Well, for high-pitched sounds there is the accent mark as an aid. But it is an aid for them only whose, so to say, mother tongue, is not Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a kind of 'foreign language' even in India for those who have been entirely brought up in a vernacular milieu. They would not know the correct pronunciations in such a 'foreign language'. So the accent mark maybe helpful to them, but it is an artificial aid. If that artificial aid has to go, they have to make Sanskrit as their 'mother tongue'. This is absolutely important when we come to poetry and metres and rhythm. When Krishna and Arjuna are talking on the battlefield they are talking in their native language and the question of accent marks or anything never arose. So, if you want to get into the spirit of the Rig Vedic poetry make Sanskrit your mother tongue. It is as simple as that. When you want to read Savitri make English as your native language, and not a learnt language with props. We must prepare ourselves first in Sanskrit or English to participate in its poetic expression. No external aids needed.
RY Deshpande
Totally agree with you. It is the language of the Rishis, Arsha Bhasha, it is their Mother Tongue, and to make it our own we need to learn Vedic Sanskrit and also Chandas and Vyakarana and Nirukta and Shiksha.
And of course neither Arjuna nor Sri Krishna needed any markings of Udatta, they were not reading the text, they spoke their own language, the same as the Rishis of Rigveda also didn't need them.
It is the tradition which made these marking for us to save the text in time. They considered it to be of the utmost importance. We should try to see "why".
Vladimir
That's perfect. But one clause.
[we need to learn Vedic Sanskrit and also Chandas and Vyakarana and Nirukta and Shiksha ...]
Yes, we need to learn these branches, but learn the way they must have learnt. Surely, that could be different from the formulations of the scholastic-academic schools which came some 4000 years later.
How do we get there? Sri Aurobindo knew it. That is how he not only picked up Sanskrit; he picked up the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda. Or, is it that he remembered that ancient Sanskrit? Seems so.
It is unfortunate the closest disciples of his at that time didn't prod him regarding it. Or, is it that he has already dropped guiding hints which we are unable to decipher? Possibly.
RY Deshpande
Agreed. I thought we are trying to do it His way. Don't we?
Of course, we do not have his power of consciousness, skills and memory. Besides, Sri Krishna himself revealed to him the Origin of all languages. And we try to learn from Him all we can... OM
Vladimir
In the context of analytical-discursive and perceptive-intuitive approaches of looking at the Rig Veda let us take a couple of examples.
[1]
This is from the opening scene of he Gita when Bhīshma has already sent the lion-roar, सिंहनाद, announcing the start of the war, the war that is being fought on the war-field of righteousness and duty. There is the response fro the other side, beginning with the blowing of Pānchajanya, पाञ्चजन्य, by Sri Krishna and Devadatta, देवदत्तं, by Arjuna:
पाञ्चजन्यं हृषीकेशो देवदत्तं धनञ्जयः ।
पौण्ड्रं दध्मौ महाशङ्खं भीमकर्मा वृकोदरः ॥ १-१५॥
Pānchajanya is coming from the Rig Veda, Pancha Janah. That is straightforward. Devadatta is the conch given by God to Arjuna. But the compound Devadatta also allows the meaning “given to God”, a name we give to baby-child, Datta or Dattā. The compound Devadatta allows both, “given by God” or “given to God”. No rules of Sandhi, of the compound, can spell out which is which. But from the context Devadatta of the Gita is certainly “given by God”.
We are applying here not scholastic-academic stipulations, we are simply employing our perception and discernment, the contextual sense also. And it is that which should count, it is that which should count, we have to be alert to it, sensitive to it, psychologically ready to meet it. Naturally, therefore, no accent marks are needed for the shloka of the Gita when quantities of sound, the long-shorts, can be easily recognised.
[2]
The second example is a little more complex, profounder also. Here is the text from Mundaka Upanishad:
यदा पश्यः पश्यते रुक्मवर्ण कर्तारमीशं पुरुषं ब्रह्मयोनिम् ।
तदा विद्वान् पुण्यपापे विधूय निरञ्जनः परमं साम्यमुपैति ॥ [III:1:3]
Its rendering into English with the footnote is from Sri Aurobindo.
When, a seer, he sees the Golden-hued, the maker, the Lord, the Spirit who is the source of Brahman*, then he becomes the knower and shakes from his wings sin and virtue; pure of all stain he reaches the supreme identity.
[* Or, whose source is Brahman; Shankara admits the other meaning as an alternative, but explains it as 'the source of the lower Brahman'. ]
Do we shake from our wings the desirable and the harmful? No, we do not. Then with their stains, with their active marks still present how can we reach identity with the Highest? We cannot. Metaphysically we get caught in the Shankarite interpretation.
The compound Brahma-Yoni, ब्रह्मयोनि, means the womb, the source from which Brahma comes; it also means Brahma as the womb, the source from which things come out. The Spirit as the Source of Brahma, the womb from which Brahma comes out, the Spirit, Purusha, Sachchidanada, he is the creative power of Sachchidanada. It is through Brahma that the Spirit, Sachchidanada throws himself into an act of manifestation. So the entire responsibility about this creation rests with Sachchidanada, Brahma as the Agent of Sachchidanada. In it there is the hope for this creation in the efficacy of dynamism of Sachchidanada. But when Brahma himself becomes the Source, the Womb, Sachchidanada in a sense stands away. That becomes a dangerous situation. When Shankara accepts it, he is slowly slipping into the trap of making this creation a Māyā, Mithyā. No wonder, the consequences are disastrous.
So the choice of accepting one or the other sense of Brahma-Yoni, ब्रह्मयोनि, does not really depend upon scholastic-academic considerations of the language, in fact these scholastic-academic considerations are in a way of no value, of no significance. It all depends upon our sense of perception, upon the consequence which should be happily acceptable.
I will go for Sachchidanada as the Womb of Brahma, Brahma’s Source, Brahma carrying the Will of Sachchidanada, Purusha of the Upanishad, the Spirit. There is the happy possibility of something happy and felicitous happening to the mortal, in the mortal world, in this great and well-designed Mrityu-Loka.
[3]
This example is from the English compound: self-born. This is a very tricky one. If you lay stress on the first, self, it has one meaning; if you lay it on the second, born, it conveys something different; in metrical language self-born is a trochee, and self-born an iamb. As a trochee it would mean born from the self, coming from the Atman; as an iamb born by itself, what we call swayambhu. A selection of the choices has to be based on the context, upon our sense of discernment and perception, upon our psychological build-up. Rules of grammar and considerations of etymology and what not fall flat in those respects. We have to understand the limitations of the language and go by our perception, by our intuition the quality of which will depend upon our psychological growth and wideness.
Don’t go by grammar, to put it rather crudely; go by the inner discernment, by sensitivity, by perception, by intuition, these which have to be made more and more pure, more and more keen, more and more intense, by tending them in the Fire of the Spirit. All correctness comes only out of this Fire-Yajna, the Yajna of the Rig Veda.
The Fire of the Spirit — that’s the thing.
Let auspicious things be to all
विश्वेषां मङ्गलम् अस्तु
RY Deshpande
...
one needs to go outside one's own house in order to see it in the right perspective. This is also the reason why I strongly recommend to all students to take some classes dealing with topics which are far away from them in history, culture or geography. Even if they want to specialise on, say, art-history or medicine as they know it in their own country, they should reach out to gain a broader perspective. This suggestion of mine becomes even more imperative in the case of philosophy. As a matter of fact, a philosopher should first of all be someone who is not afraid to ask questions and unsettle what they thought to be the case. Therefore, they must also constantly look for stimuli from the outside, which could prompt new questions and new unsettlements.
Thus, if we refrain from engaging with other perspectives, we would do better by calling things by their names and call our departments ``Euro-American psychology/architecture/literature…", as discussed not too long ago by Jay Garfield and Bryan Van Norden (here).
Then, there is our ethical obligation towards our neighbours, which should make us consider it our duty to try to work for mutual understanding instead of refusing any confrontation whatsoever. How can we expect our students and co-citizens to feel welcome if we refute to engage with anything but the well-known?
Now, at this point I feel I should deal also with the objections I would prefer never to hear.
``The Western model is now dominating the world. Why should we bother learning about any other?"
Well, I will probably not convince you, if the language of domination is the only one you understand. Would you however be ready to draw all the consequences you would need to and, for instance, decide that there is no need to study the ancient Greek culture, or be ready to learn Chinese and give up Adam Smith, if China turns out to be the dominant culture of the 21st c.?
More seriously, don't you think we have an ethical obligation to make the world a place where there is not only one dominant model? Don't you think that, especially when we deal with philosophy and ethics (mentioned separately to put more emphasis on it) it is irresponsible and ethically blameable to try to impose a single model? [...] https://wp.me/p486Wp-Zb
by elisa freschi
"Darwin's idea, that the same processes occurring slowly and steadily today also have been active throughout Earth history, slowly but steadily shaping the landscape, is known as uniformitarianism."
Happy Darwin Day. Here's @adammaloof on Earth History: https://t.co/FiapqPLw33
Feel Philosophy: Offering a corrective to parochial philosophy https://t.co/aNsYeAi32a
the Orchid and the rOse: Bruno Ganz, Gary Gutting, and Roderick MacFarquhar https://t.co/aWwcgyZYJQ
Because Thou Art: Art ought to be an enabler https://t.co/K7AWNqsMTC
Savitri Era: I won't allow anyone to wash my feet https://t.co/BeOE0J36sm by Tusar Nath Mohapatra @NathTusar
Plasim Radar
I won't allow anyone to wash my feet - Tweets in original by @SavitriEraParty and @NathTusar I won't allow anyone to wash my feet and no one should. It's against personal ethics and modern valu...
The English of Savitri Volume 5 - This is the fifth volume of the English of Savitri series based on transcripts of classes led by the author at Savitri Bhavan, in this case from 6 January ...
The Higher Ranges of Consciousness–M.S. Srinivasan - There are many mansions in my Father’s kingdom, said Jesus Christ. Here is a brief outline of the mansions of consciousness beyond the ordinary mentality...
Weaknesses and Limitations of Socialism as the Model for Human Society - The idea of liberty, when taken to its extreme position of ultimate individualism, leads to serious problems in the formation of society, many of which are...
L’Anniversaire de Mère le 21, et le nouveau Darshan qu’Elle m’a donné… -(Traduction en français de l’article précédent) Habituellement je ne prévois aucun évènement extérieur pour un Jour de Darshan, de façon à pouvoir me conce...
Savitri Satsang 083 pp. 146-147 - A weekly sharing on Savitri by Dr Alok Pandey (an audio recording in English). The post Savitri Satsang 083 pp. 146-147 appeared first on AuroMaa.
Does Śāntideva think bodhisattvas are happy? - A while ago William Edelglass put up a paper for discussion on academia.edu about Śāntideva and happiness. I made some … Continue reading
13 problems of Sankhya; Vedanta proposed Brahman - The shared accent patterns between Greek and Vedic indicate that these patterns are older than both, and certainly not anything newly introduced after Pāṇ...
The secularist killjoy: A reply to Schaefer and Smith - I am grateful to Donovan Schaefer and Caleb Smith for their productive, provocative responses. Both in their different ways have written about debunking an...
