Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00034)

Dear Rich
Thanks for the considered and interesting mail.
Tony

>Tony, 
>
>I can't speak for truly ancient Sanskrit, meaning any Sanskrit before there
>are records.  The earliest known Sanskrit is that known in the Vedas, and it
>is indeed different from Classical Sanskrit.  It is not different in terms of
>spelling, but in terms of complexity.  It is a fact that the more ancient
>Sanskrit is far more complex than later Sanskrit, a fact which would seem to
>prove HPB right that early man was more sophisticated than present
>circumstances.
>
>However, with rare exceptions spelling is the same in Vedic and in classical
>Sanskrit.  What makes Vedic different is not different spellings, but far more
>verbal systems and a greater vocabulary, as well as a slightly different way
>of marking prepositions etc.  Greek is in the same case -- Attic Greek, or
>Platonic Greek, is mostly different from modern Greek in being more complex,
>retaining the subjunctive system, the aorist verbal system, etc.  
>
>But I confess I still don't understand your point about spelling and
>numerology.  I am totally open to numerological codes, but I can't see how
>spelling "mistakes" (if that's what they are) can be significant.  Again, I am
>not advocating changing facsimile texts, but perhaps publishing companion
>study guides which would give the accepted spellings of terms, translations,
>etc.  And again, I think HPB's Glossary was an attempt to do this.  I suspect
>HPB would be horrified to see some of the errors that have been identified,
>and had she the time, she would have corrected them herself.
>
>Rich


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.