U.S. companies getting “richer” and “richer” (we’re not talking about capital)
Bruce B. writes:
From my company news:
_______ Celebrates Diwali, a Hindu Festival—11/10/2006
Diversity is comprised of the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life and help us achieve business success. Sharing our diverse backgrounds and cultures helps us all of us to better understand one another and the talents we bring to the workplace. The Technical Operations team in _______ hosted a Diversity luncheon at which Electrical Engineer _________ and Mechanical Engineer _________ shared a very informative presentation on the history of Indian culture.
The Diversity event included information on celebrations, Hindu gods, music, language, painting, dance, sculpture, architecture, temples and culture, complete with photos, traditional Indian music and a lunch buffet of traditional Indian foods.
“_______ Corporation is committed to creating one company, one team, all-inclusive, where diversity contributes to mission success. Diversity at _______ is an inclusive team that values and leverages each person’s individuality.
Just for fun, I googled “Hindu gods”:
Although all Hindus acknowledge the existence and importance of a number of gods and demigods, most individual worshipers are primarily devoted to a single god or goddess, of whom Shiva, Vishnu, and the Goddess are the most popular.
Shiva embodies the apparently contradictory aspects of a god of ascetics and a god of the phallus. He is the deity of renouncers, particularly of the many Shaiva sects that imitate him: Kapalikas, who carry skulls to reenact the myth in which Shiva beheaded his father, the incestuous Brahma, and was condemned to carry the skull until he found release in Benares (now Varanasi); Pashupatas, worshipers of Shiva Pashupati, “Lord of Beasts”; and Aghoris, “to whom nothing is horrible,” yogis who eat ordure or flesh in order to demonstrate their complete indifference to pleasure or pain. Shiva is also the deity whose phallus (linga) is the central shrine of all Shaiva temples and the personal shrine of all Shaiva householders; his priapism is said to have resulted in his castration and the subsequent worship of his disembodied phallus.
It’s good to know that worship of a Hindu god’s penis is contributing to my company’s “mission success.”
LA replies:
Doesn’t Shiva’s phallus take the form of a large standing stone, the lingam, that believers bathe in hot butter? I saw a film at the Asian Society in New York showing that. Here is one article on the lingam cult that sort of argues that the lingam is an abstract symbol of Shiva, but then admits the lingam is Shiva’s phallus, which when joined with the yoni of Parvati, Shiva’s consort, is the origin of the universe.
We all know that Hinduism contains a higher spiritual aspect, as taught in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, and brought to the West in the 19th century by Swami Vivekananda, follower of Sri Ramakrishna and founder of the Vedanta Society. But at the popular level Hinduism seems to be centered on these nature-worshipping and priapic aspects as well.
- end of initial entry -
An Indian living in the West writes:
Hindusim isn’t really a “religion” as people understand it in the West. There is no uniform body of thought and belief and there is no unifying text like the Koran or the Bible. As a result, you have “cults”—there are cults of “babas” which probably has no parallel in the world. The “classical” Hinduism of ancient India (and here I am referring to what is popularly termed as the “Aryan” version) was founded on great myths that are similar to the myths among the ancient Greeks. I would say that the Vedas, Upanishads, the Mahabharata (of which the Gita is a part) and the Ramayan form the core of the “classical” element.
I remember a joke when I was growing up. “Question: who is a Hindu? Answer: Someone who isn’t Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Sikh or Jain etc.” Therefore, by default, the “aboriginal” tribes spread all over the country are Hindus just as much as the Brahmins of, say, Punjab and Kashmir, even though they don’t necessarily share those beliefs or Gods.
Hinduism should be separated from the “celebration” of diversity which vain white liberals engage in. That “celebration” is a celebration of their vanity and their ego (and their supposedly higher moralism) rather than a celebration of Hinduism. The same corporations also have their employees wear pink (as some European companies have now started doing) on certain days to show their solidarity and hyper tolerance of gays. So it is, I think, not a “celebration” of gays or Hindus or Muslims “as such” but a display of their vanity and also a slap in the face of everything one associates with the traditional West—i.e. European derived peoples and Christianity.
Bruce B. writes:
“Hinduism should be separated from the “celebration” of diversity which vain white liberals engage in.”
Very good, I was afraid we’d get flack from that post.
The phallic aspect wasn’t mentioned in the company’s online presentation so I suppose my sarcasm was a bit of a stretch. But it did go depict a bizarre array of Hindu gods. Why not an Christian presentation to Evangelize everyone? It’s just irritating being email forcefed the multicult stuff on a daily basis.
BTW, most Indians I have known are either secular or Christians (often Catholic). I would guess that Hinduism is even more incongruent with the “spirit of the modern age” than traditional Christianity is.
Vivek writes:
(1) Firstly let us remember that the worshippers of ‘penise’ have no book that says “Go and kill those who do not worship penise”. Further, let us [not] ignore how and why certain symbolisms crop up in various religions, what these symbolisms mean and how their meanings changed over time, and assume for the time being that `the lingam’ is merely and only a `phallic symbol’. Even then, it can only be as appalling to someone outsider, as a description of common post-prayer Christian practice in the Church of `eating the flesh and bone of the Christ’ as cannibalism. Both are outrageous, but both descriptions are superficial as well.
(2) A large number of `secular’ Indians in the west as well as in India are as secular-liberal as their fraternity elsewhere. So as White secular-liberals hate and are ashamed of their tradition, so are these. And one can hardly learn about their true tradition from such folks. More over, I’d rather learn about Christianity by reading the Bible than `observing’ Bruce’s life, and Bruce too must do likewise. However, to learn how current American Christians behave Bruce may be one of the members of the sample, as I can be of current Hindus in India. Bruce writes “BTW, most Indians I have known are either secular or Christians (often Catholic). I would guess that Hinduism is even more incongruent with the “spirit of the modern age” than traditional Christianity is.” This question involves three significant terms, viz., `Traditional Christianity’, `Hinduism’, and `Spirit of Modern Age’. In light of generally prevalent ignorance on these terms, Bruce’s guess seems a rather hasty. A large number of Indians are in the west in search of greener pasteurs, and not for representing Indianness. As American multinationals `celebrate’ Diwali in India to spread their market-base, so the immigrants may do their bit. Please recall that—`Market’ or economics governs the whole of life—is a secular-liberal idea.
(3) An even more serious point is that outbursts, sarcasms like those of Bruce (I would rather guess that Bruce wrote his comment more to express his disgust with `multiculturism’ rather than to mud-sling Hinduism), are the examples on which Seculars, Atheists, Liberals build the case for their diatribe against tradition. They easily generalize that Religion causes Hatred amongst people. I wonder if , as conservatives, one should strengthen their case by supplying examples.
P.S. I am pleasantly surprised to learn that you have heard of Swami Vivekananda. His book (a collection of his lectures) titled “What Religion Is: In the words of Swami Vivekananda” is a nice primer for those who want to learn about Hinduism. Some of the information is available free online here.
An Indian living in the West writes:
Bruce: The phallic aspect wasn’t mentioned in the company’s online presentation so I suppose my sarcasm was a bit of a stretch. But it did go depict a bizarre array of Hindu gods. Why not an Christian presentation to Evangelize everyone? It’s just irritating being email forcefed the multicult stuff on a daily basis.
BTW, most Indians I have known are either secular or Christians (often Catholic). I would guess that Hinduism is even more incongruent with the “spirit of the modern age” than traditional Christianity is.
Bruce’s reaction is healthy in the sense of feeling aggrieved at the way in which alien cultures and practices are shoved down his throat by vain white liberals—and he has a right to be angry. However, I hope Bruce feels no anger if, say, Hindus in India feel the same way about Christmas. If one were to take a Burkean view of things, Christianity is good for the English (and the Americans) and Hinduism good for the Indians, so let’s keep it that way.
I also don’t agree with Bruce’s description because in my experience the majority of Indians I have met in the West have tended to be mildly observant Hindus—in fact, the majority I know of don’t even eat meat which is for purely religious reasons.
Vivek: Firstly let us remember that the worshippers of ‘penise’ have no book that says “Go and kill those who do not worship penise”. Further, let us [not] ignore how and why certain symbolisms crop up in various religions, what these symbolisms mean and how their meanings changed over time, and assume for the time being that `the lingam’ is merely and only a `phallic symbol’. Even then, it can only be as appalling to someone outsider, as a description of common post-prayer Christian practice in the Church of `eating the flesh and bone of the Christ’ as cannibalism. Both are outrageous, but both descriptions are superficial as well.
In matters of the divine, what would otherwise be thought of as patently absurd often gains footing—this is neither mocking religion nor commending it. For instance, if we were to look at some of the religious practices of the ancient Greeks, we as modern people would be thoroughly appalled. But I don’t think anyone on their right mind could dismiss all of the contributions of the ancient Greek city states based on that reason alone. One could say the same about the Pharaohs and numerous other civilizations.
Vivek: A large number of `secular’ Indians in the west as well as in India are as secular-liberal as their fraternity elsewhere. So as White secular-liberals hate and are ashamed of their tradition, so are these. And one can hardly learn about their true tradition from such folks. More over, I’d rather learn about Christianity by reading the Bible than `observing’ Bruce’s life, and Bruce too must do likewise. However, to learn how current American Christians behave Bruce may be one of the members of the sample, as I can be of current Hindus in India. Bruce writes “BTW, most Indians I have known are either secular or Christians (often Catholic). I would guess that Hinduism is even more incongruent with the “spirit of the modern age” than traditional Christianity is.” This question involves three significant terms, viz., `Traditional Christianity’, `Hinduism’, and `Spirit of Modern Age’. In light of generally prevalent ignorance on these terms, Bruce’s guess seems a rather hasty. A large number of Indians are in the west in search of greener pasteurs, and not for representing Indianness. As American multinationals `celebrate’ Diwali in India to spread their market-base, so the immigrants may do their bit. Please recall that—`Market’ or economics governs the whole of life—is a secular-liberal idea.
I don’t like using the word “secular” when referring to my own beliefs (or lack thereof) because I am not a “secular” Indian as that term is understood in India. But at the same time, I am an agnostic, I don’t pray and I feel no religious conviction. I have never been religious as far as I can remember and most of my family has not been either. But “liberal” they aren’t—unless one were to stretch the meaning of that term considerably.
I don’t feel anger when people point to things that they think are absurd about Hinduism, if this is done reasonably. Hinduism was, at one time (pre-Enlightenment), composed of a body of practices that even non-liberal people would find abhorrent—for example, the burning of widows otherwise known as “Sati” (or “suttee” as the English called it).
But Hinduism does not, of course, by any means have a monopoly on insanity. As late as the 1690s, witches had been burnt in Massachussets—something we don’t associate with America or American history but it did happen at a certain point in time.
I have to agree with Vivek here—just as some Indians, out of ignorance, look at the decadence of the West and think that it is a product of Christianity, some Westerners (perhaps forgivably) associate strange religious practices to mean all Hindus practice those things.
Life can be a little more complicated than that.
Bruce replies:
To address some of Vivek’s points:
I agree with his implicit reference to Islam. That Hinduism does not represent the same threat to the West as Islam, was one of the, admittedly tacit, points of my writing about most Indians being secular or Christian. Obviously the large, objective differences between the teachings of the two religions would also support Vivek’s (implied) idea that Hinduism is much less of a threat to non-Hindus than Islam is to non-Muslims. Presumably, the Vedas have no equivalent of the “Jew, the tree, and the stone.”
His statement about superficial meanings as seen from the outside is reasonable. For example, the Lord’s Supper compares, superficially, not spiritually, with some early Indo-European pagan beliefs, notably the infusion of power via comsuming the flesh of a god. I was somewhat concious of the superficiality of the phallic symbolism when I wrote the original email. I could have, based on my superficial impression of the presented material, written “Androgenous, multi-armed Hindu-god” but that wouldn’t have had the same rhetorical effect as Hindu god phallic worship. I also was somewhat concious of the fact that there is a large degree of variability among Hindus in terms of worship.
Vivek mentions secular Indians who are ashamed of their tradition. I learned about Indian traditions from Indian-Americans who were proud enough put together over 100 pages of graphics and words for the stated purpose of helping me to do my job better. They weren’t ashamed of sharing trippy, elephant-trunked, demigods with me (again, a superficial impression).
I don’t know how representative a sample of American Christian I am. Because I read VFR, I may be a statistical outlier. But I think I have a basic understanding of the terms “spirit of the modern age” and “Traditional Christianity.” For now, I’ll have to trust my co-workers to define “Hinduism” for me. I definitely think Hinduism is less congruent with the spirit of the modern age compared to Traditional Christianity, just as Traditional Chistianity is less congruent than modern conservative Evangelism, just as Evangelism is less congruent than liberal Episcopalianism, just as Episcopalianism is less congruent than materialist atheism (the latter comparison is debatable). Given that I consider “spirit of the modern age” to be a pejorative, my comment might be seen as relatively charitable to Hinduism.
That American multinationals `celebrate’ Diwali in India might indicate that the Indian immigrant equivalent “bit” would be to celebrate Western traditions, not Oriental ones.
Vivek is right. I did indeed write my initial email more to express my disgust with multiculturism rather than to mud-sling Hinduism. My intended target was the multicultists (see Indian living in the West’s comment about white liberals and add “black-female, diversity-office liberals”). I used Hindu phallic worship for exaggerative effect and admitted it was a stretch. I disagree with Vivek’s comment about “outbursts” and “sarcasms” helping liberals build their diatribe , if only because it was posted on VFR. If not on VFR, then where?! VFR’s editor gets attacked as an “evilcon” by conservatives! Would his “My Views on Race and Intelligence” produce a less hostile reaction in “atheists, secularists, and liberals” or, for that matter, conservatives? My saracastic remark was fairly mild when you consider that whites are in danger of losing their entire culture and very nations (as a VFR reader,Vivek should know this).
I do not feel the type of anger towards Indians living in India that “An Indian livng in the West” describes because I respect true diversity. For that matter, I am not mad at Indians living in America. I am mad at liberals.
This is incidental, but the Indians I have known have consisted of secular science and math professors (what professors aren’t secular), secular high school students, and a couple of (rather kind) Roman Catholic Pediatricians. Obviously, “An Indian livng in the West” probably has a better feel for this.
Perhaps whites should start depticting their traditions in an effort to illuminate the cultural differences that, apparently, are helping to contribute to my company’s “business success.” Of course, one of those traditions would be living in white-majority nations where our culture isn’t subverted by other cultures. Admittedly, white liberals are more to blame for this than Indian immigrants, so my aplogies to any offended Hindus.
I wonder if my company will have an equivalent celebration for Muslims? I wonder if I’ll be writing an equivalent apology for an anti-Muslim outburst? My guess is the topic of my exaggerative, sarcastic rant will be found somewhere within Surah 9.
Also, this touches on Mr. Auster’s unpronouncible names post. How multiculturalism and immigration changes the very fabric of society. What was once a company composed of cigar-smoking white males is now a bunch of limp-wristed, multi-cultists.
Indian living in the West writes:
Bruce’s apologies are completely unnecessary.
One cannot have serious discussions about religion or politics if one takes offence easily. And I for one, a Hindu by birth, was not at all offended.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 16, 2006 09:03 AM | Send