It's not surprising that a spiritual community highly invested in a fixed text can find new interpretations for it, see all of Christiany for illustration or [1] for a specific Christian example. The "kshetre kshetre dharma kuru" example, though, is especially naive -- sure, I guess you can make a new meaning if you totally ignore Sanskrit grammar. The author is clearly quite early on in their study.
> rigvedic sanskrit differs from modern sanskrit in the sense that vedic sanskrit is similar to all other languages
Sure, I agree that Vedic and Classical Sanskrit differ, largely in the same way that Homeric and Attic Greek differ. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the Rigveda contains "words and idioms made up when the situation called for it," which I reject.
> Panini codified Sanskrit because he felt the language was evolving too rapidly
Panini's intent is an open question, though your view is a reasonable one. The Ashtadhyayi is more descriptive than people give it credit for: it generally focuses on the भाषा, i.e. the contemporaneous usage of experts (शिष्ट), with a lesser emphasis on Vedic usage, and it further takes extensive notice of regional variation and different preferences among other grammarians of the time. Another possible interpretation is that just as the other parts of the ritual had been fully worked over and polished, it was thought that the language itself should be perfected (संस्कृत).
> for Sanskrit it is the vast majority of the available literature, not a few oddballs here and there.
This is an interesting observation that has other explanations -- see below.
> It is unique to classical (and not vedic) Sanskrit literature though
Again, I see no support for this.
> And the number of these is astonishingly low
Sure, I agree with this. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the nature of Sanskrit makes it useless for tasks like describing how to build a bridge, which I reject.
~~~
I'd like to conclude with two thoughts.
First, you are raising interesting questions. Why is it the case that so much of Sanskrit literature is commentary? Why does the number of Shilpa Shastras seem relatively low? Why does Sanskrit literature tend to have a culture of reinterpretation?
Assuming these observations are true, I believe that the answer is some combination of: India's oral memory culture and a concomitant deference to authority and preference for the spoken over the written; consequently, a preference for text forms that can be easily memorized (sutra and verse), which can be harder to parse and change; material constraints on manuscript preservation in the hot and humid Indian climate; strong deference to realized spiritual teachers, and by extension to all teachers; and extensive competition with local languages for intellectual territory.
But that's an armchair answer that needs further investigation. Note that none of these points have anything to do with Sanskrit as a language.
Second, Sanskrit and the tradition are far more exacting and precise than you give them credit for, and I encourage you to look into the matter more deeply before making extremely strong statements about it that have little basis in fact.
I have been reading and teaching Sanskrit for a long time, and in that time I have learned that while Sanskrit is special in many ways, it is still a language that can be used and learned like any other. Even so, I have seen extraordinary claims, both positive and negative, from people confidently asserting what Sanskrit is like without looking deeply into the matter. And while they are well-intentioned, they are -- to use your phrase -- "modern keyboard warriors who have not studied Sanskrit literature."
It's not surprising that a spiritual community highly invested in a fixed text can find new interpretations for it, see all of Christiany for illustration or [1] for a specific Christian example. The "kshetre kshetre dharma kuru" example, though, is especially naive -- sure, I guess you can make a new meaning if you totally ignore Sanskrit grammar. The author is clearly quite early on in their study.
> rigvedic sanskrit differs from modern sanskrit in the sense that vedic sanskrit is similar to all other languages
Sure, I agree that Vedic and Classical Sanskrit differ, largely in the same way that Homeric and Attic Greek differ. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the Rigveda contains "words and idioms made up when the situation called for it," which I reject.
> Panini codified Sanskrit because he felt the language was evolving too rapidly
Panini's intent is an open question, though your view is a reasonable one. The Ashtadhyayi is more descriptive than people give it credit for: it generally focuses on the भाषा, i.e. the contemporaneous usage of experts (शिष्ट), with a lesser emphasis on Vedic usage, and it further takes extensive notice of regional variation and different preferences among other grammarians of the time. Another possible interpretation is that just as the other parts of the ritual had been fully worked over and polished, it was thought that the language itself should be perfected (संस्कृत).
> for Sanskrit it is the vast majority of the available literature, not a few oddballs here and there.
This is an interesting observation that has other explanations -- see below.
> It is unique to classical (and not vedic) Sanskrit literature though
Again, I see no support for this.
> And the number of these is astonishingly low
Sure, I agree with this. But this isn't the claim you made -- you said that the nature of Sanskrit makes it useless for tasks like describing how to build a bridge, which I reject.
~~~
I'd like to conclude with two thoughts.
First, you are raising interesting questions. Why is it the case that so much of Sanskrit literature is commentary? Why does the number of Shilpa Shastras seem relatively low? Why does Sanskrit literature tend to have a culture of reinterpretation?
Assuming these observations are true, I believe that the answer is some combination of: India's oral memory culture and a concomitant deference to authority and preference for the spoken over the written; consequently, a preference for text forms that can be easily memorized (sutra and verse), which can be harder to parse and change; material constraints on manuscript preservation in the hot and humid Indian climate; strong deference to realized spiritual teachers, and by extension to all teachers; and extensive competition with local languages for intellectual territory.
But that's an armchair answer that needs further investigation. Note that none of these points have anything to do with Sanskrit as a language.
Second, Sanskrit and the tradition are far more exacting and precise than you give them credit for, and I encourage you to look into the matter more deeply before making extremely strong statements about it that have little basis in fact.
I have been reading and teaching Sanskrit for a long time, and in that time I have learned that while Sanskrit is special in many ways, it is still a language that can be used and learned like any other. Even so, I have seen extraordinary claims, both positive and negative, from people confidently asserting what Sanskrit is like without looking deeply into the matter. And while they are well-intentioned, they are -- to use your phrase -- "modern keyboard warriors who have not studied Sanskrit literature."
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Reinterpreting-New-Testament-Dont-Mea...