Article in ET quoting Pollock, Vajpeyi, Chandramohan, Gopalaswami, Malhotra, Kannan

[Nityanand Misra]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sheldon-pollock-offers-scholarly-opinion-on-sanskrit-a-language-that-the-government-seems-keen-to-massify/articleshow/52056453.cms

Good to see both sides are being given coverage in the media, though the coverage is still more on the liberal narrative in this article. 

Pollock appears to be performing a balancing act. He quotes Benjamin to say that every document of civilization is a document of barbarism, and his total oeuvre aims towards balance.   

"I interpret the history of Sanskrit as one of the most remarkable achievements of human culture. It enabled a form of cosmopolitanism that had few peers in the ancient or modern world. And it interacted with regional literary cultures in a way that permitted true and enduring diversity... however, every document of civilisation is at the same time a document of barbarism (Walter Benjamin), and there have indeed been occasions where it has been important for me to foreground the latter: the place of Sanskrit in the articulation of inequality and domination. But as you will see, my total oeuvre aims toward balance, based on evidence and argument, in the true spirit of scholarship." 

[Nityanand Misra]

"ET Magazine followed up with a second round of questions to Kannan, asking, among other things, how he would define manual scavenging, untouchability and other discriminatory practices in the context of his observation that several historians had declared there was no slavery in India. Kannan did not send answers to the follow-up questions."

Is it not better for the author (KP Narayana Kumar) to write "a response was awaited at the time of printing this article" than saying "Kannan did not send answers"? For all the the reporter knows, Prof. Kannan might be busy or traveling.

[Vashishtha Jha]

My expectation  from ET would be to also publish another article to report whether there was and there is oppression and discrimination where  there was and is no Sanskrit.  I am simply suggesting to applying the principle of anvaya and vyatireka of Indian intellectual tradition to claim whether Sanskrit is or was the cause of oppression or discrimination.

" ... every document of civilisation is at the same time a document of barbarism. " is the colour of Pollock's goggle, it appears. Indian tradition does not accept this vyaapti. Inidian intellectual tradition does not take any thing blindly. 

Does Pollock have any training in Nyaya ? The clarification published here "to balance"  does not reflect he has. What he certainly has is a strong 'political motif'. How can therefore his opinion be called 'scholarly' ? This is not the concept of scholarship in India.

Prof. Kannan should keep on noting all this for discussion in the coming seminar.

VNJha

 

Prof. V. N. Jha, Former Director, Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, Pune-411007. Residence : C-3, 402 Kunal Icon, Pimple Saudagar, Pune-411027 . India. Phone : 0091-20-27201458 (R) Mobile : 09890215441 E-Mail : vnj...@yahoo.co.in vnjha1946@gmail. com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nityanad and friends,

The phrase "both sides" in the mail would seem to suggest that we are "bystanders" in this process.

Sanskrit is the soul of the culture of India.   Any denigration to it affects India as a nation and Indians

as a group in the world.  Such denigration has been methodically executed through various agencies

over time leading some to think that Sanskrit in India was discovered by William James.  Such is the

prevailing narrative rampant in the west and is also, as I learn, made popular in India among the new 

youth.  The "sides' are not Rajiv Malhotra and Sheldon Pollock, but they are the Indian society and 

her culture versus the interpretation by the western "scholars" through whatever motivation.  

The following scholarly question can be posed:  "How much a culture can be interpreted without

practicing it?"  The culture is not written in books, the culture is in people's living, conduct, understanding

and beliefs.  Dry anthropological cultural interpretation is dangerous because presupposes a standard.

Prof Pollock or whosoever he quotes are wrong because a qualitative evaluation of "high" and "low"

hides the basic tenet of life which is the living itself.  Unfortunately I do not have any sympathy for the

two dimensional interpretation of humanity.  This is where my science and thinking would deviate

strongly from representation of linearity in culture.  I would have sympathy for Pollock and Co if

they learn to write with qualifiers, They should say it is "their" perception and not use "generalized" 

sentences.

While free speech is OK, free speech to denigrate a culture is not OK.  Sheldon Pollock and many

like him in the west lack the scientific skills of analysis and the humility of presentation.  He should

himself read Newton's Principia in order to understand why our observations would need always 

qualification. Rajiv Malhotra thinks it to be willful manipulation, but it could be ignorance and lack 

of preparation.  But either way it is not a scholarly enterprise and the product becomes a political 

document like many such commissioned products in history.  One's own association could create 

a cover to think all scholars in the world might have such association.  Hie interpretation that Valmiki

 was hired by a king is my clue that he looks to other scholars through a self-made lens.  

What Rajiv Malhotra is after a serious soul searching for all things Indian. He may have flaws 

in his accumulation of documents.  As I said while I reviewed his book, he is the Paul Revere of

India's possible awakening.  i live two hundred yards from where Paul Revere was caught by the

British after he was returning from Concord.  I am glad that Rajiv's books are out, and that his 

message is communicated.  His was the solitary dangerous journey in the night. The man who 

bailed Paul Revere out that night in 1775 was a man called John Hancock, a lawyer.  Many others 

might have thought that  Paul Revere was breaking the laws by galloping in the night.  

While Gandhi fought for independence, the government servants might think of "both sides".

It takes time to think that a little security does not cause dignity.  Many decades had to go before

people left offices to fight for freedom.  I would think the same would be the case in this new

reawakening.  The inertia could be stronger because there is no "occupier".  But intellectual

slavery is more dangerous than physical slavery.  I myself did not comprehend the depth of the 

the disease in me before I read Rajiv.  I would request all free thinking Indians about the dignity of

Indian culture and its interpretation in the world.  India is only a sample.  It must protect herself

and also create protection to many other indigenous cultures in the world.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

[rajivmalhotra2007]

The Benjamin quote is cited in my book and examined in detail. It is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg and needs one to study Pollock's very own vast ecosystem of theories/jargon to unravel properly. I tried to give this broad analysis in TBFS. Glad it has sparked much needed debates.

[rajivmalhotra2007]

Since I was approached by ET for an interview, I would like to explain some facts that are not public on what transpired.

The tone of the questions I got was already biased. Imagine someone asking along the following lines: 'We know Indian civilization is oppressive and the question is to have you verify this, unless you can change our mind.' In other words, the starting point is not neutral and open minded. Since I have gone through a large number of media interviews (the one cited in "Inside Higher Ed" article was another recent example), I have become cautious. It is better to avoid being misquoted, when one detects a preconceived bias.

Below is my position on the specific item concerning Pollock that he asked me about. This position of mine has not come across in the article. Partly I take responsibility: I did not want to go on fighting the journalist due to my own personal commitments elsewhere at this time. Here is what I have to say:

Pollock's grand sweep of the history of sanskrit includes the following distinct stages/phases or epochs. He insists that these dont overlap, and they are separated by major events that cause disruptions. His main claims include the following:

1) sanskrit had always been EXCLUSIVELY used for rituals/liturgy only and there was NO OTHER USE. It was banned for shudras and women. It was strictly oral and never written.

2) buddhism caused a major disruption. Buddhists started writing in sanskrit which others had never done. Buddhists wanted to disrupt the abusive vedic social structure and open the discourse to everyone. 

3) In response to the buddhist attack on them, the vedic brahmins wanted to be competitive w buddhists, so they were forced to start writing the sanskrit. It was no longer possible to keep it secret from the masses as a way to oppress.

4) the first writing in sanskrit by Vedic brahmins was valmiki's ramayana. This was king sponsored. The Ramayana has served as a narrative of royal power over people. It served the purpose of maintaining royal power over enemies because kings saw themselves as Rama and told their citizens to see their enemies as Ravana.

5) sanskrit spread across many kingdoms because it served the king's interest to oppress and control the masses. Brahmins conspired with kings by supplying them with specific sanskrit kavya, training them on how to use it and constantly praising the kings in front of the public.

My response: Each of the above is filled with assumptions that are refuted by important scholars. For example scholars make the following counter claims:

• The ban on shudras/women access to sanskrit was not as claimed - Arvind Sharma's book "Hindu Egalitarianism" gives lots of evidence
• Sanskrit writing was not necessarily started by buddhists - evidence unclear either way
  
• Sanskrit was not limited to spiritual uses only and had many other kinds of shastraa and other texts
• The chronology of pollock is false, that all works other than Vedas belong to a period after Buddha. He manipulates dates to fit into his own theory of cause and effect of the historical developments.
• Ramayana was not post buddha and nor was it influenced by buddhist texts.
  
• The post-buddha spread of sanskrit cannot be explained as strictly due to kings wanting to use it for their oppression and power. There were many texts with no political purpose or agenda.

The existence of sacred texts in sanskrit is no different than the existence of religious texts in latin and arabic. Similarly the use of sanskrit to produce political works is similar to the political usages of latin/arabic. In other words the thesis he has on sanskrit could also be applied to all other old languages.

These statement of mine make sense when one knows the questions I was being asked.

Overall reaction to article in ET: A highly manipulative but subtle job, giving the false impression of being balanced. However, every mention of my book and the controversies it has sparked is playing into our hands exactly the way we want. The goal has been to generate more views and more scholarship from various sides. Watch out for Prof Kannan's conference series and some others things in the pipeline. This will wake up many good scholars on our side and the discourse is headed for more churning.

Regards,
Rajiv

[Shrivathsa B]

I prostrate at the feet of shrii bijoy for the beautiful post. It is easy to slip into dry intellectualization of a debate which has real world consequences. Thanks a lot for your post.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 2 May 2016 19:50:51 UTC+5:30, Bijoy wrote:

Dear Sri Nityanad and friends,

The phrase "both sides" in the mail would seem to suggest that we are "bystanders" in this process.

Sanskrit is the soul of the culture of India.   Any denigration to it affects India as a nation and Indians

as a group in the world.  Such denigration has been methodically executed through various agencies

over time leading some to think that Sanskrit in India was discovered by William James.  Such is the

prevailing narrative rampant in the west and is also, as I learn, made popular in India among the new 

youth.  The "sides' are not Rajiv Malhotra and Sheldon Pollock, but they are the Indian society and 

her culture versus the interpretation by the western "scholars" through whatever motivation.  

Dear Prof. Mishra Ji

If you think the term “both sides” conveyed the sense that “we are bystanders”, let me restate that as:

Good to see “our side” (your and mine) is also being given coverage in the media, though the coverage is still more on “their side”. 

Between a Camille Bulcke and a Karpatra Swami, “we” (you and me) will be on the same side, that of Karpatra Swami, and you probably know this. However, please do consider that just using the term like “both sides” or “two communities” does not make one a “bystander”. Arvind Sharma is quoted by McComas Taylor as follows (‘Mythology Wars: The Indian Diaspora, “Wendy's Children” and the Struggle for the Hindu Past’, Asian Studies Review, 35: 2, p. 160):

Sharma maintains that the new challenge is to adjudicate differences of opinion between the faith community and the academic community, on the basis of criteria acceptable to both.

And yet, Arvind Sharma’s endorsement is the first one sees in TBFS (on the dust jacket), and his interpretations are used by Malhotra to counter Pollock. I don’t think Arvind Sharma is a bystander. A phrase does not a bystander make. 

Lastly, it is good to see that the media is at least interviewing people like Prof. Kannan, Sh. N. Gopalaswami, Sh. Rajiv Malhotra. The coverage is still biased in the ET article: Pollock makes the headline and Kannan does not, and an impression is given that Kannan did not answer some questions. Still, this is better than the post-MCLI petition scenario where views of only one side (“their side”) were published.

Thanks, Nityanand

 

[Rajiv Malhotra]

I also learned that ET had been approached by the Pollock camp weeks earlier, and he got lots of time to craft the story line with them. But we got asked only in the last minute, in a hurry with short deadlines given. I could not afford the time to do a second iteration with them, especially since they asked questions with a clear tilt, and seemed to ignore much of what I said already.

Kannan also faced severe time pressure from them - hardly the method if their truly wanted genuine knowledge.

We have advanced over the past 25 years from being ignored to being non-ignorable. Please watch the fight in my Columbia Univ lecture last week. This video has gone viral in the past week with 20,000 views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olQlPZuEWLY

rm

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Monday, 2 May 2016 19:35:23 UTC+5:30, Vashishtha Jha wrote:

My expectation  from ET would be to also publish another article to report whether there was and there is oppression and discrimination where  there was and is no Sanskrit.  I am simply suggesting to applying the principle of anvaya and vyatireka of Indian intellectual tradition to claim whether Sanskrit is or was the cause of oppression or discrimination.

Dear Prof. Jha

Given the questions of the Asst Editor at ET and the selectively quoted responses of Prof. Kannan, I wonder if the folks covering this topic at ET are interested in publishing from the perspective of our intellectual tradition (Anvaya, Vyatireka, etc). Perhaps journals like Swarajyamag will publish it without much edits. Recently Deccan Chronicle and Asian Age did a full-page feature on Prof. Vamsee Juluri, and the journalists who did that may be contacted (if Prof. Juluri can be heard from San Francisco, I am sure you can be heard from Pune). Or maybe journalists like Rupa Subramanya or Sadananda Dhume can do better justice in putting forward this perspective. There are journalists and platforms who will publish, they need to be reached.

Thanks, Nityanand

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sri Nityanad,

I don't know if Aravind Sharma says that.  He would be wrong in those phrases.

"Academic" community has to understand "faith" in order to analyze "faith".

As I said in my post, "faith" is not a picture.  Sanskrit is not a text or a few

isolated sentences.  Lately I have a feeling that operations touted as

"Hindu Studies" have little to do with the Hindus.  They are remnants of

European efforts to "understand" India and to caricature her in order to help 

create sympathetic attitude among their individual countrymen. They do not care 

that such attitude must change because people of Indian descent are part of the

"population" now.  As I said in my review of Rajiv''s book, people of Indian

descent never had a reflection what distinguishes them as a block of population. 

Scholars in India must turn themselves as activists to protest against derogatory

dealings on India.  You have a role to play in this as an active scholar.  There

are no "two sides" for an activist.  Boycotts, protests and rejoinders are in

order.  You have to guard the interests of more than a billion people.

Pollock's interest in JNU is a good case to ponder politics in "scholarship".

Best regards,

BM

    

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Jsr Prasad]

Shall we call this as yellow journalism or acts of paid media? I can't resist to comment on following views in the article, though they are not critical:

Sanskrit was never the common man's language, the actor says..

actors becoming professors and historians these days, really? So, behold, so much of entertainment is guranteed..

Ironically, in these times of the internet and cell phone, Sanskrit has become a significant point of debate and discussion.

- Alas! I need to type out the sentences from this article as ET do not allow 'copy' and 'paste' of its conent in this times of internet..

- In context of, 'whether mother has to send to the old age home or to be taken care at our own home,' does it become a sudden point of debate and discussion? Either way it is one's own dharma, right?

In the recent past, there have been several controversies pertaining to Sanskrit... HRD minister Smirti Irani's declaration that IITs have been asked to teach Sanskrit to students “for facilitating study of science and technology as reflected in its literature.”

This is not a new thing, one and half decade back, IIT Kanpur has offered Sanskrit courses to its students thoroughly approved by a committee. I am aware of the scholar, who taught over there. A professor from IIT Delhi has also helped them to draft the syllabus. Words like science and technology put in double quotes, reveals the attitude of author of this 'master piece.' If the author(s) can't google about Indian achievements in science and technology, let them try to search 'PHISPC' which has published good number of scientific volumes. That gives information on how Sanskrit instigated scientific temper.

..the language has been appreciated for its poetry and mythology.

Sorry, it is called 'purana,' no mythology business here.

It is also well known that the use of Sanskrit was limited to sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes; and that the history of exclusion and marginalisation in India is closely linked to the manner in which access to Sanskrit was controlled in the past.

The author is deliberately ignoring facts or himself is ignorant of the same. Mahabhashyam was written in the colloquial Sanskrit style. Next, in king Bhoja's kingdom, it was believed that everyone was a Sanskrit poet. An ambassodor went in search of people, who can not write Sanskrit poetry, ultimately, he succeeds in getting a weaver. Then the weaver replies -

काव्यं करोमि नहि चारुतरं करोमि
यत्नात्करोमि यदि चारुतरं करोमि ।
भूपालमौलिमणिरञ्जितपादपीठ
हे भोजराज कवयामि वयामि यामि ।।

Scholars can add more such instances in this context.

He [Prof. Pollock] has also argued how the reliance on the Vedas as the source of ultimate truth has discouraged trial and error and practical experimentation in recent centuries in India. In contrast, it was practical experiments that laid the foundation for the Renaissance in Europe.

In Indian context, trail and error is about truth and un-truth only. We never wanted material progress, but, instead the spiritual progress. So is it wrong, if we have not give a trails to trace the 'god's particle' in the name of big bang experiments?

Ananya Vajpeyi's statement with regard to 'all Indian science is western,' is like a proverb in Telugu – 'egg goes to chicken to riddicule it.' She needs more maturity in academic debates.

Chandramohan's comment on teaching Sanskrit in IITs – IITs do not produce religious practitioners or philosophers, but just engineers. So, how students accept anything that is irrelevant to their curriculum? He himself is said to be an IITian in the article. He should not simply attribute caste system to the Sanskrit scriptures but show concrete evidences.

It was English education that created the architect of the Indian Constitution BR Ambedkar.

But why is he silent on Dr. Ambedkar's strong suggestion to make Sanskrit, the national language? Also, the Indian constitution has heavily drawn insights from Arthasastra and other important  texts, is my belief.

Other views in the article are either answered by scholars or they just to be ignored.

Economic Times is owned by the Bennet and Coleman with an inhetent British 'samskara,' started some one and half century back.

Whether such articles educate or fabricate about the ground realities?

Regards,
Prasad

[V N Jha]

Thank you Mr. Mishra.

India may offer a course on Indian Methods of  Debating. Pollock and Pollockites and shallow journalists may take advantage of such training to improve understanding of Indian's past. But are they interested in knowing the truth ? I do not think they are. 

VNJha

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof. V N Jha,
Former Director, Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, Pune-411007, India.

Residence
C-3, 402 Kunal Icon, Pimple Saudagar, Pune-411027

Phone; 91-20-27201458(R)
Mobile : 09890215441

[Krishnakumar M]

On: "It is also well known that the use of Sanskrit was limited to sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes; and that the history of exclusion and marginalisation in India is closely linked to the manner in which access to Sanskrit was controlled in the past."

It may be noted that great social reformer Saint from Kerala, Sri Narayana Guru (1856-1928), and his equally celebrated poet disciple Kumaran Ashan were both well versed with Sanskrit. Guru has authored many works in Sanskrit -- Darsana Mala, Brahmavidya Panchakam, Nirvruthi Panchakam, Slokathrayi etc. On being asked by Mahatma Gandhi, whether he knew English,Guru famously questioned Gandhiji back, whether he knew Sanskrit!

Guru was from the backward Avarna community of Ezhavas and rejected casteism, and promoted new values of spiritual freedom and social equality.  His movement led to the reform movement among Hindus of Kerala.

So there are excellent examples of espousal of Sanskrit by the non-upper caste Hindus too.

Krishna Kumar M.

+65 9389 0407

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, 3 May 2016 01:24:06 UTC+5:30, Jsr Prasad wrote:

The author is deliberately ignoring facts or himself is ignorant of the same. Mahabhashyam was written in the colloquial Sanskrit style. Next, in king Bhoja's kingdom, it was believed that everyone was a Sanskrit poet. An ambassodor went in search of people, who can not write Sanskrit poetry, ultimately, he succeeds in getting a weaver. Then the weaver replies -

काव्यं करोमि नहि चारुतरं करोमि
यत्नात्करोमि यदि चारुतरं करोमि ।
भूपालमौलिमणिरञ्जितपादपीठ
हे भोजराज कवयामि वयामि यामि ।।

Scholars can add more such instances in this context.

There is also evidence to show that in the time of Valmiki Ramayana, Sanskrit texts were read by shudras: 

पठन्द्विजो वागृषभत्वमीयात्स्यात्क्षत्रियो भूमिपतित्वमीयात्।

वणिग्जनः पण्यफलत्वमीयाज्जनश्च शूद्रोऽपि महत्त्वमीयात्॥

– वा॰रा॰ १.१.१००

And on King Bhoja there is the other anecdote that the भारवाह corrected his grammar by replying:

भारो न बाधते राजन् यथा बाधति बाधते 

[K S Kannan]

Against  Prof. Jha's kind and perceptive response.

"Pollockites and shallow journalists" may be interested in getting to know the truth. What is of concern is what they do next with it.

Theirs is perhaps the creed of those who say :

Get the facts first;

we can twist them later !

[Sati Shankar]

From the outset, we must keep in mind that the article is nothing more than , what commonly referred to as , in the 

journalist's world, a, "who said what" article. The second important point is that it is a Times Group publication, which is being extensively and intensively classified under,the category of "prestitutes". The third issue of importance is that, if you are taking most, if not all, the main stream media in India, for example Times of India, The Hindu,Economic and Political Weekly. etc etc.the question of who owns and what has been their inclination. These issues give us enough basis to decide for our own self,what to read, how to read and to what extent to trust the "ethics" of the publication.

In the light of the above,the article is a "who said what" article in which the most effective weapon in the hands of the journalist remains ,"whom and what to include and whom and what to exclude". The article begins  with a title which has two parts, "Sheldon Pollock offers scholarly opinion on Sanskrit" and  "a language that the government seems keen to massify".

The learned editor quotes hardly a paragraph, on behalf of the first and the prominent part of the title, on what Prof. Pollock's Scholarly opinion offers, without really saying anything about the fundamental hypotheses, not to teach but to give any scientific support, on which the learned Prof. has based his opinion and without giving almost any information about the "Grand Strategy" of "Cosmopolis"and on his being "Philologically Selective".

Interestingly the article narrates at length a film maker to criticize how the decision to change name of GurGaon is illogical which has 

nothing to do with Pollock's opinion, but used as a thread to criticize Sanskrit, its countable users in India and hence Government

 policy.The journalist selects S Chandramohan, one of India's young Dalit poets who writes in English, to criticise Sanskrit

and praise English as behind ever success...May I ask percent of people who speak English in entire Europe, (excluding Britain) and how many speak original British English in United States?

Then comes, at length, Ananya Vajpai, a disciple of Pollock, in reference to Indian Civilization,Vedic parmarthika and 

its ill effects which eliminated the  scientific culture and development in pre-medieval India. This is a hit on the very being of 

our traditional Sanskrit scholars who purportedly own the tradition as they are being alleged to destroy scientific temper of India and they seem to be silent. 

The journalist then selects a few to counter the above with this or that example. Then regrets for not receiving a reply from prof. Kannan, 

who has informed in this thread of short notice and time shortage.

So nothing to worry. When "Money" is taught to economics students for the first time, the famous monetarist's controversy (in US),

 is introduced as, "Money matters vs Money does not matter". In the same way, here Pollock matters( to some) and does not 

matter(to others).Knowingly or unknowingly we are on a double edge sword. 

On one hand , thanks to Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, for igniting the fire which is certainly going to agitate, with added efforts of Prof kannan and others, at least a part of Indians. On the other hand we are making famous Pollock's conclusions and the Classical Library and unless a competing alternative comes up from Indian scholars and from India itself,they are going to dominate the media and succeed in their propaganda under the cover up of "cosmopolis".It is time to be creative and put forward the alternative which is scientifically capable enough to replace Prof. Pollock's opinion and conclusion, in true sense of scholarship.

[Jsr Prasad]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is also evidence to show that in the time of Valmiki Ramayana, Sanskrit texts were read by shudras: 

पठन्द्विजो वागृषभत्वमीयात्स्यात्क्षत्रियो भूमिपतित्वमीयात्।

वणिग्जनः पण्यफलत्वमीयाज्जनश्च शूद्रोऽपि महत्त्वमीयात्॥

– वा॰रा॰ १.१.१००

And on King Bhoja there is the other anecdote that the भारवाह corrected his grammar by replying:

भारो न बाधते राजन् यथा बाधति बाधते

Very good examples, Nityananda Ji!

In that sense, all फलश्रुतिs of पारायण, endorse equal or appropriate results to all that recite respective texts (ex: Vishnusahasranama etc.).

Regards

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Which people labelled as lower castes wanted to learn Sanskrit and were denied the opportunity? When Sanskrit was spoken in major part of the Indic subcontinent, people labelled as lower castes spoke dialects of Sanskrit that are called Prakrits. Sanskrit was the standard form spoken all over the Sanskrit-speaking areas in the same form whereas the Prakritas spoken by the people labelled as lower castes had regional variations. The situation is similar to a common variety of Kannada being used by the elite all over the places and the non-elite Kannada having regional variations. Sanskrit plays reflect a reality of the Prakrita speaking characters understanding the Sanskrita spoken by the Sanskrita-speaking characters and vice-versa. That was how the reality was in all the Sanskrit-speaking regions. Then why at all do the Prakrita-speaking people labelled as lower castes need to 'learn' Sanskrit when they already understand it and speak it in a different form of their own? Do the speakers of non-elite dialects of  Kannada need to learn the elite Kannada as a course in a school? Don't they understand the elite form and respond to in their own dialect?

2. In other parts of the Indic subcontinent (for example, in south India ),  where Sanskrit was not the spoken language, Sanskrit was used only as a language used for studies, book-writing etc. People labelled as lower castes did not need to communicate in that language or to understand that language., because their way of life did not need the use of Sanskrit.

3. One may argue that the non-Brahmin authors of Sanskrit, are all kings, hence kshatriyas not people labelled as lower castes . But that is not true. In India, kshatiyas find mention only in books. In the actual reality and actual history, kings were mostly people labelled as lower castes that were accorded Kshatriya status after becoming kings. For example, the Reddy kings or Rayala dynasty kings of Vijayanagara were all 'people labelled as lower castes' only.

4 People labelled as lower castes feeling denial of opportunity to learn Sanskrit began only during therecent period of history. But this situation lasted only for a short while. Modern education very soon provided opportunities for all people irrespective of their caste or religion to learn

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Jsr Prasad]

Dear Sati Shankar ji,

Good observations. This is how we need to show perspectives on prevalent biases.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com> wrote:

The journalist then selects a few to counter the above with this or that example. Then regrets for not receiving a reply from prof. Kannan, 

who has informed in this thread of short notice and time shortage.

Let us not miss that Prof. Kannan has clarified on this part. Only partial block of his answers was published.

 

On one hand , thanks to Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, for igniting the fire which is certainly going to agitate, with added efforts of Prof kannan and others, at least a part of Indians. On the other hand we are making famous Pollock's conclusions and the Classical Library and unless a competing alternative comes up from Indian scholars and from India itself,they are going to dominate the media and succeed in their propaganda under the cover up of "cosmopolis".

I feel, It is not just Prof. Pollock, whom we make famous of, but he is a much sought-after from the clan of fabricated indologists. Silence, sometimes may have side effects.

Regards,

Prasad

[Jsr Prasad]

Beautiful arguments, Prof. Paturi Ji, especially the 1 and 3.

Regards

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Please look at the title:

"Sheldon Pollock offers scholarly opinion on Sanskrit - a language that the government seems keen to massify"  (emphasis mine)

What a ridiculous self-contradiction! On the one hand , the same article says,

"It is also well known that the use of Sanskrit was limited to sections of the society, broadly labelled as upper castes; and that the history of exclusion and marginalisation in India is closely linked to the manner in which access to Sanskrit was controlled in the past."

This means masses of India should have been provided access to Sanskrit. My previous post shows how the observation in the quote here is wrong. But for a moment, even if we agree that it was right, then the solution is 'massification' of Sanskrit only. But the very title of the article has the tone of opposition to the efforts to 'massify' Sanskrit.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jsr Prasad]

This is a good example of स्ववचनव्याघात like in the case of 'अहं वन्ध्यापुत्रः ।'

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

What a ridiculous self-contradiction! On the one hand , the same article says..

 

But the very title of the article has the tone of opposition to the efforts to 'massify' Sanskrit. 

Regards

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

The following  may be useful to counter the ' scholar ' --

1. he is called a 'scholar ' - according to  Indian Tradition if one has studied पदवाक्यप्रमाणशास्त्राणि ( व्याकरणम् , मीमांसा and न्यायवैशेषिके ) then only he is considered a विद्वान् / पण्डित and he will be eligible do discuss big and small issues . The one who is doing Research is also called a Scholar !

2. The first point is - are the quotations really authoritative ? Patanjali (in पस्पशाह्निकम् , महाभाष्यम् ) cautions about the authority of any given text -

क्व पुनरिदं  पठितम् ?  भ्राजा नाम श्लोकाः । किंच भोः श्लोका अपि प्रमाणम् ?  किंचातः ? यदि प्रमाणम् , अयमपि प्रमाणम् भवितुम् अर्हति ..... प्रमत्तगीत एष तत्रभवतः । यस्तु अप्रमत्तगीतः तत्प्रमाणम् ।

So one can at the outset refute many quotations put forth by the 'scholar'.

3. There is the problem of interpolations in Dharmasastras, Puranas , Itihasas etc . First this problem is to be solved .

4. If a statement in Dharmasastra goes against Veda  then the latter prevails.

5. We cannot decide as to what is said in Veda with regard to a specific aspect as all the 1137 Vedasakhas are not available (only 12/13 are there).

6.The युगधर्म also has to be taken into consideration - people generally take all विधिs and निषेधs , that are said in Vedas etc as they are .

7. There are no so many castes in Vedas etc - only four , that too , according to गुण and कर्म - how can one justify the application of the same to the present day society ? Today most of the ब्राह्मणs are जातिब्राह्मणs.

No doubt , in शङ्खस्म्रुति etc some names are given to the children born out of inter-caste  marriages - today they are called Backward Castes etc. So the original वर्णव्यवस्था  is no longer applicable .

8.Naturally , people do have some habits such as पशुमैथुनम् (  sex with animals) and the same was banned in धर्मशस्त्रs  whereas the same was banned in Switzerland / Belgium (?) just last year only !

8. Did the ' scholar ' study at least 50 स्मृतिs - there is '  यवनादीनां श्राद्धम् ’ ।  We never look down anybody . Other people also have to follow the धर्मs prescribed for ब्राह्मणs - it is clearly stated .

More points with quotations will be there in the next posting.

धन्यो’स्मि 

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com> wrote:

[V N Jha]

I get it. Thanks.

VNJha

[Nagaraj Paturi]

One of the axioms of human studies is that languages or texts written using them do not create -or not the origins of- social, cultural or other such realities of human life. They try to understand/grapple with those realities. Some of them, though turn out to be not so effective at the end of the day, try to exert influence on those realities.

So to say that Sanskrit language or texts written in that language created any social or cultural reality such as caste system betrays lack of understanding of such axioms of human studies.

Apart from this even a common write up such as a Wikipedia article on Varna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)) cautions, "This quadruple division is an ancient stratification of society is not to be confused with the much more nuanced jati or caste" 

What Sanskrit texts reflect, discuss etc. is Varna system , not caste system. We can also say that Varna is textual and caste is real in India, though there is also an influence of vocabulary of Varna in the talks about and labels of a miniscule section of castes such as Brahmins.

Even Anuloma Viloma discussions in the Sanskrit texts are not related to castes at all.

Some Indian historians discussed the label sachchudras mentioned in some historical documents as an attempt to accommodate certain castes, members of which ascended to royal throne, within the Varna paradigm that has been the legacy of the Sanskrit texts. This is an example of how texts try to grapple with the reality that does not suit the frameworks through which those texts operate. 

So to talk of "clarity on the connection between Sanskrit and caste-discrimination" that is allegedly provided by Prof. Pollock's research betrays a lack of such nuanced understanding of Sanskrit and Indian social system.

[Jsr Prasad]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

What Sanskrit texts reflect, discuss etc. is Varna system , not caste system. We can also say that Varna is textual and caste is real in India, though there is also an influence of vocabulary of Varna in the talks about and labels of a miniscule section of castes such as Brahmins.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

7. There are no so many castes in Vedas etc - only four , that too , according to गुण and कर्म - how can one justify the application of the same to the present day society ? Today most of the ब्राह्मणs are जातिब्राह्मणs.

No doubt , in शङ्खस्म्रुति etc some names are given to the children born out of inter-caste  marriages - today they are called Backward Castes etc. So the original वर्णव्यवस्था  is no longer applicable .

 

A beautiful explanation offered by Nilakanthacharya on the 'guNa' aspect rather than 'caste' aspect on Gita 18.41:

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परंतप।
कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः।।

अथेदानीं सर्वगीताशास्त्रार्थमुपसंहर्तुमसङ्गशस्त्राप्त्युपायं च प्रदर्शयितुं प्रकरणान्तरमारभते -- ब्राह्मणेत्यादिना । शूद्राणामसमासकरणं वेदानधिकारात् । प्रविभक्तानि असंकीर्णानि । तत्र हेतुमाह स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः । स्वभाव ईश्वरस्य प्रकृतिस्त्रिगुणात्मिका सैव प्रभवो हेतुर्येषां गुणानां ते स्वभावप्रभवास्तैः । यद्वा ब्राह्मणस्वभावस्य सत्त्वगुण एव प्रभवः शान्तत्वात् । क्षत्रियस्वभावस्य सत्त्वोपसर्जनं रजः ईश्वरस्वभावत्वात् । वैश्यस्वभावस्य तम उपसर्जनं रजः कृष्यादिस्वभावत्वात् । शूद्रस्वभावस्य रज उपसर्जनं तमः शुश्रूषास्वभावत्वात् । अथवा स्वभावः प्राग्भवीयः संस्कारस्तत्प्रभवैर्न तु जातिमात्रप्रभवैः पक्षिणामाकाशगमनवत् । अतएव जात्यन्तरव्यावृत्तानां धर्माणां शमादिषु पाठो न दृश्यते ।

नहि शूद्राद्व्यावृत्तं, त्रैवर्णिकानामध्ययनादिकं वा इतरद्वयाद्व्यावृत्तं ब्राह्मणानामध्यापनादिकं वा इह पठ्यते । किंतु सर्वे सर्वजातीयानां साधारणा धर्माः शमादयो दृश्यन्ते । यथाहि द्रोणादिषु ब्राह्मणेष्वपि शौर्यादिकं भरतादिषु क्षत्रियेष्वपि शमादिकं दृष्टम् एवमितरत्र । तस्माद्यस्मिन्कस्मिंश्चिद्वर्णे शमादयो दृश्यन्ते स शूद्रोऽप्येतैर्लक्षणैर्ब्राह्मण एव ज्ञातव्यः । यत्र च ब्राह्मणेऽपि शूद्रधर्मा दृश्यन्ते स शूद्र एव ।

तथा चारण्यके सर्पभूतं नहुषं प्रति युधिष्ठिरवाक्यम् -

सत्यं दानं क्षमा शीलमानृशंस्यं तपो घृणा ।

दृश्यन्ते यत्र नागेन्द्र स ब्राह्मण इति स्मृतः ।।

तथायत्रैतल्लक्ष्यते सर्प वृत्तं स ब्राह्मणः स्मृतः।

यत्रैतन्न भवेत्सर्प तं शूद्रमिति निर्दिशेत् इति। 

Regards,

Prasad

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear scholar friends,

I have not studied political philosophy.  I observe something I would call "political labeling"

which is used as a process of "free speech".  An object, an individual, a person or a 

group can be labelled with various terms to check if they stick.  In India we call it

"calling names" or "curse".  While Indian literature and society admonished cursing, 

the latter is a popular expression of "free speech" in the west.  The US is a factory

for it.  Calling something with a "one liner" is a style.  My observation is that some

of the Indology scholars possibly unknowingly also fall into this "one liner" expressions,

and claim that they are using "free speech."  

Through repeated reinforcements and media coverage the label might stick.

Once the label sticks, the affected person has to make efforts to remove the label.

I do not know how the technique was invented, but it seems to work!  My thinking

is that it is a product of creating binary categories.  This is where Indian philosophical

speculations came in to claim that the binary thinking of "high" and "low" is artificial!

So I think.

BM

    

[K S Kannan]

Bhartrhari has 4 categorisations of people :

1. sat-purus"a - Those who help others at the cost of their own ends.

2. sAmAnya - Those who help others ensuring that their own interests are not affected.

3. mAnus"a-rAks"asa - Those who jeopardise the interests of others for the sake of their own.

4. Unnamed/Unnameable -Those who ruin the good of others though they have nothing to gain for themselves!

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Much material directly or indirectly relevant to the current discussion (especially to the four excellent points made by Dr. Nagaraj Paturi) is available in: Houben, Jan E.M. 1996 (ed) Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit Language. Leiden: E.J. Brill. An Indian edn., with the addition of an updating introduction, was published by Motilal Banarsidass in 2012.

If any members of this forum are interested in reading my article (“The early history of Sanskrit as supreme language”) in the above-mentioned volume, they should contact me privately.

a.a.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks to Prof. Aklujkar for his kind remarks.

I shall contact him offline for getting his article.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

Why "if any members of this forum ...", 

all members stand to benefit from the writings of AA !

Would be happy if it is posted on this forum.

KSKannan

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ganesh R]

Yes, me too want to read that article

[Sati Shankar]

mAnyavar,

I had found Prof. Aklujkar's article “The early history of Sanskrit as supreme language”  on scribd.com,,  a few months back,

Link is  https://www.scribd.com/doc/149597702/AklujkarAshok-the-Early-History-Sanskrit-Supreme-Language

Regards

Sati Shankar

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/oSQalXcvA7I/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sati Shankar                                            

Global Synergetic Foundation

Social Links:  Facebook  Twitter  G+

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

श्रीमन्, अनुगृहीतव्योऽहम् अस्य लेखस्य पुस्तकस्यापि वा प्रतिकृत्या।

(vaidikadhahrmaraxaNe sAdhanIbhUtam saMskRtam tenaiva dharmeNa raxitam raxiShyamANam cha. dhruvam "dharmo raxati raxitaH" bhaaShAmapi janam vApi)

मंगलवार, 3 मई 2016 को 4:38:46 अपर UTC-7 को, Ashok Aklujkar ने लिखा: