Except that there was already a study done by Narasingha Sil, Ramakrishna Paramhansa: A Psychological Profile, which documented Ramakrishna’s homosexual impluses.

The europeans are so open minded that they want the indians to be as open minded as they are..viz accept the theories of wendy et al…if these europeans are really open minded, why dont they elect a jew to the vatican or a black man to be the king of england?

Everyone knows the promiscuity & homosexual orientation of the christian priests…there has been a plethora of lawsuits on the boston diocese…doesnt it show that the christian priests are gay?

Can we draw a conclusion from the behaviour of these christian priests that all christians, white people and europeans (because the pope is a european and 99% of the americans are european immigrants settled in US) are gay and write a book and publish it across the world?

It makes us wonder if there was really any academic standard in the university of chicago, harvard etc. Probably the publishers of the article on NY Times are equally crooked minded like Doniger to call her a “scholar”.

Shame on the west.

That said, I think that Kripal and Doniger have their own part to play in South Asian studies, but that part is that of the ‘outsider looking in’ and therefore cannot always be conclusive of what something means in cultural context. It would be arrogance to affirm that their position is the only acceptable one and use academic intimidation to silence opposing views, especially if those opposing views come from a perspective within the Hindu tradition. That was the kind of scholarship that was practiced during the colonial era – imposing Western values as the ‘yardstick’ by which to measure other cultures, and ignoring what people who have lived within those cultures have to say about it. It has no place in the 21st century. An outside perspective is fine (it would be my perspective too) but caution must be taken to say “I study this from the point of view of a Western scholar” and to realize that those who experience it from an “inside” perspective will have different interpretations – scholarly as well as religious.

There is a certain elitism found in university faculty, and it’s easy to center around a charismatic scholar while snubbing those who challenge her or his views. Academics should have room for many perspectives, not just the most popular one. That’s the whole point.

On one hand you say that Freud is by no means flawless and than you say this is what goes on in Western academia. Well is it correct or not !!! I am of the belief that you cant judge everything by Freudian principles as opposed to you who wish to accept whatever is given (although you disagree) And if I will call Niall Ferguson a racist not one time but a million and on his face (if I get the opportunity). Have you read his book ? Or catch his interview on C-span?

That said — Doniger’s a fool. (From what I hear from her students, she’s pretty wretched as a human being as well, but I’ve never met her, so I’ll have to leave the verdict on that to others.) Time and time again I have to tell people, no, the Kama Sutra is not exactly the central divine scripture of Hinduism. The response generally is, “but I heard Wendy Doniger say it is, and she’s not a right-wing Christian, and she likes Hinduism, so she’s not out to smear it, so she tells it like it really is and it’s all about sex so get me some of that!” Aargh.

It’s certainly true that sexuality is explicitly (& self-consciously) present in many Hindu traditions. In some Hindu traditions it’s of course very much front-and-center. In others, it’s ignored or downplayed. However, the mere presence of sexuality doesn’t underwrite Freudian interpretations of Hindu traditions.

It’s precisely this ‘move’ which Doniger et al. leave unargued. They simply assume the truth, and hence universal applicability, of Freudianism. Mr. Rothstein makes the same mistake in his review.

I simply don’t find it convincing. That ought not to make me into an evil Hindoo fundie, but that’s the brush some use to tar everyone who opposes this line of argument!

Kumar

If you’ve been in any American university’s theology department you would realize that there are innumerous phycological, sexual, Freudian interpretations of Biblical literature, both the Torah and New Testament (many more than those describing Hinduism). This is what goes on in in Western academia. Freud is by no means flawless, but his ideas have had a enormous influence on Western thought. Please stop crying racism.