Ancient Pakistan - Kharosthi Script

[Hamza913]

Zorashtrian

That's a religion, not a language.

 

[Rusty]

Dravidian languages don't use grammar of Sanskrit, Sanskrit use mix grammar of Zorashtrian and Dravidian.

Sanskrit is a pidgin language like Urdu and is evolved between first Bc to Fourth BC.
It is a mix of earlier Zorashtrian and Prakrit.
You can clearly see the evolution of Sanskrit if you read stone inscriptions found in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, in chronological order from old to new.

This myth has been deliberately spread to prove the antiquity of Vedas.

The Indus civilization is a continuous civilization. People of this area used to follow Dhyan, a kind of Buddhism. Actually Buddhism was not invented by Gautama Buddha, he was merely another Budha ( awakened soul). in the line of many other earlier Budhas.

There was a stupa found in Mohenzodaro beside that great bath.

Earlier historians were calling it a Kushan era stupa but now an Italian archeologist has proved that it was made same time as the great bath. There were quite a few broken figurine unerthed which are kept in Pakistani museum. These are never studied properly, but one cursory look can tell that these are figure of a person siting in Dhyan, like Gautama Buddha. See the similarity between Budha heads in second pic, the top left was found in Mohenzodaro, and rest are of Gautama Buddha from letter period.
View attachment 570901 View attachment 570902

I feel like i just read a parody of history.

utter nonsense.

Real science says that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language brought to India via the Aryans who were from central Asia.

They pushed back the completely non related Dravidian people (IVC were Dravidian) to South India and conquered all of North India, starting with Pakistan.

 

[Republic]

That's a religion, not a language.

I mean old Persian, the language of Zendawesta.

 

[Republic]

I feel like i just read a parody of history.

utter nonsense.

Real science says that Sanskrit is an Indo-European language brought to India via the Aryans who were from central Asia.

They pushed back the completely non related Dravidian people (IVC were Dravidian) to South India and conquered all of North India, starting with Pakistan.

You your self are contradicting your statement.
If a language is derived mixing two Indo European languages i.e. old Persian and Prakrit, it will still be called an Indo European language. Like Urdu is an Indo European language.

Your heart is not accepting it because you have been taught from child hood that Prakrit is derived from Sanskrit. Think for one minute, why no Sinskrit inscription is found before Prakrit ?? Prakrit inscriptions are available from 2nd century BC, but you can not find a single Sanskrit inscription before second century AD, why ?? Inscriptions of mother language are always older than derived one.
Now when you compare these inscriptions chronologically, you find a continuous and clear evolution of Sanskrit. You can just google and see the difference, inscriptions of letter period are becoming more and more Sanskritic, and only after Panini era you can find pure Sanskrit inscriptions and manuscripts.

 

[Rusty]

You your self are contradicting your statement.
If a language is derived mixing two Indo European languages i.e. old Persian and Prakrit, it will still be called an Indo European language. Like Urdu is an Indo European language.

Your heart is not accepting it because you have been taught from child hood that Prakrit is derived from Sanskrit. Think for one minute, why no Sinskrit inscription is found before Prakrit ?? Prakrit inscriptions are available from 2nd century BC, but you can not find a single Sanskrit inscription before second century AD, why ?? Inscriptions of mother language are always older than derived one.
Now when you compare these inscriptions chronologically, you find a continuous and clear evolution of Sanskrit. You can just google and see the difference, inscriptions of letter period are becoming more and more Sanskritic, and only after Panini era you can find pure Sanskrit inscriptions and manuscripts.

sorry, you again just saying jiberish

https://www.ancient.eu/Indo-European_Languages/

You know in Hindi/Urdu there are Arabic words, by your logic Hindi/Urdu is an Arabic language now.

 

[Republic]

sorry, you again just saying jiberish

https://www.ancient.eu/Indo-European_Languages/

You know in Hindi/Urdu there are Arabic words, by your logic Hindi/Urdu is an Arabic language now.

Leave it. It's beyond your comprehension.

 

[Rusty]

Leave it. It's beyond your comprehension.

HA, says the low IQ Indian.

Yeah, vedic science is beyond my comprehension, shouldn't you be flying one of those 5000 year old vedic airplanes?

 

[Republic]

HA, says the low IQ Indian.

Yeah, vedic science is beyond my comprehension, shouldn't you be flying one of those 5000 year old vedic airplanes?

I am here for knowledge sharing, exchanging views and healthy debate. I can't argue for the argument sake.
That too with uncivilised people high on emotions, low on knowledge, loitering in the forums and ejaculating filth.
Your post is reported. I will be happy to put you on my ignore list if you will try to become FANNE KHAN.

 

[Rusty]

I am here for knowledge sharing, exchanging views and healthy debate. I can't argue for the argument sake.
That too with uncivilised people high on emotions, low on knowledge, loitering in the forums and ejaculating filth.
Your post is reported. I will be happy to put you on my ignore list if you will try to become FANNE KAHN.

ahahaha
says the guys with no evidence and no toilets.

BTW, you are on a Pakistani site, not ShiningtoiletIndia.com and you expect us to believe your nonsense.
I provided evidence to backup my claim, you provided just a poop on the street.

 

[Chhatrapati]

Your heart is not accepting it because you have been taught from child hood that Prakrit is derived from Sanskrit. Think for one minute, why no Sinskrit inscription is found before Prakrit ?? Prakrit inscriptions are available from 2nd century BC, but you can not find a single Sanskrit inscription before second century AD, why ?? Inscriptions of mother language are always older than derived one.
Now when you compare these inscriptions chronologically, you find a continuous and clear evolution of Sanskrit. You can just google and see the difference, inscriptions of letter period are becoming more and more Sanskritic, and only after Panini era you can find pure Sanskrit inscriptions and manuscripts.

haha I wonder why you explain that to a Pakistani. Sanskrit was not a spoken language of the time, it means what it is.... Samskritam, a refined language.

But I have to disagree with something else, the connection with Prakrit and Sanskrit is quite different, Rig Veda have no prakrit terms in it but have all the Sanskrit words. Prakrit or early Prakrit spoken in the indus region probably have been heavily mixed with the other languages while Sanskrit remained ritualistic language until Panini gave a structure to it.

 

[Republic]

haha I wonder why you explain that to a Pakistani.

Well, he is now an esteemed guest of my ignore list.

Sanskrit was not a spoken language of the time, it means what it is.... Samskritam, a refined language.

That was my point, Sanskrit is a refined language and it has been refined slowly and continuously over the period of time, which we can very well track through the inscriptions from 2nd century BC to 4th century AD.

But I have to disagree with something else, the connection with Prakrit and Sanskrit is quite different, Rig Veda have no prakrit terms in it but have all the Sanskrit words.

That's a gentleman's way to put up disagreement. Thanks for that.
My point is no written record of Sanskrit inscription or manuscripts, is available before 2nd century AD while many other languages were written frequently in the region that time. If script was available and many languages from Prakrit to Aramaic and Greek were being written in that script, then it is not possible that Sanskrit would have remained only spoken and unwritten language. That simply means Sanskrit was not there before 2nd century AD and Rigveda could not have been written before that.

That Prakrit or early Prakrit spoken in the indus region probably have been heavily mixed with the other languages while Sanskrit remained ritualistic language until Panini gave a structure to it.

It's natural for every language to mix with contemporary neighbouring languages.
That's how Prakrit mixed with old Persian and slowly Sanskrit was evolved. Ritualistic language is written first then other things are written. If you look at the older inscriptions, you will find that many are actually related to religious rituals.
There is no harm in accepting that Sanskrit and Vedas are not as old as they have been depicted. Every thing from Prakrit to Sanskrit and Vedas to Buddhist scriptures belong to our ancestors. It doesn't matter what is old and what is new. But some section of historians are not ready to accept that Vedas are not that old. They have made it a question of ego and pride. That is why they are giving strange logics as why Sanskrit was not been written that time.
Due to this is attitude we are experiencing many dark ages in term of archeological evidences. If we accept the fact that Sanskrit and Vedas are quite new and Prakrit is older than Sanskrit then everything will look perfect, logical and in continuity.
Regards.

 

[Chhatrapati]

My point is no written record of Sanskrit inscription or manuscripts, is available before 2nd century AD while many other languages were written frequently in the region that time. If script was available and many languages from Prakrit to Aramaic and Greek were being written in that script, then it is not possible that Sanskrit would have remained only spoken and unwritten language. That simply means Sanskrit was not there before 2nd century AD and Rigveda could not have been written before that.

Yes, because there wasn't a script at the time or may have been lost in the continuous invasions followed on Takshashila and Nalanda, we don't know much about that. Since there was no written records of Vedas found before a certain time it is assumed that writing started somewhere in 600 - 400 BCE, and it was oral tradition until then. I don't think that's entirely true but given there is no evidence for it lets assume Vedas were written at that time. Now, coming to Sanskrit, Panini lived before Christ, what Panini did was give a system for learning Sanskrit he didn't create Sanskrit. Sanskrit in Rig Veda is an archaic form of Sanskrit and I don't think anyone would write something in a totally different language so it's safe to assume Sanskrit in Rig Veda was indeed a spoken language. Followed by Yajur, Sama and Adharva veda although there is quite some difference in the Sanskrit written in Rig Veda and others not because new words are introduced but Rig Veda have a lot of simile which confuses the readers, so one should understand it completely. This line from Rig Veda is a hymn of Sunrise or morning
एता उ तया उषसः केतुमक्रत पूर्वे अर्धे रजसो भानुमञ्जते
The bright morning sun raised the flag(approx) on the eastern side of the midair.

This is exactly the Sanskrit grammatical style in other words this is Sanskrit but with a lot of simile. We don't talk with simile in our daily life.

It's natural for every language to mix with contemporary neighbouring languages.
That's how Prakrit mixed with old Persian and slowly Sanskrit was evolved. Ritualistic language is written first then other things are written. If you look at the older inscriptions, you will find that many are actually related to religious rituals.

I don't know much about Prakrit, but from what I read i.e Jain texts the language is entirely different. Yes there are quite a lot of similar words in it, but to say Prakrit evolved into Sanskrit is totally false.
Prakrit evolved into Gandhari Prakrit, Magadhi Prakrit, Marathi Prakrit which further evolved into konkani, marathi etc... You can compare Sanskrit to Vedas and see that all the words, grammar, phonetics are similar. Sanskrit didn't evolve it remained as such as it wasn't still spoken. Many languages adopted words from Sanskrit, in south India, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam. Only distinct language in that aspect is Tamil which is neither Sanskrit nor Prakrit derivative.

There is no harm in accepting that Sanskrit and Vedas are not as old as they have been depicted. Every thing from Prakrit to Sanskrit and Vedas to Buddhist scriptures belong to our ancestors. It doesn't matter what is old and what is new. But some section of historians are not ready to accept that Vedas are not that old. They have made it a question of ego and pride. That is why they are giving strange logics as why Sanskrit was not been written that time.
Due to this is attitude we are experiencing many dark ages in term of archeological evidences. If we accept the fact that Sanskrit and Vedas are quite new and Prakrit is older than Sanskrit then everything will look perfect, logical and in continuity.

haha I have no problem in accepting it. But Prakrit language did not occur before Sanskrit, at least there is no evidence yet for it.
Take it this way, Sanskrit is the language from Vedas, Prakrit is similar one. Both are not popular language either but ritualistic. Language in the subcontinent adopted different terms from Sanskrit and Prakrit.
Hinduism did not have a practice of record keeping, (just an assumption because we don't know what was lost), the Buddhist were the ones who wrote things in the form of edicts, which survived the invasions because they were inscribed on rocks, pillars etc... and it can be dated. That's approximately how they found the antiquity of Vedas, taking Buddhism and Jain texts as a reference.

 

[W.11]

categorizing kharoshti as western asian derivative is probably misleading, the same excuse has been used for brahmi as being derivative of arahmaic script.

if a person with a little bit of grey matter sees the letters of both kharoshti and brahmi script and compare them to arahmaic, there is little to no resemblence between the ''similar symbols'' and their phonetic values, not to mention that phonetic values are essential if a script is a borrowing or a derivative, the sole reason for categorizing kharoshti as west asian is based on right sided writing. If one observes greek lettering, it does resemble phonetic values of phoenician but tha is not at all the case with the indic scripts so how is the borrowing.

the semitic scripts are written from the right but another derivative grek script is written from the left, same goes to chinese script written in every direcion posible, top down, horizontal.

the scholarship which categorizes brahmi and kharoshti as west asian is probably colonial based scholarship who wanted to put every indian stuff as west asian borrowing.

the abugida nature of indian scripts should be a big question mark on scholars pushing for west asian script origins which are predominantly abjad.

Buddhist and jain chronicles record thirteen different scripts with brahmi, kharoshti being among only two of them, so this means that there were a variety of scripts in the indian subcontinent. recent discovery of another script from gandhara proves the point.