04-16-2007, 09:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Surya+Apr 16 2007, 09:07 AM-->QUOTE(Surya @ Apr 16 2007, 09:07 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vedic Sanskrit vs Classical Sanskrit
I am very confused. How different is Vedic Sanskrit from Classical Sanskrit? What makes it different? Can Panini rules be applied to Vedic Sanskrit?
I have been reading all kinds of theories on it. Some say it an early and older form of Sanskrit, which later evolved into the more sophisticated classical Sanskrit. While, some say its just a different type of Sanskrit, with it's own unique grammar, but existed alongside Classical Sanskrit.
Whatever be the case, it's clear to me that most scholars do not fully understand Vedic Sanskrit. While the translations I have read of texts written in Classical Sanskrit seem to agree with one another, those written in Vedic sanskrit have various translations, where the meaning of the text is considerably changed(compare Griffith, to Dayanada, Aurbindo to Devichand --- worlds apart)
Why is this? Is it because nobody really understands Vedic Sanskrit and everybody is just guessing at the meaning? Are there special rules required to construct Vedic sentences, do the words carry different meanings?
[right][snapback]67147[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Panini's rules apply to vedic sanskrit. This has caused a lot of complexity in the grammar. If you remember the 10-lakAras (verb forms) for each verb, each divided into 3 purushas and 3-vachanas, and you get a bewildering array of verb forms from a root. A number of those lakAras are hardly ever used in classical sanskrit, but are common in vedic.
If you are used to classical sanskrit, vedic sanskrit may appear very difficult. Although I have heard otherwise too. An american professor who had done his PHD in Sanskrit from Berkeley told me that he found vedic sanskrit easier than classical sanskrit. I guess we get used to classical sanskrit from childhood through shlokas etc and don't realize that someone learning from scratch may find vedic easier.
Regarding interpretation, by the time of Panini, vedic sanskrit was already becoming difficult to comprehend. Given that sanskrit roots have multiple meanings, one can do many creative interpretations of vedic literature if one wants to do that only using a garammar and a dictionary.
Maxmuller/Griffith etc are unreliable (add Devi Chand to that too, since he follows in their footsteps). Their purpose was to denigrate hinduism and that bias shows up in how they chose to interpret. They also overused "karmakandi" interpretation of Sayana who was about a millenium after Panini. The result is that they created a translation of the vedas which fit their desires as "a song of the nomads".
The proper approach is to use whole vedic corpus, including Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upansihads, Sutras etc to come at an interpretation. The so called "nomadic song" school falls flat on its face when faced with subtle metaphysics of Aranyakasa and Upanishads and many parts of rgveda.
Rgveda is held in greatest respect by hindus not only because it is the oldest text, but that it is a "revealed text". Rishis "saw" (mantra-drashTA R^ishi) the mantras in a spiritual experience, they didn't just cook them up like a nomad's poetry. At least that is the traditional view. And that traditional view can't simply be uprooted just because a western indologist learnt to use a grammar and a dictionary and can find a new interpretation. Trying to interpret Rgveda witout this traditional import assigned to it is a malevolent or futile excercise.
Swami Dayananda and Sri Aurobindo did a great job in wresting the initiative from the western indologists. Sw. Dayananda was a great sanskrit scholar and Sri Aurobindo was a great yogi. Sri Aurobindo said that only in rgveda he could find statements that affirmed to him his own spiritual/yogic experiences.
I would take their interpretation anyday over indologist versions.
I am very confused. How different is Vedic Sanskrit from Classical Sanskrit? What makes it different? Can Panini rules be applied to Vedic Sanskrit?
I have been reading all kinds of theories on it. Some say it an early and older form of Sanskrit, which later evolved into the more sophisticated classical Sanskrit. While, some say its just a different type of Sanskrit, with it's own unique grammar, but existed alongside Classical Sanskrit.
Whatever be the case, it's clear to me that most scholars do not fully understand Vedic Sanskrit. While the translations I have read of texts written in Classical Sanskrit seem to agree with one another, those written in Vedic sanskrit have various translations, where the meaning of the text is considerably changed(compare Griffith, to Dayanada, Aurbindo to Devichand --- worlds apart)
Why is this? Is it because nobody really understands Vedic Sanskrit and everybody is just guessing at the meaning? Are there special rules required to construct Vedic sentences, do the words carry different meanings?
[right][snapback]67147[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Panini's rules apply to vedic sanskrit. This has caused a lot of complexity in the grammar. If you remember the 10-lakAras (verb forms) for each verb, each divided into 3 purushas and 3-vachanas, and you get a bewildering array of verb forms from a root. A number of those lakAras are hardly ever used in classical sanskrit, but are common in vedic.
If you are used to classical sanskrit, vedic sanskrit may appear very difficult. Although I have heard otherwise too. An american professor who had done his PHD in Sanskrit from Berkeley told me that he found vedic sanskrit easier than classical sanskrit. I guess we get used to classical sanskrit from childhood through shlokas etc and don't realize that someone learning from scratch may find vedic easier.
Regarding interpretation, by the time of Panini, vedic sanskrit was already becoming difficult to comprehend. Given that sanskrit roots have multiple meanings, one can do many creative interpretations of vedic literature if one wants to do that only using a garammar and a dictionary.
Maxmuller/Griffith etc are unreliable (add Devi Chand to that too, since he follows in their footsteps). Their purpose was to denigrate hinduism and that bias shows up in how they chose to interpret. They also overused "karmakandi" interpretation of Sayana who was about a millenium after Panini. The result is that they created a translation of the vedas which fit their desires as "a song of the nomads".
The proper approach is to use whole vedic corpus, including Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Upansihads, Sutras etc to come at an interpretation. The so called "nomadic song" school falls flat on its face when faced with subtle metaphysics of Aranyakasa and Upanishads and many parts of rgveda.
Rgveda is held in greatest respect by hindus not only because it is the oldest text, but that it is a "revealed text". Rishis "saw" (mantra-drashTA R^ishi) the mantras in a spiritual experience, they didn't just cook them up like a nomad's poetry. At least that is the traditional view. And that traditional view can't simply be uprooted just because a western indologist learnt to use a grammar and a dictionary and can find a new interpretation. Trying to interpret Rgveda witout this traditional import assigned to it is a malevolent or futile excercise.
Swami Dayananda and Sri Aurobindo did a great job in wresting the initiative from the western indologists. Sw. Dayananda was a great sanskrit scholar and Sri Aurobindo was a great yogi. Sri Aurobindo said that only in rgveda he could find statements that affirmed to him his own spiritual/yogic experiences.
I would take their interpretation anyday over indologist versions.