Sanskrit and Computers - Words Apart

In any formal or informal gathering about Sanskrit, the topic of Sanskrit being very well suited for modern day advanced intelligent technologies comes up invariably. (See also the blog post: Sanskrit: Best Language for Computers-True or False?). And the Sanskrit lovers love to associate Sanskrit with any and every possible modern phenomenon. This goes in the same vein that many try to find everything in ancient Indian literature and stories to be somehow superior or advanced compared to its modern-day counterpart. For example: advanced weaponry, nuclear warfare, airplanes, architecture, astronomy, sea travel, test tube babies, gender-change procedures and so on. Some of it could be true. But this narcissism taken to the extreme could cloud the reality and become highly nonsensical and irrelevant.

For example, take the case of the subject of prosody (छन्दस्). The basic units of short and long weight of syllables are called laghu (लघु) and guru (गुरु). Some put it as the basis for today's binary system. The binary system has two states represented by 0 and 1, and is the underlying science of today's digital technology. But we can find this binary state in many other things like day/night, yes/no, black/white, wet/dry, hot/cold, open/close. The inventors of the binary system found it convenient and more efficient in the transmission of signals and quickly adapted it in electronics. There could be analogy between laghu/guru and 0/1, but saying that one has borrowed from another is bit of a stretch.

Another big topic is that of computers or robots and Sanskrit. Here, computers and robots represent state-of-the art technologies and are supposed to be the result of the most sophisticated advent in the technology. With the current trends in the industry, there is a huge push to mimic the human brain into a machine. That is a big temptation for Sanskrit lovers - to associate Sanskrit with anything that is perceived as modern and smart. Because Sanskrit grammar has a very well-defined structure and to the most part, is rule-based, it makes sense to think that the algorithmic approach fits the computers or the robots. This thought is in fact an insult to the Sanskrit language. If the entire language can be machine-generated and programmed into the robots, Sanskrit would be just another dumb computer language, only better in terms of its structure and understandable by humans too.

While Sanskrit has a well-defined grammatical structure, it is a highly evolved language. For those who do not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, Sanskrit has been in existence forever and is the "original" language of the gods and mankind. Even with evolution theory in place, the experts have a range of 75,000 and 10,000 years for the most ancient Sanskrit literature - the Vedas- which themselves are in a very highly developed linguistic form. In Sanskrit, not only a word, but each sound, each letter has its own meaning. And they get together to form a word. The words can combine multiple times to form infinite number of words. The beauty of Sanskrit is that there is no specific word for a given thing. For example: for fire, there are not many alternate words in the English language. Thesaurus.com shows a few synonyms of fire, but they are mostly the words that are like fire - heat, tinder etc., but not the fire itself. But in Sanskrit, an object is defined by its characterstics. So, a fire can be referred to by multitude of words - like agni (one that does not move), hutaashana (one which eats everything), anala (one which is never satisfied), jvaalaa (one which burns), vaayusakha (friend of wind), saptajihva (one which has multiple flames) etc. Similarly, one word can refer to multiple objects. For example: hari might refer to the god (who destroys), or a horse (which moves fast), a lion, a parrot, a monkey, a serpent, a swan, a frog, a cuckoo, fire, wind, sun, moon, green and many more depending on the interpretation and context.

There is a famous verse which is a good example to quote here:
अङ्गुल्या कः कपाटं प्रहरति विशिखे माधवः किं वसन्तो
नो चक्री किं कुलालो न हि धरणीधरः किं द्विजिह्वः फणीन्द्रः |
नाहं घोराहिमर्दो किमुत खगपतिर्नो हरिः किं कपीन्द्रः
इत्येवं सत्यभामाप्रतिवचनाजितः पातु वश्चक्रपाणिः ||
When Krishna knocked on the door of his wife Satyabhaama's room, she asks - who is it?
Krishna: I am Maadhava. She: Is it the spring season (maadhava also means spring).
Krishna: No, I am Chakrii. She: Is it a potter?
Krishna: No, I am DharaNidhara. She: Is it the great serpent (who carries the earth)?
Krishna: No, I am the one who killed the poisonous snake (Kaaliya). She: Are you Garuda?
Krishna: No, I am Hari. She: Are you a monkey?
May lord Krishna, thus won over by the words of Satyabhaama, protect us.

This is true for every word and object in Sanskrit. It is completely contextual and the word formation is entirely natural. The speaker has the freedom to make use of the best combination of letters, words or compound words to describe the character(s) of an object in the given context and bring about the most appropriate meaning of that object. For instance, to describe a heating situation, jvaalaa maight be appropriate. If something is burning, saptajihava might convey it better. If want to indicate destruction, anala or hutaashana might work better. If the listener knows the difference in these meanings, the understanding would be more satisfying and complete, else it could be just understood as fire (something which burns). This flexible approach presents numerous possibilities to coin any new word on the fly. If it is some other language, we need to open its dictionary and look up the word or import the word as is. Not necessary here. For example: what is the word for traffic? The characteristic of traffic is excessive presence of flow of vehicles. One can come up with the word like प्रवाहिनी. What about a (motor) car? The machine is used for moving us or taking us places. While रथ or यन्त्ररथ can be used, one can call it गन्त्री.

Sanskrit language represents the pinnacle of human ingenuity, the unfathomable intelligence that has evolved (or existed) over billions of years. It is a complete natural representation of the eternal and infinite sounds in the universe. In that sense, it is truly गीर्वाणभारती - the divine language, the universal language. Thinking of today's (and any future) gadgets and Sanskrit on the same plane is belittling to this greatest language.

Books

Shiksha Bodha A Guide to Sanskrit Pronunciation US Paperback Edition Canada Edition India Paperback Edition	Bhagavata Laghu Katha Sangraha Collection of stories in Sanskrit US Paperback Edition Canada Edition India Paperback Edition

Purandara Dasa पुरन्दरदासः

पञ्चदशतमे क्रैस्तशतके दक्षिणभारते कर्णाटप्रदेशे शिमोगाप्रान्ते वरदप्पनायकनामकः वाणिज्यवृत्तिनिरतः वसति स्म | १४८४तमे क्रैस्तशके तस्मिन् जातः श्रीनिवासनाम्ना पुत्रः | यथाक्रमं विद्याधीतस्य तस्य प्राप्ते वयसि सरस्वतीनामकवधुना विवाहः संपन्नः | श्रीनिवासस्य विंशके तारुण्ये तस्य पिता दिवंगतः | पितुः वाणिज्यवृत्तिमनुवर्तमानः श्रीनिवासः बहु शीघ्रं ख्यातधनाढ्योऽभवत् | चतुर्णां बालकानां जनकः सः स्ववृत्तिभावात् धनलालसापरः परमकृपणोऽपि आसीत् |

एकस्मिन् दिने श्रीनिवासे स्वापणे वृत्तिनिरते सति अकिञ्चनः कश्चन ब्राह्मणः एकदा पुत्रस्य उपनयनार्थं धनं याचमानः तत्र आगतवान् | दरिद्रेषु उदासीनः श्रीनिवासः ब्राह्मणं तिरस्कृतवान् | धनार्तस्य ब्राह्मणस्य पुनः पुनः प्रार्थनेनापि श्रीनिवासः कठिनहृदयो दाने नोदसहत | हताशो ब्राह्मणः श्रीनिवासस्य पत्नीं सरस्वतीं संप्राप्य तां विषयं निवेदयन् धनयाचनामकरोत् | निर्धनेषु दयापराऽपि सा पतिव्रता भर्तुराज्ञया विना दानेऽशक्तास्मीति अवदत् | परं यायाच्यमाने ब्राह्मणे कृपाविष्टा सा स्वमात्रा दत्तं नासाभरणं तस्मै दत्तवती | संतुष्टो ब्राह्मणः तत् स्वर्णाभरणमादाय श्रीनिवासस्य समीपे गतवान् | तदाभरणं न्यासरुपेण स्वीकृत्य धनं प्रदातुं व्यज्ञापयत् | श्रीनिवासः तदाभरणं स्वीकृत्य पत्न्याः इति अभिज्ञाय पेटिकायां स्थापितवान् | ब्राह्मणं तत्रेव प्रतीक्षमाणं कृत्वा गृहं प्रति अधावत् | गृहे पत्न्याः सरस्वत्याः नासिकायामभरणमदृष्ट्वा सः आक्रोशेन तद्दर्शयितुमवदत् | भयाक्रान्ता सरस्वती स्वप्राणत्यागोद्युक्ता महानसं गत्वा विषप्राशनाय चषकं कल्पितवती | अहो किमाश्चर्यम् | चषके नासाभरणं प्रत्यक्षोऽभवत् | तद्गृहीत्वा सा पतिं न्यवेदयत् | सविस्मितः श्रीनिवासः पुनः आपणमवाप्य दृष्टवान् यत् ब्राह्मणो नासीत् पेटिकायामाभरणमपि अदृष्टम् | एतत् सर्वं भगवतः श्रीहरेः एव लीलानाटकमिति विदितवान् |

ततः परं श्रीनिवासः संसारे वैराग्यभावं चिन्तयन् स्वधनं सर्वं दीनजनाय दत्त्वा हरिपरोऽभवत् | विजयनगरवासिनः तत्कालीनप्रसिद्धयते: व्यासराजसकाशात् तेन हरिदासदीक्षा समपद्यत | तद्दीक्षाप्रदानकाले तस्य नवनामकरणोऽपि जातः पुरन्दरदास इति | हस्ते तुन्तुवाद्यं पादयोः किङ्किण्यौ धरन् पुरन्दरदासः स्वरचितभक्तिपदानि गायन् जनेषु भक्तिमार्गं प्रसारयति स्म | सुलभावबोधानि कन्नडजनभाषायां रचितानि तस्य पद्यानि अतीव जनप्रियानि | तत्कारणात् दाससाहित्यं भारतीयसंगीतक्षेत्रं च विस्तारिते प्राकाशेताम् | प्रायः तेन ४७५००० रचनानि निर्मितानि इति श्रूयते | संप्रति प्रायशः उपसहस्रं रचनान्येव उपलब्धानि | भगवल्लीलापराणि पुराणेतिहासकथाविषयाकानि सामाजिकनीतिबोधकानि नैकानि तस्य पद्यानि प्रख्यातानि | कर्णाटराज्यस्य हम्पीनगरे पुरन्दरदासः अशीतितमे वयसि विष्णुपदमवाप |

पुरन्दरदासः हरिदासजनेषु अग्रगण्यः | अस्य भक्ताग्रेसरस्य कीर्तनानि अद्यापि मिथ्याचारविषये सामाजिकवैषम्यविषये अन्धानुकरणविषये उद्बोधकानि सन्ति |

मन्मनोभीष्टवरदं सर्वाभीष्टफलप्रदम् |

पुरन्दरगुरुं वन्दे दासश्रेष्ठं दयानिधिम् ||

ज्ञानवैराग्यसंपन्नं भक्तिमार्गप्रवर्तकम् |

पुरन्दरगुरुं वन्दे दासश्रेष्ठं दयानिधिम् ||

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॥