Hitler vs. Ganesha: A "Rambunctious" Play [Archive]

TatTvamAsi

25 September 2011, 01:05 PM

Namaste,

I am surprised no thread was created about this topic as it is about a week old now.

Anyway, there is a play that is going to be showcased at the Melbourne Festival from Sep. 29th, 2011. The play is about Ganesha fighting the Nazis (from WWII) to take back the Swastika (an auspicious symbol stolen by Nazis). Although the cause may be somewhat good (taking back the symbol to mean what it actually does), the trivialization of a revered deity like VinAyakA (Sri GaneshA) is highly disrespectful and hurtful towards Hindus.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8776050/Hindu-fury-over-Australian-play-that-pits-god-Ganesh-against-Hitler.html

From Rajan Zed in the US to Hindus in Australia, there is a slow but steady protest building up against this puerile depiction of Ganesha.

Hindu Jagruti has started a campaign protesting it as well. It is here: http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/12776.html

What are your thoughts on this? Is this another form of art and freedom of expression (to run roughshod on Hindu sentiments) or is it a calculated denigration of Hindu deities?

My feelings can easily be surmised; I object to it because Australia is a fundamentalist christian country; they have repeatedly and overtly denigrated India and Hinduism over the years. A popular radio-host recently called the Ganga a "junkyard" and India some names I cannot repeat on this forum. He merely got a slap on his wrist for what he said.

Some of the aspects of the play are highly disgusting. For instance, the following quote was taken from an article on the issue:

"Creating irrelevant imaginary imagery, like reportedly depicting him being tortured and interrogated by Nazi SS, hurt the devotees,"

A picture from the "play". :rolleyes:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/files/2011/09/ganesh-v-nazis.jpg

Kismet

25 September 2011, 02:01 PM

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/files/2011/09/ganesh-v-nazis.jpg

Now, I must say that (as a practitioner of SD myself) I find this depiction far more distasteful than the K-tattoo. That I could allay my fears about by reasoning that the artist was genuinely interested in conveying his love for the deity, albeit in an inappropriate and ultimately unworthy way.

Here, the sense I get is far more irresponsible and it really does look like Ganesha is being mocked, in a very cavalier, careless sort of way. It all looks too absurd to have any redeeming value given to it.

Yes, the swastika is an originally auspicious symbol. But for it to be "reclaimed" in such a stupid manner, really isn't necessary. Ganesha just looks foolish here, and that is why I see this as offensive.

Far more offensive than the K-tattoo, though I have reasoned that is offensive as well.

TTCUSM

25 September 2011, 04:08 PM

What's even more offensive is that it depicts Ganesha fighting on the side of the British Empire, which played a role in the persecution of his followers.

Adhvagat

26 September 2011, 01:59 AM

The funny thing is the image the author attributes to Ganesha, he becomes a Godzilla, a creature that can eat a human being in a second, perhaps that's the relation of the creator regarding these numinous images, they are so strong and he doesn't stand a chance against its vile nature relative to his egoical stance.

Just like the Christians turned every deity that wasn't Jesus into a demon. Insecurity goes a long way... :)

Jungian analysts also observe this tendency of Gods (archetypes) to become stereotypes, since westerners completely depredated their own pantheon, they are now turning to the East.

sm78

26 September 2011, 02:32 AM

Ram fought and killed well known and not so well known, evil and not so evil demons in dozens. Krishna's list is even longer. The sole pupose for Shiva procreating was to create son's like Ganesha and Kartikeya who would slay demons and enemies of dharma (not the sham we call hinduism today, represented by Rajan whatever). Hindu gods fighting evil is the very epicenter of all hindu stories, without which there is no purana, no itihasa - not even vedas and tantras. Ganesha fighting Hitler is just moving that understanding in the contemporary world. It should be much more deep than getting back the swastika symbol.

But we have here new puritans, loud mouthed Hindus whose understanding of Hinduism is worse than a Mormon's understanding of Christianity Or Mr Daniken's knowledge about Pyramids. Only thing that ticks them "is who else in this world may be laying a claim on their Gods?". It seems Rajan Zed et.al feel Hindu Gods are solely their own personal slaves given to them as their birth right. They only have the right to denigrate and reduce the Gods to utter triviality or completely irrevant entities without meaning or purpose -OR the only purpose to have Gods is to shout and create a lot of noise if someone else touches them.

About Australia, I don't know if it is a fundamentalist christian nation (there is definitely some christianity, but is it worse than the heaven on earth US??). But they definitely suck up to Han ass, and are no freind of India in geopolitical terms. But has that anything to do with this play in any relevant meaningful way?

Kumar_Das

26 September 2011, 05:21 AM

Mana

26 September 2011, 06:42 AM

Namasté Kumar_Das,

Should that we become so possessive of an Ideology, is it paramount to materialism? We can not renounce that which is in essence a worldly pleasure?

Imprisoned.

Just a thought ...

praNAma

mana

sm78

26 September 2011, 06:55 AM

Plain and simple. Hindu Puranas have actual theological meanings outside of the symbology. Its not a bunch of tales where deities go around owning villains.This is why we should keep our religion exclusive and away from untouchable filth.

Yes, go ahead and keep these theological meanings and what ever you consider pristine hinduism exclusive. That will only mean that such conceptions of/about Hinduism becomes irrelevant and extinct even faster than it already has...not a sad outcome.

Sahasranama

26 September 2011, 07:09 AM

Rajan Zed has made a full time job out of protesting against depiction of Hindu deities. He seems to always protest no matter what. But sometimes protest is waranted, like when Hindu gods are depicted on toilet seats, slippers or underwear. Some plays, movies and books can also be highly offensive. Let's not forget that when the Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed, many european politicians publicly anounced their disdain for that act, even though the picture was not distasteful or offensive. Now when lakshmi devi is decorating someone's crotch or someone has kali and krishna painted on their toilet seat, people think it is fashionable. This is when all Hindus should protest, no exception.

There was also an incidence in the Netherlands with a large store chain that sold plasic murtis of Hindu deities. Personally, I didn't find this offensive and was actually quite happy too see some Hindu statues instead of the overdone meditating Buddhas you see everywhere. But there was a group of Hindus that protested against this and therefore the chain stopped selling the statues. I thought that this protest was going too far, but later I noticed in western houses with Buddha statues that people used them for hanging their clothes on and letting their children climb on it. It probably isn't such a bad thing after all that Hindu statues are not found on every corner of the street. It is not part of the western phyche, after the abrahamic religions started to overtake the pagan ones, to show respect to an object. I routinely see westerners standing or sitting on books, while most Hindus are taught not to touch books with their feet or put them on the floor.

The problem is that it is very difficult for a nastika to portray the Hindu deities in a way that is respectful. Even the tibetan Buddhists had a habit of portraying Hindu deities being trampled by their "superior" gods. Ganesha being tortured by the Nazis is no less offensive.

Eastern Mind

26 September 2011, 07:21 AM

Vannakkam: Here's another modern portrayal: http://rsboensch-ganesha.blogspot.com/ I like it because it shows Him doing the kind of stuff he does. I wonder if Mr. Zed would protest this one.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo

26 September 2011, 07:29 AM

Eastern Mind

26 September 2011, 10:39 AM

namaste.

It is simple actually. Non-Hindus have no business to use the Hindu images for entertainment or business purposes giving them their own versions of images or tales other than what is traditionally authored. We Hindus won't use Christian images in our business with our own versions, right? So, if these things happen, it is right that Hindus protest. There is no question of individual liberty, artistic expressions, etc. involved in such acts of vandalism.

Vannakkam Saidevo et al: I don't think its very simple at all. Each individual case is unique. We have to look at intent and for us to go into the mind of another soul isn't easy. In some of the cases the 'offending' party simply withdrew the offending object right away with immediate apologies. In other cases the offenders chose to argue their case. How can we tell if a person is just ignorant of the sacred or is actually doing something with the malicious intent to offend?

I suggest googling 'Ganesha images" , or any other God images. My wife and I just did that and studied some of the stuff we found. I was definitely offended by some, because the intent seemed pretty clear. But some of the more modern versions, stylistic drawings, I was neutral to. My preference is always the traditional stuff. Then its really clear. I get 'offended' by violence or sexual imagery that clearly isn't a good understanding of Ganesha at all. Having said that, on a deeper level, I'm personally not offended by much at all. But I support anyone's right to feel offended.

I've also encountered blogs by Indian Hindus I found insensitive. So its really not a question of Hindu/ not Hindu in the portrayal of things. A nasty portrayal is a nasty portrayal, regardless of where it comes from. I've also seen Hindus use the God connection in iconography or design to enhance their business. I guess all is fair in the competitive world. In Tiruchendur we stayed at the Sivamurugan Lodge. I can't imagine a hotel being named the Jesus , the Mohammed, or the Moses. In India the whole cultural/religious/business overlap is way different than in the west.

Artistic expression CAN be done in good taste ... or not. I'm guessing if we put up 10 images and did polls on offended, neutral, or, or not offended, we would get quite the variety of responses here on HDF.

Aum Namasivaya

Kumar_Das

26 September 2011, 11:56 AM

EM Hindus tend to have names of Deities. Businesses with Hindu names are either the names of the family members the business was started as a tribute or its a devotee of a deity.

Muslims do have business names after the names of Allah as well as muhammad btw.

TatTvamAsi

26 September 2011, 02:03 PM

Vannakkam Saidevo et al: I don't think its very simple at all. Each individual case is unique. We have to look at intent and for us to go into the mind of another soul isn't easy. In some of the cases the 'offending' party simply withdrew the offending object right away with immediate apologies. In other cases the offenders chose to argue their case. How can we tell if a person is just ignorant of the sacred or is actually doing something with the malicious intent to offend?

I suggest googling 'Ganesha images" , or any other God images. My wife and I just did that and studied some of the stuff we found. I was definitely offended by some, because the intent seemed pretty clear. But some of the more modern versions, stylistic drawings, I was neutral to. My preference is always the traditional stuff. Then its really clear. I get 'offended' by violence or sexual imagery that clearly isn't a good understanding of Ganesha at all. Having said that, on a deeper level, I'm personally not offended by much at all. But I support anyone's right to feel offended.

I've also encountered blogs by Indian Hindus I found insensitive. So its really not a question of Hindu/ not Hindu in the portrayal of things. A nasty portrayal is a nasty portrayal, regardless of where it comes from. I've also seen Hindus use the God connection in iconography or design to enhance their business. I guess all is fair in the competitive world. In Tiruchendur we stayed at the Sivamurugan Lodge. I can't imagine a hotel being named the Jesus , the Mohammed, or the Moses. In India the whole cultural/religious/business overlap is way different than in the west.

Artistic expression CAN be done in good taste ... or not. I'm guessing if we put up 10 images and did polls on offended, neutral, or, or not offended, we would get quite the variety of responses here on HDF.

Aum Namasivaya

Can you answer in simple terms whether YOU think this is offensive or not?

It is hilarious to see you people never take any position or stand and always try to argue both sides when you have no clue as to what's involved. This is the problem with salad-bar style religious philosophy.

Would muhammad instead of Ganesha in this play be taken as offensive to muslims? Then why shouldn't it be for Hindus when their deities are disrespected? Intent doesn't mean squat; if that's the case, any number of atrocious things can be written of as "well-intended".

Or, perhaps you blame the Indians for this one again? Maybe the playwrights here are "naive" and it must be the Indians' fault. :rolleyes:

yajvan

26 September 2011, 03:04 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

apakaraṇa - offending; acting improperly; ill-treating, injuring

In the last few days there has been discussion on offending. The use of various images of the Supreme considered improper. I have been thinking about this a bit. Does the Supreme become offended ?

I find in the mahābhārata that Kṛṣṇa-ji tolerated 100 offenses of śiśupāla¹ then cut off his head. Now, Does the Supreme become offended ? This I do not know ( for sure). When I think of this Being that is infinite, full of compassion, where can any irritation rise in a being of this nature?

To a being that knows all He/She must look at us and say the children are still playing. He has all the time in the universe - there is no rush (for Him) to watch one move from a lower level of thinking to a higher level . If it takes eons so be it, He has nothing but infinite time. The learning's will come with bumps and bruises at times, but they will come. Millions of years is but a wink of an eye for Him.

Then who is offended ? It is us. Our affinity, respect and devotion for the Supreme is great. To see others of little thought and sensitivity use the symbols of one's beliefs in a demeaning way can be offensive. Yet am I offended? No I am not - I am deeply discouraged which passes up 'offended' . These actions suggest little growth of ones awareness into the wholeness of Being.

In this same light I therefore cannot offend others beliefs, no matter how obtuse I may think their views are ( incongruent to mine).
Does this mean I accept others' bad habits and behaviors that are directed towards my beliefs of the truth and of the Supreme ? No. I just do not support it, give it energy, or any attention. If there is no ~fuel~ it can go nowhere. Exercising indifference is a powerful tool.

praṇām

references

Kṛṣṇa-ji told śiśupāla's mother (damaghoṣa) he would pardon him 100 times, then be rid of him.
We find this in the sabhā-parvan of the mahābhārata. When yudhiṣṭhira was about to perform a rājasūya sacrifice numerous princes attended ; bhīṣma proposed that special honour should be paid to kṛṣṇa who was also present ; śiśupāla objected and after denouncing kṛṣṇa as a contemptible person challenged him to fight , where kṛṣṇa struck off his head with his discus
the viṣṇu-purāṇa identifies this impious monarch with the demons hiraṇya-kaśipu and rāvaṇa ;
his death forms the subject of māgha's celebrated poem called śiśupāla-vadha.

Spiritualseeker

26 September 2011, 03:04 PM

Namaste,

From an esoteric point of view I do not see it as disrespectful.

In my view people will say what they want or portray Gods the way they want, I cannot erase what is in their minds. I have to only live with my limited ideas, concepts, etc...

saidevo

26 September 2011, 10:38 PM

namaste EM and others.

You said in post #12:
I don't think its very simple at all. Each individual case is unique. We have to look at intent and for us to go into the mind of another soul isn't easy. In some of the cases the 'offending' party simply withdrew the offending object right away with immediate apologies. In other cases the offenders chose to argue their case. How can we tell if a person is just ignorant of the sacred or is actually doing something with the malicious intent to offend?

As I said in my post $11, I don't think there is any case involved at all when non-Hindus seek to exploit Hindu symbols, icons and images. So, there is no question of apologizing after the act is done or arguing to justify it. If it is malicious intent, then it is condemnable. It if it is plain ignorance, then it is deplorable to use something you do not know or care to read about. The reality in either case is both these types of non-Hindus continue to repeat the act (by which it becomes deliberate), and therein lies the problem.

I get 'offended' by violence or sexual imagery that clearly isn't a good understanding of Ganesha at all.

GaNesha has 32 traditionally approved forms that are explained, as you very well know, here:
http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/lg/lg_ch-05.html

Although GaNesha, as the God of prithvi--Nature, can be seen in manifestation in all its forms, forms that undermine his divinity are not his. Whoever does it, whether deliberately or ignorantly, commits an offence.

I've also encountered blogs by Indian Hindus I found insensitive. So its really not a question of Hindu/ not Hindu in the portrayal of things. A nasty portrayal is a nasty portrayal, regardless of where it comes from. I've also seen Hindus use the God connection in iconography or design to enhance their business. I guess all is fair in the competitive world. In Tiruchendur we stayed at the Sivamurugan Lodge. I can't imagine a hotel being named the Jesus , the Mohammed, or the Moses. In India the whole cultural/religious/business overlap is way different than in the west.

I think this is not the first time you are making this observation.

• Yes, Hindus do use God images and other religious symbolism to promote their business ventures, specially naming their business establishements with the names of Hindu Gods, but this is done in good religious faith, and with the intention and feeling that the God is with the businessman in his ventures, watching over his dharmic and any adharmic business activities.

• As for the insensitive publications, they are usually done by cosmopolitan Hindus who think they are 'liberated from the clutches of tradition in their religion' and delude themselves that they can be spiritual without being religious. Some of them are plain atheists in life, followers of science for final answers, and call themselves agnostics.

• If you think about it, in kali yuga, the names of almost all Hindus are God-related. Parents routinely name their children, selecting a name from the sahasranAmavali--set of 1000 names, of Hindu Gods. This was not the case in the earlier Yugas. The reason is that the way to puNya--good karma, and mokSha in kali yuga has been prescribed as chanting the names of Gods.

• Given the human weaknesses and past-life impressions, we find in the Hindu society that a GaNapati is a thief, a Murugan is a scoundrel, a Shiva is a murderer, a Sarasvati is a stupid girl or a LakShmi is a prostitute bearing a supposedly dignified name of a sex worker. Should we blame them for bearing God names, or blame the Gods for having manifested as these souls in their forms?

Thus, there is a religious/traditional/cultural/intentional difference between Hindus and non-Hindus using Hindu God names.

saidevo

26 September 2011, 11:00 PM

namaste Yajvan.

It is easy to look at it all in an esoteric, spiritual way, but we do not live in an all-spiritual world, nor are we all accomplished spiritual personalities. So, to suggest that a person can at best get "deeply discouraged which passes up 'offended'", but such reactions "suggest little growth of ones awareness into the wholeness of Being" seems to be utopian if not insensitive to me--you might think I am dead wrong here.

Having born as humans in this body and world, our immediate pursuits are the four puruShArthas--aims of life, namely dharma, artha, kAma, mokSha--dharma, wealth and desire within the scope of dharma, and liberation. Of these four puruShArthas, mokSha is attainable only after a jIva--individual soul, undergoes innumerable rebirths spanning the three worlds. This inescapable reality about mokSha is what makes earning puNya-karma and dissolving our pApa-karma gain priority in normal Hindu life.

Therefore, in normal Hindu life, if a Hindu seeks to defend his dharma--religion, it cannot amount, IMO, to procrastinating liberation, specially when this mokSha is not in our hands.

Mana

27 September 2011, 03:21 AM

Namasté All

Interesting, investigating the origins of the word Hindu, it would appear that it was derived only this century, not that that means any thing. I should be interested to also know the age of all the images, over which we quarrel. Not that that means anything.

Just thoughts.

vritti

http://pensivepilgrim.com/images/Swastika/hindu_swastika.png

mokSha : how can it be held? Is not the desire to hold, that which binds?

You know the story; monkeys and coconuts ...

sindhu : Sanantana Dharma

It has been said that; aspirants have gained mokSha instantly, buy simply throwing them selves from a tree. How hard it must be to let go!

sindUra : tree

praNamana

mana

saidevo

27 September 2011, 10:58 AM

namaste Mana.

Did you check this thread in HDF?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3462

Believer

27 September 2011, 11:00 AM

Namaste,

There is no question of individual liberty, artistic expressions, etc. involved in such acts of vandalism.

Instead, we have boot-licking Hindus here shouting down others whose sensibilities have been affected. Instead of finding courage to admonish the offenders, spineless morons think they will curry favor with white-sahibs if they shout louder.

+1

Does the Supreme become offended ?
I believe the question here is not one of the Supreme becoming offended, but of the vighan created in the sadhna of His devotees. Just a thought!

Pranam.

yajvan

27 September 2011, 11:21 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté saidevo,

namaste Yajvan.

It is easy to look at it all in an esoteric, spiritual way, but we do not live in an all-spiritual world,

Yes, I see what you say, yet these are my eyes and how I view the world. This is also how I have been taught. For me, I see it as very practical. What is not normal ( as I see it) is living day-in-and-day-out not pursuing a higher level of existence - Being. It is practical because as one becomes more infused with Being, then one abides within the laws of nature that is managed by this Intelligence that permeates creation. Very practical. Work is still done, accomplishments happen, yet one is uplifted and supported by that Creative Impulse that resides everywhere. This I see as normal.

You mention mokṣa is not in our hands. To this I say yes-and-no. It is in our hands to prepare and create the proper soil conditions for the seed to grow. If we do nothing, nothing occurs. A seed and soil is still needed for the harvest to come.

praṇām

Mana

27 September 2011, 12:01 PM

Namasé saidevo,

I sincerely hope that my post has not caused you any bother or offence, The post which you highlight here is, superb, most enlightening. I am on a voyage of discovery; please forgive me my impertinence.

There is so much for me to learn.

Thank you.

praNAma

mana

saidevo

27 September 2011, 12:34 PM

namaste Mana.

You have done not done anything impertinent. A healthy doubt is always a welcome sign, so long us it can find out what lies on both sides. Once we do look into both sides, it is our personal conviction thereafter. The history of Hindu Dharma lies hidden more in its ancient texts of shruti and smRti--Veda texts and ItihAsa-puranas than in any surface level Indology researches. The problem for us is that we are not literate enough in Sanskrit to read and understand the original texts, origian commentaries and research the truth. We learn faster when we have faith in the hoary antiquity of our dharma, gods, symbolism and all other related things. Where we Hindus are not spiritually perfect, we are aware of the limitations and work them out for the general benefit of everyone.

I sincerely hope that my post has not caused you any bother or offence, The post which you highlight here is, superb, most enlightening. I am on a voyage of discovery; ... There is so much for me to learn.

saidevo

27 September 2011, 12:50 PM

namaste Yajvan.

This is in response to your post #23. It was never my intention to find any kind of fault with you. I respect your knowledge and spiritual accomplishments and your fortune to have the guidance of a renowned guru. We will always need your advice, just as we needed Atanu's unique Advaitic view of men and matters.

We the native Hindus living in India unfortunately do not have the time to lead our lives in peaceful spiritual pursuits of mokSha, when we are surrounded by aggression against our Hindu Dharma and culture, from the missionaries, terrorists, politicians, intellectuals, media and other vested interests who seek to divide us and destroy our tradition and culture.

yajvan

27 September 2011, 12:54 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

It all boils down to naya as I view it. What is this naya ?
It is conduct and behavior. Naya is considered a son of of dharma and kriyā. That is, proper and uplifting virtue and proper action.

praṇām

Believer

27 September 2011, 01:29 PM

Namaste,

We the native Hindus living in India unfortunately do not have the time to lead our lives in peaceful spiritual pursuits of mokSha, when we are surrounded by aggression against our Hindu Dharma and culture, from the missionaries, terrorists, politicians, intellectuals, media and other vested interests who seek to divide us and destroy our tradition and culture.
Excellent summary of idealism Vs. pragmatism. People leading peaceful lives away from the sacred dharmic battleground are bound to have a different perspective of the situation through no fault of their own. The eye of the beholder may at times miss the different shades of gray and classify the view as black and white.

Pranam.

Divine Kala

28 September 2011, 05:14 AM

My feelings can easily be surmised; I object to it because Australia is a fundamentalist christian country; they have repeatedly and overtly denigrated India and Hinduism over the years. A popular radio-host recently called the Ganga a "junkyard" and India some names I cannot repeat on this forum. He merely got a slap on his wrist for what he said.

Fundamentalist Christian country? Really? As an Australian I have to raise an objection. I don't know anyone who regularly attends church and if I do they are typical Australians - quiet about their religious viewt

Do not call Australia fundamentalist because one or two people leave a bad taste in your mouth.

sm78

28 September 2011, 05:48 AM

Fundamentalist Christian country? Really? As an Australian I have to raise an objection. I don't know anyone who regularly attends church and if I do they are typical Australians - quiet about their religious viewt

Do not call Australia fundamentalist because one or two people leave a bad taste in your mouth.

I thought the same without actually being there. Maybe TTA was mainly thinking of Graham Staines.

However I don't like Australian froreign policy and how they are always trying to apease China and Islamic nations.

Adhvagat

28 September 2011, 06:01 AM

TTA, you need some pranayama. Ida, pingala, ida, pingala... http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa338/Impagliazzo/chillpill.gif

yajvan

28 September 2011, 11:17 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté saidevo,

namaste Yajvan.

This is in response to your post #23. It was never my intention to find any kind of fault with you. I respect your knowledge and spiritual accomplishments and your fortune to have the guidance of a renowned guru. We will always need your advice, just as we needed Atanu's unique Advaitic view of men and matters.

We the native Hindus living in India unfortunately do not have the time to lead our lives in peaceful spiritual pursuits of mokSha, when we are surrounded by aggression against our Hindu Dharma and culture, from the missionaries, terrorists, politicians, intellectuals, media and other vested interests who seek to divide us and destroy our tradition and culture.

I know your intentions are forthright and without malice... you speak what is on your mind and I respect your views.

You mention the issue of Hindu-s living in India and the challenges thereof. Yes, I see that and do not disagree. My view is the following: Are we all not on the field of kurukṣhetra ? If we are human there are battles. Some with health, wealth, social impact, political oppression and the like. If it is not the list above then its with an earthquake, tornado, or tsunami that is knocking one's house to the ground or a social dis-ease that ravages a nation.

If we are on the field of kurukṣhetra then we are hostages of action and the whim of time and change. The wise tell us there is a way out - a way to bring balance to ourselves and society as a whole. For this the bhāgavad gītā leads the way. Highly practical advice.

Some may see this śāstra as esoteric, yet I see it as a manual for living on this earth. It simply says be outside of action, leave action in the hands of action (prakṛti). By doing this you give authorship back to those universal forces that manage all creation - they do a much better job then humans can do.

So, we struggle on. We live in the field of action which seems to have the upper hand. To this I say there is a better way and I wish to become an exponent of Reality. It seems the right thing to do (dharma) as the śāstra-s support this position.

It is my assessment that the śāstra-s are there to support and guide a fruitful life by unfolding one's true nature - the knowledge is there to compliment life , whether a householder or the sādhu. Yet the wisdom is this , the more we are out of tune with the rhythm of the Universe the more strife , pushback, grief, and oppression we will experience.

praṇām

Believer

28 September 2011, 11:24 AM

Namaste,

TTA, you need some pranayama. Ida, pingala, ida, pingala... http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa338/Impagliazzo/chillpill.gif
The firebrands provide a balance to the ultra pacifists. The only thing I hope would happen is for people to hold their comments till they visit the far off lands or at least do a thorough study of them. Sensational news based views or objections to national commercial contacts based on shared economic gains don't do us any good. Based on my interaction with common people on my visit to Australia, Divine Kala's objection was right on target. The Xitian nations do have some people with a missionary zeal for conversions. But to call the entire nation a Xitian fundamentalist nation is, well a bit over the line. Just another perspective. If this is not palatable to some members, please forgive me and move on.

Pranam.

Divine Kala

28 September 2011, 09:04 PM

I thought the same without actually being there. Maybe TTA was mainly thinking of Graham Staines.

However I don't like Australian froreign policy and how they are always trying to apease China and Islamic nations.

Even I hate our foreign policy. I am sickened by our treatment of refugees. I mean... really? We get so few and yet our governments are continually whipping up terror. Just let them in, assess them as you settle them!

As for appeasing Islamic countries... yeah, not so much. We do do a lot of grovelling to China but China receives pretty much all our exports. Who else should we be grovelling to?

As for the play... I would like to see it first before judging it. The author may be a devotee of Ganesh or she may be denigrating him. I would like to see first.

Arjuni

28 September 2011, 10:29 PM

Namast�, all,

I have been thinking about this, and since opinions were requested, will give mine, from both the actress/theatre staff standpoint as well as the religious.

I have a pretty good litmus test for determining appropriate content in a situation: replace the image and name of the Hindu god with that of Jesus or Allah. Somehow, I do not imagine that Jesus Christ versus the Third Reich would avoid controversy, in Australia or most other countries - or that Allah being depicted on stage at all, much less being tortured by Nazis, would go over well.

This is so because Jesus and Allah are both accepted as God to the Western mind, while Gaṇeśa seems more like a confusing demigod, an adorable little guy with a trunk. In the West - still going by the medieval Great Chain of Being which places humans at the top of a ranking system - animals rank below people, thus no-one could possibly take an elephant-headed God seriously or revere Him as great. There is also an idea that I've encountered that - based on his appearance - Gaṇeśa is something of a trickster and naturally is associated with light-heartedness and play. So, these common stereotypes and biases influence what people think, and perhaps, what information they filter out when doing their "thorough research" for a play.

From the artistic standpoint, well, sometimes theatre companies will deliberately choose a controversial script, hoping to stir up discussion and change within the community; moreover, this company Back to Back, from their website, apparently is a troupe entirely of disabled actors and has an interest in performing works which make people think. What puzzles me about this play is that I don't see any value to it, artistically or comedically. Ganesh Fights Nazis to Regain the Swastika! Uh...ha? Ha? That...doesn't sound funny. At all. Nor does it sound inspiring or thought-provoking, unless "reclaiming the swastika" is somehow symbolic of some pertinent modern issue.

I don't think the intention was deliberate denigration, but a major problem with trying to depict another religion's God, as an outsider, is that one may convey insult regardless of intentions. A researcher is at the mercy of translated, printed materials and has no personal experience to use in weeding out the inaccuracies.

Unfortunately, this play will likely sell out, as a controversial work - particularly in a festival setting where tickets are bargains - will bring flocks of people to see what all of the fuss is about. The box office receipts will be substantial, and certainly, the profit margin is also a strong consideration in choosing a season's shows. If anyone did intend a deliberate insult, they unfortunately could have had at least a financial motivation.

Besides writing the theatre via hindujagruti.org's contact information, might prayer also be a useful way of reacting to this? The greatest concern here is that a terrible depiction of both Deva and Dharma will only increase ignorance of both; surely the Remover (and Placer) of Obstacles is singularly appropriate for addressing this particular situation.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

saidevo

28 September 2011, 11:57 PM

namaste everyone.

It seems the Hindu Council has agreed, with amendments, to staging the play:
http://backtobacktheatre.com/projects/show/ganesh-versus-the-third-reich/

If you cut the protruding corners of the svastika, it becomes a Greek Cross. If you see the svastika revolving on its axis, it becomes the svadarshana-chakra, an expanding circle of universal dharma that drowns, destroys and regenerates life and worlds. In the duality of life the svastika becomes the left-handed and right-handed. At the centre of everthing and spanning everywhere, however, is the point of universal consciousness.

When would the non-Hindus understand this esoteric knowledge and bring about peaceful co-existence, than just entertaining themselves in the ignorance of trial-and-error interpretations of the Hindu religion?