A colleague working in an area with a strong Indian minority sent me the following question:
Some of our Indian students have difficulty with how certain Sanskrit texts are taught. They are frustrated that we treat, e.g., the Rāmayāṇa as literature, and the Bhagavad Gītā as philosophy, and feel that this does not show respect to the texts. Our instructors have tried to challenge everyone to consider their definitions of what texts count as religious, whether from ancient Greece, China, or India, but some students still find these approaches to be disrespectful. I wonder if you have any thoughts about how to engage with students coming from (I’m guessing) relatively conservative Hindu contexts who are being taught their favorite religious texts in a non-religious way. Do you have any strategies for helping them feel less alienated? Or for demonstrating respect for the texts even while applying critical reading strategies?
It is an interesting question and one that regards not only Hindu students, I think. I, for one, tend to stress a few things:
- I explain at the beginning of the classes that I am not going to just deliver knowledge contents (encyclopedias and other books are there for this purpose). Rather, I use classes to help myself and my students to do some exercise in critical thinking. If they dislike this, and prefer to remain in the cosy world of their unshaken prejudices about India (and I tell some “Orientalist” examples), they should skip my class.
- I also mention Th. Adorno’s “„Das Halbverstandene und Halberfahrene ist nicht die Vorstufe der Bildung, sondern ihr Todfeind“ and the Dunning-Kruger effect. I then substantiate it by giving to the students a set of ten easy questions (such as “Which texts are included in the Vedas?”), which they usually fail to answer correctly, so that they can see how much they don’t know, which enables them to be open for new challenges.
- I constantly try to question my own background while discussing Indian materials. The discussion of Vedic rituals and their dehi me dadāmi te (TS) approach is a good chance to engage with ex voto offerings and their do ut des mechanism. Yesterday, for instance, I mentioned the belief of some of our parents and grandparents who offer something to S. Anthony of Padua in order to find a missing set of keys or some missing glasses. In this way, I hope that students understand that “critical thinking” does not mean “I am the superior one and can criticise someone else”. I also try to stress how seemingly descriptive terms are in fact normative judgements (e.g. “Indian religions are polytheistic”) and to warn students about mistaking what is normal for them as what is “the normal” for everyone and “the right” for everyone.
- Yesterday we were discussing the Bhagavadgītā and someone asked whether it can really be the work of a single person. I explained briefly that there are different theories and that since we were at this point dealing with the Bhagavadgītā as a theological text and its commentaries we would not need to deal with the problem of its origins, since Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva all regarded it as a single-authored work. In other words, I try to distinguish the precincts of discourse.
This being said, it is also true that students of South Asian origin are always less than 30% in my classes and that some of them come from different backgrounds (last year I had a student of Sikh origin, this year a student of Parsi origin, a few Buddhist ones are also often present).
What worked for readers, both as students and as teachers?
You are dealing with a very unique group of students. I would be interested to know what motivates these Indian students to study ancient Indian texts in a Western University. These students must have a desire to understand their heritage from a third person perspective. If I want to understand my father, I should go to my father and ask him question which help me understand him. For me to go to the neighbor and ask about my father would mean that there is something unsatisfactory about my father’s answer. If you turn this around on the student and ask them why is it that they are seeking knowledge about ancient Indian texts outside India that would be a great place to start the conservation. Most thinking people can introspect and understand that education is a process of learning. Learning cannot happen without the courage to deconstruct prior knowledge where needed.
Thank you, Salil. I completely agree with the fact that learning involves also deconstructing (in the best case: our prejudices). This is also what makes life a never-ending process of learning, in my opinion.
I guess that this sort of problems does not arise with South Asian students who have consciously decided to study abroad. The problem rather regards students of South Asian origin who just attend general classes in the university nearby. My colleagues say that they have similar problems with second- or third-generation immigrants from country X, Y or Z, who might be less open to discuss the history, society and politics of countries X, Y and Z.
Dr. Freschi, you have made a very accurate observation. In general, the immigrants from the Indian Subcontinent have been motivated by improving their economic conditions. The fact that they had to leave the Subcontinent for a better life clearly must be irksome. On the one hand, they want to be proud of their heritage, yet on the other hand that pride has to be squared with the economic realities which compelled them to abandon their homeland in the first place. That is the reason for the muted attitude in public towards history, politics, and religion. They probably blame the forces of history and politics for their predicament, having to start life in a whole new land. Because of this, they tend not to engage in these discussions publically (about the old country’s history or politics) with the locals. However, when they are in more private social settings among themselves, they have very emotional and candid discussions on the topics of religion, history, and politics. Hope this helps explain your observation.
Maybe you should also emphasise that the Hindu sacred spiritual texts are meant really for serious practice and introspection. Nobody who has not attained the level of consciousness spoken of there can really understand them. It is preposterous to think some academics who are mainly worried about tenure and promotions will be able to throw any light on these texts. Blind leading the blind…
For your students, it will be a much better experience to approach a living master and get these concepts clarified than get confused by a third hand mental explanation from some academic in the west.
Clearly it would be more enriching for the students to see how the substance of a text written around 2-4 thousand years ago is currently being (or “not being”) practiced by the modern practitioners. It would show the student how the subject is being framed in 2018. It would be analogous to being enriched with exposure to the modern Christian clergy in course of studying Christianity or being exposed to pilots while studying the history of aerodynamics.
However, the desire to “study Christianity (or the history of aerodynamics)” should not be confused with the desire to “become a Christian (a pilot)”. You don’t have to become a Christian (pilot) to study Christianity (the history of aerodynamics). One can be an expert in the subject of Christianity (the history of aerodynamics) without actually practicing Christianity (being a pilot). The same applies to the study of any particular religious’ text, Hinduism is no exception. Spirituality on the other hand is not bound to texts. It is experiential. Since the latter is experiential, one has to attain the experience through a practitioner. You cannot become a dancer by reading books.
No religious practice is static. Someone practicing Hinduism in 2018 does not have an automatic authority on “Hinduism practiced in 1900 BCE”. To understand the Ashvamedha, you cannot go to a modern Hindu priest and have him recite Rig Veda 1.162. Nor would you get anywhere by asking a modern spiritualist from the Indian Subcontinent about the details of Ashvamedha. To understand Ashvamedha, you would have to learn Vedic Sanskrit, the greater historical context, approach the subject with an open mind, be aware of the known facts, and be willing to change your mind when you get new information about the subject. When you have composed your understanding, you get to share it with others who are also experts in the field. Finally, you cannot cry “fault” when your colleagues challenge your ideas. That is the beauty of academics which sets it apart from the actual practice of the priest or the spiritualist.
Thank you, Salil, the example with pilotes and Christians is very well put.
I think the original issue was about teaching sacred texts like Baghvad Gita etc. At the least, the instructor can make it clear at the beginning of the course that the contents of these texts pertain to a reality rarely accessible to average human beings. That would be respectful.
Thank you, Prashanth, I hope that your suggestion will make dialogue easier.
Thank you. I am an infrequent visitor to your website, but am impressed by the amount of material put out here. Great work.
Thank you, Prashanth, also for your contribution to the discussion.
My remark about the Rig Veda (RV) applies equally to the Bhagavad Gita (BG). The beauty of academics is that we can have thought experiments (and sometimes even test them). Suppose there are four classes of Bhagavad Gita (A, B, C, & D) each of which cover exactly the same material and are taught exactly the same way. (a) Study of Bhagavad Gita in Class A begins with the instructor making a statement, “Dear students, the content of this text pertains to a reality rarely accessible to average human beings”. (b) Study of Bhagavad Gita in Class B begins with the instructor making a statement, “Dear students, some people believe that the content of this text pertains to a reality rarely accessible to average human beings”. (c) Study of Bhagavad Gita in Class C begins with the instructor making no such introductory remark and the professor proceeds with the lectures exactly like the ones in class A, B, or D. (d) Study of Bhagavad Gita in class D begins with the instructor making a statement, “Dear students, if any of you believe the content of the Bhagavad Gita to be unquestionably true as it is presently understood by you and that you are not open to discussion, this class is not for you.
Now let’s assume the content of the Bhagavad Gita (BG) is true and rarely accessible to average human beings. Then the same would be true of a course in the content of Quantum Mechanics (QM), such that QM is “true and rarely accessible to average human beings”. No professor would be expected to begin a class in Quantum Mechanics with the statement, “Dear students, the content of this text on QM pertains to a reality rarely accessible to average human beings”. Such a remark would show that the professor is dogmatic about his/her beliefs regarding the subject of QM. It would be more reasonable to begin the class without any such remark (as in example c). There would also be no problem in starting the class on QM with the remark “Dear students, some people believe that the content of QM pertains to a reality rarely accessible to average human beings”. Finally, it would also be appropriate to say, “Dear students, if you already know QM and find it difficult to discuss the subject with an open mind, this class is not for you”.
I just say: rarely accessible to average human beings. The other half of the statement would be “accessible to anyone who makes the required extraordinary effort”. This also takes into account the fact that you need to put extraordinary effort to UNDERSTAND quantum mechanics. To EXPERIENCE quantum phenomenon is beyond even the best scientist.
We greatly appreciative that the ancient literature, sacred and secular, of the Indian Subcontinent is being studied by academic scholars throughout the world, particularly in the US and in Europe. We thank and show our gratitude to all academic scholars like Dr. Elisa Freschi who have spent (and continue to spend) countless hours studying the subject in a peer review academic setting. Their work enriches our experience with understanding. This is precisely the reason why it is the student who must approach the subject with an open mind and come to class with a sense of humility.
The experience of QM (or the experience of listening to the lines of the BG) is effortless. Conscious beings with eyes have experienced “Quantum Tunneling” since the very first among us set gaze upon the majesty of the setting (or rising) sun. Even today, countless conscious beings visually experience the setting sun but very few understand the intricate details of QM. The experience of “Black body radiation” can be had by anyone staring at the light bulb. It took the works of Robert Kirchhoff and many other academic contributors of QM to help some of us comprehend QM in all its richness. Experience is effortless while understanding takes time, effort, and dedication. This is the beauty of academics.
I wish to see a future where academicians are invited to the temples in order to enhance our understanding of the great literature of the Indian Subcontinent, secular and sacred.
thank you, Salil. Whenever I look at a manuscript and know that it will soon literally fall into pieces and that we only have, say, a couple of decades to preserve, read and study it, I hope we will stop arguing and join forces to just continue working for the sake of knowledge.