Pollock’s obsession with Sanskrit’s past instead of what it really says

Please visit http://akarma.org/pollocks-obsession-with-sanskrits-past-instead-of-what-it-really-says/ for the latest incarnation of this article. Thanks.

Advertisements
Standard

9 thoughts on “Pollock’s obsession with Sanskrit’s past instead of what it really says

  1. Jeff says:

    great post on Sanskrit and hope pollock comes forward and accepts Rajiv’s invite to debate on Sanskrit , and living language.

  2. 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.

  3. sriharsha Namuduri says:

    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.”

  4. Swapnil says:

    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…?

  5. Saraja Puranik says:

    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

  6. 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…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s