[quote name='shamu' date='24 October 2011 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1319405246' post='113445']In a way, it is an attempt to take away the credits from Hinduism.[/quote]Not merely "in a way". It most certainly is an attempt to take credits away from Hindu religion. In fact, the argument is that Hinduism never had anything to do with it "in the first place": that that's all Hindus' imagination/late interpretation (that Hindus projected their religion onto it).
When you think about it, it's the best style of argument indologicals could have adopted. And it's typically indological - it's a lot like the AIT: "It was never Hindus' language/religion in the first place." ("Skt/Vedas are ours" said the aliens.)
These lines by the indological stooge Deshpande are tell-tale on the matter of intent:
It is all the indologist aimed for. The rest is for blurring Hindus' audacious claims of Panini being a Hindu and for the greater offence of any Hindus daring to (continue to) claim there was any Hindu Divine hand behind Panini's efforts.
[quote name='shamu' date='24 October 2011 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1319405246' post='113445']Why do you believe that it is Buddhists who are making claims about Sanskrit grammar? I think it is somebody else who is attributing Sanskrit grammar to Buddhism.[/quote]
1. As can be seen in post 142, historically it was Buddhism that invented its (late) traditions for claiming Panini in order to make his grammar acceptable to Buddhism (to provide an equal or "even more authentic" claim to Panini), since Hindoos and Hindoo religion as origin for it weren't acceptable.
2. So that was historically.
But in the example of the above article itself, it is the visible indologist who refers back to those old Buddhist assertions "arguments" to imply that Hindu religion has *as much* claim on Panini's grammar as Buddhism did, since both are to have made claims to inspiring Panini. The indological argument is that both are equal in their falseness and - most specifically - that "therefore Hindus' religion cannot claim it either": that Panini's religion is unknown (not apparent from his work) and that one can't really assume anything about it.
It specifically undermines the Hindu origin to the Shiva Sutras* and consequent relevance to Panini's work on grammar etc.
It's a secular-looking attack on Hindu religion.
BTW, the reason why #142 was posted in this thread is manifold (however, it does concern Buddhism too). And also because eventually - like all things manufactured in the indology mills - I suspect this too can come back to bite Hindus, and that it can (will?) be used by others.
<snip>
When you think about it, it's the best style of argument indologicals could have adopted. And it's typically indological - it's a lot like the AIT: "It was never Hindus' language/religion in the first place." ("Skt/Vedas are ours" said the aliens.)
These lines by the indological stooge Deshpande are tell-tale on the matter of intent:
Quote:The tradition of Paninian Grammar as it has reached us clearly believes that Panini was inspired by Mahesvara/Siva to write his grammar, and [color="#0000FF"]that he received at least the first fourteen sutras, which are traditionally called Sivasutrani or Mahesvarasutrani, from Mahesvara/Siva.[/color]
[...]
Panini's grammar itself gives us no indication of any particular religious belief attached to this grammar, except that the grammar was situated firmly within the Vedic [color="#FF0000"]culture[/color].
[color="#800080"](And having created the opening, Deshpande then proceeds to the next phase[/color]
The grammar as it is incorporated in the Astadhyayi is integrally connected to the lists of sounds as formulated in the [color="#FF0000"]so-called[/color] Sivasutras
It is all the indologist aimed for. The rest is for blurring Hindus' audacious claims of Panini being a Hindu and for the greater offence of any Hindus daring to (continue to) claim there was any Hindu Divine hand behind Panini's efforts.
[quote name='shamu' date='24 October 2011 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1319405246' post='113445']Why do you believe that it is Buddhists who are making claims about Sanskrit grammar? I think it is somebody else who is attributing Sanskrit grammar to Buddhism.[/quote]
1. As can be seen in post 142, historically it was Buddhism that invented its (late) traditions for claiming Panini in order to make his grammar acceptable to Buddhism (to provide an equal or "even more authentic" claim to Panini), since Hindoos and Hindoo religion as origin for it weren't acceptable.
2. So that was historically.
But in the example of the above article itself, it is the visible indologist who refers back to those old Buddhist assertions "arguments" to imply that Hindu religion has *as much* claim on Panini's grammar as Buddhism did, since both are to have made claims to inspiring Panini. The indological argument is that both are equal in their falseness and - most specifically - that "therefore Hindus' religion cannot claim it either": that Panini's religion is unknown (not apparent from his work) and that one can't really assume anything about it.
It specifically undermines the Hindu origin to the Shiva Sutras* and consequent relevance to Panini's work on grammar etc.
It's a secular-looking attack on Hindu religion.
BTW, the reason why #142 was posted in this thread is manifold (however, it does concern Buddhism too). And also because eventually - like all things manufactured in the indology mills - I suspect this too can come back to bite Hindus, and that it can (will?) be used by others.
<snip>