How to keep bharatanATyam relevant to today's audience

[shankarank]

Your last answer to this question (Whew! That was like pulling teeth) seemed to suggest that you are using "Chomskian" to mean "leftist". That is woefully inadequate and is just scratching the surface. I would recommend "The Chomsky Reader" for a full 3 dimensional perspective.

I am not claiming here that I understand Chomsky in all his dimensions. But I have read quite a bit. I only said his general welcoming audience all belong to what is considered as the Left. Never labelled him directly leftist. He himself prefers different labels like Anarchic (in its classical sense) Socialist etc or sometimes tries to reject labels etc.

But in the context of nation states and armies - I have read his characterization of armies as mercenary. So If I had to use Leftist I would have used that why would I coin a term Chomskian?

[shankarank]

I don't know what you mean by history-centric. Or what use there is in speaking about the different Old-Testament-related religions as a monolith.

To claim a common attribute for Old-Testament-Related religions is not equivalent to considering them as a monolith. The common attribute emerges only looking at it from the perspective of eastern traditions - which emphasize Guru-Sishya parampara, not just base it only on events/texts at a past time in history but add to it based on sAdhana of each generation etc. Even the past texts have to be validated by individual SAdhana not a straight dogma although such a misstep is not ruled out in every case. We have been under the influence of the Old-Testament related religions as well.

As regards wrong claims on western culture in a certain discourse - ignorance of others is the single cause of problem within India which is why we are in this state arguing. That same thing also makes them claim things about Indian culture as well - that sounds ridiculous to you.

[shankarank]

You might have observed, and probably experienced, that people in a given culture grow up with the idea that the prevalent religion is, using the word loosely, "truth." Differences in comparative religion and the mindsets that they encourage might be interesting, and, no doubt is a subject of study to researchers, but the setting of one religion against another is a futile exercise. I am not saying that you are doing this...

To you may be that is "loosely" usage of the word truth. Not to them. And I respect that. If they engage me, I would like them to respect (not just tolerate) my version of it and that throws up its own issues.

But if I am pitting anybody against anybody - certainly I am doing that between dancers who are raised with a sense of sacred who are being asked to keep that private (separation of church and state concept), against people like the New York Times critic who refuse to critique their performance because of the dancer's claim of sacredness or divinity , when there is no evidence within the tradition that , artistic or technical excellence was compromised because of claims of sacredness or a bias introduced using that to sell mediocrity. The critic is well within their right to call out any such mediocrity. But if they alter the discourse to be in their terms, especially by making demands based on their experience with Abrahamic faiths , and not having respect for ( note: no demand to accept ) sacredness as a qualifier of objectivity, that is to be opposed, given the nature of our heritage.

The critic owes the artiste some basic research on the back ground of the art at least as a respect of the artiste's sAdhana.

As regards dancers, they should invite other critics (if that is allowed by the system) who don't insist on this criteria. If artistes are asked to build their art on deeper experiences (lets say for e.g with material truths like suffering of Chilean artistes under certain totalitarian regime), in the same speech Smt. Anita Ratnam is asking to keep their sense of divinity/sacredness imbibed all along under their Guru, a long deep experience I would say, private!!! If there is something called artistic truth ( loosely? lets say) then where is it here?

I think as much as they introspect and toil to create art, they can also introspect and toil to create a narrative on sacredness that is communicable to other cultures, without harping on it too much .

If an artiste truly ( loosely or not loosely) wants to reject imbibed sense of sacredness from their heritage - I think they should be forthright with it - not just do it because a certain critic is setting the terms of discourse. The latter is an abdication of any truth in their artistry.

As regards comparative religion and researchers, you asking me to leave such topics to them, is like telling me accept the power and privilege of such gate keepers of knowledge production and I should not talk back?

When such calls are being made in the arena of cherished heritage like KGS, I have even more duty and responsibility to respond!

In short I am game to fight against secularism that exists based on discourse with Abrahamic faiths mostly, that does not respect eastern traditions. I don't want them to have any seat at the table, in discourses outside of governance (which excludes spaces funded by Government like cultural spaces) , when they have so far denied a seat at the table for eastern traditional scholars, especially Hindus.

People who call themselves atheists are fine, as long as they respect others to have a different view. Theism itself is not the same in eastern traditions which have room for atheism.

[sureshvv]

is this like one of those old MGR movies where the Good MGR & the Bad MGR argue it out with each other?

[MaheshS]

is this like one of those old MGR movies where the Good MGR & the Bad MGR argue it out with each other?

Reminds me of a comment from Hacker in Yes Minister, episode Doing the Honours,

Hacker: And I'll tell you another thing: I can't send him [points at Sir Humphrey] to prison. Can't send him to prison! Now, if I were a judge, I could whiz old Humpy off to The Scrubs no trouble. Feet wouldn't touch. Clang, bang, see you in three years' time! One third remission for good conduct. But I can't do that! I have to listen to him! Oh, God! On and on and on! Do you know, some of his sentences are longer than Judge Jeffreys'! No, you don't want to make a judge a doctor of laws

[shankarank]

Not withstanding the apparent lack of substance and intellectual density now (latest take on me) - If I was still able to engage your esteemed intellect and readership and field some questions - I am doing very good

MGR is a good bench mark - if it were to reach that level that should be called roaring success - better than Chomsky who everybody ignores in his country. Ivy leagues exporting junk unsold theories to gullible people via their intellectual sepoys in the east - in a classic act of their usual dumping practices!

paDDikAtavan better than paDiccha muTTAl!

[sureshvv]

Your post #53 had a wrong attribution. Hence my comment.

Was made only in the spirit of fun.

[shankarank]

Thanks fixed. That happened elsewhere also by somebody else's posting where my comments were attributed to NickH. And in this case the mistake helped me in my continuing incoherent rants

[Nick H]

As regards comparative religion and researchers, you asking me to leave such topics to them, is like telling me accept the power and privilege of such gate keepers of knowledge production and I should not talk back?

I never said anything like that. If you want to deal with comparative religion, go ahead. What I did say is that such arguments no longer interest me. I have been pretty vocal about some of my religious opinions over the years. I still have the same understandings, but am no longer interested in arguing them. Like audiophile cables. But I would not dream of denying you the freedom to do so.

But I might have a little poke, for instance at this "abrahamic" stuff, stated as if all the worlds jews+muslims+christians+etc+etc are some sort of thing. Good grief, some of those people have their teeth in each other's throats. And that's within the same-name groups, let alone the larger conflicts which have been going on for centuries.

In the phrase Abrahamic v. frozen peas, the word "Abrahamic" is meaningless. You can substitute anything you like for the peas.

[shankarank]

But I might have a little poke, for instance at this "abrahamic" stuff, stated as if all the worlds jews+muslims+christians+etc+etc are some sort of thing. Good grief, some of those people have their teeth in each other's throats. And that's within the same-name groups, let alone the larger conflicts which have been going on for centuries.

In the phrase Abrahamic v. frozen peas, the word "Abrahamic" is meaningless. You can substitute anything you like for the peas.

It gets meaning when considering the fact that each version of those faiths and their sub-versions tried to invalidate and purge the older one and replace it. That is the commonality and that also explains the reason for going at each other's throats. The history centrism of their theologies as the basis also requires them to invalidate and attempt to purge the older version for the newer one to hang together consistently.

That is one way to make sense of that word.

[Nick H]

Do I take it that you too are saying that they are "at each other's throats?" Thus less reason to consider them as a unity, especially in an us (Hindu) v. them context.

Yes, they are proselytising religions who will take their converts as and where they can, without much caring whence they come.
(except Judaism. One should be born Jewish: it is possible but not easy to convert in, and I don't think they seek converts.)

Sure, there are places where "the church" still has huge relevance and power in people's lives. perhaps I'm lucky to come from a country where it just... doesn't. Whatever pope or bishop may be saying has no relevance for me whatsoever --- and I'd go so far as to say that there are millions who think much the same. Perhaps the churches would be glad if we came, if only to argue: but why would we bother?

But I have been to a few christian weddings in past several years. I can certainly say, "god" forbid that Bharat (or any other) natyam ever be made "relevent" by bringing that awful horrible music into it! At least "the" church once provided an umbrella for great classical art, music, building, etc: now it doesn't even do that.

Oh dear.... it's another anti-xian rant from me! Just when I'd said it given all that up. Oh well... I'll give up again tomorrow

[shankarank]

Do I take it that you too are saying that they are "at each other's throats?" Thus less reason to consider them as a unity, especially in an us (Hindu) v. them context.

Well creating a category does not mean there is unity within that category - just like how the left and the enlightened secular intellects of various socio-political hues have successfully managed to create a category called religion without looking into differences. By rejecting that eastern traditional scholars have no right to create a certain category - we are essentially saying that, that privilege belongs to the Left and various others , in how categorization is done and "othering" is done.

They are social "scientists" aren't they?

It is brilliant that they were essentially able to extrapolate from labor / capitalist dispute in the industrial era to every link in the human world being that of an oppressor-oppressed relationship. Now even the mental conditioning propounded by philosophers/scientists is being appropriated into it.

Even Gravity is oppressive as it compressed the free nuclei into heavier nuclei to produce heavier elements That is not far-fetched as we grew up with science books from Mir Publishers - where even a handbook of physics will talk about dialectical materialism.

Creating a category called Abrahamic is perfectly valid from an eastern tradition point of view ( not just Hindu), considering not just the region from which the former arose (deserts), but also how they view each other in similar ways - theologically and otherwise.

Given that you professed yourself to be an atheist ( I guess in their sense of that word), I cannot take your attitude/statements/positions to be the authentic representation of any of their positions.

[Nick H]

I cannot take your attitude/statements/positions to be the authentic representation of any of their positions.

I'm glad of that!

I do try to be free of that world. But, as I said in a previous post, I grew up in that culture and, even though my family was not religious, the brain cells cannot fail to be affected by the prevailing culture.

We are what we are. The best we can do is try to be aware and change what we can.

[sankark]

I cannot take your attitude/statements/positions to be the authentic representation of any of their positions.

We are what we are. The best we can do is try to be aware and change what we can.

That awareness is half the battle. If one gets that awareness, the rest - to accept and/or to change - is one's choice. It requires one to take the blinkers off and a willingness & daring to roam outside the familiar pasture.

[shankarank]

I also appeal to professional artistes of Guru parampara tradition not to use the word Hindu Mythology - as the word Myth has so many negative connotations -

It has some very positive connotations too. Check out Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth".

There is a difference between people studying some old myths like Greek myths with their psycho analytics , anthropological theories vs. a oral tradition of Guru Sishya parampara having its own interpretations. I am not talking about the story telling aspect where it is presented as though it exactly happened that way - also the underlying interpretations and literary cross references and connections to other literature in examining the implied message - that is part of the tradition as well.

And the current myth peddler in India for the corporates and others is this guy called Devdutt Patnaik - a protege of our intellectuals, the western scholars and such. He is being invited to the The Hindu Litter fest to dwell on his litters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNCpWECSGR4