dear mr bobinson,happy to see you are sensitive enough to rephrase that 'tom dick and harry' expression because afthab was outraged. it is obvious then that you are also sensitive enough to have comprehended why some beings are outraged about sanskrit slokas and argue they are not just a set of words talking about universal knowledge.let me repeat your question: is it so difficult?PS;hope we would also look at those sanskrit slogans which are inevitable elements of all educational institutional logos, including this IIT's. --- On Fri, 27/2/09, bobinson <[email protected]> wrote: From: bobinson <[email protected]> Subject: [GreenYouth] Re: IIT or Agrahara (see the video) To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 27 February, 2009, 6:41 PM
is it so difficult ? my point is look at the slokam as a a set of words talking about knowledge! And I found it very apt provided I am not provided with any proof to think that it was added there intentionally by the saffron gang to influence all areas of society as some claim their ultimate goal is. Thus, I don't see any problem in the usage of slokam there. 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> Bobison, Frankly I don't know how to explain the exact point of this thread... What you aim by saying as "saffron clad" is not the very subject here, but the brahminical scriptures and/or their brahminical meaning... Regards Afthab Ellath On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM, bobinson <[email protected]> wrote: I meant, if we look at something with a notion that everything is saffron clad we can see anything and everything that way. And since I was not looking or thinking that everything is saffron clad, I didn't see any harm in a slokam which talks about knowledge. >But I am really outraged by your "tom dick and harry" comment...You exactly >know which tom dick and harry were reciting it... sorry about that. Let me rephrase as: I have heard that scriptures were not written initially and if that is true anyone can over hear while someone is studying / reciting the scriptures. 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> Bobison, I cant understand what you are talking... please re-read what ashiq asked and my reply... But I am really outraged by your "tom dick and harry" comment...You exactly know which tom dick and harry were reciting it... Regards Afthab Ellath On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, bobinson <[email protected]> wrote: Every text has an extra-textual context and no text has absolute meaning... Meaning and knowledge are historically and socially constructed... exactly ! that is the point I looked it as a talking about knowledge only. it wasn't saffron clad at all. 2009/2/27 Afthab Ellath <[email protected]> Aashiq, Every text has an extra-textual context and no text has absolute meaning... Meaning and knowledge are historically and socially constructed... Regards Afthab Ellath On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:58 PM, ashik salahudeen <[email protected]> wrote: Hmm . I was referring to the meaning of the shloka only. If you look only at where it came from , then this *could* be interpreted as not belonging to everyone. To make my point clear, consider this : What if they (or anyone) were to use only the english paraphrasing so as to remove any evidence of where it came from ? Will it be different then ? 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. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
