Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

[paarsurrey]

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?

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.

This makes it abundantly clear that "Hinduism" does not define any distinct religion of the Indian-sub-Continent. Right? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe if we cling to old out dated scriptures, no matter what those scriptures are, then yes they are dead, truth cannot be imprisoned in any scripture, it is ever flowing, to imprison it is to let it rote and it then smells of dogma and fundamentalism.

I don't agree with one.
Truth flows from the revealed scriptures:

1. if the parts adulterated by the narrators/scribes/clergy are separated from
   
2. those that have not been,
   
3. or are purified with the help of a scripture that is as pristine and fresh as ever and is unadulterated. Please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Very few people read the Vedas, so very few are clinging.

Because Veda is no more a concise scripture, has become too voluminous .
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course it could happen. My point is just that the Dharmic faiths have far less emphasis on scripture than the Abrahamic faiths. That's not just some conjecture.

This is a better description than the "Hinduism". What does one understand from "Dharmic Faiths" v "Non-Dharmic Faiths". Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I think one is less likely to find "enlightenment" in the Vedas than we are in the Upanishads. The Vedas aren't the equivalent of the Dhammapada or the Bible, or even the Tao Te Ching. The Vedas, from what I've seen, are primarily hymns of praise and directions for performing sacrifices. I don't know if meditating on the Nasadiya Sukta or the Mantra Pushpam (two of my favorites) for 1,000 years will bring one any closer to enlightenment. Not to mention contradictions because they were compiled over the course of centuries, if not millennia, as society changed, and they became layered. That doesn't invalidate them, but it offers "something for everyone". I don't think one can just read the Vedas and hope for more than being able to say "I read the Vedas, yay me!"

This is a proof that Vedas have been adulterated/corrupted/redacted and is not Eternal. It needs to be renovated and restored to its original form. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

This is a proof that Vedas have been adulterated/corrupted/redacted and is not Eternal. It needs to be renovated and restored to its original form. Right? Please
Regards

Wrong...again...as usual. Read what I wrote, not what you want to see:

they were compiled over the course of centuries, if not millennia, as society changed, and they became layered. That doesn't invalidate them, but it offers "something for everyone"

 

[paarsurrey]

And is there any external to self? In my understanding, the vedas are not the external books. But study of the Vedas require study at the feet of a guru.. thus comes the name 'Upanishad'.

How does one know that a Guru is a Guru, not a con? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

For the majority of Hindus - yes. See below for more information.

The followers of these schools are the Smarthas, Madhvas and Iyengars. Together they form about 5% of Hindus or lesser. Among these followers, those who take enough interest to delve into scripture constitute about 1%. The other 99% have no interest in philosophy and their practice is about following rituals, visiting temples, the Mathas (or Mathams for Tamilians), celebrating festivals and changing the sacred thread annually. So, the 'we' you are referring to is 1% of 5% of Hindus, which becomes a negligible number.

What about all the other Hindus you are reluctant to consider? I have already explained to you that your oversimplified view of Hinduism is exclusive and wrong.

That is correct. However, you are failing to account for his audience. Like it or not - Shankara was an orthodox Brahmin and as was the practice in medieval India, his target audience was other orthodox Brahmins, such as himself. He did not write for all of Hinduism. Brahmins form about 4% of the Indian population and even if we allow half of that number for Smarthas - we have only 2% of Hindus as recipients of Shankara's teachings.

What about the rest?

Good statistics, who will like to study such a voluminous scripture? It established a needs of a concise Veda scripture. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

Good statistics, who will like to study such a voluminous scripture? It established a needs of a concise Veda scripture. Right? Please
Regards

So how far along are you in this service to mankind?

 

[Vinayaka]

Because Veda is no more a concise scripture, has become too voluminous .
Regards

It is absolutely great as is ... in size ... in what's in it. Only a fool would want to change it.

 

[Vinayaka]

This is a better description than the "Hinduism". What does one understand from "Dharmic Faiths" v "Non-Dharmic Faiths". Please
Regards

Have you ever looked at the way this forum categorizes faith? Please look under 'forums', and you will see.

 

[Vinayaka]

Good statistics, who will like to study such a voluminous scripture? It established a needs of a concise Veda scripture. Right? Please
Regards

It's like food ... food to the soul. Maybe a person could live on a concise diet with no variety, but its better to have a large diet, lots of variety ... far more interesting, far healthier.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't agree with one.
Truth flows from the revealed scriptures:

1. if the parts adulterated by the narrators/scribes/clergy are separated from
   
2. those that have not been,
   
3. or are purified with the help of a scripture that is as pristine and fresh as ever and is unadulterated. Please

Regards

Scriptures of any kind have no truth, they can point you to truth, just as a road sign can point you to wherever you want to be, the sign itself is not the end of the destination or where you want to be.

Its like falling in love with the sign and carrying the sign on your back, it only weighies you down, keeps you from ever being where you truly want to be.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scriptures of any kind have no truth, they can point you to truth, just as a road sign can point you to wherever you want to be, the sign itself is not the end of the destination or where you want to be.
Its like falling in love with the sign and carrying the sign on your back, it only weighies you down, keeps you from ever being where you truly want to be.

One may take it as defining the purpose and guiding to the destination truthfully and correctly. The destination is being one in G-d, achieving nearness to Him. Please
Regards

 

[von bek]

This makes it abundantly clear that "Hinduism" does not define any distinct religion of the Indian-sub-Continent. Right? Please
Regards

Correct. I dare say that there are Hindu traditions that are more different from each other than Islam is different from Christianity. Hinduism is a general term for the South Asian religious traditions, excluding Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. If someone tells you they are Hindu, the only thing you can assume before finding anything else out is that they follow a religious tradition that originated in India. Make no assumptions about which scriptures they read or which gods they worship. (Or even what their philosophy is.)

 

[paarsurrey]

Correct. I dare say that there are Hindu traditions that are more different from each other than Islam is different from Christianity. Hinduism is a general term for the South Asian religious traditions, excluding Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. If someone tells you they are Hindu, the only thing you can assume before finding anything else out is that they follow a religious tradition that originated in India. Make no assumptions about which scriptures they read or which gods they worship. (Or even what their philosophy is.)

Actually it is a secular concept related to a region/territory and is not religious one. Please
Regards

 

[von bek]

Actually it is a secular concept related to a region/territory and is not religious one. Please
Regards

Secular concept? I would not say that. You could argue that it is an imperialistic concept in that it involves outsiders defining the beliefs of the people they rule. However, it relates to religious categories and not political ones.

 

[Vinayaka]

The term 'religion' itself doesn't fit well with Hinduism. But in order to garner some rights at all, we had to argue that we were a religion. This all came about because the anti-Hindu crowd at the time used 'it's not a religion' to discriminate against us.

 

[von bek]

Often, labels come long after their contents. For instance, in Japan there was no word to describe the body of religious beliefs that most Japanese shared. Only after Buddhism took root in the nation was there a need for the term "Shinto" to describe the native religious traditions.

 

[Vinayaka]

Just as Malhotra argues that there are Sanskrit words that should be determined 'not translatable' so too do many English or other western language words have no suitable concept for them in Sanskrit or other eastern languages. Languages are suited to the paradigm they are manifested in, and often just don't work in other paradigms. Something like trying to run a gas engine with diesel, or a diesel engine with gasoline. My friend Revoltingest would appreciate the analogy.