sanskrit's nature and history 2

7/29/2019 Sanskrit's Nature and History 2

1/8

SANSKRITSNATUREANDHISTORY

Part 2

FURTHER DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE VEDIC SANSKRIT ITSELF, AS WELL ASWITHIN THE CLASSICAL SANSKRIT ITSELF

REPEATING INTRO

This is several questions made in the form of an article. I find them intriguing and aspire for answers. I beg kind insightful

devotees to offer insights, and, if they find time, to evaluate or critique the answers which i have offered according to my

own limited understanding. The very questions are written in bold text. The purpose of this is for my insignificant self to gain

clearer understanding on the subject. That would help me in completing a written presentation on Vedic culture, which is

under preparation. (Actually, in the whole picture that modern academia has about the Vedic culture, this subject is a pretty

foundational one.)

The article is in 3 parts:

1. Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Sanskrit nature and origin of differences

2. Further differences within Vedic Sanskrit itself, as well as within Classical Sanskrit itself

3. Other languages relations with Sanskrit

To answer some of the questions, we will need a person who has certain learning in both the linguistics and the scriptures.

As i suppose that among us there might be not a very great number of those, i therefore beg you, if you know some devotee

of such qualifications, let them know of this humble request, so that they may decide to help here.

The main parts of the main questions are as underlined text. The main parts of the subsidiary questions are as dash-

underlined text. There are also smaller questions as normal text.

In responding to this article, i beg devotees to please give clear references, as far as possible, to back up their insights orconclusions. This helps tremendously to define a clear understanding of topics. Also, this inquirer can be reached at

[email protected]. Any clarifications will be very welcome.

I humbly thank the readers in advance.

SUMMARY of the PART 1In the 1st part of the article i tried to summarize upon the differences between the Vedic andClassical Sanskrit, and to summarize a couple of views upon the question of the origins of thosedifferences (http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11538). Mainly, the question is whether we can acceptas sastric the view that those differences exist eternally, as two natural and eternal varieties withinthe unlimited expanse of the Vedic sound. We indicated that such a view is not accepted by the

mainstream academy, whose contention is that those differences must have appeared only withtime, as a result of natural evolution of language from its crude and primitive, rigid stages of VedicSanskrit, to its later, more diversified, creative and sophisticated stages of Classical Sanskrit. Wesomewhat discussed also a views in between of these two.

The conclusion, though open to revision, was that the sastric and samradayic view is as wesaid above: As far as i am concerned, the sastric data available to me, and my best reasoning, leadme to conclude that the sastras and parampara maintain that the two systems of Sanskrit , theVaidika (Vedic) and Laukika (classical), are two eternally and simultaneously existing dialects ofthe same language, one liturgical and the other vernacular, and that there are unlimited differentminor dialects within both of these two major Sanskrit-systems, and all of them existing withinoriginal Vedic sound. However, i would beg learned devotees, for their confirmation or otherwise,and for their sharing of some of their insights on the topic.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.dandavats.com/?p=11538http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11538http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11538http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11538mailto:[email protected]


2/8

Part 2

FURTHER DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE VEDIC SANSKRIT ITSELF, AS WELL AS

WITHIN THE CLASSICAL SANSKRIT ITSELF

The next interesting point is that the linguists identify several different layers of Sanskrit, or its

dialects, grammatical and stylistic variations of it, within the Vedic Sanskrit (means within the sruti

literature itself). Then, within the smriti-literature itself (comprising Puranas and other classical-sanskrit literature), they also identify several different layers, or variations, of the classical Sanskrit

itself.

That fact is not inconsistent with the statements of the sastras and sampradaya, for thosestatements clearly allow that, apart from the major differences between the two major systems,

there exist also unlimited different minor dialects within both of these two major Sanskrit-systems,and all of them existing within original Vedic sound, as we said a few lines above, as well as in thepart 1 of the article.

The variations within the Vedic Sanskrit i find nicely summarized by Gopiparanadhana P, in theparagraph from which we have cited previously:

The four Vedas are considered ruti, including in each Veda the Sahit collections of

hymns and incantations, the Brhmaa ritual interpretations, the more esoteric interpretations

of the rayakas, and the philosophical Upanisads. To ordinary perception, the language and

contents of the Samhits, especially of the Rig Veda Samhit, seem the most archaic. The

Brhmanas, ranyakas, and Upanisads appear to be afterthoughts, speculations by later generations

about the meaning and purpose of the Samhits; they are written in a variety of successivelynewer dialects, gradually approaching classical Sanskrit. The Upanisads seem an altogether

different sort of work, discussing as they do otherworldly concerns hardly touched upon in theolder ritual sruti.

Some of the Upanishads are even very close, linguistically, to the classical Sanskrit of the Puranas.

Current academic view on the differences

All this provides the reason for the historical linguists to see Sanskrit as a language which, like allother languages we know, gradually developed with the passing of millennia, not having an eternally

existing system of standards. Thus they establish a chronology of the development of Sanskrit. In thischronology, those different layers of Sanskrit are thought to be phases of its development in thecourse of time. In that development, the Rig Vedic (samhita) Sanskrit is the ancientmost, then comesthe (samhita)mantra-language of the Atharva, Sama and Yajur Veda, as the second layer, then

there are two other layers, and then, as the last, fifth phase, comes the language of some of the

Upanisads. Other Upanisads are even considered post-Vedic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#Chronology

In such a view, the phase ofClassical Sanskrit begins with the famous sage-grammarian, Panini,who wrote the most famous known grammar-work on Sanskrit, the Astadhyayi. His work is the mostsystematic grammar-work preserved, and is the basis of the known classical Sanskrit. There were

other grammarians who presented grammars, prior to him, as is known from the references in his
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#Chronologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#Chronologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit#Chronology


3/8

work, as well as from the references in the works of significantly later commentators and authors.But, the works of the ancient grammarians other than Panini are lost, except for a few rare pieces.

In this world it is natural that one thinker disagrees with another on certain points, or builds on thepredecessors points. Since the later historical commentators and authors rebut certain postulates of

the ancient authors, and/or build on their opinions, mentioning them in their works, it gives animpression of being an ongoing trend, leading one to conclude that also those ancient authors werein certain disagreement with one anothers opinions on certain aspects of language and its

philosophy, and that they didnt have an already established authoritative system of knowledge on

which they were but elaborating and discussing its various aspects. So again theres an impression ofgradual development of language and linguistic thought.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammarians

Then, within the classical Sanskrit literature itself, there are also linguistic differences, whichallegedly seem to contribute to the same view. I remember to have read somewhere, that differentsmritis have different stylistic and linguistic characteristics. I cannot recall where i read it, nor can i

say to have any vague but defined picture about what kind of differences those are. But on accountof those differences, the historical linguists attribute different dates to different Puranas, Itihasas,and other smritis. And they serve to them as another reason to regard Sanskrit as another evolvinglanguage, and to regard the Vedic literature as any other literature that have unorganizedly amassedin time, or as Gopiparanadhana P put it, to disregard the Vedas own claim to being a single,coherent whole.: There are many superficial reasons, therefore, for critical scholars to disregard

the Vedas own claim to being a single, coherent whole. indologists try to dissect the separate

organs of the Vedic corpus, unaware that the organism is actually alive. (Tattva S. 12, pp by GPDP)

Is it the only reasonable view indeed?

Now, in this regard, i would first of all want to askWhat kind of differences are, those linguistic differences between the Puranas and Puranas, andbetween other smritis and other smritis?; Are they such that they necessarily indicate the changes oflanguage with time, or they allow to be explained, perhaps with a little broadening of mind, as simplydifferent styles and moods of literary presentation, which, although being mutually different to acertain degree, may exist simultaneously within a greater and richer original language system?Remember, that is what the Sanskrit should be, according to (my understanding of) the already citedBhag.11.21.38 with Visvanath CT purport (see it cited the part one), which to me gives a picture of alanguage system unlimitedly rich and diversified within itself from the very beginning of creation(and even before it), containing diverse usable and allowable language rules, suitable to the needsand moods etc. of a subject which is to be expressed. Is this understanding allowable to apply to

those smritic differences?

Now, along the same lines, i would try to suggest a general understanding by which to account for allof the differences we have mentioned thus far, whether srutic or smritic or mutual. So, for all thosedifferences, is it allowable to view them in the way as follows:(allowable not according to the crude academic evolutionistic prejudices and paradigms, butaccording to the sane logic and reason)

2.1

WHAT ABOUT THIS VIEW?

2.1.1 Basic paradigm for academic view - linear development of each and any structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammarianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammarianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammarians


4/8

In any understanding, the whole picture will depend on the nature of its underlying paradigms,because it is from those basic paradigms that the entire understanding ramifies. So we start fromthe fundamental paradigms.

The whole academic world of the last few centuries has been built upon the underlying paradigmthat every and any organized, or complex structure, is something that cannot exist originally on itsown, but is something that has to develop with time and in time. No other possibility is there for theexistence of anything complex and consciously organized. So, if there is a complex, many branched,multidivisioned structure, as are the language systems, it could come into existence only by a gradualdevelopment in the course of time, through many stages. If something is many-branched, then itnecessarily means that each branch of a phenomenon had to develop with time, on its own, due tospecial factors and circumstances. So the existence of many branches of Sanskrit language and vedicliterature can only mean there was a gradual accumulation and stratification of material.

But the above underlying paradigm is not something that is logically provable as a universal law, but

is just an arbitrarily chosen assumption, an arbitrarily imposed axiom. After all, such a view is unableto explain its own crucial moment, the crucial moment of the very process it proposes : how the veryfirst organized-ness came about. Thus, the bio-evolutionists were never able to explain how the firstliving thing came about, and in the same way, there is no valid and confirmable explanation of howthe first human articulated language or languages came to exist. How the unarticulatedcommunication, an ugh-ugh-language, where theres no consistent connection between thoughtsand words, became an organized and systematic communication where thoughts are organizedlyexpressed through precise sound combinations in a precise syntax, without a superior educationaldirection? How it came about the point where mmm-aaaa-ugh, combined with gesticulations,became May I tell you about the idea that came to my mind all of a sudden??

Our view is that the human being, supposed to begin to communicate articulately, ought 1) toalready have a ready psychological potential to do so, i.e. to articulately communicate; 2) to be givena superior educational direction which will offer him a live and ready, exact experience of such acommunication during an amount of time, thus enabling him to assimilate it (whether externalexperience, like a child hearing others communicate, gradually assimilates the system; or internal,like a child who suddenly begins to speak a language foreign to his native language, due to themental revival of memories from a previous life); Is there any other way to make a conscious being aspeaking one? As far as i know, only vague ideas, called theories, exist, but far from anythingconsistent. Is this right?

2.1.2 Vedic basic paradigm timely manifestation of already existing subtle concepts

(bjas)

However, if we adopt a view that an original language, or languages system, exists on its own, thenthe problem disappears. And our assumption is not deniable logically. It can be denied only if weproclaim and accept the above prejudice, which says the contrary, as a logical axiom.

It is undeniably clear that for any organized-ness, there has to be an organizational concept. Withouta subtle or conscious concept of the organization, there can be no organization. Without information,there can be no organization. So any organized structure necessarily requires its own seed aconscious concept of what will the thing look like. An archetypal set of characteristics of a thing hasto be there on a conscious level, in order for the thing to exist.


5/8

The Vedic system is exactly this. Any existing phenomenon has its subtle seed, or bja. Subtle means a conscious idea of it. To understand our simple view on the multidivisioned-ness of Sanskritlanguage and vedic literature, one has to first deeply familiarize himself with the Vedic concept ofexistence. One needs to open his intellect to this option, at least, and let it go in. It is so because thewhole Vedic logic of existence of things in space and time is radically different from the unfounded

but deeply rooted paradigm in the academic mind of the last few centuries, which we describedabove. In the Vedic concept, seed for each and every one of the living forms already exist, and thoseseeds consist of the subtle information for each of them, i.e. the conscious ideas, for each of them.The living forms never evolve by a blind or unconscious process, independent of subtleinformation. This holds not only for the living forms, i.e. those that obviously manifest the symptomsof life, but holds actually for any complex or organized structure no such structure developsindependently of subtle information. And the whole universe is such that if we look closely to anydetail of universal existence, we will find no unorganized structure everything in the universe, to behonest, is ultimately very complex, extremely complex. Ultimately therefore, for anything existing inthis universe, a subtle organizational plan is required. Indispensable. For a broad and unprejudicedintellect, such a conclusion is inescapable.

Some references about this idea ofbjas: you can find it nicely summarized in Human Devolution

by Drutakarma Prabhu (Michael Cremo), chapter 11, pages 485-486. There he corroborates the ideaby the following references: BG 7.10, CC Madhya 19.152pp, S.Bhag. 3.10.7pp. Some of other relevantreferences would be: S.Bhag. 2.1.25pp, 2.5.11pp, 3.5.27, 7.9.33-34, 11.12.20-23, Brahma Samhita5.13. One could find many others.

2.1.3 Extending the paradigm to language

What to say then about language, which in itself is not only undeniably organized and complexphenomenon (the linguists know it well), but is also much subtler than the mere things in the

universe, and much more interconnected to consciousness and closer to it? So, in order for anylanguage to exist at all, a set of archetypal characteristics of it should already exist somewhere on aconscious plane of the universe. The particular language will manifest exactly then when the time-energy activates its particular subtle set of archetypal characteristics, letting them manifest in thegross reality.

(As far as time, it is a divine energy that activates the latent seeds of things and events in theuniverse. Anything, any phenomenon and event in the universe, is the particular combination ofgunas. When the time, who is the mover of the gunas, brings about that specific combination ofgunas which corresponds to that event, and which is until then written on a subtle plane as theevents seed, then that particular thing or event or phenomenon will manifest the seed will sprout

and bring the fruit. In other words, there is the seed, and when the time makes outer circumstancesappropriate, the seed brings about the fruit.).

A language is a system of expressing the ideas through sound. It is extremely subtle. It involves themind, intelligence, and the subtle prana. The qualitative properties of the system by which oneexpresses his ideas through sound, will depend on the quality of his internal organs mind andintelligence, who are the repository of the ideas, thoughts and will. Altogether they may be termed,and often are, as mind. According to the guna-combination by which the mind is dominated, histhoughts and ideas will have a certain quality, and will condition by that quality the sound when theybecome expressed. They will condition by their quality the whole sound system of their expression,which is the language. And, as gunas change, the sound system will also assume changes.

Necessarily. Therefore, different languages develop by the manifesting of specific combinations of


6/8

the gunas in the course of time.Thus for any language there already exists a set of its archetypalcharacteristics, latently present in the gunas themselves.

As far as Sanskrit is concerned, it is samskrita, or refined, purified, or, as we said, it is the inherent

feature ofbhat, orabda-brahma, which means pure vedic sound. As the property of

eternal and pure vedic sound, it is also eternal and pure, and it elaborates the vedic sound in manypure verbal varieties, either vaidika or laukika (as per 11.21.38-40), thus reflecting the variegatednessof the transcendence. Because also the higher realms of the universe are predominantly free oflower modes, Sanskrit is also their language. Of course, as we said, on earth it can become, and doesbecome, degraded with ages, becoming mixed with tinges of lower modes. However, the aforesaidpure scriptural Sanskrit, divya-language, in its various varieties of expression and style, remains thelingua franca of the mainstream of the civilization guided by rishis and rajarshis. It specially remainsthe preserved language for the yajna-performances, meditations, upasanas etc. (vaidika Sanskrit), aswell as for illuminated conferences, discourses and speeches (laukika Sanskrit). Until, as we said, Kali-yuga advents, at which point the civilization gradually becomes cut-off from the connection witheducational and managerial personnel of the universe, and the pure language remains only in the

scriptures.

Sanskrit, sages, vyakaranas

So the Sanskrit dialects and varieties we find in the scriptures are the eternally existing varieties ofthe original laws of verbal expression. These different eternal varieties of original language exist

constantly along with the vedic scriptures. They are inherent in the bhat, in the ocean of vedicsound. From time to time, however, when the need manifests, they become also codified, in theform of different Sanskrit grammars (vyakaranas), by qualified vedic sages. Presently, of thegrammars by such sages we have only the Paninis vyakarana in full, and some rare pieces of others.It is remarkable that Panini doesnt take credit to himself for the grammar he presented heacknowledges it to be a gift by Lord Siva, which means it exists prior to Panini. Anyway, today only

this one is available in full, but previously there existed a good number of them. At least, Paninimentions ten other vyakarana-authors previous to him. And Panini is also an ancient sage of vedictimes, at least according to the Puranas, which place him as a contemporary of such persons asBhrigu, Kasyapa, Durvasa, Gautama, Vasistha, Bharadvaja and so on. (This is found in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Prakriti 4.57,58 and Ganapati 23.11-15; i found this info in the book The TrueHistory and the Religion of india by HH Swami Prakasanand Sarasvati , p 549-550.) According to thisaccount, he is not a recent person that lived and composed his grammar around 400 BC, as thecurrent academic view has it.(?)

So the different scriptures may conform to different systems of grammar, which may be somewhatdifferent than those of Panini. And, even with the same grammar, they can convey their respective

messages in different styles of language, according to the different moods, needs and requirements.Since at the time when Vyasa and his great disciples and grand-disciples etc. were editing the Vedas,Puranas, etc., these different grammars and vocabularies were known, and also since those greatsages headed with Vyasa were expert connoisseurs of those different linguistic styles, therefore somany differences within scriptures and their modes of verbal expression. (As we know, those sageswere kavis, geniuses, not just learned memorizers of books contents.)

2.1.4 Conclusion:So, differences there should be. Many of them

In that light, is it right, proper and arguable to conclude like this? (and write it as a part of a bookdealing with Vedic culture):


7/8

1. Generally speaking (?)Generally speaking, the major differences there are between srutis and smritis. Then, differences

there are between the srutis and srutis, and also between smritis and smritis. Then, there are also

differences, although somewhat minor, within the same kind of srutis (like between the Rigvedic

samhitas and Samavedic samhitas) and between the same kind of smritis (like between Puranas and

Puranas, like Bhagavata and Visnu Purana).

Those linguistic diversities in the scriptures are the natural feature of the Vedic sound, and are due

to many reasons. They may be due to the scriptures inherent diversities in the characters and moods,

in their topics, in their purposes and intentions, in their functions and intended roles, in their aims

and scopes, and also due to the different mentalities and conditions of those for whom they are

meant. The differences may appear within one very same scripture also, of course. So, it is not

unnatural that the ritual language, language of sound-formulas intended for exact technical

psychophysical energy-effects, has one set of rules, while the language for common communication

has another. The former is Vaidika Sanskrit, the latter is Laukika-Sanskrit. Further, isnt it natural that

a liturgical recital (comparable to vedic samhitas) and deeply technical philosophical tractate

(comparable to the Upanisads) have different linguistic style of expression and different vocabulary?And that a summary compendium of philosophical hints, intended for easier memorizing of a series

of very intricate and wide concepts (comparable to philosophical sutras), be of a still significantly

different linguistic features? And that the epics (like Puranas and itihasas), meant for a wider public,

be still significantly different? And that between those epics themselves, or even within the one very

same work, there be notable differences, depending on the atmosphere, temper, mood and mentality

etc. that permeate its particular content, and on the state of consciousness the work aims to produce

in a reader? Why should we conclude, on the basis of such differences, that the particular works, or

their particular parts, were composed in significantly different ages, or even by different persons,

necessarily? No it shouldnt be necessary, that the rishis who composed vedic samhitas in vedic

Sanskrit, were ignorant of classical Sanskrit spoken by the Puranas.

2. For the srutis themselves(?)For example of how we should expect differences between srutis themselves , we could take the

four Vedic samhitas. Thus, Rig Veda samhita and Sama Veda samhita contain many mantras in

common. Those mantras are equal, saying the same things in the same words, but are stylized

differently. The cause for this is the different usage of those same mantras found in the different

Vedas. All the mantras of the four Vedas are meant to be used in yajnas. Each Vedas mantras are

used by different priest in the yajna, and serve different purpose in yajna. In the yajna-performance

there were four principal priests. Each of them had his specific functional domain, different than the

other three. So, each of them recited specific kind of mantras, suitable for his particular function.

Each of the four Vedic samhitas is the repository of one of the four kinds of mantras. One priest

recited mantras meant for eulogizing, glorification, offering respectful homages (they are among Rig-

mantras). Those mantras are intended for invoking the special guests (demigods and God) to the

yajna and offering them respectful festive hails. Meanwhile, the other priest recited mantras that

had musical function (they are arranged as extremely complex rythmo-musical patterns, humanly

non recognizable as such)(Sama-mantras). Those were intended as a melodious songs for the

pleasure of the aforesaid guests. Other samhitas, of other two Vedas, had still another functions.

That those different mantras have mutually different linguistic features, it is quite expectable and

befitting. It should be so. If, on account of that, we see it necessary to conclude that one of those

series of texts came in existence centuries after another of the series, isnt it just our projection of our

evolutionistic pre-assumptions, deeply rooted in us, into the unknown the vedic texts, whose nature

is, were bound to admit, ultimately outof our purview?

3. For the smritis themselves(?)


8/8

(i found this point in a book The True history and the Religion of India(page 236) written by, asfor my impression, a respectably dedicated vaisnava, of the name Swami Prakashanand Sarasvati.His exact words are a little bit adapted by me):

Regarding the differences between smritis and smritis, lets take example of the Puranas. The

language of the Bhagavatam is very scholarly, poetic and rich, as it explains the richest philosophy ofGods love, Godsrealization along with its other affiliated knowledges. . The language of the other

17 Puranas is less rich, and the language of the Upanisads sometimes leans towards the Vedic

samhita side.

All the scriptures are Divine powers with their own speciality. We can clearly observe the

peculiar character of the Vedas in the tenth canto, chapter 87, of the Bhagavatam, where the Vedas

themselves are offering their homage to God. The whole chapter is grammatically perfect, but it is a

kind of a twisted and not very charming style of language. This is the style and the character of the

Vedas (samhita parts). All the chapters of Bhagavatam, before and after this particular chapter, have

elegant literary presentation, but this particular chapter, which is the style of the language of the

Vedas, stands out with its own peculiarity.

I know that all this may sound pretty logical and convincing to an open-minded person as a devoteenaturally is. However, please, if there is any valid objection, whether scriptural, logical or scientific, toanything above, kindly present it. If you have any idea of an answer to it, please present that also.And if there is any valid confirmation you know for anything of the above, please also do present it.Thats my humble request (and ambitious one, i admit).

sanskrit's nature and history 2

Documents