sanskrit is not a dead language!

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, Black Lotus L Rosenberg

<kalipadma@j...> wrote:

>

>

 

> >

>

> I'm smiling at your spelling. <Script> is English for "writing," so

it

> seems appropriate, but the ancient language you're referring to is

> usually spelled <Sanskrit> (meaning "perfectly spoken"). Sanskrit

is a

> "dead" language, used only for religious or liturgical purposes

(rather

> like Catholics used to use Latin). Some scholars insist ALL

<mantras>

> must be in Sanskrit -- other languages may be chanted for

meditation, but

> they should be called prayers, or spells, or affirmations...

>

> So Sanskrit is the language of the Gurus, AND of Hindu Priests, AND

of

> scholars of Ancient India.

 

Dear Len,

 

Sanskrit is not a dead language. This is very wrong to say. Sanskrit

is known also as the language of the Gods. The pure vibrations of the

sanskrit alphabet are known to be very potent and have a very direct

effect on one's consciousness. That's why many saints recommend

chanting hymns in the original sanskrit, even if the meaning is not

readily understood. The power and shakti behind the syllables have the

power to awaken. This language is not dead...it is completely alive

and has the power to enliven.

 

Good Day! Lisa

[Guest guest]

I was talking with my daughter the other day about

languages that are considered 'dead' -- such as Latin

and Sanskrit and it seems that unless there is a

certain number of people who are actually using the

language in everyday life the language is considered

'dead'...I do not know what the magic number is, of

persons using a language, that brings it back to

'life', but apparently that is the technical reason

why some languages (which may be very much alive in

some parts of the world) are still considered 'dead'

by the scholars.

I think that I had heard somewhere that it has to do

with the language in question changing over time to

accommodate changes in culture and 'new' uses of words

and new words developing within the language.

Namaste, April

--- "lbrachlin <lalita120"

<lalita120 wrote:

> Ammachi, Black Lotus L

> Rosenberg

> <kalipadma@j...> wrote:

> >

> >

>

> > >

> >

> > I'm smiling at your spelling. <Script> is English

> for "writing," so

> it

> > seems appropriate, but the ancient language you're

> referring to is

> > usually spelled <Sanskrit> (meaning "perfectly

> spoken"). Sanskrit

> is a

> > "dead" language, used only for religious or

> liturgical purposes

> (rather

> > like Catholics used to use Latin). Some scholars

> insist ALL

> <mantras>

> > must be in Sanskrit -- other languages may be

> chanted for

> meditation, but

> > they should be called prayers, or spells, or

> affirmations...

> >

> > So Sanskrit is the language of the Gurus, AND of

> Hindu Priests, AND

> of

> > scholars of Ancient India.

>

> Dear Len,

>

> Sanskrit is not a dead language. This is very wrong

> to say. Sanskrit

> is known also as the language of the Gods. The pure

> vibrations of the

> sanskrit alphabet are known to be very potent and

> have a very direct

> effect on one's consciousness. That's why many

> saints recommend

> chanting hymns in the original sanskrit, even if the

> meaning is not

> readily understood. The power and shakti behind the

> syllables have the

> power to awaken. This language is not dead...it is

> completely alive

> and has the power to enliven.

>

> Good Day! Lisa

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Dear Lisa...

 

"dead language" is a term used by scholars of linguistics. I assure you,

it does not mean that Sanskrit is ineffective, boring, passe, or what

ever other negative attribute you are fantasizing.

 

If a language has remained unchanged for hundreds (indeed, thousands!) of

years -- no "new" words, no slang, no local dialects, no occupatiomal

jargon, no borrowing of words from other cultures -- linguists call such

a language "dead." Unchanging. Frozen.

 

It is not an insult.

 

Latin is another dead language. Hebrew was a dead language for hundreds

of years, until Zionists attempted to "revive" it as the vernacular of

Israel. And biblical Hebrew is <still> "dead." Pushing up daisies.

Food for worms. Singing in the choir celestial. That was a Monty Python

joke.

 

Thank you for defending Sanskrit against what you perceive as my insults.

I love Sanskrit. I even love its unchanging quality. Its "deadness,"

if you will. I am not insulting it.

 

By the way, "charismatic Christians" does not refer to evangelists with

"star quality." It's a particular sect of what used to be called "holy

rollers" who speak in tongues, witness each other's "redemption," shout

and sing impulsively, and claim to be carried away by the holy spirit.

 

Neither do I in any way disrespect or demean the various <brahmacharyins>

who work with Amma. I was simply reporting that my friend observed that

at one instance, they seemed to be losing patience with the riotous,

over-enthusiastic, "Praise Jesus"-shouting Christians.

 

I'll have my nervous breakdown now, thank you. <Ganesha sharanam>

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

<misunderstood, again>

 

 

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:38:15 -0000 "lbrachlin <lalita120"

<lalita120 writes:

>

> Sanskrit is not a dead language. This is very wrong to say. Sanskrit

> is known also as the language of the Gods. The pure vibrations of

> the

> sanskrit alphabet are known to be very potent and have a very direct

> effect on one's consciousness. That's why many saints recommend

> chanting hymns in the original sanskrit, even if the meaning is not

> readily understood. The power and shakti behind the syllables have

> the

> power to awaken. This language is not dead...it is completely alive

> and has the power to enliven.

>

> Good Day! Lisa

>

 

______________

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today

Only $9.95 per month!

Visit www.juno.com

[Guest guest]

Thank you, April!

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:31:30 -0800 (PST) April White

<april_fiord writes:

> I was talking with my daughter the other day about

> languages that are considered 'dead' -- such as Latin

> and Sanskrit and it seems that unless there is a

> certain number of people who are actually using the

> language in everyday life the language is considered

> 'dead'...I do not know what the magic number is, of

> persons using a language, that brings it back to

> 'life', but apparently that is the technical reason

> why some languages (which may be very much alive in

> some parts of the world) are still considered 'dead'

> by the scholars.

> I think that I had heard somewhere that it has to do

> with the language in question changing over time to

> accommodate changes in culture and 'new' uses of words

> and new words developing within the language.

> Namaste, April

 

______________

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today

Only $9.95 per month!

Visit www.juno.com

[Guest guest]

Forgiveness, without having any feeling of hatred or vengeance, is response.

Jesus Christ set an unforgettable example of how to respond. Amma

 

Namah Shivaya.

 

Dear Siblings in Amma,

 

How about some Om Shanti's in our dear brother Kalipadma's direction?

He's been taking it on the chin for too many days. We're supposed to be

making peace among ourselves in honor of Sri Ganesha, are we not?

Which one of us has not suffered in some way from being misunderstood?

 

If we can't give each other a little slack, we'll discourage the shyer

members from ever joining in.

 

To dear Kalipadma, this child offers the same loving smile, tender looks and

warm embrace our Holy Mother would.

 

In the spirit of this season

and in Amma's grace,

premarupa

Aum Amriteshvaryai Namah

[Guest guest]

>

> "dead language" is a term used by scholars of

> linguistics. > If a language has remained unchanged

for hundreds

> (indeed, thousands!) of

> years -- no "new" words, no slang, no local

> dialects, no occupatiomal

> jargon, no borrowing of words from other cultures --

> linguists call such

> a language "dead." Unchanging. Frozen.

 

 

Also by definition, a "dead" language has no native

speakers, no one who learned it as a child the way we

acquired English, French, Spanish, Hindi, or whatever

our native language may be.

 

Keval

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

Ammachi, Black Lotus L Rosenberg

<kalipadma@j...> wrote:

>

> Dear Lisa...

>

> "dead language" is a term used by scholars of linguistics. I assure

you,

> it does not mean that Sanskrit is ineffective, boring, passe, or

what

> ever other negative attribute you are fantasizing.

 

Dear Len,

 

Thanks for making yourself clear re: this matter. On the other hand,

I'm not fantasizing about anything and I wasn't even re-acting to you

in a negative way, although sometimes typed emails can change the tone

of our thoughts, I guess. I was just trying to speak frankly on my

own experience of chanting sanskrit mantras, etc. Perhaps not everyone

on this group, including myself, understands the linguistic term "dead

language", so thankyou for explaining that to a lay person like

myself. But surely somebody needed to come foward and say something

positive and encouraging or even in defense of this divine language

after hearing you say it's a dead one. To the lay person, it does in a

way imply the language is inert and impotent, so I guess I just felt

it was my obligation to bring some clarity to this matter.

 

Lisa