SANSKRIT

                           SANSKRIT

             I am posting this for information sake. The author Mahavir Sanglikar
has generally an negative tilt towards Sanskrit. Interestingly even
the comments received are mostly praising Sanksrit.

http://jainismus.hubpages.com/hub/What-They-Said-About-Sanskrit-Language

             What The Great Scholars Said About Sanskrit Language?

Osho on Sanskrit

     Great scholars of Indology, linguistic and history have written their
bold opinions about Sanskrit language in their scholarly works. Here
are some of the quotes by by them regarding Sanskrit Language.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy was a great social reformer of 18th century. He was
a scholar of linguistics and religions. He had translated Upanishids
in Bengali language.

       He says: Sanskrit language is so difficult to learn that you will have to give your whole life for it, and even then you would not get much knowledge from it.

Saint Tulasidas was a scholar of Sanskirt, but he always wrote in
Hindi. It is interesting to know what he says about Sanskrit:

     My language (Hindi) is an earthen pot filled with ambrosia, while
Sanskirt is a pot of gold filles with poison.

Kabir, the great saint of medieval India says that

       the languages of masses are flowing water, while Sanskrit is a puddle of stagnant water

Osho, the great philosopher says:

     Sanskrit was never a spoken language. It was artificial code language created by Brahmins who needed a language unknown to the masses.

Famous historian Bhaskar Rao Jadhav writes in his Marathi book
'Marathe Aani Tyanchi Bhasha' (Marathas and Their Language):

       The name of any language is kept on the people who speak that language. There were no people named Sanskrit, and their was not a region or country that was known as Sanskrit.

Another historian and authority on Indus valley civilization Advocate
P R Deshmukh says,

         To highlight the difference between the language of masses and Sanskrit, Vedics created grammar and rules.

Renowned historian and the author of 'Buddhist India' Rhys Davids says
about ancient India:

                           Nobody from Taxila to Champa was speaking in
Sanskrit, but a type of Pali language was speken everywhere'

Professor Sham Sundar Das says in his book 'Hindi Bhasha Ka Vikas',

          'Realizing that the language of the indigenous people is affecting
their language, Aryans cultured and separated their language, but many
words which were adopted from native languages remained in Sanskirt as
they were.'

Abe Carrey, a Christian missionarry in India learned Sanskrit as he
was informed that there was a lot of knowledge in that language.

     But he found that it was unreal, so he said: There is nothing but pebbles and stones in Sanskrit language.

B. N. Nayar, author of Dynamic Brahmins says:

      Sanskrit was never a spoken language, it was just a cultured form of Prakrit language.

There are many other quotes by other great scholars, but I think it is
enough to give the idea about the reality of Sanskrit langauge

-Mahavir Sanglikar

IN REPLY

Dear all and Mr. Venkat

               I have no belief in quotes generally, right from the age of 8 or 9. I used to read "tamilvanan's" "kalkandu magazine" as a kid. There he wrote an historical article titled,"veera pandia katta bomman kollaikkarana?'. Till then I had an idea that he is a freedom fighter against British and had a kind of regard for him. Tamilvanan quoted from various authors, west in majority, which depicted him as a thief only. Around 15 years I became a student member of Connemara Library, Chennai. Out of curiosity, I read those referred books of Tamilvanan in that article. I was surprised to find that al quotations went in right manner only praising him; they were expressions of "never", 'negative comments some denied" "people thnk as', 'some writers write or think as" and so on. They were pre-fixed or suffixed. Both were removed and the lines in between were quoted giving a false impression. He was living in T Nagar near to my home and close to my friend's house. I met him and asked sharply. He coolly said that "see, it made u a reader'. Hence vested interest, Brahmin hatred, biased quotes are not to be present. It is same as Kk telling today that Brahmins tortured and controlled people; even today I can’t understand how 2% of the population with all the tough enforced codes ,could do that?

                          Generally values are assumed as correct, on the basis of the words of wisdom as named and fanned by a few, which spread like fire, as I believed first Kalkandu. It is called the "herds' instinct ", by Fraud. Till today Maxmuller is being praised for his services along with the Sir William Jones, Justice Calcutta in 1800+; however letter of Maxmuller to his wife as to how he betrayed the virtue for few ponds " reveal the intensity. But for the obvious reasons even today people speak high of Max. Science inventions are also we take as we read which by a few is changed later. Why, even Vivekananda a gret saint had abused by harsh words the KASI PUNDITS. What I learnt is there are motives for even the well learned to speak in biased manner and we have to sift what we read, by questioning and understanding. These kind of humiliations are thrown across in many books of the west, which were never rebutted or corrected, except a handful, because we are not research oriented authors but plagiaries and write a couple of books over night.

                   Mainly NO IN DEPTH STUDY OR LEARNING IS MADE BY SUCH,BUT SPOKEN AS LEARNED ON POPULARITY; THAT IS WHY TODAY WE HAVE TO HEAR RELIGION FROM ACTORS AND COOKING AND FAMILY MAINTENANCE FROM ACTRESSES.

                    Sanskrit means well made or created. There was prakrithm as historians twist. Pali, prakrithm etc came from Sanskrit. Hindi and all other languages came from Sanskrit and it is not an indo-European community as written and now being deferred also. It is a pity we believe that it is difficult and not a spoken language of the masses. Before the writing it was spoken language of the masses and sruthis were devolved out of it. Sankarar, santhosha and so many words of "san" or "sum" mean, "Well". Its grammar and vocabulary are perfect, it is now said that well suited for language of computer. The roots of these words have speared ahead in Tamil, English and so many languages of the world. Even today men of poverty in a karnataca village speak fluently which was shown in TV. Language,

                      Locations, regions, nationality etc have become so patriotic, the mass pronounced into new findings. Buddhism and Jainism were spread to mass only in Sanskrit; those scholars have made quite a blow by inserting similar style verses in the puranas .WE SHALL NOT DENY SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DONT KNOW IT. My knowledge of Sanskrit is only school level but by going thru texts and dictionaries I could understand better. Two years course in central Govt is enough to expand and learn further. After all we are able learn Chinese and Japanese, French and German. German is tough for the learner but easier had u known the Sanskrit sounds. Miltonic simile is well made but those who had read kalidasa would find that IT WAS HERE LONG AGO Those who deny god or say agnostic or even SAT , have not known or tried to go delve deep into. Half baked knowledge raised so much criticism and by HERDS INSTINCT we simply believe. KARKA KASADARA KATRA PIN NIRKA ADARKU THAGA.

                     SO MANY oshos, SREES, acharyas, so on so forth have come and gone and forgotten. This is karma Boomi as well as a nation of INGRATITUDE, who forgot even MAHATMA GANDHI. This is a nation which ignores the real wealth ofprogress but relies on west and flounder to the abysm. I feel that by any one's words or deeds, mine and you, this culture can never be destroyed but the roots shall remain then and there, to sprout out at the appropriate times. Sorry if I have caused a perturbence.

OM POORNAMADAH POORNAMIDAM
POORNAAT POORNAMUDACHYATE
POORNASYA POORNAMAADAAYA
POORNAMEVAAVASHISHYATE
OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIH

THAT (BRAHMAN) IS WHOLE
THIS (CREATION) IS ALSO WHOLE
FROM THAT WHOLE (I.E. BRAHMAN ONLY)
THIS WHOLE HAS COME OUT (CREATION)
BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS WHOLE HAS COME
OUT OF THAT WHOLE
YET THAT WHOLE REMAINS WHOLE ONLY

Please see its so simple to understand but a book of 500 pages can also be written on this verse because Sanskrit teaches so deep.

Thank u sirs. K Rajaram IRS

NB: EQUAL NUMBER OF QUOTES FROM THE SAME WORLD RENOWNED PERSONS DO EXIST IN PRAISE OF THE LANGUAGE TOO.