Sanskrit

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

This is my first e-mail to this group. I join this group because one

of my interest, among many others, is Indology.

 

I would like to invite you to visit and read these websites. It is

saying things like Sanskrit is a modern language etc.

 

1. Significance of Sanskrit

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/sanskrit.html

 

2. The Developement of Scripts in India

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/scripts.html

 

3. The Anti-Sanskrit Scripture

http://www.dalitstan.org/books/a_sans/

 

It seems quite convincing to me. Can anyone prove the allegations

wrong?

 

 

Thanks,

Rahula

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I found this while surfing the internet. Any comments would be

appreciated.

 

 

"There is no evidence that the Sinhalese at that time knew Sanskrit.

Some centuries afterwards a few of them learnt the

elements of classical Sanskrit and very proud they were of it. [PALI

TEXT SOCIETY,PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY by Rhys Davids/ Stede. Oxford

1998.]"

 

"We have given throughout the Sanskrit roots corresponding to the Pali

roots, and have omitted the latter. It may be objected

that this is a strange method to use in a Pali dictionary, especially

as the vernacular on which Pali is based had never passed

through the stage of Sanskrit. That may be so; and it may not be

possible, historically, that any Pali word in the canon could

have been actually derived from the corresponding Sanskrit word.

Nevertheless the Sanskrit form, though arisen quite

independently, may throw light upon the Pali form; and as Pali roots

have not yet been adequately studied in Europe, the plan

adopted will probably, at least for the present, be more useful. [PALI

TEXT SOCIETY,PALI-ENGLISH DICTIONARY by Rhys Davids/ Stede. Oxford

1998.]

"

 

The prime fact which has been suppressed by the Anglo-Brahmin elite is

that Sanskrit did not exist prior to the 6th century BC. This

circumstance is evident from the

following points :Vedas - The word `Sanskrit' does not occur anywhere

in the Vedas. Not a single verse mentions this word as denoting a

language. Chandasa -

The Vedic language was referred to as Chandasa even by Panini himself

[ Chatt., p.63 ], and not as `Sanskrit'.

 

In fact all inscriptions in India were in Prakrit till the early

centuries AD :"[The earlier inscriptions up to the 1st century AD,

were all in Prakrit" -- [ Up., p.164 ]

 

" Classical Sanskrit was profoundly influenced by Middle Indo-Aryan [

ie. Prakrits ]. Not only were a large number of Middle Indo-Aryan

words adopted into

Sanskrit, but a whole host of Prakrit root and verbal bases of both

Aryan and non-Aryan or uncertain origin were slightly altered to look

like Sanskrit and bodily

adopted... This was realized by the ancient scholars with whom

Sanskrit represented just a variant, an earlier or fuller form (patha)

of Prakrit. " -- [ Chatt., p.95 ]

 

Gandhari - Even Gandhari existed prior to Sanskrit. The Pali

Dhammapada in Gandhari was discovered at Khotan in Kharoshtri script.

It dates to the 1st or 2nd

century AD. A Gandhari inscription was discovered on a copper casket

containing relics of the Lord Sakyamuni [ Bas, p.393 ].

First Sanskrit Inscription : 150 AD

First Prakrit Inscription : 450 BC

First Sanskrit Inscription : 150 AD - The earliest inscription in

Sanskrit is by the Saka Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman at Junagarh in

Gujarat dated to AD 150.

However, even here several of the words are wrong according to

Sanskrit grammatical rules, some words show Prakrit influence and a

few are un-Paninian [bas

397-8 ]. This inscription is several centuries later than the earliest

Prakrit inscriptions, and are the creation of Sakas, not Arya kings.

 

Encyclopedia Britannica now acknowledge that the old MST is

discarded:" As Classical Sanskrit is not directly derivable from any

single Vedic dialect, so the

Prakrits cannot be said to derive directly from Classical Sanskrit" --

[ EB 22 `lang ', p.618 ]

 

Sanskrit is for all intents and purposes, a dead language. The

Brahmans are in the habit of glorifying the era of Anglo-Brahman

colonialism. This golden age of

Sanskritology when the likes of Max Mueller helped propagate the study

of Sanskrit throughout the world, a mere handful of people spoke it.

Nor was it, even

during the hypothesized Gupta Golden Age spoken outside the

closely-knit circle of Brahmins, who jealously hid all knowledge,

including that of Sanskrit, to

themselves.

 

Destruction of Non-Brahmin History - The Indo-Aryan languages were

viewed as being recent in origin, since each vernacular and its

respective Prakrit were seen

as separate languages. Thus, instead of accepting the fact of these

languages originating in 1000 BC, the MST held that Bengali, Marathi,

Oriya etc. were born

between 1400-1500 AD ! Thus, instead of being respected for having

histories of 3000 years, these languages with a rich history were

denigrated as recent

innovations.

 

Sanskrit also did not exist during the Vedic Dark Age; Sanskrit arose

as a mongrel language much later on. As per the 1951 Census, out of a

total population of 362

million Indians, only 555 spoke Sanskrit! Even languages like Italian

and Hebrew, spoken by a handful of travelers, were more widely spoken

than `Mother

Sanskrit'.

 

When European scholars developed an interest in India, their main

focus was to understand Indian religion. Thus, their primary source in

all fields of Indology were

the Brahmins. These fundamentalists hence became the main source of

knowledge about first Indian religion, and later all of Indology in

general. Hence the entire

field of Indology dating from the colonial era has been highly biased,

being essentially a regurgitated version of Vedic-Puranic versions of

history as seen through the

eyes of the Brahmins.

 

The word Sanskrit does not occur anywhere in the Vedas. Not a single

verse mentions this word as denoting a language. The Buddha was

advised to translate his

teachings into the learned man's tongue the Chandasa standard; there

is no mention of any Sanskrit. The Buddha refused, preferring the

Prakrits.

 

There is not even a single reference in any contemporary Buddhist

texts to the word Sanskrit. This shows that Sanskrit did not even

exist at the time of the Buddha

and that the people at that period, even the Brahmins themselves, were

not aware of themselves as speaking Sanskrit; they referred to their

language as Chandasa.

 

The word Sanskrit occurs for the first time in the first century A.D.

as referring to a language in the Ramayana : "In the latter [Ramayana]

the term samskrta 'formal,

polished', is encountered, probably for the first time with reference

to the language".

 

The first inscriptions in Indian history are in Prakrit and not in

Sanskrit. These are by the Mauryan King Ashoka (c.273 BC - 232 BC).

Prakrit is the Vernacular; the

term Prakrta or Prakrit means common, natural, while the term Samskrta

or Sanskrit natural means polished, refined. Thus Prakrit refers to

any of the natural

languages, while Sanskrit refers to the purified language. This

etymology itself indicates that Sanskrit is derived from Prakrit

rather than the other way around.