Sanskrit or English for home puja prayers? (yes ocpd)

[Shântoham]

This disturbs me.

Namaskāram

I cannot give you an answer that will make you happy. One approach to chanting – that is very popular among many westerners – says that precision or accuracy of pronunciation is not important – what matters is the feeling of the chanting – the devotion. The Scriptures are very clear on the matter – the chanting of the Vedas is not for everyone. Śabdabrahman – God manifest as sound.
I prefer a middle way – with lot of practice and concentration anyone can chant the Vedas.
For those who insist in their casual approach there is always next life… and the next… and the next… and so on.
Of course, you can always pray and chant in your own language. That is the safest approach.

Pranāms

P.S. – I met Japanese who have excellent Sanskrit pronunciation. Priests at the end of rituals chant a Mantra asking for forgiveness in case of any mistakes.

 

[Vinayaka]

The best we can do as newcomers is listen to it done by a teacher, and then try our very best to copy that. Reading a transliteration of the sounds will not do it justice. Thank goodness for the apology chant.

But putting total focus on Sanskrit also isn't exactly a warm feeling. I remember a woman here who refused to come to the temple because the priest's Sanskrit was 'so horrible'. Then another guy stopped coming because the priest was using the 'wrong' mantras. So we still have this 'I know better than you' stuff, when in reality it was different training, from a different priest school.

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaskāram

I cannot give you an answer that will make you happy. One approach to chanting – that is very popular among many westerners – says that precision or accuracy of pronunciation is not important – what matters is the feeling of the chanting – the devotion. The Scriptures are very clear on the matter – the chanting of the Vedas is not for everyone. Śabdabrahman – God manifest as sound.
I prefer a middle way – with lot of practice and concentration anyone can chant the Vedas.
For those who insist in their casual approach there is always next life… and the next… and the next… and so on.
Of course, you can always pray and chant in your own language. That is the safest approach.

Pranāms

P.S. – I met Japanese who have excellent Sanskrit pronunciation. Priests at the end of rituals chant a Mantra asking for forgiveness in case of any mistakes.

I don't mean to argue, but it's unfortunate then, that Vedic mantras and slokas are to be found all over the internet and in written books, for use by anyone who wants to use them. This throws B.G. 9.26 right out the window. We anthropomorphize God(dess) with murthis, paintings and icons, all human constructions we believe invoke the gods. But yet we cannot communicate with God in the language of the religion, a human language that has clear relatives, predecessors and descendants, unless it is flawless? In my ignorance, I think we have to agree to disagree on that. As Vinayaka says below, I think we do the best we can. I do believe it's the thought and effort that counts. Deliberate sloppiness gets no points.

The best we can do as newcomers is listen to it done by a teacher, and then try our very best to copy that. Reading a transliteration of the sounds will not do it justice. Thank goodness for the apology chant.

That's true. I still wonder about the apology mantra, does it have any merit if it is pronounced wrong? It's a circular thing... asking for forgiveness for mispronouncing the chants with a chant you mispronounce. Catch-22. Or it's of a different nature? If so, then it's kind of like the expression "pardon my French" or "excuse me, I misspoke".

But putting total focus on Sanskrit also isn't exactly a warm feeling. I remember a woman here who refused to come to the temple because the priest's Sanskrit was 'so horrible'. Then another guy stopped coming because the priest was using the 'wrong' mantras. So we still have this 'I know better than you' stuff, when in reality it was different training, from a different priest school.

I hope that woman was a native Sanskrit speaker to make such a judgment. I couldn't tell you if the priests were using the right or wrong mantras, nor would I have the temerity to say anything if I did know. Some lines you just don't cross.

 

[Shântoham]

The best we can do as newcomers is listen to it done by a teacher, and then try our very best to copy that. Reading a transliteration of the sounds will not do it justice. Thank goodness for the apology chant.

But putting total focus on Sanskrit also isn't exactly a warm feeling. I remember a woman here who refused to come to the temple because the priest's Sanskrit was 'so horrible'. Then another guy stopped coming because the priest was using the 'wrong' mantras. So we still have this 'I know better than you' stuff, when in reality it was different training, from a different priest school.

Namaskāram

Vināyaka wrote: The best we can do as newcomers is listen to it done by a teacher, and then try our very best to copy that.

Yes – that’s the traditional way.

Vināyaka wrote: Reading a transliteration of the sounds will not do it justice.

Depends of you training and if the transliteration has Svāras.

Vināyaka wrote: Thank goodness for the apology chant.

Yes.

Vināyaka wrote: But putting total focus on Sanskrit also isn't exactly a warm feeling.

It is a very warm feeling if you see Sanskrit – sound – as God. Chanting as Yajña. And pronunciation as Āsana.

Vināyaka wrote: I remember a woman here who refused to come to the temple because the priest's Sanskrit was 'so horrible'. Then another guy stopped coming because the priest was using the 'wrong' mantras. So we still have this 'I know better than you' stuff, when in reality it was different training, from a different priest school.

What can be said for ignorant behavior? It is sad.

Pranāms

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I have to go with the option that is least distracting. For me, that means praying in English. (Although I've actually been trying to do it in Hindi lately for language practice).

While I am attempting to learn a few mantras in sanskrit, I find that my inability to pronounce it correctly just makes me feel silly while I sit in meditation/prayer, which of course distracts me from what I'm doing. Also, if I don't have the meaning of a mantra memorized, I don't like to use it because it feels hollow.

It's more important to me to know that I'm truly focused on the meaning of what I am saying rather then the language I am communicating in. I have heard that sanskrit has a certain vibration conducive to prayer, and in that sense there is a part of me that wants to know it, but because I am new to my faith, I feel that understanding the meaning of what I am saying and being fully focused on God is more important.

Sanskrit will come with time I think.

That being said, JN - you've been at this much longer then I, so if you feel like Sanskrit is the logical next step, and it doesn't distract you from your puja I say go for it =)

Shanti :camp:

 

[Jainarayan]

If this is what it is, then I know it. But would a Shaiva or Shakta chant it, and does Sayeeshwara refer to Vishnu, or Satya Sai Baba?

Yadha Kshara Pada bhrashtam matraheenam tuyadhbhaveth
tat sarvam kshamÿatam deva narayana namo'stu te

visarga bindu matrani padha paadha ksharani ca
nyoonani chaati riktani kshamasva sayeeshvara

aparadha sahasrani kriyante har nisham maya
daso'yam iti mam matva kshamasva sayeeshvara

anyata charanam nasti tvameva charanam mama
tasmat kaarunya bhavena raksha raksha saayeshvara

hari hi om tat sat sree saayeshvararpana mastu
om shanti shanti shantihi

 

[Jainarayan]

While I am attempting to learn a few mantras in sanskrit, I find that my inability to pronounce it correctly just makes me feel silly while I sit in meditation/prayer, which of course distracts me from what I'm doing. Also, if I don't have the meaning of a mantra memorized, I don't like to use it because it feels hollow.

I know what you mean. I may not know word for word the translation, but having seen the English translation, I know what the sloka or mantra is. Parrots can reproduce sounds, but they don't know what they mean. We can be parroting a mantra also, and yes it becomes hollow.

if you feel like Sanskrit is the logical next step, and it doesn't distract you from your puja I say go for it =)

Shanti :camp:

Actually I think, even as halting as it is, it draws me closer, because I am concentrating on it, and on the deity I am praying to. Quite honestly, as I said way at the beginning of the thread, the English translations are often silly and childish in the extreme. Novice that I am at Sanskrit, at least I know the words, grammar, and (I hope) pronunciation I'm using is the "real deal".

 

[Shântoham]

I don't mean to argue, but it's unfortunate then, that Vedic mantras and slokas are to be found all over the internet and in written books, for use by anyone who wants to use them. This throws B.G. 9.26 right out the window. We anthropomorphize God(dess) with murthis, paintings and icons, all human constructions we believe invoke the gods. But yet we cannot communicate with God in the language of the religion, a human language that has clear relatives, predecessors and descendants, unless it is flawless? In my ignorance, I think we have to agree to disagree on that. As Vinayaka says below, I think we do the best we can. I do believe it's the thought and effort that counts. Deliberate sloppiness gets no points.

Namaskāram

Numbers are all over the Internet for everyone to use – yet trigonometry is not for everyone. With due study and practice we can learn trigonometry. The same way – with study and practice we can learn to chant the Vedas properly. If that is what we wish to do.
If Sanskrit is a human language than the Vedas are a human construct. Personally – I prefer to follow the traditional understanding of sound as God manifested.
Bhagavadgītā 9.26 refers to the physical act not the verbal act.
Mūrtis are a manifestation of our devotion.
But – like you said – no one here wish to argue.

Pranāms

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Actually I think, even as halting as it is, it draws me closer, because I am concentrating on it, and on the deity I am praying to. Quite honestly, as I said way at the beginning of the thread, the English translations are often silly and childish in the extreme. Novice that I am at Sanskrit, at least I know the words, grammar, and (I hope) pronunciation I'm using is the "real deal".

I agree about the English translation of the mantras - it does sound awkward. I just mean in regular prayer I use English. I tend to structure my meditations and prayers like conversations. Mantras, when I manage to do them, I read in sanskrit from a sheet of paper. It's an honest attempt, but again, it leaves me feeling distracted.

I'd take it as a good sign that using the Sanskrit brings you closer. Even if you're stumbling through it that just means that practice it the order of the day. You've had others tell you your pronunciation is good, which is always nice to hear. (I've been told my Hindi is very good, but I think by "good" they mean, "That's so cool that you're trying." but who knows?)

I can't remember if you live close to a Temple. You're in NJ right? There have to be several close by, I'd imagine. Many temples offer Sanskrit lessons. (The one near me does, and for free except for the cost of books) I'd look into that if you want to move forward with Sanskrit. I'd do it myself if I wasn't already focusing on another language already

:camp:

 

[Jainarayan]

If Sanskrit is a human language than the Vedas are a human construct. Personally – I prefer to follow the traditional understanding of sound as God manifested.

No, I don't believe the Vedas are a human construction, I believe they are divine, but the vehicle to convey them is a human construction to humans who are limited. If there are beings on other worlds that do not have vocal chords, but communicate some other way, and the Vedas are Sanātana Dharma, then Sanskrit cannot be the vehicle for manifesting God as sound to those beings. Those beings have no chance in this life of making spiritual progress. I can hear God in the sound of a bird chirping and singing, but I can't chirp and sing like a bird. That's my somewhat convoluted logic.

 

[Jainarayan]

I just mean in regular prayer I use English. I tend to structure my meditations and prayers like conversations. Mantras, when I manage to do them, I read in sanskrit from a sheet of paper.

Yes, that's what I mean and do too.

I'd take it as a good sign that using the Sanskrit brings you closer. Even if you're stumbling through it that just means that practice it the order of the day. You've had others tell you your pronunciation is good, which is always nice to hear. (I've been told my Hindi is very good, but I think by "good" they mean, "That's so cool that you're trying." but who knows?)

I have a bit of a linguistic bent because I play music, and have always had an ear for sound. Apparently my Russian is the Moscow dialect. Uh... I've never been to Russia. I must have picked it up from co-workers. My Greek is almost unaccented. I hear sound nuances. There was a woman I worked with who was from India. Her accent was as thick as honey. No one could understand her... except me. She was the computer tapes librarian, and I was really her only friend. They wanted to fire her because of the "language barrier" (**** heads!). I went ballistic and said "well gee-dee-it, if you'd just LISTEN to her and pay attention, you'd understand her!" They kept her. Sweet little thing; she brought me some little souvenirs from India (no one else got anything... ha! ).

I can't remember if you live close to a Temple. You're in NJ right? There have to be several close by, I'd imagine. Many temples offer Sanskrit lessons. (The one near me does, and for free except for the cost of books) I'd look into that if you want to move forward with Sanskrit. I'd do it myself if I wasn't already focusing on another language already

:camp:

Yep, when the old temple building is being refurbished into a classroom building, they will offer Sanskrit and Hindi lessons again. I'm going to look into the Sanskrit lessons first, then maybe Hindi. I can't wait.

 

[VajraYosid]

Namaskar Shantohamji

If Sanskrit is a human language than the Vedas are a human construct.

Here is my perspective, for whatever it is worth:

Sanskrit is a human language, the result of tens of thousands of years of linguistic refinement. However, I do believe that those who 'founded' it had divine guidance, even revelation, in doing so.

The Vedas, on the other hand, are purely divine but 'translated into' Sanskrit. I think it is likely that Sanskrit was formulated around the revelation of the Vedas; the sounds were put into tangible human meaning as Sanskrit.

I mention this by way of pointing out that it is possible that Sanskrit is a human language, but that the Vedas are not a human construct.

Pranam

 

[Jainarayan]

^ All of which I agree with, I cannot find any fault with it. That is a very concise summary of what I think.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

^ All of which I agree with, I cannot find any fault with it. That is a very concise summary of what I think.

I too agree with this concept as said by Vajra, i also think that Vedic Sanskrit is a artificial language specifically produced to express the inspirations of the Rishis, But the content or the Vidya contained within is author less (apurushay).

That is my view

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, the wisdom is transcendental.

 

[Shântoham]

No, I don't believe the Vedas are a human construction, I believe they are divine, but the vehicle to convey them is a human construction to humans who are limited. If there are beings on other worlds that do not have vocal chords, but communicate some other way, and the Vedas are Sanātana Dharma, then Sanskrit cannot be the vehicle for manifesting God as sound to those beings. Those beings have no chance in this life of making spiritual progress. I can hear God in the sound of a bird chirping and singing, but I can't chirp and sing like a bird. That's my somewhat convoluted logic.

Namaskāram

The hub of contention of our brief exchange of views is simple. You understand Sanskrit as a language. A language that – perhaps, when sufficiently mastered – will give you access to the Scriptures. I understand Sanskrit as a divine sound vibration. God – literally manifested – as sound vibration. And the precision and accuracy of pronunciation is the full manifestation of such vibration. God himself says:

Bhagavadgītā 7.8 aham praṇavaḥ sarva-vedeṣu – I am the syllable Oṁ in all the Vedic Mantras.
Bhagavadgītā 9.16 mantro 'ham – I am the Mantras
Bhagavadgītā 9.17 aham oṁkāra – I am the syllable Oṁ; aham ṛk sāma yajur eva ca - I am also the Ṛg, the Sāma, and the Yajur Vedas.
Bhagavadgītā 10.25 girām asmy ekam akṣaram – of vibrations I am the transcendental Oṁ.

As a musician – when you play a tune – you try to vibrate all the notes properly, don’t you? A successfully performed tune is a tune in which all the notes were properly vibrated, is it not? The connection between the properly vibrated notes and the successful performance of the tune is direct – why would be any different when chanting Mantras?
When pronouncing a Mantra with precision and accuracy we fully manifest the divine vibration in the sanctum of our personal inner space – God literally dancing on our tongue and lips.
Furthermore, ritual is a process of give and take, which is also the rule of life. In everyday life most of our interactions are based on this principle. Giving and taking are occurring continuously in the universe. In order to give a certain amount of sacrifice is necessary – time and energy, for example. When chanting the Mantras, our Bhakti is the giving, and the precision and accuracy of pronunciation is the sacrifice.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskar Shantohamji


Here is my perspective, for whatever it is worth:

Sanskrit is a human language, the result of tens of thousands of years of linguistic refinement. However, I do believe that those who 'founded' it had divine guidance, even revelation, in doing so.

The Vedas, on the other hand, are purely divine but 'translated into' Sanskrit. I think it is likely that Sanskrit was formulated around the revelation of the Vedas; the sounds were put into tangible human meaning as Sanskrit.

I mention this by way of pointing out that it is possible that Sanskrit is a human language, but that the Vedas are not a human construct.

Pranam

Namaskāram

I have no quarrel with what you are saying. I am only left to wonder – what is going to be the vessel that we are going to utilize to navigate the vast expanses of our tradition – personal opinion or Guru-Śāstra-Upadeśa? I guess you can well imagine what my personal choice is going to be.

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

I too agree with this concept as said by Vajra, i also think that Vedic Sanskrit is a artificial language specifically produced to express the inspirations of the Rishis, But the content or the Vidya contained within is author less (apurushay).

That is my view

Namaskāram

We often forget that Veda is not a book – It is perceived sound – Śruti. If the Veda is Apauruṣeya so is the sound – language.

Pranāms

 

[VajraYosid]

Namaskāram

I have no quarrel with what you are saying. I am only left to wonder – what is going to be the vessel that we are going to utilize to navigate the vast expanses of our tradition – personal opinion or Guru-Śāstra-Upadeśa? I guess you can well imagine what my personal choice is going to be.

Pranāms

Namaskarji

Your point is appreciated, but I am not aware that my personal opinion is divergent from either guru or shastra upadesha. However, one issue I would suggest that we have with our shastras - and our gurus, is the problem of contradiction between them. How does this arise, save for the interjection of personal opinion into upadesha?

And what other mechanism for filtering?

I have 3 questions: what is the language of the sadhyas? What is the language of the devas? What is the original language of humanity?

Although it is considered remiss to speak of such things, in dhyan I witnessed a woman dancing through a primeval forest with the various objects of world and mind conjoined and riding the fivefold wind appearing in their subtle forms as deities arrayed in their mandalas to her inner eye.

As they arose to her mind, so did they appear in her heart of speech, which overflowed her lips as the first language. She named them as they named themselves, and braided them as they arrayed themselves. It was not sanskrit. Her lord, Manu, formulated the law.

Shraddha dawns with mahavakya, and applies tilak and bindi by means of the guru's feet, but both of these are experienced through the field of personal awareness.

Where does personal experience stand with regard to guru & shastra upadesha? Here too we find a tangle of opinions - in the shastra itself, and twisted between the lips of many a guru true!

I do not know how much this was a symbolic allegory, as with dreams, and how much was authentically witnessed. From an objective standpoint, I must admit that perhaps it was merely a mental fabrication, if a subtle one. Subjectively this possibility does not arise to be admitted.

In any case... modern linguistic studies, for all its faults and inevitable European ethnocentricity - nowhere more forcefully expressed than in the misapplication of philology to Indian history - is still a shastra of considerable import. Even discounting all the obvious bias, it is still fairly clear that sanskrit was derived from still older languages.

How can we reconcile the two? Or should we not attempt to?

Pranam

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskarji

Your point is appreciated, but I am not aware that my personal opinion is divergent from either guru or shastra upadesha. However, one issue I would suggest that we have with our shastras - and our gurus, is the problem of contradiction between them. How does this arise, save for the interjection of personal opinion into upadesha?

And what other mechanism for filtering?

I have 3 questions: what is the language of the sadhyas? What is the language of the devas? What is the original language of humanity?

Although it is considered remiss to speak of such things, in dhyan I witnessed a woman dancing through a primeval forest with the various objects of world and mind conjoined and riding the fivefold wind appearing in their subtle forms as deities arrayed in their mandalas to her inner eye.

As they arose to her mind, so did they appear in her heart of speech, which overflowed her lips as the first language. She named them as they named themselves, and braided them as they arrayed themselves. It was not sanskrit. Her lord, Manu, formulated the law.

Shraddha dawns with mahavakya, and applies tilak and bindi by means of the guru's feet, but both of these are experienced through the field of personal awareness.

Where does personal experience stand with regard to guru & shastra upadesha? Here too we find a tangle of opinions - in the shastra itself, and twisted between the lips of many a guru true!

I do not know how much this was a symbolic allegory, as with dreams, and how much was authentically witnessed. From an objective standpoint, I must admit that perhaps it was merely a mental fabrication, if a subtle one. Subjectively this possibility does not arise to be admitted.

In any case... modern linguistic studies, for all its faults and inevitable European ethnocentricity - nowhere more forcefully expressed than in the misapplication of philology to Indian history - is still a shastra of considerable import. Even discounting all the obvious bias, it is still fairly clear that sanskrit was derived from still older languages.

How can we reconcile the two? Or should we not attempt to?

Pranam

Namaskāram

This is offered is the spirit of apology. For some the truth needs to be unraveled from a tangled mass of diverse and conflicting views and possibilities. For others the truth is simple and fairly obvious. The former lead a life of adventure and exploration that often – but not always – takes them to the hoary and esoteric heights of human erudition. The latter lead a quiet life of study – under the guidance of their Guru – that takes them to a better understanding of their chosen Vāda.
I somewhat find myself belonging to the second group – for this reason I am unable to respond to your poignant queries because such questions never crossed the threshold of my mind. For that I apologize.

Pranāms