Sanskrit and the Sruti

Recently, at a conference on Indian diaspora in Dharamshala (India), a speaker on Osho Rajneesh's works indicated that Sanskrit was basically a static language having unnecessary rigid rules and grammar. He went on to state that the choice of Sanskrit by the brahmins as the Vedic language several milleniums ago had deprived the general public from acquiring true knowledge. It was Buddha, according to him, about 2500 years ago, who (in spite of being a great scholar of the Vedas and Sanskrit) deliberately spread his message (Buddhism) in Pali in stead of Sanskrit so that people could easily understand it.

The above statements (in the name of Osho by his readers) about Sanskrit and Buddha are not really true.

First of all, it was necessary for Sanskrit, as the name suggests -- refined or perfected, to have strict rules and grammar. The early brahmins (people with the responsibility for retaining the knowledge and transmitting it to others), who composed the Sanskrit in the beginning, probably did make it somewhat a strict language so that the message or the knowledge transmitted through it remained complete and did not get distorted or lost. To avoid the possibility of any confusion or ambiguity arising due to differences in interpretations of the stored and transmitted knowledge, they constructed an elaborate system of rules and grammar for Sanskrit. Since, especially during the oral communication of information or the Veda, the distortion or change in the message (information or knowledge) and the medium (language) could accidentally and easily occur, it was important for Sanskrit to have strict rules so that it would retain its form. Thus this was not the recipe for stagnation, but to achieve ultimate in refinement and completeness. For example, an elaborate alphabet with almost a separate letter for each sound, three tier forms (singular, dual and plural) and three genders (masculine, feminine and neutral) involving nouns, pronouns and verbs etc., eight types of cases, and ten kinds of verb formations affirm the thoroughness of Sanskrit. Similarly, to enhance the capability of this language for communication, recital and singing, while also maintaining accuracy and conciseness, a meticulous system for liaisons between words within a sentence would be introduced.

When the knowledge was first compiled as the Veda (meaning - the compiled knowledge), there were very few facilities for storing it in the written form. Unlike these days of easily available paper and printing presses, people (especially the brahmins) in those days used papyrus, parchments and stone tablets to record information in hand. These methods of recording and storing the Veda (knowledge) were quite difficult and cumbersome and would produce only a handful of copies of each text. As can be expected, the documents prepared in this manner would usually stay with their author (or the guru). Whoever was interested in gaining the knowledge (Veda or other) would go to that guru and learn it from him. Because there were only a few documents and texts available with a guru (teacher) at any time, students would learn and gain knowledge from him orally or in spoken form. The teacher would recite the information or the text to the students who, sitting next to him, would hear and memorize it. This form of knowledge transmission from a teacher to the student was called Sruti (meaning -- as heard or information acquired through hearing) and was perhaps one of the earliest in human history. Needless to say, since the knowledge would be available in Sanskrit, it was necessary for any new student of the Veda to first learn the Sanskrit language and gain mastery in it.

Educating the people orally during ancient times was not very easy. To learn and master the entire knowledge, including the language, would take a student very long time, usually in decades and even up to the age of twenty five years. A teacher and his dedicated students would spend a great deal of effort and time in gurukul (or hermitage) trying to recite and memorize the whole thing. Thus, even though the education and knowledge were open to all, only a handful of students would dare to commit their time and effort for such education to become brahmins. In addition, the students would normally be required to pay for their education to the guru in the form of labor (work) in the gurukul or on his farm etc. Similarly, while living away from their homes for an extended period, students would generally find themselves in a constant threat (from beasts, and rakshashas or cannibals) in the gurukul (hermitage) located usually in the woods. It was an extremely hard life to acquire knowledge and become a brahmin. The career of a brahmin was further fraught with little financial promise afterwards, except that it used to be seen as a noble calling to become the holder and transmitter of knowledge. On the other hand, it would always be easy for any young person to follow casually in the parents' footsteps and become a carpenter or a farmer etc. (instead of a brahmin or priest) and start making a living immediately. As can be expected, not many people would therefore go into the profession of a brahmin. There was generally a shortage of new learners and the gurus (brahmins) invariably would end up training and educating their own children as brahmins. In spite of all such difficulties, several non-brahmins (Vaishyas, and Shudras or outsiders -- such as Satyakama), still went for the Vedic education and became famous brahmins.

As described in the above, the Sruti used to be learnt and communicated in oral tradition. There were only a few written manuscripts available anywhere. Not to have the oral message of the Vedas distorted or lost over time, Sankrit (a language with strict grammatical rules) was formulated and chosen as their medium. It was not a brahmin conspiracy to keep the masses ignorant of the Vedas or to make the Sanskrit language deliberately and needlessly static and strict, but to ensure the integrity of the oral message (Sruti or Veda) transmitted in it. Note that by choosing the elaborate Sanskrit language for the Vedas, these texts remained accurate and were able to survive for ages from generations to generations. Incidentally, note that even though the brahmins used to know Sanskrit well in addition to the Vedas, their priestly duties with general public would normally involve the local dialects.

The important Hindu texts transmitted as the Srutis include the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Upanisads (including the Bhagavad Gita). These literatures are sometimes called the Sanatan (or eternal) because the knowledge in them is considered eternal or as having withstood the test time and survived since the very beginning of civilization. In addition, the Srutis are thought to be divinely inspired, because God is considered as the ultimate source of everyone's intellect -- including all those (brahmins and non-brahmins alike) who had contributed to the Vedas.

Regarding the earlier comment about Buddha, it should be noted that the Vedas and the Sanskrit language came into existence long before him. Furthermore, there is no hard evidence that Buddha was a scholar of the Vedas or knew Sanskrit well. For example, before becoming enlightened and known as the Buddha, prince Sidhartha had his early childhood and adolescent years spent in isolation in a palace under the shelter of his royal parents so that he could remain unexposed to the sights of worldly sorrows and difficulties. His parents were probably afraid that, according to an earlier prophecy, he might renounce this world and become a hermit if he were to see sorrow in the world. So, they made sure that he would remain isolated from the outside world and not be subjected to undue pressures and difficulties. This indicates that Sidhartha probably was also kept away from the unnecessary rigors of learning Sanskrit and the Vedas during his youth. Thus, unlike the custom of the day, he would very likely not go to any gurukul to study. Above all, in all likelihood, the Kshatriya king would probably not want his son (the young prince Sidhartha) to waste his time learning the Vedas (and Sanskrit -- in great depth at least, since the two were usually studied together), because the Vedic education normally used to be a pursuit to become a brahmin (and not a Kshatriya or king). Moreover, even inside the palace, with an emphasis for avoiding any hardship to him, his education would only be sporadic at best and not sufficient enough to make him a great authority in Sanskrit and the Vedas.

Later when Sidhartha was well in his teens, his father (the king) decided to introduce him to the worldly life. He soon was married to a beautiful princess in the hope that this would plant him firmly as a family man and he would not turn his back on the world. But, while being driven once in the city during one of his rare excursions outside, Sidhartha saw a number of people suffering and inflicted with diseases. He even saw a dead body for the first time that was being taken to the crematorium. The sight of people suffering and dying disappointed him greatly and he felt totally disillusioned. He decided to find the cause of misery in the world. Then one night soon afterwards he suddenly left the palace for good, leaving his family behind, and set out in search of truth.

For several years, Sidhartha roamed from place to place and hermitage to hermitage trying to find the cause of pain in the world. He approached several Hindu gurus and rishis for learning how to avoid suffering. He performed many austerities (tapas) and did penance in the hope of acquiring true knowledge but to no avail. Then after spending several years like this, Sidhartha is known to have finally found enlightenment on his own while sitting and meditating under a tree. With this realization of truth, he started to preach his message to others who would call him Buddha (the enlightened or realized one).

Note that Sidhartha's search of truth with Hindu swamis, rishis and gurus (Vedic scholars of the day) after leaving the palace indicates that he did not have a prior training and knowledge in the Vedas. It was probably his first encounter with these scholars. If he had already learnt the Vedas by that time (such as during his early years) or was exposed to Vedic knowledge, he would not find it necessary to go back to the scholars, at least not wander around for a long time in search of such knowledge. It appears therefore that Sidhartha did not know the Vedas earlier and might not even have known Sanskrit well. Note that the learning of the Sanskrit language and the Vedas used to often go hand in hand. Thus the lack of knowledge in any one of them would normally imply at least some deficiency in the other.

Moreover, while in search of truth (for rather a short time and not long enough to learn the whole Vedas) in the ashramas (hermitages) of various Hindu teachers, Sidhartha probably could learn only about the Upanisads (Veda-ends or the final parts of the Vedas) and not the entire Vedas. He also could have learnt the Hindu philosophies there and picked up the Sanskrit language. Because the time and effort he would spend learning at this stage of his life seem rather insufficient indicates that he very likely could not master the Vedas, at least not in their entirety. It was not his aim incidentally to learn about the whole Vedas, but only to find out about suffering etc. in world. Therefore he would not spend his time and effort on the Vedas. Note that his message (the Buddhism) appears also to have its roots in the Upanisads (and not the Vedas) and is even somewhat similar to the Hindu Samkhya philosophy (without the concept of Brahman or God). Needless to say, as is the case, the Buddhism is quite removed from the elaborate Vedas, which also include yajnas and vocational (caste) order among other things. Note that the Buddhism is not much into yajnas and vocational castes etc. This difference in Buddhism and Vedism could thus probably be due to the fact that the author of Buddhism or the Buddha did not know the Vedas well (as explained above) and decided to base his message on the Upanisads in stead of the Vedas. There is no indication that he knew the Vedas well and then deliberately ignored them (Vedas -- yajnas, and vocational classes or castes etc.) in his teachings. Similarly, his choice of Pali in spreading his message might be due to the fact that he considered himself more competent and better able to do so in Pali (a vernacular tongue then) rather than Sanskrit -- the language in which he probably had less training (as indicated above).
------------------------------------
By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma
Email:
lamberdar@yahoo.com
Date: May 31, 2005

link to: Related topics by the author

-------------------------------------

Appendix

The Sanskrit grammar and Pannini (circa 500 BC)

"It was Panini who formalised Sanskrit's grammer and usage about 2500 years ago. No new 'classes' have needed to be added to it since then. Panini should be thought of as the forerunner of the modern formal language theory used to specify computer languages," say J J O'Connor and E F Robertson. Their article also quotes: "Sanskrit's potential for scientific use was greatly enhanced as a result of the thorough systemisation of its grammar by Panini. ... On the basis of just under 4000 sutras [rules expressed as aphorisms ], he built virtually the whole structure of the Sanskrit language, whose general 'shape' hardly changed for the next two thousand years.".........http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Panini.html

Contrary to the above, Sanskrit grammar and rules were formulated and existed before Panini. He was not the earliest grammarian but probably the most recent great compiler of such knowledge (albeit 2500 yr. go) that existed as the sruti before his time mainly in the oral form.

For example, consider that the Vedas (several millenniums old) are much older than Panini (about 2500 yr.). People were already using Sanskrit as the ideal medium for Vedas during Panini's time, which indicates that the rules and grammar for Sanskrit were already laid out before Panini. These rules and grammar had thus been created by others and not him. He might at best have just compiled them into the present form. Since nobody else did anything significant related to Sanskrit grammar after Panini in the last 2500 years, Sanskrit grammar still bears the name of its last major contributor.

Note that in the ancient times when a student would approach a guru for learning a certain Shastra (scripture), for example Rig Veda or Mahabharata, the training to the student in that scripture would start with the language (usually Sanskrit) pertaining to that particular scripture. Moreover since the learning was mainly oral, for optimizing the time and effort on the part of the student and his guru, the language would be taught to the extent and mainly in relation to its applicability to that particular Shastra. Thus the language taught during the learning of Rig Veda and Mahabharata by two different students, even though referred to as Sanskrit in both cases, might have variations in its content and grammar depending on whether it would be used for Rig Veda or Mahabharata. It indicates that even before Panini’s time there were a variety of well-established sets of rules and grammar for Sanskrit pertaining to different Shastras. Each of these types (sets or systems) could thus be considered as yielding the perfected form of language (with its own rules etc.) and ideally suited to a certain specific Shastra. It seems most likely that Panini only compiled these pre-existing separate linguistic rules for Sanskrit (related to several Shastras) into a single comprehensive grammar, as described in the Sutras (aphorisms) accredited to him.
(By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma)