Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: What is Sanskrit?

  1. #11

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste Mana ji,

    Thank you for your intuitive nudge to the thread discussion.
    Advaita and K.Shaivism should, imho, only come into picture when we would be into Sanskrit verbs. Before that, let us explore into Sanskrit nouns.

    Eight Vasu-s, Eleven Rudra-s, Twelve Aditya-s, and so on.. indeed, we are in the right place!
    One thing, that is always overlooked is, suppose a Devata X is a Vasu. Does that exclude the possibility of Sri X being a Rudra as well? Or an Aditya as well?

    That is a point to ponder, particularly in the context of the unitary field of awareness lived by the Rsis.

    "Context" - the word is interesting. Is Sanskrit only approachable via a strictly Vedic route? Or, can Sanskrit be equally approachable by each sampradAya of Hinduism in their own unique ways?

    The consistency of Dharma demands that indeed all sampradaya-s do have gateways to the core of Sanskrit. But, we thought a short while ago that the core of Sanskrit, the innermost layer, belongs to Devata. That is, it was understood that it is the Devata-s who hold the keys to the core of Sanskrit.

    So, does that mean: the same Vedic Devata-s are worshipped under different names in the various sampradaya-s?

    The answer is yes and no. Because each sampradaya is a different "context". And by this "context" I don't mean a passive word here: the context itself is a deity, is real. For example, in Vaishnavism, the "context" is Lord Vishnu.

    In this way, the "context" becomes important. Even in the Vedic knowledge itself; therefore, what we know as Vasu-s, Rudrá-s, Aditya-s or Maruta-s are mostly the "same Devata-s" under "different contexts". And, as discussed before, they also aren't the "same Devata-s" at all.

    Let us, therefore, start with the "smallest context", and that would be, the "Eight Vasu". And we know Sanskrit noun cases are also eight in number.
    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. #12

    Re: What is Sanskrit?



    Namaste kT ji,

    This is quite fascinating KT and I must thank you for highlighting, An
    interesting view indeed that context be portrayed this way, A mental framework
    into which I see a very lucid system forming. This is quite new to me so please
    do carry on whilst I try to construct my understanding about this grammatical
    format. The timing is wonderful as I study dasāṁśa devatā right now; to have an
    understanding of context will be most useful indeed.

    I wonder who might be the aṣṭháṁśa devatā, and their relation to tattva?
    Is Māruta that you mention is one of the dasāṁśa devatā that I am studying, he
    is said to be indicative of vayu, giving life to the grammatical structure, is this as
    you have said different in different regions?

    Kind regards.
    Last edited by Mana; 07 April 2015 at 02:48 AM.
    8i8

  3. #13

    Re: What is Sanskrit?

    Namaste Mana-ji,
    This is quite fascinating KT and I must thank you for highlighting, An interesting view indeed that context be portrayed this way, A mental framework into which I see a very lucid system forming. This is quite new to me so please do carry on whilst I try to construct my understanding about this grammatical format.
    Difficult to carry on, if there is no point. We might better give the thread some rest, just in case, under the shade of the mango tree, dwell here, and just chit n chat or simply sleep over.
    The timing is wonderful as I study dasāṁśa devatā right now; to have an understanding of context will be most useful indeed. I wonder who might be the aṣṭháṁśa devatā, and their relation to tattva?
    These divisional charts are like fractal divisions of a Devata who becomes now a context unto him/herself. For example, a Vasu showing within himself all the eight Vasu-s. Another example, kAli showing all Devi-s within Herself - the mahA•vidyA-s; we can see how various Devi-s of mahA•vidyA-s, though different, are still kAli-s. And this isn't just a theory: for each of the mahA•vidyA-s there are a number of bhakti streams still continuing strong, since times immemorial!
    Therefore, just as the mahA•vidyA-s are modified by their context (kālī) though yet are entirely unique and different deities — similarly — the divisional charts are greatly coloured by the basic chart, and should be only looked into for minute or specific aspects.
    Is Māruta that you mention is one of the dasāṁśa devatā that I am studying, he is said to be indicative of vayu, giving life to the grammatical structure, is this as
    you have said different in different regions?
    Maruta-s (marud•gaNa) are the smallest context, smaller than even the EightVasu (beside the point, but their numbers are quoted always in fractally increased orders). Therefore, the "original" Maruta, who is the "leader" of the marud•gaNa, is likely present in other (larger) contexts.Lord Vayu can be said a marut, when He moves together in the marud•gaNa. However, Maruta himself is different from Vayu.

    "mara" means, "die". The "ta" sound is the sound of Death, as in mrtyu, hatya, etc. On the other hand, the sound related to Vayu - who's murty is the breath - is the "ha" sound, the same as in "hu" which means, "to sacrifice" or "to do Yagya". Sacrifice is a precursor to Death; we will come back to this important piece of information when(ever) discussing the Sanskrit Noun cases, the vibhakti-s.



    An assertion was made in my last post, regarding the "context". Let me further illustrate that with relevant examples.

    Lord Indra is always listed in as an Aditya. In mahA•bhArata, He is also addressed as vAsava {literally, "of the Vasu (community)"}. So we see, the same Devata can be a Vasu and an Aditya, depending on the "context".Again, this "context" itself can be a deity. We shouldn't mistake this word for "different regional contexts, evolved due to differently (and, linearly!) evolved local histories".

    To understand this fully — in mahA•bhArata, a man, in flesh and blood, is also called vAsava. Who is that?

    Bhishma!

    He was not only a vAsava, but "the vAsava", because he was the eighth issue from mA gangA. Bhishma was thus the "Eight•Vasu", the upper bound of all perfections and fullness of nAma and rUpa.

    Yet, there is still something to be told: we have vAsudeva Sri KrishNa also there!vAsudeva means "the son of vasudeva", alright, but we know that vAsudeva is among the thousand nAma-s of Lord Vishnu. And then Krishna was the eighth child as well!

    So we have a vAsava and a vAsudeva existing right there at the same place and the same time!

    So the "context" has nothing to do with place or time. Let us understand this clearly. These are cosmic movements. Bhishma was the son of Mother•gangA, so we may say that the context here, the dynamics, is Lord Shiva. Or it could be that the ashTa•vasu itself be the context here.

    And when KrishNa is addressed as vAsudeva, we know this under the dynamics of Lord Vishnu. On the mundane level, Krishna is "the son of Vasudeva", and is addressed as such, but the inner meaning is many a time is different: Lord Vishnu Himself is called out, who we know — that by "in-to mapping"/ ava•taraNa — can come to be born a Vasu, or an Upendra, or the varAha, so on.
    The bottom line is, we don't even need to go to mahA•bhArata to see it — this great play is unfolding full throttle right here and now in front of our very
    own souls.

    And, the bird chirping, says it all!

    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

  4. #14

    Re: What is Sanskrit?



    Namaste KT Ji,

    A heritage so rich is had to imagine without a tear or two welling in the eyes;
    so far removed from the red brick and grey slate roofs of neatly ordered boxed
    houses standing like regimented soldiers in rows of my natal greygreen British
    abode; how I would love to wait a while beneath the mango tree and discuss my
    origins which are in a much older branch of history than the one I have been so
    half heartedly taught; were I not so readily fleet of mind, I might be stressed
    by the thought of such a change in perspective; duly the plastic life in the
    climes I now habite, actively encourage this; they push the nature of time to
    the surface as if it were a seed waiting to find the light of day. Despite the
    desires of those so linear in their thought that their illusions be preserved,
    I think for fear of thought its self, as rāhu has his way. A wise old
    shipbuilder once said to me: the bridges built from un-sawn trees, are by far
    the strongest; that the older wood which, in retaining its natural form, of the
    more ancient schools of carpentry; resists the erosion of time with a far
    better resilience than a log sawn straight by man and his machine; for in the
    straight beam the veins of the wood are severed whereas in the natural log they
    remain a whole, internal structure quite intact, pṛthvī and jala. How curious a
    desire it is to want to make everything so linear? Rather like trying to remove
    the finer nuances from the musical scale; all very well if you can not hear
    them; but what of those who do; Shall we banish them, so as to confirm to our
    own beliefs? Or worse, but I shall not go there now ...

    I apologise for bringing the smog of the Occident beneath such a glorious tree;
    I should rather eat some fruit and perhaps sing for a while. Learning of all
    there is to know of divisions in fractal branches; that I might glimpse the
    whole for just long enough to know which way is up and around which pole we
    turn.

    That is perhaps an axis rather than a point but when all said and done; that is
    precise enough for me; to know that I am always moving ...

    I wonder now what defines these 8 modes of time in Sanskrit and how I might
    make shorter work of a Jyotiṣa narrative, if they were readily accessible in my
    thought; The mind boggles, and if it didn't, how would we know that we are
    alive?

    You have offered me much food for my thought, for which I thank you.

    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, 03:39 AM
  2. Sanskrit and Tamil -- Which one is older?
    By TatTvamAsi in forum History of Bharata
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 18 August 2012, 02:33 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 27 May 2012, 02:48 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20 August 2010, 12:29 PM
  5. Mera Bharat Mahan!
    By saidevo in forum Mera Bharat Mahan
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29 September 2008, 06:46 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
  •