Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

[atanu]

Who exactly is this 'we' you speak of?

Advaitins, Visistaadvaitins, Dvaitins, Smartas, Hare Krishnas, Gaudiyas, Shiva bhakas, Durga bhaktas, Vishnu bhaktas .... and Kashmir Shaivas, Siddhas, Veera Shaivas ...

Can you point out a single teacher of Hindu Dharma who denies the Vedic source of their school? Who denies Brahman, Ishwara, Karma, Re-birth, Purushartha and Moksha?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Does this mean that scriptures are irrelevant?

For the majority of Hindus - yes. See below for more information.

The three major gurus: Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, and Madhava have formalised their vedantic systems based on Vedas, Upanishads and Gita. We follow teachers of these schools.

The followers of these schools are the Smarthas, Madhvas and Iyengars. Together they form about 5% of Hindus or lesser. Among these followers, those who take enough interest to delve into scripture constitute about 1%. The other 99% have no interest in philosophy and their practice is about following rituals, visiting temples, the Mathas (or Mathams for Tamilians), celebrating festivals and changing the sacred thread annually. So, the 'we' you are referring to is 1% of 5% of Hindus, which becomes a negligible number.

What about all the other Hindus you are reluctant to consider? I have already explained to you that your oversimplified view of Hinduism is exclusive and wrong.

As per Shankara, there is no way that one can know of Atman or Ishwara, except through proof of Vedas.

That is correct. However, you are failing to account for his audience. Like it or not - Shankara was an orthodox Brahmin and as was the practice in medieval India, his target audience was other orthodox Brahmins, such as himself. He did not write for all of Hinduism. Brahmins form about 4% of the Indian population and even if we allow half of that number for Smarthas - we have only 2% of Hindus as recipients of Shankara's teachings.

What about the rest?

 

[Vinayaka]

Can you point out a single teacher of Hindu Dharma who denies the Vedic source of their school? Who denies Brahman, Ishwara, Karma, Re-birth, Purushartha and Moksha?

No. Just differing emphasis. And some of that might as well be nil.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course it could happen. My point is just that the Dharmic faiths have far less emphasis on scripture than the Abrahamic faiths. That's not just some conjecture.

And again that may be so, but still there must be those who do cling, why are you trying your hardest to protect those people, are you clinging ?.

 

[psychoslice]

I think one is less likely to find "enlightenment" in the Vedas than we are in the Upanishads. The Vedas aren't the equivalent of the Dhammapada or the Bible, or even the Tao Te Ching. The Vedas, from what I've seen, are primarily hymns of praise and directions for performing sacrifices. I don't know if meditating on the Nasadiya Sukta or the Mantra Pushpam (two of my favorites) for 1,000 years will bring one any closer to enlightenment. Not to mention contradictions because they were compiled over the course of centuries, if not millennia, as society changed, and they became layered. That doesn't invalidate them, but it offers "something for everyone". I don't think one can just read the Vedas and hope for more than being able to say "I read the Vedas, yay me!"

Yes indeed, but so called enlightenment can be ignited by anything really, after all that is our true nature, in fact in many ways any scriptures can keep us away from ever truly knowing our true Self.

 

[atanu]

And again that may be so, but still there must be those who do cling, why are you trying your hardest to protect those people, are you clinging ?.

What exactly you mean by clinging? Is following a scripture as guide clinging?

Niyamas prescribe svyadhayA, which means both self study and study of self. Yoga traditions also have a system of sravana (hearing) and mañana (reflecting) as the beginning of the yogic process. So, in my opinion, study-reflection is integral to Hinduism.

 

[psychoslice]

What exactly you mean by clinging? Is following a scripture as guide clinging?

Niyamas prescribe svyadhayA, which means both self study and study of self. Yoga traditions also have a system of sravana (hearing) and mañana (reflecting) as the beginning of the yogic process. So, in my opinion, study-reflection is integral to Hinduism.

And yet enlightenment will only happen when all attachments are dropped, scriptures or Guru's or whatever.

 

[atanu]

And yet enlightenment will only happen when all attachments are dropped, scriptures or Guru's or whatever.

Yeah. That also is scriptural knowledge.

 

[psychoslice]

Yeah. That also is scriptural knowledge.

Yes it maybe in scripture, but until it becomes one in you, and your experience, it will remain just scripture.

 

[atanu]

Yes it maybe in scripture, but until it becomes one in you, and your experience, it will remain just scripture.

Yes. But the idea that Guru and scripture must be given up is another clinging idea.

 

[paarsurrey]

I mean both:

1. The name India is of Greek origin.
2. The Vedas do not mention a people named “Aryans”

So, Veda/Yajurveda neither necessarily belongs to the region "India" as a region/country nor it belongs to the people who may identity themselves as "Aryan" specifically. If it would have then it should have mentioned this clearly in so many pages of volume that it has. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Jainarayan]

So, Veda/Yajurveda neither necessarily belongs to the region "India" as a region/country nor it belongs to the people who may identity themselves as "Aryan" specifically. If it would have then it should have mentioned this clearly in so many pages of volume that it has. Right? Please
Regards

Nice strawman.

"... and there ain't no more to say" as the lyrics of the Tracy Chapman song go.

 

[paarsurrey]

Classical Arabic is not used outside the religious context and therefore, it meets the definition of a dead language.

A dead language is the language that is understood by not many people.
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, Veda/Yajurveda neither necessarily belongs to the region "India" as a region/country nor it belongs to the people who may identity themselves as "Aryan" specifically. If it would have then it should have mentioned this clearly in so many pages of volume that it has.

No one in India identified him/herself as Aryan. Aryans assimilated with the indigenous people and are Hindus now. Hindus (which includes the Aryans mixed like sugar in milk) respect Vedas and follow many of their rituals. Yes, people like me believe that some part of Vedas were written outside India and some in India.

A dead language is the language that is understood by not many people.

It may not be understood by many people today, but there is no danger of Sanskrit being forgotten.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

A dead language is the language that is understood by not many people.
Regards

That is an incorrect definition.

Dead language - A language that is no longer in everyday spoken use.

No more, no less. Therefore, classical Arabic is a dead language.

There is also the concept of extinct language.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is an incorrect definition.
Dead language - A language that is no longer in everyday spoken use.
No more, no less. Therefore, classical Arabic is a dead language.
There is also the concept of extinct language.

I don't agree with one. Please
Regards

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I don't agree with one. Please
Regards

Of course, you will not, for it is not in your favor.

Anyway, it is not a matter of choice. 'Dead language' comes with a standard definition and it is not up to you or me to invent our own definitions based on personal prejudice.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dead-language

 

[paarsurrey]

No one in India identified him/herself as Aryan. Aryans assimilated with the indigenous people and are Hindus now. Hindus (which includes the Aryans mixed like sugar in milk) respect Vedas and follow many of their rituals. Yes, people like me believe that some part of Vedas were written outside India and some in India

How do you identify the passages written outside of India? Please quote say five verses or passages from Veda that were written outside India and the basis on which this identification has been made. Right? Please
Reards

 

[paarsurrey]

See my post # 32. I have not denied @shivsomashekhar's position. But there is a difference between old English and Vedic Sanskrit, which is still studied, used in rituals by 'hundred of thousand/millions' (cannot give you a count) of brahmins. The Vedic mantras are still chanted hundreds of millions Hindus all over the world every day - take for example the Gayatri mantra. Sure, Vedic Sanskrit is not going to return, but the mantras too will not be changed to clasical Sanskrit.

This is the reason why it is true to say that Vedic Sankrit is a dead language.
Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you identify the passages written outside of India? Please quote say five verses or passages from Veda that were written outside India and the basis on which this identification has been made.

Paarsurrey, you should do your own research. Read Tilak's book "Arctic Home in Vedas" at https://archive.org/details/TheArcticHomeInTheVedas and you will come to know many things. If a verse hints at continuous sunlight for seven months, a dawn lasting one month, a night as long as two months, five seasons in a year, yearly sacrificial cycle ending in nine or ten months, then it is an old verse and could not have been written anywhere else but within the Arctic circle.

This is the reason why it is true to say that Vedic Sankrit is a dead language.

Why should we return to Vedic Sanskrit when we have a better option in Panini's modern Sanskrit. There is not much difference. This also is 2500 or 3000 years old.