VEDIC SANSKRIT

Namaste,

In this following post ConfusedLearner said he is using English language.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=12762

I read somewhere that a word in Vedic Sanskrit(Vedas) corresponds to the object described by it.Proper result is obtained only when the mantras are chanted according to the rules and disastrous results if they are chanted in a wrong way and that mantras(worship)are always in Sanskrit and not in any other language.I did not understand this theory then.Can learned members kindly explain the relation between a Sanskrit word and the object it denotes and the efficacy of mantras?

Namaste

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ram116040

I read somewhere that a word in Vedic Sanskrit(Vedas) corresponds to the object described by it.

---

For example, we have "aśva" and "śvan". One is known as horse, and the other as dog. But, in the Vedic understanding, the central meaning to these words are, "sacrifice" and "immortality", respectively, and which further are somehow "meant" to be diametrically placed with respect to each other, as it were, on a map.

Quote:

---

Proper result is obtained only when the mantras are chanted according to the rules and disastrous results if they are chanted in a wrong way and that mantras(worship)are always in Sanskrit and not in any other language.

---

By learning to chant properly, I suppose, one also at the same time begins to discover the power that the mantra-s can wield. The most important and fundamental step is to learn the Sanskrit varna-mala and all its sounds.

Quote:

---

I did not understand this theory then.Can learned members kindly explain the relation between a Sanskrit word and the object it denotes and the efficacy of mantras?

---

Sanskrit words are almost mathematically built from a set of fundamental sound-groups known as dhātu. So, the units are mathematically added, using internal sandhi rules of sound, to create the words. However, in my view, the roots themselves are not fundamental to Sanskrit, it is the sound-rules that are. Both varna-mala and declension-system are coded deep into layered consciousness.

Ultimately, we cannot see Sanskrit and Veda as two different products. Sanskrit, all the vital components of it, are there preserved in the Veda. And by preserving Veda (writing follower texts on it, and so on) Sanskrit has been preserved to a large extent.

In the example of śvan and aśva, as is the case for other words, the Veda uses its own reference to denote other objects. It means, aśva is used to denote horse rather than the horse inspiring aśva to come to life and assume other tangential meanings.

Indeed, Veda doesn't take reference from outside of itself. It talks about things (again from its own reference), but that can be used to talk about rest of the "things" in this world or even other worlds, presumably.

A sharp contrast to this approach is what we observe in the language adopted by the scientists and the mathematicians of our time: they very egotistically continue "putting themselves" into the language- thus we have words like Lagrangian, Zariski, Newtonian, etc- the garbage keeps on increasing (forget the alienation handed over to "lowbrow" people who belong to common masses or even the non-mathematical non-physics subject-domains) until no body knows what the guy next door is talking about.

Namaste

It is said that the Vedic mantras should be pronounced correctly in order to achieve the desired effect. If not pronounced properly it will cause unwanted effect or may even cause quite the opposite effect. For this reason only qualified Brahmana who knows to pronounce them correctly should pronounce the Vedic mantras from the Samhitas.

But this has nothing to do with what ConfusedLearner said. He talked about offering a prayer in English. Anyone can offer a prayer to the Lord. Even a shudra can do it. Even a shudra can recite verses from the Bhagavad gita, Puranas and Itihasas in Sanskrit or in English translation (or both Sanskrit and English) or any other language.
There are also mantras recorded in the scriptures that consist of the holy names of God. These mantras don't have to be perfectly or properly pronounced. Even if incorrectly pronounced they will be effective because these mantras are not subject to any regulations.

regards

Namaste,

Some points:

1. In this yuga no one that we know or know of (of whichever Varna or sect etc etc) is capable of correctly pronouncing Vedic Mantra-s.
2. Shudra-s are a Vedic Varna. Shudra doesnt mean the labour class, atleast in my understanding. Any other interpretation is just that.
3. Whatever is left of Hinduism, Hindus, or Sanskrit, is a valiant reminder - a stand against the tide - of an unforgotten past and a promised future, no reward however guaranteed here and now, or even in an afterlife, but we still stick to this path, because this is our true essence and nature beyond being just our "Dharma".

I am writing this after some afterthought, per my understanding of Hindu Dharma , and certainly not as a rebuttal or opposition of some kind to someone. At this point of time I have only love and respect towards all Hindus**.

KT


**no, not "all humanity", as I am no universalist. Only a poor tradtional Hindu.

Since this thread is about Vedic Sanskrit I would like to ask a question with regards to the letter ळ which is present in the Rigveda in its very 1st line itself..the word ईळे

This letter ळ is present in the Rigveda ,Shuklayajurveda and the Jaiminiyasakha of the Samaveda.

In the Krishnayajurveda, Kauthumaranayaniyasakha of Samaveda the letter ळ is replaced by the letter ड

Any idea why the letter ळ was replaced with the letter ड?

The letter ळ is a retroflex letter is still used in languages like Tamil which has a similar retroflex ழ..but retroflex letters are not much or hardly used in most North Indian languages these days.

I was wondering that since Jaiminiyasakha Samavedins had migrated to South of India and since the local Lingo there had the alphabet ळ which is very similar to the Tamil ழ so the ळ was retained most probably.

So I was thinking that even alphabets have changed due to local lingo..what else could have changed?? The Interpretation or even the Understanding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renuka

Since this thread is about Vedic Sanskrit I would like to ask a question with regards to the letter ळ which is present in the Rigveda in its very 1st line itself..the word ईळे

This letter ळ is present in the Rigveda ,Shuklayajurveda and the Jaiminiyasakha of the Samaveda.

In the Krishnayajurveda, Kauthumaranayaniyasakha of Samaveda the letter ळ is replaced by the letter ड

Any idea why the letter ळ was replaced with the letter ड?

The letter ळ is a retroflex letter is still used in languages like Tamil which has a similar retroflex ழ..but retroflex letters are not much or hardly used in most North Indian languages these days.

I was wondering that since Jaiminiyasakha Samavedins had migrated to South of India and since the local Lingo there had the alphabet ळ which is very similar to the Tamil ழ so the ळ was retained most probably.

So I was thinking that even alphabets have changed due to local lingo..what else could have changed?? The Interpretation or even the Understanding?

---

Namaste Renuka,

I've elsewhere said that I believe the origin of Dharma (if not all the Hindus) to be somewhere (can be found out with some accuracy) in the South of India.

It will be perhaps better right now, given the politics involved, not to touch this subject (linguistics) for at least a hundred years. We as a nation are still far from objectivity, if not to add in the distortions fed by foreign powers.

Ultimately, the intelligent are going to survive, and others are going to perish. Let us hope that by that time we are still there, and are able to see the world and truth as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renuka

Since this thread is about Vedic Sanskrit I would like to ask a question with regards to the letter ळ which is present in the Rigveda in its very 1st line itself..the word ईळे

This letter ळ is present in the Rigveda ,Shuklayajurveda and the Jaiminiyasakha of the Samaveda.

In the Krishnayajurveda, Kauthumaranayaniyasakha of Samaveda the letter ळ is replaced by the letter ड

Any idea why the letter ळ was replaced with the letter ड?

The letter ळ is a retroflex letter is still used in languages like Tamil which has a similar retroflex ழ..but retroflex letters are not much or hardly used in most North Indian languages these days.

I was wondering that since Jaiminiyasakha Samavedins had migrated to South of India and since the local Lingo there had the alphabet ळ which is very similar to the Tamil ழ so the ळ was retained most probably.

So I was thinking that even alphabets have changed due to local lingo..what else could have changed?? The Interpretation or even the Understanding?

---

praNAm,
I thought the equivalent of ळ was ள, not ழ