Kartik Krushna Trayodashi
By Seshachalam Dutta, M.S.,Ph.D.
There is enough said about Dr. Carr’s adventures into the interpretation of Ramayana. My adding to it may be superfluous. I have to take issue with her insistence on peer review and that the commentators be Ph.Ds.
She has absolute misunderstanding of peer review process. First of all, who are peers? Peers for journal reviews are those who are specialists in a narrow discipline, peers are your colleagues or of same standing as you are as in American jury system. My being a Ph.D and a scientist with several peer reviewed publications I have something to say to Dr. Carr and she may pay attention to the nature of peer review in publications.
The difficulty in obtaining valid peer review in the U.S for Indian literature, especially Sanskrit, is that there are no recognized authorities in the U.S. In the U.S "PhDs" are dime a dozen and one calling himself an Indologist does not insure that he/she has read original Sanskrit texts, he/she has adequate knowledge of Sanskrit, and is capable of interpreting them. Like Karen Carr, PhD, they are self-styled experts reviewing each other’s articles. This lady is terribly mistaken that reviewers or commentators should be Ph.Ds. I would like to draw her attention to one case.
The case in point is of Sir. S. Radhakrishnan, who never earned a Ph.D. He had M.A. from Madras. But, he was the recognized authority on interpretation of Hinduism. He was Higgins Professor of Eastern Religion at Oxford and was awarded hundred honorary doctorates. Mahatma Gandhi had no Ph.D. Karen cannot argue they would not be qualified to judge her writings. She may also know that one may not get a competent "peer" for a review. Einstein’s paper on quantum mechanics was not peer reviewed for lack of peers! It was published by the editor Max Planck, who became later another Nobel Laureate. Because of the political nature of peer review system with factors like ethnic bias or conflict of interest influencing decisions open peer review became common during 2000s. So much about her obsession with peer review.
Now a word about Ramayana, "maha kavya." The legendary story of Ramayana was known via tradition by the time Valmiki wrote it as Ramayana, as depicted in a finely illustrated one act play of Tagore. The details and embellishments were the product of the genius of Valmiki. I suggest Karen to read the original Ramayana of Valmiki to grasp the greatness of this legend and to appreciate Vanaras (mistranslated as monkeys) who were not depicted as inferior beings – no Dravidians (not South Indians)! They were superior to humans (like Superman).
Hanuman could fly across the ocean, had the ability to become miniaturized being and change his form. Whole south was not filled with Vanaras. Rama encountered other humans like Gaya, a boat man, Shabari, an old lady, and there were other humans in the forest beside Vanaras. The myth that Dravidians are dark and Aryans are white is also a foolish assumption. Rama (as well as Krishna) was described as dark and extremely handsome. Neither the Vanaras nor the Rakshasas** were Dravidians. There was no concept of "Aryan race" or for that matter there was no concept of "race" then.
I commend any non-Indian who learns and writes about these works; but before that, they have to spend time and effort to learn emulating a few like David Frawley are doing it with great dedication. Until then a little humility may serve them well.
Addendum by Shree Vinekar, M.D.
Finally, if Karen said sky is green and Indian authors without Ph.D. after their name said it is blue, the latter do not have to produce peer reviewed articles to prove their point. Everyone knows sky is blue and everyone knows there are no South Indian "bad monkeys" in Ramayana and what Karen calls Monkeys are Vanaras that are mostly Rama’s friends, and allies, who are viewd for millennia as the "good monkeys." Such gross errors are indicative of the author having never read the original epic with any diligence. Wendy Doniger, a University of Chicago Indologist, stated on the second page of her "Introduction" to Paul Courtright’s infamous book on Ganesha that "Ganesha dictated Mahabharata to sage Vyasa." It is a gross error and the reverse is the generally accepted fact all over India for millennia as presented in the authentic versions of Mahabharata.
To argue that Indian scholars should produce peer reviewed articles to prove Wendy is wrong in her assertion would reflect arrogance on the part of the debator. This is what we mean by the Monkey Business of the Western Indologists. Please see "Demystifying Shri Hanuman" on www.swaveda.com .
**P. S. by Seshachalam Dutta
**Rakshasas were not demons. They were demigods(Asuraas versus Suraas), endowed with super human powers, not stub-nosed short midget Dravidians as envisioned by the so called Indologists. Ravana himself was described as a dark, magnificiantly handsome person. The greatness of Valmiki’s work is to raise the standards of humanity to lofty levels even with human failings and to define nobility; Rama being described as a perfect man.
When Hanuman beheld Ravana on the throne at the first sight he exclaims, what a beautiful, majestic , magnanimous, valourous and firm personality fit enough to protect the heavens, if only he would be righteous!! ( Aho rupa maho dhairya maho satwa maho dhrutih Rakshsarajasya sarvalakshana yukta- Sundara Kanda). Rama himself was astounded at the sight of Ravana in the battle field, perceiving him "as brilliant as mid day Sun," not withstanding that his enemy held his wife as captive!
Such was the grace and nobility portrayed in the epic. It is not a story of cowboys and Indians – bad guys against good guys, from the Western cartoons as comprehended by a racist Dr. Karen Carr who is probably just an anthropologist who is projecting her own conscious and unconscious conflits and guilt on the great ancient Indian poet’s magnificent work of art. Those looking for anthropology in a classics such as Ramayana, not grasping the enormity of beauty of humanities in a classic epic that has resonated in the Hindu culture for two millennia are pathetically uninformed, looking for pits in a bowl of cherries to achieve their own ignoble goals discolored by their Christist or racial and imagined moral superiority which are replete in their Unconscious and conscious minds.
Source: Sukta-Sumana.com
