Guest guest Posted November 21, 2007 Report Share Posted November 21, 2007 Namaste friends, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these days. It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything. It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic scholars, pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras) incorrectly. Of course, pronunciation is not everything. Having devotion and the spirit of surrender to god is even more important. However, pronunciation is a factor too. Especially, correct pronunciation is very important in Veda mantras. Wrong pronunciation of a Veda mantra can stop one from the most complete experience of the mantra. In fact, we have a lot of people who can memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually "experience" a mantra. Over the next few months, I will write my views on correct pronunciation and point out some common errors. If you do not think that correct pronunciation is important or if you disagree with my assessment of the errors or if you do not want to change your pronunciation, please ignore my writings on this subject. On the other hand, if you are open to changing your pronunciation, please give a consideration to my views and adopt my suggestions if you find them appropriate. I shared a few observations on 2007 Nov 16. Some more observations will follow today. * * * Take the "ai"/"ae" sound in the beejaakshara "aim"/"aem". North Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "a" in the English words "fan", "man", "hat" etc. South Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "uy" in the English words "buy" and "guy". In general, south India was relatively shielded from the western invaders in the last couple of millennia, who entered India from the northwest. As a result, the corruption in the tradition is less in south India. However, it is incorrect to say that south Indian pronunciation is always superior to north Indian pronunciation. The above is a case where I side with the north Indian pronunciation. Let us examine this logically. There are rules in Sanskrita grammar for combining different sounds ("sandhi" - joining sounds). The rules in Sanskrita grammar is logical and nor arbitrary. This is a big clue to deducing the correct pronunciation of certain sounds that are corrupted today. Take the following two sounds: (1) Take the sound "aa" (as in "mahaa", "tathaa" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "car" and "far". (2) Take the sound "e" (as in "etat", "evam" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "make" and "take". If sound 1 is followed immediately by sound 2 without any break whatsoever, they combine and become one sound. That combined sound is supposed to be the sound "ai"/"ae" in "aim"/"aem" beeja. This is called "vriddhi sandhi" in Sanskrita grammar. Now, try to pronounce sound 1 and, without a break, immediately pronounce sound 2. That results in the sound similar to "a" as in "fan", "man" and "hat" (you can verify this for yourself). This suggests that the north Indian pronunciation is more accurate. I am convinced that the south Indian pronunciation of the "aim"/"aem" beeja is incorrect and the north Indian pronunciation is correct. This particular letter comes in many mantras - Vaidika, Taantrika and Pouraanika. My advice is to pronounce it as "ae" in all the mantras. * * * There is one more issue related to beejaaksharas that a member asked me to talk about. Some people pronounce "aem hreem kleem" as "aeng hreeng kleeng". In other words, the anunaasika (nasal sound) at the end of each beejaakshara is pronounced as "ng" (the nasal in "ka varga") instead of "m" (the nasal in "pa varga"). Unfortunately, grammar rules do not help here and I do not have a clear stand. My guess is that both are correct and give different results. * * * In Veda mantras, there is one issue regarding the pronunciation of nasal sounds. The root of the above issue that I skirted may be related to it actually. The "m" at the end of words sometimes changes into a different nasal sound when you join two words into one word (i.e. no break in between in pronunciation). For example, take "gaNapatiM havaamahe". If you remove the break between the two words, the nasal at the end of the first word changes from "m" to a different nasal sound. This is represented by a dot with a crescent Moon in Devanagari texts and with a "g" and then a "m" symbol in texts transcribed in south Indian languages. Unfortunately, most Vedic scholars trained in south Indian traditions pronounce this nasal as "gum" or "gam". They pronounce "gaNapatiM havaamahe" as "gaNapatigum havaamahe" or "gaNapatigam havaamahe". This is definitely wrong, though it is an extremely extremely wide-spread convention. A nasal (m) cannot change into a consonant (g), an vowel (u or a) and then another nasal (m). That is quite absurd. In fact, you are adding one extra akshara when you do it. The word "gaNapatiM" has 4 aksharas. But, if you pronounce it as "gaNapatigum" or "gaNapatigam", it ends up being 5 aksharas, with "gum"/"gam" being a separate akshara by itself. If a consonant has an vowel after it, the vowel serves as the praana (life force) and it becomes an akshara. The sound "M" as the end of "gaNapatiM" is not an akshara - it clings on to "ti" and becomes an extension of the previous akshara. On the other hand, "gum"/"gam" is a separate askahra due to the praana in it (u or a). Thus, people are adding one akshara to Veda mantras when pronouncing with "gum"/"gam". This changes the chhandas and also messes up the meaning. A clue to the correct pronunciation of this exists in another corrupt tradition in another part of India. The word "narasiMha" is pronounced as "narasingha" in some parts of India. In Veda mantras, it is written as "narasi(gM)ha", where (gM) is the sound mentioned as "gum" or "gam" above (e.g. "tanno naarasi(gM)haH prachodayaat" in Narasimga Gayatri). I suggest that the truth is in between these two corrupt traditions! My view is that the anunaasika (nasal) in these cases (mostly, a nasal coming just before "y", "r", "l", "v", "sh", shh", "s", "h" or just before vowels) should be pronounced as the nasal in "ka varga". This is like the "n" sound in the English words "monkey" or "king". When you say "narasi<nasal>ha", the <nasal> is neither n nor m. It is the nasal that comes just before k or g. So, start pronouncing it as though you are going to pronounce "narasing" and stop just before you say "g" and say "ha" instead. Then you get something very similar to "narasingha", but without "g" being explicit! There should be an intention of "g" but no explicit "g". This can be represented as "narasin(g)ha". This same sound is probably represented in Vedic literature as "gM". I am not 100% sure if what I suggest is correct, but I am 100% sure that the standard pronunciation as "gum"/"gam" is wrong. If one just pronounces it as "gaNapatiM havaamahe", for example, one will be better off. It is atleast meaningful and obey chhandas. What people normally say has no meaning and breaks chhandas. * * * There are several other mistakes (in my view) commonly made by most people in the pronunciation of Sanskrita mantras. I will be pointing them out slowly in the next few days/weeks/months, whenever the Mother allows me to. Please give me your consideration and take my input into consideration in altering your pronunciation (if you are open to it). If you don't find any sense in what I am saying or want to continue as taught by your gurus, I can understand that. I am not here to change everybody's pronunciation. But, because She inspired me to share my thoughts with the world, I am guessing that there are SOME who are destined to change their pronunciation based on my views. That is why I am writing these mails. If you do not like this discussion, I am sorry and just ignore this idiot! Best regards,NarasimhaDo Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2007 Report Share Posted November 28, 2007 namaste mahodaya, > Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these days. > It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything. > > It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic scholars, > pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras) > incorrectly. I'm trying to understand the starting position, and thus have a couple of questions (a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does it also follow that portions of the vedas themselves are largely corrupted? There are patha-bedhas even in veda. Or, for now are you only saying that the pratishakya-s are all corrupted. (b) on what basis is correct pronounciation being re-inferred. I guess the pratishakya is out, and we are back to the panini-shiksha-sutras & such. But even here, how does one interpret the simplest sutras like " uccairudAttaH " . © current rig-veda pronounciation is generally " better " from sanskrit viewpoint compared to other shakhas. But, in the most prized shrouta karmas, it is the sama-gana-vikriti that is given much importance, even though most of its mantras are nothing but rig-veda mantras. What is your view when it comes to pronounciation of sama-veda? Because from a sanskrit point of view, it is rather " interesting " . (d) chandas-shastra in veda does not seem to be so simple. There are plenty of instances of mantras which are said to be in one meter . . . which don't seem to be in that meter at all. Some learned scholars are of the opinion that there are several differrent chandas all of which go by one name, particularly in veda. Secondly, some opine that the definition of laghu & guru are actually different, and letters being alpa-prAna / mahA-prAna etc also factor into the counting of letters. What is your view of traditional chandas-shAstra. The reason I ask is before we claim that traditional pronounciation is flawed in some cases (using chandas as the reason), one has to be very confident in their understanding of chandas shastra. > In fact, we have a lot of people who can > memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually " experience " > a mantra. And efforts towards this goal are laudable. dhanyo.asmi, ajit jayatu jayatu samskRitam. jayatu jayatu manukulam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Dear Ajit, > (a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does I am not saying that it is largely corrupted. I am saying that even Vedic scholars mis-pronounce certain basic sounds of Sanskrit. To simplify the problem, I think I should focus on the pronunciation of Pouraanika mantras and stay away from Vaidika mantras for now. I think I will do that. Thanks for your important mail. Best regards, Narasimha Do Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam Spirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org - " Ajit Krishnan " <ajit.krishnan <sohamsa > Cc: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:11 AM Re: Common Sanskrit Pronunciation Errors (Part 2) > namaste mahodaya, > >> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these >> days. >> It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything. >> >> It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic >> scholars, >> pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras) >> incorrectly. > > I'm trying to understand the starting position, and thus have a couple > of questions > > (a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does > it also follow that portions > of the vedas themselves are largely corrupted? There are patha-bedhas > even in veda. Or, for now > are you only saying that the pratishakya-s are all corrupted. > > (b) on what basis is correct pronounciation being re-inferred. I guess > the pratishakya is out, and > we are back to the panini-shiksha-sutras & such. But even here, how > does one interpret the > simplest sutras like " uccairudAttaH " . > > © current rig-veda pronounciation is generally " better " from > sanskrit viewpoint compared to other > shakhas. But, in the most prized shrouta karmas, it is the > sama-gana-vikriti that is given much > importance, even though most of its mantras are nothing but rig-veda > mantras. What is your view > when it comes to pronounciation of sama-veda? Because from a sanskrit > point of view, it is rather > " interesting " . > > (d) chandas-shastra in veda does not seem to be so simple. There are > plenty of instances of mantras > which are said to be in one meter . . . which don't seem to be in that > meter at all. Some learned scholars > are of the opinion that there are several differrent chandas all of > which go by one name, particularly in veda. > Secondly, some opine that the definition of laghu & guru are actually > different, and letters being alpa-prAna / > mahA-prAna etc also factor into the counting of letters. > > What is your view of traditional chandas-shAstra. The reason I ask is > before we claim that traditional pronounciation > is flawed in some cases (using chandas as the reason), one has to be > very confident in their understanding of > chandas shastra. > >> In fact, we have a lot of people who can >> memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually >> " experience " >> a mantra. > > And efforts towards this goal are laudable. > > dhanyo.asmi, > > ajit > > jayatu jayatu samskRitam. jayatu jayatu manukulam. 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.