Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I have a general question for Veda scholars here and would be grateful for pointers.

 

In Indian script publications, the convention is to depict anudAtta with a horizontal line below the syllable and svarita with a vertical line(s) above the syllable. How old is this convention? Is it something that has evolved within the recent past, thanks to the spread of the printed book or is it something that was used in much older handwritten manuscripts as well?

 

Conversely, in academic publications, especially from Europe and America, Roman script transliterations use only an accent over the udAtta syllable and leave both anudAtta and svarita unmarked. What was the origin of this convention? To me, at least, this style of transliteration makes it difficult to mentally relate the written text to the recited text, hence the question.

 

Regards,

Vidyasankar 

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Sundaresan

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:28:43 AM UTC+8, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

I have a general question for Veda scholars here and would be grateful for pointers.

 

In Indian script publications, the convention is to depict anudAtta with a horizontal line below the syllable and svarita with a vertical line(s) above the syllable. How old is this convention? Is it something that has evolved within the recent past, thanks to the spread of the printed book or is it something that was used in much older handwritten manuscripts as well?

 

 

The two-mark convention is fairly recent, and came much later than advent of printing in British India. Old manuscripts and printed works dating to nineteenth century show many more marks with significant variations.

There a variations within different Vedas and also within Vedic manuscripts of the same Veda from different regions. E.g. in Shukla Yajurveda (Madhyandina recension) manuscripts, an independent svarita is represented by a small curve (कङ्कु) below the letter, while in Rigveda, it is marked by a curve above. In the Kashmiri and Junagadh manuscripts of Rigveda, Svarita is marked differently. This shows (as we already know) that the different conventions seen in manuscripts (and old printed texts) developed much later than the development of oral traditions.

A comprehensive reference in this regard is Pandit Yudhishthira Mimamsaka's work in Hindi, वैदिक वाङ्मय में प्रयुक्त विविध स्वराङ्कन प्रकार (1964), published in Ajmer by Bharatiya Prachyavidya Pratishthana. Some notes from this work can be seen here - http://sanskrit1.ccv.brown.edu/VedicUnicode/passages/PassagesYudhisthiraMimamsakaSvarV.pdf

 

Conversely, in academic publications, especially from Europe and America, Roman script transliterations use only an accent over the udAtta syllable and leave both anudAtta and svarita unmarked. What was the origin of this convention? To me, at least, this style of transliteration makes it difficult to mentally relate the written text to the recited text, hence the question.

Regarding Western transliteration you may want to refer Charles Wikner's observations on page 3 of his note on Vedic Accents under http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/accents.pdf - The tradition of Western Sanskritists emphasizes grammar and translation .... it is unusual to find fully accented Saṁhitā text in transliteration, at best only the Udātta and Jātya Svarita are marked. India, on the other hand, has an oral tradition which emphasized pronunciation and rhythm, .....

Thanks, Nityanand

[Narsing Rao]

Here's a link to a related document (On some Unknown Systems of Marking the Vedic Accents by Michael Witzel):

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/w97vij.pdf

Regards,
Narsing Rao

--
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
 
 

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

10 1 13

Dear Sundaresanji,

The Indian tradition may hail from the day of the introduction of the practice of writing the Vedas. But the said convention ie that of underlining the anudātta, perpendicular stroke on the svarita etc. was not the only way of showing accents in the manuscripts. In a Gujarati tradition the svarita syllable is scratched in red. In the Śāradā ms tradition the anudātta is dotted under, the udātta is stroked above, the svarita is stroked below and the pracaya is not marked. It has a special mark for the jātya-svarita. Marking in the pṛṣṭhamātrā-vowel tradition mss of the Deccan is different from both. The Black Yajurveda traditions are even different. I have some specimens meant for demonstration at lectures. But they will not be clear in the internet. One may find specimens of the ms-tradition of Black Yajurveda accent marks in Pandit Sātavalekar’s works.

The Western tradition of accent-marks is of Greco-Latin origin. These scripts go back to Semitic and, according to the majority view, ultimately to the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Another point. Marking the udātta and jātyasvarita is sufficient for meaning. Also, if one remembers the rules of udāttapūrvasvarita and pracaya, marking them is not necessary.

Best

DB

---

From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 4:58 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> Jan 10 12:13PM +0800  

10 1 13
Dear Sundaresanji,
The Indian tradition may hail from the day of the
introduction of the practice of writing the Vedas. But the said convention ie that of underlining the anudātta, perpendicular stroke on the svarita etc. was
not the only way of showing accents in the manuscripts. In a Gujarati tradition
the svarita syllable is scratched in red. In the Śāradā ms tradition the anudātta
is dotted under, the udātta is stroked above, the svarita is stroked below and
the pracaya is not marked. It has a special mark for the jātya-svarita. Marking in the pṛṣṭhamātrā-vowel tradition mss of the Deccan is different from
both. The Black Yajurveda traditions are even different. I have some specimens
meant for demonstration at lectures. But they will not be clear in the
internet. One may find specimens of the ms-tradition of Black Yajurveda accent marks
in Pandit Sātavalekar’s
works.
The Western tradition of accent-marks is of Greco-Latin
origin. These scripts go back to Semitic and, according to the majority view, ultimately
to the Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Another point. Marking the udātta and jātyasvarita is sufficient for meaning. Also, if one remembers
the rules of udāttapūrvasvarita
and pracaya, marking them is not necessary.
Best
DB

 

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya,

 

Thank you for these clarifications (and Sri Nityanand Misra as well; the references from Sri Yudhishthira Mimamsaka are especially useful for me to understand the historical context of writing and notating the veda).

 

I agree that if one already knows the rules, then marking udAtta and jAtyasvarita would be sufficient. However, my personal experience is that it still makes it difficult in trying to relate the written text to the oral one, requiring a significant cognitive shift on the part of the reader. If one must be a likhita-pAThaka, then at least the lekhana could make it easier for someone who does not typically start off knowing all the SikshA, prAtiSAkhya and vyAkaraNa rules governing the sound of the recitation. At least, such is my opinion.

 

Anyway, the reason I got interested in the historicity of the notational marks used with writing the veda goes back to the discussion we had recently about the metrically restored Rgveda. I had taken issue with the UT Austin scholars for inserting vowels in almost every instance of conjunct consonants. I noticed that this practice also plays havoc with the accents that need to be applied. I mention two instances here, for the sake of the record.

 

For example, from the pavamAna sUkta, the UT Austin metric restorers want us to read

 

9.001.05a     tuvā^́m áchā carāmasi
9.001.05b     tád íd árthaṃ divé-dive
9.001.05c     índo tuvé na āśásaḥ

This introduces a syllable "tu" in the first line, which now will have to be recited anudAtta, totally artificially, but quite as per the rules, whereas what is actually recited is udAtta "tvā^́m". Similarly, in the last line, "índo tuvé" would now require an artificial anudAtta on "tu" and an equally artificial svarita on the syllable "do" - again totally as per the rules! In actual recitation, as the syllable "do" is is sandwiched between two udAtta syllables, "ín" and "tvé", its pitch value remains low and never rises to where a svarita would lie. At least in the taittirIya prAtiSAkhya, there is an explicit rule about this and I would assume that the Rk-prAtiSAkhya also has one, because that is how Rgvedins actually recite it. Writing "tvé" as "tuvé" would make the situation quite different.

 

Another instance where accent problems occur comes within a few verses in the same hymn:

 

9.001.09a     abhī^́mám ághniyā utá
9.001.09b     śrīṇánti dhenávaḥ śíśum
9.001.09c     sómam índrāya pā^́tave

The restorers have an udAtta marking on the syllable bhi in the first line, whereas it is a svarita that would typically be depicted with the number 3 following bhi, with an underscore below it and a vertical line above it.

 

The attempt at metric restoration, combined with the standard academic practice of not marking anudAtta and svarita, therefore has far reaching consequences and takes the written notated text quite far away from the actually recited text. Such examples abound!

 

One could of course argue that the reciters have not maintained fidelity with what the text "should" be, but I would much rather privilege the tradition of recitation in such matters, especially for such a well preserved oral text as the Rgveda.

 

Namaskaras,

Vidyasankar

                 

[Deepro Chakraborty]

Dear Mr. Bhattacharya and Mr. Sundaresan,

I just want to know whether the Udātta accents and the Jātyasvarita accents are marked with the same symbol (´) in Roman transliteration. 

I would be very much obliged if you care to enlighten me about this.

With regards,

Deepro.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

agní for udātta

śapathyà for circumflex ie jātyasvarita

DB

---

From: Deepro Chakraborty <chakrabo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2013 6:50 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

[Nityanand Misra]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya,

 

This introduces a syllable "tu" in the first line, which now will have to be recited anudAtta, totally artificially, but quite as per the rules, whereas what is actually recited is udAtta "tvā^́m". Similarly, in the last line, "índo tuvé" would now require an artificial anudAtta on "tu" and an equally artificial svarita on the syllable "do" - again totally as per the rules! In actual recitation, as the syllable "do" is is sandwiched between two udAtta syllables, "ín" and "tvé", its pitch value remains low and never rises to where a svarita would lie. At least in the taittirIya prAtiSAkhya, there is an explicit rule about this and I would assume that the Rk-prAtiSAkhya also has one, because that is how Rgvedins actually recite it. Writing "tvé" as "tuvé" would make the situation quite different.

That is one way to see it. The other perspective is that oral traditions have also become corrupt over ages. Please see the following documents by Ajit Krishnan for some examples -

http://www.aupasana.com/file-cabinet/VedicAccents2.pdf (page 13 onwards)

http://www.aupasana.com/file-cabinet/yajusha_2012_07_26.pdf (page 18)

There was a discussion on this on the Samskrita mailing list sometime back - please refer the thread https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/samskrita/nxTM2Hh5T6M
 

 

 

The attempt at metric restoration, combined with the standard academic practice of not marking anudAtta and svarita, therefore has far reaching consequences and takes the written notated text quite far away from the actually recited text. Such examples abound!

And indeed the currently recited text has moved far away from what was recited during the time of Panini. ऋ pronounced as रि in North or रु in South, ष as ख in Yajurvedic tradition, ज्ञ as ग्य in North, ग्न in West and ज्न in South, accent over terminal consonant, shifting of accents (see Ajit Krishnan's examples) - all appear to be corruptions introduced over time.

When Kahola goes wrong, Ashtavakra must correct. But Ashtavakra then also risks the dreaded curse of Kahola.
 

--

Nityānanda Miśra
Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR
Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Please state the context of your observation, at least the verses you are referring to
Best
DB

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: svidya...@gmail.com
Cc: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Please state the context of your observation, at least the verses you are referring to
Best
DB

The examples are in the thread (Navagraha Sukta) and the two PDFs (Purusha Sukta and others) for which the link I posted earlier. Krishnan compares differences in marking Svaras within two Taittiriya traditions, along with introduction of additional vowels. 

आयूं॑िष vs आयूिष
िपन्व॑न्न॒जरं॑ सु॒वीरम् v/s िपन्व॑न्न॒जर सु॒वीरम्
अतो॒ ज्यायांश्च॒ पूरु॑षः v/s अतो॒ ज्यायाश्च॒ पूरु॑षः
पर्ौक्ष॑न् v/s पर्ौक्षन्न्

In Navagraha Sukta readings we find a svara mark over the terminal consonant न् of विपश्यन् to render which, the reciters add a short vowel and another न् after न्.

It is not uncommon to hear सहस्रशीर्षा  as सहस्रशीरषा.  Even in the Gayatri वरेण्यम् is almost universally pronounced as वरेणियम्. 

The pronunciation of ऋ as रि/रु, ष as ख, ज्ञ as ग्य/ग्न/ज्न are near universal in most oral traditions.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The pronunciation of ऋ as रि/रु, ष as ख, ज्ञ as ग्य/ग्न/ज्न are near universal in most oral traditions.

Correction: ष as ख is near universal in Sukla Yajurveda traditions in North. While ऋ and ज्ञ pronunciations are corrupted in most traditions.

--

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

13 1 13

Dear Nityanandaji,

 I am still in dark. I cannot relate your letter to any of the ones pasted here which only I had posted.

Still I am independently making some observations. The RkPratisaakhya clearly mentions that for the sake of meter one has to read with vyvāya (resolution of kṣaipra sandhi) and with vyūha (resolution of praśliṣṭa sandhis). Naturally one has to read tát savitúr váreṇ_iyaṃ for making an aṣṭākṣarī as demanded by Gāyatrī. For the same reason in 1.1.2b one has to read īḷ_iyo nū́tanair utá. What is wrong with these resolutions? The Vedas, it shows, had come into being with correct meter but the unstated hypothesis that sandhi is nitya in verse made a mutation in pronunciation giving rise to what we have received as Saṃhitāpāṭha. That the RkPrātikhya had to make rules for vyavāya and vyūha shows that the mutations had taken place before it and that for a critical edition we have no right to change the sāmpradāyika text. But that should not debar us from inferring how the ṣi had first pronounced the mantras. There is no reason to suppose that they recited metrically defective texts.

This matter had been discussed a few years ago here in this forum.

Best wishes

Dipak Bhattacharya

“Thu, 10 Jan 2013 at 9:44

FROM Dipak Bhattacharya TO 2 recipients

10 1 13

Dear Sundaresanji,

The Indian tradition may hail from the day of the introduction of the practice of writing the Vedas. But the said convention ie that of underlining the anudātta, perpendicular stroke on the svarita etc. was not the only way of showing accents in the manuscripts. In a Gujarati tradition the svarita syllable is scratched in red. In the Śāradā ms tradition the anudātta is dotted under, the udātta is stroked above, the svarita is stroked below and the pracaya is not marked. It has a special mark for the jātya-svarita. Marking in the pṛṣṭhamātrā-vowel tradition mss of the Deccan is different from both. The Black Yajurveda traditions are even different. I have some specimens meant for demonstration at lectures. But they will not be clear in the internet. One may find specimens of the ms-tradition of Black Yajurveda accent marks in Pandit Sātavalekar’s works.

The Western tradition of accent-marks is of Greco-Latin origin. These scripts go back to Semitic and, according to the majority view, ultimately to the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Another point. Marking the udātta and jātyasvarita is sufficient for meaning. Also, if one remembers the rules of udāttapūrvasvarita and pracaya, marking them is not necessary.

Best

DB

From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 4:58 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

 

I have a general question for Veda scholars here and would be grateful for pointers.

 

In Indian script publications, the convention is to depict anudAtta with a horizontal line below the syllable and svarita with a vertical line(s) above the syllable. How old is this convention? Is it something that has evolved within the recent past, thanks to the spread of the printed book or is it something that was used in much older handwritten manuscripts as well?

 

Conversely, in academic publications, especially from Europe and America, Roman script transliterations use only an accent over the udAtta syllable and leave both anudAtta and svarita unmarked. What was the origin of this convention? To me, at least, this style of transliteration makes it difficult to mentally relate the written text to the recited text, hence the question.

Regards, Vidyasankar  

 

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 at 22:13

FROM Dipak Bhattacharya TO 2 recipients

agní for udātta

śapathyà for circumflex ie jātyasvarita

DB

 

From: Deepro Chakraborty <chakrabo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2013 6:50 PM Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

Dear Mr. Bhattacharya and Mr. Sundaresan,

I just want to know whether the Udātta accents and the Jātyasvarita accents are marked with the same symbol (´) in Roman transliteration. 

I would be very much obliged if you care to enlighten me about this.

 

With regards, Deepro. 
 

 

 

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 at 9:44

FROM Dipak Bhattacharya TO 2 recipients

10 1 13

Dear Sundaresanji,

The Indian tradition may hail from the day of the introduction of the practice of writing the Vedas. But the said convention ie that of underlining the anudātta, perpendicular stroke on the svarita etc. was not the only way of showing accents in the manuscripts. In a Gujarati tradition the svarita syllable is scratched in red. In the Śāradā ms tradition the anudātta is dotted under, the udātta is stroked above, the svarita is stroked below and the pracaya is not marked. It has a special mark for the jātya-svarita. Marking in the pṛṣṭhamātrā-vowel tradition mss of the Deccan is different from both. The Black Yajurveda traditions are even different. I have some specimens meant for demonstration at lectures. But they will not be clear in the internet. One may find specimens of the ms-tradition of Black Yajurveda accent marks in Pandit Sātavalekar’s works.

The Western tradition of accent-marks is of Greco-Latin origin. These scripts go back to Semitic and, according to the majority view, ultimately to the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Another point. Marking the udātta and jātyasvarita is sufficient for meaning. Also, if one remembers the rules of udāttapūrvasvarita and pracaya, marking them is not necessary.

Best

DB

From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2013 4:58 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

 

I have a general question for Veda scholars here and would be grateful for pointers.

 

In Indian script publications, the convention is to depict anudAtta with a horizontal line below the syllable and svarita with a vertical line(s) above the syllable. How old is this convention? Is it something that has evolved within the recent past, thanks to the spread of the printed book or is it something that was used in much older handwritten manuscripts as well?

 

Conversely, in academic publications, especially from Europe and America, Roman script transliterations use only an accent over the udAtta syllable and leave both anudAtta and svarita unmarked. What was the origin of this convention? To me, at least, this style of transliteration makes it difficult to mentally relate the written text to the recited text, hence the question.

Regards, Vidyasankar  

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 at 22:13

FROM Dipak Bhattacharya TO 2 recipients

agní for udātta

śapathyà for circumflex ie jātyasvarita

DB

From: Deepro Chakraborty <chakrabo...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 12 January 2013 6:50 PM Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

Dear Mr. Bhattacharya and Mr. Sundaresan,

I just want to know whether the Udātta accents and the Jātyasvarita accents are marked with the same symbol (´) in Roman transliteration. 

I would be very much obliged if you care to enlighten me about this.

 

With regards, Deepro. 
 

 

 

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

To: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "svidya...@gmail.com" <svidya...@gmail.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2013 1:40 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Navagraha Sukta readings we find a svara mark over the terminal consonant न् of विपश्यन् to render which, the reciters add a short vowel and another न् after न्.

In South Indian traditions there is another peculiarity:

For words like तस्मिन्सहस्रशाखे  that occurs in the Taittiriyopanishat शीक्षावल्ली ४, the Kannada printed books render it as:   ತಸ್ಮಿನ್ಥ್ಸಹಸ್ರಶಾಖೇ, तस्मिन्थ्सहस्रशाखे the थ् inclusion is required.  Some have said that this is the Andhra style and that is widely prevalent in the South. (I have not given the notation here).

For the word श्रेयान् occurring in this very upanishat श्रेयान् वस्यसोऽसानि स्वाहा, one has to give a short pause after श्रेयान् with a kind of नु sound at the end like the Tamils would pronounce the English word 'pin' with a stress on the 'n' பின்னு. It is not like the Kannadigas would pronounce the word 'pin'  ಪಿನ್ನು.    

It is not uncommon to hear सहस्रशीर्षा  as सहस्रशीरषा.  Even in the Gayatri वरेण्यम् is almost universally pronounced as वरेणियम्. 

Yes. The srIrudraprashna word  ’वर्षमिषवस्तेभ्यो’ pronounced as ’वरुषमिषवस्तेभ्यो’ is another example. Again the sound उ here for रु is like the Tamils pronouncing the word  varuSham வருஶம் and not like the Kannadigas pronouncing the word haruSha ಹರುಷ.

regards
subrahmanian.v  

[Narsing Rao]

The first example very much follows the rules of Sandhi:

तस्मिन् + सहस्रशाखे
= तस्मिन् + ध् + सहस्रशाखे  (optional धुट् आगम by 8.4.30 नश्च )
= तस्मिन् + त् + सहस्रशाखे (चर्त्व  8.4.55 by खरि च )
= तस्मिन्त्सहस्रशाखे

There are many such examples (such as तस्मिन्त्सर्वं प्रतिष्ठितम्).

However the usage of थ् instead of त् seems incorrect.

Regards,
Narsing Rao

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sri Misra,

 

I wanted to put the following on record before I forgot about it. Regarding pronunciation of सहस्रशीर्षा  as सहस्रशीरषा or वर्षमिषवस्तेभ्यो as वरुषमिषवस्तेभ्यो -

 

There is a taittirIya prAtiSAkhya rule that there is a svarabhakti in the conjunction of repha and UshmANa-s. What is heard as if it is a र or a रु before the sha-kAra is nothing but a reciter's attempt at svarabhakti. I have even seen written notation where the symbol ऋ has been used, e.g. सहस्रशीऋषा, to depict this svarabhakti. Similarly, the word maharshi, in the Veda, it is pronounced as if there is a ऋ sound in there and not as a conjunct consonant involving the repha and an UshmANa. This goes directly counter to the classical vyAkaraNa rule for this word. Now, as for ideal vs. actual pronunciation of ऋ, that is a different matter. In whichever manner a reciter pronounces ऋ, it is in that manner that he renders svarabhakti in rephoshma conjunction.

 

All the other instances cited from the aupasana website, e.g. िपन्व॑न्न॒जरं॑ सु॒वीरम् vs. िपन्व॑न्न॒जर सु॒वीरम्, etc, pertain to a difference in approach in how to pronounce the anusvAra. They are contingent upon whether to take the anusvAra as a separate vowel that takes its own svarita or whether the svarita applies to the sound preceding the anusvAra. There is a taittirIya prAtiSAkhya rule that counts anusvAra as a hrasva vowel, indicating that rendering an anusvAra independently requires a time mAtra equal to that of any other hrasva vowel. Also, in taittirIya recitation, before repha and UshmANa, the anusvAra retains a glottal component to it, which actually does make it a hrasva sound separate from its preceding akshara. This glottal component is lost when sandhi converts anusvAra to an anunAsika as per the varga of the following consonant and then the whole sound becomes a conjunct consonant, losing its separate time mAtra. And as with the time required to render it, so also with whether the svarita is applied to it separately or not. This glottal feature of the anusvAra is not present in the Rk SAkhA recitations and conseuquently, in what I have heard of the Rgveda, the anusvAra never gets its own svarita. Similar considerations apply to sentence ending -n and to svarabhakti. The problem, if any, is one of how to capture these features consistently in writing. It is not a problem in recitation or in vedAdhyayana per se, so long as adhyApaka and adhyAyI are both careful.

 

The other problem highlighted in the aupasana.com site, namely the mixing up of dIrgha svarita and glottal anusvAra specialities from Rg and yajus traditions, within one verse, is indeed one of faulty reciters. Again however, these issues affect the amateur and partial adhyAyIs much more than dedicated reciters of the vedas. These usually affect only the recitation of a handful of Rk verses that are not already in the yajurveda, but have been borrowed by yajurvedins for pUjA and pArAyaNa purposes. And nowadays, many people recite the popular sUktas, the namaka-camaka and other sundry veda verses, without proper training. In my experience, the collective drag inflicted by a host of mispronunciations and misapplied svara-s can be heavy even on seasoned and well-trained reciters. However, these stray instances cannot be laid at the doors of all the oral transmission traditions.

   

Regards,

Vidyasankar

[Ajit Krishnan]

namaste,

 

> There is a taittirIya prAtiSAkhya rule that counts anusvAra as a hrasva vowel 

 

 

Ultimately, the crux of this thread is whether or not the prAtishAkhya is accepted as pramANa or not. If I am honest with myself, some renderings in some shAkhAs just seem "wrong" ... purukhaH in place of puruShaH, pracodayAl in place of pracodayAt, etc. But ...

 

 

> That is one way to see it. The other perspective is that oral traditions have also become corrupt over ages.

 

 

Can we really distinguish just the corruptions from the originals. Though we can theorize, the answer is a resounding "no". There isn't going to be any major reform of the chanting tradition, nor should there be. Some people may choose to attempt "reformed" chanting methods, but these will be sideshows that live in the shadows of the tradition proper. In fact, they will only survive because of the grace of the tradition itself.

 

The question that most interests me is this -- does chanting the mantra according to the prAtishAkhya take one towards the mantra devatA more readily than chanting the mantra according to Sanskrit rules. Unfortunately, no amount of textual analysis can provide the answer.

 

sasneham, 

 

   ajit

 

 

--

[Sivasenani Nori]

On 19 January 2013 04:24, Ajit Krishnan <ajit.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Ultimately, the crux of this thread is whether or not the prAtishAkhya is accepted as pramANa or not. .... some renderings in some shAkhAs just seem "wrong" ...  -- does chanting the mantra according to the prAtishAkhya take one towards the mantra devatA more readily than chanting the mantra according to Sanskrit rules.

 

 

Bhartrihari mentions "VyaakaraNasmriti" in Vakyapadiyam referring to Ashtadhyayi and Mahabhashya. This usage implies that they are valid because they are based on Sruti and clearly expounded for us out of Karuna by the great Maharshis. That is why, under the sutra "prishodarAdIni yathopadishTam" (6-3-109), Bhagavan Patanjali makes it clear that SishTaprayoga is the pramANa and that the SAstra exists only to identify SishTas. So ultimately it is the usage by SishTas which makes "Sanskrit" seem so natural. So, if in Kerala the 'ta' is replaced by 'la' (pracodayAl), or 'sha' by 'kha' (purukha) in Eastern India, the SishTas in those places are the pramANa. The prAtiSAkhyas are the result of such SishTas, millenia earlier, discussing these issues in parishads and deciding these things. In other words, prAtiSAkhyas and smritis like ashTAdhyAyI are on the same footing: they codify good practices. With the one, we are used to it for so long, that anything other than that "seems" not right - like driving on the right side of the road, for many Indians - but, in fact, one is as good as the other.

 

Now, if the question arises as to what to do when one is confused, the Taittiriya Sruti clearly says - अथ यदि ते कर्मविचिकित्सा वा वृत्तविचिकित्सा वा स्यात् ये तत्र ब्राह्मणाः सम्मर्शिनः, युक्ताः आयुक्ताः अलूक्षा धर्मकामाः स्युः, यथा ते तत्र वर्तेरन्, तथा तत्र वर्तेथाः। (SikshAvallI, anuvAka 11).

 

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Siva Senani and Ajit Krishnan,

I can't agree more with you.  This is exactly what the wise Sayanacharya has said at the beginning of his bhashya for the Mahanarayanopanishad that I cited in the other thread:  तत्तद्देशनिवासिभिः शिष्टैरादृतत्वात्सर्वोऽपि पाठ उपादेय एव ।

To this observation of Ajit:
//does chanting the mantra according to the prAtishAkhya take one towards the mantra devatA more readily than chanting the mantra according to Sanskrit rules. //

my response would be:  If the adherent of any shAkhA/sampradAya considers the behavior of the adherent of another shAkhA/sampradAya to be wrong, there is this age-old word of wisdom:

मूर्खो वदति विष्णाय बुधो वदति विष्णवे ।
नम इत्येवं अर्थं च द्वयोरेव समं फलं ।।

or its variant:

मूर्खो वदति विष्णाय बुधो वदति विष्णवे।
उभयोः सदृशं पुण्यं भावग्राही जनार्दनः ॥

यस्मै दत्तं च यज्ज्ञानं ज्ञानदाता हरिः स्वयं ।
ज्ञानेन तेन स स्तौति भावग्राही जनार्दनः ।। १२.४० ।।  

I am reminded of what Swami Vidyaranya has conveyed in the Jivanmuktiviveka, vAsanAkshayaprakaraNam:  People of one region/caste/following criticize those of other region/caste/following for this or that wrong practice and in turn they are criticized by the others for their own incorrect or objectionable practice.  This is due to the vAsanA that one alone is perfect and the others are not.  This attitude is one of the things that hold one fast to samsara.  

regards
subrahmanian.v

 

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I had been following the discussion, with the received sound by us as interposed hna, hma, hNa etc. by us as the real sound produced by the recitation of the Vedic Mantra-s. My doubt is that there is no such interposition meant by the rule anyhow as we can understand it as explained in one of the commentary  हकारात हकारमारुह्य, नासिक्यमिच्छन्ति explained resorting to "पञ्चमीविधाने ल्यप्लोपे कर्मण्युपसङ्ख्यानं ''अधिकरणे चोपसङ्ख्यान''मिति (२-३-२८-वा) वात्तिक. That much we can be sure. We have no recorded sound as explained by the commentators and on the other hand we have only in front of us what we here as interposed hn, hm etc. It may not refer to the written symbol of नासिक्य above the letter in its written form in roman and Devanagari which have their own convention of notations.  

This is the position with the Paniniya Shiksha also which says:

हकारं पञ्चमैर्युक्तमन्तःस्थाभिश्च संयुतम।

औरस्यं विजानीयात कण्ठ्यमाहुरसंयुतम॥

Probably following तैत्तिरीय version of the Shiksha. We know अकुहविसर्जनीयानां कण्ठः, but there is no letter औरस्य what we are familiar, to compare with this औरस्य h in the above cases, though eight articulations include उरस also in the enumeration 

अष्टौ स्थानानि वर्णानामुरः कण्ठः शिरस्तथा ।

जिह्वामूलं च दन्ताश्च नासिकौष्टौ च तालु च ॥

This is not illustrated in SK in the explanation of the normal वर्ण-s, अकुहविसर्जनीयानां कण्ठः, etc. the यमो नाम वर्णः is explained there too:वर्गेष्वाद्यानां चतुर्णां पञ्ञ्चमे परे मध्ये यमो नाम पूर्वसदृशो वर्णः प्रातिशाख्ये प्रसिद्धः।  but seems to be different than the one referred in the प्रातिशाख्य as called यम by some. 

Any way I leave to the scholars to decide upon whether our judgment could arrive at a solution to the problem or accept what is available in the tradition. I am not Vedic scholar, that much I am certain.

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Sivasenani Nori <sivas...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

To this observation of Ajit:

//does chanting the mantra according to the prAtishAkhya take one towards the mantra devatA more readily than chanting the mantra according to Sanskrit rules. //

my response would be:  If the adherent of any shAkhA/sampradAya considers the behavior of the adherent of another shAkhA/sampradAya to be wrong, there is this age-old word of wisdom:

मूर्खो वदति विष्णाय बुधो वदति विष्णवे ।
नम इत्येवं अर्थं च द्वयोरेव समं फलं ।।

or its variant:

मूर्खो वदति विष्णाय बुधो वदति विष्णवे।
उभयोः सदृशं पुण्यं भावग्राही जनार्दनः ॥

यस्मै दत्तं च यज्ज्ञानं ज्ञानदाता हरिः स्वयं ।
ज्ञानेन तेन स स्तौति भावग्राही जनार्दनः ।। १२.४० ।।  

I have heard a variant of 

"अज्ञो वदति" in the place of "मूर्खो वदति"  in the above verse,

अज्ञ is differently considered from मूर्ख

अज्ञः सुखमाराध्यः सुखतरमाराध्यते विशेषज्ञः।

ज्ञानलवदुर्विदग्धं नरं न ब्रह्मापि न रञ्जयति॥

The third category is called मूर्ख as in the सुभाषित -

सर्वस्यौषधमस्ति शास्त्रविहितं मूर्खस्य नास्त्यौषधम्॥

The above thinking has lead a story of Valmiki, earlier a hunter, became ऋषि by chanting "maraa" taught by the sages, which resulted in the chanting of राम. SO being अज्ञ is by itself is not a fault, he could be taught the proper thing by some one. But not a मूर्ख.

 

 

[ajit.k...@gmail.com]

Namaste,

 

The smritis codify current practices of their time, and particularly the good practices amongst them. IMO, they are not applicable to all deshas, kalas and patras ... though they are certainly the best indicator of good aachaara that we have.

 

If we look at the svaruupa of the veda mantras, each mantra has a mantra drashta. We can even admit that the mantra drashta saw the mantra variously. That these variations in pronunciation occur systematically in the various shaakhaas can only lead to one conclusion ... the shaakhaas do not record the mantras as the mantra drashta saw them. The do not record the svaruupa of the mantra, but record the prayoga of the mantra. And, I can certainly accept differences in prayoga. But, this prayoga cannot be absolute.

 

With a true shishta, I have no disagreement. The problem is the remainder of us, who pick and choose how to follow shishtas. Neither have we learnt the veda and it’s prayoga systematically, nor do we follow shishtas fully (due to the current state of our laukika lives). We are forced to make tradeoffs. Making the same tradeoffs that were made in older times may not be the best choice.

 

Using agni-kaarya as an example ... those who perform agni kaarya in big roaring fires (shishtas of old) don’t have to worry too much. Regardless of the ahutis and their quantities, it will all burn. Those who perform them in small tiny fires (non-shishta sadhakas of present) have to worry. The chances of the fire going out, or leaving everything unburnt is much greater. Without a realized shishta guru looking over our shoulders, we are forced to think critically ... not because someone else is wrong, but simply because of the choices that we have already made.

 

IMO, the svaruupa of the mantra, as seen by the mantra drashtha, is more likely to be what is common amongst the praatishaakhyas (just my personal theory).

 

sasneham,

 

    ajit

 

 

Sent from Windows Mail

 

From: Sivasenani Nori
Sent: ‎January‎ ‎18‎, ‎2013 ‎8‎:‎32‎ ‎PM
To: Ajit Krishnan
CC: Vidyasankar Sundaresan; भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Vedic accents in Roman Transliteration