Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm
nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:11 am
I learn new things all the time, but I've never seen or heard "ra" used to mark a reason. Do you have an example of this?
The next time I run across this I will point it out. But that is not what I meant, In the sentence you provide “as kha is equivalent to Sa, it is pronounced kha.”

That’s bad reasoning.
That's not what the text I quoted says. It says, གཞུང་ལས་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ཥ་འདིའི་སྒྲ་ཁ་ཞེས་བཀླག་དགོས། "because it is clarified in a classic text that Sa [is read] as equivalent with kha..." In this sentence there is an explicit reason, namely གཞུང་ལས་་་་་་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ "because it is clarified in a classic text", so the reasoning given for pronouncing Sa as kha is that this is what is taught in a classic text.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm Whereas, Sapan clearly points out za, Sa, and sa all should be pronounced within the range of sa.
Sapan only says this in the context of stacked letters (which is the focus of the 2nd half of the text).

When discussing standalone letters, he presents Sa as a retroflex unambiguously. But as I've said, this is just one style of pronunciation, and there are others.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm Kha may retroflex in the series of ka kha ga gha nga, as is Sa, but that does not result in kha and Sa having equivalent pronunciations.
Kha is not retroflex in any context.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm It may be the case that in some communities in India there is retroflex drift from Sa to kha, but it wouldnt stand at Varanasi, and certainly when I learned how to chant Vedic chants with Ramasvami, Sa was Sa and not kha.
Okay, great, so you acknowledge this now.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm
Plus, Zhen Li has already commented on how this is also done in Newar recitation.
Tibetan influence. My roommate for many years (since passed) was Newari. He chanted the Namasamgiti in perfect Sanskrit daily. I listened to him every morning. Granted he also was at Varanasi at the same time as Khenpo Migmar, but he had been doing this since he was a small boy, and his father was a famous Newar Lana who trained in Tibet.
A single example of someone pronouncing Sa as Sa even while living around Tibetans is not exactly a convincing case for the pronunciation of kha being caused by Tibetan influence.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm
So, it is established beyond any doubt that this pronunciation of ṣa as "kha" is a known phenomenon in North India, not some oddity restricted to Tibetan.
Not buying it.

Your response article points out that this Yajur Veda voicing is a voiceless pronunciation, I.e “purukh,” not “purukha.” So for example, following the article itself, no one would pronounce bhaISajya as Bhekhenze as Tibetans regularly do, since in these instances Sa followed by the vowel, etc.
That's not what it says; it says that [puruSa] is pronounced [purukha], and [pUSA] is pronounced [pUkhA]. The distinction being made is between Sa being followed by a vowel, in which case it is pronounced as kha, vs. Sa being followed by a consonant, in which case it is pronounced as Sa.

That is just the Madhyandina style, too, because there is other evidence presented in the initial proposal I linked (e.g. likhyate written as liSyate) that show these letters were sometimes treated as equivalent before consonants too.
User avatar
Nattapong
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:05 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Nattapong »

So, for anyone in the future that might read this thread, because they're learning Sanskrit. I just had a lesson with a well respected, highly rated, indian sanskrit teacher, certified by the indian gov. I talked to him about the different sanskrit dialects in india. He told me native sanskrit speakers in india, in different regions, pronounce things differently. For example, some native sanskrit speakers pronounce jñāna as gyana, nyanna, or dhyana. He said even though they speak sanskrit, they still pronounce some things like this incorrectly. And according to the grammar rules of sanskrit, it should be pronounced as "jyana". This is interesting, because the gyana, nyanna, and dhyana mispronunciations are all over the internet in English.

He confirmed that the Tibetans pronounce hum correctly. It's "Hoong" or "Hung" with an ng at the end, not an m.

Svaha, at the end of Tara mantras, is pronounced with a hard v. Not w.

Phat is like "pot"

And some other really niche stuff I've never heard.

Like, if we look at white Taras mantra, Oṃ tāre tuttāre ture mama āyuḥ-puṇya-jñāna-puṣṭiṃ kuru svāhā. He said ayuh is actually pronounced ayoo-who. So you say the regular "ayuh/ayoo" and then after say something that sounds like "who". Ayoo-who. Interesting

So the pronunciation is like om taray tuttaray turay mama ayoo-who poonya jyana pushtim kuru svaha.

And now, the medicine Buddha mantra. He said something about this I've never heard before as well. If we look at the regular medicine Buddha mantra in the chinese translation of the sutra (not tibetan) it's

oṃ bhaiṣajye bhaiṣajye bhaiṣajya-samudgate svāhā

Bhaisajye is pronounced Baishajay, with an sh, which anyone that is trying to learn sanskrit probably knows. And then it turns into "Bhaishajya" at the last part, with a "jya" not "jay". Again, ordinary stuff. But he told me there was another "ya" at the end. So it's om bhaishajay, bhaishajay, bhaisha-jya-ya and then samudgate with a d. Never heard the extra "ya" added at the end of the "baisha-jya" part.

This is the beginning of my sanskrit journey. And so far it seems every sanskrit mantra pronunciation on the internet is wrong. And I've been chanting everything incorrectly for years. Cool :rolleye:

Anyways, I'm enjoying the discussion between Malcom and Nyamlae. Is there one true sanskrit, or are there multiple different correct versions of sanskrit? Lets watch them argue and find out :popcorn:
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Nattapong wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:40 pm So, for anyone in the future that might read this thread, because they're learning Sanskrit. I just had a lesson with a well respected, highly rated, indian sanskrit teacher, certified by the indian gov. I talked to him about the different sanskrit dialects in india. He told me native sanskrit speakers in india, in different regions, pronounce things differently. For example, some native sanskrit speakers pronounce jñāna as gyana, nyanna, or dhyana. He said even though they speak sanskrit, they still pronounce some things like this incorrectly. And according to the grammar rules of sanskrit, it should be pronounced as "jyana". This is interesting, because the gyana, nyanna, and dhyana mispronunciations are all over the internet in English.
"Mispronunciations" according to him :smile:

I'm sure you could find other well respected, highly rated, Indian Sanskrit teachers, certified by the Indian government, who would describe things differently. For example, Sakya Pandita (whom Malcolm vouches for, who studied under 30 different Indian panditas) described it as "gnyana".

I think Soma999 summed things up well on the first page of this thread: "There are many variations on prononciation of mantras chanting depending on the regions. The only think they share all in commun is that their way of pronouncing is good and all the others are bad."

Everything we've been saying since then has only proven their point.
Nattapong wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:40 pm Like, if we look at white Taras mantra, Oṃ tāre tuttāre ture mama āyuḥ-puṇya-jñāna-puṣṭiṃ kuru svāhā. He said ayuh is actually pronounced ayoo-who. So you say the regular "ayuh/ayoo" and then after say something that sounds like "who". Ayoo-who. Interesting
This is the usual way that the visarga is taught, for example aḥ being pronounced as aha, etc.
Last edited by nyamlae on Sun Jan 22, 2023 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm
nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:11 am
I learn new things all the time, but I've never seen or heard "ra" used to mark a reason. Do you have an example of this?
The next time I run across this I will point it out. But that is not what I meant, In the sentence you provide “as kha is equivalent to Sa, it is pronounced kha.”

That’s bad reasoning.
That's not what the text I quoted says. It says, གཞུང་ལས་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ཥ་འདིའི་སྒྲ་ཁ་ཞེས་བཀླག་དགོས། "because it is clarified in a classic text that Sa [is read] as equivalent with kha..." In this sentence there is an explicit reason, namely གཞུང་ལས་་་་་་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ "because it is clarified in a classic text", so the reasoning given for pronouncing Sa as kha is that this is what is taught in a classic text.
But he does not identify the text?


Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm Kha may retroflex in the series of ka kha ga gha nga, as is Sa, but that does not result in kha and Sa having equivalent pronunciations.
Kha is not retroflex in any context.
It's position in the series is the same as ṣa. śa ṣa sa, ka kha ga, etc.

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm It may be the case that in some communities in India there is retroflex drift from Sa to kha, but it wouldnt stand at Varanasi, and certainly when I learned how to chant Vedic chants with Ramasvami, Sa was Sa and not kha.
Okay, great, so you acknowledge this now.
I acknowledge evidence it presented.
That's not what it says; it says that [puruSa] is pronounced [purukha],
Final vowels are often left unvoiced, for example, my Khenpo leaves the short a at the end of Sanskrit words unvoiced, as he was taught (and yes I am aware this not universal in India).
That is just the Madhyandina style, too, because there is other evidence presented in the initial proposal I linked (e.g. likhyate written as liSyate) that show these letters were sometimes treated as equivalent before consonants too.
And what evidence do you suppose, apart from your 14th century manual, there is to show that there was a strong enough influence of this Madhyandina style or something similar on Tibetans—that is, North Indian tantrikas in the period from 800-1400 instructing Tibetans to pronounce ṣa as kha—to cause Tibetans to universally adopt this pronunciation against ṣa as ṣa, when there are so many other instances of Tibetanizations of mantra, like Pema for Padma (because for Tibetans, a consonant after "a" turns it in á, as in padma, but also 'das pa etc)? What about turning aṣṭa into akha, obliterating both ṣa and ṭa? If it were as you say, it ought to be more systematic. But it isn't really.
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 12:40 am
nyamlae wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 7:37 pm
That's not what the text I quoted says. It says, གཞུང་ལས་ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ཥ་འདིའི་སྒྲ་ཁ་ཞེས་བཀླག་དགོས། "because it is clarified in a classic text that Sa [is read] as equivalent with kha..." In this sentence there is an explicit reason, namely གཞུང་ལས་་་་་་ཞེས་གསལ་བས་ "because it is clarified in a classic text", so the reasoning given for pronouncing Sa as kha is that this is what is taught in a classic text.
But he does not identify the text?
No. The cited portion (ཥ་ནི་ཁ་དང་ཆ་མཐུན་པར་) is also found verbatim in the Narthang Lotsawa text, but I'm not sure whether that is the original source, or if they both are referencing some other text.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm It's position in the series is the same as ṣa. śa ṣa sa, ka kha ga, etc.
There is no common principle underlying the order of those two sets, so I wouldn't expect that to be the reason for this argument. Of course, I don't agree that his statement is an argument in the first place. Even Narthang Lotsawa did not assign Sa and kha to the same class of letters, but nevertheless he says that Sa is pronounced as equivalent to kha.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm
That's not what it says; it says that [puruSa] is pronounced [purukha],
Final vowels are often left unvoiced, for example, my Khenpo leaves the short a at the end of Sanskrit words unvoiced, as he was taught (and yes I am aware this not universal in India).
Sure, and that's very well and good, but the paper we are talking about includes word-final vowels in its phonetic transcription.
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:11 pm And what evidence do you suppose, apart from your 14th century manual, there is to show that there was a strong enough influence of this Madhyandina style or something similar on Tibetans—that is, North Indian tantrikas in the period from 800-1400 instructing Tibetans to pronounce ṣa as kha—to cause Tibetans to universally adopt this pronunciation against ṣa as ṣa, when there are so many other instances of Tibetanizations of mantra, like Pema for Padma (because for Tibetans, a consonant after "a" turns it in á, as in padma, but also 'das pa etc)? What about turning aṣṭa into akha, obliterating both ṣa and ṭa? If it were as you say, it ought to be more systematic. But it isn't really.
By Occam's razor, it is far more likely that Sa->kha was innovated once in a North Indian speech community and then spread from there into Tibet, Nepal, and other North Indian places, rather than there being multiple independent innovations of Sa->kha. This is consistent with the fact that all of the data being examined (Tibetan, Newari, Madhyandina, and the other evidence put forth in the linked proposal and its response) is from the same geographic area, namely North India and environs. We have both textual and oral evidence for this pronunciation across many different scripts and speech communities.

Other innovations such as "pema" do not have this kind of supporting Indian evidence; to the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that vowel raising is a Tibetan innovation.

Your point about aṣṭa does not disprove a general Sa->kha rule, because the ṣ in aṣṭa has a different context (namely, it occurs before the consonant ṭ). Most sound changes are conditioned, i.e. they occur in some contexts, and not others. Therefore, we must distinguish how a sound is pronounced in different contexts, instead of assuming that a sound change will apply unconditionally. This is a fundamental principle of the comparative method in historical linguistics. So, every single sound needs to be examined on an individual basis, in every single context that it occurs.

In fact, the pronunciation aṣṭa poses more of an issue to the idea that ṭ remains unchanged in all contexts, and does not actually conflict whatsoever with a sound change saying that S becomes kh in all contexts.

There are clearly multiple different reasons why Tibetans pronounce Sanskrit the way they do. The idea that they are just mispronouncing everything is not right.
Last edited by nyamlae on Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

nyamlae wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:43 amTherefore, we must distinguish how a sound is pronounced in different contexts, instead of assuming that a sound change will apply unconditionally.
Which is a burden of evidence you have not shown,
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:21 am
nyamlae wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:43 amTherefore, we must distinguish how a sound is pronounced in different contexts, instead of assuming that a sound change will apply unconditionally.
Which is a burden of evidence you have not shown,
It's not a burden of evidence, period; I am explaining the principles of diachronic phonology. Conditional sound changes are extremely common, so sound changes don't need to apply in every environment. But the issue you suggested with aSTa was not a problem for an unconditioned S>kh rule anyway.

It's still too early for a definitive treatment of this topic. Before we can fully examine the history of Sanskrit pronunciation in Tibet, we will need a better understanding of what Tibetan texts say about this topic over time, which is why I'm currently focusing on translating texts that discuss how to recite mantras (སྔགས་ཀྱི་བཀླག་ཐབས་). We will also need a better understanding of Tibetan diachronic phonology so that we can properly understand the phonetic transcriptions given by Tibetan authors, but I'm leaving that work to Nathan Hill and other scholars.
Pero
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Pero »

Guys, not knowing Sanskrit, something is not clear to me. If Sanskrit has both Ṣa and Kha letters, why would Ṣa be pronounced anywhere as Kha? Is this like "c" in English, which is pronounced as "s" (certain) or "k" (car) despite there being separate letters s and k? I think my language does not have this, Sanskrit does?
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Pero wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:00 am Guys, not knowing Sanskrit, something is not clear to me. If Sanskrit has both Ṣa and Kha letters, why would Ṣa be pronounced anywhere as Kha? Is this like "c" in English, which is pronounced as "s" (certain) or "k" (car) despite there being separate letters s and k? I think my language does not have this, Sanskrit does?
Yes -- letters are originally meant to represent sounds, but natural changes in a language's pronunciation over time result in some sounds being represented with more than one letter, or some letters representing more than one sound, etc.
Pero
Posts: 2465
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Pero »

nyamlae wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:25 pm
Pero wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:00 am Guys, not knowing Sanskrit, something is not clear to me. If Sanskrit has both Ṣa and Kha letters, why would Ṣa be pronounced anywhere as Kha? Is this like "c" in English, which is pronounced as "s" (certain) or "k" (car) despite there being separate letters s and k? I think my language does not have this, Sanskrit does?
Yes -- letters are originally meant to represent sounds, but natural changes in a language's pronunciation over time result in some sounds being represented with more than one letter, or some letters representing more than one sound, etc.
I see, thanks.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
User avatar
AmidaB
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:53 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by AmidaB »

Hi,
Could someone please point out to me where can I find an audio recording for the Tibetan long Namgyalma (Ushnisha Vijaya) dharani's back-translated(?) and most closely correct (if there is such a thing) Sanskrit version?
For reference here is the long variety that I have found and tried to chant occasionally, but now I'm feelng myself a little bit lost in the forest of the rules.
OṀ NAMO BHAGAVATE SARVA TRAI-LOKYA PRATI-VISHIṢṬAYA BUDDHĀYA TENAMA ∕ TADYATHĀ ∕
OṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ ASAMA SAMANTA
AVABHĀSA SPHARAṆA GATI ∕ GAGANA SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE ∕ ABHIṢIŇCATU MĀṀ ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SUGATA VARA VACANA AMRITA ABHIṢEKAIRA ∕ MAHĀMUDRA MANTRA BADAIH ∕ ĀHARA
ĀHARA ∕ MAMA ĀYUH SAN-DHĀRAṆI ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ GAGANA
SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE UṢṆĪṢA VIJAYA PARISHUDDHE ∕ SAHASRA RASMI SAŇCODITE ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ AVALOKINI ∕ ṢAṢṬA PĀRAMITĀ PARIPŪRAṆI ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ MATE ∕ DASHA BHŪMI
PRATIṢṬHITE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ∕ ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE
MAHĀMUDRE ∕ VAJRA KĀYA SAṀ-HATANA PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA KARMA AVARAṆA VISHUDDHE ∕
PRATI-NIVARTAYA MAMA ĀYUR VISHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SAMAYA ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕
OṀ MUNI MUNI MAHĀ MUNI ∕ VIMUNI VIMUNI ∕ MAHĀ VIMUNI ∕ MATI MATI MAHĀ MATI ∕ MAMA
TISUMATI ∕ TATHĀTA ∕ BHUTA-KOṬI PARISHUDDHE ∕ VISPHUṬA ∕ BUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ HEHE JAYA JAYA ∕
VIJAYA VIJAYA ∕ SMARA SMARA ∕ SPHARA SPHARA ∕ SPHĀRAYA SPHĀRAYA ∕ SARVA BUDDHĀ
ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ SHUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ BUDDHE BUDDHE ∕ VAJRE VAJRE MAHĀ VAJRE ∕
SUVAJRE ∕ VAJRA GARBHE JAYA GARBHE ∕ VIJAYA GARBHE ∕ VAJRA JVALA GARBHE ∕ VAJRED BHAVE ∕
VAJRA SAṀBHAVE ∕ VAJRA VAJRINI ∕ VAJRI BHAVATU ∕ MAMA SHARĪRAṀ ∕ SARVA SATVĀNĀŇCA KĀYA
PARI SHUDDHIR-BHAVATU ∕ MESADĀ SARVA GATI PARISHUDDHIṢCA ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀṢCA ∕ MĀṀ
SAMĀ-SHVASAYANTU ∕ BUDHYA BUDHYA ∕ SIDHYA SIDHYA ∕ BODHAYA BODHAYA ∕ VIBODHAYA
VIBODHAYA ∕ MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ VIMOCAYA VIMOCAYA ∕ SHODHYAYA SHODHYAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA
VISHODHAYA ∕ SAMANTA MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ SAMANTA RASMI PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ
HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE MAHĀ MUDRE ∕ MAHĀ MUDRA MANTRA
PADAIH SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ BHRŪṀ SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ AMRITA ĀYURDADE SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ ĀḤ HŪṀ TRĀṀ HRĪḤ AṀ
AḤ ∕ RAKṢA RAKṢA MAṀ SARVA SVAṀṢCA SVĀHĀ
:anjali:
User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 1626
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Aryjna »

AmidaB wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:16 am Hi,
Could someone please point out to me where can I find an audio recording for the Tibetan long Namgyalma (Ushnisha Vijaya) dharani's back-translated(?) and most closely correct (if there is such a thing) Sanskrit version?
For reference here is the long variety that I have found and tried to chant occasionally, but now I'm feelng myself a little bit lost in the forest of the rules.
OṀ NAMO BHAGAVATE SARVA TRAI-LOKYA PRATI-VISHIṢṬAYA BUDDHĀYA TENAMA ∕ TADYATHĀ ∕
OṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ ASAMA SAMANTA
AVABHĀSA SPHARAṆA GATI ∕ GAGANA SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE ∕ ABHIṢIŇCATU MĀṀ ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SUGATA VARA VACANA AMRITA ABHIṢEKAIRA ∕ MAHĀMUDRA MANTRA BADAIH ∕ ĀHARA
ĀHARA ∕ MAMA ĀYUH SAN-DHĀRAṆI ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ GAGANA
SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE UṢṆĪṢA VIJAYA PARISHUDDHE ∕ SAHASRA RASMI SAŇCODITE ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ AVALOKINI ∕ ṢAṢṬA PĀRAMITĀ PARIPŪRAṆI ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ MATE ∕ DASHA BHŪMI
PRATIṢṬHITE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ∕ ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE
MAHĀMUDRE ∕ VAJRA KĀYA SAṀ-HATANA PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA KARMA AVARAṆA VISHUDDHE ∕
PRATI-NIVARTAYA MAMA ĀYUR VISHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SAMAYA ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕
OṀ MUNI MUNI MAHĀ MUNI ∕ VIMUNI VIMUNI ∕ MAHĀ VIMUNI ∕ MATI MATI MAHĀ MATI ∕ MAMA
TISUMATI ∕ TATHĀTA ∕ BHUTA-KOṬI PARISHUDDHE ∕ VISPHUṬA ∕ BUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ HEHE JAYA JAYA ∕
VIJAYA VIJAYA ∕ SMARA SMARA ∕ SPHARA SPHARA ∕ SPHĀRAYA SPHĀRAYA ∕ SARVA BUDDHĀ
ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ SHUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ BUDDHE BUDDHE ∕ VAJRE VAJRE MAHĀ VAJRE ∕
SUVAJRE ∕ VAJRA GARBHE JAYA GARBHE ∕ VIJAYA GARBHE ∕ VAJRA JVALA GARBHE ∕ VAJRED BHAVE ∕
VAJRA SAṀBHAVE ∕ VAJRA VAJRINI ∕ VAJRI BHAVATU ∕ MAMA SHARĪRAṀ ∕ SARVA SATVĀNĀŇCA KĀYA
PARI SHUDDHIR-BHAVATU ∕ MESADĀ SARVA GATI PARISHUDDHIṢCA ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀṢCA ∕ MĀṀ
SAMĀ-SHVASAYANTU ∕ BUDHYA BUDHYA ∕ SIDHYA SIDHYA ∕ BODHAYA BODHAYA ∕ VIBODHAYA
VIBODHAYA ∕ MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ VIMOCAYA VIMOCAYA ∕ SHODHYAYA SHODHYAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA
VISHODHAYA ∕ SAMANTA MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ SAMANTA RASMI PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ
HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE MAHĀ MUDRE ∕ MAHĀ MUDRA MANTRA
PADAIH SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ BHRŪṀ SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ AMRITA ĀYURDADE SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ ĀḤ HŪṀ TRĀṀ HRĪḤ AṀ
AḤ ∕ RAKṢA RAKṢA MAṀ SARVA SVAṀṢCA SVĀHĀ
:anjali:

This looks like a good effort to be precise with the pronunciation (at least there are no Tibetan- or Chinese-inspired complete mispronunciations of syllables which are very common), and seems to be the same version of the mantra you posted.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Zhen Li »

nyamlae wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:25 pm
Pero wrote: Sun Jan 22, 2023 11:00 am Guys, not knowing Sanskrit, something is not clear to me. If Sanskrit has both Ṣa and Kha letters, why would Ṣa be pronounced anywhere as Kha? Is this like "c" in English, which is pronounced as "s" (certain) or "k" (car) despite there being separate letters s and k? I think my language does not have this, Sanskrit does?
Yes -- letters are originally meant to represent sounds, but natural changes in a language's pronunciation over time result in some sounds being represented with more than one letter, or some letters representing more than one sound, etc.
The matter is complicated. The use of kha pronunication for ṣa was noted by Kātyāyana and various White Yajurvedic sūtras and commentaries. It is not clear about change over time in this regard, since these are referring to oral traditions (especially in the vedic case) and we are being confused by orthographic conventions. In my opinion, this is more a matter of the writing convention not being consistent with speaking conventions—it is easier to retain the theoretical grammatical form than to adjust spelling (as is usually done otherwise for sandhi).

Generally, including for Kātyāyana and in the Keśavīśikṣā:
ṣa akṣara is always kha when it is not in a conjunct, but if it is in a conjunct with guttarals (k, kh, g, gh) or retroflexes (ṭ, ṭh, ḍ, ḍh) then it is pronounced as a retroflex sybilant (ṣa).

So, "cakṣuṣe viśveṣām pramoṣīḥ dhaneṣu" is pronounced "cakṣukhe viśvekhām pramokhīḥ dhanekhu."

"āyuṣetvāvvarccasettvākṛṣṣyaittvākṣemāyattvā" is pronounced "āyukhetvāvvarccasettvākṛkhkhyaittvākṣemāyattvā"

"dviṣmaḥ" is pronounced "dvikhmaḥ"

And so forth.

But

"pratyuṣṭṭa rakṣa prattyuṣṭṭā 'rātayo" is pronounced "pratyuṣṭṭa rakṣa prattyuṣṭṭā."

So: "vrajaṅgacchagoṣṭṭhānaṃ vvarṣetute" is pronounced "vrajaṅgacchagoṣṭṭhānaṃ vvarkhetute"

Therefore "bhaiṣajye" is pronounced "bhaikhajye" (I think the n before ze in Tibetan probably syllable break that must preceed double consonants in Sanskrit, i.e. in IPA, bʰəɪkʰə.d͡ʒjeː).

In some contemporary Indic languages, words derived from Vedic are likely to continue this convention. This is the case with Newar, which does not get this convention from Tibetan. The Tibetan pronounciations may be influenced by this North Indian practice but may also have been confounded by these issues.

As for writing conventions in Nepalese manuscripts, unlike Indian manuscripts which tend not to represent the pronunciation shift, Newar scribes always wrote as they "hear" and usually did not themselves understand the Sanskrit they are copying (we know this for many reasons, which I can explain later). So, this is why we see more ख in the place of ष in Nepalese manuscripts. I think this is because they were copied at a time when more Vajrācāryas knew Sanskrit (and these more obscure rules) and composed texts in Sanskrit (which was happening up to Amṛtānanda in the 19th century). So, Vajrācāryas, influenced by the Yajurvedic tradition of Brahmins around them,* recited the texts with ष pronounced as kha, which were then copied by scribes writing down precisely what they heard.

*To make a brief note on the kind of Brahmins in Nepal, there are five types: 1. Newar Rājopādhyāya, 2. Nepali Pūrbe, 3. Kumaiṃ, 4. Maithila (who speak both Newar and Maithili), and 5. the Bhaṭṭas who are Tamil Brahmins serving at Paśupatināth. All of them, except the Bhaṭṭas, follow the White Yajurveda Mādhyandina recension, and so should recite ष as kha, as prescribed in the Laghumādhyandina Śikṣā. The Bhaṭṭas would probably pronounce it as ṣa, and that is probably the case in the Keralan tradition as well, mentioned above.
User avatar
AmidaB
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:53 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by AmidaB »

Aryjna wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:32 am
AmidaB wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 9:16 am Hi,
Could someone please point out to me where can I find an audio recording for the Tibetan long Namgyalma (Ushnisha Vijaya) dharani's back-translated(?) and most closely correct (if there is such a thing) Sanskrit version?
For reference here is the long variety that I have found and tried to chant occasionally, but now I'm feelng myself a little bit lost in the forest of the rules.
OṀ NAMO BHAGAVATE SARVA TRAI-LOKYA PRATI-VISHIṢṬAYA BUDDHĀYA TENAMA ∕ TADYATHĀ ∕
OṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ BHRŪṀ ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ ASAMA SAMANTA
AVABHĀSA SPHARAṆA GATI ∕ GAGANA SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE ∕ ABHIṢIŇCATU MĀṀ ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SUGATA VARA VACANA AMRITA ABHIṢEKAIRA ∕ MAHĀMUDRA MANTRA BADAIH ∕ ĀHARA
ĀHARA ∕ MAMA ĀYUH SAN-DHĀRAṆI ∕ SHODHAYA SHODHAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA VISHODHAYA ∕ GAGANA
SVABHĀVA VISHUDDHE UṢṆĪṢA VIJAYA PARISHUDDHE ∕ SAHASRA RASMI SAŇCODITE ∕ SARVA
TATHĀGATĀ AVALOKINI ∕ ṢAṢṬA PĀRAMITĀ PARIPŪRAṆI ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ MATE ∕ DASHA BHŪMI
PRATIṢṬHITE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ∕ ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE
MAHĀMUDRE ∕ VAJRA KĀYA SAṀ-HATANA PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA KARMA AVARAṆA VISHUDDHE ∕
PRATI-NIVARTAYA MAMA ĀYUR VISHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ ∕ SAMAYA ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕
OṀ MUNI MUNI MAHĀ MUNI ∕ VIMUNI VIMUNI ∕ MAHĀ VIMUNI ∕ MATI MATI MAHĀ MATI ∕ MAMA
TISUMATI ∕ TATHĀTA ∕ BHUTA-KOṬI PARISHUDDHE ∕ VISPHUṬA ∕ BUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ HEHE JAYA JAYA ∕
VIJAYA VIJAYA ∕ SMARA SMARA ∕ SPHARA SPHARA ∕ SPHĀRAYA SPHĀRAYA ∕ SARVA BUDDHĀ
ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ SHUDDHE SHUDDHE ∕ BUDDHE BUDDHE ∕ VAJRE VAJRE MAHĀ VAJRE ∕
SUVAJRE ∕ VAJRA GARBHE JAYA GARBHE ∕ VIJAYA GARBHE ∕ VAJRA JVALA GARBHE ∕ VAJRED BHAVE ∕
VAJRA SAṀBHAVE ∕ VAJRA VAJRINI ∕ VAJRI BHAVATU ∕ MAMA SHARĪRAṀ ∕ SARVA SATVĀNĀŇCA KĀYA
PARI SHUDDHIR-BHAVATU ∕ MESADĀ SARVA GATI PARISHUDDHIṢCA ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀṢCA ∕ MĀṀ
SAMĀ-SHVASAYANTU ∕ BUDHYA BUDHYA ∕ SIDHYA SIDHYA ∕ BODHAYA BODHAYA ∕ VIBODHAYA
VIBODHAYA ∕ MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ VIMOCAYA VIMOCAYA ∕ SHODHYAYA SHODHYAYA ∕ VISHODHAYA
VISHODHAYA ∕ SAMANTA MOCAYA MOCAYA ∕ SAMANTA RASMI PARI SHUDDHE ∕ SARVA TATHĀGATĀ
HRIDAYA ∕ ADHIṢṬHĀNA ADHIṢṬHITE ∕ MUDRE MUDRE MAHĀ MUDRE ∕ MAHĀ MUDRA MANTRA
PADAIH SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ BHRŪṀ SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ AMRITA ĀYURDADE SVĀHĀ ∕ OṀ ĀḤ HŪṀ TRĀṀ HRĪḤ AṀ
AḤ ∕ RAKṢA RAKṢA MAṀ SARVA SVAṀṢCA SVĀHĀ
:anjali:

This looks like a good effort to be precise with the pronunciation (at least there are no Tibetan- or Chinese-inspired complete mispronunciations of syllables which are very common), and seems to be the same version of the mantra you posted.
Many thanks.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:50 pm
The matter is complicated.
I chatted with my Khenpo about this.

Having studied at Sanskrit University, first in his class for nine years, he really thinks these pronunciations are just incorrect, no matter how they got there. His point is that many brahmins are not actually very educated in Sanskrit, and just recite what they heard from their fathers.

This is not like v<-->b shift, or the b<-->f shift between Sanskrit and Latin. It's not consistent with Panini, according to him.
nyamlae
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2022 7:30 pm

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by nyamlae »

Zhen Li wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:50 pm The matter is complicated. The use of kha pronunication for ṣa was noted by Kātyāyana and various White Yajurvedic sūtras and commentaries. It is not clear about change over time in this regard, since these are referring to oral traditions (especially in the vedic case) and we are being confused by orthographic conventions. In my opinion, this is more a matter of the writing convention not being consistent with speaking conventions—it is easier to retain the theoretical grammatical form than to adjust spelling (as is usually done otherwise for sandhi).
This would still be a result of change over time though, wouldn't you say? The spoken language changes whereas the written language stays the same.

For example, the reflex of this sound in other Indo-European languages (and other Indo-Aryan languages) is generally some variant of "s", so we would reconstruct a sibilant in the proto-language, not a "kh". This would make the "S" pronunciation the original pronunciation, and the "kh" pronunciation an innovation. The spelling of "S" for the pronunciation of "kh" would thus just be a typical example of historical spelling.
Therefore "bhaiṣajye" is pronounced "bhaikhajye" (I think the n before ze in Tibetan probably syllable break that must preceed double consonants in Sanskrit, i.e. in IPA, bʰəɪkʰə.d͡ʒjeː).
I haven't figured out what's going on with the "n" -- Tibetan inserts an "n" into lots of words seemingly at random, from "sgra gdangs" (pronounced "drandang") to "nga tsho" (pronounced "ngantso"), so it might be related to that too.
In some contemporary Indic languages, words derived from Vedic are likely to continue this convention. This is the case with Newar, which does not get this convention from Tibetan. The Tibetan pronounciations may be influenced by this North Indian practice but may also have been confounded by these issues.

As for writing conventions in Nepalese manuscripts, unlike Indian manuscripts which tend not to represent the pronunciation shift, Newar scribes always wrote as they "hear" and usually did not themselves understand the Sanskrit they are copying (we know this for many reasons, which I can explain later). So, this is why we see more ख in the place of ष in Nepalese manuscripts. I think this is because they were copied at a time when more Vajrācāryas knew Sanskrit (and these more obscure rules) and composed texts in Sanskrit (which was happening up to Amṛtānanda in the 19th century). So, Vajrācāryas, influenced by the Yajurvedic tradition of Brahmins around them,* recited the texts with ष pronounced as kha, which were then copied by scribes writing down precisely what they heard.
That's interesting, thanks for commenting on this.
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:53 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:50 pm
The matter is complicated.
I chatted with my Khenpo about this.

Having studied at Sanskrit University, first in his class for nine years, he really thinks these pronunciations are just incorrect, no matter how they got there. His point is that many brahmins are not actually very educated in Sanskrit, and just recite what they heard from their fathers.

This is not like v<-->b shift, or the b<-->f shift between Sanskrit and Latin. It's not consistent with Panini, according to him.
I have met Sanskritists from Oxford and Hamburg who also have yet to hear of these rules. Unless you know it, you don't know it. And yes, it is not a Pāṇinian rule; it's a rule from Kātyāyana. The number of Sanskritists who know Pāṇini outside of India is in the dozens; those who know Kātyāyana on top of that are even fewer. One can hardly claim this is about being very educated in Sanskrit—Brahmins in the White Yajurveda tradition surely know that it is pronounced ṣa in other traditions. Unless the Khenpo studied with a White Yajurvedic Brahmin, or regularly reads the Nepalese manuscripts in Pracalit, it is unlikely that he heard of this before.

This is not a question of correct or incorrect; this is just a descriptive claim: this is what is done. There are more grammars than Pāṇini, and someone who works with Tantras needs to be aware of this because Tantric materials, and Buddhist texts in general, often do not follow the Pāṇinian tradition. This is also why some Tibetan transcriptions are the way they are and why only living Sanskrit Buddhist tradition (Newar) writes and pronounces things the way it does (alongside their Brahmin cousins, from whom they are mainly descendants).
nyamlae wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:05 am This would still be a result of change over time though, wouldn't you say? The spoken language changes whereas the written language stays the same.

For example, the reflex of this sound in other Indo-European languages (and other Indo-Aryan languages) is generally some variant of "s", so we would reconstruct a sibilant in the proto-language, not a "kh". This would make the "S" pronunciation the original pronunciation, and the "kh" pronunciation an innovation. The spelling of "S" for the pronunciation of "kh" would thus just be a typical example of historical spelling.
This is just speculative, but the Brahmi 𑀱 is equivalent to the Greek ξ, which is closer to guttural than retroflex, and in some dialects of archaic Greek, is only represented by x. I think it is likely that in some Vedic dialects, this almost-guttural sibilant was the case as well, but when written, it is either a clear ṣa or kha and the original was somewhere in between. Kṣa in Vedic often only has guttural equivalents in other languages, e.g. kṣám (ground) is χθών (khthōn) or even χαμαί (khamai) in the locative (it's the cognate of the English groom, as in bridegroom). The suggested PIE equivalent is dʰĝʰemon. Going even against the ṣ pronounced as ṣ when with ṭ rule, the Sanskrit aṣṭa (eight) is well known to Europeans as ὀκτώ, octo, etc. So, sometimes the sibilant quality is entirely lost and ṣ is simply k/kh. Yūṣa (soup, or broth) in Russian is уха (ukha). Bhāṣā (speech or language), in Old Newar almost always bhākhā, in Polish is bajka.

My point is that there is no clear development from one thing to the other. I am not suggesting that the rules of Kātyāyana were descriptive, but this phenomenon is trying to grapple with the somewhat amorphous nature of this sibilant. The grammarians like Pāṇini and Kātyāyana are creating artificial constraints that were not followed in everyday speech and which do not describe living languages. They are nicely descriptive and prescriptive of Vedic and classical Sanskrit texts, but we should not rely on them for knowledge of how Old and Middle Indo-Aryan were spoken outside of the royal courts.
User avatar
Nattapong
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:05 am

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Nattapong »

Nattapong wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:40 pm So, for anyone in the future that might read this thread, because they're learning Sanskrit. I just had a lesson with a well respected, highly rated, indian sanskrit teacher, certified by the indian gov. I talked to him about the different sanskrit dialects in india. He told me native sanskrit speakers in india, in different regions, pronounce things differently. For example, some native sanskrit speakers pronounce jñāna as gyana, nyanna, or dhyana. He said even though they speak sanskrit, they still pronounce some things like this incorrectly. And according to the grammar rules of sanskrit, it should be pronounced as "jyana". This is interesting, because the gyana, nyanna, and dhyana mispronunciations are all over the internet in English.

He confirmed that the Tibetans pronounce hum correctly. It's "Hoong" or "Hung" with an ng at the end, not an m.

Svaha, at the end of Tara mantras, is pronounced with a hard v. Not w.

Phat is like "pot"

And some other really niche stuff I've never heard.

Like, if we look at white Taras mantra, Oṃ tāre tuttāre ture mama āyuḥ-puṇya-jñāna-puṣṭiṃ kuru svāhā. He said ayuh is actually pronounced ayoo-who. So you say the regular "ayuh/ayoo" and then after say something that sounds like "who". Ayoo-who. Interesting

So the pronunciation is like om taray tuttaray turay mama ayoo-who poonya jyana pushtim kuru svaha.

And now, the medicine Buddha mantra. He said something about this I've never heard before as well. If we look at the regular medicine Buddha mantra in the chinese translation of the sutra (not tibetan) it's

oṃ bhaiṣajye bhaiṣajye bhaiṣajya-samudgate svāhā

Bhaisajye is pronounced Baishajay, with an sh, which anyone that is trying to learn sanskrit probably knows. And then it turns into "Bhaishajya" at the last part, with a "jya" not "jay". Again, ordinary stuff. But he told me there was another "ya" at the end. So it's om bhaishajay, bhaishajay, bhaisha-jya-ya and then samudgate with a d. Never heard the extra "ya" added at the end of the "baisha-jya" part.

This is the beginning of my sanskrit journey. And so far it seems every sanskrit mantra pronunciation on the internet is wrong. And I've been chanting everything incorrectly for years. Cool :rolleye:

Anyways, I'm enjoying the discussion between Malcom and Nyamlae. Is there one true sanskrit, or are there multiple different correct versions of sanskrit? Lets watch them argue and find out :popcorn:
Want to correct a few things here. Had a second lesson, and it seems there were some misunderstandings. Swaha is pronounced with a w-v sound, although he just sounds like he's saying swaha when he says it. And phat isn't like pot, it's like "puht". U is like in "cut" as someone else said here. "Uh" sound. That's in the sanskrit school of thought though of the short "a" vowel sound in sanskrit (अ) being an "uh" sound. Which it doesn't seem teachers actually agree on!

So after my second lesson, I'm starting to agree with nyamlae 100%.

I was taught in my second lesson that the "a" sound (अ) is pronounced uh, not ah. Whereas the ā sound (आ) is pronounced like "ah". So "a" without a line over top is pronounced like uh, in "cut". ā with a line over top is like "ah". So I was sitting there trying to modify all my mantras. Chanting vajra as vuhjruh, and manjushris mantra Om A Ra Pa Cha Na Dhih as Om Uh Ruh Puh Chuh Nuh Dhih-hee. And I'm showing him my pronunciations. And he's like yeah perfect, great job. But it just sounds super weird. So I go on youtube to find some teachers teaching vowels. And I found teachers teaching the opposite



This guy, at 4:02, teaches the short a as ah, not uh. Different than my teacher



This guy teaches the short a with the same sound as my teacher, as "uh" and specifically says not to say "ah".

So this is what Nyamlae was talking about. All these sanskrit teachers are teaching sanskrit differently. And nobody seems to actually agree on a "true" sanskrit pronunciation.

Also, further research into swaha yielded more confusion. Sanskrit speakers in the north of india apparently pronounce it as "svaha" whereas my sanskrit teacher is saying swaha with a w.

Nyamlae just seems to be totally correct at this point. There is no "true sanskrit" pronunciation. And it's impossible to know if we are chanting the mantras the correct way they were taught in the sanskrit sutras.

I really wanted to learn sanskrit. But what's the point now? This sucks :jumping:
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Zhen Li »

Nattapong wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:41 am I really wanted to learn sanskrit. But what's the point now? This sucks
Because you can read the scriptures in Sanskrit.

People don't give up learning English just because we can't agree on whether schedule is pronounced with a sh- or sk-.

Sanskrit is a constructed language at the end of the day, and people will see what they want to see in it from their own regional pronunciations. Approximate pronunciations are what most Buddhists and Hindus have ever used for mantras.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 4844
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Uni-verse

Re: Correct sanskrit pronunciation

Post by Virgo »

Nattapong wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:41 am
I really wanted to learn sanskrit. But what's the point now? This sucks :jumping:
There can be a lot of benefits to studying sanskrit.

Virgo
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”