Post 4/4
4. Speaking of mantras and some things not being "Indian" - never being "Indian" - but ethnic-Hindu alone, on this bit Taseer wrote:
But Sanskrit may never [=not allowed to/not possible to/no meaning to] "escape" its ...what he calls "liturgical" function.
- The very akSharas of that language are mantras in their own right, they are the Hindu Gods in their own right (which akSharas are identified as the names - hence persons - of the Gods, e.g. Saraswati Sahasranamam lists the akSharas of the pre-eminently HINDU language, the DevabhaaShaa, among Saraswati Amman's names).
- The first and foremost and fundamental "purpose" of existence/source of existence of the language is the Vedam (all the way up to Hindu Tantras and Stotras etc). Everything else in Skt that is Hindu derives from this and finds its inspiration/derivation in it. Including, as stated a few paras up, several of Kalidaasa's major oeuvres. Indeed, he could not have written anything had not aparNA enabled him to do so (starting with writing mantras/akSharas on his tongue with her trishoolam), ever since which he considered he belonged to her/his Divine Parents.
Also, Skt has been a language of Hindus' literature and the language of Vedic kings (including in statecraft) since - well - since what people seem to call the "Vedic" era, whenever that was :hand-waving: It never "only" had a liturgical function. But its use since ancient times was by Hindoos, in Hindoo society (since it's a Hindoo language). Later people would boo and hiss at it and then inculturate on it, but that never made it theirs.
And I don't know what India Aatish Taseer grew up in, but I grew up in a *Hindu* (a.o.t. Sikh or islamic) household, and even my dad wasn't so illiterate that he couldn't compose a Karnatik Kriti to the local temple's presiding God (who shall obviously not be named here) in the father tongue of the Hindus (Skt), which Kriti he apparently modelled on the style of Skt lyrics that M DikShitar composed: i.e. Sthala PuraNa + little Skt grammatical frills. [Clearly my dad had nothing better to do.] Apparently he also wrote Skt stories as well as inventing them on the spot for narration. His grandma wrote her personal letters in Skt to her husband and baby. Actual Skt expert relatives still living write commentaries on serious/complicated topics, in Skt, including on Kalidaasa's works. (And they're not new-agey readers of his works.) But it's what some *Hindoos* still do. This being a Hindoo language and all. And then there are the professionals.
Just because *I* belong to the pathetic illiterati doesn't mean other Hindus do.
This line:
Can't make it out from the sentence structure. Did he just invent this as a hypothetical case? Or was this an actual person who spoke to him in this way. In that case, why is he using the general "you"?
But who cares about the opinions of these fictional or real upper-class ladies anyway. They are free to stick to their terrible English. Hopefully they won't threaten to "discover" Skt tomorrow when they think it is fashionable.
I can understand how it's always tempting for people outside the native Heathen Religion to want to "Indianise" Skt (and Yoga and eventually even the Vedas etc) and use the convenient declaration that it all belongs to the "Indo-Europeans" and "Aryan ancestors" to pretend that 'therefore' Skt is the "shared inheritance" of Pakistani muslims and Dharmic Sikhs/just anybody and everybody from the subcontinent "too".* But sadly No: geography, shared history and even ethnicity is insufficient. (Also, isn't his mother Tavleen Singh? If so, didn't she actually make a veiled insult concerning Rama? I'm sure I remember something concerning this...) Anyway, the time for "Sharing" with and "Caring" about others is long over. Can't have the cake and eat it too. Not unless people are IN Hindu religion.
* You can see Aatish trying the same when he expressed consternation that Skt was being regarded as a 'liturgical' language "again", since he appears to want to secularise/indianise/subcontinentalise Skt (the way he even tried with Kalidaasa and the name AparNa. And he did a literal translation from Kalidaasa, and pretended that was great expertise. But he clearly doesn't know any more about it or its background- even after reading it - than its literal meaning. But this is a general complaint I have about all aliens reading all heathen stuffs.) People always try to do this to heathenisms - try to strip things of their heathenism so it can be repackaged as secular so that all who feel greedy towards such things can finally partake from what they had rejected. But too bad.
No "Indianising" the sacred language of the Hindus, Skt, full-stop. Or Hindu literature or culture or anything.
What was that Alexander Pope quote that the wonderful RSmith invoked concerning Julian again? Oh yeah, the Pierian Spring one:
Since absolutely everybody else wants to peddle their religion among Hindus (examples are in the Buddhism thread), I'm allowed to peddle Hindoo religion (=Indics' ancestral religion) among all Indics too, at least where they want bits of the exclusively Hindu cake:
"[Proper] reverts are always welcome."
It's true what a popular book says: the internet *does* make people stupider. I can't believe people gushed over this article by Aatish. Is this owing to positive discrimination, i.e. just because he's a (semi) TSP-er and (semi/mostly?) islamic, so people want to "encourage" him, just because he doesn't sound like he wants to kill every kaffir? 'Cause I'm sure if I pretended to be an expert and wrote something so ...sappy ("Oh! Eire and Arya are related! [even though they're not] It's all so touching to me in my bones, in my roots!"), containing what look very much like errors at crucial points, and then further tried to "Indianise/secularise" Hindoo stuffs into "It all belongs to all subcontinental Indians, even islamics of TSP inclusive if only they'd just bother to incorporate it into their lives too", I'd get laughed/booed at by all the sensible Hindus who might read it. And deservedly so. (That presupposes any *sensible* Hindu actually read Taseer's article, which I have not confirmed and am not sure of...)
But Aatish Taseer gets special treatment. Once more proving how it's not what people say but who says it, which appeals to modern Indians. I.e. they think and judge sentimentally instead of rationally.
And also, is this the extent of popular subcontinental study/scholarship/research (or whatever this is supposed to be)? I mean, it pretends to be a serious piece, in some site pretending to be a serious paper or magazine.
4. Speaking of mantras and some things not being "Indian" - never being "Indian" - but ethnic-Hindu alone, on this bit Taseer wrote:
Quote:What was even more dismaying was that very few people in this world regarded Sanskrit as a language of literature. In fact, Sanskrit, having fought so hard historically to escape its liturgical function and become a language of literature and statecraft, had in the India I grew up been confined once again to liturgy. And an upper-class lady, on hearing that you were learning Sanskrit, would think nothing of saying: ââ¬ËOh, I hate all that chanting-shanting.ââ¬â¢Absolutely every outsider who ever shows an interest in Skt actually wants to take it away from the Hindus/from Hindu purpose, and "liberate" it into pure-secularism/Indianism. (What next, is Taseer going to argue Skt deserves to replace Urdu as TSP's national language...? How very Roman Catholic that suggestion would be.)
But Sanskrit may never [=not allowed to/not possible to/no meaning to] "escape" its ...what he calls "liturgical" function.
- The very akSharas of that language are mantras in their own right, they are the Hindu Gods in their own right (which akSharas are identified as the names - hence persons - of the Gods, e.g. Saraswati Sahasranamam lists the akSharas of the pre-eminently HINDU language, the DevabhaaShaa, among Saraswati Amman's names).
- The first and foremost and fundamental "purpose" of existence/source of existence of the language is the Vedam (all the way up to Hindu Tantras and Stotras etc). Everything else in Skt that is Hindu derives from this and finds its inspiration/derivation in it. Including, as stated a few paras up, several of Kalidaasa's major oeuvres. Indeed, he could not have written anything had not aparNA enabled him to do so (starting with writing mantras/akSharas on his tongue with her trishoolam), ever since which he considered he belonged to her/his Divine Parents.
Also, Skt has been a language of Hindus' literature and the language of Vedic kings (including in statecraft) since - well - since what people seem to call the "Vedic" era, whenever that was :hand-waving: It never "only" had a liturgical function. But its use since ancient times was by Hindoos, in Hindoo society (since it's a Hindoo language). Later people would boo and hiss at it and then inculturate on it, but that never made it theirs.
And I don't know what India Aatish Taseer grew up in, but I grew up in a *Hindu* (a.o.t. Sikh or islamic) household, and even my dad wasn't so illiterate that he couldn't compose a Karnatik Kriti to the local temple's presiding God (who shall obviously not be named here) in the father tongue of the Hindus (Skt), which Kriti he apparently modelled on the style of Skt lyrics that M DikShitar composed: i.e. Sthala PuraNa + little Skt grammatical frills. [Clearly my dad had nothing better to do.] Apparently he also wrote Skt stories as well as inventing them on the spot for narration. His grandma wrote her personal letters in Skt to her husband and baby. Actual Skt expert relatives still living write commentaries on serious/complicated topics, in Skt, including on Kalidaasa's works. (And they're not new-agey readers of his works.) But it's what some *Hindoos* still do. This being a Hindoo language and all. And then there are the professionals.
Just because *I* belong to the pathetic illiterati doesn't mean other Hindus do.
This line:
Quote:And an upper-class lady, on hearing that you were learning Sanskrit, would think nothing of saying: ââ¬ËOh, I hate all that chanting-shanting.ââ¬â¢
Can't make it out from the sentence structure. Did he just invent this as a hypothetical case? Or was this an actual person who spoke to him in this way. In that case, why is he using the general "you"?
But who cares about the opinions of these fictional or real upper-class ladies anyway. They are free to stick to their terrible English. Hopefully they won't threaten to "discover" Skt tomorrow when they think it is fashionable.
I can understand how it's always tempting for people outside the native Heathen Religion to want to "Indianise" Skt (and Yoga and eventually even the Vedas etc) and use the convenient declaration that it all belongs to the "Indo-Europeans" and "Aryan ancestors" to pretend that 'therefore' Skt is the "shared inheritance" of Pakistani muslims and Dharmic Sikhs/just anybody and everybody from the subcontinent "too".* But sadly No: geography, shared history and even ethnicity is insufficient. (Also, isn't his mother Tavleen Singh? If so, didn't she actually make a veiled insult concerning Rama? I'm sure I remember something concerning this...) Anyway, the time for "Sharing" with and "Caring" about others is long over. Can't have the cake and eat it too. Not unless people are IN Hindu religion.
* You can see Aatish trying the same when he expressed consternation that Skt was being regarded as a 'liturgical' language "again", since he appears to want to secularise/indianise/subcontinentalise Skt (the way he even tried with Kalidaasa and the name AparNa. And he did a literal translation from Kalidaasa, and pretended that was great expertise. But he clearly doesn't know any more about it or its background- even after reading it - than its literal meaning. But this is a general complaint I have about all aliens reading all heathen stuffs.) People always try to do this to heathenisms - try to strip things of their heathenism so it can be repackaged as secular so that all who feel greedy towards such things can finally partake from what they had rejected. But too bad.
No "Indianising" the sacred language of the Hindus, Skt, full-stop. Or Hindu literature or culture or anything.
What was that Alexander Pope quote that the wonderful RSmith invoked concerning Julian again? Oh yeah, the Pierian Spring one:
Quote:(Julian's) revulsion at (christians') efforts to assimilate (=inculturate on) the literary and philosophic heritage of the Greeks without accepting the religious values voiced in it. To Julian's mind, that seemed wreckage, not assimilation.
On this point Julian's stance was basic and closed to argument: 'Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'"
Since absolutely everybody else wants to peddle their religion among Hindus (examples are in the Buddhism thread), I'm allowed to peddle Hindoo religion (=Indics' ancestral religion) among all Indics too, at least where they want bits of the exclusively Hindu cake:
"[Proper] reverts are always welcome."
It's true what a popular book says: the internet *does* make people stupider. I can't believe people gushed over this article by Aatish. Is this owing to positive discrimination, i.e. just because he's a (semi) TSP-er and (semi/mostly?) islamic, so people want to "encourage" him, just because he doesn't sound like he wants to kill every kaffir? 'Cause I'm sure if I pretended to be an expert and wrote something so ...sappy ("Oh! Eire and Arya are related! [even though they're not] It's all so touching to me in my bones, in my roots!"), containing what look very much like errors at crucial points, and then further tried to "Indianise/secularise" Hindoo stuffs into "It all belongs to all subcontinental Indians, even islamics of TSP inclusive if only they'd just bother to incorporate it into their lives too", I'd get laughed/booed at by all the sensible Hindus who might read it. And deservedly so. (That presupposes any *sensible* Hindu actually read Taseer's article, which I have not confirmed and am not sure of...)
But Aatish Taseer gets special treatment. Once more proving how it's not what people say but who says it, which appeals to modern Indians. I.e. they think and judge sentimentally instead of rationally.
And also, is this the extent of popular subcontinental study/scholarship/research (or whatever this is supposed to be)? I mean, it pretends to be a serious piece, in some site pretending to be a serious paper or magazine.
Death to traitors.