Thursday, March 4, 2010

Sanskrit... Myth and Truth

This article is not against to any body.History needs to be revisit again and again.Always there are untold stories in the past.Historians are basically story tellers.This article is very interesting and informative.It's highlighting very important side of Pre Aryan Era.`Anti-Sanskrit Scripture' by Shyam Rao. It is available for free public "distribution as per the Ambedkar Library Public Licence: You may freely
;distribute this work, as long as you do not make money from it.
Sanskrit is Dead Sanskrit is for all intents and purposes, a dead language.The Brahmans are in the habit of glorifying the era ofAnglo-Brahman colonialism; yet even during 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 hypothesised `Gupta Golden Age' spoken outside the closely knit circle of Brahmins, who jealously hid all knowledge, including that of Sanskrit, to themselves. As will be shown later on, nor did it 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 travellers, were more widely spoken than `Mother Sanskrit' ! This is evident from the following table :class=Number of Speakers as per 1951 Census ( Chat. 73-74 )Census of India reveals that a whole 356 people spoke the language in the entire Indian subcontinent, during what is considered a `Golden Age' for Sanskrit revival, the era of Anglo-Brahmin colonialism.
Several obscure languages had many more speakers than `Mother Sanskrit'  Speakers Reference Sanskrit 356 Grierson, I, p. 400 Andamanese 580 Grierson, I, p. 390 Nicobarese 8662 Grierson, I, p. 390 Khasi 204103 Grierson, I, p. 390 Bhotia 231885 Grierson, I, p. 391 Naga 338634 Grierson, I, p. 394 During the same 1921 Census, the number of speakers of Indo-Aryan Languages was 229.561 million.">Brahmin Fantasies 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. As this section of the population forms a mere 5 % of the Indian population, these histories have been very unrepresentative of the truth. Thus, Indian linguistics in its infancy adopted the mythological Brahmanical notion that all languages were degraded forms of Sanskrit. Sanskrit, a language which was merely liturgical and hardly played any role in Indian history, all of a sudden became the focus of attention. Indeed,this Brahminist fraud, now referred to as `The Mother Sanskrit Theory',is one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century. claims were made about this language. Sanskrit became the `mother of all languages in India', and it soon came to be believed that all literatures in the world, including Greek, Latin, etc. were derived frm Sanskrit ! All these Brahmin fantasies were eagerly copied down by their European collaborators, who placed these absurdities in academic garb. Max Mueller and William Jones were only the pioneers in this movement, which, whilst displaying a superficial novelty in Europe,were in fact based on Puranic notions. Virtually all efforts of the European colonialists towards studying India were devoted towards studying Brahmanism; non-Sanskrit civilizations were given scarcely any attention. This was, in a sense, a reward granted by the Europeans for services rendered by the Brahmins, who had actively collaborated with the colonialists. This hangover continues today, and even now`Indology' virtually means the study of Sanskrit and Brahmanic civilization; Dravidian, Indo-Muslim and Prakritic civilizations are blissfully ignored. It is all the more shocking that some European scholars still actively collaborate in propagating plainly false Puranic theories. Thus recently, certain deluded Europeans have made the following statements

Frawley said, " It [ Sanskrit ] has been regarded as the best language for computers because of its clarity." [ Myth, Ch. 24 ]. Those familiar with David Frawley know him as an avid propagator of Brahmin Vedic and Puranic fallacies, such as the Puranic `Out of India' hypothesis.According to the Forbes magazine (July, 1987), "Sanskrit is the most convenient language for somputer software programming". The import is to somehow build a halo around Brahmanic Sanskrit. However, why Sanskrit has not then replaced established computer languages such as Basic, C, Pascal or Fortran are not answered. Computers still utilise binary code and no Sanskrit-based counting system. Nor have humans adopted the binary system in which computers can calculate so well; we are all quite satisfied with the decimal system, which is of Harappan-Sumerian origin. This Mother Sanskrit Theory (MST) then, arose during the Anglo-Brahmin colonial era when the Europeans adopted Brahmanic Vedic and Puranic theories of Indian history and civilization. As per this now discredited theory, Sanskrit is the `Mother of all World Langauges'. This model has now been discredited,but a variant of the MST still pervades Indian linguistics, namely the claim that `Sanskrit is the Mother of all Indian languages'.Unfortunately, the MST is still being taught in Indian universities as a hangover from the Colonial era. Elaborate family trees are still drawn up; of which a simplified version for Indian languages generally taught today in the North can be drawn up : MOTHER SANSKRIT THEORY (MST)as per this theory, Sanskrit somehow developed into Prakrit,simultaneously developing into Pali. Prakrit then somehow developed into Apabrahmsa, which then developed into the modern Indo-Aryan languages. Sanskrit was supposedly the spoken language during the much-hyped `Golden Age of Indian Culture', the Gupta Empire, and was supposedly the vernacular during the Vedic Age. Thus, all Indo-Aryan languages are seen as being mere derivatives of Sanskrit.Unfortunately, this wrong and highly biased view still persists in many encyclopedias. This MST is refuted below.Non-Existsnce of Sanskrit Before 500 BC 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
- The Buddha was advised to translate his teachings into the learned man's tongue - the `Chandasa' standard [ Chatt., p. 64 ], 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 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" that extant versions of the Ramayana date only to the centuries AD.Asokan Script - 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 ), and number over 30. They date to the 4th century BC. The script utilised is not `sacred' Devanagari, and the language is not `Mother'Sanskrit. They are mostly in the Brahmi script, while 2 inscriptions are in Kharoshtri. They are in various Prakrits and some in Afghanistan are in Greek and Aramaic [ Bas,. p. 390-1 ]. In fact all inscriptions in India were in Prakrit till the early centuries AD : "[T]he earlier inscriptions up to the 1st century AD, were all in Prakrit"Satavahana Inscriptions - The Satavahanas, the first historical dynasty of the Deccan, also used a Prakrit language. There is no usage of Sanskrit. The Nagarjunikonda insrciptions are by the Satvahana king Vijaya Satakarni in the early 3rd cetnruy AD & end with the Ikshvaku Rudrapurusadatta who ruled for 11 years in the second quarter of the 4th century. Most of the large number of inscriptions are in Prakrit and only a few belonging to Ehuvulu Santamula are in Sanskrit (he ruled during the last 24 years of the 3rd to the early 4th century AD ) but even most of his inscriptions are in Prakrit and those which are in Sasnkrit are heavily influenced by Prakrit [ Bhatt., p. 408 ftn. 46 ].The Nanaghat cave inscriptions in Poona distt. are in Prakrit and are the work of the Satavahana Satakarni I. They have been dated to the first half of the 1st century BC. The contemporary relgiion of this region was Vedic. Indra and Vasudev are mentioned as the Vedic gods then worshipped [ Bas, p. 395 ]. The later cave inscriptions of Nasik in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD are in the local Prakrit [ Bas, p. 395 ].Thus, although the Vedic religion was followed in the Satavahana regions, Sanksrit was not in use.- 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 insrcription was discovered on a copper casket containing relics of the Lord Sakyamuni [ Bas, p. 393 ].
Kalinga Inscription - Kharavela's Kalingan inscription of the 1st century BC were in a Prakrit of the east indian type. Interseting is the first mention of the word Bharatavarsha in an inscription.Kharavela is described as invading Bharatavarsha, which then evidently denoted only North India [ Bas, p. 393 ].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.Refutation of the Mother Sanskrit Theory (MST) As usual, the load of Sanskrit-centric theories were a heap of nonsense. The following developments have been instrumental in overturning the old colonial reverence for the language :
Brajbuli dates to 1000 BC - A central assumption of the MST is that all Prakrit
vernaculars must be of a very late date. With the first mention of`Sanskrit' in a Ramayana dating to the ealy centuries AD, any Prakrit existing prior to this necessarily contradicts the Mother Sanskrit Theory. Indeed, even the Brahmanic myths themselves present evidence of this with the Prakrit Brajbuli. Brajabuli, the precursor to the modern Braj Bhasa, is said to have been used by Krishna and the gopis of Vraja (Vrindavan, whence Braj) and it was thus popular amongst Vaishnava poets [ Assam, p. 422. n3 ]. Krishna is dated to ca. 1000 BC, and this internal evidence would imply that Braj Bhasa dated to 1000 BC.Recently, Krishna's city, Dvaraka, has been excavated, showing that he probably was a historical person. The stories are hence based on fact,and this evidence cannot be dismissed as a `myth'.Prakrit'= Vernacular - The term `Prakrta' or Prakrit means `common', `natural',
while the term `Samskrta' or Sanskrit natural means `polsihed, refined'[ Up. 164 ]. 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. This necessarily implies that Sanskrit is, like Old Church Slavonic, a polished version of various vernaculars.Apabrahmsa is a Prakrit - Apabrahmsa, which in the MST is seen as a derivative of
Prakrit, is in fact itself a Prakrit known as Abhiri. It was actually comtemporary with all the other Prakrits, and the view that it succeeded Prakrit is wrong. Several dramas have characters speaking Apabrahmsa and Prakrits side by side. This shows that Apabrahmsa is not the second stage in the development from Sanskrit, but was merely another Prakrit language.Different Prakrit Languages - Prakrit is not a single language. Since the beginning there were several different Prakrit languages, which had different grammars and dictionaries.Modern Prakrits - As per the MST, the Prakrits are all dead languages, having`degraded' into the modern Indo-Aryan tongues. However, Prakrits never disappeared. All the modern Indo-Aryan (IA) languages are Prakrits (Bengali, Marathi etc.). The ancient Prakrits are the direct precursors of the modern languages, thus Vangi - Bengali, Odri - Oriya, and Maharastri - Marathi. All these so-called `Prakrits' such as Vangi, Odri and Maharastri, can all be understood by the speakers of their respective IA languages with the same ease with which a modern speaker of English can understand Anglo-Saxon. This fact alone is sufficient to refute the MST. Far from being dead, Prakrit is still spoken in all parts of India just as it has been for thousands of years. The word Prakrit itself merely means `natural' and refers to all the Indo-Iranian languages as spoken by the common man in India. Thus, even the literal meaning of the word `Prakrit' implies that it is far from dead.Prakrit Older than Sanskrit - The MST claims that Sanskrit is older than
Prakrit. However, it is Prakrit which is older than Sanskrit, since several features of Prakrit can be traced to the Rig Veda, which are not found in Sanskrit. This is because Chandasa, when invented by the Brahmins ca. 5th century BC, was a refined form of vernacular IA langueages, thereby losing certain features which were preserved in Prakrit.Other features - Pali poses another problem for the MST. As per the MST, it
is an independant derivation from Sanskrit, and is not a Prakrit. However, Pali is in fact a dialect of Magadhi Prakrit and not a separate language as evidenced by the mutual comprehensibility between these two tongues.The Prakrits can be understood by the respective speakers of modern
Indo-Aryan languages, ie. Vangi can be understood by modern Bengali speakers, Odri Prakrit can be understood by modern Oriyas, Maharashtri Prakrit can be understood by modern Marathis yet in the Sanskritic viewpoint Prakrits are dead.
Brahman Invention of Sanskrit, The Liturgical Language The lack of a standard liturgical language was a grave defect for the 6 orthodox (`astika') schools of Brahmanism (comprising Aryan Vaishnavism, Vedanta, Yoga, Vedism, etc.). With the rise of `nastika' heterodxies, ie. Jainism (`jainas'), Buddhism (`bauddhas'), etc. (collectively referred to as `Sramanism') associated with East Indic kingdoms, the Aryans of Aryavarta & Brahmavarta sought to counter this novel threat to Vedic orthodoxy by introducing a standard litugical language (perhaps in emulation of the Buddhist Pali and Jain Ardhamagadhi). The state of Panchala played a central role in this process. This nation arose in the 8-9th centuries BC and united different groups speaking North Indic and Midland Indo-Aryan languages. It is here that Panini created the `chandas' language. Soon thereafter the label `samskrta' (polished, whence later Sanskrit) was applied to this liturgical language. Thus Sanskrit is a synthesis of several languages:Vedic Languages : Rigvedic Samvedic Atharvic and Yajurvedic Brahmanic, the language of the Brahmanas Upanishadic, the language of the Upanishads North Indo-Aryan languages, eg. Bal Sarasvati (the precursor of Konkani), Gandharvi (the precursor of Gandhari), etc. Midland Indo-Aryan languages, eg. Braj buli (the language of Krishna and Matsyi (the precursor of Sauraseni).this regard the origin of Sanskrit is exactly analogous to that of Old Church Slavonic. Mother of None The Mother Sanskrit Theory (MST) has been now discarded. A new tree diagram can now be drawn.
Indo - Iranian Indo-Aryan East Indic Dardic
Scythic Iranic /(East Iranic) Vedic Madhyi Udicyi Pracyi
Bibhasas Bibhasa \ Rajastani Sanskrit / \ Lahnda, Languages / \ Old Sindhi / \ Kanauji Sauraseni Gandhari Magadhi Vangi / (extinct) \ Braj
Bhasa Magahi Bengali Kamrupi / \ \ Braj Bhakhta Khari Boli Assamese
[ P R A K R I T S ]The dialect of Pracya was the one current is what is now Oudh and Eastern
U. P. and probably also Bihar. This language was prevalent among the vratyas who were wandering Aryan-speaking tribes who did not owe allegiance to the Vedic fire-cult and the social and religious organisation of Brahmanism [ Chatt., p. 61 ].acknowledge that the old MST is discarded:clssical Sanskrit is not directly derivable from any single Vedic
dialect, so the Prakrits cannot be said to derive directly from Classical Sanskrit"
 justify;"ison with Old Church Slavonic Thus, Classical Sanskrit is exactly
analogous to the Old Church Slavonic language [ EB 22.696 ], which was created in 863 AD by Orthodox Slavs to counteract the effect of the Latin Catholic Church. Old Church Slavonic was a synthesis of West Slavic languages and Byzantine Greek. This occurred in the Moravian kingdom, which united West Slavs in the 9th century AD. Thus, both Sanskrit and Old Church Slavonic arose as syntheses of various languages and both arose as standard liturgical languages to counter heterodoxies.
Consequences of the MST & Sanskritisation The MST and the Brahminist policy of Sanskritisation had several disastrous consequences for pre-Brahmanic civlizations :
Undermining of Pre-Brahmanic Langauges - The MST had the debilitating effect of undermining pre-brahmanic languages and caused great harm to these vernaculars. The modern Indo-Aryan languages were viewed as `degraded',since they were merely distorted forms of Sanskrit. This led to most Indians developing a dislike for their own mother tongue.


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 between1400-1500 AD ! Thus, instead of being respected for having histories of 3000 years, these languages with a rich history were denigrated as recent innovations.
Cultural Genocide - Since these languages (Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc.)were viewed as being merely degraded forms of Sanskrit, the MST naturally led to the idea of abolishing these languages and replacing them with Sanskrit. Since these languages were supposedly of recent origin, having been spoken only for the last 300-500 years, whereas Sanskrit had been purportedly spoken for 3500 years, this seemed a natural conclusion. Such concepts have been adopted by the Sangh Parivar, which seeks to abolish all Prakritic languages and replace them with Sanskrit.Hampering of Development - Sanskritisation hampered the free development of these
languages, since they had to depend on Sankrit vocabulaery and literary models. The vernaculars were deliberately corrupted with excessive Sanskritisation. In many cases, the indigenous languages have been undermined and are nearing extinction. The native Marathi script has been replaced by Devanagari during the Anglo-Brahmin Empire; Bhojpuri,Magahi, Mithili and Koshali have all been replaced by Khari Boli Hindi Bengali was Sanskritised and undermined in the early part of the 20th century, being saved only by Tagore; and Rajasthani is nearing extinction, with the Brahmins having obliterated the Mahajani script.Everywhere, the advance of Brahmanic Khari Boli Hindi is evident, which in the MST is considered `purer' as being closer to Sanskrit than the`degraded' vernaculars it is replacing.Sanskrit is 30 % Dravidian Many authors have made the fallacious claim that Sanskrit is the purest of languages. In fact, Sanskrit has many Dravidian loanwords, and many Prakritisms. Thus, " Classical Sanskrit was profoundly influenced by Middle Indo-Aryan [ ie. Prakrits ]. Not only were a large number of Middle Indo-Ayan 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 realised by the ancient scholars with whom Sanskrit represented just a variant, an earlier or fuller form (patha) of Prakrit.[ Chatt., p. 95 ] Some scholars hold that more than 50 % of the vocabulary of Sanskrit is of Dravidian and foreign origin; thus Lahovery writes that the vocabulary of Sanskrit "is largely formed of Dravidian and other loanwords" [ Lah., p. 407 on Wool ]. The composition of Sanskrit vocabulary can be approximately given by :Vedic (Old Indo-Aryan)Defects of Sanskrit Vocabulary The archaic nature of Sanskrit is evident in its vocabulary, which is highly synonymic, homonymic and hermaphroditic and its compounding nature. All these features render the language highly unsuited to communication and unfit for usage as a vernacular or language of science.
Synonymism Synonymism refers to the case of several different words denoting one and the same thing. Some languages exhibit this to a slight degree, others to a greater. In the case of Sanskrit, this is carried to the bizarrely ultimate extreme. There are frequently more than a dozen names for one and the same object, rendering Sanskrit utter confustion counfounded. As an example, consider the following twoSanskrit words, each having more than 10 meanings bhag(16) portion, part, share, fragment, fortune, wealth fraction, destiny,degree, one division, wish, luck, happiness, sun, moon, vagina [ All.Ch. 95 ]
krishna(11) black, dark blue, a species of deeer, a crow, a cuckoo, a sinful deed, pepper, iron, kohl, wicked, the god Vishnu [ All. Ch. 321 ] This feature of synonymism renders Sanskrit texts a confused bundle of ontradictions. Even the clearest statements become demented aporisations, rendering any passage vague and subject to different interpretations.
Homonymism This refers to case in which several words of the same sound and perhaps the same pronounciation have different meanings. On its own this feature hampers understanding, but when coupled with synonymism this leads to the language becoming totally incomprehensible. For, in this case one and the same thing is denoted by several words, and those same words then denote a host of other objects. Such languages, denoted as homo-synonymic, are the most incomprehensible of all. Often a writer of a text in such a language gives, after a certain period of time, a totally different meaning from what he himself had written. Sanskrit belongs to the extreme hom-synonymic category. It comes as little surprise that there is utter confustion regarding the exact meaning of Sanskrit works, and even scientific texts in mathematics are highly ambiguous in meaning.
Hermaphriditism Hermaphroditism refers to those languages which do not distinguish between genders. This is a suitable simplification, but Sanskrit in its usual fantastic contortions possesses different grammatical forms for different genders, yet does not distinguish between different genders in other cases ! For example, numerous names
are applied indiscriminatley to males and females:
Anushtup - name of Sarasvati name of son of Arun female form assumed by Arun [ All. Ch., p. 912 ] name of son of Manu Savarni
name of Parvati [ All. Ch., p. 912 ]Asuri - name of a sage of the Sankhya school [ All. Ch., p. 914 ]Atri - name of a sage who composed some Vedic hymns [ All. Ch., p. 914 ]Ayati - daughter of Mt. Meru Bhadra - name of the brother of Balarama, also a jester of Rama name of Shiv daughter of Kekay, an epithet of Durga [ All. Ch., p. 918 ].Bhag - epithet of Surya, and a son of Kashyap and Aditi and one of 12 Adityas [ All. Ch. 918 ] also applied to the female genitals [ All. Ch., p. 95 ].Bhanu - name of Nisha, wife of Agni Manu name of Vishnu and son of Krishna [ All. Ch., p. 930 ].
Danu - daughter of Daksh- son of Kashyap and Pradha [ All. Ch., p. 930 ] demigods [ All. Ch., p. 934 ] also `heavenly vagina'Dhriti - daughter of Daksha son of a Yadav prince [ All. Ch., p. 936 ]- name of Vishvadev Gandhari - name of Shakuni, prince of Gandhara wife of Dhritarasthra [ All. Ch., p. 946 ]Hari - name of Vishnu daughter of Kashyap by Krodhvusha [ All. Ch., p. 951 ]Kali - lord of Kaliyuga, reborn as Duryodhana [ All. Ch., p. 965 ] the name of the famous mother-goddess Kama - wife of Puru- god of love [ All. Ch., p. 967 ]Krishna - name of Draupadi since she was dark, Durga- male god incarnation of Vishnu [ All. Ch., p. 977 ].wife of Krishna
sage in Yudhishitra's palace [ All. Ch., p. 1024 ]Shakti - sage, son of Vasishta by Arundhati his wife- goddess Durga [ All. Ch., p. 1027 ].Shanti - daughter of Daksh by his wife Prasuti, son of Rishi Angira [ All. Ch., p. 1029 ]Sumitra - name of the last king of the Solar dynasty wife of king Dasarath and mother of Laxman [ All. Ch., p. 1043 ]Satya - wife of Krishna- sage in Yudhishitra's palace [ All. Ch., p. 1024 ]Shakti - sage, son of Vasishta by Arundhati his wife goddess Durga [ All. Ch., p. 1027 ]Shanti - daughter of Daksh by his wife Prasuti sagte, son of Rishi Angira [ All. Ch., p. 1029 ]Subahu - apsara daughter of Kashyap by his wife Pradha sage, son of Kashyap by his wife Kadru, king at the time of Yudhishitra [ All. Ch.,Shaibya - king of Shibis, Govasan- wife of king Dasarath and mother of Laxman [ All. Ch., p. 1043 ]Vairati - prince Uthar daughter of king VIrat [ All. Ch., p. 1054 ]Vasvi - patronymic of Arjun and Bali
Vidhyujjihva - son of Kashyap and Kalha matrika of Kartik [ All. Ch., p. 1062 ]Itis thus evident that one and the same Sanskrit name, with the same pronounciation, can be applied to either a man or a woman. This has suited the Brahmins, who fraudulently claim that several of the Vedic seers were in fact women. This has helped them in their claim of a `Vedic Golden Age' in which women were supposedly treated very well.
The Brahmin inventions of Vedic sati, female infanticide, dowry and bride-burning are all blatantly denied. Many of those supposed brilliant Vedic `women' had ambiguous names like those given above.
Compound Vocabulary This refers to the compounding of words to inordinate lengths. Sanskrit, the wonder of distortions and wild fallacies of linguistic madness, is highly compounding. So long are some Sanskrit words that they often extend to more than one page ! This does not refer to one sentence running over a page (some German authors have accomplished this feat); the reference is to a single one word. It is little wonder then, that Sanskrit has been given the title `disease of language' [ Walk ]. There are several reasons why Sanskrit displays such irrational grammar, vocabulary and phonology.
Unscientific Mysticism - The Aryans and Brahmins in particular held on to power by
maintaining a stronghold over knowledge and refusing it to the native races. Thus, Sanskrit was deliberately created so as to confuse and obscure any knowledge. Unfortunately this backfired since the Brahmins themselves lost all knowledge they developed. By pretending to understand Sanskrit, they also gained the admiration of the simple native Indians. Thus they invented more and more cryptic words to confound the Dasoos. Suppression of Heresies - The harsh panalties for even minor deviations from Brahmanism or Aryan Vaishnavite Orthodoxy were reminiscent of the Medieval Church. Thus, the pre-Aryan religions of Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism were severely persecuted, as were the Buddhists and Jains. The followers of these heresies were forced to`encode' their scriptures in cryptic Sanskrit in order to avoid detection. This is also the reason why Buddhists later invented Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. They were severely persecuted by bloodthirsty Brahminist tyrants such as the Brahmin Pusyamitra Sunga, Sasanka of Gauda, and many other kings as a result of which they had to hide the true intent of their scriptures behind Sanskrit. Aryan Invasions - The Aryans who invaded India in 1500 BC, destroying the Semito-Negroid(Das-Panian) Indus Valley civilization, entered in several waves. Thus when Panini created Sanskrit in ca. 500 BC, it was a confused synthesis of several Indo-Aryan langauges. In fact Vedic was not one language but consisted of the many different languages spoken by the various marauding tribes. As a result, Sanskrit is a confused mongrel language,a bastard mixture of incoherent tongues. Indeed, more than one-third of Sanskrit vocabulary is of Dravidian origin. Free Time - The Brahmins had nothing to do, living on a system of tremendous extortion and plunder of native populations They hence created a more and more useless language by inventing more and more difficult words and letters. Devadasis - The huge temples played a great role in the formation of Sanskrit. Large numbers of women of all races, especially
Sudrani Negresses, who were ravished and enslaved by the Aryan
invaders, were forced by the cruel Brahmins into immoral prostitution.
The non-Aryan women were also raped by their monstrous Brahmin pimps,
who kept the helpless Dravidian women in the huge prison-temples of
Vishnu. Their mongrel offspring are the Tamil Brahmins of today, and
their bastard language is the Sanskrit of today. It is in these giant
brothels that Sanskrit arose, and hence Sanskrit is a bastard language,
containing a confused jumble of elements of various languages (Vedic,
Dravidian, Mon-Khmer, etc.). It has been estimated that 30 - 50 % of
Sanskrit is of Dravidian etymology alone, with only 20-39 % being of
Vedic origin [ Wool ]. In short, Sanskrit is descended partly from the
speech of the uncultured barbaric Vedic Aryans who destroyed the Indus
Valley civilization, and partly from the speech of the giant
brothel-temples of Brahmin India. It thus naturally displaying
primitive features, and is an incoherent mixture of disparate tongues.
The Grotesque Grammar of Sanskrit
ight Cases The linguistic history of mankind is characterized by a
general development from ancient complexity to a simplified nature. A
mathematical way of describing this trend is by noting the decrease in
the number of grammatical cases in use as time passes by. Thus, while
Proto-Germanic had 6 cases, Modern German only has 4 and modern
Hindustani only 2. The most archaic language, Proto-Indo-European, had
8 cases. Sanskrit, which also has 8 cases, is thus a member of the most
primitive language class in the world:
Comparison with Other Languages In an objective mathematical
arrangement of Sanskrit in the hierarchy of primitive and advanced
languages, Sanskrit immediately falls into the most primitive category,
as is evident from the following table :
Language Number of Cases Archaic 7-8 Proto-Indo-European 8 [ EB 22 `Lang.' 659 ]
Sanskrit 8 [ EB 22 `Lang.' 659 ] Proto-Slavic ( & most Slavic) 7 [
EB 22.698 ] Medial Stage 4-6 Proto-Germanic 6 [ EB 22.659 ] Modern
Russian 6 [ EB 10.256 ] Latin 6 [ EB 22.647 ] Modern German 4 Bengali
4-6 [ EB 2.100 ] Old English 4 [ EB 22.677 ] Highly Developed 2-3
Romanian 2 [ EB 22.647 ] Old French 2 [ EB 22.647 ] Gujarati 3 [ EB
5.563 ] English 2 Mughali (colloquial Urdu)
Moreover,Sanskrit possesses a highly complex system of inflection which has been
discarded all over the world. English, Mughali (Urdu) & Hindustani
have all discarded the ancient inflected systems, as have virtually all
the vernaculars of India. A complex grammar is never an indicator of
the richness of a language, rather a cumbersome grammar indicates a
less evolved state. Thus the Bushmen languages have a highly complex
grammar involving `click' sounds, but nobody except Bushmen claim that
these languages are very rich. An exactly similar situation holds for
Sanskrit, with only bigoted Brahmins claiming that Sanskrit is
`superior'.
Phonology The phonology (sound system) of Sanskrit is also highly
compiicated. The ancient barbaric Indo-Aryans had, besides warfare,
little else to do. Their pandits, living on a system of free subsidy,
spent time devising new sounds and a more and more complicated language
& script. Thus there are 4 different types of `n', 4 types of `sh'
and various types of `s'. Minor changes in the pronounciation of these
sounds completely changes the meaning of words, leading to much
confusion. Because of its extremely complicated grammar and cumbersome
phonology it is virtually certain that Sanskrit was ever a widely
spoken language, current among the general populace. It was only
restricted to the fanatic Brahmins, who still clandestinely employ it
in their homes.
The Devanagari script, the `most holy and revered form of writing' which
Brahmanism has forced upon the masses, suffers from several severe
defects :
Slow Speed of Writing - Writing in Dev Nagari is much slower compared to
other scripts. Slow Speed of Reading - Reading text in Devanagari takes
much longer compared to other scripts. Large Number of Alphabets -
Devanagari has more than 500 alphabets; hence printing in Devanagari is
highly expensive. Illiteracy - Wherever the Brahmins enforced the
Devanagari script, the entire population sank into gross ignorance. In
fact, Devanagari and Sanskrit were created by the Brahmins for that
purpose only - namely, the destruction of pre-Brahmanic civilizations.

Decreased Reading Spead The complex nature of the script, with
elaborate ornamentation crammed into a small space, means that reading
texts in this script is slower [ Mad., p. 1 ff ]. The top line across
each letter is an entirely superfluous appendage. Often, the writer of
a text cannot read the text himself, and the writing of one person is
almost universally unintelligible to others. Moreover, some individual
words are more than one page long, and this further slows down
comprehension. Thus Devanagari served the aims of the Brahmans, who
thereby maintained the entire population in illiteracy. Stooped in
ignorance and unable to acquire any learning on account of the
difficulties of reading Sanskrit, the masses became the mindless slaves
of their white Brahmin masters for two millenia, ultimately being
degraded to the level of sub-humans. Sanskritisation, along with
Devadasism, vegetarianism, the encouragement of female infanticide, the
savage enforcement of Vedic sati, and the Brahmin invention of the jati
system of castes and sub-castes were the main pillars of 3000 years of
totalitarian Brahmin rule over India.
Slow Speed of Writing The extremely intricate, complex and ornate
nature of the Devanagari script, requiring several strokes for each
letter to be executed in a small space, implies that writing becomes
much slower [ Mad., p. 1 ff ]. Once again, this was a deliberate result
of Brahminist machinations : In order to restrict all knowledge,
learning and science within the confines of their race, the Brahmins
set up all types of barriers in the path of learning for the
non-Brahmin masses. One such barrier was the creation of an extremely
complex script, Devanagari. The mastery of this script taking a much
longer time, and writing being slower, it hindered the spread of
literacy and served to maintain the masses under the vicious
Brahmanical grip of illiteracy. The Brahmins lived on the masses of
loot extorted by fraud and deception plundered from the countryside,
and piled up fantastic plunder. The truly staggering extent of the
looting was revealed only when the Muslim liberators discovered the
fabulous quantities of `Brahmin Gold' hidden by the Brahmins in the
Vishnu temples. They thus had plenty of time to waste in senseless
pursuits such as pornography and the description of Devadasis, the
creation of fallacies such as palmistry, and the invention of an ever
more ornate and complex script while the voiceless masses suffered
constant death and starvation in the nation which had been transformed
into one massive Kautilyan forced labour camp. Indeed, compared to all
other scripts, Devanagari is one of the slowest to write in. The Arabic
script is the fastest script in existence. All scripts derived from
Arabic, such as Persian, Turkic and Mughali (Urdu), also display this
virtue of high speed. In fact, several scholars who used this script
were able to produce thousands of pages in a single day ! By
comparison, the illiterate Brahmins could only produce a few pages per
day using the cumbersome Devanagari, accounting for the paucity of
literature in dead Sanskrit.
Large Number of Alphabets The number of alphabets of Dev Nagari is
enormous, numbering more than 500 different characters. The number of
basic alphabets is 50, consisting of 36 consonants and

vowels and diphthongs. In addition conjunct consonants and
vowel-consonant compound characters of an infinite variety exist. The
illogical rules for conjunction as enforced by the bigoted Brahmins
imply that each time two consonants are combined, a completely new
letter has to be used. In addition, a vowel following a consonant leads
to a differnet letter once again ! Literally an infinite number of such
letters exist, but counting only the most common ones leads to a
staggering total of 509 different characters ! A simple arithmetic
calculation yields this result :No. of Basic Alphabets = 50 [ al-B. i. 172 ] = 14 vowels & diphthongs + 36 consonants Each conjunct consonant can form 12 vowel-consonant compounds, namely with aa, a, e, ee, o, u, oo, i, etc. so
No. of Vowel-Consonant Compounds = 36 x 12 = 432
36 consonants 27 conjunct consonants (at least) + 432 vowel-consonant compounds excl. consonants;Thus the total number of Devanagari characters is at least 509, In defence of their fascist policies, the fraudulent Brahmin linguists have
entirely falsified science, and have spread their lies and propaganda
by claiming that Devanagari only uses 50 alphabets ! Thus, Encyclopedia
Britannica mentions the number of Khari Boli Devanagari alphabets as 48
[ EB 4., p. 44-45 ] (34 constts + 14 vowels and diphthongs). The fact
that compounding leads to new letters, and that the total is more than
500 is not mentioned, such inconvenient facts having been censored by
the Brahmin mafia.
Printing Difficulties For each of these 509 alphabets, a separate
moulded type-set has to be manufactured for a Devanagari printing
press. Thus the cost of setting up a Devanagari printing press is much
higher than for other scripts, as is the cost of maintenance. The great
linguist Madan Gopal amply emphasized this drawback of Devanagari [
Mad., p. 1ff ]. The noted Indian linguist, S. K. Chatterji, also noted
this disadvantage: " At present, to print in the Nagari alphabet,
considerably over 400 special types are required"

[ Chat., p. 239 ] and thus Chatterji advocated the use of an Indo-Roman
script for Hindi. Several rationally minded persons suggested retaining
the ancient individual scripts for the local Prakrits such as Bhojpuri,
Rajasthani and Marathi, but the fanatic Brahmin Vaishnava Pandit Nehru
would have nothing of it. Under his dogged insistence, Devanagari was
enforced for all these languages, almost leading to their annihilation.
Nobody in his right senses would advocate the usage of such a
cumbersome script for mass circulation. Yet Brahmins of the tribe of
Nehru-Gandhi and Lilliputs of the Vajpayee clan fanatically cling to
their treasured invention, Devanagari. Thus much money is wasted in the
publication of magazines and newspapers in this primitive script.

Primitivism of Devanagari The large number of characters of Devanagari
is another feature of the archaic origin of the script. This is exactly
analogous to the case of a larger number of grammatical cases discussed
in the previous chapter. In general, the more primitive the language,
the larger the number of letters or characters in its alphabet. In
order to illustrate this point, consider the following two tables :
Primitive Languages - The following is a list of primitive languages, along with the number of their characters :Ming Chinese (1716) 40545 [ EB 22.729 ] Sung Chinese (1007) 26194 [ EB
22.729 ] Han Chinese (100 AD) 9353 [ EB 22.729 ] Sumerian (3000 BC)
1200 [ EB 29.1029 ] Sanskrit 509 [ Chat. 239 ] New Elamite (2000 BC)
100 [ EB 29.1036 ] Classical Egyptian (2000 BC) 70 [ EB 29.1038 ]
1. No. of Egyptian characters is the no. of hieroglyphs.
Thus,Sanskrit belongs to the category of degraded languages like New Elamite
and Sumerian. These have been long discarded as cumbersome hindrances.
Only the intolerant Brahmins of India fanatically cling to Sanskrit as
it suits their imperialist ambitions. Yet at least Elamite and Sumerian
were spoken for a short time, whilst Sanskrit was only used by the
Brahmins in their Vishnu temples - Sanskrit has been always dead ever
since it was invented ! Highly Developed Languages - As languages
developed to higher forms, the large number of alphabets were reduced.
This is evident by analysing the following table, arranged in order of
age of the language :
Classical (Ionic) Greek 24 [ EB 29.1046 ] Latin 23 [ EB 29.1048 ] Old Church
Slavonic 43 [ EB 3.831 ] Modern Russian 32 [ EB 3.831 ] Bulgarian 30 [
EB 3.831 ] Serbian 30 [ EB 3.831 ] Ukrainian 33 [ EB 3.831 ] Modern
Russian 32 [ EB 3.831 ] Arabic (modern) 28 [ EB 1.509 ]

Even Egyptian, with 70 hieroglyphs, later discarded as cumbersome, was the
language of the great civilization of the Pharoahs. No wonder that
Sanskrit was only the language of barbaric Aryan invaders and never
produced any civlization

Absence of Sanskrit Script When the barbaric Aryans and their
illiterate Brahmin priests invaded India, destroying the Indus Valley
civilization, they were too ignorant and beastly to have had even the
concept of a script. For the 1000-year Vedic Dark Ages thereafter,
there was also no script as India descended into chaos and anarchy with
the primitive Aryans transforming India into a giant animal kingdom.
Thus, Vedic and Sanskrit originally had no script ! This was the state
of affairs until the Aramaic script was adapted to the Brahmi script in
East India for the Asokan inscriptions. Even then, it was adapted to
the Prakrits, the Brahmins preventing its usage for Sanskrit. The
Brahmin cave-men have always howled that the putting of pen to paper
was a despicable menial job `fit for Sudras' and that such sacrileges
as recording the Vedas would `pollute' these texts. Later, this Prakrit
script was distorted into Devanagari. Still, the primitive
cave-dwelling Brahmins thereafter consistently opposed the use of
script. This continued down till the Muslim period. Thus, Alberuni
wrote how the howling Brahmans oppose writing:

They [ Brahmins ] do not allow the Veda to be committed to writing,
because it is recited according to certain modulations and they
therefore avoid the use of the pen, since it is liable to cause some
error, and may occasion an addition or defect in the written text.

[ al-B. i. 125, Ch. XII ] This was done because the Brahmins feared
that the development of a script would enable the `Dasoos' to learn and
gain knowledge. Thus, Sanskrit has no script and never had. When
Aramaic was adapted to Indian languages, different scripts evolved
under the anti-Vedic Buddhist, Jain and Materialist heterodoxies. Since
Sanskrit did not have any script, and Devanagari was only invented in
the 10th century AD, Sanskrit came to be written in the local scripts.
Thus, Sanskrit in Bengal is written in Bengali script, in Orissa it is
written in Oriya letters, in Tamil Nadu it is written in Dravidian
letters. In each of the local museums in these states one finds
Sanskrit manuscripts written in the local scripts; Devanagari is
virtually absent, and where present, is of a very late age. It is only
after the local Prakrits developed scripts, based on Buddhist
influence, that the Brahmins were forced to invent Devanagari. Then, as
the poison of Brahmin power spread throughout India, Sanskritisation
was enforced on the masses in order to destroy their local languages
and eat into the very foundations of the Non-Brahmin civilizations.
First, the indigenous language would be corrupted with the introduction
of Sanskrit words, after which the grammar would be Sanskritised which
was finally followed by the forceful imposition of Devanagari as the
last nail in the coffin. The result of these policies was the slow and
painful death of the native vernaculars. Thus, the fallacious claims
that the Gujarati, Bengali, Oriya and other scripts are derived from
Devnagari are wholly false propaganda; all scripts are derived from
Aramaic via Brahmi. The sole objective of these venomous Brahminist
brainwashing campaigns is to obliterate the indigenous languages. To a
large extent, this objective has been realised : Marathi has abandoned
its native script for Devanagari, the Mahajani script for Rajasthani
has been obliterated, and the Kayathi script for Bhojpuri is in rapid
decline. All these circumstances are the result of centuries of
deliberate Brahmin policies that have undermined these vernaculars and
submerged entire civilizations. Everywhere Brahmanic Devanagari is
gaining at the expense of non-Brahmin scripts, and everywhere the 20th
century Brahmin invention known as Khari Boli Hindi is crushing other
languages into oblivion.
The extent to which the Brahmins can go to commit historical fraud are
alarming. Even the script Brahmi, clearly proven to be of Aramaic
origin, is falsely portrayed by the Brahmin-controlled mass media as a
Brahmin script. This Brahmi script is clearly of Aramic origin, despite
what fraud Brahmin historians have to say :
A 4th century coin from Madhya Pradesh has Brahmi characters running from
right to left, the same direction as Aramaic [ EB 2.462 ]. The first
specimens of Brahmi occur frm the Mauryan empire or immediately
preceding it. The Mauryan empire was heaivly indebted to Achaemenid
models in art and architecture, and it is accepted that the Brahmi
script is also of Aramaic script.
Dev Nagari and Illiteracy One finds a clear one-to-one correspondence
between the spread of Devanagari and illiteracy. Wherever Devanagari
spreads, the population sinks into gross ignorance, with the Brahmins
rising to super-elite level. Indeed, the spread of Devanagari is the
result of a systematic and well-planned Brahmin conspiracy aimed at
oppressing the non-Brahmins.Destruction of Non-Brahmin Civilization - Throughout history we find the Brahmin
race attempting to root out the non-Brahmin civlizations in order to
enslave the entire population to the Brahmin yoke. They have eaten into
the genetic stock of the people by enforcing the hideous inventions of
sati, dowry, forced labour, hijraism, and devadasism and have sucked
the very life-blood of the Non-Brahmin races with these monstrosities.
Thus, the Brahminist poison of Sanskritisation has led to the
obliteration of many of India's finest languages and scripts. The
native Braj script has been replaced by Devanagari, and the Magahi,
Marwari and indigenous Mithili scripts have almost disappeared from the
face of the Earth. Concordant with this alien Sanskritisation has
occurred the downfall and death of these languages. One example of this
is Bengali. Due to the Anglo-Brahmin policy of Sanskritisation, Bengali
had almost died by the end of the 19th century, completely wiped out by
Brahminist policies. It took several patriotic writers to purify their
language of Sanskrit defilement and restore its dignity. This has not
happended to other languages, which still suffer under the oppressive
weight of Devanagari. Thus, usage of Marathi, Rajastani, Bhojpuri are
all on the decline. If these languages wish to survive it is imperative
that they abolish all alien Sanskrit words and the alien Devanagari
script, which has caused the most fatal tuberculosis of these and other
non-Brahmin civiliations.
Mass Poverty and Illiteracy - Due to two millenia of Brahminist policies,
more than 95 % of India's population have been enforced into gross
illiteracy and complete darkness. The result of Sanskritisation and the
enforcement of Devanagari are visible from the figures given in the
table below. Wherever Brahmins enforced the complex Devanagari script,
the masses of the population have been crushed into a sub-human
existence. Wherever one goes, one finds colossal illiteracy as a result
of Sanskritisation :
Dravidic Malayalic Kerala 90.59 % Mano. 635 Tamulic Tamil Nadu 63.72 % Mano. 661
Kannadic Karnataka 55.98 % Mano. 632 Telugan Andhra Pradesh 45.11 %
Mano.  Bihar 38.54 % Mano. 618 Rajasthan 38.81 % Mano. 657 Uttar Pradesh 41.71 % Mano. 667 Madhya Pradesh 43.45 % Mano. 638 islamicate
Arabic UAE 73.0 % 90EB. 887 Pharsic Iran 71.0 % 90EB. 885 Arabic Qatar
74.7 % 90EB. 887 Maghribic Morocco 70.7 % 90EB. 885 Arabic Kuwait 78.7
a 76.96 % Mano. 621 Mizoram 82.27 % Mano. 648 Naga 61.3 % Mano.
650 Hence,Devanagari usage directly correlates with tremendous illiteracy, while
all other scripts like Romance, Islamicate and Sudric (Dravidic and
Kolaric) correlate with high literacy. In view of the points given
above, it is evident that this is not the result of any `failed
policies', but is due to the intrinsic properties of the script.

Brahminist Lies on Devanagari Brahmins have a made an entire industry
of the falsification of history. Thus, Brahmin historians like Pandit
Purushottam Nagesh Oak claim that the Taj Mahal and the Qutb Minar are
`Hindoo' (read `Brahmanic') temples, Brahmin leaders like M. S.
Golwalkar claim that the North Pole was in Bihar 10,000 years ago,
Brahmin geologists claim that the Puranic theory of a flat earth is
correct, and Brahmin scientists like N. S. Rajaram claim that the
Aryans originated in Uttar Pradesh in the Ganga valley. In short, any
form of madness that can confuse the non-Brahmins is used by these
people to create disorder and mayhem. It is not that these Pandits are
madmen : they are entirely sane and well aware that their theories are
wrong. Their ideas are solely designed to confuse the non-Brahmins and
degrade their intellect. If even half of the non-Brahmin population
believes in their theories, their objectives shall have been attained.
One example of such falsehood is the Brahmin claim that Devanagari is
the original Indo-Aryan script, that it is the progenitor of all
scripts in the world, that it was given by the Gods, and that it was in
general use in ancient India. Nothing could be further from the truth.
One only has to pick up a standard text-book to expose the Brahminist
lies. In fact, Dev nagari is derived from the Brahmi script via the
Gupta character, and dates to the 10th century AD. Thus Kalidasa did
not write his poems in Devanagari ! All the North India scripts are
independantly developed from Brahmi. Hence the fallacious view that
Devanagari is the ancestor of all North Indian scripts (unfortunately
stated in Encyclopdia Britannica) is false. Each is independantly
derived from Brahmi. It is only later, in order to destroy the very
life-souls of the local civilizations that the Brahmins enforced
Devanagari on the masses.
Obliteration of Non-Brahmin Civilizations Throughout Indian history,
Sanskritisation has been the tool of the Brahmin race in its absolute
dominion over India. By means of Sanskritisation all vitality and life
was sucked out of the vernaculars, whilst stulted, dead and artificial
cultures were foisted in their place. Eventually, the cultured versions
of the vernaculars were destroyed and replaced by Sanskrit, while
popular speech degraded into mutually incomprehensible dialects. Often,
these diverged so widely that new languages arose; thus Kannada, Telugu
and Malayali arose out of the ancient Proto-Dravidian language which
was destroyed by Brahminic Sanskritisation.
Artificial Sanskrit Literature Sanskrit literature always appears
stiff, formal and highly artificial since it was never spoken, and
hence lacks the depth and passion that works in the mother tongue
display. The great Indological scholar Mr. Basham writes, " much of
Sanskrit literature is dry and monotonous, or can only be appreciated
after a considerable effort of the imagination " [ Bash., p. 401 ]. Of
course the Hindu fundamentalists will always praise Sanskrit; thus the
god-man Sri Aurobindo said : " the ancient and classical literature of
the Sanskrit tongue shows both in quality and in body an abundance of
excellence, in their potent originality and force and beauty, ... which
stands very evidently in the front rank among the world's great
literatures"
[ Auro. 255 ] This revivalist of Brahmin fascism in India has been
amply exposed by noted Dravidian rationalist Abraham Kovoor. In fact,
as shown above, Indian art was born in the Prakrits and was only later
translated into Sanskrit. This Brahmin theft of civilizations is
illustrated later on.
Resistance to Sanskritisation Being a liturgical language like Old
Church Slavonic, Sanskrit played a very minor role in Indian culture.
Even when it was forced onto the unwilling populace, they rose in
rebellion, restoring the reginal national languages. It is hence only
by means of slow and systematic policies that Sanskritisation could
undermine the non-Brahmin tongues. Tamil - The Dravidians have
consistently opposed Sanskrit and Sanskritisation of Dravidian
languages. Even translations from Sanskrit were abhorred. Tamil was
able to preserve almost fully its ancient purity. During Aryan
invasions and subsequent Brahmin tyranny, the fraction of Sanskrit
words rose to 25 % but by the mid-20th century these had completerly
removed and Tamil had been fully purified of any Sanskrit corruptions.

Telugu- Telugu is a Dravidian language, as is evident from the etymology of
`Telugu' itself, derived from `Trilinga' or `Trikalinga' or `Teling' (a
Dravidian people). However, Aryan invasions led to forcible imposition
of Aryan Vaishnavite Orthodoxy (ie. Brahmanism & its 6 astika
schools) and Sanskritisation. This led to the fragmentation of the
ancient Telingana nation into 2 separate regions: the Aryanized
Vaishnavite Andhra region comprising the northern tracts and the
Godavari-Krishna deltas, and the Dravidian Shaivite Telengana region
comprising the southern regions. Acca Telugu, pure Telugu free from
Sanskrit contamination, is spoken in Telengana, while Andhri, the
hybrid of Sanskrit & Telugu (also known as Mishra-bhasa, `mixed
language' [ Red., p. 630 ]) is spoken in Andhra.
The Sanskritic tradition was introduced by Nannaya (AD 1030 ) who
translated the Mahabharat [ Red., p. 625 ]. In the pre-Nannaya days the
Carvaka and Kappalika schools were dominant while Kumarila Bhatta (7
Century AD) and Sankaracharya (788-820) preached agianst these and
tried to revive Vedic dharma or Brahmanism [ Red., p. 625 ]. Nannaya
and his patron-king Narendra ( 1022-63 ) accordingly tried to revive
the varnashram-dharma but this recieved a setback due to the Virashaiva
revival of Shaivism.
The Sanskritization propagated by Nannaya led to the massive Dravidian
backlash of Virashaivism. The movement marked the restoration of the
Dravidian Religion ( ie. Shaivism ) and the purification of the Telugu
language by means of de-Sanskritisation. This Lingayat restoration
occurred in the 12th-13th centuries AD in Karnataka and Telengana. The
brave Dravidian resistance opposed the marga tradition of Nannaya and
advocated the desi tradition. Their opposition to Sanskrit went to the
core: thus, Sanskritisms, Sanskritised Telugu, and even translations
from Sanskrit were disdained [ Red., p. 626 ]. Chief among these
anti-Sanskritists was Palakuriki Somanatha

1200-1240) whose opposition had added force since he also knew Sanskrit
and was a prolific Sanskrit writer. He introduced new literary genres
such as gadya, ragada, sataka and udaharana which are not present in
other languages and that have made Telugu richer than others. Nannecodu
(c. 1150 AD), the author of the `Kumara-sambhavamu' is the first of the
Saivite poets in Telugu who opposed Sanskrit [ Red., p. 626 ].
The Golcunda Sultans patronized Acca Telugu free of any Sanskrit pollution
[ Red., p. 630 ]; another example of Islamo-Dravidian unity against
Brahmanisation. During the Golcunda Sultans' reign, the poet Addariki
Gangadhara Kavi wrote the `Tapati-sanivarranamu' (1565), and Ponnikanti
Telaganarya wrote the `Yayati-caritrama' (1578) [ Red., p. 630 ].
Mishra-bhasa (`mixed language') was the contemptuous name given to the
corrupted Telugu that had mixed with Sanskrit. Hence a strong sense
that Sanskrit was `alien' has existed among the Telugus for several
centuries.
Kannada- In Karnataka the Virashaivites also led a rebellion against the
Sanskrit language and influence, leading to a purification of Kannada.

Malayalam- In Malayalam, the pure Malayalam literature free of Sanskrit
contamination is referred to as `pacca' [ EB 27, p. 729 ]., while pattu
refers to Malayalam with much Dravidian influence. The fanciful word
`manipravala' (necklace of diamonds and corals) was invented by the
Brahmins for the artificial mongrel Sanskrit-Malayalam language. The
reason for the greater influence of Sanskrit in Kerala is due to Aryan
infiltration from the coast. However, even here much progress has been
made in the removal of alien Sanskrit terms.Bengali- Bengal has a long history of antagonism with Sanskrit stretching back
to ancient times. The east Indians (Poorbis or Pracyis) are descendants
of the mixed vratya(anti-Vedic Indo-Iranians) and Mongoloid inhabitants. Neither Buddhists or Jains
availed themselves of Sanskrit in their preachings, considering it the
preserve of the Brahmin elite [ EB 27, p. 722 ]. In the 19th century
there arose attempts to contaminate Bengali with Sanskrit words. The
Nobel-prize winner Rabindranath Tagore started the revolt against these
sinister attempts to enforce the Sanskritised Sadhu-Bhasha, and
restored the Chalit-bhasha, purifying it of Sanksrit. Rammohan Ray also
opposed the use of Sanskrit; he said:
The Sanskrit language, so difficult that almost a lifetime is necessary
for its acquisition, is well known to have been for ages a lamantable
check to the diffusion of knowledge, and the learning concealed under
this almost impervious veil is far from sufficient to reward the labour
of acquiring it Concani- Due to Aryan Vaishnava oppression, Konkanasth (Old Concani) did not
develop any script or literature; only Sanskrit was allowed. Due to
these Brahminist policies, no literature in Old Concani survives. This
is the prime example of how languages are destroyed by Sanskritisation.
It remained an undeveloped and neglected language of the west coast of
India till the advent of the Portuguese. The Portuguese launched the
new Concani language in the Roman script by creating the first ever
Concani dictionary. Concani is a derivative of Goan (descended from
Portuguese via Indo-Portuguese) along with a slight admixture of
Konkanasth (Old Concani or Sarasvatic). This new language then spread
all across the west coast of India. The Latin script is still used by
more than half of the Concani speakers despite fanatic Brahmin efforts
to eradicate it.Oriya, In Orissa, the Gajapati dynasty arose as a revolt against the
Sanskrit supporting predecessors, the Gangas. The Oriyas are also noted
for having consistently opposed the use of Deva Nagari for Sanskrit and
used their own script. Thus even Sanskrit manuscripts in Orissa are
written in the Oriya script.Brahmavarta Aryavarta - In the doab region of Brahmavarta & Aryavarta,
Tulseedaas, great scholar of Sanskrit though he was, preferred to write
in the vernacular, defending his wise choice with the statement that
his language was an earthen vessel containing ambroisa, while Sanskrit
was a jewelled cup of extreme beauty which held poison [ Walk ]. Many
poets in Braj, Ajodhyi and Kannauji preferred their native tongue to
the clumsy Sanskrit. Later, Madangopal campaigned vigourously against
Sanskrit and Devanagari. He opposed the use of Devanagari for Hindi,
and supported the use of the Indo-Roman script [ Mad ].
Marathi- In Maharashtra the Mahanubhava sect of Krishnaites "deliberately
rejected Sanskrit" [ Mach., p. 549 ]. They led a deliberate revolt
against Brahmanic orthodoxy, and used pure Marathi. However, all their
efforts gave been in vain, for the Brahmins destroyed the native
Marathi language so completely during Anglo-Brahmin colonialism that
the ancient script has disapeared, having been completely replaced by
Devanagari in the 20th century. Most of the language consists of
artificial Sanskrit words. It is encouraging however, that a few
Marathi patriots are now talking of restoring the ancient Modi script,
used for Marathi up to the 18th century.
Mughali- The Islamic caliphs of Delhi withdrew all support from Sanskrit &
opposed the use of Sanskrit words to the core. Alberuni noted that the
Sanskrit langauge was very complicated. In fact the question of respect
for Sanskrit never arose. The Urdu language, and its colloquial form
known as Mughali (Mughali is applied to all the Muslims who entered
India from outside), is entirely free from Sanskrit contamination, and
its derivative Mughali (sometimes incorrectly referred to as
Hindustani) has less than 10 % Sanskrit vocabulary.Mon-Khmer
Languages - The influence of Sanskrit on Mon-Khmer languages has been
exaggerated. In fact the predominant influence from India was Pali
since most of these peoples were Theravada Buddhists who opposed
Sanskrit. In fact, Sanskrit has had a negligible impact on these
languages as is evident from the following facts :
Thai - In Siamese, out of a total of 40,000 words only 1362 are Sanskrit and
Pali [ Sar., p. 756 ] [ Thom., p. 760 ]. This is just 3.4 %. Cham - In
the Cham lexicon, out of a total of 9350 words, only 700 are Sanskrit [
Sar., p. 756 ] [ Ch-Fr ] [ Gondi., p. 52 ]. This is just 7.5 %.
Javanese - Old Javanese poetical texts (kakavins) contain one-fourth to
two-sevenths Sanskrit vocabulary, but in some texts it rises to
four-ninths [ Sar., p. 756 ] [ Gondi., p. 119-120 ] (ie. 25% - 29% and
at most 44 %). Naturally it is these texts, which are only a few, that
are much-hyped.
Brahmanic Theft of Prakrit Literatures The Brahmin linguist-liars have
set forth the exaggerated claim that `Sanskrit literature is the mother
of all literatures'. They hypothesise that Sanskrit literature was the
fountain from which all other literatures in the world derive. Examples
cited include the wild theories that Homer's Iliad was based upon the
Ramayana, that the Pancatantra was the model for Aesop's fables, and
that the `Ocean of Story' ws the model of Boccaccio's Decameron and the
Arabian Nights. In fact, none of these works were originally in
Sanskrit. The `Ocean of Story', the `Pancatantra' and most other
literature produced in India was produced in the Prakrits. They were
then stolen by the Brahmins only much later, and falsely presented as
original Sanskrit works. This was another by-product of the Brahminist
policy of Sanskritisation : all worthwhile genius to be found was
sucked into the Sanskrit ocean, while the vernacular, deprived of its
original works, died.The early secular literature of drama, epics, lyrical poetry etc. was
originally entirely in Prakrit and it is only in the 2nd century AD
that Saksnrit beigns to enter this field of secular compostiionm [ Up.,
p. 168 ]. The following instances elucidate the Prakrit origin of most
Indian litareture :Ocean of Story - The Sanskrit `Ocean of Story' is based upon Dardic
(`Paisachi') originals. Gunadhya's Brhat Katha (`Great Story') referred
to as "the prototype for a whole species of Sanskrit prose narratives"
[ Prose., p. 260 ] and now lost, was first composed in prose in Paisaci
Prakrit [ Prose., p. 260 ]. Later on it was translated into Sanskrit,
the most important version being Somadeva's `Katha Sarit Sagara',`Ocean
of Story' [ EB 27 `S. As.', p. 726 ], and the `Brhat-katha-manjari' by
Ksemendra. A Maharashtri version `Sanghadasa' dating to the 6th century
AD has been reconstructed, showing that it was also translated into
various regional national languages [ Prose., p. 260 ]. This is a most
glaring example of Brahmin theft of Gujarati genius. Pancatantra - Even
the Sanskrit Pancatantra was modelled on Pali originals. The Pali
Buddhist Jataka are generally considered to be the model for the later
Sanskrit Pancatantra, a view originally held by Benfrey [ Prose., p.
261 ].5.5
Prakritic Survivals in Sanskrit Literature Yet, when the vernacular
literature was grafted onto Sanskrit, it preserved features of its
Prakrit origin. Most Sanskrit literature thus shows Prakritisms,
betraying its non-Brahmanic origin : Ramayana and Mahabharat - The epic
idion is contaminated through and through with Prakritisms [ Up., p.
165 ] and the gatha literature of the Buddhists is a mixture of Prakrit
and Sanskrit. `Sanskrit Drama' - Most of so-called `Sanskrit drama' in
fact displays a linguistic division : The Kings and courtiers spoke
Sanskrit, the upper classs ladies spoke Sauraseni, while the lower
classes spoke Magadhi [ Up., p. 165 ]. This does not reflect actual
speech, however, but was part of the Brahmin policy of systematically
degrading the vernaculars by associating them only with the lower
classes. In fact, Magadhi was the court language in Magadha (as evident
from the Magadhi inscriptions of Asoka) until undermined by
Sanskritisation. Kalidasa - Even Kalidasa (c. 400) employed Apabrahmsa
in his `Vikramorvasiya' [ Up., p. 166 ] and his works contain many
Prakritisms [ Up., p. 167 ]. Again, this raises the question : Did
Kalidasa the Brahmin copy Prakrit originals ? Vidyapati - Vidyapati (c.
1400) used Mithili verse in his Sanskrt-Prakrit drama [ Up. 166 ].
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit - The bulk of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit
vocabulary is of Prakrit origin [ Prose. 271. n44 ]. It is thus evident
that most of what has been falsely portrayed as `Sanskrit literature'
are in fact copies of Prakrit originals. Most of these Prakrit
originals were then destroyed in order to portray the works as examples
of `Brahmin genius'.Some independant literature may have been created in Sanskrit, but these
were completely lifeless productions. Scholars now think that such
literary works created in Sanskrit never had any real life at all, but
were altogether scholastic productions. Much has been made of the
incident recorded in Patanjali's Mahaabhaashya, where a charioteer is
represented as holding a discussion in Sanskrit with a grammarian on
the derivation of an obscure word. Charioteers were court bards and
their familiarity with the priestly tongue does not necessarily
indicate an acquantance with it on the part of the general public. Such
isolated cases can be attributed to Brahmin fantasies.
Reappraisal of Sanskrit Literature Contemporary scholarship has revised
its older concepts of Sanskrit and the Sanskrit classics. The Indian
epics, the work of Kaalidaasa, the aphorism of Bhartrihari, when they
first became known to the West, aroused tremendous interest, for they
represented a huge corpus of writings till then unknown to the Western
world. The first flush of enthusiasm has passed, however, and scholars
have considerably revised their opinion of its merits. Primarily the
early writings retain their significance in the study of the history of
mankind in the primitive stages of its development, but it were rash to
go further in extolling their merits. It is now realised that most of
the original literature of India was composed in the Prakrits, and that
Sanskrit has had a highly negative impact on Indian culture. The
over-emphasis on Sanskrit in the early days of Indology (which was but
another example of Anglo-Brahmin colonialism) led to the neglect of the
study of the living Prakrits; this colonial situation is now being
remedied to a great extent.The Fall of Sanskrit in the eyes of modern scholars and the appreciation of
the regional Prakrits as the prime vehicle of Indian culture has been
very vexing for the Brahmins. Here is the lamentation of one such
Brahman, Prof. B. Bhattacharya
Unfortunately, it [ Sanskrit ] has been dubbed by a good many Western
scholars as the imposition of the Brahmanical priestly class which, in
their opinion, was never employed as a popular medium of communication.
Some have even gone to the length of considering the great epics and
the Puranas as well, as no more than artificial Sanskrit versions of
original works composed in different forms of Middle Indo-Aryan or
Prakrit. According to them the Sanskrit language, at least in its
classical form, had no direct relation with the popular dialects of
these times. but was artificially foisted by the crafty hieratic class
as `the speech of the gods' (daivi vak) on the unwilling readers.
Rather it was Old Indo-Aryan or the Vedic language, the evidence of
which we meet with in the vast Brahmanic literature, that was akin to
the popular speech of the masses, and in the course of time, this Vedic
dialect developed into the various forms of Middle Indo-Aryan including
Pali, which are thus direct descendants of Old Indo-Aryan. In support
of this theory, the employment of the various foms of Middle Indo-Aryan
in the inscriptions of Asoka and other epigraphs belonging to the
pre-Christian era is cited as corrobarative evidence.
[ Prose, p. 256-7 ] Notice how this Brahmin now blames those self-same
`European scholars' who initially supported Sanskrit so much ! This is
reminiscent of the later Brahmin betrayal of their Anglo-Saxon allies
during the 1940s. Treachery runs in the blood of the Brahmin. One need
only remember how the Brahmin Godse shot Mahatma Gandhi and how Pandit
Nehru instigated the murder of Subhash Bose.What Famous People have said about Sanskrit
Maz Mueller on Sanskrit Max Mueller was the greatest Western advocate
of Sanskritology. He played an important role in the rise of the now
discarded theory that Sanskrit was the mother of Indian languages.
Later on, coming under fire for his brazen support of Sanskrit and
Brahmin racial superiority, he declared :
I do not claim for the ancient Indian [ Sanskrit ] literature any more
that I should willingly concede to the fables and traditions and songs
of savage nations. I simply say that in the Veda we have a nearer
approach to a beginning, and an intelligent beginning, than in the wild
invocations of the Hottentotes and Bushmen
Carey The Christian missionary Carey and his colleagues experimented
with what came to be known as Church Sanskrit. He wanted to train a
group of 'Christian Pandits' who would probe "these mysterious sacred
nothings" and expose them as worthless. He was distressed that this
"golden casket (of Sanskrit) exquisitely wrought" had remained "filled
with nothing but pebbles and trash." He was determined to fill it with
"riches - beyond all price" [ Carey, p. 34 ].6.3
Ram Mohan Ray on Sanskrit In Bengal Rammohan Ray was one of the
stauchest opponents of Sanskrit. Rammohan Ray translated the Upanishads
into Bengali, violating long-standing traditions 902
], much to the chagrin of Brahmin bigots. He said, " The Sanskrit
language, so difficult that almost a lifetime is necessary for its
acquisition, is well known to have been for ages a lamantable check to
the diffusion of knowledge, and the learning concealed under this
almost impervious veil is far from sufficient to reward the labour of
acquiring it
Tulsi Das on Sanskrit In Brahmavarta, Tulseedaas, great scholar of
Sanskrit though he was, preferred to write in the vernacular, defending
his wise choice with the statement that his language was "an earthen
vessel containing ambroisa, while Sanskrit was a jewelled cup of
extreme beauty which held poison" [ Walk ]. Many poets in Braj, Ajodhyi
and Kannauji preferred their native tongue to the clumsy Sanskrit.
S. K. Chatterji on Sanskrit S. K. Chatterji was one of the foremost
linguists of modern India. He was noted for his pro-Sanskrit bias,
Brahmin that he was. Yet even he had to accept the cumbersome nature of
the Devanagari script : " At present, to print in the Nagari alphabet,
considerably over 400 special types are required"
Frederick Bodmer on Sanskrit In his `Loom of Language' Frederick Bodmer
discusses Sanskrit in a chapter entitled `The Diseases of Language' [
Walk ].
Sufi Kabir on Sanskrit Kabeer, the great Sufi reformer, likened
Sanskrit to `the water of a well', and the language of the people to a
"running stream" [ Walk ].
Eggeling on Sanskrit Eggeling, the learned translator of the Satapatha
Brahmana part of the Shukla Yajur Veda into English, writes, " For
wearisome prolixity of exposition, characterised by dogmatic assertion
and a flowing symbolism rather than by serious reasoning, these works
are perhaps not equalled anywhere, unless, indeed, it be the
speculative vapourings of the Gnostics, than which, in the opinion of
the learned translator of Irenaeus, `nothing more absurd has probably
ever been imagined by rational beings'
al-Beruni on Sanskrit Tbe noted Turkestani scientist al-Beruni who
visited India in the 10th century AD noted the severe defects of the
Sanskrit language. Moreover, by the time he reached India the Brahmins
had already destroyed most of the ancient civlization of India, for he
mentions that the vernaculars were `neglected;. He had this to say
regarding Sanskrit : " If you want to conquer this difficulty (ie. to
learn Sanskrit), you will not find it easy, because the language is of
an enormous range, both in words and inflections, something like the
Arabic, calling one and the same thing by various names, both original
and derived, and using one and the same word for a variety of subjects,
which, in order to be properly understood, must be distinguished from
each other by various qualifying epithets. For nobody could distinguish
between the various meanings of a word unless he undertands the context
in which it occurs, and its relation both to the following and
preceding parts of the sentence. The Hindus, like other people, boast
of this enormous range of their langauges, which in reality is a defect
.Alberuni's India', transl. Dr. E. C. Sachau, 2 vols., Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London 1888

[ All. Ch. ] = `Allied Chambers Transliterated Hindi-English Dictionary'

[ Assam ] = `Assamese', M. Neog, in Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. V,
419-434, Ramakrishna Mission Inst. of Culture, Calcutta, 1937. [
Auro ] = `Foundations of Indian Culture', Sri Aurobindo
[ Bas ] = `Inscriptions: Their Literary Value I', R. Basak, `Cultural Heritage of India' vol. 5, p. 390-406
[ Bash ] = `The Wonder That Was India', A. L. Basham, Grove Press, New York, NY 1954. [
Bhatt ] = `Inscriptions: Their Literary Value II , K. Bhattacharya, in
`Cultural Heritage of India' vol. 5, p. 407-418 [ Buddh ] = `Buddhist
Literature' , A. C. Banerjee, in `Cultural History of India', vol. V,
184-210, Ramakrishna Mission Inst. of Culture, Calcutta 1978.
[ Carey ] = `Resistant Hinduism', Richard Fox Young, Vienna, 1981. [
Ch-Fr ] = `Dictionnaire cam-francaise', E. Aymonier & A. Cabaton,
Paris 1906.
[ Chat ] = `Indo-Aryan and Hindi', S. K.
Chatterji, Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta-12, 1969 reprint, 2nd ed.
1960; suggests a new variant of Indo-Roman in place of Devanagari for
Hindi.
[ Dand ] = `Literature of Brahmanism in Sanskrit', R.
N. Dandekar, in `Cultural History of India' , Vol. 5 p. 13-48 [ EB ] =
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed.
[ 90EB ] = Enc. Brit. Year-book 1990. [ Egg ] = `Satapatha Brahmana',in Sacred Books of the East', Vol. XII.
[ Gondi ] = `Sanskrit in Indonesia', J. Gondi, Nagpur 1952.

[ Lah ] = `Dravidian Origins and the West', N. Lahovary, Orient Longmans, Bombay 1963. [
Loom ] = The loom of language: a guide to foreign languages for the
home student /Frederick Bodmer London : Merlin Press, 1987. - ISBN
0-85036-350-0 (pbk)
[ Mach ] = `Marathi', P. Machwe, in
`Cultural Heritage of India' , vol. V, 548-560, Ramakrishna Mission
Institute of Culture, Calcutta.
[ Mad ] = `This Hindi &
Dev Nagari', Madan Gopal, Metropolitan Book Co. - a very good
reference, a staunch opponent of the use of Devanagari and
Sanskritisation, supported the use of the Indo-Roman alphabet for Hindi. Manorama, Kottiyam, Kerala.
[ Myth ] = `The Myth of The Aryan Invasions of India', David Frawley.
[ Prose ] = `Sanskrit Prose', B. Bhattacharya, in `Cultural History of
India', vol. V, 253-272, Ramakrishan Mission Institute of Culture,
Calcutta 1978.
[ Red ] = `Telugu' , G. N. Reddy, in `Cultural History of India', vol. 5, 623-641
[Sar ] = `Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Southeast Asia', H. B. Sarkar, in
`Cultural Heritage of India', Vol. V, 751-772, Ramakrishna Mission
Inst. of Culture, Calcutta 1937.
[Srini ] = `Learn Hindi in 30 days', K. Srinivasachari, Balaji Publications, Madras 1990, 24th ed.
[ Thom ] = `Thailand: The New Siam', V. Thompson, New York 1967.
[ Up ] = `Prakrit Language and Literature', Cultural Heritage of India
vol. 5, 164-183, A. N. Upadhye [ Walk ] = Encyclopedia of Hinduism,
Benjamin Walker.
[ Wool ] = `Pracritic and non-Aryan strata in
the vocabulary of S. Patna', A. C. Woolner, Sir J. Asutosh Memorial
Volume, 1926. Shows that the Indo-European nature of Sanscrit and
Pracrit is mostly evident in their structure and morphology, while
their vocabulary is largely formed of Dravidian and other loanwords.

10 comments:

Sudeep Kumar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This was an extremely intersting reading. The examples you have provided make your point very convincing. I am a south indian and I agree with what you mean.

I have just one concern, the amount of hatred you have against Sanskrit. Hatered is a tricky thing, it takes all the passion you have about something and just diffuses it.

Instead why don't you raise this to the correct official organizations so that the importance of Sanskrit can be revised. This will take time, but what doesn't?

When we changed the name from Bombay to Mumbai, to to away with the british-isation of Inda, we welcomed it. When we claim that the matter-energy duality shown by modern science is nothing but the shiva-shakti school of though in Tantra, we proudly accept it.

If with your efforts, it is made official that Sanskrit is a much later language (created by Brahmins just for Vedic rituals) with Prakrits being first and that an effort must be made to restore these languages, we will welcome that too. Please use the passion you feel for this subject for the benefit of the masses rather than making it sound as if the Vedic peoples consipred against you personally. This is a humble request.

Anonymous said...

Great post, I am almost 100% in agreement with you

Heart of Gold~Mind of Peace said...

Dude! Who are you, how old are you, and what do you do for a living?

Anonymous said...

Wonderful web site, appearance proficient. Take a look at observe it show up on the internet however, you’re going to want to set up connects.

Heart of Gold~Mind of Peace said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Heart of Gold~Mind of Peace said...

This comment is with regard to your excellent, well-referenced article on Vedic animal sacrifices.

I just have one comment: Buddha and Mahavair did not eat meat. (Source: "Majjhima Nikaya--Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha," which details Buddha's behavior and also reports the meetings between Mahavair's students and Buddha, and vice versa, and "Jainism in Buddhist Literature," by Dr. Hiralal Jain.)

Buddha studied with the Jains for six years after leaving his palace--he was naked, ate with his hands, did not accept food that was prepared for him, he pulled out his hair, etc., etc., etc., as was taught by the Jains.

But then he devised his own system. He felt that the austerities of the Jains were too severe, as to make it difficult to concentrate on mediatation--because he was always uncomfortable, physically.

At that point, he began eating meat, which the Jains did not do.

But after he regained his health, he began rejecting meat as a rule. The only time he ate it was when someone prepared it for him, when he was a guest--someone who did not know he was a vegetarian.

Both the Jains and the Buddhists had an explicitly strict rule to NOT KILL ANY LIVING CREATURE--so they did not eat meat.

The Jains were much more strict with this rule than the Buddhists, in that they would not even boil water, for fear of killing microbes. I do not know how they knew about microbes, back then, without the use of a microscope, but they did.

They also believed in keeping dust off of their food, for fear of killing the microbes in it.

Both the Jains and the Buddhists were also very careful about where they stepped, and limited their travel--particularly during the rainy seasons--in order to protect bugs, lizards, and the like, underfoot.

Heart of Gold~Mind of Peace said...

With regard to Anonymous's comment about the blog author's hatred towards Sanskrit--I disagree with the commentor because it is very disturbing that an entire nation--and the world at large--believes a lie, due to its propagation by a dishonest people.

The Jains were very peaceful people, and then the Aryans brought this filth into India--animal sacrifice.

If you have never done it, you must read the Vedas online--they are available at SACRED TEXTS.COM.

The Vedas are nothing but spells to get gods to do stuff for people--to reinstate a deposed king, for example--to thwart a woman from taking a someone else's husband--to keep a thief away from one's house--to give someone else an illness--to thwart another priest's sacrifice, to keep another person from getting what he wants.

It is so disturbing to realize that the holiest of nations--India--has this garbage as its supposed set of holy books.

Meditation and the truth of karma sprang largely from India, and it was not from the Hindus. It was from the Jains and the Buddhists, who reached back far, far into antiquity in India--before the ritualistic animal sacrifice and selfish prayers of the Aryans began.

Passion such as the blog's author is needed in order to diffuse this Big Lie--that Sanskrit and Hinduism are the backbone of India.

I had wanted, all my life, to attend the University of Chicago, to major in Middle Eastern Studies, to learn about the "holy Vedas" of India, but alas, I could not go because I was raising my children in California, but last year, as part of my research, I found I was able to read the Vedas online.

I was absolutely shocked and disappointed.

Spells---The 4 Vedas are nothing but ass-kissing to the gods--and literal spells for human comfort--There is not one prayer for world peace in the Vedas, there is not one instance of humility, not one lesson in moral conduct, and certainly no understanding of the concept of karma and it's counterpart, reincarnation.

See for yourself.

Arul said...

Sanskrit is dead and barbaric language.I recommend purification all Indian languages from the barbaric Sanskrit language.

Anonymous said...

The most bullshit and pathetic blog I've ever read. Entirely baseless and fake theory. Just because you hate a particular religion does not mean its value will be undermined. You got it all wrong man. Please stop spreading hatred and glorification of your own religion.