Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

[shivsomashekhar]

I think there is a good reason that "Vadic" Sanskrit and "Panini/Later" Sanskrit is still called "Sanskrit", for Panini/Yaksha/Patanjali did not invent a new Sanskrit, did they?

No, but then no one on the thread said anything about the two being two different languages. There are enough differences between the two phases to distinguish one from the other and that is sufficient by itself to use distinct labels. Every ancient language has undergone similar revision (Greek, Latin, Persian, etc.,). Our own Kannada has seen four distinct phases within the last two millennia; what to speak of older languages? And yes, the older forms of all of these languages are dead today and are only relevant in either academia or liturgy.

Again, I will point out that the OP was specifically asking about Vedic sanskrit and therefore responses that ignore the distinction between Vedic and Classical do not really address the question.

 

[atanu]

Vedic sound (shabda) was not born and so can not die.

Spoken and written usages on the other hand evolve.

 

[atanu]

Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

Thread open to all human beings of a religion or no religion.
Regards

Why you ask?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Agree with Satyam. With hundreds of thousand/millions (no statistics available) of brahmin kids and some others too trying to learn Vedas and subscribing to liturgy, it being taught in the universities, how can Vedic Sanskrit can be considered dead?

Because, that is the definition of dead language. It is only extant in the context of academics and Liturgy.

This is not some Western conspiracy. There are several other dead languages including Latin. One would object to classifying Vedic sanskrit as a dead lnaguage either because he is not familar with Panini or else for sentimental reasons. Speaking of which, the latter seems to be the founding stone for many Hindu beliefs today - an unfortunate situation.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Vedic sound (shabda) was not born and so can not die.

Spoken and written usages on the other hand evolve.

Atanu, with all due respect, you are only embarrassing yourself with such statements.

You are mixing up contexts. You should not bring in your religious beliefs when discussing history and other practical matters. Once, on a different forum, I was discussing migratory patterns of birds with some Hare Krishnas and how it was remarkable that the information was genetically handed down through generations. They thought my reasoning was funny and incorrect.The correct answer - according to them - is "Krishna is showing the birds the route".

Are you aligned with the Hare Krshna view? Are you teaching your children that academic history is false and that Indians have lived on the planet forever reciting Vedas?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4851288, member: 56157"

Namaste,

No, but then no one on the thread said anything about the two being two different languages.......

Then Vedic Sanskrit is not dead, it lives on within Classical Sanskrit, It also can be demonstrated (as has been by Aup) that it is still in use.

What in your opinion makes Vedic Sanskrit Dead, basically what does "Dead" mean in this context, maybe I am missing something.

And yes, the older forms of all of these languages are dead today and are only relevant in either academia or liturgy.

This is like saying that the moment my parents gave birth to me, they are considered dead.
What then constitutes a living language, in your opinion?

Again, I will point out that the OP was specifically asking about Vedic sanskrit and therefore responses that ignore the distinction between Vedic and Classical do not really address the question.

And those who do not consider it "dead", are saying that it is not dead, my reason for this was that the basis and foundation that is Sanskrit today is the evolved form of the Sanskrit of the Past, if Vedic Sanskrit is dead, then Sanskrit itself can be considered dead, which is not true at all.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Namaste,



Then Vedic Sanskrit is not dead, it lives on within Classical Sanskrit, It also can be demonstrated (as has been by Aup) that it is still in use.

What in your opinion makes Vedic Sanskrit Dead, basically what does "Dead" mean in this context, maybe I am missing something.

Yes. Please see my response to Aup where I defined dead language and how that includes Latin.

We have a number of extant languages that derive from Latin. Modern Kannada derives from old Kannada. Classical sanskrit derives from Vedic sanskrit.

By the time of the Sama and Yajur, some of the older, archaic Rig-Vedic forms (closer to ancient Persian) had already dropped out of use. So, the language evolved even during Vedic times.

For people who are interested in the subject, I recommend Asko Parpola's The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Here is a very simplified view of the origin of the Indo-European languages. The full list can be found online through a google search.

This image is from http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.gif

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4851313, member: 56157"

Namaste,

Yes. Please see my response to Aup where I defined dead language and how that includes Latin.

Why does the definition of a dead language as "It is only extant in the context of academics and Liturgy". Apply to "Vedic" Sanskrit? And What constitutes a living Language, and why?

Why is a language considered dead when it is in the context of Liturgy and Academia? What is the rational behind this classification.

I guess when one uses western category of what is Language, coupled with What is death of Language then by Western academic standards this language is dead.

The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition, 2009) defines language as:

"Communication by voice in the distinctively human manner, using arbitrary auditory symbols in conventional ways with conventional meanings. Any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another.."

But is this what "Vak & Shabda", means when discussing Samhita Sanskrit? Is this definition of language applicable to "Vak & Shabda"?, is this what the purpose of the Vedic Mantra is, is "Mantra" classified as Language?

Open questions need to be answered, before we can claim Vedic Sanskrit as being "Dead".

Anyways, my opinion.

 

[atanu]

Atanu, with all due respect, you are only embarrassing yourself with such statements.

You are mixing up contexts. You should not bring in your religious beliefs when discussing history and other practical matters. Once, on a different forum, I was discussing migratory patterns of birds with some Hare Krishnas and how it was remarkable that the information was genetically handed down through generations. They thought my reasoning was funny and incorrect.The correct answer - according to them - is "Krishna is showing the birds the route".

Are you aligned with the Hare Krshna view? Are you teaching your children that academic history is false and that Indians have lived on the planet forever reciting Vedas?

1.I am an academic myself. I rarely mix two realms of mental and adhytamic. Actually, some people think that Veda and Vedanta can be understood mentally, when Sruti itself says :The Mind and Word return from it. And some people think that the Seers of Veda are sages of past, long dead. As per sruti, Seers are the seers in us.

When we say 'Vedic language is dead', we must know what Vedic shabda is. We must have experienced it within us. And we must give credence to what Veda itself has to say about nature of 4 levels of Vak -- that resides in parama vyoman (highest heaven) as Brahman, but also becomes the world. In the world, it is many and ever changing. In the parama vyoman it is infinite and non dual.

So, what stage of vak, is dead, according to you? Can you elaborate? Have you experienced the Veda at all four levels? Have writers in Wiki experienced Veda at all four levels?

2. If you read most celebrated Veda translators of west, you find their exasperation, "It makes no sense", they say. If you wish, I can collate such statements. Of course, Veda is unintelligible, from intellect's POV.

3. Why is Paarsurrey interested in this question? Some people are fiercely interested to show that Vedas are imported books. And some wish to show that Quran should replace Vedas. These are all secular-political aspirations very far removed from the knowledge and experience of four stages of Vak.

...

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4851313, member: 56157"

Namaste, i must have missed your edit, sorry

By the time of the Sama and Yajur, some of the older, archaic Rig-Vedic forms (closer to ancient Persian) had already dropped out of use. So, the language evolved even during Vedic times.

Wait, you do realize that the Samhita was not originally just the rik mantras of the RigVeda Samhita? that the saman, yajus and rik mantras were compiled later by Vyasa?

We cant say one came after another, this is not acurate of the Mantras.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just an example of how words persist, a brick is termed as "Īshtaka" in Vedas. Today in Hindi the word is "Īnt". The word for an enclosure is "Vara" in Avesta. Today in Hindi, the word is "Bara" and in Punjabi "Vera". Words have a long life. That is the difference between Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit. That is how we can find the roots of the words even in Proto-India-European. But I do not deny what Shiva is saying. He also is right. At the moment, I am researching how even Taittiriya Samhita was confused about things in 2,500 BC.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Wait, you do realize that the Samhita was not originally just the rik mantras of the RigVeda Samhita? that the saman, yajus and rik mantras were compiled later by Vyasa?

We cant say one came after another, this is not acurate of the Mantras.

Are you saying that they were all one text and Vyasa split them into three and coined the three names (Rik, Sama and Yajur)?

If so, there is no evidence for such a redaction - outside Puranic stories. The Sama and Yajur are quite different from the Rig and they build upon it. The Mundaka Upanishad specifically names the three Vedas. So, this would mean that the classification of three vedas existed by the time the Upanishads were composed. Unless you are saying that the main Upanishads were created after the time of Vyasa?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

1.I am an academic myself. I rarely mix two realms of mental and adhytamic. Actually, some people think that Veda and Vedanta can be understood mentally, when Sruti itself says :The Mind and Word return from it. And some people think that the Seers of Veda are sages of past, long dead. As per sruti, Seers are the seers in us.

Again, your argument is not based on rationale. This is similar to saying that we should not research the date of the bible because the bible itself claims to have been existing from the beginning of time. If you are wearing your academic hat on, you should accept that - no matter what traditional beliefs are - Vedic sanskrit is a language just like any other.

When we say 'Vedic language is dead', we must know what Vedic shabda is. We must have experienced it within us. And we must give credence to what Veda itself has to say about nature of 4 levels of Vak -- that resides in parama vyoman (highest heaven) as Brahman, but also becomes the world. In the world, it is many and ever changing. In the parama vyoman it is infinite and non dual.

How is this view academic? I am surprised that you are not seeing the difference between a rational argument and dogma.

 

[Jainarayan]

no matter what traditional beliefs are - Vedic sanskrit is a language just like any other.

I've gotten into internet trouble before for my view, but I agree with you. I do not believe Sanskrit, Vedic or Classical, is the language of the gods. Not when it's been clearly demonstrated to be related to most of the other languages of western Asia and Europe. That said, I don't discount that the rishis heard or perceived the Vedas in Sanskrit because... drumroll please... that was the language they spoke and understood! Sound is energy, yes. Those sonic and ultrasonic weapons being designed and tested by the military can put out some real energy and do some real damage, but I don't think the sound is Sanskrit. I don't think any of this takes away from the Vedas or Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sonic and ultrasonic weapons came later. Indra had a mace prepared from the femur of a horse, others had bows and arrows. We reached the atomic and missile age with Puranas.

Probably Vajra was like this. I have seen medical students use femur as a weapon in inter-collegiate fights in India (my brother is a doctor). It is heavy, gives a good grip and can be lethal.

 

[Jainarayan]

But- but- but-

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"shivsomashekhar, post: 4851782, member: 56157"

Namaste,

Are you saying that they were all one text and Vyasa split them into three and coined the three names (Rik, Sama and Yajur)?

What I am saying is that The Rik, Yajus and Saman type Mantras may have existed in different collections, or in one collection, and Veda Vyasa (maybe he was called Krishna Dwapiyana) has compiled them into Rigveda, SamanVeda, YajurVeda and AtharvaDeva categories that we have today.

If so, there is no evidence for such a redaction - outside Puranic stories.

Then the Puranas can be used as evidence for this. What is wrong with this?

The Sama and Yajur are quite different from the Rig and they build upon it.

Not exactly, I will give a example: Rik TYPE mantras when tone & metrical meters are allocated to them for the purpose of chanting or simply singing become Saman type, that is why majority of the Mantras are Rik type Mantras in the SamanVeda Samhita which also appear in the Rigveda Samhita. This is the difference.

The Mundaka Upanishad specifically names the three Vedas. So, this would mean that the classification of three vedas existed by the time the Upanishads were composed. Unless you are saying that the main Upanishads were created after the time of Vyasa?

Does the Mundaka name 3 Samhitas or 3 types of Mantras?, you may be confusing "Samhita" with "Mantra". Samhita is but a collection of 3 types of Mantras, the Rik, Saman and Yajus, Trayi Ved means three TYPES, not Three Samhitas. These three types of Mantras (Rik, Yajus and Saman) are mentioned within the Samhita (collection of Mantras) them self, therefore the Trayi (three types of Mantras, not the 4 Samhita) was in existence in some collected maybe even in a singular form together. This is why RigVeda Samhita which is collection of all the Rik type Mantras is different from YajurVeda Samhita which is collection of Yajus type Mantras. The Difference is with the different TYPES of Mantras which are for different purposes. Not because they were composed using a changing/prior language, nor is there any evidence that the Samhitas existed separately with Rigveda being the First ect, they may have been compiled during different time periods but that is about the only thing we can say in this regard.

Hope this clears up the confusion between Samhita vs Mantra.

 

[atanu]

Again, your argument is not based on rationale. This is similar to saying that we should not research the date of the bible because the bible itself claims to have been existing from the beginning of time. If you are wearing your academic hat on, you should accept that - no matter what traditional beliefs are - Vedic sanskrit is a language just like any other.
How is this view academic? I am surprised that you are not seeing the difference between a rational argument and dogma.

Hey bhaiyya The Veda is beyond rational intellect.

Only the vaikihari Vak is spoken and heard whereas shabda is para, pashyanti, madhyamika, and vaikihari.

Please do not impose rationality on the wisdom that is beyond the intellect, since the intellect is created. Veda is useless if all knowledge could be had intellectually.
.....

When you say 'Drishti shristi' (seeing precedes creation), what rational proof you have? Do not apply different standards and do not apply intellect and western definitions to what is adhyatmic.

I am a scientist myself. I know the limits and scope of definitions and observations. I cannot apply a definition of 'dead language' to declare Vedic language dead, since the definition does not cover the scope of the what is meant by shabda, which is 3/4 unseen.

 

[Valjean]

Agree with Satyam. With hundreds of thousand/millions (no statistics available) of brahmin kids and some others too trying to learn Vedas and subscribing to liturgy, it being taught in the universities, how can Vedic Sanskrit can be considered dead? It is like old English and New.

Old English is dead.

Dead does not mean unknown or completely unused. It means a language that doesn't have a native population of speakers; a language that is no longer the first language of a population, used in everyday conversation.