| Username |
Post |
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 27-Mar-02 08:52 PM
Dangerous Wives and Sacred Sisters, a book on Nepali Brahmin-Chetri women was recently re-launched by Mandala Book Point in amidst a bhavya function at Dwarika’s village hotel in Kathmandu. First published by the Columbia University Press in 1983, this book is an interesting read, but not at par with other books on anthropology published by the Columbia University Press such as Ortner’s “Sherpas’ Through Their Rituals” and Parish’s “Moral Knowing in a Hindu Sacred City”. It is interesting to note that Columbia University is still publishing Ortner’s and Parish’s books (which are available at any good book store in the US) but didn’t decide to reprint Bennett’s book. The reason, as far as my little thinking goes, the book is quite outdated and Bennett’s interpretation of certain rituals/roles are not that deep enough to convince a serious reader who wants to learn in depth about the roles of high class Hindu women in Nepali society.
For Lynn, women dancing to show their devotion to Lord Shiva during “rishi panchami” are expressing their oppressed sexuality. I strongly disagree with this interpretation. If one reads the book carefully, then many rituals/roles just revolve around sex and oppressed sexuality. I was fortunate enough to ask Prof. Bennett herself where did you get the idea that women dancing on rishi panchami are actually expressing their sexuality. Was it your interpretation or did you ask the women the reason for their dancing in the public? Her answer was, “it was my interpretation because they fast on teej, thus they are sacred in rishi panchami, and their dancing although an expression of their oppressed sexuality, the society does not perceive it that way.” [And being a Columbia PhD, I can write whatever I feel like on any ritual of this third world developing country where so called scholars and pseudo scholars and CNAS can not come up with theories to contradict my writing] (The lines in parenthesis are my own interpretation; Bennett didn’t tell me this at Dwarika’s).
There are other things in the book that I don’t find quite convincing. Being a bahun myself, and who got to experience/see/participate in many rituals, I don’t quite agree with Bennett’s interpretations of “brataman” (initiation ritual), shradha (ancestor worship) and many other things. I hope scholars at CNAS will read the book carefully, and come up with constructive criticism for Bennett.
Mandala Book Point which published the book (I don’t even know whether the people at Mandala Book Point have even read the book). Mandala Book Point didn’t contribute anything to Nepali studies by re-launching the outdated book. Mandala wanted to make money and given the craze about gender studies, Asian studies and the wave of American students coming to Nepal, they will make a huge profit out of it—but by selling a biased book. The cover of the re-launched version is politically incorrect in itself. The cover has a picture in which a woman is shown washing her husband’s feet. Now, if that book makes it to big book stores in the US, people will be just fascinated by the cover and buy the book, thinking that Nepali Hindu women still wash their husband’s feet and drink that water. This is just damn ridiculous. Columbia University was cautious enough to not to publish that picture in the cover page. Being a photographer myself, I could tell that Bennett probably paid some money to some villagers to pose for that picture, because if one looks at the picture carefully, one can see the fake expression on woman’s face. Plus, the face is not clear. It’s a side view, with almost all her face covered by her hair. But with whatever I could see in that picture, I can tell that, that picture wasn’t taken on the spot. It is fake. So, until Prof. Bennett can come up with a good explanation about that picture, I have every reason to believe that she paid those two subjects to pose for that picture. Tomorrow I can post a picture on this site in which a man is washing her wife’s feet and drinking the water off her feet. Its just 500 rs to the subjects, a black and white roll and voila! You have a picture for the book “ Dangerous Husbands and Sacred Sons”
Trailokya
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 02:21 PM
Interesting read. You are arguing that Lynn Bennett is too biased and is making wrong interpretation of Nepali customs and rituals. I haven’t read Lynn Bennet. But from reading your lines, it seems you are biased and in denial.
>For Lynn, women dancing to show their devotion to Lord Shiva
>during "rishi panchami" are expressing their oppressed
>sexuality. I strongly disagree with this interpretation.
Why do you strongly disagree ? First of all, what does the ShivaLinga stands for ? For God’s sake, that is the representation of sexual intercourse itself. It was the ‘expressed sexuality’ (opposed to ‘oppressed sexuality’) of our ancestors. All right, let’s accept that it has lost the symbolism of sexuality in modern time and Teej has nothing to do with it. But, what is dancing ? Let’s be more specific. What is dancing for the dancer ? It is expression of something, isn’t it ? Yes, and it is the subtle and artistic expression of sexuality. And, I am not talking about professional swingers at one of those bars. Actually, those erotic dances are not the expression of sexuality (of the dancer), they are just the expression of pure professionality. All other dances, except for perhaps those of toddlers and those work out excersizes, are, as I said earlier, subtle and artistic expression of sexuality. And there is no need to be embarrassed about it. It is just fine. So, when Lynn said is correct, although she might be thinking slightly different than what I wrote.
>The cover of the re-launched version is politically incorrect
>in itself. The cover has a picture in which a woman is shown
>washing her husband’s feet.
If there is a politics that makes that picture incorrect, then the politics itself must be incorrect. There can not be more correct thing than a truth. That picture simply shows a true ritual of Nepali Hindu society. Like it or not.
>But with whatever I could see in that picture, I can tell that,
>that picture wasn’t taken on the spot. It is fake.
The picture may be fake. But the ritual is not fake. That’s what matters. On top of that, I can bet those in the picture must be a husband and a wife. There is no way a Nepali woman will wash the feet of a man who is not her husband.
>Tomorrow I can post a picture on this site in which a man
>is washing her wife’s feet and drinking the water off her feet.
>Its just 500 rs to the subjects, a black and white roll and voila!
>You have a picture for the book " Dangerous Husbands and
>Sacred Sons"
And just who is going to write that book ? On a second thought, the title of the book is absolutely correct. But the that picture is incorrect for the book.
Nepe
Let’s be ashamed of how we are, but not of admitting it.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 07:27 PM
Nepe,
Little knowledge is always dangerous. Hinduism is very symbolic, and I can prove that shivalinga is not a representation of phallus.
Right now, i am getting late for some work, but by tonight I can post my answer.
Re: Other things, read the book first. And, you are right. I am biased to some extent because I come from Bahun family, and Lynn does not. And when some bidwaan bideshi misinterprets rituals to sell her book, then I too have rights to develop biases against that book. Its that simple.
Nepe, again, the cover. You haven't seen it and that ritual, i.e, washing husband's feet and drinking that water, is seldom practiced. You better email your questiopns to Columbia Uni Press and ask them why they didn't publish that picture when they published the book 20 years ago? And ask Madhav of mandala Book Point the rteason for publishing that picture.
Wait for my reply on shiva-linga.
Trailokya Aryal
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 07:55 PM
Trailokyaji, Shiva Linga represents the phallus. In Sanskrit, Linga means penis, whereas yoni means vagina. U can see Shiva Linga on top of the yoni in many places.
Please remember that Shiva is a Dravidian God. If u check out some of the statues/sculptures dated to about 2500 BC, u'll see Pashupati(who's none other than Shiva), shown in a state of yoga(I think Hatha Yoga), with his penis erect.
As for your review, I bet you are correct.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:18 PM
Here's what linga in sanskrit means/ and what's represented by it in Hidusim:
Linga, according to Vedic lexicon has many meanings. Every language of the world has some words that have many meanings. For instance, take art and culture of English language. The words art and culture can be used in 100 different sentences meaning or providing different meanings/interpretations depending in the context. Sanskrit language is so vast that it is the root of all indo-European languages. Linga according to medina kosh and hala-dhara is:
Lingam chinham anumanan cha
Sankhyokta prakriti rapi
Shiva murti bishese cha
Mohanepi napunsakam
Linga is a sign. Guess, hypothesis, is the prakriti of Sankhya philosophy. A special kind of Shiva images and all these words are gender neutral. Thus, only one meaning that linga is phallus is a biased one and Max Muller first expressed this view. Max Muller was a German missionary. He misinterpreted that to pave the way to propagate Christianity in India by misinterpreting the hymns of Vedas.
As a matter of fact, Linga, which is a vertical piece of stone, placed on a pedestal, represents agni-twatwa. The fire element. The round pedestal, on which the vertical stone is placed, is jaal twatwa (water element). This is the balance between fire and water. Fire has water, think when you have high temperature you start sweating, and water has fire, think of the force of current.
The Vedic sages actually wanted to provide the message that these two elements have to be properly balanced. Have you ever seen the flame of the fire going side-ways or down? No, it always goes up. And this cannot be represented in any other way. Linga is the representation of fire. So the Hindus always place jalahari above the linga and provide water to the vertical stone. If you ever go to Bhaktapur, Mahankali area there are many shiva-lingas which has a cunch/shell, a fish or a lotus, all aquatic things and creatures placed above the round pedestal, which people like you who have not studied Nepalese culture might not have noticed. The linga of pashupatinath is called Jyotirlinga, the word jyotir itself means, flaming/ luminous.
Before you write on Hindu culture please think, study, feel and without any pre-conceived idea and then only try to write. To a person like you, I can only say, a person who is in deep sleep can be awakened, but a person who acts to be sleeping, no matter how much you try, you can’t wake him up. Please get rid of your biases, study and we’ll continue discussing it.
Trailokya
|
| makuro |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:20 PM
Trailokya,
Drinking water from husband's feet is still practised. My mom still drinks water from my dad's feet whenever she has Brata or something like puja. In marriage ceremony(traditional marriage I meant), you must have heard of "GODA Dhune" where bridegroom's feet is washed and water droplets from his feet are drunk by groom's closed family members. Any one can verify this information just ask! It is not seldomly practicsed ritual. Yes this particular ritual doen't make me feel good either. But the fact remains fact denying wont' change it!!!
|
| makuro |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:26 PM
Instead of "groom's closed family members' please read as "bride's closed family members"
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:39 PM
dear makuro,
i said seldom. so, some people still practice it, majority does not and i am not denying the fact that this never happens.
As for the bhe ritual, then, the oparents of the bride have to drink the water. And that's the only time when they and the bride are supposed to do it, not always.
About expressed sexuality and oppressedc sexuality in Benett's book, her interpretations are not that deep enough to make me think of those rituals in a whole new apperoach which she has brought forth. believe it or not, i read that book for my class in the US, and I had to read it 3 times.
Anyway, there are so many interesting discussions going on right now. let me read all of those first. I'll be answering toe ach of you by tonight.
Trailokya
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:42 PM
You may or may not be correct about the interpretation of the word "Linga", but what does it really prove? Phallus worshipping isn't of Vedic origin; it is of Dravidian origin, and one can find the Shiva linga even in the Indus valley civilization. While it's true that bahuns, Chettris, Newars, and some Gurungs are Shaivites, u also need to realize that Bahuns were originally Vaishnavites before being being driven by the barbaric muslims from their homelands. . After the arrival of the Aryans to the Indian subcontinent, Shaivism was also incorporated into the original Vedic Religion. Gods like Vishnu, Indra and Varuna are mentioned in the Rigveda, but Shiva isn't mentioned. Kali and Shiva were added later on.
Our ancestors, who came as foreigners to the Indian subcontinent *did* not worship Shiva. So, quoting Sanskrit is useless, since he is the oldest God of the Indian subcontinent, and he predates the Aryan invasion.
And no, Shiva worshippers aren't our ancestors. We are Shaivites now, but we always weren't .....
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 08:46 PM
BDM,
Prove it. Anyone can write any anta-santa, and get away with it. If you can prove it using examples, i won't hesitate to accept my mistakes.
Trailokya
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 09:01 PM
According to cultureindia.com:
"The phallic cult appears to have been prevalent in India since the Indus Valley Civilisation (c. 3000 BC - 700 BC). Emblems resembling the linga and yoni have been discovered in excavations of ancient cities. Although the Vedas are contemptuous of the linga because of its association with the phallus, later literature like the Puranas and tantric texts laud phallic worship"
And here's Pashupati, the prototype of Shiva
http://www.sacredsource.com/pictures/t_pashupati.jpg
Anyways, I got to sleep now, I'll answer your questions tomorrow in the evening..
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 10:02 PM
Trailokya:
When will you stop being a half-baked stubborn wit? You are paranoid about any scholarly piece that may embarrass your pride in being Bahun or whatever. So much so that now you are bashing the Mandala book point for reprinting Lynn Bennett's book? I would not be surprized if you start arguing that it was published just because the owner is Newar. We should not forget that only few publishers like the Mandala would take risk (given the limited market) to publish academic literature. The list includes journal like SINHAS, reprints of land ownership in Nepal, The Himalayan Helvetica, and so on. Yes, you are right, little knowledge is always dangerous and it is good to see that you have been proving it whenever you attempt to critique anthropological literature—we have already seen your misleading claims on Dor Bdr Bista.
|
| NK |
Posted
on 28-Mar-02 10:35 PM
Trailokya,
Let’s say I want to discuss or better yet, vehemently disagree about a book – from its cover to the thesis, and I have a hunch I may be among the very few who have read this book, right there and there I have a tremendous advantage. I can always say, “hey buddy, read the book first.” As you did here.
As you have conceded that people “…. are right. I am biased to some extent because I come from Bahun family, and Lynn does not. And when some bidwaan bideshi misinterprets rituals to sell her book, then I too have rights to develop biases against that book. Its that simple.” Since when has it become so simple that by coming from a Bahun family makes you automatically an expert on rites and ritual? That statement of yours is an outburst not a rational thought. That is right. An outburst. Your are quick, perhaps too quick to declare, “little knowledge is a dangerous thing” in your answer to Nepe’s posting. Whose little knowledge exactly were you referring to? What makes one’s knowledge “little” compared to yours? Because you have read a theory about Shiva lingam and it focuses on the fire and earth element? Other people who interpret this symbol as male and female are so out of whack that you want them to read more and come to you the more learned (apparently), discussant? Because they don’t agree with you they are more biased than you? Where is this kind of bullying going to stop, Trailokya?
Now, let’s see where you have objections to Bennet’s book. The cover. A woman washing a man’s (assumption: her husband’s) feet. You declare it “was damn ridiculous.” Ridiculous, because you think, a. the photo was doctored, b. it does not happen. As one of the posterers immediately said it “does happen.” To that you claimed that he must be the minority. Well, I don’t want to get into the motive why you are compelled to declare this practice as almost non-existent and “seldom –practiced” but you do seem to be living in a different planet and your Aryal clan must be quiet, stress that quiet, progressive. If this ritual happens anywhere, it happens in Brahmin caste more than any other cast. [ First of all when you said “seldom” how often, maybe you can tell us in the percentage figure, does it happen? ] My mama ghar is Brahmin and all of the women do this. Variations of it. Some touch their husband’s feet and start their day, some drink water. Some drink the water only in Teej and some after doing their morning puja. Of course you can lump this also in “seldom” category and I don’t have the figure how many family do practice these rituals. Now the issue of photo being doctored. Did Bennet declare anywhere that all the pictures are authentic and nobody poised for any of the pictures? To prove a point and if that point is the basis of the whole theory, then the picture , even the poised ones, and in this case the cover picture makes tremendous sense. You may not like it but it is a usual practice.
You pointed out that you talked to the author about her interpretation about the dance ritual and you were aghast that Bennet’s explanation was her own interpretation, not the dancers. Ask a Hindu, why he/she circles temples 3 times , 7 times only in a clock-wise not anti and wait for an answer. Ask this question to anthropologist/sociologist( ?) like Bennet and they will talk about this ritual for 2 hours. We, Hindus do a lot of things without pausing to get the meaning why we are actually doing it. Ask any hindu kid what is the symbolic factor of ganesh having an elephant’s head. Just go and ask. And you come here and express your immense displeasure that Bennet dared to interpret anything, sex no less, about these dancing?
Nope, I have not read the book and there are just too many damn books I would like to read in this life time, I may never be able to read this one. So, Trailokya, you have a tremendous edge on my attempt to answer some of your charges because of the fact you have read the book and you have even *met the author and you were “fortunate enough to talk to Prof. Bennet.”
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 12:27 AM
Binay,
Let’s keep the spirit alive and don’t get into racial biases. If the book was that academic then why didn’t the Columbia uni press re-launched it? Why madhav had to do it? And, no I don’t harbor any racial biases towards madhav just because he is a newar. And about Bishta and his guru, Hamindruf, I stand by my statement. Call me whatever you want to. It s not going to deter me from my thinking (unless and until you come up with points to contradict me).
NK, you say, I was quick in responding to Nepe, and you were right. I was quick because, linga does not mean phallus as some of you guys think. NK, I am replying to BDM on Shaivism, so will reply to you after I am done with that. But you have put forth some interesting and thought provoking points. Don’t worry I’ll answer your questions in a true spirit of discussion.
BDM, you are wrong. Emblems representing linga and yoni do not represent today’s shivalinga. Shiva was worshipped in the Vedic Period, but as Rudra. That rudra became Shiva at the end of Vedic civilization. As I already mentioned in my previous posting linga is a representation, but not necessarily of phallus. And again, the same word can have different meanings depending on the context. If you decide to study Milton and Elliot, let alone Homer, then today’s English dictionaries won’t be of much help. Likewise, to understand the meaning of linga, (shishna: deva) reading some bideshi’s interpretation won’t help.
Think of these things, and go back to the picture that you posted. Look at it carefully. There are three spokes in the crown. There are animals on either side and if you look carefully at the extreme right and extreme left (you might need an eyeglass), there you will see two humans. Sir John Marshall thought of this seal excavated from Indus valley to be the prototype of pashupati, just because animals surround it. And he goes on saying that the three spokes of the crown was later represented as Trishul. Doesn’t prototype of Shiva mean pashupati shiva? Here, pashu means not only animals but humans too. Just as Pashus (animals) are put on leash and humans move them around, humans too are moved around by the lord. And its he, who releases humans from the leash, frees them from the cycle of death and birth. That’s why he is pashu pati.
In Veda you will find the statement “pashunam pataye nama:” yes, certain type of shiva images are called linga, but it doesn’t mean phallus. If any vertical thing is the representations of phallus, then what would you call the long pole that’s erected in bhaktapur in baisakh during the bisket jatra festival? What about the pole that’s erected in hanumandhoka during the indra jatra? Are we to think that pole to be the phallus of Indra?
So, get back to the picture that you posted again. The picture you sent me is incomplete, but if you have the original image and if you corp it to fit the space in the message board, then go back to the original picture. There you will find pictographs. Those pictographs have not yet been deciphered. There’s a book by Dr. Pran nath (Dsc London, PhD Vienna) called The scripts on the Indus Valley seals (1986). In that book (I don’t doubt his credentials, but you can). The author has tried to decipher the pictograph by comparing it with Sumerian, Mesopotamian scripts and cultures. He writes that Shiva is mentioned in Rigveda:
Mandala 8, sukta 26, mantra 23
Mandala 1, sukta 31, Mantra 1
Mandala 1, Sukta 187, mantra 3.. etc..
And writes that: The Word Shiva occurs many times in Rigveda and Yajurveda, examine the passage with a view to see whether it could be taken for a proper name in certain places. He has given 18 references. I am not saying that we have to blindly agree to what he says, but until further research is done, we have no other options.
If we are to blindly agree to whatever the bideshi bidwans have to say about our culture and religion, then why do further research? Why continue debating this. The whole theory of phallus and vagina was brought forth by MaxMuller, a bideshi. And the same applies to Bennett. Why should we believe in everything that Bennett writes on Nepali Hindu society, culture? NK, I’ll get back to you after I am done with this.
Lastly, BDM, even a bird can cross the ocean, but it flies over the ocean, so wouldn’t know the depth of the ocean. Only the aquatic animals in the ocean know the depth of the ocean.
Trailokya
PS: I was fortunate to work with a group of swiss archaeologists, doing research on similarities between Celtic art and nepali art, and interestingly enough, a seal similar to the prototype of shiva that you sent me has been discovered in Denmark, and is now in the Copenhagen National Museum, no. 194.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 01:55 AM
Posted on 03-28-02 10:35 PM Reply | Notify Me railokya, Let’s say
"I want to discuss or better yet, vehemently disagree about a book – from its cover to the thesis, and I have a hunch I may be among the very few who have read this book, right there and there I have a tremendous advantage. I can always say, “hey buddy, read the book first.” As you did here. "
Disagreements are always welcome, NK.
"As you have conceded that people “…. are right. I am biased to some extent because I come from Bahun family, and Lynn does not. And when some bidwaan bideshi misinterprets rituals to sell her book, then I too have rights to develop biases against that book. Its that simple.” Since when has it become so simple that by coming from a Bahun family makes you automatically an expert on rites and ritual?"
NK, a good point. I don’t consider myself an expert, but being a bahun, and who got to see/experience/practice some of the rituals, I disagree with Bennett’s explanation. NK, are you saying that just because Bennett has a PhD from Columbia makes her an expert on bahun society? And that I have to think of every line in that book as brahma-bakya? Now, you cool down, and think in rational terms.
"That statement of yours is an outburst not a rational thought"
I can say the same about your statement.
"Its an outburst. That is right. An outburst. Your are quick, perhaps too quick to declare, “little knowledge is a dangerous thing” in your answer to Nepe’s posting. Whose little knowledge exactly were you referring to? What makes one’s knowledge “little” compared to yours? Because you have read a theory about Shiva lingam and it focuses on the fire and earth element? Other people who interpret this symbol as male and female are so out of whack that you want them to read more and come to you the more learned (apparently), discussant? Because they don’t agree with you they are more biased than you? Where is this kind of bullying going to stop, Trailokya?"
NK, I have no intention to make friends and agree with whatever people write here. I for one believe that its better to learn than to remain in the dark. I said little knowledge because Nepe and others were too quick to associate shiva-linga with phallus and vagina. Its like somebody insisting that Osama Bin laden is the president of the US. Then as a fellow poster, I can correct them and tell them that No, you are wrong. George Bush is the President of the US. NK, the whole idea of discussion is to share knowledge and gain knowledge, not just disagree for the sake of disagreement. And if you take it personally, then what’s the whole point of discussing? You are entitled to your views, and I am to mine.
" Now, let’s see where you have objections to Bennet’s book. The cover. A woman washing a man’s (assumption: her husband’s) feet. You declare it “was damn ridiculous.” Ridiculous, because you think, a. the photo was doctored, b. it does not happen. As one of the posterers immediately said it “does happen.” To that you claimed that he must be the minority. Well, I don’t want to get into the motive why you are compelled to declare this practice as almost non-existent and “seldom –practiced” but you do seem to be living in a different planet and your Aryal clan must be quiet, stress that quiet, progressive. If this ritual happens anywhere, it happens in Brahmin caste more than any other cast. [ First of all when you said “seldom” how often, maybe you can tell us in the percentage figure, does it happen? ] My mama ghar is Brahmin and all of the women do this. Variations of it. Some touch their husband’s feet and start their day, some drink water. Some drink the water only in Teej and some after doing their morning puja. Of course you can lump this also in “seldom” category and I don’t have the figure how many family do practice these rituals. Now the issue of photo being doctored. Did Bennet declare anywhere that all the pictures are authentic and nobody poised for any of the pictures? To prove a point and if that point is the basis of the whole theory, then the picture , even the poised ones, and in this case the cover picture makes tremendous sense. You may not like it but it is a usual practice."
NK, no need to get that offensive. Cool down. Maybe that feet washing practice was popular 20 years ago, not anymore. Another interesting thing about the book and the cover: Bennett didn’t even write a forward, preface for the second edition, let alone revised the text to suit today’s nepali society. NK, I don’t come from a different planet, but seems like you do (STRESS). And don’t believe in photographs taken by anthropologists. Don’t you know about the (in)famous photo exhibition of Hamindruff in Paris in which he made enormous amount of money. The picture had naked sherpa girls dancing and on the background was Amaddablam himal, and Hamidruff made it look like Sherpa girls dance naked. This is a fact, not just coming out of my head. I wish people like lain Singh Bangdel and others would come to this board and post their views.
NK, I am not a mathematician to give you the exact percentage or anything on feet washing and dancing rituals. And again getting back to the picture, then I can post a picture of a husband washing his wife’s feet. And people like you, who are too quick in responding albeit little knowledge or no knowledge will take it as authentic. [STRESS]. Now you can post another long message bashing me. Go ahead [STRESS]
"You pointed out that you talked to the author about her interpretation about the dance ritual and you were aghast that Bennet’s explanation was her own interpretation, not the dancers. Ask a Hindu, why he/she circles temples 3 times , 7 times only in a clock-wise not anti and wait for an answer. Ask this question to anthropologist/sociologist( ?) like Bennet and they will talk about this ritual for 2 hours. We, Hindus do a lot of things without pausing to get the meaning why we are actually doing it. Ask any hindu kid what is the symbolic factor of ganesh having an elephant’s head. Just go and ask. And you come here and express your immense displeasure that Bennet dared to interpret anything, sex no less, about these dancing?"
NK, its funny. I thought I was quick on responding but you are even quicker than me. NK, anthropology has changed a lot in the last 20 years. Just as Freud’s theory does not explain everything about human behavior (and some think it to be outdated), same thing happens with anthropologists. They can interpret rituals in any way they deem fit but that does not mean [STRESS] that they are always right. A hindu kid might not know the symbolism behind ganesha and why he circles temple 3 times clockwise, but a bideshi can’t just come in and say, hey this guy is a bit screwed up, so he circles the temple thrice in clockwise, and its my interpretation. Then, will that be acceptable to you? So, I don’t agree with Benett. NK, before you make me go ask all these to a kid, ask your mother why she dances on teej.
"Nope, I have not read the book and there are just too many damn books I would like to read in this life time, I may never be able to read this one. So, Trailokya, you have a tremendous edge on my attempt to answer some of your charges because of the fact you have read the book and you have even *met the author and you were “fortunate enough to talk to Prof. Bennet.”
NK, I think I have answered you enough. And please don’t send me emails. My account has already exceeded it 2048K limit. Unless there’s something that you want to discuss with me personally, spare me with the emails.
Trailokya
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 03:59 PM
I agree with NK and I feel that it is a futile to argue with such a stubborn paranoid, who neither has ability to appreciate the evidence others provide nor intends to have any critical look on what he would like to believe in. For instance, he comes with the catchy headline “a critical review of ….” and provides nothing but value laden, emotional judgment calls as his “critical” arguments, let alone proofs or evidence. As he puts it, show us what is so critical about your critical review. He demands proofs from others, but he has forgotten that the burden of proof is often on the reviewer’s side. How in the hell can he assume that Lynn Benett’s book was not reprinted from the Columbia University Press for the reason you referring to? What is the proof of their decision which he seems to have some clues? What is the proof of Lynn (BTW, she is not a professor as he is saying) compensating the subjects for the photograph? I doubted if he has any substantial evidence or proofs, so to say. On the other hand, he seems to know little bit about some of the ethnographic literature on Nepal, which may have provoked his thoughts, for better or worse. However, he totally misleads the facts, be in Dor Bdr Bista’s academic credentials or in Lynn’s etic perspectives (an anthropological concept widely practiced even today, loosely defined as an outsider’s or the researchers perspectives on certain cultural phenomena) on the symbolic expression of the teej and other rituals involving women. If he has read this book to write a “critical review”, how come he doesn’t define what is the meaning, as Lynn puts it, of “sacred sisters and dangerous wives,” which is central to what she is trying to argue, and something that puts positive spin on the status of women in Nepal. After all, he is a half-wit and his piece isn’t going to be a critical review in the first place, it is just an expression of his sheer frustrations with the reality.
Yes, if his arguments were limited only on the rituals and their symbolic meaning, I would be more than willing to listen to his “critical review” and have more serious debate on the topic; however, he goes on adding some ridiculous arguments like Lynn paying money for the pictures, the Mandala reprinting the book to make money from top topics like gender, and so on, it will lead the discussion nowhere but a stubborn wit keeps cry fouling and other getting misled by his “little knowledge,” at least in anthropology and ethnographic literature on Nepal.
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 04:16 PM
>NK, a good point. I don’t consider myself an expert, but being a bahun, and who >got to see/experience/practice some of the rituals, I disagree with Bennett’s >explanation. NK, are you saying that just because Bennett has a PhD from >Columbia makes her an expert on bahun society? And that I have to think of >every line in that book as brahma-bakya? Now, you cool down, and think in >rational terms.
My simple suggestion, call your piece a Bahun's critique of Lynn Benett's interpretations, rather than a critical review. That's right, a critical review in any academia is supposed to be free from value and whining, which you obviously do not have and would not have, as long as you no contentions on your thoughts on Bahun.
|
| JhismiseBihani |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 04:52 PM
Binayji,
i have been following this thread with some interest and i have read both of your previous responses. i find it interesting that on both occasions you have commeneted on mr. aryal being a "bahun" in a very personal manner. btw, i am not bahun myself and i don't even know mr. aryal.
it seems mr. aryal does have some valid points and tries to make his case based on his knowledge. however you keep on inserting ethnical undertones. regardless of whatever opinion one has of this book, i think it is a mistake for people to attack the ethnicity of the writer than his/her writing. in defense of mr. aryal, i think he was reviewing this book more from a Nepali point of view rather than a "bahun" point of view. of course, since he is a bahun, his views migth be influnced in that manner intentionally or unintenionally.
let's try to keep attacks on race, ethnicity and origin to a minimum. nepal aama
rohiraheko cha aaj aafnaa santaan haruko ragatko bahai ma, the least we can do is not let the animosity between us, nepalese, develop based on our caste and creed.
peace,
JB
|
| hmmm.... |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 04:55 PM
I have been reading this post with some musing....
I find TA quite a "hardheaded" person than I had imagined. TAji I think you should cool down.
NK is NK, whatever it is she will come at it straight, unbiased most of the time. I like her bluntness but if it was pointed at me, I would hate it too.
I think the whole issue here is-- people have different views different perception even when they are talking about "some universal truth", so this historic/pauranic subject will not be left alone. We just have to understand our way.
hmmm...., I wonder if I am making any point.
Hoohi
hmmm....
Hamrika
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 05:41 PM
JB:
I never meant to underscore the ethnic tone, nor do I believe in slam-bahuns tendancy. I do appreciate any rational logic he may come up with (so far very few). What troubles me is some "arguments" by TA, which hold no factual basis other than apparently seductive propositions. He makes it sound like (as if) he is telling the fact (e.g, Dor Bdr Bista's credentials and the Columbia University Press declining to reprint Lynn's book) but nothing substantive (Yes, He might be an expert on the sybolic representation of SIWALINGA, I get that). Only thing I was trying to correct is his half-baked intelligence on anthropology in general and outbrust against any well-received anthropological publication sheding the lights on ethnic relations or ethnic groups with some nonsense sarcastic comments (e.g., the Mandala taking advantage of the cover, Lynn's interpretation ability). Yes, he is never going to agree with any contentions, neither NK, BDM, Nepe, nor me. We all have know why--he simply doesn't care rational logic. Look the way he is responding to all the posters.
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 06:01 PM
Trailokya,
Yes, I do know that the picture is incomplete. There are many reasons why anthropologists believe that Pashupati is a prototype of Shiva. Two reasons why anthropologists think so:
1. Pashupati is in a Yogic stance. Yoga is a part of Tantrism. Tantrism, in turn, is very closely associated with Shaivism.
2. Pashupati has an erect penis. You can't see it in that picture b/c it wasn't scanned properly.
Also, please remember that Shiva is depicted with black skin.
Again, u are relying too heavily on etymology. Pashupati is of Sanskrit origin, not Dravidian; I wonder why the seal was named Pashupati, since it predates the arrival of the Aryans.
Have u read the Swastani? Here's how the story of the Shivalinga goes. After the tragic demise of Sati Devi, Shiva goes to Earth, with Sati Devi's decaying body on his back. Any location where Sati Devi's body part falls is deemed to be holy. While roaming haphazardly, Shiva is spotted by a group of women, who happen to be wives of sages. After seeing Shiva's big penis, they become sexually attracted to him, and start following him. The sages, after seeing this, curse Shiva, and the curse causes Shiva's penis to fall down.
Even the Swastani mentions that Shiva Linga= phallus.
We don't necessarily have to acquiesce to European pseudo-scholars, but the fact is, even our holy book, the Swastani, mentions that Shiva Linga=phallus.
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 06:04 PM
Forgot to add this one....Fellow posters, don't get me wrong here. I am NOT getting personal with TA nor want to previlege any ethnic biases. If I were to get personal, I would also respond to TA's postings on international relation else where. My only contention is his points on Nepali anthropology are half-baked and some of his "facts" are misleading. That's all.
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 06:31 PM
Actually, I have to agree with Trailokya Aryal, regarding his opinion about Dor Bahadur Bista. His book is nothing but conjecture.
I do concede that there *are* some bahun netas that are corrupt. However, we are currently the most successful ethnic group in Nepal, not because of depravity, but b/c we are hard workers. Let me tell u about my great grandfather. Since living in the village became unbearable to my Baje because of drought, he decided to move to Kathmandu. Of course, back then, there were virtually no vehicles in Nepal. He had to walk for 15 days to get to the capital, and he came with no money. My baje worked his ass off. He worked and studied hard, and indeed his diligence paid off in the longrun. By 35, he was one of the most successful people in Nepal.
Another virtue that makes us successful is that we care for our people. My baje eventually brought his family and friends to KTM. Slowly, most of his friends started to become prosperous, not because of moral corruption, but because they worked their ass off.
Look where I am now. I can actually live in Nepal without working if I wanted to. It's all coz of my hard working ancestors.
|
| JhismiseBihani |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 06:44 PM
binayji,
thank you for your response. i have seen one too many times these discussions
degenerate into personal attacks based on ethnicity.
"ta bahun bhaeko le yasto"; " ta newar bhaeko le yatso", "ta pakhe" etc...etc...
and it hurts me deeply to witness this kind of verbal assualt against each other along ethnical line among nepalese.
now, let me not digress this thread too much from its original topic. no hard feelings i hope!
thank you!
JB
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 07:10 PM
Binay,
Here's my reply to all your acusations:
Did i ever mention the word NEWAR in any of my posting, from the first one to the last one?
No, that means you yourself feel insecure about your ethnicity and everytime anyon writes something, you take it as an attack on your heritage. No need to get offensive or defensive , Mr Binay. If you are that good and i am a half baked imwit then contradict my points with points. That's what I ask peopl to do.
Why this thread, go defend your points in other threads. that's the whole point of discussion. and hey, mind you, i have taken more anthro classes than you. Take it as a strong statement.
Unless and until you free yourself from your racial biases, there's no damn point in discussing with you. Its you who is hard-headed and half baked, who sees ethnicity in everything.Is your newar or whatever heritage that you belong to that fragile that my writing a few lines defending my CULTURE against a bideshi's biased book make you feel insecure?
Trailokya
"naya bihani ko suruwaat"
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 07:48 PM
BDM,
great points. Today is saturday, so won't be able to go read the books and come up with points to either agree/disagree with you. So give me a day.
And Binay, if you want to contradict me in IR thread, please go do so. I would really appreciate that but sapre it frrom your racial biases. It will be interesting to read your views on sino-us rapproachment and its consequences on newars of nepal :-)
NK, did hae some valid points. Just as she has her opinions--strong opinions--on things, i have mine. All we can do here is share, and learn from each other. Its so funny that people tend to think everything in terms of attacks in their ethnicity even though they all know that this thread wikll become ancient after a week. Only the people who have nothing to do will go back at it (after searching searching and more searching) and come up with comments (both sensible and non-sensical).
BDM, just a question: Is there any evidence to prove that linga puja is of dravidian origin? Didn't the Indus valley got invaded by the aryans (not ARYALS, BINAY take note), and they brought in some of their own dieties?
hmm... your points did make me go hmmmmmmmmmm.
Jhismishe bihani, thanks for your support, and i think people like you who are not bahun coming for a half-baked bahun's defense is really appreciated.
Trailokya
Let's keep the spirit of discussion alive , i.e, no racial biases and not getting personal.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 08:54 PM
BDM,
If we agere on shivalinga puja is of aryan origin , based on the points we have and your explanation. But, don't you think there are other versions that at least says that its a dravidian thing? it will be another take in the issue, so, if you come across books, let me know.
Thank you very muh for your posting, but one point:
Indus valley civilization is quite old, and swasthani, if i am not mistaken is a relatively new (compared to indus valley) thing. Don't you think many things got misinterpreted in the thousads years gap bbtewen indus valley and swasthani?
Trailokya
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 09:44 PM
I just don't understand why TA lumps everything all together, I guess that is his ways of dismissing others points. This has consistently been my argument. Who is Newar? Now I am a Newar? Just because I disagree with his outbursts, I became a Newar or ethnic now? Where did Newar thing come from? I referred it once to contradict his points with the intention of the Mandala Book point reprinting Lynn's book, that's about it. Is there anything else from my postings that could be labeled as racial biases? This sort of attitude blended with paranoia, which views any contentions to his value laden judgements, is what troubles me. It actually reveals the ethnocentrism of such a hegemonic paranoia, which often labels any points of contention as "ethnic" or whatever, simply to reject rather than to prove it otherwise.
Well, let me make it very quick. I still don't see any evidence or proof besides whining which would provide solid critiques of Lynn's book. Yes, dare to answer my questions. If you have read so many anthropology books, how come you don't get as basic concept as an etic perspective in anthropology, which Lynn was using to study the symbolic representation of the teej. You have no proof so you started bashing others being "Newar" "ethnic" or whatever. Looking at all these, I can see that you do not any background in anthropology for sure. An anthropology student would rather provide constructive criticisms to "etic" perspective of non-native interpretations, which you obvious haven't in your writings. Why? Because you make it pretty explicit that you have your own personal biases on the stand you are taking—right here you start with an ethnocentrism, which is a fundamental concept any anthropologists often avoid having one in their analysis.
Let me make one point clear. I am not here to defend Lynn's work—I rather would appreciate more substantive "emic" perspectives (the insider's or the collaborator's perspectives, as they call it in anthropology). I have read the book, and I can tell you this, it provided a vivid picture of what it was like some 20 years ago. Does it need a revision to keep abreast with the changes? Yes, I am in an agreement. Does this book have any relevance these days? It definitely does. Did the Columbia University Press decline to reprint the book for the reason you are referring to? NO, NO….that's a damn lie….There are thousands of books which never gets subsequent editions. It is nothing more than your way proving points. Again, a critical review supposed to be about the content of the book, rather than whatever the silly comments you often have about any thing that has to do your preconceived ideas.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 10:28 PM
*****When will you stop being a half-baked stubborn wit? You are paranoid about any scholarly piece that may embarrass your pride in being Bahun or whatever. So much so that now you are bashing the Mandala book point for reprinting Lynn Bennett's book? I would not be surprised if you start arguing that it was published just because the owner is Newar. We should not forget that only few publishers like the Mandala would take risk (given the limited market) to publish academic literature. The list includes journal like SINHAS, reprints of land ownership in Nepal, The Himalayan Helvetica, and so on. Yes, you are right, little knowledge is always dangerous and it is good to see that you have been proving it whenever you attempt to critique anthropological literature—we have already seen your misleading claims on Dor Bdr Bista.
*****My simple suggestion, call your piece a Bahun's critique of Lynn Benett's interpretations, rather than a critical review. That's right, a critical review in any academia is supposed to be free from value and whining, which you obviously do not have and would not have, as long as you no contentions on your thoughts on Bahun.
*****He makes it sound like (as if) he is telling the fact (e.g, Dor Bdr Bista's credentials and the Columbia University Press declining to reprint Lynn's book) but nothing substantive (Yes, He might be an expert on the sybolic representation of SIWALINGA, I get that). Only thing I was trying to correct is his half-baked intelligence on anthropology in general and outbrust against any well-received anthropological publication sheding the lights on ethnic relations or ethnic groups with some nonsense sarcastic comments (e.g., the Mandala taking advantage of the cover, Lynn's interpretation ability). Yes, he is never going to agree with any contentions, neither NK, BDM, Nepe, nor me. We all have know why--he simply doesn't care rational logic. Look the way he is responding to all the posters.
*****just don't understand why TA lumps everything all together, I guess that is his ways of dismissing others points. This has consistently been my argument. Who is Newar? Now I am a Newar? Just because I disagree with his outbursts, I became a Newar or ethnic now? Where did Newar thing come from?
Now, here are the answers:
Now, these are what you have written about me. If I am not wrong, you are the one who is using bahun vs newar in this discussion. I am glad that you know about etic emic perspective. And I can give you names of books that have been reprinted by Columbia, or any other press because they provide unbiased perspective on rituals. Binay, there’s a way to discuss/debate in public, its called etiquette. If you want to get a good perspective on etic, emic read Nisa, Number our days, moral knowing in a hindu sacred city, patterns of culture (this book is still being reprinted by Columbia), sherpas through their rituals and compare it with dangerous wives and sacred sisters. You’ll know the difference.
If a book is academically unbiased then the original publishers keep on publishing it. For example, Harvard belknap has been publishing Fairbanks’s the United States and china for the last 50 years, Columbia is publishing benedict’s patterns of culture and Sherpa through their rituals. If dangerous wives and sacred sister is at par with these other books then why didn’t Columbia publish it… there has been a wave of students majoring in Asian studies, women/gender studies and so on, and if Columbia thought that book was still relevant in today’s context then wouldn’t they be publishing it?
About bishta and his guru hamindruf, I stand my my statement.
Trailokya
|
| Binay |
Posted
on 29-Mar-02 10:51 PM
Simply wrong. I am not the one who started it. Your posting explicitly mentions that you have your own personal biases on where you stand. Do I have to say anything else. Pls do not ASSUME anything before you argue--this is where the problems lies. Why do you ASSUME that I am a Newar? What makes you think like that? How can you ASSUME that I haven't read Sherri Ortner's books, including the the most recent ones on the making of Sherpas image through mounteering. You cannot compare Lynn's ethnography with Ruth Benedicts and Sherri Ortner, they have merits on their own right. This is precisely the reason they enoy different levels of respects in American Anthropology. If you were to write a critial review, it has to be on the content of the book. How do you ASSUME that criticizing other than the content would make a good critique. Well, this is to be it.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 12:06 AM
Traolokya wrote:
"If a book is academically unbiased then the original publishers keep on publishing it. For example, Harvard belknap has been publishing Fairbanks’s the United States and china for the last 50 years, Columbia is publishing benedict’s patterns of culture and Sherpa through their rituals. "
Trailokya,
I have serious trouble with your "If a book is academically unbiased then the original publishers keep on publishing it" sort of reasoning.
And here's why.
The economics of academic publishing industry is such that any publisher has
to decide where to allocate its scarce resources so as to get a maximum return
on any academic book it publishes.
Some relatively rare exceptions like Fairbanks' that China book make a lot of money for the publisher, and are re-printed and re-issued. But those kinds of
books are rare.
The truth is: A lot of academic books do NOT make money for the publishers. In fact, they lose money.
And so, a real challenge facing any prudent academic publisher is always: how to have their academic books contribute to knowledge while somehow also making money.
And that's a very difficult challenge to rise up to for ANY academic publisher, and all they can do is use their judgment to make guesses, to take risks and hope they turn out to be winners in terms of both academic influence and financial return.
Apparently, Columbia University Press decided that re-printing Lynn's book on high-caste Hindu women's rituals would not give the Press a good financial return, or perhaps the Press decided that it has done enough for the book anyway, and has thus chosen not to re-take the risk. This is a fair enough decision, and that is why, they seemed happy to pass on the risks, as it were, to Mandala.
This sort of decisions take place ALL the time in academic book publishing
industry.
Now, here's the tricky part.
Just becase Columbia decided NOT to re-issue Lynn's book does NOT make it a biased and academically dishonest and khattam book, as you seem to be saying. This is where I have serious problem with your reasoning.
If anything, Columbia's example only proves that the academic book publishing industry is NOT immune to the forces of economics operating in that industry.
Madhav Maharjan at Mandala in Kathmandu, for some years, has noticed, by his own admission, a steady stream of visitors at his store, asking for Lynn's book.
Based on this, Madhav has decided that there is a LARGE enough 'customer-base' for the book in Nepal, and that is why he felt comfortale taking the risk of re-publishing Lynn's book in Nepal at a unit cost which makes him a decent profit, while, well, enhancing Book House ko reputation.
This is why, your using "if a book is academically unbiased then the original publishers keep on publishing it" sort of argument DIVERTS attention from discussing the substance of the book, and only makes your critics seem more believable when they accuse you of not providing critical perspectives, and, I
am sure that's not what you want.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 08:13 AM
Trailokya, I don't think I'll be able to persuade you, since u have your own opinion regarding the Shiva Linga. But nothing is certain in Science, be it natural or social, not even laws. But as a theory/hypothesis gains evidence, it becomes more convincing and is favored by more scientists. The theory I mentioned, that Pashupati is the prototype of Shiva, is actually the most popular one. You are of course welcome to come up with your own theory. But will Social Scientists buy it?
One more thing. Today's Hinduism is an amalgamation of ancient Dravidian and Aryan beliefs and traditions. I don't understand why the Aryans who conquered the Indian civilization would worship a black-skinned God.
Yes, u are right, Swasthani is pretty new compared to the Vedas. But are u gonna deny that Pashupati is in a Yogic stance??? How come Tantrism was practiced before the conquerers arrived if Shaivism is of Vedic origin?
Although I haven't read Lynn's book, it seems to me that she might be right in some of her interpretations. As I said before, even the Swasthani mentions women being physically attracted to Lord Shiva. Shiva isn't just a destroyer; he's also symbolically a life giver, since he represents fertility. So, women dancing during the Rishi Panchami might be an expression of their oppressed sexuality.
Let's not forget that Nepali culture is patriarchal; males have authority over women. In villages, it's not a big deal to see a wife washing her husband's feet. One seldom sees this tradition in Kathmandu. Anywho, where did she conduct her research? In some village, I bet...
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 08:51 AM
ashu dai,
Thanks for joining the discussion and making me aware of the economics of book publishing. I did not know that because i am not an econ major, and i don't doubt your posting.
But still, a question that remnains is:
Why there's no foreward/preface for the second edition and what make columbia uni press that the book won't make it big in the US?
Yes, you are right. I wanted to discuss the content but things went just here and there with people bringing in all sorts of views. Since, you bought the book that day and assuming that you are done reading it, please post your views, that will be of great help and we can discuss/disagree (without any racial prejudice)
BDM, you are right too. I have my own theories of Shiva-Linga. I will try to scan a picture tomorrow and post it on this site. I still have a hard time believing that Shiva (pashupati) is of dravidian origin because of the recent discovory of the same seal in Denmark. I don't think people in Denmark are dark skinned. Anyway, I can scan the picture (hopefully, if i get access to a scanner in Thamel area) and send it to you for review. And if the aryans conquered Indus valley,w hy would they worship the dravidian god? Its all complicated and you are right. I can't reach to any conclusion. Ashu dai, look at the picture carefully, tomorrow I can show you the same picture (but found in Europe) at Mike's. I know your's is a totally different field but it will be interesting for you too, i suppose.
About swasthani, BDM, swasthani originally belongs to newars of kathmandu. The original swasthani is in newari, later we parvate-bahuns copied it, translated it and started reading it. That's why there's mention of ancient newari towns like sankhu.
Anyway, its saturday night here in kathmandu and Bahas is about tob start on NTV.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to my learning (and my sincere thanks goes to people who disagreed with valid points and people who disagreed just for the sake of disagreement).
Trailokya
|
| Trailoky |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 08:52 AM
ashu dai,
Thanks for joining the discussion and making me aware of the economics of book publishing. I did not know that because i am not an econ major, and i don't doubt your posting.
But still, a question that remnains is:
Why there's no foreward/preface for the second edition and what make columbia uni press that the book won't make it big in the US?
Yes, you are right. I wanted to discuss the content but things went just here and there with people bringing in all sorts of views. Since, you bought the book that day and assuming that you are done reading it, please post your views, that will be of great help and we can discuss/disagree (without any racial prejudice)
BDM, you are right too. I have my own theories of Shiva-Linga. I will try to scan a picture tomorrow and post it on this site. I still have a hard time believing that Shiva (pashupati) is of dravidian origin because of the recent discovory of the same seal in Denmark. I don't think people in Denmark are dark skinned. Anyway, I can scan the picture (hopefully, if i get access to a scanner in Thamel area) and send it to you for review. And if the aryans conquered Indus valley,w hy would they worship the dravidian god? Its all complicated and you are right. I can't reach to any conclusion. Ashu dai, look at the picture carefully, tomorrow I can show you the same picture (but found in Europe) at Mike's. I know your's is a totally different field but it will be interesting for you too, i suppose.
About swasthani, BDM, swasthani originally belongs to newars of kathmandu. The original swasthani is in newari, later we parvate-bahuns copied it, translated it and started reading it. That's why there's mention of ancient newari towns like sankhu.
Anyway, its saturday night here in kathmandu and Bahas is about tob start on NTV.
Thanks again to everyone who contributed to my learning (and my sincere thanks goes to people who disagreed with valid points and people who disagreed just for the sake of disagreement).
Trailokya
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 09:36 AM
Trailokya wrote:
"But still, a question that remnains is:
"Why there's no foreward/preface for the second edition and what make columbia uni press that the book won't make it big in the US? "
Well, it's not really mandatory that the writer has to write a new preface or a
foreword to have her book reprinted. And just because there is no new
foreword or preface, one cannot conclude that the book's academic
merits are somehow suspect.
Sure, the books's academic merits, as you have been saying, may well be
suspect. That's fine.
But reasons for that conclusion need to come from the analysis of the contents of the book (i.e. based on stuff that's is already there in the book) and NOT from what is NOT there in the book (i.e. the issue of no new preface, no new
foreword and so on).
As for why Columbia University Press would not re-issue it, let's face it: 'Nepal studies' occupies a small, marginal and even neglected space in the vast
Western anthropological field.
It is likely that there IS a market for Nepal-related anthro books, but that market
is apparently too SMALL for Columbia to start re-printing this 1983 ko book while the the market for the same book in Nepal is BIG for Mandala to get excited
about.
In fact, in the book, Mandala actually issues a note saying: "Re-printed and published in Nepal by Mandala Book Point, with special permission from the author. The publication is a part of programme to re-print books on Nepal published by foreign based universities and organizations in order to make books available in Nepal."
I have yet to read the book. But, if you remember, in her speech at Dwarika's Hotel that evenig, Lynn did acknowledge that the book is almost is 20 years old, and hoped that -- thanks to Mandala's efforts -- the book is still relevent to students today. She also came across more as "an internatioal development" person (which she is, by profession) than someone with a tenured chair at Columbia.
On another note, the plan to discuss KFA stuff is on for tomorrow (Sunday).
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| NK |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 05:25 PM
I would also like to welcome the most venerable Ashu to this great discussion initiated by the most sacred cow of this discussion board, the Sanskrit sloka chanting, substance dodging, dishonesty smelling (from Bennet’s thesis to Mandala’s “actual” motive), Trailokya under the grandiose heading, “A Critical Review of Dangerous….” Also, thank you Ashu for giving a teeny lecture on ‘economy of academic publishing industry’ to our Trailokya even though you have not read this book like everybody else except of course Trailokya.
I was waiting for Trailokya’s justification/clarification / pointification(what is that by the way?)/verification/beatification (yeah, why not?), on other fellow posters concern, grievances, and outright incredoulness of his rhetoric, and ummmmmm I think now I got it. Thank you Trailokya for being so forthright, free of rhetoric, full of substance poster. You proved yourslelf again. From Dor Bahadur Bista’s ineptness to Kanak’s “attack” on Bahuns ,you postings always have been enlightening.
Oh yes, by the by I did ask my mother what was the meaning of her Teej dancing and she told me, “yes, definitely I was expressing my sexuality. No, not suppressed or oppressed, but just plain celebrating. ” And also she mentioned her in-laws don't know a squat about the meaning of teej dancing so better not ask them. Did you ask that Hindu kid why Ganesh has an elephant head? Also, I was extremely disappointed that I could not converse with you in private mail. That was what I was banking on you know.l To make friends with you, and all that. Damn! That was quite a reality check. I am fully awake now.
Ta Ta.
|
| BDM |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 08:47 PM
Trailokya,
Yes you are correct. In Denmark, seal that resembles Pashupati has been found. However, take a look at this image.
The mask on the left is that of Pashupati, found in the Indus valley, whereas the one on the right is of European origin. Clearly, the horns resemble male genitalia.
Yes, Shiva is of Dravidian origin. You have to keep in mind that the original Dravidians were of mediterranean origin akin to the Sumerians and the Elamites. After coming to the Indian subcontinent, they became darker, primarily because of the heat, and also because they intermingled with the indegenous austroloids. The Dravidian language has been shown to have some similarities with the Elamite and Hungarian languages. The dravidian language is of Uralic origin, and the original Dravidians might have been living in the steppes of Central Asia before migrating to India.
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 08:53 PM
NK,
here's my reply to all your prasies :-)
:-) :-) :-)
made my day!
And one thing NK, you are right, in Nepal or elsewhere wives are always dangerous, you never know who they might run away with. So, benett is very right on the title.
Other things, I take it as compliment and I hope to hear/read more compliments from you. But, there's a huge gap between us NK, so let's stay away from the idea of getting friendly than we already are.
What could be a big achievement than an emotional hot headed full of ego never willing to learn nor agree her mistakes and always seeing flaws in otehr's pieces and who has time to post long sarcastic messages that have no logic whatsoever to get involved in this discussion. :-)
This is the fun of web discussing guys, I post from nepal and somebody in Boston to Botswana loose their sleep to post comment, spend their weekends posting comnments (which most of the times do not make any sense).
Anyway, this thread has been a learning experience for me. Now I know, that i let it go here and there, the problem lies in me. I should have clearly told binay, NK and others, that Hey, I want to discuss the conent of the book, rather than just getting drifted. This time you guys succeeded, but next time, I will in cntrol. BUt, then too, I'd love our poet-ni jyu's (a dangerous wife in herself, i assume), comments.
Its sunday, enjoy your sunday afternoon.
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 09:44 PM
****I have yet to read the book. But, if you remember, in her speech at Dwarika's Hotel that evenig, Lynn did acknowledge that the book is almost is 20 years old, and hoped that -- thanks to Mandala's efforts -- the book is still relevent to students today. She also came across more as "an internatioal development" person (which she is, by profession) than someone with a tenured chair at Columbia*****
Ashu dai, I disagree with this statement. Culture changes every minute, every second, and what was popular 20-25 years ago in Nepali society might have been extinct by now. TV, Radio print media, plus growing literacy rate has changed the Nepali society in the last 20-25 eyars, so I don’t think the book is still relevant to students of Nepal studies/gender studies today.
Culture is an ecvolving process. What was culture 20-25 years ago is now un-culture. For example, 100 years ago, sati parampara was thought to be a part off our culture, 50 years ago people would marry their kids off really young, but if somebody today does that then its not considered following culture, its being uncultured.
So, I would say that book is the snap shot of RURAL nepali society 20 years ago, but the village she did her research, which is not far from Kathmandu, has probably changed a lot in the last 20 years, so how can we say that the book is still relevant and portrays a true picture of contemporary nepali society?
Trailokya
|
| Trailokya Aryal |
Posted
on 30-Mar-02 09:53 PM
Dear BDM,
Thank youi very much for sharing your knowledge on art and origin of aryan/dravidian. I sincerely thank you for the thought provoking messages/pictures that you posted. The seal that I was referring to found in denmark, is exactly the same as the one that has been found in Indus Valley.. with a man sitting, animals surrounding him, and 3 spokes coming out of his crown. I'll post that today, after I scan it. Then we can discuss more.
The origin of dravidians was new to me, and since i have no prior knowledge of it, i'll take your statement as brahma-bakya, and if i come across anything that contradicts your points, i'll definately post it, and we can discuss more.
Are you an art-history major by the way?
Trailokya
|
