The "Shishta Prayoga" Conundrum

In Sanskrit literature including the vedas, many times usages of words are found that do not comply with the traditional Paniniya grammar. Many times parasmaipadi verbs are found to be in the atmanepadi form (or vice versa). Sometimes upapada vibhaktis may be used in a different way. Sometimes a kridanta pratyaya may found to be used in a manner not according to the traditional rules.

Though there are strong evidences that Sanskrit was once a widely spoken language, at least until Panini wrote his famous Ashtadhyayi, it is not clearly known why it lost that position and the regional languages overpowered it. Could it be the indifference of the people who spoke it? Or was it because the constructs were too open for interpretations? (See Freedom - Beauty or Challenge? and Sanskrit - Is it a language?) Or just as all great things tend to go out of vogue (to preserve their sanctity?) Sanskrit also disappeared?

Whatever the reason, it would be logical to say that the sheen of Sanskrit was in decline when Paniniya method of study was abandoned and alternate methods like Siddhanta Koumudi and Laghu Siddhanta Koumudi (LSK) were written and adopted by the masses. Panini's Ashtadhyayi goes about presenting the rules of grammar (sutras) in a sequence which seems to be natural for the people who were already familiar with and spoke the language. And we hear that people in those times used to memorise the entire Ashtadhyayi. LSK rearranges the same rules in Ashtadhyayi and organizes them in related chapters like sandhis, nouns, verbs etc. This is a major difference indicating the lost grip of Sanskrit as a native language. The study methods followed thereafter and practised even today are LSK-based and seems practical in today's world. Though some schools claim to follow Paniniya method, it is not purely Ashtadhyayi sequence, because it is almost not possible to comprehend the rules if the original sequence is followed.

In the centuries that followed, as the local languages took root, Sanskrit remained as a link-language - a means of communication between people of different regions - somewhat like English today. Even in Valimiki Ramayana there are references to a language (other than Sanskrit or at least a dialect) spoken in Sita's Mithila, and Hanuman pondering whether he should talk to Sita in a style of Sanskrit used by dwijatis (brahmana, kshatriya etc.). Over the years, Sanskrit played a key role in preserving the culture of the Indian subcontinent and binding different factions spread across it. Ashtadhyayi, LSK and other supporting works of various grammarians provided a solid framework which is essential for a link-language. The structure and the constructs of the language, which had already a strong scientific base, were well-defined with logical treatises.

The immense amount of literary works that was created in Sanskrit largely complies with the well-defined grammatical structures. However, in Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata and works of many later scholars like Kalidasa, Dandi etc. there are rare cases of word-usages that seem to deviate from the traditional grammar rules. How are these deviations to be justified? In case of Vedas, that would be easy, as one could argue that they are not man-written, but God's message to the sages. Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed by great sages, so those rare deviations found in those works and similar ones are termed as "arsha" (made by or related to sages). Therefore they are acceptable. What about the poets like Kalidasa and Dandi? Deviation such eminent figures is termed "shishta prayoga" (practice by eminent people).

Here comes the the problem. Citing these rare deviations by famous poets and personalities, some later writers might repeat them in their works. Whether such deviated usages were accepted in speech is questionable (as Sanskrit's position at those times itself is obscure). Students and veterans of Sanskrit (especially today) take fancy to such rare usages and justify such usages by themselves. But this practice needs a second thought. "Arsha" was sagely composition. Are we sages of that stature? Many sages have done strange things in their lives albeit rarely. That does not mean the general population is supposed to follow those rare examples. And poets like Kalidasa, Dandi etc. might have resorted to deviations for various reasons - like to fit the words into metres, to bring out the poetic meaning, or just by sheer ignorance. Many scholars criticise a bunch of grammatical errors in Kalidasa's works. Incorrect usages in population can be generally attributed to the so-called "experts" who happily and painstakingly find such non-compliant usages from the ocean of literary works, and then publish them to the masses, giving it a shade of acceptance.

One or two non-compliant usages + publish by "researcher" = mass acceptance

If we keep justifying modern incorrect usages citing such rare occurrences, it is like choosing to imitate one bad deed of a great person who otherwise lived perfect his entire life (Mahatma Gandhi stole and lied, me too!).

Anusvara Part 2 - व्याकरणविवॆचनम्

My last post ("मधुरं फलम्" - The Anusvara Conundrum) showed the "why" of anusvara and मकार difference. In this post, we will see how this difference is supported in the classical Sanskrit grammar. The following is taken from Samjna Prakarana of Laghu Siddhanta Kaumudi (LSK).

मुखनासिकावचनॊऽनुनासिकः | (पा १.१.८)
मुख-सहित-नासिकयॊः वाच्यमाणः वर्णः अनुनासिकसञ्ज्ञः स्यात् |
The sounds pronounced using nose and mouth are called anunasika.
Amongst the grouped consonants, ङ् ञ् ण् न् म् are known as anunasika - pronounced through nose and mouth.

The next few sentences in LSK explain the positions of various vowels and consonants. Each grouped consonant originates from a position in the mouth. Then comes:

ञमङणनानां नासिका च | 
ङ् ञ् ण् न् म् एतॆषां वर्णानामुच्चारणॆ नासिकायाः च (अपि) उपयॊगः भवति |
In the pronunciation of ङ् ञ् ण् न् म्, nose is also used (with mouth). Because the earlier sutras state that other consonants use only mouth.

Then after another couple sutras in between, place of anusvara is mentioned.
नासिकाऽनुस्वारस्य |
अनुस्वारस्य स्थानं नासिका (कॆवलम्) |
which states that the pronunciation place of anusvara is just nose.

The distinction between anusvara and मकार is very clearly stated. Note that in the varnamala chart, anusvara written as अं is for representation only. It can be written as -ं It should not be pronounced as अम्, but just the humming sound coming through the nose. For मकार, the air passing through the mouth should hit the lips, making the nasal pass as well.

मधुरं फलम् - The Anusvara Conundrum

Which one is correct in the following:
मधुरम् फलम् । Or मधुरं फलम् ?
दॆवम् वन्दॆ । Or दॆवं वन्दॆ ?

As per anusvar sandhi,  मधुरं फलम् and दॆवं वन्दॆ are correct. After म् at the end of a word, if a consonant comes (as the starting of the next word), then म् is changed to anusvar (अं). Almost in all Sanskrit grammar books and resources, this aspect is shown as pertaining to only writing style. If म् is not changed to अं under the above conditions while writing, then it is considered to be incorrect. But what about pronunciation? Mostly nothing is said about the pronunciation or it is heard that there is no difference in their pronunciation.

But is it so? Sanskrit is a phonetic language. Its letters are merely written representation of the sounds produced by various parts of human oral and nasal cavities. If both म् and अं are pronounced same, then there was no need for these two letters to exist separately. And also, a sandhi's fundamental rule is that when two letters (sounds) are close enough to combine, they combine and resulting in "change of sound". And in Sanskrit, since sounds are represented as letters, a different letter is written to indicate the changed sound. Anusvar sandhi is no exception to this. When we say sandhi, the resulting sound must change.

Anusvar (अं) sound, as the name indicates, always follows a svara (vowel). म् is a labial consonant and can follow another consonant. अं is a pure nasal sound - means there is no involvement of oral cavity in its generation, just the nasal passage. While pronouncing अं, the air should pass through only the nasal passage keeping the mouth closed and avoiding the air through the oral cavity. Whereas, while pronouncing म्, the air should pass through both the oral cavity and nasal passage. This makes a subtle difference in the sound, but they are not the same! The pictures presented below depict this difference. Therefore, we should not be under the impression that the anusvar sandhi is only about the writing style.

In Sanskrit:
अधस्तनवाक्यद्वये कतरं शुद्ध्म् ?
मधुरम् फलम् समीचीनम् । उत मधुरं फलम् ?
तथैव अनयोः ? दॆवम् वन्दॆ । उत दॆवं वन्दॆ ?

फलानि सर्वदा मधुराणि रुचिकराणि भवन्ति । देवः सर्वदा वन्द्यः । तर्हि किमर्थमयं प्रश्नः ?

अनुस्वारसन्धिः वदति मधुरं फलम् इति समीचीनम् (न तु मधुरम् फलम्) | दॆवं वन्दॆ इति समीचीनम् (न तु दॆवम् वन्दॆ) | हल्-सन्धिषु अनुस्वारसन्धिः अन्यतमः | तदनुगुणं यदा मकारः पदस्य अन्तॆ भवति तथा तदनन्तरं कश्चित् हल्(व्यञ्जन)वर्णः अस्ति तदा मकारस्य स्थानॆ अनुस्वारः आगच्छति | (अष्टाध्यायी- मॊऽनुस्वारः ८.३.२३)

यदि मकारानन्तरं स्वरः अस्ति चॆत् परिवर्तनं न भवति | यथा -
वृक्षम् अवलॊकय
नीलम् आसनम्

एषः नियमः लॆखनॆ पालनीयम् अन्यथा लॆखनॆ दॊषः इति प्रायः सर्वॆषु व्याकरणपुस्तकॆषु सन्धिपाठॆषु दृश्यतॆ श्रूयतॆ च | अनुस्वार-मकारयॊः मध्यॆ उच्चारणभॆदः न वर्ततॆ इति बहुत्र दर्शितमस्ति अथवा तस्मिन् विषयॆ तूष्णीभावं दृश्यते | परन्तु कॆवलं लॆखनविषयॆ अयं सन्धिः भवति किमिति चिन्तनीयम् |

संस्कृतभाषा भाषाधारिता इत्युक्तॆ शब्दाधारिता | ध्वनिशास्त्रानुगुणं वर्णॊत्पत्तिः वर्णमाला च (आङ्ग्लभाषा तथा नास्ति) | वर्णमालायाः प्रत्यॆकः वर्णः विशिष्टमॆकं ध्वनिं प्रदर्शयति | कदाचित् वर्णद्वयस्य उच्चारणॆ भॆदः नास्ति चॆत् तस्य अस्तित्वमॆव निरर्थकम् | अपि च व्याकरणॆ सन्धिः इत्युक्तॆ द्वयॊः वर्णयॊः मॆलनात् जातः शब्द(ध्वनि)विकारः इति विदितमॆव | सर्वॆषु सन्धिषु ध्वनिविकारः श्रूयतॆ निश्चयॆन | एवं सति कॆवलं अनुस्वारसन्धिः तस्य अपवादः भवितुं न शक्यतॆ | सः कॆवलं लॆखनविषयककथा नार्हति |

अनुस्वार-मकारयॊर्मध्यॆ उच्चारणभॆदस्तु सर्वथा वर्ततॆ एव | अनुस्वारः नामानुगुणं स्वरानन्तरमॆव आगन्तुमर्हति न तु व्यञ्जनान्तरम् | परन्तु मकारस्तु व्यञ्जनान्तरमपि आगन्तुमर्हति | अनुस्वारः प्रायॆण शुद्धनासिकवर्णः (कॆवलं नासिकाया एव उच्चार्यमाणः) | तस्य स्थानं मुखॆ नास्ति | अनुस्वारस्य उच्चारणसमयॆ मुखस्य पिधानं भवॆत् तथा वायुः नासिकया एव निःश्वसितुं प्रयत्नं कुर्यात् | मकारः अनुनासिकव्यञ्जनम् ओष्ठ्यवर्णः | मकारॊच्चारणसमयॆ वायुः नासिकायां प्रविशन् मुखावकाशॆ निरर्गलः सञ्चरेत् | अयं विषयः उपरि चित्रमाध्यमॆन निरूपितः यत्र बाणरॆखाः वायुमार्गं दर्शयन्ति | अतः अनयोः वर्णयोः उच्चारणे भेदः नास्तीति भ्रान्तिर्मास्तु ।

एतद्विषयॆ परिशीलनार्हं लॆखनं लभ्यतॆऽत्र - http://www.sanskritweb.net/sansdocs/anusvara.pdf

परशुरामस्तॊत्रम् Parashuram Stotram

परशुरामस्तॊत्रम्

जामदाग्निं रमावन्द्यं भृगूणां कुलदीपकं |
रॆणुकानन्दनं रामं पितुर्वचनपालकम् ॥१॥
क्षात्रॆण तॆजसा युक्तं कृतवीर्यसुतान्तकं |
सपरशुर्धरातलॆ दुष्टराजविनाशकम् ॥२॥
दाशरथिं समागम्य वैष्णवास्त्रप्रदायकम् |
कृष्णयॊरवतारॆ तु खलानां नाशकारणम् ॥३॥
अनादिनिधनं नित्यं परब्रह्मस्वरूपिणं |
सन्तु मॆ निर्मला वाचः वन्दॆ ज्ञानबलप्रदम् ॥४॥

पाहि मां रङ्ग पाहि मां कृष्ण गीतम्

(मूलम् - पुरन्दरदासवरेण्येन रचितं "करुणिसो रङ्ग करुणिसो" कन्नडभाषायां भक्तिगीतम्)

पाहि मां रङ्ग पाहि मां कृष्ण |
सायं प्रातः तव संस्मरणं दत्वा ||

रुक्माङ्गदो नाहं व्रतपालेषु
स्तोतुन्न जाने शुकमुनिसदृशम् |
बकरिपुसदृशो ध्याने नाहं
लालने नाहं देवकीमाता || १ ||

गरुडो नास्मि गमने समर्थः
शब्दो नास्ति इव करिराजः |
वरकपिश्रेष्ठो दास्ये नाहं
रमणे श्रीः नित्या नाहम् || २ ||

नाहं दाने बलिमहाराजः
छलभक्त्योरहं न तु प्रह्लादः |
वरणे नास्मि तव सखार्जुनः
त्राहि देवाधिदेव त्राहि देवाधिदेव
पुरन्दरविट्ठल श्रीपुरन्दरविट्ठल || ३ ||

Sanskrit is easy - संस्कृतं सरलम्

This is an excerpt from Dr. K.N. Padmakumar's (of Sanskrit Bharati USA) speech at Toronto, Canada on March 30th 2018. English translation effort is also provided after the excerpt in Sanskrit (though the speech recommends to read and understand the original 😃).


संस्कृतं कठिनं नास्ति | संस्कृतं बहु सरलम् अस्ति  संस्कृतभाषा एका नूतनभाषा नास्ति | अस्माकं सर्वमातृभाषासु संस्कृतम् अस्ति | इन्ग्लिश-मध्ये अपि संस्कृतम् अस्ति | पिता तदा एव फ़ादर् इति आगतम् | माता तदा एव मदर् इति आगतम् | भ्राता तदा एव ब्रदर् इति आगतम् | स्वसा तदा एव सिस्टर् इति आगतम् | पश्यतु इन्ग्लिश-भाषायाम् अपि अनेकपदानि संस्कृतपदानि एव | अस्माकं मातृभाषायां हिन्दीभाषा मराठीभाषा गुजरातीभाषा तमिलभाषा तेलुगुभाषा सर्वत्रापि अशीति प्रतिशतं पदानि संस्कृतपदानि | तस्मात् भारतीयानां कृते संस्कृतम् एका नूतनभाषा नास्ति | सर्वे संकृतं जानन्ति | किन्तु mental block इति वदति किल | अस्माकं मस्तके एकः विघातः अस्ति | एकः अवरोधः अस्ति | यदा यदा अहं न जानामि इति चिन्तयति तदा तदा संस्कृतं न आगच्छति | प्रथमं किं चिन्तनीयम्? अहं जानामि | मम अन्तरङ्गे मम हृदये मम रक्ते मम जीवने संस्कृतम् अस्ति |

अस्माकं सर्वेषां जीवने संस्कृतम् अस्ति | किन्तु जनाः पृच्छन्ति | संस्कृतम् उत्तमम् | कारणं किम्? संस्कृते वेदाः सन्ति | चतुर्वेदाः ऋग्वेदः यजुर्वेदः सामवेदः अथर्ववेदः | उपनिषदः कति सन्ति ? अनेक- उपनिषदः सन्ति | किन्तु प्रधानाः उपनिषदः दश उपनिषदः सन्ति | ईश-केन-कठ-प्रश्न-मुण्डक-मान्डूक्य-तैत्तिरीय-बृहदारण्यक-छान्दोग्य-ऐतरेय इति दश उपनिषदः प्रधानाः उपनिषदः| उपनिषदः कया भाषया? संस्कृतेन | इतिहासद्वयम् अस्ति | रामायणं महाभारतम् | कया भाषया ? संस्कृतेन |

वेदाः उपनिषदः इतिहासद्वयं अष्टादश पुराणानि नाटकानि काव्यानि आगमानि शास्त्राणि अनेकग्रन्थाः संस्कृतभाषायां सन्ति | किन्तु मम एकः प्रश्नः अस्ति | सर्वं संस्कृते अस्ति | कः पठति ? सर्वम् अस्ति इति वयं वदामः | पश्यतु लज्जा नास्ति वा अस्माकम्? वयं किमपि न पठामः | सर्वम् अस्ति अस्ति इति वदामः | ग्रन्थाः पुस्तकानि वयं न पठामः चेत् तस्य उपयोगः कः | ग्रन्थान् स्थापयित्वा पुस्तकं स्थापयित्वा पूजां कुर्मः चेत् तस्य किमपि प्रयोजनं नास्ति | पुस्तकं पठित्वा जीवने तस्य अनुसन्धानं करणीयम् | भगवद्गीता अस्ति | भगवद्गीता tape recorder इव वदति चेत् किं प्रयोजनम् ? सम्यक् एव | प्रथमं सोपानम् उत्तमम् | द्वितीयं सोपानं किम् ? स्वाध्यायः करणीयः | अस्माकम् अन्तरङ्गे तस्य चिन्तनम् करणीयम् | जीवने भगवद्गीतायाः एकः श्लोकः अस्माभिः पालनीयः | तदा वयम् अवगन्तुं शक्नुमः हिन्दूधर्मः कः | नोचेत् हिन्दूधर्मस्य विषये वयम् अवगन्तुं न शक्नुमः | एतत् किमर्थम् उक्तवान् ? एतत् सर्वं संस्कृते अस्ति | कथम् अहं पठामि? जनाः भिन्न-भिन्न-उपायान् कुर्वन्ति | इन्ग्लिश-मन्ध्ये translation करोति | अन्यभाषायां translation करोति | किन्तु translation करोति चेत् मूलम् अर्थं न मिलति | पूर्वम् एकः हास्यार्थम् उक्तवान् | Soda उद्घाट्य स्थापयति किञ्चित् समयानन्तरं किं भवति ? सामान्यजलम् | तदेव translation करोति चेत् अपि भवति | किमपि प्रयोजनं नास्ति |

एतत्समये अहम् एकां लघुकथां स्मरामि | पूर्वम् एकः महाराजः इच्छति स्म अहं कुत्र कुत्र गच्छामि सर्वत्र अपि रक्तवर्णस्य carpet आवश्यकम् | तत्र सर्वे मन्त्रिजनाः मिलित्वा चिन्तनम् कृतवन्तः - राजा यत्र गच्छति सर्वत्र carpet स्वीकृत्य नूतन-नूतनं स्थापयतु | तेषां मध्ये एकः बुद्धिमान् आसीत् | सः उक्तवान् | किं मूर्खतां करोति || एकरक्तवर्णस्य carpet उपयुज्य एक-पादरक्षानिर्माणं कृत्वा ददातु | कुत्रापि सः गन्तुं शक्नोति | तदेव कार्यं संस्कृतभारती करोति | वेदानां translation करोतु | पुराणानां translation करोतु | उपनिषदः translation करोतु | न भवान् संस्कृतं पततु | भवान् एकः संस्कृतं पठति चेत् एतत् सर्वं भवतः हस्ते | केवलं सर्वं translation कृत्वा ददाति चेत् किं प्रयोजनम् ? तत् सम्यक् अपि न भवति |

१५० वर्षपूर्वं एकः भारतीयः अत्र अमेरिकां प्रति आगतवान् | स्वामी विवेकानन्दः | सः तस्य वस्त्रस्य परिवर्तनं न कृतवान् | तस्य चिन्तनस्य परिवर्तनं न कृतवान् | समग्र-अमेरिकाराज्ये समग्रयुरोपराज्येषु सः वेदान्गस्य हिन्दूदर्शनस्य डिण्डिमनादं कृत्वा प्रतिगतवान् | एकः भारतीयः | मम जीवनस्य लक्ष्यं किम् ? मम जीवने मया किं साधनीयम् ? केवलं भोजनम् करोमि निद्रां करोमि मरणं प्राप्नोमि वा ? मनुष्यस्य अन्तरङ्गे ईश्वरः अस्ति | तस्य जागरणं करणीयम् | तदर्थं साधना करणीया | तदर्थम् अस्ति संस्कृतभाषा |

जीवने अस्माकं संस्कृतिः भवेत् | जीवने अस्माकं वर्धनं भवेत् | प्रतिदिनम् ईश्वरस्य समीपं समीपं गन्तव्यम् | नारदभक्तिसूत्रे एकं सूत्रम् अस्ति | भगवतः समीपे गन्तुं भवान् एकं पादं अग्रे स्थापयति चेत् भगवान् दश पदानि अग्रे आगच्छति | अर्थम् अवगच्छति ? किन्तु तस्य अन्य meaning अपि अस्ति | भवान् एकपदं न स्थापयति भगवान् किमपि न करोति | भगवान् तत्र एव तिष्ठति |

जीवने किञ्चित् समयः स्वर्थतां विना प्रतिदिनम् मम राष्ट्रस्य कृते मम संस्कृतेः कृते मम समाजस्य कृते मम भाषायाः कृते मम ग्रन्थानां कृते | अस्माकं पूर्व-ऋषयः मुनयः कियत्-कष्टेन ग्रन्थानां लेखनं कृतवन्तः | चिन्तयन्तु भवन्तः | महाभारते एकलक्षं श्लोकाः इति उक्तवन्तः | एकं श्लोकं पूर्णं पठनीयं चेत् एकं जन्म आवश्यकम् | तादृश-एकलक्षं श्लोकान् लिखितवान् एकः |

विवेकानन्दः बहु उत्तमः | शङ्कराचार्यः ततोऽपि उत्तमः | सर्वे जनाः उत्तमाः एव | किन्तु मम पुत्रः विवेकानन्दः न भवतु | मम पुत्र doctor भवतु engineer भवतु अथवा अन्यत् किमपि करोतु | समीपगृहस्थः पुत्रः विवेकानन्दः भवतु | एतादृशचिन्तनेन वयं किमपि साधयितुं न शक्नुमः | वयं बहुकालपर्यन्तं वृथा वदामः चेत् किं प्रयोजनम् ? मुखं उद्घाटयति चेत् महा-महावाक्यानि वदति | किमपि जानाति वा ? दानम् इति कः अर्थः ? धर्मः इत्युक्ते किम् ? अस्माकं जीवने कस्य पालनं करोति ? परिवर्तनम् आवश्यकं चेत् जीवने पालनं करणीयम् | पालनं विना कदापि परिवर्तनं न आगच्छति |

English Translation

Sanskrit is not difficult. Sanskrit is very easy. Sanskrit is not a new language. Sanskrit is in the native languages of all of us. Sanskrit is in English too. Father word is derived from पितृ, माता became mother, भ्राता became brother, स्वसा became sister. As you see, there are many Sanskrit words in English too. In our native languages like Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Tamil, Telugu, 80% of the words are from Sanskrit. Therefore, for Indians, Sanskrit is not a new language. All (of you) know Sanskrit. But there is a thing known as mental block. There is an impedance in our brain. If you keep thinking “I do not know”, then it is not possible to understand Sanskrit. First how should we think? I know. Sanskrit is deep in my heart, in my blood.

Sanskrit is in our life. But people ask. Sanskrit is great. Why? Vedas are in Sanskrit - Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda. How many Upanishats are there? There are many. But there are 10 main upanishad - Isha, Kena, katha, prashna, mundaka, maandukya, taittiriya, brihadaranyaka, chandogya, aitareya. Upanishats in which language? In Sanskrit. There are two books explaining the history - Ramayana and Mahabharata. In which language? In Sanskrit.

Vedas, upanishats, two history books, 18 puranas, dramas, poems, aagamas, shashtras, and innumerable books are in Sanskrit language. But I have a question. All this is in Sanskrit, who reads it? Don’t we have any shame? We don’t read any. We just say everything is available. What is the use? If we do not read those books what is the use? If we just keep the books and worship them then it is of no use. Books should be read and its essence should be followed.There is bhagavadgita. If we just chant bhagavadgita like a tape recorder, what is the use? It is ok to do so as the first step. What is the second step? Self-study needs to be done. It should be deeply thought upon. In our life we should attempt to live as per (at least) one of bhagavadgita’s shloka. Then we will be able to understand what is Hindu dharma. Otherwise we won’t be able to understand about the Hindu dharma. Why did I say this? Everything is in Sanskrit. How should I read it? People try in different ways. They translate it in English or other languages. But when translated, we don’t get the original intended meaning. Someone said jokingly. If we open soda what happens after sometime? Plain water. Same thing happens with translation. There is no use.

I remember a short story. There was a king who wanted red carpet under his feet wherever he walked. His ministers planned to carry a big bundle of carpet and set it wherever the king went. There was a wise person amongst the ministers. He said enough of this stupidity. Just make a pair of shoes with the red carpet material. Let the king wear it. Then the king can go anywhere. Sanskrit Bharati does the same work. Instead of translation of vedas, puranas, upanishats, you learn Sanskrit. If you learn Sanskrit, everything will be in your hand. If you merely do the translation, what is the use? It won’t be correct also.

One hundred fifty years ago, an Indian came to America. Swami Vivekananda. He did not change his clothes. He did not change is thoughts. He alone, one person, propagated vedanga and hindu dharma in the entire America and the Europe continent before returning to India. What is the objective in my life? What should I achieve? Only eat, sleep and die? There is god in every human being. That needs to be invoked. We need to strive for that. Sanskrit language is for that purpose.

There should be culture in our life. There should be growth in our life. Everyday we should move towards god. There is a quote in Narada Bhakti Sutra. If we move one step towards the god, he moves ten steps towards us. But it has other meaning too. If you do not make any move, then the god also does not do anything. Some effort is needed from our side.

In life, for some time, without being selfish, every day for the sake of my society, for my country, for my culture, for my literary works. Our forefathers, saints painstakingly wrote great books. Think about it. There are one lakh shlokas in mahabharata. To understand one shloka, one whole life is needed. Like that a person wrote one lakh shlokas.

Vivekananda is great. Shankaracharya is even better. All are great. But my son should not become a Vivekananda. My son should become a doctor, an engineer or something else. Neighbor’s son should become a Vivekananda. By thinking like this, we cannot achieve anything. What is the use if we just keep babbling for long? If we open our mouth, big words, sentences come out from vedas. Do we even understand what they mean? What is dharma? What do we follow? If change is expected, then we should practice (the dharma). Without practicing, there will never be any change.

YouTube link to the complete audio is available here.