A_Gupta wrote:the idea that Ganesha stories were created for childlike minds, I find disappointing.
AoA! I had not visited there parts for many moons. You raise an interesting point, but there is a history here. There was a deep book published by Oxford Book titled "Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles" by the great Professor (Limp) Phallus Courtright of Emory University in Atlanta, GA, USA.
Those who are innocent of any memory of the Courtright Limp Phallus jollies,
pls see here. Still alive and kicking. Other links of that time, e.g. from Sankrant Sanu (When the Cigar Becomes a Phallus) seem to be 404 after more than a decade.
Instigated by the
vast popular reaction to this book, a team of Concerned Citizens in Atlanta met a Panel of Faculty and Administrators after sufficient warmth was applied to the Chair of the Dean of Emory College, also coincidentally named Phallus, in the original Mediterranean pronunciation.
The article authored by Dr. Shreekumar Vinekar, MD, who is a distinguished professor of psychiatry (I believe) explains the symbolism of the Ganesha tradition. He gave a very interesting set of sketches showing the evolution from the letter UM to the Ganesha picture, which he actually presented to the Emory Panel after they had been suitably 'sensitized' by the less respectful presenter who opened the innings.
The symbol given on the cover of the book that you discussed, is exactly that, but done with an ornament instead of a pencil sketch as was done for the Emory Panel. It may have been intended in part to remind the Emory/Doniger gang of the pain lingering when they sit down.
"Childlike minds" would be far more sophisticated than "Emory Faculty-Quality Minds" in this respect. The point that the Baby elephant is a **Baby* was also emphasized to remind certain ppl that bringing out *ornographic 'Freudian Analy-e-Sys' on such an entity could be construed as Child *ornography, which no "Tenure" or "Academic Freedom" would protect, and get them jailed, and their Dean and President lynched by their own Methodist support base. This, IIRC, was the gently forceful gist of the Opening Presenter's presentation (incl. quotes from court judgements on child *ornogaphy cases) and it left them either crimson-faced or truly 'pale-faced' inside 10 minutes. The rats scurried off Emory's Academic Freedom arrogance in droves, and they re-organized their Religion Studies out of the clutches of the South Asia Studies and hid them inside the English Department for safety, changed their instructors etc in a panic. Years later Dr. Subramaniam Swamy went to Emory, and asked them about the incident. They said
PLEASE don't remind them of that, it is too traumatic
IOW, reading Vinekar, and having discussed these things with him, it appears that this is exactly what Vinekar points out, and the authors may have also communicated directly with Vinekar and got their understanding and the text verified/ approved by Vinekar. Given Dr. Vinekar's name, and his significant seniority in knowledge and age, I would think there is no lack of worship or understanding of the Ganesha tradition there. What I have heard is that Vinekar flew down from Oklahoma to Atlanta to kick (figuratively speaking of course) the Emory turds, and, his very circumspect words notwithstanding, the anger was very evident to said turds. It is evident in the article linked above. I think it is very close in text to what was actually read out to the Emory Panel. The opening presentation was far more direct.
The association is indeed one that ties the most fundamental concept of the Supreme into an extremely simple and easy-to-remember and easy-to-love character. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Now about the part where "a few brahmins squabbling was generalized" etc. - I didn't see that in the book. May be a misreading. The whole book appeared to be about unifying all themes even across yindoo / Buddhist / Jain, so the authors can't have any such agenda in mind, IMO.
BTW, I wish more yindoo jingos would at least post (positive?) comments on these books painfully authored by co-yindoos to try to make a difference. Absolutely not required to buy books, to comment, I can certify from the experience of commenting on several books.
As the Ayatollah Khomeini said when he was asked if he had ever read Salman Rushdie b4 passing the Fatwa:
One does not have to jump into a pakistan to smell it
Q.E.D.
Books from Harvard Profs, for instance, have dozens of comments, clearly authored by musharraf-kissing Harvard students hoping for that A grade - mostly adulatory of the author, not the book (See Diana Eck's book on Yinduism, Amazon, for a
example) But books written by yindoos languish with few if any reviews. There is an opportunity here, perhaps? The 5 Reviews I see there seem to be excellent and diverse - at least a couple are from top authorities on yindooism who have read the book. Ram Siddhaye is someone who has devoted his retired life to improving textbook content on Hinduism, and he was the Secretary, so to speak, of the team that went to Emory, so he is very picky on terminology and facts. Others are from people who say they learned a great deal, and one from someone who is getting their kids to learn. With those kinds of endorsement, the authors may be able to take their creation to, say, temples, and slowly start to make a change.
What I found most useful in the whole thing is some way of answering :
What r ur Core Beliefs? in a self-consistent manner so that I can be prepared next time I am asked that. Plus the simple structure at the root of everything. I think that is the point of the book too.
)
) in the WSJ on the disappearance of Christians from the Middle East - without a hint of insight that this behavior comes naturally to exclusivist religions. Absolutely no reference to Christianity's own shameful record in medieval Europe : 
