gender in the Aiteraya Upanishad.

How do we read the Upanishads? -- we should always start with the Aiteraya Upanishad as it is the one that actually describes how the Universe began – this is the Big Bang moment:

1.              Om! In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. It thought, ‘Let Me create the worlds.’

2.             He created these worlds, viz. ambhas, maríci, mara, ápah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is maríci. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the ápah.

But the first two stanzas are not cohesive as a unit; is it not obvious that they were written by two different authors?

“It” thought and created the universe; and why exactly does “It” become “He”? -- this is a question no one ever asks. “It” is a gender neutral concept; and by the time we move on the next verse – this neutral Being has become masculine. We need to ask – why?

 

 

Rammohun Roy versus the Christian missionaries: and the winner is ....

THE BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE OR THE MISSIONARY AND THE BRAHMUN BEING A VINDICATION OF THE HINDOO RELIGION AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES. 

CALCUTTA, 

1821. 

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

For a period of upwards of fifty years, this country (Bengal) has been in exclusive possession of the 

English nation; during the first thirty years of which, from their word and deed, it was universally 

believed that they would not interfere with the religion of their subjects, and that they truly wished

every man to act in such matters according to the dictates of his own conscience. Their possessions

 in Hindoostan and their political strength have, through the grace of God gradually increased. But

 during the last twenty years, a body of English gentlemen who are called missionaries, have been 

publicly endeavouring, in several ways, to convert Hindoos and Mussulmans of this country into

 Christianity. The first way is that of publishing and distributing among the natives various books,

 large and small, reviling both religions, and abusing and ridiculing the gods and saints of the former: 

the second way is that of standing in front of the doors of the natives or in the public roads to preach the

 excellency of their own religion and the debasedness of that of others: the third way is that if any 

natives of low origin become Christians from the desire of gain or from any other motives, these

 gentlemen employ and maintain them as a necessary encouragement to others to follow their example. 

It is true that the apostles of Jesus Christ used to preach the superiority of the Christian religion

 to the natives of different countries. But we must recollect that they were not of the rulers of those 

countries where they preached. Were the missionaries likewise to preach the Gospel and distribute 

books in countries not conquered by the English, such as Turkey, Persia, &c., which are such nearer 

England, they would be esteemed a body of men truly zealous in propagating their religion and in

 following the example of the founders of Christianity. In Bengal, where the English are the sole

 rulers, and where the mere name of Englishman is sufficient to frighten people, an encroachment 

upon the rights of her poor timid and humble inhabitants and upon their religion, cannot be viewed 

in the eyes of God or the public as a justifiable act. For wise and good men always feel disinclined 

to hurt those that are of much less strength than themselves, and if such weak creatures be dependent

 on them and subject to their authority, they can never attempt, even in thought, to mortify their feelings. 

....

Now, in the Mission-press of Shreerampore a letter showing the unreasonableness of all the 

Hindoo Shastrus having appeared, I have inserted in the 1st and 2nd number of this magazine all 

the questions in the above letter as well as their answers, and afterwards the replies that may be 

made by both parties shall in like manner be published. 

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

In giving the contents of the following pages to the world in a new edition, I think it necessary to

 prefix a short explanation of the origin of the controversy, and the manner in which it concluded. 

The BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE was commenced for the purpose of answering the objections 

against the Hindoo Religion contained in a Bengallee Weekly Newspaper, 

entitled "SUMMACHAR DURPUN," conducted by some of the most eminent of the 

Christian Missionaries, and published at Shreerampore. In that paper of the 14th July, 1821, 

a letter was inserted containing certain doubts regarding the Shastrus, to which the writer invited 

any one to favour him with an answer, through the same channel. I accordingly sent a reply in the

 Bengallee language, to which, however, the conductors of the work calling for it, refused insertion; 

and I therefore formed the resolution of publishing the whole controversy with an English translation 

in a work of my own "the Brahmunical Magazine," now re-printed, which contains all that was written 

on both sides. 

In the first number of the MAGAZINE I replied to the arguments they adduced against the Shastrus, 

or immediate explanations of the Veds, our original Sacred Books; and in the second I answered the 

objections urged against the Poorans and Tantras, or Historical Illustrations of the Hindoo Mythology, 

showing that the doctrines of the former are much more rational than the religion which the Missionaries

 profess, and that those of the latter, if unreasonable, are not more so than their Christian Faith. To this 

the Missionaries made a reply in their work entitled the "FRIEND OF INDIA," No. 38, which was 

immediately answered by me in the 3rd No. of the Magazine; and from the continuation of a regular 

controversy of this kind, I expected that in a very short time, the truth or fallacy of one or other of our 

religious systems would be clearly established; but to my great surprise and disappointment, the 

Christian Missionaries, after having provoked the discussion, suddenly abandoned it; and the 3rd No. 

of my Magazine has remained unanswered for nearly two years. During that long period the Hindoo

 community, (to whom the work was particularly addressed and therefore printed both in Bengallee 

and English), have made up their minds that the arguments of the BRAHMUNICAL MAGAZINE are

 unanswerable; and I now republish, therefore, only the English translation, that the learned among 

Christians, in Europe as well as in Asia, may form their opinion on the subject.

It is well-known to the whole world, that no people on earth are more tolerant than the Hindoos, 

who believe all men to be equally within the reach of Divine beneficence, which embraces the good

 of every religious sect and denomination: therefore it cannot be imagined that my object in publishing 

this Magazine was to oppose Christianity; but I was influenced by the conviction that persons who 

travel to a distant country for the purpose of overturning the opinions of its inhabitants and introducing 

their own, ought to be prepared to demonstrate that the latter are more reasonable than the former. 

Intolerance in Christian missionary zeal in the early years of print in colonial India.

Missionaries who traveled to India - alongside the East India Company - were involved in proselytising, and oftentimes, the means used to do so  - reviled local Indian, Hindu customs. There is ample documentation of their methods used in the writings of Rammohun Roy:

It is fitting that we also consider the other side of the picture of how native print that was made use of by the Britishers; by the early nineteenth century, missionaries had started to try to convert Hindus by distributing free pamphlets. Rammohun Roy wrote  about this phenomenon in 1821 in The Brahmanical Magazine or The Missionary and the Brahmun:

                                  

… But during the last twenty years, a body of English gentlemen, who are called missionaries, have been publicly endeavoring, in several ways to convert Hindoos and Mussalmans of this country into Christianity. The first way is that of publishing and distributing among the natives various books, large and small, reviling both religions…

if they were true missionaries, they would preach in countries like Turkey and Persia, … In Bengal, where the English are the sole rulers, and where the mere name of Englishman is sufficient to frighten people, an encroachment upon the rights of her poor timid and humble inhabitants and upon their religion, cannot be viewed [as a justifiable act][1] 

In order to transmit the ideas of Christianity, knowledge of native languages was needed, alongside the complete establishment of native fonts. This was but one of the central reasons as to why there was so much immediate efforts taken by the Baptist missionaries to fund the formation of native fonts

The Srirampur Missionary Press played an important role in cultivating and establishing print for the natives. The history of the Baptist Mission and its publishing endeavor is intrinsic to any description of how print in Calcutta was democratised. This history also reveals the workings of the Company, and their deep fears. Initially, Bengali letterpress technology was mastered by Charles Wilkins who worked for the East India Company. Eventually, this technology was transferred to the Baptist Mission Press. Baptist missionaries had a zeal to interact with the Hindus and proselytize, permission for which was refused by the British government in order to prevent antagonism from the natives. It was, after all, only with the collaboration with the natives that the East India Company could rule in a fashion that did not lead to open rebellion. William Carey (1761-1834), a Baptist missionary, was a pioneer of sorts in his efforts to print a large number of texts in Bengali. Carey was working in Malda, in north Bengal, when he translated the Bible into Bengali. His teacher, Ramram Bose, helped him with the translations. In order to print it, Bengali fonts were needed. Reading an advertisement in the newspaper, Carey got in contact with Panchanan Karmakar, where he learnt of a foundry in Calcutta. Carey purchased a printing press for forty pounds and he set it up in Malda. His request to the London Missionary Society asking for more missionaries was granted, and he was joined by others in 1799, who urged him to reside in Srirampur, a Danish enclave and outside the East India Company’s jurisdiction. Carey, along with the other missionaries, formed the Baptist Mission in 1800 and in order to make a functional printing press, was joined by Karmakar in the same year. Karmakar was assisted by another craftsman and a pupil of Charles Wilkins, Manohar. He made punches of more than twelve Indian languages, and also of Chinese. It was here that the New Testament was printed in 1801. Biblical texts were translated and printed, and tracts were disseminated among the people. They were assisted in these works by pandits.

 

---

[1] Rammohun Roy, The Brahmanical Magazine, p. 138.

Creating Bridges.

For civilizations to survive, we need to be able to live harmoniously. The inevitable question is: how do we do it?


If we closely examine the following verse from the Mundaka Upanishad, we come to the understanding that there are many paths -- “rivers” -- to realising God – the “sea”; and that on realising God, the self becomes “freed from name and form” and merges with Brahma. This realisation is greater than “Maya” which is the tangible world around us.

As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reaches the self-effulgent Purusa that is higher than the higher (Máyá).

There are two tropes that recur and are of relevance for the moment: the abstraction of God versus the tangible notion of Maya. These two tropes are central to all religious texts; they are articulated in a different manner – but if we closely read what other religious texts have to offer – we will arrive at the same results.

The following is an extract from the second chapter of the Koran; “Al-Baqarah”:

This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah …

Who believe in the unseen …

And who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you

…

Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe …

 

The “disbelievers” are those who are enmeshed in Maya; and those “who believe in the unseen” are those who have realised God.

 

In order to establish a civilizational balance – the perfect chi – and to ensure that we are not enmeshed in perpetual battles – we need to create bridges across religious divides.

The Upanishad and the Koran.

In the Mundaka Upanishad, there is a verse which basically talks about the fact that there is but one God, and all the different religions (the “rivers”) talk about ways to reach to God:

As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on reaching the sea [that is, God] by giving up their names and forms …

In todays day and age, we cannot live in a divisive manner; in fact – we have to understand that all religions have the same elements of truth. All religions talk about ways to realising God.

If we examine the following verse from the Koran.

The Opening

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[1.1] All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
[1.2] The Beneficent, the Merciful.
[1.3] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1.4] Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
[1.5] Keep us on the right path.
[1.6] The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray.

 

The day of Judgement is the act of understanding that all of us are a part of God/ Allah.

The “right” path is the path which allows us to understand God – that we are not separate from God; not to realize this – is to go “astray.”

 

The conundrum lies in the fact: can a “Beneficent” and “Merciful” God also be “wrathful”? a kind and generous God cannot be “wrath[ful]”. Does the cohesiveness of the text collapse as it deconstructs itself?

The lure of Maya.

From the Mundaka Upanishad.

The Purusa is transcendental, since S/He is formless. And since S/He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since S/He is birthless, therefore S/He is without vital force and without mind. S/He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable (Máyá).

All that we are, and all that we see and feel and touch - is a part of Máyá. We live every day within social systems of nations and communities and amongst our families; and we talk about our histories of the past and of wars fought long ago and being fought in the present  – all of this is Máyá. We believe this to be Life; this life is so extremely tangible and tactile and visceral -  we assume this to be Real. We love our children; and we love our lovers and we love our parents – and we are caught in this love. And because we believe in this life with absolute conviction – it is nearly as perfect as Brahman/ Purusa Itself from within which we all emerged.

Why is Máyá imperishable? – is it not obvious? -- we are caught in the cycle of life.

And Máyá is nearly as superior to the Purusa/ Brahman which is “coextensive” with the whole Universe and is “birthless.”

Can Europe undo the epistemic violence of the past?

Can Europe undo the epistemic violence of the past?

What is an undisputed fact is that the epistemic violence that accompanies any Eurocentric discourse about the Other, enables and allows for the emergence of an unfathomable kind of a civilizational difference, where the writing Self-Subject and the Other are always caught in static binaries. There is a large body of theoretical scholarship that examines the nature of western colonial encounters with the colonies. For the most, postcolonial theory has tended to focus on the engagement between Europe and the colonies they acquired in Asia and Africa. Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), for example, in his works arrives at a disenfranchised Alegrian identity which underwent absolute rupture in the presence of the French colonizer.^[1] In Black Skin, White Mask, he writes that the black psyche undergoes alienation in the presence of the superior French culture. He describes the black man in the following manner:

The black man has two dimensions. One with his fellows, the other with the white man. A Negro behaves differently with the white man and with another Negro. That this self division is a direct result of colonialist subjugation is beyond question. …

Every colonized people – in other words, every people in whose soul an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality – finds itself face to face with the language of the civilizing nation; that is, with the culture of  the mother country. The colonized is elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards. He becomes whiter as he renounces his blackness, his jungle.^[2]

For Fanon, European cultural engagement leads to a complete erasure of his black African identity. What we draw from Fanon, who was writing around the 1950s, is a kind of an idea of the hybrid subject, where he describes a socio-psychical situation where the colonial subject was absolutely at the mercy of the colonial powers.

---

[1] His following works are representative of his ideas: Black Skin, White Mask, Reprint of Peau noire, masques blancs (London: Pluto Press, 1986) and The Wretched of the Earth, Reprint of Les damnes de la terre  (New York: Grove, 1968).

[2] “Remembering Fanon, Introduction,” in Black Skin, White Mask, ed. Homi Bhabha, pp. 17-18.