what does nirmukta stand for?
#13
As a person who didn't participate in this discussion, but got to read about it later, I have some third person comments for Kiran.

Quote:Any way, I was agitated by the actions (and not much by thoughts, let me tell you) of organizers of the FaceBook forum. The debate in which reference Ajita has summarised here, was not an attack. To call it an attack and ourselves as gang, in itself says a lot about 'the approach'.
The first post regarding the name came from Kit Kitappa which is as follows
Quote:Kit Kittappa: What is the meaning of "nirmuktha"? In what language is that a word? Why borrow a word from a language that we are not using for the discussions we are engaged in? Is it from some sacred language? Is this some kind of lingering Hindutva stand?
To me it does look very much an attacking post, in which nasty conclusions are being inferred from very little input data.

Quote:Just check, there were just 2 persons opposing the shades of Hindutva in a sanskritized name like Nirmukta. The whole bunch of rationalists, many of them seem to be the organizers jumped in to defend. Was it that big an issue? No, you made it so.
Firstly, it doesn't really seem anybody was getting defensive. There were really good counter arguments put across for your concerns e.g.
Quote:Ajita Kamal: Kiran Trivedi, I specifically said that an aversion to a name irrespective of the agreeable content is irrational.
Quote:Ajita Kamal: "Sanskrit had a larger atheistic literature than what exists in any other classical language." ~ Amartya Sen.
I'm not prepared to wash my hands off Sanskrit and let the religious goons keep it. It belongs to my ancestors as well, many of whom were atheists and proud of it
Quote:Lalit Mohan Chawla: we are not the bask in the glory types, infact we dissect such silly claims in our forum(http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Technology-Of...uality),we criticize the hindutva types, but at the same time we do not have outright aversion to everything of the past, to sanskrit
And the list continues. But I am not able to extract one single coherrent argument to the above explanations.
It seems you are stressing the "orgarnizers became defensive" factor a lot. I don't see how counter-arguing a topic vehemently is necessarily defensive. And even if it is defensive, that doesn't take out the rational merit from the counter arguments. And more importantly alleging somebody of "Hindutva leaning" from just the name of a forum is attacking enough to trigger emotional responses.

Quote:- Kit n me simply wanted to bring to your notice that why sanskritized name for such a group. Nobody is demanding you change the name. 'Hindutva leaning' should be read as 'burried in our sub-concious somewhere' due to our up-bringing in a society full of religio-feudal people. And as a rationalist we shall attend to such minor issues as well.
This was definitely not the tone adopted to start the discussion. If innocent questions, to begin with, e.g. Why was a sanskrit name chosen for this group? or Doesn't a sanskrit name probably send a wrong message? etc. had been attacked, then you had every right to raise this as a concern.

To summarize from my side, I was glad to see that the arguments put forth by Kiran and Kit weren't outrightly irrational, but they did seem a bit attacking, not bolstered by rational explanations, sort of pointless and perhaps driven by their deep aversion for Sanskrit.
[+] 4 users Like Kanad Kanhere's post
Reply
#14
(25-Aug-2011, 07:38 PM)frmchandan Wrote: I think it is good that we started this discussion. I just have some questions.

1. Is it good to let some religious goons have the proprietary of a language?
2. If we find a language associate to a religion, doesn't it mean that we have a prejudice for that language?
3. How different it is from some religious idiots who think using Urdu is only for Muslims and it should not be used in Hindi?

These questions are indeed pertinent, however, I wonder while generalizing Sanskrit with Urdu whether we are committing any mistake. It is also unclear whether the idea here is to promote or claim the language by adopting words or using the language itself? In addition we can also dwell into other questions like what is the intellectual view about adopting words? What is Sanskrit's standing in our social life and what kind of patronization it gets?

At present, I assume people consider adopting words is as good as adopting a language. It's impossible from a linguistic point of view. The dead language remains dead.

In the past, among Dravidians, adopting Sanskrit words was viewed unfavourably by few literary figures(among Kannadigas) or a community(among Telugus) or a political movement in Tamil Nadu.

There were oppositions to the usage of Sanskrit words in Kannada literature in 12th and 13th century by Kannada Jain poets (Nayasena and Andayya).

According to George L Hart, a Brahmin apologist, there was a Telugu Brahmin sect which tried to expunge Sanskrit words from spoken Telugu.

The wellknown opposition to adoption of Sanskrit words is of course from the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu. This was in opposition to Indo-Aryan dominance. Also, the Dravidian movement was closely associated with atheism.

All of the above cases show that the opposition to Sanskrit words in Dravidian lands had no connection with Hindutva (or it was pre-Hindutva). On the contrary it shows some kind of linguistic nationalism. In the case of Tamil Nadu, it can be argued that opposition was also against the caste system or religion in particular. But that view becomes somewhat complicated if we further analyze Sanskrit's relationship with Sudras (who made up bulk of the Dravidians from dominant to the weakest castes).

How about Sanskrit as a language of Hinduism? Is it analogous to Urdu? It's a known fact that Sanskrit was denied to Sudras. For non-Brahmin Dravidians, their Hindu or caste identity was perfectly compatible with the ignorance of Sanskrit. A respected Kannada writer, Kuvempu, born into a caste declared as Sudra, filled his works with Sanskrit words as a protest against the denial of Sanskrit education to Sudras[1]. In his act, we find that a non-Brahmin could adopt Sanskrit words as a protest against the caste diktat of denying a language.

Now the problem arises as Hindutva and the caste system aren't exactly the same. Hindutva gains strength from the cultural homogenization of different castes whereas the caste system was sustained by the hierachization or privilege of cultural motifs(like Sanskrit) apart from the marriage restrictions. As of now, Hindutva though gives emphasis on Hindi, it would hardly be bothered if more and more Sanskrit words are adopted by Indian languages.

What about the political backing of Sanskrit? I would restrict myself to Karnataka. Any person who studied in Kannada medium would have had an overdose of Sanskrit words. Also, Sanskrit as an optional language was the most sought after because one could 'score like maths'[2]. I don't think overdose of Sanskrit words or Sanskrit language paper has improved the status of Sanskrit in Karnataka. Maybe the reason is simple because it's not a commercial language or the language used in central government owned TV channels or by movie industry. One exception is a village in Karnataka (Matturu), predominantly inhabited by Brahmins, where Sanskrit has become a spoken language. So, in Karnataka, the drive to preserve Sanskrit is not something atheists would be proud of.

To summarize;
- Opposition to Sanskirt can be seen as an act of linguistic nationalism[3]

- Sanskrit is not a language of all the Hindu castes. So its adoption by non-Brahmin Hindus can be seen as a rebellion against the caste discrimination

- Learning Sanskrit has been made secular and mainstream.

- If we are talking about claiming a language, I don't think words would make much difference.


Notes:
[1] This of course led people to sometimes dismiss his works as 'Sanskrita bhuyishta' (overly Sanskritic ... the phrase might have been the work of a Brahmin).
[2] I'm not sure whether it's because one could score a perfect hundred in Sanskrit like maths or because one could score without really grasping it, same as in the case of maths. Maybe both. By the time, I finished my schooling even students opting for Kannada could score like maths as the education board, worried about the lack of interest in Kannada as a language subject, became lenient in evaluation.
[3] I don't agree with linguistic nationalism. Anyway, it has to bow to the language of commerce.
Manju Vadiarillat
[+] 1 user Likes manju's post
Reply
#15
(18-Apr-2011, 07:03 PM)Lije Wrote:
(18-Apr-2011, 03:18 PM)lalitmohanchawla Wrote: How did "Nirmukta" (the word ), come about? is it derived from any English/Hindi word or from some other language?

From our About page,

Nirmukta is a Sanskrit word that means “Freed”; “Liberated”. At Nirmukta, we are freed of dogma.


Cool

I am a bit confused.

Nir malam means free from malam.

Nir Ahamkaram means free from Ahamkaram.

If the above is right, then

Nir mukta - should it not be free from mukta
and to my limited understanding, does not mukta means freedom?

In that case, freedom from freedom ?

pardon me for asking stupid question, but eager to learn
what mistake I make in the above.

thanks
Reply
#16
(23-Feb-2012, 12:48 PM)pairamblr Wrote:
(18-Apr-2011, 07:03 PM)Lije Wrote:
(18-Apr-2011, 03:18 PM)lalitmohanchawla Wrote: How did "Nirmukta" (the word ), come about? is it derived from any English/Hindi word or from some other language?

From our About page,

Nirmukta is a Sanskrit word that means “Freed”; “Liberated”. At Nirmukta, we are freed of dogma.


Cool

I am a bit confused.

Nir malam means free from malam.

Nir Ahamkaram means free from Ahamkaram.

If the above is right, then

Nir mukta - should it not be free from mukta
and to my limited understanding, does not mukta means freedom?

In that case, freedom from freedom ?

pardon me for asking stupid question, but eager to learn
what mistake I make in the above.

thanks
From some earlier discussion I remember it meant "Transcending freedom" in the sense that its not just freedom in the basic sense of autonomy but also freedom from bigoted thinking etc.
Reply
#17
(23-Feb-2012, 12:48 PM)pairamblr Wrote: I am a bit confused.

Nir malam means free from malam.

Nir Ahamkaram means free from Ahamkaram.

If the above is right, then

Nir mukta - should it not be free from mukta
and to my limited understanding, does not mukta means freedom?

In that case, freedom from freedom ?

pardon me for asking stupid question, but eager to learn
what mistake I make in the above.

thanks

An interesting quirk, no? Nirmukta's meaning of 'free/liberated' is correct.

See, for example, http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scrip...rection=AU

...and its many occurrences in Sanskrit literature http://www.google.com/search?q=nirmukta+...=bks&tbo=1

.... are consistent with the meaning of "liberated/set free"

Your observation may itself be an explanation considering both 'nir-' and 'mukta' refer to the same quality of 'setting free' or 'being free from'.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philolo...:2023.apte

The historical first user probably took poetic license.
[+] 1 user Likes karatalaamalaka's post
Reply
#18

Namaste,

I got following clarification on the above issue from a different group.
I copy below that info, for people who could be interested in "knowing" .

-----------------------------------


The prefix 'nir' also has the meaning 'very well', 'supremely', 'for ever', etc. in the positive sense. Thus we have this occurring in the aghamarshaNa sUktam of the Mahanarayana Upanishad:

nirmukto muktakilbiShaH

Even the very familiar word 'niShThA' means 'nitarAm sthitiH' meaning 'for ever established'. So, the term 'nirmukta' can mean 'ever-free' or 'ever liberated'.

Regards,
subbu
-------------------------------------------

namste



(23-Feb-2012, 01:54 PM)karatalaamalaka Wrote:
(23-Feb-2012, 12:48 PM)pairamblr Wrote: I am a bit confused.

Nir malam means free from malam.

Nir Ahamkaram means free from Ahamkaram.

If the above is right, then

Nir mukta - should it not be free from mukta
and to my limited understanding, does not mukta means freedom?

In that case, freedom from freedom ?

pardon me for asking stupid question, but eager to learn
what mistake I make in the above.

thanks

An interesting quirk, no? Nirmukta's meaning of 'free/liberated' is correct.

See, for example, http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?scrip...rection=AU

...and its many occurrences in Sanskrit literature http://www.google.com/search?q=nirmukta+...=bks&tbo=1

.... are consistent with the meaning of "liberated/set free"

Your observation may itself be an explanation considering both 'nir-' and 'mukta' refer to the same quality of 'setting free' or 'being free from'.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philolo...:2023.apte

The historical first user probably took poetic license.

Reply
#19
other examples with such non-negative connotation include,

1. niShkEvala - kEvala - exclusive, niShkEvala - super-exclusive
2. niShshUNya - shUNya - zero, niShshUnya - fully zero
3. nirmuNDa - muNDa- bald (superbly used in colloquial Kannada :P ), nirmuNDa - consummately bald
4. niShkaivalya - kaivalya - (related to kEvala?) absolutely exclusive, niShkaivalya - same
5. nirmoka - moka = prakrit form of moksha?
6. nirmochana - mochana - liberation, nirmochana - complete liberation
7. nir- before numbers, e.g. nirdasha
8. nirmoksha

you can post it in the other group if anyone is interested in "knowing" there.


(24-Feb-2012, 05:05 PM)pairamblr Wrote: I copy below that info, for people who could be interested in "knowing" .
-----------------------------------
The prefix 'nir' also has the meaning 'very well', 'supremely', 'for ever', etc. in the positive sense. Thus we have this occurring in the aghamarshaNa sUktam of the Mahanarayana Upanishad:

nirmukto muktakilbiShaH

Even the very familiar word 'niShThA' means 'nitarAm sthitiH' meaning 'for ever established'. So, the term 'nirmukta' can mean 'ever-free' or 'ever liberated'.

Regards,
subbu
-------------------------------------------

[+] 1 user Likes karatalaamalaka's post
Reply
#20
This blog post explains how using the same prefix as both a negator and intensifier is not just a quirk of Sanskrit (where say, videsha means non-native desha/land -a use as negator-, and vijaya means victory as jaya does -use as an intensifier-). When we say we want something badly, we mean that we want it a lot, and doesn't mean that we don't want it! The negator prefix, in a manner of speaking, maybe thought of as playing the role of the word 'badly' in such uses as intensifiers. Quoting from the blog-post:

Quote:The best example in English ins disgruntled. What were we before we became disgruntled? Were we gruntled? The answer is yes. Gruntle is an old verb that meant to groan, grunt, or grumble. So, gruntled meant that one was malcontented. Disgruntled means to be utterly discontented, an intensive of gruntled. There is also the verb debar; which means virtually the same thing as the verb bar; but might imply a more official or permanent prohibition. Also, disannul intensifies annul.
(Source)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Nirmukta featured on The Friendly Atheist nick87 1 2,786 13-Jun-2012, 07:51 PM
Last Post: bala
  Nirmukta Petitions Geeta Charusivam 0 2,412 13-Jan-2012, 12:47 PM
Last Post: Geeta Charusivam
Exclamation Registering Nirmukta as a National Organization Ajita Kamal 3 4,634 19-Aug-2011, 08:28 PM
Last Post: Ajita Kamal



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)