>> And I don't think the scriptures are in any way connected to the modern day Hinduism developed for attracting masses to polling booth....
>> Quest of knowledge can be useful for all. (As per one of our old sayings the-hot-milk-cat one knowledge is even useful for animals) While quest of knowledge is useful for all, Sambhookan and Ekalavyan were not treated differently, not for attracting masses to polling booth, but by the ontological hierarchy of the very tradition itself in treating this quest, that is now proposed as the "common wealth" Regards Afthab Ellath On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:15 PM, bobinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am concerned only about the modern and possibily the original > interpretation only. I prefer to interpret "He" as knowledge. > > And I don't think the scriptures are in any way connected to the modern day > Hinduism developed for attracting masses to polling booth. > > >How is that Katho Upansihad sloka becomes a "greater common property" of > all? > > Quest of knowledge can be useful for all. (As per one of our old sayings > the-hot-milk-cat one knowledge is even useful for animals) > > > > >secondly, I think many has pointed out here the combination of taliban > with saffron. "saffron clad talbans" soemhow denotes saffron as some what > "innocent". (am refering to saffron as metonym). Even in a precisley > "agraharic" issue, why should we bring in Taliban without any reason? The > very reference to "saffron" is enough to make the point. > > I agree with you. But I don't think its in anyway make them innocent. > Saffron started selectively abusing women like Taliban. Until last election > this anti-female side was not very prominent like this election season. That > was why I used the term "saffron clad taliban". And I think it sounds good > as saffron and taliban considers each other as acid and base and like acid > and base both are dangerous for human race. (As in if you drink acid and > base instead of water or add to water to change pH etc) > > As for your second mail I don't me or anyone "geninely" here in this group > will need an explanation but as you said its good for the kind of people you > intended it for. :-) > > > 2009/2/27 damodar prasad <[email protected]> > > May I also add that: some one out there, perhaps not active here, would >> definitely think that if two personas with xian and muslim sounding name has >> no particular issue with this "sloka" recital, why then a caste-hindu, >> damodar prasad raise such issues. >> Why should d,prasad wants to "maintain" the difference. >> >> I think the -no-doubt- resolution- point of tradition as a greater common >> wealth of all has to be challenged? Why modern-nation leaves out "other" >> traditons while narrwoing down it to a selected past? ? Is there an ideoloy >> in this fabricated consent over tradition? Does this consent refers to >> "one-nation" obedient theory? For me these are important questions. Hence >> the reason why I raised those queries... >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, damodar prasad <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Dear Ashik and bobinson, >>> I may have a few doubts. How is that Katho Upansihad sloka becomes a >>> "greater common property" of all? >>> The paraphrase of this sloka is this: >>> *May He protect both of us. May He nourish both of us. May we both >>> acquire the capacity >>> (to study and understand the scriptures). May our study be brilliant. May >>> we not argue >>> with each other. Om peace, peac*e, *peace.* >>> Yes, one can interpret in it modern context. But how does it become an >>> invocation song of modern technology institution?How can religious ( and >>> bramhnical) scriptural sloka be integtrated to this endevour of learning? >>> Interestingly, one "*inappropriate"* image in the signatue part is the >>> "rose". "lotus" image would've integarted well with the lyric, bg bit and >>> sloka. >>> secondly, I think many has pointed out here the combination of taliban >>> with saffron. "saffron clad talbans" soemhow denotes saffron as some what >>> "innocent". (am refering to saffron as metonym). Even in a precisley >>> "agraharic" issue, why should we bring in Taliban without any reason? The >>> very reference to "saffron" is enough to make the point. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, ashik salahudeen <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> You are correct bobinson. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
