Monday 24 August 2015

David Stollar, former head of the Sanskrit Faculty at St. James comments on the dharma tradition

Please meet David Stollar, who is a founding member (if not the founder!) of the Sanskrit Facutly at St. James School in London. David is also my first Sanskrit tutor, because of whom I was able not only to teach my own son, but also take the IGCSE Sanskrit exam along with him, years ago. David is steeped in the Sanskrit tradition and continues to teach online after retiring from his calling as head of the Sanskrit faculty at St. James. If you want to get in touch with him, just leave a comment on this blogpost. He responds here to my  dharma tradition article, which you can read : http://www.dailyo.in/lifestyle/hinduism-manu-dharma-literature-sanskrit-ramayana-brahmin-vedic-india/story/1/5802.html
 


Dear Rohini,

I much enjoyed your article on the Dharmasastras. This seemed to me to be an eminently reasonable approach to the subject, and one which is sorely needed, else there is the danger of the whole wise tradition being rejected as unreasonable, insupportable and inhumane.

The approach you delineate rules out the scourges of fundamentalism on the one hand and unlicenced freethinking on the other. I particularly appreciated the fact that the clues to the subject and how it should be approached are contained in the very scriptures themselves.

I spent many years chairing a group translating the Manusmrti into English and it was intriguing how often the text, as you intimate, suggested more than one solution to a problem, and often these seemed, at first glance at least, to be wildly contradictory.

There is I believe a tradition that the text we call Manu’s originated from an effort, at a time when the ancient traditions were being forgotten, to collect the ancient verses still extant and to collate these in a more or less logical form. Thus in some cases contradictory verses are included together and also, as you point out, general rules indicated by the tradition for dealing with practical problems of interpretation.

Perhaps the most important point which underlies your exposition is that for modern India this is far from a merely historical or academic field of investigation. India is one of the few places surviving on our planet where there is still great respect for the thought of the ancients together with an innate recognition of a reality beyond the merely physical realm. Hence there is a real possibility of adapting the ancient but timeless traditions to the needs and valid aspirations of the world as we find it.

As for my initial warning of the twin but opposite dangers of fundamentalism and mere licence, the former is demonstrated by most forms of modern Islam; while the latter we see in the current ‘liberalisation’ of the once great Western religions. In this case the baby, as they say, is tending to be thrown out with bathwater. This makes me very sad.

As far as I can see, for both these extremes, the problem arises from a lack of real connection with the living Source. Only such a connection has the potential to generate genuine new forms and expressions. It seems to me, however, that this can only be made practical through the medium of a genuine tradition able to be drawn upon and illuminated anew.

The challenge therefore is to identify the modern ‘wise’ men (or women, manīibhi as you quote) who can speak from (as far as possible) something approaching an unpolluted consciousness of reality. This is a tall order I know, but history shows that good people working together in a valid tradition to purify their being and strengthen their understanding have been known in the past to achieve something near to this.

Just a few thoughts and thank you again for your article.

Friday 24 July 2015

Revise the past perfect with रामायण​ सुन्दरकाण्ड​ 10.54

Beginners, especially Hindi speakers, request you to pronounce the 'a' at the end of every 'a' ending word: cucumb-a, jagām-a, nanand-a, cikrīḍ-a etc.

Hanumān’s delight upon thinking that he has found the kidnapped Sitā:-



आस्फोटयाम् आस  चुचुम्ब पुच्छं ननन्द चिक्रीड जगौ  जगाम 
स्तम्भान् अरोहन् निपपात भूमौ  निदर्शयन् स्वां प्रकृतिं कपीनाम्

He struck [at his arms/chest with his hands], kissed his tail, rejoiced, sang, darted towards the pillars, shot up and jumped down to the ground, exhibiting/indicating his monkey-nature.






आस्फोटयामास - slapped, clapped; - 3rd person, sing, perfect  आ √स्फुट्
चुचुम्ब -kissed;  3rd person, sing, perfect √चुम्ब्  
ननन्द - rejoiced; 3rd person, sing, perfect √नन्द्
चिक्रीड -  frolicked, played; 3rd person, sing, perfect √क्रीड् 
जगौ  - sang; 3rd person, sing, perfect  √गै
जगाम -  went, darted; 3rd person, sing, perfect √गम्
स्तम्भान् pillars; masc, acc, pl.
अरोहत् climbed; 3rd person, sing, imperfect √रुह्
निपपात - jumped down; 3rd person, sing, perfect नि √पत्
भूमौ - to the ground; locative, fem, sing
निदर्शयन् -  indicating; causative, present participle नि दृश्
स्वाम् - his own pronoun, sing, agreeing with fem - prakṛti
कपीनाम् - belonging to, of monkeys, masc, genitive, plural
प्रकृतिम् - acc, fem, sing - nature.

Sunday 19 July 2015

asataḥ mā sadgamaya (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.3.28)

In response to a query on Twitter:



asataḥ mā sadgamaya
tamasaḥ mā jyotirgamaya
mṛtyoḥ mā amṛtamgamaya
(Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.3.28)

In sadgamaya, jyotirgamaya, amṛtamgamaya as @haritirumalai pointed out, sad, jyotir and amṛtam are all in the accusative case (2nd), and appear in the stem form; and as per sandhi rules in compound with gamaya - which I mentioned earlier was a causative imperative, 'cause me to go, lead me.' As you rightly pointed out, gam takes the accusative, so that's taken care of. Because of the stem form, the case ending that was confusing you, is dropped. (santam santau sataḥ) And all three are neuters. Tamas and jyotis are anyway, and amṛta can be m/n/f, but in the sense of immortality it is a neuter.

Now the first part of each sentence could have be interpreted two ways depending on whether you take mā to be not/don't, or whether you take it to be the enclitic for mām - meaning mujh ko, mujhe, 'me' as I first reacted. But, since asataḥ , tamasaḥ and mṛtyoḥ are all in the ablative case (5th), there is no scope for ambiguity, and @haritirumalai got it right the first time.

Tuesday 30 June 2015

My response to Shoaib Daniyal's article "Fact check: India wasn't the first place Sanskrit was recorded – it was Syria"

It is not my intention here to comment on what the Modi government is doing with Sanskrit. Neither do I intend to delve into the 'origin' theories surrounding Sanskrit. Nor the Central Asian Urheimat hypothesis. This response is motivated primarily by Shoaib's suggestive lead in -  "Fact Check." My simple intention is to question some of the presuppositions and 'facts' in Shoaib's article. To point out that in some places the title and subheadings of the article are at variance with his own copy. And that in my humble opinion, he has got this quite wrong. 

In http://scroll.in/article/737715/fact-check-india-wasnt-the-first-place-sanskrit-was-recorded-it-was-syria Drawing on the scholarship of  David Anthony, Thomas Burrows and others, Shoaib suggests that Sanskrit was first recorded in (modern day) Syria. The basis of this claim is a treaty signed in the 14th century BCE between the Hatti and the Mittani. Other proof includes Kikkuli's  horse training manual in Hittite which has words which are similar or the same as those found in Sanskrit. He may well have added the names of Mitanni princes on cuneiform documents in Akkadian from the Bogazk6y and El-Amarna tablets.

I'm a bit surprised by the following:

1.)His own article specifies that the Mitanni were speakers of a language called Hurrian. (Not Sanskrit)

2.) The treaty itself was not scripted in Sanskrit and only bears the names (or equivalents) of 3+2 deities who are well established in the Rig Veda. The lists of the Aryan gods on the Hatti-
Mitanni and the Mitanni-Hatti treaties reads as in the picture below. You can see it is not Sanskrit, but the names are recognisable as Indra, Mitra, Varuna and the Nasatyas (From Thieme, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 80, No. 4):


3.) These deities were 'wedged between' all of the deities of the Hatti and the Mitanni.  Clearly indicating that they had their own pantheons in addition to these 5 gods. From Thieme (ibid.)

















4) Shoaib says clearly that the region in question is "what is now northern Syria" - yet he has no problem in sub-heading the section "The Syrian speakers of Sanskrit" when in fact Syria/Syrians were nowhere in sight and would not come into existence for at least 3 millenia after this treaty. Quite misleading.

5) Indologists like Theodore Proferes quote the Mitanni treaty merely as a chronological marker - saying that if the Indo-Aryan gods (as opposed to Proto-Aryan;See Thieme ibid.) feature in the Mitanni treaty, and if they were worshiped for the same functions in the Rig Veda - the hymns are at least as old as the treaty. However Proferes is the first to admit that Max Mueller's dating is arbitrary and there is nothing which says the Rig Veda was not composed centuries before this date.

6) The truth is no one actually know how old the Rig Veda is, and therefore how old Vedic Sanskrit is. Or when it branched off from the Proto-Aryan language pool (assuming there was on), as did Avestan. If we are checking 'facts', the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa  suggests an alternate date. It contains a passage which refers to the shifting of the vernal equinox from the Naksatra Mrgasiras to Rohini. According to some astronomers, this event is likely to have occurred around 3500 B.C. If this is a 'fact', the Rigveda, being older than the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa would be assignable to the 4th millennium BCE (See B.B. Lal, East and West, Vol. 48, No. 3/4) 1,900 years before the Mitanni treaty.

7) Shoaib unqualified-ly quotes PIE (Proto Indo-European) as the founding language of Sanskrit. He doesn't consider it necessary to explain PIE itself is a scholarly construct and there is by no means any agreement on whether it actually existed. Linguistic scholars like N.S. Trubetskoy categorically deny its existence. Even a scholar like Ernst Pulgram who does believe that PIE existed admits, "...a procedure whereby we choose to arrive at a reconstructed proto-language, be it Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Athapaskan, by comparing languages in pairs and advancing by way of a pyramid until we have reached the summit, the reconstructed proto-language, does not in the least entitle us to believe, or postulate, that historically the reverse process-that is, a series of binary splits-actually occurred." So when the jury is still out on PIE I would be very uncomfortable with adding gravitas to an article by quoting PIE (founding language) as a 'Fact.'

I have great respect for Shoaib Daniyal but I don't agree with his reading of where and when Sanskrit was first spoken. Had he presented this article as an optional reading, I might have enjoyed it. But not as a "Fact Check." I do not claim to know the answers myself. However what little I have garnered suggests that Sanskrit was certainly not spoken for the first time in the 14th century BCE in a region that 3,000+ years later would become Syria. In fact far from what the subtitle of his article suggests, Sanskrit wasn't spoken there at all. All that has been proved is that there were linguistic similarities between Hittite, Hurrian and Sanskrit, and that a handful of the deities were shared in common with the people of the Rig Veda. I look forward to a response from Shoaib on this article.


















Sunday 22 February 2015

Kaushalyaa : A story of a perfect mother, a perfect wife- yet neglected by her husband


Please welcome back guest writer* Gyanendra Narayan, who enchanted us last year with his perspective on ideas of physical beauty as it appears in the ancient texts.** Today Gyan brings to our notice a mother who perhaps hasn't got her due as compared, say to Yashoda or Kunti. We all know who she is, but how much do we really know about her? Read on, comment, share your views. You can follow Gyan and interact with him on Twitter  










Kaushalyaa :  A story of a perfect mother, a perfect wife- yet neglected by her husband

Raamaayana, when compared against Mahaabhaarata, comes out to be an epic where things are ideal and perfect. Maryaadaa Purushottam Raama gives us a world which is ideal and perfect. Mahaabhaarata walks away with prize of having all the emotions of human world, but Raamaayan also has grey shaded of human life. In this series, I have picked up a thread of conversation by Queen Kaushalya-  a perfect mother, a perfect wife but neglected half of King Dasharatha.

Read more to find out how neglected Kaushalyaa seeks the anchor of her life in Lord Raama.

Context:
Kaikeyi has asked for her 2 boons which were due with King Dasharatha. First being exile of Lord Raama in forest for 14 years and another being coronation of Bharata. Raama has been informed of this decision and now he has come to meet his mother Kaushalyaa. Queen Kaushalya ,always neglected because of beautiful Kaikeyi and affinity of Dasharath towards Kaikeyi,  was at the verge of realizing her dream of getting due respect ,is shattered again and opens her heart threadbare to lord Raama.

Shlokas have been taken from Vaalmiki Raamaayana, Ayodhyaa Kaanda, Sargah 20.

Shloka 37
Eka Eva hi Vandhyaayaah Shoko Bhavati Maanasah|
Aaprajaasmeeti Santaapo Na Hya-anyah Putra Vidyate||

Roughly it means: A woman without a child (Vandhyaayah) has a grief(Shoka) in mind (Maanasah). I would have had this grief that I don’t have a child but I would not have had any other grief.

Comment: Notice the feeling of bereavement with which Kaushalyaa is going through. Letting her son go, like this, is much more painful than being without a son.

Shloak 38
Na Drishtapoorvam Kalyaanam Sukham Vaa PatiPoureshe|
Aapi Putre Vipashyeyamiti Raamaashtitam Mayaa||

In the glory of my husband (PatiPoureshe) I could not see ( Na Drishta) earlier (poorvam) happiness (Kalyaanam Sukham ). (Hopin that ) However(Aapi), in the glory of Son (Putre) it would be seen( Vipashyeyamiti) by me (Mayaa)

Comment: Kaushalyaa was never happy being “one of the wives” of King Dasharatha. However she had consoled herself that in the era of her son she will get her due. Now the years of patience, craving for respect turns out  be crumbling with 2 boons of Kaikeyi.

Shloka 39

Saa Bahoonyamanogyaani Vaakyaani Hridayachidaam|
Aham Shroshye Sapatneenaamavaraanaam Paraa Satee||

I will hear ( Aham shroshye) many (Bahooni) things which will pierce my heart ( Vaakyaani Hridayachidaam) from my co-wives despite being the eldest wife(Patneenam Varaanaam).

Comment: Kaushalyaa is worried that like before she will keep hearing heart piecing words from co-wives of King Dasharatha (Particularly Kaikeyi)

Shloka 40

Aato Dukhataran Kim nu Pramadaanam Bhavishyati|
Mama shoko Vilaapashcha yaadrishoayamanantaakah||

It seems my grief, bereavement ( Mama shoko Vilaapasha) has not foreseeable end( Yaadhrishoayama-anantaakah).What will be(Kim Bhavishyati) worse grief than this grief (Aatao Dukahataran)

Comment: Look at the importance she has given to this grief. Seems sometimes bearing the co-wife is worse than being childless.

Shloka 41

Twayi Sanihiteapyevamahamaasam Nirakritaa|
Kim Punah Proshite Taata Dhruvam Marannameva hi||

Despite you being near to me (Twayi Sanihite-api) I am being neglected( Ahaam aasam Nirakritaa) (by co-wives). Once you again go to far lands ( Punah Proshite) then my death is a definite ( Dhruvam Marannameva hi) .

Comment: Raama has just returned from his education from Ashram. Kaushalya somehow managed to pass this time. She is fearful of the same fate if Raaama leaves him alone. In Raama kaushalya finds an anchor of her life.


Shloka 42
Atyantam Nigriheetaasmi Bhartunirtyamasammataa|
Pariwaarenna Kaikeyyaah Samaa waapyathawaawaraa||

I have always been neglected (Atayntam Nigriheetasmi) , always dishonored by my husband ( Bhartunirta-asammataa). With Kaikeyi, in our family ( Pariwaarenna Kaikeyyah) I will be as good as her slaves or even worse than that.

Comment: It put Kaikeyi in very poor light. People hate her for her two boons. But as we can see from what Kaushalyaa is speaking, Kaikeyi was a pathetic personality even otherwise too. Perhaps this is the reason we do not name our daughters with the name “ Kaikeyi”


Shloka 43

Yo Hi Maam Sevate Kashchidapi Vaapyanuvartate|
Kaikeyyaah Putramanvikshya Sa Jano Naabhibhashate||

Whosoever (yo hi) provides any service (maam Sevate)  to me or even  tries to follow me ( Api anuvartate), after seeing Kaikeyi’s son ( kaikeyyah Putram- Anviskhya)  they ( sa jano) do not talk(Naabhibhashate) to me.

Comment: This shloka does not give so rosy picture of Bharata. The ideal Bharata is respectful of his mothers and his brother. Either Kaushalyaa has a deep fear of kaikeyi or it is truth or it may be a bit of exaggeration. But, still it remains a worthy point to ponder.

Shloka 44

Nityakrodhatayaa Tasyaah kathaam nu kharavaadi Tat|
Kaikeyyah wadanam drastum Putra Shakshyaami Durgataa||

My son!! Always in anger (Nityakrodhataa), thus peaking harsh words (kharwaadi tat), The kaikeyi--how will I see her(Kaikeyyah Wadanam Drastum)  in mine dire status(Durgataa).

Comment: Kaikeyi while not asking for her boons, otherwise too was in fact very rude and full of anger. Kaushalyaa dreads the thought of seeing her.


This whole episode gives us the vortex of emotions which Kaushalyaa is going through. Layers of emotions of a mother, a wife, a queen, a co-wife, a neglected member of palace, all find place in this episode.  It is painful but still wonderful to read this in Raamaayana. And, much more to find out in Vaaalmiki Raamaayana.

* I may or may not agree with the view of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard
** You can read Gyan's earlier pieces here:

http://all-about-sanskrit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/representations-of-human-beauty.html
http://all-about-sanskrit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/representation-of-human-beauty-physique.html
http://all-about-sanskrit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/in-guest-writer-series-please-welcome.html

Friday 20 February 2015

Of Caste and Outcaste – Attempt to diagnose the roots of oppression

Please welcome guest writer* Saiswaroopa Iyer. In this passionately written piece, she examines the interstices between caste and power, and ponders on the instrumentality of the varna system in systemic oppression today. You can follow and interact with her on Twitter via her handle @Sai_swaroopa. A Venture analyst by profession, Sai is a dreamer at heart and an aspiring author. She is enthusiastic and passionate about Indian epics, history, literature and classical music. She dreams of a life where reading, writing and singing form the way of life.  


We got rid of the caste system, but not caste-ism” This was an anguished admission of a dear friend of mine whose views generally clash with mine. Yes, in today’s world of hurried and forced labels, one can call him a ‘liberal’ and me, a ‘conservative’. The context of the conversation was based on the electoral dynamics where certain castes end up being the vote banks. I often wondered if I was among the finite minority that cringed every time electoral results are analyzed on TV screens with caste dynamics over riding the real issues. (May be, one could get philosophical and argue about what is real and what is not!)

 My liberal friend and I share a view in common, that we would like to see these lines of caste disappear in our respective ideal worlds. Yes, discrimination is a disease, a disease which requires the medicine of social reformation.  But here I come to the point where I would differ from my friends on the other side of the imaginary line of liberalism. The point is about the diagnosis of the disease. Much of the literature on the social dynamics lays blame on the Hindu fourfold Varna system.  I find the famous line of purusha sukta being quoted with a lot of zeal to prove that discrimination existed right in Vedic texts.

The ones that lay the blame do conveniently forget the openness of the interpretation that the Vedic texts have. My spiritual guru, Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba had advocated many times that service to the lowest strata of the society is the real ‘pada puja’ made to the universal Lord.

Interpretations and politics apart, I think that the much blamed chaturvarna system died a long while ago. I call it a dead system as the social dynamics of the Varna system had long turned porous and post the dark ages and before the invasions from the middle east, we do have many instances of new dynasties being founded independent of the ‘four-fold’ sanction. The Mauryas, the Guptas, the Shatavahanas, the Kakatiyas and many such empires made a mark in the history defying the much blamed sanction. May be there was no strict sanction and power dynamics redefined the sanction? I would leave it to the historians and period scholars to determine it. The founding of a new empire was often based on pulling down another empire where mostly the King had turned oppressive and unpopular. Empires used to reach the peaks of glory when they balanced the expansion of land with administrative reforms that left the citizens happy. They often reached their peril due to oppressive rule that galvanized a revolution or due to strategic mistakes which gave their rivals an upper hand.

Oppression in such cases in my opinion shifted to power dynamics. Those who wielded power (excluding the heroic kings and reformers who we all remember with reverence) oppressed those who were ideologically opposed to them or presented a threat. That is the reason why I feel blaming the purusha sukta for oppression serves no real purpose and is rather a lazy diagnosis of a serious social problem. The ones doing so probably are not accountable to give a solution so can command the luxury of such lazy diagnosis. But it is important for the ones looking for real solutions to get to the real roots of the problem. When I hear of inhuman practices that prevail among India’s lesser accessible areas, my belief is further strengthened. Though not proud of my knowledge of scriptures, I am yet to come across any such inhuman doctrines which forbid the ‘lower’ class from using the common wells in the village and advocate violent things.  

Oppression is always the language of power maniacs and not of the system writers. As repetitive as I might sound with this sentence, I would want the readers to realize this and more. If one throws the blame of oppression on Hinduism, one has to realize that the defying discrimination also belongs to Hinduism more than the imported idealist theories. I refer to the Bhakti movement and the scores of reforms that were achieved by the likes of Mahatma Basaveshwar, Madhvacharya, the Nayanmars of Tamilnadu and the scores of composers who have denounced all forms of birth based discrimination. My personal favourite is the one in Telugu, “Brahmamokkate” by Sri Tallapaka Annamacharya. Those interested can find the complete lyric and meaning here (http://www.karnatik.com/c1107.shtml). There are more compositions of his decrying discrimination and oppression.

One needs to observe that Bhakti movement scored above the recent movements against caste in one thing – restoring the dignity and in preaching universalism that brought the people of various strata together. Sadly the modern movements though rooted in progressive ideals have done little more than casting the oppressed classes into political toys through reverse discrimination. This is the reason why we see clans and communities aspiring for ‘backward’ tag for reservations and other short term benefits. Sadly, this is the greatest harm that the social engineers of the last century have done to our system. I can only hope that the next wave of reformers would take inspiration from those movements which have advocated the oneness and inherent human merit across the divisions rather than those which have capitalized on mutual hatred and reverse oppression.

* I may or may not agree with the views of the guest writer, but I respect their right to be heard.