Please visit http://akarma.org/pollocks-obsession-with-sanskrits-past-instead-of-what-it-really-says/ for the latest incarnation of this article. Thanks.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
lead your mind 
Very clearly spelt out. Thanks!
Palak Thank you for your blog very clear picture and motives of Western Indology.
great post on Sanskrit and hope pollock comes forward and accepts Rajiv’s invite to debate on Sanskrit , and living language.
Seems rather difficult. The Murthys of Today give undue importance to the scholarship of Pollock and Ananya etc Rohan Murthy’s arrogance in calling names to the scholars in the Indian tradition reveals his Anglo file-colonial mentality.
Palak ji, beautifully and very briefly explained on the importance & Sacredness of Sanskrit! One important take away for me – “Sanskrit grammar is condensed into the minimal amount of words as possible for a reason. The codified language where a single word can have innumerable meanings keeps the door open for innovation in understanding and application. It means that Sanskrit is designed to withstand the shifts in time and culture.”
Palak ki, very thoutfull reply to Pollock’s stand on Sanskrit n Sanskrity. I wonder how these external so called intellectuals are allowed to transcript our scriptures in any way they want only because they learnt Sanskrit. Will they allow bilble translation in our languages by Hindus as we want coz we understand English better…?
Good article, small but very effective. Keep writing.
What Pollock calls as past of Sanskrit that too is untrue. The whole his perspective seems to be distortive. If the purpose of Ramayana is e.g. regressive or oppressive then how can the literature of Ramayana iwill be beautiful
Great writing, Palak ji. You and Divya Jhingran make a great pair. We somehow have to make sure the Murtys get to read all of these posts. They currently seem to read only secular versions. Though, I must say, Ms. Sudha Murty has contributed towards rebuilding Someswara Temple, and has provided for upliftment of poor artists, etc. So painting them as one sided is probably wrong. Rohan, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter…