Sunday, 27 November 2016

Sankrit and its Validity

"But Sanskrit is the language of oppression and oppressors.

There is also a posse of bright motivated people that will tell you that Sanskrit is the reminder and remainder of Brahminical oppression beyond compare, of the caste system and what not.

So is English the reminder and remainder of British colonialism!

But consider for a moment: for centuries, the whole world was going crazy trying to get to India; to do commerce with the only powerhouse of world economy till 1857! You don’t build empires just on spirituality and religion. You need practical wisdom, knowledge, science; of course the policy can be guided by spirituality.

And you don’t need to concoct spiritual eclectic wisdom to oppress people; the West did so with simple sword and gun!

So if Sanskrit should be shunned because some ‘priestly class’ [sic] misused their power while speaking in Sanskrit, then please don’t forget that Hitler spoke German while doing what he did, and Communism and suspension of liberty happened while the Premier spoke Mandarin, and the South and Central Americas were butchered while the Cross was held as witness, and the Middle East was bloodied while Koran was used as a guide."

If one finds some lines of some scripture to be incorrect or unjust or corrupted, one can simply go further back in time to find the purer truth, since society was not as corrupted then as it is today. It is like the Ganga—at Howrah it is a toxic pit, but as you go towards the source, to Allahabad, Haridwar, Rishikesh, Gangotri, it keeps getting purer and purer.
Borra Srinivas good rationalisation. Please do read manusmriti to know how great our indian culture was. it is just a religion of inequality.
Aparna Krishnan i am trying to get it and read it beginning to end. the truth can only be understood in the entire understanding in the original language. too many out of context quotes are floating around. Then, as a friend clarified Smrities are for each yugam. And it is the Srutis - of which the upanishads are a part - which are timeless.
Sashikala Ananth It is also important to look at and rationalise on the reality of an era. You dont talk of the inequality and anti semeticism evident in shakespeares writings to prove that christianity is regressive or violent. Social movement through the centuries in europe has seen horrific violence against its own people. That doesnt prevent the nations there from working with their own religious biases to come with better reforms. By constantly bringing up the negatives of Hinduism that are social problems and citing them as reasons for not investing in and expanding the horizons of the knowledge and the wisdom that were autonomous and not dependent on religious oppression as in other cultures, we as Indians are the losers. We end up giving up our capacity to develop our wisdom and understanding into a viable life supporting and holistic system. We end up running behind the western model that has had severe problems in the last decade or so. Even in this adaptation we end up being out of step with real breakthroughs, and end up copying outdated ideas.
Borra Srinivas In the name of knowledge and wisdom the ruling class will only end up re inforcing the old stereotypes..
Sathish Yadav When Smritis' (for ex: Manu Smriti) are no longer applicable in the movement of time, refer the Shruthis (Vedas) says the Vedas. Smritis' are time bound wisdom made to aid humans through the movement of time but Shruthi's are eternal but Shruthi's won't solve day to day problems.
Sathish Yadav Hindus will never accept to Manu Smriti, it was a law applicable only at the time of the beginning of the Manvantara i.e after the great deluge, a good 10,000 years ago and has been undergoing change, but now is a time it is no longer valid.
Borra Srinivas Its a real shame that we are still discussing about the validity of this crap
Aparna Krishnan Srinivas, I have not read the original text. i assume you also have not. To dismiss anything unknown thus is irresponsible dialoging.
Aparna Krishnan To dismiss or to eugolie.
Borra Srinivas i agree that i have not read the original version. but i understood it through the writings of great people like Ambedkar, Balagopal
Aparna Krishnan No enough. Because they have preconceived notions. Need to study the original, ot al least the translation, for ourselves. I have also not read it, and so I withhold an opinion.
Borra Srinivas their notions are based on the hard realities of the oppressed comunities
Sathish Yadav The likes of Mark Twain, Hiuen Tsang and Mackaulay himself paints a vastly different picture... How did it all go wrong is something we must learn, any body of knowledge is a treasure just not without its flaws...
Aparna Krishnan Please read and make your own judgement. That responsibility is ours. Some people see villages as 'havens of vice and backwardness'. I have seen it as a 'impoverished, but extrememly cultured and generous place'. So you see you need to bring your own experiance and reading and judgement into play.
Samir Patil I have seen Manu Smriti in original and have seen it in action in life of my maternal grandfather. He carefully followed it all through his life and though not a brahmana his life was most truthful, compassionate and charitable. It pains to see falsehood and fabrication succeed so easily in our generation:-(
Aparna Krishnan All discussions have become superficial, and lack the discipline and rigour of prior studies and homework.

No comments:

Post a Comment