This is the article by Rohan Murty which had many members responding to it. We reproduce here some of the responses.
Mallika says:
This is a terrible initiative. Because according to Pollock (i)According to Pollock there is nothing spiritual about Sanskrit Literature, Sanskrit is political and an instrument of oppression. (ii) Again according to Pollock Ramayana was popularized in 11 - 15 centuries to oppress the Muslims. Even though Ramayana was popular a 1000 years earlier. Should this sinister version be popularized is the Q?
Please do square this circle - Your Editor, Sheldon Pollock, believes :
- That Sanskrit shastras are regressive, dogmatic texts that are mentally and intellectually imprisoning and stifle individual creativity
- The shastras are a tool for political and social oppression, and should only be studied by scholars like himself for the purpose of uncovering such evils and liberating Indians
- The worship of Ram is a ‘cult’ popularised around the 12thC to rally the masses against the Moghul invaders who were projected as the demonic ‘other’
- The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story in the world because it is a deep meditation on the fratricide in civil war
- Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language and it was in fact the barbarous invaders who sought to revive it
- the German Holocaust was inspired by the Nazis reading of Sanskrit texts
In the context of such negative views about the Sanskrit shastras how do you expect there to be any confidence the Murthi Classical library will do justice to the vast treasure house of deep vedic knowledge and the accomplishments of ancient India? Please do acquaint yourself with close reading of Sheldon Pollock’s actual works (and not just the accolades of the mutually self-praising cabal of Western Indology).
We appreciate your intentions of carrying forward our culture and heritage for the benefit of future generations. You belong to a family having the gene and blood of great Rishis and son of the mentor of a great and prestigious Corporate House of India.
However You have not done proper due diligence while appointing Mr. Scheldon Pollock as chief editor of such a prestigious project.
(Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any." )
With the result now you have been “blown out of your feet” contrary to the advise of Mahatma.
(I look forward to working constructively with anybody — be they ethnically Indian or otherwise — as long as they are honest scholars of the highest caliber interested in advancing the same visions articulated here.)
Mr. Scheldon Pollock’s nature, qualities , intentions and associations are well exposed now. There is no need to repeat them here, as you are well aware of them by now.(Particularly with his association of recent activities at JNU)
(At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation. )
For a big Pot of Milk few drops of poison or salt will do to break the Milk in it.
“The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights”
Yes. Vedic culture is universal and embraces whole humanity.” sarve janaaH sukhino bhavantu “ is the basic principle of sanaatana dharma.
Bhagavaan in Bhagvadgita also said that no one has right to follow adharma or act against sanaatana dharma and survive. Hence Bhagavaan proposed to Arjuna to fight against adharma.
With the result the Great people/legends like Bheeshma, DroNa , KarNa had to perish and Aswatthaama had to loose his face and fame.
Mistakes do happen when we try do some good work.
“gnaatasaarOpi khalvEkaH sandigdhE kaaryavastooni”
Knowledgeable whosoever while doing great things doubts and mistakes do happen.
A wise man is one who realizes this and correct his actions and steps.
For the question of protecting Dharma , no false prestige please.
dharmO rakShati rakShitaH.
Sahanaavavatu sahanau bhunaktu sahaveeryam karavaavahai tEjasvinaavadheetamastu maavidviShaavahai.
Om shaantiH shaantiH shaantiH.
Ashok says:
I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.
These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.
The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.
It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.
You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.
Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.
These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.
The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.
It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.
You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.
Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.
Satchidananda says:
The article makes nice points, but only thing is Rohan himself is guilty of not following the title. Rohan acknowledges that these Classics (not dead like Roman or Greek) are treasures for humanity. Rohan or Pollock did not preserve them over the millennia. A traditional ecosystem did. So why are Rohan and Pollock so averse to the traditional views. Why should the classics be viewed only under the distorted western lens. Pollock's legacy of removing paramarthika or calling ramayana as socially oppressive tool are neither works of scholarliness nor great revelations. If they have been to the mountaintop, they must realize so did all these great scholars from India who have traditionally preserved over millennia. WHY IGNORE THEM? How can one who is bent on distorting the views of an entire civilization claim that he alone is the most able person? Rohan is on record claiming that all Indians are unfit. What qualifies Rohan to even make such a claim? A person with so much bias and prejudice is made as the gatekeeper to the classics and Rohan cannot argue that these biases will not be part of translation. A person who has double face and talks something to popular media and writes profusely against the very literature and people described in it cannot be trusted. Rohan can do all this media blitz but money can only buy so much credibility. Peanut gallery knows more than you do. The tragedy is the author of the article is invoking Gandhiji, when his favorite ishta devata, Rama is being trashed by Pollock and the very author is doing prashasti of him. What an irony. No one denies that Pollock and his team has put hard work. But can the same defenders give a guarantee that his biases are not part of the translation. Why can't Pollock have an in camera debate on these issues with Rajiv Malhotra? Why can't Rohan include the traditional scholars, who are not yet converted by Pollockism to give balanced views on the classics? Why insist that all Indians are not fit to translate their own classics? If the treasures are belonging to humanity, doesn't it make all Indians a bigger inheritor of this heritage? Why insist that only Pollock has the only scholarship needed to translate? If he wants to claim Pollock is smarter than Rohan, he is free to, but to make such outrageous claim makes Rohan more stupider than the all paid media can portray. DOES ROHAN WANT TO BE THE PAPPU OF MURTHY FAMILY? He seems to be showcasing it more with the paid media articles for if he opens the mouth, only peanut gallery stuff comes out. Money can buy more advertisement like these articles but not wisdom. Sorry Rohan, if you follow dharma, wisdom will automatically accrue. You are not doing justice by letting twisted motivated translations silence the traditional views of millennia and legacy of the greatest civilization on this planet. SATYAMEVA JAYETE
Mallika says:
This is a terrible initiative. Because according to Pollock (i)According to Pollock there is nothing spiritual about Sanskrit Literature, Sanskrit is political and an instrument of oppression. (ii) Again according to Pollock Ramayana was popularized in 11 - 15 centuries to oppress the Muslims. Even though Ramayana was popular a 1000 years earlier. Should this sinister version be popularized is the Q?
Navita pitches in:
Please do square this circle - Your Editor, Sheldon Pollock, believes :
- That Sanskrit shastras are regressive, dogmatic texts that are mentally and intellectually imprisoning and stifle individual creativity
- The shastras are a tool for political and social oppression, and should only be studied by scholars like himself for the purpose of uncovering such evils and liberating Indians
- The worship of Ram is a ‘cult’ popularised around the 12thC to rally the masses against the Moghul invaders who were projected as the demonic ‘other’
- The Mahabharata is the most dangerous political story in the world because it is a deep meditation on the fratricide in civil war
- Sanskrit is a ‘dead’ language and it was in fact the barbarous invaders who sought to revive it
- the German Holocaust was inspired by the Nazis reading of Sanskrit texts
In the context of such negative views about the Sanskrit shastras how do you expect there to be any confidence the Murthi Classical library will do justice to the vast treasure house of deep vedic knowledge and the accomplishments of ancient India? Please do acquaint yourself with close reading of Sheldon Pollock’s actual works (and not just the accolades of the mutually self-praising cabal of Western Indology).
Hemakanta adds his voice:
However You have not done proper due diligence while appointing Mr. Scheldon Pollock as chief editor of such a prestigious project.
(Mahatma said: "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any." )
With the result now you have been “blown out of your feet” contrary to the advise of Mahatma.
(I look forward to working constructively with anybody — be they ethnically Indian or otherwise — as long as they are honest scholars of the highest caliber interested in advancing the same visions articulated here.)
Mr. Scheldon Pollock’s nature, qualities , intentions and associations are well exposed now. There is no need to repeat them here, as you are well aware of them by now.(Particularly with his association of recent activities at JNU)
(At best, MCLI will produce some 2,500 volumes over the next 500 years, yet there are possibly millions awaiting translation. )
For a big Pot of Milk few drops of poison or salt will do to break the Milk in it.
“The classics belong to the world, and no one has exclusive rights”
Yes. Vedic culture is universal and embraces whole humanity.” sarve janaaH sukhino bhavantu “ is the basic principle of sanaatana dharma.
Bhagavaan in Bhagvadgita also said that no one has right to follow adharma or act against sanaatana dharma and survive. Hence Bhagavaan proposed to Arjuna to fight against adharma.
With the result the Great people/legends like Bheeshma, DroNa , KarNa had to perish and Aswatthaama had to loose his face and fame.
Mistakes do happen when we try do some good work.
“gnaatasaarOpi khalvEkaH sandigdhE kaaryavastooni”
Knowledgeable whosoever while doing great things doubts and mistakes do happen.
A wise man is one who realizes this and correct his actions and steps.
For the question of protecting Dharma , no false prestige please.
dharmO rakShati rakShitaH.
Sahanaavavatu sahanau bhunaktu sahaveeryam karavaavahai tEjasvinaavadheetamastu maavidviShaavahai.
Om shaantiH shaantiH shaantiH.
Ashok says:
I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.
These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.
The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.
It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.
You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.
Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.I can feel your urgency when you say that 'there is far too much to be done and far too little time' and thus you want the Indian Sanskrit treasure translated into English as soon as possible.
These were however composed with great care and because of that they have withstood the test of time and have survived over the centuries. A lot of it has survived not only ad-verbatim, but also with the correct intonations, even in the absence of it being bound in script. This will give you an idea of the care and detail. Similar care is of course needed in its translation, which should not be done in haste.
The issue that I have with the overall editor that you have chosen is that his views about Sanskrit are not very complimentary and his views of the content of these works in Sanskrit, which he is tasked with translating, is even worse, such that no one who has grown up imbibing the meanings of these works will agree with his interpretations. For example he feels that Sanskrit's purpose is to be exclusive and thus aid the ruler in his oppression of the masses, to legitimise divisions and support invasions and war. His views in general about the knowledge systems and the knowledge generated from India too is quite derogatory.
It is unreasonable, in fact foolhardy, to expect that such views will not spill over in the translations. Such a translation is likely to not only remove the soul of these works, but worse leave the translations with a completely different twist to the original.
You have elsewhere lamented about the lack of Indian scholars who are capable of taking up such a task. This is not true Mr Murthy. I humbly suggest that you have not looked.
Please let this important task be done by those who are sympathetic to Sanskrit and to our Sanskriti.
Satchidananda says:
The article makes nice points, but only thing is Rohan himself is guilty of not following the title. Rohan acknowledges that these Classics (not dead like Roman or Greek) are treasures for humanity. Rohan or Pollock did not preserve them over the millennia. A traditional ecosystem did. So why are Rohan and Pollock so averse to the traditional views. Why should the classics be viewed only under the distorted western lens. Pollock's legacy of removing paramarthika or calling ramayana as socially oppressive tool are neither works of scholarliness nor great revelations. If they have been to the mountaintop, they must realize so did all these great scholars from India who have traditionally preserved over millennia. WHY IGNORE THEM? How can one who is bent on distorting the views of an entire civilization claim that he alone is the most able person? Rohan is on record claiming that all Indians are unfit. What qualifies Rohan to even make such a claim? A person with so much bias and prejudice is made as the gatekeeper to the classics and Rohan cannot argue that these biases will not be part of translation. A person who has double face and talks something to popular media and writes profusely against the very literature and people described in it cannot be trusted. Rohan can do all this media blitz but money can only buy so much credibility. Peanut gallery knows more than you do. The tragedy is the author of the article is invoking Gandhiji, when his favorite ishta devata, Rama is being trashed by Pollock and the very author is doing prashasti of him. What an irony. No one denies that Pollock and his team has put hard work. But can the same defenders give a guarantee that his biases are not part of the translation. Why can't Pollock have an in camera debate on these issues with Rajiv Malhotra? Why can't Rohan include the traditional scholars, who are not yet converted by Pollockism to give balanced views on the classics? Why insist that all Indians are not fit to translate their own classics? If the treasures are belonging to humanity, doesn't it make all Indians a bigger inheritor of this heritage? Why insist that only Pollock has the only scholarship needed to translate? If he wants to claim Pollock is smarter than Rohan, he is free to, but to make such outrageous claim makes Rohan more stupider than the all paid media can portray. DOES ROHAN WANT TO BE THE PAPPU OF MURTHY FAMILY? He seems to be showcasing it more with the paid media articles for if he opens the mouth, only peanut gallery stuff comes out. Money can buy more advertisement like these articles but not wisdom. Sorry Rohan, if you follow dharma, wisdom will automatically accrue. You are not doing justice by letting twisted motivated translations silence the traditional views of millennia and legacy of the greatest civilization on this planet. SATYAMEVA JAYETE
No comments:
Post a Comment