Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: What is Sanskrit?

  1. #1

    What is Sanskrit?

    namaste,

    What is Sanskrit?
    This is what flashed in my mind when posting an answer regarding a Sanskrit question In another thread where the free-word structure of the language was highlighted. I wrote, "Sanskrit is a context-free language."

    But now I have many questions. What is a context-free language? Surely, I caught this phrase earlier from the Internet, a phrase which actually relates to an entirely different subject domain: software engineering.

    So I went to wiki for info, and understood that a context-free is a set of instructions fed to a computer that is able to calculate it without any glitch (i.e., without any problems of ambiguity in the "meaning" of the instructions). The trick is, in the set of instructions, profuse use is made of parentheses, so the computer at a time "concentrates" on "understanding" (calculating/ parsing) only what lies within a parentheses. That is, the whole instruction ("sentence") can be spread out in many different branches (calculated individually) each based on the occurrence of parentheses. Within a parenthesis the jargon and accompanying rules are simple enough for a computer-language, so no problems there either.

    Wiki also informs that pANiNi's systemisation of Sanskrit grammar rules into algebraic formulas was the motivation behind this subject. Some rAkshasa-s on the Internet write in their blogs, "Sanskrit is just another language. That Panini created rule based grammar for Sanskrit is a credit to Panini and not Sanskrit."

    In long and short, there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda on Sanskrit, yet the so-called Hindu vidvAn-s, in reality better termed as "cultural Hindus", who in range anywhere from from being theoretical physicists to actual Sanskrit professors "sucking-off" in foreign (and Indian) universities, who far from doing nothing to counter the misinformation campaign on Sanskrit are doing their best to spread it even further.

    Today a full-time career in Sanskrit is seen as a privilege of those below the poverty line who have kinda lost-out on their lives, and once there in their professions are required no more than to translate Sanskrit texts into other languages and thus further killing and rendering Sanskrit obsolete.

    What is not told is that Sanskrit was studied by ill-intentioned people (= rAkshasa-s) who wanted to create a genuine Artificial Intelligence (AI) by using a language "like Sanskrit" as a medium of direct interaction between humans and machines that could be naturally used by both. But this project failed, and today what we have is "fake AI" tidbits that try to convince us otherwise by using brute search power (they can search whole dictionaries in seconds) instead of a natural understanding; and Sanskrit too, features in the wiki article describing the grammar of just plain simple instructions - not AI instructions - for computers.

    AI is a sinister project that aims not only at replacing soldiers full-fledged at the war-fronts with AI enabled war-machines, but also in doing so intends to define a world order where - as gaged by AI machines - there will be hierarchy of different races on the earth based on their average intelligence - and going still further to the logical conclusion - waging war against those less intelligent races (not capable of building AI machines themselves) and subjugating/ eliminating them and thus ensuring the earth of limited resources secure for the descendants of the intelligent races.

    Yet another focus of major conflict is the way rAkshasa-s are propagating the myth - using linguistic mechanics - that Sanskrit is not aboriginal to bhArata. This is in addition to making Panini merely incidental to Sanskrit, as discussed earlier.

    Now, this linguistic-mechanics is just like physics where inherently any process occurring in the world is theoretically reversible: that is, for example, it can be shown that if a sugar cube can dissolve in water, then the same sugar cube can come out of the water from the dissolved state: now this second process is not what we observe in our daily lives, but it is shown to be still possible, though with a small probability.

    In this way, starting from the basic fact of the existence of Indo-European families of languages, any mechanics can show the direction of language spread from either side. In reality, the mechanics is very conveniently chosen to describe migration into bhArata, and the other scenario - migration out of bhArata - is not spared a thought even by mistake.

    The West, overall, is under the impression that the world is moving towards order, opposite to what Hindus believe: that the world is moving from orderliness towards chaos. West is very confident of the material progress it has led, BhArata thinks otherwise.

    The West would, therefore, see the orderliness in Sanskrit as a later phenomenon - and thus feels impelled to visualise a much more randomised and chaotic language as a precursor to Sanskrit. A Hindu, on the other hand, sees the order within Sanskrit as the starting point of the language, and understands all the present bhASa-s of today related to Sanskrit - be it Hindi, or Bangla, or English, or German - as corruptions of Sanskrit.

    Which viewpoint is right? Is it the best of the times, or the worst of the times?

    Seemingly, there has been a lot of progress - forests and wild-life ("less intelligent species") are replaced with shining metros and civic order; true, there has been a lot of consumption and laying waste of earth's resources in so doing, but it is hoped that with advance in Science our Technology will finally become 100% green.

    However, to better understand the "arrow of time", to understand why processes only proceed in one direction and not the other (even though otherwise sanctioned by the mechanics), a new language was investigated. This is known as, "the 2nd law of thermodynamics" and it postulates: "processes take place predominantly in the direction of the increase in the chaos of universe." Therefore, dissolving of the sugar-cube in the water is along the "arrow of time" because when the atoms of the sugar are dissolved and distributed in the water body, randomness "of the universe" is increased.

    Just as the sugar cube has crystalline orderliness about it, Sanskrit too - in this view - originally has its own orderliness. The more we go down the "arrow of time", the more this crystallinity of Sanskrit gets dissolved.

    The most inner (and the finest) structure of Sanskrit is the way it is able to express AdhyAtma and Devata-s. And this structure pretty much gets dissolved within bhArata itself where we have seen how in classical Sanskrit onwards, we lost to a great extent what Vedic jargon and Devata-s really meant. And there is no point even going outside bhArata because the mythology outside bhArata though may have a few words cognate with Sanskrit, there is no heads or tails involved as far as transmission of AdhyAtmic idea-s is concerned.

    And then, at the second layer of structuring within Sanskrit lies the system of declension - which ensures the free-word-order nature of clauses. We find only a few languages that retain this feature. Free-word-order is what a natural language requires in order to be "context-free" (free from ambiguity) because natural languages cannot employ parentheses to achieve so, the way computer languages do.

    At the third layer we have Sanskrit words. We find here a much greater occurrence of transmission but still, the logical structure in the Sanskrit that gives rise to the words in first place - something that is not the handiwork of Panini or any other grammarian but is inbuilt in Sanskrit - is largely missing in other languages.

    At the outermost layer we have sound systems. Here also, the chaos and disorder in other languages are apparent, so much so, even the Western Indologists are seen - not without justification - by Hindus as "mlechCha having tongues twisted like dog's tail" that cannot get simple consonants and vowel sound of Sanskrit straight.

    I have taken some pains to write all this, so that a lay Hindu ("cultural Hindus" no thanks please) can have an overview of what really is going on.

    But the purpose of this thread ultimately is much more. I talked about the four layers of the structure of Sanskrit; it is clear therefore that to create a clear shared understanding of Sanskrit, we need to get more near to the innermost layers (Devata and declension aspect), instead of wasting our efforts on the outermost ones (rules and sounds).

    To set the agenda:
    1. Discussion of the ideas expressed in the OP.
    2. On "What is Sanskrit". e.g., what do we mean by "deva-bhASA", etc.
    3. How do we go about understanding and teaching Sanskrit naturally?
    4. How should we enable our Hindu minds to "think in Sanskrit?"
    5. How to enrich our practices further by making use of Sanskrit?
    6. Is "progress" eating up the planet? Or, will technology someday be able to reverse any harm done to the universe? Will it reduce the chaos? Or has it done so already?
    7. Any other information or any opinion on Sanskrit or related topic.

    P.S.: mods may move this thread to Devanagari section if required, though this place is cool too.

    KT.
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  2. #2
    Join Date
    April 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Age
    23
    Posts
    561
    Rep Power
    777

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Interesting. Thanks for the write up.

  3. #3

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste,

    What a thought provoking read; interesting indeed as I am becoming more aware of Sanskrit and studying a little computer programming at the same time. One thought jumps to my mind at your wonderful syntax analogy; that the theoretical idea of a quantum computer might very well be depicted as a computer that has no parenthesis in its script or code. As I am sure you are aware; Essentially a computer is quite stupid, reading still only a ticker-tape and counting upon one finger at a time.
    It is the speed alone that gives us the illusion of simultaneous events, creating a suspended illusion of intelligence in the machine, this divide is insolvable given current hardware and current understanding of physical laws. Most are unaware of this illusion of time in the machine.

    Perhaps this also occurs when we over organise too. To think in sanskrit what a wonderful thought, is this perhaps a way to free ones mind from the axioms of enforced linear beliefs? That the entropy of agni, which we perceive as time upon our biological organisms and in our social growth, is all just castles in the sand that admittedly at times mutates in to giant sea monsters. What of our understanding of the bigger picture in all of this; is it really any clearer in the light of entropic intellectual development the differentiation of time? I would hypothesise that the application of the inverse square law here, would show that any function of entropy within our conscious understanding, is categorically shaded from us by logarithmic scales of magnitude. Scales that are themselves numerically very deceptive to the untrained eye. Let us now imagine that immersed in a Fibonacci series of relation to units of elements, rather than in relation to the number 1.

    Scales not at all dissimilar to the vedic consept of time ...

    Food for thought.

    Thank you for your thought provoking posting.
    8i8

  4. #4

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Thank you IC.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    One thought jumps to my mind at your wonderful syntax analogy; that the theoretical idea of a quantum computer might very well be depicted as a computer that has no parenthesis in its script or code.
    Surely that is one way ahead for Computing & computers. But before that we will see a lot of sociological changes, passing through necessary milestones; one that comes to my mind is: the establishment of "online universities" and freeing up of the control of knowledge off the hands of a few. Knowledge imparting should be freed from commercial profiteering, just like the case in the Vedic age.
    To say it in yet another way, "knowledge should be resolved from temporal urges." This is the very principle that forms the essence of Sanskrit itself: free-word-order.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    Perhaps this also occurs when we over organise too. To think in sanskrit what a wonderful thought, is this perhaps a way to free ones mind from the axioms of enforced linear beliefs? That the entropy of agni, which we perceive as time upon our biological organisms and in our social growth, is all just castles in the sand that admittedly at times mutates in to giant sea monsters. What of our understanding of the bigger picture in all of this; is it really any clearer in the light of entropic intellectual development the differentiation of time?
    So this is it, you nicely summed it over.
    Programming languages are still English based, that is a huge sociological problem that will, if, take decades to the least to overcome. To understand with an example, let us talk about the state-of-art in Computing today, known as "object oriented programming (OOP)". Now, programming has three components: data, control structure, and execution. OOP has taken forward programming from its infancy by evolving one of the three aspects - the data - in the correct direction by encapsulating data into "objects". This is exactly how Sanskrit does it: declension, inflection is nothing but encapsulating data in various objects - be it nouns or verbs. But since the carrier of this idea is still English, the object concept is far from fully integrated; it is implemented by the use of clumsy expressions such as "MyAccount.AccountBalance".

    This is just an example. Computing is still in its infancy, even in the objects there is miles to go before the correct way of encapsulating data is understood. And the less said about the control-structure aspect, the better.

    But some credit must be given to the leaders in this field- they stumbled upon a key principle that is going to last. The principle is (relates to the execution aspect of programming), "the resolving of knowledge from temporal necessities", just what I wrote about earlier. This is achieved via "compiler-interpreter" duo, as implemented by the programmers in JAVA-language.
    This is the real foundation of Computing, just as in the Veda AsviniKumar(s) is the foundation. Computing will surely evolve out of its infancy, but this principle is going to last.

    Sanskrit is the language for the Veda, and outrageous as it may sound now, I will not be surprised at all if Sanskrit in one of its avatar becomes the carrier of Computation in a hundred years from today. But as I said already, this should be preceded by other sociological revolutions, led by better evolved, and equipped, humans among us. If someone tries this before that, there is likely to be evil intent behind that, as pointed out in the OP.

    I think we should move ahead in this thread now from the implication of Sanskrit on Computing, to the other points raised in the OP. But not before emphasising that:"Internet has been, and is going to be - even as it walks the baby steps - the best friend of Hindus. We owe it to our posterity to safeguard the Internet from harm."


    KT
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  5. #5

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste KT,

    In response to other aspects of your initial post; it is my belief that the fields of neuro epigenetics and endoctrinology will lay bare the proof to rakshassa that they are rakshassa; from which point on the snake within them will recede and sleep once again. Allowing kind thoughts and non differentiated knowledge to flourish; as is the cycle of a lotus flower.

    Are you familiar with the git transfer protocol and pier to pier computing? This will I think transform the internet, the rakshassa will know how lucidly evolved logic flows rather than damns and the ocean can not be damned, it can only be sailed upon. It is my belief that these protocols are written in much lower languages, which are not object orientated and are therefore not so easily damnable.

    Coagulated consciousness is a term used by swami Lakshamanju; I think that it applies most wonderfully here.

    To my mind You are quite right and it would be fascinating to develop a Sanskrit orientated language at a base level in computing machines, close to the heart of the machine; it would bear, I believe, the test of experiment. Such that we might hypothesise: quantum errors in chips would be minimised if the core functioning was chronologically integrated with the ebb and flow of the tide of the universe; rather than against it; as it would appear is today the case. Perhaps computing will mutate from an English based syntax into something much closer to Sanskrit simply by way of its own evolution for functional necessity; let us not forget how young the English language is. Perhaps Sanskrit will assist in this change by way of her motherly influence upon an unruly wayward child? The crystalline structure of which you speak temporally, to my mind exists tangentially to the language and thus emerges through, rather than being of it ...

    Are you at all familiar with the Welsh language; it has a wonderful similarity to certain Indian Dialects?


    Kind regards.
    Last edited by Mana; 30 March 2015 at 02:39 AM. Reason: n
    8i8

  6. #6

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalicharan Tuvij View Post
    Today a full-time career in Sanskrit is seen as a privilege of those below the poverty line who have kinda lost-out on their lives, and once there in their professions are required no more than to translate Sanskrit texts into other languages and thus further killing and rendering Sanskrit obsolete.
    Why else would śiva destroy, if not for knowledge; Perhaps it is the way in which Sanskrit is rendered that needs attention?
    8i8

  7. #7

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste Mana ji,
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    Namaste KT,In response to other aspects of your initial post; it is my belief that the fields of neuro epigenetics and endoctrinology will lay bare the proof to rakshassa that they are rakshassa; from which point on the snake within them will recede and sleep once again. Allowing kind thoughts and non differentiated knowledge to flourish; as is the cycle of a lotus flower.
    (re the horned character in my new avatar : no, I haven't turned into a rAkshasa yet, after running the above mentioned medical tests; btw it is Lord Yama in his usual horned headgear).
    Are you familiar with the git transfer protocol and pier to pier computing? This will I think transform the internet, the rakshassa will know how lucidly evolved logic flows rather than damns and the ocean can not be damned, it can only be sailed upon. It is my belief that these protocols are written in much lower languages, which are not object orientated and are therefore not so easily damnable.
    I underestimated the utility of the language of computation in understanding Sanskrit concepts (though run the risk of - to my embarrassment - turning into rAkshasa while working at AI
    ). I have some idea of peer-to-peer (P2P) computing, used in applications such as torrents. P2P is based on the idea of distributive computing - where the data flow takes place among many computers instead of from a single one (known as server). Classically (not P2P), when we request any data from the Internet, it is the owner of that data - the server computer - that decides to reply to our query.Sociologically, this server-client model belongs to the TV age of communication (most of the 20th century) when the receiver (client) had no options to interact with the info-owner (TV) and therefore had to accept whatever came his way. And as we know, TV was mainly a propaganda tool in the hands of powerful politicians (who released one sided info and views) and rich industrialists (who used hypnotic advertisements).So, to sum up thus far, how does distributive computing connects to object oriented programming (OOP)?In applied Sciences, many researchers have realised the limiting effects of linear models (thinking). Linear thinking means: step by step, procedural thinking. What they have found out is that a vast majority of natural phenomena can only be realistically modelled with non-linear models. Non-linear means: the effect doesn't strictly follow the cause; the effect itself is capable of changing the cause. Metaphorically, in non-linear models, cause and effect "interact with each other".What is interesting is, it was found out that the only way to solving the non-linear models was with the help of computers (indeed, it isn't unusual today to find Ph.D's submitting their results containing a lot of colourful graphical outputs generated in computers, instead of old-fashioned mathematically worked out results).The computation technique used in solving such models is known as "agent based modelling" - and variants thereof - where there are no clearly defined causes and effects (or servers and clients); instead, everything is made equal - called "agents" - and then the agents thus created are simply left to communicate with each other: a solution naturally emerges after they have communicated enough.Agents are created as objects in the programming stage - so here is the connection with OOP. The actual computation is along the lines of distributed computation since each of the agents is more or less independent of others and therefore can do its own computing sitting anywhere - one agent in Australia, other in Japan, and so on.Now consider a simple sentence in Sanskrit:vidyA dadAti vinayam.विद्या ददाति विनयं ।"Education gives humility."The English sentence (equivalent to the Sanskrit one) produced here necessarily belongs to a linear paradigm: therefore, "gives" follows "Education" and "humility" follows "gives". This isn't just linearity inherent in the basics of English the language - this is also the linearity inherent in the mental constitution of English speakers. And future is pressing us to remove this limitation.In the Sanskrit sentence, we can express the same without any change in meaning as-विद्या ददाति विनयं ।विद्या विनयं ददाति ।ददाति विद्या विनयं ।ददाति विनयं विद्या ।विनयं विद्या ददाति ।विनयं ददाति विद्या ।How is this possible? With our homework already done, it is not very difficult to understand. All the three words in this sentence should be thought of as agents (or objects).विद्या - feminine, nominative nounददाति - present tense verb, third person singularविनयं - neuter, accusative nounSo, each agent encapsulates data - and local computing (inflection) - within. There is no linear flow of knowledge - the agents interact with each other simultaneously. All agents interact with all agents, and the final picture, the understanding, emerges naturally; sounds almost fantastical, doesn't it?This is like an impressionistic painting where the color patches "mix" only in the consciousness of the onlooker to give the whole picture. Or, like quanta emerging from an undifferentiated field.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mana View Post
    Coagulated consciousness is a term used by swami Lakshamanju; I think that it applies most wonderfully here.
    (Advaita is another thing I risk running. Kashmir Shaivism, I know)
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  8. #8

    Re: What is Sanskrit?



    Namaste KT ji,

    It could be said that a Humanity who is struggling to keep a hold of its own
    biological intelligence, might well loose this battle with its self were it that
    AI be achieved; The straw that breaks the Camels back if you like. The
    following hypothetical situation is one to which I refer at times; It would appear
    that the only expanding field in which one might consider working is computing.
    Turing machines have altered most fields of work by actively reducing the level
    of skill required to complete any given task within most fields. Thus greatly
    reducing the skill set required for said occupation to be practised. This its
    self leads to a curious situation in which the mentally more aggressive succeed
    rather that the mentally more able.

    If Ai is achieved; what will our programmers do for work when they become
    totally redundant?

    Will we perhaps create Ai implants for Humans?

    P2P is the logical next step for the internet, servers keeping a back up and
    torrent addresses rather than serving. In an opensource environment it is the
    most creatively intelligent who survive not the most aggressive and the most
    controlling. Rakṣas will not have their more repugnant genes activated, no
    longer able to practise medicine in the same way and profess certain abhorrent
    hypocratic beliefs and subsequent practices. You will find with little research
    proof of the existence of what is know as the "warrior" gene; it is surprising
    to some that it is found in the make-up of many doctors and researchers.

    Endocrinology is proof of how wrong the Hippocrates have been about certain
    aspects of health and reality; Neuroepigentics is the field in which this
    functions; you will not see a doctor for this; but a jyotiṣa. Which brings me
    back to the topic of this thread; what is Sanskrit.

    You make a most wonderful point about causality, Schrödinger's cat does not even
    scratch the inside of the box.

    I must in all honesty admit to not understanding your last bracketed statement.

    Kind regards.


    Last edited by Mana; 03 April 2015 at 01:56 AM.
    8i8

  9. #9

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste Mana ji,

    (sorry the format came off real bad in my last post)

    Actually some of the readings sounded very Advaitic, and my core beliefs are very much polytheistic Hindu, so the last comment was just a light hearted reaffirmation of that.

    I hope to, starting from the "agents" of Sanskrit discussed so far, move towards even more fundamental truths, that of the Devata-s (the realities behind the agents and the frameworks). Thus far we have only been able to draw broad outlines of Sanskrit, focusing on the second layer of the language, that is, declension (or inflection). We can make an effort now to draw from the first layer.

    I have nothing against Advaita. I believe it genuinely corresponds to an important aspect of reality around us. But I also believe that there is more to reality than Advaita. I also consider Kashmiri Shaivism as genuine and true, and therefore both Advaita and K.Shaivism considered as parallel "suspended structures" embedded in the landscape of reality that is of itself made from the "basis" Devata-s.

    Sanskrit is a level playing field: Bhakta-s from different sampradaya-s can come here, from time to time, to gage their progress, by seeing how much of Sanskrit they are able to play.

    I don't think that mentally aggressive types - the Raks (rAkshasa-s) - that you wrote about can do that. They can memorise everything - like a rAvaNa - and even become known as great Sanskritists (like the Indologists), or even teach their computers to do all that instead - but the soul of Sanskrit will ever elude them.

    Sanskrit as taught today is wholly memory based. This is because these Sanskrit pandita-s themselves are the problem, the reason why this language is in disuse, and how the Raks have been able so far to take away this heritage (yes the outer forms only) from Hindus.

    If we don't have the access to the Devata layer of Sanskrit, we should very well forget about its revival.
    Things to remember:

    1. Life = yajña
    2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
    to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
    3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
    4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
    5. r = c. x²
    where,
    r = realisation
    constant c = intelligence
    variable x = bhakti

  10. #10

    Re: What is Sanskrit?



    Namaste KT Ji,

    To my mind; it is a curios thing that you relate advaita with Kashmir śavism;
    are they not fundamentally different, in that advaita only leads towards the
    realisation of Kashmir śavism; which Kashmir śavism then more fully describes.
    Paradoxically; the reality of god conciousness, in its being very real
    indeed; is totally contrary to the very base of the entire advaita philosophy.
    As you quite rightly state: we must start out with an access to the Devatā as
    they are the most obvious root and origin, and thus without such we only
    have a hint or nuance of the wonderful underlaying structure inherent within
    mātrikā cakra and our full understanding of the depth of Sanscrit.

    Are these the perhaps near the origins of the devatā that you have mentioned?

    स होवाच महिमान एवैषामेते
    त्रयस्त्रिंशत्त्वेव देवा इति कतमे ते
    sa hovāca mahimāna evaiṣāmete
    trayastriṁśattveva devā iti katame te

    त्रयस्त्रिंशदित्यष्टौ वसव एकादश रुद्रा
    द्वादशादित्यास्त एकत्रिंशदिन्द्रश्चैव प्रजापतिश्चत्रयस्त्रिंशाविति
    trayastriṁśadityaṣṭau vasava ekādaśa rudrā
    dvādaśādityāsta ekatriṁśadindraścaiva prajāpatiścatrayastriṁśāviti

    We speak of the thirty three Deva of which eight Vasu, eleven Rudra and
    twelve āditya add up to thirty one. Indra and prajāpati (OM) included bring
    their number to thirty three.


    I must thank you KT, your conversation has led me to some most satisfying
    revision of my class study notes, most aptly timed as I grapple with these
    Sanskrit basics; to help me understand their meaning more fully.


    Kind regards.
    8i8

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Personal Library of Hindu Sanskrit Texts Translations
    By saidevo in forum Dharma-related Websites
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 21 May 2015, 02:39 AM
  2. Sanskrit and Tamil -- Which one is older?
    By TatTvamAsi in forum History of Bharata
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 18 August 2012, 01:33 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 27 May 2012, 01:48 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20 August 2010, 11:29 AM
  5. Mera Bharat Mahan!
    By saidevo in forum Mera Bharat Mahan
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29 September 2008, 05:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •