User:Kukkurovaca/Hindu term and Sanskrit

Well, Kukkorovaca... I am unimpressed by your glib responses. In other words, you are unhappy with the choice of a name, due to its nascent history as an ethnic signifier. It doesn't really matter though, since it has clearly become a term covering the Vedic religions. And your explanation of breaking traditions and comparison of early Judaic religion doesn't hold, since you talked about the weak dropping of "soma" sects and didn't speak of all the other continuities and 2) since early Judaic religion is not held to be christian but Jewish, hence early Judaism and the age of Judaism, whereas Christianity is held to have begun well after Christ's birth.

To quote a more modern and less sacred text than we've been discussing (The West Wing), "By changing some words? By changing some words--The world can move or not move by changing some words!" It matters what we call things; language is important, and powerful, and if that isn't an appropriate attitude in discussing an article on Sanskrit(!!), I don't know what is. Names matter, as Romeo and Juliet discovered, in the end.

Why is it that we have this term, "Hindu," kicking around, which, as you point out, is a name provided by foreigners? It is precisely because the Orthodox philosophical and religious schools of India never had a need for some special name to call themselves and to group themselves together by! These were thinkers for whom everything hinged on having the right terms and the right sentence constructions to adequately express what was important in their ideas, and if they'd needed some word meaning what you think "Hindu" means, they would have coined it. We can speak of orthorodox and heterodox, and you seem to be fond of "sanatana dharma." (Do you know what the source of that is, btw?) And if we want to talk about the modern state of Indian religion as "Hindu," that's fine, as it's not a completely useless modern term. But why do we need to speak of "Hindu" when these writers and thinkers did not feel such a need? It's not that I want to appropriate some part of the tradition, or to stick some parts of it in a drawer, or to sugarcoat anything. I'm honestly tryng to see address things with the intellectual rigor that they deserve.कुक्कुरोवाच

BTW, The early Hebrew religion is not the same thing as the developed Jewish faith! That's the whole point. To call the religion of Moses "Judaism" is an inaccuracy (the sort of thing that scholars work hard to disabuse their students of), though a popular one. The analogy is perfectly apt.कुक्कुरोवाच

the way it is in the world today, is that there are three parties. One group holds that there is a real and conglomerate group of religions and philosophies that rightly fall under one tradition. Whatever you call it, they exist under the Vedic umbrella. We have deigned to call it Hinduism for the chance naming by foreigners. The second avers that Hinduism does exist, but it started around the rise of Buddhism, thus separating it from the early Vedic religion. This also gives it the honor of being divorced from Yoga but intimately associated with casteism. Ironic that two practices that are both Vedically rooted are now split, the former has nothing to do with Hinduism and is apparently a separate force, but caste has everything to do with Hinduism, even though Yoga is much more a birth of the Classic 'Hindu' era. The third group disavows the existence of any cohesive religion all together, speaking of Buddhism, Jainism, and a huge mass of unrelated cults and philosophical schools, much like the mess of Greek schools in the Ancient day of Europe.

Of course there were cohesions between the schools. But there was also diversity. Considerable diversity. And I don't think we gain anything by trying to smoosh all the different schools under one artificial category which has mainly modern uses! Certainly not when we speak of the evolution of the Sanskrit language, which must be considered historically, as must all languages. Sanskrit was not the vessel of cultural homogeneity, but a contest-ground and a tool for debate! The term "hindu" is mainly used to distinguish one vague cluster of religio-philosophical perspectives from certain others, and while that's not utterly pointless, it is a distinction which is not significant in discussion the evolution of Sanskrit. Sanskrit was the language of Indian literature and philosophy, not the language of orthodoxy, or of specifically-those-traditions-which-descended-from-the-Vedas. Nor, I think, is anyone in danger of thinking that Sanskrit was not used mostly by those holding to the majority views.कुक्कुरोवाच

the first is the most widely accepted. So it stands. As for the POV, I have connected Sanskrit to Hindu culture where it is applicable and not where it isn't. As for the Upanishads, Samkhya, Yoga and Mahabharata, they are clearly a part of Sanatana Dharma. Another name is Hinduism. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:37, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I do apologize to the folks who think of the Talk:Sanskrit page as primarily concerned with discussions of Sanskrit, as I know that Surya and I have wandered somewhat afield.कुक्कुरोवाच 04:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

One thing this group of people did group themselves under was Veda Dharma, a reverence for the Vedas. Hinduism has come, through whatever permutations of history and nomenclature, to signify nothing but Veda Dharma. The dubitability of the origin of the name means nothing when it has come to be equated with that. Your puritanical scholarship is not appropriate for the real world, wherein followers of the Veda Dharma in India are called Hindus.

Puritanical?

Read the definition of Hindu given by the Indian consitution, and perhaps that might correspond to your West Wing quotation in terms of philosophy.

Do you know where in the Indian constitution the definition is given? The only versions of the constitution I could pull from google off-hand were non-conducive to searching. I did find this; if it's accurate--you're doubtless a better judge than I--it hardly seems to clarify matters overmuch. And certainly does not accord with the spirit of my pursuit of good language use.

I was not equating MOses, who is a quasi-mythological figure, to Judaism. Rather, I was equating the old Jews of the pre-Christian era with modern Judaism as a early prototype of the tradition we see today. Nonetheless, it is the same religion.

You evade the question. By a certain standard the religion is the same; but by others, (i.e., the scholarly) there are several discontinuities making it problematic to speak of the whole historical continuum as a single religion.)

Sanskrit and its entire morphology is grounded entirely in the Vedangas and in Panini's grammar. by the way, the latter was an ardent Hindu and used Hindu scripture to apply his principles of linguistics as demonstrations. Much of Hindu symbolism, such as the 51 skulls of Kali, is inextricably connected to Sanskrit orthography and the sounds thereof. To divorce Sanskrit from its Vedic culture is silly.

As I said, Vedic culture has evolved into Modern Hinduism, not through some strange split, but a very cohesive and continuous evolution of the same cluster of Veda faiths. much of the intellectual and philosophical literature, unfortunately for many who dislike religious stamping, has a lot to do with Hindu philosophy.

Lastly, this conversation is very relevant to Sanskrit since it brings to light the fact that Sanskrit cannot be studied without the Vedas and the Epic Hindu literature and Kalidas. Much of Sanskrit linguistics, as I have said above, corresponds to this realm of thought.

That there is a relationship between Sanskrit literature and Sanskrit is unquestionable; that a debate on the propriety of the term "hindu" is pertinent to the article on Sanskrit is highly questionable.

You never answered my question about Impressionism, by the way. The critic mocked the paintings as mere impressions, not art, and the name stuck. Do you wish to change it because it isn't appropriate?

Fair enough: As far as propriety of terms goes, I would say that Impressionism is a useful term because, while imposed by a critic, it (accidentally, perhaps) captures something about the school that has made it worth preserving. It is meaningful. But I have no background in art history, so I wouldn't want to press this point.

The people of today, the Hindus of today, who can trace their religious, cultural and philosophic roots back to the Vedic tradition at least 4000 years, feel okay with the name Hindu. A couple of scholars or non-Hindus who like Hindu tradition but don't like its association are ludicrously attempting to change the reality of an extant Vedic tradition which happens to have been named after an originally ethnic signifier. If you hate the term so much get all Hindus to call themselves Veda Dharmics or something. But the cultures are one. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:24, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not attempting to dissuade people from calling themselves Hindus, certainly. Just pointing out a problem in precision of language, which is hardly out of place in the construction of an encyclopedia, which should honor precision as well as convention.

However, to attempt to divert ever-so-slightly back towards our ostensible topic, how does this analogy sit with you: We do not say that Catholics brought the Spanish language to Latin America, but rather that the Spanish did so.

Also, would you mind my moving this discussion to a user subpage? I have a feeling we've both said the majority of the things we intend to say on the topic, and it will reduce clutter here.कुक्कुरोवाच 12:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We can archive this for sure... but, allowing for you to have the final response, I will put in my last word on this. It is not about calling ourselves what we want. It is about having a culture acknowledged for what it is not for mere pride but beyond for accuracy. A culture has continuously grown from one point to another, allows maintaining key aspects of a culture, the progenitor of Dharma, often known as Sanatana, and with the ingress of foreigners, known as Hindus. The name arose largely out of a need to identify, and thus it was eminently suitable. Men far greater in vision and more learned than us in India have decided the name Hindu works as a signifier for the Vedic tradition, and thus framed it as such in their constitution in India. Accuracy bends, by the way, to reality, and the reality is that these traditions are called Hinduism today. Lastly, the chief export of Indians to the far East was Hinduism, which is why remnant Hindu cultures still exist there. The export of the Europeans to the Americas was conquest. The context of a situation must be at least somewhat similar in order to compare. You may have at the page, and I hope discussions in the future are more fruitful. Look, I appreciate your academic puritanism (said in the most respectful way), but there is a reason that the phrase "it's all academic in any case" arose... My point stands with the Impressionist example... the term works, thus it is in use. That's how language and nomenclature evolves... if you dug around some of the appelations for other groups or terms we have today, you'd be similarly appalled at their 'corruption.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 13:11, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that the point is merely arbitrary (i.e., "about calling ourselves what we want"); quite the opposite. Nor do I think that the mainstream Indian culture needs to fear being acknowledged! On the contrary, conspicuous repetition of the term "Hindu" seems rather inaptly insecure. (I speak as a reader.)

The context of the situation should indeed be similar when applying an analogy, but it need only be similar in those aspects that are pertinent to force of the argument. This was an example regarding the movement of languages and the cultures that do the moving, and what aspect of the culture (i.e., the term for the people as a whole, or the term for the dominant religion, to which the language-movers belogned) we use to identify members of that culture in the context of describing the history of language. What does it matter whether there was conquest involved? (Nor, to be clear, did I mean to compare Hindu traders to conquistadors, as that would be absurd.)

I disagree as to the Impressionist example; again: at root, the term "Impressionist" has something to do with that to which it refers, while the term "Hindu," unless used ethnically, does not.

The term may work--and my objections may be academic--but I think my argument that higher (and more obscure!) standards of language-use should be prevalent in any discussion of Sanskrit remains quite strong. And it is one that you, I believe, have not addressed.

Finally, I draw on W. V. Quine, who said of a related topic (linguistic conservatism in English), "We cannot stem linguistic change, but we can drag our feet. If each of us were to defy Alexander Pope and be the last to lay the old aiside, it might not be a better world, but it would be a lovelier language." This principle is, in fact, the very foundation of the Sanskrit langauge, which is nothing more than a whole culture making this quixotic resistance to language change, with delightful results. And of course, in the eyes of linguistics, they have ultimately lost their battle; Sanskrit is not a living language in any meaningful sense. But it was still a good fight.

I, too, aspire to more fruitful discussions. Happy stuff.कुक्कुरोवाच 13:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must say, I am often disarmed by the wealth of knowledge you exhibit, which is doubtless enhanced by your steadily burgeoning mastery of the Perfect Language. The quotation, most recent, proferred refers to a purification of language, and I do not intend to pollute Sanskrit. Rather, since a whole culture in India, a religious Veda-based one, is known as Hindu, how have we the right to remove all reference to it in an encyclopedia? WHat we do is that, while attempting to purify language, limit newcomers' understanding of the world. FOr instance, if someone comes in a reads the formerly unaltered version, they would leave thinking of Sanskrit as a dead language with a vast literature of ancient Vedic use. They would not realize that it is very much alive in at least some forms in the religious context of India, that its language and books and scriptures are actively followed by a religious group who choose to call themselves Hindus. Whether the moniker is aptly or inadequately utilized is irrelevant. The Anglican Church, in that case, should also change its name, as it is an ethnic marker and does not do justice to the actual theological differences between it and other major denominations. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:36, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)