tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7813749.post114400180655506140..comments2024-03-24T12:52:31.153+05:30Comments on Shadow Warrior: nytimes: on religion and secularismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7813749.post-1144079387350885212006-04-03T21:19:00.000+05:302006-04-03T21:19:00.000+05:30kashyapagotri,i am glad that this one language,sid...kashyapagotri,<BR/><BR/>i am glad that this one language,<BR/>sidelined by oversight, got set<BR/>aside only for sacred purposes.<BR/>i feel infinitely glad.<BR/><BR/>sanskrit creates a sacred space<BR/>no one can touch.<BR/><BR/>(though some have dared to call it<BR/>a dead language. this is how it<BR/>was mentioned in ncert textbooks.<BR/>some nephews of mine from delhi<BR/>once chanted this to me, much<BR/>to our horror. and then i found<BR/>out the source - delhi classrooms).<BR/><BR/>-daisieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161174841668873934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7813749.post-1144075022102391462006-04-03T20:07:00.000+05:302006-04-03T20:07:00.000+05:30what is this guy's problem? who is he? what was th...what is this guy's problem? who is he? what was this all about ? how long have i been away from this blog? which year is this?kautilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196450087427067882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7813749.post-1144033281026080082006-04-03T08:31:00.000+05:302006-04-03T08:31:00.000+05:30Iam just posting this response (to rajeev critic o...Iam just posting this response (to rajeev critic of my response), here related to a previous blog refering to 'maharashtra in south'<BR/><BR/>rajeev,<BR/><BR/>whats your problem? on one hand you talk as if you are the sole defender of hinduism, but dismiss everything i say about our ancient books. The references i said do exist, go read them if you want. <BR/><BR/>Just because tibet is not included ..u say the 6 division is crap? Are you crazy? Tibet was never a part of india. India ends with the himalayas. Just because kailash & Manasarovar is there tibet wouldnt become india's. Its like saying baluchistan is ours because hinglaj is there. We all know balochistan is beyond the kirthar range in the iranian plateau and always fell under the persian sphere of influence. If you say tibet is ours..then there is no difference b/w you and the chinese maoists.<BR/><BR/>Also, you are right. Manu was expressing his opinion. But mind you ..that he was addressing the people and society of his times, NOT ours. Every author writes books to express his views on the topic he is writing about. That is what he did too, So you saying he does not have that right? Your problem is that you view all the old scriptures against the current background. <BR/><BR/>Whatever he wrote he did so thousands of years ago when it had been only a few generations after the migration started. May be he was trying to conserve the uniqueness of his people, by discouraging mixing? Just like today we are against the converions to christianity and islam. <BR/><BR/>BUT my point is he did so for the people of his time. Now ..if we are still are trying to follow it and seek guidance from the manusmriti..thats entirely our problem. I think if Manu were to come back now.. he himself would rewrite his work to suit the society of today.<BR/><BR/>This reponse again proves that you dont know a sqat, what you talking about. I have seen this time and again in your blogs, that you either praise something as a whole or totaly booo it as a whole. Nothing is perfect, rajeev. We have to see what part of the subject we are discussing and in what context. <BR/><BR/>I was just using the manusmrti as one of the items of proof, as it has indirect, references to the migration. <BR/><BR/>also, did i ever mention the word 'skin color'? NO. so why u using it against me? cant you read english? But anyway..if you want to know, they were fair skinned than the natives. Not because any race factor ( which by the way can contribute) but mainly because the natives who lived in more humid and hot tropico-equatorial conditions are bound to be dark skinned. And it is true that the new comers refer to the natives as dark skinned. But mind you when alexander..came in he called the natives dark skinned too, even the predominatly aryanized punjab ( which could have been a result of mixing). But what iam trying to say is that it is all relative. Alex'r being from europe was much fairer than the aryans, who inturn were much fairer than the natives. And skin color cannot be used as factor to argue such a old happening. <BR/><BR/>and iam not coming up with grand theories. rememeber i said ORIGINAL central asians. Todays central asians are a mix of turks, grecko-persians and mongols who raided these lands. Its funny that you say they came in only with mughals and mongols... ha ha ha. What about the shakas? (The shaka republic of yakutia still exsits in siberia.. these people were and are mongols.) And what about the later invasion by the kushans? Dude go learn your history well and i mean the true history and NOT the congress/left version, which we all hate.<BR/><BR/>Now this is for this chitrakut guy.. go read the books dude. You just want to argue without reading them. Atleast go and read the english translations. The references to the old lands in central asia exist, OK. let me know if you need to know where.<BR/><BR/>And why would valmiki write about the migration? You certainly dont have a sense of time scale of history. the migration would have happened atleast a thousand years before him. And he was writing about Rama. So why would he go out of his way to write about the migration which is not related to his topic and when he belongs to the N'th generation and is completly a naturalized indian. Are you nuts? Are you saying that if one sets about writing a book on electricity, then he should cover the whole realm of Physics right from the origin of the universe? Just dont talk rubbish. Ok !?!<BR/><BR/>daisies... the compilation and standardization of sanskrits grammar was done by Panini around 600 BC. Till then it was very much flexible and each grammarian and associated groups followed their own set of rules and style. By this time it had also borrowed in many native words. Thats why you see a great difference b/w early vedic and later vedic sanskit. But not much has changed after that. Infact panini himself states that "though early vedic sanskit was still understood in his time, it was totally outdated and not in use".<BR/><BR/>There are two unrelated things i wanna state here ..just thoughts. would like your opinion.<BR/><BR/>1. I think sanskit should have been the national language. This would have been evenly fair on all regions of india. This is the only common 'ligual' thread which binds us all. I know the tamils would still have a problem, but it would be a much better deal that the current Hindi.<BR/><BR/>2. I think Madras, bombay, karachi, lahore, delhi and calcutta (and even Kanpur) should have been made Union territories. All the people under these four presidencies paid taxes to build these cities and its administrative offices and infrastructure. They were the melting pots for the people of their respective regions. So why should just the states where they physically fell, reap the benefits? while the other had to build new capitals? I said Kanpur as that was the major town for the gangetic basin. And i said lahore and karachi 'coz i still think india should have stayed as one piece.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11862271897826464714noreply@blogger.com