• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

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

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Very much alive. Hasn't changed in a long time. I use it every day.

Ekadantaya Vidmahe Vakratundaya Dhimahi TanoGanapati Pracodayat.

It is first and foremost. primarily a spoken language.

 
Last edited:

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
Is Vedic Sanskrit a dead or a near dead language?

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

Namaste,

Alive and spoken, every time a Hindu prays at a temple, or anytime a person uses words such as Karma, Dharmah, Ahimsa, Yoga, these are all Sanskrit words, all Hindu Mantras and prayers are in Sanskrit, the most famous that many Hindus know is the Gayatri Mantra, which can be traced back to the Vedas. Many Indian names are Sanskrit such as Rama, Krishna, Arya. My wife's name is Swastika her maiden name is Devi - all Sanskrit words yet she has never set foot in India.

So it is more then Just spoken and Alive it is Lived and thriving.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit are not dead in the sense that Sumerian is dead. Sumerian has no living speakers, nor is anyone learning it in order to revive it. Except maybe for when the Anunakki return. :facepalm:

There are efforts in India to establish Sanskrit (Classical) as an official working language. I think in one or two states it's already an official language, and people do speak it. However, I doubt that Vedic Sanskrit would be revived as a spoken language considering it precedes Classical Sanskrit.

If I am not mistaken, the Mahābhārata, Rāmāyana and Purānas are Classical Sanskrit. There are some not-so subtle differences in grammar and phonology.

One very simple method to tell the difference... and I admit I cannot read devanāgari... is the nominative singular masculine of names ending in a. For example, if the last line of the Krishna, Shiva and Rāma gayatris are "tanno krishnaḥ (or shivaḥ or rāmaḥ) prachodayat" that is Classical Sanskrit. If it is "tanno krishnas (or shivas or rāmas) prachodayat" that is Vedic Sanskrit. As I said, I can't read devanāgari, so I can't tell. But I suspect it is Classical Sanskrit. Mantra Pushpam, Mahāmrtyunjaya, Gayatri are Vedic.

Now here's a puzzle... the line "ekam sat... " is Classical Sanskrit. Vedic Sanskrit would be "aikam ... " for "one". It could be transliteration... Vedic to Classical to English. I really need to learn to read devanāgari.

Btw, my point is that neither is a dead language. I knew there was a point in there somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's a liturgical language.
Like Latin, it's still used in a religious context. Like Latin, it gave rise to a lot of vocabulary in later languages.
Like Latin, there's no country or ethnic group still using it as a native tongue.

A dead language is a language no longer in everyday use by a population in colloquial communication.

From Dictionary.com:
Note: Some dead languages, such as Latin, ancient Greek, and Sanskrit, may nevertheless be studied by large numbers of people because of their literary or historical importance.

Sanskrit, though still used liturgically, and spoken by a handful of swamis, linguists and aficionados, is a dead language.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The village that speaks Gods language:

Mattur is a village near the city of Shivamogga in Karnataka state, India, known for the usage of Sanskrit for day-to-day communication, although the general language of the state is Kannada. Mattur's twin village, Hosahalli, shares almost all the qualities of Mattur. Hosahalli is situated across the bank of theTunga River. These two villages are almost always referred to together.

Mattur and Hosahalli are known for their efforts to support Gamaka art, which is a unique form of singing and storytelling in Karnataka. These are two of the very rare villages in India where Sanskrit is spoken as a regional language. Sanskrit is the vernacular of a majority of the 5,000 residents of this quaint, sleepy hamlet situated a little over 8 km from Shimoga. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattur)

250px-Tunga.jpg

River Tungbhadra at Mattur (Tung - height, Bhadra - Gracious lady, therefore the gracious river arising from mountains - it is Sanskrit. How can one dissociate Sanskrit from Hinduism. Vedic Sanskrit is only its old dialect)

"Siddique Ahmed and Kysar Khan, both Standard IX students of Sharada Vilas School, recite shlokas effortlessly along with their classmates. Even after lessons, whether they are at play or back home, they slip into Sanskrit. Indeed, they are even teaching their parents the language. "Our elders began with a smattering hold over it but can now manage to talk," they say. .." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/This-village-speaks-gods-language/articleshow/1199965.cms

Karnataka's Mattur, a Sanskrit speaking village with almost one IT professional per family.
There is a definite link between knowledge of Sanskrit and aptitude for science, information technology, and music.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/article1437093.ece
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...fessional-per-family/articleshow/45242528.cms


Five Indian villages where sanskrit is spoken
a. Mattur or Muttoor (Karnataka).
b. Hosahalli (Karnataka).
c. Jhiri (Madhya Pradesh)
d. Mohad (Madhya Pradesh)
e. Baghuwar (Madhya Pradesh)
http://globalvarnasramamission.blogspot.in/2012/01/five-indian-villages-where-sanskrit-is.html


I will like your views on whether the study of Latin (or any other classical language) also has this effect.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Do not discount the thousands of students who learn Sanskrit and Vedas all over India. Neither the teacher requires a book nor the students. It is in their memory.

A few years ago at temple there was an event where a large group of preteen and early teens recited the Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, in perfect unison, not missing a syllable or stumbling for a second. It was incredible. However, I wonder if they knew what they were saying, or simply learned it by rote memorization. Do they actually understand the words? I tend to think they do. It would be even more credit to their knowledge and ability if they understood.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
A few years ago at temple there was an event where a large group of preteen and early teens recited the Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, in perfect unison, not missing a syllable or stumbling for a second. It was incredible. However, I wonder if they knew what they were saying, or simply learned it by rote memorization. Do they actually understand the words? I tend to think they do. It would be even more credit to their knowledge and ability if they understood.
This highlights another difference in paradigms. In Sanskrit, the sound itself conveys a feeling, or meaning. Just as music as sound can make us calm, excited, etc. so too does Sanskrit convey mood. It's a bit like onomatopoeia that way. So it's not entirely necessary to know the meaning. This is especially true with Bhij mantras.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
However, I wonder if they knew what they were saying, or simply learned it by rote memorization. Do they actually understand the words? I tend to think they do. It would be even more credit to their knowledge and ability if they understood.
If they were able to remember the thousand names, I am sure, they understood the meaning also. Many meanings are sort of self-apparent, they will have the words commonly used in their language. otherwise it is normal for children to ask the teacher, their friends or family members for the meaning. See the hands of pupils in the second image, they are counting the rhythm. That is a necessary part of Vedic chanting or Indian music.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
This highlights another difference in paradigms. In Sanskrit, the sound itself conveys a feeling, or meaning. Just as music as sound can make us calm, excited, etc. so too does Sanskrit convey mood. It's a bit like onomatopoeia that way. So it's not entirely necessary to know the meaning. This is especially true with Bhij mantras.

Good points... there's also evidence Vedic Sanskrit may have been tonal. The pitch accent and tone used on two words, for example may completely change their meaning.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I would love to learn to chant the Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, but alas! I think it may be too late in this lifetime to learn it. :cry: I have an app on my iPhone for it that I try to follow along with. Notice the word "try".
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It's a liturgical language.
Like Latin, it's still used in a religious context. Like Latin, it gave rise to a lot of vocabulary in later languages.
Like Latin, there's no country or ethnic group still using it as a native tongue.
A dead language is a language no longer in everyday use by a population in colloquial communication.
From Dictionary.com:
Sanskrit, though still used liturgically, and spoken by a handful of swamis, linguists and aficionados, is a dead language.

BS. Vedic language is not a commonly used language. It is unparsed sound. Om is the root. Where will it go? You and I are made of it.
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
If they were able to remember the thousand names, I am sure, they understood the meaning also.

Not necessarily. In a number of cases, they only learn chanting and cannot explain the content. Just like most Carnatic musicians who sing the Bhaja Govindam; they are completely focused on getting the musical aspect of it right and have little or no interest in the content. As I have mentioned elsewhere, 2800 years ago, Yaaska noted that people were simply memorizing the Veda, without understanding it.

Anyway, the OP was specific about Vedic Sanskrit and I agree with Valijean that Vedic sanskrit has been dead for a long time - outside the Liturgical context. Classical, post Panian sanskrit is another matter, but many posters here have not taken the difference between Vedic and Classical sanskrit into account.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Anyway, the OP was specific about Vedic Sanskrit and I agree with Valijean that Vedic sanskrit has been dead for a long time - outside the Liturgical context. Classical, post Panian sanskrit is another matter, but many posters here have not taken the difference between Vedic and Classical sanskrit into account.

I have to reverse myself and agree that Vedic Sanskrit is dead and has been dead for a long time. According to this Wiki article (Wiki is not always the best source, but this does make sense):
Especially the oldest stage of the language, Rigvedic Sanskrit, the language of the hymns of the Rigveda, is preserved only in a redacted form several centuries younger than the texts' composition. Recovering its original form is a matter of linguistic reconstruction.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit

So that answers my question about the difference between "aikam sat... " and "ekam sat... " in RV 1.164.46
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
As I have mentioned elsewhere, 2800 years ago, Yaaska noted that people were simply memorizing the Veda, without understanding it.
Yaska is dated by Wikipedia at 700 BC which I think is correct. Did Yaska live earlier than Yajnavalkya who lived around 2,500 BC. This we know by the astronomical data available in Taittiriya Samhita. That was the time when the beginning of the year was changed from Orion to Krittika (Prajapati following Rohini controversy). Of course, even in Yajnavalyka's time, Vedas were not correctly understood. The reason was change of locale and passage of time (a few thousand years), from Sub-Arctic regions to temperate regions. They would not understand 'Ati-Ratra' or a dawn of one month.
So that answers my question about the difference between "aikam sat .." and "ekam sat .." in RV 1.164.46
IMHO, that is not a very big difference. Of course, there is a difference but if one knows Sanskrit, I think one can understand Vedic Sanskrit also. It is not undecipherable to one who knows Sanskrit. At the same time, some of the hymns were not as old. There are parts which are old and parts which are not so old. It is like Sanskrit and Pali. Same roots in most words.
 
Last edited:

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
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?

Panini was a Vyakranin, Vyakrana is explanation or analysis and also linked to the Vedangas.

What was Panini and later Sanskritists explaining or analyzing? It was the Samhita/Brahmana/Aranyaka ect texts, or the "Vedic", Sanskrit which forms the base and foundation of the Language used to analyse and explain the Grammars associated with this language.

Anyone who does not see a evolution and development of Sanskrit from Samhitas to today, i think does not see the Language holistically.

Anyways just my opinion.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Is this a question for intellect to answer? Do we know where the shabda resides?

BS. Vedic language is not a commonly used language. It is unparsed sound. Om is the root. Where will it go? You and I are made of it.

There are four levels of speech – para, pashyanti, madhyama, vaikari. Human beings speak only the fourth level. The language we speak is vaikari.

Rig Veda 1.164.45 “catvari vak parimita padani tani vidur brahmana ye minishinah, guha trini nihita neengayanti turiyam vaco manushya vadanti

The knowers know of the Vak (Word-Speech) that exists in four forms. Three are hidden and the fourth is what men speak.
....
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/329144/four-levels-speech.html
https://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/vedic-vak-four-levels-of-sound/

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/advaita_chittaranjan.htm
THE MYSTICAL REALITY

The nature of Reality is mystical. The magic of words plays upon the screen of non-duality and hold us enrapt to the siren songs of plurality. A word is essentially one with Brahman. That is para vak. It springs from Its living waters into the formless embryo - the pashyanti - the causal seed that is ready to sprout into manifest form. In its middling state - madhyama - it presents the forms in ideality before it springs into the luxuriance of the created world as vaikhari.

These are the four stages of Vak - para, pashyanti, madhyama and vaikhari. The mystery is that there is no difference in what it points to in all these stages, because if there were a difference, the word would not point to the same object in all its stages. We may give a name to this paradoxical nature of words and feel satisfied that we have found the truth, but the moment we attempt to determine its truth, it negates itself in the very determination. Difference arises through Vak, and yet there is no difference in its forms. Its difference is the mystery of its own 'difference', as it were, and the world springs into being in the womb of this great mystery. It is the heart of the mystical - the inexplicable power of the Lord to make many out of One while still remaining immutably One. That is His Maya. It needs the eye of a mystic to see the One in All and the All in One. It is the sahaja samadhi spoken of in Vedanta.
 
Last edited:
Top