Charles Wikner explains in his Sanskrit Indroductory Course that sanskrit words are derived from dhatus, i.e. stems or roots, -Wikner uses them both for dhatu. There is a classical collection of sanskrit dhatus called Dhatupatha. After Wikner's course you should be able to use the Dhatupatha and Monier-William's dictionary. Wikner points out that a similar principle of formation from stems applies in all indoeuropean languages. He takes the english example tend--> attend, pretend, portend, extend, ...tobes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:50 amThis is rather scandalous. It is the kind of thing that the Sanskrit grammarians tried very hard to establish (and also why learning Sanskrit is so hard).....but think about their motivation. The authority of the Vedas is predicated on the view of language you offer here. And in so many ways Buddha-dharma rejects this, most acutely and tersely in the Madhyamaka.Simon E. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:49 amIf we are talking about conventional language that is true. But if we are talking about Dharmic language then in fact words can have objective meaning. Sanskrit and that part of the Tibetan language derived from it contain Bija mantras which are audible representations of objective reality, those representations are not-different to that which they represent.
Which is one of the reasons why empowerment is vital in the Vajrayana, without it mantrams are simply words. It takes empowerment to give them their living quality.That is where the authority lies in the Vajrayana.
But we quickly reach the limit of what can be discussed on an open forum.
Nonetheless, from the Vajrayana point of view, there is some truth in what you say. So is there just a rather gaping inconsistency?
I don't know. I suspect that there possibility might just be.....
http://www.danam.co.uk/Sanskrit/Sanskri ... ctory.html