essentializes it to imply that Hindus are less combative politically because of it. He seems more concerned with the idealized “classical” vision of Hinduism than with the reality of it in the political process, either in India or in Nepal. That’s what orientalists do, use “classical” or scriptural sources to essentialize a culture and assume it is governed wholly by these essential principles. I can’t take that seriously at all. “
If this was an LSAT question, your whole chunk of reasoning would have “outside the scope” of the argument. Reread the article, he never does any of what your implying. He even uses quotations at one point around the word “hindu” to emphasize he only means the idea of preservation/destruction, not everything else that comes along with it. Nor does he ever, even once say that Hindus in politics today are less combative because of anything. He’s not talking about hindus in politics, in India, or Nepal or Mauritius or wherever. He’s not talking about hindu culture either. He’s only talking about one principle aspect-but that aspect is very much at the heart of most Hindu schools of thought.
But to some extent, now I can finally understand where you real objection over this article is coming from. It mentioned hinduism, and didn’t mention the injustices of caste, widow burning, child marriage etc. and the burning of Gujarat…therefore this can’t really be a hindu concept at all. because those things, without any philosophical components are the REAL hinduism right?
You probably freaked out as soon as you read “Shiva” and “Vishnu” and didn’t see a critique of Hindutva or Modi or whatever else.
Get over yourselves-the article is just saying that this aspect of Hindu philosophy could be beneficial to incorporate in the political thinking. In no way is it implying that Hinduism is a positive thing, or that politics in India and Nepal are anything to follow as examples.
You can rest easy. btw, did you ever attend one of those YSS seminars?
nominates desichick for guest blogger
i don’t think so. Rather that he got it wrong — RFK is not Shiva-equivalent– and was published spouting nonsense about something he misunderstood while seeming to be clever.
“Rather that he got it wrong — RFK is not Shiva-equivalent– and was published spouting nonsense about something he misunderstood while seeming to be clever.”
Clarify something, are you saying that a) his conception of the idea of “Shiva” and what It/he represents were flawed or b) that quote mischaracterizes RFK. If its the latter, then that’s one thing. But no one, other than saying its “obvious” can seem to explain how he misunderstood Shaivite theology or symbolism of Shiva.
Desichick – I think you miss the point. If you talk about religious principles in politics, you need to make causal connections in the real world, not fine vague waves of the hand or “the political thinking,” whatever you mean by that – even the author of this article explicitly asks how Hindu philosophy can provide a model for the two-party system (and yes, he does suggest that the preserver-destroyer complement can solve American political ills). Political thought does not exist in a void and isn’t much use till put into practice – and there are plenty of examples, both inspiring and less inspiring, of Hindu thought applied to politics that are much more relevant to contemporary politics than Religion 101 discussions of the trinity. As for the Gita and the epics, there are whole reams of political philosophy that come out of them, with implications for conflict, social order, duty, and so on. The idea of dharma is understood differently in classical philosophy and interpreted in fairly sophisticated ways by Hindu reformists and by the likes of Gandhi (especially the caste-based vs individual dharma idea) and used in an even wider set of ways in contemporary political discourse. It’s also difficult to disembed Hinduism from practice and social institutions into the pure realm of philosophy because social order is such an important part of its cosmology. Just taking a “can’t we find a middle path” message from some overarching principles of this corpus is simplistic, not to mention hardly a specifically religious or “ancient eastern” lesson.
Your assumptions about “insecure brown people” who just want to put down the great religion or talk about social evils or whatever are misplaced; you may have an ongoing imaginary battle with social critics of Hinduism, but this is not one of those battles.
Not entirely relevant to this topic but its a great description nevertheless.
Its from the footnotes of Autobiography of a Yogi.
I am going to go out on a limb and say “Manichean religion of ancient Persia” is better for our Congress.
A quick recap of what I see as the silliness of the original article, since we’ve now got into more obscure details:
a) The guy sees a problem with polarization and hostility between Republicans and Democrats in Congress b) Guy picks large, abstract idea of preservation/destruction from Hinduism, contrasts it to Manichean thinking (says that American politics is currently closer to manichean) c) Guy picks conservatives as the Vaishnavites and liberals as the Shaivites d) Guy says “if only we could just make our politics more Hindu, as defined by complementarity of preservation and destruction, we could fix our two-party system;” goes on to talk about civility, play nice, no ad hominem insults, hardly referencing Hinduism beyond a very generalized principle, in short, using the idea of Vishnu and Shiva as a sort of cool rhetorical flourish from the “ancient East” when he’s really just talking about well-worn ideas of “getting along.” Jumps from general religious ideas to a discussion of American politics without making any connections about how religion influences political behaviour, just implies “we’re too Manichean and we should be more Hindu” e) he kind of forgets that there’s loads of good vs evil battles in the epics, eternal gods vs demons stuff, and plenty of Hindu thought that could be used to argue quite the opposite of what he’s suggesting is “Hindu” f) also, the grand principles of preservation-destruction have been part of Hindu culture for millenia but as philosophy/theology, and if it were so easy to just apply them as a mantra, why hasn’t it happened before? Because politics is much more complex than that, and because the trinity is a way of ordering and explaining the world, more cosmology than practical philosophy. g) At the end of the day, he seems interested in the Wisdom of the Ancient East in a pretty simplistic way and as a magic solution for the Ills of the Modern West; doesn’t really care to see Ancient East as a political system, just a set of classical ideas.
The mirror image, I think, would be if someone said (as some have historically) that the problem with India’s politics is that it’s too amoral, and that’s because of the relativism of dharma and how it’s tied to social position, and if only we could apply the more manichean principles of right and wrong, perhaps derived from Christianity, we’d have less corruption. Imagine proposing that Indian politics needs to be “more Christian” – wouldn’t many Americans fall off their chairs laughing?
b) Guy picks large, abstract idea of preservation/destruction from Hinduism, contrasts it to Manichean thinking (says that American politics is currently closer to manichean)
He defines liberals as being wary of the preservation of institutions and the basis of their being sources of social hierarchy, inequality on gender race etc. and thus in favor of scrapping existing institutions or revamping them. And conservatives generally as the opposite. The rest of his paper depends on this definition of the liberal and conservative attitudes towards institutions- it’s at this point that I think his paper could warrant serious criticism in his evaluation of liberal and conservative attitudes towards institutions. He believes that this difference in vantage points contributes to the current polarization, zero-sum attitude in politics.
However, flawed as it might be (which I think is fair grounds for criticizing the article), its on this definition that his argument commences-BUT this isn’t what people here are contesting, what people are saying is that its his misunderstanding of Hinduism and essentially being an orientalist that irks them.
c) Guy picks conservatives as the Vaishnavites and liberals as the Shaivites
So, based on the idea of preserving our current institutions and strengthening them as they are he uses the Vishnu, not necessarily as a deity, but simply as a metaphor for this.
Likewise he uses shiva, being symbolic of the idea of change, used to represent the idea of scrapping or revamping current institutions to reflect the current, changing values and ideas of society.
This is where the big contention is-are Shiva and Vishnu as metaphors completely inappropriate? I don’t think they are.
SP, you as well as others say he just doesn’t understand any Hindu philosophy-that destroyer/preserver simply represents a cosmological distinction-and its at this point where I think you need take some time and study more than the introductory hindu mythologies like the epics and puranas. Shaivite and Vaishnavite theologies both have the physical concepts of creation/preservation/destruction, but it very much serves as the philosophical foundations for both. The Upanishads themselves provide the foundation for this concept. The idea of Maya which is important for both schools lies in the recognition of transience, Shaivites do place more emphasis on the idea of impermanence and the inevitability of change from both a values/morality and material standpoint. There aren’t saying there isn’t a need for order in the world, but that unyielding attachments to institutions can lead to bad results.
Likewise, the Vaishnav schools of thought place the idea of upholding an eternal dharma, as North Indian hindu types are always trying to call “sanatana dharma” Vaishnavite schools do place more of an emphasis on Vishnu reestablishing dharma. Like I said before, I don’t think its a coincidence that Vaishnavites even in their philosophy place more literal meaning on mythological epics like the Ramayan where righteousness is established and preserved (I think its interesting that even where Shaivism was more popular, monarchs in south india and southeast asia, such as in thailand, cambodia, indonesia etc still used the paraphernalia of Vishnu as their own symbols-symbols that represented the ongoing continuity of the king’s institutions incidentally-Garuda still remains the national symbols of Thailand and Indonesia).
So based on how Vaishnavite/Shaivite philosophies developed, I don’t think he’s out there in using shiva and vishnu as as metaphors-just don’t think of them as deities.
“d) Guy says “if only we could just make our politics more Hindu, as defined by complementarity of preservation and destruction, we could fix our two-party system;” goes on to talk about civility, play nice, no ad hominem insults, hardly referencing Hinduism beyond a very generalized principle, in short, using the idea of Vishnu and Shiva as a sort of cool rhetorical flourish from the “ancient East” when he’s really just talking about well-worn ideas of “getting along.”
His idea of getting along is based on the idea of reconciling the attachment and preservation of institutions with their being dissolved or changed entirely. His point is that within a democracy, different institutions work best when strengthened, but that they should also be reflective of changing social values/mores, demographics etc. you’re playing a game of semantics. Hairsplitting over the word “hindu” he’s not claiming or even implying that this is all of hindu philosophy or even that he’s advocating hinduism in its entirety-he’s just invoking the philosophical idea of preservation/change which is addressed in practically every hindu philosophy. some shaivite schools are more or less obsessed with this idea from a philosophical standpoint.
“Jumps from general religious ideas to a discussion of American politics without making any connections about how religion influences political behaviour, just implies “we’re too Manichean and we should be more Hindu””
This isn’t about presenting some monolithic religious tradition-and I’ll agree he’s terrible with his semantics-but from what I understand the only “hindu” thing he’s advocating is the idea that we shouldn’t necessarily have a complete overhaul of our current institutions but that there still is a need for change to accomodate changing societal interests and composition.
“e) he kind of forgets that there’s loads of good vs evil battles in the epics, eternal gods vs demons stuff, and plenty of Hindu thought that could be used to argue quite the opposite of what he’s suggesting is “Hindu””
and you forget that mythology is just simple didactism to encourage devotion- how do you explain duality of good and evil to a five year old? Puranas are not meant literally, nor do most, if any, advocate them as the source of philosophy. And if you’re reading the Mahabharata as representing the dichotomy of good/evil than you need to do a more thorough analysis than just Pandavas=good, Kauravas=bad. The Upanishads mention the manifestation of the Gunas in all beings, all three are manifest at any given and the amounts fluctuate-doesn’t really work if you believe in a total dichotomy. No swami would ever place anything from the puranas over anything from the upanishads, or even the old commentaries of the gurus and acharyas from within their own traditions.
“f) also, the grand principles of preservation-destruction have been part of Hindu culture for millenia but as philosophy/theology,”
yes, VERY much as the philosophical basis for various theologies-for example, it is the basis of ALL shaivite philosophy, particularly in South india, which is the stronghold of shaivism. Vaishnavism also acknowledges its importance, but generally has more of a bhakti/or karma yoga slant to it.
“and if it were so easy to just apply them as a mantra, why hasn’t it happened before? Because politics is much more complex than that, and because the trinity is a way of ordering and explaining the world, more cosmology than practical philosophy.”
Read comments above on its philosophical basis various hindu philosophies. If he got his ideas from Hinduism 101 as you put it, then you must’ve straight failed the damn course.
As for your second point, A) he doesn’t say its easy or that it can be implemented immediately, but to try and bring it somewhat into your perspective and not see everything as a zero-sum game.
g) At the end of the day, he seems interested in the Wisdom of the Ancient East in a pretty simplistic way and as a magic solution for the Ills of the Modern West; doesn’t really care to see Ancient East as a political system, just a set of classical ideas.
I agree with you one point, maybe two- he shouldn’t have labelled the whole thing as “Hinduism” and wisdom of the ancient east is a bit OTT. The second, where I might agree with you is in his defintion of liberals and conservatives and how they view societal institutions. But judging from your first reply, while you probably disagree with his definition as well, this isn’t what riled you up over the article.
Where I strongly disagree with you and what essentially spurred this entire argument is that preservation/change is not a basis of various hindu philosophies/ theologies and that he’s entirely incorrect in his usage of Shiva and Vishnu as metaphors. Based on how HE’S defining liberals and conservatives, I don’t think it is. And since he using only one hindu principle, I don’t think that warrants any examination of hinduism in India’s politics or nepal’s for that matter-in fact its entirely outside the scope of the argument. You argue that hinduism cannot be divorced at all from how its currently practiced. Well then, currently practiced by whom, based on whose understanding. Or are you the all knowing Swami who’s going to lay down those conditions for us?
It’s not his responsibility to write according to your personal views of hinduism-if he wanted to make a point, perhaps he shouldn’t have used the idea of Shiva and Vishnu at all, people have strong opinions about other religions, and you probably started off defensive as soon as you read the first paragraph.
Desichick, you rock! There is not much more I can say that hasn’t been said (and more eloquently, at that) by you. I enjoyed reading your one-on-one with SP.