I am one of the earlier member of this group and was participating earlier in the discussions when it was more PS related. But I am amazed by the evolution of this group from a mere 'story discussing group' to more serious and expert 'history discussing group'. Eventhough I dont contribute much to the present day topics, I enjoy reading every post and enrich my knowledge in history. I have one doubt about the Vedas- and Sanskrit not having script at that time. Vedas are not just a rudiment or young/initial/developing literature in sanskrit. They are more advanced, complex, grammatical with extensive vocabulary and classifications, as I understand. If this is true that the language is so advanced, it defies logic that there is no script for it during that time. Probably due to some reasons they have been passsed on as 'hearsay' for generations.
during earlier days people thought that having a written script will destroy their learning abilities.They used to memorize volumes of books.people were walking encyclopedias.
Our vedas did not originate after we have had a script.They originated even before we had no language.It seems that in earlier days when man was nothing buit a caveman, some cavemen started thinking about why things are this way.Some of them went to forest and there they meditated without even knowing that they were meditating.They heard the noise of trees,leaves and rivers and birds.Some heard a repeated pattern of noise which was so good to ears.They memorized them and chanted them.slowly they felt changes and became rishis.Those chants became vedas.
Even today we have a method to pronounce vedas.If you pronounce it in that way you can reproduce noise of river,water,trees and birds.The slogas on varuna will replicate flow of water.Slogas on vayu will replicate noise of wind.Thats why pronounciation is considered important in vedas.These rishis became the founding fathers of our religion which spread to the whole world.There must hardly around 50,000 people must have lived.
language must have originated from vedas and not vice versa.Every slogan in vedas is given by a rishi and he has said that he has heard that slogan from trees,air and water.No rishi ever said he composed any vedic hymn.He only got it from nature and did not comepose it.
> I have one doubt about the Vedas- and Sanskrit not > having script at that time. Vedas are not just a > rudiment or young/initial/developing literature in > sanskrit. They are more advanced, complex, grammatical > with extensive vocabulary and classifications, as I > understand.
There are two things in vedas "sruthi" and "smruthi". Sruthi is something that is passed on by words - it is never ever written down. Why ? Because the pronounceation of words are so important and this could not be well captured in the scripts.
Even today it is pretty difficult to learn the exact pronounceation of words in sanskrit (though you can learn the script )and a slight variation has a completely different meaning... My friend use to say vidya means art and vidhdhya (with a stress in dh) means murder !
Why did that language evolve in that way ? And why vedas were written in that language ? With this questions, you are slightly pushed to religious realm....
If you are seriously interested read "Maraidhirukkum Unmaigal" by Osho (Kannadasan padhippagam)
dear sir, i am having a speculation abt ur thoughts. anthropologically we are called homosepians there were another race which is exhisted is called neanderthals they were also like human beings but comparitively they are much superior to the homosepians in the thinking i.e. i dont know how exactly i reperesent they may be much superior in brain. so they may be the builders of the civilization and all other vedhas later on they may be destroyed by the homosepians and some genius homosepians have gathered the vedas only thru hearsay from the neanderthals with out knowing their language. i think it is quite funny and it is purely speculation only.
After a two days gap, I am perplexed to see so many mails. Better late than never.
I only said that vedas were never written down. Indeed it was not me, but our great scholars, which I had read. What you say is correct to some extent. Valmiki wrote Ramayanam, but its not veda. Many rishis wrote many things, which gives us proof that there was script. But as already told by Gokul and Sampath, Vedas gave importance to Pronunciations which might get distorted with a slight change in the sound. A legend says, one rishi, I forgot the name did tapas to ask god that he needs a son who can kill Indira. But due to one slight change in the sound, his prayer gave a different meaning, that he needs a son to be killed by Indira and he got such a son, who got killed by Indira later.
Vyasa composed the vedas yes. But I dont thing its said Vyasa wrote the vedas. Just a thought on this. We all know music is made up of only seven swarams sa,re,ga, ma,pa,da,ni...I have written it down, giving the same sound of each swara. Can everyone read this and start singing? Illayaraja composes music, he never writes music..vyasa composed vedas, it need not be that he wrote it in the form of script. Did I make any sense? wondering myself...
satish
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:00:17 +0000 (GMT), sridhar rathinam
yes, i agree with satish and more , vyasa is not the name of an individual, its a title and a kind of award, there r possibilities of many persons called vyasa and the job is also might have been done by many vyasas for some period.
I dont get your point. If you mean to say that Ilayaraja is the only music composer who writes notes, probably yes. I will go one step further and even say he is the only indian who composes music (I wont say that others create just noise..hahaha...though true to some extent...I was just kidding)
What I mean to say is, even if I learn to read and write musical notes, I cannot play the music he composes as he desires, unless I learn it. Similarly even if we learn to read and write sanskrit we cant get the exact pronunciation as learned orally from a guru.