Sanskrit vs Tamil

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

We received insightful responses from Srimans Sridhar Srinivasan and

Sadagopan on the above subject. I concur with their opinion that

Sanskrit and Tamil are the two eyes of our Sampradayam. The two

languages are complimentary as far as Ubhaya Vedanta Siddhantam goes.

In my humble opinion attempts to demonstrate the superiority of one

language over the other are simply exercises in futility.

 

Hoary Vedic declarations along with outpourings of Anubhavam are the

reasons for the richness and vastness of our Sampradayam. Several

Acharyas like Sri Nathamuni, Sri Yamuna Muni, Sri Ramanujacharya,

Swami Desikan and Manavalamaamunigal were adept at both languages.

Restrictions imposed by their times and places (audience for their

Pravachanas and Kalakshepams) where they preached

necessitated excessive use of one language even to the point of ignoring

the other. For example Sri Ramanujacharya's works are exclusively in

high-flown Sanskrit. This in large part was due to the

need for establishing our Sampradayam on firm ground using

Shruti-based arguments. Sri Bhashya for example is terse and

argumentative in nature. Several references from the Chandogya Upanishad

have been used to establish the ultimacy of Lord Narayana

and his eternal relationship with Sri.

 

On the other hand, the sublimal and soulful outpourings of Andal,

Nammazhwar, Kulashekara Azhwar, and Tiruppan Azhwar mirror the

message of the Vedas. The inner meanings of Sama Vedam can be seen

from the thousand verses of Sri Tirukuruhoor Satakopan. Sri Andal's

tribute in the Koodarai Vellum Seer Govinda brings out the brilliance of

the Govinda Namam, its association with Vedam and its connections to

PraNavam. Several important Vedic passages from the Taittriya Upanishad,

Narayana Upanishad, Vishnu Sooktam and Narayana Sooktam

are marvellously connected in Sri Kulashekara Perumal's eulogy to the

Lord of Seven Hills in the fourth decad of PerumAl Tirumozhi. Tiruppan

Azhwar's AmalanaatipirAn brings succinctly summarizes the message of the

Vedas in ten consummate verses while providing a beautiful Anubhavam of

the Lord of Srirangam from head to foot.

 

Swami Desikan, who had complete mastery over Vedam and Divya Prabandham,

very eloquently states that the inner meanings of the Vedas will become

apparent only through a study of the Azhwar's works. As far as I am

concerned this statement is sufficient to set to rest

any debates on the supremacy of Sanskrit over Tamil or vice-versa.

 

Namo Narayana,

 

Muralidhar Rangaswamy

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas:

 

Sri Sridhar Srinivasan and I exchanged a few e-mails with Prof. George Hart

of Berkeley on this subject. I would like to present a very brief summary

of Prof. Hart's views.

 

It is quite obvious that in the realm of true bhakthi superiority of one

language over another does not arise. As a matter of fact it is

nonsensical to even think in those terms. Quoting Sri Sadagopan, we need

both Sanskrit and Tamil for a "stereoscopic vision" of our great sampradayam.

 

However, many hold a mistaken view of Tamil's contributions, probably due

to lack of exposure to Tamil. This is further confounded by Tamil

chauvinism by certain section of Tamil population who are anathema for

asthikas. However, IMHO, as Sri Vaishnavas we ought not let the DK/DMK

section to hold us back from developing a proper appreciation for the true

and immense contributions of Tamil.

 

The following are just some points made by Prof. Hart. In the most part, I

have used Prof. Hart's own words. But I have taken the liberty of editing

them here and there for continuity. I had to do this because I have cut

and pasted from two or three of his mails. Please note that I have NOT

included all of Prof. Hart's arguments. The ones that are not directly

related to Tamil and Sanskrit are left out.

 

 

-- adiyEn

 

 

================Prof. Hart's comments================================

1. Neither Sanskrit nor Tamil are particularly old in the world scheme of

things. Sanskrit is documented earlier than Tamil.

 

2. Sanskrit has borrowed quite as much from Dravidian as Dravidian has from

Sanskrit. Tamil has borrowed more words from Sanskrit than Sanskrit has

from Dravidian. It is a trivial thing for a language to borrow vocabulary.

But when it uses another language's syntax to form the way it expresses

things, and uses another language's phonology for its sounds, that is

really profound influence. The fact is, Sanskrit HAS been influenced in

this way by Dravidian. Of course, some Dravidian languages have also

borrowed Sanskrit sounds (bh, etc.) But none of the four Dravidian

languages I have read has borrowed anything from Sanskrit syntax that I can

identify. Much of the syntax of Sanskrit is Dravidian, and it has a large

Dravidian vocabulary. Its system of phonetics is profoundly influenced by

Dravidian -- Indo-Aryan is the only IE family with retroflexes.

 

3. Sanskrit also lacks some sounds that are available in Tamil. Tamil has

short e and o, zh, R, n, and many permutations of stops -- e.g. k in akam

-- which are not found in Skt. Actually both languages have about the same

number of phonemes.

 

4. The word Dravidian clearly comes from the word Tamil. This has been

demonstrated time and time again -- the earliest occurrences of the word in

IA are dramiDa ==> draviDa.

 

5. I can attest that the grammar of Sanskrit is no more elegant or perfect

than any other IE language. It very much resembles Russian, Latin, and

Greek (which I have also read) -- to which it is closely akin. To my mind,

Tamil and the other Dravidian languages have much more elegant and logical

structures. Consider this: in Dravidian, you can take any sentence and

turn it into an adverb, adjective, or noun by simply changing the ending on

the verb. Then you can embed that sentence in any other sentence. The

Dravidian relativizing system is extremely straight-forward and logical;

the IE one -- shared by Sanskrit (and English) -- is quite messy and

verbose. One could go on and on. I love Sanskrit, but I would never claim

its zillions of nit-picking rules make it somehow an epitome of order and

perfect structure. Sorry, but it's just not.

 

6. I do agree with Sridhar Srinivasan about the symbiotic nature of

Sanskrit and Tamil (and also other Indian languages). The fact is,

Sanskrit and Tamil, while originally independent traditions, have from the

earliest times formed one cultural stream, much as the Latin and the

languages of Western Europe have.

 

7. Sanskrit, like Tamil, is a very rich language and tradition. It has an

enormous variety of writings, some of which are of great quality (which is

true of most rich languages). It has been a carrier of cultural tradition,

and it is endlessly interesting. But why is it that it is mindlessly

glorified for all the WRONG reasons?

 

8. Both languages are carriers of wonderful and rich intellectual and

literary traditions. The only way to appreciate either language is to read

these literatures and spend a lot of time pondering them.

=======================================================