The Godly Language

Finding the Roots of Sanskrit-Part 4/4

...Continued from Part 3/4

The hypothesis point #8: Panini has accepted many words without derivation.

• Panini’s Ashtadhyayi, has many sutras just to derive a single special word. Panini could have easily written a few more sutras for those accepted without derivation. We need to keep in mind that by the time of Panini, many of the verb roots and etymologies were already lost.

The hypothesis point #9: The old-generation grammarians were more accommodative about changes to the Sanskrit language. This is evident by the works of Katyayana. And even Patanjali was open to this idea of revision of the grammar. The grammarians of the later era like Bhartrihari elevated Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali to the status of maharshis, thereby stopping the ability to question their work.

• Actually, we should be grateful to the trio - Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali who established a solid framework that survived through all the tumultuous times of history. And we should be grateful to those grammarians who kept this framework alive by rigorously following it. If not for such measures, the language would have lost its very nature with the foriegn invasions. Even if there could be traces of some external influence on this language, it was very limited. And that too happened within a homogenous family of languages which had a similar culture. Just like there are no Vedic seers in these times, there are no shishtas (authoritative people) for this language now. Those interested to pursue the language, should take a serious look at what we got from our great ancestors and appreciate its very existence in that form. It is prudent to make a sincere attempt to preserve and adopt to it, rather than destroying it in the name of modernization and evolution.

The hypothesis point #10: In the works of the likes of Bhavabhuti etc., many words that are not in conformity with the grammar of Panini. Who are we to question such word forms? We should be ok to use such distorted word forms in our usage also.

• Now-a-days, it is a fashion to talk about “evolving” the Sanskrit language. Sadly, Sanskrit being nobody’s native language is the harsh target of such attempts. In this age of fast forward and instant-gratification, such people might be finding it hard either hard for themselves or thinking it is hard for others to learn the language and use it. It is like - the Vedas are hard to remember and recite, so let us just change their style of composition so it would be easy for everyone. For that very reason, the many great works and songs were written in other languages to bring out the message of the Vedas. The insistence of wanting to use or speak in Sanskrit by distorting is uncalled for.
  If anyone and everyone starts imitating or doing what great or well-known people do, then there will be chaos. First, everyone is not at that level of likes of Bhavabhuti. Secondly, the well-known literary works have their own reasons to deviate - sometimes it could be to fit the verses to a desired metre, sometimes out of rebellion, sometimes mere negligence, or it could be the error of the scribes. Such non-confirming usages are very rare like 1%. Ignoring the 99% of the conforming usage, why should anyone itch to use the 1% portion?

The hypothesis point #11: Then there is a quote from Mahabhashyam of Patanjali that - Sanskrit was not spoken in the households for regular conversation, but only used for special purposes like in yajna etc. This raises the question: was Sanskrit ever a real spoken language amongst the commoners and for daily use?

• Consider the theory that the Prakrit dialects existed for ever, either predating Sanskrit or in parallel with it. The term “Prakrit” itself is a Sanskrit word meaning “natural” or “original”. That hints at the “Sanskrit” language being a made up or refined language - probably adopted for some special purpose. Otherwise, what was the need for such refinement? And what could be that special purpose of this adoption? Though it can be used as an everyday spoken language, could it be that its main purpose was for use with quest for higher achievements of mankind? As a disciplined linguistic construct in pursuit of intellectual and spiritual goals? Literally, गीर्वाणभारती a godly language?