Startling issue about my yidam/ishta-devata is arising

[Karma Dorje]

There are humans in dharma so there is human stupidity in dharma too. Example:

I wouldn't say there is human stupidity in dharma. Dharma is not at fault. There are many stupid humans (myself included) trying our best (ideally) to practice it, with all the limitations we may bring with us. Certainly people may get hung up on details about ritual practices and lose the forest for the tree but that is not inherent in the teachings.. that is losing the path altogether. Mindfulness of the practice, the tradition and it's rituals is important, based on motivation and view and understanding. But it is not a part of dharma to think you'll go to hell if you make a mistake despite good motivations and sincere effort. And true masters go totally beyond any of these relative constructs anyway. We beginning practitioners may cling to a certain formula of how we have been taught or think things should be done and then see our own Guru break all the so-called rules. Dharma is about not grasping to anything whatsoever in the end. The larger process is letting go.

And that goes as much for Hindu dharma as Buddhist. There are reasons for seemingly meaningless things. Dharma is always a conspiracy of symbols that leads us beyond the symbolic.

[gregkavarnos]

I wouldn't say there is human stupidity in dharma. Dharma is not at fault.

Little "d" dharma not capital "D".

[Jainarayan]

certain "hardliners" (aw what the heck, they're Hindutvas) who claim that unless Sanskrit mantras are pronounced perfectly and without deviation from Pāṇini, the mantras have no benefit.

Well, you'll never find a Tibetan with that opinion!

Oh good gosh certainly not!

[Karma Dorje]

certain "hardliners" (aw what the heck, they're Hindutvas) who claim that unless Sanskrit mantras are pronounced perfectly and without deviation from Pāṇini, the mantras have no benefit.

Well, you'll never find a Tibetan with that opinion!

Oh good gosh certainly not!

No, but you will find many that insist on the Tibetan pronunciation of mantras, including those like the Medicine Buddha for whom the Sanskrit is known. It's a common thread in religion amongst literalists.

[Indrajala]

You raise a good point: I've gotten into heated linguistics debates (I'm a linguistics geek) with certain "hardliners" (aw what the heck, they're Hindutvas) who claim that unless Sanskrit mantras are pronounced perfectly and without deviation from Pāṇini, the mantras have no benefit. When I've asked if a person with a speech impediment chants a mantra and cannot make a retroflex phoneme like the ṇ, is the mantra worthless? You know, I never did get an answer. Hmm...

There were actually many Buddhists who believed Sanskrit is the language of devas. It had a holy quality for them as well. Actually later on in ancient India people came to think that Sanskrit was the original language while everything else was deviant aberrations. Even Xuanzang held this opinion.

[Jainarayan]

Yes, there's a belief afoot that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages. It comes from the Out of India theory. It's a political thermonuclear bomb.

[Indrajala]

Yes, there's a belief afoot that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages. It comes from the Out of India theory. It's a political thermonuclear bomb.

That's quite unlikely given that Classical Sanskrit is notably different from Vedic Sanskrit, which is again notably different although still similar to ancient Iranian.

Languages after all evolve.

[Yudron]

You will find Sakyas who feel the Sanskrit pronunciation of mantras that they believe is most authentic is more effective. Others argue that some Tibetan pronunciation is closer to the was Sanskrit sounded way back. And so on...

Once you go down that kind of road, things get absurd pretty fast.

[Indrajala]

Yes, there's a belief afoot that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages. It comes from the Out of India theory. It's a political thermonuclear bomb.

Incidentally here is an interesting thing to consider. Sanskrit Vedic hymns are sometimes almost identical to the Avestan (Zoroastrian) ones:

yo vo apo vasvish yajate asuranish asurasya vashishthabyo hotrabhyo
(Sanskrit)

yo vo apo vanguhish yazaite ahuranish ahurahe vahishtabyo zaothrabyo
(Avestan)

he who worships you, the good waters, the Ahurian wives of Ahura, with best
libations (English)

[Indrajala]

Others argue that some Tibetan pronunciation is closer to the was Sanskrit sounded way back.

That's problematic because we know what proper Sanskrit is supposed to sound like given the extensive ancient manuals on Sanskrit grammar and phonetics. We also have plenty of native speakers of Sanskrit alive today to consult.

[Jainarayan]

Yes, there's a belief afoot that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages. It comes from the Out of India theory. It's a political thermonuclear bomb.

That's quite unlikely given that Classical Sanskrit is notably different from Vedic Sanskrit, which is again notably different although still similar to ancient Iranian.

Languages after all evolve.

Agreed whole-heartedly. I'm a linguistics hobbiest (read: geek), and a Proto-Indo-Europeanist, as opposed to a Proto-Indo-Euroguitarist. OK, I admit that was really bad.

[Jainarayan]

Yes, there's a belief afoot that Sanskrit is the origin of all IE languages. It comes from the Out of India theory. It's a political thermonuclear bomb.

Incidentally here is an interesting thing to consider. Sanskrit Vedic hymns are sometimes almost identical to the Avestan (Zoroastrian) ones:

yo vo apo vasvish yajate asuranish asurasya vashishthabyo hotrabhyo
(Sanskrit)

yo vo apo vanguhish yazaite ahuranish ahurahe vahishtabyo zaothrabyo
(Avestan)

he who worships you, the good waters, the Ahurian wives of Ahura, with best
libations (English)

Yes, and there is a regular sound shift between Old Persian and Vedic Sanskrit with s and h. Sindhu became Hindu; Saraswati became Hairovati; asura became ahura (with a reversal of the meanings also). There are a host of others including your example asuranish asurasya hotrabhyo (Skt.) and ahuranish ahurahe zaothrabyo (z and s are allophones of the same phoneme (Av.). Someone tried to punk me and asked why Persia(n) isn't Perhia(n), then. *major facepalm" I said because 'Persia' is a Greek word. But I have a feeling you know all this.

[Jainarayan]

Others argue that some Tibetan pronunciation is closer to the was Sanskrit sounded way back. And so on...

Once you go down that kind of road, things get absurd pretty fast.

Especially considering that Sanskrit is Indo-European and Tibetan is Sino-Tibetan, totally and completely unrelated language families. Any similarities in vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar are the result of contact. Vietnamese and Chinese are Mon-Khmer and Sino-Tibetan, respectively, but Vietnamese has a lot of Chinese loanwords. English and Arabic are Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic, respectively, but English has the Arabic-derived words alcohol, algebra, Betelguese (the B a mistransliteration from Yad al-Jauzā, OK now I'm showing off ). I mean, the list goes on and on. It does indeed get absurd, especially when it's socio-political.

[Jainarayan]

That's problematic because we know what proper Sanskrit is supposed to sound like given the extensive ancient manuals on Sanskrit grammar and phonetics.

Thanks to Pāṇini.

We also have plenty of native speakers of Sanskrit alive today to consult.

A couple of Indian states have Sanskrit listed as their official language, with attempts at revival as a daily spoken language. Hebrew was a dead language until the state of Israel was formed. Granted Israeli Hebrew is not the same as Biblical Hebrew, but pretty darn close. I think the analogy is Shakesperean English (Early Modern English) to Modern English. I told you I'm a linguistics geek.