Sanskrit Veda

[Guest guest]

I have recently become aware of a certain University scholar who has proposed the idea that the Vedas were at one time existing in a form other than Sanskrit.

 

His theory is that the Vedas originally existed in a "Proto-IndoEuropean Language" and only later got changed into the form it is in today (Sanskrit).

 

I am curious to know how Vaishnavas feel about this idea, as well as about scholars who propose such ideas. I am especially interested in knowing the opinion of some of the ISKCON devotees who regularly frequent these forums, like Ancient_Paztriot, Theist, Prita, etc as well as Vaishnava from other traditions.

 

 

[Dervish 0]

As Srila Prabhupad says, Sanskrit is the mother language. An alleged mother language to Sanskrit is not at all considered by us. Various scientists and historians have their various theories -- Aryan invasion theory, this one you mentioned, etc. They are merely theories, and respectfully, we disagree.

 

--

 

Prabhupad Interview Excerpt

 

Los Angles,

February 1, 1968

 

Interviewer: Is it necessary to know of the Indian language when you join? Because I noticed that when your...

 

Prabhupada: This is not Indian name. This is Sanskrit name.

 

Interviewer: It's what?

 

Prabhupada: Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a language which is mother of all languages. Sanskrit, S-a-n-s-k-r-i-t, Sanskrit language. So this is the original language of this..., not only of this planet. In other planets also, this language is spoken. So the names are in Sanskrit. They do not belong to any community or any section. It is universal. We have no information. Just like this word, Krishna. It is universally known: "all-attractive." The exact English translation is "all-attractive." So there cannot be any proper nomenclature for God than this "all-attractive." Unless God is all-attractive, how He can be God? This is the perfect nomenclature. Similarly, anything Sanskritically named, that is all perfect. Yes.

 

Interviewer: I think that's all the questions I had. I can't think of any more. Let me think.

(end)

[Guest guest]

Yes, but what do you think of such scholars who propose such ideas... i.e. that Vedas were originally written in some pre-Sanskrit language?

 

What do others think?

 

[gHari 0]

I would ask why it was translated (and look at it all!) into sanskrit, and only into sanskrit. Then I would ask to see some fragment of the hypothesized original figment language texts. The verses themselves explain that they are written down over and over again as time cycles through unlimited yugas for eternity. They exist eternally as the breath of Lord Narayana, but incarnate periodically at the hands of Sri Krsna's unalloyed devotees.

 

The process explained in the Vedas describes 'descending knowledge', mercifully coming from the Absolute platform into the finite. We accept the knowledge of the sanskrit language nature of the Vedas as revealed by realized souls, rather than hypotheses derived from speculation. Such is the process given in the Vedas Themselves.

[ancient_paztriot 0]

Dervish and gHari said it better than I could.

 

Anyway, I'm tiring of all these questions. There is a malicious guest that only seems interested in tearing down KC while feigning devotion. Could be politically motivated. It's like the politics of raping the public in the name of serving them. It's a very manipulative one-way conversation of double-talk and deception.

 

I'm not gonna waste my time.

 

I have the intelligence to manifest that argumentative energy in a way that will destroy mnaterial dogma across the board; political, economic, scientific and religious. Guest is small fish. I'm interested in the BIG ones.

 

But I will continue to be humored at Guest's schezophrenia.

[Guest guest]

So, paztriot, what do you think of the scholar who proposes that Vedas were written originally in some pre-Sanskrit "Indo-European" language. I'm interested in getting your view on such an individual, as well as your views on his view.

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/vedas-purpose-origin.htm

 

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/index.htm

 

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/

[gHari 0]

He just gave a very straight-forward "Ditto" to "Logically Very Unlikely and Definitely Opposed to the Teachings of the Saintly" ideas by someone creating a "hypothesis derived from speculation" not knowing that "Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a language which is mother of all languages. Sanskrit, S-a-n-s-k-r-i-t, Sanskrit language. So this is the original language of this..., not only of this planet. In other planets also, this language is spoken. So the names are in Sanskrit. They do not belong to any community or any section. It is universal".

 

Certainly you are not so dull; so are you just playing games here?

[Guest guest]

 

He just gave a very straight-forward "Ditto" to "Logically Very Unlikely and Definitely Opposed to the Teachings of the Saintly" ideas by someone creating a "hypothesis derived from speculation" not knowing that "Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a language which is mother of all languages. Sanskrit, S-a-n-s-k-r-i-t, Sanskrit language. So this is the original language of this..., not only of this planet. In other planets also, this language is spoken. So the names are in Sanskrit. They do not belong to any community or any section. It is universal".

 

Certainly you are not so dull; so are you just playing games here?

 

 

 

Ok, so what if I told you that the scholar propagating this theory was a Vaishnava. Would your opinion of him or his theory change?

 

[Dervish 0]

Ok, so what if I told you that the scholar propagating this theory was a Vaishnava. Would your opinion of him or his theory change?

 

Oooh! I know this game! It's called "What's Inside The Box?"! Either that, or "Monty Hall". OK OK, he's a VAISHNAVA, and doesn't believe Sanskrit is the mother language. HMMMMM ... OK ... is it a man who wears a sari, by any chance???? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

Notice how this troublemaker only comes to make short, provocative remarks. "I know someone who says Sanskrit isn't the mother language" then "This person is a Vaishnava!"

 

This isn't a philosophical discussion that "Guest" is trying to start. He's trying to start a game of none other than ...

 

[Guest guest]

So, what then, would be your view of him. Is the view of a non-Sanskrit Veda acceptable because the person promoting it is a Vaishnava? Or is that person still a mental speculator?

 

[Dervish 0]

I would say let this Vaishnava come forward and present his theory with proper documentation, and some sincere explanation as to why Srila Prabhupad said this is our mother language and none precede it.

 

So far you are presenting hypothetical theories that are controversial without content. If you are sincere and serious about this point, it would be good to see this content.

[gHari 0]

No matter who it is or what their mundane qualifications are, still, if one has reached a conclusion by logically operating on the perceptions of the senses, then the process is known as mental speculation. As such it can suffer at the hands of the four weaknesses of the conditioned being.

 

The Vedas are without the four principal defects that are visible in the conditioned soul: imperfect senses, the propensity for cheating, certainty of committing mistakes, and certainty of being illusioned.

 

The Vedas themselves recommend accepting pure knowledge from a perfectly realized soul who has seen the truth (BG 4.34), for such descending knowledge is pure, transcendental, and free of the effects of the defects that limit the conditioned soul.

 

I would recommend that you, dear guest should support no opinion of this scholar pro or against, for the question is much bigger than any of us, and clearly neither you nor any of us understand his theories. It is probably the natural absurd conclusion that proves the science of linguistics to be severely flawed, and man to be also flawed and still mortal.

 

I read by the electrically powered light bulb that was engineered by mental speculation; speculation itself is not evil. But for esoteric topics involving the transcendence and activities that happen again and again and again throughout all of eternity, where senses cannot possibly perceive, it is not very functional at all. We are trying to survey the innumerable cosmos created by unlimited Brahmas upon Brahmas - it's just not possible.

 

A Vaishnava should at least check to be sure that his speculations are in accord with the words of the Vedas, the saints, and the bonafide spiritual masters (for they have seen the truth BG 4.34). This is the process for dealing with topics that are beyond the senses; the only viable process to see that which cannot be seen.

 

His idea seems so illogical to me that he would have to convince me in one paragragh, for that is all the time I have for the idea. Even if we find an ancient scribe living toothless in a cave, his shriveling body telling how he translated his Latinesque into Sanskrit, we still do not know that the Latinesque version was not indeed copied eons before from sanskrit parchment. Ah but unfortunately that scribe died after only a few thousand years, and our hearty ancient scribe knows nothing of his devotional labours. Ten thousand years from now, a road warrior will uncover a few pages of a Gita As It Is, written in english and all will conclude that it had been originally produced in english and somehow translated into sanskrit for some ancient society in Bangladesh.

 

Sounds like crows and tal-fruit, chickens or eggs coming first, or why did the chicken cross the road to me.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I would say let this Vaishnava come forward and present his theory with proper documentation, and some sincere explanation as to why Srila Prabhupad said this is our mother language and none precede it.

 

So far you are presenting hypothetical theories that are controversial without content. If you are sincere and serious about this point, it would be good to see this content.

 

 

 

You misunderstand me. I myself do NOT to this theory. I agree with you that the Veda always existed in Sanskrit. There is no evidence to the contrary. But nevertheless, a certain Vaishnava scholar has proposed this theory in the last few years.

 

I just wanted to know your views on this theory and the person himself. Ghari has indicated that the person is simply guilty of mental speculation. I have no problem with that.

 

Now... what if I told you that the Vaishnava in question is an ISKCON senior devotee. Would your opinion of his theory change in any way? I am especially interested to hear from Ancient_Paztriot and Ghari on this point.

 

 

[Priitaa 0]

I don't care if the person who said this is a Vaisnava or not.

 

I don't care if they are a senior devotee.

 

I don't care if they are a member of ISKCON, or some other group, or what is said on some ISKCON link.

 

I take my authority from the pure devotee Srla Prabhupada. What he says is ALL I care about.

 

Guest, I don't know what makes you think that if you withhold information, only to give it at a later date, we will suddenly say, "Well, THAT makes it different." Obviously, you dont know us as well as you think you do.

 

Time to get off the mental platform guest, stop 'speculating,' and surrender. These mind games are only fun for you, and not nice to others. Sense gratification of the mind is still sense gratification. A way to get your jollies. Better to take Krishna consciousness more seriously and try to spread the glories of Lord Sri Krishna - the bliss, not the 'what if this' and 'what if that.' That's called jnana yoga, not bhakti yoga. A jnani yogi may take many births only to finally come to the conclusion of Bhakti yoga or love and devotion to Krishna. Whereas the bhakti yogi has all ready understood that and is not wasting his time on the mental platform, but is trying to serve Krishna. So please, go serve Krishna somehow or other and tell your mind to relax. Good luck.

 

[Dervish 0]

This isn't about schematics, this concerns making provacative statements and then peeling the proverbial onion skins little by little in some kind of guessing game. Who cares about speculative questions? Tell us this "Vaishnava's" name, please and some detailed essay of his, or find something more productive to discuss. It wouldn't matter to me if he were from ISKCON. I've never been a member of ISKCON, nor will I ever be. If somebody from ISKCON truly proposed such a thing, then I am saddened that again even on a philosophical level, the words of Srila Prabhupad are challenged. Chances are, it's the same devotee from ISKCON that spends a lot of time on the vyasasen talking about UFO's and the Bermuda Triangle.

[Guest guest]

 

This isn't about schematics, this concerns making provacative statements and then peeling the proverbial onion skins little by little in some kind of guessing game. Who cares about speculative questions? Tell us this "Vaishnava's" name, please and some detailed essay of his, or find something more productive to discuss. It wouldn't matter to me if he were from ISKCON. I've never been a member of ISKCON, nor will I ever be. If somebody from ISKCON truly proposed such a thing, then I am saddened that again even on a philosophical level, the words of Srila Prabhupad are challenged. Chances are, it's the same devotee from ISKCON that spends a lot of time on the vyasasen talking about UFO's and the Bermuda Triangle.

 

 

I don't think it's *that* particular devotee. This one that I am thinking about is quite respectable (by iskcon standards anyway), which is why it is so shocking in the first place.

 

I'm still curious to know Ghari and Ancient Paztriot's opinion on this, knowing now that this is from an iskcon devotee. If you wish, I will disclose who with proof after I gauge their reactions. Mostly I just want to know where their thinking is at on issues like these.

 

 

Time to get off the mental platform guest, stop 'speculating,' and surrender.

 

 

How exactly am I "speculating?" These are not my theories. They belong to someone else. I disagree with them. I just want to find out if die-hard iskcon devotees like yourself and Paztriot agree or disagree with them.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Oooh! I know this game! It's called "What's Inside The Box?"! Either that, or "Monty Hall". OK OK, he's a VAISHNAVA, and doesn't believe Sanskrit is the mother language. HMMMMM ... OK ... is it a man who wears a sari, by any chance????

 

 

Hmmm, I don't think so. I only met him in person once, and he wore saffron robes then. But then again, I never thought men in iskcon wore saris... i suppose i could have watched him more closely but such a thing never occurred to me.

 

 

Notice how this troublemaker only comes to make short, provocative remarks. "I know someone who says Sanskrit isn't the mother language" then "This person is a Vaishnava!"

 

This isn't a philosophical discussion that "Guest" is trying to start. He's trying to start a game of none other than ...

 

 

 

It's really more a question of where your loyalties lie. Everyone knows that the macho, iskcon thing to say on forums like this is "I don't care about logic, scripture, or anything else! All of that is just mental spekoolation! All I care about is what the pure devotee Srila ____ has said."

 

So, my question is, if the "pure devotee" has said something which you have previously rejected as mental speculation, will you reject what the "pure devotee" has said, or change your thinking?

 

In short, where are your loyalties? Obviously not to scripture, as you have previously demonstrated that you only quote scripture when it is to your advantage, all other times the scriptures are suddenly irrelevant. Obviously not to logic, because logic is considered "mundane" in your religion and everyone's beliefs are supposed to be based on faith, even those who don't agree.

 

Apparently, your standard is to arbitrarily designate someone as "pure devotee," and then just accept everything he says as fact while maintaining uncompromising hostility to anyone and everyone who does not share your assumptions about that individual's "pure devotion."

 

This leads me to the pre-Sanskrit Veda heresy which I, much to my disbelief, heard from one of the "pure devotees" of ISKCON. I wonder what you feel about it, seeing as how you only care about what your gurus say and don't seem interested in cross-examining it against anything. Knowing that one of your pure devotees has postulated a theory so repulsive to all orthodox vedAntins, would you accept it knowing it is from ISKCON (and hence "bona fide"), or would you reject it?

 

What if the person who said this was your own personal guru?

 

I think there is one person here who is this guru's disciple. By the way, this guru is an ISKCON member in "good standing," based on what I know. He has in fact contributed quite a bit to ISKCON's intellectual development. I didn't bother to mention his name because no one seemed interested. Besides which, one of his admirers (disciple?) previously attacked me for "mental speculation" because I refuted his ideas on this forum. Therefore, I am now curious to know what this individual has to say about "mental speculation" coming from his own guru.

 

That's all really. The cards are on the table. So what are you afraid of? Let's hear your views on this, "Ancient_Paztriot."

 

[livingentity 0]

Shiva lately?

[gHari 0]

Shame on you. Shame on me for wasting my time on such shallow trickery.

 

Without a name, I still do not accept that this person is an ISKCON pure devotee. With a name of an ISKCON guru, then I would assume that you have misunderstood what he said.

[gHari 0]

Shiva is Theist? Oh my.

[livingentity 0]

no way!!! Not even.

 

 

Shiva is Theist?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Without a name, I still do not accept that this person is an ISKCON pure devotee. With a name of an ISKCON guru, then I would assume that you have misunderstood what he said.

 

 

 

Huh? That doesn't sound terribly objective.

 

If he doesn't name the person, then he isn't speaking of an iskcon devotee. But if he does name the person, then he must have just misunderstood him?

 

So why should he say anything? If you are that fixed in your views, then I think he demonstrated the point he was trying to prove all along: It doesn't matter what iskcon people say. The fact that they are in iskcon means that others in iskcon will accept it, or at least forgive it. Nevermind what is truth, what is in scripture, etc.

 

But I for one would be interested in knowing who this person is. The idea of Vedas originally being in some language other than Sanskrit is 100% pure nonsense, and I for one don't care if it's an iskcon person who is making this claim. Unlike ghari, I don't compromise on truth just because an untruth is presented as truth by an iskconite.

 

[gHari 0]

You just misunderstood plain English, compromising the truth of the words, generating offense out of the bias that covers the intelligence.

 

Without prejudice in the mind, those two lines clearly imply that no (ISKCON) pure devotee will ever say that sanskrit is not the original language of the Veda. If that is the theory then its author is not a pure devotee and if the author is a pure devotee then we have misunderstood what the theory is about. No pure devotee would suggest these things.

 

We can see that the critics here are not very capable, and should not trust their own minds when ridiculing others. They should mind their own business and not feel capable of criticizing others. Let ISKCON be, it has nothing to do with you. Seek after God - that is a better use of your limited resources.

 

[gHari 0]

We need not only a name, but because Guest number one has demonstrated a crooked and devious personality, we really need to see this theory for ourselves. The guest lacks objectivity, to say the least. I seriously doubt that he has accurately paraphrased this theory if it is indeed from an ISKCON spiritual master.

 

These games do not come from Supersoul. Such is the way of the crocodile or scorpion or especially the weasel. The guest should take responsibility for conquering his own crocodiles that infest the mind, but we will offer help if that is the request here.

 

So Gajendra Guest, do we have a name and a website or text?

Or will it all be unsubstantiated rumour, gossip and irresponsible wives' tales?