Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Nomadeva Sharma wrote: But one should > aspire to know the accents and related dicta of any > vedic mantra, which applies with more force to all > bIjAxara mantras like, 'OM KrishnAya namaH', 'Om namaH > shivAya'.............. > > True that you did not voice it, but I guess you > realize that 'shivaye' and 'shivAya' cannot be two > different romanizations of the same word. Dear Nomadeva, I think we are talking at cross purposes. My romanized version was not phonetically perfect, my chief aim was to differentiate between "namO" and "namaH". Assumed that "shivaye" as usually written on the list was "shivAya" for everyone. Actually even that could be misleading, for the "sh" in "shivAya" is not the "sh" as in shilling! I have often wondered about giving correct prununciation with the conventional alphabet. Doubling the long vowel is common, but "oo" etc. can also mislead. Your way of writing capitals is better, but can be a nuisance if you start a sentence, which is usually with a capital: Ahimsa and Atman would both start with a capital A! See R.G.Bhandarkar's > first book of sanskrit for instance. The author gives > quotations of how 'dhIrga', 'hrasva' and 'pluta' > svarAs have to be spoken, the time duration et al. > There is hardly any subjectivity there. > > I haven't noticed the differences in chanting of > 'dharmakshetre kurukshetre' by people from different > mother-tongues. I was talking of the India -esp Madras (chennai) and calcutta - of the 1950s. at that time the study of sanskrit was very limited. bhandarkar and Munshi started the movement for better study. i used to attend philosophical discussions and discourses at the Sanskrit College in Madras. When people from other provinces read out sanskrit verses, they did sound very different! In those das hardly anyone could actually speak fluently in sanskrit in the conversational sense. But once the Swedish ambassador addressed the assembly, speaking ad lib, for one hour in sanskrit! I could understand very little, but my father said it was a great speech. > I have attended debates on > Indian Philosophy where people from various parts of > the country participate. You really can't make out who > is from which place till they all speak in sanskrit. Here you seem to confirm what I said, not contradict! > Admitted that there are very minor differences, but > such differences are very recent in origin and can be > attributed to excessive importance on local languages. Why "excessive"? This is natural. In which state in India is english spoken as in England? The native pronunciation and accent colours any other new language that is learned. > That itself is rather questionable and is the topic of > a different forum. While I do think that family of > languages is an admissible concept, it is only > hypothetical if one decides a language to be the > mother of some other language. Indology and liguistics > do use some methods to determine, but the > 'scientificness' of such is not something an outsider > can admire. Here's a place where Panini's words that > you have quoted fit in. After 40 years of interest in linguistics and archaeology, I am convinced that all the languagesof today came from perhaps 3 mother languages. The associative connections between basic words are just too pronounced to be coincidence. There are standard "rules" that convert words. We can discuss this privately if you are interested. > > I'd rather say you are mistaken here. I was not > referring to 'su' the prefix. My example did not refer to the "sup" you wrote about. It was only an example for what i said previously, that words get transformed. So no contradiction to what you wrote! > That is an assumption, sir. I got to know recently > that one Samaveda pandit reconstructed the whole > accents based on his excellent knowledge of grammar. > Yes, grammar and chandas are interlinked to each > other. As you say, this is recent. But how do we know he has got the right accents? hardly 1600 years after Latin ceased to be commonly spoken people are still uncertain as to how "caesar" is to be pronounced: as sIsar or kaisar! He did not > > actually compile the grammar, but tried to > standardize. One > > That also is not true, because the vedas themselves > talk of 6-7 different grammars (standardized ones) > existing......Why, even Valmiki, who > preceeded Panini, praises Hanuman as possessing > knowledge of 9 kinds of grammar! That was my point: PAnini tried to compile the 9 kinds into one standard, in my opinion. > > However, the mantras in question here are not based on > languistics and stuff like that. They are vedic in > nature, which fixes their time frame. So, there is > nothing wrong in being dogmatic about them. Just don´t like dogmatism in any form. Nobody has the absolute truth and to say things about such a REMOTE past as the truly vedic times is always subject to query. regards Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 subra [subra] wrote: > > > Nomadeva Sharma wrote: > > > True that you did not voice it, but I guess you > > realize that 'shivaye' and 'shivAya' cannot be two > > different romanizations of the same word. > > Dear Nomadeva, > > I think we are talking at cross purposes. My romanized version was > not phonetically perfect, my chief aim was to differentiate > between "namO" and > "namaH". Assumed that "shivaye" as usually written on the > list was "shivAya" for I will not insist after this, but sir, both are different. Not for the sake that you mentioned, but because 'shivaye' is non-existent transformation. It should have the prakrita form as 'shivi' and not 'shiva'. The former root is non-existent. If we have been using one for other so far, it just ought to be corrected. > but "oo" etc. can also mislead. Your way of writing capitals > is better, but can This scheme is ITRANS. People on the web use this to create .itx files, then use a tool called ITRANS to generate portable PDF and PS files in sanskrit, telugu, tamil, kannada, gujrati, bengali fonts. Here, it is not necessary that the first letter starts with a capital. Arjuna would be written as 'arjuna', while Rama would be written as 'rAma'. > I was talking of the India -esp Madras (chennai) and calcutta > - of the 1950s. > at that time the study of sanskrit was very limited. I thought the situation would be much better then than what it is now. That is evident from discussions also. The older are extremely fluent, they can think in sanskrit, while the newer generation gropes for words, tenses and stuff like that. but then too, nobody ever said, 'dhommakshetre kurukshetre'.. > Here you seem to confirm what I said, not contradict! >From 'dhommakshetre', it is very evident that he is a bengali. But I am saying that nobody mispronounced like that; to find out where that person comes from. > > That is an assumption, sir. I got to know recently > > that one Samaveda pandit reconstructed the whole > > accents based on his excellent knowledge of grammar. > > Yes, grammar and chandas are interlinked to each > > other. > > As you say, this is recent. But how do we know he has got the > right accents? Sir, that's a very general open question. A reverse question is equally open and brings a stalemate, 'How do we know he did not get the right accents'? All these questions impress when one forgets the system as a whole. There is a system influencing the accents - that is grammar(Note that vedic grammar is different from the panini's). The accents cannot be generally changed without changing grammar. Also, > > preceeded Panini, praises Hanuman as possessing > > knowledge of 9 kinds of grammar! > > That was my point: PAnini tried to compile the 9 kinds into > one standard, in my > opinion. na tAdRishaM. Because the list mentions Panini separately. And if you have heard of Sri Madhvacharya, the dualist philosopher, he even quotes 'mahA vyAkaraNa'. > Just don´t like dogmatism in any form. Nobody has the > absolute truth and to say That's a noble intention sir, but the statement suffers from the same fallacy that it criticizes. Should one be dogmatic about 'not being dogmatic about anything'? You see there is a paradox and this is a variant of 'liar's paradox' (a paradox which mathematical logicians dig on!) -- "I always tell lies". Btw, is this 'Nobody has the absolute truth' dogmatic or not? Sorry sir, I did not mean to pick on that, I just wanted to emphasise the fallacy which we fall in - First form opinions and then try to fit observations into it, rather than being the other way around. Btw, if you think I am being too nitpicky about logic and grammar, here's what some astrologer told me. it's the retrospect guru in the lagna. > things about such a REMOTE past as the truly vedic times is > always subject to > query. If that be the case, how can anybody be convinced about 3 parent languages and similar theories? Can't one be dogmatic be about them? Sure, if the evidence points to the same. Regards, NDS. Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Dear Nomadeva, I am not in a mood for hair-splitting discussions. I have never been a sanskrit scholar and cannot say much about the rules. All I know is that the most quoted scholars of my boyhood days were foreigners: Colebrook, Max Müller, Wilson etc. I have also triued to read the vedas as translated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (incidentally he was my uncle), who quoted these authors till I got fed up with his slavish "understanding", which was against my respect for the vedas and vedic culture! i passed my Intermediate Exams - don´t know what it is called today. In those days it was the first 2 years at a university. - with high marks in sanskrit - without ever having learned the language!. All we had to do was to memorize some declinations ans conjugations. We read Kalidasa, Bhasa etc. with the commentaries - but all translated into english. We wrote essays on the authors, the epics etc., but hardly ever understood the original text! Your notion about the condition of sanskrit knowledge 50 years ago is WRONG! I am from a generation that did not have radios at home, ran out to see an aeroplane in the sky! i don´t know how old you are, but your language suggests that you are not even half my age. I feel that you are extrapolating backwards and don´t realize that the past was very different from the present. If sanskrit knowledge is low today, it was much lower 50 years ago! I AM NOT DOGMATIC. I said that all languages are PERHAPS derived from 3 mother languages. Some even say it was ONE! YOU DON´T HAVE TO BELIEVE THIS. It is MY opinion. no matter what your religious beliefs are, secular beliefs are, I´ll still play chess with you or drink tea with you. Dogmatism is when I insist on your accepting my opinions. Syllogistic arguments do not get us further: if I say, "I cannot tolerate intolerance" there is No real contradiction in terms, except for the hair-splitter!. Not the words but the sense matters. If you think you know all the answers, okay. But I beg to differ! I prefer viveka to pAnditya. regards Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Namaste Maniji, > I have also triued to read the vedas as translated by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan > (incidentally he was my uncle), who quoted these authors till I got fed up with > his slavish "understanding", which was against my respect for the vedas and > vedic culture! Could you please elaborate the *slavish* part. I recently bought a book called *A Sourcebook on Indian Philosophy* by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan....going by your comments I have half a mind to return it. Thanks Regards Narayan PS: If you can wait for some time, I am willing to tackle the cases of Lalita & Lakshmi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2001 Report Share Posted June 23, 2001 Narayan Iyer schrieb: > Namaste Maniji, > > > I have also triued to read the vedas as translated by Sarvepalli > Radhakrishnan > > (incidentally he was my uncle), who quoted these authors till I got fed up > with > > his slavish "understanding", which was against my respect for the vedas and > > vedic culture! > > Could you please elaborate the *slavish* part. I recently bought a book > called *A Sourcebook on Indian Philosophy* by Sarvepalli > Radhakrishnan....going by your comments I have half a mind to return it. > Thanks > Regards > Narayan > PS: If you can wait for some time, I am willing to tackle the cases of Lalita > & Lakshmi. Dear Narayan, Thanks for helping! Re. radhakrishnan: his books on philosophy were okay, but rather wordy. I don´t think he took over the ideas of westerners in this respect. But his ideas about vedic history and culture were based on the theories of the western scholars. Like saying the vedas were compiled around 2000 BC. He also wrote something very stupid in my opinion: that the Pandavas were a non- aryan tribe. Reasons: Draupadi had 5 husbands and polyandry was not an aryan custom; Bhima swore to drink dussasana´s blood and cannibalism, ritual or otherwise, was not an aryan practice! Apparently he did not see these as remarkable exceptions caused by very special circumstances...... But these views could have been from his younger days. His knowledge of sanskrit was unquestionable, so that even his rgveda is worth reading. It at least brings out the difficulties in understanding the ancient language and dispels a lot of illusions about the vedas, such as their being total divine revelations to Vyasa etc. It is not easy to connect the Rgveda with the exalted philosophies of the upanishads or the Hindu religion, especially as practiced later and till today. So it may be worth reading the book you have bought! regards Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.