,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
On the third statement -
We cannot pin down the linguistic identity of the early medieval Acharyas
Adi Shankara never wrote a word in the vernacular. Nor did Ramanuja. Their writings are entirely in Sanskrit
Malayalam as a distinct language likely did not exist in 7th cen CE
We cannot pin down the linguistic identity of the early medieval Acharyas
Adi Shankara never wrote a word in the vernacular. Nor did Ramanuja. Their writings are entirely in Sanskrit
Malayalam as a distinct language likely did not exist in 7th cen CE
So when people position Ramanuja as a "Tamilian", that is purely on the strength of his geographic location, and the social milieu that emerges from much later hagiographies
The reality is these men most likely did not see themselves in regional terms
They were cosmopolitan men who wielded a cosmopolitan language arguably not just in their work but also in day to day speech
They were cosmopolitan men who wielded a cosmopolitan language arguably not just in their work but also in day to day speech
The Brahmin demographic in general has been very mobile. Perhaps more so back then, than today
Quite likely many of these acharyas hailed from families that were recent migrants from the north
Quite likely many of these acharyas hailed from families that were recent migrants from the north
While there definitely must have been engagement with the mass culture at some level, I don't believe the assimilation was ever total
That's not the Indian way...In India groups retain their distinctive identities long after migrating to a new region
That's not the Indian way...In India groups retain their distinctive identities long after migrating to a new region
