Common Sanskrit Pronunciation Errors (Part 2)

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these days. It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything.

 

It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic scholars, pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras) incorrectly.

 

Of course, pronunciation is not everything. Having devotion and the spirit of surrender to god is even more important. However, pronunciation is a factor too. Especially, correct pronunciation is very important in Veda mantras. Wrong pronunciation of a Veda mantra can stop one from the most complete experience of the mantra. In fact, we have a lot of people who can memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually "experience" a mantra.

 

Over the next few months, I will write my views on correct pronunciation and point out some common errors. If you do not think that correct pronunciation is important or if you disagree with my assessment of the errors or if you do not want to change your pronunciation, please ignore my writings on this subject. On the other hand, if you are open to changing your pronunciation, please give a consideration to my views and adopt my suggestions if you find them appropriate.

 

I shared a few observations on 2007 Nov 16. Some more observations will follow today.

 

 

 

* * *

 

Take the "ai"/"ae" sound in the beejaakshara "aim"/"aem".

 

North Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "a" in the English words "fan", "man", "hat" etc. South Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "uy" in the English words "buy" and "guy".

 

In general, south India was relatively shielded from the western invaders in the last couple of millennia, who entered India from the northwest. As a result, the corruption in the tradition is less in south India. However, it is incorrect to say that south Indian pronunciation is always superior to north Indian pronunciation. The above is a case where I side with the north Indian pronunciation.

 

Let us examine this logically. There are rules in Sanskrita grammar for combining different sounds ("sandhi" - joining sounds). The rules in Sanskrita grammar is logical and nor arbitrary. This is a big clue to deducing the correct pronunciation of certain sounds that are corrupted today.

 

Take the following two sounds:

 

(1) Take the sound "aa" (as in "mahaa", "tathaa" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "car" and "far".

(2) Take the sound "e" (as in "etat", "evam" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "make" and "take".

 

If sound 1 is followed immediately by sound 2 without any break whatsoever, they combine and become one sound. That combined sound is supposed to be the sound "ai"/"ae" in "aim"/"aem" beeja. This is called "vriddhi sandhi" in Sanskrita grammar.

 

Now, try to pronounce sound 1 and, without a break, immediately pronounce sound 2. That results in the sound similar to "a" as in "fan", "man" and "hat" (you can verify this for yourself). This suggests that the north Indian pronunciation is more accurate. I am convinced that the south Indian pronunciation of the "aim"/"aem" beeja is incorrect and the north Indian pronunciation is correct.

 

This particular letter comes in many mantras - Vaidika, Taantrika and Pouraanika. My advice is to pronounce it as "ae" in all the mantras.

 

* * *

 

There is one more issue related to beejaaksharas that a member asked me to talk about. Some people pronounce "aem hreem kleem" as "aeng hreeng kleeng". In other words, the anunaasika (nasal sound) at the end of each beejaakshara is pronounced as "ng" (the nasal in "ka varga") instead of "m" (the nasal in "pa varga").

 

Unfortunately, grammar rules do not help here and I do not have a clear stand. My guess is that both are correct and give different results.

 

* * *

 

In Veda mantras, there is one issue regarding the pronunciation of nasal sounds. The root of the above issue that I skirted may be related to it actually.

 

The "m" at the end of words sometimes changes into a different nasal sound when you join two words into one word (i.e. no break in between in pronunciation). For example, take "gaNapatiM havaamahe". If you remove the break between the two words, the nasal at the end of the first word changes from "m" to a different nasal sound. This is represented by a dot with a crescent Moon in Devanagari texts and with a "g" and then a "m" symbol in texts transcribed in south Indian languages. Unfortunately, most Vedic scholars trained in south Indian traditions pronounce this nasal as "gum" or "gam". They pronounce "gaNapatiM havaamahe" as "gaNapatigum havaamahe" or "gaNapatigam havaamahe".

 

This is definitely wrong, though it is an extremely extremely wide-spread convention.

 

A nasal (m) cannot change into a consonant (g), an vowel (u or a) and then another nasal (m). That is quite absurd. In fact, you are adding one extra akshara when you do it. The word "gaNapatiM" has 4 aksharas. But, if you pronounce it as "gaNapatigum" or "gaNapatigam", it ends up being 5 aksharas, with "gum"/"gam" being a separate akshara by itself. If a consonant has an vowel after it, the vowel serves as the praana (life force) and it becomes an akshara. The sound "M" as the end of "gaNapatiM" is not an akshara - it clings on to "ti" and becomes an extension of the previous akshara. On the other hand, "gum"/"gam" is a separate askahra due to the praana in it (u or a).

 

Thus, people are adding one akshara to Veda mantras when pronouncing with "gum"/"gam". This changes the chhandas and also messes up the meaning.

 

A clue to the correct pronunciation of this exists in another corrupt tradition in another part of India. The word "narasiMha" is pronounced as "narasingha" in some parts of India. In Veda mantras, it is written as "narasi(gM)ha", where (gM) is the sound mentioned as "gum" or "gam" above (e.g. "tanno naarasi(gM)haH prachodayaat" in Narasimga Gayatri).

 

I suggest that the truth is in between these two corrupt traditions!

 

My view is that the anunaasika (nasal) in these cases (mostly, a nasal coming just before "y", "r", "l", "v", "sh", shh", "s", "h" or just before vowels) should be pronounced as the nasal in "ka varga". This is like the "n" sound in the English words "monkey" or "king". When you say "narasi<nasal>ha", the <nasal> is neither n nor m. It is the nasal that comes just before k or g. So, start pronouncing it as though you are going to pronounce "narasing" and stop just before you say "g" and say "ha" instead. Then you get something very similar to "narasingha", but without "g" being explicit! There should be an intention of "g" but no explicit "g". This can be represented as "narasin(g)ha". This same sound is probably represented in Vedic literature as "gM".

 

I am not 100% sure if what I suggest is correct, but I am 100% sure that the standard pronunciation as "gum"/"gam" is wrong. If one just pronounces it as "gaNapatiM havaamahe", for example, one will be better off. It is atleast meaningful and obey chhandas. What people normally say has no meaning and breaks chhandas.

 

 

* * *

 

There are several other mistakes (in my view) commonly made by most people in the pronunciation of Sanskrita mantras. I will be pointing them out slowly in the next few days/weeks/months, whenever the Mother allows me to.

 

Please give me your consideration and take my input into consideration in altering your pronunciation (if you are open to it). If you don't find any sense in what I am saying or want to continue as taught by your gurus, I can understand that. I am not here to change everybody's pronunciation. But, because She inspired me to share my thoughts with the world, I am guessing that there are SOME who are destined to change their pronunciation based on my views. That is why I am writing these mails.

 

If you do not like this discussion, I am sorry and just ignore this idiot!

 

 

Best regards,NarasimhaDo Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

[Guest guest]

OM NAMAH SHIVAAYA

Dear Sri Narasimha Rao Ji, Namaskar

Kindly permit us to thank you for this pervasive simple discussion.

Men may come and Men may go but we pray to Ma for your thoughts to

go on for ever.

With prayers.

Yours Sincerely,

S.Dheenadayalan

 

 

 

 

 

sohamsa , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr

wrote:

>

> Namaste friends,

>

> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted

these days. It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything.

>

> It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic

scholars, pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda

mantras) incorrectly.

>

> Of course, pronunciation is not everything. Having devotion and

the spirit of surrender to god is even more important. However,

pronunciation is a factor too. Especially, correct pronunciation is

very important in Veda mantras. Wrong pronunciation of a Veda mantra

can stop one from the most complete experience of the mantra. In

fact, we have a lot of people who can memorize and repeat Veda

mantras, but very few who can actually " experience " a mantra.

>

> Over the next few months, I will write my views on correct

pronunciation and point out some common errors. If you do not think

that correct pronunciation is important or if you disagree with my

assessment of the errors or if you do not want to change your

pronunciation, please ignore my writings on this subject. On the

other hand, if you are open to changing your pronunciation, please

give a consideration to my views and adopt my suggestions if you

find them appropriate.

>

> I shared a few observations on 2007 Nov 16. Some more observations

will follow today.

>

> * * *

>

> Take the " ai " / " ae " sound in the beejaakshara " aim " / " aem " .

>

> North Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound " a " in

the English words " fan " , " man " , " hat " etc. South Indians pronounce

this sound almost like the sound " uy " in the English words " buy "

and " guy " .

>

> In general, south India was relatively shielded from the western

invaders in the last couple of millennia, who entered India from the

northwest. As a result, the corruption in the tradition is less in

south India. However, it is incorrect to say that south Indian

pronunciation is always superior to north Indian pronunciation. The

above is a case where I side with the north Indian pronunciation.

>

> Let us examine this logically. There are rules in Sanskrita

grammar for combining different sounds ( " sandhi " - joining sounds).

The rules in Sanskrita grammar is logical and nor arbitrary. This is

a big clue to deducing the correct pronunciation of certain sounds

that are corrupted today.

>

> Take the following two sounds:

>

> (1) Take the sound " aa " (as in " mahaa " , " tathaa " etc). This is

pronounced as " a " in the English words " car " and " far " .

> (2) Take the sound " e " (as in " etat " , " evam " etc). This is

pronounced as " a " in the English words " make " and " take " .

>

> If sound 1 is followed immediately by sound 2 without any break

whatsoever, they combine and become one sound. That combined sound

is supposed to be the sound " ai " / " ae " in " aim " / " aem " beeja. This is

called " vriddhi sandhi " in Sanskrita grammar.

>

> Now, try to pronounce sound 1 and, without a break, immediately

pronounce sound 2. That results in the sound similar to " a " as

in " fan " , " man " and " hat " (you can verify this for yourself). This

suggests that the north Indian pronunciation is more accurate. I am

convinced that the south Indian pronunciation of the " aim " / " aem "

beeja is incorrect and the north Indian pronunciation is correct.

>

> This particular letter comes in many mantras - Vaidika, Taantrika

and Pouraanika. My advice is to pronounce it as " ae " in all the

mantras.

>

> * * *

>

> There is one more issue related to beejaaksharas that a

member asked me to talk about. Some people pronounce " aem hreem

kleem " as " aeng hreeng kleeng " . In other words, the anunaasika

(nasal sound) at the end of each beejaakshara is pronounced as " ng "

(the nasal in " ka varga " ) instead of " m " (the nasal in " pa varga " ).

>

> Unfortunately, grammar rules do not help here and I do not have a

clear stand. My guess is that both are correct and give different

results.

>

> * * *

>

> In Veda mantras, there is one issue regarding the pronunciation of

nasal sounds. The root of the above issue that I skirted may be

related to it actually.

>

> The " m " at the end of words sometimes changes into a different

nasal sound when you join two words into one word (i.e. no break in

between in pronunciation). For example, take " gaNapatiM havaamahe " .

If you remove the break between the two words, the nasal at the end

of the first word changes from " m " to a different nasal sound. This

is represented by a dot with a crescent Moon in Devanagari texts and

with a " g " and then a " m " symbol in texts transcribed in south

Indian languages. Unfortunately, most Vedic scholars trained in

south Indian traditions pronounce this nasal as " gum " or " gam " . They

pronounce " gaNapatiM havaamahe " as " gaNapatigum havaamahe "

or " gaNapatigam havaamahe " .

>

> This is definitely wrong, though it is an extremely extremely wide-

spread convention.

>

> A nasal (m) cannot change into a consonant (g), an vowel (u or a)

and then another nasal (m). That is quite absurd. In fact, you are

adding one extra akshara when you do it. The word " gaNapatiM " has 4

aksharas. But, if you pronounce it as " gaNapatigum "

or " gaNapatigam " , it ends up being 5 aksharas, with " gum " / " gam "

being a separate akshara by itself. If a consonant has an vowel

after it, the vowel serves as the praana (life force) and it becomes

an akshara. The sound " M " as the end of " gaNapatiM " is not an

akshara - it clings on to " ti " and becomes an extension of the

previous akshara. On the other hand, " gum " / " gam " is a separate

askahra due to the praana in it (u or a).

>

> Thus, people are adding one akshara to Veda mantras when

pronouncing with " gum " / " gam " . This changes the chhandas and also

messes up the meaning.

>

> A clue to the correct pronunciation of this exists in another

corrupt tradition in another part of India. The word " narasiMha " is

pronounced as " narasingha " in some parts of India. In Veda mantras,

it is written as " narasi(gM)ha " , where (gM) is the sound mentioned

as " gum " or " gam " above (e.g. " tanno naarasi(gM)haH prachodayaat " in

Narasimga Gayatri).

>

> I suggest that the truth is in between these two corrupt

traditions!

>

> My view is that the anunaasika (nasal) in these cases (mostly, a

nasal coming just before " y " , " r " , " l " , " v " , " sh " , shh " , " s " , " h " or

just before vowels) should be pronounced as the nasal in " ka varga " .

This is like the " n " sound in the English words " monkey " or " king " .

When you say " narasi<nasal>ha " , the <nasal> is neither n nor m. It

is the nasal that comes just before k or g. So, start pronouncing it

as though you are going to pronounce " narasing " and stop just before

you say " g " and say " ha " instead. Then you get something very

similar to " narasingha " , but without " g " being explicit! There

should be an intention of " g " but no explicit " g " . This can be

represented as " narasin(g)ha " . This same sound is probably

represented in Vedic literature as " gM " .

>

> I am not 100% sure if what I suggest is correct, but I am 100%

sure that the standard pronunciation as " gum " / " gam " is wrong. If one

just pronounces it as " gaNapatiM havaamahe " , for example, one will

be better off. It is atleast meaningful and obey chhandas. What

people normally say has no meaning and breaks chhandas.

>

> * * *

>

> There are several other mistakes (in my view) commonly made by

most people in the pronunciation of Sanskrita mantras. I will be

pointing them out slowly in the next few days/weeks/months, whenever

the Mother allows me to.

>

> Please give me your consideration and take my input into

consideration in altering your pronunciation (if you are open to

it). If you don't find any sense in what I am saying or want to

continue as taught by your gurus, I can understand that. I am not

here to change everybody's pronunciation. But, because She inspired

me to share my thoughts with the world, I am guessing that there are

SOME who are destined to change their pronunciation based on my

views. That is why I am writing these mails.

>

> If you do not like this discussion, I am sorry and just ignore

this idiot!

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Spirituality:

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Voya

 

Can I add some information from my own experience. It is entirely possible to become aware of what these sounds are. Vowels are Sva Ra - in other words they sound by themselves, depend on nothing..

 

If you hear the sounds between a and i, which are usually written e and ai, by moving just the tongue gradually from the mouth and tongue position 'Kantha' to the tongue position 'Talu' (mouth still open wide) while sounding starting with the sound 'aaa' you can, perhaps with a little practice, hear what they sound like - start with 'e' as it is easier, and then you can show students how to appreciate the sounds. Reason says that he theoretical arguments about what might be correct must necesarily be wrong. They are theories which may approximate to the reality, but will not be it. Inluded in the wrong collection is the idea of dipthong. It was invented by modern grammarians and appears to fit as English contains sounds, which are habitually pronounced as double sounds. This is only a modern corruption. Each of the 16 vowels can be heard and its qualities experienced directly. Pretty much all pronunciation is poor, so we are used to hearing very rough approximations. The sounds 'e', 'ai', 'o' and 'ou' all exist by themselves. None are really two sounds at all. 'o' is probably the easiest to hear, because we are so used to sounding 'om'. 'o' and 'ou' fall between 'a' and 'oo', 'Kantha' and 'Oshthou'

 

In my experience the sound 'ai' is rather like hearing 'a' and 'e' sounding at the same time, but it joins together very precisely to become 'ai'. I agree with what you say about the corruption being less in South India. It is not really much like the usual 'a' as in 'cat' or 'uy' as in 'guy' though because the usual pronunciation is so coarse, that the real 'ai' sound is not heard. If you can not hear it then you can not say it.

 

'Ri' and 'lri' are a little different. They stand on their own, not in the same way between other sounds. It is useful to note that you can not utter these sounds if the tongue touches the roof of the mouth - that is a consonant. What is normally heard, i.e. 'ri' or 'ru' is usually the consonant 'r' + 'i' or 'u'.

 

If you really hear these sounds clearly it is a bit like going into Samadhi.

 

Regards

 

Gordon

[Guest guest]

||Om namah Sivaya||

Dear Narasimhaji, Namaskar.

With respect to you and your knowledge of Sanskrit, I have to give different view in some points: You suggest to pronounce "ai" similar as "a" in "fan", "hat"...

But as I learned "ai" and "au" are diphtongs, and following logic you suggested how should we pronounce "au"? Should it be something like "ao"? I learned to pronounce it as "ow" in "cow", so that Gauri can not be pronounced as "Gori", or as I heard from some people who pronounce it as "oa" in "road"... Or pronounce "ai" as "ay" in "say"...

For anusvAra pronunciation, as I know (not completely sure) in Taittiriya are litlle bit different rules and if you want I can send you a document about pronunciation of anusvAra which is similar to what I learned.

I heard more mistakes is pronouncing Vedic texts, like "ri" in drishya pronounced as "ru"-"drushya", or "Hare Rama Krushna"... but you sure are aware of them...

Thank you for rising good topic,

Best regards,

Voja Trajkovic

SIVA coordinator

http://siva-edu.110mb.com

sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:Namaste friends,Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these days. It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything.It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic scholars, pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras) incorrectly.Of course, pronunciation is not everything. Having devotion and the spirit of surrender to god is even more important. However, pronunciation is a factor too. Especially, correct pronunciation is very important in Veda mantras. Wrong pronunciation of a Veda mantra can stop one from the most complete experience of the mantra. In fact, we have a lot of people who can memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually "experience" a mantra.Over the next few months, I will write my views on correct pronunciation and point out some common errors. If you do not think that correct pronunciation is important or if you disagree with my assessment of the errors or if you do not want to change your pronunciation, please ignore my writings on this subject. On the other hand, if you are open to changing your pronunciation, please give a consideration to my views and adopt my suggestions if you find them appropriate.I shared a few observations on 2007 Nov 16. Some more observations will follow today.* * *Take the "ai"/"ae" sound in the beejaakshara "aim"/"aem".North Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "a" in the English words "fan", "man", "hat" etc. South Indians pronounce this sound almost like the sound "uy" in the English words "buy" and "guy".In general, south India was relatively shielded from the western invaders in the last couple of millennia, who entered India from the northwest. As a result, the corruption in the tradition is less in south India. However, it is incorrect to say that south Indian pronunciation is always superior to north Indian pronunciation. The above is a case where I side with the north Indian pronunciation.Let us examine this logically. There are rules in Sanskrita grammar for combining different sounds ("sandhi" - joining sounds). The rules in Sanskrita grammar is logical and nor arbitrary. This is a big clue to deducing the correct pronunciation of certain sounds that are corrupted today.Take the following two sounds:(1) Take the sound "aa" (as in "mahaa", "tathaa" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "car" and "far".(2) Take the sound "e" (as in "etat", "evam" etc). This is pronounced as "a" in the English words "make" and "take".If sound 1 is followed immediately by sound 2 without any break whatsoever, they combine and become one sound. That combined sound is supposed to be the sound "ai"/"ae" in "aim"/"aem" beeja. This is called "vriddhi sandhi" in Sanskrita grammar.Now, try to pronounce sound 1 and, without a break, immediately pronounce sound 2. That results in the sound similar to "a" as in "fan", "man" and "hat" (you can verify this for yourself). This suggests that the north Indian pronunciation is more accurate. I am convinced that the south Indian pronunciation of the "aim"/"aem" beeja is incorrect and the north Indian pronunciation is correct.This particular letter comes in many mantras - Vaidika, Taantrika and Pouraanika. My advice is to pronounce it as "ae" in all the mantras.* * *There is one more issue related to beejaaksharas that a member asked me to talk about. Some people pronounce "aem hreem kleem" as "aeng hreeng kleeng". In other words, the anunaasika (nasal sound) at the end of each beejaakshara is pronounced as "ng" (the nasal in "ka varga") instead of "m" (the nasal in "pa varga").Unfortunately, grammar rules do not help here and I do not have a clear stand. My guess is that both are correct and give different results.* * *In Veda mantras, there is one issue regarding the pronunciation of nasal sounds. The root of the above issue that I skirted may be related to it actually.The "m" at the end of words sometimes changes into a different nasal sound when you join two words into one word (i.e. no break in between in pronunciation). For example, take "gaNapatiM havaamahe". If you remove the break between the two words, the nasal at the end of the first word changes from "m" to a different nasal sound. This is represented by a dot with a crescent Moon in Devanagari texts and with a "g" and then a "m" symbol in texts transcribed in south Indian languages. Unfortunately, most Vedic scholars trained in south Indian traditions pronounce this nasal as "gum" or "gam". They pronounce "gaNapatiM havaamahe" as "gaNapatigum havaamahe" or "gaNapatigam havaamahe".This is definitely wrong, though it is an extremely extremely wide-spread convention.A nasal (m) cannot change into a consonant (g), an vowel (u or a) and then another nasal (m). That is quite absurd. In fact, you are adding one extra akshara when you do it. The word "gaNapatiM" has 4 aksharas. But, if you pronounce it as "gaNapatigum" or "gaNapatigam", it ends up being 5 aksharas, with "gum"/"gam" being a separate akshara by itself. If a consonant has an vowel after it, the vowel serves as the praana (life force) and it becomes an akshara. The sound "M" as the end of "gaNapatiM" is not an akshara - it clings on to "ti" and becomes an extension of the previous akshara. On the other hand, "gum"/"gam" is a separate askahra due to the praana in it (u or a).Thus, people are adding one akshara to Veda mantras when pronouncing with "gum"/"gam". This changes the chhandas and also messes up the meaning.A clue to the correct pronunciation of this exists in another corrupt tradition in another part of India. The word "narasiMha" is pronounced as "narasingha" in some parts of India. In Veda mantras, it is written as "narasi(gM)ha", where (gM) is the sound mentioned as "gum" or "gam" above (e.g. "tanno naarasi(gM)haH prachodayaat" in Narasimga Gayatri).I suggest that the truth is in between these two corrupt traditions!My view is that the anunaasika (nasal) in these cases (mostly, a nasal coming just before "y", "r", "l", "v", "sh", shh", "s", "h" or just before vowels) should be pronounced as the nasal in "ka varga". This is like the "n" sound in the English words "monkey" or "king". When you say "narasi<nasal>ha", the <nasal> is neither n nor m. It is the nasal that comes just before k or g. So, start pronouncing it as though you are going to pronounce "narasing" and stop just before you say "g" and say "ha" instead. Then you get something very similar to "narasingha", but without "g" being explicit! There should be an intention of "g" but no explicit "g". This can be represented as "narasin(g)ha". This same sound is probably represented in Vedic literature as "gM".I am not 100% sure if what I suggest is correct, but I am 100% sure that the standard pronunciation as "gum"/"gam" is wrong. If one just pronounces it as "gaNapatiM havaamahe", for example, one will be better off. It is atleast meaningful and obey chhandas. What people normally say has no meaning and breaks chhandas.* * *There are several other mistakes (in my view) commonly made by most people in the pronunciation of Sanskrita mantras. I will be pointing them out slowly in the next few days/weeks/months, whenever the Mother allows me to.Please give me your consideration and take my input into consideration in altering your pronunciation (if you are open to it). If you don't find any sense in what I am saying or want to continue as taught by your gurus, I can understand that. I am not here to change everybody's pronunciation. But, because She inspired me to share my thoughts with the world, I am guessing that there are SOME who are destined to change their pronunciation based on my views. That is why I am writing these mails.If you do not like this discussion, I am sorry and just ignore this idiot!Best regards,NarasimhaDo Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org--- End forwarded message ---

 

[Guest guest]

namaste mahodaya,

 

> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these days.

> It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything.

>

> It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic scholars,

> pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras)

> incorrectly.

 

I'm trying to understand the starting position, and thus have a couple

of questions

 

(a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does

it also follow that portions

of the vedas themselves are largely corrupted? There are patha-bedhas

even in veda. Or, for now

are you only saying that the pratishakya-s are all corrupted.

 

(b) on what basis is correct pronounciation being re-inferred. I guess

the pratishakya is out, and

we are back to the panini-shiksha-sutras & such. But even here, how

does one interpret the

simplest sutras like " uccairudAttaH " .

 

© current rig-veda pronounciation is generally " better " from

sanskrit viewpoint compared to other

shakhas. But, in the most prized shrouta karmas, it is the

sama-gana-vikriti that is given much

importance, even though most of its mantras are nothing but rig-veda

mantras. What is your view

when it comes to pronounciation of sama-veda? Because from a sanskrit

point of view, it is rather

" interesting " .

 

(d) chandas-shastra in veda does not seem to be so simple. There are

plenty of instances of mantras

which are said to be in one meter . . . which don't seem to be in that

meter at all. Some learned scholars

are of the opinion that there are several differrent chandas all of

which go by one name, particularly in veda.

Secondly, some opine that the definition of laghu & guru are actually

different, and letters being alpa-prAna /

mahA-prAna etc also factor into the counting of letters.

 

What is your view of traditional chandas-shAstra. The reason I ask is

before we claim that traditional pronounciation

is flawed in some cases (using chandas as the reason), one has to be

very confident in their understanding of

chandas shastra.

 

> In fact, we have a lot of people who can

> memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually " experience "

> a mantra.

 

And efforts towards this goal are laudable.

 

dhanyo.asmi,

 

ajit

 

jayatu jayatu samskRitam. jayatu jayatu manukulam.

[Guest guest]

||Om namah Sivaya|| Dear Gordon, very nice said. You went deeper in understanding and explaining. You are right that theoretical arguments must be wrong, but it is necessary to hear directly. Best wishes, Voyasohamsa , GWBrennan wrote:>> Dear Voya> > Can I add some information from my own experience. It is entirely possible > to become aware of what these sounds are. Vowels are Sva Ra - in other words > they sound by themselves, depend on nothing.. > > If you hear the sounds between a and i, which are usually written e and ai, > by moving just the tongue gradually from the mouth and tongue position > 'Kantha' to the tongue position 'Talu' (mouth still open wide) while sounding > starting with the sound 'aaa' you can, perhaps with a little practice, hear what > they sound like - start with 'e' as it is easier, and then you can show > students how to appreciate the sounds. Reason says that he theoretical arguments > about what might be correct must necesarily be wrong. They are theories which > may approximate to the reality, but will not be it. Inluded in the wrong > collection is the idea of dipthong. It was invented by modern grammarians and > appears to fit as English contains sounds, which are habitually pronounced as > double sounds. This is only a modern corruption. Each of the 16 vowels can > be heard and its qualities experienced directly. Pretty much all > pronunciation is poor, so we are used to hearing very rough approximations. The sounds > 'e', 'ai', 'o' and 'ou' all exist by themselves. None are really two sounds > at all. 'o' is probably the easiest to hear, because we are so used to > sounding 'om'. 'o' and 'ou' fall between 'a' and 'oo', 'Kantha' and 'Oshthou'> > In my experience the sound 'ai' is rather like hearing 'a' and 'e' sounding > at the same time, but it joins together very precisely to become 'ai'. I > agree with what you say about the corruption being less in South India. It is > not really much like the usual 'a' as in 'cat' or 'uy' as in 'guy' though > because the usual pronunciation is so coarse, that the real 'ai' sound is not > heard. If you can not hear it then you can not say it.> > 'Ri' and 'lri' are a little different. They stand on their own, not in the > same way between other sounds. It is useful to note that you can not utter > these sounds if the tongue touches the roof of the mouth - that is a > consonant. What is normally heard, i.e. 'ri' or 'ru' is usually the consonant 'r' + > 'i' or 'u'. > > If you really hear these sounds clearly it is a bit like going into Samadhi.> > Regards> > Gordon>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ajit,

 

> (a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does

 

I am not saying that it is largely corrupted. I am saying that even Vedic

scholars mis-pronounce certain basic sounds of Sanskrit.

 

To simplify the problem, I think I should focus on the pronunciation of

Pouraanika mantras and stay away from Vaidika mantras for now. I think I

will do that.

 

Thanks for your important mail.

 

Best regards,

Narasimha

 

Do Ganapathi Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

Spirituality:

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

 

 

-

" Ajit Krishnan " <ajit.krishnan

<sohamsa >

Cc:

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 11:11 AM

Re: Common Sanskrit Pronunciation Errors

(Part 2)

 

 

> namaste mahodaya,

>

>> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that even Vedas are corrupted these

>> days.

>> It is the nature of Kali yuga to corrupt everything.

>>

>> It is my feeling that many people, including highly learned Vedic

>> scholars,

>> pronounce some sounds in Sanskrit mantras (including Veda mantras)

>> incorrectly.

>

> I'm trying to understand the starting position, and thus have a couple

> of questions

>

> (a) If we say that pronounciation of vedas is largely corrupted, does

> it also follow that portions

> of the vedas themselves are largely corrupted? There are patha-bedhas

> even in veda. Or, for now

> are you only saying that the pratishakya-s are all corrupted.

>

> (b) on what basis is correct pronounciation being re-inferred. I guess

> the pratishakya is out, and

> we are back to the panini-shiksha-sutras & such. But even here, how

> does one interpret the

> simplest sutras like " uccairudAttaH " .

>

> © current rig-veda pronounciation is generally " better " from

> sanskrit viewpoint compared to other

> shakhas. But, in the most prized shrouta karmas, it is the

> sama-gana-vikriti that is given much

> importance, even though most of its mantras are nothing but rig-veda

> mantras. What is your view

> when it comes to pronounciation of sama-veda? Because from a sanskrit

> point of view, it is rather

> " interesting " .

>

> (d) chandas-shastra in veda does not seem to be so simple. There are

> plenty of instances of mantras

> which are said to be in one meter . . . which don't seem to be in that

> meter at all. Some learned scholars

> are of the opinion that there are several differrent chandas all of

> which go by one name, particularly in veda.

> Secondly, some opine that the definition of laghu & guru are actually

> different, and letters being alpa-prAna /

> mahA-prAna etc also factor into the counting of letters.

>

> What is your view of traditional chandas-shAstra. The reason I ask is

> before we claim that traditional pronounciation

> is flawed in some cases (using chandas as the reason), one has to be

> very confident in their understanding of

> chandas shastra.

>

>> In fact, we have a lot of people who can

>> memorize and repeat Veda mantras, but very few who can actually

>> " experience "

>> a mantra.

>

> And efforts towards this goal are laudable.

>

> dhanyo.asmi,

>

> ajit

>

> jayatu jayatu samskRitam. jayatu jayatu manukulam.