Nicholas
Bodhicitta
The source of Sanskrit was not human, but divine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where does Sanskrit come from?
- Thread starter Kirran
- Start date
The source of Sanskrit was not human, but divine.
And you really can't expect any serious respect for that when all the etymological deconstruction shows an undeniable development from earlier Indo-European languages. Linguists are not going to arbitrary reject the scholarly and scientific consensus simply because some Hindus don't like the demonstrable truth.
Nicholas
Bodhicitta
Expect respect for a tradition not of our time or place? - no of course not - we moderns know all. Doubt it; just ask one.
So I am not a 'modern'.
We don't know it all, but we have learned quite a lot. Again, many Muslims know with certainty that the original language of humanity (and the tongue personally spoken by God) is in fact Arabic. All human languages (including Sanskrit) descend for it.
Do you respect that tradition? It's clearly untrue, but what does that matter? You reject it out of modernist arrogance!
You can believe whatever you want. If you don't really care what can actually be proven then what more is there to say?
Do we not?
Within sadhana, one is journeying to find out the truth. If you're accepting things on blind faith, you won't get anywhere.
I feel that this is to Hinduism as Creationism is to Christianity and Islam.
How do you explain the structural and grammatical similarities between Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Classical Latin, Old Persian, Russian, Lithuanian, and a host of other languages spoken in Asia and Europe over the past 6,000 years? Is Sanskrit the mother tongue of all of them? If so that makes it not so divine; why would a divine language become so bastardized and "corrupted"?
As far as your latter argument goes, this would also apply to Hindu, Bengali, Nepali, Guajarati, Marwari, Sinhalese, Punjabi and so on. By the claims of some Hindutva-types, it would also apply to Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam etc.
Your language in these posts that employ words such as 'undeniably', certainly', 'demonstrable', etc. etc., point to your own bias.
Last edited:
I am not a Hindutva type.
But I tried to show in an earlier post the speculative nature of proofs that are being peddled as certainty by reconstructionists. I cited a paragraph from a book referenced by you to show as to how concluding that most Sanskrit words are either descended from some hypothetical proto language or loaned from Dravidian can at best be speculation.
Attaching words such as 'undeniably', 'certainly', etc. to such speculation is indicative of a fundamentalist thinking.
You don't get it.
Works of Einstein, Newton, Shakespeare, Tagore, etc. are different fundamentally from routine work of mine. In that sense many, including me, consider the work of Einstein (as an example) to be divine or at least divinely inspired.
Similarly, the Sanskrit of Riks....
Seers and sages just saw these in their supreme mediation states, which are timeless states. Although we say that the sages 'saw' the Riks, it is fundamentally wrong, since the Riks are timeless 'Word' pervading this creation.
On deep level I have no problem that the Koran or Bible may also be similar divine output.
.......
Speculations regarding the natural languages may go on. I personally have no side to take.
Last edited:
OK, but atanu, do you think it is necessarily the case that Sanskrit originated from the seeings of the rishis, or might they have received the message of the Vedas in an existing natural language?
Incidentally, the validity of the reconstructions is really neither here nor there, as we can see the grammatical links and similarities without them. The reconstructions just firm up the science.
Incidentally, the validity of the reconstructions is really neither here nor there, as we can see the grammatical links and similarities without them. The reconstructions just firm up the science.
Last edited:
spiritualhitchhiker
neti, neti, neti
We do apply objectivity and scrutiny but we also need something as a starting place.
The exact Sanskrit word used for sages seeing is 'darshana', philosophically in this context it means to realize, not just see.
Why does that require rejecting the discoveries of linguistic science?
EDIT: I'm not trying to insult you here, I am actually curious about why you think so.
Last edited:
I can speak for me. There are several issues here.
First. There is no rejecting of discoveries of phenomenal level, as such. But what appears as undeniable proof to a group, may not appear to be such to another. I have not been shown any unequivocal proof that Sanskrit descended from any other language. The whole proto thing is a hypothesis for which there is no direct evidence. Further, there is no ultimate fixed truth in science. This is true even of physics, what to speak of linguistics.
Second. A follower of vedanta will know that as per vedanta there are two kinds of knowledge both of which though valuable, however, are not at same level of truth. As per vedanta, the knowldge of empirical science is called avidya, since it is based of a false premise that presumes the division between subject and object to be real. And there are other reasons. As per vedanta, knowledge of self-spirit is vidya.
.........
Regarding the question on source of language (word or vac) I cite an old post.
So Where is sHe now? | ReligiousForums.com
OK, yes, what appears as proof to one doesn't appear as such to another.
But many creationists will continue to swear blind they haven't seen evidence of evolution, because they're not willing to see it. Which is a part of it.
The membership of Sanskrit in the Indo-European language family is one of the most attested facts in science, although not of 100% fixed of course. Of course, if you don't believe that you just don't. If the evidence isn't enough for you, then that's what it is.
See if this works though - http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~bjoseph/publications/2000indo.pdf
Yes, that's true. But any assertions about Sanskrit are relating to avidya, not vidya. But it is good of you to raise this distinction, atanu.
That was interesting. Thankyou.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Prabhu ji's
wow so much conjecture , .....
in this instance I agree with the bible , .....''In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God '',...this statment deserves to be looked at very carefully as do the passages of the Vedas quoted by Atanu ji
and we must ask why we speak of Devanagari , although this title is used in reference to the script , it bears reference to the braminical language which the script was designed to convey , ....what is the point in discussing either the script or the language it self , what is important is what this language and later script convey .
the origins of Sanskrit is the primordial sound vibrarion of the universe , it is the language of the Gods , and ultimatly the language of God .....'Deva Nagari' means the abode of the Gods , although it is often translated City , Nagari refers to the dwelling place of divinity ....this conveys very deep meaning , ....''In the begining was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the word was God'' ...the primordial sound of the universe . ....this sound like mantra is a formula a formula which is creation , ..
so then what of the Sanskrit we know , it is the later utterance of the Lord as diliniated in the Vedas and in the Gita , it is the first instruction given to mankind , ...it is the eternal law of Sanatana Dharma , therefore when the linguist speaks of origins of a language all he seeks to study is the movement of a language in what is comparably recent history , ..and to what avail ? ...surely we should look at its function and what it conveys , ....and ask our selves why sanskrit it self has undergone very little change by comparison to other languages which are in constant flux due to migration changing philosopies , ...yet Sanskrit has remained markedly pure because of its aplication , also because it expresses highly refined truths therefore it is not subject to change , and because it is the spoken form of the divine law it remained a Brahminical language which was systematicaly learnt with the higest degrees of respect and acuracy , ..
in my veiw yes it has permiated other languages and has been spread alover the world but its origins are older even than the Veda , it is the Veda , the true knowledge , the sacred and the divine , ...it is the sound of God , ....
wow so much conjecture , .....
in this instance I agree with the bible , .....''In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God '',...this statment deserves to be looked at very carefully as do the passages of the Vedas quoted by Atanu ji
and we must ask why we speak of Devanagari , although this title is used in reference to the script , it bears reference to the braminical language which the script was designed to convey , ....what is the point in discussing either the script or the language it self , what is important is what this language and later script convey .
the origins of Sanskrit is the primordial sound vibrarion of the universe , it is the language of the Gods , and ultimatly the language of God .....'Deva Nagari' means the abode of the Gods , although it is often translated City , Nagari refers to the dwelling place of divinity ....this conveys very deep meaning , ....''In the begining was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the word was God'' ...the primordial sound of the universe . ....this sound like mantra is a formula a formula which is creation , ..
so then what of the Sanskrit we know , it is the later utterance of the Lord as diliniated in the Vedas and in the Gita , it is the first instruction given to mankind , ...it is the eternal law of Sanatana Dharma , therefore when the linguist speaks of origins of a language all he seeks to study is the movement of a language in what is comparably recent history , ..and to what avail ? ...surely we should look at its function and what it conveys , ....and ask our selves why sanskrit it self has undergone very little change by comparison to other languages which are in constant flux due to migration changing philosopies , ...yet Sanskrit has remained markedly pure because of its aplication , also because it expresses highly refined truths therefore it is not subject to change , and because it is the spoken form of the divine law it remained a Brahminical language which was systematicaly learnt with the higest degrees of respect and acuracy , ..
in my veiw yes it has permiated other languages and has been spread alover the world but its origins are older even than the Veda , it is the Veda , the true knowledge , the sacred and the divine , ...it is the sound of God , ....
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram Kirran ji
what never ceases to amaze me is this ''The membership of Sanskrit in the Indo-European language family'', ...why cant it be the other way arround , ......why is it not common to posit that european culture including its Language was heavily influenced if not even born out of Aryan culture , ...and by Aryan I mean noble as in Vedic , ...not that europe was the origin , but that europe was the recipient of Vedic culture , ....and that which was once the great Bharatvarsha spread further than the India of today ???
why do we have to put things into tidy boxes and label them indo european , greco roman , ....? ...these are such pointless and miniscule divisions of time .....so many cultures come and go , but one remains , , ...Sanatana Dharma , why ? Sanskrit and the law it conveys , ...
what never ceases to amaze me is this ''The membership of Sanskrit in the Indo-European language family'', ...why cant it be the other way arround , ......why is it not common to posit that european culture including its Language was heavily influenced if not even born out of Aryan culture , ...and by Aryan I mean noble as in Vedic , ...not that europe was the origin , but that europe was the recipient of Vedic culture , ....and that which was once the great Bharatvarsha spread further than the India of today ???
why do we have to put things into tidy boxes and label them indo european , greco roman , ....? ...these are such pointless and miniscule divisions of time .....so many cultures come and go , but one remains , , ...Sanatana Dharma , why ? Sanskrit and the law it conveys , ...
They are of course just boxes, which will never describe things ideally. But if we want to talk about something, we need words.
To answer the question, why do we say that Sanskrit is in the Indo-European language family (which comes not from Europe per se, but probably from the Pontic steppes)? Because this doesn't work chronologically. We find evidence of the emergence of Indo-European languages to be timed with the ones in this middle region first, then later out towards Western Europe in one direction, India in the other. So there's a huge amount of evidence that Proto-Indo-Europeans' culture spread out, and contributed to the cultures of all sorts of places. Spain, Gujarat, Bengal, Iceland, Greece, Belarus.
The Word is Aum. Sanskrit is a lot of words. Just as any language is a lot of words. As well as grammatical forms, declensions etc.
Plus, Sanskrit has undergone LOADS of change. Not only are there differences between Classical Sanskrit (of Panini) and the Sanskrit of the Vedas, but Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Sinhalese, Nepali etc are derived from Sanskrit dialects. Very similar situation to Latin really.
The archaeology shows that the cultures from which the various languages descend were from central Asia, not India. The Out of India Theory is shown to be archaeologically, logistically and linguistically preposterous.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram
em er , ...Cough Cough , how many times must it be said thet Bharat varsha ocupied a greater reigion than modern day India , ....which has been reduced in size even within the last hundred years , .....
what is the point of posing here when people want to ciling to arcialogical finds from relitivly recent histories and peice them to gether to justify their own theories , ....
pure abuddhatva !
....Please read Vedas
em er , ...Cough Cough , how many times must it be said thet Bharat varsha ocupied a greater reigion than modern day India , ....which has been reduced in size even within the last hundred years , .....
pure abuddhatva !
....Please read Vedas