The Dilemma of American Hinduism
@page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% } a:link { so-language: zxx }
—Problem and Solution Jonathan Edelmann
 |
Jonathan Edelmann |
Jonathan Edelmann
It is not too often that a scholar of Indian religion can become embroiled in controversy, but recent events have provided an opportunity where none existed before. Scholars such as Wendy Doniger1 and Sheldon Pollock2 are the recipients of petitions to suppress their work, controversies over textbooks on Hinduism continue to burn in California almost as hard as the forest fires,3and the University of California-Irvine refused a donation of $3 million—a fortune for one working in religious studies—
because of its connection to alleged Hindu right-wing groups,4a connection that was drawn by professors from a variety of disciplines.5While it is tempting to see this as evidence of newfound interest in Indian religion beyond the halls of academia, I offer a cold shower—an assessment of the cause of these problems and a fairly simple—but not fairly cheap—solution to them. My proposals here build on suggestions, arguments, and evaluations by Amod Lele from Boston University in his article, ‘How Not to Defend Hinduism in Academia’.6 I will also use this as an opportunity to reflect on the ghosts of colonialism and the thrusting forces of globalization as they pertain to the preservation and development of Hindu thought today, especially in the US.I think that the cause of the conflict between academic scholars of Hinduism—some of whom are Hindu—and the American Hindus—some of whom are academics, but not trained scholars of religion or philosophy—is that unlike other major religions in the US, Hinduism does not have its own intellectual space. Where is the place in which young women and men in the US might go to study Hindu history, the relevant languages, and the learned philosophical, poetic, and theological texts in the context of Hindu ritual, contemplative, and devotional practice? This would be a place in which the issues of tradition and faith could be scrutinized in the light of reason and logic, with the support of religious practice and piety, and informed by the relevant languages, histories, and texts. It would engage the great traditions of learned Hindu literature and the many hundreds of scholars who currently know those traditions, as well as the terms and methods of contemporary academic, political, and popular discourses. Students would gain wisdom from their study and inspiration from their religious practice, thus going into the world with knowledge and conviction. I don’t think such a place exists for American Hindus today, but I can envision it in the near future.A goal of such a place would be to examine the length and breadth of the Hindu traditions, to learn it and discuss it, to train students, and to produce literature that speaks with confidence, clarity, accuracy, and wisdom to the social, philosophical, and political issues that confront American Hinduism today—an ancient tradition with a contemporary vision and voice. Despite the size and affluence of the American Hindu community and despite the enduring appeal of Indi religiosity in America, American Hindus have not created a forum for objective and tradition-based reflection. There are individual flashes in the pan here and there, but not a sustained, systematic, and cooperative effort that will outlive individual players. There is no place for Hindus to study, reflect, consider, teach, and write about their traditions within a context that is supported by Hindu scholars, Hindu ritual and contemplative practice, Hindu architecture, and Hindu arts. This is the source of the controversies that we see today.Why have American Hindus not developed this space? What is the connection between the lack of a Hindu theological space and the antagonistic relationship between Hindus and academics? What does the lack of a Hindu theological space mean for the future of American Hinduism? I shall address the first question first. The reason for this is simple—it is money or lack thereof. Hindus don’t spend money on Hindu education. Religious scholarship requires massive private financial support. The space where Abrahamic theological reflection usually occurs in the US is the universities, colleges, and seminaries. We know there is no Hindu univer sity, college, or seminary in the US. There is no reason why American Hindus need to follow an American and European model of religious education, but there needs to be Some space or another. There is no Hindu ashrama of which I am aware of, that has a research library of Indian texts, supports Hindu scholars and scholarship, teaches regular courses on Sanskrit, Tamil, Hindi, and the like, teaches the major Shastras and their commentators, teaches the major movements within Hindu intellectual history, and teaches the larger intellectual discourse such as kavya, Buddhism, and Jainism. Thus, there is no place to study Hinduism in the US within a community of other Hindu scholars and Hindu students. At least I am not aware of one. Other religions in the US do have institutions in which religious practice and religious study are taken together. This might be in well-known Christian divinity schools at Harvard, Princeton, Duke, Notre Dame, Columbia, Georgetown, Calvin, or Claremont, but there are scores of local colleges and seminaries in this country, Europe, Asia, and so on. There is also the Hebrew Union College with Campuses in Manhattan, Cincin-nati, and Los Angeles for Jewish students and rabbis, and the Naropa University, established in 1974 for Buddhism, but that is in addition to the bridge-building institutions between Buddhist monks and academics, as well as a number of endowed chairs at the finest universities in the US like Columbia and the University of California, Santa Barbara. These places, however, are not presently equipped to support theological investigation of the Hindu traditions by and for women and men who are themselves Hindu. Nor should one expect them to adopt or digest Hinduism into their institutions—they weren’t designed for that. Hindus need to develop their own spaces. They can’t play victim forever but must take control of their fate in the US. Hindus haven’t put much money into developing chairs at public or private schools and have put even less money into developing their own institutions.I don’t think there is a conspiracy against Hinduism as many have suggested and insinuated. I don’t think academic scholars of religion are consciously or unconsciously downplaying Hinduism. Some scholars are critical and skeptical of religion. Hinduism isn’t going to escape that any more than the other religions. I am thinking of Rajiv Malhotra’s recent books; he thinks Hinduism is uniquely targeted by academics. It isn’t. In fact, it is probably rather sheltered. I think Hindus don’t have a voice in the discussion because they have failed to put the time, money, and organization into developing one. Market forces, therefore, might be the most parsimonious explanation for the types of scholarship on Hinduism in the US today. That Hindus have not privately funded Hindu theological programs and public support only goes as far as student interest. American Hindus put millions into temple construction and Hindu students want degrees in medicine or computer science, but not theology, religious studies, the Sanskrit language, or philosophy. Thus, American Hindus are not producing quality literature about Hinduism today.As someone who has taught a wide variety of courses on Indian religion and Sanskrit over the past six years, very few of my students are of Indian ethnicity and very few are Hindu. As an academic scholar of Hinduism, there is very little private funding for my research from the Hindu communities; most of it comes from state and federal support or private Christian and secular institutions. Other religious traditions give millions in private funding for education in their re
-legion every year, seeing it as inherently valuable to have religious scholars teach religious young women and men. If Hindus want to change the discourse, they can’t just ban and badmouth academics, they’ve got to change the funding sources. They have to create a new discourse in their own terms, but it must be informed by their own history, texts, languages, and the scholars that have this information and wisdom. Malhotra and the many petitions against American scholars of Hinduism seem to be little more than griping, like a disenfranchised cricket fan, complaining about the sidelines of the field but offeringlittle constructive or positive contributions to the discourse. It is also ‘wishful thinking’ because the academic study of Hinduism is well-established in the American and European situation and it won’t be the least bit impacted by a petition or outsider criticism.Perhaps Hindus in America see religious edu-cation as something best conducted in the home, and for this reason, they have not built universi- ties, colleges, ashramas, and the like for the study of Hinduism. Religious education should take place in the home, but I don’t feel that this approach would enable Hindu women and men to address the larger issues of Indian intellec-tual history we see today. Home education is only as effective as the knowledge of the par-ents. But where are parents going to get the deep historical, linguistic, and scriptural knowledge about which I am speaking ? Are they supposed to build their own, individual libraries? Aren’t they busy raising a family, having a career, and mowing the lawn? Perhaps the attempt to ban academic work is evidence for my gut feeling that home-based education isn’t working.Thus we are left with two broad types of Hindu scholars today. The first consists in academics. Academic professors of Hinduism, Sanskrit, or Indian philosophy at public and private universities are
not generally encouraged to engage directly with issues of the Hindu faithful; their professional community is that of other academics, not Hindu swamis, devotees, or priests. It is not part of their job training or job description to support or enrich the faith of Hindu students, even if some scholars may see that as an unofficial or personal mission. Research topics are selected because they fill in missing spaces within the academic landscape, not because they address the needs of a Hindu temple community or American Hinduism in general. American Hindus cannot and should not expect university professors to be doing the sort of work they want them to do. Academics in this country have the freedom to pursue their own research interests and that is what they will do. Some of them are Hindus and will pursue projects that support Hinduism, but some are not and will write books that are critical of Hinduism. American Hindus cannot control this any more than Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the rest can control what academics say about their religions. The difference between American Hindus and Americans of the other major religions is that American Hindus have not created spaces to counteract what they see as the pernicious effects of academia, whereas other religions have.The second major group of scholars of Hinduism in America consists of Hindu preachers, priests, who have technical knowledge of ritual performance, and organizers of particular Hindu communities. They are generally centered around
Hindu temples or home-meetings for the local Hindu population. Their mission involves performing rituals, preaching, teaching, inspiring, and supporting Hindus that attend their events. Their community is the devoted followers of their particular Hindu tradition. They speak inside a tradition of faith and practice, but engaging contemporary academic, social, or political topics in ways that outsiders might appreciate are not part of their job training or description, even though some may take on such issues as a personal mission. In my estimation, this second group of Hindus is not deeply steeped in the history, language, and technical body of scriptural inform
SRI RAMAKRISHNA TODAY 