Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

[Aupmanyav]

Old English is dead. Dead does not mean unknown or completely unused. It means a language that doesn't have a native population of speakers; a language that is no longer the first language of a population, used in everyday conversation.

See my post # 32. I have not denied @shivsomashekhar's position. But there is a difference between old English and Vedic Sanskrit, which is still studied, used in rituals by 'hundred of thousand/millions' (cannot give you a count) of brahmins. The Vedic mantras are still chanted hundreds of millions Hindus all over the world every day - take for example the Gayatri mantra. Sure, Vedic Sanskrit is not going to return, but the mantras too will not be changed to clasical Sanskrit.

 

[Vinayaka]

Old English is dead.

Dead does not mean unknown or completely unused. It means a language that doesn't have a native population of speakers; a language that is no longer the first language of a population, used in everyday conversation.

If I'm not mistake, all languages have old and modern versions. It seems rather natural, because things change. New inventions, new ways of looking at things, outside influences, etc. just make it that way. In translating Old Tamil, the same problem occurs. First from Old Tamil to modern Tamil, and then to English.

 

[Jainarayan]

A funny thing about language is how to date a particular language, and when one language changes into another. Most of the panelists of the Linguist List site (who are all degreed linguists) maintain that no language is older than any other, that they all descend in one unbroken line from the first human (proto) language. I have no degree in linguistics, but sometimes it's the dummies who see things a little better.

Here's a brain-fart... language change is slow but inexorable. There comes a time when a language changes so much that it splits into two or more mutually intelligible dialects. Then there comes a time when those two dialects are no longer mutually intelligible. Now we have two languages. Let's say Old Vulcan split into Northern Vulcan and Southern Vulcan, two mutually intelligible dialects. Then NV and SV diverged so much as to be mutually unintelligible. I think at some point the changes were enough to say that OV was older than NV and SV. A speaker of either North Vulcan or South Vulcan can no longer understand Old Vulcan. Just a thought experiment.

Maybe the correct way of looking at it is to ask when a language was spoken in a certain time period to determine if it's "older" than another. If we say Vedic Sanskrit was spoken and used from about 1200 BCE to 400 BCE, and though it gradually morphed into Classical Sanskrit around 400 BCE, I think we can then say Vedic Sanskrit is "older" than Classical Sanskrit, the overlap notwithstanding. Languages can actually change quite fast. Look at how many new words and grammatical constructions have appeared in just the last 100-150 years, and how many have disappeared. I don't think Gen-y'ers and Millennials could understand the dialogue from the movie Mildred Pierce... at least they'd have a hard time

 

[paarsurrey]

If I'm not mistake, all languages have old and modern versions. It seems rather natural, because things change. New inventions, new ways of looking at things, outside influences, etc. just make it that way. In translating Old Tamil, the same problem occurs. First from Old Tamil to modern Tamil, and then to English.

Not with Quran. Quranic Arabic is a living language. Quran also describes its contents itself in several ways and has mentioned this quality:

[17:42] We have explained the truth in this Qur’an in the various ways that they may be admonished, but it only increases them in aversion.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=17&verse=41​

So the meaning become clear. Quran explains its core teachings several times, so there remains no ambiguity in it. Yajurveda does no support the core tenets of religions invented in the Post-Vedic period, it has become evident in this forum in case of Ahimsa and Reinkarnation, for instance.
Right?
Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

Not with Quran. Quranic Arabic is a living language. Quran also describes its contents itself in several ways and has mentioned this quality:

Do people speak Quranic Arabic in daily use? Are children learning it as a first language? Are newspaper and magazine articles written in it? Are new books written in it? And btw, it's also called Classical Arabic. The answers to my questions are a resounding "no".

Yajurveda does no support the core tenets of religions invented in the Post-Vedic period, it has become evident in this forum in case of Ahimsa and Reinkarnation, for instance.

And here we have it folks... the raptor has finally hatched!

 

[Vinayaka]

Right?

No. It's not right just because you agree with yourself.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Not with Quran. Quranic Arabic is a living language.

No.

Classical Arabic is not used outside the religious context and therefore, it meets the definition of a dead language.

Yajurveda does no support the core tenets of religions invented in the Post-Vedic period, it has become evident in this forum in case of Ahimsa and Reinkarnation, for instance.
Right?
Please
Regards

The mistake is with you incorrectly assuming that Yajur Veda is some kind of Quran equivalent for Hindus.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Atanu, once again, can you differentiate between dogmatic thought and rational thought? This discussion is about the history of languages and their evolution. There exist academic definitions for 'dead language' and 'extinct language' (the two are different). Vedic Sanskrit meets the definition of dead language as already explained above. There is no scope for dogma in this discussion. If you are making up your own definitions of 'dead language' and/or 'Vedic Sanskrit', then you cannot use these personal definitions in discussions.

Hey bhaiyya The Veda is beyond rational intellect.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

Only the vaikihari Vak is spoken and heard whereas shabda is para, pashyanti, madhyamika, and vaikihari.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

Please do not impose rationality on the wisdom that is beyond the intellect, since the intellect is created. Veda is useless if all knowledge could be had intellectually.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

When you say 'Drishti shristi' (seeing precedes creation), what rational proof you have? Do not apply different standards and do not apply intellect and western definitions to what is adhyatmic.

Drishti srishti is easily proved (does not require scripture), but the proof would be irrelevant to this discussion. We can do it on a different thread.

I am a scientist myself. I know the limits and scope of definitions and observations. I cannot apply a definition of 'dead language' to declare Vedic language dead, since the definition does not cover the scope of the what is meant by shabda, which is 3/4 unseen.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

 

[atanu]

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

Drishti srishti is easily proved (does not require scripture), but the proof would be irrelevant to this discussion. We can do it on a different thread.

This is dogma and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

And that is a parrot, probably, if it is not an insult to the very basic understating of Veda as being aupaurusheya -- not of human descent.

You persistently denigrate the Vedas and deny that it is the root of Hinduism. You deny that it is the shabda, which by definition is akshara, imperishable.

I understand Vedas as the body of Paramatman, the reality. It is the shabda that pervades and permeates. It is not a mere language.

Whether you repeatedly insult me does not matter.

Regarding the red highlighted part, I will be delighted if you could establish Shristi Drishti logically.

 

[atanu]

And here we have it folks... the raptor has finally hatched!

Was there any doubt?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

What I am saying is that The Rik, Yajus and Saman type Mantras may have existed in different collections, or in one collection, and Veda Vyasa (maybe he was called Krishna Dwapiyana) has compiled them into Rigveda, SamanVeda, YajurVeda and AtharvaDeva categories that we have today.

With due apology, I am not clear what you are trying to say here.

As I said earlier, the distinction between the four Vedas is noted in the main Upanishads - which invalidates the Puranic story of Vyasa's redaction. The only argument that can go against this is if you say the main Upanishads were created after the time of Vyasa.

tatrAparA RRigvedo yajurvedaH sAmavedo.atharvavedaH
shikShA kalpo vyAkaraNaM niruktaM Chando jyotiShamiti |
atha parA yayA tadakSharamadhigamyate || Mundaka 1.1.5 ||

Here is the verse where these texts are listed as inferior knowledge (compared to that knowledge of the imperishable Brahman)

 

[shivsomashekhar]

You persistently denigrate the Vedas and deny that it is the root of Hinduism.

Hinduism is much too complex to base it on the Veda. That is an over-simplification that was created during Victorian times by Hindus to explain it to Westerners and to create some kind of National unity. That does not make it true.

1. The most popular God in Tamilnadu (Murugan) is not Vedic. How do you explain to Murugan followers that Hinduism is based on the Veda and thus, they are not really Hindu?
2. The Veera Shaivas in Karnataka (the dominant caste) reject the Veda. Are you saying they are not Hindu?
3. Millions of Hindus worship some form of a mother Goddess (Amman, Ambal, Durga, Kali, etc.,) which is not Vedic. Are they not Hindu?
4. We have countless regional Gods in the interiors of India - worshiped by millions. None of them are Vedic. Are they not Hindu?
5. Hundreds of thousands of people worship Ayappa, Ganapathi, etc. Nothing Vedic about it.
6. Festivals, temples, idol worship, worship of Godmen...none of these are Vedic.

And yet, the above are the activities that fill the religious portfolio of Hindus. So, how do you reason that Hinduism is based on the Veda?

You deny that it is the shabda, which by definition is akshara, imperishable.

Are you denying academic history that Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-Iranian group of languages? It sounds like you do. Please explain how this language came about and who spoke this language 10,000 years ago?

Whether you repeatedly insult me does not matter.

Disagreement should not be construed as an insult. This is a debate forum and a thin skin does not work here.

 

[atanu]

Hinduism is much too complex to base it on the Veda. That is an over-simplification that was created during Victorian times by Hindus to explain it to Westerners and to create some kind of National unity. That does not make it true.

The most popular God in Tamilnadu (Murugan) is not Vedic. How do you explain to Murugan followers that Hinduism is based on the Veda and thus, they are not really Hindu? The Veera Shaivas in Karnataka (the dominant caste) reject the Veda. Are you saying they are not Hindu?

Are you denying academic history that Sanskrit belongs to the Indo-Iranian group of languages? It sounds like you do. Please explain how this language came about and who spoke this language 10,000 years ago?

Disagreement should not be construed as an insult. This is a debate forum and a thin skin does not work here.

I know your position. I disagree. Kartikeya is Vedic as is Ganapati. These are not persons but aspects Rudra itself.

Probably your reading and understanding of Vedas is rationally oriented, totally oblivious of the spiritual, transcendental aspects.

I go by what Hindu teachers, including the modern ones, Shri Ramakrishna, Vivekannda, Shri Ramana, Shri Chinmayananda, teach.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I know your position. I disagree. Mutual is Vedic as is Ganapati.

I go by what Hindu teachers, including the modern ones, Shri Ramakrishna, Vivekannda, Shri Ramana, Shri Chinmayananda, teach.

You are welcome to your view. But please do not call your view academic as you implied a few posts ago.

And I can speak for Ramana. He never said anything that goes against what I have posted on this thread. He never said that Sanskrit did not originate from the Indo Aryan group of languages or that Hinduism is based on the Veda.

 

[atanu]

You are welcome to your view. But please do not call your view academic as you implied a few posts ago.

And I can speak for Ramana. He never said anything that goes against what I have posted on this thread. He never said that Sanskrit did not originate from the Indo Aryan group of languages or that Hinduism is based on the Veda.

Please read completely. I said I am from academic line but I do not mix adhyatmic, which by definition is beyond the grasp of mind, with mental speculations of history etc.

Did Ramana say that Sanskrit originated from Indo Aryan languages? He would never speculate on any matter. Kindly show where Ramana says that Sanskrit originated from Indo Aryan languages?

Further, even today, morning, afternoon, and evenings in Shri Ramanasraman are filled with Vedic chants. So, your claims that Veda language is dead or that Veda is not the root of Sanatana dharma, is not correct fromPOV of a revered modern Master of Hinduism. And for that matter, no Hindu teacher has denied that Vedas lie at the root of Sanatana dharma.

Else, masters of Advaita, Visistadvaita, and Dvaita would not provide Sruti proofs for their respective perspectives.

I repeat that you simply do not know that forms of most hindu deities are rooted in Vedas. You can see skanda, ganaparti, sri, saraswati, durga ... in different sections of Vedas.

I surely do not know many things. But I do not oppose the common wisdom as taught by gurus, particularly, Shri Ramana Maharshi.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Please read completely. I said I am from academic line but I do not mix adhyatmic, which by definition is beyond the grasp of mind, with mental speculations of history etc.

But that is exactly what you are doing! You mixed up your Adyatmika views with history - without calling it out clearly. If you had stated right at the get-go that you disagree with the prevailing academic view of the history of Sanskrit and you accept the traditional, dogmatic view that the language has no origin, then your position would have been clear.

Did Ramana say that Sanskrit originated from Indo Aryan languages? He would never speculate on any matter. Kindly show where Ramana says that Sanskrit originated from Indo Aryan languages?

I said Ramana did not make the claim you make. He had little or no interest in the matter. Your post implied that Ramana was in agreement with your views.

Further, even today, morning, afternoon, and evenings in Shri Ramanasraman are filled with Vedic chants.

Yes. But what about it? I do not see how it contradicts my position. I should add here that Ramana never told people to engage in daily Veda Parayanam. That is something the Ashram inmates took upon themselves to initiate and he had no strong view on it - one way or another. For that matter, he never asked anyone to build him an Ashram. That was the doing of disciples too and he simply went along.

 

[atanu]

But that is exactly what you are doing! You mixed up your Adyatmika views with history - without calling it out clearly. If you had stated right at the get-go that you disagree with the prevailing academic view of the history of Sanskrit and you accept the traditional, dogmatic view that the language has no origin, then your position would have been clear.

I said Ramana did not make the claim you make. He had little or no interest in the matter. Your post implied that Ramana was in agreement with your views.

Yes. But what about it? I do not see how it contradicts my position. I should add here that Ramana never told people to engage in daily Veda Parayanam. That is something the Ashram inmates took upon themselves to initiate and he had no strong view on it - one way or another. For that matter, he never asked anyone to build him an Ashram. That was the doing of disciples too and he simply went along.

Where did Ramana say that the Vedas originated from Indo Aryan language and it was not aupaurusheya?

Your post after post denial of Vedas as the root of Hinduism is not supported by any teacher.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Where did Ramana say that the Vedas originated from Indo Aryan language and it was not aupaurusheya?

You pulled Ramana into this discussion. Your statement was you follow Ramana => thus implying that Ramana aligns with your views. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you - to show that Ramana explicitly stated that Sanskrit has no origin. I do not have to prove anything here and anyway, you should know that we cannot prove a negative ( we do not have to either).

Your post after post denial of Vedas as the root of Hinduism is not supported by any teacher.

I do not care for Vivekananda or any other teacher who preached to Westerners as they all had the proverbial axe to grind. If you spent a few hours reading up history, you will know that the concept of Hinduism has nothing religious about it and it is just a modern, socio-political thing. Therefore, religious Gurus opinions on the subject is summarily overridden by that of Historians. Let us not mix up religion and history. But since you are not familiar with the history of Hinduism, you are not in a position to agree or disagree with me.

Equating Hinduism with Vaidika Dharma and thus ignoring its various other aspects is simply ignorant and wrong.

 

[atanu]

Your statement was you follow Ramana => thus implying that Ramana aligns with your views. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you - to show that Ramana explicitly stated that Sanskrit has no origin. I do not have to prove anything here and anyway, you should know that we cannot prove a negative ( we do not have to either).

I do not care for Vivekananda or any other teacher who preached to Westerners as they all had the proverbial axe to grind. If you spent a few hours reading up history, you will know that the concept of Hinduism has nothing religious about it and it is just a modern, socio-political thing. Therefore, religious Gurus opinions on the subject is summarily overridden by that of Historians. Let us not mix up religion and history. But since you are not familiar with the history of Hinduism, you are not in a position to agree or disagree with me.

Equating Hinduism with Vaidika Dharma and thus ignoring its various other aspects is simply ignorant and wrong.

Aspects are all aspects of the Vaidika dharma.

 

[Jainarayan]

Was there any doubt?

No.